Multiculturalism and affirmative action

[Vanguard1917]

Now I don't know the exact date of the inception of multi cultralism, but I would imagine it started in the 70's. This was a period in Britain when the National Front and co. were huge and caused a lot of trouble. Now at this period of time we had a Labour Party which was sill largely inspired by the Fabian variety of Marxism. So multi cultralism in this respect can't be called a divisive policy of the elites. It was probably seen as a perfectly decent policy at the time and I think its a bit elaborate to think it was intentionally created in order to attempt to retard class struggle.

You're right, multiculturalism is not something that was intentionally created to divide and undermine the class struggle. That's the difference between multiculturalism and the divisive policies of the past. Whereas they were created consciously by the ruling elites to divide existing struggles and movements, multiculturalism is a product of the defeats of those struggles and movements, which i think you could trace back to the 1980s.

It was in the 1980s that the anti-racist movement in Britain began to embrace multiculturalist ideas. Previously, anti-racism essentially demanded that everyone in society should be treated equally, regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, etc. With multiculturalism, anti-racism means promoting the differences between racial, ethnic and religious groups - it promotes "diversity" rather than commonality. And this became common currency in all western societies from the 1990s onwards. Multiculturalism became a perfect way for western governments torationalise the fragmentation that was taking place in their societies. With the demise of the old labour movements, communities were breaking down and old social solidarities no longer existed. Multiculturalism - which is, of course, based on postmodernist logic - came in to give "ideological" expression to this social reality. It became a convenient way to account for the social vacuum created by the fall of past struggles and movements.

[Severian]

Edit: this topic was split from this thread on immigration. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42456)


Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 10:31 AM
Multiculturalism became a perfect way for western governments torationalise the fragmentation that was taking place in their societies. With the demise of the old labour movements, communities were breaking down and old social solidarities no longer existed.
This is wrong, among other reasons, because this "fragmentation" is neither new nor a product of the "demise of the old labour movements".

It's a simple product of mass immigration, and there's no reason to regret it except from a nationalist viewpoint, that the rulers are losing cultural homogeneity which lets them appeal to everyone being part of "one nation." Multiculturalism is a reluctant attempt to adapt to this problem.

OK, it's new to the UK and other European countries, because this kind of mass immigration is new to them. But it's not entirely new in the world.

During past waves of mass immigration to the U.S., immigrant workers actually took longer to "assimilate", learn English, etc. There were all kinds of neighborhoods and even whole towns inhabited by people from one European country - plus Chinatowns and so forth of course. Newspapers, churches, you name it, in a multitude of languages.

And out of this Babel the labor movement, the IWW, the Socialist Party, later the CP, etc., found new strength. That can happen again.

***
And when groups really do fail to assimilate, it's not because of "multiculturalism" or even their own stubbornness, it's because they're not allowed in.

Which is why people brought from Africa to the U.S. are still a distinct community and nationality after centuries, while anyone Irish, Polish, etc., becomes merely "white American" by the next generation if not sooner.

[Severian]

Lemme post an article which is somewhat relevant to this discussion. It's one of many strikes and organizing efforts in the U.S. involving immigrant workers. In this case there's a particular feature which illustrates, IMO, why religious and cultural differences don't have to be a weakness.

Unionists walk out of prayer breaks in Nebraska plant (http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6940/694057.html)

NORFOLK, Nebraska—Some 300 members of United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 271 at Tyson Fresh Meats here walked off the job September 17 to protest company denial of prayer breaks and the firing of 10 workers for “unauthorized breaks.”
....-
The 300 workers who walked out are Muslims originally from Somalia. Half the workers at the plant are Somalian. The workforce also includes Sudanese, Mexican, U.S.-born, and other workers. Many employees are women.
....
“Since the union recruitment drive in the plant, the company has been making a lot of problems not only for the Somali workers but for other workers who request a break,” Said Yousuf, a shop steward at the plant and a leader of the Somali community in Norfolk, told the Militant. “Supervisors started telling workers who requested a break, ‘That’s your problem; I don’t have enough people today.’ Then the supervisors announced they would start following workers to the bathroom and write them up if they were using the bathroom break for prayer.”

On September 17, after firing 10 workers for “unauthorized breaks,” a supervisor followed a Somali woman to the bathroom. “This made workers very upset and 300 walked out,” Yousuf said. “Sixty have stayed away until the company takes the 10 fired workers back and agrees to allow us to resume prayer breaks. We told the company all Somalis would quit Tyson and leave Norfolk with our families if we were not allowed time for prayer.”
....
Ahmed Hashi, a Somalian community leader, told the Militant that the company and the local newspaper have painted a picture of Muslims as troublemakers. “Why not say ‘union workers’ in the news stories instead of ‘Muslim workers’?” he said.

“The union backs these workers completely,” Alex Hernandez, international representative of the UFCW, said. “We are trying to get the new contract language to include prayer breaks.”

So is that evil "multiculturalism"? Or does that action, and the union's position, strengthens the unity of all workers in the plant, and help strengthen the identification of a new layer of workers with the union?

Again, even the union bureaucracy can overcome its prejudices enough to take these workers' dues and see they have to make at least some effort to represent everybody. Why are some leftists behind even the labor bureaucracy?

[Vanguard1917]

Severian, don't you think that the situation with the Muslim workers in that plant is problematic? The Somalian community leader's statement was particularly interesting: "Why not say ‘union workers’ in the news stories instead of 'Muslim workers'?" But aren't the Muslim workers presenting their interests as a group of Muslims rather than a group of union workers? Shouldn't the role of a trade union be to represent the interests of the workforce as a whole, rather than the particular "interests" of groups within it? The old unionist slogan "Unity is Strength" was a call for solidarity in pursuing the common interests of the workforce. It's basic premise was the emphasis on commonality, rather than difference.

What we're seeing more and more today is the politicization of cultural difference. The old communist vision was that, while we may have differing religious commitments in our private lives, this should not change the fact that, in the public arena, we are equal political subjects. So while half of the workforce in that plant are Somalians, what about the other half? Should the union really be encouraging the Somalian workers to press for their particular "cultural interests"? If the union is going to take up the fight against the company and demand more breaks for workers, should this really be expressed in cultural terms? And do you not see that this climate is something that comes from above? More and more, unions are delving into the politics of multiculturalism in order to justify their actions. They do this because they are very aware that the language of multiculturalism has now become common currency throughout society. People are increasingly encouraged to express their interests in multiculturalist terms - ethnic, religious and cultural identity, diversity, difference. And while this should be a major problem for people who supposedly believe in revolutionary change, large sections of the "revolutionary left" have also embraced the multiculturalist logic.

Here's an article i think you should read. It's about the riots that broke out in Birmingham (England) last month between local blacks and Asians (mainly Pakistanis). These riots showed what multiculturalism really is.
Working class unity - not multiculturalism (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/598/birmingham.htm)

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 10:24 AM
Severian, don't you think that the situation with the Muslim workers in that plant is problematic? The Somalian community leader's statement was particularly interesting: "Why not say ‘union workers’ in the news stories instead of 'Muslim workers'?" But aren't the Muslim workers presenting their interests as a group of Muslims rather than a group of union workers? Shouldn't the role of a trade union be to represent the interests of the workforce as a whole, rather than the particular "interests" of groups within it?
So much for "an injury to one is an injury to all", huh? If only part of the workers are having a problem, the others aren't supposed to solidarize with them, 'cause thats not a "common interest."

Unions routinely take up all kinds of problems only affecting part of the workers, or sometimes only one worker! That's called solidarity.

If there's a safety problem in only one department, or if women workers are having a problem 'cause there's no women's bathroom in the plant, is that not the business of the whole class? (The fight for women's bathrooms is something that's actually had to be conducted in a lot of workplaces.)

With your approach, "common interest" in practice, whether or not you intend it, becomes the interest of white, male, native-born Christian workers; this is inevitable once the fight against racist, sexist, etc. discrimination is dismissed as a special, not a common interest.

And of course when the workers' movement doesn't take up this fight, if it rejects the basics of solidarity with all workers, then all kinds of nationalist tendencies and whatnot will fill the vaccuum.


So while half of the workforce in that plant are Somalians, what about the other half?

They'll benefit from having an extra break too; and more importantly, unity will be built by the other workers solidarizing with the Somalians. Has been built, in this case.

No, I don't see that it comes from above. It comes from Somalian workers wanting a prayer break. The union bureaucracy has learned the hard way that there's no other way to build unity among workers from many countries and organize a union. They've reversed some of their longstanding anti-immigrant policies based on difficult experience.

There are various responses from the bosses to this pressure from below, none of which workers need to line up with. Neither phony tokenistic affirmative action, political correctness, overzealous sexual harassment enforcement which treats the workers as the source of the problem, and "multiculturalism".....and even less the "color-blind" position which refuses to concede anything to the demands of the oppressed.

Here's an interesting article examining this bourgeois debate from a bourgeois standpoint. (http://theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17173362%255E2703,00.html)

It correctly points out the riots currently sweeping France reflect the failure of the formal-equality-alone perspective on assimilation.


Under the ethnically colour-blind "French model", the immigrant workers who came in the 1950s and 60s from the former colonies in North and black Africa were to be regarded as equal citizens.

They and their descendants would take advantage of the education system and generous welfare state to assimilate with "white" France. To promote the idea of assimilation, neither the state nor any other body publishes statistics on ethnic or national origin.

In practice, France turned its back on the minorities, shunting them into suburban areas and denying access to the so-called ascenseur social (social elevator) that was supposed to lift immigrants into the mainstream.

That's the only thing "color blindness" can mean in practice.

Blindness is not a revolutionary weapon - particularly not blindness to the reality of racist discrimination and national oppression.

There was another thread on this, where you linked an article claiming the problem of racist discrimination had been solved in Britain. You never explained whether you agreed with that...or, if not, explained what you see as necessary steps for fighting against racism. You never engaged any of my arguments about the necessity of a fight for affirmative action and against discrimination in order to overcome divisions in the working class.

Here's the thread. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41120&hl=multicultural)

[Vanguard1917]

So much for "an injury to one is an injury to all", huh? If only part of the workers are having a problem, the others aren't supposed to solidarize with them, 'cause thats not a "common interest."

Unions routinely take up all kinds of problems only affecting part of the workers, or sometimes only one worker! That's called solidarity.

If there's a safety problem in only one department, or if women workers are having a problem 'cause there's no women's bathroom in the plant, is that not the business of the whole class? (The fight for women's bathrooms is something that's actually had to be conducted in a lot of workplaces.)

With your approach, "common interest" in practice, whether or not you intend it, becomes the interest of white, male, native-born Christian workers; this is inevitable once the fight against racist, sexist, etc. discrimination is dismissed as a special, not a common interest.

And of course when the workers' movement doesn't take up this fight, if it rejects the basics of solidarity with all workers, then all kinds of nationalist tendencies and whatnot will fill the vaccuum.

I agree with what you're essentially saying. In the case of Somalian workers, what i was trying to get across was that they are being encouraged to see and express their interests in the legitamised language of multiculturalism. Solidarity is key, and the problem with multiculturalism is precisely that it goes against solidarity. I've explained why elsewhere.


No, I don't see that it comes from above. It comes from Somalian workers wanting a prayer break.

I think it goes a lot deeper than that. I'm convinced that it's a top-down phenomenon.


It correctly points out the riots currently sweeping France reflect the failure of the formal-equality-alone perspective on assimilation.

The riots in France weren't the result of French society being colour-blind. They were the result of segregated and ghettoised conditions - something that is the product of a lack of assimilation. A policy is needed that stops encouraging social segregation. This will mean that we stop emphasising cultural differences at every opportunity, in order to eradicate it (segregation) in the real world.


There was another thread on this, where you linked an article claiming the problem of racist discrimination had been solved in Britain. You never explained whether you agreed with that...or, if not, explained what you see as necessary steps for fighting against racism. You never engaged any of my arguments about the necessity of a fight for affirmative action and against discrimination in order to overcome divisions in the working class.

The article that i linked did not claim that the problem of racism had been solved in Britain. It argued that racism no longer has the same systematic legitimacy that it once had:


It is true that the framework of racist immigration and nationality legislation remains in place, but the ascendancy of anti-racism has dramatically restricted the scope of racial discrimination in the day-to-day operation of society, notably in relation to employment and services. No doubt, personal prejudices against black people persist and may sometimes take an offensive or violent form. But the crucial change is that these prejudices no longer enjoy official sanction and hence have little systematic impact on the lives of black people.

He also says something that i think we can link to contemporary calls for affirmative action.


Furthermore, the distinctive character of the identity promoted by multiculturalism is the identity of victim. In the world of multiculturalism, claims of victimhood provide the basis for recognition and status...

In the competitive struggle for prestige (and state resources) unleashed by multiculturalism, every minority must justify its claim by elevating its sufferings.
(My emphasis)

So whereas in the context of the American civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s calls for affirmative action was a sign of progressive social movements that wanted to challenge the status quo by empowering black communities, today it is a sign of a climate that encourages people to embrace the status of victimhood.


How about you engage the arguments I've made for affirmative action, or explain why you're against hiring more Black people in and of itself, rather than arguing with "multicultural" liberals who aren't present on this forum.
(my emphasis)

You'd be surprised how penetrative liberal ideas have become.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 07:39 PM
In the case of Somalian workers, what i was trying to get across was that they are being encouraged to see and express their interests in the legitamised language of multiculturalism.
Did you read what they actually said? I don't see any "language of multiculturalism" there.


I think it goes a lot deeper than that. I'm convinced that it's a top-down phenomenon.

That sounds like a preconception, into which you're attempting to shoehorn concrete events.


The riots in France weren't the result of French society being colour-blind. They were the result of segregated and ghettoised conditions - something that is the product of a lack of assimilation.

An evasion. You might as well say that the tides are the product of water rising and falling. Why did French society prove incapable of "assimilating" immigrants and their children? Specifically those from Africa and the Middle East; Nicolas Sarkozy's parents were immigrants too - as you might guess from his not-so-French last name - but he seems "assimilated" enough, and certainly not segregated or ghettoised.

What's the difference? Could it have something to do with.....racist discrimination? Or do Middle Eastern and African immigrants to France, and their children, refuse to accept better jobs and housing because they're so determined to remain in the ghetto?

You certainly can't blame segregation in France on official "multiculturalism" 'cause there ain't any there. IMO its profoundly idealist to blame segregation on liberal platitudes anywhere.

De facto segregation is a product of the workings of the laws of the market, in the context of discrimination and oppression, past and present. It will continue and even intensify unless action is taken specifically to combat it.

Residential segregation has been increasing for Black people in the U.S. too. Is it because they refuse to "assimilate"? Do you think they need to learn English, dammit?


A policy is needed that stops encouraging social segregation.

Yes. That policy is called affirmative action. It is obviously in contradiction to "color-blindness", as virtually everyone on both sides of the issue recognize.


The article that i linked did not claim that the problem of racism had been solved in Britain. It argued that racism no longer has the same systematic legitimacy that it once had:


It is true that the framework of racist immigration and nationality legislation remains in place, but the ascendancy of anti-racism has dramatically restricted the scope of racial discrimination in the day-to-day operation of society, notably in relation to employment and services. No doubt, personal prejudices against black people persist and may sometimes take an offensive or violent form. But the crucial change is that these prejudices no longer enjoy official sanction and hence have little systematic impact on the lives of black people.

That's only slightly different. The problem of racism has always been primarily a systematic problem, and IMO still is today.

A problem that has "little systematic impact on the lives of black people" is not a major problem. Again, do you agree with that? 'Cause if so, I think that's the root of our disagreement and what we oughta be dealing with.

[Vanguard1917]

A problem that has "little systematic impact on the lives of black people" is not a major problem. Again, do you agree with that? 'Cause if so, I think that's the root of our disagreement and what we oughta be dealing with.

Severian, sorry for taking so long to reply.

Does racism become a decreasing problem if it has decreasing systematic impact on the lives of black people? I think it does.

It depends on how we define racism. I see racism as a social problem. If people have racist opinions in their heads that are not given scope to be put into practice in society then, surely, it's no longer a social problem. When the system is no longer promoting racism in the ways in which it once did, then racism cannot be a social problem in the ways that it once was.

I'm not saying that the ruling class has stopped encouraging racism altogether; it still does to an extent, especially in regard to immigration laws. But it is to a much lesser extent in comparison to the racism that was promoted in the past.

Do you think that racism is intrinsic to capitalist rule? Many on the left argue yes.But some argue that it isn't necessarily. (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/524/12assimilation.html) I think i agree with the latter. What do you think?

[Severian]

I think it is intrinsic, i.e. it's unlikely that systematic racism will be abolished under capitalism.

Certainly it hasn't been, and it takes real political tunnel vision to think it has.

In a way, I'm not sure where to start with such an ABC question as proving that systematic racism still exists.

The statistics on unemployment, wage differences and so forth seem like a good start. Segregation in housing, schools, jobs. Job prospects of people with similar education levels but different "race". The workings of the criminal justice system. Statistics clearly show huge gaps in all these things in the U.S., I know. I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case in the UK as well.

The one respect in which there's the least gap is in jobs in industry....the area where there's been the most affirmative action! It's sometimes said on the right in this country that affirmative action hasn't "worked"...but demonstrably it has where it's been seriously applied.

There have even been experiments, sending people of different "race" but otherwise similar characteristics in to apply for jobs, apartments, etc....I know in the U.S. they consistently find discrimination is very real.

"I'm not saying that the ruling class has stopped encouraging racism altogether; it still does to an extent, especially in regard to immigration laws."

So you can notice systematic racism when it takes the form of a law. But not otherwise. Your whole way of thinking about this seems very legalistic to me.

There is a tremendous difference between formal, legal, paper equality, and real everyday equality.

[Vanguard1917]

The statistics on unemployment, wage differences and so forth seem like a good start. Segregation in housing, schools, jobs. Job prospects of people with similar education levels but different "race". The workings of the criminal justice system. Statistics clearly show huge gaps in all these things in the U.S., I know.

Yes, but segregation and discrimination today is hardly comparable to that of a few decades ago. My point is that racism in society is decreasing. Ask any first-generation immigrant in Britain who came here in the 1950s and they will tell you that this country is now a much less racist place to live in. Just a few decades back it was very common for mainstream politicians to propose blatantly racist policies in public. In the 1980s British politicians and the media regularly blamed crime on blacks. I think it was also in the 1980s when the Ford car company edited an advertisement poster of its workforce, replacing ethnic faces with white ones.

I can't think of any mainstream politician, newspaper, tv station or corporation that can get away with such things today in Britain. A couple of years back, a Conservative Member of Parliament made a racist joke at a private dinner party and, when it got 'leaked', she was sacked by Michael Howard (Conservative Party leader) and was demonised by every single media outlet in this country.

Racism is no longer a legitimate language through which the ruling class can express itself... at least not to the extent that it once was.

I'm not for a second saying that Britain is a society where blacks and whites live equally. Unemployment, academic underachievement and imprisonment are still disproportionately higher in black and Asian communities in Britain. But this is not systematic racism in the same way as before. The establishment cannot actively exclude ethnic minorities from society to the extent that it once could. For example, the gap between middle class blacks and Asians and middle class whites has narrowed. In the past it didn't matter that you were a middle class black person - if you were black your chances in society were much lower than a middle class white person because institutions went out of their way to exclude black people. I don't think that we can say that today... not to the same extent.

I'm aware that things may be somewhat different in the US. Racism in the US has a long history and, in many cases, the extreme racism of the past is still deeply ingrained in the public consciousness. In many cases, institutions are still functioning according to past racist codes. But we have to see that this is decline. Racism is not a ruling class ideology anymore. We need to recognise this in order to understand what really is going on; how society is really dividing and ghettoising people in the 21st century.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 11:43 AM
Yes, but segregation and discrimination today is hardly comparable to that of a few decades ago. My point is that racism in society is decreasing.
Duh. But that's hardly a reason to stop fighting against it - give up because we're winning? - or pretend that "multicultural" liberalism or the separatism of the oppressed is the root of the problem, rather than ongoing systemic racism.


I can't think of any mainstream politician, newspaper, tv station or corporation that can get away with such things today in Britain. A couple of years back, a Conservative Member of Parliament made a racist joke at a private dinner party and, when it got 'leaked', she was sacked by Michael Howard (Conservative Party leader) and was demonised by every single media outlet in this country. Racism is no longer a legitimate language through which the ruling class can express itself... at least not to the extent that it once was.

Actions speak louder, and in any case subjective prejudices are not at the root of objective, systemic racism. The reverse is the case.


I'm not for a second saying that Britain is a society where blacks and whites live equally. Unemployment, academic underachievement and imprisonment are still disproportionately higher in black and Asian communities in Britain. But this is not systematic racism in the same way as before.

Why not? Seems to me that's precisely what systematic racism is.


The establishment cannot actively exclude ethnic minorities from society to the extent that it once could. For example, the gap between middle class blacks and Asians and middle class whites has narrowed. In the past it didn't matter that you were a middle class black person - if you were black your chances in society were much lower than a middle class white person because institutions went out of their way to exclude black people. I don't think that we can say that today... not to the same extent.

Sure. That's one of the changes in the way systematic racism operates. It's true in the U.S. as well - with the abolition of official, Jim Crow segregation, the Black upper and middle classes have grown.

Simultaneously, things have gone down the toilet for Black workers, even more than for white workers. The closing of steel plants, etc., has hit Black workers especially hard - they have a harder time finding new jobs esp at anything like comparable pay.

The racist division is less castelike, which is a step forward. But it is none the less real.


I'm aware that things may be somewhat different in the US. Racism in the US has a long history and, in many cases, the extreme racism of the past is still deeply ingrained in the public consciousness. In many cases, institutions are still functioning according to past racist codes. But we have to see that this is decline.

Sure. Again, hardly a reason to stop fighting against it.

The changes you've mentioned actually make me think there is a rough parallel between the US and UK there.


Racism is not a ruling class ideology anymore.

It's not openly promoted by the mainstream bourgeois institutions, to express things more exactly. (It is one ideology used by parts of the ruling class, those which support ultrarightist movements for example.)

But so what? Ideology and subjective attitudes were never at the root of racism. This whole line of argument strikes me as the argument of people who never had a Marxist approach to the problem, and are getting disoriented as their basically superficial approach no longer applies due to the shifting of some superficial factors.

It's not racist attitudes that put Black people in the worst jobs, but the consignment of Black people to the worst jobs which builds racist attitudes.

Psychologists have actually done studies on this, and found that nothing breaks down racism like working together or other personal contact....provided that it is working together on the basis of equality. If one group is in a more privileged job than another, no effect.

Additionally, if one section of the population, or of the working class, has a more privileged position...that builds racist attitudes, and the use of racism as a tool to try to keep that privileged position and keep out competitors from a part of the labor market.

It's never been competition as equals in the labor market that's fed racist resentment and conflicts within the working class. It's been the exclusion of some workers from that competition....

Which remains the cause of racist attitudes and conflicts among workers today. Not liberal "multiculturalism", nor the separatism of some among the oppressed. To the extent racist attitudes and conflicts have been reduced, it's because of the elimination of some barriers to equality in the labor market and workplace.

[Vanguard1917]

It's not openly promoted by the mainstream bourgeois institutions, to express things more exactly. (It is one ideology used by parts of the ruling class, those which support ultrarightist movements for example.)

If a particular ruling class ideology is no longer legitimate, it means that changes have take place in society. We have to be clear about the function that racism played in society. In Britain, racism was used - by mainstream forces in society - to promote nationalism and to justify Empire. This was racism's key function. Also, at times when the country was in decay, it was commonplace to shift the blame on to ethnic minorities - blaming them for crime, rioting, anti-social behaviour, and so on.

Can we say that racism still has this function in sociey? If not, what function does it have? If it has no function for the ruling class, can we still call it a ruling class ideology?


Ideology and subjective attitudes were never at the root of racism. This whole line of argument strikes me as the argument of people who never had a Marxist approach to the problem, and are getting disoriented as their basically superficial approach no longer applies due to the shifting of some superficial factors.

Ok, but doesn't the prevailing ideology of the ruling class tell us something about them as a class, and society in general? If Marxism teaches us that the ruling ideas in society are the ideas of the ruling class, doesn't a change in the dominant ideology reflect changes in social rule?


It's not racist attitudes that put Black people in the worst jobs, but the consignment of Black people to the worst jobs which builds racist attitudes...

...if one section of the population, or of the working class, has a more privileged position...that builds racist attitudes, and the use of racism as a tool to try to keep that privileged position and keep out competitors from a part of the labor market.


Not automatically. There is no such rigid, mechanistic relationship between black people being in the worst jobs and the formation of racist attitudes in society. If, subjectively, society can no longer rationalise the plight of black people through the language of racism, then racist attitudes are not given scope to prevail in society.


Not liberal "multiculturalism", nor the separatism of some among the oppressed.

Multiculturalism has become the new ruling ideology in society. In Britain all three parties subscribe to the mulculturalist logic. The media supports it, and so do corporations. If Marxists in the 21st century do not try to understand this phenomenon, and if we try instead to fit social reality into past theories (where they simply don't fit), then we will lag behind.

The Meaning of Race: Race, History and Culture in Western Society by Kenan Malik is a very good study of race in society. I'd definately recommend it.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:35 PM

It's not openly promoted by the mainstream bourgeois institutions, to express things more exactly. (It is one ideology used by parts of the ruling class, those which support ultrarightist movements for example.)

If a particular ruling class ideology is no longer legitimate, it means that changes have take place in society. We have to be clear about the function that racism played in society. In Britain, racism was used - by mainstream forces in society - to promote nationalism and to justify Empire. This was racism's key function.
That was racist ideology's main function, yes. You're switching back and forth between systemic racism and racist ideas without clearly labelling when you're talking about which.


Also, at times when the country was in decay, it was commonplace to shift the blame on to ethnic minorities - blaming them for crime, rioting, anti-social behaviour, and so on.

Can we say that racism still has this function in sociey? If not, what function does it have? If it has no function for the ruling class, can we still call it a ruling class ideology?

Systematic racist discrimination has the same function it always had: creating a layer of workers with fewer rights who can be subject to super-exploitation. And reinforcing racist prejudices which are useful for dividing the working class.

Racist ideology, openly promoted by ultrarightist groups, still has its traditional scapegoating function. And this is still given aid and shelter by the politics of mainstream parties. Sure, they don't openly proclaim racism.

But they certainly did "shift the blame on to ethnic minorities" for the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, for example. Both Republican and Democratic politicians made wild claims about Black inhabitants of New Orleans behaving like animals or savages in the aftermath of that disaster. Claims which turned out to be false.

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Chief Eddie Coffin - who are not only Democrats but Black - played major roles in the promotion of this racist scare (http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/sayitloud/weathersbee105)

Which had the traditional scapegoating function of diverting attention from the failure of the capitalist system and all levels of government which turned the natural disaster into a wholly avoidable social disaster.

They don't have to openly proclaim themselves racists to do that.


Ok, but doesn't the prevailing ideology of the ruling class tell us something about them as a class, and society in general? If Marxism teaches us that the ruling ideas in society are the ideas of the ruling class, doesn't a change in the dominant ideology reflect changes in social rule?

Sometimes it mostly reflects that a justification has been worn out, and a new one has to be developed. Like the shift from anti-Communism and the "Soviet thread" to the "war on drugs", "war on terrorism", etc., as a means of justifying military interventions.

In this case it also reflects a shift in the forms of racism, from legally, officially sanctioned discrimination to the unofficial but none the less pervasive kind.



It's not racist attitudes that put Black people in the worst jobs, but the consignment of Black people to the worst jobs which builds racist attitudes...

...if one section of the population, or of the working class, has a more privileged position...that builds racist attitudes, and the use of racism as a tool to try to keep that privileged position and keep out competitors from a part of the labor market.


Not automatically. There is no such rigid, mechanistic relationship between black people being in the worst jobs and the formation of racist attitudes in society. If, subjectively, society can no longer rationalise the plight of black people through the language of racism, then racist attitudes are not given scope to prevail in society.

Really? Where has that happened - that a group is subject to a second-class social and economic status but not prejudiced attitudes?

Nowhere I can think of offhand, and certainly not any advanced capitalist country today. Racist attitudes are still widespread, even though officially frowned upon, even, at times, propagandised against by the media in an annoying Hallmark-card "can't we all just get along" way.

Where do those attitudes come from? I'd argue from the material circumstances of life, from the effects of ongoing systematic discrimination.


Multiculturalism has become the new ruling ideology in society. In Britain all three parties subscribe to the mulculturalist logic. The media supports it, and so do corporations. If Marxists in the 21st century do not try to understand this phenomenon, and if we try instead to fit social reality into past theories (where they simply don't fit), then we will lag behind.

If Marxists in the 21st country think ideology is the cause of social phenomena like racism and conflict between "ethnic groups"...then they ain't Marxists.

[Vanguard1917]

That was racist ideology's main function, yes. You're switching back and forth between systemic racism and racist ideas without clearly labelling when you're talking about which.

Not really. I was trying to say that the diminishing role of racism reflects some key changes in society. If racism's key function in Britain (and all other colonising powers) was to justify Empire (i.e. the spread of 'civilisation' to 'primitive naked savages') and to promote nationalism (which in itself was used to as a means to justify Empire), then the fall of the old empires affects racism's role in society.


Systematic racist discrimination has the same function it always had: creating a layer of workers with fewer rights who can be subject to super-exploitation. And reinforcing racist prejudices which are useful for dividing the working class.

I don't think we can make such assumptions that easily anymore. What is the use of dividing the working class when the working class provides no threat to the system? We're living in a period of almost unprecedented class peace. Does the ruling class really need racism in such conditions?


Racist ideology, openly promoted by ultrarightist groups, still has its traditional scapegoating function. And this is still given aid and shelter by the politics of mainstream parties.

Things must be different in the US. In Britain mainstream parties are doing their best to distance themselves from right-wing groups. Right-wing ideology does not have the social influence that it once had. And nor does left-wing ideolgy. This, i think, reflects the 'class peace' that i mentioned above.


they certainly did "shift the blame on to ethnic minorities" for the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, for example. Both Republican and Democratic politicians made wild claims about Black inhabitants of New Orleans behaving like animals or savages in the aftermath of that disaster.

I knew that you'd mention this. To be honest, i didn't closely follow the US state and media reaction to Katrina. But, over here, the message sent out by a lot of the media was essentially an anti-American one, largely directed at gun-tooting 'rednecks'. There is a general anti-American mood over here... and it's not a healthy one.


Really? Where has that happened - that a group is subject to a second-class social and economic status but not prejudiced attitudes?

Nowhere I can think of offhand, and certainly not any advanced capitalist country today. Racist attitudes are still widespread

Racist attitudes are not widespread in Britain, at least not in large towns like London, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, etc. They are only widespread in the heads of official state-sponsored 'anti-racists' trying to enforce multiculturalist meaures.

If there's any group in this country that everyone seems to have disdain for, it's the white working class. They're portrayed as ignorant, backward, hooligan, drunk, disorderly, potential supporters of far-right parties, easily strayed by populist causes, hypnotised by the the tabloid press, etc.

Once the white working class (along with the rest of the working class) was feared by the elite in this country as a potentially revolutionary force. Today they're held in contempt, just seen as a pathetic backward mass of people who care about immigration policies and not much else.

And asylum seekers - a group that everyone (of all races) seems not to like, due largely to anti-immigration policy and propaganda.


If Marxists in the 21st country think ideology is the cause of social phenomena like racism and conflict between "ethnic groups"...

I don't think that that's quite what i'm arguing here.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 02:24 AM

That was racist ideology's main function, yes. You're switching back and forth between systemic racism and racist ideas without clearly labelling when you're talking about which.

Not really. I was trying to say that the diminishing role of racism reflects some key changes in society. If racism's key function in Britain (and all other colonising powers) was to justify Empire (i.e. the spread of 'civilisation' to 'primitive naked savages') and to promote nationalism (which in itself was used to as a means to justify Empire), then the fall of the old empires affects racism's role in society.
Sorry for the delay in responding. I wanted to think a bit first, and then the thread dropped down the board.

But the empires didn't fall, in fact the U.S. empire gained strength after WWII while the old ones declined. They changed form and so did racism, to less obvious, direct, and legally enshrined forms. Client regimes and neocolonialism; de facto rather than de jure segregation.

Racism continues to play essential roles for imperialism. E.g. the racist dehumanization of the enemy continues to be important for the combat psychology of the imperialist militaries.


I don't think we can make such assumptions that easily anymore. What is the use of dividing the working class when the working class provides no threat to the system? We're living in a period of almost unprecedented class peace. Does the ruling class really need racism in such conditions?

Unprecedented class peace? What planet are you living on?

We're living in a time of unusually one-sided class war. Since the 1980s, a gradual rolling back of all the gains of the working class, carefully calibrated to not provoke too much resistance by taking too much at once. It is an offensive not only against economic gains and social spending, but against all the gains of the social movements of the 60s and 70s, from the "Vietnam syndrome" to affirmative action and legal abortion.

The usefulness of divisions in the working class, to this offensive, is obvious. Even if the ruling class may mistakenly believe the working class is no threat....they are still aware the working class is a target. Their central target.



Racist ideology, openly promoted by ultrarightist groups, still has its traditional scapegoating function. And this is still given aid and shelter by the politics of mainstream parties.

Things must be different in the US. In Britain mainstream parties are doing their best to distance themselves from right-wing groups.

In the U.S. also. My point is not that they directly ally with the radical ultraright - they don't, and the ultraright in order to remain radical could not ally with them. Rather, my point is that mainstream bourgeois politics, and its offensive against the working class, creates the conditions for the ultraright.


Right-wing ideology does not have the social influence that it once had.

Again, what planet are you living on? Apparently not the same one where LePen came in second in a French presidential election!

In part, of course, that more reflected the electoral collapse of the SP and CP than an immediate threat of fascism. But still, the growth of the National Front - and similar groups in most imperialist countries - cannot be denied.


And nor does left-wing ideolgy. This, i think, reflects the 'class peace' that i mentioned above.

No, the collapse of Stalinism and the "left" does not reflect class peace but rather the deepening of the political bankruptcy of these petty-bourgeois trends.


I knew that you'd mention this. To be honest, i didn't closely follow the US state and media reaction to Katrina. But, over here, the message sent out by a lot of the media was essentially an anti-American one, largely directed at gun-tooting 'rednecks'. There is a general anti-American mood over here... and it's not a healthy one.

Right.


Racist attitudes are not widespread in Britain, at least not in large towns like London, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, etc. They are only widespread in the heads of official state-sponsored 'anti-racists' trying to enforce multiculturalist meaures.

Really? Cause the Brendan O'Neill article seems to argue racist attitudes, divisions and violence are growing....in order to blame this on multiculturalism.


If there's any group in this country that everyone seems to have disdain for, it's the white working class. They're portrayed as ignorant, backward, hooligan, drunk, disorderly, potential supporters of far-right parties, easily strayed by populist causes, hypnotised by the the tabloid press, etc.

They're the group that can be openly the subject of bigotry...as with the "redneck" slur you mention earlier. But it's a pretty poor analysis which only looks at things which are open and on the surface.



If Marxists in the 21st country think ideology is the cause of social phenomena like racism and conflict between "ethnic groups"...

I don't think that that's quite what i'm arguing here.

Well, good. 'Cause O'Neill certainly was: he blames everything on "multiculturalism."

[Vanguard1917]

But the empires didn't fall, in fact the U.S. empire gained strength after WWII while the old ones declined. They changed form and so did racism, to less obvious, direct, and legally enshrined forms. Client regimes and neocolonialism; de facto rather than de jure segregation.

The old empires did fall after the Second World War - thanks, partly, to anti-imperialist, nationalist movements in the colonies. The imperialism that replaced that of the old empires has important differences - in terms of its politics, economics and ideology.

But you're right to some extent. Racist logic is still used by the imperialists. Western intervention, the attack on a country's right to autonomy, is still rationalised by the idea that people and states of the non-Western world require the 'help' of the West. But this is not the same as the racist logic that prevailed before. In the past, colonialism was 'the export of civilisation to backward people'. This was an explicitly racist declaration. Today's imperialism is justified differently: 'international community'; 'humanitarianism'; 'war on terrorism'; etc. If racism is no longer given explicit support from above, racism's role in society is affected.


Racism continues to play essential roles for imperialism. E.g. the racist dehumanization of the enemy continues to be important for the combat psychology of the imperialist militaries.

I think you're refering to Lynndie England et al. Does this prove that racism plays a central role? Could it play such a central role when the majority of people in Western society denounced the conducts of those soldiers? They were denounced by the state and by the mainstream media. Such things are no longer given sanction from above.


Unprecedented class peace? What planet are you living on?

There is no class war. There is conflict in society but such conflict does not take place on a class basis. The working class is no longer a subjective force in society. It does not make up a coherent force against capitalism. There is no working class movement. It has made its peace with capitalism. With the demise of the labour movement at home and with the end of the Cold War, the ruling class no longer has a clear mission. Post-Cold War Western military interventions abroad and the tightening of state influence in all spheres of society at home are expressions of ruling class attempts to deal with the void left by the fall of the old enemies. The ruling class has lost its raison d'etre - it has lost the enemy, the social conflicts, on and around which its institutions, state organisations, apparatuses and ideologies were formed and based for most of the 20th century. This has given way to a state of disorientation within the ruling class itself. It is no longer as conscious of its role as a class. Its ideas and actions are no longer based around the dynamics of a class struggle. This state of affairs raises very important and interesting questions for Marxists in the 21st century.


Even if the ruling class may mistakenly believe the working class is no threat....they are still aware the working class is a target. Their central target.

Why would it be mistaken of the ruling class if they believed that the working class provides no threat? And why would they still see the working class as 'their central target' if they don't perceive the working class to be a threat?


Rather, my point is that mainstream bourgeois politics, and its offensive against the working class, creates the conditions for the ultraright.

In what way?


Again, what planet are you living on? Apparently not the same one where LePen came in second in a French presidential election!

LePen was a product of mainstream anti-immigration propaganda. People voted for his party not because of any newfound support for fascist politics but because of a disillusionment with mainstream parties. It was a protest vote - nothing more. The same can be said of the 'rise' of most far-right parties in Western Europe. The social dynamics necessary for the prevailing of fascism do not currently exist.


No, the collapse of Stalinism and the "left" does not reflect class peace but rather the deepening of the political bankruptcy of these petty-bourgeois trends.

The collapse of the left and of the right reflects social reality - the demise of the conflicting forces in society, the class struggle, around which left and right were once based.


Cause the Brendan O'Neill article seems to argue racist attitudes, divisions and violence are growing....in order to blame this on multiculturalism.

That article wasn't by Brendan O'Neill; it was by Michael Fitzpatrick. I think his point was that multiculturalist policies are being advocated at a time when racism in society is a diminishing problem. Multiculturalist policies, paradoxically, encourage division and ghettoisation of communities.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 10:09 AM
There is no class war. There is conflict in society but such conflict does not take place on a class basis. The working class is no longer a subjective force in society. It does not make up a coherent force against capitalism. There is no working class movement. It has made its peace with capitalism. With the demise of the labour movement at home and with the end of the Cold War, the ruling class no longer has a clear mission. Post-Cold War Western military interventions abroad and the tightening of state influence in all spheres of society at home are expressions of ruling class attempts to deal with the void left by the fall of the old enemies. The ruling class has lost its raison d'etre - it has lost the enemy, the social conflicts, on and around which its institutions, state organisations, apparatuses and ideologies were formed and based for most of the 20th century. This has given way to a state of disorientation within the ruling class itself. It is no longer as conscious of its role as a class. Its ideas and actions are no longer based around the dynamics of a class struggle. This state of affairs raises very important and interesting questions for Marxists in the 21st century.
The last sounds like an understatement. If your description of the state of affairs is accurate, than Marxism has lost its basis. What is the basis of your politics then, if not the expression of a class struggle going on today?

Some such idea is certainly common on the left, which is why more and more of the left has no idea what it's for, and increasingly defines itself solely by what it's against....usually the U.S. or the Bush regime.

But thanks for stating it explicitly.


And why would they still see the working class as 'their central target' if they don't perceive the working class to be a threat?

Because of the economic need to drastically roll back the working class' gains. Combined with the observed fact that workers are still capable of defensive battles. Which may grow considerably larger if the rulers push too fast. That's why they haven't pushed further and faster than they have.

Obviously divisions in the working class help the ruling class in this offensive.

What's more, the promotion of those divisions doesn't depend solely on a conscious effort by the rulers; the workings of the system, of the "invisible hand" so to speak, also perpetuate them automatically.


Multiculturalist policies, paradoxically, encourage division and ghettoisation of communities.

This is what I was referring to earlier, when I said ideology was not the root cause of racist divisions. Certainly not ghettoisation, a major economic phenomenon!

What do you think about splitting this thread?

[Vanguard1917]

If your description of the state of affairs is accurate, than Marxism has lost its basis. What is the basis of your politics then, if not the expression of a class struggle going on today?

Marxist ideas, for almost 150 years, were based on real life class conflicts happening within society. I think today's society is different: we're living in a period of class peace. In periods of class peace, past Marxist theories (which were formed in times of class conflict) simply do not suffice. Marxism must be an ever-developing worldview.

This doesn't mean that we should abandon Marxism because of the collapse of the social struggles on which Marxism was once based. Far from it. Marxist modes of thinking provide insights into all social dynamics. Marxism helps us better understand all forms of society - whether that society is characterised by class conflict or by class peace. In the past, class conflict was the central dynamic of society. This has ceased to be the case since the end of the 1980s. Marxists who try and fit past theories around present circumstances will only be faced with more and more confusion. 'All history must be studied afresh', as i think Engels said.


This is what I was referring to earlier, when I said ideology was not the root cause of racist divisions. Certainly not ghettoisation, a major economic phenomenon!

Certainly not. But multiculturalist theories are expressions of, and help to rationalise ideologically, existing social fragmentation, ghettoisation and atomisation. Therefore, we must challenge such ideas as we challenge the conditions that give rise to such ideas. Because such ideas help to perpetuate such conditions. As long as people continue to rationalise - if not celebrate - capitalist social fragmentation along the lines of the multiculturalist logic, such decay will be tolerated and normalised.


What do you think about splitting this thread?

I'm not sure what that means, but OK.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 06:38 PM
This doesn't mean that we should abandon Marxism because of the collapse of the social struggles on which Marxism was once based.
Why not? Marxism arose historically from the struggle between the working class and capitalist class; if that struggle no longer exists, what is the point of Marxism?


Far from it. Marxist modes of thinking provide insights into all social dynamics.

OK, various academics and whatnot use aspects of Marxist theory to analyze all kinds of things.

But Marxism as a political movement, communism, is the expression of the living class struggle and a particular time in history. No class struggle ---> no communism.

"Herr Heinzen imagines communism is a certain doctrine which proceeds from a definite theoretical principle as its core and draws further conclusions from that. Herr Heinzen is very much mistaken. Communism is not a doctrine but a movement; it proceeds not from principles but from facts. The Communists do not base themselves on this or that philosophy as their point of departure but on the whole course of previous history and specifically its actual results in the civilised countries at the present time. Communism has followed from large-scale industry and its consequences, from the establishment of the world market, of the concomitant uninhibited competition, ever more violent and more universal trade crises, which have already become fully fledged crises of the world market, from the creation of the proletariat and the concentration of capital, from the ensuing class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie. Communism, insofar as it is a theory, is the theoretical expression of the position of the proletariat in this struggle and the theoretical summation of the conditions for the liberation of the proletariat."an 1848 article by Engels (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/09/26.htm)

A political trend which is not the "expression of the position of the proletariat in this struggle"....is not communism, no matter what label it applies to itself.

You're known for defending the need for a party composed of the vanguard, the most class-conscious part, of the working class, as I do also....but the vanguard of what if there's no class war? How can there be foremost participants in a nonexistent struggle?

Everything I've said in this thread, and elsewhere, is based on the needs of the working class in the ongoing class struggle. My positions on racism and the need for affirmative action, for example, are based on the need to unite the working class in the fights of today as the grow into the fights of tomorrow...to take an example from this thread, supporting the demands raised by Somali immigrant workers in order to unite all the workers in a Nebraska meatpacking plant in the fight for a union.

If there is no class struggle today, your starting point, from which you derive your political positions, is.....something else. You don't say what. But as this discussion continues, we're finding deeper and deeper political roots of our disagreements on "multiculturalism" and affirmative action.....and less and less real common ground.

[Manack]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
But multiculturalist theories are expressions of, and help to rationalise ideologically, existing social fragmentation, ghettoisation and atomisation. Therefore, we must challenge such ideas as we challenge the conditions that give rise to such ideas.

What is the alternative multiculturalism? Promotion of one culture over another? The supression of particular cultures and forced assimilation? Are you suggesting that the state should dictate how people should live and only cater for one group? Or perhaps restricted the free movement of peoples to live where they choose to keep foreign cultures out?

I am sure you aren't. But I am concerned. If not multiculturalism what theory are you suggessting should replace it?

Social fragmentation occurs without multiculturalism. If everyone where the same race and of the same culture there would still be ghettos and atomisation under capitalism. Highly homogenous nations suffer from these flaws just as much as multicultural societies do as its a product of a social system rather than a product of culture.

Multiculturalism can be argued to increase the connections people have with each other rather than reinforces fragmentation. Having a "China Town" in my city allows me a glimpse into that culture which otherwise would be prohibative to see.

Putting two or more cultures side by side allows an exchange of ideas and values which leads to mutual understanding and solidarity. Nothing is ever gained by ignorance of how other people live.

A lack of tolerance of multiculturalism is a path to tyranny. The state should have no right to dictate what language you speak to your friends, who your friends with, who you live beside, what food you eat, what clothes you wear or what religion your worship.

Saying that multiculturalist theories helps perpetuate an ideology which tolerates social fragmentation is folly. If you removed multiculturalism you'd still have the same conditions, just rather a new scapegoat that you'd need to struggle to remove.

As such time spent worrying about perceptions of multiculturalism is attacking the symptoms and not the disease. No progress will be made that way.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)So is that evil "multiculturalism"? Or does that action, and the union's position, strengthen the unity of all workers in the plant, and help strengthen the identification of a new layer of workers with the union?[/b]

Prayer breaks for Muslims?

What strange terrain Severian has chosen to explore.

Particularly in view of Tyson Food's own track-record...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291987048 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43844&view=findpost&p=1291987048)

Even The Militant's own reporter acknowledged (in an off-hand way) Tyson's use of religion.


Over a year ago Tyson set up a symbolic “Mosque,” or prayer space with room for two workers.

It does not mention whether Tyson supplied the "rugs". Will the union ask for that? :lol:

Ah well, never mind a living wage or remotely dignified working conditions. Both the union and Severian are down for "the right to pray".


Vanguard1917
Multiculturalism became a perfect way for western governments to rationalise the fragmentation that was taking place in their societies. With the demise of the old labour movements, communities were breaking down and old social solidarities no longer existed.

I think you may have a point here. An experienced ruling class "pays attention" to the "social glue" that holds its society together.

Lots of societies are or have been "multi-cultural"...but to institutionalize that seems to be "something new" in modern capitalism.

They're not doing that because their hearts have seen a new light and the spirit of brotherly love has overcome their greed. :lol:

To actively encourage non-assimilation is a way of "slowing down" a process that will, in the long run, take place anyway -- the adaptation of the immigrant to the dominant culture of his/her "new country".

What does a ruling class gain by such a measure? Obviously, it can use cultural differences among workers against each other.

The deeper and more long-lasting those differences are, the more useful to the ruling class.

To be sure, it may strike the reader as "unfair" that someone who immigrates to another country must, in the long run, "give up their culture".

But that seems to be "how things work". It's hard to maintain an "enclave" of a foreign culture...the children and grand-children of immigrants lose interest in the "old ways".

In fact, the only way it can really be done is if that society's ruling class insists on rigid segregation of the immigrant community.

Once even a few doors are opened, the process of assimilation begins at once and accelerates as time passes.

Is the new ideology of "multi-culturalism" really a device to keep "those damn doors" shut a little longer?

This may be something worth considering.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Vanguard1917]

Why not? Marxism arose historically from the struggle between the working class and capitalist class; if that struggle no longer exists, what is the point of Marxism?

Good point. Marxism does become less socially relevant as past class struggles die down. But I think Marxism can help us better understand the decline of those struggles, and we can act and intervene accordingly.


But Marxism as a political movement, communism, is the expression of the living class struggle and a particular time in history. No class struggle ---> no communism.

Exactly. So we have to challenge the conditions of class peace that prevail today, if we're serious about wanting a renewed struggle for communism.


You're known for defending the need for a party composed of the vanguard, the most class-conscious part, of the working class, as I do also....but the vanguard of what if there's no class war? How can there be foremost participants in a nonexistent struggle?

Perhaps there can't - not in periods of class peace. It is in times of class conflict that the vanguard becomes vital.


If there is no class struggle today, your starting point, from which you derive your political positions, is.....something else. You don't say what. But as this discussion continues, we're finding deeper and deeper political roots of our disagreements on "multiculturalism" and affirmative action.....and less and less real common ground.

Again, you're right. We have to evaluate every demand, policy and action in the context of current conditions. In one period, calls for affirmative action can be seen to be progressive - because it is something that comes from below, part of a package of demands made by a dynamic movement in society. But in another historical context, calls for affirmative action may have more to do with insecurities at the top, decay at the bottom, a ruling multiculturalist consensus, postmodernist influence, collapse of past struggles, the promotion of victimhood, social fragmentation, etc. Marxism shouldn't form its principles independent of existing social realities. We should always make attempts to question everything in historical context. That should be our common ground. We can't understand current society through the ready-made theories of the past.

Manack:


What is the alternative multiculturalism? Promotion of one culture over another? The supression of particular cultures and forced assimilation? Are you suggesting that the state should dictate how people should live and only cater for one group? Or perhaps restricted the free movement of peoples to live where they choose to keep foreign cultures out?

The alternative to multiculturalism is the promotion of commonality. Multiculturalism is the celebration and promotion of difference in the public arena. We all have differences in our private lives, but we should all be treated as political equals in public. Multiculturalism encourages individuals to form their world-views according to artificially created, superficial 'cultural differences'. When people see themselves according to their so-called 'cultural identities', they pursue their interests around a perceived 'cultural identity' and they act according to that perceived 'cultural indentity'.

For over a hundred years, the key socialist principle was wokers' unity. Socialists understood that the real divisions in society have their roots in social class - not 'cultural diversity'. Assimilation was always a socialist demand. It was the solution to the ghettoisation of people, and a means to help foster working class solidarity. The alternative to assimilation is ghettoisation.

Redstar makes an important point when he argues that multiculturalism - the celebration of 'cultural differences' - has been institutionalised. Cultural differences have been politicised and embedded into public institutions. Cultural difference is no longer seen to be a private matter. In the workplace, the school, the university, the government - people's 'cultural differences' are being more and more politicised, i.e. made politically relevant. In my university we have proffesional 'cultural diversity' experts who advise the university on its multiculturalist policies. Our pathetic students' union organise festivals celebrating 'cultural diversity in the university'. An old friend of mine works for the civil service, and he tells me that he had to sit through a day-long 'course' where 'diversity experts' trained him and his workmates in the etiquette of multiculturalism in the workplace. He said that the gist of the 'course' was essentially that 'everyone is different and they should be treated as such'.

Everyone is expected to conform to multiculturalism. If you speak up against it, 'you are a racist'. But socialists do have to speak up against it. Multiculturalism encourages further divisions in society because it legitimises and normalises already existing divisions. Socialists need to challenge such divisions. We should never try to conceal such divisions or rationalise them under the blanket of multiculturalism. Socialists used to say 'Worker Black, Worker White, Workers of the World, Unite!' Now large section of the left join the ruling class in promoting division.

[Manack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 02:34 PM

What is the alternative multiculturalism? Promotion of one culture over another? The supression of particular cultures and forced assimilation? Are you suggesting that the state should dictate how people should live and only cater for one group? Or perhaps restricted the free movement of peoples to live where they choose to keep foreign cultures out?

The alternative to multiculturalism is the promotion of commonality. Multiculturalism is the celebration and promotion of difference in the public arena. We all have differences in our private lives, but we should all be treated as political equals in public. Multiculturalism encourages individuals to form their world-views according to artificially created, superficial 'cultural differences'. When people see themselves according to their so-called 'cultural identities', they pursue their interests around a perceived 'cultural identity' and they act according to that perceived 'cultural indentity'.

For over a hundred years, the key socialist principle was wokers' unity. Socialists understood that the real divisions in society have their roots in social class - not 'cultural diversity'. Assimilation was always a socialist demand. It was the solution to the ghettoisation of people, and a means to help foster working class solidarity. The alternative to assimilation is ghettoisation.

Redstar makes an important point when he argues that multiculturalism - the celebration of 'cultural differences' - has been institutionalised. Cultural differences have been politicised and embedded into public institutions. Cultural difference is no longer seen to be a private matter. In the workplace, the school, the university, the government - people's 'cultural differences' are being more and more politicised, i.e. made politically relevant. In my university we have proffesional 'cultural diversity' experts who advise the university on its multiculturalist policies. Our pathetic students' union organise festivals celebrating 'cultural diversity in the university'. An old friend of mine works for the civil service, and he tells me that he had to sit through a day-long 'course' where 'diversity experts' trained him and his workmates in the etiquette of multiculturalism in the workplace. He said that the gist of the 'course' was essentially that 'everyone is different and they should be treated as such'.

Everyone is expected to conform to multiculturalism. If you speak up against it, 'you are a racist'. But socialists do have to speak up against it. Multiculturalism encourages further divisions in society because it legitimises and normalises already existing divisions. Socialists need to challenge such divisions. We should never try to conceal such divisions or rationalise them under the blanket of multiculturalism. Socialists used to say 'Worker Black, Worker White, Workers of the World, Unite!' Now large section of the left join the ruling class in promoting division.
The objective of multiculturalism is to achieve political equality.

Assimilation is a thinly disguised word which means you will conform to my view. That is not equality. It means society is set up to cater for one group of people, those who are cultural minorities are less well served than those who are of the dominant group.

Isn't is better to develop a system which caters for a broad range of views rather than a narrow pattern of behaviour? How can you have political equality when one portion of the population is less supported than another?

The understanding of shared values and the commonality that all people have is of prime importance. But this can not be achieved if one says, "My culture is the way, you must conform". It is achieved when we say that your way is equal to my way and everyone has the same place in society.

Every person is going to have a 'world view' shaped by their enviroment. Their world view will be shaped by their so-called 'cultural identity'. And it will also be shaped by the greater society. Isn't it better that it is shaped by a society that is tolerant towards all people. Rather than a society which says this way is the best, all other people are lesser and have no place. And what if you are of the 'lesser' group. I am sure resentment against this society will be built into your world view.

I think it is an excellent step forward that diversity is supported in private and public institutions.

There was a time when women were not allowed into university. Then when they were they were not supported and treated as outsiders who didn't belong. I think that it was fantastic when student unions began to support womens issues on campus even though women were a minority as they should support everyone who is a student no matter their background, race or gender.

Even those of different cultures deserve representation from a union.

The ideology of assimilation and the associated failure to appreciate cultural diveristy is an inheritly conservative position. It is the same chant coming from the far right wing. "Assimilate or get out" is the rallying cry I hear from white supremist groups in my own country.

It is a failure to adapt to an increasingly interconnected world were peoples of different cultures need to understand and interact with each other on a constant basis.

As a socialist I think it is not good enough only to show solidarity with those of a similar cultural background to me. Or insist that only one culture deserves prominance in society and representation in our institutions. Political equality is achieved by treating everyone with equal tolerance and respect even if they aren't the same as you.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Manack
The objective of multiculturalism is to achieve political equality.

Sez who? And why should we believe them?

What does "political equality" even mean in an epoch of capitalist despotism?

And even further, are all cultures "created equal"?

Are all the characteristics of any given culture "equally sacred" and "equally worth preserving"?

To be sure, it is the reactionary characteristics of our own culture that must be our prime target. Just as it is the imperialism of "our own" ruling class that merits our sharpest and most vigorous attacks.

If you look at the Religion subforum, you'll see that I attack Christianity far more regularly than I attack Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or Judaism.

That doesn't mean I think that those other superstitions are "good"...I also attack them when I think it's appropriate.

The "culture" of modern capitalism is well worthy of our sustained attacks for many obvious reasons.

That doesn't mean that the semi-feudal or proto-capitalist cultures of other countries are "good"...in fact, in many respects they are even worse than what we have now.

Consider, for example, the practice of "arranged marriages" (backed by the threat of violence against any young person who refuses to cooperate).

Is this something "good" that we should "tolerate"?

Do people have a "right" to do that to their children?

And are we "obligated" to "respect" that "right"?

In the name of "multiculturalism"?


Assimilation is a thinly disguised word which means you will conform to my view.

Indeed it is. All cultures emphasize conformity and whatever persuasions it employs are usually backed by the threat of violence.

Modern capitalism primarily employs money...as you might expect. The more enthusiastically you embrace the dominant culture, the more money you're likely to make and the better you'll live.

But the violence is still there, even if it's usually "in the background".

A dominant culture "cannot" surrender its dominance unless it's historically "finished". If the people who developed that culture conclude that it's no longer useful, then they'll reject it and invent a new one or adopt one that they themselves regard as "superior".

I remember reading once about a young Native American kid (back in the 1940s) who was completely disgusted with the stagnation and poverty of reservation "life". He decided to move to Los Angeles and "pass for colored"...because he thought the life of African-Americans was "better" -- even in the period of segregation. The consequence of such a move is that he would have inevitably adopted African-American culture to fit his new identity.

Isn't that true for all of us?

If France, for example, turns out to be the first real communist country in the world, and some of us manage to escape our own capitalist prisons and make our way to France, do you imagine that we'll be able to "carry our cultural baggage" with us? That we can go on acting "just like we did" back in New York or Toronto or London or Sydney?

If we have any common sense at all, we will learn how to "act like" French communards.

More civilized. :)


Isn't is better to develop a system which caters for a broad range of views rather than a narrow pattern of behaviour?

All depends, doesn't it? What specific "views" do you want to "tolerate"?

Any or even all of the old shit from pre-communist cultures?

Or just the "harmless stuff" -- foods, music, clothing styles, etc.?

I expect that the "harmless stuff" will be preserved or, at worst, just "wither away" with changing fashions.

But I don't think there will be much "tolerance" for the "bad stuff".

Nor should there be. :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Manack]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Dec 29 2005, 02:49 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Dec 29 2005, 02:49 AM)
Manack
The objective of multiculturalism is to achieve political equality.

Sez who? And why should we believe them?

[/b]
Well obviously I said that. I believe multiculturalism to be a tool to achieve greater equality.

Now, whether you agree with me or not is up to your own critical thinking. I hope you take nothing on faith alone.


What does "political equality" even mean in an epoch of capitalist despotism?

That all members of society have equal opportunity to participate in society and all members of society are treated equally by that society.

Multiculturalism is merely one aspect of this. Far more unjust is wealth disparity allowing the rich greater ability to shape society than the poor.


And even further, are all cultures "created equal"?

Are all the characteristics of any given culture "equally sacred" and "equally worth preserving"?

It is not up to the state to dictate what is a good culture and what is a bad culture. That is tyranny. The state should allow everyone the freedom to live as they choose. Now that itself may conflict with aspects of some cultures and its only in that single case where a culture may interfere with a individuals freedom that the state should offer its inteference and protection.



Consider, for example, the practice of "arranged marriages" (backed by the threat of violence against any young person who refuses to cooperate).

Is this something "good" that we should "tolerate"?

Obviously this case the freedom of a person to choose is the key point.

If the person being married is an adult and they fully agree that a partnership arranged by their parents to a person they have never met is how they want to be married then the state should not interfere with that arrangement. They should be free to make that choice.

Neither the state, nor their parents should force them to be married in any particular way.


I remember reading once about a young Native American kid (back in the 1940s) who was completely disgusted with the stagnation and poverty of reservation "life". He decided to move to Los Angeles and "pass for colored"...because he thought the life of African-Americans was "better" -- even in the period of segregation. The consequence of such a move is that he would have inevitably adopted African-American culture to fit his new identity.

Isn't that true for all of us?

If France, for example, turns out to be the first real communist country in the world, and some of us manage to escape our own capitalist prisons and make our way to France, do you imagine that we'll be able to "carry our cultural baggage" with us? That we can go on acting "just like we did" back in New York or Toronto or London or Sydney?

If we have any common sense at all, we will learn how to "act like" French communards.

I disagree that is true for all of us. In this society some of us are radicals, bohemians and revolutionaries not herd animals. It often isn't 'common sense' to conform and behave like everyone else because for some ideals are held in higher value than personal prosperity.

In fact, society will never progress to any degree if people were anything like that. I can only imagine that in a 'real communist' state (whatever that is) people will still be able to push the boundaries of common thought and make the status quo uncomfortable.

Anything else would quickly lead to stagnation and self destruction.

[redstar2000]

It is not up to the state to dictate what is a good culture and what is a bad culture. That is tyranny. The state should allow everyone the freedom to live as they choose. Now that itself may conflict with aspects of some cultures and its only in that single case where a culture may interfere with a individual's freedom that the state should offer its interference and protection.

You seem to have an idealist concept of "the state"...that, for example, it has an "interest" in protecting "individual freedom".

A state does not stand "outside" or "above" the society that it governs. Quite the contrary, it is an integral part of that society.

It exists as a machine which the ruling class uses to rule. It is shaped for that purpose...and no other.

When you speak about what the state "should do" or "shouldn't do", you are speaking in abstractions about what you might consider an "ideal state".

That's "disconnected" from what real states actually do.

As it happens, real states act with greater or lesser vigor to reinforce the "dominant culture". It seems to them like the "natural" thing to do.

What, for example, would be the utility of "law" were it written/spoken in a language that a large portion of the population could not understand?

It simplifies the tasks of a state if everyone speaks and reads the same language...and thus immigrants are encouraged and even compelled to learn the dominant language.

And it simplifies the life of the immigrant as well. If you've ever been in a country where you didn't speak the dominant language, then you know how utterly helpless you feel. Even the simplest task that involves interacting with others becomes fraught with difficulties if you don't speak the local language.

When I spent two months in Cuba (back in 1964), I began to "pick up" fragments of Spanish out of necessity. I have no doubt that in two or three years there that I would have developed considerable fluency...and, quite possibly, just abandoned a good part of my "American culture" as simply useless in my new environment.

For example? In Cuba, you don't just drop your trash on the street as you walk along (like people do in America). You carry it to a public litter can and drop it there. Even cigarette butts!

When you go to a new country, things are different. The rational response is to adapt to those differences.

Of course, the younger you are, the easier that is. The sons and daughters of immigrants assimilate far more readily than their parents and grandparents.

You seem to think that this is "unfortunate" or even "terrible".

What is the point of preserving a culture that is no longer useful?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Manack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 05:14 AM
You seem to have an idealist concept of "the state"...that, for example, it has an "interest" in protecting "individual freedom".

A state does not stand "outside" or "above" the society that it governs. Quite the contrary, it is an integral part of that society.

It exists as a machine which the ruling class uses to rule. It is shaped for that purpose...and no other.
I find your arguement in disagreement with itself.

You say that the state does not stand "outside" of society.

Yet you also say that it is a machine of the ruling class.

It can't be both. If the state is an integral part of society than there is no ruling class. The problem tends to be the state creates an illusion of being a part of society while in fact it caters to the whims of a few.


When you speak about what the state "should do" or "shouldn't do", you are speaking in abstractions about what you might consider an "ideal state".

That's "disconnected" from what real states actually do.

As it happens, real states act with greater or lesser vigor to reinforce the "dominant culture". It seems to them like the "natural" thing to do.


What you term the, "natural" thing for "real state" to do. I term, "conservative tendencies" to resist reformation. This however, does not say that change is wrong. Or that change does not happen.

Is was the "natural" thing for a state to have heridatary rule for a heck of a long time. When change began, the state was highly resistant to the change. People used your exact arguement of "natural laws" to perpetuate monarchies for centuries.


When you go to a new country, things are different. The rational response is to adapt to those differences.

Of course, the younger you are, the easier that is. The sons and daughters of immigrants assimilate far more readily than their parents and grandparents.

You seem to think that this is "unfortunate" or even "terrible".

What is the point of preserving a culture that is no longer useful?

I spent time in Cuba in 1999. I am sure you would find it radically different today that it was in the 1960's.

I do think it would be unfortunate for immigrants to need to assimilate fully into their adopted country. I would much rather them to be able to integrate their culture with the native one. And too let the two cultures intertwine and merge, with the best aspects of both cultures being preserved and the worst disgarded.

That is how culture should be developed. Not by some arbitary bunch of laws that say, "Thou shalt wear blue jeans". It's completely arrogance to suggest that so and so a culture, "Is no longer useful"

In my opinion your quest for simplicity and short term utility robs a society of an ability to experiment and experience a much vaster body of knowledge. No entity lesser than a diety can possibly know how culture should develop. The best thing we have is to be able to experience and test as many options as possible to determine the path forward.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Manack
I do think it would be unfortunate for immigrants to need to assimilate fully into their adopted country. I would much rather them to be able to integrate their culture with the native one. And too let the two cultures intertwine and merge, with the best aspects of both cultures being preserved and the worst discarded.

Well, that happens, a little. Cultural borrowing goes on all the time anyway...and would happen even if there were no immigration at all.

But unless the immigrants bring with them an enormously attractive culture, the dominant culture will prevail...even if it is slightly modified.

A technologically more advanced culture is usually far more attractive to people than a less advanced culture...so "high tech" immigrants may indeed see a great deal of their culture adopted by the "low tech" country they immigrate to.

Otherwise, people see nothing to be gained by modifying their existing culture in any serious way...and so they insist (mildly or vehemently) that the immigrant conform to their culture.

I repeat: that's how things seem to work in actual practice.


It's completely arrogant to suggest that so and so culture, "is no longer useful".

That is not a "value judgment" that I am "imposing" on the immigrant. It's a judgment that the rational immigrant reaches on his/her own.

If one can live more comfortably by accepting the dominant culture of one's "new country", then why not do so?

Do you imagine that cultures are "sacred objects" that "must be preserved"?

They're not. They're just human inventions which can always be junked if a better (more useful) invention comes along.


In my opinion your quest for simplicity and short term utility robs a society of an ability to experiment and experience a much vaster body of knowledge.

Knowledge is not really the "same" as culture. Any culture over time acquires new knowledge and changes itself accordingly.

Although it is presently fashionable in some circles to speak of "western culture" with a sneer, the fact of the matter is that modern "westerners" have been remarkably skillful in borrowing useful ideas from other cultures.

I am enjoying my coffee and cigarettes this morning...even though coffee and tobacco were completely unknown in the "west" prior to 1600CE or so. :)

I've read that in England today curried chicken is actually more popular than the traditional "fish & chips".

How "un-British". :lol:

So I think your fears are groundless. The "good stuff" in different cultures will be preserved "no matter what" and the "bad stuff" will either "wither away" or be "suppressed"...also "no matter what".

Multi-culturalism might "slow down" that process...but it can't be stopped.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 05:14 AM
What, for example, would be the utility of "law" were it written/spoken in a language that a large portion of the population could not understand?

It simplifies the tasks of a state if everyone speaks and reads the same language...and thus immigrants are encouraged and even compelled to learn the dominant language.
Unless, of very course, those differences are useful to overexploit members of minorities, or hamper their access to public justice.

Which is the case with apartheid and ghettos.

And, frankly, "multiculturalism" strikes my nostrils with the peculiar stench of "equal but separated" nonsense.

Luís Henrique

[Vanguard1917]

I think i should make clear that it is not multicultural society - a society that is made up of various cultures - that i am criticising. The criticism is of the politicisation of cultural difference - a process through which 'cultural identities' are made politically relevant.


And, frankly, "multiculturalism" strikes my nostrils with the peculiar stench of "equal but separated" nonsense.

There are certainly some similarities in logic between multiculturalism and the old segregationist racism.

For example, in the past, anti-racists demanded the right for everyone to be treated the same regardless of race, religion, culture, etc. Today, multiculturalists call for the right to be different. This is clearly a segregationist mentality.

In Britain we have a government-funded organisation called the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). It is headed by Trevor Phillips. Last year, Phillips called for separate schools for underachieving black students. This is, in my eyes, an openly racist proposal by a government-funded organisation. In the past, anti-racists would have mobilised mass demonstrations against such policies. But because Phillips is black, and because he presented his case in the legitimate language of multiculturalism, his proposals did not meet the widespread angry opposition that it deserved.

While the SWP did not, as far as i know, support Phillips' proposal, they have said in the past that they 'critically' support the CRE. They argue that the problem is not multiculturalist policies but the lack of multiculturalist policies. But the reality is, such segregationist policies are the logical outcome of multiculturalist policies.

I should also note that the far-right British National Party (BNP) supported Phillips' proposals. BNP leader Nick Griffin has said that the party no longer believes that the white race is superior. Rather, he says that 'white Britons' are merely different, with a different culture and way of life. All races and cultures are good in their own ways, but they are all diverse - so diverse that they can't coexist together. Their monthly magazine is called 'Identity'. So, even the BNP is conforming to the legitimised language of multiculturalism. Not only that, it is merely following multiculturalism to its logical conclusion: people from different backgrounds are different; they have ways of life fundamentally different from our's; this affects the way they see the world and form their opinions; and in order to celebrate and promote such differences, segregation is the logical option.

Here's a bit of BNP multiculturalist logic, with a added bit a psuedo biological science, from their manifesto:


This must not be taken to mean or imply that we believe that any particular ethnic group or race is ‘superior' or ‘inferior'; we simply recognise that – as any biologist would be able to predict, and the new medical science of pharmacogenetics is now confirming – human populations which have undergone micro-evolutionary changes while being separated for many thousands of years have developed differences in many fields of endeavour, susceptibility to health problems, behavioural tendencies and such like.

To deny such differences on the grounds of egalitarian dogma has always been wrong, but to continue to do so in the light of the latest medical evidence is to condemn people to unnecessary suffering on account of racially specific health problems. We therefore believe that the myth that “we are all the same under the skin” will soon be as discredited as its feminist equivalent, and that all political parties will have to drastically amend their thinking to reflect the new reality in the not too distant future.

Taking these facts into account, we believe that it is far more likely than not that the historically established tendency (and we do not claim that it is any more than that) of the peoples of Western Europe in general - and of these islands in particular - to create and sustain social and political structures in which individual freedom, equality before the law, private property and popular participation in decision-making, is to some extent at least genetically pre-determined. Such tendencies would, naturally, both shape our culture around such institutions, and in turn tend to be reinforced by that culture.

If this is the case, then the idea that it is possible to allow large numbers of people from very different ethnic groups and cultures to settle here, on the assumption that it is just something about our bracing sea air that tends to make us natural born democrats, is fatally flawed. Just as is the idea that we can export our enthusiasm for representative government to other peoples, either by example or by carpet-bombing their countries into giving up their penchant for strong government or theocracy.

Hence, in order to guarantee the continued existence of our British democracy, we also intend to take long-term steps to guarantee the continued existence, as the clearly dominant ethnic, cultural and political group, of the native peoples of these islands – the English, Scots, Irish and Welsh – together with the limited numbers of peoples of European descent, who arrived as refugees or economic immigrants centuries or decades ago, and who have fully integrated into our society.

The BNP's stance is controversial: not only because its follows the multiculturalist logic to its logical conclusion, but because it argues that the differences between cultures is somehow predetermined by racial differences. This has, of course, now been widely discredited by society. It is no longer legitimate to rationalise race as the source of human difference. And rightly so.

But it has become perfectly OK to reason that people have almost predetermined cultural differences. Such differences are seen to be static, similar to the way that the BNP sees differences rooted in race. For example, the children of first-generation Muslim immigrants are expected to conform to a static 'Muslim culture' and 'identity' - not only by their parents, but now by the state as well. From an early age, the children are taught to 'celebrate their Muslim identity'. At work, they are obliged to identify themselves as 'British Muslims' - and the superficial differences of their 'Muslim identity' is promoted and celebrated in the workplace. These Muslims are then encouraged to assert themselves as Muslims. Their worldview has already been predetermined by their 'identity' as Muslims. They are further encouraged to form a ghetto mentality. People around them, who have been assigned different 'identities', see the Muslims as almost alien beings. When a large group of immigrants from a foreign land come to this country, they have been classified as 'different' by the multiculturalists before those immigrants have even set foot in Britain. And then they wonder why immigrants don't integrate into the community.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 03:29 PM
BNP leader Nick Griffin has said that the party no longer believes that the white race is superior. Rather, he says that 'white Britons' are merely different, with a different culture and way of life.
In which, if I am not mistaken, they are merely following steps previously taken by French Front Nationale (Le Pen).

Luís Henrique

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 09:29 AM
For example, in the past, anti-racists demanded the right for everyone to be treated the same regardless of race, religion, culture, etc. Today, multiculturalists call for the right to be different. This is clearly a segregationist mentality.
No, in the past liberals called for everyone to be "treated the same", supported color-blindness, etc, which are logical conclusions from classical liberal ideology. Now they mostly don't, they support "multiculturalism" as you say.

Which lets the Ward Connerlys of the world haul out the "I Have a Dream" speech to pillory inconsistent liberals. Whatever. That speech was always overrated.

This is similar to other liberal reversals of classic liberal ideology. For example, originally liberalism was a laissez-faire, free market ideology; this meaning of the word survives in terms like "neoliberalism." Since the New Deal, many liberals have supported government intervention in the economy to maintain social and economic stability.

But calling for everyone to be "treated the same" has never been a revolutionary Marxist position on anything, in relation to racism or anything else. The demand for equality before the law has been supported, in relation to racism as well as other things....but no revolutionary Marxist worthy of the name has ever thought that was a be-all and end-all.

If your starting point is a class starting point, you have to recognize there is a distinction between the oppressed and oppressor, as well as between the exploited and exploiter, and you cannot "treat" them both the "same."


In Britain we have a government-funded organisation called the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). It is headed by Trevor Phillips. Last year, Phillips called for separate schools for underachieving black students. This is, in my eyes, an openly racist proposal by a government-funded organisation.

Oh. Is all Black separatism is inherently racist? Many crypto-liberal leftists have always said so, certainly...Malcolm X was not so beloved by white leftists in his lifetime as he is today.

I won't attempt to evaluate this particular proposal, which I know little about. In the current period, with no mass movement pressuring such government-funded institutions, it's unlikely to be progressive.

But separation is not necessarily segregation. And there's nothing new about saying so.

Segregation implies separation without self-determination, and without Black control of the segregated schools or other institutions. It's necessary to distinguish between segregation imposed by the oppressor, and separation fought for by the oppressed. This is fairly ABC stuff pointed out by revolutionary Marxists since the 60s, if not earlier....not any trendy new "multiculturalism."


I should also note that the far-right British National Party (BNP) supported Phillips' proposals. BNP leader Nick Griffin has said that the party no longer believes that the white race is superior. Rather, he says that 'white Britons' are merely different, with a different culture and way of life. All races and cultures are good in their own ways, but they are all diverse - so diverse that they can't coexist together. Their monthly magazine is called 'Identity'. So, even the BNP is conforming to the legitimised language of multiculturalism. Not only that, it is merely following multiculturalism to its logical conclusion: people from different backgrounds are different; they have ways of life fundamentally different from our's; this affects the way they see the world and form their opinions; and in order to celebrate and promote such differences, segregation is the logical option.

Now this is new. And promoted even by people much more openly fascist or neo-Nazi than the BNP.

It's a pretty thin veil; clearly they do believe their own race is superior. Even in the (second) passage you quoted, the BNP suggests white people have an inherent attachment to democracy.

I think it's mostly based on a desire to form alliances between alliances between ultrarightists of different nationalities and "races": including some right-wing Black separatists and possibly Islamic fundamentalists and so forth.

You do have a point that they're taking the whole idea of inherent or static differences to its ultimate conclusion. And yes, that's one of the reasons why liberal multicultural ideology is bad and should not be adopted or even adapted to in any way. But of course that's true of any liberal ideology. And when you say....


When a large group of immigrants from a foreign land come to this country, they have been classified as 'different' by the multiculturalists before those immigrants have even set foot in Britain. And then they wonder why immigrants don't integrate into the community.

There you are again, explaining major social phenomena by means of bad ideology. And ignoring the French example, where a failure to integrate cannot be blamed on multiculturalism as I pointed out earlier in this thread.

If immigrants don't "integrate" or assimilate...it's usually because they're not allowed to. It's an effect of systematic racist discrimination and oppression.

And "Ghettoization" is an effect of that....plus existing on a lower economic level, aka superexploitation, so people can't afford to live anywhere else...

That racist discrimination, by the state and capitalist class as a whole, is the main place to focus one's fire....if you blame everything on multicultural ideology, while denying that systemic racism is still an important problem, you're not doing anything to combat the real causes of segregation, ghettoization, and divisions in the working class.

[Vanguard1917]

No, in the past liberals called for everyone to be "treated the same", supported color-blindness, etc, which are logical conclusions from classical liberal ideology. Now they mostly don't, they support "multiculturalism" as you say.

Anti-racists always placed a sense of universalism above difference. It's in this way that racism was attacked. Anti-racists called for black people to be seen as equals in the eyes of the law and to have the same political rights as white people (the right to vote, the right to stand for elections, the right to organise into political parties). This was seen to be a step forward from the previous situation in which race was politicised by the ruling class as a means to deny equal political and legal rights to black people. Now, in the language of multiculturalism, anti-racists and the state link arms and call for the politicisation of 'cultural differences'. There is an emphasis on human difference, not on human commonality.


But calling for everyone to be "treated the same" has never been a revolutionary Marxist position on anything, in relation to racism or anything else. The demand for equality before the law has been supported, in relation to racism as well as other things....but no revolutionary Marxist worthy of the name has ever thought that was a be-all and end-all.

Not the be-all and end-all, but it was perceived to be a step forward. Equal rights for black people, if only within a legal and formal framework, is a progressive change. Marx himself saw legal and formal changes to capitalist government - the abolishing of property qualifications for the right to vote, working class enfranchisement, the right to organise into trade unions, the right of workers to organise into political parties - as having progressive, if not revolutionary, potential.


Oh. Is all Black separatism is inherently racist? Many crypto-liberal leftists have always said so, certainly...Malcolm X was not so beloved by white leftists in his lifetime as he is today.

I won't attempt to evaluate this particular proposal, which I know little about. In the current period, with no mass movement pressuring such government-funded institutions, it's unlikely to be progressive.

In Britain, at this moment in time, such demands can never be progressive. Such demands are often misunderstood by the left as being demands that have their base in the grass-roots. When the Muslim community demands separate faith schools or when young Muslim girls demand the right to be different by covering their heads in cloth, the left assumes that these are sponatneous products of 'cultural differences' originating from below. In fact, these are products of social fragmentation. They're not things to be celebrated or promoted. British society is deeply atomised and fragmented. The movements and institutions that used to provide a means of solidarity and cohesion (the trade union, the anti-racist movements, mass working class political movements, parties, etc. or the church and the local community) have either disappeared or have been weakened. Multiculturalist and postmodernist logic normalises this fragmented state of society. It normalises the ghetto. It's a new phenomenon and it impacts on all aspects of social life.


It's a pretty thin veil; clearly they do believe their own race is superior. Even in the (second) passage you quoted, the BNP suggests white people have an inherent attachment to democracy.

But the similarity between the BNP's logic and that of multiculturalism is that it shies away from making value judgements about one particular culture. According to some multiculturalists, things like democracy and private property are 'cultural phenomena' particular to certain cultures, rather than universal aspects of historical development.


if you blame everything on multicultural ideology...

Multiculturalism is an ideological expression (a dominant one) of current fragmented conditions in capitalist society. If we're going to confront such conditions, we have to confront the ideologies that legitimise such conditions.

[JC1]

Ok, here is my 2 cent's:

I tend to agree with Vanguard1917. However, although I oppose "multiculturalism", I suppourt the right of nation's to self-determination.

The key diffrence is that that multiculturalism is a policy of seperation from without, on an un-equal basis.

However, when nation's do choose to pursue there national right's,on a non-multiculturalist basis, then there can be an equal relationship between nation's. This in turn lead's to commanality, becuase the nation's can interact on an equal basis.

This can not occur under capitalism, becuase capitalism bulid's up national diffrence's so that superexploitation can take place easily.

My point is that the right of nation's to self determination and multiculturalism are diffrent thing's.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 12:16 PM
Anti-racists always placed a sense of universalism above difference.
Which anti-racists? Again, there's nothing "universalist" about Marxism: communists emphasize the "difference" or better yet, the conflict, between exploiter and exploited, and therefore also between oppressed and oppressor.

"Why can't we all just get along" is not a communist slogan.


Not the be-all and end-all, but it was perceived to be a step forward. Equal rights for black people, if only within a legal and formal framework, is a progressive change. Marx himself saw legal and formal changes to capitalist government - the abolishing of property qualifications for the right to vote, working class enfranchisement, the right to organise into trade unions, the right of workers to organise into political parties - as having progressive, if not revolutionary, potential.

Yes, it was a step forward. A step forward that's largely been achieved. And if a step forward is "not the be-all and end-all" - as you say you agree - then you don't stop there. You ask: what is the next step forward beyond formal, legal equality.

Aka bourgeois equality, which is ultimately a fake and a sham. In more ways than in regard to racism: it's interesting to recall Marx's characterization of equal right as bourgeois right in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, or his point that the demand for economic equality only has progressive content only if it means the abolition of classes.


In Britain, at this moment in time, such demands can never be progressive. Such demands are often misunderstood by the left as being demands that have their base in the grass-roots. When the Muslim community demands separate faith schools or when young Muslim girls demand the right to be different by covering their heads in cloth, the left assumes that these are sponatneous products of 'cultural differences' originating from below.

Perhaps that assumption is wrong. And really, whether something is the "spontaneous products of 'cultural differences'" is neither here nor there when deciding whether to support something.

Certainly the demand for faith schools, separate or otherwise, can never be progressive....but then, let us oppose state funding of Christian as well as Muslim schools! To support the French state's fraudulent claim to be "secular" while continuing to finance Christian schools....what is that?

And since when does secularism require regulating individuals' dress, anyway? Secularism, aka church-state separation, restricts the actions of the state, not of individuals. The demand for the right to wear a headscarf, regardless of where it comes from, is a demand for individual religious freedom.

And then, the British state doesn't even claim to be secular, does it?

How about questioning where the motiviation behind headscarf ban comes from? How about focusing our fire primarily on the capitalist state and the dominant sections of the capitalist class, with the Muslim bourgeoisie and clergy a secondary target?


In fact, these are products of social fragmentation. They're not things to be celebrated or promoted. British society is deeply atomised and fragmented. The movements and institutions that used to provide a means of solidarity and cohesion (the trade union, the anti-racist movements, mass working class political movements, parties, etc. or the church and the local community) have either disappeared or have been weakened. Multiculturalist and postmodernist logic normalises this fragmented state of society. It normalises the ghetto. It's a new phenomenon and it impacts on all aspects of social life.

OK. I might add that if the ruling class needs an ideology which normalises social fragmentation, it's because it's unable to reverse it, and must accomodate and find ways to function with it.

So from what class direction do you oppose this social fragmentation and the multiculturalist ideology which normalizes it? You put together in one list the unifying institutions of the working class (e.g. trade union) and the ruling class (e.g. church) and even combine both in one word (parties.)

To social fragmentation, it's possible to counterpose ruling-class national unity or workers' class unity. IMO its inexcusable to combine the two or muddy up this crucial distinction. Communists are not for the rulers' efforts to combat social fragmentation; on the contrary we want to weaken the centralization of the state and their other institutions.

I agree with opposing multiculturalism, as with all ruling-class ideologies. But from the beginning I've wondered, if you're opposing it from the left or the right, on behalf of the communist future or the past of classic liberalism which "treats everyone the same"....

There is nothing to which opposition is automatically progressive. The question always is, what do you propose to replace it with. It's not what you're against, it's what you're for. And having declared the class struggle dead, at least for now, you don't seem to know what you're for.


But the similarity between the BNP's logic and that of multiculturalism is that it shies away from making value judgements about one particular culture. According to some multiculturalists, things like democracy and private property are 'cultural phenomena' particular to certain cultures, rather than universal aspects of historical development.

True. They are making use of multiculturalism here, and as I said in my last post I agree that's one reason to oppose multiculturalism.

'Course, they're also making use of the assumption that oppressed and oppressor should be treated the same....if everyone else gets to have their cultural difference enshrined as static, why not English culture or whatever.

They do this with everything, not just multiculturalism: if there is enforcement of discrimination against Black people, why not of discrimination against white people? If there are Black-only organizations, what's wrong with white-only organizations? Aren't the KKK and the NAACP equivalent? Etc.

If the fight against racism is going to move forward, past formal, legal equality and legalistic equivalence in everything, that "everyone should be treated the same" has to be confronted even more than multiculturalism.

[Vanguard1917]

Which anti-racists? Again, there's nothing "universalist" about Marxism: communists emphasize the "difference" or better yet, the conflict, between exploiter and exploited, and therefore also between oppressed and oppressor.

Of course there is - a universalist humanism is a key part of Marxism: a concept that human beings go through certain stages of historical development that are universal to all human beings. This is a key product of the major intellectual advances that took place during the Enlightenment period of the early bourgeois era. Marxism was the product of this period - it's greatest and most revolutionary product.

In contrast to bourgeois Enlightenment idealism, Marxism of course states that true universalism cannot be achieved in capitalist society. Capitalist society goes hand in hand with class division, exploitation and uneven development. The revolutionary Enlightenment ideas of rationalism, progress and universalism can't be fulfilled in practice within the confines of bourgeois society.

But, nonetheless, Marxism upholds such ideas against their opponents. We should defend rationalism against the postmodernist reaction against it. We should defend the necessity of progress against the environmentalists and primitivists. And we ought to defend concepts of universalism against multiculturalist emphases on human difference.

It's now a matter of fact that such backward ideas are creeping into bourgeois ideology. Postmodernism is no longer defended by a handful of disillusioned French intellectuals; it dominates intellectual thinking in the West. Environmentalism is no longer a grass-roots movement; its central theme - 'sustainable development' - is more and more being adopted by the bourgeoisie. And multiculturalism is no longer merely an ideology of sections of the anti-racist movement; it is now an official state ideology.


Certainly the demand for faith schools, separate or otherwise, can never be progressive....but then, let us oppose state funding of Christian as well as Muslim schools! To support the French state's fraudulent claim to be "secular" while continuing to finance Christian schools....what is that?

This is a right criticism of France's bogus claims to represent the revolutionary ideals of the Enlightenment - of which secularism was key. There have been major obstacles to secularism in capitalist society - and there still are. But this doesn't change the fact that secularism should be defended, and that multiculturalism is not the answer. And i don't buy the common idea that the recent riots in France were the product of "too much" assimilation. They were the result of a lack of assimilation - another concept attacked by the multiculturalists.


How about questioning where the motiviation behind headscarf ban comes from? How about focusing our fire primarily on the capitalist state and the dominant sections of the capitalist class, with the Muslim bourgeoisie and clergy a secondary target?

The motivation comes from various complex factors - and multiculturalism is a key factor. It is defended by the 'capitalist state and the dominant sections of the capitalist class'.


So from what class direction do you oppose this social fragmentation and the multiculturalist ideology which normalizes it? You put together in one list the unifying institutions of the working class (e.g. trade union) and the ruling class (e.g. church) and even combine both in one word (parties.)

I'm merely pointing out objective reality. The institutions that used to provide coherence in society have gone - and little has emerged to fill the gap. Multiculturalists attempt to rationalise this state of affairs.


To social fragmentation, it's possible to counterpose ruling-class national unity or workers' class unity. IMO its inexcusable to combine the two or muddy up this crucial distinction. Communists are not for the rulers' efforts to combat social fragmentation; on the contrary we want to weaken the centralization of the state and their other institutions.

In the absense of a revolutionary working class movement, bourgeois decay can only ever have a reactionary effect on society. Because if there's no class in society pushing for a revolutionary alternative, if there's no working class struggle, bourgeois class decay will only create a vacuum to be increasingly filled by the increasingly backward classes - usually the petit-bourgeoisie. Hence the petit-bourgeois reaction to capitalist 'globalisation' (large scale capitalist production), for example.


I agree with opposing multiculturalism, as with all ruling-class ideologies.

It's not a matter of opposing all bourgeois ideologies while being blind to the fact that certain bourgeois ideas are progressive and others are not. When the bourgeoisie is dynamic, more progressive ideas will prevail. When the bourgeoisie loses belief in itself and its role as a class, backward ideas will creep in. Backward ideas like multiculturalism are more products of the latter. Not all ruling class ideologies are equally backward.


There is nothing to which opposition is automatically progressive. The question always is, what do you propose to replace it with. It's not what you're against, it's what you're for. And having declared the class struggle dead, at least for now, you don't seem to know what you're for.

I'm for defending progress against its opponents. There can't be a class analysis of society developed under conditions of class conflict in analysing present conditions of class peace.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 03:14 PM

Which anti-racists? Again, there's nothing "universalist" about Marxism: communists emphasize the "difference" or better yet, the conflict, between exploiter and exploited, and therefore also between oppressed and oppressor.

Of course there is - a universalist humanism is a key part of Marxism: a concept that human beings go through certain stages of historical development that are universal to all human beings.
What? No, only the most vulgar oversimplification of Marxism says all parts of the world go through the same historical stages. I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of eggs anyway, and less and less sure what you mean by "universalism."

I'm starting to wonder if it's a pseudonym for the bourgeois-democratic fiction that "all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Which certainly has never been given credence by Marxists.


And i don't buy the common idea that the recent riots in France were the product of "too much" assimilation.

Who says that? It's far more commonly said they proved there was no assimilation in France - that the French capitalists' policy of color-blindness failed to produce it.

Certainly that's what I said earlier in this thread, and you've utterly avoided the point ever since.



How about questioning where the motiviation behind headscarf ban comes from? How about focusing our fire primarily on the capitalist state and the dominant sections of the capitalist class, with the Muslim bourgeoisie and clergy a secondary target?

The motivation comes from various complex factors - and multiculturalism is a key factor.

What? The motivation behind the headscarf ban is multiculturalism? That makes the exact opposite of sense.

So lemme just suggest the motivation is to buttress the position of Christianity as France's dominant religion.


It is defended by the 'capitalist state and the dominant sections of the capitalist class'.

Not in France it ain't.


I'm merely pointing out objective reality.

I've noticed. But I don't think it's unreasonable to ask where you stand.


In the absense of a revolutionary working class movement, bourgeois decay can only ever have a reactionary effect on society.

And in the absence of a revolutionary working-class perspective, opposition to one or another particular aspect of capitalist rule, like say multiculturalism, can very easily have the same.


It's not a matter of opposing all bourgeois ideologies while being blind to the fact that certain bourgeois ideas are progressive and others are not. When the bourgeoisie is dynamic, more progressive ideas will prevail.

I'm sorry, but the bourgeoisie has not played a progressive role for over a century now. Mere support for bourgeois democracy is an empty stand.

[Vanguard1917]

What? No, only the most vulgar oversimplification of Marxism says all parts of the world go through the same historical stages. I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of eggs anyway, and less and less sure what you mean by "universalism."

I'm starting to wonder if it's a pseudonym for the bourgeois-democratic fiction that "all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Which certainly has never been given credence by Marxists.

Marxism states that human beings, regardless of race and culture, are subjected to the universal laws of the historical process.

Multiculturalists, on the other hand, normalise the lack of development in the underdeveloped sections of the world by claiming that such development can only be a phenomenon particular only to Western cultures. It is almost argued that industrial development is alien to other cultures.

Read this (http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/malik/not-equal.htm)


Who says that? It's far more commonly said they proved there was no assimilation in France - that the French capitalists' policy of color-blindness failed to produce it.

The multiculturalists argued that assimilation cannot work in a society made up of various different cultures. Instead, they argue that we should promote cultural diversities.


What? The motivation behind the headscarf ban is multiculturalism? That makes the exact opposite of sense.

So lemme just suggest the motivation is to buttress the position of Christianity as France's dominant religion.

I was trying to say that multiculturalism is a key factor for why young Muslim girls are pursuing demands to wear a hijab in the first place.


And in the absence of a revolutionary working-class perspective, opposition to one or another particular aspect of capitalist rule, like say multiculturalism, can very easily have the same.

You can have whatever perspective you desire. In the absence of a real life working class movement, however, Marxist perspectives set in past periods are more likely to prove to be wrong.

But you're right to some extent. In the absence of a revolutionary alternative, opposition to the ruling class can often have a reactionary impact - because such opposition, in the absence of a working class movement, comes from the other classes.

We are living in a period where working class politics has been greatly diminished. This has allowed petit-bourgeois politics to gain increasing levels of prevalence. It's now the petit-bourgeoisie that poses its ideas to be the radical alternative. Of course, this is nothing new - the petit-bourgeoisie has posed itself to be a radical force since the beginnings of the capitalist era. But what is new is that petit-bourgeois ideas today are now able to prosper free from any working class resistance.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 08:26 PM

What? No, only the most vulgar oversimplification of Marxism says all parts of the world go through the same historical stages. I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of eggs anyway, and less and less sure what you mean by "universalism."

I'm starting to wonder if it's a pseudonym for the bourgeois-democratic fiction that "all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Which certainly has never been given credence by Marxists.

Marxism states that human beings, regardless of race and culture, are subjected to the universal laws of the historical process.

Multiculturalists, on the other hand, normalise the lack of development in the underdeveloped sections of the world by claiming that such development can only be a phenomenon particular only to Western cultures. It is almost argued that industrial development is alien to other cultures.

Read this (http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/malik/not-equal.htm)
Sure, "differently technologised" and all that nonsense.

Of course, there's till the same question you've been evaded all along: you're against multiculturalism, what are you for?

The author of that article is for the Enlightenment and classic bourgeois liberal thought. Fine, that was progressive in its time. But by itself, it's insufficient now.

I want the accompllishments and cultural heritage of the Enlightenment to belong to everyone in the world - to be built on futher.

If you think a class-struggle based analysis is obsolete, how much more obsolete is 18th-century liberal thought?

[Vanguard1917]

Of course, there's till the same question you've been evaded all along: you're against multiculturalism, what are you for?

To confront the fragmentation that exists in the working class, rather than attempt to rationalise such fragmentation through the logic of multiculturalism.


I want the accompllishments and cultural heritage of the Enlightenment to belong to everyone in the world - to be built on futher.

Good to hear it.


If you think a class-struggle based analysis is obsolete, how much more obsolete is 18th-century liberal thought?

Some argue that the 'Enlightenment project' has been abandoned. If socialism was part of a logical progression of the Enlightenment project, then we have to uphold the achievements of the Enlightenment. If the achievements of the Enlightenment are being widely denounced, the project for a socialist future has already been degraded.

The defeat of the working class - a class previously thought by radicals to be the revolutionary subject of history responsible for upholding and carrying out the project of the Enlightenment to its logical conclusions - is at the root of the loss of faith in mankind's ability to transform its circumstances. As i said before, this has allowed petit-bourgeois fears of progress to be expressed in the mainstream without any working class resistance. Every 'new social movement' today that poses itself to be radical and progressive - but is in fact backward and petit-bourgeois - lacks any working class influence. From environmentalism to anti-globalisation to multiculturalism, the petit-bourgeoisie is increasingly baring its teeth unchallenged.