PostRevolutionary Damages for Oppressed Minorities

[MurderInc]

A discussion on another board here caused me to make this general question of Theory:

There is in the United States (and perhaps other nations, I don't know) talk about damages or repaations paid to various groups who were harmed in some way by Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century policies (and in the case of the settled case of the Japanese-Americans, TwentiethCentury also.)

Damages, cash money for harm caused by a defendant paid to a plaintiff, can only exist in a world where money defines wealth. Should there be a successful revolution in the U.S., wouldn't there be no way to pay damages of any kind or any meaningful way?

My reasoning is that there would be no want, and no privilege. These are two things money handles quite well. Remove wealth, and you remove a host of things people can do. (Same with products, as people would, I presume, not receive more products than others based on events from 1776 - 1945.)

[piet11111]

i dont see any point in doing this we are as much "victims" of our opressors as anyone else.

nor should we ever consider picking up the tab of our opressors and pay their debts to another capitalist nation.

the money in all likelyness would never even reach the intended poeple anyway since most of the former colony's are run by warlords or currupt politicians they would use that money on themselves or to buy weapons to fight a war.

we should use the money we have to buy machines and resources and to hire experts.

[Jesus Christ!]

We would be paying for things we didn't do in more than one way. We didn't do it because the ruling class did it. We also didn't do it because neither us nor the "vicitims" were alive during the time. Unless you can make a reasonable claim that what a family went though hundreds of years ago somehow affects ou today I don't see why you should get paid for it.

[VermontLeft]

no, there wont be any "suiing" after a revolution... :rolleyes:

[LSD]

The thing about reparations in class society is that they're not so much about past harm as they are about continuing harm.

Affirmative action, for instance, isn't about correcting slavery or combatting 1950s racism; it's about combatting the prejeduce and hate that still exists. Now, one can make the argument that the disenfranchisement of minorities traces back to historical events.

But reparations aren't about that history, they're about their present day manifestation.

Japanese Americans detained by the government between '42 and '45 were obviously harmed by their experiences, but any capital payment that they've recieved since has absolutely no bearing on that.

Their detention, after all, was half a century ago. No amount of money is going to "make it better"; nor is it going to "punish" a federal government that can easily afford it.

It's not even going to disuade if from doing the exact same thing again since the present benefits are still too tempting (see: Guantanamo Bay).

No, in reality, internment reparations were about property loss and public relations.

Asians who were locked up due to their race didn't just lose their freedom, they also lost material posesions, most of which they didn't ever get back. Now while their arrest may have been morally reprehensible, as far as the capitalist is concerned, their deprivation of capital is even worse! :o

After all, if the state can steal from poor Asians, it might someday steal from the rich. Therefore any affront to the institutions of capital, and statist deprivation of property is deeply offensive to the "spirit" and reality of capitalism.

Also, of course, Japanes internment was just so obviously horrendous that, like with holocaust retributions, any government that failed to "compensate" the victims would be facing a press nightmare. The grosse imbalance of capitalism might become a little too publicized in such an expose and it would much easier to just let the matter "rest".

Like with all bourgeois legislation, it's important to recognize the class interest being served. Reparations, whether they're for Asians, blacks, immigrants, or whomever, are always about preserving the status quo.

The rulling class is willing to make occasional concessions and compromises (especially if they don't have to pay) and this is one of those times.

After a revolution, however, such concerns will be moot. There will be no more manifestations of past injustices or present-day crimes to hide, because we will have abolished class society and capital despotism.

In a post-revolutionary society, effective reparations are both fundamental and universal. The nature of the society, after all, will be entirely democratic and egalitarian.

No, there will be no way to "repare the past", but there isn't now either. Fixing the past is not physically possible.Granting people full and complete social equality, however, is a far greater gift than any possible capital "damages" and is, in the long run, much more socially important.

[Janus]

There is in the United States (and perhaps other nations, I don't know) talk about damages or repaations paid to various groups who were harmed in some way by Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century policies (and in the case of the settled case of the Japanese-Americans, TwentiethCentury also.)
Well, what about the Native Americans? What reparations could the US pay for all the land that they took?


Fixing the past is not physically possible.Granting people full and complete social equality, however, is a far greater gift than any possible capital "damages" and is, in the long run, much more socially important.
I defintely agree. Besides, in a post-revolutionary society, a distribution of wealth would prevent most economic based crimes thus preventing any claims for reparations. However, you can't prevent some from trying.

[MurderInc]

I'm happy there is so much agreement along these lines of non-payment or special class distinctions, as total equality is far more important than anything which happened to one's grandfathers.

Janus: I purposely left out the land "lost" by the American Indians, as all people throughout the history of the world have built upon "taken" land from others. In the often zealous attempt by the political revolutionary left to paint the United States as some great evil, people forget that ALL nations exist by the taking of land from a previous group. I do not place the American Indians in some "specialized" group when it comes to land.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 12:48 AM
I'm happy there is so much agreement along these lines of non-payment or special class distinctions, as total equality is far more important than anything which happened to one's grandfathers.

Janus: I purposely left out the land "lost" by the American Indians, as all people throughout the history of the world have built upon "taken" land from others. In the often zealous attempt by the political revolutionary left to paint the United States as some great evil, people forget that ALL nations exist by the taking of land from a previous group. I do not place the American Indians in some "specialized" group when it comes to land.
There are cases of new populations being integrated into existing ones, not taking their land.

And just so you know, Indians are still being pushed off their land in the USA.

I support payment to victims of wars, genocide and so on. That's been one of the demands of my party, the IRSP.

[apathy maybe]

I basically agree with LSD. To a point.

Reparations today are about injustices stemming from injustices in the past. If Aboriginal people were not driven from the land, and made into a "third world" community in a "first world" nation then there would be no need to compensate them.

If Africans were not brought from Africa to the USA and Caribbean then their descendents would not be living in poverty today.

I see it more of type of "positive discrimination" then preserving the status quo. It is about helping these people or their descendents to recover or gain equality in society. As such in a post-capitalist, post-state society, I think that it would not be necessary.

[Fistful of Steel]

I don't believe that the sins of the father get passed on to the son or daughter. Sooo... Random compensation I am not for especially. I think though, that a lot of oppressed minorities are in the state of being as pretty much second-class citizens, and I'd want to help them get on the same level as everyone else regardless of things done in the past.