capital over race

[black magick hustla]

I have been wondering about this lately.


Does capitalism inherently evolves into an anti-racist force?

Modern capitalism certainly is a bit different from its 19th cenutry counterpart. With the advent of the mass media and recently the internet, the bourgeosie is certainly becoming a much more global and unified entitiy, We do not see them as adhered to patriotic metababble and racial nonsense, rather, we see them as a unified force that is separating from nationalistic consciousness that is adopting a more global consciousness.

I remember Marx arguing that the workingman doesn't have a country.

Does the bourgeosie have a country?

Certainly, it is against the interest of the bourgeosie to discriminate people based on race, because that would end in alienating potential consumers because of a backward metaphysical concept.

Isn't discrimination based on race being superseded completely by discrimination based on capital?

Certainly minorities are still opressed in first world advanced countries, but this opression is lessening as the capitalist [which is not stupid] istops caring about race or nation, and rather, they are becoming much more interested in capital.

Certainly, before having capital didn't meant as much as having noble blood.

Are we reaching an age were race is becoming less and less of an issue, and instead it is being superseded by capital as the sole determinant of social value?

Place your thoughts.

edit: fuck, someone move this to theory or discrimation

[Ol' Dirty]

In escence, hell no!

Actualy, in the Sixteenth century, white European Aristocrats and merchants took to the continent of Africa, and met Congolese, Malinese, Bantu peoples. They wre regarded as an inferior "race", a people to be enslaved. And that's just what they did.

And guess what? The racists made millions off of the backs of the black people of Africa, subjugating them to the terror of white supremacy. They were called "Niggers", Negroes, "Negroids" and other things. Chattel slavery created many mixed children. They were called "lightskins" and "mulattoes". People of Black and mixed ethnicty were consideed inhuman, and socialy inferior. This led to shattel slavery and segragation, the civil rights movement and many second class citizens.

In America, blacks have the highest rate of illness in the nation! Is this because their genes are inferior? Of course not! They were merely oppressed socialy by capitalism.

REally, capitalism is based upon racist ideals.

[LSD]

Yes, as a social/historical force, capitalism is anti-racism, but that doesn't mean that individual capitalists are.

Remember, the capitalists' primary goal is the perpetuation of capital. If racism can help achieve that, they have no cumpuction about using it.

As Muigwithania rightfully points out, while enslaving the native peoples of Africa was not strictly in line with "capitalist ideals", it most certainly was in the interest of the European settlers.

That's the fundamental flaw with "individualist" economics. Blathering about "invisible hands" and "market conensus" aside, when the entire system is predicated on selfishness, "principles" don't matter.

Economic liberals, especially of the libertarian variety, will go on ad nauseum about how the "free market" does not discriminate. But what they fail to realize is that the "free market" is only as "principled" a those who make it up. The bourgeoisie doesn't care about capitalist "ideals" any more than they care about morality.

Insitutional racism is an effective method of limiting potential competition and keeping the population divided and the bourgeoisie is morethan willing to exploit it.

Eventually, capitalism will probably, as Marx predicted, elminate all precapitalist divisions and leave us with only the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. But it's going to be a long time.

Personally, I don't think we can afford to wait.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 10:18 PM
In escence, hell no!

Actualy, in the Sixteenth century, white European Aristocrats and merchants took to the continent of Africa, and met Congolese, Malinese, Bantu peoples. They wre regarded as an inferior "race", a people to be enslaved. And that's just what they did.

And guess what? The racists made millions off of the backs of the black people of Africa, subjugating them to the terror of white supremacy. They were called "Niggers", Negroes, "Negroids" and other things. Chattel slavery created many mixed children. They were called "lightskins" and "mulattoes". People of Black and mixed ethnicty were consideed inhuman, and socialy inferior. This led to shattel slavery and segragation, the civil rights movement and many second class citizens.

In America, blacks have the highest rate of illness in the nation! Is this because their genes are inferior? Of course not! They were merely oppressed socialy by capitalism.
Thanks.

I do understand what you mean, and believe me I am a staunch anti-capitalist, not an apologist.

However, it is also true that in the American Civil War, the anti-slavery force was financed by big industrial capitalists not because they saw themselves as morally superior, but because they understood that such slavery was against their interests

The most reactionary elements were made up by the southern plantation class, which was also backward in terms of production.

It is true that the civil war didn't end with institutional racism, but it was a big blow against racial inequality.



Yes. as a social/historical force, capitalism is anti-racism, but that doesn't mean that individual capitalists are.

Remember, the primary goal for capitalists is the perpetuattion their ownership of capital. If racism can help achieve that, they have no cumpuction about using it.

As Muigwithania rightfully points out, while enslaving the native peoples of Africa was not strictly in line with "capitalist ideals", it most certainly was in the interest of the European settlers.

That's the fundamental flaw with "individualist" economics. Blathering about "invisible hands" and "market conensus" aside, when the entire system is predicated on selfishness, "principles" don't matter.

Economic liberals, especially of the libertarian variety, will got on ad nauseum about how the "free market" does not discriminate. But what they fail to realize is that the "free market" is only as "principles" a those who make it up. The bourgeoisie doesn't care about capitalist "ideals" any more than they care about morality. Insitutional racism is an effective method of limiting potential competition and keeping the population divided.

Eventually, capitalism will probably, as Marx predicted, elminate all precapitalist divisions and leave us with only the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. But it's going to be a long time.

Personally, I don't think we can afford to wait.

I am not arguing that big capitalists believe in that ethical crap about "free market and competition".

However, I think it is rather evident that today, it is not in the interest of big capitalists to be racist. They chant their crappy songs about globalizatrion and communication to promote their internationalist agenda of dominating the world through capital.

There aren't many "outright racist" big capitalists, or atleast big capitalists that admit being racist.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 06:37 PM
Yes, as a social/historical force, capitalism is anti-racism, but that doesn't mean that individual capitalists are.
Reification. What is this "social/historic force", capitalism, separate from individual capitalists?

There's a reason why Marx rarely used this term "capitalism." History is made by people - although in circumstances not of their choosing.

The capitalist class is a racist force.


Eventually, capitalism will probably, as Marx predicted, elminate all precapitalist divisions and leave us with only the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

Where did Marx predict this? In any case, highly improbable. Capitalists are no longer a revolutionary force - they use precapitalist hangovers, rather than seeking to eliminate them. That's one change since Marx's day....though it was somewhat true even then.

And as Muigwithania points out, racism is not a "precapitalist division." It is a product of capitalism.

A modern product of the quest for profits in the context of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the conquest of the Americas, the growing domination of rising capitalist Europe over the rest of the world.

Prior to that time, of course, there were all kinds of conquests, enslavements, and justifications for them. But none of them depended primarily on skin color.

The Greeks, for example, defined a "barbarian" as anyone who lacked Greek language and culture. The Muslim world justified slavery primarily of non-Muslims - many slaves were imported from Eastern Europe.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 06:59 PM
However, it is also true that in the American Civil War, the anti-slavery force was financed by big industrial capitalists not because they saw themselves as morally superior, but because they understood that such slavery was against their interests

The most reactionary elements were made up by the southern plantation class, which was also backward in terms of production.

It is true that the civil war didn't end with institutional racism, but it was a big blow against racial inequality.
Yes. But then what happened?

In 1877 - the same year U.S. troops broke the railroad strike and uprising - Radical Reconstruction was ended.

Under Radical Reconstruction, Black people had the right to vote, many were elected to office, the first public schools were opened, and systemic racism was on the way out.

But the capitalists concluded this didn't serve their interests. Especially as freed slaves were beginning to demand "Forty Acres and a Mule."

So a section of them led - and the rest tolerated - a bloody counterrevolution which took away the democratic rights of Black people and imposed racist segregation. This continued for decades. Segregation included not only the southeastern states, but federal institutions like the military.

Segregation was finally ended by a mass movement of Black workers. Not by the workings of the market, or the willing action of capitalists. (To the degree they acted to end segregation, it was under the pressure of the mass movement and of the anticolonial revolution worldwide.)


There aren't many "outright racist" big capitalists, or atleast big capitalists that admit being racist.

True, but so what? Their actions speak louder.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 02:27 AM

Yes. But then what happened?

In 1877 - the same year U.S. troops broke the railroad strike and uprising - Radical Reconstruction was ended.

Under Radical Reconstruction, Black people had the right to vote, many were elected to office, the first public schools were opened, and systemic racism was on the way out.

But the capitalists concluded this didn't serve their interests. Especially as freed slaves were beginning to demand "Forty Acres and a Mule."

So a section of them led - and the rest tolerated - a bloody counterrevolution which took away the democratic rights of Black people and imposed racist segregation. This continued for decades. Segregation included not only the southeastern states, but federal institutions like the military.

Segregation was finally ended by a mass movement of Black workers. Not by the workings of the market, or the willing action of capitalists. (To the degree they acted to end segregation, it was under the pressure of the mass movement and of the anticolonial revolution worldwide.)



You are not seeing the big picture thoigh.

The south was always the most backward region in terms of production, and concidentally, it was the most reactionary.

The north was always more progressive and at the same time, more capitalistic.

I think racism by itself is a a pre-capitalist notion, and thus capitalism, which bases itself on a materialistic concept as capital, rather than an idealistic nonsense like race, abolishes much idealism by itself, including racism.

It is true that the civil rights were won by mass actions of black workers, but wasn't racism itself at the end, against the capitalist's interests?

In this age of postmodernity, the capitalists are not only looking for hard workers, they are looking for consumers.

This is not 19th century capitalism, leisure time is extremely important to the capitalist.

And thus, people of all races are potential consumers. It is stupid to alienate a sector because of backward ideas.


True, but so what? Their actions speak louder.

I think much of the "institutional racism" in advanced capitalist countries today is not there because of backward prejudice, it is more likely inherited through social class.

Black people for example, had the disadvantage of being descendants of slaves and of segregated workers, and as such, they haven't been able to release themselves from those historical shackles. They didn't inherit as much valuable property as let say, the descendants of free white men.

[LSD]

Reification. What is this "social/historic force", capitalism, separate from individual capitalists?

The petty whims of individual capitalists do not define capitalism any more than the USSR defined socialism.

Capitalism is a socioeconomic organizational model. Obviously as a class-based model, it relies heavily on the interests of its rulling class. But in sociological terms its much more than that. Capitalism is not just another word for despotism. What individual owners want today matters in terms of how the rest of us live, but it doesn't define our society.

Capitalist production is gradually moving us into binary class dynamics. The fundamental nature of the "market" is that capital rules absolutely. Racism, sexism, etc... they may opportune tools in the short-run, but they are all ultimately dwarfed by its overwhelming power.


Where did Marx predict this?

"Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other -- bourgeoisie and proletariat."
-- Manifesto of the Communist Party


Capitalists are no longer a revolutionary force - they use precapitalist hangovers, rather than seeking to eliminate them.

No one said that capitalism was "revolutionary", just that it serves one and only one master -- profit.

If racism can help generate capital, racism will be employed; if "tolerance" can generate more, racism will be abandoned. The class interests of the bourgeoisie is represented by capital investments, not by irrational "beliefs".

Much of the rulling class may indeed be personally racist, but that's now why racism is instutionalized in modern society. Racism and racist values are, rather, promoted because, at present, they can be exploited to generate money.

In the end, though, like all other precapitalist divisions, the maximization of profit nescessitates that racism be stripped away. It's just too much of a "hamper" on the "market".

Racism is a liability and a political danger to the rulling class. It may help temporarily in keeping significant segments of the population oppressed, but it does so at the cost of economic freedom and political credibility.

That's why the first world has been gradually transitioning away from racial politics. That's not to say that racism is "gone", far from it! But if things continue in the direction they're headed, capitalist divisions will eventually fully supplant racial ones.

Again, though, I highly doubt that we can afford to wait.


And as Muigwithania points out, racism is not a "precapitalist division." It is a product of capitalism.

Nonsense. Racism predates capitalism by centuries.

You're correct in that antiquarian cultures generally did not discriminate based on what we would today call "race", but to assert that racism did not emerge until after the rise of the bourgoisie is farcical.

Racism was a convenient excuse for colonial Europeans to put aside any "Christian" ethical pangs and get on with the business of plundering the world. But it wasn't capitalism that was driving the early "explorers", it was mercantilism.

Like sexism, racism is a precapitalist "belief" which, while comonly exploited by capitalists, predated liberal economics by generations. To assert otherwise is to deny the clear evidence of history.


Segregation was finally ended by a mass movement of Black workers.

That's an oversimplification and you know it.

By the mid twentieth century, segregation had become an embarasment. There can be no doubt that the civil rights movment played an important role in the eventual fall of "Jim Crow", but black Americans had been agitating for decades.

As you rightly point out, in the 1870s, despite the headiness of the times, despite the radicalization of the general black population, the bourgeoisie was still able to push its segregationist policies forward.

In the 1960s, however, they were no longer able to. In part, this can be traced to a strengthening of the anti-segregation movement, but it was also due to a decline in bourgeois support for racist legislation.

That's not to say that the capitlaists "turned good", it's just to say that they finally recognized that racist laws were hurting their profit margins.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 09:33 PM

Where did Marx predict this?

"Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other -- bourgeoisie and proletariat."
-- Manifesto of the Communist Party
Hardly a prediction that all precapitalist divisions would cease to exist. You're projecting a Marx in your own image - a lover of oversimplification, with a childish faith in the capitalist class.


Racism is a liability and a political danger to the rulling class.

On the contrary. The reduction of racism - the greater unity of the working class - is a danger to the ruling class.


Racism was a convenient excuse for colonial Europeans to put aside any "Christian" ethical pangs and get on with the business of plundering the world. But it wasn't capitalism that was driving the early "explorers", it was mercantilism.

What a pointless word-quibble - mercantilism not a kind of capitalism?

Anyway: By the time slavery became a major factor, the rise of capitalism was well underway. Western-hemisphere slavery was all about production for the world market, and slaves themselves were a major world-market commodity. Joint-stock companies were set up to exploit the colonies, as early as 1600.

Terminological quibbles aside, this is recognized by most historians: that's why they use the term "early modern" to describe the period starting in the 1500s or even 1400s.


Like sexism, racism is a precapitalist "belief"

That's part of your problem: you start with racism as a belief, not as a systemic practice.

As a materialist, I have a different approach. Actions speak louder; watch the hands, not the lips.



Segregation was finally ended by a mass movement of Black workers.

That's an oversimplification and you know it.

I'm fairly sure that I know far more than you do on about the civil rights movement, so thanks for not claiming I'm ignorant. But no thanks for the suggestion I'm a hypocrite: what I know is what I'm saying.


By the mid twentieth century, segregation had become an embarasment.

A strange idea - that the ruling class is terrified of embarassment. Not an accurate one. They'll gladly suffer embarassment to preserve their privileges and power. Consider Washington's persistence in Vietnam and Iraq.

Segregation had become a foreign-policy liability because of the colonalial revolution, which I mentioned earlier. As laid out in the State Deparment's brief in Brown v. Board of Education, for example.

But for segregation to end in practice, for Brown v Board of Education to be enforced - that came considerably later, as the civil rights movement reached its height.


There can be no doubt that the civil rights movment played an important role in the eventual fall of "Jim Crow"

Gee. Thanks for admitting that "an important role"? But the civil rights movement is secondary to the "embarassment" of the ruling class, apparently - it's only mentioned as an afterthought.

That'd be news even to the better bourgeois historians - but there was this film "Mississippi Burning" which reflected views secondary to yours. Is that where you got your ideas about the end of segregation? I can't see where else.

But this is typical of your usual views on the causes of progressive change. The ruling class usually appears as the main agent of progress in your version; working people secondarily if at all.


, but black Americans had been agitating for decades.

No mass movement emerged 'til after WWII. In parallel with the colonial revolution, which also surged up in a big way when the thieves fell out.

Black people were also strengthened and emboldened by their inroads into basic industry during that war, and the experience of many as soldiers.

"Decades" only if you mean two decades. The movement began in the 50s - so the ruling class began to give ground, with Brown vs Board of Education.

And reached its height in the 60s, when the ruling class reluctantly conceded the rest. Dragging its feet every step of the way. Even the liberal icons, the Kennedys, were willing to provide even the most basic protection from racist violence - only after tremendous pressure was brought to bear on them.

If you want to talk about changes in attitude which made this easier - why not consider changes in attitude among white workers, first of all? I might also mention the unionization of basic industry - by the CIO, which enforced no color line - during the 30s.....

I mean, if you're going to consider changes between 1877 and 1965, why just the alleged growing enlightenment of the ruling class? Why does it not even occur to you, to mention and take into account - that the working class grew and became stronger during that time?

Because your gut assumption is that the capitalist class is the basic agent of progress in the world today.

[chimx]

Yes, as a social/historical force, capitalism is anti-racism, but that doesn't mean that individual capitalists are.

i agree whole heartedly. the hatian revolution of 1804 is a particularly interesting example of this. though inspired by the ideals of the french revolution, it was also not in the economic interest of napoleon, and he thus opposed it.

thinking about it, capitalism as a social/historical force always emphasized equality of opportunity, liberty, fraternity, etc., but the economic interests of the capitalist ultimately undermine any egalitarian values, such as racial equality.

[LSD]

Hardly a prediction that all precapitalist divisions would cease to exist.

It's certainly a prediction that "society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps". There is no room in such a pardigm for institutionalized racism. Marx didn't speak of capitalists, white proletarians and black proletarians, he spoke of capitalists and proletarians.

"Market" industrial production is fundamentally geared towards the maximization of productive exploitation. That nescessitates the elimination of any social forces which might hamper productivity.

Unfortunately, I think that Marx was a little too optimistic in his implication that capitalism was instigate this simplifaction in the short-term. Again, racism is just too tempting a tool for many captitalsits and while, sociologically speaking, capitalism is opposed to any non-economic divisions, the odd capitalist is not above taking advantage of precapitalit superstition.

If one can get away with paying black workers or female workers less than others, its a very rare capitalsit indeed that would not leap at the chance.


On the contrary. The reduction of racism - the greater unity of the working class - is a danger to the ruling class.

You're projecting your analysis onoto the rulling class. Capitalists don't think in terms of "class struggle", they think in terms of immediate profit.

Preventing unionization, keeping wages low, that's all part of direct financial interest; but voluntarily sacrificing potential workers/consumers out of some conspiratorial policy of "dividing" workers ...that's far too Marxist for your run of the mill CEO to contemplate.

When specific bosses see specific racial tensions as potentially useful, they will take advantage of them. But they do so at a cost. Efficient capitalist production requires the complete utilization of the working class.

So while racism might be useful in the short-run, the capitalists must ultimately find some more efficent way to keep the proletariat down.

The latest trick is to parlay racism into "anti-immigrant" movements. Unlike classical racism, this new form has the advantage of apearing to be "legitimate" and "nescessary".

Eventually, however, this too must fall as capitalism in inexorably moving towards complete economic stratification.

Obviously I can't say how long that process will take, but I think it's fair to say that, left to itself, capitalism would take centuries to fully rid itself of all precapitalist superstitions.

Luckliy, the world is not so simple that only one force moves it. With sufficient pressure from below, the process of modernization can be greatly accelerated. And that's where the anti-racist movement comes in.


Anyway: By the time slavery became a major factor, the rise of capitalism was well underway.

They heyday of European slavery was probably the 16th and 17th centuries; capitalism did not develop until the middle of the 18th.

There certainly was some overlap between the two phenomena and, again, emergent capitalists were more than willing to take advantage of the free labour that slavery provided.

But there's a reason that we don't still have chattel slavery today and that's that, ultimately, wage-slavery was a more profitable option. Chattel slaves can't consume and so while they provide free labour, they keep the purchasing pool artificially low.

The abolitionist movement was important, but it only gained the traction that it did because its goals were in line with those of the northern industrialists.

Its incredibly idealist to believe that "movements" can change society on their own without a strong material basis in the rulling class. "The ideas of the rulling class are the rulling ideas" after all.

The oppressed classes matter, but because they are oppressed their political interests are always marginalized by those of the bourgeoisie. When united and organized, workers can combat this power disparity, at least insofar as forcing reforms.

But especially on divisive issues like race and sex, there is not and never has been enough unity or active interest on the part of the exploited masses to truly force and end to discrimination.

That's why, incidently, racism has not disappeared despite 50 odd years of concentrated struggle. Ending racism is simply not in the immediate interests of the rulling class.

Sociologically speaking, it is the inevitable result of capitalist economic development, but that is a very slow, very gradual process and in no way means that the current rulling class cannot exploit racism for all its worth.


That's part of your problem: you start with racism as a belief, not as a systemic practice.

That's because racism is a belief. Discrimination is a "practice", but the motivatations that drive it are a matter of idea and opinion. That's what "-ism" means in english: ideology.


Segregation had become a foreign-policy liability because of the colonalial revolution

Oh so it was an embarassment? I thought that the rulling class "doesn't care" about their image?

Obviously that's nonsense as modern capitalism is predicated on political credibility. There's a reason, after all, that the west is so "proud" of its "democratic traditions".

In order to keep the masses exploited and suppressed, the capitalists need to project an air of legitimacy. Blatant racism is contrary to this aim and, especially in the face of mounting internal dissention, the bourgeoisie put its bank accounts ahead of any lingering dedication to racist ideals.

Overt and visible racism (segregation) was suppressed and even the capitalsit press got behind the anti-segregation ticket. Protests were important, but it was the broadcasting of protests (and their suppression) which really changed the national mind on the subject.

Again, none of this is to say that racism was ever "cured" or that the capitalists should be "credited" with anything. They only acted in their own immediate interests and there's nothing "honourable" about that.

Your problem seems to be that you refuse to accept that capitalism could ever be progressive. Acknowledging that capitalism is inherently anti-racist does not mean embracing the capitalist class, it just means recognizing basic economic fact.


But the civil rights movement is secondary to the "embarassment" of the ruling class, apparently - it's only mentioned as an afterthought.

What on earth are you talking about? I never said that the civil rights movement was an "afterthought", I just reject your oversimplistic approach which says that everything that's ever happened in history is due to workers agitating.

Again, the civil rights movement was incredibly important, but it did not act in a vaccum.

There was probably no more radical time in American race history than radical reconstruction and yet it was followed by a period that is commonly called the "nadir" of American racial politics.

The fact is a radical movement is not enough. Unless its going to go the distance and overthrow bourgeois society, any political struggle is nescessarily a give-and-take.

If there wasn't a civil rights movement, segregation wouldn't have been defeated. But, by the same token, if much of the capitalist community had not had a potential interest in ending overt racism, that movement would not have been successful.

Neither is individually responsible. Like most social changes, it was a very complex and very multifaceted event.


No mass movement emerged 'til after WWII.

That's simply untrue. The NAACP was founded at the turn of the century and by the 1930s there was a massive anti-segregation movment.

By the 1950s and 60s, the movment had grown considerably, but it would never actually achieve the kind of power and support that it enjoyed in the post-civil war days.

That doesn't mean that the civil rights struggle was not an essential part of the fall of segregation, but to assert that it was alone responsible for the victories of the 1960s and 70s is absurd.

Politics are just not that simple!


I mean, if you're going to consider changes between 1877 and 1965, why just the alleged growing enlightenment of the ruling class? Why does it not even occur to you, to mention and take into account - that the working class grew and became stronger during that time?

Because this discussion is not on the role of the working class in combating racism. This thread is spefically for debate on the question of the bourgeoisie and its relation to racism, institutional and otherwise.

Of course changes in the working class and the population at large were important. But they were not exclusively important.


Because your gut assumption is that the capitalist class is the basic agent of progress in the world today.

No, my gut assumption is that the capitalist class pursues profit above all else, and that precapitalist beliefs can often be an impediment to this.

[Morpheus]

From the late 19th until the mid-20th century capitalists actually heightened racial, ethnic & national oppression as a way of dividing the working class against itself and forging unity between wealthy & poor whites. It was not uncommon for bosses to hire spies to spread racist propaganda among multiracial workers in order to undermine unionization efforts. Sometimes they would intentionally hire people of different races in the hope that racial prejudice would undermine unionization efforts. Radical groups & integrated unions were commonly attacked on racist grounds, which often had the effect of getting some white workers to leave the group. Scapegoating minorities can divert working class anger into attacking minorities instead of the capitalist class, thereby stabilizing capitalism. The use of racism to undermine the working class declined in the later 20th century due to revolts by non-whites both here and abroad, and also due to the use of the welfare state as an alternative strategy, but is being revived with things like the anti-immigration movement.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Marmot+Aug 20 2006, 09:23 PM--> (Marmot @ Aug 20 2006, 09:23 PM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 02:27 AM

So a section of them led - and the rest tolerated - a bloody counterrevolution which took away the democratic rights of Black people and imposed racist segregation. This continued for decades. Segregation included not only the southeastern states, but federal institutions like the military.
You are not seeing the big picture thoigh.

The south was always the most backward region in terms of production, and concidentally, it was the most reactionary.

The north was always more progressive and at the same time, more capitalistic. [/b]
How is that the "big picture"?

Racism was never and is not a "southern" problem. Nor were its specific forms, slavery and segregation.

As I pointed out, legal segregation was practiced by the federal government as well. The U.S., for most of its first century, was "the slaveholding republic".

Slavery and legal segregation, for as long as they persisted, were tolerated and protected by the whole U.S. ruling class. This was reflected in Supreme Court rulings, presidential decisions, everything. A alliance of classes backed slavery: plantation owners, northern merchants and often northern farmers.

That's even more true today: the most de-facto segregated cities in the U.S. are Cleveland and Chicago - and the southeast is the least segregated region, in both housing and education. That's part of the legacy of the civil rights movement.


I think racism by itself is a a pre-capitalist notion, and thus capitalism, which bases itself on a materialistic concept as capital, rather than an idealistic nonsense like race, abolishes much idealism by itself, including racism.

Again, racism is not a notion or idea primarily; it is a systemic practice first of all. That's why materialists, in dealing with racism, focus on social realities like slavery, legal segregation, de facto segregation today.


I think much of the "institutional racism" in advanced capitalist countries today is not there because of backward prejudice, it is more likely inherited through social class.

Neither is the main cause: institutional racism is maintained...because it helps preserve the bosses' power and privilege.

There's an element of truth to the cause you suggest: people with less property and privilege have children with less property and privilege. But that doesn't explain away the reality of continuing systemic discrimination.

Even if you consider Black and white people with the same level of class standing - systemic discrimination results in different outcomes. In the criminal justice system, in the job market, everywhere.

For example, when a steel mill closes down and Black and white steelworkers are laid off. They were on the same economic level before - but after, the white workers have more luck getting decent new jobs than the Black workers.

Sorry, Rush: racism is real.

[Marxist_Fire]

Here's my view on racism:

Far from being anti-racist, capitalism thrives on racism. In America, racism was originally utilized as a way to justify the brutal enslavement of Africans, but has proven to be an excellent way to turn all workers against each other. If workers can hate and fear each other due to their 'race', they will not be able to fight together and gain wage raises, union rights, good healthcare and benefits, etc. **All** workers lose out when one group of people suffers racist oppression and marginalization at the hands ruling class. Sexism, homophobia, ageism and ableism serve the same purpose, although in the United States, racism has been a particularly vile presence in the workers' movement. Socialists can never hope to acheive any of their goals without consciously fighting against racism in all its hideous shapes and forms.

[Marxist_Fire]

"In the United States of North America, every independent movement of the workers was paralysed so long as slavery disfigured a part of the Republic. Labour cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded." -- Karl Marx

[enigma2517]

Man thats a nice Marx quote. Really got to give the guy a lot of credit, pretty progressive thinker for his time no?

Anyway, my two cents on this is this: After studying economics, I'm going to have to agree with LSD on this one. If you truly are a materialist then you will recognize that capitalism can be racist or non-racists, depending on which one is more profitable.

Those who discriminate in hiring practices may use it to their advantage in some early stages of history, but choosing not to hire minorities in a place like the United States in the 21st century would be suicide. Much of the community would shun you, you would lose customers, and maybe more importantly, lose cheap(er) labor.

Not all racism is equal, and many capitalists can be racist in various social situations. There is a huge difference between tossing around a racial slur and choosing to exclude an entire group of people from working for you. Depending on the time and place that is happening, institutional or systematic racism may or may not be permissible at all!

Yes, perhaps one can point to a lot of racist practices or realities that exist today. However, I bet that a great deal of the people who engage in that kind of activity are also the ones that are being more and more excluded from society.

All countries aside, which have varying degrees of racism, lets look at the bigger picture...globalization! Now thats one of the biggest realities of our world today, and it is the future of capitalism. There is a reason for that...if I can get the shit that I want at 30% off on sale then I won't mind who makes it! And this is the attitude more and more people are adopting day to day. Racism is an idea, one that was once useful, but is losing ground in an ever-progressing society.

Show me today how racism is MORE profitable rather than less and perhaps I will change my mind.