Affirmative action discussion [Archive]

bombeverything

27th June 2007, 03:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 02:28 am
Can I ask why?
Sure. I believe it to be justified because of the racism and sexism that is inherent within capitalist society. It is generally an attempt to alter the balance of power in an unequal society. If racism didn't exist, for instance, there would be no need for positive discrimination. You can liken it to welfare for the poor for example. By using the argument that "discrimination is discrimination" it would then follow that welfare, for example, is discrimination because it is not granted to the rich. Welfare, like positive discrimination aims to redress power imbalances and inequality, i.e. reform capitalism to smooth over its most harmful edges. Now I am not a reformist by any means, but as long as capitalism exists I would never advocate a neoliberal type alternative whereby people are left to "make it on their own". Within a system based on exploitation, inequality and domination this could only make things worse for its victims. In a sense, it provides some sort of "protection", albeit weak.

rouchambeau

27th June 2007, 05:56

I am in full support of undoing past and present racism and sexism. Anyone who is must support Affirmative Action.

Iron

27th June 2007, 06:26

Severian

27th June 2007, 06:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 07:42 pm
I support it within a capitalist society.
Why only within a capitalist society?

Racism and sexism aren't going to evaporate the second the working class takes power. These are deep-rooted social problems.

The class struggle in all its forms continues after the revolution - or should I say during the prolonged revolutionary transformation. The only difference is now state power, and then control of the means of production, becomes a weapon in the hands of our class not the upper class.

That power needs to be used on behalf of all the oppressed and exploited, against every kind of oppression and exploitation - not just a narrow, purely economic, concept of class exploitation.

And this doesn't have to be limited by a bourgeois liberal concept of formal, legal equality on paper, which can cover up and preserve economic and social inequality.

So: affirmative action, in some form or other. The experience of the Russian, Chinese, and other revolutions, and their nationality conflicts, strongly suggests the need for affirmative action to overcome inequality among the different nationalities. (To some extent this was done, especially in the form of regional economic development help.)

Even Cuba, which has done much better in combatting racism and sexism, and avoiding the kind of conflicts that afflicted the USSR and afflict the PRC, could do more. Especially in the tourism sector, where discrimination by foreign joint-venture investors is rampant, affirmative action could be real useful right now.

And thanks to Janus for posting the links to past threads, some of those are pretty good.

MisterSmurf

27th June 2007, 06:35

Very very intriguing... that isn't sarcasm, by the way, I was quite genuinely stunned. Nevertheless I'll try and take it in deeper if I can:

I believe it to be justified because of the racism and sexism that is inherent within capitalist society.

Agreed. I'd go further than that, in fact, and say that racism is inherent and unavoidable in society in general.

If racism didn't exist, for instance, there would be no need for positive discrimination. You can liken it to welfare for the poor for example. By using the argument that "discrimination is discrimination" it would then follow that welfare, for example, is discrimination because it is not granted to the rich.

I wouldn't liken it to welfare, personally. Welfare is about a definitive material thing: money. Affirmative action, on the other hand, isn't: it's about jobs, university applications and so forth. I can see the justification in the poor being given welfare (they need it, more often than not) but with jobs and so on, I don't see why someone should be any more at leisure to gain a position simply for being in a minority. You say racism is inherent, and I don't dispute that, which is why modulators for universities and so on aren't allowed to actually know an individual's race upon deciding whether or not they should get the place.

Within a system based on exploitation, inequality and domination this could only make things worse for its victims. In a sense, it provides some sort of "protection", albeit weak.

That's an interesting notion. In what way does it 'protect' minorities? I think, if anything, it's more likely to incite racism; picture an angry worker who got fired because they were white and their employer needed to catch up with a specified percentage of black employees. How is that going to reduce the problem?

CornetJoyce

27th June 2007, 07:27

In California, where the people sometimes get to vote on things that matter, affirmative discrimination has been rejected and affirmative action based on class accepted. Progressives have been horrified.

bombeverything

27th June 2007, 07:38

Positive discrimination? First of all how can discrimination be positive in anyway, and personally I think some aspects of affirmative action are bad... such as setting a quota for how many persons of each race must get into a school every year, its reverse racism. It forces a school to except a person just because of the color of their skin, its no different than not accept someone because the color of their skin. And creating education grants for minorities only, is inherently bad also. Let me end by saying I support the destruction of racism, sexism in all their horrible forms. But not by creating a reverse racist system, where the Majority is left out of advantages just because their majority, this is not progress

It promotes equality. It recognises that sexism and racism are entrenched within society and attempts to redress this. I am not suggesting that is is a "good" thing, but simply that it is necessary.

Why only within a capitalist society?

Racism and sexism aren't going to evaporate the second the working class takes power. These are deep-rooted social problems.

The class struggle in all its forms continues after the revolution - or should I say during the prolonged revolutionary transformation. The only difference is now state power, and then control of the means of production, becomes a weapon in the hands of our class not the upper class.

That power needs to be used on behalf of all the oppressed and exploited, against every kind of oppression and exploitation - not just a narrow, purely economic, concept of class exploitation.

And this doesn't have to be limited by a bourgeois liberal concept of formal, legal equality on paper, which can cover up and preserve economic and social inequality.

So: affirmative action, in some form or other. The experience of the Russian, Chinese, and other revolutions, and their nationality conflicts, strongly suggests the need for affirmative action to overcome inequality among the different nationalities. (To some extent this was done, especially in the form of regional economic development help.)

Even Cuba, which has done much better in combatting racism and sexism, and avoiding the kind of conflicts that afflicted the USSR and afflict the PRC, could do more. Especially in the tourism sector, where discrimination by foreign joint-venture investors is rampant, affirmative action could be real useful right now.

Point taken. I meant it is necessary in a capitalist society as opposed to a communist society where I do not believe this would be necessary. I was trying to note that wherever there is inequality, affirmative action is needed. So I agree that in Russia, China and Cuba affirmative action is necessary because the power is not (and was not) in the hands of the working class. Whenever class society exists, so must affirmative action. I apologise for not making that explicit.

Agreed. I'd go further than that, in fact, and say that racism is inherent and unavoidable in society in general.

I would disagree as I do not believe that there is anything 'inherent' about racism. If there is, where does it come from? Racism is a tool of the ruling class to divide workers and drive down wages. Instead of blaming the class system for their oppression they blame each other, or people of a particular 'race'. Racism does not exist in a vacuum. There is nothing inherent about it, within ourselves or within society. It is a social construct.

I wouldn't liken it to welfare, personally. Welfare is about a definitive material thing: money. Affirmative action, on the other hand, isn't: it's about jobs, university applications and so forth. I can see the justification in the poor being given welfare (they need it, more often than not) but with jobs and so on, I don't see why someone should be any more at leisure to gain a position simply for being in a minority. You say racism is inherent, and I don't dispute that, which is why modulators for universities and so on aren't allowed to actually know an individual's race upon deciding whether or not they should get the place.

It is very relevant. Its about things that ultimately can become material things, i.e money. The aim of university for instance, and work is ultimately to make money, or increase your likelihood of doing so. These things are necessary or atleast related to money which is necessary for survival. This is why policies such as these are needed.

That's an interesting notion. In what way does it 'protect' minorities? I think, if anything, it's more likely to incite racism; picture an angry worker who got fired because they were white and their employer needed to catch up with a specified percentage of black employees. How is that going to reduce the problem?

This is a misunderstanding that is in my view based on a lack of understanding of (or support of, you said you were right wing in another post) the structural base of racism: class society. This is what causes racism, not policies that aim to fix it.

Qwerty Dvorak

27th June 2007, 13:15

I haven't read into affirmative action too much. I think it's mainly a good idea, and I definitely support the righting of past wrongs. However I feel some aspects of it, such as guaranteed school places or jobs for minorities, are the wrong way to go as they lead to inefficiency in the affected schools and industries, and they also do little to combat racism as the result is that whites feel threatened by minorities.

27th June 2007, 14:07

Originally posted by Severian+June 27, 2007 05:31 am--> (Severian @ June 27, 2007 05:31 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 07:42 pm
I support it within a capitalist society.
Why only within a capitalist society?

Racism and sexism aren't going to evaporate the second the working class takes power. These are deep-rooted social problems.
[/b]
Clearly you're taking a liberal rather than a marxist view on the issue.

The reason why blacks and other under represented ethic groups are disadvantaged in things like university and job placement competition isn't because some whiny racist hick doesn't like them, its because they were born into families with less money, in communities with less money, living further away from the resources that give the white establishment traditional routs into the professional class; the issue isn't prejudice its the fact that they're systematically economically disadvantaged.

Liberal obsession with with the private thoughts of bigoted people (who are disproportionately marginal even in capitalist society) is to distract people from the socio-economic foundation of racial inequality. White racists might not like Jews or East Asians either, but neither Jews nor East Asians get the affirmative action benefits that Black, Latino/a and Native American people do because they are not under represented minorities, they're over represented minorities, the structural disadvantages that keep Black and Latino/a people from entering the professional and academic establishment do not exist for other minorities that white supremacists dislike, which in itself shows that the issue is systematic economic disadvantage from reproduced class status and not personal bigotry.

And those foundations seize to exist in socialism. Which is why affirmative action is necessary in capitalism but would make no sense in a system where no one inherited wealth and social status and connections and all of the other build in social advantages that people from more advantaged backgrounds have in capitalist systems.

Affirmative Action is capitalism's relatively superficial solution to institutional racism because capitalism refuses to address the core structural problems that create the issue in the first place.

Even Cuba, which has done much better in combatting racism and sexism, and avoiding the kind of conflicts that afflicted the USSR and afflict the PRC, could do more.

Oh, really, like what? Seriously, what could the Cuban government do which it hasn't already? Cuba doesn't have gross income disparity along any lines the entire population has minimal differences in its standard of living.

Especially in the tourism sector, where discrimination by foreign joint-venture investors is rampant, affirmative action could be real useful right now.

When are people going to stop accusing Cuba of problems that existed in the 1990's special period which have since been addressed for the last five or six years? Seriously?

Redstar1916
. I think it's mainly a good idea, and I definitely support the righting of past wrongs.

Affirmative action doesn't right the wrong of the past it compensates for some of the crap that oppressed minorities deal with today.

bombeverything

28th June 2007, 02:23

I think I agree with TC. So I guess this is it for MisterSmurf?

rouchambeau

28th June 2007, 02:42

Iron:
I think some aspects of affirmative action are bad... such as setting a quota for how many persons of each race must get into a school every year
That practice is no longer in use. Get with the times.

its reverse racism.
"Reverse racism" is just a phrase made up by white people who are upset that their unearned privileges are being taken from them. And that's a good thing.

It forces a school to except a person just because of the color of their skin
No, it doesn't.

Let me end by saying I support the destruction of racism, sexism in all their horrible forms.
So you're against racism, but not willing to support compensation for racism in society. That's awfully disingenuous.

But not by creating a reverse racist system, where the Majority is left out of advantages just because their majority
Please, do us the favor and show where Affirmative Action was created to simply fuck the majority.

Body Count

29th June 2007, 12:08

I am pro-political autonomy, pro-self determination, and anti-compromises on equality.

I am against Affirmative Action in that I believe it is an opiate of the masses, similar to the way religion is. I feel the same way about "political correctness" (I hate the term, but, I don't have another way to convey what it means, as least not as easily). People should never feel sorry for themselves, and they should never look to others to do things that they can damn well do themselves.

Vargha Poralli

29th June 2007, 16:12

Reservation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_in_India) as it is called in India.

IMO it should be supported in a Socialist system as much it is in a capitalist system. There will no magical way to ensure the equality in a society where discrimination based on various criteria had been rampant after a revolution.

Originally posted by Tragic Clown+--> (Tragic Clown)And those foundations seize to exist in socialism.[/b]

Sorry I don't agree in this.

In fact it is still necessary in Socialism as it is just built over the just defunct capitalist society. The matreial in equality will undoubtedly still exist. Revolution is not some magic to do away with every social ills of the capitalist society.

If you are trying to say that capitalism has done a good job in bringing equality by this actions then you are totally wrong. Reservation is introduced by the British Raj first in Madras State alone in 1921 and later followed all over India step by step. And for almost 97 years from its introduction and 59 yeras of independence from the British rule Indian Capitalist system had done a very poor form of Social Justice. Still dalits are oppressed in many places and very little section of Creamy layer had benefitted from this.

Originally posted by TragicClow[email protected]

Affirmative action doesn't right the wrong of the past it compensates for some of the crap that oppressed minorities deal with today.

What is your alternative to it ?

Body Count
I am against Affirmative Action in that I believe it is an opiate of the masses, similar to the way religion is

Can you explain it with more details ?

29th June 2007, 16:48

Originally posted by G.ram+--> (G.ram)
IMO it should be supported in a Socialist system as much it is in a capitalist system. There will no magical way to ensure the equality in a society where discrimination based on various criteria had been rampant after a revolution.
[/b]

It seems as though you don't understand what socialism entails.

Affirmative action is a capitalist attempt to distribute economic and class inequality along lines of ability and talent rather than race by weighting the uneven distribution of wealth and opportunities according to demographics.

In socialism however, there is no uneven distribution of wealth and there is no economic inequality or class hierarchy along any lines so there is no conceptually appropriate way to apply affirmative action, its an attempt to solve a problem that only exists in a class divided, exploitive society.

G.Ram

Sorry I don't agree in this.

In fact it is still necessary in Socialism as it is just built over the just defunct capitalist society. The matreial in equality will undoubtedly still exist. Revolution is not some magic to do away with every social ills of the capitalist society.

Socialist revolution *does* end the social ills of capitalism, thats kindof the point. Theres nothing 'magic' about this, the social problems of capitalism are based on the capitalist relations of production, relations of production that Socialist revolution necessarily destroys (if it didn't, it wouldn't be a socialist revolution).

If you reject that then you reject the Marxist theory of sociology and are just doing superficial liberal politics with no analysis.

If you are trying to say that capitalism has done a good job in bringing equality

Uh, no, what thread are you reading? what planet are you on?

chimx

29th June 2007, 17:03

In socialism however, there is no uneven distribution of wealth and there is no economic inequality or class hierarchy along any lines so there is no conceptually appropriate way to apply affirmative action, its an attempt to solve a problem that only exists in a class divided, exploitive society.

Can you conceive of any circumstance where a socialit society's historical discriminatory culture could have an adverse effect on ones job, outside of pay?

Further, unless you are an anarchist, social revolution is a processive event that is years in the making. The USSR had pay inequalities, just as Venezuela and Cuba do today--and of course Severian has already mentioned the discrimination problems of some of these areas. Unless I misread, the discussion was about the transitory socialist period when wage disparites have yet to wither and vanish.

29th June 2007, 17:25

Because the replication of status over generations requires inherited wealth and private concentration and accumulation of wealth, neither of which exist in even the lowest forms of socialism. That is what affirmative action compensates for in capitalism.

And in any case, Venezuela is a terrible example because it is not a consolidated socialist economy as Cuba is, even though its undergoing a workers revolution that revolution hasn't achieved socialism yet.

chimx

29th June 2007, 18:34

I don't think it was anyone's intention to imply that affirmative action will take an identical form under socialism as it was under capitalism though. At the most basic level, affirmative action exists to correct the discrepencies in hiring and promotion of peoples that have historically been discrimiated against.

And in any case, Venezuela is a terrible example

My mistake. The way people champion the regime makes it difficult to tell what they really believe sometimes. :)

Vargha Poralli

29th June 2007, 19:43

Originally posted by TragicClown+June 29, 2007 09:18 pm--> (TragicClown @ June 29, 2007 09:18 pm)
Originally posted by G.ram+--> (G.ram)
IMO it should be supported in a Socialist system as much it is in a capitalist system. There will no magical way to ensure the equality in a society where discrimination based on various criteria had been rampant after a revolution.
[/b]

It seems as though you don't understand what socialism entails.
[/b]

Well I think Socilaism is a lower state of communism - a transitionary period where some sort of inequalites in distribution may still exist - from and to each according to his ability and deed.

Originally posted by TragicClown
Affirmative action is a capitalist attempt to distribute economic and class inequality along lines of ability and talent rather than race by weighting the uneven distribution of wealth and opportunities according to demographics.

Well I don't clearly understand what you are trying to imply.

Affirmative Action I take it as an equivalent of Reservation in India(link in the previous post of mine) an attempt at Social Justice won through the fight of the oppressed minorities for equality.

A good example would be the one I have given in another thread in History forum - a son/daughter of a forward caste worker who is a Government servant is not equal with a son of dalit worker whose family had been forced to do manual scavenger for some generations. So separate reservation for that son of a dalit worker who might not even be encouraged to go to school which requires a lot of time and money to be spend instead of earning some wages as a child laborer.

And majority of Jobs in India are provided by private firms who run in a family business mode which might make sure that learned Dalit worker may not be able to find a job because of his caste back ground. So a reservation is needed in Jobs to fight that discrimination.

And about 20% of Parlimenatry,Assembly and Panchayat memberships were also reserved for Dalits - but still not every FC,OBC and MBC's are ready to accept elect them even when it is reserved for them. (http://www.sabrang.com/cc/archive/2005/june05/dalit.html)

I don't say these measures are an end-all solution and Social-Justice has been achieved in India. Discrimination of dalits is still rampant in various forms especially among by Backward castes and Most Backward Castes. (http://www.anti-caste.org/news/news_index.html)

Originally posted by TragicClown
In socialism however, there is no uneven distribution of wealth and there is no economic inequality or class hierarchy along any lines so there is no conceptually appropriate way to apply affirmative action, its an attempt to solve a problem that only exists in a class divided, exploitive society.

I have clearly given examples of how it is in capitalism right now - I would just like to know how these things would be solved just by even distribution of wealth - as you imply it.

Originally posted by Tragic Clown

Originally posted by G.Ram

Sorry I don't agree in this.

In fact it is still necessary in Socialism as it is just built over the just defunct capitalist society. The material in equality will undoubtedly still exist. Revolution is not some magic to do away with every social ills of the capitalist society.

Socialist revolution *does* end the social ills of capitalism, thats kindof the point. Theres nothing 'magic' about this, the social problems of capitalism are based on the capitalist relations of production, relations of production that Socialist revolution necessarily destroys (if it didn't, it wouldn't be a socialist revolution).

Well if you are unaware of it Caste System predates even Slave Societies of Europe by centuries. But yet Feudalism and Capitalism didn't put an end to that ill. Only Social revolution will put an end to it - and it would start by continuing and fulfilling the democratic tasks of which is reservation.

Tragic [email protected]

If you reject that then you reject the Marxist theory of sociology and are just doing superficial liberal politics with no analysis.

No I don't reject Marxist theory of Sociology my analysis is based on Marxism.

Tragic Clown

If you are trying to say that capitalism has done a good job in bringing equality

Uh, no, what thread are you reading? what planet are you on?

Well obvioulsy bad wording on my part.

What I meant whether you are trying to imply that Capitalism has/ would do the right thing of bringing social equality before a Socialist Revolution - which would free the Social Revolution from carrying out democratic tasks like Reservation etc ?

Severian

3rd July 2007, 21:36

Originally posted by TragicClown+June 27, 2007 07:07 am--> (TragicClown @ June 27, 2007 07:07 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 05:31 am

[email protected] 26, 2007 07:42 pm
I support it within a capitalist society.
Why only within a capitalist society?

Racism and sexism aren't going to evaporate the second the working class takes power. These are deep-rooted social problems.

Clearly you're taking a liberal rather than a marxist view on the issue.

The reason why blacks and other under represented ethic groups are disadvantaged in things like university and job placement competition isn't because some whiny racist hick doesn't like them, its because they were born into families with less money, in communities with less money, living further away from the resources that give the white establishment traditional routs into the professional class; the issue isn't prejudice its the fact that they're systematically economically disadvantaged. [/b]
Right....and those things will not magically evaporate the second the working class takes power. The struggle continues, just in different forms.

Because the replication of status over generations requires inherited wealth and private concentration and accumulation of wealth, neither of which exist in even the lowest forms of socialism.

Real-world experience shows that you're very wrong here. The USSR, without the "private concentration and accumulation of wealth", still had plenty of "replication of status over generations". Soviet nomenklatura types could get their children into the right schools, get them hired into the right jobs, etc. As the USSR, PRC, etc., have moved towards capitalism, bureaucrats have even been able to get their children private wealth; the "princelings" these are called in China.

And certainly tremendous inequalities between the different nationalities have continued, in the USSR, China, etc., and to some extent even in Cuba.

When are people going to stop accusing Cuba of problems that existed in the 1990's special period which have since been addressed for the last five or six years? Seriously?

Yeah, everyone on this board knows I'm a defender of the Cuban revolution. But that doesn't mean I have to pretend everything is perfect....

There is a class struggle in Cuba too, and some people feel closer to the Cuban working class....and others to the apparatchiks (who are much weaker than they were in the USSR, but still a factor.) Those who identify with the apparatchiks tend to pretend everything is perfect and generally take their side as far as the debates within Cuba.

And there is definitely a debate about racism and what to do about it within Cuba. (http://www.themilitant.com/2006/7003/700357.html)

Unfortunately, it's not true that racist discrimination in hotel employment has ended. It still continues, and is still a subject of discussion...see link.

Edited to fix link.

RedLion

2nd August 2007, 22:58

I despise the principle of positive discrimination which is so prevalent in the UK especially.

As far as I'm concerned, as soon as you discriminate in favour of one group you automatically discriminate against all other groups.

The problem is, in the UK every political party including the communist party are almost frothing-at-the-mouth fanatical about such political correctness.

It sucks.

counterblast

3rd August 2007, 00:52

I've heard people call the generalization that "Asians are smart" to be a positive one... But its hardly positive to those who don't or can't live up to this expectation...

rouchambeau

3rd August 2007, 01:12

As far as I'm concerned, as soon as you discriminate in favour of one group you automatically discriminate against all other groups.

Yeah, but that isn't always wrong. When you have a society where one group of people has an amount a privilege at the expense of another group, you have to treat them differently if you want to create equality. I mean, working-class revolution is discriminatory against the bourgeoisie; does that mean you are against working-class revolution?

Black Dagger

3rd August 2007, 05:09

Originally posted by RL
IAs far as I'm concerned, as soon as you discriminate in favour of one group you automatically discriminate against all other groups.

Society, class, isnt so fluid that if the government or business nudges one way or another there's an instant reversal in the way things are (least of all a serious reversal in the social, economic and political power of white people in general terms).

Of course that is not to say that affirmative action policies in the workplace do not work at reversing prejudiced trends in employment (they do), but rather that tackling the exclusion of some does not entail a wholesale social shift towards the exclusion of members of the dominant group (which seems to be your argument), that just makes no sense at all. The latter have not been displaced, an opportunity has merely been provided for some where before there was a barrier.

This idea that trying to break down some of the barriers experienced by say black or asian britons means that white britons are losing out is a myth perpetuated by racist groups such as the BNP, and is without basis.

Dimentio

3rd August 2007, 11:29

Affirmative action, if something, tends to rather increase prejudices.

"Look at women: They are so worthless for office work that they need to be quoted in."

LuÃs Henrique

3rd August 2007, 14:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 10:29 am
Affirmative action, if something, tends to rather increase prejudices.

"Look at women: They are so worthless for office work that they need to be quoted in."
Yes, that's the way it seems to work.

Luís Henrique

Black Dagger

3rd August 2007, 14:39

Originally posted by Serpent+--> (Serpent)Affirmative action, if something, tends to rather increase prejudices.[/b]

I think you're laying the blame in the wrong spot,

Yes - in the short term, some people may resent AA; but are these the people who have something to lose? Secondly, such attitudes are eroded over-time (with the help of things like AA):

Originally posted by [email protected]
Affirmative action, in contrast, assures that people work and study alongside each other. That's been proven, from everyday experience and scientific studies alike, to be the one way of reducing prejudices and biased attitudes. People working alongside one another with equal status. (As opposed to unequal status like worker vs supervisor.)

And this is precisely what the working class needs, unity. We're never going to have a meaningful unity if certain sections of the class are being shut out of work, and other workers support it:

sev
Affirmative action is a necessity for uniting the working class. How can you have unity on the basis of excluding some workers from employment?

All you get then: on the more priviliged, say white side: racist mobilizations that tried to try to keep Black workers out and reserve certain jobs for whites. And on the other hand: Black workers who didn't hesitate to scab since it was the only shot they'd ever have at the better jobs.

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57049

rouchambeau

3rd August 2007, 15:38

Affirmative action, if something, tends to rather increase prejudices.
Ok, so? That isn't the fault nor the problem of those who recieve the benefits of AA. Much less is it a reason to get rid of AA.

Jude

3rd August 2007, 19:37

AA is absolute and complete bullshit. I have a black friend who got a job at kinko's over a white kid, because he was black. He was so pissed off that he turned down the job. I don't really blame him. AA, although it may have good intentions, can only increase racial barriers.

RedLion

3rd August 2007, 20:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:12 am

As far as I'm concerned, as soon as you discriminate in favour of one group you automatically discriminate against all other groups.

Yeah, but that isn't always wrong. When you have a society where one group of people has an amount a privilege at the expense of another group, you have to treat them differently if you want to create equality. I mean, working-class revolution is discriminatory against the bourgeoisie; does that mean you are against working-class revolution?
It is wrong.

When you disciminate in favour of a certain groups you, by definition, discriminate against ALL OTHER groups, some of which may be just as deserving of an EQUAL chance.

I want to see a working class revolution more than most but I want a society where everyone is assumed equal and treated equally, not one where equality is thrust upon them by virtue of quotas and headline grabbing initiatives.

Vargha Poralli

4th August 2007, 07:33

Originally posted by RedLion+--> (RedLion)When you disciminate in favour of a certain groups you, by definition, discriminate against ALL OTHER groups, some of which may be just as deserving of an EQUAL chance.[/b]

What an idiotic idealism.

Listen comrade you may be a very good person by heart and you may fight for an ultra equal society. You may even pretend that every one are equal and should deserve equal opportunity.

But your opinion have nothing to do with reality. People are not equal. For years some group have been oppressed by another group where the latter members have an discriminatory advantage over other group. You cannot get equality in this setting. So measures like Affirmative Action/Positive Discrimination/Reservation is needed to achieve equality.

A previous discussion (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=68059) about this where I have detailed the importance of it along with how affirmative action - which iscalled as Reservation is carried out in India.

RedLion
I want to see a working class revolution more than most but I want a society where everyone is assumed equal and treated equally, not one where equality is thrust upon them by virtue of quotas and headline grabbing initiatives.

I would suggest you get more information about this action and speak about it. For one it is more than a headline grabbing initiative. You cannot achive equal;ity by saying All are equal.Steps must be taken to achieve equality and one such step is Reservation/AA/PD. By stating against it you are not advocating for equality but advocating for inequality.

Black Dagger

4th August 2007, 14:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 05:19 am
It is wrong.

When you disciminate in favour of a certain groups you, by definition, discriminate against ALL OTHER groups, some of which may be just as deserving of an EQUAL chance.

I want to see a working class revolution more than most but I want a society where everyone is assumed equal and treated equally, not one where equality is thrust upon them by virtue of quotas and headline grabbing initiatives.
People have already responded to your assertions; instead of repeating them, please present a rebuttal.

Black Dagger

4th August 2007, 14:48

Merged thread with another recent discussion of the same topic, and pinned.

RedLion

5th August 2007, 22:15

Originally posted by g.ram+August 04, 2007 06:33 am--> (g.ram @ August 04, 2007 06:33 am)
Originally posted by [email protected]
When you disciminate in favour of a certain groups you, by definition, discriminate against ALL OTHER groups, some of which may be just as deserving of an EQUAL chance.

What an idiotic idealism.

Listen comrade you may be a very good person by heart and you may fight for an ultra equal society. You may even pretend that every one are equal and should deserve equal opportunity.

But your opinion have nothing to do with reality. People are not equal. For years some group have been oppressed by another group where the latter members have an discriminatory advantage over other group. You cannot get equality in this setting. So measures like Affirmative Action/Positive Discrimination/Reservation is needed to achieve equality.

A previous discussion (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=68059) about this where I have detailed the importance of it along with how affirmative action - which iscalled as Reservation is carried out in India.

RedLion
I want to see a working class revolution more than most but I want a society where everyone is assumed equal and treated equally, not one where equality is thrust upon them by virtue of quotas and headline grabbing initiatives.

I would suggest you get more information about this action and speak about it. For one it is more than a headline grabbing initiative. You cannot achive equal;ity by saying All are equal.Steps must be taken to achieve equality and one such step is Reservation/AA/PD. By stating against it you are not advocating for equality but advocating for inequality. [/b]
Let me give an example of why I feel that postitive discrimination or affirmitive action or whatever it's called this week is truly bad for individuals and society.

I am a secondary schoolteacher, principally science. At the beginning of last term the board of governers held interviews for another member of the science team. There were three applicants who had the necessary qualifications, two of which were dynamic, enthusiastic people who had a genuine love of their subject as well as fantastic communication skills. The other had none of these things.

However the governers were getting twitchy regarding their 'diversity' quotas and gave the post to the least able of the candidates in an attempt to boost their 'muslim' quota. In another example of just how staggeringly stupid the system is, it subsequently turns out that he isn't muslim, he is a Yemeni Christian.

The main point however is that because of his lack of teaching ability, the lack of enthusiasm, his intrinsic shyness and lack of basic communication skills there is now a whole generation of youngsters who are being turned off the subject.

This is bourne out by the facts which show the take up of sciences at Higher grade have fallen since his introduction.

I think this is a modern tragedy. If that makes me 'idiotic' then I suppose I will have to accept that label.

bombeverything

6th August 2007, 00:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:37 pm
AA is absolute and complete bullshit. I have a black friend who got a job at kinko's over a white kid, because he was black. He was so pissed off that he turned down the job. I don't really blame him. AA, although it may have good intentions, can only increase racial barriers.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that it is a good thing in that it should exist, but rather that within a system with is based on systematic racism and sexism it is necessary. It is a band-aid rather than a solution, i.e. reform. It isn't reactionary to support reform. A good example of this is fighting for better working conditions. Your views are idealist and completely ignore the context within which such laws exist, i.e. a society based on inequality and oppression. I pose this question to all those against affirmative action: are you also opposed to social security?

Red Lion> case by case 'examples' do not constitute 'evidence'. Like I said above, it isn't perfect or an inherently good thing, but necessary as long as capitalism exists.

Black Dagger

6th August 2007, 04:02

RedLion, are you going to respond to my post?

RedLion

7th August 2007, 18:54

BGM: I wasn't aware your post required a response, sorry. I didn't feel I was simply repeating, I was trying to emphasise a point which I didn't feel had been clearly made, my fault.

Bombeverything: I can't help finding your post a little patronising. Case by case examples are very much evidence because we are dealing with people not statistics. In my opinion when scores of youngsters are having their education compromised that is very, very far from "it isn't perfect" it is a national disgrace.

I do accept the point that under a true socialist system such measures would not even need to be considered but even under a capitalist system where such measures have the potential to do more harm than good, does it make sense to plough on with a policy that is embarassing to those it's designed to protect and dangerous to innocents?

Every time a story comes to light about people being selected for the police on the grounds of religion or politics on the grounds of sex or whatever, the friends I have of those persuasions cringe with embarassment, they are made to feel worthless and patronised. Again, this is very, very far from "not inherently a good thing" it is dangerous and stirs up hatred and distrust that isn't naturally there.

bombeverything

7th August 2007, 23:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:54 pm
BGM: I wasn't aware your post required a response, sorry. I didn't feel I was simply repeating, I was trying to emphasise a point which I didn't feel had been clearly made, my fault.

Bombeverything: I can't help finding your post a little patronising. Case by case examples are very much evidence because we are dealing with people not statistics. In my opinion when scores of youngsters are having their education compromised that is very, very far from "it isn't perfect" it is a national disgrace.

I do accept the point that under a true socialist system such measures would not even need to be considered but even under a capitalist system where such measures have the potential to do more harm than good, does it make sense to plough on with a policy that is embarassing to those it's designed to protect and dangerous to innocents?

Every time a story comes to light about people being selected for the police on the grounds of religion or politics on the grounds of sex or whatever, the friends I have of those persuasions cringe with embarassment, they are made to feel worthless and patronised. Again, this is very, very far from "not inherently a good thing" it is dangerous and stirs up hatred and distrust that isn't naturally there.

I was simply stating that looking at this by case by case exames ignores the context from within which these laws exist, a context that I don't feel you are able to grasp. How about actually responding to the questions posed? I asked you a question about wefare. It is capitalism that is the problem, not measures introduced to counter it. Your comment that is a 'national disgrace' is disturbing. This problem goes beyond national borders. Affirmative Action is not the cause of racism, a system based on inequality and domination is.

bcbm

8th August 2007, 01:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:37 pm
AA is absolute and complete bullshit. I have a black friend who got a job at kinko's over a white kid, because he was black. He was so pissed off that he turned down the job. I don't really blame him. AA, although it may have good intentions, can only increase racial barriers.
What, they told him that's why they hired him? Also, anecdotes are largely irrelevant to this sort of debate. Try dealing with actual numbers. I don't have them off-hand, and had trouble finding them last time I looked, but doing away with AA, at least in a university setting, while having almost no effect on white enrollment, would have a huge impact against enrollment for students of color. Something to think about.

Every time a story comes to light about people being selected for the police on the grounds of religion or politics on the grounds of sex or whatever, the friends I have of those persuasions cringe with embarassment, they are made to feel worthless and patronised. Again, this is very, very far from "not inherently a good thing" it is dangerous and stirs up hatred and distrust that isn't naturally there.

So how do you deal with very real issues of historical oppression that result in modern day disenfranchisement?

Black Dagger

8th August 2007, 03:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:54 am
BGM: I wasn't aware your post required a response, sorry.
And now that you have? <_<

RedLion

8th August 2007, 15:22

Originally posted by bombeverything+August 07, 2007 10:56 pm--> (bombeverything @ August 07, 2007 10:56 pm)I was simply stating that looking at this by case by case exames ignores the context from within which these laws exist, a context that I don't feel you are able to grasp. [/b]

I see absolutely where you are coming from, my problem is not with why the laws are there but rather the laws themselves are unjust, inflammatory and in most cases unneccessary.

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 10:56 pm
How about actually responding to the questions posed? I asked you a question about wefare.

You did, I didn't feel it was particularly relecant to the topic. Social security inherently treats people as equal, i.e. it doesn't matter your race, religion, etc when it comes to protecion during old age or disability etc. Affirmitive action has nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 10:56 pm
It is capitalism that is the problem, not measures introduced to counter it.

I agreed with this, my problem is the measures put in place are in my experience worse than nothing at all.

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 10:56 pm
Your comment that is a 'national disgrace' is disturbing.

Not disturbing at all. I am not aware of the details of positive discrimination laws in any country other than the UK, that's where I live. I presume there are equivalent legislation in the USA, Japan, Angola, wherever. I am not familiar with them so don't feel it is appropriate to comment.

[email protected] 07, 2007 10:56 pm
This problem goes beyond national borders. Affirmative Action is not the cause of racism, a system based on inequality and domination is.

Again, I agree entirely, sadly the AA seems to fan the flames of inequality and opression rather than quenching it.

RedLion

8th August 2007, 15:29

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+August 08, 2007 12:01 am--> (black coffee black metal @ August 08, 2007 12:01 am)What, they told him that's why they hired him? Also, anecdotes are largely irrelevant to this sort of debate. Try dealing with actual numbers. I don't have them off-hand, and had trouble finding them last time I looked, but doing away with AA, at least in a university setting, while having almost no effect on white enrollment, would have a huge impact against enrollment for students of color. Something to think about.[/b]

I don't really understand this line of thinking. Are you saying that university numbers would drop dramatically? Surely if the white enrollment stayed the same and those of other races dropped, the university would not have enough students to properly function.

black coffee black [email protected] 08, 2007 12:01 am
So how do you deal with very real issues of historical oppression that result in modern day disenfranchisement?

A socialist revolution that looks forward not back. In the new context, the historical oppression would be just that...history.

Oswy

8th August 2007, 18:59

I know that the US has a difference history on the subject of racism and discrimination but I'll offer my view as someone in Britain. I'll use the term 'positive discrimination' as opposed to 'affirmative action' only because it's the term we use on this side of the Atlantic.

In an ideal society where there was (realistically - almost) no racism or sexism or homophobia, there'd be no issue with regard to equality of opportunity. However, the evidence, both prima facie and in relation to studies, shows that discrimination consistently excludes people from opportunities such as employment and promotion. Id' have to dig out the data (in one of those whopping sociology textbooks I've got hiding somewhere) but there have been a number of studies done in which applications for jobs have been submitted with identical or comparative skills and experience. The one crucial difference being that 'Anglo-Saxon' sounding names were provided on some apps, and Asian or African sounding names on others. The outcome of such experiments? That there really is a significant rejection of applications based on how 'foreign' a name sounds. And that's before anyone even shows their face and gets an interview!

In the absence of any informal mechanism to address this kind of racism, positive discrimination seeks to go some way in putting right what is otherwise a *continuing wrong*. No one, not even those who support positive discrimination, think that it's an ideal solution, and most recognise that potentially plays into the hands of racist logic. But it is seen as a practical means of redressing systematic racism which would otherwise just continue for, potentially, generation after generation. The ideal long-term solution is to continue in the intellectual and practical marginalisation of irrational prejudices until they become far removed from normative discourse - a process which is actually well underway in my view. Future generations, we can hope, will be much less susceptible to prejudices relating to race, sex (or sexual orientation), and the positive discrimination approach will correspondingly lose its contingent usefulness.

syndicat

8th August 2007, 18:59

A socialist revolution that looks forward not back. In the new context, the historical oppression would be just that...history.

if you are going to tell women or black people to "wait til after the revolution" for their subordination and unequal situation to be dealt with, fought against, that is siding with a current situation that benefits males and whites. it is not a way to create unity.

people think that it was programs called "affirmative action" set up to address lack of access to historically discriminated against groups that first brought affirmative action into existence. that's not true. affirmative action has always existed.

take the building trades in the USA. you have skilled, better paying jobs. traditionally these were held by white males. they also controlled the unions which ran hiring halls where people went to get jobs. to get into the union and apprenticeship programs, it helped if you were a friend or relative of someone already in the union. this was part of a process of hiring that favored white males getting these jobs.

so, if the people who are doing the hiring, the people recommending people for jobs, and the people being thus recommended, are of the same (white) ethnic or racial group (and/or gender), what you have is a system of de facto affirmative action for people of that ethnic group and/or gender.

in the '70s/'80s period in New York City black and Latin construction workers dealt with their exclusion by forming groups that invaded construction sites together to ask contractors to hire some of them. these groups were called "Coalitions". One of the first was Harlem Fightback. this was a form of affirmative action through direct struggle by the people affected. and they broke the exclusion of black and Latin workers from construction (but the best paying, more permanent jobs still tend to be held by white males).

counterblast

8th August 2007, 20:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 05:59 pm
The one crucial difference being that 'Anglo-Saxon' sounding names were provided on some apps, and Asian or African sounding names on others. The outcome of such experiments? That there really is a significant rejection of applications based on how 'foreign' a name sounds.
I definately agree. My name is Rabi'ah Munif... and pretty needless to say, when I put in a job application; I don't have bosses knocking down my door with offers.

bombeverything

9th August 2007, 00:57

Originally posted by RedLion+August 08, 2007 02:22 pm--> (RedLion @ August 08, 2007 02:22 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 10:56 pm
I was simply stating that looking at this by case by case exames ignores the context from within which these laws exist, a context that I don't feel you are able to grasp.

I see absolutely where you are coming from, my problem is not with why the laws are there but rather the laws themselves are unjust, inflammatory and in most cases unneccessary.

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 10:56 pm
How about actually responding to the questions posed? I asked you a question about wefare.

You did, I didn't feel it was particularly relecant to the topic. Social security inherently treats people as equal, i.e. it doesn't matter your race, religion, etc when it comes to protecion during old age or disability etc. Affirmitive action has nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by [email protected]August 07, 2007 10:56 pm
It is capitalism that is the problem, not measures introduced to counter it.

I agreed with this, my problem is the measures put in place are in my experience worse than nothing at all.

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 10:56 pm
Your comment that is a 'national disgrace' is disturbing.

Not disturbing at all. I am not aware of the details of positive discrimination laws in any country other than the UK, that's where I live. I presume there are equivalent legislation in the USA, Japan, Angola, wherever. I am not familiar with them so don't feel it is appropriate to comment.

[email protected] 07, 2007 10:56 pm
This problem goes beyond national borders. Affirmative Action is not the cause of racism, a system based on inequality and domination is.

Again, I agree entirely, sadly the AA seems to fan the flames of inequality and opression rather than quenching it. [/b]

Yeah but my point is that these laws cannot simply be seen 'in themself', i.e. as somehow seperated from their social context. Such a position is idealist.

I will respond to the rest later.

Hampton

9th August 2007, 01:18

You did, I didn't feel it was particularly relecant to the topic. Social security inherently treats people as equal, i.e. it doesn't matter your race, religion, etc when it comes to protecion during old age or disability etc. Affirmitive action has nothing to do with it.

When social security was first put into effect, it did not include categories of work where blacks were heavily overrepresented, farmworkers and maids. At that time those two jobs counted as 60% of the black labor force and 75% of those who worked in the South. Many blacks weren't able to get SS until the 1950s. While a nice white middle class was being created with many New Deal programs and the GI Bill, blacks were left behind. The poverty that exists in the black nation is a result of that, and AA has everything to do with it.

bombeverything

9th August 2007, 08:14

You did, I didn't feel it was particularly relecant to the topic. Social security inherently treats people as equal, i.e. it doesn't matter your race, religion, etc when it comes to protecion during old age or disability etc. Affirmitive action has nothing to do with it.

What I meant was that by your reasoning it would follow that all programs targeted at a specific group, for instance welfare for the poor are inherently evil. Why? Because it could be said that they discriminate against other groups. This is clearly absurd. Some might say that charity is patronising, and it is, but such things are unfortunately necessary in a capitalist economy. I doubt you would argue otherwise, but I am trying to point out that the argument that 'discrimination' is 'discrimination' without looking into (and taking into account) the reasons behind such measures is a bit idealistic.

Black Dagger

9th August 2007, 11:44

Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta+August 03, 2007 02:09 pm--> (bleeding gums malatesta @ August 03, 2007 02:09 pm)
Red Lion
IAs far as I'm concerned, as soon as you discriminate in favour of one group you automatically discriminate against all other groups.

Society, class, isnt so fluid that if the government or business nudges one way or another there's an instant reversal in the way things are (least of all a serious reversal in the social, economic and political power of white people in general terms).

Of course that is not to say that affirmative action policies in the workplace do not work at reversing prejudiced trends in employment (they do), but rather that tackling the exclusion of some does not entail a wholesale social shift towards the exclusion of members of the dominant group (which seems to be your argument), that just makes no sense at all. The latter have not been displaced, an opportunity has merely been provided for some where before there was a barrier.

This idea that trying to break down some of the barriers experienced by say black or asian britons means that white britons are losing out is a myth perpetuated by racist groups such as the BNP, and is without basis. [/b]
Red Lion, are you going to reply to this?

Cheers.

RedLion

9th August 2007, 23:47

Originally posted by bleeding gums [email protected] 09, 2007 10:44 am

Red Lion, are you going to reply to this?

Cheers.
No.

You have indirectly called me a racist so I will treat your post with the contempt it deserves.

Black Dagger

10th August 2007, 13:04

What a stunning counter-argument!

I'm now thoroughly convinced of your position :rolleyes:

Vargha Poralli

10th August 2007, 16:15

RedLion address his points and else accept you have nothing to reply. Don't play games by twisting his points.

Originally posted by bleeding gums maletesta+--> (bleeding gums maletesta)

Red Lion
IAs far as I'm concerned, as soon as you discriminate in favour of one group you automatically discriminate against all other groups.
Society, class, isnt so fluid that if the government or business nudges one way or another there's an instant reversal in the way things are (least of all a serious reversal in the social, economic and political power of white people in general terms).

Of course that is not to say that affirmative action policies in the workplace do not work at reversing prejudiced trends in employment (they do), but rather that tackling the exclusion of some does not entail a wholesale social shift towards the exclusion of members of the dominant group (which seems to be your argument), that just makes no sense at all. The latter have not been displaced, an opportunity has merely been provided for some where before there was a barrier.

This idea that trying to break down some of the barriers experienced by say black or asian britons means that white britons are losing out is a myth perpetuated by racist groups such as the BNP, and is without basis.[/b]

I don't really understand where is the racist accusation here ??? :rolleyes:

bombeverything

10th August 2007, 23:15

Originally posted by RedLion+August 09, 2007 10:47 pm--> (RedLion @ August 09, 2007 10:47 pm)
bleeding gums [email protected] 09, 2007 10:44 am

Red Lion, are you going to reply to this?

Cheers.
No.

You have indirectly called me a racist so I will treat your post with the contempt it deserves. [/b]

:D

Nor do I. BGM makes some very good points that I think should be addressed. Such views are held by racist groups. Are you really offended by this? If so, I find that very interesting.

funkmasterswede

11th August 2007, 03:27

The idea that affirmative action is the only way to combat racial and sex based discrimination is caught up in the issue of where the problem itself lies. If the act of not hiring a person based on their sex, religion or race is viewed as the problem in itself, then affirmative action would be a fine solution. However, the problem is not the act, but what causes the act. The biases that manifest themselves in discriminatory behaviour are actually what need to be prevented.

At this point, there is a dilemma; is it fine to try to prevent certain forms of thought from taking hold? If we can prevent these biases and the ideology that produces discriminatory behaviour from taking hold, should we do just that? Ideological hegemony of any kind is dangerous, as all ideas need to be continually challenged. The problem that causes affirmative action is a very large one and one that has a solution, but the other effects of this hegemony that I speak of could lead to people truly becoming sheep.

RedLion

11th August 2007, 15:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 10:15 pm
Nor do I. BGM makes some very good points that I think should be addressed. Such views are held by racist groups. Are you really offended by this? If so, I find that very interesting.
Oh, you find it "interesting" do you? So presumably if I made a wild accusation directed at you which cut right at the heart of any of your beliefs, you would be happy would you? You would just accept it would you? I call BULLSHIT!

and as for this crap.

This idea that trying to break down some of the barriers experienced by say black or asian britons means that white britons are losing out is a myth perpetuated by racist groups such as the BNP, and is without basis.

It may be true but this quote was a response to a quote of mine so it is very much levelled at me, and sounds pretty much like an accusation of racism!

Show me where the fuck I said I thought white britons are losing out?

Vargha Poralli

11th August 2007, 17:03

It may be true but this quote was a response to a quote of mine so it is very much levelled at me, and sounds pretty much like an accusation of racism!

You are not being accused of racism, just pointed the similarity between your argument and argument of BNP.

You might cut that BNP part and address other issues bleeding gums malatesta raised.

It is up to you to defend what you have said. If you can't do it accept it, but please don't twist what others are saying.

Comrade Rage

11th August 2007, 21:52

AA is reformist crap. The only way we will become equalized, or close to equalized, is to eliminate the system that is the basis for such discrimination. AA has good intentions, sure-but results are what count.

Vargha Poralli

12th August 2007, 14:43

AA is reformist crap.

And what is your "ultra revolutionary" alternative to it ?

And all this AA divides people is just stupid bullshit talk. Racists and bigots will still be bigots regardless of Affirmative Action. So AA does not bring anything bad which is not already there.

Mujer Libre

12th August 2007, 22:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 01:43 pm

AA is reformist crap.

And what is your "ultra revolutionary" alternative to it ?

And all this AA divides people is just stupid bullshit talk. Racists and bigots will still be bigots regardless of Affirmative Action. So AA does not bring anything bad which is not already there.
I think that's a really good point. AA is not an alternative to revolution, but is a short-term measure that can make people's lives better by working against institutionalised systems of discrimination. I think it's really important that we don't lose sight of the fact that people can be living shitty, oppressed lives- and that measures like AA can makes them better- in our revolutionary zeal.

redarmyfaction38

7th September 2007, 23:41

positive discrimination is just that, discrimination, it implies that, somehow, cos your female, gay, black or asian, you are incapable of fending for yourself or organising, most importantly, to better yourself or your classes and colleagues aspirations.
it puts power into the hands of the administrators, who, imo, work only in the interests of the prevalent economic, political or party system.
it alienates the "majority population", it is easily used by the media and govt. to promote a false picture of "special privileges" for minority grooups.
it is more of the middle class, suposedly "marxist" shit that comes from groups that operate outside the working class. imo.
i cannot for the life of me understand this kind of reasoning.
people like myself, really don't give a shit about your ethnic background, your sexual preferences or sex.
out here in the real world, all we care about is whose side you're on.
militant got it right, back in the 70s and 80s when it refused to pander to groups like the "black caucus".
if you aint elected, if you aint representative of the working class then your opinion means sweet fanny adams.
in my opinion, of course.

Vargha Poralli

8th September 2007, 11:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:11 am
positive discrimination is just that, discrimination, it implies that, somehow, cos your female, gay, black or asian, you are incapable of fending for yourself or organising, most importantly, to better yourself or your classes and colleagues aspirations.
it puts power into the hands of the administrators, who, imo, work only in the interests of the prevalent economic, political or party system.
it alienates the "majority population", it is easily used by the media and govt. to promote a false picture of "special privileges" for minority grooups.
it is more of the middle class, suposedly "marxist" shit that comes from groups that operate outside the working class. imo.
i cannot for the life of me understand this kind of reasoning.
people like myself, really don't give a shit about your ethnic background, your sexual preferences or sex.
out here in the real world, all we care about is whose side you're on.
militant got it right, back in the 70s and 80s when it refused to pander to groups like the "black caucus".
if you aint elected, if you aint representative of the working class then your opinion means sweet fanny adams.
in my opinion, of course.
Well what in your opinion is "In Your Opinion" can be a response to this Post ? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69424&view=findpost&p=1292341053)

And What "In your Opinion" of course is your Revolutionary alternative to this supposedly "Marxist" shit that you are damn sure operstes outside working class ? "In your Opinion" ?