this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
64 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

22726 readers
228 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try [email protected] if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Theres enough racist people that hes a candidate

Thats it, lets stop putting our heads in the sand with 'economic anxiety'

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

No one is saying capitalism is the sole cause of racism, that's completely ahistorical. But what is historical fact is the capitalism greatly exacerbates existing racisms.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (2 children)

capitalism is the primary cause and engine of racism. Racialism was invented in the 17th century alongside the mercantile transition into capitalism. Capitalism and Racism were born together and will die together, they are twins.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

This is class reductionism right here. Racism was around long before the 17th century lmfao.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

No it was not, the concept of race was invented around this time. Perhaps you mean prejudice and ethnic sectarianism? That certainly existed. Race did not. Might behoove you to do some reading on this subject before pontificating with false confidence

[–] [email protected] 6 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Lol, now you are just arguing semantics.

The celts were considered a race apart from the anglo saxons.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 14 hours ago

The “race” part is essential to “racism”. This is not semantics this is purely the meat of the discussion

[–] [email protected] 5 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (2 children)

This only makes sense if you define "racism" exclusively as "white supremacism". But you're not saying much at that point. You're just saying racism as we currently experience it is a product of capitalism. Which, duh, everything is.

Racism existed before capitalism and can exist after. Examples: the Caste System, the Khmer Rouge. Shit even Christopher Columbus was about as racist as you can get and that's right before capitalism kicks off. The Racialism you're describing is just the ideological petina that capitalists put on their pre-existing racism.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 14 hours ago (6 children)

No I define racism as prejudice based of the system of racialism, which was invented in the 17th century.

Other forms of sectarian prejudice existed beforehand. Not racism

[–] [email protected] 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

the system of racialism, which was invented in the 17th century.

And that's somehow not White Supremacism?

Other forms of sectarian prejudice existed beforehand. Not racism

bruh-moment

[–] [email protected] 10 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Not my fault you don’t know the historical literature and are redefining clearly defined words

[–] [email protected] 4 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

"Its not racism without race science" is meaningless pedantry. If we accept your definitions then the broader topic of "sectarian prejudice" is the greater issue than your narrow definition to the current flavor of "sectarian prejudice". Your prioritizing dealing with racism as an ideology and not dealing with its material causes.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

"It's not racism without race" is what you meant. Literally no concept of the ideas of "races" until this time. There cannot be prejudice along lines which are not yet drawn. This isn't needless pedantry, this is fundamental to understanding what racism is and how to address it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Literally no concept of the ideas of "races"

People had concepts of different ethnicities and reasons for subjegating, persecuting, and enslaving them before race science was invented. Utterly ahistorical to believe otherwise

I never said people should not know the history and origins of white supremacism. What I am saying is people aren't going to give much of a shit about ending "racism" if you whittle it down to just "race science based persecution". They still want the persecution to end. If you get rid of the current ideological framework but don't address the underlying causes then another framework will re emerge.

This is an exercise in being able to relate to other people and not being an ivory tower pedant. If you told someone oppressed by racism that racism has ended but their oppression still remained they'll be perfectly justified to give you a beat down.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

It seems like you fundamentally don't disagree with me, you're just really attached to using the incorrect words

[–] [email protected] 4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

That's why I keep calling you a pedant. If you say "capitalism invented racism" and don't specify "white supremacism" people are going to call you full of shit.

This might come a surprise to you but to mobilize the working class you have to be able to communicate to them. Being a smugly academic pedant is going to get you no where.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

That's why I keep calling you a pedant. If you say "capitalism invented racism" and don't specify "white supremacism" people are going to call you full of shit.

Except that I'm correct, and what I'm saying is basically unanimously agreed upon among historians and there's ample literature of racism first appearing at this time. So if people "think I'm full of shit" I can then educate them on reality, as I'm doing here. And while doing so, it's a great time to also spell out dialectical materialism with a concrete example. This is why the difference is significant, cause your definition doesn't challenge the idealists while mine does.

Stop trying to change definitions. Just stick to what is universally understood. It causes confusion and misunderstanding and feeds into Liberals idealism, as seen in this thread.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

The anglo saxons had apartheid laws against the celts in 6th century britain.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 14 hours ago

Sectarian and ethnic strife are nothing new. The concept of “races” is the secret sauce that makes racism racism

[–] [email protected] 12 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

I am. Race isn't real. It is an artificial construction we shape to whatever we please. There is no connectivity tissue to it. If capitlaism didn't enforce it it would wither and die on the vine.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

It is an artificial construction

the famous artificial construction of your skin's albedo

[–] [email protected] 13 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

The race realist has entered the chat. Get your calipers out everybody.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, I am white but I am darker than several of my latinX friends. I still get white privilege they do not.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Sure, it's possible depending on the specific features and contexts which are so detailed that I won't even go into them. As well as family connections, accents, etc.

But if your Latinx friend is blue eyed and pale, and you're a very swarthy curly haired dark eyed "white" Sicilian, the friend can benefit from "white-passing privilege" relative to your white ass

[–] [email protected] 7 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Is it because of thr fair complexion? Or is it because of the resources and the legacy of being decident from the colonizer classes that provides that privilege?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 12 hours ago

both. Some people (of all races) would treat him better bc they mistake him for white, and everything nice and good they know is white, bc whites have had all the money/land since 1492

Some white people would treat him better not only because of the above implicit bias association, but consciously and explicitly because he's "one of their own", and this would be "evil" racism

[–] [email protected] 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Yes race is totally artificial, and capitalism has invented an intense apparatus to justify it. But the belief in it and the economic forces that drive that belief will exist as long as there is inequality and scarcity. Communism would eliminate that but there are other systems than communism and capitalism. They just wouldn't be all pseudo scientific about it like the capitalists would.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (3 children)

capitalism has invented an intense apparatus to justify it

You have the causality backwards. Capitalism doesn't invent things to justify racism, racism is invented to justify Capitalism. Capitalism required slavery, so it required an ideology that made it OK for certain people to become slaves. The racism was post hoc justification for what Capitalism already intended to do.

Europeans didn't go "look at these black Africans, I hate them so much I might as well enslave them" and then stumble accidentally into capitalism. They realized they required cheap start-up labor for the primitive accumulation of fixed capital and went out looking for it.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 14 hours ago

I am slightly upset you said it way better than I could.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (2 children)

racism is invented to justify Capitalism

so then why did the Indoeuropeans kill every European male 4700 years ago

idt capitalism existed back then

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

That isn't racism. The defining characteristic of racism compared with cultural chauvinism is that race is a permanent biological feature that is transferred from generation to generation. In other words, once a [racial slur], always a [racial slur]. For cultural chauvinism, there was a broad understanding that barbarians can be civilized if they adopted the civilization of their civilized superiors and the civilized can regress to barbarism if they adopted the savagery of their barbarian inferiors.

Racism was originally invented to persecute Jews (the Spanish had to find a way to say "once a Jew, always a Jew" when Jews were converting into Catholicism in order to not get expelled for being Jews), but it found much greater use in the enslavement of Africans. There was a general understanding at the time that Christians couldn't enslave other Christians, and while the rule was never fully observed, the Atlantic slave trade was at a level where you couldn't sweep that under the rug. Obviously, Africans who caught wind of this would try to convert into Christianity in order to not be enslaved. So, that's where racism comes into play. It's with racism that an ideological justification can be put into service for the sake of chattel slavery.

Once Europeans can say, "once a n-word, always a n-word," they have the ideological justification to enslave as many Black people as they see. That's also where you start seeing other bullshit like how Black people are stupid (so they can only be used as beast of burden) or how Black people can't feel pain (so crackers don't feel as bad when they turned a disobedient slave's back into ground beef). But more importantly, the racial character of their oppression meant that the status of slave transfers from the mother to her children. It doesn't matter if the mother can read or is only 0.05% Black because as long as she's a slave, her children will be slaves too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 hours ago

That isn't racism.

Okay so the caste system isn't racist either then

[–] [email protected] 12 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Ethnic sectarianism. Tribalism. Xenophobia. Chauvinism existed. I'm not saying nobody was ever tribal and thought they were better than everyone else.

What didn't exist though was racialism, the entire constructed ideology of a hierarchy or races strictly defined by "black" and "red" and "yellow" and "white" where a pyramid was constructed and scrambled over for rights. Where everyone understood that "white" was on the top, etc.

There's a difference between a free-for-all of selfishness between tribes, and an enforced system of hierarchy built on invented racial categories that is universally recognized and enforced. Where people are forced to accept they are on the bottom tier, or in the middle, and that's their lot in life.

This is also a modern ideology used by Liberals in the modern age, so it is more important to deconstruct it and attack it than "tribal selfishness" or "chauvinism" more broadly as it existed throughout history. We are not living among tribals, we are living among modern Liberal racists.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

By "capitalism invented" I meant "capitalists invented", which is what you stated. Doesn't really change my point.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

No I meant what I said, capitalism is a system which has outputs. The profit motive can never be fought. Capitalists are pretty much just along for the ride. If the capitalists opt out, then another will take their place.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

What is the disagreement here? I'm tired of you telling me shit I've already known for decades as though you just learned it.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 13 hours ago

I'm having to describe dialectical materialism 101 in here because there are several non-marxist Liberal Idealists who are making very stupid arguments. I'm just spelling everything out very clearly because it seems some people don't know much at all about this subject

[–] [email protected] 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Ive seen plenty of people even prominent marxists say this, doug and ben from Zero books for example, repeat this line.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I have never heard of Doug and Ben and don't know what they're all on about. Class reductionists are a thing but idk if that's what they are without reading their words.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (4 children)

Forget about class reductionism, how about any class analysis whatsoever? OP’s “analysis” is pure race reductionism and moralism without a single ounce of Marxist thought instilled.

Apparently using any class analysis whatsoever or referencing factual historical origins of things is “class reductionism” now?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Im not beholden to marx like you are, i just want better outcomes for everyone and saying racism would "disappear with capitalism" is dangerously ignorant of history.

i have no problem saying im just a non sectarian leftist who wants the best for everyone.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Ok liberal idealist, have fun never solving racism

[–] [email protected] 4 points 14 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

I don't want to hear anything about "class reductionist" from non-Marxists who reject Marx and reject class based analysis entirely. Go off and live in your idealist fantasy world of eternal platonic evils and leave material analysis of history to us who care to connect our ideas with reality and alter the world. Stop stealing our words and aping our ideas poorly. Stay in your own lane or learn.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 14 hours ago

I'm disagreeing with their "race reductionism" too if you read my earlier comments.

load more comments (2 replies)