babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
If we were to measure sexism in terms of US capitalist democracy versus Cuban socialist democracy in the decade of the 2000s, female parliamentarians in Cuba were 42% of total . In the same year USA it was 17% of total.
In Cuba's parliament of 2008: "...racially, 118 parliamentarians are black and another 101 are of mixed race (35.67% in total);"
Capitalist market economies tend to produce greater economic inequalities which are compensated for a lot moreso in socialist democracies. People who are economically unequal tend to be politically unequal. More women and people of colour in the halls of power where decisions and laws are made is crucial to empowering women and ethnic minorities.
And I used India and not Mexico as a developing world example for capitalism. Women and children in democratic capitalist India basically have very few discernable rights. Social measures in 1940s fourth world China were behind those in India. By 1976 and the end of Mao's reign, infant mortality in communist China was better than the entire thirdworld developing capitalist country average. That 1976 achievement in IM in communist China was better than the same rate in India until the late 1990s. The greatest improvements in mortality and literacy were made in Mao's time. Or at least, that's what World Bank statistics say.
Of course, in post-war West Germany the Atlantic Alliance simply reconstructed Himmler's SS to spy on the East. What was left of the Nazi intelligence agency later became West Germany's BND. And they were caught red-handed fulfilling their gladio obligations a number of times and as recently as Kosovo in 2008.
Yes, I think I made reference to the fact that East Germany did a better job of rooting out Nazis, on the surface anyway. West Germany never denied they were inheriting the legacy of the Nazi regime, and responsibility for its crimes, whereas East Germany stated that they had gotten rid of capitalism, nazism and racism and were starting from a clean slate.
My point concerned the thorny question of declaring a social problem like racism eradicated because of a political change. Of course I am not criticizing socialism as a political method, but it was a mistake by the government of East Germany, and other east bloc countries.
No, I don't. But I also don't see race and gender oppression as subjugated to class oppression. I see them as equal and potent strands in a complicated network of power and pressures.
Well, not exactly, and certainly not in the sense capitalism does. But this is not the same thing as an absence of racism. The conquest of Ireland and the Crusades are two examples that spring quickly to mind about racialized others, but a historian wouldn't have to work hard to find examples of excluding language which facilitated economic or militaristic oppression. Even if you disagree with this (I don't see how, to be honest), you must concede that patriarchy predates any form of governance of which we are aware.
There seems to be some confusion as to what socialism or a post-capitalist society would look like. Socialism isn't a replacement of "democracy," nor is capitalism merely "political" (well, it is, but not in the sense you mean) or "economic". Capitalism is above all a set of social relations, which dictate not only who we can vote for (a fairly piddly part of our world) or how we govern ourselves, but who can control whom, how we represent ourselves to ourselves and others, and the means, character and structure of producing our own existence. To get rid of capitalism would not be simply "a political change," it would revolutionize (literally) our entire social structure.
No confusion on my end, Catchfire. As I said, I wasn't making a criticism of socialism, nor assuming that what happened back then was in any way post-capitalist.
But everyone else here has been talking about real governments with real pressures.
In the case I offer, it was a government which presumed that by a political and economic change it had done away with certain social ills, and refused to deal with them, except to use them as a foil against their opponents.
Whether racism would wither and die in a truly socialist environment I have no way of knowing. What I can say it that those who assumed they had met those conditions back then, and didn't have to deal with racism in their own country were mightily mistaken.
The Origins of Racism
by Isaac Saney
@ M Spector
There is a difference between saying it was a global phenomenon and saying it did not exist, and that article seems to be talking about racism in the context of slavery.
I'm not an expert by any means, but I can think of a couple of clear examples of racism before the capitalist era.
THe anti-Jewish pogroms in England in the 1100s, for one. Also, the first time members of that community were forced to identify themselves by wearing a badge on their clothing - by Edward II in the 1200s.
During the conquest of Wales, and in the centuries afterward ethnic Welsh suffered extreme racial discrimination. They could not hold political or church office.
Just a few examples, and if you were to extend that beyond race to indicents of domestic cultural, religious, and misogynist discrimination (including the witch hunts and the Albigensian Crusade within European countries) there are many many more.
Crime and incarceration around the world - U.S. versus Apartheid South Africa
Systemic racism and capitalism in two of the most capitalist countries during the cold war. And capitalist Canada is world renowned for its racism and abuse of indigenous people.
Very interesting article, M. Spector. Particularly this:
Again, I don't dispute any of this. But I would argue that Saney is not talking about racism per se, but the specific character racialized oppression takes in the early and late stages of modern capitalism. His example of Irish slaves, for instance, supports this reading: the Irish were secluded from the English as an ethnographic group as early as the 1100s. We need only read Edmund Spenser (of Faerie Queene infamy) in his A View of the State of Ireland (1596) to read a perfect expression of these pre-modern views as he argues for genocide against the barbaric, seditious and wicked Celtic race. As Saney rightly points out, racialization need have no basis in skin colour. What we are talking about, fittingly, is a distinctly modern form of racialization and racialized oppression. And of course, the revolutionary force of capitalism is breathless: there is nothing it can't subsume or co-opt, including racial prejudice.
I find this discussion a little beside the point, however. The charge made in Gorski's essay is that the current anti-racism educational strategy of discussing power is misguided:
I'm a bit baffled by Gorski's distinctions here. In what ways is "power" different from "privilege"? Isn't the latter a form of the former? The purpose of McIntosh's knapsack is to render visible the ways in which our society excludes, marginalizes, separates and divides--which are insidiously made invisible by ideology. Furthermore, if he criticizes the "White Privilege Brigade" (educators) for using the word power too much, why does he credit "critical race theorists" (theorists) for making the question of power a central one? Isn't the question of how power circulates critical both to discussions of capitalism and race? Again, I ask: is the only form of oppression enacted through unequal access to or ownership of the mode of production? I don't think it is: I think that capitalism mobilizes pre-existing narratives of oppression (gender, race, etc.) in specific ways, but how can they be subjugated by it? I'm not convinced they can be. At least, I haven't been yet.
Someone can have no discernable power, as with the case of the Grandmother from Appalachia in Gorski's article, but still benefit from localized race based privilege, which in itself constitutes a share of power bestowed by default from being a member of the beneficiary class. The main point I took from the article is that in the campaign against racism, focusing too heavily on affecting changes to the economically based political power as a panacea will risk a lack of emphasis on systemic social deprogramming on the one hand, but also there is the fact that no one system can, or has yet to make a claim that racism will be eradicated if we were to select one mode of governance or another. From the perspective of white activism in that regard, to say that strides are being undertaken as we move toward more socially responsible models places too much stock in that work, and perhaps not enough on the residule or human systemic work left behind. It may not be the case for everyone, but the observation is being made based here upon a largely anecdotal account that I believe on the merits of it, should be taken seriously through examination. How would it benefit 'us' to say that once we have identified the wider systemic power as the primary impediment and work toward its adjustment...and talk within our groups or in the mirror to say that certain milestones have been achieved...rightly or wrongly it doesn't matter for the purpose of illustration...we have to ask who actually stands to gain from making that assessment.
@ SJ
Again, I agree completely.
And I have to compliment you for putting it all in far more diplomatic language than I ever could. That post made me smile.
Why would anyone want to discriminate against someone else based on skin colour or ethnicity? What profit-driven system would make it desirable to pay someone less wages, or no wages at all, based on the notion of inferiority of skin colour or country of birth, language, or whatever other reasons capitalists have used to hoodwink workers? That system of economic order which perpetrated the crimes of slavery since its dawning in the 15th century is on the tip of my tongue, and it starts with the letter C and rhymes with cannibalism.
Well who ever said racism made sense? Now if you want to know some of the other factors that help drive racism, there have been plenty that have been around long before capitalism:
Because they want their land they live on and its resources, or because they see them as a threat to their own resources.
Because they do not understand , or feel threatened by their culture.
Because they want to use them to enslave, exploit or make war.
Xenophobia - Because they are just seen as different. And really Fidel, treating people who are "different" as if they are unintelligent, filthy, do not have souls, and are not human beings isn't that odd. Just look at the way women have always been treated, even by what we consider the most developed societies, like ancient Athens.
It made all kinds of sense to slave owners of ancient Greece and Rome through to maniacally racist neoliberal capitalists re-colonizing Africa by proxy wars for resource grabs and by debt bondage today.
Imperialists, feudalists, and colonialists to their youngest relatives, the Capitalists, have all been fully capable of exploiting a minutiae of difference between us economic serfs in order to justify paying as little as possible for their thefts of labour and gross human rights abuses along the way to enriching themselves. And the worst thing about it is that they have tried to justify it among themselves and for their citizenries by the most elaborate and unscientific notions of man and all the while claiming their ideologies were based on sound intellectual arguments.
I think I mentioned myself that oppresion and personal gain were all strong drivers of racism throughout history.
But beyond the fact that many people benefit from it, you asked the question of why anyone should be racist, and I agree that in and of itself it makes no sense whatsoever. It is a completely irrational aspect of human nature.
Pink Floyd, the animals album. Listen to pigs, dogs and sheep forwards and then backwards. The only album I ever played air guitar to. And, yep, you guessed it - we would be the sheep. We've just done what we're told down through the ages. But we'll get them when we master the art of karate. Then we'll make the buggers' eyes water.
The human nature part has to do with an innate sense of caution pertaining to the unknown or to the unfamiliar, but this certainly doesn't mean to imply that racism is part and parcel of our gene structure, and thus a waste of time to try and combat it's effects. I don't think it is incorrect to say that power systems throughout history have adapted in such a way as to capitalize in this regard, in order to better persuade subjects that it is in their interests to oppress a minority element within, or the survivors of a vanquished, neighbouring nation, particularly when noticeable differences become highlighted in a negative way toward that end. In the circumstances of today this means it is important to hold accountable and to challenge not only our own assumptions, but all of the institutions through which power manifests itself, which includes the government administrative structures and the various departments, the security apparatus most certainly, and in the extremely compelling case of today's bald faced corporatism, its behaviours against people here and the world over. This applies regardless of whatever political/economic system is in place, and it includes as well the places and venues where we attempt to discuss these matters.
eta: I'm aware that I am not properly analysing the core element from the argument presented in that article. I just don't know what it is exactly, or how to frame it.
@ SJ
I agree. I think by itself, our tendency to fear or be offended by things we don't understand can be overcome. I do think there is a part of xenophobia which is hard-wired, though. That said, there are enough studies that show people tend to cooperate when they can.
But coupled with having to fight for scarce resources, protect yourself, and the inevitable point where people get greedy, it becomes a deadly mix.
@ Fidel
Rome is an interesting example. Although there certainly was racism, the empire, and its strata, were built far more on assimilation, and how "roman" a person was. Their policy of citizenship, whereby men (and to a lesser degree, women) from all territories enjoyed the protection of Roman law undercut what could have been a hierarchy based entirely on race.
In fact, discrimination was strongest against those who did not assimilate, not based on anyone's ethnicity.
We all hear about the invasion of the Goths. In reality a good part of the Roman army, including some of its leaders, were Goths.
I know that applying class analysis to all forms of oppression - racism, sexism, lookism, etc., is reductionist, but if nothing else class analysis provides a common language to all who are oppressed. The reasons for the treatment of different classes of people being exploited by the few differ, and the history is as important as is the understanding of why, but it is essentially a class war. A complex war, based in a multitude of definitions and realities of inequity, but still a class war.
I think the language we use to describe particular oppressions divides us, and while I understand why those particularities exist, I can't support them as apart from other forms of oppression, theoretically, because the language separates us and allows those who exploit us to use the division to their own ends.
@6079_Smith_W: I think Roman economy was mostly agrarian and built on slavery. Food was a priority infeeding Mediterraneans and legionaires, barbarian hordes in the service of Rome etc. And what destroyed the empire was a violation of Hammurabi's laws for periodic debt cancellations. The unwillingness of today's oligarchs to write down debts that are unpayable is destroying today's capitalist economies similarly.
@ Fidel
Absolutely it ran on slavery, and it was a very unfair system. As a small example, it was a law that a slave must be tortured before giving evidence in court.
But Roman slaves were as often as not of the same race as their masters. Racism existed there, but it was in no way the most important determinant of class. In fact a hard racist policy would have gotten in the way of the roman strategy for conquering and holding territory.
And agriculture probably took a back seat to war when it came to feeding the troops. Germanicus set off on his German campaign primarily because the troops were restless and there was fear they might start looting at home.
THen as now, the wars were made to feed the army, not the other way around.
and @ Rebecca
Very well said. Thank you /
@6079_Smith_W: I think most slaves were won by conquering Mediterranean neighbors. Phoenicians and Greeks traded in slaves before them. But, yes, at home there were generally two classes of Romans: rich and slaves with one prospering at the expense of the other. The rich generally loathe everyone but their own kind.
Their racist-imperialist ways confused us for a long time. They never really believed that any of us are inferior to one another except for a belief in themselves as naturally annointed and dictating with an iron hand. The central plan for centuries was to keep us sheep as ignorant and ground-down by poverty as possible in dividing us against ourselves. War and poverty have been instrumental in the game of oppression. Peaceful and prosperous times tend to lead to no good ie. thoughts of democracy and revolution among the sheep. We learnt to live in fear of the iron hand as well as fearing each other for our minor differences. Hate and fear and ignorance are powerful tools of oppression in the hands of appalling greed.
It didn't matter to wealthy Romans in the end because large numbers within the legions were barbarians. And in the end Roman soldiers themselves became bribed hirelings of the barbarians attacking Rome. Rich Romans were at the point when they felt they were above paying taxes in support of empire as it was for the corrupt Khan dynasty in China. The elitist Mongols were eventually chased out of that kingdom by an irate peasant rebellion.
Throwing up our hands and saying racism is "irrational" and "makes no sense" is a cop out, and is self-defeating. You can't fight racism if you don't understand its material basis, and that requires a class analysis.
It is in the interests of capitalism to promote and maintain racism as we know it today. Therefore the struggle against racism must necessarily be anticapitalist if it is to have any hope of succeeding.
For an example of anti-racist education and propaganda with a solid class analysis behind it, you need look no further than Black Agenda Report.
Oh for fuck sakes M. Spector
If you have read my words with any aim other than nit-picking, you know that is not what I said.
Or perhaps you can educate me as to how the amount of pigment in people's skin, the shape or their hairs, or their eye colour makes them any more or less of a human being. Because I am sorry, when it comes to understanding that connection, I really am ignorant, and don't have a clue where to begin understanding it.
The truth is that we are all Africans by what I've read. We originated in Africa. Scientists have said that any two black Africans are probably more genetically divergent than they might be from a non-African. And it's because Africans are of the larger source of the gene pool that never left Africa. That's right, Nordic blondes, Germans and any ethnics claiming purity are probably the racial equivalent of an Ozark Mountains hillbilly clan by comparison. It's really nothing to brag about where science is concerned.
The skin pigment excuse is not so far removed from more modern ones, like neoliberal labour market "flexibility", false terrorism paving the way for warfiteering, currency speculation, creating false shortages, false demand, the petro dollar, monopolies, price fixing, interest rates, competition etc. Any excuse will do when crooking and robbing the lower classes.
@ Fidel
Good point. And to expand on that "less than human" argument the fact is the only people who are completely human are black african people who aren't part neanderthal like the rest of us.
A genetic distinction but again, one which fails to provide any rational justification for racism.
I wasn't aware that we are related to neanderthals. You're pulling my leg, yeah?
Nope. I am quite serious. You probably knew already that we are all mongrels. But the fact is we really are mules, as in a hybrid of two species.
http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics-neanderthal-110718.html