Racism as we know it

Ok, so a friend asked me this exact question "What is Racism, as we know it?"

I was a little dumb-founded, but I answered his question something similar to this,

" It is more of an economical problem if you think about it actually, these type of racial tensions mostly occur between poverty-stricken gangs or in prisons, where it is common to find gangs like these forming for common protection etc.. But outside in our current society, it seems like a poor White worker would have more in common with a mestizo worker, than a rich White man and a poor white worker have in common. So if we can eliminate the system which has created these racial tensions, the same system all the way back from the horrid apartheid and segregation eras of South Africa and United States, that found their was profit to be had in slavery at the time, helped to usher in a feeling of needing to feel superior to black Africans to help justify slavery. If we can eliminate any economical reasons that start racial tensions like above, or in the case of poor living conditions that create gangs and small-scale racist tensions as mentioned, can we really only get rid of Racism as we know it then by improving the conditons of everyone in society as equally as possible."

What do you think of my answer? And, how would you have answered it and believe is Racism is what it is?

I would have answered similarly. There can be no question that capitalism's internal contradictions, which polarize different aspects of society, lend themselves toward exacerbating and in fact generating social tensions throughout all layers and degrees of abstraction in society. Non-whites perceive "racism" to be their own lowly stratification within the predominately white capitalist framework. Conversely, white working class individuals view non-whites as hostile competitors and social miscreants who lack respect for the cultural values of their respective nations. This is an illusion. It is a facade which conceals the putrescent structures of the capitalist order itself. What we understand to be "racism" within the present bourgeois context is but one facet of the social indignity born out of a system that exploits, deceives, and dehumanizes the overwhelming majority of its population.

Molov wrote:"It is more of an economical problem if you think about it actually, these type of racial tensions mostly occur between poverty-stricken gangs or in prisons, where it is common to find gangs like these forming for common protection etc..

I think it's much too easy to bring racism back to "just" an economical problem or a "invention" of the bourgeoisie. Ofcourse racial tensions find a good breeding ground in (economical) frustrations, the same as revolutionary political tensions or class tensions do.

But the true reasons for racism are much more complex and connected with human nature. It's due to insularity and diffrentiation (what means about the same as discrimination) that racism takes place. In that sense it's more of a sociological problem, that only (partly) can be solved by a maximized homogenity and a common consensus/identity. But that's not going to abolish the phenominon, because frustrations between humans will always exist and so will discrimination (and thus racism).

So if we can eliminate the system which has created these racial tensions,

If racial tension is a sociological problem that finds a breeding ground in human frustration one could not state that the system created racism; it could have triggered it or fed it, but it didn't create it.

the same system all the way back from the horrid apartheid and segregation eras of South Africa and United States, that found their was profit to be had in slavery at the time, helped to usher in a feeling of needing to feel superior to black Africans to help justify slavery.

Noam Chomsky stated that the same system is also "antiracist" because of it's dynamics. It can use "racism" and "antiracism" as a mean to achief a certain goal, but according to Chomsky it's overall more antiracist than racist. This we can see in South Africa where the victory of the ANC led to a complete closing sale of state property to foreign investers. The capitalists supported the abolishment of apartheid because the South African society changed from a extractive industry (which needs slaves) to a production industry (which needs a educated "middle class").

In South Africa we can also see that's not only because of the "justification of slavery", because the apartheid and racism still exists in South Africa. The only thing that really changed is that the black majority now discriminates other black minorities (such as the San that lived there for 25.000 years) and white minorities (like the Boeren/Afrikaners who are the offspring of European colonialists) instead of a white minority that suppresses the black majority. The hate and frustrations still lives on over there, even after the "abolishment" of the white apartheid regime.

If we can eliminate any economical reasons that start racial tensions like above, or in the case of poor living conditions that create gangs and small-scale racist tensions as mentioned, can we really only get rid of Racism as we know it then by improving the conditons of everyone in society as equally as possible."

In some part there lies truth in that answer; if one could generate good living conditions racism would occur less, but in the end it will exist as long as humans and human difference will exist. It's simply an inescapeble fact of life that man will always identify himself with his "own group" and from that point of view will discriminate against "the others". That can be in a subcultural, political, intelligence, class, culture, religious or racial form.

None the less it's simply a part of life that can't simply be "solved" unless you would know a way to destroy human individuality and diversity as a whole (what in my opinion would be even more unethical than racism).

Also most who strive for "antiracism" and "multiracialism" are mostly used and abused by the bourgeoisie and therefore reactionaries behind the "revolutionairy and progressive" facade.

IMHO, I see racism as a result of the combination of capitalism's internal contradictions with the struggle for nationalism and self-determination it creates.

Nationaal-Syndicalist wrote:But the true reasons for racism are much more complex and connected with human nature. It's due to insularity and diffrentiation (what means about the same as discrimination) that racism takes place. In that sense it's more of a sociological problem, that only (partly) can be solved by a maximized homogenity and a common consensus/identity. But that's not going to abolish the phenominon, because frustrations between humans will always exist and so will discrimination (and thus racism).

It's important to be mindful of the language one chooses to employ in these sorts of discussions. 'Racism' has a very specific meaning: it's a belief in racial superiority and a view which considers oppression to be legitimate if applied to races deemed "inferior."

Racism is basically an ideology occasionally utilized for aiding in specific objectives; it's a sort of psychological coping mechanism. As Noam Chomsky explained:

"[Racism] has to do with conquest, with oppression. If you're robbing somebody, oppressing them, dictating their lives, it's a very rare person who can say: 'Look, I'm a monster. I'm doing this for my own good.' Even Himmler didn't say that.

A standard technique of belief formation goes along with oppression, whether it's throwing them in gas chambers or charging them too much at a corner store, or anything in between. The standard reaction is to say: 'It's their depravity. That's why I'm doing it. Maybe I'm even doing them good.'

If it's their depravity, there's got to be something about them that makes them different from me. What's different about them will be whatever you can find . . . You can always find something—they have a different color hair or eyes, they're too fat, or they're gay. You can find something that's different enough. Of course you can lie about it, so it's easier to find.

Take the Serbs and the Croats. They're indistinguishable. They use a different alphabet, but they speak the same language. They belong to different branches of the Catholic Church. That's about it. But many of them are perfectly ready to murder and destroy each other. They can imagine no higher task in life."
Chomsky quoted in Arthur Naiman (ed.), The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many (Berkeley: Odonian Press, 1994), pp. 65-66.

I contend that it isn't racism that's immutable, but rather ethnocentrism which is—the latter of which consists of fairly benign behavior, such as identifying with ones ethnic group, self-segregating, etc. Racism is destructive and usually emerges when groups are competing with one another over resources. Considering socialism is a system based upon cooperation and mutual aid, many of the material factors which give rise to racism will be eliminated.

My girlfriend is a racist. She told me, "If I don't have white pride, then I have nothing. I have no reason to feel good about myself." It's funny that I'm dating a racist considering that I'm not white.

I don't think it's just 'false consciousness' driving racism.

sytar wrote:My girlfriend is a racist. She told me, "If I don't have white pride, then I have nothing. I have no reason to feel good about myself." It's funny that I'm dating a racist considering that I'm not white.

Your girlfriend must be quite a shallow and insecure, not to mention pathetic, individual to measure so much of her self-worth in terms of her "pride" in a vague biological construct which includes her merely on the basis of birth, and it baffles my why the two of you are supposedly dating.

I don't think it's just 'false consciousness' driving racism.

Capitalism is not inherently racist, though it has served the bourgeoisie as a valuable historical instrument. As Noam Chomsky elucidated:

“See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist—it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn’t built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super-exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist—just because it’s anti-human. And race is, in fact, a human characteristic—there’s no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all the junk that’s produced—that’s their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance.”
Understanding Power, p. 89

Racism is largely perpetuated on a purely systemic level (without ideology) due to the fact that capitalism operates as a zero-sum game. In other words, one individual's gain usually comes at the expense of another, whether it be wages, jobs, or capital in the means of production. This allows for ethnic scapegoating and other petty forms of abuse directed at ethnic minorities, who are viewed as either undermining the condition of the majority or "corrupting" society, rather than challenging the problems intrinsic to the system itself. Capitalism, via its pernicious market relations, nurtures a competitive mentality amongst the working class, and this can manifest itself as xenophobic or racist animosity.

On the other hand, since ethnic minorities, as a result of a host of initial disadvantages, are the most historically degraded segment of the population, constituting a disproportional percentage of the lumpenproletariat (petty criminals, vagabonds, pimps, drug lords, etc.), they are especially vulnerable to being charged with inflicting all manner of social ills.

Capitalism pushes racism when it needs it,People are naturally ethnocentric so the capitalist can easily push groups towards racism,war and genocide if it likes.The system can also be used in reverse and anti raceism in the modern western world is being used extensively to push the capitalists current agendas.

Again people are naturally erhnocentric or as I like to say tribal.Each ethnic group should be able to live unmolested in self determination inside its own boundrys.

Your girlfriend must be quite a shallow and insecure, not to mention pathetic, individual to measure so much of her self-worth in terms of her "pride" in a vague biological construct which includes her merely on the basis of birth.

You're right and she'd agree with you, although I think the word 'pathetic' is getting a little harsh. At least she has the self-awareness to know that her racism is driven exclusively by her own insecurities and not the 'inferiority' of others.

sytar wrote:You're right and she'd agree with you, although I think the word 'pathetic' is getting a little harsh. At least she has the self-awareness to know that her racism is driven exclusively by her own insecurities and not the 'inferiority' of others.

Given the fact that you're admittedly non-'white' and presumably anti-racist, what motivated you to date a 'white' racist in the first place? Are you a masochist?

I don't think that she would qualify as racist if she does not think that she is superior to other races or ridicule them for being that other race. It is a weird quirk though, one that you may be able to get her to shake.

She asked me to give her books to help her be less racist. She just recently went over a history of black america and I'm giving her Zinn's "A People's History" to read. If any of you want to throw a book recommendation my way, I think she'd be amenable to it.

Given the fact that you're admittedly non-'white' and presumably anti-racist, what motivated you to date a 'white' racist in the first place? Are you a masochist?

To be honest, I'm an awkward nerdy guy and she came on to me. She's not a strident racist, it's just that she was raised in the Deep South. She just pretends I'm white even though I'm about as white as Obama.

sytar wrote:She asked me to give her books to help her be less racist. She just recently went over a history of black america and I'm giving her Zinn's "A People's History" to read. If any of you want to throw a book recommendation my way, I think she'd be amenable to it.

Given the fact that you're admittedly non-'white' and presumably anti-racist, what motivated you to date a 'white' racist in the first place? Are you a masochist?

To be honest, I'm an awkward nerdy guy and she came on to me. She's not a strident racist, it's just that she was raised in the Deep South. She just pretends I'm white even though I'm about as white as Obama.

Great story Bro

TheocWulf wrote:Great story Bro

What is your deal? Don't try to play it off as though your views are uncontroversial. He said nothing wrong.

The story sounds like Utter bollocks to me.What have I said that's controversial by the way?

Molov wrote:"we really only get rid of Racism as we know it then by improving the conditons of everyone in society as equally as possible."

I bet you'd be very surprised to study history and find out that Equal Pay for Equal Work laws in South Africa were what created apartheid. Almost all structural racism you see is the cause of government intervention in the free market. In an uninterferred free market you don't have racism. Not long-term sustained, institutionalized racism.

The reason is supply & demand. If I am a black miner in South Africa and I am willing to work for half the price of a white miner then the mine owner must pay a very heavy price out of his own pocket if he wants to stand by a racist hiring practice. So as a black miner I am able to get my foot in the door, gain skills that make me more productive and able to justify a higher wage down the road. White miners protested that blacks could be hired for less than them, and would put them out of work. So an Equal Pay for Equal Work law was put in place so everything became... in your own words above "equal." Now the mine owner suffered no financial penalty to discouage him from having racist hiring practices and a decade later you had full blown apartheid.

V for Valjean wrote:I bet you'd be very surprised to study history and find out that Equal Pay for Equal Work laws in South Africa were what created apartheid. Almost all structural racism you see is the cause of government intervention in the free market. In an uninterferred free market you don't have racism. Not long-term sustained, institutionalized racism.

The reason is supply & demand. If I am a black miner in South Africa and I am willing to work for half the price of a white miner then the mine owner must pay a very heavy price out of his own pocket if he wants to stand by a racist hiring practice. So as a black miner I am able to get my foot in the door, gain skills that make me more productive and able to justify a higher wage down the road. White miners protested that blacks could be hired for less than them, and would put them out of work. So an Equal Pay for Equal Work law was put in place so everything became... in your own words above "equal." Now the mine owner suffered no financial penalty to discouage him from having racist hiring practices and a decade later you had full blown apartheid.

I won't even bother with the historical lies, i will just go down to the ridiculous reasoning.

Didn't it even crossed your mind that if you have black people putting white people out of work, just by the mere fact that black people are living in worse conditions, and thus accepting a lower pay, actually fosters racism in the first place? There is no better way to drive wages down than pitting social groups against each other, and capitalism exploits this and much more. The rising of the european far right today is a direct consequence of the "let's hire the cheapest possible" mentality that affects every capitalist society. You will be fooled into blaming the imported workers, actually prepetuating racial tensions and revenge feelings.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:I won't even bother with the historical lies, i will just go down to the ridiculous reasoning.

If you think those are lies you might revisit history as what I've stated is 100% fact and I'd challenge you to quote one statement which is not. But I'll elaborate in case my point came off as vague although I meant it to be succinct. You are commenting on a social institution of racism, not an economic institution of capitalism or socialism. However the economic institution of socialism fosters the conditions of racism whereas capitalism does the opposite.

I'll use my previous example of Apartheid since I've already obligated myself to expand upon it. The all white South African Labour Party formed in the earlh 1900s consisted of 100% white, European socialists. That union and its ally the Mine Worker's Union anyway. They specifically opposed any degredation of European working standards, which was their code name for black labor undercutting white union pay rates. So South Africa's socialist unions looked to government to interfer with the capitalist free market and shut out black labor. They tired regulation & licensing to restrict entry into the work force. But when the demand for ore went way up due to World War 1 even that didn't work. In December 1921 the Chamber of Mines announced a plan to fire 2,000 highly paid whites in semiskilled occupations and replace them with Africans. So they went after and got an Equal Pay for Equal Work law which destroyed the economic benefit of hiring blacks. Thus preventing blacks the employment opportunity they otherwise would have had in a capitalist free market.

There is no better way to drive wages down than pitting social groups against each other, and capitalism exploits this and much more.

If what you were saying were true then we wouldn't see racial violence in areas where the wages were all the same. So in areas of Africa that are equally poor we wouldn't have seen the Rwandan genocides were what you're saying true. Were your statement true we wouldn't have seen the genocide in Yugoslavia either or the Armenian genocide in Turkey.

All you've done is taken something you perceive as bad (racism) and assigned blame to something else you see as bad (capitalism) even though they're not related. There's racism in poor areas, there's racism in socialist nations to as much extent if not greater than you see in capitalist nations. The only difference is that in capitalist economies the disadvantaged group has a way to make a better life for themselves by working for a lower price. Then once they've gained job skills that make them more productive and able to justify a higher wage they move up. America is proof of that as we brought in immigrants from every color and nationality, most started in very menial jobs but all worked their way up equally.

V for Valjean wrote:If you th....

So first, you try to use the warpest logic i have ever witnessed to justify that racism stems from stopping capitalists from employing black people for miserable wages? Are you for real? Not only you are out of your mind, you are a racist as well, since you promote differences in wages according to the color of one's skin.

There was racism in socialist societies? Yes, that's why Cuba, Venezuela, and the whole eastern europe were full of black panthers and klu klux klan members....

And all the US immigrants worked their way up? Sure, i see that everyday, specially in the 50 million poor people and countless living near poverty there. Such a paradise.

Apartheid was caused directly by socialist labor unions, go to wikipedia if you care to but I've not mislead you about any detail in the mater. In fact that exact explanation of how equal pay laws cause racial discrimination in hiring was put forward by someone with a Nobel Prize in economics. Its only paraphrased by me, maybe poorly, but regardless among professional economists that idea is regarded as fact.

Also Leon, as i see that you're staff here, I'll mention that i do run an economics forum which anyone here is invited to participate in. I've always enjoyed discussing politics and economics with folks of a more collectivist or socialist leaning because, to pay you a very sincere compliment and i hope you'll take it as such, I've always observed that socialists are much more interested in economics than folks from other viewpoints. And i can tell from reading posts here a great many people who've spent considerable time thinking about topics like this. Its disappointing to say, but the truth, that most people from all the other schools of thought have given far less consideration to these topics.

V for Valjean wrote:Apartheid was caused directly by socialist labor unions, go to wikipedia if you care to but I've not mislead you about any detail in the mater. In fact that exact explanation of how equal pay laws cause racial discrimination in hiring was put forward by someone with a Nobel Prize in economics. Its only paraphrased by me, maybe poorly, but regardless among professional economists that idea is regarded as fact.

Also Leon, as i see that you're staff here, I'll mention that i do run an economics forum which anyone here is invited to participate in. I've always enjoyed discussing politics and economics with folks of a more collectivist or socialist leaning because, to pay you a very sincere compliment and i hope you'll take it as such, I've always observed that socialists are much more interested in economics than folks from other viewpoints. And i can tell from reading posts here a great many people who've spent considerable time thinking about topics like this. Its disappointing to say, but the truth, that most people from all the other schools of thought have given far less consideration to these topics.

From wikipedia:

Although trade unions for black and coloured (mixed race) workers had existed since the early 20th century, it was not until the 1980s reforms that a mass black trade union movement developed. The trade unions which existed under apartheid were racially segregated, with 54 unions being white-only, 38 for Indian and coloured and 19 for African people. The Industrial Conciliation Act (1956) legislated against the creation of multi-racial trade unions and attempted to split existing multi-racial trade unions into separate branches or organizations along racial lines.[59]

This proves that trade unions were far from fighting for any equality, unlike what you are saying. So the government, helped along by industrialists basically ruled who could join the unions, and witch could exist, and you come around saying this was anything socialist related? Your understanding of what is socialist is surely lacking.

V for Valjean wrote:If you think those are lies you might revisit history as what I've stated is 100% fact and I'd challenge you to quote one statement which is not. But I'll elaborate in case my point came off as vague although I meant it to be succinct. You are commenting on a social institution of racism, not an economic institution of capitalism or socialism. However the economic institution of socialism fosters the conditions of racism whereas capitalism does the opposite.

What you go on to say and what you conclude from it amaze me so I will proceed to break down and highlight or re-state what you say.

I'll use my previous example of Apartheid since I've already obligated myself to expand upon it. The all white South African Labour Party formed in the earlh 1900s consisted of 100% white, European socialists.

Where are you getting this from? I don't know South African history so for all I know you are completely mistaken.

That union and its ally the Mine Worker's Union anyway. They specifically opposed any degredation of European working standards, which was their code name for black labor undercutting white union pay rates.

So, according to you, the union workers did not support their wages being slashed? You blame that on racism?

So South Africa's socialist unions looked to government to interfer with the capitalist free market and shut out black labor. They tired regulation & licensing to restrict entry into the work force. But when the demand for ore went way up due to World War 1 even that didn't work. In December 1921 the Chamber of Mines announced a plan to fire 2,000 highly paid whites in semiskilled occupations and replace them with Africans.

Even though demand was increased they fired higher paid workers and replaced them with lower paid ones. The ones laid off and their coworkers who were also conceivably on the chopping block didn't like that.

So they went after and got an Equal Pay for Equal Work law which destroyed the economic benefit of hiring blacks. Thus preventing blacks the employment opportunity they otherwise would have had in a capitalist free market.

You are completely right, they should have taken a huge wage cut and said, "fuck you" to their children and told them to eat cardboard. Also, what the hell are you on about? Are you saying that the africans should not have been paid the same? Why should any of the workers have gotten paid any less for doing the same work? Where is the 'mutual benefit' in that arrangement of labor and capitalist?

If what you were saying were true then we wouldn't see racial violence in areas where the wages were all the same.

Squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.

So in areas of Africa that are equally poor we wouldn't have seen the Rwandan genocides were what you're saying true. Were your statement true we wouldn't have seen the genocide in Yugoslavia either or the Armenian genocide in Turkey.

You are just being thick.

All you've done is taken something you perceive as bad (racism) and assigned blame to something else you see as bad (capitalism) even though they're not related.

No, he is saying that when two groups are put against each other through a perception that they are in competition then they are likely to hate each other, in this case by race. The capitalist can use that to force the two to compete in a race to the bottom for wages instead of fighting a united group. I don't see how you didn't understand that.

There's racism in poor areas, there's racism in socialist nations to as much extent if not greater than you see in capitalist nations.

I didn't know that there had been a socialist nation. Please point one out.

The only difference is that in capitalist economies the disadvantaged group has a way to make a better life for themselves by working for a lower price.

Or, they work at Walmart and never get enough money to get out of poverty.

Then once they've gained job skills that make them more productive and able to justify a higher wage they move up.

Where do you get this idea of social mobility from?

America is proof of that as we brought in immigrants from every color and nationality, most started in very menial jobs but all worked their way up equally.

No, it is not. People came over to the colonies as wealthy people and most have stayed that way. There was no 'even playingfield'.

sytar wrote:My girlfriend is a racist. She told me, "If I don't have white pride, then I have nothing. I have no reason to feel good about myself." It's funny that I'm dating a racist considering that I'm not white.

I don't think it's just 'false consciousness' driving racism.

Your girlfriend is hardly a racist considering the fact she dates a non-White man and eventually will have non-White children.

But I think she is a racialist, which means that she recognizes that she is comming from different ethnic and racial background than you, as well as from another cultural heritage. But this knowledge doesn't make her feel superior to you, only different, distinct.

But if she feels that her White pride is hers greatest asset and top self idintifying marker, why she is willing to disfranchize her future children (providing that you'll be the father) is beyond me.

arize wrote:
But if she feels that her White pride is hers greatest asset and top self idintifying marker, why she is willing to disfranchize her future children (providing that you'll be the father) is beyond me.

Why someone who is admittedly racist would ask for books to make her less racist is also beyond me. No personal attacks on sytar or his girlfriend, but I think it is clear that she needs help beyond a few history books if she's a non-racist white pride racist who has a non-white boyfriend. I find it all rather intriguing.

DSN wrote:

arize wrote:
But if she feels that her White pride is hers greatest asset and top self idintifying marker, why she is willing to disfranchize her future children (providing that you'll be the father) is beyond me.

Why someone who is admittedly racist would ask for books to make her less racist is also beyond me. No personal attacks on sytar or his girlfriend, but I think it is clear that she needs help beyond a few history books if she's a non-racist white pride racist who has a non-white boyfriend. I find it all rather intriguing.

Intriguing isn't the word I'd have used,I'd have used bullshit.