‘capitalism requires inequality racism enshrines it’: Race in the USA

Recent Forum Topics Forums The Public House ‘capitalism requires inequality racism enshrines it’: Race in the USA

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #117010
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    ————-
    w
    v
    “The more militant anticapitalism and international solidarity became everyday features of U.S. antiracist activism, the more vehemently the state responded by, as Allen Feldman (1991) puts it, “individualizing disorder” into singular instances of criminality.”
    ― Ruth Wilson Gilmore, Golden Gulag: Prisons, Surplus, Crisis, and Opposition in Globalizing California

    #117171
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    #117181
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    Capitalism requires inequality. Definitely true. And on a scale no previous economic system ever came close to. There can be no effective, sufficient “capital accumulation” by capitalists without it. By definition. If that capital is shared in such a way that it dilutes concentration, it won’t work. It’s just math. And the higher the degree of concentration, the bigger the gap must be. And when just three humans — right now, Bezos, Gates and Zuckerberg — hold as much wealth as the bottom half of America combined . . . . that gap is beyond Twilight Zone levels.

    So racism kicks in in conscious and unconscious ways. Unconsciously, it helps “white people” ignore the massive gaps, because they don’t always see them, at least not directly, or what they see becomes a “norm” that they’ve become numb to. Black and brown people making far, far less, or working temp jobs, or waiting for buses and trucks to take them to dangerous, back-breaking precariot jobs, or in far away nations, etc. Or, simply unemployed. An army of surplus and radically low paid workers is absolutely necessary, or capitalism can not function. They enable “decent, middle class wages” for white people, as well as massive riches for the financial elites.

    Overt racism helps “white people” manage via “they don’t deserve to make a decent living” or some variation. Or, worse. “Screw them! I got mine!” even for the white folks who really don’t. Their sense of “I got mine” is really “I’m superior to them cuz I’m not as bad off,” etc. etc. And then throw in the police, “law and order” issues, and the wild divergence of how people are “managed” by the authorities, and this sense of superiority deepens.

    Capitalism needs enemies as well as inequality . . . so furiners and POCs and we leftists take on that role for it. It also needs, ironically, a decent percentage of “successful” POCs (and women) to prevent a mass rebellion. It’s still too early in the morning for me to express how leftists fit into the mix, exactly, as far as the racist safety valve goes . . . . but it’s there, somewhere.

    Hope others jump in and discuss this further too.

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 4 months ago by Avatar photoBilly_T.
    #117184
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    There have been non-capitalist nations which also had racism.

    I see them as intertwining issues in this historical moment, not as logically inevitably determined a certain way.

    #117189
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    There have been non-capitalist nations which also had racism.

    I see them as intertwining issues in this historical moment, not as logically inevitably determined a certain way.

    It’s complicated, but we differ a bit on this. Not absolutely, but mostly. Capitalism actually required racism to enable its original “primitive accumulation” stage . . . when it ransacked, enslaved, committed genocide against, black and brown peoples all over the globe during the so-called Age of Discovery — and then throughout the Colonial Period. Of course, primitive accumulation never ended, but it was necessary to kick-start the system and extend capital accumulation beyond the realm of the aristocracy.

    The invention of racism gave it (capitalism) cover to steal, enslave, wipe out those who failed to “improve” their lands . . . which to people like Locke, meant eschewing “profit.” The initial (European) philosophical/legal concept of “private property” made implicit the requirement of “improvement,” or it was deemed legit to hand that property over to those who would. It gave cover to endless “enclosures” all around the world. Though different historians have different first dates and locales for this, it’s safe to say the main nexus was Britain . . . though the Dutch and all the colonial powers were key as well.

    I’d also argue that there are no non-capitalist nations anymore, so it’s next to impossible to find a control group now. It’s a capitalist world. We don’t really have any examples of racist, non-capitalist nations . . . and the vast majority of non-capitalist nations were non-white prior to being assimilated into the Borg. I’d also argue that the only “white” nations that remained non-capitalist for a time, once capitalism started its ascent, were colonies. Ironically, the US, prior to the Civil War, and Ireland for a time.

    #117191
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    Historical capitalism required that. That could (and probably does) mean that different strands of the historical moment intertwined. That to me does not make it logically inevitable that the two things are mutually dependent formations.

    #117238
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    Originally posted by Jack, moved here by zn

    ==

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.