I'm sorry, but I have zero belief that you can bring about any change from within the confines of capitalism, because capitalism is a system that concentrates power mostly in the hands of a few extremely rich capitalists, while the majority of the population has no power, and ordinary people are forced to work at shitty alienating jobs where they have absolutely no control over their time and bodies during the working day when they rent out their labor to business owners. And while racist or bigoted attitudes may have some independent existence in the minds of ignorant individuals, racism has always served the purpose of allowing groups of people to be economically exploited.
To give a clear example: A lot of the technology used to create techno, for instance, is probably created by nonwhite individuals working in terrible labor conditions outside of Europe and the United States. Anti-racism means NOTHING unless it is willing to fight for better working conditions and material conditions for the exploited workers, the majority of whom are actually nonwhite. Thus, any "diversity" initiative that does not challenge fundamental aspects of capitalist production and its exploitation of human labor. Large festivals, in particular, make their money like all capitalist enterprises by trying to maximize worker exploitation, because the lower the labor costs, the higher the profit. In a capitalist economy, this profit motive will ALWAYS trump any efforts at increasing diversity, even if the people engaged in those efforts are well intentioned. I believe that the primary system in "systemic racism" is the system of capitalism itself, because it provides economic incentives to behave in ways that ensure continued unequal racist outcomes. In a country like the US, 59% of white employees have working class type jobs, compared with 46% of Asians, 78% of hispanics, and 69% of blacks. (Asians do better than whites though, only 46% have working class jobs. Source: https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/race-and-ethnicity/2018/home.htm) So, the blindspot towards class and economics means that pre-existing between populations is intensified, and the fact that the working class as a whole has gotten significantly poorer. Now, this actually matters a lot in the context of cultural production, because we have entered into a time period where it is very hard for talented working people to have the time and energy to be able to produce cultural products. At the same time, dance music is losing touch with its working class roots, as extremely wealthy elites continue to exercise greater power within the scene. According to Ed Gillett writing on the site The Quietus ( https://thequietus.com/articles/28302-housekeeping-faces-review): As profits and audiences for electronic music have ballooned over the last > decade, its infrastructure has increasingly been annexed by large > entertainment conglomerates, our language shifting almost imperceptibly > from vaguely egalitarian talk of ‘club culture’ to the creepily neoliberal > ‘night-time economy’ in the process. Everything from inflated artists’ fees > to soaring rents and council cuts have served to squeeze out grassroots > promoters and decimate small-scale venues in the UK over the last ten > years; an increasingly professionalised, competitive and hostile > marketplace has centralised around UK powerhouses like the Columbo Group > and global behemoths like Live Nation, AEG and (until recently) Red Bull. > > But the same process is arguably reflected on an individual level too: as > barriers to entry have risen, people from backgrounds of notable wealth and > privilege have taken increasingly visible ownership of ostensibly > countercultural platforms (with that context rarely noted in public > discussions of their creative output). My own perspective on this is that the only way to counter this is to BUILD A NEW UNDERGROUND from the bottom up, a new grassroots that exists as an alternative to the mainstream electronic music industry. Gillett seems to suggest something along the same lines as what I've been contemplating: One phrase that’s popped up in recent months is “interdependent” music, > usually in opposition to debased notions of “independent.” We’ve all ended > up as atomised cultural producers, this line of thinking goes, answerable > only to ourselves: now our creative freedom is secured, what matters is > building new networks of solidarity and mutual support. Co-operative > ownership of platforms, local DIY support networks insulated from the > rapaciousness of global capital or online content churn, and collective > resistance to the sinister intentions of the streaming industry could each > offer us a chance to sidestep the ongoing centralisation of power, and > mitigate the outsized influence of private wealth and privilege. Anyway, I'm sure some will strongly disagree with my position but I call it like I see it and I've been quite poor for many of my adult years, and my thinking is based on what I myself have experienced, not on some stuff learned in a classroom, so I think that counts for something. I am sure that there are well intentioned people working towards diversity at AFEM, but without structural change these efforts just look like empty gestures to me, and I doubt their ability to make a real difference because they are working at the level of surface symptoms of problems that have deep structural causes within society, and as I see it, are incentivized by the profit structure of capitalism itself. We all know that the wealthiest elites have absolutely no scruples in what they are willing to do to make a profit. They will always use any available tool to keep labor costs low, and as long as racism serves an economic function, there will be forces attempting to weaponize racism for profit. To put it in simplistic terms: if capitalists think a white DJ will bring in more profit than a black DJ, they will choose the white DJ 100% of the time. No diversity committee can change that systemic fact. It MIGHT be possible to use some kind of boycott tactics or something to force them to do a little better, temporarily, but really, what would be the point? Wouldn't it be better just to NOT GIVE THOSE PEOPLE OUR MONEY and work on creating scenes and ecosystems that are not only more diverse, but also create more work and more just compensation for cultural workers? Wouldn't it be better to work to keep wealth circulating within these networks and communities rather than letting predatory capitalist enterprises extract all the wealth, destroy all the infrastructure, and leave behind decimated scenes where talented working musicians can't make a living? I see this kind of collective work as the next logical step to the achievements of Motown, the Association for the Advancement of Creative Music in Chicago (Afrocentic free jazz collective dating back to the 1960's), and Underground Resistance. ~David On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 7:11 PM Peter Wohelski <[email protected]> wrote: > David, > > Actually electronic music industry trade organizations like AFEM > <https://www.associationforelectronicmusic.org/initiatives/> are tackling > issues like diversity and inclusivity from the inside, but from my > experience issues like this are a tough slog to get festival organizers, > promoters, and even hiring managers at labels, distributor, and other > industry employers to truly commit to bring on BIPOC, LGBTQIA+ and women > artists and executive / staff roles. It's very much a white, largely > straight old boys network. > > I acknowledge that these are for-profit businesses who have shareholders, > investors, and sponsors to answer to, but it's got to start *somewhere.* > > Peter > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 11:10 AM David A. Powers <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Those are good points, I don't really have much perspective on what the >> broader American scene is, having lived in Kalamazoo/Detroit/Chicago over >> the years, the majority of events that I have attended do feature a lot of >> black DJ's, and the three headliners I personally booked as a promoter were >> Omar-S, DJ Qu, and Rick Wade, so as far as that I'm trying to be part of >> the solution. If I ever throw a party in Austin TX before I move, and have >> cash for a headliner, I'm gonna bring in someone I know from Detroit, like >> Mike Clark, Alton Miller, or Norm Talley. >> But as someone committed to growing the techno ecosystem and trying to >> create more opportunities for musicians and artists, and making sure a >> diverse range of people are included, I actually think that this topic is >> worth exploring. >> Techno is a DIY scene and that means any of us have the power to >> participate and at least attempt to implement that vision, and so it's >> worth having serious good faith discussions about the best ways to do that, >> because it's not just a topdown corporate thing, and the choices I and >> others make can potentially make real differences in small ways to the >> trajectory of where things are going, whereas the question of who gets >> featured in industry publications, or gets the best gigs is a realm that is >> totally outside my control. >> If I have the cash, though, I can throw an event, so in that sense >> looking at questions of audience diversity is not just a theoretical >> question. I could potentially do a good job or a shitty job with that >> depending on my vision and choices, so I think it's worth reflecting on. If >> I did it here I would definitely partner with some nonwhite friends to >> collaborate on the event so that it wouldn't just be one white guy's >> personal vision. I DEFINITELY would not want to go to a party full of >> people just like me---ugh!!! ;-0 >> Of course, individuals cannot fix systemic problems by making personally >> virtuous choices. On the diversity in hiring as it pertains to nonwhite >> DJ's, ultimately, I believe that DJ's themselves need to organize and solve >> the problem together, collectively. Call me crazy, but I think there should >> be a "techno trade union" that engages in collective bargaining to ensure >> more fair outcomes for all everyone involved. I think it should be racially >> integrated, but work to clearly and systemically address industry racism >> and when necessary should privilege nonwhite artists, in ways that >> ultimately lead to better outcomes for everyone. (ALSO--while I'm at it: >> the existing US musician's union should actually help working musicians, so >> that skilled musicians have enough work and the average musician income is >> more than $20,000 a year.) >> >> ~David >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 10:22 AM kent williams <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> The thing about solving problems is that you do what you can do. >>> Projects like House of Altr do what they can: showcase and promote black >>> artists. >>> >>> Techno - and the wider world of dance music - originates in the music of >>> Black americans. What black audiences listen to is a separate matter. They >>> may be more likely to connect with techno if they see people that look like >>> them up on stage. >>> >>> Labels and promoters CAN address the problem black erasure in dance >>> music. It's more an issue in Europe than the US, since in the US dance >>> music is less of a commercial phenomenon, but even here, white artists >>> crowd out Black music. >>> >>> You are right that when DEMF was free, it re-introduced techno to Black >>> Detroiters. I think Paxahau is doing a decent job, but the fact that the >>> festival is now an expensive ticket excludes a large audience who are >>> economically distressed. With the $200+ ticket price for the weekend, it's >>> absurd to think that the festival is even for the Black citizens of Detroit >>> any more. >>> >>> And not to put too fine a point on it, the subscribers to this list are >>> overwhelming middle class white people. At this point this is not a place >>> to go to get a Black perspective on anything. Is this list still worthwhile >>> and relevant? >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 10:00 AM David A. Powers <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Still, the idea that you can fix the problem of diversity on the >>>> producer/performer side, without increasing the diversity of the audience >>>> itself, seems super sketchy to me. >>>> >>>
