-----
If capitalism needs racism, then capitalism should be impossible in an ethnically homogenous society, such as Iceland. ^^^^^ CB: Britain was enthically homogenous at the primitive accumulation phase of capitalism , too. The racism was in colonialism and the slave trade . Capitalism would not be possible in Iceland without the whole history of colonialism and imperialism which are the heart of White Supremacy, i.e. racism. Iceland , the part, is part of the colonialist/imperialist , global whole. Capitalism still _has_ extreme racist and nationalist residential segregation of the working class within the US (localities and metropolitan areas) and globally. It also has racially and nationally endogamous marriage and mating, i.e. there isn't much racial or national inter-marriage or inter-mating, as sociologists like shag will verify. The workers of the world are not racially and nationally united in these fundamental ways. It seems likely that disunities of the working class in these ways are necessary conditions for preventing the working class from overthrowing capitalism. In this sense, capitalism "needs" racism (White Supremacy ) and nationalism. Charles -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- wrote: Carrol Cox wrote: > >>Focus on individuals fucks up political discussion, almost always. > >I gotta agree with you on this. Michaels' original point - that big >capital has entirely assimilated the diversity agenda, a point to >which the entire Obama phenomenon is related, and how a lot of the >received wisdom about how capitalism "needs" racism is badly in need >of updating - has been lost in all this effort to prove him an >asshole, or to search his book for incriminating passages. > did you actually have something to say about the substance of my argument? capitalism doesn't need racism, but it does need _racialization_. Michaels book is an absolutee impediment to that understanding. In fact, it is hostile to it since he is utterly either indifferent to or ignorant of _oppression_. to recuperating michaels' book by imputing to it the sophistication of actually participating in some discussion about whether or not capitalism needs racism cracks me up. shag ___________________________________ I don't think the English thought that Britain was ethnically homogeneous at the time -- if nothing else there were Jews and Irishmen and Welshmen and Scotts and Gypsies (all targets of ethnic hostility, I will admit). ^^^^^ CB: So, are you switching to the position that capiatlism needed ethnic conflict at its start ? Yes, the English colonized and oppressed the Irish especially, but they didn't categorize them as racially distant as ^^^^^ Why do colonialism and the slave trade require racism? ^^^^ CB: They _are_ racism or White supremacy. Before them there was no racism in the modern sense of race, no White supremacy. The modern concept of race originated in capitalism's origin in colonialism and slavery. The specific "ethnic" division that is central to capitalism is socalled White supremacy. Europeans invented this, went around the world designating themselves as White and everybody else as various colors. The concept of the White race originates in the "White race." It is a self-designation as superior to "darker" peoples. Non-Europeans were designated as less than human. Because with the rise of the concept of equality of humans with the rise of capitalism ( Feudalism had a concept of inequality among different classes of people within feudalist society; the bourgeois started to overthrow this) in , for example, the Declaration of Independence, it was necessary to designate the newly colonized and enslaved peoples as less than human to justify not treating them as equals ^^^^^ There's have been lots of imperial and slave-taking societies that had no racist ideology. The Ottomans, the Romans, the Mongols, the Aztecs (I think), etc. It is a historical accident that the European powers at the time of colonialism were taking slaves (almost) exclusively from an area of the world where people looked noticeably different from Europeans. If West Africa had been occupied by people with white skin, would things have been different, or would the slave-traders just have come up with some other ideology to justify it? ^^^^^ CB: It is not that imperialism and slavery of all types throughout history needs White supremcacy and racism. It is that _capitalism_ needs racism/White supremacy, which is identical at its origin with colonialism and slavery. wrote: > _____knows that blacks make somewhere around two-thirds the > amount of money whites do, that blacks are a kajillion times more > likely to be in prison, and a whole host of other facts that show that > racial minorities have it worse under capitalism ^^^^ CB: This is true, and it is the effect of White supremacy. But the main divisions of the working class that prevent class unity are in residential segregation and endogamous marriage and mating. In other words, de facto , not de jure, Jim Crow still exists in the North and the South, the East and the West. "At home", in the US, the working class is majorly divided. This is what capitalism "needs". >It is not that imperialism and slavery of all types throughout >history needs White supremcacy and racism. It is that _capitalism_ >needs racism/White supremacy, Why do you say needs rather than uses? ^^^^^^^ CB: It does "use" it, but I would say that we can go so far as to say that it is a form of the logical categories _modus ponens_ and _modus tolens_. White supremacy is a necessary condition of capitalism. If capitalism, then White supremacy. Not White supremacy , not capitalism "Need" is a form of the word "necessity". Capitalism needs White supremacy to keep the working class divided, both in the US and worldwide, preventing the workers of the world (and US) from uniting, and losing their chains, fulfilling Marx and Engels >"At home", the working class is >majorly divided. This is what capitalism "needs". This makes sense, and it's a different statement than "capitalism needs racism." ^^^^^ CB: I'm glad it makes sense to you. I'm not "married" to the word "needs" . I am "married" to the logic I laid out, i.e. that White supremacy is a necessary condition of capitalism. Capitalism is majorly divided at home by White supremacy. But for White supremacy, no capitalism. I'm not sure from your statement above ( "different than "capitalism needs racism") if you are saying that the major division of the working class at home is not a racist division, a White supremacist division ? What is the purpose of using words like "need" or "necessary condition" ? We are trying to figure out how to end capitalism, no ? If we can get rid of the necessary conditions of capitalism we can get rid of capitalism. So, the struggle to end White supremacy is a critical and necesary struggle in ending capitalism. I am open to other theories on ending capitalism, but so far, Marx and Engels are the source of the best theory. They emphasized that unity of the working class of all nations and nationalities is necessary (Workers of the all nations, unite). Race is a sort of aggravated form of nationality. In the US, it is especially important in keeping the working class divided. So, this hypothesis on racial unity as necessary for the revolution, is basically my accepting their theory of how to win the struggle for socialism in the US and world. There are probably other necessary conditions of capitalism , like extreme individualist philosophies rife in the population. In a certain sense, the greatest divider of the working class in the US is individualism, "rugged" and otherwise. Wage-labor is a necessary and definitional condition of capitalism. I use "White supremacy" ,because Whites and "Coloreds" are not equally responsible for the racial division or "racialization" that shag mentions. White people have more responsibility than Coloreds for the racial divide in the working class. They have more responsibility in the struggle to end racism, unite the working class and end capitalism. They don't have _all_ the responsibility,but they have more responsibility. No doubt, this claim of greater White responsibility for ending the racial divisions is controversial here and among White people in general (smile). But I'm not Obama (smile) _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
