|
Main Paineframe posted:Fixing wage and class disparities won't make racism stop being a problem, it'll just make it easier to ignore. Genuinely fixing wage and class disparities absolutely would, within a generation, make racism stop being a problem. For example, middle class black people would no longer get mistaken for poor people and shot. Because, by definition, there would be no association between the concepts 'poor' and 'black'. For every white business owner biased to hiring other whites because they wanted a certain cultural fit, there would, by definition, be an equally wealthy black person doing the opposite. You probably want to keep the current anti-discrimination laws just because that's a conservative move to keep the social peace. But it is not an area where any particularly strong positive action would be necessary. So radicalism on that point is kinda pointless. The other way round is not true,. The median black household has a net wealth of a mediocre TV, the median white household could be swapped for a high end Italian sports car. Somehow wipe out all ability to even see race from everyone, and that inherited wealth and privilege would take hundreds, or thousands, of years to work their way out of the system. Which is plenty of time for ideologies based on justifying them to reemerge. Economic justice is racial justice. Any proposal for justice on some other foundation Is unlikely to deliver either.
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 05:44 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:No socialist party or program has ever actually attempted to level all wages and/or access to goods. So eliminating wage and class disparities in the real-world sense would not inherently eliminate racism, because that doesn't prevent overconcentration of racial and ethnic minorities in lower brackets, as was the case in the USSR, due to a variety of factors. Yes, a classless working-class society turns out to be difficult, because people have different abilities, and 'to each according to his needs' is a slogan not a plan. A classless middle-class society is much more immediately plausible, because only easily-teachable skills are needed to keep money once you have it. All you really need to do is redistribute the wealth in the first place; and Trump's personal wealth alone would be enough to make a measurable difference. Just tax the richest ten thousand (or fine them for whatever crimes they have committed) and you'd be most of the way there. And it's not something that is all-or-nothing, 50% of the required money is half way there, even 10% is something. quote:What you are proposing is reparations, efforts directly targeted on a racial basis. Economically, there is a lot of overlap with such a plan. But it would, for example, include taking money from black billionaires, and giving money to poor whites. Even if the latter's ancestors owned the former. So symbolically, i.e. in terms of identity politics, it is very different. Which, if you back such a plan, is the argument against giving that perspective a lot of weight.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The reason the police murder black people isn't because they think black people are poor, it's because they think black people are violent criminals. Crimiinals who lack the property police are hired to defend and so judged likely to use violent means to acquire it. In other words, poor people. Rich criminals, violent or not, rarely get murdered by the police, because rich criminals have at least lawyers on their payroll (and sometimes politicians, police chiefs, ...).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:This is gibberish. Middle-class people aren't rentiers in any meaningful sense of the term. A society of all rentiers can't loving exist you loving moron. I suggest reading about, oh, a hundred more books before you post again. I never said anything about rentiers. Middle-class just in the sense of people who have personal wealth in excess of a years wages, but not sufficient to never work again. The same amount of capital gets more or less the same returns no matter how distributed, so if we can afford to let Trump and co exist, we can afford that. Capital is a lot easier to distribute fairly than talent or capability; education can only do so much. Maybe in theory such a society can't exist, but in reality it did, back in the 50s, for white men. Even if nothing better was possible then (very much an open question), this is 2016. Technology and infrastructure development since the 50s should easily be enough to extend that to a wider population. quote:Anyways, do you believe that black people face a systemic disenfranchisement, impoverishment, and disintegration? Or do you believe it to be coincidental? Yes, in that as a result of the historical existence of the socioeconomic class 'slave', they are unevenly distributed across the American class system. In addition, that unequal distribution causes many cases of mistaken class identity. Having made such mistakes, some people double down to avoid admitting they were wrong. And finally there are organized groups based on racist ideologies. Do you believe something different?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:This applies equally well to class politics. Yeah but people who work and aren't rich are a majority, which means you get enough votes to win the election.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:What is this money getting invested in, such that you can "keep money once you have it", when nobody works? Because you can't get returns on capital without renting it out unless you work using it. So yes, this does depend on a society of rentiers with no one renting. Where do you get the idea that no one works? Middle class people work, they are just in a better bargaining position to get a better wage because it is not 'work or starve', merely 'work or be poor'. Moving Trump's money into different people's pockets doesn't change anything about the balance between labour and automation, or whatever. Sure, some may not work, and just eat the seed corn. Matter of taste what the balance is between paternalism, let them stay poor if they insist, or try again later. quote:I don't believe that Jim Crow and sundown segregation are meaningless as a cause of continued deprivation, no. Fair point, to the extent I didn't explicitly name those as examples of what I am talking about.I'll add sharecroppimg and redlining as other historical practices, now rare, that nevertheless leave a legacy in the pattern of intersection of class and race. quote:I also look at the disparity in wealth across racial groups with similar incomes, the disparity in housing quality, Hence the plan to change that by redistributing wealth to those who don't have it. quote:etc. and I conclude that your argument is just because you want to expropriate Oprah's money ahead of Bill Gates's. You do know are just making stuff up?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:And yet mysteriously, the situation doesn't reflect this reality and more-or-less never has. 2 party systems have 2 parties. But between FDR and Reagan both of those parties were to the economic left of Clinton and probably Sanders. Eisenhower, a Republican, set taxes on the rich at 90%. Which paid for a society so rich Soviet Communists took one good look and collectively gave up. How Reagan broke that concensus is an interesting topic that's unusual in US politics in being only _mostly_ about race.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Another problem with idpol (not a bad contraction) is that rather than seek to remedy past wrongs, it seeks to avenge past wrongs by inverting the roles of the parties. It's fashionable for many of its practitioners, over-represented on D&D, to refer to people of unfashionable identity in terms straight out of Der Stürmer. The real problem with idpol is that some people use it to refer to the objective political -interests of various not-strictly economic classes. If you are being beaten up for being gay, threatened with rape as a woman, denied a vote as a minority, then that is not idpol, that is just pol. A more useful division is to say any politics based on a serious attempt to identify and organise groups around the interests they genuinely share is class politics, whether those classes are economic, sexual, racial or anything else directly cornnected to the interests in question. Whereas any attempt to spin bullshit myths and imaginary threats counts as identity politics. Whether that myth is transsexuals invading your bathroom, the glorious Revolution that can only be hastened by making things worse, or just about anything that uses capitalis nouns, puts the J in Jew. Or, of course, all the left-based examples I'm going to skip because I'm a coward when it comes to things not worth fighting over. If you are a peasant working the Earl of Oxbridges estate, and the Duke of Essex cuckolds him, and you care, that is idpol. If you are the Earl's wife, and you risk being impoverished because you didn't dare resist when the Duke ravished you, that isn't. The thing is, we are an economic society, and a biologically homogeneous species. So most things that are objectively true are mostly true because of economics. And we are also a rich society, far away from subsistence constraints. So the most viable forms of making things other they are are also mostly economic. Just not in the sense of 'do something generically sensible and raise next years growth half a percent '.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:they do have "special knowledge," also known as "personal experience," with racial oppression. and TNC presents one of the clearer arguments for the rationale behind, and potential implementations of, reparations. so by claiming he exemplifies "revenge and resentment" youre basically waving off the whole concept of reparations. Anything that is only subjectively true, given lived experience as a particular minority, is not going to win an election. Check a dictionary for confirmation if you doubt this. Anything whose only connection to reality is in the past, or in impossible futures, is about adopting postures, not solving problems. And anyone who doesn't care about solving problems is not part of the solution; they are the other thing. Which shouldn't stop anyone solving the problem, and simultaneously implementing reparations as well. It's just that those 'reparations' are going to be cultural stuff like building a museum or three. Not anything on the trillion-dollar scale required to make a serious start on uprooting the economic foundation of contemporary racism.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Ah, yes, the continued atrocities against the AfAm community are subjective and not based in fact. If that's the way you personally feel, I'd have to check the rota to see if it is my term to give you the 101. Namely, how the holy gently caress could you possibly think the oppression of African Americans in the contemporary USA is not something objectively measurable? quote:White identity politics just won an election friend, so... Don't call it white identity politics, call it majority identity politics. That may help keep focus on the relevant point.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:When it be objectively different when whites are no longer a majority, but a plurality? Yes, so long as they still hold elections do't go for full apartheid, mass deportations, or whatever. Historically, the idpol response to changing demographics has been to use those means to change the demographics. Maybe this time will be different.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 05:44 |
|
|
stone cold posted:"Women are lying whores who lie about getting raped all the time and should never be believed because it's probably just like to kill a mockingbird. It's okay to ignore feminism because memes made me feel bad."- an unironic "leftist" 'Text in quotes after quoted post intended to look like a summary but massively misrepresenting it' - a "good poster" If you are sincerely attempting to help the causes you support, can't you see and feel the failure that follows you when you do thst? Do you have some kind of unexamined privilege that blinds you to it?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 08:16
|
|