|
JeffersonClay posted:It doesn't necessarily detract, but it certainly can. If you're a low-wage worker, kicking out all the immigrants is a strong economic stance. Why do you consider this to be an economically motivated stance rather than an identity-based one?
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 22:07 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's both. So why do you think it's possible to address one side of this issue without also addressing the other? The problem I have with these discussions is that there are very few issues of systemic racism that don't have a built-in component of economic oppression. You can't dismantle racism without directly addressing the problems faced by impoverished minority communities, and reparations and other forms of direct, targeted aid aren't popular with liberals either. This is why identity politics gets attacked from the left constantly - it's an easy way for wealthy liberals to appear progressive while still actively aligning themselves with their own class interests. There are exceptions, of course. Cops literally gunning down black people in the streets isn't an economic issue, but lumping obvious and immediately pressing issues of injustice like that in with "identity politics" is doing them a massive disservice. Nobody in the Democratic Party is addressing this problem in strong enough terms anyway, though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I agree that democrats need to be addressing both problems, and in stronger terms. I'm suggesting that there might be situations where "do both, real big" isn't possible electorally. You can't meaningfully address one without the other, though. Your argument is that welfare is unpopular with white people because minorities might get it too, but addressing the actual long-term legacy of racism in this country requires fiscal policy explicitly targeted at minorities. Not only that, but dismantling the various forms of privilege enjoyed by white people will literally make it more difficult for their children to compete for limited educational and employment resources. There isn't a two step process where you can fix racism and then come back later to fix its legacy of economic oppression.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Upper-middle-class people aren't bourgeois. Don't use words you don't understand. They are if we're just talking about dictionary definitions here. If you're using another one you might want to point that out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:They're not, because their control of capital is extremely limited. They're a mix of proles and petit bourgeoisie. I understand how the term is used in Marxism, but "bourgeois" is very commonly used (uh, at least in so far as it's used at all) in the US to refer to the middle and upper-middle class. I'm honestly not trying to veer off into some pedantic debate about Marxist terminology here, this just feels an awful lot like making GBS threads on someone for using the US-centric definition of "liberal" as a leftist.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 20:21
|
|