I don't think socialists are stupid enough to think that socialism will solve racism

but they ARE stupid enough to blame capitalism for racism. I see it all the time on ktt2.

ok cool, this is logical

my objection:

what if a certain group desires more than equality? you dont need whole races to become greedy, you only need a few defective characters to lead the masses

my point: how do you sustain this equilibrium?

my example: the ussr, but more accurately- cuba. in cuba many black people feel treated unequally despite living in a long lived socialist state

you may say this isnt real socialism or that equality hasnt been reached, but surely the racism itself is the barrier to socialism? and must be dealt with first

yeah ill accept im aiming at the far left and genuinely radical elements, but no this isnt a rare opinion, it is definitely one more common in america though

the motive for me writing this post was i was reading some of the works of angela davis, frantz fanon etc and reached a problem that i couldnt get my head around

i dont think most of these people are dumb BUT i agree with this comment

Edgy

No they don't. Any leftist will acknowledge that racism existed way before the concept of capitalism. Capitalism as we see it today relies on exploitation and race is just one factor used to exploit. If we were all the same race, another factor would be used to exploit.

Racism is not a symptom of capitalism. It is a fuel.

i have definitely seen quite a few eminent leftist thinkers argue differently.

BUT it isnt all of them, thanks for your response

I am stupid enough to think dividing the working class by ethnic/racial/religious/etc lines keeps them from organizing a large group demanding a better overall situation for everyone.

That's why the government/police s*** on workers, worker strikes, unions, and the like, basically since the concept came to be popular

capitalism is based on exploitation and profiting off of the cheapest labor and resources possible from 'post' -colonial (really neocolonial) states that haven't been able to get the foot off their neck because the profit and getting more and more and more money is always the point and not the prioritization of the well-being of the worker or society at large

So as far as the racism goes, yeah if it puts everyone on a more equal playing field it'll be putting more power into the hands of the individual instead of a select few at the top making decisions for everyone and keeping an abhorrent amount of wealth.

It depends on what country you're looking at too, if you're looking at the U.S. , mfs used 2 be selling slaves to each other and just working em til they die off cause they could just get new ones, like the slaves were the capital, and considered nothing but livestock simply. Then everything was segregated, black folks couldn't get good jobs or they had to change their natural hair to even have a chance of fitting into the contemporary working world,

changing of power structures definitely will put more power in the hands of those marginalized by white supremacy which benefits off of class division

this doesnt explain the post colonial states that not only did well under capitalism, but have seen huge boosts to their quality of life.

plus this can be allevaited by a welfare state and trade unions in a liberal democracy, which is compatible with capitlaism

I'm talking about places that still get exploited for their resources while the exploiters are praised for their economic models as a 'middle ground' between capitalism and socialism while any concession to capitalism is allowing exploitation economically imo
thats just where im coming from i could be brain dead though and thats ok too

@op ima reread your post and see if i have anything specific to your questions hold on

i dont think you are braindead at all bro

it is true that colonialism did happen, my issue is, a company building a factory in a developing country isnt the same, and these same developing countries have seen their poverty rate fall.

moreover, these 'middle ground' countries that get praised were also middle ground countries before globalisation happened, way back to the 1950s they had these systems.

When governments want to prevent strikes they exacerbate differences between workers so they wont have true unity

Ironically in europe it was sometimes done by leftist governments because there were no other good ways for them to be anti strikes while being social democrats

true, however much of europe is less ethnically diverse than america, especially back then

also europe has much stronger unions, in germany (not my country) workers have to by law sit on their companies board

I mean we could choose the nuclear option of going with the most authoritarian governments who claimed a certain economic model, but I feel like so much of that was just nations picking what side they were on and not really being about what they said they were...

People seem to have already fallen back on their tribal instincts without a revolution so I don't know if that'd be a catalyst in itself or just a perpetrator of instability

Also just because something didn't happen exactly how theory says it should or will, doesn't mean it won't.

Also I mean whats the point of a so-claimed capitalist saying they're for a 'free market and competition' while ignoring monopolies and bankrolling of the govt by corporations, essentially creating an oligarchy. This is made possible when corporations have such an extremely obscene amount of wealth that they're more powerful than the actual government and determine what happens as opposed to a so-called democracy where the people don't actually have a say and the rich get tax cuts and so many times the popular vote was voted against thus dispelling a notion of democracy and freedom that capitalism loves to attach itself to for branding purposes

Socialism is intended to uplift people in their workplace and this would be across the board instead of a CEO or head of a company being able to exploit them the way they are under capitalism, this would allow for more diverse voices and upward mobility as well as it'd be more democratic than what it is under capitalism anyway .

Finally, I have seen people discuss how capitalism, patriarchy/sexism, racism, all intersect and I do agree, obviously there is more to add on to eliminating racism than just changing economic models, but I don't think it's wrong to suggest such a strong connection either

people def confuse ideas of conceptual racism with societal racism. people think certain ideas of racism (which under liberalism are deemed "systematic racism") would disappear under socialism because of industry being sanctioned in a manner in which there are no systematic factors of differentiation, hence there is no systematic difference in treatment in theory. people who think it would disappear under communism similarly think that in an individualist system the concept of guaranteed fruits of labor means there would be no arbitrary infringement by others meaning no systematic factors. anyone who thinks conceptual racism - the idea of people just tribally hating others - would disappear under either have no idea what socialist or communist theory actually is.

America is a unique case. They have institutions that perpetuate racism like privatized prisons, electoral college, two party system, etc it’s a whole mess. Some of it is purely political and some comes from capitalism (landlords fearing that black families moving in would make prices drop, banks turning down loans for minorities, etc)

Racism might disappear under a more egalitarian classless society but xenophobia and ethnocentrism is here to stay

I appreciate this nuanced take and find this agreeable. thanks man

True true

Altho a lot of capitalist countries dont have these

Agree with you tho, america is the more extreme

I will say a lot of economists and people who oppose socialism/communism dont stan free market unregulated capitalism either

Those hyper libertarians are also weirdos

I personally support government breaking up monopolies and guaranteeing workplace safety, workers rights etc.

ktt2.com/why-do-people-think-political-ideals-can-fix-racism-73299

i dont even wanna know what they're saying these days

all in all i'd say 2 answer ur question

racism is definitely connected to class/ethnic division, and it benefits exploitative structures if the working class doesn't unite together. Otherwise it'd be a wrap for all that s***. So if workers get more rights, and have ownership within their democratic workplace, it'd be a more equal playing field and I do believe it'd help people out of poverty (which often is disproportionate and can be connected to racial reasons) on principle of prioritizing healthcare, education, and maybe guaranteeing a job for everyone like some socialists have as their top priorities,