I legitimately believe there are some on the left who believe that racial identity politics is somehow a distraction from “more important” issues. Certainly not everyone on the left and not even close to a majority, but why shouldn’t I believe that there are some people who believe exactly what I stated?
What’s your point?
That you would fit in well in the CSA ldo.
If you could read gooder you might know.
Explain it to me like I’m five. What does the Canadian Space Agency have to do with this?
1 Like
I think he changed his avatar as something of a joke, but I don’t think you’re right. Bernie is like a Nordic Socialist. AOC is pretty radical imo and just believes in working from within the Dem party. The first time I was going to see her - she only made it by video - was at the Left Coast Forum, which is made up pretty much entirely by radicals of one stripe or another, including Revolutionary Communist Parties. Much of the DSA (where she was a member) is legit ending capitalism, workers own the means of production socialists.
I’m not a member of the DSA (I don’t really join organizations) but I’ve participated in some of their Mutual Aid work and obviously (or at least it should be obvious) those sub-groups are full of Anarchists.
I spent about ten minutes the other day reading about sea level rise predictions from climate scientists (because I had read and enjoyed “New York 2140”) and essentially found out that the major changes will come sometime between 500 and 2000 years from now. Like we’ll see 1-2 meters increase per century, but the process of continental ice shelves falling into the ocean just takes a long, long time. The other side of this is that once you hit a tipping point, you can’t go back, no matter what. Like no amount of taking carbon out of the atmosphere keeps the ice on Greenland once that tipping point is hit. The final point is that there’s a decent chance that we’ve already hit some tipping points, and sea levels will rise 10-15 meters no matter what we do now.
5 Likes
I think I’m repeating myself, but Johnny is the person most advocating for a solution on this forum. And maybe he’s doing it! Although @miliboo was there first I think.
1 Like
When were we USA#1?
[McNulty] 'fuck did I do?[/McNulty]
Reading thread. JT obviously crushing so far. Step 1 we all have to do much more of this imo…
Sorry for the @'ing, but you’re the hero we need bro.
1 Like
Not inseparable then (the title says conjoined twins).
We also need a definition of racism that includes tribalism to allow us to say it exists in places not ruled by white people.
I don’t need to advocate for anything else to point out that racism & capitalism are conjoined. That is a stand alone issue. Just like I don’t need to describe a kinda sportsball that doesn’t have bats to point out that baseball does indeed have bats.
I’ll repeat myself ITT:
Capitalism can’t function with just two classes: owner, worker. The capitalists must necessarily always be dividing up working folks into sub-classes… or their game is up. In any culture where race is an issue, like the US, a dividing line will always be race. This is why Malcolm X, and 100% of radicals, say “you can’t have capitalism without racism”.
Another dividing line will always be sex (more generally: a hierarchy with cis males at the top). Other common dividing lines used by the capitalists: religion, culture, country of origin, language, line of work, ability etc/etc/etc. Bottom line: the capitalists exploit & create all and every kind of intolerance, not just racism.
Again, it’s not necessary to make up some alternative to point out the above facts… and knowingly whining about an alternative not being supplied to you to ‘vigorously debate’ against isn’t good faith.
2 Likes
Three points:
-
Racism & capitalism are conjoined in an operational manner. Empirical evidence isn’t necessary to point this out.
-
In the US context there is no debate. In the US racism & capitalism are both historically conjoined & operationally conjoined.
-
Sure, we have non-white-centric racism in tribal settings. However, the phenomenon we are discussing really needs broadening to ‘intolerance’… to cover situations of civil society being divided by the capitalists along religion/language/etc/etc lines.
I don’t believe that capitalism requires racism per se. As you point out, there are many other ways you can divide and rule if racism isn’t available to you.
Imagine a parallel world where humans had never migrated from their small place of origin (perhaps because everywhere else was incapable of supporting human life). Would they not have developed capitalist societies eventually ie after industrialisation?
Well, sure, of course. But as my favorite Nazi philosopher famously said “we are always already in a world”. The world we are already in is a world of capitalist white supremacy.
But you make a very important point: it’s not just racism the capitalists support and require. It’s, most notably IMO, the patriarchy too…
I don’t imagine all Feminists would agree with that definition.
Sure.
But I’ll point out again, these aren’t ‘slogans’, or ‘opinions’, or ‘definitions’. This isn’t rhetorical. What’s being pointed out is an objective operational linkage in the real world.
How would paying $15 an hour “destroy their economy”? Sounds like a right wing talking point. I’m playing the world’s smallest violin for business owners only making mid six figures instead of high six figures for paying a living wage.
3 Likes