Total Posts:215|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Capitalism Inherently Racist?

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 1:43:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Fans of capitalism scurry away, for about your beloved ism something true but uncomplimentary I'm about to say. Under our capitalist system of production, power, and life (or pseudo-life) the demographic makeup of the economic elite is preponderantly white, consequently whites are ipso faco the dominant race of American society. Quite simply, our plutocracy = an albocracy, as it were.

Which is to state what should be the obvious, that the socioeconomic dominance of our Caucasoid capitalist captains of the economy translates into white dominance (i.e., economic white supremacy). Their, the Caucasoid capitalist captains of the economy's, bigoted foibles, i.e., their prejudice in favor of their own results in their power and privilege being prorated out to and unfairly advantaging lower status whites (not equitably, of course, the average white workingperson enjoys a very negligible, nominal share of white power & privilege and has ample reason to be disgruntled , but he/she should direct his/her disgruntlement at the elite and the system, not at disenfranchised minorities!) who subserve their interests.

Yes, the inherent socioeconomic inequality of capitalism permits racial inequality to feature grievously in our society's history, to insidiously structure itself into the economy and our social and political institutions. This is one of the dirty and despicable actualities of capitalism American style. Indeed, capitalism and racism are two rotten peas in the same societal pod of injustice and elitism. But make no mistake about it, it's capitalism that is the real culprit, that allows racial injustice to entrench itself in our society's power structure.

Would racism, in a loose sense of the word, still exist without capitalism, sure it would. But without capitalism and its socioeconomic power disparities, racism would be merely an ugly attitude rather than a social evil. It's economic realities, after all, that have always given rise to and institutionalized racial inequities, which in turn lead to the development of rationalizing racist ideas and sentiments. This is a pattern and tradition that capitalism clearly continues to carry on.

Mm-hmm, that capitalism is and always has been complicit in the moral crime against humanity called racism is so manifestly the case that it takes a good deal of collective psychological denial and ideology for us, as a society, to keep our head up our derrière on this one.

Well, nowadays one isn't even supposed to broach the subject of race, let alone tie it in with the inherently unjust nature of the capitalist status quo. If one is a person of color and makes mention of the racial sins of the past and present, well, the dismissive defense mechanism of achromic Americans is to utter and sputter bromides against "playing the race card" and having a "victim mentality". These are the stock, simplistic clichés that it's been ideologically in vogue to resort to since America's conservative turn of the 1980s. And if one is a progressive white person who expresses critical thoughts about the racial state of the union, your white skin had better be thick, because you're gonna honk off your fellow honkeys and they're gonna launch some sharp verbal sticks and stones your way.

For most non-racist white folks race is an exceedingly sensitive subject, a downright taboo topic. It's not terribly constructive, but see no evil, hear no evil, and definitely speak no evil regarding our society's as-yet-unsolved race problem is the standard cowardly stance that they retreat into. Disavowing a consciousness of race as a continuingly relevant social issue allows professedly unprejudiced John and Jane Q. Caucasian to feel that he/she has beautifully transcended racism, but the rueful rub of such mock-enlightened color blindness is that one can't see what's really quite plain to see, that there's still much to be done to help society grow beyond racism.

And anyone who does dare to acknowledge that fact, to acknowledge that racism is a persistent stain upon our society's moral character, is not exactly hailed as a person of insight and integrity; rather, he has the ole tables turned upon him, he's dissed and decried as the divisive one, the one guilty of perpetuating racial consciousness and of fomenting ill will between blacks and whites! The political correctness of not challenging the self-congratulatory Caucasoid consensus, the Panglossian party line of European Americans according to which racism is no longer a serious obstacle to the flourishing of non-whites, this is arguably the most prevalent, uncriticized, and rubber stamped political correctness around today!

The Trayvon Martin case illustrates all of this quite tragically. A law, enacted in no small part because of racial fear, that makes it legally permissible to use a firearm against "threatening black men" if one subjectively feels sufficiently fearful, leads to the death of an innocent African American teenager at the hands of a racial-profiling vigilante and no one is supposed to speak the R-word. And those who do are, in knee-jerk fashion, attacked for injecting race into the case!

Sorry folks, but race and racism still play a significant part in defining the American experience. And this is in no small measure due to the nature of our economic system. Under the capitalist mode of economic production everyone, both workers and capitalists, are placed in subjection and subservience to capital. Money, and its dynamics, is everyone's real master. But of course not everyone is placed at the same level in the socioeconomic food chain. Inequality is an inborn reality of capitalism. And capital is not color blind, it sees with the racially biased eyes of men, of the men who serve and wield its power. Thus it and the system driven by it operate to place and keep certain ethnic groups lower than others in the class hierarchy of our society.

And so we come face to face with the historical and ongoing terrible truth of our nation's economic system that we're all supposed to be patriotically mum about, which is that the classism endemic in capitalism equates, for blacks, for instance, to a racial caste system that locks them into a cycle and culture of poverty and incarceration. No, at the end of the day, and all the way through the day, capitalism and racism cannot be separated.

And as if this isn't all quite bad enough, capitalism is an anti-humanistic system, as thinkers from Marx to Marcuse have astutely observed, that inherently produces universal alienation. That is, in a system in which working men and women and their productive activity are objectified and automatized, and in which work thereby ceases to be a form of authentic self-expression, we become alienated from our own creativity, and from a sense of our human and spiritual interconnectedness with nature and one another. Alas, it's not an exaggeration to say that we all live and move and have our being in a spiritually and socially divisive milieu of alienation in which the prospect of people of different colors joining hands to sing kumbayah as they build a truly egalitarian society is nil. Capitalism and the existential reality that it produces is profoundly and incorrigibly opposed to human unity and equality.

Ever read Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment? Recall how Rodion Raskolnikov doesn't start on the road to redemption until he lays down his rationalizations and confesses his crime? Well, likewise, our nation will never attain true and liberating redemption from the moral transgression of racial injustice until we collectively own up to it and recognize our economic system's propensity to foster it. We can't truly unshackle our society's soul from the sin of racism until we repent and renounce the inherent wrongfulness of capitalism. Mrs. Martin is right, the heart doesn't see color, but capitalism lacks a human heart.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 2:39:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is charleslb inherently racist? 100% of charleslb's are of one race, therefore, that is ipso facto the dominant race of charleslb. There must be like, prejudice and stuff.

being prorated out to
... I don't think you know what prorated means any more than you know what capitalism means. Or racism.

Yes, the inherent socioeconomic inequality of capitalism permits racial inequality to feature grievously in our society's history
"Permits" is a very mild thing to argue.

Our society's history doesn't include any capitalism anyway, just pseudocapitalism at best.

It's economic realities, after all, that have always given rise to and institutionalized racial inequities
Like everything else in your post, you have no argument for this, and it's not particularly meaningful. What else would give rise, economic nonrealities?
A major economic reality that factored into historical segregation was state control of the economy, manifesting in such things as Jim Crow laws. Might other "economic realities" do so? Maybe, if so, BE SPECIFIC MOTHERF***er. If racial inequality didn't exist, would there still be something you'd call an "economic reality?" YOU BETCHA.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 2:46:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Capitalism has been very generous to Obama and George Foreman.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 8:35:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have no idea what the heck you said for half the OP, but I fail to see how you can prove that a system of government is always inherently racist.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
thephfactor
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 8:38:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
True Capitalism is inherently Non-racist, since it forces competetition. Business proprieters are incentivized to hire the best worker, no matter what his race. Businesses who discriminate are paying more for less, and are eventually driven out of business.
Secretary of Drug Legalization Enforcement Who Also Loves Bacon of the FREEDO Bureaucracy
thephfactor
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 8:49:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Which is to state what should be the obvious, that the socioeconomic dominance of our Caucasoid capitalist captains of the economy translates into white dominance(i.e., economic white supremacy).

Rather than being obvious, your main assumption is illogical. There is no connection between the majority of businessmen being white and "economic white supremacy".

Since 72.4% of Americans are white, it makes perfect sense that most businessmen are white. To say that because whites "dominate" the economy is in a way true: there are more of them. But to say that capitalism causes this "disparity" is ridiculous, and to further say that this is in some way bad is even more ridiculous.
Secretary of Drug Legalization Enforcement Who Also Loves Bacon of the FREEDO Bureaucracy
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 9:45:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 8:38:24 AM, thephfactor wrote:
True Capitalism is inherently Non-racist, since it forces competetition. Business proprieters are incentivized to hire the best worker, no matter what his race. Businesses who discriminate are paying more for less, and are eventually driven out of business.

Defend that in this thread http://www.debate.org...
yang.
thephfactor
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 9:48:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 9:45:46 AM, tulle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 8:38:24 AM, thephfactor wrote:
True Capitalism is inherently Non-racist, since it forces competetition. Business proprieters are incentivized to hire the best worker, no matter what his race. Businesses who discriminate are paying more for less, and are eventually driven out of business.

Defend that in this thread http://www.debate.org...

Not sure how this applies...
Secretary of Drug Legalization Enforcement Who Also Loves Bacon of the FREEDO Bureaucracy
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 10:37:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
How many self-loathing threads must Charleslb make to atone for his sins of being a white man living in a society that epitomizes all things capitalistic?

Suicide seems like a viable option for you, Chucky.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 11:58:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 9:48:10 AM, thephfactor wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:45:46 AM, tulle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 8:38:24 AM, thephfactor wrote:
True Capitalism is inherently Non-racist, since it forces competetition. Business proprieters are incentivized to hire the best worker, no matter what his race. Businesses who discriminate are paying more for less, and are eventually driven out of business.

Defend that in this thread http://www.debate.org...

Not sure how this applies...

You're saying the system is inherently non-racist... I'm asking you to read the thread and defend that because I brought up an example of where that doesn't apply. If you're not interested, that's cool, it was just a suggestion.
yang.
thephfactor
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 12:15:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 11:58:37 AM, tulle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:48:10 AM, thephfactor wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:45:46 AM, tulle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 8:38:24 AM, thephfactor wrote:
True Capitalism is inherently Non-racist, since it forces competetition. Business proprieters are incentivized to hire the best worker, no matter what his race. Businesses who discriminate are paying more for less, and are eventually driven out of business.

Defend that in this thread http://www.debate.org...

Not sure how this applies...

You're saying the system is inherently non-racist... I'm asking you to read the thread and defend that because I brought up an example of where that doesn't apply. If you're not interested, that's cool, it was just a suggestion.

You talk about cosmetics and hair care? Well, my point was that in TRUE Capitalism, a free market, this & such would happen. Your problem seems to be government regulation, and I would say even then that the intention of the government was not to discriminate based on race, but to help out bigger businesses in return for their support. In my eyes this is a different issue.
Secretary of Drug Legalization Enforcement Who Also Loves Bacon of the FREEDO Bureaucracy
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 12:32:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 12:15:26 PM, thephfactor wrote:
At 4/13/2012 11:58:37 AM, tulle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:48:10 AM, thephfactor wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:45:46 AM, tulle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 8:38:24 AM, thephfactor wrote:
True Capitalism is inherently Non-racist, since it forces competetition. Business proprieters are incentivized to hire the best worker, no matter what his race. Businesses who discriminate are paying more for less, and are eventually driven out of business.

Defend that in this thread http://www.debate.org...

Not sure how this applies...

You're saying the system is inherently non-racist... I'm asking you to read the thread and defend that because I brought up an example of where that doesn't apply. If you're not interested, that's cool, it was just a suggestion.

You talk about cosmetics and hair care? Well, my point was that in TRUE Capitalism, a free market, this & such would happen. Your problem seems to be government regulation, and I would say even then that the intention of the government was not to discriminate based on race, but to help out bigger businesses in return for their support. In my eyes this is a different issue.

There's also TRUE communism but we all know it's not practical.
yang.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 12:51:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 12:15:26 PM, thephfactor wrote:
At 4/13/2012 11:58:37 AM, tulle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:48:10 AM, thephfactor wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:45:46 AM, tulle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 8:38:24 AM, thephfactor wrote:
True Capitalism is inherently Non-racist, since it forces competetition. Business proprieters are incentivized to hire the best worker, no matter what his race. Businesses who discriminate are paying more for less, and are eventually driven out of business.

Defend that in this thread http://www.debate.org...

Not sure how this applies...

You're saying the system is inherently non-racist... I'm asking you to read the thread and defend that because I brought up an example of where that doesn't apply. If you're not interested, that's cool, it was just a suggestion.

You talk about cosmetics and hair care? Well, my point was that in TRUE Capitalism, a free market, this & such would happen. Your problem seems to be government regulation, and I would say even then that the intention of the government was not to discriminate based on race, but to help out bigger businesses in return for their support. In my eyes this is a different issue.

That is a lie. The free market did not stifle racism and segregation in the late 1800s and early 1960s.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 12:52:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 12:32:48 PM, tulle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 12:15:26 PM, thephfactor wrote:
At 4/13/2012 11:58:37 AM, tulle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:48:10 AM, thephfactor wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:45:46 AM, tulle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 8:38:24 AM, thephfactor wrote:
True Capitalism is inherently Non-racist, since it forces competetition. Business proprieters are incentivized to hire the best worker, no matter what his race. Businesses who discriminate are paying more for less, and are eventually driven out of business.

Defend that in this thread http://www.debate.org...

Not sure how this applies...

You're saying the system is inherently non-racist... I'm asking you to read the thread and defend that because I brought up an example of where that doesn't apply. If you're not interested, that's cool, it was just a suggestion.

You talk about cosmetics and hair care? Well, my point was that in TRUE Capitalism, a free market, this & such would happen. Your problem seems to be government regulation, and I would say even then that the intention of the government was not to discriminate based on race, but to help out bigger businesses in return for their support. In my eyes this is a different issue.

There's also TRUE communism but we all know it's not practical.

Why?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 1:12:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 12:51:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/13/2012 12:15:26 PM, thephfactor wrote:
At 4/13/2012 11:58:37 AM, tulle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:48:10 AM, thephfactor wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:45:46 AM, tulle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 8:38:24 AM, thephfactor wrote:
True Capitalism is inherently Non-racist, since it forces competetition. Business proprieters are incentivized to hire the best worker, no matter what his race. Businesses who discriminate are paying more for less, and are eventually driven out of business.

Defend that in this thread http://www.debate.org...

Not sure how this applies...

You're saying the system is inherently non-racist... I'm asking you to read the thread and defend that because I brought up an example of where that doesn't apply. If you're not interested, that's cool, it was just a suggestion.

You talk about cosmetics and hair care? Well, my point was that in TRUE Capitalism, a free market, this & such would happen. Your problem seems to be government regulation, and I would say even then that the intention of the government was not to discriminate based on race, but to help out bigger businesses in return for their support. In my eyes this is a different issue.

That is a lie. The free market did not stifle racism and segregation in the late 1800s and early 1960s.

Non-discrimination in the free market first requires that all governmental controls about social status and etc... are eliminated. Albeit, this was not the case. If I recall correctly, many businesses (mostly in the 1800's) were prohibited by the government to serve black people for fear of penalties. Only specific stores were allowed to serve the black community.

Also, it was unfashionable and socially demeaning at that time to open up businesses that served to the segregated communities. Social pressure can be just as effective as government regulation at increasing racism and segregation within a community. Those that served to the black community were often black people by themselves.

If you want to eliminate discrimination, then you must eliminate both governmental regulation and social discrimination. The latter is almost impossible to eliminate immediately as controlling human behaviour is a great feat and takes much time to accomplish. However, it can be done as shown by the Civil Rights Movement.

Free markets often don't stifle a social predicament. They do stifle economic predicaments.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 1:17:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 1:12:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 12:51:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/13/2012 12:15:26 PM, thephfactor wrote:
At 4/13/2012 11:58:37 AM, tulle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:48:10 AM, thephfactor wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:45:46 AM, tulle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 8:38:24 AM, thephfactor wrote:
True Capitalism is inherently Non-racist, since it forces competetition. Business proprieters are incentivized to hire the best worker, no matter what his race. Businesses who discriminate are paying more for less, and are eventually driven out of business.

Defend that in this thread http://www.debate.org...

Not sure how this applies...

You're saying the system is inherently non-racist... I'm asking you to read the thread and defend that because I brought up an example of where that doesn't apply. If you're not interested, that's cool, it was just a suggestion.

You talk about cosmetics and hair care? Well, my point was that in TRUE Capitalism, a free market, this & such would happen. Your problem seems to be government regulation, and I would say even then that the intention of the government was not to discriminate based on race, but to help out bigger businesses in return for their support. In my eyes this is a different issue.

That is a lie. The free market did not stifle racism and segregation in the late 1800s and early 1960s.

Non-discrimination in the free market first requires that all governmental controls about social status and etc... are eliminated. Albeit, this was not the case. If I recall correctly, many businesses (mostly in the 1800's) were prohibited by the government to serve black people for fear of penalties. Only specific stores were allowed to serve the black community.

Governmental regulation of businesses was taboo unil the end of the 1800s. No businesses were governmentally prohbited from serving the black community. The capitalists chose to make that decision because of racism.
Also, it was unfashionable and socially demeaning at that time to open up businesses that served to the segregated communities. Social pressure can be just as effective as government regulation at increasing racism and segregation within a community. Those that served to the black community were often black people by themselves.

Ok, so this proves my point. As long as social pressure exists to promote prejudice, capitalism will never be able to eliminate discrimination. This is not a rebuttal to my contention; it just supports it.
If you want to eliminate discrimination, then you must eliminate both governmental regulation
Government regulation has been doing an excellent job in limiting discrimination.
and social discrimination.
This is not possible without governental interference at some level, even if only through the education system.
The latter is almost impossible to eliminate immediately as controlling human behaviour is a great feat and takes much time to accomplish. However, it can be done as shown by the Civil Rights Movement.

Yes, and the Civil Rights Movement did this by winning court cases and having anti-discrimination legislation passed. It had nothing to do with capitalism.
Free markets often don't stifle a social predicament. They do stifle economic predicaments.
This is not a rebuttal. This just proves that capitalism cannot prevent discrimination because discrimination is a social evil and not an economic evil.
thephfactor
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 1:32:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 12:51:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/13/2012 12:15:26 PM, thephfactor wrote:
At 4/13/2012 11:58:37 AM, tulle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:48:10 AM, thephfactor wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:45:46 AM, tulle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 8:38:24 AM, thephfactor wrote:
True Capitalism is inherently Non-racist, since it forces competetition. Business proprieters are incentivized to hire the best worker, no matter what his race. Businesses who discriminate are paying more for less, and are eventually driven out of business.

Defend that in this thread http://www.debate.org...

Not sure how this applies...

You're saying the system is inherently non-racist... I'm asking you to read the thread and defend that because I brought up an example of where that doesn't apply. If you're not interested, that's cool, it was just a suggestion.

You talk about cosmetics and hair care? Well, my point was that in TRUE Capitalism, a free market, this & such would happen. Your problem seems to be government regulation, and I would say even then that the intention of the government was not to discriminate based on race, but to help out bigger businesses in return for their support. In my eyes this is a different issue.

That is a lie. The free market did not stifle racism and segregation in the late 1800s and early 1960s.

Then it was not a free market.

In the late 1800s, in the rapidly industrializing North, businessmen were incentivized to hire all the workers they could get: and those that discriminated failed. The Old South, stuck in the caste system of ruling Old Families and serving Slaves and Poor Whites, fell farther and farther behind, until it rebelled in an effort to secure it's outdated way of life. The free markets in the North "stifled" racism and segregation. The aristocratic South did not have the same freedom.
Secretary of Drug Legalization Enforcement Who Also Loves Bacon of the FREEDO Bureaucracy
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 2:05:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 1:17:05 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/13/2012 1:12:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 12:51:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/13/2012 12:15:26 PM, thephfactor wrote:
At 4/13/2012 11:58:37 AM, tulle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:48:10 AM, thephfactor wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:45:46 AM, tulle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 8:38:24 AM, thephfactor wrote:
True Capitalism is inherently Non-racist, since it forces competetition. Business proprieters are incentivized to hire the best worker, no matter what his race. Businesses who discriminate are paying more for less, and are eventually driven out of business.

Defend that in this thread http://www.debate.org...

Not sure how this applies...

You're saying the system is inherently non-racist... I'm asking you to read the thread and defend that because I brought up an example of where that doesn't apply. If you're not interested, that's cool, it was just a suggestion.

You talk about cosmetics and hair care? Well, my point was that in TRUE Capitalism, a free market, this & such would happen. Your problem seems to be government regulation, and I would say even then that the intention of the government was not to discriminate based on race, but to help out bigger businesses in return for their support. In my eyes this is a different issue.

That is a lie. The free market did not stifle racism and segregation in the late 1800s and early 1960s.

Non-discrimination in the free market first requires that all governmental controls about social status and etc... are eliminated. Albeit, this was not the case. If I recall correctly, many businesses (mostly in the 1800's) were prohibited by the government to serve black people for fear of penalties. Only specific stores were allowed to serve the black community.

Governmental regulation of businesses was taboo unil the end of the 1800s. No businesses were governmentally prohbited from serving the black community. The capitalists chose to make that decision because of racism.

The Jim Crow laws prohibited blacks and whites from using the same facilities. As a result, this was government regulation to promote discrimination by limiting free market capitalism.

Also, it was unfashionable and socially demeaning at that time to open up businesses that served to the segregated communities. Social pressure can be just as effective as government regulation at increasing racism and segregation within a community. Those that served to the black community were often black people by themselves.

Ok, so this proves my point. As long as social pressure exists to promote prejudice, capitalism will never be able to eliminate discrimination. This is not a rebuttal to my contention; it just supports it.

This topic is about whether capitalism is inherently racist. It is not, but social pressures will still exist to promote racism. Capitalism is not inherently racist, but people are. Capitalism eliminates economic discrimination which was what its original intent was supposed to be. Social discrimination is a different thing all together. Not that it is necessarily a bad thing, though.

If you want to eliminate discrimination, then you must eliminate both governmental regulation
Government regulation has been doing an excellent job in limiting discrimination.

Government regulation sped up discrimination in 1800's and 1900's. Ex. Inter-racial marriage laws. Jim Crow Laws.

and social discrimination.
This is not possible without governental interference at some level, even if only through the education system.

LOL! People make up society, not the government. Social discrimination can be ended, if desired, by public awareness and activist organizations.

The latter is almost impossible to eliminate immediately as controlling human behaviour is a great feat and takes much time to accomplish. However, it can be done as shown by the Civil Rights Movement.

Yes, and the Civil Rights Movement did this by winning court cases and having anti-discrimination legislation passed. It had nothing to do with capitalism.

There is a distinction between social racism and economic racism which you obviously cannot comprehend.

Free markets often don't stifle a social predicament. They do stifle economic predicaments.

This is not a rebuttal. This just proves that capitalism cannot prevent discrimination because discrimination is a social evil and not an economic evil.

No. Capitalism prevents economic discrimination. Other stuff (not regulation) prevent social discrimination.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 2:18:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 2:05:55 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 1:17:05 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/13/2012 1:12:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 12:51:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/13/2012 12:15:26 PM, thephfactor wrote:
At 4/13/2012 11:58:37 AM, tulle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:48:10 AM, thephfactor wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:45:46 AM, tulle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 8:38:24 AM, thephfactor wrote:
True Capitalism is inherently Non-racist, since it forces competetition. Business proprieters are incentivized to hire the best worker, no matter what his race. Businesses who discriminate are paying more for less, and are eventually driven out of business.

Defend that in this thread http://www.debate.org...

Not sure how this applies...

You're saying the system is inherently non-racist... I'm asking you to read the thread and defend that because I brought up an example of where that doesn't apply. If you're not interested, that's cool, it was just a suggestion.

You talk about cosmetics and hair care? Well, my point was that in TRUE Capitalism, a free market, this & such would happen. Your problem seems to be government regulation, and I would say even then that the intention of the government was not to discriminate based on race, but to help out bigger businesses in return for their support. In my eyes this is a different issue.

That is a lie. The free market did not stifle racism and segregation in the late 1800s and early 1960s.

Non-discrimination in the free market first requires that all governmental controls about social status and etc... are eliminated. Albeit, this was not the case. If I recall correctly, many businesses (mostly in the 1800's) were prohibited by the government to serve black people for fear of penalties. Only specific stores were allowed to serve the black community.

Governmental regulation of businesses was taboo unil the end of the 1800s. No businesses were governmentally prohbited from serving the black community. The capitalists chose to make that decision because of racism.

The Jim Crow laws prohibited blacks and whites from using the same facilities. As a result, this was government regulation to promote discrimination by limiting free market capitalism.

The Jim Crow laws enabled segregation; they did not make segregation required. They were enacted because the racists wanted them. The "evil state" did not enact laws that were against the will of the people. It simply permitted business owners to legally do what they were doing anways.
Also, it was unfashionable and socially demeaning at that time to open up businesses that served to the segregated communities. Social pressure can be just as effective as government regulation at increasing racism and segregation within a community. Those that served to the black community were often black people by themselves.

Ok, so this proves my point. As long as social pressure exists to promote prejudice, capitalism will never be able to eliminate discrimination. This is not a rebuttal to my contention; it just supports it.

This topic is about whether capitalism is inherently racist. It is not, but social pressures will still exist to promote racism. Capitalism is not inherently racist, but people are. Capitalism eliminates economic discrimination which was what its original intent was supposed to be. Social discrimination is a different thing all together. Not that it is necessarily a bad thing, though.

That has nothing to do with my argument. My argument is that capitalism cannot eliminate discrimination.
If you want to eliminate discrimination, then you must eliminate both governmental regulation
Government regulation has been doing an excellent job in limiting discrimination.

Government regulation sped up discrimination in 1800's and 1900's. Ex. Inter-racial marriage laws. Jim Crow Laws.

LOL

This is so false. The government did not require discrimination. The people advocated for these laws and had them passed and used them as an excuse to promote segregation.
and social discrimination.
This is not possible without governental interference at some level, even if only through the education system.

LOL! People make up society,
Bingo
not the government. Social discrimination can be ended, if desired, by public awareness and activist organizations.

That has never worked. Only government intervention has been able to promote anti-discrimination policies.
The latter is almost impossible to eliminate immediately as controlling human behaviour is a great feat and takes much time to accomplish. However, it can be done as shown by the Civil Rights Movement.

Yes, and the Civil Rights Movement did this by winning court cases and having anti-discrimination legislation passed. It had nothing to do with capitalism.

There is a distinction between social racism and economic racism which you obviously cannot comprehend.

LOL, ok, I was responding to your argument. I don't have to keep within the context of the thread if you are making arguments that are not in the context. Hypocrisy at its finest.
Free markets often don't stifle a social predicament. They do stifle economic predicaments.

This is not a rebuttal. This just proves that capitalism cannot prevent discrimination because discrimination is a social evil and not an economic evil.

No. Capitalism prevents economic discrimination. Other stuff (not regulation) prevent social discrimination.

Ok, now this is false. Capitalism promotes economic discrimination by giving workers less power and capitalists more power.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 2:28:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 2:18:56 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/13/2012 2:05:55 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 1:17:05 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/13/2012 1:12:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 12:51:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/13/2012 12:15:26 PM, thephfactor wrote:
At 4/13/2012 11:58:37 AM, tulle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:48:10 AM, thephfactor wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:45:46 AM, tulle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 8:38:24 AM, thephfactor wrote:
True Capitalism is inherently Non-racist, since it forces competetition. Business proprieters are incentivized to hire the best worker, no matter what his race. Businesses who discriminate are paying more for less, and are eventually driven out of business.

Defend that in this thread http://www.debate.org...

Not sure how this applies...

You're saying the system is inherently non-racist... I'm asking you to read the thread and defend that because I brought up an example of where that doesn't apply. If you're not interested, that's cool, it was just a suggestion.

You talk about cosmetics and hair care? Well, my point was that in TRUE Capitalism, a free market, this & such would happen. Your problem seems to be government regulation, and I would say even then that the intention of the government was not to discriminate based on race, but to help out bigger businesses in return for their support. In my eyes this is a different issue.

That is a lie. The free market did not stifle racism and segregation in the late 1800s and early 1960s.

Non-discrimination in the free market first requires that all governmental controls about social status and etc... are eliminated. Albeit, this was not the case. If I recall correctly, many businesses (mostly in the 1800's) were prohibited by the government to serve black people for fear of penalties. Only specific stores were allowed to serve the black community.

Governmental regulation of businesses was taboo unil the end of the 1800s. No businesses were governmentally prohbited from serving the black community. The capitalists chose to make that decision because of racism.

The Jim Crow laws prohibited blacks and whites from using the same facilities. As a result, this was government regulation to promote discrimination by limiting free market capitalism.

The Jim Crow laws enabled segregation; they did not make segregation required. They were enacted because the racists wanted them. The "evil state" did not enact laws that were against the will of the people. It simply permitted business owners to legally do what they were doing anways.

The Jim Crow laws MANDATED black-white segregation.

"The Jim Crow laws were state and local laws in the United States enacted between 1876 and 1965. They mandated de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern states of the former Confederacy, with a supposedly "separate but equal" status for black Americans."

Also, it was unfashionable and socially demeaning at that time to open up businesses that served to the segregated communities. Social pressure can be just as effective as government regulation at increasing racism and segregation within a community. Those that served to the black community were often black people by themselves.

Ok, so this proves my point. As long as social pressure exists to promote prejudice, capitalism will never be able to eliminate discrimination. This is not a rebuttal to my contention; it just supports it.

This topic is about whether capitalism is inherently racist. It is not, but social pressures will still exist to promote racism. Capitalism is not inherently racist, but people are. Capitalism eliminates economic discrimination which was what its original intent was supposed to be. Social discrimination is a different thing all together. Not that it is necessarily a bad thing, though.

That has nothing to do with my argument. My argument is that capitalism cannot eliminate discrimination.

Economic discrimination=/=social discrimination.

These are two distinct categories, which you cannot lump together under one name of "discrimination."

If you want to eliminate discrimination, then you must eliminate both governmental regulation
Government regulation has been doing an excellent job in limiting discrimination.

Lol. Yes, all of those laws that mandated segregation totally limited discrimination.

Government regulation sped up discrimination in 1800's and 1900's. Ex. Inter-racial marriage laws. Jim Crow Laws.


This is so false. The government did not require discrimination. The people advocated for these laws and had them passed and used them as an excuse to promote segregation.

Your point being? These laws, supplemented by the government, mandated discrimination.

and social discrimination.
This is not possible without governental interference at some level, even if only through the education system.

LOL! People make up society,
Bingo
not the government. Social discrimination can be ended, if desired, by public awareness and activist organizations.

That has never worked. Only government intervention has been able to promote anti-discrimination policies.

Living in a nice communist utopia, eh?

The latter is almost impossible to eliminate immediately as controlling human behaviour is a great feat and takes much time to accomplish. However, it can be done as shown by the Civil Rights Movement.

Yes, and the Civil Rights Movement did this by winning court cases and having anti-discrimination legislation passed. It had nothing to do with capitalism.

There is a distinction between social racism and economic racism which you obviously cannot comprehend.

LOL, ok, I was responding to your argument. I don't have to keep within the context of the thread if you are making arguments that are not in the context. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Again, you must specify whether it is economic discrimination or social discrimination that you are looking at.

Free markets often don't stifle a social predicament. They do stifle economic predicaments.

This is not a rebuttal. This just proves that capitalism cannot prevent discrimination because discrimination is a social evil and not an economic evil.

No. Capitalism prevents economic discrimination. Other stuff (not regulation) prevent social discrimination.

Ok, now this is false. Capitalism promotes economic discrimination by giving workers less power and capitalists more power.

Sorry that this has to be posted again but your statement is just so stupid that:

http://media.tumblr.com...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 2:34:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Charleslb, this may be the most racist, anti-black thread I've seen in some time. Where did JT go?

As you seem to envision it, the black underclass is not a historically contingent factor but instead some sort of inherent part of free market enterprises. Blacks are victims of a system, not victims of the racist perpetrators who are wielding the power of the system.

You honestly think blacks would be where they are today if they hadn't come to American as slaves and second-class citizens?

It's historical contingency, who conquered who and when, not "who can survive best within a certain economic system" that laid the foundation for the inequalities we see today.

Unless you are being so insanely, extravagantly trivial as to claim "American capitalism historically does not favor blacks," (NO DERP!) then this is about as racist as I've ever seen you.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 2:34:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 2:28:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 2:18:56 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/13/2012 2:05:55 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 1:17:05 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/13/2012 1:12:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 12:51:45 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/13/2012 12:15:26 PM, thephfactor wrote:
At 4/13/2012 11:58:37 AM, tulle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:48:10 AM, thephfactor wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:45:46 AM, tulle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 8:38:24 AM, thephfactor wrote:
True Capitalism is inherently Non-racist, since it forces competetition. Business proprieters are incentivized to hire the best worker, no matter what his race. Businesses who discriminate are paying more for less, and are eventually driven out of business.

Defend that in this thread http://www.debate.org...

Not sure how this applies...

You're saying the system is inherently non-racist... I'm asking you to read the thread and defend that because I brought up an example of where that doesn't apply. If you're not interested, that's cool, it was just a suggestion.

You talk about cosmetics and hair care? Well, my point was that in TRUE Capitalism, a free market, this & such would happen. Your problem seems to be government regulation, and I would say even then that the intention of the government was not to discriminate based on race, but to help out bigger businesses in return for their support. In my eyes this is a different issue.

That is a lie. The free market did not stifle racism and segregation in the late 1800s and early 1960s.

Non-discrimination in the free market first requires that all governmental controls about social status and etc... are eliminated. Albeit, this was not the case. If I recall correctly, many businesses (mostly in the 1800's) were prohibited by the government to serve black people for fear of penalties. Only specific stores were allowed to serve the black community.

Governmental regulation of businesses was taboo unil the end of the 1800s. No businesses were governmentally prohbited from serving the black community. The capitalists chose to make that decision because of racism.

The Jim Crow laws prohibited blacks and whites from using the same facilities. As a result, this was government regulation to promote discrimination by limiting free market capitalism.

The Jim Crow laws enabled segregation; they did not make segregation required. They were enacted because the racists wanted them. The "evil state" did not enact laws that were against the will of the people. It simply permitted business owners to legally do what they were doing anways.

The Jim Crow laws MANDATED black-white segregation.

"The Jim Crow laws were state and local laws in the United States enacted between 1876 and 1965. They mandated de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern states of the former Confederacy, with a supposedly "separate but equal" status for black Americans."

I can bold statements too.

They mandated discrimination in PUBLIC facilities. Not private facilities. The rest of segregation was the choice of the capitalists.
Also, it was unfashionable and socially demeaning at that time to open up businesses that served to the segregated communities. Social pressure can be just as effective as government regulation at increasing racism and segregation within a community. Those that served to the black community were often black people by themselves.

Ok, so this proves my point. As long as social pressure exists to promote prejudice, capitalism will never be able to eliminate discrimination. This is not a rebuttal to my contention; it just supports it.

This topic is about whether capitalism is inherently racist. It is not, but social pressures will still exist to promote racism. Capitalism is not inherently racist, but people are. Capitalism eliminates economic discrimination which was what its original intent was supposed to be. Social discrimination is a different thing all together. Not that it is necessarily a bad thing, though.

That has nothing to do with my argument. My argument is that capitalism cannot eliminate discrimination.

Economic discrimination=/=social discrimination.

These are two distinct categories, which you cannot lump together under one name of "discrimination."

They are both forms of discrimination.
If you want to eliminate discrimination, then you must eliminate both governmental regulation
Government regulation has been doing an excellent job in limiting discrimination.

Lol. Yes, all of those laws that mandated segregation totally limited discrimination.

I am talking about current laws like the Civil Rights Act.
Government regulation sped up discrimination in 1800's and 1900's. Ex. Inter-racial marriage laws. Jim Crow Laws.


This is so false. The government did not require discrimination. The people advocated for these laws and had them passed and used them as an excuse to promote segregation.

Your point being? These laws, supplemented by the government, mandated discrimination.

In the PUBLIC sphere and NOT in the PRIVATE (BUSINESS) SPHERE
and social discrimination.
This is not possible without governental interference at some level, even if only through the education system.

LOL! People make up society,
Bingo
not the government. Social discrimination can be ended, if desired, by public awareness and activist organizations.

That has never worked. Only government intervention has been able to promote anti-discrimination policies.

Living in a nice communist utopia, eh?

LOL, spewing nonsense does not negate the truth.
The latter is almost impossible to eliminate immediately as controlling human behaviour is a great feat and takes much time to accomplish. However, it can be done as shown by the Civil Rights Movement.

Yes, and the Civil Rights Movement did this by winning court cases and having anti-discrimination legislation passed. It had nothing to do with capitalism.

There is a distinction between social racism and economic racism which you obviously cannot comprehend.

LOL, ok, I was responding to your argument. I don't have to keep within the context of the thread if you are making arguments that are not in the context. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Again, you must specify whether it is economic discrimination or social discrimination that you are looking at.

Racism is a social discrimination. Capitalism cannot prevent it.
Free markets often don't stifle a social predicament. They do stifle economic predicaments.

This is not a rebuttal. This just proves that capitalism cannot prevent discrimination because discrimination is a social evil and not an economic evil.

No. Capitalism prevents economic discrimination. Other stuff (not regulation) prevent social discrimination.

Ok, now this is false. Capitalism promotes economic discrimination by giving workers less power and capitalists more power.

Sorry that this has to be posted again but your statement is just so stupid that:

http://media.tumblr.com...

LOL, so you have no argument against it and you post nonsense. Fine with me.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 2:39:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@ Charleslb

Capitalism isn't inherently racist, though it may perhaps be propagating racism in the context of contemporary society. But if you take Capitalism and put it in a void and not in a cultural context, there's nothing racist about it. And that's what "inherently" implies, but clearly Capitalism is not inherently racist.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 3:29:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 2:39:16 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Is charleslb inherently racist? 100% of charleslb's are of one race, therefore, that is ipso facto the dominant race of charleslb. There must be like, prejudice and stuff.

Lame parody.

being prorated out to
... I don't think you know what prorated means any more than you know what capitalism means. Or racism.

By the "prorated" socioeconomic dominance of the "Caucasiod capitalist captains of the economy" I simply refer to its dissemination throughout our society, mainly to whites, not equitably but in proportion to their supporting role in the system or their subaltern station in life. By capitalism I mean empirical capitalism, i.e., the socioeconomic system we currently live under in the real world, as opposed to the ivory-tower utopian version of the "free market" that some folks on this site seem to delusionally live in. And by racism I mean the imbalance of social, economic, and political power structured into our system that favors whites and places people of color at a distinct disadvantage.

Yes, the inherent socioeconomic inequality of capitalism permits racial inequality to feature grievously in our society's history
"Permits" is a very mild thing to argue.

But apparently still too strong for your liking.

Our society's history doesn't include any capitalism anyway, just pseudocapitalism at best.

So, you're going to resort to the somewhat tautological argument that starts from the unsupported premise that capitalism is a perfect system, and then acknowledges that our system is far from perfect, and then concludes that our system therefore isn't capitalism at all, that it's mere pseudo-capitalism at best! This is rather like evangelical Christians reasoning that real Christians are all morally perfect saints who would never harm a hair on anyone's head, therefore all of the reprehensible things perpetrated in the history of their faith by devoutly religious individuals were the crimes of pseudo-Christians and can't be laid at the doorstep of the Christian Church! Well, if all one has to do is assert that the empirical, real-world incarnation of his/her ideology is too imperfect to be the real deal, then one never has to deal with reality at all and can go on living blissfully in an ideological castle in the air. How nice for you.

It's economic realities, after all, that have always given rise to and institutionalized racial inequities
Like everything else in your post, you have no argument for this, and it's not particularly meaningful. What else would give rise, economic nonrealities?

The point is that the formation of racialist attitudes are occasioned and stimulated by material factors rather than vice versa. For instance, rather than racial bigotry causing slavery it was the need for slaves to perform all of the manual labors involved in colonizing the New World that preceded and prompted the racialist beliefs about the inferiority of blacks that developed to rationalize and justify the inhumanity of slavery.

A major economic reality that factored into historical segregation was state control of the economy, manifesting in such things as Jim Crow laws. Might other "economic realities" do so? Maybe, if so, BE SPECIFIC MOTHERF***er. If racial inequality didn't exist, would there still be something you'd call an "economic reality?" YOU BETCHA.

Oh yeah, well be specific you female parent penetrating libertarians, how is it that "state's rights", which you-all usually believe in and advocate, and which was a major legal and political reality that factored into historical segregation and Jim Crow, is not therefore a dangerous principle to return to?

At any rate, you free-market fundamentalists do like to assign all blame for our system's evils to your version of the Great Satan, i.e., the all-nefarious state. But that's somewhat superficial, as the state is merely the superstructure, the political and institutional edifice erected upon our society's underlying power structure. Yes, to diagnose the ills of our body politic in any fundamental and thoroughgoing fashion one must probe deeper than the superstructure and critically examine the real power structure and dynamics manifesting themselves. The inbuilt economic realities of our capitalist power structure that conduce to racism are covered in the OP, rather than rehash I'll just suggest that you reread it.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 4:00:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 2:46:00 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Capitalism has been very generous to Obama and George Foreman.

Mere exceptions that certainly don't refute the rule. Or perhaps they aren't even such outstanding exceptions. George Foreman was an athlete who rose to celebrity status by getting his hiney whipped by Muhammad Ali and who these days whores himself selling a cooking grill of some kind. And Obama is just another political functionary, a house negro, as it were, of the plutocratic power structure that our faux-democratic institutions are largely a facade for.

Also, your denial of the reality and evil of racism in our society by citing a couple of supposedly successful African Americans is rather like arguing, as some racists do, that South African apartheid wasn't such a dreadful thing because "... blacks in South Africa had a higher living standard than anywhere in Sub-Saharan Africa during apartheid. The total wealth of South African blacks exceeded that of other Sub-Saharan countries combined." This simply doesn't alter or mitigate the inherent wrongness and cruelty, from an ethical and humanistic perspective, of apartheid. Nor does the existence of rich blacks in this country's entertainment industry or a biracial president make the reality of racism any less injurious for millions of people of color. No, I'm sorry but your attempted rebuttal is quite lame.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 4:01:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 8:35:27 AM, OberHerr wrote:
I have no idea what the heck you said for half the OP, but I fail to see how you can prove that a system of government is always inherently racist.

If you're having a comprehension problem perhaps you might wish to reread the OP.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 4:03:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes, btw, the implication of the OP is that capitalism is a fundamental factor in societal iniquities such as racism, and therefore that socialism = a good part of the salvation we're so desperately in need of. What really ails the body politic is the all of the existential-social alienation, and all of the economic inequality inherent in capitalism, racism is largely just a manifestation of these conditions, and the remedy is the abolition of capitalism and its replacement with a more socioeconomically egalitarian form of life.

PS, Ever notice how angry middle-aged white men, and others of the opinion that blacks and progressives who acknowledge the reality of racism are just malcontents playing the "race card", like to focus on issues such as reparations?
They do this of course because they think that the idea of reparations to African Americans for the white man's crimes against their ancestors is manifestly unfair. In other words, reparations are a straw man, something that's easy to argue against, but that isn't the real or central issue. No, the real issue is the inbuilt social and racial power imbalances of our system, and how we're going to evolve a society that instead actualizes the goals of socioeconomic equitableness and racial integration. Try facing up to that, with honesty and integrity, angry middle-aged white men!

(As for the supposed manifest unfairness of reparations, it's only manifestly unfair if one thinks that people are atomized individuals, cut off from their forbears, their, history, and its effects. If you recognize that this isn't really the case, that our past is incorporated into who we are, then the notion of reparations for crimes against the ancestors of African Americans, crimes with ongoing socioeconomic repercussions, isn't quite so outrageous.)
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 4:05:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Corrected version of the above post.

Yes, btw, the implication of the OP is that capitalism is a fundamental factor in societal iniquities such as racism, and therefore that socialism = a good part of the salvation we're so desperately in need of. What really ails the body politic is the all of the existential-social alienation, and all of the economic inequality inherent in capitalism, racism is largely just a manifestation of these conditions, and the remedy is the abolition of capitalism and its replacement with a more socioeconomically egalitarian form of life.

PS, Ever notice how angry middle-aged white men, and others of the opinion that blacks and progressives who acknowledge the reality of racism are just malcontents playing the "race card", like to focus on issues such as reparations?

They do this of course because they think that the idea of reparations to African Americans for the white man's crimes against their ancestors is manifestly unfair. In other words, reparations are a straw man, something that's easy to argue against, but that isn't the real or central issue. No, the real issue is the inbuilt social and racial power imbalances of our system, and how we're going to evolve a society that instead actualizes the goals of socioeconomic equitableness and racial integration. Try facing up to that, with honesty and integrity, angry middle-aged white men!

(As for the supposed manifest unfairness of reparations, it's only manifestly unfair if one thinks that people are atomized individuals, cut off from their forbears, their, history, and its effects. If you recognize that this isn't really the case, that our past is incorporated into who we are, then the notion of reparations for crimes against the ancestors of African Americans, crimes with ongoing socioeconomic repercussions, isn't quite so outrageous.)
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 4:06:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 4:00:38 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 4/13/2012 2:46:00 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Capitalism has been very generous to Obama and George Foreman.

Mere exceptions that certainly don't refute the rule. Or perhaps they aren't even such outstanding exceptions. George Foreman was an athlete who rose to celebrity status by getting his hiney whipped by Muhammad Ali and who these days whores himself selling a cooking grill of some kind. And Obama is just another political functionary, a house negro, as it were, of the plutocratic power structure that our faux-democratic institutions are largely a facade for.

Also, your denial of the reality and evil of racism in our society by citing a couple of supposedly successful African Americans is rather like arguing, as some racists do, that South African apartheid wasn't such a dreadful thing because "... blacks in South Africa had a higher living standard than anywhere in Sub-Saharan Africa during apartheid. The total wealth of South African blacks exceeded that of other Sub-Saharan countries combined." This simply doesn't alter or mitigate the inherent wrongness and cruelty, from an ethical and humanistic perspective, of apartheid. Nor does the existence of rich blacks in this country's entertainment industry or a biracial president make the reality of racism any less injurious for millions of people of color. No, I'm sorry but your attempted rebuttal is quite lame.

I am not a Capitalist and never have been, I am just as much against it as you are, but if you're going to criticize it, at least make valid contentions of the political philosophy. As I stated before, Capitalism is not inherently racist, the people who operate within Capitalism are racist.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 4:12:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 2:39:23 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@ Charleslb

Capitalism isn't inherently racist, though it may perhaps be propagating racism in the context of contemporary society. But if you take Capitalism and put it in a void and not in a cultural context, there's nothing racist about it. And that's what "inherently" implies, but clearly Capitalism is not inherently racist.

Inequality and alienation are immanent aspects of capitalism, aspects that will always promote divisiveness and the subordination of one group (ethnic, racial, gender, what have you) to another. This is indeed an inherent tendency of capitalism and a fundamental fatal flaw.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.