Does Capitalism Cause Racism?

[Purple Knight]

Does capitalism cause racism?

Does it cause hate in general?

The idea is that in a system with some redistribution, if someone in the system is exceptional, that is a benefit directly to you. But in a system without redistribution, if someone is better than you, they take away opportunities and their higher buying power reduces the value of your currency when they compete with you for goods and services. Indeed, if that exceptional person was removed from a system which their earnings were redistributed, starvation. But if they were removed from a system where redistribution is nil, suddenly a regular person has a job (though they won't be paid as much which is a good thing) and the disproportionate buying power of the dynamo is no longer raising prices for everyone else.

The idea is that then, all instances of jealous racism (for example, racism against Jews for the simple reason that they succeed disproportionately) are actually caused by capitalism and would disappear if people did not have to compete with those who were simply going to be clear winners. And if every instance of racism is jealous racism, then perhaps inherent bigotry and hatred are hardly the real issues.

Let's play with this concept a little more by adding the idea of T, for Take. In a natural system, without government, those disproportionately endowed with skill and ability would be subject to Take, which here I define to mean any time someone else who does not have that skill or ability, benefits instead of the person who does. For example, if one individual in a cave of cavemen has a huge pile of food, while the others are starving, they're going to take at least some of it and maybe even all of it. If the rest are smart, and the ability is natural, they will not starve the high-ability individual even if only so he continues to gather food which they will take some of. However, if the "ability" is some trick that is actually sabotaging their ability to gather, they might be better off taking it all and starving him. So there is some Optimal Take where if they take less, then they hurt themselves, and if they take more, they lose their cash cow.

If Take is always 0, if property rights are assumed, the starving cavemen should always eject the great gatherer because he might be gathering in a way that starves them, and if he dies, his death can only benefit them. Even if his better gathering was 100% not affecting theirs, ejecting him is, at worst, neutral to the rest of the cave. If however no capitalist stands in their way and they can use their natural force to take some of his food, he can be a benefit to them.

A government that limits Take can also be a benefit to the cave. The idea that the great gatherer should never be allowed to starve would benefit all, assuming he's not using some trick that saps gathering power from others and he really is just better at gathering. A government that stops Take from exceeding Optimal Take can also benefit all. A government that caps Take below Optimal Take can even be a benefit long-term, if the extra resources mean the great gatherer breeds and passes on his greater ability. All a government can do by outlawing Take is hurt the cave. The great gatherer is not even better off, because as a liability to the group he is now very likely ejected and might die from exposure even with all his bags of food. They now also have to outlaw murder even though nobody might have wanted to kill each other before, because even with some weird rule that his things must all be burned to avoid him being killed so he can be stolen from, the cave can only see more resources from getting rid of him.

You can add an economy to fix this, and other cavemen might be motivated to rub his back, wash his feet, or give him manicures for some of his extra food. But I have to ask this: If he just didn't exist, then either I starve or I don't. (And to be fair, before he came I didn't starve, which is why I'm alive now.) And if I don't starve, then I don't have to work for him. And isn't that better for me, in case he doesn't need a manicure right now?

I can only conclude that Take is natural and should not be outlawed, and that criminalising Take just causes much of the hate and jealousy in the world.

[Athetotheist]

I don't believe that capitalism causes racism, but I do believe that it exploits racism. As I see it, capitalist media try to turn every instance of economic inequality into a racial/gender/whatever issue to shift the focus off of the economic inequality which strikes across racial/gender/whatever lines. Capitalism is falling out of favor with the masses worldwide, so it has to keep the masses divided against each other so they can't unite and take their economic power back.

[Purple Knight]

I don't believe that capitalism causes racism, but I do believe that it exploits racism. As I see it, capitalist media try to turn every instance of economic inequality into a racial/gender/whatever issue to shift the focus off of the economic inequality which strikes across racial/gender/whatever lines.

It certainly does that, and it also turns protest from an honest wish for change, to a moneymaking machine that wants to preserve the problems so they can keep making money from "fixing" them.

The interest of a car repairman is not for your car to ever be fixed, but for it to be as broken as possible.

The interest of a doctor is not for you to be healthy, but for you to be as sick as possible. (And while individual people may act against their interests in service to decency, big companies can't, and we see the result in the pharmaceutical industry.)

A redistribution big enough would fix privilege. But I don't see ANYONE advocating for it, because the people who keep sniffing for privilege and telling everyone they owe, make money, and if the issue was fixed they would lose their jobs. They're like credit card companies. They don't want people to pay back their debt; they want people to get into deeper debt. I'm not saying microaggressions aren't real. I'm saying the market essentially forces people to commit them.

I'm for a big redistribution. Disenfranchise every white person. Make every last one homeless. Then, in exchange, the idea that white privilege exists can never be taught again, and harassing white people for being white (for example, saying they owe you something because they are white) becomes a crime, which is not different than the idea that a company sending you a bill you don't actually owe should be a crime - and it should. I think it's a real issue so I want it fixed. But, that won't make me any money, so my way will never succeed over the free marketeers' scams and hustles.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #3]

Disenfranchise every white person. Make every last one homeless.

That's an example of what I'm talking about----framing economic inequality as a racial issue instead of an economic issue.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #3]

Disenfranchise every white person. Make every last one homeless.

That's an example of what I'm talking about----framing economic inequality as a racial issue instead of an economic issue.

But the ship has sailed and society has judged whites guilty but is unwilling to collect, because it wants them born in permanent debt.

I don't want people born in permanent debt. Even if you think the debt doesn't exist, it is better to just collect it than have people born who will never get our from under that debt, because the debt is designed to be too big for that.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #5]

But the ship has sailed and society has judged whites guilty but is unwilling to collect, because it wants them born in permanent debt.

I don't want people born in permanent debt. Even if you think the debt doesn't exist, it is better to just collect it than have people born who will never get our from under that debt, because the debt is designed to be too big for that.

Collecting a debt from those who didn't rack it up is just a convenient way of assigning guilt by association, and all that does is add to the resentment already dividing people to capitalism's benefit.

[Purple Knight]

Collecting a debt from those who didn't rack it up is just a convenient way of assigning guilt by association, and all that does is add to the resentment already dividing people to capitalism's benefit.

Even if you think that, allowing the debt to persist and increase by generation is worse. Even if someone is not actually guilty, if he's been judged so, it's better for him to serve the sentence if the alternative is that all his children will be born even more guilty than he is.

I think whites actually owe this debt. And I think they owe it twice, frankly. They owe all land they own to BOTH Blacks and Native Americans. Once for having stolen it in the first place, twice for having developed it by labour they stole. With full recognition of how devastating it would be to put every last white person out on the street, all their property would be getting off easy.

I think this because if my great-grandfather was a Nazi who stole a painting from your great-grandfather who was Jew, I now rightly owe you that painting, because it's not mine and never was.

By Locke's theory of property, the Blacks developed the land with their labour, so it's theirs and always has been. (However this gives the Native Americans nothing.)

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #7]

Even if someone is not actually guilty, if he's been judged so, it's better for him to serve the sentence if the alternative is that all his children will be born even more guilty than he is.

But if he's not actually guilty, his children won't be born guilty regardless of how they're judged.

[Purple Knight]

But if he's not actually guilty, his children won't be born guilty regardless of how they're judged.

Then think of it like a debt that he's saddled with, that he doesn't actually owe, but that grows with every generation. He can proudly pronounce that he never bought the item, but if his kid will be charged double, and their kid quadruple, arguably it's better to just pay it, especially if we know the world is not reversing its decision, but doubling down.

If there's a real chance to be exonerated, any at all, go for it. But if there's not, and you know that no matter what you do, your kid will be born owing double, the right thing to do is think of your kid and pay it.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #9]

If there's a real chance to be exonerated, any at all, go for it. But if there's not, and you know that no matter what you do, your kid will be born owing double, the right thing to do is think of your kid and pay it.

What kind of precedent does that set?

"Don't bother catching the guilty party----just grab the first relative of his who conveniently happens along, exact vengeance on him and pretend that it's justice."