Would socialism/communism really help racial minorites

[BStrong]

No one ever said that. In fact I'm yet to see anyone trying to link racism ro capitalism.

Angela Davis:



Capitalism and Racism, co-joined twins:

https://www.nfg.org/news/capitalism-and-racism-conjoined-twins

A few weeks ago, Democracy Now! aired a segment with Ibram X. Kendi, author and founding director of the Anti-Racist Research and Policy Center at American University, where he discussed white supremacy, anti-racism, and the increase in mass shootings. What struck me about the segment was his illuminating statement about the origins of capitalism. Kendi views capitalism and racism as "conjoined twins" and that “…the origins of racism cannot be separated from the origins of capitalism… the life of capitalism cannot be separated from the life of racism.”

 

[IsThisTheLife]

You're being too cryptic for me to follow. Can you give an example of "non-philo-semitism" in this thread, that's being condemned as "murderously anti-semitic"?
To be honest, I'm not even sure what you mean by the term. To me, it connotes something like, "Jews are no more special than any other race, and are entitled to the same human rights as everyone else, no more and no less." But as far as I know, that idea has not come up for debate in this thread, and nobody here is equating it to anti-semitism.

So can you please give me an example of what you're talking about? Or at least explain what you mean in clear and simple terms?

Take the assertion that the post-Bolshevik, Stalinist era USSR was "murderously antisemitic" (which is frankly ludicrous). Belz, for example, seems to think that the fact that some Jews were caught up in Stalin's periodic 'purges' amounts to .... murderous antisemitism.

In fact Belz's interlocutor is quite correct in stating that when these occurred Jews were NOT over-represented (quite the reverse), but it's as if the inclusion of ANY jews among the victims is a particular affront.

 

[Belz...]

Take the assertion that the post-Bolshevik, Stalinist era USSR was "murderously antisemitic" (which is frankly ludicrous). Belz, for example, seems to think that the fact that some Jews were caught up in Stalin's periodic 'purges' amounts to .... murderous antisemitism.

Targetting Jews for murder should count as murderous antisemitism, should it not?

 

[IsThisTheLife]

Targetting Jews for murder should count as murderous antisemitism, should it not?

It would be if they were, but they weren't, they just didn't get the exceptional treatment they'd enjoyed pre-Stalin. And who cares about the slavs, Ukrainians, Cossacks et al who died in their millions, right?

 

[Belz...]

It would be if they were, but they weren't, they just didn't get the exceptional treatment they'd enjoyed pre-Stalin.

That's not what the evidence seems to indicate.

And who cares about the slavs, Ukrainians, Cossacks et al who died in their millions, right

Certainly not you.

 

[theprestige]

It would be if they were, but they weren't, they just didn't get the exceptional treatment they'd enjoyed pre-Stalin. And who cares about the slavs, Ukrainians, Cossacks et al who died in their millions, right?

The Soviet Union killed a lot of people from a lot of ethnicities, for a lot of different reasons. Sometimes it was pure economic expedience. These Ukrainians died because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - they weren't singled out because of their race. Etc.

And, from what the record shows, sometimes it was for reasons of ethnic cleansing. The Soviet Union did from time to time target specific ethnicities for persecution. Including Jews, Slavs, Ukrainians, Cossacks, and others.

Just because we're looking at Jewish experiences under communist rule at the moment doesn't mean we're ignoring the wider scope of the question. And of course you're free to cover other aspects of the subject, if you think the thread needs more diversity.

 

[IsThisTheLife]

It would be if they were, but they weren't, they just didn't get the exceptional treatment they'd enjoyed pre-Stalin

That's not what the evidence seems to indicate.

BS

And who cares about the slavs, Ukrainians, Cossacks et al who died in their millions, right

Certainly not you.

Nice. I have antecedents from the Baltic on my maternal side who fled West (with literally countless others) in the certain knowledge that the family patriarch, a senior policeman, was going to be executed on the spot when the Reds arrived. I kind of do, actually.

 

[theprestige]

BS


Nice. I have antecedents from the Baltic on my maternal side who fled West (with literally countless others) in the certain knowledge that the family patriarch, a senior policeman, was going to be executed on the spot when the Reds arrived. I kind of do, actually.

It's an open thread. If you think the experience of the Baltic ethnicities under Soviet rule merits more discussion, feel free to contribute any time.

I think Belz... is saying your decision not to discuss that stuff yourself implies a lack of care about that stuff.

 

[Cavemonster]

Yes, the market is amoral. It depends upon the morality of actors in the market in order to produce moral outcomes. If the actors are all immoral, it will produce immoral outcomes. Any system composed of immoral people will produce immoral outcomes. No human system is every any more moral than the people who comprise it. This is immutable.

But systems can be LESS moral than the people that are in it. That is to say, given the same population with the same basic values, a system can be better or worse.

Let's take the example of education. Here are three models to compare

Model #1, Libertopia
Everything is privatized. So if you want eduction you're going to have to pay for it. Now historically marginalized groups are at a serious disadvantage. Whatever market solutions may be possible, the options are going to be seriously tiered, with the worst education (or none) available to the most marginalized people.

The only way educational opportunities become more evenly distributed in Libertopia is if people donate time, money and resources to provide for the disadvantaged. People need to be actively and above and beyond the call of duty good in order to mitigate the inequality.

If people are generally good, but not ready to make it a mission, then things can be pretty crappy.

Model #2 Current US model
We have both public and private education. But education is funded by locality, so neighboring communitees within the same area can have vastly different educational resources, often based in the difference of property values since many schools rely heavily on property taxes.

In this model, at least everyone gets a baseline education, but it's still very uneven. And in this model where government action is so localized, effects from markets have strong effects on what government is able to do. White flight was a market decision. And they didn't need to WANT to hurt black people to leave cities for the suburbs. Many might not have even been thinking about the effect of their tax dollars leaving the local educational system. In markets like this, small decisions that don't have a goal or even an inidvidually direct effect can add up to create major inequalities. The system again is worse than the individuals in it.

Model #3 National level school funding

Here, every child is guaranteed an education and funding is distributed from a national central piggy bank.

In this case, you wouldn't see disparity between the funding available to individual communities unless the people managing it decided to make it that way. Because their job is to divide the money, they would need to be either largely incompetent or hold a value system that intentionally created a disparity.

So, in all three models you could get bad outcomes if enough power holders wanted them, but the more you move from free markets to government power, the more you'd have to be willfully creating disparity.

 

[IsThisTheLife]

It's an open thread. If you think the experience of the Baltic ethnicities under Soviet rule merits more discussion, feel free to contribute any time.

I think Belz... is saying your decision not to discuss that stuff yourself implies a lack of care about that stuff.

The "experience" never really varied with ethnicity (it wasn't a matter of being "anti" anything) and is exemplified by that of the Poles at Katyn and elsewhere. It was a simple, crude but effective strategy - summarily 'decapitate' the state.

 

[Ziggurat]

But systems can be LESS moral than the people that are in it.

That describes communism pretty well.

So, in all three models you could get bad outcomes if enough power holders wanted them, but the more you move from free markets to government power, the more you'd have to be willfully creating disparity.

The central problem with this argument is the misconception that funding levels are the primary determinants of educational outcome. The evidence indicates otherwise. Inner city schools with good funding usually still end up as cesspits. National funding cannot solve that problem, or even frankly address it. And while a purely market-based system would indeed produce more inequality in funding than we currently have, the absence of market competition has also proven itself extremely detrimental to the poor.

But this is all somewhat irrelevant, since there is no real constituency in the US for a purely market-based primary education system. Even the most radical pro-market proposals to gain any traction, school vouchers, actually rely on centralized funding at least on the state level. And that can actually be a considerable boon to poor minority students, by giving them access to better schools than the current system does. And again, national funding would not fix our schools, because the primary problem is not funding discrepancy.

 

[theprestige]

The "treatment" never really varied with ethnicity (it wasn't a matter of being "anti" anything) and is exemplified by that of the Poles at Katyn and elsewhere. It was a simple, crude but effective strategy - summarily 'decapitate' the state.

There's ample evidence that the Soviet Union carried out ethnic cleansing as such, in addition to the more narrow "political" cleansing it also carried out from time to time. Also, I'm pretty sure that modern definitions of ethnic cleansing and ethnic persecution include such things as "decapitating" competing or offensive ethnostates. It may not tell us as much as some thought, about how the USSR treated Jews. But crushing the Polish regime as part of a program of reducing Poland to a Russian vassal state dominated by ethnic Russians does tell us a lot about the relationship between (applied) communism and racism.

Even if it turns out that the Jews weren't picked on as much as people think, it still seems the case that communism cold sucks at really helping racial minorities in general. The Jewish situation seems to boil down to European communists being just as anti-semitic as everyone else. Which doesn't say much for communism as an antidote to racism.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

TBH, I'm not even sure why it's supposed to be important for the topic at hand. If another ethnic group was more targeted than the Jews (which, at times was indeed the case) then that still means that the USSR kinda failed to abolish discrimination.

And I'll even give one example myself: Lenin's "decossackization" was the FIRST case in the USSR of actually state-sanctioned action aimed at destroying an ethnic group in a given territory. Long before Stalin turned antisemitic or had his purges or starving the Ukrainians, Lenin had a hate boner for the Cossacks, which had taken the side of the whites (pro-czarist) in the revolution. So starting as early as 1919 (at least officially; unofficially it was done on a more ad-hoc basis since 1917), and continuing under Stalin all the way to 1933, the Cossacks were systematically targeted for deportations, executions, and general persecution by the USSR.

But... how does that change the premise that the USSR didn't do much to reduce the discrimination against minorities? Sure, they weren't Jews, but there was a minority that was persecuted MORE than any in any western state at that point. Not even with an "except for Germany" qualifier, but at that time, period. Germany wouldn't even give its Nuremberg Laws until 1935, some 2 years after the USSR got bored of taking it on the cossacks and moved onto persecuting other groups. For almost 2 decades straight the USSR was on the leading edge of ethnic persecution among ALL western nations.

Seems to me like the conclusion still stands that the USSR implementation of communism did nothing to alleviate ethnic problems. In fact, quite the opposite. Even if it wasn't about the Jews for a change, the conclusion still stands.

 

[Cavemonster]

But this is all somewhat irrelevant...

My point wasn't to make a case for a particular educational model from available options, or to exaustively explore the factors that create or alleviate educational disparity. It was to show one sliver of inequality and how the more free the market is, the more possible it is to screw a group over without particularly wanting to and the more controlled markets are, the more you need the decision makers to be deliberate to screw over marginalized groups.

You can apply te same scale to a huge number of factors, including te other factors that influence educational outcomes. But they're not all as easy to summarize in a couple sentences as funding is and I'm not writing a book length study about education, I'm making a simple point using an example.

 

[Olmstead]

Why is the discussion always about socialism/communism vs. capitalism? What "socialists" are really advocating is a capitalist system with a very extensive safety net and numerous opportunities for social mobility that are made available through government funding. And that would help racial minorities.

 

[zooterkin]

Several posts have been moved to AAH for bickering and for being off topic.

Please keep to the topic, which is not, as ever, one another.

Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin

 

[Cavemonster]

Why is the discussion always about socialism/communism vs. capitalism? What "socialists" are really advocating is a capitalist system with a very extensive safety net and numerous opportunities for social mobility that are made available through government funding. And that would help racial minorities.

There are people genuinely advocating an actual command economy, it's just not most of the people the right is calling "socialists" right now.

So, if we're talking about practical options on the table for the US, then the USSR is pretty irrelevant.

I'm taking OP at his word and engaging about command economies rather than just robust welfare.

 

[Olmstead]

There are people genuinely advocating an actual command economy, it's just not most of the people the right is calling "socialists" right now.

So, if we're talking about practical options on the table for the US, then the USSR is pretty irrelevant.

I'm taking OP at his word and engaging about command economies rather than just robust welfare.

But I don't think there is a point in that, because no one in the western world is actually living in a full-blown capitalist system. Unfettered capitalism would be unbelievably terrible for a lot of people, especially minorities. You would have to compare like with like, and even the capitalism of the US is heavily (and thankfully) saturated with socialist policies. You cannot compare that with the worst history had to offer. A more honest question would be whether communism is better for minorities than libertarianism.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Why is the discussion always about socialism/communism vs. capitalism? What "socialists" are really advocating is a capitalist system with a very extensive safety net and numerous opportunities for social mobility that are made available through government funding. And that would help racial minorities.

I think the more accurate question would be: why does it always have to involve an equivocation between that kind of socialism and Stalinism? And I don't even mean to single out any posters, as it's equivocated even in the thread title. In effect you can't even discuss how that safety net would work, or even IF it would work, without it getting IMMEDIATELY derailed into it being somehow equivalent to or disproven by what Stalin did in the USSR. Seems to me a bit like derailing a discussion about air conditioners into what the last ice age did.

 

[theprestige]

There are people genuinely advocating an actual command economy, it's just not most of the people the right is calling "socialists" right now.

So, if we're talking about practical options on the table for the US, then the USSR is pretty irrelevant.

I'm taking OP at his word and engaging about command economies rather than just robust welfare.

I appreciate you taking the OP at his word and engaging on that basis, but the OP doesn't say anything about command economies:

There seems to be a truism that abolishing captialism will lead to be end of racism. But if we had a system of worker co-ops or were property is communally owned, can't white people still oppress (inadvertently or not) black people by being the majority?

The OP's question isn't, "do command economies help racial minorities?"

Rather, it's, "does communal ownership of the means of production help racial minorities?"

Totally different questions.

Also, are command economies really a notable characteristic of socialist/communist theory? It seems to me that command economies could arise in any totalitarian regime. I wonder to what degree economic activity pemitted or ordered by the king would count as a "command economy" under the feudal or imperial systems. What about wartime economies? Actually I think wartime economies probably do a lot of good for minorities.

Also, are totalitarian regimes even a notable characteristic of socialist/communist theory? I mean, I know that's how it's turned out in practice, but what does the theory say? If I have a commune over here, and you have a commune over there, do we need a Commune Commerce Control Proctor to tell us how we are each to employ our means of production?

Though I guess without the CCC Proctor, our communes would pretty quickly fall into capitalist ways. I mean, we'd all be happy little socialists inside my commune. But we'd all be celebrating our communal profits from selling you whatever products you most wanted at whatever price we could manage to extract from you.

Unless you were Elbonians. Then we wouldn't do business with you at all. Dirty Elbonians.