Would socialism/communism really help racial minorites

[smartcooky]

Anyone who thinks that communism and its version of socialism would somehow be good for minorities and eliminate racism and ethnic hatred needs to study history more.. in particular the way the Soviet Union treated Jews.

They also might like to Google "Katyn Forest".

 

[caveman1917]

The profit motive provides an incentive to not discriminate against people on a superficial basis such as race.

To the contrary, the profit motive provides an incentive to discriminate against people on a superficial basis such a race. Profit, after all, isn't magically brought into existence ex nihilo by the profit fairies, but constitutes part of the value created by labour which gets expropriated by the owner of the means of production used. As such, any capitalist who expropriates labour from groups of others has an incentive to divide that group of others so they will be less able to enforce better (for them, less profitable for the capitalist) conditions. Racism is a profitable idea to the richest capitalists, and hence in the marketplace of ideas where ideas are given positive or negative feedback depending on how profitable they are to the richest layer of society, racism gets a lot of positive feedback.

This not only follows theoretically but can be seen to occur throughout history. Such as Southern slave owners investing in racist groups and policies after facing multi-racial revolts.

 

[theprestige]

Anyone who thinks that communism and its version of socialism would somehow be good for minorities and eliminate racism and ethnic hatred needs to study history more.. in particular the way the Soviet Union treated Jews.

They also might like to Google "Katyn Forest".

I'm not sure the Soviet Union under Stalin is a good example of how communism would do things. Except in the sense that it seems likely that this is how communism would end up doing things after it stopped being strictly communism. This is why I keep minimizing the obvious example of the USSR. I think we'll get a much better picture of how ideal communism might look, by looking at smaller-scale examples.

 

[caveman1917]

Anyone who thinks that communism and its version of socialism would somehow be good for minorities and eliminate racism and ethnic hatred needs to study history more.. in particular the way the Soviet Union treated Jews.

They also might like to Google "Katyn Forest".

Interesting combination of things to bring up. You do know what the previous Polish regime's officials (who were killed at Katyn forest) were known for, right? Hint: it beings with po and ends with groms. Sounds like the USSR treated Jews just fine, going around ending right-wing military dictatorships engaging in progroms (Poland, most other East-European countries before WW2) or worse (Nazi Germany and its territory).

 

[Ziggurat]

To the contrary, the profit motive provides an incentive to discriminate against people on a superficial basis such a race. Profit, after all, isn't magically brought into existence ex nihilo by the profit fairies, but constitutes part of the value created by labour which gets expropriated by the owner of the means of production used. As such, any capitalist who expropriates labour from groups of others has an incentive to divide that group of others so they will be less able to enforce better (for them, less profitable for the capitalist) conditions. Racism is a profitable idea to the richest capitalists, and hence in the marketplace of ideas where ideas are given positive or negative feedback depending on how profitable they are to the richest layer of society, racism gets a lot of positive feedback.

This not only follows theoretically but can be seen to occur throughout history. Such as Southern slave owners investing in racist groups and policies after facing multi-racial revolts.

That's not the way it actually works, at all. And slavery is the antithesis of capitalism.

And you went full commie. Never go full commie.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not sure the Soviet Union under Stalin is a good example of how communism would do things. Except in the sense that it seems likely that this is how communism would end up doing things after it stopped being strictly communism. This is why I keep minimizing the obvious example of the USSR. I think we'll get a much better picture of how ideal communism might look, by looking at smaller-scale examples.

There is no such thing as ideal communism. And to the extent that small-scale communes work (with or without racism), they can only work if they stay small and with a self-selected population. They cannot and do not scale, and so are useless as a guide for nation-level policy.

 

[caveman1917]

That's not the way it actually works, at all.

Sure it is. Observably so, even.

And slavery is the antithesis of capitalism.

No it isn't, but even so, it was just one example. The KKK have been notorious strikebreakers, plenty of white supremacist groups act as private militias at the behest of the capitalist class.

And you went full commie. Never go full commie.

It's not my fault if reality is Marxist, said a smart dude once. ETA: Interesting way of showing how you value ideology over observation and argument, I'll take your comment that "that's not the way it actually works, at all" in that sense then, namely you saying it merely disagrees with your preferred ideology and doesn't disagree with observation nor has flawed argumentation.

 

[smartcooky]

Interesting combination of things to bring up. You do know what the previous Polish regime's officials (who were killed at Katyn forest) were known for, right? Hint: it beings with po and ends with groms. Sounds like the USSR treated Jews just fine, going around ending right-wing military dictatorships engaging in progroms (Poland, most other East-European countries before WW2) or worse (Nazi Germany and its territory).

The families of the Polish Jews murdered at Katyn Forest and at the prisons in Kalinin and Kharkiv, including the Chief Rabbi of the Polish Army, Baruch Steinberg, would likely take issue with your highlighted characterization of USSR's treatment of Jews as being "just fine".

 

[theprestige]

Imagine being in 2020 and still doing apologetics for the USSR's human rights record.

Even if the Soviets treated Jews the same way as they treated everyone else, it'd still be horrific.

The problem with the Soviet Union is that pretty much every social ill it actually cured, the trade-off was even worse ills elsewhere in the system.

 

[Loss Leader]

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 Soviet Union managed to be Communist and still make life miserable for Jews. So I'm going to argue that an economic system itself can't be racially fair or unfair. The people using it actually have to care.


ETA: Already discussed. Should have read the thread before posting, sorry. What I should have said is that caveman1917's statement was wildly and unconscionably ignorant.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

One question is whether Fascism has been tried for real.

Another question is whether Fascism is really all that bad, if you take away the Hitlerite perversions. Anti-semitism and lebensraum weren't significant policies of the Italian and Spanish regimes. Hell, even the Hitlerite doctrine of fomenting unrest as a way to annex neighboring territories had more in common with the communists than with his fellow fascists.

I'd say that's somewhat incorrect on two counts:

1. Actually the Italian version had been tried for like a decade more than Adolf's. A little more than two decades total. If that's not enough for you to get at least a feel for it, I'm not sure how much more is needed.

It was fairly popular too, both abroad and domestically. Domestically because it managed to end a VERY turbulent period that Italy found itself in after WW1, mostly. (Somewhat similar to the troubles the Weimar Republic had, really, although not identical.)

2. Actually revanchism and delusions of grandeur were a pretty core thing for all of them.

E.g., while Italy didn't phrase it as lebensraum and whatnot, Il Duce hammered pretty much non-stop on his delusions of re-creating the Roman Empire. It's also the guys who did a brutal attack on Ethiopia, invaded Albania which was very much an ally of Italy, invaded Greece (even if Germany had to finish that), sent its army into Yugoslavia, and so on. Plus joined very willingly in attacking France (if again, rather incompetently), the UK in Africa, and later joined Germany against the USSR. And had been rattling its sabre and itching to have a go at Austria, before Adolf took THAT prize.

I guess people don't really remember Italy as a conqueror in WW2 because they were really really bad at it, but it doesn't mean they didn't try. More importantly, it doesn't mean it wasn't a core component of their ideology.

And Spain, really, is inconclusive since it was basically licking its wounds after the civil war for a long time. Which may well be the main reason why it didn't join the Axis.


I'd also add that all flavours were equally adept at stalling their own economy in the name of that revanchism. Again, you may not remember Italy for its legions of panzers, but that's only because its industrial power was best described with two words: "bugger" and "all". Actually the drain they put on their own economy in the name of that revanchism may well be greater than even what Germany did.

Again, lack of success doesn't equal lack of trying.

Also all flavours were actually very busy repressing their own population, and occupied populations. Just because Il Duce didn't have a raging boner about killing specifically Jews, doesn't really make him a good guy.

 

[Venom]

The difference between Nazism and Communism is you can mention Nazism on the internet without hearing "But it just hasn't been tried for REEEAAAAAAAAL yet!"

Sure, let's ignore the inherent authoritarianism, racism, and eugenics embedded in Nazi philosophy.

At least the early communists believed they had a solution to honest questions.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sure, let's ignore the inherent authoritarianism, racism, and eugenics embedded in Nazi philosophy.

At least the early communists believed they had a solution to honest questions.

I don't know why you think what they believed is any sort of excuse for what they did.

 

[Venom]

I don't know why you think what they believed is any sort of excuse for what they did.

It's not an excuse for what they did, but the distinction there is worth noting.

Communists and anarchists don't begin from a proclamation that explicitly lays out all of the horrible things they plan to do to fulfill their goal.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's not an excuse for what they did, but the distinction there is worth noting.

Communists and anarchists don't begin from a proclamation that explicitly lays out all of the horrible things they plan to do to fulfill their goal.

They have better PR than Nazis, that is true. They are just as evil, though.

 

[caveman1917]

What I should have said is that caveman1917's statement was wildly and unconscionably ignorant.

Imagine seriously standing there looking at the USSR taking over from the Second Polish Republic and complaining because of the treatment of Jews in the former.

 

[dann]

They have better PR than Nazis, that is true. They are just as evil, though.

Trumpian logic: You don't like us, we oppose you, so we're evil.

 

[Venom]

They have better PR than Nazis, that is true. They are just as evil, though.

Communists: The capitalists are robbing the working class. Let's find a way to impose socialism by any means necessary and get rid of the inequality.

Nazis: We're taking over and getting rid of the Jews, Gypsies, and undesirables. The Aryan Master Race will dominate the world.

Just as evil? No, being well meaning doesn't mean you're going to carry out your agenda as well as on paper, and if we look at personalities alone we can find comparably evil people from both sides, but in terms of the base ideology it's pretty clear which side has a more evil agenda.

 

[Darat]

First of all, these ideologies are prescriptive, not descriptive. They're not trying to model human interaction as an end goal. They're trying to prescribe how humans should choose to interact with each other.

Go and look back at their origins and you will find that they are both, they are off the kind "A,u,o is the goal, if you do X,y,V then A,u,o will happen". It doesn't.

Second, these ideologies do a pretty good job of modeling human interaction. Since their whole point is to prescribe solutions to the observed problems of human interaction.

No they don't, we now know this as a fact, economics are still in the middle ages compared to many scientific fields but it has made some progress.

For example, the Christian doctrine of "love thy neighbor as thyself". It's not a model of how human interaction really is. It's a prescription based on a relatively accurate model of human interaction: The model says humans are often dicks to their neighbors. The ideology looks at the behavior predicted by the model and says, here's an alternative you can choose.

Nope. Christianity says "for eternal reward you must do A,B,C" you can do A,B,C but you still won't get an eternal reward."

Third, "modeling" is probably the wrong term for what's going on. Marx didn't need to model human behavior; he just needed to observe it.

No it's the right term, it just wasn't a term used back in the good old days.

 

[catsmate]

By social activists online, just google "capitalism, racism". I guess truism may not be the right word. "Assumption" is more like it.

I assume you'll be citing examples of this being a common "social activist" belief?