Would socialism/communism really help racial minorites

[Venom]

It's so weird to see an avowed anarchist white knighting the Soviet Union, of all things.

You'd think there'd be an "enemy of my enemy" thing going on. Instead, it looks more like "enemy of my ene--oh wait that's my friend hol up".

Probably lamenting its failure to get over that totalitarian hump on its way to communism.

 

[caveman1917]

You realise that you're the laughing stock right now, yes?

Why should I care who you decide to laugh at?

And yet, it still was a Jew hating regime. "All the other kids are doing it, mom" wasn't convincing when you were eight.

Yes, if every regime is Jew hating then the USSR was too, congratulations on such an insightful notion.

 

[Cavemonster]

As many have noted, communist/socialist countries have no problem persecuting minorities.

But I think there is an important difference in the way bad treatment can emerge.

Some in this thread have said that capitalism is a powerful disincentive to racism, since it's irrational to refuse a pating customer or a good employee on the basis of something meaningless like race, and the market would reward those who were able to look past race and see the value.

That didn't seem to manifest much in the US for a long time though. Through the 60s, business owners did pretty well segregating lunch counters and refusing to sell or rent homes to people based on race. The market didn't solve that one. Government needed to step in with the Civil Rights Act to make those things illegal.

Imagine you're running a restaurant in a town full of 99% racist white people. You've got nothing against black people, but most of your customer base wouldn't come to your restaurant if you allowed people of all colors to sit in the same area. That's an example of the amorality of the market. The decision that puts the most money in someone's pocket might be something that adversely effects other people. And it doesn't matter if the decision maker is personally racist, outside factors decide what the rational economic decision is.

In a free(er) market economy, you can get bad outcomes for minorities even if the decision makers aren't trying to create them. In a market, the decision maker's job is to make money, it is, as I said amoral. They're doing a good job within that system if they make a lot of money regardless of the morality or effect of their decisions. Yeah, there are certain value laden checks in place. If you're transparently evil, people may not want to do business with you. But even with boycotts now regularly making the news, that's a rare exception.

Government decisions are meant to be value laden. Yes, sometimes those values themselves are bad. If you value your people over others, then genocide can be a decision guided by your values. Those are crappy values. And one can be bad at their government job in a few ways. You could be corrupt and not care about your professed values, or you can be incompetent and terrible at getting outcomes consistent with your values.

But the difference exists.

Governemnt actors can harm minority groups if they have malevolent values or are bad at their job.

Market actors can do both those things AND they can harm minorities even if they don't have malevolent values and even if they're very good at their job, if that just happens to be what the market rewards or tolerates, which historically, it often has.

Are there other things that change in a command economy that are relevant? Power tends to be consolidated in fewer hands, which means you could get lucky or unlucky based on the values, level of corruption, and competence of the people who happen to be in charge.Communist states we've seen have been mostly set up through violent coups/revolutions, so the subpopulation that tends to hold power are people who like to shoot folks and who have a lot of anger against the former deposed ruling class. Unlike the US, most of their revolutions were against people who were physically there, and there may not be a great peaceful way to live next to people you've just violently disempowered.

But in countries that have simply moved, vote by vote along the spectrum from a less regulated market towards more government involvement, you don't see that effect to much. And in that sort of movement, as power shifts from markets to governments incrementally, as the general values of the population stay the same, I'd expect to see a move from amoral decision making to value based decision making that served minority groups better. Not sure I can say that trend would extend all the way to a fully command economy. But in Western mixed economies, the move towards more government say in business has generally included increases in decision making aimed at creating more fairness and inclusion of minority groups.

 

[Belz...]

Why should I care who you decide to laugh at?

Hey, if you want to be the thread jester, go right ahead.

Yes, if every regime is Jew hating then the USSR was too, congratulations on such an insightful notion.

I'm sorry you consider facts to be an "insightful notion".

The question was whether the USSR was antisemitic. You have now admitted that they were. That concludes that argument.

 

[theprestige]

Probably lamenting its failure to get over that totalitarian hump on its way to communism.

You'd think that if reality really were Marxist, anarcho-communism would be a lot easier to achieve and a lot more prevalent.

---

"Marxism is how the world works!"

Feudalism and Capitalism have entered the chat.

 

[Belz...]

You'd think that if reality really were Marxist, anarcho-communism would be a lot easier to achieve and a lot more prevalent.

Exactly. The reason why markets and classes, and a whole lot of other things, have always existed, is not because of some bourgeois conspiracy, but simply because it suits human nature better, for better or worse.

 

[MisAndreG]

Define "murderously antisemitic." I've taken a look at that Wikipedia page on the "Anti-cosmopolitan campaign" and it appears to be a political campaign against what was seen as bourgeois cultural influence directed at high-level intellectuals. The first victims seem to be physicist Pyotr Kapitsa and the president of the Belorussian Academy of Sciences Anton Zhebrak. Neither of them seems to be Jewish. Later during the campaign some of the people targeted were Jewish, which is entirely to be expected especially given, as the article points out, the overrepresentation of Jews in the scientific and cultural fields (about 20% of Soviet scientists were Jews but they made up about 3% of the population). This overrepresentation, by the way, speaks against this notion of the USSR purportedly being "murderously antisemitic."



What Jew hating regime? The Second Polish Republic[*]? The rest of Eastern Europe? Germany? If, by your standards, the USSR is a "Jew hating regime" then it's hard to think of even a single country which wouldn't qualify as a "Jew hating regime."

* the comparative anti-semitism of which wrt the USSR was what set off this tangent in the first place.

I can’t tell if you’re being purposefully obtuse or not. In either case I have no interest in conversing with you beyond this post. It was a mistake for me to engage you - sorry for wasting both of our time.

Have a nice day.

 

[Arcade22]

It's so weird to see an avowed anarchist white knighting the Soviet Union, of all things.

You'd think there'd be an "enemy of my enemy" thing going on. Instead, it looks more like "enemy of my ene--oh wait that's my friend hol up".

There's a red line in everything they post and it's about defending Russia no matter what, and occasionally pushing the usual narratives.

 

[Loss Leader]

As many have noted, communist/socialist countries have no problem persecuting minorities.

But I think there is an important difference in the way bad treatment can emerge.

...

Excellent post. Thank you.

Exactly. The reason why markets and classes, and a whole lot of other things, have always existed, is not because of some bourgeois conspiracy, but simply because it suits human nature better, for better or worse.

Not sure I wholly agree with you. Markets, classes, castes and discrimination definitely arose organically. They started at least as long as societies have exceeded 400 or so people, easily 6,000 years ago. And it appears that once there was an imbalance of wealth, that imbalance grew and generally never stopped. Whenever some new group was able to capture that wealth - by revolution or invasion or whatever - they just continued to further divorce the labor of the poor from the profits of their work. Today we have so much wealth concentrated in so few people that one rightfully worries.

And there is no question that discrimination exists as a natural part of the human psyche. If we had no such ability, we literally couldn't recognize our parents. Clans and tribes were rightfully wary of strangers. Sticking with people one trusts generally leads to a longer life than running up and hugging people who want your land/resources/women.

And I think it's generally agreed that sapiens are a ruthless lot. If we didn't set out to exterminate neanderthals, we certainly didn't do them any favors. As many as five types of hominids walked the earth 50,000 years ago. And (except for fragmentary evidence of some interbreeding) we're the only ones left.

So, yes, we are completely built for fear, greed, hatred and murder (and also rape ... so much rape). And that contributed to the growth of the economic oligarchy now dominating the world (even in supposed communist nations).

However, the question was whether we could consciously change our nature and our behaviors through the appropriate economic incentives. I don't think our prior evolutionary path dictates our future destiny. I think we are able to change. The world is getting safer. Rapes per capita are definitely down from 10,000 years ago. So are murders and even deaths in war. Meanwhile, many nations are expanding their economic opportunities to more and more minorities - ethnic, racial, religious, or otherwise.

Human nature may be capable of change. We already live differently than our nomadic forebears. Pushing through to real economic equality will take work, though. It will take a whole lot of work. We'd really have to want it. I don't have the energy, so you guys handle it.

 

[IsThisTheLife]

It seems to me that several vociferous posters here would have it that 'non-philo-semitism' is to be regarded as "anti-semitic". It's very peculiar.

 

[Ziggurat]

As many have noted, communist/socialist countries have no problem persecuting minorities.

But I think there is an important difference in the way bad treatment can emerge.

Some in this thread have said that capitalism is a powerful disincentive to racism, since it's irrational to refuse a pating customer or a good employee on the basis of something meaningless like race, and the market would reward those who were able to look past race and see the value.

That didn't seem to manifest much in the US for a long time though. Through the 60s, business owners did pretty well segregating lunch counters and refusing to sell or rent homes to people based on race. The market didn't solve that one. Government needed to step in with the Civil Rights Act to make those things illegal.

The existence of one incentive is not disproved by the fact that other incentives may override it. And the primary problem with discrimination in the south was not in fact the voluntary private discrimination you describe. Yes, it existed, and yes, it was a problem. But the bigger problem, by a large margin, was state mandated discrimination.

But even if we look just at segregated lunch counters, you're actually wrong. The Civil Rights Act wasn't what pressured Woolworths to change their segregation policy. A drop in sales caused by bad PR from protests did. The market did, in fact, solve that one. It didn't solve everything, but it didn't solve nothing either.

Imagine you're running a restaurant in a town full of 99% racist white people. You've got nothing against black people, but most of your customer base wouldn't come to your restaurant if you allowed people of all colors to sit in the same area. That's an example of the amorality of the market.

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 in the scenario you describe, there's still actually a price to be paid for discrimination. Racist customers who will only eat at segregated restaurants are actually inflating prices for themselves by artificially limiting restaurant supply. That's a disincentive. It may not be a sufficiently strong disincentive to change behavior, but I said that from the start.

Are there other things that change in a command economy that are relevant? Power tends to be consolidated in fewer hands, which means you could get lucky or unlucky based on the values, level of corruption, and competence of the people who happen to be in charge.Communist states we've seen have been mostly set up through violent coups/revolutions, so the subpopulation that tends to hold power are people who like to shoot folks and who have a lot of anger against the former deposed ruling class.

True, although I would also add that the more powerful government becomes, the more attractive it also becomes to corrupt actors. That's true even in the absence of violent ascent to power.

 

[Mumbles]

I don't think I've heard him publicly say this. He says economic distress makes racism worse.

I'll concede, for the sake of argument.

He's still wrong. It's still economic distress that reduces racism in the US, because people focus on the economic "elites" as the actual opponent. There was a story of a canvasser in PA who asked a household who they were voting for. The wife shouted the question an at the husband in the living room, and he shouted back "We're voting for the ******!"

(Warning: Salon.com link - it's a mess of ads and whatnot)

I mean...watch your mouth, but a vote is a vote. I wouldn't be shocked if these folks voted Dolt 45 once things stabilized - or even Romney who was not a raging white supremacist - just, y'know, a boring venture capitalist.

At this point, *if* one wanted to create a socialist society in the US, one would absolutely have to address racism as a step along that path. My knowledge of economic theory is shaky at best, but even I can see that trap ahead.

 

[Venom]

I'll concede, for the sake of argument.

He's still wrong. It's still economic distress that reduces racism in the US, because people focus on the economic "elites" as the actual opponent. There was a story of a canvasser in PA who asked a household who they were voting for. The wife shouted the question an at the husband in the living room, and he shouted back "We're voting for the ******!"

(Warning: Salon.com link - it's a mess of ads and whatnot)

I mean...watch your mouth, but a vote is a vote. I wouldn't be shocked if these folks voted Dolt 45 once things stabilized - or even Romney who was not a raging white supremacist - just, y'know, a boring venture capitalist.

At this point, *if* one wanted to create a socialist society in the US, one would absolutely have to address racism as a step along that path. My knowledge of economic theory is shaky at best, but even I can see that trap ahead.

I wouldn't say it reduces racism. They may vote in spite of their prejudiced views. But I do think that economic anxiety tends to inflame tensions between distinct ethnic groups.

I also do take issue with many Sanders' supporters and leftists in general who appear to chalk up this long standing prejudice, at least a big chunk of it, to economic anxiety. I think it stands on its own completely.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I would say though that economic anxieties can't be the only factor. The USA has one of the highest living standards in the world, and it doesn't seem to make racism go away, like you'd expect if people were only worried about their own survival. None of them is going to starve any time soon or anything.

In fact, I'd say you see a lot of people who have more than enough basically just think they could have even more if it weren't for those lazy, good for nothing, <insert minority.> Like, someone could have an even fancier sports car for his middle age crisis, if someone could cut unemployment benefits for the blacks/hispanics/whatever.

 

[shuttlt]

In fact, I'd say you see a lot of people who have more than enough basically just think they could have even more if it weren't for those lazy, good for nothing, <insert minority.> Like, someone could have an even fancier sports car for his middle age crisis, if someone could cut unemployment benefits for the blacks/hispanics/whatever.

Are such people really that focused on race? Historically, have your stereotypical Gordon Gekko types, that I assume you're talking about, been any more concerned about the welfare of the white poor as a class?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, not every right winger is a racist, nor viceversa. But if you're going to sell the idea that YOU could have more if SOMEONE ELSE had less to someone who's already poor or just above poverty line, well, you can't really make the "someone else" group, who should get less, be "the poor". It doesn't take a genius to figure out that, wait a minute, that's me, not somene else, so how does that work out? If it's "the minorities", it becomes an easier sell, at least to those who are not a minority themselves. Which is really why racism is such a popular option.

 

[theprestige]

It seems to me that several vociferous posters here would have it that 'non-philo-semitism' is to be regarded as "anti-semitic". It's very peculiar.

It's less peculiar when you realize that all the examples of "non-philo-semitism" in this thread have been examples of targeting Jews for persecution because they are Jews.

 

[Belz...]

However, the question was whether we could consciously change our nature and our behaviors through the appropriate economic incentives.

There's no doubt that we can. But like a diverted river, it tends to go back to its original course, which is why systems that take into consideration human nature and harness it to produce desired results rather than try to fight against it tends to fare better.

 

[Belz...]

It's less peculiar when you realize that all the examples of "non-philo-semitism" in this thread have been examples of targeting Jews for persecution because they are Jews.

It's amazing the cascade of excuses we're presented with.

 

[Roboramma]

What part of "legacy of antisemitism", "anti-Jewish conspiracy theories" and anti-Jewish show trials didn't you understand? Why do those not qualify?

Do you have a reading disability?

I'm mostly on your side of this, but none of those are pogroms. A pogrom is a very specific (and horrible) action. You can't support the claim that they engaged in pogroms with evidence of other antisemitic actions.