"Political quiz question robbery" #3

This one's from the classic link.

I very strongly agree with this. I think that I'd have more in common with a lower class person in (say) Bolivia than I do any rich white man or woman. I think that this is why the media tries so fervently to pit white and black people against each other and hype up the race wars; it keeps them from coming together to recognize and combat the real problem (the upper 1%).

Yep I was thinking of pretty much the same example lol: My life has lot more in common with that of a Jamaican office-worker or a Ukrainian shop assistant than it does with Gina Rinehart. And I'm pretty sure y'all have more in common with me than you do with Jeff Bezos.

And yeah racism + scapegoating of minorities is 100% used as a "divide and conquer" tool to misdirect anger / frustration away from the 1%. It's the ol' link.

The statement in the poll question is like... one of the main underpinnings of my entire political philosophy lol

I don't personally believe people are ultimately divided by class. I think they are ultimately divided by bigotry. Many people who are in the same class will often blame others that look differently and are also the same class because humanity in general needs a scapegoat. (They don't have to be influenced. They could just harbor enough resent) If you look at many conflicts in history. The hallmark of them are caused by bigotry. Stealing people's lands because (racism/thinking you're better than someone, and greed), Killing people for a stupid reason such as the sanctity of religion (Eg. Crusades), The many hate crimes plaguing the colonial world for like hundreds of years. I believe class is a huge factor but despite being a huge factor I still disagree that the root of all of it is class. Classism is often perceived by people as a tool to make them believe they are better than you. Much like how many people use sexism,racism or nazism. (Fear is also a guiding force) I mean the nazis started a war with this ideology of being better than other people. And also because of the result Germany had in WW1. They essentially got buttmad and wanted to conquer the world and Hitler created an extreme nationalistic party to fuel the efforts. Again bigotry. So again while I believe it is a factor. I don't agree it is the ultimate aspect to blame for humanity's conflicts in general.

Those are some great points and good examples. Bigotry in various forms have indeed played a massive role in our history. But I’d argue that such bigotry largely comes from economic conditions in the first place.

Take, for example, racism. It’s commonly assumed that racism is as old as human society itself – “as long as human beings have been around, they have hated or feared people of a different skin colour or inherited characteristic”. But that isn’t actually the case: racism (and the idea of “races”) is a relatively recent invention in human history. Its rise perfectly correlates with the beginning of capitalism, the colonisation of America and the transatlantic slave trade in the 1500s / 1600s. Racism was the ideological justification for all these acts, and every modern manifestation of it is a consequence of it. As historian Eric Williams put it: “Slavery was not born of racism: rather, racism was the consequence of slavery.”

Yes, slavery definitely existed before capitalism / colonisation – but slave labour in ancient civilisations was not seen in racial terms. The justification for slavery in the times of Greece and Rome was usually based on conflict: “we went to war with these people, they lost, therefore they deserve slavery”. There was never any thinking that someone born to a certain lineage made them inferior a priori. It was much more of a might makes right thing in those times. Most slaves in Greece and Rome would have been white people (not that they even had any conception of a “white” race back then).

So the economic / class analysis is fundamental in analysing racism. Slavery began only as a class relation, that racism was later developed to justify. Such bigotry has been used to “explain” unequal relationships in society (where a minority are enriched to the detriment of the majority). Racist ideology was later refashioned to this effect: while it no longer justifies the enslavement of black people, it justifies and reinforces their status as one of the poorest sections of the working class. Racist ideology was also refashioned to justify imperialist conquest at the turn of the 20th century: as a handful of competing world powers vied to carve up the globe for cheap raw materials and labour, racism (“these people are incapable of determining their own future and need intervention”) served as a convenient justification.

Like @zan alreadt touched on, racism is also one of the main ways that the ruling class keep the working class divided. Like Martin Luther King Jr said in his 1965 speech: “The segregation of the races was really a political stratagem employed by the emerging Bourbon interests in the South to keep the southern masses divided”. By formenting the hostility of working-class white people towards black people, racism drives a wedge between workers who otherwise have everything in common and every reason to ally and organise together. That antagonism is kept alive by the press, politicians, at the pulpit, etc – in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling class.

Tl; dr / dude get to the point
Racial bigotry began with capitalism, colonisation and the transatlantic slave trade – it was used to justify class relations. It has continued to be used this way, and has also given rise to different forms such as imperialist racism, anti-immigrant racism, etc – again to serve economic interests. That doesn’t mean that the struggle against racism is reducible to class struggle, far from it. Both struggles have to be fought in tandem.

I stress this point less to be like "haha capitalism bad" and more to point out that racism is not actually part of human nature, but is rooted instead in the economic imperatives of our systems.

More broadly, this is somewhat related to the two opposing analytical methods of “idealism” (in the academic sense, not the everyday sense of the word) vs. “materialism”. Idealism says that if you want to understand historical changes, you need to understand the ideas or beliefs that drive those changes. Materialism suggests that history is driven not by ideas or changes in principles, but by changes in the material conditions of society.

A (ham-fisted) example to illustrate the difference: The American Revolution.
Idealist conception: When colonists came to America, they began to develop their own unique cultural identity separate from England, and this identity was based on principles of freedom and liberty. When these ideas came into conflict with the tyranny and authoritarianism of the British king, the colonists rose up against him. The revolution was motivated by noble belief in these great ideas – it was a conflict btwn freedom and tyranny, and the republic eventually founded was characterised by a dedication to freedom and liberty. These principles and ideas are what drove history.

Materialist conception: when colonists came to America, they began to engage in forms of commerce / trade that competed with the old monarchical and semi-feudal structure of Britain. As the independent merchant class developed in America, they found themselves increasingly at odds with the right of the British monarch to tax and regulate the free trade of goods. This young class realised they needed a new form of govt that would implement loosely-regulated markets so they weren’t limited economically. The revolution was thus a conflict btwn two economic systems: an emerging capitalist system of trade, and the old remnants of monarchical feudalism. The republic founded was built to ensure the interests of this newly emerging class, with an economy that would be favourable to them. This analytical approach is not looking to ideas / principles / beliefs, but to the material changes which drive history forward.

Bonus content
What materialists mean when they refer to “class” is not so much the simple divide between rich people - middle class people - poor people, but the fundamental organisation of society. Its underlying economic realities: resources, labour force, technology etc and how these things are managed / divided. Who profits from them and how they’re produced, how work is divided within society, who owns what, etc.

Note that materialism doesn’t deny the power of ideas, but instead says: it is the material and economic structure of society that gave rise to a range of ideas and ideologies to justify, explain and help perpetuate that order. And it is that structure that we should examine if we want to understand society better.

tool to misdirect anger / frustration away from the 1%. Pretty much.

I also second that poverty can lead to bigotry. For one thing, education can eliminate ignorance and bigotry. Impoverished communities don't have that (think absolute 'trailer trash' families). Those white folks might not have access to the kind of education that could help broaden their view points. Impoverished people don't have a chance to travel and interact with other cultures. I feel like travel and actually meeting/talking with people of different races is important in eliminated racism. I think that there is a profound amount of poor communities that are very heavily one race (there's not a lot of diversity).

And (as far as I know) there are lots of gangs that are from certain communities. And the dynamic is usually black gang vs white gang. Black gang vs brown gang. And so on. Gang activity is a poverty/un-educated problem. And I think that race wars within gangs are heavily influenced by that poverty and lack of education and healthy outlets.

"Poverty can lead to bigotry" yep agreed, and good point. I mean for all the jokes about woke city folk... the difference in social "progressiveness" is legit just the result of being able to interact with a wider range of racial, religious, LGBT minorities.

I touched on this in our "sheltered Azula" chat (lol) but this is why the aetiology of racism is much more understandable in people from insular, poor rural communities... rather than the racist, white, middle-class urban guy who's really just a huge prick.

"Gang activity is a poverty/un-educated problem. And I think that race wars within gangs are heavily influenced by that poverty and lack of education and healthy outlets." 100%, that's another good example.