Capitalism does not say there is enough for everyone. Capitalism does not put out safety nets to save people. Capitalism does not give a fuck about the people it destroys. My thought is that capitalism is the driving force behind racism and the reason why socialism is so hated by the right is because capitalism allows for an economic racial segregation and oppression of non WASPs in america. Because WASPs are the majority they can create an advantage for serving themselves through capitalism. It seems to even become a subconcious thing that some may not even be aware of where they might give less opportunities to people who are not WASPs. This is probably america specific when we consider which groups are effected. Other areas may have different cultural variables that do the same thing. We may find that these same dynamics work against caucasian people in places like Japan, China, or Korea. When you give everyone a safety net of survival, work, participation and existence in the community as a more socialistic system would, you bring the others into the community and establish them as part of the community. Capitalism allows you to segregate where socializing integrates people into the local community. It is easy to not do business with someone who is visibly different which socialism would require people to work together despite their different looks.
Capitalism is probably the least racist economic system you're going to find. The only color it cares about is green. The "race" of who's producing and who's consuming is irrelevant. THE CAPITAL MUST FLOW!!
Racism is ancient, tribal, and driven by fear of anyone who looks "different." Ever see Quest for Fire? It's a good primer. Capitalism is a slightly newer fear based on a real or perceived scarcity of resources.
Racism--systemic and otherwise--has been and can be found in any economic system. If anyone thinks socialist countries are somehow free of systemic racism, they need to talk to indigenous peoples. And that's a start.
This is a complex issue. Is capitalism inherently racist? No, I would say. As @Lanzman pointed out, theoretically capitalism is race-neutral. However, there's no question that capitalists have long exploited racial antagonisms when it comes to union-busting for example. And anti-capitalism has long been linked with anti-racism in the U.S. Far-left groups have always been at the forefront of the civil rights struggle. Some of this is probably due to idealism, and some to opportunism, as during the Cold War America's communist enemies were eager to amplify the hypocrisy of systemic racism in the "land of the free." But adopting socialism certainly doesn't eliminate racism from society, and when it comes down to it I don't believe capitalism created the conditions that allowed racism to flourish.
In capitalist systems, racists use capitalism as a tool to promote racism. In other systems, racists use those systems as a tool to promote racism. Try being a Chechen, Tatar, or "rootless cosmopolitan" (code for "Jew") in the USSR.
Racism has been around long before civilization/money ever even came about. Racism (or even speciesism when humans competed and mixed with Neanderthals for example) has been around for tens of thousands of years. Thus as mentioned, all types of societies have a degree of racism.
Speciesism, then. "No daughter of mine is gonna marry one of those beetle-browed furriners!" For once OF's making sense.
I highly doubt it, we interbreed with them quite a bit. As opposed to popular belief, we didn’t really kill them off.
I'm aware of that. That doesn't mean there wasn't bias. There were also other humanoids - Denisovans, for example, and other species that have long since gone extinct. But it's not just about DNA. Clans and tribes with different rituals would have vied for scarce resources and looked for an excuse to attack each other. It's kind of a chicken/egg situation. First came the diversity of species, then came the biases, IMO. @Tererun's got it backwards.
That's not really my point. My point is even back in those days there were no doubt groups of hominids that didn't always trust hominid groups that were different than them, or that they felt were inferior to them, etc. Way before agriculture/civilization recessive genes in the originally black humans led to white people. I'm sure there was racism as a result. Genetic mutations led to Asians too, and again obvious differences/mistrust would lead to conflict and racism. Groups of remaining Neanderthals or Denisovans would be in conflict with humans (of different races) too. All of this would have came about and been passed on until it was pretty much hard-wired over many generations - all of this before modern civilization and the concept of money would have been invented yet.
Who are you and what have you done with the real oldfella? Seriously, this is well thought out and based on facts. May we have some more of this, please? You're still not getting off the hook about explaining how the libruls are crushing your testiclesright to free speech.
You know you can interbreed with (and not kill off) people you don't really like, right? Also even though some humans interbred with Neanderthals, that doesn't mean all of them did.
@Tererun: I think the better question is: Is American capitalism driven by racism, not is racism driven by capitalism
It depends. On the one hand, where the existence of an exploited underclass driving profits depends on the "otherness" of this underclass being perpetuated, capitalism will certainly promote racism. On the other, capitalism seeks to break down relationships based on anything other than the owner-worker dynamic and will destroy other, often older forms of oppressive relationship. In essence this was what happened in the American Civil War. Often these trends can co-exist in the same society, but they're also manifestations of different stages of development. It is a mistake to attribute everything "bad" to capitalism.
In both theory and practice, capitalism is about trying to serve up to consumers what is likely to make a profit. If straight-up racism is profitable, then companies will pursue racist strategies and offer racist products. If anti-racism is profitable, then companies will pursue antiracist strategies and offer diverse products. For most of American history, there was much profit to be had in pursuing strategies and offering goods/services designed consciously or unconciously to promote the notion that white people were the norm and the good. Things have changed to the point where companies at least no longer trumpet any discrimination and at least generally put a brave face of being sympathetic towards ending racism to paraphrase a famous bank robber, because that's where (they perceive) the money is. Which is not to say that companies generally are non- or anti-racist. But if they perceive that there's a buck to be made on racism, whether it's dog whistling or full out embrace, there's likely to be a company that will do it.
