***Official Political Discussion Thread***

red mpls said:
Racism itself doesn't explain phenomena like poverty, joblessness, police violence, incarceration, etc.
Click to expand...
Yea, I don’t agree with this at all.
red mpls said:
And even this is a vast oversimplification, since the logic of capitalist social reproduction means that even if all racism were to magically disappear tomorrow, the vast majority of poor black folks would still be poor next year, ten years from now, and when they die.
Click to expand...
Well, yea. Because we have been set back by 400 years of oppression by race. These class warfare arguments tend to leave out the unique history of oppression faced by Black people in this country. As a skeptical Black person, I wouldn’t be crazy to argue that even a class based approach at solving this wouldn’t once again benefit other people more than Black people.
 
dacomeup said:
Yea, I don’t agree with this at all.

Well, yea. Because we have been set back by 400 years of oppression by race. These class warfare arguments tend to leave out the unique history of oppression faced by Black people in this country. As a skeptical Black person, I wouldn’t be crazy to argue that even a class based approach at solving this wouldn’t once again benefit other people more than Black people.
Click to expand...
Racism operates within the parameters of a particular political economy and social order, not outside of it. That is the point of my first statement that you quoted. I'm not sure how this could be in dispute, but I'm open to hearing if you have different thoughts.

The point about capitalist social reproduction applies the same way to poor whites right now, who don't face discrimination. Yes, historical and ongoing racism have put black folks disproportionately at the bottom of the socioeconomic hierarchy. My point was that, regardless of that history, and even if racism were to somehow disappear, other structures of inequality would function to reproduce poverty for most of those people anyway.

The class warfare argument is that every human being is entitled to living wages, guaranteed employment, universal health care, quality education, decent and affordable housing, etc.—that access to these things shouldn't be predicated on proving one's "worthiness" or any other criteria. I'm not sure how enacting that kind of policy agenda would benefit other people more than black people, when prevailing disparities would clearly indicate that black folks would be clearly among the disproportionate beneficiaries of those policies. But again, if you have other thoughts, I'm open to hearing them.
 
RustyShackleford said:
You are so full of ****, no one has come close to doing that to you. Especially not me.

I swear you have become a special combination of ****ery, petulance, and white fragility in recent months

Taking issue with **** that people simply do not do.

Years I have engaged and explained my views, and for years I have been greeted with the arguments of the most ****ty centrist being put at my feet to somehow answer for. So god forbid I would want a break from that nonsense.

So ****ing spare me.
Click to expand...

My main issue with you is that you’ve decided that because I wanted black Biden voters to vote Bernie that I am condescending to black people despite the following:

1.) I think that almost every primary voter should have voted for Bernie, that’s why he’s my candidate. Why support a candidate if you think they’re bad for most people?

I wanted Biden’s white supporters to vote for Bernie. Affluent suburbanites aren’t really that affluent, most would not be affluent if they couldn’t work for a significant period of time or got hit with out of network medical bills. I believe that a robust social safety would benefit those people. Yet white workers, especially better paid white workers, refuse to see themselves as workers. They see themselves as settlers, they see themselves as petite bourgeois, they have false consciousness. So I guess I am condescending to white people.

White people dint understand their oppression, white workers tend to be the most politically confused group out there. If you’re going to respond to every critique I make of Biden with the claim that I’m talking down to a particular racial group, accuse me of talking down to whites.


2.) I retracted my conclusion that black Biden supporters were motivated by false consciousness or manufactured consent and yet you act like that is my position still. I still wish those black Biden voters supported my candidate but I view that group of voters much more favorably than I do whites who voted for Biden. So if you think I am condescending to black Biden voters I must be extremely condescending to white Biden voters. Yet you and others refuse to believe that I’m especially critical of white voters compared to black voters.

3.) If Biden is the best candidate for black people, what about black people who voted for Bernie? More pointedly, why did you as a black person support Warren?

You said that black Biden supporters understand the oppression of black people and thus choose Biden over Bernie. They also choose Biden over Warren. So do you not understand your own oppression.? Do the black Bernie supporters not understand their own oppression? What about the black people who supported Bloomberg? We already know your position on black people who support Republicans.

It’s almost as if there are competing definitions and understandings of interests even among people with similar identities and experiences. It’s almost as if participating in the primary was an act of politics and still wanting one’s favorited candidate to win even if that candidate can no longer win is a normal thing in politics.

I assume you felt that Warren was best for black people and you wanted a majority of black primary voters to support Warren so she could get nominated, get elected and enact her agenda. If you believe that Biden was the best choice for black peoples and yet you didn’t support him in the primary then one of the following must be true: you are anti black, you supported Warren out of vanity or a need for purity or you intended you wanted to win knowing full well that it could only be done with the black vote split across several candidates.

I don’t think any applied to you. Yet you or others have at least tacitly accused me of all those things for supporting Bernie, a candidate who convinced more black voters to support him than your candidate did. Maybe you regret supporting Warren now but I haven’t seen you say do. Presumably you wished she had won and that primary voters had voted differently and I’m not assigning any sinister motives to you for still liking Warren but you do assign sinister motive for still feeling that Sanders was the best.
 
RustyShackleford said:


Soft chuckle :lol:

Some black Republicans are reaching their breaking point before Delk.
Click to expand...

How braindead do u have to be to photoed anywhere near a hitler defender? Let alone embrace one. Who's doing research for his campaign?

Edit:
Nvm. Brad Parscale. Brad Parscale is just turrible at his job. He's so bad that if Trump get re-elected I'll sell my Unions.
 
red mpls said:
I'm not sure how enacting that kind of policy agenda would benefit other people more than black people, when prevailing disparities would clearly indicate that black folks would be clearly among the disproportionate beneficiaries of those policies. But again, if you have other thoughts, I'm open to hearing them.
Click to expand...
Because racism would still exist? These issues are too deeply intertwined two believe that solely a class based approach would benefit Black people in the same way that they would benefit whites.

Any argument that starts “if racism were to stop today” is wholly dismissive of the history and ongoing oppression that Black people have faced in this country. Yes, if racism stopped today, Black people would still suffer more because they would be starting the game on first base as white people round third and head home, and even poor whites would be on second base. Even looking at the “PMC”, as Rex loves to talk about, the Black people of this class accumulate less wealth and live in MUCH poorer area codes than white counterparts. Why? Racism.

Any solution that doesn’t involve specifically targeting Black people as being uniquely situated from other people based on the history of this country is tone deaf and a non-starter to me.
 
marikomorose said:
Who's doing research for his campaign?
Click to expand...
Other defenders of Hitler
9zy7x0_th (2).png
 
storm2006 said:
Am I over thinking this or is it extremely dangerous for the President to tweet out a Wanted poster of generic looking, ambiguous black male wearing a mask? Any black person near there will be accosted on some “The criminal always comes back to the scene of the crime!” steez. That needs to be taken down immediately.
Click to expand...
report the tweet. least we can do.

to be fair, it does say that it does not constitute probably cause to arrest. but given it's being sent out by the president as an obvious dog whistle to his followers, it could be dangerous.

funny how trump didn't tweet out the photos of the white people who tore down statues in san fran....
 
-Red- -Red- additionally, you attack classism and you still see Black women receiving biased treatment from doctors, still being discriminated against in the workplace, still penalized more in school systems, etc. Any arguments that don’t specifically address racism faced by Black people aren’t worth anything.
 
dacomeup said:
Because racism would still exist? These issues are too deeply intertwined two believe that solely a class based approach would benefit Black people in the same way that they would benefit whites.

Any argument that starts “if racism were to stop today” is wholly dismissive of the history and ongoing oppression that Black people have faced in this country. Yes, if racism stopped today, Black people would still suffer more because they would be starting the game on first base as white people round third and head home, and even poor whites would be on second base. Even looking at the “PMC”, as Rex loves to talk about, the Black people of this class accumulate less wealth and live in MUCH poorer area codes than white counterparts. Why? Racism.

Any solution that doesn’t involve specifically targeting Black people as being uniquely situated from other people based on the history of this country is tone deaf and a non-starter to me.
Click to expand...
So because "racism would still exist," living wages, guaranteed employment, universal health care, etc. are basically irrelevant to black people? Or what are you saying here?

That aside for a moment, I readily concede, even if these things were to pass, racism would still exist. But (1) the consequences of racism would be a whole lot less severe if the stakes weren't denial of employment, living wages, health care, decent and affordable housing, etc., and (2) I have yet to hear of any strategy for eradicating racism, so why would these proposals be evaluated based on a criterion that doesn't apply to any other proposal?

The "if racism were to stop today" is a hypothetical based on a best-case (and, to your point, obviously unrealistic) scenario. But my purpose of invoking it is to point out that even this idealized scenario is completely incapable of eradicating the issues facing poor and working-class black folks because inequality is reproduced in our society not solely via racism.

And what would a solution that specifically targeting black people actually entail? Because if you read the Movement for Black Lives' A Vision for Black Lives policy manifesto, maybe a handful of the fifty or so policies they propose would benefit only black people. ****, given demographic realities, most of them may not even benefit black people primarily in sheer numerical terms.
 
red mpls said:
No, I don't know Klein's work. My post was a response to what was in that specific article and a response to the discourse of identity politics more broadly.

Like I said, though, my point wasn't that I think you agree with what I see as the political limitations inherent in the identity politics framework (I said this explicitly). My point was that I think you're defending a framework that is problematic and, quite frankly, doesn't reflect what I know to be your own political values and vision. (It seems the same could be said for Klein.) Not only that, you're making broad and inaccurate assumptions about and bashing anyone who dares to question that framework.

If you have some radically different interpretation of identity politics that you care to share, again, I'm all ears.

Just want to clarify where I'm coming from.
Click to expand...
This is all I will say:

-Klein believes that the country needs sweeping economic reform to transform the lives of all citizens, and to save us from climate change. And it is a urgent matter. He believes there is no real racial justice without real economic justice. Dude is left as hell, but he argues that many on the left (and I mean the entire left wing coalition) ignore key roadblocks to social democracy.

He thinks most people have a narrow definition of identity politics, and because they are so dismissive of the role identity plays in politics, their analysis and complaints are short sighted.

Klein argue that people that bemoan polarization, decry identity politics and the polarization is causes, and practices nostalgia politics about the 50-60s are missing a very important piece of the puzzle. That era was made possible because both parties, and white people in general, decided to ignore the civil rights of African American to make that peace work. So a black person that wanted to push for civil rights at the ballot box had no options because both parties (and their white voters) made a tacit agreement about not addressing the political demands of black people was best to keep the peace. This was especially true of the Democratic Party and their attempts to keep an alliance with the clearly racist Dixiecrats. He has politely called out Elizabeth Warren for this (the person he supported for president), Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Centrist, socialist, conservative; he pushes back on people that evoke nostalgia politics and think that somehow the absence of polarization is always optimal.

The proof of this is that when one side decided to break this tacit agreement, it kicked off the new era of polarization party alignment. While some might not like the polarization, it is a good thing that marginalized groups, especially black people, especially black people that care about fighting for civil rights, have a clearer choice at the ballot box as to which party is better option.

So he says that to build a true social democracy, there should not be any compromises on the back of minorities.

So in grappling with racial issues, the Democratic Party and their white voters are better actors than they previously were. Not that they are perfect, not that they are right on everything, not that their policy agenda is not still lacking, but that they are moving in the right direction in an important aspect. That instead of coming up with a message that tries to soothe the fear of white America, and bury racial and social issues in the background like many (leftist, centrist, liberal) suggest, it would be a more honest and truthful system if people can speak more honestly on race and social issues. That it is a good thing if we good away from a system where the concerns of white Americans are always central.

My opinion now:

-To make sure this doesn't happen, asking everyone in your coalition to adopt a worker identity first and foremost (the type of identity politics socialist advocate for), adopt rhetoric that soothes the fears of white americans, and only speaking about universal programs as a way to push discussion about racial justice to the background, and hoping that whites don't try sell out others groups down the road is a dangerous game to play. And it is a strategy that many non-white people have an issue buying into because history tells them that it is more likely the backstab will come, not that it is the white folk will find/maintain some commitment to social justice. Instead you need to address so called identity issues upfront, you need to move the needle on racial and other social views within your coalition and country, you need to buy in upfront on certain issues, and you need to do this firmly and constantly. So that if and when social democracy comes, it is not built with ****ty compromises built in, that it will be harder for some to make those compromises in the future, and marginalized groups can have clear options at the ballot box.

It is not about dismissing the important message of economic reform, it is not about making this the only thing you build a coalition on, it is not about ignoring the problem is our capitalist system, but making it central enough in coalition building that we can build and maintain the most just version of a social democratic country we can. Not hoping that white people after they get their economic needs met will then get on board with targeted programs and stomping out discrimination. White worker prosperity guarantees nothing on that front.

There is a difference between demanding that poor and lower class whites living in economic despair just acknowledge their white privilege, and demanding that their problematic behavior not be coddled and recognized for the destructive force that it is. Recognizing that they are not being tricked by rich capilisitist, but they willingly empower the same crony capitalist that oppress them because they get something of value out of the deal: That their social standing in America remains a class above minorities, even if that means they are in the **** themselves. So stop with the economic anxiety bull**** that robs white Americans of the agency they have over their decisions. Stop with the stramanning of what some black liberals ask of white people. That is not gonna get you those voters, and those people will not just give up on their white identity politics and white supremacy beliefs just because you improve their economic standing.

-So I don't know how me posting the article, that doesn't even present a supportive argument for hollow type of identity politics, is defending a problematic framework.

I don't know how if I have never opened my mouth in the past and said anything that comes close to "forget sweeping economic changes, all that matters is seeing black faces" is defending a problematic framework

I don't know how me saying clearly that people don't consider and alternative interpretation to identity politics that what they usually argue against, is me still defending a problematic framework.

Kinda feels like you are ascribing a problematic framework to any and every liberals. Then asking to them to come prove they don't agree with it, even though they repeating have been consistent with their views in the past.

So what is the point in engaging, because even if I spend my afternoon typing, formating, and editing a post, I will get a "ok cool" in the moment, and then in a few weeks when I post something else about leftist that makes you or Rex's petulant *** with take issue with, and the game repeats.
 
Last edited:
To loosely paraphrase the still great Andrew Gillum

Progressives may have doubts about leftists being anti-racist but racists sure think that leftists are anti-racist.

Seriously the only time rightists say anything nice about Bernie is when they're acting like struggle Frank Underwoods, thinking they will deviously get Bernie supporters to all vote for Trump. If I were racist, I sure as hell would not feel comfortable at a Bernie rally. Keep in mind Bernie is a mild version of the politics that people like me and red advance.


I still don't want to dismiss the concerns that progressive have. In the very long run, the end of capitalism will mean the end of the state and racial and gender hierarchies and even identities. However, there is the practical matter of managing a post capitalist world where we'll still have a state and we'll still have race and gender hierarchy in the super structure. Even with a vastly constrained police force, there's the risk of the police profiling black people. even with free at point of service hospitals, nurses could still under medicate black patients. Even with democratic work places, black workers could still have to deal with discrimination in hiring or the every day indignities of micro aggression. For those problems, we would need the powers of a state operating under principles of liberal pluralism.

As red said, the less capitalism we have the lower the stakes of racism are, in aggregate, and I'd add that the more resources are freed from control of the oligarchic class the more resources exist to be used to affirmatively address white supremacy within the economy and society. IMO the less capitalism we have the better the chances we'll have of actually defeating white supremacy.
 
red mpls said:
So because "racism would still exist," living wages, guaranteed employment, universal health care, etc. are basically irrelevant to black people? Or what are you saying here?
Click to expand...
No, what I’m saying is even given all these things, racism will STILL leave Black people in this country worst off than others. And if we aren’t having the conversation that this alone will not result in equality, then you’re still missing a critical component of it. Race neutral ideology doesn’t is not radical and will not benefit Black people to the extent that it will benefit poor whites.
red mpls said:
And what would a solution that specifically targeting black people actually entail? Because if you read the Movement for Black Lives' A Vision for Black Lives policy manifesto, maybe a handful of the fifty or so policies they propose would benefit only black people. ****, given demographic realities, most of them may not even benefit black people primarily in sheer numerical terms.
Click to expand...
Well, reparations for one. But otherwise addressing the racism in the fabric of every institution. Everyone gets equal education and Black kids will still be penalized more with suspensions, etc. Universal healthcare and Black people will still receive worse treatment, and doctors will assume that we have a higher pain tolerance. Employers will still discriminate against us disproportionately. The list goes on.

And no, I haven’t read that. Feel free to drop a link though.
Edit- I also feel like you’re conflating what I’m saying. It’s not about primarily benefiting Black people, it’s the understanding that these class driven solutions do not specifically account for the racism that Black people have been and will continue to be subject to. It’s not enough at this stage for me to hear that the consequences of racism would be a lot less severe with your policies. I need to hear what leftists are proposing to specifically address the unique history of Black folks.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

shaboozy
What's your NT routine?
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
ogbobbyjohnson773
ogbobbyjohnson773
chezzer10
***MLB FEET, EQUIPMENT, AND UNIFORMS 2024***NEW THREAD
2 3
Replies
57
Views
6K
mp23
mp23
datznasty
Official Niketalk Custom Basketball Shorts Thread
Replies
5
Views
1K
MakeNTGreatAgain
MakeNTGreatAgain

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom