Xenophobia And Racism. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Joka
#14788662
A lot of threads I see on this forum discusses the problems of xenophobia and racism. I just have some questions regarding this subject.

First, how does one get rid of xenophobia and racism?

Second, what would a world without xenophobia and racism look like?

Third, politically and socially how would anyone begin getting rid of xenophobia or racism? If it cannot be got rid of entirely, how could it be contained and isolated politically or socially?

Also, what is racism? What are active racists by definition? In comparison, what is non-racists and non-racism?
Last edited by Joka on 22 Mar 2017 17:06, edited 2 times in total.
#14788664
1.) You probably can't entirely do that. You can only keep the numbers as low as possible.

2.) More or less the same internationally with different rationalizations for war. Domestically it'd be a nicer place to live for people who currently experience xenophobia and racism. My life would remain unchanged.

3.) Forced interaction with people of other races and backgrounds, creating a social stigma against racists, anti-racist educational regimes, institutional impediments to people gaining power or platforms if they push racist rhetoric, and managing the racial resentments of groups like southern rednecks so that they don't boil over.
By Decky
#14788670
You would need a socialist government to get rid of racism. Under capitalism the capitalists and their puppet the state there is a constant importation of millions of units of scab labour (some call them people ;) ) from abroad to push down workers wages and force them to put up with worse conditions. This means lots of workers end up hating foreigners for being the tools the capitalists use to crush us. Once you have socialism there will be far less immigration so there will be no real justification for racism. It is like with bosses, you hate your boss far less when he isn't actually around.
By Decky
#14788684
Rancid wrote:How so?


One of the main goals of any socialist government is full employment Rancito. It is only under capitalism where you keep importing people when there are already millions out of work in the country to deliberately keep a large underclass of people who can never work as there aren't enough jobs. This keeps wages low and stops people unionising as any individual worker can easily be replaced. In a situation without immigration artificially creating a labour surplus then a workers labour is far more valuable and they can argue for better pay and condition.

It would also benefit the counties the immigrants come from. One of Britain's tactics to keep its former colonies poor is importing their medical staff trained at the expense of the home countries to come and work in Britain for the NHS. This creates a brain drain in much of the former empire where the doctors and nurses would be desperately needed.
#14788697
If international socialism was a thing, the economic opportunities available in one's home country would be about the same as anywhere else. This would take away the entire economic incentive for migration, which is one of the most significant draws for migrants from the developing world.

Slightly more on topic, the social impact of racism is directly proportional to the amount of power wielded in society by whoever is being racist. The crazy homeless guy on the corner can say what he wants about the Jews and no one cares, but if all the factory owners said it, people would be affected.

Now, in modern society, money is power. The capitalists have the money, thus they have the power. In socialism, they do not. That power dynamic has been abolished. Thus, people's ability to affect each other through racism would be greatly diminished.

So, yes, socialism or communism is part of the answer when discussing how to get rid of racism. It is obviously more complex than that, such as the fact that getting rid of racism would also be helpful in terms of getting rid of capitalism.
User avatar
By Joka
#14788706
Decky wrote:You would need a socialist government to get rid of racism. Under capitalism the capitalists and their puppet the state there is a constant importation of millions of units of scab labour (some call them people ;) ) from abroad to push down workers wages and force them to put up with worse conditions. This means lots of workers end up hating foreigners for being the tools the capitalists use to crush us. Once you have socialism there will be far less immigration so there will be no real justification for racism. It is like with bosses, you hate your boss far less when he isn't actually around.

Are socialists incapable of racism and being racists? Are all capitalists inherently racist? How does capitalism revolve around racism?

Capitalism does use foreign immigration as a way of suppressing domestic wages, how would socialism be any better in those regards?

Open borders or immigration seems like something capitalists and socialists agree upon.

One of the main goals of any socialist government is full employment Rancito. It is only under capitalism where you keep importing people when there are already millions out of work in the country to deliberately keep a large underclass of people who can never work as there aren't enough jobs. This keeps wages low and stops people unionising as any individual worker can easily be replaced. In a situation without immigration artificially creating a labour surplus then a workers labour is far more valuable and they can argue for better pay and condition.


Why can't full employment be done nationally instead of internationally?

Socialists have a fixation with economic internationalism and I hardly see the socialist concept of open borders helping out domestic workers of any nation.

In fact open borders seem like something capitalists and socialists mutually agree upon.

It would also benefit the counties the immigrants come from. One of Britain's tactics to keep its former colonies poor is importing their medical staff trained at the expense of the home countries to come and work in Britain for the NHS. This creates a brain drain in much of the former empire where the doctors and nurses would be desperately needed.


One would think a nationalized education program focused on domestic workers or people of a nation would scrap that altogether instead of being a nation of H1B1's.

Mikema63-1.) You probably can't entirely do that. You can only keep the numbers as low as possible.

2.) More or less the same internationally with different rationalizations for war. Domestically it'd be a nicer place to live for people who currently experience xenophobia and racism. My life would remain unchanged.

3.) Forced interaction with people of other races and backgrounds, creating a social stigma against racists, anti-racist educational regimes, institutional impediments to people gaining power or platforms if they push racist rhetoric, and managing the racial resentments of groups like southern rednecks so that they don't boil over.


1.) How would one keep numbers low as possible?

2.) Internationally such an environment would be the same with different rationalizations for war? Please explain.

You don't see nations undergoing ethnic and cultural balkanization going through all kinds of civil strife as a natural consequence of integration? In Balkanization conflict and boiling points are started when different groups aren't treated equally which leads to conflict overtime. How would that be averted as with other nations in the past?

3.) Forced interaction? How does anything good come out of state coercion, intervention, and enforcement?

In other words you would bar ethnocentric groups from free enterprise, politics, and positions of influence, and replace all of that with what exactly? Obviously some sort of state propaganda apparatus would have to be in place also given your embraced positions. How does one manage racial or cultural resentment?


Pants Of Dog- If international socialism was a thing, the economic opportunities available in one's home country would be about the same as anywhere else. This would take away the entire economic incentive for migration, which is one of the most significant draws for migrants from the developing world.


Are you talking about implemented international economic justice initiated by the first world for the second or third world here?

How does one even partake the enormous task of implementing full equality across the globe? Is that even possible? Obviously winners and losers would have to be picked as a world where everybody is a winner under any kind of state paradigm is simply impossible.

The crazy homeless guy on the corner can say what he wants about the Jews and no one cares,


Nowadays in many socialist countries the homeless individual would be thrown in jail for hate speech, public indecency, or inciting.
By Decky
#14788843
Are socialists incapable of racism and being racists? Are all capitalists inherently racist? How does capitalism revolve around racism?

Capitalism does use foreign immigration as a way of suppressing domestic wages, how would socialism be any better in those regards?

Open borders or immigration seems like something capitalists and socialists agree upon.


:lol:

Capitalists are not inherently racist, they are for anything that will turn a profit, if that means racism, child labour, slaver etc then they will do it but only because it turns a profit.

For the rest you must be mad for asking surely? Why would a socialist want to suppress domestic wages? The whole point of socialism is pushing workers wages and conditions up.

As for socialists believing in open borders I can now see that you are trolling rather than posting seriously. Have you ever heard of the Berlin wall? Socialists have a very definite attitude towards border security. It is the capitalists that believe in moving millions across borders.

Just in case you have never heard of the Berlin wall, here is what a socialist border looks like.

Image

The capitalists on the other hand like this sort of thing.

Image

They will do anything and everything to increase the population as much as possible in the developed world in order to keep wages low and working conditions shit.
User avatar
By Joka
#14789593
Decky: Capitalists are not inherently racist, they are for anything that will turn a profit, if that means racism, child labour, slaver etc then they will do it but only because it turns a profit.


Agreed, yet this doesn't stop the narrative by some socialists that capitalism is the same thing as racism where all capitalists are racists. That meme is prevalent everywhere.

For the rest you must be mad for asking surely? Why would a socialist want to suppress domestic wages? The whole point of socialism is pushing workers wages and conditions up.


And the forced labor camps of virtually every historical communist nation?

As for socialists believing in open borders I can now see that you are trolling rather than posting seriously. Have you ever heard of the Berlin wall? Socialists have a very definite attitude towards border security. It is the capitalists that believe in moving millions across borders.


Nationalist communism died with the collapse of the U.S.S.R. as all Marxist and communist ideology today is primarily Trotskyite advocating global communism without borders or nation states. It was Trotsky in conflict with Stalin's nationalistic fervor that called for the abandoning of nationalism and with that globalist communism was born. Under this evolved form of Trotsyitism there is even the call to eventually abolish race and sex altogether overtime.

Even with the current Chinese leadership of its communist party is aligning itself with globalist ambitions of western groups like that of Davos. Nationalism within communist and Marxist ideology is dead now where everything centers around globalization. The goal is one super state unified world of communist internationalism with the abolishing of nation states everywhere.

Even more interesting it was Leon Trotsky that coined the word racism in 1927. The origin of the word racism is completely credited to Trotsky which modern liberals besides communists utilize today.
Last edited by Joka on 24 Mar 2017 16:18, edited 2 times in total.
#14789596
Joka wrote:Agreed, yet this doesn't stop the narrative by some socialists that capitalism is the same thing as racism where all capitalists are racists. That meme is prevalent everywhere.


No, it is not. The few socialists who discuss the relationship between racism and capitalism almost never equate the two as being exactly the same.
User avatar
By Joka
#14789597
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, it is not. The few socialists who discuss the relationship between racism and capitalism almost never equate the two as being exactly the same.


I can only speak of college campuses within the United States I've visited not the rest of the world.
#14789602
Joka wrote:I can only speak of college campuses within the United States I've visited not the rest of the world.


So your claim is not based on anything except your emotional reaction to a few people you met. And you are now contradicting your own claim that this meme is prevalent everywhere.
By Decky
#14789603
And the forced labor camps of virtually every historical communist nation?


What about them? If you have a problem with thousands of Nazi POWs being worked to death that is your problem. I don't like fascism. Obviously you do.

Nationalist communism died with the collapse of the U.S.S.R.


:roll: Oh for fucks sake, this shit again? The right really have been pushing this recently.

The USSR did not practice nationalist Communism. It was internationalist. The only people who want to open all borders are the middle class rich scum. Socialists want to help all nations on earth and you do that by exporting machinery and abolishing patents and opening up education and providing military aid etc. Internationalism (under socialism) has nothing to do with open borders, nothing at all whatsoever. You seem to be thinking of capitalism.

The Soviet Union did not practice any fictional "national communism" it was bog standard orthodox Leninism that they practised and as any sane person knows it had a very strict attitude towards border security.
User avatar
By Joka
#14789607
Decky wrote:What about them? If you have a problem with thousands of Nazi POWs being worked to death that is your problem. I don't like fascism. Obviously you do.



:roll: Oh for fucks sake, this shit again? The right really have been pushing this recently.

The USSR did not practice nationalist Communism. It was internationalist. The only people who want to open all borders are the middle class rich scum. Socialists want to help all nations on earth and you do that by exporting machinery and abolishing patents and opening up education and providing military aid etc. Internationalism (under socialism) has nothing to do with open borders, nothing at all whatsoever. You seem to be thinking of capitalism.

The Soviet Union did not practice any fictional "national communism" it was bog standard orthodox Leninism that they practised and as any sane person knows it had a very strict attitude towards border security.



What about them? If you have a problem with thousands of Nazi POWs being worked to death that is your problem. I don't like fascism. Obviously you do.


Plenty of anarchists, White Russians, political dissidents, and anybody else that opposed the Soviet state were in those forced labor camps besides just German POW's.

No, I'm not a fascist and it's offensive or inflammatory for you labeling me as such.

Oh for fucks sake, this shit again? The right really have been pushing this recently.

The USSR did not practice nationalist Communism. It was internationalist. The only people who want to open all borders are the middle class rich scum. Socialists want to help all nations on earth and you do that by exporting machinery and abolishing patents and opening up education and providing military aid etc. Internationalism (under socialism) has nothing to do with open borders, nothing at all whatsoever. You seem to be thinking of capitalism.

The Soviet Union did not practice any fictional "national communism" it was bog standard orthodox Leninism that they practised and as any sane person knows it had a very strict attitude towards border security.


In February of 1929 Stalin effectively banished Trotsky from the Soviet Union on account of his subversive liberal-internationalist propaganda which, if taken seriously, would have destroyed the Soviet Union at the most critical period of its development after the great human tragedies of the First World War (1914-17) and the subsequent Russian Civil War (1917-1922). What the Soviet people needed more than ever during this period (in the absence of Lenin who died in 1924) was a strong man in the Kremlin who represented the great bulk of the Russian and Soviet masses. They needed a great man of steel who represented the humble class origins of the peasantry and yet also embodied the combined supra-national aspirations of the people. The man the Soviet people needed was Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili: Stalin.


Stalin was a proponent of socialism in one country whereas Trotsky was of the ideology of socialism in all nations across the globe. It's one of the reasons why Stalin had Trotsky assassinated in his Mexican villa.
Last edited by Joka on 24 Mar 2017 16:30, edited 1 time in total.
By Decky
#14789610
Have you got anything to post that contradicts what I have said or not? :eh: If so I would suggest you use it. Stalin was an internationalist like all Marxists. Building socialism in the USSR to make it strong enough to expand later in no way contradicts this. He liberated the people of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania from their slavery to their capitalists overlords. He bought the Tuvan people's republic into the Soviet Union, you might have heard of the Warsaw pact too? Although maybe not, you don't seem to know a great deal about history.

Plenty of anarchists, White Russians, and anybody else that opposed the Soviet state were in those forced labor camps besides just German POW's.


Oh noes not monarchists! How terrible! :*( And Nestor Makhno's merry band of rapists and murderers operating from his own private state he policed with his own private army (anarchists lol :lol: ), what a loss to socialist society!
User avatar
By Joka
#14789614
Decky wrote:Have you got anything to post that contradicts what I have said or not? :eh: If so I would suggest you use it. Stalin was an internationalist like all Marxists. Building socialism in the USSR to make it strong enough to expand later in no way contradicts this. He liberated the people of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania from their slavery to their capitalists overlords. He bought the Tuvan people's republic into the Soviet Union, you might have heard of the Warsaw pact too? Although maybe not, you don't seem to know a great deal about history.



Oh noes not monarchists! How terrible! :*( And Nestor Makhno's merry band of rapists and murderers operating from his own private state he policed with his own private army (anarchists lol :lol: ), what a loss to socialist society!



Socialism in One Country (Russian: Социализм в одной стране Sotsializm v odnoi strane) was a theory put forth by Joseph Stalin in 1924, elaborated by Nikolai Bukharin in 1925 and finally adopted by the Soviet Union as state policy.[1] The theory held that given the defeat of all the communist revolutions in Europe in 1917–1921 except Russia's, the Soviet Union should begin to strengthen itself internally. That turn toward national communism was a shift from the previously held Marxist position that socialism must be established globally (world communism), and it was in opposition to Leon Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country


The rest of what you say is nothing but communist (Trotskyite) historical revisionism where you seem to have no problem with the slaughter of anybody that possesses a different ideology than you. I myself do not support the slaughter of people that are ideologically different than me.

What you said about Nestor Makhno is baseless.
#14789615
Russia's history is not relevant to modern issues of racism and xenophobia. Capitalism's colonial and imperialist past has far more effect on modern racism and xenophobia, and with certian groups (i.e. indigenous groups) the profiteering racism of the colonial era is still just as strong.
User avatar
By Joka
#14789617
Pants-of-dog wrote:Russia's history is not relevant to modern issues of racism and xenophobia. Capitalism's colonial and imperialist past has far more effect on modern racism and xenophobia, and with certian groups (i.e. indigenous groups) the profiteering racism of the colonial era is still just as strong.


It is actually since I've already earlier described how the word racism was coined by Leon Trotsky who was a global communism proponent. It seems that the goal of modern socialists (Trotskyites) is that for racism to come to an end all nation states (ethnically run or managed nation states) must be abolished.

Only when nationalism, nation states, or national sovereignty is completely destroyed where the world is ruled by an international intelligentsia will racism come to an end by means of erasing everybody's cultural and ethnic historical identity. It's the very reason why the anti-racist movements of socialism, communism, and western liberalism supports politically an open or zero borders immigration policies.
Last edited by Joka on 24 Mar 2017 16:51, edited 2 times in total.
By Decky
#14789620
Is English not your first language?

:eh:

Have you got anything to post that contradicts what I have said or not? :eh: If so I would suggest you use it. Stalin was an internationalist like all Marxists. Building socialism in the USSR to make it strong enough to expand later in no way contradicts this. He liberated the people of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania from their slavery to their capitalists overlords. He bought the Tuvan people's republic into the Soviet Union, you might have heard of the Warsaw pact too? Although maybe not, you don't seem to know a great deal about history.


If I want to have a pint of cider and I don't have one right now this second it does not mean I have became a teetotaller. Socialism in one state was a strategic decision based on when it would be correct to invade the rest of the world and bring them socialism (Trotsky felt "right now" Stalin and everyone else disagreed).

Do you not see this? You do not stop being an internationalist because you want to build a few factories in the country you have right now for a few years. :eh: That makes a lot more sense than trying to invade the rest of the world immediately when the only country you have is still a backwards shithole.

The Soviet Union was not North Korea, it was an internationalist state that wanted to free each and every man woman and child on earth from capitalism.

Anyway this is all just you trying to distract from your original bizarre statement about socialists believing in open borders. Stop trying to change the subject whenever you are proved wrong. :lol: You know you are wrong and I know you are wrong. Socialists have a far sterner attitude towards border security than capitalist do (they want to import as many warm bodies into the west as they can).

Socialist borders tend to involve walls, land mines and machine gun towers, capitalist borders just wave anyone and everyone through as we can see in Europe today.

Anyone claiming anything else is a liar trying to stain socialism with the sins of capitalism. We do not push workers wages down by importing scab labour, that is what you people do.

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]