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.