HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » A fundamental misundersta...

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 04:07 AM

A fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between economic and social justice.

Last edited Sun Nov 12, 2017, 12:15 PM - Edit history (2)

Edited for clarification:

I’ve seen it postulated that social injustices are caused by wealth or income disparities. So, if we address the latter, we'll address the former. That reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between social and economic justice.

I'm sympathetic to what many dismiss as "far left" points of view, but this is one major issue that many leftists get wrong. In fact, you might even say people who make the above claim have it completely backwards. The fostering and exploitation of bigotry (along with race-based voter suppression and gerrymandering) is what enables Republicans to win political victories, which leads to right wing economic policies being enacted. Those policies hurt more than anyone those who are already most oppressed. Then, the wealth gap between white individuals and persons of color is justified using various stereotypes.

This has been the case since the founding of the US on the genocide of one people and the enslavement of another. Remember, race is a social construct. And "whiteness" (along with its supposed superiority) was an invention borne out of the desire to prevent a united front by all poor, oppressed people. Whites would be indentured servants with light at the end of the tunnel, while Negroes would be kept in bondage. Poor whites would be thrown a bone (and a whole lot of propaganda), enough to make them feel superior, enough to make them feel like they had more in common with their oppressors than their fellow oppressed.

Social Security (initially), the GI Bill, access to housing and other investment opportunities, the right to vote, access to higher education, access to employment with a decent wage, access to a fair trial and so much more was essentially denied to persons of color and women. Those injustices (even those that were seemingly resolved) continue to impact the present, including the wealth gap between white households and black and brown households, between men and women. Therefore, a rising tide has not historically lifted all boats. Ta-Nehisi Coates makes "The Case for Reparations."

This is why social justice victories (legalizing gay marriage) and breaking barriers (first Black POTUS, first woman POTUS, first transgender state legislator, etc.) constitute more than mere symbolism. They are cracks in the facade, and crucial steps toward addressing economic injustice.

Much has been made of the *white* working class, or even white working class men. Democrats already do better than Republicans among the working class. In saying Democrats shouldn't go out of their way to appeal to *white* working class men, the point isn't to denigrate that subset of the population. The point is that the Democratic Party platform should already appeal to the working class. And, for the most part, it does, based on exit polls following every election.

Why speak specifically of *white* working class folks? We all know why. Either it's because there's this assumption that only white people work (horribly racist and obviously false), or it's because a certain portion of *white* working class folks are voting based on factors that have nothing to do with candidate positions on wage stagnation, workplace safety, health care, equal pay, paid family leave and all of the other issues that should matter to the working class. If that's the case, and I think we all know that it is, what does one suggest Democratic candidates do?

Should Democratic candidates not talk about criminal injustice, the race-based "War on Drugs," race-based voter suppression, a path to citizenship and the fact that US policy has been a driver of immigration all around the world, reproductive rights, equal pay, a culture that suggests sexual assault is tolerable, and so on? If not talking about those things, or - worse - taking the opposite position is what it will take to win over a certain subset of the population, then that's just too bad. As Dr. King said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Just as some rich folks recognize the danger of extreme economic disparity, we should all want less disparity (in terms of wealth, criminal justice, medical care, housing, etc.) between white folks and persons of color, between men and women, between gay and straight. Get on board with Democrats or lose, because ultimately "the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice."

So, in summary, going back to the invention of race/whiteness, the fostering and exploitation of bigotries has enabled economic disparities in the US. Economic disparities aren't what enable racism and sexism, though economic disparities are used - after the fact - as justification for social/cultural wealth disparities (again, stereotypes are used to justify the wealth gap between black and white households, for instance). Racism and sexism are what enable economic disparities. Whiteness and patriarchy had to be invented as a means to divide and conquer.

We must address racism (including xenophobia) and sexism head-on. If we don't, there's no hope of substantially redistributing wealth or opportunity. A common response to what I’ve written is that “we must fight for both economic and social justice” or that “it’s not an either-or situation.” Of course it isn’t. Of course Democrats and all people of conscience should be fighting for progressive taxation and closing tax loopholes, paid family leave, universal health care, ending imperialism, and so on. My point, though, is that right wing economic viewpoints survive and prosper precisely because of bigotry. Absent racism alone (to say nothing of other forms of bigotry), the Republican Party would cease to be viable.

Liberals often lament that millions "vote against their economic interests." Lament no more, as the reason has always been quite clear. The reason is those millions are voting *for* their perceived cultural/social interests.

And we must recognize that a rising tide is not sufficient. Measures must be taken to reverse history, so to speak. A good place to start: https://policy.m4bl.org/platform/.

Lastly, a message for the young folks and others who are hoping for a viable left wing alternative to the Democratic Party in this 2-party system of ours. The first step is ending the viability of the Republican Party. And we do that by significantly diminishing racism, sexism, heterosexism and xenophobia (because that, and not right wing economic policy, is what's keeping the GOP alive). In the meantime, you need to support the only viable party that stands in the way of fascism. And you need to recognize that addressing social injustice is key to addressing economic injustice.

62 replies, 2237 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 62 replies Author Time Post
Reply A fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between economic and social justice. (Original post)
Garrett78 Nov 11 OP
KT2000 Nov 11 #1
True Blue American Nov 11 #2
Ken Burch Nov 11 #3
ehrnst Nov 11 #39
Ken Burch Nov 11 #41
ananda Nov 11 #10
mdbl Nov 11 #4
NCTraveler Nov 11 #6
Bernardo de La Paz Nov 11 #5
Squinch Nov 11 #8
Bernardo de La Paz Nov 11 #13
Squinch Nov 11 #17
Bernardo de La Paz Nov 11 #19
bettyellen Nov 11 #26
Bernardo de La Paz Nov 11 #29
kcr Nov 11 #34
Bernardo de La Paz Nov 11 #35
bettyellen Nov 12 #59
Bernardo de La Paz Nov 12 #60
smirkymonkey Nov 11 #14
Bernardo de La Paz Nov 11 #15
Bernardo de La Paz Nov 11 #20
CrispyQ Nov 11 #31
Ken Burch Nov 11 #42
Garrett78 Nov 12 #55
Ken Burch Nov 12 #58
socialist_n_TN Nov 11 #24
Bernardo de La Paz Nov 11 #25
CrispyQ Nov 11 #32
KPN Nov 11 #30
Garrett78 Nov 12 #53
struggle4progress Nov 11 #7
Squinch Nov 11 #9
struggle4progress Nov 11 #12
Ken Burch Nov 11 #43
Bernardo de La Paz Nov 11 #16
Bernardo de La Paz Nov 11 #11
Ken Burch Nov 11 #44
Garrett78 Nov 12 #54
Madam45for2923 Nov 11 #18
KPN Nov 11 #28
Irish_Dem Nov 11 #21
KPN Nov 11 #22
Garrett78 Nov 12 #52
KPN Nov 13 #62
GaryCnf Nov 11 #23
Garrett78 Nov 12 #56
GaryCnf Nov 12 #57
yardwork Nov 11 #27
GaryCnf Nov 11 #33
ehrnst Nov 11 #38
jalan48 Nov 11 #36
ehrnst Nov 11 #37
jalan48 Nov 11 #40
ehrnst Nov 11 #46
jalan48 Nov 11 #47
ehrnst Nov 11 #48
jalan48 Nov 11 #49
ehrnst Nov 12 #50
jalan48 Nov 12 #51
Ken Burch Nov 11 #45
ismnotwasm Nov 12 #61

Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 04:32 AM

1. when politician do talk

about in justice, it tends to raise the bar for everyone. The dog whistles of racism and tolerated injustice has brought this country down to where the white supremacists are empowered. It works the other way too - calls for justice causes people to think, not just regurgitate hate as we have now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 05:33 AM

2. Strange Things Are Taking Place

Women are exposing the hypocrocy in the work place.

Mass killings are exposing the NRA,and those who worship guns.

Evangelicals are being exposed for tolerating the very things their faith tells them is wrong.

So,when do we turn the corner? I have no answer. People are disgusted.

Did the Virginia vote set us on a saner path? Voters rejecting extremism in all forms?

My hope is in the young.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue American (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 05:54 AM

3. (self-delete)

Last edited Sat Nov 11, 2017, 06:38 AM - Edit history (1)

n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 05:02 PM

39. No, we are not "all united on social justice,"

at least at the "grassroots" level on the far left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #39)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 06:25 PM

41. I actually self-deleted that when I saw the piece the OP was responding to.

The specific OP THIS OP was responding to was tonedeaf and clueless...and unrepresentative of much of anyone.

Ok...maybe 2 or 3% are saying the only thing that matters is class. That doesn't reflect the broad left consensus that includes almost everyone who supported either main primary candidate.

There's no large group of people on whatever you think of as the "far left" that questions the idea that we need to stand solidly in defense of choice OR that questions the idea that we need to speak out against and fight institutional and grassroots bigotry.

So the specific OP this OP responded to, and the words of one or two public figures, were worthy of call-outs, but this doesn't justify, for example, calling out everybody who's involved in Our Revolution or implying that the vast majority of people whose views are to the left of our most recent nominee or who are working for change within the party are collectively untrustworthy on social justice.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Blue American (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 08:01 AM

10. Good observation.

Some states are still lost, including Texas.

Some are turning the corner. I'm interested
in how those swing states will vote in Nov 2018.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 07:07 AM

4. The term "white working class" is over-used by voting surveys.

The republican voters I know, and they aren't just white, are just idiots medicated by right wing media that just plays on their fears and insecurities, while making them feel in control and powerful. They do this through constant, usually untrue propaganda. Everything you say in your post is "spot on" and spoken like a Sociology professor, however your narrative has been marginalized and demonized to the point that you are now the enemy of the working class. Education and science are the enemies. How do you deal with a society who votes based on that? A separate effort needs to continue to overcome this upside down propaganda or any gains in a just society will continue to be so incremental as to take generations to accomplish what should take a decade. We have already lost gains that took 75 years in just a couple of decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mdbl (Reply #4)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 07:19 AM

6. +1 for the op and this comment.

Enjoyed reading both and they are worded for the purpose of discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 07:08 AM

5. Not backwards. BOTH effects are synergistic in a vicious circle. Avoid "chicken or egg" trap.


Pick one.

If you start with wealth & income inequality, that leads to social injustice as people have a tougher time fighting in courts, have to drive or be driven to get voter ID (due to limited locations issuing ID to non-drivers), live in poorer school districts, don't have tutors, have parents who have to work two jobs each so have less time with the child, afford fewer books and educational toys in the home, and on and on. This disparity of opportunity leads to wealth & income inequality.

If you start with the social injustice, you can work it around the circle in the same way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 07:58 AM

8. Why pick one? If you do that, you tell part of your base to wait for their dire needs to be met.

They can't.

I can't wait to have my right to my own body respected. You can't wait for your safety net to be protected. My neighbor can't wait to make her black son safe when he goes for a jog.

We can do both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #8)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 08:13 AM

13. Woosh. "Pick one" as a STARTING point for ANALYSIS. Then pick the OTHER and see how it is a CIRCLE.

Nothing I wrote suggested in the slightest to ignore one or the other.

It's for analysis. And if you read again you see that I clear wrote, in capital letters, "BOTH". Equating both.

Read where I explicitly write "Avoid the chicken or egg trap". Again I am saying both aspects are equally important. Then I illustrate it by explaining how the analysis reaches the same conclusion regardless of where you start because it is a "vicious circle".

All sides of a circle are equal. Basic geometry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #13)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 08:25 AM

17. Sigh. Not "woosh." No one is missing your point. It's not that deep.

But when you pick one and work your way around the circle, the other has to wait until the change makes its way around.

Whether it is part of your geometric "analysis" or not, we need to pick both and work on both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #17)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 08:31 AM

19. Yes, not deep, it's OBVIOUS. But you can't find anything I've written in thread that says "wait"


So, woosh over your head.

Everything I've written in all my posts in this thread equates both aspects and says tackle both at the same time.

Nowhere do I say wait to do one first and not the other.

So stop trying to stuff words into my mouth that I never said. It is a despicable debating tactic that almost everyone sees through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #19)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 09:26 AM

26. Here's where you talk about "doing one first": "if you start with ...


... wealth & income inequality, that leads to social injustice as people have a tougher time fighting in courts..."

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make about circles, but you are describing scenarios where one waits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #26)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 09:38 AM

29. Clearly my post is entirely analysis, not prescription. I did not write your false quote.


Nothing in that post is prescription. I did not say "Do".

It doesn't matter where you start the analysis because it is a vicious circle. One problem leads to the other problem which exacerbates the first problem again.

The wording is clear. If I were writing in that post about prescription I would not write that a solution to one problem causes the other problem. And I did not about solutions. It was all about analyzing the problems. I wrote that either problem leads to the other problem. Analysis.

My other posts in this thread talk about solutions and prescriptions. None of my posts say wait or even suggest waiting. They say to work on both. They equate both as important. Particularly the biggest post I wrote: https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029829805#post11

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #13)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 10:55 AM

34. Bzzzt. That was rude. I read your post the same way Squinch did.

Ding. Can't you see how someone would read "start with" as picking one initially? Maybe you could have taken the opportunity teach, instead. Fwee. I think if we were all nicer to each other, we'd work together instead of fighting, and get a lot more done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #34)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 11:03 AM

35. Bzzzt. They & you complain about prescriptions when the post has no prescriptions. . . . nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #35)

Sun Nov 12, 2017, 05:48 PM

59. Naaah, it's about the priortization of issues/ which is a legit topic...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #59)

Sun Nov 12, 2017, 07:15 PM

60. Read my post #5. It is nothing about prescribing remedies, hence NO PRIORITIZATION therein possible




In my other posts, I make a case for equal prioritization.

Read. Please. Read post #5 carefully, please, the post you and the others are having difficulty with. I choose my words carefully and thus I hope that readers read equally carefully.

But sometimes I have to repeat the same point in half a dozen replies because a reader is unable to distinguish between analysis and prescription. Unable to see that a post contains not a single word prescribing a remedy or remedies and is totally analytical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #8)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 08:19 AM

14. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smirkymonkey (Reply #14)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 08:20 AM

15. Woosh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #8)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 08:43 AM

20. Woosh. The wording makes clear it is ANALYSIS, not prescription.

When I wrote that starting one leads to the other, it is clear that is analysis. If it was prescription I would not say that the solution leads to the problem. I would write that the solution solves the problem. But, as we can read, I wrote that one problem leads to the other problem. That is clearly analysis, not prescription.

Nothing in the post you object to is prescription. It is all analysis.

Nowhere in this thread or any other thread do I offer a prescription to "wait" on one for the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #20)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 09:54 AM

31. I got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #8)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 06:38 PM

42. And that's the argument I've been making the whole time...that we don't have to choose

between the social and the economic. We should never put the social aside in the name of the economic, and we absolutely don't have to put the economic aside to defend the social-in many respects, they are linked so deeply we CAN'T wprk just for the one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #42)

Sun Nov 12, 2017, 10:59 AM

55. It isn't about choosing so much as recognizing the relationship.

Going back to the invention of race/whiteness, the fostering and exploitation of bigotries has enabled economic disparities in the US. Economic disparities aren't what enable racism and sexism, though economic disparities are used - after the fact - as justification for social/cultural wealth disparities (as I wrote in the OP). Racism and sexism are what enable economic disparities. Whiteness and patriarchy had to be invented as a means to divide and conquer.

It's not about putting anything aside. Of course Democrats and all people of conscience should be fighting for progressive taxation and closing tax loopholes, paid family leave, universal health care, and so on. My point, though, is that right wing economic viewpoints survive and prosper precisely because of bigotry. Absent racism alone, the Republican Party would cease to be viable.

Liberals often lament that millions "vote against their economic interests." Lament no more, as the reason has always been quite clear. The reason is those millions are voting *for* their perceived cultural/social interests.

And we must recognize that a rising tide is not sufficient. Measures must be taken to reverse history, so to speak. A good place to start: https://policy.m4bl.org/platform/.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #55)

Sun Nov 12, 2017, 04:06 PM

58. I recognize the relationship.

n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 09:17 AM

24. A FB "friend", who happens to be black and somewhat well-known........

in social justice circles put it best IMO. He said that any analysis that comes from either direction that doesn't account for the other wing of the "Vulture of Injustice" (don't blame Jon, that's my phrase ) is incomplete.

IOW, any class based analysis needs to understand that there is a component of special oppression for selected minority groups and any social justice analysis needs to understand that there is a class issue involved. Either one that relies ONLY on social justice or ONLY on economic justice is not going to be able to get at the root of the problem.

As to the folks who think that means their wing has to take a back seat until the other is accomplished, then they misunderstand the way oppression exists and operates in society and what it takes to fight oppression. ANY oppression needs to be confronted ANY time it appears. There might be triage in individual struggles and to what is emphasized in a particular place and time, but it IS all interconnected under capitalism.

The sucking chest wound of police terror against black folks will kill you, but so will the cancer of wealth inequality under capitalism. So they BOTH have to be confronted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #24)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 09:18 AM

25. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #24)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 09:55 AM

32. Excellent!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 09:45 AM

30. Exactly -- chicken or egg. +11111!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 12, 2017, 10:51 AM

53. As I wrote in response to someone else:

Going back to the invention of race/whiteness, the fostering and exploitation of bigotries has enabled economic disparities in the US. Economic disparities aren't what enable racism and sexism, though economic disparities are used - after the fact - as justification for social/cultural wealth disparities (as I wrote in the OP). Racism and sexism are what enable economic disparities. Whiteness and patriarchy had to be invented as a means to divide and conquer.

It's not about putting anything aside. Of course Democrats and all people of conscience should be fighting for progressive taxation and closing tax loopholes, paid family leave, universal health care, and so on. My point, though, is that right wing economic viewpoints survive and prosper precisely because of bigotry. Absent racism alone, the Republican Party would cease to be viable.

Liberals often lament that millions "vote against their economic interests." Lament no more, as the reason has always been quite clear. The reason is those millions are voting *for* their perceived cultural/social interests.

And we must recognize that a rising tide is not sufficient. Measures must be taken to reverse history, so to speak. A good place to start: https://policy.m4bl.org/platform/.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 07:22 AM

7. In practice, it is usually difficult to separate economic power from political power:

those who have "economic" power can frequently "buy" themselves political power; and those who have "political" power can typically "engineer" economic power for themselves

The victims of injustice are often those who do not have power: that is, the victims of injustice are usually those who have neither "economic" nor "political" power -- but these forms of power are typically indistinguishable

One common ploy in the grab-bag of tricks for maintaining power is simply to obscure the nature of that power, to prevent opponents from thinking clearly about the strategies needed in power-struggles: "distraction by bright-shiny-things" works because people are thereby kept from the difficult long-term task of effectively analyzing the world-as-it-is and learning from their own mistakes

It is good to work to end the ugliness of racism, sexism, and xenophobia -- but we should remember that racism, sexism, and xenophobia are encouraged because they can be effectively be used to mislead us about the underlying material interests that produce injustice

We ultimately win fights against racism, sexism, and xenophobia for one simple reason: racism, sexism, and xenophobia are based on nonsensical ideas, so the racist, the sexist, and the xenophobe are all lost in unrealistic dream worlds and are unprepared for struggles against more scientific thinkers

But common human greed for the advantages of power will not be extinguished solely by the defeat of racism, sexism, and xenophobia: other idiocies can easily appear to replace our current idiocies. We will make progress only by a continuing struggle based on both moral standards and cold-eyed realism

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #7)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 08:00 AM

9. We have not yet "ultimately won" the fights against racism, sexism and xenophobia.

Regardless of how stupid they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #9)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 08:11 AM

12. That is quite clear, isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #9)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 06:40 PM

43. Agreed. And we don't have to put aside the economic struggle to win those fights

OR put those fights to the side to win the economic.

Pretty sure 99% are on the same page on all of that and have been the whole time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #7)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 08:24 AM

16. Exactly. Work on both simultaneously. . . . nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 08:09 AM

11. Reparations not a solution. 1) Reconciliation, 2) Truly equal justice, 3) Economic support

There is a historic wrong that needs to be corrected due to harms done to African-Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanic Americans.

Reparations is the wrong thing to do. It will not work and will not correct the ongoing fundamental problems.

The ongoing problems are fundamentally a lack of justice and a lack of economic support. Fix those and American society will become an even stronger society than it already is.

1) Reconciliation is completely overlooked but very important as the experience in South Africa and Canada shows.

1a) People have to be heard in official public hearings around the country, extensively and widely held.

1b) "The powers that be" (essentially elected government) have to apologize publicly and on the record for past wrongs, sincerely and meaningfully. Meaningfully means putting real legal power and real money behind points 2 and 3.

2) Truly equal justice means access to the courts by real legal subsidies, real justice for people shot by police, equal enforcement across all districts, federal true oversight, civic education for all students, and much more.

It also means elimination of voter suppression and a permanent end to gerrymandering by placing redistricting in the hands of independent impartial commissions permanently taking it out of the hands of partial legislatures.

3) Economic support is much more effective and much more just than reparations.

It helps people directly.
It is not a one time lump sum, so it is not frittered away and gone.
It is provided for as long as is necessary.
It does not perpetuate a racial divide.
It helps all who need it: poor blacks, native Americans, hispanics, unemployed coal miners, etc.
It does not go to people who don't need it as reparations would be given to.
It does not take from other people who would carry it as a racial grievance.
It does not leave an unresolved reverse grievance used to hammer disadvantaged people.
It levels the playing field by raising the low sections.
It can be organized to largely benefit children rather than adults who are less likely to see much change from money.

To be blunt, if reparations are given out on the basis of race, then many whites would forever after say "We fixed it. You poor blacks have no excuse for lagging behind and you aren't getting another penny from us." It would be used as an excuse to strangle welfare. It would perpetuate racial divisions, not solve them.

By creating national economic support for school districts, for example, the effects of income disparity on children would be much reduced, regardless of race or class.

Ultimately the USA has a class problem, which has been in part created by racism but not entirely. Attacking the economic problem on a color blind class basis almost entirely eliminates the racial excuses the upper classes (predominantly white) use to perpetuate their inherited greater opportunities. Attacking the social justice problem will require a more direct address of the racial biases and must be done.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #11)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 06:42 PM

44. Reconciliation rests on recognition of the wrongs and admission that they WERE wrongs.

Last edited Sat Nov 11, 2017, 07:40 PM - Edit history (1)

-Wrongs the wronged have every right to be angry and hurt about.

Compensation is needed, but an admission that what happened shouldn't have happened is more important.

The whole "suck it up" thing has to end in this country and this world.

All wounds must be cleaned, sewn-up and healed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bernardo de La Paz (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 12, 2017, 10:56 AM

54. Those things you listed are but forms of reparations.

Reparations aren't simply monetary handouts.

The fact is injustices of the past continue to impact the present, as I wrote about in the OP. And a rising tide has never been sufficient. Measures must be taken to reverse history, so to speak. I suggest that everyone read the thorough, well-thought-out platform of The Movement for Black Lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 08:26 AM

18. The idea to prioritize the fight for economic injustice seems 2b another trickle down theory.

 

Benefits will trickle down to overcome social injustice: You just watch & see!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Madam45for2923 (Reply #18)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 09:38 AM

28. With all due respect,

it strikes me that the idea is to give greater priority to fighting for economic equality/justice than has been done in the past 35-40 years. Not greater priority over other priorities, i.e., social/cultural equality.

Two different things.

Please don't argue that the party has always fought for economic justice. It has not -- and there is plenty of evidence and plenty of D's, former D's and non/affiliated who believe that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 08:53 AM

21. So perhaps the GOP party will cease to exist and the Dem party will break into two parties?

Conservative and liberal Democratic parties?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 08:57 AM

22. It has been postulated ... ?

Lost me right there, and in my view your entire argument with that broad sweeping statement.

Your construct frames this as an either-or decision. Social vs economic justice. It's neither; rather, it's both.

Unless we come to grips with this, it's hard for me to imagine the Democratic Party having sustained success. This isn't about the horns of a dilemma or who's ox will get gored. It's about a fair, just and equal society overall -- and that means everybody.

For those who think the Democratic Party is and has worked well and hard enough for labor and the middle class, there are plenty of Democrats, former Democrats and non- affiliated who would say otherwise based on the past 35-40 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #22)

Sun Nov 12, 2017, 10:50 AM

52. That's hardly a broad sweeping statement.

See exhibit A for what I'm talking about: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9828046. That 2nd paragraphs is precisely what I said has been postulated.

Going back to the invention of race/whiteness, the fostering and exploitation of bigotries has enabled economic disparities in the US. Economic disparities aren't what enable racism and sexism, though economic disparities are used - after the fact - as justification for social/cultural disparities (as I wrote in the OP). Racism and sexism are what enable economic disparities. Whiteness and patriarchy had to be invented as a means to divide and conquer.

It's not about putting anything aside. Of course Democrats and all people of conscience should be fighting for progressive taxation and closing tax loopholes, paid family leave, universal health care, and so on. My point, though, is that right wing economic viewpoints survive and prosper precisely because of bigotry. Absent racism alone, the Republican Party would cease to be viable.

Liberals often lament that millions "vote against their economic interests." The reason is those millions are voting *for* their perceived cultural/social interests.

And we must recognize that a rising tide is not sufficient. Measures must be taken to reverse history, so to speak. A good place to start: https://policy.m4bl.org/platform/.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #52)

Mon Nov 13, 2017, 03:03 PM

62. Yeah, I misread or should say read more into your "postulated" statement than you intended

it seems. Sorry 'bout that. My bad.

At the same time, I don't fully agree with the view that RW economic viewpoints survive and prosper "precisely" because of bigotry. And that's basically what is behind my misreading in the first place. Sure, bigotry contributes in a significant way to RW success at selling and sustaining RW economic policy -- division has always been a useful and effective tool; and today it probably is the strongest single factor even, but it wasn't to begin with, and there are others that contribute to and sustain the dominance of RW economic policy as well. My point is just that these other factors shouldn't be discounted or considered insignificant. A big one from my perspective is complacency. If the system is working for certain individuals, and they are preoccupied with their own lives, they aren't going to always recognize let alone be concerned about economic disparity problems. In the past 35 years, there are and have been plenty of Americans who fall into this category, a sizable percent of whom I'm sure are and were not bigots. On a positive note, however, I believe that number is shrinking. More and more people seem to be waking up, especially among Gen Xers and millenials.

Maybe we are saying the same thing. I hope so. We care in it together. To prevail we need to stick together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 09:01 AM

23. May I pose a question?

The OP states:

And "whiteness" (along with its supposed superiority) was an invention borne out of the need to prevent a united front by all poor, oppressed people.


What is the source of this "need?" Stated another way, why is there a need to prevent a united front? I ask this because the OP frames all forms of social oppression as political constructs or even tools and understandably limts that politics to democratic systems. If that is correct, I am far from convinced that control and the accumulation of wealth are separable.

If they are not, social oppression is reduced to a tool for economic oppression and the OP fails (as do those responses eschewing the idea that purely economic solutions, such as the divestment of $60 trillion from the white population as our reparation). If wealth and power are synonymous, redistributing wealth removes the power required to effect social oppression.

However, while this point soothes my Marxist beliefs, I believe both it and the OP fail in light of pre-19th Century history where power and wealth were maintained by physical force and mass movements were of lesser consequence. Even then, when the size and unity of the masses were less relevant to power, anti-black racism thrived.

In my humble opinion, whether we unite around social or economic goals, racism will persist and our struggle will endure,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GaryCnf (Reply #23)

Sun Nov 12, 2017, 11:14 AM

56. First, I wish I had written "desire" instead of "need."

Going back to the invention of race/whiteness, the fostering and exploitation of bigotries has enabled economic disparities in the US. Economic disparities aren't what enable racism and sexism, though economic disparities are used - after the fact - as justification for social/cultural wealth disparities (as I wrote in the OP, stereotypes are used to justify disparities between black and white households). Racism and sexism are what enable economic disparities. Whiteness and patriarchy had to be invented as a means to divide and conquer.

We must address racism (including xenophobia) and sexism head-on. If we don't, there's no hope of substantially redistributing wealth. Of course Democrats and all people of conscience should be fighting for progressive taxation and closing tax loopholes, paid family leave, universal health care, and so on. My point, though, is that right wing economic viewpoints survive and prosper precisely because of bigotry. Absent racism alone (to say nothing of other forms of bigotry), the Republican Party would cease to be viable.

Liberals often lament that millions "vote against their economic interests." Lament no more, as the reason has always been quite clear. The reason is those millions are voting *for* their perceived cultural/social interests.

And we must recognize that a rising tide is not sufficient. Measures must be taken to reverse history, so to speak. A good place to start: https://policy.m4bl.org/platform/.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Reply #56)

Sun Nov 12, 2017, 12:04 PM

57. I cannot agree more with the positions set out at the link

My issue (apart from the fact that the replies to your OP reveal at DU what purport to be discussions of race devolve into arguments which are wholly unrelated to racial justice but instead to which of two former candidates' supporters "care more" about black people), is that we, as a political party, are pursuing none of those issues.

"Economic justice" Democrats are unwilling to demand the kind of economic change that would shift significant power to the black population (e.g., giving back the $60 trillion white people stole from us) because they fear being branded as Marxists. However, avowed "social justice" Democrats refuse to take any stand in favor of the black population that might offend the white suburban voters (the voters they started courting in 1992 with the Criminal Justice Act, the AEDPA, and welfare reform), as they so clearly illustrated when one of their lions in the fight for gender equality (an issue which does play, at least a little bit, in the white suburbs) refused to speak out against -- and, in fact spoke in favor of -- the whitewash of the murder of Michael Brown (a position which does not play at all with white suburban voters).

I vote Democratic 100% because I understand the binary nature of national politics, but when I see people who are in all likelihood white talking about how their side (and I do mean either side) is the one that cares most about racial justice, my response is, "Yeah, right."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 09:33 AM

27. Excellent, thoughtful post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 10:26 AM

33. As I mentioned

The idea that racism and economic oppression are two sides of the same coin is personally offensive.

That being said, this attempt to claim that economic justice advocates are telling social justice advocates that the have to wait for relief is dishonest. It is a patent attempt to divide Democrats or to shame economic justice advocates into silence by equating a call for economic justice with a call FOR social injustice.

There is NO REASON our campaigns cannot, as an example, call for BOTH adjustments to the TPP to protect workers and call out Blue on black murder as the intended consequence of a racist criminal justice system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GaryCnf (Reply #33)


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 11:08 AM

36. The 1% who control 38% of the wealth in this country would love to make this about race I am sure.

Takes the heat off of them. Or maybe if we can make sure all races are equally represented in the 1%-then all will be good?

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/news/economy/inequality-record-top-1-percent-wealth/index.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #36)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 04:49 PM

37. Doesn't mean that things aren't about race. Wealthy black men still get stopped for

"broken tail light."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #37)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 06:25 PM

40. I agree and as a society we need to work to stop racial discrimination and injustice.

I believe we will have a better chance of doing that if all groups can gain more economic security, no one group being favored over the other. People who work side by side and not in competition with one another are more likely to be less afraid of one another and consequently less likely to maintain bigoted and racist attitudes I believe. I'd like to hear your ideas on ways to lessen/end racial animosity as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #40)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 06:58 PM

46. Europe does not bear that out.

Economic socialist policies in Europe have not prevented a rise in right wing politics.

The problem is that a lot of data suggests that countries with more robust welfare states tend to have stronger far-right movements. Providing white voters with higher levels of economic security does not tamp down their anxieties about race and immigration — or, more precisely, it doesn’t do it powerfully enough. For some, it frees them to worry less about what it’s in their wallet and more about who may be moving into their neighborhoods or competing with them for jobs.

THE DATA ACTUALLY SUGGESTS COUNTRIES WITH MORE ROBUST WELFARE STATES TEND TO HAVE STRONGER FAR-RIGHT MOVEMENTS.

Take Britain’s Labour Party, which swung to the populist left by electing Jeremy Corbyn, a socialist who has proposed renationalizing Britain’s rail system, as its leader in 2015. The results have been disastrous: the Brexit vote in favor of leaving the European Union, plummeting poll numbers for both Corbyn and his party, and a British political scene that is shifting notably to the right on issues of immigration and multiculturalism.


https://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/13/14698812/bernie-trump-corbyn-left-wing-populism

And "people working side by side" won't happen until racism, sexism, and homophobia are dealt with. So, no, the rest of us aren't going to wait until white men get the pay that they believe they deserve for action from "progressives" because that's futile.

We won't be told to get to the back of the bus again to win the votes of "white working class men."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #46)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 07:08 PM

47. Good luck with that approach. I'm sure you'll find people who like to be told what to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #47)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 07:11 PM

48. I see plenty of that among many who consider themselves to be the purest

"true progressives."

Those of us who don't walk lockstep with a manifesto don't quite fit in there.

Social justice for all is more messy, and requires listening to people, rather than lecturers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #48)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 07:16 PM

49. Absolutely, keep listening. I'm sure good things will happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #49)

Sun Nov 12, 2017, 08:14 AM

50. I don't listen to the trope that economic equality and national health mean that sexism and racism

"will be made right," especially when that it being put forth by white straight older men. Reality doesn't support that.

Anti-immigrant anger threatens to remake the liberal Netherlands

Voters young and old, rich and poor, urban and rural said they would back the Geert Wilders-led Freedom Party — no longer the preserve of the “left-behinds” — which promises to solve the country’s problems by shutting borders, closing mosques and helping to dismantle the European Union.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/anti-immigrant-anger-threatens-to-remake-the-liberal-netherlands/2017/03/10/ebdb3a8c-ff4d-11e6-9b78-824ccab94435_story.html?utm_term=.816daccc5c3b

Expat women frustrated by sexism in Germany

Michelle Miller is an American lawyer who has been in Germany for five years. She believes that complacency is one obstacle to changing things. "It is problematic that sexism remains largely a hidden attitude in Germany," she argues.

"Until the EU forced the matter, there was no specific law in Germany addressing job discrimination based on sex - or race, for that matter. Many German lawyers voice the opinion that Germany doesn't need a law like we have in the US because there is no sexism or racism in the German workplace. If only that were true."


https://www.expatica.com/de/insider-views/Expat-women-frustrated-by-sexism-in-Germany_100895.html

Sexism 'still rife in French politics' as record number of female MPs enter parliament but fail to gain top jobs

Sexism is still deeply ingrained in France's political DNA, warned a longstanding female ex-MP who has created a group to help newcomers to the National Assembly in what has been until now very much a male preserve.

"French politics in general and parliament in particular is a very male world. Men are very good at getting themselves the most important posts," said Catherine Coutelle.

Of the 577 newly elected Frence MPs, some 226 are female, beating the previous record of 155 set after the last election in 2012.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/28/sexism-still-rife-french-politics-record-number-female-mps-enter/

And I am not of the opinion that the halcyon days of Union wages in the US were a golden era of social justice.

What has been shown to work is early intervention - before grade 3, not simply in diversifying school populations, by creating curricula that purposefully combine students into diverse groups on projects. Diversity in teachers has also been shown to increase educational success in diverse student populations. We also have to teach about racism - not just teach and let kids "observe it." Kids naturally gravitate towards that which is familiar, and unless "tribal thinking" is pointed out for the problems that it causes, kids will select their own tribe socially, even in a diverse school.

https://www.edutopia.org/blog/teaching-young-children-social-justice-jinnie-spiegler

https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/09/29/552929074/if-your-teacher-looks-likes-you-you-may-do-better-in-school

I also believe that popular culture does a lot more than is credited with shaping narratives. I think that the Cosby Show achieved what it set out to do in bringing the idea of successful, highly educated people of color into living rooms. I think that may have paved the way for the Obamas acceptance than any march, or legislation. "Modern Family" likely did the same for acceptance of marriage equality and acceptance of gay parents.

Hamilton, and the outreach that the producers did for kids of color who would not otherwise have seen this radically inclusive look at America's founders will have a positive effect we will likely see in another decade, if not sooner.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #50)

Sun Nov 12, 2017, 09:09 AM

51. Good for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #37)

Sat Nov 11, 2017, 06:56 PM

45. Agreed.

n/t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Garrett78 (Original post)

Sun Nov 12, 2017, 07:19 PM

61. Wow.

I am very impressed with this post. Very impressed indeed. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread