>>> <JKSCHW at aol.com> 12/24/99 09:59AM >>
But perhaps Charles means that if there are racial distinctions made, then
capitalsim will necessarily, not as part of its nature but as one of its
effects, seize on these to promote divisions. That is not implausible. In
that way, capitalism might be necessarily racist the way it necesasrily
involves domination. Domination at the point of production is not logically
required for capitalism, but it is a causally inevitable consequence of
capitalism at a certain stage of development.
((((((((((
CB: I don't know about at the point of production, but capitalism needs a state, i.e. a special repressive apparatus for the domination of the bourgeoisie over the working class. Without the police and military, school is out for capitalism.
Racism is a form of nationalism. Without the workers of different nations divided, capitalism would end too. That's why Engels and Marx emphasized the unity of workers of different nations as the key to ending capitalism.
It is conceivable that workers could have been divided on the basis of something other than a "theory" of different races and nationalities. It is also conceivable that surpluses could have been extracted on some other basis than the institution of wage-labor. But in fact, these were how capitalism historically carried out these necessary functions to its existence. To switch over to the other imagined methods would probably spell the end of capitalism in the course of the switch now. Thus, wage-labor and racism/nationalism are necessary conditions, defining characteristics of capitalism as it actually is and has been.
CB