The same point applies to the divisions among workers along national and racial lines. Capitalism could, logically, exist in a wholly homogeneous society where all workers were the same race and lived under the same government. It's true that of course it has not existed that way, but to treat the divisions that capitalism seizes upon and exacerbates as defining what capitalsim is is a confusion. Racism, like domination, is causal consequence of capitalism, but it is not one of the constitutive elements of capitalism, which are:
1) private property in productive assets 2) wage labor 3) generalized commodity production
This is how Marx understood the essence of capitalism and nothing more than this is necessary for his articulation of the laws of motion of a capitalist mode of production. That does not mean that there is not a lot more to historical capitalism as it develops in various times and places.
Charles seems to have the view that if there were no national or racial divisions, workers would automatically be so class conscious that they woukd not tolerate capitalism. I think this is overoptimstic. Capitalism might be less stable under thoise circumstances. But in addition to the operations of racial and nationalsit ideologies (we might add religious and sexual ideologies), w\there is also the operation of commodity fetishism, which does not depend on dividing workers but on concealing from them the social character of production by dispalying the atomized nature of production under capitalism as a sort of inalterable natural phenomenon.
--Justin
In a message dated 99-12-26 16:13:34 EST, you write:
<< 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
>>