JKSCHW at aol.com wrote:
>
I can't swer athi si R's
> approach,
Hey Justin, Swahili? Esperanto?
> Justin: Again, I can't recall hia argument in detail. But the point would be
> to show that divide and conquer is individually rationally for capitalists.
I think one should be on guard against undue functional explanation in examining the relationship between capitalism and race(ism). Sure the capitalist/ruling class benefits from racism but that isn't saying much. Only by highlighting the mechanisms by which the ruling class enforces, encourages and benefits from racism can be people struggle against it. One of the most powerful examples of divide and conquer and how to overcome is the film *Matewan* when the bosses bring in blacks from the south and Italian immigrants to break a strike by white coalminers. All discover that what they have in common and what is most important is class. Class is a more powerful unifier than race and culture is a divider.
Recall David Roediger's work that the US white working class has itself benefited from racism by means of a kind of "psychic income". This might suggest that the ruling class aren't interested in race per se but benefit from it as an unintended consequence of the poorest class in the US also being a racial minority. I guess this would be the 'class not race' view. Just something to consider. Part of me feels that capitalists don't care much about the color of your skin or cultural background just if you work hard and cheap.
Sam Pawlett