Must capitalism be racist?

[Jim heartfield]

In message <0.8d5d8ad2.259c213d at aol.com>, JKSCHW at aol.com writes
>Justin. This is the Friedman/Nozick line that capitalism is antiracist that 
>started this thread. It is true in a sense. Capitalism has tendencies towards 
>reducing everything to no-color abstract labor. These tendencies are in a 
>sense egalitarian. Marx alluded to this element of capitalism when he said 
>things like Workers have no nation, etc. But that is not the only tendency in 
>capitalism. That is why the work of people like Roemer and Roediger is 
>important. That works helps explain why racism flourishes and persists in the 
>face of the (apparently) leveling wind of capitalism.

I would have said that the combination of a universalising trend within
Capitalism - that towards the socialisation of production - alongside
its necessary limitation in the privatised form of social production
means the opposite. Precisely because it does contain a universalising
tendency capitalism holds out the image of equality, just as it denies
it in practice. Racial oppression has little meaning in pre-capitalist
societies because there was no expectation of equality, parochial
divisions holding sway. The social divisions at the basis of racism are
intrinsically capitalistic.

That said, it is not necessarily the case that they will assume the form
of colour discrimination.

In message <386ABF2E.856A9133 at uniserve.com>, Sam Pawlett
<rsp at uniserve.com> writes
>  Recall David Roediger's work that the US white working class has
>itself benefited from racism by means of a kind of "psychic income".

Psychic income, what can you buy with that? Presumably he says 'psychic
income' because you cannot demonstrate that white workers exploit black
workers without abandoning the Marxist theory of exploitation, but I'm
not sure that shifting into the realm of the psyche will square the
circle.
-- 
Jim heartfield