/edu/ - Education

>How does capitalism, and its most retrograde right wing layers, even keep the idea about race in the public discourse to begin with?
Because it's already available historically in part, and because it makes use of characteristics/stereotypes (physical and psychological) that can and will be confirmed to an extent once they're in the head. For example, if someone hears Hispanic people are lazy, just one case (perhaps from this person being the only Hispanic person they know) can appear to "confirm" this heuristically. Some of these features have a better basis in "facts" than others, and each individual will have different racial ideas, but what's important is that one believes; it's the form, not the content, which is why even "positive" racial beliefs (or "negative" beliefs toward one's own racial categorization) can be pernicious.

It's also situationally useful for both sides of the labor equation: workers can make use of ethnic or racial groupings for easy connections (due to the assumption of a commonalities in background) and like an extended social network, although the extent to which this is true depends on how close the particular ethnic or racial sense of community is. This closeness can be spectacular in nature, a fabrication more of mass media than any real community or common experiences, but what's important is that it's "actionable," that this "bond" can be rationally assumed in practice. This practical aspect of race is one significant aspect of its viability, and it's very much at the expense of class.

Capitalists (and managers) also benefit from divide-and-rule strategies, especially within the workplace, pitting individuals and groups against one another, stymieing collective action and self-organization or else creating impediments to actions and divisions within existing worker organizational structures.

I find the "race is not scientific" argument to be a poor rebuttal rooted in semantics. Modern science recognizes genetic trends between the "races" even if there aren't neatly divided categories behind them. Historic population dynamics still carry a non-negligible genetic inertia to this day even in places like the US where we see the significant intermixing. A more sound rebuttal I think is that evidence shows that poverty and especially education can explain autism score differences far better than any race-based theory could.

But to answer your question - this is the inevitable outcome of bourgeois morality when confronted by the material realities of capitalism. It emerges whenever capitalism creates circumstances in which one group performs economically better than another and the enlightened PMC or ruling class liberals start asking themselves "why is this happening?". Historically the usual answer was "they are just inferior", but more "enlightened humanists" will usually look for a less overtly racist explanation which often comes in the form of switching cause and effect (eg "muh black family" or "muh corruption").

Once a suitable narrative is constructed, said liberals will use their control over the media to disseminate their ideas to the wider working class.

>>15831
>autism
Freudian slip, meant to say autism score.

>>15832
Mod bruhs…

>>15834
Young poljak

>>15834
Looks like he's saying the opposite to me:
<A more sound rebuttal I think is that evidence shows that poverty and especially education can explain autism score differences far better than any race-based theory could.
While I have seen people on the right argue that race and I.Q. are associated and this disparity also explains the differences in overall wealth, that doesn't seem to be the point he was making.

>>15829
Because ideas of racial inferiority provide an ideological justification for the hatred of the 'undeserving poor' which unilaterally occurs within capitalist societies.

>>15831
Modern science is mediated by the superstructure. None of it is "real" except in this political order.

>>15829
capitalism is incompatible with tribal social organisation, thus modern "race" is meaningless linguistic concept.

race is a socially constructed and flexible spook; germans used to be considered nonwhite by anglos

>>15831
>I find the "race is not scientific" argument to be a poor rebuttal rooted in semantics. Modern science recognizes genetic trends between the "races" even if there aren't neatly divided categories behind them.
You do realize races can not exist while the species can still have prevalences of some genes in subsections, right? There ultimately aren't human races, because of the low overall genetic variance, high genetic overlap, and there being less difference between these alleged races than among them.

>Historic population dynamics still carry a non-negligible genetic inertia to this day even in places like the US where we see the significant intermixing.
No, lol. The US is still relatively segregated because the history of racism in the United States bore an impact on the socioeconomic divide across racial lines that largely still exists. Therefore there are many regions of the US where either only or almost only black people, or white people, or Native Americans, or latines live. The US isn't that much of a melting pot as people think from the media. Just look at city maps and how these "races" are largely segregated.

>>15829
Racism is an extension of nationalism. Think of it as a biological nationalism. It's about trying to find a common biological descent that the majority of the population of a nation have (or at least come up with one), and using that to determine who's an outsider. People ultimately believe in it, because it can raise their social standing and get them favors from the "biological majority" bourgeoisie and also because it just ends up becoming a powerful ideology.
>>15840
Did he actually think there was a master race on Mars and Venus?

>>22364
>Racism is an extension of nationalism. Think of it as a biological nationalism.
There is no point in conceiving of it in that manner. You are explaining one construct with another construct when their actual origins and development are distinct.

>It's about trying to find a common biological descent that the majority of the population of a nation have
You operate under the naive assumption that races were laid out based on genuine scientific inquiry. Race came about to justify the exploitation of colonized people and the categorization of these races were merely due to historic and economic happenstance. If races had been set based on common biological descent then people would have concluded there is only the human race, unless you were an American race scientist who believed in Polygenism. Europeans believed in Monogenism and still distinguished by more than on race.

>People ultimately believe in it, because it can raise their social standing and get them favors from the "biological majority" bourgeoisie
You virtually don't benefit at all from being a part of a category that everyone else is a part of. People in Western Europe believed in the existence of the white race and all of them were a part of it. They don't gain anything from being a part of a group everyone in their society is a part of and they also didn't gain favors from the "biological majority bourgeoisie" (?) from that. The point of these constructs was to justify what they did to people in the colonies.

>and also because it just ends up becoming a powerful ideology.
People have no way of knowing that beforehand and that's just a claim made in hindsight.

Race is the kind of thing where the more you promote it at an institutional level, the more it can reinforce itself. Like with science, if you do studies where you sort people into race categories, any differences you find are going to be put in terms of those race categories (as opposed to things like income level or something). The more you do that, the more ingrained that category becomes in the institution. Another big factor is just lack of social mobility. People generally are in the same stratum as their parents, and if you have generational poverty and a group that's intentionally ghettoized with zoning and home loan policies, then it's going to contribute to a difference in material circumstances that's reflected in culture and socioeconomic status that can be lazily interpreted as race differences.

>>22386
I'm not saying it's done in good faith. It's obviously a vulgar form of "science" that comes out of the construct of nationalism. Not all nationalists are racists, either, of course. But racist nationalists can become more popular at certain times. Long-term institutional ingraining of these ideas is definitely a factor as well.

>>15829
Like the church need the devil to reconcily the existence of evil with the idea of an omnipotent and ontologically good deity, capitalism need an essentialist classification of people to justify the misery and brutal exploitation of some.