I don't see any problem here. Racism existed before capitalism to justify slavery and has a new function after the abolition. In fact, before the abolition, it functioned to divide different oppressed groups, as it does today.
If anything, the meme says that racism was a precondition for capitalism. If capitalism needs racism, of cause racism must be older, otherwise capitalism could not have developed.
I'm not calling the meme a problem. There are people that legitimately hold the position of "racism existed before capitalism, so they have no interplay". Those are the people I'm preempting.
What about capitalism doesn't need racism?
Non-Europeans played no role in the European workforce of the industrial revolution and it wasn't less of capitalism because of that. Capitalism works pretty well exploiting just its own ethnic group.
It's less about the specific mode of division, and more about pointing out how division serves the ruling class. That's why intersectionality is important.
I’m trying to work out the logic in the meme. It seems like it argues against itself somewhat.
A requires B to function
Divided C lowers difficulty of exploitation C. The two lines seems to imply the that exploiting C is required for the functioning of B.
Having something easier does not normally indicate it is a requirement. Typically tha is especially so if there are multiple ways to make something easier.
This meme seems lazy in its argument. But then I’m very very far from a logician.
Lol you're going to have a bad time looking for logically coherent memes. I think the implied elements here are: Exploitation of C is required for A. Exploitation of C is not possible if C is unified. B enables division of C, therefore A requires B. It may or may not be true but it doesn't hold up to logical analysis (e.g. B is probably not the only way to divide C)
11 Comments
libre_warrior@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 141d
might needs leeching to work. leeching of nature, leeching of people. sucking out the force of life out of anything.
rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 141d
Inb4 the "but racism existed before capitalism" crowd
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 13 pts · 141d
I don't see any problem here. Racism existed before capitalism to justify slavery and has a new function after the abolition. In fact, before the abolition, it functioned to divide different oppressed groups, as it does today.
If anything, the meme says that racism was a precondition for capitalism. If capitalism needs racism, of cause racism must be older, otherwise capitalism could not have developed.
rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 9 pts · 141d
I'm not calling the meme a problem. There are people that legitimately hold the position of "racism existed before capitalism, so they have no interplay". Those are the people I'm preempting.
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 141d
Ok, this implication wasn't obvious for me and it truly is a stupid take
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 141d
I'm gonna go to bed before they arrive. Tell them from me that they suck, please.
PiraHxCx@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 141d
What about capitalism doesn't need racism?
Non-Europeans played no role in the European workforce of the industrial revolution and it wasn't less of capitalism because of that. Capitalism works pretty well exploiting just its own ethnic group.
rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 141d
It's less about the specific mode of division, and more about pointing out how division serves the ruling class. That's why intersectionality is important.
drewaustin@piefed.ca · 2 pts · 141d
I’m trying to work out the logic in the meme. It seems like it argues against itself somewhat.
A requires B to function
Divided C lowers difficulty of exploitation C. The two lines seems to imply the that exploiting C is required for the functioning of B.
Having something easier does not normally indicate it is a requirement. Typically tha is especially so if there are multiple ways to make something easier.
This meme seems lazy in its argument. But then I’m very very far from a logician.
scribbler@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 141d
Lol you're going to have a bad time looking for logically coherent memes. I think the implied elements here are: Exploitation of C is required for A. Exploitation of C is not possible if C is unified. B enables division of C, therefore A requires B. It may or may not be true but it doesn't hold up to logical analysis (e.g. B is probably not the only way to divide C)
drewaustin@piefed.ca · 0 pts · 141d
That is much more succinct.