16
1w
6

Capital's search for new markets and the dilution of reform efforts

"It doesn't matter what or who you are, it matters how you play."

This is a quote, likely doing some paraphrasing, from a movie about Jackie Robinson. I had not set out to watch the movie, but saw bits of it in passing from someone else watching it and my brain went spinning off on analysis of it.

I could take it as just a feel good story, a man who faces prejudice and discrimination and overcomes. But that quote lodged into my brain, along with other bits on the screen. I don't know exactly how the story went in real life, but this isn't about that exact story anyway.

It's about the broader methodology at work here and the way in which capital uses reform efforts to its advantage and then largely defangs them.

The quote exemplifies the practice well, if we do a little bit of reading between the lines: "It doesn't matter what or who you are if you can make more profit for us."

The choice of language and focus implies not an intention toward the abolishment of systemically racist practices, but the allowing of exceptions on a case by case basis, based on "merit" (which in the capitalist case, is defined as "you contribute to growing our money/power base").

This kind of idea, that you can transcend the box marginalization has put you in by helping the capitalist out, got stretched to its limits with figures like OJ Simpson and Bill Cosby. Star performers, make lots of money for the capitalist with a healthy cut for themselves, and also deal in some of the worst accusations that can be levied at a person. I am being vague because I see no gain in this context going into it in detail and being potentially triggering or needlessly graphic, and the details of it aren't that important to the point anyway. The point is incidents like these put to test the idea of, "It doesn't matter what or who you are, it matters how you play."

The capitalist method of getting lucrative people past racist gatekeepers while keeping systemic racism intact hit some limits. A method which normally works well alongside liberal mentalities about "be who you are, no matter who that is."

But it's easily observable that being "who you are" can range from being an inconvenience to others to being an actual terror. Capital and liberalism in their marriage of bullshit have no answer for this. They're not interested in policing society, but rather interested in profiting from it.

In order for this method of "reform" to function while leaving the rest of the system intact, the notion is not "you are valuable and deserve basic needs met no matter who you are," it's "you are valuable if you notably help the capitalist." This leaves most marginalized people remaining in a position of less than. As compared to a socialist project where things like racism can actually be tackled head on because the meaning of valuation of a person gets changed fundamentally when the project is based around meeting the needs of the people, no matter who they are, and because actually listening to the people means reform efforts can gain a foothold in governmental structures, not just in corporate slogans.

Another example of this kind of thing, we can see happening with sexism too. Among the most marginalized women are those in prostitution. Capital's answer is not to liberate them from coercion and from any economic incentive to turn to it for survival, but to push for formalizing it into another market; a market where prostitutes can have slightly better conditions than they would otherwise have, but capitalists also get a cut and the system is not fundamentally changed.

I don't feel like this is a "complete" take on the topic, but I wanted to get it out while it is on my mind.

I'm sure there are other examples in practice of the difference between real reform and profiting off of exceptions to the rule that don't fundamentally challenge racism/sexism/etc. Let me know what you know.

darkernations - 1w

I found your essay an interesting read; thanks for the post.

The quote exemplifies the practice well, if we do a little bit of reading between the lines: “It doesn’t matter what or who you are if you can make more profit for us.”

And an extension of this - which I suspect you may have got to if you haven't already - from a dialectical perpsective is the socialist filpside as exempflied by the CPC: it doesn't matter what or who you are as long as you help develop our socialism.

5
amemorablename - 1w

Thanks for the comment! That is an interesting flip side, I hadn't thought of it that way, but it does make a kind of sense. Though I do have one caveat, is I think in practice, it's probably closer to, "it doesn’t matter what or who you are as long as you don't interfere with our developing socialism." And even then, based on information I've come across about socialist projects in history, my impression is they often treat even overt political enemies more humanely than their counterparts. For example, the reeducation efforts that China has done at various points in its history. This is not to deny they also have times they may execute someone who does an egregious enough offense against the interests of the public, but to emphasize that it's not like they're doing the capitalist thing of leaving people in the streets; their exercising of power as vanguard is fundamentally different in character than capitalist exercising of power for the interests of the expansion of capital.

But if we were looking at it only from the standpoint of behavior and rewarding behavior (without taking into account what happens if you don't do the behavior), then I may agree your framing of it is solid as is. Cause then it'd basically be like: "capitalist: we reward you for supporting the interests of capital; socialist: we reward you for supporting the interests of socialism." I just wouldn't want it to be taken as implying that the overall picture of it is as simple as that.

Feel free to let me know if I'm misunderstanding your meaning at all.

4
darkernations - 1w

I often attempt to consider paradigms from a dialectical materialist perspective, and failing that at least (crudely) dialectically.

For example could the seeds of one side of a contradiction feed the other? And (though this is not applicable to what you said) could a fascist or a liberal be alluding to a true underlying contradiction (though their solution be awful) for which we could synthesise a response for our (socialist) needs?

The PRC's socialism is for me the dialectical materialist outcome of Engel's Socialism Utopian and Scientific, and your essay made me think of this.

Well done for posting your write up; using cultural references to draw allegories on the science of the politcal economy (I forget which of the Redsails crew said that this was a useful tool on twitter but they highlighted, I think, Mao did this often).

3
amemorablename - 1w

Thanks for the followup. While we're on the subject, what is your best experience with reading material on understanding dialectal and historical materialism? It's something I want to improve my understanding of. I've read Mao's On Contradiction (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm) before and Stalin's Dialectical and Historical Materialism (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm). But there are times it seems to me like I'm talking more in layperson terms than in the science of it without meaning to; which isn't to say it's necessarily a bad thing to be able to communicate in layperson terms, but I would rather be able to do that translation consciously. Otherwise it seems I risk missing when I'm straying from the science of it. Hope that makes sense.

4
darkernations - 1w

there are times it seems to me like I’m talking more in layperson terms than in the science

I often feel this way and it is partly why I am "re-learning" dialectical materialism myself:

Dialectical materialism = a way of analysis that focuses on contradictions as engines driving change in a given direction to produce a deeper science. Dialectics allows us to understand relationships and materialism grounds it in reality. It is teleological, not positivist and is the enemy of idealism.

^That’s the quickest summary of DM I can think of so far and I wonder what I will change from that definition years into the future.

(You highlighted an important need for marxists to deeply understand theory and therefore I am revisiting what I have learned about DM starting with Stalin’s famous essay then dashthered’s essay then Losurdo’s book on Hegel and Freedom of the Moderns. Previously I started with Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy and then a bunch of Redsails.org articles. The latter two are really good resources but I want to try a fresh approach here)

https://lemmygrad.ml/post/9855623/7353553

I would add to the above definition that the material always comes before the idea. I would also add the following reading list, as examples of practical applications of dialectical and historical materialism which makes it easier to understand (these are also on my reading list, either first time for me or re-reading them):

  • The Dialectical Biologist, by Leventin and Lewins (also their Biology under the Influence: Dialectical Essays)
  • Red Star Over the Third World, by Vijay Prashad
  • Dance of the Dialectic: Steps in Marx’s Method, by Bertell Ollman
  • Vol 1, Dialectical Materialism, Vol 2, Historical Materialism, and Vol 3, Theory of Knowledge; by Maurice Cornforth
  • Assasination of Julius Caesar, by Michael Parenti

It is worthwhile tackling materialism as well with In Defense of Materialism by Plekhanov.

Then I will end it with this, I will know I will have an excellent understanding of dialectical materialism if I can understand this essay in its entirety:

https://redsails.org/the-problem-of-recognition-in-transitional-states/

(Frome is amazing and their twitter handle is worth perusing; use xcancel if needed)

2
amemorablename - 1w

Awesome, thank you, bookmarking this to look into more when I have time.

2