All forms of discrimination are really just types of classism

Racism,
Discrimination based on gender,
Discrimination based on religion,
Discrimination based on nationality,
Discrimination based on sexual orientation,
Discrimination based on native language,
Discrimination based on age,
Discrimination based on performance on a "test",
Discrimination based on appearance...

... all of these are subsets of the same thing: classism.

Each one is an attempt to separate a particular person or group of people from the existing power/money/ownership structure in a society or location. The power structure finds something in them to reject them over, and thus exclude them from the power structure. In Georgian England, for example, it could have been merely the accusation that "he is daft" or that "she is simply not suitable."

To attack one of these individually is about as effective as cutting off one branch of a large tree. The root of all of them is the class structure of a society, and that structure is built upon money-power-control-ownership. Money and power are two forms of the same entity, like matter and energy.

The fundamental struggle is a class struggle. This is why the American right wing is quick to denounce "class warfare" as if class warfare has no place in American politics. Yet, everything the right wing does is class warfare, for their class. Sorry if I'm starting to sound like a Marxist. But Marx was right: the fundamental struggle IS a class struggle, even in 2005, and these little battles are just facets of the class struggle.

And there is NOTHING wrong with sounding like a Marxist :)

And there is NOTHING wrong with sounding like a Marxist

Except for the fact that, as liberal-minded people, we should be able to get beyond a de-bunked 19th century theory.

There is nothing liberal minded about dismissing everything related to marx out of hand because he wasnt 100% right.

By that logic there is no use in studying the works or ideas of... anyone ever in history.

By that logic there is no use in studying the works or ideas of... anyone ever in history.

Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. Cardinal Wolsey (1475?-1530)

And I'm not rejecting Marxism "out of hand". It's a poor theory and should be rejected in the same way alchemy and astrology are poor performers.

When something doesn't work the liberal mind is flexible enough to move on. Conservative minds are inflexible and don't let go. That's how they can hold on to a 2000+ year old theory of the origin of the Earth despite all the evidence.

Shall that be desmissed as well?

And by Marxism, what do you mean? If you think marxism is one theory you dont have a clue what you are talking about.

I don't see anyone asserting that the "theory" of Marxism constitutes "the truth" anymore than any other "theory" of political structure or personality or theology.

However, each of those "theories" do have grains of truth contained within them.

Maybe, some spectacular day, we will be able to combine all those threads, those grains of truth, to create a real working theory that will advance humanity.

However, I will say this,...Marx's point about "class" is about the closest to FACT proven by history as any other particular point in any other theory.

Try not to get too emotional over the mere word "Marx" or "Marxism".

Hell, Freud did a far superior job of fucking up the minds within "western civilization" as anyone else.

since it's another 19th century theory?
You do know that "Marxism has been debunked" is a right wing shibboleth? Of course you do...

I support evolution because it has evidence to back up it's claims.

Historical evidence has shown the theories of Marx to be poor performers.

Yet there are so many "hangers-on". That's a hallmark of a conservative mind.

But because some people dont share your complete misunderstanding of how philsophy and science work, they didnt just say (evolution has been debunked, so stop talking about it" they worked with it to create a better theory.

Marx was, by the way, right about a whole lot of things.

,...this particular stance concerning the oppressed/prejudiced. I believe history have proven that discrimination is more about economic suppression for purposes of justification.

With respect to the theory,...well, I know of NO theory pertaining to political science or philosophy or human psychology that has proven to be the absolute truth.

Sometimes a collection of theory is so flawed (alchemy) that it must be replaced (chemistry).

That is part of the progress of science.

But in my opinion he would not have given tax cuts to the richest of his country, try and limit payments to the lowest incomes of his country(S.S. privatization, welfare medicare cutbacks), and try to corporatize every aspect of public life to maximize profits for the top end capitalists in the nation. Do you support these changes/potential changes?

Yes?

Power is (always has been) maintained/increased through discriminatory practices.

Do you deny that basic fact?

Power is (always has been) maintained/increased through discriminatory practices.

Do you deny that basic fact?

Yes.

Consider the billionaire Ty Warner. No doubt with all his riches he is a powerful man.

How did he get to be so wealthy? Discrimination? Walking over the corpses of his foes? Oppressing the masses? No.

Beanie Babies. That's right. He makes animals stuffed with beans and he is one of the top 100 richest Americans (worth about $6 billion).

And what about Oprah? She is the richest woman in the history of the world. She can make and break people. Did she get this power through discrimination? I doubt it.

There are plenty of counter-examples.

Fact is, the sorts of discrimination mentioned often REDUCE power in the economic sense. People that descriminate most often shoot themselves in the foot economically.

Thats a good one.

The claim was that power was increased/maintained by descrimination.

I gave two examples (among many) that show this statement to be false in general.

There are all sorts of reasons why the people at large might deliver economic power to some person.

If the people think beans with a smile merits something, that's fine by me.

,...I'm going have to figure out how to bring you with me into a real world where merit is rarely fairly rewarded.

*sigh*

Alchemy was abandoned because was not scientific. It was an irrational belief, not supported by any emprical evidence.

Chemistry is the scientific approach to studying chemicals. It isnt a theory.

Neither chemistry nor alchemy are scientific theories, and neither is marxism.

And Marxism has not been debunked, his predictions of the future have been debunked (duh).

The fact is that Marx was a philsopher and economist, and philosophy isnt science. Marx produced incredibally valuable works that have contributed a great deal to very valuable thought and still do.

This is no different than Aristotle, or John Locke. They werent scientists, they werent 100% right, but that doesnt mean that it is stupid to read them or that they served no purpose or that we shoul reject anything relate to the ideas they discussed because they werent perfect.

Chemistry is the scientific approach to studying chemicals. It isn't a theory.

LOL.

There is no "scientific approach" specific to "studying chemicals". There is simply the scientific approach. Chemistry is that body of knowledge that comes from applying the scientific approach to the study of the composition, structure, and properties of substances and with the transformations that they undergo.

The theories that constitute this body of knowledge is what we call chemistry.

And Marxism has not been debunked, his predictions of the future have been debunked (duh).

And the predictions of the alchemists have been debunked which is why alchemy has been rejected.

That's the way science works. If a theory makes a prediction, but this prediction turns out to be incorrect, you reject the theory.

This is no different than Aristotle, or John Locke.

Oh, please. Don't put Marx in the same category as Aristotle or Locke. Marx was a hack by comparison.

Thanks, though, for admitting that chemistry isnt a theory. And I hate to break it to you, but "scientific approach to studying chemicals" and "that body of knowledge that comes from applying the sceintific approach to the study of comosition, structure, and properties of substances and with the transformations that they undergo." are the same things.

We agree, chemistry is not a theory, it is a field of study.

Why do you insist on pretending that either alchemy or marxism are scientific theories?

Marx is in the same category as Aristotle and Locke, he was a philosopher, and your poorly informed personal judgement of them is irrelevent.

"Theory" is not merely a scientific application.

No offense. Just thought I'd clarify that a theory can be about ANY construct.

If I had meant theory, i wouldnt have said scientific theory

,...and speculations about human/political constructs as a theory or, more accurately, series of theories.

Thanks, though, for admitting that chemistry isn't a theory. And I hate to break it to you, but "scientific approach to studying chemicals" and "that body of knowledge that comes from applying the scientific approach to the study of composition, structure, and properties of substances and with the transformations that they undergo." are the same things.

They are absolutely not the same things.

The "scientific approach" is a kind of approach. An "approach" in this context is a set of methods or practices.

"Chemistry" is that body of knowledge concerning the composition, structure, etc of substances that is produced by the scientific approach. Can't you see the difference?

The technique, (the scientific approach), produces the theories (chemistry).

Why do you insist on pretending that either alchemy or Marxism are scientific theories?

Marxism is a collection of theories that can generally be placed among the social sciences. Like alchemy, these theories have mostly been discovered to be poor performers.

Marx is in the same category as Aristotle and Locke, he was a philosopher, and your poorly informed personal judgment of them is irrelevant.

Anyone as confused as you about science has no right to criticize anyone.

Quote-"If a theory makes a prediction, but this prediction turns out to be incorrect, you reject the theory."

* predicted WMDs in Iraq, turned out incorrect. I reject *.

edit-You reject the prediction. Marx's theories are not that simple. You can not reject the whole body of his theories because one prediction did not come true. And, it may as well still come true, just not in the time-frame he was thinking..

You have to back to the theory and try to improve the theory.

Or else we would have thrown out evolution, relativity, gravity, and democracy.

It has never been tried.

and has it's true believers.

Marxism is flawed; it requires a simultaneous global revolution to work, and that's impossible. Plus, it has minor economic flaws. It would be interesting to see it tried, but perhaps elsewhere - I prefer capitalism with socialist characteristics.

My feelings about Christianity are identical.

Believing in hist historical and future predicting narrative is indeed faith.

Reading his critiques of capitalism for thier great insight or his ideas for society as that, ideas, is not faith at all.

generalizing it all as marxism and dismissing it is the work of liars

that the fundamental struggle is a class struggle, is it not possible that some of these are distractions?

Thats the entire reason they are perpetuated by those in power.

It is taking advantage of the way humans socialize in groups to sustain the current power structure.

Trying to shoehorn everything into Marxist class stuggle is overly simplistic.

The most important characteristic of a liberal-minded person is flexibility in thinking. When a theory performs poorly, we chuck it. We don't hold on to it like conservatives hold on to their de-bunked theories.

sounds like totalitarianism to me

you know how we are

such as CONDEMNING a 79 year-old bi-racial woman's attempt to tell her own story sounds inconsistent to me. :shrug:

that doesn't mean I have to buy it. Perhaps, I would have...
IF SHE HAD NOT WAITED SO LONG TO TELL HER STORY
Maybe you can pick up two copies?
And I'm sure that you do realize the irony of YOUR shrill insistence that as a "liberal-minded person" I must genuflect to her. Or maybe not.

in the "class" hierarchy, judge and jury of who and how SHE should be.

as evidenced by your willingness to violate the DU rules. It is verboten (hey, how about that!) to STALK a poster to a thread for the purpose of harassing them about a point of view expressed in ANOTHER thread.

Nobody tried to shoehorn anythong into anything.

The point is that all forms of grouping people off create class structures that devide people from each other and that the people who benefit from these devides continue them. And thus we should see the connection between groupings of various kinds.

You are the one who refuses to see the connection for fear of being a marxist.

I don't see it. Europian states have many "socialist" laws and ideals, they seem to be going strong. Couple of south american counties tried to go that way, but we waxed the leadership and instilled our own governments-who we now consider criminals. And USSR was not socialist, but Communist and twisted distorted form of Marx's ideas. I could say Jesus is debunked because I haven't seen him, but just because it hasn't happened yet does not mean that it is not possible.

How can he/she say that Solialism has been dubunked?

and criminalize certain ways of thinking.

I agree that the rivalry and antipathy between human groups arises from the awareness of a scarcity of resources. We deny each other largely because we fear for our own group's sustainability. The conservative mentality is one that is constantly deciding whom to throw out of the lifeboat "when it comes down to it".

But it also seems obvious that the categorization of people is necessary to have a society as complex as ours. Inequality and discrimination arise wherever there are multiple groups in one place. I think these things are smaller stressors on society when people perceive an abundance, or "enough to go around."

There are also ways to mitigate discrimination without giving up our complexity. Differences in status can actually mean differences in talent and ability, and institutions can be created to ensure that other factors are minimized. We can even learn to like people partly BECAUSE they are white or gay or disabled and we are not.

I can see your point but I don't like the idea of a society where everyone is paid the same regardless of what they do. It seems like it would be hell on a lot of key workers and heaven for lazy bureaucrats.

I'd like to know exactly who you are targeting as an opponent in the class struggle. All extremely wealthy people? A conspiratorial group of interlocking directors? Or... who?

There is nothing wrong with deviding labor. There is nothing wrong with diversity.

The division of humanity into generalized groups based on shared charecteristics and stereotypes has nothing to do with the pragmatic division of work in a complex society.

Then can it have anything to do with class as the original poster suggested?

Are division of labor and class related, certainly. But they arent the same thing and they can exist without each other.

Im not sure if Im addressing what you are sayinjg.

Whether complex division of labor can exist without the formation of classes (and all the baggage that goes along with that). Can we have a classless society that still has separate groups of poets and garbage collectors?

Classes certainly can't exist without the division of labor, except as formal categories of person, and these we would be more apt to identify as clans, phratries, societies, etc.

The idea of class is that someone produces goods and someone else enjoys the profits. It's hard to imagine a society with any non-producers at all if it doesn't have a class system based on the division of labor. Why should the farmers support city folk if not for an arrangement between classes?

The original arrangement was, "You feed me, I'll keep track of the calendar and tell you when to plant." Lo and behold, the priesthood is special and the planters aren't. Most of us here on DU are some version of the original priest. It seems like asking us to give up the class system is asking us to radically rethink our lives and start taking more responsibility for our own support.

This is an admirable thing to do but I also think that, in the imperfect world we live in, most of us do work that is quite valuable despite its low output of soybeans and shoelaces.

Poets and garbage collectors arent classes unless you live in india. They are profesions. And yes, you can turn those into classes, but that isnt neccessary for the proffessions to exist.

Class and the division of labor are not the same thing. We could all be the same class and do different things.

Discrimination is the symptom of an elite class maintaining/sustaining/increasing that elite class.

If "merit" actually existed, it is possible that a more evenly distribution of class and labor would exist.

Marxism as a general theory possesses many flaws but the concept about classism is a valid model and can be seen in our society.

The Republican's promote an artificial aristocracy through opppressive policies (unfair taxing, pro corporate regs, anti Affirmative Action, etc). The overall goal is to keep a small ruling class and certain vulnerable groups have been targeted. It's no coincidence that our 14th amdmt/Equal opportunity specifies protected classes.

This is why it is so critical to be aware of the different forms of discrimination and work to empower the marginalized groups. This is how we battle classism. Empowering women, blacks, hispanics, the poor, and gays will disempower the small elite ruling class.

Thomas Jefferson on elitism:
"I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly, bodily powers gave place among the aristoi . But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness, and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground for distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy, founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature, for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed, it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say, that that form of government is the best, which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendency. I think the best remedy is exactly that provided by all our constitutions, to leave to the citizens the free election and separation of the aristoi from the pseudo-aristoi , of the wheat from the chaff..."

Racism is based on hate and/or a superiority/inferiority complex. What about poor trash racists?