What you don’t seem to understand is that Marxists are historical materialists. This carries some implications, such as those I added to queermunist’s comments. I added my thoughts because I understood what was being said and it was clear that you misunderstood.
For example, Marxists aren’t overly interested in what ‘some random white’ can do because the model behind the phrase is liberal individualist. When talking about class relations, Marxists are talking explicitly about class relations, not individual relations.
From this perspective, rich white men do outrank everyone else. That’s exactly what living under a racial hierarchy under racial capitalism means. The problem, to reiterate, is interpreting this claim from a liberal individualist viewpoint and reading ‘rich white man’ as referring to an individual rather than as a stand-in for a class.
Yes, everyone’s views are biased. Idk what that is supposed to show in this context other than as a way to shut down the people you’re disagreeing with as if to say that they’re biased and you’re not. I accept my views are biased. That’s how I ensure that I don’t live in an echo chamber.
Referencing echo chambers suggests that you don’t understand historical materialism, which stands for the ruthless criticism of all that exists – if it’s an echo chamber it cannot be Marxism. Marxists begin with the world as it currently exists. It does not begin with an ideal. It is the express rejection of idealism.
I will take a look at those recommendations but you’re going to have to give me more than single surnames if I’m to find their work.
Buddy- you are literally re-parsing what has been said. Using your buzzwords does not make you more correct about what you are saying. I’ve given you the exact same amount of information on the “signifiers” as you gave me. You can go find the material for yourself.
You created your user on lemmygrad. Litrrally half your comments are from comradeship, reactionary, antileftist bs. You claiming you don’t live in an echochamber is a logical fallacy
I gave you full names, the title of a lecture, and the subject of discussion.
What’s the point in even recommending something to me if you’re not going to give me enough to find whatever it is that you want me to read. You haven’t even said what ‘Go, Ralph, singhal, etc…’ write about or indicated their relevance to the discussion. How am I supposed to know what I’m looking for?
How far do you think I’ll get if I type ‘Go’, ‘Ralph’, or ‘Singhal’ into Google. Let me tell you, because it’s the first thing I did before asking for more details – nothing if relevance to this conversation.
Are you reluctant to tell me more because you assume that I won’t read what you ask me to read because you’re not going to bother to watch or read what I recommend to you? And Marxists are the ones living in an echo chamber!
I’m re-phrasing things, yes. This is necessary. We haven’t been able to move past the basic premise because you don’t understand the central claim in the three or four ways that it’s already been expressed. I’m not trying to be more correct. I’m trying to be understood. I’m open to the possiblity that I’m wrong. But for you to challenge what I’ve said you have to (and demonstrate) that you’ve understood it.
Edit: for reference, the lecture is titled ‘race the floating signifier’, as indicated in quotation marks in my previous comment. There was a typo in the second use, outside quotation marks, which read, ‘following signifier’, which is now corrected. The lecture is here: https://youtu.be/PodKki9g2Pw
I especially liked the part where you reference hall and then immediately try to turn the argument around about saudi visiting x country etc…- when hall is saying all along it doesn’t matter what race you are.
Even more hilarious because the original argument is specifically saying it’s all the white fault and there needs to be an anti white movement.
They first one is a good article. I have my critique, but it is good. I don’t think it contradicts what I’ve been saying, though. It concludes:
… none of this is to suggest the literature or the racial capitalism concept should be renounced. There are tensions but these are productive tensions. This counsels that we should embrace rather than overthrow the racial capitalism concept. … [T]he problematic it opens up is far too important to ignore.
As for the second, I can’t say much until I’ve dug up more than the abstract but I’ll say that while Robinson’s work is a good place to start, I’m arguing in the vein of a different tradition, which centers Fanon not Robinson.
Anyway, thanks for the sources. I’m always open to reading more about the concept of racial capitalism.
What you don’t seem to understand is that Marxists are historical materialists. This carries some implications, such as those I added to queermunist’s comments. I added my thoughts because I understood what was being said and it was clear that you misunderstood.
For example, Marxists aren’t overly interested in what ‘some random white’ can do because the model behind the phrase is liberal individualist. When talking about class relations, Marxists are talking explicitly about class relations, not individual relations.
From this perspective, rich white men do outrank everyone else. That’s exactly what living under a racial hierarchy under racial capitalism means. The problem, to reiterate, is interpreting this claim from a liberal individualist viewpoint and reading ‘rich white man’ as referring to an individual rather than as a stand-in for a class.
Yes, everyone’s views are biased. Idk what that is supposed to show in this context other than as a way to shut down the people you’re disagreeing with as if to say that they’re biased and you’re not. I accept my views are biased. That’s how I ensure that I don’t live in an echo chamber.
Referencing echo chambers suggests that you don’t understand historical materialism, which stands for the ruthless criticism of all that exists – if it’s an echo chamber it cannot be Marxism. Marxists begin with the world as it currently exists. It does not begin with an ideal. It is the express rejection of idealism.
I will take a look at those recommendations but you’re going to have to give me more than single surnames if I’m to find their work.
Buddy- you are literally re-parsing what has been said. Using your buzzwords does not make you more correct about what you are saying. I’ve given you the exact same amount of information on the “signifiers” as you gave me. You can go find the material for yourself.
You created your user on lemmygrad. Litrrally half your comments are from comradeship, reactionary, antileftist bs. You claiming you don’t live in an echochamber is a logical fallacy
I gave you full names, the title of a lecture, and the subject of discussion.
What’s the point in even recommending something to me if you’re not going to give me enough to find whatever it is that you want me to read. You haven’t even said what ‘Go, Ralph, singhal, etc…’ write about or indicated their relevance to the discussion. How am I supposed to know what I’m looking for?
How far do you think I’ll get if I type ‘Go’, ‘Ralph’, or ‘Singhal’ into Google. Let me tell you, because it’s the first thing I did before asking for more details – nothing if relevance to this conversation.
Are you reluctant to tell me more because you assume that I won’t read what you ask me to read because you’re not going to bother to watch or read what I recommend to you? And Marxists are the ones living in an echo chamber!
I’m re-phrasing things, yes. This is necessary. We haven’t been able to move past the basic premise because you don’t understand the central claim in the three or four ways that it’s already been expressed. I’m not trying to be more correct. I’m trying to be understood. I’m open to the possiblity that I’m wrong. But for you to challenge what I’ve said you have to (and demonstrate) that you’ve understood it.
Edit: for reference, the lecture is titled ‘race the floating signifier’, as indicated in quotation marks in my previous comment. There was a typo in the second use, outside quotation marks, which read, ‘following signifier’, which is now corrected. The lecture is here: https://youtu.be/PodKki9g2Pw
I especially liked the part where you reference hall and then immediately try to turn the argument around about saudi visiting x country etc…- when hall is saying all along it doesn’t matter what race you are.
Even more hilarious because the original argument is specifically saying it’s all the white fault and there needs to be an anti white movement.
This is among the most bizarre interactions I’ve ever had.
How will I ever get out of my echo chamber?
Yeah. Again. Your history speaks for itself
Just to shut you up on this particular farce
It’s Julian Go - Three Tensions in the Theory of Racial Capitalism
Michael Ralph and Maya Singhal - Racial Capitalism
Thank you.
They first one is a good article. I have my critique, but it is good. I don’t think it contradicts what I’ve been saying, though. It concludes:
As for the second, I can’t say much until I’ve dug up more than the abstract but I’ll say that while Robinson’s work is a good place to start, I’m arguing in the vein of a different tradition, which centers Fanon not Robinson.
Anyway, thanks for the sources. I’m always open to reading more about the concept of racial capitalism.