More than that, though: the "resistance to race", as Street puts it, even if it's a luxury, is no less progressive for that. One can hardly advocate for a world in which a black writer is a "writer" and not a "black writer" by self-identifying as a "white writer"--and feeling faux-guilty about it. I think the focus on whiteness here is entirely regressive. — jamalrob

My English is lacking I think because I don't seem to understand this comment. Can you give an example of "focus on whiteness here is entirely regressive"? Or if somebody else wants to be helpful?

Social workers and mental health intervenors should attend to most domestic disputes -- along with a police officer (in support, not in charge). Restorative justice programs should be established in neighborhoods where there are numerous misdemeanor property crimes (shoplifting, petty theft, etc.). Homelessness must be addressed with Housing First, then social services. Drug/alcohol addiction needs to be addressed with treatment, not jail time.

There are plenty of activities which the police can and should attend to: speeding, running red lights, murders, robbery, fighting, and so forth. — Bitter Crank

Yes. In many ways the call to defund the police doesn't go far enough. It needs to be coupled with the equally important call to re-fund the public, least it simply play into the neoliberal imperative to privatize everything. Comparisons like the following have been making their way around for various cities (here's another one for Columbus, Ohio), and I just pulled the most recent one I could find:



All the other programs you refer to can be paid for precisely by redistributing or reorienting what a progressive society wants or ought to value.

Maybe. But you can only try. And if you fail, the point is to fail better each time.

I won't speak for Jamal but I do understand that the point isn't simply to multiply racial categories as if to 'welcome white people to the club' of racially marked social groups. That's not progress. And there is lots to be said about not speaking for others and attributing issues to race where one would much prefer to be racially unmarked - one's blackness or whiteness or whatever does not have to always come into play. It's slippery, and it's hard to negotiate, but I think it's much more healthy to have something to negotiate at all then deny it a priori.

while the momentum is here, I say use it - I haven't seen so much interesting and fruitful discussion about the role of police (in general)... maybe ever. If they have to bear the weight of all injustices so be it. All the better even, until actual change happens. — StreetlightX

No, I don't think this is right at all. Its either naive or obfuscatory. There's only one front page, and it's full of outcry over the police. There's limited room in public discourse and limited bandwidth in people's thoughts. It matters tremendously that we use that limited space to discuss the issues which will have most positive impact on people's lives.

I think it's discraceful that the newspapers and socialist discussion groups are dominted by outcry over the deaths of a thousand blacks at the hands of their police when nearly a thousand times that amount of children (virtually all of whom are black) die from poverty in the same period due directly to our consumer choices. Why? Because 'make poverty history' was last year's headline, its boring now and none of the cool kids are talking about it anymore.

And it's absolutely evident that it's not enough to say "we can have that discussion too, it doesn't have to be one or the other" because we are absolutely not having that discussion. It is nowhere in the papers, it is the subject of no protests, it is being discussed by no city councils, hell even my attempts to discuss it here have been met with stony silence.

We have limits to the scope of public discourse. It really does matter what we choose to fill it with.

How do you propose to change consumer preferences in such a way that people will be willing to spend more on a product because they know the product is sourced more fairly?

There's a market for fairphones, but it's small. There's a market for fairtrade coffee but it's small. What actions, other than what companies are already doing and have dedicated PR departments for, should you and I be doing to get more people on board?

Also reminded me about this: https://www.instagram.com/p/CBKyYVzg0mQ/?igshid=kf2e6mf3o519

I think it's discraceful that the newspapers and socialist discussion groups are dominted by outcry over the deaths of a thousand blacks at the hands of their police when nearly a thousand times that amount of children (virtually all of whom are black) die from poverty in the same period due directly to our consumer choices — Isaac

Then why not articulate the two together? If these issues are as systemic as I think you would concede, then police violence functions as a metonym for wider issues which are not just supernumerary but integral to understanding both police violence and systemic cruelty. Police violence is a lever, a crowbar by which to open the door to issues which 'really matter'. You're right that this isn't being done in the main. Then do it and stop complaining about it. It's no good playing the agonized more-progressive-than-thou when frankly, many people simply don't care - not their fault; they're inured and politically incapacitated. You use what you get, and be smart about it.

Again: the murder rate tripled when the police were told not to respond except to direct requests by victims for several years after the same thing happened in Baltimore. USA Today did an article about it in 2018, and I was banned three times on Facebook for sharing this link:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/07/12/baltimore-police-not-noticing-crime-after-freddie-gray-wave-killings-followed/744741002/

it could be reasonably argued that your position is complicit with the hundreds of murders that will result, although it seems rather obvious no one wants to think about it, so Im not criticizing you for your view, Im just asking that you take a more balanced view and consider the huncreds of lives that will be lost as a consequence of this. I talked with unenlightened, and I have to agree with him, it is a matter of balance, and the problem it seems to me is that defunding the police is a very unbalanced response, in my opinion, because it will kill far more people than the police do.

If you in any way thought the looting was wrong, it was nothing compared to the number of people who will now die because of domestic violence and orgnaized crime, the latter of whom are extremely pleased with you.

I like congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, chairperson of the House Reform Committee, who proposed all police must wear bodycams at all times. They did it in Europe, and colleagues from Oxford tell me there was a marked reduction in complaints about the police afterwards.

How do you propose to change consumer preferences in such a way that people will be willing to spend more on a product because they know the product is sourced more fairly? — Benkei

Firstly, they're not even more expensive, just less cool. It's partly a matter of generating social norms which requires a change in the way people think about tokens of social identity. As usual, the mechanism for doing that is behavioural change and ostracisation, the more influencial in society you happen to be the better.

What actions, other than what companies are already doing and have dedicated PR departments for, should you and I be doing to get more people on board? — Benkei

Talking about it. Which, difficult though it is, involves not talking about issues which detract from it. And here I don't mean literally say nothing else, I mean simply to ensure the discourse is balanced in favour of those interventions which can have the most impact.

I mean, look at what you're already doing to highlight the injustices done to black communities in America by their brutal police forces. Did you have the same trouble working out what more you or I could do there?

Right, which is why the call to defund is nothing without the call to refund public services and public infrastructure, just as I said. Pulling out police cold turkey from an environment in which their presence has only encouraged and entenched community terror and dereliction is probably going to see just that kind of backlash and, to continue the drug metaphor, symptoms of withdrawls. Again, these issues are systemic - they don't begin and end with the police. Without wider change, tinker-toy incrementalism is very likely to make things worse, not better.

why not articulate the two together? — StreetlightX

Because apparently...

It's no good playing the agonized more-progressive-than-thou when frankly, many people simply don't care — StreetlightX

This is the central issue, and I know I'll get pilloried for putting it in such crude terms, I hope there's some degree of understanding that I'm not talking in absolute terms here, but... Supporting the protests against the police is cool. Talking about more ethical consumer choices is not cool. Your own characterisation of my attempts to do so demonstrates this as well as any. Shut down the boring guy talking about phone brands, we've got riot to flag-waive over.

I think using what we can get disenfranchises those who cannot get a space in the realm of public discourse. If we use what we can get, when is it going to be the turn of the 35,000 children working for less than 50 cents a day down mines to make mobile phones. Are we just to wait until they have a riot big enough to get in the papers? Will we only back them once they've shown themselves sufficiently camera-worthy to make the front page?

Do you remember a thing called the prohibition, and what happened as a result of that? Organized crime will go absolutely bananas with delight at your proposal. They will love having 'public services and public infrastructure' to terrorize and extort, lol, and there will be no one to stop them. No one at all. Congratulations, you turned the USA in the USSR.

Firstly, they're not even more expensive, just less cool. — Isaac

:chin:

The issue you're talking about is poverty, right? You bought a fairphone because it buys materials from non-conflict zones and uses manufacturers that pay their employees better. If not-buying from non-conflict zones or not having manufacturers that pay their employees well wouldn't cause prices to rise, everybody would be doing it. So your phone costs more than a similarly specced phone from a different brand would. The Google Pixel 3 is quite similar (slightly better) but is 60 euros cheaper.

Now, if I'm poor. That 60 EUR makes a large difference and I probably wouldn't be willing to part with 60 euros to give some abstract Chinese worker a bit more money. It's too much.

I have sincere doubts about the effectiveness of trying to shift consumer preferences as well and suspect there are better, policy driven, approaches to combat poverty. Once out of poverty people will have the time and luxury to worry about the climate impact of their purchases or the effective slavery that exists in those countries to which we've outsourced manufacturing of goods.

Defund is not disband. So you're beating down a straw man and you've been doing that a lot in this thread and other threads on racism. Your bad experiences notwithstanding doesn't excuse not reading what people have been writing.

If you think funding public libraries, education, transport and mental health interventions will turn a country into the USSR, then Gosh, the USSR sounds pretty awesome.

If you think funding public libraries, education, and transport will turn a country into the USSR, then Gosh, the USSR sounds pretty awesome. — StreetlightX

I think DISBANDING THE POLICE will turn the USA into USSR,

yes. Im sure the funding could be used for better things, but I am not such an idealist. I have to agree with Aristotle. The greatest problem with democracy is defending ourselves from ourselves.

Pogo: we have found the enemy and he is us.

It would be very nice to live in a romantic fantasy, but the reason romantic fantasies are so appealing is that they are impossible.

Let me get this straight: removing agents of state violence - i.e. the police - is somehow supposed to make the US into more of a ... police state? Like, are you even trying at this point?

Now, if I'm poor. That 60 EUR makes a large difference and I probably wouldn't be willing to part with 60 euros to give some abstract Chinese worker a bit more money. It's too much. — Benkei

Well there is your problem. If people are not willing to spend another 60 euro to avoid supporting the use of children as young as 6 years old down a mine then what's the point? We live in a democracy. If people are so unbelievably selfish that they think 60 euros is worth a kid being sent down a mine for then any policy aimed at reducing poverty will be undone or voted out the moment it yields a net loss of 60 euros or more.

If not-buying from non-conflict zones or not having manufacturers that pay their employees well wouldn't cause prices to rise, everybody would be doing it. — Benkei

You're missing the point of much of the cost of goods. A large part of Google's phone costs go on development and advertising. Google spend nearly 15% of their expenditure on product development and a similar amount on advertising. So your 60 euros is almost entirely the cost of making the phone look cool. And Fairphone are a social enterprise company, so they don't need to make 15% profit for their shareholders.

Similarly about 15% of the cost of a pair of Nike trainers is to cover the cost of paying some sports star to wear them, and then another 15% paying the executives shareholders etc. Another chunk (though I can't find the amount) goes adding new features that aren't even needed (again, just to make them seem more cool than the competition). Not paying all these extras frees up money to spend on paying workers properly.

The main reason Google phones are still cheaper is mostly economies of scale. It takes more people to commit to ethical choices to undermine that.

For a good example, take a look at Rapanui (I won't link in case it counts as advertising). They've manged to build up a social enterprise, renewable-energy powered garment supply chain with zero exploitation, all living wage employees and their t-shirts are cheaper than Nike.

Once out of poverty people will have the time and luxury to worry about the climate impact of their purchases or the effective slavery that exists in those countries to which we've outsourced manufacturing of goods. — Benkei

This is kind of offensive to people in poverty. I know you didn't mean to be. A few years ago I had the great privelidge to work with a local co-op in an area of my country so poverty stricken it was on the European Objective 1 zone. They were struggling to afford good food, so they set up a worker's co-op, met with local farmers and wholesalers, organised distribution, negotiated deals and ended up with a supply network of organic locally grown vegetables (and even a few wholesale items). The idea that poor people cannot help but support oppressive or environmentally damaging practices because they can't afford otherwise is really just a way of perpetuating them as a market for large corporations to profit from selling cheap crap to.

I've addressed this point multiple times in this thread. If you lack the literacy or the ability to understand those points, then I've nothing more to add. — StreetlightX

Ad homs are the multiple "points" you have made in this thread.

You're delusional if you think that you, or your side, is the only one with an open-mind. Casting insults does not endear others to your way of thinking.

If you want to have a conversation, then let's do so, but it seems that your emotional state prevents you from doing that.

If we use what we can get, when is it going to be the turn of the 35,000 children working for less than 50 cents a day down mines to make mobile phones. — Isaac

I'm not sure you read what I wrote, or are even in fact replying to me at all. I didn't try to shut you down talking about phone brands - I don't think I even participated in that conversation at all. On the other hand, I'm encouraging you to use this momentum to talk about the links between police violence and the kind of thing that gives rise to child labour. That's what 'articulate the two together' means. I don't understand why you feel to need to turn violence into a competition. I don't see why leftist whataboutism is any better than conservative whataboutisms.

More than that, though: the "resistance to race", as Street puts it, even if it's a luxury, is no less progressive for that. One can hardly advocate for a world in which a black writer is a "writer" and not a "black writer" by self-identifying as a "white writer"--and feeling faux-guilty about it. I think the focus on whiteness here is entirely regressive. — jamalrob

Can also serve as a reply to @Judaka.

There's one form of it which I agree is regressive; if we end up talking about white individuals and guilt rather than institutions and oppression, that's not good. Australian aborigines know the value of a sponsored apology; it's just symbolism... It is conceptually extremely stupid to see inherent racial differences, or to essentialise them. A life condition where race has been made to matter is itself a form of injustice against the truth of our common nature. A resistance to race in that context shows solidarity and affirms mutual class interest. But that class solidarity is premised upon acknowledging the reality of systemic discrimination; that what keeps the disenfranchised down disproportionately keeps the disenfranchised racial category down, but it keeps most of the privileged race category down too. Just happens to be whites that built empire.

If you wanna look at how class works in a colonial power - it's going to put the colonised "in their place", as it used to be put in Britain. That members of the colonial power's privileged racial category end up in the same place shows it's not just about race. So there's a discussion of class interest in that.

There's also the other left angle where we talk about how white supremacy and its fascist actors are consistent with the function of capital; even being efficient disciplinary mechanisms for it. And further how the rhetoric of white supremacy and fascism are extremely effective in shifting centrist politics. The legacy of colonialism in a capitalist economy puts everyone in the same economic pressure cooker, it also promotes racism within the pressure cooker. Systemic discrimination being what it is, it keeps the colonised more "in their place" than the privileged race over time.

I don't understand why you feel to need to turn violence into a competition. — StreetlightX

I thought I'd explained that, but I'll try again. There is limited space in public discourse. We cannot maintain outrage at every injustice. There's only one front page and it carries only one story. Celebrities only jump on one bandwagon at a time...

I get what you're saying about using this momentum to carry forward arguments about other issues of systemic rasicm, but such a principle is premised on the fact that this issue is being driven by the same concerns that would drive changes in consumer choices. I'm making the argument that the very history of public discourse around these issues is proof that they're not.

Systemic racism obtains when a system(s) function (regardless of explicit rules) to favour certain racial groups over others. It doesn't require overt individual racists (though it may protect and even reward them) nor does it necessarily require any conscious acts of racism at all (and obversely you could have conscious acts of racism in a system where no systemic racism exists, only rather than being performative of the system, they would be antithetical to it). Systems are culturally contextual, they're embedded in cultures and how they function depends on their relationship to the culture they're in. So, often it's what the system allows rather than what the system demands that's important. — Baden

I am perplexed by the point of unconscious engagement in ‘systemic racism.’ Many people do not publicly exhibit or privately express any recognizable features of racist behavior or racist beliefs and consider themselves non-racist, tolerant, and multicultural. They do not perform any conscious acts of racism. Yet, some of them are regularly involved in professional activities that could be qualified as maintaining systemic racism according to the above definition (cops, journalists, politicians, etc.) Therefore, individuals may exercise acts of systemic racism unbeknownst to themselves, or even contrary to their intentions, if alignments of power or culture subtly orient their actions. Consequently, despite their personal views and qualities, these people may be called racists or systemic racists. Please correct me if I misunderstood or misinterpreted the quote.

We cannot maintain outrage at every injustice. — Isaac

Isn't that what you're trying to do? What about this injustice? And that injustice? It's precisely because we 'cannot maintain outrage at every injustice' that one needs to work with momentum where one finds it.

And frankly, now that you mention it, I'm not convinced that I want - or anyone should want - 'changes in consumer choices'. Capitalism is driven by the need to offer ever more shades of alternatives, each of which does nothing but entrench the power of capital. Every capitalist wants a 'change in consumer choices' - towards their brand. You need changes at the level of political economy, not just choosing this or that ethical phone or whatever - although all power to you if you do that. And one of the ways you do that is by showing just how interconnected all these issues are.

No, systemic racism refers directly to systems not people. For example, being a prison officer in a systemically racist justice system doesn't make you a racist.

Isn't that what you're trying to do? What about this injustice? And that injustice? It's precisely because we 'cannot maintain outrage at every injustice' that one needs to work with momentum where one finds it. — StreetlightX

Possibly. The fact that the momentum is with issue A might be a reason to let it dominate discourse. I'm saying that it isn't a very good reason. We should choose the issue where the degree of progress we can expect will have most impact, that's not necessarily the one that currently has momentum.

In fact, I'd go as far as to say its almost certainly not going to be. The issue currently with momentum has had to get through a lot of filters, none of which have anything to do with the injustices it's opposing. It has to gain media time and media are influenced by big businesses. It has to be popular, and popularity is tightly controlled by big businesses.

I'm not saying the current waves of protest are fake, I'm saying they've been 'let through' the filters in place to control public discourse and we shouldn't take that as a means of deciding which injustice to work with.

I'm not convinced that I want - or anyone should want - 'changes in consumer choices'. — StreetlightX

Needless to say I disagree with this analysis, but it's probably off-topic here to debate the extent to which 'green' choices are simply another niche for capitalists to exploit. Broadly, I think they are, but I think we'd be dangerously unpragmatic to say that just because an organisation is profiting from the new niche for living-wage clothing, that hasn't made a massive difference to real lives of the workers now being paid twice what they were. It would take a special kind of inhumanity to put one's ideological objection to capitalist opportunism in the way of any method of getting children out of mines. Yes we can do so by legal action, but consumer action is quicker and, if it can be culturally integrated, more sustainable.

I'm not saying the current waves of protest are fake, I'm saying they've been 'let through' the filters in place to control public discourse and we shouldn't take that as a means of deciding which injustice to work with. — Isaac

I think this is much too cynical and much too naive. The media powers and their unwitting lackeys - sprinkled all over this thread - have gone into overdrive in trying to reframe these protests as 'looting', and 'going too far'; police brutality is on display on every street corner, and Trump has even tried to stomp all over posse comitatus and the 3rd amendment just to try and "dominate" these uprisings. These are not filters that have been 'let though': this is the total failure of filters at work, with the State going nuts to try and reinstate them. And that's to say nothing of the evidence of small wins - still too small by far - achieved by what's been going on.

Yes we can do so by legal action, but consumer action is quicker and, if it can be culturally integrated, more sustainable. — Isaac

Again, I'm a big tent person - let's get children out of mines and defund the police and refund public goods.

I think we've reached a point where we might just have to agree to disagree. I completely agree with what you say about the mainstream media, but I don't think that in any way proves there are no filters on what cannot be trashed. The media doesn't get together and plan in advance how it's going to suppress news of injustices. Some will trash it all, some will focus on one injustice to detract from a worse one. The existence of one tactic doesn't disprove the existence of the other.

Again, I'm a big tent person - let's get children out of mines and defund the police and refund public goods. — StreetlightX

And again, I think the evidence shows that we simply do not do both, the police will get defunded and the children will stay in the mines because there's virtually no social group pressure either way regarding the details of police funding, there's massive social group pressure to have the latest phone. Until we change that, the children will stay in the mines.

Fair enough. I'll be the Lenin to your Trotsky.

(1) You acknowledge the reality of global systemic racism.

Depends on the definition. If we say a given policy - even if not intended to be racist - can have consequences which disproportionately harm a minority group then sure. If we're talking about explicit racism then I don't think so. I'll agree that people tend to favor their in-group.

(2) You know that it's almost always white supremacist in nature,

This is a difficult discussion to have since it's extremely broad and we need to take into account social, political, and economic factors. You could have one without the other: For instance, in South Africa while whites are likely to be richer due to historical injustices today they will never attain political power as a disliked minority and they are subject to racial attacks at a fairly high rate. You also have strong affirmative action laws which systemically disfavor whites. In China a white man may be able to find a job, but I would doubt his ability to enter into positions of real power. Same with Japan. This topic is extremely complicated partially because I don't consider the world as having really even a unified system. I think it's more plausible to just to consider it a collection of countries each with its own unique culture and perspectives. To call India or China "white supremacist" seems silly to me.

Well there is your problem. If people are not willing to spend another 60 euro to avoid supporting the use of children as young as 6 years old down a mine then what's the point? We live in a democracy. If people are so unbelievably selfish that they think 60 euros is worth a kid being sent down a mine for then any policy aimed at reducing poverty will be undone or voted out the moment it yields a net loss of 60 euros or more. — Isaac

I'm not sure it's selfish. I doubt most people know about it and even then, the really poor can't afford either the Pixel 3 or the fairphone 3.

This is kind of offensive to people in poverty. I know you didn't mean to be. A few years ago I had the great privelidge to work with a local co-op in an area of my country so poverty stricken it was on the European Objective 1 zone. They were struggling to afford good food, so they set up a worker's co-op, met with local farmers and wholesalers, organised distribution, negotiated deals and ended up with a supply network of organic locally grown vegetables (and even a few wholesale items). The idea that poor people cannot help but support oppressive or environmentally damaging practices because they can't afford otherwise is really just a way of perpetuating them as a market for large corporations to profit from selling cheap crap to. — Isaac

Totally fair to call me out on that. At the same time what you're describing isn't the norm either.

From what I understand, the poor are so consumed with money problems that they actually don't have time to think about much else. Which is why they are often notoriously bad in making decision that will benefit them in the long run. This is why personal debt management by another person is so effective in helping them as it frees up time in their minds to think about other things.