I'll answer this then I'm going to try to sleep and will address the rest of your comments tomorrow. The "Marxist" definition of racism is the definition of racism that's being used to justify the implementation of socialism (Karl Marx is the father of modern socialism, hence the name). An overview of it is covered under
Colloquial Definition Two: “Racism = Prejudice + Power” on
this site. As far as I know it was created by a group of sociologists who supported Marx for the sole purpose of pushing socialism on countries. If you have some time read the Communist Manifesto, which outlines a generic model on how to subvert a system and implement socialism as a way of Government. If you're familiar with the way things have been going recently in the USA you can see some clear links between what's been happening and the methods in the manifesto. Once you realize why the Marxist definition was created and how it's being used you'll understand why people that don't support socialism dislike it.
But who? who in the democratic leadership has supported anything of this nonsense? and how have they done so? When did they do it? You assert this is the goal of the liberals but can't identify the specific leadership members pushing this? And you expect us to just believe you?
Who, what, when, why, how?
@cots Anything substantive? Or is this one of your 'feelings' again that you validated by going to more conspiracy sites to confirm a bias?
This linked article also appears to me to be a botched understanding of institutionalized (systemic) racism, or if I'm being generous, an analysis of what it can be interpreted as what is observed when claims of institutional racism are used by bad actors to push an agenda. My position on those who distort was already discussed on one of my first few posts on this thread so I'll just quote myself.
There are people who argue that whites cannot be victims of institutional racism in America. There is merit to the argument and is not illogical when given the importance of generational wealth.
However, white people can be victims of individual racism. Anyone who thinks or says otherwise is dishonest or a fool.
If you find anyone on either side that distort and/or conflate the two they are likely doing so for a specific purpose to push a narrative if they aren't just flat out ignorant of the difference. Given how you listed definitions of both, yet persisted in the assertions which conflated the two to suit your narrative against socialism, that narrative is rooted in a falsehood. You are one of those people by your own assertions listed above. You,
@cots, are just as guilty of this as the liberals you hate.
Now, lets actually examine Marxist racism from something more substantive than a shit web article shall we.
To just explain why i call it a shit article - it is essentially a blog that lists no sources in how he derives his conclusions. Furthermore while he is actually talking about two different types of racism he isn't understanding that they are specifically two different types and have specific names. Now other people conflate the two and that is a problem. But he's just as much as complicit because he isn't providing the clarity when he presents this information to his readers. Let's look at one of the comments from his readers to highlight this further:
----
"So many arguments on the topic boil down to semantic confusion: people not realizing they’re using the same word to talk about two distinct things as if they’re the same thing. They both identify distinct things that exist, so it’s not a matter of one definition being right or real and the other wrong or fake; that’s a false dilemma. The structural group power dynamic exists, but so does individual bias regardless of that dynamic.
Thus, when someone operating with R(1) hears, “Reverse racism isn’t a thing” or “Black people can’t be racist”, they may misinterpret that to mean, “Blacks are incapable of racial bias,” which is absurd,
rather than what was meant in the R(2) sense, “People of color have hardships imposed on them due to skin color in a pervasive, systemic way that white people are exempt from by default.”
One sees the forest; the other only sees the trees — each because that’s how they primarily experience it in their own lives."
----
The R(1) is racism (individual racism) and R(2) is supposed to be an explanation of institutional (systemic) racism. This comment I quoted above essentially nails what I've been saying all along! Conflation of the two by not keeping them separate breeds confusion and some people, like
@cots, use that conflation to assert absurdities.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/800145?seq=1
CAN MARXISM EXPLAIN AMERICA's RACISM
1980
This isn't the full journal article but it is a sufficient preview to gain enough context of what Marxism racism is rooted in when people attempt to refer or define it:
-------
"The Marxist interpretation of the black experience in America has always had difficulty explaining various non-economic aspects of racism and the presence of racism within the working class. With the development of post-World War II capitalism, Marxism seems unable to concede and intellectually incorporate an economics of uselessness in which large numbers of blacks are permanently unemployed. Many blacks who are also highly critical of capitalism have come to reject a class analysis which blames capitalists for the racism within the white working class. Yet, by understanding more fully the labor process within capitalism, it is possible to incorporate an explanation of working-class racism within another type of class analysis"
Marx's central contention is that social relations flow out of the economic forms of production (i.e. how people relate to one another is a function of how material goods are produced.)
The United States - to restate a Marxist line of argument familiar but crucial - is a capitalist society because labor prevails as a market commodity subject to the vicissitudes of property interest bent upon the extraction of surplus value from human labor.
Such treatment of labor is a form of economic exploitation because any value in excess of production costs accrues to business owners rather than to the workers. Upon this fundamental economic principle, a specific form of class system emerges with divergent and incompatible economic imperatives: the upper (or ruling capitalist) class focuses upon production to extract profits from labor; the working (or proletariat) class necessarily copes with working conditions and the scale of pay in the form of wages.
Capitalism is responsible, various types of Marxist scholars generally maintain, for the fate of black people in this country. "Racism," writes Perlo, "is a specific product of capitalism and a universal feature of capitalism. According to Aptheker, racism ".... is a distinctly modern phenomenon and comes into being as capitalism develops and moves toward the subjugation and colonization of the darker peoples of the world". Capitalists need racial inferiority to cheapen the cost of labor. "White employers,"
Nearing asserted
in 1929, "are taking advantage of the Negroes - using them to force down wages, to break strikes". Racism emerged and flourishes for capitalists, themselves white in color, because of its economic utility. Blacks receive wages lower than white workers to enhance profit making for capitalists. The differential pay scale along racial lines means white employees cannot demand wages much in excess of the prevailing rate capitalists establish for black laborers. By this racial tactic all laboring people suffer from suppressed wages; capitalists gain since lower wages reduce production costs, and, consequently, expand surplus value. White workers can be readily intimidated by their employers should they resort to strikes in an effort to force concessions from capitalists because black workers can be recruited to replace the striking white employee. In short, racism is primarily an effective strategy for capitalists to restrain economic demands from a recalcitrant labor force. As Reich succinctly states the case:
"Wages of white labor are lessened by racism because the fact of a cheaper and underemployed Black labor supply in the area is invoked by employers when labor presents its wage demands. Racial antagonisms on the shop floor deflect attention from labor grievances related to working conditions."
-------
I conveniently retyped this whole excerpt so that if anyone desires to quote from it to discuss further they have the ability to do so.
My understanding of Marxism racism
is a specific subset of institutional racism that focuses on the labor power and economic standing of one race over another in a given location. It is important that we all agree on this definition or explanation as this will allow further discussion. I have seen people in democratic leadership discuss the conflicts in our nation regarding racism and institutional racism.
TLDR:
But I've never seen any leadership on either political spectrum use what I bolded above (Marxism Racism) to push to replace our democratic republic with Socialism. I've repeatedly requested the OP
@cots to present evidence of such as he asserted this is true but he has been unwilling to provide anything of substance.
This is likely due to his lazy or deceptive nature of not properly sourcing his assertions when entering discourse with others as he has habitually refused to do so during the past few weeks of interaction on this forum.
.
