Does Capitalism Help Or Hurt Minorities?

[Xerographica]

Anybody love enchiladas? I sure do. My grandma made the best enchiladas in the world. I told this to my friend and she became interested in the idea of making some. This past weekend she informed me that the Target near her house has an entire aisle dedicated to ingredients for Mexican food. I couldn't help but respond, "So you're saying that Target has an entire aisle just for Mexicans?"

Today I read this article by Paul Crider about the Pepsi ad controversy... Social Justice for Mortals. It was written in response to an article by David Deluca... Does social justice need capitalism? That article was written in response to an article by Samuel Hammond... Sorry, Pepsi Haters, But Social Justice Needs Capitalism.

Here's Deluca's description of Hammond's argument...

Hammond starts by telling the story of how Pepsi went from a relatively obscure beverage company to the 2nd-most popular in America. To make a long story short, the CEO Walter S. Mack Jr. noticed that nobody was advertising to black people; he saw this as an opportunity and hired a black ad guy to craft ads that “portrayed African-Americans as normal, middle-class consumers.” Hammond sees this inclusion of black people in mainstream consumer culture as an example of capitalism advancing diversity.

Hammond goes on to show that Pepsi isn’t the only company using “social justice as an intangible asset.” Coke, for example, sold more drinks in 2014 by playing “America the Beautiful” in seven languages in a SuperBowl commercial — using diversity to appeal to a wide audience. Subaru sold more Outbacks with a tagline that appealed vaguely to the untapped lesbian community: “It’s Not a Choice. It’s the Way We Were Built.” And more recently, Starbucks bolstered its brand value by pledging to employ 10,000 refugees within 5 years. All of these examples, Hammond says, show that capitalism can help to advance social justice.

Deluca then explained the problem with Hammond's argument. Basically, companies aren't genuinely concerned about minorities. Companies are only concerned with getting money from minorities. Here's how he concludes his article...

Social justice does not need capitalism. It merely needs power. It so happens in our society that capitalism has the greatest and the most irresistible power; therefore, it is singularly convenient when social justice and capitalist interests align. But they rarely do. So social justice movements must derive their power from another source: the unstoppable will of the free individual.

The unstoppable will of the free individual?

A while back a bakery refused to bake a cake for a lesbian couple. As a result, "The bakers were ordered to pay $135,000 for the mental and emotional damages they caused the lesbian couple."

The issue of discriminating against minority customers can be traced back to motels in the South refusing to serve African Americans...

when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; - Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail

in states where Negroes may expect to be turned away from all places reserved for whites, their position rather closely approximates that of the old English traveler: food, shelter, and protection are hard to come by. - Jack Greenberg

Congressional testimony included the fact that our people have become increasingly mobile, with millions of people of all races traveling from State to State; that Negroes in particular have been the subject of discrimination in transient accommodations, having to travel great distances to secure the same; that often they have been unable to obtain accommodations, and have had to call upon friends to put them up overnight… and that these conditions had become so acute as to require the listing of available lodging for Negroes in a special guidebook which was itself "dramatic testimony of the difficulties" Negroes encounter in travel… We shall not burden this opinion with further details, since the voluminous testimony presents overwhelming evidence that discrimination by hotels and motels impedes interstate travel. - Supreme Court, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.

Motel chains in the North were happy to serve African Americans, but they were prevented from opening motels in the South.

In the run-up to the 1964 Civil Rights Act the great impetus behind the passage of Title II was the widespread and conspicuous stories of motels and restaurants refusing to provide service to their black customers on equal terms with white customers, assuming that they were willing to provide for them at all. At this point, there is an evident breakdown in the operation of competitive markets, because it seems evident that some merchants—most notably national restaurant and hotel chains—that provided open service in the North were unable to do so in the South. The explanation in large measure rested on the combined threats of a segregationist establishment backed by private violence, which made entry of new businesses into the market to serve disfavored groups a near impossibility. The great achievement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to smash these official and private barriers to open services. Once released, competitive forces took over, and the short-term crisis came to an end. - Richard A. Epstein, The Problem With Antidiscrimination Laws

According to my micropayments thread... my thread on the laws against discrimination revealed that 60% of you believe that these laws are necessary. Before that thread was locked, the number had dropped down to 57%. The numbers themselves perhaps might not be so reliable (because of virtue signalling)... so it's more informative to see how they change over time.

Let's consider social justice in the context of this forum. Most of you are liberals... some of you are conservatives... a few of you are libertarians... even less of you are some type of socialist or anarchist. How many of you are pragmatarians? Am I the only one? In any case, virtually none of you share my beliefs. If we think of this forum as a grocery store, there's definitely no aisle for pragmatarians. If I want a product/thread that matches my interests... then my only choice is to create one. Voila!

In this context, what's the point of social justice? Does social justice mean that you will have some sort type of obligation to create threads that match my preferences? If not, then how, exactly, does, or can, social justice help me?

Obviously I can make my own threads... just like any moderately intelligent individual can bake their own cakes. But I'd much more prefer it if you took the time and made the effort to create threads that closely match my preferences. The fact that none of you have been willing to serve me for the past 5 years has caused me a considerable amount of mental and emotional damage...

[Ryock]

The top 1% is a minority...

[Major-Tom]

Capitalism is too broad. Markets, generally, help all people. But thats a very general analysis, one that can be seen just from knowledge of 19th and 20th century Western History.

Onto a less broad point, regulated markets in a capitalistic system generally work the best, but laissez faire capitalism and tax cuts for the rich, or perhaps cuts to public expenditure in certain areas can and have had a disproportionate effect on the poor and minorities.

[Galloism]

In this context, what's the point of social justice? Does social justice mean that you will have some sort type of obligation to create threads that match my preferences? If not, then how, exactly, does, or can, social justice help me?

It doesn't. Social justice doesn't involve "making threads that match someone's preferences". It involves "not denying people access to the threads based on them being a particular class, race, or gender".

IE, in the hotel example, they are required to rent rooms to all people regardless of their race, gender, etc, but not to have every type of conceivable room that matches every person's preferences. They aren't required to build rooms with heart shaped beds because some people prefer those. They just can't refuse to rent to a black guy (or a white guy - antidiscrimination affects all).

Obviously I can make my own threads... just like any moderately intelligent individual can bake their own cakes. But I'd much more prefer it if you took the time and made the effort to create threads that closely match my preferences. The fact that none of you have been willing to serve me for the past 5 years has caused me a considerable amount of mental and emotional damage...

Give me a few minutes to find the world's tiniest violin.

[Kubra]

Obviously I can make my own threads... just like any moderately intelligent individual can bake their own cakes. But I'd much more prefer it if you took the time and made the effort to create threads that closely match my preferences. The fact that none of you have been willing to serve me for the past 5 years has caused me a considerable amount of mental and emotional damage...

If only there were micropayments to give us an incentive to, right?

[Xerographica]

In this context, what's the point of social justice? Does social justice mean that you will have some sort type of obligation to create threads that match my preferences? If not, then how, exactly, does, or can, social justice help me?

It doesn't. Social justice doesn't involve "making threads that match someone's preferences". It involves "not denying people access to the threads based on them being a particular class, race, or gender".

I don't see the obligation for you to create threads that match my preferences. Just like I don't see the obligation for the bakery owner to create cakes that match my preferences.

[Xerographica]

Obviously I can make my own threads... just like any moderately intelligent individual can bake their own cakes. But I'd much more prefer it if you took the time and made the effort to create threads that closely match my preferences. The fact that none of you have been willing to serve me for the past 5 years has caused me a considerable amount of mental and emotional damage...

If only there were micropayments to give us an incentive to, right?

Well yeah. Incentives matter. Most of the people who serve us don't do so for free.

[Manduraqo]

Really depends on the situation, since capitalism is run by privately owned businesses, meaning anyone can express beliefs in advertising.

[Galloism]

It doesn't. Social justice doesn't involve "making threads that match someone's preferences". It involves "not denying people access to the threads based on them being a particular class, race, or gender".

I don't see the obligation for you to create threads that match my preferences.

Good, so can I put the tiny violin away?

Just like I don't see the obligation for the bakery owner to create cakes that match my preferences.

Good, I don't either. I only insist they sell cakes they have to people regardless of that person's race, class, gender, or sexual orientation.

[Xerographica]

Just like I don't see the obligation for the bakery owner to create cakes that match my preferences.

Good, I don't either. I only insist they sell cakes they have to people regardless of that person's race, class, gender, or sexual orientation.

If you force the bakery owner to make cakes for me, how's that any different than somebody forcing you to make threads for me?

[Galloism]

Good, I don't either. I only insist they sell cakes they have to people regardless of that person's race, class, gender, or sexual orientation.

If you force the bakery owner to make cakes for me, how's that any different than somebody forcing you to make threads for me?

Because of the nature of it. You're not asking for something they don't make - you're asking for something they DO make and have for sale. (Also, anti-discrimination laws only apply to for-profit business who receive, in exchange, the protection of the state in numerous ways)

For instance, if this forum prohibited access to black people, since it's a monetized forum, it might be in violation of the law. It has a product and is not selling that product based on inborn inherent characteristic of the consumer. This might violate the law.

However, if it restricted thread creation to the threads on federalized political systems only, that would be totally kosher, if slightly limiting.

See the difference?

[Internationalist Bastard]

I mean any system can do either, capitalism aint special

[Xerographica]

See the difference?

I don't see the obligation to serve even a single person. You're not obligated to make or sell cakes to anyone. But if you do decide to make and sell cakes to guys, then you somehow have an obligation to also make and sell cakes to gals. Deciding to serve guys somehow obligates you to also serve gals. Yet, you have absolutely no obligation to serve anyone.

Serve nobody or everybody?

Help nobody or everybody?

Why, exactly, does helping a little obligate you to help a lot?

[Noraika]

As a Socialist and Social Justice person...

...capitalism neither hurts or harms any particular group by its nature. The economic system itself is not the source of the social topics which are often discussed in Social Justice, in the specific regards to minorities, but it's the human element within capitalism. The biases, prejudices, and discriminatory actions that human beings commit which then brings about the drive for anti-discriminatory regulation. It can possibly reinforce in a cyclical manner the circumstances minorities find themselves in, but these are, in source, still from the human function within capitalism.

So the answer is...neither...but sometimes other humans can sure cause a lot of problems for minorities.

[Galloism]

See the difference?

I don't see the obligation to serve even a single person. You're not obligated to make or sell cakes to anyone. But if you do decide to make and sell cakes to guys, then you somehow have an obligation to also make and sell cakes to gals. Deciding to serve guys somehow obligates you to also serve gals. Yet, you have absolutely no obligation to serve anyone.

Serve nobody or everybody?

Help nobody or everybody?

Why, exactly, does helping a little obligate you to help a lot?

Basically because it was bad when we didn't, and caused all kinds of problems for the government and for citizens, so we decided not to allow that, in the interests of the common good.

[Noraika]

Basically because it was bad when we didn't, and caused all kinds of problems for the government and for citizens, so we decided not to allow that, in the interests of the common good.

Not to mention the damage and problems it can easily cause to people, and to their day-to-day lives, and the community at-large.

[Soyouso]

Essentially, to me, true social justice is being able to be treated by the content of your character and how you treat people, not race, not sex, not gender identity, and what ever else humans judge one another for nowadays. Meaning they should not be glorified or harassed. No special treatment, just respect like you would any other person.

That being said, my political ideals fall under far authoritarian on the libertarian-authoritarian scale, but I don't see a reason for people to not be allowed to have businesses. I do not consider myself a capitalist, because my ideal economic system is more along the lines of mixed economy. But I don't hate it. What I do dislike is laissez faire capitalism, because I believe there should be regulations for safety, and that it isn't bad for the state to own some industry and the people to own some.

All of the people, no matter if they are minorities or not, should have the chance to better their life. Them being a minority or a majority should not matter. The workers are humans, no more no less, and they deserve their hard work to pay off, instead of ending up like the working class of the Industrial Revolution. The goal is to make it possible for people to improve their lives, yes?

The idea is opportunity and choice, but not hand outs. Welfare support should only be for those who need it to survive, not to be abused by lazy people who just don't want to work. We should all do our part to keep our nation well kept!

And on the motel thing, if people see a business denying minorities their service, then they should boycott them. It's like voting with your money.

[Xerographica]

I don't see the obligation to serve even a single person. You're not obligated to make or sell cakes to anyone. But if you do decide to make and sell cakes to guys, then you somehow have an obligation to also make and sell cakes to gals. Deciding to serve guys somehow obligates you to also serve gals. Yet, you have absolutely no obligation to serve anyone.

Serve nobody or everybody?

Help nobody or everybody?

Why, exactly, does helping a little obligate you to help a lot?

Basically because it was bad when we didn't, and caused all kinds of problems for the government and for citizens, so we decided not to allow that, in the interests of the common good.

Might want to (re)read the OP. The badness of motels in the South not wanting to serve African Americans had nothing to do with capitalism in general and everything to do with restrictions on capitalism. It's really wasn't capitalism's fault that the system prevented new motels from being opened.

[Galloism]

Might want to (re)read the OP. The badness of motels in the South not wanting to serve African Americans had nothing to do with capitalism in general and everything to do with restrictions on capitalism. It's really wasn't capitalism's fault that the system prevented new motels from being opened.

Motels were only part of the problem, you know.

One of the oldtimers around here used to run the grocery store. All the local banks would refuse to lend without a clause that they would not allow black people in their establishments. Since it's basically impossible to open such an establishment without credit, you could not open a store without agreeing to the bank's terms.

Suppliers of groceries had such agreements as well - it's very likely that if you were nondiscriminatory, you would find yourself a grocery store without groceries to sell.

There were discriminatory laws as well, and this is true, but much of the discrimination was purely capitalist in nature.


That old timer used to say that the civil rights act was the best thing that ever happened - he could finally sleep like normal people instead of running groceries to black people in the dead of night.

[Neo Balka]

Probably helps more then hurt in the long run.

[The New Sea Territory]

Capitalism poses an existential threat to movements advancing the liberation of LGBT+ people.

As these movements are being recuperated into mainstream liberal, capitalist narratives, their focus on actually-existing LGBT+ people is replaced with spectacles like rainbow Doritos or corporate-sponsored, non-confrontational pride marches. It is now a "countercultural" political statement to be a consumerist, by shopping at Target in "support" of transpeople. This is a dangerous trend, and although capitalism has not fully co-opted LGBT rights, it moves in that direction.

[Neo Balka]

Capitalism poses an existential threat to movements advancing the liberation of LGBT+ people.

As these movements are being recuperated into mainstream liberal, capitalist narratives, their focus on actually-existing LGBT+ people is replaced with spectacles like rainbow Doritos or corporate-sponsored, non-confrontational pride marches. It is now a "countercultural" political statement to be a consumerist, by shopping at Target in "support" of transpeople. This is a dangerous trend, and although capitalism has not fully co-opted LGBT rights, it moves in that direction.

Mfw.

[The Liberated Territories]

Capitalism allows minorities to progress whereas in pre-capitalist society they could not. Today, a minority person like say, Obama, could make more than five figures in his salary and enjoy things that relatively privileged white people from even the 1920s could only dream of having. Not so much in other systems.

[Pope Joan]

There have been many successful entrepreneurs and businesspeople in the African American community. More so in Chinese and Korean communities.
But they can face difficulties which non minority capitalists do not have to face; anti discrimination laws are important. They don't solve everything but they can help make opportunities available on a more equitable basis.

[Uan aa Boa]

Might want to (re)read the OP. The badness of motels in the South not wanting to serve African Americans had nothing to do with capitalism in general and everything to do with restrictions on capitalism. It's really wasn't capitalism's fault that the system prevented new motels from being opened.

You're looking at this based on the assumption that the minorities are the (potential) customers, but the people who tend to be harmed by capitalism are the workers. Look at figures on the percentage of senior managers who fall into what UK law calls a protected category and then at the comparable figures for people who are in the undesirable jobs or excluded from the workforce altogether. Look also at the way our capitalist economies allocate resources across various groups. Which groups predominate in the expensive housing and which in the projects and sink estates? It then becomes pretty clear that minorities are not doing well under capitalism, and this is not a separate question because the black motel guest needs the money, transport and leisure time to stay in the motel just as much as the legal right to do so.