Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PaxNova t1_j3m773q wrote

Reply to comment by VersaceEauFraiche in Violence and force: “Camus and Sartre are paradoxically inseparable because they are opposites in this most central and binding debate on racism and all kinds of social oppression.” by IAI_Admin

I think I'm uninformed here. Is there a reason why she wouldn't speak at something sponsored by Shell, or a reason why BLM is incompatible with Fortune 500 companies?

9

VersaceEauFraiche t1_j3m91tw wrote

That's true, they are not incompatible. They are incompatible only when viewed through a certain ideological lense (yet one that many have due to erroneous education), one that casts corporations as upholding something akin to a new Jim Crow. That is the crux of this issue: the dominant ideology of the regime is one of anti-racism. That is why Shell supports NHJ, because they support anti-racism.

Conversations like these (not between you and I, but in general around this topic) usually have this song-and-dance. There is an assertion that The Powers That Be are racist, oppressive, etc, and when someone provides evidence contrary to this the retort is usually "well they're good then, what do you have against these corporate practices?". This rhetorical bait-and-switch is a sort of inverse celebration parallax.

−4

alehartl t1_j3ms1k5 wrote

I think this is an overly generous interpretation to corporations. I think rather than saying that Shell is anti-racist it’s more accurate to say that Shell has calculated that it is more profitable for them to project the image of anti-racism. However, their drilling and disposal activities perpetuate what people call environmental racism. This is not to say that Shell as a corporation makes the conscious decision based on an ideology of racism to do what they do. It is to say that, as a corporation, Shell will always act in self-interest with an eye toward profit. Sometimes that will result in supporting anti-racist measures, such as sponsoring NHJ’s speech, and sometimes it won’t (see the linked article). I would agree that the dominant ideology is not one of racism, however it is one of pursuing profit regardless of its impact on others.

26

VersaceEauFraiche t1_j3mzriz wrote

I agree with the assessment that corporations, all things equal, will pursue profit above all else. My statement about corporations is said in response to the ideological ecosystem (and wide spread belief/assumption) that asserts that our institutions are racist. I mentioned in a comment in this same thread about how our reality is far more heterogenous than how it is presented to us in news, social media, which is captured in your examples.

2

xFblthpx t1_j3n3vud wrote

It’s a pretty big assumption that corporations are always acting perfectly efficient at acquiring wealth. Corporations act on behest of moral values significantly more than you’d think. Look at Elon musk, his shitty moral projecting is costing him and his businesses immensely. He is clear evidence that corporations will forgo profits and optics for moral projection.

−2

Jaimzell t1_j3q0gnr wrote

Maybe I’m uninformed, but Elon’s recent nonsense hasn’t really been him acting as a corporation has it? Its mainly been a personal thing.

I doubt Tesla or SpaceX as a corporation would support his recent business decisions.

3

theverybestintown t1_j3md50j wrote

That's an interesting observation. Even if there is some insincerity with the corporations that be, calling them racist may be misleading. There are in some ways anti-racist.

5

VersaceEauFraiche t1_j3mef3b wrote

Yes, happens is that people more often than not speak past each other in referencing different topics/aspects of society in relation to racism/oppression. As much as we would like it to not be (as it would bring mental and ideological comfort) the reality that we collectively experience is heterogenous, striated, and uneven. Cops in rural Alabama aren't the same as cops in San Francisco aren't the same as cops in Washington DC. The Fortune 500 of today aren't like the corporations of 100 years. We truncate our own agency and understanding when we delegate our thoughts to an ideology.

4

subtect t1_j3ndoyz wrote

Consistently, across multiple comments, this guy's main point is "shit's complicated yo, some nuance is warranted, even in the case of corporate decision making"... no personal attacks, no whataboutism, etc. Regardless, he's getting downvoted like an unwelcome troll. In a philosophy sub. Fuck.

1

VersaceEauFraiche t1_j3nef9l wrote

Hahah I appreciate the remarks. I don't mind being downvoted, but I do wish they allowed only upvotes. That way if someone disagreed with a post they would be compelled to write out why they disagree instead of clicking merely one button. It would be a good way of fostering the discussion.

2

Fraidy_K t1_j3mvutw wrote

I think the notion of capitalist entities supporting an organization founded by people with open marxist beliefs is what’s being examined here, instead of any racial components.

5