2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: King: The idea of an African-American firewall for Hillary Clinton is deeply insulting [View all]MellowDem
(5,018 posts)that the entire system has to be examined critically and understood before there can be any change, then I'm right there with you, and just as cynical. I just think Sanders does the most to change the focus. I don't think he's a savior, I do think he is the one candidate being most honest about pointing out the flaws in our democracy.
I don't think white supremacy is the basis for the entire system, if it was, then it would be easier to tear down as an idea. The system is built on a much more robust and hard to grapple with idea, older than the idea of race, and it's in countries with almost no white people as well, it's a global issue.
It's the idea that we have free will and as such, our problems are our own. That's the very basic idea, and it has been buttressed with all sorts of new inventions, especially ideas of free market capitalism here in the US. It's that word "free" again, used as a battering ram against equality of opportunity. It's used to justify all sorts of inequality, past and present.
Because of our freedom, we deserve what we get, when we break a law, it was our choice and we deserve to be punished, etc. etc. Why is universal healthcare bad? It takes away my choices. My freedom. It's this illusion of freedom and of choice that is so ingrained. Black people are disproportionally poor? It's their choice, it's their fault.
Not everyone believes this, there are people who, at least for some aspects of life, are determinists, that is, thinking that no one can truly "choose" anything, and therefore doesn't "deserve" anything, but rather that everyone is where they are because of events outside of their control, and if we want to make our world better, we have to keep this in mind.
With free will, to make the world better, it's all about holding people accountable for their free will, for their choices. Their responsibility. But it isn't necessary to hold individuals accountable for their "choices" to make the world better, and it's always wrong anyways, all we do is hold people accountable for circumstances beyond their control, and all that does is allow those circumstances to dictate how our societies are ordered, and that leads to a lot of inequality and injustice. It makes it easy to rationalize any and every inequality, and gives birth to quite a lot of bigotry and prejudice. In fact, it requires the invention of things like racism to keep the illusion going.
For determinists, it's about examining what set of circumstances leads to negative outcomes, and then trying to change the source of those circumstances so that it stops. It's no big deal for a determinist to have universal healthcare, he doesn't fret over whether some "moocher" is taking away money he "deserves" because of his morally superior choices.
Lots of people pick and choose when they believe free will applies as opposed to determinism, and some of it is quite self-serving indeed (the conservative woman who votes against abortion rights and then gets one herself, etc.).
TLDR: I think certain concepts of free will seem to be the basis of a system that supports inequality, it's an attractive idea accepted across lots of cultures that is hard to break down because it bills itself as fair by pretending individuals are accountable for circumstances beyond their control. Many people feel like they can make choices, and therefore this system makes sense, and is easily exploitable for making an unjust system. I think Sanderrs points that out the most.