race, colonialism, and Marxism

 As jd ripper has explained the postcolonial is on the street and in the second decade of the twenty-first century this has strongly influenced policy making by liberals and progressives as politicians. It is clear that words written on the street and walls, pavement and concrete, have coincided with protests about the lives which live under the iterations (to borrow a term from intellectual Homi K Bhabha) of colonialism; such as slavery, racism, discrimination, and welfare state conditions.  The part of the West that appears to be most closely correlative to the conditions of the so-called third world, are found in inner-city urban areas.  Even when notions are set into action by white liberals what results is things like gentrification and systemically racist infrastructures that promote dependence and not freedom, much less justice. Gurminder K Bhambra and John Holmwood say “European colonialism is integral to the development of welfare states and their forms of inclusion and exclusion which remain racialised through into the twenty-first century”   Though organizing people of color around Marxist values, there is no evidence that Marxism’s categories characterize best the provisions people of color have been treated under.  Bhambra and Holmwood conclude “‘Solidarities of class’ are not the antidote to racialised responses, but are themselves bound up in them. There is no automatic association of ‘class’ (or market) with the dissolution of racialised inequalities”  This is a point worth keeping well in mind when conceiving of structures and language to designate racial problems.  As said before by jd ripper, Eurocentric ideas do not always fit postcolonial solutions.