Discrimination, racism and anti-discrimination work

by Arian Schiffer-Nasserie

Immigrants, foreigners, people with immigrant backgrounds – they have arrived. At least in the bottom layers of the German social hierarchy, where they are disproportionately represented. They have also become the addressees of social services and pedagogical professionals. On the one hand, the latter have always demanded that their clients cope with dignity and decency in “precarious living conditions,” which is desired; on the other hand, they demand more efforts in view of the undesireable aspects of their poor life management skills. From early childhod help programs to job interview training, debt counselling to probation assistance and programs for the elderly, the addressees of the social and pedagogical professions have become – euphemistically termed – “more diverse and colorful.” 

At the same time, racist attitudes towards “foreigners” in Germany, as reported in surveys, are  remarkable. Thus more than 37% of all respondents in Germany agree with the statement “Sometimes I feel like a stranger in my own country because of all the immigrants here”; 40% think that “immigrants are a burden on our social system” and just over 42% think “when jobs are scarce” – and that is somehow almost always the case in the free market economy – “Germans should have more of a right to a job.” (Zick, Kupper, Hovermann 2011:62f) Half of all respondents, exactly 50%, went on record in the representative study entitled “The devaluation of the other” to say, long before PEGIDA: “There are too many immigrants in Germany.”

Both aspects, the material situation of' “people from immigrant backgrounds,” on the one hand, and parts of the majority population’s racist attitudes toward them, on the other, are often taken into account together under the keyword “discrimination.” As a result, anti-discrimination work is on the agenda – and not just since yesterday. In schools. In welfare offices. In government agencies, businesses, and the university. Anti-discrimination work is booming. So more and more the question arises: why isn’t this highly respectable “fight against discrimination” ever really won?

The following article tries to answer this question by explaining what discrimination is, how modern racism against “foreigners” really works, and the “mistakes” of anti-discrimination work. Anyone who expects the unquestionably good “fight against racism and discrimination” to be confirmed or at least a spiritual remuneration for a less than successful task will look here in vain.

1. Discrimination

Immigrants more frequently work in the badly paid and particularly stressful industries, are considerably more often unemployed than the national average, are poorer, live in more cramped quarters in socially and environmentally deprived neighborhoods, pay comparatively higher rents there, are more seriously ill, and have a higher child mortality rate; they are underrepresented in the universities and overrepresented in the worst school systems. In this sense, large parts of “people from immigrant backgrounds” are the material losers of the German system of competition.

To the extent that the disadvantaged are not themselves held directly responsible for their own damage, it has become increasingly common to perceive the described situation as a manifestation of discrimination. Whether and to what extent this is true will be argued in the form of a thought experiment with examples.

So the question is: are the following examples of discrimination?

(1) A is a German citizen with a dark skin who, as a long-time employee, is laid off from a Bochum plant 

(2) A Jordanian family has lived in Berlin for 20 years. The B family receives an eviction notice from the landlord because they can no longer pay the increased rent.

(3) An 80-year-old black Düsseldorf woman moved from Angola to the state capital over 50 years ago. In a shop in the city center, C is not allowed to shop. 

(4) Despite considerable efforts, the 17-year-old Serbian D must leave the Alice Salomon Vocational College in Bochum without a diploma.

(5) Despite her excellent qualifications, the Bosnian Muslim E applied in vain for the position of director of a church institution in Hagen.  

Certainly – these are all cases in which the circumstances had serious negative consequences for the persons affected. And in many cases, a connection to various social problems can be seen. It is also certain that although the cases are fictititous, they do address problems that many people have to struggle with time and again in a multicultural context. 

But are they also cases of discrimination? It is not at all possible to answer this question. It all depends on the reasons for which the concerned parties were wronged.

The following questions arise in relation to the above cases: 

Case 1: Was the Bochum employee really laid off because of his skin color or was he laid off along with his younger white co-workers “only” because of a wave of rationalizations “for operational reasons”?

Case 2: Is the Jordanian family being deliberately forced out of the apartment with above-average increases in rent prices because of the occupancy policy of the new investor, or is the action for eviction “only” filed because the B family was unable to keep up with the general price increase?

Case 3: Is the old Düsseldorf woman really not allowed to shop because of her skin color or does C not get the goods she wants “only” because she is not in a position to pay for them? 

Case 4: Is the Serbian student expelled from school because of her ethnic origin or does D have to leave school “only” because her grades are too bad for admission to an examination or “only” because she and her family, as citizens of a safe third country, are to be deported after her asylum application has been rejected?

Case 5: Is Mrs. E from Bosnia refused employment by the church because she is Bosnian or “only” because, as a Muslim woman, she does not meet the confessional selection criteria of the church employer as granted by the Basic Law through the “church clause”? 

In order to decide whether the negative consequences are discriminatory towards those affected, the grounds on which a person is harmed are therefore always decisive. Ultimately, the reasons may not matter to the victims. For them, the first thing that matters is the practical consequences for their lives: they lose their source of income or their home, they are set back in finding a job or housing, their efforts to get an education remain unsuccessful, and they are more or less excluded from the abundant supply of goods. The practical consequences of being disadvantaged are not easier to bear because the damage was “not meant personally” but came about through recognized or at least lawful and, to that extent, “completely normal” reasons in capitalism. 

In order to answer the question raised at the beginning, whether the fictitious cases constitute discrimination, the reasons for the injury are of decisive importance. The central question is therefore: Has a person been the victim of improper discrimination or can the damage that has undoubtedly been suffered be traced back to recognised, legitimate grounds? This allows an initial conclusion to be drawn about the concept of discrimination. 

Improper discrimination – legitimate damage

In contrast to the literal, pre-bourgeois meaning of the word (discriminare latin= to distinguish), the word discrimination in the context sketched above does not mean value-free distinctions. It also does not simply mean harm or obstacle. Rather it depends – as seen – on the reasons for the damage. Discrimination is thus defined as all those damages in which a disadvantage (or preferential treatment) is attributable to distinguishing criteria which are not lawful or recognised, and thus “improper” or “arbitrary.” 

This raises the question of the standards of the assessment: What are the reasons for a valid claim that a damage to another person may be appropriate or justified – or at least legally permissable? Let us take another look at the five case studies. 

Case 1:

In the case of A from Bochum, it is clear that his being laid off can only be regarded as “objectively” justified when it is in the business interest of the company for operational reasons, i.e. if it is expedient and if certain criteria of the so-called social selection are taken into account at the time of dismissal. It is discriminatory, however, if the employer’s private dislike of black people, which is counterproductive for business, is decisive for A's dismissal. Because discrimination on the basis of skin color or race is irrelevant for the business interest and therefore not permitted by law. 

Case 2

In the case of the B family from Berlin, the rule is that landlords may decide within certain limits according to age, origin, religion, etc. in the interest of their occupancy policy and the rental concept of their properties. Rent increases are also permitted. Evictions on the grounds of a lack of ability to pay are often the result. They are lawful, so when necessary they are violently enforced by the police against the defaulting renter.

The damage is therefore justified if it is expedient and to that extent “objectively” justified by the landlored’s interest in increasing the value of their real estate. It is discriminatory, however, if the investor raises the rent of the B family more than that of their neighbors because he inappropriately might want to assert his personal resentment against Muslims by means of the power of his property. 

Case 3

If the 80 year old C can’t satisfy her wishes despite the full shelves, she has certainly suffered a damage. And in comparison to those customers who are allowed to leave the shop with the coveted goods, she also suffers a detriment. However, the disadvantage must count as justified insofar as she is not in a position to afford the prices demanded by the retailers, e.g. because her pension is not sufficient. Disadvantaging of people by the business world is therefore justified because of their lack of an ability to pay. (It is even the materially all-decisive disadvantage in the developed market economy). However, if the same Düsseldorf woman is excluded from purchasing goods, despite having sufficient means of payment in her purse, because the seller suspects, on the basis of her age or skin color, that she doesn’t have enough money to be a buyer of the expensive goods, this is a clear case of improper age or racial discrimination by the retailer. 

Case 4 

Certainly, there is no unjustified damage if the 17-year-old D is excluded from higher education because her comparatively poor performance in school. Selection on the basis of grades is the purpose in school: The enforced comparison between schoolchildren’s motivation to perform and ability to perform under time pressure is the valid selection criterion in the state-organized competition for grades, educational qualifications, and life chances in the capitalist labor market. (For the critique of “Education in Capitalism” see Huisken 1998) 

Similarly, there is no discrimination if people are not allowed to compete for schools, jobs, housing, etc. because they are foreigners. Exclusion on the basis of national citizenship is rather the rule. And the legislature only makes exceptions to this rule when it is in its economic, political, cultural or military interest as a capitalist nation state. Equal rights according to the principle of equality do not apply to foreigners, even when they have a permanent residence permit as useful immigrants. People who come here because of the precarious circumstances in their countries of origin, but who do not promise any particular benefit, face corresponding hostility or are turned away, and as a rule are denied the right to cross the border or a residence permit. The distinction between natives and foreigners, the selection of immigration applicants according to considerations of national benefit, and the violent deportation of “illegals” are required by the law and, in this sense, “objectively” justified. It is discrimination, on the other hand, if the same 17-year-old D from Serbia, despite her legal residence permit and despite her successful competition for grades, is not be able to complete her education at the school because she is Roma. 

Case 5 

The exclusion of Ms. E as an applicant for a job in a church trusteeship on the basis of her faith is not discrimination within the meaning of the law. Because the right faith, the commitment to, membership in, and financing of the corresponding church are expressly recognized by the law, is proper and in this respect “objective” reasons for the selection or exclusion of workers by the second and third largest employers in Germany. In the case of churches, the Federal Republic of Germany makes an exception to the general principle of equality in the constitution, as it values what the religious offer of meaning contributes to the intellectual coping with the ruling order and therefore supports it. Likewise, the rejection of Ms. E is proper, despite or because of her high level of qualifications, if the employer sees his need for a manager better fulfilled by a contender. On the other hand, Mrs E’s rejection would be discriminatory if it were based on her ancestry, since these are irrelevant to the employer’s recognised purposes. 

What is accomplished by laws against discrimination 

It is already evident from the above cases that laws against discrimination do not protect those affected in their interest, but ban discrimination when it is not in the interest of the law makers. Whether the persons concerned have to accept their damage as an appropriate difficulty or whether it is a case of discrimination in which they can sue depends on whether the damage is necessary for the purpose recognised in each case. To the extent that the recognised, all-determining purpose of the market economy is the pursuit of profit by private enterprises, pre-bourgeois distinguishing criteria, such as descent, origin, religion, race, culture etc., play no role. For the business managerial evaluation of a person – e.g. as labor power – nationality, skin color, or religion are an irrelevant private matter. What is important for the location and personnel policy of modern companies is, rather, an unprejudiced comparison of the globally available workforce in terms of cheapness and willingness, or wages and performance. As useful trading partners and solvent customers, Chinese and Africans are considered just as seriously as old Hanseatics. The non-discriminatory evaluation of peoples from all countries, skin colors, and religions for purposes of private commercial use is the historical starting point and the lasting motive of bourgeois anti-racism. 

What is discrimination?

“The legal definition describes discrimination as unequal treatment without objective grounds … No discrimination exists when there is an objective grounds for the unequal treatment, i. e. there is a justifiable exception to anti-discrimination law.” (Pates/Schmidt/Karavanskiy 2010:27. ff) 

To the extent that being excluded from an education, a job, housing or goods occurs legally, it is viewed as irrelevant from the standpoint of discrimination. 

The law against discrimination obliges decision-makers in companies, government agencies, and churches to use their positions of power only according to their essential, publicly recognised purposes. It therefore prohibits the abuse of the dominant relations of dependency for purposes that can’t lay claim to important socio-political recognition. Prohibiting discrimination therefore also means: to demand appropriate sorting on the basis of the recognised purposes of state and capital. This includes in particular: 

Useful for the state: Sorting immigrants into (increasingly) useful and useless migrants; 

Ability to pay: Differentiation of citizens into usable “needs” as buyers, customers, tenants on the one hand and insolvent “needs” and “needy people” on the other;

Ability to increase value: the separation of wage earners on the basis of wages, performance and needs of enterprises into employed and unemployed persons;

Ability to perform: General selection of competitors – e.g. students, jobseekers, home buyers, etc. – into winners and losers on the basis of certain qualitative requirements and the quantitative needs of the state and capital. Measured by these criteria, women, the disabled, single parents, the elderly and the poor are disproportionately included among the losers of governmental and entrepreneurial sorting because their physical, social or political characteristics put them at a competitive disadvantage. This also makes them potential clients of social work. “People from immigrant backgrounds” are losers with above-average frequency, 

because they mostly migrate into German capitalism without relevant property, 

because they were once recruited as low-wage workers in industry, 

because they were subsequently made even more impoverished as unemployed people and then integrated into the newly created low-wage sector, 

because as tenants, they are only able to peripherally meet the increasing demands of the real estate industry, 

because their children, for the reasons mentioned, start from a very poor position in the school competition, 

or simply because the state’s supervisory power completely excludes them from legal residence and participation in German capitalist competition as undesirable and useless refugees from poverty. 

As a consequence, they cannot claim that they have fallen victim to improper, arbitrary or purely private preferences. Rather, it is a matter of damages in the interest of state and business purposes which are indispensable for the economic and political functioning of the community. That’s why the damages suffered by immigrants as a result of the above-mentioned calculations of politics and the business world do not constitute cases of discrimination. Suing for inadmissible discrimination in the sense of the principle of equality or the Equal Opportunities Act are futile, provided that the damage done to the affected persons is attributed to these “quite normal” sorting criteria of state and business.

The re-interpretation from the perspective of the injured parties: discrimination as an unjustified disadvantage 

Despite the law and the court decisions, the damaged and those who represent their interests often see the situation differently: It is a matter of discrimination because immigrants are more likely than others to end up in the lower ranks of the German social hierarchy and are thus quite clearly disadvantaged. In their view, the precariousness of immigrants and their descendants may indeed be juridically permitted and to that extent legal, but it is certainly nowhere near legitimate. In this respect, the concept of discrimination undergoes a reinterpretion by the injured parties. In contrast to the legislative and judicial power, discrimination is for them not simply unlawful disadvantage in the sense of the real legal situation, but unjustified or unfair disadvantaging in the sense of an ideal order. If only this could claim serious validity, if society would finally “really” be free from discrimination, according to the ideal of the discrimination critics, the deplored damages would also “actually” be avoidable. 

As evidence for the fact that the reality is still far from the discrimination-free ideal, however, discrimination critics in the social sciences generally refer to the above-mentioned socio-economic facts. This means that they refer to the relevant “quotas” of immigrants in the German social hierarchy. In their view, their strong over-representation in the lower ranks and their under-representation in the establishment is proof that the competition in the education system, in the work world, in incomes, etc. is not free from discrimination. An unjustified sorting procedure is concluded from the obviously unequal results of capitalist competition. The source of such an ideal of competition in the interests of the victims is noticeable and to some extent understandable. Nevertheless, they are objectively incorrect:

Excursus: Arguments against the fight for “equal opportunities” 

(1) If there is debate about the fairness, justness, etc., of decision and distribution procedures, then the most important result is already certain: there will be winners and losers. [Footnote 1: What creates excitement and entertainment in the realm of sports and games means for the capitalistic competition over social wealth in private hands that the losers are excluded from the existing abundance. This reduces the fun factor, but increases the excitement. Cardiovascular problems, strokes and psychological disorders are therefore among the so-called “diseases of civilization” in capitalism.]

(2) It is not clear why non-discriminatory selection procedures should lead to a proportional equal distribution of all social groups. Moreover, the question remains: what good does it do for the losers, with and without minority status, if a chancelor who is the same gender as them explains that there is no alternative to their social plight or if a black man in the White House takes over supervision of the US underclass?

(3) “Equal opportunities for all” only exist where failure is already included in the program. Lottery players and cancer patients know that. Equal opportunities only means that “each one” could be one of the winners, but certainly not everyone. 

(4) Equal opportunities in the sense of universal equal treatment in the education system or on the labor and housing markets “without regard to  ...” means that applicants are equally judged and sorted regardless of their differing conditions and needs only afterwards, to the extent they meet the demands of the state and the market.

(5) The modification of the competition in favor of a certain group, e.g. by positive discrimination, can make a group-specific advantage possible in social conflicts; especially when compensatory measures are recognized by the legislature as a useful contribution to more growth and stability in the community. It goes without saying that this is a disadvantage for others. 

However, it is also a condition of state approved modifications of the competition that the affected group must make a contribution to the nation in line with the sorting criteria – citizenship, loyalty, usefulness, ability to pay, willingness to perform and usability. Unlike women and homosexuals, capitalistically “useless” and “superfluous” people, with and without an immigration background, can hardly hope for this. 

(6) The equal treatment of unequals not only leads to the reproduction of inequality in mathematical terms. [Footnote 2] Even in the free and equal competition of the bourgeois rule of law, the equal treatment of unequals, without regard for the person and their property, regularly leads to those who start with the best living conditions emerging as the winners. So its no surprise that the egalitarian selection mechanisms of capitalist society, legitimized by democracy and human rights, reproduce “social inequality” – not despite, but because of the egalitarian principle.

[Footnote 2: The free development of the individual, which is guaranteed in accordance with human rights and the constitution, applies to all citizens in principle equally. The egalitarian principle entitles and obliges them, as legal entities, to pursue their interests within the framework of the state's “order,” completely regrdless of the all-decisive question as to whether they have the necessary means – private property – for the realisation of their interests. The results of the realization of interests then – according to the respective assets – vary differently. That “the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer” is then anything but a coincidence in a human-rights governed capitalism...]

(7) Non-prejudiced and non-discriminatory competition is of no benefit to the competitors. The benefits of free and equal competition go entirely to politics and economics. Because they judge, without prejudice, students, workers, immigrants and tenants completely “without looking at the person,” according to their benefit for their (!) political and economic interests. To the extent that gender, religion, origin, etc., are nevertheless exceptionally important for this, the disadvantage is proper and legal.

2. Xenophobia and racism 

Beyond their material situation, however, so-called “aliens” are also victims of racism – and tend to be even more so because they are socio-economically among the losers. No explanation of racism can be given here, nor can a comprehensive presentation of its forms and manifestations be given. Nevertheless, a simple examination of a few main results of the representative study by Zick/Küpper/Hövermann (2011) on xenophobia and racism in Germany, cited in the introduction, gives some revealing insights. 

2.1 Xenophobia

 Xenophobic statements

 “There are too many immigrants in Germany”  (percent in agreement: 50)

 “If jobs are scarce, Germans should have more right to work than immigrants.” (42%)

 “Immigrants are a burden on our social system"  (40%)

 More statements

 “We need immigrants to keep our economy running.” (60%)

 “Immigrants enrich our culture.” (75%)

Despite all antiracist, intercultural, discrimination-sensitive campaigns for a modern, cosmopolitan “we feeling,” half of all survey respondents think there are too many immigrants in Germany. The extent of agreement shows that xenophobia is not a phenomenon confined to some marginal extremists, but arises from “quite normal popular sentiments.” And one that obviously doesn’t bother to appreciate immigrants, on the one hand, for their usefulness to the economy and culture and to see them, on the other hand, as a burden. 

Even more revealing than the extent of xenophobic attitudes, however, are the differentiation and assessment criteria on which the statements are based: It is completely taken for granted that a distinction is made between foreigners and Germans when it comes to job competition or the social system of this country. It is just as unquestioned that immigrants are assessed on the basis of what they do for Germany, precisely for “our” social system, the economy and “our culture.” It is precisely the statements that are to be seen as arguments for immigration that show this: both pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant views assess immigration by the same yardstick: usefulness for the nation and exploitability for economic growth. 

Whatever answer is given to this “ongoing debate” in immigration policy, the question is always the same: What do foreigners contribute to the increase of domestic successes in culture, economy, science etc.? The evaluation criteria are thus neither arbitrary nor coincidental. Anti-immigrants do not judge “aliens” by their personal interests and inclinations, e.g. by what one has in common with them as work colleagues, lovers or sports enthusiasts. Rather, they subordinate all private passions, even their personal experiences with immigrants, to the viewpoint of national benefit. That is why immigrants are regarded as “alien” no matter how well and for how long one knows them. Vice versa, the mirror-image national “we” does not represent a community that is defined by common interests, inclinations or personal acquaintance, but comprises approximately eighty million unknown people who are not regarded as aliens because they are governed by the same state.

So “anti-alien sentiments” do not apply to aliens in the sense of people who are genuinely unknown or alien or strange because of their individual characteristics, but to alleged aliens who do not belong to the “larger whole,” to the national “we.” From the point of view of this imagined national community which is characterised by ostensibly common values, culture, language, etc., foreigners are alien in principle. This judgment can therefore hardly be arrived at by referring to obvious commonalities, e.g. between German and foreign employees in terms of their source of income and its amount, similar living conditions and habits, or common worries and problems, etc. Foreigners are therefore not alien, but made alien by the national spectacles. 

This is not constituted by prejudices that are resistant to better knowledge due to complex social-psynological reasons. It is exactly the other way around: because it holds to the belief in a actually harmonious national community against all better knowledge, immigrants and “people from immigration backgrounds” are regarded as strangely disturbing. The nationalistically motivated hostility to immigrants produces their prejudices. Whatever the immigrants do – whether they are cheaply and willingly at the disposal of German entrepreneurs and diligently pay into the social security funds or whether they politely allow German unemployed people to take priority in their job search and settle into a poverty administered by the welfare state – for nationalists, both are wrong. It doesn’t matter whether foreigners marry German partners or whether they bring “imported brides” from their homeland via family reunification – foreigners can’t please the patriotic popular sentiment. Therefore, “fear of the foreign” is not overcome by intercultural encounters, exchanges and personal acquaintance, nor by using difference-sensitive methods against prejudices and stereotypes.

Xenophobes thus imitate their authorities and categorically distinguish their fellow human beings into natives and foreigners according to the highest official criterion of their national affiliation. Nevertheless, the xenophobic popular sentiment does not easily accept the official status for human sorting because xenophobic citizens, in their basic mistrust of all those who look as if they do not belong here, tend to thwart the immigration policy calculus of the state power or even take unauthorized action against urgently needed skilled workers, German citizens with darker skin color, etc. 

2.2 Racism

 Racist statements:

 “There is a natural hierarchy between black and white people” (30%)

 “Some cultures are clearly superior to others” (40.7%)

 “Some people are more gifted than others” (42%)

In Germany, a third of those surveyed are convinced of a natural hierarchy between white and black people. More than 40 percent of the population is committed to the clear superiority of some cultures. And almost half of them think that some people are more gifted than others. Quite in contrast to the official proclamations about the equality of peoples and cultures as expressed in the human rights declarations after the second world war, a significant minority – not only in Germany – is of a completely different opinion, despite political correctness.

Here too it is more revealing to look at the underlying distinctions and appraisal criteria than to get outraged about the extent of racist attitudes: firstly, it is a comparison between “peoples and cultures.” Secondly, they are compared in terms of “gifts.” As much as the racist statements may deviate from the officially desired attitudes on the subject, neither the idea of peoples in competition with each other nor the question about the results achieved by the competitors in each case and the resulting hierarchy were thought up by the racists themselves.

Rather, the global competition for growth and power is the content and supreme purpose of the world order which is legitimized by human rights. Capitalist nation states compete in peace with the productivity of their working people and their wages over world market and world power successes, accepting “in the worst case” major wars and crises which must be paid for with the wages and blood of the masses who have no property. Both of these factors set in motion, among other things, a considerable “migration movement” on the part of the survivors. The preliminary interim results are a relatively undisputed world power, the largest military alliance in world history, seven relatively successful global economic powers, some emerging economies, most of them former colonies trying to ascend to this select circle and, above all, a large number of states whose recognition as formally equal subjects of the “family of nations” after the Second World War brought them a quick career from former colonies to so-called “developing nations” to today’s “failed states.”

So the reinterpretation of the competition between capitalist nation states into a contest between peoples is taken by racists from the official interpretation of the world which is authorized by politicians, journalists, and teachers. From them, racists also learn that the historically quite new division of the world into nation states has its deeper origin in the supposedly age-old existence of these peoples whose political unity has been “stamped” by their allegedly pre-political common culture, history, and so on. In this ideology, it is not by chance that blacks and Muslims are of particularly low status. By the way, this way of talking about “cultures” filled the gap that was left once the concept of “race” was no longer opportune.

Only the translation of the established hierarchy of states into a natural hierarchy of peoples which is attributed to their different talents characterizes the undesirable contribution of the racists. Applied to the results of the current world order, the dominant position of the imperialist actors is expressed, according to the logic of racism, as the superiority of occidental culture, western civilization, or European peoples. The basic logic of racism always consists at all times of the same method of making conclusions. According to this, the violently established social order is traced back to a supposedly likewise inclined human nature. The socio-political order is considered to be a natural order. Nor did modern racists invent this process of inference. Rather, it is already customary in the constitutions of the successful capitalist states to interpret the striking results of free market competition as the “unfolding” of differently inclined and gifted “personalities.” 

The basis of this central ideology is equal opportunity competition, i.e. the formally equal treatment of all citizens in the education system and on the market by the egalitarian supervisory authority.  It is precisely because the citizens have the same legal opportunities to pursue their interests “without regard to the person” and thus without regard to the specific conditions of competition, especially their property, that the different results of their efforts can be traced back to their different wills or abilities to succeed. 

In this “ideology” of modern racism, the social hierarchy, the opposing positions and functions of the developed market economy, look like the full utilization of human talents and inherited traits.

In this racist logic, the losers in bourgeois working life always necessarily rate as failures in some way. And vice versa. Economic success implies an inner capability and entitlement to success according to the motto: Each person earns what they deserve. That’s the reason for the shame of the losers and their costly efforts to deny their economic failure to the outside world through brand name clothes, private debt, and tanning salons, despite their lack of ability to pay. The winners’ nasty displays of exclusionary pleasures are also based on this success racism of the market economy. Once this “racism of success” has become a valid criterion of assessment, a diagnosis that somebody needs help is considered stigmatizing, as it testifies to the fact that those in need are not in a position to make it on their own. This is, by the way, the reason why help is perceived by proud competitive subjects to be insulting and is rejected even when it is urgently needed. To be a victim of circumstances is – mediated through the racism of success – a personal accusation: “You loser! You victim!”

Through racist eyeglasses, the refugees from the economically, politically, and militarily ruined states of the Third World must look like representatives of inferior peoples and cultures. The poorer and more war-torn their homeland is, the more clearly their cultural inferiority can be deduced. And in the capitalist centers, the more precarious the life coping strategies of the immigrant underclass, the clearer it becomes for the racist that this only reveals their deficient human nature, which, as is well known, has always lacked drive, talent and civility. Insofar as refugees and the migrant underclass are foreigners who do not really belong to the national community and certainly do not increase its power and wealth, nationalist popular racism joins the egalitarian racism of success of developed market economies. No wonder, then, that the poorer and more helpless the foreigners are, the more they attract the hatred of “meanstream society.” 

A summary

Modern ideologies of inequality are thus based on the egalitarian principle of competition between citizens and states. Precisely because all citizens in a state compete against each other as legally equal persons and because all states compete for the world market and world power as formally equal subjects of international law, the social hierarchy within the states and the state hierarchy of the world order are interpreted as expressions of more or less gifted individuals or culturally superior or inferior peoples. The ideological end result of this modern interpretation is the special contempt for the Third World refugees who are fleeing poverty and for the immigrant underclass in the capitalist centers. Even if these racisms are not dissimilar in their form and function from the pre-democratic human images of colonialism, fascism and racial segregation, their current basis is precisely in the principle of (discrimination-)free competition. That’s why anti-discrimination work does not solve modern racism.

3. Practice-oriented findings for “multicultural anti-discrimination work”

Immigrants in Germany often fail because of the legal standards for obtaining a residence permit from the public authorities. They are above-average often among the losers of the (discrimination-)free market economy. This causes them lasting material damage. On this basis, they are also the addressees of xenophobia and modern racism; and the more so, the poorer and more exploited they are already. So what do we do?

3.1 Racist violence

People who are victims of racist violence need immediate practical help. This requires first the courage and determination of potential helpers when there is any chance at all of practically countering violent xenophobia without endangering themselves and third parties. (This chance does not exist if it is a question of the police monopoly on the use of force to enforce the right of residence against undesirable and “illegal” foreigners). In addition, medical help must be sought and the police notified. If the victims expect to be deported by the police because the lawmakers want to kick them out of the country, the police should not be called (for the relationship between police and racism, see Schiffer-Nasserie 2014). Furthermore, helpers can accompany possible victims of racist violence to the medical emergency room, encourage them to file charges, and be available as witnesses when evidence is gathered and in court. Above all, however, they should definitely call in the mobile victim counselling centers. They are represented in all federal states and in many large cities, provide psychological and legal advice, accompany victims to the police, can be helpful through their contacts with criminal prosecution authorities and municipalities and as trial observers in court. 

3.2 Discrimination as laid down in equal opportunities laws

Equal opportunities law makes it possible to take legal action when immigrants are victims of racist discrimination by people with decision-making powers, in particular employers, teachers, landlords, police, authorities, journalists and government employees. Whether this is meaningful and promising course of action must be weighed by experts in each individual case as to the relationship of dependency, verifiability, and effort involved. The handbook “Legal protection against discrimination” by the Antidiscrimination Board of the Federal Government (2014) provides assistance. Sample texts for complaints, protocols, criminal charges are available in the manual. Given that this requires a good knowledge of the law, legal residence status, good language skills, time, money, some independence from retaliation, and a lot of perseverance, this is particularly suitable for the better situated victims of discrimination. For poor, precarious, and marginal immigrants, the law offers little hope.

What’s more, since the legally enacted business interests of employers, retailers, the housing market and the banking industry are looking for exploitable “weaknesses” and “dependencies” from the outset, immigrants with insecure residence status, with little knowledge of the language and the law, without contacts to the establishment, etc., are classic victims of the customary business sense. As workers, they are forced to do extra work outside collective bargaining agreements or cheated of wages; as customers, deceived in terms of price and quality; as renters, neglected; and as debtors, given high interest rates.

3.3 Abusive language in the legal sense 

It is also possible to take action against racist insults and bullying by colleagues, fellow students, neighbours, etc., provided that the pertinent hostilities meet the relevant legal provisions. In addition to the practical consequences, however, it should be borne in mind that this only bans the expression of racism, but leaves the racist attitude intact. To the extent that the need to downgrade and show contempt is based on the respective competitive situation, nothing essential can be achieved beyond formal tolerance and lawfully demanded courtesy. 

3.4  “Healthy popular sentiment”

Legal measures are not suitable against the widespread xenophobic and racist attitudes in “mainstream society,” as described in chapter 2 of this article. The moralistic ostracism of racist attitudes by politically correct language rules only sets in motion a “euphemism treadmill,” but certainly does not shatter and criticize racist certainties. The same goes for the countless attempts to prevent the articulation of racist attitudes by defaming their representatives, disrupting their events, and obstructing their demonstrations. Survey results, the success of Sarrazin, PEGIDA and co., all testify to the failure of decades of efforts to suppress racist popular sentiments through bans on speech, thought and demonstrations.

Anti-discrimination work in schools, companies, and social institutions faces similar problems. If schoolchildren, co-workers, apartment seekers, etc., are obliged to pursue their interests as competitors against each other, the need for a pretentious “upgrading of oneself” and a racist “downgrading of the others” is neither whimsical nor preventable. Calls for “togetherness and inclusion” from social educators and the president directly imply the conflict into which people are driven by the state-imposed competition for their livelihoods.

Citizens are certainly supposed to allow their teachers, bosses, landlords etc. to compare and sort them on the basis of their work performance, ability to pay, usability, etc.. And under any circumstances, they are seperated by their authorities on the basis of their nationality into natives and foreigners, useful and useless immigrants. But if, in searching for other people’s weaknesses, they want to apply the same yardsticks against their competitors by which they themselves are sorted, especially when not by chance they don’t imagine that they are entitled to exclude poorer, weaker or more “foreign” competitors, then these are improper and unauthorized cases of discrimination.

Where competition prevails, the need for (illegal) discrimination is just as inevitable as the peculiar adaptation and modification of the dominant selection criteria by the counterparties themselves. The anti-racist appeal to behave “fairly” in competition against opponents is therefore just as inevitably part of business as it is constantly circumvented by the competitors. 

3.5 Precarious living conditions

Lawsuits for inadmissible material discrimination are completely useless as long as the damage to the affected persons is due to the “normal” sorting criteria of the lawmakers and their economy. Deportations, layoffs, poor housing conditions, the results of the education system, the surveillance and anti-terrorism measures, the low-wage sector, the health and psychosocial consequences of this arrangement, and even the lesser life expectancy of the lower class, all bear the affirmative signature of the lawmakers who impose the corresponding practices or allow its business world to do them. Anti-discrimination work is therefore not able to tackle these living conditions.

On the contrary: the fight against discrimination in the sense of unjustified disadvantage goes along with the prescribed competition, its state and private sector decision-makers, and their recognized selection criteria. Viewed through the spectacles of discrimination, the socio-economic consequences for the losers are insignificant, as long as that the results of competition come about fairly. For immigrants in the lower class, multicultural openness and antidiscrimination means rather unhindered access to the social fallback institutions for the free market rejects and useless people in the social state.

3.6 Racism

Social and pedagogical anti-discrimination work and anti-racist education cannot overcome racist and xenophobic attitude patterns, 

(1) because they do not disclose and hold up for criticism the fact that the nation state sorts people into a German “we” and a foreign “alien group” by an act of law, but rather reproduce it ideologically as the national identity of “the others” at the level of culture, 

(2) because their “pro-immigrant” arguments are based on cultural enrichment or on the economic benefits of useful immigration, and thus share the nationalistic evaluation criteria of the anti-immigrants, instead of criticising them,

(3) because they too share the racism of success as an assessment standard by which people are stigmatized for being a loser of circumstances, and because they prefer to euphemistically encode the situation of those affected as “cultural diversity” and “many colors” and to counter the popular racism against aliens with the racism of success as represented by the black (red-golden) soccer players on the national team and (successful) rich immigrants,

(4) because they invoke tolerance and togetherness instead of identifying the material and intellectual causes of the presupposed social conflict, 

(5) because they want to enrich the ideology of the properly harmonious national community with a multicultural accent instead of confronting it with the sobering truth that the community is state-organized by force so that private interests and antagonistic classes compete within the democratic nation state, 

(6) because they would rather exclude the racist attitudes of the elderly towards the new immigration policy of Germany than criticise them, 

(7) because, if need be, they deal with undesirable popular sentiments by imposing bans on thought, speech and demonstrations instead of shaking up their ideological foundations. 

In other words, anti-discriminatory pedagogy fails due to racist popular sentiment, because it does not want to clarify the contradictory relation between the capitalist nation state and its citizens, but rather declares that it is in the interest of Germany’s modern immigration policy.

4. Conclusion 

The xenophobic attitudes in parts of the majority population are not responsible for the precarious material situation of most immigrants. Rather, modern ideologies of inequality are based on the principle of equality of competition and the acknowledged assessment criteria of state immigration policy. The wide range of intercultural and anti-racist measures, training, further education for more tolerance and less discrimination is therefore not able to change anything about the unsatisfactory living conditions of the affected or the xenophobic and racist attitudes of their opponents. Anti-discrimination work is therefore an indispensable, infinite, and above all unsatisfactory task in democratic capitalism.

The anti-discrimination struggle never comes to a successful end because the precarious socio-economic living conditions are not caused by unlawful discrimination. Rather, immigrants count more than average among the losers in the (discrimination-)free market economy because they fail to meet the lawful criteria of the business world on the basis of their poor qualifications in the egalitarian competition for money, work, housing, etc. The pattern of xenophobic attitudes in parts of the majority population is not causally responsible for the precarious material plight of most immigrants. Rather, modern ideologies of unequal worth are based on the principle of equality of competition and the recognized criteria of state immigration policy. That’s why the broad range of multicultural and anti-racist measures, the training and teaching more tolerance and less discrimination, is neither able to change the unsatisfactory living conditions of those affected nor the xenophobic and racist attitudes of their opponents. Anti-discrimination work is therefore an indispensable, infinite and, above all, unsatisfactory task in democratic capitalism.