No indictment for cop who killed Eric Garner

[JahFocus CS]

Sure, if you're being that narrow.



The communities you mentioned IMO are the American "have nots"/"poor", and the poor are being oppressed(in similar fashion) around the world under damn near every economic model.
The idea that the poor being more heavily policed is exclusive to capitalism is silly IMHO.
I'm not gonna take the time to look it up, but I'm positive the poor/working class suffer more from law enforcement, in communist, fascist, and dictator ran countries as well.

I was asking you to clarify what type of discrimination you meant, as my earlier post was mostly about the drug war.

Hmmmm, the poor are oppressed? So it's not simply a reflection of their economic worth and contribution as determined by the market?

What other economic models do you see as being in existence in the world today? There is class oppression in class societies. And the state is the only way to carry this out... if not for the state, the ruling class would fall. Under capitalism, this means that bosses could no longer enforce private property rights (different from personal property rights, by the way) to the means of production, thereby controlling people's labor and access to the things they need to survive.

Fascist countries are capitalist (perhaps not the "free market" as you conceive of it, but this just shows that the ruling class will wield the state in whichever way is most effective to maintain its rule). "Dictatorship" is too broad, that's just a description of government without much bearing or significance for the economic system. And what countries are "communist-run" that have workers controlling the means of production - that is, which ones are actually pushing for socialism and then communism and aren't actually state capitalist?

The modern institution of police arose at the same time capitalism solidified as a system. It is qualitatively different from analogues you may point to under previous modes of production in human history. Otherwise, if you want to just say, "force has always been used to suppress and oppress people," that is true, but how is that social analysis at all, and especially social analysis with any rigor?

 

[DEAD7]

Hmmmm, the poor are oppressed? So it's not simply a reflection of their economic worth and contribution as determined by the market?

They are oppressed by the state, but hopelessly convinced its their liberator

What other economic models do you see as being in existence in the world today? There is class oppression in class societies. And the state is the only way to carry this out... if not for the state, the ruling class would fall.

@ the simultaneous ether of the state and capitalism...
...and even though I'm sure we are defining capitalism differently, i'm going to

 

[JahFocus CS]

They are oppressed by the state, but hopelessly convinced its their liberator


@ the simultaneous ether of the state and capitalism...
...and even though I'm sure we are defining capitalism differently, i'm going to

I agree, too many oppressed people look to the state as their liberator. The state is an instrument of class rule, BUT oppressed people can agitate and force concessions through the state. In the end that is not the path to liberation, but some important gains can be made (but they can also be rolled back at any time).

And no white flags, please share your definition of capitalism so we can gain some clarity and get to the meat of some of these disagreements.

 

[DEAD7]

And no white flags, please share your definition of capitalism so we can gain some clarity and get to the meat of some of these disagreements.

Eventually... but for now I gotta duck that convo/debate

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

What other economic models do you see as being in existence in the world today? There is class oppression in class societies. And the state is the only way to carry this out... if not for the state, the ruling class would fall. Under capitalism, this means that bosses could no longer enforce private property rights (different from personal property rights, by the way) to the means of production, thereby controlling people's labor and access to the things they need to survive.

could you further clarify what this means please?

 

[JahFocus CS]

could you further clarify what this means please?

Absolutely.

Under capitalism - and we'll deal, for now, mainly with privatized capitalism instead of the state capitalist variety - the means of production (infrastructural and natural capital, so things like factories and land... things used to produce goods that we need) are owned by private parties. Thus, the things that society requires and wants are privately controlled. This is "private property." However - generally - production is not carried out solely by the owner, but rather, workers are employed to carry out all or most of the production process. The production process is thus a social process, with workers producing everything of value. Yet, they receive only a fraction of the value of what they produce (wages). The rest goes to the capitalist (the owner of the private property. This can be an individual for a small enterprise or a company with shareholders).

How is this state of affairs maintained? What gives credence to "private property?" It is only papers, after all, that say, "Mr. X/Corp. X owns this." Since workers produce everything, what would prevent them from receiving the full value of their labor and controlling the enterprise by cutting the capitalists out? The real thing backing up private property is state force - the police, the military, etc. Workers cannot simply use the means of production to produce what society needs and wants. Capitalists own and control the means of production, backing this with state force, and extract the surplus value from the work completed by workers. This is where profits are derived from and what is used to build wealth and fortune.

Without the state, none of this would be possible (perhaps aside from mind control spells, lol. The conditioning in our society that upholds the system is ideological and has been and is being fought. It is a constant ideological battle being waged. The ruling class uses not just the media, but also schools, etc.).

Personal property is that which is used by an individual for themselves. Thus a house, a car, etc. that are used by an individual is personal property. Private property would be a house that a person doesn't occupy themselves and perhaps rents out to others, and as explained above includes factories and land.

I hope that was clear and satisfactory as a clarification.

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

Absolutely.

Under capitalism - and we'll deal, for now, mainly with privatized capitalism instead of the state capitalist variety - the means of production (infrastructural and natural capital, so things like factories and land... things used to produce goods that we need) are owned by private parties. Thus, the things that society requires and wants are privately controlled. This is "private property." However - generally - production is not carried out solely by the owner, but rather, workers are employed to carry out all or most of the production process. The production process is thus a social process, with workers producing everything of value. Yet, they receive only a fraction of the value of what they produce (wages). The rest goes to the capitalist (the owner of the private property. This can be an individual for a small enterprise or a company with shareholders).

How is this state of affairs maintained? What gives credence to "private property?" It is only papers, after all, that say, "Mr. X/Corp. X owns this." Since workers produce everything, what would prevent them from receiving the full value of their labor and controlling the enterprise by cutting the capitalists out? The real thing backing up private property is state force - the police, the military, etc. Workers cannot simply use the means of production to produce what society needs and wants. Capitalists own and control the means of production, backing this with state force, and extract the surplus value from the work completed by workers. This is where profits are derived from and what is used to build wealth and fortune.

Without the state, none of this would be possible (perhaps aside from mind control spells, lol. The conditioning in our society that upholds the system is ideological and has been and is being fought. It is a constant ideological battle being waged. The ruling class uses not just the media, but also schools, etc.).

Personal property is that which is used by an individual for themselves. Thus a house, a car, etc. that are used by an individual is personal property. Private property would be a house that a person doesn't occupy themselves and perhaps rents out to others, and as explained above includes factories and land.

I hope that was clear and satisfactory as a clarification.

so in your opinion, what is a fair and reasonable alternative? what system rewards the workers?

 

[JahFocus CS]

so in your opinion, what is a fair and reasonable alternative? what system rewards the workers?

The working-class constitutes the vast majority of humanity. It isn't just factory workers who work under harsh conditions; it is everyone with job insecurity, poor healthcare, long working hours with no additional compensation, historically-high levels of stress and associated disease, etc., even paper pushers with office jobs whose health goes to shyt because the human body isn't designed to sit for 10 hours a day.

As I touched on in the previous post, production is a social process, but profits are accrued privately. Socialism - that is, worker control of workplaces and production for human needs and wants instead of profit - is the only system under which humanity can take meaningful steps to casting off oppression and exploitation. Please note that socialism is not state ownership of enterprises and making everyone government employees. That's state capitalism - the state replaces private parties and bureaucrats and state officials become bosses. For the working-class, socialism needs to be struggled toward. No historical processes are neat and perfect and without errors, so lessons need to be taken from the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, etc. There were mistakes there and the USSR wasn't socialist after its earliest years. But the working-class made some worthwhile gains that give hints as to what are real social possibilities.

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

The working-class constitutes the vast majority of humanity. It isn't just factory workers who work under harsh conditions; it is everyone with job insecurity, poor healthcare, long working hours with no additional compensation, historically-high levels of stress and associated disease, etc., even paper pushers with office jobs whose health goes to shyt because the human body isn't designed to sit for 10 hours a day.

As I touched on in the previous post, production is a social process, but profits are accrued privately. Socialism - that is, worker control of workplaces and production for human needs and wants instead of profit - is the only system under which humanity can take meaningful steps to casting off oppression and exploitation. Please note that socialism is not state ownership of enterprises and making everyone government employees. That's state capitalism - the state replaces private parties and bureaucrats and state officials become bosses. For the working-class, socialism needs to be struggled toward. No historical processes are neat and perfect and without errors, so lessons need to be taken from the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, etc. There were mistakes there and the USSR wasn't socialist after its earliest years. But the working-class made some worthwhile gains that give hints as to what are real social possibilities.

so would you agree with the following:

- capitalism promotes opportunity and exploitation
- socialism promotes opportunity and fairness

 

[JahFocus CS]

so would you agree with the following:

- capitalism promotes opportunity and exploitation
- socialism promotes opportunity and fairness

I would say that capitalism restricts opportunity for the vast majority of people. Opportunity is there for the ruling class and a trickling of others are able to either join the ruling class or carve out a place in highest echelons of labor (what you might call the "labor aristocracy"). There's more opportunity under capitalism than feudalism, for example, but class societies fail the vast majority of people. I'd definitely say that most people aren't able to realize their full potential under capitalism. How much human capital goes to waste from people dying of preventable hunger, disease, etc., and being unable to pursue their passion?

In general, I would agree with what you stated.

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

I would say that capitalism restricts opportunity for the vast majority of people. Opportunity is there for the ruling class and a trickling of others are able to either join the ruling class or carve out a place in highest echelons of labor (what you might call the "labor aristocracy"). There's more opportunity under capitalism than feudalism, for example, but class societies fail the vast majority of people. I'd definitely say that most people aren't able to realize their full potential under capitalism. How much human capital goes to waste from people dying of preventable hunger, disease, etc., and being unable to pursue their passion?

In general, I would agree with what you stated.

http://www.slp.org/res_state_htm/socialism_m_p.html

^^ not really educated on all the benefits of socialism but reading that really makes me

 

[JahFocus CS]

http://www.slp.org/res_state_htm/socialism_m_p.html

^^ not really educated on all the benefits of socialism but reading that really makes me

Daniel De Leon's writings and political philosophy are quite interesting. I've read a few recently and will be looking into De Leonism more deeply. It predates Leninism, which basically ended up sidelining the tendency due to the (initial) success of the Russian Revolution. Perhaps it can become relevant again in the 21st century. At the least, it warrants a serious look by the working-class.

 

[DEAD7]

 

[JahFocus CS]

Use words, not just smilies, breh.

 

[JahFocus CS]

This article... That use of stats. That systemic critique. Those charts that clearly show the racial disparities...

Full article: "Police Violence and the Idea of Race"

The violence present in poor communities ties directly to a broader context of social violence. This social violence finds form in strategies of immiseration like predatory lending, mass incarceration and in selectively placing American labor in ‘competition’ with workers overseas who earn pennies an hour. Between blacks and whites relative measures of economic well-being haven’t changed that much in the last forty years. These differences defy ‘natural’ theories of economic distribution through their persistence and their associated subtexts of social violence. The oft made contention that violence is a personal, as opposed to social, failure looks past this context of social violence— white Americans don’t ‘have’ to be violent relative to their European and the Japanese counterparts, do they? It’s a personal choice, right?

With recent experience in hand, the increases in poverty and unemployment of the last six years tie directly to the residual effects of predatory subprime lending in poor neighborhoods of color. Wall Street specifically targeted poor blacks and Hispanics with predatory loans. And the housing bust caused by it devastated black wealth and wrecked local economies. St. Louis, Missouri, of which Ferguson is a suburb, was at the center of racially targeted predatory lending. Wall Street may not have put a gun in anybody’s hand. But it created the context for active violence— making other people poor to make yourself rich, as Wall Street did, is an act of social violence. And while Rudy Giuliani’s fingerprints may not be found on any particular corpse, the NYPD’s are all over the place.