"Bitch, who asked you?"

RSS

Posts tagged with "capitalism"

fauxcyborg:

making feminism something trendy to sell in a capitalist culture makes feminism less than useless - it depoliticizes misogyny, it removes the whole “structural” and “materialist” bent and it sort of just compromises until everyone who would raise their hand in a lecture hall that yeah they totally believe men and women are like, equal is a feminism instead of demanding that we apply feminism to our real life and are critical of ourselves

Mary Poppins Quits with Kristen Bell from Funny Or Die

The end result of consumer activism

bankuei:

"If I boycott everything that is involved in war, exploitation and environmental destruction, I won’t be able to buy anything."

Welcome to the end result of consumer activism (AKA “let’s shop our way out of capitalism… oh wait”) instead of more just laws and regulations to STOP having an economy built on this.

It’s not even “the lesser of two evils” as much as “the evil you ain’t heard about, yet.”

cishettears:

liberal feminism more like “capitalism: it’s not just for boys”

marxvx:

assdownloader:

"don’t support nestle!" shouts the liberal on the computer made from parts manufactured at foxconn

consumer activism is a lie, see you in hell or in communism

lmao try boycotting a brand in monopoly capitalism

image

atomicdomme:

a lot of people talk like capitalism is necessary to have innovation and I just think of all the brilliant and creative people I know who spend all of their time and energy worrying about how they’re going to have a roof over their heads and food to eat. capitalism doesn’t drive innovation, it stifles it and shackles it to the endlessly wasteful machinery of exploitation.

Jul 5

quasi-normalcy:

Capitalism loves science when it’s used to develop new technologies or new means of extracting resources.

Capitalism is indifferent to science when it works on things which can’t be directly commercialized.

Capitalism really hates science when it investigates environmental degradation, or when it points out that the economy is running headlong into a brick wall of resource limitation.

kwamejaw:

At the end of the 18th century, slavery in the United States was a declining institution. Tobacco planters in Virginia and Maryland had exhausted their soil and were switching to wheat. Wage labor was increasingly replacing slave labor in both the urban and the rural areas of the upper South.

And then came cotton.

The first part of the story is well known: the invention of the cotton gin in the 1790s and the concomitant rise of industrial capacity in Britain and the urban North made possible the profitable cultivation of cotton in a vast region of the lower South (Native land), one that stretched from South Carolina to Louisiana, which came to be called the “Cotton Kingdom.”

Between 1803 and 1838, the United States, most famously personified by Andrew Jackson, fought a multifront war in the Deep South. In those years, the United States suppressed slave revolts and pacified whites still loyal to the European powers that had once controlled the region. These wars culminated in the ethnic cleansing of the Deep South. By the end of the 1830s, the Seminole, the Creek, the Chickasaw, the Choctaw and the Cherokee had all been “removed” to lands west of the Mississippi. Their expropriated land provided the foundation of the leading sector of the global economy in the first half of the 19th century.

In the 1830s, hundreds of millions of acres of conquered land were surveyed and put up for sale by the United States. This vast privatization of the public domain touched off one of the greatest economic booms in the history of the world up to that time. Investment capital from Britain, the Continent and the Northern states poured into the land market. “Under this stimulating process, prices rose like smoke,” the journalist Joseph Baldwin wrote in his memoir, “The Flush Times of Alabama and Mississippi.”

Without slavery, however, the survey maps of the General Land Office would have remained a sort of science-fiction plan for a society that could never happen. Between 1820 and 1860 more than a million enslaved people were transported from the upper to the lower South, the vast majority by the venture-capitalist slave traders the slaves called “soul drivers.” The first wave cleared the region for cultivation. “Forests were literally dragged out by the roots,” the former slave John Parker remembered in “His Promised Land.” Those who followed planted the fields in cotton, which they then protected, picked, packed and shipped — from “sunup to sundown” every day for the rest of their lives.

Eighty-five percent of the cotton Southern slaves picked was shipped to Britain. The mills that have come to symbolize the Industrial Revolution and the slave-tilled fields of the South were mutually dependent. Every year, British merchant banks advanced millions of pounds to American planters in anticipation of the sale of the cotton crop. Planters then traded credit in pounds for the goods they needed to get through the year, many of them produced in the North. “From the rattle with which the nurse tickles the ear of the child born in the South, to the shroud that covers the cold form of the dead, everything comes to us from the North,” said one Southerner.

As slaveholders supplied themselves (and, much more meanly, their slaves) with Northern goods, the credit originally advanced against cotton made its way north, into the hands of New York and New England merchants who used it to purchase British goods. Thus were Indian land, African-American labor, Atlantic finance and British industry synthesized into racial domination, profit and economic development on a national and a global scale.When the cotton crop came in short and sales failed to meet advanced payments, planters found themselves indebted to merchants and bankers. Slaves were sold to make up the difference. The mobility and salability of slaves meant they functioned as the primary form of collateral in the credit-and-cotton economy of the 19th century.

It is not simply that the labor of enslaved people underwrote 19th-century capitalism. Enslaved people were the capital: four million people worth at least $3 billion in 1860, which was more than all the capital invested in railroads and factories in the United States combined. Seen in this light, the conventional distinction between slavery and capitalism fades into meaninglessness.

We are accustomed to reckoning the legacy of slavery in the United States in terms of black disadvantage. The centrality of slavery to the nation’s economic development, however, suggests that any calculation of the nation’s unpaid debt for slavery must include a measure of the wealth it produced, of advantage as well as disadvantage. The United States, as W. E. B. Du Bois wrote, was “built upon a groan.” (via New York Times)

Seen in this light, the conventional distinction between slavery and capitalism fades into meaninglessness.

(Source: knowledgeequalsblackpower)

iammyfather:

anarcho-queer:

Study Reveals It Costs Much Less to House The Homeless Than to Leave Them on the Street

Not only is it morally wrong to let people live desperately on the streets, but it doesn’t make much economical sense either.

A new study has found that it’s significantly cheaper to house the homeless than leave them on the streets.

University of North Carolina Charlotte researchers released a study on Monday that tracked chronically homeless adults housed in the Moore Place facility run by Charlotte’s Urban Ministry Center (UMC) in partnership with local government. Housing these people led to dramatic cost savings that more than paid for the cost of putting them in decent housing, including $1.8 million in health care savings from 447 fewer ER visits (78% reduction) and 372 fewer hospital days (79% reduction). Tenants also spent 84 fewer days in jail, with a 72% drop in arrests.

Moore Place cost $6 million in land and construction costs, and tenants are required to contribute 30% of their income (mainly benefits) towards rent. The remainder of the $14,000 per tenant annually is covered by donations and local and federal funding. According to the UNCC study, that $14,000 pales in comparison to the costs a chronically homeless person racks up every year to society — a stunning $39,458 in combined medical, judicial and other costs.

What’s more, Moore Place is enabling the formerly homeless to find their own sources of income. Without housing, just 50% were able to generate any income. One year after move-in, they’re up to 82%. And after an average length of 7 years of homelessness, 94% of the original tenants retained their housing after 18 months, with a 99% rent collection rate.

The general population is biased: The original proposal for Moore Place was “controversial, if not ridiculed,” according to the Charlotte Observer. Locals mocked the idea that giving the homeless subsidized housing would do any good. A 2011 report commissioned by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority found that people have condescending attitudes towards the homeless, with the public perceiving higher levels of substance abuse problems (91%) and mental health issues (85%) than reported by the homeless themselves (41% and 24% respectively). It concluded that if “personal failings as the main cause of homelessness, it is unlikely that they will vote for increased public assistance or volunteer to help the homeless themselves.

But “you can’t argue with the statistics," said UMC housing director Caroline Chambre. “This approach was controversial at one time because of the stereotype of who the homeless are, and we had to change that stereotype.

In 2012, total welfare spending for the poor was just 0.47% of the federal budget. It turns out that maybe if we spent a little more to help the chronically destitute solve their problems, we could save a lot of money.

Hey Capitalists, supply and demand means that with 5 times as many empty homes as homeless people, you should be paying them to move in.

kinkyturtle:

it’s interesting but also terrifying to see the ways that capitalism has shaped our language and how we talk about bodies. can you be useful? can you be a productive member of society? can you work? can you make money? that is all this comes back to. so much ableist and fat phobic rhetoric is, at its core, does your body enable you to produce capital. if not, then you are useless and don’t deserve humanity. 

Slaves: The Capital that Made Capitalism

newblackschool:

The law of chattel applied to African and African-descended slaves to the fullest extent on eighteenth century plantations. Under racialized chattel slavery, master-enslavers possessed the right to torture and maim, the right to kill, the right to rape, the right to alienate, and the right to own offspring — specifically, the offspring of the female slave. The exploitation of enslaved women’s reproductive labor became a prerogative that masters shared with other white men. Any offspring resulting from rape increased the master’s stock of capital.”

This is why we need to meditate on antiblackness relentlessly. Even Karl Marx mentioned this when he discussed “primitive accumulation” but in sort of a glancing way without looking deeply into the abyss as we must find the strength to do.

(Source: so-treu)

May 9

cuccumella:

also fuck ethical consumerism as a concept.

first of it is classist as fuck i cannot afford ten+ dollars for a fucking bag of coffee alright i cant even pay my bills. ethical consumerism is that fake elitist progressive/liberal shit that lets them look down their noses at others because they’re so “conscientious!!!” 

and why should i have to pay more to get products made by workers who were treated with dignity??? why is it not standard that every employee be treated like a human being???? how is this not a huge flashing siren of something is fucking wrong where when im walking down the grocery aisle its more likely that the workers who proccessed my food were treated like shit than it is that they were treated with even a sliver of respect????

First let’s be clear about this.

“Unemployment” does not refer to people too lazy to work or to the losers who have failed to secure an available job.

What unemployment means is that there are no available jobs. It means that X number of people are being denied work. The unemployed are not those who refuse work, or who do not seek work, or even those with poor “job-seeking” skills. The unemployed are that percentage of the population whose right to earn a living is being denied to them. The 7 percent or so unemployment rate we have had in the years following the crisis year of the Great Recession refers to the percentage of the work-force for which no jobs exist to seek, to find or to fill.

This is why the better measure of unemployment is the ratio of job-seekers to job openings. That ratio has not sunk below 3 to 1 since the Great Recession. That means that if in a single miraculous instant, every mismatch of geography, skill-set and pay-scale were met and every job opening were filled at once, then two-thirds of our unemployed would remain unemployed. And at that point there would be no reason for any of them to send out résumés, brush up on their interview skills, or do any of that other victim-blaming make-work we expect them to do, unpaid, until such time as someone deigns to allow them to earn a living again.

I prefer that ratio as a measurement of unemployment because it proves — proves — that all of the moralizing lectures levied at the unemployed are cruel and absurd.

-

Unemployment is ‘evil,’ the ‘opposite of just’ and ‘a real social disaster’

Everyone must read this.

(via brutereason)

This this this.

The way society treats unemployment is like bringing 10 hungry people together, putting out 2 apples and waiting to see what hapens. Then, after the two people fastests/strongest/closest to the apples have eaten, they turn on the other 8 and ask “Why haven’t you eaten?”, “Are you too lazy to eat?”, “Do you enjoy being hungry?”, “I’m sure you could have gotten that apple if you had tried harder”. Conveniently forgetting that there wasn’t enough food made available in the first place.

(via anotherlgbttumblr)

American Capitalism is preserved by two essential and integral factors: fraud and force. Fraud is the ideological and cultural hegemony of the capitalist creed: that enterprise is free and competition exists for all in the marketplace; that success is available for all who work hard, accumulate capital, and participate as voters in the electoral process; that democratic government is dependent upon the freedom to own private property. Blacks, Latinos, and white workers are barraged daily with illusions about the inherent justice and equal opportunity within the American System. The educational institutions, churches, media and popular culture all in their own way participate in creating the logical framework for a system that remains irrational and inhumane. Beneath the velvet glove of fraud exists the iron fist of force. For reasons of history, Black people are more aware than whites of this delicate dichotomy between consensus vs. coercion. The essence of slavery was coercion of the most primitive kind - the relationships between master and slave were characterized by mutual distrust, fear, hatred and undisguised force. All slaves, whether the proverbial Uncle Toms or Nat Turners, recognized that production could not take place without the daily use of physical or psychological violence. Even the most paternalistic master had to divide Black families occasionally or employ the whip to get the crop to market on schedule. Under industrial capitalism, however, the essence of production involves force of a different kind: the extraction of surplus value from the labor power of the worker. Force is generally disguised within capitalist societies with democratic forms of government. The worker never receives the actual or real value of his/her own labor, but is technically “free” to sell his/her skills or services to the highest bidder, or employer. Blue collar and service workers are “less free” than professional workers, but all are forced to accept the conditions of employment that the owners of capital are willing to grant.

- Manning Marable, How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America (via goneril-and-regan)

the-uncensored-she:

thedalekwiththebread:

instead of paying women the same as men, pay men the same as women and see how angry they get

And give white people— even billionaire CEOs— the same pay as a worker/employee of Color and watch the hysteria really fly. Just a reminder that capitalism is inherently racist/white-supremacist and misogynistic.