reblog if u hate capitalism but u still want to make money because you need money to survive capitalism lmao i’m sad
My black year: Maggie Anderson at TEDxGrandRapids
Chicago family Buys Black for a year. Maggie Anderson, shares her experience with that experiment.
Maggie Anderson also Author of the Book based on the experiment:
"Our Black Year"
Where are the notes??? I mean, this is THE answer, according to much of pro-Black tumblr, so I’d expect more cosigns…
apps like “around the way” are doing a great job in pin pointing black businesses in nyc, but there needs to be much more than that. hopefully, everyone will watch this.
Calling Snowpiercer an allegory for capitalism, then—and especially reading it as an argument for revolution—elides the things that make it scary. If a director can make a movie about how capitalism is auto-cannibalism, and say so, then it’s not an allegory for capitalism. How can the train be a metaphor for late capitalism when it literally is, in the movie, the form that capitalism takes after climate change? It is the latest possible kind of capitalism, a capitalism that no longer makes anything other than pain and suffering. The train is the capitalism that it has eaten up the entire world, and is now just living off its own stored reserves of fat.
Snowpiercer is not about the revolution we might have today, then; it’s about the time after revolution has ceased to be possible. As a dystopic future, it can even be recuperated into a call to save the present, precisely so we don’t get to the point where Snowpiercer has already gotten. It could be a call to revolution: what we need to do is change the system. In this way, however, it isn’t “about” contemporary capitalism at all. Or if it is, then it’s already too late; if children are the only food sources left, then our choice is no choice: we can kill ourselves or eat ourselves, each of which implies the other.
Or if it is, then it’s already too late; if children are the only food sources left, then our choice is no choice: we can kill ourselves or eat ourselves, each of which implies the other.”
I think this misses a key point of the movie: the engine to the system runs on children - but there’s options outside the system.
If you look at your chain of supplies -food, clothing, electricity, etc. you’ll quickly find there is NO way to avoid exploitation of labor or resources or land.
There is NO option, no amount of “Free Trade” or “Organic” that from top to bottom gives you an option where no one is hurt or put against their will. Your best options? Cost so much collectively that you’d have to be independently wealthy - and guess how you’re going to get that money?
If you decide to move into the forest and live off the land? How many people can do that? How much of your supplies and tools will initially come from the normal chain of products? How did you get the knowledge to survive off the land? Books? Internet? Even that requires linking into the system, somewhere.
The system runs on harm. Already, right now. There are no options to not have harm in it, without a massive restructuring, and that would break the core value, the engine - “expansion based on individual reward”
Our country’s wealthy white once-idealistic baby boomer generation has cheated those of you entering the working world. A small percentage of us have taken almost all the new wealth since the recession. Our Silicon Valley CEOs have placated you with overpriced technological toys that are the result of decades of American productivity, but which have mainly profited the elite members of their industries.
Although none of us in the older generations can speak for you, we can help you research the facts. And the facts are painfully clear.
1. You Have Very Little Savings to Pay Your Massive Debts
A recent report claims that median net worth for the millennial generation (18 to 35 years old) has risen from $9,000 to $32,000 since 2007, and that their median income is $47,000.
Most other sources disagree. A report from the Russell Sage Foundation concludes that all American households have lost wealth since 2007. Other evidence shows that about 90% of us lost wealth in the past five years, while the richest - and generally older - 5% made millions. Median income, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is only about $35,000 for 25- to 34-year-olds, and just $25,000 for 20- to 24-year-olds.
Debt is apparently the difference, and the unrelenting burden, for college-educated young people. Based on Pew research, college-educated student debtors have twice as much debt as income. And they have only one-seventh the net worth of college-educated adults who have no student debt obligations.
2. You’re Being Cheated out of the Opportunity to Begin Your Own Households
As you were entering the working world after the recession, almost 60 percent of the new jobs were low-income ($7.69 to $13.83 per hour). The number of college grads working for minimum wage doubled in just five years.
As a result, many of you are forced to live with your parents. In just one generation, the percentage of stay-at-home young adults has risen from 11 percent to almost 24 percent. And more disturbingly, student homelessness increased by 10 percent in just one year.
3. Corporations are Hoarding Money that Could Pay for Your Jobs
Corporations more than doubled their profits and halved their taxes from 2000 to 2012.
What have they been doing with all that money? Hoarding it, mostly. David Cay Johnston estimated that in 2013 American businesses held almost $7.9 trillion of liquid assets worldwide. And here’s a bigger insult: According to the Wall Street Journal, for some of our largest corporations over 75 percent of the cash owned by foreign subsidiaries is kept “at U.S. banks, held in U.S. dollars or parked in U.S. government and corporate securities.”
So they’re using taxpayer money to protect the assets that they’re avoiding taxes on.
Corporations are also spending trillions of dollars on stock buybacks, which use potential research and development money to pump up the prices of executive stock options. Apple, one of the buyback leaders, and the nation’s biggest tax avoider, defended its outsourcing, saying ”We shouldn’t be criticized for using Chinese workers. The U.S. has stopped producing people with the skills we need.”
Meanwhile, corporations continue to cut jobs, with the computer industry among the worst offenders at the start of 2014.Microsoft just announced the deepest cuts in the firm’s 39-year history. AT&T has reduced its workforce by 22 percent in the last seven years. Verizon is shutting down customer service centers. Apple has a more efficient way of undermining workers, earning$400,000 profit per employee while paying most of their store workers $12 to $14 per hour.
4. The Business Media Mocks You
With supreme condescension, the media looks down at a struggling class of young Americans and proclaims:
—-The good news is that information technology provides the iPod/Facebook generation with the means to find work and create careers.. —Michael Barone, the Washington Examiner
—-A lot of people…can still earn a good living now by building their own branded reputations.. —Thomas Friedman, the New York Times
—-The ability to so take photographs makes [people] richer. —Forbes
To the out-of-touch super-rich capitalists, those of you in the newest working generation thrive on social networking, good reputations, and picture-taking. A nice lifestyle, as long as you don’t have to support yourselves or your families.
Is this why no one will hire me? I really feel like people use my resume to wipe their desks after an expensive sushi place.
I see no lies.
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
"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.”
liberal feminism more like “capitalism: it’s not just for boys”
"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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.