But here's the real Nina!
Saturday, July 6, 2013
People make the "Economy"
Dear friends,
To hear it from large corporations, "pundits" of all stripes, and the mass communications media, the "Economy", as it were, is some kind of force or other phenomenon that drops out of the sky...
That notion makes everyday people, who are the only ones who really do work, think that we are all helpless, unless "Fate", some kind of divine intervention of "market forces", or even a set of prayers to win favor from the aforementioned "Economy" will make it (said Economy) return to us strong and generous.
Does that sound like a fairy tale? Well, it is not. Rather, this is the type of nonsense that those who are directing the wealth that ordinary people create continue to perpetuate through our schools, media, ad other cultural/social institutions. Represented by the earlier mentioned pundits and others (all of whom may, very well, just not know any better), many, if not most, people are constantly left in a state of anxiety about our futures.
People make economies, not vice versa. However, those in power are unwilling to lessen their current earnings by sharing with anyone, especially those who exist outside of their group. That means that, through clever schemes made by the government officials that they (big businesses) install, everyday citizens are expected to sacrifice for the common good (which is that which serves the interests of large corporations and the privileged few who own them - that is, those who have "Entitlement").
If people began to work together and begin to establish businesses like worker's cooperatives, for example, then issues like unemployment would be taken in a completely different context. I have a dear friend who is an automobile mechanic. He and a handful of other such automotive engineers own a shop that thrives quite well. Moreover, they share in both the work, the profits, as well as the losses. If this type of activity became more common, we would see all kinds of small businesses open up where people in the community could shun the larger companies and restrict much of their earnings to supporting institutions in their own communities.
To be sure, we would then see other institutions (for example, supermarkets, and banks) take new forms within communities, including local governments. Moreover, the necessary respect and trust that would develop inside of any community that chose such a direction would increase the standard of living of that body of people, as well. Imagine how it would affect schools, local health centers and hospitals, the relationships with police, firefighters, EMTs, librarians, and others who help provide the high standard of living that results from community sharing. Yet, if we, as individuals, simply copy the greed that is exercised by the ruling class and seek only that which is beneficial to ourselves, then the current circumstances will merely be passed on to our descendants.
Let us consider the great Tip O'neil's assertion that he canonized shortly before his passing. It goes: All politics is local. Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus Read full post
To hear it from large corporations, "pundits" of all stripes, and the mass communications media, the "Economy", as it were, is some kind of force or other phenomenon that drops out of the sky...
That notion makes everyday people, who are the only ones who really do work, think that we are all helpless, unless "Fate", some kind of divine intervention of "market forces", or even a set of prayers to win favor from the aforementioned "Economy" will make it (said Economy) return to us strong and generous.
Does that sound like a fairy tale? Well, it is not. Rather, this is the type of nonsense that those who are directing the wealth that ordinary people create continue to perpetuate through our schools, media, ad other cultural/social institutions. Represented by the earlier mentioned pundits and others (all of whom may, very well, just not know any better), many, if not most, people are constantly left in a state of anxiety about our futures.
People make economies, not vice versa. However, those in power are unwilling to lessen their current earnings by sharing with anyone, especially those who exist outside of their group. That means that, through clever schemes made by the government officials that they (big businesses) install, everyday citizens are expected to sacrifice for the common good (which is that which serves the interests of large corporations and the privileged few who own them - that is, those who have "Entitlement").
If people began to work together and begin to establish businesses like worker's cooperatives, for example, then issues like unemployment would be taken in a completely different context. I have a dear friend who is an automobile mechanic. He and a handful of other such automotive engineers own a shop that thrives quite well. Moreover, they share in both the work, the profits, as well as the losses. If this type of activity became more common, we would see all kinds of small businesses open up where people in the community could shun the larger companies and restrict much of their earnings to supporting institutions in their own communities.
To be sure, we would then see other institutions (for example, supermarkets, and banks) take new forms within communities, including local governments. Moreover, the necessary respect and trust that would develop inside of any community that chose such a direction would increase the standard of living of that body of people, as well. Imagine how it would affect schools, local health centers and hospitals, the relationships with police, firefighters, EMTs, librarians, and others who help provide the high standard of living that results from community sharing. Yet, if we, as individuals, simply copy the greed that is exercised by the ruling class and seek only that which is beneficial to ourselves, then the current circumstances will merely be passed on to our descendants.
Let us consider the great Tip O'neil's assertion that he canonized shortly before his passing. It goes: All politics is local. Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus Read full post
Can capitalism survive the current world economic crisis?
"...under the current capitalist model, the performance of big companies, from time-to-time meet a dead end, because, at some point, the continuous seeking of profit in and of itself, with no concern for how the success of the business relates to progress of people in communities - aside from the latter’s consumption - and how people live, will, invariably, lead to the dilemma where the “market” must necessarily reach a 'saturation point',.."
Dear friends,
The big banks decided back in the late 19th Century to allow businesses to depend on them for capital (called finance capital), rather than the latter getting their own capital (called industrial capital) by earning it. Actually, only the largest companiies of certain industries were given the privilege of getting finnce capital. It was a neat trick, because it meant that no one smaller could compete with them, since they (big companies) did not have to worry about waiting for revenues to keep daily operations, buying new equipment, setting up subsidiaries, or providing paychecks for their workers. As a result, monopolies were formed that made sure that there was no "free market".
Yet, under the current capitalist model, the performance of the big companies, from time-to-time meet a dead end, because, at some point, the continuous seeking of profit in and of itself, with no concern for how the success of the business relates to progress of people in communities - aside from the latter’s consumption - and how people live, will, invariably, lead to the dilemma where the “market” must necessarily reach a “saturation point”, as it were, where there are either less or no customers (i.e., consumers), since there will come a time when people will not buy, if for no other reason than the fact that everyone has all of that particular items that they want. Hence, the constant wars in which, especially, the US, Britain, France, and Germany engage, so that they can establish new markets (i.e., new consumers).
In other words, you cannot have an infinite growth of the market, because there are only so many consumers who will want a product. Then what do you do? People who are really thinking about the future of humankind have to change the values of society, so that the market reflects those values, instead of vice versa (which is where the US ad other big capitalist nations now stand). But that means giving up either power or wealth to maintain legitimacy. To be sure, the Bush family and others shun that idea.
G. Djata Bumpus Read full post
Dear friends,
The big banks decided back in the late 19th Century to allow businesses to depend on them for capital (called finance capital), rather than the latter getting their own capital (called industrial capital) by earning it. Actually, only the largest companiies of certain industries were given the privilege of getting finnce capital. It was a neat trick, because it meant that no one smaller could compete with them, since they (big companies) did not have to worry about waiting for revenues to keep daily operations, buying new equipment, setting up subsidiaries, or providing paychecks for their workers. As a result, monopolies were formed that made sure that there was no "free market".
Yet, under the current capitalist model, the performance of the big companies, from time-to-time meet a dead end, because, at some point, the continuous seeking of profit in and of itself, with no concern for how the success of the business relates to progress of people in communities - aside from the latter’s consumption - and how people live, will, invariably, lead to the dilemma where the “market” must necessarily reach a “saturation point”, as it were, where there are either less or no customers (i.e., consumers), since there will come a time when people will not buy, if for no other reason than the fact that everyone has all of that particular items that they want. Hence, the constant wars in which, especially, the US, Britain, France, and Germany engage, so that they can establish new markets (i.e., new consumers).
In other words, you cannot have an infinite growth of the market, because there are only so many consumers who will want a product. Then what do you do? People who are really thinking about the future of humankind have to change the values of society, so that the market reflects those values, instead of vice versa (which is where the US ad other big capitalist nations now stand). But that means giving up either power or wealth to maintain legitimacy. To be sure, the Bush family and others shun that idea.
G. Djata Bumpus Read full post
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Dr. Barbara Love on Frederick Douglass' famous July 4th speech, 1852
"Frederick Douglass (1817-1895) was the best known and most influential African American leader of the 1800s..."
(originally posted July 4th, 2008)
Frederick Douglass (1817-1895) was the best known and most influential African American leader of the 1800s. He was born a slave in Maryland but managed to escape to the North in 1838. He traveled to Massachusetts and settled in New Bedford, working as a laborer to support himself. In 1841, he attended a convention of the Massachusetts Antislavery Society and quickly came to the attention of its members, eventually becoming a leading figure in the New England antislavery movement...
In 1845, Douglass published his autobiography, "The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: an American Slave." With the revelation that he was an escaped slave, Douglass became fearful of possible re-enslavement and fled to Great Britain and stayed there for two years, giving lectures in support of the antislavery movement in America. With the assistance of English Quakers, Douglass raised enough money to buy his own his freedom and in 1847 he returned to America as a free man.
He settled in Rochester, New York, where he published The North Star, an abolitionist newspaper. He directed the local underground railroad which smuggled escaped slaves into Canada and also worked to end racial segregation in Rochester's public schools.
In 1852, the leading citizens of Rochester asked Douglass to give a speech as part of their Fourth of July celebrations. Douglass accepted their invitation.
In his speech, however, Douglass delivered a scathing attack on the hypocrisy of a nation celebrating freedom and independence with speeches, parades and platitudes, while, within its borders, nearly four million humans were being kept as slaves.
Liberation,
Dr. Barbara J. Love
Social Justice Education (now retired)
SOE, UMASS, Amherst
******************************************
Fellow citizens, pardon me, and allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I or those I represent to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? And am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits, and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions. Then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful. For who is there so cold that a nation's sympathy could not warm him? Who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude, that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? Who so stolid and selfish that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation's jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been torn from his limbs? I am not that man. In a case like that, the dumb might eloquently speak, and the "lame man leap as an hart."
But such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you this day rejoice are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity, and independence bequeathed by your fathers is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak today? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you, that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation (Babylon) whose crimes, towering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrecoverable ruin.
Fellow citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions, whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are today rendered more intolerable by the jubilant shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, "may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!"
To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs and to chime in with the popular theme would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world.
My subject, then, fellow citizens, is "American Slavery." I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view. Standing here, identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine, I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this Fourth of July.
Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity, which is outraged, in the name of liberty, which is fettered, in the name of the Constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery -- the great sin and shame of America! "I will not equivocate - I will not excuse." I will use the severest language I can command, and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slave-holder, shall not confess to be right and just.
But I fancy I hear some of my audience say it is just in this circumstance that you and your brother Abolitionists fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. Would you argue more and denounce less, would you persuade more and rebuke less, your cause would be much more likely to succeed. But, I submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. What point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue? On what branch of the subject do the people of this country need light? Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man? That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The slave-holders themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave. There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia, which, if committed by a black man (no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death; while only two of these same crimes will subject a white man to like punishment.
What is this but the acknowledgment that the slave is a moral, intellectual, and responsible being? The manhood of the slave is conceded. It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books are covered with enactments, forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read and write. When you can point to any such laws in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave. When the dogs in your streets, when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, then I will argue with you that the slave is a man!
For the present it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race. Is it not astonishing that, while we are plowing, planting, and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, silver, and gold; that while we are reading, writing, and ciphering, acting as clerks, merchants, and secretaries, having among us lawyers, doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators, and teachers; that we are engaged in all the enterprises common to other men -- digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hillside, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives, and children, and above all, confessing and worshipping the Christian God, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave -- we are called upon to prove that we are men?
Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? That he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to understand? How should I look today in the presence of Americans, dividing and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom, speaking of it relatively and positively, negatively and affirmatively? To do so would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to your understanding. There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven who does not know that slavery is wrong for him.
What! Am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood and stained with pollution is wrong? No - I will not. I have better employment for my time and strength than such arguments would imply.
What, then, remains to be argued? Is it that slavery is not divine; that God did not establish it; that our doctors of divinity are mistaken? There is blasphemy in the thought. That which is inhuman cannot be divine. Who can reason on such a proposition? They that can, may - I cannot. The time for such argument is past.
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. Oh! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation's ear, I would today pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be denounced.
What to the American slave is your Fourth of July? I answer, a day that reveals to him more than all other days of the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mock; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy - a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation of the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of these United States at this very hour.
Go search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.
Frederick Douglass - July 4, 1852 Read full post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
