Asian Businesswoman Confronts Black Consumer

Dear friends,

I just saw a video on Facebook that showed an African American man/consumer arguing with an Asian woman who was managing a restaurant where apparently he and a number of other folks had purchased some food. When he asked her for some water, an argument ensued, regarding him having paid for food or something. When he accused her of being racist towards him, she rejected that claiming that she too is a "minority".

Actually, her argument is cowardly and racist. She used the same argument that many exploitative Jews have used against Black consumers for decades. In fact, many Asians and Latinos identify themselves as "white".

But there's something else that is very sad here. That being: language is thought. Have you ever said to yourself, "I can't think of a word for it.".

Calling yourself a "minority" is a vicious term that our racist government began using in the late 60s in order to trivialize the value of our presence in this country. Uncle Tom and Aunt Thomasina Negroes from groups like the NAACP and the Urban League started using the term "minority" and popularizing it among us, in deference to our aforementioned racist government.

Additionally, it was important to our enemies that we used such a demeaning term for self-definition, because of the burgeoning Black Consciousness Movement that had replaced the accommodating Civil Rights Movement that died with Martin King. Who wants to be a "minority"? And who is the "majority"? After all, the very basis of White Supremacy lies in the fact that a woman or man can come from Europe yesterday, claim herself or himself as "white" and automatically become part of an artificial "majority" group, regardless of her or his true historical and cultural past.

Please remember,s/he isn't "white" in her or his real homeland, only economic factors distinguish her or him from her or his fellow citizens. We are NOT a minority! Rather, African peoples by ourselves are 40 million strong in this country We can build our own communities that are based upon love and prosperity. We just need to learn to operate within the context of "we" and stop hating each other/ourselves.

One Love!

G. Djata Bumpus


Read full post

Black Wall Street Massacre

Dear friends,

 This 10 minutes long video is a remarkable display of what Rap and Hip-hop could have/should have become. That is, instead of becoming art as a liberating force, they became nothing more than narcissistic buffoon minstrelsy!

Liberation!

G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wOu7H3ohvs
Read full post

Why African Americans need to wake up and Denounce Capitalism!

http://www.linktv.org/video/8240/richard-wolff-democracy-at-work-a-cure-for-capitalism#.Uvy5Gk2PPUc.facebook Read full post

Interview: Legendary scholar, activist, and author Lloyd Hogan turns 90 (1/23/13 - )

Dear friends,

It is with great honor and pride that I am having the opportunity to present an interview with a man who has been one of the most important teachers in my life, Professor Lloyd Hogan. Moreover, on today, his 90^th birthday, and considering all of the turmoil that still afflicts African American people, we are fortunate to still have his fresh, original thinking at hand Cheers!

Djatajabs: Hey Lloyd…Its been well over 30 years since my brother Eshu introduced us, after several years of him telling me that he had a professor who had become a close friend, at his alma mater, Hampshire College, with whom I would be certain to enjoy sharing ideas while, simultaneously, learning a great deal. To be sure, meeting you back then, and to this very day, has been one of the best things to ever happen, for me. Nevertheless, having been born in 1923, and considering your over 70 years in academia, from student scholar to professor, activist, and author, have there been changes for African American academicians, in both colleges and universities, generally, that have, correspondingly, benefited our people?

Lloyd: During the last 70 years much has changed for the better for African Americans in the institutions of higher learning (academia). In 1943, there were approximately 4 or 5 African American professors teaching in the "white" institutions. Academia had, perhaps, the most white segregated institutions in the U.S. It was so bad that in cities of the South where  African American colleges were located a stone's throw from their white counterparts, the white professors within the same fields kept theirdistance from their black colleagues.

Black students in the white institutions were the most deprived of scholarly camaraderie with their professors and fellow students. They were made to feel that they should be happy to be rubbing elbows with their superior consorts. At the same time, of course, the curricula were steeped in racially distorted nonsense which passed for substantiated knowledge. In short, white academia was subsisting in an atmosphere of distorted scholarship and social stagnation.

It is true that some institutions had exceedingly large black student

enrollments. Institutions like U of Chicago, Columbia U., and New York U. had black enrollments that surpassed most of the southern black colleges.

Closer scrutiny of these institutions revealed that these bloated enrollments were mostly of graduate students in the field of education. These were the southern professors and educational administrators from the black colleges who were studying towards graduate degrees, a condition which they could not pursue within southern institutions due to strictly enforced segregation laws.

Following World War II, with the passage of the GI Bill of Rights, an

increased number of blacks gained admission to the northern white institutions. The largest gains were in the State-supported colleges and universities of the Midwest and Western States. But these enrollments did not result in a corresponding increase in graduation. At the same time a

smattering of institutions employed a relatively few Black professors.

It wasn't until the middle 1960's, when both black and white students began to demonstrate against the corrupted educational system that real progress ensued. As a consequence of black student demands, black studies departments or programs sprang up in a number of white colleges across the land. In many cases, it was a "copy-catting" response to which these institutions paid tribute. Once Harvard had set up a Department of Afro American Studies, the lesser institutions began to follow in lock-step imitation. This led to the employment of a good number of blacks and to the enrollment of significant number of blacks in PhD programs in black history and other black impacted fields of study. So that today it is no longer unusual to see a good number of black students and professors on the campuses of the former segregated white institutions of both north and south. Out of these advances have emerged some important scholarly works by black professors which have influenced the thought processes of people throughout the nation.

But it is time to call for caution. Having been trained by former segregated-minded white scholars it is to be expected that it will take time before there will come into being a truly independent, scholarly, and truthful black intelligentsia. Time and effort are the promoters.

There is a lesson here for current and future African American college and university students. For those who need college degrees as credentials for employment at higher than usual wages, go for it and try

to complete your studies to actual graduation. The degree is your ticket of assurance that you can be a trusted and loyal servant of the capitalists who are your potential employers. They can trust you to count their money, to protect their assets, and to participate with them in exercising control over their work force.

For the relatively few African Americans who want to remain in the knowledge production fields, be aware that much of what goes for knowledge is merely rationalizations of the efficacy and necessity for the existing capitalist social order in which you are now functioning.

The existing knowledge base is flawed and critically fractured. It needs radical revision from its basic formulations up through its fundamental study methodologies. You have important work to do to bring about a change in the approach to the creation of new knowledge. You are truth pioneers. If you don't accept this responsibility you will emerge from these institutions as petty cadets of your intellectual master purveyors of contrived understanding of real world phenomena. Go for it.

Djatajabs: We’ve just experienced the inauguration, for the second time, of Barack Obama, as the President of the United States of America…How do you feel about that, regarding the progress of African American people?

Lloyd: Obama's presidency has been a historical advance in the history of the United States. It certainly has given African Americans an invaluable public relations position. The first time, Obama could not have been elected without the votes of a substantial number of whites. These brave souls went to the polls in revolt against the incompetence of a president who was taking the country to economic and military demise. They were ecstatic about their accomplishment and showed up in person and in television parlors in the millions to witness his inauguration.

A few days later reality set in and they awoke from the dream state. It was as if they said to themselves "what were we thinking..." We should all have known that the President of the United States is the chief executive of the capitalist ruling class. As head functionary of  the capitalist political state his major task is to oversee the promulgation and enforcement of the rules of the capitalist game.

First and foremost among these rules is to insure the continuity of the system...and this means the urgency of preservation of private property rights of capitalists in the ownership of the wage worker's ability to work, which was purchased in market relations; preservation of the property rights of capitalists in the products of wage workers labor, which result from the capitalists use of his private property; preservation of capitalist property rights in the profits derived fromthe sale of his products; and finally preservation of the right of capitalists to reinvest their profits in such a manner as to repeat the process of capitalist activity over and over again without end. There is no way in which African American issues could have been brought to the forefront of Obama's administration in the face of the reality of his major task. As such, it wasn't too long into his tenure that Tea Party and other organizations began to oppose his every action within a posture of concealed and at times overt racist diatribes. Meantime, African Americans and other allies looked on in dismay to witness what appeared to be an administration incapable of any progressive accomplishment. The man is circumscribed by an exploitative political economic system. It is sufficient if he can survive and end his tenure with accomplishments such as a termination of two destructive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with a semblance of a health care insurance plan, and with some growth in employment. He should be commended if he can pull off these modest goals.

Djatajabs: Now, apart from education and politics, I always remember, from years back, how important it was to you to have a fairly large garden, during the warm weather, but also, even today, you still have a small porch garden, at your home. What is the role of food for any population group, as it seeks to reproduce itself as a people, through

time?

Lloyd: It is true that I have always tried, whenever possible, to plant a kitchen garden. It is a conscious attempt to keep in touch with the reality of human existence. In my book, Principles of Black Political Economy, I argued that food production and consumption lie at the foundation of every conceivable political economy that has been known throughout the history of humankind. Since then I have been working on development of a theory of human population. A fundamental postulate of that theory is that in every human society two material crops must be produced to form its core. These are an annual crop of food and a corresponding annual crop of human babies. The annual crop of food constitutes the life-time supply for the corresponding annual crop of babies. I can't go into implications of this postulate in this discussion. However, suffice it to say that different social orders are distinguished by the specific way in which the food is made available to the babies over the course of their lifetimes.

That food is essential should be obvious. No person can exist

without ingesting into his/her person a daily dosage of food (including potable water and breathable air). Food is the elixir of human life. Although people consume many other things, food, nonetheless, must also be

an essential part of their consumption bundle.

In exploitative  societies, it is the robbery of the food from the mouth of babies that reduce the potential longevity of the average population member. It is no wonder that death among the poverty stricken comes easy; while death among the material well-off comes hard. The bread is snatched from the mouth of the poor and death easily prevails.

It is no wonder then that I always try to plant a garden. In these days, I am confined to a few planters on my apartment terrace where I concentrate on the standard herbs--thyme, rosemary. basil, oregano, sage, etc. I also work with peppers such as bhut jaloki, trinidad scorpion, habanero, scotch bonnet, etc. I engage in friendly struggle with Earth-mother.

Djatajabs: Is there a reason to for us to continue the African American experience in a so-called “post-racial” society? I mean, exactly what conditions must exist, in order for a group to become a distinct body for generations, and when is it favorable for them to do so?

Lloyd: I must state at the outset that "race" is a corrupt and corruptible concept. It immediately involves a superiorityinferiority configuration. It was invented by slave hunters and slave

masters to justify to their gods and their evil consciences the wanton control of other human beings as their private property.

"Post-racial" is a related term which has no essential meaning, but provides talking points for charlatans, television commentators, and the unthinking

layman.

African Americans are a distinctive population by dint of their long historical period of reproducing among themselves to the exclusion of all other people.

No individual African American consciously made the decision to be a member of this distinct population. The social and

political economic circumstances under which these people existed in North America are the decisive factors. Black slavery, black

sharecropping in a Jim Crow environment, and late coming to the wage labor class are the historical groundings which cemented African Americans as an identifiable sub-population within the larger U.S. population. As such, it will be an extremely long time in the future before these people will be physically and socially integrated into the larger U.S. population. One shouldn't make plans for this event any time soon.

I must also remind you that African Americans have been physically integrated with a segment of the white population for quite a long time, in the past. If one observes these people closely it becomes, at once, obvious that they have shed a decisive identifying African attribute.

Blackness as a color that is characteristic of African people has almost disappeared from African Americans. They span all colors of the rainbow. Their blood has been tainted with the venom of the vermin slave masters who forcibly injected their polluted seeds into black slave women's wombs. The rape of black womanhood now appears visibly in the panorama of colors among black people. But the power of blackness is such that one droplet of black blood still marks the offspring as black.

The message to African Americans is to savor that history and the cultural entanglements which surround it. There is no escape. After all, it is out of the struggles of African Americans for liberation from all the restrictions they faced throughout their history which made the important democratic advances in the U.S. at large. The nation owes these people a great debt of gratitude for whatever semblance of democracy now prevails. African American struggle and developing U.S. democracy are synonymous events.

Djatajabs: What relationships do you think need to exist between African American men and women for the prospects of our future growth as a people?

Lloyd: I have no substantive knowledge of interpersonal relationships. My only advice to any African American in this regard is to remember that

people are highly specialized and exotic formations of the Earth's

surface. As such they have an obligation far beyond themselves to preserve and improve the species of which they are an essential part.

Be good to each other...love the other better than you love yourself...never do to the other what you would not want done to you, while at the same time always defending the right of the other to do whatever he/she proposes to do. But since the Earth-mother is the source of our being, then preservation and improvement of her is a number 1 activity. That is

all I have to contribute to this most important topic.

Djatajabs: Thanks for sharing your wisdom today, as you have been doing for three generations, Lloyd…and Happy 90^th!...Much Love!

Read full post

Drones, Wars, and Money

"I guess having a personal God allows people to disregard their personal Good."

Dear friends, Just a few days ago, Pres. Obama ordered his umpteenth drone strike and murdered a bunch of people, many of them children, because the corporations who put him in office need to keep this country at constant war...even worse, many citizens - politicians and every day people alike, thinking of no one but themselves, go along with this carnage as long as they are able to keep their “jobs”. I guess having a personal God allows people to disregard their personal Good.

On the link below, is a 28 minutes long video about the history / evolution of the drone program.

G. Djata Bumpus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpxT481YzHs Read full post

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

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

Re-Visiting Tid-bits of current US/AFGHANISTAN relations - Big Business

"Inspired by major success stories, Ford, 3M, and Boeing are examining business opportunities in Afghanistan..."

From the Embassy of Afghanistan, in Washington, DC
More than 70 American companies have registered in Afghanistan since 2003, representing $75 million in potential investment, and more than 15 foreign and domestic banks have opened their doors in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan’s national income per capita has doubled since 2001, reaching approximately $356. Over 100,000 Afghans have been able to start small businesses thanks to micro-credit loans; 76% of these loans were given to women. Afghanistan was selected as the 2005 US Trade and Development Agency “Country of the Year,” while the World Bank ranked the ease of starting a new business in Afghanistan 16th in the world and lists Afghanistan as the 2006 top performer on business entry.

Since 2001, more than 55,000 businesses have been registered, allowing Afghans to dream of a better future for their children for the first time in 30 years. Inspired by major success stories, Ford, 3M, and Boeing are examining business opportunities in Afghanistan, and Coca-Cola has opened a $25 million bottling plant in Kabul, which employs approximately 500 Afghans.
***************************************
Dear friends,

There's a little more, on the link below. The Afghans do not need "oil", in order to make this "war" profitable. Does El Presidente have power over the US multinational business marauders, much less the military/industrial complex?

Meanwhile, thousands of US soldiers have died and thousands more have been injured, with the understanding that they were defending some great ideal or something, while the US government, sponsored by big business, along with its corporate-controlled mainstream media now says that it (said government) wants the Taliban to be included in talks regarding the future of Afghanistan, Huh? Please remember that after 54, 000 US soldiers died in Vietnam, the US has trade dealings with the Vietnamese today.

G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.acci.org.af/index.php Read full post

The Federal Deficit and Going off a Cliff

“Yet, how much of our government’s purchases/expenditures, for example, are directly tied to doing business with US corporations and big banks?”

  Dear friends, 

 The federal deficit is defined as, “The excess of federal government spending over tax collections. The flip side of the federal deficit is the less common federal surplus, the excess of tax collections over spending.” 

 Yet, how much of our government’s purchases/expenditures, for example, are directly tied to doing business with US corporations and big banks? So, what if the government charged tax rates according to the amount of money and other assets that an enterprise has, since greater security (i.e., police and military) is needed in order for that aforementioned enterprise to survive? After all, the current crop of Republican politicians and their corporate sponsors/bosses enjoy the protection of their assets, both here and abroad, at low cost? 

 I mean, what if they had to hire their own armies and police? Would that be a higher expense than the taxes that they pay at present? And so, is the rant about wanting “small government”, actually, a red herring? 

 How much time would the owners/managers of the aforementioned corporations and banks have to invest towards creating more wealth, if they had, instead, to spend more time on protecting their assets from those who have less (the so-called 99%)? Moreover, what type of lives would these owners/managers of corporations and banks, mentioned above, have, in terns of enjoying their wealth, as a result of having the responsibility of protecting their assets? 

 Please remember that greed is always short-sighted, from the cheating spouse to the BP oil spill. 

 G. Djata Bumpus Read full post

Education and disturbing Job ads (originally posted 5/10/10)

“The other day, I saw a post on a friend's Facebook page that, at least to me, pointed out a real contradiction between the cries of many politicians for ‘education reform’ and ‘employment opportunities’. “

Dear friends,

The other day, I saw a post on a friend's Facebook page that, at least to me, pointed out a real contradiction between the cries of many politicians for “education reform” and “employment opportunities”.

The article was about employment ads that, basically, state: unemployed applicants will not be considered.

In other words, many employers are telling people who are out of work, for whatever reasons, that folks who are unemployed need not bother applying for the aforementioned employers’ jobs.

Now, actually, it had always been my experience that employers normally hire those who already have a job anyway. Therefore, I didn't understand why folks, including the author of the article, were so shocked about a practice that has always existed.

At any rate, apparently, in these Tea Party days, employers have "come out of the closet", as it were, and are stating publicly, “Get lost!” to millions of people.

Nevertheless, with all of the phony talk and legislation about
“No child left behind", isn't it funny that, for example, young people who have diligently gone and gotten their education, in hopes of contributing to the commonweal and being compensated for it, so that they can continue to share their skills with the rest of society, are locked out from the git-go? In other words, what’s the point of pretentious laws and statutes like the under-funded "No child left behind", if eager job applicants are discriminated against when they try to get opportunities to reveal the inner, personal powers that they enhanced through their education?

Yet, interestingly enough, the same politicians who say that they want "education reform" are happy to see these spurned job-seekers just mentioned go to war and defend the property rights of these pols’ sponsors (multi-national corporations and other big businesses). Also, you can bet on it that those same discriminating employers second the motion by politicians that young people be fodder for both the politicians' and corporations' benefit. Go figure.

Please check out the article on the link below.

Cheers!

G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/04/disturbing-job-ads-the-un_n_600665.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=997897,b=facebook Read full post

Romney's claim of a "free market" and running a "successful" business is is a LIE!

Dear friends,

The lie that Romney and his ilk make about believing in the so-called "free market" is totally exposed in his and others' practices. Please tell me. Where is the free market, when it comes to food being grown and distributed? Or housing to be built, then sold or rented? Or opinions to be made, or goods and services to be sold though the enticing ads of both the print and electronic media? Are there the same opportunities for everyone to develop and grow? 

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 companies of certain industries were given the privilege of getting finance 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? You 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 Romney family, and others like them. shun that idea.

G. Djata Bumpus




Read full post

Was George Carlin right?

"By the way, George Carlin, a contemporary of Richard Pryor, at least to me, was often as insightful and funny as the beloved Pryor..."

Dear friends,

I read this piece on the blog of a buddy of mine and thought that I would share it. It reminds us of the reality with which we are all familiar, regarding our nation's constant economic predicament.

By the way, George Carlin, a contemporary of Richard Pryor, at least to me, was often as insightful and funny as the beloved Pryor.

Cheers!

G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.lewrockwell.com/cooper/cooper8.html Read full post

The Federal Bailout - a panoply of illusions (originally posted 12/11/08)

Teacher: Consider, oh child, whence these talents?
You cannot have them from yourself.
Child: Well, I have everything from Papa.
Teacher: And he, from whom does he have them?
Child: From Grandpa.
Teacher: Now look! From whom did Grandpa get them?
Child: He took 'em.
(Johann Von Goethe from "Katechisation")

Dear friends,

At the heart of the present world crisis in both banking and business is the illusion that value is something outside of what is socially accepted as such. Here, of course, I am defining an illusion (which should not be confused with the medical term “delusion”) within the Freudian context as: An idea or belief that is based upon wishful thinking that has no relation to reality, and does not admit to needing such a connection.

Nevertheless, roughly two and one-half centuries ago, Italian political economist Fernando Galiani insisted that “Value is a social relation.” For example, if you fill a room with either gold bullion or billions of dollars in cash, neither has any value, unless, at least, two human beings engage themselves with either of the aforementioned items during a process of exchange.

In other words, the value of any particular object or activity (i.e., commodity) is solely based upon imaginary notions of “value” that are concocted by buyers and sellers alike during commercial transactions. After all, as a dear friend of mine, Denny Wolfe, says: Other than the three elements that we call oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon, which in combination provide sustainable life to both fauna and flora, no substances or objects on Earth have intrinsic “value” for us.

On a more tangible level, for humans, it is food that is the most significant matter that has intrinsic value. Consequently, in his classic book called "The Principles of Black Political Economy", Professor Lloyd Hogan insists that food, which he also calls the “elixir of life”, is "wealth in the abstract".

All people, regardless of either income or social status, must eat in periodic intervals or surely we will succumb. Period. Moreover, unless we are farmers, we must acquire our food by exchanging something for it that is useful to the seller of food. The item of exchange must not only be of use to the seller of the food, but it also must be of use to the seller of whatever the food-seller needs other than food - since it is presumed that this food-seller already has enough food and is merely selling surplus product(s) in order to acquire other things.

Hence, a universal item of exchange is needed. That is, an object or substance must be agreed upon that represents value in the abstract. Food is perishable; therefore, it has to be something that can withstand time. Gold once served that purpose, meaning all commodities shared the same quality in relation to gold, only quantitative factors, regarding how much gold any particular commodity represents was the issue.

And so, this is where money – like Dorothy in Oz - appears in the marketplace. In other words, it is not something "inevitable"; rather, it is pure chance. This is particularly so, because at the point of exchange, the food-seller mentioned above simultaneously alienates himself or herself from his or her ward (food commodity) and transforms it into that universal exchange value (money). At this point of metamorphosis, even the outward appearances disappear, only quantitative factors distinguish the values of commodities. That is precisely why any phenomenon can serve as money (e.g., paper, gold, plastic cards, and so forth).

This also explains why the Federal Reserve System can create money, like gangsters in a cellar, regardless of whether or not the aforementioned currency has any value to it outside of its name. But the more money that you "make", the less valuable existing money becomes. That means that the value of the money is inflated. Most people think of "inflation" in terms of "price". However, a higher price is only the affect that inflating the economy with more dollars has on the representative value of any given commodity. As a matter of fact, ultimately, it is military puissance that determines the validity and value of money. It is sad to say.

Knowing this, nevertheless, a handful of unscrupulous billionaires met on Jekyll Island (Georgia) in 1913 and formed the Federal Reserve System. However, they could not do it by themselves, so they got some seedy politicians to support their endeavor. In the wake of industrial capital being replaced by finance capital (banks fronting money to businesses in lieu of the expected future earnings of the latter), this was the grand opportunity to make sure that overall competition in US banking - and industry - was almost non-existent.

To be sure, it also allowed big banks and companies to determine the progress of the economy based upon their profit margins. That is why whenever we hear that the "economy" is doing bad, it simply means that the profit margins of the aforementioned large enterprises are not as favorable as their owners/managers wish them to be. The labor of everyday people makes the economy, after all. Therefore, as long as folks are healthy, how can the economy be bad?

One of the difficulties in maintaining a healthy economy is: There is no "free" market in the United States. Instead, combines, monopolies, cartels, and other such organizational forms eschew competition. Yet, free competition presupposes free trade. Free trade presupposes a free market. So about what is all of this talk of “free” enterprise that gets bandied about so much in this country through the opinion-making, government- and corporate-controlled mass communications media?

Moreover, today, both our federal government and the corporate media promote the word capitalism as a concept that can be used interchangeably with terms like freedom, democracy, or the magical phrase "market economy." Due to the illusions of politicians, businesspeople, and the overall citizenry, the idea of capitalism as "eternal" is popular as well.

“...the notion of ‘obedience’ to the ‘natural laws’ of a free-market economy has been represented not as reflecting solely the dictates of prudence and the calculus of self-interest, but rather as possessing far loftier ethical overtones. In times of economic crisis this residual naturalism inhibited business and political leaders from ‘interfering’ with the supposedly unalterable laws of the market: its principles were thought to be ordained by nature rather than by men, and men believed that to violate them was to court social disaster. Only the severe breakdown during the Great Depression effectively destroyed this archaic naturalism and prepared the way for the widespread acceptance of a managed capitalist economy in which market mechanisms are assiduously manipulated through the offices of government." - The Domination Of Nature, by William Leiss

Currently, we are in a similar situation as the Great Depression economically. However, the general population is exponentially more educated (only about 3 out of 8 people even finished high school, in those days). Presumably, one would then think that that means either power or wealth will have to be relinquished by the government, banks and corporations, in order to maintain their legitimacy. Yet, that does not seem to be the case.

Please remember, that the whole purpose of the original North American venture by the British ruling class was to extract as much wealth as they could from the land and animals (both human and non-human), for the good of their class - not their so-called "race" (another illusion).

Nevertheless, beginning with the complete falsehood about “Pilgrims” coming to this land in order to be able to express their religious beliefs more freely, while, for generations, their alleged descendants fought “Indians” over “un-inhabited” territory, North Americans have lived under the illusion that the United States was always the United States, it just had another name.

Still it has been up to those in power to remain so. As Professor Hogan explains, "It must be emphasized that Wealth Accumulation is not done in the abstract. Indeed, it must be carried out by the exercise of the conscious will of people acting in the role of wealth accumulators. These wealth owners have the onus of preserving the form of their wealth while, at the same time, striving to increase its magnitude. Just as important, is the necessity for continuous control over the Wealth Accumulation Process by the wealth owners”. (Hogan, ibid.)

But the “Bailout” is using taxpayers’ money, we are told. "Taxpayers' money?", I ask. It is taxpayers’ sweat and blood! It is an illusion to either think or believe that a great deal of the money that the federal government absconds from us under penalty of law goes towards the commonweal. Besides, does all of this mean that the big banks and companies are saving their own money, while they waste ours? Well, perhaps, that just means that, as Professor Hogan has insisted, they are simply doing what they are supposed to do, that is, protect their wealth.

Finally, at least to me, the biggest problem with any illusion is: It can neither be proven nor disproven. This is especially true, because, occasionally, illusions are realized. For example, state lottery games and gambling casinos proliferate, because so many people are willing to embrace their illusions of acquiring great wealth and prosperity, at almost any cost. Yet, there are people who actually “hit”, now and then. The banks and corporations, along with their servants in the US Congress are certainly hoping for that to be the case with the "Bailout". Therefore, it is an outright lie for Krugman, Wolfson, Bernanke, or any of the other apologists to suggest that any of this is about either logic or reason, much less that it makes sense. In any case, it will not work.

Cheers!

G. Djata Bumpus Read full post

For Whom is Obama's Economic Plan? (originally posted Jan. 10, 2009)

"We know that 'Power corrupts.' Playing “sleight of hand” tricks and performing intellectual acrobatics, through tax cuts, with the “fruits” of citizens’ labor is simply more of the same..."

Dear friends,

Will President Obama's “make-work”/economic plan effort be much better than the ineffective welfare-to-work schemes that have popped up all over the country, during the past two decades? Why do we need a federal, centralized bureaucracy to manage our economic affairs anyway? And who is going to be building roads and bridges, Mr. Obama? That is hard and dangerous work. How will responsibilities be distributed? In securing work, what opportunities will African American males, much less other males who also look like you, as well as all female workers, have? Moreover, will not all of those laborers involved need to be fairly young?

In order to attract a large amount of young people, Mr. Obama will have to convince them that the work itself, not the paycheck, is the reward. Yet, in our possession-oriented, market-driven culture, most young people have no interest in doing hard labor. Besides, these days, the paycheck means more to them than having done the job well.

To be sure, the idea of appreciating our own ability to work has been one that has often escaped youth throughout human history. After all, it is hard as a young person to hear that the satisfaction of a job well done is its own reward, when s/he sees the inequities of the distribution of the harvesting of the "fruits" of labor all around us - from bankers to businesspeople to politicians and many others. “Work is the reward!” is one of those notions that would be fine if everyone believed it, but hard to swallow when you know others are getting away with doing so little. Hence, it is the unfairness that eats away at our resolve to do our best in society.

Still, President Obama must push forward in getting our youth to appreciate work. That will require leadership. Unfortunately, about this notion of work being the reward, as mentioned above, I have not heard one peep from the mouth of either our incoming president or the one going out, or the guy before that one. There is no leadership.

Rather, the only sense of urgency that President Obama seems to have is how quickly he can get some money into the hands of the big banks and companies. After all, who but big banks and companies will really be benefiting from this make-work venture that Mr. Obama is passing off as his "Economic Plan"? Heck, Halliburton will leave Iraq. Their contractors will make the money here, with less chance of losing their lives. Also, with Obama’s “make-work” enterprise, people will be able to buy DVDs and other electronic goods from the big national chain stores. They will be able to buy designer clothes from the national clothing chains, and so forth. The economy will be doing great! Right?

Thus far, we have only been considering blue collar workers. But what will become of the millions of laid-off office and white collar workers? How many will want to build bridges and roads? How many have the physical strength or emotional will to do so? How will a person who has been an account executive for the past fifteen years experience economic progress by doing “make-work” jobs to feed the family? Is that not a huge loss in his or her standard of living, by itself?

In another area of economic concern, instead of “Bail-outs” for incompetent executives and their gullible investors, how about the United Auto Workers themselves taking over the Big Three, in a similar context as the Avis workers did back in the 90s. To be sure, the former employees-now employers will not mind pay or other benefit cuts, because they will be developing an enterprise that belongs to them. As well, that particular union, UAW, with its, historically, suspect leadership, will, in effect, dissolve itself, since with the workers as the owners, they will not need anyone to represent them other than themselves. Currently, of course, like all workers, they need a union, because the employer and employees do not have the same interests. In other words, it is not in the interests of employers to represent the interests of the workers. If they did, then there would never be disputes or strikes, much less lay-offs and benefit cuts. Most importantly, if the workers take over the companies, it will be Americans making better cars for themselves/us and we will buy their products from them, because it will actually benefit all of us.

Ultimately, all capable people will have to discover the divine powers within themselves that will make them both creative and productive. As a matter of fact, at least to me, the best results of strong economic development are revealed by humans being able to spend their leisure time engaging in both personal and group interactions where one’s relatedness to himself or herself - and others – as opposed to the trinkets and baubles that one possesses – allows each citizen to cooperatively co-exist with his or her fellows in peace. It will require a leader who has wisdom, experience, and courage to guide the citizenry in that direction. Re-doing Bill Clinton’s administration will, predictably, "lead" us right back to where we are. Considering the make-up of Obama’s Cabinet as it now stands (of mostly Clinton people), and for all of the present hoopla about the “inauguration”, this is all sad – if not pathetic.

We know that “Power corrupts.” Playing “sleight of hand” tricks and performing intellectual acrobatics, through tax cuts, with the “fruits” of citizens’ labor is simply more of the same. Consequently, Americans need to scrap the kleptomaniacs who make up our federal government officials and Obama needs to “change” his current course, by becoming a leader who guides the American people in a way that helps us create our own industries, and build our own self-sufficient, loving, and, therefore, prosperous communities.

Cheers!

G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post

Obama's "State of the Nation" address ignores reality (originally posted 2/24/09)

"...President Obama’s current solution is to give the big banks money, if they need it."


Dear friends,

Now that President Obama’s Stimulus Plan is in force the obvious question is: Will it work? In a previous post I insisted that it would not. However, I waited until its passage to elaborate more on why it cannot possibly do anything but repeat what has been happening ever since 1873.

As I mentioned in the earlier post, President Obama is going to put lots of money into the hands of big banks and very large companies. He is not sending out money to individuals, as George Bush did. Rather, Obama is giving the money to the parties to whom he feels beholden - directly. There is no pretense.

Nevertheless, the main problem is: Ever since the end of the Civil War, big banks began to take on a new role. That is, they started loaning money to large companies, so that the latter could maintain operational costs like wages and inventory, with the intention of the former receiving payment that included interest from the latter in the near future. Also, banks started lending money for investments like new industrial facilities. Such practices re-defined the way that businesses work, since now, instead of worrying about gaining capital based upon performance (known as industrial capital), large companies could appeal to banks to “watch their backs”, as it were. This kind of capital is called finance capital. Unfortunately, it (finance capital) also allowed certain companies to be able to monopolize entire industries. So much for “free enterprise”.

To be sure, during the late-19th Century, all of this made a lot of sense, because ships (also financed by the banks and insured by the giant insurance institutions) were being sent to places like Ireland, Poland, and Italy in order to bring people here to work in all of the factories that finance capital was allowing to be developed. Of course, it is interesting that such “affirmative action” was used that way. After all, millions of African Americans, former captive workers (so-called slaves) were already here languishing on Southern plantations as “sharecroppers” (a situation that didn’t end until around 1965).

In any case, the dilemma which occurred then, as well as now is: The banks were stretching their coffers to the point of insolvency, since, if one of the large companies mentioned above did not procure the amount of revenues that had been expected, then that enterprise would not be timely with repayment. Meanwhile, workers would have to be laid off and, consequently, production slowed, so that money could be freed up to go towards paying the banks. Of course, the companies do not always give the aforementioned money to the banks, for whatever reasons.

So President Obama’s current solution is to give the big banks money, if they need it. Wow! How “neat”. Presumably, they will then be able to “help” either new or current clients (i.e., companies). Additionally, he will give money to specially-chosen large corporations. The question then becomes: How will President Obama deal with the next inevitable “economic/financial disaster” cycle? Will he simply print up more money, at our expense, and pass it out to the same parties? Or, will he show leadership and courage, allowing citizens, instead of the market, to make our own course? Perhaps, that is why he has not made a peep about getting rid of either The Patriot Act or The Homeland Security Department. Let’s face it. It seems like the government would not want folks getting any crazy ideas like wanting to determine their own destinies. Eh?

One Love,
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post

People make the Economy - not vice versa (originally posted 10/10/08)

The pundits seem to always refer to the 'Economy' as if it is a kind of force or other type of phenomenon that exists apart from us.

Dear friends,

The pundits seem to always refer to the "Economy" as if it is a kind of force or other type of phenomenon that exists apart from us. That is, it appears out of thin air or something. If we are bad to it, then it is bad to us. The way that we are able to control it is by either divine - or government - intervention, at those bad times. When we are good to it, other divine "market forces" maintain our prosperity. Yet, even then, we have to be prepared to make sacrifices, so that we stay in favor with it (said "Economy" ).

This all, of course, seems like a childish fairy tale. Yet, that is precisely what the big corporations who control those who run our government would have us believe. Consequently, there is currently a "scare" tactic directed at citizens both here and many places around the world, as we are told that the "Economy" is on the brink of collapse. The Bush administration, its accomplices in Congress, along with the government- and corporate-controlled mass communications media, are currently imploring to the American people: If companies that we either support or are beholden to need money, then either such companies and their investors will lose out to competition, or we will have to use the fruits of your labor (tax money) to save them.

Again, the biggest problem about the latest bad economic news is: People are made to think that the "Economy" is a phenomenon that exists apart from them. Yet, it is people who make the goods and provide the services. Consequently, at least to me, rather than remaining "submissive" and deferring to "market forces", as it were, in this possession-oriented society, folks should consider being "pro-active" and start developing communities where our values are determined by people (i.e., ourselves), as opposed to representing those of the "market forces". That way, the collecting of trinkets and baubles, cars, spouses, and houses will not be as significant as people starting to learn to appreciate all of the powers within them - like love and work (energy) - that way they can share with their fellows for the commonweal, and future generations.

Can we, as Americans, begin to think about buying from businesses in our own communities? Why, in fact, can we not begin to look at life in a more meaningful way than what Madison Avenue and Hollywood have prescribed for us? Can we truly begin thinking for ourselves, instead of swallowing whatever many of those in the mass communications media like Fox News and CNN tell us to think?

Of course, we can still purchase some commodities from big companies. However, the monopolies that have been set up under the disguise of being "national" and "multi-national" companies are far from patriotic to anything other than the dollar bill. If we begin to build our communities, it will take time - generations, in fact. However, we will, at least, pass on a legacy of love and work that will be able to withstand the natural, social, and economic challenges of human existence, as opposed to the current course of cyclical prosperity for us and constant excess of wealth for the "organized minority".

Finally, at least to me, enlightened, healthy (physically and mentally), and productive people are the result of economic development - not higher levels of weaponry and other types of technology. Not even better homes point to the genuine prosperity of everyday people having both greater inner and outer resources to make their communities more loving, stronger, and constantly growing. After all, the inner resources are necessary in order to act upon the outer ones, and vice versa. And in that process, greater talents evolve. Otherwise, if that were not true, as a species, then we would still be chasing animals and searching for fruits and vegetables, while, simultaneously, praying to totem poles. People make the economy!!! The question of ending economic catastrophe is directly related to how we share in the distribution of our combined efforts. Right now, a few greedy guys get most of everything, and do very little, if any, work.

Cheers!

G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post

President Barack Obama invites President Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria to the White House

"Half of Obama’s heart may be Kenyan, but he is, when all is said and done, a quintessential American original. Given his cosmopolitan outlook, Obama is unquestionably more informed than his recent predecessors, about the poor places of the world, and more sympathetic to the plight of the world’s poor… "


"Goodluck Jonathan calls on Barack Obama"

By Okey Ndibe (okeyndibe@gmail.com)

Goodluck Jonathan gets his first strutting experience as “president” next week when he visits the U.S. at the invitation of President Barack Obama. How Jonathan handles himself, and the image he projects, will determine how seriously his American host takes him and the country he runs.

Umaru Yar’Adua set a poor tone when, during a visit at the White House in 2007, he acted like a child let loose in a candy shop. Eyes glimmering, he gushed to President George W. Bush that coming to America was the best day of his life.

It would serve Jonathan to avoid such callow exuberance. He better come properly briefed, and fully prepared, to articulate Nigeria’s take on the topics of discussion.

The two men, and their respective countries, have a large menu of bilateral issues to bite into. There are such issues as oil, terrorism, democracy, trade relations, anti-corruption measures, and Nigeria’s tense – and, it appears, worsening – sectarian divide.

It’s easy, in talking with Obama, to misread his ties to Africa – as the son of a Kenyan father – as an indication of deep sympathy for African causes. Half of Obama’s heart may be Kenyan, but he is, when all is said and done, a quintessential American original. Given his cosmopolitan outlook, Obama is unquestionably more informed than his recent predecessors, about the poor places of the world, and more sympathetic to the plight of the world’s poor.

Even so, his deepest loyalties lie – as they should – with America, and especially with America’s corporate giants, many of them with tentacles in Nigeria. It’s Jonathan’s place to recognize this fact, and to do his best to champion Nigeria’s economic interests as strongly as Obama pushes America’s interests.

Oil is at the center of America’s interest in Nigeria’s vicissitudes. With the rise of anti-American sentiments in the Middle East and Persian Gulf, U.S. authorities have made no secret of wishing to buy more of their crude oil from Nigeria.

That prospect means that the U.S. is attentive to Nigeria’s domestic stresses. There’s little doubt that Washington closely monitors both the deepening militarization of the oil-rich Niger Delta and the incessant outbreaks of religious violence in such places as Jos, Maiduguri, and Bauchi.

America is, in short, invested in easing the pressures that have caused sharp declines in Nigeria’s daily oil output. But Jonathan, who happens to hail from the Niger Delta, ought to convey to Obama that economic justice is key to reducing militancy. The Nigerian state and the oil companies have exploited the resources of the oil-producing delta.

It would be a mistake to imagine that Obama is less than enthusiastic about George Bush’s plan to establish an African Command. Should Obama try to sell the idea, Jonathan ought to unambiguously register Nigeria’s continuing opposition. At the very least, such a command would further undermine the sovereign will of African nations. At worst, it is likely to subordinate African nations, willy-nilly, to American control. Put bluntly, it is a recipe for re-colonization.
Read full post

Elm Smith gives us a personal view of Haiti as a veteran journalist

This was Port au Prince before the earthquake of 2010, before the hurricanes of 2008, just after the unintended cruelty of a U.S.-backed embargo helped to starve thousands of Haitians for their own good."

Dear friends,

On the link below, the incomparable Elmer Smith of the Philadelphia Daily News puts this whole Haitian disaster in perspective, based upon his personal experience with a land that has been afflicted by both social and natural turmoil countless times. What's next?

G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/elmer_smith/20100115_Elmer_Smith__Only_latest_disaster_for_poor_Haiti.html
Read full post

The Detroit Bodysnatcher - a short video

"Apart from showing that those who do both the hardest and most of the work receive the least compensation, it also points to one of those important jobs that many of us may prefer not to do. However, imagine if no one did it..."

Dear friends,

As the new year begins, and while folks are trying to commit themselves to a variety of "resolutions", please remember that we should be grateful to be able to feed ourselves without having to beg or steal for our nutrients.

At any rate, on the link below is a short video from the New York Times online edition. Apart from showing that those who do both the hardest and most of the work receive the least compensation, it also points to one of those important jobs that many of us may prefer not to do. However, imagine if no one did it.

Happy New Year!!!

G. Djata Bumpus
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2006/08/25/us/1194817103426/chat-with-a-detroit-corpse-collector.html
Read full post

Elmer Smith on the Employment Summit

"If big financial institutions needed a TARP, American workers need a tourniquet..."

Dear friends,

On th elink below you will find a piece by the pro;ific writer/thinker Elmer Smith of the Philadelphia Daily News.

An interesting comment from one of the people he interviewed in doing this report says, " 'We should be putting people to work in public jobs programs designed to help communities by repairing rusting infrastructure,' Dodds said. 'In the '70s, we put 4,000 to 5,000 people to work in this region in the CETA program. It's time to do that again.' "

None of the politicians or economists seem to get it. That is, make-work jobs are short-lived patch work operations that hide the real problem: people need to start developing their own communities, so that they can create their own livelihoods and not have to depend upon either the government or huge corporations. In order to do that, they must institute a new way of making value judgments that call for citizens in any particular community to work together for the common weal, as opposed to the dog-eat-dog type of mentality that became the major focus beginning with Ronald Reagan's and his bosses' assent to power.

G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20091208_Elmer_Smith__At_employment_summit__the_10-percenters_call_for_some__good_jobs_.html
Read full post