#no underclass no economics

[lovesexrelationships]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Pamela Smith (@blackhomeeducators)

[memoriae-lectoris]

Throughout human history there have been modes of exchange and even commerce within most societies, but they were not necessarily capitalist. Capitalism is often presented in educational systems, journalism, and popular culture as the pinnacle of human organizing, a system by which humans, acting rationally, bring their goods and services to a common marketplace to make logical trades with one another, lowering poverty and improving the quality of life for everyone as they do. But capitalism is not predicated upon free exchange at all; rather, it is an all-consuming system whose central incentive is to extract value, or capital, for profit.

It does so by usurping the entirety of the lives of workers, including those who are enslaved. If this sounds extreme to you, just think about how many times you’ve been told, by your job or by a self-help book, that your personal value is defined by your productivity. This places capitalism’s economic goals at odds with human health. And because of this pressure to optimize value creation on the backs of, and at the expense of, workers at every turn in its development, capitalism has created a viral underclass.

[sixamese-simblr]

We talk a lot about tumblr politics but reddit politics is also fascinating. On the front page of the website there's regularly posts from r/antiwork from 14 year olds who think their mom asking them to do the dishes is bourgeois oppression, and posts from r/fluentinfinance from 14 year olds who wonder why poor people are too lazy to ask their dad for a better job

[cherrybomb107]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: forgiveness, or the way it’s often presented, is harmful. That’s one more gripe I have with season two. The way it frames “forgiveness”(the idea that you are obligated to forgive someone lest you be “just as bad as they are” is problematic.)

Because for one, having Jinx apologize for killing Caitlyn’s mom and vow to stop the “cycle of violence” doesn’t make any sense. One, that’s just not something Jinx would ever say. Two, the idea that Jinx killing some Councilors is anywhere near the same thing as Caitlyn becoming a dictator is laughable at best, and insulting to my intelligence at worst. Three, Caitlyn never apologizes or faces any meaningful consequences for her actions! Losing an eye was nothing! She should’ve lost a hand at least and we should’ve seen her reflect on her actions and pledge to do better for Zaun!!! Not just fuck off and ride off into the sunset after everything she did! And lastly, the “cycle of violence” literally isn’t a cycle, it’s just one city oppressing the other for centuries and the other city deciding to fight back! This “cycle” doesn’t begin and end with Jinx and her attack on the Council, so framing it like Jinx is the one who has to take sole responsibility for fixing everything is nonsense.

“But Arcane was never about heroes and villains, everything is morally gray!” You sound dumb. This is obviously a story with overt themes of oppression and revolution. I’m not here to critique morality, I’m here to critique its framing. Why are certain characters “justified” in their heinous actions but others don’t get that luxury? That’s what I’m talking about. Moving on, the problem with “forgiveness” implies that it’s necessary, and the way people conflate forgiveness with letting someone have access to you after everything they did is the problem. You don’t have to forgive someone if you don’t want to. That doesn’t make you “bitter” nor does it mean you’re “holding a grudge”. There is a difference between forgiving someone and just removing yourself from the situation and becoming detached, imo. That’s what should’ve been done with Caitlyn and Jinx. No one in Zaun should’ve been shown dying for their oppressors because “teamwork” nor should Sevika have been shoved on the Council to push this idea of “unity”. Why would Sevika, a Zaunite who has never had and never will have any love for Piltover, be forced to cozy up with the Council? Why is the onus on her, as an oppressed person, to make nice with her oppressors? Why does the institution of Piltover, and people like Caitlyn who uphold that institution and wreak havoc on the underclass of Zaun, never have to answer for their crimes?

Answer: Because they(the writers) want to convince us that Jinx and Caitlyn, and by extension, Piltover and Zaun are “just as bad” as each other, and that both sides need to work together to heal. Only problem with that is, the Piltover/Zaun conflict was not presented that way in season one. I’m sure the writers want us to think it’s one city vs another, when that’s not the case at all. In reality, it’s one city OVER the other, and now they’re trying to convince us “both sides are bad”. While it’s true that there ARE problems on both sides, the problems in Zaun literally wouldn’t be problems if Piltover wasn’t an oppressive institution. Why were the chem barons able to amass power? Because the systems Piltover set up left Zaun behind and allowed power hungry people like Finn, Margo, Chross, and Smeech seize their opportunities for control. Why is there so much crime in Zaun? Again, because of Piltover. The class disparity that Piltover set up means the economic divide between the two cities is a chasm that grows wider and wider every day. People are forced to steal to eat. They join gangs out of necessity, not because they have to. Why did Jinx kill all those enforcers?

That shouldn’t be the question. The real question is: Why does “Jinx”(as in, the persona Powder adopted to feel strong) even exist? Answer, once again, because of Piltover! Jinx is an oppressed person with severe mental health and self esteem issues that have been exacerbated as a result of the crooked system of Piltover. She saw her parents get killed by enforcers(militarized police force that carries out the will of the powers that be and is responsible for harassing, brutalizing, and over policing Zaun) right in front of her before she was even in the double digits. She was then adopted by Vander, but she had to struggle her whole life. Zaun doesn’t even have air to BREATHE unless Piltover decides they deserve it. And thanks to Caitlyn, we get to see how even THAT gets weaponized when Zaun steps out of line. So if they don’t have access to clean air, it’s safe to say that they also don’t have access to the same quality food, water, shelter, clothing, economic, educational, or medical services that Piltovans do, just by virtue of living in Zaun. So you take a severely mentally ill little girl, systematically oppress her, and then clutch your pearls when she becomes violent and lashes out? Label her a “psycho” and a “monster” for killing cops, gang members, and politicians while Caitlyn gets a happily ever after after everything she did? I thought “both sides” were “just as bad”. So why is Jinx the only one who meaningfully suffers? Why does Zaun as a whole always have to pay the price?

Lack of commitment. “Terrorist” is a loaded word that’s been weaponized against marginalized people for ages now. It’s another one to add to the list: angry, crazy, mad, belligerent, monster, savage, animal, etc. All these dehumanizing words are leveled at folks who get tired of taking shit lying down. I’ve never thought that Jinx was a “monster” for killing cops, Councilors, or politicians. Never will. But the show clearly WANTS me to, as well as simultaneously wanting to see Caitlyn’s actions a certain way. I’ve already made a post about why comparing or trying to equalize Caitlyn’s actions and Jinx’s actions is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest imo. Think of it like a bully vs bullied type of thing. There’s this kid and his asshole friends who gets to bully you for weeks, months, or even years and face no repercussions. Then, one day you get fed up, and start fighting back. Whether that be with words, feet, fists, or what have you. If you go down, you go down swinging. When the dust settles, BOTH of y’all are getting disciplined(detention, suspended, expelled, not allowed to go on trips, etc) for “fighting”. And there’s a very good chance one of you will be punished much more harshly than the other. Even though you started fighting back. BACK being the operative word. Every single time this kid pushed, hit, kicked, punched, started rumors about, and isolated you, nothing was done. The one time you start fighting BACK, both of y’all get in trouble because the school has a “zero tolerance policy”.

But you know that’s not true. It can’t be. You’ve been telling the teachers, guidance counselors, and vice principal about what’s been going on. But nothing was done about it. Or if it was, you were the one who was told to move seats. Or switch to a different classroom. Or just ignore them. Or “maybe they’re lashing out cause they have problems going on at home.” It was nothing but excuses when you were getting pushed around. Now when you fight back it’s a problem. Now take that metaphor and apply it to Caitlyn and Jinx. Caitlyn is like that fat rich asshole with parents on the PTA who make hefty donations to the school. Jinx is like the scrawny little nobody who has no one to stick up for them. Piltover is the school system. Caitlyn’s privilege isolated her from any meaningful consequences, while Jinx’s lack of privilege guaranteed she’d face hefty consequences, much more than Caitlyn ever would.

Jinx has lost: her birth parents as a result of state sanctioned violence, her adoptive brothers, her sister, her best friend, her adoptive father, Silco, her sister again, her adoptive father again, her new friend, her sense of self, her life(possibly) and she has to deal with being an oppressed person who struggles with mental health issues on top of all that. Caitlyn has lost: her mother, and her eye. That’s it. She’s never forced to give anything up. She never had to reckon with the reality of what it means to be not just a Piltie, but a Kiramman, and a dictator on top of that. We never see her be genuinely remorseful about her horrible actions in Zaun. Nor does she try to apologize to the people in Zaun or meaningfully make amends. No, Caitlyn gets to live in that big shiny house of hers with her father and girlfriend and the months she spent co-signing martial law will never be addressed. To bring it back to the bully vs bullied comparison, this means that Jinx would have been expelled for fighting back, while Caitlyn gets ISS(in school suspension). “Both sides are bad” yeah well you clearly believe one side is worse! And it’s not the correct one!

Piltover is an oppressive, classist, ableist, and brutal institution. Caitlyn was the head of this institution for months after she experienced a fraction of what Zaunites have experienced for centuries. At the end of the day, Caitlyn’s actions were brushed aside and she got her happy ending, though it wasn’t deserved whatsoever. Meanwhile Jinx, Sevika, Ekko, Isha, countless other Zaunites, and Zaun as a whole did nothing but suffer their whole lives and now they have nothing to show for it. “Both sides are bad” but the bad that the institution is responsible for is never called out, while the bad that the oppressed people did is blown out of proportion and they are severely punished for it.

And yes, I know I’m talking about a mainstream television show with white/non black people in the writers room. I knew I was never gonna get the pro revolution story I wanted to see, and I’ve made peace with that. But, if they wanted to have a “both sides” narrative so bad, then they should’ve stuck with it. BOTH SIDES should have equally suffered and had to reckon with their wrongdoings. The responsibility for doing so shouldn’t have solely been on the shoulders of the minority group. THAT’S the crux of the issue. I was always gonna think “forgiveness” was the coward’s way out. But they never show Piltover apologizing. Only Zaun does, and that’s not right.

[jingerpi]

sorry bestie, ideology doesn't change class position 😔

controversial new take that if kyubey were marxist none of that would happen

[fatehbaz]

In just eight blocks of sidewalk in quiet neighborhood, walking through the not-quite-rain of a sunshower, today I encountered four missing shoe soles. Little pieces of plastic and rubber, detached from pedestrians' shoes, now lonely on the concrete, with the weeds.

No such thing, really, as a "weed", though. "Weed" is not a botanical term. Instead, describes perceived pests, at the discretion of the observer. At the discretion of the authority. Designated as weed by the one with power over that land. The agronomist, the rancher, the plantation manager. The weed wastes space that could otherwise be given to a monoculture cash crop, an "economically significant" plant. The weed interferes with the productivity of the plot of land. The weed interrupts the extraction. The weed diminishes the value. The weed doesn't belong in this place.

People are made to be weeds, too.

Some cities will designate you as a weed, and then they'll take action to pull you out. They'll uproot you. But it's not always explicit, like "we're outlawing loitering" or "we're outlawing taking a nap in the park" or "we're defunding the library". Sometimes it's quite clever, it's written into the physical landscape. Self-congratulatory "progressive" cities learn to co-opt language, to obscure the violence, to use and abuse space.

Thinking about things you might encounter, you might perceive, after you've been destitute, broken, lived at a homeless shelter, for years. Little signs of other peoples' misery. Indicators of desperation that some might overlook. And the way that environment shapes, and is shaped by, these miseries.

A friend asks "why is there always an unusual amount of scuffed detached missing shoe soles on this particular stretch of sidewalk? There are hardly any homes around here, it's all asphalt and empty lots, so where are all these be-shoed people coming from?" Because even though this is a wide expanse without either home residences or any kind of commercial or recreation space someone would want to visit, these blocks are the straight-line direct path between a low-income apartment complex and the cluster of corporate big box stores, and there's no bus line that runs between the two areas. "But don't the vast majority of customers of shopping malls and box stores drive vehicles, hence the obscenely massive parking lots?" Sure, customers drive, but guess who actually has to work at those places? An underclass of people living at that apartment complex with harsh restrictions and cheap amenities, who can't afford car insurance or who might be too physically disabled to bike. And so that apartment complex is a de facto "company town", the residents are essentially in confinement. It is written into that landscape. It can be read. "Why is there always debris, wrappers, coins, etc. in this particular quiet couple of blocks of the boulevard?" Because these blocks are between a thrift store and a same-day drop-in clinic, so many impoverished people will routinely be walking between these two locations. They attend their appointment, and then have forty-five minutes to kill before the bus comes back around, so why not check out the thrift store? The city and county collaborated and placed all the low-income assistance offices on the far side of town, which conveniently forces the poor and disabled to both stay away from the luxurious downtown district and also to waste their time making a four-hour commute, catching various connecting buses or else riding the bikepath, across the city just to attend a ten-minute-long appointment.

Then this spatial layout, this city's physical environment, will shape the physical body. This violence writes itself into the flesh. The way the denim is chafed and discolored on the left shoulder of someone's jacket from carrying a small backpack around by foot, day after day after day. The way someone's heart rate increases when they see a white and black vehicle in the periphery of their vision, subconsciously recollecting institutionalization and institutional abuse, or fearing what a ticket fee would mean for their budget (they might not be able to afford rent). The way someone develops a painful limp, maybe occasionally depends on a cane, because they had to walk great distances every day to get to work and their shoe sole fell off on the sidewalk, but they can't replace the shoes because their employer is underpaying them, and they're forced to stand all day at work anyway, and they already had some modest nerve damage in their foot because they've been rationing their insulin and can't afford their prescriptions, and federal medical insurance keeps denying them because their physical letters in the mail always show up too late or not at all, and groceries are too expensive so it's hard to get good nutrition to heal, but the diabetic nerve damage has by now damaged their digestive tract too so they have a strictly limited bland diet and can't enjoy the simple pleasure of a home-cooked meal (if they can even afford a home, at this point), and all those "little" miseries add up, and now they're hungry, and in pain, because they were forced to walk kinda funny for a long time over all those decaying sidewalks with all those other weeds.

[maxdibert]

Ron Weasley is not working class just because he wears second hand robes. Why do so many people think this? The Weasleys are fucking ARISTOCRATS, descended from a centuries-long line of aristocrats!

They work their own land! Molly doesn’t have to find paid employment, and Arthur isn’t forced to compromise his moral integrity in order to take a better paying job at the ministry! They have seven children, and there’s always bountiful food on the table despite it being underlined several times that food can’t be conjured or transfigured and that magic won’t save you from real poverty (Merope, Eileen). It’s a whole plot point in Deathly Hallows that Ron can’t handle a lack of food! Their aunt has a (implied to be dubiously appropriated, as many jewels belonging to nobles) goblin made tiara! They’re members of the wizarding gentry, while Severus - and Mundungus, who the Weasleys view with contempt - are the underclasses. Missing this misses so much about the dynamics among the Order of the Phoenix members, who are almost all members of the wizarding elite, which is why the werewolves and the giants and the underworld laugh in their faces when Dumbledore sends envoys to try and persuade them not to support Voldemort. Many of JKR’s political analogies fall apart if you think about them for longer than a minute, but she did nail the inherent conservatism of upper class ‘progressive’ politics.

One of the biggest problems I find with the Weasleys' interpretation is precisely the lack of class perspective from a purely cultural point of view. This is something I've talked about many times on this blog, that purity of blood can be interpreted with aristocratic status and that in Europe no matter how broke or broke you are, being part of the nobility gives you a social status of your own that is above any bourgeois no matter how much of a millionaire you may be. Aristocratic status is something in itself just like blood status in the magical world. Lucius Malfoy, who is not only a pureblood but also very rich, may laugh at Arthur Weasley, but Lucius Malfoy would rather have his son Draco marry Ginny a billion times than any half-blood and muggleborn, because it's a matter of blood. Because the Weasleys are aristocrats, and because for the aristocracy, ultimately, even if someone is from a family that has fallen into disrepute, they are still a family in name only. Hence when Ginny becomes the ultimate marysue the Slytherin boys openly admit that they find her attractive. It's something they wouldn't do with half-bloods or Muggleborns even if they thought about it, but with Ginny they do it without qualms because Ginny, despite being a ‘traitor’, is still a pureblood and therefore recognised as an equal.

Trying to equate the Weasleys with any character who is not pure-blooded is absurd, because the discrimination towards them comes only from people with the same status who are also socially above them by having more economic power, but they cannot be compared with characters who lack status and, moreover, economic power. It is a complete misunderstanding of how social structures and class dynamics work. Plus, they are not poor. They have no real need. They don't have to do whatever it takes to survive. They don't have, in general, to survive. They live and do so comfortably and probably wouldn't have to wear second-hand clothes if instead of fathering a football team they had had three children. As you say, Rowling's view is very much of the privileged bourgeois left who have no idea what it is like to go hungry or to have to do terribly immoral things in order to feed children. Everything you have said is something I underline 100%.

[artemisia-black]

So, this kind of got buried in one of my metas (or maybe it was a response to someone), but I’ve been thinking about it a lot. Would Sirius actually see housework as “women’s work” when he grows up in a household run by house-elves (specifically a male house-elf)?

Because realistically, Walburga probably wasn’t doing housework. Neither were Bellatrix, Andromeda, or Narcissa. So would he even associate it with women? If anything, I think he’d see it more as something house-elves do rather than viewing it as gendered labour.

Even at school, all the manual work is done by house-elves, and then there’s Filch (who’s a man and a Squib).

And I actually think this opens up quite an interesting way of exploring cleaning as a class issue in the wizarding world, rather than purely a gendered one. Because Squibs are clearly treated as an underclass, as are house-elves. And even Fred or George (can’t remember which) say that Molly wishes she had a house-elf. So it’s not that she does housework because she’s a woman, but because she doesn’t have the economic or magical resources not to. She cleans because of her class position.

[marxistlesbianist]

Ofc I am sympathetic to trans women who are scared to leap into a movement still largely dominated by cis men—such fear is not unjustified! The solution, though, should be for proletarian trans women to organize together as proletarians, and enter into the wider socialist movement with the understanding that we have each other's backs. Trans siblinghood is not an entirely useless concept, we just need to apply it to the right context.

I think the part where this loses me is, it does sort of instinctively ring the same way as "change the movement from within", the mantra of every capitalism-reformer. I'm worried it'll be exactly as effective here as it is there, which is to say, not very? "The smart sheep will go somewhere else and the naïve sheep will be eaten and processed" and all that. am I wrong?

The problem with "change the movement from within" as a call from capitalist reformers is that the class nature of the bourgeois dictatorship does not allow for proletarian reforms, not that changing things from within is inherrently bad. The difference between our relationship to capitalist governments and to the movement for socialism is our class interests are incompatable with the former and identicle to the latter.

Transmisogyny is a fundamental pillar of patriarchy, which is in tern a fundamental pillar of capitalism. There is no way to do capitalism without the unpaid labor of women, or without "reserve army" of unemployed proletarians which so many trans women fall into. Similarly, there is no way to build a medical system that fully caters to people's actual needs and respects their autonomy so long as it exists under capitalism. Socialism is capable of adopting conservative attitudes, but its non-exploitative nature gives such attitudes no firm grounding. The majority of trans women will only be liberated through the overthrow of capitalism, we also are very far from situated to overthrow capitalism on our own. Only the proletariat as a whole (both for its size and economic standing) is able to accomplish this revolution.

Of course, there are plenty of proletarians who individually benefit from transmisogyny and fight to uphold it, but this doesn't change the fact that the proletariat as a class is not advantaged. Any underclass of hyperexploited people allows the bourgeoisie to drive everyone's wages down, and hinders the the ability of all exploited peoples to take control of our workplaces, our cities, etc. Transmisogynists who divide the labor movement and perpetuate the exploitation of some for the benefit of others are just another kind of opportunist who needs to be dealt with as such. The material conditions in the imperial core have heretofor been ripe for this sort of opportunism, but through conscious struggle we are able to change the material conditions.

This is why I advocate for proletarian trans women to band together here. The pervasiveness of transmisogyny which the bourgeoisie perpetuates (it's not the working class putting trans women on blast in the mass media 24/7) makes it so that any organization will trend in this direction without a conscious push against it. We need to build that conscious push. We are capable of doing this within proletarian organizations because, though the particulars of our exploitation may differ, our exploiters are the same.

[lovesexrelationships]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Reggie Ford New Orleans artist (@reggieart)

[communistkenobi]

Kind off topic from your actual posts but I like when you use the phrase “ceding ground” in an argument. I may have said this before. It’s a little combative which is helpful in terms of thinking about what in the goal of making a certain statement or responding to something someone said.

YES!!!!! it has been so helpful to my understanding of the world to think of all discourse as ‘situated,’ as part of and connected to (contested) social and political contexts. speech is an act that does something in the world. It is why we understand saying “I do” or “I promise” is both a speech and an act, not merely speaking but speaking a social obligation into existence through speech. And we also understand that these words are backed by various forms of power - “I do” as a wedding vow is a speech-act, but one that only has force as a speech-act because the church and the state enshrine marriage legally & institutionally. To say “I do” is to get married, to enter into a social unit (‘the family’ or ‘the household’) that is the foundation of many state administrative and economic processes like census data, tax records, wages, urban planning, social service provisions, and so on. 

And in that context we understand that speech is not just contributing free-floating ideas to some public square or marketplace where we all weigh and measure the merits of each one, but that it is tied to and articulates specific visions of power. When speaking of “biological sex,” this is not an innocent or simple ‘fact’ that is being contested; you are invoking the authority of medical institutions that produce this source of knowledge & all the violences therein. You are invoking justifications for eg US political histories of white women being as legally classified as non-labourers and non-white women as an eternally labouring underclass. You are invoking histories of psychiatric violence that insists transgender people are suffering from behavioural, sexual, and identity disorders. You are invoking the rationale behind medical violence done to intersex people. “Sex is biological” is a violent sentiment because it is produced as knowledge through violence.

And of course many people don’t realise they are doing this, they don’t know these histories, but the principle is generalisable and can be recognised by anyone (hate speech is probably the most ‘classic’ example for guys who love talking about free speech, see also yelling “bomb” in an airport). discourse is historically situated & the refusal to acknowledge this is endlessly frustrating. Like the “Protestant work ethic” didn’t emerge from the ground fully formed one day, it was produced in material processes of history. You don’t just ‘say’ something, you articulate visions of power. And “sex is biological” is a eugenicist, colonial vision of power. That is contested ground and not an inch should be given, not in discourse, not in research, not in policy, not in law

[athousandgateaux]

I think the biggest mistake people make when engaging with Nietzsche's work is to ascribe a certain class dimension to his philosophy that completely distorts his meaning.

This is easy to do because Nietzsche often uses terms that we associate with economic or social class: slave, noble, value, etc. But his use of these words is counterintuitive, and reading them in their conventional way makes it difficult if not impossible to understand what he is saying.

When Nietzsche writes of slave morality, he means a form of morality that originated amongst the class of slaves in ancient and prehistoric societies but has since (over the course of the past 2000 or so years) become the dominant form of morality, accepted by nearly everyone from every strata of society. Slave morality is thus not simply the morality of the wage slave or the underclasses or the powerless but is also (if not more so) the morality of the elite, the upper classes, the bourgeoisie, etc. It is a set of values and psychological attitudes that is possessed by some of the richest and most powerful people on earth. But it is still a form of slave morality and Nietzsche would say that these people, rich and poweful as they are, have the mind and morality and values and emotions of slaves. That they are, at base, still a slave in their mode of subjectivity, even if not in terms of economic or social class.

Conversely, when Nietzsche speaks of nobles and noble morality, he does not necessarily have in mind the feudal nobility or aristocracy, or todays oligarchs. Again, what he means by noble morality is the type of morality that originated in antiquity and is associated with a pre-Socratic, Homeric notion of virtue. For Nietzsche, anyone, from any social or economic class, can possess virtue in this sense, and can thus be noble. Many people that would fit Nietzsche's description of nobility are part of the underclasses of society. What makes them noble is not their class but their way of being, their attitude toward life and morality and values, which differs distinctly from that of the slave.

Nietzsche is thus an aristocratic thinker, not in the sense that he aligns himself with the upperclasses of society, but insofar as he places more value on nobility than he does on the morality of slaves, no matter what class they belong to.

[librarycards]

hello i was wondering what your thoughts are on monster theory and how its applied to disability studies / disabled people?

i am not an expert in monster theory in any way, but I'll do my best based on the 7 theses + related readings I've come across. first and foremost, it's important to remember that monster theory emerged in the context of literary/cultural studies –– its purpose was in identifying the purpose/implications of monsters as presented in texts. this doesn't make it useless for discussing disability and difference in our world, but it does mean that some things might be missing or need modification.

so, for those unfamiliar, the theses are:

1. The Monster’s Body is a Cultural Body

2. The Monster Always Escapes

3. The Monster is the Harbinger of Category Crisis

4. The Monster Dwells at the Gates of Difference

5. The Monster Polices the Borders of the Possible

6. Fear of the Monster is Really a Kind of Desire

7. The Monster Stands at the Threshold of Becoming

it's pretty obvious when reading these that the connections to disability/Madness - as well as and at the intersection of other marginalities/manifestations of Otherhood - are myriad. monstrosity is culturally contingent and entangled with collective, often subconscious anxieties around debilitation, invasion, ambiguity, failure. likewise, bodyminds marked as disabled/Mad are consigned to the realm of the frightening, unsurvivable, and threatening to the (national) body, whether via what they appear as or what they may, at some point, do. much has been written about the role of traits associated with disability in the presentation of monsters in film, books, myth, etc, and this is pretty inevitable - after all, disability is a floating signifier, attaching itself to different categories of difference depending on the cultural / material realities of a given place and time.

that "material" part is, i think, the main place where monster theory fails to grasp the implications of disability. i don't think this is a failing, just a reminder that monster theory was developed in the context of textual analysis. i often think with marta russell's money model of disability, wherein the meaning of disability - and whose bodymind this term is attached to - is embedded in the political-economic system in which that bodymind lives. under capitalism, russell argues, disability is produced in relation to expectations of individual productivity, and in particular, their exclusion from the category of [exploitable] worker. rather, disability, in russell's conception, marks membership within a permanent underclass with no right to a job and no right to financial assistance. this situation will be familiar to any precariously- or unemployed disabled person. it's not something monster theory addresses directly, though certain elements - particularly theses 1, 3, and 5 -- can be pretty easily linked to it.

so, basically, i think that monster theory and disability studies have much overlap + much to offer each other, but there are also certain modes of analysis that monster theory doesn't address - and that's ok!

[blackstarlineage]

The End of Apartheid in South Africa: A Garveyite Perspective on Liberation, Betrayal, and Economic Neo-Colonialism

The end of apartheid in South Africa in 1994 was celebrated as a historic victory for Black liberation, symbolizing the triumph of resistance against one of the most brutal systems of racial oppression. However, from a Garveyite perspective, while political apartheid ended, economic apartheid remained intact, and South Africa’s so-called freedom was compromised by neo-colonialism, Western economic control, and the failure to implement real Black self-determination.

Marcus Garvey’s teachings emphasized that true liberation is not just about removing racist laws, but about complete self-reliance, economic sovereignty, and African control over African resources. This analysis will explore:

How apartheid functioned as a system of white supremacy and economic domination.

The role of the Pan-African and global Black resistance movements in ending apartheid.

Why did the transition to democracy not dismantle white economic power.

How Garveyism offers a blueprint for true Black liberation beyond political independence.

1. Understanding Apartheid as a System of White Economic Control

Apartheid (1948–1994) was not just about racial segregation—it was a system that ensured that white settlers controlled South Africa’s land, economy, and resources, while the Black majority was kept in a state of poverty, dependency, and political subjugation.

A. The Roots of Apartheid in European Colonialism

South Africa was first colonized by the Dutch (1652) and later by the British (1806), who stole African land and exploited indigenous labour.

The discovery of gold (1886) and diamonds (1867) turned South Africa into an economic goldmine for European powers, leading to increased oppression of Black labourers.

The Union of South Africa (1910) legally institutionalized white minority rule, denying Black South Africans any political representation.

Example: The 1913 Natives Land Act restricted Black people to only 7% of South Africa’s land, forcing them into overcrowded reserves while white settlers controlled the most fertile land.

B. The Economic Structure of Apartheid: Black Labor, White Wealth

Apartheid ensured that whites controlled the economy while Black South Africans were exploited as cheap labour.

Black workers were banned from skilled jobs and forced into low-paying labour in mines, farms, and factories owned by whites.

Pass laws required Black South Africans to carry identity documents and restricted their movement, ensuring their role as economic slaves.

Education was designed to keep Black South Africans in a permanent underclass, with Bantu Education ensuring that they would never compete with whites for jobs.

Example: The Chamber of Mines and companies like De Beers built enormous wealth from Black labour, yet paid workers barely enough to survive.

Key Takeaway: Apartheid was not just racism—it was an economic system that ensured white wealth and Black poverty.

2. The Role of Global and Pan-African Resistance in Ending Apartheid

Apartheid did not end because white South Africa had a change of heart—it was dismantled due to decades of Black resistance, Pan-African solidarity, and international pressure.

A. The Internal Resistance: Armed Struggle and Mass Protests

The African National Congress (ANC), Pan Africanist Congress (PAC), and other liberation movements led armed resistance and mass uprisings.

The 1960 Sharpeville Massacre exposed the brutality of apartheid to the world, leading to intensified anti-apartheid activism.

The 1976 Soweto Uprising, led by Black students protesting against Afrikaans-language education, sparked mass movements demanding an end to apartheid.

Example: The Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), the armed wing of the ANC, launched guerrilla attacks against the apartheid regime to destabilize white rule.

B. The Role of Pan-Africanism in Supporting South Africa’s Liberation

Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana), Julius Nyerere (Tanzania), and other Pan-African leaders provided military training, weapons, and safe havens for South African freedom fighters.

The Organization of African Unity (OAU) and anti-apartheid movements worldwide pressured Western nations to cut ties with South Africa.

Cuba’s military intervention in Angola (1975–1988) helped defeat the apartheid-backed South African army, shifting the balance of power in Southern Africa.

Example: Nelson Mandela received military training in Algeria and Ethiopia, proving that South African liberation was part of a broader Pan-African struggle.

Key Takeaway: Apartheid was not defeated by negotiations alone—it was destroyed by Pan-African unity and decades of Black resistance.

3. The Betrayal of Economic Liberation: The Illusion of Freedom

While apartheid legally ended in 1994, South Africa’s economy remained under white and Western control, proving that political independence without economic liberation is meaningless.

A. The ANC’s Compromise with White Capitalists

Instead of redistributing land and wealth to Black South Africans, the ANC negotiated a deal that left white economic power untouched.

Multinational corporations and white-owned businesses continued to dominate South Africa’s economy.

The land stolen during apartheid was never returned to Black South Africans in any meaningful way.

Example: As of 2024, white South Africans (only 7% of the population) still own over 70% of private farmland, proving that economic apartheid still exists.

B. The Continued Economic Enslavement of Black South Africans

South Africa’s economy is still dominated by white-owned banks, mining companies, and multinational corporations.

Millions of Black South Africans remain in poverty, trapped in low-wage jobs or unemployment.

Foreign debt and reliance on the IMF and World Bank prevent South Africa from pursuing true economic independence.

Example: Despite being “free,” millions of Black South Africans still live in informal settlements with no access to basic services, while white suburbs remain wealthy.

Key Takeaway: Apartheid ended politically, but white economic control remains intact through neo-colonialism and capitalist exploitation.

4. The Garveyite Solution: True Liberation Beyond Political Independence

From a Garveyite perspective, South Africa’s struggle is not over. Real freedom requires:

Complete Land Redistribution – White-owned land must be returned to Black South Africans.

Nationalization of Natural Resources – South Africa’s gold, diamonds, and minerals must be controlled by Africans, not foreign corporations.

Pan-African Economic Unity – South Africa must trade with Africa, not rely on Europe and the U.S.

Black-Owned Banks and Industries – Financial independence is key to breaking the cycle of white economic domination.

Political Leadership that Prioritizes Black Self-Determination – South Africa must reject corrupt politicians who serve white corporate interests.

Example: Thomas Sankara’s Burkina Faso and Julius Nyerere’s Tanzania attempted economic self-reliance—South Africa must follow this model.

Final Takeaway: The struggle against apartheid was only the first step—South Africa will never be free until it controls its land, wealth, and economy.

Conclusion: The Struggle Continues

The end of apartheid was a step forward, but it was not true liberation. South Africa remains economically enslaved to white capital and Western imperialism. The next phase of the struggle must focus on:

Dismantling economic apartheid through land and wealth redistribution.

Rejecting Western neo-colonial control over South Africa’s economy.

Strengthening Pan-African alliances to build economic independence.

As Marcus Garvey warned, political freedom without economic power is a deception. South Africa must finish the revolution—only then will true liberation be achieved.

[thozhar]

Kerala has been widely lauded for having achieved human development goals comparable to those of economically advanced countries despite being economically poor. Its allegedly egalitarian economic model was highlighted as an alternative to neoliberal, free market policies. However, the ‘pro-poor’ policies largely passed over the plantations. Plantation workers have not benefited from the land reforms of the 1960s and 1970s, and thus the majority have remained poor, landless labourers working within the exploitative plantation system. Moreover, the women plantation workers face multiple levels of discrimination because they are, at the same time, Tamil, Dalit, and female. Remarkably, though, the Pembillai Orumai challenged the negative caste prejudice and ethnic stereotyping of the plantation Tamils. The ethnic stereotyping of lower class Dalit Tamils is epitomised by the slur ‘pandi’, which symbolises the inferior in the oppositions of modern/non-modern, and resourceful/unresourceful. The portrayal of the Tamil plantation women as unresourceful was evident in the racist colonial conception of Tamil plantation workers as hard working but unintelligent. Echoes of this imagery were everywhere during the Pembillai Orumai strike. Many commentators, including trade union leaders, framed the strike as an anarchist act that could not be considered a proper form of resistance. They also repeatedly claimed that ‘invisible forces’ instigated the strike, an accusation the leaders of Pembillai Orumai strongly denied. These accusations were meant to rob the underclass—lower caste—Tamil speaking women of their due credit by suggesting they were incapable of organising themselves. Yet it was this very community who designed and implemented a model of resistance that interrogated the contradictions of the widely celebrated Kerala development model and its egalitarian claims. And as all actions, this one had its own momentum. It also became an act of rebellion that challenged the social relations responsible for their alienated condition, including the ethnic stereotypes that characterised them as inferior. It was an attempt to reclaim human personality in a Dalit liberation tradition, not only for them but also for their men and their dead indentured ancestors.

— The women strike back: the protest of Pembillai Orumai tea workers by Jayaseelan Raj

[charliejaneanders]

So far, three blue states (and two red ones) have made it harder for employers to exploit child labor, while eight red states have made it easier for children to get trapped in a cycle of work that often ends their educational progress and consigns them to a lifetime of manual labor... Meanwhile, Republican-controlled states are waging war against universal quality public education for their children. 

Why Republicans Want and Need a Permanent Economic Underclass