#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

[tani-b-art]

Black Americans have to escape falling into this next level of permanent underclass status.

I started drafting this post back in October right when California deliberately did not pass the 2 reparations bills (Gov. Newsom in conjunction with The Black Caucus who are made up of Black American, Black African and Black Caribbean members—all and especially the Black American members who are NOT on code is a real problem; speaking of, watch out for Newsom when he more than likely will be running for President--remember his decisions he's made w/ Black Americans) and it just made me think of this permanent underclass. The Tulsa Massacre Survivors’ recent denial too.

I hadn’t heard of this term until a couple years back from Dr. Anderson. Hadn’t realized it was even stated in the film “Lean On Me” until this year.

When our ancestors were forced to enslavement in America, they were a completely free labor class that drove this country’s wealth and solidified this country’s power status globally. Post the “ending of slavery”, the free labor class of Black Americans became financially and socially obsolete to white America’s economic society. With no real way to eradicate all the millions of now free Black Americans or to have a “reverse transatlantic” transport of sending them out to other parts of the world, they became a nuisance to white society. To the people who ran America, Black Americans were no longer able to be extracted for their free labor and there was no need for them any longer.

As soon as Black Americans were freed or the idea of freedom was on the table, they weren't offered compensation of any kind -- not a mule, not a single acre. Instead, they were offered to be sent out of the country. One main proponent of this was none other than Abraham Lincoln. He consistently had this proposition to “send them to Africa”. Lincoln, “My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” (1854). Early in 1861, he secretly ordered an individual to investigate land in Chiriqui (now Panama) to support his plan. I’m just realizing, this “go back to Africa” diatribe has always been a thing for many white people, it’s not new by any stretch.

Mind you, those proposals were met with extreme disproval and rejection—our people absolutely was not with it. They built this country (some were already here way before colonization) and made it so that their survival under the most inhumane conditions was for themselves and later for us, their descendants, to reap all the benefits of their sacrifice—this was their native land, they were not leaving. They were not going to a continent they knew nothing about. In 1862, Lincoln was still on this resettlement and emigration tip, supporting Congressional bills to do so too: “…to be expended under the direction of the President of the United States, to aid in the colonization and settlement of such free persons of African descent now residing in said District, including those to be liberated by this act, as may desire to emigrate to the Republic of Haiti or Liberia, or such other country beyond the limits of the United States as the President may determine.” Unneeded and unwanted once “slavery ended”. Four days before his assassination, Lincoln also said, “I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes…I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country…” There was also simply a complete fear white people always held with Black Americans before slavery ended and then as newly freed and now, so removing our ancestors by any way was ideal for the dominant white society. Still is today.

The Chiriqui plan: “...the former slaves would work on a cotton plantation. Each family would receive homes and access to hospitals and schools. And after the end of their four-year work contracts, they would be given 16 acres of land and the wages they had earned over that period. Colonization was voluntary for former slaves but deeply encouraged by Lincoln, Kock and its many other proponents.” Another form of race-based slavery was Lincoln’s solution. Btw-none of these emigration proposals worked, all were total, catastrophic failures (particularly the Haiti proposition—around 450 Black Americans were sent and around 115 of them died under the harsh conditions there).

So once again, our people were the main source (the main producers) and only driving force of this country’s mass wealth and development otherwise there would not have been such huge efforts to force us out our own country we built once they no longer had the institutional backing of slavery.

Instead of retroactively compensating (endless hours of free & brutal labor, the use of their physical bodies for advancements of all kinds) the now free Black Americans, white America figured out a way to wipe them out. Instead of literal genocide (which lynchings are a form of genocide and lynchings only began to take place post the ending of slavery because enslavers didn’t murder their enslaved when slavery was law; you don’t kill your property that makes you money; the klu klux klan formed post the ending of slavery, not before it) and attempting to make due on reparative justice (reparations in the form of money and land that was stolen and promised), the idea to bring in other groups from outside of America came into play to undermine the newly freed Black Americans and what should’ve been reparative justice and progress and reconstruction and redress for the centuries of their free, brutal and deadly labor.

I feel that the 13th & 14th amendments essentially were also incorporated as a counter to the emancipated slaves — favorable amendments to further push Black Americans into irreparability and for immigration policies to expel Black Americans. Especially the 14th. (Initially, that amendment was for the newly freed Black Americans to finally and officially be recognized & classified as citizens [huge part to William Nesbit] but to me, it seems like it morphed into something else. The same way affirmative action did). All adopted into law post The Civil War, in 1868 which was 5 years after the Emancipation Proclamation (that document also didn’t exactly free all slaves). That amendment was a direct response to the new freedom of the formerly enslaved Black Americans as a way for the country to slowly displace our ancestors by creating a bigger immigrant, buffer class to remove who was once the largest demographic of the working class—Black Americans. It’s a pattern I’ve noticed with anything our ancestors have fought for and subsequently were victorious in…when we gain something, things are enacted following that victory to remind us that the minority-majority of society really doesn’t want to treat us as fellow humans. AND, Black Americans are always a permanent reminder of our country’s “original sin” and their ancestors’ involvement, participation and creation in that og sin. They don’t want to be reminded that slavery happened and that racism still exists, hence, why they prefer non-American Black and poc. Immigration policies have incentivized those immigrating to the country to directly further push Black Americans down the social hierarchy totem pole. So since they will never be able to expel us out by trying to banish us with non-incentives to emigrate elsewhere, they’ll use immigration to bring in immigrants to displace us.

“On August 14, 1862, Lincoln met at the White House delegation of Black leaders to make his case for the voluntary emigration of Black Americans to countries outside the U.S. “Your race suffer from living among us, while ours suffer from your presence… It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated,” Lincoln told the delegation.”

Here is where the conversation about "model minority" comes in (a notion many immigrants feed into as a token). When the white racists talking points about “Why do those who come from other countries do better than your people in so little of time” is injected into topics…this is why. When Black and non-white (and even white) immigrants regurgitate that same talking point about their vast and quick success by saying “My people had nothing when they came to America and are doing better than your people” while shaming us, this is why. Or peddling the “they/we work harder” or “they’re/we’re smarter” narrative. No. Working harder is what was abandoned when families fled their homelands to be able to work easier here. Working hard would’ve been to stay in your homeland and fight your own corrupt government and refusing to depart ways. All things Black Americans have done and do. Plus, there aren’t centuries of this history nor are there responses and reactive, harmful policy and ideas of this history that is tethered and affixed to your lineage. So yes, of course y’all better be doing exceptionally better in this country in comparison. Leaders, presidents, departments, mayors, senators, policies, laws, governments and governors have never viewed your ancestors as constant reminders of chattel slavery therefore wanting nothing to do with them, so much so that they were highly suggesting to them to leave their homeland.

“It is disingenuous to equate Black Americans’ conditions with any other ethnic, religious or so-called disadvantaged minority. Blacks have a unique history in this country in that their status was predetermined by the dominant society’s national public policy on the use of Black Americans”. - Dr. Claud Anderson

1864 was a year before Black Americans in Texas even got word that they were no longer enslaved as a result of the Emancipation Proclamation, yet the Chinese and Irish were incentivized to immigrate to the country and immediately get paid for the alleged labor shortage to continue building the railroads (done by Black Americans first—unpaid). In 1847, The US helped the Irish during their famine—Voyage of Mercy. When your ancestors get reparations for their shorter-lived oppression or depression they faced, yes, you’ll do better because the federal government aided you in that. Even in more current times: (July 2024 article). NYC to spend millions on new round of pre-paid debit cards for immigrants. The Adams administration says another round of debit cards is expected to be distributed to more than 7,300 immigrants over the next six months, costing the city about $2.6 million. The move represents a major expansion of a pilot program that began earlier this year that doled out cards to about 3,000 immigrants. 2006: U.S. Government To Pay $492 Million To 17 American Indian Tribes; The Marshall Plan, On April 3, 1948, President Truman signed the Economic Recovery Act of 1948. It became known as the Marshall Plan, named for Secretary of State George Marshall, who in 1947 proposed that the United States provide economic assistance to restore the economic infrastructure of postwar Europe.

“From 1862 to 1986, the United States government ran a homestead program that gave 2,992,058 white settlers and European immigrants (both documented and undocumented) a minimum of 160 acres of land from the Mississippi River to the West coast of America, including the Alaskan territory. Authorized by the Homestead Act of 1862, this land giveaway program ended for all participating states in 1976 and ended for land awards in Alaska in 1986. White recipients in the land giveaway program were recruited through a widespread, government-sponsored advertising campaign in newspapers in America and Europe. The land was awarded to applicants who promised to live on it and develop the land for five years. Title to the property vested at the end of this five-year period. Congress passed additional laws in 1873 that allowed the government to award larger tracts of land to these white settlers and immigrants. A lot of the land grants included property that had timber rights, mineral rights, and oil and gas reserves, all of which the government eventually released to the land owners through various legislative enactments. In all, more than 270 million acres of valuable land -- about ten percent of the land area of the United States -- was given to white settlers and immigrants. The Homestead Act of 1862 was a 124-year-long, government-sponsored, wealth transfer program for a particular class of people -- white settlers and immigrants. It was the longest running, race-based, affirmative action program in United States history. Ironically, some of the descendants of the beneficiaries of this affirmative action program for whites were the first ones to claim their status as the "victims" of "reverse discrimination" in the 1970s and 80s. An estimated $10 trillion dollars (when measured in today's present value) was transferred to white homesteaders, essentially for free. This land giveaway program made thousands of millionaires in the agriculture, timber, mining of natural resources, and oil and gas industries. In addition to the gift of free public land to these white program recipients, the government-built land grant colleges to teach these settlers how to farm. It provided them with county agents to further their expertise in farming and the commercialization of natural resources running with the land. It also gave them low-interest loans so that they could mechanize their farms. Then, it provided them billions of dollars in federal subsidies not to farm certain crops. From the outset, blacks were not allowed to participate in the 1862 Homestead Act land giveaway program. The United States Supreme Court had already decided, on a 7-2 vote, in the 1857 Dred Scott case that blacks -- freed or slaves -- had no rights that white men were bound to respect. This holding included the right to own property. In contrast, the 400,000 acres was set aside for freed Black slaves. The land allotment was 40 acres. This land was never given to them. As a result, Blacks in the South and elsewhere languished in abject poverty for the next 100 years. This poverty was accompanied by widespread racial violence against Blacks nationwide, rigidly enforced racial segregation, ingrained racial discrimination, and massive resistance to equal rights for Blacks. The next time you hear people say, "the Black man ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps," please remind them of the white privilege embedded in these laws and historical events.”

Everybody who immigrated here got a leg-up, literally. “We’re all immigrants to America” is so disingenuous and inaccurate because if that was factual, there’d be no problem to treat Black Americans like an immigrant group as every immigrant group who gets monetarily compensated for their immigration status. We must not be immigrants then — and we aren’t. Millions of our ancestors who were transported here were forcefully and forcibly taken against their will during the transatlantic slave trade. That wasn’t voluntary. Absolutely NOT “we’re all immigrants”!

“The missing ingredient is wealth and wealth is power. We can’t continue to exist without reparations. We have nothing — we don’t own and control anything. Without owning and controlling anything, we can’t compete. Permanent underclass means those individuals, who by the nature of their circumstances, will be forced to live as either beggars or criminals.” (Claud Anderson). When the opportunities are already minimal and bleak and to now have to contend and compete with those very jobs that are now being spread even thinner, yes, unfortunately the last resort can be this. It’s criminality to survive. But even with no systems in place to repair, our people have always made due—made the best of what is given.

2015 is almost a decade ago—done came and gone. No federal reparations as of yet. And with predictions based off projections, of $0 median wealth by the year of 2053, the permanent underclass sadly is already actively suffocating. Just in 1860, the value assigned to our ancestors’ labor, human capital was over $3 billion dollars. “This was more money than was invested in factories and railroads combined. In 1861, the value placed on cotton produced by enslaved Blacks was $250 million.” All this monetary value less than 200 years ago and to say by 2060, the wealth of our households will be at $0. To say that reparations for race-based American chattel slavery is imperative is an understatement. “��in 2016, based on the Survey of Consumer Finances, white families had the highest median family wealth at $171,000, compared to Black and Hispanic families, which had $17,600 and $20,700, respectively.”

It’s been very noticeably and intentionally stated that without immigrant groups, the country will fall into despair — all to further support the notion that without immigration, the country will collapse. It has been another very calculated plan to keep pushing Black Americans out of particular employment markets that have been largely held by Black Americans. Black Americans are getting boxed out and locked out of the job sector we once held in significant numbers. It’s also important to keep in mind that those who immigrate here in large portions go directly to Black communities and then open businesses or become managers of an establishment within that community and avoid hiring the Black residents who make up majority of the community or they hire those who they share ethnicity with only. There’s also the language barriers that block out Black Americans when some jobs are specifically requiring bilingual candidates. In all his inability to express his point and coherently flesh out facts and his horrible inarticulate way and his very bad-faith and self interests motives, Trump talking about “Black jobs” is a real thing. It is well documented that Black Americans do (have made) make up most of the demographic in the hospitality, healthcare, construction and governmental industries. We know our people were (are) maintenance workers, cementing roads, laying down bricks building homes and buildings, nurses, nursing aids, laundress, landscapers, professional cleaners, housekeepers, DMV workers, bus drivers, postal service workers--there are whole generations of households that have this in their family line. Jobs once held by majority Black Americans in these industries have now shifted to employ those newly coming to America and we’re now becoming locked out of those means to provide to be able to sustainably live.

(Let’s also not forget just how racist STEM is when it comes to Black Americans)

And absolutely no, pointing this out isn't to say that we don't hold positions as doctors, lawyers, CEOS, accountants, architects, professors, engineers, executives and more. Or that these “Black jobs” are less significant or less impactful. Pointing out stats in comparison is just that. There are differences in the majority of what occupations of particular jobs are held. And degreed or not degreed sometimes holds very little weight for Black Americans. Dating back to when our higher education didn't really make a difference in what opportunities are supposed to be afforded with degrees because of discrimination or how Black American households headed by someone with a college degree still hold less wealth in comparison to white households headed by someone with a high school diploma or GED or when certain job sectors had full regulation to exclude us out and the only options were specific jobs--like this is how certain jobs became "Black jobs". [the whole response to the "Black jobs" was weird and too comical to me when the severity and seriousness of it all was missing. Also, we absolutely gave way too much credit to him over it as if he conceptualized it.]

But just as well, white America has been pushing for immigration heavily and now, they themselves are at risk of potentially having to compete for occupation too. So, they got flipped on by being super anti-Black American by elevating others (to spite us) who also feel the same way about us and look, now they’re imploding. Good. And while that happens, let not one Black American be a casualty.

The notion of agricultural work and other sects of manual labor being so dependent on the immigrant class is capitalism. Black Americans want to work these jobs and have always fought for better, livable wages from these employers and corporations would rather not increase it; hence, they will seek outside help in the form of cheaper labor and those immigrating to America will more than likely accept that low wage because anything is much better than what they have to leave from, therefore, stunting the pressures corporations face for not increasing the wages. So, this is why we hear narratives of, “We can’t find workers…”, “We had to hire immigrants because American citizens don’t want to work these jobs…”. Those are lies! No, business owners and businesses and corporations financially prefer cheap labor and to keep wages low. Outsourcing everything is capitalism and that’s what y’all been doing. Black Americans will raise hell about it all the time! And Black Americans being loudly vocal alone is what drives the low, minimum wage pushers to find ways to just remove Black Americans out altogether. [one ref: Black workers dismissed from job sites after Hurricane Katrina]

My family is from Louisiana and in the South, there is a huge population of Black Americans who have generationally worked in agriculture. They own their own farms and purchased acres of land or acquired the land that has been passed down to them from their ancestors. Yes, they want these jobs! That narrative of “we don’t want to work in the fields” or “we don’t want to go back to the fields” is not true and not true for all (and yes, I completely understand the historical context of why some Black Americans have an aversion because there’s so much trauma passed down from our history. Along with the decades upon decades of discriminatory lending practices and land theft against Black farmers, the history is not smooth at all.)

But it isn’t the case for all of us as Black Americans. We have grandparents and great grandparents (my grandparents were born right before the 1950s and my greats were born in the early 1900s) who were sharecroppers—just one and two generations ago—who were agricultural experts and their descendants are following in their agricultural steps! The agrarian nature is innate in us.

There are so many young Black American millennials who are continuing their family’s rich, agrarian legacy. I have a family friend who recently got married and he and his wife purchased acres of land to grow their own food and they have livestock too. He and his wife are millennials and they have children who they will inherit the land once their parents pass it down. The growth is happening and it’s great to see! (which I also find the conversation around agriculture and Black Americans amongst ourselves to dominantly be from a very non-Southern perspective, which can also play into classism).

Agriculture isn’t the only industry we’ve historically occupied but this is one that is used the most to justify and condone capitalism to export the work.

We have to recognize what’s happening and get on code with one another of how we have to build to survive and be able to simply thrive in our homeland as Black Americans. That also means delineating from any groups that undercut us. I see more of us are beginning to recognize that. Wish it didn’t take us this long (as well as not having such a cemented system to perpetuate the subjugation) and I hope we still have time to sustain our rightful place that our ancestors created for us. We don't belong in this permanent underclass and as we keep fighting for our human rights, pushing for reparations and receiving reparations in our country, we will keep ourselves out of that next permanent underclass level.

Reparations is the only way.

[super-ultra-mega-deluxe]

The actual consideration of what fascism is is rather something of general import. A number of folks here have deferred to Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism, and while I wouldn't discourage it, it is a text from the perspective of semiotics; that is to say, from the perspective of what signifies fascism, not what it is per se. Hence also why Eco emphasizes that none of the fourteen ways he describes are strictly necessary or sufficient for fascism, just that fascism as it has emerges coalesces around such signifiers. The aesthetics and rhetoric of fascists is rather succinctly summed up in Ur-Fascism, but what fascism is in a more direct, structural sense is a somewhat different consideration.

The governing structure of fascist Italy, as an example, retained many of the facets of the liberal democratic system from which it emerged, with a legislature, a judiciary, and an executive. Mussolini was legally the prime minister- though he adopted the title of Duce, literally "leader"- and was appointed by a legislative council- though a new one created by the fascist party called the Grand Council of Fascism that by and large excluded the previous legislature- and the prime minister could legally be dismissed by the head of state, the king, after a sustained vote of no confidence similar to the UK's formulation. Fascist Italy also redoubled- rather than invented- Italian colonial policy, promoting the settlement of Italians into Libya and other African colonial projects and the genocide of local populations. The domestic economic policy of fascist Italy was also much more explicitly in the interests of private business: in 1939, the whole of Italy was explicitly proposed to be legally divided into 22 corporations which appointed members to parliament; labour organization outside of the appointed corporate structures and striking as a practice were banned. The interests of fascist Italy's ruling bodies was very overtly bourgeois, and their economic policy is often referred to as specifically corporatist.

Nazi Germany was similar in structure, though while the German parliament- called the Reichstag- was maintained, a series of laws were passed which enabled the Chancellor- Hitler, who was appointed such by President Hindenburg- and the cabinet to implement laws without parliamentary or presidential approval. The Hitler cabinet is generally considered to have been the defacto ruling body of Nazi Germany, though members of the Reichstag obviously still convened and drafted laws and ran elections and generally supported Nazi rule and the judiciary remained a distinct body. The Nazis also wanted to redouble their colonial policy in specifically Africa- a theatre in which they were snubbed compared to other European powers- but were by and large unable to secure resources there for continued expansion due to the British opposing them in protecting its own colonial projects. A rather infamous and demonstrative guiding principle of Nazi economic policy, Lebensraum- literally "living space"- sought specifically to appropriate land and other productive capital to give to Germans that they might be made petite bourgeois and small artisans; de-proletarianized and bourgeoisified, at the same time that the people such capital is expropriated from were made slaves to fuel further expansion or killed outright. This was imposed both within and, once the resources of social underclasses at home ran dry, without. The interests too of Germany's ruling bodies was very overtly bourgeois.

What all of this is to say is primarily that fascism as a governmental system is a legal permutation of liberal democracy, rather than a strict departure from it. The overriding interests of fascist states are also commensurately the interests of the bourgeoisie of those nations. It's an entirely logical progression of liberalism, to be frank, and a rather stark example of why liberal states should be opposed. The most violent fascist policy at home is often simply what liberal states have as their explicit foreign policy, for instance. As for whether this or the other politician in a liberal democracy is a fascist, I'd ask first and foremost that it be known that the Nazi policy of expansion was based first on the US policy of expansion; the cart isn't pulling the horse, as it were.

[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.

[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

[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

[fluorescentbrains]

i’m just spitballing so take this with a grain of salt but i wonder if the narrative that like half of usamericans are a struggling underclass living paycheck to paycheck is at least partially a conflation between economic hardship and hardship that arises from systems and institutions and infrastructures being set up in ways that make people’s lives worse. the healthcare system, for example; you can be living a comfortable working class life until the moment you get utterly fucked by medical bills. the cost of higher education keeps getting jacked up and leaving people with debt. there isn’t enough affordable housing. public transit is ass; they’re downsizing school buses so severely in some districts parents are running each other over in the school drop off line. more and more usamericans are directly affected by climate disasters (not that they are putting 2 and 2 together about it). and when people do fall down, a combination of culture and policies makes it hard to get back up. not to mention knock on effects from social media culture and the disappearance of third spaces etc. etc. making everybody isolated and mentally unwell. it all adds up to people responding to polls claiming that the economy is in shambles and this country is going in the wrong direction etc etc but also saying that they personally are not experiencing economic hardship right now

[lovesexrelationships]

View this post on Instagram

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

[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

[acti-veg]

Can there be a vegan world under capitalism?

Under any system founded on treating sentient beings as exploitable resources, the most disempowered groups will always be exploited for profit.

As an economic system, capitalism depends on the existence of an underclass that is being exploited by the capitalist class. There is no group less able to resist exploitation than non-human animals, since they are legally considered property, and can be traded as commodities as well as having their labour exploited. It is the nature of capitalism that disempowered groups will be exploited, meaning that a vegan world is incompatible with capitalism.

Even if workers achieved liberation, non-human animals would still be exploited, because the working class also benefit from that exploitation. Similarly, I believe that so long as we have animal agriculture in its current form, it will always be deemed acceptable for some groups to suffer for the benefit of others. Thus, capitalism is reinforced by animal exploitation, and animal exploitation is reinforced by capitalism.

[old-school-butch]

The shrinking global population

This is something that is getting lots of media attention, especially in anything focused on economics and global growth.

The narrative goes like this: as a country’s wealth grows and living gets more expensive, women get more educated and push back the age of marriage and opt to have fewer kids.

There is an incoming deluge of think pieces and policies too to ‘encourage larger families’ that will range from abortion bans to baby subsidies.

As feminists, we must insist that these discussions focus on the reality of women’s labor as the unpaid resource that is being exploited in our society.

Some key points:

1. Even women working full-time jobs do more housework and childcare than their male partners. This is called the ‘double-shift’ and it’s been observed since the 60s.

2, Women in advanced economies that have more supportive programs for mothers, (where having a child doesn’t mean abandoning your career) have more kids that women in advanced economies that offer no support. In nations where those measures - like parental leave - extend to fathers, dads take on more of the work of raising kids and ultimately... this also leads to more kids. So the patriarchal argument that women’s rights need to end so women will return to being barefoot and pregnant can be rebutted with the simple notion of ‘maybe try making motherhood less shitty for women?’

3. Even without government subsidies, women around the world who have male partners who take on more of the house work and childcare have more children. A specific complaint of South Korean feminists, for example, is that men have not changed their attitudes about the role of wives as domestic servants. Why marry a man and have your workload triple - caring for yourself, him and a baby too? Women are making rational choices.

4. Limiting those choices will be attempted. Bans on birth control, abortion rights will be a theme for the next decade.

5. Appealing to racism and/or weird guilt trips will be attempted. Resist all messaging to ‘save’ whatever ethnic, religious, racial or cultural group you are in by having more children than you want.

6. We must resist another rational choice that will be available for some women - to offload the work of child-raising onto an underclass of women. From using surrogates, maids, or low-paid childcare workers - the ‘solutions’ available to upper/middle-class women will continue to exploit economically vulnerable women as a group. Men already exploit these women as mail-order brides, and this practice will increase since so many countries have aborted so many girl fetuses that there’s an excess population of males. Instead, we need to examine how to make childcare more efficient and extend health care for all families to protect women and children’s health.

7. A shrinking population is always framed as a disaster in the making, but surely some economists can come up with ways to manage this process in a way that makes a bit more room on this planet for plants and animals. Growing populations have driven famines and wars for millennia, surely it’s time for humans to learn to how to create a slower, more stable impact on the earth.

[disquiet-dream]

i know i talk about gender abolition a lot, on account of caring about it, but i'm trying to think of a word that helps convey what i mean by that

because it's like

i do think there is a distinction to be made between gender (social class) and gender (personal identity)

which are like, we can't pretend those aren't very much intrinsically linked

btu the fact that those two exist is an important thing that makes gender different from say, economic class or race, where i think you can talk about wanting to abolish them more easily without it being taken as an attack

(race has some of that, but you can distinguish between e.g. race and culture and people will pretty readily pick up the former is "black people" (mistreated underclass) and the latter is "black people" (african american culture), for example)

but anyway, i wish there was a term that made it clear what i want is for the former (gender as social class) to cease to exist, yeah, but the latter is more like. i want it to become a fill in the blank, individual thing?

funnily enough i think terms like individualization or atomization, if used in a tongue in cheek way, are kind of appealing to me there. because the point is for everyone's gender to just become "the thing i, specifically, am"

which may resemble being a man or a woman or whatever, but like. no further groupings allowed anymore. it's all ideogender (a term which i'm annoyed already shows up in use for a different concept on google tbh).

and of course i do already think that's how it works, everyone's gender is already an individual thing and the groupings are applied on top of that. but that's the point! everyone is their own thing, regardless of how that would have fit into the system when it was still in place!

idk i'm kinda drunk and just rambling, but anyway point is i wish there was a term that conveys when i talk about gender abolition i'm much more talking about destroying the map (the concept of gender on a societal level) rather than changing the territory (people's individual gender experiences, including things like dysphoria or euphoria that make people trans) (not that being "trans" should still be a coherent concept if gender is abolished but y'know, things that have people pursue what we would currently see as transitioning. you understand.)