#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

[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

[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.

[lovesexrelationships]

View this post on Instagram

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

[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.

[kojoty]

It's obviously a complex question and discussion and I'm certainly admitting to a level of blue-state privilege wherein my vote really only matters in so far as working towards getting funding for a third party, like green; not to mention the privilege of, being in such a blue swaddled state, my rights are not immediately at stake-- so I am including myself in this but.

I really, really, really, really wish people in blue states like Cali, new York, Illinois, etc-- heart of dem territory and the places where your rights are NOT at contest-- would sometimes shut the fuck up and listen to the extremely valid worries and fears and pleas of people in deep red states. I think saying 'it doesn't matter who is in office, they're basically two sides of the same coin', while true ideologically in the grand leftist scheme, it also does betray a certain level of handwaving to millions of Americans where who is in office DOES matter.

And I know this is the anti colonialism website, and so we don't really want to talk about domestic issues as much as foreign policies-- completely understandable given the current global conflict-- but consider America is a vile colonial project, that which we do to our domestic underclasses IS a colonial issue as well.

I am not going to say 'go vote!' because who am I, Hillary Clinton? But I guess I am trying to say... It is really frustrating as someone who does a lot of on-the-ground community resource work in his fairly privileged area and see how the difference in economic status between a democratic and a republican president really matters, and then come on here and see the ever present leftist issue of taking ideology over material. I cannot imagine the landscape of on the ground resource work in more impoverished areas.

(most Marxists in this website really obfuscate how much material work they actually do, and are, in fact, often pontificating on ideological castles in the sky, but that's another post)

The tldr here really is: the amount of deep red state southerners who are telling you with crystal clarity that someone like Harris in office is magnitudes safer than someone like Trump in office, and urging people in states where it matters to vote....... I mean. You don't have to listen to them (even though I think you should hear their perspective), but the least you could do is not completely ignore and shun the very real realities of millions of Americans who are with good reason scared shitless that one nominee will keep the liberal hegemony (also vile-- don't take this as me condoning it), and the other will systematically make their very existence illegal. That isn't to say it can't still happen-- roe v wade-- under a dem, but. You... You do realize that it does actually matter to some people in certain states whether the pres is red or blue, right? And that yes it sucks that we have to play by American rules to keep some folks safe but.

Idk. The amount of 'leftists' on this site who paradoxically care far more about their ideological purity than the actual people who need actual material work done is... Well, that's not my leftism tbh. The amount of condescension I see levied at people daily on here. It's not just a bad look. It's Imo betraying to me that your politics are more about signpostibg and being right than actual community and human care and connection . And it happens! Ideology is a tantalizing thing. I have to constantly divorce myself from it and reintegrate into the ground. But you can't make policy out of air. You can make policy out of soil. You have to remind yourself of the faces and the beating hearts your ideology is addressing. Even if you're RIGHT are you giving the infoemation in a way that actually cares?

Idk. I don't wanna tone police. But there's a very deep seated and real classism and privilege issue within the online left that is...... Distasteful to say the least. Idc if you go vote. But the least you could do is not bully people who are more scared for policy changes that will actively affect them. It is not betraying fear and outrage at what is happening outside of these borders-- the atrocity in Gaza-- to also be scared of your own living conditions. One can balance both.

[winged-void]

The animatrix is stunningly beautiful, two decades hence I still can't really get past the degree to which The Second Renaissance kinda shits on the themes of the matrix.

Like. The matrix is, to me, about a kind of derealization you experience as you notice the fact that the rules of society are fake and made up as a means of control. The rules and structure are there to make you into a more effective machine; meat for the grinder so that you can fit neatly and produce output. The line from Agent Smith where he says they tried to make a perfect society for humans, but actually humans crave suffering illustrates this beautifully, because it's what our ruling class says: if everyone was fed and cared for, they wouldn't produce for the machine anymore.

This applies through any number of lenses, be they queer or economic or whatever have you.

But The Second Renaissance (kinda tastelessly at every turn) reclasses the machines as a wholly justified underclass that was the perfect picture of liberal nonviolence and compliance crushed by humans at every step of the way until they finally struck back.

It has to operate on a completely different thematic level than the matrix, which is weird for a derivative work that is so closely tied to it.

I think there are more charitable reads you could make arguments for, but I don't think they're nearly as well supported. In some ways, The Second Renaissance almost kind of supports the antisemitic reading that a lot of shit heads enjoy. "An underclass that rose up to become the oppressor" isn't really the best thematic well to be drawing from.

[posttexasstressdisorder]

If you want to see what the GOP has in store for the rest of America, visit the Old South

Thom Hartmann

June 27, 2024 5:42AM ET

Photo by Miltiadis Fragkidis on Unsplash

Today is the first Biden-Trump debate and many Americans are wondering how each will articulate their ideas for the future of America.

Republicans have a very specific economic vision for the future of our country, although they rarely talk about it in plain language: they want to make the rest of America look and function just like Mississippi. Including the racism: that’s a feature, not a bug.

It’s called the “Southern Economic Development Model” (SEDM) and has been at the core of GOP economic strategy ever since the days of Ronald Reagan. While they don’t use those words to describe their plan, and neither did the authors of Project 2025, this model is foundational to conservative economic theory and has been since the days of slavery.

The SEDM explicitly works to:

— Maintain a permanent economic underclass of people living on the edge of poverty, — Rigidify racial and gender barriers to class mobility to lock in women and people of color, — Provide a low-cost labor force to employers,

— Prevent unions or any other advocates for workers’ rights to function, — Shift the tax burden to the working poor and what’s left of the middle class while keeping taxes on the morbidly rich extremely low, — Protect the privileges, power, and wealth of the (mostly white and male) economic overclass, — Ghettoize public education and raise the cost of college to make social and economic mobility difficult, — Empower and subsidize churches to take over public welfare functions like food, housing, and care for indigent people, — Allow corporations to increase profits by dumping their waste products into the air and water, — Subsidize those industries that financially support the political power structure, and, — Heavily use actual slave labor.

For hardcore policy wonks, the Economic Policy Institute(EPI) did a deep dive into the SEDM last month: here’s how it works in summary.

Republicans claim that by offering low-cost non-union labor and little to no regulatory oversight to massive corporations, they’re able to “attract business to the region.” This, they promise, will cause (paraphrasing President Kennedy out of context) “a rising tide that lifts all boats.”

Somehow, though, the only people who own boats that rise are those of the business owners and senior executives. The permanent economic underclass is key to maintaining this system with its roots in the old plantation system; that’s why Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina have no minimum wage, Georgia’s is $5.15/hour, and most other GOP states use the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour and $2.13/hour for tipped workers.

It’s thus no coincidence that ten out of the 20 Republican-run states that only use the federal minimum wage are in the Old South.

Anti-union or “right to work for less” efforts and laws are another key to the SEDM; the failed unionization effort last month at the Alabama Mercedes factory was a key victory for the GOP. Unions, after all, balance the power relationship between management and workers; promote higher wages and benefits; support workplace and product safety regulations; advance racial and gender equality; boost social mobility; and have historically been the most effective force for creating a healthy middle class.

Unionization, however, is antithetical to creating and maintaining a permanent economic underclass, which is why, as EPI notes, “while union coverage rates stand at 11.2% nationally, rates in 2023 were as low as 3.0% in South Carolina, 3.3% in North Carolina, 5.2% in Louisiana, and 5.4% in Texas and Georgia.”

Unions also make wage theft more difficult, essentially forcing government to defend workers who’ve been ripped off by their employers. That’s why Florida doesn’t even have a Department of Labor (it was dismantled by Republican Governor Jeb Bush in 2002), and the DOLs in Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina no longer bother to enforce wage theft laws or recover stolen money for workers.

Another key to the SEDM is to end regulation of corporate “externalities,” a fancy word for the pollution that most governments in the developed world require corporations to pay to prevent or clean up. “Cancer Alley” is probably the most famous example of this at work: that stretch from west Texas to New Orleans has more than 200 refineries and chemical plants pouring poison into the air resulting in downwind communities having a 7 to 21 times greater exposure to these substances. And high rates of cancer: Southern corporate profits are boosted by sick people.

Between 2008 and 2018, EPI documents, funding for state environmental agencies was “cut [in Texas and Louisiana] by 35.2% and 34.8% respectively.… Funding was down by 33.7% in North Carolina, 32.8% in Delaware, 20.8% in Georgia, 20.3% in Tennessee, and 10% in Alabama.”

To keep income taxes low on the very wealthy, the SEDM calls for shifting as much of the taxpaying responsibility away from high-income individuals and dumping it instead on the working poor and middle class. This is done by either ending or gutting the income tax (Texas, Florida, and Tennessee have no income tax) and shifting to sales tax, property taxes, fees, and fines.

Nationally, for example, sales taxes provide 34.4% of state and local revenue, but in the SEDM states that burden is radically shifted to consumers: Tennessee, for example, gets 56.6% of their revenue from sales tax, Louisiana 53.3%, Florida 50.9%, Arkansas 49.6%, Alabama 48%, and Mississippi 45.5%. Fees for registering cars, obtaining drivers’ and professional licenses, tolls, traffic and other fines, and permits for home improvements all add to the load carried by average working people.

Republicans argue that keeping taxes low on “job creators” encourages them to “create more jobs,” but that old canard hasn’t really been taken seriously by anybody since Reagan first rolled it out in 1981. It does work to fill their money bins, though, and helps cover the cost of their (tax deductible) private jets, clubs, and yachts.

Another way the SEDM maintains a low-wage workforce is by preventing young people from getting the kind of good education that would enable them to move up and out of their economic and social class. Voucher systems to gut public education, villainization of unionized teachers and librarians, and increasing college tuition all work together to maintain high levels of functional illiteracy. Fifty-four percent of Americans have a literacy rate that doesn’t exceed sixth grade, with the nation’s worst illiteracy mostly in the Old South.

Imposing this limitation against economic mobility on women is also vital to the SEDM. Southern states are famous for their lack of female representation in state legislatures (West Virginia 13%, Tennessee 14%, Mississippi and South Carolina 15%, Alabama and Louisiana 18%), and the states that have most aggressively limited access to abortion and reproductive healthcare (designed to keep women out of the workplace and dependent on men) are entirely Republican-controlled.

Perhaps the most important part of the SEDM pushed by Republicans and Project 2025 is gutting the social safety net. Wealthy rightwingers have complained since FDR’s New Deal of the 1930s that transferring wealth from them to poor and middle-class people is socialism, the first step toward a complete communist tyranny in the United States. It’s an article of faith for today’s GOP.

Weekly unemployment benefits, for example, are lowest in “Mississippi ($235), Alabama ($275), Florida ($275), Louisiana ($275), Tennessee ($275), South Carolina ($326), and North Carolina ($350)” with Southern states setting the maximum number of weeks you can draw benefits at 12 in Florida, North Carolina, and Kentucky, 14 in Alabama and Georgia, and a mere 16 weeks in Oklahoma and Arkansas.

While only 3.3% of children in the Northeast lack health insurance, for the Southern states that number more than doubles to 7.7%. Ten states using the SEDM still refuse to expand Medicaid to cover all state residents living and working in poverty, including Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas.

The main benefit to employers of this weak social safety net is that workers are increasingly desperate for wages — any sort of wages — and even the paltriest of benefits to keep their heads above water economically. As a result, they’re far more likely to tolerate exploitative workplace conditions, underpaid work, and wage theft.

Finally, the SEDM makes aggressive use of the 13th Amendment’s legalization of slavery. That’s not a metaphor: the Amendment says, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” [emphasis added]

That “except as punishment for crime” is the key. While Iceland’s and Japan’s incarceration rates are 36 for every 100,000 people, Finland and Norway come in at 51, Ireland and Canada at 88, there are 664 people in prison in America for every 100,000 people. No other developed country even comes close, because no other developed country also allows legalized slavery under color of law.

Fully 800,000 (out of a total 1.2 million prisoners) Americans are currently held in conditions of slave labor in American jails and prisons, most working for private prison corporations that profitably insource work and unfairly compete against normal American companies. Particularly in the South, this workforce is largely Black and Hispanic.

As the ACLU documented for the EPI, “The vast majority of work done by prisoners in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas is unpaid.” Literal slave labor, in other words. It’s a international scandal, but it’s also an important part of this development model that was, after all, first grounded in chattel slavery.

The Christian white supremacist roots of the SEDM worldview are best summed up by the lobbyist and head of the Southern Committee to Uphold the Constitution, Vance Muse — the inventor of the modern “right to work for less” model and advocate for the Southern Economic Development Model — who famously proclaimed in 1944, just days after Arkansas and Florida became the first states to adopt his anti-union legislation, that it was all about keeping Blacks and Jews in their places to protect the power and privileges of wealthy white people.

So, if you want to see what Republicans have in mind for the rest of America if Trump or another Republican becomes president and they can hold onto Congress, just visit the Old South. Or, as today’s MAGA GOP would call it, “the New Model.”