As this thread concerns Dr. King's dream of economic justice, I will not concern myself with his personal life. And Mrs Kennedy, like Ms. Clinton, has enough problems with the infidelities of her own spouse to be worried about King's activities.
The fact remains: DR. KIng was a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST.
His OWN WORDS confirm this. Zaius if trying to deflect the discussion from a REAL ANALYSIS of King's economic thought.
-Savant
_____________
It is capitalism which extorts labor (and the world) while creating babbling sycophants and apologists like Zaius.
LMFAO, you talk in circles.
I am not sure who you think labour can extort without capitalism.
I also wonder why you believe your version of a socialist utopia can exist when all other attempts have failed.
By the way, Dr. King was a child during the Depression. The capitalistic extortion, its immiseration of the masses which he saw in his childhood helped push him in an ANTI-CAPITALIST direction. Bless his heart.
"I can see the effects of this on this early childhood experience
on my ANTICAPITALISTIC FEELINGS." (pp. 1--2 of THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR).
I guess I take king himself as a better authority on his own thinking than his ignorant, reactionary neice Or racist scalawag, poseur called Zaius
-Savant
_________________
Mitt Romney is certainly the WORST of the two, and with Paul Ryan as VP, we might have the most REGRESSIVE policies in over 70 years if they win.
-Savant
______________
Also, it's at least DEBATABLE why and how the First WW started; at least historians tend to find the causes of the FIRST world war more complex than you imagine, though I suppose that they simply say in British schools that the Kaiser started it. What interesting, is that MOST people--English, French, German, Russian and others--didn't OPPOSE it. Nationalist hysteria seemed to sweep all countries (USA included). There were those who supported Hitler, those who opposed, and those who did notting. The same thing you would have found in Frace when the French teeor in Algeria was happening. The same thing you would hav found in the USA with whites when Native Americans were being exterminating, in the time when members of my family were lynched in the South. This also what you would have found in South africa among most whites (English as well as Boers). Some actively support, some sit the fence, and a courageous few oppose. At any rate, the rival IMPERIALIST powers (of which Germany was only one) have atrocious records all over the world. None may sit in judgment on others. I would recommend for perusal and reflection, Aime Cesaire's DISCOURSE ON COLONIALISM. As for the rounding up of citizens and their deportation to camps, I'm not sure how best the German people should have reacted since this occurred AFTER Hitler and his totalitarian regime was in power. One cannot act as easily in police state as in a republic. And I'm not so sure of how British would reply to the persecution of minorities if a FASCIST was in power. But I can think of a lot of things ordinary white Americans could have done when Blacks were being lynched, shot, castrated, burned alive, dragged to death behind auotmobiles etc. My parents lived under police state conditions, but most white Americans did not. And far from atrocities being disguised (as with Nazis who claimed only to be deporting rather than killing Jews), atrocies against my people in America were even advertised in southern newspapers--often in advance ("Come see the burning of a live Negro!") You can find old American newspapers in the South with such lurid advertisements. Dr. Du Bois mentioned being in a grocery store and seeing "n****r knuckles) being sold along with pork, and advertised as such. In what way then are Americans--be they of English, German or other European descent--any better than Germans when they did nothing (or supported atrocities) which they KNEW about, and while they were themselves protected by Constitutional liberties and English law? No gestapo would knock on their doors if they spoke out or acted.
-Savant
_____________-
Your CLAIM that Blacks are committing global genocide against white is not PROOF thay any such genocide is going. And when Dr. King said that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere", he didn't mean that "imaginary injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." There's simply no way that global genocide against whites by Blacks could happen without the world knowing about. The global media is owned mainly by WHITES, mainly whites of the 1%. It's notthat I am hypocritical as you claim, but rather that you're paranoid bigot whose racist paranoia has eroded his reason.
-Savant
____________
The masses have been duped by corporate and political propaganda. By the way, I'm thinking of starting a thread to talk about teh agenda of the Poor Peoples Campaign and King's proposals for an ECONOMIC BILL OF RIGHTS.
True, brother Savant... all too true.
Unfortunately the masses willingly facilitate this bs through their (our) electoral choices.
Since we have contact outside this madhouse, I can pribately commmuicate info to you via email.
I imagine you've probably already at least perused the last essay I sent.....i.e., if you weren't bored by the philosophical writing of a (according to Zaius) "high school drop out." LOL!
-Savant
_____________
Ironically, King spent his last days working on behalf of striking sanitation employees who were trying to organize, and who eventually won their strike and their right to organize, get good wages and collective bargaining which Mayor Loeb initially refused to concede.
Of course union busting is the goal of the Tea Party and their ilk, that is why King is viewed as a trouble maker and communist instead of trying to help workers get better working conditions. But then the Tea Partiers act like we can all live on $8 per hour with no healthcare.
Too bad that victory had to be won at the price of the martyrdom of Martin King.
And how DARE those conservatives who are trying to suppress working people, to deny them the right to collective bargaining--how DARE they try to lay claim to the legacy of Dr. King!
-Savant
_______________
Yes. that will take some effort. This part of what Dr. King had in mind with the Poor Peoples Campaign. And he might have succeeded. An African-American female professor from Morgan State once told me of a conversatin she had with a white cab driver in early Spring of 1968--shortly before King was killed. She was a grad student, maybe newly minted Ph.D. at the time. She cab driver in DC starting talking---"whining" OhREally would probably call it--about the troubles he and his family were facing. Working and barely able to make ends meet, barely being able to keep his family together, etc. He said to the future professor something like "I'm tired of this s___ ! Excuse me for cuswing. But I'm tired of this. I hear that minister of yours, that King fella...I hear he wants to organize ALL us poor people this time, not just colored. Well if he is, this is one white that's gonna be at that march. I've had it up to here."
Savant,
One essential thread of this discussion - at some point in time - has to be 'How to Elevate the Consciousness of Poor Whites - If Possible.'
As you well know, many of them are pliant tools of of the corporate oligarchy in this country....and all too often are unwitting tools of reaction. I suspect this will be one of our greatest challenges, and I have no automatic answers at the ready... only questions.
I've read that as the word spread that King intended to lead a movement of ALL the dispossesse, the "disinherited children of God" as he called the poor, pictures of King started appearing in the homes of some poor and whorking class whites along with pictured of John Kennedy and FDR.
During Black History Month, a white colleage asked me if I thought Dr. King would be in Egypt aiding the nonviolent revolutionary wave now called the Arab Spring.
I said, "I think he'd be praising the Arab Spring and expressing solidarity. But probably he would be marching---walking cane and all--with the disfranchised working people in Wisconsin and Michigan who are undere attack from the Right. He'd be marching against those wars, and demanding that Obama stop pussyfooting around, and do something serious about health care and the well being of poor and working people of every race, color and creed.
We must pick up the torch and firght for the rights of the dispossessed and disinherited--black, white, Asian, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, pagan, native born, foreign born or what have you.
Justice is for ALL or it is for NONE.
-Savant
________________
Savant, that is one moving anecdote.
What I find inspiring about Dr. King's vision at the time of his death is something that many elites perhaps found horrifying:
Here is a middle-class black man who has more than enough resources to feed and house his own family, but is not content with that alone - nor is he especially interested in doubling, tripling, or quadrupling (or more) his net worth within several years, like many aspiring capitalist businessmen. No, here is a fellow who lies awake at night thinking about how to better feed and house not just impoverished "Negroes," but impoverished whites as well....by the millions.
The social justice component of Dr. King's reformist ambitions surely provoked extreme alarm in the private suites of many of the powers that be. And most alarmed of all surely were those who profited most handsomely from extreme social injustice.
-Harrisson
_______________
But isn't the ESSENCE of revolution the fundamental TRANSFORMATION OF SOCIETY and of VALUES? A freer society, more humane one? Isn't all this the very goal of Revolution, its ACTUALIZATION?Short answer, no. Revolution is rebellion against an establishment & in doing that you are going to create conflict. People always love to jump on the MLK bandwagon believing that change can be brought without violence. MLK was non-violent but those crackerjacks were violent towards him. Malcolm best defined revolution. "Revolution is hostile, revolution is bloody, revolution knows no compromise."
Why can't this be achieved ny NONVIOLENT forms of struggle?
Even Malcolm X suggested that if Blacks could become politically empowered bloodless revolutionary change might be possible. At least he suggests in in speech "The Ballot or the Bullet."
Even Karl Marx argued that in at least a FEW countries, the USA among them, his own idea of a proletarian revolution might be possible without a VIOLENT uprising.
Why can't revolutionary change be achieved by a nonviolent insurgency?
-Savant
___________________
No comments:
Post a Comment