___________
Nixakliel says:
[Black] People need to know that just because they [we] live in a predominately capitalist system, does NOT make them capitalist nor even ‘entrepreneurs’. Most white folks in the US [let alone Black folks] are NOT capitalist [though most likely neither are they socialists], but are rather consumers of products [often 'junk'] made by, &/or [most often under-paid] labor for, &/or even victims of- this capitalist system.
If you’re nowhere near the income level of Lebron, Kobe, RG3, Mike Vick, JZ & Beyonce’, Kanye’, Denzel, Venus & Serena, Tiger Woods, etc- but you think you’re a so-called ‘capitalist’, you’re simply fooling yourself. In fact IMO even most of these so-called ‘success’ stories are actually ‘quasi-capitalists’ IE: just well-paid ‘hired-guns’ for real capitalists [Oprah, Michael Jordan, Magic & Bob Johnson MAY actually qualify as real capitalists].
Black folks [& people generally] need to understand what capitalism really is & what qualifies you as a real capitalist- before they give knee-jerk reactions against so-called ‘socialism’. For a working-stiff ‘slaving’ on 2 gigs trying to make ends meet or some unemployed guy who’s struggling to even find work- argue vehemently for capitalism & against so-called ‘socialism’- is proof just how much capitalist PR propaganda has warped most folks thinking.
==============================================================
When it comes to the [NOI's?] adage ‘Buy from self’ & ‘Do for self’, IMO there’s basically 2 models- 1 small business owner / entrepreneurs [IE: mom & pop stores & old fashioned family farms] & or worker &/or community owned / run business co-opts. But the fact is BIG BIZ capitalists have nearly swallowed-up &/or driven out of business traditional small businesses [ala mom & pop stores] & even family farms. Under the current circumstances the only independent [of the standard capitalist model] businesses that have a chance for survival let alone thriving is worker &/or community owned/run co-opts [IE: towards a more 'socialist' model]. Otherwise the average ‘consumer’ [Black or otherwise] is forced to spend their hard-earned $$$ w the Wal-Marts, Sears, Jewels & Dominicks of this capitalist system!
_________________
Jared Ball says:
If you’re nowhere near the income level of Lebron, Kobe, RG3, Mike Vick, JZ & Beyonce’, Kanye’, Denzel, Venus & Serena, Tiger Woods, etc- but you think you’re a so-called ‘capitalist’, you’re simply fooling yourself. In fact IMO even most of these so-called ‘success’ stories are actually ‘quasi-capitalists’ IE: just well-paid ‘hired-guns’ for real capitalists [Oprah, Michael Jordan, Magic & Bob Johnson MAY actually qualify as real capitalists].
Black folks [& people generally] need to understand what capitalism really is & what qualifies you as a real capitalist- before they give knee-jerk reactions against so-called ‘socialism’. For a working-stiff ‘slaving’ on 2 gigs trying to make ends meet or some unemployed guy who’s struggling to even find work- argue vehemently for capitalism & against so-called ‘socialism’- is proof just how much capitalist PR propaganda has warped most folks thinking.
==============================================================
When it comes to the [NOI's?] adage ‘Buy from self’ & ‘Do for self’, IMO there’s basically 2 models- 1 small business owner / entrepreneurs [IE: mom & pop stores & old fashioned family farms] & or worker &/or community owned / run business co-opts. But the fact is BIG BIZ capitalists have nearly swallowed-up &/or driven out of business traditional small businesses [ala mom & pop stores] & even family farms. Under the current circumstances the only independent [of the standard capitalist model] businesses that have a chance for survival let alone thriving is worker &/or community owned/run co-opts [IE: towards a more 'socialist' model]. Otherwise the average ‘consumer’ [Black or otherwise] is forced to spend their hard-earned $$$ w the Wal-Marts, Sears, Jewels & Dominicks of this capitalist system!
_________________
Jared Ball says:
Oraluk, thanks, but there are many problems with what you said:
1. You said, “The way you describe buying power you make it seems as only a one way street that goes in the directions of the corporations. Businesses do respond to their customers’ buying habits and preferences and they respond it kind. Buyer have a lot influence over the color, shape, taste, smell, and feel of a product. They also influence how a businesses employees interact with the customer or customer service. That’s the basic premise behind a boycott. People stop shopping with you and your business suffers. It works all the time.” There is no equal balance between labor and big business. Corporations have an increasing control over every aspect of our lives and their executives and owners are making more money than ever with greater disparities between their pay, what is produced and what labor is paid for that production.
2. Your description of Cuba, the USSR and downfall of socialism and communism is too rife with simplicity and error for me to really deal with. But as Kwame Ture said, “you judge ideas on their principles, not their application.” What does the Russian revolution look like if the West (roughly 15 countries) don’t immediately invade, blockade, assassinate, etc.? What does Cuba look like if not cut off from the world and having to stave off the USA all this time? I don’t know. But to suggest these things are the outcome of flawed systems is ridiculous. So yes, Cubans drive older cars. But those cars work and dont require the recreation of abusive relationships to keep making more to satisfy the equally fraudulent desires for new purchases. I’ve been driving the same car for 7 years, does the mean im slowly devolving in my humanity?
3. You’re reduction of my argument to agency and the white man is also misplaced and wildly simplistic. Telling people they are poor because they have bad spending habits and target marketing to them at the same time all occurs to blunt the agency in a people who might realize the game is rigged, organize around that fact and initiate a revolution. Encouraging people to further buy into the myths of capitalism does more to deny agency.
4. Then here you say, “Disposable income is what’s left over after taxes and essential expenses. It’s for miscellaneous expenses like dining out and entertainment or for savings and investment. Now, your greatest point in the article is that most people, black or otherwise, don’t have much disposable income after taking of their living expenses. But, that’s where better buying habits, saving, and investing come into play. You can’t say you’re doing the best you can when you pay for your hair and nails no matter what, but you won’t pay for your life insurance or even your rent. It’s not white people’s responsible to take care of us. We have to do that and that’s the sentiment that’s meant to expressed when black leaders chastise their followers. It’s out of love not to browbeat or put them down.” This misunderstands the point you say you are critiquing. Yes, I am saying that Black people have no money and, therefore, cannot be said to be poorly spending themselves into poverty. So even, following your logic, if Black people stop buying hair, etc. and pay their “rent” as you accurately say (since so few people actually own anything) or their life insurance bill they will still be poor. Paying rent and life insurance, to my point, is not a method of increasing wealth – even income. By the way, to suggest that Black homelessness and poverty exists because people willfully choose to ignore their rent in favor of frivolous goods and therefore are put in the street suggests you know very little about poverty or the decision making processes of poor people.
5. Then you say, “What I would like to know is who is keeping stocks and land from blacks who have the money and credit for them? What’s stopping people from doing their due diligence and research on an investment. A lot of people got bad loans because they were too trusting and didn’t read the fine print and ask questions. They were also being greedy and thought they were getting over and got caught up. Now, they’re paying for it! It’s not just the banks’ fault. White people have more net worth because they own land even if they are cash poor.” Here is part of the answer to your question,
“In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 35% of all privately held stock, 64.4% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top ten percent have 81% to 94% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and almost 80% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America; see Table 3 and Figure 2 for the details.”
source link: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
My point is that there is no stock to buy, even if you miraculously had the money. 1% have 35% of the stock. They are not looking to sell, this is how they ensure they will remain in the top 1%. No one is going to sell you their wealth, that is not how things work and would defeat the purpose of capitalism whose purpose is to use wealth to maintain power over the labor (and everything else) of the rest of us.
6. And finally, I always am fascinated by those who point out the “flaws” in societal criticism that does not “offer a solution.” This, first of all in nonsense for several reasons which include the fact that this response is already in disagreement with the assessment which means they would most certainly be in disagreement with the proposed solutions. Especially in this discussion. People who believe that poor people are poor because they dont know how to spend and save their pennies cannot possibly believe in any of the proposed solutions that come from people suggesting otherwise. And of course, there is also the point that those who already accept the established myths about poverty only suggest as “solutions” that which leads people back to or keep them in poverty in the first place, “pay your rent instead of buying hair…” and the rest of that nonsense. And, of course, very lastly, and where I probably should have started; these numbers about “buying power” are absolutely unsubstantiated and based in nothing that resembles reality. So even accepting that premise means there can be no fruitful discussion, conclusion or outcomes.
1. You said, “The way you describe buying power you make it seems as only a one way street that goes in the directions of the corporations. Businesses do respond to their customers’ buying habits and preferences and they respond it kind. Buyer have a lot influence over the color, shape, taste, smell, and feel of a product. They also influence how a businesses employees interact with the customer or customer service. That’s the basic premise behind a boycott. People stop shopping with you and your business suffers. It works all the time.” There is no equal balance between labor and big business. Corporations have an increasing control over every aspect of our lives and their executives and owners are making more money than ever with greater disparities between their pay, what is produced and what labor is paid for that production.
2. Your description of Cuba, the USSR and downfall of socialism and communism is too rife with simplicity and error for me to really deal with. But as Kwame Ture said, “you judge ideas on their principles, not their application.” What does the Russian revolution look like if the West (roughly 15 countries) don’t immediately invade, blockade, assassinate, etc.? What does Cuba look like if not cut off from the world and having to stave off the USA all this time? I don’t know. But to suggest these things are the outcome of flawed systems is ridiculous. So yes, Cubans drive older cars. But those cars work and dont require the recreation of abusive relationships to keep making more to satisfy the equally fraudulent desires for new purchases. I’ve been driving the same car for 7 years, does the mean im slowly devolving in my humanity?
3. You’re reduction of my argument to agency and the white man is also misplaced and wildly simplistic. Telling people they are poor because they have bad spending habits and target marketing to them at the same time all occurs to blunt the agency in a people who might realize the game is rigged, organize around that fact and initiate a revolution. Encouraging people to further buy into the myths of capitalism does more to deny agency.
4. Then here you say, “Disposable income is what’s left over after taxes and essential expenses. It’s for miscellaneous expenses like dining out and entertainment or for savings and investment. Now, your greatest point in the article is that most people, black or otherwise, don’t have much disposable income after taking of their living expenses. But, that’s where better buying habits, saving, and investing come into play. You can’t say you’re doing the best you can when you pay for your hair and nails no matter what, but you won’t pay for your life insurance or even your rent. It’s not white people’s responsible to take care of us. We have to do that and that’s the sentiment that’s meant to expressed when black leaders chastise their followers. It’s out of love not to browbeat or put them down.” This misunderstands the point you say you are critiquing. Yes, I am saying that Black people have no money and, therefore, cannot be said to be poorly spending themselves into poverty. So even, following your logic, if Black people stop buying hair, etc. and pay their “rent” as you accurately say (since so few people actually own anything) or their life insurance bill they will still be poor. Paying rent and life insurance, to my point, is not a method of increasing wealth – even income. By the way, to suggest that Black homelessness and poverty exists because people willfully choose to ignore their rent in favor of frivolous goods and therefore are put in the street suggests you know very little about poverty or the decision making processes of poor people.
5. Then you say, “What I would like to know is who is keeping stocks and land from blacks who have the money and credit for them? What’s stopping people from doing their due diligence and research on an investment. A lot of people got bad loans because they were too trusting and didn’t read the fine print and ask questions. They were also being greedy and thought they were getting over and got caught up. Now, they’re paying for it! It’s not just the banks’ fault. White people have more net worth because they own land even if they are cash poor.” Here is part of the answer to your question,
“In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 35% of all privately held stock, 64.4% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top ten percent have 81% to 94% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and almost 80% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America; see Table 3 and Figure 2 for the details.”
source link: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
My point is that there is no stock to buy, even if you miraculously had the money. 1% have 35% of the stock. They are not looking to sell, this is how they ensure they will remain in the top 1%. No one is going to sell you their wealth, that is not how things work and would defeat the purpose of capitalism whose purpose is to use wealth to maintain power over the labor (and everything else) of the rest of us.
6. And finally, I always am fascinated by those who point out the “flaws” in societal criticism that does not “offer a solution.” This, first of all in nonsense for several reasons which include the fact that this response is already in disagreement with the assessment which means they would most certainly be in disagreement with the proposed solutions. Especially in this discussion. People who believe that poor people are poor because they dont know how to spend and save their pennies cannot possibly believe in any of the proposed solutions that come from people suggesting otherwise. And of course, there is also the point that those who already accept the established myths about poverty only suggest as “solutions” that which leads people back to or keep them in poverty in the first place, “pay your rent instead of buying hair…” and the rest of that nonsense. And, of course, very lastly, and where I probably should have started; these numbers about “buying power” are absolutely unsubstantiated and based in nothing that resembles reality. So even accepting that premise means there can be no fruitful discussion, conclusion or outcomes.