Comments by "BlackFlagsNRoses" (@blackflagsnroses6013) on "Zaid Jilani EXPLAINS: Trump Declares War On Critical Race Theory" video.
-
4
-
2
-
2
-
Maheedhar Sonthineni "Capital" [...] in the political field is analogous to "government". [...] The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them. [...] What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason.”
“Under the law of association, transmission of wealth does not apply to the instruments of labour, so cannot become a cause of inequality. [...] We are socialists [...] under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour is social ownership. [...] We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically organised workers' associations. [...] We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies, joined together in the common bond of the democratic and social Republic.”
Pierre J Proudhon (first to call anti-statist socialism anarchism).
Tell me when you find Americans speaking like that and I’ll believe you there are leftist figures. Though to be honest this is a far leftist quote. I don’t even see prominent Marxists in the USA that would use political action to achieve socialist goals. An actual labor party.
1
-
Maheedhar Sonthineni Lol what kind of distorted history are you on about? Sounds like Statist propaganda. When ever someone conflates capitalism with markets I know they have a whitewashed knowledge of history.
What gave birth to Capitalism were State coerced policies like the Enclosure Acts in Britain. I mean capitalism as a system that thrives on a population of poverty to exploit must be a system of liberty huh? Nope. Classical liberals weren’t capitalist enthusiasts they advocated free markets and free enterprise. The fact that Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Hodgskin, John Stuart Mill, early Herbert Spencer etc… were the direct predecessors to radical liberal socialists means that there is a divergence of history. One where liberal economics leads to socialist theory and the other where the bourgeois property owning class took advantage of liberal economics and industrializations growth along with State consolidation to remove the aristocrats so that the capitalists become the new ruling elite. I recommend classical liberal works like Thomas Hodgskin’s “Labor Defended Against the Claims of Capital” or subsequent liberal treatises like the works of Charles Comte and Dunoyer. Class struggle theory began among radical liberal circles.
Free-market economics was not always capitalist economics. It is important to note here that mid-nineteenth century defenders of laissez faire — for example, Richard Cobden and John Bright in England, Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer in France — did not believe that they were engaged in a defense of capitalism.
An analysis of historical record reveals a picture of which the careful student of history is already aware: the word “capitalism” was only very rarely used prior to the twentieth century; earlier in appearance were phrases like “capitalistic system,” which were employed to describe not the principled free market system championed by modern libertarians, but a system in which property-owners were systematically advantaged by special legal treatment. The term for the individual holder of capital, “capitalist,” also long predates the -ism form.
As classical political economy came, in the industrial era’s youth, to be associated (correctly or not) with a bourgeois apology for monopoly and the exploitative treatment of workers, many radicals searched for justice in a balancing of liberty and equality. The French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was one such radical, a unique thinker whose work can help us better understand the historical intermingling of socialist, anarchist, and liberal currents. The kinship connecting classical liberalism and early anarchism remains underappreciated, in part because the tag liberal is often applied as an epithet by contemporary radicals, including anarchists. David Goodway, who specializes in anarchist history, observes the “truth in the remark that Proudhon was a liberal in proletarian clothing,” sharing with classical liberals (radical ones in particular) “the ideal of a society based on contractual relationships between free and equal individuals.” In this vision at least, Proudhon was almost certainly influenced by Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer, students of economist Jean-Baptiste Say and publishers of the radical liberal journal Le Censeur (later *Le Censeur Européen*). Their liberalism is remarkable in its similarity to modern movement libertarianism. Historian Annelien de Dijn observes that the radical laissez-faire liberalism of Comte and Dunoyer was “developed as an alternative to both the Jacobins’ republicanism and the royalists’ aristocratic liberalism.” The general “admiration for the classical republics,” so central a feature of eighteenth century liberal thought, left Comte and Dunoyer cold; they were concerned not with the architectural design of the ideal polity, but rather with limiting the power and role of the state itself, allowing the productive, industrial spirit its freedom. Comte and Dunoyer pioneered class theory (the supposedly exclusive domain of socialists and communists) and, in foreseeing “a complete withering away of the state,” skirted the edges of explicit anarchism or libertarian socialism.
1
-
Maheedhar Sonthineni so Democrats want to be seen as down with black liberation and protests. So what? All politicians want to look good for their base. Trump pretends he’s down with evangelists.
And the Black Panthers were also Maoist Marxists. So what? Colonized peoples have a history of being socialists because they understand capitalism is a hierarchy inherently tied to racial inequality. Black slaves came to the New World as capital.
“I imagine you already know that I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic… [Capitalism] started out with a noble and high motive… but like most human systems it fell victim to the very thing it was revolting against. So today capitalism has out-lived its usefulness.”
– Letter to Coretta Scott, July 18, 1952.
“In a sense, you could say we’re involved in the class struggle.”
–Quote to New York Times reporter, José Igelsias, 1968.
“And one day we must ask the question, ‘Why are there forty million poor people in America? And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth.’ When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I’m simply saying that more and more, we’ve got to begin to ask questions about the whole society…”
–Speech to Southern Christian Leadership Conference Atlanta, Georgia, August 16, 1967.
MLK was a Democratic Socialist. Conveniently a part of his legacy left out. Malcolm X was a socialist. Nelson Mandela was a socialist. George Orwell was a socialist. Albert Einstein was a socialist. Mohandas Gandhi was a socialist and a philosophical anarchist etc.... Gandhi and MLK were inspired by the civil resistance/disobedience of the philosophical anarchist David Henry Thoreau.
The reason colonized and oppressed people are socialists is because it is anti-imperialist and seeks to form a classless society free of hierarchies.
“Socialism is either classless or it is nothing at all.”— George Orwell
And BLM being Marxist and socialists is a bad thing?!! Lol
1