this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
1117 points (97.4% liked)
Share Funny Videos, Images, Memes, Quotes and more
2451 readers
130 users here now
#funny
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"Black capitalism" is historically the approach of some African American* communities and individuals to resist racial oppression by embracing capitalism and out-competing whites in it, essentially. This met its most famous manifestation in Tulsa, Oklahoma, which developed a wealthy black capitalist class, but neighboring white towns got mad at this and basically leveled a good portion of the town and killed many people. For reasons beyond me, some liberals hold up Tulsa as some wonderful thing and proof that black people should just be more engaged in capitalism, and they ignore how the experiment ended.
The most famous "black capitalism" proponent is the Jamaican-born American Marcus Garvey, who some Rastafarians worship as a prophet. To poison the well immediately, he was supported by the KKK in his projects to send African Americans "back to" Africa, because their ideologies and aims of ethnonationalism broadly aligned.
*It's mostly an American thing, but it's not exclusively an American thing by any means
The easy answer is that racism destroyed Tulsa, not capitalism. Were it not for racist fucks, that experiment would have worked wonderfully. But that's a tale as old as time, unfortunately.
If racism just sprang from the ground or from defects in people's souls, that would make sense. Racism is a superstructural tool of capitalism. It's a little more obvious how the two are in union when you look at things like the Transatlantic slave trade, but keeping black people as an underclass serves in capital's interest to this day.
That's ridiculous. So many explicitly racist movements have also been explicitly capitalist. Racism is a tool of tribalism and collectivism. Capitalism is an individualistic system.
Probably forgot an 'anti' in there, judging by the rest of your comment, but your typo is very right.
Yep
xd
Name some, including the substance of them being anti-capitalist. The KKK aren't anti-capitalist. The Nazis aren't anti-capitalist. The Confederates weren't anti-capitalist. Mind you, all of these groups and other racist movements oppose some version of "globalization," something the developed capitalist forces push, but they are not thereby rejecting all of capitalism, because the system that they call for is still capitalist, just degenerated to earlier forms, the national or local depending on which movement it is.
I think individualist/collectivist is a much less helpful way of analyzing ideologies than a lot of liberals think it is, but that's partly because it question-begs the supremacy of liberal ideology, which means I don't think we'll come to an agreement.
Anyway, pretending they were useful terms, I still think this is a bad argument. When you live within a capitalist society and aren't looking to overthrow it, it is a coherent idea to create collectives within a system that is philosophically oriented around the individual power of property-owners, that's what labor unions are. Most fascist movements are theoretically a racial version of this, white people (or whoever) collaborating to fuck over minorities to save themselves that much competition. That's what Krystalnacht was, for instance, a white-German community effort to drive out the competition represented to them by Jews.
The unavoidable fact of capitalism is that it relies on pushing most of society into the same general social class (workers, as contrasted with owners; employees vs employers) and likewise makes production a massive group effort, though that group effort is dictated by an individual or an oligarchy who own the instruments used in that production. You can try to appeal to these workers who make up most of society on an atomized, liberal basis, sure, but it's no less coherent to draw lines of common interest between them, most often something like race or religion that is convenient to capitalists, because the capitalists can say "look, I'm white (or whatever) too, I'm on your side!" even if they truly aren't because they are only seeking their own profits.
This is about a third of an explanation of the material basis for fascism. Probably the most critical element is that capitalist expansion hits some limitation, be it international competition or just all of the market already being claimed. The reason, the real motivation, for the racial terrorism I described above despite merely deflecting worker ire, is that by "clear cutting" more space open for your market share by slaughtering competitors, people sitting on land you want, etc., you can gain more room to grow, although this too only lets you grow temporarily until you bump into your new limits, so you need to keep killing inconvenient people to keep growing, and that's more or less how the Nazis worked, both internally by picking out minority after minority, and externally with their continuous invasions and "lebensraum" and so on.
Except all of these groups were, although the Nazis were much more explicit about it- that is indisputable so I'll focus on the others. The Confederacy was simply a plantocracy near oligarchy, not to mention slavery which is incompatible with capitalism(already explained in another comment, but a brief breeze over it- slave masters act as entities of the state by the very nature of them having a monopoly on regulation of other humans). As for the KKK, much of what it and other racist organizations of its era did was try to "protect white jobs", and lobbied heavily for state intervention to that effect- such as targeting immigrant and black "scabs" and pushing for minimum wages aimed at driving them out- though the KKK also explicitly opposed a lot of unions and other organized labor activities(often because they weren't white enough or included Catholics). Fundamentally though, the KKK viewed their goals of white-protestant supremacy as greater than an economic system, and were more than happy to destroy private property and private individuals- or use private property when it benefited them. Similar to what the Nazi's believed- its private profits are okay as long as they are working in the interest of the greater goal, but the second its not they're more than happy to steal it and kill you. Capitalism doesn't require private profit from the means of production, it requires private control of it- and if it can be seized if not following exactly what the state wants, that's not private control.
That's what unions are to some people. To other people unions are a convenient organization of people with similar and/or parallel goals on a specific matter(and not necessarily others) so that by collaborating they can achieve their individual goals.
No, that's not true. Capitalism doesn't ascribe the distribution or organization of labor, just that it is privately controlled. A society of independent agrarian farmers could still be capitalist, or a commune of people who voluntarily donate their labor to each other.
Yeah no doubt, though I think it is a little perverse to use "capitalist" to refer to owners/employers when they themselves are often not ideological capitalists, although it is still a correct use of the word I think it leads to intentional confusion(though not by you, just in general).
I don't think business owners are that generally competent to have orchestrated the total destruction of black and jewish owned businesses, I think the Nazis and KKK were both more than motivated enough to do that themselves, but I agree there definitely were some to supported it when they saw it happening and benefited from it.
This is extremely "wasn't real capitalism," and I could use this argument to say that the United States still isn't capitalist, as slave labor remains a cornerstone of multiple state economies and present in most of them, to say nothing of international trade.
No, the Confederacy was not some maximalist libertarian fantasy land (check the company towns of the Gilded Age for something closer to that), but that is not all that capitalism is, for a slew of reasons not the least of which being that capitalism is not a philosophical framework, it's an objective mode of production, and secondly capitalism is what invented and executed the establishment of chattel slavery to begin with!
Again, you're appealing to a maximalist libertarian fantasy, not looking at it from the standpoint of private ownership and commodity production. I'm not trying to pin the KKK on libertarianism, obviously their approaches to fucking over minorities are pretty different.
"They killed people, which isn't part of capitalism" and "They destroyed other people's stuff, which isn't part of capitalism" are just silly statements. See what I already said.
The KKK weren't trying to go back to feudalism, to classical slavery, to ancient agrarianism, or to hunter-gatherer society, and they weren't trying to invent some new mode of production like, say, utopian socialists liked to write about. They were quite happy with the existing mode of production and (as you narrated) smashed labor organization against the capitalists. The fact that that they didn't follow John Locke's writings like the Holy Bible and indeed the fact that they insisted on the domination of white capitalists do not contradict that.
Then capitalism has never existed. In all liberal-inspired (what a normal person would call "liberal") societies, asset forfeiture has existed as one of the penalties of breaking the laws that everyone lives under. In some cases, that law is even that you can't own something, the classic joke example being a nuclear bomb, but much lower-grade military equipment is another set of easy examples. Turns out if what you own doesn't fall exactly within what the state permits, it can be taken from you and more besides for the state's trouble.
From a Marxist perspective (if you'll allow me), a capitalist society is a Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, that is to say the capitalist class collectively steers the state, which means outliers even among the capitalist class can be punished if the majority want that to pass. That doesn't change the essential nature of society as operating practically along the lines of private ownership -- even if capitalists are not individually gods of their domain -- and commodity production.
I don't care what's in your heart, what I care about is what actually transpires, and what actually transpires in a union is collective bargaining. You might be surprised to find that the Marxist position is one of supporting what some people refer to as "enlightened self-interest," i.e. "what is best for me is collaboration for these specific reasons" rather than psychically subsuming yourself to the collective at your own expense and with no benefit. That's part of why I think the "individualist/collectivist" framework is silly, and probably the product of liberals who were so atomized that they didn't have the right tools in their mind to conceptualize of something other than atomization except as some monstrosity of being enslaved to society itself. Just my personal theory, though.
You know that capitalism is named after capital, right? Yeoman subsistence is not capitalism, there is no commodity production, no vector for capital.
It's not something that Locke wrote down as a necessary element, but beyond whatever libertarian utopia you might imagine, what capitalism has actually done all over the world is create those classes and make production increasingly centralized and socialized (!! in the sense of involving many hands to make a single commodity !!). This gravity towards monopoly through the couple of centuries capitalism has existed is undeniable. We might imagine it otherwise, but we have no reason to believe that it is particularly capable of behaving differently, much less ever will.
"Ideological capitalist" is some bizarre joke invented by economists and their ilk. I only care for what the capitalist does, and if he pursues making money through commodity production, reinvests some of that money into developing or broadening his production, and begins again, that's capital and he's the one manipulating it. I personally think that has about as much of a claim to the title of "ideological capitalist" too, as compared to someone who just wants the world to run on private ownership, because we call those "libertarians" already (or, if you insist, "ancaps").
Anyway, I don't want to quibble over words, I can use the ones you prefer, just my two cents.
As far as I'm concerned, business owners across the west supporting Nazi Germany financially (often for deliberate ideological reasons, hi Ford!, though not always) means they can take credit for what the Nazis did with that benefit. Business owners typically don't directly manage the execution of serious violence (except Coca Cola), but they've been paying, for example, the American government to go and topple this government or that for a very long time ("Banana republic"). When I look at Hitler running on a platform of eradicating the Jews and the Bolsheviks and capitalists give him money, and then he does what he said he would, how should I interpret that? Should I say those companies were anything less than deliberate benefactors to what he perpetrated?
Yep, the US isn't purely capitalist, its a mixed economy, from the logic of Milton Friedman its fair to say its nearing 50% capitalist. There have been times where its been nearing 70% but never much more than that. But the same is true the other way, to my understanding there have essentially never been purely socialist economies. Furthermore, the US has individual fields within its economy where how capitalist it is differs- like I would say the internet is generally a bit more capitalist.
Far from it. Company towns were often Neo-fuedal state-like entities where they held an illegitimate claim to the land oftentimes and would legal use violence to enforce their rules.
Capitalism is an economic system requires private control of the means of production, for real private control that requires a free and fair market. I could go into that more if you want, but I think I'll address it somewhat later.
That's not true. Capitalism is not "earning a profit and people being greedy". Capitalism is private control of the means of production, as said in another comment private != state, and when you have authority to regulate people(as in legislate and dictate to them) you are a state-like entity. If I decide to point a gun at you and force you to work for me so I can then barter with others from the profits of your labor, that is not capitalism.
Capitalism does not require commodity production. And it is not solely private ownership, it is private ownership and control. De facto and de jure. "You own the factory but the government tells you what to produce" is not capitalism, you don't truly own it from my perspective, and you definitely don't control it.
Silly yet true.
Yep, they may be the least anti-capitalist of these three groups, but they still did not care about attacking capitalism if(and it does) contradict the goal of white supremacy.
Yep, not as a sole economic system of economy, as talked about previously.
That's more of political system of corporatocracy, and y'know, isn't actually the definition of capitalism. But yes, if that is how you define capitalism, I oppose that.
But this I disagree with, there was organized individual bargaining- because I don't believe collectives exist.
Eh, Marx was not the most collectivist.
I'm glad we agree, but this is what some real people actually advocate.
To me it is less about beliefs on individual matters, and instead about priorities. The most extreme individualist believes that only individual people exist and they're the only thing that matters, the most extreme collectivist believes that there is no such thing as an individual person outside a collective- and only collectives or a specific collective matters. I agree there are very few people of that extreme a collectivist stance, but they do exist, a lot of chronically online "race realists" are like that.
Capital can be anything that is used for labor of a good, even if the good and the capital are both produced by an individual themselves. Though I do disagree with the classical definition where "means of production" and "capital" are the same thing, because I would say the modern definition of capitalism requires private control of the means of production- and would include labor in the means of production.
Already discussed our different definition of capitalism so I won't repeat it here.
This is where I will disagree, the internet being the closest to a capitalist economy out of to my knowledge anything that's ever existed- though still far from being entirely capitalist- is one of the most fractured and easily "disrupt-able"(I hate techbro words) markets- and that's despite the excessive state intervention fighting to build monopolies through intellectual property law and massive contract awards.
I support your animosity towards economists(at least most of them).
Fair, actually my favorite terms are privatist, or voluntarist- they're the most explicit.
No my point isn't that they didn't work to support it, its that they weren't the core motivators behind it. Hitler wasn't fighting to help the companies, the companies just saw that if they were cozy to him he probably would.
So.. corporate collusion between black businesses owners? I suppose that would equalize the market a bit if they do manage to kick down corps like amazon