Democratic Party, Race, racism, Uncategorized

The Clinton’s “Peculiar Institution”

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.

—Section 1 of the 13th Amendment to The Constitution of the United States

___

It is Hilarious how Clinton Liberals are now trying to be pro-slave wage prison labor at Southern plantation/gov buildings and sympathetic to racist stereotypes about IQ and emotional intelligence now that the racist segments of Hillary Clinton’s ’96 book are going viral. And by “hilarious” I mean morally repugnant.

I’m going to post an article that features Sec. Clinton’s own words on this. Warning, the way she talks about the human beings who served her is incredibly demeaning, Uncle Tom’s Cabin levelshit. Also remember, the 13th Amendment explicitly carves out an exception for PRISON SLAVE LABOR, which is what is being described here. I’ve seen liberals try to say “but inmates WANT to work” or “it’s good for inmates”. Remember, these are the exact same excuses slavery supporters used to justify chattel slavery. Also, I’ve seen liberals say “well, this IS legal”. So was chattel slavery.

Inmates used for labor are often unpaid or only paid a tiny, pitiful fraction of minimum wage, often as little as a few cents an hour. They often must work over 10hrs a day in unsafe, undignified, or unsanitary conditions while wearing humiliating prison garb and be overseen by armed guards with absolute authority over their bodies. The vast majority of unpaid or token-paid prison labor is done by black men.

Here are links to Clinton’s casually racist and cavalier attitude to the imprisoned black men who served her and an article putting it all in context. Note how Mrs. Clinton seems most concerned for her own safety and how this “peculiar institution” at the Arkansas Governor’s residence confirms or denies her personal prejudices about “criminals”. Also note how she acts as though she is helpless in the face of an entrenched institution, even though in reality she and her husband, then Governor Clinton, were in fact uniquely empowered to do something, anything, to mitigate or eliminate this injustice.

Ask yourself, Clinton true-believers, would you be defending these words or actions if they had instead come from, and described by, the pen of a Mike Huckabee or George Bush…or a Donald Trump? The passage bellow is taken verbatim from Mrs. Clinton’s 1996 book “It Takes a Village”. It is important to remember, however, that while the Clinton’s are a particularly hideous example of this moral evil, we’re ALL party to this crime. As Nathan J. Robinson says in the articled linked below:

This is not a mere pathology of the Clintons, but a pathology of the country we all inhabit. And it is not just a single noxious political family that is complicit. We all are. 

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/the-clintons-had-slaves

Solidarity, Comrades

“Workers of the World…Unite!”

Standard
Democratic Party, Politics, Socialism, Uncategorized

The Sanders “Revolution” Is a Blind Alley

“The working class will acquire the sense of the new discipline, the freely assumed self-discipline of the Social Democracy, not as a result of the discipline imposed on it by the capitalist state, but by extirpating, to the last root, its old habits of obedience and servility.”–Rosa Luxemburg

Bernie Sanders’ reformist welfare state capitalism is not, in any way, shape, or form socialist, let alone Marxist. His way is just a prettier repackaging of neoliberalism for desperate Millennials emeeging from the warm nest of the post-WWII capitalist bubble into the cold reality of late-stage capitalism in crisis.

Sanders & his ilk seek to improve the material conditions of the middle, and to a much lesser extent, working classes WITHOUT addressing the system which creates and will continue to create the conditions seeking to be reformed.

Sanders’ kabuki theater “revolution” is a essentially a morphine drip for the petty bourgeois Millennials who are the first generation in the advnced post-industrial west to experiance the full savagry of late stage-capitalism in crisis. His policies would make the current generation more comfortable with their misery under the current system, and would have as a consequence the INTENSIFICATION AND PROLONGATION of the crisis and its’ attendent woes & brutalities. Only the overthrow of the capitalist system and its replacement with communism will ameliorate the condition of the working classes & disintegrate the class barriers that stratify society. Sanders is a new coat of paint on the walls of the same old reformist blind alley.

 

Standard
2016 Election, Activism, Uncategorized

Thesis For Post-United States Systems

red

The Democratic Party & many mainstream (especially white upper middle class) liberals will roll over like a dog for Trump & the GOP in hopes of getting some legislative & policy table scraps. This whole “civil war” narrative for the Democratic Party, this whole Clinton/Schumer corporate elites vs. populist working class allies Sanders/Warren/Ellison is just that: a narrative meant to divert effort & energy away from the protests, art, writing, civil disobedience, grass roots & communal organizing & self-governance that is the ONLY real antidote to the sort of incipient fascism/nationalist populism being embraced by the ruling & media elites.

DO NOT BUY INTO IT.

Ignore the Democratic Party “get out the vote” shaming & its mirror image “third party” utopianisms, ignore the “we need to reach out to the white working classes” bullshit: organize, speak out & act out in any way you can. The system is broken, it does not deserve to be put back together. We must create a new one from the ideas & imaginations within ourselves. We must abandon the party system entirely. We must eventually even abandon the discursive & self-justifying system of nationalism. There is no hope for the US. There is only hope if we create, together, Post-US narratives & systems.

Standard
Politics, Uncategorized

Why I Am Not “Feeling The Bern”

Ok, it’s been a LONG ASS TIME since I have posted anything on here, so of course I have to break my radio silence by posting something that will most likely make 75% of my readers hate me forever…but I don’t care so enjoy!
***
I will say, up front, that what I am writing is from my OWN perspective. I am not writing this as someone who thinks he understand “the black point of view” because A. I do not, and B. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A UNIFIED BLACK PERSPECTIVE ON ANYTHING, just like there is no unified woman, LGBTQ or even white male perspective. We are all shaped by our experiences to one degree or another, and no community is a monolith. That being said, let’s get into this thing:
I have been told by my liberal friends, liberal sparring partners, liberal family members etc etc that I MUST vote for and support Bernie Sanders for president of the US. The reasons why are myriad: he is the “only one” who gets “it” (whatever IT means), he is the only one who can beat Trump (I doubt Trump even makes it to the general, but I digress…), that he alone can bring about a “political revolution” in the U.S. just by being elected (didn’t we go through this before, in ’08?) and that not voting for him is tantamount to personally ushering a Republican into the Oval Office.
 
Enough is enough. I will vote for Bernie Sanders for one reason, and one reason only: he is not Trump, Ted Cruz, or Hillary Clinton. That is it. I am not impressed by Sanders having “marched w/ MLK”, especially not the way that this fact has been used by my fellows on the left to shame anyone, especially black folks, who DARE to question whether or not he is the best thing to happen to Civil Rights since the aforementioned Rev. Dr. King, Jr. Anyone can march, anyone can stage a sit in or hold a sign. Sanders is a well meaning, old, civil rights era liberal, he is not some sort of revolutionary racial savior. And to tell our fellow Americans, who happen to be black, that they should “know who their friends are” or “stop making trouble” is to show that we are still quite racist in our attitudes. Sanders boggled his first response to BLM, though he has engaged them since then, and he continues to put his foot in his mouth when it comes to issues of racial justice. Just the other day he said he did not believe that reparations for slavery was a viable option for making the US a more fair and just place because the issue would be “divisive” and have a hard time “getting through Congress”. As Ta-Nehisi Coates puts it in his piece analyzing this very issue (and which I link to at the bottom of this piece):
“The spectacle of a socialist candidate opposing reparations as “divisive” (there are few political labels more divisive in the minds of Americans than socialist) is only rivaled by the implausibility of Sanders posing as a pragmatist”. I find his sudden concern for Congressional feasibility rich given that most of his platform has no chance in hell of passing through anything less than a Democratic Super Majority in both Houses of Congress. Why is it that issues that matter the most to black people and that could have a real impact on the lives of black folks and strike a real blow against institutional racism are always considered “divisive” or “not proper” or “a non-starter”? Sanders seems to think that a blanket approach to economic injustice i.e. a few basic tweaks and overhauls to the economic and regulatory systems, would have in the end benefit all Americans, regardless of race. This, to put it politely, is complete and utter bullshit.
Again, as Ta-Nehisi Coates has showed, many times and in much more beautiful language than I can ever muster, that the best liberal programs in the world will do nothing to lessen the burden on African Americans if it is not coupled with an understanding that every system in the US is tainted, corrupted, by racism. Housing aid after WWII, Welfare Reform in the 90s, the New Deal in the 30s, all these things were meant to lift “the masses” out of poverty, but were designed, intentionally and not, to exclude or to marginalize black folks. Unless Sanders wakes up to the fact that you must first attack the ROOTS of racism in this country, inequality at ALL levels of civil society, then his policy pledges and kind words mean nothing. It also bothers me, as someone who has took the time to study and read up on the issues, that Sanders and his supporters INSIST that the Senator is a “democratic socialist”. This is not true. A democratic socialist would be in favor of the workers taking control of the means of production, abolishing wage labor, and allowing for direct democratic control over all aspects of the economy and government. I see nothing of the sort suggested by the Sanders camp. He pays lip service to true revolutionary ideas and to the radical streak in many young people, but he does not have policies to back up his very strong assertions. His platform does nothing to undermine capitalism, to attack the imperialist tendencies of our government systems, or to remove our military from the many bases we have all over the world imposing our will and whims on everyone else.
He is a New Deal/War On Poverty style liberal Democrat, which is, I admit, better than the Democrats have put forward for years, but a socialist this does not make. Do I think that Bernie Sanders is some sort of closet racist? Absolutely not. Do I think he is an old white man who thinks he has the answers to why black people are suffering? Abso-fucking-lutely. He is no different than many other “liberal white saviors” who seem to come and go with such frequency in American Democratic Party Politics. I even wrote about this issue once before on this blog
So, to sum up, yes, I will be voting for Sanders, NO, I do not think he is the most “revolutionary political figure” in recent U.S. political history, and no, he is NOT a Democratic Socialist, or any kind of socialist. He is a white liberal Democrat from the east coast running for President, the same sort the Democrats have been putting forward for a generation or more. Nothing more, nothing less. And one more thing about those white liberal Bernie Sanders supports who like to lecture everyone about everything race, radicalism, or revolutionary: shut up, now. As my brilliantly political minded wife put it to me, they come off less like Che Guevara and more like Brian Griffin from Family Guy. 
Ta-Nehisi Coates’ piece on Sen. Sanders and Reparations: Why Precisely is Bernie Sanders Against Reparations?
Standard
Conservatism, Criticism, Philosophy, Politics

On Lenin’s “Word And Deed”

LeninWriting

We are constantly making the mistake in Russia of judging the slogans and tactics of a certain party or group, of judging its general trend, by the intentions or motives that the group claims for itself. Such judgement is worthless. The road to hell—as was said long ago—is paved with good intentions.”1

                        Lenin wrote these words at a time in history that would inevitably be seen to be nearly providential by those looking back from the contemporary vantage point. In 1913The crucible of revolution had yet to boil over into the true paradigm shift that was the fall of the Russian Monarchy and capitalist structure. Today the events of that moment in time were indeed the destination found at the end of a hellish road. But we forget today, or are made to ignore the fact that history is not preordained or inevitable. Lenin wrote in this letter, Word and Deed, of very immediate and relevant social upheaval. We cannot look at this letter as a piece of self-conscious dogma; instead we must realize that Lenin is expressing a realization of political reality that is made self-evident by the events taking place around him.

The workers strike was still seen as a violation of societal doxa, a rejection of the contract written and executed from above and based upon the premise that mass civic action was a form of terrorism. Lenin makes an especial case against the liberal members of the structural orthodoxy who viewed worker organization and proletarian action as a dangerous attack on their own pursuit of “reform” within the context of the existing system. The rejection of the liberal bourgeois conception that change within a flawed system is required or preferable to the dismantling of the system through class struggle was an important step for the socialist movement in Russia and an essential signpost on the road that we are still traveling towards a more sustainable and equitable system. By accepting the claims of liberal parties and movements that they are friendly towards the proletariat socialism is undermined and indeed made heterodox. A step forward on a crooked road is not progress made towards the destination; it is for all intents and purposes a step backwards to a state of affairs intolerable to the interests of the proletariat and its aims.

For example, look at the liberal Democratic party pledge of strengthening the middle class[es] through “hope” for “change” in the system of market capitalism. But what sort of “change” can be expected when there is no rejection of underlying conditions that lead to inequality or abuse? The classic capitalist class system is upheld and even celebrated by the acceptance of a reformation of processes and laws that can only see success as the increasing stratification and separation of workers from each other. The middle class becomes a destination away from the working classes, a realm apart and a vantage point from which the anointed can look back in shame and increasing disgust at the situation of the proletariat. Lenin says that there is nothing remarkable about the upper class, governmental or conservative reactionary dismissal of proletarian needs and struggles but that “Much “newer” is the amazing indifference of the bourgeoisie”.

                Similarly the antagonism between the Democratic party and the vast and expanding ex post politico “working poor” (as the proletariat is referred to within the context of contemporary American politics) is, if not actually increasing, becoming more apparent and shocking to those who once labored under the delusion that at least one party represented a means of support for the worker. The liberal “solution” to the problems of the unequal division of wealth and exploitation of labor is simply a less violent entrance into a feedback loop that preserves the systems that create the need for such exploitation. Members of the proletariat need to come to terms with the fact that they were and are “making the mistake of […] judging the slogans and tactics of” the liberal Democratic party based on their own standards that reject the very idea that the capitalist system is something to be overcome. Indeed, Lenin goes on to say, “in many cases this indifference [on the part of the liberal factions] changes to a negative attitude” and eventually expresses itself as so much reactionary more violence against the rejection of the class constraints advocated by the Marxist philosophies and socialist parties. Lenin is correct that we must look beyond the word and to the deed when examining the intentions of those professing to be allies of the proletariat and its cause. Lenin makes it clear that in order to move the proletariat cause forward liberal conciliation with reactionary forces and capitalist institutions must  be combated as though the factions were one and the same.

 

  1. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jul/16.htm
Standard