quick note about MLK day
I’ve been hearing a bunch about Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the united states lately, and i just thought i’d throw my two bits in. Any time it comes up on the news, it’s just like all the politicians with their “talking points”. There are a couple of things that are allowed to be said, and that’s it. It’s all about how MLK advocated “peaceful” protest, and wanted “equality”, and isn’t that great? MLK has become a frozen-in-time symbol for use by those who have Power as an example of how there was nice happy dissent in the past, but now we’re all happy and equal.
As part of the whole “isn’t it great now?” act, they also like to mention the good old 1963 “i have a dream” speech. Ya, it’s a good speech. but the guy lived several years past 1963. Maybe, just maybe, they could mention one of his 1967 speeches. Later in his life, it seemed like MLK was advancing to a more revolutionary stance. He was recognizing that the struggle for black liberation in the USA was intimately connected with the world-wide struggle against US and European imperialism. Here’s a quote:
“I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.â€
Boom. Capitalism must go if we want racism gone too. Seems like he was pretty clear. That’s why they never ever mention that speech on tv…and why we should be paying more attention to it.
For further reading, i suggest this article by Robert Jensen. The article talks a bit about MLK, but the real value is how it connects the dots behind the MLK speech, and is really informative. After you’ve read that, i suggest going to read anything and everything by Robert Jensen. He’s rad. ;)
Ride hard, ride free
January 18th, 2006 at 00:31 am
I think you’ve made a big leap there. Going from anti-materialism (or rather, pro-humanism) and anti-imperialism to anti-capitalist takes a bit of a fundamental step. It’s quite possible to have a society that manages goods distribution via a bartering market system without an overwhelming culture of product fetishization, and in fact it’s quite arguable, or even obvious, that this is how humanity has worked for much of its existance. It wasn’t until the advent of the printing press and the forthcoming abundancy of direct information and personalized, solitary entertainment that the shift from community to self occured. Yet prior to this quite healthy and mature economic trade systems had existed for millenia, though hampered by poor agriculture processes and extremely costly long-distance trade.
I’m still quite unconvinced that capitalism, or even private property, isn’t a fundamental facet of human nature. Although the degree to which humans share their property may vary, at the very least it seems clear that even community ownership leads to trade of property amongst communities rather than outright sharing from community to community. Wherein this allows community property to effectively act as private property in a larger, national, or global sense.
I saw an interesting documentary series lately that gave some interesting, and often disgusting takes on globalization. I’ll look for the name later, but suffice to say, I find no dearth in availability for anti-globalization propaganda but propaganda for pro-globalization (of the documentary form) seemed few and far between. Ah, I just remembered the name, “Commanding Heights.” The interesting bit from my perspective didn’t come from the overall exploitation of international workers, but rather from the demands of their governments for the reduction of trade barriers. Though multi-national corporations have free reign to drop a factory down and charge pennies on the dollar, effectively holding the nation hostage via trade blocks, it’s nearly impossible for businesses inside of these nations to competetively sell their products directly to North America markets, not due to an inability to produce at the necessary costs to compete but rather due to heavy trade levees and tariffs in place to protect North American based companies.
I wonder what would happen if these cheap sources of products were able to cross the national borders and flood our bloated markets? Can you imagine what would happen if our media, farmers, and basic refined goods manufacturers had to compete fairly? It doesn’t matter if they continued to use sweatshop labour or not, the American jobs for unskilled workers would flitter away, leaving this huge section of the population to subsist on the remaining wealth of the skilled and old money. That wouldn’t last long, would it? We’d have a taste of true global proverty…. But not for long, since there’s still a will to produce and a demand to live, but at least we’d be have to compete for that demand fairly.
January 19th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
I’m still quite unconvinced that capitalism, or even private property, isn’t a fundamental facet of human nature.
With all due respect, Dan, I don’t think any of us are really at liberty to talk about human nature, especially because, most likely, it is something that is constantly evolving. Nor is it something that can so easily be pinned down. It is a fact, however, that we are naturally social, and therefore, empathetic beings. That said, I refuse to believe that capitalism and/or private property is simply a part of who we are. It seems to me that this statement is nothing more than an easy hand-waving dismissal of anarchocyclist’s pragmatism (and, frankly millions of others). If these things are “fundamental facet(s) of human natureâ€, than this means exploitation, degradation, and a ruthless class system are also a part of human nature. Alas, capitalism simply would not function without a lower class. Hidden by a thin veil of insatiable consumerism, capitalism not only keeps the poor in their place, but also allows the upper class to unabashedly profit from the lives of those below. If you think relatively new human hierarchal constructions such as these can be tacked up as “human nature,†you’re avoiding the real issues.
Anyway, I wish more people identified Malcolm X as a key figure in the civil rights movement rather than MLK. I think MLK was kind of a mouth piece, simply saying what white audiences wanted to hear – but Malcolm spoke to those that needed to be elevated and he simply told whites the truth about themselves…here is a powerful quote:
“Now in speaking like this, it doesn’t mean that we’re anti-white, but it does mean we’re anti-exploitation, we’re anti-degradation, we’re anti-oppression. And if the white man doesn’t want us to be anti-him, let him stop oppressing and exploiting and degrading us.â€
January 26th, 2006 at 18:04 pm
Ya, i think that every MLK has his Malcolm, every Gandhi has his Bhagat Singh.