Profile

Cover photo
Ayanda U'Thant Makhongwana
Worked at Integral Management Services
Attended University of Transkei
Lives in Queenstown
114 followers|14,573 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideos

Stream

 
 
The Prodigy, will be speaking tonight at 8:00 (7:30 will be setting up) for your pleasure, sponsored by Politics & MoneY Inc. (NY based).

https://new.livestream.com/accounts/5716877/events/2797295

Director of Operations, Raymond Pendleton
Director of Operations (TX), Bob N Weaver
1
Universal Bonding's profile photo
 
+Ayanda U'Thant Makhongwana That was some time, ago. I'll repost the original that, I reposted on youtube.. Prof Phil more information: www.politicsandmoneyinc.com 
Add a comment...
 
Luck o' the Irish!
1
Add a comment...
1
Add a comment...
 
 
You mentioned that we're going to need participatory social planning to save the environment. I'm wondering, doesn't decentralization of power also somehow conflict with trying to save the environment - I mean, that can't be done without some sort of central agreement, don't you think?

Well, first of all, agreements don't require centralized authority, certain kinds of agreements do. One's assumption, at least, is that decentralization of power will lead to decisions that reflect the interests of the entire population. The idea is that policies flowing from any kind of decision-making apparatus are going to tend to reflect the interests of the people involved in making the decisions - which certainly seems plausible. So if a decision is made by some centralized authority, it is going to represent the interests of the particular group which is in power. But if power is actually rooted in large parts of the population - if people can actually participate in social planning - then they will presumably do so in terms of their own interests, and you can expect the decisions to reflect those interests. Well, the interest of the general population is to preserve human life; the interest of corporations is to make profits - those are fundamentally different interests. . . .

[I]f you have participatory social planning, and people are trying to work things out in terms of their own interests, they are going to want to balance opportunities to work with quality of work, with type of energy available, with conditions of personal interaction, with the need to make sure your children survive, and so on and so forth. But those are all considerations that simply don't arise for corporate executives, they just are not a part of the agenda. . . . His job is to raise profit and market share, not to make sure that the environment survives, or that his workers lead decent lives. And those goals are simply in conflict.

Give us an example of what exactly you mean by social planning.

Well, right now we have to make big decisions about how to produce energy, for one thing - because if we continue to produce energy by combustion, the human race isn't going to survive very much longer. Alright, that decision requires social planning: it's not something that you can just decide on yourself. Like, you can decide to put a solar-energy something-or-other on your own house, but that doesn't really help. This is the kind of decision where it only works if it's done on a mass scale.

I thought you might have been referring to population control.

Yeah, population control is another issue where it doesn't matter if you do it, everybody has to do it. It's like traffic: I mean, you can't make driving a car survivable by driving well yourself; there has to be kind of a social contract involved, otherwise it won't work. Like, if there was no social contract involved in driving - everybody was just driving like a lethal weapon, going as fast as they can and forgetting all the traffic lights and everything else - you couldn't make that situation safe just by driving well yourself: it doesn't make much difference if you set out to drive safely if everybody else is driving lethal-weapon, right? The trouble is, that's the way that capitalism works. The nature of the system is that it's supposed to be driven by greed; no one's supposed to be concerned for anybody else, nobody's supposed to worry about the common good - those are not things that are supposed to motivate you, that's the principle of the system. The theory is that private vices lead to public benefits - that's what they teach you in economics departments. It's all total bullshit, of course, but that's what they teach you. And as long as the system works that way, yeah, it's going to self-destruct. What's more, capitalists have long understood this. So most government regulatory systems have in fact been strongly lobbied for by the industries themselves: industries want to be regulated, because they know that if they're not, they're going to destroy themselves in the unbridled competition. . . .

Look, as long as you have private control over the economy, it doesn't make any difference what forms you have, because they can't do anything. You could have political parties where everybody gets together and participates, and you make the programs, make things as participatory as you like - and it would still have only the most marginal effect on policy. And the reason is, power lies elsewhere.

So suppose all of us here convinced everybody in the country to vote for us for President, we got 98 percent of the vote and both Houses of Congress, and then we started to institute very badly needed social reforms that most of the population wants. Simply ask yourself, what would happen? . . . What you get is capital strike - investment capital flows out of the country, there's a lowering of investment, and the economy grinds to a halt.

That's the problem that Nicaragua has faced in the 1980s - and which it cannot overcome, in my view, it's just a hopeless problem. See, the Sandinistas have tried to run a mixed economy: they've tried to carry out social programs to benefit the population, but they've also had to appeal to the business community to prevent capital flight from destroying the place. So most public funds, to the extent there are any, go as a bribe to the wealthy, to try to keep them investing in the country. The only problem is, the wealthy would prefer not to invest unless they have political power: they'd rather see the society destroyed. So the wealthy take the bribes, and they send them to Swiss banks and to Miami banks - because from their perspective, the Sandinista government just has the wrong priorities. . . .

Well, the same thing would happen here if we ever had a popular reform candidate who actually achieved some formal level of power: there would be disinvestment, capital strike, a grinding down of the economy. And the reason is quite simple. In our society, real power does not happen to lie in the political system, it lies in the private economy: that's where the decisions are made about what's produced, how much is produced, what's consumed, where investment takes place, who has jobs, who controls the resources, and so on and so forth. And as long as that remains the case, changes inside the political system can make some difference - I don't want to say it's zero - but the differences are going to be very slight. . . .

Like, suppose Massachusetts were to increase business taxes. Most of the population is in favor of it, but you can predict what would happen. Business would run a public relations campaign - which is true, in fact, it's not lies - saying, "You raise taxes on business, you soak the rich, and you'll find that capital is going to flow elsewhere, and you're not going to have any jobs, you're not going to have anything." That's not the way they'd put it exactly, but that's what it would amount to: "Unless you make us happy you're not going to have anything, because we own the place; you live here, but we own the place." And in fact, that's basically the message that is presented, not in those words of course, whenever a reform measure does come along somewhere - they have a big propaganda campaign saying, it's going to hurt jobs, it's going to hurt investment, there's going to be a loss of business confidence, and so on. That's just a complicated way of saying, unless you keep business happy, the population isn't going to have anything.

What do you think about nationalization of industry as a means of allowing for this kind of large-scale social planning?

Well, it would depend on how it's done. If nationalization of industry puts production into the hands of a state bureaucracy or some sort of Leninist-style vanguard party, then you'd just have another system of exploitation, in my view. On the other hand, if nationalization of industry was based on actual popular control over industry - workers' control over factories, community control, with the groups maybe federated together and so on - then that would be a different story. That would be a very different story, in fact. That would be extending the democratic system to economic power, and unless that happens, political power is always going to remain a very limited phenomenon.

Noam Chomsky
1
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
114 people
Forrest Knight's profile photo
minenhle mgobhozi's profile photo
Custom Totes's profile photo
Xolani Mokwana's profile photo
Cord Whitehouse's profile photo
Major Mindjob (Jeff Giles)'s profile photo
Gondwana Collection Namibia's profile photo
Selva Raj's profile photo
Martina McGowan's profile photo
 
This the State of the Black Parent with Shaunes Richardson. This will be a confernce in New York July 2014. If you are a parent or soon to be a parent, listen in and Share. Topic of the Show,Monday,February 24th: 'Black Entrepreneurs'/ 'Black Enterprise in Our Community: It Is There' Our Guest will be author of Daddy's Little Girl, Philly Native- Brittani Williams/ Brooklyn owned Pest Control Company-Todd Pemberton,whom was featured in 'Black Ent...
1
Add a comment...
1
Add a comment...

Ayanda U'Thant Makhongwana

General discussion  - 
 
 
Although, it is true that the Black Panther Party found it’s inspiration in the actions and statements of Malcom X, the original Black Panther Party did not adhere to Muslim doctrine.

The fact that Malcolm X said, by our legal, constitutional right, the Second Amendment, every black man and woman, black person in this country had the right to have a shotgun in their homes to defend themselves from unjust attacks by racism was one point that influenced us very much, but what influenced us even more was Malcolm's emphasis that we must have a political organization that dealt most immediately with the housing and the clothing and shoes and food for the people.

The original Black Panther Party fought to establish greater peoples' empowerment via community control politics, through mass organizing of more than twenty different community based survival programs. The party was one of the first organizations in U.S. history to militantly struggle for ethnic minority and working class emancipation - a party whose political electoral agenda was the revolutionary establishment of real economic, social, and political equality across gender and color lines, aligning itself with other people of color organizations including Cesar Chavez's Farm Workers Movement, AIM The American Indian Movement, The Asian Red Guard [I Wor kuen] {Righteous Harmonious Fist}, Puerto Rican The Young Lords Movement and The Peace and Freedom Party, SDS, Young Patriots, etc.

Black Panther Party, was an "All Power To All The People!” organization, whether you're black, white, blue, green, yellow, or polka dot. We believed in black unity, but only as a catalyst to help humanize the world. The Black Panther Party worked for self-determination and social justice for all people.

 The original Black Panther Party developed a series of social programs to provide needed services to the people. Their intent was to promote "a model for an alternative, more humane social scheme." These programs, of which there came to be more than 60, were eventually referred to as Survival Programs, and were operated by Black Panther Party members under the slogan "survival pending revolution." The real heroes in my Black Panther Party were all the thousands of sisters and brothers who made the many Survival Programs work.  
 
No matter how you look at the Black Panther Party, it was a powerful grassroots activist movement seeking to further the civil right’s of every American.
 
The Black Panther Party sought to end racism and sexism. The Black Panthers were Brothers and Sisters. They fought alongside each other and it was an egalitarian subculture; much more so than mainstream America in the 60′s, when women were meant to be homemakers and live a mindless, obligatory existence for the sole purpose of serving others (husband and children).

In the subculture of the Black Panther Party and Black Liberation Movement during the era of the Civil Rights, the women had stature, presence and as much power as the men did in this movement (especially Angela Davis). These Black Panther women’s voices were heard and they said whatever the hell they wanted.  In these two cultures (white and black) which were world’s apart but co-existed in America during the Civil Rights Revolution, this positive aspect of the movement was often overlooked. Women in the Black Panther Party were fighting for women’s rights, and they were fighting with their voices, their passion to end inequity and to establish basic human rights. These women were an integral, critical influence in the feminist/women’s rights movement. These black women were at the dangerous activist forefront of establishing more freedom and rights for women of every color. And make no mistake, there were also white and brown women right by their sides.
 

All Power To All The People!
Bobby Seale

http://bobbyseale.com/

=======

#blackpanthers #blackhistory #blackpantherparty #bobbyseale #malcomx

===
1
1
TENANT VOICES's profile photo
Add a comment...
 
 
Transcript of Noam Chomsky talk at the University of Toronto, April 7, 2011
'The State-Corporate Complex: A Threat to Freedom and Survival', by Noam Chomsky (talk delivered at the University of Toronto)
1
Add a comment...
 
 
You mentioned that we're going to need participatory social planning to save the environment. I'm wondering, doesn't decentralization of power also somehow conflict with trying to save the environment - I mean, that can't be done without some sort of central agreement, don't you think?

Well, first of all, agreements don't require centralized authority, certain kinds of agreements do. One's assumption, at least, is that decentralization of power will lead to decisions that reflect the interests of the entire population. The idea is that policies flowing from any kind of decision-making apparatus are going to tend to reflect the interests of the people involved in making the decisions - which certainly seems plausible. So if a decision is made by some centralized authority, it is going to represent the interests of the particular group which is in power. But if power is actually rooted in large parts of the population - if people can actually participate in social planning - then they will presumably do so in terms of their own interests, and you can expect the decisions to reflect those interests. Well, the interest of the general population is to preserve human life; the interest of corporations is to make profits - those are fundamentally different interests. . . .

[I]f you have participatory social planning, and people are trying to work things out in terms of their own interests, they are going to want to balance opportunities to work with quality of work, with type of energy available, with conditions of personal interaction, with the need to make sure your children survive, and so on and so forth. But those are all considerations that simply don't arise for corporate executives, they just are not a part of the agenda. . . . His job is to raise profit and market share, not to make sure that the environment survives, or that his workers lead decent lives. And those goals are simply in conflict.

Give us an example of what exactly you mean by social planning.

Well, right now we have to make big decisions about how to produce energy, for one thing - because if we continue to produce energy by combustion, the human race isn't going to survive very much longer. Alright, that decision requires social planning: it's not something that you can just decide on yourself. Like, you can decide to put a solar-energy something-or-other on your own house, but that doesn't really help. This is the kind of decision where it only works if it's done on a mass scale.

I thought you might have been referring to population control.

Yeah, population control is another issue where it doesn't matter if you do it, everybody has to do it. It's like traffic: I mean, you can't make driving a car survivable by driving well yourself; there has to be kind of a social contract involved, otherwise it won't work. Like, if there was no social contract involved in driving - everybody was just driving like a lethal weapon, going as fast as they can and forgetting all the traffic lights and everything else - you couldn't make that situation safe just by driving well yourself: it doesn't make much difference if you set out to drive safely if everybody else is driving lethal-weapon, right? The trouble is, that's the way that capitalism works. The nature of the system is that it's supposed to be driven by greed; no one's supposed to be concerned for anybody else, nobody's supposed to worry about the common good - those are not things that are supposed to motivate you, that's the principle of the system. The theory is that private vices lead to public benefits - that's what they teach you in economics departments. It's all total bullshit, of course, but that's what they teach you. And as long as the system works that way, yeah, it's going to self-destruct. What's more, capitalists have long understood this. So most government regulatory systems have in fact been strongly lobbied for by the industries themselves: industries want to be regulated, because they know that if they're not, they're going to destroy themselves in the unbridled competition. . . .

Look, as long as you have private control over the economy, it doesn't make any difference what forms you have, because they can't do anything. You could have political parties where everybody gets together and participates, and you make the programs, make things as participatory as you like - and it would still have only the most marginal effect on policy. And the reason is, power lies elsewhere.

So suppose all of us here convinced everybody in the country to vote for us for President, we got 98 percent of the vote and both Houses of Congress, and then we started to institute very badly needed social reforms that most of the population wants. Simply ask yourself, what would happen? . . . What you get is capital strike - investment capital flows out of the country, there's a lowering of investment, and the economy grinds to a halt.

That's the problem that Nicaragua has faced in the 1980s - and which it cannot overcome, in my view, it's just a hopeless problem. See, the Sandinistas have tried to run a mixed economy: they've tried to carry out social programs to benefit the population, but they've also had to appeal to the business community to prevent capital flight from destroying the place. So most public funds, to the extent there are any, go as a bribe to the wealthy, to try to keep them investing in the country. The only problem is, the wealthy would prefer not to invest unless they have political power: they'd rather see the society destroyed. So the wealthy take the bribes, and they send them to Swiss banks and to Miami banks - because from their perspective, the Sandinista government just has the wrong priorities. . . .

Well, the same thing would happen here if we ever had a popular reform candidate who actually achieved some formal level of power: there would be disinvestment, capital strike, a grinding down of the economy. And the reason is quite simple. In our society, real power does not happen to lie in the political system, it lies in the private economy: that's where the decisions are made about what's produced, how much is produced, what's consumed, where investment takes place, who has jobs, who controls the resources, and so on and so forth. And as long as that remains the case, changes inside the political system can make some difference - I don't want to say it's zero - but the differences are going to be very slight. . . .

Like, suppose Massachusetts were to increase business taxes. Most of the population is in favor of it, but you can predict what would happen. Business would run a public relations campaign - which is true, in fact, it's not lies - saying, "You raise taxes on business, you soak the rich, and you'll find that capital is going to flow elsewhere, and you're not going to have any jobs, you're not going to have anything." That's not the way they'd put it exactly, but that's what it would amount to: "Unless you make us happy you're not going to have anything, because we own the place; you live here, but we own the place." And in fact, that's basically the message that is presented, not in those words of course, whenever a reform measure does come along somewhere - they have a big propaganda campaign saying, it's going to hurt jobs, it's going to hurt investment, there's going to be a loss of business confidence, and so on. That's just a complicated way of saying, unless you keep business happy, the population isn't going to have anything.

What do you think about nationalization of industry as a means of allowing for this kind of large-scale social planning?

Well, it would depend on how it's done. If nationalization of industry puts production into the hands of a state bureaucracy or some sort of Leninist-style vanguard party, then you'd just have another system of exploitation, in my view. On the other hand, if nationalization of industry was based on actual popular control over industry - workers' control over factories, community control, with the groups maybe federated together and so on - then that would be a different story. That would be a very different story, in fact. That would be extending the democratic system to economic power, and unless that happens, political power is always going to remain a very limited phenomenon.

Noam Chomsky
1
Add a comment...
 
 
How about this..
1
Add a comment...
People
Have him in circles
114 people
Forrest Knight's profile photo
minenhle mgobhozi's profile photo
Custom Totes's profile photo
Xolani Mokwana's profile photo
Cord Whitehouse's profile photo
Major Mindjob (Jeff Giles)'s profile photo
Gondwana Collection Namibia's profile photo
Selva Raj's profile photo
Martina McGowan's profile photo
Places
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Currently
Queenstown
Previously
Queenstown, Eastern Cape - Mthatha - Ngqeleni - Port St Johns - Lady Frere - Butterworth - Qumbu - Libode - Idutywa - Willowvale
Work
Employment
  • Integral Management Services
    Managing Director
Education
  • University of Transkei
    1981
Basic Information
Gender
Male
Looking for
Networking
Relationship
It's complicated
Other names
SirKongs