Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Race, Empire, and the Idea of Human Development - A Review

A Review by Tommy Lott

Although philosophy of history no longer exists as an area of study within the discipline, important questions inherited from Enlightenment thought regarding historical development have not gone away. Indeed, the whole point of McCarthy's account is that, even with all of its problems, the idea of development is inescapable. Worse still, variations of it have, in many unspoken ways, underwritten modern global white supremacy. For this reason, he believes it is an idea that is dangerous and necessary. Squarely facing this dilemma, he insists that there is no alternative to the ongoing deconstruction and reconstruction of the idea of development to accord with demands of global justice.

The text is divided into two parts, each of which is devoted to rethinking Western conceptions of development that are interlinked historically with racism and imperialism. McCarthy notes that important aspects of the contemporary discourse on globalism require an analysis of their manifestations after the displacement of biological notions of race and the disappearance of colonies. Recasting Kant's moral theory in terms of Jurgen Habermas' "discourse ethics," he proposes to replace Kant's categorical imperative with "the discourse-ethical principle of equal participation by those affected in establishing the normative structures that govern their life together." Although his analysis unearths damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't dilemmas regarding development, McCarthy insists upon retaining the moral thrust of Kant's cosmopolitanism in favor of proposals that emphasize economic change at the expense of this. Although my assessment of the main features of McCarthy's account is generally favorable, as a major shortcoming I cite the inconsistency of his dismissal of alternatives to development entirely for pragmatic reasons. Some environmental concerns he seems to wave off suggest that, for pragmatic reasons, the idea of development can be drawn into question as well.

In the opening chapter McCarthy criticizes dominant perspectives for pretending to be universal. Along with Marxism, some of the exclusionary views he cites include critical race, postcolonial, and ideal justice theories. By combining an interdisciplinary understanding of global policies with insights he derives from Kant's account of universal history, he questions whether these positions are empirically well-informed or well-grounded morally. His analysis aims to overcome these limitations with a more interdisciplinary Kantian orientation that better accommodates the contingent nature of development.

McCarthy appropriates what he takes to be salient features of Kant's philosophy of history, a view he examines critically in Chapters 2 and 5. His discussion is lucid and succinct, drawing together several key components of Kant's treatment of race and development as "impure ethics." He points out that, although Kant's Groundwork was a "pure" rational part of his moral philosophy, his Metaphysics of Morals has a chapter on duties to members of racial subgroups that figures into his natural-historical account of racial hierarchy. He also notes that Kant's natural history relies on a notion of providence that adds a teleological dimension to his racial classifications. He nicely spells out Kant's idea that development has to be understood in terms of an ultimate end of nature. Although Kant understood this ultimate end to be the full development of the natural human capacities, it was grounded on theology, such that his "Kingdom of God on earth" will display a moral unity. Importantly, Kant believed this outcome would not be due to any conscious intentions of historical actors for, unlike Adam Smith and Karl Marx who also incorporated versions of this view of historical progress into their doctrine, Kant held that behind the senseless course of human events there is a divine purpose.

McCarthy is attracted to the "impure" empirical part of Kant's ethics. He maintains that a key component of development is a Western-style legal system. When this is established, the cultural progress of underdeveloped societies will ultimately lead to a cosmopolitan federation of nation-states. It should be noted that, in this regard, Kant's vision of the moral outcome of development seems to eschew cultural pluralism. Following Kant, McCarthy advances a notion of development that requires the propagation of this aspect of Western culture on the ground that it is necessary for the realization of a global moral community as the final end.

For a variety of reasons McCarthy also takes issue with certain aspects of Kant's account. The most obvious problem is the tension between Kant's moral view and his view of development. How can he justify the human sacrifice exacted by historical progress to arrive at the kingdom of ends? How is his view of non-whites as biologically inferior consistent with his view of cosmopolitan society? Why prefer his monocultural account of cultural progress to a multicultural universalist account? McCarthy situates Kant's philosophy of history within a genealogy of historical works that attempt to account for the sociocultural development of humans as a whole. By focusing on the recent discourse on globalization, he aims to make clear "the cost and benefits of 'progress.'" This bit of consequentialism is not completely at odds with his Kantian orientation, for he seems to be primarily concerned with moral trade-offs. Rather than reject outright influential grand metanarratives of Hegel and Marx, or what he takes to be macrohistorical alterations of these by Weber and Habermas, he prefers to view criticisms of their weaknesses as suggesting instead the need for "chastened and decentered" proposals for change. Kant's emphasis on morality is especially relevant given that so often social change for underdeveloped nations occurs under the auspice of postcolonial economic domination, with innumerable social ills accompanying the imposition of capitalism and modernity on traditional cultures.

Even though McCarthy acknowledges a role for metahistorical grand narratives, he objects to Hegel's metaphysical perspective and Marx's economic determinism. He prefers Kant's commitment to a morally obligatory pursuit of justice and his promotion of a "universal-historical" view that provides hope. Although systems theory and functional adaptation views held by thinkers such as Talcott Parsons and Niklas Luhmann cannot be ignored, McCarthy believes that they cannot account for the sociocultural aspects of development that render judgments regarding "progress" inherently ambivalent.

With the sociocultural impact of development in mind, McCarthy turns to Habermas's writings to account for what he calls the "costs and benefits" of social change and, hence, to make clear how better to manage the ambivalence engendered by modernization. The lesson he derives is that democracy is required "to develop effective normative structures -- moral, legal, political" that promote global justice. The aim of these normative structures is to include the voice of victims of modernization as participants in the decision-making and to entitle them to make informed choices about polices that risk having a negative impact.

Some of McCarthy's remarks regarding this proposal suggest that democracy has to exist at the level of nation states as well as internationally. This aspect of his proposal needs to be made clearer. To be sure, neither he nor Kant meant to suggest that a world federation governed by cosmopolitan law will be realized any time soon, if ever. The intermediate step they settle for is a voluntary league of nations with a progressive agenda for ongoing social change. There is a major difficulty facing the proposed democratic inclusion. As he later acknowledges, the reality of global decision-making and policy-setting processes are often dispersed and multileveled in a manner that tends toward decentralization. He opposes this by pointing out that, even without a global government or world state, human rights and justice require global governance to remain global.

In Chapter 3, McCarthy examines the use of Darwin, generally, to provide a scientific justification of white supremacy and, particularly, to indicate the moral ground for US expansionist policy from the end of Reconstruction to World War I. The genealogy of race and racism he traces in the American context before World War I is meant to be an important example of global white supremacy. Instead, it narrows his discussion by leaning heavily on a white-black paradigm of racial domination, momentarily putting aside the more complex racial hierarchy informing Kant's cosmopolitanism. He astutely deconstructs a once prominent view of blacks in the South as an inferior, "pre-modern" people to show how the biological grounding of racism gave way to a sociological view of urbanized African Americans as dysfunctional due to the lingering cultural effects of slavery. This shift to cultural racism has resulted in the prevalence of post-biological conceptions of racial difference. Institutional racism, based on economic disparity, is now perpetuated through the harmful effects of stereotypes and stigmatization. McCarthy's point is that, whether cultural racism takes the form of blaming the victim or blaming the racist, it renders biological difference unnecessary. Another equally important implication of the shift to cultural racism he identifies is that, rather than a natural and permanent inferiority, deficiencies due to racial difference are in principle improvable, and assimilation is possible.

McCarthy's explanation of how the Social Darwinists used biology to rationalize political domination is superb. Blumenbach's techniques of cranial measurement, used earlier to establish racial differences, gave way by the end of the nineteenth century to Darwin's theory of evolution applied to social groups. Natural selection, interpreted by Spencer as "survival of the fittest", provided a scientific conception of the social progress of non-White groups, as well as a standard for comparing their lack of progress. It also provided a justification for the belief in the "manifest destiny" of the white race to dominate the world. To the extent that non-White races are incapable of governing themselves, there is a "white man's burden," an obligation to intervene on their behalf.

An important feature of Kant's cosmopolitanism, lightly treated by McCarthy, is the hierarchical nature of his racial classification. McCarthy embraces too quickly scientific findings that reiterate a highly contested three-race theory based on correlations of genetic differences with the historical races, i.e., classifications based on stereotypes of physique. He rightly takes the significance of such correlations to be diminished by the fact that genetic differences are greater within each racial category than between them. While some scientists take this to imply that there are no significant differences between races, McCarthy is a bit unsure about scientific findings regarding racial differences with regard to IQ measurements and the effectiveness of certain medicines. But if genes are scattered across racially diverse populations, shouldn't the scientific findings regarding IQ and medicine likewise be scattered? Although there are plenty of reasons to be wary of such correlations, McCarthy does not consider the extent to which many outside of science do not believe that black, white, and yellow people have pretty much the same genes. The tension between the scientific citations he uncritically juxtaposes is left unresolved.

Questions regarding global justice can be either forward- or backward-looking. The history of European imperial domination requires a consideration of backward-looking questions regarding reparations for slavery and colonialism. In Chapter 4, McCarthy takes up the question of reparations for slavery in America as a form of "transitional justice" involving public memory and collective identity. He maintains that a failure to deal with the past will inhibit any attempt to remedy the lingering effects of slavery and segregation. His strategy is to appropriate some of Habermas' reflections on the obligation of present generations to come to terms with the legacies of their national misdeeds. When applying Habermas' teachings regarding recent debates in Germany about the place of the Jewish Holocaust in public memory to the reparations debate in America, McCarthy takes a strong position against recent immigrants not bearing any responsibility. He insists upon including "the political community as a whole," regardless of ancestry, based strictly on a principle of inherited benefits and liabilities. Following Habermas, he also takes a strong position against leaving a painful past unacknowledged. He maintains that, without a public acknowledgment of past racial injustice, we face a danger, similar to the German experience, that challenges to the idea of racial inferiority will lack a motivational force, allowing racism to persist.

Part II begins with Chapter 5, in which McCarthy reconsiders Kant's philosophy of history, but only as a lead-in to a discussion of Mill's liberal imperialism in Chapter 6, followed by a sketch of his own view in Chapter 7.

As criticism, McCarthy's gloss of John Stuart Mill's rationale for a colonial policy of benevolent despots has several shortcomings. Mill's thinking was that democracy requires a prior stage of tutelage before a transition to self-government can succeed. This policy accords with a version of Kant's cosmopolitanism that would morally permit colonial intervention insofar as it benefits the development of non-European societies. Moreover, on pragmatic grounds to be determined by using McCarthy's cost/benefit criteria, it is very likely that, in many societies that are suffering under rampant corruption, benevolent authoritarian rule as a transition stage will rank higher than alternatives.

The criticism of Mill's benevolent despot that McCarthy wants to advance seems to apply equally to his own view of relations between industrialized Western nations and non-Western poorer nations. His analysis begins with a Kantian question, "Isn't the idea of constructing a universal history of the entire species unavoidable?" While acknowledging the "costs" of Western modernization, he concludes that non-Western societies have "no choice but to modernize to survive in terms largely set by the demands of capitalist accumulation." This conclusion rests on the assumption that there is no empirically possible alternative to Western economic hegemony.

Kant's cosmopolitanism, like other global systems accounts, can justify intervention by industrialized nations on behalf of poorer nations. Hence, the imposition of Western modernization globally is the source of McCarthy's worry about too great a cost, where this is primarily a concern with certain sociocultural consequences for non-Western societies. If the aim of development, however, is to reduce poverty, this is primarily economic, although, as social phenomena, there can be overlapping cultural factors as well. When the costs are primarily economic, however, Kant goes by the wayside and empirical questions regarding utility are warranted. In using the term "costs," McCarthy (and Habermas) seem to have in mind something like trade-offs between immorality, or injustice, and utility, where these trade-offs are understood to entail overlapping moral and economic issues. Slavery and colonialism are modes of economic exploitation, as well as immoral practices. Likewise, reparations as a form of "restorative justice" are equally an economic remedy for economic harm.

For McCarthy, the aim of backward-looking justice is to rectify past economic harms, while forward-looking justice aims to avert future sociocultural harms that are due to modernization. In various places he remarks on the costs of modernization, but leaves unclear whether he takes the aim of development to be primarily economic or sociocultural. His commitment to a Kantian emphasis on morality is partly a response to policies that attempt to divorce cultural from economic concerns. For this reason, perhaps, he never considers the question of whether there can be industrialization without Westernization. This oversight may stem from his Kantian standpoint, which renders it difficult to fathom non-Western alternatives to development. On strictly moral grounds, however, to speak, as he does so often, of de-colonized nations as having "no choice" is a mistake. They clearly have a right of self-determination that includes a right not to industrialize, as well as, pace Marx, a right to return to their traditional culture. This moral right can be distinguished from pragmatic concerns having primarily to do with whether, from an economic standpoint, it is a wise choice not to industrialize.

When speaking of the "costs" of modernization McCarthy wants policies that balance economic advancement of poorer nations with global justice, past and future. In keeping with his belief that we have no alternative but to rethink the idea of development, in Chapter 7 he proposes seven rules that serve as guidelines. His first five rules reveal an abiding commitment to a Eurocentric model of development as the universal model. In the first he advocates the inclusion of a postcolonial critique of globalization discourse regarding modernization, but, in the second, he wants to constrain radically different modernities to fit the Western model, only allowing variations necessary to accommodate local circumstances. His third and forth rules champion Kant's Eurocentric view of the past and future, leading him to speak of European history having "marked out the one true path of modernization." His fifth rule outright condemns, as "practically objectionable … some postdevelopment thinking of difference," but there is no discussion of this line of thought. Rule six addresses the problem of nations having been permanently disabled due to their underdevelopment by colonial powers with a call for reparations to deal with the continuing harm. His final rule seven acknowledges, again with little discussion, the limits of growth as a serious environmental concern.

I have already commented on McCarthy's views summarized in rules one through four, and six. In what follows, I will briefly discuss rules five and seven. With regard to rule seven, the absence of a discussion of environmental concerns as a crucial factor in how we rethink development diminishes the moral thrust of McCarthy's analysis. Although he cites "limits to development" as a problem, he does not spell out the implications of this for underdeveloped nations. He appears not to take seriously the very real possibility of humans overdeveloping the planet or the present trend of global capitalism to foster the idea of endless growth through multinational commoditization of human needs to perpetuate pointless consumption. He refers in a note to the growing clout of China, India and Brazil as members of the World Trade Organization, but he does not consider the implications for the environment of their emergence in the global economy. If their too-rapid industrialization is not sustainable for environmental reasons, this suggests that the globally harmful consequences (costs) of their growth raise important environmental concerns that cannot be omitted from a discourse on globalization.

With regard to rule five, McCarthy needlessly closes off discussion of the question of whether modernization involving industrialization without Westernization is possible. His cursory rejection of post-development thought, even that which is consistent with his Critical Theory perspective, is puzzling. His "practicality" objection to de-linkage theory, for instance, seems misplaced in cases like Eritrea. For many struggling non-Western nations, perhaps selectively de-linking from a global system that creates more dependence and increases poverty, advisedly, should be part of a strategy to deal with long-term harm brought on by structural adjustments that have been externally imposed as a condition for aid from Western nations.

Perhaps McCarthy is right to maintain that in most cases exercising the option to de-link from the West may be impractical. However, his rule of thought regarding development that supposes no choice but to industrialize is not warranted. His rules of thought are not very good summaries and tend to overstate his more nuanced discussion of these issues in earlier chapters. Although he commits to the idea of a Western-style legal system to provide international normative structures to realize Kant's metahistorical vision of a future global justice, there is no discussion or even suggestion of how this might come about. His insistence upon the inclusion of non-Western voices at the decision-making level is a way to foster pluralistic values and to prevent Western domination in sociocultural matters pertaining to development. However, this only seems to amount to a reiteration of a desire for global justice and does not tell us how it may ever be achieved.

#refusetocooperate, #getyourhouseinorder, #wearewatching, #deathbeforedishonor, #paindonthurt, #colonialism, #globalization, #racism, #history, #eurocentric, #Kant, #Marx, #Hegel, #Smith, #WTO, #westernization, #industrialization, #poverty, #modernization, #justice

Post has attachment
Just around Midnight: Rock and Roll and the Racial Imagination - A Review

Why did rock and roll become white? Music critic Jack Hamilton’s extraordinary new book provides a challenging answer.

A Review by Adam Ellsworth

“If you tried to give rock and roll another name,” John Lennon said in 1972, “you might call it ‘Chuck Berry.’”

What, you were expecting Elvis? Elvis may have been the King, but Berry was rock’s first triple threat. Not only could he sing and play guitar, he was also a great (make that GREAT) songwriter. So phenomenal is Berry’s music that in 1977 NASA sent a recording of his “Johnny B. Goode” into space on the Voyager spacecraft. And that’s not even his best song!

Berry was the prototype. All “serious” rock musicians of the 1960s who wrote, sang, and played their own songs were following his example from a decade earlier. But there was one major difference between Berry and his disciples: Chuck Berry was black.

“Is” black actually, as Berry is thankfully still alive. (Note: This review was written prior to Chuck Berry's death. The rock and roll legend left this world on March 18, 2017.) In his 89 years on Earth he’s seen rock and roll morph from “black music” played by both blacks and whites, to “white music” performed almost exclusively by Caucasians. Not that it took 89 years for this change to occur. It was already complete less than 10 years after Berry released “Johnny B. Goode.”

How this transition happened is the subject of music critic Jack Hamilton’s extraordinary new book Just around Midnight: Rock and Roll and the Racial Imagination.

“Rock and roll became white in large part because of the stories people told themselves about it,” Hamilton writes in his Introduction, “stories that have come to structure the way we listen to an entire era of sound.”

These stories come from many sources, but most prominent is that of the rock critic. The rise of rock music as a cultural force in the 1960s also brought along the rise of the critics, and it was these commentators, Hamilton writes, that etched in stone how rock and roll was supposed to sound and look. Though their conclusions weren’t necessarily arrived at maliciously, the result was the creation of a musical history that treats pioneering figures like Berry, Little Richard, and Bo Diddley as primitives who were vital to the creation of the genre, but ultimately nothing more than heroes of the past who paved the way for ARTISTS like the Beatles, Rolling Stones, and Bob Dylan. In this telling, Berry may have been John the Baptist, but Lennon was (more popular than) Jesus.

The point of all this is not to criticize the ‘60s white artists. As Hamilton makes clear throughout the book, these musicians would shout to anyone who would listen that what they were performing was heavily influenced by black music, and if their fans liked them, then they’d really love the originators. Unfortunately very few listened to these confessions, and rock history was set.

This narrative is not shocking to anyone who has thought seriously about rock and roll, though it still never hurts to repeat it. Where the book is really a mind bender though, is when Hamilton focuses on how history has treated black artists who tried to create a music that didn’t fit into the accepted “authentic” narrative that was reserved for them. In his chapter where he compares the careers of the exhaustively studied Bob Dylan and the tragically under examined Sam Cooke he discusses the differences between the latter’s live albums Live at the Copa and Live at the Harlem Square Club, 1963.

“Harlem Square Club finds Cooke performing in full gospel fury, inciting the crowd to a frenzy and racking his voice to the edge of oblivion,” Hamilton writes. “Live at the Copa, on the other hand, is debonair and refined.”

It probably goes without saying that the Harlem Square Club audience was black, while the Copa crowd was white. More than half a century later, Cooke’s legend is secure and no-one would suggest he was an Uncle Tom for his “restrained” Copa performance. Still the narrative that has been agreed to is that Live at the Harlem Square Club, 1963 represents the “real” “black” Cooke, while Live at the Copa is a mask he was forced to put on. As he does throughout Just around Midnight, Hamilton seriously challenges this over-simplification and focuses on Cooke’s Copa performance of Dylan’s civil rights anthem “Blowin’ in the Wind.”

“Cooke’s decision to bring ‘Blowin’ in the Wind’ to the crowd at the Copa was both a politically and culturally transgressive act,” he writes. “While many in the audience surely knew the song…in mid-1964 Bob Dylan was still a liminal figure in American life, poet-troubadour to a rising New Left whose behavior and artistic persona were viewed by many as overly radical.”

In short, when it comes to musical questions of black and white, things aren’t always so black and white. There’s nothing wrong with preferring one performance over the other, but you should consider why you prefer one over the other, because both the Copa and the Harlem Square Club performances are real. Both are black. And both are Sam Cooke.

Other chapters of Just around Midnight consider the influence of Motown on the Beatles and the Beatles on Motown, the question of soul and how it was represented by African American Aretha Franklin, white southern American Janis Joplin, and white Englishwoman Dusty Springfield, and the references to violence by Jimi Hendrix and the Rolling Stones in their music.

The look at Hendrix is particularly fascinating. Today, rock fans simply recognize him as the lone black face on the Mount Rushmore of Rock. In his time though, he was treated as an “alien” by the white rock world. Accepted perhaps, but “other.” To many blacks, he was a traitor to his race for playing what had become white music. Even some white critics, including “the Dean” himself Robert Christgau, thought he was flash over substance and “just another Uncle Tom.” As all this illustrates, by the late ‘60s, blacks were only truly accepted when they played “authentic” black music that stuck to the basics, and how authentic this music was would often be decided by whites. White musicians on the other hand were allowed as much freedom as they wanted to explore what they wanted. After all, they were artists.

Hamilton doesn’t pretend to have all the answers in Just around Midnight, but he asks all the right questions. It challenges so much of what we’ve taken for granted about rock and roll history that one reading won’t do. This is a book that needs to be returned to over the years, once initial readings have had a chance to sink in and we’ve all been able to recalibrate our understanding of the music’s history. Any future book that deals with the social and racial aspects of popular music in the 20th century will have to contend with Just around Midnight. The bar has been raised.

#refusetocooperate, #getyourhouseinorder, #wearewatching, #deathbeforedishonor, #paindonthurt, #rockandroll, #music, #chuckberry, #elvis, #motown, #robbery, #socialchange, #race, #racism, #samcooke, #beatles, #uncletom, #authentic, #genuine, #criticism

Post has attachment

No Respect for the Red Collar Worker

"The history of all previous societies has been the history of class struggles."

"Let the ruling classes tremble at a communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win." - Karl Marx

"The only thing that keeps the working classes from taking control of society is the illusion of power that the ruling classes have hold over them. If they can break through that, the game is over for the capitalist war mongers that are destroying our planet." - Kent Allen Halliburton

Throughout history, humans have organized themselves hierarchically. Whether they have done so using religion, economics, war, or some other method, humans have always found ways to organize themselves into series of layered social classes. In the twenty-first century this has not changed. The present primary social classification on Earth is Economics, with the wealthy resting easily at the top of society, while the poor endure ever increasing hardship at the bottom of society. Society is divided basically into four divisions: Economic Elites, Whites Collar Workers, Blue Collar Workers, and the poor, or Red Collar Workers. The Economic Elites own the means of production, the White Collar Workers manage the means of productions, the Blue Collar Workers maintain the functionality of the means of production, and the Red Collar Workers provide for the needs of everyone else while they are working; but, does it work?

Economic Elites

According to a 2013 Economic Policy Institute report, to be in the top one percent nationally, a family needs an income of $389,436. However, the threshold varies significantly among states. In Connecticut, for example, you need an annual income of $659,979 to be in the one percent. In New Mexico, it's $231,276.

Keep in mind that these numbers just represent the threshold. The average income of the top one percent nationwide is $1.15 million.

People in the rest of the nation, on the other hand, earn an average of $45,567 a year. That means that, in 2013, the top one percent of families earned 25.3 times as much income as the bottom 99 percent, according to the EPI report.

White Collar Workers

In many countries, such as Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, as well as, the United States, a white-collar worker is a person who performs professional, managerial, or administrative work. White-collar work may be performed in an office or other administrative setting. White Collar Workers are tasked specifically with managing the means of production owned by the Social Elites.

The term refers to the white dress shirts of male office workers common through most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in Western countries, as opposed to the blue overalls worn by many manual laborers. The term 'white collar' is credited to Upton Sinclair, an American writer, in relation to contemporary clerical, administrative, and management workers during the 1930s, though references to white-collar work appear as early as 1935.

Blue Collar Workers

A blue-collar worker is a working class person who performs non-agricultural manual labour. Blue-collar work may involve skilled or unskilled manufacturing, mining, sanitation, custodial work, oil field work, construction, mechanic, maintenance, warehousing, firefighting, technical installation and many other types of physical work. Often something is physically being built or maintained. Blue-collar work is often paid hourly wage-labor, although some professionals may be paid by the project or salaried. There is a wide range of payscales for such work depending upon field of specialty and experience

The term blue-collar stems from the image of manual workers wearing blue denim or chambray shirts as part of their uniforms. Industrial and manual workers often wear durable canvas or cotton clothing that may be soiled during the course of their work. Navy and light blue colors conceal potential dirt or grease on the worker's clothing, helping him or her to appear cleaner. For the same reason, blue is a popular color for boiler-suits, which protect a worker's clothing. Some blue collar workers have uniforms with the name of the business and/or the individual's name embroidered or printed on it.

Historically the popularity of the color blue among manual laborers contrasts with the popularity of white dress shirts worn by people in office environments. The blue collar/white collar color scheme has socio-economic class connotations. The primary assignment of Blue Collar Workers is to maintain the means of production managed by the White Collar Workers and owned by the Social Elites.

Red Collar Workers

In communist nations like China and Vietnam, a Red Collar Worker refers to a person in the employ of the government. However, this is not China or Vietnam and we are being forced to endure a broken capitalist economic system, at least for now. As such, a Red Collar Worker in the United States will refer to any worker who is subject to work at or below minimum wage for forty or fewer hours a week, effectively ensuring that they and their family will live at or beneath the poverty line and depend on public welfare for survival. Red Collar Workers are also not limited to working in a single industry. They can be found in the service industry, they can be found working as day laborers, they can be found working in factories; and as the American economy continues to mechanize and shift other good paying jobs overseas, more and more industries will shift to this model, so they will be will found in more and more places all throughout the economy. The primary purpose of Red Collar Workers is to service the needs of the socioeconomic classes above them.

In most circles, Red Collar Workers are simply referred to as the poor. Sometimes they may at least be given enough respect to be referred to as the Working Poor, but never Red Collar Workers. No proper respect is given to the individuals who form the very foundation of society. What would happen if they refused to work for poverty wages in fast food restaurants around the country? What would happen if they turned in their aprons and refused to continue waiting tables for under minimum wage? What would happen if they put down their smocks, went home, and refused to continue being treated like chattel in grocery stores, gas stations, and department stores? What would happen if they refused to continue cleaning public bathrooms and private homes for less than sufficient pay? What would happen if day laborers suddenly stopped showing up for daily tasks that pay poverty wages? Collectively, everything above them would fall apart. It is as simple as that. So, while everyone above them takes it for granted that a Red Collar Worker requires little training to do their job, they need to take heed of the fact that Red Collar Workers are what keep society functioning; and that is huge a cross to bear. Without them, without that foundation, society will falter.

New Hierarchy

Ultimately, this breakdown is precisely what needs to happen. Red Collar Workers all over the world need to become aware of the power that they possess and use it against the people above them. They need to realize that they dramatically outnumber their 'social betters.' They need to collectivize, take control of the means of production, redistribute wealth, and organize humanity into a more egalitarian society. The social science term for this process is proletarianization. Ultimately, this is not something that will take place over night, and it is not something that will be done easily. Their will, of course, be heavy resistance from all sectors of society and violence will likely be unavoidable; but ultimately, a new society will be born in which workers will own shares in the companies that they work for, and thus, will have a say in how the company is run. The lines between class division will then be blurred as profitable economic opportunities open up to more and more people. Finally, as money disappears as a problem, self-improvement will become the key to advancing in social rank. Painters, Singers, Athletes, Musicians, Engineers, Academics, and the like; these types will be the people that will top humanities' social ladders. Perhaps, then, humanity will be able to save what is left of its home planet and develop itself into a truly global, beautiful, and inclusive culture. Just imagine, if you can, a human society that favors culture over wealth.

#refusetocooperate, #getyourhouseinorder, #wearewatching, #deathbeforedishonor, #paindonthurt, #socialelites, #whitecollar, #bluecollar, #redcollar, #communism, #proletariat, #revolution, #daylabor, #factories, #serviceindustry, #human, #culture, #society, #inclusive, #global
No Respect for the Red Collar Worker
No Respect for the Red Collar Worker

Post has attachment
Dreamer of the Day: Francis Parker Yockey and the Postwar Fascist International - A Review

Posted by: Kent Allen Halliburton

An American National Bolshevik Review (

Francis Parker Yockey was an American attorney, political philosopher, and polemicist best known for his neo-Spenglerian book Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics, published under the pen name Ulick Varange in 1948. This book argues for a culture-based, totalitarian path for the preservation of Western culture. This culture based society that he envisioned for the United States was one in which all peoples of European heritage united under a single banner and pushed anyone that was different out of the country.

Yockey actively supported many far-right causes around the world and remains one of the seminal influences of many White nationalist and New Right movements. Yockey was a passionate proponent of antisemitism, and expressed a reverence for German National Socialism, and a general affinity for fascist causes. Yockey contacted or worked with the Nazi-aligned Silver Shirts and the German-American Bund. After the defeat of the Axis in the Second World War, Yockey became even more active in neo-Fascist causes.

Yockey believed that the United States was an engine of liberalism, controlled by Zionist Jews. Yockey also met Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, and wrote anti-Zionist propaganda on behalf of the Egyptian government, seeing the pan-Arab nationalist movement as another ally to challenge "the Jewish-American power." While in prison for falsified passports, he was visited by American right-winger Willis Carto, who ultimately became the chief advocate and publisher of Yockey's writings.

Yockey is one of the foundational members of the American ultra right wing. This new right wing would be that group of people that would seek to bring back the glory days of Nazi Germany, or worse. It is not like the United States is truly a liberated society now, but at least, we can move can move about with relative freedom. Given time, and unopposed, such people will create a world of fear, hatred, and death from which there will be no escape. They will make it impossible for reasonable people to live peacefully, and the world will never be the same. Yockey's work is important here because it helped to unify groups of Europeans who had not been in the same group before the war. He helped to expand the white franchise, strengthening the nation's racial hegemony and broadening the United States' influence in the "white" world.

As members of Refuse to Cooperate, a group that stands for everything that is opposite of Yockey and his fascists, it is extremely important to learn about the foundational members of our opponents movements. Doing so provides us invaluable insight on how to interact with and defeat our present opponents like the Alt-Right, the Neo-Nazis, Skinheads, and other dangerous groups. Look deep into the eyes of our enemies, and sense their casual brutality. Prepare yourself for the onslaught, and make yourself ready to defend justice to the bitter end.

#refusetocooperate, #getyourhouseinorder, #wearewatching, #deathbeforedishonor, #nazis, #racism, #totalitarianism, #imperium, #european, #bolshevik, #fascism, #heritage, #american, #empire, #hegemony, #francisyockey, #williscarto, #gamalnasser, #Zionists, #propaganda

Post has attachment

The Gun Control Question

Credit: Christopher Williams

"An unarmed people are slaves or are subject to slavery at any given moment." - Dr. Huey P. Newton

On Sunday October 1st, 2017, a white male terrorist opened fire on a crowd in Las Vegas killing at least 58 people, and wounding at least 500 more (as of this writing) adding to the ongoing American problem of mass killings by lone individuals. Of course, the right wingers will use the tragedy to make the gun industry richer. Without fail, though, the liberals have already begun their crowing for new gun control laws more in line with other imperialist states in the usual ignorant, privileged way. After all, it is very easy for someone who lives such a privileged lifestyle within the imperialist state to think that restricting gun rights more and more to that state would ever be a good idea and not recognize it for the unabashed imperialist boot licking it is.

Real leftists, in contrast to liberals, believe in empowering the oppressed, and stand for their absolute right to self defense. We understand that because political power grows out of the barrel of a gun just as Mao said, that the imperialist state wants to keep the oppressed disarmed. We recognize that under capitalism:

1. Gun control is racist. The entire history of gun control in the US is steeped in racism. From the days when gun control laws in slave states kept blacks defenseless to the modern era when Reagan deliberately targeted blacks and the Black Panthers in particular. And now where the racist drug war combines with gun control laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of felons, it is clear that gun control laws favor the white settler population.

2. Gun control is ableist. Liberals continue to push the utterly ableist view that guns must be kept out of the hands of the mentally ill in defiance of all evidence that overwhelmingly demonstrates that the vast majority of mentally ill people are victims of violence not perpetrators. They are in need of the ability to defend themselves, liberals deny them this need.

3. Gun control is classist. Gun control laws, the various licensing and background checks costs money making legal firearm ownership inaccessible to the most impoverished again restricting gun ownership to well off, predominantly white settlers.

All of this is lost on the liberal, eager as they are to preserve the unjust settler status quo that is comfortable for them. Idealists that they are, they focus on the abstract boogeyman of evil "lone wolves" with "assault rifles" leaving them incapable of addressing the actual underlying issues at the root of these mass killings and making it easy for them to avoid doing any of the real hard work needed to actually fix anything.

These killings are a direct consequence of American settler colonialism, of its sexism, racism, classism, ableism, homophobia, and transphobia. It is the product of a culture that glorifies competitive individualism and white male violence. All of these things are rooted directly in and reinforced by the system of global capitalism.

So, pass all the laws you want liberals, keep putting more band aids on a cancer for all the good it will do you. These terrorists will keep right on shooting and the bodies will just keep piling up. Nothing will change until the masses are willing to get serious, drop the liberalism, get radical, and begin to organize and tackle the real problems. Are you with us?

#refusetocooperate, #getyourhouseinorder, #wearewatching, #deathbeforedishonor, #terrorists, #whitesupremacy, #guncontrol, #2ndamendment, #legislation, #massshootings, #change, #neoliberals, #globalcapitalism, #lonewolf, #boogeyman
The Gun Control Question
The Gun Control Question

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
It's a present evil world. And the whole world lieth in wickedness. And the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Hence, as it is written, "I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil":
The Scriptures Alone Bible School
The Scriptures Alone Bible School

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Read and please do share
Hunger,The Assassin.
Hunger,The Assassin.
Wait while more posts are being loaded