Didn't black capitalism get burned down
Got bombed, burnt down, shot, lynched, and every means possible.
Even then, I don't want black capitalism, I don't want white capitalism, I want capitalism abolished to help end the struggles of hating someone for the color of the skin they were born with.
Clearly all we need is a "Black Wall Street." What could go wrong?
Rent. Rent needs to die in a fire.
Landlording needs to be less lucrative than a private mortgage or land contract. Jack up the taxes on all residential properties, and grant steep exemptions for owner-occupants only.
Be very careful with the wording of those exemptions, or you're going to have an owner living in a tower with 230 roommates.
True. I would only allow the exemption on 1-4 unit properties. I would allow an on-site landlord to rent out the remaining 1-3 units without losing the exemption.
Renting should be a wildly atypical housing arrangement. "Land Contracts" should replace virtually every circumstance where renting currently makes sense.
Jacking up taxes jacks up rental prices
Rent control has worked, but it stopped those places getting needed maintenance
My town is trying land tax discounts to landlords that rent out their place sufficiently below market rate
Tax discounts to lower rent prices only incentivize the worst, most negligent slumlords, in a race to the bottom for housing quality. Rent controls and discounts on taxes for below-market rents exacerbate the major problems with renting.
Jacking up taxes jacks up rental prices.
It does. But, if nobody will be renting; nobody will be paying those jacked up prices. Read my comment again: I am trying to eliminate the concept of renting, and replace it with a much more equitable approach.
I want to replace "renting" with "land contract".
A land contract is a type of purchase agreement that starts off similar to a rental. They aren't used very often because they are somewhat complex, and they put a lot of power in the hands of the buyer/tenant rather than the seller/landlord. Land Contracts have a fixed monthly price: there is no year-to-year price hike.
Most importantly, they gain equity for their tenant/buyer.
Problem is class, not race. A capitalist profiting from other peoples labour is the problem, may they be black or white. Pinning the problem on blacks or whites or men or women or straight or gay is just turning the proletariat against each other. Instead of attacking the few capitalists, we look at what they look like and attack those who look the same. Class, not race. Class, not gender. Class, not serual orientation.
The way I see it is that we don't have enough anti-monopoly legislation. If we guaranteed small businesses could get products at the same prices as megacorps and we broke up businesses that took too much market share we could have small business again. Regulation is also too punitive. Lower taxes, lower compliance and permit fees. The government has a spending problem and the people need to tell them to fuck off and cut their spending in half, then add half of what they cut back into public services, not spending on wars or deep state letter orgs dedicated to spying on its own citizens.
So instead of the simpler system, we pass millions of layers of more bureaucratic laws that will require even more expensive legal teams for companies to parse, resulting in even fewer companies existing and monopolizing markets all to save billionaires and the failed ideology of capitalism?
Great work.
If we’re forced to have capitalism, can we at least use the social kind?
A social market economy is a free-market or mixed-market capitalist system, sometimes classified as a coordinated market economy, where government intervention in price formation is kept to a minimum, but the state provides significant services in areas such as social security, health care, unemployment benefits and the recognition of labor rights through national collective bargaining arrangements. Source
In my opinion, using terms like 'capitalism' or 'socialism' or 'fascism' is a losing game for anyone except the Right.
The second you use those terms you get forced into a fight about the definitions and get sidetracked from the actual issues at hand.
Substitute other terms instead. Don't say "Why can't we have Socialist healthcare like Sweden?" say "why can't we have the kind of health care Eisenhower offered in 1956?"
I agree with this approach, most people hate politics. They either have an aversion to words like these or, use them incorrectly.
I think a very large part of educating, agitating and organizing is meeting people where they are. Once they get over their aversion, one would hope they will become class conscious.
I am going to disagree with you on this. Here’s why:
No one forces anyone to fight about anything. It’s a choice you make. If you find yourself in a conversation with someone who is unwilling to hear reason, then you can choose to continue or you can walk away.
I also disagree with avoiding certain words simply because you’re concerned how other people will react to them (of course exceptions apply). Now if you can find a simpler, less controversial, way to express yourself, by all means keep it simple. Using “$5 words” in an attempt to make yourself sound smart or better than somebody else is counterproductive. And, in most cases whether you talk about “Socialist healthcare in Sweden” or “health care Eisenhower offered” is moot, because a bad actor is going to twist your words regardless.
Finally, in the context of this thread, we are specifically talking about Capitalism, so it makes little sense to skirt around the term. Some might as well embrace it and explore it as far as we can.
I personally have no problem with capitalism dealing with non essentials, but essentials should be nationalized.
Why can't we shorten is it to Is't, but It's is fine? Absolute hypocrisy, if you ask me.
they have played us for absolute fools
Is it?
Seen this meme posted more times then I can count
Well that could mean two things
