Well then, we know a "brotha" doesn't need a lot of tangible capital. But intangible capital is a must. Meaning, no real "brotha" can be anti-capitalist.
The point is if you do a tiger, meaning, if you consciously or unconsciously destroy your intangible capital, with your tangible capital to follow, then you are in a state of anti-capitalism. Now, if you also accept the truth of anti-capitalism then you are articulating your belief against the accumulation, increase and preservation of YOUR intangible capital. Yet, as tiger proves, you can't escape the consequences of this God-ordained paradigm. Therefore, a real "brotha" COULD NEVER BE AGAINST the accumulation, increase and preservation of intangible capital. In short, ALL "brothas" must be believers in the God-ordained capitalist paradigm. Even their simple attempted refutations are evidence of an attempt to gain capital at my expense.
Real brothas are capitalists and they best learn from tiger's redistribution of his capital, both intangible and tangible, that radical autonomy is a devil's brew.
I'm assuming you're referring to Tiger Woods? My apologies, I hadn't followed the conversations below. What I've discerned from your rather tautological statement is that because Tiger Woods recklessly ruined his reputation i.e. his social capital, then he has also destroyed his potential to gain and protect his financial capital? Is this correct? And this makes him an anti-capitalist?
... 'God ordained paradigm', as in the protestant ethic? really?
..."even their ... refutations are evidence of an attempt to gain capital at my expense"
at whose expense? your own personal or the 'royal' you?
I was making the point that a "brotha" HAS to be a God-ordained capitalist. A "brotha" who doesn't believe in his God origin and doesn't believe in accumulating, increasing and preserving his capital isn't really a "brotha," is he?
you say a brotha MUST 'accumulate, increase and preserve his capital'... but by what means, and to what end?
should he choose to adhere to to pursuits of capital(s) that are non-exploitative/non-oppressive (and in this world there ain't that many) and the sustenance of his life, spirit, family and community are his primary 'capital' then i get your point.
otherwise i fail to see how any other form of capital accumulation is God-ordained; or how choosing alternatives to material pursuits makes a man anything BUT a brotha...
Is Jim Brown a "brotha?" If he is, that means he has intangible capital, i.e., mad credibility. And inherent in the nature of credibility is the notion that one earned it. So for Jim Brown to have credibility then he had to attempt to accumulate, increase and preserve his intangible capital. This order of things is the creation of a higher intelligence as is a "brotha." If a "brotha" isn't a God-ordained capitalist then how will we ever know he existed?
well again i'm not too knowledgeable about jim brown, but he does seem to have credibility and integrity. those being qualifiers for being a brotha is all fine and good.
having credibility, integrity, giving and receiving honor and respect are all certainly creator-ordained and oriented, and even forms of 'intangible capital' if you will.
but i'm still lost on how these traits, social status, or social capital amount to or are exclusive to capitalists and capitalism.
but if it wasn't jim brown but another (non-abusive) man we were discussing, Thordaddy, my questions remain: what makes credibility, integrity, social capital/status etc. exclusive characteristics of a capitalist?
If we assume that capitalism is the accumulation of capital and we recognize the ubiquitous nature of intangible capital then it seems entirely logical to assert that a "brotha" seeks to enhance his credibility, i.e., he engages in capitalism. Any person not engaged in capitalism, meaning any person not seeking to enhance their credibility is no one and never to be heard lest he refute his anti-capitalistic ways.
I think I see what you are getting at, but your argument is tautological. a capitalist = one who pursues intangible capital = a capitalist.
I do recognize that people imbue terms with meaning and subjectivity. however there are still some quite concrete historical and contemporary criteria that constitute capitalism as a political economy.
the pursuit and accumulation of 'intangible capital'/ credibility /status - or lets even call it 'swag' for shits and giggles - is only a (small) segment of said political economy ... not its definition, function or necessarily its motivation.
The essence of capitalism is the purposeful enhancent of one's credibility. If in addition to this intangible capital, one accumulates tangible capital, he still must do it through a process of gaining credibility. If on the other hand, one accumulates tangible capital through disreputable means then he can't be said to be engaging in God-ordained capitalism.
For instance, Bernie Madoff was said to be engaging in capitalism, but such an assertion means capitalism is the accumulation of capital through disreputable means. How can that be capitalism and what do we call the accumulation of capital via moral means if not capitalism?
Any person not engaged in capitalism, meaning any person not seeking to enhance their credibility is no one and never to be heard lest he refute his anti-capitalistic ways.
The essence of capitalism is the purposeful enhancent of one's credibility. If in addition to this intangible capital, one accumulates tangible capital, he still must do it through a process of gaining credibility. If on the other hand, one accumulates tangible capital through disreputable means then he can't be said to be engaging in God-ordained capitalism.
ahhhh,hahahahhahahahahaha!!!!!
thank you for explaining your lifelong broke-playa peasant status.
I admire you creativity. I'm playing along since I'm new here, but I'm starting to think you're just eff-ing with me...cuz I'm new here.
I don't 'have' a definition of capitalism of my own. The one I am aware of comes from society, U.S. specifically.
The touted principles adhere to free market economy, surplus value (profit), innovation, private ownership etc.
Its unarticulated (and oft-ignored) principles are exploitation, alienation, commodification and racial oppression (in no particular order).
"Bernie Madoff was said to be engaging in capitalism, but such an assertion means capitalism is the accumulation of capital through disreputable means. How can that be capitalism and what do we call the accumulation of capital via moral means if not capitalism?"
If Madoff ain't a capitalist, by God what is he? Disreputable means? Absolutely. But in the history of the United States, perhaps too Western Europe, and dare I say Earth, the accumulation of wealth via ruthless means is an has been the modus operandi.
First, I'm definitely not messing with you. I'm articulating a capitalism that you are hardly aware of even though you and everyone you know CONSTANTLY operate within this God-ordained capitalist paradigm. The fact that you see your own accumulation of capital, i.e., gaining credibility, as an illegimate exploitive pursuit is evidence that the anti-capitalist's ability to corrupt your thinking is in full effect. The fact that people "profit" at other's expense is not capitalism.
Not exactly. I see my - or a true brotha's - pursuit of gaining (and giving) credibility, integrity, humility, peace, family, spirituality, community, honor and respect as a part of my personal growth and development as a woman and as a human being.
it has very little if anything to do with capital, or capitalism.
trying to manipulate or redefine a historically/socially/politically loaded concept such as capitalism to describe the endeavors of 'brothas' is ... futile in my opinion.
as you were alluding to, brothas, sistas, black folks in general do and have always engaged in modes of 'lifeways' that are inconsistent and incompatible with what the world understands as the capitalist order. (and on that note, i co-sign on fred hampton as a real brotha)
i believe it behooves those of us who are truly interested in understanding who black people are and what we are about to use new language (or hell our own for that matter) that does not carry the load and signifying impacts of our oppressors.
i think your concept of 'intangible capital' is actually pretty cool. but again, to what end? i strongly doubt that one concept can be equated with a political economic construct.
especially if it serves to deny and re-write four hundred years of history.
trying to manipulate or redefine a historically/socially/politically loaded concept such as capitalism to describe the endeavors of 'brothas' is ... futile in my opinion.
chosen is truth.
won't be no farstian bamboozles, switcheroos, or okeydokes up in Beelzebub's lounge today....,
Thing is, I'm one of those "oppressors" trying to set you free by getting you to see what real CAPITALISM is and having you question what you were TAUGHT it to be.
Was the Slave trade "capitalism?"
Is the sex trade "capitalism?"
For you to say YES, because you must, is to say the gaining of capital by immoral and disreputable means is the nature of "capitalism."
Yet, Al Gore says the same thing EVEN as he engages in "capitalism" (his carbon-credit scam of a business).
The end result is our Socialist, leftist, liberal elite persuade you to be anti-capitalist (against gaining your own capital) while they nevertheless seek to gain their own capital BECAUSE WE OPERATE IN A CAPITALIST PARADIGM.
while your attempts to 'free me' are questionable at best, even if noble in intention (sidebar: you can't free me cuz you never had me, so please save the favors) if you note the questions i posed at the top of the thread ...
... 'God ordained paradigm', as in the protestant ethic? really?
..."even their ... refutations are evidence of an attempt to gain capital at my expense"
at whose expense? your own personal or the 'royal' you?
... i recognized who you were immediately, but withdrew a little to let your own words reveal your identity rather than to go by my own intuitive notions. that's not to call you an oppressor...but them was your words.
just because there are some who think they wish to engage in a 'responsible capitalism' or a 'moral capitalism', still makes it 'capitalism'. al gore ain't no more a socialist than barack obama than bill gates than the george bushes.
believe you me, al gore and other lying liberal lefties haven't convinced me of shit. the ancestors told me this shit was fucked up.
i second cnu, i smell an okeydoke, tryna redefine capitalism to justify another [unspoken] agenda.
How can I redefine something that you haven't defined for yourself?
And if you just parrot the definition of "capitalism" handed down to you from the anti-oppressors, how do you know that you have a grasp of the ESSENCE of capitalism when you can't even see that the anti-oppressors draw their capital from your belief in them?.
If CNU is right then ask that atheistic fool whether he is a capitalist or anti-capitalist?
Oh wait... It won't be that easy to answer BECAUSE cats no more know what a capitalist is than they know what a "brotha" or "sista" is.
Exactly... We didn't make this world and we didn't make the instinct for earning intangible capital, either. Both are God-ordained and the consequences of this capitalist paradigm (the creation, preservation, distribution AND DESTRUCTION of credibility) are on full display in the tiger saga. This saga shows how detached tiger was from the essence of capitalism and how attached he was to its corruption. And how he was oblivious to the link between them.
How did this "brotha" get your attention without having any capital? Of course, this "brotha" has capital. It is a must for any REAL "brotha" to have capital. And if a "brotha" has capital, isn't it assumed that the "brotha" earned it? So a "brotha" must earn capital to get your attention.
Now, do you know any "brothas" that can do it another way?
I hope you learned your lesson. You trying to have an argument with a cat who is steadily making up definitions for words that are commonly defined in a different manner. You can't win that battle.
Awww...
ReplyDeleteThis is cheating.
Jim is everybody's definition.
Well then, we know a "brotha" doesn't need a lot of tangible capital. But intangible capital is a must. Meaning, no real "brotha" can be anti-capitalist.
ReplyDeleteAnybody know about Jim Brown?
I don't know too much about Jim Brown, and I definitely don't know about your sentiment, 'No real "brotha" can be anti-capitalist'...
ReplyDeleteCrystal,
ReplyDeleteThe point is if you do a tiger, meaning, if you consciously or unconsciously destroy your intangible capital, with your tangible capital to follow, then you are in a state of anti-capitalism. Now, if you also accept the truth of anti-capitalism then you are articulating your belief against the accumulation, increase and preservation of YOUR intangible capital. Yet, as tiger proves, you can't escape the consequences of this God-ordained paradigm. Therefore, a real "brotha" COULD NEVER BE AGAINST the accumulation, increase and preservation of intangible capital. In short, ALL "brothas" must be believers in the God-ordained capitalist paradigm. Even their simple attempted refutations are evidence of an attempt to gain capital at my expense.
Real brothas are capitalists and they best learn from tiger's redistribution of his capital, both intangible and tangible, that radical autonomy is a devil's brew.
I'm assuming you're referring to Tiger Woods? My apologies, I hadn't followed the conversations below. What I've discerned from your rather tautological statement is that because Tiger Woods recklessly ruined his reputation i.e. his social capital, then he has also destroyed his potential to gain and protect his financial capital? Is this correct? And this makes him an anti-capitalist?
ReplyDelete... 'God ordained paradigm', as in the protestant ethic? really?
..."even their ... refutations are evidence of an attempt to gain capital at my expense"
at whose expense? your own personal or the 'royal' you?
forgive me if i sounded antagonistic. i just had some questions....
ReplyDeleteCrystal was chosen,
ReplyDeleteI was making the point that a "brotha" HAS to be a God-ordained capitalist. A "brotha" who doesn't believe in his God origin and doesn't believe in accumulating, increasing and preserving his capital isn't really a "brotha," is he?
indeed he is and most certainly can be.
ReplyDeleteyou say a brotha MUST 'accumulate, increase and preserve his capital'... but by what means, and to what end?
should he choose to adhere to to pursuits of capital(s) that are non-exploitative/non-oppressive (and in this world there ain't that many) and the sustenance of his life, spirit, family and community are his primary 'capital' then i get your point.
otherwise i fail to see how any other form of capital accumulation is God-ordained; or how choosing alternatives to material pursuits makes a man anything BUT a brotha...
Is Jim Brown a "brotha?" If he is, that means he has intangible capital, i.e., mad credibility. And inherent in the nature of credibility is the notion that one earned it. So for Jim Brown to have credibility then he had to attempt to accumulate, increase and preserve his intangible capital. This order of things is the creation of a higher intelligence as is a "brotha." If a "brotha" isn't a God-ordained capitalist then how will we ever know he existed?
ReplyDeletewell again i'm not too knowledgeable about jim brown, but he does seem to have credibility and integrity. those being qualifiers for being a brotha is all fine and good.
ReplyDeletehaving credibility, integrity, giving and receiving honor and respect are all certainly creator-ordained and oriented, and even forms of 'intangible capital' if you will.
but i'm still lost on how these traits, social status, or social capital amount to or are exclusive to capitalists and capitalism.
I love many things about Jim Brown, but he's beat up too many women for me to co-sign him as the definition of a brotha.
ReplyDeletewell thanks for that cuz i didn't know. i agree, abuse makes the question moot.
ReplyDeletebut if it wasn't jim brown but another (non-abusive) man we were discussing, Thordaddy, my questions remain: what makes credibility, integrity, social capital/status etc. exclusive characteristics of a capitalist?
ReplyDeleteCrystal was chosen,
ReplyDeleteIf we assume that capitalism is the accumulation of capital and we recognize the ubiquitous nature of intangible capital then it seems entirely logical to assert that a "brotha" seeks to enhance his credibility, i.e., he engages in capitalism. Any person not engaged in capitalism, meaning any person not seeking to enhance their credibility is no one and never to be heard lest he refute his anti-capitalistic ways.
if we assume....got it.
ReplyDelete-- if we don't assume --
ReplyDeleteThordaddy,
I think I see what you are getting at, but your argument is tautological. a capitalist = one who pursues intangible capital = a capitalist.
I do recognize that people imbue terms with meaning and subjectivity. however there are still some quite concrete historical and contemporary criteria that constitute capitalism as a political economy.
the pursuit and accumulation of 'intangible capital'/ credibility /status - or lets even call it 'swag' for shits and giggles - is only a (small) segment of said political economy ... not its definition, function or necessarily its motivation.
Crystal was chosen,
ReplyDeleteDo you have another definition of capitalism I don't know about?
Crystal was chosen,
ReplyDeleteThe essence of capitalism is the purposeful enhancent of one's credibility. If in addition to this intangible capital, one accumulates tangible capital, he still must do it through a process of gaining credibility. If on the other hand, one accumulates tangible capital through disreputable means then he can't be said to be engaging in God-ordained capitalism.
For instance, Bernie Madoff was said to be engaging in capitalism, but such an assertion means capitalism is the accumulation of capital through disreputable means. How can that be capitalism and what do we call the accumulation of capital via moral means if not capitalism?
Any person not engaged in capitalism, meaning any person not seeking to enhance their credibility is no one and never to be heard lest he refute his anti-capitalistic ways.
ReplyDeleteThe essence of capitalism is the purposeful enhancent of one's credibility. If in addition to this intangible capital, one accumulates tangible capital, he still must do it through a process of gaining credibility. If on the other hand, one accumulates tangible capital through disreputable means then he can't be said to be engaging in God-ordained capitalism.
ahhhh,hahahahhahahahahaha!!!!!
thank you for explaining your lifelong broke-playa peasant status.
Thordadday,
ReplyDeleteI admire you creativity. I'm playing along since I'm new here, but I'm starting to think you're just eff-ing with me...cuz I'm new here.
I don't 'have' a definition of capitalism of my own. The one I am aware of comes from society, U.S. specifically.
The touted principles adhere to free market economy, surplus value (profit), innovation, private ownership etc.
Its unarticulated (and oft-ignored) principles are exploitation, alienation, commodification and racial oppression (in no particular order).
"Bernie Madoff was said to be engaging in capitalism, but such an assertion means capitalism is the accumulation of capital through disreputable means. How can that be capitalism and what do we call the accumulation of capital via moral means if not capitalism?"
If Madoff ain't a capitalist, by God what is he? Disreputable means? Absolutely. But in the history of the United States, perhaps too Western Europe, and dare I say Earth, the accumulation of wealth via ruthless means is an has been the modus operandi.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHpM5US2HDs&feature=related
DRAINAGE! lol I love this movie.
My definition of a Brother:
ReplyDeleteFred Hampton-- so bad the scared, punk-ass pigs gunned him down in his sleep.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/4/the_assassination_of_fred_hampton_how
My definition of Brothers:
Bunchy Carter & Geronimo ji Jaga
http://41central.com/
Crystal was chosen,
ReplyDeleteFirst, I'm definitely not messing with you. I'm articulating a capitalism that you are hardly aware of even though you and everyone you know CONSTANTLY operate within this God-ordained capitalist paradigm. The fact that you see your own accumulation of capital, i.e., gaining credibility, as an illegimate exploitive pursuit is evidence that the anti-capitalist's ability to corrupt your thinking is in full effect. The fact that people "profit" at other's expense is not capitalism.
Not exactly. I see my - or a true brotha's - pursuit of gaining (and giving) credibility, integrity, humility, peace, family, spirituality, community, honor and respect as a part of my personal growth and development as a woman and as a human being.
ReplyDeleteit has very little if anything to do with capital, or capitalism.
trying to manipulate or redefine a historically/socially/politically loaded concept such as capitalism to describe the endeavors of 'brothas' is ... futile in my opinion.
as you were alluding to, brothas, sistas, black folks in general do and have always engaged in modes of 'lifeways' that are inconsistent and incompatible with what the world understands as the capitalist order. (and on that note, i co-sign on fred hampton as a real brotha)
i believe it behooves those of us who are truly interested in understanding who black people are and what we are about to use new language (or hell our own for that matter) that does not carry the load and signifying impacts of our oppressors.
i think your concept of 'intangible capital' is actually pretty cool. but again, to what end? i strongly doubt that one concept can be equated with a political economic construct.
especially if it serves to deny and re-write four hundred years of history.
peace and blessings :)
trying to manipulate or redefine a historically/socially/politically loaded concept such as capitalism to describe the endeavors of 'brothas' is ... futile in my opinion.
ReplyDeletechosen is truth.
won't be no farstian bamboozles, switcheroos, or okeydokes up in Beelzebub's lounge today....,
Notice how fatneck HASN'T disputed anything I've said especially concerning tiger's unfortunate battle with REAL capitalism.
ReplyDeleteLOL why he gotta be a fatneck? ya'll out cold on this blog.
ReplyDeleteCrystal was chosen,
ReplyDeleteThing is, I'm one of those "oppressors" trying to set you free by getting you to see what real CAPITALISM is and having you question what you were TAUGHT it to be.
Was the Slave trade "capitalism?"
Is the sex trade "capitalism?"
For you to say YES, because you must, is to say the gaining of capital by immoral and disreputable means is the nature of "capitalism."
Yet, Al Gore says the same thing EVEN as he engages in "capitalism" (his carbon-credit scam of a business).
The end result is our Socialist, leftist, liberal elite persuade you to be anti-capitalist (against gaining your own capital) while they nevertheless seek to gain their own capital BECAUSE WE OPERATE IN A CAPITALIST PARADIGM.
thordaddy,
ReplyDeletewhile your attempts to 'free me' are questionable at best, even if noble in intention (sidebar: you can't free me cuz you never had me, so please save the favors) if you note the questions i posed at the top of the thread ...
... 'God ordained paradigm', as in the protestant ethic? really?
..."even their ... refutations are evidence of an attempt to gain capital at my expense"
at whose expense? your own personal or the 'royal' you?
... i recognized who you were immediately, but withdrew a little to let your own words reveal your identity rather than to go by my own intuitive notions. that's not to call you an oppressor...but them was your words.
just because there are some who think they wish to engage in a 'responsible capitalism' or a 'moral capitalism', still makes it 'capitalism'. al gore ain't no more a socialist than barack obama than bill gates than the george bushes.
believe you me, al gore and other lying liberal lefties haven't convinced me of shit. the ancestors told me this shit was fucked up.
i second cnu, i smell an okeydoke, tryna redefine capitalism to justify another [unspoken] agenda.
thanks though.s
Ha! I like Crystal.
ReplyDeleteSista can hold her own.
Crystal was chosen,
ReplyDeleteHow can I redefine something that you haven't defined for yourself?
And if you just parrot the definition of "capitalism" handed down to you from the anti-oppressors, how do you know that you have a grasp of the ESSENCE of capitalism when you can't even see that the anti-oppressors draw their capital from your belief in them?.
If CNU is right then ask that atheistic fool whether he is a capitalist or anti-capitalist?
Oh wait... It won't be that easy to answer BECAUSE cats no more know what a capitalist is than they know what a "brotha" or "sista" is.
greetings dv, thanks for the props.
ReplyDeletelol, thordaddy - 'i was given this world, i didn't make it'.
"the anti-oppressors draw their capital from your belief in them?"
- i don't believe them. at least not the so-called anti-oppressors you mentioned, anyway.
Crystal was chosen,
ReplyDeleteExactly... We didn't make this world and we didn't make the instinct for earning intangible capital, either. Both are God-ordained and the consequences of this capitalist paradigm (the creation, preservation, distribution AND DESTRUCTION of credibility) are on full display in the tiger saga. This saga shows how detached tiger was from the essence of capitalism and how attached he was to its corruption. And how he was oblivious to the link between them.
My example of the definition of a brotha:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIDRmgnNXOk
:)
Chosen,
ReplyDeleteHow did this "brotha" get your attention without having any capital? Of course, this "brotha" has capital. It is a must for any REAL "brotha" to have capital. And if a "brotha" has capital, isn't it assumed that the "brotha" earned it? So a "brotha" must earn capital to get your attention.
Now, do you know any "brothas" that can do it another way?
Do know any "brothas" with no capital?
So, can a "brotha" be anti-capitalist?
Nah homie I'm not dancing to that song anymore.
ReplyDeleteCat's got style. he's smooth. he has confidence, maybe even arrogance, but enough graciousness to balance it.
intelligent. enough wit to know the significance of being a black news anchor for corporate media, and enough balls to take a stance.
and let's be real. did you see that smile?? coulda lit up the eastern shore board back in summer 2004.
ladies, fellas, anyone in between holla if you hear me ...
:P
ReplyDeleteCrystal
ReplyDeleteI hope you learned your lesson. You trying to have an argument with a cat who is steadily making up definitions for words that are commonly defined in a different manner. You can't win that battle.
big man,
ReplyDeletelol i see. lesson learned. thanks for the heads up, cuz i'm definitely not interested in battles, i'm tryna win the war!