😆 😂
Nobody thought Killer Mike was a socialist. He has always advocated Black capitalism.
Him and Regan too. That's how you know that shit is a fucking trap.
He was already a landlord who begged the people of Atlanta not to riot...
he came out with the extremely ineffectual mayor who doesn't even do anything day-to-day and has improved the material conditions of the city 0% while allowing gentrification to continue unabated and also noted hymen-checker Clifford Tip Harris to say that Atlanta is somehow Wakanda, aka paradise on earth for BIPOC
which, if you've ever been to ATL, especially swatl, east point, college park, lithonia, south dekalb -- you fucking know that it's not paradise on earth for anyone except the rich and the well connected
El-P was always the cooler one, But man does it suck to see him literally become a banker.
I mean yeah in theory I could argue that it would be great to start a sort of credit union co-op that operates as a way for us to use a bank's services (which we're all in need of so long as we live in capitalism) without participating in the exploitative banking industry... but this isn't it.
My first thought before I read the article was "surely it's a community oriented lending organization" and not just a fucking bank.
i mean, i don't think anyone here thought he was a socialist tho
his music is dope, i'll give him that
The problem is his music is dope because it uses revolutionary aesthetic. It’s not like some mind numbing hedonistic EDM that we can just enjoy, RTJ is literally about burning down the same institutions Killer Mike hides behind
But that's because everyone here thinks everyone else is a lib, even though they're libs themselves...
“When education is not liberating, the dream of the oppressed is to become the oppressor.”
This shit is why the panthers cared so much about having a newspaper, giving speeches, and even starting their own schools. It’s a shame that killer mike isn’t a class traitor but we shouldn’t be surprised.
Ok this is hillarious, buuuut...
I saw some chapos who assure that China today is socialist, or at least still on a good path towards it, use the argument that given the current material conditions there, the CCP did and is doing the best it can. Isn't it the same here?
Yeah, I think I'm just a lib lmao.
It's just that considering I see how hard it is for black people to have anything in Amerikkka today, I'm wondering to what extent "keeping the dollar in the black community" can be done and/or can help. But you're probably right. A poor black man working 3 jobs to pay rent to a black landlord is no better than a poor black man working 3 jobs to pay rent to a white landlord.
Yeah I get what the dude is getting at, but this literally could at the most provide leverage for the black and latino bourgeosie in money circulation, black and latino money capitalists; which could hypothetically give the black and latino petty bourgeois a slight benefit, in their competing quests to become pure appropriators of surplus value, via preferential loans. You know, provided we lived in a capitalist system that didn't have an insanely high organic composition of capital, where it wasn't nearly impossible to actually ascend from petty bourgeois to bourgeois, and where minority-owned banks weren't subject to the same necessities of competition as the regular ones. Which, even if it were the case, wouldn't benefit the black and latino working class
His family still has hundreds of millions of dollars in various ventures though, including a lot of real estate. Lots of officials are in similar positions.
When you think states and private persons are the same thing, then congrats: you are unironically a lib.
No they aren't. There's six state owned nationwide banks, 12 nation wide incorporated banks (which function as joint stock companies, and have mixed state owned corporation, municipality, and private corporation stock holders), and many incorporated commercial banks that were privatized from old local credit cooperatives (and have a mixed private and local municipal government ownership, acting in a joint stock capacity, like Bank of Beijing is owned by the municipal government of Beijing and Netherlands ING Bank mostly). There are also some completely private banks like WeBank that have popped up in the last decade.
The incorporated banks having municipal government shareholders is also not that different from banks in the US, like local govt pension funds having investments in banks or local investment in credit unions, except the incorporated Chinese banks have the municipal shares as a much larger portion of the total shares right now.
You could argue that since a lot of shares are owned by municipal governments or state owned corporations that most of the banks are joint state and private ventures, but those banks still function quite differently from a straight up nationalized or communalized bank.
