let it all collapse, the icon for the www.punkerslut.com website
Home Articles Critiques Books Video
About Graphics CopyLeft Links Music

Three Elements of the Same Trend: Poverty, Property, and Privilege

Conservativism and the Solution of Capitalism to Poverty

An Open Letter by Punkerslut to
the UrbanCure.org

From PeaceLibertad Blog
Image: From PeaceLibertad Blog

Start Date: January 18, 2011
Finish Date: January 18, 2011

          Information: UrbanCure.org Homepage


     Your mission statement is made to sound noble: "Address issues of race and poverty through principles of faith, freedom and personal responsibility." But when you deconstruct this, you get some awfully frightening concepts. How does one address issues of race through "personal responsibility"? How do you fight racial exclusion at schools and universities, through "personal responsibility"? How do you resist police brutality that targets ghettos of the minorities, by being "personally responsible"? How do you use that to change a judicial policy where African Americans are 13 times more likely to receive a prison sentence for the same exact crimes as committed by whites? (HRW.org)

     And Poverty -- how do you make "personal responsibility" into something when you have nothing? Take this statement: "...government dependency destroys personal dignity and devastates entire communities." No, government oppressions does that. Using prisons today as a source of forced labor, supplied largely by the Black and Latino populations, destroys dignity and devastates entire communities. Do you understand what the fact means when you hear "the United States holds 25% of the world's prison population, but only 5% of the world's people." ? Do you understand that we imprison more human beings than China? (GlobalResearch.ca)

     So, what makes you think "traditional values, limited government, and private ownership" are the greatest benefits to the people when your political party supports a prison system worse than the Tzar's or Stalin's? Worse than Mao's and worse than Pol Pot's? It is curious, that you think it is "government social funding" that is the greatest threat to the people, when there are prisons that profit off of forced labor. Let's see: an individual black man, walking down the street, could be restrained and shot in the back, without the assailant ever being charged, so long as they are a cop or are associated with the cops. Social spending in bullets.

From URBAN Cure Website
Image: Star Parker, Leader of Urban Cure,
From URBAN Cure Website

     But your founder, however, presents something different: by using government funding, she went to school, founded her own organization, and now lives off of the labor of others through her business. So, you use welfare funding and are a success, therefore, we need to fight welfare. But, those people in prison, who never received a dime of welfare or a fair opportunity, that's success. It's considered success because their forced labor contributes to tax funds, so that Miss Star Parker doesn't have to pay so much from her business.

     Here is your organization's founder: "...a single welfare mother in Los Angeles, California. After receiving Christ, Star returned to college, received a BS degree in marketing and launched an urban Christian magazine." Then isn't the entire organization a contradiction? I mean, think about it: you receive funding from the state, which you use to obtain a degree, in perhaps the easiest subject available from any university in the world. You get your degree, after living off of the state's fat, and then you found an organization, to prove that people don't do anything good when they live off of the state's fat. What am I supposed to say to that? "Okay, I agree with you, because you're definitely not doing any good after living off welfare."

     "...the role of government is to protect life, liberty and property: not to monopolize education, manipulate commerce, and dehumanize charity work." Protect property, as in granting everyone their rightful piece of earth and the tools and training necessary to create a livelihood for themselves? No, you mean protect property as in protect the wealth of Capitalists: those who live off of sweatshop labor, slavery, and exploitation, those who hire security guards to murder striking workers and are never charged with it. Protect liberty, as in, granting freedom to all? No. You mean "granting freedom, as in imprisonment and forced labor for millions of Black and Latino people." And protect life, as in hold police, governors, legislators, and politicians accountable for the murder that they commit? No. You mean "protect life as in prohibiting a woman from learning about her body or even have any type of reproductive liberty."

     Of course, the truth sounds so much worse than just "life, liberty, and property." There is one final statement I need to address: "...private ownership is of greatest marginal benefit to low income peoples." In what way? Private ownership means exclusion. It means that the poor must beg for a right to eat, and if they cannot get it, they must starve in the streets. It means that the hungry must accept whatever wage is offered to them, because otherwise, they will suffer the greatest of distresses. How is private ownership of benefit to the people? All it means, is that the people are excluded from property, and must beg for obtaining any rights from it. It's like saying "private rulership" is of benefit to the people, probably because saying "dictatorship" is less pleasant.

     There is only one thing of benefit to the poor: the organization and cooperation necessary to create a world in which every person has the right to produce and feed themselves. A world where you must not ask a baron or a vassal for the right to work a field, a factory, or a shop -- a world where everyone can create what they need, without asking for permission for the tools or the earth. For there are two possibilities: (1) the common individual either strives toward whatever is best for their community, in which case, everyone should be given common ownership of the earth, or (2) the common individual strives toward whatever improves themselves at the expense of others, in which case, we cannot afford to let any person hold private property, otherwise we will all be victimized. No matter how this argument is approached, the result is not good for private property and Capitalism.

"Absolutely speaking, the more money, the less virtue; for money comes between a man and his objects, and obtains them for him; it was certainly no great virtue to obtain it."
          --Thoreau, 1849
          "Civil Disobedience"

Andy Carloff

join the punkerslut.com
mailing list!

copyleft notice and
responsibility disclaimer