The Political Economy of Racism by Melvin Leiman

“The scholar who accepts no harsh judgment because it does not do justice to the entire complex truth can really accept no judgments about society because all are simplifications of the complex. The result is scholarly detachment from the profound ethical conflicts of society and from that human concern without which scholarship becomes a pretentious game” - Howard Zinn

Having taken me a thoroughly long time to read, I finished The Political Economy of Racism the same day I went to the Macomb Juvenile Justice Detention Center to workshop some poetry with the students attending the facility’s subcontracted school. These were young men whom the system had failed at every level of their lives, regardless of the scope of their “crimes”. Some of these students were going to go straight to prison to serve 20 years, 30 years, or life and they were 14 -16 years old. There is not a society on earth that can deem itself a success while condemning children to lifetimes in prison. What can a book as dense and academic (not to mention a terrible “summer read”) as Melvin Leiman’s offer in the face of utter societal failure?

A lot.

Leiman’s is a challenging read, making this a hard book to recommend, but what he has to offer is critical. He works out two distinct lines of discourse; 1) a hard look at the economy of discrimination ranging from slavery to redlining (the book was written in the 70s so mass incarceration was really only starting to ramp up) and 2) an absolutely savage Marxist takedown of any school of thought that avoids branding capitalism as public enemy number one.

In his first line, Leiman makes it very clear his interest does not lie with the petty racism of individuals. While he feels any degree of racism is grotesque, it is obvious he places the emphasis on systems designed to hold African Americans down for any number of reasons. Slavery was, after all, an institution of value that was justified by evoking the perceived inferiority of black people. The argument is that racism maintains the underclass necessary for capitalism. It is a smart line to take, some Marxists receive criticism because they feel that racism would disappear if capitalism was toppled. Leiman makes no such guarantee, but he is very adamant that racism can never be abolished under capitalism as it is far too necessary; we need to justify exploitation by labeling those at the bottom as deserving of their place in society, the best way to do this is fostering the idea of race based inferiority. While this underlying premise seems obvious, Leiman’s scope is complicated (and arduous). He covers monopolistic economies where companies rely on disadvantaged communities - ones that may be ravaged by over policing and redlining - for cheap labor (think of Wal-Mart or McDonald's) and competitive economies where discrimination and racism help keep wages low across the labor market. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Every dissection is thorough and complete with hard numbers and analysis. Have I mentioned this book was dense?

The second half of the book examines radical critiques of racism, Orthodox critiques of racism, and hybrid positions such as Black Nationalism or Black Capitalism. To many, taking on the conservative school of thought is the easiest to swallow. Libertarian and conservative ideologies often pay lip service to a certainly palatable repulsion to discrimination and racism, but will not endorse government intervention to prevent it. The idea is that discrimination does not benefit the participants of a market system in the form of profits, stock prices, and/or publicity, in fact, it may harm them. Even where that is true, libertarians and conservatives fail to address the larger political economy that benefits more generally from the existence of an underclass perpetuated by systemic discrimination and racism. These were among some of the most buoyant and fun sections to read, Leiman’s take on liberalism and class-centric leftism are more complicated but no less crucial. The orthodox liberal ideology - say, of your Clinton variety - warrants criticism because it is a full endorsement of a class based system with a welfare state to mitigate the condition of the lowest classes. It attracts well-meaning people who don’t believe suffering should be so prolific but doesn’t truly offer them an answer for eliminating its necessity for America to maintain its decadence. Every examination of critical theory on racism that Leiman explores is vital for understanding the limitations of our system as a whole.

It is important to understand the persistence of racism in America, why the students I taught poetry in Juvenile Detention live in an entirely different world than the students I teach in the suburbs. This divide is entirely manufactured. Leiman’s solution to toppling capitalism is black and white labor unity, something he feels racism is also employed to stop. There isn’t a single element of racism that Leiman cannot prove the absolute utility of in his book. It’s worth stating again; the decline or abolition of capitalism will not guarantee the the decline or abolition of racism, but there will be no such thing under capitalism. Reading The Political Economy of Racism can help elevate the conversation against racism to much needed heights.

The ABC's of Socialism

The ABC’s of Socialism is a tight little book written by a collection of very intuitive intellectuals who lack the academic penchant for pretentiousness. If I had the means to buy one and place it in every hotel room across the country next to the holy bible, I would. But I don’t! So the best thing I can do is tell every person I know to read the ABC’s of Socialism.

Brevity can’t be undervalued here, you could read the ABC’s on one or two sittings on a toilet. Of course, it would be better to fully engage with the text as there are some real gems in each section. For example, here is a little excerpt from a section entitled “Don’t the rich deserve to keep their money?”;

“The socialist view of redistribution within a capitalist society must reject an important premise at play in almost all tax policy debates: the pre-tax income is earned solely on individual effort and owned privately before the state intervenes...the first preconditions for firms to earn profit is state-enforced property rights

Each section is a concise answer sandwiched in-between a simple question we’ve all heard a million times (I.E. Socialism sounds good in theory, but doesn’t human nature make it impossible?) and a shorthand answer (like “our shared nature actually helps us build and define the values of a just society”). Complete with fun little drawings. The questions themselves range from simple and abstract (“doesn’t socialism always end up in a dictatorship?”) to a fairly complex analysis of society as it currently stands (see “isn’t America already kind of socialist” or “will socialists take my Kenny Loggins records?”).

I feel like a lot of really great people in my life are unwilling to give up on capitalism because of the supposed luxury and stability they perceive it has given them and their families. I can hardly blame them for feeling this way. ABC’s editor Bhaskar Sunkara doesn’t claim to present all the answers in this volume either. At the same time, I can think of no better place to start introducing your friends or family or even yourself to socialism. The opinions are well argued and philosophical enough to convince someone on the fence, but could also serve as an introductory rebuke to those who are almost violently against the idea.

Then, of course, there is the question of why you might read a book on socialism at all. It may seem like an extreme option in a country that already seems so opposed down party lines. Maybe you’re a diehard Democrat that believes in the power of capitalism for good (like Robert Reich! He’s a cool guy!). While I’d love to see this book and many other books convert you, I can assure you that the left has a lot to learn from Marxism as a critical theory. Donald Trump’s firebrand, “more jobs” nationalism (which seems interested in bringing the bottom, heavily exploited classes necessary for capitalism back to America for some inexplicable reason) could perhaps find a formidable opponent in the idea that workers deserve to take home a far greater piece of the pie, even long after they are done physically working (think construction worker, truck driver, coal miner) or in the idea that all people deserve to live a happy and equitable life simply because they are humans.

If you want to read this book, shoot me an email and I will personally buy it for you.

The Washington Connection by Noam Chomsky

Sometimes at work, I will listen to the Democracy Now! headlines. The show is about an hour long and the news is a straightforward, unabridged version of key events. If we compare them to the daily headlines I read in the NYT or NPR Morning Edition’s, there are some...er...differences. It isn’t that Democracy Now! is too partisan - NYT and NPR can hardly be denied a partisan standing - rather Democracy Now! is not gunning to entertain with the news. The charge that it is radical is as much from form as it is content. It is devoid of any band profiles or stories about cupcake stores and at the same time, it doesn’t spare any details when describing death and destruction taking place across the globe. It should surprise no one that Noam Chomsky gives regular interviews almost exclusively to Democracy Now.

Reading Part One of the Washington Connection it is easy to see that Noam Chomsky is not out to entertain. Like Democracy Now, he and his co-author are in the business of speaking truth to power, often contradicting the official government and mainstream media’s version of events with specialists and primary sources. This is truly important work and it comes with a great risk of being wrong (any right-winger worth their salt will remind you that Chomsky denied Cambodian genocide for fourteen years). It is also very difficult to read, and I’m not just talking about density. Chomsky takes on the mainstream media, the United States Military, and public officials of all kinds, breaking US involvement with 3rd world fascism down into benign and constructive terror. Since World War II, our foreign policy of intervention has either been benign, where we allow tyrannical regimes to carry out atrocity because we get 80% of our coffee supply from them (like in Burundi) or it is constructive, in which case we supply anything from weapons (like in Indonesia) to ground troops and bombing campaigns (like in Vietnam) to protect our business interests/investment opportunities and those of our allies.

I certainly don’t believe that history, politics, or current events have to be packaged in a fun and entertaining way, but the depth of cover up and propaganda that Chomsky claims is staggering. Many of the reports he refutes - outside of maybe Vietnam - are still officially on the record, it is way easier to believe these accounts than it is to acknowledge the conspiracy that Chomsky is trying to demonstrate. Many would love for Chomsky to be wrong both factually and morally, even those who would likely be sympathetic to his leftist message, simply because it would allow us to continue living in a world where our elected officials aren’t partnering with major corporations to perpetuate the conditions of a necessary (for capitalism) underclass around the word.These people especially should be reading the Washington Connection if only to ask the pivotal question: “what if he’s right?”

The Death of Adam by Marilynne Robinson

In the midst of reading 100% non-fiction in 2017, I decided to read Marilynne Robinson’s the Death of Adam after Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation. The idea was simple enough; read a book that supposes there is no place for religion in the modern world and then read a book that supposes there is! This is constantly a stance I wobble back and forth on and I was seeking opposing views. The Death of Adam was a foolish book choice for this purpose, but on the other hand, I don’t believe I’ve read anything that has inspired me quite like it has.

The temptation here is to treat “inspire” as a platitude, as though the Death of Adam made me feel good or reaffirmed beliefs I’d been mulling over. While it did those things, I’m more interested in taking action. As a set of essays self-proclaimed to take on all of modern thought, Robinson has taken to processing the topic as a way of challenging her readers to do the same. And her case for doing so is absolutely air tight.

We should be considering modern thought at all times. Any set of beliefs, progressive or orthodox, liberal or conservative, are rooted in history. Deriving the genealogy of these ideas is important. In Robinson’s first essay she discusses the influence that Darwinism has had on our economics, politics, and psychology. The effects have ranged from genocide to laissez-faire capitalism, all predicated on the immutability of evolution - the truth of which is very different than Darwinism. The essay is wildly educational, brilliantly written, and forces readers to think about the sorts of truths humanity has tried to pull moral codes from. Every essay takes on the subject of influence and history in ways that make one want to question the origin of everything.

I’m also very intrigued that Robinson refuses to take any opinion second hand. She goes right to the primary source to draw her own conclusions. There is no doubt that the immense amount of work this requires is masked by her effortless and gorgeous writing style. When discussing the merits of John Calvin, or Charles Darwin, or Marx, or Jefferson, or Freud, or anyone for that matter, Robinson does so with the authority of having read and studied their actual works. Her only citation of historians and academics comes as rebuke or demonstration of modern thinking gone astray. To the modern reader, no matter how well-read, one has to come to the realization that there are so many primary works, the worth of which we’ve only been assuming. I’ve never felt so pressed to read more.

The last bit of inspiration comes entirely from Robinson’s final essay titled the Tyranny of Petty Coercion (great title). Some of the most prolific and powerful writing I’ve ever encountered, Robinson dwells on the point that we’ve allowed our ideas to be censored because they are thought to have fallen out of fashion or to be uncool, dated, “delusional”, something it is cool to show irreverence toward. In it, she admits to being a liberal and a Christian, if I say she does so boldly do not take it to be melodramatic. You’re smart and passionate enough to believe the things you do, collective modern thought has nothing to lose and everything to gain from your categorical declaration of belief. Don’t be afraid to admit you’re a socialist because it will offend your girlfriend’s parents, or say you’re an atheist because it will break your mother's heart, or that you’re a liberal because your boss is a hot blooded conservative, or any of the opposite because the opposite is true! All we can do is go around inspiring each other. Robinson’s book is a necessary first step.

Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris

“That so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religions - to religious hatred, religious wars, religious taboos, and religious diversions of scarce resources - is what makes the honest criticism of religious faith a moral and intellectual necessity. Unfortunately, expression such criticism places the nonbeliever at the margins of society. By merely being in touch with reality, he appears shamefully out of touch with the fantasy life of his neighbors” pg. 57

Let’s be real, Letter to a Christian Nation is not a letter truly addressed to Christians, but we shouldn’t be harboring any illusions that it is either. For one, author Sam Harris admits that he doesn’t expect any hardline Christians to read it. Two, the distinction is in the title itself. Harris is writing to the nation of these United States, a nation which allows a considerable amount of influence derived from religious texts/beliefs into public life, policy, and societal endeavors. So while Harris’ book may be written in a way that addresses fanatical Christians, his true appeal is to moderates and secularists.

Harris is imploring the people of the United States to discover the difference between how we treat people and how we treat their beliefs. Consider how we allow Christian parents to abstain from immunizing their children or how we allow Jehovah's Witnesses to abstain from life saving blood transfusions. Do we do this because our nation is allowing religious freedom or are we simply exercising religious tolerance? It seems religious freedom would be allowing these groups to practice their religion free of persecution from the law, but the burden of justifying harmful practices should fall squarely on the believer, not the nation as a whole. Harris outlines countless more examples in this concise argument and one has to believe there are countless more. This is not an offensive riff against religious people, it is a treatise for intellectually honest conversation.

And one does not have to accept Harris’ assertions that there is no God or that the world would be better if everyone stopped believing in one in order to participate in his general premise. Granted, they do need to read between quite a few condescending passages to fully engage, but what simmers underneath is a really important and substantial argument about the way we should structure society. We should want to see society structured in such a way that does not tolerate self-harm or the harming of others or perpetual opposition to legislation, scientific research, and humanitarian effort designed to reduce suffering all on the grounds that it is considered religious freedom and tolerance to so.

There is tremendous benefit to reading Harris’ arguments with this in mind. If you are avoiding his works because you feel he is too offensive or condescending or hot-button, then you are part of the problem Harris feels this nation has. The greatest human and societal achievements haven’t been attained without making swaths of everyday people very uncomfortable, in some cases even murderously angry. It is time we begin to discuss how to be intolerant without cruelty, start with this book.

Evicted by Mattew Desmond

When talking about the housing crises and subsequent recession of ‘08, I used to blame it almost entirely for my parent’s divorce. I’d usually posit that had the market not crashed, employment not taken a nosedive, then my mom and stepdad could have made things work. This was largely an effort to couple a personal affront with a larger criticism of the system. The problem with what I was doing was not relative to the truth of the matter, but more of a problem with using the power of narrative to contextualize flaws in the system. After all, my parent’s divorce was not proof of predatory lending or high stakes debt investments, the only credibility it lent my argument (assuming it is true) was that my life was adversely affected by the housing market crash. This is an example of a strong rhetorical tool overtaking the argument it was meant only to bolster.

I’ll be clear, this is far from what Matthew Desmond does in his book Evicted. Desmond meticulously documents poverty in Milwaukee inner cities and rural trailer parks as only a professional journalist could. While first focusing on two landlords and some tenants, he then magnifies these stories, tracking them into some increasingly dark places. Evicted is an exceptionally important book because of the way in which it documents our country’s failure in dealing with our most vulnerable citizens. These are not sob stories, they are gritty realities meant to frustrate the reader.

Each tenant, or character as you might mistakenly be apt to call them, is extorted by their landlord in the most sickening ways. They are thrown increasingly into drug addiction and poverty as eviction after eviction piles up. The stories are heartbreaking, unfair, and gut wrenching. Every American should read them so they can get a glimpse of the way this country is designed to profit off suffering. The idea is that, unlike regular, middle-class tenants, in order to make a profit off our poorest citizens, the landlord must milk a high number of them for everything they are worth. This makes the eviction a pivotal tool. It allows landlords to remove a tenant at the moment they become unprofitable. The result is a terrifyingly fast carousel of poverty and profit.

Despite the fact that Desmond litters Eviction with hard numbers and detailed passages on flawed housing policy, it could still be entirely possible for readers to walk away from it thinking greedy landlords are the problem, or the government, or ineffectual social programs. This is because the main focus is on the way the narrative of downtrodden people like Arleen makes us feel, not what systemic policy most likely put her there. While the descriptions of poverty and the cyclical brutality of the inner-city may make us physically wince, they detract and overshadow the brief passages on causation. At the same time, the descriptions are necessary for any reader concerned with living in and creating a just society.

For this reason, Desmond's book is worth reading, but cautiously. It is an excellent ancillary text that lends itself to a worldview already privy to the flaws of capitalism and America's perpetual reliance on poverty for profit. As a conversation starter it runs the risks inherent in narrative style non-fiction, so resist the urge to recommend it to your mother-in-law's book club.

The New Prophets of Capital by Nicole Aschoff

When Whole Foods came to Detroit I remember Kai Ryssdal of NPR’s Marketplace doing an interview with Walter Robb, the CEO of the company at the time. Admittedly, I was on the bandwagon; I thought a Whole Foods in Detroit was a good thing, was part of the revitalization effort happening across the city. Ryssdal, though, posed some difficult questions to a clearly annoyed Robb (who at one point says something along the lines of “that’s why I’m an entrepreneur and you’re just a journalist”). The skepticism Ryssdal expressed was rooted in gentrification and because of Robb’s continued counter to the concerns over high prices always boiling down to “just doing it right” Ryssdal ended up asking him what his plans were to teach the residents of Detroit how to shop at the store.  

This interview profoundly affected me. I began to see the urban revitalization led by Dan Gilbert and his ilk (whom I worked for at the time) as flawed, despite their intentions. At the same time, I had difficulties expressing this skepticism, I wasn’t sure why dumping private capital into economically disadvantaged areas seemed to result in more inequality when the intention and efficiency were in the right places. It was also difficult to explain to fellow suburbanites why I had my doubts about Detroit being labeled as a “comeback city” when they saw the city generating profit in ways it hadn’t for some time.

This was until, very recently, I read The New Profits of Capital by Nicole Aschoff. The New Profits basically breaks down the stories of successful, well-intentioned, entrepreneurs that seek to make the world a better place through capitalist markets. Aschoff focuses on four big players: Sheryl Sandburg of Facebook, John Mackey of Whole Foods, Oprah, and Bill/Melinda Gates.

Each section follows a pattern. The first part generally discusses the subject in a positive light; Sheryl Sandberg breaking barriers as a woman CEO, John Mackey hasn’t taken a paycheck in years and pays his employees profit share, Oprah’s unfettered benevolence, the Gateses wild success in reducing disease worldwide. This is important, Aschoff isn’t a snooty leftist whose aim is to defecate all over the capitalist class for being evil or greedy. She recognizes the importance of understanding each of these individuals as essentially good. For Aschoff, the flaw is in the philosophy.

The next part of each section usually delves into the limitations of capitalist markets to accomplish the endgame of each subject. The ideas here are enlightening and, in many ways, a total game changer. Some key points used against the subjects are that capital - unlike human needs - can’t be satiated, that markets require inequality, and that private capital is undemocratic. There are more about the limits of the individual vs the system (you can’t bootstrap your way out of poverty)  and conscious consumerism as well. Each was backed up by an abundance of sources demonstrating that capitalism necessitates inequality and a certain amount of people left behind.

The final part of each section talks about ways in which society could be constructed, democratically and socialistically, that would serve the needs of people over the needs of capital. Whether or not you believe this is the answer, The New Profits of Capital is certainly worth reading. If only to poke holes in the success stories capitalists are telling in the wake of immense suffering and poverty. I can’t recommend this book enough, I almost wish it were a documentary for fear that too few people will read it.

And just FYI, I emailed Aschoff at editor@jacobinmag.org to request a Part II featuring Elon Musk, Mark Cuban, Dan Gilbert, and Sarah Koenig from the podcast Serial. So...fingers crossed.