The Death Penalty – What’s All the Fuzz About?

[zhao]

substitute Patty Smith. or Leonard Cohen. or any artist you do like. and it's being used to sell lifestyle products or simply hallmark cards.

Louie Armstrong is a good example. i dismissed his music for years (when i was a stupid teenager) because it was being used to sell the cheesiest shit, and i made the mistake of equating it with the corny shit it was being used to sell. before i realized that he was AMAZING and was responsible for so much subsequent music in the 20th C, and was able to look past the superficial BS and appreciate the depth and complexity of his overwhelming body of work.

sorry didn't mean to start talking about music... but Islam and other spiritual traditions are kinda like that.

 

[Slothrop]

But Slothrop, the point of encouraging (often illegal) immigration would be not to bring more superconsumers into the U.S., but to create an underclass of people who will work at a much lower than "living" wage. This cheap labor would be exploited to cut production costs and "overhead" so that profit margins would gain given the existing middle class customer base's purchasing habits remained the same.

Yeah, I can see how that works, but Noel seemed to be saying that there's a benefit to capitalism in preserving language barriers so a lot of people can't even get most unskilled jobs and have to live on benefits.

An influx of cheap labor would suit the purposes of any business, but particularly those that, say, require the employment of factory workers, or a large number of any type of unskilled workers. Class stratification is the real biproduct of late capitalism, as we've seen--the point of capitalism isn't to make *everyone* more money, there is no sort of trickledown effect, the point is to make capitalholders more money.

Yeah. Although I'm not entirely sure in general to what extent capitalism (or rather, the actual independent agents who perpeptuate capitalism) deliberately creates an underclass to fulfill its cheap labour needs and to what extent the existence of unskilled and thus low paid jobs turns unskilled people into an underclass. Although obviously this happens in specific cases like dodgy immigration setups. And the result is the same either way.

To some extent there is a trickle-down in that (say) a hedge-fund manager or a skilled computer programmer can get rich while working at a salaried job and not actually owning the capital, although I guess you could view them as cultural-capitalholders.

 

[noel emits]

Firstly, this seems to be ascribing a bit too much self awareness to the system - surely capitalism functions as a lot of self-interested organisations trying to make themselves better off, rather than via some central committee deciding what's in the best interests of capitalism as a whole.

Actually In terms of the top level of economic structuring there is clearly a committee / committees - the IMF, the Federal Reserve, etc. maybe even other organisations that dictate to these. They orchestrate the monetary and finance systems so the house always wins. All that really matters to them is that this continues. So essentially this:

No company decides to employ more people because otherwise they might get ideas about not having to work, they employ more people because they think they can make money out of it. And they then influence government policy in a manner that enables them to make money as effectively as possible.

Is juts fun and games and kind of irrelevant in the big scheme of things.

And secondly, the amount of consumption you can do on state benefits is pretty sharply circumscribed. You're going to do a whole lot more if you've got a reasonably paid job. You don't suddenly stop using the NHS. You pay your own rent rather than getting housing benefits, so they aren't losing that. And you spend a great deal more on fast cars, consumer electronics, food, drink, nice furniture, clothes, the lot. And when all that goes to make the people who are influencing government policy richer, what incentive have they got to keep people out of work so they can keep getting at their £46 a week?

Like I said, they don't ultimately lose what goes into benefits or the NHS at all. And what does 'pay your own rent' really mean? Where did you get that money and where did the money come from in the first place? Did you get it without exploiting anyone?

But anyway - I didn't say people were encouraged to be on the dole, that's obviously not true, I just say that it doesn't really matter financially as far as the bankerment is concerned.

 

[Guybrush]

It’s the Willie Horton ad!

 

[Gavin]

It brings up a similar point though. Would it not be useful now to make appeals to the conservative / christian lobbies in the US an the grounds that unfettered capitalism and hijacked government can clearly be shown to be highly incompatible with their own stated beliefs, ethics and even personal interests?

Yes. Some people are saying this. Zizek says this. More "traditional" Marxists have said this. Maybe not to existing Christian lobbies, as they are usually run by insane evangelical capitalists, but through the creation of new lobbies. Many many working class and poor people are religious, and some on the left are getting over their anti-religious bias (the "culture war" that is a mask for class antagonism) and reaching out, showing how capitalism is actually to blame for the decline in "family values" that the relgious cherish. There are more green Xian groups. Some are looking at poverty -- a traditional Christian concern, hello Jesus! -- more structurally, not as a sign of moral failing. Liberation theology is very influential in Latin America, and has cache with the sizable Hispanic population in the states. This is by no means widespread, but it is a start.

The pro-identity politics consumerist "liberals" are the problem, not the solution. Don't forget how they caved in to authority in March '03. Burn down Whole Foods, not churches.

I have been flirting with some commie groups lately, but I am really disheartened by some of their tactics... the RCP (I know, I know) has really gotten behind the Jena 6 case, which has radicalized a lot of black people, but insist on harping on "Christian fascists" taking over the country in all their papers. Not a great recruitment tool...

 

[Gavin]

The right-wing press bangs on about it because fear and anger sell newspapers and smiley happy multiculturalism doesn't.

Consumerist multicult sells many other things, even to racists. Ethnic-fetish porn, world music, international cuisine...

The ruling class is a contingent bloc, not a smoke-filled room. It's schizophrenic, contains groups working at cross-purposes, constantly shifting and refining alliances. The Republicans are witnessing this with the immigration debate, in which Bush's pro-corporate "guest worker" program (a way to have a constant exploitable labor population subject to fines, repression, and surveillance without a chance of citizenship) clashes with avowedly racist Minutemen-types.

 

[noel emits]

Maybe not to existing Christian lobbies, as they are usually run by insane evangelical capitalists, but through the creation of new lobbies. Many many working class and poor people are religious, and some on the left are getting over their anti-religious bias (the "culture war" that is a mask for class antagonism) and reaching out, showing how capitalism is actually to blame for the decline in "family values" that the relgious cherish.

I knew lobbies wasn't the right word to use. I meant actual people, yes.

 

[Guybrush]

...

That’s an excellent summary, Gavin.

 

[Mr. Tea]

There's a fair number of churchmen and -women in Britain involved in the green, anti-capitalist and (not surprisingly) anti-war movements. The current Archbishop of Canterbury is very liberal, which has naturally led to a great deal of friction within the Anglican communion.

There are progressive Muslim leaders in Britain too, of course, but they don't tend to make as good headlines as the 'mad mullahs'.

 

[Gavin]

Doesn't this show the limits of Dutch tolerance though? Or at least how it's not actually tolerance at all? Of course I support gay rights, secularism, etc, but when you have a litmus test for what views get you into a country, how is that tolerance? And these are honest questions, so don't Tea and crackerjack go assuming I have already made up my mind on this because I've questioned it.

Still wond'rin about this one.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Still wond'rin about this one.

Well it's the old "liberal's dilemma", isn't it: if you extol the virtues of tolerance, to what extent do you have to tolerate the views of the intolerant? Personally I'm not in favour of policing people's minds, punishing them or expelling them because they have don't have the 'correct attitude', but that's not to say we shouldn't take action when people start to actually do things that either infringe the rights (as defined by a liberal, progressive society) of others or are designed to encourage such behaviour in others: hence laws against incitement to racial (and homophobic, etc.) hatred. So we're back to the 'lyrical terrorist'* again, aren't we?


*no, not Morrissey!

 

[mixed_biscuits]

ach, so much stuff has been reinterpreted by Maududi and Albanna and all that 12 century stuff that I think you can safely read around it without having read the core texts, you don't need to have read the bible to have an informed take on christianity. It would help, but you could read the koran and be no wiser as to why today's stuff is happening.

Surely most Muslims consult the Koran regularly? For that reason alone, it would make informative reading.

 

[mistersloane]

Surely most Muslims consult the Koran regularly? For that reason alone, it would make informative reading.

yeah totally, but i think reading round it rather than going to the core text would be the best way to start.

 

[IdleRich]

"Surely most Muslims consult the Koran regularly? For that reason alone, it would make informative reading."

Yes, but suppose - knowing nothing of the subject - you decided to learn about Christianity by reading the Bible. Say you read the ten commandments, especially the one that says "Thou shalt not kill" - it would not be unreasonable to conclude that no Christian could support the death penalty because it's unequivocally in direct opposition to one of the most important rules of the holy book - but of course you would be totally wrong in that conclusion.
You would also incorrectly conclude that no Christian eats shellfish (Lev. 11.10).
My point being that most professed Christians do not in any sense live by the rules of the Bible and there is likely to be a similar divergence in Islam.

 

[boombox]

You would also incorrectly conclude that no Christian eats shellfish (Lev. 11.10).

Most Christians, especially Catholics, regard ceremonial, dietary and other laws laid down in the Old Testament as defunct. The prevailing view is that,

"Upon the advent of Christ, the purpose of all the ceremonial and judicial commands, which was to pre-figure Christ, was fulfilled, causing them to be 'annulled' and 'dead'"
Thomas Aquinas

Only The Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus are fundamental - as the Catechism puts it: "the permanent validity of the Decalogue". i.e. Christianity

As for Christians supporting the Death Penalty, they are clearly not Christians per se, or at least are flawed Christians. However, if you read the Bible and the Koran you will find that
divergence from the texts would lead to intolerance and violence in only one case.

 

[crackerjack]

However, if you read the Bible and the Koran you will find that
divergence from the texts would lead to intolerance and violence in only one case.

Huh? Can you explain that?

 

[IdleRich]

"Most Christians, especially Catholics, regard ceremonial, dietary and other laws laid down in the Old Testament as defunct."

Of course, that was a joke.
However, people do use Old Testament justifications for the death penalty (and lots of other things) - "an eye for an eye" etc ignoring their supposed obsolescence.

"As for Christians supporting the Death Penalty, they are clearly not Christians per se, or at least are flawed Christians."

Well, that's as maybe, but America is regarded by the world as a Christian country and it has the death penalty, it also has religious leaders who support the death penalty. They would say that they are Christians, you would say that they are not. My point is that the Church does not follow the teachings of Christianity, it makes Christianity what it wants it to be. Without knowing much about it I think that that is likely to be the case in Islam as well.

"However, if you read the Bible and the Koran you will find that divergence from the texts would lead to intolerance and violence in only one case."

What do you mean? Which case? I don't think I understand what you're saying here at all.

 

[boombox]

I mean that the Koran is generally violent and repressive and that the Bible is generally the opposite.

 

[IdleRich]

"I mean that the Koran is generally violent and repressive and that the Bible is generally the opposite."

You're joking right? Have you read the Bible?

 

[boombox]

You're joking right? Have you read the Bible?

Yes. Look back to what I said about the Old Testament. In the Old Testament there are examples of hatred and violence. Jesus comes along and says no hatred and no violence please.