International Women’s Day Statement

While I, as a non-binary identifying person, have a really hard time connecting to my own sense of womanhood, the people around me still view me and treat me as they would a woman. Thus, I understand the oppression. Being treated like I don’t know as much; like I can’t go as far; like I can’t be as strong. We have to remember to make room not just for women’s bodies, but for their minds, their hearts, their passions. We need to make room for them to have muscles and body hair; to study math and science; to play in the dirt and like G.I. Joe more than Barbie. We need to make room for the women who have dyed blonde hair and read Cosmopolitan just as much as the women who go into politics. We need to make room for the unashamed housewife and mother who chose not to work, and we need to make room for the women who choose careers before family. We need to stop allowing the word “woman” to define what we

We have to remember to make room not just for women’s bodies, but for their minds, their hearts, their passions. We need to make room for them to have muscles and body hair; to study math and science; to play in the dirt and like G.I. Joe more than Barbie. We need to make room for the women and girls who have dyed blonde hair and read Cosmopolitan and Vogue just as much as the women who go into politics. We need to make room for the unashamed housewife and mother who chose not to work, and we need to make room for the women who choose careers before family. We need room for the Hillary Clintons, the Elle Woodses, the Serena Williamses, the Oprah Winfreys, the Ellen Degenereses, the Janet Mocks, the Laverne Coxes, the Madeline Stuarts, and so many more. We need to stop allowing the word “woman” to define what we should be, and start defining it by what we strive to be.

We must also begin to make room in feminism for our sisters of color, for our sisters who are religious and modest, for our sisters who are sex workers, for our trans sisters, for our sisters who still have some learning to do, for our sisters with disabilities, and for our family members who identify now as men but were socialized as women and experienced the plight of womanhood firsthand. There is no time for party lines, divisions, ignorance, or hatred. The patriarchy is at work constantly, and the only way we can truly do something about it is if we stop letting things divide us and we form a united front against ALL FORMS OF OPPRESSION. We don’t fight just for white women, just for cishet women, just for middle class and wealthy women, just for English-speaking or American-born women, but women everywhere. Starting today, starting right now, starting with me and you.

With power,


Why Conservative Immigration Reform Doesn’t Work

Since Trump was elected president, I’ve been hearing a lot of conversations about his wall, deportations, and undocumented citizens in general. People claim that this wall would keep Mexican people out; that deporting undocumented citizens works and that we only deport undocumented criminals; that these criminals depress wages and take American jobs; and that all of the people here who are unauthorized are here because they snuck across the border. These views are shared by many conservatives and are a large reason conservative people voted for Trump. Under the cut, I explore these arguments and address them individually with rebuttals and citations.

Continue reading “Why Conservative Immigration Reform Doesn’t Work”

An Ongoing Discussion on the Flaws and Strengths of the Free Market

I had the pleasure of getting to hear Dr. Christian Nasulea speak about the free market system vs communism and socialism in Romania. I’ve been a big critic of capitalism and the American free market system for a while now, and that is based in my understanding of the fact that capitalism is built upon people working to live and eventually being exploited and made to be reliable on a system that will only ever exploit them. I’ve got a slightly less revolutionary view than some of my other leftist and Marxian friends, but I digress.

Under the cut, I will outline some of Nasulea’s main arguments against socialism, and then I pose a few questions and other things to ponder on. I also went into some of the Facebook groups I am a part of with other leftists and I will be outlining some of the discussion that occurred there, as well.

Continue reading “An Ongoing Discussion on the Flaws and Strengths of the Free Market”

Philosophy of Social Movements

I’ve been doing a lot of work studying social movements and philosophy. Being that I study philosophy and social justice, I try to connect them a lot, and I find social movements really interesting because they rely a lot on the concepts of human nature, community, and political philosophy and ethics. Under the cut is a very rough paper outlining some of my thoughts about modern social movements as seen through some different philosophical lenses.

Continue reading “Philosophy of Social Movements”

Capital Punishment Debate

I’m taking this really awesome class on contemporary moral controversies, and every week for half of the class we do a lesson, and then spend the other half debating a topic. Last week it was my turn to debate, and my professor knows how against capital punishment I am (I’ve taken his classes before), so he decided to have some fun with me and put me on the side in favor of capital punishment. Under the cut, I’ve added the argument I prepared for my class debate.

Continue reading “Capital Punishment Debate”

A few words on Memorial Day

I just wanted to say a few things about today.I am eternally grateful for those men and women who have risked their lives for my freedom. I will never be as brave or as dedicated to the liberty of others. This day is in their honor. 

That being said, I also have a few words about how we treat these men and women who are still alive. We have people in office, mostly republicans, who vote against bills that would provide better healthcare for our veterans, including mental healthcare. These same people vote against programs that would help vets get jobs after coming back from deployment. These same people won’t raise the minimum wage which would help veterans who are working minimum wage jobs. These same people refuse to help the homeless and the drug addicts and alcoholics, many of whom came back from war with nowhere else to go and have no way to get rehabilitation. We can NOT praise these men and women on the battlefield, sign them up to fight or wars, and then put people in office who turn against them as soon as they land back on our soil. If you really want to remember the fallen, honor them by making sure that the next generation of men and women serving us and our great country can come back to the things they deserve: a job, healthcare, and a place to live.

I also wanted to point out that many young kids, especially in the south and in republican run states, end up joining the military because they can’t afford an education. We can’t live in a country where kids have to risk their lives to make sure they can go to school. 

We also need to pay close attention to who is serving us. Muslims, Mexicans, African Americans, and people of all races, backgrounds, religions are fighting to keep us safe. I want to make sure everyone understands that these people may be unfairly targeted upon re-entering this country. The same people keeping you safe are the same ones you feel will do you harm. Let’s also especially recognize our population of illegal immigrants that join the army being promised citizenship and then end up being deported or detained afterwards. Nobody who risks their life for our country deserves to come back to that. 

Today, let’s remember that we’ve lost people who were shining examples of the American spirit, and we have people today, fighting for us overseas,who are just the same. Let’s make sure that they are taken care of when they return home.

The New Anti-Feminist Movement

So, there’s a new problem making its way around, similar to that  Mumps outbreak at Harvard. This new problem is the newest anti-feminist movement being lead by women. If you thought white feminism was bad, hold on to your seats, kids, ’cause this is going to be a wild ride.

Recently, girls everywhere have decided that they don’t even, like, need feminism. That’s, like, cool and all, except these girls are pretty much all white, cis, and hetero. There’s no problem with that, generally speaking, but when you say you don’t need the feminist movement and can identify with all three categories, you kind of, well, ERASE ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO STILL NEED THIS MOVEMENT.

When white, cis, hetero women have the audacity to say “we’re doing just fine” it’s because they forgot that women of color and LGBTQ women exist. It’s because they see their pay gap closing and forget that Latina and black women make even less than 78 cents an hour. It’s because they see themselves represented more often than not on television and don’t have to worry about being one of the queer women who die on tv every 10 days. It’s because, even while facing harassment, they will still face nothing compared to what trans women face.

There’s also the huge issue here of American/Western privilege. Maybe it is easy for you, pretty, blonde, white girl. Maybe your country doesn’t choose to oppress you. Maybe you’re lucky to be born somewhere that allows you to drive your car and doesn’t require you to have a chaperone, and where it’s a lot less likely your husband will one day throw acid on you (or even your child). Maybe you got lucky and don’t need feminism because your family won’t disown you for having sex before marriage. Maybe you’ll never have to have sex to support your family. Maybe you’ll never be raped by a group of men so badly that you die from it, and still be the one blamed.

But maybe, just maybe, your privilege so clouds your views that you can only see women who look, think, talk, and act like you do. Maybe the woman you see in the mirror doesn’t have bruises because her boyfriend is one of the good ones. Maybe when you were a little girl no one had already sold you off to a man three times your age. Maybe when you got your first job you made the same amount as the guys. Maybe you see Hillary Clinton and think, “That could be me one day,” when so many young girls of color can’t think the same. Maybe you can walk down the street and not try to shrink down for fear of someone trying to clock you as transgender.

Maybe you’re lucky enough to not need feminism, but that doesn’t mean you should have any right to take it from the girls all over this world that do need it. How very dare you, anti-feminist women.

Why All Millennials Should Watch BoJack Horseman

I recently started watching Netflix’s original cartoon entitled BoJack Horseman. My brother recommended the show, and I thought maybe it was a Family Guy-esque show with anthropomorphic animals as characters. It turns out I was dead wrong, and, after three days of binge-watching the show, I realized exactly how much I needed it in my life.

If you’re anything like me (and many people in our generation) you’ve got anxiety about where you’re going next in life and if you’ve accomplished some of the things you had hoped to by this point; you’re a little bit depressed and a lot cynical; you’ve started to understand that sometimes there are people with no good in them; you also started to understand that there are people who are broken and make self-destructive choices in an attempt to numb their pain; you’ve wondered if, after all of your mistakes, it’s too late to be better. BoJack Horseman attacks all of the feelings we have about life in a way that begs the question, “Exactly how much of this show is comedy?” The answer to that question is this: The entire show is comedy, and sometimes we, the viewers, are the joke.

BoJack Horseman provides the type of comedy that makes us laugh at ourselves and our entire world. It forces us to consider who we are while giving us room to laugh at antics of the characters that seem to make so many of the same mistakes the rest of us do. BoJack Horseman isn’t the type of funny that makes you call up your friends and repeat punchlines. BoJack Horseman is the type of funny that makes the weight of the world just a little bit lighter by exposing the dark realities many of us experience.

BoJack, voiced by Will Arnett, gives us the character we’ve all been waiting for. He’s a washed-up, alcoholic, drug addicted, cynical celebrity trying to find his place in the world. He questions many times what kind of person he is and if he will ever redeem himself. His parents hated each other and neglected him while he was growing up. In an attempt to find himself and success again, he hires a ghost-writer, Diane, to help him complete his memoirs.

Diane, a human, is painted as an awkward, Schopenhauerian pessimist with her own family issues, and she constantly mentions how much she dislikes parties because she never knows what to do with her hands; But we also see her intelligence, her yearning to find a success that might make her family proud of her, and her want to make an impact on the world. Diane is the girlfriend of Mr. Peanut Butter, another anthropomorphic character. Mr. Peanut Butter is a dog who became a celebrity shorty after BoJack, and it is mentioned many times that Mr. Peanut Butter consistently rips-off BoJack’s ideas. BoJack thinks Mr. Peanut Butter is disillusioned and is often annoyed by his obliviousness and naivety. We also get to see characters like Todd, a human who lives rent-free with BoJack because he was kicked out of his home by his parents for his “lifestyle” which included binge-playing video games and getting high, and Princess Caroline, a cat that desperately wants to find love as she ages and so she compulsively takes care of those around her, usually getting hurt in the process, and ending in her channeling all of her energy into her career as BoJack’s agent.

Through these characters, we get to ask some important questions and hear some insightful, sometimes honest-to-a-fault answers. My personal favorite so far has been the question, “How do you not be sad??” A young BoJack sent this question to his hero and famed racehorse, Secretariat. BoJack begins by saying that even though he is a good kid who likes school, he gets sad sometimes. The question personally hit home because I have struggled with depression for a really long time, and I think that once you start getting older, you understand that certain types of sadness never really go away, and BoJack’s character certainly stays true to that. Secretariat’s response is even more peculiar in its raw honesty. He replies with, “BoJack, when you get sad, you run straight ahead and you keep running forward, no matter what. There are people in your life who are gonna try to hold you back, slow you down, but you don’t let them. Don’t you stop running and don’t you ever look behind you. There’s nothing for you behind you. All that exists is what’s ahead.”

Early on in the first season we also have a great moment where BoJack has a bit of a monologue about America’s views and treatment of its military, the American war mentality, and mainstream media. He argues over muffins with Neal McBeal, who is a Seal (both animal and Navy) said to have just returned from war. The media responds to BoJack’s treatment of McBeal in outrage, and the country erupts in hatred for BoJack whom everyone now believes hates veterans and doesn’t think they are heroes. There is also a lot of subtle commentary here about the mainstream media latching onto stories and blowing things out of proportion and encouraging a mob mentality, but I digress. BoJack’s friends and agent finally convince him to go on air, on Mr. Peanut Butter’s reality TV show, and apologize to the seal so that he can fix some of his extremely tarnished reputation. There is a whole plan here, and it all pretty much goes wrong, but the most important part is BoJack saying the following, “You’re a hero. The troops are all heroes, every single one…And I don’t believe saying that cheapens the word and actually disrespects those we mean to honor by turning real people into political pawns…Also, I am not deeply ambivalent about a seemingly mandated celebration of our military by a nation that claims to value peace telling our children that violence is never the answer while refusing to hold our own government to the same standard…Furthermore, I do not find it unbelievably appropriate that this conversation is taking place on reality television, a genre which thrives on chopping the complexities of our era into easily digestible chunks of empty catchphrases.” People eventually tune out towards the end, which I took as a more subtle statement about the general populous being pretty much ignorant of most of the issues pointed out in BoJack’s monologue. No one cared about the troops or veterans in the show until the media told them to care, and once the media stopped caring, everyone was once again victim to their own ignorance.

Lastly, there is the big question we all sometimes ask ourselves: “Do you think I am a good person, deep down?” BoJack asks Diane this question as they both sit on a rooftop. BoJack, at this very moment, is vulnerable but somewhat hopeful about his future despite finally being told how people see him after all of his mistakes and recklessness. Diane is BoJack’s foil in many ways, and we can see that in her reply, “I don’t think I believe in deep-down. I think all you are is just the things that you do.” Her response is the exact opposite of what BoJack wants to both hear and believe at this very moment, and yet Diane tells him that essentially his mistakes have made him who he is. In Diane’s mind, is no deep-down because that would mean that when we hurt people, we can look past it and say that deep-down that mistake isn’t who we are, and this is something BoJack has tried to tell himself for years.

So, if you’ve gotten this far in this essay, you’re probably wondering how exactly it relates to social justice and being a millennial. In relation to social justice, I will simply give you two words: social commentary. The show is ripe with it, and somehow only ever gets better as time goes on. Most of the social commentary in season one is done monologue style with one character going off on a tangent and the other characters brushing it off and paying little or no attention to it. Every time a character is saying something worthwhile on screen, another character is acting as the “common person” by being completely ignorant and finding amusement in reality television, or sometimes completely zoning out. As for its relevance to being a millennial, the show puts on screen many of our anxieties about life. Many of the characters share our fears about growing older and finding success, our regrets about hurting those we care about (and ourselves), our thoughts on war, our hatred of blind optimism and ignorance, and, of course, our strangely unwavering hope that we can somehow be better than we are right now and leave this world better than we found it.

If you aren’t yet sold on the show being for you and need one last push in the right direction, I’ll leave you with one of the most satisfyingly honest motivational quotes you may ever hear: “Every day it gets a little easier. But you gotta do it every day. That’s the hard part, but it does get easier.”

Anti-Capitalism and Globalization

“Capitalism is against the things that we say we believe in – democracy, freedom of choice, fairness. It’s not about any of those things now. It’s about protecting the wealthy and legalizing greed,” (Michael Moore). While many people think this is just extremely harsh commentary on a perfectly good system, it really gets down to the root of a movement that has people all across the world working for socioeconomic equality- the anti-capitalist movement. Although the movement gained momentum in the U.S. during movements like Occupy Wall Street to help citizens at home, as the level of economic inequality in the United States is unjust. Although some levels of inequality will always exist in society, with the large disparity between the upper and working/lower classes, we see a lack of participation in society from those who have less. When it comes to things like voting and asset-building, those living in poverty get left in the dust, leaving some people in a superior position, but many more in an inferior. These social and economic hierarchies go against the very democracy on which the US was founded, and also influence the very ideals that now have the entire world fighting for equality, as well.

First, we have to understand where inequality comes from and how it has changed throughout history. Economic inequality stems from a few different factors- the main one being that income is in many ways directly related to one’s ability to vote, be educated, and have a say in the political sphere. Starting at the founding of the United States, one can point out that freedom, equality, and basic rights- like those to property- provided the foundation for our current democracy. It is plain to see, then, that those values that were once important are still quite important today. Talking specifically about natural rights, it was a firm belief that many of the things outlined in the Bill of Rights were things that were supported and were seen as natural rights, or rights given upon birth or citizenship.

The democracy that was founded in this country was meant to uphold those laws for all whom they pertained to, and protect the rights of the people so that everyone somehow had a say in government. While this seems great in theory, one can see that even the founding fathers did not actually include all citizens or US born individuals. Africans were still slaves and considered property, working long days for no pay, while women didn’t exactly have a say in the government at that time period because they weren’t equal to men. White men who didn’t own land, those who weren’t wealthy, also didn’t have a say in the government, and worked on the property of the wealthy to be able to have housing. Jews and Catholics weren’t allowed to vote, and the voting age then was 21, ruling out any men below that age. One can conclude, then, that those who were involved with, and benefitted from, government policy, were strictly white, Anglo-Saxon, protestant males who owned land- roughly only 20% of the population ( Those who did not fit into this category were unable to have a voice in policy that would benefit or free them, and while many things have changed in this country, traces of the political past bleeds into class disparity on a daily basis. Doctor of philosophy Michael J. Thompson writes in an article, “Politics…will by necessity have economic interest at its core since the development of liberal capitalism means that the notion of power in society becomes more intimately bound to the operation and structure of the economy (Thompson).” Through this quote one can truly begin to understand that those who have political power in this nation have it because of their place in the economy. In essence, those who benefit from the economy are also benefitted by government policy.

Another factor is that many people are at an extreme disadvantage with their income. Many people don’t make nearly enough money to be able to support themselves and their families, and those who are making enough money to do so are usually the ones who can actively influence economic policy because they have more freedom to participate in society. About 47% of the US population- a little over a million people- work minimum wage jobs in the food service industry ( While many states have their own minimum wage that is higher than the federal minimum wage ($7.25), even those sometimes don’t measure up to the cost of living. It makes sense, then, that many people working fulltime jobs are still not making enough to be above the poverty line. The US government has measured poverty the same way since the 1960s, not factoring in that today the typical family spends more on transportation, child care and housing than fifty years ago. Using the same measure as fifty years ago makes the struggles of those not making enough money invisible. Many people are forced to make difficult decisions about what to spend their money on and become unable to make long-term investments. These long-term investments can be called assets, and they include homes and retirement funds. These are seen as incentives to keep working and break out of the poverty threshold, but the wealth gap has grown so much that is nearly impossible to do now, leaving many excluded from the things initially put in place to empower them, and making them doubtful of their elected officials.

In an interview, philosophy professor and author Elizabeth Anderson says, “Extreme wealth inequality also leads to the de facto control of government by the rich (plutocracy), and so is incompatible with democracy…More…distributions of wealth spread opportunity and hence freedom more widely and fully than systems in which wealth is concentrated in a tiny self-perpetuating class.” In essence, Anderson is saying that as the US stands, the rich have more power in society. In saying that, it means we are getting further and further away from democracy and leaning more towards a plutocracy in which opportunity and freedom is limited to the upper class. This is because there is little distribution of resources in the US.

Looking at the Gini coefficient- a nation’s measure of inequality between 0 and 1, in which the closer the coefficient gets to 1, the less equal it is- we can see that in 1998, the US had a coefficient of .41. Many experts estimated the coefficient to be around.44 in 2004, and .469 in 2010. What exactly does this number mean? In 2004, it meant that the richest 10% of people in the US made 17 times more money than the lowest 10%. The number goes up even further when investment values are added into the mix, being that the poor usually don’t make money off of them in the way the rich do. When investments are added in, the Gini coefficient for the US is somewhere around 57.4. In terms of the coefficient, this would mean that nearly 60% of America has almost all of its wealth and resources, and slightly fewer than 40% have nearly none. In a salary comparison between average floor workers and CEOs in the US, researchers found that a CEO makes on average above 500 times more than a floor worker. In Jeffrey Winters’ article, he points out a way to measure how wealth is intertwined with political power. He calls it the Material Power Index, and it shows exactly how and where power is concentrated between the classes. He says, “When measured by wealth, the MPI for the richest Americans is 30,000 (it jumps to 50,000 if home equity is excluded). The weakest American oligarchs have between 125 and 200 times the material power of an average citizen.” He says that the reason this is dangerous in a democracy is that the oligarchs (the wealthy class) are divided on most political issues in such a way where they can’t exactly be generalized, but are a united front against threats to their concentrated wealth (i.e. higher taxes).

In his article, journalist Daniel Weeks says that the politicians upon whom many impoverished citizens rely do not rely anymore on those citizens, as most lobbying and fundraising is done through the wealthy. He goes on to say that poverty is so persistent in society because millions of impoverished people have become silenced in the political sphere. Statistics show that many impoverished people of the voting age choose not to vote because they don’t feel as if their voices are being listened to. As a matter of fact, studies indicate that non-voters are much more liberal than voters, and would vote for fairer wealth distribution than those who do choose to vote. In a study done by professors William Franko, Nathan Kelly, and Christopher Witko, findings showed that in states where there were smaller voting gaps between the wealthy and poor, policies tended to favor the poor more, states had “higher minimum wages, stricter lending laws and more generous health benefits” than states that had a higher voting disparity.

Aside from the lack of liberal voters, there is a lack of liberal fundraising, especially by minorities. Of 1,360 super PACs (committee that donate to politicians), only 9 are dedicated to Hispanics and blacks, while just one has raised money- a black, republican super PAC that usually votes against minority interests (opensecretsorg). These minority interests can be viewed through census data from past elections; in 1996, 84% of African Americans and 73% of Hispanics voted for a democrat. In 2004, the number went up to 88% for African Americans but down to 53% for Hispanics. In 2008, 95% of black people voted for democratic nominee Barack Obama, while 67% of Hispanics voted for him. During his second election in 2012, 93% of African Americans and 71% of Hispanics voted for Obama (all percentages taken from Clearly, the interest of minorities lies mostly with democrats, but as so few minority super PACs exist, and only a conservative one is donated to, it is easy to see that if people are not lobbying for the person whose policies will most benefit them, there will be little to no class mobility for those who need it the most.

In one USA Today article, the most expensive states to live in the US are outlined. $75,000 is used as the baseline to living comfortably to explain what the equivalent is in each state (in this article, living comfortably means you have no need for outside money and can put money aside for retirement). New York is the 3rd most expensive state on the list, with the article concluding that the New York equivalent of living comfortably on $75,000 in a state like Pennsylvania would actually add up to $100,000 when NY’s cost of living is factored in. Another article by Dave Gilson shows that although productivity has surged, NY’s wages have remained stagnant. Since 1990, the cost of living has increased over 60%. The minimum wage has only increased 21% since then, and a year’s earnings at the minimum wage is only a little over $15,000. The income required for a single worker to have real economic security today is $30,000 in comparison. Had the median household income increased with the cost of living, it would be over 90,000 dollars today, instead of just 50,000. Both articles are extremely telling in how much money people would need to make to be able to afford living without having to worry about being able to pay for necessities. A wage gap that is large enough such that one class has excess and another is barely scraping by for necessities is not just, and needs to be addressed so that all can participate in the many things being financially stable has to offer. In knowing this, many people are fighting against the fact that our capitalist economy has become a part of the way our government is run, and are now pushing against capitalism and the live-to-work, work-to-live lifestyle.

The anti-capitalist movement is said to have started in 2001 at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City. Officials from North America, South America, and Canada were discussing many issues affecting the western hemisphere. 20,000 people had gathered outside and were marching in support of fair trade, when suddenly, police attacked with tear gas, rubber bullets, and a water cannon (Graeber). Protests continued on into the night, with police continuing to fire rubber and plastic bullets at protesters, intentionally aiming for heads and groins, and tossing tear gas canisters. Although this sparked many questions about militarism in the police force, it also showed people exactly how far elected officials would go to keep people in line and maximize profits by using old-world, imperialistic methods of paying as little as possible to those living in developing nations. The truth is, many government officials would rather go to war to stimulate the economy for short-term success than wait to see the long-term effects of paying livable wages to workers. Michael Miller, in his article “Reforming capitalism for freedom”, says that part of the criticism of capitalism isn’t against the system itself, but the version of capitalism we currently have, which he calls “managerial-crony capitalism”. He says that this means businesses and governments plot to create “regulations that only serve their interests” and turn profits, and their policies are “all mixed in with age-old vices like greed and imprudence”. In other words, capitalism went wrong when businesses and governments became more worried about the money they were making than the consumers from whom they were making it. This is probably the reason many people rely on Terrorism Capitalism.

Terrorism Capitalism, or Disaster Capitalism, is a new term referring to the usage of war and other man-made disasters to regulate the economy. “In 2011, the 100 largest contractors sold $410 billion in arms and military services. Just 10 of those companies sold over $208 billion,” said Sam Weigley in his USA Today article. These numbers highlight the fact that when we fight wars, whether in Iraq, Germany, or anywhere else around the world, we seem to just make money. As a matter of fact, in 1940, just around the time World War II started, the DPC (Defense Plant Corporation) was founded by the US government to create a market for airplanes, which would be the ultimate weapon during WWII.  Before the DCP was founded, the government only spent 5% of its gross income investing in industrial capital, but only three years later, “the government accounted for 67% of U.S. capital investment. (Hyman)” The founding of the DCP totally transformed production in the U.S., but it also gave way for the government to use war as a means to stimulate the economy and create growth. It is really no wonder why the period after World War II is called The Golden Age of Capitalism, especially as almost two-hundred billion dollars matured in war bonds at this time.

In her book The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein outlines what once was America’s post-Iraq plan. Former President Bush’s director of the Iraqi occupation authority, Paul Bremer, wanted to open up the borders of Iraq and have unrestricted imports without inspections or taxes. Almost overnight, Iraq became one of the widest open markets in the world. New Bridge Strategies, a business started by the former head of FEMA, Joe Allbaugh, was at the forefront of this “experiment in frontier capitalism (Klein 339).”  The business, through the use of its political connections, planned to get rights for distribution of Proctor and Gamble products, and possibly even open up a 7-Eleven and a Wal-Mart. In her book, Klein says these stores would’ve had the ability to take over the country (340).

Not coincidentally, every time an instance of disaster capitalism happens, the anti-capitalist movement gains momentum. In the spring of 2002, in the biggest meeting of anti-capitalists since 9/11, people gathered to protest the U.S. aid to Israel. 10,000 people marched in solidarity with Palestine in New York City, and many people marched in Washington D.C. to protest the Iraq war. Activists began to feel more secure in their positions as polls showed around 40% of U.S. citizens opposed a war with UN support, but some of the biggest anti-capitalist groups decided not to take a stance on the war. This caused a 50% decrease in activist participation, and ended the movement just before it was about to blow up (Ashman).

One of the biggest reasons the anti-capitalist movement died down at this time was because many citizens began to see war-spending as a way to live out our democracy. After 9/11, the American people didn’t know where to turn or who to blame, and so government spending on a war that made people feel strengthened and empowered was more supported than not. Anti-capitalist groups felt as if they would be betraying this country if they didn’t support the efforts being made to retaliate. Similar things happened during the cold war. Although many people thought that what the U.S. was doing could end in war with Russia and millions dead, they also didn’t want to protest and be seen as unpatriotic or as if they weren’t supporting our democracy. Although there is nothing wrong with patriotic sentiment, it becomes a problem to believe that capitalism and democracy are the same in this country. Author and U.S. army veteran Timothy Gatto says that socialism supports American ideals and is an anti-capitalist himself. He says that socialism can fix what is broken in America, and help the working class, whereas modern capitalism only benefits the rich. Gatto also highlights when many anti-capitalists like himself are afraid to speak out about socialism as a solution to America’s financial crises, “In this nation we have a tendency to disregard socialists and socialism because of the cold war propaganda that equated socialism with communism and repressive regimes that operated under the ‘socialist’ banner.” He continues to say that even though cold war communism never embraced true socialism, all of the propaganda from the war has created permanent negative feelings toward the economic system.

Another reason the anti-capitalist movement is so rooted in foreign policy is because many anti-capitalists view America’s involvement abroad as modern imperialism. Abbie Bakan wrote an essay on the subject outlining why our involvement in Afghanistan was purely capitalistic, saying that the country is strategically located by the Caspian Sea, which was a political and corporate interest to the U.S. as it had the largest source of oil outside of the Middle East. Bakan also says that the U.S. wants to “develop a major pipeline route through Afghani territory”, rather than campaign for alternative energy sources, which she said would be connected to a “call for peace” abroad. While a peace initiative abroad would be the first step towards equality for many, Western nations would need to work for equality at home first, especially because they still face racism and sexism, in part due to the very capitalism they encourage. This is why many anti-capitalist leaders are trying to change the way they relate to minority groups and women.

The movement has been mostly comprised of middle-class, white men, but UK anti-capitalist organization leaders Simon Hardy and Ed Lewis say that they are working to get women and people of color more involved. They said there is no simple, or short-term, way to involve women and people of color, but rather people need to encourage increased involvement of both groups in politics. Hardy and Lewis said that during their first national meeting, they made sure both a male and female chair were appointed for each session, and that everyone involved was being proactive in promoting women taking important roles. They also said that moreso than women, black people are extremely underrepresented, and even though people offer suggestions telling them to go into predominantly black neighborhoods or write more articles about race, they understand that it doesn’t guarantee involvement in the organization. What they need, Lewis and Hardy say, is a group that proves they can earn victories for the black community and support them when they fight inequality, which is what the anti-capitalist movement is all about. And while it may sound ridiculous to many people, it has been proven that racism and sexism correlate to capitalism. According to a study done at the Frankfurt School, there is a correlation between those who believe strongly in a free-market, capitalistic economy, and those who are ethnocentric, anti-Semetic, and racist (Sidanius and Pratto 382). Although many believe the free-market is made to level the playing field for the working class and for companies, and eventually create “free societies (Benjamin Barber)”, it is clear that for many, “the bottom line trumps the common good and government takes a back seat to business (Barber).” This is means that the anti-capitalist movement isn’t just about the economy, but also social justice. A promotion of equality between people will eventually create an ideal economy because there won’t be any discrimination in the workforce.

Barber and many anti-capitalists believe that a capitalist government must transform its economic system, even though one of the costs would be prolonging a recession, but creating “new markets rather than exploit and abuse old ones” will create jobs, increase investments, and garner new consumers looking to buy “useful and necessary products”. The anti-capitalist ideology here is that Western nations would rather spend money on bottling tap water and selling it for more than it’s actually worth instead of purifying water in third world countries. Bringing about a change in modern capitalism in Western nations could help people all over the world, especially in the age of globalization. If businesses reform things at home pay fair wages to their workers, it would give people more money to put back into the economy, and it would get rid of the jobs overseas that pay mere cents per hour to vulnerable workers. The growing relevance of this movement is part of an attempt to recreate capitalism and reform it so that it works the way it was meant to- businesses compete to create affordable products that consumers want and need, ethically and honestly.