The State of Assassination

Recently there was an attempt on the life of President Donald Trump and I want to explore why that happened.  Now the answer might seem obvious, people think his election would be a disaster for the United States and the world.  But there is a deeper level that needs to be examined, why did they believe this, was it credible and what can be done, besides assassination to solve the problem, if any.

Firstly let's assume that the motive for the attempted murder was what people think it was, to prevent him becoming President again.   This is not a certainty but it's highly likely.  So what does preventing him becoming President accomplish?  It effectively transfers control of the organization of coercion into hands other than his, presumably those of Kamala Harris.  When looked at this way, as the transfer of the control of millions of troops, trillions of dollars worth of military equipment, trillions more of surveillance equipment, tens of thousands of prison cells, hundreds of thousands of regulatory bureaucrats and trillions of pieces of information on US citizens and others, it's a wonder it doesn't happen more often.

How not to argue against the Economic Calculation Problem

The Economic Calculation Problem is a serious, possibly fatal, problem for claims that socialism can increase well-being.  It posits that planners cannot make rational decisions about resource management without prices formed by profit maximization by private owners of factors of production.  So in other words you need a free market, at least in capital, land and labor to maximize the accomplishment of goals, even socialist goals like good houses for everyone.

The first false counterargument is to attack the word “rational” and assume it means a false assumption of what goals are rational.  It does not.  It merely means the ability to reason about how to achieve those goals.  The original article was called “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth” but it equally applies to a theocratic commonwealth, a feudal imperialistic state, or any other area where a planner seeks to maximize something through control of the economy.  The question isn't “Is this a smart thing to try to do?”, it's “Can we find the best way to do it, given current resources?”.  This means rationality is always possible and required, because trying to achieve your goals irrationally is stupid. 

Similarly just because socialists aren't trying to maximize money but the provision of needs that doesn't mean you don't need  to plan rationally.  The ECP isn't about trying to be rich, it's about trying to achieve the goals planners are trying to achieve with the limited means available.   It doesn't matter if the planner is trying to maximize yachts and private planes for his employers as possible or food and shelter for the hungry.  Optimization is still possible and desirable.  

Imagine a world where everyone agrees everyone can have anything, and work is strictly voluntary but they recognize a social duty of the able to create more than they consume.  How do you decide whether to use create more solar panels or increase transmission efficiency to get more power?  Or should you discourage people from doing the activities that consume power?  All approaches reduce total utility, the first two by diverting resources from other useful endeavors the last by reducing the enjoyment of the people, that enjoyment being the goal of the whole thing.  Without factor prices you can't tell what's more expensive OR what's more valuable, and they are different things.  If you increased solar power when reducing transmission losses would be use less valuable resources or vice versa people have less access to goods.  If you encouraged people to use less electricity when generating more is the most efficient way to produce more happiness again, you're failing to optimize what you're trying to optimize.   

Using engineers and experts to try and overcome this problem won't work either.  Yes, the optimization of resources will involve engineers, agronomists, chemists etc. but they are not specialists in optimizing resources.  They all rely on outside price signals to tell them what tasks are worthy of their attention, what is worth doing and what isn't.  Consider whether to build a mine to extract a potentially valuable ore.  To know whether to do this one must know how much more valued things will happen if you have the ore.  But to know this you must know what other means could be substituted for this ore, what those means would otherwise be used for and how valuable that is.  It's true that engineers routinely include budget estimates for projects that allow planners to assess the viability of a  project.  But these budgets don't set their own prices, they observe prices established outside the project.  Even if it were possible to establish correct prices in the absence of a private market in factors of production, engineers/chemists/designers don't have that skill. In addition you must know how valuable goals are relative to each other.     

Another non-starter of an argument is that prices could be set by a central authority.  Prices are there to express the desirability of not using the factors of production.  They only work if they indicate the actual utility and difficulty of replacing the factor.  The planner doesn't know this, and can't know this. To know enough to set the price of a resource he would have to know the relative scarcity of every resource that could be substituted for it, partly or wholly and the interactions of that substitution with other resources and projects.  This is impossible.  You can't know everything about every transport route, every mine, every factory, let alone every worker or every technical subject.  That's the whole problem.

Profit-maximisers however know enough to quote a price, which is all you need to assess whether to use this resource or another.  Profit-maximisers will not price perfectly of course, that's why losses happen, but they have both the information and the incentive to make a good estimation of actual value.

Another thought was to make decisions on resource use without using prices and just account for each resource separately.  So a project would use X amount of steel, Y amount of concrete, Z amount of skilled labor etc.  But this involves tracking literally thousands of different resources (or even hundreds of thousands depending on how you define categories) and comparing the billions of ways they could be combined.  Even if this could be done theoretically with perfect inputs, you don't have perfect inputs.  You would have to know the disposition and condition of every useful resource in the economy, including workers, who are not fungible or identical and then run billions of  simultaneous equations hoping nobody put in false information.  They did.  

Speaking of computers, no they don't help.  The big problem is not the lack of information processing, it's the amount of information that would have be conveyed to the planner, much of it subjective, possessed by an enormous number of people and/or hard to communicate to a formal body in real time. Only by summarizing the information in a price can it be made simple enough to communicate efficiently.  The ECP could just as easily be called the economic communication problem.  Imagine spending half your life typing answers into a computer, and then realizing they didn't ask the important question they had no idea even existed. That's how computer would “solve” this problem.  

So how serious is the ECP?  Some planning can occur under socialist systems.  Just because you can't find a precise number for how much more resource approach A would cost versus approach B doesn't mean you can't make decisions.  They just won't be very good ones.  Resources will be expended to achieve goals that should have gone to other goals, and resources that went to the first goal go to the others.  Now there will be cases where the correct choice is obvious. Nobody makes rail tracks out of titanium but the cost is enormous for the more marginal cases.  It is not a financial cost but a cost in results.  One hospital instead of two, 90 KPH trains instead of 120, cancer deaths reduced by 20% instead of 50%, that sort of thing.  It is not trivial.

A better measure than the Bechdel test.

The Bechdel test[1] is seen as a marker of feminism, if a work passes it it's implied that somehow that means it good for women, or their rights or something. But a work that passes this test need not be feminist or not anti-feminist or even not misogynistic. I propose the Asexual Alien Test (AAT) as a better test for feminism, misogyny, misandry and other things you might want to know. The AAT imagines that a extraterrestrial from a species without distinct sexes (e.g. hetromorphic) watches a film or consumes another work with the sexes of characters pointed out to them. Based on their viewing what would they conclude about males and females? For instance viewing "Star Wars" would lead them to believe that females were rare, usually in leadership positions, brave, intelligent and often combat capable. [1] From wikipedia: The movie has to have at least two women in it, who talk to each other, about something other than a man.

Uber, price gouging and class warfare.

Uber's was price gouging in Sydney in the wake of the Cityrail delays on March 8.  For the sake of the working class I hope they continue to do so.  Price gouging is generally seen as evil businessmen taking advantage of poor, hapless, consumers.  In the case of Uber however almost 3/4 of the benefit of "price gouging" goes to the working man.  Or possibly the working woman, the Uber computers are not clear on the difference.  Given the prices allegedly paid for Uber trips clearly those "price gouged" were relatively rich.  Poor people don't generally pay $500 for a trip from the city to Mount Annan.  According to google maps that should take a bit over an hour.  So some worker got 72.5%*$500 = $362.50 AUD for the trip. This is a good thing for the working class. 

But Credible, I hear you cry, you're an anarcho-capitalist, you love rich people and hate the poor right?  Wrong.  What I love is humans getting what they want, provided it doesn't infringe anyone's rights.  Charging a rich person more when something is in short supply doesn't infringe anyone's rights.  While in an ideal world neither rich nor poor would have suffered hours-long delays at least because of Uber the rich can get home.  This benefitted not just the rich Uber passengers but also bus riders who had less crowding and delays than otherwise would be the case.  

Also the voluntary transfer of wealth from rich to poor served the interests of both.  The Law of Returns says the marginal utility of money to poor people is greater than to rich people. So a transfer of money from poor to rich would theoretically raise total utility.  This is a far better argument for socialism than "fairness" arguments.  However obviously a coercive transfers are unlikely raise total utility as history has proven time and time again.  Here however the transfer was voluntary, the rich trading time for money at a rate the poor were more than happy with.  The higher prices available obviously would have caused some Uber drivers to clock on who otherwise would not have, which didn't happen with traditional taxis to the same extent.  Increased supply of useful services and their distribution to those who valued them highest were achieved. Both money and time ended up with the people who wanted them most.  Which isn't surprising since getting things to the people who are prepared to trade most for them is what capitalism does.

But didn't the workers and Uber management take unfair advantage of the consumers?  Well what makes it unfair?  The passengers have no right to have Uber drivers give them a ride.  They have no right to get a ride ahead of other passengers.  If they were treated unfairly they should be able to point to something they should have been given that they weren't.  But they were given everything they were requested.  They wanted a ride and they got it.  They preference over hundreds of other potential customers and they got it. So what weren't they given?  Oh, yeah, all of that for no additional money.  That's not a rights violation, that's a reality check.  The people complaining about the high prices they were charged didn't complain that they got home ahead of people who weren't prepared to pay as much.  So they wanted the benefits of a system that charges high prices, but not to pay the actual high prices.  Frankly it's upper class arrogance at it's worst.

If black lives matter, why do we still have communism?

This essay isn't what you think it is.  You probably think that a right-winger is comparing the vast slaughter communism creates with the relatively modest number of killings by police of black men.  No I'm saying modest number of killings by police of black men is part of the vast slaughter communism creates.  

Some might be skeptical of police communism but they do provide service to citizens "according to their needs" and it gets funded by income tax i.e. "according to their abilities".  Don't bring up that they don't actually provide service completely according to need.  No communist does and we're not having the "it's not real communism" argument.   

But surely racism is the cause not communism, right?  Nope.  At worst 60% of black deaths at the hands of US police are due to racism.  This is assuming that all of the disproportionate black deaths are due to racism.  The greater violence of US police compared to UK police is responsible for well over 90% such deaths.   This is because the UK has much less than 10% of US police deaths per capita.  So even compared to other police services organized on communist lines the US is far more lethal to blacks than it would be if simple racism were the problem.  

So why would removing the communist system largely solve the problem?  Because the problem is one of incentives and accountability, and communism does both badly.  Consider what has to happen for a police officer to be punished for killing someone.  The body that employs him, the government, has to admit it's at fault.  The people who have to cooperate with the cops to help their prosecutions have to   act against them.  Fundamentally the system has to decide to inflict harm on it's own support.  The only reason this would happen is if the political cost of not punishing the cop is greater than not doing so.  This removes accountability but crucially it removes it both ways.  If a cop isn't punished when public perception says he should be it's blamed on political efforts to protect him, even if that is not the case.  

Privatizing police would remove both problems.  The government wouldn't control the private police, so they can't be blamed for their actions.  Because there would be multiple competing private police forces any police officer would be investigated by one (or more) independent organizations.  His buddies couldn't have his back even if they wanted to.  As a private citizen doing a private job he would have no special privileges like "qualified immunity".  The government decision to prosecute or not a private cop would not be seen as a political decision, any more than prosecuting any private citizen would be.  No interest group would see it as enabling abuse if cops didn't get charged.  A failed prosecution wouldn't be seen as a political blow either, merely incompetence. 

Lawsuits against private cops would also be more just because they would not be political.  It would not be a political matter whether a police organization settles a case of supposed police brutality.  There might be accusations of racial injustice, but those accusations wouldn't be used to win elections.  They would be a matter of corporate PR.  

Speaking of corporate PR the cops would have a great incentive to behave and to hire people who will behave.  Even ignoring lawsuits there's the problem that people hire people that protect them, not shoot them.  An officer that can't be trusted to refrain from homicide is not an asset to someone trying to compete in a market.  What is an asset is an officer that will respond to things that hurt their clients, and only those things.  Enforcing drug laws, arresting people who braid hair without a license won't get new clients.    

If government provided funds to individuals to buy their own police protection the poor would still have protection.  Possibly they would have more protection than they currently have since a private firm would have to protect their clients to avoid losing them.   In some cases police forces have failed to protect some minorities for decades, effectively leaving them with no police force (although they still get taxed).  In the event of widescale violence against a group police firms would have incentives to protect, rather than abandon, the oppressed.  

All problems with police, past and present, ranging from race-based oppression, political spying and intimidation, selective enforcement depending on victim or offender, repression of sexual and religious minorities etc. all stem from the police being part of the State's monopoly of force.  All stem from the Marxist mantra being applied to policing.  It's time to use the best method for producing cars, holidays, and insulin to producing security.  It's time to say no to communism, if you really want to protect black people, or anyone.

Stakeholder capitalism is just fascism for a good cause. Which means it's just fascism.

The first claim of "Stakeholder capitalism" (which I will call stakeholderism) is that it treats all stakeholders equally, which is a lie. Stockholders alone under Stakeholderism are not allowed to have anyone represent their interests alone.  Customers are allowed to buy solely on their perceived costs and benefits alone. Similarly workers are not compelled to keep at their jobs, either permanently or when they wish to take a break.  All other parties can proceed as though their interests were paramount to them except for stockholders.  

So it's based on a lie, but might it still be a noble lie, good for society?  No.  Even assuming that the goals of Stakeholderism are noble and worth taking control of someone else's property, this does not achieve goals easier than current methods.   Everything that can be done by taking control of companies policies could be done cheaper and more effectively by simply legislating or paying the companies to do things.

To understand why consider the people who would actually implement the policy of Stakeholderism and their incentives.  These would be corporate executives that get promoted and paid bonuses according to at least 3 competing goals.  These would be 1) long term profit, 2) short term profit and 3) serving the political goals of the government.  Let's not pretend that the goals would be set by anyone else but the government.  Their incentive would be to appear to be achieving all of these goals, even if that's impossible.  They would not be accountable for the failure of any of these goals because it would be impossible to sort out what was done to achieve which goal.  Any failure to be profitable would be blamed on the effort to achieve "social*" goals.  Any failure to achieve "social*" goals will be blamed on the necessity to produce profit.  They would have no special training in achieving "social*" goals  Any training they did have would be inadequate because there simply isn't the time to learn to be a good profit maker, a good social reformer and actually work at either profession.

But the incentive structure gets worse when we consider the government.  Large corporations are vulnerable to control by government because even small decisions can cost them millions or even billions of dollars.  They need to keep the government sweet at almost all costs.  So the corporation has a massive disincentive to pursue solutions that conflict with a government agenda.  Actually it's worse than that because no corporate officer could be sure how pursuing social goals might politically influential people.  So they would avoid funding or otherwise helping any program that might be politically controversial.  This is actually worse than leaving social programs to the government, since the government presumably knows what politically influential people want because they tell them.  If Program A has features that might offend feminists, race hustlers, "family values" people or whoever but it actually doesn't offend them, the government would know.  The corporation wouldn't even ask for fear of a backlash and potential political costs.

Stakeholderism actually makes the problem of government control of corporations worse.  If an organization openly says that it's all about profit they can't be questioned for pursuing it.  By claiming to be all about social good it makes it easier for the government to pressure them into supporting programs that suit the government.  There is no guarantee that programs the government supports will  achieve worthwhile social goals efficiently or at all.  There is no guarantee that government goals will be positive.  Governments have supported, at various times, racism, classism, inverted classism, religious bigotry, persecution for political opinions and homophobia.  Now you might say that the bad days are all behind us.  But if that's the case explain why Trump was either needed or happened (depending on whether you're for or against him).  

Now consider the control corporations have over government, which is inevitable once corporations realize the government controls them.  If a group controls you then human nature makes you want to control them, at least to the extent their control is neutralized.  This means that government might be prevented from examining the results of those pursuits by corporate influence.  If corporate influence isn't sufficient to prevent an examination the examination is unlikely to be objective.  The judgement will be made on political grounds not objective benefits because either the corporation or it's opponents will rig the results.  This is almost literally the worst method for determining the worth of a project.

But at least Stakeholderism provides more resources to achieve these noble goals right?  No, taxation can already transfer as much resources as Stakeholderism could to "worthwhile" causes.  The limit in either case is the potential collapse of the company not the unwillingness of corporate executives to support social goals.  If the income is taxes they have no choice but to support such goals.  Government doesn't ask.  Worse Stakeholderism encourages dodgy accounting to inflate the apparent cost of pursuit of social goals.  

Stakeholderism also encourages action on the wrong scale.  Large corporations are, or should be, at the most efficient size for their commercial pursuits.  Smaller than a certain amount and they cannot access economies of scale, larger and they can be crippled by management problems or other diseconomies of scale.  There is no reason why the proper size of an organization to correct a social problem would be even close the the proper size of any particular corporation.  If an effort is sufficiently small compared to the organization then it won't have a significant effect on it's decision making, it will be ignored by those in charge.  This will lead to either under- or over-resourcing of a project because the organization has no reason to care about small amounts.

A good program to correct a social ill requires a number of things, 1) resources, including labor, 2) a plan to efficiently use those resources, 3)  a method to asses the good and bad effects of the program, 4) a way to adapt the program to minimize the bad effects and maximize the good (if necessary by scrapping the project),  5) a way to avoid interference in the program by those who interests are compromised by it.  Stakeholderism is worse at all of these criterion that current methods, bad as they often are.

* Actually political goals.

Why racism is not an issue of "predatory" capitalism

This is a review of "Why racism is an issue of predatory capitalism" by Sam McKenzie Jnr. At no point in his article does Mr. McKenzie define capitalism, so he's not a serious thinker. Nevertheless he deserves a reply, because he wasted my time and must be punished.

 "Capitalism and racism are two systems in the soiled fabric of America’s flag that many agree will never lower or end."

Starting with a mixed metaphor isn't great but perhaps he was on a deadline.

"Until now, I don’t have many words on record about capitalism and how changing capitalism is key to ending racism."

Well you could start by showing that societies that ended capitalism became less racist, or at least didn't get more racist.  Since racism predated capitalism as most historians understand it it would be hard to argue that capitalism caused racism , but again he doesn't define capitalism.  Maybe what he calls capitalism actually predates racism.  Racist stereotypes by the way date back to at least ancient Athens.  

" In addition, the Black middle and upper classes don’t stand on solid ground because racism makes them more likely to fall into lower classes."

Actually we can't say that.  If there is significant racism that's a barrier to black people getting into the middle and upper classes, meaning that those that do achieve it are more capable.  Therefore it might be the case that black middle and upper class people are LESS likely to fall into the lower classes than white people people.  This is really his second claim and his second claim without evidence.

"But for those who fall, capitalism is an accomplice, an accomplice that demands the widest class divisions."

And here we go from unconfirmed claims to outright wrong ones.  The class divisions of capitalism are nowhere near as big as those of North Korea, medieval Europe, Dahomey under the warrior queens or almost any other society.  Capitalism is the greatest negater of class in existence.  There are no capitalist lords who can execute peasants, no capitalist bishops who can be tried only in ecclesiastical courts. When leftists talk about privilege they prove how little privilege there is.  I mean REAL privilege is being able to carry a weapon when no-one else is, or demand trial by combat.   It's not having people not assume you're stealing stuff in a shop. 

"In her book, bell hooks also writes, 'capitalism creates an environment of domination.' "

Before capitalism was there an "environment of domination"?  Hell yes, so clearly capitalism didn't create it.  Did it sustain it then?  Well it depends on what you call "capitalism" and again, because Mr. McKenzie is a professional agitprop producer he didn't.  What we do know about the actual progress of what most people call capitalism is that it eroded domination.  It ended slavery and serfdom in country after country. 

What caused most of the domination during the time when "capitalism" could be said to exist?  Well there's colonialism, which was a massive money loser and therefore not what most people call capitalist.  It was also exclusively empowered by government, not private business, although private business did of course take advantage of opportunities, abusive or otherwise.  There's also war, which again, is a loss-making government endeavor.  So again not "capitalist" as most people understand it.

 

"Capitalism and racism have an unending collaboration.

This alliance is visible in environmental racism, wage gaps, food sources, housing prices, lending practices, the drug trade, healthcare, the criminal justice system, student loan debt, and even stereotypes."

 

We will see below that he doesn't show this alliance is visible in any of these.  In fact he doesn't even show that "environmental racism" exists, let alone that capitalism increases it.

 

"We’ve seen businesses hide under capitalism as an excuse for dumping toxins in Black neighborhoods. It’s far too easy for business executives to say, 'we’re not racists, we’re capitalists.' But for the people on the receiving end of that toxic line, that’s a distinction without a difference."

Ok, firstly when have we seen this?  And what would be the point?  Dumping toxins in neighbourhoods gets you in trouble regardless of the race of the residents.  Even if capitalists did say this why would it not be true?  Do you imagine that someone who dumps dioxin in a black neighbourhood wouldn't do it in a white one?  Why?  

 

"Many health disparities swell in Black communities from the noxious combination of capitalism and racism that leaves people parched in food deserts with no stocked, affordable, and quality grocery stores."

So are you saying that there are no such stores because people don't want to sell to black people, or because black people don't make such businesses profitable?  Because if capitalism is stopping people selling "quality groceries" in black neighbourhoods where rent is cheaper then racism doesn't come into it.  Capitalists wouldn't open, or keep open, a loss-making store in a white area either.  If changing the race doesn't change the outcome, there is no racism. 

 

If on the other hand he's saying that "stocked, affordable and quality grocery stores" would make a profit that's worse.  He's saying that there are literally thousands of opportunities for profit and every single one of millions of potential capitalists are so racist they ignore it.  Bear in mind thousands of them are black. 

 

"For those who wish to grow old in their homes, it’s capitalism that prices out long-time residents."

No it's other people who want to live in those homes.  Why is the desire of one person to live somewhere more important than another person's desire to live there?  He seems to think that staying in a house you neither built nor paid for is somehow a right.  He doesn't justify this implication, or even make it clear, because he's a propagandist not an intellectual.

 

"That same capitalism allows preying banks to lend without end..."

Again, what does he mean by capitalism?  He seems to be condemning credit expansion here, but that's something government interference in the market creates, not the market itself.  Is he saying the current central bank model is capitalism and no other system is?  Because if you can get rid of the central banks the banks can't "lend without end" and therefore capitalism without central banks doesn't have this problem.  Or is he saying that there are multiple capitalisms and the one we have now allows these practices? 

 

" and use the most biting and bloodsucking practices."

Such as?  And where is his evidence that it's capitalism, rather than the State that allows these practices?  In a capitalistic system without massive state interference in banking might these practices end?  Might free market competition and a lack of government guarantees persuade bankers to abandon practices that alienate their customers?    Talking about what he refuses to cover takes up more space than what he does cover.

 

"If we want to talk about the drug trade, capitalism and racism push drug dealers to push drugs."

No drug buyers do that.  Nobody sells drugs because they don't like black people.  They sell them because that allows them to consume more goods and services.  Unless you propose a system where satisfying consumer demand doesn't benefit you that's going to be a constant.  Imagine what that system would be like, if what you produced had nothing to do with what someone wanted.  Still want to abolish capitalism.

 

"For a pharmaceutical industry, that’s callous with a stupidity and a cupidity for cash, we can blame capitalism for the lack of regulation and access."

There are literally billions of dollars of regulatory hurdles in the drug business.  Satisfying regulations takes YEARS.  If this is what he calls "lack of regulation" what would he be satisfied with?  And how is it capitalism's fault that drugs are hard to access after government adds years hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of bringing them to market?  This man seems to know literally nothing about the subjects he talks about.

 

"but healthcare and gaping wage gaps aren’t the concerns for a frighteningly frigid and rigid system of capitalism conjoined with racism."

You have shown literally no evidence for racism in the health care industry.  As for the frigidity and rigidity of the system where is the evidence that's due to capitalism and not the massive interference in the workings of capitalism in the healthcare industry?  Healthcare if probably the second most regulated economic sector in the USA, after banking.

 

"With criminal justice, capitalism and the criminal justice system are an illicit pair that reproduce unequal brutalization. It’s capitalism that heavily arms police forces as their suppliers get richer. "

No police forces are not capitalist institutions and without capitalism the police would still be armed.  Or do you imagine that police are only given guns so politicians can place gun orders?  Because that's paranoid as hell and provably wrong.

"The prison system has a quenchless demand for more prisoners to fill their ready-made roles because of capitalism."

But the prison system is mostly not capitalist and wasn't capitalist at all for the first century or so of it's existence.  In fact many prisoners are there for being capitalists. 

"But also, it’s class and capitalism that make it easier to avoid jail or get out of jail for the right type and price."

Again, the court system isn't capitalist.  Even the legal system isn't very free market as there are strong government controls to restrict the trade.  Without restrictions on capitalism legal defense against criminal charges would be much cheaper, probably within the means of the poor.  But even that isn't the real problem.  Again the court system is not a capitalist system.  It doesn't have customers and therefore is not constrained to bring cases only against those who people want brought before it.  People who have not aggressed against anyone and owe nobody compensation can be brought in and subject to it's judgement, regardless of whether anyone thinks it's worth spending the money to have this happen.  

 

"When I think about our schools, I see how capitalism and racism lead and lace them at every level. "

Then you're delusional because the education system in the USA is almost pure socialism.  Tens of thousands of dollars of a product is given away for free, mostly to people who wouldn't buy it for half it's cost and in many cases to people who don't want it at all. 

"Then for Black college graduates, saddled in a rat race with student loan debt much heftier than white students, "

No explanation is given of why that is or if this is after controlling for course selection.  Do black students take more expensive courses?  I don't know, so I can't say if this claim is even meaningful. 

"And as industries either saturate or abandon captive communities, predatory capitalism can engineer stereotypes with its systematic and selective exploitation and exclusion."

None of this means anything.  He doesn't define what "saturating" a community would mean, nor how that community is "captive".  He doesn't say what "engineering" a stereotype would look like.  He doesn't show that "exploitation" has a meaning, let alone a negative one.

"My justice requires restitution for this mess. "

It's either justice or it's not, there's no such thing as "my justice". 

"To see progress and to end racism, we must finger capitalism too.

And with all the ways predatory capitalism attacks us by race, we need many hands striving to change capitalism.

Capitalism and racism are symbiotic, and capitalism finances the system of racism.

Malcolm X rightly told white America they 'can’t have capitalism without racism.'  ”

There is literally no evidence for these claims in the article. 

"It’s clear white America wants capitalism and racism. "

White people have been voting against both for decades.