Last night, I went with a group of people to see James Cameron's new film, Avatar. My initial thoughts: only James Cameron can take Pocahontas, throw in a dash of FernGully and a pinch of Dances with Wolves, and turn it into a wicked 3 hour anti-imperialist, pro-environmentalist sci-fi epic.
That's not to say the film's great — Cameron's formula is tired to say the least — but it's still pretty damn good despite its unremarkable plot. Make no mistake, the movie's a visual masterpiece. Cameron takes CG filmmaking to an entirely new level with his revolutionary VFX, which are nothing short of stunning. And believe me, the 3D helps a WHOLE lot.
But sadly, the film falls flat in almost every other area. Don't get me wrong, I love a good old-fashioned action/romance once in a while, but a film as visually groundbreaking as this deserves an equally groundbreaking script. Instead, Cameron appears to have played it safe with cliche after predictable cliche, presumably to make it appealing to as wide of an audience as possible.
And while I appreciate its centre-left politics, I feel Cameron does them a bit of a disservice by disseminating them through simplistic stereotypes that almost ridicule themselves, e.g., idealized natives with, as a my friend once quipped, "a utopic level of peace and harmony with nature and each other," over-the-top American-style imperialism, a greedy corporate exec who cares more about his company's quarterly earnings than his conscience, etc.
Nevertheless, the movie as a whole has such an incredible impact that it mostly makes up for its unoriginal storyline and one-dimensional characters, as does the solid performances by Zoe Saldana, Sam Worthington and the rest of the cast. As many faults as this film has, they didn't stop stop me from enjoying it, and that's what I think makes it worth seeing in the theatre.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
how are you oppressed by the capitalist system of production?
Today I was asked by a young house painter, Can you tell me how I'm being oppressed by the capitalists who run the company? That's a difficult question to answer, but I told him the short answer is, (1) the capitalist — or employer if you prefer — profits far more from your labour than you do (exploitation), and (2) the product of your labour doesn’t legally belong to you (alienation).
Labour creates wealth (surplus value). But in a capitalist system, labour itself becomes a commodity, an object that's bought and sold on the market. Moreover, the product of your labour becomes a commodity that's divorced from the labour expended on its production, thereby obscuring the social relationship between producer and consumer (commodity fetishism).
Furthermore, the employer has the ability to increase their profit exponentially by reinvesting the surplus value extracted from your labour into their company while you, the labourer, are forced to spend your meager wages on the necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, etc.
So from one perspective, an individual might look at it like, "Wow, some guy will pay me a few bucks an hour to paint houses; now I'll have some money for rent, bills and food." But from another, wider perspective, there’s an entire class of people who’ve been created by the capitalist mode of production who must sell their labour in order to survive while others thrive by exploiting that labour.
This doesn’t mean, however, that the employer is necessarily the "bad guy," or even consciously in charge of this exploitation, since, as a friend of mine points out, "... the logic of the system seems to force the hand of the bourgeoisie as much as that of the proletariat" due to what Marx calls the "coercive laws of competition."
That's why some people want to see a radical economic transformation in which the exploitation, alienation and commodity fetishism of the present system are gradually eliminated via a more socialized mode of production. The question is whether such a system exists, and if so, how it can be successfully implemented.
Labour creates wealth (surplus value). But in a capitalist system, labour itself becomes a commodity, an object that's bought and sold on the market. Moreover, the product of your labour becomes a commodity that's divorced from the labour expended on its production, thereby obscuring the social relationship between producer and consumer (commodity fetishism).
Furthermore, the employer has the ability to increase their profit exponentially by reinvesting the surplus value extracted from your labour into their company while you, the labourer, are forced to spend your meager wages on the necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, etc.
So from one perspective, an individual might look at it like, "Wow, some guy will pay me a few bucks an hour to paint houses; now I'll have some money for rent, bills and food." But from another, wider perspective, there’s an entire class of people who’ve been created by the capitalist mode of production who must sell their labour in order to survive while others thrive by exploiting that labour.
This doesn’t mean, however, that the employer is necessarily the "bad guy," or even consciously in charge of this exploitation, since, as a friend of mine points out, "... the logic of the system seems to force the hand of the bourgeoisie as much as that of the proletariat" due to what Marx calls the "coercive laws of competition."
That's why some people want to see a radical economic transformation in which the exploitation, alienation and commodity fetishism of the present system are gradually eliminated via a more socialized mode of production. The question is whether such a system exists, and if so, how it can be successfully implemented.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
the war (read "blunder") in afghanistan
Listening to President Obama explain how he's going to fulfill his promise to win the war in Afghanistan by sending 30,000 additional troops reignited my political activism. I couldn't disagree more with the decision to send in more combat troops to support one of the most corrupt governments in the world, nor do I see how escalating the war in a country that's practically stuck in the stone age will make us any safer from global terrorism.
First of all, we can't simply occupy every unstable country with ties to al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. What about Somalia, for example? Or the border regions of Pakistan? Should we invade them too? And what about stable countries who're openly hostile to the U.S., or at the very least, harbour extremist groups who are? Military might alone can't win a war of ideology.
Secondly, while I can appreciate the argument that just pulling out of Afghanistan now will allow the Taliban and al-Qaeda to once again turn Afghanistan into safe haven for terrorism, what has our occupation achieved in the last 8 years? We've failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, we've pushed the Taliban and al-Qaeda into Pakistan, further destabilizing it, and we're arguably escalating a decades long civil war with our support of what's widely seen as a fraudulent government.
As Malalai Joya, a former member of the Afghan parliament, has repeatedly pointed out, the tribal warlords and drug lords in parliament are one of the main problems facing Afghanistan. Add to that crushing poverty and you have a situation that no amount of foreign troops can solve, especially in a region where foreign invasions are commonplace. I'd love to go into all the instances where we've created bigger problem with our meddling (e.g., Project FUBELT, Operation Ajax, Operation Cyclone, etc.), but the bottom line is that we should be helping to rebuild their society instead of supporting a corrupt government and expecting them to do it for us.
My thoughts about this are summed up best by a friend of mine who said:
The type of "win" we'd both like to see, which is ultimately what I think Obama's pushing for, is a stable and thriving Afghanistan; but like my friend, I don't think the current troop surge is the best way to achieve this goal. For whatever reason, Obama seems to be ignoring the real problems, as well as their solutions.
It can't be denied that Afghanistan played a major role by harbouring Osama bin Laden and other members of al-Qaeda’s leadership, as well as terrorist training camps, but is war really the solution? War might be able to bring about the necessary changes we'd like to see in Afghanistan, but let's be honest, positive change rarely comes from the barrel of a gun.
Al-Qaeda itself is an extremely mobile group of individuals and cells scattered throughout the world. Those who weren't already captured or killed in Afghanistan at the beginning of the war are thought to have fled to Pakistan or other neighboring countries and are still free to spread more of their brand of terror. On top of that, most of the resistance we're currently facing is from insurgents recruited (or conscripted) by the Taliban to defend Afghanistan from foreign invasion and occupation, not al-Qaeda. Many of these people are young, poor and often illiterate, and they see themselves as defending their homeland from yet another foreign invasion by non-Muslims (i.e., the Brits, the Russians and now us).
Although I think the Taliban themselves are a horrible, disgusting bunch (especially their views toward women), I can sympathize with the average Afghan who (deludedly) joins them to defend their country and their faith. That's part of the reason I think we need a different strategy. The more we fight, the more we're going to potentially radicalize the local population. I think building roads, schools and other infrastructure will do more to win them over than what we've been doing so far, but most of our resources are still going to counterinsurgency missions, often with innocent Afghans caught in the middle.
The way I see it, sending in more combat troops means a lot more good men and women are going to die for no good reason. When it comes to the "War on Terror" and fighting al-Qaeda, I think we should be focusing on intelligence gathering to find them and disrupt their plots, nation-building to help prevent places like Afghanistan from becoming havens for terrorism and specialized strikes, in collaboration with local governments when possible, to neutralize imminent threats to our security, not this gigantic military blunder.
First of all, we can't simply occupy every unstable country with ties to al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. What about Somalia, for example? Or the border regions of Pakistan? Should we invade them too? And what about stable countries who're openly hostile to the U.S., or at the very least, harbour extremist groups who are? Military might alone can't win a war of ideology.
Secondly, while I can appreciate the argument that just pulling out of Afghanistan now will allow the Taliban and al-Qaeda to once again turn Afghanistan into safe haven for terrorism, what has our occupation achieved in the last 8 years? We've failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, we've pushed the Taliban and al-Qaeda into Pakistan, further destabilizing it, and we're arguably escalating a decades long civil war with our support of what's widely seen as a fraudulent government.
As Malalai Joya, a former member of the Afghan parliament, has repeatedly pointed out, the tribal warlords and drug lords in parliament are one of the main problems facing Afghanistan. Add to that crushing poverty and you have a situation that no amount of foreign troops can solve, especially in a region where foreign invasions are commonplace. I'd love to go into all the instances where we've created bigger problem with our meddling (e.g., Project FUBELT, Operation Ajax, Operation Cyclone, etc.), but the bottom line is that we should be helping to rebuild their society instead of supporting a corrupt government and expecting them to do it for us.
My thoughts about this are summed up best by a friend of mine who said:
But as to the current troop surge, my point is that until we start to address the essential criminal nature of the regime there, we can't "win". But I suppose that depends on what winning is. Right now I don't think we are on the way to a stable [Afghanistan] with a thriving civil society where there are schools and opportunities to build a life, make art fall in love, raise a family: to make dreams come true.
The type of "win" we'd both like to see, which is ultimately what I think Obama's pushing for, is a stable and thriving Afghanistan; but like my friend, I don't think the current troop surge is the best way to achieve this goal. For whatever reason, Obama seems to be ignoring the real problems, as well as their solutions.
It can't be denied that Afghanistan played a major role by harbouring Osama bin Laden and other members of al-Qaeda’s leadership, as well as terrorist training camps, but is war really the solution? War might be able to bring about the necessary changes we'd like to see in Afghanistan, but let's be honest, positive change rarely comes from the barrel of a gun.
Al-Qaeda itself is an extremely mobile group of individuals and cells scattered throughout the world. Those who weren't already captured or killed in Afghanistan at the beginning of the war are thought to have fled to Pakistan or other neighboring countries and are still free to spread more of their brand of terror. On top of that, most of the resistance we're currently facing is from insurgents recruited (or conscripted) by the Taliban to defend Afghanistan from foreign invasion and occupation, not al-Qaeda. Many of these people are young, poor and often illiterate, and they see themselves as defending their homeland from yet another foreign invasion by non-Muslims (i.e., the Brits, the Russians and now us).
Although I think the Taliban themselves are a horrible, disgusting bunch (especially their views toward women), I can sympathize with the average Afghan who (deludedly) joins them to defend their country and their faith. That's part of the reason I think we need a different strategy. The more we fight, the more we're going to potentially radicalize the local population. I think building roads, schools and other infrastructure will do more to win them over than what we've been doing so far, but most of our resources are still going to counterinsurgency missions, often with innocent Afghans caught in the middle.
The way I see it, sending in more combat troops means a lot more good men and women are going to die for no good reason. When it comes to the "War on Terror" and fighting al-Qaeda, I think we should be focusing on intelligence gathering to find them and disrupt their plots, nation-building to help prevent places like Afghanistan from becoming havens for terrorism and specialized strikes, in collaboration with local governments when possible, to neutralize imminent threats to our security, not this gigantic military blunder.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
all the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players
It's complicated. I have all these thoughts and emotions swirling around inside my head that I can't get out. They haunt me with their feelings and ideas. They possess me with their relentless ferocity. I want to let them out, to set them free by giving them a voice, but they don't seem to want to leave. I confuse people with my words. I say things I'm not even sure I mean, or if I do, it's not quite like how it sounds. I want them to understand, but I'm not sure if they can.
Now I understand why I was the way I was in high school. I want to be that way again. To close myself off from everybody and express myself in other ways. My art. My poetry. My anti-social, self-destructive behaviour. To be as tormented on the outside as I am on the inside.
It's nobody's fault. I don't know why I'm the way that I am. I don't have some deep, dark secret about my childhood. No abuse. No real trauma to speak of. I'm not mentally ill (at least not medically speaking anyway). And yet, here I am, trying to give a voice to these ghosts of what once might've been my humanity. But then, I'm just being overly dramatic. Of course I'm human, whether or not I feel that way. I'm just like everyone else, except I don't have much of a stomach for this thing called life.
Life's a play (without much of a plot it would seem), and we're nothing more than actors putting on a show before the curtain comes crashing down. And most of us either think there's some big playwright up in the sky watching us and waiting to reward the good performances with heaven and punish the bad ones with hell, or we think the play itself is all there is and that we might as well have as much fun with our roles as we can before the curtain falls.
But what of those who think neither? The ones who throw away their masks in disgust? The ones who set fire to the stage and tear down the curtain with their own two hands? The ones who see the play for what it is and want no part of it? What of us and our bitter scorn?
And still my heart wages war against even this! It battles with love and compassion for all the actors on the stage, and with admiration for the beauty of the play itself. The turmoil just another act playing itself out on an internal stage, and wouldn't you know it, I'm playing my role despite myself! What a clever creation, so perfectly insidious in its designerless design. Maybe one day I'll find a way to exorcise these phantoms, these thoughts and emotions that won't give me any peace. Maybe one day I'll find a way to make people understand.
Now I understand why I was the way I was in high school. I want to be that way again. To close myself off from everybody and express myself in other ways. My art. My poetry. My anti-social, self-destructive behaviour. To be as tormented on the outside as I am on the inside.
It's nobody's fault. I don't know why I'm the way that I am. I don't have some deep, dark secret about my childhood. No abuse. No real trauma to speak of. I'm not mentally ill (at least not medically speaking anyway). And yet, here I am, trying to give a voice to these ghosts of what once might've been my humanity. But then, I'm just being overly dramatic. Of course I'm human, whether or not I feel that way. I'm just like everyone else, except I don't have much of a stomach for this thing called life.
Life's a play (without much of a plot it would seem), and we're nothing more than actors putting on a show before the curtain comes crashing down. And most of us either think there's some big playwright up in the sky watching us and waiting to reward the good performances with heaven and punish the bad ones with hell, or we think the play itself is all there is and that we might as well have as much fun with our roles as we can before the curtain falls.
But what of those who think neither? The ones who throw away their masks in disgust? The ones who set fire to the stage and tear down the curtain with their own two hands? The ones who see the play for what it is and want no part of it? What of us and our bitter scorn?
And still my heart wages war against even this! It battles with love and compassion for all the actors on the stage, and with admiration for the beauty of the play itself. The turmoil just another act playing itself out on an internal stage, and wouldn't you know it, I'm playing my role despite myself! What a clever creation, so perfectly insidious in its designerless design. Maybe one day I'll find a way to exorcise these phantoms, these thoughts and emotions that won't give me any peace. Maybe one day I'll find a way to make people understand.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
meaningful connections
Sometimes I think I think too much, but every once in while, those thoughts provoke some interesting questions about life. On the way home from attending a talk at PSU, for example, I sparked an interesting discussion on Facebook/Twitter with the tweet: "Technology has made the world smaller, yet we're more alienated than ever: how can I feel so alone when the world's at my fingertips?"
The next morning, my friend, Erica, commented on Facebook:
While humourous, her reply hit upon an idea echoed by friend, Matt, on Twitter:
I replied to both:
And then added on Facebook:
Less than 10 minutes later, Erica responded with:
I was kind of taken aback by how much she seemed to get where I was coming from. At this point, my friend, Brian, got involved by pointing out the role technology has played in connecting people with one another:
He brought up a great point, one that Matt had also touched upon via Twitter in response to my “ever-expanding universe” comment:
I couldn’t argue with either of their points, but then again, I wasn’t referring to simple connectivity as much as what I saw to be an erosion of meaningful social interactions and relationships in general. Attempting to address this, I wrote:
In the end, I still don't have any concrete answers, but at least I've been reminded of some things I forgot along the way. The most important one being: we're all more alike than we often realize.
Like Erica said, we're social creatures, and we all feel isolated at times, even if it's not always easy for us to admit it. But that shouldn't stop us from doing what we can to reach out and make connections with other people, whether it's by smiling at the grocery store, starting a family or responding to a friend's tweet.
The next morning, my friend, Erica, commented on Facebook:
Our monkeyselves need meatspace, no matter what we can sit and stare at.
While humourous, her reply hit upon an idea echoed by friend, Matt, on Twitter:
"Different medium, same old problem. Connecting with someone still requires effort from two people."
I replied to both:
And therein lies the dilemma. Sometimes I think we're like galaxies in an ever-expanding universe: drifting off into oblivion. As the world appears to get smaller with advances in technology, we seem to be drifting farther and farther apart.
And then added on Facebook:
I don't know. Maybe I just feel that way because I'm so socially awkward, but as I was sitting on the bus last night — watching all the people listening to their MP3 players and playing with their cell phones (not to mention me with mine) — the alienation was palpable.
Perhaps I've been reading too much Marx, but I can't help but feel this invisible barrier between me and my fellow bipedal primates, a barrier that doesn't feel natural at all.
I feel like the cow tongue of meatspace; nobody likes cow tongue, they'd rather have their Matrix-steak.
Less than 10 minutes later, Erica responded with:
Well, 20 years ago on the bus folks were doing their very best to ignore each other in an analog fashion (newspapers, books). I really think the invention of the suburb and the television have done much more to isolate ourselves.
I think a lot of us feel that barrier, just not everybody admits it. I think it is a common longing of a social animal that no longer lives in communal spaces. That's why I throw myself into whatever food rituals I can, get out into nature whenever I can, go out on a limb to make connections no matter how minor (smiling at the grocery store at the smallest end of the spectrum, having a child at the greatest end). You do what you can. Most of us have cow-tongue and are relieved when we find out the truth, that others do too. Matrix steak just doesn't have the nutrients.
I was kind of taken aback by how much she seemed to get where I was coming from. At this point, my friend, Brian, got involved by pointing out the role technology has played in connecting people with one another:
You can't blame technology; I know many people whose social interactions and lifestyles have improved because of increased connectivity. Think of how many new friends YOU personally have BECAUSE of technology and the internet. It's probably in the high dozens, perhaps hundreds.
Your friend Erica nailed it: It's always been this way, as long as we've been a society of suburbs. It's not like there were these rousing and engaging conversations on city buses or subway cars before cell phones, dude.
He brought up a great point, one that Matt had also touched upon via Twitter in response to my “ever-expanding universe” comment:
Says he who didn't want a mobile. We Twitter / txt more in 2 days than we communicated all last year between your visits.
I couldn’t argue with either of their points, but then again, I wasn’t referring to simple connectivity as much as what I saw to be an erosion of meaningful social interactions and relationships in general. Attempting to address this, I wrote:
I completely agree. And just to be clear, I wasn't blaming technology, simply commenting on the fact that I can still feel so lonely despite having the "world at my fingertips" via technological advances that have made the world so much smaller. (Seriously, it's hard to get all philosophically complex in just 140 characters. You know how I usually write. :p)
For example, just being able to communicate with others via things like the internet doesn't necessarily make those interactions truly meaningful on a deeper, more intimate level. I think there's more to it than that (e.g., being able to tear down those invisible barriers, etc.).
I mean, I'm not denying that increased connectivity has improved the social interactions and relationships of certain people (hell, I was at ICOK: meaningful social interactions were off the hook!), but I think it's also made some of them more artificial (for lack of a better word), and even somewhat shallow.
As for the origin of the kind of alienation I was referring to, I didn't mean to imply that technology was the cause. In fact, I agree with you both that no longer living in communal spaces is one of the major causes. But I also believe that there are other factors involved, factors which have directly contributed to our no longer living in communal spaces (e.g., Marx's Theory of Alienation).
In the end, I still don't have any concrete answers, but at least I've been reminded of some things I forgot along the way. The most important one being: we're all more alike than we often realize.
Like Erica said, we're social creatures, and we all feel isolated at times, even if it's not always easy for us to admit it. But that shouldn't stop us from doing what we can to reach out and make connections with other people, whether it's by smiling at the grocery store, starting a family or responding to a friend's tweet.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
my 4 seconds of fame
Yesterday must have been a slow news day in PDX (read "nobody got shot"). KOIN Local 6 was at P & L doing a story about how health care costs are affecting small businesses. I even got some air time. My 4 seconds of fame (1:36):
I'm a perfect example of what Marx called an "appendage of the machine." :p
I'm a perfect example of what Marx called an "appendage of the machine." :p
Sunday, October 25, 2009
ketchup bloody ketchup
While eating lunch last Sunday, I overheard someone at our table say quite matter-of-factly that Heinz ketchup was made with animal blood because it helps to keep the ketchup red. For a split second, I actually thought it might be true, but thankfully my bullshit detector went off and I immediately grabbed the bottle to inspect it. Sure enough, right on the label was the symbol of the Orthodox Union (it's the U inside the circle) certifying that the product was kosher.
For those who aren't familiar with Jewish dietary law, eating blood is strictly forbidden as per Gen. 9:4, Lev 3:17, Lev 17:11 and Deut 12:16. In other words, nothing can be labelled "kosher" with animal blood as an ingredient.
Just be to sure (read "sick sense of curiosity"), I googled "Heinz" and "animal blood" after I got home to see what I could find. Apparently, it's a popular urban legend. I'm not sure why, though. I mean, where do people even get these ideas? Why the fuck would anybody put animal blood in ketchup in the first place? "That's how it gets it's red colouring," they say. "It keeps it from turning black." Um, its red colour couldn't be from all the ripe, pickled tomatoes could it? Not to mention the fact that, as my friend Brian pointed out, BLOOD TURNS BLACK WHEN IT OXIDIZES!
So the moral of this story is: if you hear someone say that Heinz ketchup is made with animal blood, smack them in the back of the head for saying something so stupid. Or at the very least, take the time to calmly explain to them about kosher foods and Jewish dietary law. Who knows, maybe they'll actually learn something worth repeating in public while everyone's trying to eat their chicken strips and french fries.
For those who aren't familiar with Jewish dietary law, eating blood is strictly forbidden as per Gen. 9:4, Lev 3:17, Lev 17:11 and Deut 12:16. In other words, nothing can be labelled "kosher" with animal blood as an ingredient.
Just be to sure (read "sick sense of curiosity"), I googled "Heinz" and "animal blood" after I got home to see what I could find. Apparently, it's a popular urban legend. I'm not sure why, though. I mean, where do people even get these ideas? Why the fuck would anybody put animal blood in ketchup in the first place? "That's how it gets it's red colouring," they say. "It keeps it from turning black." Um, its red colour couldn't be from all the ripe, pickled tomatoes could it? Not to mention the fact that, as my friend Brian pointed out, BLOOD TURNS BLACK WHEN IT OXIDIZES!
So the moral of this story is: if you hear someone say that Heinz ketchup is made with animal blood, smack them in the back of the head for saying something so stupid. Or at the very least, take the time to calmly explain to them about kosher foods and Jewish dietary law. Who knows, maybe they'll actually learn something worth repeating in public while everyone's trying to eat their chicken strips and french fries.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
$100 million campaign promotes capitalism
From the Washington Times:
$100 million campaign promotes capitalism
That's the spirit, Chamber of Commerce! When the going gets tough, advertise!
"We know we've helped to cause a world-wide economic crisis and massive unemployment, not to mention help kill your 401(k) plans and pension funds, but we've still got a lot going for us."
Personally, I think we need to move far, far away from unregulated laissez-faire capitalism. As one person so aptly put it:
$100 million campaign promotes capitalism
That's the spirit, Chamber of Commerce! When the going gets tough, advertise!
"We know we've helped to cause a world-wide economic crisis and massive unemployment, not to mention help kill your 401(k) plans and pension funds, but we've still got a lot going for us."
Personally, I think we need to move far, far away from unregulated laissez-faire capitalism. As one person so aptly put it:
Libertarianism is a strange religion. The belief that if everyone just did what was in their own best interest, the world would be all happy and care-free. It never works out in reality. It's like cells of the body. If they work only in their own best interest, they grow and multiply until they damage or kill the host. We call that cancer.
Monday, October 12, 2009
happy indigenous peoples' day
I prefer to call today Indigenous Peoples' Day. Why? Because Columbus doesn't deserve a national fucking holiday.
I don't dislike Columbus Day simply because he "discovered" land that was already inhabited (Hispaniola), I dislike it for the fact that he helped to literally wipe that land of its original inhabitants, the peaceful Arawaks, through his unbelievable cruelty and that of those who followed him to the New World.
What happened to these poor people was nothing short of genocide. Stealing land and killing and/or enslaving its native inhabitants isn't OK. There's simply no justification for it.
And for all those who are unfamiliar with the real history behind Columbus Day, I suggest checking out:
You Are Still Being Lied To: Howard Zinn’s "Columbus and Western Civilization"
I don't dislike Columbus Day simply because he "discovered" land that was already inhabited (Hispaniola), I dislike it for the fact that he helped to literally wipe that land of its original inhabitants, the peaceful Arawaks, through his unbelievable cruelty and that of those who followed him to the New World.
What happened to these poor people was nothing short of genocide. Stealing land and killing and/or enslaving its native inhabitants isn't OK. There's simply no justification for it.
And for all those who are unfamiliar with the real history behind Columbus Day, I suggest checking out:
You Are Still Being Lied To: Howard Zinn’s "Columbus and Western Civilization"
Friday, October 9, 2009
obama wins 2009 nobel peace prize
I woke up to this new today from the BBC:
Obama wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize
Gandhi, the man whose name in synonymous with nonviolence, never got one, but they gave one to Obama for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples"?
I mean, I like Obama and all, but the Peace Prize? Seriously, Oslo? With only 8 months in office and after sending an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan, and possibly more in the near future?
The best comment I've seen so far is: "I hope Obama will be able to take time out from planning the escalation of troops into Afghanistan to accept the Peace Prize" (Xoxarle).
But to be honest, I think it's more of a slap in the face to Bush than anything else. (That's the going theory on FRDB at any rate.)
Or maybe it's satire (or "an embarrassing surreal tragic joke on a universal scale" as one member of the SPUSA put it), referring to the Party's official slogan in George Orwell's classic dystopian novel 1984: War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.
I don't know. It's too early for me think this much.
Obama wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize
Gandhi, the man whose name in synonymous with nonviolence, never got one, but they gave one to Obama for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples"?
I mean, I like Obama and all, but the Peace Prize? Seriously, Oslo? With only 8 months in office and after sending an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan, and possibly more in the near future?
The best comment I've seen so far is: "I hope Obama will be able to take time out from planning the escalation of troops into Afghanistan to accept the Peace Prize" (Xoxarle).
But to be honest, I think it's more of a slap in the face to Bush than anything else. (That's the going theory on FRDB at any rate.)
Or maybe it's satire (or "an embarrassing surreal tragic joke on a universal scale" as one member of the SPUSA put it), referring to the Party's official slogan in George Orwell's classic dystopian novel 1984: War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.
I don't know. It's too early for me think this much.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
helen keller statue unveiled at capitol
From CNN:
Helen Keller statue unveiled at Capitol
A fine tribute to Helen Keller, one of America's most inspiring radicals—a champion for peace, women's suffrage and worker's rights.
Incidentally, the NewsHour also did a half-assed report on this story. The best part was listening to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) dedicate the statue, saying, "By dedicating this statue in this place of giants, we show that those whom the world calls imperfect are not only worth our attention, they’re worth our highest honors."
It makes me wonder how much the good senator from Kentucky really knows about her life, because I can't imagine he'd knowingly praise an honest-to-goodness socialist.
Helen Keller statue unveiled at Capitol
A fine tribute to Helen Keller, one of America's most inspiring radicals—a champion for peace, women's suffrage and worker's rights.
Incidentally, the NewsHour also did a half-assed report on this story. The best part was listening to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) dedicate the statue, saying, "By dedicating this statue in this place of giants, we show that those whom the world calls imperfect are not only worth our attention, they’re worth our highest honors."
It makes me wonder how much the good senator from Kentucky really knows about her life, because I can't imagine he'd knowingly praise an honest-to-goodness socialist.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
benedict moore
Today on NPR Michael Moore said: "If the concepts of democracy were applied to an economic system, that would be a much better economic system."
Looks like Moore has decided to jump onto the socialist bandwagon with his newest film, Capitalism: A Love Story. I just wonder how long it'll take him to stab socialists in the back like he did Ralph Nader after the 2000 election.
Sigh. I really hate this guy. But being the masochist that I am, I'll probably still rent it.
Looks like Moore has decided to jump onto the socialist bandwagon with his newest film, Capitalism: A Love Story. I just wonder how long it'll take him to stab socialists in the back like he did Ralph Nader after the 2000 election.
Sigh. I really hate this guy. But being the masochist that I am, I'll probably still rent it.
america is turing into a third world country
Last Friday, economist Paul Krugman was a guest on Real Time with Bill Maher. During the program, he said that, "On bad mornings I wake up and think that we are turning into a Latin American country," and then went on to basically explain how in some ways we're turning into a third world country.
While I think the term "third world" is rather out-dated, what he said reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend of mine back in May. We were discussing GM, Chrysler and the offshoring of our manufacturing, and I mentioned that the way I see it:
I think the fact that Ford is building another new assembly plant in China in order to compete with GM helps to illustrate my point. As I said in an earlier part of the same conversation:
But I don't think that government ownership via stocks, such as in the case of GM, will stop outsourcing. In fact, it hasn't. When I said "greater government involvement," I was referring to things like tariffs, stricter trade policies and outright nationalization, not simply ownership of stock in a given company.
The problem is that, when owning stocks, the main focus is on returns, so whatever makes a profit is seen as a good thing from that point of view. And if a company can make more profit by offshoring its manufacturing, all the better. The stockholders benefit regardless of where those manufacturing jobs are located, i.e., there's no real incentive for stockholders to keep them here, and even less so if it means a better return on their investment.
The way I see it, giving workers direct control and ownership is the best way to ensure that manufacturing and other product based jobs stay here, regardless of the industry, because it's in their best interest. And while people often assume that workers can't make good decision because they're too dumb, I disagree. Management can be just as dumb, or even dumber. Take GM, for example.
In 1990, GM designed an electric car. In 1996, they started mass-production and began leasing them in California. But the bigwigs at the top decided that it wasn't profitable enough, and since they could make more money with SUVs, they scrapped the car. Literally.
I doubt the engineers who designed the car wanted to see their design sent to the scrapyard and crushed. I also doubt that the people who worked hard assembling them wanted to see their plants shut down and the cars scrapped either. Of course, there's no guarantee that the workers themselves wouldn't have made the same decision, but I don't think they would've killed the electric car so easily. And look where they're at now.
Beyond that, I think stricter trade policies need to be enacted and enforced, and the outright nationalization of certain industries if worse comes to worse, because what's the alternative? Letting all of our manufacturing jobs get outsourced and replaced with ones at Walmart?
I'm no economist, but I have agree with Krugman that we're not in good shape. From my vantage point, the economic future of the U.S. still doesn't look pretty.
While I think the term "third world" is rather out-dated, what he said reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend of mine back in May. We were discussing GM, Chrysler and the offshoring of our manufacturing, and I mentioned that the way I see it:
[W]ithout greater government involvement or worker participation in the decision-making process, we're never going to keep the jobs we still have or get the ones we lost back. Unless, of course, the U.S., becomes more like a developing nation than a developed one, with high rates of unemployment, and the jobs get shipped back here due to the massive pool of cheap labour and lower taxes, which will mean things like our quality of life and social safety nets (e.g., Medicaid and Medicare, Social Security, unemployment etc.) will take even more of a beating. From my vantage point, the economic future of the U.S. doesn't look pretty.
I think the fact that Ford is building another new assembly plant in China in order to compete with GM helps to illustrate my point. As I said in an earlier part of the same conversation:
One of the main problems I see is the fact that U.S. based multinational corporations are beyond borders. They can pack up and ship their capital and resources, like manufacturing and tech support, to almost anywhere in the world with cheaper wages and and lower taxes while still technically being headquartered in the U.S. One thing we need to do is to make this more difficult, otherwise there won't be anything left to outsource. It may be good for a company's profit margins, but it is devastating to our economy as a whole.
But I don't think that government ownership via stocks, such as in the case of GM, will stop outsourcing. In fact, it hasn't. When I said "greater government involvement," I was referring to things like tariffs, stricter trade policies and outright nationalization, not simply ownership of stock in a given company.
The problem is that, when owning stocks, the main focus is on returns, so whatever makes a profit is seen as a good thing from that point of view. And if a company can make more profit by offshoring its manufacturing, all the better. The stockholders benefit regardless of where those manufacturing jobs are located, i.e., there's no real incentive for stockholders to keep them here, and even less so if it means a better return on their investment.
The way I see it, giving workers direct control and ownership is the best way to ensure that manufacturing and other product based jobs stay here, regardless of the industry, because it's in their best interest. And while people often assume that workers can't make good decision because they're too dumb, I disagree. Management can be just as dumb, or even dumber. Take GM, for example.
In 1990, GM designed an electric car. In 1996, they started mass-production and began leasing them in California. But the bigwigs at the top decided that it wasn't profitable enough, and since they could make more money with SUVs, they scrapped the car. Literally.
I doubt the engineers who designed the car wanted to see their design sent to the scrapyard and crushed. I also doubt that the people who worked hard assembling them wanted to see their plants shut down and the cars scrapped either. Of course, there's no guarantee that the workers themselves wouldn't have made the same decision, but I don't think they would've killed the electric car so easily. And look where they're at now.
Beyond that, I think stricter trade policies need to be enacted and enforced, and the outright nationalization of certain industries if worse comes to worse, because what's the alternative? Letting all of our manufacturing jobs get outsourced and replaced with ones at Walmart?
I'm no economist, but I have agree with Krugman that we're not in good shape. From my vantage point, the economic future of the U.S. still doesn't look pretty.
Friday, September 25, 2009
congressman: same sex marriage part of push for socialism
From the TheHill.com:
Congressman: Same sex marriage part of push for socialism
According to Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), same sex marriage is part of a socialist agenda to undermine "the foundations of individual rights and liberties." And here I was thinking it was about marriage equality.
Damn socialists. Always running around undermining individual rights and liberties by fighting for the individual rights and liberties of minorities and victims of discrimination. Fuckers.
(All sarcasm aside, here's an interesting fun fact: In 1922, the Bolshevik Party decriminalized homosexuality, as well as legalized abortion and no-fault divorce. In fact, a Russian court even recognized a same-sex marriage in 1927!)
Congressman: Same sex marriage part of push for socialism
According to Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), same sex marriage is part of a socialist agenda to undermine "the foundations of individual rights and liberties." And here I was thinking it was about marriage equality.
Damn socialists. Always running around undermining individual rights and liberties by fighting for the individual rights and liberties of minorities and victims of discrimination. Fuckers.
(All sarcasm aside, here's an interesting fun fact: In 1922, the Bolshevik Party decriminalized homosexuality, as well as legalized abortion and no-fault divorce. In fact, a Russian court even recognized a same-sex marriage in 1927!)
Thursday, September 24, 2009
faux news
All I ever hear about lately is FOX News. Thankfully, I don't have cable so I don't have to worry about accidentally watching any of their shows and having what little intelligence I actually have sucked clean out of my skull, but it seems to be all the rage on the right.
To be honest, I used to laugh at these people, but not anymore. It's actually quite frightening once you stop to think about it because it's getting to the point where some people turn on the TV or radio and believe whatever they're told.
Thanks to "news" organizations such as FOX News and hosts like Glenn Beck, people on the right honestly think that Obama is some kind of racist Marxist.
Thanks to "news" organizations such as FOX News and guests like Michele Bachmann, people on the right honestly believe that information collected by the Census Bureau might be used to put Americans in concentration camps.
Sadly, a census worker was recently found hanging from a tree with the word "fed" on his chest, and while they haven't said whether the possible murder (suicide hasn't been ruled out yet) was motivated by his census work, I don't think it's hard to make that connection.
This has stopped being funny because now we need to ask ourselves what won't these people believe?
And just to get a picture of how bad news organizations like FOX can actually be, all one has to do is check out the appeals court ruling in New World Communs. of Tampa, Inc. v. Akre. From Project Censored:
The bottom line? The media can legally lie and they know it! I guess FOX News really does deserve its nickname after all.
To be honest, I used to laugh at these people, but not anymore. It's actually quite frightening once you stop to think about it because it's getting to the point where some people turn on the TV or radio and believe whatever they're told.
Thanks to "news" organizations such as FOX News and hosts like Glenn Beck, people on the right honestly think that Obama is some kind of racist Marxist.
Thanks to "news" organizations such as FOX News and guests like Michele Bachmann, people on the right honestly believe that information collected by the Census Bureau might be used to put Americans in concentration camps.
Sadly, a census worker was recently found hanging from a tree with the word "fed" on his chest, and while they haven't said whether the possible murder (suicide hasn't been ruled out yet) was motivated by his census work, I don't think it's hard to make that connection.
This has stopped being funny because now we need to ask ourselves what won't these people believe?
And just to get a picture of how bad news organizations like FOX can actually be, all one has to do is check out the appeals court ruling in New World Communs. of Tampa, Inc. v. Akre. From Project Censored:
FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation.” In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a “law, rule, or regulation,” it was simply a “policy.” Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.
The bottom line? The media can legally lie and they know it! I guess FOX News really does deserve its nickname after all.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
wealthcare
The New Republic has an interesting article by Jonathan Chait, which is a review of Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right and Ayn Rand and the World She Made, two books about Ayn Rand, as much as it is a critique of her political philosophy and her influence on the right:
Wealthcare
From my perspective, Ayn Rand's political philosophy can be quite seductive on the surface, but gets problematic on a deeper, more ethical level.
Jeff Walker, a biographer, found this entry in one of her personal journals: "One puts oneself above all and crushes everything in one's way to get the best for oneself. Fine!" To me, that's the core of Objectivism. Of course, publicly she put it more poetically. In Atlas Shrugged, for example, she writes, "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
Same idea, but the latter is far more attractive. Hell, I'd even agree with it if I didn't understand what it actually boiled down to!
I agree with Rand to a certain extent about personal responsibility and the idea that we're responsible for making good decisions and should reap the fruits of our labour. But I also think that, as a society, we have a collective responsibility to one another as well. We should work together in the spirit of social cooperation, helping each other make good decisions along the way in support of the common good. I think Edward Bellamy summarizes this idea quite well in his 1887 novel, Looking Backward, with the passage:
For what it's worth, I don't see one political ideology as inherently right or wrong, I've simply sided with the one I think is geared more towards taking the needs of society as its primary focus. I used to be more of an individualist, but for whatever reason I found myself unable to not take the needs and suffering of others into consideration. Everyone's mileage may vary, of course.
Wealthcare
From my perspective, Ayn Rand's political philosophy can be quite seductive on the surface, but gets problematic on a deeper, more ethical level.
Jeff Walker, a biographer, found this entry in one of her personal journals: "One puts oneself above all and crushes everything in one's way to get the best for oneself. Fine!" To me, that's the core of Objectivism. Of course, publicly she put it more poetically. In Atlas Shrugged, for example, she writes, "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
Same idea, but the latter is far more attractive. Hell, I'd even agree with it if I didn't understand what it actually boiled down to!
I agree with Rand to a certain extent about personal responsibility and the idea that we're responsible for making good decisions and should reap the fruits of our labour. But I also think that, as a society, we have a collective responsibility to one another as well. We should work together in the spirit of social cooperation, helping each other make good decisions along the way in support of the common good. I think Edward Bellamy summarizes this idea quite well in his 1887 novel, Looking Backward, with the passage:
"Who is capable of self-support?" he demanded. "There is no such thing in a civilized society as self-support. In a state of society so barbarous as not even to know family cooperation, each individual may possibly support himself, though even then for a part of his life only; but from the moment that men begin to live together, and constitute even the rudest sort of society, self-support becomes impossible. As men grow more civilized, and the subdivision of occupations and services is carried out, a complex mutual dependence becomes the universal rule. Every man, however solitary may seem his occupation, is a member of a vast industrial partnership, as large as the nation, as large as humanity. The necessity of mutual dependence should imply the duty and guarantee of mutual support; and that it did not in your day constituted the essential cruelty and unreason of your system."
For what it's worth, I don't see one political ideology as inherently right or wrong, I've simply sided with the one I think is geared more towards taking the needs of society as its primary focus. I used to be more of an individualist, but for whatever reason I found myself unable to not take the needs and suffering of others into consideration. Everyone's mileage may vary, of course.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
what the current crisis teaches us about capitalism or why I'm not a libertarian
(A review of past thoughts on the economic crisis one year later.)
From my perspective, the current economic crisis reinforces the idea that, barring a revolutionary economic transformation, capitalism needs to be regulated in order to prevent, or at the very least limit, the exploitation of labour, the negative effects of externalities and, of course, economic crises. The current financial crisis itself could've been avoided, and, using them as an example, so could AIG's near failure.
It's rather complicated to explain exactly what happened with AIG, but the bottom line is that AIG's financial sector was paid by investment companies to back up securities that were in turn backed by pieces of mortgages. AIG effectively promised to make up the difference if the investments failed. So where did they go wrong?
It seems that AIG, thanks in part to Gary Gorton, the finance professor who designed AIG's risk models, figured that being paid to take on these risks was "free money" because they never thought they'd have to make any payments to cover actual defaults. What they apparently didn't take into consideration, however, was the potential write-downs or collateral payments to trading partners (How AIG Failed). But specific regulations dealing with these securities and mortgage default swaps could've possibly prevented all of this. This is where both the company and the government failed.
David Swensen, the person who's credited with creating derivatives or "swaps," eventually paved the way for an entire industry to be built around creating and trading derivatives based on mortgage payments of homeowners (Inventor of the "Swap" blames regulators for Financial Crisis). In the case of AIG, they basically insured these mortgage-backed securities. But the government was seemingly reluctant to regulate these derivatives and the industries that had developed around them, and traders eventually abused them to the point of financial collapse. Part of this was due to the perceived benefit of these swaps by people like former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. As Bob Moon notes, "... he called credit default swaps "probably the most important instrument in finance," because they were supposed to spread risk around and stabilize the market" (Banks deep into unregulated 'gambling').
The sad fact is that stricter regulations and oversight on the part of the government, plus more transparency and less greed on the part of financial institutions, could've prevented much of this from happening, including what happened with AIG. Swensen himself says that he supports "requiring swaps and other derivatives to be traded openly on an exchange" since it'd reduce the risk, but surprisingly, this very proposal was "torpedoed by both the Clinton and Bush administrations." Why? Swenson theorizes that, "Financial institutions that deal in these things have resisted that because it would make the market more transparent and less profitable" (Inventor of the "Swap" blames regulators for Financial Crisis).
With respect to the banks that where involved in this, I think that stricter regulations and oversight on the part of the government would have helped prevent much of their irresponsible behavior as well. The banks themselves didn't keep proper track of who actually held all the risks, and essentially thought they were spread the risk to other institutions, but in fact they were just spreading it amongst themselves. It can be argued that this wasn't due to regulation or deregulation so much as stupidity on their part, but I agree with Marcus Baram and others that the passage of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 "reduced decades-old regulations separating banking, insurance and brokerage activities" and "helped to create the current economic crisis" (Who's Whining Now? Gramm Slammed By Economists).
As Mark Sumner points out in his article, "John McCain: Crisis Enabler," the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 made it possible for large commercial banks to become even larger, as well as to become "directly involved in the stock market, bonds and insurance," and that the Commodity Futures Modernization Act "expanded the scope of futures trading" creating "new vehicles for speculation and sheltered several investments from regulation." And I think it can be reasonably argued that this is one of the main ways financial institutions that were 'too big to fail' were able to get into the position of failing.
That's why I'm convinced that, at the very least, the U.S. must adopt an economic model similar to those that have taken shape in Europe — with a mixture of capitalist and socialist aspects — out of sheer pragmatism.
For example, in a broader context, I've found some of Karl Kautsky's concerns regarding the drawbacks and weak points of the capitalist system amazingly prescient, especially in regard to commerce and credit, although the fact that he was decidedly biased against it seems to have blinded him to the potential ability of future generations to solve some of these problems. Nevertheless, I've found many his arguments against the capitalist method of production to be rather strong, even eye-opening.
The beginning of chapter three of Kautsky's The Class Struggle, for example, provides a simple yet excellent overview of one of the main causes contributing to the current world-wide economic crisis. In regard to credit, he notes that, "Credit is ... much more sensitive than commerce to any disturbance. Every shock it receives is felt throughout the economic organization" (47). Besides making a strong argument for why this type of system makes it increasingly more difficult for small production (e.g., small farmers, small business owners, etc.) to succeed, he stresses that this credit based system ultimately renders modern industry "more and more complicated and liable to disturbance, to carry the feeling of uncertainty into the ranks of the capitalists themselves and to make the ground upon which they move ever more uncertain" (48).
But the type of careful direction that is needed to insure the uninterrupted operation of this modern system of production is hindered by the very institution of private property on which it is founded. As Kautsky summarizes: "While the several industries become, in point of fact, more and more dependent upon one another, in point of law, they remain wholly independent. The means of production in every single industry are private property; their owner can do with them as he pleases" (50-1).
So for these reasons, among others, it's apparent to me that to be able to effectively manage a world-wide, credit based economy, a certain amount of outside interference is unavoidable because without a certain amount of intervention, whether in the form of stricter regulations and oversight or outright nationalization, the market system is extremely vulnerable to abuse and disruption. And even these steps may not be enough.
From my perspective, the current economic crisis reinforces the idea that, barring a revolutionary economic transformation, capitalism needs to be regulated in order to prevent, or at the very least limit, the exploitation of labour, the negative effects of externalities and, of course, economic crises. The current financial crisis itself could've been avoided, and, using them as an example, so could AIG's near failure.
It's rather complicated to explain exactly what happened with AIG, but the bottom line is that AIG's financial sector was paid by investment companies to back up securities that were in turn backed by pieces of mortgages. AIG effectively promised to make up the difference if the investments failed. So where did they go wrong?
It seems that AIG, thanks in part to Gary Gorton, the finance professor who designed AIG's risk models, figured that being paid to take on these risks was "free money" because they never thought they'd have to make any payments to cover actual defaults. What they apparently didn't take into consideration, however, was the potential write-downs or collateral payments to trading partners (How AIG Failed). But specific regulations dealing with these securities and mortgage default swaps could've possibly prevented all of this. This is where both the company and the government failed.
David Swensen, the person who's credited with creating derivatives or "swaps," eventually paved the way for an entire industry to be built around creating and trading derivatives based on mortgage payments of homeowners (Inventor of the "Swap" blames regulators for Financial Crisis). In the case of AIG, they basically insured these mortgage-backed securities. But the government was seemingly reluctant to regulate these derivatives and the industries that had developed around them, and traders eventually abused them to the point of financial collapse. Part of this was due to the perceived benefit of these swaps by people like former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. As Bob Moon notes, "... he called credit default swaps "probably the most important instrument in finance," because they were supposed to spread risk around and stabilize the market" (Banks deep into unregulated 'gambling').
The sad fact is that stricter regulations and oversight on the part of the government, plus more transparency and less greed on the part of financial institutions, could've prevented much of this from happening, including what happened with AIG. Swensen himself says that he supports "requiring swaps and other derivatives to be traded openly on an exchange" since it'd reduce the risk, but surprisingly, this very proposal was "torpedoed by both the Clinton and Bush administrations." Why? Swenson theorizes that, "Financial institutions that deal in these things have resisted that because it would make the market more transparent and less profitable" (Inventor of the "Swap" blames regulators for Financial Crisis).
With respect to the banks that where involved in this, I think that stricter regulations and oversight on the part of the government would have helped prevent much of their irresponsible behavior as well. The banks themselves didn't keep proper track of who actually held all the risks, and essentially thought they were spread the risk to other institutions, but in fact they were just spreading it amongst themselves. It can be argued that this wasn't due to regulation or deregulation so much as stupidity on their part, but I agree with Marcus Baram and others that the passage of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 "reduced decades-old regulations separating banking, insurance and brokerage activities" and "helped to create the current economic crisis" (Who's Whining Now? Gramm Slammed By Economists).
As Mark Sumner points out in his article, "John McCain: Crisis Enabler," the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 made it possible for large commercial banks to become even larger, as well as to become "directly involved in the stock market, bonds and insurance," and that the Commodity Futures Modernization Act "expanded the scope of futures trading" creating "new vehicles for speculation and sheltered several investments from regulation." And I think it can be reasonably argued that this is one of the main ways financial institutions that were 'too big to fail' were able to get into the position of failing.
That's why I'm convinced that, at the very least, the U.S. must adopt an economic model similar to those that have taken shape in Europe — with a mixture of capitalist and socialist aspects — out of sheer pragmatism.
For example, in a broader context, I've found some of Karl Kautsky's concerns regarding the drawbacks and weak points of the capitalist system amazingly prescient, especially in regard to commerce and credit, although the fact that he was decidedly biased against it seems to have blinded him to the potential ability of future generations to solve some of these problems. Nevertheless, I've found many his arguments against the capitalist method of production to be rather strong, even eye-opening.
The beginning of chapter three of Kautsky's The Class Struggle, for example, provides a simple yet excellent overview of one of the main causes contributing to the current world-wide economic crisis. In regard to credit, he notes that, "Credit is ... much more sensitive than commerce to any disturbance. Every shock it receives is felt throughout the economic organization" (47). Besides making a strong argument for why this type of system makes it increasingly more difficult for small production (e.g., small farmers, small business owners, etc.) to succeed, he stresses that this credit based system ultimately renders modern industry "more and more complicated and liable to disturbance, to carry the feeling of uncertainty into the ranks of the capitalists themselves and to make the ground upon which they move ever more uncertain" (48).
But the type of careful direction that is needed to insure the uninterrupted operation of this modern system of production is hindered by the very institution of private property on which it is founded. As Kautsky summarizes: "While the several industries become, in point of fact, more and more dependent upon one another, in point of law, they remain wholly independent. The means of production in every single industry are private property; their owner can do with them as he pleases" (50-1).
So for these reasons, among others, it's apparent to me that to be able to effectively manage a world-wide, credit based economy, a certain amount of outside interference is unavoidable because without a certain amount of intervention, whether in the form of stricter regulations and oversight or outright nationalization, the market system is extremely vulnerable to abuse and disruption. And even these steps may not be enough.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
manson got fat, and i love him for it
In one of those rare moments in life when the stars seem to align just right and everything falls into place as if it was meant to be, I found out that Marilyn Manson, one of my all time favourite artists, was going to be playing a show in Portland on my birthday. Suffice it to say that I was thrilled.
I'd recently downloaded his new album, The High End of Low; and the more I listened to it, the more it grew on me. And I definitely wasn’t disappointed. The show itself was awesome, even though Manson himself is now forty and slightly out of shape.
Shakespeare famously wrote, "All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players," but what does it really matter in the end if you're not being true to yourself? Whether you've tried to act like a saint, or played the part of a sinner, why bother wasting time trying to be something you're not, something you don't even want to be, when the world will just as likely turn on you either way?
A few years ago, people hailed Manson as an iconic antihero reflecting our all-American hypocrisy back at us, saying he didn't "pull any punches." These same people now criticize him as a fat, washed up has-been who should quietly slink away from the spotlight—as if they've done anything remotely noteworthy their entire, pathetic lives and possess some kind of self-appointed authority over when other people should stop being themselves.
And all the while Manson, now noticeably older and slightly overweight, is still doing what he does best — challenging society's ideas of what's acceptable while defiantly giving the world the same two middle fingers — with the attitude of, in his own words: "What're you going to do, punish me? Is there something worse than where I'm at now? Is there a prison that is worse than the one I'm in, that I put myself in?"
Yes, the once tall and slender "god of fuck," the symbol of rebellion for a whole generation of young social outcasts, has gotten fat. And I love him for it.
I'd recently downloaded his new album, The High End of Low; and the more I listened to it, the more it grew on me. And I definitely wasn’t disappointed. The show itself was awesome, even though Manson himself is now forty and slightly out of shape.
Shakespeare famously wrote, "All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players," but what does it really matter in the end if you're not being true to yourself? Whether you've tried to act like a saint, or played the part of a sinner, why bother wasting time trying to be something you're not, something you don't even want to be, when the world will just as likely turn on you either way?
A few years ago, people hailed Manson as an iconic antihero reflecting our all-American hypocrisy back at us, saying he didn't "pull any punches." These same people now criticize him as a fat, washed up has-been who should quietly slink away from the spotlight—as if they've done anything remotely noteworthy their entire, pathetic lives and possess some kind of self-appointed authority over when other people should stop being themselves.
And all the while Manson, now noticeably older and slightly overweight, is still doing what he does best — challenging society's ideas of what's acceptable while defiantly giving the world the same two middle fingers — with the attitude of, in his own words: "What're you going to do, punish me? Is there something worse than where I'm at now? Is there a prison that is worse than the one I'm in, that I put myself in?"
Yes, the once tall and slender "god of fuck," the symbol of rebellion for a whole generation of young social outcasts, has gotten fat. And I love him for it.
Friday, September 4, 2009
conservatives enraged over obama school speech
From CNN:
Seriously, what in the hell is wrong with people? I mean, does Florida GOP Chair Jim Greer really think that Obama is going to "indoctrinate" children with his back-to-school address and his completely NONEXISTENT "socialist ideology"?
And how come conservatives weren't all up in arms when Reagan called taxes "such a penalty on people that there's no incentive for them to prosper ... because they have to give so much to the government" in a speech delivered to students in 1988? Or when Bush delivered one in 1991 encouraging students to say no to drugs and work hard? Hypocrites, much?
Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer released a statement this week accusing Obama of using taxpayer money to "indoctrinate" children.
"As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology," Greer said.
"The idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the president justify his plans ... is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power."
Nonsense, the White House replied.
"The goal of the speech and the lesson plans is to challenge students to work hard, stay in school and dramatically reduce the dropout rate," an administration spokesman said. "This isn't a policy speech. It's a speech designed to encourage kids to stay in school."
Seriously, what in the hell is wrong with people? I mean, does Florida GOP Chair Jim Greer really think that Obama is going to "indoctrinate" children with his back-to-school address and his completely NONEXISTENT "socialist ideology"?
And how come conservatives weren't all up in arms when Reagan called taxes "such a penalty on people that there's no incentive for them to prosper ... because they have to give so much to the government" in a speech delivered to students in 1988? Or when Bush delivered one in 1991 encouraging students to say no to drugs and work hard? Hypocrites, much?
defending marx (edited version)
(Note: Gender specific terms such as "man" and "fellow man" in reference to humanity were originally taken from the comments of the person I was rebutting — as well as Marx's writings — and since I was lazy and couldn't think of better, gender neutral terms to put in their place, I've left them as they are. Apologies in advance to anyone who might actually read this and find them distasteful.)
Now, I'm not a "Marxist" by any means, but I find myself defending Marx more and more recently. There seems to be a lot of misinformation out there about what socialism really means and represents as an economic system, and this is especially true with Marx's writings.
The majority of people who take issue with Marx appear to do so based upon his association with "communist" countries that supposedly put his theories into practice, but few of these critics seem to have actually read anything Marx himself wrote (there are exceptions, of course). Reading things like The German Ideology and Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, for example, make it clear to me that Marx would be absolutely horrified by what authoritarian countries like China and Russia have done in his name.
I think Marx was wrong about a lot of things, and I certainly don't agree with all of his conclusions, but I don't think he's the monster that many people often make him out to be.
To begin with, Marx wasn’t a big fan of private property. In fact, he advocated the abolishment of private property (as in the means of production, not personal property) and the placement of the proletariat (i.e., the majority of the working-class population—not a single person and/or political party who simply claims to represent the proletariat) in direct democratic control of production. And because of this, some say that Marx was simply a troublemaker—that the whole point was to convince the proletariat they'd be better off if they have a revolution, seize the means of production and institute socialism, that he wasn't appealing to their compassion for their fellow man and was essentially advocating authoritarianism with his “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Of course, a selective reading of Marx can support this, but I have to disagree that he was wasn't also appealing to their compassion for their fellow man, or that democracy wasn't a part of Marx and Engels' vision of socialism — the transitory phase between capitalism and communism — from the very beginning.
While encouraging a proletarian revolution was certainly one of things Marx was trying to do with his writings, he also stressed that he believed the self-emancipation of the proletariat would ultimately bring about the emancipation of all classes. In the words of Erich Fromm, "His concept of socialism is the emancipation from alienation, the return of man to himself, his self-realization."
According to Marx, all individuals in capitalist society are essentially alienated, from their labour as well as from each other. The reason Marx singled out the working class was because he saw in the working class the means by which capitalism could be transformed. It was his hope, however, that once this economic transformation was underway, the alienation of each individual would gradual be eliminated via a more socialized means of production, which, in turn, would sow the seeds for the "resolution of the antagonism between man and nature, and between man and man."
As Marx wrote in Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844:
As for the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” it’s true that Marx did say that "the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat" and that "this dictatorship itself constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society." However, I still believe that democracy was a part of Marx and Engels' vision of socialism.
For example, even though I'm sure there are things that can be found within Marx's numerous writings that can be used to contradict this view, Engels, in his 1847 programme The Principles of Communism (the precursor to the Communist Manifesto), writes:
He continues by stressing that, "Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat."
In addition, Marx, in his 1871 pamphlet The Civil War in France, writes about the Paris Commune (notice the parts about "universal suffrage" and "revocable at short terms," i.e., characteristics of direct democracy):
To which Engels, in his 1891 postscript to The Civil War in France, states:
So, from just these few references, it's clear to me that Marx had a great deal of compassion for his fellow man and that democracy was an essential part of Marx and Engels' vision of socialism, including the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Nobody would confuse Marx for the Dalai Lama, but his compassion definitely comes through in his idealism — as well as his hopeful vision for humanity's future — and it's hard to believe that he would approve of what authoritarian countries under the banners of "communism" and "socialism" have done in his name.
Now, I'm not a "Marxist" by any means, but I find myself defending Marx more and more recently. There seems to be a lot of misinformation out there about what socialism really means and represents as an economic system, and this is especially true with Marx's writings.
The majority of people who take issue with Marx appear to do so based upon his association with "communist" countries that supposedly put his theories into practice, but few of these critics seem to have actually read anything Marx himself wrote (there are exceptions, of course). Reading things like The German Ideology and Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, for example, make it clear to me that Marx would be absolutely horrified by what authoritarian countries like China and Russia have done in his name.
I think Marx was wrong about a lot of things, and I certainly don't agree with all of his conclusions, but I don't think he's the monster that many people often make him out to be.
To begin with, Marx wasn’t a big fan of private property. In fact, he advocated the abolishment of private property (as in the means of production, not personal property) and the placement of the proletariat (i.e., the majority of the working-class population—not a single person and/or political party who simply claims to represent the proletariat) in direct democratic control of production. And because of this, some say that Marx was simply a troublemaker—that the whole point was to convince the proletariat they'd be better off if they have a revolution, seize the means of production and institute socialism, that he wasn't appealing to their compassion for their fellow man and was essentially advocating authoritarianism with his “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Of course, a selective reading of Marx can support this, but I have to disagree that he was wasn't also appealing to their compassion for their fellow man, or that democracy wasn't a part of Marx and Engels' vision of socialism — the transitory phase between capitalism and communism — from the very beginning.
While encouraging a proletarian revolution was certainly one of things Marx was trying to do with his writings, he also stressed that he believed the self-emancipation of the proletariat would ultimately bring about the emancipation of all classes. In the words of Erich Fromm, "His concept of socialism is the emancipation from alienation, the return of man to himself, his self-realization."
According to Marx, all individuals in capitalist society are essentially alienated, from their labour as well as from each other. The reason Marx singled out the working class was because he saw in the working class the means by which capitalism could be transformed. It was his hope, however, that once this economic transformation was underway, the alienation of each individual would gradual be eliminated via a more socialized means of production, which, in turn, would sow the seeds for the "resolution of the antagonism between man and nature, and between man and man."
As Marx wrote in Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844:
[T]he emancipation of society from private property, from servitude, takes the political form of the emancipation of the workers; not in the sense that only the latter's emancipation is involved, but because this emancipation includes the emancipation of humanity as a whole. For all human servitude is involved in the relation of the worker to production, and all types of servitude are only modifications or consequences of this relation.
As for the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” it’s true that Marx did say that "the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat" and that "this dictatorship itself constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society." However, I still believe that democracy was a part of Marx and Engels' vision of socialism.
For example, even though I'm sure there are things that can be found within Marx's numerous writings that can be used to contradict this view, Engels, in his 1847 programme The Principles of Communism (the precursor to the Communist Manifesto), writes:
Above all, it [the proletarian revolution] will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. Direct in England, where the proletarians are already a majority of the people. Indirect in France and Germany, where the majority of the people consists not only of proletarians, but also of small peasants and petty bourgeois who are in the process of falling into the proletariat, who are more and more dependent in all their political interests on the proletariat, and who must, therefore, soon adapt to the demands of the proletariat. Perhaps this will cost a second struggle, but the outcome can only be the victory of the proletariat.
He continues by stressing that, "Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat."
In addition, Marx, in his 1871 pamphlet The Civil War in France, writes about the Paris Commune (notice the parts about "universal suffrage" and "revocable at short terms," i.e., characteristics of direct democracy):
The direct antithesis to the empire was the Commune. The cry of “social republic,” with which the February Revolution was ushered in by the Paris proletariat, did but express a vague aspiration after a republic that was not only to supercede the monarchical form of class rule, but class rule itself. The Commune was the positive form of that republic.
Paris, the central seat of the old governmental power, and, at the same time, the social stronghold of the French working class, had risen in arms against the attempt of Thiers and the Rurals to restore and perpetuate that old governmental power bequeathed to them by the empire. Paris could resist only because, in consequence of the siege, it had got rid of the army, and replaced it by a National Guard, the bulk of which consisted of working men. This fact was now to be transformed into an institution. The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.
The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.
To which Engels, in his 1891 postscript to The Civil War in France, states:
Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
So, from just these few references, it's clear to me that Marx had a great deal of compassion for his fellow man and that democracy was an essential part of Marx and Engels' vision of socialism, including the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Nobody would confuse Marx for the Dalai Lama, but his compassion definitely comes through in his idealism — as well as his hopeful vision for humanity's future — and it's hard to believe that he would approve of what authoritarian countries under the banners of "communism" and "socialism" have done in his name.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
defending marx
Now, I'm not a "Marxist" by any means, but I find myself defending Marx more and more recently. There seems to be a lot of misinformation out there about what socialism really means and represents as an economic system, and this is especially true with Marx's writings.
The majority of people who take issue with Marx appear to do so based upon his association with "communist" countries that supposedly put his theories into practice, but few of these critics seem to have actually read anything Marx himself wrote (there are exceptions, of course). Reading things like The German Ideology and Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, for example, make it clear to me that Marx would be absolutely horrified by what authoritarian countries like China and Russia have done in his name.
I think Marx was wrong about a lot of things, and I certainly don't agree with all of his conclusions, but I don't think he's the monster that many people often make him out to be.
On freeratio.org, for example, someone wrote:
Of course, a selective reading of Marx can support this, but I have to disagree that he was wasn't also "appealing to their compassion for their fellow man."
While encouraging a proletarian revolution was certainly one of things Marx was trying to do with his writings, he also stressed that he believed the self-emancipation of the proletariat would ultimately bring about the emancipation of all classes. In the words of Erich Fromm, "His concept of socialism is the emancipation from alienation, the return of man to himself, his self-realization."
According to Marx, all individuals in capitalist society are essentially alienated, from their labour as well as from each other. The reason Marx singled out the working class was because he saw in the working class the means by which capitalism could be transformed. It was his hope, however, that once this economic transformation was underway, the alienation of each individual would gradual be eliminated via a more socialized means of production, which, in turn, would sow the seeds for the "resolution of the antagonism between man and nature, and between man and man."
As Marx wrote in Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844: "... the emancipation of society from private property, from servitude, takes the political form of the emancipation of the workers; not in the sense that only the latter's emancipation is involved, but because this emancipation includes the emancipation of humanity as a whole. For all human servitude is involved in the relation of the worker to production, and all types of servitude are only modifications or consequences of this relation."
Nobody would confuse Marx for the Dalai Lama, but he certainly had a great deal of compassion for his fellow man, and I think that comes through in many of his works. He may not have expressed it directly, but it definitely comes through in his idealism, as well as his hopeful vision for humanity's future.
Additionally, the same person also said (albeit in a different context):
To begin with, Marx did say that "the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat" and that "this dictatorship itself constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society." However, I disagree that democracy wasn't a part of Marx and Engels' vision of socialism — the transitory phase between capitalism and communism — from the very beginning.
For example, even though I'm sure there are things that can be found within Marx's numerous writings that can be used to contradict this view, Engels, in his 1847 programme The Principles of Communism (the precursor to the Communist Manifesto), writes:
He continues by stressing that, "Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat."
In addition, Marx, in his 1871 pamphlet The Civil War in France, writes about the Paris Commune (notice the parts about "universal suffrage" and "revocable at short terms," i.e., characteristics of direct democracy):
To which Engels, in his 1891 postscript to The Civil War in France, states:
So, from just these few references, it's clear to me that democracy was an essential part of Marx and Engels' vision of socialism, including the "dictatorship of the proletariat."
The majority of people who take issue with Marx appear to do so based upon his association with "communist" countries that supposedly put his theories into practice, but few of these critics seem to have actually read anything Marx himself wrote (there are exceptions, of course). Reading things like The German Ideology and Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, for example, make it clear to me that Marx would be absolutely horrified by what authoritarian countries like China and Russia have done in his name.
I think Marx was wrong about a lot of things, and I certainly don't agree with all of his conclusions, but I don't think he's the monster that many people often make him out to be.
On freeratio.org, for example, someone wrote:
[R]ead Marx. The whole point was to convince the proletariat they'd be better off if they had a revolution, seized the means of production for themselves, and instituted socialism. He wasn't appealing to their compassion for their fellow man.
Of course, a selective reading of Marx can support this, but I have to disagree that he was wasn't also "appealing to their compassion for their fellow man."
While encouraging a proletarian revolution was certainly one of things Marx was trying to do with his writings, he also stressed that he believed the self-emancipation of the proletariat would ultimately bring about the emancipation of all classes. In the words of Erich Fromm, "His concept of socialism is the emancipation from alienation, the return of man to himself, his self-realization."
According to Marx, all individuals in capitalist society are essentially alienated, from their labour as well as from each other. The reason Marx singled out the working class was because he saw in the working class the means by which capitalism could be transformed. It was his hope, however, that once this economic transformation was underway, the alienation of each individual would gradual be eliminated via a more socialized means of production, which, in turn, would sow the seeds for the "resolution of the antagonism between man and nature, and between man and man."
As Marx wrote in Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844: "... the emancipation of society from private property, from servitude, takes the political form of the emancipation of the workers; not in the sense that only the latter's emancipation is involved, but because this emancipation includes the emancipation of humanity as a whole. For all human servitude is involved in the relation of the worker to production, and all types of servitude are only modifications or consequences of this relation."
Nobody would confuse Marx for the Dalai Lama, but he certainly had a great deal of compassion for his fellow man, and I think that comes through in many of his works. He may not have expressed it directly, but it definitely comes through in his idealism, as well as his hopeful vision for humanity's future.
Additionally, the same person also said (albeit in a different context):
[T]here's no contradiction in being a socialist dictator and a socialist robber. Marx said there was supposed to be a dictatorship for a while -- and he didn't put a time limit on it. He advocated seizing property. These are inevitable when you decide to go the revolutionary route. "Socialism" doesn't mean just the specific ideal society you happen to have in mind; it's a category. Every society that satisfies the defining criteria is socialist, regardless of what else it does. So unless the definition of "socialism" includes democracy -- and it clearly does not -- whether a society has a dictator is just immaterial. There's a reason the dominant political faction in western Europe originally called itself the "Democratic Socialists": the phrase is not redundant.
To begin with, Marx did say that "the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat" and that "this dictatorship itself constitutes no more than a transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society." However, I disagree that democracy wasn't a part of Marx and Engels' vision of socialism — the transitory phase between capitalism and communism — from the very beginning.
For example, even though I'm sure there are things that can be found within Marx's numerous writings that can be used to contradict this view, Engels, in his 1847 programme The Principles of Communism (the precursor to the Communist Manifesto), writes:
Above all, it [the proletarian revolution] will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. Direct in England, where the proletarians are already a majority of the people. Indirect in France and Germany, where the majority of the people consists not only of proletarians, but also of small peasants and petty bourgeois who are in the process of falling into the proletariat, who are more and more dependent in all their political interests on the proletariat, and who must, therefore, soon adapt to the demands of the proletariat. Perhaps this will cost a second struggle, but the outcome can only be the victory of the proletariat.
He continues by stressing that, "Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat."
In addition, Marx, in his 1871 pamphlet The Civil War in France, writes about the Paris Commune (notice the parts about "universal suffrage" and "revocable at short terms," i.e., characteristics of direct democracy):
The direct antithesis to the empire was the Commune. The cry of “social republic,” with which the February Revolution was ushered in by the Paris proletariat, did but express a vague aspiration after a republic that was not only to supercede the monarchical form of class rule, but class rule itself. The Commune was the positive form of that republic.
Paris, the central seat of the old governmental power, and, at the same time, the social stronghold of the French working class, had risen in arms against the attempt of Thiers and the Rurals to restore and perpetuate that old governmental power bequeathed to them by the empire. Paris could resist only because, in consequence of the siege, it had got rid of the army, and replaced it by a National Guard, the bulk of which consisted of working men. This fact was now to be transformed into an institution. The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.
The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.
To which Engels, in his 1891 postscript to The Civil War in France, states:
Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
So, from just these few references, it's clear to me that democracy was an essential part of Marx and Engels' vision of socialism, including the "dictatorship of the proletariat."
Friday, August 28, 2009
happy birthday, leo
I thought I'd share this passage from Leo Tolstoy's letter, "To the Working People," today — his birthday according to the Julian calendar — because I find it intriguing and worth reflecting upon:
I don't know what it is about Russian writers like Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, but I find their works a never-ending source of insight.
This passage, for example, is often paraphrased as:
And, while I think that external conditions can affect us as much as internal ones, what I think Tolstoy is saying here is that, subjectively speaking, it all comes down to what we do with those experiences and how we relate to them.
People fare badly only because they themselves live badly. And there is no more injurious thought for people than that the causes of the wretchedness of their position is not in themselves, but in external conditions. A man or a society of men need but imagine that the evil experienced by them is due to external conditions and to direct their attention and efforts to the change of these external conditions, and the evil will be increased. But a man or a society of men need but sincerely direct their attention to themselves, and in themselves and their lives look for the causes of that evil from which they suffer, in order that these causes may be at once found and destroyed.
I don't know what it is about Russian writers like Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, but I find their works a never-ending source of insight.
This passage, for example, is often paraphrased as:
Everyone thinks to change the world, but nobody thinks to change themselves.
And, while I think that external conditions can affect us as much as internal ones, what I think Tolstoy is saying here is that, subjectively speaking, it all comes down to what we do with those experiences and how we relate to them.
comment of the day
My response to a letter to the editor that appeared in Thursday's edition of the Oregonian was chosen as the comment of the day:
Editor's note: This was among the responses to the recent letter to the editor, "Harsh treatment necessary."
What really scares me about people is the fact that they can justify almost anything, including the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" to extract information.
Many people say that enhanced interrogation techniques like slamming prisoners into walls, threatening them with power drills and mock executions, threatening to murder their family members and waterboarding aren't torture. I think that when it comes to things like waterboarding, however, especially when used in combination with other harsh interrogation methods, it's easy to say that it's not torture when you're not the one undergoing such treatment, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to go through anything like that myself. Nor would I want anyone else to.
I don't have any good arguments to support my opinion besides the fact that I find the intentional infliction of pain and mental anguish deplorable -- especially when it's done in secret, without any kind of transparency or accountability whatsoever, and has the potential to cause irreversible damage -- but I think that's enough.
I can't say for sure, but I'm reasonably certain that being captured, blindfolded, shipped off to a foreign country and then subjected to things like prolonged psychological and physical abuse would mentally scar me for life. Granted, I'm not a hardened terrorist, I'm a rather 'soft' law-abiding citizen of the United States; but even so, I doubt those people will ever be the same after going through such an experience.
I've listened to both sides of the debate, and while I think that proponents of enhanced interrogation techniques make some good points, I simply can't justify treating another human being like that for any reason. For one thing, it's most likely against the law (Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C of the U.S. Code). And even if it isn't, I don't think it's acceptable, even if lives might theoretically be at stake, and I don't want my government engaging in such activity.
I know that our Founding Fathers weren't perfect, but one of the things I think people like Washington and Adams had right were their views on the treatment of prisoners, which Robert Kennedy details briefly in "America's anti-torture tradition," an op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times.
Regardless of the rationale or the particular circumstances involved, the fact that American soldiers and intelligence agents were (and possibly still are) torturing prisoners is one of the reasons I'm afraid of Americans. And I'm American!
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
2004 cia inspector general report on torture
While the majority of the mainstream media seems to be doing their collective best to ignore what's in this report (CNN's current top story reads "Chris Brown sentenced; prior incidents emerge"), Salon.com takes a serious look at what was done in every Americans' names:
What every American should be made to learn about the IG Torture Report
(Thanks Xoxarle.)
What every American should be made to learn about the IG Torture Report
(Thanks Xoxarle.)
Friday, August 21, 2009
does the 'lockerbie bomber' deserve compassion?
Reflecting on the news that the only man convicted in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 returned home to Libya to die after he was released from a Scottish prison Thursday, I can't say that I'm as outraged as most people seem to be. Call me a 'bleeding-heart liberal,' but I think showing compassion is a good thing.
A friend of mine asked, "The family members of people he killed didn't get to say good-bye to their families, why should he?" That's a good question. Why?
My first thought was that compassion and forgiveness are human emotions we should try to develop more deeply, not bury them away in the back of our minds until they're completely bred out of existence.
Another reason was that a 2007 review of his case raised the prospect that he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice. It's a tragedy that so many people were killed in such a horrible fashion, but, in my eyes, condemning a potentially innocent man to die in prison isn't any better or more just.
In addition to this, Scotland has a long-standing policy in place which, according to Oliver Smith, dictates that, "if you have a terminal illness and have three months or less to live then you will be released from prison on compassionate grounds. This applies to all convicts in Scotland, regardless of their age, their gender, religion, crime or any other factor."
Nevertheless, most people I've talked to about this issue generally agree that al-Megrahi should rot in jail until he dies in the event that he's actually guilty. That might be what's best, but at the same time, I can't help but hope that humanity as a whole is eventually able to move beyond an eye-for-an-eye model of justice and morality.
I understand that the idea of having compassion for a murderer is difficult to fathom, and I know that many will probably find the very thought distasteful, but I happen to agree with Scotland’s policy of releasing terminally ill prisoners in the spirit compassion. Just because a person commits a cruel act doesn’t mean that society should act equally as cruel.
It also makes me wonder if there was as much outrage when Pres. Nixon reduced the sentence of William Calley — the only person who was ever convicted in connection with the massacre of Vietnamese civilians at My Lai — from a life sentence to three years house arrest.
On a related side note, my girlfriend said:
If he was released in exchange for economic opportunities (e.g., in order to secure more oil), I think that sure tells you a lot about the nature of the capitalist system.
A friend of mine asked, "The family members of people he killed didn't get to say good-bye to their families, why should he?" That's a good question. Why?
My first thought was that compassion and forgiveness are human emotions we should try to develop more deeply, not bury them away in the back of our minds until they're completely bred out of existence.
Another reason was that a 2007 review of his case raised the prospect that he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice. It's a tragedy that so many people were killed in such a horrible fashion, but, in my eyes, condemning a potentially innocent man to die in prison isn't any better or more just.
In addition to this, Scotland has a long-standing policy in place which, according to Oliver Smith, dictates that, "if you have a terminal illness and have three months or less to live then you will be released from prison on compassionate grounds. This applies to all convicts in Scotland, regardless of their age, their gender, religion, crime or any other factor."
Nevertheless, most people I've talked to about this issue generally agree that al-Megrahi should rot in jail until he dies in the event that he's actually guilty. That might be what's best, but at the same time, I can't help but hope that humanity as a whole is eventually able to move beyond an eye-for-an-eye model of justice and morality.
I understand that the idea of having compassion for a murderer is difficult to fathom, and I know that many will probably find the very thought distasteful, but I happen to agree with Scotland’s policy of releasing terminally ill prisoners in the spirit compassion. Just because a person commits a cruel act doesn’t mean that society should act equally as cruel.
It also makes me wonder if there was as much outrage when Pres. Nixon reduced the sentence of William Calley — the only person who was ever convicted in connection with the massacre of Vietnamese civilians at My Lai — from a life sentence to three years house arrest.
On a related side note, my girlfriend said:
I'm not sure how I feel about this. It's only been 8 years since he's been in prison--after getting a life sentence. And the people who had loved ones who were killed due to his actions? And what if they're using him to secure more oil? Is he really just a scapegoat, when he was convicted at the beginning? This issue isn't black and white to me. And I'm not sure they're really showing compassion, even if that's what they say.
If he was released in exchange for economic opportunities (e.g., in order to secure more oil), I think that sure tells you a lot about the nature of the capitalist system.
reading about health care makes me sick (wah-wah)
From CNN:
Hm, that's interesting. According to the World Health Organization, France has the best overall health care system in the world, excelling in 4 areas: (1) universal coverage, (2) responsive health care providers, (3) freedom of choice and (4) overall health and longevity of the population.
Another interesting fact from National Public Radio is that a study published last year in the U.S. journal Health Affairs found that in Spain [ranked 7th best in the world by the WHO], there are a third fewer deaths caused by delayed access to health care than in the United States [ranked 37th]. (Not only that, but Spain's constitution guarantees the right to universal health care and requires the state to provide it. What a novel idea.)
I'm curious to know what criteria Sen. Shelby bases his expert opinion on.
If that wasn't bad enough, I read in the Oregonian last week that the White House appears ready to "abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of a new government-run insurance program as part of an overhaul of the U.S. health care system." Caving in yet again? WTF?
In addition, Xoxarle on freeratio.org points out that "the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] estimates that the reform bill ... will only bring 16 million into the fold over the next 10 years, which is less than a third of those currently without coverage" for only 1 to 1.5 trillion dollars!
So, as Xoxarle puts it, our tax dollars will go to "preserving and expanding the current unsustainable for-profit model, and as a side benefit, will increase the deficit at the same time." Great!
Honestly, the Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House, what the hell are they waiting for? People probably think I'm crazy for voting for Nader, but I bet that he wouldn't let things like name calling and death threats from right-wing extremists stop him from pushing single-payer health care with a vengeance.
He might be a bit of a nutter, but just reading about what's going on with health care reform, it's hard to argue with him when he says that "the whole liberal-progressive constituency is going nowhere."
"We have the best health care system in the world," Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama told "Fox News Sunday." "We need to expand it. We do not need to destroy it."
Hm, that's interesting. According to the World Health Organization, France has the best overall health care system in the world, excelling in 4 areas: (1) universal coverage, (2) responsive health care providers, (3) freedom of choice and (4) overall health and longevity of the population.
Another interesting fact from National Public Radio is that a study published last year in the U.S. journal Health Affairs found that in Spain [ranked 7th best in the world by the WHO], there are a third fewer deaths caused by delayed access to health care than in the United States [ranked 37th]. (Not only that, but Spain's constitution guarantees the right to universal health care and requires the state to provide it. What a novel idea.)
I'm curious to know what criteria Sen. Shelby bases his expert opinion on.
If that wasn't bad enough, I read in the Oregonian last week that the White House appears ready to "abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of a new government-run insurance program as part of an overhaul of the U.S. health care system." Caving in yet again? WTF?
In addition, Xoxarle on freeratio.org points out that "the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] estimates that the reform bill ... will only bring 16 million into the fold over the next 10 years, which is less than a third of those currently without coverage" for only 1 to 1.5 trillion dollars!
So, as Xoxarle puts it, our tax dollars will go to "preserving and expanding the current unsustainable for-profit model, and as a side benefit, will increase the deficit at the same time." Great!
Honestly, the Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House, what the hell are they waiting for? People probably think I'm crazy for voting for Nader, but I bet that he wouldn't let things like name calling and death threats from right-wing extremists stop him from pushing single-payer health care with a vengeance.
He might be a bit of a nutter, but just reading about what's going on with health care reform, it's hard to argue with him when he says that "the whole liberal-progressive constituency is going nowhere."
today in history
Today marks, among other things, the 50th anniversary of Hawaii's absorption into the Union as the 50th state—which, until the 1890s, was recognized as an independent sovereign state by Germany, France, Japan, the United Kingdom and, last but not least, the United States. That was, of course, before the imperialistic overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893.
Today also marks the 69th anniversary of Leon Trotsky's death, who eventually succumbed to his injuries after being attacked by a Stalinist assassin, Ramon Mercader, a.k.a. Frank Johnson, while in exile in Mexico.
Today also marks the 69th anniversary of Leon Trotsky's death, who eventually succumbed to his injuries after being attacked by a Stalinist assassin, Ramon Mercader, a.k.a. Frank Johnson, while in exile in Mexico.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
alienation
Just like a seed that’s separated from its own fruit
I sell myself for someone else’s gain
My wounded heart’s bleeding out its last drops of love
For a world that remains empty of salvation
I sell myself for someone else’s gain
My wounded heart’s bleeding out its last drops of love
For a world that remains empty of salvation
Monday, July 27, 2009
socialists confront "private-property" politician
Brian Moore is trying to do what few people are willing to these days—stand up for what he believes in. Moore, last year's Socialist Party U.S.A. presidential candidate and chair of the Nature Coast Coalition for Peace and Justice (NCCPJ), believes that we need to bring our troops in Iraq home immediately, and that we need a health care plan that covers everyone, regardless of class or employment. He also believes in the right to public assembly, but local authorities in Florida's 5th district aren't making it easy for Moore to exercise this right.
Back in April, Moore and other members of the NCCPJ attempted to hold a protest against the war in Iraq and for universal health care in front of Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite's new office, but were barred from protesting in front of her office because she claims that her new office is on private property. Instead, demonstrators were forced to hold their demonstration 50 feet away, in a ditch, next to the busy Spring Hill Drive. Moore tried to negotiate the closing of one lane of the road arguing that the conditions of the location were not safe to hold a demonstration, but his negotiations were unsuccessful.
On June 24, Moore and several fellow activists attempted to once again hold a demonstration promoting health care reform in front of Brown-Waite's office. They were again denied access to the property by a representative from Regent Properties, the company in charge of managing the site, the Sheriff's Office was called in and demonstrators once again found their demonstration relegated to the busy Spring Hill Drive.
In response to this denial of assembly rights Moore, in conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union, is currently in the process of building a case against Congresswoman Brown-Waite. In Moore's words, "We need to keep the pressure on all of Congress and the President." But how is that possible when the general trend is to marginalize real activism? As Moore puts it, "If you say you believe in freedom of speech, of assembly, of dissent, then why are you stopping such actions? Why are you saying you are a public servant, but then use private property as an excuse to hide behind?"
Moore is committed to the principles of democracy and vows to continue to fight against this blatant attack on political activism and free speech: "We might be able to pressure Congress to formally establish the policy that all elected representatives of the U.S. Congress should occupy public facilities, or, if private, they must … assure constituent access publicly." Moore and the NCCPJ will continue to oppose the Congresswoman's denial of access both through the legal system and in the street, even if, for now, that means holding demonstrations in a ditch along a busy Florida road.
(Edited version of an article I wrote for the July/August issue of the Socialist.)
Back in April, Moore and other members of the NCCPJ attempted to hold a protest against the war in Iraq and for universal health care in front of Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite's new office, but were barred from protesting in front of her office because she claims that her new office is on private property. Instead, demonstrators were forced to hold their demonstration 50 feet away, in a ditch, next to the busy Spring Hill Drive. Moore tried to negotiate the closing of one lane of the road arguing that the conditions of the location were not safe to hold a demonstration, but his negotiations were unsuccessful.
On June 24, Moore and several fellow activists attempted to once again hold a demonstration promoting health care reform in front of Brown-Waite's office. They were again denied access to the property by a representative from Regent Properties, the company in charge of managing the site, the Sheriff's Office was called in and demonstrators once again found their demonstration relegated to the busy Spring Hill Drive.
In response to this denial of assembly rights Moore, in conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union, is currently in the process of building a case against Congresswoman Brown-Waite. In Moore's words, "We need to keep the pressure on all of Congress and the President." But how is that possible when the general trend is to marginalize real activism? As Moore puts it, "If you say you believe in freedom of speech, of assembly, of dissent, then why are you stopping such actions? Why are you saying you are a public servant, but then use private property as an excuse to hide behind?"
Moore is committed to the principles of democracy and vows to continue to fight against this blatant attack on political activism and free speech: "We might be able to pressure Congress to formally establish the policy that all elected representatives of the U.S. Congress should occupy public facilities, or, if private, they must … assure constituent access publicly." Moore and the NCCPJ will continue to oppose the Congresswoman's denial of access both through the legal system and in the street, even if, for now, that means holding demonstrations in a ditch along a busy Florida road.
(Edited version of an article I wrote for the July/August issue of the Socialist.)
Friday, July 17, 2009
obama, the new steward of american capitalism
I've read two interesting articles recently which I think clearly illustrate the fact that the primary role of the capitalist state is to look out for the interests of the capitalist class first and foremost:
Obama's Ghana trip underlines oil reserve
'Recovery' You Can't Believe In
I should note, however, that this isn't a criticism of President Obama per se — I think he's an ambitious, decent, relatively honest and intelligent human being — but of the structure of the economic and political system in which he unfortunately finds himself.
For example, I’m fairly certain that the present system and its ruling class (i.e., the monied interests) have a much greater influence over his actions than his actions have over the system or its beneficiaries. In fact, I’d bet that under a different set of historical and material circumstances, he’d truly be able to set himself apart from the status quo (e.g., I've a sneaky suspicion that newly discovered oil deposits are the main reason for Obama's recent visit to Ghana and not its "commitment to democracy").
Nevertheless, as it currently stands, the state in which he now serves as chief executive is dominated more by lobbyists and giant multinational corporations than average citizens, and as far as I can see, there’s not much that a single individual can do to challenge their disproportionate influence over both domestic and foreign policy.
(Note: As an addendum to "'Recovery' You Can't Believe In," according to OpenSecrets.org, Goldman Sachs was the 2nd largest contributor to Barack Obama's campaign ($997,095), while Citigroup ($699,790) and JPMorgan Chase ($695,132) were 6th and 7th respectively.)
Obama's Ghana trip underlines oil reserve
'Recovery' You Can't Believe In
I should note, however, that this isn't a criticism of President Obama per se — I think he's an ambitious, decent, relatively honest and intelligent human being — but of the structure of the economic and political system in which he unfortunately finds himself.
For example, I’m fairly certain that the present system and its ruling class (i.e., the monied interests) have a much greater influence over his actions than his actions have over the system or its beneficiaries. In fact, I’d bet that under a different set of historical and material circumstances, he’d truly be able to set himself apart from the status quo (e.g., I've a sneaky suspicion that newly discovered oil deposits are the main reason for Obama's recent visit to Ghana and not its "commitment to democracy").
Nevertheless, as it currently stands, the state in which he now serves as chief executive is dominated more by lobbyists and giant multinational corporations than average citizens, and as far as I can see, there’s not much that a single individual can do to challenge their disproportionate influence over both domestic and foreign policy.
(Note: As an addendum to "'Recovery' You Can't Believe In," according to OpenSecrets.org, Goldman Sachs was the 2nd largest contributor to Barack Obama's campaign ($997,095), while Citigroup ($699,790) and JPMorgan Chase ($695,132) were 6th and 7th respectively.)
Thursday, July 9, 2009
pope backs unions
From the AFL-CIO NOW BLOG:
So let me get this straight: even the Pope — poster child for anti-Enlightenment thinking and Dark Age morality — seems to understand the need for workers to have the freedom to form unions?
For Christ's sake, Congress, get with the program!
In a new encyclical released yesterday by Pope Benedict XVI, the leader of the Catholic Church discusses the challenges of a global economy. He notes that workers’ ability to form a union and bargain is at risk and makes it clear it’s a matter of moral imperative to preserve that freedom.
Here’s what the pope has to say on the need for workers to have the freedom to form unions:Through the combination of social and economic change, trade union organizations experience greater difficulty in carrying out their task of representing the interests of workers, partly because Governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the freedom or the negotiating capacity of labor unions. Hence traditional networks of solidarity have more and more obstacles to overcome. The repeated calls issued within the Church’s social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum, for the promotion of workers’ associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honored today even more than in the past, as a prompt and far-sighted response to the urgent need for new forms of cooperation at the international level, as well as the local level.
The Vatican and a wide variety of Catholic leaders have continued to express support throughout the year for workers’ freedom to form unions, and many Catholic scholars and organizations like the Catholic Labor Network and Catholics for Working Families have come out in support of the Employee Free Choice Act.
Here’s what AFL-CIO President John Sweeney had to say:The new encyclical offers a much-needed reminder that to create an economy that works for everyone it is critical to protect workers’ fundamental right to join together as a union and bargain for a better future. As the Pope makes clear, it is not only working people, but also entire communities–nations even–that stand to benefit when workers exercise this right. In the document, the Pope reaffirms the Church’s longstanding position that labor unions play a vital role in efforts to build a more just economy—one in which even the most marginalized workers are guaranteed basic dignity and respect.
So let me get this straight: even the Pope — poster child for anti-Enlightenment thinking and Dark Age morality — seems to understand the need for workers to have the freedom to form unions?
For Christ's sake, Congress, get with the program!
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
all of my people
Reflecting on the events of this past weekend, I've realized many things about myself and the world around me. One of them is that things aren't as solid as we often perceive them to be. This is, of course, common sense, but I don't think that it's something we intuitively realize in our day to day lives. For example, most people understand that we're biological organisms that change and grow our entire lives — that we're not static entities independent of, and removed from, the material conditions that surround us — and yet we tend to cling with an iron grip to many of the most ephemeral and artificially constructed concepts. And the most insidious of these is identity.
I'm more confident than ever that identity is a phenomenon that's influenced by a myriad of internal and external conditions and experiences, and that even some of the most seemingly concrete aspects of our identity are little more than shackles that we as a society unconsciously place on ourselves. That's not to say that certain things aren't beyond our control, but I'd argue that what's in our control is a lot more than we might imagine, that much of our identity is fluid and malleable.
One of the things that I've been learning about over the past few months is Marx's materialist conception of history and the idea that "the nature of individuals depends on the material conditions determining their production." While Marx's theory was set within a specific context — that of the complex relationship between the production and reproduction of material requirements of life and the historical development of human society — it has much wider implications. For example, I'm of the opinion that things such as identity are conditioned, at least in part, by the historical and material conditions that we find ourselves in, and that changes in those conditions can fundamentally alter our identity and the ways in which we express ourselves, and vice versa. Not in a rigidly deterministic way, however, but in a complex and symbiotic way.
This idea isn't necessarily new. The Buddha, for example, developed similar ideas about identity in his teachings on karma, dependent co-arising, etc. In short, he viewed our sense of self as a continuous process—something which is always in flux, ever-changing from moment to moment in response to various internal and external stimuli. Furthermore, he observed that there are times when our sense of self causes us a great deal of suffering, times when we cling very strongly to that momentary identity and the objects of our sensory experience on which that identity is based in ways that cause a great deal of mental stress. But his focus was primarily on how to relieve the suffering of the individual by mastering this process of "I-making and my-making" while Marx's focus, the bodhisattva that he was, was primarily on how to relieve the suffering of society by changing the material conditions that support it.
What really got me thinking about all of this, though, were the potential contradictions I saw inherent in "identity politics." The Socialism 2009 conference had a fair amount of talks centered around LGBT rights and racism, and I completely support equal rights for, and treatment of, everyone, regardless of their gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. But during some of the talks I started to feel a bit uncomfortable.
The main reason for this, I believe, was that many of the speakers and audience members were separating people into classes based on their gender, race, sexual orientation, etc., and I started to feel alienated by my own gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. being that straight white males have historically been the most exploitative and oppressive class the world has ever known. I began to feel as if I couldn't relate to others because I was on the outside looking in — even though politically we shared the same views — simply because of being born a straight white male. I even felt attacked at times when people attacked these aspects of my identity in an indirect way. I mean, I know that they weren't talking about me personally, yet being a part of the very class that has systematically exploited and oppressed blacks, women, gays and lesbians, and whole plethora of others classes caused me to feel alienated nonetheless.
It wasn't that "I" was being attacked, but by clinging to my identity of a "straight white male" as a fixed thing, I found myself becoming alienated from the very people I was supposed to feel solidarity with. It wasn't an omnipresent feeling, either, but it was strong enough for me to be aware of its psychological impact. And these feelings lead me to question who "I" was.
Pragmatically speaking, I see the need to differentiate between these things for the sake of communication, and as long as the words themselves don't become fixed entities corresponding to permanent realities, there's no problem. But when these labels become representations of things which we then habitually cling to without acknowledging their limitations, I think they can become a serious problem. Hence my wariness of identity politics.
The way I see it, identity politics that separate individuals and groups into various classes run the risk of becoming antagonistic due to the contradictory nature of the various classes themselves, especially if these distinctions of class become solidified and clung to as concretely, independently existing things. In other words, identity politics can actually reinforce the barriers in society that alienate one class from another by artificially segregating them into separate classes to begin with.
Case in point. When I was young, I came home from school crying and I asked my Mom why I wasn't black. Although I don't remember any of this myself, she told me that when she asked what was wrong I told her that I was upset because the kids at school said they wouldn't play with me because I wasn't black. Up until that point, I grew up in a hotel in Detroit with a very diverse mixture of tenets. Being the only kid in the entire hotel, I got a lot of attention from everyone and I was never really exposed to the racial conflicts that existed in the outside world.
For me, in my little world inside that hotel, we were all the same—black, white, men, women, American, Filipino, etc. Almost everyone treated me as a part of their community and I saw them as part of mine. But I imagine that the kids at my school — kids who were exposed to different and less sheltered circumstances — were already acquainted with the harsh realities of racism. So even though I didn't know anything about "race" at the time, and all I wanted to do was play with the other kids and have fun, the idea of race as a class had the unfortunate effect of setting me apart from my own community.
For the majority of my life, I never truly understood that identity wasn't a fixed thing—that my "white" identity wasn't something I was born with, but something which arose out of the historical and material conditions I was born into. And now that I've begun to questions these things, I'm beginning to see that my sense of identity and subsequent feelings of alienation are being perpetuated, at least in part, by the very set of identity politics which seeks to destroy these kinds of social barriers.
I can't change the colour of my skin (well, not easily anyway), but I can just as easily identify myself as a "human being" as I can a "straight white man." Of course, doing so isn't going to make me classless, but it'll at least help me to avoid falling into an essentialist trap in which I'm not able to explore my own sense of identity in a fluid and dynamic way—a way that won’t alienate me and prevent me from connecting to all of my people.
I'm more confident than ever that identity is a phenomenon that's influenced by a myriad of internal and external conditions and experiences, and that even some of the most seemingly concrete aspects of our identity are little more than shackles that we as a society unconsciously place on ourselves. That's not to say that certain things aren't beyond our control, but I'd argue that what's in our control is a lot more than we might imagine, that much of our identity is fluid and malleable.
One of the things that I've been learning about over the past few months is Marx's materialist conception of history and the idea that "the nature of individuals depends on the material conditions determining their production." While Marx's theory was set within a specific context — that of the complex relationship between the production and reproduction of material requirements of life and the historical development of human society — it has much wider implications. For example, I'm of the opinion that things such as identity are conditioned, at least in part, by the historical and material conditions that we find ourselves in, and that changes in those conditions can fundamentally alter our identity and the ways in which we express ourselves, and vice versa. Not in a rigidly deterministic way, however, but in a complex and symbiotic way.
This idea isn't necessarily new. The Buddha, for example, developed similar ideas about identity in his teachings on karma, dependent co-arising, etc. In short, he viewed our sense of self as a continuous process—something which is always in flux, ever-changing from moment to moment in response to various internal and external stimuli. Furthermore, he observed that there are times when our sense of self causes us a great deal of suffering, times when we cling very strongly to that momentary identity and the objects of our sensory experience on which that identity is based in ways that cause a great deal of mental stress. But his focus was primarily on how to relieve the suffering of the individual by mastering this process of "I-making and my-making" while Marx's focus, the bodhisattva that he was, was primarily on how to relieve the suffering of society by changing the material conditions that support it.
What really got me thinking about all of this, though, were the potential contradictions I saw inherent in "identity politics." The Socialism 2009 conference had a fair amount of talks centered around LGBT rights and racism, and I completely support equal rights for, and treatment of, everyone, regardless of their gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. But during some of the talks I started to feel a bit uncomfortable.
The main reason for this, I believe, was that many of the speakers and audience members were separating people into classes based on their gender, race, sexual orientation, etc., and I started to feel alienated by my own gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. being that straight white males have historically been the most exploitative and oppressive class the world has ever known. I began to feel as if I couldn't relate to others because I was on the outside looking in — even though politically we shared the same views — simply because of being born a straight white male. I even felt attacked at times when people attacked these aspects of my identity in an indirect way. I mean, I know that they weren't talking about me personally, yet being a part of the very class that has systematically exploited and oppressed blacks, women, gays and lesbians, and whole plethora of others classes caused me to feel alienated nonetheless.
It wasn't that "I" was being attacked, but by clinging to my identity of a "straight white male" as a fixed thing, I found myself becoming alienated from the very people I was supposed to feel solidarity with. It wasn't an omnipresent feeling, either, but it was strong enough for me to be aware of its psychological impact. And these feelings lead me to question who "I" was.
Pragmatically speaking, I see the need to differentiate between these things for the sake of communication, and as long as the words themselves don't become fixed entities corresponding to permanent realities, there's no problem. But when these labels become representations of things which we then habitually cling to without acknowledging their limitations, I think they can become a serious problem. Hence my wariness of identity politics.
The way I see it, identity politics that separate individuals and groups into various classes run the risk of becoming antagonistic due to the contradictory nature of the various classes themselves, especially if these distinctions of class become solidified and clung to as concretely, independently existing things. In other words, identity politics can actually reinforce the barriers in society that alienate one class from another by artificially segregating them into separate classes to begin with.
Case in point. When I was young, I came home from school crying and I asked my Mom why I wasn't black. Although I don't remember any of this myself, she told me that when she asked what was wrong I told her that I was upset because the kids at school said they wouldn't play with me because I wasn't black. Up until that point, I grew up in a hotel in Detroit with a very diverse mixture of tenets. Being the only kid in the entire hotel, I got a lot of attention from everyone and I was never really exposed to the racial conflicts that existed in the outside world.
For me, in my little world inside that hotel, we were all the same—black, white, men, women, American, Filipino, etc. Almost everyone treated me as a part of their community and I saw them as part of mine. But I imagine that the kids at my school — kids who were exposed to different and less sheltered circumstances — were already acquainted with the harsh realities of racism. So even though I didn't know anything about "race" at the time, and all I wanted to do was play with the other kids and have fun, the idea of race as a class had the unfortunate effect of setting me apart from my own community.
For the majority of my life, I never truly understood that identity wasn't a fixed thing—that my "white" identity wasn't something I was born with, but something which arose out of the historical and material conditions I was born into. And now that I've begun to questions these things, I'm beginning to see that my sense of identity and subsequent feelings of alienation are being perpetuated, at least in part, by the very set of identity politics which seeks to destroy these kinds of social barriers.
I can't change the colour of my skin (well, not easily anyway), but I can just as easily identify myself as a "human being" as I can a "straight white man." Of course, doing so isn't going to make me classless, but it'll at least help me to avoid falling into an essentialist trap in which I'm not able to explore my own sense of identity in a fluid and dynamic way—a way that won’t alienate me and prevent me from connecting to all of my people.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
re: supreme court rejects inmates' rights to dna
I submitted an edited version of my last post, "supreme court rejects inmates' rights to dna," to the Oregonian editorial board, and it's been selected along with one other submission as the Wednesday offering for a new feature on their online opinion page:
Here's the edited version:
Jason, Richard:
I've chosen your letters on the recent Supreme Court DNA ruling as the Wednesday offering for a new feature on our online opinion page at http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion
Point-Counterpoint offers two opposing viewpoints on the same subject.
Your letters are scheduled to post at 9 a.m. 6/24. Readers may comment on your thoughts and you are welcome to respond to them and to each other.
Thanks very much for contributing to our community's conversation.
All best,
Helen Shum
Public Access Editor
The Oregonian
503-221-8039
Here's the edited version:
No innocent person should be incarcerated, but the recent Supreme Court ruling seriously undermines an inmate's ability to challenge their incarceration and prove their innocence via new, more advanced DNA testing methods.
The 5-4 ruling denies that inmates have a constitutional right to DNA testing after their conviction and places the states in charge of setting their own policies concerning whether inmates can have access to post-conviction DNA testing.
Amendment 6 of the U.S. Constitution states that "the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him" and "obtaining witnesses in his favor." And this applies to physical evidence as well.
The right to, as Reuters puts it, "obtain access to a state's biological evidence to conduct DNA testing when pursuing claims of innocence" should easily fall under this amendment.
I agree with the dissenting justices that "the right to post-conviction DNA testing should not depend on the widely varying laws enacted by the states."
Friday, June 19, 2009
supreme court rejects inmates' rights to dna
While my opinion is that no innocent person should be incarcerated, and that we should make every effort to ensure their freedom if wrongly convicted, the recent Supreme Court ruling seriously undermines an inmate's ability to challenge their incarceration and prove their innocence via new, more advanced DNA testing methods.
The 5-4 ruling denies that inmates have a constitutional right to DNA testing after their conviction and places the states in charge of setting their own policies concerning whether inmates can have access to post-conviction DNA testing or not. What this means is that if someone's innocent and wrongfully imprisoned for a crime they didn't commit, and a new DNA test might clear them of any wrong doing, they have no constitutionally protected right to that biological evidence.
So states such as Alabama, Alaska, Massachusetts and Oklahoma that have no laws allowing post-conviction access to biological evidence can arbitrarily decide whether or not someone can have access to such evidence or new, more advanced testing methods. And the states that do have laws often place strict limits on who is eligible, so there's no guarantee that inmates in those states will be able to exonerate themselves either.
As for the constitutionality of this issue, Amendment 6 states that "the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him" and "obtaining witnesses in his favor." And this applies to physical evidence as well. So as far as I'm concerned, the right to, as Reuters puts it, "obtain access to a state's biological evidence to conduct DNA testing when pursuing claims of innocence" should easily fall under this amendment.
In other words, I think it is a Constitutional issue and I agree with the dissenting justices that "the right to post-conviction DNA testing should not depend on the widely varying laws enacted by the states." This has got to be one of the most disturbing rulings from the U. S. Supreme Court in recent memory. It's absolutely unbelievable.
The 5-4 ruling denies that inmates have a constitutional right to DNA testing after their conviction and places the states in charge of setting their own policies concerning whether inmates can have access to post-conviction DNA testing or not. What this means is that if someone's innocent and wrongfully imprisoned for a crime they didn't commit, and a new DNA test might clear them of any wrong doing, they have no constitutionally protected right to that biological evidence.
So states such as Alabama, Alaska, Massachusetts and Oklahoma that have no laws allowing post-conviction access to biological evidence can arbitrarily decide whether or not someone can have access to such evidence or new, more advanced testing methods. And the states that do have laws often place strict limits on who is eligible, so there's no guarantee that inmates in those states will be able to exonerate themselves either.
As for the constitutionality of this issue, Amendment 6 states that "the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him" and "obtaining witnesses in his favor." And this applies to physical evidence as well. So as far as I'm concerned, the right to, as Reuters puts it, "obtain access to a state's biological evidence to conduct DNA testing when pursuing claims of innocence" should easily fall under this amendment.
In other words, I think it is a Constitutional issue and I agree with the dissenting justices that "the right to post-conviction DNA testing should not depend on the widely varying laws enacted by the states." This has got to be one of the most disturbing rulings from the U. S. Supreme Court in recent memory. It's absolutely unbelievable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)