obama + gun control ≠ hitler

Apparently it seems that some people are still going around suggesting that the Obama administration's recent (and relatively modest) gun control proposals in the wake of several mass shootings is equivalent to what Hitler did in Nazi Germany, ergo Obama is just like Hitler.

The facts, however, are a bit different and more complicated than that. While Nazi Germany did have comparatively strict gun laws, Hitler actually relaxed some of the gun control restrictions that were put into place by the previous Weimar government, which at one point actually banned all private firearm possession after Germany's defeat in WWI (the Treaty of Versailles itself actually required Germany to place tough restrictions on the manufacture of 'military weapons' like machine guns and rifles).

So while it's true that gun ownership in Nazi Germany was restricted and heavily regulated, Hitler can't be entirely blamed for that — it was something that preceded his rise to power in 1933 when he was appointed Chancellor — and his stance on gun control was actually more liberal than the previous government's. As Bernard Harcourt, Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, notes in his 2004 paper, "On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars":

The history of gun control in Germany from the post-World War I period to the inception of World War II seems to be a history of declining, rather than increasing, gun control. [...] The 1928 law [enacted by the Weimar government relaxing certain restrictions on its 1919 ban] required a license for the acquisition or transfer of any firearm. It applied to all "firearms and ammunition," which included any and all "weapons from which a bullet or a load of pellets may be driven through a barrel, by means of the development of an explosive gas or air pressure"—in other words, rifles, shotguns, handguns, etc. The 1938 law, in contrast [enacted by Hitler], applied only to "handguns." In effect, the 1938 revision completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition. (23-5)

Beyond this, Harcourt details a number of other ways in which gun laws were slightly but noticeably relaxed by the 1938 law enacted by Hitler compared to the 1928 law enacted by the Weimar government, the primary exception being when it came to Jews, who were placed with more restrictions and forced to disarm under various pretexts, from the 'trustworthiness' requirements of the originally 1928 legislation to more direct means specifically targeting Jews in an effort to oppress and eventually exterminate them.

I'm not a fan of Obama or gun control as I don't think it'll do much to stop gun violence; but equating Obama with Hitler on this basis is completely fallacious and beyond hyperbole, in my opinion. People who do obviously don't know their history. For the last time, Obama is not fucking Hitler, OK?

some tentative thoughts on "on communism and markets: a reply to seth ackerman"

Some tentative thoughts on Matthijs Krul's reply to Seth Ackerman's article "The Red and the Black" from a poor, working-class jag on his way to work:

"On Communism and Markets: A Reply to Seth Ackerman" is an interesting and well-written response by Matthijs Krul illustrating some of the weak points in Seth Ackerman's article/argument exploring the feasibility of a socialized market economy beyond capitalism. I especially like the first several paragraphs in that they refocus the debate back towards the point of production itself, which often seems to get neglected in favour of discussions about distribution and exchange.

I also like how Krul shines a light on the importance of labour time, both in terms of the history of socialist activism and in terms of what we, as socialists, are fighting for, i.e., the worker having the time to "fully develop her intellectual, social, and creative powers." This also gets under-emphasized, in my opinion (and I'm only just know seeing its importance myself, previously getting stuck arguing for more hours and higher wages rather than less hours and no wages!).

The real question facing us is how this society of minimal hours of labour and maximum hours of leisure can be achieved, which, under the logic of capitalism, it can't, since this is the point where profit is created and realized by capital, i.e., a reduction in labour hours under capitalism will ultimately serve to reduce the mass of surplus value (profit), which itself is intimately tied into the amount of labour time required for the production of commodities. Simply socializing aspects of capitalist production, such as finance, while ignoring the process of production itself won't get rid of the "coercive pressure of competition and accumulation" inherent within capitalism, and hence can't full transcend it or its limitations.

The section on Soviet-style central planning and its real limitations is also interesting, as well as educational (I'm not very well-versed in that topic); and I think Krul does a good job of pointing out how Ackerman's vision of a socialized market economy is actually more like the Soviet economy he criticizes than he realizes. The only thing I'd argue with is that Krul's response seems to present Ackerman's social market economy as an end, whereas I read it as a possible step towards a socialist society, not a goal in and of itself (although perhaps the logic of his argument necessitates this?).

In the end, I don't know if central planning is the answer, but I definitely think Krul's reply adds a lot to the debate and I'm surprised Jacobin didn't publish it.

waste not, profit not

One of the many things that make me so critical of capitalism is the fact that waste is such a systematic and seemingly inherent problem in a system where the focus of production is always on profit rather than on need or even utility. For example, as a recent NPR story notes, while natural gas is something that's quite useful as an energy source, and in relatively high demand, many oil companies simply burn off the gas rather than build systems to collect it because it's not as profitable as the oil that comes up with it.

To them, it's often cheaper and easier to just treat this limited natural resource as a waste byproduct of oil extraction than it is to treat it as an energy source in its own right that can be used to heat hundreds of thousands of homes. And many of the companies that do bother to collect the gas only do so because they're compelled to by the state of North Dakota, which begins to tax those flares after a year (when it's not granting exceptions, that is). What seems like an irrational waste of resources is in fact completely rational from a purely profit-driven point of view.

Another example connected to private property rights is how much food we waste/throw away at work. After my first week, I mentioned that we should take all of the stuff we're just going to throw away at the end of the day and give it to the homeless and my co-worker just laughed at me. And the kicker is that, if I were to take it, even though it's going straight into the trash (and I'm the one that has to put it there), and give it to someone or eat it myself, it'd be considered stealing and I'd be fired. How fucked up is that?

right-to-work sleight of hand

I think John Medearis's article "Freeway to Serfdom?" makes an interesting point regarding right-to-work legislation. On the one hand, conservative proponents of right-to-work legislation often use the argument that unions force workers to pay dues, which they say restricts the individual worker's freedom to not pay dues. Hence right-to-work legislation is portrayed as 'freeing' workers from the oppression of 'greedy' labour unions.

However, this argument ignores the fact that most employers restrict an individual worker's freedom far more than the payment of union dues does, and they certainly don't seem to be all that keen to support anything that gives the worker more freedom from the oppression of their 'greedy' employer and more control over their labour time. (It's also interesting to note that the same people often argue the worker has the freedom to find a different job if they don't like the one they have and/or their employer, yet they curiously fail to extend this argument to the worker having the freedom to find a different job if they don't want to work at a unionized workplace and/or pay union dues.)

Furthermore, it neglects the fact that these dues are in a sense an obligation of the worker's from their own conservative point of view, i.e., it's a payment on the part of the worker to the union for services rendered (the union's advocacy, protection, the contract it helped to negotiate that the worker benefits from, etc.), an exchange conservatives hold sacred in every other circumstance.

In essence, they're using the state to restrict the freedom of unions to negotiate and agree to certain contract provisions in order to make unionized workers more free, which is kind of like giving with one hand and taking with the other.

study alone isn’t enough: you also need to practice what you preach so you don’t look like a hypocritical asshat

So I was at a local Starbucks yesterday morning getting a cup of coffee on my way to work (opening shift at a bagel shop downtown). After I got my coffee, I sat down for a minute since I had a moment to spare and noticed that the table next to me was some kind of Bible study group. I decided to listen in and see what they were talking about. The topic was Jesus—his life, teachings, and example. As they were discussing Jesus' words to his disciples about what life as a disciple would entail, particularly how it wasn't about being materially wealthy but about giving all that you have and following in his footsteps, a homeless man stumbled in and tried to by a coffee.

As soon as he entered, however, the guy working behind the counter immediately came around and escorted him out, addressing him by name and telling him that he knew he wasn't allowed in there anymore. He said he had money, waving $2 he had in his hand; but the way the barista addressed him, it was evident that he was well-known there and had probably caused some kind of trouble before. He also seemed either high, drunk, or mentally disabled, and could barely stand let alone walk. It was a pitiful sight, and I felt bad for the guy. My first thought was to buy his coffee for him, and when he got the boot, I was thinking about buying one and bringing it out to him. At the same time, the Bible study group not 5ft away continued with their discussion, completely ignoring it all.

It struck me as being a bit ironic watching a homeless guy get the boot from a coffee shop while a Bible study group talking about Jesus didn't even seem to acknowledge his existence. They completely ignored the whole thing; they didn't even bother to turn their heads, and I know they could hear/see it all since I was sitting at the table next to them. I wanted to be all like, "Mt 25:31-36, yo!" And the kicker was that the guy leading the group was right in the middle of talking about Jesus and his message to his disciples about following his example at the same time an obviously poor man who was in need in more ways than one was being booted out of the cafe and into the cold, Portland morning.

Before I could buy a coffee and bring it out to him, however, the person working there who'd kicked him out fixed him one and brought it out to him, which was probably out of kindness as much as it was out of a desire to keep him from coming back in. And I just sat there, somewhat dumbstruck by the ironic and hypocritical scene taking place before my eyes at 6:30 in the morning as a bunch of people talking big about Jesus, being a good person, not judging others, etc. completely ignored the very person Jesus said to feed, clothe, take care of, etc. (The Thai Buddhist monk I sit with every Tuesday makes a better Christian than most Christians I've met, always making food for the local rescue mission.) What's the point of even studying the Bible if you don't practice what you preach?

the audacity of lena dunham, and her admirable commitment to making us look at her naked

I read an interesting article today called "The Audacity of Lena Dunham, And Her Admirable Commitment To Making Us Look At Her Naked" that really got me thinking. To be honest, our society's obsession with the subjective aesthetics of the 'perfect' female form is really beyond me. You'd think by now that we'd have evolved to a point culturally where we'd allow ourselves to find and appreciate the beauty in everyone seeing as how standards of beauty change with time and culture (and here, I think beauty is often conflated with attractiveness; and in terms of the media, they're practically synonymous). Instead, we seem to be more obsessed about imposing an arbitrary picture of perfection onto women than ever before, which I find bordering on misogynistic and indicative of a society that's practiced patriarchy for centuries—with women being treated more as objects of aesthetic pleasure than people.

This insane obsession, which itself appears to dominate every medium, causes many women to become extremely self-conscious and even self-loathing, often at an unconscious level, with all the compulsions, neuroses, and low self-esteem that go along with it. And if that wasn't bad enough, this is further exacerbated by the constant flood of condemnation and criticism women who don't fit this ridiculous standard receive whenever they attempt to present themselves to the world as is, without shame or apology. Which is completely fucked up because women are beautiful inside and out; and this twisted obsession with how the outside *should* look not only disregards the beautiful diversity of the human form, but completely ignores the intelligence and beauty that can be found on the inside as well. It's hateful, it's sick, and it has to stop. And props to women like Dunham who gives no fucks.

time to pull the plug?

From the Washington Post:

An amazing mea culpa from the IMF’s chief economist on austerity

Lulz, for realz? Even I could've told Blanchard that implementing austerity measures in the midst of a global financial crisis will likely serve to slowdown an already sluggish economy, simultaneously decreasing demand and increasing unemployment while attempting to reduce debts and deficits at the expense of the working class, poor, and elderly (since social spending is almost always the first target of such measures), with my rudimentary knowledge of economics.

Being an economist, particularly at the IMF, has seriously got to be the easiest fucking job in the world. It's like the only profession where you can consistently be wrong about EVERYTHING and still be considered a credible source of information and advise nations on economic policies when all you're really doing is spewing a bunch of ideological bullshit and fucking things up even worse.

What really needs to be addressed, in my opinion, are the underlying contradictions that constantly push capitalism to the point of collapse and thus requiring ever-increasing intervention on the part of the state to prop it up and stimulate the economy via debt (which itself is somewhat paradoxical in that it essentially provides this 'life-support' by consuming superfluous capital to facilitate expansion in the private sector instead of employing it productively) and whether prolonging the agony is actually worth it in the long run.

Methinks the real question before us is, Is it time to pull the plug on capitalism?

searching for sugar man

After driving back from the Oregon coast, where my girlfriend and I spent New Year's Eve, we met up with some friends to see Searching For Sugar Man at the Laurelhurst Theater, a local second-run movie theater in Portland. Being fairly tired from the three-hour drive home, and not particularly excited by the preview I'd seen earlier, I went in with low expectations; I left feeling slightly homesick and with an unexpected appreciation for a relatively unknown artist from my hometown.

The film itself centres around the search by two South African fans to find out more about Rodriguez, who's been completely forgotten about in the US but, unbeknownst to him, has a huge following in South Africa, where his music spoke to many white South Africans opposed to apartheid in the 70s and helped to inspire the music of a budding, white anti-Apartheid movement during those turbulent times.

Rodriguez put out a couple of albums in the early 70s after getting signed to Sussex Records — Cold Fact in 1970 and Coming from Reality in 1971 — but none of them sold and he was unceremoniously dropped from the label, going back into obscurity and his working-class roots in Detroit, working mostly in construction while also completing a BA in philosophy from Wayne State University. His life was so obscure, in fact, that most of his fans in South Africa thought he was dead, with multiple urban legends floating around about how he'd died, ranging everywhere from a grizzly on-stage suicide (due to self-immolation or a gunshot wound depending on who you'd ask) to a drug overdose.

Eventually, however, the two fans discover that he's not only alive, but actually manage to get into contact with him via one of his daughters, and the film explores their search, Rodriguez's musical impact on South Africa, his jump-started musical career, and his enduring mystique throughout it all, which persists in spite of his new-found fame and subsequent South African tour, where he's treated like a rock 'n' roll star almost 30 years after the release of his last record and almost two decades since his last tour.

The film switches back and forth between Detroit, Michigan, and Cape Town, South Africa; and while I know relatively little about Cape Town, the scenes in Detroit brought back a flood of memories and feelings, and I found myself being drawn even more into the narrative, especially with each tiny little revelation about Rodriguez's life, many of which reminded me of my own (I grew up in Detroit; I was a heat treater for a couple of years, and a manual labourer for most of my working life; I got laid off from a ceramic tile manufacturer just before Christmas two years ago; etc.).

I don't know how accurate the film's portrayal of Rodriguez's level of talent or his music's influence on the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa are (I suspect they're somewhat exaggerated), but I think it does a decent job of portraying the spirit of Detroiters (and by extension the beleaguered working class in general) personified by Rodriguez—specifically the quiet determination and modest dignity of working-class people who may have little materially to show for their years of hard work, but who are by no means soulless wretches living in a land of no hope despite the constant day-to-day struggles they face just to make ends meet.

While Searching For Sugar Man doesn't sugarcoat life in the "troubled city" where Rodriguez was born, it doesn't belittle or criticize it, either. Instead, it hints at the potential underlying everyone who calls it home, even if that potential goes unnoticed by the majority of the rest of the world. And while this particular "troubled city" happens to be Detroit, I think it can stand for any place where working-class people deal with the realities of working-class life and the surprising things you can find there.