4/20

Although I haven't heard much about it in the majority in the mainstream media, today marks the 95th anniversary of the Ludlow massacre: a black day in the history of the American labour movement.

happiness is for everyone

While I lack a belief in a creator God, I consider myself a very spiritual person. But this raises the question, Are non-theistic views and spirituality compatible?

I think it depends on what is meant by "spirituality," but in general, I don't see any inherent contradiction between them. For example, Sam Harris, one of the most outspoken atheists in America, has no problem being an atheist while at the same time being open to the fact that people have spiritual experiences. As he wrote in 10 Myths - And 10 Truths - About Atheism:

"There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don’t tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences."

As for the use use of the term "spirituality" itself, he states in The End of Faith that:

"It is difficult to find a word for the human enterprise which aims at happiness directly—at happiness of a sort that can survive the frustrations of all conventional desires. The term "spirituality" seems unavoidable here—and I have used it several times in this book already—but it has many connotations that are, frankly, embarrassing."

So, from this perspective, I don't think there's anything that precludes someone like me, who lacks a theistic worldview, from also being a spiritual person for the simply fact that we all have the ability to have these profoundly emotional experiences, regardless of our religious inclinations.

To me, being a spiritual person is all about finding happiness. The way I see it, happiness isn't just reserved for a select few; happiness is for everyone.

the future of capitalism

I have noticed a lot more discussion about capitalism versus socialism lately, and while I think that this is a good thing in general, I am disheartened by those who hold economic theories more like religious ideologies than models invented by people abstracting their features through various means. As I have said before, I believe that no model is perfect, and all economic and political ideologies are going to be flawed in some way.

One of the main reasons for this is that there is an unstable variable in the whim of the individual—in their ambitions, desires, needs, etc. It is one thing to construct abstract models and theories based upon personal ideals and observations, but it is quite another to put those abstract models and theories into practice on a larger scale. In any model, there is always going to be the possibility that each individual will end up working at cross purposes, and this can lead to things like the negation of social consensus in the case of socialism, or opening the door for exploitation in the case of capitalism, etc.

Modern day capitalism itself has had a long and often troubled history.

As Capitalism for Beginners, a quite humourous comic about the history of capitalism, summarizes, Adam Smith essentially had the idea that the selfish and unrestrained (i.e. free) pursuit of self-interest would improve the general welfare. The idea was that private profit would translate into public benefit. This was the theoretical foundation behind free market capitalism. Unlike the corporate free market model of today, however, Smith himself not only treated high wages as desirable, but high profits as undesirable (Adam Smith on Profits--Paradox Lost and Regained). In the Wealth of Nations, for example, he closes his chapter on the profits of stocks with the statement:

"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people."

This is direct contrast with the likes of Arthur Young, who, as Nathan Rosenberg notes, wrote in his Farmer’s Tour through the East of England that "every one but an idiot knows that the lower classes must be kept poor or they will never be industrious; I do not mean, that the poor of England are to be kept like the poor of France, but, the state of the country considered, they must (like all mankind) be in poverty or they will not work." Smith envisioned his version of capitalism supporting a more egalitarian society where everyone benefits from their labour, not just the capitalists and property owners. But a "free" market tends to get hampered by greedy and powerful capitalists in the form of cartels, monopolies and oligopolies, inequality of opportunity and, of course, government interference. And when the Great Depression hit, many people thought that the capitalist system was nearing its final end. This is where James Keynes came in.

As Capitalism for Beginners puts it, although Keynes was often critical of certain aspects of capitalism, his goal was not to replace it with another system such as socialism, but to reform it and make it more inline with Smith's idea of an egalitarian society by recommending a "somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment" (General Theory, 378). He differed from Smith in that he advocated more government involvement in the market because Smith's "invisible hand" (i.e., the self-regulating nature of the marketplace) no longer seemed to work, and he was deeply concerned about the looming long-term deficits in investment, aggregate demand (i.e., the total amount of goods and services demanded in the economy at a given overall price level and in a given time period) and employment. As Keynes famously wrote:

"If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing."

In certain parts of Europe, especially post-war Britain, this economic philosophy led to social-democratic governments that nationalized certain sectors of industry, including health care, and instituted stronger social welfare programs, while in the United States, economists and politicians focused upon Keynes' fiscal policy and monetary policy while ignoring Keynes' "endorsement of more egalitarian redistribution and social control of investment" (Capitalism for Beginners, 106). Nevertheless, there were problems with both approaches, and the simultaneous appearance of inflation and high unemployment (i.e., stagflation) eroded confidence in Keynesian economics, which, thanks to the economic theories of Milton Friedman, gave way to the rise of monetarism (i.e., the idea that the government's only role in the market should be controlling the money supply) in the United States and Britain.

Monetarism had moderate success in the United States in the late 70s-early 80s, where it produced a deep recession but cured double-digit inflation, but less success in Britain, where is also lowered inflation but contributed to a deep recession and mass unemployment (A Critique of the Chicago School of Economics). But it appears that the overall failure of purely monetarist policies to sufficiently stimulate economic growth, combined with the apparent damage done to the global economy caused by the deregulation (i.e., the reduction of government control over business activity) and privatization (i.e., the selling of public assets to private industry) associated with monetarism, has led to a resurgence of Keynesian-style policies.

Today, considering the scale of the current global economic crisis and the vast array of economic policies and systems in play, the question is, What's next? How do we level the playing field? How much government interference is ideal? How can economic growth rates be increased in sustainable way? What mechanisms should to be implemented to keep giant multinational corporations from dominating the market, not to mention political discourse? These are the kinds of questions that continually need to be asked in any capitalist society. Adam Smith struggled with these questions at the end of the 18th century, and 200 years later, we are still struggling with them.

So far I have found some of Socialism's longstanding concerns regarding the drawbacks and weak points of the capitalist system amazingly prescient, especially in regard to commerce and credit, but the fact that most socialists are decidedly biased against it seems to blind them to the potential ability of future generations to solve some of these problems. Perhaps socialism is the next evolution of economics that will lead the world to a wonderful new level of prosperity and cooperation, and then again, perhaps not. But ultimately, I think it all depends on what direction we want to take our global society. Are we ready to see that we are all citizens of the world and work toward a better future together? Or are we still content to pursue our own individual self-interests above all else?

I suspect that Smith was right in that the pursuit of self-interest will improve the general welfare, but only when we realize, as a collective whole, that we are all in this together.

howard zinn: you can't be neutral on a moving train

I just watched a documentary about Howard Zinn called Howard Zinn: You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train.

It was an excellent documentary (sans Matt Damon's occasional narrations). Zinn has become one of my heroes.

I'd highly recommend it to people interested in American history, especially through a progressive point of view.

way to go, vermont!

From the Associated Press: "Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature's vote."

Nice. As Bob Dylan would say, "The times they are a-changin'."

way to go, iowa!

According to the New York Times, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled today that a 1998 state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman was unconstitutional. The unanimous decision means that same-sex marriage is now legal in Iowa, making it the first Midwestern state, and the third in the country, to legalize same-sex marriage.

And even if the state of Iowa isn't as progressive as the ruling might imply, I'm heartened by the justices' opinion, which said:

"We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law. ... If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded."

Truer words were never spoken.

duchesse de bourgogne

What a surprising beer. The flavours were crisp and well-pronounced, but conflicting, although not necessarily in a bad way.

Overall, it struck me as fruity, tart and quite acidic, with a hint of sweetness and a sour finish. But it was also refreshing, not unlike sparkling apple cider.

I actually bounced between liking and not liking this beer between each sip. It’s not bad, though, just takes some getting used to.

I’d recommend this beer to people who like crisp, fruity beers, or hard cider, and don’t mind a little sourness or the taste of apple cider vinegar.