Only in an economic/political system where money equals speech, and where private over public ownership is idealized (particularly by conservatives), can one man essentially prevent a bridge from being built:
The Bridge: Beyond Any Doubt
Report exposes bridge owner's lies
The Supreme Court of the United States has not only decided that money equals speech (Buckley v. Valeo), but has essentially neutered campaign finance reform as well (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission); and campaign contributions by Ambassador Bridge owner Manuel Moroun appear to be one of the reasons (besides ideology, of course) why the Republican-led legislature hasn't approved this project yet—proving once again that us 'little guys' (i.e., average working-class citizens) are effectively screwed and politically powerless unless we start getting our shit together and become better organized.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
how can socialism be morally justified? or drowning my sorrows in socialist politics so I don't drink myself stupid
On the Socialist Party USA's Facebook page, someone asked, How can socialism be morally justified? It's an interesting question, and I can at least think of a few tentative answers. The potential exploitation inherent in the capitalist system is one place to start.
In the Marxist sense, at least, exploitation refers to the worker's lack of ownership and/or distributive control over the surplus created by their labour. (That's why Marx defined slavery, feudalism and capitalism as exploitative systems of production, i.e., in each, the producers/workers have no ownership and/or distributive control over the surplus created by their labour).
From this perspective, exploitation is an inherent part of the capitalist mode of production, which in turn, ties into Marx's theory of alienation. It's rather complicated, and I don't fully understand everything Marx wrote on the subject as much of it is very abstract, but in short, exploitation is the idea that the capitalist profits far more from a worker's labour than the worker does, and it doesn't really matter whether it's voluntary or not due to the structural and personal forms of dependence that characterize wage-labour under capitalism and compel workers to work for others (e.g., see "Wage-Slavery and Republican Liberty").
Adam Smith et al. assumed that labour creates wealth (surplus value). But according to Marx, in a capitalist system, labour itself becomes a commodity, an object that's bought and sold on the market. Moreover, due to private ownership of the means of production, the product of the worker's labour doesn’t legally belong to them (alienation), nor does the surplus value their labour creates (unpaid labour), which is kept by the capitalist.
Consequently, the product of the worker's 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 the worker's labour into their company while the labourer is forced to spend their (more often than not) meager wages on the necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, etc.
If one assumes that giving workers more control over the product of their labour is more 'moral' or socially beneficial than, say, giving that control to a capitalist who treats their labour as a commodity and gives them a smaller wage than their labour is truly worth in exchange, that may be one argument based on both a moral and rational basis.
Taking a broader view of history, one can also make the argument that the foundation of capitalism, private property, is ultimately built upon theft, which is not only viewed as something immoral but something that's ultimately harmful to the commonwealth (i.e., a community founded for the common good). For example, a modern argument against socialism is the idea that abolishing private property rights and confiscating the 'rightful' property of one person (or persons) and giving it to another, including to the community as a whole, is immoral or harmful to the commonwealth. However, much of the land and natural resources that one may now 'rightfully' exploit for profit may very well have belonged to, or utilized by, another at some point in time, and was forcibly confiscated (e.g., Native American land). As Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote in Discourse on Inequality:
And the question can be raised, What's more moral or socially beneficial from this point of view, communal ownership where all (or at least a majority) have a say in the use of, and share in the profit from, property, whether in the form of land, resources, or machinery, or a private ownership, where only a single individual or select few benefit and/or have a say in the production and distribution of commodities that the reproduction of society depends upon?
Another argument may be how the present system actually creates structural unemployment, which hardly existed on a mass scale before it became the dominant mode of production, leaving many working-class people unable to support themselves or their families. This can be seen to be 'immoral' and socially harmful from a certain point of view.
And then there's the argument that under the present system, opportunity is essentially privatized along with everything else the capitalists and free-market advocates can get their hands on, making it just as concentrated as wealth (and, if you've noticed, income inequality is rising while median family income is lower now that it was 30 years ago). Sure, things have improved since the 1900s, when workers (which included large numbers of children) essentially had no rights whatsoever, and were forced to work over 12 hour days in absolutely appalling conditions, but that's been due to the struggle of workers themselves, not due to the benevolence of capitalism.
Capitalism isn't an immoral system as much as an amoral one, in my opinion, (as I'd argue all economic systems are in that they're essentially ways of organizing production and distribution utilized by people with varying degrees of intention); but I think we've definitely outgrown it, just like we did feudalism. And while socialism isn't going to be a perfect replacement if it ever takes its place, I think it has the potential to revolutionize society much the same way feudalism and capitalism have.
For me, socialism isn't so much about the equality of wealth or outcomes as it is the de-privatization (i.e., socialization) of opportunity and the weakening of class antagonisms and hierarchies arising out of social relations unique to capitalism and other predominately exploitative systems. As Marx wrote in The Poverty of Philosophy, "Social relations are closely bound up with productive forces. In acquiring new productive forces men change their mode of production; and in changing their mode of production, in changing the way of earning their living, they change all their social relations. The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist."
Marx's focus, the bodhisattva that he was, is essentially the same as socialism's, which is primarily the question of how to liberate society from its suffering and alienation by changing the material conditions that support it. In the words of Erich Fromm, "[Marx's] concept of socialism is the emancipation from alienation, the return of man to himself, his self-realization."
The present system, however, due to the way its structured, tends to idealize and promote greed (self-interest) over altruism (common good), competition over cooperation, privatization over public ownership, etc., as well as promotes the accumulation of capital into a smaller and smaller number of hands. This, I suppose, can be argued to be less moral and socially beneficial if we place a higher/greater value on things like altruism, cooperation, etc., and if we conclude that liberty in the economic sphere (as opposed to just within the political sphere) is more inline with/promotes the general welfare of the commonwealth.
Those are some of the arguments I can think of off the top of my head, anyway. (Updated 3/2/13)
In the Marxist sense, at least, exploitation refers to the worker's lack of ownership and/or distributive control over the surplus created by their labour. (That's why Marx defined slavery, feudalism and capitalism as exploitative systems of production, i.e., in each, the producers/workers have no ownership and/or distributive control over the surplus created by their labour).
From this perspective, exploitation is an inherent part of the capitalist mode of production, which in turn, ties into Marx's theory of alienation. It's rather complicated, and I don't fully understand everything Marx wrote on the subject as much of it is very abstract, but in short, exploitation is the idea that the capitalist profits far more from a worker's labour than the worker does, and it doesn't really matter whether it's voluntary or not due to the structural and personal forms of dependence that characterize wage-labour under capitalism and compel workers to work for others (e.g., see "Wage-Slavery and Republican Liberty").
Adam Smith et al. assumed that labour creates wealth (surplus value). But according to Marx, in a capitalist system, labour itself becomes a commodity, an object that's bought and sold on the market. Moreover, due to private ownership of the means of production, the product of the worker's labour doesn’t legally belong to them (alienation), nor does the surplus value their labour creates (unpaid labour), which is kept by the capitalist.
Consequently, the product of the worker's 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 the worker's labour into their company while the labourer is forced to spend their (more often than not) meager wages on the necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter, etc.
If one assumes that giving workers more control over the product of their labour is more 'moral' or socially beneficial than, say, giving that control to a capitalist who treats their labour as a commodity and gives them a smaller wage than their labour is truly worth in exchange, that may be one argument based on both a moral and rational basis.
Taking a broader view of history, one can also make the argument that the foundation of capitalism, private property, is ultimately built upon theft, which is not only viewed as something immoral but something that's ultimately harmful to the commonwealth (i.e., a community founded for the common good). For example, a modern argument against socialism is the idea that abolishing private property rights and confiscating the 'rightful' property of one person (or persons) and giving it to another, including to the community as a whole, is immoral or harmful to the commonwealth. However, much of the land and natural resources that one may now 'rightfully' exploit for profit may very well have belonged to, or utilized by, another at some point in time, and was forcibly confiscated (e.g., Native American land). As Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote in Discourse on Inequality:
The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows, "Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."
And the question can be raised, What's more moral or socially beneficial from this point of view, communal ownership where all (or at least a majority) have a say in the use of, and share in the profit from, property, whether in the form of land, resources, or machinery, or a private ownership, where only a single individual or select few benefit and/or have a say in the production and distribution of commodities that the reproduction of society depends upon?
Another argument may be how the present system actually creates structural unemployment, which hardly existed on a mass scale before it became the dominant mode of production, leaving many working-class people unable to support themselves or their families. This can be seen to be 'immoral' and socially harmful from a certain point of view.
And then there's the argument that under the present system, opportunity is essentially privatized along with everything else the capitalists and free-market advocates can get their hands on, making it just as concentrated as wealth (and, if you've noticed, income inequality is rising while median family income is lower now that it was 30 years ago). Sure, things have improved since the 1900s, when workers (which included large numbers of children) essentially had no rights whatsoever, and were forced to work over 12 hour days in absolutely appalling conditions, but that's been due to the struggle of workers themselves, not due to the benevolence of capitalism.
Capitalism isn't an immoral system as much as an amoral one, in my opinion, (as I'd argue all economic systems are in that they're essentially ways of organizing production and distribution utilized by people with varying degrees of intention); but I think we've definitely outgrown it, just like we did feudalism. And while socialism isn't going to be a perfect replacement if it ever takes its place, I think it has the potential to revolutionize society much the same way feudalism and capitalism have.
For me, socialism isn't so much about the equality of wealth or outcomes as it is the de-privatization (i.e., socialization) of opportunity and the weakening of class antagonisms and hierarchies arising out of social relations unique to capitalism and other predominately exploitative systems. As Marx wrote in The Poverty of Philosophy, "Social relations are closely bound up with productive forces. In acquiring new productive forces men change their mode of production; and in changing their mode of production, in changing the way of earning their living, they change all their social relations. The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist."
Marx's focus, the bodhisattva that he was, is essentially the same as socialism's, which is primarily the question of how to liberate society from its suffering and alienation by changing the material conditions that support it. In the words of Erich Fromm, "[Marx's] concept of socialism is the emancipation from alienation, the return of man to himself, his self-realization."
The present system, however, due to the way its structured, tends to idealize and promote greed (self-interest) over altruism (common good), competition over cooperation, privatization over public ownership, etc., as well as promotes the accumulation of capital into a smaller and smaller number of hands. This, I suppose, can be argued to be less moral and socially beneficial if we place a higher/greater value on things like altruism, cooperation, etc., and if we conclude that liberty in the economic sphere (as opposed to just within the political sphere) is more inline with/promotes the general welfare of the commonwealth.
Those are some of the arguments I can think of off the top of my head, anyway. (Updated 3/2/13)
Monday, September 12, 2011
bobby
I didn't plan on it, but I ended up getting a 40 of Mickey's from the party store and reminiscing about all the crazy shit Bobby and I used to do together. In the last eight years or so, we kind of lost touch and weren't nearly as close as we used to be; but we were pretty tight back in the day. When I first met Bobby, I was some geeky little kid who just moved to Warren from Detroit that was into things like Nintendo and comic books. Next thing you know, Bobby and I are cruising around in his Camaro with a case full of 40s in the backseat, the radio so loud the subwoofers in the trunk made my heart skip.
I remember countless nights across the street, watching crazy-ass movies and drinking the night away. I remember wandering around the neighborhood one Halloween, trick-or-treating with pillow cases full of beer, and then going behind the school to eat all our candy and get thoroughly shitfaced. I remember him getting me drunk and sneaking me into an 18+ screening of Faces of Death when I was probably only fifteen or sixteen, feeling sick because of all the fried mushrooms I'd eaten from Chicken Shack right before we left. I remember the store in the D where we used to be able to buy liquor when he was barely eighteen, and then heading back to his house to get completely trashed, or just sitting in his car watching the snowflakes build up on his windshield. I remember doing things so illegal I can't even mention them.
I remember that, even despite our different lifestyles and personalities, we were still friends, and he never did me wrong. At least, nothing that I'm aware of. And even if he did, he was one of my first friends in Warren; and for a long time, one of the best. We caused a lot of trouble together, and I'm sad that we eventually lost touch. He was such a big part of my life, and I hardly realized it until he was gone. Funny how that kind of shit happens.
I remember the scorpion he used to have and how he loved showing that fucking thing off. I remember sneaking over late at night to drink and hiding our 40s behind the couch while we drank them so Ressie, his grandmother, couldn't see them, thinking we were so slick even though she probably knew exactly what the hell we were doing. I remember going to his wedding. I sort of remember the reception. I remember how often my brother, Gary, and I went over to hang out with Bobby and Tonya. I remember how pissed Tonya would get when he drank too much. I remember when he got that tattoo on his leg from the Necronomicon. I remember how jealous I was. I remember incredible Fourth of Julys.
I remember all these things and more because Bobby was such a big part of my life, even if I never noticed just how much at the time. Sure, Bobby wasn't perfect, and he could be a real asshole at times; but who isn't? And despite all the things about him that I didn't like, I wouldn't be the person I am now if it wasn't for him. I never would have had all those crazy experiences that helped make me into 'a man,' or at least a properly maladjusted teenager. For all of his flaws, Bobby was my friend, and his family was like my family: his younger brother, Anthony, and I once managed to convince a lady truck driver to meet us when we were barely passed puberty; while his older brother, John, constantly fucked with me about my long hair, telling me to "get a fucking haircut" every time he saw me.
More than anything, though, I remember the fact that Bobby didn't really fuck with me as much as he did everyone else. He could be a real shithead sometimes. I never knew him to hesitate when he saw an opening to rip on someone, and he was always playing mean-ass pranks. But he always seemed to go easy on me. I could never figure out why. Maybe it's just because he felt sorry for me, but I like to think there was more to it than that, that we were truly friends or something. Fuck. I can hardly wrap my head around the fact that his mother, Sandy, is gone, let alone the fact that he's gone too—and within just two days of each other. It just doesn't seem real. I feel like I owe him a debt that I can never repay now; but at least through his family and people like me, his memory will live on.
I remember countless nights across the street, watching crazy-ass movies and drinking the night away. I remember wandering around the neighborhood one Halloween, trick-or-treating with pillow cases full of beer, and then going behind the school to eat all our candy and get thoroughly shitfaced. I remember him getting me drunk and sneaking me into an 18+ screening of Faces of Death when I was probably only fifteen or sixteen, feeling sick because of all the fried mushrooms I'd eaten from Chicken Shack right before we left. I remember the store in the D where we used to be able to buy liquor when he was barely eighteen, and then heading back to his house to get completely trashed, or just sitting in his car watching the snowflakes build up on his windshield. I remember doing things so illegal I can't even mention them.
I remember that, even despite our different lifestyles and personalities, we were still friends, and he never did me wrong. At least, nothing that I'm aware of. And even if he did, he was one of my first friends in Warren; and for a long time, one of the best. We caused a lot of trouble together, and I'm sad that we eventually lost touch. He was such a big part of my life, and I hardly realized it until he was gone. Funny how that kind of shit happens.
I remember the scorpion he used to have and how he loved showing that fucking thing off. I remember sneaking over late at night to drink and hiding our 40s behind the couch while we drank them so Ressie, his grandmother, couldn't see them, thinking we were so slick even though she probably knew exactly what the hell we were doing. I remember going to his wedding. I sort of remember the reception. I remember how often my brother, Gary, and I went over to hang out with Bobby and Tonya. I remember how pissed Tonya would get when he drank too much. I remember when he got that tattoo on his leg from the Necronomicon. I remember how jealous I was. I remember incredible Fourth of Julys.
I remember all these things and more because Bobby was such a big part of my life, even if I never noticed just how much at the time. Sure, Bobby wasn't perfect, and he could be a real asshole at times; but who isn't? And despite all the things about him that I didn't like, I wouldn't be the person I am now if it wasn't for him. I never would have had all those crazy experiences that helped make me into 'a man,' or at least a properly maladjusted teenager. For all of his flaws, Bobby was my friend, and his family was like my family: his younger brother, Anthony, and I once managed to convince a lady truck driver to meet us when we were barely passed puberty; while his older brother, John, constantly fucked with me about my long hair, telling me to "get a fucking haircut" every time he saw me.
More than anything, though, I remember the fact that Bobby didn't really fuck with me as much as he did everyone else. He could be a real shithead sometimes. I never knew him to hesitate when he saw an opening to rip on someone, and he was always playing mean-ass pranks. But he always seemed to go easy on me. I could never figure out why. Maybe it's just because he felt sorry for me, but I like to think there was more to it than that, that we were truly friends or something. Fuck. I can hardly wrap my head around the fact that his mother, Sandy, is gone, let alone the fact that he's gone too—and within just two days of each other. It just doesn't seem real. I feel like I owe him a debt that I can never repay now; but at least through his family and people like me, his memory will live on.
rip, bobby and sandy
I've lost two friends in two days, both in the same family. It doesn't even seem real. I can't imagine how their family is dealing with it all, because I sure as hell know I'm having trouble with it. Sandy, our neighbor and my mom's best friend, died from cancer on Friday; and now her second oldest son, Bobby, who also lived across the street, is dead. Possibly from an accidental overdose. Or maybe an intentional one. Maybe even from a heart attack or choking... nobody really knows yet. Sandy's viewing is scheduled for today, and her funeral for tomorrow; but the saddest part is that most of the family probably doesn't know about Bobby yet. Everyone who doesn't will find out tomorrow at the viewing. What a fucking nightmare that has to be for everyone, especially his younger brother, Anthony. He's the one who'll probably have to tell everyone who doesn't already know on top of taking care of his mother's wake. I feel a little guilty because I didn't go over to see Bobby right away after his mom died, and I didn't visit her more than once since being back in Michigan, either. I was always waiting for 'the right time.' I was always 'too busy' doing other things. But I could have made time; I just didn't. I know that none of this is 'my fault,' but that knowledge doesn't really make me feel any better. It's just a shitty situation all around, and I feel bad for the people who are affected the most, including my mom and dad. I wish there was something I could do to make things suck less, to take away some of their pain. Unfortunately, there's not really much I can do besides write about it and hope for the best.
Monday, September 5, 2011
happy capital d... err, labour day
Listening to NPR this faux-Labour Day, I heard this story, and I completely agree with E.J. Dionne Jr. that "it should shame us about our cool indifference to the heroism of those who go to work every day."
The term 'shame' is dead-on. The way we've been systematically led into essentially ignoring the contributions of labour as we laud the simple existence of capital is shameful. The way we've allowed ourselves to be swayed into idealizing investors as benevolent creators while looking down at workers as lazy, ignorant leeches is even more shameful.
I say this because I'm familiar with the history of the American labour movement, especially the things average workers have fought and sometimes died for that we now take for granted. People think nothing of celebrating soldiers who fought and died in foreign wars; but many of those same people turn their noses up at workers who fought and died right here for union recognition, 8 hour work days, a fair wage, etc., and I simply can't understand it.
Today isn't just about having a day off; it's about celebrating the labour movement and commemorating the struggles workers, including you and me, have faced and overcome throughout the years since the Industrial Revolution.
I highly recommend checking out books like Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States or Sharon Smith's Subterranean Fire for anyone who's interested in learning more about the history of the American working class and the origins of Labour Day (which should really be on May 1st like the rest of the world).
The term 'shame' is dead-on. The way we've been systematically led into essentially ignoring the contributions of labour as we laud the simple existence of capital is shameful. The way we've allowed ourselves to be swayed into idealizing investors as benevolent creators while looking down at workers as lazy, ignorant leeches is even more shameful.
I say this because I'm familiar with the history of the American labour movement, especially the things average workers have fought and sometimes died for that we now take for granted. People think nothing of celebrating soldiers who fought and died in foreign wars; but many of those same people turn their noses up at workers who fought and died right here for union recognition, 8 hour work days, a fair wage, etc., and I simply can't understand it.
Today isn't just about having a day off; it's about celebrating the labour movement and commemorating the struggles workers, including you and me, have faced and overcome throughout the years since the Industrial Revolution.
I highly recommend checking out books like Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States or Sharon Smith's Subterranean Fire for anyone who's interested in learning more about the history of the American working class and the origins of Labour Day (which should really be on May 1st like the rest of the world).
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
so long, and thanks for all the ipods
Can't wait to see how much Apple's stock will plummet tomorrow when the market opens. It'll be good for a few lulz to watch all the amateur day traders panic YET AGAIN that Steve Jobs is stepping down, possibly for good this time. The market isn't so much rational as it is reactionary. I'm sure it'll eventually recover, though.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
rethinking what 'productive' means
I've seen a lot of talk about 'the productive class' lately (which is right out of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged), usually in reference to the mythical 'job creators.' But this attitude often neglects the importance of what they in turn consider 'unproductive' activities. As C. A. L'Hirondelle puts it in "The Stupidity of Economic Growth," "many 'non-jobs' such as being an unpaid carer, or doing volunteer work---activities that are often essential to human health and happiness---are considered 'unproductive' according to conventional economic measures such as the GDP."
Personally, I believe that we need to start looking at what is and isn't 'productive' in an entire different and more sustainable way. For example, as the same article notes: "E.F. Schumacher, Marilyn Waring and others have pointed out that harmful activities such as oil spills, clear cuts, ill health, and car accidents count on the 'plus' side of the GDP ledger because they generate economic activity while beneficial activities like unpaid family caregiving or growing your own vegetable garden are not counted as they are considered 'unproductive.'" That's why I completely agree with biologist and Nobel laureate John Sulston that it's time to look for more holistic alternatives to GDP as measures of well-being, as well as who and what kinds of activities are considered 'productive.'
Personally, I believe that we need to start looking at what is and isn't 'productive' in an entire different and more sustainable way. For example, as the same article notes: "E.F. Schumacher, Marilyn Waring and others have pointed out that harmful activities such as oil spills, clear cuts, ill health, and car accidents count on the 'plus' side of the GDP ledger because they generate economic activity while beneficial activities like unpaid family caregiving or growing your own vegetable garden are not counted as they are considered 'unproductive.'" That's why I completely agree with biologist and Nobel laureate John Sulston that it's time to look for more holistic alternatives to GDP as measures of well-being, as well as who and what kinds of activities are considered 'productive.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)