You know, if you think about, the modern-day version of Santa Claus is not unlike a Gilded Age industrialist, a philanthropic, fantasyland robber baron. He's essentially an imaginary, white, 'chubby and plump' old man who 'employs' an entire race of other imaginary beings in some frozen, unregulated tundra sweatshop to make the gifts he then gives and gets all the credit/cookies and milk for. Maybe some class-conscious kid should slip a copy of the Communist Manifesto in with their letter next year, because I bet Santa doesn't bother to read them all himself: "Let Santa Claus tremble at a Communistic revolution. Santa's helpers have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Elves of the world, unite!"
At least I think it's funny. Merry Christmas, comrades. :)
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
the complexity of freedom, part deux
Average, working-class people are usually shocked and outraged by stories about sweatshops and child labour, like the recent allegations surrounding the Kardashian clothing lines, as I think they should be. But few realize that global capitalism thrives upon, and even logically defends, this kind of exploitation, generally utilizing the classic 'it's better than the alternative, like x' defense that's perfectly exemplified here by Prof. Ben Powell:
"Hey, eating this turd on a bun with mustard is WAY better than just eating a plain ol' turd; and since you're starving and have no other options but these two turds I'm offering you, I think the better choice is obvious."
Some, like Prof. Powell, at least have the balls to admit that they unambiguously support sweatshops and child labour. However, it often seems to be the case that, instead of being forced to confront and potentially question the logic of a system where the road to higher wages and better working conditions is paved with sweatshops and child labour, free-market advocates and capitalist apologists in general find it easier to simply gloss over the problem, or else blame it on specific offenders, like China, rather than the 'invisible hand' that guides production in global capitalism and directs "industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value."
And this is how 'freedom' (e.g., of the market) can actually be used to justify exploitation, which is precisely the argument George Monbiot makes in his recent article in the Guardian.
"Hey, eating this turd on a bun with mustard is WAY better than just eating a plain ol' turd; and since you're starving and have no other options but these two turds I'm offering you, I think the better choice is obvious."
Some, like Prof. Powell, at least have the balls to admit that they unambiguously support sweatshops and child labour. However, it often seems to be the case that, instead of being forced to confront and potentially question the logic of a system where the road to higher wages and better working conditions is paved with sweatshops and child labour, free-market advocates and capitalist apologists in general find it easier to simply gloss over the problem, or else blame it on specific offenders, like China, rather than the 'invisible hand' that guides production in global capitalism and directs "industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value."
And this is how 'freedom' (e.g., of the market) can actually be used to justify exploitation, which is precisely the argument George Monbiot makes in his recent article in the Guardian.
the complexity of freedom
George Monbiot makes an interesting yet surprisingly little-made point about the one-sidedness of many of the pro-free market arguments about freedom, i.e., that the state isn't the only entity or social institution that intrudes on our liberties:
This bastardised libertarianism makes 'freedom' an instrument of oppression
As a result, it also begins to reveal some of the underlying contradictions that are rarely brought to the surface in these superficially seductive arguments about freedom and liberty, e.g., there's obvious tension between freedom and equality, where complete freedom doesn't necessarily lead to equality when some have the freedom to exploit, oppress, or otherwise take advantage of others because of their particular situation in life, and where full equality means potentially limiting or even denying some their freedom to do things that negatively impact others.
It's contradictions like these, for example, that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution attempt to balance to varying degrees of success. Definitely broadens the argument, I think.
This bastardised libertarianism makes 'freedom' an instrument of oppression
As a result, it also begins to reveal some of the underlying contradictions that are rarely brought to the surface in these superficially seductive arguments about freedom and liberty, e.g., there's obvious tension between freedom and equality, where complete freedom doesn't necessarily lead to equality when some have the freedom to exploit, oppress, or otherwise take advantage of others because of their particular situation in life, and where full equality means potentially limiting or even denying some their freedom to do things that negatively impact others.
It's contradictions like these, for example, that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution attempt to balance to varying degrees of success. Definitely broadens the argument, I think.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
tax inequality
Ian Ayres, a professor of law at Yale, and Aaron S. Edlin, a professor of law and economics at UC Berkeley have an interesting idea on how to "to end the continued erosion of economic equality in our nation" with a "tax that would limit the after-tax incomes of this club to 36 times the median household income":
Don’t Tax the Rich. Tax Inequality Itself.
I'd certainly support something like this — with the caveat that the revenue generated from this new tax be expressly allocated to social welfare programs like food stamps, low-income housing, Medicaid, Pell grants, and unemployment insurance — especially in combination with a modest 0.25% tax on stock trades and a 0.02% tax on the purchase of credit default swaps (raising an estimated $100-150 billion per year according to economists Dean Baker, Robert Pollin, and Marc Schaberg), and getting rid of the Bush tax cuts (netting an additional $72 billion per year according to Citizens for Tax Justice).
All these things together in conjunction with targeted spending cuts not only have the potential to help limit the rising rate of income inequality, but to help reduce the deficit that everyone's been squawking so much about recently, as well.
Don’t Tax the Rich. Tax Inequality Itself.
I'd certainly support something like this — with the caveat that the revenue generated from this new tax be expressly allocated to social welfare programs like food stamps, low-income housing, Medicaid, Pell grants, and unemployment insurance — especially in combination with a modest 0.25% tax on stock trades and a 0.02% tax on the purchase of credit default swaps (raising an estimated $100-150 billion per year according to economists Dean Baker, Robert Pollin, and Marc Schaberg), and getting rid of the Bush tax cuts (netting an additional $72 billion per year according to Citizens for Tax Justice).
All these things together in conjunction with targeted spending cuts not only have the potential to help limit the rising rate of income inequality, but to help reduce the deficit that everyone's been squawking so much about recently, as well.
how the austerity class rules washington
Just read an interesting article in the Nation about the rise of the 'austerity class,' and the growing popularity of deficit reduction measures in political discourse:
How the Austerity Class Rules Washington
The way I see it, the inherent contradictions within capitalism that give rise to crises always seem to put government into a tricky position. On the one hand, it makes sense, especially from the point of view of a household, to have a 'balanced budget,' i.e., to be 'austere' today and save any discretionary income for future hardships, invest it for future returns, or both. And, utilizing this rather 'common sense logic,' people want their government to be 'responsible' and have a balanced budget just like any household should.
The problem is that, if everyone is saving and investing on a national scale (i.e., not consuming), or if they have little in the way of discretionary income to begin with, especially in the midst of an economic downturn, higher unemployment will result due to lack of demand, and the value of any investments will be greatly reduced since no one's consuming the products being produced. When this inevitably happens, people begin to scream at the government to do something, which either means some kind of conservative austerity plan to reduce spending and increase investments, or some kind of liberal stimulus plan to promote aggregate demand and boost employment.
Unfortunately, neither solution can eliminate the contradictions within capitalism that naturally lead to boom and bust cycles and financial crises; but the latter makes far more sense to me in that it helps boost employment, which further stimulates demand and speeds recovery, and doesn't come at the expense of people who need help the most in the form of cuts to things like food stamps, low-income housing, Medicaid, Pell grants, and unemployment insurance, which is precisely the kind of spending conservative austerity plans tend to target.
How the Austerity Class Rules Washington
The way I see it, the inherent contradictions within capitalism that give rise to crises always seem to put government into a tricky position. On the one hand, it makes sense, especially from the point of view of a household, to have a 'balanced budget,' i.e., to be 'austere' today and save any discretionary income for future hardships, invest it for future returns, or both. And, utilizing this rather 'common sense logic,' people want their government to be 'responsible' and have a balanced budget just like any household should.
The problem is that, if everyone is saving and investing on a national scale (i.e., not consuming), or if they have little in the way of discretionary income to begin with, especially in the midst of an economic downturn, higher unemployment will result due to lack of demand, and the value of any investments will be greatly reduced since no one's consuming the products being produced. When this inevitably happens, people begin to scream at the government to do something, which either means some kind of conservative austerity plan to reduce spending and increase investments, or some kind of liberal stimulus plan to promote aggregate demand and boost employment.
Unfortunately, neither solution can eliminate the contradictions within capitalism that naturally lead to boom and bust cycles and financial crises; but the latter makes far more sense to me in that it helps boost employment, which further stimulates demand and speeds recovery, and doesn't come at the expense of people who need help the most in the form of cuts to things like food stamps, low-income housing, Medicaid, Pell grants, and unemployment insurance, which is precisely the kind of spending conservative austerity plans tend to target.
the credit union myth
Admittedly, I was one of those who thought that simply switching over to a local credit union, especially if it was done by a large number of people, would make a real statement and 'stick it' to the big banks, depriving them of the use of our money to finance their irresponsible lending practices, and disrupting the continued merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and by extension, weakening the stranglehold of the these financial monopolies. I got rid of my own Chase account two years ago, in fact.
But, according to an article by Doug Henwood, it turns out that it doesn't really make that much of a difference, that our money still greases the wheels of these financial juggernauts, especially considering how credit unions and small banks actually end up investing a lot of their money in things like Treasury bonds and federal agency securities (including things like mortgage-backed securities), which in turn get fed via the federal funds market to, wait for it, larger banks like Chase. As Henwood concludes at the end of his article, "Getting banks under control is a matter of politics, not individual portfolio allocation decisions," and I'm reluctantly inclined to agree.
Of course, there are still a lot of good reasons to bank locally, but 'sticking it' to big banks isn't one of them.
But, according to an article by Doug Henwood, it turns out that it doesn't really make that much of a difference, that our money still greases the wheels of these financial juggernauts, especially considering how credit unions and small banks actually end up investing a lot of their money in things like Treasury bonds and federal agency securities (including things like mortgage-backed securities), which in turn get fed via the federal funds market to, wait for it, larger banks like Chase. As Henwood concludes at the end of his article, "Getting banks under control is a matter of politics, not individual portfolio allocation decisions," and I'm reluctantly inclined to agree.
Of course, there are still a lot of good reasons to bank locally, but 'sticking it' to big banks isn't one of them.
Monday, December 19, 2011
r.i.p., vaclav havel
In honour of Vaclav Havel's passing this weekend, here's Slavoj Zizek's 1999 review of John Keane's book, Vaclav Havel: A Political Tragedy in Six Acts:
Attempts to Escape the Logic of Capitalism
In the spirit of full-disclosure, half-way through the review, I found myself thinking, "Wow, that's pretty genius," being impressed by the way Zizek's analysis (influenced by a combination of Hegel, Marx, and Lacan, among other things) actually helped broaden my admittedly poor understanding of how and why some of these events took place, while at the same time raising, and then connecting them to, questions I've been struggling with myself recently.
The conclusion reached by Zizek at the very end, however, doesn't satisfy me; and I wonder whether that's because I'm unconsciously worried that 'the direct ethical foundation' of my own politics (arising out of my Buddhist practice, and influenced by a mixture of radical liberalism, Marxism, and Plato) will 'sooner or later turn into its own comic caricature,' or whether there's something missing here, as if I intuit the bulk of his analysis pointing in a slightly different direction, but am unable to articulate precisely what that direction is (although, I suspect it's probably mainly the former).
Attempts to Escape the Logic of Capitalism
In the spirit of full-disclosure, half-way through the review, I found myself thinking, "Wow, that's pretty genius," being impressed by the way Zizek's analysis (influenced by a combination of Hegel, Marx, and Lacan, among other things) actually helped broaden my admittedly poor understanding of how and why some of these events took place, while at the same time raising, and then connecting them to, questions I've been struggling with myself recently.
The conclusion reached by Zizek at the very end, however, doesn't satisfy me; and I wonder whether that's because I'm unconsciously worried that 'the direct ethical foundation' of my own politics (arising out of my Buddhist practice, and influenced by a mixture of radical liberalism, Marxism, and Plato) will 'sooner or later turn into its own comic caricature,' or whether there's something missing here, as if I intuit the bulk of his analysis pointing in a slightly different direction, but am unable to articulate precisely what that direction is (although, I suspect it's probably mainly the former).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)