Today's Good Friday, the day we reflect on the death of Jesus. What does Jesus' death mean? We're told it means salvation, new life, peace. To be honest, it's a bit hard for me to understand what that means on a deep, theological level. But Jesus' death on the cross can also act as a template for our own lives.
Jesus had a mission, to seek and to save what was lost (Luke 19:10). And when Jesus went out, he went out to teach, to heal, to feed, and to share God's love by loving others, which in itself is radical thing. But his faith, his love, and his compassionate action were threatening to many, from those among the elite to even some among the common people. And they all eventually tried in their own way, whether out of fear, ignorance, misunderstanding, ill will, or attachment to tradition, to take away these treasures he possessed. But try as they may, he wouldn't give them up, even under the threat of death. He held tight to his faith, his love, and his compassion for all of humanity, all the way down to the least among us, and he willingly suffered death on the cross rather than lose them to fear, hatred, selfishness, and inaction.
In essence, his life wasn't just about himself, it was ultimately about his relationship to others, to the whole world, and to God. You could say that his message was "Not me, Us."
His life was an example to us, a mandala, a living tapestry meant to inspire and hearten us. His life was like a lamp shining forth the bright light of hope into the future in order to guide us and help us not lose our way to the kingdom of heaven, that joyful world we wish to one day see, born out of love in action.
Friday, April 10, 2020
normalize diversity
I know I don't post about this kind of stuff much, but every once in a while I see something that makes me feel like I need to because I forget that not everyone is like most of my friends and accepting of other people. So, I get that we live in a cis-normative society—a society where people outside of rigid binaries like man/woman, gay/straight, cis/transgender, etc. face marginalization and violence for being who they are and must present themselves like some kind of exotic animal. Cis people expect it, and many feel justified in reacting violently if they are "surprised." The amount of hate and violence directed towards LGBTQIA+ individuals is astounding. But it shouldn't matter what gender or sex you are or somebody else is. Seriously. If you find it weird, shocking, or offensive that someone is different than you expect or wish them to be, then it’s up to you to educate yourself and learn to appreciate and enjoy the diversity of people in this world. We need to stop making excuses for this kind of belief and behaviour and deprogram ourselves of what society has taught us about rigid binaries and what's "normal." If you find someone you're fond of and attracted to, then explore ways to enjoy being together. It's not a difficult concept.
Wednesday, April 8, 2020
what's capitalism got to do with it?
Instead of doing my school work today, I decided to elaborate upon an idea I found in a tweet because I think it's important.
One of the main reasons that people like me always take aim at capitalism when criticizing social phenomena, including our political system, is the basic Marxian concept of base/superstructure relations. It's the idea that a capitalist state and its ruling class (political superstructure) are a manifestation or reflection of underlying economic social relations (economic base), where the few exploit the many for profit. In the US, we can see empirical examples of political inequality as it manifests out of inherently unequal social relations of production. [1] But you don't really need in-depth studies to see things like, maybe there's something wrong when one person is making $8 million an hour while the majority of workers in the US make less than $20 an hour, half make less than $15 including most of the "essential workers" working right now [2], and over 10 million people have filed for unemployment in 2 weeks and are unsure how they're going to pay for things like rent, healthcare, and food. [3] Some think that a tweak to the system here, or a higher tax there, will fix economic inequality and a host of oppressive isms that have been built into the system from its inception.
But critics like Marx, seeking answers to similar problems and a better alternative, uncovered some of the underlying logical contractions inherent to how capitalism functions, as well as the historical violence, oppression, and theft that heralded the beginning of this relatively new mode of production. The short version is, countries with emerging mercantile markets enclosed local common land; colonized other lands; stole land, wealth, and resources; and exploited slave labour in what Marx called the process of 'primitive accumulation.' [4] Then after the industrial revolution, those in power further forced their own people off of communal land and into the cities to work in the factories under new social relations, one in which they were forced to sell their labour-power to someone for a wage, not fully realizing that the person who now owns that labour-power owns the products of that labour and all the extra value added by their labour. [5] So first they accumulated by theft, then they accumulated by the exploitation of wage workers once feudalism gave way to mercantilism and then capitalism. And into that system was planted all of the racism and sexism of the time because they fostered this growing system. Racism was used to dehumanize other people so that their slave labour and colonial exploitation was accepted by the colonizers. Sexism was used to keep women at home to do all the unpaid labour of raising the next generation of workers (children) as well as sustain the current generation (husbands), allowing the ownership class to keep the maximum amount of the wealth their workers created for themselves as less was needed to materially maintain the workers thanks to this unpaid, supportive labour. (Wages are essentially a fraction of the total value created in the labour process that's given back to the worker by the capitalist so they can materially reproduce their labour-power, i.e., live.) The US was no exception as it followed the basic model of the rest of Europe. It was based in part on Enlightenment ideals and English and Roman political models in which white, male property owners had the most freedom and power. Combine that with the colonization of the Americas and theft of land and resources of the native inhabitants, slave labour from Africa, and the support role women played predominantly in the background, and you have the soil in which our system grew. It, too, was built on slave labour as well as gender discrimination. And once both black people and women were somewhat liberated from the worst of their oppression, they were allowed to go to school and into the workplace and eventually vote, but even there the racism and sexism continued, so that they were marginalized and paid less for the same work and were often used to suppress wages overall.
As more and more entered to workforce, either out of necessity or desire, they were confronted with the same discrimination and were paid less; and since they would work for less, white men now had to not only compete with each other and with immigrants, but the other half of the population that had previously been excluded from the workplace and the electorate, and who worked for a fraction of what they could make. This only served to enhance the animosity that many white men had towards women and people of colour. Not only were cultural biases in play, but the system actively pitted them against one another because it helped suppress wages and maximize profits while simultaneously creating more factionalism within the electorate, further diluting the electoral power of workers. And this factionalism was intentional, being expressly created by the founders from the very beginning. Like most forms of government centered around private property rights (a central tenet of capitalism), the basic principle behind the establishment of our form of representative democracy had more to do with the ruling elites wanting to protect the small minority of property owners (including themselves) from the majority of the propertyless than anything else. As James Madison put it in Federalist No. 10, "… the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society." [6] So the ownership of property (which at the beginning included black people and to some extent women) and the social relations arising out of that formed the logical and material economic basis of our society, a basis that was in turn reflected in our political system that was embedded with systemic mechanisms of racism, sexism, classism, and other forms of factionalism and inequality. So while we are still seduced by flowery language of the Declaration of Independence that we are all equal and live in a land of opportunity, to think that a few extra regulations or taxes can fix all of this is naive. It can certainly mitigate the worst of things and provide what we call 'social safety nets,' but even much of those have either been privatized, minimized, or means tested, creating a system of bureaucratic hurdles and public shaming for those who qualify. And then there are the ways this inequality manifests itself in housing, education, the criminal justice system, etc., all of which contain tiers of inequality that are further built upon this socioeconomic foundation. In the end, working people as a class, splintered into various factions that can be more easily managed and pitted against one another, bear the brunt of this exploitation and inequality so that a few may thrive and steer the course of history.
In essence, the US is a capitalist, oligarchical republic. It papers over this reality with ideas of freedom, equality, and democracy, but crises like this poke huge holes in that paper covering, revealing what's truly underneath. And people like Garrett Felber are 100% right when they point out things like, "Coronavirus was just the fuse in the tinderbox. The U.S. nation state is the cause. You don't get one man making 8 million an hour while 10 million file for unemployment from a bug in the system. This is a half-century of privatization and gutted out social welfare built on a permanent war economy, mass consumption, global capitalism, and mass criminalization, on a foundation of settler colonialism and slavery." [7] For the US to truly move away from its oligarchical political-economic makeup and towards real democracy in which social wealth is more equitably managed, it has to fundamentally alter the makeup of its mode of production through 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. And that not only requires fundamental structural changes, it requires the organization of working people into a force that can bring those changes into being. We need a revolution in our thought and in our morals. And more importantly, we need a revolution in our means of production. We need a new foundation to build our society upon, fresh soil in which to plant our future garden of plenty. Because we have the technology and labour needed to provide for the needs of everyone. The only barrier to that is a system predicated upon production for profit, private property rights that give owners as a class disproportionate control over the political and economic life of this country, and an ingrained belief that there is no other alternative. But we have to have the willingness to imagine one or else we're going to be trapped in this socioeconomic version of Plato's Cave for another 200 years, if the planet and our species even survive for that long. [8]
Many are under the impression that if we vote for the better for the two political options available to us, we will eventually achieve this new world. But the contradictions that shape and sustain our economic foundation also help to shape and sustain the political structure built on top of it, and both parties ultimately work to preserve that foundation, not rebuild it. That's not to say that there aren't qualitative differences between them. However, those differences stop short of addressing the real problem—capitalist social relations. Our strength as a class is in our numbers and our labour. We, together, are the true foundation of this society, and it's well past time that the world we live in reflects that. To summarize, I'm a leftist because I think the system itself needs to be fundamentally changed, and I think that a better system is one that is more democratic and more equitably distributes the wealth of our labour. In addition, working people have to be involved because such a change requires us as a force to make it happen, through our numbers, the withholding of our labour, the reclaiming of our ownership of that labour, etc. We need to realize our true political and economic power. I know I've sounded like a broken record for the last 10 years, and I may not be the smartest or most educated person, but I've seen and experienced much to validate this and little to disprove it.
1. Gilens, Martin and Page, Benjamin I. (2014, September, 18). Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
2. Menon, Rajan. (2018, July 16). The Wages of Poverty in America. Common Dreams. https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/07/16/wages-poverty-america
3. Schneider, Avie. (2020, April 2). Staggering: Record 10 Million File For Unemployment In 2 Weeks. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/02/825383525/6-6-million-file-for-unemployment-another-dismal-record
4. Marx, Karl. (1867). Capital. Marxists Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm
5. Marx, Karl. (1867). Capital. Marxists Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch27.htm
6. Madison, James. (1787, November 23). Federalist No. 10. The Federalist Papers. https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-10
7. Felber, Garrett. (2020, April 2). Twitter. https://twitter.com/garrett_felber/status/1245848099928649730
8. Spratt, David & Dunlop, Ian. (2019, May). Existential climate-related security risk: A scenario approach. https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a1406e0143ac4c469196d3003bc1e687.pdf
One of the main reasons that people like me always take aim at capitalism when criticizing social phenomena, including our political system, is the basic Marxian concept of base/superstructure relations. It's the idea that a capitalist state and its ruling class (political superstructure) are a manifestation or reflection of underlying economic social relations (economic base), where the few exploit the many for profit. In the US, we can see empirical examples of political inequality as it manifests out of inherently unequal social relations of production. [1] But you don't really need in-depth studies to see things like, maybe there's something wrong when one person is making $8 million an hour while the majority of workers in the US make less than $20 an hour, half make less than $15 including most of the "essential workers" working right now [2], and over 10 million people have filed for unemployment in 2 weeks and are unsure how they're going to pay for things like rent, healthcare, and food. [3] Some think that a tweak to the system here, or a higher tax there, will fix economic inequality and a host of oppressive isms that have been built into the system from its inception.
But critics like Marx, seeking answers to similar problems and a better alternative, uncovered some of the underlying logical contractions inherent to how capitalism functions, as well as the historical violence, oppression, and theft that heralded the beginning of this relatively new mode of production. The short version is, countries with emerging mercantile markets enclosed local common land; colonized other lands; stole land, wealth, and resources; and exploited slave labour in what Marx called the process of 'primitive accumulation.' [4] Then after the industrial revolution, those in power further forced their own people off of communal land and into the cities to work in the factories under new social relations, one in which they were forced to sell their labour-power to someone for a wage, not fully realizing that the person who now owns that labour-power owns the products of that labour and all the extra value added by their labour. [5] So first they accumulated by theft, then they accumulated by the exploitation of wage workers once feudalism gave way to mercantilism and then capitalism. And into that system was planted all of the racism and sexism of the time because they fostered this growing system. Racism was used to dehumanize other people so that their slave labour and colonial exploitation was accepted by the colonizers. Sexism was used to keep women at home to do all the unpaid labour of raising the next generation of workers (children) as well as sustain the current generation (husbands), allowing the ownership class to keep the maximum amount of the wealth their workers created for themselves as less was needed to materially maintain the workers thanks to this unpaid, supportive labour. (Wages are essentially a fraction of the total value created in the labour process that's given back to the worker by the capitalist so they can materially reproduce their labour-power, i.e., live.) The US was no exception as it followed the basic model of the rest of Europe. It was based in part on Enlightenment ideals and English and Roman political models in which white, male property owners had the most freedom and power. Combine that with the colonization of the Americas and theft of land and resources of the native inhabitants, slave labour from Africa, and the support role women played predominantly in the background, and you have the soil in which our system grew. It, too, was built on slave labour as well as gender discrimination. And once both black people and women were somewhat liberated from the worst of their oppression, they were allowed to go to school and into the workplace and eventually vote, but even there the racism and sexism continued, so that they were marginalized and paid less for the same work and were often used to suppress wages overall.
As more and more entered to workforce, either out of necessity or desire, they were confronted with the same discrimination and were paid less; and since they would work for less, white men now had to not only compete with each other and with immigrants, but the other half of the population that had previously been excluded from the workplace and the electorate, and who worked for a fraction of what they could make. This only served to enhance the animosity that many white men had towards women and people of colour. Not only were cultural biases in play, but the system actively pitted them against one another because it helped suppress wages and maximize profits while simultaneously creating more factionalism within the electorate, further diluting the electoral power of workers. And this factionalism was intentional, being expressly created by the founders from the very beginning. Like most forms of government centered around private property rights (a central tenet of capitalism), the basic principle behind the establishment of our form of representative democracy had more to do with the ruling elites wanting to protect the small minority of property owners (including themselves) from the majority of the propertyless than anything else. As James Madison put it in Federalist No. 10, "… the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society." [6] So the ownership of property (which at the beginning included black people and to some extent women) and the social relations arising out of that formed the logical and material economic basis of our society, a basis that was in turn reflected in our political system that was embedded with systemic mechanisms of racism, sexism, classism, and other forms of factionalism and inequality. So while we are still seduced by flowery language of the Declaration of Independence that we are all equal and live in a land of opportunity, to think that a few extra regulations or taxes can fix all of this is naive. It can certainly mitigate the worst of things and provide what we call 'social safety nets,' but even much of those have either been privatized, minimized, or means tested, creating a system of bureaucratic hurdles and public shaming for those who qualify. And then there are the ways this inequality manifests itself in housing, education, the criminal justice system, etc., all of which contain tiers of inequality that are further built upon this socioeconomic foundation. In the end, working people as a class, splintered into various factions that can be more easily managed and pitted against one another, bear the brunt of this exploitation and inequality so that a few may thrive and steer the course of history.
In essence, the US is a capitalist, oligarchical republic. It papers over this reality with ideas of freedom, equality, and democracy, but crises like this poke huge holes in that paper covering, revealing what's truly underneath. And people like Garrett Felber are 100% right when they point out things like, "Coronavirus was just the fuse in the tinderbox. The U.S. nation state is the cause. You don't get one man making 8 million an hour while 10 million file for unemployment from a bug in the system. This is a half-century of privatization and gutted out social welfare built on a permanent war economy, mass consumption, global capitalism, and mass criminalization, on a foundation of settler colonialism and slavery." [7] For the US to truly move away from its oligarchical political-economic makeup and towards real democracy in which social wealth is more equitably managed, it has to fundamentally alter the makeup of its mode of production through 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. And that not only requires fundamental structural changes, it requires the organization of working people into a force that can bring those changes into being. We need a revolution in our thought and in our morals. And more importantly, we need a revolution in our means of production. We need a new foundation to build our society upon, fresh soil in which to plant our future garden of plenty. Because we have the technology and labour needed to provide for the needs of everyone. The only barrier to that is a system predicated upon production for profit, private property rights that give owners as a class disproportionate control over the political and economic life of this country, and an ingrained belief that there is no other alternative. But we have to have the willingness to imagine one or else we're going to be trapped in this socioeconomic version of Plato's Cave for another 200 years, if the planet and our species even survive for that long. [8]
Many are under the impression that if we vote for the better for the two political options available to us, we will eventually achieve this new world. But the contradictions that shape and sustain our economic foundation also help to shape and sustain the political structure built on top of it, and both parties ultimately work to preserve that foundation, not rebuild it. That's not to say that there aren't qualitative differences between them. However, those differences stop short of addressing the real problem—capitalist social relations. Our strength as a class is in our numbers and our labour. We, together, are the true foundation of this society, and it's well past time that the world we live in reflects that. To summarize, I'm a leftist because I think the system itself needs to be fundamentally changed, and I think that a better system is one that is more democratic and more equitably distributes the wealth of our labour. In addition, working people have to be involved because such a change requires us as a force to make it happen, through our numbers, the withholding of our labour, the reclaiming of our ownership of that labour, etc. We need to realize our true political and economic power. I know I've sounded like a broken record for the last 10 years, and I may not be the smartest or most educated person, but I've seen and experienced much to validate this and little to disprove it.
1. Gilens, Martin and Page, Benjamin I. (2014, September, 18). Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
2. Menon, Rajan. (2018, July 16). The Wages of Poverty in America. Common Dreams. https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/07/16/wages-poverty-america
3. Schneider, Avie. (2020, April 2). Staggering: Record 10 Million File For Unemployment In 2 Weeks. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/02/825383525/6-6-million-file-for-unemployment-another-dismal-record
4. Marx, Karl. (1867). Capital. Marxists Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm
5. Marx, Karl. (1867). Capital. Marxists Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch27.htm
6. Madison, James. (1787, November 23). Federalist No. 10. The Federalist Papers. https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-10
7. Felber, Garrett. (2020, April 2). Twitter. https://twitter.com/garrett_felber/status/1245848099928649730
8. Spratt, David & Dunlop, Ian. (2019, May). Existential climate-related security risk: A scenario approach. https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a1406e0143ac4c469196d3003bc1e687.pdf
Friday, March 13, 2020
what does the left owe the dp?
Happened to read this op-ed from the New York Times today:
The One Democrat Joe Biden Would Be Clueless Without
I admit that it got me a little riled up. Where to begin...
When it comes to articles like this, I get that many people have a different perspective when it comes to politics. And I don't necessarily have an issue with people who make an argument that Warren-style politics are the way forward. I can understand the appeal of someone who is smart and seemingly has a plan for everything, and many of those plans fall on the progressive side of things. And I can also see why college educated professionals in particular find this approach more to their liking. I think many liberals are technocrats at heart, and there's something to be said for smart planning. I also understand the cautious appeal of reform vs. revolution. Change can be scary, and some people prefer slow, incremental changes to drastic overhauls. Nevertheless, I find it dismaying that someone like Will Wilkinson can look at everything from the history of labour movements here and around the world and their victories to serious critiques of capitalism (i.e., how the logic of capitalism creates cyclical crises, inequality, unemployment, capital accumulation, alienation, etc.) and still think socialists are "in the grip of unworkable, harebrained dogma."
From my POV, many socialists are gripped by a passionate desire to make the world a better place; and their dogma is to challenge the mechanics of a system that allows a certain, tiny class of people to not only possess the lion's share of wealth and political power, but to exploit the labour of the majority and dictate much of how society looks due to the enshrinement of property rights. There is a very real and relatively obvious antagonism between this small class of owners and the much larger class of wage-workers. When someone like Bloomberg talks about the wealth that he's earned and created and deserves to have, they always ignore the legion of workers whose labour went into creating that wealth and who often make just enough to survive. For every Jeff Bezos, there are millions of workers who work themselves to the bone every day, often missing breaks and working while sick, because they risk losing the job that they depend upon to pay for their food, rent, and other bills. Meanwhile, it's the Bloombergs and Bezos of the world who have the time, money, and pull to have the ear of politicians who are often in office because of their patronage. And the "unworkable, harebrained dogma" is that we can consciously create a more humane, rational, and egalitarian system than the one we currently have. But outside of the ideological difference between the established politics of the Democratic Party and socialists, just looking at the two candidates who are still in the race, the self-described socialist's platform (and entire political career) is far closer to the progressive Warrenism than Biden's, who has more often than not sided with the interests of corporations and wealthy elites than with workers (he's certainly taken enough of their money, that's for sure).
And when it comes to the existence of this social and political power imbalance that lies at the heart of socialist politics and their focus on organizing working people and expanding democracy into the workplace, along with a reevaluation of property rights and a host of other big structural changes, I'm honestly amazed that a connection between capitalist social relations and class dynamics and how unequal and messed up our society is isn't some most people who consider themselves left-leaning make. This is especially true considering the progress made in certain poor, underdeveloped, and politically isolated countries that have attempted an alternative mode of production. The healthcare system and medical advances in Cuba are but one example. A relatively poor and underdeveloped country that's suffered for over half a century under a US-led embargo has nevertheless created one of the best and most technologically advanced, universal healthcare systems in the world. Those kinds of examples combined with the technological and productive capabilities that we currently possess, and the gross inequality that we see (and which is statistically measurable) surely can't lead one to think that creating a system where everyone has universal access to things like education and healthcare while making the workplace more democratic and workers more in control over their own labour is "unworkable" and "harebrained." Can it?
Am I simply too naive to understand how the real world works? Or are people like David Harvey and Richard Wolff more deserving of recognition in the field of political-economy than they receive, and is the dominant narrative more propaganda than actual fact? If the latter is true, how do I get others to see that? I sometimes feel like I'm the proverbial turtle trying to explain to a fish dry land and I don’t know how to best express these ideas, experiences, and realizations. I admit that reading books like Capital can be daunting, but there are so many other, more contemporary sources that make similar points and illustrate the many contradictions in the logic of capitalism that make reforms weak and often impermanent, as well as how the logic of capitalism conditions us. For example, while we have the capacity to be both competitive and cooperative, capitalism clearly conditions people to be more competitive. Capitals compete against each other in the market for greater shares of profit, while workers compete against each other for jobs and wages. In essence, competition is incentivized, even in areas where cooperation is necessary because everyone’s job is precarious. And I'm not sure why people don't see how the priorities of capitalism aren't for working people. It's so blatantly obvious. Just one small example is how, when crises happen and markets crash, it's the markets, banks, and large corporations that get bailed out, not the workers. After the 2008 crash, banks and auto companies got giant bailouts while people underwater on their mortgages got nothing. And just the other day, the government dumped $1.5 trillion into the market while paid sick leave for workers was blocked.
I feel like I've written ad nauseum about the ways that the logic of capitalism not only causes or promotes things like cyclical crises, unemployment and low wages for many, competition over cooperation, capital accumulation and a class of owners with insane wealth and power, etc., as well as how it conditions us to think about work and money and who deserves what. And probably equally as much about how real people suffer from their lack of money, opportunity, and political power, often using myself as an example. Nearly half of the US lives at or near the real poverty line, working paycheck to paycheck with little-to-no savings, many without healthcare or unable to afford to use the plans they have. Many are in debt. Many forgo needed medical and dental care because they can't afford it. Many don’t have sick time off. Many have degrees. Of course some find the means to go on to get better educations and find good jobs with good healthcare and are relatively happy and content. And that's great. But the unworkable and harebrained dogma of the socialist is to make that a reality for everyone. Yet oftentimes I seriously wonder if my experience as a relatively smart yet non-college educated worker in three states gives me a perspective others lack, or if I'm just another uneducated prole that deserves to have others to look down at me for the ignorant things that I say and believe. And right now, I honestly don't know.
Between work, school, how much I have to struggle to make ends meet, the state of the world and the people running it, and how the world makes me feel about myself, I feel tired and defeated. I've been struggling to find a good job and live comfortably like the American Dream tells me is possible since the moment I graduated high school. And in all of that time working, between the low pay and the layoffs and work-related injuries, I've continued to struggle. And I continue to see others who struggle. And I've seen multiple crises shine a light onto the weaknesses and flaws of the current system with few also seeing the need for radical change. This one alone highlights the need for universal healthcare, childcare, and the ability of people to work from home that for some reason magically couldn't before, the need for workers to have paid time off or the ability to not work but still not starve, the ability to erase debts and suspend evictions and shut offs, and how the system looks after itself first and workers barely at all. So am I wrong? Is an alternative to what we have today a real possibility? And if so, why aren't we working harder towards it? Why is a more humane, rational, and egalitarian society such a difficult thing to imagine and bring into being? We figured out how to land on the moon and sequence the human genome, but figuring out a way to make work days shorter and childcare a free service for the collective good is some kind of pie-in-the-sky daydream?
This article is an example of how many within the DP are dismissive of or are even openly hostile to socialist politics. While they may say it's a big tent party and want leftist support, saying that socialists and anti-capitalists in general have no other option, they make it obvious they don't actually want our ideas, only our votes and money with a condescending pat on the head. And then they wonder why some on the left sit out elections or vote for third party candidates. People on the left in the US are struggling to find a home to organize in. Some find that in small, tight-nit socialist groups, while others are searching for larger political organizations to be a part of like the DSA. And others are trying to move the DP left and make it into that, but I don't know how successful they can be trying to turn a socially-liberal, reformist capitalist party into an anti-capitalist labour party, or even a social democratic one at that. Both the leadership and the corporate funders of the party are vocally opposed to it. And I wonder if many within the DP itself understand these contradictions and why they can't have it both ways, i.e., wanting leftist support while simultaneously shunning leftist ideas and policies.
As a side note, this isn't directed towards any one person as most of my friends are college educated and registered Democrats, and I respect them and their ideas, but the general debate surrounding leftist politics and their place in political discourse. I certainly don't hate anyone for their affiliation with the DP or supporting people they like despite my strong criticisms of the party and many of its leaders. But there's definitely a degree of incompatibility between leftist politics and the politics of the DP, something even the DP leadership has vocally affirms. I don't mind being outside of it because it doesn't represent me and the party as a whole doesn't really want me or my politics. At the same time, I'm basically told my ideas are unworkable and unwelcome, but I still need to give them my vote just because they might lose otherwise. But my time, energy, money, and vote aren't owed to them just because they're not Republicans. Those things are earned by sincere discussions and policies that help working people. As a general rule, if you're fighting against what I view to be the minimal, social democratic measures needed by working people like medicare for all, a green new deal, student debt forgiveness, etc., I'm going to have a difficult time supporting you. If you tell me that my politics are unworkable and my ideas harebrained, I'm going to have a difficult time supporting you. And if you don't take the side of workers against the owners and controllers of capital, even if you're good on social issues, I'm going to have a difficult time supporting you. And I hope that they can understand that without taking it personally, because I'm supporting things that I believe will ultimately benefit all of us, not just me.
Tl; dr: Workers organizing and pushing for change > capital doing what's right. Revolution in values and economics > small reforms to deal with inequality and the threat of climate change. I'm either an idiot or I see a different POV that's valid. If you want my support, earn it.
The One Democrat Joe Biden Would Be Clueless Without
I admit that it got me a little riled up. Where to begin...
When it comes to articles like this, I get that many people have a different perspective when it comes to politics. And I don't necessarily have an issue with people who make an argument that Warren-style politics are the way forward. I can understand the appeal of someone who is smart and seemingly has a plan for everything, and many of those plans fall on the progressive side of things. And I can also see why college educated professionals in particular find this approach more to their liking. I think many liberals are technocrats at heart, and there's something to be said for smart planning. I also understand the cautious appeal of reform vs. revolution. Change can be scary, and some people prefer slow, incremental changes to drastic overhauls. Nevertheless, I find it dismaying that someone like Will Wilkinson can look at everything from the history of labour movements here and around the world and their victories to serious critiques of capitalism (i.e., how the logic of capitalism creates cyclical crises, inequality, unemployment, capital accumulation, alienation, etc.) and still think socialists are "in the grip of unworkable, harebrained dogma."
From my POV, many socialists are gripped by a passionate desire to make the world a better place; and their dogma is to challenge the mechanics of a system that allows a certain, tiny class of people to not only possess the lion's share of wealth and political power, but to exploit the labour of the majority and dictate much of how society looks due to the enshrinement of property rights. There is a very real and relatively obvious antagonism between this small class of owners and the much larger class of wage-workers. When someone like Bloomberg talks about the wealth that he's earned and created and deserves to have, they always ignore the legion of workers whose labour went into creating that wealth and who often make just enough to survive. For every Jeff Bezos, there are millions of workers who work themselves to the bone every day, often missing breaks and working while sick, because they risk losing the job that they depend upon to pay for their food, rent, and other bills. Meanwhile, it's the Bloombergs and Bezos of the world who have the time, money, and pull to have the ear of politicians who are often in office because of their patronage. And the "unworkable, harebrained dogma" is that we can consciously create a more humane, rational, and egalitarian system than the one we currently have. But outside of the ideological difference between the established politics of the Democratic Party and socialists, just looking at the two candidates who are still in the race, the self-described socialist's platform (and entire political career) is far closer to the progressive Warrenism than Biden's, who has more often than not sided with the interests of corporations and wealthy elites than with workers (he's certainly taken enough of their money, that's for sure).
And when it comes to the existence of this social and political power imbalance that lies at the heart of socialist politics and their focus on organizing working people and expanding democracy into the workplace, along with a reevaluation of property rights and a host of other big structural changes, I'm honestly amazed that a connection between capitalist social relations and class dynamics and how unequal and messed up our society is isn't some most people who consider themselves left-leaning make. This is especially true considering the progress made in certain poor, underdeveloped, and politically isolated countries that have attempted an alternative mode of production. The healthcare system and medical advances in Cuba are but one example. A relatively poor and underdeveloped country that's suffered for over half a century under a US-led embargo has nevertheless created one of the best and most technologically advanced, universal healthcare systems in the world. Those kinds of examples combined with the technological and productive capabilities that we currently possess, and the gross inequality that we see (and which is statistically measurable) surely can't lead one to think that creating a system where everyone has universal access to things like education and healthcare while making the workplace more democratic and workers more in control over their own labour is "unworkable" and "harebrained." Can it?
Am I simply too naive to understand how the real world works? Or are people like David Harvey and Richard Wolff more deserving of recognition in the field of political-economy than they receive, and is the dominant narrative more propaganda than actual fact? If the latter is true, how do I get others to see that? I sometimes feel like I'm the proverbial turtle trying to explain to a fish dry land and I don’t know how to best express these ideas, experiences, and realizations. I admit that reading books like Capital can be daunting, but there are so many other, more contemporary sources that make similar points and illustrate the many contradictions in the logic of capitalism that make reforms weak and often impermanent, as well as how the logic of capitalism conditions us. For example, while we have the capacity to be both competitive and cooperative, capitalism clearly conditions people to be more competitive. Capitals compete against each other in the market for greater shares of profit, while workers compete against each other for jobs and wages. In essence, competition is incentivized, even in areas where cooperation is necessary because everyone’s job is precarious. And I'm not sure why people don't see how the priorities of capitalism aren't for working people. It's so blatantly obvious. Just one small example is how, when crises happen and markets crash, it's the markets, banks, and large corporations that get bailed out, not the workers. After the 2008 crash, banks and auto companies got giant bailouts while people underwater on their mortgages got nothing. And just the other day, the government dumped $1.5 trillion into the market while paid sick leave for workers was blocked.
I feel like I've written ad nauseum about the ways that the logic of capitalism not only causes or promotes things like cyclical crises, unemployment and low wages for many, competition over cooperation, capital accumulation and a class of owners with insane wealth and power, etc., as well as how it conditions us to think about work and money and who deserves what. And probably equally as much about how real people suffer from their lack of money, opportunity, and political power, often using myself as an example. Nearly half of the US lives at or near the real poverty line, working paycheck to paycheck with little-to-no savings, many without healthcare or unable to afford to use the plans they have. Many are in debt. Many forgo needed medical and dental care because they can't afford it. Many don’t have sick time off. Many have degrees. Of course some find the means to go on to get better educations and find good jobs with good healthcare and are relatively happy and content. And that's great. But the unworkable and harebrained dogma of the socialist is to make that a reality for everyone. Yet oftentimes I seriously wonder if my experience as a relatively smart yet non-college educated worker in three states gives me a perspective others lack, or if I'm just another uneducated prole that deserves to have others to look down at me for the ignorant things that I say and believe. And right now, I honestly don't know.
Between work, school, how much I have to struggle to make ends meet, the state of the world and the people running it, and how the world makes me feel about myself, I feel tired and defeated. I've been struggling to find a good job and live comfortably like the American Dream tells me is possible since the moment I graduated high school. And in all of that time working, between the low pay and the layoffs and work-related injuries, I've continued to struggle. And I continue to see others who struggle. And I've seen multiple crises shine a light onto the weaknesses and flaws of the current system with few also seeing the need for radical change. This one alone highlights the need for universal healthcare, childcare, and the ability of people to work from home that for some reason magically couldn't before, the need for workers to have paid time off or the ability to not work but still not starve, the ability to erase debts and suspend evictions and shut offs, and how the system looks after itself first and workers barely at all. So am I wrong? Is an alternative to what we have today a real possibility? And if so, why aren't we working harder towards it? Why is a more humane, rational, and egalitarian society such a difficult thing to imagine and bring into being? We figured out how to land on the moon and sequence the human genome, but figuring out a way to make work days shorter and childcare a free service for the collective good is some kind of pie-in-the-sky daydream?
This article is an example of how many within the DP are dismissive of or are even openly hostile to socialist politics. While they may say it's a big tent party and want leftist support, saying that socialists and anti-capitalists in general have no other option, they make it obvious they don't actually want our ideas, only our votes and money with a condescending pat on the head. And then they wonder why some on the left sit out elections or vote for third party candidates. People on the left in the US are struggling to find a home to organize in. Some find that in small, tight-nit socialist groups, while others are searching for larger political organizations to be a part of like the DSA. And others are trying to move the DP left and make it into that, but I don't know how successful they can be trying to turn a socially-liberal, reformist capitalist party into an anti-capitalist labour party, or even a social democratic one at that. Both the leadership and the corporate funders of the party are vocally opposed to it. And I wonder if many within the DP itself understand these contradictions and why they can't have it both ways, i.e., wanting leftist support while simultaneously shunning leftist ideas and policies.
As a side note, this isn't directed towards any one person as most of my friends are college educated and registered Democrats, and I respect them and their ideas, but the general debate surrounding leftist politics and their place in political discourse. I certainly don't hate anyone for their affiliation with the DP or supporting people they like despite my strong criticisms of the party and many of its leaders. But there's definitely a degree of incompatibility between leftist politics and the politics of the DP, something even the DP leadership has vocally affirms. I don't mind being outside of it because it doesn't represent me and the party as a whole doesn't really want me or my politics. At the same time, I'm basically told my ideas are unworkable and unwelcome, but I still need to give them my vote just because they might lose otherwise. But my time, energy, money, and vote aren't owed to them just because they're not Republicans. Those things are earned by sincere discussions and policies that help working people. As a general rule, if you're fighting against what I view to be the minimal, social democratic measures needed by working people like medicare for all, a green new deal, student debt forgiveness, etc., I'm going to have a difficult time supporting you. If you tell me that my politics are unworkable and my ideas harebrained, I'm going to have a difficult time supporting you. And if you don't take the side of workers against the owners and controllers of capital, even if you're good on social issues, I'm going to have a difficult time supporting you. And I hope that they can understand that without taking it personally, because I'm supporting things that I believe will ultimately benefit all of us, not just me.
Tl; dr: Workers organizing and pushing for change > capital doing what's right. Revolution in values and economics > small reforms to deal with inequality and the threat of climate change. I'm either an idiot or I see a different POV that's valid. If you want my support, earn it.
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
what is to be done?
What is to be done? This is a large question that looms above all people, of every generation. Maybe THE question everyone must ask themselves at some point in their life. What is to be done?
Some feel the question to be too great and out of their hands, so their answer is nothing. Just let things continue as they are, compelled on by whatever omnipresent forces are at play, because 'I'm just a nobody and can't possibly steer the ship of history as well as the rich and powerful who must have some sort of god-given right to be rich and powerful and in control.' 'It is what is' is their motto. Still others actively work to keep things the same because they're the ones benefiting right now and want to stay happy and content, whether they're at the top or in the good graces of those who are. 'Business as usual' is their motto. Some see things as they are and say, 'Things aren't terribly fair and a lot of people are suffering and maybe this could be slightly better. If we adjust things here and there, possibly to the displeasure of the people at the very top, maybe we can prevent things from radically changing too much in order to keep people more or less where they are and the ship sailing in the relatively the same direction while doing some good to improve the conditions on board.' Their motto is 'Yes we can.' And then there are those who see things and say, 'This won't do. A great injustice is taking place. The majority of people toil for little and suffer much, while the few at the top stand upon the backs of the many, who don't realize that they weren't born to be on their hands and knees for others to stand upon, but were born to stand side by side together.' And so they seek to radically change things. To open people's eyes to the lies and myths they have been led to believe as children and really see for the first time that they are more like prisoners on this ship than helpless nobodies. They urge those people to stand up and to take control of the ship and sail it towards a completely different destination, embarking towards a new world that we build together. And their motto is 'Not me, us.'
In this ship metaphor, the ship represents any kind of exploitative socioeconomic system, such as capitalism. The ship owner(s) represents the capitalist, who, because they funded the building of the ship and have ownership rights, have full control over it. The workers who actually build the ship and the crew who sails it represent the majority of working people. The ship captain, who takes general orders and directions from the owner, represents the ruling class, while their first mate represents CEOs and managers. And that's how I see today, and much of human history. The majority of people are put to work and made to toil by those at the top, the ones steering the proverbial ship. Much of the wealth that they accumulate is created by our collective labour. And much of their power is derived from that wealth, and from our unconscious subservience. They metaphorically stand on the backs of the majority of workers, enjoying a life of wealth and privilege that we can only dream about and hope to one day achieve, but which most of us rarely ever do. But we're fed myths and tales and morals that tease of such possibilities and which reinforce beliefs in the moral and intellectual superiority of those who exploit our lives and our labour. And many people simply live their lives as best they can, doing what they have to do to survive, not daring to hope or dream of anything more because they feel alone and powerless and have long since resigned themselves to their fate. Some obviously want things to stay the same because they're the main ones benefiting from it. They have power and privilege and feel entitled to it. Why should they give all of that up? And many others in power enable that, working to tweak things here and there to mitigate the worst of the negative consequences and suffering, just enough to keep things going as they are without falling apart from the weight of its own greedy ambition or torn apart by the desperate mobs who are provoked by sheer privation. And then there are those who want to radically change things. Those who want to open people's eyes and look past all the myths and propaganda and see how things really work and how they're being exploited. They want the majority of people who are put to work and made to toil to join their collective voices and labor together, throw off their yokes, and remake society in a way that provides everyone with a good life. Because not only are the people at the top preventing this, their greed and exploitation of people and resources are doing serious damage to our health and the health of this planet.
This is of course a simplistic depiction of complex historical processes and social relations, but I think it accurately reflects what's going on. And to properly answer the question of what is to be done, we have to see this setup for what it is. They want to divide us. They want us to remain separated into different groups fighting for our own relative privileges and liberations rather than as one united group working concertedly, in cooperation rather than competition, towards liberating every single one of us from subservience to the rich and powerful, from the superficial divisions that we've let ourselves be divided into, and from a world in which we have little-to-no control. Because even if the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice, it doesn't bend that way on its own—it bends with the might of all the hands of the exploited, oppressed, marginalized, and neglected masses and their allies, past, present, and future, pushing it. And it's my goal to help, in whatever small way I can, to add my strength. I am anti-capitalist and anti-establishment not out of hate or naivety, but because these are the systems keeping us from achieving a better world. A few at the very top profit from keeping things as they are. But we'll all ultimately profit by radically changing them.
So what is to be done? What is to be done is to keep fighting. Keep organizing. Keep connecting with other people. Keep questioning and learning and listening and working for a better tomorrow and revolutionize this system.
Some feel the question to be too great and out of their hands, so their answer is nothing. Just let things continue as they are, compelled on by whatever omnipresent forces are at play, because 'I'm just a nobody and can't possibly steer the ship of history as well as the rich and powerful who must have some sort of god-given right to be rich and powerful and in control.' 'It is what is' is their motto. Still others actively work to keep things the same because they're the ones benefiting right now and want to stay happy and content, whether they're at the top or in the good graces of those who are. 'Business as usual' is their motto. Some see things as they are and say, 'Things aren't terribly fair and a lot of people are suffering and maybe this could be slightly better. If we adjust things here and there, possibly to the displeasure of the people at the very top, maybe we can prevent things from radically changing too much in order to keep people more or less where they are and the ship sailing in the relatively the same direction while doing some good to improve the conditions on board.' Their motto is 'Yes we can.' And then there are those who see things and say, 'This won't do. A great injustice is taking place. The majority of people toil for little and suffer much, while the few at the top stand upon the backs of the many, who don't realize that they weren't born to be on their hands and knees for others to stand upon, but were born to stand side by side together.' And so they seek to radically change things. To open people's eyes to the lies and myths they have been led to believe as children and really see for the first time that they are more like prisoners on this ship than helpless nobodies. They urge those people to stand up and to take control of the ship and sail it towards a completely different destination, embarking towards a new world that we build together. And their motto is 'Not me, us.'
In this ship metaphor, the ship represents any kind of exploitative socioeconomic system, such as capitalism. The ship owner(s) represents the capitalist, who, because they funded the building of the ship and have ownership rights, have full control over it. The workers who actually build the ship and the crew who sails it represent the majority of working people. The ship captain, who takes general orders and directions from the owner, represents the ruling class, while their first mate represents CEOs and managers. And that's how I see today, and much of human history. The majority of people are put to work and made to toil by those at the top, the ones steering the proverbial ship. Much of the wealth that they accumulate is created by our collective labour. And much of their power is derived from that wealth, and from our unconscious subservience. They metaphorically stand on the backs of the majority of workers, enjoying a life of wealth and privilege that we can only dream about and hope to one day achieve, but which most of us rarely ever do. But we're fed myths and tales and morals that tease of such possibilities and which reinforce beliefs in the moral and intellectual superiority of those who exploit our lives and our labour. And many people simply live their lives as best they can, doing what they have to do to survive, not daring to hope or dream of anything more because they feel alone and powerless and have long since resigned themselves to their fate. Some obviously want things to stay the same because they're the main ones benefiting from it. They have power and privilege and feel entitled to it. Why should they give all of that up? And many others in power enable that, working to tweak things here and there to mitigate the worst of the negative consequences and suffering, just enough to keep things going as they are without falling apart from the weight of its own greedy ambition or torn apart by the desperate mobs who are provoked by sheer privation. And then there are those who want to radically change things. Those who want to open people's eyes and look past all the myths and propaganda and see how things really work and how they're being exploited. They want the majority of people who are put to work and made to toil to join their collective voices and labor together, throw off their yokes, and remake society in a way that provides everyone with a good life. Because not only are the people at the top preventing this, their greed and exploitation of people and resources are doing serious damage to our health and the health of this planet.
This is of course a simplistic depiction of complex historical processes and social relations, but I think it accurately reflects what's going on. And to properly answer the question of what is to be done, we have to see this setup for what it is. They want to divide us. They want us to remain separated into different groups fighting for our own relative privileges and liberations rather than as one united group working concertedly, in cooperation rather than competition, towards liberating every single one of us from subservience to the rich and powerful, from the superficial divisions that we've let ourselves be divided into, and from a world in which we have little-to-no control. Because even if the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice, it doesn't bend that way on its own—it bends with the might of all the hands of the exploited, oppressed, marginalized, and neglected masses and their allies, past, present, and future, pushing it. And it's my goal to help, in whatever small way I can, to add my strength. I am anti-capitalist and anti-establishment not out of hate or naivety, but because these are the systems keeping us from achieving a better world. A few at the very top profit from keeping things as they are. But we'll all ultimately profit by radically changing them.
So what is to be done? What is to be done is to keep fighting. Keep organizing. Keep connecting with other people. Keep questioning and learning and listening and working for a better tomorrow and revolutionize this system.
Wednesday, February 19, 2020
socialize the economy
Best part of the debate for me from Bernie: "You know what Mr. Bloomberg, it wasn't you who made all that money; maybe your workers played some role in that as well." That's the crux of my own views on political economy—i.e., the role workers play in the creation of wealth vs. the control owners have over it and those workers' lives.
I'm all for an economy where workers own and control their labour and the products of that labour. I'm all for an economy where everyone has access to food, clothing, shelter, and medical care and opportunities for education regardless of who they are or where they come from. I'm all for the righting of the ship of inequality that is capitalism, for an economy where everyone's heads are above water, not just the rich and the lucky. Rationalize and humanize the economy.
I'm personally in favour of a radical transformation of society, one in which wage labour and our limited and regressive understanding of property rights is replaced by a more rational, humane, and equitable socioeconomic system. At the very least, I think we should begin by nationalizing industries and mandating worker shares in ownership (half or more).
We should nationalize banks and allow state and community owned banks while eliminating predatory penalties and interest rates. We should nationalize the energy sector, creating nationwide public utilities so that everyone has access to clean water and power, eliminating fossil fuels and moving towards wind, solar, hydro, and other, less harmful power sources. We should nationalize healthcare and eliminate an industry that profits off of illnesses, giving everyone access to good health. And we should start to push for a new understanding of the contributions of labour to society, imbuing all labour with dignity and worthy of a living wage, or better, a right to the collective wealth of society.
We can and should do better as a society, seeing one another as members of an extended global family and utilizing our collective labour to make sure every person has a happy, healthy life.
I'm all for an economy where workers own and control their labour and the products of that labour. I'm all for an economy where everyone has access to food, clothing, shelter, and medical care and opportunities for education regardless of who they are or where they come from. I'm all for the righting of the ship of inequality that is capitalism, for an economy where everyone's heads are above water, not just the rich and the lucky. Rationalize and humanize the economy.
I'm personally in favour of a radical transformation of society, one in which wage labour and our limited and regressive understanding of property rights is replaced by a more rational, humane, and equitable socioeconomic system. At the very least, I think we should begin by nationalizing industries and mandating worker shares in ownership (half or more).
We should nationalize banks and allow state and community owned banks while eliminating predatory penalties and interest rates. We should nationalize the energy sector, creating nationwide public utilities so that everyone has access to clean water and power, eliminating fossil fuels and moving towards wind, solar, hydro, and other, less harmful power sources. We should nationalize healthcare and eliminate an industry that profits off of illnesses, giving everyone access to good health. And we should start to push for a new understanding of the contributions of labour to society, imbuing all labour with dignity and worthy of a living wage, or better, a right to the collective wealth of society.
We can and should do better as a society, seeing one another as members of an extended global family and utilizing our collective labour to make sure every person has a happy, healthy life.
Friday, December 6, 2019
thanksgiving
Thanksgiving. It can be hard for many to appreciate the mindset of gratitude or thanksgiving when they're confronted by the history of the holiday itself. The mythologized celebration at Plymouth in 1621, for instance, belies the tragic fate of the indigenous peoples of the Americas that unfolded under colonialism, Manifest Destiny, the 19th century policy of native population removal, and countless broken treaties. And Lincoln's creation of a national day of "Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens" in 1863 was set within the bloody context of what many consider to be the deadliest war in American history, containing within it the hope of some future peace and harmony.
Today, it seems like it's more about food, football, and a prelude to the consumeristic orgy of Black Friday than a recollection of all the things that we're grateful for, mythologized or not. At least that's how it seems to me. But the idea of gratitude itself is something I've grown to appreciate. My life hasn't always been the best, and I haven't always been the best person; but there are numerous people and things I find myself grateful for if I reflect on it, yet I find that I rarely seem to have the time or mindfulness to cultivate that sense of gratitude and appreciation. It's not really a priority in our culture, and it's an easy thing for us to overlook. I'm reminded of the Buddha's words in AN 2.118: "These two people are hard to find in the world. Which two? The one who is first to do a kindness, and the one who is grateful and thankful for a kindness done."
The world can be a harsh and lonely place sometimes, and there are so many people I'm thankful for, too many to list. I just feel terribly grateful at this moment for the many acts and words of kindness given to me over the years. I'm especially grateful for the people who have helped me expand my knowledge over the years, so that I'm not only aware of the somber history that my high school textbooks completely glossed over but my own agency in fighting to change things and right past wrongs. And I'm also grateful for the many people who have entered my life and made it one worth living, including those who sent me such kind messages today.
Today, it seems like it's more about food, football, and a prelude to the consumeristic orgy of Black Friday than a recollection of all the things that we're grateful for, mythologized or not. At least that's how it seems to me. But the idea of gratitude itself is something I've grown to appreciate. My life hasn't always been the best, and I haven't always been the best person; but there are numerous people and things I find myself grateful for if I reflect on it, yet I find that I rarely seem to have the time or mindfulness to cultivate that sense of gratitude and appreciation. It's not really a priority in our culture, and it's an easy thing for us to overlook. I'm reminded of the Buddha's words in AN 2.118: "These two people are hard to find in the world. Which two? The one who is first to do a kindness, and the one who is grateful and thankful for a kindness done."
The world can be a harsh and lonely place sometimes, and there are so many people I'm thankful for, too many to list. I just feel terribly grateful at this moment for the many acts and words of kindness given to me over the years. I'm especially grateful for the people who have helped me expand my knowledge over the years, so that I'm not only aware of the somber history that my high school textbooks completely glossed over but my own agency in fighting to change things and right past wrongs. And I'm also grateful for the many people who have entered my life and made it one worth living, including those who sent me such kind messages today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)