the Horned God slumbers,
our two worlds draw near:
death pierces the veil.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
just say no [to austerity measures]
Almost a year ago, I read an article in the Nation about the rise of the 'austerity class' and the growing popularity of deficit reduction measures in political discourse called "How the Austerity Class Rules Washington." It got me thinking about how 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 with this type of approach, however, 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 goods and services 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 else 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. But instead of the latter, all I've been hearing during the current election cycle is a lot of austerity talk, much of it directed towards social programs like Medicare and Social Security.
I'm not really a huge fan of Paul Krugman, but I think he brings up a fairly decent (albeit obvious) point in an op-ed he wrote earlier in the year called "The Austerity Agenda" that was originally made by John Maynard Keynes 75 years ago: that by pumping money into the system during slumps, the government can stimulate aggregate demand and help put people back to work in times of economic decline, and their subsequent spending will further help speed economic recovery. And conversely, that 'starving the beast' (i.e. the government) will most likely do little besides prolong and/or exacerbate the slump of an already depressed economy.
The bottom line is that austerity measures, particularly in combination with lower taxes on the wealthy and fewer regulations for corporations, ultimately hurt the working class and poor, eroding years of hard won gains by the latter while strengthening the former's capacity to accumulate more profit, as well as letting them off the hook for their greed and irresponsible behaviour. By "using deficit panic as an excuse to dismantle social programs," then, capital and the oligarchical ruling class have essentially found a way to utilize austerity measures as a means of privatizing gains and socializing losses under the guise of, ironically, fiscal responsibility.
The financial crisis of 2008 and the ensuing recession did a lot of damage the economy, from destabilizing financial institutions and the housing market, leading to failures and foreclosures, to creating chronic unemployment across the country. And the impact from that was further exacerbated by a federal deficit largely created by two unfunded wars and tax cuts for the wealthy (thanks, GWB!). But instead of attacking the bloated military budget in any significant way, raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations (which are at historically low levels), and instituting strong financial reforms (instead of lukewarm reforms like Dodd-Frank), the trend has been to gradually take it out on the backs of the elderly, the poor, students, and the working class via austerity measures aimed at cutting spending on things like education, healthcare, transportation, etc.
I think that's the wrong approach, and I urge everyone else who also thinks it's the wrong approach to be more vocal about it. Vote for candidates who'll stand with working people to oppose these kinds of measures. Start writing your current representatives and tell them that you oppose these kinds of measures and want them to support different solutions. And if you have the time, join other like-minded individuals demonstrating against austerity cuts and for things like an end to war and a smaller military budget, an end to the Bush-era tax cuts, higher taxes on large corporations and capital gains, and other solutions that don't target an already beleaguered working class or the members of our society who need government help the most.
The problem with this type of approach, however, 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 goods and services 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 else 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. But instead of the latter, all I've been hearing during the current election cycle is a lot of austerity talk, much of it directed towards social programs like Medicare and Social Security.
I'm not really a huge fan of Paul Krugman, but I think he brings up a fairly decent (albeit obvious) point in an op-ed he wrote earlier in the year called "The Austerity Agenda" that was originally made by John Maynard Keynes 75 years ago: that by pumping money into the system during slumps, the government can stimulate aggregate demand and help put people back to work in times of economic decline, and their subsequent spending will further help speed economic recovery. And conversely, that 'starving the beast' (i.e. the government) will most likely do little besides prolong and/or exacerbate the slump of an already depressed economy.
The bottom line is that austerity measures, particularly in combination with lower taxes on the wealthy and fewer regulations for corporations, ultimately hurt the working class and poor, eroding years of hard won gains by the latter while strengthening the former's capacity to accumulate more profit, as well as letting them off the hook for their greed and irresponsible behaviour. By "using deficit panic as an excuse to dismantle social programs," then, capital and the oligarchical ruling class have essentially found a way to utilize austerity measures as a means of privatizing gains and socializing losses under the guise of, ironically, fiscal responsibility.
The financial crisis of 2008 and the ensuing recession did a lot of damage the economy, from destabilizing financial institutions and the housing market, leading to failures and foreclosures, to creating chronic unemployment across the country. And the impact from that was further exacerbated by a federal deficit largely created by two unfunded wars and tax cuts for the wealthy (thanks, GWB!). But instead of attacking the bloated military budget in any significant way, raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations (which are at historically low levels), and instituting strong financial reforms (instead of lukewarm reforms like Dodd-Frank), the trend has been to gradually take it out on the backs of the elderly, the poor, students, and the working class via austerity measures aimed at cutting spending on things like education, healthcare, transportation, etc.
I think that's the wrong approach, and I urge everyone else who also thinks it's the wrong approach to be more vocal about it. Vote for candidates who'll stand with working people to oppose these kinds of measures. Start writing your current representatives and tell them that you oppose these kinds of measures and want them to support different solutions. And if you have the time, join other like-minded individuals demonstrating against austerity cuts and for things like an end to war and a smaller military budget, an end to the Bush-era tax cuts, higher taxes on large corporations and capital gains, and other solutions that don't target an already beleaguered working class or the members of our society who need government help the most.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
why voting alone isn't enough
Something a friend of mine said about average people never gaining control of our government without literally, physically, taking it back because it's been bought and paid for by the wealthy inspired this relatively short, 15-point argument that simply engaging in electoral politics (i.e., voting) isn't enough to change the system on its own:
1. We live in a predominately capitalist political-economic system.
2. Capitalism is a process in which money is taken to produce commodities (e.g., goods, services, etc.) that can be sold for a profit (M-C-M).
3. This process leads to capital accumulation (i.e., the accumulation of wealth) on the part of capital as opposed to labour due to their ownership of the means of production and finance.
4. Money, as a representation of value and medium of exchange, is a form of social power.
5. Money is considered Constitutionally-protected free speech within our system.
6. Money is a driving force in the political process (which now allows unlimited campaign spending by corporations and other collective entities).
7. The more money one possesses, the more influence one potentially has in this system.
8. The capitalist class, then, logically has a disproportionate advantage within our system, especially when it comes to influencing and shaping our representative form of government, than the working class and poor.
9. Those in power make the rules (i.e., laws and loopholes) and tend to do so with a view to their own preservation and well-being.
10. Their own preservation and well-being depends upon serving the interests of capital and finance.
11. It follows, therefore, that substantive changes in the political-economic arena that benefits the working class and poor rather than capital and finance needs to come from the bottom up, not the top down.
12. This form of political-economic opposition requires the working class and poor to expand their class consciousness, unite in common cause, and use their superior numbers and indispensable place in the capitalist mode of production to offset the disproportionate (and essentially undemocratic) influence of monied interests.
13. The greater the solidarity amongst the working class and the dispossessed, the greater the potential opposition.
14. The greater the opposition, the greater the potential for substantive, systematic change that favours the majority of the citizenry (the 99%) rather than the wealthy, ruling elite (the 1%).
15. Radical change, then, necessitates a concerted, working-class mass movement, particularly one geared towards more fully democratizing our economic system and institutions.
1. We live in a predominately capitalist political-economic system.
2. Capitalism is a process in which money is taken to produce commodities (e.g., goods, services, etc.) that can be sold for a profit (M-C-M).
3. This process leads to capital accumulation (i.e., the accumulation of wealth) on the part of capital as opposed to labour due to their ownership of the means of production and finance.
4. Money, as a representation of value and medium of exchange, is a form of social power.
5. Money is considered Constitutionally-protected free speech within our system.
6. Money is a driving force in the political process (which now allows unlimited campaign spending by corporations and other collective entities).
7. The more money one possesses, the more influence one potentially has in this system.
8. The capitalist class, then, logically has a disproportionate advantage within our system, especially when it comes to influencing and shaping our representative form of government, than the working class and poor.
9. Those in power make the rules (i.e., laws and loopholes) and tend to do so with a view to their own preservation and well-being.
10. Their own preservation and well-being depends upon serving the interests of capital and finance.
11. It follows, therefore, that substantive changes in the political-economic arena that benefits the working class and poor rather than capital and finance needs to come from the bottom up, not the top down.
12. This form of political-economic opposition requires the working class and poor to expand their class consciousness, unite in common cause, and use their superior numbers and indispensable place in the capitalist mode of production to offset the disproportionate (and essentially undemocratic) influence of monied interests.
13. The greater the solidarity amongst the working class and the dispossessed, the greater the potential opposition.
14. The greater the opposition, the greater the potential for substantive, systematic change that favours the majority of the citizenry (the 99%) rather than the wealthy, ruling elite (the 1%).
15. Radical change, then, necessitates a concerted, working-class mass movement, particularly one geared towards more fully democratizing our economic system and institutions.
callous joe
While talking about the collateral killing of civilians in the use of drone strikes to assassinate terror suspects, Joe Klein said: "The bottom line, in the end, is: Whose four-year-old gets killed? What we're doing is limiting the possibility that four-year-olds here are going to get killed by indiscriminate acts of terror."
I guess killing four-year-olds abroad is apparently kosher to Klein as long as it limits the vague possibility of four-year-olds being killed here by "indiscriminate acts of terror." Never mind the fact that by doing so, we run the risk of radicalizing even more people who may eventually carry out said acts of terror; or how chilling it is that someone can seem so nonchalant when talking about the killing of four-years-olds anywhere for any reason. I hope I never become that callous.
I guess killing four-year-olds abroad is apparently kosher to Klein as long as it limits the vague possibility of four-year-olds being killed here by "indiscriminate acts of terror." Never mind the fact that by doing so, we run the risk of radicalizing even more people who may eventually carry out said acts of terror; or how chilling it is that someone can seem so nonchalant when talking about the killing of four-years-olds anywhere for any reason. I hope I never become that callous.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
i can't believe i agree with penn on something, but...
I'm not a big fan of Penn Jillette as a political commentator, but on one of his weekly podcasts of Penn Sunday School he said, "I don't know how people can get so outraged about PBS, and Big Bird, and children's television when we are killing children with drone strikes overseas. I mean, those children will never see Big Bird because we killed them." And I think he makes a good point.
Out of the last two presidential debates, two of the most substantive things that have come out of them are new internet memes involving Big Bird and 'binders full of women.' While humorous, it seems that the focus and outrage over Romney's desire to cut federal funding for PBS and his idiotic remark about hiring women as governor of Massachusetts out of "binders full of women" brought to him by women's groups is overshadowing other serious and pressing matters, such as our ongoing military actions around the world and the use of unmanned drones to assassinate targets in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen that routinely kill civilians, including children.
It's not that I think the issues underlying these memes are unimportant (they are); it's just that I find it hard to fathom why people seem to be putting so much energy into defending Big Bird from funding cuts and not people's lives. Children are dying overseas. Our soldiers are still dying overseas. And considering both side's hawkish stance on Iran, these things need to be a part of the discussion too, even if they don't make the best memes.
Out of the last two presidential debates, two of the most substantive things that have come out of them are new internet memes involving Big Bird and 'binders full of women.' While humorous, it seems that the focus and outrage over Romney's desire to cut federal funding for PBS and his idiotic remark about hiring women as governor of Massachusetts out of "binders full of women" brought to him by women's groups is overshadowing other serious and pressing matters, such as our ongoing military actions around the world and the use of unmanned drones to assassinate targets in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen that routinely kill civilians, including children.
It's not that I think the issues underlying these memes are unimportant (they are); it's just that I find it hard to fathom why people seem to be putting so much energy into defending Big Bird from funding cuts and not people's lives. Children are dying overseas. Our soldiers are still dying overseas. And considering both side's hawkish stance on Iran, these things need to be a part of the discussion too, even if they don't make the best memes.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
this is what [the illusion of] democracy looks like
Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein and her running mate Cheri Honkala were prevented from entering the grounds of tonight's presidential debate and arrested for "obstructing traffic":
Jill Stein, Cheri Honkala arrested, call tonight's debate a "mockumentary"
The sad thing is, she (and candidates like her) could probably have a decent chance of winning if all the people claiming they like her and/or her platform actually supported her and her party financially and voted for her in November. Most of the people I know say they like her and wish she was 'more electable' or 'had a chance,' yet only a small handful are actively supporting her or planning on voting for her in November. I'm probably one of the few who will.
I understand the reasons why people are so reluctant to vote for her, especially the fact that her chances of winning are so slim. But that would obviously change if she had the support of all the people saying they like her, side with her, etc. It's such a catch-22, and it drives me crazy, mainly because our outdated electoral system actively makes it so difficult for independents and third party candidates like Stein to compete with Democrats and Republicans, particularly in federal elections. And yet, if nobody is willing to help support these alternatives and make it easier for them to get on ballots, in debates, etc., how will they ever get a national platform?
The two dominate parties make this extremely difficult, and simply supporting these two parties in elections with votes and donations instead of independent and third party candidates like Stein only makes it that much harder for the latter to compete nationally. The way I see it, we'll be stuck with a two-party system until we get off our collective asses, organize, and push for electoral changes while also supporting alternative parties/candidates. If we don't support them now, they'll never have a chance. Parties and candidates don't just magically become nationally popular and electable, nor do they do so on their own. Their failure is in some respects our failure too.
As difficult as building a viable alternative to the status quo and changing election laws is, it's not impossible. But it'll only be possible when people like you and me put our time and effort into organizing it because it is such an uphill battle. I don't see why this is so hard to understand. It's not like electoral politics is a free market. The Democrats and the Republicans essentially have a monopoly, and they make it disproportionately difficult for independents and third parties to compete. To counter that, we need more citizen support, not less.
Jill Stein, Cheri Honkala arrested, call tonight's debate a "mockumentary"
The sad thing is, she (and candidates like her) could probably have a decent chance of winning if all the people claiming they like her and/or her platform actually supported her and her party financially and voted for her in November. Most of the people I know say they like her and wish she was 'more electable' or 'had a chance,' yet only a small handful are actively supporting her or planning on voting for her in November. I'm probably one of the few who will.
I understand the reasons why people are so reluctant to vote for her, especially the fact that her chances of winning are so slim. But that would obviously change if she had the support of all the people saying they like her, side with her, etc. It's such a catch-22, and it drives me crazy, mainly because our outdated electoral system actively makes it so difficult for independents and third party candidates like Stein to compete with Democrats and Republicans, particularly in federal elections. And yet, if nobody is willing to help support these alternatives and make it easier for them to get on ballots, in debates, etc., how will they ever get a national platform?
The two dominate parties make this extremely difficult, and simply supporting these two parties in elections with votes and donations instead of independent and third party candidates like Stein only makes it that much harder for the latter to compete nationally. The way I see it, we'll be stuck with a two-party system until we get off our collective asses, organize, and push for electoral changes while also supporting alternative parties/candidates. If we don't support them now, they'll never have a chance. Parties and candidates don't just magically become nationally popular and electable, nor do they do so on their own. Their failure is in some respects our failure too.
As difficult as building a viable alternative to the status quo and changing election laws is, it's not impossible. But it'll only be possible when people like you and me put our time and effort into organizing it because it is such an uphill battle. I don't see why this is so hard to understand. It's not like electoral politics is a free market. The Democrats and the Republicans essentially have a monopoly, and they make it disproportionately difficult for independents and third parties to compete. To counter that, we need more citizen support, not less.
Monday, October 15, 2012
chandrakirti and wittgenstein: similarities in east/west thought
It's always interesting seeing the (often little known) similarities between Western and Eastern philosophy. In reading about Wittgenstein and his ideas about language presented in Philosophical Investigations, for example, I'm reminded a lot of the early Prasangika Madhyamikas. For example, the Wikipedia article on Philosophical Investigations summarizes one of Wittgenstein's arguments about language, meaning, and use as "meaning is use"—i.e., "words are not defined by reference to the objects they designate, nor by the mental representations one might associate with them, but by how they are used." This is reminiscent of a famous line by Chandrakirti in Clear Words (composed sometime in the 7th century CE): "Words are not like policemen on the prowl: we are not subject to their independence. On the contrary, their truth lies in their efficacy; they take their meaning from the intention of the one using them."
In addition, the idea that one of the consequences of Wittgenstein's argument is that "there is no need to postulate that there is something called good that exists independently of any good deed" is similar to the logical consequence of Chandrakirti's argument, which is that in debate, "It follows that we have merely invalidated our adversary's thesis. We need not accept the antithesis of the logical fault we have exposed" due to the fact that Prasangikas advance no thesis of their own. So just as one doesn't need to postulate that there's something existing on its own side called 'good' that exists independently of good deeds, one doesn't have to accept or advance a thesis of their own in order to invalidate that of another; and whereas Wittgenstein's argument can be seen as a rejection of Platonic realism, Prasangika in general can be seen as a rejection of the notion that all things and phenomena possess some kind of inherent, self-existing identity or essence (not unlike the Platonic idea of forms) without at the same promoting or being forced to accept the notion that things and phenomena are inherently nonexistent.
Just something I found interesting and that was worth sharing.
In addition, the idea that one of the consequences of Wittgenstein's argument is that "there is no need to postulate that there is something called good that exists independently of any good deed" is similar to the logical consequence of Chandrakirti's argument, which is that in debate, "It follows that we have merely invalidated our adversary's thesis. We need not accept the antithesis of the logical fault we have exposed" due to the fact that Prasangikas advance no thesis of their own. So just as one doesn't need to postulate that there's something existing on its own side called 'good' that exists independently of good deeds, one doesn't have to accept or advance a thesis of their own in order to invalidate that of another; and whereas Wittgenstein's argument can be seen as a rejection of Platonic realism, Prasangika in general can be seen as a rejection of the notion that all things and phenomena possess some kind of inherent, self-existing identity or essence (not unlike the Platonic idea of forms) without at the same promoting or being forced to accept the notion that things and phenomena are inherently nonexistent.
Just something I found interesting and that was worth sharing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)