Thursday, February 25, 2010
Institutional intelligence
Financial Times:
As I like to say, anytime one jackass makes the decisions for an entire organization, what could possibly go wrong?
[T]he same dynamic is taking place at every level. Each middle manager is a fresh obstacle to the flow of truth up a hierarchy of wastebaskets.
As I like to say, anytime one jackass makes the decisions for an entire organization, what could possibly go wrong?
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Certain things are illuminated
Every commodity is the result of a process which ends for our consideration. As consumers, we are educated with a view toward the "finished product," and away from the process which created it.
The consumer approach is often misapplied in areas of process, including social relationships. Not seeing what he wants, the "political consumer" insists he must go to that place where people share his point of view. Looking upward, he sees it illuminated.
The consumer approach is often misapplied in areas of process, including social relationships. Not seeing what he wants, the "political consumer" insists he must go to that place where people share his point of view. Looking upward, he sees it illuminated.
Monday, February 22, 2010
An anatomy of power
Always remember that "right" and "left" are horizontal appeals to a hemisphere that is necessarily vertical. This explains their political utility.
Much like the human body, the lower orders of the social organism may be arranged on a straight line to coincide with the higher; still, the foot will always be closer to foot than it is to the shoulder.
Much like the human body, the lower orders of the social organism may be arranged on a straight line to coincide with the higher; still, the foot will always be closer to foot than it is to the shoulder.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Fortunate sons
Being a man is like being beautiful: you get credit without ever having applied yourself, and the details are usually worked out by somebody else.
Thanks to Elizabitchez
Thanks to Elizabitchez
Friday, February 19, 2010
Introducing the spectacular Sarah Palin
Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle:
In its simplest sense, the "spectacle" might be described as the industrial production of information under capitalism. Like any industrial production of this sort, it assumes particular social implications of the Marxist variety -- a dictatorship within production, an ever-expanding scope of production, and the centralization of all production -- which alienate people both from the work they perform and from each other. When the commodity produced is information, however, reality itself is something we experience as it has been manufactured, only to be reinforced by our social manner of experiencing it.
"Populism" has entered the language of our of day, understood as a popular reaction against "elites." The class character of the language is appropriate, particularly in light of the portion of the US working class from which it is presently derived. For 30 years now, those workers closest to industrial production have experienced an unrelenting assault by capital which has put them in direct competition with the most desperate subjects of the so-called developing world. US workers, unable to approximate the lack of rights or the scale of impoverishment, have been punished by losing industrial capacity to their more "competitive" rivals. Whole communities have been upended, and it is safe to say that an entire way of life for these workers has been summarily destroyed. Capital has explained it as a way to reproduce itself for the benefit of a retooled, information-based economy; but it already has its eyes trained on new victims within the IT and professional-based sectors. "Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks,” in the words of Marx.
Sarah Palin has emerged from the wreckage carrying the banner of "populist" revolt. The "emergence" of Palin is instructive in itself: At the forefront of a movement against elites, the movement endeavors to enshrine "one of its own" in the very apparatus of elitism they claim to despise as the root of all their problems: big government. Within the tea party movement, class conflict informs this contradiction, as the working class elements are solicited by capital to endorse "populism" in its commodity form. Alienated from a genuine populism of self-directed action, the tea partiers consume populism as it is manufactured nationally; and distributed to them in their homes, cars, and workplaces.
Liberals, who live at a greater distance from the front lines of industrial destruction, have watched the regression of "blue-collar" social life as an uninterrupted series of spectacles produced for their benefit, as it also happens to be produced by their kind. Liberalism, which favors the ascendancy of an educated, technocratic elite, possesses no language of populism, for it has turned its back on the working classes in order to assume elite status through a renewed alliance with capital. What this has yielded for liberalism's social mission is plain to see in the administration of Barack Obama, which is more likely to suspend the tax-supported stipends on which many Americans depend than it is to ever suspend its murderous and self-defeating "national security" efforts abroad -- though the budgetary implications are clear. Still, the distributional advantages which liberals enjoy within the working class have enabled them to forestall the wholesale destruction of their lifestyle; though with the ongoing transfer of wealth from workers to capital, the process is certainly off and running.
The identification of the working class with competing elite groups divides and conquers any possibility of an authentic American populism emerging in the near future. Alienated from each other, we are all the more susceptible to "uniting" around "that sector where all attention, all consciousness, converges." We can believe in "change" just so long as there is a public relations extravaganza which supports our impressions of it, and so long as those impressions are corroborated by others experiencing it at the same time. We believe in it insofar as it is a product, not of our own activity, but of accumulated capital pursuing its own ends.
The spectacle appears at once as society itself, as a part of society and as a means of unification. As a part of society, it is that sector where all attention, all consciousness, converges.
In its simplest sense, the "spectacle" might be described as the industrial production of information under capitalism. Like any industrial production of this sort, it assumes particular social implications of the Marxist variety -- a dictatorship within production, an ever-expanding scope of production, and the centralization of all production -- which alienate people both from the work they perform and from each other. When the commodity produced is information, however, reality itself is something we experience as it has been manufactured, only to be reinforced by our social manner of experiencing it.
"Populism" has entered the language of our of day, understood as a popular reaction against "elites." The class character of the language is appropriate, particularly in light of the portion of the US working class from which it is presently derived. For 30 years now, those workers closest to industrial production have experienced an unrelenting assault by capital which has put them in direct competition with the most desperate subjects of the so-called developing world. US workers, unable to approximate the lack of rights or the scale of impoverishment, have been punished by losing industrial capacity to their more "competitive" rivals. Whole communities have been upended, and it is safe to say that an entire way of life for these workers has been summarily destroyed. Capital has explained it as a way to reproduce itself for the benefit of a retooled, information-based economy; but it already has its eyes trained on new victims within the IT and professional-based sectors. "Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks,” in the words of Marx.
Sarah Palin has emerged from the wreckage carrying the banner of "populist" revolt. The "emergence" of Palin is instructive in itself: At the forefront of a movement against elites, the movement endeavors to enshrine "one of its own" in the very apparatus of elitism they claim to despise as the root of all their problems: big government. Within the tea party movement, class conflict informs this contradiction, as the working class elements are solicited by capital to endorse "populism" in its commodity form. Alienated from a genuine populism of self-directed action, the tea partiers consume populism as it is manufactured nationally; and distributed to them in their homes, cars, and workplaces.
Liberals, who live at a greater distance from the front lines of industrial destruction, have watched the regression of "blue-collar" social life as an uninterrupted series of spectacles produced for their benefit, as it also happens to be produced by their kind. Liberalism, which favors the ascendancy of an educated, technocratic elite, possesses no language of populism, for it has turned its back on the working classes in order to assume elite status through a renewed alliance with capital. What this has yielded for liberalism's social mission is plain to see in the administration of Barack Obama, which is more likely to suspend the tax-supported stipends on which many Americans depend than it is to ever suspend its murderous and self-defeating "national security" efforts abroad -- though the budgetary implications are clear. Still, the distributional advantages which liberals enjoy within the working class have enabled them to forestall the wholesale destruction of their lifestyle; though with the ongoing transfer of wealth from workers to capital, the process is certainly off and running.
The identification of the working class with competing elite groups divides and conquers any possibility of an authentic American populism emerging in the near future. Alienated from each other, we are all the more susceptible to "uniting" around "that sector where all attention, all consciousness, converges." We can believe in "change" just so long as there is a public relations extravaganza which supports our impressions of it, and so long as those impressions are corroborated by others experiencing it at the same time. We believe in it insofar as it is a product, not of our own activity, but of accumulated capital pursuing its own ends.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Notes from the spectacle
Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle:
Something that's good to appreciate about the market economy, as Marx would say, is that it amounts to a dictatorship within the realm of production. Anybody who's ever had a boss understands what this means.
The same can be said for anybody who's never owned a solar-powered car. Wouldn't you like to own a solar-powered car? That's too bad, because the consumer isn't in a position to decide what gets made; the consumer is only in a position to consume what gets made. And, as anyone who has ever contemplated a telephone, internet, or cable bill can tell you, even the terms of consumption are set in accordance to the whims of the producer. After all, what are you going to do? Attempt to live without something over which a particular industry exerts a complete monopoly? Why, that just wouldn't be modern -- post- or otherwise!
You, the individual consumer, have no power except to ratify those choices already made within production. In the vernacular of our day, this is called freedom; and, in fact, the principle can be seen hard at work in our political system as well. No doubt Karl Marx is laughing very hard about it -- but don't get sore, there's more!
Just as we are forced to choose between commodities not of our choosing, that which has become commodified is also a heady trip when you get to thinking about it. Guy Debord, that bastard Frenchman who wrote like an ass, wrote lyrically about what happens when reality itself is transformed into a commodity, which we must take on somebody else's terms if we want to experience it -- not to mention remain connected to that community of consumers who now make up the modern world. In this case we are talking about mass media as it informs consumer culture more generally.
I have a younger colleague at one of my jobs. When I am able to speak authoritatively on some matter of commercial urgency -- the release of a new movie or electronic product -- we enjoy a warm working relationship. The rest of our time, however, is comprised mostly of crickets and tumbleweeds. It is a sad testament to the fact that we don't consume enough of the same things with the same enthusiasm, for it is only in consuming things that one exercises that degree of individuality to which others can relate.
Divorced from its commercial utility, individuality does not translate well. In fact, it is often met with silence and a horrified expression. Anything which lacks its own promotional budget cannot be communicated intelligibly without enormous effort, because nobody enjoys a preexisting familiarity with it. As Guy Debord would say, our social relationships are mediated by the Spectacle: we can talk to each other about Haiti as long as it is made real by the TV. The rest of the time Haiti does not exist, so we can't talk about it. And that's because nobody will have anything to say about Haiti unless it is on the TV. If you had something to say about Haiti before it was on the TV, then you are a very odd bird, indeed, because nobody else shared that experience. Nobody knew it could exist, or why it should.
More to say on this.
The whole life of those societies in which modern conditions of production prevail presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles. All that once was directly lived has become mere representation.
Something that's good to appreciate about the market economy, as Marx would say, is that it amounts to a dictatorship within the realm of production. Anybody who's ever had a boss understands what this means.
The same can be said for anybody who's never owned a solar-powered car. Wouldn't you like to own a solar-powered car? That's too bad, because the consumer isn't in a position to decide what gets made; the consumer is only in a position to consume what gets made. And, as anyone who has ever contemplated a telephone, internet, or cable bill can tell you, even the terms of consumption are set in accordance to the whims of the producer. After all, what are you going to do? Attempt to live without something over which a particular industry exerts a complete monopoly? Why, that just wouldn't be modern -- post- or otherwise!
You, the individual consumer, have no power except to ratify those choices already made within production. In the vernacular of our day, this is called freedom; and, in fact, the principle can be seen hard at work in our political system as well. No doubt Karl Marx is laughing very hard about it -- but don't get sore, there's more!
Just as we are forced to choose between commodities not of our choosing, that which has become commodified is also a heady trip when you get to thinking about it. Guy Debord, that bastard Frenchman who wrote like an ass, wrote lyrically about what happens when reality itself is transformed into a commodity, which we must take on somebody else's terms if we want to experience it -- not to mention remain connected to that community of consumers who now make up the modern world. In this case we are talking about mass media as it informs consumer culture more generally.
I have a younger colleague at one of my jobs. When I am able to speak authoritatively on some matter of commercial urgency -- the release of a new movie or electronic product -- we enjoy a warm working relationship. The rest of our time, however, is comprised mostly of crickets and tumbleweeds. It is a sad testament to the fact that we don't consume enough of the same things with the same enthusiasm, for it is only in consuming things that one exercises that degree of individuality to which others can relate.
Divorced from its commercial utility, individuality does not translate well. In fact, it is often met with silence and a horrified expression. Anything which lacks its own promotional budget cannot be communicated intelligibly without enormous effort, because nobody enjoys a preexisting familiarity with it. As Guy Debord would say, our social relationships are mediated by the Spectacle: we can talk to each other about Haiti as long as it is made real by the TV. The rest of the time Haiti does not exist, so we can't talk about it. And that's because nobody will have anything to say about Haiti unless it is on the TV. If you had something to say about Haiti before it was on the TV, then you are a very odd bird, indeed, because nobody else shared that experience. Nobody knew it could exist, or why it should.
More to say on this.
Take this job and comprehend it
Ladypoverty's sidebar portal to all things refreshed informs us that David Harvey has published A Companion to Marx's Capital, Vol 1, which just might make for some of the best work-related reading since the internet.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Naxanalysis
Financial Times:
Little wonder that India's rural population is now considered the state's greatest security threat, what with their "canny" knack for "identifying local grievances" by, you know, experiencing them.
The Naxalites feed on deprivation and the marginalisation of India’s forest-dwelling tribal people. They are canny at identifying local grievances. Well over three quarters of India’s 660,000 villages, for example, are not connected to a road and many have no drinking water, power, school or clinic. A new focus is on mining companies that extract rather than create local wealth, often at ruinous environmental cost.
...
The original Naxalite problem in West Bengal was largely resolved by (communist-led) land reform.
Little wonder that India's rural population is now considered the state's greatest security threat, what with their "canny" knack for "identifying local grievances" by, you know, experiencing them.
Farmland is for investors
Financial Times:
Something tells me that when it comes to living within the sights of Indian developers, there is no such thing as an innocent civilian!
[Indian] security forces are slowly pushing into Maoist-held areas to battle the rebels, though local human rights groups accuse them of slaughtering innocent civilians then branding them as Naxal rebels.
Something tells me that when it comes to living within the sights of Indian developers, there is no such thing as an innocent civilian!
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Fresh insights from the 19th century
Paul Craig Roberts, How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds/CounterPunch:
While this may not be not something you often hear from former associate editors of The Wall Street Journal or Reagan administration treasury officials, occasionally we do find specimens near the top who, because they have a basic idea of what is going on, are only a few short analytical steps away from reaching the obvious conclusions.
What's remarkable to me is how those who have thought most deeply about contemporary economics are so successfully excluded from social awareness that every time someone hits upon some 150-year-old insight, it is as if we have reinvented the wheel. Last night I listened to a breathless NPR interview with an author who drew on "50 years of research" to support the view that people have an innate need for meaningful, creative work and that modern jobs are more or less at odds with this impulse -- so treating people like human beings might be a very good thing for productivity!
If Karl Marx and V. I. Lenin were alive today, they would be leading contenders for the Nobel Prize in economics.
Marx predicted the growing misery of working people, and Lenin foresaw the subordination of the production of goods to financial capital’s accumulation of profits based on the purchase and sale of paper instruments. Their predictions are far superior to the “risk models” for which the Nobel Prize has been given and are closer to the money than the predictions of Federal Reserve chairmen, US Treasury secretaries, and Nobel economists, such as Paul Krugman, who believe that more credit and more debt are the solution to the economic crisis.
While this may not be not something you often hear from former associate editors of The Wall Street Journal or Reagan administration treasury officials, occasionally we do find specimens near the top who, because they have a basic idea of what is going on, are only a few short analytical steps away from reaching the obvious conclusions.
What's remarkable to me is how those who have thought most deeply about contemporary economics are so successfully excluded from social awareness that every time someone hits upon some 150-year-old insight, it is as if we have reinvented the wheel. Last night I listened to a breathless NPR interview with an author who drew on "50 years of research" to support the view that people have an innate need for meaningful, creative work and that modern jobs are more or less at odds with this impulse -- so treating people like human beings might be a very good thing for productivity!
Classy repartee
Wall Street Journal:
This is called a "Churchillian defense of markets" by the Journal. Do you know what a Churchillian defense of markets is? It is when you take Winston Churchill's quip about democracy being the worst form of government except for every other kind that's been tried, but attribute the undemocratic character of markets to "democracy." This then becomes your classiest rejoinder in any debate with humanity.
"The fundamental aspect of globalization is urbanization, which is spreading everywhere. There isn't a single country in the world that isn't getting more and more urbanized, even the ones that are already quite urbanized, like this one and America," [Stephen Green, chairman and former CEO of HSBC] says. "Last year was the year when we crossed the point where more than half the world's population is in big cities. By 2050 it will be 80% of people who live in cities."
This is called a "Churchillian defense of markets" by the Journal. Do you know what a Churchillian defense of markets is? It is when you take Winston Churchill's quip about democracy being the worst form of government except for every other kind that's been tried, but attribute the undemocratic character of markets to "democracy." This then becomes your classiest rejoinder in any debate with humanity.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Vote for your class
Every political movement not explicitly based in class will have a class character which deserves to be understood. This is often true of movements which appeal to class, like the US labor federations, or political parties which claim to represent the working class, like the socialist and communist parties of many countries. Whatever their pretensions, the "communist governments" of the world are easily reducible to class; often in ways that are much more straightforward than their capitalist counterparts: you are either a member of the ruling party class or you are not.
What all of these examples share in common is the pursuit of state power as a political goal. Because the modern nation-state is a hierarchy which protects and reproduces ruling class power, the working class cannot help but to enter this arena at a disadvantage, if only because the vehicle for doing so -- the political party -- is always comprised of different classes. In the context of class conflict, this means party policy will always be set in accordance to the desires of the advantaged class.
This unholy alliance between working people and their rulers within competing political hierarchies, better known as electoral politics, is perhaps the most unexamined religious tendency within the United States today. Liberalism has facilitated the biggest wealth transfer from communities to the financial sector in US history, all while escalating imperial war aims and delivering zero to a population which lives, and regularly dies, with no right to medical care in the world's richest nation. Conservatism, meanwhile, has blossomed into an incoherent reaction to its own innate incoherency, trying as it might to reconcile a "free-market" of government contracts with Jeffersonian claptrap about less government and individual liberty.
In keeping with this tradition, a full year has been lost in empty speculation on why Obama has done this or hasn't done that, what he does or doesn't need to do now, and all manner of ludicrous counsel which willfully ignores the class character of virtually every adviser who staffs the White House. There is no reason to believe we can't expect seven more years of it.
The working class has one option to further its interests, and it is not in finding common cause with the ownership caste of the country, but in reconciling the differences within itself and striking at the economic heart of its enemy -- in the workplace and within communities -- where all class power is fundamentally derived.
See also BroadSnark
What all of these examples share in common is the pursuit of state power as a political goal. Because the modern nation-state is a hierarchy which protects and reproduces ruling class power, the working class cannot help but to enter this arena at a disadvantage, if only because the vehicle for doing so -- the political party -- is always comprised of different classes. In the context of class conflict, this means party policy will always be set in accordance to the desires of the advantaged class.
This unholy alliance between working people and their rulers within competing political hierarchies, better known as electoral politics, is perhaps the most unexamined religious tendency within the United States today. Liberalism has facilitated the biggest wealth transfer from communities to the financial sector in US history, all while escalating imperial war aims and delivering zero to a population which lives, and regularly dies, with no right to medical care in the world's richest nation. Conservatism, meanwhile, has blossomed into an incoherent reaction to its own innate incoherency, trying as it might to reconcile a "free-market" of government contracts with Jeffersonian claptrap about less government and individual liberty.
In keeping with this tradition, a full year has been lost in empty speculation on why Obama has done this or hasn't done that, what he does or doesn't need to do now, and all manner of ludicrous counsel which willfully ignores the class character of virtually every adviser who staffs the White House. There is no reason to believe we can't expect seven more years of it.
The working class has one option to further its interests, and it is not in finding common cause with the ownership caste of the country, but in reconciling the differences within itself and striking at the economic heart of its enemy -- in the workplace and within communities -- where all class power is fundamentally derived.
See also BroadSnark
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Tough love
New York Times:
I love these guys who think they can just tell the truth about a situation without any imagination for how its unwilling participants might respond. Yes: threaten their livelihood. That always leads to predictable outcomes!
Q. What’s your view of fear as a management tool?
A. Fear is the best motivator.
Q. Are you a tyrant?
A. I’m sure many people would view me as difficult. If I ask you to do something and you say, “Geez, I don’t have enough time to do that.” Well, maybe I don’t have enough time to sign your check this week.
I love these guys who think they can just tell the truth about a situation without any imagination for how its unwilling participants might respond. Yes: threaten their livelihood. That always leads to predictable outcomes!
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Officer Friendly's guide to class conflict
Santa Fe Reporter:
I find the easiest way to judge the inequality of a community is to note how its law enforcement personnel are dressed and equipped, among other tendencies.
If police look like they stepped out of a Norman Rockwell painting, this suggests that they have nothing to fear but blacks and the errant white ne'er-do-well.
On the other hand, if cops begin to take on the appearance of storm troopers, requiring military-style armor and weaponry because "the criminals have become more sophisticated" this tells you something about the declining status of the white working class majority from which cops are recruited.
As inequality becomes more equal, greater ubiquity of force is required to protect the gains of the rich. This is what leads the police of many societies to take on the appearance of their army, or for the army to take on this role themselves.
Thanks to BLCKDGRD and The Angry Arab News Service
“Inequality breeds conflict, and conflict breeds wasted resources,” [economist Samuel Bowles] says.
[I]n a very unequal society, the people at the top have to spend a lot of time and energy keeping the lower classes obedient and productive.
Inequality leads to an excess of what Bowles calls “guard labor.” In a 2007 paper on the subject, he and co-author Arjun Jayadev, an assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts, make an astonishing claim: Roughly 1 in 4 Americans is employed to keep fellow citizens in line and protect private wealth from would-be Robin Hoods.
The job descriptions of guard labor range from “imposing work discipline” -- think of the corporate IT spies who keep desk jockeys from slacking off online -- to enforcing laws, like the officers in the Santa Fe Police Department paddy wagon parked outside of Walmart.
I find the easiest way to judge the inequality of a community is to note how its law enforcement personnel are dressed and equipped, among other tendencies.
If police look like they stepped out of a Norman Rockwell painting, this suggests that they have nothing to fear but blacks and the errant white ne'er-do-well.
On the other hand, if cops begin to take on the appearance of storm troopers, requiring military-style armor and weaponry because "the criminals have become more sophisticated" this tells you something about the declining status of the white working class majority from which cops are recruited.
As inequality becomes more equal, greater ubiquity of force is required to protect the gains of the rich. This is what leads the police of many societies to take on the appearance of their army, or for the army to take on this role themselves.
Thanks to BLCKDGRD and The Angry Arab News Service
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Jobs!
Something that is cool about having a job in the United States is that it brings you that much closer to having something to eat in the evenings. As a point of personal pride, this is something that I have aspired to for most of my adult life. Having a job helped make it happen -- I have to admit it. However, something that is cool about having two jobs in the United States is that you are pretty much set financially, unless you have reproduced into more than one person. As George Bush once said, isn't it great to live in a country where you can have three jobs?
Something that sucks about having a job in the United States is that you have go to it. This is probably the number one pet peeve of people with jobs. On top of that, there are many responsibilities which are placed on you with the expectation that you will care about them. Why anyone believes you will care about them is a very funny thing to discover, particularly if you don't care about them so passionately that you forget what they are. I have seen this happen so many times it makes me proud to be an American -- normally I am not a very patriotic person -- because the reason is always that you don't have any choice. Not having any choice is a very good reason to care about something, and this logic forms the basis of our very economy.
Something that sucks about having a job in the United States is that you have go to it. This is probably the number one pet peeve of people with jobs. On top of that, there are many responsibilities which are placed on you with the expectation that you will care about them. Why anyone believes you will care about them is a very funny thing to discover, particularly if you don't care about them so passionately that you forget what they are. I have seen this happen so many times it makes me proud to be an American -- normally I am not a very patriotic person -- because the reason is always that you don't have any choice. Not having any choice is a very good reason to care about something, and this logic forms the basis of our very economy.
Monday, February 08, 2010
Women Wobblies organize first Starbucks in right-to-work state
Liberté Locke, Industrial Worker:
Strangely enough, these women didn't act on their "freedom" to pursue another employer in the middle of a recession. Maybe they weren't the ones who deserved to be inconvenienced, after all!
Consider their example.
It was exactly one week before Christmas, which is Starbucks' busiest time of year. More importantly, the store manager, Lindsay Karsh, had declared it Partner (Employee) Appreciation Day. In past years, Partner Appreciation Day was when the manager would use company money to purchase pizza for all the workers as a sort of holiday gift right before Christmas. This year, on top of cutting hours, delaying raises, forcing baristas to work with H1N1 ("swine flu") [symptoms], and disrespecting workers, [Karsh] decided to save the store money and make the day a potluck. [The] workers -- who are struggling to survive and are making just above minimum wage -- were forced to buy their own food in order to participate.
Strangely enough, these women didn't act on their "freedom" to pursue another employer in the middle of a recession. Maybe they weren't the ones who deserved to be inconvenienced, after all!
Consider their example.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
A note about class
The Existence Machine:
Probably one of the greatest misconceptions when it comes to Marx relates to the way he understands class and everything which proceeds from it: class conflict; class struggle; and the goal of a classless society.
Most of this misunderstanding owes to the prevailing use of "class" as a comparative measure of income within the liberal democracies: There are "upper," "middle," and "lower" classes.
For Marx, this conception of class as a specific location in an income hierarchy has little usefulness because, in contrast with economic liberalism, "having lots of money" is not the defining measure of human freedom. Human freedom means having control over your life.
The reason why "having money" is the loftiest goal in capitalism is precisely because capitalism doesn't offer anything else, and that is the point Marx is getting at when he frames his notion of class. For Marx, class is a relationship to those things required to have control over one's life -- and you either have possession of these things or you don't. This is what Marx meant by the "haves" and the "have-nots"; in his view, the history of human society is best understood in terms of the conflict between them.
What is useful about the Marxist understanding of class is that it is principally concerned with power, not outcomes. If we accept the liberal definition of class, then, as above, being a "salaried professional" imparts "privilege." Needless to say, this is true in some ways. But Marx would merely point out that what is given can just as easily be taken away, and that makes one a slave to circumstances; not to mention the whims of an employing (read: possessing) class.
Many of us —- perhaps the majority of us who are relatively privileged enough to be salaried professionals —- are even constrained from describing our own situation as a form of slavery, so completely have we internalized these ideological biases, so narrowly have we defined freedom for ourselves. Yet how free do we really feel?
Probably one of the greatest misconceptions when it comes to Marx relates to the way he understands class and everything which proceeds from it: class conflict; class struggle; and the goal of a classless society.
Most of this misunderstanding owes to the prevailing use of "class" as a comparative measure of income within the liberal democracies: There are "upper," "middle," and "lower" classes.
For Marx, this conception of class as a specific location in an income hierarchy has little usefulness because, in contrast with economic liberalism, "having lots of money" is not the defining measure of human freedom. Human freedom means having control over your life.
The reason why "having money" is the loftiest goal in capitalism is precisely because capitalism doesn't offer anything else, and that is the point Marx is getting at when he frames his notion of class. For Marx, class is a relationship to those things required to have control over one's life -- and you either have possession of these things or you don't. This is what Marx meant by the "haves" and the "have-nots"; in his view, the history of human society is best understood in terms of the conflict between them.
What is useful about the Marxist understanding of class is that it is principally concerned with power, not outcomes. If we accept the liberal definition of class, then, as above, being a "salaried professional" imparts "privilege." Needless to say, this is true in some ways. But Marx would merely point out that what is given can just as easily be taken away, and that makes one a slave to circumstances; not to mention the whims of an employing (read: possessing) class.
Friday, February 05, 2010
How we roll
BusinessWeek:
As a single mom earning $9 an hour in the cafeteria at Lafayette College in Easton, Pa., being able to pay her bills isn't exactly Genevieve Repsher's "style."
Jetting off to Europe isn't exactly Genevieve Repsher's style. As a single mom earning $9 an hour in the cafeteria at Lafayette College in Easton, Pa., "I struggle to pay my bills," she says.
As a single mom earning $9 an hour in the cafeteria at Lafayette College in Easton, Pa., being able to pay her bills isn't exactly Genevieve Repsher's "style."
Freedom isn't free
Wall Street Journal:
Because "short-term political imperatives" might include knowing what the Fed is doing -- for example, through an accounting practice known as "an audit" -- the Federal Open Market Committee must strike down this threat to the "interests of the American people" with the sword of "independence" and the hammer of forgetting everything that has transpired in the past 15 months.
At a swearing-in ceremony marking the start of his second four-year term, Mr. Bernanke said the central bank's independence serves important public objectives.
"Critically, it allows the Federal Open Market Committee to make monetary policy in the longer-term economic interests of the American people, rather than in the service of short-term political imperatives," the Fed chief said.
Because "short-term political imperatives" might include knowing what the Fed is doing -- for example, through an accounting practice known as "an audit" -- the Federal Open Market Committee must strike down this threat to the "interests of the American people" with the sword of "independence" and the hammer of forgetting everything that has transpired in the past 15 months.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Earning the right to live
Michael Barone, Wall Street Journal:
I've always enjoyed business narratives that ascribe the average American's inferior working experience to some intrinsic preference -- as if the fact that we don't enjoy as much vacation time or paid parental leave can best be explained by our "national values," not merely the values of our employers as they are administered nationally.
Why has the politics of economic redistribution had such limited success in America? One reason is that Americans, unlike Western Europeans, tend to believe that there is a connection between effort and reward and that people can work their way up economically. If people do something to earn their benefits, like paying Social Security taxes, that's fine. But giving money to those who have not in some way earned it is a no-no.
I've always enjoyed business narratives that ascribe the average American's inferior working experience to some intrinsic preference -- as if the fact that we don't enjoy as much vacation time or paid parental leave can best be explained by our "national values," not merely the values of our employers as they are administered nationally.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Equality under the maw
New York Times:
Insofar as we have institutions, it would be a very nice gesture if they didn't discriminate.
Having said that, it might be a welcome change if we began to discriminate -- at least insofar as we have institutions.
Critics argue that the presence of gay service members makes the military less unified and effective. There is strong evidence that this is not so, including the experiences of nations, such as Canada and Britain, where gays serve openly. A policy of driving out good and talented people -- including ones with much-needed skills in Arabic, Farsi, and other languages -- makes the military less effective.
Insofar as we have institutions, it would be a very nice gesture if they didn't discriminate.
Having said that, it might be a welcome change if we began to discriminate -- at least insofar as we have institutions.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
From each according to their ability
Raymond A. Joseph, Wall Street Journal:
Yes, imagine what it would like if, in a flash, all the centers of political and economic power, not to mention the "security apparatus" which sustains them, were completely flattened. Imagine what it would be like if there were no centers of political and economic power; if power was diffused.
Odds are we'd still have restaurants and credit unions. But remember how people from all walks of life behaved in the aftermath of 9/11 or Katrina -- or, in this case, Haiti -- by doing whatever they could to help people in need?
Now imagine if that were happening all the time, not just in the moments when the "centers of political and economic power" are knocked off balance.
Imagine what it would be like if, in a flash, all the centers of political and economic power, as well as the security apparatus of Washington, D.C., were completely flattened: no White House or Capitol Hill, no F.B.I. headquarters, and certainly no banks or restaurants. That's what happened in Haiti. The earthquake epicenter was a mere 10 miles away from the national seat of power.
Yes, imagine what it would like if, in a flash, all the centers of political and economic power, not to mention the "security apparatus" which sustains them, were completely flattened. Imagine what it would be like if there were no centers of political and economic power; if power was diffused.
Odds are we'd still have restaurants and credit unions. But remember how people from all walks of life behaved in the aftermath of 9/11 or Katrina -- or, in this case, Haiti -- by doing whatever they could to help people in need?
Now imagine if that were happening all the time, not just in the moments when the "centers of political and economic power" are knocked off balance.
Monday, February 01, 2010
Between friends
Financial Times:
Doesn't everyone deserve a little honesty between friends?
[A]s the United Nations announced it would take decades for Haiti to recover from the massive January 12 earthquake and other natural disasters, there is a growing debate as to whether long-term prosperity will only come by giving up the pretence of independence.
Doesn't everyone deserve a little honesty between friends?
Friday, January 29, 2010
Gods of state
WhoisIOZ?:
If science is skepticism in the absence of evidence, anarchism is skepticism in the absence of justification.
Obviously the swiftest and easiest way to make up federal budgetary shortfalls would be to reduce the amount of money we spend each year on killing people in other countries, which now accounts for nearly a trillion dollars a year . . . if, that is, we account for our unaccounted-for wars. As a matter of perspective, this means that our annual killing people in other countries budget is roughly the size of the South Korean GDP.
If science is skepticism in the absence of evidence, anarchism is skepticism in the absence of justification.
Hungry crowds make handing out food unsafe
Wall Street Journal:
In disaster relief, as in life, things happen. But if there is a lesson to be taken from the Haitian experience, it is that hungry crowds make handing out food unsafe.
Trucks conked out. Communication with the U.S. military broke down. Traffic snarled the streets. Hungry crowds made handing out food unsafe.
In disaster relief, as in life, things happen. But if there is a lesson to be taken from the Haitian experience, it is that hungry crowds make handing out food unsafe.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
What you can do
Whatever it is you are good at, marshal those forces against the things you hate in defense of the things you love.
Class and the state
FW de Klerk, Financial Times:
Unfortunately, having "full political rights" does not mean much without an economic corollary. Old man de Klerk understood this when his National Party negotiated control of the South African central bank right out of the hands of Mandela's African National Congress. This was done under the banner of "central bank independence," which just means independence from the political process citizens have a "full right" to.
The United States, for example, prides itself on "political freedom" -- which is the freedom for rich people to disagree with each other, and the freedom for everyone else to watch it on CNN; to "take part" in the manner of sporting events. In short, it is the freedom not to "waste your vote." However, "political freedom" does not include the freedom for poor people to disagree with rich people, at least in cases where they try to express it politically, as this invites the Martin Luther King, Jr./Malcom X/Fred Hampton-style "solution," to say nothing of the many forms of creative disruption a government will employ up to that point.
The concept of nation states, bringing full political rights to everybody through the nation state concept, is morally defensible.
Unfortunately, having "full political rights" does not mean much without an economic corollary. Old man de Klerk understood this when his National Party negotiated control of the South African central bank right out of the hands of Mandela's African National Congress. This was done under the banner of "central bank independence," which just means independence from the political process citizens have a "full right" to.
The United States, for example, prides itself on "political freedom" -- which is the freedom for rich people to disagree with each other, and the freedom for everyone else to watch it on CNN; to "take part" in the manner of sporting events. In short, it is the freedom not to "waste your vote." However, "political freedom" does not include the freedom for poor people to disagree with rich people, at least in cases where they try to express it politically, as this invites the Martin Luther King, Jr./Malcom X/Fred Hampton-style "solution," to say nothing of the many forms of creative disruption a government will employ up to that point.
Smart is good, but crazy is winning
Thomas Frank, Wall Street Journal:
The difference is, "in those days," "working-class revolts" were organized by socialists. Today they are organized by Glenn Beck.
Woody Allen has an expression: Eighty percent of success is showing up. Glenn Beck shows up. Meanwhile, "progressives" sneer. This brings us to a point I made often over the summer: Who the fuck do you think the white working class is going to listen to when we have no more socialists and progressives don't even bother showing up? The answer: whoever does.
Instead of knifing your allies, try fighting for the principles of your party. It's true, that's not what Mr. Clinton did. But it's what Franklin Roosevelt did, and Harry Truman, and John Kennedy -- and it worked for them. In those days, "working-class revolts" helped Democrats, not Republicans.
The difference is, "in those days," "working-class revolts" were organized by socialists. Today they are organized by Glenn Beck.
Woody Allen has an expression: Eighty percent of success is showing up. Glenn Beck shows up. Meanwhile, "progressives" sneer. This brings us to a point I made often over the summer: Who the fuck do you think the white working class is going to listen to when we have no more socialists and progressives don't even bother showing up? The answer: whoever does.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
A nuanced and highly principled argument against lifting restrictions on corporate lobbying
Mark Roe, Financial Times:
Can you imagine a day when the American people demanded a government that represented them? It sure would take a lot of money to stop that!
Thankfully, there's not much chance of anything like that happening soon. So: How best to divvy up the spoils?
[I]f a populist Washington decided to attack the foundations of capitalism directly, business interests would better be able to defend themselves now. But even if there are whiffs of populism in the air today, none of it threatens core capitalist institutions. With the corporate campaign finance ruling, it is even less likely to do so. In that dimension, the Court’s decision is good for American capitalism.
Can you imagine a day when the American people demanded a government that represented them? It sure would take a lot of money to stop that!
Thankfully, there's not much chance of anything like that happening soon. So: How best to divvy up the spoils?
Monday, January 25, 2010
Marxist Mondays
Karl Marx, Capital:
As much as people like to contrast Karl Marx with the Marx brothers in order to underscore his seriousness, Marx is actually very funny. In this case he calls the "inalienable rights of man," as enshrined in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the US Declaration of Independence -- Marx calls these a "pompous catalogue." Hilarious! But how does he get away with it? And why should we think it's funny?
C.L.R. James takes a shot: "[Marx] says the working-day, that battle -- the day begins at 7:00 and ends at 3:00 -- that is one of the greatest victories for human life and human development that has ever been won. I can tell you something, Mr. Alfie -- it takes time to get that in your head, the habit of looking at things that way."
Talk about "inalienable rights" all you want, but if your everyday "freedom" is the freedom to work for others in order to survive, that is not a very great freedom. Marx is trying to tell us that while private property in the age of Jefferson may have been compatible with high-flown ideas about democracy and freedom, the industrial era puts all those small farmers and craftspeople out of work. The bulk of the population is left propertyless, dependent on the new "owners of production" in order to live. By definition, this creates conditions of servitude, not liberty, for a majority of the people.
Marx is laughing at the expense of economic liberalism (basically, the philosophy of capitalism), which makes a really big deal out of the fact that the people who own nothing and the people who own everything are "free" to enter into relations with each other on a "voluntary" basis. In other words, economic liberalism congratulates itself on the fact that the former is not legally enslaved to the latter, and by this standard defines "liberty" in the marketplace, regardless of other considerations.
Marx's point is that even imposing a "modest" restraint on this market in the form of a 12-14 hour working day, or certain prohibitions on the employment of children -- forcing these, the most basic concessions, from employers is an enormous victory in the everyday lives of average people, and in the ongoing struggle between two distinct classes with conflicting interests.
In the place of the pompous catalogue of the "inalienable rights of man" comes the modest Magna Charta of a legally limited working-day, which at last makes clear "when the time which the worker sells is ended, and when his own begins."
As much as people like to contrast Karl Marx with the Marx brothers in order to underscore his seriousness, Marx is actually very funny. In this case he calls the "inalienable rights of man," as enshrined in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the US Declaration of Independence -- Marx calls these a "pompous catalogue." Hilarious! But how does he get away with it? And why should we think it's funny?
C.L.R. James takes a shot: "[Marx] says the working-day, that battle -- the day begins at 7:00 and ends at 3:00 -- that is one of the greatest victories for human life and human development that has ever been won. I can tell you something, Mr. Alfie -- it takes time to get that in your head, the habit of looking at things that way."
Talk about "inalienable rights" all you want, but if your everyday "freedom" is the freedom to work for others in order to survive, that is not a very great freedom. Marx is trying to tell us that while private property in the age of Jefferson may have been compatible with high-flown ideas about democracy and freedom, the industrial era puts all those small farmers and craftspeople out of work. The bulk of the population is left propertyless, dependent on the new "owners of production" in order to live. By definition, this creates conditions of servitude, not liberty, for a majority of the people.
Marx is laughing at the expense of economic liberalism (basically, the philosophy of capitalism), which makes a really big deal out of the fact that the people who own nothing and the people who own everything are "free" to enter into relations with each other on a "voluntary" basis. In other words, economic liberalism congratulates itself on the fact that the former is not legally enslaved to the latter, and by this standard defines "liberty" in the marketplace, regardless of other considerations.
Marx's point is that even imposing a "modest" restraint on this market in the form of a 12-14 hour working day, or certain prohibitions on the employment of children -- forcing these, the most basic concessions, from employers is an enormous victory in the everyday lives of average people, and in the ongoing struggle between two distinct classes with conflicting interests.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Political reporting in Lebanon and the US
The Angry Arab News Service:
In the US, any news outfit which offends the political class will likely suffer for want of "access." This is because US political coverage is 99.999% the uninterrupted reporting what politicians say. What politicians say is important to the organizations which report on them; but it is particularly important when those organizations are integrated into the same corporate concerns which bankroll the entire political process. Politicians say what corporations want to hear, and corporations provide a national platform for them to say it. For either side to deviate too far from the script means losing direct access to important figures on the one hand, or access to a broader audience on the other.
Of course, the idea that one needs to hang out with politicians in order to do political journalism is only true when you have no other function but to repeat what they say.
There is at long last an interesting, original, fresh, and entertaining newspaper for the secular left [in Lebanon]. The traditional left is not as excited about it as they should be perhaps because they are accustomed to putting out the most tedious, Soviet-style publications that are only useful for wrapping falafel and Shawirma sandwiches. Communist leaders want a communist publication that only cater to the whims of party leaders, and which publishes every utterance and sneeze of party leaders. But then again: that’s their problem. The atmosphere of Al-Akhbar is different from the atmosphere of other newspapers that I have visited: in Lebanon or in the US. Al-Amin and Saghiyyah are often criticized for not socializing and for not interacting with the media. But I belief that their approach is successful: they don’t socialize with politicians and they established strict rules for their reporters regarding the need to keep a distance from politicians. It is probably the only newspaper in Lebanon that has strict rules against accepting cash from politicians. And to turn down cash from politicians is considered quite unprofessional in the corrupt country of Lebanon, as Ibrahim Amin had learned when he turned down a cash offer from Rafiq Hariri when the former was a reporter for As-Safir. I can tell you that Saudi Arabia is not pleased with my attacks on its ideology and policies in my articles for the newspaper but I will not elaborate here because I was told to not blog on the matter. Use your imagination.
In the US, any news outfit which offends the political class will likely suffer for want of "access." This is because US political coverage is 99.999% the uninterrupted reporting what politicians say. What politicians say is important to the organizations which report on them; but it is particularly important when those organizations are integrated into the same corporate concerns which bankroll the entire political process. Politicians say what corporations want to hear, and corporations provide a national platform for them to say it. For either side to deviate too far from the script means losing direct access to important figures on the one hand, or access to a broader audience on the other.
Of course, the idea that one needs to hang out with politicians in order to do political journalism is only true when you have no other function but to repeat what they say.
Corporations are people too!
"While liberal and conservatives will continue to debate the hollow question of whether this denigrates democracy or elevates free speech, almost no one will ask the only important question: why the fuck are we debating the scope of a Corporation's free speech? Just like the question of whether wheat grown for personal consumption is commerce among the several states, the answer to the question of whether Corporations are persons, and therefore endowed with the freedom of speech, is fucking obvious. Neither a piece of paper, some words, a collection of liabilities, or a group of people, is a person. And yet."
-- Frog (via Stump Lane)
-- Frog (via Stump Lane)
Throw the bums in
Gillian Tett, Financial Times:
You might think that in a country where the average citizen is
This would explain why voters keep voting against them. If only it didn't mean electing them back into office at the same time!
In the last 48 hours, or since the Democratic party suffered a shock defeat in Massachusetts, e-mails have been circulating among key Democratic party support groups demanding that the Obama administration aggressively clamp down on the banking world, to regain voter trust.
You might think that in a country where the average citizen is
1. Mad at bankersthat such concerns would find political expression in some way other than support for those parties which
2. Under- or unemployed; or overworked and underpaid
3. Without any guarantee they will be able to get the medical care they need
1. Are financed by Wall Street
2. Are financed by employers
3. Are financed by for-profit health insurance companies
This would explain why voters keep voting against them. If only it didn't mean electing them back into office at the same time!
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The questions behind The Question Behind the Question
6th or 7th:
Ethan continues his investigative report on The Question Behind the Question: Practicing Personal Responsibility at Work and in Life by professional author/speaker/husband/father John G. Miller. Now featuring guest commentary by professional author/speaker/husband/father John G. Miller!
[I]n the real, non-corporate fantasy world, and away from the sad delusions of understandably angry and confused white people, actions take place in a context, and that context is one of vast inequality. For people who live their entire lives on the bottom rungs of our economy, "Why is this happening to me?" is one of the most empowering questions to ask.
Ethan continues his investigative report on The Question Behind the Question: Practicing Personal Responsibility at Work and in Life by professional author/speaker/husband/father John G. Miller. Now featuring guest commentary by professional author/speaker/husband/father John G. Miller!
Taken for a ride
Financial Times:
Last night I attended a local branch meeting of the Industrial Workers of the World, which must come as close to summarizing my political outlook as any US organization I know.
I'm a relative newcomer to the group, but in a short space of time I've found the process of "running one's own affairs" to be unlike anything else I've experienced in a "democratic republic" such as ours, particularly in the skills and expectations it instills participants over time.
Suffice it to say, if anybody stood up in a meeting and said, "I'm Scott Brown, and this is my truck, so let me be your leader," it would not go over very well. It is instructive that such a thing could ever be taken seriously in a society which prides itself on governance by the people.
In his bid to become a Massachusetts senator in Washington, Scott Brown portrayed himself as a man of the people.
“I’m Scott Brown, and this is my truck,” he began his campaign ads, standing next to his green GMC pick-up with 200,000 miles on the odometer. He even drove up to the polling booth on Tuesday in his now-famous vehicle.
Last night I attended a local branch meeting of the Industrial Workers of the World, which must come as close to summarizing my political outlook as any US organization I know.
I'm a relative newcomer to the group, but in a short space of time I've found the process of "running one's own affairs" to be unlike anything else I've experienced in a "democratic republic" such as ours, particularly in the skills and expectations it instills participants over time.
Suffice it to say, if anybody stood up in a meeting and said, "I'm Scott Brown, and this is my truck, so let me be your leader," it would not go over very well. It is instructive that such a thing could ever be taken seriously in a society which prides itself on governance by the people.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Life in the shadow of property: hunger
Economist:
"Measured like this, capitalism is not necessarily a highly developed form of society; it is perhaps less developed than egalitarian tribal societies. The achievement of a powerful industrial base is meaningless in itself. Indeed, unless the majority of people benefit directly, by having their scope for individuality and ability to meet their needs increased, it may even be a retrograde move. Given the class character of capitalism, the rise of newly industrialized countries really means the rise of powerful new ruling classes; it is by no means a necessary step toward popular emancipation. That a previously oppressed country develops into a world power would, in other words, not break the cycle of class rule but simply reproduce it in new ways." -- Black Flame
New Yorkers with children are among the most vulnerable to food poverty. Almost half of all New York City households with children have difficulty affording enough food. A staggering one in five of the city’s children, 397,000 small people, rely on soup kitchens -- up 48% since 2004.
"Measured like this, capitalism is not necessarily a highly developed form of society; it is perhaps less developed than egalitarian tribal societies. The achievement of a powerful industrial base is meaningless in itself. Indeed, unless the majority of people benefit directly, by having their scope for individuality and ability to meet their needs increased, it may even be a retrograde move. Given the class character of capitalism, the rise of newly industrialized countries really means the rise of powerful new ruling classes; it is by no means a necessary step toward popular emancipation. That a previously oppressed country develops into a world power would, in other words, not break the cycle of class rule but simply reproduce it in new ways." -- Black Flame
Strangers in the homeland
Wall Street Journal:
At Christmas dinner, one of my relations used the expression "A stranger in the home is Christ in the home" which I thought remarkable considering their apparent opinion of Christ.
The transposition of what is regarded as "holy" onto unpopular categories of humanity, like the powerless, is a tendency which sustains my interest in the Gospel message. Taken to heart, it would appear to undermine every power system.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano extended temporary amnesty to Haitians who were illegally inside the U.S. before Tuesday's earthquake, but warned that the Coast Guard would turn back any new refugees fleeing the devastation.
At Christmas dinner, one of my relations used the expression "A stranger in the home is Christ in the home" which I thought remarkable considering their apparent opinion of Christ.
The transposition of what is regarded as "holy" onto unpopular categories of humanity, like the powerless, is a tendency which sustains my interest in the Gospel message. Taken to heart, it would appear to undermine every power system.
Monday, January 18, 2010
"Taking charge at work"
"Even if you're one who has kept your job amidst massive layoffs and record high unemployment, you may still dread going to work every day and long to improve your situation.
One way to renew your motivation and quell boredom is to take on new responsibilities."
-- Wall Street Journal
Fellowship of the bling
"Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken -- the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered."
-- MLK
-- MLK
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Red tape
Dan Senor, New York Times:
Really! If the American military isn't accountable to the Haitian government, why should it be constrained by ours? Generally speaking, money was handled very responsibly in Iraq: You almost never have to worry about corruption in any post-calamity reconstruction scenario.
And who better to carry it out than our dedicated combat forces, whose relevant training far exceeds anything on offer from any of these woefully unarmed "relief agencies?" In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, I know I would have preferred to see foreign military units deployed in New Orleans, rather than the Red Cross, et al. As an American, I understand instinctively that the presence of foreign troops in disaster-struck US cities is always in the best interest of the local population -- which is precisely why they are always welcome.
So let's get practical. If history teaches us anything, it's that the less oversight there is of state intervention in foreign lands, the better off everyone is in the long run.
If we are going to have American military units deployed in Haiti — and we should — it would be invaluable for the unit commanders to have access to the Commanders’ Emergency Response Fund that was established for Iraq. This is a discretionary fund that American officers can dip into for development projects and crisis response without constantly looking over their shoulders at monitors in Washington.
Really! If the American military isn't accountable to the Haitian government, why should it be constrained by ours? Generally speaking, money was handled very responsibly in Iraq: You almost never have to worry about corruption in any post-calamity reconstruction scenario.
And who better to carry it out than our dedicated combat forces, whose relevant training far exceeds anything on offer from any of these woefully unarmed "relief agencies?" In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, I know I would have preferred to see foreign military units deployed in New Orleans, rather than the Red Cross, et al. As an American, I understand instinctively that the presence of foreign troops in disaster-struck US cities is always in the best interest of the local population -- which is precisely why they are always welcome.
So let's get practical. If history teaches us anything, it's that the less oversight there is of state intervention in foreign lands, the better off everyone is in the long run.
Friends in deed
Stephen Johnson, Wall Street Journal:
Stephen Johnson, formerly of the Heritage Foundation. If you haven't already heard of HF's hope for "opportunities amidst the suffering" in Haiti, see Naomi Klein.
For now, a coordinated rush of international humanitarian assistance is needed to save lives and support Haiti's fledgling government. But once that process is in place, no time should be lost in encouraging Haitian officials to set ambitious goals and take charge of the country's recovery. Psychologists tell us that the best time to change minds and mobilize people is when they have experienced a traumatic event. Once things begin to turn for the better, the incentive for substantive change will be lost.
Stephen Johnson, formerly of the Heritage Foundation. If you haven't already heard of HF's hope for "opportunities amidst the suffering" in Haiti, see Naomi Klein.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Friends like these
Guy Debord, Society of the Spectacle:
We can focus on Haiti for a week or two -- and that is good -- but Haiti has been a humanitarian disaster for a long time. And it will continue to be long afterward, when the "precipitation" of our media spectacle is falling from some new height.
Could the fact that Americans weren't paying attention to Haitians when our military charted their path of development have any relation to the country's building codes -- or the fact that there aren't any? Would we have thought that the cost of lateral reinforcement beams weighed too heavy on the US consumer's wallet, or the price of Disney stock?
How can a people whose "everyday lived life remains bereft of language or concept" ever hope to offer the best of themselves to anyone else? It is not something that can happen with three mouse clicks and a donation after the fact. It is something that has to happen all the time.
Another aspect of the lack of historical life in general is that the individual life is still not historical. The pseudo-events that vie for attention in the spectacle's dramatizations have not been lived by those who are thus informed about them. In any case, they are quickly forgotten, thanks to the precipitation with which the spectacle's pulsing machinery replaces one by the next. At the same time, everything really lived has no relation to society's official version of irreversible time, and is directly opposed to the pseudo-cyclical rhythm of that time's consumable by-products. Such individual lived experience of a cut-off everyday lived life remains bereft of language or concept, and it lacks any critical access to its own antecedents, which are nowhere recorded. It cannot be communicated. And it is misunderstood and forgotten to the benefit of the spectacle's false memory of the unmemorable.
We can focus on Haiti for a week or two -- and that is good -- but Haiti has been a humanitarian disaster for a long time. And it will continue to be long afterward, when the "precipitation" of our media spectacle is falling from some new height.
Could the fact that Americans weren't paying attention to Haitians when our military charted their path of development have any relation to the country's building codes -- or the fact that there aren't any? Would we have thought that the cost of lateral reinforcement beams weighed too heavy on the US consumer's wallet, or the price of Disney stock?
How can a people whose "everyday lived life remains bereft of language or concept" ever hope to offer the best of themselves to anyone else? It is not something that can happen with three mouse clicks and a donation after the fact. It is something that has to happen all the time.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The religious roots of rebellion
Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism:
Something I have learned from my religious friends is the importance of ritual. Whenever society is not organized in a way that respects your values, it takes willful repetition to remind oneself of what those values are. They are easy to forget, since daily life is organized in a way that undermines them.
This conflict between identities -- the one you have and the one you are assigned -- is a source of great psychological stress for anyone forced to "deny themselves" on a regular basis. In the face of total dependence on employers for a way to live -- what capitalism always demands -- we need a way to remember ourselves.
[T]he anarchists ... understood [capitalism] as the transfer of resources from a productive class to a dominant but unproductive one. Exploitation in the capitalist system took place at work and through the wage system. The worker was paid a wage that in theory covered one's basic needs. Yet the actual value produced by the worker at work was always higher than the wage received by the worker; a baking worker, for example, might help produce several hundred loaves of bread per day, but would receive the cash equivalent of perhaps two loaves of bread per day. The difference went to the capitalist who owned the bakery.
Something I have learned from my religious friends is the importance of ritual. Whenever society is not organized in a way that respects your values, it takes willful repetition to remind oneself of what those values are. They are easy to forget, since daily life is organized in a way that undermines them.
This conflict between identities -- the one you have and the one you are assigned -- is a source of great psychological stress for anyone forced to "deny themselves" on a regular basis. In the face of total dependence on employers for a way to live -- what capitalism always demands -- we need a way to remember ourselves.
Friends with benefits
Wall Street Journal:
US policy toward Haiti, on the other hand, has been cruel and comprehensible.
... President Obama said the earthquake was a "cruel and incomprehensible tragedy" for the people of Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere and a longtime recipient of extensive U.S. financial, political and military assistance.
US policy toward Haiti, on the other hand, has been cruel and comprehensible.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Abuse of power comes as no surprise
What's a girl got to do to get invited to a congressional inquiry?
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
How dare you not be me?
I find that people are most angry you are not them when they have long since sacrificed whoever they might have been for whoever they have become. They aren't angry you aren't them; they are angry you aren't "us." And that is because "we" were never sure of ourselves in the first place, having never developed as individuals. The sentiment best reads, "How dare you become yourself?"
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Chinese land reform from above
BusinessWeek:
The modern "state" is as much a hierarchy as anything else. Whatever values one wants to ascribe to it -- democracy, pluralism, egalitarianism -- it interprets from the top and bludgeons all below. Like every hierarchy, whatever vitality it has, it has stolen from the creative impulse of that social intercourse not yet subordinated to its needs. Among these, self-preservation ranks first.
Such is the lasting irony of China's "communism from above," which was at first a land reform movement from below, but lost its popular character as China's people gradually came to know their state better than they knew themselves. What began as a mass movement of the dispossessed repelling fascism both at home and abroad now sees the dispossession happening all over again, this time in the name of "the people."
[Chinese] city and provincial governments have been gladly cooperating with developers: Economists estimate that half of all local government revenue comes from selling state-owned land.
...
In early December five professors at Peking University wrote to the National People's Congress calling for changes to a land seizure and demolition law and accusing developers of usurping the government's role when taking land for construction. The law is leading to "mass incidents" and "extreme events," the professors warned.
The modern "state" is as much a hierarchy as anything else. Whatever values one wants to ascribe to it -- democracy, pluralism, egalitarianism -- it interprets from the top and bludgeons all below. Like every hierarchy, whatever vitality it has, it has stolen from the creative impulse of that social intercourse not yet subordinated to its needs. Among these, self-preservation ranks first.
Such is the lasting irony of China's "communism from above," which was at first a land reform movement from below, but lost its popular character as China's people gradually came to know their state better than they knew themselves. What began as a mass movement of the dispossessed repelling fascism both at home and abroad now sees the dispossession happening all over again, this time in the name of "the people."
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Work
Awake in the dark, stocking shelves; asleep in the cold, jockeying cargo. The real value of this varies, but the wages paid do not. In either case, the company can do very well; in either case, people congratulate you for your association with its success. Now here's a company that lets you come back each week for a fleecing; and what you forfeit is nothing less than your art and your ambitions and your health, cloaked in the fraud of adult responsibility! Relatives often ask: how is your company doing? But I am much more concerned about me.
Monday, January 04, 2010
With honors
New York Times:
Even if the university system fashions itself as little more than a "good jobs" broker, "demanding accountability" from it doesn't change the fact that employers aren't under any obligation to "supply" them. "Good jobs" cost shareholders money; subsequently, they permit fewer of them. Just because Americans are willing to pay the broker more for a degree doesn't change this. Yet the "consumer" will go into debt for the rest of their lives for the chance at a tolerable occupation before they will ask why there aren't enough for everyone in the first place.
“The phrase drives me crazy — ‘What are you going to do with your degree?’ — but I see increasing concerns about that,” says Katharine Brooks, director of the liberal arts career center at the University of Texas, Austin, and author of “You Majored in What? Mapping Your Path From Chaos to Career.” “Particularly as money gets tighter, people are going to demand more accountability from majors and departments.”
Even if the university system fashions itself as little more than a "good jobs" broker, "demanding accountability" from it doesn't change the fact that employers aren't under any obligation to "supply" them. "Good jobs" cost shareholders money; subsequently, they permit fewer of them. Just because Americans are willing to pay the broker more for a degree doesn't change this. Yet the "consumer" will go into debt for the rest of their lives for the chance at a tolerable occupation before they will ask why there aren't enough for everyone in the first place.
Sunday, January 03, 2010
The most profitable gender
Economist:
So the "economic fate" of women has passed through the hands of the husband into the hands of the boss -- who profits by explicitly discriminating on the basis of gender! Meanwhile, The Economist celebrates women as a rapidly growing portion of "the workforce," yet somehow fails to connect these trends.
The economic empowerment of women across the rich world is one of the most remarkable revolutions of the past 50 years. ...[M]illions of people who were once dependent on men have taken control of their own economic fates.
...
Women earn substantially less than men on average and are severely under-represented at the top of organisations.
So the "economic fate" of women has passed through the hands of the husband into the hands of the boss -- who profits by explicitly discriminating on the basis of gender! Meanwhile, The Economist celebrates women as a rapidly growing portion of "the workforce," yet somehow fails to connect these trends.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
No disrespect
Karl Marx, Capital:
Do you think the silk manufacturers harbored special ill-will toward children? Of course not! Doubtless many had children of their own, and loved them profoundly. More likely, manufacturers only did what their industry required, in order that they could each captain a successful, productive enterprise. The fact that this destroyed children was just part of doing one's job as well as one possibly could; surely we can appreciate the "virtue" of that!
What other industries contribute negatively to human health and liberty without overtly intending to do so, but merely as a function of the "productive" process? An illustration: one my employers lays off personnel when products assembled in one part of the world are not shipped long distances by jet aircraft for consumption on the other side of planet. Bad for people who depend on employment, good for the environment. When "the economy" booms, it's just the reverse.
The [Factory] Act of 1844 certainly "robbed" the silk manufacturers of the "liberty" of employing children under 11 for longer than 6.5 hours each day. But as against this, it secured them the privilege of working children between 11 and 13 for 10 hours a day, and annulling in their case the education which had been made compulsory for all other factory children. This time the pretext was "the delicate texture of the fabric in which they were employed, requiring a lightness of touch, only to be acquired by their early introduction to these factories." The children were quite simply slaughtered for the sake of their delicate fingers, just as horned cattle are slaughtered in southern Russia for their hides and fat.
Do you think the silk manufacturers harbored special ill-will toward children? Of course not! Doubtless many had children of their own, and loved them profoundly. More likely, manufacturers only did what their industry required, in order that they could each captain a successful, productive enterprise. The fact that this destroyed children was just part of doing one's job as well as one possibly could; surely we can appreciate the "virtue" of that!
What other industries contribute negatively to human health and liberty without overtly intending to do so, but merely as a function of the "productive" process? An illustration: one my employers lays off personnel when products assembled in one part of the world are not shipped long distances by jet aircraft for consumption on the other side of planet. Bad for people who depend on employment, good for the environment. When "the economy" booms, it's just the reverse.
Friday, January 01, 2010
Hindsight is 2010
Financial Times:
Not if home prices went up forever! But since you practically needed an Ivy League degree in economics to understand why, it's not for the evicted family to pass judgment on industry professionals. Why, even the smartest people make mistakes; is that any reason to challenge their beliefs? With the right credentials, all is forgiven; and, more importantly, forgotten. Here's to a brand new year!
“We’ve had people in our office who were qualified for a mortgage based on their Ebay earnings or their gambling income,” says [Anne Balcer Norton, director of foreclosure prevention at Baltimore’s St Ambrose Housing Aid Centre]. “Things that you just scratch your head and say, ‘And no one thought these were going to fail?’ ”
Not if home prices went up forever! But since you practically needed an Ivy League degree in economics to understand why, it's not for the evicted family to pass judgment on industry professionals. Why, even the smartest people make mistakes; is that any reason to challenge their beliefs? With the right credentials, all is forgiven; and, more importantly, forgotten. Here's to a brand new year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
