Your own personal jihad
The relationship between morality and power is such that doing the right thing often sucks. This is the message of the gospels: do the right thing and you will make life that much harder for yourself in the short-term, and probably in the medium-term, as well; in the long-term you will be dead. There are no other guarantees, and even "doing the right thing" can amount to an act of faith. That's the bargain.
The rewards are what we make them. To be sure, they are not always obvious. If you give your only sandwich to someone because they ask for it, only to later discover two-thirds of it in the trash, it's fair to say the emptiness in your gut will not be from hunger alone, but from the wastefulness of an exchange that cost you considerably.
But it's important to remember what is at stake: on one hand, a sandwich; on the other, the freedom to help someone who asks for it directly. If the conclusion we take from this experience is, "I will not give up a sandwich without a guaranteed outcome that satisfies me," then we lose the freedom to act under almost every circumstance. So the reward in this regard is to invest in the kind of person we want to become. This may be less tangible than a sandwich, but as Tolstoy says, "Happiness does not depend on outward things, but on the way we see them."
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Handouts
The Social Unrest, 1903:
The Social Unrest, 1903:
Our magnates of industry have not preached paternalism, but, in season and out of season, they have practised it. They have practised it so long and so openly, and with such conspicuous profit to themselves, that it is grotesque drollery for them to cry out against paternal legislation. They have not merely looked to the government to assist their enterprises, they have taken possession of it. Hat in hand, they have begged with such importunity that the law-making power, federal, state, and municipal, seems to have been looked upon as a private preserve. Yet these who discovered paternalism and reduced it to a political art and method, never fail to raise the alarm when the humbler classes ask legislative aid of city or state.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Women, culture, and dispossession
Financial Times:
Capitalism wrecks traditional cultures something fierce, and the effects can be awesome. Marx admired this process, I think, because he favored the secular thrust of capitalism over the "backward" cultures of pre-capitalism, not least of all for the scientific and technological foundation it presupposed. In other words, Marx would have rooted for Ms Atiyat to betray the dictates of her parents and adopt the cosmopolitan outlook of the international businesswoman, because this could at least be justified on the basis of rational, economic self-interest, whereas blindly following a religious authoritarianism could not.
The condition of Middle Eastern women under contemporary religious rule is interesting to think of in terms analogous to the experience of American women in the 1950's. Not unlike Ms Atiyat, American women ultimately forged an alliance with corporate patriarchy in response to the unholy alliance of domestic patriarchy, religion, and the state. Under the circumstances, this made sense: corporate patriarchy granted women far greater freedom and independence than domestic serfdom; and insofar as it solicited educated white women in particular, it could recruit some of feminism's most influential actors in exchange for making their personal struggle that much easier.
Much global conflict, particularly with regard to "non-state actors," terrorists and so on, boils down to the violent interface between property rights as asserted by capitalism on one hand, and the sovereignty of traditional orders on the other. As CUNY professor David Harvey observes, most of this is happening around issues of "dispossession" -- the appropriation of traditional community resources by private interests, usually through state violence. Marx might have applauded this for the sake of "progress"; indeed, by some measures "progress" occurs, as with women in need of an ally against some worse offense.
On the other hand, women's entry into pursuits of profit is one part of an equation which also includes famine, disease, warfare, and the critical support of groups like the Taliban or the House of Saud when they are perceived to be sufficiently useful to business concerns. As with the American experience, many women lose even as others "advance" within institutions that are not their own.
Financial Times:
Ms Atiyat says some of her friends will face pressure from conservative parents to stay at home. One of them, a talented writer, is lobbying her parents to relent so she can go out to work. If this fails, she plans to pursue a back-up plan of freelance editing and journalism.
The courage to challenge authority is necessary as campaigners such as Ms Awadhi chip away at the edifice of the [United Arab Emirate's] patrimonial society.
The condition of Middle Eastern women under contemporary religious rule is interesting to think of in terms analogous to the experience of American women in the 1950's. Not unlike Ms Atiyat, American women ultimately forged an alliance with corporate patriarchy in response to the unholy alliance of domestic patriarchy, religion, and the state. Under the circumstances, this made sense: corporate patriarchy granted women far greater freedom and independence than domestic serfdom; and insofar as it solicited educated white women in particular, it could recruit some of feminism's most influential actors in exchange for making their personal struggle that much easier.
Much global conflict, particularly with regard to "non-state actors," terrorists and so on, boils down to the violent interface between property rights as asserted by capitalism on one hand, and the sovereignty of traditional orders on the other. As CUNY professor David Harvey observes, most of this is happening around issues of "dispossession" -- the appropriation of traditional community resources by private interests, usually through state violence. Marx might have applauded this for the sake of "progress"; indeed, by some measures "progress" occurs, as with women in need of an ally against some worse offense.
On the other hand, women's entry into pursuits of profit is one part of an equation which also includes famine, disease, warfare, and the critical support of groups like the Taliban or the House of Saud when they are perceived to be sufficiently useful to business concerns. As with the American experience, many women lose even as others "advance" within institutions that are not their own.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Suffer the phony controversy
New York Times:
Presumably, women don't want their priorities defined for them by others, whether the "instruction" comes from husbands, governments, employers, or anyone else.
It's not a contradiction to suggest that "the achievements of the feminist era" addressed some of these concerns and not others, and that women are increasingly dissatisfied with the constraints that remain.
New York Times:
[A]ll the achievements of the feminist era may have delivered women to greater unhappiness.
Presumably, women don't want their priorities defined for them by others, whether the "instruction" comes from husbands, governments, employers, or anyone else.
It's not a contradiction to suggest that "the achievements of the feminist era" addressed some of these concerns and not others, and that women are increasingly dissatisfied with the constraints that remain.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Marxist Mondays (belated)
Something cool that Marx teaches us is that we aren't compensated based on the value of what we produce; we are paid the going rate for our willingness to work.
This is the brilliance of capitalism: it buys up every family farm and corner store -- every independent means of survival -- and then offers cash payments based on how people feel in the face of starvation.
This is precisely why capital is now "globalized": the most desperate people are in other countries. Those of us in the "developed" world became too spoiled, demanding a decent standard of living. In short, we attached too many conditions to our willingness to work. Therefore, the production process moved elsewhere.
Anyhooker, the difference between what you and I are willing to be paid and the actual market value of what is produced is called "profit" -- it is absorbed by the owner. Now put that in your hash pipe and smoke it.
This note is brought to you by Black Box wine and work/4 hours sleep.
Something cool that Marx teaches us is that we aren't compensated based on the value of what we produce; we are paid the going rate for our willingness to work.
This is the brilliance of capitalism: it buys up every family farm and corner store -- every independent means of survival -- and then offers cash payments based on how people feel in the face of starvation.
This is precisely why capital is now "globalized": the most desperate people are in other countries. Those of us in the "developed" world became too spoiled, demanding a decent standard of living. In short, we attached too many conditions to our willingness to work. Therefore, the production process moved elsewhere.
Anyhooker, the difference between what you and I are willing to be paid and the actual market value of what is produced is called "profit" -- it is absorbed by the owner. Now put that in your hash pipe and smoke it.
This note is brought to you by Black Box wine and work/4 hours sleep.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Cynicism we can believe in
Asking whether the Taliban are going to take over Pakistan and launch nukes is like asking whether 4,000 NRA members in Virginia are going to sack Washington and jerry-rig ICBMs to their Dish Networks. The fact that Virginia is "not far" from DC and that "the government has nukes!" does not lend credibility to the scenario.
So why does the Obama administration and, say, liberal news outlets like the New York Times have such a hard-on for the old second-coming of Hitler scenario?
Juan Cole observes:
There once was a man named Noriega who was called the new Hitler right before we invaded his country, too. I don't remember him very well, either.
Asking whether the Taliban are going to take over Pakistan and launch nukes is like asking whether 4,000 NRA members in Virginia are going to sack Washington and jerry-rig ICBMs to their Dish Networks. The fact that Virginia is "not far" from DC and that "the government has nukes!" does not lend credibility to the scenario.
So why does the Obama administration and, say, liberal news outlets like the New York Times have such a hard-on for the old second-coming of Hitler scenario?
Juan Cole observes:
Washington is alarmed at the spread of the Taliban in the North-West Frontier Province because it has implications for the security of southern Afghanistan, and therefore for US troops and NATO troops in Afghanistan. And so, from their point of view, this is a big crisis.They don't want more safe havens for the Taliban in Afghanistan who are killing US troops. And they were upset with the Pakistani elite for not taking this problem more seriously. And I think, sort of saying that Pakistan is unstable, or it's about to fall, or the nukes are in danger, all of this sort of thing, is a signal to Islamabad that you had better get serious about this, because it matters to us. So this is Washington strong-arming Pakistan.
There once was a man named Noriega who was called the new Hitler right before we invaded his country, too. I don't remember him very well, either.
Lies of the liberal media
This from an email forward I received today:
Oh, yeah. I'm totally tired of hearing about how Islam is a religion of peace.
This from an email forward I received today:
I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor;" of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers;" of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery;" of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.
Oh, yeah. I'm totally tired of hearing about how Islam is a religion of peace.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Captured
Let the sins of the system be blamed on the administrators, not the owners -- this should be the motto of government by and for the rich.
The government, as a rule-writing, baton-wielding presence, obviously has its shortcomings. Among these, the biggest may be that government acts on behalf of the most influential groups in society. In a highly unequal society, the "most influential" may not even include the majority. In other cases, minorities that lack influence aren't granted rights at all.
Most of what is wrong with government, in this respect, is that it too often defends minority interests in cases where the majority should rule (e.g., public policy); just as it abandons minority or non-citizen concerns in cases where the majority has no claim (e.g., civil rights; foreign policy). Of course, it is the violent character of government which ensures such "errors" will be pursued to their most tragic conclusions.
In short, government is most often a tool of the wealthy and the powerful, which effectively grants them a resource base and coercive powers they would otherwise lack. This happens under the rubric of "the nation" or "the national interest," which broadens the scope of possibility far more than the call to lay down one's life or livelihood on behalf of the rich: the Iraq war would never happen for Halliburton alone.
It is also no secret that the government gives the wealthy a fall guy when their policy preferences blow up in their face. The private sector, which is always driving deregulation in areas where it smells profit, has done a respectable job assigning blame for the financial crisis on government agencies that had not served the banks poorly, but too well. Only last night did I discover the expression which best accounts for the ensuing mess, and the role government played in achieving it.
Let the sins of the system be blamed on the administrators, not the owners -- this should be the motto of government by and for the rich.
The government, as a rule-writing, baton-wielding presence, obviously has its shortcomings. Among these, the biggest may be that government acts on behalf of the most influential groups in society. In a highly unequal society, the "most influential" may not even include the majority. In other cases, minorities that lack influence aren't granted rights at all.
Most of what is wrong with government, in this respect, is that it too often defends minority interests in cases where the majority should rule (e.g., public policy); just as it abandons minority or non-citizen concerns in cases where the majority has no claim (e.g., civil rights; foreign policy). Of course, it is the violent character of government which ensures such "errors" will be pursued to their most tragic conclusions.
In short, government is most often a tool of the wealthy and the powerful, which effectively grants them a resource base and coercive powers they would otherwise lack. This happens under the rubric of "the nation" or "the national interest," which broadens the scope of possibility far more than the call to lay down one's life or livelihood on behalf of the rich: the Iraq war would never happen for Halliburton alone.
It is also no secret that the government gives the wealthy a fall guy when their policy preferences blow up in their face. The private sector, which is always driving deregulation in areas where it smells profit, has done a respectable job assigning blame for the financial crisis on government agencies that had not served the banks poorly, but too well. Only last night did I discover the expression which best accounts for the ensuing mess, and the role government played in achieving it.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
NP-har
Some NPR host asked Gillian Tett if the business press might not represent the interests of "the rest of us." Hmmm: A press which specifically markets itself to big business... not looking out for the little guy? I give you the cutting edge of public radio!
Naturally, Tett, who is employed by the Financial Times, did not answer, "Yeah, pretty much," but instead talked about the business press being "in transition" -- because what isn't these days? -- and underscored the challenges of business journalism in speaking the language of Wall Street while writing accessibly for the public good. I thought this was interesting considering that a yearly subscription to the FT runs close to $500, which tells you something about its public purpose. Tett's investigative reporting on credit market chicanery may have yielded insights relevant to the public good, but that is only because it was deemed useful the business community first. It is only after the fact that one publishes a book aimed at a general audience.
Some NPR host asked Gillian Tett if the business press might not represent the interests of "the rest of us." Hmmm: A press which specifically markets itself to big business... not looking out for the little guy? I give you the cutting edge of public radio!
Naturally, Tett, who is employed by the Financial Times, did not answer, "Yeah, pretty much," but instead talked about the business press being "in transition" -- because what isn't these days? -- and underscored the challenges of business journalism in speaking the language of Wall Street while writing accessibly for the public good. I thought this was interesting considering that a yearly subscription to the FT runs close to $500, which tells you something about its public purpose. Tett's investigative reporting on credit market chicanery may have yielded insights relevant to the public good, but that is only because it was deemed useful the business community first. It is only after the fact that one publishes a book aimed at a general audience.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Everything is made convenient
Everything is made convenient that plays its part for power. Isn't it remarkable how far we have come? The satellite has replaced the courier.
Everything is made convenient -- and easier still in the final hour! -- that plays its part for power. Surely we'll have something great, before our night has flowered.
Everything is made convenient that plays its part for power. Isn't it remarkable how far we have come? The satellite has replaced the courier.
Everything is made convenient -- and easier still in the final hour! -- that plays its part for power. Surely we'll have something great, before our night has flowered.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Technocracy
Something like this:
always leads to something like this:
and it kills me -- or somebody else -- every time.
Something like this:
What jumps out from the book is Sunstein's mistrust of human judgment in everything from politics to business, especially when people band together.
always leads to something like this:
Part of the answer is putting people with humility, curiosity, and openness in power.
and it kills me -- or somebody else -- every time.
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Better living through stupidity
Financial Times:
Never underestimate the ability of the big, the flashy, and the ill-conceived to beat out the cheap and sensible when power is preserved by the former.
When it comes to the environment, one option is to preserve what's left of the natural planet by consuming at the point of production, producing what is needed with minimal waste, and so on.
The other option is to consume what is shipped from the other side of the planet, produce anything and everything that might be sold, dump the rest into the sea, and download our personalities into robots when the planet becomes uninhabitable!
Financial Times:
[M]any scientists say we may need to start building space mirrors, creating artificial clouds or altering the chemistry of the sea to prevent the worst effects of global warming.
Never underestimate the ability of the big, the flashy, and the ill-conceived to beat out the cheap and sensible when power is preserved by the former.
When it comes to the environment, one option is to preserve what's left of the natural planet by consuming at the point of production, producing what is needed with minimal waste, and so on.
The other option is to consume what is shipped from the other side of the planet, produce anything and everything that might be sold, dump the rest into the sea, and download our personalities into robots when the planet becomes uninhabitable!
Friday, May 08, 2009
Good government
If Bush taught us anything, it is the importance of good government. After all, it's not like you would naturally invest in incompetent bankers or exploding villagers. But a first-rate government might persuade you otherwise.
Rest assured, it takes a special sophistication to substitute "the national interest" for your own.
If Bush taught us anything, it is the importance of good government. After all, it's not like you would naturally invest in incompetent bankers or exploding villagers. But a first-rate government might persuade you otherwise.
Rest assured, it takes a special sophistication to substitute "the national interest" for your own.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
The house always wins
When American women traded the authority of their husbands for the authority of their bosses, this was called "feminism," and it has confused the question of what women want ever since.
Business is happy to sponsor a feminism that works extra hard at a discount rate, and which preferences "having a career" over being a parent. It is also happy to remind women that the alternative is to betray the principles from which contemporary "feminism" springs. Lest she forget the motto, "Work is freedom."
Little wonder, then, that we shrink from the term, since nobody is certain they want it.
When American women traded the authority of their husbands for the authority of their bosses, this was called "feminism," and it has confused the question of what women want ever since.
Business is happy to sponsor a feminism that works extra hard at a discount rate, and which preferences "having a career" over being a parent. It is also happy to remind women that the alternative is to betray the principles from which contemporary "feminism" springs. Lest she forget the motto, "Work is freedom."
Little wonder, then, that we shrink from the term, since nobody is certain they want it.
The Chinese threat
Lao-tse:
Lao-tse:
Experience teaches that none can guide the community;
The community is collaboration of forces;
as such, thought shows, it cannot be led
by the strength of one man.
To order it is to set it in disorder;
To fix it is to unsettle it.
For the conduct of the individual changes:
Here goes forward, there draws back;
Here shows warmth, there reveals cold;
Here exerts strength, there displays weakness;
Here stirs passion, there brings peace.
And so:
The perfected one shuns desire for power,
shuns the lure of power,
shuns the glamour of power.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Smarts
So I was shucking packages on the old parcel plantation when a distinguished colleague tells me that his life consists of finding food, finding weed; alcohol and "fuh"-gina -- they go together; and sports.
It is a love song to our age: We chase the necessities of life while denying the pain of living.
So I was shucking packages on the old parcel plantation when a distinguished colleague tells me that his life consists of finding food, finding weed; alcohol and "fuh"-gina -- they go together; and sports.
It is a love song to our age: We chase the necessities of life while denying the pain of living.
Monday, May 04, 2009
Union bosses gone wild!
Damn union bosses. Always walking around, getting videographed while they're fat.
Union bosses eat sandwiches. Union bosses drink beer. Time clocks. Pickup trucks. Unions.
I don't know about you, but I've always felt the most incriminating thing about unions is that they're so, well, working class!
Damn union bosses. Always walking around, getting videographed while they're fat.
Union bosses eat sandwiches. Union bosses drink beer. Time clocks. Pickup trucks. Unions.
I don't know about you, but I've always felt the most incriminating thing about unions is that they're so, well, working class!
Shirkers of the world, unite!
Any politician eager to brand Obama a "socialist" for rescuing particular industries is not likely to be well connected to those industries. If they were, they would argue that rescue is necessary for economic recovery.
The gulf between the two positions -- particularly as observed within the Republican Party, which is roundly pro-business -- is best explained by the scope of the crisis, which puts the natural relationship between government and big business in high-relief.
Normally, this relationship is obscured by market mythology and anti-government rhetoric. But when the dynamic can no longer be concealed, and the marshaling of public wealth for private gain is obvious to all, this presents the pro-business camp with a dilemma. On one hand, competitive edge is ever-sharpened by the protection of the state; on the other, this contradicts the story sold to Joe the Plumber.
From all appearances, it would seem the financial industry favored Barack Obama over John McCain in 2008, explaining much of what has happened since. This may leave the Republican Party with less of a dilemma; much of its "conservative" core is informed by domestically-based industry, not international finance.
Nevertheless, a conflict is evident at the level of Republican leadership, which doubtless includes a robust financial component, with RNC chair Michael Steele resisting pressure to label Obama a socialist for doing exactly what any industry would demand if they had the clout to do so.
Any politician eager to brand Obama a "socialist" for rescuing particular industries is not likely to be well connected to those industries. If they were, they would argue that rescue is necessary for economic recovery.
The gulf between the two positions -- particularly as observed within the Republican Party, which is roundly pro-business -- is best explained by the scope of the crisis, which puts the natural relationship between government and big business in high-relief.
Normally, this relationship is obscured by market mythology and anti-government rhetoric. But when the dynamic can no longer be concealed, and the marshaling of public wealth for private gain is obvious to all, this presents the pro-business camp with a dilemma. On one hand, competitive edge is ever-sharpened by the protection of the state; on the other, this contradicts the story sold to Joe the Plumber.
From all appearances, it would seem the financial industry favored Barack Obama over John McCain in 2008, explaining much of what has happened since. This may leave the Republican Party with less of a dilemma; much of its "conservative" core is informed by domestically-based industry, not international finance.
Nevertheless, a conflict is evident at the level of Republican leadership, which doubtless includes a robust financial component, with RNC chair Michael Steele resisting pressure to label Obama a socialist for doing exactly what any industry would demand if they had the clout to do so.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Preference and power
Sammy Stephens got me thinking about how the most celebrated African-Americans are the ones that can be reconciled in some way with the preferences of white America.
The preference of white America when it comes to "blacks" is, first and foremost, not to be bothered with their problems. Needless to say, white America is much more comfortable with African-Americans who offer themselves as articles of consumption, to be considered at leisure, admired or discarded accordingly, rather than as people with needs who disproportionately are not having them met. African-Americans who bring some "value" to white America are exalted accordingly; African-Americans who focus primarily on African-American issues are more likely to be perceived as "divisive," even "racist."
Of course, the same argument can be made for women under male predominance: the most celebrated women are the ones who most conform to male preference -- half-naked and underfed, they are easily observed everywhere in the culture; the least popular -- e.g., the distinguished "feminazi" -- may not be outwardly concerned with men at all.
So it goes with all concerns. Those that can be aligned with the preferences of power are accorded legitimacy, while those that cannot are either attacked or ignored.
Sammy Stephens got me thinking about how the most celebrated African-Americans are the ones that can be reconciled in some way with the preferences of white America.
The preference of white America when it comes to "blacks" is, first and foremost, not to be bothered with their problems. Needless to say, white America is much more comfortable with African-Americans who offer themselves as articles of consumption, to be considered at leisure, admired or discarded accordingly, rather than as people with needs who disproportionately are not having them met. African-Americans who bring some "value" to white America are exalted accordingly; African-Americans who focus primarily on African-American issues are more likely to be perceived as "divisive," even "racist."
Of course, the same argument can be made for women under male predominance: the most celebrated women are the ones who most conform to male preference -- half-naked and underfed, they are easily observed everywhere in the culture; the least popular -- e.g., the distinguished "feminazi" -- may not be outwardly concerned with men at all.
So it goes with all concerns. Those that can be aligned with the preferences of power are accorded legitimacy, while those that cannot are either attacked or ignored.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
We like our coffee, blacks
Ah, the benevolence of global capital.
Rwandans may not drink coffee, but is that any reason to stop them from growing it?
According to BusinessWeek, wealthy Westerners are committed "to [doubling] the income of poor coffee farmers" in Africa.
You remember Africa. The continent where rampant hunger almost never precipitates genocide, political instability, or high-seas banditry?
Just think of it: should the scheme prove profitable, desperate farmers can dedicate even more arable land to the cultivation of something that can't be slapped on a sandwich! After all, it's not like global coffee markets have ever dropped precipitously in the entire history of machete production!
This is the kind of do-goodery Bill and Melinda Gates really need to get in on. Fer certz.
Ah, the benevolence of global capital.
Rwandans may not drink coffee, but is that any reason to stop them from growing it?
According to BusinessWeek, wealthy Westerners are committed "to [doubling] the income of poor coffee farmers" in Africa.
You remember Africa. The continent where rampant hunger almost never precipitates genocide, political instability, or high-seas banditry?
Just think of it: should the scheme prove profitable, desperate farmers can dedicate even more arable land to the cultivation of something that can't be slapped on a sandwich! After all, it's not like global coffee markets have ever dropped precipitously in the entire history of machete production!
This is the kind of do-goodery Bill and Melinda Gates really need to get in on. Fer certz.
You get what you pay for
Rightly or wrongly, for any manager to bemoan the fecklessness of his or her workers is to reveal a certain lack of self-awareness. After all, the manager is specifically compensated to have a stake in the company, whereas the worker is not. In this sense, a disparity in attitudes can hardly be surprising.
Rightly or wrongly, for any manager to bemoan the fecklessness of his or her workers is to reveal a certain lack of self-awareness. After all, the manager is specifically compensated to have a stake in the company, whereas the worker is not. In this sense, a disparity in attitudes can hardly be surprising.
Monday, April 27, 2009
A penny short
Isn't it interesting how the notion of "financial oligarchy" can enter the mainstream just as soon as the oligarchs have tipped their canoe?
As long as the plutocrat is making money hand over fist, the word "plutocrat" will scarcely fall on responsible ears. But place an obstacle between the rich and their money, and no stone will go unturned in the attempt to find it!
Isn't it interesting how the notion of "financial oligarchy" can enter the mainstream just as soon as the oligarchs have tipped their canoe?
As long as the plutocrat is making money hand over fist, the word "plutocrat" will scarcely fall on responsible ears. But place an obstacle between the rich and their money, and no stone will go unturned in the attempt to find it!
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Torture
It's fair to say constitutional democracies struggle with the prosecution of their elected rulers. Naturally, rulers will break laws and treaties as they see fit; that is the point of having an executive -- not to mention a justice department which reports to it. But it's also tacitly understood that this will only be done on behalf of the "national interest," that is to say, the ruling class as a whole.
As I've already suggested elsewhere, what distinguishes the liberal democracy from dictatorship is that it aims to advance the rights of elites as a class, not just whatever portion enjoys majority control of the state. In America, this is the spirit of "bipartisanship": something that works for all rich people. In this respect, it is very important that government never serve as a seat of retribution against one's political rivals: this pledge is at the heart of every liberal democracy.
Torture is an interesting example. It's clearly prohibited in American and international law, but, like so many things, it only becomes objectionable when the costs are judged to exceed the benefits for elite concerns.
This is reflected nicely in the current "national debate" -- a debate over whether to enforce the law! -- with Republicans arguing that torture helps the republic by protecting it, and Democrats arguing that torture hurts the republic for miscellaneous reasons, including the notion that it "hurts our image around the world," thereby making the world less malleable to our interests.
(Of course, any random Middle Easterner suspected of something by US agencies who is subsequently detained and tortured would probably insist that the "image of America" is not the only thing harmed in the process, but that is not a concern which registers very high in the art of statecraft; as such, "harm to ourselves" -- to our very soul! -- appears to be the argument the Democratic Party prefers best.)
Whenever the ruling class does not enjoy consensus, the American people are treated to "debate," and solicited to support one side or the other in order to settle the concern. In this case, we have witnessed reluctance on the part of Obama start this process, presumably because it touches on principles that are dear to elites -- like the idea of holding elected officials to account for their actions after they are out of power. Suffice it to say, neither party wants to open this Pandora's box, and for very good reason. But it may be that the level of controversy this issue has stoked makes it impossible to get around; some low-level domestic prosecutions may be necessary.
It's fair to say constitutional democracies struggle with the prosecution of their elected rulers. Naturally, rulers will break laws and treaties as they see fit; that is the point of having an executive -- not to mention a justice department which reports to it. But it's also tacitly understood that this will only be done on behalf of the "national interest," that is to say, the ruling class as a whole.
As I've already suggested elsewhere, what distinguishes the liberal democracy from dictatorship is that it aims to advance the rights of elites as a class, not just whatever portion enjoys majority control of the state. In America, this is the spirit of "bipartisanship": something that works for all rich people. In this respect, it is very important that government never serve as a seat of retribution against one's political rivals: this pledge is at the heart of every liberal democracy.
Torture is an interesting example. It's clearly prohibited in American and international law, but, like so many things, it only becomes objectionable when the costs are judged to exceed the benefits for elite concerns.
This is reflected nicely in the current "national debate" -- a debate over whether to enforce the law! -- with Republicans arguing that torture helps the republic by protecting it, and Democrats arguing that torture hurts the republic for miscellaneous reasons, including the notion that it "hurts our image around the world," thereby making the world less malleable to our interests.
(Of course, any random Middle Easterner suspected of something by US agencies who is subsequently detained and tortured would probably insist that the "image of America" is not the only thing harmed in the process, but that is not a concern which registers very high in the art of statecraft; as such, "harm to ourselves" -- to our very soul! -- appears to be the argument the Democratic Party prefers best.)
Whenever the ruling class does not enjoy consensus, the American people are treated to "debate," and solicited to support one side or the other in order to settle the concern. In this case, we have witnessed reluctance on the part of Obama start this process, presumably because it touches on principles that are dear to elites -- like the idea of holding elected officials to account for their actions after they are out of power. Suffice it to say, neither party wants to open this Pandora's box, and for very good reason. But it may be that the level of controversy this issue has stoked makes it impossible to get around; some low-level domestic prosecutions may be necessary.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Reading Capital
The biggest danger of Karl Marx is that his argument against capitalism is so powerful it evokes sympathy towards any authority that will "abolish" it.
Needless to say, harboring a priori sympathy for authority is very bad; it should also go without saying that the newer varieties are always cultivated in response to their older, better understood peers. Marx felt and understood the immorality of capitalism very well, but apparently did not anticipate the raw recruiting power this put in the hands of political agents likely to construct an analogous monopoly within the state. Looking back, this seems kind of dumb.
To their credit, this is one score the anarchists got right, even if they precipitated little more than their own slaughter and persecution by sticking to it. A cynic might say this is what anarchists do best; an idealist that "do no harm" is no small accomplishment in Bolshevik Russia. Remember that someone is always ready to advance their career unreflective of the authority which facilitates it: I mean, it's a job, dude. Humans are quick to learn which way the wind blows, but few are resolved to oppose it on principle.
The biggest danger of Karl Marx is that his argument against capitalism is so powerful it evokes sympathy towards any authority that will "abolish" it.
Needless to say, harboring a priori sympathy for authority is very bad; it should also go without saying that the newer varieties are always cultivated in response to their older, better understood peers. Marx felt and understood the immorality of capitalism very well, but apparently did not anticipate the raw recruiting power this put in the hands of political agents likely to construct an analogous monopoly within the state. Looking back, this seems kind of dumb.
To their credit, this is one score the anarchists got right, even if they precipitated little more than their own slaughter and persecution by sticking to it. A cynic might say this is what anarchists do best; an idealist that "do no harm" is no small accomplishment in Bolshevik Russia. Remember that someone is always ready to advance their career unreflective of the authority which facilitates it: I mean, it's a job, dude. Humans are quick to learn which way the wind blows, but few are resolved to oppose it on principle.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Honkitudnosity!
Nicholas Kristof:
Dear Mr. Kristof,
Most Muslims are not fundamentalist. Therefore, "moderate interpretations" of the Koran are already "ascendant," even if your preference is to reduce the whole of the "Islamic world" to whatever minority elements preoccupy your attention.
Like most Westerners, you seem uninterested in Muslims per se; they are only interesting insofar as they carry a criminal potential. You know, kind of like "black people" before they proved their worth in sporting and other culturally valued events. If only some kid from Palestine would win the Masters, we might worry about whether there's any food getting into Gaza -- you know, because there are "people" there.
Additionally, I would love to know how women are "employed productively" in your society. Is it mostly through underpayment or by making maternity leave an employer-sponsored crapshoot rather than a reproductive right? Please let me know; I expect you are as much an authority on your own society as others.
Nicholas Kristof:
If the Islamic world is going to enjoy a revival, if fundamentalists are to be tamed, if women are to be employed more productively, then moderate interpretations of the Koran will have to gain ascendancy.
Dear Mr. Kristof,
Most Muslims are not fundamentalist. Therefore, "moderate interpretations" of the Koran are already "ascendant," even if your preference is to reduce the whole of the "Islamic world" to whatever minority elements preoccupy your attention.
Like most Westerners, you seem uninterested in Muslims per se; they are only interesting insofar as they carry a criminal potential. You know, kind of like "black people" before they proved their worth in sporting and other culturally valued events. If only some kid from Palestine would win the Masters, we might worry about whether there's any food getting into Gaza -- you know, because there are "people" there.
Additionally, I would love to know how women are "employed productively" in your society. Is it mostly through underpayment or by making maternity leave an employer-sponsored crapshoot rather than a reproductive right? Please let me know; I expect you are as much an authority on your own society as others.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Equity
Financial Times:
"CEO greed" has no meaning except in relation to large shareholders. Executives are supposed to manage productive enterprise on behalf of the wealthy investors who pony up the dough for them to do so. Simply pocketing the cash and walking away as the ship goes down in flames abrogates this compact and ultimately harms the super rich who can't escape.
Hence the concept of "CEO greed" -- i.e., greed that is dysfunctional to the institution -- and the heightened profile it presently enjoys.
Financial Times:
[A]ny honest observer knows that executive pay in America is, in fact, set largely by rigged systems today. What is needed is a new group of “CEOs against CEO greed” to model better behaviour and speak out against these scams.
"CEO greed" has no meaning except in relation to large shareholders. Executives are supposed to manage productive enterprise on behalf of the wealthy investors who pony up the dough for them to do so. Simply pocketing the cash and walking away as the ship goes down in flames abrogates this compact and ultimately harms the super rich who can't escape.
Hence the concept of "CEO greed" -- i.e., greed that is dysfunctional to the institution -- and the heightened profile it presently enjoys.
Monday, April 20, 2009
What Washington means
New York Times:
In Washington, the locus of power shifts between competing groups of investors who hire the government for private objectives, at home and abroad, which they wouldn't be able to pull off otherwise.
The explanation gets to the heart of why the modern nation state ever developed at all: because the average person does not jump into harm's way or consent to less than they deserve on behalf of privileged concerns absent some elaborate pretext.
Needless to say, "democracy" and "human rights" do not figure prominently in this equation, except as code words to describe the "constitutional" right of elite groups to compete more or less fairly with each other in pursuit of the throne, and to not be too put out in the event that they lose -- indeed, the only meaningful difference between "democracy" and "dictatorship" in contemporary political discourse.
Far from denying the "forces of oppression" of which no group will ever exert a monopoly, we are much better served by an honest appraisal of our own complicity in systems where resistance and disruption might render a defensive effect for those on the receiving end.
For example, this could mean putting an end to the bombing of civilians for whom we claim repeated concern in the rhetoric of "human rights."
New York Times:
To defeat the forces of oppression, Washington must promote and protect the ideals of democracy and human rights.
In Washington, the locus of power shifts between competing groups of investors who hire the government for private objectives, at home and abroad, which they wouldn't be able to pull off otherwise.
The explanation gets to the heart of why the modern nation state ever developed at all: because the average person does not jump into harm's way or consent to less than they deserve on behalf of privileged concerns absent some elaborate pretext.
Needless to say, "democracy" and "human rights" do not figure prominently in this equation, except as code words to describe the "constitutional" right of elite groups to compete more or less fairly with each other in pursuit of the throne, and to not be too put out in the event that they lose -- indeed, the only meaningful difference between "democracy" and "dictatorship" in contemporary political discourse.
Far from denying the "forces of oppression" of which no group will ever exert a monopoly, we are much better served by an honest appraisal of our own complicity in systems where resistance and disruption might render a defensive effect for those on the receiving end.
For example, this could mean putting an end to the bombing of civilians for whom we claim repeated concern in the rhetoric of "human rights."
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Impotence
Primo Levi, If This Is A Man:
Life or livelihood, future or family -- if you deliberately place what is dear to the individual at any distance beyond their reach, then you're just playing the same game with different stakes.
This is why I recommend Holocaust literature to people facing layoffs.
Primo Levi, If This Is A Man:
If we were logical, we would resign ourselves to the evidence that our fate is beyond knowledge, that every conjecture is arbitrary and demonstrably devoid of foundation. But men are rarely logical when their own fate is at stake; on every occasion, they prefer the extreme positions. According to our character, some of us are immediately convinced that all is lost... that the end is near and sure; others are convinced that however hard the present life may be, salvation is probable and not far off.... The two classes of pessimists and optimists are not so clearly defined, however, not because there are many agnostics, but because the majority, without memory or coherence, drift between the two extremes, according to the moment and the mood of the person they happen to meet.
Life or livelihood, future or family -- if you deliberately place what is dear to the individual at any distance beyond their reach, then you're just playing the same game with different stakes.
This is why I recommend Holocaust literature to people facing layoffs.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Identity politics
Then she was led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by demons. And when she had fasted forty days and forty nights, she was afterward ahungered.
And when the tempters came, they said, If you are who you think you are, prove your usefulness to the world.
But she answered and said, It is written,
I am much more, and less, than this.
Then the demons took her into the holy city, and set her on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto her, If you are who you say you are, prove that you are not mistaken, and come toward us.
She said unto them, It is written again,
You are welcome to remain unpersuaded.
Again, the demons took her up into an exceeding high mountain, and showed her all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and said unto her, All these things will I give thee, if you will fall down and worship me.
Then she said to them, Get thee hence, tempters: for it is written,
You shall only submit to truth,
and only truth shall you serve.
Then the demons left her, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto her.
Then she was led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by demons. And when she had fasted forty days and forty nights, she was afterward ahungered.
And when the tempters came, they said, If you are who you think you are, prove your usefulness to the world.
But she answered and said, It is written,
I am much more, and less, than this.
Then the demons took her into the holy city, and set her on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto her, If you are who you say you are, prove that you are not mistaken, and come toward us.
She said unto them, It is written again,
You are welcome to remain unpersuaded.
Again, the demons took her up into an exceeding high mountain, and showed her all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and said unto her, All these things will I give thee, if you will fall down and worship me.
Then she said to them, Get thee hence, tempters: for it is written,
You shall only submit to truth,
and only truth shall you serve.
Then the demons left her, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto her.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Teabagging
The Republican Party is mad Congress won't extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich, so they are portraying their automatic expiration as "taxation without representation."
You would think they might be glad: the increase in government revenue actually contributes to a smaller budget deficits in the years ahead.
It's instructive that the Republicans choose to frame the country's problems this way. If tax paying Americans can be convinced that "government spending" is bad, then the government will just spend it on whoever thinks it is good. It's not like the Republican objective is to end taxation, or big government, or even big government spending. The objective is to minimize public expenditure on the public, because the government's role is to serve the rich at the tax payer's expense. Convincing working people that getting anything in return for their taxes is wrong is a central component of this.
Nobody at any level of power or influence in our society has any illusion that ours is not a system of big government, and, by consequence, a system of big government spending. The practical effect of arguing against "big government spending" within a system of big government spending is that it inevitably preferences certain kinds of spending over others.
This is why when the Republican Party rails against big government spending, it just highlights spending it disagrees with. Assistance to the unemployed is socialism, but the military-industrial complex -- in which the public guarantees the profits of private corporations -- is a patriotic necessity. So it is important to be able to discern between spending that benefits us versus spending that does not.
The Republican Party is mad Congress won't extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich, so they are portraying their automatic expiration as "taxation without representation."
You would think they might be glad: the increase in government revenue actually contributes to a smaller budget deficits in the years ahead.
It's instructive that the Republicans choose to frame the country's problems this way. If tax paying Americans can be convinced that "government spending" is bad, then the government will just spend it on whoever thinks it is good. It's not like the Republican objective is to end taxation, or big government, or even big government spending. The objective is to minimize public expenditure on the public, because the government's role is to serve the rich at the tax payer's expense. Convincing working people that getting anything in return for their taxes is wrong is a central component of this.
Nobody at any level of power or influence in our society has any illusion that ours is not a system of big government, and, by consequence, a system of big government spending. The practical effect of arguing against "big government spending" within a system of big government spending is that it inevitably preferences certain kinds of spending over others.
This is why when the Republican Party rails against big government spending, it just highlights spending it disagrees with. Assistance to the unemployed is socialism, but the military-industrial complex -- in which the public guarantees the profits of private corporations -- is a patriotic necessity. So it is important to be able to discern between spending that benefits us versus spending that does not.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
The highest calling
Political parties appeal to the public with they say, and they betray the public with what they do. This is why it is important not to become enraptured by what they say.
Barack Obama can make a speech to piss your pants, but he can also kill kids no older than his own because his job demands it. This is the same person who, alone, inspired, and, elected, wields the bloody scepter of the state and carries on its mission with aplomb.
Isn't it strange the national impulse to enlist decent people into the service of power, only to question to their responsibilities after it is too late?
Political parties appeal to the public with they say, and they betray the public with what they do. This is why it is important not to become enraptured by what they say.
Barack Obama can make a speech to piss your pants, but he can also kill kids no older than his own because his job demands it. This is the same person who, alone, inspired, and, elected, wields the bloody scepter of the state and carries on its mission with aplomb.
Isn't it strange the national impulse to enlist decent people into the service of power, only to question to their responsibilities after it is too late?
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Tru value
At my retail job I am prompted to pimp the company's "values." One of the values is "creating prosperity through profits and growth," which tickles my better cynicism mightily. I submit the "prosperity" is more evident in the property than among the employees: a cashier described to me standing on a swollen foot through her shift in spite of having a doctor's note for rest at home. For whatever reason, she didn't feel she could miss work. And if pregnant cashiers aren't permitted to sit down, how could she?
Our first company value translates as "employee happiness." But happiness is relative; most employees are just "happy" to have a job, compared with the alternatives.
And this is how the employer arrives at their most cherished "value."
At my retail job I am prompted to pimp the company's "values." One of the values is "creating prosperity through profits and growth," which tickles my better cynicism mightily. I submit the "prosperity" is more evident in the property than among the employees: a cashier described to me standing on a swollen foot through her shift in spite of having a doctor's note for rest at home. For whatever reason, she didn't feel she could miss work. And if pregnant cashiers aren't permitted to sit down, how could she?
Our first company value translates as "employee happiness." But happiness is relative; most employees are just "happy" to have a job, compared with the alternatives.
And this is how the employer arrives at their most cherished "value."
Sunday, April 12, 2009
In an unequal world, violence protects property
There is a lot of high-minded concern that Africans don't respect private property rights -- but don't Western companies own most of what is valuable in Africa, anyway? Why should desperately poor Africans respect this?
I appreciate the Western impulse to impose by force that which could almost always be resolved peacefully by another means; for example, by taking the concerns of Africans seriously. When it comes to government by the privileged few, every problem looks like a nail, and requires a hammer.
There is a lot of high-minded concern that Africans don't respect private property rights -- but don't Western companies own most of what is valuable in Africa, anyway? Why should desperately poor Africans respect this?
I appreciate the Western impulse to impose by force that which could almost always be resolved peacefully by another means; for example, by taking the concerns of Africans seriously. When it comes to government by the privileged few, every problem looks like a nail, and requires a hammer.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Just be glad you have a job
Nobody is glad they have a job. They are glad they have some way to live with dignity.
Suffering indignity is not something to be glad about, even if you are deemed useful to an employer. People are used all the time -- but it is not because they are lucky. More often than not, it is because they are desperate. Desperation is not something to be glad about.
It may be true that we are living in an age which does not grant you well-being merely because you are a human being who, by nature, requires it. But we have lived through many ages -- and more than a handful rank pretty fucked up. Some people recognize this at the time -- for example, that slavery was not "cool," even if it was the basis of a preindustrial economy comprised of large landholders. This doesn't mean the sentiment always wins, or that it doesn't take a very long time for it to do so; but in any event it begins.
What this suggests is that now may not be the best time to start mistaking what is majorly fucked up about our own circumstances as "a fact of life," or anything to be grateful for. Everyone gets hit by issues of health and well-being in varying degrees; nevertheless, everyone gets hit.
The routing of every great crime begins with a culture of nonacceptance. It begins with a thought and ends with action.
Nobody is glad they have a job. They are glad they have some way to live with dignity.
Suffering indignity is not something to be glad about, even if you are deemed useful to an employer. People are used all the time -- but it is not because they are lucky. More often than not, it is because they are desperate. Desperation is not something to be glad about.
It may be true that we are living in an age which does not grant you well-being merely because you are a human being who, by nature, requires it. But we have lived through many ages -- and more than a handful rank pretty fucked up. Some people recognize this at the time -- for example, that slavery was not "cool," even if it was the basis of a preindustrial economy comprised of large landholders. This doesn't mean the sentiment always wins, or that it doesn't take a very long time for it to do so; but in any event it begins.
What this suggests is that now may not be the best time to start mistaking what is majorly fucked up about our own circumstances as "a fact of life," or anything to be grateful for. Everyone gets hit by issues of health and well-being in varying degrees; nevertheless, everyone gets hit.
The routing of every great crime begins with a culture of nonacceptance. It begins with a thought and ends with action.
Blood from a stone
New York Times:
There's something to be said for an even playing field. That's why I like this scenario better:
If this sounds too good to be true, it is only because the class roles are reversed.
New York Times:
...[T]he Obama administration is encouraging several large investment companies to create the financial-crisis equivalent of war bonds: bailout funds.
The idea is that these investments, akin to mutual funds that buy stocks and bonds, would give ordinary Americans a chance to profit from the bailouts that are being financed by their tax dollars. But there is another, deeply political motivation as well: to quiet accusations that all of these giant bailouts will benefit only Wall Street plutocrats.
There's something to be said for an even playing field. That's why I like this scenario better:
1). Wall Street pays off all my debts with their money.
2). The government -- funded by Wall Street -- sets me up with a business, and sells my "services" back to Wall Street via placements in the New York Times on the idea that nobody should miss out on the fun. I then "charge healthy fees to investors for taking part" in this exciting opportunity.
If this sounds too good to be true, it is only because the class roles are reversed.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Monday, April 06, 2009
3. Conclusion
What we can say about the Democratic and Republican parties, then, is that they constitute a spectrum of concerns bracketed within the American ruling class.
I have argued that the Democratic Party reflects the management side of this class, while the Republican Party reflects ownership.
Above all, ownership concerns itself with preservation first, and all other considerations second. This lends itself to conservative notions of tradition, defense, self-reliance, even divine providence. It also informs the "libertarian" flavor of conservatism, insofar as libertarianism rejects the de facto authority of the state.
Because the variety of large-scale, centralized ownership patterns of the private sector find their only plausible rival in government, it is not surprising that private ownership remains terrified of "nationalization" and the precedent that might be set by efficiently-run public enterprise.
It is only due to this anxiety that the ownership class has made common cause with libertarian sentiments of the pre-industrial age, as though the modern corporation has the same right to privacy as the yeoman farmer of Jefferson's era.
This is how we arrive, perversely, at Reagan's "government is the problem" declaration 200 years later, which would become the rallying cry of the conservative movement going forward.
Management, on the other hand, is concerned with efficiency, which implies a foundation in higher education, which in turn lends itself to liberalism.
Of course, managers are employed by, and legally obligated to, owners. But because the utility of their skills is not limited to the private sector, managers may not share their employer's wholly negative estimation of the state.
Many private sector managers move to the public sector after growing tired of jumping through hoops for their bosses, particularly in the absence of any socially-relevant pretext. They may also see a role for government in advocating on their behalf vis-a-vis owners.
In any case, managers pride themselves on professional achievement, which presupposes a strong educational foundation, requisite accreditation, and so on. And this in turn forms the basis for liberalism in systems of private enterprise.
What we can say about the Democratic and Republican parties, then, is that they constitute a spectrum of concerns bracketed within the American ruling class.
I have argued that the Democratic Party reflects the management side of this class, while the Republican Party reflects ownership.
Above all, ownership concerns itself with preservation first, and all other considerations second. This lends itself to conservative notions of tradition, defense, self-reliance, even divine providence. It also informs the "libertarian" flavor of conservatism, insofar as libertarianism rejects the de facto authority of the state.
Because the variety of large-scale, centralized ownership patterns of the private sector find their only plausible rival in government, it is not surprising that private ownership remains terrified of "nationalization" and the precedent that might be set by efficiently-run public enterprise.
It is only due to this anxiety that the ownership class has made common cause with libertarian sentiments of the pre-industrial age, as though the modern corporation has the same right to privacy as the yeoman farmer of Jefferson's era.
This is how we arrive, perversely, at Reagan's "government is the problem" declaration 200 years later, which would become the rallying cry of the conservative movement going forward.
Management, on the other hand, is concerned with efficiency, which implies a foundation in higher education, which in turn lends itself to liberalism.
Of course, managers are employed by, and legally obligated to, owners. But because the utility of their skills is not limited to the private sector, managers may not share their employer's wholly negative estimation of the state.
Many private sector managers move to the public sector after growing tired of jumping through hoops for their bosses, particularly in the absence of any socially-relevant pretext. They may also see a role for government in advocating on their behalf vis-a-vis owners.
In any case, managers pride themselves on professional achievement, which presupposes a strong educational foundation, requisite accreditation, and so on. And this in turn forms the basis for liberalism in systems of private enterprise.
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Riddle me this, bankman
People sometimes tell me I am wasting my "talents" by not pursuing some obvious route to greater influence, or monetary reward -- as though the world needs more people motivated by these concerns, from which the rest of us can take our cue.
But what is so wrong about doing something worthwhile for its own sake? Isn't that the point of living?
I submit the best route to influence is not always obvious.
This note brought to you by: boxed wine, friends, family events
People sometimes tell me I am wasting my "talents" by not pursuing some obvious route to greater influence, or monetary reward -- as though the world needs more people motivated by these concerns, from which the rest of us can take our cue.
But what is so wrong about doing something worthwhile for its own sake? Isn't that the point of living?
I submit the best route to influence is not always obvious.
This note brought to you by: boxed wine, friends, family events
Saturday, April 04, 2009
2. Democrats as "managers"
In contrast to the "self-made" mythology of the entrepreneur, liberalism emphasizes educational advancement and compliance with professional standards as the most practical path toward success. In this respect, liberals in the Democratic mold are at ease with the technocratic aspects of both business and government: given the right knowledge and credentials, is there any realm of human affairs liberalism would not surrender to the prevailing "experts"?
The question is salient in the wake of the global meltdown in financial markets, in which the most respected economists, business journalists, credit ratings agencies, industry regulators, and risk-management professionals consolidated their authority essentially by being "wrong" on behalf of the "right" interests. But this is hardly the first example of a liberal failure to ask the obvious questions -- e.g., the Iraq war; and now the Afghanistan escalation -- in exchange for the rewards of power.
This is also notable in popular culture, where expert tutelage seems an increasingly popular substitute for the independent thought and action of individuals -- especially among the wealthy and well-educated. This extends to areas of life where one might not previously think an "expert" possible, as in the case of "life coaching," which judges all human activity by the same authoritarian assumptions of the management structures from which it springs: it cultivates that which can be rendered useful to power at any given moment, thus maximizing potential "benefits" for the client.
As an ethos, liberalism amounts to little more than technical expertise in the service of power, and the deference to professional authority which this implies. Higher education -- liberalism's house of worship -- is dedicated to producing knowledge workers who will prove useful to power, with greater compensation awarded to those who are deemed most useful -- indeed, the way it works in any system. This is holds true whatever we think of the relationships.
The Democratic Party appeals primarily to the educated middle and upper classes. As a group, managers and other professionals, because of their educational background, tend to skew liberal, especially on social issues. This is due to their status as wage-workers, rather than "owners" or majority shareholders: white collar workers want successful careers, but are wary about selling their "soul" to employers in order to do it. Subsequently, they see a legitimate role for government in advancing worker's rights generally, and those pertaining to their professional class specifically. They also view government as a career track for knowledge workers who are willing to exchange potentially higher compensation in the private sector for a "public service" mission.
In contrast to the "self-made" mythology of the entrepreneur, liberalism emphasizes educational advancement and compliance with professional standards as the most practical path toward success. In this respect, liberals in the Democratic mold are at ease with the technocratic aspects of both business and government: given the right knowledge and credentials, is there any realm of human affairs liberalism would not surrender to the prevailing "experts"?
The question is salient in the wake of the global meltdown in financial markets, in which the most respected economists, business journalists, credit ratings agencies, industry regulators, and risk-management professionals consolidated their authority essentially by being "wrong" on behalf of the "right" interests. But this is hardly the first example of a liberal failure to ask the obvious questions -- e.g., the Iraq war; and now the Afghanistan escalation -- in exchange for the rewards of power.
This is also notable in popular culture, where expert tutelage seems an increasingly popular substitute for the independent thought and action of individuals -- especially among the wealthy and well-educated. This extends to areas of life where one might not previously think an "expert" possible, as in the case of "life coaching," which judges all human activity by the same authoritarian assumptions of the management structures from which it springs: it cultivates that which can be rendered useful to power at any given moment, thus maximizing potential "benefits" for the client.
As an ethos, liberalism amounts to little more than technical expertise in the service of power, and the deference to professional authority which this implies. Higher education -- liberalism's house of worship -- is dedicated to producing knowledge workers who will prove useful to power, with greater compensation awarded to those who are deemed most useful -- indeed, the way it works in any system. This is holds true whatever we think of the relationships.
The Democratic Party appeals primarily to the educated middle and upper classes. As a group, managers and other professionals, because of their educational background, tend to skew liberal, especially on social issues. This is due to their status as wage-workers, rather than "owners" or majority shareholders: white collar workers want successful careers, but are wary about selling their "soul" to employers in order to do it. Subsequently, they see a legitimate role for government in advancing worker's rights generally, and those pertaining to their professional class specifically. They also view government as a career track for knowledge workers who are willing to exchange potentially higher compensation in the private sector for a "public service" mission.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Why liberal, why conservative?
I have a hypothesis that the American political system basically reflects an institutional split within the private, or corporate, sector. Republicans are like owners, Democrats are like managers.
--
1. Republicans as "owners"
Owners tend to be conservative because they are primarily concerned about the bottom line. Their ethos is "individualist" in the mold of the American pioneers. In this sense, they view success as resulting from innate qualities -- fortitude, dedication, work ethic -- as opposed to university or specialized training. Subsequently, they view government as valid only insofar as it defends ownership rights; they do not want anyone else telling them how to run their enterprise.
The Republican Party appeals to voters -- mostly working class -- by inviting them to share in these "values," in large part by conflating industrial or financial ownership with owning a home or car -- in other words, fostering a unitary conception of "private property." This prompts the very people who suffer most from their dependency on wage-work to rally to the defense of their own exploitation whenever the government makes an appearance on the scene: if the rights of "property" are not sacred in the workplace, then surely they will not be honored in the home! Even the most pitiful attempt at industry regulation is portrayed as "creeping socialism" -- not as a public attempt to address public concerns, but as a totalitarian move to confiscate your PlayStation and your rifle for the communal/egalitarian/altruistic/politically correct good of all. In such nonsense the heady careers of many right-wing "personalities" are moored, and the Republican Party continues to induce many of its worst victims to pull the lever on its behalf.
I have a hypothesis that the American political system basically reflects an institutional split within the private, or corporate, sector. Republicans are like owners, Democrats are like managers.
--
1. Republicans as "owners"
Owners tend to be conservative because they are primarily concerned about the bottom line. Their ethos is "individualist" in the mold of the American pioneers. In this sense, they view success as resulting from innate qualities -- fortitude, dedication, work ethic -- as opposed to university or specialized training. Subsequently, they view government as valid only insofar as it defends ownership rights; they do not want anyone else telling them how to run their enterprise.
The Republican Party appeals to voters -- mostly working class -- by inviting them to share in these "values," in large part by conflating industrial or financial ownership with owning a home or car -- in other words, fostering a unitary conception of "private property." This prompts the very people who suffer most from their dependency on wage-work to rally to the defense of their own exploitation whenever the government makes an appearance on the scene: if the rights of "property" are not sacred in the workplace, then surely they will not be honored in the home! Even the most pitiful attempt at industry regulation is portrayed as "creeping socialism" -- not as a public attempt to address public concerns, but as a totalitarian move to confiscate your PlayStation and your rifle for the communal/egalitarian/altruistic/politically correct good of all. In such nonsense the heady careers of many right-wing "personalities" are moored, and the Republican Party continues to induce many of its worst victims to pull the lever on its behalf.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Chief engineer favors greater buoyancy on the Titanic
The old Marxist saw that capitalism destroys itself could use a little more action these days.
Instead, we are treated to lectures about "living beyond our means" -- because the average person turns to credit for lack of income; or because home ownership seems smart when real estate is appreciating faster than any other sector of the US economy.
Now that the game is over, the public is blamed for playing the very part the rich had constructed for them. By this logic, the average family should have known that what every expert and industry chucklehead said was a good investment, wasn't really a good investment.
This "everybody is to blame"-style rhetoric deliberately glosses over the distribution of power in society. When the fundamentals of our economy are entrusted to unaccountable institutions which make investment decisions privately for their own gain, it is hard to comprehend how the public can be in a position to second-guess what is going on. As such, these kinds of arguments are designed to devolve responsibility from the top to the bottom, thus rationalizing the publicly-funded rescue of those at the top.
The argument that capitalism requires rules -- and therefore rulemakers -- for the sake of its own stability is endlessly repeated in times of crisis. The problem is that it is handily ignored in times of "prosperity." It should hardly be surprising that a system premised on the notion of maxim profit for the profit-maker will tend toward the elimination of any legal obstacle placed in its way. After all, with the wealth of the nation already in their hands, the writing of law in one's own favor is best categorized as a business expense.
The old Marxist saw that capitalism destroys itself could use a little more action these days.
Instead, we are treated to lectures about "living beyond our means" -- because the average person turns to credit for lack of income; or because home ownership seems smart when real estate is appreciating faster than any other sector of the US economy.
Now that the game is over, the public is blamed for playing the very part the rich had constructed for them. By this logic, the average family should have known that what every expert and industry chucklehead said was a good investment, wasn't really a good investment.
This "everybody is to blame"-style rhetoric deliberately glosses over the distribution of power in society. When the fundamentals of our economy are entrusted to unaccountable institutions which make investment decisions privately for their own gain, it is hard to comprehend how the public can be in a position to second-guess what is going on. As such, these kinds of arguments are designed to devolve responsibility from the top to the bottom, thus rationalizing the publicly-funded rescue of those at the top.
The argument that capitalism requires rules -- and therefore rulemakers -- for the sake of its own stability is endlessly repeated in times of crisis. The problem is that it is handily ignored in times of "prosperity." It should hardly be surprising that a system premised on the notion of maxim profit for the profit-maker will tend toward the elimination of any legal obstacle placed in its way. After all, with the wealth of the nation already in their hands, the writing of law in one's own favor is best categorized as a business expense.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Big fish
The President talks tough to a weak industry comprised of blue collar workers. But he cannot talk tough to a powerful industry comprised of white collar workers. In either case, the market approves.
Liberals may point to this as wrong. It's bad policy that rewards the wrong people.
But this ignores our springtime constellation of power. Looking forward, Obama must secure Wall Street's money, not autoworker's votes. It's not like union families are going to vote Republican, after all.
Meanwhile, the men of best quality fret that their bets in Washington might turn out as badly as their bets on Wall Street. To be sure, Barack Obama has been a gamble: he said a lot of crazy things to get elected, and hasn't talked his way out of them since. Will he lend his talents to the dark side, or must the Emperor end his scene?
The President talks tough to a weak industry comprised of blue collar workers. But he cannot talk tough to a powerful industry comprised of white collar workers. In either case, the market approves.
Liberals may point to this as wrong. It's bad policy that rewards the wrong people.
But this ignores our springtime constellation of power. Looking forward, Obama must secure Wall Street's money, not autoworker's votes. It's not like union families are going to vote Republican, after all.
Meanwhile, the men of best quality fret that their bets in Washington might turn out as badly as their bets on Wall Street. To be sure, Barack Obama has been a gamble: he said a lot of crazy things to get elected, and hasn't talked his way out of them since. Will he lend his talents to the dark side, or must the Emperor end his scene?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
