Obama's Marijuana Buzz Kill
by Kathleen Parker
March 30, 2009 | 9:25am
The formerly cool president could have given a reasoned response to a question about legalizing pot. Instead, he was dismissive and insulted his stoner constituency.
Barack Obama’s first online town-hall meeting may have been a new media success, but he lost the stoner vote.
Asked whether he would seek to legalize marijuana as a strategy to boost the economy, the usually long-winded president—who famously admitted to his own youthful inhalations—answered with little more than a dismissive “No.”
Whereupon America’s laid-back lobby recoiled in, well, withdrawal. Where was the love?
Obama may rue his decision to offend America’s no-longer-so-mellow cannabis consumers.
More than 64,000 viewers posted about 104,000 questions online for the virtual meeting, the topic of which was the president’s budget. Of those questions, Obama answered seven that were preselected based on interest as measured by online votes.
Apparently, a significant portion of those casting 3.6 million votes wanted to talk pot.
Obama joked that he wasn’t sure what the question’s popularity said about his online audience (snarf, snarf), but said he doesn’t think legalization is a good strategy to grow our economy.
Dude.
While a live audience applauded approvingly, Obama’s virtual audience sank into despair. Internet threads in the days since have reflected disappointment and disillusionment. What happened to the president they thought they knew? You know, the cool one who once said that inhaling was “the whole point”? What happened to the guy who loves online audiences? You know, the ones who put Obama in office?
The pot questions—there were variations on a tax-and-regulate theme—had been stoked by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. Within hours of the president’s rebuff, NORML got to work organizing reform-minded Americans in a letter-writing campaign. Obama may rue his decision to offend America’s no-longer-so-mellow cannabis consumers.
Just what’s so funny about marijuana-law reform, asks Paul Armentano, NORML’s deputy director. An American is arrested for pot every 38 seconds, he says. Since 1965, more than 20 million Americans have been arrested for marijuana offenses, 90 percent of them for simple possession.
And despite baby boomers being in charge in recent years—the relevance of which can be enumerated as 1-9-6-8, otherwise known as the year America turned on—annual pot busts have tripled since the non-inhaling Bill Clinton took office.
It isn’t only marijuana consumers who want to see weed legalized. (None other than William F. Buckley was for it.) Ending prohibition is also a popular cause for at least 10,000 cops, narcs, judges, and others who make up the membership of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.
From LEAP’s down-and-dirty perspective, prohibition exacerbates rather than ameliorates America’s drug problem. Prohibition not only diverts resources from the pursuit of more-serious crimes, it empowers criminals and enhances black-market incentives. Money spent fighting what adults seem to want could be better allocated toward education and rehab.
The argument, meanwhile, that pot is a gateway drug to harder substances is true only to the extent that kids who try pot realize they’ve been lied to. If the pot-will-make-you-insane warning is so obviously false, then kids may figure that warnings about more serious drugs must also be so much smoke.
Far more dangerous to pot consumers than severe munchies, or the risk that one may become temporarily riveted by the charms of tiny things, is the gateway marijuana now serves to the criminal world. Legalization (or at least decriminalization) may not eliminate the black market, but it would severely diminish its power and appeal.
Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron recently urged legalization of all drugs, not just marijuana, as the only way to eliminate violence associated with the drug cartels now moving into the United States. More border patrol and more narcotics agents are more likely to exacerbate than reduce violence, he argues. Did we learn nothing from Al Capone?
As for the economic ramifications of legalized weed, there can be little doubt that marijuana would provide a welcome cash transfusion for a financially anemic nation. By Miron’s estimates, federal, state, and local governments spend roughly $44 billion a year to fund prohibition. Through regulation and taxation at rates akin to those on alcohol and tobacco, those same governments could collect $33 billion a year.
And that’s not good economic strategy?
As a bonus, we’d empty court logs of frivolous possession cases; redirect resources to deal with, for instance, 400,000 rape kits that today sit unopened (and in many cases useless as the statutes of limitations have passed) because the cops were too busy busting adults for gazing too long at sunsets. We might also minimize the attraction of the illicit and make kids less likely to visit the black market.
All while raking in billions! Put a smiley face on that bailout.
Obama’s tone-deafness Thursday was unaccountably odd, given that the success of his virtual town-hall meetings depends on an online audience. And given that a healthy chunk of the online audience is youngish, possibly potheadish, and voted Obamaish, why not toss the marijuana lobby a crumb, preferably chocolate chip?
How hard would it have been to say something like: “Cool idea, brah, but...” OK, maybe not. But why not something reasonable and presidential, such as:
“Look, I’m not ready to legalize marijuana tomorrow, but I do think it’s time to take a fresh look at the effectiveness of some of our criminal justice policies. And I support Sen. James Webb’s current efforts to do just that.
“I also don’t mean to make light of this issue because I know that a lot of kids wind up in jail who shouldn’t. And I know from personal experience that smoking marijuana is not a career-ender. But I do want to study this issue carefully before I suggest any broad changes in policy. Thank you for your question.”
Everyone would have gone home reasonably satisfied, if not quite ready to celebrate. Instead, Obama enjoyed a brief flashback and insulted his merrier minions.
As pot smokers blanket the White House with letters of protest, Obama may want to rethink his position. He not only has ticked off a portion of his grass-roots, so to speak, but, when the Chinese come to collect interest on those trillions, he may find it preferable that more, rather than fewer, Americans be mellow.
Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group and author of Save the Males.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Jon Stewart bitch-slaps Jim Cramer
I think most people have seen this already, but I am consistently amazed by Jon Stewart's ability to hold people accountable for things no one holds them accountable to... especially since he is comedian. I wasn't even thinking about being angry at the business news network, I was just mad at the jack-offs who read it, but they should bare responsibility for promoting a system that is so unapologetically greedy.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Jim Cramer Pt. 1 | ||||
| ||||
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Howard Zinn on YouTube
I just read the comic that this is, more or less, a trailer for. It was fantastic and I'm looking forward to reading his A People's History of the United States as soon as I can commit myself to such a dense book.
Also, Howard Zinn on democratic socialism and anarchism:
Friday, March 13, 2009
Joe Rogan on atrocity and the internet
Check out this latest post on the Joe Rogan blog for details on Christian missionaries conducting genocidal witch hunts on children in Africa, the cost of the War on Drugs in Mexico, and the effect of the internet on global awareness.
My two cents: The internet increases the ability of individuals not only to be aware of the news, but to offer the resources to connect the current news to old trends. Rogan references how quickly Blackwater would have been exposed back in the day, but few people really know what Blackwater is.
You've heard of the School of the Americas right? SOA was a Latin American-based private army training corporation which developed military outfits to support American business interests in the third-world without "direct" American involvement. This way you can overthrow a democratically elected leader in a foreign country without dirtying your hands. It was closed in 2000 due to protests in the United States and reopened on January 2001 as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.
The internet does not expose everything.
My two cents: The internet increases the ability of individuals not only to be aware of the news, but to offer the resources to connect the current news to old trends. Rogan references how quickly Blackwater would have been exposed back in the day, but few people really know what Blackwater is.
You've heard of the School of the Americas right? SOA was a Latin American-based private army training corporation which developed military outfits to support American business interests in the third-world without "direct" American involvement. This way you can overthrow a democratically elected leader in a foreign country without dirtying your hands. It was closed in 2000 due to protests in the United States and reopened on January 2001 as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.
The internet does not expose everything.
Stephen Colbert bitch-slaps Ayn Rand
This was so very satisfying. Ayn Rand is to philosophy what Mike Tyson is to ballet.
What I would socialize...
Socialism is not an either/or proposition. Being socialist, I do not think that EVERY business would be better run by the government. Of course not. What I believe is that people are dependent upon certain industries which are capable of gross abuse of power which must have government control in order to be ethical. These are the industries which I think could be better run by the government:
Medicine - This is the most obvious and while I'm pretty much required to make a post about it sooner or later, let me just say that opponents to socialized medicine are selfish idiots. Every other first world country has universal health care. It is not, in anyway, controversial to those who have it. By offering universal health care to everyone who needs it, we can more efficiently protect ourselves from outbreaks, have a stronger work force, prevent the spread of STDs, and start cutting off pharmaceutical companies who are pushing their products into doctor's offices to supplement their income. We've needed this for a long time and the only reason we don't have it is Republican propaganda and fear mongering.
Banking - I know of no industry that is so restrictive, manipulative, and necessary for average Americans. They sneak in additional charges and restructure plans to exploit the ignorance of their customers. They make money off of our investments and pay back an extremely small percentage. They are inefficient and most often provide poor service. There is nothing to be lost by nationalizing the banking system and a whole lot to be gained. Imagine if your credit and loan payments could be deducted from your taxes? Maybe not the whole thing, but if you are swamped with debt, wouldn't it be nice to know that money was going to possibly help improve roads or pay for schools instead of just going to a bunch of rich guys? What about school loans? I pay to a company called Direct Loans... which I know nothing about. When I took out a federal student loan, it defaulted to this private business. I know nothing about the politics of this business which obviously has an fiscal interest in higher education rates and less scholarships and grants. If I were paying directly to a government institution, they might not spend it wisely, but at least they would be accountable.
Insurance - As far as I'm concerned, insurance is a scam. I will talk about auto insurance since this is the only kind I have. The first problem with it is that you are legally required to have insurance if you have a car. While I understand the necessity, part of the reason is to make sure that others are covered for medical damage which wouldn't be an issue if medical coverage was provided by the state. But the insurance companies can discriminate against you based on information that no other businesses would be able to including age and marital status. They are able to do this because they have convinced married adults that their rates will go down if they don't have to pay for the statistically higher damages associated with young, single people. Well, fuck you. We have anti-discrimination laws to prevent judgments based on these kinds of gross generalities, but you think that just because it isn't racial or sexist, it's okay? Or what about neighborhoods? Sure, different neighborhoods have more traffic accidents, but this policy discriminates against people who live in poor, inner city environments leading to more uninsured drivers and more hit-and-runs. But insurance companies don't take the same risks that we do. They have statistical experts (not unlike casinos) who can assure them that the gains are greater than the losses. While we take the risk, they just cash the check. Maybe that is how it needs to be, but let's make it a government institution so that (A) their discriminatory practices can be held to scrutiny and accountability, and (B) those profits can go to the government and not the rich business owners who don't have to do anything to earn it.
Energy - Energy is not a private concern. It is a public concern and private businesses have abused their power far too often. In the wake of eight years of scandals, it can be easy to forget the California energy crisis of 2000 and the abusive manipulation of the Enron corporation. Small businesses went under because they couldn't afford rising energy prices. Millions of Californians were paying increased rates based on manipulation of energy production. Many people suffered so few could benefit. The failure was laid at the feet of California Governor Gray Davis leading to his impeachment and the election of Republican puppet Arnold Schwarzenegger. I often hear companies say that coal and nuclear power produce so much more energy than solar, but solar is clean and infinitely renewable. What they really want is the most energy for the least expense. And if you have ever driven along I-5, you know that there is no shortage of empty land to build solar plants on. Our energy concerns should be placed in the hands of the people who have to deal with the long-term reprecussions of our environmental policies. Businesses look at the bottom line and the short-term needs of their investors.
Communications - The communications industry is another big capitalist scam. Their rates are entirely determined by one another and bear absolutely no relation to their actual spending cost.
Cell phones, cable, and internet were a fantastic market to try to instigate new business practices which had already been rejected by their parent land-line telephone services and broadcast television. AOL charged (and still charges, as far as I know) internet services per hour. Cell phones give you packaged plans, yearly commitments, free text for people under certain conditions. It's all bullshit and they get away with it because they can. Communications are vital to the public health and public interest which is why I think this industry should be nationalized under a single, low annual payment for all calls in the US and Canada including cell calls, text messages, and land-lines. Private businesses can market their own hardware including cell phones and modems, but these hyper-inflated plans need to go away.
So there you have it. Five industries which I believe should be nationalized for the good of the people and the strength of the government. Am I worried that nationalization could make these industries as frustrating to deal with as the DMV or USPS? Absolutely, but let's face it, are they any better now? These are incredibly powerful businesses who have consistently demonstrated a selfish abuse of their power over the citizens. By nationalizing these businesses, we would not only help to defend ourselves from present and future monopolistic practices, but enable us to dictate responsible future growth while providing desperately needed income on the federal, state, and local level which could, amongst other things, be used to supplement tax income and lower overall rates.
When I have time to do more research, I will analyze the reasons for and benefits of nationalization for each of these industries in greater detail in a later post.
In the meantime, are there any industries which you would nationalize? Why or why not? What about the opposite? Is there anything that you would privatize? I would like to know.
Medicine - This is the most obvious and while I'm pretty much required to make a post about it sooner or later, let me just say that opponents to socialized medicine are selfish idiots. Every other first world country has universal health care. It is not, in anyway, controversial to those who have it. By offering universal health care to everyone who needs it, we can more efficiently protect ourselves from outbreaks, have a stronger work force, prevent the spread of STDs, and start cutting off pharmaceutical companies who are pushing their products into doctor's offices to supplement their income. We've needed this for a long time and the only reason we don't have it is Republican propaganda and fear mongering.
Banking - I know of no industry that is so restrictive, manipulative, and necessary for average Americans. They sneak in additional charges and restructure plans to exploit the ignorance of their customers. They make money off of our investments and pay back an extremely small percentage. They are inefficient and most often provide poor service. There is nothing to be lost by nationalizing the banking system and a whole lot to be gained. Imagine if your credit and loan payments could be deducted from your taxes? Maybe not the whole thing, but if you are swamped with debt, wouldn't it be nice to know that money was going to possibly help improve roads or pay for schools instead of just going to a bunch of rich guys? What about school loans? I pay to a company called Direct Loans... which I know nothing about. When I took out a federal student loan, it defaulted to this private business. I know nothing about the politics of this business which obviously has an fiscal interest in higher education rates and less scholarships and grants. If I were paying directly to a government institution, they might not spend it wisely, but at least they would be accountable.
Insurance - As far as I'm concerned, insurance is a scam. I will talk about auto insurance since this is the only kind I have. The first problem with it is that you are legally required to have insurance if you have a car. While I understand the necessity, part of the reason is to make sure that others are covered for medical damage which wouldn't be an issue if medical coverage was provided by the state. But the insurance companies can discriminate against you based on information that no other businesses would be able to including age and marital status. They are able to do this because they have convinced married adults that their rates will go down if they don't have to pay for the statistically higher damages associated with young, single people. Well, fuck you. We have anti-discrimination laws to prevent judgments based on these kinds of gross generalities, but you think that just because it isn't racial or sexist, it's okay? Or what about neighborhoods? Sure, different neighborhoods have more traffic accidents, but this policy discriminates against people who live in poor, inner city environments leading to more uninsured drivers and more hit-and-runs. But insurance companies don't take the same risks that we do. They have statistical experts (not unlike casinos) who can assure them that the gains are greater than the losses. While we take the risk, they just cash the check. Maybe that is how it needs to be, but let's make it a government institution so that (A) their discriminatory practices can be held to scrutiny and accountability, and (B) those profits can go to the government and not the rich business owners who don't have to do anything to earn it.
Energy - Energy is not a private concern. It is a public concern and private businesses have abused their power far too often. In the wake of eight years of scandals, it can be easy to forget the California energy crisis of 2000 and the abusive manipulation of the Enron corporation. Small businesses went under because they couldn't afford rising energy prices. Millions of Californians were paying increased rates based on manipulation of energy production. Many people suffered so few could benefit. The failure was laid at the feet of California Governor Gray Davis leading to his impeachment and the election of Republican puppet Arnold Schwarzenegger. I often hear companies say that coal and nuclear power produce so much more energy than solar, but solar is clean and infinitely renewable. What they really want is the most energy for the least expense. And if you have ever driven along I-5, you know that there is no shortage of empty land to build solar plants on. Our energy concerns should be placed in the hands of the people who have to deal with the long-term reprecussions of our environmental policies. Businesses look at the bottom line and the short-term needs of their investors.Communications - The communications industry is another big capitalist scam. Their rates are entirely determined by one another and bear absolutely no relation to their actual spending cost.
Cell phones, cable, and internet were a fantastic market to try to instigate new business practices which had already been rejected by their parent land-line telephone services and broadcast television. AOL charged (and still charges, as far as I know) internet services per hour. Cell phones give you packaged plans, yearly commitments, free text for people under certain conditions. It's all bullshit and they get away with it because they can. Communications are vital to the public health and public interest which is why I think this industry should be nationalized under a single, low annual payment for all calls in the US and Canada including cell calls, text messages, and land-lines. Private businesses can market their own hardware including cell phones and modems, but these hyper-inflated plans need to go away.So there you have it. Five industries which I believe should be nationalized for the good of the people and the strength of the government. Am I worried that nationalization could make these industries as frustrating to deal with as the DMV or USPS? Absolutely, but let's face it, are they any better now? These are incredibly powerful businesses who have consistently demonstrated a selfish abuse of their power over the citizens. By nationalizing these businesses, we would not only help to defend ourselves from present and future monopolistic practices, but enable us to dictate responsible future growth while providing desperately needed income on the federal, state, and local level which could, amongst other things, be used to supplement tax income and lower overall rates.
When I have time to do more research, I will analyze the reasons for and benefits of nationalization for each of these industries in greater detail in a later post.
In the meantime, are there any industries which you would nationalize? Why or why not? What about the opposite? Is there anything that you would privatize? I would like to know.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Screw bipartisanship
Why Obama Must Not Work With Republicans
Ever wonder why the Republican Party's foreign "policy" got so off the wall and bellicose? Want to know why we're in two wars? Want to know why so many evangelicals hate Obama for saying he'll negotiate with Muslims? Want to know why President Obama should not try to work with Republicans?
All you need to know is that the Republican/Sara/Palin base of evangelical support is rooting for war, death and killing as a longed for -- even prayed for -- conclusion to human existence. No kidding! Understand what I'm going to tell you here, and you'll understand what went so wrong with America with W. Bush and why we are the most dangerous country on earth. Shorthand: we have nukes and risk being run by kooks. And, until the election of 2008, an evangelical born-again kook was running our country.
Disclosure: I'm the son of one of the evangelical's foremost thinkers, the late Francis Schaeffer. And until I left the fold in the mid 1980s I was intimately involved with the Religious Right and have been (until quite recently) a life-long Republican. I knew Jerry Jenkins' and Tim LaHaye personally and both are followers of my father.
The wild financial success of Jerry Jenkins' and Tim LaHaye's Left Behind series of sixteen novels is about belonging to the winning side. The books have made hundreds of millions of dollars while spawning an "End Times" industry, inclusive of Left Behind wall paper, screen savers, children's books and video games. The evangelicals -- and hence, from the early 1980s until the election of President Obama in 2008, the Religious Right as it informed US policy through the then dominant Republican Party -- are in the grip of an apocalyptic "Rapture" cult centered on revenge and vindication.
This End Times cult is built on a literalistic interpretation of the book of Revelation. The book was the last to be included in the canon of the New Testament. It was only recognized gradually as canonical late in the process -- after the year 400 AD -- of collecting the gospels and various letters included into the New Testament. The historic Church remained so suspicious of the book Revelation that to this day in the Orthodox Church it has never been included as part of the cyclical public readings of scripture. In other words the book of the Bible that the historic Church found (and finds) most problematic and dangerous is the one that American evangelicals have latched on to like flies on spilled jam.
According to Jenkins and LaHaye the "chosen" (in other words born-again evangelicals) will be airlifted to safety in the "Rapture" when the "End" comes. At last evangelical Americans will know "we" were right about everything and "they" were wrong. We'll know that because Spaceship Jesus will come back and take us away leaving everyone else to ponder just how very lost they are because they failed to say the words: "I accept Jesus as my personal savior."
Evangelicals not only wish to be proved right they also want revenge on all other religions and peoples. Not unlike Islamic terrorists who behead their enemies, the evangelicals relish the prospect of God doing the messy killing for them as they watch from on high. It isn't enough for them to cast the individual "apostate" out of their midst, or to denounce the Roman Catholics as the "whore of Babylon," they want revenge on all people not like them. The Left Behind novels provides access to vicarious revenge . No need to wait for the End Times, you can get your violent jollies now!
Jenkins and LaHaye describe various deadly scenarios proceeding and following believers being "snatched away" to safety leaving the infidels to their punishment. The authors cash in on years of evangelical paranoia and imagined victimhood. (A strange belief imbued with losers' self pity by people who have run Congress and the White House until this election!)
Jenkins and LaHaye provide an entertaining book version of a cosmic I-told-you-so from the backward earthly losers (as evangelicals perceive themselves in this the age of science and secularism) to the earthly winners (as evangelicals think of all those clever big city, over-educated progressive secular "elites"). Glory be! As God kills them, including those "secular Jews" running the New York Times who will have to admit we were right all along just before Jesus blasts them!
The promotional copy for one of the books -- Shadowed -- promises plenty of we-told-you-so entertainment; "After God intervenes with a miracle of global proportions, the tide is turned on international atheism!"
God Is Great! Kill them God! Kill those "international atheists!" They made fun of us because we refused to believe in evolution and built a creationist theme park! They laughed at us for opening our Friday night football games with prayer! They even laughed at Billy Graham, our one and only saint, when his son Franklin raised 28 million dollars to build the Graham theme park! Strike them Lord!
Jenkins and LaHaye are End Times revenge pornographers. Reading about violence against unbelievers is the evangelical Viagra. Take this passage from Glorious Appearing in which Jesus slaughters unbelievers;
The riders not thrown leaped from their horses and tried to control them with the reins, but even as they struggled, their own flesh dissolved, their eyes melted, and their tongues disintegrated... the soldiers stood briefly as skeletons in now-baggy uniforms, then dropped in heaps of bones as the blinded horses continued to fume and rant and rave. Seconds later the same plague afflicted the horses, their flesh and eyes and tongues melting away, leaving grotesque skeletons standing, before they too rattled to the pavement.
Evangelicals can't get enough of this trash. The video game Left Behind: Eternal Forces was developed by a publicly traded company, Left Behind Games. The player controls a "Tribulation Forces" team and allows the player to "use the power of prayer to strengthen your troops in combat and wield modern military weaponry throughout the game world." The game blesses and encourages religious violence.
Guided by a literal reading of the prophetic sections of the Bible the expanding Left Behind entertainment empire also feeds the delusions of Christian Zionists who are convinced that the world is heading to a final Battle of Armageddon. Christian Zionists led by the likes of John McCain's Jabba the Hutt lookalike and big fan -- the Reverend John Hagee -- believe that war in the Middle East is God's will. Hagee predicts in his book, Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning to the World, that Russia and the Arabs will invade Israel and then will be destroyed by God. This will cause the Antichrist -- the head of the European Union -- to stir up a confrontation over Israel between China and the West. Armageddon will ensue and the Second Coming of Christ.
This would all be a joke except for the fact that sixty million Americans identify themselves as evangelicals. That's a lot of crazy voters -- as McCain proved he recognized when he nominated the religious Right's pet evangelical goof Sara Palin to be his running mate to re-energize the army of goofs who gave us the 8 years of W that brought us to war and economic ruin.
Note to Jews: the evangelicals say they are the State of Israel's friend, love Jews etc., etc. Wake up! In the evangelical "game" Jews are just apocalyptic Jesus fodder! With friends like these you don't need enemies. Friends of Israel -- and I am one -- don't see Israel as nothing more than a pawn in the End Times. Dig under the surface and you'll find Hagee, Jenkins, LaHaye are profoundly and fatally anti-Semitic. Follow their uncompromising "Rapture logic" and Israel will be destroyed. These people will always push the US government to take the hardest line against the Arabs. That is no long term favor to Israel. Eternal war is no answer. Check out the area's demographics. Make peace while there is time!
Christian Zionists support all violent actions by Israel for any reason because in the fevered evangelical mind the nation of Israel is presently standing in for Jesus-the-avenger-on-evildoers everywhere, i.e. Arabs, all of whom (according to the born-again porn peddlers) are soon destined to burn anyway! So, who cares if 10 Israeli deaths from Hamas' rockets fired into southern Israel are avenged by the killing of 1,300 men women and children in Gaza?USA! USA! Go Jesus! Time for another godly session on my Left Behind: Eternal Forces video game! Hurry Jesus come back and kill em' all.
And that is the Republican's base. Good luck to President Obama trying to find bipartisan solutions to our world wide problems with these folks.
Frank Schaeffer is author of Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back Now in paperback.Saturday, March 7, 2009
Douglas Rushkoff
I think that, in many ways, the further you look back in time, the clearer things become. Sort of "Hindsight is 20/20 multiplied by time to the power of infinity." Basically, the idea holds that as we become more intelligent and more evolved, we can look back and point at things with our evolved sensibilities and say, "That was good and that wasn't." It doesn't work for everything and there is a cultural bias involved, but when it comes to artists, philosophers, scientists, and social leaders, the proof is in their results. Not only have their ideas stood the test of time, we have seen their influences and analyzed them to death. Consequently, while it can be fairly easily to look back on anything before the 20th century with an objective gaze, everything after that becomes a lot murkier. Add to this the fact that our contemporary issues are more closely and causally linked to the events, people, and culture of the past 100 years, it can be especially difficult to gain enough emotional and intellectual distance to even begin to look at it objectively.
But when we look to history for wisdom and inspiration, the language is awkward and unnecessarily verbose by our modern standards of language economy (obviously not my standards) and the state of the world was so extremely different that we have to question its value in the modern age. John Locke, for example, held that nothing was unnatural; that man, being a natural creation, was in capable of doing or thinking anything unnatural. That's all well, good, and logical, but since Locke died in 1704, he never saw a horseless carriage, much less nuclear bombs, space shuttles, the internet, and Michael Jackson.
For those in Generation X, heroes, great men and women, are confined to the history books. Einstein is dead. John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and John Lennon were all killed. We were left with Reagan and Clinton... and that footnote president in-between. Bush the Lesser just about strangled our last remaining hope for the human race, but I like to think that we will take our horror from the last eight years and turn it into something good. I'm not pinning all of my hopes on Obama, like some people are. He is in a position to do a lot of good, but what we really need are people to bring about change for themselves with their own vision and their own voice.
All of this is to say that it is rare for me to find many contemporary voices which speak with intelligence, wisdom, clarity, and (on top of all of that) actually try to push forward with something they believe in. For me, Douglas Rushkoff is one of those voices. I originally discovered Rushkoff watching a DVD called Disinformation, a controversial television show which never aired. Disinformation has a policy of reporting everything that you don't hear from the mainstream. Some of it is just fucking nutty as all get out, but a lot of it is just common sense. Some of the contributors include Howard Zinn, Howard Bloom, Arianna Huffington, Peter Breggin, Grant Morrison, Neil Gaiman, and Douglas Rushkoff.
In the DVD's special features, Rushkoff was at the Disinformation Convention addressing the counterculture audience with a mixture of self-identification and a healthy dose of humble skepticism. In a room full of angry countercultural types, he spoke about finding the humanity in others. I was stunned and knew I'd have to find out more about this guy.
I picked up his book, Media Virus, about how subversive messages are used in pop culture, followed by his brilliant novel Ecstasy Club (currently out of print, but available used on Amazon) and the equally brilliant Exit Strategy. He has written two comic books: Club Zero G and Testament. He is a frequent contributor to NPR and a documentarian for PBS. In his day job, he is a professor of media theory at NYU.
Check out these videos when you have some time to spare. Rushkoff brilliantly analyzes the destructive effect of living in a world consumed by advertizing and led by greed. Check out the PBS documentaries: The Pursaders and Merchants of Cool here.
But when we look to history for wisdom and inspiration, the language is awkward and unnecessarily verbose by our modern standards of language economy (obviously not my standards) and the state of the world was so extremely different that we have to question its value in the modern age. John Locke, for example, held that nothing was unnatural; that man, being a natural creation, was in capable of doing or thinking anything unnatural. That's all well, good, and logical, but since Locke died in 1704, he never saw a horseless carriage, much less nuclear bombs, space shuttles, the internet, and Michael Jackson.
For those in Generation X, heroes, great men and women, are confined to the history books. Einstein is dead. John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and John Lennon were all killed. We were left with Reagan and Clinton... and that footnote president in-between. Bush the Lesser just about strangled our last remaining hope for the human race, but I like to think that we will take our horror from the last eight years and turn it into something good. I'm not pinning all of my hopes on Obama, like some people are. He is in a position to do a lot of good, but what we really need are people to bring about change for themselves with their own vision and their own voice.
All of this is to say that it is rare for me to find many contemporary voices which speak with intelligence, wisdom, clarity, and (on top of all of that) actually try to push forward with something they believe in. For me, Douglas Rushkoff is one of those voices. I originally discovered Rushkoff watching a DVD called Disinformation, a controversial television show which never aired. Disinformation has a policy of reporting everything that you don't hear from the mainstream. Some of it is just fucking nutty as all get out, but a lot of it is just common sense. Some of the contributors include Howard Zinn, Howard Bloom, Arianna Huffington, Peter Breggin, Grant Morrison, Neil Gaiman, and Douglas Rushkoff.
In the DVD's special features, Rushkoff was at the Disinformation Convention addressing the counterculture audience with a mixture of self-identification and a healthy dose of humble skepticism. In a room full of angry countercultural types, he spoke about finding the humanity in others. I was stunned and knew I'd have to find out more about this guy.I picked up his book, Media Virus, about how subversive messages are used in pop culture, followed by his brilliant novel Ecstasy Club (currently out of print, but available used on Amazon) and the equally brilliant Exit Strategy. He has written two comic books: Club Zero G and Testament. He is a frequent contributor to NPR and a documentarian for PBS. In his day job, he is a professor of media theory at NYU.
Check out these videos when you have some time to spare. Rushkoff brilliantly analyzes the destructive effect of living in a world consumed by advertizing and led by greed. Check out the PBS documentaries: The Pursaders and Merchants of Cool here.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Buddhist Socialism
The words of the Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso:
Q: You have often stated that you would like to achieve a synthesis between Buddhism and Marxism. What is the appeal of Marxism for you?
A: Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes--that is, the majority--as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism.
As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers' International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.
I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is nor much left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of compassion.
The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.
Why Socialism?
by Albert Einstein
(unedited)
Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.
Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has -- as is well known -- been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.
But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.
Second, socialism is directed toward a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and -- if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous -- are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half-unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.
For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.
Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supranational organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?"
I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?
It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.
Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society -- in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence -- that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word "society."
It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished -- just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human beings which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.
Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.
If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time -- which, looking back, seems so idyllic -- is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.
I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor -- not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production -- that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods -- may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.
For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call "workers" all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production -- although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. In so far as the labor contract is "free," what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.
Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.
The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the "free labor contract" for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present-day economy does not differ much from "pure" capitalism.
Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.
This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?
(unedited)
Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has -- as is well known -- been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.
But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.
Second, socialism is directed toward a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and -- if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous -- are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half-unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.
For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.
Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supranational organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?"
I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?
It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.
Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society -- in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence -- that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word "society."
It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished -- just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human beings which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.
Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.
If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time -- which, looking back, seems so idyllic -- is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor -- not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production -- that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods -- may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.
For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call "workers" all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production -- although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. In so far as the labor contract is "free," what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.
Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.
The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the "free labor contract" for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present-day economy does not differ much from "pure" capitalism.
Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.
This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
On religion
Most of my friends are atheists. Most of my family are agnostic. Most of my neighbors are Protestant. I am a product of the secular left surrounded by the religious right. Personally, I don't feel comfortable identifying with any of these, but I feel that it is important to talk about if only because religious values influence politics and politics effects everyone in the country... and American politics effects everyone in the world.
Strangely, although my dad is rabidly anti-Christian today, growing up we didn't really talk about religion. My mom was (and still is) Christian in name only. This is the kind of Christian that doesn't subscribe to most of the ideas, but likes the idea of a benevolent Santa-God rewarding the good and punishing the bad (and everyone gets into Heaven, except maybe Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer). Naturally, it didn't take me long to notice that God didn't seem to be very good at his work, at least not on this planet.
My schools always had Christians and some of them were close friends... others hated enemies, but both fun to talk to. As a child, I believed in the Christian conception of God... probably for no other reason than so many others were certain of it. However, that idea went with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I could never reconcile the idea that good people working for a good lord would produce the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the slaughter of the Native American people (amongst other things, but I only had a fifth grade education). When I found out that Christianity and Islam were just off-shoots of Judaism, that settled it. No just God would create a belief that could be splintered into such divergent conflicting beliefs. And if such a God did exist, He was certainly not insuring that His church was acting in His name. AND if I was still wrong and God existed and supported His church (which was the Protestant church, as far as my young self knew), I could not feel morally comfortable blindly supporting a God who acted with such cruelty.
Now, I believe that almost everything in life comes down to a decision. You aren't born a Republican, a Democrat, a Socialist, an atheist, an agnostic, a Christian, a Muslim, or what have you. At some point you choose to believe in a set of values and ideas while rejecting others. The thoughtful person constantly questions his or her own beliefs no matter how well-founded. To ignore other ideas is to admit that your own ideas cannot withstand scrutiny. This is the root of the word "ignorance." Christianity (and many other religions, I imagine) champions the idea of faith. But what is faith other than ignorance? It is the willful decision to ignore conflicting information to preserve the pre-existing idea.
If I were a Christian, would I have faith in God, the Bible, or the church? To have faith in the church, I would have to accept either that every act of church-sponsored atrocity is good and necessary... or I would have to show foundation why the Protestant church is more likely to be the church of God than the Roman Catholic church (although Manifest Destiny was a product of the Protestant church). To have faith in the Bible, I would have to accept the literal truth of every word, but as Joe Rogan pointed out, Noah's Ark doesn't even make sense to kids. Add to that the fact that the Bible is virtually unreadable, there are thousands of different translations, and they were meant to be read in Ancient Hebrew which no longer exists. I could have faith in God (the way my mother seems to), but once you have divorced God from the church and the Bible, God can be whoever or whatever you want it to be.
So I decided that God, at least as I was told about him, did not exist leading me to the number one philosophical condition afflicting teenagers: existential angst. Does the universe have an order? Does life have a purpose? Is there life after death? If so, what kind of life? If not, why bother doing anything? How we face this question says a lot about us and there are just as many ways to face it as their are people on this Earth. For the religiously devout, there is ignorfaith - the decision to view conflicting ideas as the work of an evil trickster who is trying to remove ideas of comfort. In other words, they don't face this question.
Have you ever had a Christian say to you "If you don't believe in Heaven and Hell, why don't you just kill someone?" What this says to me as that the only reason these people have decided to be "good" is for fear of punishment. These are people who think that morality is about obeying rules and law. I have always found that morality is doing what you believe in despite rules, laws, punishment, or reward.
And then there is nihilism, often associated with Nietzsche, goths, and generally depressed people. This is the idea that there is no God, no meaning, no morality, no order, and no purpose. Anyone who thinks there is meaning is deluding themselves. I call this the pit of nihilism because people either get trapped in it or avoid it altogether. Although it's hard to argue with the rationality of this statement, I've never found it particularly useful. Add to this the fact that I have met far too many nihilists who use their "beyond good and evil" philosophy to justify being a total asshole.
It is clear to me why so many prefer faith to nihilism. I spent a good deal of time in existential angst living a life of purposelessness and depression. I used to fantasize every single day about killing myself, even though that was just as pointless as living. This consumed my life for pretty much all of my teenage years. It was very much like the Christian concept of Hell, but by this point, I could not simply fool myself with ignorfaith to escape. I didn't know if this self-inflicted hell would end. As far as I concerned, people just didn't notice or didn't care, but no one had any answers.
Unwilling to escape the same way I had came in, I tried to find a way to get past nihilism through education desperately searching for scraps of wisdom in a world which ignored the foundation of reason itself. Tumbling through nihilism, nothing is certain. It feels like you are falling and twisting in a dark abyss from which there is no escape. You reach for every possible handhold and it all dissolves through your fingers. The first thing which didn't dissolve, my first stepping stone in an uncertain world, was the Tao Te Ching (pronounced, and sometimes spelled, "dao de jing").
The Tao is not a religion. It is a philosophy. It translates as the "way" or the "path" without any pretensions. Unlike the Bible, the Tao Te Ching is only 38 pages written in short, simple phrases meant to be contemplated, but not accepted. Unlike the Bible, it does not say that it is true. In fact, the first phrase is "The Tao that can be written is not the eternal Tao." It even says that you should learn it, embody it, and then forget it. The writer, Lao Tzu, was smart enough to know that any belief can be taken out of context and used to support any belief no matter how contradictory it runs to the original intention.
And it is upon this foundation that I continue to build my belief system. Not on a shaky foundation of faith straddling the pit of nihilism, but within nihilism itself and reaching outward, from absolute skepticism toward what seems to be becoming an acceptance of everything. I quickly embraced some transcendentalist ideas, particularly the work of Ralph Waldo Emerson, which taught meaning not from the purification of the soul, but by the establishment of one's own values and character based on their own experiences. This existed neither in compliment or in contradiction to the idea of a spiritual universe and, in fact, left that for the individual to decide. Furthermore, it suggested that one should encourage the development of individual personal beliefs in others regardless of whether or not those ideas were the same as yours since their beliefs had to be true to their experiences.
René Decartes was a philosopher most famous for his solution to existential angst. He doubted everything, even the idea that the sun would rise in the morning. He did not accept the idea that, just because something had always happened, it always would. He also knew that reality could be incredibly deceptive and everyone's conception of reality was at least a little skewed, his own included. If he could not trust himself, who could he trust? His most famous breakthrough was "Cogito ergo sum" - "I think, therefore, I am." The idea behind this simple phrase is that although one can question the existence of god, life after death, and reality as a whole, one could not question thought because to do so requires the act of thinking. And if thought was being had, someone had to have it, therefore, he reasoned, he could be certain of his own existence. Although that doesn't seem like much, in the suffering of existential angst, it's enough.
As for where my philosophy and beliefs are now, I currently subscribe to a way of thought called subjectivism (which stands in contrast to Ayn Rand's deplorable objectivism). The essential idea is that while there may be such a thing as objective truth, since we live as very, very limited subjective beings we cannot ever know objective truth. We can only develop subjective truth. Knowing that our reality is subjective makes it much easier to reconcile other beliefs. It is basically an awareness that we are all equally ignorant and an acknowledgment that our beliefs are based on our individual experiences.
As someone who has had experiences that I would call supernatural, my subjective experience does not support atheism and that, in large part, is why I am writing this blog. My two best friends are atheists and I have been listening to some prominent atheists recently including Richard Dawkins, Bill Mahr, and Penn Jillette. And while I am 95-99% in support of what they say, I feel like they lump spirituality in with religion a bit too easily and are not humble in front of the vastness of the unknown. As Shakespeare once said, "There is more in heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy," and I think that's just as true today as it was then.
This post also serves to illustrate where my conception of modern socialism differs from Marxism. Karl Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses. I would agree with that (although I'd add spectator sports to it). But while talking with the Dalai Lama of Tibet, General Mao expressed this bigotry toward the Dalai Lama's beliefs. Like many Communists before him, he put his own beliefs before others and as a consequence, another beautiful culture is being wiped off of the Earth.
I recently read a book about Tibetan views on the ability of the mind to influence reality which I found fascinating. Whether true or not, the idea made me think of thought in new ways. Did you know Sir Isaac Newton was an alchemist? Unlike conventional science, alchemy believed in the influence of invisible forces which could act on the material world. Now this idea is not only common place, but we have managed to harness the power of invisible energy fields to send complex information across the globe instantly. To declare spirituality pointless is to strike at the very heart of imagination and creativity... at least for me.
To me, Christianity is religious, but not spiritual. I realized this while talking to a Christian friend when he said that Christianity holds that the individual is not divine. The individual is a sinner. They are freed from sin by the divinity of God (or Jesus, same diff). But in my experience, spirituality is about forming a connection between yourself and the universe. It is about exploring the universe by exploring yourself. The opposite is true as well. By learning about the universe, you learn how you came to exist and how the world around you functions. The Tao teaches that you should follow the way of the universe, and what better way to learn what is and is not in tune with the universe than to study science and history? By denying their own divinity, Christians deny an exploration into their self and the universe, but perhaps more importantly, they deny their place as a natural part of the universe. This can be harmful in the development of the individual and destructive to their environment.
Maybe spirituality isn't necessary. Maybe completely rational atheism is a better belief system, but science and reason have yet to explain many of the things which make life worth living: things like love, art, and beauty. Science may provide great insight, but where it does, it is called "soft" sciences like psychology, sociology, and philosophy.
So what do I advocate? Well, to borrow a phrase from Star Trek: "Infinite diversity in infinite combinations." I believe that all people should explore their spiritual selves and come to their own conclusions. I think we should value those who have different beliefs than our own, but I also believe that those beliefs should be tested. Faith is no more than ignorance. Enlightenment comes from a lifetime spent changing and refining your ideas. And science, for all of its broad applications, does not have the monopoly on wisdom.
Strangely, although my dad is rabidly anti-Christian today, growing up we didn't really talk about religion. My mom was (and still is) Christian in name only. This is the kind of Christian that doesn't subscribe to most of the ideas, but likes the idea of a benevolent Santa-God rewarding the good and punishing the bad (and everyone gets into Heaven, except maybe Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer). Naturally, it didn't take me long to notice that God didn't seem to be very good at his work, at least not on this planet.My schools always had Christians and some of them were close friends... others hated enemies, but both fun to talk to. As a child, I believed in the Christian conception of God... probably for no other reason than so many others were certain of it. However, that idea went with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I could never reconcile the idea that good people working for a good lord would produce the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the slaughter of the Native American people (amongst other things, but I only had a fifth grade education). When I found out that Christianity and Islam were just off-shoots of Judaism, that settled it. No just God would create a belief that could be splintered into such divergent conflicting beliefs. And if such a God did exist, He was certainly not insuring that His church was acting in His name. AND if I was still wrong and God existed and supported His church (which was the Protestant church, as far as my young self knew), I could not feel morally comfortable blindly supporting a God who acted with such cruelty.
Now, I believe that almost everything in life comes down to a decision. You aren't born a Republican, a Democrat, a Socialist, an atheist, an agnostic, a Christian, a Muslim, or what have you. At some point you choose to believe in a set of values and ideas while rejecting others. The thoughtful person constantly questions his or her own beliefs no matter how well-founded. To ignore other ideas is to admit that your own ideas cannot withstand scrutiny. This is the root of the word "ignorance." Christianity (and many other religions, I imagine) champions the idea of faith. But what is faith other than ignorance? It is the willful decision to ignore conflicting information to preserve the pre-existing idea.
If I were a Christian, would I have faith in God, the Bible, or the church? To have faith in the church, I would have to accept either that every act of church-sponsored atrocity is good and necessary... or I would have to show foundation why the Protestant church is more likely to be the church of God than the Roman Catholic church (although Manifest Destiny was a product of the Protestant church). To have faith in the Bible, I would have to accept the literal truth of every word, but as Joe Rogan pointed out, Noah's Ark doesn't even make sense to kids. Add to that the fact that the Bible is virtually unreadable, there are thousands of different translations, and they were meant to be read in Ancient Hebrew which no longer exists. I could have faith in God (the way my mother seems to), but once you have divorced God from the church and the Bible, God can be whoever or whatever you want it to be.So I decided that God, at least as I was told about him, did not exist leading me to the number one philosophical condition afflicting teenagers: existential angst. Does the universe have an order? Does life have a purpose? Is there life after death? If so, what kind of life? If not, why bother doing anything? How we face this question says a lot about us and there are just as many ways to face it as their are people on this Earth. For the religiously devout, there is ignorfaith - the decision to view conflicting ideas as the work of an evil trickster who is trying to remove ideas of comfort. In other words, they don't face this question.
Have you ever had a Christian say to you "If you don't believe in Heaven and Hell, why don't you just kill someone?" What this says to me as that the only reason these people have decided to be "good" is for fear of punishment. These are people who think that morality is about obeying rules and law. I have always found that morality is doing what you believe in despite rules, laws, punishment, or reward.And then there is nihilism, often associated with Nietzsche, goths, and generally depressed people. This is the idea that there is no God, no meaning, no morality, no order, and no purpose. Anyone who thinks there is meaning is deluding themselves. I call this the pit of nihilism because people either get trapped in it or avoid it altogether. Although it's hard to argue with the rationality of this statement, I've never found it particularly useful. Add to this the fact that I have met far too many nihilists who use their "beyond good and evil" philosophy to justify being a total asshole.
It is clear to me why so many prefer faith to nihilism. I spent a good deal of time in existential angst living a life of purposelessness and depression. I used to fantasize every single day about killing myself, even though that was just as pointless as living. This consumed my life for pretty much all of my teenage years. It was very much like the Christian concept of Hell, but by this point, I could not simply fool myself with ignorfaith to escape. I didn't know if this self-inflicted hell would end. As far as I concerned, people just didn't notice or didn't care, but no one had any answers.Unwilling to escape the same way I had came in, I tried to find a way to get past nihilism through education desperately searching for scraps of wisdom in a world which ignored the foundation of reason itself. Tumbling through nihilism, nothing is certain. It feels like you are falling and twisting in a dark abyss from which there is no escape. You reach for every possible handhold and it all dissolves through your fingers. The first thing which didn't dissolve, my first stepping stone in an uncertain world, was the Tao Te Ching (pronounced, and sometimes spelled, "dao de jing").
The Tao is not a religion. It is a philosophy. It translates as the "way" or the "path" without any pretensions. Unlike the Bible, the Tao Te Ching is only 38 pages written in short, simple phrases meant to be contemplated, but not accepted. Unlike the Bible, it does not say that it is true. In fact, the first phrase is "The Tao that can be written is not the eternal Tao." It even says that you should learn it, embody it, and then forget it. The writer, Lao Tzu, was smart enough to know that any belief can be taken out of context and used to support any belief no matter how contradictory it runs to the original intention.
And it is upon this foundation that I continue to build my belief system. Not on a shaky foundation of faith straddling the pit of nihilism, but within nihilism itself and reaching outward, from absolute skepticism toward what seems to be becoming an acceptance of everything. I quickly embraced some transcendentalist ideas, particularly the work of Ralph Waldo Emerson, which taught meaning not from the purification of the soul, but by the establishment of one's own values and character based on their own experiences. This existed neither in compliment or in contradiction to the idea of a spiritual universe and, in fact, left that for the individual to decide. Furthermore, it suggested that one should encourage the development of individual personal beliefs in others regardless of whether or not those ideas were the same as yours since their beliefs had to be true to their experiences.
René Decartes was a philosopher most famous for his solution to existential angst. He doubted everything, even the idea that the sun would rise in the morning. He did not accept the idea that, just because something had always happened, it always would. He also knew that reality could be incredibly deceptive and everyone's conception of reality was at least a little skewed, his own included. If he could not trust himself, who could he trust? His most famous breakthrough was "Cogito ergo sum" - "I think, therefore, I am." The idea behind this simple phrase is that although one can question the existence of god, life after death, and reality as a whole, one could not question thought because to do so requires the act of thinking. And if thought was being had, someone had to have it, therefore, he reasoned, he could be certain of his own existence. Although that doesn't seem like much, in the suffering of existential angst, it's enough.
As for where my philosophy and beliefs are now, I currently subscribe to a way of thought called subjectivism (which stands in contrast to Ayn Rand's deplorable objectivism). The essential idea is that while there may be such a thing as objective truth, since we live as very, very limited subjective beings we cannot ever know objective truth. We can only develop subjective truth. Knowing that our reality is subjective makes it much easier to reconcile other beliefs. It is basically an awareness that we are all equally ignorant and an acknowledgment that our beliefs are based on our individual experiences.
As someone who has had experiences that I would call supernatural, my subjective experience does not support atheism and that, in large part, is why I am writing this blog. My two best friends are atheists and I have been listening to some prominent atheists recently including Richard Dawkins, Bill Mahr, and Penn Jillette. And while I am 95-99% in support of what they say, I feel like they lump spirituality in with religion a bit too easily and are not humble in front of the vastness of the unknown. As Shakespeare once said, "There is more in heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy," and I think that's just as true today as it was then.This post also serves to illustrate where my conception of modern socialism differs from Marxism. Karl Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses. I would agree with that (although I'd add spectator sports to it). But while talking with the Dalai Lama of Tibet, General Mao expressed this bigotry toward the Dalai Lama's beliefs. Like many Communists before him, he put his own beliefs before others and as a consequence, another beautiful culture is being wiped off of the Earth.
I recently read a book about Tibetan views on the ability of the mind to influence reality which I found fascinating. Whether true or not, the idea made me think of thought in new ways. Did you know Sir Isaac Newton was an alchemist? Unlike conventional science, alchemy believed in the influence of invisible forces which could act on the material world. Now this idea is not only common place, but we have managed to harness the power of invisible energy fields to send complex information across the globe instantly. To declare spirituality pointless is to strike at the very heart of imagination and creativity... at least for me.To me, Christianity is religious, but not spiritual. I realized this while talking to a Christian friend when he said that Christianity holds that the individual is not divine. The individual is a sinner. They are freed from sin by the divinity of God (or Jesus, same diff). But in my experience, spirituality is about forming a connection between yourself and the universe. It is about exploring the universe by exploring yourself. The opposite is true as well. By learning about the universe, you learn how you came to exist and how the world around you functions. The Tao teaches that you should follow the way of the universe, and what better way to learn what is and is not in tune with the universe than to study science and history? By denying their own divinity, Christians deny an exploration into their self and the universe, but perhaps more importantly, they deny their place as a natural part of the universe. This can be harmful in the development of the individual and destructive to their environment.
Maybe spirituality isn't necessary. Maybe completely rational atheism is a better belief system, but science and reason have yet to explain many of the things which make life worth living: things like love, art, and beauty. Science may provide great insight, but where it does, it is called "soft" sciences like psychology, sociology, and philosophy.So what do I advocate? Well, to borrow a phrase from Star Trek: "Infinite diversity in infinite combinations." I believe that all people should explore their spiritual selves and come to their own conclusions. I think we should value those who have different beliefs than our own, but I also believe that those beliefs should be tested. Faith is no more than ignorance. Enlightenment comes from a lifetime spent changing and refining your ideas. And science, for all of its broad applications, does not have the monopoly on wisdom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
