12.28.06
Posted in Theory, Politics at 1:41 pm by diantus
What constitutes a healthy system for an increasingly globalized world? This is a question which increasing occupies my thinking. Consequently, this makes it rather difficult for me to write about the subject in a solid and well formulated manner. After all, we are entering into relatively new territory here, and these are simply theoretical postulations on my part. With that in mind, I ask my readers to be gentle with me while I proceed.
As I have already suggested, successfully completing the task of global integration requires that we abandon our notions of nation sovereignty. After all, economic integration requires a certain flexibility that nation states and the pressures that they exert to create collective identities and cultures can not help but oppose. After all, our identity as a people exists in opposition to the identity of others. In the end though, this is something of a farce. The fundamental nature of human beings is the same across these boundaries, and we must understand that the existence of alternate choices in spirit, intellect, and lifestyle do not always represent a threat to our own. In support of this, the goal of social and economic integration is essential to the creation of a harmonized global system.
This brings us to the question of international relations and the balance of power. By dismantling the nation-state, so many assumptions begin to fall apart, but this does not change the fact that human societies strive for a certain sense of equilibrium both among and between themselves. I believe that these can be overcome by concentrating on communities instead of superstructures; our top-heavy civilizations can begin a return to a focus on the individual. This is accomplished by the very act of economic integration. Let us consider to example of the United States and China.
At present, I can think of no two nations whose national objectives and governmental characters are more diametrically opposed. Nevertheless, the prospect of war between the two is almost completely unthinkable. Notwithstanding the inherent difficulty in one successfully conquering the other in a traditional military campaign, these two nations are now so closely linked economically, that open conflict would do almost as much damage to the victor as to the victim. Both are trapped alongside the other. What keeps them separated is the character of their governments and the resulting separation of national goals. On a micro level however, the citizenry of both nations have more and more to gain from increased cooperation between them. This constitutes a fundamental conflict in the global balance of power.
The evolution that I see occurring here is one of “non-geographic association.†Through the advances in communication technology, will slowly begin to usurp national interest as the driving force between interpersonal relationships. In my mind, this is similar to what many pundits feared with the rise of international Communist associations in the mid-twentieth century, where in certain elements within a given country would place the needs of the International before the needs of their nation. Ideology was seen as a threat to national power and security – so it shall become again. However, it is become far easier to organize across national boundaries, and geographic continuity will become increasing irrelevant. We are entering the age of the Idea, when ideas will overtake local community and the limitations of national power. Economic integration is the first step to the dissolution of traditional social cohesion and the increasing importance of voluntary association.
I see an approaching age of societies built around communications networks and shared ideas instead of forced cooperation. After all, the modern state Leviathan depends upon the shared belief of its people more than anything else. What happens when you hold an election and no one shows up? The government will collapse. How does the notion of government survive? By adopting a posture of neutrality – the objective is no longer to dominate the masses, but to provide a level playing field. This would be a legalistic, and exist primarily as a disinterested, corporatist bureaucracy that would have to operate like an independent arbiter of human interaction – specifically economic interaction.
Despite the contemporary obsession with societal values, the lack of attention paid to economic issues is bound to catch up with us. It is through the manipulation and distribution of capital that our societies function. As such, an opening of the economy forces us to examine the possibility of opening our society to increasing influence from outside. This influence works both ways though. While we may find ourselves more at the mercy of outside forces, they are forced to bow to our own whims. This merging of international interest creates cohesion across classes and productive modes, meaning that similar interests and socioeconomic positions usurp national boundaries in ways that we cannot adequately imagine.
I see this new organization as being the union between trades, workers, managers, and businesses. The supranational alliance of business is already well in place. All that remains is to allow the laboring classes to organize outside of national boundaries. They must be able to create organization that fully take advantage of the flexibility afforded to the capital classes. In other words, the single greatest challenge facing us today is to correct the fundamental imbalance in access and organizational freedom between these two opposed groups. The fundamental conflict of our times is the same one that we have always had: class.
In this regard, steps must be taken to recreate some degree of class consciousness on the part of the global proletarian. By allowing capitalism to expand and keeping a strong social base, we can help to ensure higher levels of equality and egalitarianism – both of which are critical to developing a better and more just society. You create the impetus by educating people and helping them understand the fundamental connection of basic interests between them.
Intellectuals then must use existing media and governmental structures to emphasize this fact of contemporary global development. The same way the right wing of government was co-opted by the fundamentalist organs in our society, efforts must be taken to reconstitute labor organizations – this time internationally. It is no small task, but it is one for which an intellectual and political framework is needed. It’s a lot of work and a long term goal, but it’s not impossible. I invite you to join me in developing something and bringing resources together. Good luck class!
Permalink
12.26.06
Posted in Politics, Governance at 7:29 pm by diantus
           Despite changes in our political bodies, I think that progressives in the United States have a duty to remain vigilant. The regressive, anti-intellectual Republican new right is still out there and the alliance between the hyper-rich and the nation’s poor fundamentalists still threatens our future stability.
           I have said some cruel things about fundamentalists. For the most part, I stand by the accusations I have made concern the utter insanity of supporting the policies of the Republican machine in the face of their ongoing failures to deliver either a sensible economic or social policy. I also stand by the assertion that ration public policy cannot be based on religious interpretation. After all, under the guidance of the reactionary right we have seen public debts rage out of control, education continue its steady slide towards oblivion, the destructive hubris of escalating nationalism, and the rise of a fanatical vein of religious fundamentalism and its accompanying unyielding ignorance. Do we expect this to simply disappear?
           To the contrary I’m afraid. The spark of life that this reactionary movement has been given will not be snuffed out by one set of elections. In fact, now that the left has scored a minor victory, we simply must continue this push and use what inertia that we have gained to make positive changes. If we can hold on, we can hopefully show that results give better gains than victimhood. Unlike the reactionary right, we can offer solutions to problems – not just more problems to endlessly complain about.
           There is a very real set of sociological problems that accompany the march of the reactionary right. Namely they threaten to create a whole underclass of disenfranchised, undereducated, and angry poor; especially among white males. Undereducated white men fill the ranks to these reactionary movements more than any other single group. Their confusion has turned into such anger that any attempt to educate them will only lead to more rage and accusations of thought control. They look backwards at a mythological time when heroes seemed bigger and their own situation was better. They understand that golden age has passed and that things are looking bad in the future. Instead of working to confront the nature of the problem though, they turn to religion, and see themselves as persecuted by those whose tastes and values they might not understand.
           It is this culture of victimhood that must be overcome by these people. How do you successfully give such a group a sense of empowerment? In times of yore, these people would create unions and band together to defend themselves from their oppressors. Now they have slavishly tied themselves to the very people that seek to dominate them and have sworn off any notion of class solidarity. They happily embrace this false consciousness as an elixir to their woes – blaming the decline of America’s global and domestic position on an unwillingness to embrace hardship and a collapse of religious virtue rather than wider economic trends. Admittedly, those global trends are awfully complicated. Nevertheless, to this end, they have aligned themselves with the dominant economic class. The bubbling rage of America’s poor should have the powerful trembling with fear – instead the growing imbalance of power actually acts to serve the wealthy in cementing their control over the overall economic direction of the country.
           As the situation on the ground degenerates further, this unyielding spiral of anger only serves to further alienate the growing underclass of angry people from the mainstream of society. Because of the nature of the electoral machinery, this drives our whole political system to the right dragging the rest of us down the agonizing path of unrestricted capitalism and deeper impoverishment. I might like integration, but I do not believe that our economic system can be unregulated. History can speak to this assertion. But what possible stake can you grant the neurotic or insane? What possible concession can you give to them? How can we help them without hurting ourselves?
           I don’t have a good answer. Talking god and walking progress is dangerous. The same is true of calculated regulation of their political activities. Shining a light on the lies of their beliefs will likely only further their radicalization, and showering them with the spoils of progress will only solidify their faith in the promise of what they have set out to accomplish. It seems that very gentle and low-pressure education is the only way to go. Grant them critical thinking skills – give them access to the intellectual resources of our culture by improving education and creating fixed and rigorous standards for private education. It takes incredible fortitude to recognize that you can live however you want even if the world is going in a different direction and I stand by my assertion that education is the only viable option – only it can truly empower people.
Permalink
12.22.06
Posted in Satire, Politics at 8:51 pm by diantus
           I’m meant to write about politics here, and again I’m running late. I also am in something of a mood today so am forced to bequeath any responsibility for today’s update to the unknowable forces of the universe.  As such, I’m going to write about the holidays.
           Personally, I’ve got nothing against the spirit of giving. While I might be staunchly anti-consumerist and at least vaguely anti-capitalist I get that part of the holiday season has to do with showing some generosity to your fellow man. Now mind you, as holiday togetherness goes, I think Halloween wins it hands down. After all, Christmas is that special time of the year where you are forced to spend time with family members that you probably don’t like, listen to music that sucks, and get gifts for people you don’t care for on the off chance that they get you something. Halloween forces us to get out into our neighborhoods and interact with our communities instead of the same people we would anyways. I suggest that you remember this next October.
           Anyways, Christmas is upon us and I’ve been thinking that organized celebration is a great example of the coercive power of culture. It literally excuses the most blatant manipulation of precious cultural symbols for the barefaced extraction of profit. I mean seriously – hollow chocolate crosses? Jesus would be proud. Anyways, I don’t really blame you people – the vast majority of Christians have no idea what their religion is about and certainly have avoided any effort to really think about it. Most of them just take it as whatever confusing and contradictory thing their parents only half-understood.Â
           What happens with faith is that it becomes increasing skewed and misunderstood with each succeeding generation. Every couple of hundred years, someone spruces it up with some rigid dogmatism and civil society goes to hell wile a few hundred thousand people get killed. Call it survival of the prickiest. As a self-respecting child of the devil “progressive left,†all I can really do is shake my head and feel a deep swelling of sadness for the trials my fellow man is about to put himself through.
           So, for me, Christmas becomes a special time of year where the utter despair of the previous year becomes plain for me to see. I am forced to remember that, while I may love and cherish my family, treasure the companionship of my friends, and stand side-by-side with my fellow man, someone out there is ready to see me hanged for my lack of faith in the Great Spaghetti Monster, Allah, Cthuhlu, Jesus and Pals, or whatever. See, I don’t need God to tell me that you can’t please all the people all of the time. I certainly don’t need to be convinced that this is ok. I’d way rather invest that effort in actually enjoying the time spent with those closest to me.
           I don’t mean to lead a cheering section for atheism, but this is a time of year when the utter insanity of the season becomes really apparent to someone like me. After all, the signs start to appear in October – ruining other, more respectable holidays might I add, and all of the sudden people are screaming back and forth about Christmas trees and Menorahs and why they should, or should not be, shoved into airports. What I really can’t understand, and what this season drives home for me, is how anyone can get so worked up over what is, in essence, a really foolish argument. With so many REAL problems in the world, surely this crap should be the last thing on our minds. Here’s what I recommend this holiday season: go out and cook a nice meal. Share it with some people you really care for, and forget about the tree. Symbols only have the power you give them. If this really is the season for peace and goodwill, go have some peace and goodwill and forget about how much you hate the Jews or the Catholics or the Seventh Day Adventists. I’m not going to worry about it anymore, and will patiently wait for Halloween.
           Happy 4th Quarter Sales Spike everyone! And Happy Holidays.
Permalink
12.19.06
Posted in Politics, Governance at 5:20 pm by diantus
           Optimism is an interesting word. From the Latin optimum, meaning “the best possible good,†it is interesting to see how much meaning it has lost over the millennium. Today, it has nothing to do with good, only the vain hope that everything will be alright. For more on this see Voltaire’s Candide. In our context, optimism has a way of overshadowing political dialogue especially among the opposition when things are starting to go their way. Because, right now a lot of folks on the left are optimistic about the way things are going for them. Political fortunes are turning and people around the country seem to be swing away from the rigid dogmatism of the conservative movement and getting back to progressive sensibilities that emphasize inclusion and community. We’re suddenly one big happy country again.
Well fuck… looks like I’m out of a job.  Er… hobby. Whatever.
Fortunately, the socio-political demise of my native land goes much deeper than just a stupid president, so I think I can keep writing. Because, lets face it, the democrats took back the legislature, but almost everywhere progressive legislation failed. Moreover, many of the lefties now in power are basically republicans who shed the label in order to seem fresh again. The conservative movement of the 90’s was a complete and total success, and thanks to them the left is so burned out that our progressive leaders sound an awful lot like the reactionary evangelical leaders they are replacing. People didn’t vote for change – they voted for a return to the status quo.
Let’s be honest for a moment. The gay rights movement has been knocked over everywhere (except MA), the supreme court is packed with hyper-conservative whackos, inequality is growing rapidly, education is collapsing, our international clout is shot, and our new leaders are almost as far to the right as the old ones. Are you really silly enough to expect a change? I know I don’t, and I’m betting that your average fundamentalist NASCAR fan doesn’t care about the subtleties of international relations, economic inclusion, or fair and responsible trade regulation; they just don’t want things to get any worse for them.
Despite my earlier post about the election and how I was secretly hopeful that the new Democratic leadership would do great things, I just can’t buy in. Even before they take power, they have shown us the ugly side of leftist political factionalism with all the charm of right-wing bullying. They opened it off well with the Murtha thing (if you missed this, sorry… go look it up and come back. I’ll wait). Afterwards they toned down their effort to enforce stricter ethics regulation in the house. I suppose they are still something, but the gross optimism of their flag wavers is desperately overrated. A short list maybe, but this is before power has been officially handed off.
The single biggest hurdle that they must overcome is the absolute collapse of public faith in government. No one is buying anymore. We’re voting for our churches, not our public leaders. To me, this says that we are looking for guidance from new sources and civil society isn’t fitting the bill any more. We’ve been broken down by almost two decades of corruption, attack adds, bad ideas, and worse investments of public energy. Moreover this means that those of us who still hold out faith in the notion that government, if managed well by a consensus of interested citizens, holding honest debate about optimum, are shut out in the cold. The American left is about to do the same thing they always do – give in to factionalism and infighting. In fact, this time it will be worse because of the sudden infusion of conservative and fundamentalist elements that joined the party out of a desire to shed their association with Iraq and Bush.
Barack Obama wrote a best-selling book entitled The Audacity of Hope. I haven’t read it. Because it’s probably long and has words. Nevertheless, I loved the title because I think it is rather audacious, insolent even, to expect me to believe that our system is capable of change, especially positive change. The only precedent that comes to mind was the end of the 18th century when the country near collapsed complete under threat of revolution and massive government corruption. We were saved by a combination of crisis and leadership. Unfortunately, all I see now is crisis and no leadership. The blood of our line is all but spent. Reason has been traded in for religion and sound bite. Demand more from your leaders.
Permalink
12.08.06
Posted in Theory, Politics, Current Events at 8:52 pm by diantus
           Recently the World Bank released a report suggesting that international goals of poverty alleviation have been falling short over the past five years. Their conclusion is awfully vindicating to me personally, since they make the argument that the problem isn’t with growth, but with distribution (which I made in my thesis ::SHAMELESS PLUG::). The national economic pies might be growing, but the share of that wealth is not making it to those who need it. This trend is global and not limited to developing economies. In fact, in the United States the percentage of GDP controlled by the middle and lower classes has been steadily shrinking for about 30 years.
           Anyways, the World Bank then goes on to say that the system of conditional loans given to national governments to develop infrastructure is benefiting the nations, but in a rather imbalanced manner. The fact that the rich are getting steadily richer as a result of these economic activities – often at the expense of the environment and the poorest – should not really be a surprise. After all, who is in a position to take this investment capital, and put it to use? I can tell you this much: it’s not a subsistence farmer in Sudan; it’s a magnate in Khartoum (ed. This may be a misnomer… there’s quite a little civil war there and Khartoum might not be safe enough right now, but you get the point).
           The agonizing truth about economic and political problems that makes them so difficult to understand is that even in this globalized age where interdependence makes isolation impossible, is that all politics and economics are still local. There are no blanket solutions for any nation or people. The major institutions that are managing this ongoing expansion are learning this only slowly.  However, there has been some relief and a certain amount of forward thinking regarding the alleviation of third world poverty.
           One of the concepts that have been introduced by a few organizations, banks, and private investors is the notion of microloans. A Microloan is basically a small loan given to an impoverished family that allows them to either start a business or develop a farmstead. It is in effect, an investment in an individual that gives them an opportunity to become more self-sufficient - like a small business or consumer loan for the desperately poor. Moreover, a special level of attention has been paid to women for the purposes of these loans, and the results have been amazing. Organizations that have given them have a very high repayment rate, and are demonstrating that they destitute of developing countries are capable of improving their lot when given an opportunity to do so. It is really pretty impressive.
           This goes hand in hand with the notion of providing opportunities and not handouts. Sometimes these loans are as small as twenty dollars, but when you a living on less than a dollar a day, imagine what that can mean to you. There are catches of course. There always are. Some might feel that expecting the loans to be repaid is unfair, but by doing so you give people a reason to be careful with the money. These investments have already lifted millions out of extreme poverty and are slowly gathering the attention of NGOs around the world. Including, it seems, the World Bank who is finally acknowledging that their state-centric policy is inefficient and fails to get money where it is needed. Focusing on the needs of the individual is the best way to ensure the best degree of human flourishing.
           Microloans also have a minimal impact on macro-economic growth. I see this as a non-issue though, as macro-economic growth doesn’t mean anything unless people can actually benefit from it. The real trouble is the increase of the debt load on poor people. The recipients must be responsible with the money that they are given, and a failure to plan out the intentions of the loan could have the effect of further impoverishing the needy. Nevertheless, one of the strengths of the American economy in the 50s and 60s was the ease by which business loans could be acquired, and the notion of a microloan should be seen as no different. The best way to offset this problem might be to simply ask how they intend to use the money. Even if the answer is poor, at least the recipient is thinking about the question. Of course, keeping the current system in which the loan does not require collateral is absolutely imperative.
           Nevertheless, this concern brings to one’s attention an important qualifier. Microloaning needs to be carefully regulated. Interest rates should be carefully controlled, and macro-economic programs and initiatives cannot be ignored. Microcredit lending is no way to build or develop an industrial infrastructure, since at its best it can only help shore up and develop economies on a village level. Nevertheless, the program should be watched and encouraged, even if it would be best left in the hands of non-profit organizations that are willing to minimize profit from the industry. Allowing greed on a corporate level to run these programs will only further exploit and impoverish the recipients of this kind of assistance.
Permalink
« Previous entries