Proportionality
This human wondered the other day why more people like myself weren't speaking out about the election, why we weren't talking.
I can't speak for the people like myself. I can't even really speak for myself. I just don't know.
I feel like I should be angry. I should be hopping goddamned mad. I should feel cheated. Like I should have been mad when my PS2 and 40 DVDs were stolen at a Halloween party two years ago. I should have felt cheated. But I just wasn't and I just didn't. Similarly: I'm just not. I suppose this is apathy.
No. It's not that at all. It's a lack of surprise. I think Bush won this election legitimately, he won it outright, this wasn't a theft of democracy. It's exactly what I should expect to happen on this shitbag planet. Like stolen PS2s. You want it not to happen, but it does. All the time.
What does it really change?
Nothing. Who represents me? Kerry is only slightly less right of center than Bush. Calling the Democratic party "liberal" is like calling salmon red meat. It's pinkish at best. Same with the democrats. They're the most like me of the two parties who have the clout to get people elected. That means nothing.
Idealism is only useful insofar as it can silence cynicism. At the same time, when this idealism fails, as it does and must, the cynicism itself is reinforced. It's like fighting an infection with an inadequate amount of antibiotics. You feel better for a while, but then the bug becomes resistant and harder to beat off.
How thick is the hide of my cynicism now? Post November 2?
I understand something new about myself.
My dim view of capitalism as a paradigm gets brighter with my own increased purchasing power. Give people the opportunity to consume and they forget the unjustness of the system. Give me a TV and everything's fine.
Only now that I'm home and unemployed--low this single month--have I begun to remember those things I cleaved to in college. The impossible rules globalization places on small developing nations. The difference between welfare and healthcare as rights. The dehumanization of treating capital as an end in itself.
Marxism, essentially, but without the bullshit conclusions. Marx as an anthropological observer, not a reformer. As a descriptive [def. #2] chronicler, not a prescriptive ideologue.
And as an observer, I see no end in sight.
What would it take to make Americans believe in the necessity of "healthcare for all"--or social programs in general? Compassion? I don't know, I'm asking.
What would it take for an American--a majority of Americans--to admit that sometimes pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps isn't possible? One's own economic ruination?
Who knows
I think the myth of the infallibility of the puritan work ethic creates hardened people and blind people. It creates more self-interested people and people who resent each other so deeply that the other ultimately loses something of his or her humanity.
People who are very successful are objects to strive towards. Beacons.
People who are not successful are cautionary tales and the spent wreckage of their betters.
People become things, essentially.
And each of these things is exactly where it is because of how hard it worked, no outside influences involved. No playing field is too pitched that a pauper can't become a prince.
Hopefully, as the chasm between the rich and everyone else becomes so pronounced that even the middle class has difficulty surviving, people will start to realize that sometimes you can't pull yourself up by your boot straps. Especially if you can't afford boot straps to begin with.
There we go, back to being really really preachy. Feels good.
posted by Luke @ 4:34 AM
19 comments
19 Comments:
You raise interesting points in your post here Luke. They worry me, because the left needs democrats as much as democrats need the left, I'm afraid. The right is unified, conservative in ideals, progress, behavior. Any attempts to create more choice, to change the discussion, will only cleave apart the Democratic party, which leaves us fractured and completely unable to mount a coordinated attack against the right.
I am in the process of being indoctrinated into the system in ways I never imagined possible, as I never realized that a degree in public policy would necessarily mean that I be cultivated to further cultivate the current system. It's a pragmatism born of necessity, translated into theory and practice in context. We have a two party, centrist, center-right system. I defend the ideals of liberalism in a conservative paradigm, but it's much like begging for table scraps. It isn't so bad in California, where I intend to work at least for a little while, but it isn't the liberal bastion that others make it out to be either.
So to sum up, I share your frustrations, and I'm trying to work towards something more equitable. Right now it seems like a losing battle, but I just keep Nixon in my back pocket for hope.
Luke,
You have insight beyond your years. Cultivate that, and never stop thinking.
Maya,
You'll still have my vote. I'm not big on symbolic acts, even less on silent protest.
Even if I were, jumping ship would have no sting. The Democratic Party doesn't need my help to lose elections it should win.
I'm too tired to address political cynacism right now (Reader's Digest version: It pisses me off, but, yeah, I see where you're coming from), and I think I've already made my views on the election known, but I think the problem of if and when the American people will ever come around to more European views on the government's role in assisting the poor and the middle class (remember the middle class? Check out this article from The Onion) is an interesting one. Unfortunately, I'm too lazy to retype arguments we've had before, so newer readers can read this article of Luke's from a couple months ago.
Maya, what do you mean by "I just keep Nixon in my back pocket for hope."?
--Mike Sheffler
... turning to the 3-D map, we see an unmistakable cone of ignorance
Cynicism: "based on or reflecting a belief that human conduct is motivated primarily by self-interest"
That pisses you off? Why exactly?
Too adroit an observation?
If cynicism is the belief that people are motivated by self-interest, then the dichotomous shift that occurs in unfettered capitalism continually reinforces it. The lowest 98% are worse off than their parents were and they don't give a damn because now there's football in High-Definition.
When the most important issue of a recession-and-wartime election is gay marriage and other moral talking points, that further proves that even the downtrodden would rather suffer the status quo and watch inflation outstrip wage increases, the demise of social security, and the detrimental privitization of health care than risk their Hi-Fi.
Ignorant self-interest.
Mike, I'm sure you know that Nixon, for all his evils, was what we'd call a flaming liberal in terms of social policies. Two in particular cheer me: the establishment of the EPA and his proposals for universal health care. Nixon's attempted reforms to the welfare system resulted in the EITC and SSI and automatic COLAs for social security recipients. In addition, he more fully funded the EEOC and created OSHA too.
It symbolizes, for me, the fact that Americans can see the more compassionate side, the supportive role, that government can take in people's lives.
I was really thinking of the other cynicism (and I mysteriously misspelled 'cynicism' the first time. Perhaps this blog should be collect, 'Correct Mike's Spelling': An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others.
If I'm pissed off at anything, my rage is a time-share. The system that fails to represent people gets it two weeks a year, plus a holiday, and the people who bemoan lack of representation get ten days and convenient lake access. The society that really can't bear to look out for its own interests and throws away the important advances made by FDR and Nixon (Nixon!) gets at least three months a year just for being short-sighted failures of the citizenry. What a deal.
In any case, Luke doesn't get singled out for any of it (maybe an afternoon in that one unit with the toilet whose handle you have to jiggle to make it stop running), so don't get too defensive. I think your insights here are spot-on. They're designed to get people upset, and I am, it's just that my anger isn't directed in exactly the same place as yours. Almost, but not exactly.
Maya, I sort of figured that that was what you were getting at. As I wrote last night, it's too bad Nixon was such an asshole, because many of his policies probably did the country a lot of good, even though his motivations were largely childish and/or detestable.
--Mike Sheffler
... turning to the 3-D map, we see an unmistakable cone of ignorance
My friend and I were reading your blog together. We both felt heartened that someone in the prime of youth was seeing and feeling what we have been experiencing for the last 15-20 years.
I can't speak for much but I can still speak, or mumble, or spit I suppose. I think that the only hope lies in conscious thought of the problems -- and making choices, when we may, that choose for humananism and social options, and against narrow-minded consumerism and corporatism.
Again, thanks for the nice post.
...
mightymerk,
Basically I think I have to disagree with the assumptions of 1) capitalism is the best we could do, 2) existence of disparity justifies capitalism (i.e., 'haves and have-nots'), 3) attacking capitalism's faults are “cheap shots”.
I offer the following criticisms without even pretending to be complete or to address the faults of various other systems. I do offer 'open source' as a prime counter-example. My other, related, counter examples may simply confuse without more elicitation (e.g., a philosophy of Play versus Work).
1)Capitalism is a system which reinforces disparity. We must immediately buy the premise that a hierarchical, feudalistic, own-slave model of society is acceptable. In fact I believe that the central issues with capitalism is that it is not self-regulatory in nature and that it, by definition, creates disparity (see #2).
2)The fact is that regression to the mean and the law of averages are worked against by capitalism. Since capitalism is a system which supports and even accelerates disparity using disparity as a justification of its practices is a bias. Even so, natural disparity is inflated by the system. There is no reason to presuppose that we could not have an imperfect system that supports greedy people with less of an economic gap between the haves and have-nots.
3)These are not idle criticisms or cheap shots. They are flaws which actually act to defeat some of the said “free market” ideals and motivations. Just because a system is currently in-sway doesn't mean that it is unquestionable or that we must “laissez faire, laissez passer ”.
Now, a quick note about how people may be motivated and also accomplish an incredible amount using a very different system: Open Source movement. If you decide to investigate that topic please note that I'm referring to it as more than just the software development model – also as a social model. But, I've already taken my share of space here so please follow some of these links for more reference.
http://www.cluetrain.com/book/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_movement
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/copyleft/copyleftart.jsp
http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlevents/iglesias.pdf
http://mark.stosberg.com/Tech/oss_culture.html
And, a note about “conservative morality-based references”:
http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html
Merk,
You're confusing Marx with Stalin. Marx was a theorist and philosopher. Like many and indeed ALL philosophers who propose something radical in social theory and justice, it was to address a specific problem (Plato's Republic for example). Often, if not always, the proposed solution outstrips the observation. Marx's communist ideal is very much a utopian yearning. Communism will probably never have a viable instantiantiation of Marx's pure theory. Similarly, there will never be pure capitalism, for the very reasons Marx talks about.
Like Plato's Republic, there's a lot about his new society that could never function. That does not, however, diminish the critique of the society he puts forth.
The observations remain valid and pointed to this day.
In the act of reification (a term coined by a dude by the misspelled name of Lukacz or something) of capital, money goes from being a bartering tool, a tool of trade between equals, into an end in itself, diminishing the very humanity of the people that exist within the system. Remember, it's called CAPITALism, not, people-using-money-ism. People become secondary to the accumulation of capital. Capital becomes an end in itself, able to reproduce itself. People are only as important as the capital they own.
For companies in theory, and corporations as part of their existence as a legal entity, Workers are only important as a cheap means of producing the thing that produces capital. They are, essentially, overhead.
Capitalism cares about nothing else besides creating more capital. Look at corporate law in America, the only people a Corporation answers to are its shareholders, the only yardstick for success or failure are profits, the relative income of capital against the loss of capital.
"Was it done ethically, are the workers living decently, are things in place to keep them living decently?"
These are the bleeding heart questions. These are questions that the American government, in its corporate laws, doesn't care about. These are the things that the most powerful shareholders don't care about. These are things that CEOs AREN'T ALLOWED to care about, for it means stifling profit. Intentionally stifling profit is illegal in this country.
Profit is made one of two ways, by selling a good or service for a greater cost than it took to produce it, and by allowing capital to grow by means of investment.
Now, if you sell something for more than it takes to produce it, you are in effect cheating workers out of the value of their work. It is argued that management does work as well and must be taken into account. This is true. Even so, at the end of the day, if the company is cash-positive, someone has been screwed. It might have been the CEO, but it's usually the petty worker.
"Still, they're being paid and having a job is better than not having one."
The theory here is that if there is more capital around, and people are making more capital, their lives will be enriched by this posession of capital. Interesting theory.
But the creation of new capital through the accumulation of interest creates inflation. Currently in America, the median wage increase is not enough to keep up with inflation. The MEDIAN wage increase. Everyone below that actually has less purchasing power than they did previously.
Merk, you're probably correct in saying, "There are always going to be the 'haves and have-nots." But when the thing that a majority of americans 'have-not' is access to affordable healthcare, when their children do not have access to even the most basic of education that would give them a better chance of becoming 'haves', then what government is doing is allowing those with power to keep their power and expand their power while having a pool of cheap labor to aid them without any real benefit or loyalty to the people who have made them this capital.
It's a more subtle instantiation of the company store.
"People are not perfect, and prone to greed and don't like to play nice etc."
That's the most true thing you said. People are radically self-interested. Now, we can keep with the capitalist ethos and allow the rule of the free market to continually reward the haves and punish the have-nots by keeping from them even the most basic liberties, or we can recognize the short-comings of the system and put in place programs that allow for the elevation of Humankind above the drive of capital.
"Attacking Capitalism because it is not perfect is rather a cheap shot in my opinion . . . As far as I am concerned America and capitalism is the best WE HUMANS have had so far."
Just because it's the best doesn't mean it's good enough.
On the topic of greed as motivator, let me suggest this link for further study. Basically "greed explains the means" (a.k.a., "greed justifies the means") has been a pet-peev of mine for a long time.
Psychologically people are much more complex than that -- and there are plenty of cultural counter-examples.
Anyway, I blab and the link is what this comment is about:
http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/GetFre/19.htm
Ok, I can't shut up.
Luke has things under control, that's for certain. But I wanted to comment on (encourage) one of his central thesis: social priorities.
I believe that the cultural biases of the U.S. have blindsided many to the fact that the world is just more complex than they think. That there are alternatives, not all that radical, or that there are other ways of thinking, are ignored or are overwhelmed by the fact that the pre-existing structure of society doesn't have a convenient method of addressing them. One thing that seems difficult is the concept of social priorities.
The current method for taking care of social priorities is largely micro-management and overly libertarian. We expect the priorities to be sorted out by 1) the whims of the powerful, 2) the local desires of a metonymical city-state, and 3) the whims of the individual. If you afford to do it -- then it is a priority.
It is possible that the community gets totally lost in the process. Thanks to the profits (prophets?) of Individualism proposed by people like Ann Rand we are taught that the only interest is self-interest. Psychologically, however, we know that humans are, by nature, communally driven animals. Our interests are typically group oriented.
Here are some of the things I believe we have ignored, priority-wise, in the U.S. culture:
* Social priorities: health, welfare, and freedom
* Creative fulfillment
* Sustainability
* Economical use of resources
* Valuing time above money
It seems to me that such priorities aren't far-fetched or utopian. I think that the U.S. simply hasn't developed enough awareness and responsibility to recognize that you can't just wait for someone wealthy to provide what you want in the form of a product to buy.
Mightymerk --
I'm not sure I actually can address everything here. We're obviously quite a distance apart on some grounds. Since this is a side-venue of Luke's blog (and I strayed from the central topic a bit) I will remedy that now by keeping this brief. “Creative fulfillment”, “sustainability”, “economical use of resources”, “valuing time above money” are kind of off-topic. Maybe I can throw some links up on my own blog. Now, let me be clear that even my own hubris doesn't allow me to purport to preach the truth to anyone – nor I am not the most eloquent spokesman. Here are my opinions.
The basic issues here are philosophical so don't be confused when I don't spend time nit-picking specific concrete examples. The approach anyone takes on the practicals depends on his/her assumptions of what is possible or even desirable.
You said:
“I need to see you support that America some how lacks FREEDOM.”
Shame on me for being vague. I was talking about “degrees of freedom” of course – the number of factors that go into an outcome. Our options are too limited – or perhaps just insufficient. Luke really already summed it up very nicely, but I will ramble and blurt ineloquently, but I will start by quoting Luke:
Luke: "Was it done ethically, are the workers living decently, are things in place to keep them living decently?"
Luke: “The MEDIAN wage increase. Everyone below that actually has less purchasing power than they did previously.”
Luke: “It's a more subtle instantiation of the company store.”
Basically, since the topic was about capitalism, such an economic system as we have here in the U.S. is inherently unfair and supports disparity (and a class system). Now, assuming that we agree that disparity at extreme levels is bad, we all have a problem to solve. Capitalism – all by itself – doesn't solve the problem but rather it creates it. Further, basing things like healthcare and basically “living conditions” on a market like we have is like making a person's life a part of a lottery – they will loose more often than they gain. There is no safety net.
There are three options of Freedom that we have here in the U.S.: be very rich, be a struggling proprietor and part of the “owning class”, or be a worker-bee. Being unemployed is a kind of option but its often a forced-choice. Now, basically they guy working at the tire store has two options, outside of just quitting his job – get another menial job or start a business. Oh, some suggest going to school to get a better job, but that's just a take on option one. School is going to cost, the guy will most likely go into debt, and what is the payoff going to be? Not necessarily any more (in capital).
The central problem is that this guy is going to have to work more and more, no matter what option he takes, in order to keep up. The demands are not strictly economic either. People basically are given few choices by their bosses – and if they are a boss they are given few choices by their bank. For some on the distribution taking an economic hit is a question of whether to buy a car or that new toaster oven – for most, however, its about whether to own a car at all or even how to buy food and still have a little bit of a good time.
We idolize the American Dream but it absolutely will not pay off for the vast majority. Statistically it can't. The American Dream is a ponzi scheme.
The ultimate question, to me, isn't about how to set up a system to make everyone rich – but a system that allows more people to simply survive comfortably. I want a little security. By this I mean 1) have enough to eat, 2) be housed safely, 3) have basic medical care, 4) be able to work less and have some leisure time, 5) have less stress (oh god, here I go with the vagarities again). The list could go on and on.
To sum it up, I believe that the degrees of freedom for living in the US is a game of diminishing returns. Simply finding a way to allow some kind of safety net for the vast majority of people would be an improvement.
You said:
“regarding health and welfare, sure it is better (and by this I only mean "available" and "free") in some countries but it is also bankrupting. most european countries, Germany for example are considering heavy reforms because it has become just to expensive and more more people are simply not working. Also the quality of the healthcare leaves a lot to be desired.”
First, saying that European countries are having some kind of trouble with health care is a bit of a strawman – we are also having equally big problems – or some would argue bigger – with our health care system. Its like seeing your neighbor has a crappy car and therefore valuing your crappy car more.
Basically let me put it this way: I agree with the philosophy to provide basic health care for everyone. I disagree with a philosophy which boils down to making health care provided on a sliding wealth basis or the metric of corporate profits and cost savings. Even doctors – the oft-claimed bastions of anti-socialized medicine in this country (however there are plenty who do not see it this way) – decry the the folly of our managed health systems. And, pharmaceutical companies are corrupt.
Finally, I would suggest a system that is managed like a basic centralized service – using the World Health Organization as a model. We also have central distribution, through the CDC, already set up in this country for national immunizations, etc. We could use this system to provide more cost-effective distribution of prescription drugs. However, no matter what I think the point is that we are in a position to question our poor health care system and to support changes.
As a launching point:
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/HEALTH_FOR_ALL_BY_THE_YEAR_2020/
You said:
“I could not disagree more. The U.S. has developed the incentive for you to to go out and produce your own solution/product. The American ideal is not to sit and wait, rather it is get up and do.”
Get up and do what? The vast majority of Americans are tired and lack capital. Cogent to what I was talking about, however, is the idea that forcing people to privately bankroll social programs or to leave it up to disinterested groups is self-defeating. Figuring out what plasma screen TV to buy. I wasn't clear at the end but I am suggesting that people become more conscious of what it is they are choosing when they believe that a corporation is going to solve their needs. I think people will have to be both better shoppers and voters – because a governmental system is necessary to provide the kinds of services we need, not just what we want.
To sum up: A central issue that exists in this debate is injustice versus equity. At times you seem to be arguing that injustice is ethically acceptable, at other times you seem to argue that the only solution to injustice, towards equity, is the current systems. I have tried, lamely, to suggest that the current systems aren't very good at dealing with injustice and underlying that is the idea that equity is ethically preferable to injustice.
Ok, I didn't keep it brief. But this is about all I should say.
ERRATUM:
I said:
"Figuring out what plasma screen TV to buy."
I didn't finish my sentence. I should have said: "Figuring out what plasma screen TV to buy is an individualists problem -- figuring out how to provide health-care or social services is not."
Sausage,
This is an interesting topic, please post more at your blog! For those of you who don't have a link to it, here:
http://www.penguinhosting.net/~sausage/ocaris/phasethree.html
I'm not very surprised either, I wanted Kerry to win because at least things would not have been as crappy, but I knew somehow Bush was gonna pull a victory out of his ass. Really it's because we are at 'war' (or at least a bombing run) and I don't think the US has ever changed presidents during wartime, ever.
Good god though, I am unemployed and I know that I am financially screwed if Bush lays another four year siege to the economy, yet I doubt he's going to improve it any. It's probably just going to get worse, much worse.
"Give me a TV and everything's fine." I remember writing something like that a long time ago, but it's true. Most people in this country just don't really care, and I really can't blame them now.
At least I can hate him for another four years, and I can always have my yearly 'Bushspeak' calendar to look forward to. Though I would like to pose a question, can you understand why in the hell anyone would vote for that idiot in the first place? I asked a Bush supporter or two and they couldn't even tell me. It's like they don't even care who they vote for as long as that person DOESN'T make things better. It's almost like they WANT a terrible leader. Also, have you noticed that whenever someone attempts to defend Bush they end up sounding like a parent who has to make excuses for his retarded child eating all of the paste in class or sticking crayon in their nose?
It's almost like they voted for him out of pity.
Regarding WHY GWB:
This might be apocryphal, but I read/heard somewhere from someone/something that a really big percentage that voted for him the first time around said they did so because he seemed like the kind of guy they'd like to have a beer with.
So the exact opposite of that "liberal elite" arrogance that the democrats have/are perceived to have.
Exactly, it's this kind of BS image that people tag on to him without ralizing he's Upper-Class as any other politican. I guess that whole "rancher" yee-haw Texian cowboy image is someone people just love, I just don't get it. The man is obviously a total idiot, but I guess in that way he also appeals to those in the Red States as well. Esepcailly the old south where people still drive around with confederate flags tagged onto thier trucks and what not.
Right, he's worth 5 times what Kerry is (20 mil vs 4 mil).
Kerry just married well.
Both had excellent educations, Kerry just took advantage of his.
Post a Comment
<< Home