“Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?” by Slavoj Zizek, 2001
Zizek has written another book that only indirectly relates to the title or concise back-cover description. For socialists the main ideological issue preventing the re-spreading of Marxist and socialist ideas is, of course, the identification of socialism with ‘totalitarianism’ or ‘terrorism.’ In the conventional American discourse, once pronounced a ‘totalitarian,’ all argument is at an end. That, ostensibly, was the purpose of the writing this book – as part of that ideological combat.
Zizek has written an excellent introduction to Trotsky’s “Terrorism and Communism,” decrying the domestication of some Trotskyists in comparison to their inspiration (and indirectly, many other Marxists and ‘socialists’), proving that he does not shy away from hard questions. So one might expect this volume to be as clear and forceful as Trotsky on the issue of totalitarianism. Quite the opposite.
Zizek starts this 5 chapter book on totalitarianism with a long section on Lacanian dialectics and theatrical tragedy. As impenetrable as always, I can only refer to David Foster Wallace and George Orwell’s discussions of academic ‘dialect’ as being transferable to these almost useless pages of culture philosophy dialect (Kulturkampf Kriticizm?):
“I regard academic English not as a dialectal variant of Standard Written English, but as a gross debasement.,,” - David Foster Wallace, “Authority and American Usage.”
Academic English is ‘a mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence’ in which ‘it is common to come across long passages which are almost completely devoid of meaning.’ - George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language.”
And Wallace again, “the obscurity and pretension of Academic English can be attributed in part to a disruption in the delicate rhetorical balance between language as a vector of meaning and language as a vector of the writer’s own resume. In other words, it is when a scholar’s vanity/insecurity leads him to write primarily to communicate and reinforce his own status as an Intellectual that his English is deformed … by opaque abstraction …Etc. (“Authority and American Usage”)
Or perhaps Lacan made him do it. This chapter contains a lengthy defense of Christianity as a religion in which Christ broke the ‘chain of payment’ by dying for love of humanity – an Act ostensibly outside history, and thus unlike any other religion. Including some handy arguments against Gnosticism and paganism, which Zizek opposes as philosophically conservative religious traditions, he nevertheless is less than convincing. Much less. I think Zizek is preparing here for more help on the issue of voluntarism and the Revolutionary Act.
Chapter 2 is a short inquiry into fascism, one of the traditional forms of totalitarianism. Zizek’s analysis ends with the support of laughter in the face of the holocaust. This inspiring idea comes from several movies that Zizek watched.
Chapter 3 is a longer inquiry into the Stalinist period, especially the 1930s. Zizek clearly opposes Stalinism and bureaucratism, but seems to only have an ethical response to it. Zizek tiptoes around Trotsky – endorsing Trotsky’s supposed view that the nomenklatura would be overthrown by the workers, or the bureaucracy would end up owning the means of production in a new phase of capitalism. The latter is what actually happened in those countries suffering counter-revolution. He really focuses on Bukharin’s groveling before Stalin during the show trials, assuredly for the psychological ‘frisson’ that generates.
As Zizek puts it, the Party ‘committed suicide’ in 1937. I would say it was murdered. As even he details, 79 of 82 District Party secretaries were shot ... not to mention the overwhelming majority of the Central Committee. On the theoretical level, Zizek endorses Lukac’s criticism of Stalinism, as a ‘stagist’, ‘objectivist’ deformation of revolutionary Marxism. (But not Trotsky’s analysis, which was similar. Again, can you hear the tip-toeing?...) He also favorably compares Nazi Germany to Stalinist Russia in this period. Zizek asserts this is because ‘everyone’ in Germany never became a suspect, unlike the situation in 1938 Russia. Even Yezhov, Stalin’s master butcher, was arrested, as were many other loyal Stalinists. A ‘war of all against all’ was initiated, because, according to Zizek, ‘rhetoric was insufficient’ for the Stalin clique to retain power. He also has an interesting section on Shostakovitch, who was arrested and nearly shot, and the contradictory idea of a ‘closet dissident.’
Chapter 4 discusses melancholy. In which Zizek compares the Pope favorably to the Dalai Lama. In which Zizek opposes ‘post-secular’ thought, and makes a plea for a ‘materialist creationism.’ And in which melancholy is the true heartache of good capitalists everywhere. And one without melancholy is accused of being a totalitarian. Did you know that melancholy was even an issue? Now you do!
Chapter 5 is an ‘inside the philosophy department’ discussion of Cultural Studies, Social Democratic ‘Third Way’ politics, cognitivism, deconstructionist evolutionism, cognitivist Buddhism, religious scientism, etc. The most interesting aspect here (other than an introduction to some minor philosophic movements) is the focus on Cultural Studies, which is essentially a name for PC multi-culturalism. It has been accused of being ‘totalitarian’ by right-wingers. Zizek discusses both its reactionary aspects and its progressive side using a maddeningly ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ method, eventually coming out against it from a class point of view. He also clearly attacks Social Democracy as the logical twin of right-wing populism, as it is Social Democracy that has brought right-wing populism forward due to its failure to really represent working class interests. This is a word for word description of the politics of the neo-liberal Democratic Party.
Zizek is a Lacanian in this book, if you count his non-existent objections to any idea Lacan every had. However, Zizek makes objections to another way of thinking. Nearly every time he mentions some Marxist idea he adds some negative adjective to accompany it - ‘hoary’ or ‘old fashioned’ or ‘ancient.’ In one somewhat astonishing paragraph, he says:
“… reasserting the authentic spirit of the Marxist tradition means leaving behind its letter, (Marx’s particular analysis and proposed revolutionary measures, which are irreducibly tainted by the tradition of ontology) in order to save from the ashes the authentic Messianic promise of emancipatory liberation. The Marxian heritage('s) … essential core is redeemed through the very overcoming/renouncing its particular historical shape.” (page 153-154)
This, I think, could be seen as a plea for modernizing Marxism by a ‘kind’ reader, but a more accurate reading is that ‘Messianic promises of emancipatory liberation’ are not exclusive to Marxism. And that some ‘letters’ of Marx might still be relevant. This is perhaps why you never hear Zizek talk about the working class or economics in any concrete detail.
A book about how to turn the totalitarian logic inside out, about how the liberal totalitarians of today’s Capital are really the problem, i.e. the New Totalitarians? Not here. Someone else will have to write that book ... not Professor Zizek.
And I bought it at Mayday Books!
Red Frog, April 2, 2012
Monday, April 2, 2012
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Local Rag Does Wrong
The Failures of the Star-Tribune
In the last month the failure of the Star-Tribune (“ST”) as a source of in-depth reportage has been egregious. The consistent bias of the editors is to ignore or soft-peddle violations by various societal scared cows. I’ll take three examples.
City Pages
The second is coverage in the February 15 'City Pages' (“CP”) about the scandals around the “TIZA” charter school in Minneapolis. Again, almost invisible in the news pages of the Star Tribune, a paper I scan everyday on-line. I was vaguely aware that ANOTHER charter school was a bankrupt fraud, but that was it, connected to some lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union. The CP story went into great detail, however, showing how the bankruptcy was connected to Islamic Relief ‘patrons’ that were supposed to monitor the school and never did; about early-afternoon ‘after-school’ classes on Islam that were virtually required, as buses did not leave until they were over; that assemblies were held where ‘God is Great” was one of the cries; where paperwork was filled with forgeries; and that a shadow company whose building TIZA was housed in, MET, got some monies from the State. Even Keith Ellison stood up for this travesty. This is what the Democratic and Republican parties want to do with our tax dollars related to education. This is privatization, segregation and religious education.
CP has gone on to detail the myths of the stadium debate repeated by proponents of the Vikings in the March 14 edition. This is a story that will never be done by the ST, which never met a stadium it didn’t like. After all, the wealthy businessmen in Minneapolis need somewhere to get brutal but safe entertainment for a high price. Hunger Games anyone? Just an ol' fashioned Roman coliseum with football players crushing their skulls instead of gladiators.
In the last month the failure of the Star-Tribune (“ST”) as a source of in-depth reportage has been egregious. The consistent bias of the editors is to ignore or soft-peddle violations by various societal scared cows. I’ll take three examples.
Rolling Stone
The most glaring, and massive is 'Rolling Stone’s' February 16th in-depth, nationwide article on the suicide cluster in Anoka County related to the policies of the Anoka County School Board, and by reference, the influence of the fundamentalist Christians around Michelle Bachmann in that district. The Tribune’s reporting concentrated on some vague disputes about ‘gay’ policy in Anoka County’s school district, ignoring, and not high-lighting, the suicides plaguing young gay, lesbian and even hetero-sexual students in that district. Of course, the suicides are what give this story its real meaning. I had to read this story in Rolling Stone, for chrissakes, to understand what was going on.City Pages
The second is coverage in the February 15 'City Pages' (“CP”) about the scandals around the “TIZA” charter school in Minneapolis. Again, almost invisible in the news pages of the Star Tribune, a paper I scan everyday on-line. I was vaguely aware that ANOTHER charter school was a bankrupt fraud, but that was it, connected to some lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union. The CP story went into great detail, however, showing how the bankruptcy was connected to Islamic Relief ‘patrons’ that were supposed to monitor the school and never did; about early-afternoon ‘after-school’ classes on Islam that were virtually required, as buses did not leave until they were over; that assemblies were held where ‘God is Great” was one of the cries; where paperwork was filled with forgeries; and that a shadow company whose building TIZA was housed in, MET, got some monies from the State. Even Keith Ellison stood up for this travesty. This is what the Democratic and Republican parties want to do with our tax dollars related to education. This is privatization, segregation and religious education.
CP has gone on to detail the myths of the stadium debate repeated by proponents of the Vikings in the March 14 edition. This is a story that will never be done by the ST, which never met a stadium it didn’t like. After all, the wealthy businessmen in Minneapolis need somewhere to get brutal but safe entertainment for a high price. Hunger Games anyone? Just an ol' fashioned Roman coliseum with football players crushing their skulls instead of gladiators.
Southside Pride
The third story was done by the March 2012 'Southside Pride,' which reported on a failure of water levels at the Prairie Island nuclear plant, which either escaped detection or were caused by a leak. This could have lead to a heat-up of the reactor core, similar to what happened at Fukushima. According to Eddie Felien’s story, this was not reported by the Star Tribune, but it was reported by papers in other parts of the country.
What do downplaying or ignoring all three stories have in common? Protecting the conventional ‘multi-culturalism’ of religion; protecting the bi-partisan political consensus support of charter schools and protecting the reputation of a giant, powerful local utility, Excel. The Star Tribune is only a tribune for the 10% that control this society. They are a tribune for no one else, not even the stars.
I have a button that says’ Big Media” with a slash across it that I wear occasionally. When a reporter for the ST saw it, he challenged me for my supposed troglodyte ways. I must say, after this last month, I won’t be apologetic for continuing to wear it. If the union members at the ST want to challenge management there, one thing they can do is attempt to control what is written in that paper. Workers' control! This is as good a reason for worker control as any. Management's editors have made a hash of in-depth reporting, and this is because of political reasons. That would be one way to bring readers back.
Red Frog
March 25, 2012
The third story was done by the March 2012 'Southside Pride,' which reported on a failure of water levels at the Prairie Island nuclear plant, which either escaped detection or were caused by a leak. This could have lead to a heat-up of the reactor core, similar to what happened at Fukushima. According to Eddie Felien’s story, this was not reported by the Star Tribune, but it was reported by papers in other parts of the country.
What do downplaying or ignoring all three stories have in common? Protecting the conventional ‘multi-culturalism’ of religion; protecting the bi-partisan political consensus support of charter schools and protecting the reputation of a giant, powerful local utility, Excel. The Star Tribune is only a tribune for the 10% that control this society. They are a tribune for no one else, not even the stars.
I have a button that says’ Big Media” with a slash across it that I wear occasionally. When a reporter for the ST saw it, he challenged me for my supposed troglodyte ways. I must say, after this last month, I won’t be apologetic for continuing to wear it. If the union members at the ST want to challenge management there, one thing they can do is attempt to control what is written in that paper. Workers' control! This is as good a reason for worker control as any. Management's editors have made a hash of in-depth reporting, and this is because of political reasons. That would be one way to bring readers back.
Red Frog
March 25, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
And We Shall Now Praise the Homeless, the Drunk and the Poor
"Suttree," by Cormac McCarthy, 1979
Cormac McCarthy has filtered into popular culture twice now – first when the Cohen brothers adopted his book to make “No Country for Old Men.” And then when his dystopian masterpiece “The Road,” went visual. ("The Road" reviewed below.)
McCarthy’s “Suttree” is a humorous cross between Charles Bukowski, William Faulkner, TS Eliot, James Joyce and Steven King. Scientifically, the book is ‘modernist’ in Zizek’s sense – combining myth with ‘humdrum’ everyday details. For my money, McCarthy is one of the two or three best modern living writers, alongside TC Boyle and Russell Banks. I have avoided his westerns, except “Blood Meridian,” which is based on a true and bloody story. Some have called “Suttree” his best book.
McCarthy’s use of words and phrases is what bites one first. After all, he is a writer. He creates words, combines words and dredges up archaic words – much like TC Boyle in ‘World’s End’ - and keeps going for 450 pages. That is no small jump. Here is McCarthy poetically describing the sights out of a streetcar window: "Blinking at the transit of these half-empty frames slapping past. Beyond in a yellowlit housewindow two faces fixed aspectant and forever in some domestic vagary. Rapid his progress who petrifies these innocents into stony history."
Suttree is a homeless man in 1952 Knoxville, Tennessee, who takes over an abandoned houseboat on the Tennessee River under a bridge, selling caught fish to survive. (He calls those who live under the bridges, 'trolls.') He has a mysterious wealthy background, wife and child that he abandoned. He has a fondness for the bottle that he drowns in chocolate milk. Suttree is a decent man, and attempts to help the down and outs that surround him. Harrowgate, a country half-wit; the rag-picker who lives under the bridge; the trainman who lives in a wretched and abandoned train car on the weedy tracks; a giant black who fights the cops every chance he gets; various unemployed rummies and beer fans; transvestites and witches; whores and beautiful river girls.
This book has been called ‘semi-autobiographical.’ If McCarthy lived through this shit – and I think he did – he had a very rough 3 years in Knoxville. He’s thrown in jail; pukes on himself in a black whorehouse; suffers tuberculosis almost to death, a broken body in a whirlwind bar fight and too many nights of days in unprotected heat and cold. At one point he stumbles through the adjacent Smokey Mountains in the winter, freezing white, lost, until ending up in North Carolina, many miles away. Some kind of Yeti dressed in rags.
How he lives in Knoxville is not clear – his paltry earnings selling catfish and carp cannot account for his being able to feed himself all winter. The group he hangs with refuses to work for the most part - just drink. Did he have a secret bank account not mentioned in the book? Fiction, of course, is not kind to fact. The issue of black segregation and oppression is touched on, but McCarthy considers it just part of the scenery. However, he is not a southern segregationist, like Robert Penn Warren. (see review of "All the King's Men", below). This book is a view of the underside of that southern city – aching poverty, unpleasantness and death, wrapped in beer, comradeship and humor. If Orwell had written it, it would be called “Down and Out in Knoxville.” The back-side of the American century and the myth of the glorious '50s - told in a magical language you won't forget.
Red Frog
March 20, 2012
Cormac McCarthy has filtered into popular culture twice now – first when the Cohen brothers adopted his book to make “No Country for Old Men.” And then when his dystopian masterpiece “The Road,” went visual. ("The Road" reviewed below.)
McCarthy’s use of words and phrases is what bites one first. After all, he is a writer. He creates words, combines words and dredges up archaic words – much like TC Boyle in ‘World’s End’ - and keeps going for 450 pages. That is no small jump. Here is McCarthy poetically describing the sights out of a streetcar window: "Blinking at the transit of these half-empty frames slapping past. Beyond in a yellowlit housewindow two faces fixed aspectant and forever in some domestic vagary. Rapid his progress who petrifies these innocents into stony history."
Suttree is a homeless man in 1952 Knoxville, Tennessee, who takes over an abandoned houseboat on the Tennessee River under a bridge, selling caught fish to survive. (He calls those who live under the bridges, 'trolls.') He has a mysterious wealthy background, wife and child that he abandoned. He has a fondness for the bottle that he drowns in chocolate milk. Suttree is a decent man, and attempts to help the down and outs that surround him. Harrowgate, a country half-wit; the rag-picker who lives under the bridge; the trainman who lives in a wretched and abandoned train car on the weedy tracks; a giant black who fights the cops every chance he gets; various unemployed rummies and beer fans; transvestites and witches; whores and beautiful river girls.
This book has been called ‘semi-autobiographical.’ If McCarthy lived through this shit – and I think he did – he had a very rough 3 years in Knoxville. He’s thrown in jail; pukes on himself in a black whorehouse; suffers tuberculosis almost to death, a broken body in a whirlwind bar fight and too many nights of days in unprotected heat and cold. At one point he stumbles through the adjacent Smokey Mountains in the winter, freezing white, lost, until ending up in North Carolina, many miles away. Some kind of Yeti dressed in rags.
How he lives in Knoxville is not clear – his paltry earnings selling catfish and carp cannot account for his being able to feed himself all winter. The group he hangs with refuses to work for the most part - just drink. Did he have a secret bank account not mentioned in the book? Fiction, of course, is not kind to fact. The issue of black segregation and oppression is touched on, but McCarthy considers it just part of the scenery. However, he is not a southern segregationist, like Robert Penn Warren. (see review of "All the King's Men", below). This book is a view of the underside of that southern city – aching poverty, unpleasantness and death, wrapped in beer, comradeship and humor. If Orwell had written it, it would be called “Down and Out in Knoxville.” The back-side of the American century and the myth of the glorious '50s - told in a magical language you won't forget.
Red Frog
March 20, 2012
Thursday, March 15, 2012
A Snake Slithers Up the Mississippi
Who Allowed this to Happen?
Since slavery, the southern United States has been home to the most reactionary forces in the U.S. - forces now concentrated in the Republican Party and the oil barons of Dallas and Houston. Slave labor and wage labor have several things in common - especially if wage labor can be made to more closely resemble wage slavery. So if you thought the Civil War ended in 1865, you'd be sadly mistaken. Georgian Jimmy Carter prepared the ground for Reagan by moving to the right. Ronald Reagan made it official, establishing 'small government' as the goal of U.S. society. Arkansas Bill Clinton incorporated Reaganism into the Democratic Party by echoing Reagan and declaring the 'era of big government over' in 1996, adopting a form of rampant libertarianism that continues to this day. Some local and national Democrats oppose this neo-liberal trend, but they have been on the losing end of the debate inside the Democratic Party for 30 years. Now big city neo-liberals like Obama and Rahm Emanuel exemplify the northern mirror of southern Reaganism. So who remains as the real opposition? Certainly not the wobbling Democratic Party. Which is why the snake has moved north.
Why is this important? The recent vote in the Minnesota legislature to hold a referendum on so-called "Right to Work For Free" is merely the southern chickens coming home to roost. And you thought this shit would stay south? After all, it was the southern United States and their 'union-free' or 'union-lite' environments that first decimated northern industries in the 70's and 80's - it was not Mexico or China. And that process is still going on - witness all the automobile manufacturing plants located in Alabama and the Carolinas. Turning the whole U.S. into a free-fire, cheap labor zone for capital is the ultimate goal. And destroying or weakening unions is key to that goal. That is capital's "American Dream."
As unions have shown, wages, working conditions and social conditions are worse in every single 'Right to Work for Free" state in the U.S. These laws forbid the closed shop - essentially weakening the power of a union to bargain or strike even if they win a union vote. It would be like forbidding businessmen from working together if one businessman disagreed. It holds the majority of workers to the standard of the most conservative minority - essentially an anti-democratic move. Breaking up working-class solidarity is the goal of every single capitalist. Oh, except maybe for those ice cream guys in Vermont.
As an example, take a look at the hipster town of Athens/Clark County, Georgia - the south. It is home to the University of Georgia at Athens. It features a cute downtown with lots of music venues and bars, and now a foodie culture. Yet is is one of the 10 most unequal counties in the United States. Why? Can you say 'overpaid college bureaucrats' and a professorial elite on the one hand, and non-union service and small manufacturing employees on the other? Only unionization will bring a living wage or some kind of small equality to Athens, certainly not more REM songs.
This is our Scott Walker. If the legislature passes the bill to put this on the ballot, the war is ON here in this state. Like Ohio, the working class can stop this attack. Every union, every non-union worker, every student and every activist in every disparate, separated, minuscule, isolated organization in Minnesota should come together and fight against this proposal with everything in their power. A united front of community groups and unions should be formed. I understand as one example the Campaign for a Mass Party of Labor will be attempting to work with unions to bring the message of defeating this slave labor law to the general public. After all, it is non-union workers that will also see their wages and working conditions decline if this law passes, as their benefits are partly calculated based on competing with union scales.
Defeat this proposed vote. Complete the civil war. Organize the South.
Red Frog
March 15, 2012
Since slavery, the southern United States has been home to the most reactionary forces in the U.S. - forces now concentrated in the Republican Party and the oil barons of Dallas and Houston. Slave labor and wage labor have several things in common - especially if wage labor can be made to more closely resemble wage slavery. So if you thought the Civil War ended in 1865, you'd be sadly mistaken. Georgian Jimmy Carter prepared the ground for Reagan by moving to the right. Ronald Reagan made it official, establishing 'small government' as the goal of U.S. society. Arkansas Bill Clinton incorporated Reaganism into the Democratic Party by echoing Reagan and declaring the 'era of big government over' in 1996, adopting a form of rampant libertarianism that continues to this day. Some local and national Democrats oppose this neo-liberal trend, but they have been on the losing end of the debate inside the Democratic Party for 30 years. Now big city neo-liberals like Obama and Rahm Emanuel exemplify the northern mirror of southern Reaganism. So who remains as the real opposition? Certainly not the wobbling Democratic Party. Which is why the snake has moved north.
As unions have shown, wages, working conditions and social conditions are worse in every single 'Right to Work for Free" state in the U.S. These laws forbid the closed shop - essentially weakening the power of a union to bargain or strike even if they win a union vote. It would be like forbidding businessmen from working together if one businessman disagreed. It holds the majority of workers to the standard of the most conservative minority - essentially an anti-democratic move. Breaking up working-class solidarity is the goal of every single capitalist. Oh, except maybe for those ice cream guys in Vermont.
As an example, take a look at the hipster town of Athens/Clark County, Georgia - the south. It is home to the University of Georgia at Athens. It features a cute downtown with lots of music venues and bars, and now a foodie culture. Yet is is one of the 10 most unequal counties in the United States. Why? Can you say 'overpaid college bureaucrats' and a professorial elite on the one hand, and non-union service and small manufacturing employees on the other? Only unionization will bring a living wage or some kind of small equality to Athens, certainly not more REM songs.
This is our Scott Walker. If the legislature passes the bill to put this on the ballot, the war is ON here in this state. Like Ohio, the working class can stop this attack. Every union, every non-union worker, every student and every activist in every disparate, separated, minuscule, isolated organization in Minnesota should come together and fight against this proposal with everything in their power. A united front of community groups and unions should be formed. I understand as one example the Campaign for a Mass Party of Labor will be attempting to work with unions to bring the message of defeating this slave labor law to the general public. After all, it is non-union workers that will also see their wages and working conditions decline if this law passes, as their benefits are partly calculated based on competing with union scales.
Defeat this proposed vote. Complete the civil war. Organize the South.
Red Frog
March 15, 2012
Hungarians Mobilize Against Virtual Book Burning
'Milla' Demonstration for Democratic Rights
Today a mass demonstration has been called in Budapest to demand freedom of speech and the press in Hungary. March 15 is a national holiday commemorating the 1848 revolution. This is in response to the shutting down of independent television, radio and print voices by the authoritarian Fidesz government. The demonstration is to be held at the statue of Sandor Petofi, one of the national poets of Hungary, who in 1848 read 12 demands to the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, including 'freedom of the press' on the steps of the Hungarian National Museum. His statue is on a street named "Freedom of Press Street." Organizers, who are not directly connected to any political party, hope for a million people. Unions have joined in these protests.
In other Hungarian news, the museum and research library of the Marxist Gyorgy Luckacs in Budapest has also been shut down by the Fidesz government. Is a book burning next? Another Hungarian writer, Akos Kertesz, was given refugee status in Canada, due to harassment by the Fidesz authorities. Note that Hungary is a member of the European Union.
Statues of progressive poets and writers in other parts of the Hungarian capital, like the "Red Count," are under consideration for removal from public places as well. This follows the practice after the pull-out of the Soviet Army in 1989, which led to the collapse of the Hungarian Communist government. All memorials or monuments to socialism, the Soviet Red Army, Marx, Lenin, Hungarian revolutionaries or the working class erected during the period of the Hungarian workers' state were relocated to a private park outside Budapest. Only one remains commemorating the liberation of Budapest atop Gallatin Hill.
March 15, 2012
Red Frog
Today a mass demonstration has been called in Budapest to demand freedom of speech and the press in Hungary. March 15 is a national holiday commemorating the 1848 revolution. This is in response to the shutting down of independent television, radio and print voices by the authoritarian Fidesz government. The demonstration is to be held at the statue of Sandor Petofi, one of the national poets of Hungary, who in 1848 read 12 demands to the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, including 'freedom of the press' on the steps of the Hungarian National Museum. His statue is on a street named "Freedom of Press Street." Organizers, who are not directly connected to any political party, hope for a million people. Unions have joined in these protests.
In other Hungarian news, the museum and research library of the Marxist Gyorgy Luckacs in Budapest has also been shut down by the Fidesz government. Is a book burning next? Another Hungarian writer, Akos Kertesz, was given refugee status in Canada, due to harassment by the Fidesz authorities. Note that Hungary is a member of the European Union.
Statues of progressive poets and writers in other parts of the Hungarian capital, like the "Red Count," are under consideration for removal from public places as well. This follows the practice after the pull-out of the Soviet Army in 1989, which led to the collapse of the Hungarian Communist government. All memorials or monuments to socialism, the Soviet Red Army, Marx, Lenin, Hungarian revolutionaries or the working class erected during the period of the Hungarian workers' state were relocated to a private park outside Budapest. Only one remains commemorating the liberation of Budapest atop Gallatin Hill.
March 15, 2012
Red Frog
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Last Glimpse of the Soviet Union
‘Soviet Women – Walking the Tightrope’ – Francine Du Plessix Gray, 1989
Francine Gray didn’t know it, but her visits to the U.S.S.R. provide some of the last glimpses of civil life there. After she left, the Soviet government collapsed in December 1989, followed in 1991 by the shelling of the ex-Soviet parliament by Yeltsin's military. After that came the ‘free market,’ plunging the ex-Soviet peoples into an instant 10-year depression, one of the worst economic collapses in history. (See “Reinventing Collapse” by Dmitry Orlov, reviewed below) One of the architects of that counter-revolution “Dr. Shock,” Jeffrey Sachs, now admits he thought the West would ‘aid' Russia. Actually, the only thing the West wanted to do was steal the USSR’s assets for a song.
But this tumult is just approaching as Ms. Gray tours the Soviet Union during perestroika and glasnost. Her method is to personally interview many mostly female intellectuals, journalists, scientists, psychologists, government bureaucrats, factory workers, artists and doctors in the span of 3 or 4 visits. As a middle-class American feminist with a Russian background, (her mother had been engaged to Mayakovsky before emigrating to Paris), she looks into the issues of sex, abortion, contraception, womens' roles, the 2nd shift, child care, health care, working conditions and female leadership in the USSR.
Gray acknowledges the legal gains of the 1917 revolution – formal sexual equality, the right to vote, equal inheritance laws, improvements in divorce, the lifting of the veil in the Muslim Republics – and social benefits like child care, social feeding, long leaves and access to all jobs. But she points out, along with some of the Russian women she meets, that these gains under Lenin were undermined by the Stalinist period and then the long ‘stagnation’ of the Brezhnev years – called “zastoy.” Gray calls it ‘re-domestication.”
Alexandra Kollontai, the most prominent feminist in the revolutionary years, was saved from execution by Lenin – a fate recommended by the conservative faction of the Central Committee. Instead Kollontai was sent overseas as an ambassador to get her out of the way. In 1979 the first samzidat ‘feminist’ text since the 1920s was issued in Leningrad. In 1980 four of its authors were expelled from the USSR. Stalin had outlawed homosexuality in the early 30s, and even in 1989 the statute was still on the books. Lesbianism was not recognized as even possible. So it comes as no surprise to Gray to find so few Soviet women willing to call themselves ‘feminists,’ even in 1989.
The funniest part of this book is how Soviet women look down on Soviet men as lazy weaklings. The Russian male evidently was supremely lazy at home – never cooking, cleaning or taking care of the children – instead puttering around reading the newspapers. This is a description of a matriarchal social culture based on work. To Soviet women, their jobs, mothers and children come far before their husbands – and to be single with a child, normal. Marriage is not the exalted state we see depicted in the US culture. Their exhaustion working two shifts proves their social superiority – which is why Soviet women guarded their right to be exhausted. Ah the contradictions. Your husband wants to cook? But that is not a man’s job!
Gray describes the birthing floors of Soviet hospitals, where husbands are not allowed, and birth is a joyless and unpleasant experience – all presided over by women midwives and doctors. The babies are then swaddled until they can barely breathe. The Lamaze method is unknown – even though it originally came from observations of an early Soviet doctor.
In a way, Gray’s visit to the USSR is an exercise in vertigo – reactionary practices and ideas on the one hand, progressive elements on the other. Abortion is legal. Yet it is almost the only form of Soviet contraception, and women endure crude abortion methods and facilities repeatedly. Better contraceptives like the pill are almost unknown or hard to find, or dangerous to use. Daycare is available to everyone – but extremely low grade for many. The ‘professional’ women she meets in Moscow and Leningrad are overwhelmed by poverty – while some of the working-class factory workers have good food available from the factory commissaries, quality daycare and higher pay. Yes - the reverse of the situation in the U.S., where the female factory or service worker gets the low end of the stick.
Yet Gray comments that Uzbek professional women of that period "enjoy some of the most privileged lives in the Soviet Union.”
Gray meets a hardened female Brezhnevite apparatchik in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, who is incompetent without her Party perks. And a generous, kind female factory director in Irkutsk, Siberia, near Lake Baikal, who entertains Gray with a sauna and simple food. Tellingly, Irkutsk is a town populated by former dissidents, starting with the Decemberists, for generations. Gray spends much time on the portrayal of women in Russian literature, and on their conflicting desires to dress well because they must ‘shoulder bricks.’
All these contradictions reflect the socialized economy and lack of a capitalist class, yet also a corrupt and dying bureaucracy astride society.
Gray’s main theme continues to be the matriarchal social life she and many other Soviets grew up in.
It would be interesting if Gray - or one of her graduate students or colleagues - returned to Russia and the now independent Muslim Republics to observe the new status of women, and what changes have occurred, for good or ill.
And I bought it at Mayday’s Used Book Section!
Celebrate International Women’s Day.
Red Frog
March 8, 2012
Thursday, March 1, 2012
A Traveler’s Tale
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.” - Mark TwainAlthough given the rubric of the ‘ugly American’ that developed after Twain innocently went abroad, this might not always be the case. Especially if you have to travel overseas to kill people. Ah, do all soldiers in Afghanistan have passports? Answer: You don’t need one if you invade a country! Or get flown in by a U.S. military transport plane.
But I digress. The GAO said 28% of Americans had passports in 2008, and it went up after that due to the requirement for passports to Canada and Mexico. A recent graphic in the Huffington Post, based on another private researcher, thinks the percentage is far higher. Minnesota on both charts ranks in the top group of 15 of those with passports, with New Jersey at the top, while Mississippi and other mostly southern states rank in the bottom. The average is maybe 40% on this list. Why do I even bring this up?
Travel is a topic that many Minnesotans I know avoid. I know one woman who has never been to Chicago. That is only 6.5 hours away, folks, by car. Others have not been to the Black Hills. Some never, or almost never, leave the state – in fact refuse to leave the state. Others fritter away their precious vacation time in individual days. You do find, here in Minne-snapolis, a kind of local patriotism and boosterism, even in people that would never think of themselves that way. Sinclair Lewis wasn’t kidding.
The first travel Minnesotans take is to visit relatives. And that is sometimes the only travel style they take for many years. Other beginning Minnesota travelers sojourn to Vegas, or some beach in Florida. And they return again and again and again. Some people take the same trip in the U.S. every year, or every time they travel, a rut one of my relatives used to live in. The next version of safe travel is the cruise – a packaged event closer to a food orgy, moving hotel and occasional visit to an ‘exotic’ island to shop. This might or might not involve a foreign country. Then there is Canada – but why go there, it’s just like Minnesota, they cry. But some go to the Winnipeg Folk Festival – there is always a contingent of ‘Sotans there, so it might not be just like Minnesota. After all, they have single-payer and a great festival. Then, for cold, winter-bound Minnesotans, there is the flight to Mexico. And that can involve a sheltered ‘all inclusive’ stay at a white-man’s resort, with all your food paid, so you do not even have to venture outside except to the airport. Or it can involve a real visit to another country.
Lack of real knowledge of the rest of the world is peculiar to Americans – given our isolation on one vast continent, with two countries next door that most Americans have still never visited. Many are unable to decipher maps, and are unfamiliar with the history, geography and cultures of other countries, except in the most simple-minded way. There is no doubt that increased nationalism is a product of this isolation.
Beaches seem to be the single focus of many American travelers – and myself, I love a good beach too. Nothing like sitting under a palapa from early morning until evening, food, drink and book in hand, swimming at the ready. However, some don’t think there is any travel outside a beach. It is a beach or nothing. Life’s a ‘beach.’
Rick Steves, that guru of middle-aged American travel, recently gave a talk in town about the politically enlightening affects of travel. Seems he’s been listening to Twain. This is a man who has stood in too many cathedrals in every town in Europe, and offers a simple primer of European culture for Americans. He never misses a local meal. At one time, he was an advocate of cheap and simple travel – and I follow his 1 bag / money-belt prescription to this day. Rick, in spite of his cultivated naiveté, supports single-payer and several other progressive causes. He just shit in his pants recently by breaking out of the European ghetto to visit Turkey – and oh boy, was he excited to be in a Muslim country.
Why do I bring this up, dear reader? Well. I bring this up to encourage the shut-ins to go somewhere. If you are interested in history, or literature, or art, or nature, or architecture, or hiking or music or food or politics or sports or just about anything – travel is like a living book that creates itself. It is not just beaches that deserve a destination. It is simply not true that everything you need to know, or everything that will give you joy, is in your backyard. Because what you will know, eventually, is not much, except your backyard. Republicans like to denigrate travel, and many are proud they have never been out of the U.S. It is a big country and nativists feel it’s big enough for them. Some Repugs don't even travel around the U.S.! Some feel money spent on travel is wasted – because what ‘tangible’ good do you bring back? Indeed? Yet studies of happiness show that ‘experiences’ create far more lasting good effects than buying some item. And travel is always an experience.
Just take history. The U.S. is packed with historical sites – from the Civil War to the ‘old’ West to the Revolution to our writer’s homes. Our own Fort Snelling is one. Or the Laura Ingalls Wilder dugout on Plum Creek in Walnut Grove. Or the memorial to the Sioux in Mankato. Imagine what Europe or other countries have to offer. That is … if you care about history, not just beaches.
I know people who will not travel unless they can go ‘first class.’ As a result, they never go anywhere - because they don’t have a ‘first class’ income. Champagne taste on a beer budget – really an excuse to sit home. However, even older people can travel cheaply – if they don’t have to be pampered like babies. If my broke college-age and post college-age kids can go to Europe, anyone can. So, yes, money is an obstacle, as it will be if you treat it like one. A cherished obstacle, to have and to hold, until death do you part. The real problem is this obstacle will grow as time goes on, as jet fuel and every other travel cost is going up.
Is the most beautiful place in the world the Minnesota north-woods? Well, it is one of the great places, yes, but no. Halong Bay, just east of Hanoi in northern Vietnam, is the most beautiful place in the world. And if not there, perhaps somewhere else.
Red Frog
March 1, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
Gonzo is Here, Now and Forever
“Vultures’ Picnic – In Pursuit of Petroleum Pigs, Power Pirates and High-Finance Carnivores,” by Greg Palast, 2011
It’s a good time to be an investigative journalist. Funny or crazy guys like Thomas Frank, Matt Taibbi, John Perkins, Michael Lewis and yes, Greg Palast, are bringing the spirit of Hunter S. Thompson into the fucked-up ‘modern’ age. Are they going to run out of crooked disasters and lies? No! After this book, I’m thinking Palast is the craziest and most dangerous of all.
This bald-headed left-wing gumshoe gets into every big disaster since the Exxon Valdez – or at least he starts there historically. He pulls the pants off of the lies, fraud, cover-ups, crooked schemes, conspiracies and hair-pieces of modern corporate America. He focuses first on our friends the oil companies - you know, those vampires who only think about ‘shareholder value’ – or perhaps, just their own value. He starts with the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf and goes from there.
Palast had to go to work for an actual public television/radio station in another country, the BBC, to be partially paid for his time. And an actual newspaper, the British Guardian. National Petroleum Radio – home to the same talking heads as CBS/ NBC/ ABC/ CNN/ FOX – wouldn’t touch him. Who wants a guy who doesn’t believe a comforting, cliché’d lie when he hears one? If all the ruling class big shots and newspapers say something, Palast figures it can’t be true. And he’s nearly always right. NPR reporters are trained to lob softball questions in unctuous, kind voices to every corporate, political and military hack they interview. Palast does not fit in. As he puts it: “Must U.S. reporters submit to hypnosis before interviews? Lobotomies? Or are they just drugged by careerism and lazy-fuckism?”
Palast, son of a frustrated furniture salesman, started out lying his way into the University of Chicago and got to be friends with Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boy’s ‘economics’ department. What is up with that? Then he got side-tracked by union commies like Frank Rosen in Chicago, who put his economic analysis skills to work digging up dirt on corporate Chicago energy entities like Con Ed and People’s Gas. And the rest is history.
I’m not going to detail every incriminating fact Palast digs up, but the list of targets is long – oil companies British Petroleum, Shell, Chevron, Exxon; nuclear construction and maintenance companies Stone & Webster and NRG; rapacious power companies Entergy, Southern Company and Reliant; international hedge funds that rape small weak countries like Greece and Liberia; large banking cartels that get the public to pay for their scams; the IMF and the World Bank in cahoots with the banking industry; incompetent construction behemoths Halliburton, Shaw Construction and Brown & Root; government bureaucrats and whole governments on the take; phony journalistic outlets, corrupt judges, front-groups for corporations, companies that buy Inuit islands for $1 in the modern age – the list is endless. Hell, he even uncovers the fraud about Fukushima.
A note to readers of “Collapse” – here is the real story of those sainted entities Chevron and Shell that Mr. Mainstream Green Diamond does not tell. (Review of “Collapse” below.) After all, Chevron named one of their ships the “Condoleezza Rice” after her sterling work for them in Kazakhstan. In other words, if you think the word ‘conspiracy’ is not nutty, but factual too much of the time, you will understand Palast’s angle. He knows there is a smoking gun under every conventional explanation.
Just one set of facts to whet the appetite as a prelude to the whole sorry oil story. We all remember the simple old tale of the “Exxon” Valdez – about a drunk captain who ran onto a reef and leaked 32 million of gallons of oil into the water and land. Bad man. Case closed. Here is what Palast dug up:
The Alyeska Cartel (which was really run by British Petroleum, who hid behind Exxon) had promised to the State, the U.S. government and the native villages that, if they got permission to build an oil port in Prince William Sound, they would:
A, use ‘state of the art’ radar on their ships to avoid the very dangerous reef in Prince William Sound. What was the state of the radar at the time the Exxon Valdez ran aground? Not working.
B, have oil spill equipment set up in case a disaster happened. Where was the equipment? Missing and its absence concealed.
C, have spill containment barges on standby. Where were the barges? Not operating, not usable, condition concealed.
D, have trained ‘spill response teams.’ Where were the teams? The jobs terminated, the teams disbanded and this was also concealed. They ignored native pleas to have a station on the island near the reef to warn ships. Alyeska ignored employees and others who warned about these failures before the disaster struck. To cap it off, all the partners in Alyeska privately agreed to these violations of their contract to save money. I.E. – it was a conspiracy. We’re talking RICO.
According to Palast, it is only the actions of courageous inside individuals who told their stories in spite of real or threatened economic and physical retaliation that any of these facts came out, and any court or journalistic victories won. As Palast puts it, the U.S. media totally dropped the ball on that spill in 1989. BP took that lesson and did the same thing in the Gulf in 2010. Nothing had changed 20 years later.
When you get done with these multiple stories, you will understand that much of modern day capitalism is nothing but a literal criminal enterprise – not just bad people who make serial mistakes. It strengthens any argument for immediately nationalizing the oil, banking, construction, auto and energy industries as anti-social and anti-environmental organizations.
Palast is a funny, easy, personal read, and perhaps his aging hat act wears a little too thin around the sexual and alcoholic edges. But so what – we’re all human. At least that is what they say.
And I bought it at Mayday Books!
Red Frog, February 24, 2012
It’s a good time to be an investigative journalist. Funny or crazy guys like Thomas Frank, Matt Taibbi, John Perkins, Michael Lewis and yes, Greg Palast, are bringing the spirit of Hunter S. Thompson into the fucked-up ‘modern’ age. Are they going to run out of crooked disasters and lies? No! After this book, I’m thinking Palast is the craziest and most dangerous of all.
Palast had to go to work for an actual public television/radio station in another country, the BBC, to be partially paid for his time. And an actual newspaper, the British Guardian. National Petroleum Radio – home to the same talking heads as CBS/ NBC/ ABC/ CNN/ FOX – wouldn’t touch him. Who wants a guy who doesn’t believe a comforting, cliché’d lie when he hears one? If all the ruling class big shots and newspapers say something, Palast figures it can’t be true. And he’s nearly always right. NPR reporters are trained to lob softball questions in unctuous, kind voices to every corporate, political and military hack they interview. Palast does not fit in. As he puts it: “Must U.S. reporters submit to hypnosis before interviews? Lobotomies? Or are they just drugged by careerism and lazy-fuckism?”
Palast, son of a frustrated furniture salesman, started out lying his way into the University of Chicago and got to be friends with Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boy’s ‘economics’ department. What is up with that? Then he got side-tracked by union commies like Frank Rosen in Chicago, who put his economic analysis skills to work digging up dirt on corporate Chicago energy entities like Con Ed and People’s Gas. And the rest is history.
I’m not going to detail every incriminating fact Palast digs up, but the list of targets is long – oil companies British Petroleum, Shell, Chevron, Exxon; nuclear construction and maintenance companies Stone & Webster and NRG; rapacious power companies Entergy, Southern Company and Reliant; international hedge funds that rape small weak countries like Greece and Liberia; large banking cartels that get the public to pay for their scams; the IMF and the World Bank in cahoots with the banking industry; incompetent construction behemoths Halliburton, Shaw Construction and Brown & Root; government bureaucrats and whole governments on the take; phony journalistic outlets, corrupt judges, front-groups for corporations, companies that buy Inuit islands for $1 in the modern age – the list is endless. Hell, he even uncovers the fraud about Fukushima.
A note to readers of “Collapse” – here is the real story of those sainted entities Chevron and Shell that Mr. Mainstream Green Diamond does not tell. (Review of “Collapse” below.) After all, Chevron named one of their ships the “Condoleezza Rice” after her sterling work for them in Kazakhstan. In other words, if you think the word ‘conspiracy’ is not nutty, but factual too much of the time, you will understand Palast’s angle. He knows there is a smoking gun under every conventional explanation.
Just one set of facts to whet the appetite as a prelude to the whole sorry oil story. We all remember the simple old tale of the “Exxon” Valdez – about a drunk captain who ran onto a reef and leaked 32 million of gallons of oil into the water and land. Bad man. Case closed. Here is what Palast dug up:
The Alyeska Cartel (which was really run by British Petroleum, who hid behind Exxon) had promised to the State, the U.S. government and the native villages that, if they got permission to build an oil port in Prince William Sound, they would:
A, use ‘state of the art’ radar on their ships to avoid the very dangerous reef in Prince William Sound. What was the state of the radar at the time the Exxon Valdez ran aground? Not working.
B, have oil spill equipment set up in case a disaster happened. Where was the equipment? Missing and its absence concealed.
C, have spill containment barges on standby. Where were the barges? Not operating, not usable, condition concealed.
D, have trained ‘spill response teams.’ Where were the teams? The jobs terminated, the teams disbanded and this was also concealed. They ignored native pleas to have a station on the island near the reef to warn ships. Alyeska ignored employees and others who warned about these failures before the disaster struck. To cap it off, all the partners in Alyeska privately agreed to these violations of their contract to save money. I.E. – it was a conspiracy. We’re talking RICO.
According to Palast, it is only the actions of courageous inside individuals who told their stories in spite of real or threatened economic and physical retaliation that any of these facts came out, and any court or journalistic victories won. As Palast puts it, the U.S. media totally dropped the ball on that spill in 1989. BP took that lesson and did the same thing in the Gulf in 2010. Nothing had changed 20 years later.
When you get done with these multiple stories, you will understand that much of modern day capitalism is nothing but a literal criminal enterprise – not just bad people who make serial mistakes. It strengthens any argument for immediately nationalizing the oil, banking, construction, auto and energy industries as anti-social and anti-environmental organizations.
Palast is a funny, easy, personal read, and perhaps his aging hat act wears a little too thin around the sexual and alcoholic edges. But so what – we’re all human. At least that is what they say.
And I bought it at Mayday Books!
Red Frog, February 24, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Bad Habits Die Hard
“Collapse – How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed,” by Jared Diamond, 2005
Jared Diamond has written a wonderful anthropological story about the failure of certain societies based on environmental collapse. His political approach, however, reminds me of a scientist who has just discovered that God did not create the world – yet still believes in ‘him.’ The “him” in this instance is the inevitable ‘shareholder-centered’ capitalist corporation.
Diamond, the author of “Guns, Germs & Steel,” is a professor and officer of the World Wildlife Fund ("WWF"), which some Greens call one of the “Big Green” organizations. Big Green organizations live on donations, but have no members or membership meetings, only a group of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. who seek to influence policy. Diamond mars his telling of the collapse of societies in Easter Island, Pitcairn Island, the Anasazi, the Maya, and the Greenland Norse (and by implication Ankor Wat, pre-Incan civilizations and others) by having, like Christian Parenti (see review of ‘Tropic of Chaos,’ below) a weak solution to societal collapse. His is ‘consumer power’ - it’s almost laughable actually. The real meat of this book, however, is his very careful dissection of environmental catastrophe and problems, past and present. And here he knows what he is talking about.
Diamond maintains that there are 5 main issues that impact the environment and destroy societies. 1. Damage societies inflict on the environment, intentionally or otherwise. 2. Climate change due to various causes. 3. Hostile neighbors. 4. Lack of support by formerly friendly neighbors. 5. The society’s response to their problems. Here, he highlights the role that social elites play in squandering the environment and labor, or in refusing to change course or learn from mistakes.
Diamond starts the book in Montana, USA, a place he is personally familiar with. He explains the multiple environmental problems of a state that most people think is quite perfect – including the poisonous legacy of gold and copper mining in Butte. (Also covered by Jeffrey St. Clair in “Born Under a Bad Sky,” reviewed below) His most shocking point is that more money comes into Montana from outside the state (via government / private monies) than are generated within Montana by various agricultural, tourist or mining concerns. Essentially, Montana is on welfare.
Diamond moves on to study the effects of deforestation, monument building, erosion, over-fishing, reef-destruction, over-population, internal war and extinction on Easter Island in the Pacific. He considers this an almost pure example of ecological social collapse. He links this to another study of Polynesia – at Pitcairn and Henderson islands far to the west of Easter. Then Diamond moves to the Southwest and the Anasazi societies of Mesa Verde and Chaco Canyon, and their failed response to deforestation, drought and over-population. The Maya of Guatemala, Honduras, and several states of Mexico figure in the next story. The Maya were an advanced society that developed a calendar, writing and an intricate social structure. However, they failed to adjust to population increases, climate change, deforestation and violence caused by their own rigid society. Like Easter Island, environmental and social goods were squandered in temple-building and war by Mayan rulers, leading to social collapse.
Diamond’s history of the Greenland Norse, who for 400 years occupied two areas in southern Greenland, is very detailed. First settled by Eric the Red, the Norse came to Greenland as pagans, converted to Christianity, and attempted to live an economic and social life similar to their former life in Norway and Iceland. Eric was kicked out of Iceland (which faced its own serious environmental degradation that still exists to this day…) and after discovering this land mass, called it ‘Greenland’ to get fellow Norwegians to join him. It is not for the most part green! Diamond shows how the effort spent on maintaining Christian churches was actually counter-productive to the survival of the society; how the Norse chiefs gradually pauperized segments of the former Viking community; how the Norse refused to learn anything from the Inuit people, like kayak making, and instead only killed them. And, incredibly, never ate fish, which teamed in abundance right off shore, because they were focused on cows, sheep, pigs, goats and seals, as in the old country. This from a society that eventually starved to death due to environmental damage in the fjords where they lived. As Diamond put it, the chiefs gained the right to starve last.
Diamond reviews recent ecological situations in China, Australia, Haiti, the Dominican Republic and Rwanda that are repeating the deadly patterns of prior systemic failure or prove to be successful attempts to counter it. He illustrates how one Pacific island, Tikopia, successfully banned pigs because they were eating the undergrowth and denuding the land, and this decision saved the soil that the agriculture of Tikopia was based on. The pigs in Tikopia were a valued food, obviously, so this shows the kind of foresight the society had – to deny themselves something in order to save something more important. (Note to carnivores...)
His history of recent events in Rwanda is enlightening, as he links the ‘genocide’ and violence there to over-population, deforestation, drought, erosion, and not just ethnic/class antagonisms. In one study of the Kanama area, he describes how landed Hutus killed other, poorer Hutus because there was not enough land to go around. Rwanda is one of the most populous places on earth, and as he quotes Rwandans themselves, it was no secret that ‘killing’ was a way to reduce that population, and allow the survivors to raise enough crops to live.
Diamond finishes his book with a panegyric to Shell Oil / Chevron Oil, and an oil field they built in Kutubu in Papau New Guinea. Diamond worked with the WWF and Chevron to certify this oil field as ‘green’ – one which did not damage the environment. And from his description, the immediate impression is that this is the best way to build a well field, if you have to do so. Chevron was reacting to pressure from the government and surrounding people of Papua New Guinea, who might have closed the wells if they did damage the environment. Diamond believes that profit-making companies will build ‘clean’ wells in order to make more profits, if consumers and governments pressure them.
However, this oil field seems to be somewhat of a Potemkin Village, if we look at Shell/Chevron’s other oil fields. Shell is involved in pumping oil out of the Arctic to Prudoe Bay on the continually leaking pipeline, has negotiated a concession to drill in the Arctic in Inuit lands when the ice melts; is involved in the destructive Alberta Tar Sands project, and is part of the massive oil spills and police state in Nigeria. Shell also has its refineries on Cancer Alley in Louisiana. Chevron is invested in the corrupt Azerbijan government with BP, and the polluting Azeri oil fields, and is a defendant in the lawsuit brought by native peoples in Ecuador against the massive oil spills there. Chevron helped fire the head of the Louisiana Hurricane center at LSU, as he recommended restoring wetlands south of New Orleans to stop hurricanes. There will be more next week, as I finish Greg Palast's book, "Vultures Picnic."
Will ‘consumer’ choices change the bloodthirsty, corrupt and environmentally destructive policies of various societies? Will capital be restrained if I buy from Chevron (or Citgo) instead of BP or Koch? Or from the handful of certified wood providers over the rest? Or from organic foods over factory-farmed food? Well, a bit. But, again, if we face ‘collapse’ on a global scale – then obviously the slow, incremental changes that this method involves (and that is assuming enough “consumers” will do so) is insufficient to finally stop self-destruction. Something more is needed – eco-socialism.
A final good word from Diamond, showing how travel informs political views. He wrote this book as another warning to the global North. In response to critics who think environmentalism is a ‘luxury’ only for upscale yuppies, I quote: “This view is one I have heard mainly from affluent First World yuppies lacking experience of the Third World. In all my experience in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, East Africa, Peru and others …I have been impressed that their people know very well how they are being harmed by population growth, deforestation, overfishing and other problems. They know it because they immediately pay the penalty…”
In a sense, understanding the environment is essential to survival - quite clearly the intellectual workings of Darwinism on the human social scale. Political and cultural ideas that are maladaptive are incompatible with the continued existence of the human species, which is why even in the realm of ideas, the battle for survival continues.
And I bought it at Cheapo Books, now down in the basement of Cheapo Records.
Red Frog / February 19, 2012
Jared Diamond has written a wonderful anthropological story about the failure of certain societies based on environmental collapse. His political approach, however, reminds me of a scientist who has just discovered that God did not create the world – yet still believes in ‘him.’ The “him” in this instance is the inevitable ‘shareholder-centered’ capitalist corporation.
Diamond maintains that there are 5 main issues that impact the environment and destroy societies. 1. Damage societies inflict on the environment, intentionally or otherwise. 2. Climate change due to various causes. 3. Hostile neighbors. 4. Lack of support by formerly friendly neighbors. 5. The society’s response to their problems. Here, he highlights the role that social elites play in squandering the environment and labor, or in refusing to change course or learn from mistakes.
Diamond starts the book in Montana, USA, a place he is personally familiar with. He explains the multiple environmental problems of a state that most people think is quite perfect – including the poisonous legacy of gold and copper mining in Butte. (Also covered by Jeffrey St. Clair in “Born Under a Bad Sky,” reviewed below) His most shocking point is that more money comes into Montana from outside the state (via government / private monies) than are generated within Montana by various agricultural, tourist or mining concerns. Essentially, Montana is on welfare.
Diamond moves on to study the effects of deforestation, monument building, erosion, over-fishing, reef-destruction, over-population, internal war and extinction on Easter Island in the Pacific. He considers this an almost pure example of ecological social collapse. He links this to another study of Polynesia – at Pitcairn and Henderson islands far to the west of Easter. Then Diamond moves to the Southwest and the Anasazi societies of Mesa Verde and Chaco Canyon, and their failed response to deforestation, drought and over-population. The Maya of Guatemala, Honduras, and several states of Mexico figure in the next story. The Maya were an advanced society that developed a calendar, writing and an intricate social structure. However, they failed to adjust to population increases, climate change, deforestation and violence caused by their own rigid society. Like Easter Island, environmental and social goods were squandered in temple-building and war by Mayan rulers, leading to social collapse.
Diamond’s history of the Greenland Norse, who for 400 years occupied two areas in southern Greenland, is very detailed. First settled by Eric the Red, the Norse came to Greenland as pagans, converted to Christianity, and attempted to live an economic and social life similar to their former life in Norway and Iceland. Eric was kicked out of Iceland (which faced its own serious environmental degradation that still exists to this day…) and after discovering this land mass, called it ‘Greenland’ to get fellow Norwegians to join him. It is not for the most part green! Diamond shows how the effort spent on maintaining Christian churches was actually counter-productive to the survival of the society; how the Norse chiefs gradually pauperized segments of the former Viking community; how the Norse refused to learn anything from the Inuit people, like kayak making, and instead only killed them. And, incredibly, never ate fish, which teamed in abundance right off shore, because they were focused on cows, sheep, pigs, goats and seals, as in the old country. This from a society that eventually starved to death due to environmental damage in the fjords where they lived. As Diamond put it, the chiefs gained the right to starve last.
Diamond reviews recent ecological situations in China, Australia, Haiti, the Dominican Republic and Rwanda that are repeating the deadly patterns of prior systemic failure or prove to be successful attempts to counter it. He illustrates how one Pacific island, Tikopia, successfully banned pigs because they were eating the undergrowth and denuding the land, and this decision saved the soil that the agriculture of Tikopia was based on. The pigs in Tikopia were a valued food, obviously, so this shows the kind of foresight the society had – to deny themselves something in order to save something more important. (Note to carnivores...)
His history of recent events in Rwanda is enlightening, as he links the ‘genocide’ and violence there to over-population, deforestation, drought, erosion, and not just ethnic/class antagonisms. In one study of the Kanama area, he describes how landed Hutus killed other, poorer Hutus because there was not enough land to go around. Rwanda is one of the most populous places on earth, and as he quotes Rwandans themselves, it was no secret that ‘killing’ was a way to reduce that population, and allow the survivors to raise enough crops to live.
Diamond finishes his book with a panegyric to Shell Oil / Chevron Oil, and an oil field they built in Kutubu in Papau New Guinea. Diamond worked with the WWF and Chevron to certify this oil field as ‘green’ – one which did not damage the environment. And from his description, the immediate impression is that this is the best way to build a well field, if you have to do so. Chevron was reacting to pressure from the government and surrounding people of Papua New Guinea, who might have closed the wells if they did damage the environment. Diamond believes that profit-making companies will build ‘clean’ wells in order to make more profits, if consumers and governments pressure them.
However, this oil field seems to be somewhat of a Potemkin Village, if we look at Shell/Chevron’s other oil fields. Shell is involved in pumping oil out of the Arctic to Prudoe Bay on the continually leaking pipeline, has negotiated a concession to drill in the Arctic in Inuit lands when the ice melts; is involved in the destructive Alberta Tar Sands project, and is part of the massive oil spills and police state in Nigeria. Shell also has its refineries on Cancer Alley in Louisiana. Chevron is invested in the corrupt Azerbijan government with BP, and the polluting Azeri oil fields, and is a defendant in the lawsuit brought by native peoples in Ecuador against the massive oil spills there. Chevron helped fire the head of the Louisiana Hurricane center at LSU, as he recommended restoring wetlands south of New Orleans to stop hurricanes. There will be more next week, as I finish Greg Palast's book, "Vultures Picnic."
Will ‘consumer’ choices change the bloodthirsty, corrupt and environmentally destructive policies of various societies? Will capital be restrained if I buy from Chevron (or Citgo) instead of BP or Koch? Or from the handful of certified wood providers over the rest? Or from organic foods over factory-farmed food? Well, a bit. But, again, if we face ‘collapse’ on a global scale – then obviously the slow, incremental changes that this method involves (and that is assuming enough “consumers” will do so) is insufficient to finally stop self-destruction. Something more is needed – eco-socialism.
A final good word from Diamond, showing how travel informs political views. He wrote this book as another warning to the global North. In response to critics who think environmentalism is a ‘luxury’ only for upscale yuppies, I quote: “This view is one I have heard mainly from affluent First World yuppies lacking experience of the Third World. In all my experience in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, East Africa, Peru and others …I have been impressed that their people know very well how they are being harmed by population growth, deforestation, overfishing and other problems. They know it because they immediately pay the penalty…”
In a sense, understanding the environment is essential to survival - quite clearly the intellectual workings of Darwinism on the human social scale. Political and cultural ideas that are maladaptive are incompatible with the continued existence of the human species, which is why even in the realm of ideas, the battle for survival continues.
And I bought it at Cheapo Books, now down in the basement of Cheapo Records.
Red Frog / February 19, 2012
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
WHO PAYS
Dear Fellow Commodity,
On payday, should you thank the boss or should the boss thank you? Owners seem generous to some. After all, they take some of their money and share it with you. But the money they “share” comes from your labor. YOU provide the money they pay out!
LABOR CREATES ALL WEALTH!
The following piece was written when Governors Walker of Wisconsin, Daniels of Ohio, Snyder of Michican and others enacted harsh legislation against their states' workers. This triggered an unprecedented explosion of anger; and there's much more to come.
So...
...when your boss or Governor tells you to take a pay cut or pay more for your healthcare or retirement, etc. tell them you already pay for everything! Your labor pays for your wages, your pension, your health care, your vacation, your sick leave, your PTO and your labor pays for the building you work in, the heat, water, electricity, gas, real estate taxes, advertising, bribes to public officials AND it pays for his Cadillac, his mansion, his alimony, his world travels...your labor pays for EVERYTHING!
Tom Dooley - St. Paul, MN
On payday, should you thank the boss or should the boss thank you? Owners seem generous to some. After all, they take some of their money and share it with you. But the money they “share” comes from your labor. YOU provide the money they pay out!
LABOR CREATES ALL WEALTH!
The following piece was written when Governors Walker of Wisconsin, Daniels of Ohio, Snyder of Michican and others enacted harsh legislation against their states' workers. This triggered an unprecedented explosion of anger; and there's much more to come.
So...
...when your boss or Governor tells you to take a pay cut or pay more for your healthcare or retirement, etc. tell them you already pay for everything! Your labor pays for your wages, your pension, your health care, your vacation, your sick leave, your PTO and your labor pays for the building you work in, the heat, water, electricity, gas, real estate taxes, advertising, bribes to public officials AND it pays for his Cadillac, his mansion, his alimony, his world travels...your labor pays for EVERYTHING!
Tom Dooley - St. Paul, MN
Friday, February 10, 2012
Land of the Lotus Eaters
“News From Nowhere – An Epoch of Rest (Being some chapters from a Utopian Romance),” By William Morris (1890)
William Morris was an early supporter of Marx in England - and a poet, novelist, publisher, designer, craftsman, socialist activist, conservationist and businessman. This Renaissance man would be an odd duck to some modern folks – philosophically a multi-talented lover of romantic medievalism and socialism too. Morris was an activist in various Socialist organizations starting in the 1870s while keeping up other practical and intellectual pursuits. Besides British Marxism, Morris influenced the English National Trust, the Arts & Crafts movement, modernist architect Walter Gropius, town planner Lewis Mumford and the English Green Party.
Like Tolkien, Morris had a love for the small English village and its life. This love infuses “News From Nowhere,” a Utopian vision set in the year 2102, after a successful English communist revolution in 1952. The happy inhabitants of 2102 England can barely remember the crude, poor and violent society from which they emerged so long before. The narrator – ‘Guest” - goes to sleep in the 1800s - and wakes up in 2102 in a guesthouse along the Thames. Outside is a vision of gorgeous nature, beautiful men and women, quietude, health, happiness, physical abundance, mental care, artisanal technology and a lack of classes. The living modern equivalent might be a visit to the Renaissance Festival – minus the King, his Knights and the Mud Wenches. Time traveler Guest is impressed by the beautiful clothes that everyone wears in 2102, the detailed quality handwork gone into architecture and town planning, the communal sharing of food, goods, housing and transport, the physical strength and skills of the citizens, the leisurely pace of life, the almost complete lack of violence, and the personal consideration of citizens for each other. The rich and the poor no longer exist, nor do prisons, marriages or any government. Of course, the old geezer Guest gets a crush on one tanned beauty, which he must relinquish when he is thrown back into the 1800s at the end of the book.
Morris carefully shows how Marxist ideas like the ‘contradiction between town and country’ have dissolved, as the city of London is now no more than a rather large town, spread-out, with green-fields about. Another Marxist concept, of ‘non-alienated’ labor is shown for all it is worth, as each citizen – or neighbor, as they call themselves - does what he can for the general good, working on the tasks he is best at. This accounts for the high quality of the work surrounding everyone. Work itself has become a joy, not a burden. The leisurely pace of work is a nod to Marx’s son-in-law, Paul LaFargue, and his idea of the “right to be lazy” - or at least, relaxed. War and crime in 2102 barely exist – crimes of property no longer do. One man is killed in an act of self-defense during the book, due to jealousy, but that is all. Decisions are made by counsels, which work towards agreement, but if no agreement can be reached, then by majority vote.
3 SECTIONS
The book is divided into 3 sections – two journeys by horse cart and boat - surrounding a long question and answer session with an old learned man, Hammond, who knows history. The Revolution of 1952 is described by Hammond in terms that are familiar. The revolution starts with a general strike, which leads to the rise of dual power – the ‘Committee for Public Safety” (The same name as the revolutionary organization during the French Revolution of 1792), then fights with groups of roving rich kids - who I would say are the fascists in this situation. The arming of the revolution is prompted by a massacre, now put in 1952, which leads to a civil war. This was based on Morris’ own experience of ‘Bloody Sunday’ – a real 1887 massacre of workers in London’s Trafalgar Square by British soldiers using Gatling guns. Eventually the majority of the English Army sides with the revolutionaries and the civil war is won by the communists. After all Morris, for all his romanticism, was not a head-in-the-clouds pacifist. He knew that capital would not give up power without a fight, even if it lost an election or a series of elections.
The most interesting thing about this vision of the communist future is the view of nature and technology. Marx called some of Morris’ friends ‘medieval socialists’ due to their views that technology was inherently evil. Marx believed that machines could overcome drudgery and increase human productivity, thus leading to more leisure time and a sufficient material basis of life. Under capitalism, machines are used to both increase unemployment and to increase the intensity of labor, while also adding to the burden of fixed capital. Under Morris, technology has returned to the artisan stage, with handcrafts and human labor being the main forms of production. For instance, haying in this utopia is done by large groups of people in a festive atmosphere, living in tents, using scythes, not tractors. Buildings are constructed by groups of neighbors, much as in American pioneer life. Horses, wagons and water skiffs provide transport. While ‘mills’ line the Thames, they all seem to be run by water power. One mysterious barge has some kind of power, but Morris is unable to explain how it works. Electricity and steam are not in evidence in this natural paradise, nor is coal - mills and factories belching fumes have disappeared. Nor are there any windmills or solar collectors, things perhaps too high-tech for Morris.
Morris understood the negative effects of technology on nature, and this understanding is something modern socialists, if they are scientists, must accommodate. Marx’s environmentalism is being re-discovered - see the reviews of “Marx’s Ecology” and “The Ecological Revolution,” both by John Bellamy Foster, below. For those socialists whose vision of communism is something along the lines of George Jetson, this book is a nice contrast. It is inevitable that socialists might have to accept a lower standard of living in the matter of goods to deal with global climate change, population and peak oil, if no clean energy source is available. And one is not yet on the horizon. I have suggested the year 1947 in a prior post – prior to the development of suburbia and the mass use of the automobile – as a year in which it would be possible for millions to live on a technological basis, while still retaining all social goods. Morris himself chose, oh, probably 1825 or maybe even 1625, prior to the development of railroads and the modern capitalist economy, as his years of inspiration. I see no reason why this kind of life could not also partially exist under socialism, much as it does under capital, i.e. the Amish, if people wish to live that way, or if these methods are actually more sustainable.
Morris portrays people in 2102 England as not going to school, but educating themselves in small groups, in training on the job, and on their own. Many do not read a lot, and instead value physical work and skills. The picture here reminds one of the cult of physicality in the USSR in the 30s and later, and the experience of the cultural revolution in China, where people from the city were sent to work as peasants. Morris here illustrates another Marxist point – that physical/manual and intellectual labor have to be combined, and both appreciated. Under capital, physical work is not compensated well, is looked down on, and so are the people doing it. Some call them ‘stupid.’ Many of the present middle-class people putting workers down have no physical, mechanical, artistic or emotional intelligence themselves – though these 'geniuses' never recognize this. Morris himself was a sterling example of the opposite – that intellectual and practical physical skills can be combined. In the U.S. the modern middle class has few practical skills, and must rely on buying the labor of others to do the simplest things. Conversely, many blue-collar and white-collar workers do not crack a book, or get any real intellectual training - which is one reason why the U.S. is so politically backward. That is one of the reasons for the existence of May Day Books.
And I bought it at May Day Books, where it is
NOW ON SALE for $8 in the Used Area
Red Frog, February 10, 2012
William Morris was an early supporter of Marx in England - and a poet, novelist, publisher, designer, craftsman, socialist activist, conservationist and businessman. This Renaissance man would be an odd duck to some modern folks – philosophically a multi-talented lover of romantic medievalism and socialism too. Morris was an activist in various Socialist organizations starting in the 1870s while keeping up other practical and intellectual pursuits. Besides British Marxism, Morris influenced the English National Trust, the Arts & Crafts movement, modernist architect Walter Gropius, town planner Lewis Mumford and the English Green Party.
Morris carefully shows how Marxist ideas like the ‘contradiction between town and country’ have dissolved, as the city of London is now no more than a rather large town, spread-out, with green-fields about. Another Marxist concept, of ‘non-alienated’ labor is shown for all it is worth, as each citizen – or neighbor, as they call themselves - does what he can for the general good, working on the tasks he is best at. This accounts for the high quality of the work surrounding everyone. Work itself has become a joy, not a burden. The leisurely pace of work is a nod to Marx’s son-in-law, Paul LaFargue, and his idea of the “right to be lazy” - or at least, relaxed. War and crime in 2102 barely exist – crimes of property no longer do. One man is killed in an act of self-defense during the book, due to jealousy, but that is all. Decisions are made by counsels, which work towards agreement, but if no agreement can be reached, then by majority vote.
3 SECTIONS
The book is divided into 3 sections – two journeys by horse cart and boat - surrounding a long question and answer session with an old learned man, Hammond, who knows history. The Revolution of 1952 is described by Hammond in terms that are familiar. The revolution starts with a general strike, which leads to the rise of dual power – the ‘Committee for Public Safety” (The same name as the revolutionary organization during the French Revolution of 1792), then fights with groups of roving rich kids - who I would say are the fascists in this situation. The arming of the revolution is prompted by a massacre, now put in 1952, which leads to a civil war. This was based on Morris’ own experience of ‘Bloody Sunday’ – a real 1887 massacre of workers in London’s Trafalgar Square by British soldiers using Gatling guns. Eventually the majority of the English Army sides with the revolutionaries and the civil war is won by the communists. After all Morris, for all his romanticism, was not a head-in-the-clouds pacifist. He knew that capital would not give up power without a fight, even if it lost an election or a series of elections.
The most interesting thing about this vision of the communist future is the view of nature and technology. Marx called some of Morris’ friends ‘medieval socialists’ due to their views that technology was inherently evil. Marx believed that machines could overcome drudgery and increase human productivity, thus leading to more leisure time and a sufficient material basis of life. Under capitalism, machines are used to both increase unemployment and to increase the intensity of labor, while also adding to the burden of fixed capital. Under Morris, technology has returned to the artisan stage, with handcrafts and human labor being the main forms of production. For instance, haying in this utopia is done by large groups of people in a festive atmosphere, living in tents, using scythes, not tractors. Buildings are constructed by groups of neighbors, much as in American pioneer life. Horses, wagons and water skiffs provide transport. While ‘mills’ line the Thames, they all seem to be run by water power. One mysterious barge has some kind of power, but Morris is unable to explain how it works. Electricity and steam are not in evidence in this natural paradise, nor is coal - mills and factories belching fumes have disappeared. Nor are there any windmills or solar collectors, things perhaps too high-tech for Morris.
Morris understood the negative effects of technology on nature, and this understanding is something modern socialists, if they are scientists, must accommodate. Marx’s environmentalism is being re-discovered - see the reviews of “Marx’s Ecology” and “The Ecological Revolution,” both by John Bellamy Foster, below. For those socialists whose vision of communism is something along the lines of George Jetson, this book is a nice contrast. It is inevitable that socialists might have to accept a lower standard of living in the matter of goods to deal with global climate change, population and peak oil, if no clean energy source is available. And one is not yet on the horizon. I have suggested the year 1947 in a prior post – prior to the development of suburbia and the mass use of the automobile – as a year in which it would be possible for millions to live on a technological basis, while still retaining all social goods. Morris himself chose, oh, probably 1825 or maybe even 1625, prior to the development of railroads and the modern capitalist economy, as his years of inspiration. I see no reason why this kind of life could not also partially exist under socialism, much as it does under capital, i.e. the Amish, if people wish to live that way, or if these methods are actually more sustainable.
Morris portrays people in 2102 England as not going to school, but educating themselves in small groups, in training on the job, and on their own. Many do not read a lot, and instead value physical work and skills. The picture here reminds one of the cult of physicality in the USSR in the 30s and later, and the experience of the cultural revolution in China, where people from the city were sent to work as peasants. Morris here illustrates another Marxist point – that physical/manual and intellectual labor have to be combined, and both appreciated. Under capital, physical work is not compensated well, is looked down on, and so are the people doing it. Some call them ‘stupid.’ Many of the present middle-class people putting workers down have no physical, mechanical, artistic or emotional intelligence themselves – though these 'geniuses' never recognize this. Morris himself was a sterling example of the opposite – that intellectual and practical physical skills can be combined. In the U.S. the modern middle class has few practical skills, and must rely on buying the labor of others to do the simplest things. Conversely, many blue-collar and white-collar workers do not crack a book, or get any real intellectual training - which is one reason why the U.S. is so politically backward. That is one of the reasons for the existence of May Day Books.
And I bought it at May Day Books, where it is
NOW ON SALE for $8 in the Used Area
Red Frog, February 10, 2012
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Liberty for Capital
Who is Ron Paul?
Ron Paul is running for President in the Republican Party primaries, but he’s more important for what he means outside the Republican Party than in it. He’s appealing to independents, youth and even some anti-war people. He might run as an independent again, like he did once before in 1988 as the Libertarian candidate for president, though I doubt it. If he or his son develop a long-range independent political organization, he could claim part of the political space that a populist party might claim. What is clear is that his newly prominent status is due to a vast failure of the Left to provide an alternative to capitalist policies, either of the Democratic Party kind or of the Republican kind. A vacuum needed to be filled, and it is being partly filled by Paul.
Paul also draws on the collapse of the economy - and the growth in sectors the ideologists of capital like to call 'entrepreneurial' - independent consultants, entrepreneurs starting cupcake stores, people with tech and internet start-ups. This even involves the hipster zone - artists of various kinds, yoga instructors, craft brewers and bicycle-makers, etc. - all provide a seeming alternative to the drab life of a cube dweller, retail salesperson or factory hand. "Being your own boss" seems to be a way to escape wage slavery - without a revolution. This is a great draw for young people coming out of college, and those unemployed or hating their present jobs. Of course the success rate for entrepenuers over 10 years is 29%, according to Scott Shane.
Two ideologists of Libertarianism are Ayn Rand and Friedrich Hayek. Ayn Rand was a refugee from the revolution in Russia. Her views were completely shaped as a reaction to Marxism. Fredrick Hayek grew up in Austria, and also developed in reaction to European socialist theoreticians and later, the partly planned economies in Eastern Europe. Both developed a sort of extreme right-wing anarchism in response. This has been adopted by American Libertarians, who blend it with long-time American ethics of individualism and proprietorship, and sometimes other ideologies, like Agrarianism, classic liberalism and evangelical Christianity.
The key thing in the analysis of a politician is, A, what class he represents, and B, what class backs him. 'A' is primary. So looking at Paul, it is pretty easy to see he represents the simon-pure ideas of a small businessman. And that is what Libertarianism is. His opposition to international imperialism reflects most small businessmen's views – because for the most part they only do business in the U.S. His opposition to the government’s growing police & other powers reflects the fact that small businessmen do not benefit as much from the government as large capital. The government is seen by them as being in big capital’s pocket, and for good reason. In the case of the drug war, I think many small businessmen are salivating at the legalization of pot, at least. Apply this logic to almost everything he says, and you will see it is from the view of a shoe-store owner in Muncie, Indiana. But not exactly Wall Street – until you draw out the implications. Then even large capital benefits by libertarian ideas – as they both embrace the myth of the ‘free’ market, among other things.
You can see this class outlook even here in Minneapolis when Libertarians in the Minneapolis Republican Party and some Greens coalesced around the mayoral campaign of Papa John Kolstad, a small businessman on Lake Street. Kolstad made the center-piece of his campaign the onerous regulations on small businessmen. (Kolstad’s 2009 campaign reviewed below.)
Is Paul backed by the ruling class right now? No, even though he’s running in the Republican Party primaries, a party dominated by a wing of the ruling class. The establishment Republican Party ‘black shirts’ (as I call them) do not support him. The establishments of both parties have never lost control of the nominating process in the recent past – except in the cases of Goldwater and McGovern. I do not think it will happen this year either. The Republican Brownshirts – Bachmann, Perry, Cain – and the fake Brownshirt, Gingrich – are all dropping one by one.
Politics should not be like a bad Chinese restaurant, where you pick one policy from column A, and 3 from column B and don’t order from column C, and then you ‘vote’ for the politicians with the ‘best’ policies. Once you understand the class roots of a politician, his seemingly ‘good’ policies (or perhaps just words…) become transparent as to their source. This applies to both Paul and Obama. That is what a class analysis does – it allows you to see beneath the hype and hope.
Paul represents the area around Galveston, Texas and was a doctor. His district is one of the top recipients of federal money in the country - $31B since 2000. This is similar to the rest of Texas, which got twice as much from the Federal government due to things like Fort Hood, the biggest employer in Texas. In 1988 he ran on the Libertarian Party ticket. Paul was one person who understood that deficit spending on the Vietnam war ended the gold standard, and brought large federal deficits. (See review of “Debt – the First 5,000 Years” on the role of war in creating government debt – reviewed below.) He gets 48% of his money in small contributions – with a few corporations, small businesses and professionals donating too. In a new development, Paul has relied on the kindness of PayPal founder Peter Thiel , a like-minded libertarian in favor of the smallest government possible, who gave $900,000 to Paul’s “Endorse Liberty” Super PAC. So like other candidates, he has a rich sugar-daddy.
Many members of the US military donate to Paul, which is interesting, given his stand on the wars. Paul also has supporters who are neo-Confederates, white supremacists and Nazis. He has been endorsed by Klansman David Duke, among others. His newsletters reprinted racist material, and Paul doesn’t understand how that material got in there. Right. Paul is also a former member of the John Birch Society. And the Republican Party today is, if nothing else, a giant Birch Society.
So what would Paul’s election mean for workers? Selections from Menu A:
* Ron Paul’s website doesn’t mention either “jobs” or “unemployment” under the category of “issues.” Nor is there one word about foreclosures. Think about that for awhile. In the middle of the greatest job and house losses since the 30s, not a word! The closest he gets is advocating the passage of more anti-union “right to work” laws. So he’s anti-union. In other words, he’d be on the side of Walker in Wisconsin. He does not support the theory of unemployment insurance or its extensions or ANY benefits for working-class people. But in his program, he does bow a bit to the existence of social security, veteran’s benefits and Medicare/Medicaid, and does not openly call for the end of unemployment yet. He thinks unemployment insurance should eventually be ‘privatized.’ He’s against NAFTA (managed trade) … but for free trade. Again, reflecting his support of small business, who were not the drivers of NAFTA.
Oddly enough, the Libertarian Party itself wants to repeal the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") and state right-to-work laws. But they oppose the closed shop or collective bargaining too. They also support child labor, oppose the minimum wage and all welfare programs of any kind. Some people in the labor movement have also called for abolition of the NLRA, which would cut the legal rationale of government controlling union and labor affairs.
* Paul opposes the Civil Rights acts of the 1960s because they infringe on private property, and hence he would also oppose affirmative action in hiring. So black, women and brown workers would not be able to get a leg-up against discrimination. Much of the hiring in government or government-contracted jobs in the past would have been much whiter if Paul had been in control. Implicit in this is support for a return to Jim Crow and ‘white only’ businesses and employment.
* He wants to lay off 10% of government workers and privatize many parts of government, closing 5 Departments. I guess Perry borrowed his ideas from Paul, though he can't remember. Laying off 10% of government workers was also the position of Obama’s Deficit Commission. Paul wants to allow young workers to opt out of Social Security, which would slowly destroy the program. He wants to deregulate Wall Street even more, and get rid of even the most timid attempts at regulation, so the early appearance of Paulites in the OWS protests is basically dishonest. Their only interest was ‘abolishing the Fed’ and did not go beyond that. He wants to eliminate capital gains taxes and those on large estates.
* He supports privatized medical care and does not want a mandate. The latter benefits big insurance and corporations, but might be rough on small businessmen. Like all the other candidates, he wants to cut the federal budget, this time by $1T in just ONE YEAR. Remember the Deficit Commission wanted $3.5T of cuts over many years. He supports home schooling, charter schools and vouchers, all which will undermine public education, union jobs and decent educations for working-class children, but will benefit business by privatizing education. This position is similar to all the other candidates in this race, including Obama and his dreadful Education Secretary, Ernie Duncan. Think about that, teacher union members.
*Re: immigration, he wants to ‘end the welfare state,’ (a direct quote) which he incorrectly thinks is being ‘used’ by immigrants from Mexico. Immigrants pay more into the system then they ever get out of it actually. He also wants to end ‘birthright citizenship.’ His position on immigration will mean an even more oppressed section of the U.S. working class. Abortion? He’s agin’ it. So women workers will be forced to have children if there is a slip-up.
* Paul mentions nothing about using the state against the working class. His whole program is based on the legal sanctity of private property by the State, so I do not think Paul would be against the courts if they acted against strikers to 'protect private property.' He does not want to repeal Taft Hartley, in other words. Paul unsurprisingly thinks global warming is a ‘hoax.’ So I guess you could say he wants workers to cook, and not just in the kitchen.
And from Menu B - here are some of the good things Paul supports: Quote from Paul in 2007: "We're not moving toward a Hitler-type fascism, but we're moving toward a softer fascism," he said. "Loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business." Hmmm.
Paul opposes the drug war, some of the encroachments of government on civil liberties, and the broader imperial military & foreign aid project. So workers would not be sent overseas to die, and this approach would partly de-militarize the U.S. However, he does not have an industrial plan for what to do with all those laid-off workers – nor does he believe in one. Paul’s plan would lower the massive racist incarceration rate for poor working people, who are usually the ones jailed for drug crimes. This might weaken the for-profit incarceration industry. It would also weaken the ‘total police state’ that has been developing, which is used against strikes and the working class, as well as any other protest movements. The very term ‘terrorist’ in fact has been applied to strikers. Paul is against most farm subsidies – many of which benefit corporate farms and large farmers. Paul comes from a part farm district, and I’m guessing there are some small farmers there who do not benefit so much from Big Agriculture welfare. Paul wants to audit the Federal Reserve, which IS a secretive banker’s cabal, and should be audited - and ended. He’s actually for more alternative medical treatments to be available, like acupuncture and homeopathics. He does mention, like the UE, that his salary will be that of a worker’s median income - $35,000. Of course, his earnings on investments, like Mr. Romney's, will make sure Paul is not too poor.
So what would really happen if Paul was actually elected? Quite simply, the ruling class would prevent those parts of his program they don’t like from going into effect, while endorsing the others. It could basically drag the U.S. back to the late 1800s – even prior to Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. His positions share much in common with the rest of the Republican candidates, and with some parts of Obama’s program too. However, his ‘base’ of young college people and small businessmen is not sufficient to actually win power in the U.S.
Many think he’s running interference for his son, Rand Paul, who is already bending on certain libertarian/Ron positions. Rand once said, “there are no rich or poor people.’ Ok, let the laughter die down.
We’ve already had a Libertarian in high places, remember? Alan Greenspan, chair of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006 – 20 years! – re-appointed under both Republicans and Democrats. An exemplar of laissez-faire capitalism and a personal friend of Ayn Rand to boot. What did this great Libertarian do? Greenspan supported the ending of Glass-Steagal, along with Clinton/Reich/ Schumer and the whole Republican Party. (Their motto? “We’re all Libertarians now!”) This created ‘too big to fail’ banking institutions, and brought gambling into the normal ‘banking’ world. The Fed’s low interest rates destroyed interest-rate products, and pushed people into the stock market. The rates also provided fuel for the bubbles of housing and derivatives, commodities and gold. (the latter, no surprise for a Libertarian.) Greenspan came out for adjustable rate mortgages (“ARMs”), and believed that Wall Street could be ‘self-regulating.” In essence the ‘low doc/no doc’ mortgages being sold as the basis for derivatives were to be treated with a position of ‘buyer beware’ - and not regulation. That is an Ayn Rand position on fraud, by the way – ‘caveat emptor.’ If you get ripped off, it is your fault. Government has no role in protecting you. Greenspan supported privatizing social security and opposed tax cuts for the wealthy. Unsurprisingly, he worked at a Wall Street Bank prior to the Fed. Greenspan's cheap money allowed the banks to make high interest rate loans on public funds - it was a no-loss proposition for the banks. The policy was followed by Bernanke, another bi-partisan Fed chairman after the 2008 crisis, and continues to this day. Greenspan never called for an audit of the Fed, however, unlike Paul.
Some anti-war activists are voting for Paul in the primaries, and I don’t see much wrong with this tactic, as it could fuck-up the Republicans a bit. But as a general strategy against war, it will be a failure. And as a general plan for society, Paul would be a failure too.
Red Frog
February 4, 2012
Ron Paul is running for President in the Republican Party primaries, but he’s more important for what he means outside the Republican Party than in it. He’s appealing to independents, youth and even some anti-war people. He might run as an independent again, like he did once before in 1988 as the Libertarian candidate for president, though I doubt it. If he or his son develop a long-range independent political organization, he could claim part of the political space that a populist party might claim. What is clear is that his newly prominent status is due to a vast failure of the Left to provide an alternative to capitalist policies, either of the Democratic Party kind or of the Republican kind. A vacuum needed to be filled, and it is being partly filled by Paul.
Two ideologists of Libertarianism are Ayn Rand and Friedrich Hayek. Ayn Rand was a refugee from the revolution in Russia. Her views were completely shaped as a reaction to Marxism. Fredrick Hayek grew up in Austria, and also developed in reaction to European socialist theoreticians and later, the partly planned economies in Eastern Europe. Both developed a sort of extreme right-wing anarchism in response. This has been adopted by American Libertarians, who blend it with long-time American ethics of individualism and proprietorship, and sometimes other ideologies, like Agrarianism, classic liberalism and evangelical Christianity.
The key thing in the analysis of a politician is, A, what class he represents, and B, what class backs him. 'A' is primary. So looking at Paul, it is pretty easy to see he represents the simon-pure ideas of a small businessman. And that is what Libertarianism is. His opposition to international imperialism reflects most small businessmen's views – because for the most part they only do business in the U.S. His opposition to the government’s growing police & other powers reflects the fact that small businessmen do not benefit as much from the government as large capital. The government is seen by them as being in big capital’s pocket, and for good reason. In the case of the drug war, I think many small businessmen are salivating at the legalization of pot, at least. Apply this logic to almost everything he says, and you will see it is from the view of a shoe-store owner in Muncie, Indiana. But not exactly Wall Street – until you draw out the implications. Then even large capital benefits by libertarian ideas – as they both embrace the myth of the ‘free’ market, among other things.
You can see this class outlook even here in Minneapolis when Libertarians in the Minneapolis Republican Party and some Greens coalesced around the mayoral campaign of Papa John Kolstad, a small businessman on Lake Street. Kolstad made the center-piece of his campaign the onerous regulations on small businessmen. (Kolstad’s 2009 campaign reviewed below.)
Is Paul backed by the ruling class right now? No, even though he’s running in the Republican Party primaries, a party dominated by a wing of the ruling class. The establishment Republican Party ‘black shirts’ (as I call them) do not support him. The establishments of both parties have never lost control of the nominating process in the recent past – except in the cases of Goldwater and McGovern. I do not think it will happen this year either. The Republican Brownshirts – Bachmann, Perry, Cain – and the fake Brownshirt, Gingrich – are all dropping one by one.
Politics should not be like a bad Chinese restaurant, where you pick one policy from column A, and 3 from column B and don’t order from column C, and then you ‘vote’ for the politicians with the ‘best’ policies. Once you understand the class roots of a politician, his seemingly ‘good’ policies (or perhaps just words…) become transparent as to their source. This applies to both Paul and Obama. That is what a class analysis does – it allows you to see beneath the hype and hope.
Paul represents the area around Galveston, Texas and was a doctor. His district is one of the top recipients of federal money in the country - $31B since 2000. This is similar to the rest of Texas, which got twice as much from the Federal government due to things like Fort Hood, the biggest employer in Texas. In 1988 he ran on the Libertarian Party ticket. Paul was one person who understood that deficit spending on the Vietnam war ended the gold standard, and brought large federal deficits. (See review of “Debt – the First 5,000 Years” on the role of war in creating government debt – reviewed below.) He gets 48% of his money in small contributions – with a few corporations, small businesses and professionals donating too. In a new development, Paul has relied on the kindness of PayPal founder Peter Thiel , a like-minded libertarian in favor of the smallest government possible, who gave $900,000 to Paul’s “Endorse Liberty” Super PAC. So like other candidates, he has a rich sugar-daddy.
Many members of the US military donate to Paul, which is interesting, given his stand on the wars. Paul also has supporters who are neo-Confederates, white supremacists and Nazis. He has been endorsed by Klansman David Duke, among others. His newsletters reprinted racist material, and Paul doesn’t understand how that material got in there. Right. Paul is also a former member of the John Birch Society. And the Republican Party today is, if nothing else, a giant Birch Society.
So what would Paul’s election mean for workers? Selections from Menu A:
* Ron Paul’s website doesn’t mention either “jobs” or “unemployment” under the category of “issues.” Nor is there one word about foreclosures. Think about that for awhile. In the middle of the greatest job and house losses since the 30s, not a word! The closest he gets is advocating the passage of more anti-union “right to work” laws. So he’s anti-union. In other words, he’d be on the side of Walker in Wisconsin. He does not support the theory of unemployment insurance or its extensions or ANY benefits for working-class people. But in his program, he does bow a bit to the existence of social security, veteran’s benefits and Medicare/Medicaid, and does not openly call for the end of unemployment yet. He thinks unemployment insurance should eventually be ‘privatized.’ He’s against NAFTA (managed trade) … but for free trade. Again, reflecting his support of small business, who were not the drivers of NAFTA.
Oddly enough, the Libertarian Party itself wants to repeal the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") and state right-to-work laws. But they oppose the closed shop or collective bargaining too. They also support child labor, oppose the minimum wage and all welfare programs of any kind. Some people in the labor movement have also called for abolition of the NLRA, which would cut the legal rationale of government controlling union and labor affairs.
* Paul opposes the Civil Rights acts of the 1960s because they infringe on private property, and hence he would also oppose affirmative action in hiring. So black, women and brown workers would not be able to get a leg-up against discrimination. Much of the hiring in government or government-contracted jobs in the past would have been much whiter if Paul had been in control. Implicit in this is support for a return to Jim Crow and ‘white only’ businesses and employment.
* He wants to lay off 10% of government workers and privatize many parts of government, closing 5 Departments. I guess Perry borrowed his ideas from Paul, though he can't remember. Laying off 10% of government workers was also the position of Obama’s Deficit Commission. Paul wants to allow young workers to opt out of Social Security, which would slowly destroy the program. He wants to deregulate Wall Street even more, and get rid of even the most timid attempts at regulation, so the early appearance of Paulites in the OWS protests is basically dishonest. Their only interest was ‘abolishing the Fed’ and did not go beyond that. He wants to eliminate capital gains taxes and those on large estates.
* He supports privatized medical care and does not want a mandate. The latter benefits big insurance and corporations, but might be rough on small businessmen. Like all the other candidates, he wants to cut the federal budget, this time by $1T in just ONE YEAR. Remember the Deficit Commission wanted $3.5T of cuts over many years. He supports home schooling, charter schools and vouchers, all which will undermine public education, union jobs and decent educations for working-class children, but will benefit business by privatizing education. This position is similar to all the other candidates in this race, including Obama and his dreadful Education Secretary, Ernie Duncan. Think about that, teacher union members.
*Re: immigration, he wants to ‘end the welfare state,’ (a direct quote) which he incorrectly thinks is being ‘used’ by immigrants from Mexico. Immigrants pay more into the system then they ever get out of it actually. He also wants to end ‘birthright citizenship.’ His position on immigration will mean an even more oppressed section of the U.S. working class. Abortion? He’s agin’ it. So women workers will be forced to have children if there is a slip-up.
* Paul mentions nothing about using the state against the working class. His whole program is based on the legal sanctity of private property by the State, so I do not think Paul would be against the courts if they acted against strikers to 'protect private property.' He does not want to repeal Taft Hartley, in other words. Paul unsurprisingly thinks global warming is a ‘hoax.’ So I guess you could say he wants workers to cook, and not just in the kitchen.
And from Menu B - here are some of the good things Paul supports: Quote from Paul in 2007: "We're not moving toward a Hitler-type fascism, but we're moving toward a softer fascism," he said. "Loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business." Hmmm.
Paul opposes the drug war, some of the encroachments of government on civil liberties, and the broader imperial military & foreign aid project. So workers would not be sent overseas to die, and this approach would partly de-militarize the U.S. However, he does not have an industrial plan for what to do with all those laid-off workers – nor does he believe in one. Paul’s plan would lower the massive racist incarceration rate for poor working people, who are usually the ones jailed for drug crimes. This might weaken the for-profit incarceration industry. It would also weaken the ‘total police state’ that has been developing, which is used against strikes and the working class, as well as any other protest movements. The very term ‘terrorist’ in fact has been applied to strikers. Paul is against most farm subsidies – many of which benefit corporate farms and large farmers. Paul comes from a part farm district, and I’m guessing there are some small farmers there who do not benefit so much from Big Agriculture welfare. Paul wants to audit the Federal Reserve, which IS a secretive banker’s cabal, and should be audited - and ended. He’s actually for more alternative medical treatments to be available, like acupuncture and homeopathics. He does mention, like the UE, that his salary will be that of a worker’s median income - $35,000. Of course, his earnings on investments, like Mr. Romney's, will make sure Paul is not too poor.
So what would really happen if Paul was actually elected? Quite simply, the ruling class would prevent those parts of his program they don’t like from going into effect, while endorsing the others. It could basically drag the U.S. back to the late 1800s – even prior to Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. His positions share much in common with the rest of the Republican candidates, and with some parts of Obama’s program too. However, his ‘base’ of young college people and small businessmen is not sufficient to actually win power in the U.S.
Many think he’s running interference for his son, Rand Paul, who is already bending on certain libertarian/Ron positions. Rand once said, “there are no rich or poor people.’ Ok, let the laughter die down.
We’ve already had a Libertarian in high places, remember? Alan Greenspan, chair of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006 – 20 years! – re-appointed under both Republicans and Democrats. An exemplar of laissez-faire capitalism and a personal friend of Ayn Rand to boot. What did this great Libertarian do? Greenspan supported the ending of Glass-Steagal, along with Clinton/Reich/ Schumer and the whole Republican Party. (Their motto? “We’re all Libertarians now!”) This created ‘too big to fail’ banking institutions, and brought gambling into the normal ‘banking’ world. The Fed’s low interest rates destroyed interest-rate products, and pushed people into the stock market. The rates also provided fuel for the bubbles of housing and derivatives, commodities and gold. (the latter, no surprise for a Libertarian.) Greenspan came out for adjustable rate mortgages (“ARMs”), and believed that Wall Street could be ‘self-regulating.” In essence the ‘low doc/no doc’ mortgages being sold as the basis for derivatives were to be treated with a position of ‘buyer beware’ - and not regulation. That is an Ayn Rand position on fraud, by the way – ‘caveat emptor.’ If you get ripped off, it is your fault. Government has no role in protecting you. Greenspan supported privatizing social security and opposed tax cuts for the wealthy. Unsurprisingly, he worked at a Wall Street Bank prior to the Fed. Greenspan's cheap money allowed the banks to make high interest rate loans on public funds - it was a no-loss proposition for the banks. The policy was followed by Bernanke, another bi-partisan Fed chairman after the 2008 crisis, and continues to this day. Greenspan never called for an audit of the Fed, however, unlike Paul.
Some anti-war activists are voting for Paul in the primaries, and I don’t see much wrong with this tactic, as it could fuck-up the Republicans a bit. But as a general strategy against war, it will be a failure. And as a general plan for society, Paul would be a failure too.
Red Frog
February 4, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
I'm a Refugee
“Tropic of Chaos – Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence,” by Christian Parenti, 2011
Well, this book shoots that theory of ‘super-imperialism’ all to hell. (Super-imperialism – oligarchic corporations completely control world market with no national issues remaining.) Instead, Parenti describes a world where the violent patterns of the old ‘cold’ war, neo-liberalism and climate change are combining to produce failed states, massive migration and violence in the global ‘South’ - and an armed life-boat mentality among the imperial states of the ‘North.’ In other words, a centrifugal world – not a centripetal one. Parenti concentrates on the situation along the equator between the two longitudes – hence his title.
He traveled around the world to tell this story – spending time in Kenya, Afghanistan, India, Kyrgyzstan, Brazil and Mexico. He could have looked at Asia too – Burma or Indonesia would have given him plenty of support for his thesis. This book is a companion to Mike Davis’ “Planet of Slums” (reviewed below – use search). They both start by looking at U.S. Defense Department military planning, which visualizes combating guerrilla war in crowded slums – like Baghdad and Mogadishu – while dealing with millions of climate refugees. A look at the British film “Children of Men” gives an idea of what lifeboat militarism might look like. As the unstated assumption goes, if the corporate politicians never talk about it, it’s not because their armed forces aren’t fully aware. The situation along the Mexican border using high technology, massive force, fences and reactionary politics all illustrate what is happening even now. Mexicans are not merely looking for 'better pay,' as refugees from neo-liberalism - many are refugees from climate change too.
Parenti uses examples of individuals caught up in the present violence of climate change. He tells the story of a dead cow herder in Kenya, killed trying to keep his cows from tribal raiders because the water holes are drying up. He interviews poppy growers in war-torn Afghanistan, who can’t grow anything else except poppy due to the string of droughts there. (Poppy uses very little water.) The Taliban supports poppy, taxing it, while American policy is to destroy it. He talks to an ex-fisherman squatting in murder capital Juarez, Mexico, who’s livelihood was lost because of red algae in the over-heated Pacific ocean. Neo-liberal Mexican government policies which got rid of government supports for fish prices and fishing also played a role – combining to put him out of work. Farmers in northern India, who’s wells and rivers are running dry, tell him how they can no longer pay the usurers and banks for expensive Monsanto seed and chemical fertilizers. (AKA, the end of the Green Revolution.) Parenti points out that these are also grievances of the revolutionary Naxalites, whose base in among farm and forest people. (See Arundhati Roy’s “Field Notes on Democracy,” reviewed below – use search.) Parenti travels to northern Brazil to talk to landless peasants squatting on unused land, using local ‘green’ techniques to bring back the soil and crops. The violent favelas of Sau Paulo and Rio are full of people from the Northeast who can no longer farm due to economic and climate conditions. Parenti notes that Lula, while redistributing wealth in Brazil, has not changed the basic class relations. Parenti tells the tale of ethnic violence in Kryghistan. One main reason is because the hydro-electric river dams no longer have enough water to power the city and countryside, resulting in escalating conflicts between Uzbecks, Tajiks and Kyrgyz. Formerly, the USSR provided economic support to all three now 'independent' states, and this enabled them to blunt negative effects like this.
Parenti describes climate change due to global warming as gasoline on the economic failure of market solutions and the arms issues of the ‘cold’ war. The collapse of Somalia is precisely where the cold war and later, American military priorities to control that part of the oil world, come together. Climate change is producing floods and droughts, tsunamis, melting glaciers, poor crops, dying animals, poor soil, dropping water tables, raging fires and disappearing forests. Neo-liberalism has already made water, trees, people, animals, land and crops commodities to be bought, sold and controlled only in order to make a profit. Which is why sustainability is being sold to the highest bidder. The cities of the ‘South,’ and increasingly the ‘North,’ are full of refugees from decaying eco-systems and eroding economies or classes. This book is another warning to those who don’t actually believe climate change will have any effect, or will ever impact themselves. I think this includes many Democrats, not just Republicans.
The weakest part of the book, of course, is the last chapter. Endings reveal underlying ideologies. Parenti, after roaring like a lion for chapters, ends squeaking like a mouse. He sounds basically like Al Gore – not that Al Gore hasn’t said some good things about climate change – but the Al Gore of the Democratic Party establishment. Parenti does not talk about conservation as a strategic response, or the limitations of the capitalist market – his fixes are mostly technological. He directly opposes eco-socialism’s idea that capital’s method of eternal growth is wrong. He visualizes capital growth in the direction of wind turbines and solar arrays. In that, he and Al Gore are in the same lifeboat. He thinks an enlightened market, seeking profits in green technology, can mitigate climate change to an acceptable degree.
I would disagree.
As Bill McKibben said recently: "What ... the energy-industrial elite are denying, in other words, is that the business models at the center of our economy are in the deepest possible conflict with physics and chemistry."
This point in history is unlike any other ‘catastrophic convergence’ (Parenti’s own term). There is a ‘clock’ running and, even by his own standards, the present 390 ppm of carbon is already on the slope towards irredeemable global climate change. Capital may well be able to convert in ordinary timescales, after much destruction and squandering – but unfortunately, continuing to use market methods and ‘market’ politics in this situation will allow profit-making via destructive technologies and practices to continue long past the time when the clock stops. Since it is basically profit that drives this system, anything that makes money, no matter its inherent destructiveness (Rhino horns!) will survive. The people who control those industries will defend their positions on the normal terrain of the capitalist state for years to come. In other words, the solution to a ‘catastrophic convergence’ is not gradualist market politics and policies.
Parenti correctly points out that the main problem is a political problem, and the U.S. is the premier roadblock to tackling these issues. However, both U.S. political parties are dedicated to military solutions in many cases - just the thing Parenti warns against. They both preside over the largest military and arms dealer in history. Yesterday, Obama even admitted that military spending will still increase, only more slowly. (!) The ‘protected enclave’ is already U.S. military policy. Both parties embrace a status-quo picture of handling immigration and Mexican politics, with minor variations, continuing to make a chunk of the working class in the U.S. illegal. Both parties support the continuation of the drug war. Both parties have essentially done almost nothing about climate change, though the Democrats have made a few small moves in the right direction. Both parties support different versions of neo-liberal economic policies. So if the main problem is political – what is the ‘political’ answer to this morass? Parenti has none. Absolutely none. And reveals himself to be an excellent reporter, but not much more. His own facts condemn his politics.
And I bought it at Mayday Books!
Red Frog, January 22, 2012
Well, this book shoots that theory of ‘super-imperialism’ all to hell. (Super-imperialism – oligarchic corporations completely control world market with no national issues remaining.) Instead, Parenti describes a world where the violent patterns of the old ‘cold’ war, neo-liberalism and climate change are combining to produce failed states, massive migration and violence in the global ‘South’ - and an armed life-boat mentality among the imperial states of the ‘North.’ In other words, a centrifugal world – not a centripetal one. Parenti concentrates on the situation along the equator between the two longitudes – hence his title.
Parenti uses examples of individuals caught up in the present violence of climate change. He tells the story of a dead cow herder in Kenya, killed trying to keep his cows from tribal raiders because the water holes are drying up. He interviews poppy growers in war-torn Afghanistan, who can’t grow anything else except poppy due to the string of droughts there. (Poppy uses very little water.) The Taliban supports poppy, taxing it, while American policy is to destroy it. He talks to an ex-fisherman squatting in murder capital Juarez, Mexico, who’s livelihood was lost because of red algae in the over-heated Pacific ocean. Neo-liberal Mexican government policies which got rid of government supports for fish prices and fishing also played a role – combining to put him out of work. Farmers in northern India, who’s wells and rivers are running dry, tell him how they can no longer pay the usurers and banks for expensive Monsanto seed and chemical fertilizers. (AKA, the end of the Green Revolution.) Parenti points out that these are also grievances of the revolutionary Naxalites, whose base in among farm and forest people. (See Arundhati Roy’s “Field Notes on Democracy,” reviewed below – use search.) Parenti travels to northern Brazil to talk to landless peasants squatting on unused land, using local ‘green’ techniques to bring back the soil and crops. The violent favelas of Sau Paulo and Rio are full of people from the Northeast who can no longer farm due to economic and climate conditions. Parenti notes that Lula, while redistributing wealth in Brazil, has not changed the basic class relations. Parenti tells the tale of ethnic violence in Kryghistan. One main reason is because the hydro-electric river dams no longer have enough water to power the city and countryside, resulting in escalating conflicts between Uzbecks, Tajiks and Kyrgyz. Formerly, the USSR provided economic support to all three now 'independent' states, and this enabled them to blunt negative effects like this.
Parenti describes climate change due to global warming as gasoline on the economic failure of market solutions and the arms issues of the ‘cold’ war. The collapse of Somalia is precisely where the cold war and later, American military priorities to control that part of the oil world, come together. Climate change is producing floods and droughts, tsunamis, melting glaciers, poor crops, dying animals, poor soil, dropping water tables, raging fires and disappearing forests. Neo-liberalism has already made water, trees, people, animals, land and crops commodities to be bought, sold and controlled only in order to make a profit. Which is why sustainability is being sold to the highest bidder. The cities of the ‘South,’ and increasingly the ‘North,’ are full of refugees from decaying eco-systems and eroding economies or classes. This book is another warning to those who don’t actually believe climate change will have any effect, or will ever impact themselves. I think this includes many Democrats, not just Republicans.
The weakest part of the book, of course, is the last chapter. Endings reveal underlying ideologies. Parenti, after roaring like a lion for chapters, ends squeaking like a mouse. He sounds basically like Al Gore – not that Al Gore hasn’t said some good things about climate change – but the Al Gore of the Democratic Party establishment. Parenti does not talk about conservation as a strategic response, or the limitations of the capitalist market – his fixes are mostly technological. He directly opposes eco-socialism’s idea that capital’s method of eternal growth is wrong. He visualizes capital growth in the direction of wind turbines and solar arrays. In that, he and Al Gore are in the same lifeboat. He thinks an enlightened market, seeking profits in green technology, can mitigate climate change to an acceptable degree.
I would disagree.
As Bill McKibben said recently: "What ... the energy-industrial elite are denying, in other words, is that the business models at the center of our economy are in the deepest possible conflict with physics and chemistry."
This point in history is unlike any other ‘catastrophic convergence’ (Parenti’s own term). There is a ‘clock’ running and, even by his own standards, the present 390 ppm of carbon is already on the slope towards irredeemable global climate change. Capital may well be able to convert in ordinary timescales, after much destruction and squandering – but unfortunately, continuing to use market methods and ‘market’ politics in this situation will allow profit-making via destructive technologies and practices to continue long past the time when the clock stops. Since it is basically profit that drives this system, anything that makes money, no matter its inherent destructiveness (Rhino horns!) will survive. The people who control those industries will defend their positions on the normal terrain of the capitalist state for years to come. In other words, the solution to a ‘catastrophic convergence’ is not gradualist market politics and policies.
Parenti correctly points out that the main problem is a political problem, and the U.S. is the premier roadblock to tackling these issues. However, both U.S. political parties are dedicated to military solutions in many cases - just the thing Parenti warns against. They both preside over the largest military and arms dealer in history. Yesterday, Obama even admitted that military spending will still increase, only more slowly. (!) The ‘protected enclave’ is already U.S. military policy. Both parties embrace a status-quo picture of handling immigration and Mexican politics, with minor variations, continuing to make a chunk of the working class in the U.S. illegal. Both parties support the continuation of the drug war. Both parties have essentially done almost nothing about climate change, though the Democrats have made a few small moves in the right direction. Both parties support different versions of neo-liberal economic policies. So if the main problem is political – what is the ‘political’ answer to this morass? Parenti has none. Absolutely none. And reveals himself to be an excellent reporter, but not much more. His own facts condemn his politics.
And I bought it at Mayday Books!
Red Frog, January 22, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
