Friday, July 24, 2009
The Left Wing Hall of Fame: Peter Kropotkin
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Thoughts On Anarchism
There is one particular word that disgusts a capitalist more than “communism”. No, it isn’t “socialism”, as socialism can be mixed with capitalism (i.e. “mixed economies”, New Labour-style Social Democracy). It isn’t “fascism”, as fascism is far too similar to conservative capitalism, or “Neo-Conservativism”, in its nationalist quest for massive hegemony and globalized spreading of its values and idealisms. No, most anti-capitalist ideologies have a subdued effect compared to a seasoned capitalist’s reaction to the word “anarchism”. Anarchism comes from the Greek base for “no government”, and in its simplest definition, means exactly that. Words corporatists and statists alike traditionally associate with anarchy usually revolve around ideas like “chaos”, “disorder”, and “general lawlessness”. Relative is the fact that there are many variations of the anarchist and libertarian ideology, from right-wing corporatism (i.e. anarcho-capitalism, lassez-faire libertarianism” to Neo-Luddite strains (anarcho-primitivism). I will continue hereafter to discuss the left-libertarian tradition, transcribed in the works of people like Kropotkin, Bakunin, and Luxemburg. To accurately introduce anarcho-syndicalist theory, I must give a brief history.
Although nomadic lifestyles and individualism have existed since the dawn of the human era, the modern precursor to anarchism is the theory of Karl Marx, a communist thinker. Anarchists were both heavily influenced and heavily offended by communism. Marxist theory usually follow something like this: a small revolutionary council or Communist Party is to lead the oppressed masses to overthrow the ruling capitalist bourgeoisie, thus ending hegemony. From there, the Party would carry forth an ongoing revolution to create a so-called “dictatorship of the Proletariat” which was to lead the masses into a classless society without need for a centralized government. A number of philosophers and activists followed and interpreted similar to exact versions of Marx’ texts. Still, the most famous (or infamous) faction of Marxism was the Bolshevik Party of Russia. People like Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky fronted the huge 1915 October Revolution against the monarchal aristocracy, installing a dictatorship of the Communist Party. Almost immediately, the autocratic tendencies of the Communists in power lead to the uncomfortable realization of much of the working class in Russia: “the Communist Party has essentially become a Red variant of the bourgeoisie that oppressed us”. The fundamental issue with any sort of bourgeoisie or bureaucracy is the lack of democracy, something that I believe, more than free markets, representation, or anything else, justifies the meaning of the word “freedom”. Put in the context an average American could understand, our government has been rigged into single-ideology politics because whether voting for the Democratic or Republican parties, you are still voting for basically the same capitalist ideology, as third parties have effectively been removed from the system constitutionally to keep things the way they are. This inherent lack of democracy in the capitalist system repeats itself with magnified intensity in Russian Communism: “whether you vote for him or him, you’re still voting Communist”. Furthermore, virtually all traces of democracy are totally absent from Bolshevik Communism. Even after this, State power is all too easily abused due to the sheer amount of responsibilities put on the State. Any hope of a classless society is effectively undone by the organization whose responsibility is to create said society, simply due to the sheer existence and nature of the organization itself. Thus is the fundamental flaw of Marxism-Leninism.
The disgust with both capitalism and Statist socialism can be described in one Leftist movement me and many other people identify themselves with: libertarian socialism, or “anarcho-syndicalism”.
Anarcho-syndicalism emerged from workers movements in both capitalist and communist countries. These anarchists despised the lack of democracy that was indirectly but nevertheless potently heralded by both capitalism and statist communism as well. They believed the abolition of the State and of markets was the fundamental key to the success of a grassroots democratic system, the most direct and pure variation of all democratic situations. Anarcho-syndicalists believe that the only inherent authoritarian gestures in society should be the acts carried out after council debates and elections take place. Thus, anarchists advocate a bottom-up society, or direct democracy, rather than the plutocratic practices of a “top-down” society, whether representative democracy or dictatorship, as both propose a bourgeoisie of sorts and therefore compromising means of reaching feasible equality.
Another characteristic of Leftist libertarian/anarcho-syndicalist thought is the belief in a highly integrated, organized society. As anarchism would result in chaos if the direct democracy was practiced on a large, all-encompassing scale, most anarcho-syndicalists propose a society in which every individual organizes themselves into a municipal, urban collective or localized, rural commune. From each individual cooperative, all means that would need to be produced or manufactured would be done by members of the collective working together to achieve a common goal of production relative to the needs of those involved as well as yourself, as everything would be collectively owned by each member of the commune. These collectivist situations would repeat themselves across the region that was participating in anarchism, thus creating a huge network or federation of mostly self-sufficient communes and municipalities. As I have just described, anarchy doesn’t necessarily mean “chaos”, but rather a highly organized, self-governing, non-authoritarian society.
One of the many questions that may erupt from someone who is unfamiliar with what anarchism stands for could be “by removing such essential authoritarian structures from society, would the fate of technology be compromised?” My answer is no, though many anarchists would disagree. I believe that a hyper-advanced, industrialized society could easily function in an anarchist situation because the factories in which technological items would be manufactured or assembled would be governed in a similarly democratic way by workers who decided on quotas that fit the needs of themselves and the rest of the collective. Any missing necessities could be imported from other communes, creating a sort of moneyless “gift economy” among collectives. Thus, worker’s unions could democratically control the production, which would raise morale, and the lack of unfair bosses and regulations would undo any risk of strike proposed by these unions. Anarchists like myself believe that the transition to grassroots democracy in the workplace would increase both productivity and morale among laborers.
Other anarchists, like Kropotkin, the founder of libertarian communist theory, believed in reducing society to the bare necessities, reverting to sustenance farming, and generally abstaining from mass production in general. These beliefs are manifested heavily in the Israeli Kibbutzim, Amish villages, and Countercultural “Hippie Communes”, for example. This theory of downgrading society is practiced in extreme forms by so-called ‘anarcho-primitivists”, who believe society should rightfully be pushed back to the ideal simplicity of a hunter-gatherer tradition, a notion me and most libertarian socialists believe is impractical and highly romanticized. Despite the obvious flaws, many anarchists continue in the primitivist tradition.
Despite the obvious rationalizations of how an anarcho-syndicalist society could work, many continue to pass anarchism off as “immature” and “impractical”. These critics may be surprised at the fact that anarchism has been tried successfully in the past. The first knowing attempt at a leaderless, classless society was the Kibbutzim of Israel, which materialized around 1905, at the beginning of the Zionist movement. Jews from all over the world began flocking to Palestine and setting up leaderless, grassroots cooperatives called kibbutzim. All participants were driven not by ambition but by their shear faith and devotion to God and their work. The Kibbutzim still exist in Israel today.
Another great example of anarchism in practice was the Spanish Revolution of 1936. In the midst of civil war, anarchist power grew, and eventually 75% of Spain’s functioning economy was under anarchist principles. Factories were governed democratically by workers committees rural areas were organized into farm communes. Over 10 million people participated in this anarchist order, with places from barber shops to restaurants being governed by workers and collectivized to the community. Author George Orwell describes the Spanish anarchist situation:
“Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life--snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.”
Vouchers often replaced money and government was replaced by local councils. A more interesting a fact about this Revolution is that overall production in factories increased 20% from what it was before anarchist values were instated, a fact that, in itself, justifies the theory that democracy in the workplace raises morale, and with more morale, more production.
Eventually, however, this anarcho-syndicalist utopia was stamped out by the opposing Communist forces, which, being backed by Stalin’s USSR, easily crushed the poorly armed anarchist militias. Thus, libertarian socialism in Spain was no more.
To understand anarcho-syndicalism in an American context, take the Green Bay Packers football team. Sure, this example may be a bit unorthodox to theorize around, but the management of this team actually is very relative to the libertarian socialist tradition. The team, Lambeau Field, the equipment, and the franchise are all collectively owned by the people of Green Bay. They also voluntarily work to keep the field clean, with nothing but pride for the team in mind. This is essentially the principle of anarchism, except production is driven by the will to survive and love for your commune.
Today, anarchism can be seen in Amish and Mennonite communities, as well as communes and cooperatives all around the world. Anarchism is an extremely relevant item of political and philosophical and in my opinion will always be existent, as opposition will perpetually exist. Anarchists like myself hope for a day when society can free itself from the shackles of big business and the State once and for all. Then, and only then, can real democracy take place.
Although nomadic lifestyles and individualism have existed since the dawn of the human era, the modern precursor to anarchism is the theory of Karl Marx, a communist thinker. Anarchists were both heavily influenced and heavily offended by communism. Marxist theory usually follow something like this: a small revolutionary council or Communist Party is to lead the oppressed masses to overthrow the ruling capitalist bourgeoisie, thus ending hegemony. From there, the Party would carry forth an ongoing revolution to create a so-called “dictatorship of the Proletariat” which was to lead the masses into a classless society without need for a centralized government. A number of philosophers and activists followed and interpreted similar to exact versions of Marx’ texts. Still, the most famous (or infamous) faction of Marxism was the Bolshevik Party of Russia. People like Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky fronted the huge 1915 October Revolution against the monarchal aristocracy, installing a dictatorship of the Communist Party. Almost immediately, the autocratic tendencies of the Communists in power lead to the uncomfortable realization of much of the working class in Russia: “the Communist Party has essentially become a Red variant of the bourgeoisie that oppressed us”. The fundamental issue with any sort of bourgeoisie or bureaucracy is the lack of democracy, something that I believe, more than free markets, representation, or anything else, justifies the meaning of the word “freedom”. Put in the context an average American could understand, our government has been rigged into single-ideology politics because whether voting for the Democratic or Republican parties, you are still voting for basically the same capitalist ideology, as third parties have effectively been removed from the system constitutionally to keep things the way they are. This inherent lack of democracy in the capitalist system repeats itself with magnified intensity in Russian Communism: “whether you vote for him or him, you’re still voting Communist”. Furthermore, virtually all traces of democracy are totally absent from Bolshevik Communism. Even after this, State power is all too easily abused due to the sheer amount of responsibilities put on the State. Any hope of a classless society is effectively undone by the organization whose responsibility is to create said society, simply due to the sheer existence and nature of the organization itself. Thus is the fundamental flaw of Marxism-Leninism.
The disgust with both capitalism and Statist socialism can be described in one Leftist movement me and many other people identify themselves with: libertarian socialism, or “anarcho-syndicalism”.
Anarcho-syndicalism emerged from workers movements in both capitalist and communist countries. These anarchists despised the lack of democracy that was indirectly but nevertheless potently heralded by both capitalism and statist communism as well. They believed the abolition of the State and of markets was the fundamental key to the success of a grassroots democratic system, the most direct and pure variation of all democratic situations. Anarcho-syndicalists believe that the only inherent authoritarian gestures in society should be the acts carried out after council debates and elections take place. Thus, anarchists advocate a bottom-up society, or direct democracy, rather than the plutocratic practices of a “top-down” society, whether representative democracy or dictatorship, as both propose a bourgeoisie of sorts and therefore compromising means of reaching feasible equality.
Another characteristic of Leftist libertarian/anarcho-syndicalist thought is the belief in a highly integrated, organized society. As anarchism would result in chaos if the direct democracy was practiced on a large, all-encompassing scale, most anarcho-syndicalists propose a society in which every individual organizes themselves into a municipal, urban collective or localized, rural commune. From each individual cooperative, all means that would need to be produced or manufactured would be done by members of the collective working together to achieve a common goal of production relative to the needs of those involved as well as yourself, as everything would be collectively owned by each member of the commune. These collectivist situations would repeat themselves across the region that was participating in anarchism, thus creating a huge network or federation of mostly self-sufficient communes and municipalities. As I have just described, anarchy doesn’t necessarily mean “chaos”, but rather a highly organized, self-governing, non-authoritarian society.
One of the many questions that may erupt from someone who is unfamiliar with what anarchism stands for could be “by removing such essential authoritarian structures from society, would the fate of technology be compromised?” My answer is no, though many anarchists would disagree. I believe that a hyper-advanced, industrialized society could easily function in an anarchist situation because the factories in which technological items would be manufactured or assembled would be governed in a similarly democratic way by workers who decided on quotas that fit the needs of themselves and the rest of the collective. Any missing necessities could be imported from other communes, creating a sort of moneyless “gift economy” among collectives. Thus, worker’s unions could democratically control the production, which would raise morale, and the lack of unfair bosses and regulations would undo any risk of strike proposed by these unions. Anarchists like myself believe that the transition to grassroots democracy in the workplace would increase both productivity and morale among laborers.
Other anarchists, like Kropotkin, the founder of libertarian communist theory, believed in reducing society to the bare necessities, reverting to sustenance farming, and generally abstaining from mass production in general. These beliefs are manifested heavily in the Israeli Kibbutzim, Amish villages, and Countercultural “Hippie Communes”, for example. This theory of downgrading society is practiced in extreme forms by so-called ‘anarcho-primitivists”, who believe society should rightfully be pushed back to the ideal simplicity of a hunter-gatherer tradition, a notion me and most libertarian socialists believe is impractical and highly romanticized. Despite the obvious flaws, many anarchists continue in the primitivist tradition.
Despite the obvious rationalizations of how an anarcho-syndicalist society could work, many continue to pass anarchism off as “immature” and “impractical”. These critics may be surprised at the fact that anarchism has been tried successfully in the past. The first knowing attempt at a leaderless, classless society was the Kibbutzim of Israel, which materialized around 1905, at the beginning of the Zionist movement. Jews from all over the world began flocking to Palestine and setting up leaderless, grassroots cooperatives called kibbutzim. All participants were driven not by ambition but by their shear faith and devotion to God and their work. The Kibbutzim still exist in Israel today.
Another great example of anarchism in practice was the Spanish Revolution of 1936. In the midst of civil war, anarchist power grew, and eventually 75% of Spain’s functioning economy was under anarchist principles. Factories were governed democratically by workers committees rural areas were organized into farm communes. Over 10 million people participated in this anarchist order, with places from barber shops to restaurants being governed by workers and collectivized to the community. Author George Orwell describes the Spanish anarchist situation:
“Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life--snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.”
Vouchers often replaced money and government was replaced by local councils. A more interesting a fact about this Revolution is that overall production in factories increased 20% from what it was before anarchist values were instated, a fact that, in itself, justifies the theory that democracy in the workplace raises morale, and with more morale, more production.
Eventually, however, this anarcho-syndicalist utopia was stamped out by the opposing Communist forces, which, being backed by Stalin’s USSR, easily crushed the poorly armed anarchist militias. Thus, libertarian socialism in Spain was no more.
To understand anarcho-syndicalism in an American context, take the Green Bay Packers football team. Sure, this example may be a bit unorthodox to theorize around, but the management of this team actually is very relative to the libertarian socialist tradition. The team, Lambeau Field, the equipment, and the franchise are all collectively owned by the people of Green Bay. They also voluntarily work to keep the field clean, with nothing but pride for the team in mind. This is essentially the principle of anarchism, except production is driven by the will to survive and love for your commune.
Today, anarchism can be seen in Amish and Mennonite communities, as well as communes and cooperatives all around the world. Anarchism is an extremely relevant item of political and philosophical and in my opinion will always be existent, as opposition will perpetually exist. Anarchists like myself hope for a day when society can free itself from the shackles of big business and the State once and for all. Then, and only then, can real democracy take place.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
The Case Against Consumerism
The Case Against Consumerism, Part 1.
Introduction
Consumerism is defined as taking part in a constant indulgement of goods and services. We see consumerism everywhere, in our shopping malls, movie houses, and possibly most importantly, in the comfort of our own homes. Behind every Spongebob wrapper, Trix bunny, and Quaker Oatmeal man, there is a huge mega monopoly of business aching to get you to buy their product through any means necessary. When we see commercials, the business aspect is always there. Monopolies have even found ways to insert messages into TV sitcoms, televised sports, and even the news. And sadly, the American public buys into that. The increasingly libertarianised capitalist system America takes part in has managed to strain into our heads, whether through education, the media (something already very heavily consumer-biased), ect. The neo-liberal and libertarian economic tendencies of both Republican and Democratic parties continuously and unwaveringly support this subtle indoctrination, much as the Stalinist leadership of regimes such as the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia and the Nazi Reich did in the past. Actually, the relationship between classical free-market ideologies and extreme dictatorial indoctrination are surprisingly similar. As an example of the cultural hegemony Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci proposed almost 70 years ago, classical liberal fundamentalists use consumerism in politics and on the market to sedate the masses by distributing heavy doses of consumer advertising in almost everything we do. Our current government supports business economics and capitalist growth around the world, as if they are on a new, neoliberal crusade of free market for all. Former President Bill Clinton’s borderline neoconservative policies of extreme globalization started within the depths of the WTO and acted out in his controversial NAFTA rulings, something that sparked protest all over the world. Before that, other American capitalistic extremists in the US government caused chaos and thousands of innocent lives in the capitalist campaign in Vietnam, overthrowing democratically elected left-wing governments in places like Guatemala because they threatened “international capitalism”. Similar situations took place in places like Nicaragua, Romania, Cambodia, and even in Argentina with right-wing tyrant Augusto Pinochet. Corporate politics are seemingly obsessed with non-democratically spreading capitalism even when the general populace doesn’t want it, and commencing to instill class division and hegemony on the victims. Even after all this, the biggest accomplishment of these huge monopolies and libertarian politicians is their unwavering ability to make you, the consumer, totally happy and sedate that you are in fact part of this machine.
In short, consumerism gives people a purpose. Shopping malls become a sort of temple to government-supported indulgence. The free-market system acted out in shopping malls, gift shops, and department stores across America seems, and claims, to usher in individuality and independence, yet the reality is the exact opposite. Current styles, called trends, have grown to pronunciation the already significant class division in America, and separate those who can participate and those who can’t. Now, poor and rich are even more distinguishable in modern society. These trends create an outlet for though roughly brainwashed wealthy people and a depressed angst for those unable to purchase such objects due to their financial or cultural positions. Lowering self-esteem and heightening profit is a direct result on the hegemony applied on the lower classes to believe they amount to nothing without these products. In other words, the truth behind all the glamour and glitz of modern trendsetting is a corrupt, faceless monopoly interested in making a profit on tears and self-hate.
However, in a consumerist world, some choose to blatantly avoid the current trends. They’ve been called laggards, anti-consumerists, or even “fashion existentialists”. They resemble at first glance Nietzsche’s Ubermensch: They have an unapologetic individuality to them. But in reality, this is exactly what the mega corporations are looking for. They will find new individualists, determine whether or not their style is applicable to the millions of hungry consumers, and if the answer is yes, they will willingly manipulate them and remove all remaining Nietzschean individuality by distributing variations on this formerly individualistic new style across the country. This is the genius of the fashion industry: fight all opposition by conforming it. Without something to be different, trends wouldn’t exist. The fashion industry survives on consumerising subcultures; for example the consumerising of the Hippies and the Punk Movement into the Disco and New Wave movements, respectively. Fashion has a shape shifting aspect. It can change the current trend, or “uniform’, by finding something new, waiting for response, and raising prices drastically to separate those who can afford it from those who can’t. Thus is the goal of consumerism.
Does free market always mean free people? Many would say no. The Anti-Consumerism movement has existed since capitalism was conceived, and now contains many of the people who have broken away from the naïveté of the common consumer to support a true, not passively dictated, democracy. Also, many anti-consumerist movements exist, such as Greenpeace and formerly the IWW. Many intellectuals and politicians have spoken out against capitalist hegemony, from socialists like Engels and Marx (who wrote the epic novel Kapital, a moving criticism of the capitalist system), to anarchists like Emma Goldman and Noam Chomsky. In the next section of my writing I will explain the pros and cons of historical anti-consumerist ideologies and people.
The Case Against Consumerism, Part 2
Historical Anti-Consumerism
The consumerist movement started, ironically, in a resistance movement. Around the age of the American Revolution, another war was raging. This war, however, was not being fought with guns, it was being fought with thoughts and ideas. This war was called “The Enlightenment”. As a blatant opposition to the harsh religious totalitarianisms and the oppressive feudalistic tendencies of corrupt monarchies, Enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire ushered in new thought, both religiously and politically. One of the more important Enlightenment thinkers was Adam Smith, a Scottish economist. Smith, having lived in a society where everything was controlled by religion and monarchy, rebelled with a concept known as “Laissez-faire”, or “let do”. This belief, the basis of libertarian capitalist theory, literally meant that the government should leave the economy to work on its own. Smith called this “true economic freedom”. Many other Enlightenment thinkers, including the likes of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, bought into the concept of “market freedom”. This belief became to be known as “classical liberalism”. Classical liberals were driven by the belief that “free market must mean free people”. However, for many, as Laissez-faire capitalism became an indoctrined ideology in many parts of the world, this statement wasn’t true. The main issue of the Free Market was the workers that were subjected to control by the many rich people at the top of the system. Capitalism was creating class division, and through wage slavery by the business owners and with no government regulations to control anything, corruption and a growing plutocracy of the rich was becoming apparent. Many workers were becoming resentful of the so called “free market”. In 1817, a factory worker and former classical liberal by the name of Robert Owen thought of a new idea: “lets start a society from the bottom up, by the people, for the people”. He realized that capitalism was creating increasing amounts of corporate control and business corruption as the working man struggled. Owen’s belief in a government in which everything is collectively owned became known as “Socialism”.
Owen went on to build numerous communes across Britain, but none was as successful as the one in New Lanark, Scotland. He purchased cotton mills and property and immediately began orchestrating a collectivist situation. Eventually, New Lanark’s factories, shops, and people were governed democratically, and all production funded the community, so no-one went hungry. Other Europeans were fascinated by the productivity, enthusiasm, and business viability of the people and functions of New Lanark. The success of Owen’s communes started an influx of new socialist thought, including other utopianists like Charles Fortier and anarcho-collectivists like Mikhail Bakunin.
Over time, small scale socialism and communalism began to decline. Utopian socialist ideals began giving way to a new form of socialism: State socialism, or “communism”. Communists resented capitalist hegemony but also believed that a strong centralized government was necessary to hold the intrinsically “flawed” populace together. The views of the Communist parties, set in 1842 by Marx and Engels, go as following:
Confiscation of all privately owned land for public ownership.
A large gradual income tax.
Removal of inheritance rights.
Confiscation of the property of all non-citizens.
Centralisation of credit into one National Bank, all money to be controlled by the State.
Centralisation of transport and communication to the State.
Extension of previously State-owned factories and farms to encompass all labor; pre-planned agricultural improvement.
Equal liability of every citizen to labor, and creation of massive labor unions.
Combination of industries; blurring line between town and country; spreading populace evenly rather than concentrating them.
Free education and healthcare to all.
Basically, the state would hold all property, rather than being held by the collective workers, as in early socialism and collectivism, or by private monopolies, as in capitalism.
Over time, two young socialists by the name of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, began making their way into the socialist mainstream. They were both fierce anti-capitalists, but they both believed that the utopian theories of Owen and Fourier were madness. They believed a strong, all encompassing government (which would include all workers, property, ect.) to exercise socialism to the masses. Their views were documented in a famed collaboration entitled The Communist Manifesto, which quickly became known as the universal guide to the Far Left. Ending with the rousing call to arms “Proletarians, you have nothing to lose but your chains. You have the world to win. Workers of the World, Unite!” the Manifesto sparked numerous Communist resistance movements across Europe, in places like France, Germany, Poland, Italy, and Russia. It also foresaw the establishment of Communist parties across Europe, such as the French Communist Party and the Russian Bolshevik Party. This book was instrumental in the Russian Revolution of 1915, when Lenin’s Bolshevik Communists ousted the Czar from power and instilled a Communist government.
Over time, it became apparent that Communist theory was becoming very corrupt. The totalitarianism of the Soviet government was creating something just as oppressive, if not much more oppressive, than Western capitalism was. Over time, the Left in places like America began to realize this, as a rift appeared in Left-wing politics around 1960. On one side was the “Old Left”, which stood for Stalinism, Marxism-Leninism, and Trotskyism. The “Old Left” represented cold, repressive Soviet ideologies held by the regimes of the USSR, Cambodia, and Vietnam. The other side in the rift, called the “New Left”, ushered in positive social change in concepts such as gay rights, free-love, more moderate Socialist theory in the form of Social Democracy, civil rights, radical politics, and a revival in communal living. They tended to speak out against both corporate tyranny as well as authoritarian Communism, though many revisionist Communist groups existed that associated themselves with this new movement, both militant (The Weather Underground, the Black Panthers) and peaceful (Students For A Democratic Society). However, the New Left also ushered in a revival of a very important anti-capitalist ideology: anarchism.
Anarchism, which roughly translates into “no government”, has numerous varieties (including right-wing varieties, i. e. anarcho-capitalism), but the two that were widely revived during the New Leftist movement.
The most important of the two was called “libertarian socialism”, or “syndicalism”, with other varieties such as “anarcho-communism”. Libertarian socialism is very much a revival of both the communal ideologies of early utopian socialists and the collectivist theories of anarchist Mikhail Bakunin. Libertarian socialists believe that all property should be controlled collectively in small direct democratic communal situations, with no leadership of government or corporate monopoly. Everything produced would be shared so that none would go hungry. These unions would govern themselves and participate in a huge global “gift economy” of non-mandatory trade.
Libertarian socialists believe that anarchism is the only logical reproduction of classical liberalism in the industrial age. They tend to renounce hegemony of all kinds, whether corporate or governmental. They believe that the power of moral and friendship would be enough to govern these small-scale socialist situations.
The authoritarian Left has criticized Leftist anarchism for being essentially a crackpot, utopianist theory that could never work in reality. Anarchists respond by calling Communism oppressive and corrupt. Beneath all this quarreling in the political Left, a new movement began emerging, distant from both socialism and capitalism. This alternative became known as the “green movement”.
Though environmentalism has existed for a very long time, its first major political association was manifested in another New Left idea: green anarchism. Green anarchism, or “anarcho-primitivisim”, was invented by radical Counterculture environmentalists in the mid-sixties. Green anarchism stresses extreme social downgrading, which would include removal of everything from government to education, to bring society backwards to its most environmentally friendly point, the “hunter-gatherer” lifestyle. More radical environmentalists in the Green political movement despise cities, museums, colleges, factories, modern medicine, schools, and anything that provide progress to humans at the expense of the natural environment. The Green Movement typically agrees that both capitalism and socialism are “forks in the road on a path to environmental destruction”, and support neither. More moderate Green politicians advocate environmental protection in regular socialist or capitalist situations.
In the end, socialism, anarchism, and green politics have all historically created alternatives to capitalism. In the next section of my writing, I will go on to discuss my views on corporatism and how I believe it could be prevented.
The Case Against Consumerism, Part 3
My Views on the Subject
I personally believe that consumerism is a corrupt, misguided practice. Because of this I typically align myself with the Left, due to the increasing tendencies of the Right to embrace non-revisioned “Laissez-faire” capitalist theory. As a huge advocate of democracy, I believe that classical liberals were extremely misguided in their belief that “free market means free people”. They were not taking into account that, as proposed by Gramsci in the 20s, free market capitalism creates plutocracy of the rich, which indirectly creates hegemony to suppress the masses, retaining extreme class division. The increasing say of the few over the many isn’t what freedom should be, in my opinion. Communism and pure State socialism merely provide a more direct, yet equal, amount of suppression on the masses. Thus, both corporate control and government control are essentially, in my opinion, two sides of the same issue. In both situations, it involves sheep claiming to be herders attempting to control other sheep. In that respect, the end result of both pure capitalism and pure socialism, in my opinion, doesn’t and will not work.
Because of these beliefs I hold, I would ideologically associate myself with the likes of the libertarian socialists and anarcho-syndicalists. By creating a democracy on small scale without the interference of corporations or the government, corporate greed and class structures would effectively be compromised. Gone would be the rule of the few. True democracy would exist, without any infiltrations of representative removing the essence of democracy. Society could, for the most part, live in harmony, with everyone helping everyone else.
I will, however, accept the criticisms of libertarian socialism. Sure, the idea is, at best, very far-fetched. Media hegemony has indoctrinated the public so much it would take years without any biased media for the public to seriously consider reverting to anarchism democratically, because violent revolution goes against my fundamental beliefs. Without a government, it would take years to indoctrinate the average man into the ideals of equality and compassion, rather than the ideals of ambition and greed that corporatism has imposed on the average citizen. In the end, I respect the fact that creating an ideal government would be a huge, huge task.
Because of this, totally ending consumerism is just as far-fetched as creating an ideal society. However, there are ways to not participate. For example, many large anti-capitalist organizations like Industrial Workers of the World and GreenPeace take part in anti-consumerist protests, corporation boycotts, and even corporation-sabotages. If you don’t wish to participate in corporatism, join the crowd! A group of protestors is better than one. Educate others on the horrors of capitalism. Avoid Starbucks, resent McDonalds, and resist corporatism publicly to announce that the specter of consumerism can’t hang over society forever. Thus is my belief on how you, the reader can avoid consumerism and help end it once and for all.
Unfortunately for activists, the growth rate of anti-capitalist politics has been steadily falling, especially since the failure of the USSR. Despite this, there has been a revival recently in communal living and small-scale socialism. Interest in the ideologies of socialists like Che Guevara and anarchists like Emma Goldman has also grown. Popularity of anti-capitalist activists like Noam Chomsky has risen. Also, capitalist governments like that of the USA and England have been gradually moving towards socialist principles themselves, with welfare, corporate bailouts, ect. Things like these suggest anti-capitalism and socialism, whether statist, anarchist, or otherwise, is on the rise. Whether successful or not, the anti-consumerism movement is a great testament to the resisting and individualist powers of humanity.
Introduction
Consumerism is defined as taking part in a constant indulgement of goods and services. We see consumerism everywhere, in our shopping malls, movie houses, and possibly most importantly, in the comfort of our own homes. Behind every Spongebob wrapper, Trix bunny, and Quaker Oatmeal man, there is a huge mega monopoly of business aching to get you to buy their product through any means necessary. When we see commercials, the business aspect is always there. Monopolies have even found ways to insert messages into TV sitcoms, televised sports, and even the news. And sadly, the American public buys into that. The increasingly libertarianised capitalist system America takes part in has managed to strain into our heads, whether through education, the media (something already very heavily consumer-biased), ect. The neo-liberal and libertarian economic tendencies of both Republican and Democratic parties continuously and unwaveringly support this subtle indoctrination, much as the Stalinist leadership of regimes such as the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia and the Nazi Reich did in the past. Actually, the relationship between classical free-market ideologies and extreme dictatorial indoctrination are surprisingly similar. As an example of the cultural hegemony Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci proposed almost 70 years ago, classical liberal fundamentalists use consumerism in politics and on the market to sedate the masses by distributing heavy doses of consumer advertising in almost everything we do. Our current government supports business economics and capitalist growth around the world, as if they are on a new, neoliberal crusade of free market for all. Former President Bill Clinton’s borderline neoconservative policies of extreme globalization started within the depths of the WTO and acted out in his controversial NAFTA rulings, something that sparked protest all over the world. Before that, other American capitalistic extremists in the US government caused chaos and thousands of innocent lives in the capitalist campaign in Vietnam, overthrowing democratically elected left-wing governments in places like Guatemala because they threatened “international capitalism”. Similar situations took place in places like Nicaragua, Romania, Cambodia, and even in Argentina with right-wing tyrant Augusto Pinochet. Corporate politics are seemingly obsessed with non-democratically spreading capitalism even when the general populace doesn’t want it, and commencing to instill class division and hegemony on the victims. Even after all this, the biggest accomplishment of these huge monopolies and libertarian politicians is their unwavering ability to make you, the consumer, totally happy and sedate that you are in fact part of this machine.
In short, consumerism gives people a purpose. Shopping malls become a sort of temple to government-supported indulgence. The free-market system acted out in shopping malls, gift shops, and department stores across America seems, and claims, to usher in individuality and independence, yet the reality is the exact opposite. Current styles, called trends, have grown to pronunciation the already significant class division in America, and separate those who can participate and those who can’t. Now, poor and rich are even more distinguishable in modern society. These trends create an outlet for though roughly brainwashed wealthy people and a depressed angst for those unable to purchase such objects due to their financial or cultural positions. Lowering self-esteem and heightening profit is a direct result on the hegemony applied on the lower classes to believe they amount to nothing without these products. In other words, the truth behind all the glamour and glitz of modern trendsetting is a corrupt, faceless monopoly interested in making a profit on tears and self-hate.
However, in a consumerist world, some choose to blatantly avoid the current trends. They’ve been called laggards, anti-consumerists, or even “fashion existentialists”. They resemble at first glance Nietzsche’s Ubermensch: They have an unapologetic individuality to them. But in reality, this is exactly what the mega corporations are looking for. They will find new individualists, determine whether or not their style is applicable to the millions of hungry consumers, and if the answer is yes, they will willingly manipulate them and remove all remaining Nietzschean individuality by distributing variations on this formerly individualistic new style across the country. This is the genius of the fashion industry: fight all opposition by conforming it. Without something to be different, trends wouldn’t exist. The fashion industry survives on consumerising subcultures; for example the consumerising of the Hippies and the Punk Movement into the Disco and New Wave movements, respectively. Fashion has a shape shifting aspect. It can change the current trend, or “uniform’, by finding something new, waiting for response, and raising prices drastically to separate those who can afford it from those who can’t. Thus is the goal of consumerism.
Does free market always mean free people? Many would say no. The Anti-Consumerism movement has existed since capitalism was conceived, and now contains many of the people who have broken away from the naïveté of the common consumer to support a true, not passively dictated, democracy. Also, many anti-consumerist movements exist, such as Greenpeace and formerly the IWW. Many intellectuals and politicians have spoken out against capitalist hegemony, from socialists like Engels and Marx (who wrote the epic novel Kapital, a moving criticism of the capitalist system), to anarchists like Emma Goldman and Noam Chomsky. In the next section of my writing I will explain the pros and cons of historical anti-consumerist ideologies and people.
The Case Against Consumerism, Part 2
Historical Anti-Consumerism
The consumerist movement started, ironically, in a resistance movement. Around the age of the American Revolution, another war was raging. This war, however, was not being fought with guns, it was being fought with thoughts and ideas. This war was called “The Enlightenment”. As a blatant opposition to the harsh religious totalitarianisms and the oppressive feudalistic tendencies of corrupt monarchies, Enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire ushered in new thought, both religiously and politically. One of the more important Enlightenment thinkers was Adam Smith, a Scottish economist. Smith, having lived in a society where everything was controlled by religion and monarchy, rebelled with a concept known as “Laissez-faire”, or “let do”. This belief, the basis of libertarian capitalist theory, literally meant that the government should leave the economy to work on its own. Smith called this “true economic freedom”. Many other Enlightenment thinkers, including the likes of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, bought into the concept of “market freedom”. This belief became to be known as “classical liberalism”. Classical liberals were driven by the belief that “free market must mean free people”. However, for many, as Laissez-faire capitalism became an indoctrined ideology in many parts of the world, this statement wasn’t true. The main issue of the Free Market was the workers that were subjected to control by the many rich people at the top of the system. Capitalism was creating class division, and through wage slavery by the business owners and with no government regulations to control anything, corruption and a growing plutocracy of the rich was becoming apparent. Many workers were becoming resentful of the so called “free market”. In 1817, a factory worker and former classical liberal by the name of Robert Owen thought of a new idea: “lets start a society from the bottom up, by the people, for the people”. He realized that capitalism was creating increasing amounts of corporate control and business corruption as the working man struggled. Owen’s belief in a government in which everything is collectively owned became known as “Socialism”.
Owen went on to build numerous communes across Britain, but none was as successful as the one in New Lanark, Scotland. He purchased cotton mills and property and immediately began orchestrating a collectivist situation. Eventually, New Lanark’s factories, shops, and people were governed democratically, and all production funded the community, so no-one went hungry. Other Europeans were fascinated by the productivity, enthusiasm, and business viability of the people and functions of New Lanark. The success of Owen’s communes started an influx of new socialist thought, including other utopianists like Charles Fortier and anarcho-collectivists like Mikhail Bakunin.
Over time, small scale socialism and communalism began to decline. Utopian socialist ideals began giving way to a new form of socialism: State socialism, or “communism”. Communists resented capitalist hegemony but also believed that a strong centralized government was necessary to hold the intrinsically “flawed” populace together. The views of the Communist parties, set in 1842 by Marx and Engels, go as following:
Confiscation of all privately owned land for public ownership.
A large gradual income tax.
Removal of inheritance rights.
Confiscation of the property of all non-citizens.
Centralisation of credit into one National Bank, all money to be controlled by the State.
Centralisation of transport and communication to the State.
Extension of previously State-owned factories and farms to encompass all labor; pre-planned agricultural improvement.
Equal liability of every citizen to labor, and creation of massive labor unions.
Combination of industries; blurring line between town and country; spreading populace evenly rather than concentrating them.
Free education and healthcare to all.
Basically, the state would hold all property, rather than being held by the collective workers, as in early socialism and collectivism, or by private monopolies, as in capitalism.
Over time, two young socialists by the name of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, began making their way into the socialist mainstream. They were both fierce anti-capitalists, but they both believed that the utopian theories of Owen and Fourier were madness. They believed a strong, all encompassing government (which would include all workers, property, ect.) to exercise socialism to the masses. Their views were documented in a famed collaboration entitled The Communist Manifesto, which quickly became known as the universal guide to the Far Left. Ending with the rousing call to arms “Proletarians, you have nothing to lose but your chains. You have the world to win. Workers of the World, Unite!” the Manifesto sparked numerous Communist resistance movements across Europe, in places like France, Germany, Poland, Italy, and Russia. It also foresaw the establishment of Communist parties across Europe, such as the French Communist Party and the Russian Bolshevik Party. This book was instrumental in the Russian Revolution of 1915, when Lenin’s Bolshevik Communists ousted the Czar from power and instilled a Communist government.
Over time, it became apparent that Communist theory was becoming very corrupt. The totalitarianism of the Soviet government was creating something just as oppressive, if not much more oppressive, than Western capitalism was. Over time, the Left in places like America began to realize this, as a rift appeared in Left-wing politics around 1960. On one side was the “Old Left”, which stood for Stalinism, Marxism-Leninism, and Trotskyism. The “Old Left” represented cold, repressive Soviet ideologies held by the regimes of the USSR, Cambodia, and Vietnam. The other side in the rift, called the “New Left”, ushered in positive social change in concepts such as gay rights, free-love, more moderate Socialist theory in the form of Social Democracy, civil rights, radical politics, and a revival in communal living. They tended to speak out against both corporate tyranny as well as authoritarian Communism, though many revisionist Communist groups existed that associated themselves with this new movement, both militant (The Weather Underground, the Black Panthers) and peaceful (Students For A Democratic Society). However, the New Left also ushered in a revival of a very important anti-capitalist ideology: anarchism.
Anarchism, which roughly translates into “no government”, has numerous varieties (including right-wing varieties, i. e. anarcho-capitalism), but the two that were widely revived during the New Leftist movement.
The most important of the two was called “libertarian socialism”, or “syndicalism”, with other varieties such as “anarcho-communism”. Libertarian socialism is very much a revival of both the communal ideologies of early utopian socialists and the collectivist theories of anarchist Mikhail Bakunin. Libertarian socialists believe that all property should be controlled collectively in small direct democratic communal situations, with no leadership of government or corporate monopoly. Everything produced would be shared so that none would go hungry. These unions would govern themselves and participate in a huge global “gift economy” of non-mandatory trade.
Libertarian socialists believe that anarchism is the only logical reproduction of classical liberalism in the industrial age. They tend to renounce hegemony of all kinds, whether corporate or governmental. They believe that the power of moral and friendship would be enough to govern these small-scale socialist situations.
The authoritarian Left has criticized Leftist anarchism for being essentially a crackpot, utopianist theory that could never work in reality. Anarchists respond by calling Communism oppressive and corrupt. Beneath all this quarreling in the political Left, a new movement began emerging, distant from both socialism and capitalism. This alternative became known as the “green movement”.
Though environmentalism has existed for a very long time, its first major political association was manifested in another New Left idea: green anarchism. Green anarchism, or “anarcho-primitivisim”, was invented by radical Counterculture environmentalists in the mid-sixties. Green anarchism stresses extreme social downgrading, which would include removal of everything from government to education, to bring society backwards to its most environmentally friendly point, the “hunter-gatherer” lifestyle. More radical environmentalists in the Green political movement despise cities, museums, colleges, factories, modern medicine, schools, and anything that provide progress to humans at the expense of the natural environment. The Green Movement typically agrees that both capitalism and socialism are “forks in the road on a path to environmental destruction”, and support neither. More moderate Green politicians advocate environmental protection in regular socialist or capitalist situations.
In the end, socialism, anarchism, and green politics have all historically created alternatives to capitalism. In the next section of my writing, I will go on to discuss my views on corporatism and how I believe it could be prevented.
The Case Against Consumerism, Part 3
My Views on the Subject
I personally believe that consumerism is a corrupt, misguided practice. Because of this I typically align myself with the Left, due to the increasing tendencies of the Right to embrace non-revisioned “Laissez-faire” capitalist theory. As a huge advocate of democracy, I believe that classical liberals were extremely misguided in their belief that “free market means free people”. They were not taking into account that, as proposed by Gramsci in the 20s, free market capitalism creates plutocracy of the rich, which indirectly creates hegemony to suppress the masses, retaining extreme class division. The increasing say of the few over the many isn’t what freedom should be, in my opinion. Communism and pure State socialism merely provide a more direct, yet equal, amount of suppression on the masses. Thus, both corporate control and government control are essentially, in my opinion, two sides of the same issue. In both situations, it involves sheep claiming to be herders attempting to control other sheep. In that respect, the end result of both pure capitalism and pure socialism, in my opinion, doesn’t and will not work.
Because of these beliefs I hold, I would ideologically associate myself with the likes of the libertarian socialists and anarcho-syndicalists. By creating a democracy on small scale without the interference of corporations or the government, corporate greed and class structures would effectively be compromised. Gone would be the rule of the few. True democracy would exist, without any infiltrations of representative removing the essence of democracy. Society could, for the most part, live in harmony, with everyone helping everyone else.
I will, however, accept the criticisms of libertarian socialism. Sure, the idea is, at best, very far-fetched. Media hegemony has indoctrinated the public so much it would take years without any biased media for the public to seriously consider reverting to anarchism democratically, because violent revolution goes against my fundamental beliefs. Without a government, it would take years to indoctrinate the average man into the ideals of equality and compassion, rather than the ideals of ambition and greed that corporatism has imposed on the average citizen. In the end, I respect the fact that creating an ideal government would be a huge, huge task.
Because of this, totally ending consumerism is just as far-fetched as creating an ideal society. However, there are ways to not participate. For example, many large anti-capitalist organizations like Industrial Workers of the World and GreenPeace take part in anti-consumerist protests, corporation boycotts, and even corporation-sabotages. If you don’t wish to participate in corporatism, join the crowd! A group of protestors is better than one. Educate others on the horrors of capitalism. Avoid Starbucks, resent McDonalds, and resist corporatism publicly to announce that the specter of consumerism can’t hang over society forever. Thus is my belief on how you, the reader can avoid consumerism and help end it once and for all.
Unfortunately for activists, the growth rate of anti-capitalist politics has been steadily falling, especially since the failure of the USSR. Despite this, there has been a revival recently in communal living and small-scale socialism. Interest in the ideologies of socialists like Che Guevara and anarchists like Emma Goldman has also grown. Popularity of anti-capitalist activists like Noam Chomsky has risen. Also, capitalist governments like that of the USA and England have been gradually moving towards socialist principles themselves, with welfare, corporate bailouts, ect. Things like these suggest anti-capitalism and socialism, whether statist, anarchist, or otherwise, is on the rise. Whether successful or not, the anti-consumerism movement is a great testament to the resisting and individualist powers of humanity.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Chomsky Interviews
Great Videos! Check
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CKpCGjD8wg
and Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB1q2tdb-Gw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CKpCGjD8wg
and Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB1q2tdb-Gw
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Quote of the Week:
"Everybody's Talking About Stopping Terrorism. Well, Here's A Way To Stop It: Stop Participating In It"
-Noam Chomsky
Friday, May 1, 2009
American Situation
The Obama Press Conference was on a couple days ago. I agree with some of his views, but why is he shying away from government growth? Neo-liberal and ultra-capitalist policies of previous administrations have got us into this, now lets have the government, the rock of our infrastructure, to pull us out? Health care is corrupt. I know someone, a 13 year old with cancer, who was denied healthcare. American heathcare is, like so many others, a greedy capitalist enterprise. In something as basic as healthcare! Even Cuba, one of the poorest nations on Earth, has used socialist principles to create some of the best heathcare and education on earth, despite the fact they are a poor country. We need more government involvement. Keep the Auto Industry socialised! Nationalise heathcare! If a buisness is corrupt, tax the snot out of them! Control pollution! Its time the government stepped up and really starte helping those who really need it, something that I, and America, haven't seen yet.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
The New Left
The New Left, as it is often known, is Left Wing Politics past about 1965. By that time, the Stalinist tendencies and autocratic rule of the "Old Left", a.k.a. the USSR and China, had created something just as opressive as right-wing capitalism. Eventually, new radicals and revolutuionaries began speaking out against the both the capitalist right and the socialist left, ushering in a revitalized Left-Wing inspired by revolutionary socialists like Che Guevara, anarchists and feminists like Emma Goldman, radical artists and writers like Allen Ginsberg, and even social democrats and civil rights leaders like MLK and Malcom X. This "New Left" opened up ideas of the socialist commune, green movements, and open-mindedness in general. While creating movements like the hippies, the New Left also ushered in new, younger Leftist politicians that provided an alternative to the cold, oppressive Marxist policies of many communist states. The New Left movement proved disasterous to the communist parties of America, and the USSR lost much of its support among American radicals. However, New Leftists, such as Noam Chomsky and E. P. Thompson, have opened up modern radical and left-wing politics for the 21st century and beyond.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The Left Wing Hall Of Fame: Allen Ginsberg
ALLEN GINSBERG:
Allen Ginsberg wasn't a polititian, but he was very politically active. A poet and a founder of the Beat Generation, Ginsberg made up the more political faction of Beatnik writers. At different times calling himself a Trotskyist and an anarchist, Ginsberg opposed the status quo, as well as consevative politics. In the poem "America", Ginsberg confesses his idealistic communist beliefs yet also professes he believes that the Soviets had turned socialism into something just as bad as capitalism. Despite his anarchist political tendancies, Ginsberg was a huge supporter or freedom of speech and was active in many anti-war protests. He, along with other Leftists like Che Guevara and Malcom X, provided an alternative to the rigid, oppressive communism of the Soviet Union. These beliefs created a revitalised Left-Wing, called the "New Left".
The Left Wing Hall Of Fame: Noam Chomsky
NOAM CHOMSKY:
Noam Chomsky is one of the most influential political thinkers of all time. A self-described "libertarian socialist", he believes in protecting democracy at any cost, making him a hero to idealists everywhere, as well as a dissident, anarchist, and radical as well. By speaking out against the US government, the media, and neoliberalist thought in general, Chomsky is as influential as he is controversial. A huge activist in Leftist thoughts, Chomsky also participates in the fields of psychology and linguistics, and is the professor of language at MIT. He is now widely regarded as one of the most influential, controversial, and smartest figures in the world.
The Casualties Of War: A Speech by Sharon Harris
This speech was written as a protest of the drug war. On social issues, I am very liberal, and this essay describes my feelings on the subject perfectly. Though not a user or advocate of drug use, I believe people should have the ability to meke life choices. Enjoy!
The Casualties of War
by Sharon Harris
by Sharon Harris
Downtown Atlanta. A nine-month-old baby is killed by a stray bullet. When asked about this, the police chief says, "This is tragic. But the baby was simply a casualty of war. "In Los Angeles, there was actually an afternoon TV show produced by and for people who have had children and other loved ones killed in drive-by shootings!It used to be that kids were asked, "What do you want to be when you grow up?"Now the gruesome joke is, "What do you want to be IF you grow up?"The war we're talking about is the so-called War on Drugs, and it has had - and is having -- a devastating effect on our inner cities. And notice I didn't say drugs are having this effect; I said the War on Drugs is having this effect. Ladies and gentlemen, we don't have a drug problem; we have a police problem. We have a drug policy problem. My friend Susan is fond of sarcastically saying that she has the solution to the so-called drug problem: Let's just make drugs illegal; then no one can get them." As silly as this sounds, that's precisely the logic behind the Drug War.I submit to you that it is time to call a truce - to surrender if you will. It is time -- past time -- to legalize drugs. This may sound shocking, but I think the facts I'm going to share with you will shock you even more.Let's look at the facts. First, the Drug War is totally ineffective. It has failed to reduce overalluse of illegal drugs or even availability. Narcotics were no more prevalent before Prohibition than now, and cocaine is more widespread.And it's easy to see that drug laws actually cause more harm than good:(1) by increasing the price, forcing users to steal to pay for their habits.It is estimated that 40% of property crimes are committed by drug users -- 4 million crimes per year; $7.5 billion in stolen property.(2) Prohibition creates stronger and more dangerous drugs. Seen any white lightning lately? Crack cocaine and many designer drugs would not even exist without Prohibition.(3) by criminalizing use of drugs, we create criminals. Once a person is labeled a criminal, why not commit other crimes? Once that threshold is crossed, it's hard to come back.(4) normal jobs don't pay enough, so we discourage people from working. This especially affects young people who find role models in punks wearing gold jewelry, leaning against their Mercedes, and smearing at any kid who takes a minimum wage job. And why should a child aspire to anything else when he is given the opportunity to make thousands of dollars a week?(5) drug-related disputes are removed from the legal system, thus creating a context of violence.(6) the black market creates jobs -- for professional criminals.(7) users are forced to have daily contact with criminals.(8) the violence associated with drug trafficking kills innocent people -- many of them children. Children in our inner cities are afraid to walk to school and are terrified just lying in their own beds at night.(9) And let's not forget the COSTS. Law enforcement costs alone are over $13 billion per year. The economic cost has been estimated at over $80 billion -- money funneled into the black market. Not to mention lost productivity. And of course we can't put a price tag on the lost lives. Milton Friedman estimated that at least one-half - or 10,000 - of gun deaths each year are a direct result of drug laws.(10) The cost of incarcerating a drug offender is amazing. There's not enough jail space, so when someone is imprisoned under mandatory sentences, violent criminals have to be released. For each year a drug offender serves, there will be an estimated 40 robberies, 7 assaults, 110 burglaries and 25 car thefts. I don't know about you, but I feel a whole lot safer.(11) Drug laws corrupt the entire legal system, especially the police -- justlike alcohol Prohibition did.(12) The Bill of Rights has been virtually gutted by the Drug War. With seizure of property, invasion of privacy, searches, drug-testing --- a whole speech could be written on this topic alone. Even the 2nd amendment comes under this category. If you believe in the right to bear arms, you better be against the Drug War, because that is the main impedance behind gun seizure. A bill has actually been introduced into Congress calling for the repeal of the 2nd amendment, and use of guns by drug dealers was cited as its reason.(13) Not to mention that the whole idea behind the War on Drugs isimmoral and can never be justified. The premise is that the government has a right to tell you and me what we can and cannot put into our bodies. Whose body is this anyway? I don't know how you feel about this, but my body does not belong to the government.But what about deaths from drugs? Well here are the figures: each year while alcohol kills 150,000 and tobacco kills 390,000, 400 people die from heroin, 200 from cocaine, 0 from marijuana. And remember that almost all the deaths from illegal drugs are directly caused by Prohibition. To borrow from the gun-rights' bumper sticker: illegal drugs don't kill people; drug LAWS kill people.Virtually all drug-related violence is really drug-law-related violence. You need only look at the lack of violence in the legal drug market. There's no violence in the sale of alcohol, cigarettes… aspirin.But, you may be asking, wouldn't we be condoning drug usage if we legalized drugs? This is simply nonsense. As a society, we don't condone cigarette smoking. We don't condone the philosophy of Adolf Hitler or the KKK. Yet we allow people to choose to smoke, we allow publication of Mein Kompf, we let the Klan march down Main Street. Because in this country we condone freedom of expression. We condone individual choice.The idea of getting rid of drugs sounds like a noble one. But it's a pipe dream. It’s simply not going to happen.Let's face it, there is and always will be a market for unhealthy things that make some people feel better. There's a market for alcohol, for cigarettes, for butter. For drugs.Wardens and guards can't keep drugs out of our federal prisons, yet there are those who want to turn this country into a prison in an attempt to eliminate drugs.You may not use drugs, but believe me, the casualties of war affect you ¬directly and indirectly. In your taxes. In the violence on the streets. In our children's futures.We've all heard that great definition of insanity: Insanity is keeping on doing the same thing and expecting different results. That's what we've been doing. Throwing more money and more lives at the problem and expecting things to get better. They won't until we end this insanity. There is blood in the streets – and blood on the hands of all politicians who won't admit what has to be done. Including one politician name Bill Clinton, who refused to even look at the research on this issue. I wonder if he thinks he should have been arrested when he smoked marijuana? Oh, that's right, he didn't inhale, but the law doesn't say "If the person didn't inhale, it's OK." An arrest just might have hindered his future career plans. Courageous people from all political spectrums are finally realizing what has to be done and are calling for the repeal of drug laws. Curtis Schmoke, mayor of Baltimore, conservative journalists William F. Buckley and Joseph Sobran. Nobel Prize economist Milton Friedman. Former secretary of state George Schultz. And YOU, I hope. We must demand that Congress put an end to this NOW.And what will be the results? Realize that I'm not calling for a radical experiment. I'm calling for the end of a failed experiment -- for re-Iegalization of drugs. Drugs were legal in this country well into the 20th century. Opium, morphine, and cocaine were legal and cheap, available in grocery stores, drugstores and through the mail. Yet we had none of the violence and other criminal problems we associate with drugs today.The day after repeal of the drug laws, our streets will be safer. Real drug education can begin. Drug dealers will be gone. Organized crime will take an $80 billion cut in pay. We will live in a safer and freer country.No longer will punk drug dealers harass and intimidate our children. We can once again ask them, “What would you like to be when you grow up?”
The Left Wing Hall Of Fame: Leon Trotsky
LEON TROTSKY:
A follower of Marx, Trotsky is viewed as an idealistic communist. Unlike his rival Josef Stalin, Trotsky believed in international socialist revolution, a more narrow interpretation of Marx' views, and a society by the people, for the people. Stalin was using an ideology often called Stalinism, which for many is a negative term used to describe dictators who bend socialist theory to create a personality cult and authortarian rule. A fierce critic of Stalin's governing style, Trotsky's thoughts are often now labeled Trotskyism. Leon Trotsky was assasinated under orders of Stalin in Mexico.
The Problem Of Unbridled Capitalism
I am, to some extent, a believer in capitalism. I believe some business needs to flow to keep the economy alive. A firm believer in "New Deal" style ideas, I believe the only way capitalism can work is if it is mixed extensively with pre-planned, socialist ideals. If capitalism is left alone, the poor becomes downtrodden, and the rich become richer. This would create a grossly exaggerated class system that would not only create social unrest but also, with all the industry and no government agency to keep waste and pollution in check, destroy the environment itself. Certain Right extremists, such as "anarcho-capitalists" go so far to believe that no government should exist at all, rather certain big buisnesses should take total control or passive control of a world "mega-market". As silly as this sounds, certain people actually believe in ideas such as these. Did they forget the fact that the government is what brought them their precious capitalism? Nothing works without regulation. Chaos isn't acceptable. Things such as healthcare, banks, and social security should be totally nationalized in order to escape the capitalist corruption. Globalization of captialism has got us no-where. We need a voice of reason in these crazed madhouses we call "economies", and that voice should be a group fairly elected by citizens given equal rights. We need to wake up and realize that by letting the Right-Wing capitalists run rampant, we are creating a force that will distroy the world. What we need is a perfect, best-of-both-worlds combination of freedom and regulation. Democratic Socialism Forever!
The Left Wing Hall Of Fame: Lenin
LENIN:
Vladimir Ulanov, or Vladimir Lenin, as he came to be known, was one of the Left-Wing's most controversial leaders. A radical revolutionary, Lenin was a member of the Bolshevik faction of socialism. The Bolsheviks were staunch, conservative communist fundamentalists who believed in violent revolution. He took Marx' ideas to the next level by overthrowing the Russian Empire, himself emerging as dictator of the new communist regime. Though criticised for his extreme beliefs and autocratic tendancies as a ruler, he opened up a "New Deal" with peasants alowing them to sell grain on the open market, something that laid the groudwork for social democracy and "New Left" ideas.
The Left Wing Hall Of Fame: Karl Marx
KARL MARX:
The man who started it all. Karl Marx, though not the inventor of socialism, was one of its most influential followers (along with vastly underrated colleague Fredrich Engels). Exploding into the minds of other radicals like Lenin, Marx published books such as Das Kapital, a criticism of capitalist thought, and The Communist Manifesto, a collaboration with Engels proposing the communist theories of revolution to overturn the bloated, corrupt upper class. Though controversial even now, Marx was nevertheless a very important figure in the left wing movement.
Mission Statement
Hello Everyone! This is a new blog where I will be posting information to inspire, assist, and raise awareness of the Left-wing of politics. I happen to be a democratic socialist, but I still believe unbridled capitalism is destroying the world. From Trotskyism to Christian socialism, left-wing politics are free to be discussed, acknowledged, and even challenged. We are here to fight the Right-wing oppressor!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)