Meme Processing

Icky

2008-05-05T10:42:00.010-05:00

Stick your face in a car exhaust.
That's icky.

Inhale deeply from a smoke stack.
That's icky.

Drink deep from dirty water.
That's icky.

Take a walk in an ozone haze.
That's icky.

Of course, in everyday life we don't interact with such high concentrations of contaminants. But they're still there, and it certainly isn't good for our health. It could mean as little as another cough or sneeze, mild to severe respiratory problems, to a bout with cancer or some other potentially terminal ailment. No doubt about it,

Pollution is icky.

Pollution comes in large part from fossil fuels and icky energy production practices.

Fortunately, there's something that can be done.

*Alternative Energy
The wind can provide us with clean energy.

Newer models have ways to scare birds away and keep them safe.

Small windmills can be installed in many places, providing a measure of energy independence. Large windmills are also available for community production.

The sun always shines on the earth. We can harness this energy.
Like wind power, solar power can be
small- to large-scale, offering both the benefits of independence and centralized distribution.

There are even more effective ways to reduce pollution.

*Energy Reduction
Every dollar spent on energy-saving measures saves $3 to $5 over time.

High efficiency appliances help reduce energy use. Use guides that detail energy consumption of the appliance; go for the more efficient models.

This highlights the importance of consumer choices. The way consumers purchase products - and what kind - helps shape the economy. If we shop locally or regionally, for products both recycled and recyclable, we reduce transportation and extraction costs, a boon to individuals and businesses alike. We also help to support local farmers and environmentally-friendly businesses.
As a consumer, you can engage in recycling, a way of making use of what would otherwise be trash.
The way we get around is up to us. By utilizing mass transit, the consumer saves money on fuel and maintenance costs, and helps everyone breathe a little easier.
Another great way to travel is via bicycle. Getting around is fun, fast, and efficient. A good ride can be equivalent to a workout, a healthy byproduct.
Automobiles are now - amazingly! - available with electric motors, either solely...
... or in conjunction with a combustion engine.
They are usually more fuel efficient than their combustion-only counterparts.

As we have seen, pollution is costly to our health and slowing our economy. It would make sense for us to address it as an issue, and reap the side benefits of energy savings and regional growth. New ways of producing and saving energy can spur the economy, providing ample job opportunities and a host of new consumer products. For these reasons and more, it would behoove us, as consumers, civil servants, and businesses alike, to focus on a more sustainable energy future.
Anything less is just plain icky.

Sincerity

2008-04-12T09:32:00.003-05:00

Honesty is the best policy. Or so the saying goes.

But what if it's brutal? Toss out a little white lie to keep the peace, tell a small fib to preserve the calm. Oh, it works for the inconsequential things, like what she looks like in that dress, or that lame joke he told. For important stuff, like your newfound atheism or your disapproval of how the boss handles things, little white lies don't work. Sure, the receiving party is none the wiser, and their emotional well-being is maintained, but yours may not be.

Sometimes sincerity is required, even if it is painful.

The Coin

2008-03-23T11:10:00.002-05:00

Sometimes in life we run into situations that require us to make decisions based on two possible choices. In some cases, it's easy to choose; in others, it is not.

What to do? Since either one of the options would be satisfying to you, and you really have no preference, flip a fair coin. If you like the outcome, stick with it. If you don't, you learn that maybe you did have a preference.

Emotional Coercion

2007-09-21T11:14:00.000-05:00

Years ago, I read a book called "Why We Buy" by Paco Underhill. He and members of his research team would go to various shops of clients and observe customers. They have sneaky methods of noticing you so that you don't notice them noticing you. These researchers record a plethora of facts about you: what you are wearing, the company you keep, how you move about the store, what you pick up, what you touch, etc. You could almost hear David Attenborough in the background, narrating your activities. The research company then sticks all this data together and comes up with clever ways to get you to do what the store managers want you to do: buy more stuff. As a marketing executive, Underhill knows the tricks because he invented/discovered a lot of them. The "tricks" are making use of the simple things that make us tick, gleaned from this extensive observation of consumer behavior.

Humans are, first and foremost, survival machines. We evolved in the wild to be and act in ways that were conducive to our reproductive success. We're such clever monkeys, though, that we quickly de-wilded the wilderness. Our genes did not get the message, and are still cranking us out to behave as if we were still in the jungle. Of course, we have instinct blindness, that is, we are not aware of what we do or why - we don't need to, we just do it. That was the case for several thousands of years, but now we have folks like Edward Bernays, Underhill, and others that have been able to pinpoint specific instincts and ingrained behavior that we have in response to specific environmental cues. I would like to remind the reader that we are not entirely driven by instincts or predetermined behavior; there is a great variability in our thoughts and actions and our reasons for them. We are not little robots that mindlessly go about our business (well, most of us aren't). I mention this now to make a point later. (that humans ought to be "rational, reasoning, and thoughtful", not mindless animals that react to environmental cues.)

Bringing up Edward Bernays suggests, quite rightly, that government propaganda can and obviously does make use of the same tactics used by advertisers, and vice versa. We should not have expected things to be otherwise.

Our Candidate

From the video, we can see that the way to subvert the good sense of humans, propaganda must appeal to emotions. Fear is, I believe, the most commonly used and effective emotion to elicit the desired response. The reason is fear played such a huge role in our lives in the jungle. Fear meant survival, even if it was irrational. Running from a tiger cub thinking it is a tiger because the fear magnified the threat may indeed seem silly to us, but our monkey ancestors would rather expend a few calories like this and be wrong than be gobbled up for good.

Other emotions and systems come into play as well. For example, humans like faces. We have a natural propensity to notice them. (As an aside, I'm pretty sure most animals with faces have some face recognition pattern). Humans also have built-in attractiveness measuring systems. Symmetry of the body, especially faces, is often a good indication of quality genes. Stick symmetrical, youthful human faces all over advertisements - even if faces have nothing to do with the product:

[at an auto exhibit where a blonde model poses together with a car for a raffle.]

Homer: [looks at model after signing his raffle ticket] Do you come with the car?

Model: Oh you! [laughs childishly]

[Homer leaves. Another man walks up to the car]

Male attendee: [looks at model after signing his raffle ticket] Do you come with the car?

Model: Oh you! [laughs childishly]

- and people will look at it and make associations between the people depicted and the product. Multi-national and -cultural studies have shown that women with a .7 waist to hip ratio are found, on average, to be more desirable than other ratios. This probably has a lot to do with fertility cues. Associating fertility cues with automobiles makes a lot of sense.

Let's not expect advertisers to be the sole users of these facts. The recent republican debates and polls have shown Mitt Romney is a popular candidate. I predicted it was because of his hair, and since we know that national politicians generally don't say anything meaningful, this is probably the case.

The point of all this is to demonstrate the similarity of tactics. Now we must break down the underlying reasons for using them. The simple reason is: they want us to do something. Whether it's handing over money for a good or service or as a donation for a campaign, to having a positive mental attitude towards the company, party, or politician makes no difference.

Wanting something is not inherently bad or undesirable, it's just a matter of how we go about getting it. If I can save some effort by asking someone to pass the pepper, I just politely ask them to do so. I don't have to resort to fear-mongering or excessive charm. The use of emotional and sexual manipulation is what makes the previous cases so detestable. Rather than be addressed as rational, thoughtful, intelligent, responsible people (you know, humans), advertisers and political propagandists appeal to base instincts and survival mechanisms. It is insulting because it suggests that A) we are too stupid to understand the real reasons why we should do something, and B) we are too stupid to even ask. The most insulting thing, though, is C) it works.

Not all the time, nor on everyone, but it does. We are such that we can't help but react a certain way in some cases. I consider it coercion. In an obvious case, a person holds a gun to my head and demands my obedience. Bypassing such crude methods, I am induced as a monkey (not as a human) to obey through cleverly designed media spots. One interesting property of media coercion as compared to violent coercion, is that whereas the latter is good at obtaining direct obedience with direct, individual contact and less so in large groups; the former is rather poor at bending the individual to its will, but quite effective at moving crowds. Everyone has these holes in the armor of their persona, but not everyone has a gun to their head. Most people can overcome emotional or sexual coercion, but not always so with violent coercion. The trouble is that we often don't even notice we are being emotionally manipulated. It is easy to spot the gun and the malevolence behind it. Appeals to emotion - especially those couched in the innocent activity of "merely informing others that such a product exists" - do not have an apparent ill-intent. It may seem just fine and logical to vote for this or that candidate because of this or that emotionally-charged "issue".

This is perhaps the scariest and most dangerous aspect of emotional manipulation: because it is your emotion and your reaction, you feel like you are in control. You are not. At least, not completely. The amount of autonomy you give up depends on how comfortable you feel being driven by your emotions to perform the bidding of another person. Over time I would imagine you would be happy to have others make your decisions. After all, your emotions tell you that what you are doing is desirable, so what you want is what they want, and you don't have to go through the trouble of trying to figure out what it is you want. They do that for you.

So when I rail against consumerism (or political ads not unlike the spoof above) and all it's evils, this is just one aspect of what I mean. If you've ever seen a person zombie-like in front the TV, flashes of light flickering off their glazed eyes, reduced through years of careful conditioning to be an emotionally-driven consumer robot, you will experience the horror...

Horrified yet? Good, now do my bidding...

Authoritarians

2007-09-09T06:53:00.000-05:00

I just finished reading an online book by a psychologist in Canada about authoritarianism. I recommend that you immediately read the book at the link, it is that good.

The ebook is a collection of experiments, surveys, and observations a professor did to determine the roots of authoritarian behaviour. At first, he only used one scale, the Right-Wing Authoritarianism or RWA, to pick out what kind of people are mindless followers (sheeple) and which are a bit more independently-minded. This scale worked for a long time, but didn't quite capture all the understanding in regards to authoritarian leaders. Hence, he introduced the Social Dominance scale, SD, to see who wanted to be the one on top in any situation. Using the two together, four distinct types of personalities emerged, each having unique characteristics, often defined by life experiences, that affirms what we always suspected to be true.

In the chart below, which I spent all of three minutes making, we see 4 squares with a list of (some) attributes and an example of the type of person such attributes would create. This is not to be taken as entirely accurate in 100% of cases. Individual variation certainly allows for overlap and mixing of traits.
The examples by no means apply to all of those who bear the labels. Not all anarchists would score low on these two measures, and one can certainly be an asshole and yet not be authoritarian. But I was hoping the reader would notice that the traits seem to line up, because then it would make it far more convenient to refer to one category as "sheeple" instead of "those who have high RWA and low SD scores". I will try to describe each label so the reader gets a feel for the forces that help shape such behaviour.

Assholes

These happy people score high on RWA and SD both! They have a strong tendency to be religious, and to respect authority they deem higher than them (like God or the Pope). But if they suspect they can gain the upper hand in a situation and overthrow the current archon, they will not hesitate to act. They relish power and thoroughly enjoy controlling other people. Opposing viewpoints are brushed aside and ignored, or, if these interlopers are hindering their plans, assholes will deal with the matter above and beyond the law, as you must be aware they always were.

So what kind of person becomes an asshole? What experiences might have led them to be this way? A highly religious family that stresses obedience to authority is probably a factor. But the difference between sheeple and assholes is that the latter have had experiences that taught them they can bend, distort, or out and out break the rules to get something they want. Imagine Ted Haggard as a boy. He learns that people revere god, and respect people who do, so when he steals cookies from the cookie jar, and someone later finds out, he spouts religious claptrap and manipulates his way out of the situation. He learns that being bad and pious at the same time allows him to win more in life, especially control over other people.

Sheeple

The good ol' boys out there that keep us safe from atheists and socialists. They know who's in charge (God and GWB), what the rules are (insert religious text here), and who's gonna go straight to hell (homosexuals, various opposing religions, etc.). They are small-minded and almost constantly scared. Fear is their primary emotion in reaction to new and strange circumstances. Anyone who is too different than they are deserves narrow-eyed suspicion, at the very least.

We can well imagine the bland and stale life they must have had to keep them in their little shells. The tribe is all they know; foreigners and their customs are not welcome. These are the kind of people who want you and everyone else to be "normal". Growing up as children, these folks experience lots of church-going, lots of happy, patriarchal families, severe punishment for those who get out of line (fire and brimstone, anyone?), and receive lots of fear-mongering on Faux News and Rant Radio.

Libertarians

Some could be atheist, but more because they view god as a threat to their own authority, and religion as a crutch for the weak and stupid, than because they reject the absurdity of it. The world is theirs for the taking, sharing is for losers, and people are poor because they are lazy. In a room of two people, someone has to be on top, and it's gonna be the libertarian. They are obviously highly-competitive, and certainly not above cheating. They're the kind who curse welfare and food stamp recipients for being moochers, and chuckle in approval at corporations who yank money many times more than all the welfare moochers combined out of public coffers. The state that helps the poor is evil and horrible, but the hired goons that protect their property are perfectly acceptable.

This is from an old conversation I had online with a Randroid:

1. Morality is an individual issue, not a social issue.

2. Helping others in need is wrong.

3. Each against all is a moral and practical system.

These statements suggest a "me versus the world" mentality. This person railed against cooperation and equality, charging "the left" with bringing about universal poverty. Of course, this is only because these things challenge his authority and possible success over others. Some other things libertarians have said to me:

"Women shouldn't vote because they always vote for the wrong reasons."

"Slavery is efficient."

"The only legitimate authority is the boss [the one with the money]."

"If I was caught by the police, I would rat out all of my friends to get out."

After I described the effects of pollution on the environmental and human health, a libertarian told me:

"I don't care about these things. They don't affect me."

The prominent indifference to suffering and a desire for money and power overwhelms any agreeable rhetoric libertarians may spout. I've surmised before how and why they end up the way they do. I bring this up to show that when libertarians use words like "freedom" and "opportunity", they almost always mean it for themselves, exclusively. If they oppose power, it is only because they don't have it. Liberty is only useful if it grants them power.

This is not to be a long polemic against libertarians (ok, maybe a little). Their oft-chosen atheist position is commendable, as is their somewhat more open stance on homosexuals and other minority groups. Even their goals seem admirable, which is the reason why libertarians are dangerous: because this makes them so difficult to spot. A power-hungry asshole is obviously out to control and dominate you. A libertarian, on the other hand, will camouflage themselves in "no gummint" rhetoric, but vote for schmucks like Reagan; they say "freedom and liberty", but are not above corporations limiting these rights in others.

Anarchists

Of course, not all people who score low on both the RWA and SD measures call themselves or would be considered anarchists, but we can connect the attributes with the philosophy. These people believe each person has to find their own way in life. They see nothing wrong with someone being a transvestite, homosexual, or the author of a pretentious blog. Rather than fearful, they are curious when encountering something new. They challenge ill-gotten and ill-used authority, even at peril to themselves. Cooperation is preferred over competition, equality over wealth disparity, and diversity over cultural homogeneity.

They probably grew up in cities or places with a wide range of people, differing cultural attitudes and perspectives. The family household may have been eccentric to some extent, maybe a single mother or starving artists for parents. Having seen authority figures abuse power or otherwise be stupid, they have the important understanding that authority is fallible, and that it is often wise to question it.

Authoritarianism and Politics

And, in all things political, it is more about domineering or authoritarian behavior that determines when abuse of power occurs, not necessarily the specific views of the individual. For example, a domineering Randroid is just as likely to become a dictator like Stalin as is an asshole. But we may notice that certain beliefs tend to link with particular stances on authoritarianism. Sheeple prefer simple, emotionally-satisfying, easily repeated drivel that makes sure they are stupid and obedient. Assholes bathe themselves in this drivel, but spice it up with a bit of god-like control. Libertarians, of course, enjoy and identify with Objectivism and other such ideas that excuse exploitation and belittle the fools who share and care - lefties and religious nuts alike.

What do anarchists believe? Strangely, some of the lines libertarians spout. For example

"That government which governs least, governs best."

I agree with this, and indeed many libertarians do - on the surface. Implied in the quote is the understanding that for government to govern less, those who are governed must prevent the need for such governing by solving the problems (even those caused by the gummint) the government was created to solve. That is, to even begin to bring about such a situation, we would require people to be independent, open-minded, curious, cooperative, and empathetic, amongst similar qualities. For the libertarian, it is enough to get rich and break free from the chains of the system - you know, hitting that higher tax bracket and getting all those nice tax breaks - but will leave the other prisoners there to rot. Or, if they do it right, it will be their turn to be the jailer.

"...the proletariat class [will] never band together or overthrow the government ... because [they are] too stupid to understand what was going on"

The anarchist, on the other hand, realizes that his freedom is intrinsically tied to the freedom of others, that opportunity for her means opportunity for others, that if we're all going to the same place, there's no need to scramble over one another. They know that caring for themselves means caring for others. They understand that to be true to form, it is not just a matter of freeing oneself from the chains, but of destroying them altogether. Writers and philosophers that genuinely espouse such things are often agreeable to anarchists. My best illustration, far superior to words is:

Energy Distribution Mechanisms

2007-07-26T13:48:00.001-05:00

The sun bathes the surface of the earth in warm, delicious energy. Structures form to better store and utilize this energy. And so it is that cells came about. New structures form from these smaller structures, smaller components making larger ones. And so it is that these cells arrange themselves in patterns conducive to energy storage and utilization, an organism. One obstacle to the growth of larger patterns is the dispersal of energy throughout them. If too many cells in a large organism go without sustenance, the entire system becomes threatened with collapse. Cells dealing with one another on a one-to-one basis is insufficient to create effective energy distribution mechanisms; capillaries are too thin to carry nutrients across so many cells. Very quickly organisms learned to designate special cells to create energy dispersal conduits, or veins and arteries...

If I want a paintbrush, I go out and buy one. If I want some food, I go out and buy some. If I want to go to a concert, I buy a ticket and go. I pay for the good or service, and the business I patronize provides me with it. It is a simple transaction, involving two free agents engaging in mutually beneficial economic activity undisturbed by coercion. No one else need be involved monetarily. Making the customer behind me in line fork over some money to pay for my food or my paintbrush would be unthinkable.

The same can be said for taxes. Why should I have to pay taxes for roads when I don't drive that often? Why should I pay taxes for public education when I don't have any kids? Why should I dole out my money for some grieving hospital patient? Let them pay their own way. They are the ones making the transactions. It seems horrible and wrong that someone would have me pay for goods and services that benefit them and not me.

But is it for their exclusive benefit? I may not need to drive a car to the shop to buy my paintbrush, but the paintbrush itself required someone to drive it to the shop. Paying taxes on it reflects the cost of the use of the road in moving the product to me. I may not utilize the roads directly, but I do require them to be there. I benefit from roads even though I don't use them.

In such a case, I would be one out of the three grey circles in the diagram below. I am removed from the direct use of the road, but by the path of benefit from the road to the art shop to me, the customer, I benefit by it. Notice the gradient of benefit.
Suppose some teacher gets sick and requires medical attention. Suppose also that their meager salary is not nearly enough to cover the costs of this care. We might just shrug our shoulders and say "oh well, sucks to be her". And then the next day the kids come home from school having not learned a thing. The babysitter/substitute teacher was unfamiliar with the children and did not work with them well. Unsatisfied with school, the children run a muck at home, becoming less and less educated as the weeks go buy. The poor teacher is on her last leg, more than ever unable to afford the necessary medical treatment. Suppose that to help keep their kids from being little hooligans, the parents of the children each pitch in a little to help pay for the teacher's medical bills. The cost divided amongst them amounts to very little per family. Each family benefits by having their children calm and knowledgeable. And not just the families, but the businesses and organizations that will be using the fresh monkey minds to (hopefully!) benefit society years from when their teacher got sick. In the diagram below, these benefiters make use of the medical service the teacher received as well as the indoctrination services the latter provided, both of which can be represented by the green square.

These ripples of benefit affect society as a whole. Many such matters do. Simple transactions in the marketplace cannot factor these other benefits into account; it would be a logistical nightmare to calculate how much others separated by degrees benefit from a direct transaction between two agents.

But let's suppose that we were keen on making economic transactions more "fair". Our current situation with taxes paying for roads would have to be abandoned. Instead, we have to introduce some way for those who use the roads - and no one else - to pay for them. One such way would be for motorists to subscribe to some sort of service plan. A service plan may have different restrictions given location, time of day, particular quality of the road, etc. Competing companies would also exist, dividing up roads as turf. How such plans would be derived and enforced is difficult to surmise. It would certainly be unfair for one person to have to pay full price for a service they rarely use, so maybe something more indicative of actual use should be introduced. Toll roads offer the best answer, because the distance and path a motorist travels determines how much they ought to pay. But to ensure a proper assessment of use, tolls would have to be installed at just about every intersection. Of course, hiring people to man hundreds of toll booths is out of the question, and the traffic jams would be dreadful. Something like a little tag system would work, though. A receiver mounted on the stop sign or traffic light that tallies the tagged vehicle passing beneath/beside it. The bill comes in the mail.

What a fair, equitable, and profitable way to manage a road system! The invasion of privacy and the entire bureaucratic apparatus would make these toll companies seem awfully like the taxing state. But, in the end, those who use the road directly are the ones who pay for it directly.

There are certainly cases where engaging in one-on-one transactions is superior to being taxed. The paintbrush and food examples take into account my own personal preference for food and paintbrushes. No way, no how could taxes ever consider these things. Besides, not everyone benefits to a significant degree by what I paint or what I eat (only by the fact that I do - just enough to stay alive!).

But in the process of providing me with a paintbrush or food, several other transactions take place. Any number of beneficial (green square) and detrimental (red square) effects may have rippled across society through the course of my desires coming to me.

There is an important point to make at this juncture that describes our current mode of resource distribution. Americans and other citizens of "first world" countries benefit greatly by having cheap goods manufactured in China or "third world" countries made available to them. Those who make the goods themselves are often not the ones that receive the greatest benefit - often quite the opposite. From our end, things look like a green square, but on their end, it's a red square.

The smoke from these factories is related to that new plastic gadget for sale:

When McDonald's has its 39 cent hamburgers special, this is what it means:

The awful business going on in China and other places is hidden from western consumers behind an attractive price. In the same way that money distorts and hides benefit, it shields us from ever knowing the detriment.

So, some quick rhetorical questions. Do we come out ahead, as a species, as the humanity organism, when we make commodities in this way? Is there another way to fabricate and disperse consumer items, one that maximizes benefit and minimizes detriment? Is our current mode of energy distribution equipped to meet such a goal?

Centralization and Concentration

If we are to include ripples of benefit in determining the price of certain goods and services, what criteria should be used? What specific kinds of goods and services should be provided?

Oddly enough, the structure of national governments in many parts of the world shows us the answer:

1) Communication
2) Transportation
3) Energy
4) Education
5) Health

Several items could be added, but I think the idea is conveyed. What we would like to include is those goods and services that provide an enormous, ubiquitous, and lasting benefit to society. The 5 items listed above can be considered organs. As the humanity organism evolves, it will refine and hone how it deals with its needs, more specifically, how it uses its organs.

Taxes and state services, even if well-meaning, can often create tumors rather than efficient and useful organs. Tasks become mired down in bureaucracy, overhead, and miscommunication. Services must be homogeneous and so become bland, washed-out, and mediocre. This leads to citizen disgruntlement.

We seek a way out, and one that allows us to choose where our money goes. The only other mechanism that we know of is the market. The market, if it was a superior mechanism for distributing these 5 important goods and services, would already be doing it. The reason why it is not is because these things are often not profitable or feasible, as discussed previously.

In the cases where profitable industries develop to meet the needs of the organism, to remain afloat and robust, they must ever seek expansion and market domination.
The organ grows large and unwieldy, developing along lines of control and hierarchy, granting those at the top the greatest benefit, and leaving the detriment for those removed from the decision-making process. Someone at the top shapes the entire operation to be as profitable as possible, regardless of the value output. The organ more and more resembles a tumor. Tasks become mired down in bureaucracy, overhead, and miscommunication. Services must be homogeneous and profitable and so become bland, washed-out, and mediocre.

This problem is present in both tax-based and market-based entities; it has more to do with the size and organizational structure of the operation rather than the method of acquiring funds. Ideally, tax-based services should be small operations, because they can more effectively deal with the customers they serve, just as with small businesses.
The total area of the market is better filled with small circles rather than large circles. (My dinky diagram may not show this). Centralized, hierarchical services would, by their very nature, become bloated and fat-ridden, bringing waste and corruption in their wake.

This would happen because of the nature of hierarchy and control. Power structures are used to gather more power. A radical move away from
centralized power and control without the loss of distributive benefits from taxes would be greater citizen participation, especially in regards to taxes:

Half of the political machinery would be rendered superfluous (as if it weren't already). Citizens, as consumers of not-for-profit services, would get a say in how much of their money went where. This allows the humanity organism to develop along lines useful to it as an entity, not as competing tumors desiring mindless growth.

Once again, this was a jumble of ideas. Much can be filled in to connect the ideas more succinctly, and much more can be said of them in general. In the interest of time and to avoid confusion, I have kept it as is. Suggestions, comments and clarifications are certainly welcome; I just hope it makes sense.

dm11a (ldm.cfm) + Grid (lkm.ccl)

2007-07-26T00:11:00.001-05:00

Capitalismo

2007-07-23T09:50:00.000-05:00

I have a lot of money. I want to make more money. I want to introduce cheap produce and other agricultural goods to an industrialized country and its lucrative market.

So, I go to South America with the backing of the government of my industrialized country, pushing for lax trade laws, environmental laws, and labour laws with the corrupt government of some South American country. I buy up land with my mighty foreign currency and hire a bunch of brown people that I know are obviously beneath me to work crops that have little use to the people there, but turn a nice profit when sold back home.

I introduce the use of powerful chemical fertilizers and pesticides - banned in my country - to ensure healthy growth. The corrupt government supports my economic endeavour because they, not the ones doing the work, get a cut of the action. They are so nice, too, to hire guards to police the area, keeping farm hands in line and pesky protesters (environmental and/or humanitarian) out of sight. Why should I have to install the machinery of oppression when I can just borrow and use that which is already in place?

I'm doing everyone a favour: I'm giving much-needed work to the farmers, much-needed money to government officials in two or more countries, much-needed goods in my home market, and, most importantly, much-needed money for me. So you can imagine my surprise that people would even dare think this whole arrangement is a bad thing.

I just don't understand.

The Socratic Method

2007-07-14T00:28:00.000-05:00

This is a discussion I had with someone on stumbleupon. I forgot to copy and paste the first few messages we traded before they cycled through, so I will have to fill in with gists. I also wanted to write this blog post to more thoroughly address the arguments. Parts that were not in our original discussion, for the sake of fairness, will be in italics.

Me:

Did you know that Vonnegut and Orwell were both socialists, and that their books often reflected this? For example in 1984 when Orwell writes "hope lies with the proles" he was certainly advocating socialism. Do you find it disconcerting? How you respond is dependent on how vigorous your research is.

Pin:

not really. I can like a book yet disagree with it's message. But seriously, wasn't Animal Farm a work dedicated to showing that socialism cannot work? And I am well aware of Vonnegut's love for Eugene Debbs, his socialist idol. But his books are still entertaining to read, and he doesn't advocate socialism in them.

Also, in 1984, there is really big, rights-devouring government, which is a dominant feature of socialistic and communistic governments. And as I see it, this "big brother" could not exist in a country that is not socialistic. I believe this because the state has no incentive to spy on the people if there is no state to take down. The only reason the state would have to spy on the people is to force people to follow stupid rules or prevent people from plotting to overthrow the state. If the state has no power, then it has no power to lose. If it has no power to lose, it has no incentive to spy on the people.

And how does the state get power? It begins providing services for the people, then taxing the people for the money to provide these services. When the government provides services, that is socialism. The only way the state gets power is by taxing, the only way the state gets to tax is by providing services. Therefore, the state only has something to gain by spying on the people if it is a socialist government.

With that in mind, how is 1984 a pro-socialist work?

*
Me:

"How you respond is dependent on how vigorous your research is."

Not very, apparently. :-)

"But seriously, wasn't Animal Farm a work dedicated to showing that socialism cannot work?"

No, actually. Orwell was writing an account of the history of these events, and what went wrong. He was not out to disprove or discredit socialism.

"and he [Vonnegut] doesn't advocate socialism in them."

Are you sure? Socialism meant a lot to him, and the kinds of stories he wrote were most definitely about social commentary, an excellent place to advocate socialism.

"When the government provides services, that is socialism."

The main problem here, of course, is that you are using a definition of socialism that Orwell and Vonnegut do not use. That's right, what the word means to you is very different than what the word means to Orwell, Vonnegut and myself. Once we work out a definition, you'll begin to see how Orwell is consistent and how Vonnegut's books contain ideas reminiscent of socialism.

Pin:

Wow, you are kind of an intellectual snob. You didn't address any of my points, you just implied that I had clearly not done enough research because I disagree with you. Well, friend, that isn't how debates are won.

I mean, it seems like you are asking me to drop some knowledge on you. How can you be an anarcho-socialist? Socialism depends on the coercive taxation of the worker, and taxation is immoral, not to mention impossible in anarchy, unless the anarchist wants to employ violence to carry out this taxation.

Granted, you could be a voluntary socialist, but any commune you lived in would be destined to poverty, as you could not acquire the funds to purchase medicine or much of the things that make life easy.

Seriously, anarchy cannot work without capitalism. Without capitalism, everyone would have to revert to the life of the farmer, or command economies would come up and force some people to farm and others to do other jobs. Either way, violence is initiated to achieve the goal, and that is immoral.

Hey, maybe you should do some more research, or at least some rigorous research.

and what's more, your quote "For example in 1984 when Orwell writes "hope lies with the proles" he was certainly advocating socialism." doesn't make sense. If anything, that quote implies that the proles would have to overthrow the government, not that they would have to overthrow the government and implement another socialistic government.

I mean, seriously Commerican, in 1984, the food was rationed out by the state, and the state was portrayed as horribly evil. How do you get the impression that Orwell thought socialism was a good thing at all? He crushes socialism in 2 novels. He uses the terminology of Marx to present the ideal circumstances for Marxism (Marx called himself a socialist) and then he goes on to say that the proletariat class would never band together or overthrow the government. He was saying Marxism would never come around because the working classes were too stupid to understand what was going on.

not a major point, I was just saying that your analysis made no sense, and logic should have been used to analyze the quote.

**

Me:

"You didn't address any of my points, you just implied that I had clearly not done enough research because I disagree with you."

I didn't address your points because you posited them incorrectly. I did not imply, I outright accused you of not doing enough research, and not because you disagree with me. I would argue that you don't know what my position is, and that you cannot disagree with me until you are actually aware of it and can recite it back to me.

"How can you be an anarcho-socialist?"

Fairly easily. I recognize that:

1) Power structures use their power to maintain and grab more power. This goes for governments as well as economic institutions. It is foolish and a bit naive to believe that the government and the economy are two separate and opposing entities. Big government is a result of big business, and vice versa. One cannot exist without the other.

2) The only way to limit power is to have everyone as equal as possible. Power comes from making decisions, so having people involved in making decisions, to the extent that these decisions affect them, is the way to go.

3) The interests of the individual are best realised when people are working together. A single person cannot build roads or airports or hospitals. I read an article recently about traffic patterns that is somewhat analogous to and debunks this idea that everyone climbing over each other actually makes it better for all. Drivers seeking to get ahead by constantly changing lanes were contributing to traffic jams, because drivers behind them would have to brake and adjust, and so it went all down the line.

4) The sum total of human endeavour ultimately goes to making rich people richer, not to the betterment of society as a whole.

So, when I say I am a libertarian (another word for anarchist), I mean that I understand that power is used to maintain and seek more power, and so therefore must be limited. When I say I am socialist, I mean that if we are to do things, we should do them together, cooperatively, for the betterment of society, not just for a small segment of it, with specific goals and restrictions in mind, which ultimately betters the life of each individual.

"Socialism depends on the coercive taxation of the worker"

You sure?

"Seriously, anarchy cannot work without capitalism."

This is entirely incorrect. The problem arises, again, because we are using different definitions of capitalism. Anarchy was a response to capitalism, it was a response to the loss of decision-making power workers felt as their world was turned upside down. Anarchy is diametrically opposed to capitalism. There is a buzz term going around now, "anarcho-capitalism", that is oxymoronical and may be what you are thinking (see the post below).

"How do you get the impression that Orwell thought socialism was a good thing at all? He crushes socialism in 2 novels."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Political_views

:-)

"He uses the terminology of Marx to present the ideal circumstances for Marxism (Marx called himself a socialist)..."

Marx did more than call himself a socialist, he described what socialism meant, at least the definition I'm using. He also came up with the definition of capitalism. He wrote a book about it called Das Kapital. I would like to point out here, once again, that the definitions you are taught in American public schools are not the proper definitions. (More on this later.) You'll have to read some of the appropriate literature to find out what these terms mean (that's what I mean by 'research'). Honestly, did you think that US schools would tell you the real definitions and help you understand them?

"...and then he goes on to say that the proletariat class would never band together or overthrow the government. He was saying Marxism would never come around because the working classes were too stupid to understand what was going on."

If the working classes are too stupid to understand what's going on, who is making the decisions? Is this decision-making class making the best decisions for the working class, or for themselves? Could they abuse their power? Would they? Sounds to me like you are making a really good argument for the state - centralized decision-maker that gathers all the people that 'understand what is going' together in a well-meaning governing body. Be careful what you say, "libertarian".

"and logic should have been used to analyze the quote."

Truly.

Pin:

wow, it's odd how he presents socialism as totally evil in both 1984 and Animal Farm.

But anyway, democracy is still evil. If people vote to ban gay marriage, does that make it right to ban gay marriage, or is marriage just part of the human right to make consensual agreements (assuming these agreements don't violate anyones property)? It has been said that "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting over what to have for lunch", and I don't think that that is far off. The government accumulates all of our money through violent coercion, the act of robbery/taxation. That is absolutely immoral.

Oh, and before you start spouting off your anti-capitalist rhetoric, capitalism occurs only when both parties benefit. In the example of work, the employer values my labor more than the money he pays me, and I value the money more than the time I spend working. Both parties benefit from this transaction, and no violence is needed.

Me:
"is marriage just part of the human right to make consensual agreements (assuming these agreements don't violate anyones property)?" Marriage is a social construct to determine property rights. The reason why gay marriage is not allowed is because in the 4th century the church would inherit the land and property of a widow, because, you know, women can't own property. A male widow (midow?) would get to keep the land, which the church didn't like. Funny how our culture has these silly rules in regards to property. Notice also that property relations need not be just, fair, or even make sense - they just need to facilitate consolidation of wealth and power.

"But anyway, democracy is still evil."

So what other way should we arrive at the choices we make as a group? If democracy is one side of the spectrum, and monarchy (mono-archon) the other, where does the ideal lie? Since the great days of feudalism, there has been a general trend towards more and more citizen participation and, not surprisingly, personal freedom, which is really, really awesome. Mainly because it's not feudalism. Be careful what you say, "libertarian".

"...capitalism occurs only when both parties benefit"

You sure? Marx had a different perspective:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Marxian_political_economy

"Both parties benefit from this transaction, and no violence is needed."

Well, how much time must pass before wealth acquired through coercion becomes legitimate?

Pin:

it never becomes legitimate. it is always stolen money, taken without consent from the people. It never, ever becomes the legitimate property of the thief. what kind of silly question is that?

Me:

Give it back to the native americans. Give it back to the slaves.

But we can't, because we pretend that the violence and coercion of the past has no bearing on current conditions. Descendants of rich old white men that bought slaves and extorted them are often still receiving the benefits of this slave labour. My ancestors owned slaves, and I'm sure my middle-class status has something to do with that.

Capitalism continues on as if theft is legitimate.

Is a recipient of government money that was collected through taxes a moocher? Is the wealth they create legitimate?

Pin:

by the homesteading theory, property is unowned until a human infuses it with his labor. If land is undeveloped, and no one has developed the land around it, then it is free for development. The native americans did not develop all of america, and for the parts that they did develop, the colonists had no right to take that land.

Regarding slaves, I have never owned slaves, my ancestors have never owned slaves, and slavery was uneconomical. Granted, it is completely immoral, but the descendants of slaves have every right to sue the families of their ancestors masters for back wages, but that is just because slavery is a violation of rights. Slavery is an anti capitalistic action to begin with, as it claims that some people don't own their body, and capitalism is founded on the belief that one owns their body and their labor.

And current industry benefited in no way from slavery.

but hey, I'll humor you, in the event that I might learn something. What theft does capitalism benefit from, and how does it benefit?

and yeah, the recipient of "government" money is a thief. If I steal $1000 from your wallet and invest it in stocks, and those stocks go up, does that mean I have the right to the profits? Fuck no! I used your resources without permission, therefore I was a thief and have no claim to any benefit from the money. And if the stocks went down, I would still owe you $1000 + interest.

**
Me:

"by the homesteading theory, property is unowned until a human infuses it with his labor... ...The native americans did not develop all of america"

This is the classic tale of two groups of humans with two different methods of acquiring food coming into contact. From your perspective, what you say is true because our culture is agricultural. It makes sense to base property rights on these concepts. To the Native Americans, fencing off land that the herds roam is a silly way to do things. Their concept of property was therefore different. The resolution was violence. Be careful what you say, "libertarian".

"...the colonists had no right to take that land."

We still benefit from this past theft, and your 'homesteading' theory does not absolve the crime. It does not legitimize the wealth accumulated since. Be careful what you say, "libertarian".

"Regarding slaves, I have never owned slaves, my ancestors have never owned slaves, and slavery was uneconomical."

Your ancestors owned slaves, or, if they did not, they were slave guards, or, if they were not, they benefited from slavery. America as a nation benefited from slavery. It is still benefiting from it. This does not excuse or legitimize it. And I hope by "uneconomical" you mean "cannot last more than 300 years".

"And current industry benefited in no way from slavery."

There is a long chain of effects and causes that goes back to the days of slavery. If you were to follow them from now until then, you would see that current industry must, by the very linear nature of time in connecting these events, benefit from past slavery. In regards to current slavery, look up the prison-industrial complex. You'll notice a fine mixture of capitalism and slavery. Be careful what you say, "libertarian".

"capitalism is founded on the belief that one owns their body and their labor."

Remember that in 1984, language itself became a propaganda tool. The state would change the meanings of words to limit understanding, to change the past and make the proles stupid, disorganized and confused. Capitalism, as you are using the word, is a new definition, and was never that which was used in critiques of it. Also, this new definition is very new, and the old definition was around for at least a hundred years. Would it make sense for the USA, a capitalist country, to redefine the word "capitalism" so as to make it easier for adherents to accept and defend, and harder for opponents to disagree? Is this kind of vocabulary-editing reminiscent of Newspeak? Be careful what you say, "libertarian".

The military-industrial complex (MIC) consumes about half of all taxes. This is not just the departmental stuff, but the companies that design, build, and test weapons. They receive money that comes from taxpayers to make weapons for the government.

A law was passed recently that allowed greater consolidation of "defense" companies, because the US gummint wanted to deal with fewer entities:

http://www.brookings.edu/press/review/summer96/korb.htm

"How Did It Happen?

In July 1993, John M. Deutch, then the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, responded to pressure on his boss, William Perry, from the chief executive officers of Martin Marietta, Lockheed, Loral, and Hughes by deciding to allow defense companies to bill the Pentagon for the costs of mergers and acquisitions."

Is their wealth legitimate?

If you had a screen on your wall that depicted people who commanded you to perform certain actions, yelled at you to do things, compelled you with fear and emotional manipulation, all while disturbingly aware of what you were doing, is this coercion? More specifically, of the type present in telescreens in 1984?

Pin:

what is your point? All of these companies are benefiting from the socialistic policies of the US of A. I mean, war is not a capitalistic action, there is no money to be made by killing and destroying things. Only in a socialism does war become profitable, and even then, it's only profitable to the state and defense contractors, suckling on state largess.

In a capitalist society, the capitalist tries to maximize profit by providing the consumer with something they want. the free market discourages all of the manipulations you state, as people are much less productive when they feel manipulated. And what's more, if someone feels manipulated, they can quit and work at a competing firm, or they can start their own business, or they can talk to the person manipulating them.

In a socialism, I cannot talk to the people that manipulate me. I can't talk to the IRS and get them to stop manipulating me. I can't talk to the president and get him to stop trampling my rights. I can't get the government to stop taxing oil, or providing free roads. I can't get the government to stop indoctrinating people with public schooling that leaves people half retarded. In socialism, I have no recourse, as these decisions are forced upon me, backed by the might of a body that claims the right to initiate violence against those that disagree.

Me:

"what is your point? All of these companies are benefiting from the socialistic policies of the US of A"

Yeah, because the USA is a real socialist country. It is a tendency of capital to accumulate in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Those who wield this power do not confine it to the economic sphere. Top government officials can be very cozy with business interests, often to the detriment of citizens and consumers alike.

"I mean, war is not a capitalistic action, there is no money to be made by killing and destroying things."

Tell that to Dick Cheney. He'll give you a dollar he made by killing and destroying things. But I doubt he even bothers with such small denominations.

"In a capitalist society, the capitalist tries to maximize profit by providing the consumer with something they want."

Pollution prevention measures (like smoke stack scrubbers, water treating and cooling, etc) reduce profits. Do consumers want to suffer the ill effects of industrial pollution? Do both parties benefit? Does the prison-industrial complex profit from obscene federal drug laws? Do all the products listed in ads really reflect the desires of consumers, or are they cleverly designed to make us think we want them? Was there a strong outcry for New Coke? For clear Pepsi? For Jimmy Dean's pancake-wrapped sausage? Are you sure you are not being manipulated to desire these things?

"...the free market discourages all of the manipulations you state, as people are much less productive when they feel manipulated."

You're absolutely right, people are less productive when they feel manipulated. Eric Fromm's idea of 'anonymous' authority comes into play now. Watch a car commercial (on your telescreen - oops! I mean 'television') and listen to what the announcer says: "Get a blah blah... Come on down and buy a blah blah... Drive home with a blah blah..." Did you notice the strong use of the imperative? Rather pompous of him, isn't it? Do you know how much brain power goes to figuring out how to get people to buy things? I mean, real, genuine, this-is-the-way-it-is-because-you-are-a-primate kind of way. You don't stand a chance! I hope I don't need to point out the merging of corporate advertising and government-sponsored propaganda. The point is, what seems like overt and obvious control as depicted in 1984 is actually much more subtle. The idea is to make you think you are in control of your actions and decisions, when really many of your choices are based on previous and continuing conditioning.

"And what's more, if someone feels manipulated, they can quit and work at a competing firm"

That's right, so if someone at Wal-Mart wants to quit and work at _______ (insert one of the many business still in the area after price gouging), they certainly can. The free market does not guarantee there is always another job. Do you not find it ironic that Wal-Mart, a wonderful example of capitalist success, employs the labour of people who do not have the opportunity to seek employment at another firm? Be careful what you say, "libertarian".

"or they can start their own business"

The point you are trying to make is that a state-run command economy would not permit someone to start their own business. You would be correct, but that is not socialism. To address this suggestion in real terms, can someone start a business that is profitable? Is the market always amenable to new, profitable businesses? Is everyone capable of managing a business? Be careful how you use these ideals.

"or they can talk to the person manipulating them."

Can Chinese labourers complain to the managers of state-run factories? Does Wal-Mart employ their labour? Is the wealth acquired through coercion legitimate?

Another question:

Isn't it a fair trade to give up self-autonomy for material gain? If some commanding entity, like the state, were to offer you some benefit, whether it be in rank, status, and/or wealth, wouldn't it make sense to surrender your decision-making power to receive it?

***

This is the end of the discussion; I have not heard back from the guy, but do hope he responds.

The discussion was not about arguing for socialism (since the term wasn't clearly defined), but about sticking to dogma and propaganda without critical examination. The paradoxical-seeming support of Orwell and Vonnegut for socialism ought to be a strong indication that the term as they use it is different from the term as we are taught it in public schools. There are misconceptions like this all the time, from people of all political persuasions (and yes, even those who call themselves socialists!), such that an entire discussion can take place in which both parties do nothing but talk past one another, with no true understanding or agreement occurring. It is also disheartening to be subjected to certain "feel good" terms that obfuscate and distort a healthy and useful appraisal of the situation. If we are to concern ourselves with material conditions, we must make observations of material forces, not ideals.

Anarcho-Posers

2007-06-17T10:42:00.000-05:00

Several centuries ago, Thomas Hobbes, one of the first political scientists, posited that governments, that is, monarchies and other arrangements, are necessary because humans would otherwise live a "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" life in their "battle of each against all". We are bloodthirsty demons that seek to conquer and dominate. Only a strong, stable government like the kind a ruthless tyrant brings allows peace to exist, at least for a short time. With this reasoning, monarchies and other autocratic governments were championed.

For some strange reason, a whole lot of people really feel this is the case, often without actually being aware of Hobbes. One could say that's because it is how we are, but I am of the mind that the meme has so permeated our society, the excuse used so often, that it becomes a "given", of the type not to be questioned.

Humans are not all one way or all another. There is a great capacity in us to do great things for ourselves and others, and an (almost) equal capacity to do just the opposite. We are the products of our environment. Raise a child to be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (well, maybe you can't raise it to be short), prepare it for the "battle of each against all" and you'll end up with an adult that lives a "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" life of fiercely battling each and all.

There is something very wrong with this premise, and it is necessary to dismantle it before another point can be made. Humans evolved in groups. There was not a time when humanity was so scattered and diverse that meeting another human came about by chance or always ended in violence. Villages did not form as a result of the loss of arable land or for protection from marauding solitary savages. We evolved to live and interact and yes, cooperate in groups, and have been in groups since we evolved our way out of the jungles of Africa.

Cooperation is necessary for our survival. Ayn Rand missed this part of it, and had humans (d)evolved to be like what she would have wanted us to be, we would each have scales, claws and a three-chambered heart. Because we evolved to work together, we would have needed some sort of structure to maintain cohesion and perform functions as a large body. Anthropological studies have shown that humans grow their societies around certain biologically-determined size limits, around 150 members. This is also about the same number of people you can get to know and remember. Also around the number of people direct democracy works to any great extent. As I have suggested before, I believe humans are inherently democratic creatures that value the success of themselves and of the group mutually.

As to the structure of this kind of society, government, if it could be called that, was based on input from the group. Sure, there was probably the wise-man or the shaman, and maybe even an executive chieftain of some sort, but I doubt it would have made sense for some brutal tyrant to subjugate 149 people and force them to do things against their will. Common attitudes and concerns would keep the group members focused on pertinent matters. Such a hypothetical setting would allow us to use the term anarchy - without rulers - to describe it.

Notice there is no inclusion of the need for bloodshed, violence, or destruction. The word does not suggest these things, but the actions of previous anarchists do. (I will not address the topic of violence in anarchy in this post because it will take too long.) If we refine that definition: without rulers, to mean: without illegitimate authority and unnecessary (and artificial) hierarchies, we now have a meaning we can use. Notice also that the need for authority is ever-present,

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker. -Mikhail Bakunin

just not illegitimate authority. Scratch religion off the legitimate list. Seniority is also a poor basis. Might does not make right. Artificial positions of authority in unnecessary hierarchies are anathema to democracy, to freedom, and to equal opportunity. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is why anarchy is called "the first cousin of democracy", and why if you are a (true) anarchist, you must favour democracy, but it need not be the case that if you favour democracy, you advocate anarchy.

Anarchy is often the base word of some hyphenated longer word. "Anarcho-syndicalism" (click play below), for example, is a particular branch of anarchist thought.

In recent years, it has become trendy for young, right-libertarians to spice up their usual advocacy of capitalism with opposition to the state, which, in our politically ignorant climate, they have termed "anarchy". (Never mind that anarchy existed in the way we defined it above well before these posers ever came along.) Of course, what they very often mean by "state" is taxes and social services, and what they mean by "anarchy" is not having to pay or support them.

I have previously defined capitalism, so will not do so again here in any detail, only the extent that is necessary to examine it using our new lens of anarchy. Capitalism is the relationship between those who own the means of production and those who don't; the latter must sell their labour to former. I won't go into how this arrangement came about (read the link), but suffice it to say that there is no legitimate reason why one group of people should have exclusive control over a tract of land or a large industrial machine, etc. and the hierarchies that develop along these patterns of arbitrary ownership are indeed unnecessary and artificial.

There is this idea that the "state", as an agent foreign to the "market", needs to step in to fix problems caused by the vagaries of its unruly counterpart. The "market" is where you get to do battle against everyone else, and the "state" is what gives everyone a fighting chance, and ensures that what you earn in battle is not taken by someone else. There is no reason for a rich old white man (yes, he is likely male and white, as there are historical reasons for this) to put a bunch of barrio kids through school. None. So the benevolent nature of humanity creates, through its use of representative democracy, a social machine that redistributes wealth. There is a very good reason the rich old white man would want police forces, and possibly even a large military, because these tools are probably at his disposal, and exist to satisfy his evil purposes.

So it should come as no surprise that "anarchy" and -capitalism were stuck together to sound like a really great idea: anarcho-capitalism. The full potential of humanity is reached by interactions in the marketplace unrestricted by the state. The greed of each mitigates the greed of all. Sure. Instead of advocating something worthwhile, something that makes sense, "anarcho"-capitalists stick two contradictory ideas together.

There are several reasons why the term amounts to a dog chasing its own tail:

1. Capitalism necessarily forms unnecessary hierarchies and allows artificial positions of authority.

2. Capitalism undermines democracy by concentrating wealth (and thus power) into the hands of a few. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

3. Most early anarchist thinkers were decidedly socialist, and all were anti-capitalist, because the whole idea of anarchy came about as a response to capitalism. They are spinning in their graves at the term "anarcho"-capitalism.

There are some variants to the idea that also need to be addressed. One such cultivar would be advocating reducing taxes, dismantling social programs, while maintaining a state-organized military. The military industrial complex (MIC) is presently the recipient of about half of all taxes collected. Social programs, although by no means pinnacles of human endeavor, still offer some benefit to society, and may actually grant some of the less fortunate members a way to pull themselves out of poverty. The MIC sucks resources into costly wars and destructive endeavors. Not only that, but any taxing power of the state is made possible by the threat of violence, made possible by, yup, you guessed it, the MIC. Even if the dog does catch its tail, it will still be going around in circles.

Advocates of "free" market "anarcho"-capitalism suggest that the market would serve as a source of justice and security in a stateless society. I like to call this "neo-feudalism". Private firms that offer police and security services will obviously be bought out by those with the most money. Profitable justice is not blind justice. There are other concerns that I often consider:

Suppose the gummint did not meddle with the market any more, and drugs were legalized (I certainly advocate the decriminalization of marijuana), including crack and meth. In a "free" market, these goods will be as legitimate as any other, so long as those selling and those buying don't use force or coercion in determining price (this whole idea is utter baloney, which I will destroy in a few paragraphs). These substances have a permanent and debilitating effect on humans. They are also highly addictive. I'm not going to address the morality of unrestricted drug sales, what I want to address is the MESS this would make, and how it would be remedied in a society with private police and security, and even rehabilitation services.

It makes a whole lot of sense for someone to sell crack or meth. Highly addictive substances make for a great market. But why oh why would anyone want to rehabilitate addicts? A heavy meth user is burned out, a wasted shell of a human. A crackhead is equally useless. There would be nothing to gain from these poor wretches; all of their money would have gone to drugs already. How would the "free" market solve this problem? It can't. It will have created a problem it could not fix, because the means to fix it are outside its functioning goal: profit. What is more likely to happen is drug cartels will form, hire police and security firms to defend turf, and we'll end up with feudal states ruled by drug lords, media moguls, and CEOs of multinational corporations. No thanks.

(Think this is a hypothetical? We have privatised prisons, and the largest ratio [by far!] of prisoners to citizens compared to other industrialized nations. Addictive, profitable, corporate drugs are legit, whilst relatively harmless and unprofitable drugs like MJ are illegal. A fat talk-radio host can be addicted to pharmaceuticals, employ insurance fraud to get them, and be let off with little more than a slap on the wrist, whilst Marc Emery, Canadian seller of cannabis seeds, is looking at extradition and life in prison.)

There are premises to free market capitalism that I cannot accept. The source of my Y chromosome tells me I just don't understand what it is. This is as much for him as it is for anyone else who wants to know, and for posterity. The most glaring silliness is the stipulation that no force or coercion be used in price determination. When workers are required to sell their labour to someone else, this is the use of force. When consumers are limited to purchasing within their meager means, or, alternatively, when they are induced via commercials (or with the aid of credit) to purchase outside their means, this is coercion. The contradiction is ubiquitous and looming. Arbitrary patterns of ownership undermine an equal stance, and, since we know that absolute power corrupts absolutely (and as power approaches the absolute, so too does corruption approach absolute), the question of force and coercion was never satisfactorily answered by the introduction of the term "free"-market, it was just hidden behind a thin veneer of an ideal.

Another odd premise is the one that the "free"-market is a utility-maximizing and efficiency-optimizing machine, operating in a chaotic sea of market forces. This is often contrasted with planned, top-down economies like the USSR and PRC. The claim is that the invisible hand of the free market makes sense of the chaos out of the chaos better than the deliberate and visible hand of the state (often the erroneous definition of socialism). Two points to address here:

1. The "invisible" hand is quite visible when we consider the basis of value and of price determination in a "free" market economy: profit. We can see the arm of the visible hand and notice that it is attached to the rich old white guy, who is really the CEO of a large corporation, and who helps orchestrate and plan large sectors of the economy. When the "invisible" hand is invoked, it just means we are unwilling to question the matter any deeper. To me, it amounts to god did it. (And yes, I have read Wealth of Nations.)

2. As we saw in number 1, and as I have explained before, because economies are the acts of many individuals, all economies are planned, because we are all making economic decisions. True, no one person can know everything that is going on in an economy, but computers are fast approaching this capability. I have previously mentioned Wal-Mart's massive inventory system that keeps track of sales in different regions and updates prices accordingly. Did you notice that? PLANNING! AHHH! In a "free" market capitalist society! The very epitome of capitalist success is (internally) PLANNED! (And, of course, the main beneficiaries are the ones who installed this system, certainly not the workers, nor the slave-labourers on the other end of the production line.) So, to all those who really, really believe that A) an economy is not planned, and B) that planning cannot be done efficiently and successfully at all: EAT IT.

Since all economies are planned, and it is really a matter of who does the planning and who benefits from it, the only real legitimate stipulation that a hypothetical "free" market has that could be considered worthwhile and actually come about in practice is the idea of "equal footing" in price determination. Of course, the practical side of it is horribly undermined by capitalism, which means "free" market capitalism is also a contradiction. In fact, socialism, an economy planned by society, for society, is the only reasonable way to even begin to bring about the conditions necessary for a free market.

This post was intended to dismantle ridiculous ideas, which, in my mind, are very much like religious dogma. It may also have been offensive, and was partially designed to be so, but know that it is the meme which is under fire, not the host. For them I have utmost pity.

Abstractions

2007-06-16T21:33:00.000-05:00

In dire situations, sometimes it is easier to defer responsibility and control to some external force. Consider, for example, global warming. A religious person, genuinely concerned, reasons:

God with his omniscient benevolence will take care of it.

Someone who has faith in the free market might say:

The market with its invisible hand will take care of it.

A promoter of government intervention would suggest:

The state with its bureaucracy will take care of it.

I hope you noticed the pattern. Instead of actually addressing global warming (or any other pressing concern) by examining the source of it (our behaviour), we have this awful tendency to hoist the problem onto an abstraction. God does not exist, the invisible hand is ethereal, and the state's bureaucracy creates way more waste and mess than it could ever hope to undo. Abstractions have no business solving our problems; we are going to have to accept responsibility for our actions and truly seek a way to remedy the situation.

Change begins with the individual.