2005/10/01

Another Country

Picked this up via Database Debunkings: Jim Kunstler says in Another Country:

Take a good look at America around you now, because when we emerge from the winter of 2005 - 6, we're going to be another country. The reality-oblivious nation of mall hounds, bargain shoppers, happy motorists, Nascar fans, Red State war hawks, and born-again Krispy Kremers is headed into a werewolf-like transformation that will reveal to all the tragic monster we have become.

What we will leave behind is the certainty that we have made the right choices. Was it a good thing to buy a 3,600 square foot house 32 miles outside Minneapolis with an interest-only adjustable rate mortgage -- with natural gas for home heating running at $12 a unit and gasoline over $3 a gallon? Was it the right choice to run three credit cards up to their $5000 limit? Was I chump to think my pension from Acme Airlines would really be there for me? Do I really owe the Middletown Hospital $17,678 for a gall bladder operation that took forty-five minutes? And why did they charge me $238 for a plastic catheter?

Emphasis Mine

He follows up in The Vicious Pincer with:

The political allegiance of the American public will be fully in play. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and we are likely to see the emergence of something new, perhaps something like the British National Party (BNP) which combines a very aggressive agenda on energy policy with overt fascism. The American people will be starved for action, too, and will be waiting for a man of action to embody their desperation. Let's hope that the characters who percolate out of this mess are not maniacs. The outrageously wealthy had better duck-and-cover -- the half-billion-dollar-CEOs, the $20-million-a-picture movie stars, perhaps even the relatively humble drivers of Hummers and Beemers. The sinking middle class will want to eat them.

Emphasis in Original

In other words, FASCISM. Looks like 2006 or 2007 could see the rise of fascism as the petite bourgeious take their revenge on the system. We are living in interesting times. Hope we have the courage to face the challenges of the times.


Read more!

Willy Wonka

I got the latest issue of Annals Australasia (August 2005) yesterday and found a review of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by James Murray on p.41. I had recently seen the movie so I was interested to see Mr. Murray had to say:

Not so much a remake, more a re-melt of Roald Dahl's classic tale. Johnny Depp takes on the Willy Wonka role. If Depp - too many teeth and smiles - does not have the inward weirdness of Gene Wilder in the original, he does have a back story to explain his chocaholicism.

This is one of the fresh elements introduced by director Tim Burton and writer John August. Special effects are deployed as generously as fruit and nuts in a Cadbury's bar. Deep Roy creates some kind of history with his multiple roles as Oompa Loompa (courtesy Digital Domain).

Freddie Highmore, allies ingenuousness to shrewdness as Charlie Bucket, winner of the last of five gold tickets to the Wonka factory. He is shaded by Annasophia Robb as Violet Beauregarde. The veteran, but exuberant, David Kelly is Grandpa Joe who accompanies Charlie on his factory outing. Noah Taylor makes an appearance as Mr Bucket with Helena Bonham Carter as his wife. Not a single bad performance. And never a dull moment

Nothing controversial there. Mr. Murray had also written a review (ibid.) about Kung Fu Hustle, which ends with:

... [Director Stephen Chow] sends up the hyper-violence of the kung fu genre and, despite his movie's ostensible setting in pre-revolutionary China, he gets in digs at the pretensions of China's current regime.

Emphasis Mine

James Murray can see political implications for criticisms of Communism but not of Capitalism nor Racism. In contrast, Jonathan McIntosh wrote about Willy Wonka and the Racism Factory

Moreover, the Oompa-Loompas all look exactly alike, as they are played by one actor using composite visual effects. This is a new invention by the current film's creators. The visual effect is ironic as it displays the problems at the very core of global labor issues: white populations perceive individuals of non-white populations as identical and all looking alike, lacking individual dignity. In this view, factory and sweatshop workers are ascribed no individual worth outside of the product they produce for consumers at low pay and in poor working conditions, unable to organize, form unions and improve conditions.

Many will no doubt respond to this critique disparagingly. They will say that the movie is just that, a movie. They will state that it has no social connection or cultural implications to the present western mindset. However, it is important to consider that Roald Dahl himself eventually made revisions of his story to meet the racial concerns that accompanied the changing social ethics in 1973. The fact that, in 2005, Tim Burton chose to revert back to the original description of the Oompa-Loompas as primitive "pygmies" is troubling at best. Burton has said in interviews that one of the things that attracts him to Dalh's work is the "politically incorrect" subject matter. Audiences all over the country seem to feel the same attraction.

Emphasis Mine

One reviewer sees nothing innocuous while the other sees blatant racism. This is akin to what Tim Wise wrote about White Whine: Reflections on the Brain-Rotting Properties of Privilege when whites cannot see the privileges that racism gives them.

Now for my review. The movie is propaganda for monopoly paternal Capitalism similar to that I wrote about in Robots except that the petite bourgeious are not a major player. The Capitalist is the hero - everyone else is a bit player. The Capitalist is the benevolent leader.

Willy Wonka's story begins with a youth devoted to discovering the perfect chocolate confectionery. He is seen to be following a scientific process of analysing confectioneries to discover their secrets. (Genius is 1% inspiration, and 99% perspiration, Thomas Alva Edison) He starts as a small businessman who suceeds magnificiently by providing a superior product to his customers. He then builds the world's largest factory. He has obtained a monopoly position through his superior product. This is one of the contradictions in Capitalism: competition produces monopolies. The standard solution to this problem is government intervention: either through regulation or destruction of the monopoly. In this movie, the government does not exist!

In the movie, it was the treacherous workers who pass on the secret recipes to others who become Wonka's competitors and thereby destroy Wonka's monopoly. (In the real world, I understand that the Coke-Cola Company has managed to hold onto its secrets for more than a century!) In revenge, he sacks all of his workers and shuts the factory. The workers are dispensible in true Capitalist fashion. However, it was the workers who restored competition to the confectionery industry with multiple small businesses emerging to service niche markets.

Willy Wonka is a bad capitalist for his primary concern is not the accumulation of capital but the quest for better confectionery. Indeed, the other capitalist in the movie (Mr. Salt - owner of the nut shelling factory) can disrupt the production of his factory for three days without any thought for lost profits. It is as if the mega-rich do not have to worry about business cycles. The attitude of Willy Wonka and Mr. Salt is that business is a dalliance. They do not have to worry about competitors making more money than them. Their capital is secure.

The toothpaste factory owners, on the other hand, are involved in the investment cycle. The increase profits allow for investment in machinery which allows for greater profits by reducing costs (read Mr. Bucket).

There is another difference between the three factories shown in the movie: the happy workers are shown in Mr. Wonka's factory while the mind-numbing drudgery is shown in the nut-shelling and toothpaste factories. Could this be a sublimial message that happy workers make more profits?

The workers cease to exist once pass outside the factory gates. The visibility of the poor is limited to one family (the Buckets). There is no social security. They have enough land to grow cabbages for making soup. Charlie shines shoes. The solution to their poverty is for them to get a better job. Mr. Bucket shows up at the toothpaste factory from where he was fired and gets a job as a robot technician. For a person without having showed any mechanical aptitude nor having undertaken any training to do this seems to be incredible. A more realistic scenario would have been for him to become a computer programmer. (This is me being snarky). They are suddenly seen to be having roast turkey for dinner. The message is that the poor are poor because they are lazy.

However, the workers are unable to look after themselves. They need the capitalist to guide them and provide them with the means of sustenance. This is the crisis that confronts Willy Wonka when he discovers a grey hair reminding him of his mortality. Who will look after his workers when he is gone? He needs a successor to carry on the running of the factory. Willy Wonka is who he is because he struggled to master the art of confectionery making whereas Charlie struggled to survive. This transfer of experience always seems to be difficult. Witness James Packer in PBL. Lachlan Murdoch probably made a better decision to strike out on his own.

All in all, the message of the movie is that the Capitalist is benevolent. Except for the preemptory treatment of the workers and the insulting lack of hospitality of Willy Wonka towards his guests when he publicly humilates them. The mega-rich are obviously beyond caring about others. Could the real message be that the mega-rich are all bastards?


Read more!

Revolution in Venezuela

Revolution in Venezuela

An eyewitness account

IN July and August, 58 mostly young people participated in the first Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Brigade. Their mission: to experience firsthand the inspiration of the first people’s power revolution of the 21st century, and to bring home its message of hope, solidarity and humanity. Don’t miss this eyewitness reportback! A short film on the Venezuelan revolution, Enter the Oil Workers, will also be shown.

Penrith Old School of Arts Bldg
Castleraegh St, Penrith (near Penrith RSL)
Cost $10/6 conc.
Includes finger food & one drink- no alcohol
Sat October 15, 6.30pm
BOOKINGS
ph 4721 5045 or 0425 249 996

Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network


Read more!

2005/09/27

Attitude Mama

Pat describes a waitress as an Attitude mama. From what Pat describes, I see an example of alienation:

Marx went on to show that the specific form of labour characteristic of bourgeois society, wage labour, corresponds to the most profound form of alienation. Since wage workers sell their labour power to earn a living, and the capitalist owns the labour process, the product of the workers’ labour is in a very real sense alien to the worker. It is not her product but the product of the capitalist. The worker makes a rod for her own back.

Once a product enters the market, no-one has any control of it, and it sets off on a course which appears to be governed by supra-human laws.

Emphasis Mine

In other words, the waitress has sold her time to the cafe owner for a certain amount of money. All she has to do is the minimum in order to keep the cafe owner employing her. If she does fantastic service and brings more customers into the cafe, the cafe owner reaps most of the benefit. She may get some of that benefit in a future pay rise. Even the cafe owner does not get all of the benefit: some of the extra income will go in taxes, and some will go in a rent increase because the booming cafe business makes the shop more valuable. The cafe owner's labour is therefore less alienated than his staff.

Alienation happens in other ways as well. The cafe owner makes all of the decisions. The staff have little, if any, say in what decisions are made. Even their opinions may not be welcomed. Indeed, the wrong opinion could get the worker fired from the job. When you get employed, you leave your democratic rights at the door. But how can it be otherwise when you have private ownership of businesses? The owner is taking all the risks of the business. If the business goes bankrupt, he will lose everything: his house, superannuation, any savings, his family to divorce, and, sometimes, his life by suicide.

A better way would be to share the risks. In sharing the risks, the decison-making has to be shared as well as the benefits.

... Alienation can be overcome by restoring the truly human relationship to the labour process, by people working in order to meet people's needs, working as an expression of their own human nature, not just to earn a living.


Read more!

Muhammed Ali Says

Mickey Z. has the following quote from Muhammad Ali:

Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go 10,000 miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on Brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights? No I’m not going 10,000 miles from home to help murder and burn another poor nation simply to continue the domination of white slave masters of the darker people the world over. This is the day when such evils must come to an end. I have been warned that to take such a stand would cost me millions of dollars. But I have said it once and I will say it again. The real enemy of my people is here. I will not disgrace my religion, my people or myself by becoming a tool to enslave those who are fighting for their own justice, freedom and equality…If I thought the war was going to bring freedom and equality to 22 million of my people they wouldn’t have to draft me, I’d join tomorrow. I have nothing to lose by standing up for my beliefs. So I’ll go to jail, so what? We’ve been in jail for 400 years.

Emphasis Mine

I post this in response to those pro-war types who say that the battle for freedom is in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. However, the real enemy of freedom is right at home when Terror law clauses seal the deal

"We have agreed today on unusual laws for Australia, we have done that because we live in unusual circumstances," [PM John Howard] told reporters.

"In other circumstances I would never have sought these additional powers, I would never have asked the premiers of the Australian states to support me in enacting these laws.

"But we do live in very dangerous and different and threatening circumstances and a strong and comprehensive response is needed."

Emphasis Mine

I agree with the PM on the last paragraph even though we disagree on who the enemy of freedom is.


Read more!

2005/09/26

More Iraq War

Time Magazine poses the unthinkable question to the US ruling class: Is It Too Late To Win the War?. The magazine leads with a story about the US Army Chasing the Ghosts (Subscription Required) and details Saddam's Revenge in The secret history of U.S. mistakes, misjudgments and intelligence failures that let the Iraqi dictator and his allies launch an insurgency now ripping Iraq apart. Their answer is Yes

James Wolcott (Vanity Fair contributing editor) is of the opinion that the USA is headed for severe Systems Failures. He quotes William S. Lind makes some Important Distinctions between the Iraq War and the Vietnam War:

"The primum mobile of Fourth Generation war is a crisis of legitimacy of the state. If the absence of a loyal opposition and alternative courses of action further delegitimizes the American state in the eye of the public, the forces of the Fourth Generation will have won a victory of far greater proportions than anything that could happen on the ground in Iraq. The Soviet Union's defeat in Afghanistan played a central role in the collapse of the Soviet state. Could the American defeat in Iraq have similar consequences here? The chance is far greater than Washington elites can imagine."

Emphasis Mine

The US ruling class is facing a crisis of legitimacy which is being exacerbated by:

  • Stalemate in Iraq
  • Enormous damage caused by hurricanes and government ineptitude
  • Two million displaced persons within the USA due to the hurricanes
  • Energy crisis caused by the hurricanes, war in Iraq, limited refining capacity, and possibly 'peak oil'
  • The Housing Bubble
  • The growing US national debt
  • PRC's economic growth
  • Survival of the Cuban Revolution
  • Success of the Venezulean Revolution

And yet, approx. 40% of Americans think it is in their best interest to support the current regime. They may be enough to keep the current regime safe for it is better to have one person supports you and does something about it, than ten people who are against you and are not going to do anything about it. The trick to ruling is to keep those ten sitting on the couch.

James Wolcott also bemoans the mixed messages and staleness of the slogans of the anti-war demonstrators. My answer is that democracy is messy while fascism can get everybody marching in straight lines with nice uniforms and a unified message. I would much rather have the messiness of democracy than the singlemindedness of fascism. Getting disparate groups of people to agree on anything is almost impossible. That's tolerance in democracy is so important. Those slogans are the results of protracted negotiations and compromises - which is why everyone falls back to the tried and true ones.

My opinion about the future of the USA is the rise of fascism after the severe economic shock of debt and the coming defeat in Iraq. There is a sufficient number of people who believe that all of their problems stem from moral laxity and backstabbing by the liberal elites. The white puritanical Christians (Protestant and Catholic) will form the backbone of this movement.

Prof Juan Cole explains Why we Have to get the Troops Out of Iraq now:

The first reason to get the ground troops out now is that they are being fatally brutalized by their own treatment of Iraqi prisoners. Abu Ghraib was horrific, and we who are not in Congress or the Department of Defense have still only seen a fraction of the photographs of it that exist. Sy Hersh learned of rapes, some of them documented. ...

The second reason is that the ground troops are not accomplishing the mission given them, and are making things worse rather than better.

...

Let's get them out, now, before they destroy any more cities, create any more hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons, provoke any more ethnic hatreds by installing Shiite police in Fallujah or Kurdish troops in Turkmen Tal Afar. They are sowing a vast whirlwind, a desert sandstorm of Martian proportions, which future generations of Americans and Iraqis will reap.

The ground troops must come out. Now. For the good of Iraq. For the good of America.

Emphasis Mine

I don't think the US ruling class is too worried abou the brutalisation of the US troops. They would rather it kept growing. Brutalised US troops could come in useful when quelling domestic uprisings. Then the US troops would not be squeamish about pulling the trigger on fellow US citizens - even whites!

The mission in Iraq is to be brutal. The USA can no longer rule by guile and through proxies. It has to demonstrate unflinching brutality to the rest of the world. They have to prove that they are meaner than a junkyard dog. The message is Don't Mess with the USA!. The problem is that this conflicts the US's self-image as a nice guy (for most of them anyway).


Read more!

2005/09/25

More Nonviolence

Gerry is Still troubled... by contradictions within the nonviolence movement.

I think there are people in the nonviolence movement who condone provocation, sabotage, vandalism, and violent retaliation as acceptable methods, either because for them the end justifies the means, or that if they receive violence that they are are entitled to return it. This bothers me hugely. And I don't think the nonviolence movement, as a movement, does enough to clearly distance and disassociate itself from protestors and activists who do advocate and employ these methods. I think there are double standards and it makes me want to withdraw from the movement. ...

From the Wikipedia article on Nonviolence, I think Gerry's concerns can be best expressed as

Also of primary significance is the notion that just means are the most likely to lead to just ends. When Gandhi said that, "the means may be likened to the seed, the end to a tree," he expressed the philosophical kernel of what some refer to as prefigurative politics. Proponents of nonviolence reason that the actions we take in the present inevitably re-shape the social order in like form. They would argue, for instance, that it is fundamentally irrational to use violence to achieve a peaceful society.

Emphasis Mine

In other words, if you see violence as a tool to achieve your ends, then you will use violence to attain and maintain those ends. Nonviolence urges you to think of creative ways of achieving your ends without the use of violence.

In the same Wikipedia article, among the selected criticisms of nonviolence,

Malcolm X also clashed with civil rights leaders over the issue of nonviolence, arguing that violence should not be ruled out where no other option remained:

Concerning nonviolence, it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks.

I think Gerry is looking for what we Communists call the perfect party programme. There are people who search for the party that has the exact same ideas as themselves. However, the nonviolence movement has no such party programme: it is a collection of groups. There is no central committee deciding policy. As the nonviolence movement is unstructured, one can only influence it by being engaged with it.

Instead of seeking ideological purity, I think a better approach is to know what areas of agreement are and what the areas of disagreement are. The question is then can you live with those areas of disagreement? Earlier in the same Wikipedia article, there is this:

Finally, the notion of Satya, or truth, is central to the Gandhian conception of nonviolence. Gandhi saw truth as something that is multifaceted and unable to be grasped in its entirety by any one individual. We all carry pieces of the truth, he believed, but we need the pieces of others’ truths in order to pursue the greater truth. This led him to a belief in the inherent worth of dialogue with opponents, and a sincere wish to understand their drives and motivations. On a practical level, willingness to listen to another's point of view is largely dependent on reciprocity. In order to be heard by one's opponents, one must also be prepared to listen.

Emphasis Mine

In other words, by going to meetings, attending protests, practising nonviolence, engaging others who disagree with you, can one make some changes in others and in one's self. Change happens through engagement not through withdrawal.

For the record, I restate my position on nonviolence: all political actions should be planned with nonviolence as the guiding principle but I reserve the right to defend myself and innocent people against violent attack.


Read more!

Blogrolling 1

One of the good things about eBlogger is the next blog button. You can end up in unexpected places. Today's journey has been to:

  1. Ken Foster as he describes life as a refugee from New Orleans.
  2. Hey from Haebangchon! is where Bryan Hughes describes life as an English teacher in Seoul, Korea.
  3. I skipped an advertisement blog
  4. I Have I(rritable)B(owel)S(yndrome) says Andrew James Price in his more personal blog.
  5. Alien Life is where Rob Bignell posts links to interesting science news stories about space.
  6. just muttering has an interesting post about how The world is two blocks big in which the blogger discovers a neighbour through blogs.
  7. Post-Darwinist blog by Denyse O'Leary defending Intelligent Design.
  8. Ben Dakhlia's bLoG appears to be from Brussels and he is fascinated by photographs from Google Earth
  9. A Crafty Mom's Blog describes the life of her young son and the various crafts that she and her husband produce.
  10. I skipped yet another advertisement blog
  11. USC Trojans Blog - Personals is a place for personal advertisements from anyone!
  12. Watermark Student Ministries Experience contains videos, tunes, and notices for upcoming events for Christian evangelists.

And the chain ended there.


Read more!

Troops Out of Iraq

There is an important debate going on between Michael Schwartz who is arguing for an immediate withdrawal of the occupation troops in Tomgram: Michael Schwartz on Immediate Withdrawal. He argues that

...it is far more reasonable, based on what we now know, to assume that if the U.S. were to leave Iraq quickly, the level of violence would be reduced, possibly drastically, not heightened. Here are the four key reasons:

  • 1. The U.S. military is already killing more civilian Iraqis than would likely die in any threatened civil war;
  • 2. The U.S. presence is actually aggravating terrorist (Iraqi-on-Iraqi) violence, not suppressing it;
  • 3. Much of the current terrorist violence would be likely to subside if the U.S. left;
  • 4. The longer the U.S. stays, the more likely that scenarios involving an authentic civil war will prove accurate.
  • Prof Juan Cole rejoins with Schwartz: US out Now

    I'd get most of the US ground troops out, and just cede Tal Afar to whoever is in Tal Afar. But I think the US [or somebody, and unfortunately that means the US] has a duty to maintain a couple of air bases in the area along with some Special Ops forces to forestall a Himalayan tragedy in the near to medium term. Over time the US will be able (and will be forced) to leave altogether.

    Of course, I'd be much happier if we could get US ground troops out on a short timetable and have the peace-enforcing done by the United Nations or even NATO. But that isn't going to happen, so the use of air power to stop a full-fledged civil war falls to the US.

    So I can associate myself with a call for US ground troops out now. But frankly I think it would be selfish to just bust into Iraq (which 75 percent of Americans supported), turn it upside down, set it on a course toward civil war, and then abruptly pick up our marbles and go home altogether. We did that in Afghanistan after 1989, and it did not turn out well for us.

    Gilbert Achcar reponds to Prof. Cole's arguments and Prof. Cole responds to that response at Achcar Responds. Gilbert Achcar concludes

    ... At no point did you refer to the will of the main people concerned: the Iraqis themselves. On this score, if we assume that the overwhelming majorities of the Kurds and the Arab Sunnis have symmetrically opposed positions on the presence of occupation troops, this would leave us with the Arab Shiites who are clearly divided on the matter, between those who agree on the temporary presence of foreign troops and those who want them out immediately.

    I won’t try to assert that an increasing majority of the Shiites are for the latter position, not due to a lack of arguments, but because it amounts again to a vain guessing game. It should be sufficient that there is definitely no consensus on the occupation among Iraqis, and that a very substantial portion of the Iraqi population, at the very least, wants occupation forces out – including the overwhelming majority of those in whose territory occupation forces are most active militarily – to induce every democratic-minded person to join the marchers in demanding that occupation troops be brought home now.

    And Prof. Cole concludes his response with

    As for the Iraqis' desires with regard to a continued US military presence, they clearly have mixed opinions, as you say. But the elected leaders have not called for a precipitate withdrawal. I have no reason to believe that Massoud Barzani, Jalal Talabani, Ibrahim Jaafari, and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim came to power through fraud in the January 30 elections. The Iraqi political elite more surely represents is public than any other government in the Arab world. Talabani speaks of a two-year timetable for US presence in the country. Jaafari has repeatedly said that it is not time for the US to leave, but one of his advisers has proposed a gradual withdrawal of Coalition forces from the cities. If Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani wanted the US out, he would give a fatwa, and I believe that the US would not be able to stay if that happened. So far, the Sunni Arabs (15? percent of the population) and the Sadrists (hard to know what percentage they represent) want the US out immediately and completely. As you yourself have kindly pointed out, about 120 parliamentarians have called for it out of 275 last I heard.

    So my position, that it would be irresponsible of the US to simply abandon Iraq altogether and immediately, is actually fairly similar to the consensus of the elected Iraqi leadership. If anything, I am more eager to see US ground troops out on a short timetable than they seem to be.

    These posts encompass a great deal of reading and breadth of discussion. I think I understand about 50% of it. Prof. Cole's position is that the US has a responsibility to stop the civil war in Iraq. Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Archar contend that the US is killing far more than in any civil war. My own opinion is that this whole argument is academic: the only way the US is going to leave Iraq is in a coffin. The current Iraq war is of such vital importance to US ruling class interests that withdrawal cannot be contemplated. This war is a desperate gamble for continued global supermacy by a declining imperial power.

    In a historical parallel, Emperor Julian invaded Mesopotamia (Iraq) in order to shore up declining Roman power against the rising Sassanian (Iranian) power and got beaten. See Reader's Companion to Military History - - Julian

    ...Julian invaded Mesopotamia (March 363); his goal was to reassert Roman power against an ascendant Sassanian Persia. Julian's strategy—which depended on deception, speed, coordination of two armies and a large river fleet, and the execution of a complex pincers movement—proved overly complex. He failed to capture the Persian capital of Ctesiphon, lost momentum during a hungry retreat up the Tigris, and was killed (June 363) during a skirmish. Julian's failure led to long-term Persian gains in the East ...

    The parallel is about strategic necessarity of invasion not of outcome. You are not going to see GWB dying in battle.


    Read more!