I've been doing a lot of thinking about Wikileaks and the Julian Assange rape allegations, and I've come to the conclusion that Julian Assange (the founder of Wikileaks) is the biggest hero in journalism in decades. If you've never read the "About Wikileaks" section on the Wikileaks website, you should check it out right now before they shut it down again or find a way to block it (because they will). "They," in this case, are literally an unprecedented coalition of state and corporate powers around the world. Suddenly, countries that don't seem to agree on anything in the public sphere can agree on one thing: that the truth must be hidden at all costs.
And if this doesn't disturb you, it should.
What better way to discredit someone who's politically unpopular than to claim they're a rapist? It's incredibly unlikely that a person motivated to fight for government transparency and ethics could simultaneously rape anyone, much less multiple women. It's ideologically inconsistent to believe on the one hand in justice and human rights and then on the other hand to be some kind of raping psychopath. So is Julian Assange really a rapist or is it just possible that this is a cheap, politically motivated character assassination designed to silence an important journalist?
As for the people who tell you that publishing classified information weakens our national security... Sorry, but that's a retarded position. The idea that we're even remotely safe in a country that gives incentives to corporations to exploit worldwide labor forces so we can buy cheap trinkets at Walmart is just laughable. There is no security in a world like that. It's the price we pay for cheap oil and free trade policies. Censoring a website that attempts to shed light on this stuff is not in the interest of national security. What would really improve our national security would be understanding what's wrong with our foreign policy and making better policy decisions.
If we really believed in "freedom"--which we don't--then we'd support the free press and demand that they expose corporate and government lies without the fear of censorship. If we actually knew or cared about what was really going on in the world, and not just what the idiot propaganda machine feeds us, then maybe we'd quit voting for idiots and start talking about what's really in our best interest.
Incidentally, this situation is a perfect illustration of why we should be screaming very loudly about net neutrality. Without net neutrality, corporations (and the governments they control) can restrict our access to independent websites exactly like Wikileaks. Is this really what we've come to?
UPDATE: The Wikileaks site that I linked to earlier (wikileaks.ch) has already been censored. There is a massive internet hacking effort going on right now to keep the site mirrored. For a list of mirrors, click here: Wikileaks.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Why Reinstating the Draft Would be Good for America
I know what you're thinking... something along the lines of "What the hell is she thinking? Reinstituting the draft is a terrible idea!!! America is a FREE country!!!!" I grant you that it's not a popular viewpoint--hell, I would have agreed with you a couple of weeks ago. Then a coworker of mine brought to my attention that if we had a draft, maybe we'd be more reluctant to engage in meaningless warfare?
While on the one hand, I agree that drafting our teenagers to fight wars for us is terrible, and I don't support war in general, isn't there a fairly obvious link between our lust for endless oil wars, our imperialist military presence around the world, and our lack of an across-the-board draft? I know we've had bases in other countries since WWII, but I can't help but wonder if it would change the equation somewhat if rich people's kids had the same probability of being drafted as a factory worker's kids in the midwest (not that there are many factories left in America, but you get the idea). If the wealthiest among us had to risk their own children's lives to fight to maintain their oil monopolies, maybe they'd think twice before shipping everyone else's children off to war?
Our current system exploits the underpriveledged. That's a fact. If you have other opportunities, like, oh I don't know, let's say education, then it's unlikely that you'll choose dying in a foreign desert over a bachelor's degree in engineering. But "equal access" to education, if in fact it ever existed, is a thing of the past. The reality is that education costs and the cost-of-living have skyrocketed while wages have stagnated. The choice kids are faced with nowadays is to pay out the ass for an education (in the hope of landing a decent enough job to pay off ridiculous student loans) or enlist in the army and take their chances. I guess kids could theoretically find something else, but personally I never aspired to be the manager of my local Burger King.
Our actual military hardly even fights our wars anymore anyway. With corporate, war-profiteering, mercenary companies like Blackwater (or whatever they're calling themselves these days), you can make a lot more money as a contractor than a soldier. Apparently we believe so little in our own causes that we hire mercenaries to fight our wars for us. I wonder if I were to ask Joe Sixpack (or our stereotype du jour) why we're fighting this war, whether he'd reply, "For FREEDOM!!!" while simultaneously arguing that we're free to make the CHOICE to fight for that freedom. As if that makes any sense.
Regardless of the stupidity of the war itself, exploiting other people's children to fight corporate wars is a terrible way to support our "way of life." If our way of life is anything worth fighting for then let's fight it at home by turning off the fucking Fox News channel and educating ourselves about what's really going on in America. Ignorance is our number one enemy, folks, and she ain't overseas.
While on the one hand, I agree that drafting our teenagers to fight wars for us is terrible, and I don't support war in general, isn't there a fairly obvious link between our lust for endless oil wars, our imperialist military presence around the world, and our lack of an across-the-board draft? I know we've had bases in other countries since WWII, but I can't help but wonder if it would change the equation somewhat if rich people's kids had the same probability of being drafted as a factory worker's kids in the midwest (not that there are many factories left in America, but you get the idea). If the wealthiest among us had to risk their own children's lives to fight to maintain their oil monopolies, maybe they'd think twice before shipping everyone else's children off to war?
Our current system exploits the underpriveledged. That's a fact. If you have other opportunities, like, oh I don't know, let's say education, then it's unlikely that you'll choose dying in a foreign desert over a bachelor's degree in engineering. But "equal access" to education, if in fact it ever existed, is a thing of the past. The reality is that education costs and the cost-of-living have skyrocketed while wages have stagnated. The choice kids are faced with nowadays is to pay out the ass for an education (in the hope of landing a decent enough job to pay off ridiculous student loans) or enlist in the army and take their chances. I guess kids could theoretically find something else, but personally I never aspired to be the manager of my local Burger King.
Our actual military hardly even fights our wars anymore anyway. With corporate, war-profiteering, mercenary companies like Blackwater (or whatever they're calling themselves these days), you can make a lot more money as a contractor than a soldier. Apparently we believe so little in our own causes that we hire mercenaries to fight our wars for us. I wonder if I were to ask Joe Sixpack (or our stereotype du jour) why we're fighting this war, whether he'd reply, "For FREEDOM!!!" while simultaneously arguing that we're free to make the CHOICE to fight for that freedom. As if that makes any sense.
Regardless of the stupidity of the war itself, exploiting other people's children to fight corporate wars is a terrible way to support our "way of life." If our way of life is anything worth fighting for then let's fight it at home by turning off the fucking Fox News channel and educating ourselves about what's really going on in America. Ignorance is our number one enemy, folks, and she ain't overseas.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Reflections on the American Dream
I read an article recently by Tony Judt (1948-2010) called "What is Living and What is Dead in Social Democracy," which drew my attention to our irrational relationship between finance and policy decision in America. For example, why are policy decisions so strictly linked to economic considerations? Business, financial, and consumer interests are important and should be weighed appropriately, but why are these the only considerations that merit discussion? According to Judt:
I agree that these are important considerations, but should we give these questions greater weight than, say, ethical considerations or questions of human dignity?
A recent example, of course, is the debate in Congress regarding extension of unemployment benefits. The tone of the Right's argument (in addition to being generally offensive) was that unemployment benefits were "too expensive" and that the unemployed were "too lazy," and therefore, extending unemployment benefits was not acceptable--end of debate. Obviously, this idea didn't play well with their constituents, so eventually unemployment benefits were renewed, but it left me wondering how we've managed to convince ourselves that if something costs money and doesn't directly benefit corporate financial interests, then somehow its "too expensive" and "un-American"?
The answer is pretty simple--we're a brainwashed nation that will believe anything we see on TV. But in all seriousness: When did the "the American Dream"--i.e., "freedom" and pursuit of happiness--become inextricably linked with finance? Is this really what we mean by the American Dream? When we say "freedom" do we mean "freedom to make a profit"? Similarly, when we say "pursuit of happiness" do we mean "pursuit of our own interests regardless of what implications those interests might have for the common good"?
Recently, I posed these questions to a fellow American who told me that basically Americans just want to be left alone. They don't want to be bothered by government intrusion because they only care about their own interests. The emphasis of the "American Dream" is therefore on individual pursuit--in opposition (one assumes) to collective well-being. My response was, of course, to point out that for a society that claims to be based on Christian values (regardless of whether or not these claims are true), our rejection of social well-being seems a tad hypocritical.
When you think about it for a minute and deconstruct the word "society," you get "social," "socialism," "socialist." But unfortunately, we're told in America that Socialism is a terrible solution (because we saw it on TV) and that Capitalism (which leads to centralization of power and the exploitation of the working class) is the only system of government worthy of our consideration.
I find it ironic that we think of ourselves as a "democracy." Without the "social" aspect of democracy, aren't we basically just slaves to the corporate plutocracy? What would be the harm in taking some of the "capital" out of our capitalist democracy and reinvesting it in collective, social policy? We pay nearly the same taxes as a socialist democracy but with none of the benefits. Instead we get endless oil wars (because someone somewhere is making a profit) and no healthcare (because you make a better profit in denying care than giving it away for "free"). Are financial costs really the only costs worth considering?
For the last thirty years, in much of the English-speaking world [...] when asking ourselves whether we support a proposal or initiative, we have not asked, is it good or bad? Instead we inquire: Is it efficient? Is it productive? Would it benefit gross domestic product? Will it contribute to growth?
I agree that these are important considerations, but should we give these questions greater weight than, say, ethical considerations or questions of human dignity?
A recent example, of course, is the debate in Congress regarding extension of unemployment benefits. The tone of the Right's argument (in addition to being generally offensive) was that unemployment benefits were "too expensive" and that the unemployed were "too lazy," and therefore, extending unemployment benefits was not acceptable--end of debate. Obviously, this idea didn't play well with their constituents, so eventually unemployment benefits were renewed, but it left me wondering how we've managed to convince ourselves that if something costs money and doesn't directly benefit corporate financial interests, then somehow its "too expensive" and "un-American"?
The answer is pretty simple--we're a brainwashed nation that will believe anything we see on TV. But in all seriousness: When did the "the American Dream"--i.e., "freedom" and pursuit of happiness--become inextricably linked with finance? Is this really what we mean by the American Dream? When we say "freedom" do we mean "freedom to make a profit"? Similarly, when we say "pursuit of happiness" do we mean "pursuit of our own interests regardless of what implications those interests might have for the common good"?
Recently, I posed these questions to a fellow American who told me that basically Americans just want to be left alone. They don't want to be bothered by government intrusion because they only care about their own interests. The emphasis of the "American Dream" is therefore on individual pursuit--in opposition (one assumes) to collective well-being. My response was, of course, to point out that for a society that claims to be based on Christian values (regardless of whether or not these claims are true), our rejection of social well-being seems a tad hypocritical.
When you think about it for a minute and deconstruct the word "society," you get "social," "socialism," "socialist." But unfortunately, we're told in America that Socialism is a terrible solution (because we saw it on TV) and that Capitalism (which leads to centralization of power and the exploitation of the working class) is the only system of government worthy of our consideration.
I find it ironic that we think of ourselves as a "democracy." Without the "social" aspect of democracy, aren't we basically just slaves to the corporate plutocracy? What would be the harm in taking some of the "capital" out of our capitalist democracy and reinvesting it in collective, social policy? We pay nearly the same taxes as a socialist democracy but with none of the benefits. Instead we get endless oil wars (because someone somewhere is making a profit) and no healthcare (because you make a better profit in denying care than giving it away for "free"). Are financial costs really the only costs worth considering?
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
German Domination
Somehow in the past week I made time in my hectic American schedule to research and purchase a half-dozen Socialist-related books. Here they are, in no particular order:
--The Socialist Alternative: Real Human Development by Michael A. Lebowitz
--Envisioning Real Utopias by Erik Olin Wright
--The Meaning of Marxism by Paul D'Amato
--The Government and Politics of France (Fourth Edition) by Andrew Knapp and Vincent Wright
--Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals by Saul D. Alinsky
--Were You Born on the Wrong Continent? How the European Model Can Help You Get a Life by Thomas Geoghegan
The last book, Were You Born on the Wrong Continent, is my current read. It's about an American labor lawyer's travels in Europe (Germany, in particular) where he goes to great lengths to research the "German model" of socialism/capitalism to compare it to our arguably less successful version of capitalism in America. At first I was put off by the choppy writing in the opening chapters, but the more I get into it, the more compelling it becomes. It's a fascinating exposé of German Socialist Democracy that turns on its head the prevailing American wisdom about the supposed "collapse" of Europe in this decade.
In fact, the first thing Americans do to dispute my claim that Europe is not collapsing is to bring up Greece--as if Greece is the only country in Europe, and therefore, every socialist-leaning country is in total shambles. Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth, but try explaining that to Americans, even in San Francisco, and watch the fur fly!*
Just as an example, did you know that since 2003 it's been Germany (and not China) that has dominated world exports? They have their problems, to be sure, but it's Germany--and NOT China, as the conventional wisdom dictates--that's been the consistently rising superstar in the global export market. Both countries have around $1.2 trillion in export sales with the difference being that in Germany, they have skilled workers, fair wages, and a fraction of the population.
So what makes the German model so superior?
Well, for one thing, they don't compete based on labor costs. Instead of going for the cheapest labor (and therefore the cheapest products) they compete based on quality rather than quantity. I know that's difficult to understand in America because basically everyone that I talk to is convinced that it's our unions that have decimated our factories, regardless of the fact that labor is a comparatively tiny percentage of production costs. I grant you that there are unions in America that are unreasonable, and I am in no way advocating that workers who call in sick for two days should be able to collect overtime at the end of the week (See MUNI), but for all of their problems (because every country does have its problems), we could really, honestly, genuinely learn something from Germany.**
Then again, if only we could get over ourselves, we could learn a lot of things. It's just that, unfortunately, to learn anything, you generally have to begin by admitting that you don't already know everything. And who in America is willing to do that?
--------
*Just as a side note--while nothing should be oversimplified--a lot of Greece's problems can be traced back to our very American Goldman Sachs.
**As another side note, contrary to popular belief, it does not automatically follow that a Socialist country is an anti-Capitalist country. I am in no way arguing that Capitalism should be abolished. We do, however, need to protect ourselves from the excesses of Capitalism.
--The Socialist Alternative: Real Human Development by Michael A. Lebowitz
--Envisioning Real Utopias by Erik Olin Wright
--The Meaning of Marxism by Paul D'Amato
--The Government and Politics of France (Fourth Edition) by Andrew Knapp and Vincent Wright
--Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals by Saul D. Alinsky
--Were You Born on the Wrong Continent? How the European Model Can Help You Get a Life by Thomas Geoghegan
The last book, Were You Born on the Wrong Continent, is my current read. It's about an American labor lawyer's travels in Europe (Germany, in particular) where he goes to great lengths to research the "German model" of socialism/capitalism to compare it to our arguably less successful version of capitalism in America. At first I was put off by the choppy writing in the opening chapters, but the more I get into it, the more compelling it becomes. It's a fascinating exposé of German Socialist Democracy that turns on its head the prevailing American wisdom about the supposed "collapse" of Europe in this decade.
In fact, the first thing Americans do to dispute my claim that Europe is not collapsing is to bring up Greece--as if Greece is the only country in Europe, and therefore, every socialist-leaning country is in total shambles. Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth, but try explaining that to Americans, even in San Francisco, and watch the fur fly!*
Just as an example, did you know that since 2003 it's been Germany (and not China) that has dominated world exports? They have their problems, to be sure, but it's Germany--and NOT China, as the conventional wisdom dictates--that's been the consistently rising superstar in the global export market. Both countries have around $1.2 trillion in export sales with the difference being that in Germany, they have skilled workers, fair wages, and a fraction of the population.
So what makes the German model so superior?
Well, for one thing, they don't compete based on labor costs. Instead of going for the cheapest labor (and therefore the cheapest products) they compete based on quality rather than quantity. I know that's difficult to understand in America because basically everyone that I talk to is convinced that it's our unions that have decimated our factories, regardless of the fact that labor is a comparatively tiny percentage of production costs. I grant you that there are unions in America that are unreasonable, and I am in no way advocating that workers who call in sick for two days should be able to collect overtime at the end of the week (See MUNI), but for all of their problems (because every country does have its problems), we could really, honestly, genuinely learn something from Germany.**
Then again, if only we could get over ourselves, we could learn a lot of things. It's just that, unfortunately, to learn anything, you generally have to begin by admitting that you don't already know everything. And who in America is willing to do that?
--------
*Just as a side note--while nothing should be oversimplified--a lot of Greece's problems can be traced back to our very American Goldman Sachs.
**As another side note, contrary to popular belief, it does not automatically follow that a Socialist country is an anti-Capitalist country. I am in no way arguing that Capitalism should be abolished. We do, however, need to protect ourselves from the excesses of Capitalism.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Equal Opportunity
Tonight, at a local bar, I had a discussion with someone from from Arkansas. I can't remember how it started except that I'm sure I instigated it, but the substance of it had to do with my questioning him about how people from Arkansas feel about American opportunity and the American ideal. It's hard for me to understand how someone in a state as poor as Arkansas can not want to have worker protections--because naturally, what with my living in San Francisco, I imagine that everyone in Arkansas is living in a log cabin with their third cousins, chopping firewood, cleaning guns, and fuming about how it's somehow the Democrats' fault that their diabetic grandmothers are dying in the next room because Obama cut their Medicare.
At one point we argued about "equal opportunity." Personally, I don't see how any rational person can look at America and not see the inherent inequalities within our system. As if it's even remotely reasonable to believe that a person born in the Upper East Side of Manhattan has the same opportunities as someone born in East Oakland. What with his being a white Southerner, he went on and on about how we're all free to do whatever we want and everyone has the same opportunities if they're willing to work hard enough for it. Needless to say, the black door guy tended to disagree.
In the end, my Arkansas aquaintance turned out to be the (not an but THE) I.T. guy for the Arkansas State Police. And here he is arguing that we don't need government?
I asked him how he'd feel if they quit funding his job, and he said he'd "just find another job." (As if the Arkansas police don't need an I.T. guy...?) As much as I enjoyed this conversation, and he struck me as a reasonable, thoughtful person, isn't this just a little bit hypocritical? It's not like he doesn't understand where he gets his paycheck. How can someone argue against tax-payer funded infrastructure and simultaneously suck off the government teat?
[7/31 Note: I forgot to mention that he was in San Francisco on official business for some sort of computer training. I wonder how the citizens of Arkansas would feel about that?]
At one point we argued about "equal opportunity." Personally, I don't see how any rational person can look at America and not see the inherent inequalities within our system. As if it's even remotely reasonable to believe that a person born in the Upper East Side of Manhattan has the same opportunities as someone born in East Oakland. What with his being a white Southerner, he went on and on about how we're all free to do whatever we want and everyone has the same opportunities if they're willing to work hard enough for it. Needless to say, the black door guy tended to disagree.
In the end, my Arkansas aquaintance turned out to be the (not an but THE) I.T. guy for the Arkansas State Police. And here he is arguing that we don't need government?
I asked him how he'd feel if they quit funding his job, and he said he'd "just find another job." (As if the Arkansas police don't need an I.T. guy...?) As much as I enjoyed this conversation, and he struck me as a reasonable, thoughtful person, isn't this just a little bit hypocritical? It's not like he doesn't understand where he gets his paycheck. How can someone argue against tax-payer funded infrastructure and simultaneously suck off the government teat?
[7/31 Note: I forgot to mention that he was in San Francisco on official business for some sort of computer training. I wonder how the citizens of Arkansas would feel about that?]
Thursday, July 29, 2010
The "Free" Market
I got into a spirited debate earlier with one of my two Libertarian friends about the "Free Market." According to my friend, the Free Market is great..."but only when properly regulated against force or fraud."
I found this funny on two counts:
1. The whole concept of the "Free" Market is that there are basically no regulations. That's the definition of a "Free" Market. According to conservatives, the reason the Free Market has failed is not because we didn't have enough protections against force or fraud but because we had too many protections (like minimum wage standards, etc). I think people are generally coming around to what this means. The Free Market was an interesting thought experiment on behalf of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics (with roots in Adam Smith's laissez faire philosophy), but ultimately, it was just that: an experiment. The Free Market does wonders for those at the top, but everyone else ends up clawing their way along. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and that's pretty much that. If you're not convinced by the current economic meltdown, take a hard look at Chile and Argentina in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. There's nothing "free" about the Free Market.
2. A little way into the conversation it occurred to me that I was having this debate with a Libertarian. Here I was theorizing about the potential merits of European-style government, and he ends his argument by pleading with me that my time is running out to buy gold, silver, food, water, other basic necessities, and weapons. (No kidding.) On a scarier note, I like to think that my Libertarian friends (crazy, gun nut, conspiracy theorists though they may be) are some of the more cognizant of the bunch. Just last week some nutjob open fired on a Bay Area freeway after what one can only assume were a few too many Glenn Beck episodes. (Not that he was necessarily a Libertarian, but I think we can safely rule out his having received too many Socialist entitlements.)
Anyway, on yet another note, I should probably point out that my Libertarian friends both live in San Francisco in 12- to 15-year rent-controlled apartments. As much as I really do respect their personal autonomy and amazing ability to thrive outside of Corporate America (Bravo, gentlemen!), I seriously doubt that a freelance artist and the owner of a bike messenger company would be living quite so well (or buying quite so many guns) if they paid market rates on their apartments. Their success--at least partially--is no doubt due to San Francisco's glorious embracing of "evil" Socialist concepts.
I found this funny on two counts:
1. The whole concept of the "Free" Market is that there are basically no regulations. That's the definition of a "Free" Market. According to conservatives, the reason the Free Market has failed is not because we didn't have enough protections against force or fraud but because we had too many protections (like minimum wage standards, etc). I think people are generally coming around to what this means. The Free Market was an interesting thought experiment on behalf of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics (with roots in Adam Smith's laissez faire philosophy), but ultimately, it was just that: an experiment. The Free Market does wonders for those at the top, but everyone else ends up clawing their way along. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and that's pretty much that. If you're not convinced by the current economic meltdown, take a hard look at Chile and Argentina in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. There's nothing "free" about the Free Market.
2. A little way into the conversation it occurred to me that I was having this debate with a Libertarian. Here I was theorizing about the potential merits of European-style government, and he ends his argument by pleading with me that my time is running out to buy gold, silver, food, water, other basic necessities, and weapons. (No kidding.) On a scarier note, I like to think that my Libertarian friends (crazy, gun nut, conspiracy theorists though they may be) are some of the more cognizant of the bunch. Just last week some nutjob open fired on a Bay Area freeway after what one can only assume were a few too many Glenn Beck episodes. (Not that he was necessarily a Libertarian, but I think we can safely rule out his having received too many Socialist entitlements.)
Anyway, on yet another note, I should probably point out that my Libertarian friends both live in San Francisco in 12- to 15-year rent-controlled apartments. As much as I really do respect their personal autonomy and amazing ability to thrive outside of Corporate America (Bravo, gentlemen!), I seriously doubt that a freelance artist and the owner of a bike messenger company would be living quite so well (or buying quite so many guns) if they paid market rates on their apartments. Their success--at least partially--is no doubt due to San Francisco's glorious embracing of "evil" Socialist concepts.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Why a Blog About Socialism?
The majority of Americans--it's no secret--have long since been brainwashed to believe some variation of the following:
#1. Socialism is evil
#2. Europe is disastrous
#3. the Free Market is KING
#4. and AMERICA IS #1!!!!
I could go on, of course, but chances are you've heard all this before, so there's really no reason to expound on the obvious--like how homosexuals and Mexicans are destroying our country, how San Francisco is Babylon, how healthcare is for people who can afford it, and how everyone else can fuck off.
That said, I guess I should start off by disclosing that I live in San Francisco. But enough about me.
The point of this blog is that I'm sick to death of all the blanket statements people make--particularly about Socialism--with absolutely no idea of what they're talking about. I'm under no illusions, of course, that by writing a blog I can do much about it or even contribute much to the general debate. As much as I want to be optimistic, the truth is, our country is so fucked right now that there's not much we can do outside of wait around until our grandmothers die off (sorry, Grandma), and even THEN, considering the incredibly poor investment we've made in education, it's incredibly unlikely that our younger generation will be any better equipped than the current one to solve our nation's problems.
Even so, if for no other reason than to amuse myself, a friend or two, and some internet randos, I figured I should take some of my own advice and educate myself about what the hell I mean when I say "Socialism." For example, when I think about Socialism--which is a lot--I can't help but be bothered by how little I know about actual European Social Democracies besides maybe what my friend, Charles, tells me or what I've picked up from watching Michael Moore movies. The more I think about it, it's pretty sad. While on the one hand, I know a lot more about Socialism than the average American, I know next-to-nothing about how ACTUAL Social Democracies really work (like how their governments are structured, what benefits they afford their citizens, and how people live on a day-to-day basis).
So, with that in mind, my idea is to educate myself (and maybe one or two others) about existing Socialist Democracies, Socialist theory, and in general, how much better off we'd be in America if we embraced Socialism, gave up some of our stupid American ideas, and maybe even gave a shit about other people. Or maybe I'll discover that everything I've believed about Socialism is completely unfounded, that the people in Europe are dying to live in America, and that America really is #1 like they say. But somehow I doubt that.
#1. Socialism is evil
#2. Europe is disastrous
#3. the Free Market is KING
#4. and AMERICA IS #1!!!!
I could go on, of course, but chances are you've heard all this before, so there's really no reason to expound on the obvious--like how homosexuals and Mexicans are destroying our country, how San Francisco is Babylon, how healthcare is for people who can afford it, and how everyone else can fuck off.
That said, I guess I should start off by disclosing that I live in San Francisco. But enough about me.
The point of this blog is that I'm sick to death of all the blanket statements people make--particularly about Socialism--with absolutely no idea of what they're talking about. I'm under no illusions, of course, that by writing a blog I can do much about it or even contribute much to the general debate. As much as I want to be optimistic, the truth is, our country is so fucked right now that there's not much we can do outside of wait around until our grandmothers die off (sorry, Grandma), and even THEN, considering the incredibly poor investment we've made in education, it's incredibly unlikely that our younger generation will be any better equipped than the current one to solve our nation's problems.
Even so, if for no other reason than to amuse myself, a friend or two, and some internet randos, I figured I should take some of my own advice and educate myself about what the hell I mean when I say "Socialism." For example, when I think about Socialism--which is a lot--I can't help but be bothered by how little I know about actual European Social Democracies besides maybe what my friend, Charles, tells me or what I've picked up from watching Michael Moore movies. The more I think about it, it's pretty sad. While on the one hand, I know a lot more about Socialism than the average American, I know next-to-nothing about how ACTUAL Social Democracies really work (like how their governments are structured, what benefits they afford their citizens, and how people live on a day-to-day basis).
So, with that in mind, my idea is to educate myself (and maybe one or two others) about existing Socialist Democracies, Socialist theory, and in general, how much better off we'd be in America if we embraced Socialism, gave up some of our stupid American ideas, and maybe even gave a shit about other people. Or maybe I'll discover that everything I've believed about Socialism is completely unfounded, that the people in Europe are dying to live in America, and that America really is #1 like they say. But somehow I doubt that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)