globalization the key to communism?

this proposition is heavy on the theory, light on the details.  be warned.

one of the most enlightening and rewarding academic decisions i’ve ever made was to focus my attention on sociology and exploring all the alternatives it provides to the status quo system in place in modern western civilizations.  i say this with particular respect to economics, which i find to be the most displeasing areas of study among universities.  the reason for this is that economics seems to hold itself to the status of science when it is clearly not.  even worse is the manner in which universities seem to treat economics as a science.  the field of economics implies a study of the ways in which a society might organize and structure the means of production and distribution.  what it actually is is an in-depth study of one economic ideology and how it organizes and structures our society.  the economics major at rutgers heavily promotes micro and macro economics and further specification built upon those principles, principles which are products of economic liberalism stemming from adam smith’s theories.  this is somewhat like working towards a physics degree and only learning about einstein’s theory of relativity without any concern for quantum mechanics or attempting a political science major and learning only about american democracy with no regard for monarchies or dictatorships.  the reason for this is clear; as rutgers is an american institution and thus prepares students for american life, which is dominated by capitalist economic principle.  the university is preparing students with the knowledge they need to properly integrate into the existing social system.  it makes little sense to teach marxist economics or tribal economics as we don’t live in a world of those principles.  i recognize and understand this necessity, however, it intensely frustrates me when undergraduates study economics assuming it to be somehow the only legitimate system, or worse yet, regarding the teachings as somehow scientifically reliable.  anyone who has taken a sociology or history course on adam smith knows that all his theories are predicated on fundamental assumptions of human nature which have not ever been scientifically verified.  furthermore, his theories are also philosophically juvenile in their assumptions of moral right and good, focusing entirely on the material with no regard for the human condition.

one might argue that western capitalism is clearly the only viable economic system as it is the system which has succeeded.  well, this argument is like saying that the eagles are objectively better  than the giants because they knocked them out in the play-offs.  it confuses existence as an argument for legitimacy.  simply because the giants happened to lose this one game does not effectively prove them to be an objectively worse team.  worse yet, it does not account for any circumstantial variables which might influence outcomes.  simply because the giants are not going to the super bowl this year does not prove that they could not ever attend the super bowl.  yet, many seem to believe that because american capitalism held out against communism, it is somehow objectively a superior ideology and that because communism failed once, it can never succeed.  to better understand this argument, one must understand the premises of communism.

it is the belief of many that communism failed because it was unable to effect a true manifestation of its tenants.  the belief is that the failed form of communism was not truly communism.  it is a well documented characteristic of marxian communism that the revolution be of global proportion and that for communism to truly work, it require the unanimous revolution of all nations.  i believe this is because marxism does not argue that capitalism is an inefficient model, but rather an unsustainable one from a humanistic liberal perspective.  capitalism addresses society as a machine, disregarding the humanity of its members.  this does not mean it is productively weak, but rather immoral and unsustainable.  in a material competition, there is a good chance that capitalism will indeed defeat any other economic model.  however, that is not to say that were marxism to have succeeded in converting the world it would have failed by some intrinsic defect.  perhaps it simply was not time for such an economic model to arrive.  the insulated nation states of the time were still too insular to foster a global revolution.  capitalist influence was too strong and its material allure too magnetic.  however, there is a growing trend which may hint at a future where a marxist revolution is more plausible.  american economic might during the cold war was far too influential to overcome.  economic assistance plans like the marshall plan kept key nations from the marxist persuasion.  furthermore, the strength of the american middle class mitigated the vital role that class inequality must play in a communist revolution.  so what has changed?

the american economy is weak.  the middle class is shrinking.  class inequality is greater now than ever before in the 20th century.  most importantly, american capitalism has recently implemented a campaign of globalization, joining the world’s economies into one megaeconomy without borders.  this i believe to be a potential death knell of modern capitalism.  perhaps not in my lifetime, but eventually, if globalization continues to unite the world’s economies, it will lay out a foundation for global revolution like the world has never before been afforded.  with the unification of the world’s economies, a communist revolution would no longer face the problem of staggered levels of development among nations.  the exploitation of laborers would no longer be a social condition specific to single nations, but an epidemic held in common among all globalized nations which are exploited by the wealthy nations of the world.  in essence, globalization transforms the world into one enormous model of the smaller, individual economics we see in developed nations today.  instead of poor laborers in ghettos working for rich capitalists, we have the poor geographic regions of latin america, africa, southeast asia, all laboring now for the benefit of the wealthy nations of western civilization.  the exploitation of laborers becomes truly international and the vision of a global proletarian revolution becomes shockingly plausible.  what america is finally coming to understand is that free market capitalism knows no national borders.  trade is the ultimate bond between nations.  as corporations move to exploit cheaper and cheaper labor in foreign countries, american laborers find themselves increasingly short of work.  what needs to happen is the reformation of the american working class to an american service class.  if america wishes to continue its trend of a borderless global economy, then it must transform its citizens to become the capitalist owners of that economy.  american workers cannot compete with the labor that developing nations can provide.  they are becoming an obsolete class, yet little is being done to transition those families and individuals to the service jobs which foreign nations cannot provide.  american employees of ad agencies, media corporations, financial institutions, and software developers need not worry about their foreign counterparts in mexico, indonesia, or nigeria because there is no competition.  if america is to succeed in the globalized world it is creating, it must not only shift its labor exploitation to international territories, but also promote and develop its own service industry to manage this new global market.  this means more americans need specialized skills and talents only developed nations can provide in order to exploit the cheap labor that developing nations are so eager to provide.  otherwise, the poor laborers of america will continue to suffer and a tremendous social problem will erupt.  to avoid massive civil unrest in america now, it must embark on a campaign which might ultimately lead to global communism later.

consider this, however unlikely and far-fetched it seems:

the world’s largest communist nation, the people’s republic of china, holds the largest share of us treasury securities of any foreign nation, a whopping $585 billion.  if it were to sell this debt, it would undercut the dollar and cause an almost immediate recession of epic proportion, throwing the entire global economy into severe turmoil.  epic recession means epic unemployment and poverty which is the breeding ground of communist sentiment.  the world’s largest communist nation has the ability to plunge the world into a period of almost guaranteed communist reform.

the soulless atheist

after listening to the entirety of the four horsemen discussion and thinking on it before falling asleep, i came to an interesting perspective.  i won’t comment on whether or not religions are viable or believable arguments.  what i will comment on is what religions bring to the table in terms of social benefits.  regardless of the truth behind gods and deities, there is a rather common belief that religion imparts within people a morality which would otherwise be unfamiliar to the human race.  it is religion which has held the moral fibers of society together and maintained the necessary solidarity between individuals to foster a secure and righteous society.  in fact, this role is so greatly respected that most religious people don’t bother to examine other possible moral foundations.  this is fine, since most of you know that i don’t believe in moral absolutes, however, the problem is that because religious individuals hold their religious morality with such high regard, they come to believe that those who do not subscribe to their beliefs must necessarily be absent of the moral values they also hold as sacred and vital.  this isn’t to say that people of one religion don’t recognize the religious morality of other religions.  certainly every religion has it own set of values which are often quite congruent.  however, when addressing a person who is an atheist, it seems that because the individuals chooses not to practice any faith based value system,  he/she must ultimately lack a concrete moral compass.

now, to me, this argument seems similar to economic theory, particularly regarding the smith/marx divide.  it is believed by smith that the cumulative diversity of self-serving behavior within the market place ultimately produces the most productive society as every person’s greed pulls society in a unique direction and ultimately the forces balance to a perfect equilibrium.  this idea is hotly contested by marxists who believe the unregulated market ultimately leads to exploitation and increasing class divide which will inevitably reach a tipping point in which the united will of the proletariat will outweigh the centralized power of the bourgeois elite, leading to revolution and massive social and economic reform.

the similarity comes from a belief in whether individual people can enact positive outcomes without the assistance of an overseerer.  the belief that without religion, humanity devolves into ruthless amoral beasts is similar to saying that men cannot be relied upon to create and uphold their own economic lives.  without the guidance of the state, or some theoretical social conscience, economics becomes corrupt and flawed.  it is an argument against economic liberalism.  similarly, to believe that w/o religion, man cannot maintain a civil and sustainable society is almost an equivalently antagnozing argument against social liberalism.  of course, i will grant that religion has in great part throughout the course of history provided a very salient moral outline for societies to mind and abide, however, i find it ignorant to dismiss the possibility of alternatives to religious moral guidance.  i believe mankind has the rational capacity to analyze and understand social circumstance well enough to theorize and effectively argue in favor of a new brand of moral code rooted in logic and social necessity.  it would be a moral code reinforcing the same socially beneficial principles of religious doctrine, only without the unverifiable faith based justifications.  better yet, because this code relies on rationality and reason, it would be inoffensive to criticize and reevaluate the doctrines so long as the criticism stems also from valid logic and reasoning.  unlike the unquestionable voice of god, the redress of outmoded policies and open discussion regarding the credibility and effectiveness of any mandates would be far less difficult to approach.

for an example, we can turn to immanuel kant’s writings on ethics, particularly his conception of maxims as rules of behavior which promote rational social cohesion and sheer existence.  thus, we ought not to kill because rationally, no society can exist if all members are allowed to freely kill at will.  the individuals of the society would eventually murder everyone among them, forcing the dissolution of the society and thereby any rational need for moral codes.  it is a behavioral condition predicated on a logical rational.  one ought not to lie because were everyone to lie without reprecussion or reprehension, it would undercut the value of any promise or statement of truth, not only eliminating the necessary social glue of communication, but also intrinsically ruining the value of lies, as they are predicated on the fundamental value of trust.  of course, i wouldn’t suggest this to be the best solution, but it does exemplify the kind of rationality that i’m referring to.

in fact, it seems that those adherent to religious doctrine or any absolutist mandates are often the most dangerous to society and generally conduct the most devastating acts of moral offensiveness.  so, when viewed from this light, it appears that the soulless atheist is far less soulless and perhaps a more critical eye ought to be cast upon the moral codes so many theists refuse to question.

smart people

these guys talk like u would try to write a dissertation.  AND they’re drinking!  what do u sound like when you drink?

NOT for the easily bored.  if you take ritalin, don’t bother.

More on this later!

beat me to it

i was thinking of writing an article regarding the middle east the other day, but then i got distracted and probably played some gears 2.  however, after reading terence’s article, (here) my interest was reinvigorated.  t touches on good points, most agreeable of which was the ridiculous amount of propaganda people feel obliged to post.  i don’t care what side you’re rooting for because you are a college student on facebook.  what could you possibly know about the conflict in the middle east that cia analysts and high ranking policy makers have not already considered.   i don’t necessarily blame the posters because they live in a society which practically forces them to utilize barbaric communications to express their ideas; however, i would be ashamed of anyone who took a look at any media piece focusing on the conflict with more than a grain of salt.  there are perspectives and contexts which the majority of westerners do not and cannot understand.  nobody enters a hot-zone like the middle east with a camera and no agenda.  that’s simply a distaste for self-preservation.  the people who understand the situation best are those who are running the show.  the israeli government, hamas officials, middle eastern political figures.  these men and women are orchestrating a very dangerous theatrical engagement which relies on the concealment and often manipulation of public perception (that would be the crap you ppl keep posting).  it makes me laugh when someone in the states has the gall to believe their information and opinion on the affairs abroad are so credible that they ought to promote their beliefs.  tell me about why your room design is so awesome, or why you hate the alexander library; i can actually believe that you might know what you’re talking about in those instances, but don’t fucking preach to me about events clearly beyond your comprehension, or at least do so with some humility!  i don’t know exactly why shit always goes down over in the magical land of oils-r-us; i might venture guesses based on what information i’ve attempted to gather, but i can’t possibly envision a person stupid enough to base their opinions on what i have to say.  that’s like taking stock advice from a hotdog vendor who works on wall street!  this is why i try to inject some humor into all my propositions, because i simply don’t believe in them enough to write with the zealous conviction needed for seriousness.  and now, let me tell you what the fuck is going on in the middle east and who’s to blame.

it’s everyone!  we ain’t perfect, (some people think it’s wrong to eat pork!), and that’s alright, because there’s no such thing as perfect anyway!  so these imperfect people, the jews, always get into schoolyard scuffles with these imperfect arabs over who gets to play on the four square court.

the jews made this land grab way back when and ever since then shit has been shitty.  of course, it’s not really their fault.  it’s actually those dick faces, the western europeans (you too america) who thought they had the right to make decisions like building nations within nations.  see, everyone has to live somewhere.  land is the most valuable resource of all; it’s where we build homes, drill for oil, raise pigs, pimp hos, etc.  societies form around the lands they’re on.  we protect our land because it’s essential to our livelihood.  now, when mexicans come to america, we get all up in arms about them stealing our jobs.  (LOL, you’re worried about those jobs?!)  now take that sentiment and apply it to the palestinians.  they don’t want jews coming and taking their shit!  why not share?  because they’re not hippy bitches.  so it seems like the jews were some sneaky thieves, but HEY, at least those arabs had a land to build around.  those jews were kicked out of their homes way way back when and they’ve been wandering around ever since, and like i said before, nobody wants people stealing their jobs and land, so they’ve pretty much been hated wherever they go.  well, eventually a bunch of jews were like, “dude, why the fuck do we keep going around pissing people off, why don’t we just make ourselves a little country of our own and stop getting everyone so angry at us.”  that’s an admirable gesture jews!  but first they gotta go and get themselves a country!  well, let’s try to move back to the “homeland” they thought, “i know someone else lives there now, but maybe if we get shitloads of jews up in there, they’ll leave or something.”  well, that didn’t work (dumb, jews, dumb).  the arabs were not leaving (wtf arabs!)  looks like the jews plans failed; but all of a sudden this big fucking war broke out in europe thanx to this guy who LOVED coffee and hated his philtrum.  he also HATED jews, probably cuz one turned him down in high school and you know how those high school grudges stick with you.  he got everyone that hated jews together and was like, “let’s just fucking kill them all, then we don’t have to worry about them anymore”.  well, when the people who didn’t have to deal with the jews heard this, they were like, “OH SHIT PETER!  we don’t mind the jews so much, why you beefing?”  they all fought for a while.  obviously, no one cared about the jews enough to fight a war for them, it was cuz of other stuff also going down at the time, but afterwards, when the winners found out about how much the losers hated jews, they were like, “how do we stick it to those dicks we just fucking rocked?  i know, let’s be super cool to the jews,  that’ll piss off the krauts.”  so then those douches in england were like, “hey jews, we’re gonna make this country for u over in that useless land we own.  it’s gonna be INSIDE another country and you’ll probably have to kick out some peeps, but like, whatever, u’ll figure it out!  aren’t we sooo cool?  sloppy seconds ain’t so bad, man.”  well, the palestinians were like “HEY! don’t taze me bro” but the jews kinda raped them anyway cuz they were BFFs now w/ the superpowers and they got to borrow all their sweet toys.  but then all the other arabs were like, ‘hey, WTF!  we saw what happened when those americans built themselves a country inside native american territory, and we can’t even fucking gamble so FUCK that future.”  they all got together and were like, we gotta fuck these jews up so bad that they don’t wanna live here anymore (kinda like when a black person moved into a white neighborhood those many centuries ago before america became civilized (centuries right?).  but the jews remembered what happened the last time they tried to crash in other ppl’s cribs (disagreeable showers) and they were pretty sure they didn’t want to go through w/ that whole thing again so they were like “wtf, these arabs ain’t so tough, we’ll just fight them.”  and the two lived happily ever after.

so when we try to fix this problem, let’s remember that it’s everyone’s fault; trying to place moral blame now is kinda like booking suspects after u’ve already convicted the criminal.  how do we solve a problem that has no right or wrong?!  well, this is america ppl.  u find out where all the money is and u go to it.  i don’t know enough about the economics of that useless land of exaggerated mythology to make any accurate judgment calls, but it seems like there are way more muslims and arabs than jews in the world so i gotta say, F the jews.  nothing personal.