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.

c-ad-illac

i’m going to pretend like there hasn’t been a huge hiatus for postings since school started and just jump right back into it.

i was watching discovery atlas on dhdt and it was the episode on modern china. i had seen something similar to this, only a montage set to music at a costco once while perusing through the hdtv section. ever since then i’ve been trying to hunt down that demo, with little luck and while i don’t believe this discovery special was what i was watching, it fills the role well enough for me to feel like i’ve brought democracy to iraq. mission accomplished, boys. anyways, i must say that documentary was absolutely fantasmigorical, scrumtrelescent even. totally on par with the planet earth series. adding to the generous enlightening of the show was a notable new ad campaign by cadillac for the 2008 cts which i found extremely appealing and effective. because i can’t post a youtube vid of the entire atlas: china revealed special, i’ll just leave that to you to investigate, but the new cadillac ad i can post, and i will explain what makes it so good.

first off, yes, that is kate walsh, whose career i find absolutely detestable. grey’s anatomy sucks my testicles with the kind of force that jim dyson dreams about at night. and after watching this ad, i find myself fantasizing about ms. walsh doing the same. nothing helps to pop a tent like the idea of degrading a successful woman with loads of cash and dignity but who is actually a huge slut begging to get stuffed like the t-day turkey you all wolfed down recently. anyways, before i have to start paying you for the hour, allow me to continue on with why this ad is so good.

first of all, the grey’s anatomy audience is a crowd of impressionable materialistic go-getters who care a great deal about self-image and reputation. they’re the kind of people who want other people to look at them and say, ‘damn, i wish i were/fucking him/her,’ and though few clearly look the part, many are willing to shill the dinero needed to play it. this means italian shoes, fancy cars, 3-figure haircuts, etc. also see nip/tuck. furthermore, kate walsh is the perfect age to hook the demographic cadillac should be targetting. nobody who relates themselves with hayden panettiere has enough dough to afford a luxury sports cars. kate is just the right age to harden those viagra popping business men while also being classy enough to draw the non-hostile envy of 30-something women all over america. hell, even i find her alluring in the ad. one might even say that she ‘turns my key’. yuck yuck.

there also happens to be a second variation of the ad, in which b-movie actor, matthew mcwannabe aka martin henderson, does the driving, while pitching a nice little speech about hindering individuality. now, martin henderson is probably best known for his role in the britney spears video for toxic. that being said, the age group this ad is targeting probably doesn’t recognize him or realize how pathetic his career is. all they see is a good-looking guy talking some big talk about beating hippies. unfortunately, this version is so unpopular that youtube does not have a video for it at the time. i will however explain the best part of this ad. part of the narration includes a line that goes something like this: ‘you could follow the philosophy that a nail that sticks out gets hammered; or you could be the hammer.’ this is a real knock-out punch, because it not only equates the cts with having individuality, but it equates it with having so much individuality, that it stifles the individuality of others, and of course that is the underlying dream of any rich businessman.

in conclusion, i wish to say good job modernista, the ad agency that handled this campaign. you guys did an unbelievable job at selling the cts. also, please give me a job.

who’s been a naughty doctor?  that’s right, bitch, you have.  now bend over so i can give you your shot.

critical race theory 2: why blacks and hispanics are poor

here’s a post that i’ve been planning on writing for a really long time, but couldn’t find the words to keep it interesting enough to capture the attention of an audience. i will attempt to use pictures and videos and other media related links to help jazz up an otherwise tedious and immoderately drudging topic. mind you, this article isn’t meant to incite change. far from it in fact; it’s almost the opposite as i am attempting to explain why struggling for racial and social equality is just an exercise in futility. all the statistics are taken from the income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the united states: 2005 report released by the us census bureau in 2006.

in 2005, there were an approximate 293,834,000 us citizens. the break down of the four major ethnic categories are as follows: white: 66.48%, black: 12.44%, asian: 4.17%, hispanic: 14.24%.

12.58% of all american citizens that year lived below the poverty level. that’s approximately 36,950,000 individuals. now, let’s see how this group breaks down ethnically. the report shows the following percentages: white: 43.92%, black: 24.81%, asian: 3.79%, hispanic: 25.35%.

for a nation founded upon an ideal of every man being equal, you would expect that socioeconomic statuses to be spread out equally among all the races. however, such is not the case. clearly, through the statistics alone, we can see that there is a disproportionate number of minorities who fall under the poverty level. blacks and hispanics are almost twice as likely to be under the poverty level, relative to their percentage within the total american population. white people are disproportionately above the poverty level. it’s clear that there is a significant correlation between race and socioeconomic status. you can find an even more detailed table of income statistic based on race and gender here. the question that remains to be asked is why this inequality exists.

the answer can be found in marxist economic theory which states that those who control economic power in a nation control social power as well. if white men come and colonize a nation and set up a new economic system, it can be inferred that white men will control the economy. as immigrants of various races join this nation, they will be subjected to the economic system inherent to the nation. now, in order to maintain an economy, one must maintain a strong labor force. without a strong labor force to man the blue collar workings of industry, that industry crumbles. the problem is that the labor force is not paid very well since their jobs usually apply to activities which do not require extensive mastery or experience. they can be easily replaced. if too many people are qualified for high level jobs with big salaries, they will all be attempting for a much smaller niche which cannot support them all. this is why america, and indeed every economic entity requires people who are willing to work in the labor force or who are simply unable to ascend any higher. how does one ensure that he can continue to amass a large enough labor force to maintain his industry? one must actively manipulate society to create that work force. louis althusser, a french marxist and theorist, describes what he calls an isa (ideological state apparatus). it is a complement to the rsa (repressive state apparatus). in order to maintain order, societies utilize both to domesticate its citizens. the repressive state apparatus is basically the law and those who enforce it. it is the force used to keep order. if there is an uprising or riot calling for change, the rsa may be used to quell the incident. however, repressive state apparatuses are expensive to maintain and almost impossible to use in controlling an entire population. thus, an ideological state apparatus is employed in order to indoctrinate the citizens into becoming complacent and productive citizens. everyone can agree that it is fair to allot rewards to the best man, but what if the system that allows for training is imbalanced, or what if two men are equal in their qualifications. if a child is raised in a poor family and that poor family can only afford to send him to a poor school, where he receives a poor education, that child will inevitably receive a poor job. however, because there is no favoritism given beyond qualifications, this result is fair and acceptable. thus, schools act as part of the isa, preparing you for an economic role in society. if a church preaches that you must live in a certain way, work in a certain way, spend in a certain way, it is an isa. if your parents raise you a certain way that promotes specific career opportunities, they are an example of the isa. the ideological state apparatus is anything which may impart an idea effecting your choices and abilities relating to the economy of the society you belong to.

so, because white men were the first in america to establish industries and control the economy, it is natural that they would hold a great portion of the higher paying jobs. when an immigrant arrives without the communication skills required to work in a service industry, they are made to work in the labor force, practicing the universally held ability to provide manual labor. history has even shown that before racist sentiments went out of fashion in the modern world, race was commonly used as a convenient excuse for labor designation. american slavery is the most notable example as plantation owners who required cheap manual labor subjugated black slaves on the principle that blacks were an inferior race, unfit for equal human rights. such ideology helped create the backbone of the budding american economy. by the time slavery was abolished, it was already too late. black people were brought to a new world, dominated by another race and given nothing to compete with. reconstruction failed to make the necessary social changes, and white people maintained their dominant jobs. the only difference now was that they needed to pay a small wage to their black workers. the black race was still relegated to menial physical labor. so why are minorities disproportionately poor? it’s because they need to be in order to fulfill the labor force requirements. it’s because rich white men do not want to give up their cushy jobs to facilitate a more balanced society. when society gives aid to the underprivileged, we cry foul and point out the inequality of that aid. it is because every black or hispanic man who gets into an ivy league school is one less white man who could have. are you willing to be the parent that allows that? are you willing to relegate your child to a menial life for the sake of social equality? of course not. who would? what many people do not realize is that in order to help the less fortunate, those who have fortune must make sacrifices. the problem with the nation is that too many people want change without sacrifice. you may be a liberal white male, partaking in noble social causes on your daddy’s watch, but at the end of the day, when you get your ivy league diploma, you will chase the big figure salaries, and when you get them, that’s one poor undereducated person you just took a job from. the mere fact that you went to an ivy league means you filled a spot an underprivileged person might have had. the mere fact that your mommy and daddy can afford to send you to college means they have jobs that underprivileged people could have had.

until now i have neglected a major statistical anomaly, which is the fairly balanced and equal treatment of asian americans and their economic standing. you might have noticed that asians were the only class whose poverty percentage closely matched their population percentage. if you checked the income table, you will have seen that they also have the highest average income of all the races. even big businesses are starting to take notice. why do asians not suffer from this failings of minority status? it is not because asians have an unusually strong work ethic or are smarter than other races. the answer is that the modern asian immigrant comes from moderately developed nations and only the best of them can really afford to migrate to america. this means that those who arrive are already considerably educated and moderately wealthy. consider that african americans are mostly descended from slaves who were involuntarily dragged across the atlantic to america. they had nothing to begin with and once released from bondage, were given nothing to start over with. simply put, they were left to fend for themselves as white men controlled the economy and society within which they struggled. it has taken them decade upon decade to slowly build up to where they are now, a status still far from being equal. asians who immigrated to america, like myself and my parents, did so after a great deal of planning and consideration, as well as a great deal of saving to help them get started after the move. my dad was a professor and my mom was a pediatrician, both of them earning a decent wage and both of them highly educated. they were highly motivated and extremely hardworking people. they could not retain their professions after moving to america, and worked menial jobs for many years while getting new educations. it was a very difficult endeavor, and very admirable to behold, but their previous education and saved money helped make the transition easier. a great many hispanic citizens come from destitute nations and have little money or education, but they can make the journey simply because of geographic convenience. traveling from central america and mexico into the united states can be accomplished a lot easier than from asia, so a great many of them can make the trip without much resources. once in america, they’re willing to take on menial labor because the income is still greater than that which they would have earned in their native countries.

i’m not saying that poor minorities are forced to remain poor, that they cannot climb the socital ladder and become wealthy individuals, but it would be completely ignorant not to recognize that for the poor, it is a much more difficult goal to achieve than for a rich white man, and that difference in difficulty is all it takes to keep entire social classes down. if you want to change things, you cannot just fight the inequality outright against a majority unwilling to abdicate their high-earning jobs for you. any change that happens must be subtle and fair. the best way is to work harder and better than white folk. teach your children to work harder and better. education is the only thing that will pick you out of the rut. the sad truth is that you and your children must sacrifice fun for hard work. you must overlook the decadent media portrayal of american life and realize what priorities are most important in attaining better jobs and better pay. unfortunately, a great many parents do not do this well enough and their children end up trying to fit in socially before they can economically, not realizing the cost of living like an american. the media (another powerful isa) has a great part in how the youth of america is brought up and without parental supervision, it will inevitably corrupt the work ethic that the underprivileged must cultivate in order to succeed beyond the prior generations. that, however, is an article for another day.

the best nytimes article ever (maybe)

this is by far one of my favorite articles to date. this is the kind of rationality that makes me want to give mr. landsburg a big handshake whilst gazing upon him adoringly with doe-eyed reverence.

behold, the key to fighting the spread of aids

more sex is safer sex: the unconventional wisdom of economics by steven e. landsburg

anyone who has an average of 2.25 sexual partners a year or less should fuck more often; it’s just good business!