I've been looking forward to this topic. The abolition of money seems to me a crucial challenge for real human progress. Yet I don't hear many people talking about this. There seems to be a general acceptance that money is either a neutral utilitarian thing, or at most a necessary evil. And there is all the quasi-mystical conversation about manifesting success, self-affirming that "I deserve to have lots of money," and treating it as a natural or supernatural resource that can be used for good ends or bad ends depending on the user.
My thinking on money is deeply informed by Norman O. Brown's book Life Against Death, especially the chapter "Filthy Lucre." Brown's book will get its own spotlight entry in this blog very soon. For now a quick summary of the isolated chapter which for me is the best account of what money "really" is. Life Against Death as a whole is a summary, a critique, and an extension of Freudian theory as applied to Western Civilization as a whole (as opposed to its usual application, the neurotic individual). "Filthy Lucre" is the main illustration of applying psychoanalysis to a broad social phenomenon, in this case money. A basic assumption of the book is that all people, and civilization as a whole, are afflicted by a general neurosis, or to put it another way, there is no such thing as normal mental health, either individual or collective. It follows that there is no such thing as a reasonable or realistic or utilitarian point of view or institution. All institutions and points of view partake of delusion, and of the infantile fantasies that ultimately drive us in all areas of our lives.
Money is no exception to this rule. Freud himself had analyzed money as rooted in the traumas of the anal developmental period, and had stated that what money is to us, unconsciously, is shit, and that what we do with money is basically play with it as we once played with our own shit. Brown develops this idea, connecting it to witchcraft, and other kinds of human waste: locks of hair, fingernails, the little pieces of us that are used in witchcraft to attain power over those to whom they formerly belonged. That's money too--useless bits of paper and metal used to magically wield power by those who hoard those useless little bits. From the symbolic to the magical to the real: money is power, and the means to power. It is NOT a reasonable and pragmatic medium of exchange. It is a tool of power used by those who want to have power over others. That's what money is for, and that's why it (and capitalism) are anti-human and anti-democratic.
This is a very brief, and perhaps crazy-sounding summary of Brown's argument, which is actually eloquent, detailed, and amazing. I recommend it very highly. And no, I don't at this point know how we move beyond money, and what economy, trade, and prosperity look like without money. I do think it would be important for all of us to think about this problem.
Friday, May 31, 2013
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Corporate Personhood
I was going to think up some wacky absurd title about corporations being people, but decided to play it straight this time. Although my favorite snarky comment about all this is "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one."
For those just joining this more-or-less-weekly journey through my version of politics, I'm in the midst of devoting a post apiece to each of the five main topics I'd listed in my keynote post, and I've been doing them in reverse order (for no particular reason, except it seems to make sense to do it this way. So corporate personhood is up this week.
The "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision a while back has increased my and many others' concern about the legal status of corporations. The "Citizens United" decision concluded that corporations, having the legal status of persons, cannot be constrained regarding the amount they can contribute to political campaigns, since this would amount to an infringement on a "person's" freedom of speech.
The problem has been portrayed as simply being one of fairness, since corporations have so much more money they can throw into a campaign than a normal person could.
I think the real problem is this, and it is at the heart of why a corporation should not have the status of personhood (except for technical convenience in making contracts, for which a corporation is considered a "fictitious individual"): A corporation should not be considered a person, because a corporation does not have the interests, and therefore should not the unalienable rights, that a person has. Going back to the Declaration of Independence, does a corporation have "life," let alone an unalienable right to it? Of course not. That's why the "Texas" joke is funny. Does a corporation have or need "liberty?" Maybe in a certain sense, but a corporation can't be sent to jail or sold into slavery or pressed into the navy, so no, it doesn't. Does a corporation pursue happiness? No, it pursues profit. In fact, that's what a corporation is, a profit-pursuing machine.
The bill of rights guarantees specific rights of persons, by way of assuming and assuring the "big three" unalienable rights posited in the Declaration. Assigning those rights to a profit-making machine is wrong and dangerous. It skews democracy and endangers the life, liberty and happiness of all the actual persons in our republic.
That's all for now. Thanks for reading.
For those just joining this more-or-less-weekly journey through my version of politics, I'm in the midst of devoting a post apiece to each of the five main topics I'd listed in my keynote post, and I've been doing them in reverse order (for no particular reason, except it seems to make sense to do it this way. So corporate personhood is up this week.
The "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision a while back has increased my and many others' concern about the legal status of corporations. The "Citizens United" decision concluded that corporations, having the legal status of persons, cannot be constrained regarding the amount they can contribute to political campaigns, since this would amount to an infringement on a "person's" freedom of speech.
The problem has been portrayed as simply being one of fairness, since corporations have so much more money they can throw into a campaign than a normal person could.
I think the real problem is this, and it is at the heart of why a corporation should not have the status of personhood (except for technical convenience in making contracts, for which a corporation is considered a "fictitious individual"): A corporation should not be considered a person, because a corporation does not have the interests, and therefore should not the unalienable rights, that a person has. Going back to the Declaration of Independence, does a corporation have "life," let alone an unalienable right to it? Of course not. That's why the "Texas" joke is funny. Does a corporation have or need "liberty?" Maybe in a certain sense, but a corporation can't be sent to jail or sold into slavery or pressed into the navy, so no, it doesn't. Does a corporation pursue happiness? No, it pursues profit. In fact, that's what a corporation is, a profit-pursuing machine.
The bill of rights guarantees specific rights of persons, by way of assuming and assuring the "big three" unalienable rights posited in the Declaration. Assigning those rights to a profit-making machine is wrong and dangerous. It skews democracy and endangers the life, liberty and happiness of all the actual persons in our republic.
That's all for now. Thanks for reading.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Party Lights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zncsJKtEd_M
OK, there's the soundtrack. (Emma Goldman's statement that "If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution" is one of the permanent mottos of whatever movement this blog is part of)
Shooting from the hip this week. It seems to me that the two-party system is an inhibition to genuine democracy. If it were simply a natural result of prevailing opinions, that would be one thing, but my understanding is that campaign finance regulations and other factors (such as the electoral college) really do close out parties other than the Democrats and Republicans.
Intuitively, it feels like having only two parties (at least only two that have a genuine shot at winning the presidency) makes the game much easier for anyone who wants bring their money's influence to bear. If you have to lobby 3 to 7 parties, that seems like something that would be more difficult to manage than lobbying just 2. And it likewise feels intuitively right that it is in the interests of real democracy to make lobbying more difficult, because that amounts to reducing the role anybody's money has in influencing the outcome of elections.
Letting more parties into the game also allows more voices and perspectives to come to bear on the various challenges confronting our society, and in my experience diversity of opinion is what allows us to collectively think outside the box.
I approach this with some caution, because I do see the unpredictable outcomes that can come to pass in parliamentary systems where coalition governments between strange bedfellows make it difficult to get things done, or where extremist parties right or left suddenly have more power than you'd expect a fringe party to end up with.
Nonetheless, I feel that the current situation in the US is really a one-party system, the real governing party being the "Corporatist party", no matter whether Democrats or Republicans have the presidency or majorities in Congress. And that stands to reason, since corporations have more power to influence elections and reward candidates than anyone else. The Citizens United decision has only made the truth of that sentence more emphatic, and other action needs to be taken to reduce corporate influence on elections, but re-thinking the way we do party politics definitely has to be part of the fix.
I will return to this topic again, and in the meantime I'll do a bit more homework, see what others think, what the laws actually are, and what real prospects for change might be out there.
OK, there's the soundtrack. (Emma Goldman's statement that "If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution" is one of the permanent mottos of whatever movement this blog is part of)
Shooting from the hip this week. It seems to me that the two-party system is an inhibition to genuine democracy. If it were simply a natural result of prevailing opinions, that would be one thing, but my understanding is that campaign finance regulations and other factors (such as the electoral college) really do close out parties other than the Democrats and Republicans.
Intuitively, it feels like having only two parties (at least only two that have a genuine shot at winning the presidency) makes the game much easier for anyone who wants bring their money's influence to bear. If you have to lobby 3 to 7 parties, that seems like something that would be more difficult to manage than lobbying just 2. And it likewise feels intuitively right that it is in the interests of real democracy to make lobbying more difficult, because that amounts to reducing the role anybody's money has in influencing the outcome of elections.
Letting more parties into the game also allows more voices and perspectives to come to bear on the various challenges confronting our society, and in my experience diversity of opinion is what allows us to collectively think outside the box.
I approach this with some caution, because I do see the unpredictable outcomes that can come to pass in parliamentary systems where coalition governments between strange bedfellows make it difficult to get things done, or where extremist parties right or left suddenly have more power than you'd expect a fringe party to end up with.
Nonetheless, I feel that the current situation in the US is really a one-party system, the real governing party being the "Corporatist party", no matter whether Democrats or Republicans have the presidency or majorities in Congress. And that stands to reason, since corporations have more power to influence elections and reward candidates than anyone else. The Citizens United decision has only made the truth of that sentence more emphatic, and other action needs to be taken to reduce corporate influence on elections, but re-thinking the way we do party politics definitely has to be part of the fix.
I will return to this topic again, and in the meantime I'll do a bit more homework, see what others think, what the laws actually are, and what real prospects for change might be out there.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Getting Wobbly
First of all a big thanks to Sound Propeller for the encouraging and thoughtful reply to "BOTH AND." Sound Propeller's blog looks great. Here's the link: http://amomai.blogspot.com/
May Day would have been an auspicious day to make this particular contribution, but I have been preoccupied with rehearsing and performing. How to juggle everything else and life AND include activism and organizing will be the topic of more concentrated musing soon!
Moving along through my menu of topics (see my first post, "Not Only the Future"), we come, in reverse order to the topic of UNIONS. The degree to which the labor movement has been weakened and quieted is a frequent topic in the news, and it is a great concern for me. It has been noted elsewhere that that point in our history generally held up as the greatest period of general prosperity was the 1950's. It is no coincidence that the 50's was also the greatest period of strong organized labor. The three-way relationship of government, business, and labor at that time has been called an IRON TRIANGLE, in which each element had great power and commanded great respect from each of the other two. It reminds me of the three branches of government, and the checks and balances the executive, the legislative and the judiciary wield over each other. The weakening of the labor movement, as well as the pressure to de-regulate have compromised the Iron Triangle, and created a situation which is undemocratic and economically lopsided. Some will prosper in such a situation, but general prosperity and fairness are made highly improbable.
What is to be done? I had always been taken with the ideas of the Industrial Workers of the World, the I.W.W. Their big idea was that there should be ONE BIG UNION; that all workers should have the backs of all other workers, not simply those with whom they shared a common trade. I wasn't sure if the IWW (nicknamed the "wobblies" back in the day) were still around, but emphatically, yes, they are: http://www.iww.org/ So my current plan is to join this union. I hope to find a local group here in Seattle, but no luck thus far. If it comes down to it, I'll join online. In the meantime I encourage all of you to read the information at the IWW site, and to join also, if that feels right to you.
May Day would have been an auspicious day to make this particular contribution, but I have been preoccupied with rehearsing and performing. How to juggle everything else and life AND include activism and organizing will be the topic of more concentrated musing soon!
Moving along through my menu of topics (see my first post, "Not Only the Future"), we come, in reverse order to the topic of UNIONS. The degree to which the labor movement has been weakened and quieted is a frequent topic in the news, and it is a great concern for me. It has been noted elsewhere that that point in our history generally held up as the greatest period of general prosperity was the 1950's. It is no coincidence that the 50's was also the greatest period of strong organized labor. The three-way relationship of government, business, and labor at that time has been called an IRON TRIANGLE, in which each element had great power and commanded great respect from each of the other two. It reminds me of the three branches of government, and the checks and balances the executive, the legislative and the judiciary wield over each other. The weakening of the labor movement, as well as the pressure to de-regulate have compromised the Iron Triangle, and created a situation which is undemocratic and economically lopsided. Some will prosper in such a situation, but general prosperity and fairness are made highly improbable.
What is to be done? I had always been taken with the ideas of the Industrial Workers of the World, the I.W.W. Their big idea was that there should be ONE BIG UNION; that all workers should have the backs of all other workers, not simply those with whom they shared a common trade. I wasn't sure if the IWW (nicknamed the "wobblies" back in the day) were still around, but emphatically, yes, they are: http://www.iww.org/ So my current plan is to join this union. I hope to find a local group here in Seattle, but no luck thus far. If it comes down to it, I'll join online. In the meantime I encourage all of you to read the information at the IWW site, and to join also, if that feels right to you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)