The "selfish" parent debate has certainly taken off. Good to see Lindsay on here. I'm a bit concerned that typing "workplace democracy" into Google will bring up my little blog. Back in my activist days, at places like the Socialist Scholars' Conference in NYC, that term was thrown around a lot. We'll do a merry jig to that subject later. Right now, a note about selfish parenting.
Methinks we have a difference of opinion based on a semantic misunderstanding. When I used the word "selfish" I meant it as the great philosopher Hobbes might have meant it; to describe the motivation of most human activity. It's not a negative or positive judgement, it's just a description of movitation. And as I said before, the motive for having children is about personal desire.
There is a negative connotation to the word "selfish" and unfortunately that may have muddied the waters here. As Lindsay mentioned, there is an urge to procreate. Libido motivates sexual desire and probably activity, but sexual urges can be satisfied via, well, sex. With yourself or countless others. Libido is satisfied via fucking. But the urge to procreate transcends all that. That's part of the problem. People feel almost spiritually compelled to make children. The question is why?
And I maintain that the answer is selfish. People overcome natural "urges" all the time. As rational beings we have the ability to carefully consider our behavior and not be governed by instinct. So if you are making children, the answer "instinct" isn't an adequate answer. You're not a woodchuck. People have kids because of the reasons AC gave, and more. But it all comes down to something you want, and the wants of others are irrelevent. That makes it selfish.
As I mentioned, I sincerely don't mean to attach any negative currency to the meaning of the word "selfish." I simply meant that people have kids because they want to have children. There's nothing bad about it, but there is nothing noble, either. It just is. AC makes a valid point about the possible NEGATIVE selfish aspect of having a baby in a world with literally millions of orphans.
Just for the record, and just to make it clear that I'm really not a prick, I think parenthood is the most difficult undertaking a responsible human being can...undertake.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Chewin' On The Cud With Apocalypse Cow
Apocalypse Cow wrote a substantial comment to my last post, for which I thank him. Contrary to what he thinks, it won't end up "sparking a big debate" (unfortunately) between us. I'm not a Utopian Socialist, and the corruption of which he speaks is impossible to avoid. I just want to make a couple of points, and I hope they make sense. I took one too many tramadol, and the room is spinning a bit. If it spins a lot, ala Dorothy's house, I'll take a powder and return to the post later.
Equality is both impossible to achieve and, most of the time, undesirable. What I seek is class consciousness that will give the laborers of the world the intellectual foundation for international unionization. Unions exist primarily to collective bargain, and that is the heart of the whole concept of socialism, at least as it has evolved. One worker alone is nothing, but united they are a force greater than any cabal, corporation or capitalist institution. Anyone with a brother knows that there will be fighting and disagreements, but the key ideal here is to stand together to overcome wage slavery and tyranny.
And that has happened, again and again, in the real world. The impact of unions is still seen in the workplace. But if you'll allow me to skip ahead a bit, my problem is with capitalism. And there are many ways to deal with it. First, let me quickly justify my hatred of capitalism.
Capitalism is a messy term to define. For brevity's sake, I'll stick to corporations, which represent a major institutions and a functioning mechanism that is critical to capitalism. A corporation has a single goal above all others; to make a profit. That puts corporations at odds with the rest of society. Whether the corporation is public or private, it doesn't matter, it exists to make a profit for the owners/investors. Without regulation, corporations will do absolutely anything if it means making money. Without corporate regulation there are no corporate ethics, as ethics are tied to regulation. I don't know if you buy that or not, but here is a short list of things unregulated corporations have done:
Hire and take advantage of children, pollute without restraint, ignore safety needs in the workplace, pay next to nothing, callously manipulate legislation, and price fix with other corporations.
That list goes on and on, but you get the point. I don't believe in evil, and that people are evil, but corporations may as well be. They are the enemy of anyone who can't afford to or is disinclined to buy stock or buy the company outright. Check out the movie The Corporation to get the whole schpiel. I'm trying not to bore people too much, here. My point, however, is that individuals in a company are just people trying to live well and are usually decent. Put them together in a corporation, however, and they can do unspeakably nasty things to the world and the people living in it.
So then the big question is what to do about these corporations? You can regulate them, ala the New Deal and the social democracies of Western Europe. Or you can destroy them and replace them with "state capitalism" like the Soviet Union. Just for the record, China is a sort of hybrid that has combined "free trade zones" inside a Communist/military state. Socialists talk about a "third way" that combines a democracy with strong civil liberties with something called "workplace democracy." That's basically forcing corporations to accept a union structure via elected workers' committees. It's worth mentioning that in political science terms, you can't have socialism without democracy. By definition, socialists are pro-democratic. That's one reason that Hitler rounded up the socialists even before he got to the Jews; politically, they were a threat to his desire for absolute control. Ironically, "national socialism" was strongly pro-capitalist and industrialist. They called themselves "socialists" because socialism was popular among the German people at the time.
Class equality is a straw man. The key is class-consciousness. In this country, the working class has a tendency towards self-loathing. Feeling like a failure for being poor or even middle class is a distinctly American pathology. Corruption in trade unions is recognized and most people take the attitude that it is an unacceptable price to pay for the right to collective bargain. Strangely, corporate malfeasance is seen as just the way things are, and accepted. Closer inspection reveals the cause for this, and it has to do with self-loathing among an entire class of people.
There is no big argument, though, because we fundamentally agree as best as I can see. We agree that total equality is impossible, and possibly undesirable (lumpen proletariat). But greater equality is very possible by doing two simple things:
1. Public ownership and regulation of non-profit corporations aimed at utilities and those services deemed too important for the game of profit-seeking; national health insurance, car insurance, flood insurance (insurance of any kind), airlines, oil and gas companies, utilities.
2. For the private businesses that are left, we have the aforementioned institutionalized unions and very strong regulation.
That's all it would take to level the playing field a great deal and increase the quality of life dramatically. Capitalists, still left in a limited capacity, will still try to subvert democracy (as they do now in countless ways, just look at the Bankruptcy Bill passed a couple of summers ago). Seeking total equality is like hunting ghosts, but my humble demands will go a long way to making a better country and world.
One last point, about the term survival of the fittest. I'd be remiss if I didn't say that that is a reference to procreation. The fitness of an organism is defined by it's ability to produce viable offspring. So the innate survival instinct to which you refer isn't akin to a general desire to procreate. The instinct itself IS (generally speaking) the desire to procreate, or rather the vague compulsion. Having children is a selfish act, an act people engage in less when there is no abject poverty and a high standard of living. Birth rates are lowest in places where the quality of life is highest; W. European and Scandinavian countries.
My only point there is that "instincts" can be impacted by economics and social engineering for greater general welfare. It's ironic that you chose an example of human behavior that can be affected by socio-economic policy to make the point that human animals can't be deterred in their instinctual compulsions. Another way to say it is that greed is not part of our DNA, at least to the degree that we encourage and cultivate it in our current world economy. Aspects of our natural inclinations can be embraced. They can also be measurably reduced by a society that has the right value system.
In conclusion, my goal is to reduce inequality, celebrate class warfare to increase class consciousness, and strategically undermine the goals of corporate capitalism via unions, a free press, free elections, and general hell-raising. But we do agree that there is no Utopia, and total equality is impossible.
When it comes to scholarly matters, I'm downright elitist. The people behind Wikipedia have more faith in the academic wisdom of the masses than I do. And these days, in addition to being an existential nihilist and a meta-ethical relativist, I'm insanely negative about what is going to happen in the future. My ideals are attainable, but they won't be attained in my lifetime, or probably for 1,000 years, if ever. My only point here is that what I want is possible, and with the same DNA we have now.
Equality is both impossible to achieve and, most of the time, undesirable. What I seek is class consciousness that will give the laborers of the world the intellectual foundation for international unionization. Unions exist primarily to collective bargain, and that is the heart of the whole concept of socialism, at least as it has evolved. One worker alone is nothing, but united they are a force greater than any cabal, corporation or capitalist institution. Anyone with a brother knows that there will be fighting and disagreements, but the key ideal here is to stand together to overcome wage slavery and tyranny.
And that has happened, again and again, in the real world. The impact of unions is still seen in the workplace. But if you'll allow me to skip ahead a bit, my problem is with capitalism. And there are many ways to deal with it. First, let me quickly justify my hatred of capitalism.
Capitalism is a messy term to define. For brevity's sake, I'll stick to corporations, which represent a major institutions and a functioning mechanism that is critical to capitalism. A corporation has a single goal above all others; to make a profit. That puts corporations at odds with the rest of society. Whether the corporation is public or private, it doesn't matter, it exists to make a profit for the owners/investors. Without regulation, corporations will do absolutely anything if it means making money. Without corporate regulation there are no corporate ethics, as ethics are tied to regulation. I don't know if you buy that or not, but here is a short list of things unregulated corporations have done:
Hire and take advantage of children, pollute without restraint, ignore safety needs in the workplace, pay next to nothing, callously manipulate legislation, and price fix with other corporations.
That list goes on and on, but you get the point. I don't believe in evil, and that people are evil, but corporations may as well be. They are the enemy of anyone who can't afford to or is disinclined to buy stock or buy the company outright. Check out the movie The Corporation to get the whole schpiel. I'm trying not to bore people too much, here. My point, however, is that individuals in a company are just people trying to live well and are usually decent. Put them together in a corporation, however, and they can do unspeakably nasty things to the world and the people living in it.
So then the big question is what to do about these corporations? You can regulate them, ala the New Deal and the social democracies of Western Europe. Or you can destroy them and replace them with "state capitalism" like the Soviet Union. Just for the record, China is a sort of hybrid that has combined "free trade zones" inside a Communist/military state. Socialists talk about a "third way" that combines a democracy with strong civil liberties with something called "workplace democracy." That's basically forcing corporations to accept a union structure via elected workers' committees. It's worth mentioning that in political science terms, you can't have socialism without democracy. By definition, socialists are pro-democratic. That's one reason that Hitler rounded up the socialists even before he got to the Jews; politically, they were a threat to his desire for absolute control. Ironically, "national socialism" was strongly pro-capitalist and industrialist. They called themselves "socialists" because socialism was popular among the German people at the time.
Class equality is a straw man. The key is class-consciousness. In this country, the working class has a tendency towards self-loathing. Feeling like a failure for being poor or even middle class is a distinctly American pathology. Corruption in trade unions is recognized and most people take the attitude that it is an unacceptable price to pay for the right to collective bargain. Strangely, corporate malfeasance is seen as just the way things are, and accepted. Closer inspection reveals the cause for this, and it has to do with self-loathing among an entire class of people.
There is no big argument, though, because we fundamentally agree as best as I can see. We agree that total equality is impossible, and possibly undesirable (lumpen proletariat). But greater equality is very possible by doing two simple things:
1. Public ownership and regulation of non-profit corporations aimed at utilities and those services deemed too important for the game of profit-seeking; national health insurance, car insurance, flood insurance (insurance of any kind), airlines, oil and gas companies, utilities.
2. For the private businesses that are left, we have the aforementioned institutionalized unions and very strong regulation.
That's all it would take to level the playing field a great deal and increase the quality of life dramatically. Capitalists, still left in a limited capacity, will still try to subvert democracy (as they do now in countless ways, just look at the Bankruptcy Bill passed a couple of summers ago). Seeking total equality is like hunting ghosts, but my humble demands will go a long way to making a better country and world.
One last point, about the term survival of the fittest. I'd be remiss if I didn't say that that is a reference to procreation. The fitness of an organism is defined by it's ability to produce viable offspring. So the innate survival instinct to which you refer isn't akin to a general desire to procreate. The instinct itself IS (generally speaking) the desire to procreate, or rather the vague compulsion. Having children is a selfish act, an act people engage in less when there is no abject poverty and a high standard of living. Birth rates are lowest in places where the quality of life is highest; W. European and Scandinavian countries.
My only point there is that "instincts" can be impacted by economics and social engineering for greater general welfare. It's ironic that you chose an example of human behavior that can be affected by socio-economic policy to make the point that human animals can't be deterred in their instinctual compulsions. Another way to say it is that greed is not part of our DNA, at least to the degree that we encourage and cultivate it in our current world economy. Aspects of our natural inclinations can be embraced. They can also be measurably reduced by a society that has the right value system.
In conclusion, my goal is to reduce inequality, celebrate class warfare to increase class consciousness, and strategically undermine the goals of corporate capitalism via unions, a free press, free elections, and general hell-raising. But we do agree that there is no Utopia, and total equality is impossible.
When it comes to scholarly matters, I'm downright elitist. The people behind Wikipedia have more faith in the academic wisdom of the masses than I do. And these days, in addition to being an existential nihilist and a meta-ethical relativist, I'm insanely negative about what is going to happen in the future. My ideals are attainable, but they won't be attained in my lifetime, or probably for 1,000 years, if ever. My only point here is that what I want is possible, and with the same DNA we have now.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Of Murray, Reds And The Internationale
One of the most profound and deeply moving scenes in movie history, as far as I'm concerned, is in The Cradle Will Rock, written and directed by Tim Robbins. The movie makes no apologies for being unabashadly left-wing, and the writing occasionally swings close to being sentimental and even maudlin. But it never makes the mistake of being either. Robbins is just carefully (and masterfully) pressing the right buttons, like he does along with Morgan Freeman as an actor in The Shawshank Redemption. And Cradle has a real sharp edge, which Robbins uses to slash playfully at "wealthy Communists" and "Jewish Fascists," and more seriously to stab at capitalism and the ruling class. The funeral at the end, featuring Murray's damaged dummy (symbolizing Crickshaw's dead youthful idealism, as he was a Communist in his youth) is a perfect end to the film. As the procession of clowns, actors, and entertainers of all sorts carry the "corpse" into modern day Times Square. Just in case you were deluded into thinking that things are fundamentally any different today.The scene I'm writing about has washed-up ventriliquist Crickshaw (Bill Murray) essentially confronting his younger self on stage. The "young Crickshaw" sarcastically calls himself "comrade" and ends up singing The Internationale. The emotional power of this scene is even stronger for those of us who actually do believe, or did, in the dream of class-consciousness and a united human race. One Big Union and all that (any Wobblies' out there?).It's too bad that the Soviet Union officially embraced The Internationale as an anthem. It doesn't belong to any state. But that's another story. I've sung The Internationale countless times over the years, at conferences, meeting and conventions among socialists, communists, and fellow-travelers. In Milwaukee, I think it was, I heard a Cuban opera singer lead in the singing of it. In Chicago, I heard it sung for the first time by more than a handful of people. Apparently, I'm a very emotional person, and almost every time I've sang it with a group I've gotten teary-eyed, or wept outright. Pathetic or not, good or bad, it's the truth.
Here are the words to The Internationale. Bob Seeger has a good version, but ironically I'd have to pay to download it. There's also a fantastic documentary about the song, which I highly recommend, for what that's worth.
The Internationale (Translated into English)
Arise ye workers from your slumbers
Arise ye criminals of want
For reason in revolt now thunders
and at last ends the age of cant.
Now away with all your superstitions
Servile masses arise, arise!
We'll change forthwith the old conditions
And spurn the dust to win the prize.
CHORUS
Then come comrades rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale
Unites the human race.
We peasants, artisans and others,
Enrolled amongst the sons of toil
Let's claim the earth henceforth for brothers
Drive the indolent from the soil.
On our flesh for too long has fed the raven
We've too long been the vultures prey.
But now farewell to spirit craven
The dawn brings in a brighter day.
CHORUS
No saviour from on high delivers
No trust we have in prince or peer
Our own right hand the chains must shiver
Chains of hatred, greed and fear.
Ere the thieves will out with their booty
And to all give a happier lot.
Each at his forge must do his duty
And strike the iron while its hot.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Is This Email Telling Me Something?
It's bad enough that last week I looked up and saw a huge black vulture perched above me in a tree; in Massachusetts, no less. Now I get this cryptic email that almost jarred my brain into a seizure. Like a Japanese kids' show but more sinister and weird, if that's possible. I know some of what happened. Random paragraphs of the English language find their way into email advertisements, to help get past "spam" filters. Fair enough. But how about something out of Faulkner, or the minutes from a meeting of the June, 1883 Board of Health, Lunacy and Charity (which really did exist). Shit, anything else, except a Bible verse, perhaps, would be fine. Naturally, it was a cheap drug/Viagra ad. Cheap drugs and boners. Anyway, here's the email:"Unaccustomed herself to the surprise of finding her divorce unopposed,
Americans have been to Mount Vernon and Gettysburg?
at Antietam and at Gettysburg, but the Union army never thought of
Accurate and murderous they seem when you drop low behind a
against a man by one who has power over him. The personal
An hour passed and all were not by. One sat down for a few minutes
afterward put it, a mere stick to hang clothes on (but they _did_
as the ticks of a clock made almost no smoke, as they brought some
about gunnery; which is one reason for writing this chapter.
are always making reports. Everybody is, so that whoever is superior
Apparently, when the French fought they left red tape behind with the
afterward put it, a mere stick to hang clothes on (but they _did_
as he put faith and backbone into a soldier by their very manner; and
a town of brick and mortar and pavements whose very defencelessness
approached one noted an eagerness, a tightening of nerves. Natural
another one hundred and fifty yards away and fire a rifle occasionally
A vice-admiral at forty-four! A man who is a rear-admiral with us at
army he represents stand for. The blows which the demons from the..."
Broken Down, Break Down, Will Break Down
Yesterday I had what used to be called a nervous breakdown. I'm disinclined to tell the story, but I felt myself walk to the edge, and consider it. Apparently, I walked back. Tennessee Williams once wrote, in Night of the Iguana, that, "acceptance of life is the first requisite for living it." It's certainly necessary for living it well. I'm undecided about the inherent value of my life, so when the blue demon comes calling (also from that play) I run to the boundary between life and death and consider crossing it. It's so easy to do, life is fragile. One has tall buildings, guns (hard to come by in my circle of friends), poisons, gases, and what not. It reminds me of a great little poem by Dorothy Parker, which I'm sure most of you will recognize:
Were I alone, my little wild-eyed rants and distant excursions from myself, or maybe to myself, would fall harmlessly. Like that tree in the forest, nobody would hear it, or care. Unfortunately (for them), some people do care about me. Some are friends, some are family, one is my lover and partner. One of the things that contribute greatly to the discord in my life is my desire on one hand to be loved, and my desire to be dead and away from the emotional disaster that is my mind on the other. And perhaps the chemical cocktail in my brain. Although I don't want to blame that. The fault has to lie with me, no excuses.
Yesterday, when I moved to the line and didn't cross it I was as deeply insane as when I was hospitalized almost 7 years ago. Not depressed, like when I decided to undergo ECT, but sort of making a spectacle as I left the room, as it were. If I'm going to off myself, I wish I would do it. Along the same line, if I'm going to accept life and live it, I wish I'd do that, too. I'm a fence-sitter on the issue of the value of living. That makes me a pain in the ass, a jerk, a milquetoast, and a weak and pathetic human being.
Why do I lash out and hurt those around me? I've given that question a lot of thought over the years. Ironically, I'm only hurting those who love me because they nearby. And they are nearby because they love me. So they feel the Wrath of the Poor Idiot while complete strangers do not. Nor do my enemies. It's a sad state of affairs. The wall suffered, too, when I punched a hole in it. I mention that out of a bizarre and unfortunate feeling of pride over having been strong enough to punch a hole in a wall.
I hope the young lady who writes Fia Fatal (among other things) overcomes her writers' block. I'll never be an author because the pressure of a deadline, or even just the need to write to make a living, is too much. It leads to a spiral downward that leads to wall-punching and loved-one upsetting, like any attempt to become a person of consequence.
Razors pain you;The name of that poem is Enough Rope, and was published, I think, in The New Yorker back in the 1920's. I'm not going to look it up online, as that goes against some kind of misguided romantic notion I have about writing from the mind, or something.
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live.
Were I alone, my little wild-eyed rants and distant excursions from myself, or maybe to myself, would fall harmlessly. Like that tree in the forest, nobody would hear it, or care. Unfortunately (for them), some people do care about me. Some are friends, some are family, one is my lover and partner. One of the things that contribute greatly to the discord in my life is my desire on one hand to be loved, and my desire to be dead and away from the emotional disaster that is my mind on the other. And perhaps the chemical cocktail in my brain. Although I don't want to blame that. The fault has to lie with me, no excuses.
Yesterday, when I moved to the line and didn't cross it I was as deeply insane as when I was hospitalized almost 7 years ago. Not depressed, like when I decided to undergo ECT, but sort of making a spectacle as I left the room, as it were. If I'm going to off myself, I wish I would do it. Along the same line, if I'm going to accept life and live it, I wish I'd do that, too. I'm a fence-sitter on the issue of the value of living. That makes me a pain in the ass, a jerk, a milquetoast, and a weak and pathetic human being.
Why do I lash out and hurt those around me? I've given that question a lot of thought over the years. Ironically, I'm only hurting those who love me because they nearby. And they are nearby because they love me. So they feel the Wrath of the Poor Idiot while complete strangers do not. Nor do my enemies. It's a sad state of affairs. The wall suffered, too, when I punched a hole in it. I mention that out of a bizarre and unfortunate feeling of pride over having been strong enough to punch a hole in a wall.
I hope the young lady who writes Fia Fatal (among other things) overcomes her writers' block. I'll never be an author because the pressure of a deadline, or even just the need to write to make a living, is too much. It leads to a spiral downward that leads to wall-punching and loved-one upsetting, like any attempt to become a person of consequence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)