I read and article about Scotland's wish for more independence. It can be found here.
The article essentially said that U.K. politicians want Scotland to vote against independence but in return will grant Scotland more power.
This could either be a move on Scotland's part towards true independence or towards the institution of a more federal system in the U.K. If Scotland were to become independent, I'm curious how the U.K. and Scotland will handle the surely difficult adjustment.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Gay Cows
I read an article about Ugandan First Lady Janet Museveni's recent statement in support of their new anti-homosexual legislation. She said, "If cows do not practice homosexuality, how could we the human beings start arguing over homosexuality?"
This made me giggle. First off, homosexuality has been observed in many different species of animals. Here's a link.
Second off, even if no animals were homosexual that does not mean that therefore homosexuality is evil or bad. This is a non sequitur.
This made me giggle. First off, homosexuality has been observed in many different species of animals. Here's a link.
Second off, even if no animals were homosexual that does not mean that therefore homosexuality is evil or bad. This is a non sequitur.
America's Solipsistic Foreign Policy
I read an article, found here, detailing Putin's defense for the Crimea situation. Also, Putin takes this chance to attack the west and more specifically the U.S. for themselves not obeying international law.
I will use this post to perhaps clarify my position, as I have posted on alot of blogs on this topic.
First off, for me, things are right or wrong, just or unjust, only if you consciously decide by what norms you are going to judge them by. For justice to exist at all, it may only exist ad hoc for a particular norm which one has installed, which one has synthesized. Essentially, there is no justice incarnate, to quote Michel Foucault, "in a classless society, there would be no just or unjust."
On to the actual topic.
Russia declares that Russia is perfectly right in its acquisition of Crimea. Furthermore, it says that this was done so democratically and peacefully. For the most part, so far, this is true. "Democrat" means domination of the people and so the vote that took place in Crimea, in which an overwhelming majority voted to join Russia (even if a large portion of the vote was faked, as it likely was, most Crimeans still want to join Russia), was indeed democratic. As for peaceful, only one soldier died in the take-over, so it was relatively peaceful as far as take-overs go.
Russia also accuses the U.S. of disregarding, or perhaps not even being aware of international law. Russia uses a couple of examples, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Serbia, to make its point.
There is much more truth to this.
The Age of Imperialism supposedly ended after World War II ended, with the last European colonies gaining independence in the 70's. However, now has dawned a new age of Imperialism; it is now the time of uncontested American Imperialism. While we make no permanent land gains, as the value that once made that profitable is now obsolete, nevertheless the U.S. continues to flex its imperial muscles throughout the globe.
Iraq was fought for the oil that the country possesses. We invaded a sovereign country (albeit, it was lead by a tyrant) for our own benefit. This sounds quite a bit like an Empire.
In Iran, when the Prime minister attempted to nationalize the oil industry in the fifties and thus he endangered American business interests, we supported a coup and installed a corrupt, overly-opulent Shah in his place. Thus, the people in Iran were incredibly angry and overthrew him a decade-and-a-half later. Though this particular time backfired, we acted only in our own self-interest.
In Afghanistan in the 1980's, in an attempt to halt the Soviet advance, we armed what would eventually become the Taliban with everything from rifles to Stinger missiles.
The only major reason the west got involved in Libya was because of oil.
In the 1980's, the U.S. supported the regime in Cambodia that eventually killed a third of its own people. The sole reason for our support was because Cambodia was not friendly with China and Russia.
The U.S. is the country which most often vetoes resolutions on the UN Security Council.
It seems the U.S. is by-far the most solipsistic, spurious, and specious country on the international stage. It is only we who declare to be a staunch defender of human rights everywhere and then support a ruthless dictator; only we fiercely defend the idea of sovereignty, yet have almost continuously been involved in the destruction another nation's sovereignty; only we have the balls to be the same nation that piously propagated the Monroe Doctrine of anti-Imperialism that also remains the last and strongest imperial power to date.
Hence, Russia sees the supposed leader of the free and democratic world behave in a manner as such and thinks it wants to behave as such as well. It is only behaving by the norms that we ourselves have set, synthesized, and forced upon the world. The U.S. can invade other countries at-a-whim, so why can Russia not?
I will use this post to perhaps clarify my position, as I have posted on alot of blogs on this topic.
First off, for me, things are right or wrong, just or unjust, only if you consciously decide by what norms you are going to judge them by. For justice to exist at all, it may only exist ad hoc for a particular norm which one has installed, which one has synthesized. Essentially, there is no justice incarnate, to quote Michel Foucault, "in a classless society, there would be no just or unjust."
On to the actual topic.
Russia declares that Russia is perfectly right in its acquisition of Crimea. Furthermore, it says that this was done so democratically and peacefully. For the most part, so far, this is true. "Democrat" means domination of the people and so the vote that took place in Crimea, in which an overwhelming majority voted to join Russia (even if a large portion of the vote was faked, as it likely was, most Crimeans still want to join Russia), was indeed democratic. As for peaceful, only one soldier died in the take-over, so it was relatively peaceful as far as take-overs go.
Russia also accuses the U.S. of disregarding, or perhaps not even being aware of international law. Russia uses a couple of examples, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Serbia, to make its point.
There is much more truth to this.
The Age of Imperialism supposedly ended after World War II ended, with the last European colonies gaining independence in the 70's. However, now has dawned a new age of Imperialism; it is now the time of uncontested American Imperialism. While we make no permanent land gains, as the value that once made that profitable is now obsolete, nevertheless the U.S. continues to flex its imperial muscles throughout the globe.
Iraq was fought for the oil that the country possesses. We invaded a sovereign country (albeit, it was lead by a tyrant) for our own benefit. This sounds quite a bit like an Empire.
In Iran, when the Prime minister attempted to nationalize the oil industry in the fifties and thus he endangered American business interests, we supported a coup and installed a corrupt, overly-opulent Shah in his place. Thus, the people in Iran were incredibly angry and overthrew him a decade-and-a-half later. Though this particular time backfired, we acted only in our own self-interest.
In Afghanistan in the 1980's, in an attempt to halt the Soviet advance, we armed what would eventually become the Taliban with everything from rifles to Stinger missiles.
The only major reason the west got involved in Libya was because of oil.
In the 1980's, the U.S. supported the regime in Cambodia that eventually killed a third of its own people. The sole reason for our support was because Cambodia was not friendly with China and Russia.
The U.S. is the country which most often vetoes resolutions on the UN Security Council.
It seems the U.S. is by-far the most solipsistic, spurious, and specious country on the international stage. It is only we who declare to be a staunch defender of human rights everywhere and then support a ruthless dictator; only we fiercely defend the idea of sovereignty, yet have almost continuously been involved in the destruction another nation's sovereignty; only we have the balls to be the same nation that piously propagated the Monroe Doctrine of anti-Imperialism that also remains the last and strongest imperial power to date.
Hence, Russia sees the supposed leader of the free and democratic world behave in a manner as such and thinks it wants to behave as such as well. It is only behaving by the norms that we ourselves have set, synthesized, and forced upon the world. The U.S. can invade other countries at-a-whim, so why can Russia not?
Saturday, March 1, 2014
The Bias of the Western Media: A Polemic
I read a slew of articles from multiple sources detailing the current civil unrest that is occurring in Venezuela. The first one, from "The Guardian," details how opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez is currently detained and awaiting trial for the crimes of criminal incitement and arson. President Maduro also apparently (and quite appropriately) called him a fascist. This one, written by an apologist in the "Huffington Post," juxtaposes the mainstream American media's interpretation of the unrest with the actuality of the situation. This one details the bias of the actual opposition by their use of faked photos. This one, details the political and economic sorrow in Venezuela from a balanced perspective. And finally, this one is a summary of Wikileaks documents detailing the rise of opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez and the U.S. government's desire to form a united opposition.
(1)History
First off, one should probably read up on the various Venezuelan politicians, most notable of which is definitely Hugo Chavez. I am just going to cover the basics with a focus on the U.S.'s involvement in Venezuela.
Chavez was elected in early 1999. He was elected legitimately and on a platform of centre-left social democracy. He began instituting social democratic policies and was incredibly popular especially among the poor. Throughout his presidency, Chavez become increasingly left. By the end of his presidency, Chavez had become quite the Marxist, though not in the 20th century, Leninist fashion; but rather an adapted version of modern times. Chavez liked to call it "Socialism in the 21st century."
In April of 2002, there was an attempted coup to oust Chavez in favor of a right-wing strongman. The coup was backed mostly by the elites and some members of the military complex, but most disturbingly, the coup was also backed by the United States, both our government and media. The day after the supposedly successful coup the "New York Times" even went as far to commend this undemocratic, Machiavellian, totalitarian power-grab. The U.S. government had prior knowledge to the coup and likely supported it when it was in its infancy. Three days after the start of the coup, the soldiers who were supposed to detain (and possibly kill) Chavez could not bear to kill their leader and refused to act. The coup thus failed due to Chavez' immense popularity with the soldiers and people.
Chavez' response was relatively moderate - there were no hangings like some in our media may lead you to believe. He readjusted some of his policies in order to satisfy some of the opposition including reappointing the former members of the board of directors at the state oil company which was a primary reason for the coup. He even appointed some of the coup plotters back to their former position.
When attempting to further nationalize the nation's oil reserves later that same year, Chavez faced what the Venezuelan media called a "general strike" by the nation's oil workers. However, it was primarily the managers, business leaders, and technical workers involved in the strike, essentially meaning that this so-called "general strike" was really an "elitist strike" dissatisfied with their diminished political power. The Chavez administration fired some of the strikers and filled their role with members of the military and unemployed. The strike then ended.
Hugo Chavez died in 2013 from Cancer. He was succeeded by Nicolas Maduro who was then Vice-President. Though not as popular as Chavez, Maduro narrowly won the election that occurred shortly after he assumed the presidency. The election was ranked fair by most (if not all) world-wide democracy and election ranking institutes. Maduro's main program thus far in his presidency has been the attempt to curve Venezuela's high crime rates. So-far, they have been moderately successful.
(2)Analysis
It should be noted that it is facetious and extremely misleading to call President Maduro the "bus driver". While true he did in fact drive a bus in his younger and more vulnerable years, he has been in politics since the early 80s and helped start the party that got Chavez elected in the first place. He was also the Foreign Minister from 2006-2013 and the Vice President 2012-2013. Calling Maduro the "bus driver" or "Chavez' bus driver" would be like calling any of our past three presidents the "pot-smoker" simply because they smoked pot in their youth. Plus, why is it even a bad thing for the president of a country to be a former bus driver? Does that not embody the "American Dream" better than we ourselves embody it? Instead of addressing the intelligence of the actor and the effectiveness of his policies, calling him the "bus driver" simply caricatures him and-in-so-doing disregards the complexity of the situation. It fails to even address the situation.
Within Venezuelan media there is a prevalent trend to consistently attack Chavez' reforms regardless of the actual substance of the specific reform. The amount of vitriol in the Venezuelan media towards anything Chavez only does the country a deep disservice. Instead of reporting on the news, the news actively conspires against the government, and they use their affluence to fund and promote opposition leaders and organization. After all, the opposition controls most of the wealth in Venezuela. The bias can be shown by what the opposition called the select strike in 2002: a "general strike." The media in Venezuela fails to do the job that is assigned to it: provide adequate news to the Venezuelan people. Hence, the actual government - that is, not the government as the opposition would have believe them to be - is at a severe disadvantage. Much of the success of the socialist-inspired programs is dependent upon proper knowledge of that program by the Venezuelan people.
Despite the popular misconception concerning the Venezuelan government's involvement and censorship of the media, 95% of the Venezuelan media is privately owned, and a good chunk of them - easily a majority - are anti-Chavez/Maduro. By-enlarge, the Venezuelan media is owned or significantly influenced by business elites, wealthy landowners, and foreign corporate dogs, all of whom are tactically against Chavez' reforms for reasons characteristic of corrupt bourgeois slave-masters. It would be as-if 95% of the U.S. media were owned by Rupert Murdoch and geared toward producing the pre-packaged, reactionary, laissez-faire rhetoric that Fox News has become famous for.
The bias of the the Venezuelan media is mirrored in the west. A couple of weeks ago, NPR gave a glowing report on the potential for a violent regime change in Venezuela. This only encourages people in the west to be unnecessarily critical of the Venezuelan regime. Which in turn, causes the western governments to become even more anti-Venezuela. Which then causes the Venezuelan government to reciprocate that distrust and hate, only leading to a vicious cycle of self-reinforcing misinformation and vitriol.
The Venezuelan media has become somewhat more moderate (it is still extremely vitriolic towards Maduro though) since the first coup in 2002. Most stations no longer actively promote violence like they did before the 2002 coup. However, due to the calming-down of the most of the Venezuelan media towards a more acceptable form of opposition, there has recently been a split within the opposition regarding the most appropriate way to fight Maduro. The less-extreme wing still opposes Maduro but wishes to see more unity and less polarization in Venezuelan politics. They are headed by Capriles. The more-extreme wing of the opposition is headed by Leopoldo Lopez and promotes the use of violence against the Maduro government.
Normally some civil disobedience does not bother me, regardless of where it is coming from. However, the kind of violence that Lopez and his supporters promote is abhorrent. It is categorically different than the kind of disobedience and violence I would normally support. Lopez' supporters not only attack government officials and police and military officers (which is fine), but they also attack workers in public transportation, physicians imported from Cuba to assist in the healthcare system in poor neighborhoods, university students who attend because of a Chavez' program, and other works, programs, and officials who are there to benefit the poor. The assault on the poor, those who ought to be assaulted the least, is what causes me to value the violent opposition as the pernicious monster that it is.
The usually middle to upper class protesters are only protesting to support themselves financially. They have no wish for a more equal Venezuela, because if they did, they would support Maduro or perhaps the less-extreme opposition. Thus, what we now have in Venezuela is not, like the western media would lead you to believe, a mass protest from people of all walks of life against the oppressive and violent Maduro regime; but rather a select class of bourgeois conservative reactionaries intent on violently converting the socialism of Maduro to the liberal policies akin to the Gilded Age in America. The conversion would cause the economic inequality of Venezuela, which has significantly declined in recent years, to reverse. It would stratify the already stratified classes even further.
.
(1)History
First off, one should probably read up on the various Venezuelan politicians, most notable of which is definitely Hugo Chavez. I am just going to cover the basics with a focus on the U.S.'s involvement in Venezuela.
Chavez was elected in early 1999. He was elected legitimately and on a platform of centre-left social democracy. He began instituting social democratic policies and was incredibly popular especially among the poor. Throughout his presidency, Chavez become increasingly left. By the end of his presidency, Chavez had become quite the Marxist, though not in the 20th century, Leninist fashion; but rather an adapted version of modern times. Chavez liked to call it "Socialism in the 21st century."
In April of 2002, there was an attempted coup to oust Chavez in favor of a right-wing strongman. The coup was backed mostly by the elites and some members of the military complex, but most disturbingly, the coup was also backed by the United States, both our government and media. The day after the supposedly successful coup the "New York Times" even went as far to commend this undemocratic, Machiavellian, totalitarian power-grab. The U.S. government had prior knowledge to the coup and likely supported it when it was in its infancy. Three days after the start of the coup, the soldiers who were supposed to detain (and possibly kill) Chavez could not bear to kill their leader and refused to act. The coup thus failed due to Chavez' immense popularity with the soldiers and people.
Chavez' response was relatively moderate - there were no hangings like some in our media may lead you to believe. He readjusted some of his policies in order to satisfy some of the opposition including reappointing the former members of the board of directors at the state oil company which was a primary reason for the coup. He even appointed some of the coup plotters back to their former position.
When attempting to further nationalize the nation's oil reserves later that same year, Chavez faced what the Venezuelan media called a "general strike" by the nation's oil workers. However, it was primarily the managers, business leaders, and technical workers involved in the strike, essentially meaning that this so-called "general strike" was really an "elitist strike" dissatisfied with their diminished political power. The Chavez administration fired some of the strikers and filled their role with members of the military and unemployed. The strike then ended.
Hugo Chavez died in 2013 from Cancer. He was succeeded by Nicolas Maduro who was then Vice-President. Though not as popular as Chavez, Maduro narrowly won the election that occurred shortly after he assumed the presidency. The election was ranked fair by most (if not all) world-wide democracy and election ranking institutes. Maduro's main program thus far in his presidency has been the attempt to curve Venezuela's high crime rates. So-far, they have been moderately successful.
(2)Analysis
It should be noted that it is facetious and extremely misleading to call President Maduro the "bus driver". While true he did in fact drive a bus in his younger and more vulnerable years, he has been in politics since the early 80s and helped start the party that got Chavez elected in the first place. He was also the Foreign Minister from 2006-2013 and the Vice President 2012-2013. Calling Maduro the "bus driver" or "Chavez' bus driver" would be like calling any of our past three presidents the "pot-smoker" simply because they smoked pot in their youth. Plus, why is it even a bad thing for the president of a country to be a former bus driver? Does that not embody the "American Dream" better than we ourselves embody it? Instead of addressing the intelligence of the actor and the effectiveness of his policies, calling him the "bus driver" simply caricatures him and-in-so-doing disregards the complexity of the situation. It fails to even address the situation.
Within Venezuelan media there is a prevalent trend to consistently attack Chavez' reforms regardless of the actual substance of the specific reform. The amount of vitriol in the Venezuelan media towards anything Chavez only does the country a deep disservice. Instead of reporting on the news, the news actively conspires against the government, and they use their affluence to fund and promote opposition leaders and organization. After all, the opposition controls most of the wealth in Venezuela. The bias can be shown by what the opposition called the select strike in 2002: a "general strike." The media in Venezuela fails to do the job that is assigned to it: provide adequate news to the Venezuelan people. Hence, the actual government - that is, not the government as the opposition would have believe them to be - is at a severe disadvantage. Much of the success of the socialist-inspired programs is dependent upon proper knowledge of that program by the Venezuelan people.
Despite the popular misconception concerning the Venezuelan government's involvement and censorship of the media, 95% of the Venezuelan media is privately owned, and a good chunk of them - easily a majority - are anti-Chavez/Maduro. By-enlarge, the Venezuelan media is owned or significantly influenced by business elites, wealthy landowners, and foreign corporate dogs, all of whom are tactically against Chavez' reforms for reasons characteristic of corrupt bourgeois slave-masters. It would be as-if 95% of the U.S. media were owned by Rupert Murdoch and geared toward producing the pre-packaged, reactionary, laissez-faire rhetoric that Fox News has become famous for.
The bias of the the Venezuelan media is mirrored in the west. A couple of weeks ago, NPR gave a glowing report on the potential for a violent regime change in Venezuela. This only encourages people in the west to be unnecessarily critical of the Venezuelan regime. Which in turn, causes the western governments to become even more anti-Venezuela. Which then causes the Venezuelan government to reciprocate that distrust and hate, only leading to a vicious cycle of self-reinforcing misinformation and vitriol.
The Venezuelan media has become somewhat more moderate (it is still extremely vitriolic towards Maduro though) since the first coup in 2002. Most stations no longer actively promote violence like they did before the 2002 coup. However, due to the calming-down of the most of the Venezuelan media towards a more acceptable form of opposition, there has recently been a split within the opposition regarding the most appropriate way to fight Maduro. The less-extreme wing still opposes Maduro but wishes to see more unity and less polarization in Venezuelan politics. They are headed by Capriles. The more-extreme wing of the opposition is headed by Leopoldo Lopez and promotes the use of violence against the Maduro government.
Normally some civil disobedience does not bother me, regardless of where it is coming from. However, the kind of violence that Lopez and his supporters promote is abhorrent. It is categorically different than the kind of disobedience and violence I would normally support. Lopez' supporters not only attack government officials and police and military officers (which is fine), but they also attack workers in public transportation, physicians imported from Cuba to assist in the healthcare system in poor neighborhoods, university students who attend because of a Chavez' program, and other works, programs, and officials who are there to benefit the poor. The assault on the poor, those who ought to be assaulted the least, is what causes me to value the violent opposition as the pernicious monster that it is.
The usually middle to upper class protesters are only protesting to support themselves financially. They have no wish for a more equal Venezuela, because if they did, they would support Maduro or perhaps the less-extreme opposition. Thus, what we now have in Venezuela is not, like the western media would lead you to believe, a mass protest from people of all walks of life against the oppressive and violent Maduro regime; but rather a select class of bourgeois conservative reactionaries intent on violently converting the socialism of Maduro to the liberal policies akin to the Gilded Age in America. The conversion would cause the economic inequality of Venezuela, which has significantly declined in recent years, to reverse. It would stratify the already stratified classes even further.
.
Saturday, February 22, 2014
The End of History Is Upon Us
I read an article about the demonstration of China's new found naval power. Specifically, it is about the Philippines anxiety concerning the aggression of the aforementioned power. A Filipino sought out the U.S. (unofficially) for reassurance if China were to occupy contested northern islands in the South Chinese Sea. The article can be found here.
China is attempting to strengthen its navy in order to compete with the all-powerful U.S. navy. The U.S., after-all, has the largest and strongest navy in the world. The ultimate plan is to be dominant in the Pacific and Indian oceans by the year 2040.
There seems to be two possible end goals at work here when it comes to the expansion of military power on the part of China: One, they may just want to be able to compete with the U.S. for the purposes of ensuring their own safety. In addition, that assurance would serve as a reinforcement of the Chinese sphere of influence; they would gain more dominance in the region. The capitalist countries of the world would remain safe and would still possess their unofficial leader.
Two and conversely, they wish to dominate the U.S. in order to jeopardize our own safety; in a way, in order to reverse the roles. They wish to become the dominate global superpower and threaten the sovereignty of other nations, install despotic regimes anywhere at-a-whim, and masquerade as a false arbiter of peace and justice just as the U.S. does now. With Chinese dominance so-too would Communism dominate; the anti-egalitarian, red spectre of Lenin would rise with a vengeance and spread everywhere perverted Marxist doctrines. The Cold War would have been "won" in vain.
Of the two, both seem like they are going to happen. Not meaning that they are both equally probable, but rather they are both going to happen simultaneously (that's right; I presented a false dichotomy on purpose).
First off, it is next-to-impossible for the world's capitalist, market orientated economy to tumble, and I mean this in a pejorative sense. The applicability of the Marxist revolution, the idea that is integral to Marx's thought, died at the moment of the Bolshevik Revolution, to quote Michel Foucault, "Marxism exists in 19th century thought like a fish in water: that is, unable to breathe anywhere else." This is not a condemnation of Marx, nor is it polemic against his work or an affirmation of Capitalism, but rather a pessimistic forecast of the bleak future.
Which leads to the next point: When China succeeds us as the preeminent super-power, as they likely will, they will do so with the full support of Capitalism at their back. Already, one can observe the Capitalization of China. They are moving toward a market economy.
So, back to the aforementioned point "one", they will expand militarily until they are satisfied with the size and security of their sphere of influence. Then the unofficial leader of the Capitalist world will remain, just as a different country: China. In a way, China will become a supporter of the West.
"Two" is perhaps more obvious. The spectre of Lenin would not rise, as China would no longer adhere to that faith; indeed it does not currently adhere to that faith. China will likely become the dominate super-power and fulfill every role associated thereof, but it will do so not purely militarily. It will become dominate by means of economic power.
Though it was hinted, it was never explicitly stated why the future likely is bleak.
There now exists no Other with which the West struggles against. This may be viewed as a positive thing, if one is completely satisfied with the situation the world is in now. However, any person with any concern at all towards others and with an open-eye towards the disparaged masses of the world ought not be even remotely satisfied. Without the Other, or the potentiality thereof, the exists no possible way to smash the chains of servitude that is global-market-capitalism.
The Other is the force working against a ubiquitous market-oriented global economy. In the past, this role was primarily fulfilled by the Soviet Union and Friends. Now, there is no force with enough power to compete with the global economy. Hence, the reason as to why there is no successful Other.
Without the Other to oppose it, the West - that is, the force promoting a ubiquitous market-oriented global economy - will surely reign supreme. The West will consolidate its already-tight stranglehold on the economies, and thus the citizens, of the world's countries. With its new established preeminence, the West will ascend into God-hood; we will exalt the West and to some degree we already have. This stranglehold will remain regardless of the petty wars, genocides, and economic panics that ensue down below, as the West is now above this plane; it has now been synergized and fetishized.
The bleakness of this future, if not already apparent, will be explained here: no more will there be earth-shattering events; no more Berlin Walls, Mongol Invasions, or Enlightenments. History, as the study of meaningful events in our past, is dead. There is no longer any meaningful events that can happen. We are stuck.
Moreover, this does not mean an end to violence, genocides, and other calamities that are widely considered atrocities. It means the meaning - the reason, that which gave these a shred of value - behind these atrocities is dead. Indeed violence will remain, just in an arbitrary pointless form.
The reason for the dissymmetry between the words "Other" and "West" is due to the force that will - and indeed has - try to take up the mantel of the U.S.S.R. This force is not Russia or China, the EU, or a yet-unnamed global-superpower candidate, but rather the various militant insurgents, secular or otherwise, that will attempt to harm and destroy the West. Essentially, an force that opposes that of the West is the Other; the Other is defined as not-West.
The insurgency cannot succeed. They are disunited and have no means by which to exaltify (exalt) an ideology to compete with the West. In order to pose a threat, it requires there to be two (or more) ideologies on the same level. Insurgents do not posses the ability to fetishize and synergize their respective ideological forces enough. Hence they cannot compete.
Even Islamic extremism bows down before the might of the West. For example, Saudi Arabia has Gender Equality laws that make Iran look like San Francisco. If anywhere ought to have a strong resistance to the West in the form of Islamic extremism it is Saudi Arabia. But yet, Saudi Arabia is close - too close - to the West. The West trumps some of the most devout Islamic extremism in the world.
The ascension of the West does no mean the inevitable world-wide liberal democratic movement, quite the contrary. The countries which are already devout in their following of the West are getting more authoritarian, less democratic. Look at institutions like the N.S.A., or look at countries like the U.K., Russia, Germany, and the best example: the U.S. People will be, and are being, stripped of their meaningful ways to impact politics, and more importantly economics.
Even if people overthrew their own national government, it would matter not. The governments under the West are just that: under the West. The government is gone but its master remains.
With the reduction of the people's political power, their political-will will be vicariously channeled to reinforce the West, by buying things. People will express their sovereignty by choosing what to buy and how much to spend. We will live in an ever-more increasingly consumerist culture.
Any meaning that our lives once had is gone. With the destruction of progress and change there is no well from which to draw meaning into our lives. Our lives will be lived by buying things and by supporting the very thing that enslaves us.
In sum, it matters not whether China becomes the next big superpower, because they will become the embodiment of the force which we were previously the surrogate. Nothing meaningful will have changed. Moreover, nothing now can change because all other Others are scattered and weak, and any choice made from within the West results in the reinforcement of the West. So, it is the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
China is attempting to strengthen its navy in order to compete with the all-powerful U.S. navy. The U.S., after-all, has the largest and strongest navy in the world. The ultimate plan is to be dominant in the Pacific and Indian oceans by the year 2040.
There seems to be two possible end goals at work here when it comes to the expansion of military power on the part of China: One, they may just want to be able to compete with the U.S. for the purposes of ensuring their own safety. In addition, that assurance would serve as a reinforcement of the Chinese sphere of influence; they would gain more dominance in the region. The capitalist countries of the world would remain safe and would still possess their unofficial leader.
Two and conversely, they wish to dominate the U.S. in order to jeopardize our own safety; in a way, in order to reverse the roles. They wish to become the dominate global superpower and threaten the sovereignty of other nations, install despotic regimes anywhere at-a-whim, and masquerade as a false arbiter of peace and justice just as the U.S. does now. With Chinese dominance so-too would Communism dominate; the anti-egalitarian, red spectre of Lenin would rise with a vengeance and spread everywhere perverted Marxist doctrines. The Cold War would have been "won" in vain.
Of the two, both seem like they are going to happen. Not meaning that they are both equally probable, but rather they are both going to happen simultaneously (that's right; I presented a false dichotomy on purpose).
First off, it is next-to-impossible for the world's capitalist, market orientated economy to tumble, and I mean this in a pejorative sense. The applicability of the Marxist revolution, the idea that is integral to Marx's thought, died at the moment of the Bolshevik Revolution, to quote Michel Foucault, "Marxism exists in 19th century thought like a fish in water: that is, unable to breathe anywhere else." This is not a condemnation of Marx, nor is it polemic against his work or an affirmation of Capitalism, but rather a pessimistic forecast of the bleak future.
Which leads to the next point: When China succeeds us as the preeminent super-power, as they likely will, they will do so with the full support of Capitalism at their back. Already, one can observe the Capitalization of China. They are moving toward a market economy.
So, back to the aforementioned point "one", they will expand militarily until they are satisfied with the size and security of their sphere of influence. Then the unofficial leader of the Capitalist world will remain, just as a different country: China. In a way, China will become a supporter of the West.
"Two" is perhaps more obvious. The spectre of Lenin would not rise, as China would no longer adhere to that faith; indeed it does not currently adhere to that faith. China will likely become the dominate super-power and fulfill every role associated thereof, but it will do so not purely militarily. It will become dominate by means of economic power.
Though it was hinted, it was never explicitly stated why the future likely is bleak.
There now exists no Other with which the West struggles against. This may be viewed as a positive thing, if one is completely satisfied with the situation the world is in now. However, any person with any concern at all towards others and with an open-eye towards the disparaged masses of the world ought not be even remotely satisfied. Without the Other, or the potentiality thereof, the exists no possible way to smash the chains of servitude that is global-market-capitalism.
The Other is the force working against a ubiquitous market-oriented global economy. In the past, this role was primarily fulfilled by the Soviet Union and Friends. Now, there is no force with enough power to compete with the global economy. Hence, the reason as to why there is no successful Other.
Without the Other to oppose it, the West - that is, the force promoting a ubiquitous market-oriented global economy - will surely reign supreme. The West will consolidate its already-tight stranglehold on the economies, and thus the citizens, of the world's countries. With its new established preeminence, the West will ascend into God-hood; we will exalt the West and to some degree we already have. This stranglehold will remain regardless of the petty wars, genocides, and economic panics that ensue down below, as the West is now above this plane; it has now been synergized and fetishized.
The bleakness of this future, if not already apparent, will be explained here: no more will there be earth-shattering events; no more Berlin Walls, Mongol Invasions, or Enlightenments. History, as the study of meaningful events in our past, is dead. There is no longer any meaningful events that can happen. We are stuck.
Moreover, this does not mean an end to violence, genocides, and other calamities that are widely considered atrocities. It means the meaning - the reason, that which gave these a shred of value - behind these atrocities is dead. Indeed violence will remain, just in an arbitrary pointless form.
The reason for the dissymmetry between the words "Other" and "West" is due to the force that will - and indeed has - try to take up the mantel of the U.S.S.R. This force is not Russia or China, the EU, or a yet-unnamed global-superpower candidate, but rather the various militant insurgents, secular or otherwise, that will attempt to harm and destroy the West. Essentially, an force that opposes that of the West is the Other; the Other is defined as not-West.
The insurgency cannot succeed. They are disunited and have no means by which to exaltify (exalt) an ideology to compete with the West. In order to pose a threat, it requires there to be two (or more) ideologies on the same level. Insurgents do not posses the ability to fetishize and synergize their respective ideological forces enough. Hence they cannot compete.
Even Islamic extremism bows down before the might of the West. For example, Saudi Arabia has Gender Equality laws that make Iran look like San Francisco. If anywhere ought to have a strong resistance to the West in the form of Islamic extremism it is Saudi Arabia. But yet, Saudi Arabia is close - too close - to the West. The West trumps some of the most devout Islamic extremism in the world.
The ascension of the West does no mean the inevitable world-wide liberal democratic movement, quite the contrary. The countries which are already devout in their following of the West are getting more authoritarian, less democratic. Look at institutions like the N.S.A., or look at countries like the U.K., Russia, Germany, and the best example: the U.S. People will be, and are being, stripped of their meaningful ways to impact politics, and more importantly economics.
Even if people overthrew their own national government, it would matter not. The governments under the West are just that: under the West. The government is gone but its master remains.
With the reduction of the people's political power, their political-will will be vicariously channeled to reinforce the West, by buying things. People will express their sovereignty by choosing what to buy and how much to spend. We will live in an ever-more increasingly consumerist culture.
Any meaning that our lives once had is gone. With the destruction of progress and change there is no well from which to draw meaning into our lives. Our lives will be lived by buying things and by supporting the very thing that enslaves us.
In sum, it matters not whether China becomes the next big superpower, because they will become the embodiment of the force which we were previously the surrogate. Nothing meaningful will have changed. Moreover, nothing now can change because all other Others are scattered and weak, and any choice made from within the West results in the reinforcement of the West. So, it is the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Marijuana and Mexico
The article, found here, is about a new law in Mexico aimed at decriminalizing marijuana in Mexico City. In addition, a new law on the federal level was also introduced that would allow for medicinal marijuana.
I support legalization of marijuana especially in violence-infested countries like Mexico. This is a step in the right direction towards total legalization. Legalization will likely decrease the amount of violence in Mexico by some degree and will certainly decrease the the incarceration rate of people in Mexico, thus freeing precious resources to be used in other, more useful areas such as education. Education will lead to less violence and lower drug usage rates overall which is immanently desirable.
I support legalization of marijuana especially in violence-infested countries like Mexico. This is a step in the right direction towards total legalization. Legalization will likely decrease the amount of violence in Mexico by some degree and will certainly decrease the the incarceration rate of people in Mexico, thus freeing precious resources to be used in other, more useful areas such as education. Education will lead to less violence and lower drug usage rates overall which is immanently desirable.
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Russia, Ukraine, the EU, and the US
I read an article from Reuters, found here, that details the conflict currently occurring in Ukraine between western, pro-EU, liberal protesters and the eastern, pro-Russia, government-supporting populace. Russia accuses the U.S. of arming the Ukrainian "rebels" (the pro-EU side). Furthermore, Russia advises the Ukrainian government to use military and police forces to put down the attempted "coup". Washington accuses the Russian government of pressuring Ukraine to not join the EU by threatening economic sanctions.
The internal conflict between the pro-European and the pro-Russian in Ukraine interests me. The Ukraine, more than any other former soviet republic with the exception of Russia, wishes to be back in the USSR. However, that sentiment is primarily among those that hold nationalistic (but not too nationalistic) and generally conservative viewpoints. Ukraine was the second strongest economy in the old USSR and was also one of the most influential. There are only minor differences in the ethnic make-ups of Ukrainians and Russians; they are both Slavic peoples, and Kiev was actually the seat of the first "Russian" empire. So, naturally Ukrainians, at least historically, have had a relatively easy time integrating with the Russian overlords.
The pro-EU side of things perhaps has a better argument for Ukraine to join the EU in economic terms of mutual benefit. The EU, when all of the countries lying within are taken into account, has the largest economy in the world by quite-a-bit, and most developing countries that join the EU benefit greatly. In addition, there is a general trend in the world's history towards the creation of larger sovereign entities - the trend toward cosmopolitanism. Similar to what Diogenes of Sinope once famously declared, our polis is becoming the world.
The EU, undoubtedly, has some selfish desires to satisfy in this situation; the aspiration of a European Union involving Ukraine is not altruistic. The roots of the EU lie in the attempt to compete with and triumph over the United States economically. Europeans needed to band together to even compete with the US. What better way to assist the EU in this task than by admitting another nation, and a nation with an already strong economy at that. So, the reason why the EU would accept Ukraine into its fold is likely at-least partially motivated by their own personal benefit, not what would be best for the Ukrainian people.
Russia made the declaration that the US is arming the so-called Ukrainian rebels. Now, normally I tend to take the anti-US side of things, and we have been known to topple sovereign - even democratically elected - regimes in the past, but Russia likely is exaggerating there claim that the US is arming the rebels. If the dichotomy, that Ukraine can either join the EU or join the CIS, is presented, then the US doesn't have any clear strategic choice in the matter. The two different ways neither help nor directly harm the US. If Ukraine joins with Russia, then our rival (but not enemy), will gain influence and power, but the Russian economy is still far weaker than ours. If Ukraine joins the EU, then our greatest economic competitor becomes stronger, but we are on friendly terms with Europe and militarily they do not pose a threat. So, why then would the US have such a compelling concern regarding the outcome of this Ukrainian dilemma either way?
The far more likely reason that Russia would make such an assertion is that it wants the Ukrainian government to react against the rebels in its favor. If the Ukrainian government subdues the rebels, so to will the major opposition against a closer economic relationship with Russia be subdued.
The internal conflict between the pro-European and the pro-Russian in Ukraine interests me. The Ukraine, more than any other former soviet republic with the exception of Russia, wishes to be back in the USSR. However, that sentiment is primarily among those that hold nationalistic (but not too nationalistic) and generally conservative viewpoints. Ukraine was the second strongest economy in the old USSR and was also one of the most influential. There are only minor differences in the ethnic make-ups of Ukrainians and Russians; they are both Slavic peoples, and Kiev was actually the seat of the first "Russian" empire. So, naturally Ukrainians, at least historically, have had a relatively easy time integrating with the Russian overlords.
The pro-EU side of things perhaps has a better argument for Ukraine to join the EU in economic terms of mutual benefit. The EU, when all of the countries lying within are taken into account, has the largest economy in the world by quite-a-bit, and most developing countries that join the EU benefit greatly. In addition, there is a general trend in the world's history towards the creation of larger sovereign entities - the trend toward cosmopolitanism. Similar to what Diogenes of Sinope once famously declared, our polis is becoming the world.
The EU, undoubtedly, has some selfish desires to satisfy in this situation; the aspiration of a European Union involving Ukraine is not altruistic. The roots of the EU lie in the attempt to compete with and triumph over the United States economically. Europeans needed to band together to even compete with the US. What better way to assist the EU in this task than by admitting another nation, and a nation with an already strong economy at that. So, the reason why the EU would accept Ukraine into its fold is likely at-least partially motivated by their own personal benefit, not what would be best for the Ukrainian people.
Russia made the declaration that the US is arming the so-called Ukrainian rebels. Now, normally I tend to take the anti-US side of things, and we have been known to topple sovereign - even democratically elected - regimes in the past, but Russia likely is exaggerating there claim that the US is arming the rebels. If the dichotomy, that Ukraine can either join the EU or join the CIS, is presented, then the US doesn't have any clear strategic choice in the matter. The two different ways neither help nor directly harm the US. If Ukraine joins with Russia, then our rival (but not enemy), will gain influence and power, but the Russian economy is still far weaker than ours. If Ukraine joins the EU, then our greatest economic competitor becomes stronger, but we are on friendly terms with Europe and militarily they do not pose a threat. So, why then would the US have such a compelling concern regarding the outcome of this Ukrainian dilemma either way?
The far more likely reason that Russia would make such an assertion is that it wants the Ukrainian government to react against the rebels in its favor. If the Ukrainian government subdues the rebels, so to will the major opposition against a closer economic relationship with Russia be subdued.
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Marijuana and China
The article I read, found here, is about the legalization of Cannabis and how it could potentially damage our international geo-political standing. Specifically, it detailed how some are opposed simply because we will lose ground to China.
My problem with the Chinese argument is thus: why do we need to be better than China, and if we do, why do we use GDP or similar indicators to gauge our international standing and not their respective mathematical derivatives: their rates.
Their is no reason why we should need to be better than China and, on those grounds, I reject that argument. After all, they have four-times the population and slightly more land than we do.
However, even if there were a reason to be better than China, shouldn't this better-ness be gauged in GDP per-capita? It makes more sense. Isn't how much the average worker produces more important than gross-production? This would actually give us quite a bit of an edge, as we have far less people than they do.
My problem with the Chinese argument is thus: why do we need to be better than China, and if we do, why do we use GDP or similar indicators to gauge our international standing and not their respective mathematical derivatives: their rates.
Their is no reason why we should need to be better than China and, on those grounds, I reject that argument. After all, they have four-times the population and slightly more land than we do.
However, even if there were a reason to be better than China, shouldn't this better-ness be gauged in GDP per-capita? It makes more sense. Isn't how much the average worker produces more important than gross-production? This would actually give us quite a bit of an edge, as we have far less people than they do.
Is the Patriot Act Unpatriotic?
The article I read, found here, details the counter-American methods and ideals in the now-infamous Patriot Act. Essentially, the legislative branch, more-so than the other two branches of government, is the branch most responsive to the public sentiment, at least normatively. The resulting sensitive and responsive relationship can only exist effectively if the public possesses adequate knowledge of the laws and associated policies the aforementioned branch passes. Hence, since it required a security leak to expose the mass-surveillance of all the world's citizens being performed by our government, the relationship between the legislative and the public clearly doesn't contain enough knowledge-sharing to provide an effective amount of government responsibility and responsiveness.
The article essentially ends with answering yes to the question in the title, though those particular words are mine alone.
I disagree, however.
I abhor mass-surveillance and disagree vehemently with the NSA and our government for using those methods, but that isn't the question. So, the Patriot Act, along with the resulting mass-surveillance, is actually one of the most patriotic things our nation can do.
Our nation, along with most other western-style democracies, relies on civil obedience to function.
Despotisms, Oligarchies, Monarchies, and other authoritarian states rely on unrestrained, and often times inconsistent force. They imprison, execute, and torture at a whim. That is how they keep order. They display power to keep power.
Democracies, if it can truly be called that, cannot rely on those methods (at least not unrestrained and inconsistent), because that would de-sovereignate the regime: People would get mad and overthrow the government. Instead, western democracies rely on the inclination to conformity that it instills in people throughout their lives; the success of a democracy is contingent upon people becoming nothing more than docile bodies (a term I am borrowing from Foucault).
The process by which docile bodies are created is one that occurs throughout everyone's lives. The most prominent of these - societal norms - exert their micro-power upon us everyday most often in the form of social conformity. However, the juridical ways in which the government keeps us passive can be just as important to that government's success as the non-juridical. The threat of observation - that is, the potentiality of surveillance - is one such juridical policy aimed at the creation of docility. This policy is easily apparent in penitentiaries, but also in hospitals and schools. The panopticonification (see panopticon) creates a state in which one grows up used to the potentiality of being under surveillance. Whenever we are tempted to do something that doesn't go against our morals (which derive from micro-powers), but is against the law, we tend to err on the side of not-doing it, due to this constant threat of observation: It's the "what if I get caught" instinct.
The mass-surveillance of the NSA is thus-far the strongest juridical power that produces docility in our society. It makes the already present fear of observation all-the-more true.
The threat of observation isn't some "big brother-esque" government agency necessarily. For instance, one of the benefits, intended or not, of requiring everyone to go to school is the creation of nation-wide docility, the transformation of independent humans into docile bodies. Through both the micro-powers of conformity and the juridical panopticonification our systems produces workers, regardless of there education levels, that are passive inherently.
As it said in the article, an educated populace is required in a democratic society. It serves the society and the nation. One of the useful by-products of education is docility. Hence, if the desirable product of an institution that is inherently patriotic is patriotic - which, in my mind, it is normatively - then something else that produces the same effect and is instituted juridically is also inherently patriotic. Hence, mass-surveillance is by its very nature patriotic because it instills mass docility, a characteristic that is desirable in any western-style democracy.
The article essentially ends with answering yes to the question in the title, though those particular words are mine alone.
I disagree, however.
I abhor mass-surveillance and disagree vehemently with the NSA and our government for using those methods, but that isn't the question. So, the Patriot Act, along with the resulting mass-surveillance, is actually one of the most patriotic things our nation can do.
Our nation, along with most other western-style democracies, relies on civil obedience to function.
Despotisms, Oligarchies, Monarchies, and other authoritarian states rely on unrestrained, and often times inconsistent force. They imprison, execute, and torture at a whim. That is how they keep order. They display power to keep power.
Democracies, if it can truly be called that, cannot rely on those methods (at least not unrestrained and inconsistent), because that would de-sovereignate the regime: People would get mad and overthrow the government. Instead, western democracies rely on the inclination to conformity that it instills in people throughout their lives; the success of a democracy is contingent upon people becoming nothing more than docile bodies (a term I am borrowing from Foucault).
The process by which docile bodies are created is one that occurs throughout everyone's lives. The most prominent of these - societal norms - exert their micro-power upon us everyday most often in the form of social conformity. However, the juridical ways in which the government keeps us passive can be just as important to that government's success as the non-juridical. The threat of observation - that is, the potentiality of surveillance - is one such juridical policy aimed at the creation of docility. This policy is easily apparent in penitentiaries, but also in hospitals and schools. The panopticonification (see panopticon) creates a state in which one grows up used to the potentiality of being under surveillance. Whenever we are tempted to do something that doesn't go against our morals (which derive from micro-powers), but is against the law, we tend to err on the side of not-doing it, due to this constant threat of observation: It's the "what if I get caught" instinct.
The mass-surveillance of the NSA is thus-far the strongest juridical power that produces docility in our society. It makes the already present fear of observation all-the-more true.
The threat of observation isn't some "big brother-esque" government agency necessarily. For instance, one of the benefits, intended or not, of requiring everyone to go to school is the creation of nation-wide docility, the transformation of independent humans into docile bodies. Through both the micro-powers of conformity and the juridical panopticonification our systems produces workers, regardless of there education levels, that are passive inherently.
As it said in the article, an educated populace is required in a democratic society. It serves the society and the nation. One of the useful by-products of education is docility. Hence, if the desirable product of an institution that is inherently patriotic is patriotic - which, in my mind, it is normatively - then something else that produces the same effect and is instituted juridically is also inherently patriotic. Hence, mass-surveillance is by its very nature patriotic because it instills mass docility, a characteristic that is desirable in any western-style democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)