Friday, September 29, 2017
church and state
Liberals demand that we enforce a strict separation between church and state.. because what's better than an institutional apparatus designed to subjugate women and perpetuate white male supremacy? TWO institutional apparatuses designed to subjugate women and perpetuate white male supremacy!
Thursday, October 4, 2012
People are pretty upset about mitt & big bird. How about being upset that he's a repugnant capitalist cretin? Why won't your president say "you know mitt, you really can't speak about freedom and choice because you got rich by destroying people's lives, and you said aloud that you have no regard for the most exploited people in society." Your president can't say this because he agrees that "free enterprise" is the greatest system ever devised, and that basically people deserve what they get (rich or dispossessed).. and government can help when they fail (bailout or welfare).
Isn't it staggering that the debate moderator had to INSIST that the contenders emphasize their differences? For as Obama proudly pointed out, most of his policies were Republican ideas (health care, taxation, education)
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Sunday, July 29, 2012
"Congratulations." An open letter from Herr Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda, to acclaimed film director Christopher Nolan
Dear Sir,
Congratulations are due to you for having produced one of the finest pieces of epic Fascist cinema in this young century. Your depiction of the crude and bloodthirsty Anarchist menace was first-rate, surpassed in quality only by your portrayal of the honorable men of the uniformed and secret police – the gallant forces that safeguard your nation’s prosperity. I was particularly pleased by the hero’s deployment of vast personal wealth in the interest of state security, though it would have pleased me more to see certain proletarians proudly depicted – the better to contrast their earnest national zeal to the cruel cynicism of the brutal communist minority. You correctly balked at modern liberal tolerance, demonstrating that proud men of pure racial stock are those best suited to lead the American Reich, shrewdly proving that Blacks, Jews, Homosexuals, Foreigners, Invalids, and of course Women are unfit for prominent social positions. (For instance, both of the Women featured in the film are correctly identified as duplicitous, whoring cheats; the aged Black underling as inept; the wheezing Invalid as a scheming brute; while the Homosexuals and Cripples seem to have been omitted entirely; I also applaud your cleverness in erasing any subversive trait from the character of the skilled actor and known Jew Mr. Joseph Gordon-Levitt)
Many fine details, including the technological sophistication demonstrated on film as well as in production, as well as the sly critique of market capitalism and embrace of fascism, will go unheralded – but the masses will yet internalize the crux of the matter: that the most materially prosperous, technologically advanced, and racially superior men of the nation are its greatest hope for salvation in the face of the savage unrest that springs from social pollution and cultural degradation.
Kudos once more, Sir! The Führer himself could not have imagined a finer film to illustrate the wisdom of overwhelming strength, the severity of social truth, and the glory of the nation! As I know well, a nation in the midst of stubborn economic depression must sometimes be reminded of its eternal mandate for global domination -- and your film shall serve as a fine reminder to the grand American Reich, and indeed to the entire world. Long live the most pure Race! the Empire of the United States! and the brashly apolitical “storytelling” of American Cinema!
Admiringly Yours,
Dr. Goebbels
Congratulations are due to you for having produced one of the finest pieces of epic Fascist cinema in this young century. Your depiction of the crude and bloodthirsty Anarchist menace was first-rate, surpassed in quality only by your portrayal of the honorable men of the uniformed and secret police – the gallant forces that safeguard your nation’s prosperity. I was particularly pleased by the hero’s deployment of vast personal wealth in the interest of state security, though it would have pleased me more to see certain proletarians proudly depicted – the better to contrast their earnest national zeal to the cruel cynicism of the brutal communist minority. You correctly balked at modern liberal tolerance, demonstrating that proud men of pure racial stock are those best suited to lead the American Reich, shrewdly proving that Blacks, Jews, Homosexuals, Foreigners, Invalids, and of course Women are unfit for prominent social positions. (For instance, both of the Women featured in the film are correctly identified as duplicitous, whoring cheats; the aged Black underling as inept; the wheezing Invalid as a scheming brute; while the Homosexuals and Cripples seem to have been omitted entirely; I also applaud your cleverness in erasing any subversive trait from the character of the skilled actor and known Jew Mr. Joseph Gordon-Levitt)
Many fine details, including the technological sophistication demonstrated on film as well as in production, as well as the sly critique of market capitalism and embrace of fascism, will go unheralded – but the masses will yet internalize the crux of the matter: that the most materially prosperous, technologically advanced, and racially superior men of the nation are its greatest hope for salvation in the face of the savage unrest that springs from social pollution and cultural degradation.
Kudos once more, Sir! The Führer himself could not have imagined a finer film to illustrate the wisdom of overwhelming strength, the severity of social truth, and the glory of the nation! As I know well, a nation in the midst of stubborn economic depression must sometimes be reminded of its eternal mandate for global domination -- and your film shall serve as a fine reminder to the grand American Reich, and indeed to the entire world. Long live the most pure Race! the Empire of the United States! and the brashly apolitical “storytelling” of American Cinema!
Admiringly Yours,
Dr. Goebbels
Monday, April 9, 2012
Persistence
My favorite title of anything, ever:
The Great Law of Subordination Considered; or the Insolence and Insufferable Behaviour of SERVANTS in England duly enquired into
This work, by one Daniel Defoe, is quoted by EP Thompson in Time, Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism, and was published in England in 1724. Yes, that Daniel Defoe (Robinson Crusoe), who, I must say, seemed to have a knack for funny titles: he also penned the riveting Political History of the Devil (whom he apparently considered a very real and potent historical actor) and an essay on Conjugal Lewdness.
This is not all fun and games, however. Insufferable servants are but one target of the menacing, puritanical scribe: the original title of the latter essay was supposedly Conjugal Lewdness or, Matrimonial Whoredom, which later became A Treatise Concerning the Use and Abuse of the Marriage Bed. In it, Defoe outlines in no uncertain terms his contempt for all forms of contraception (an "abuse of the marriage bed"), comparing it to infanticide.
The colonial underpinnings and primitive economics of the Robinson Crusoe novel (whose actual title runs more than sixty words) were joyfully appropriated by classical economists of the ensuing century to illustrate their claims about free market relations of production and trade. The old man (KM) even references the novel in Capital (mostly to lampoon the Smithian admirers) but also to make a point about the labor theory of value.
It's odd how works find their way into the cultural lexicon, and persist, in various forms, within it. The SERVANTS essay title reminds me of the Masterpiece series Downton Abbey, a gossipy upstairs/downstairs drama set in an English manor just after the turn of the century. I won't go into a big thing on it now, but here is what I find most interesting about the series: the way in which the "downstairs" staff resembles the staff of any upscale restaurant today. From the menu, to the preparation, to the service (the characters describe themselves as working "in service") of meals, there is a strong affinity between the manners (or 'manors' if you like) of this "bygone" era and our own. Friends who work in expensive restaurants here in New York are taught to cater to every need of patrons (on whom they receive "slips" of relevant information -- who the guest is, who they work for/who works for them, their preferences, and so forth). Going for a meal should be just as seamless as the cleaning of the house, the care of the children, and the managing of daily needs, all of which is outsourced to the city's working classes.
One of the show's taglines makes reference to the "disappearing class system" of pre-industrial England. By 1912 (the year in which the series begins) industrial capitalism is firmly established in England, and the aristocracy is quickly fading into irrelevance. Or is it? To this day a "royal family," a monarchy, retains a place in English political and social life -- but I think there are less obvious, and much more interesting ways in which this system persists. The service industry is the pre-eminent example. Hordes of us are at work serving the rich and petty rich, obeying feudal codes of conduct, and making upstairs run smoothly while keeping the machinery of downstairs hidden from view.
As the old man said, nothing ever really goes away -- certain feudal relations persist under capitalism -- just as manor manners persist today. Downton is based on current source material, not a century-old novel, and although I haven't seen the entire series yet (I'm giddily about to start season two), but it's clear that "the future" is rapidly displacing "the past." But the most interesting moments are those in which we see the ways in which the past isn't dead, it isn't even past. The Great Law of Subordination is still very much in force, probably because those pesky servants remain such an insufferable and insolent lot. I duly demand an enquiry!
The Great Law of Subordination Considered; or the Insolence and Insufferable Behaviour of SERVANTS in England duly enquired into
This work, by one Daniel Defoe, is quoted by EP Thompson in Time, Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism, and was published in England in 1724. Yes, that Daniel Defoe (Robinson Crusoe), who, I must say, seemed to have a knack for funny titles: he also penned the riveting Political History of the Devil (whom he apparently considered a very real and potent historical actor) and an essay on Conjugal Lewdness.
This is not all fun and games, however. Insufferable servants are but one target of the menacing, puritanical scribe: the original title of the latter essay was supposedly Conjugal Lewdness or, Matrimonial Whoredom, which later became A Treatise Concerning the Use and Abuse of the Marriage Bed. In it, Defoe outlines in no uncertain terms his contempt for all forms of contraception (an "abuse of the marriage bed"), comparing it to infanticide.
The colonial underpinnings and primitive economics of the Robinson Crusoe novel (whose actual title runs more than sixty words) were joyfully appropriated by classical economists of the ensuing century to illustrate their claims about free market relations of production and trade. The old man (KM) even references the novel in Capital (mostly to lampoon the Smithian admirers) but also to make a point about the labor theory of value.
It's odd how works find their way into the cultural lexicon, and persist, in various forms, within it. The SERVANTS essay title reminds me of the Masterpiece series Downton Abbey, a gossipy upstairs/downstairs drama set in an English manor just after the turn of the century. I won't go into a big thing on it now, but here is what I find most interesting about the series: the way in which the "downstairs" staff resembles the staff of any upscale restaurant today. From the menu, to the preparation, to the service (the characters describe themselves as working "in service") of meals, there is a strong affinity between the manners (or 'manors' if you like) of this "bygone" era and our own. Friends who work in expensive restaurants here in New York are taught to cater to every need of patrons (on whom they receive "slips" of relevant information -- who the guest is, who they work for/who works for them, their preferences, and so forth). Going for a meal should be just as seamless as the cleaning of the house, the care of the children, and the managing of daily needs, all of which is outsourced to the city's working classes.
One of the show's taglines makes reference to the "disappearing class system" of pre-industrial England. By 1912 (the year in which the series begins) industrial capitalism is firmly established in England, and the aristocracy is quickly fading into irrelevance. Or is it? To this day a "royal family," a monarchy, retains a place in English political and social life -- but I think there are less obvious, and much more interesting ways in which this system persists. The service industry is the pre-eminent example. Hordes of us are at work serving the rich and petty rich, obeying feudal codes of conduct, and making upstairs run smoothly while keeping the machinery of downstairs hidden from view.
As the old man said, nothing ever really goes away -- certain feudal relations persist under capitalism -- just as manor manners persist today. Downton is based on current source material, not a century-old novel, and although I haven't seen the entire series yet (I'm giddily about to start season two), but it's clear that "the future" is rapidly displacing "the past." But the most interesting moments are those in which we see the ways in which the past isn't dead, it isn't even past. The Great Law of Subordination is still very much in force, probably because those pesky servants remain such an insufferable and insolent lot. I duly demand an enquiry!
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Left Forum
This past weekend, the Left Forum was once again held in NYC's Pace University. An exciting year, because of the energy injected into Left thought & movement by Occupy Wall Street. I was there mostly in work capacity, attending panels on health care and tabling for PNHP. I did go to a couple of other panels though, including two with Stanley Aronowitz, who has become a real mentor of mine. One was on the Jobless Future problem: we are tending to become a society in which there is plenty of employment, but no jobs (jobs understood as having high wages, stable hours and working conditions, ample benefits including livable pension, and job security). The days of union jobs in stable, continuous operations like manufacturing are gone. Temporary, part-time, contracted, precarious work is the new normal.
A person's "career" in just about any professional area is increasingly a never-ending series of internships (often unpaid) and contract & freelance work. Microsoft gives its corporate/tech hires a choice: take lower wages in exchange for steady (eg W2) employment, or get paid more but work under short-term contract (eg 1099). With costs of living (housing, food, education) on the rise, is it any wonder that people increasingly choose the higher income model? Fully half of Microsoft corporate workers are contracted -- no job security, no long-term benefits. The same is true of blue-collar work -- as union density erodes and manufacturing disappears or becomes non-union, job security in any job shall have been a thing of the past.
What does this all mean? The jobless future is not a future without work -- there will still be plenty of that -- but rather a future of work without end, in which we cobble together a living with multiple part-time and temporary jobs with no hope of retiring much less having health-care or other needs provided for. People like my parents, who have worked "steady," professional jobs for most of their lives, see retirement in jeopardy as pensions suffer on the marketplace and costs of things like medical care skyrocket (more than half of all personal bankruptcies are due to medical bills). Unemployment or under-employment will become the new normal (forget what I just said about there being "plenty" of work; profit-generating surplus value -- which capital accumulation relies on and is driven by -- is increasingly extracted not from human labor, but from credit/debt models, obviating some of the need for a worker society. The formation of consumer society is a topic for another essay).
So not only will there be no end to the work day or work week as we are forced to take on more and more work to keep up will falling wages and increasing costs, there will be no end to the work life. And we find ourselves back in the days of endless work, basically from birth until early death. This is the life of children who worked a century ago in coal mines, or in today's garment sweatshops, or of the slaves on American plantations. What opportunities will there be to develop intellectual, cultural, artistic values and competencies? This is a future that, while likely, I'm not willing to accept as inevitable (see previous post -- we can note tendencies like the jobless future, but we can't guarantee them). Daily life is a complicated, compromised, and frankly misunderstood phenomenon, and we had better think carefully about its makeup, especially its relationship to work.
A person's "career" in just about any professional area is increasingly a never-ending series of internships (often unpaid) and contract & freelance work. Microsoft gives its corporate/tech hires a choice: take lower wages in exchange for steady (eg W2) employment, or get paid more but work under short-term contract (eg 1099). With costs of living (housing, food, education) on the rise, is it any wonder that people increasingly choose the higher income model? Fully half of Microsoft corporate workers are contracted -- no job security, no long-term benefits. The same is true of blue-collar work -- as union density erodes and manufacturing disappears or becomes non-union, job security in any job shall have been a thing of the past.
What does this all mean? The jobless future is not a future without work -- there will still be plenty of that -- but rather a future of work without end, in which we cobble together a living with multiple part-time and temporary jobs with no hope of retiring much less having health-care or other needs provided for. People like my parents, who have worked "steady," professional jobs for most of their lives, see retirement in jeopardy as pensions suffer on the marketplace and costs of things like medical care skyrocket (more than half of all personal bankruptcies are due to medical bills). Unemployment or under-employment will become the new normal (forget what I just said about there being "plenty" of work; profit-generating surplus value -- which capital accumulation relies on and is driven by -- is increasingly extracted not from human labor, but from credit/debt models, obviating some of the need for a worker society. The formation of consumer society is a topic for another essay).
So not only will there be no end to the work day or work week as we are forced to take on more and more work to keep up will falling wages and increasing costs, there will be no end to the work life. And we find ourselves back in the days of endless work, basically from birth until early death. This is the life of children who worked a century ago in coal mines, or in today's garment sweatshops, or of the slaves on American plantations. What opportunities will there be to develop intellectual, cultural, artistic values and competencies? This is a future that, while likely, I'm not willing to accept as inevitable (see previous post -- we can note tendencies like the jobless future, but we can't guarantee them). Daily life is a complicated, compromised, and frankly misunderstood phenomenon, and we had better think carefully about its makeup, especially its relationship to work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)