Welcome to Stal-Mart

Some months ago in Econ class, the discussion turned to various kinds of ownership (private, State, collective etc.). I generally argued for as cooperative a system of management as possible, but I did speak out against “a mass-collectivization program like Stalin did with the farms.” At this point, a guy previously unknown to me spoke up and said ”Hey, you shouldn’t criticize Stalin. That’s just way out of line.” My professor smiled amiably and changed the subject. To the minimum wage, and how big companies like Wal-Mart pay their employees very little even though they can afford much more. This elicited another cry of protest from Party Comrade, who vehemently defended Wal-Mart and their low wages.

Later, I asked around to see if that guy was kidding. No, apparently he really does like both old Joe Stalin and Wal-Mart.

I asked myself; how could this be? How could someone idealize Soviet Russia in its worst years and a huge multinational corporation? Then I realized: they’re not so different.

Stalin (independent of his sheer brutality) had a definite economic system. It entailed the entire economy of the USSR geared towards a set of well-defined and pre-set goals set one or even five years in advance. They would produce a certain number of cars, a certain tonnage of steel, a certain amount of grain etc. All industry was concentrated together, and all orders came from the ‘Supreme Soviet’ – that is, the Kremlin. There would be no local control and no deviation from the script.

This ‘central planning’ or ‘scientific socialism’ was, in fact, instrumental in helping Russia become an industrial power, but it proved clumsy and unworkable, considering (among other things) the size of the Soviet empire and the logistical impossibilities that entailed. America, for its part, prided itself on its culture of independent businesses and entrepreneurship.

Now, however, things have changed. At the time of Teddy Roosevelt’s ‘trust-busting’, five companies controlled 55% of the US meat industry. Now, three companies control 80% of it. Microsoft has a stranglehold on the software industry and laughs in the face of the DOJ. Chain stores, ‘big-box’ outlets, and all-purpose megastores are taking up a larger and larger part of the American economy and driving small businesses to extinction. Wal-Mart, with annual revenues of $218 billion, or about 2.5% of total GDP, is simply the biggest.

So… a small collection of incredibly huge, unelected, all-powerful cartels with top-down management controlling our economy and reacting with total indifference to the needs of their workers? Sounds like Stalinism to me.

Enough of Talking

Today is General Election Day in Britain. I really don’t know much about modern British politics; I’m dimly aware that Tony Blair and the Labour Party will probably stay in power, though either the Tories or the Liberal Democrats might make significant gains.

In any case, the Brits have much better campaign ads than us.

I can see through your smile…

Glitter And Be Gay

If anyone ever starts to lose faith in the value of equal rights for homosexuals, they should meet my cousin Bruce. Visiting with him reminds of why gay rights are so important, and why homophobes are such intolerable worms.

Yet many people - even though who claim to have nothing against gays or homosexuality – are still reluctant to let them marry. But why?

Of course, opposition to gay marriage is based on a number of things which are either false or irrelevant. Such as:

1. Homosexuality is wrong.

Pheh. If this is your argument, I won’t even try. Even according to my Torah, homosexuality is just an 'abomination'. That sounds harsh, but 'abominations' are not so bad. It's about on the same level of eating meat and milk together, wearing clothing made out of a mixed fabric, or growing two different kinds of crops in the same field. So I guess gays aren't kosher for Passover.

2. Marriage ought to be about children.

If you like to think of it that way, be my guest. If that were really true, of course, marriage would be illegal for couples who are sterile, infertile, or have no desire for children. And marriage is not about children in the first place. Until very recently, marriage was primarily a way for the moneyed class to look after their property.

3. Marriage is the basis of our civilization and has stood as an institution for thousands of years.

What civilization? Certainly anything remotely resembling our view of marriage didn’t exist for the ancient Greeks, or for any other Western culture. The whole concept of marriage for everyone who wanted to have children didn’t arise until the Victorian era. Before then, it was more common than not for lower-class people to live together and have illegitimate children with no social stigma whatever. I find such “it’s tradition!” arguments worthless in any case.

4. Gay people don’t take relationships seriously.

Lies. Gay people take relationships just as seriously as anyone. We’ve just been inundated with images of costumed gay men in cages dancing like Jerry Falwell’s nightmare. In any case, the divorce rate for gay couples in Massachusetts is far lower than the straight divorce rate in this country.

5. If you allow gay marriage, next thing you’ll have people marrying house pets and little kids and their sisters!

Nonsense. Gay marriage is between two consenting adults. Animals cannot consent; children cannot consent; family members cannot consent. If anyone comes forward and suggests we legalize those things, the gay community will stand as firmly against them as the Catholic Church, and probably more so.

6. OK, what about polygamy? They consent, right?

Well, technically it’s not illegal to ‘commit’ polygamy, just to try and get it recognized by the State. But if it’s not between two people, the relationship cannot possibly be equal, one could argue that no consent is really possible there either. And, by bringing up these 'slippery slope' arguments, aren't you conceding the original point?

'BRB', As the Young People Say

This weekend I will be busy, and unable to post anything. In the meantime, I suggest you amuse yourrself with NationStates, which allows you to create and run your own country as you please.

My own nation is Forza America, which I began as an iron-fisted industrial society, but in recent days I've brought it along the path to reform.

Enjoy.

PS: Is my blog back to normal???

You Bearded Fruit-Juice Drinkers!

.

Being a leftist of the ‘superior’ type, it’s a continual puzzle for me why people do not rush to adapt our policies. So many things we try to stand for are basic human decency: No war, no hatred, no starvation. Poll after poll suggests that large majorities support the basic tenets of the Left way of thought, even if that doesn’t directly extend to establishing Socialism or something like it. At the very least, a good welfare system would ensure everyone enough to eat and a roof over their heads. So what’s the problem?

Asking himself the same question, our good friend George Orwell says:

Anything is relevant which helps to make clear why Socialism is not accepted. And please notice that I am arguing for Socialism, not against it. But for the moment I am advocatus diaboli. I am making out a case for the sort of person who is in sympathy with the fundamental aims of Socialism, who has the brains to see that Socialism would 'work', but who in practice always takes to flight when Socialism is mentioned. Question a person of this type, and you will often get the semi-frivolous answer “I don’t really object to Socialism, but I do object to Socialists.” Logically, it is a poor argument, but it carries weight with many people.

- ‘The Road to Wigan Pier’

OK, so what is it about leftists in general that the fence-sitting majority finds so repellent? Again, Orwell has the answer:

One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, birth-control advocate, vegetarian, pacifist, and feminist in England.

In other words, hippies.

Most of those things can be excused with little or no compunction at all. Fruit juice is a wholesome and delicious drink; sandals are comfortable in summertime; most people find sex enjoyable; the Quakers are a fine and noble group of people; birth control is necessary to a fulfilling and uncomplicated sex life; there is nothing wrong with avoiding meat for health reasons or out of compassion for animals; war is horrible; and most feminists would simply like women to be on an equal footing with men. I’d say a majority of people in the United States fall into at least one of the categories listed above.

Nowadays, Orwell would probably amend his list to include ‘every latter-sipper, herbal-tea swiller, vegan, tree-hugger, tattooed, pierced, Goth, punk, homosexual, and transsexual in America’ - all basically harmless.

But the fact remains that the widespread antipathy towards such people is a visceral reaction, not a rational one. That is, people do not support the Left as a matter of taste, even if they would be inclined to strictly on matters of policy.

People tend to underestimate the importance of such personal inclinations. They say to themselves ‘Politics is too important for petty matters to affect the way I think. It doesn’t matter if a statesman has a bad suit or a funny way of talking; when it comes down to it, I’ll support the best person running.’ In fact, when push comes to shove, we do no such thing. How many people refused to take Dennis Kucinich seriously because he looked like a creepy elf and not because they knew anything about his beliefs? For that matter, how much of the lower-level antipathy against George W. Bush is based on revulsion against his irritating mannerisms and not against his (abominable) policy? Or, at the very least, how much criticism against Bush and Kucinich (and those like them) used their personality foibles as a way to poison people against them before the serious discussion even began?

Why are masses of eccentrics and uncommon people (I mean that as a compliment) drawn to the Left in the first place? Most ‘cranks’ are attracted to left/liberal thought because it has such a strong history of non-discrimination. A good liberal (in theory, anyway) won’t look down on you because you dress differently or have some unusual ideas about society. We’re all free to be you and me, right?

So, what can be done? The Left movement as a whole is in something of a bind: appeal too much to the fringes, and you lose the mainstream. Strive too hard for the middle, and the base becomes alienated and apathetic. If I were Howard Dean, I’d adopt a nationwide policy of aesthetic middle-of-the-road sensibilities (middle-class clothes and language) and political Leftism in regards to social and economics policies. There are untold millions in this country who largely agree with the hippies but don’t know it.