Wednesday, May 31, 2017

The ABC's of Socialism



The ABC’s of Socialism is a tight little book written by a collection of very intuitive intellectuals who lack the academic penchant for pretentiousness. If I had the means to buy one and place it in every hotel room across the country next to the holy bible, I would. But I don’t! So the best thing I can do is tell every person I know to read the ABC’s of Socialism.

Brevity can’t be undervalued here, you could read the ABC’s on one or two sittings on a toilet. Of course, it would be better to fully engage with the text as there are some real gems in each section. For example, here is a little excerpt from a section entitled “Don’t the rich deserve to keep their money?”;

The socialist view of redistribution within a capitalist society must reject an important premise at play in almost all tax policy debates: the pre-tax income is earned solely on individual effort and owned privately before the state intervenes...the first preconditions for firms to earn profit is state-enforced property rights

Each section is a concise answer sandwiched in-between a simple question we’ve all heard a million times (I.E. Socialism sounds good in theory, but doesn’t human nature make it impossible?) and a shorthand answer (like “our shared nature actually helps us build and define the values of a just society”). Complete with fun little drawings. The questions themselves range from simple and abstract (“doesn’t socialism always end up in a dictatorship?”) to a fairly complex analysis of society as it currently stands (see “isn’t America already kind of socialist” or “will socialists take my Kenny Loggins records?”).

I feel like a lot of really great people in my life are unwilling to give up on capitalism because of the supposed luxury and stability they perceive it has given them and their families. I can hardly blame them for feeling this way. ABC’s editor Bhaskar Sunkara doesn’t claim to present all the answers in this volume either. At the same time, I can think of no better place to start introducing your friends or family or even yourself to socialism. The opinions are well argued and philosophical enough to convince someone on the fence, but could also serve as an introductory rebuke to those who are almost violently against the idea.

Then, of course, there is the question of why you might read a book on socialism at all. It may seem like an extreme option in a country that already seems so opposed down party lines. Maybe you’re a diehard Democrat that believes in the power of capitalism for good (like Robert Reich! He’s a cool guy!). While I’d love to see this book and many other books convert you, I can assure you that the left has a lot to learn from Marxism as a critical theory. Donald Trump’s firebrand, “more jobs” nationalism (which seems interested in bringing the bottom, heavily exploited classes necessary for capitalism back to America for some inexplicable reason) could perhaps find a formidable opponent in the idea that workers deserve to take home a far greater piece of the pie, even long after they are done physically working (think construction worker, truck driver, coal miner) or in the idea that all people deserve to live a happy and equitable life simply because they are humans.

If you want to read this book, shoot me an email and I will personally buy it for you.


Tuesday, May 16, 2017

The Washington Connection by Noam Chomsky



Sometimes at work, I will listen to the Democracy Now! headlines. The show is about an hour long and the news is a straightforward, unabridged version of key events. If we compare them to the daily headlines I read in the NYT or NPR Morning Edition’s, there are some...er...differences. It isn’t that Democracy Now! is too partisan - NYT and NPR can hardly be denied a partisan standing - rather Democracy Now! is not gunning to entertain with the news. The charge that it is radical is as much from form as it is content. It is devoid of any band profiles or stories about cupcake stores and at the same time, it doesn’t spare any details when describing death and destruction taking place across the globe. It should surprise no one that Noam Chomsky gives regular interviews almost exclusively to Democracy Now.

Reading Part One of the Washington Connection it is easy to see that Noam Chomsky is not out to entertain. Like Democracy Now, he and his co-author are in the business of speaking truth to power, often contradicting the official government and mainstream media’s version of events with specialists and primary sources. This is truly important work and it comes with a great risk of being wrong (any right-winger worth their salt will remind you that Chomsky denied Cambodian genocide for fourteen years). It is also very difficult to read, and I’m not just talking about density. Chomsky takes on the mainstream media, the United States Military, and public officials of all kinds, breaking US involvement with 3rd world fascism down into benign and constructive terror. Since World War II, our foreign policy of intervention has either been benign, where we allow tyrannical regimes to carry out atrocity because we get 80% of our coffee supply from them (like in Burundi) or it is constructive, in which case we supply anything from weapons (like in Indonesia) to ground troops and bombing campaigns (like in Vietnam) to protect our business interests/investment opportunities and those of our allies.

I certainly don’t believe that history, politics, or current events have to be packaged in a fun and entertaining way, but the depth of cover up and propaganda that Chomsky claims is staggering. Many of the reports he refutes - outside of maybe Vietnam - are still officially on the record, it is way easier to believe these accounts than it is to acknowledge the conspiracy that Chomsky is trying to demonstrate. Many would love for Chomsky to be wrong both factually and morally, even those who would likely be sympathetic to his leftist message, simply because it would allow us to continue living in a world where our elected officials aren’t partnering with major corporations to perpetuate the conditions of a necessary (for capitalism) underclass around the word.These people especially should be reading the Washington Connection if only to ask the pivotal question: “what if he’s right?”