To any Chinese readers, 你好!

As of the time of this post, my blog is accessible to readers in the People’s Republic of China, despite the massive government firewall designed to censor internet content that would be problematic to the Chinese social structure. (Information courtesy of this site.) Admittedly, my knowledge of the situation in China is fairly limited, as most news sources easily accessible in English tend to either construct one of two narratives about the PROC: either the emerging greatness New Age of Wonder of Cutting-Edge Neoliberal Economics, or either the Iron Fist Maoist Empire Moving Toward World Domination. I know just enough to know that neither of these narratives are accurate, although both contain some truth about China’s fairly unique position in the new multipolar global system.

I know that many people with political ideals similar to mine (libertarian communism or anarcho-socialism) have had a difficult time expressing their ideas in ways that would translate well into the Chinese political discourse. I am told that the word “anarchy” has the same linguistic problem as it does in most world languages, as its Mandarin equivalent denotes anomie or chaos rather than a horizontal social structure. On the other hand, communism and socialism tend to translate into Maoist forms, and Chinese political discourse is almost exclusively between greater neoliberalization or a return to Maoist orthodoxy. Admittedly, my own political ideals have more in common with Maoism than with the authoritarian capitalism that currently rules the day in China. However, I hope it will be someday possible for someone (certainly not myself, as I don’t know Mandarin or any other Chinese language) to articulate an alternative to these two that is based on people’s free choice and mutual aid. Admittedly, such a system would inevitably be going against centuries of learned Confucian teachings (which held that even the gods had a hierarchical bureaucracy). However, Taoism, China’s other great philosophical branch, lends itself quite well to anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist thought, and perhaps some day some wise Chinese man or woman will be able to use this cultural treasure for the purpose of creating a more free and equitable China.

One thing I certainly realize in writing this is, my writing, whether it remains accessible to PROC readers or not, will probably have little effect. For one, it’s in English, and secondly, it’s on the internet. This means that only small fraction of people in the PROC would be able to access or understand any of it. (However, a small fraction of more than a billion is still a lot of people.) Most of these people would probably be part of China’s emerging middle class, which while it is restricted, is seeing a greater economic prosperity and a growth in personal freedom, something that is not the experience of the majority of Chinese, for whom the new economic growth and urbanization has brought a decrease, not an increase in quality of life. Middle classes are necessary for the the stability of any power system. Both indebted to and oppressed by the ruling class, they are instrumental in maintaining the status quo. The larger a country’s middle class, the easier proletarian unrest can be put down. However, China’s middle class is still a very small percentage of its population and recent years have seen wildcat strikes and other ruptures in social control among China’s working class, which suggests that the China’s police state is not as strong as Westerners often claim. Whether China could experience a revolutionary or even a reform movement remains to be seen, but given China’s importance in the global economy, one can only hope that they are able to strike for more pay and rights and help reverse the race to the bottom that is the experience of the working class in this age of globalization.

It’s not the end of the world

Don’t be fooled by the well paid prophets of doom. The end of this civilization will not be the end of the world, but its reparation.

Just as we learned to survive without Caesar or priest-king, we will find in the destruction of the current power structure, a new dawn of potential.

The stewards of late capitalism have every reason to be pessimistic. Green capitalism, their newfound faith, seeks an to impose an austerity meant not only to keep a dying monster alive, but to reinforce the power of the upper class both materially and culturally. It seeks to baptize consumerism and the captains of industry in the waters of environmentalism, a conversion as insincere and calculated as Constantine’s Christianity.

In an ironic twist, we are asked to believe that the same corporations that caused the current ecological nightmare can be trusted as the answer to it. That is, if we pay them more money.

Such a scheme could only be perpetrated on those bombarded by messages of panic as we are. To be sure, there are ecological issues at hand, none of which will be solved by switching brands of coffee.

I’ll have more to say about this later.

The pen and the sword: taking back public discourse from the oligarchy

“The pen is mightier than the sword.” Many people learn this aphorism as children, but few are given the chance to ponder its full implications. In times of “crisis”, in other words, when the power structure is most vulnerable, authors who expose the weakness or seek to bring about the destruction of the current structure are targeted by the State for repression.  There are many instances in history when this has occurred, and this tactic still occurs today, such as the imprisonment of the Tarnac 9 based on their role in producing “The Coming Inssurection” by the French government, or the forced redaction of “Operation Dark Heart” by the American government.

It is usually enough in our times, however, for corporate media to drown out any voices of dissent by simply having their versions of reality disseminated everywhere. Cable news channels have replaced ESPN and Muzak in many establishments as entertainment. This gives the illusion of an informed public, when in reality all that comes through the speaker is disinformation. MSNBC and FOX News serve the same class interests, but in different ways. Both seek to convince the public that voting for the Republicans or the Democrats will end the rapid degradation of their living conditions. Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann portray themselves as the voice of the common man, speaking truth to the power of the global elite. It doesn’t take too much consideration to recognize the absurdity of their posturing.

The corporate media entities may side with different parts of the oligarchy, because like the nobility of old, it is never united except when there is a direct threat to its existence. But the corporate media outlets will always serve the interests of the upper class, who own them and the advertisers that keep them running. The Tea Party movement is the newest social movement in America to gain traction, but the movement has from its inception been shaped by the agendas of corporate media. This has become more obvious now that FOX News is trying to direct the anti-establishment anger of the movement toward electing Republican candidates who do not promise to stray at all from the traditional GOP platform, an irony that is largely lost on its participants.

 The Tea Partiers, though they may have different political ideas from each other, mostly have political philosophies that when articulated obviously oppose this return to the politics of the previous decade. That’s why it was necessary for Glenn Beck’s rally to be all form and no content. Rather than take a stand for any particular platform, he gave a flowery speech about patriotism and the abstractions of freedom, and most of all, “taking our country back”. However, the country already belongs to multi-millionaires like him.

Because elections in the United States are almost always won based on who was able to afford to run the most media advertisements, the recent Supreme Court decision of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission is a good guarantee that politicians seek to win elections will have to vote even more in line with the needs of the corporate class than they previously did. The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are people, and that their money is free speech which must not be restricted. Unfortunately, the results of this will most likely be that such “speech” is the only that will be heard by the so-called representatives of government.

It’s not just that the current power structure treats corporations as people. They are the only entities treated as people. To the oligarchy, the masses of the general public are referred to as “human capital”, “consumers” or “voters”, all three of which in the current discourse betray an attitude of dehumanization, as though we are merely organic machines who are used to produce the ends required by the corporate class.

It will then become more necessary, to maintain the well-being of the people, to find new ways to distribute non-corporate media, in order to defend this erosion of our humanity.  We must understand the old aphorism for what it really means: effective means of providing information (or disinformation, in the case of those who wish to obscure the reality) are weapons of war. The State will only tolerate “free speech” insofar as it is harmless to the interests of the power structure. As I’ve demonstrated, in our current condition there is often no need for repression, as it often very easy just to drown out any voice which articulates anything important. However, should we be successful in creating systems of information (in whatever form that may take) which can lead to genuine  and popular oppositional movements led by and in the interests of the disenfranchised, we can expect to receive the full brunt of the State’s repression.

This is a risk which must be taken. Power and wealth have become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small group over the last twenty years, and there is no indication that the disparity will do anything but grow in the next twenty years, should we not find some avenues for meaningful resistance. The drive, ingenuity and optimism of the American worker have been used quite effectively by the corporate class and their lackeys in the seats of government to lower our quality of life and force us to accept longer hours for less benefit. This same drive, ingenuity and optimism can and must be turned around against the power structure so that we are no longer forced to become agents of our own destruction.

The real crisis

“We have to see that the economy is not “in” crisis, the economy is itself the crisis.”–from The Coming Insurrection

Here in America, it is  often one hears (thanks to MSNBC and Fox News) that the current economic woes are either the fault of Bush and the Republicans, or Obama and the Democrats. So which group is really to blame? In truth, both and neither.  Both neoliberal (libertarian or fiscally conservative, in American discourse) and Marxist economic theorists agree that the boom-bust cycle is an intrinsic mechanism of the capitalist system. It is true that government policy plays a role, but government policy is usually either aimed at prolonging the expansion of a bubble, or creating a new one after one bursts. Part of it also has to do with the fact that people chosen to regulate the investment and speculation which causes economic bubbles often have personal relationships with people whose activities they are supposed to be regulating, or sometimes are picked from the investment class itself. Democrats and Republicans over the last two decades have been have maintained a fairly consistent policy of deregulation of Wall Street, and both parties passed legislation to give taxpayer bailouts to failing banking conglomerates. Now, with no hint of realizing the irony, both parties seem to want to run on a supposedly anti-corporate platform, wishing to have the public outcry over the bailouts to propel them to or keep them in office. We can reasonably expect this populism to be disingenuous for both parties, as now thanks to a new Supreme Court ruling, corporations no longer have any limits on the amount they can donate to political campaigns, making it even easier to buy influence in government than it has been in the recent past.

In all likelihood, we will soon see growth return to the economy, but this will not mean the problem has been fixed, but rather deferred for an indeterminate amount of time. Some suggest that with the expansion of global capitalism, boom and bust cycles will occur more frequently. In the end, if we wish to truly solve the problem, we must rethink the structure of the economy itself, as stimuli, bailouts and regulations will ultimately only allow the boom-bust cycles to continue with regularity. Meanwhile, notice that the executives at the top of the bailed out failed banks gave themselves bonuses while at the same time laying off workers at the bottom rungs of the corporate ladder. Rather than being forced to learn a lesson about their mistaken adventures in creative finance, the people at the top of the investment class rewarded themselves for their mistakes, and learned that they could get away with making other people (their workers and the taxpayers) pay for them instead. There seems to be little indication that this will change anytime soon. It is a perverse system where those who benefit the most from the economic upswings are those who experience the least setbacks in the downturns. That’s hardly the meritocracy that American capitalism’s defenders claim it to be.

The Myth of “Settling Down”

At my age, it’s very common for friends to speak of “settling down”. Some want to, some don’t, some are ready, some are not. Usually what they mean by this is getting married and/or having children.

I personally want to get married and have children. But regardless of whether one desires to undertake these lifestyle choices, I believe it is wrong-headed to ever regard them as merely “settling down”.

“Settling down” implies that these extraordinary existential adventures are normative, boring and something automatic. But to use such language to refer to such monumentous and complex life experiences should be obviously absurd.

Marriage and family life are full of their own unique highs and lows, with their own special moments of existential pain and pleasure, just as much (perhaps more, I cannot speak from experience) as life as a single person.

These choices should be made voluntarily and intentionally, and to regard them as something one just falls into belittles them. Each marriage is unique in space and time and it’s own chance to reinvent marriage. Likewise, the choice of parenting is a chance to redefine what it means to be a parent. They are adventures in their own right. Tradition informs, it must never dictate. This is an existential view of marriage and family. It requires that one not go into such difficult and important pursuits unthinkingly. Ultimately, we must reject this language of settling down.

Tasty Lentil Paste

This blog will not be a singular theme. The human experience is extremely vast, and the non-linear, non-narrative format of a blog creates a good medium to talk about a variety of things. Strangely enough though, most bloggers choose a theme and explore that particular topic until they have run out of things to say.

Today, I want to talk about lentils. For those of you cutting back during this Great Recession (so, most everyone), you might want to try lentils. Lentils are high in fiber, protein, Folate (B9) and Iron. Also, they’re cheap. I can usually get a pound of dry lentils for about 67 cents. Unlike most pulses, you don’t have to soak lentils overnight or anything. You may want to sift through in case of small pebbles in the bag, but personally i’ve never encountered a pebble in my bag of lentils. Apparently it happens though. There are a variety of ways you can cook lentils, one of the most common in the Western hemisphere being lentil soup.

However, this recipe I will be teaching you today is far from traditional cuisine. Here it goes

Equipment needed:

medium 4 or 6 quart saucepan

mixing bowl

wooden spoon

Ingredients:

6-8 cups of water (for boiling)

1 tablespoon olive oil

1 pound dry lentils

3 tablespoons peanut butter

1 tablespoon lime or lemon juice

1 tablespoon ground cumin (optional)

1 teaspoon garam masala (optional)

2-4 tablespoons of Sriracha sauce (optional, don’t use unless you like spicy)

2-3 tablespoons plain yogurt

Instructions:

Boil your water in a medium saucepan. Once you get a good rolling boil, put your pound of lentils in and cover it. (Hint: if your saucepan doesn’t have a lid, you can use a plate. Just don’t touch it with bare hands.) Alright, now turn down the stove to medium low heat. Let cook for about an hour.

Then, using your lid (or plate), drain out the excess water from the saucepan, being careful not to spill out all your lentils (you may lose a few, but it’s not a big deal). Okay, now that they’re drained, transfer your lentils from the saucepan into your mixing bowl. But keep your saucepan, you still need it.

 Now, you’re going to put your tablespoon of olive oil in your saucepan, and heat it up on medium heat, until it starts to get a lot of bubbles. Then you dump your lentils back into the saucepan, and stir until its consistency is fairly uniform and paste-like. Now add the peanut butter and stir, making sure the mix the peanut butter with the entire batch. Then, add the lime (or lemon) juice.

Once everything is mixed and fairly uniform in consistency, you can turn down the heat to medium low and add the garam masala and cumin (if you want them, but if you’re not hot for those flavors, its fine without it). Stir for a few minutes on the low heat, then transfer back to your mixing bowl.

Here, you add your yogurt and the Srirarcha (if you want it). Once your stirred everything in completely in the bowl, you’re done. You can serve this in bowls, on plates with rice, or with tortillas. I usually like to eat mine with tortillas. Buen provecho!

A small note of leftist thought, with an intro from George Carlin

Now, I don’t share in Carlin’s pessimism. Nothing that is made cannot be unmade. If the factories that produce the goods can be re-tooled and restructured to produce different and better products, so too can a society be reworked to produce better standards of living.

Leftists understand that economic conditions of a society affect its politics and culture, and vice versa. Carlin describes America as a society whose economy controlled largely by a relatively small group of people in the corporate class, and this is certainly true. By extension then, we know they also have a control on the politics and culture of America. (This is, by the way, certainly not unique to America. This system, which leftists refer to as late capitalism, is a global reality that touches the lives of everyone on the globe in one way or another.)

However, our current situation hasn’t always existed, and will not always exist. Change is a constant of human societies and every person has both some means and every interest in helping shape what the next direction will be.

That is the first hurdle to be overcome, is pessimism. Things can (and will) change. There is often a popular idea that certain negative social conditions–racism, poverty, inequality–can not change. Such thinking is often promoted by the ruling classes of most every society throughout time and geography, in some form or another. It’s the foundation on which all forms of slavery exist. In ancient times, it was because the gods had decreed it to be so. In our contemporary times, it’s often just said, “Well, that’s just the way it is.” But no social condition “just is”. They are all created, and they all can be undone.

Once you have cleared this first hurdle, you have begun your path to freedom.