Here are a series of letters and essays on my observations of the world from an subjective, anarchist prospective. I encourage you to be skeptical and challenge anything I say. New posts at top.
Yuval Harari –Technology Will Turn Men Into Gods
Oct 28, 2017 Here is a one hour episode of the CBC program “Ideas” featuring Yuval Harari. He is a historian who brings a interesting and sobering prospective to where the new technology is taking us. Like him I do not think we have the option of rejection – we’re on a non-stoppable path. To me the question is whether or not we can manage it? I’m not optimistic. Comments Thoughts on "Greed"
Oct 10, 2017 I see greed as the desire to have more money, power, food or status than one actually needs. Greed can, and certainly does, lead to societies that function less well compared to societies whose assets are more evenly distributed. I also believe that greed is a major factor in the downward spiral of today’s market capitalism. Now the very rich would rarely admit that they, themselves, are greedy. They will always say that they worked for it – or it proves they are smart – or that wealth handed down to them is good and proper. And then there’s the quest for capital to finance worthy undertakings such as Tesla’s initiative to bring electric transportation and green technology to the masses. That’s not “greed”. Maybe you argue that “greed” helps to advance human progress by pushing us to reach higher toward accomplishing something? I don’t see that as “greed”? Greed is not “competition” which is a person or group trying to achieve certain goals in competition with another person or group. Right now car companies are competing to be the first with a mass produced electric car. The “status” and “profit” that would flow from being the first would not be motivated by “greed”. Here’s where the dictionary definition of “greed” comes into question. It often lists excessive “status” as an example of greed. The trouble is when the status in question is “unwarranted”. I usually see “status” and “respect” as being related. Many of us respect Noam Chomsky so his “status” in society is very high to a great many people. Don’t we all want respect and the position of status that comes with it? An example of “unwarranted status” is the presidency of Donald Trump who does not deserve the “status” and “respect” we normally give to such a high office. Comments Is "Meaning" a Human Need?
Feb 4 2017 I see no meaning in life other than what meanings we humans create for ourselves. I'm not necessarily implying that a pursuit of self-interest has meaning – but I can't say that it doesn't either. Our culture tells us that there is meaning in doing good things and I go along with that as most of us do. Truth is though this "need for meaning" is an artifact of our culture, mainly from our religious traditions. Although a need for meaning may feel like an actual human need it's not a real need except when we're conditioned to believe that it's a real need. We don't "need" alcohol but we can be conditioned to believe we do. Comments Yes, China Is An Imperial Power
Feb 3 2017 The International Communists do say, pretty well word for word, what you've been saying all along – except regarding your dismissive view of the existence of Chinese imperialism which I find perplexing. https://www.thecommunists.net/what-we-stand-for/ I certainly agree with most of the comments that are typically made by International communists. Like you however, they believe – and I'm certain you are aware of this – that revolution can only be achieved by violent force. We have argued this point many times but I still hold the view that force would be suicidal and that there are more practical and sophisticated methods that can be employed. My wish is that we will eventually come together on this. In researching Chinese imperialism I found that Chomsky, like you, is somewhat hopeful about China – he said: “My hope is that they [China] will exert some positive influences to the world, but this has to be watched carefully”. If the recent 2016 billionaire tally is any indication I would not put a lot of faith in Chomsky’s hopes. China now has 596 billionaires, surpassing the U.S. tally for the first time. The U.S. has 537 billionaires. This is according to Hurun, a Chinese site. I had long thought that Chinese capitalism would eventually lead to this – the haves and the have nots. This is also the view of communists – always has been. Chomsky made his comment several years ago but if he had said this today I’d have to think he’s being a bit disingenuous if not untypically naive. Has there ever been a major world power that has not acted in an imperialistic matter to some degree? The more I research Chinese imperialism my doubt that it exists melts away. Sure it's nothing like western imperialism over the years but I do feel that if it were not for the fact that China has so much on its plate right now they would likely be even more imperialist. What better way to prove my point would be to look at a country that has been affected by Chinese imperialism in recent years: Sierra Leone. According to this piece in the Standard Times Press : “China is an imperialist, as imperialistic as its western counterparts”. http://standardtimespress.org/?p=3631 Please read this. It's "not speculating about the future", it's empirical. There are many other examples of Chinese imperialism in other African countries as well as South America. So much so that I can only conclude that probably the only thing that has held Chinese imperialism back has been suppression from outside forces. I can not agree that "the Chinese national character is incompatible with Imperialism". Incompatible? That's rather strong don't you think? This character, as you call it, is not nature, therefore it's malleable and can change over a person's lifetime and is influenced by the environment over time. A country's character will certainly change as its people change. This is even more pronounced from generation to generation. What I'm saying meshes with your comments on determinism – something we've long agreed upon so I find it puzzling that you believe the Chinese national character is set in stone on something so impersonal as a person's belief in a foreign policy issue like imperialism. Nobody is born an NDPer as Richard Lewontin said in Toronto years ago. One thing that seems to be becoming clearer to me is that you reject western capitalism but accept Chinese capitalism. I think both will inevitably fail but that does not mean that I think some form of capitalism has no chance of working. I don't share your "absolute" views on this. Comments Is China An Imperial Power?
Feb 2 2017 I don’t ever recall calling China “imperialist”. In the future who knows? But I would say there are other forms of imperialism that China is currently engaged in and this could expand, even militarily, in the future. We could argue the terminology but I would suggest that an expansion of business interests into other parts of the world, such as China has be doing in places like Africa and South America is a form of imperialism. There are resources that China needs and they will try to get them one way or another. Some may call it business. Others may see it as imperialism. The face of imperialism has changed. Even American imperialism is quite different from past imperial powers. I would submit that any imperial tendencies that China may have had in recent times have been held back by more powerful imperialism. I’ve long believed that the differences between us in the west and the Chinese is strictly cultural. They are no more peaceful by nature than we are. You seem to be implying otherwise. This idea of a people being better than another has got to stop. Likewise this growing nationalism in China needs to be addressed. Please bear with me – Regarding your students understanding of politics, I would never suggest that I know more than you do. I’m simply expressing a personal point of view and enjoy exploring possible answers. Such as – it may be your influence, by way of your discussions with your students, that they may have an unusually high awareness of political ideas. I suspect that the degree of student/teacher political dialogue would be much higher in your case than it is typically the case right here in Canada – because you probably have more strongly expressed political beliefs than the norm. The teachers I’ve known here have all been pragmatic in their workplace – choosing to “keep out of trouble” within a school system that discourages teachers from discussing their political views with their students. Even at post secondary this kind of thing is being discouraged by an increasingly right wing, business oriented school administration. There are of course two sides to this complicated issue. Let me give you one personal example involving my daughter when she was at Humber Collage studying graphic design. She had a professor there who’s job it was to instill a “business ethic” in his students to the point that design was just another way to “make a living”. This kind of pragmatism was not unexpected by me given the school’s vocational nature. As a parent I can understand the objective of having your kid make it “in the real world” – and in this case it worked out well perhaps because I was pushing Ashley strongly in the other direction – “to love what she was doing” and to not be in it just “to make a living”. My daughter disliked this teacher and pushed back against his business agenda but I have to admit that this experience – along with another similar experience at Western – have probably given her the balance to make it in a very competitive world as a creative director in New York and now in LA. I have to wonder though what kind of future citizens we’re creating when the school system is all about “getting a job” together with parents that discourage the idealistic tendencies of their children. My suspicion is that the reason why the state of the world seems so dire today is this lack of idealism in a world that’s obsessed with pragmatic self interest. But then – even if you agree with me on this lack of idealism in today’s society its embrace carries with it a certain peril – “idealism” implies a certain truth. And what is “truth”? If we believe in the ideology that “God is on our side” does this allow us to do anything? For sure this is a more complicated path than pragmatism. But what choice do we have? Comments "Metaphor" in Political speech
Feb 2 2017 Of course the use of metaphor is a given by any good communicator, especially the leader of country with a long romantic history. Even American presidents like Obama use metaphor effectively. And that awful scoundrel Ronald Reagan was great with his “the shining city on a hill”. Notable Americans in the past such as Mark Twain used metaphor quite a lot. I can’t recall ever sitting through an entire speech by a Chinese leader in the past but it seems to me that Xi Jinping is a wonderful communicator, perhaps the best since Mao Tse-tung. And it’s comforting to see that China appears to have an intelligent and communicative leader as we could be headed toward a very difficult period in international relations. You mention “imperialism” as the “important issue facing us today”. This is not a part of China today – as you often point out and I agree. The last thing Xi Jinping needs to deal with right now is expansion. In the future, however, this could change if or when China becomes the world’s most dominant power. There is that question of Taiwan. I also am concerned with the “growth imperative” that China and the rest of the world have embraced. There is still little talk of this problem as China continues to overproduce. It’s good to hear about the positive expectations that your students have of China's leadership. This compares favourably to the terrible “values” that are instilled through the media in the West. I wonder though if your students are all that aware of politics, at least on a national level? And if an idealized perspective regarding China’s leaders is mainly a cultural expectation. I can’t help but feel that “pragmatism”, not “ideology”, is the dominant obsession of the modern Chinese proletariat just as it is pretty well everywhere else. Comments "Basic Income" Talk At DAVOS
Feb 1 2017 Yes, “Basic Income” plans have been studied in the past in Canada and elsewhere. The reason many are thinking about this right now is due to new forecasts that suggest that technology will soon displace a lot of today’s work force. And if this is true financial inequality will grow in a big way. http://www.basicincomecanada.org/ I think you’re right that the benefits of a guaranteed income programme would offset the direct costs. I believe this is the reason why right wingers like Milton Friedman have looked at this with interest. Any plan that’s revenue neutral that’s also simpler has to be a very good thing. I also believe that this discussion opens up the philosophical question of why human beings work. Comments An Adult On The World Stage
Jan 31 2017 Last year at DAVOS, The World Economic Forum, the talk was centered on technology, artificial intelligence and robotics. This time hi-tech is also a major subject but this time the focus of the conference is social order in a changing world. Again there is an interesting panel on “Basic Income” with Cambridge professor Guy Standing who’s been arguing in favour of Basic Income for decades. As unlikely a concept under capitalism one could imagine there is increasing support for some form of basic income from both the political right and the left. And now it’s championed by Silicone Valley as probably the only way to fight income ineqality. But the big star of DEVOS this year certainly has to be Xi Jinping, the Chinese president, who convincingly makes his case for economic globalization and open markets blaming greed and inadequate regulation for the world’s current economic problems. He insists emphatically that “no one will win in a trade war.” He went on to say that “China is pursuing a path based on realities” . . . China has “blazed a development path that suits China’s actual conditions . . . We are not jealous of others’ success”. Without boasting he continues “We will open our arms to the people of other countries and welcome them aboard the express train of China’s development”. Quite a sales pitch. Had Hillary Clinton become the American president she would probably be in Davos making a similar speech. But we're all fed up with corporatists like Hillary Clinton. Wisely the Democrats sent Joe Biden instead. While I believe that the Chinese president’s speech will bring comfort to much of the world it will also bring support for China’s objectives at the same time that The United States is becoming politically irrational under Donald Trump. There is something reassuring that the Chinese leader appears on the global stage as an adult, a real leader, while we in the West are wondering if we can survive the impulsive and dangerous actions of a new, untested and unpredictable president. Basic Income – a Dream or Delusion Davos 2017 - Opening Plenary with Xi Jinping, President of the Peoples Republic of China Comments Movements Broken Into "Factions"
To PV Jan 28 2017 I see the internet as being a reflection on the society in general, both the good and the bad. Quickly, we have become dependant on the internet but this is a negative that we can tolerate. If we lose the internet we will be handicapped by losing a tool in our quest for truth. The very real worry is that the web will become more difficult to interact with as it becomes more commercialized. Some people I talk to – older people especially – describe the internet as comprising of cat videos and fake news. I see that person as not utilizing the internet effectively. Like any tool the internet requires practice and persistence if we are to make best use of it. One critical view of the internet is that it has a tendency to divide users into “factions” where the information presented tends to harden an already held view. This tendency is a relic of our tribal past. It gives us comfort to be around people who think like us – we feel we’re not alone in having views that seem to clash with the rest of society. I could cite many groups on the internet that propagate this serious and divisive problem of “factions”. One of the most troublesome problems in recent times relates to the promotion of "the system", that is market capitalism. This appears too broad to be considered as “tribal” but if we break it down into factions within it we have the “believers”, the market utopians who think “the market” will take care of everything. And we have the “the critics” – those who accept markets but don’t believe capitalism is being managed correctly. People like RT’s Max Keiser. Also within this faction is Alex Jones who is more or less the internet version of Rush Limbaugh. Where Jones is different from Limbaugh is that he tends to embrace every conspiracy theory out there. I see plenty of truth in what Jones is trying to tell us but I find him obnoxious especially when he goes off the edge as he often does. Some may find him entertaining, I don’t, I find him mostly silly and even scary. And when Jones is wrong he's wrong big time. For instance I’m disturbed that he propagates the use of guns. And that he adds to the prevailing sense of “paranoia” and hopelessness in America which leads in turn to desperation which then leads to irrational ideology. My own position is that of “anarchism” which can hardly be called a “faction”, at least within present day society – it’s too small a tribe and it’s too unknown, poorly understood and almost invisible. Anarchism is in some ways the opposite of capitalism. To put it very simply: capitalism is power from the top, by the very few, while anarchism is power from the bottom, by the many. People generally aren’t aware that anarchism is a powerful, underlying part of today’s social order. Today when we say “social order” we think that can’t be anarchism. But there can be no politically relevant anarchism without social order. Anarchy in this sense does not mean chaos – just the opposite. It means a non-hierarchical social order. We really have to come up with a better name for “anarchism”. The trouble with all of this breaking down into societal factions is that we spend most of our energy buried within our own tribal, like minded faction – and we all do this to some degree – we lose sight of the bigger picture. Thereby we see a distorted and biased view of the truth. I think you will agree that what I’m saying applies to the general public at large, to today's journalists as well as to the current political order. Comments There's Hope and There's Lies To PV Jan 28 2017 The political order has needed disruption for a long time and that’s where Donald Trump comes in. He may prove to be useful in our road to change. To wake people up, to engage the masses. And we're off to a good start bringing out thousands more activists compared to those that were at Trump's inauguration. The idea that somebody like Trump can attain such a lofty position in American politics should make us all want to re-examine our system of checks-and-balances. For Trump is a man who lies with a sense of childish innocence. Like a five-year-old child he doesn’t seem to appreciate that lies can have repercussions. He appears to believe he can go on just as he has been doing in business for many years using lies to get his own way. And like a five your old he does not think things through beforehand. I also believe he’s beyond learning these things. Trump lies alright but he’s now within a system where lies have become a fine art. I think most of us can see through Trump’s child-like lies but there are still many who are indoctrinated in a system of lies that are far more insidious than the phenomenon of Donald Trump. So like I was saying I don't worry about Trump all that much. He may even prove to be instrumental in helping to bring about a better world. But he himself is far from being the answer. Comments Bad to Badder – On Trump's First Week Jan 27 2017 Suddenly as I look at the mess we’re in I’m seeing “green shoots” of hope out there. Especially for Canadians. With the stroke of a pen Donald Trump has put the Keystone pipeline project back on the table. Whether it will ever go ahead given the strong opposition remains an oily question. The good news is that any thought of building new pipelines here in Canada has been halted, perhaps forever. As you know by now we had about sixty thousand people, mostly women, take to the streets of Toronto to protest Trump’s disrespect of women along with the many other crude and chilling remarks by this self-obsessed asshole-in-chief. What will this guy do next? I’m not that worried. Trump is like a gift to the political activist community. And he’s sure to keep on giving. Already we’ve had half a million demonstrators in Washington and many more in sympathy throughout the world. People are asking what’s next as they’re eager to make a further impact on a world that appears to be in a mode of insanity. This won’t let up as long as Trump is in the Whitehouse. And the way I see it Trump won’t be around very long anyway. Already, without completing his first week as president, his own party is speaking out against him in public saying he’s wrong about his comments on voter fraud. Has this kind of critique of a newly elected president by his own party ever happened before? Who needs those head-in-the-sand Democrats when the Republicans are ganging up against their own leader? I wonder if Donald will even last six months? It’s not had to see why the Republicans are turning on Trump because they see him as unstable and unresponsive to party dictates. It’s as if Trump is his own separate party. He hates the Republicans and they hate him. Trump needed the party to win the election just as the party needed Trump to put the Republicans back in the Whitehouse. They no longer need each other so there is good reason to force Trump out. It will certainly be a battle that Trump will likely loose. And the Republicans will get what they wanted all along: a predictable party loyalist named Michael Pence, an anybody but Trump. I can just picture Paul Ryan in the background drooling ghoulishly. Just when we thought that Donald Trump is as bad as it can get a united Republican party, along with their majority in the house and senate, will suddenly become a much more sinister power to deal with. Four years of Trump would be much better than this scenario. Comments |