Economic Aspects of "Love"

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Wed Aug 31, 2011 10:33 pm

.

This quote from the end of The Cyborg Manifesto attracted my attention also:


Every, story that begins with original innocence and privileges the return to wholeness imagines the drama of life to be individuation, separation, the birth of the self, the tragedy of autonomy, the fall into writing, alienation; that is, war, tempered by imaginary respite in the bosom of the Other. These plots are ruled by a reproductive politics --rebirth without flaw, perfection, abstraction. In this plot women are imagined either better or worse off, but all agree they have less selflhood, weaker individuation, more fusion to the oral, to Mother, less at stake in masculine autonomy. But there is another route to having less at stake in masculine autonomy, a route that does not pass through Woman, Primitive, Zero, the Mirror Stage and its imaginaw. It passes through women and other present-tense, illegitimate cyborgs, not of Woman born, who refuse the ideological resources of victimization so as to have a real life.





.
Last edited by American Dream on Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:06 am

American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:55 pm




http://www.feminisms.org/tag/hipsters/

Everyone should read this.

June 9, 2010 | Posted by Meghan Murphy


I copied this from a great blog called: my culture is not a trend. If any of you read the article, “Feathers and Fashion” posted on Jezebel back in April, about cultural appropriation, and thought, EXACTLY, you will certainly enjoy this aptly put commentary on the topic. Why oh why do hipsters think that it is ok to see ‘Indian’ as some kind of fashion trend?
“This is long, but so worth the read. Via Jezebel.com

“Whenever there’s a post suggesting that people who don’t belong to an oppressed group shouldn’t do X, immediately there’s a flood of responses either indignantly saying, “But I should have the right!”, or scuffing their feet on the floor and muttering “Well, I’m just not sure it’s such a big deal.” Fuck that. It’s not your call to make. Sorry that the mere suggestion that someone might infringe on your privilege to “play Indian” is so off-putting to you. And it’s remarkably akin to how people defend racist jokes – because there are worse things one can possibly do, and because their effects feel intangible, they get a pass. Nevermind that withholding a joke – or ditching the “Native-inspired” garb – won’t set you back any.

I mean, let’s run through this:

“I want to wear an ‘Aztec’ patterned feather headband. But my ancestors didn’t personally oppress Native Americans. What’s the problem?”

Centuries of Native Americans – as well as indigenous peoples all over the world – have suffered under dominating entities that tried to extinguish them – both physically (i.e., genocide) and culturally (i.e., the banning of traditional practices, such as the criminalization of the Lakota sun dance for most of the 20th century, residential schools in Canada until the 1970s, and so forth).

So while it’s great that you can walk around feeling like hot shit in your feathered headband, there are many Native Americans still too ashamed or afraid to even discuss their ethnicities or cultures with their children. Many whose songs, languages, ceremonies and skills have been lost by force. Many who are so mired in poverty and depression and addiction and other forms of social strife that *you might have more access to their traditional cultures than they do*.

Image


I’m not going to say that wearing something “inspired” by someone’s perceptions of Native American cultures is immediately and unequivocally wrong, but please consider that it has the potential to be an act of tremendous insensitivity and privilege.

“Fashion is about fun, about pretending to be someone else. Fashion appropriates other cultures all the time. Sure, it’s a stereotype, but what’s wrong with that?”

First, sometimes one person’s “fun” isn’t everyone’s idea of a good time. For example, the “fun-ness” of fashion is often lost on foxes. It’s rather like how jokes are “about fun” but can sometimes be at the expense of a vulnerable or stigmatized social group. Secondly, just because the fashion industry does something regularly doesn’t mean it’s right (I can’t believe I’m even typing this). And if fashion needs cultural appropriation to stay interesting, then axe the designers.

Thirdly, there’s a great difference between dressing up as a “stereotypical wizard” and “stereotypical Native American”. Because I fear that the distinction has been lost on a few folks, let me clarify: wizards aren’t real.

Dressing up as “a Native American” furthers the already popular notion that they aren’t real, diverse, complex human beings. There’s a reason that dressing up as a white guy isn’t nearly as effective on Halloween; there’s no homogenous vision of what White Guy looks like. If you’ve developed a homogenous vision of a particular race, enough that you could conceive of a good costume, then just fucking stay home for the evening.

It’s as though the national imagination can concoct either an “indian” regally scalping a cowboy while expertly soothing a notoriously angsty horse, or an alcoholic guy reaping welfare checks and/or the rewards of a reserve casino, and not a fucking thing in between. It might not be the biggest problem facing Native Americans (see next) but must you contribute to it?

“Isn’t this a lesser issue in Native American communities than, say, social and economic strife?”

Different Native Americans – like other types of humans, unsurprisingly – have different reactions to critiques of cultural appropriation. Some feel it’s earning a disproportionate amount of attention (and I’m inclined to agree) – just as some queer activists wish everyone focused more on suicide rates than gay marriage, and some feminists wish everyone focused more on sexual violence than the implications of Disney princesses or Barbie dolls. That doesn’t mean these conversations aren’t valid or significant in their own respect, but it does indicate that there are gaping holes in the public understanding of Native American struggles. We need fuckloads – really, I don’t know any other unit of measurement that would apply – of awareness and action about these issues as well.

To quote the amazing indigenous feminist Jessica Yee, “I’ve also heard a lot of people in the Native community ask why these types of things are getting so much attention when we have real live issues within the community like no running water and extreme poverty going on that people aren’t paying half as much attention to. But when millions of people are watching a supposed “reference” to your culture/ethnicity/race that is totally wrong – there is a bit of erasure of our people to address…”

“I think it’s okay to wear Native-themed garments or accessories as long as you’re respectful about it.”

Respect in this context is great because you can say that you have it without actually taking any concrete action. It’s like, sure, I respect you, but I’m not going lend a hand in your political or social struggles, I’m not going to write to my political representatives or join your protests or support you in any tangible way, I’m just going to learn about your people from books and pat myself on the back. Well, frankly, if your respect were a wedding gift I think most people would return it. Respect is not something you can do by lovingly reflecting on your pair of earrings, it requires a fundamental commitment of equality in your relationship with folks in your community, whether that community is your block or your planet. If you do a Wiki or Google search for “Guswhenta”, you can read about a Haudenosaunee representation of this relationship.

“But what if a Native American made the accessory/garment and sold it to me?”

There’s a difference between handicrafts and regalia. And there’s a difference between regalia and shit you think is regalia. And there’s a difference between supporting Native American trade and buying into the commodification and trendifying of someone’s culture by buying some glorious sweatshop-produced “tribal-style” moccasins at the local mall. If you can’t tell the difference and a Native American vendor hasn’t made the decision easy for you, then make the right choice. Which may not be the most fashionable one.”

- Choppery, a salient commenteer at Jezebel.com
http://jezebel.com/5516362/feathers-and ... s-in-style
"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything."
-Malcolm X
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:09 pm

Through: http://fuckyeahculturalappropriation.tumblr.com/

Image

Image
deafmuslimpunk:

Oh, how fuckin’ cute. This is an Irish band called The Indians (deeply offensive for South Asians and Indigenous Americans), the lead singer even calls himself Geronimo. They have a Facebook page, be sure to let them know how you feel.


Image

“How to Write the Great American Indian Novel,” Sherman Alexie

All of the Indians must have tragic features: tragic noses, eyes, and arms.
Their hands and fingers must be tragic when they reach for tragic food.

The hero must be a half-breed, half white and half Indian, perferably
from a horse culture. He should often weep alone. That is mandatory.

If the hero is an Indian woman, she is beautiful. She must be slender
and in love with a white man. But if she loves an Indian man

then he must be a half-breed, perferably from a horse culture.
If the Indian woman loves a white man, then he has to be so white

that we can see the blue veins running through his skin like rivers.
When the Indian woman steps out of her dress, the white man gasps

at the endless beauty of her brown skin. She should be compared to nature:
brown hills, mountains, fertile valleys, dewy grass, wind, and clear water.

If she is compared to murky water, however, then she must have a secret.
Indians always have secrets, which are carefully and slowly revealed.

Yet Indian secrets can be disclosed suddenly, like a storm.
Indian men, of course, are storms. They should destroy the lives

of any white women who choose to love them. All white women love
Indian men. That is always the case. White women feign disgust

at the savage in blue jeans and T-shirt, but secretly lust after him.
White women dream about half-breed Indian men from horse cultures.

Indian men are horses, smelling wild and gamey. When the Indian men
unbuttons his pants, the white woman should think of topsoil.

There must be one murder, one suicide, one attempted rape.
Alcohol should be consumed. Cars must be driven at high speeds.

Indians must see visions. White people can have the same visions
if they are in love with Indians. If a white person loves an Indian

then the white person is Indian by proximity. White people must carry
an Indian deep inside themselves. Those interior Indians are half-breed

and obviously from horse cultures. If the interior Indian is male
then he must be a warrior, especially if he is inside a white man.

If the interior Indian is female, then she must be a healer, especially if she is inside
a white woman. Sometimes there are complications.

An Indian man can be hidden inside a white woman. An Indian woman
can be hidden inside a white man. In these rare instances,

everybody is a half-breed struggling to learn more about his or her horse culture.
There must be redemption, of course, and sins must be forgiven.

For this, we need children. A white child and an Indian child, gender
not important, should express deep affection in a childlike way.

In the Great American Indian novel, when it is finally written,
all of the white people will be Indians and all of the Indians will be ghosts.




Image


Image

Image

Image

Image
CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN THIS?


Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

The following poem by Chrystos is from Not Vanishing (Press Gang Publishers, Vancouver, 1988; SBN 0-88974-015-1). It is especially for Dee Johnson.




I AM NOT YOUR PRINCESS

Sandpaper between two cultures which tear
one another apart I'm not
a means by which you can reach spiritual understanding or even
learn to do beadwork
I'm only willing to tell you how to make fry bread
1 cup flour, spoon of salt, spoon of baking powder
Stir Add milk or water or beer until it holds together
Slap each piece into rounds Let rest
Fry in hot grease until golden
This is Indian food
only if you know that Indian is a government word
which has nothing to do with our names for ourselves
I won't chant for you
I admit no spirituality to you
I will not sweat with you or ease your guilt with fine turtle tales
I will not wear dancing clothes to read poetry or
explain hardly anything at all
I don't think your attempts to understand us are going to work so
I'd rather you left us in whatever peace we can still
scramble up after all you continue to do
If you send me one more damn flyer about how to heal myself
for $300 with special feminist counseling
I'll probably set fire to something
If you tell me one more time that I'm wise I'll throw up on you
Look at me
See my confusion Loneliness fear worrying about all our
struggles to keep what little is left for us
Look at my heart not your fantasies Please don't ever
again tell me about your Cherokee great-great grandmother
Don't assume I know every other Native Activist
in the world personally That I even know names of all the tribes
or can pronounce names I've never heard
or that I'm expert at the peyote stitch
If you ever
again tell me
how strong I am
I'll lay down on the ground & moan so you'll see
at last my human weakness like your own
I'm not strong I'm scraped
I'm blessed with life while so many I've known are dead
I have work to do dishes to wash a house to clean
There is no magic
See my simple cracked hands which have washed the same things
you wash See my eyes dark with fear in a house by myself
late at night See that to pity me or to adore me
are the same
1 cup flour, spoon of salt, spoon of baking powder, liquid to hold
Remember this is only my recipe There are many others
Let me rest
here
at least
http://treaty.indigenousnative.org/r-explt.html#not

Image

Andy Smith is a Cherokee woman, a co-founder of Women of All Red Nations (W.A.R.N.) and is active in the anti-sexual assault movement. This article appeared in the Winter 1991 issue of Women of Power. Other versions have appeared in various places. It is hoped that those of male gender reading this do not feel excused because it speaks only to "feminists" and white women. This version was written for a feminist publication; however, Ms. Smith did not intend to exclude anyone.



FOR ALL THOSE WHO WERE INDIAN IN A FORMER LIFE

By Andy Smith




The New Age Movement has sparked new interest in Native American Traditional spirituality among white women who claim to be feminists. Indian spirituality, with it's respect for nature and the interconnectedness of all things, is often presented as the panacea for all individual and global problems. Not surprisingly, many white "feminists" see the opportunity to make a great profit from this craze. They sell sweat lodges or sacred pipe ceremonies, which promise to bring individual and global healing. Or they sell books and records that supposedly describe Indian traditional practices so that you, too, can be Indian.

On the surface, it may appear that this new craze is based on a respect for Indian spirituality. In fact, the New Age movement is part of a very old story of white racism and genocide against the Indian people. The "Indian" ways that these white, New Age feminists are practicing have little grounding in Native American reality.

True spiritual leaders do not make a profit from their teachings, whether it's through selling books, workshops, sweat lodges, or otherwise. Spiritual leaders teach the people because it is their responsibility to pass what they have learned from their elders to the younger generation. They do not charge for their services.

Indian religions are community-based, not proselytizing, religions. There is not one Indian religion, as many New Ager's would have you believe. Indian spiritual practices reflect the needs of a particular community. Indians do not generally believe that their way is "the" way, and consequently, they have no desire to tell outsiders about their practices. A medicine woman would be more likely to advise a white woman to look into her own culture and find what is liberating in it.

However, white women seem determined NOT to look into their own cultures for sources of strength. This is puzzling, since pre-Christian European cultures are also earth-based and contain many of the same elements that white are ostensibly looking for in Native American cultures. This phenomenon leads me to suspect that there is a more insidious motive for white "feminists" latching onto Indian spirituality.

When white "feminists" see how white people have historically oppressed others and how they are coming to very close to destroying the earth, they often want to dissociate themselves from their whiteness. They do this by opting to "become Indian." In this way, they can escape responsibility and accountability for white racism.

Of course, white "feminists" want to become only partly Indian. They do not want to be part of our struggles for survival against genocide; they do not want to fight for treaty rights or an end to substance abuse or sterilization abuse. They do not want to do anything that would tarnish their romanticized notions of what it means to become an Indian.

Moreover, white women want to become Indian without holding themselves accountable to Indian communities. If they did, they would have to listen to Indians telling them to stop carrying around sacred pipes, stop doing their own sweat lodges, and stop appropriating our spiritual practices. Rather, these New Agers see Indians as romanticized gurus who exist only to meet their consumerist needs. Consequently, they do not understand Indian people or our struggles for survival, and thus they can have no genuine understanding of Indian spiritual practices.

While New Agers may think that they are escaping white racism by becoming "Indian," they are, in fact, continuing the same genocidal practices of their forefathers/foremothers. The one thing that has maintained the survival of Indian people through 500 hundred years colonialism has been the spiritual bonds that keep us together. When the colonizers saw the strength of our spirituality, they tried to destroy Indian religions by making illegal. They forced Indian children into white missionary schools and cut their tongues if they spoke their native languages. Sundances were made illegal and Indian participation in the Ghost Dance precipitated the Wounded Knee massacre. Our colonizers recognized that it was our spirituality that maintained our spirit of resistance and sense of community. Even today, Indians are the only people in the United States who do not have religious freedom. This was made clear when the Supreme Court recently ruled that the First Amendment does not guarantee our right to use peyote in sacred ceremonies.

Many white, New Age "feminists" are continuing this practice of destroying spirituality. They trivialize Native American practices so that these practices lose their spiritual power. They have the white privileges and power to make themselves heard at the expense of Native Americans. Consumers like what many of these white writers have to tell them and do not want to become concerned with the facts presented by Native Americans. Our voices are silenced, and consequently, the younger generation of Indians who are trying to find their way back to the Old Ways become hopelessly lost in this morass of consumerist spirituality.

These practices also promote the subordination of Indian women to white women. Many white "feminists" tell us how greedy we are when we don't share our spirituality, and that we have to tell them everything they want to know because prophesies say we must. Apparently, it is our burden to service white women's needs rather than to spend time organizing within our own communities.

The New Age movement completely trivializes the oppression that we, as Indian women face: that Indian women are forcibly sterilized and are tested with unsafe drugs such as Depo-Provera; that we have a life expectancy of forty seven years; that we generally live below poverty level and face a seventy-five percent unemployment rate. No, ignoring our realities, the New Age movement sees Indian women as cool and spiritual and therefore, available to teach white women to be cool and spiritual.

This trivialization of our oppression is compounded by the fact that, nowadays, anyone can be Indian if she wants to be. All that is required is that a white woman be Indian in a former life or that she take part in a sweat lodge or be mentored by a "medicine woman" or read a "how to" book.

Since, according to this theory, anyone can now be "Indian," the term "Indian" no longer refers only to those groups of people who have survived five hundred years of colonization and genocide. This phenomenon furthers the goal of white supremists to abrogate treaty rights and to take away what little we have left by promoting the idea that some Indians need to have their land base protected, but even more Indians [those that are really white] have plenty of land. According to this logic, "Indians" as a whole do not need treaty rights. When everyone becomes "Indian" it is easy to lose sight of the specificity of oppression faced by those who are Indian in this life. It is no wonder we have such a difficult time getting non-Indians to support our struggles when the New Age movement has completely disguised our oppression.

The most disturbing aspect of these racist practices is that they are promoted in the name of feminism. Sometimes it seems that I can't open a feminist periodical without seeing ads with little medicine wheel designs promoting white "feminist" businesses. I can't seem to go to a feminist conference without the only Indian presenter being the woman who begins the conference with a ceremony. Participants feel so "spiritual" after this opening that they fail to notice the absence of Indian women in the rest of the conference or that nobody is discussing any pressing issues in Native American communities. And I certainly can't go to a feminist bookstore without seeing books by white women promoting Native spirituality. It seems that, while feminism is supposed to signify the empowerment of all women, it obviously does not include Indian women. If white feminists are going to act in solidarity with their Indian sisters, they are gong to have to take a stand against Indian spiritual abuse.

Feminist book and record stores selling these products, and feminist periodicals should stop advertising these products. Women who call themselves feminists should denounce exploitative practices where ever they see them.

Many white feminists have claimed that Indians are not respecting "freedom of speech" by demanding that whites stop promoting and selling books that exploit Indian spirituality. However, promotion of this material is destroying freedom of speech for Native Americans by ensuring that our voices will never be heard. Furthermore, feminists already make choices about what they will promote. I haven't seen many books by right-wing fundamentalist women sold in feminist bookstores, since feminists recognized that these books are oppressive to women. It is not a radical move to ask that white women extend their feminist concerns to include Indian women. The issue is not censorship; the issue is racism. Feminists must have a choice, will they respect Indian political and spiritual autonomy or will they promote materials that are fundamentally racist under the guise of "freedom of speech."

White feminists should know that as long as they take part in Indian spiritual abuse, either by being consumers of it or by refusing to take a stand on it, Indian women will consider white "feminists" to be nothing more than agents in the genocide of our people.


Our spirituality is not for sale!


http://treaty.indigenousnative.org/r-explt.html#all







Chrystos is a Native American (Menominee/Lithuanian), born in 1946 and raised in San Francisco. A political activist and speaker, as well as an artist and writer, she is self-educated. Her tireless momentum is directed at better understanding how issues of colonialism, genocide, class and gender affect lives of women and Native people. Chrystos makes Bainbridge Island in the Pacific Northwest her home. This poem is from Dream On (Press Gang Publishers, Vancouver, 1991; ISBN 0-88974-029-1.) It is in Honor of Muriel Miguel & Spiderwoman Theatre.



(there are many forms of genocide and this is one)

SHAME ON!

fake shamen give me some money
I'll make you a catholic priest in a week
couple thousand I'll name you pope
of our crystal breakfast cereal circle of healers
Give me some money you'll be free
Give me some money you'll be whole
Give me some money you'll be right
with past lives zooming by your door
Steal from anybody to make a paste-up tacked-on
holy cat box of nothing
I tell you I'm sincere & that excuses everything
I'm a sincere thief a sincere rapist a sincere killer
My heart is pure my head is fuzzy give me some money
& you'll be clear
Your pockets will be anyhow
Give me a dime I'll erase your crime
Give me a dollar give me ten give me a thousand
fastest growing business in america
is shame men shame women
You could have a sweat same as you took manhattan
you could initiate people same as into the elks
with a bit of light around your head
& some "Indian" jewelry from hong kong, why you're all set
Come on now take something more that doesn't belong to you
Come on & take that's what you know best
Whites take Red turns away
Listen I've got a whole bunch of holey underpants
you could use in a ceremony you can make up yourself
Be a born again Indian it's easy
You want to buy spiritual enlightenment we got plenty
& if you act today we'll throw in four free 100-watt lightbulbs
so you can have your own private halo
What did you say? You met lynn andrews in person?
That woman ought to be in a bitter herb stew
I'll sell you lies half-price better than hers
america is starving to death for spiritual meaning
It's the price you pay for taking everything
It's the price you pay for buying everything
It's the price you pay for loving your stuff more than life
Everything goes on without you
You can't hear the grass breathe
because you're too busy talking
about being a holy Indian woman two hundred years ago
You sure must stink if you didn't let go
The wind doesn't want to talk to you
because you're always right
even when you don't know what you're talking about
We've been polite for five hundred years
& you still don't get it
Take nothing you cannot return
Give to others give more
Walk quietly Do what needs to be done
Give thanks for your life
Respect all beings
simple
& it doesn't cost a penny

http://treaty.indigenousnative.org/r-explt.html#shameon






Image
What do you mean your ~exotic~ religious figures are sacred and meaningful to you and stuff


Image

Image

Image

Image

It is one thing to like a culture. It is another to respect it.

This goes much deeper than just simple appropriation, though. This is the concept that chromatic cultures are to be shared, delighted in, & marketed for everyone as a little bit of spice. This is why you can dip your feet into the waters that nourish me. There is no promotion of equality between us, because we were never equals & are not equals at this present moment: you will never emphasise my humanity, you will only continue to strip me and mine of our personhood & say it is in the glorious name of ‘exchange’, or better yet, ‘diversity’. This is racism. This is Otherising. This is flattening of a vast spectrum of experiences.

It is not your place to say you don’t find yourself offensive when you deliberately exercise white privilege by engaging in such actions. It is like focusing sunlight through a magnifying glass and frying ants as they march past, and saying the ant feels no pain.

It is one thing to appreciate a culture. It is a different matter entirely to fetishize, misunderstand, and reduce a rich, living heritage to tired caricatures for your personal consumption. We do not exist to please you. We do not exist so you can discover your inner dusty peep. & we certainly do not exist to increase your hippie street cred. If you truly had an interest in us, you would not be paying lip service to stereotypes. You would not even be writing a blog dedicated to — once more — showing us to be polite, hospitable, deeply spiritual, and vegetarian. Perhaps you think even our tigers have internalised this message, hm?

In another time & place, your actions would have gone unnoticed, even lauded.

Perhaps in another time & place, the rest would have been silence.

Today, it is not. Today, I have a voice. You do not respect my culture & for this I pity you. You will never engage me; you will never understand: to you my heritage is a poor imitation, a hilarious distorted image in a funhouse mirror. & You will never be able to claim it as ‘yours’, because you will never perceive me and mine beyond our inscrutable smiles, our strange letters, our too-tight clothes, our dusty skin, our forked tongues.
http://adailyriot.tumblr.com/post/5935204998/native-voices-an-open-letter-to-all-appropriators

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

.
Last edited by American Dream on Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:36 pm, edited 3 times in total.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:56 pm

Jeff Wells wrote:
There were many things Martin Luther had wrong. "Strong beer is the milk of the old" wasn't one of them. Another wasn't his revulsion at the Medieval Church's practice of selling indulgences: the tidy revenue stream of peddling Get out of Purgatory Free cards. A posthumous entitlement program for the wealthy dead, and an invitation to sin boldly for those who could afford it. (The poor, as ever, could pay only in the currency of their blood, sweat and souls.) Of course, this turned the teaching of Jesus of its head - rich man, eye of a needle, and all that - but no matter: the Church has made a custom of perp-walking its Christs in a parade of upside-down clowns for two millenia.

Luther's rejection of the selling of indulgences sparked the Reformation, but the practice hasn't stopped; it's merely been secularized. BP paid - or more accurately, promised to pay - an indulgence of $20 billion over four years to cover damages incurred by the sin of Deep Water Horizon. Not even enough to make 2010 a losing year for the company if the amount had been paid as a lump sum. In fact, its stock "surged" on the news that it had just bought its way out of purgatory on the cheap. "The fear was that the government was going to do something so drastic as to effectively push the company into bankruptcy," said oil and gas analyst Brian Gibbons. "Now they can come out of the meeting and say they have held BP accountable and hold up a $20 billion escrow account." That was last year. (Ancient history, and nobody studies history anymore.) This year, the company's bringing unabashed motherfucker back: BP now wants to stop payments based on future losses, saying "there is no basis to assume that claimants, with very limited exceptions, will incur a future loss related to the oil spill." BP points to returning tourists and the reopened federal fishing grounds, and points away from the fish so sickened by diseases and infections and environmental stresses that LSU Oceanographer Jim Cowan says, "I've never seen anything like this. At all. Ever."

And here's where the Medieval Church had it over on us. The rich could only buy their way out of Purgatory, not Hell. Purgatory was the place of temporal punishment, even if it were to last a million years. Hell was forever. And Hell for BP - break it up, bankruptcy, nationalization - was never a serious threat in an era of Too Big to Damn. Unlike, or God help me so it seems, the whole bloody natural world and its profitless life.


'Nuff said- maybe someday soon I'll be able to chew and swallow this mighty serving of brain/soul food that is this new blog post and have something (at least somewhat) intelligent to say about it all...
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Thu Sep 01, 2011 9:33 pm

American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:52 am

http://endofcapitalism.com/2010/07/31/t ... ew-part-3/

The End of Capitalism?: Interview of Alex Knight – Part 3. Life After Capitalism
July 31, 2010


The following exchange between Michael Carriere and Alex Knight occurred via email, July 2010. Alex Knight was questioned about the End of Capitalism Theory, which states that the global capitalist system is breaking down due to ecological and social limits to growth and that a paradigm shift toward a non-capitalist future is underway.

This is the final part of a four-part interview. Scroll to the bottom for links to the other sections.

Part 3. Life After Capitalism

MC: Moving forward, how would you ideally envision a post-capitalist world? And if capitalism manages to survive (as it has in the past), is there still room for real change?

AK: First let me repeat that even if my theory is right that capitalism is breaking down, it doesn’t suggest that we’ll automatically find ourselves living in a utopia soon. This crisis is an opportunity for us progressives but it is also an opportunity for right-wing forces. If the right seizes the initiative, I fear they could give rise to neo-fascism – a system in which freedoms are enclosed and violated for the purpose of restoring a mythical idea of national glory.

I think this threat is especially credible here in the United States, where in recent years we’ve seen the USA PATRIOT Act, the Supreme Court’s decision that corporations are “persons,” and the stripping of constitutional rights from those labeled “terrorists,” “enemy combatants”, as well as “illegals.” Arizona’s attempt to institute a racial profiling law and turn every police officer into an immigration official may be the face of fascism in America today. Angry whites joining together with the repressive forces of the state to terrorize a marginalized community, Latino immigrants. While we have a black president now, white supremacist sentiment remains widespread in this country, and doesn’t appear to be going away anytime soon. So as we struggle for a better world we may also have to contend with increasing authoritarianism.

I should also state up front that I have no interest in “writing recipes for the cooks of the future.” I can’t prescribe the ideal post-capitalist world and I wouldn’t try. People will create solutions to the crises they face according to what makes most sense in their circumstances. In fact they’re already doing this. Yet, I would like to see your question addressed towards the public at large, and discussed in schools, workplaces, and communities. If we have an open conversation about what a better world would look like, this is where the best solutions will come from. Plus, the practice of imagination will give people a stronger investment in wanting the future to turn out better. So I’ll put forward some of my ideas for life beyond capitalism, in the hope that it spurs others to articulate their visions and initiate conversation on the world we want.

My personal vision has been shaped by my outrage over the two fundamental crises that capitalism has perpetrated: the ecological crisis and the social crisis. I see capitalism as a system of abuse. The system grows by exploiting people and the planet as means to extract profit, and by refusing to be responsible for the ecological and social trauma caused by its abuse. Therefore I believe any real solutions to our problems must be aligned to both ecological justice and social justice. If we privilege one over the other, we will only cause more harm. The planet must be healed, and our communities must be healed as well. I would propose these two goals as a starting point to the discussion.

How do we heal? What does healing look like? Let me expand from there.

Five Guideposts to a New World

I mentioned in response to the first question that I view freedom, democracy, justice, sustainability and love as guideposts that point towards a new world. This follows from what I call a common sense radical approach, because it is not about pulling vision for the future from some ideological playbook or dogma, but from lived experience. Rather than taking pre-formed ideas and trying to make reality fit that conceptual blueprint, ideas should spring from what makes sense on the ground. The five guideposts come from our common values. It doesn’t take an expert to understand them or put them into practice.

In the first section I described how freedom at its core is about self-determination. I said that defined this way it presents a radical challenge to capitalist society because it highlights the lack of power we have under capitalism. We do not have self-determination, and we cannot as long as huge corporations and corrupt politicians control our destinies.

I’ll add that access to land is fundamental to a meaningful definition of freedom. The group Take Back the Land has highlighted this through their work to move homeless and foreclosed families directly into vacant homes in Miami. Everyone needs access to land for the basic security of housing, but also for the ability to feed themselves. Without “food sovereignty,” or the power to provide for one’s own family, community or nation with healthy, culturally and ecologically appropriate food, freedom cannot exist. The best way to ensure that communities have food sovereignty is to ensure they have access to land.

Image
Ella Baker championed the idea of
participatory democracy



Similarly, a deeper interpretation of democracy would emphasize participation by an individual or community in the decisions that affect them. For this definition I follow in the footsteps of Ella Baker, the mighty civil rights organizer who championed the idea of participatory democracy. With a lifelong focus on empowering ordinary people to solve their own problems, Ella Baker is known for saying “Strong people don’t need strong leaders.” This was the philosophy of the black students who sat-in at lunch counters in the South to win their right to public accommodations. They didn’t wait for the law to change, or for adults to tell them to do it. The students recognized that society was wrong, and practiced non-violent civil disobedience [video], becoming empowered by their actions. Then with Ms. Baker’s support they formed the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and organized poor blacks in Mississippi to demand their right to vote, passing on the torch of empowerment.

We need to be empowered to manage our own affairs on a large scale. In a participatory democracy, “we, the people” would run the show, not representatives who depend on corporate funding to get elected. “By the people, for the people, of the people” are great words. What if we actually put those words into action in the government, the economy, the media, and all the institutions that affect our lives? Institutions should obey the will of the people, rather than the people obeying the will of institutions. It can happen, but only through organization and active participation of the people as a whole. We must empower ourselves, not wait for someone else to do it.

Justice is supposed to protect the weak and oppressed from the strong and powerful, but in capitalist society it too often plays out as the reverse. As I write this, the Oakland police officer who shot Oscar Grant in the back and killed him was just handed a verdict of “not guilty” for murder, and found “guilty” of the lesser charge of “involuntary manslaughter.” How can it be “involuntary” if he was caught on video putting a gun in Oscar’s back and pulling the trigger? Is it because the police officer is white and Oscar Grant was black? What would the verdict have been if the roles were reversed and the police officer had been shot in the back? This isn’t justice, it’s injustice.

So to reach an ideal future, we would need to eliminate systems of oppression that benefit one group, like whites, at the expense of another group, like people of color. Racial justice aims to overturn this disparity. Of course we also have to put an end to patriarchy, the domination of society by men. Women have been organizing for centuries to gain equal rights, and to live without fear of violence or silencing. Theirs is a struggle for justice, too. Queer and trans justice mean that everyone should have the basic right to express their sexual preferences or gender identity however they so choose. Finally, I don’t think we can speak of justice as long as society is divided into rich and poor. A just society would ensure that everyone has access to resources to meet their basic needs, like food, housing, education, health care, transportation, clean water and air, and everything necessary for a decent livelihood.

The concept of intersectionality is also crucial. It means we must appreciate the complex ways that different forms of oppression intersect with one another. A simple example is that the injustice experienced by a black woman is different than for a white woman or a black man. These are not new concepts of justice, but I advocate them proudly.

Sustainability is such a buzzword these days, with corporations adopting sustainability statements and selling us “green” products, that it’s close to becoming meaningless propaganda. In a deeper sense, sustainability means human economy existing in harmony with the rest of the planet’s ecology, rather than as an alien force outside it and exploiting it. I draw inspiration for this definition from the work of the late, great social ecologist Murray Bookchin.

Bookchin also theorized that “the domination of nature by man stems from the domination of human by human.” In his book The Ecology of Freedom he points out that humans lived for 95% of our history as interconnected members of the web of life, and that it was the rise of class society about 10,000 years ago that first divided humans into rich and poor, and alienated us from the Earth’s natural balance. Class societies are committed to exploiting the land, air and sea for all they can provide. The ruling class sees their human subjects and the environment as things to use for enriching themselves and gaining power over other class societies. If they fail to do this, they themselves risk being conquered by more powerful neighbors. Class hierarchy therefore can never be sustainable.

Jared Diamond and others have written in detail how the Babylonian, Mayan, Roman and many other empires have collapsed because they abused their ecosystems faster than those ecosystems could restore themselves. This is why the “Fertile Crescent” of the Middle East, where class society originated, is now largely desert. In a sense, capitalism learned from these prior empires to spread its damage over the entire planet. But what it couldn’t learn was that exploiting the Earth and humanity to enrich the powerful few is always unsustainable in the long run.

Now that this global class society appears headed towards its own collapse, I would expect continents, nations, and regions to go their own directions. This makes it hard to envision exactly how sustainability will develop in the future. What works in the cities might not work in the country, and the same could be said about drylands and wetlands, North and South, etc. One point that seems clear is that technology must be appropriate to its surroundings, because you can’t use wind turbines where there’s no wind, or solar panels where there’s not enough sun. Appropriate technology means that it must serve human need, while also respecting the needs of the ecosystem on which it depends. Permaculture is an example of an appropriate technology for growing food – the idea is that gardening should actually restore the soil and nourish the ecology. I’ll add that the movement towards a sustainable future must be global, pursuing all of humanity’s shared long-term benefit. Instead of competing, we must work together, learning from each other’s successes and failures.

One sustainability success story is the organic revolution in Cuba. Around 1990, the collapse of the Soviet Union led to the loss of cheap oil for the island nation of Cuba. Cuba had entirely depended on that oil for their food production, as they maintained an industrialized agriculture system heavy on machinery and petrochemicals. I should add that this industrial food model is the same model the IMF and World Bank have pushed on most of the world. In neoliberal language, this was called the “Green Revolution.” But without oil, this industrial model cannot produce food.

The Cubans recognized this in the most visceral sense – facing an economic collapse that literally threatened starvation. They had no choice but to rapidly transition all food production over to an organic model. Petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides were abandoned, in favor of “biofertilizers” and “biopesticides,” natural solutions that mimicked the work of ecology. At the same time, tractors were replaced with human and animal effort, and the entire population had to relearn the farming skills of their ancestors. Gardens suddenly appeared on rooftops, in backyards and vacant lots, and the government raised farmers’ pay above that of engineers.

Image
Farmers at the Organiponico de Alamar, a neighborhood agriculture project in downtown Havana


Amazingly, despite being enclosed within a persistent US embargo, this genuine Green Revolution succeeded. No Cuban starved, though everyone lost 20 pounds. Today about half of Havana’s produce is grown within the city limits. As the global oil and energy shortage deepen, the entire world will need examples like that of Cuba. It is not just that the economy must use less resources than it does now. We have to face the equally important question of how to distribute the resources that exist. Transitioning to a sustainable path means prioritizing necessary economic functions like food production over wasteful and irresponsible expenditures on things like weapons or luxury items. For this reason, the transition away from a highly industrialized, capitalist model need not bring poverty and stress. If we use this opportunity to re-prioritize our economy towards meeting human and ecological needs, downscaling can actually improve quality of life and community self-reliance.

Last on the list of guideposts, but certainly not least, love is the force that ties everything together. I don’t speak of the sappy, saccharine love that comes in the form of millions of throwaway Valentine’s cards and gifts every year. What we need is a guide towards respect for life and all creatures, and a spirit of support and cooperation with our fellow human beings. This force, I believe is deep, genuine love. The kind of transformative love that writer bell hooks talks about when she writes, “Love will always move us away from domination in all its forms. Love will always challenge and change us.”

If capitalism is a system of abuse, the task ahead of us is fundamentally one of healing. In any abusive relationship, where one asserts control over another through physical, emotional, psychological, or sexual violence, the only path to healing is to end the abuse. For this reason, we must continue to speak up and challenge the violence capitalism perpetrates daily against the planet and all of humanity. However, we must also understand that the survivor, or the recipient of the abuse, may not recognize their partner’s behavior as abusive, and will typically internalize some amount of shame and guilt, feeling that they brought the treatment on themselves. They may justify the abuse by believing that they deserve it as punishment for real or imagined wrongs.

Even if the survivor names the abuse, they may stick with the relationship and futilely try to “change” or “reform” their abuser. Perhaps they will lower their expectations by reasoning that they cannot “do any better” than this relationship, and so will resign themselves to the abuse. Meanwhile the abuser is likely to attempt to isolate the survivor from friends, family, or other potential sources of support. As time goes on, the survivor is likely to feel increasingly trapped and powerless. The situation is not going to get any better until they end the relationship and rediscover their independence as a self-reliant entity.

I believe this analogy helps clarify why the population living under capitalism often does not appear eager to rebel against the injustices of the system. We have come to internalize our abuse, feeling powerless to escape it, and not recognizing that there are other ways to live. Every one of us has experienced abuse in this system. It comes in many forms, including (but not limited to): poverty, racism, repression of sexuality, pollution and environmental injustice, violence in our communities and schools, police brutality, sexism, ableism, neglect from parents or loved ones, isolation, sexual violence, imprisonment/punishment, and the private hell of domestic abuse. Without the support to be able to name this abuse, and go through the process of healing our wounds, too often we hide our scars and hope the pain will go away. When it doesn’t, we are left with anxiety, depression, addiction and mental illness.

Love can set us free. We must commit to loving ourselves in a deeper sense than many of us ever have. Capitalism uses propaganda, distractions, and boredom to numb us to the violence and enclosures it perpetrates, and often it is easier to remain numb than to deal with our emotional trauma. We have tuned out. We ignore the pain and anguish our bodies are communicating to us, and remain silent. Loving ourselves is really about committing to a process of healing: healing our bodies, healing our minds and our spirits, healing our communities, and healing the planet. I believe in our capacity to heal.

First we must name the abuse – the social and ecological crises we are experiencing, and move past the shame of victimhood. We may have participated in capitalist society and truly believed it was right, but we did not deserve to be treated this way. Next, we must end the relationship with capitalism that is responsible for the harm. When we take this step, the future will open up and we will see immense opportunity in every direction. We will experience a sense of liberation, finally grasping the independence and self-empowerment that we have always been capable of.

A Society That Values Life

If we follow the five guideposts of freedom, democracy, justice, sustainability and love, I believe the path will lead towards a society that values life. Capitalism is clear that it values money – profit – and not much else. With this single-minded focus, it leaves the well-being of humanity and the well-being of the planet too far down on the list of priorities. Those should be the top priorities. What is more important than life? This imbalance is the root of our troubles. It’s the reason our era is an era of war, poverty and unemployment, consumerism, drug addiction, corrupt politicians, and ecological catastrophe. We live in a society that straight-up doesn’t care about us. Capitalism cares about an individual if they can make a profit, but if not, it doesn’t care if they’re lying facedown in the gutter. Perhaps we’ve come to accept it, but this is totally backwards logic. It flies in the face of every system of morality, every major religion, and simple common sense.

What if we reversed the priorities and created a society that valued life more than it valued numbers on a spreadsheet? What would that look like? Conflicts resolved through dialogue and reconciliation rather than violence? Sharing when we’ve got enough and our neighbors don’t? Asking for help when we need it, and actually receiving it? Listening to our elders and our youth, and I mean really listening? Working meaningful jobs that make a difference in the world? Spending more time in our gardens, volunteering in the community, or playing with our children? Overcoming addiction and mental illness? Doing what’s in our hearts, and not just what will make the most money?

Does this sound unrealistic? Then remember the figure I quoted in response to the second question: $17 Trillion [PDF]. That’s how much money the US government has given to the banks since this crisis began, according to Nomi Prins. It’s such a huge number that it’s hard to fathom what that means. Let’s put it in perspective. On May 30, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan hit a total of $1 trillion. So the bailouts have cost about 17 “wars on terror,” in just a year and a half.

The group Rethink Afghanistan made a Facebook application that suggests alternative ways we could have spent that 1 trillion dollars wasted on war. On the list: $12 billion to “hire every worker in Afghanistan for a year,” $930 million to clean up the BP oil spill, $23 billion for “health care for 1 million children for one year,” and the list goes on. The website Global Issues also estimates the following costs for universal access in all the world’s poor countries: $9 billion to provide clean drinking water and sanitation, $12 billion for reproductive health for all women, and $13 billion for basic health and nutrition. Even if these figures are underestimated, it seems clear that we could eradicate global poverty and eliminate the conditions that breed terrorists for just a fraction of the cost of occupying the Middle East with US soldiers and keeping capitalism on life support.

What would you do with $18 trillion? I trust the reader could come up with all kinds of good ideas! For myself I want to see every community self-sufficient with electricity and heat, coming from clean and renewable energy sources. Let’s make solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal, passive solar, and most importantly, energy efficiency, available to everyone regardless of income.

We have the resources. We have the technology. All we need is the power to change these priorities. Every day, people all over the world work towards gaining this power. Impoverished communities, youth and students, people of color, disabled folks, women and trans folks, workers, lesbian, gay and queer folks, religious and ethnic minorities, indigenous communities, and allies are organizing daily to end the trauma of capitalism and move towards a society that values life. This struggle is as old as time. As long as oppression has existed in the world, people have been organizing to undo it.

If the End of Capitalism Theory is correct, then right now we find ourselves at a historic crossroads, where the old order of oppression is breaking down under the strain of ecological and social limits. Will it be replaced by a new form of oppression, perhaps even more violent and authoritarian, or will we begin to heal and put an end to oppression once and for all? It’s a question that only we can answer through our actions.

Many people across the US and the world are trying to answer this question. We are getting smarter at creating approaches that integrate both ecological justice and social justice. More and more people are beginning to see that economic growth is not the goal. The capitalist economy is large but poor – it does not meet the needs of the majority of humanity or the needs of the planet. We can create an economy that is smaller but richer. Some examples of people who developing and spreading this knowledge are the de-growth movement which is getting stronger in Europe, and the Post-Carbon Institute in the United States. Yes! Magazine and Democracy Now! are two media outlets that regularly highlight the solutions we need.

Detroit, more than any other city, displays the hope springing from the cracks in capitalist crisis. Detroit was once the home of the automobile industry, the example of technologic progress in America. That industry has fled and left tremendous disinvestment and poverty in its wake. But solutions are coming from the community. Poor black people are turning vacant lots into urban gardens and organic farms, so that now Detroit has more urban agriculture than any city in the US. Detroit City of Hope, an effort connected with 95-year-old long-time activist Grace Lee Boggs, is helping to coordinate efforts between community organizations re-imagining sustainable development in what used to be the “motor city.” Like a phoenix rising from the ashes, Detroit shows us that by joining together in a spirit of mutual aid and healing from trauma, regular people can begin to create a new world, now.

What If Capitalism Survives

As you point out, the End of Capitalism Theory could be wrong. So what if capitalism survives this crisis as it did the others? In that case, I see two possible outcomes.

Option 1 is that the world literally comes to an end, either because of catastrophic climate change or nuclear warfare. The planet fries, the seas boil, and all life ceases, including humanity. This possibility is too horrific for me to imagine. I also happen to think it’s less likely than the second.

Option 2 is that either through renewed enclosures on the planet and the poor, pure dumb luck, or some combination of the two, President Obama and the world leaders manage to get the global economy back on a trajectory of growth, for another few decades. Perhaps they push through “cap and trade” and sell the atmosphere to polluters, opening up a new market for speculation. Or similarly they could force into existence a climate deal that includes REDD agreements that privatize pristine forests and displace the indigenous communities that have lived in them for thousands of years. Maybe they pump enough oil out of the tar sands, known as “the most destructive project on Earth,” and waste a lot of money on more nuclear reactors and ethanol plants in desperate attempts to mitigate some of the effects of peak oil. Slavery could be reinstated, perhaps along with debtors’ prisons to house the millions of Americans unable to pay back their student loans, credit cards, and mortgages. Or the ruling class could fall back on the tried-and-true strategy of escaping economic crisis by launching another war. They might enlist non-profits, academics, and even some “leftists” to promote the project by calling it neo-Keynesianism, or a Green New Deal, or some other snazzy title.

It sounds plausible. The problem with this option is that these are all, at best, temporary fixes. The fundamental contradiction of a system that requires endless growth on a finite planet would remain in place like the force of gravity on an airborne vehicle. It’s not the kind of thing that can be delayed forever. Once the fuel runs out, that sucker’s going down. Capitalism has stayed in the air through a lot of crises in the past, but it has only managed to buy more time until the next storm hits and throws the system into jeopardy even more starkly.

Sooner or later, capitalism will lose its forward momentum and there will be no technological fix, no new miracle energy source, no new round of enclosures that can pull it from its nosedive. The End of Capitalism Theory says this day will probably come sooner rather than later, and in that sense it’s a hopeful theory. But I think if we study the evidence of the ecological limits, like how soon peak oil is hitting, and the social limits, like the turmoil in China, we’ll see the system is either sputtering and about to go down, or has already entered freefall. If capitalism is already hurtling towards the rocks, then I believe the severity of the current crisis – which everyone agrees is rivaled only by the Great Depression, and this time is a much more global crash – begins to make sense. That’s what theories are good for, after all, helping us make sense of our experiences.

Thanks for the wonderful questions!
Alex Knight
July 2010

—–

Alex Knight is a proponent of the End of Capitalism Theory, which states that the global capitalist system is breaking down due to ecological and social limits to growth and that a paradigm shift toward a non-capitalist future is underway. He is working on a book titled “The End of Capitalism” and seeks a publisher. Since 2007 he has edited the website endofcapitalism.com. He has a degree in electrical engineering and a Master’s in political science, both from Lehigh University. He lives in Philadelphia, where he is a teacher and organizer. He can be reached at alex@endofcapitalism.com

Michael Carriere is an assistant professor at the Milwaukee School of Engineering, where he teaches courses on American history, public policy, political science, and urban design. He is currently working on a book, with David Schalliol, titled “The Death and (After) Life of Great American Cities: Twenty-First Century Urbanism and the Culture of Crisis.” He holds a Ph.D. in American history from the University of Chicago.


—–

Click the links below for more of the interview:

1. The current financial crisis is clearly a moment of peril for both individuals and the broader system of capitalism. But would it also make sense to see it as a moment of opportunity?
Part 1. Crisis and Opportunity

2. Capitalism has faced many moments of crisis over time. Is there something different about the present crisis? What makes the end of capitalism a possibility now?
Part 2A. Capitalism and Ecological Limits
Part 2B. Social Limits and the Crisis

3. Moving forward, how would you ideally envision a post-capitalist world? And if capitalism manages to survive (as it has in the past), is there still room for real change?
Part 3. Life After Capitalism
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:00 pm




American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:16 am

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/02/ ... -sickness/

SEPTEMBER 2, 2011

Do Spiritual People Really Make Better Soldiers?

Spiritual Fitness and Moral Sickness

by Rev. WILLIAM E. ALBERTS



Recently ABC World News aired a feature called “Spiritual Fitness”, which focused on “spirituality and the military,” and began with anchor David Muir saying, “Tonight we look at spirituality and the military, and we hear from those convinced that it can protect a soldier’s health long after war.” The opening scene shows two big tanks, with the words ‘SPIRITUAL FITNESS’ under them. Suddenly the tanks fire loud missiles that stream and scream across the sky, a sight startling enough to take “God’s” breath away. After the two missiles disappear on the horizon, a military helicopter circles in the sky—another sight to help condition one to believe that “God” is in the army now.

Proof that war and worship go together is enshrined in the personhood of Brigadier General Rhonda Cornum, whom ABC News reporter Jim Shuto introduces with, “General Rhonda Cornum knows something about combat stress.” The story shifts to Cornum, a renowned war hero, who appears and testifies, “I was sure I was going to die. We were crashing, and I was sure it was unsurvivable.” Then reporter Shuto says why Cornum is the Pentagon’s primary authority on “spiritual fitness”: “A helicopter medic, who was in the Gulf War, she was shot down and captured, and threatened with murder.” But Shuto could have said much more: Cornum, who has a Ph.D. and is a medical doctor, has received various medals for distinguished military service, including the Legion of Merit and the Purple Heart. But Shuto made the point: “She said that her spirituality helped get her through it.”

The segment shifts to Brigadier General Cornum, who states without elaborating, “Psychologically resilient to include being spiritually fit, which was very important.” Her words are followed by ABC reporter Shuto saying, “She is now Director of the [Pentagon’s] Comprehensive Soldier’s Fitness Program, as the latest military research confirmed what she learned from her experience.” While Shuto is talking, the scene turns to two soldiers, in army fatigues, holding big rifles, sitting and bending over praying. Another reminder of the affinity between guns and “God.”

The co-opting of spirituality by the Pentagon continues, with ABC News reporter Jim Shuto saying, “As part of the new program, soldiers are encouraged to analyze their own spirituality. And,” he continues, “they’re even tested on it, and asked how much the following statements describe them: ‘I am a spiritual person’; ‘My life has a lasting meaning.’” As Shuto is speaking, a scene appears of several soldiers in a row praying.

With repeated military/spiritual symbolism scenes as an introduction, ABC reporter Jim Shuto asks Brigadier General Cornum the defining question about “spiritual fitness”: “Why is it that spiritual people make better soldiers?” Cornum answers, “That ethos that we adhere to: always place the mission first; never accept defeat; never leave a fallen comrade. Those kinds of things require you to have belief in something bigger than yourself.” (August 21, 2011)

“Spiritual people make better soldiers . . .[because they] place the mission first?” What is the mission? Brigadier General Cornum does not say. But it is obvious that “the mission” is not determined by The Golden Rule but by the rule of the Pentagon and its political and corporate clients. Here the Pentagon is the priesthood for believers. “Spiritual fitness” is about spirituality not only accommodating our government’s imperialistic criminal wars, but about spiritual people literally becoming “Onward Christian soldiers, marching . . . to war.”

Whatever happened to “Thou shalt not kill?” (Exodus 20: 13) “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God?” (Matthew 5:9) “Love your enemies . . . so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends his rain on the just and unjust?” (Matthew 5:44, 45) And the greatest commandments of all as taught by Jesus, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart . . . and your neighbor as yourself?” Matthew 22: 36-40) Here is seen the frightening power of the Pentagon-political-corporate-media-and institutional religion-complex to transform “spiritual fitness” from peacemaking to warmongering. An endangering legacy of the tragedy of 9/11 is the Bush administration’s intense militarizing of America and the intentional normalizing of perpetual war—for empire and profit.

“Spiritual people make better soldiers” [because they] never accept defeat?” Here Brigadier General Cornum turns the admirable quality of self-determination into a rigid, destructive trait. For U.S. foreign policy, “never admit defeat” really means never admit wrong. This is the story of our government’s unnecessary, criminal pre-emptive war against non-threatening, defenseless Iraq. The baseless pretext for this war of aggression was Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. When none were found, former President George W, Bush shifted his administration’s pretext, putting the motivation for this immoral war squarely on “God’s” shoulders: “Freedom is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to every man and woman in the world.”

What was billed by the Bush administration, and its media cheerleaders, as an Iraqi-welcomed, low cost war of liberation, turned into the deadly opposite. The wronged Iraqi people were the ones who never accept defeat. And the Bush administration and its apologists would never admit wrong. Morally evasive Republican and Democratic political leaders repeatedly reinterpreted this criminal war against the Iraqi people as “mistakes” of a “misguided policy.”

Certain mainstream media repeatedly redefined this blatant war crime against humanity as “the struggle for Iraq.” Even recently a New York Times editorial referred to America’s unwarranted violation of Iraq and Afghanistan’s sovereignty and sanctity as “two disastrously mismanaged wars.” (July 2, 2011)

Now comes former Vice President Dick Cheney, a self-serving and-justifying architect of both criminal wars, with his memoir called In My Time, which is about never admitting defeat—or wrong. Cheney is the tragic personification of the rigidity of anti-introspective people whose inability to admit wrong is rationalized as “never admit defeat.” This “ethos” of so-called “spiritual fitness” flies in the face of Jesus’ emphasis on introspective soul-searching: “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:3) Ironically, often one’s neighbors are believed to be only those who live near and look like and believe as one does.

“Spiritual people make better soldiers . . . [because they] never leave a fallen comrade.?” Such battlefield loyalty is most laudable. Unfortunately, it presently serves those who profit from endless war, by diverting attention from the fact that there was no need for any comrades to fall in the morally and spiritually corrupting wars against Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Never leave a fallen comrade?” James Petras broadens this “ethos” to include the millions of American comrades who have fallen and are falling as a result of our government’s unnecessary criminal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a piece called, “Multi-Billion-Dollar Terrorists and the Disappearing Middle Class,” he writes,

The crumbling empire has depleted the U. S. Treasury. As the Congress and White House fought over raising the debt ceiling, the cost of war aggressively erodes any possibility of maintaining stable living standards for the American middle and working classes and heightened inequalities between the top 1 percent and the rest of the American people. . . . The military and financial elites’ pillage of the economy and treasury has set in motion a steep decline in living standards, income and job opportunities. . . .The entirely political establishment is bizarrely oblivious to the fact that their multi-hundred-billion-dollar pursuit of an estimated 50-75 phantom Al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan has hastened the disappearance of middle income jobs in the U. S. The Democrats and the Far Right are united as they pursue multiple wars while they curry favor and funds from the super-rich whose wealth has grown so dramatically during the crisis.
(Z Magazine, September 2011)

“Spiritual people make better soldiers [because] these kinds of things require you to have belief in something bigger than yourself?” These assumed qualities of “spiritual fitness” actually depend on unquestioning “belief in something bigger than yourself.” “Something bigger” like the Pentagon, or “God” who requires one to be smaller, to not think for himself or herself, to not question authority and power, but rather equate them with truth and right. It is not “spiritual fitness” that makes the best soldiers, but hallowed obedience to those in authority and power who define “the mission.”

”Religious symbolism permeates ABC’s story on “spiritual fitness.” In such a scene, reporter Jim Shuto stands in the Pentagon chapel and says, “Just as military chapels, like this one at the Pentagon, are intended to be non-denominational, accommodating soldiers of all faiths or no faith at all, the military says the assessment is not intended to test soldiers’ religious belief but their overall mental health.” One would assume that there would be strong opposition to the Pentagon’s blatant hijacking and prostitution of spirituality in the service of America’s imperialistic wars. There is opposition. One would think it would come from the nation’s religious leaders, with their biblically-inspired and self-assumed roles as prophets and peacemakers. But they are not heard from in the segment. The challenge to the Pentagon’s perversion of spirituality comes from a most unlikely source: “Atheists in Foxholes.”

The ABC News segment on “spirituality and the military” ends with reporter Jim Shuto introducing a spokesperson for those opposed to the Pentagon’s Comprehensive Soldier’s Fitness Program: “For Sargent Dustin Chalker, an Iraq veteran, Purple Heart winner and avowed atheist, the program is actually a thinly veiled religious endorsement, and un-American.” Chalker follows with, “When you have a commitment to what you sign up for, you believe in, supporting and defending the Constitution, and then you’re given a test that’s in direct contradiction to that, there’s a sense of betrayal.” Shuto then reports that “more than 300 other soldiers agree; and a group of them are planning to sue the military in a federal court.”

ABC News gives the military the last word. The segment ends with reporter James Shuto saying, “The military says no soldier is required to follow the program tips for spiritual fitness. Though it stands by the assessment, which it calls valuable in treating the stress of war.”

I am well aware of the untold numbers of soldiers—and their families—who have found their spiritual faith most sustaining in the face of the stress of war. And in this regard, military chaplains provide an invaluable service in enabling soldiers to deal with the stress of war. The intent here is not to minimize or denigrate the important role spirituality plays in their lives. The aim is to show how the militarizing of America, especially since 9/11, with its intended normalizing of war is having a corrupting influence on religion– and a dehumanizing and destructive influence on America itself.

Spiritual fitness is about putting all people first. It is about self-awareness that is able to accept and learn from defeat—and from being wrong, and make it right. It is about love of neighbor that does not want any comrade anywhere to fall. It is about belief that everyone’s humanity is bigger than any one individual or group’s assumed exceptionalism and entitlement. Spiritual fitness is about The Golden Rule.



Rev. William E. Alberts, Ph.D., a former hospital chaplain at Boston Medical Center, is a diplomate in the College of Pastoral Supervision and Psychotherapy. Both a Unitarian Universalist and United Methodist minister, he has written research reports, essays and articles on racism, war, politics, religion and pastoral care
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sat Sep 03, 2011 12:11 pm

American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sat Sep 03, 2011 1:49 pm

1619-1851: The condition of women in America

Howard Zinn on the position of women and the struggles of working-class women for equality from the 17th to the 19th centuries.



It is possible, reading standard histories, to forget half the population of the country. The explorers were men, the landholders and merchants men, the political leaders men, the military figures men. The very invisibility of women, the overlooking of women, is a sign of their submerged status.

In this invisibility they were something like black slaves (and thus slave women faced a double oppression). The biological uniqueness of women, like skin color and facial characteristics for Negroes, became a basis for treating them as inferiors. True, with women, there was something more practically important in their biology than skin color-their position as childbearers-but this was not enough to account for the general push backward for all of them in society, even those who did not bear children, or those too young or too old for that. It seems that their physical characteristics became a convenience for men, who could use, exploit, and cherish someone who was at the same time servant, sex mate, companion, and bearer-teacher-ward en of his children.

Societies based on private property and competition, in which monogamous families became practical units for work and socialization, found it especially useful to establish this special status of women, something akin to a house slave in the matter of intimacy and oppression, and yet requiring, because of that intimacy, and long-term connection with children, a special patronization, which on occasion, especially in the face of a show of strength, could slip over into treatment as an equal. An oppression so private would turn out hard to uproot.

Earlier societies-in America and elsewhere-in which property was held in common and families were extensive and complicated, with aunts and uncles and grandmothers and grandfathers all living together, seemed to treat women more as equals than did the white societies that later overran them, bringing "civilization" and private property.

In the Zuni tribes of the Southwest, for instance, extended families- large clans-were based on the woman, whose husband came to live with her family. It was assumed that women owned the houses, and the fields belonged to the clans, and the women had equal rights to what was produced. A woman was more secure, because she was with her own family, and she could divorce the man when she wanted to, keeping their property.

Women in the Plains Indian tribes of the Midwest did not have farming duties hut had a very important place in the tribe as healers, herbalists, and sometimes holy people who gave advice. When bands lost their male leaders, women would become chieftains. Women learned to shoot small bows, and they carried knives, because among the Sioux a woman was supposed to be able to defend herself against attack.

The puberty ceremony of the Sioux was such as to give pride to a young Sioux maiden:

Walk the good road, my daughter, and the buffalo herds wide and dark as cloud shadows moving over the prairie will follow you... . Be dutiful, respectful, gentle and modest, my daughter. And proud walking. If the pride and the virtue of the women arc lost, the spring will come but the buffalo trails will turn to grass. Be strong, with the warm, strong heart of the earth. No people goes down until their women are weak and dishonored. . ..

It would be an exaggeration to say that women were treated equally with men; but they were treated with respect, and the communal nature of the society gave them a more important place.

The conditions under which white settlers came to America created various situations for women. Where the first settlements consisted almost entirely of men, women were imported as sex slaves, childbearers, companions. In 1619, the year that the first black slaves came to Virginia, ninety women arrived at Jamestown on one ship: "Agreeable persons, young and incorrupt... sold with their own consent to settlers as wives, the price to be the cost of their own transportation."

Many women came in those early years as indentured servants- often teenaged girls-and lived lives not much different from slaves, except that the term of service had an end. They were to be obedient to masters and mistresses. The authors of Americans Working Women (Baxandall, Gordon, and Reverby) describe the situation:

They were poorly paid and often treated rudely and harshly, deprived of good food and privacy. Of course these terrible conditions provoked resistance. Living in separate families without much contact with others in their position, indentured servants had one primary path of resistance open to them: passive resistance, trying to do as little work as possible and to create difficulties for their masters and mistresses. Of course the masters and mistresses did not interpret it that way, but saw the difficult behavior of their servants as sullenness, laziness, malevolence and stupidity.

For instance, the General Court of Connecticut in 1645 ordered that a certain "Susan C., for her rebellious carriage toward her mistress, to be sent to the house of correction and be kept to hard labor and coarse diet, to be brought forth the next lecture day to be publicly corrected, and so to be corrected weekly, until order be given to the contrary."

Sexual abuse of masters against servant girls became commonplace. The court records of Virginia and other colonies show masters brought into court for this, so we can assume that these were especially flagrant cases; there must have been many more instances never brought to public light.

In 1756, Elizabeth Sprigs wrote to her father about her servitude:

What we unfortunate English People suffer here is beyond the probability of you in England to Conceive, let it suffice that I one of the unhappy Number, am toiling almost Day and Night, and very often in the Horses druggery, with only this comfort that you Bitch you do not halfe enough, and then tied up and whipp'd to that Degree that you'd not serve an Animal, scarce any thing but Indian Corn and Salt to eat and that even begrudged nay many Negroes are better used, almost naked no shoes nor stockings to wear ... what rest we can get is to rap ourselves up in a Blanket and ly upon the Ground. ...


Whatever horrors can be imagined in the transport of black slaves to America must be multiplied for black women, who were often one-third of the cargo. Slave traders reported:

I saw pregnant women give birth to babies while chained to corpses which our drunken overseers had not removed... . packed spoon-fashion they often gave birth to children in the scalding perspiration from the human cargo. ... On board the ship was a young negro woman chained to the deck, who had lost her senses soon after she was purchased and taken on board.

A woman named Linda Brent who escaped from slavery told of another burden:

But I now entered on my fifteenth year-a sad epoch in the life of a slave girl. My master began to whisper foul words in my ear. Young as I was, I could not remain ignorant of their import. . .. My master met me at every turn, reminding me that I belonged to him, and swearing by heaven and earth that he would compel me to submit to him. If I went out for a breath of fresh air, after a day of unwearied toil, his footsteps dogged me. If I knelt by my mother's grave, his dark shadow fell on me even there. The light heart which nature had given me became heavy with sad forebodings. .. .

Continues at: http://libcom.org/history/1619-1851-con ... en-america


1600-1980: Introduction to the United States - Noel Ignatiev

...What would the United States be like without black people? The answer to this question can be found by considering a country like Canada, which resembles the U.S. in many ways - a vast area of great natural resources, sparsely settled by native peoples before European colonization. Canada differs from the U.S. in only one significant particular - it was never given over to African slavery, nor was it ever implicated in the slave trade. And this particular is at bottom responsible for the difference between one country which has dominated world politics throughout this entire century and today constitutes the biggest exploiter of peoples on a world scale, and another whose impact on world affairs has been far more limited. If, in the document that follows, we devote a great deal of attention to the history of the "race question" in the U.S., it is not because we are humanitarians but because we recognize it as the key to the history which has made us what we are today, and the key to any future transformation we hope to achieve. It is also because the matter is understood by few people, and not more widely in the U.S. than other places. Space limitations will prevent us from going into much detail on any subject; yet since the Civil War and Reconstruction constitute the pivot of U.S. history, we shall spend some time on it. The portion of the document setting forth the positions of our organisation on current questions is necessarily truncated. We hope that our treatment of the history will enable the reader to comprehend what we stand for and how, in general, we propose to proceed. We wish to express our gratitude to our comrades in Revolutionary Struggle who have given us this opportunity to communicate directly with their own constituency, on this occasion of our 1980 trip to Ireland. THE SHAPING OF AMERICA Contrary to general belief, the first African laborers to arrive in the English colonies did not come as slaves, and the first European laborers did not come as free men and women. The labor force in the 17th century was composed of indentured servants imported from both Africa and the British Isles. They were bonded for a specified period, usually seven years, after which they became legally free. The rulers of colonial Virginia were faced with two problems: in addition to the labor shortage, there was the question - who would police the laborers, who were not easily reconciled to conditions of servitude in a continent where land was available for the taking?

The colonies were not rich enough to support a professional police force of sufficient size. It was essential that one part of the labor force be enlisted to police the other - while remaining laborers themselves. Could Africans fill that role? Such a solution would hardly encourage emigration from England, on which the colonies were still dependent. Therefore, the English would have to be won to perform that function.

Such a role was by no means natural to them. English and African bonded laborers lived under much the same conditions of hardship, so severe that a large portion of them failed even to survive their period of indenture, and they reacted to their oppression as do laborers everywhere, by drawing closer together, intermarrying, plotting escape - and by revolt.

The growing solidarity among the laborers broke out in several bloody revolts, which threatened the security of the government of the Virginia colony (which had two-thirds of the total population of the English colonies as a whole). In a response which is remarkably well documented, the colonial rulers turned, around the middle of the 17th century, to a policy of drawing a line between the English and African bond laborers. Certain privileges - the first being the exemption of female European bond laborers from field work - were conferred on the former, while special laws were passed to fix the status of the Africans: extending the term of servitude until it became permanent and then hereditary, imposing a pass system, denying them the right to carry arms, etc.

The process of encoding the new status took about a half-century, and marks the birth of the "white race" as a social category - the emergence of a class of laborers whose community of interests with their exploiters was legally and publicly affirmed, and who functioned to maintain social control over the entire labor force, themselves included. By 1705, the rulers of the Virginia colony felt sufficiently confident of the support of their European proletarians to specify that white bond laborers finishing their period of indenture be given a musket. What a change from barely a generation earlier, when rebel forces -European and African - beseiged, captured and burned the colonial capitol of Jamestown and sent the governor fleeing across the Chesapeake Bay, the same bond laborers who, between the years 1663 and 1682 hatched no less than ten servile revolts and revolt plots!

Left historians who are critical of the characterization of the U.S. as the "Land of Liberty" commonly assert that the much vaunted democracy depends on the denial of rights to the African, Native American and other people of color. This is a good example of the "appearance" being the reverse of the "essence" - the development of a system of racial slavery and national oppression depended on the extension of democratic rights to the "white" population as a whole. As early as the 18th century there had emerged the pattern which was to define the distinctive course of U.S. history: U.S. society is not merely bourgeois but bourgeois white supremacist; tilt U.S. working class movement has been, in the main, not merely opportunist but white racist opportunist; the main form of opportunism in the working class movement is not merely white racism - an idea - but the acquiescence of the white workers in the system of white skin privileges imposed by the bourgeoisie.

The country never passed through a feudal stage of development. The American War for Independence, while it had progressive features, was not a war of a rising bourgeoisie against the forces of feudal absolutism, but instead a conflict between the merchant class of New England (allied with indebted southern planters) and the colonising power over who would reap the vast profits of the slave trade; over which would be the third corner of the famous "triangle trade" described by slaves captured in Africa, rum and tobacco produced in the West Indies, and manufactured goods from either Liverpool of Massachusetts.

The decades following the establishment of the American Republic saw the emergence of two systems of exploitation: direct slavery in the South, supporting the cultivation first of tobacco and later of cotton; and manufacture based on wage labor in New England and the Middle Atlantic states. The history of the U.S. for the half-century preceding the Civil War is a history of the growing encroachment of the slaveowner's power on the federal government. The Seminole Wars, which were fought in Florida from 1819 to 1821 and which were efforts to recapture slaves who had escaped to join local Indian tribes; the Missouri Comprise of 1820, which extended slavery to the western territories; the 1836 to 1848 wars to wrest from Mexico the vast area that today makes up the states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada and Colorado; the filibustering in Central America and the efforts to annex Cuba, the Kansas-Nebraska Bill of 1854 and the Dred Scott decision of 1858, which between them struck down the last legal obstacle to the spread of slavery throughout the entire country; and the efforts to restore the slave trade which had been abolished in 1808 - these events testify to the increasing subservience of the national government to 30,000 slaveholding families.

The slave system required for its survival continued expansion into new territory. Wage labor capitalism required the continued expansion of the internal market, which was impeded by slavery. The forces upholding wage capitalism organized themselves first into the Free Soil Party, then into the Republican Party, around a program of opposing the extension of slavery into new territories. When the Republican Party won the election with a bare plurality of votes among four major candidates, the impending conflict had become irrepressible.

The Civil War began with both sides fighting for slavery - the South to take it out of the Union, the North to keep it in. The real aim of the South, however, was not to secede from the Union but, by secession and war, to reorganize it on a new basis, with the "peculiar institution," slavery, as the foundation of an empire stretching from the Great Lakes to Central America.

The aims of the northern manufacturing bourgeoisie were modest: simply to restrict slavery to those areas where it already existed. As beflued this modest aim, President Lincoln at first pursued a cautious policy, going out of his way to assure the so-called border states (those states where slavery existed but the plantation system did not) that he had no intention of abolishing slavery. The federal military policy, of avoiding decisive batlle while attempting to woo the South back into the Union, reflected this stage of the conflict.

This stage did not last long. Two things brought about a change. First was the attitude of the whites enlisted in the Union cause. They opposed the spread of slavery and the breakup of the Union but were hardly enthusiastic supporters of a war that was bringing them extreme hardship while enriching their employers through government contracts. They showed their feelings early by a series of draft riots in New York, Cincinnati and elsewhere that commonly took the form of mob attacks on free blacks.

The second factor making for a change in government policy was the role of the blacks themselves. For decades, free blacks had been the mainstay of the small organizations advocating the abolition of slavery, and the escaped slaves had been both a severe drain on the slave economy and a call to the conscience of the country. Besides running away, the slaves also had developed various means of striking and resisting their exploitation, including launching numerous revolts, the most well known led by Gabriel Prosser, Denmark Vesey and Nat Turner. Now, as the War began, the black people began to see it as part of their struggle for freedom. Free blacks in the North understood that the cause of abolition was linked to a Union victory, in spite of Lincoln's protestations that he had no anti-slavery aims. While pressuring the government at all levels to broaden the War to one against slavery, they began to enlist in the Union armies, often against giant obstacles placed in their way by the government which did not want them as soldiers. The famous song, John Brown's Body, commemorating the great revolutionary abolitionist who gave his life struggling against slavery, was written and sung by the Massachusetts 54th Regiment, one of the all black units (commanded by white officers).

At first the slaves watched and waited; it was not yet clear where their interests lay. So long as they worked the cotton, the South could place in the field of battle a disproportionate number of its white manhood. The first attempts made by the slaves to join the Union cause were repulsed; fugitive slaves, making their way to Union army camps in the South, were sent back to their owners. Gradually, under the pressure of necessity, the Union's policy began to change: fugitive slaves were reclassified as "contraband of war" and put to work building fortifications, etc. Soon they were enlisted as scouts and spies for the Union armies.

By 1863, the attempt to wage a war against a force whose strength and weakness both lay in the institution of slavery brought about a change in Lincoln's policy. This was manifest in three things: first, the adoption of a more active military policy; second, the decision to encourage the enlistment and arming of Blacks; and third, the declaration of the aim of the war to be the abolition of slavery.

It should be noted that Lincoln's famed Emancipation Proclamation freed no one: it merely declared slavery abolished in those areas then in revolt, that is, those areas where it could not be enforced. But as a statement of intent, it was enough to "loose the fateful lightning" - the six hundred thousand black laborers who embarked on a great working class upsurge, beginning in 1863, a mass withdrawal of labor power - a general strike - which quickly brought the South to its knees.
Continues at: http://libcom.org/library/1600-1980-int ... l-ignatiev
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sun Sep 04, 2011 9:27 am

http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/97/ca ... tself.html

David Graeber
Bursting capitalism's bubble.


Image


There is very good reason to believe that, in a generation or so, capitalism itself will no longer exist – most obviously, as ecologists keep reminding us, because it’s impossible to maintain an engine of perpetual growth forever on a finite planet, and the current form of capitalism doesn’t seem to be capable of generating the kind of vast technological breakthroughs and mobilizations that would be required for us to start finding and colonizing any other planets. Yet faced with the prospect of capitalism actually ending, the most common reaction – even from those who call themselves “progressives” – is simply fear. We cling to what exists because we can no longer imagine an alternative that wouldn’t be even worse.

How did we get here? My own suspicion is that we are looking at the final effects of the militarization of American capitalism itself. In fact, it could well be said that the last 30 years have seen the construction of a vast bureaucratic apparatus for the creation and maintenance of hopelessness, a giant machine designed, first and foremost, to destroy any sense of possible alternative futures. At its root is a veritable obsession on the part of the rulers of the world – in response to the upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s – with ensuring that social movements cannot be seen to grow, flourish or propose alternatives; that those who challenge existing power arrangements can never, under any circumstances, be perceived to win. To do so requires creating a vast apparatus of armies, prisons, police; various forms of private security firms and police and military intelligence apparatus, and propaganda engines of every conceivable variety, most of which do not attack alternatives directly so much as create a pervasive climate of fear, jingoistic conformity and simple despair that renders any thought of changing the world, an idle fantasy.

Maintaining this apparatus seems more important to exponents of the “free market” than maintaining any sort of viable market economy. How else can one explain what happened in the former Soviet Union? One would ordinarily have imagined that the end of the Cold War would have led to the dismantling of the army and the KGB and rebuilding the factories, but in fact what happened was precisely the other way around. This is just an extreme example of what has been happening everywhere. Economically, the apparatus is pure dead weight; all the guns, surveillance cameras and propaganda engines are extraordinarily expensive and really produce nothing, and no doubt it’s yet another element dragging the entire capitalist system down – along with producing the illusion of an endless capitalist future that laid the groundwork for the endless bubbles to begin with. Finance capital became the buying and selling of chunks of that future, and economic freedom, for most of us, was reduced to the right to buy a small piece of one’s own permanent subordination.

In other words, there seems to have been a profound contradiction between the political imperative of establishing capitalism as the only possible way to manage anything, and capitalism’s own unacknowledged need to limit its future horizons lest speculation, predictably, go haywire. When speculation did go berserk, and the whole machine imploded, we were left in the strange situation of not being able to even imagine any other way that things might be arranged. About the only thing we can imagine is catastrophe.



David Graeber, an anarchist direct action activist, has been called “the best anthropological theorist of his generation.” The above essay is adapted from his latest book Debt: The First 5,000 Years.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Sun Sep 04, 2011 9:37 am

Cross-posted from: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=32855

http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2009-0 ... ber-en.htm

David Graeber
Debt: The first five thousand years

Throughout its 5000 year history, debt has always involved institutions – whether Mesopotamian sacred kingship, Mosaic jubilees, Sharia or Canon Law – that place controls on debt's potentially catastrophic social consequences. It is only in the current era, writes anthropologist David Graeber, that we have begun to see the creation of the first effective planetary administrative system largely in order to protect the interests of creditors..



What follows is a fragment of a much larger project of research on debt and debt money in human history. The first and overwhelming conclusion of this project is that in studying economic history, we tend to systematically ignore the role of violence, the absolutely central role of war and slavery in creating and shaping the basic institutions of what we now call "the economy". What's more, origins matter. The violence may be invisible, but it remains inscribed in the very logic of our economic common sense, in the apparently self-evident nature of institutions that simply would never and could never exist outside of the monopoly of violence – but also, the systematic threat of violence – maintained by the contemporary state

Let me start with the institution of slavery, whose role, I think, is key. In most times and places, slavery is seen as a consequence of war. Sometimes most slaves actually are war captives, sometimes they are not, but almost invariably, war is seen as the foundation and justification of the institution. If you surrender in war, what you surrender is your life; your conqueror has the right to kill you, and often will. If he chooses not to, you literally owe your life to him; a debt conceived as absolute, infinite, irredeemable. He can in principle extract anything he wants, and all debts – obligations – you may owe to others (your friends, family, former political allegiances), or that others owe you, are seen as being absolutely negated. Your debt to your owner is all that now exists.

This sort of logic has at least two very interesting consequences, though they might be said to pull in rather contrary directions. First of all, as we all know, it is another typical – perhaps defining – feature of slavery that slaves can be bought or sold. In this case, absolute debt becomes (in another context, that of the market) no longer absolute. In fact, it can be precisely quantified. There is good reason to believe that it was just this operation that made it possible to create something like our contemporary form of money to begin with, since what anthropologists used to refer to as "primitive money", the kind that one finds in stateless societies (Solomon Island feather money, Iroquois wampum), was mostly used to arrange marriages, resolve blood feuds, and fiddle with other sorts of relations between people, rather than to buy and sell commodities. For instance, if slavery is debt, then debt can lead to slavery. A Babylonian peasant might have paid a handy sum in silver to his wife's parents to officialise the marriage, but he in no sense owned her. He certainly couldn't buy or sell the mother of his children. But all that would change if he took out a loan. Were he to default, his creditors could first remove his sheep and furniture, then his house, fields and orchards, and finally take his wife, children, and even himself as debt peons until the matter was settled (which, as his resources vanished, of course became increasingly difficult to do). Debt was the hinge that made it possible to imagine money in anything like the modern sense, and therefore, also, to produce what we like to call the market: an arena where anything can be bought and sold, because all objects are (like slaves) disembedded from their former social relations and exist only in relation to money.

But at the same time the logic of debt as conquest can, as I mentioned, pull another way. Kings, throughout history, tend to be profoundly ambivalent towards allowing the logic of debt to get completely out of hand. This is not because they are hostile to markets. On the contrary, they normally encourage them, for the simple reason that governments find it inconvenient to levy everything they need (silks, chariot wheels, flamingo tongues, lapis lazuli) directly from their subject population; it's much easier to encourage markets and then buy them. Early markets often followed armies or royal entourages, or formed near palaces or at the fringes of military posts. This actually helps explain the rather puzzling behaviour on the part of royal courts: after all, since kings usually controlled the gold and silver mines, what exactly was the point of stamping bits of the stuff with your face on it, dumping it on the civilian population, and then demanding they give it back to you again as taxes? It only makes sense if levying taxes was really a way to force everyone to acquire coins, so as to facilitate the rise of markets, since markets were convenient to have around. However, for our present purposes, the critical question is: how were these taxes justified? Why did subjects owe them, what debt were they discharging when they were paid? Here we return again to right of conquest. (Actually, in the ancient world, free citizens – whether in Mesopotamia, Greece, or Rome – often did not have to pay direct taxes for this very reason, but obviously I'm simplifying here.) If kings claimed to hold the power of life and death over their subjects by right of conquest, then their subjects' debts were, also, ultimately infinite; and also, at least in that context, their relations to one another, what they owed to one another, was unimportant. All that really existed was their relation to the king. This in turn explains why kings and emperors invariably tried to regulate the powers that masters had over slaves, and creditors over debtors. At the very least they would always insist, if they had the power, that those prisoners who had already had their lives spared could no longer be killed by their masters. In fact, only rulers could have arbitrary power over life and death. One's ultimate debt was to the state; it was the only one that was truly unlimited, that could make absolute, cosmic, claims.

Image

The reason I stress this is because this logic is still with us. When we speak of a "society" (French society, Jamaican society) we are really speaking of people organised by a single nation state. That is the tacit model, anyway. "Societies" are really states, the logic of states is that of conquest, the logic of conquest is ultimately identical to that of slavery. True, in the hands of state apologists, this becomes transformed into a notion of a more benevolent "social debt". Here there is a little story told, a kind of myth. We are all born with an infinite debt to the society that raised, nurtured, fed and clothed us, to those long dead who invented our language and traditions, to all those who made it possible for us to exist. In ancient times we thought we owed this to the gods (it was repaid in sacrifice, or, sacrifice was really just the payment of interest – ultimately, it was repaid by death). Later the debt was adopted by the state, itself a divine institution, with taxes substituted for sacrifice, and military service for one's debt of life. Money is simply the concrete form of this social debt, the way that it is managed. Keynesians like this sort of logic. So do various strains of socialist, social democrats, even crypto-fascists like Auguste Comte (the first, as far as I am aware, to actually coin the phrase "social debt"). But the logic also runs through much of our common sense: consider for instance, the phrase, "to pay one's debt to society", or, "I felt I owed something to my country", or, "I wanted to give something back." Always, in such cases, mutual rights and obligations, mutual commitments – the kind of relations that genuinely free people could make with one another – tend to be subsumed into a conception of "society" where we are all equal only as absolute debtors before the (now invisible) figure of the king, who stands in for your mother, and by extension, humanity.

What I am suggesting, then, is that while the claims of the impersonal market and the claims of "society" are often juxtaposed – and certainly have had a tendency to jockey back and forth in all sorts of practical ways – they are both ultimately founded on a very similar logic of violence. Neither is this a mere matter of historical origins that can be brushed away as inconsequential: neither states nor markets can exist without the constant threat of force.

One might ask, then, what is the alternative?

Towards a history of virtual money

Here I can return to my original point: that money did not originally appear in this cold, metal, impersonal form. It originally appears in the form of a measure, an abstraction, but also as a relation (of debt and obligation) between human beings. It is important to note that historically it is commodity money that has always been most directly linked to violence. As one historian put it, "bullion is the accessory of war, and not of peaceful trade."[1]

The reason is simple. Commodity money, particularly in the form of gold and silver, is distinguished from credit money most of all by one spectacular feature: it can be stolen. Since an ingot of gold or silver is an object without a pedigree, throughout much of history bullion has served the same role as the contemporary drug dealer's suitcase full of dollar bills, as an object without a history that will be accepted in exchange for other valuables just about anywhere, with no questions asked. As a result, one can see the last 5 000 years of human history as the history of a kind of alternation. Credit systems seem to arise, and to become dominant, in periods of relative social peace, across networks of trust, whether created by states or, in most periods, transnational institutions, whilst precious metals replace them in periods characterised by widespread plunder. Predatory lending systems certainly exist at every period, but they seem to have had the most damaging effects in periods when money was most easily convertible into cash.

So as a starting point to any attempt to discern the great rhythms that define the current historical moment, let me propose the following breakdown of Eurasian history according to the alternation between periods of virtual and metal money:

I. Age of the First Agrarian Empires (3500-800 BCE). Dominant money form: Virtual credit money

Our best information on the origins of money goes back to ancient Mesopotamia, but there seems no particular reason to believe matters were radically different in Pharaonic Egypt, Bronze Age China, or the Indus Valley. The Mesopotamian economy was dominated by large public institutions (Temples and Palaces) whose bureaucratic administrators effectively created money of account by establishing a fixed equivalent between silver and the staple crop, barley. Debts were calculated in silver, but silver was rarely used in transactions. Instead, payments were made in barley or in anything else that happened to be handy and acceptable. Major debts were recorded on cuneiform tablets kept as sureties by both parties to the transaction.

Certainly, markets did exist. Prices of certain commodities that were not produced within Temple or Palace holdings, and thus not subject to administered price schedules, would tend to fluctuate according to the vagaries of supply and demand. But most actual acts of everyday buying and selling, particularly those that were not carried out between absolute strangers, appear to have been made on credit. "Ale women", or local innkeepers, served beer, for example, and often rented rooms; customers ran up a tab; normally, the full sum was dispatched at harvest time. Market vendors presumably acted as they do in small-scale markets in Africa, or Central Asia, today, building up lists of trustworthy clients to whom they could extend credit. The habit of money at interest also originates in Sumer – it remained unknown, for example, in Egypt. Interest rates, fixed at 20 percent, remained stable for 2,000 years. (This was not a sign of government control of the market: at this stage, institutions like this were what made markets possible.) This, however, led to some serious social problems. In years with bad harvests especially, peasants would start becoming hopelessly indebted to the rich, and would have to surrender their farms and, ultimately, family members, in debt bondage. Gradually, this condition seems to have come to a social crisis – not so much leading to popular uprisings, but to common people abandoning the cities and settled territory entirely and becoming semi-nomadic "bandits" and raiders. It soon became traditional for each new ruler to wipe the slate clean, cancel all debts, and declare a general amnesty or "freedom", so that all bonded labourers could return to their families. (It is significant here that the first word for "freedom" known in any human language, the Sumerian amarga, literally means "return to mother".) Biblical prophets instituted a similar custom, the Jubilee, whereby after seven years all debts were similarly cancelled. This is the direct ancestor of the New Testament notion of "redemption". As economist Michael Hudson has pointed out, it seems one of the misfortunes of world history that the institution of lending money at interest disseminated out of Mesopotamia without, for the most part, being accompanied by its original checks and balances.

II. Axial Age (800 BCE – 600 CE). Dominant money form: Coinage and metal bullion

This was the age that saw the emergence of coinage, as well as the birth, in China, India and the Middle East, of all major world religions.[2] From the Warring States period in China, to fragmentation in India, and to the carnage and mass enslavement that accompanied the expansion (and later, dissolution) of the Roman Empire, it was a period of spectacular creativity throughout most of the world, but of almost equally spectacular violence. Coinage, which allowed for the actual use of gold and silver as a medium of exchange, also made possible the creation of markets in the now more familiar, impersonal sense of the term. Precious metals were also far more appropriate for an age of generalised warfare, for the obvious reason that they could be stolen. Coinage, certainly, was not invented to facilitate trade (the Phoenicians, consummate traders of the ancient world, were among the last to adopt it). It appears to have been first invented to pay soldiers, probably first of all by rulers of Lydia in Asia Minor to pay their Greek mercenaries. Carthage, another great trading nation, only started minting coins very late, and then explicitly to pay its foreign soldiers.

Throughout antiquity one can continue to speak of what Geoffrey Ingham has dubbed the "military-coinage complex". He may have been better to call it a "military-coinage-slavery complex", since the diffusion of new military technologies (Greek hoplites, Roman legions) was always closely tied to the capture and marketing of slaves. The other major source of slaves was debt: now that states no longer periodically wiped the slates clean, those not lucky enough to be citizens of the major military city-states – who were generally protected from predatory lenders – were fair game. The credit systems of the Near East did not crumble under commercial competition; they were destroyed by Alexander's armies – armies that required half a ton of silver bullion per day in wages. The mines where the bullion was produced were generally worked by slaves. Military campaigns in turn ensured an endless flow of new slaves. Imperial tax systems, as noted, were largely designed to force their subjects to create markets, so that soldiers (and also, of course, government officials) would be able to use that bullion to buy anything they wanted. The kind of impersonal markets that once tended to spring up between societies, or at the fringes of military operations, now began to permeate society as a whole.

However tawdry their origins, the creation of new media of exchange – coinage appeared almost simultaneously in Greece, India, and China – appears to have had profound intellectual effects. Some have even gone so far as to argue that Greek philosophy was itself made possible by conceptual innovations introduced by coinage. The most remarkable pattern, though, is the emergence, in almost the exact times and places where one also sees the early spread of coinage, of what were to become modern world religions: prophetic Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism, Taoism, and eventually, Islam. While the precise links are yet to be fully explored, in certain ways, these religions appear to have arisen in direct reaction to the logic of the market. To put the matter somewhat crudely: if one relegates a certain social space simply to the selfish acquisition of material things, it is almost inevitable that soon someone else will come to set aside another domain in which to preach that, from the perspective of ultimate values, material things are unimportant, and selfishness – or even the self – illusory.

III. The Middle Ages (600 CE – 1500 CE). The return to virtual credit money


If the Axial Age saw the emergence of complementary ideals of commodity markets and universal world religions, the Middle Ages[3] were the period in which those two institutions began to merge. Religions began to take over the market systems. Everything from international trade to the organisation of local fairs increasingly came to be carried out through social networks defined and regulated by religious authorities. This enabled, in turn, the return throughout Eurasia of various forms of virtual credit money.

In Europe, where all this took place under the aegis of Christendom, coinage was only sporadically, and unevenly, available. Prices after 800 AD were calculated largely in terms of an old Carolingian currency that no longer existed (it was actually referred to at the time as "imaginary money"), but ordinary day-to-day buying and selling was carried out mainly through other means. One common expedient, for example, was the use of tally-sticks, notched pieces of wood that were broken in two as records of debt, with half being kept by the creditor, half by the debtor. Such tally-sticks were still in common use in much of England well into the 16th century. Larger transactions were handled through bills of exchange, with the great commercial fairs serving as their clearing houses. The Church, meanwhile, provided a legal framework, enforcing strict controls on the lending of money at interest and prohibitions on debt bondage.

The real nerve centre of the Medieval world economy, though, was the Indian Ocean, which along with the Central Asia caravan routes connected the great civilisations of India, China, and the Middle East. Here, trade was conducted through the framework of Islam, which not only provided a legal structure highly conducive to mercantile activities (while absolutely forbidding the lending of money at interest), but allowed for peaceful relations between merchants over a remarkably large part of the globe, allowing the creation of a variety of sophisticated credit instruments. Actually, Western Europe was, as in so many things, a relative late-comer in this regard: most of the financial innovations that reached Italy and France in the 11th and 12th centuries had been in common use in Egypt or Iraq since the 8th or 9th centuries. The word "cheque", for example, derives from the Arab sakk, and appeared in English only around 1220 AD.

The case of China is even more complicated: the Middle Ages there began with the rapid spread of Buddhism, which, while it was in no position to enact laws or regulate commerce, did quickly move against local usurers by its invention of the pawn shop – the first pawn shops being based in Buddhist temples as a way of offering poor farmers an alternative to the local usurer. Before long, though, the state reasserted itself, as the state always tends to do in China. But as it did so, it not only regulated interest rates and attempted to abolish debt peonage, it moved away from bullion entirely by inventing paper money. All this was accompanied by the development, again, of a variety of complex financial instruments.

All this is not to say that this period did not see its share of carnage and plunder (particularly during the great nomadic invasions) or that coinage was not, in many times and places, an important medium of exchange. Still, what really characterises the period appears to be a movement in the other direction. Most of the Medieval period saw money largely delinked from coercive institutions. Money changers, one might say, were invited back into the temples, where they could be monitored. The result was a flowering of institutions premised on a much higher degree of social trust."
IV. Age of European Empires (1500-1971). The return of precious metals

With the advent of the great European empires – Iberian, then North Atlantic – the world saw both a reversion to mass enslavement, plunder, and wars of destruction, and the consequent rapid return of gold and silver bullion as the main form of currency. Historical investigation will probably end up demonstrating that the origins of these transformations were more complicated than we ordinarily assume. Some of this was beginning to happen even before the conquest of the New World. One of the main factors of the movement back to bullion, for example, was the emergence of popular movements during the early Ming dynasty, in the 15th and 16th centuries, that ultimately forced the government to abandon not only paper money but any attempt to impose its own currency. This led to the reversion of the vast Chinese market to an uncoined silver standard. Since taxes were also gradually commuted into silver, it soon became the more or less official Chinese policy to try to bring as much silver into the country as possible, so as to keep taxes low and prevent new outbreaks of social unrest. The sudden enormous demand for silver had effects across the globe. Most of the precious metals looted by the conquistadors and later extracted by the Spanish from the mines of Mexico and Potosi (at almost unimaginable cost in human lives) ended up in China. These global scale connections that eventually developed across the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans have of course been documented in great detail. The crucial point is that the delinking of money from religious institutions, and its relinking with coercive ones (especially the state), was here accompanied by an ideological reversion to "metallism".[4]

Credit, in this context, was on the whole an affair of states that were themselves run largely by deficit financing, a form of credit which was, in turn, invented to finance increasingly expensive wars. Internationally the British Empire was steadfast in maintaining the gold standard through the 19th and early 20th centuries, and great political battles were fought in the United States over whether the gold or silver standard should prevail.

This was also, obviously, the period of the rise of capitalism, the industrial revolution, representative democracy, and so on. What I am trying to do here is not to deny their importance, but to provide a framework for seeing such familiar events in a less familiar context. It makes it easier, for instance, to detect the ties between war, capitalism, and slavery. The institution of wage labour, for instance, has historically emerged from within that of slavery (the earliest wage contracts we know of, from Greece to the Malay city states, were actually slave rentals), and it has also tended, historically, to be intimately tied to various forms of debt peonage – as indeed it remains today. The fact that we have cast such institutions in a language of freedom does not mean that what we now think of as economic freedom does not ultimately rest on a logic that has for most of human history been considered the very essence of slavery.

Current Era (1971 onwards). The empire of debt


The current era might be said to have been initiated on 15 August 1971, when US President Richard Nixon officially suspended the convertibility of the dollar into gold and effectively created the current floating currency regimes. We have returned, at any rate, to an age of virtual money, in which consumer purchases in wealthy countries rarely involve even paper money, and national economies are driven largely by consumer debt. It's in this context that we can talk about the "financialisation" of capital, whereby speculation in currencies and financial instruments becomes a domain unto itself, detached from any immediate relation with production or even commerce. This is of course the sector that has entered into crisis today.

What can we say for certain about this new era? So far, very, very little. Thirty or forty years is nothing in terms of the scale we have been dealing with. Clearly, this period has only just begun. Still, the foregoing analysis, however crude, does allow us to begin to make some informed suggestions.

Historically, as we have seen, ages of virtual, credit money have also involved creating some sort of overarching institutions – Mesopotamian sacred kingship, Mosaic jubilees, Sharia or Canon Law – that place some sort of controls on the potentially catastrophic social consequences of debt. Almost invariably, they involve institutions (usually not strictly coincident to the state, usually larger) to protect debtors. So far the movement this time has been the other way around: starting with the '80s we have begun to see the creation of the first effective planetary administrative system, operating through the IMF, World Bank, corporations and other financial institutions, largely in order to protect the interests of creditors. However, this apparatus was very quickly thrown into crisis, first by the very rapid development of global social movements (the alter-globalisation movement), which effectively destroyed the moral authority of institutions like the IMF and left many of them very close to bankrupt, and now by the current banking crisis and global economic collapse. While the new age of virtual money has only just begun and the long-term consequences are as yet entirely unclear, we can already say one or two things. The first is that a movement towards virtual money is not in itself, necessarily, an insidious effect of capitalism. In fact, it might well mean exactly the opposite. For much of human history, systems of virtual money were designed and regulated to ensure that nothing like capitalism could ever emerge to begin with – at least not as it appears in its present form, with most of the world's population placed in a condition that would in many other periods of history be considered tantamount to slavery. The second point is to underline the absolutely crucial role of violence in defining the very terms by which we imagine both "society" and "markets" – in fact, many of our most elementary ideas of freedom. A world less entirely pervaded by violence would rapidly begin to develop other institutions. Finally, thinking about debt outside the twin intellectual straitjackets of state and market opens up exciting possibilities. For instance, we can ask: in a society in which that foundation of violence had finally been yanked away, what exactly would free men and women owe each other? What sort of promises and commitments should they make to each other?

Let us hope that everyone will someday be in a position to start asking such questions. At times like this, you never know.



[1] Geoffrey W. Gardiner, "The Primacy of Trade Debts in the Development of Money", in Randall Wray (ed.), Credit and State Theories of Money: The Contributions of A. Mitchell Innes, Cheltenham: Elgar, 2004, p.134.

[2] The phrase the "Axial Age" was originally coined by Karl Jaspers to describe the relatively brief period between 800 BCE – 200 BCE in which, he believed, just about all the main philosophical traditions we are familiar with today arose simultaneously in China, India, and the Eastern Mediterranean. Here, I am using it in Lewis Mumford's more expansive use of the term as the period that saw the birth of all existing world religions, stretching roughly from the time of Zoroaster to that of Mohammed.

[3] I am here relegating most of what is generally referred to as the "Dark Ages" in Europe into the earlier period, characterised by predatory militarism and the consequent importance of bullion: the Viking raids, and the famous extraction of danegeld from England in the 800s, might be seen as one the last manifestations of an age where predatory militarism went hand and hand with hoards of gold and silver bullion.
[4] The myth of barter and commodity theories of money was of course developed in this period.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:44 am

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the ... homemaking

Who does the Homemaking?

Why caring labor in America is a steal!

Published on September 4, 2011 by Molly Castelloe, Ph.D.

Image
The unseen value of homemaking labor



Labor Day calls for a tribute to one work force cut out of our nation's economic history: the job of raising children. The unpaid work of mothers is what Ann Crittenden calls the "dark matter" of our economy. Women's work in the home is romanticized as a labor of love, its economic importance swept under the rug. Economists who include homemaking in the GDP have been called "potty chair" economists. How did the most important job in the world get trivialized?

America's economic history also tells a path of familial change. Preindustrial society of the 17th century was characterized by artisanship and a limited division of labor. Wives and daughters worked alongside husbands, brothers, and fathers in a cooperative agricultural economy. Women often managed dairy production, milked cows and goats, churned butter, spun cloth and contributed to the family economy through many of the same tasks as today: child-rearing, teaching, homemaking.

The word "economy" comes from Greek oikonomia, meaning "one who manages a household." The current usage of the word as it applies to a country or large geographical area emerged with the rise of industry.

When Henry Ford developed the assembly line for the Ford Model T (1908-1915) mass production replaced individual handycrafting. Men dominated the new labor market. Women and children took lower paying jobs or remained at home. The Industrial Revolution altered women's role in the family, and the family itself, by undermining the economic importance of domestic work. It emphasized individual wages over familial earnings and competitive self-interest over collective sensibility. More than ever, money was the measure of productivity and it was given mostly to men -- who worked for a master rather than himself.

In the 1930's, the GNP (later renamed GDP) became the scoreboard of capitalism that counts everything bought and sold. As Crittenden says, this standard of measure neglects the value of nonmonetary transactions such as homeschooling or doing the household laundry (but if you paid someone else to do either task, it would count). The GDP omits other intangibles like a clean water supply, advancements in surgical techniques, the familial care provided to the elderly or a mother's long-term efforts at building human character and emotional intelligence.

The economic devaluation of motherhood went hand in hand with the exalted myth of woman and home. A good wife and mother was selflessly devoted to her children and husband, her domestic activities romanticized as a labor of love. This ideal of femininity was popularized through the image of the "angel of the hearth," inspired by Coventry Patmore's narrative poem "The Angel in the House," wildly popular during the late 19th-20th century. Later Virginia Woolf satirized this Victorian ideal of womanhood, writing that this fabled wife "sacrificed daily. If there was a chicken, she took the leg; if there was a draught she sat in it... [She] bothered me and wasted my time and so tormented me that at last I killed her." Thirty years later, Jonatha Brooke, a descendent of Woolf's, grappled with this image of sweet domesticity in her lyrics for a feminist rock album bearing the same title as Patmore's poem:

My mother moved the furniture when she no longer moved the man
We thought nothing of it at the time
She painted walls, painted smiles
Checked herself in the mirror one more time
Then yoked her heart to a whim


In 1991, a 46-year-old housewife and mother of three protested the "hearth" and debunked its "angelic" associations when she challenged the Canadian Census handed to her at the front door. Although threatened with jail, Carol Lees refused to complete the form because the question "number of hours worked in the last week" excluded a homemaker's domestic labor and she would have to put zero. Her actions galvanized a national campaign legitimizing homemaker's work as productive, a collective effort aptly captured in a headline from the Chicago Tribune: "Housewife Makes Canada Come To Its Census."

Lees was a major player in the movement to value caring for the young, elderly and disabled. Women still spend more time providing unpaidcaregiving than men, but sharing this responsibility is one route to more equality. There is a heavy financial penalty for anyone who chooses to stay home and take care of kids. This so-called "mommie tax" represents big opportunity costs or the loss of substantial lifetime income through forfeited upward mobility in the job market. Domestic nurturers have different career patterns than traditional males and childless women and frequently have a hard time finding a work-family balance or returning to their job after being at home. As Crittenden notes, asking your employer for a flexible work schedule for child-rearing can be like committing "career hara-kiri." Poverty is highest among women and children in all racial and ethnic groups, and motherhood is one of the leading risk factors.

Who should be responsible for the familial care of children and seniors, and how should this work be valued? What are the methods of assessing it in quantitative terms? What future social policies should ourgovernment develop toward this purpose, whether in the form of child benefits, extended maternity leave (as in France and Sweden), tax advantages, Social Security points or public policies of some other kind?

The Mother's Movement sheds light on a blind spot in modern economic thought where what counts is solely the production and sale of commodities and services for the market. Also it suggests we search for ways in which altruism rather than, or in addition to, self-interest propels economic growth.

The devaluation of child-rearing labor makes the U.S. a country at war with itself. Bringing up kids well is the heart of our economy and key to our nation's prosperity, but caregivers are discouraged from performing the very tasks essential to a healthy society. Psychohistorians, or those who study history through a psychological lens, often draw a definitive connection between childhood trauma and societal traumas. We need better understanding of how a caregiver's activities contribute to our national, indeed global, well-being. Why should child-rearing take second place to market exchange when "human capital" -- peoples' skills, knowledge, personality attributes, enterprise and creativity -- is the greatest asset we have? Where does it come from and what's it worth?



_______________
Reference:
Ann Crittenden, The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World is Still the Least Valued. Picador,
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Economic Aspects of "Love"

Postby American Dream » Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:39 am

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the ... can-family

Changes in the American Family

How family has changed since 1960.

Published on April 27, 2011 by Molly Castelloe, Ph.D. in The Me in We


Image


The American family is not what it once was. I recently enjoyed an animated discussion about how it has changed since the 1960s. The conversation grew out of a paper written by Professor Ken Fuchsman from the Psychohistory Forum in New York. The main idea was that children now endure more emotional disruption in familial relations than ever before.

The last 50 years have seen a dramatic rise in divorce (the U.S. has the highest of any industrialized nation), cohabitation rather than marriage, "blended" families of both gay and heterosexual design, and children born out of wedlock (more than half of all African-American children). This marks a shift away from the ideal of the companion marriage popularized in the early 1920s to self-aspiration, enhanced freedom, and egalitarian relationships. Is this change indicative of a culture of narcissism or about self-actualization and democracy? Since the 1960s, society has become more inclusive and women more financially independent, resulting in increased tension in marriages between individuation and what psychoanalyst Erik Erickson described as "generativity," a concern for the welfare of others.

In marriages of high conflict, such a those with overt emotional abuse or violence, children often benefit when the partnership is dissolved. However in low conflict marriages, children tend to suffer in school and social relationships in the aftermath of divorce. Adults bring unresolved conflicts into parenting and romance, reenacting their own childhood dramas and sometimes putting their own needs for gratification before that of their kids. A child may be perceived as a sibling rival. The emotional turbulence of divorce likely leads to feelings of loss, rage, and mourning for all -- and frequently the parentification of a child. There can be a lack of generational boundaries that a youngster needs for their own protection and internal control. One anecdote from the discussion concerned two divorcing parents vehemently blaming each other over the phone, while their teenage daughter sat alone in a mental hospital after having a LSD-related psychotic break. In the wake of divorce, it can become hard to trust the ones we love.

In Ken's words, the U.S. "is accumulating a deep psychological national deficit" for future generations. In 2001, adult children of divorce were two times likely to get divorced as those whose parents remained together. "Alloparenting" or collaborative nurturing through diverse forms of childcare is one way to offset the rupture of families. Additional role models (extended family, au pairs) can help children learn to regulate themselves emotionally and teach them frustration tolerance and delayed gratification. Yet couples have kids later in life and, in many cases, extended familial support is not available. There is no village to help raise a child. Society has become more mobile so aunts and cousins are not living across the backyard fence. From my personal experience, I know that if you wait too long to have kids, the grandparents can't keep up with them!

Media becomes a surrogate parent. Perhaps Facebook is the new (bad) breast. The proliferation of technologies like social networking, cell phones, and video games have altered how children relate to significant others. New communications have rudely infiltrated the therapeutic setting as well. One psychoanalyst related the experience of a patient texting someone else during sessions. Psychiatrist Alice Maher was quick to point out that the Internet is not all bad: it also provides a venue that allows us to watch "primary processes" come alive. It's a playing field for our most basic instincts and unconscious mental activities. The computer is a blank screen, says Maher, that allows us to observe collective transference, projection and regression -- and, with analytic interpretation, help others see it in themselves.

The rise of dual career, two-income marriages has also transformed domestic arrangements. In 2010, more American women were employed than men. While husbands are more involved in childrearing, the bulk of housework and parenting still falls on women which translates into a tricky balancing act between care-giving demands, spousal engagement, and job responsibilities. Self-definition can become a heavy burden and self-defeatist when, at the end of the day, there's no home to come home to.

Are women or men the adults today? Are there any adults? What does it mean if you're called one? Ken suggests mature couples' parenting is related to the degree you both can negotiate conflict, fear, and primal anxiety without becoming brittle. A problematic economy with extended work hours complicates parenting in other ways. Sometimes we aggressively act out repressed work hierarchies at home. Add to the mix the seductive power of consumer culture increasing the drive for money: it is sexy walking into Louis Vuitton.

As never before, child's play is tied to the desire for the acquisition of a premade object. We used to play stickball in a back alley and pretend with dolls made from old socks. Consumerism shrinks kids' imaginations, some suggest, and play revolves around the object more than the activity. One colleague mentioned her granddaughter has a Barbie doll for every day of the week. A historical marker for this psychosocial trend is Mattel's noisy machine gun, "Thunder Burp," introduced in 1955. This noisy play thing was the first toy to have a televised commercial outside of the Christmas season. (In light of the January 8th Arizona shootings of Congresswoman Giffords and others, it is notable that the first merchandised product for kids was a gun.)


Our discussion concluded with some words on healthy adult play and Phyllis Greenacre's notion of having a "love affair with the world." Faced with inadequate nurturance, a child may call on their imagination for protective effect. Imaginative play can soften the blow of family disappointments and work to heal traumatic wounds. Children, like artists, often experience the external world with innate pleasure -- even awe. Creative engagement with ones surroundings affords independence from parental figures, giving a child feelings of personal power and confidence in their ability to determine reality. Individuals, at whatever age, engaged in this "love affair" are better able to tolerate mixed emotions and reinvent themselves through creative play. In times of turmoil, my own kids act out stories with motley toys and build elaborate structures like castles and "Snake Jails" using egg cartons, legos and pipe cleaners.

Finally, our group expressed the collective wish for parents to gain awareness of how their actions and emotions impact their offspring.

__________________

* The Psychohistory Forumis a scholarly non-profit that looks at history through a psychological lens. Clio's Psyche, its online venue, promotes the care, growth and relevance of psychodynamic thinking in an Internet age.

follow me: http://www.twitter.com/mollycastelloe

Reference:

Ken Fuchsman, "The Family Romance Transformed: American Domestic Arrangements Since 1960," Clio's Psyche: Understanding the "Why" of Culture, Current Events, History, and Society. vol. 17, no. 4, March 2011
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Data & Research Compilations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests