Socialism 2010

July 8, 2010

This last weekend I went to the ISO’s Socialism 2010 in Oakland. I went with four friends of mine, in one person’s car. Two sat in front, and three of us crammed into the back seat. It takes about seven hours to drive from Eugene to Oakland. This experience taught me a lesson I will always remember: never cram three people into a car seat for a seven-hour drive. It didn’t help that we drove through California’s broiling hot Central Valley. (We could have gone down the coast, but it would have taken a lot longer.) Even with the air conditioner on, we were sweating.

I’ve driven through Oakland many times, but I’d never really looked at the place before. I found it to be a very charming and pleasant city, one that has been unfairly overshadowed by its neighbor, San Francisco. The convention center was right on the edge of the city’s Chinatown neighborhood. Only a couple of blocks away from my (over-priced) hotel was a Vietnamese restaurant that served delicious sandwiches for $2.75 each. (I swear, I’m not making this up.)

One of the speakers I saw was Chris Hedges. I was surprised when I first learned that Hedges would be speaking at this event. I recall him making disparaging remarks about Trotsky in one of his books. (I guess this just shows that we shouldn’t immediately dismiss people just because they have some disagreements with us.) He attracted a larger audience than anyone else at this event. (Poor Josh Frank was scheduled to speak at the same time as Hedges. Boy, he must have been pissed.) Hedges’s talk was mostly good. He gave an absolutely devastating criticism of capitalism. (And this guy used to work for the New York Times!) However, he ended his talk by basically saying that revolution is impossible and there’s nothing we can do. (As Jerry Garcia famously said, “Bummer”.) Not surprisingly, during the discussion section, the speakers all took him to task for this. In his wrap-up, Hedges’s response to this was very interesting. He said he had been a reporter in war zones, and that he had learned that in a war zone it makes no difference whether you are an optimist or a pessimist.

One other thing I didn’t like about Hedges’s talk is that he spent a lot of time talking about Michael Jackson’s funeral. Hedges apparently regards this event as a metaphor for all the false values in our society. Perhaps so, but did he need to spend almost 15 minutes talking about it?

I also saw the environmentalist, Heather Rogers, speak. She criticized the idea that it’s enough to have people making “green” choices. This is an idea that’s quite popular in Eugene, so it was interesting to hear a critique of it. Rogers emphasized the fact that it is capitalism and the need for profit that ultimately decide what choices we are allowed to make.

Wallace Shawn also spoke. He read an essay titled “Why I Became a Socialist”. It is a simple, non-political argument for socialism. It was also rather poignant. He talked about how our current society wastes people’s potential. I think this shows we can talk to people about socialism without having to quote Marx and Lenin.

After his talk, Shawn signed books for people. A friend of mine wanted to get Shawn’s autograph, so he grabbed a book that was one of Shawn’s earlier works and brought it to the table. Shawn looked at the book and said, “God help you if you read this. It’s such a depressing book.”

On the drive back, I immediately fell asleep, because I had gotten no sleep the night before. (I was coming down with a cold.) I woke up suddenly and found that we had left the highway. We were in a town that was nestled in those amazingly beautiful rolling hills that surround San Francisco Bay. My friends had decided that they wanted to sample free wine at a wine cooperative. The man who waited on us at the counter owned one of the local wineries. He told us that his great-grandfather had started making wine in the nineteenth century. The wine was very good. My friends bought some bottles, but, since my financial situation is tight right now, I declined to do so.

Next to the cooperative was a trailer, where a Black family sold barbecue. Their only sign was a board that had “Bar-B-Q” written in magic marker on it. It looked a little incongruous sitting next to this upscale wine place. After buying wine, my friends and I went over there to order some food. They advertised their barbecue as “Alabama style”. I don’t know enough about regional barbecue styles to be able to say whether or not that was simply a gimmick. It was quite good though. So there I was with my friends, sitting at a picnic table under a warm late afternoon sun, eating good barbecue and drinking good wine, surrounded by a beautiful landscape. I have to admit, there are times when I do miss living in California.

The World Cup

June 25, 2010

There’s an argument going around among the Left about how we should approach the World Cup. The accepted wisdom says that we should only root for teams that come from former colonies, and under no circumstances should we root for the United States. I can’t really buy this argument. After all, we’re talking about soccer teams, not armies. To view the World Cup in this way is to invest it with more significance than it should have. What’s more, the young people playing these games have nothing to do with what their governments may have done in the past. (I can’t help but point out here that after Algeria lost to the U.S., one of their players slapped a female reporter in the face. Just because someone is from a former colony doesn’t necessarily means he’s saintly.)

Of course, there will be obnoxious displays of patriotism. However, American fans are by no means the worst offenders in this regard. And we won’t have to worry about the tea baggers hopping on the soccer bandwagon. Like their leader, Glen Beck, they probably think that soccer is a foreign plot to corrupt their precious bodily fluids. Which, if you think about it, is actually a good reason to root for the U.S. team.

Update: It’s clear that the U.S. have a way to go before becoming a soccer powerhouse. Ghana simply had a better team. American fans can at least find comfort in the thought that the U.S. didn’t embarrass themselves the way France and Italy did.

At the bar where I watched the game, there was a small group that rooted for Ghana. So much for the claim that American fans are too nationalistic. By the way, I’ve been told that the British tabloids are pumping up England’s game against Germany as a replay of World War II. Oh, brother.

Update 2: A British blog claims that the game was a defeat for U.S. imperialism. I don’t think so. Obama & Co. aren’t going to lose any sleep over a soccer game. However, Dave Zirin has a good article about why it has emotional meaning for Africans.

Looking for Eric

June 25, 2010

I had trepidations about going to see Looking for Eric, the latest film from Ken Loach. The trailer makes it look like one of those “feel good” movies. Usually, “feel good” movies make me want to slash my wrists. However, since I”ve always liked Loach’s work, I decided to give it a try. It turned out to be better than the trailer made it look. (It’s not often you can say that about a film.) It also turned out to be a “feel good” movie after all, but this was one that actually did make me feel good.

The film tells the story of Eric Bishop (Steve Evets), who works as a postman. Eric feels dissatisfied with his life and alienated from his children and from his ex-wife. He contemplates committing suicide. One day, while he’s stoned, his hero, the footballer, Eric Catona (playing himself), appears before him. Catona begins giving him advice on how to deal with his problems. His advice is especially needed when Eric’s son, Ryan, becomes involved with a gangster. The latter makes Ryan hide a gun that he uses for crimes. When Eric tries to make the gangster take the gun back, the latter sets his dog on him. The police raid Eric’s apartment looking for the gun, but they fail to find it. Catona advises Eric to tell his co-workers about his problem, saying “you must trust your teammates.”

Looking for Eric celebrates the idea that people can help one another with their problems. This is a notion that has become intellectually unfashionable in this age of neoliberalism. My only problem with the film is that it’s never really made clear why the gangster makes Ryan keep his gun, especially since the gangster looks rich enough to own an arsenal. I suppose, however, that it’s churlish to nitpick with a film that gave me so much pleasure.

Ka’iulani

June 19, 2010

I went to see the British film Princess Kaiulani, which tells the story of Ka’iulani, a member of the Hawaiian royal family, who tried unsuccessfully to prevent the U.S. annexation of Hawaii. Ka’iulani was a remarkable woman whose life story could make for an interesting film. Unfortunately, writer and director Marc Forby apparently had no idea what to do with it. Most of the film is concerned with the time that Ka’iulani spent living in England. Her life there is depicted as a combination of Dickensian morality tale and Harlequin Romance. She is sent to a private school, where she is tormented by an evil headmistress who could have stepped out of a Disney cartoon. She falls in love with an Englishman who is obsessed with bicycles. In the film’s climactic scene, she has to make a choice between marrying Bicycle Boy or dedicating her life to her people. It doesn’t get any cornier than that.

This film has a made-for-TV look and feel to it. To let us know that a scene takes place in New York, the Statue of Liberty is ostentatiously shown in the background. The film becomes downright surreal when we’re shown the White House in the middle of a forest. (I swear, I’m not making this up.)

There are so many things this film could have dealt with that would have been interesting. For example, Ka’iulani was an accomplished painter. Here is an example of her work:

There is no mention of her artwork in the film. She knew Robert Louis Stevenson, who wrote a poem about her. Again, there is no mention of this in the film. Though the film does acknowledge that the annexation of Hawaii was a great crime, it doesn’t show what this meant for ordinary Hawaiians. Instead of giving us a thought-provoking and entertaining film, Forby opted to serve up a bunch of Hollywood clichés

The Invisible Hand of the Marketplace

June 13, 2010

I’ve been intending for some time to write a post about the gulf oil spill, but I’ve been having trouble getting my head around the sheer enormity of what is happening. This is clearly an environmental catastrophe of unprecedented scale, which could have devastating consequences for decades to come. What we are facing is a national emergency. Yet, Obama’s response has been curiously passive. He has pretty much left it up to BP to try to solve the problem (with some help from the Coast Guard). He seems more interested in threatening Iran and persecuting whistleblowers. Obama has only made two trips to the gulf coast. On the second one, he posed for photographers on a beach where he picked up tar balls. The beach was cleaned before his arrival.

I have a suspicion that Obama would rather not think about what is happening in the gulf. This event, more any other, exposes the complete vacuity of neoliberal ideology, which is his religion. The number of oil spills more than quadrupled during this decade. Should this be surprising? For years now, the government has been controlled by people who are ideologically opposed to government regulation. They would rather have the regulators in the Minerals Management Service downloading pornography onto their computers than have them interfere with the magical invisible hand of the marketplace. (I’m tempted here to make a joke about what the MMS employees were doing with their own hands, but I’m just too angry). The MMS helped to make the gulf oil spill possible, just as the inertness of the SEC (where, coincidentally, people were also downloading pornography onto their computers) helped to make the 2008 meltdown of the financial markets possible.

It’s obvious that even by the low standards of capitalism, neoliberalism has been a failure. Yet Obama & Co. desperately cling to its tenets.

By the way, I found this on wikipedia:

    Since 20 April 2010, when an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig killed 11 workers, 27 new offshore drilling projects have been approved by MMS. All but one project was granted similar exemptions from environmental review as BP. Two were submitted by the UK firm, and made the same claims about oil-rig safety and the implausibility of a spill damaging the environment.

The inmates are in charge of the asylum.

Update: it turns out that the Marshall Islands had responsibility for the safety inspections at the Deepwater Horizon. See here.

Israel Declares War on the World

June 2, 2010

Well, the Israelis might as well at this point. I don’t think it was an accident that they attacked the Free Gaza Flotilla while it was still in international waters. The Israelis wanted to spit on international law, and by extension, on the whole international community. As if that didn’t drive the point home, soon afterwards an Israeli soldier shot a tear gas canister into the face of an American woman at a demonstration on the West Bank, causing her to lose her left eye. Do you think the U.S. government will protest this? Probably not, since they didn’t protest the murder of Rachel Corrie. I expect that Congress will pass another resolution supporting Israel’s war crimes. Meanwhile, the Turkish government is protesting the killing of Turkish civilians. So which government do you think is more democratic, ours or Turkey’s? A government that doesn’t care about the lives of its own citizens is not democratic.

It apparently doesn’t matter to the Israelis that Turkey is a long-time ally of theirs. I guess they figure that as long as they have the support of the U.S. government and the U.S. media, they can treat everyone else with impunity. However, with the U.S. military bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with the U.S. economy struggling, American influence in the world has begun to wane. The Israelis are playing what will ultimately prove to be a losing game.

The Joneses

May 28, 2010

In The Joneses, Steve Jones (David Duchovny), his wife, Kate (Demi Moore), and their two teenage children, Jenn (Amber Heard) and Mick (Ben Hollingsworth) move into a wealthy suburban neighborhood. They seem to be a happy family, except for one thing: they’re not really a family. They’re actors who’ve been hired to ingratiate themselves in the local community, in order to get people to buy certain products. They soon become hugely popular, but they have their greatest impact on their next-door neighbors, Larry (Gary Cole) and Summer (Glenne Headly). Summer works for an Amway-like company that get people to sell beauty products to their neighbors. (Summer does openly what the Joneses do secretly.) At the company’s behest, she memorizes insipid platitudes about positive thinking. She refuses to have sex with Larry, because she wants to only have the company’s positive bromides on her mind before she falls asleep. Unhappy with his marriage, Larry envies the seemingly happy Steve. He tries to emulate Steve by buying all the products the latter shows him. As a result, Larry eventually finds himself carrying a mountain of debt that he can’t sustain.

The individual members of the “Jones family” are themselves corrupted by the insincerity of their actions. Mick, for example, promotes an alcoholic beverage by getting a bunch of teenagers drunk, while Jenn pursues a rich man who doesn’t love her. At the end, Steve quits in disgust, but only after he and his “family” have done terrible damage to people’s lives.

The Joneses is a satire on undercover marketing. (I must confess I didn’t know about this phenomenon until I saw this movie.) It is a criticism of how advertising permeates our society and encourages false values and reckless behavior (such as getting into debt). I thought the acting was very good. I especially liked Glenne Headly, who brought a sense of vulnerability to a character who might otherwise have seemed unsympathetic.

Although I mostly liked this film, there were a few false moments. At the end, for example, Mick, who is gay and has just come out of the closet, tells Steve that “I don’t have to pretend any more”, even though he’s still working for the company. This is apparently not meant to be ironic. Also, a scene in which Jenn tries to seduce Steve is just silly. However, such flaws don’t harm the overall impact of the film.

More Thoughts on Rand Paul

May 22, 2010

In an article that not quite defends Rand Paul, Alexander Cockburn puts forth a sophisticated form of the “lesser evil” argument that he used to reject. He points out that Paul’s opponent, Jack Conway, is a neo-con Democrat of the worst kind. He argues that because of his libertarianism, Paul is more likely to be a “wild card” in the Senate, one who might do such things as filibuster a bank bailout. I can’t really buy this. Since Paul has been willing to defend BP, I think it’s a bit optimistic to expect him to stand up to the banks. He will more likely devote his energies to trying to pass anti-immigrant and anti-abortion legislation and to shredding what little is left of the social safety net. Having a wild card doesn’t necessarily mean that you have a winning hand.

This latest argument by Cockburn is related to one that he has made from time to time over the years: that there can be a “left-right” alliance. If I remember correctly, he first brought up this idea during the 1996 election. Cockburn got all excited when Pat Buchanan made some vaguely populist noises during the primaries. He started to suggest that Buchanan could be some sort of ally. This idea was a non-starter, because of Buchanan’s rabid anti-immigrant stance, not to mention his hatred for the left. It’s absurd to think that immigrants and minorities can march side-by-side with racists and xenophobes.

Cockburn says that “liberalism is in awful crisis”, which is true. However, that is precisely why the left doesn’t need to make any cynical deals with the far right. Now more than ever is the time to put forward a genuinely left program.

Libertarianism

May 21, 2010

Libertarianism is the belief that capitalists have a right to do to the rest of us whatever they please, and we are obligated to let them do it to us. It has nothing to do with any notions about personal liberty. Rand Paul, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senator from Kentucky and a self-professed libertarian, says that a business has the right to turn away Black customers. (Although he hastens to add that he personally disapproves of racial discrimination. How reassuring.) He is also opposed to a woman’s right to choose. Since a woman is not a corporation, she clearly has no right to discriminate against a fetus.

Here is what Paul says on his website about immigration:

    I do not support amnesty. Those who come here should respect our laws. I support legal immigration and recognize that the country has been enriched by those who seek the freedom to make a life for themselves.

    Immigrants should meet the current requirements, which should be enforced and updated. I realize that subsidizing something creates more of it, and do not think the taxpayer should be forced to pay for welfare, medical care and other expenses for illegal immigrants. Once the subsidies for illegal immigration are removed, the problem will likely become far less common.

If I’m reading that last paragraph correctly, Paul seems to think that some immigrants come to this country so they can receive welfare and free medical care. Since native-born Americans can’t get these things, immigrants clearly can’t get them either. This raises the question of whether or not Paul has any idea what he is talking about.

Ah, but there’s more:

    I support local solutions to illegal immigration as protected by the 10th amendment. I support making English the official language of all documents and contracts.

    Millions crossing our border without our knowledge constitutes a clear threat to our nation’s security. I will work to secure our borders immediately. My plans include an underground electric fence, with helicopter stations to respond quickly to breaches of the border. Instead of closing military bases at home and renting space in Europe, I am open to the construction of bases to protect our border.

An underground electric fence along the entire U.S.-Mexico border! How libertarian! (By the way, this fence would be partially paid for by the income taxes of undocumented immigrants.) And won’t it be pleasant to observe the scenic vistas of the American Southwest with all those helicopters hovering overhead? By the way, why the hell should a libertarian care about whether or not the U.S. has an official language?

I can’t help but point out that many undocumented immigrants come from Asia and from Europe. (When I lived in Boston, I knew some Irishmen who were undocumented.) Paul says nothing about this. He treats the issue as being entirely about people crossing the Mexican border. I think we can assume then that Paul thinks the problem consists of Mexicans and Central Americans, and that therefore Paul is a racist.

People who think that leftists can make common cause with people like this are sadly deluded.

The Persistence of the Old Regime

May 19, 2010

An interesting article in the New York Times argues that there is a “generation gap” when it comes to people’s attitudes towards immigration. The article tells of studies that show that people 45 years or older are much more likely to have anti-immigrant views, while younger people are more likely to have a positive view of immigrants. As the article puts it:

    Boomers and their parents … spent their formative years away from the cities, where newer immigrants tended to gather — unlike today’s young people who have become more involved with immigrants, through college, or by moving to urban areas.

    “It’s hard for them to share each others’ views on what’s going on,” said William H. Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution. “These older people grew up in largely white suburbs or largely segregated neighborhoods. Young people have grown up in an interracial culture.”

This dovetails with my own observations. I saw anti-immigrant demonstrations when I lived in Southern California, and the people who came to them were mostly old people. Arizona has a large population of retired people. These are the people who elected the Republican legislators who are turning the place into an apartheid police state. These are the same kind of people who support the Tea Party movement. They are angrily lashing out at an America that no longer fits their prejudices.

I grew up in an all-white suburb, and since I have no fond memories of the place, I have no sympathy for people who want to cling to that way of life. We have a generation of Americans who want to spend the final years of their lives pissing all over the rest of us.