I've lost much of my interest in politics so I think I will discuss religion for a while. I was thinking about this while I walked downtown to coffee this morning. I suppose my mind was joggled by the weekly message on a little church I pass --- something to the effect that "Jesus saved us from our sins." Sin is a very strange concept but it has been enormously successful in trapping huge numbers of people for over centuries. It is doubtless to me that there are certain things we can do that are wrong to do. There are grounds for judging "right and wrong." But this does not mean that wrong things are sins. The notion of sin is actually quite unrelated to the issue of right and wrong acts. Christian theology wants to have us believe that we begin life "in sin." Even the baby is mortally encumbered by sin far before he/she can do anything that has moral scope. It seems to me that this is more-or-less equivalent to saying that life itself is viewed as evil. If we believe that, then there is no hope for us except what's offered by the church.
Christian theology has the formula for saving us from evil and stepping beyond sin. What is the formula? Being faithful to their theology of course. What this is, in my mind, is nothing related to the existence of a deity but rather a crass political usurpation of power over vast populations of people. It has been very successful. What better way to make people cower at your feet than to convince them that they have been created evil and impure and that their only path to redemption is to do everything that you tell them.
That, of course, is not all. At some point in the beginning, theologians realized that the one impulse in humans more powerful than even the need to eat is sexuality. Hence, all forms of sexuality had to be brought under church control. Now, even if people are a little hesitant about admitting sin in the abstract, they can become mortified by their own instinctual desires. And the Catholic (the traditional Christian) is not permitted sex in any circumstance but one in which conception of a child is possible, even intended. Joyce's "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" gives us a vivid picture of mortification-onto-damnation in the life of a young believer. I won't even bother to consider what this principle has done to world populations and how it maintains people in poverty. What interests me at the moment is what a shrewd political move it was to capture sexuality in this way before people felt free to own it themselves.
And if that isn't enough, Christianity was built on the foundation of yet another Achilles heal, the dread of death. If the physical body is desiring sex, the spiritual mind is anxious about death. The mind, too, must be imprisoned. Thus, Christian theology promises life-after-death and adds the quaint picture of hellfire versus heaven. It's a very scary road, life, and only the Church can guide you through so long as you are obedient and generous.
All of this is theology --- which is pretty much raw politics --- and has nothing to do with Jesus. I don't find any of this in Jesus' teaching, which is actually rather socialist in its leanings. As Nietzsche said, "There has been only one true Christian, and he died on the cross."
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
What will they do?
The interesting thing about politics, these days, is that, now that the Republicans have full power in the House, the whole question is what will they do with their new-found power. There are certain things that Americans want their government to do, but it is not at all clear that the Republicans are tuned into those wishes. Instead, they seem to be reaching out to achieve certain fantasies of what the American people want --- like re-defining "rape," throwing out the entire healthcare legislation, etc. And, of course, in spite of their heroic need to follow the Constitution to the letter, they spent their first three days violating the Constitution right and left.
The simple fact remains that Republicans hate government so much that they are terrible governors when they hold the power. All they want to do is tear things down, and the more they can give out to their rich corporate friends in the process, the better. After complaining about the failure of bipartisanship for the last two years, now is the time for the Republicans to demonstrate how they can work with Independents and Democrats to solve some of the urgent problems we face.
The simple fact remains that Republicans hate government so much that they are terrible governors when they hold the power. All they want to do is tear things down, and the more they can give out to their rich corporate friends in the process, the better. After complaining about the failure of bipartisanship for the last two years, now is the time for the Republicans to demonstrate how they can work with Independents and Democrats to solve some of the urgent problems we face.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Economies and How They Work
The world's biggest nightmare, these days, is "the economy," but what is it.
Generally speaking, the economy is a system of production and consumption, but there are different systems. There are, for instance, regulated economies and unregulated economies, planned and unplanned. If we include ownership as part of the system, then Communist economies involve ownership of the means of production by the community; Socialist economies involve ownership of major production by the political system; and Capitalist economies involve ownership of production by individuals. Communist economies tend to be planned and regulated; Socialist economies tend to be regulated at least; and Capitalist economies tend to be unplanned and unregulated.
One way or another, a system of economy ought to be for the mutual benefit of the people. Everyone contributes through production of what they can manage and everyone has an opportunity to consume what they need for their livelihood. Unfortunately most systems break down. Even Communist systems that supposedly embrace the "mutual benefit" notion in principle tend to fail because of the difficulty involved in planning. Capitalist economies don't even try to embrace the "mutual benefit" notion but, rather, rest their faith on the bizarre idea that everything will work out OK if you just leave it alone (Adam Smith).
That is pretty much the picture of where we are today. America is such a super-inflated Capitalist system that it would vastly prefer to destroy itself in a mire of individual greed rather than look anything like even a regulated Socialism. Under the theme of "globalization" our Capitalists (owners of our production capacities) are moving Capital into the rest of the world where they can produce with lower obligations to the labor forces and at lower costs of most resources. Under the theme of "free trade agreements" they can then turn around and export/import their products for American consumption. But what's left out of this picture? The American worker of course! When Capitalists perform their productivity in a way that excludes the mutual benefit of allowing their own countrymen to share in the production, the "system" is broken. Americans have to produce in order to consume.
Right now, Americans seem to believe that politicians must create jobs for them. They ignore the fact that it is Capitalists who create jobs by hiring workers to engage with the means of production they own. What can politicians do? They could hire Americans to do government jobs, but the same American voters do not want "big government"! They could regulate the behavior of Capitalists so that the system works for American workers. But the same American voters are opposed to government regulation!
All I can say to the newly seated Republican House-of-Representatives is Good Luck. They will certainly need it. So far as I can see there is only one way, given these political preferences, in which the Capitalist system in American will be "healed." Capitalists will have to be lured back onto the mainland and that will only happen when American labor and resources are sufficiently cheap to meet the Capitalist's greedy expectations. That means re-making the American Dream into a vision of a Third-World Country. How proud will we be then?
Generally speaking, the economy is a system of production and consumption, but there are different systems. There are, for instance, regulated economies and unregulated economies, planned and unplanned. If we include ownership as part of the system, then Communist economies involve ownership of the means of production by the community; Socialist economies involve ownership of major production by the political system; and Capitalist economies involve ownership of production by individuals. Communist economies tend to be planned and regulated; Socialist economies tend to be regulated at least; and Capitalist economies tend to be unplanned and unregulated.
One way or another, a system of economy ought to be for the mutual benefit of the people. Everyone contributes through production of what they can manage and everyone has an opportunity to consume what they need for their livelihood. Unfortunately most systems break down. Even Communist systems that supposedly embrace the "mutual benefit" notion in principle tend to fail because of the difficulty involved in planning. Capitalist economies don't even try to embrace the "mutual benefit" notion but, rather, rest their faith on the bizarre idea that everything will work out OK if you just leave it alone (Adam Smith).
That is pretty much the picture of where we are today. America is such a super-inflated Capitalist system that it would vastly prefer to destroy itself in a mire of individual greed rather than look anything like even a regulated Socialism. Under the theme of "globalization" our Capitalists (owners of our production capacities) are moving Capital into the rest of the world where they can produce with lower obligations to the labor forces and at lower costs of most resources. Under the theme of "free trade agreements" they can then turn around and export/import their products for American consumption. But what's left out of this picture? The American worker of course! When Capitalists perform their productivity in a way that excludes the mutual benefit of allowing their own countrymen to share in the production, the "system" is broken. Americans have to produce in order to consume.
Right now, Americans seem to believe that politicians must create jobs for them. They ignore the fact that it is Capitalists who create jobs by hiring workers to engage with the means of production they own. What can politicians do? They could hire Americans to do government jobs, but the same American voters do not want "big government"! They could regulate the behavior of Capitalists so that the system works for American workers. But the same American voters are opposed to government regulation!
All I can say to the newly seated Republican House-of-Representatives is Good Luck. They will certainly need it. So far as I can see there is only one way, given these political preferences, in which the Capitalist system in American will be "healed." Capitalists will have to be lured back onto the mainland and that will only happen when American labor and resources are sufficiently cheap to meet the Capitalist's greedy expectations. That means re-making the American Dream into a vision of a Third-World Country. How proud will we be then?
Friday, December 10, 2010
In the Shadow of Imperialism
In 1939 Vladimir Lenin published a small book titled "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism". What is interesting about this little book is that it proposed a solution to a problem in Marxist theory. That problem was the fact that the major Capitalist economies of Europe and North America had not fallen to revolutions of the proletariat as anticipated by Marx's analysis. Critics of Marxism were crowing about this, claiming that history was proving Marx wrong.
Lenin's analysis was actually quite convincing. He observed that the system of imperialism in which all of the Western economies were engaged systematically relieved the tension between a potential proletariat and the capitalists. How? Very simply, imperialism provides a mechanism for exporting the proletariat class to the underdeveloped world and allows the formation of a comfortable middle class in the Western world. Since the needs of the middle class are reasonably satisfied, there is no motivation for revolt against the system. Meanwhile, the impoverished proletariat class lives far away in countries that are invariably controlled by militarist dictatorships maintained in place by Western powers. The revolution of the proletariat is rendered impossible and Capitalism has reached its highest stage.
However, after the Second World War, which was really a war for territory fought by the imperialists, the whole colonial and imperialist division of the world began to fall apart. India, Indochina, to name only a couple cases. What is even more interesting is the present trend in the United States. The movement that we like to call "globalization" is a different way of ending imperialism, but it is destined to have similar affects. In the US today we have large corporations moving their operations off-shore and into faraway places where labor and resources are cheep. As a consequence, the American middle class is losing any hope of maintaining itself. Either employment is simply not there anymore or wages are forced to compete with laborers in the underdeveloped world. If this phenomenon continues in its present direction --- and I have every expectation that it will --- we are moving back into the situation of Capitalism as Marx's analysis originally had it. That is, we are rapidly moving toward an American society in which a tiny percent of people (Capitalists) have enormous wealth and power and the huge majority of people (Proletariat) have nothing but a flimsy hold on day-to-day survival. In other words, without imperialism to save the system, we are headed back directly into the experiment that Marx predicted. Will the American proletariat ultimately revolt and overthrow the Capitalist system?
It is hard to tell. You'd like to think that people don't really like to have their noses rubbed in the dirt for very long. But, on the other hand, a massive number of Americans continue to vote for Republicans who, after all, are the very ones who turn around and rub their noses further into the dirt. Go figure!
Lenin's analysis was actually quite convincing. He observed that the system of imperialism in which all of the Western economies were engaged systematically relieved the tension between a potential proletariat and the capitalists. How? Very simply, imperialism provides a mechanism for exporting the proletariat class to the underdeveloped world and allows the formation of a comfortable middle class in the Western world. Since the needs of the middle class are reasonably satisfied, there is no motivation for revolt against the system. Meanwhile, the impoverished proletariat class lives far away in countries that are invariably controlled by militarist dictatorships maintained in place by Western powers. The revolution of the proletariat is rendered impossible and Capitalism has reached its highest stage.
However, after the Second World War, which was really a war for territory fought by the imperialists, the whole colonial and imperialist division of the world began to fall apart. India, Indochina, to name only a couple cases. What is even more interesting is the present trend in the United States. The movement that we like to call "globalization" is a different way of ending imperialism, but it is destined to have similar affects. In the US today we have large corporations moving their operations off-shore and into faraway places where labor and resources are cheep. As a consequence, the American middle class is losing any hope of maintaining itself. Either employment is simply not there anymore or wages are forced to compete with laborers in the underdeveloped world. If this phenomenon continues in its present direction --- and I have every expectation that it will --- we are moving back into the situation of Capitalism as Marx's analysis originally had it. That is, we are rapidly moving toward an American society in which a tiny percent of people (Capitalists) have enormous wealth and power and the huge majority of people (Proletariat) have nothing but a flimsy hold on day-to-day survival. In other words, without imperialism to save the system, we are headed back directly into the experiment that Marx predicted. Will the American proletariat ultimately revolt and overthrow the Capitalist system?
It is hard to tell. You'd like to think that people don't really like to have their noses rubbed in the dirt for very long. But, on the other hand, a massive number of Americans continue to vote for Republicans who, after all, are the very ones who turn around and rub their noses further into the dirt. Go figure!
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
The "Living Document" Argument
In the preceding blog, "Reading the Constitution," I left the "original meanings" versus the "living document" arguments as an open question. Clearly, the Constitution itself is silent on this issue and gives us no directions as to how it should be interpreted in future time.
Here I want to argue for the "living document" approach. A few things are clear. The Constitution uses language fitting the time of its creation, makes provision for a government sufficient to the physical and social facts of the time, and imposes restrictions that were often prompted by the more-or-less recent experiences as English colonists and as a confederation of separate states. In order to understand the Constitution in this overall context, we often have to interpret its language and, in order to do that, we have to make use of numerous historical documents, including essays and letters written by the many people involved in these discussions.
It is also clear, however, that the nation has changed in many ways in the more-than 200 years since the Constitution was written. Not only has the nation itself changed but the physical and social context within which it exists has also changed. It was quite impossible for the authors of the Constitution to even imagine what these changes would be or how they might affect the conditions of governing. For instance, how could the authors foresee that citizens living on their own farms, constituting more than 90% of the US population, would eventually become such an insignificant portion of the population that the US Census would drop them as a category (being now less than 1/2 %. And yet, today, it is precisely the overwhelming shift from a rural agrarian population to an urbanized population that presents government with its major issues and problems.
We are faced with the situation in which the Constitution is either respected as a "living document" that copes with the changing context of government by appropriate and imaginative re-interpretation or understood as archaic and irrelevant, which would mean that we have lost our fundamental laws. In my opinion, it is far better to maintain the fundamental character of the Constitution as law by interpreting it as we can in the context of our actual world than it is to pretend that nothing has changed and to chain ourselves to the fears, opinions, and wishes of the original authors.
Here I want to argue for the "living document" approach. A few things are clear. The Constitution uses language fitting the time of its creation, makes provision for a government sufficient to the physical and social facts of the time, and imposes restrictions that were often prompted by the more-or-less recent experiences as English colonists and as a confederation of separate states. In order to understand the Constitution in this overall context, we often have to interpret its language and, in order to do that, we have to make use of numerous historical documents, including essays and letters written by the many people involved in these discussions.
It is also clear, however, that the nation has changed in many ways in the more-than 200 years since the Constitution was written. Not only has the nation itself changed but the physical and social context within which it exists has also changed. It was quite impossible for the authors of the Constitution to even imagine what these changes would be or how they might affect the conditions of governing. For instance, how could the authors foresee that citizens living on their own farms, constituting more than 90% of the US population, would eventually become such an insignificant portion of the population that the US Census would drop them as a category (being now less than 1/2 %. And yet, today, it is precisely the overwhelming shift from a rural agrarian population to an urbanized population that presents government with its major issues and problems.
We are faced with the situation in which the Constitution is either respected as a "living document" that copes with the changing context of government by appropriate and imaginative re-interpretation or understood as archaic and irrelevant, which would mean that we have lost our fundamental laws. In my opinion, it is far better to maintain the fundamental character of the Constitution as law by interpreting it as we can in the context of our actual world than it is to pretend that nothing has changed and to chain ourselves to the fears, opinions, and wishes of the original authors.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Reading the Constitution
What does "supporting the Constitution of the United States" actually mean? We know what the Constitution said originally. After all, we have the original document in hand. However, the document itself provides for making changes, or amendments so it is possible to say exactly what the Constitution said at any particular time, depending on when it was last amended. All of that is clear.
What is not so clear is what parts of this document mean, amended or not. We have to ask, "how do you read this section?" Well, when we read anything, we usually start out, at least, reading it in terms of a contemporary understanding of the terms, phrases, idioms, and colloquialisms used in the text. However, with any old document, there is a long history of meanings that may have changed in substantial ways. Hence, reading a section of the Constitution can vary significantly, depending upon what historical period we give emphasis to in our reading.
Today, we are faced with the fact that the Constitution itself is completely silent on the question of how it is to be read. That is, it gives no more credibility to those who would read it in its original meanings (so far as we can determine those from other historical sources) than it does to those who consider it a "living document" that we should read in a contemporary framework. Yet Conservatives want to insist that we read it in its original-meaning context. Unfortunately, they assume this but give no compelling argument for it.
Take the so-called "interstate commerce clause." Some Conservatives want to say that the Constitution does not use the expression "interstate commerce." That, of course, is true. What it actually says is that Congress has the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." What is at issue, then, is how we read "regulate Commerce . . . among the several States."
So my Conservative friend, Longshot, wants to claim that we read this literally as "States" and not as "people of the States." He goes on to claim that "a good case could be made that the intent of this power was to regulate the trade relations between the states in the Union. This would prevent the states from erecting trade barriers such as tariffs and quotas."
I have to say that I find this argument pretty shallow. When do states themselves engage in commerce with each other? I suppose that the State of California might sell certain resources to the State of Nevada. While that is certainly possible, it is far more likely that what the framers of the Constitution had in mind was that persons in one state might engage in commerce with persons of another state. This situation might prompt a state to lay a tariff on commercial goods passing across the state line; but isn't that precisely what Congress was empowered to prevent. If we look back at the document itself, there is no impulse to suggest that the only commerce to be regulated was literally that with foreign Nations rather than commerce with the people of foreign nations. It was a question of things crossing over boundaries between foreign nations and our national boundaries, no matter what the agency of commerce.
The reason for the Conservative argument is that Longshot doesn't want Congress to have power over people in a state, only the institutionalized state itself. You can regulate my state but you can't regulate me.
What is not so clear is what parts of this document mean, amended or not. We have to ask, "how do you read this section?" Well, when we read anything, we usually start out, at least, reading it in terms of a contemporary understanding of the terms, phrases, idioms, and colloquialisms used in the text. However, with any old document, there is a long history of meanings that may have changed in substantial ways. Hence, reading a section of the Constitution can vary significantly, depending upon what historical period we give emphasis to in our reading.
Today, we are faced with the fact that the Constitution itself is completely silent on the question of how it is to be read. That is, it gives no more credibility to those who would read it in its original meanings (so far as we can determine those from other historical sources) than it does to those who consider it a "living document" that we should read in a contemporary framework. Yet Conservatives want to insist that we read it in its original-meaning context. Unfortunately, they assume this but give no compelling argument for it.
Take the so-called "interstate commerce clause." Some Conservatives want to say that the Constitution does not use the expression "interstate commerce." That, of course, is true. What it actually says is that Congress has the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." What is at issue, then, is how we read "regulate Commerce . . . among the several States."
So my Conservative friend, Longshot, wants to claim that we read this literally as "States" and not as "people of the States." He goes on to claim that "a good case could be made that the intent of this power was to regulate the trade relations between the states in the Union. This would prevent the states from erecting trade barriers such as tariffs and quotas."
I have to say that I find this argument pretty shallow. When do states themselves engage in commerce with each other? I suppose that the State of California might sell certain resources to the State of Nevada. While that is certainly possible, it is far more likely that what the framers of the Constitution had in mind was that persons in one state might engage in commerce with persons of another state. This situation might prompt a state to lay a tariff on commercial goods passing across the state line; but isn't that precisely what Congress was empowered to prevent. If we look back at the document itself, there is no impulse to suggest that the only commerce to be regulated was literally that with foreign Nations rather than commerce with the people of foreign nations. It was a question of things crossing over boundaries between foreign nations and our national boundaries, no matter what the agency of commerce.
The reason for the Conservative argument is that Longshot doesn't want Congress to have power over people in a state, only the institutionalized state itself. You can regulate my state but you can't regulate me.
The Constitution and Money
In order to understand why I am writing this particular blog you will need to read the comments section in Longshots' blog, On Political Economy. (http://onpoliticaleconomy.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-thoughts-on-constitutional-money.html#comments)
I have heard many conservatives argue that the Federal Reserve system is unconstitutional and that paper money is illegal. Like so many conservative arguments, it is extremely difficult to imagine what would happen to this country if we tried to retreat to a coin-cash economy. Not only is a major portion of today's money supply in paper currency but the digital age has taken us far beyond a paper-cash economy. "Plastic money" (ATM cards, credit cards, and store-specific cards) backed up by "electronic banking" means that a person may rarely see or use cash of any kind. Exchange in our economy is based on "deposits" at banking institutions. These deposits act as legal tender as they are shifted back-and-forth, often within the same banking institution, between individuals.
Deposits can represent legal tender because they are backed by actual paper or coinage currency, which can be paid out at demand. As we all know, however, banks do not maintain enough currency to pay out on all their deposits; they loan portions of their deposit reserves. This is part of what economists call the "multiplier effect." The actual money supply is alway larger than the credit basis of the country lying in gold in some vault. The expansion of legal tender in this effect is necessary to facilitating commerce and generating our GNP.
If this entire system were taken down and if people were to demand coinage in payment, the economy would collapse. Is that really what conservatives want?
As to the Constitutional argument, Article I, uses the term "money" several lines before it grants Congress the power of making coin-money, and well before it denies that power for the states. Hence, "money" is the more primitive term. Congress was well aware of paper money because so-called "Continentals" already existed as a way of funding the Revolution. The Constitution guarantees that all outstanding obligations will be carried over into the new government (Article VI); hence, the Continentals will be backed by the new government. We have had paper money as long as we have had our Constitution.
It is interesting that the United States Treasury resides within the Executive branch of government and that the Secretary of the Treasury is a member of the President's cabinet. None of this is spelled out in Article II, which deals with the Executive. Indeed, Alexander Hamilton was the first Secretary and it was under Hamilton that the first central banking institution (The Bank of the United States) was established (1790), patterned after (of all things) the Bank of England. That began a long and complicated history of central banking institutions.
While people have raised Constitutional arguments about central banking and paper money throughout our history, these arguments have not succeeded except for brief periods of time.
I have heard many conservatives argue that the Federal Reserve system is unconstitutional and that paper money is illegal. Like so many conservative arguments, it is extremely difficult to imagine what would happen to this country if we tried to retreat to a coin-cash economy. Not only is a major portion of today's money supply in paper currency but the digital age has taken us far beyond a paper-cash economy. "Plastic money" (ATM cards, credit cards, and store-specific cards) backed up by "electronic banking" means that a person may rarely see or use cash of any kind. Exchange in our economy is based on "deposits" at banking institutions. These deposits act as legal tender as they are shifted back-and-forth, often within the same banking institution, between individuals.
Deposits can represent legal tender because they are backed by actual paper or coinage currency, which can be paid out at demand. As we all know, however, banks do not maintain enough currency to pay out on all their deposits; they loan portions of their deposit reserves. This is part of what economists call the "multiplier effect." The actual money supply is alway larger than the credit basis of the country lying in gold in some vault. The expansion of legal tender in this effect is necessary to facilitating commerce and generating our GNP.
If this entire system were taken down and if people were to demand coinage in payment, the economy would collapse. Is that really what conservatives want?
As to the Constitutional argument, Article I, uses the term "money" several lines before it grants Congress the power of making coin-money, and well before it denies that power for the states. Hence, "money" is the more primitive term. Congress was well aware of paper money because so-called "Continentals" already existed as a way of funding the Revolution. The Constitution guarantees that all outstanding obligations will be carried over into the new government (Article VI); hence, the Continentals will be backed by the new government. We have had paper money as long as we have had our Constitution.
It is interesting that the United States Treasury resides within the Executive branch of government and that the Secretary of the Treasury is a member of the President's cabinet. None of this is spelled out in Article II, which deals with the Executive. Indeed, Alexander Hamilton was the first Secretary and it was under Hamilton that the first central banking institution (The Bank of the United States) was established (1790), patterned after (of all things) the Bank of England. That began a long and complicated history of central banking institutions.
While people have raised Constitutional arguments about central banking and paper money throughout our history, these arguments have not succeeded except for brief periods of time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)