The Personal Lives of Leftists, does it matter?

For the leftist community around the world it is hard to always defend the actions of many of the men and women who helped shape the mold for socialism and communism. While some of the "founding" philosophers lived rather tame existences, I'm thinking of Kropotkin for one, many lived lives that mainstream ethics would look at as immoral. While it may seem silly to look at the lives philosophers who wanted to change, disrupt, or dismantle the status quo, it is important, in my opinion, to look at the personal mistakes of those we ideologically look up to critically.

Looking at Marx, one sees a brilliant theorist who helped define the struggles of the industrial and post-industrial age who nevertheless lived a life of near-Randian "mooching". While he did make some of his living off of his journalism, he ultimately depended on Engels for financial support. And to top it off, he was a known bar brawler and allegedly had a child by his housekeeper. 

Next Althusser, another brilliant theorist who suffered from psychological problems and ended up strangling his own wife. Then we have to contend with: Sartre's sexism, Bakunin's anti-semitism, and not to mention the extramarital affairs of Lenin, Trotsky, and Guevara.

But does it ultimately matter? While the historical leaders of the Left have had their flaws, historical leaders from all political stripes have had their share of problems: Churchill's imperialistic racism (referring to Gandhi as a "half-naked fakir"), Gandhi's tumultuous relationship with his son, Thomas Jefferson's affair with Sally Hemmings, etc. But how must us on the Left react to the flaws of our historical leaders? Simple: separate the people from their ideals. Though they may have been hypocrites or had their problem vices, it is important for us to look at these flaws, learn from them, and move on. It is not our job to defend the personal legacies of these philosophers, they were imperfect as all humans are, and we thus must be committed to changing the world instead of interpreting it by learning from their mistakes. 

Response to "Tragedy of the Commons"

For my Environmental Governance class I wrote this short response to Garrett Hardin's 1968 piece "The Tragedy of the Commons":

The Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek refers to a quote attributed to Vladimir Lenin on the Russian Revolutionary’s view of freedom “Freedom yes, but for WHOM? To do WHAT?” (Zizek, Slavoj. On Belief. N.p.: Marxist Internet Archive, 2001. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ot/zizek.htm.). In Garrett Hardin’s article “The Tragedy of the Commons” (Hardin, Garrett. "The Tragedy of the Commons." Science 162 (1968): 1243-1248. Accessed September 2, 2012. http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/v1003/lectures/population/Tragedy%20of%20the%20Commons.pdf.) he addresses this very notion by looking at the realities of overpopulation. He starts by asserting that this problem is one of “no technical solutions”, meaning that the outcome will not be necessarily pleasant or helpful to all, but, as he asserts at the end, is fundamentally necessary.

            Hardin asserts that because we live in a society governed by the values of individual liberty and private property we allow for our “commons” to be ruined because each of us wants to ensure our survival and success without coercion. He famously looks at the problem of a common-shared grazing pasture for cattle in which people want to have more of their own cattle put in the pasture even if it means lessened possibility of more cattle to be put there in the future. For Hardin we as a society are ruining our common resources and their future potential by allowing for the “freedom to breed”. He specifically criticizes the liberal human-rights notion in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that establishes the family as a “natural and fundamental unit of society” that cannot be limited by anyone else. While this may sound uncomfortably elitist and border-lining on Social Darwinian he makes an essential point that for our commons to be restored and ensured for future generations, we must allow for forms of “mutual coercion” to limit our breeding capabilities.

            While Hardin makes many valid points about overpopulation one must also look at the implications for common resources and remember he is acting out of an assumption that society will continue to run under the liberal, individualist system. This is where one must look at alternatives, and with Zizek’s comments on Lenin the Russian radical seems like a good place to start. Lenin’s views on freedom were born out of what he saw as necessity to protect the institutions he created during the Revolution because he saw any reversion to liberalism as a possible catalyst for counterrevolution. While the context and time may be entirely different from Hardin, the reality is still the same: for whom and to what extent can we value freedom? If freedom means freedom to do what one likes regardless of consequences to others, as our liberal democratic dogma contends, that “freedom” is thus simultaneously the death-knell for many who do not have such privilege to do with resources what they like. Therefore we have to ask ourselves: is liberal individualism truly the best system for allocating resources and utilizing them? Though some assert we can find alternative energies to ensure unlimited consumption, as long as we rely on the status quo of production and distribution we will continue to utilize finite resources which are increasingly lessening.  

The Meaning of the Wisconsin Recall

Tuesday's recall election  for anti-union governor Scott Walker has electrified liberals and centre-leftists of all stripes around the United States. From the Democratic Party establishment to liberal/progressive union-supporting networks activists on the moderate left have poured much of their time and energy into the effort to defeat Walker's corporatist administration.
And yet, what does it say about the nature of the labor movement in the United States if it relies on elections like these to find relevance? Some would argue it is part of the tradition of the modern Democratic Party to support trade unionism, but the most prominent Democrat and liberal in the country, President Obama, has remained virtually silent on the whole debate. Further some are decrying that a victory for Walker in the recall would be a major setback for labor in general.
The nature of American business unionism that has attached itself to the apparatus of the neoliberal Democratic Party shows the powerlessness of workers in America today. While unions can defend workers from unfair hiring and firing as well as defend them from harsh cuts in meager benefits, unions on the whole do not usually question the nature of the wage system that perpetuates dire situations for working people the world over. It is about paying dues, setting up shop at industries, and negotiating meager wages with millionaire owners of capital.
What American workers need, like all workers of the world, is a movement of working people with a horizontal power structure, where there is no need for stewards or union bosses, where all workers function through a direct democratic system to not only make more wages than the minimum but to make living wages to have a decent life. And if there is one American attribute that can be applied to this, it is self-initiative, workers cannot rely on business unions and corporate Democrats to stand up for them, only workers themselves can stand up for economic equality. Thus, we must take the Wisconsin situation and not fetishize the electoral circus create by liberals, workers must look at the blatantly anti-worker sentiments of Walker and stand up to it like in the beginning: mass strikes and protests, and go further with worker occupations. If the labor movement is to survive and really help the working people of America it must distance itself from electoralism and regain the militancy of its past.

The New Greek "Revolt"

So after a week of waiting the world now gets to see the results of the last week's Greek parliamentary elections: PASOK, the third largest party in Parliament, has failed to form a coalition after New Democracy and Syriza have also failed. As the BBC states the president is now going to call for parties to form a government of "national salvation", but that call is unlikely to be heeded. The crisis of the Greek government's legitimacy will now lead to a new round of elections, and these new elections will be even more interesting as the public has already shown it is not fond of the New Democracy/PASOK neoliberal austerity policies, so the question remains will this mean a rise for parties like Syriza, Democratic Left, the Communists, and Golden Dawn, or will scared voters want the stability of PASOK and New Democracy? The situation in Greece is the most volatile in the Western world right now, and everyone should keep their eyes fixed on it because this may be the biggest example of the failure of neoliberalism the world has yet seen. Stay tuned...

Europe's Revolt Against Austerity

With the election of Francois Hollande to the French presidency and the Greek parliamentary elections that saw the election of the Radical Coalition of the Left (Syriza) become the second most represented party in Parliament the media has begun to trumpet the same message: the end of austerity. From Paul Krugman to the BBC, economists, policy makers, and analysts are all sounding out the end of the "Merkozy" austerity policies imposed on Greece, Spain, and other EU nations by France and Germany. But what will this actually achieve? For one, with the failure of the centre-right and pro-austerity New Democracy party not able to form a coalition in Greece it still remains to be seen if Syriza can form its own coalition government to combat austerity. But in France, Hollande's presidency does not necessarily mean much will change as the National Assembly is still dominated by the UMP (with elections coming up in June) and the Socialist Party not exactly being a party of anything other than Third Wayist Blairite neoliberalism (see DSK as head of the IMF, some socialist he is). So far all that Hollande is proposing is increasing taxes, lowering the retirement age, and enacting some social policies, but little is mentioned about the austerity agreements with Germany.

So while leftists may have an urge to celebrate the victories, they may want to wait before reality kicks in.

May Day: A Day to Remember Working People, Not Blow Up Public Spaces

If you are an avid news-reader such as myself, you will have seen or heard about 5 men charged with plotting to blow up a bridge near Cleveland, OH, and a few of these men were self-described anarchists. While the circumstances surrounding this incident are murky, it is clear that these men put themselves in a situation where they conspired to blow up a public space. Now it is worth noting that while we may rush to condemn these men let us not forget that law enforcement and federal security agencies regularly use entrapment to get activists to commit crimes, a tactic that smells of COINTELPRO. This aside, if these men indeed plan to blow up a bridge they need to realize that not only is the act dangerous but it is also counterproductive. Usually when a direct action like this is executed it is done so because of symbolism, the act itself may not be very effective in disrupting the system or oppression but the act is symbolic of defiance of some sort. In this case, there seems to be little in the way of symbolism behind this planned attack: the bridge is not a corporate office of some oppressive company, and while the bombing may be symbolic of defiance of government why not blow up a government building? A bridge is a public utility that all people, rich and poor, utilize on a daily basis, and to disrupt this public utility is to make the lives of working people as well as rich people more difficult. Further, taxpayer funds from working people would pay to rebuild such a bridge, so the idea of this act somehow advancing "anarchism", a legitimate ideology that seeks to liberate humanity from the shackles of the state and capitalism, is ridiculous as anarchists (at least social, communist, or syndicalist anarchists) seek to ally themselves with working people and to blow up a public utility like this would alienate working people from our ideology.
I am not opposed to direct action per-se, on the contrary I find actions such as Black Bloc tactics and other forms of property destruction/disruption of capitalist entities to be legitimate within a certain context, but simply blowing up a bridge to show off the ability to destroy is not productive. Anarchism is more than just destroying the old order of capitalism, it is the creation of a new society and being sensitive to those who are oppressed by the current system, and blowing up public utilities shows neither sensitivity nor the capacity to create.

Santorum Editorial

I wrote this short "obituary" on Rick Santorum's political campaign for the Centre College newspaper, enjoy:

As the three-ringed circus of the Republican primaries draws to a close and the last few contestants are voted off the island, leaving the nomination open for Jack Donaghy’s real-life incarnation, we must look back on one of the defining candidates of this race. The esteemed Senator from Pennsylvania reined in the hardcore conservative crowd in ways that the Amphibian-candidate could only dream of, and he did so with a gusto and spirit that was reminiscent of Father Charles Coughlin of the 1930s. His constant attacks on educated “snobs”, feminists, anyone associated with liberalism or anything more left-of-center made him stand out as a demagogue, and yet a wannabe demagogue: a man of conviction but lacking passion. The public knew of his puritanical fundamentalism, an ironic feature of a devout Catholic, and yet did not seem swayed by his doom-and-gloom view of American policy under Obama. Like his fellow candidates he lacked inspiration, and replaced it instead with a moralizing nature that almost made Jerry Falwell look pious. Though he was successful in many races throughout culturally conservative states, he was ultimately the victim of an uninspiring message and a competitor with deeper pockets.

            But in the end the esteemed Senator from Pennsylvania lived up to his internet namesake. The odious bile that this race created, filled with grand illusions of socialist takeovers and war on religious freedom, had its fair contribution from the Senator. His dogmatic zeal has infected a political conversation already ripe with falsehoods and ignorance. But I doubt we have seen the last of him, for as long as religious fundamentalism continues to infest the American political dialogue you can bet that our esteemed Senator from Pennsylvania will be there manipulating the conversation like so many would-be demagogues do. 

Death to the Southern Ideal

As America celebrates Black History Month we look at the triumphs and struggles black Americans have undergone to reach the social levels they have today. But this should also be a time for Americans to reflect on aspects of our culture which created such racial antagonisms in the first place. Thus, we must look at one of the most backward and antiquated parts of American culture: Southern romanticism. To be clear, the South has multiple cultures, it was the area of the nation that many black came from originally before the Great Migration, and even afterwards was home to the likes of Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and others. Thus, when I refer to "Southern romanticism", I refer to the elitist white culture spawned by the Confederate "lost cause" movement that depicts the Confederate South as liberty-loving peoples standing up to Federal tyranny, which is a laughable farce.

The white "Southern romanticism" has its roots in the foundation of America, with the Jeffersonian ideal of an agricultural society where individual hard work made citizens moral and prosperous. Because of their classical republican Jeffersonian roots, there was an inherent distrust of the Federal government meddling in affairs of Southern society. White people of the South took pride in their culture, with "Southern hospitality" still a term in the modern lexicon and pseudo-libertarian ideals of leaving the government out of the economy being ingrained.

But for all of the moralistic and cultural posturing, the South before and after the Civil War could not contain two aspects of its culture: racism and feudalism. The racism was an obvious effect of the institution of slavery, with whites of all social classes viewing blacks as inferior beings, and in some cases not even the same species. And while racism was not unique to the South (see the lynching of blacks during the New York draft riots of 1863), it was much more of an institutionalized norm than just simply cultural. As to Southern feudalism, this was apparent in the economic organization of the South as a wealthy few controlled the economy (with their plantations systems) and government of the time while many poor whites struggled to get by. A clear example of the feudalistic elitism of the South was the institution of the draft, for many poor whites were required to enlist while rich aristocrats were allowed to opt-out of service if they owned a certain number of slaves.

So when one hears phrases such as "the South will rise again!" and that it was a "state's rights issue", one should keep in mind that it was a reactionary culture committed to keeping power in the hands of a few at the expense of impoverished whites and blacks. The culture of the white South is a superficial entity created by brutal enslavement, racism, and elitism.

Thus, I say that it is time we stop romanticizing the racist and elitist Southern culture and replace it with the bravery of the discriminated blacks who worked hard for their freedom and for the freedom of all peoples.

When the Left and the establishment find themselves on the same side

As Syria is erupting into a horrible civil conflict that is seeing some of the worst repression since the beginning of the so-called Arab Spring, many wonder if the UN or NATO will send troops like they did in Libya last year to protect civilians.

While world waits to see what actions the international community takes, the international anti-capitalist Left finds itself in a strange situation. Many on the anti-capitalist Left have been the strongest supporters of overthrowing despotic regimes in the Middle East and have been enthusiastic of the prospects of the Arab Spring. But when NATO began intervening in Libya, the Left had the uncomfortable position of supporting the overthrow of Qaddafi while also condemning the imperialism of NATO. While there were some Leftists groups who openly supported the Qaddafi regime (Cynthia McKinney in the U.S., the British Stalin Society, and others), the Left seemed to be united in opposition to Qaddafi and yet split on the actions of NATO. To many on the Left (myself included), NATO still represents Western military interventionism and promotion of U.S. hegemony. But there is still a sizable group of Leftists who see NATO's actions as just and an example of when military intervention can be a good thing. Aside from a few pro-Qaddafi groups, the consensus on the Left was that Qaddafi had become an illegitimate leader and had to be overthrown, but the process of that is where the divide begins. And the debate is still going on even after the death of Qaddafi and his regime, with anti-NATO Leftists accusing supporters of the intervention as imperialists while supporters of the intervention in turn accuse anti-NATO Leftists of being unrealistic and at times they even accuse them of being pro-Qaddafi.

As the world holds its breath to see what will happen in Syria, the Left worldwide will have to face the prospect of another NATO action. Unlike Libya, there does not seem to be much in the way of support for al-Assad from anyone on the Left and there does seem to be a consensus for supporting the downfall of his regime, but with NATO intervention looking more likely as more civilians are killed we on the Left will be faced with being on the same side as Western neoliberalism again, a position that is very uncomfortable for us. This ideological crisis of supporting the overthrow of regimes but not supporting NATO is a huge test for the Left today.

Huffington Post and Editorializing "News"

I don't pretend to be centrist or nonpartisan, I am a proud leftist through and through. So when I write editorials, I expect people to take them as editorials, they are not necessarily factual but they are my vision of what should be. I don't mind editorialists, they may be annoying or against my views but they are simply expressing their opinions.
What bothers me is editorialists who work under the guise of being a news reporter. Yes, all news has a bias, but there is a certain amount of objectivity that all news agencies have. Fox News is the most obvious example of this editorialization, with its endless commentary and its conveniently-coincidental employment of right wing commentators and former politicians, but one major perpetrator of this that I personally am bothered by is the Huffington Post. It is their combination of editorializing and sensationalistic pieces that are obviously slanted to the liberal left that make them one of the most unreliable news sources around. Although they may not claim to be a traditional news agency, they are becoming more popular and read all over the country.
If you want good news sources, stick to BBC, AP, PBS Newshour, and NPR. Yes, they are bias, but they keep the sensationalism out of the news.