Right to Work: Are Unions Still Relevant?

With the union protests in Wisconsin, the teachers’ strike in Chicago, the closing of Hostess, the Right to Work law in Michigan, and other recent events, the discussion about the usefulness and role of unions continues to regain importance in the public sphere. In the U.S., anti-union forces really began to mobilize in the 1980s and have taken advantage of every opportunity to raise questions about the continued relevance of unions. The pro-union voices have typically responded by listing all the things unions accomplished a hundred years ago, thus unintentionally contributing to the perception that unions are a relic of a bygone age, operating within an archaic and simultaneously (paradoxically) overly-bureaucratized structure.

It is interesting to look at how this dynamic played out in the recent debate over Michigan’s Right to Work legislation. On the face of it, and as the bill is publicly presented, the issue revolves around whether union membership should be a choice or a mandate. Thus, it is packaged in the typical liberal discourse of “freedom of choice.” This ensures widespread support.

This “freedom of choice” rhetoric is also used to strengthen strategically propagated (though not entirely false) images of unions robbing paychecks for dues and forcibly promoting their political agendas. Under these circumstances, it seems reasonable that a person may wish to decline participation in a union. And why should any person be forced to join any organization?

Every potential bit of evidence of union coercion is thrown into the spotlight and continually regurgitated to support the ideological goals of the anti-union forces, who have substantial media influence. Employer coercion, in contrast, often lurks beneath the surface and escapes widespread attention. The fact of the matter is that the opposition at stake is not that of union coercion versus freedom, but rather of union coercion versus employer coercion, and unions and employers are not equal forces. It is a well documented fact that employers use every manner of intimidation available to them to discourage union participation. If union participation is not mandated, there is nothing to stop the employer from trying to mandate the opposite, as Walmart, for example, has done. Furthermore, such weakening of unions will by necessity undermine their ability to negotiate. What leverage will unions have when a pool of non-union reserve labor is always available? The ultimate effect of eliminating the mandate, then, is the complete emasculation of unions and the obstruction of their most central function.

This is where the question of their relevance comes in. It is often argued that they really don’t serve any necessary function today. The world of the Industrial Age has long passed, and the concerns of that era are no longer valid. Why is it, then, that U.S. corporations do not hesitate to engender the exact same conditions in other parts of the world, where no opposing force exists to stop them? From Foxconn in China to the Walmart sweatshops in Bangladesh... it is clear that industry still operates according to the exact same principles. I have heard the rebuttal that there are cultural differences in those parts of the world, that they are not as developed or enlightened, and that it is better than sitting in the jungle eating poop. This, of course, is racist. The appeal to “culture” most often is a racial argument. The reality, as I have already explained many times in this blog, is that forces of global capitalism have created underdevelopment and poverty in the Third World. So sweatshops most certainly are not saving them from some supposed savage life. Moreover, industry is not culturally biased. It will build sweatshops wherever it is allowed.

Of course, then the whole issue degenerates into the question of whether workers should willfully work for less than they need to survive or be happy seeing domestic jobs disappear. The very fact that this is an either/or situation proves the inhumanity of capitalism.

So, if one looks at the global organization of production, it is clear that the existence and proper functioning of unions are key to ensuring that workers in particular countries make enough money to feed themselves and their families. In fact, unions have been necessary to the development of capitalism as a whole. The worker unrest that emerged in its earlier stages would have certainly destroyed the entire arrangement if the creation of the welfare state and unions had not placated workers and made them more amenable to being exploited. In some sense the work of unions serves the general conditions that support the functioning of the capitalist system. Not only does it control worker unrest, but higher wages in one business or industry is beneficial to all the other industries in the form of expanded demand. On the other hand, capitalists have always been more concerned about their immediate interests, which union bargaining does frustrate. More than that, the greatest threat posed by the existence of unions (regardless of whether they are functioning effectively or not) is that they organize the working class. Capitalists realize that their system has shaky foundations and have always feared the revolutionary potential of an organized working class. This fear is probably the primary driver for the coordinated propaganda against unions.

If unions have become in any way irrelevant, this is the crucial area where that has occurred. In the past, unions had connections to revolutionary political parties and organizations. They questioned the system and in some cases tried to fight against it. The biggest blow to the power and relevance of unions was, in the decades following the Great Depression, when the Democrats incorporated them into their coalition. Unions no longer promote the type of consciousness that is needed to challenge capitalism. They function as a wing of the Democratic party. They are happy to concern themselves primarily with the haggling over wages and benefits (which I do not mean to disparage) and have ceded any broader transformative role. In that sense, they are supporting the system that oppresses them.

Neoliberal Falsehoods

I enjoy reading media from other parts of the world, if only because it generally presents a wider variety of perspectives than my own regional alternatives.  I wish it were easier in the West for people not drinking the neoliberal kool-aid to reach a general audience.  But I will just have to satisfy myself with the fact that people like this Namibian can.

European Exploitation: Phase 4

I have already described how exploitation of the so-called “Third World” has proceeded over the past few centuries according to a succession of variants (though the basic theme remains the same), and I have also explained how that exploitation has been and continues to be vital for capitalist/industrial profitability. In another post, I delineated to some extent the rigidity of the global hierarchy of wealth.

Specifically, I think it is important to emphasize that the only time during which the lower rungs make some sort of progress is when the top of the pyramid (the industrial north) experiences any kind of set-back. In a very simplistic and abstract way (which very much belies the complexity of the actual mechanisms of change), this is due to the fact that wealth is finite (based, of course, on a given level of technology) and essentially zero-sum (just like, for all you physics fans, the amount of energy in a closed system never increases or decreases, but merely changes form).

Now, on a slight tangent, I have heard some official reports from institutions like the World Bank that extreme poverty has recently been reduced around the world. Get out the champagne, right? Unfortunately, I would not put too much stock in this claim. For one thing, official statistics regarding global poverty produced by multilateral organizations like the World Bank tend to be extremely misleading and, quite frankly, useless. Not only do these organizations have agendas (as instruments of the industrial north), but statistics, in general, tend to be ineffective for understanding poverty. A true Marxist looks to structural realities and daily experiences. Take a look at any local newspaper in a Third World nation, and you will see no evidence of improvement in the conditions faced by ordinary people. (Where there are gains, these tend to concentrated at the top of the internal hierarchy, in typical capitalist inquality-increasing fashion.)

Regarding the structural realities, it is clear that the basic pecking order, the global relations of domination, has not changed. At all. And since gains in the underdeveloped world come at the expense of the industrial north, they are almost always limited and temporary.

Often, gains are temporary because the industrial north tries to regain their position in much the same way that, when two people are struggling to stay afloat in a pool, one tries to stay above water by holding the other down. This happened at the end of the 1970s. Global economic stagnation had set in by the late 1960s (caused by a crisis of overproduction and merely exacerbated by the energy crisis). As growth slowed in the industrial north, the Third World made some impressive gains. This was especially facilitated by the initial attempt of capital to find areas of investment and possibilities for cheaper production in other parts of the world.

But then the 80s, and with it the Reagan-Thatcher brand of neoliberalism, rolled in and flattened the developing world. The policies (“austerity measures,” if you will) of the industrial powers undermined all the prior investments and resulted in devastating financial crises which destroyed any economic progress made in the Third World in the previous decade.

In the intervening years we had some bubbles that did not resolve any of the underlying problems of overproduction, but made us feel pretty good about ourselves, nonetheless. Shockingly, the bubbles burst and we once again found ourselves on bumpy terrain. And once again, whose head are we going to hold under water so that we might have another gasp of air? Who are we going to screw over in an attempt to save ourselves?  It seems that the EU is busy devising new ways to drain the world of its wealth and resources.

Check It.  Sorry, Africans!

The New Era of Education Reform

By the time that President Bush took office in 2001, the desire to raise achievement for all students (born out of A Nation at Risk) still remained, but with a distinct tendency to avoid any discussion of what students should know in any subject (a result of the history standards controversy). To satisfy both of these conflicting demands, reformers began to concentrate exclusively on skills - primarily reading, and secondarily mathematics.

The demand for higher standards was replaced by the demand for greater accountability, and this was to be understood solely in terms of test scores in reading and mathematics. It was presumed that the performance of districts, schools, and individual teachers could be measured by changes in students' test scores. Of course, this is not the case, for a large number of reasons, many relating to the nature of the tests themselves. The most fundamental underlying assumption was that all students could succeed given the right teachers and schools. Social structural factors, in the end, did not matter. This, of course, is neoliberal ideology. Social structural factors will always have primary causality, and school-related factors can only have marginal mitigating effects.

The accountability movement joined forces with the school choice movement and the resulting love-child was Bush's No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Under NCLB, school progress is measured by student performance on state-designed tests in reading and math. Those who fail to meet "Adequate Yearly Progress" face sactions: students may receive vouchers to attend other schools, for instance, or the school may be "restructured" and placed under different (possibly private) management. One may note that states can set the bar for "proficiency" wherever they want, so that the test results are essentially meaningless, and that simply testing certain literacy and numeracy skills is not an adequate measure of quality education. Hence, NCLB encourages states to lower their standards and teacher and schools to narrow their curriculum to focus on basic skills and test-taking strategies.

However, the greatest implication of NCLB lies in the types of sanctions it employs.  NCLB is basically a covert strategy for privatizing the education system.  Consider: 1) the bar set by NCLB is so high that only the highest-achieving schools in the wealthiest and most homogenous locales could ever reach it (and even that is not certain);by 2014 nearly every school will be considered "failing" and 2) the consequences for "failing" involve the use of vouchers and the transfer of public funds to private organizations. The reason why just about every school will be considered "failing" by 2014 is that at that time all schools are supposed to reach 100% proficiency for all measured subgroups (race-based and ability-based). However, one subgroup - English-language learners - are defined precisely by their failure on tests of literacy. Any English-language learner who attains a level of proficiency will pulled out of the English-language learner subgroup.   Likewise for those with "special needs."  NCLB is not measure progress at all!

Obama has largely continued the program established under Bush's presidency.  He has accessorized it with some similarly-minded carrot-wielding programs, like Race to the Top.  In Race to the Top, certain states - the "winners" - receive extra funding for their schools.  And the basis for this vital funding is arbitrary criteria assigned arbitrary weightings, with a little bit of flawed statistical reasoning thrown into the mix, and topped with subjective ratings.  Obama and his appointees to the Department of Education continue to voice their support for school choice, competition, charter schools, and teacher accountability.

Going back to what I claimed are the primary roles served by education in a capitalist society, it is reasonable to ask, how does the project of privatization - essentially eroding the public school system - serve those ends?  First, education continues to be subsidized.  In fact, with programs like Race to the Top, more federal money is being doled out.  True, privatization and choice seem to undermine the assimilative role of education, yet they also stand as affirmations of neoliberal ideology, and work as effective means to increase social stratification.  Furthermore, with its premise that education reform is about schools and teachers, and not about poverty and society, the new school reforms have absorbed the efforts and directed the actions of those who wish to change society, forcing them to do so set within certain bounds that do not disrupt the social hierarchy at all.

But mostly I believe it is about unions.  There has been a concerted anti-union effort throughout the entire WW2 era, and it has kept the United States economically competitive with other industrialized nations, who have stronger unions and/or higher wages.  However, the teachers' unions are now one of the most powerful workers' groups (which says more about that state of unions in general than anything else).  Most privatization schemes, be they vouchers, charter schools, "restructuring," etc. undercut teachers' unions.  Focus on teacher effectiveness (assigning teachers sole responsibility for student achievement when social factors are far more significant), proposals for merit-based pay, attacks on tenure, the claim teachers should be fired more easily, the de-professionalization of teaching and insistence that there should be no requirements for entering the field - all are direct swipes at teachers' unions.

One thing is certain.  The "biggest losers" in the new era of reform, with all of its haphazard tinkering with poor and urban school districts, is the most disadvantaged students in the country.

National Standards: The Tipping Point

The culminating moment of opposition between the national standards movement (which sought to retain, if not expand, the role of the federal government and the Department of Education) and the school choice movement that countered it, came in 1994.  After A Nation at Risk was published in 1983, national committees were established in every major school subject to create voluntary national standards.  The idea was to raise the quality of public education for everyone by outlining a clear set of common standards that would guide the improvement of curricula and instruction.

One of the last subjects to be tackled was history.  Lynne Cheney, then chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities, funded and participated in the creation of the history standards.  However, by the time the standards were nearing a state of completion, Cheney quit her position at the NEH and turned her attention to political concerns.   An important mid-term election was approaching (the Republicans would finally gain control of Congress that fall) and her husband, Dick Cheney (also a Republican), was considering a presidential candidacy.  At this time many Republican kingmakers had taken a strong interest in education and were full-fledged supporters of school choice.  If you were a Republican with political ambitions, you had no choice but to take up the mantel of choice.

But Cheney did not just run away from the national history standards.  She launched an all-out attack on them.  She claimed that she had been bamboozled, and that the standards had been "hijacked" by a bunch of academic radicals who sought to use education to undermine the foundations of American society and incite a socialist/communist revolution.  Her supporting examples (e.g. how many times George Washington is mentioned versus Harriet Tubman) are gross distortions of the documents, and sometimes outright false.  Considering the level of her involvement with these standards, I have a hard time believing that she merely misinterpreted them.  To me, the distortions seem completely intentional.  In reality, there was nothing particularly out of the ordinary with these standards, except that they demanded much of students' ability to reason and form  arguments.  In fact, my own history education (which I would consider anything but radical) seemed to resemble the standards, with perhaps less rigor.

The article Cheney wrote for the Wall Street Journal ended up being a huge political cash cow.  The controversy dominated public and political discussion for months and provided a platform for the Republicans to tighten their ideological narrative.  (Just as a side note, the Senate voted to symbolically condemn the history standards; the only "nay" was a Republican who felt the wording was not strong enough.)

What Cheney and those who followed her were able to do was portray a certain relationship between the federal government and institutions of higher education:  that academic radicals had in some way infiltrated or aligned with government bureaucracies and were simultaneously seeking to foment some kind of socialist or communist revolution.  In this way, Cheney et al. were able to strengthen associations that derived from the core of their ideology, most notably the connection between projects and processes of national scope and radical social change, federal control and communist revolution.

With the "curriculum wars" of 1994, the idea of national standards was dead.  The last remnants of what grew out of A Nation at Risk survived in the form of high-stakes testing and "accountability," and quickly adapted themselves to a new world dominated by "choice."

School Choice is Segregation

At the same time that Brown v. Board of Education, the Elementary and Second Education Act, and A Nation at Risk were shaping the educational landscape, another movement was emerging in opposition to these developments.  This counter-movement, premised on ideas of "choice" and privatization, has increasingly sought to undermine the enterprise of public education itself.

The "school choice" movement originated as a means of avoiding desegregation orders, particularly in southern states.  It was one loophole in the Brown v. Board of Education ruling.  The states/districts employing "choice" programs insisted that they were simply allowing students to decide where they wanted to go to school rather than mandating school assignments and implementing forced bussing.  The reality, however, was that they had devised a way of maintaining segregation of the schools.

Later, after the federal government began allocating funds for low-income schools, and after A Nation at Risk salvaged the Department of Education and inaugurated a discussion about national standards, the "school choice" movement morphed into an attempt to undercut the federal government's role in education entirely.  "Privatization" and "vouchers" became the buzzwords of the day.

In the 90s the attention started to shift toward charter schools, which are more palatable versions of voucher schools (mainly because public money does not go to religious schools).  Charters schools have become a raging fad, and there have been a number of popular books and documentaries (for example, Waiting for Superman) trumpeting the success of these schools.

All flying in the face of the fact that now there is undeniable evidence that voucher systems and charter schools do not do what their advocates claim they do.  A handful of charter schools are very good; but most aren't any better than the average public schools, and some are far, far worse.  Furthermore, even with non-discriminatory admissions policies and established under a guise of helping the neediest students, charter schools still tend to exclude the most disadvantaged students:  either directly in the admissions process or by "weeding them out" after they have enrolled.  [For more information about charter schools, vouchers, and school choice, I would recommend the book The Death and Life of the Great American School System:  How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education by Diane Ravitch (a former proponent of these reforms).  It is, at the very least, a much more accurate account of the past few decades of reform than films like Waiting for Superman.]

The reason the "choice" movement has become so successful (in terms of its popularity only) is because it is neoliberal ideology in unadulterated form.  "Choice" advocates claim that competition will spur a "race to the top" (shout-outs to Obama's education policy!) in which bad schools "die out" and good schools proliferate.  But that is not how free markets work, number one, and number two, capitalism has strangled the freedom of the market.  What choice and competition actually do in every case is reinforce the existing socio-economic hierarchy and make it much harder for those on the bottom to "rise up."  Choice and competition in the realm of education is a case in point.  The real effects of vouchers and privatization of the education system, as far as it has been implemented, are increasing segregation and widening gaps.

In fact, the "school choice" movement is a perfect demonstration of the way in which education is used to reproduce the social order.

The Pharmaceutical Industry and Intellectual Property

Going along with the HIV/AIDS theme, I read an article in the New York Post* that discussed, in part, how HIV drug costs remain high despite (that is the tone of the article; I would say in order to sustain) an enormous amount of profit from their sale:

"HIV drug profits are exceptionally high, as indicated by the 37 percent earned on sales in 2010 Gilead, the leading HIV drugmaker.  This is twice the general profit level in the pharmaceutical industry, which is itself substantially higher than in most industries."

One sentence, in particular, contained one nail-on-the-head truth, and one falllatious myth of neoliberalism:

"Federal and state governments can no longer afford to subsidize the lofty profits that were useful when new HIV drugs needed robust incentives for quick development."

First, it is absolutely true that by sponsoring programs to make HIV treatments more affordable for low income individuals, the government is essentially subsidizing the massive profits of the pharmaceutical companies. That is why this "charity" approach is far inferior to a more systemic challenge of the legitimacy of intellectual property laws.

But that brings me to the myth. The idea that large monetary incentives are necessary to promote innovation has reached the level of taken-for-granted, common-sense hegemony.

Of course creativity requires guaranteed monetary incentives. That is why human beings created nothing at all until the concept of intellectual property was developed a century or so ago.

The problem is, the notion of "intellectual property" rests on premises that are not compatable with the actual nature of cultural production. The best way to illustrate this nature is through a linguistic metaphor. Literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin famously described the way in which every linguistic utterance mimics a pre-existing pattern of speech (associated with a particular group of people and related to the group's other socio-cultural attributes). Although each individual in theory possesses infinite creative capacity in terms of what she or he can say (language is infinite), in practice people almost always repeat bits of speech (sentences, phrases, grammatical stylings etc.) that they have already heard in their particular social milieu. The true nature of innovation and change lies in the way in which people take the words of others and (in the words of Bakhtin) populate them with their own intentions, as well as bring them into new combinations with the words of others.

Following Bakhtin, other cultural theorists have argued that innovation of any kind occurs through novel melding of material from other individuals.  Thus, creativity is not an individual endeavor.  In fact, creativity requires "plagiarism."  I am reminded of an excellent quote by Chris Martin, the frontman of the band Coldplay:

"Well, you know, I think as we go further and further from just being influenced by Radiohead to being influenced by lots more people... It's just blatant plagiarism.  I mean, all that we've done, really, is expanded our plagiaristic palate."

If creativity requires a free flow of ideas, then the existence of intellectual property actually inhibits, rather than promotes, creativity.

Where did this concept come from then? Very simply, it is a quite effective way of legitimizing monopolies. That is the only purpose the concept of "intellectual property" has ever served, and the pharmaceutical industry is an exemplar, not an aberration.

Furthermore, pharmaceutical companies patent genetic material (obviously something they can't "create"!); often they solicit indigenous communities around the world to share information regarding local plants and herbs. Once the genetic material is patented, these groups no longer have the free access they enjoyed before! There is no way to argue that this practice encourages innovation. The pharmaceutical companies employed no intellectual effort of their own to obtain this knowledge (except, perhaps, for preparing the necessary legal conditions that allow them to do this). It is much more akin to "stealing" than innovation.

Intellectual property does not protect artists, writers, or inventors.   It protects the corporate oligarchy.   If we want to fight this oligarchy, we must challenge the notion of intellectual property.

*"We can change the reality of AIDS" by James Driscoll

More On Ideology

In order to respond to the question posed at the end of my last post, it is necessary to look at the topic of ideology in a little more depth.

I noted in my first post on this subject that the word "ideology" need not always be inflected with the quality of being "false" or "distorted." Rather, I use the term in the more general sense of being a "point of view" - albeit with a distinct relationship to particular human institutions and social structures (therefore, not just any random opinion that a person happens to have).

That being said, I recognized before, and I think it is important to emphasize again, that ideology very well can be a purposeful distortion of a perceived reality, for the express aim of encouraging desirable attitudes and behaviors. This strategy is often pursued through the creation of ideal types, in order to obscure the nature of reality.

Thus, we hear:

-monopolistic entities extolling the virtues of the "free market" and competition.  Capitalists desire open competition only when they, individually, are exempt.   In other words, they all wish to monopolize monopolies.   Furthermore, the idea of the "free market" and the illusion of an equal playing field are useful to sustain the inequalities that are necessary for (as well as a consequence of) capitalist gain.  Hence, while capitalists do not abide by "free market" values in principle or in actual fact (profit would be minimal and unsustainable), they find it useful to promote neoliberal rhetoric and policies in order to sustain conditions that actually defy neoliberal principles.  The "free market" has never existed, but it is very useful to pretend it does.

-imperial powers invoking "democracy" to justify unilateral military action.  Once again, "democracy" is merely a strategy that some dominant groups can afford to employ in order to channel potential resistance to their rule into activities that support it.  The state has never existed for the purpose of keeping peace or protecting individual rights.   It has always been a tool for dominant groups to maintain inequalities and control the distribution of resources.  The concept of "democracy" conceals global and national power structures.  The equation of "democracy" with the ability to vote and express dissenting views is an ingenious way of creating the illusion that democracy actually exists.   Furthermore, the strength of people's emotional attachment to the idea renders it an easy way to justify all sorts actions (including the death of civilians in wars that further capitalist aims).  The United States' efforts to support democracy around the world only appears sporatic and inconsistent if one accepts the surface explanation for these acts.

-those in control of repressive state machinery celebrating "liberty."  The concept of "liberty" works in much the same way as "democracy."  The emotional attachment to "liberty" may even be a bit stronger.  If one really thinks about it, though, the concept of "liberty" becomes nonsensical.  What does it mean?  It is empty, vapid.  Clearly complete and absolute freedom is undesirable (we conceive of this hypothetical situation as the epitome of chaos).   Submission to rules is a requisite for the existence of society.   Is the issue then which rules and how many rules we should have to follow? These are complex questions, and the concept of "liberty" does not even begin to address them.   If anything, the concept prevents us from asking these questions, diverting our attention elsewhere so that we never fully examine the foundations of our society.

When ideology is viewed in this light, the United States' cultivation of Islamophobia and the inconsistency of this action with actual U.S. relations with Middle Eastern, Muslim, and Islamist groups, may become more understandable.

The creation of "enemies," internal and external, is widely useful.   It is obvious how this tactic diverts attention, responsibility, and blame... in addition to the fact that fear is a wonderful motivator.  Islamophobia is only the latest incarnation of this longstanding tradition.  Since some Islamist groups are questioning the basis of U.S./Western hegemony, turning the tables and portraying Arabs/Middle Easterners/Muslims/Islamists (usually undifferentiated) as irrational, unpredictable, uncivilized enemies of "modernity" undermines valid critiques of global political/economic structures of dominance. Therefore, as one would expect, Islamophobia serves a dual purpose.

Religion and Colonialism in MENA

In a previous post, I mentioned that there are two general responses to colonialism - nationalism and socialism - and one particular to the MENA reigion - Islamism (a political movement based on religious fundamentalism). I also suggested that Islamism may be viewed as a type of nationalism.

Of these three responses to colonialism, socialism poses the most radical challenge to the global power structure. Although socialism is a form of capitalism, the practice of nationalizing industries serves as a means of blocking the control of resources, enterprises, and markets from the most powerful competitors - the ones who maintain neocolonial control over the entire globe.

In contrast to socialism, nationalism and Islamism can be (and have been) coopted by the industrial powers to suit their own purposes. This fact is most fundamentally demonstrated by the way in which countries like the United States promote Islamophobia and denounce "Islamic extremism" on the one hand, while using their other hand to covertly aid and support Islamist groups. While the support for nationalist groups has been used primarily to destabilize other colonial powers, the capitalist powers are most likely to court Islamist groups when they can be pitted against socialist forces (in this sense, then, Islamism becomes "the lesser of two evils").

Islamist groups are remarkably varied in terms of the scope of their goals and the methods that they employ. It is by no means a single movement. Rather "Islamism" describes a heterogenous group of movements. (This is one reason it is misguided to speak generically of "Islamic fundamentalism," "terrorism," or "religious extremism" as a unified force, when these groups and movements are so often working at cross purposes.) Some Islamist groups are so narrowly concerned with consolidating political power within a single nation that they do not hesitate to coorporate with the industrial powers to promote a neoliberal agenda (e.g. "open markets") or whatever else these powers want in return for covert funding and support.

It is fairly well known that the United States armed the Mujahideen in Agfhanistan in order to thwart the socialist forces that had taken root there (including Soviet involvement). People seem less aware that both the British and the United States have supported the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt. For this reason the Brotherhood is currently lauded for being "moderate" and friendly to Israel, despite the fact that they constituted an important part of the power structure of the previous despotic regimes. The aims of the world powers are, in fact, served by keeping in place as much of the governing apparatus from Mubarak's regime as possible, as it had been carefully constructed to protect foreign capitalist interests via covert interventions (including raising the Islamic Brotherhood into a significant political force).

Under what circumstances, then, do Islamists become "the enemy"?  Some Islamists do not have such narrow political pursuits.  Some are more broadly anti-colonial and seek to undermine foreign influence in the region.   This may include opposition to the perceived proxy of European and U.S. interests in the Middle East: Israel.

This, like socialism, is too much of a challenge.

But why would the U.S. promote a generalized Islamophobia within its borders, when this does not represent the actual geopolitical relationship with Muslim or even Islamist forces?  I will try to tackle this question perhaps in the next post.

Book Review: 1984 by George Orwell

I decided some time ago that I wanted to review this book on my blog, simply because it is such an iconic portrayal of the political and economic issues that dominate the contemporary world. In some ways, this work is incredibly prescient. To be sure, it is probably one of the most frequently quoted works of literature of the twentieth century.  At the same time, this novel embodies some fundamental misunderstandings and creates a number of false oppositions which I believe deserve some discussion, as they have attained the status of taken-for-granted dogma.  In particular, Orwell ascribes some characteristics to totalitarian/socialist states which, rather than being the end point of some slippery slope away from capitalism/democracy, are actually endemic to capitalism/democracy.

Disclaimer: it has been a while since I read the book, and it is fairly long, so this is not a comprehensive evaluation of the work, by any means!

Let me start by acknowledging the strong points of 1984. There are two areas, in particular, where I believe Orwell hit the nail on the head. Most significantly, his concept of a "permanent war" was incredibly predictive of the rise of the military-industrial complex and the use of military interventions and military spending as a means to increase demand and facilitate economic growth. According to Orwell, large-scale production for the arms industry allows those in power to keep the working class busy, without having to create demand for what is produced (i.e.  allowing the workers to buy more and raise their standard of living) since all that is produced is eventually destroyed. The working class becomes more productive but still makes do with the bare necessities. Ernest Mandel, in Late Capitalism, made a similar argument regarding the role of the permanent arms economy that has developed following WW2.  Mandel, however, sees the rationale less in any direct concern for the conditions of the working class (lower wages/standard of living is only advantageous in so far as it raises profits margins for the capitalists), but rather in capitalists' need to find another outlet for investment if they are to maintain profitability.   Remember the general principle that continued investment in a profitable enterprise decreases its profitability.  The advantage of the new investment in the armament industry is that it creates demand by forcing the working class to finance it through tax dollars. Thus, even in this case, Orwell overlooked the way in which the "permanent war" derived from the inherent principles of capitalism itself.

A second strength of 1984 is the way in which it demonstrates the power of language, and in particular, the relationship between thought and language. This is a topic that has been endlessly pondered and debated among linguists, anthropologists, linguistic anthropologists, philosophers, and literary critics. Although there are widely diverging opinions on this subject, most would agree that language is neither neutral nor natural. It is not natural because it is an arbitrary social convention: for example, the word "tree" could just as easily mean "rock" if we decided it was so.  There is nothing about the sound "tree" that is inherently connected to the physical object to which it refers.  Language is not neutral because the words one chooses always convey a point of view.  The existence of words themselves entail a specific way of categorizing the world which is never the only means of doing so.  How one categorizes the world (the language one uses) will, then, affect how one views and interpret the world.

 Orwell is absolutely correct that relationships of power involve strategic use of language to influence consciousness and generate consent.  Yet, Orwell also misses the mark here.  First, even while he acknowledges the political use of language, he still seems to uphold a naturalist perspective of language, in which there are "correct" and "distorted" uses of words.  For example, Orwell assumes that the word "peace" has one "correct" referent in the real world, regardless of social usage (he doesn't seem to countenance the idea that meanings are arbitrary and can shift and change).  If conventional use of the word "peace," however, changes or broadens to include circumstances that previously would not be accorded such a label, it is not the original concept itself that is disturbed, but merely the word, the symbol.  The real question is, if a concept has no word to refer to it (through shifts in language use) does that concept suddenly cease to exist, and can it never be brought back into existence?

Because he does not allow for the fluidity of meaning, Orwell's view on the politics of language amounts to something like absolute control:  the powers that be essentially brainwash people by forcing them to adopt new forms of language use.  In reality, however, meaning can never be controlled and manipulated that effectively; one cannot prevent the multiple interpretations, misunderstandings, and resignifications that make resistance a perennial counterpart to power.  Most problematically, Orwell seems to think that the "manipulations" of language he describes are a problem endemic only to totalitarian states.  Yet, one need only look at the United States to find examples of Orwellian abbreviations (CENCOM, USSTRATCOM, etc.) as well as the application of words to circumstances that contradict their own meaning (the "free market").

This last point is illustrative of two major weaknesses of Orwell's work. First, the book is premised on certain fundamental oppositions between socialism and capitalism, democracy and totalitarianism, which I have already argued are false distinctions (follow the links to see those discussions).  It is clear that many of the trends Orwell describes are already present in the capitalist, democratic world, and it is much more due to the inherent nature of these systems themselves, than in any movement toward anything else.

Second, Orwell's fallacious construction of the relationship between language and power is symptomatic of his more general mischaracterization of the nature of power, the state, and government (once again, follow links to view my previous discussions of these issues). Orwell presumes that power is centralized in a single person (Big Brother) or group of people (the Party), and in a single institution (the state). This contradicts the principle that power is without a unified center or source, and is most certainly NOT monopolized by the state. Just look at the criticism leveled at Facebook and Apple for their invasions of privacy!  If anything, a non-unified group of corporations has become our "Big Brother."  More radically, using these technologies we have all become each other's "Big Brother."

To this end, Orwell also misunderstands the way in which power works. He views power primarily in terms of direct, coercive and restrictive force, while overlooking the more subtle, consent-based and productive strategies that can achieve more spectacular results. Power relationships have extended their reach not primarily through the use of police, surveillance, imprisonment, and torture. To the contrary, power relationships have extended themselves inward, penetrating consciousness in a manner that allows the subject to act freely.  Strategies of power encourage behaviors, and they do so without force.  (Following from my last series of posts, consider how images and discourses about "health" promote consumption of diet products, gym memberships, and pharmaceuticals, just as they more generally shape personal eating habits and behaviors.)  Recall my argument that the difference between dictatorship and democracy is the extent to which democracies are able to use wealth and other resources to build phsyical and ideological infrastructure to reduce reliance on coercive mechanisms of control.  Coersion is less effective, and if this were the sole base of power, as in the world of 1984, there would most surely be an uprising.  (Just witness events in MENA right now.)

However, Orwell justifies the scenario by portraying the workers as too uneducated and ignorant to recognize their own interests and challenge the system.  This is a third weakness in his work. Orwell severely underestimates the capabilities and consciousness of the working class, even when denied an education and saturated with propaganda.  One need only look at historical and anthropological evidence to see that this hypothetical scenario has no empirical justification.  Nationalism and propaganda do work, but only to a certain extent.  At some point, when conditions become harsh enough, a breaking point will be reached.

Orwell's neglect of the most common mechanisms of power also prevents him from foreseeing the type of imperialism that eventually emerged in the post-WW2 era.   It is not, as in the past, an imperialism based primarily on military violence and direct force, though this is the nature of Orwell's "permanent war."  In contrast, imperialism today is more often a matter of manipulating social and economic polices via transnational lending organizations, multinational coporations, and foreign development aid programs.  The generation of consent through the spread of neoliberal ideology, and the creation of a guise of "humanitarian" motives, have become extremely effective ways of maintaining control without violence or coersion (although the latter do still have their place, and may also appear under the guise of "humanitarian" motives!).

Thus, the most harmful aspect of 1984 is the way in which it encourages us to look for power in places where it does not reside ("Big Brother," particular forms of government) and to ignore all the relationships of power in which we ARE enmeshed, in increasingly subtle ways.

Capitalism and Health

I decided that I wanted to devote a number of posts to the subject of health.  The way we view and act upon the human body is a concern of central political, economic, and social importance, as well as instrumental to the way in which we perceive ourselves as individuals.  To start, I will provide an overview of the capitalist approach to health that has become so pervasive and naturalized.

This approach entails the following assumptions:

1. It is the "normal" state of affairs to be "healthy." Thus, ill health and other physical maladies are a form of deviance.

2. Deviance comes in discrete packages: "disease," "infection," "syndrome," and "disability" are the most common. Each form of deviance, in turn, has a discrete and identifiable cause. Some causes represent inherent abnormality (genetic defects); some represent outside threats (bateria, viruses, fungi) which can be managed and prevented; and some derive from behavior. Furthermore, to the extent to which susceptibility to "outside threats" is determined by "inherent abnormality" and behavioral causes, its role is more that of a secondary cause.

3. Health is managed at the level of the individual, in terms of individual defects and behaviors. In this way, each individual often becomes directly culpible for his or her own health, and public health strategies focus on "education" and the management of behavior (encourage kids to exercise, regulate salt content, tax cigarettes, etc.). An ideology of "personal responsibility" and the employment of governmental power relations (two non-contradictory components of capitalism: both seeking to effect change at the level of the individual) are the name of the game.

4. Understanding of causation is extremely linear and material. A one-to-one correspondance is often sought between illness and personal hygiene, eating habits, level of physical activity, and engagement in "risky" (i.e. non-socially sanctioned) behaviors.

5. With discrete, material causes of health-related deviance, the restoration of "normality" may be pursued by equally discrete, material means: thus, the domain of health care is easily penetrated and transformed by capitalism and its tendency toward commodification of every possible aspect of life.

The following are some examples of the "simple math" that has characterized our approach to health:

-People with heart disease are often fat. Therefore, being fat must cause heart disease. Furthermore, you must be fat because you eat fat. Consequently, a low-fat diet will prevent heart disease. Oh, how convenient, now we have created a market for I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!

-If you have chest congestion and fatigue, you probably have a respiratory infection. Infections are caused by outside agents. Outside agents must be killed by antibiotics (because the human body is not designed to deal with bacteria and viruses on its own). Oh, how nice for the pharmaceutical companies, people are willing to pay lots of money for drugs! (Oh, too bad for the poor people who actually need them but can't afford them...)

-Syphillis is a sexually-transmitted infection. Since syphillis is a "deviant" condition, it must result from deviant sexual behavior. Therefore, only people who deserve to get syphillis get syphillis. Hey, why not use poor black people with syphillis for the unnecessary medical research that supports our gainful employment? If we treated them, we would only be shielding them from the consequences of their actions anyway.

-Everyone's body is, ideally, exactly the same. If someone's body deviates from this ideal, it must be their fault. They should live in constant guilt and shame. They also should spend an inordinate amount of time, energy and money trying to become closer to the ideal. Since practically nobody is "normal," what a large market that creates for diet products, exercise equipment, fancy scales, and magazines with helpful tips on how to "get the abs of your dreams" (or, just for Schadenfreude, investigations into which celebrities have gained 2 pounds)!