Elderly People are Expensive

A few posts ago (Population and Contraception, Part 2) I brought up the idea that capitalism/industrialization drastically increases the cost of raising a child. That would be one instance of a more general principle, which I have already mentioned, that capitalism increases the cost of the base requisites of living. For people of the underdeveloped Majority World, this means that the effects of being paid less than the value of their labor are greatly magnified. For those in the industrialized core, where consumption is very much more pronounced, it means that people can hardly afford to provide for much more than the costs of their own individual existence (stay tuned for upcoming post on individualism). Not only does this affect attitudes toward children, but it also shapes the relationship between the working generation and the elderly.

Simply put, most people cannot bear all of the costs of caring for their elderly relatives. In non-capitalist societies, this is not the case, and in fact, elderly folks are not responsible for their own provisioning. In industrialized societies, on the other hand, particularly to the extent that the more employer-based pension system has eroded in favor of plans that require contributions from employees (more on this in the next couple posts), individuals are responsible for accumulating the resources for their own retirement in advance. Where individuals cannot provide for themselves, they have recourse to public funds via social security, medicare, and so forth. These government services diffuse the costs incurred by elderly people in a way that makes it more manageable at the individual level.

However, what this means is that, as individual and public resources dry up, industrial societies are faced with their own inability to bear the costs of their elderly population.

Of course, I am not saying anything particularly new or earth-shattering. Yet, even as this predicament is publicly discussed, and with great concern, there is no acknowledgement that the whole situation is, in fact, caused by the inherent principles of capitalism. It is capitalism that makes elderly people too expensive to care for.

Holidays and Capitalism

From my limited study of the history of feast days and fetes, I can surmise that such occasions used to consist mainly of: going to church, dressing nicely, and eating a large meal. Perhaps some drinking and merrymaking, and maybe even some specific rituals. Holidays can serve a variety of purposes, and in the early history of the U.S. they primarily functioned as a vehicle for nationalist propoganda (and thus covertly supported the agenda of the federalists, who represented one of the two main political parties at the time). Accordingly, speeches and prayers pervaded with nationalist sentiments were one of the most salient characteristics of these events.

Now, in the U.S. major holidays have transformed into seasons and they serve capitalist, rather than political, ends (as if the two can really be distinguished). People talk about "Hallmark holidays" (holidays that were supposedly created by greeting card companies just so they could sell more cards), but this understates the reach of capitalism into our ritual life.

Each holiday comes with its own set of products that people are expected to buy: special decorations, food, and candy, for example. Halloween also necessitates costumes, pumpkins, and fun-size candybars; Easter: baskets, egg-decorating kits, stuffed bunnies; 4th of July: American flags, fireworks, sparklers, patriotic gear; Valentine's day: boxes of valentines, candy hearts, teddy bears. The list goes on. Companies create special holiday-season-themed products to increase sales, like pumpkin spice lattes and shamrock shakes.

Christmas, of course, is the biggest cash cow. It is a capitalist's best friend. First, a number of expensive decorations are required: at the very least, christmas trees, ornaments, lights, wreaths, garlands, stockings, candles, and, for the religiously inclined, advent calendars and nativity scenes. Then, there are all the traditional Christmas treats: candy canes, gingerbread, sugar cookies, egg nog, christmas-themed candybars, etc. And of course there are the movies, tv specials, and music (you can make some good money off a Christmas album!). Most importantly, though, is the tradition of buying gifts for friends and family. From what I can tell (especially talking to people of my parents' generation) both the variety of the decorations and holiday-themed goodies, as well as the expectations for gift-giving (from perhaps one or two toys per child to hundreds of dollars per child), has increased at an exponential pace. Add to this the fact that the Christmas season keeps extending itself further back into the fall (when I was young Christmas season did not start until after Thanksgiving - end of November; now it begins on November 1, the day after Halloween), and it is apparent the stark rate at which Christmas-related consumption has been increasing throughout the decades.

In fact, a lot of U.S.-based capitalist interests have come to absolutely depend on Christmas. It is a sort of crutch, to guarantee sales even in a sluggish economy.

This is yet another manifestation of the crisis of overproduction in which we now find ourselves. Capitalists struggle to get more from what they invest in labor, as well as (somewhat contradictorily) find ways to generate demand: from enormous investments in adevertising, coupons, and specials, to the cultivation of fads and obsolescence. The promotion of holiday-themed consumption is another way in which demand is manufactured against the general momentum of economic contraction.

I am a bit curious to what extent American holiday trends have been reproduced internationally. I realize that Americans tend to be more fanatical about holidays than, say, Europeans, but I have a feeling that the general forces of capitalism may be creating similar sorts of circumstances in other parts of the world.

I must end, however, with a confession. Capitalist ploy or not, I wholeheartedly buy into (literally) the holiday phenomenon. In some sense I find it grotesque, but I also love me some holiday-themed candy and decorations.

Corporations and Banks are Big Brother

In my post about George Orwell's 1984, I commented that one weakness of the work is its supposition that power is centralized in the state.  I argued, to the contrary, that power is more diffuse, and that a group of corporations has become our Big Brother.  I must now include banks along with corporations, and I have a story to back up my claim.  A relative of mine was asked a number of security questions by his bank (with which I am completely unaffiliated) in order to verify his identity.  He was surprised by all of the questions, as he could not figure out how the bank was in possession of this information. One, in particular, shocked me:  they asked him in which state I reside.  Not only does the bank know we are related (which is not a given), but it also has personal information about me.  Needless to say, I am pretty creeped out. We joked that the bank probably got its information from Mark Zuckerberg (the CEO of facebook). It is known, after all, that facebook sells people's information to corporations.

Don't worry about the size of government.  Worry about the size of the "private sector"!

Muslims and Racism

Although racism of all varieties obviously still abounds, it appears that Islamophobia is currently the one form that is socially acceptable to express openly. Once again, as I have said numerous times, I do not think the "who is more oppressed?" game is very productive. Thus, my concern in this post is more the way in which racism is explicitly (as opposed to covertly) part of public rhetoric.

The other day I was talking to an older woman, and the subject of the state of Michigan came up. She said, "Oh, they have a lot of problems" (I expected her to say "with the economy" or " with unemployment" or "with foreclosures) "... they have all those Muslims." She was referring to the city of Dearborn, Michigan - a suburb of Detroit - which has the largest Arabic population outside of the Middle East. I don't think this woman realized that many of these people of Arabic descent are Christian, not Muslim. (Lebanese Christians, who came to work in Ford's factory, provided the original pull of Middle Easterners to the area.) I politely explained that Dearborn is a very nice community - no major "problems" of which I am aware, expecially compared to those facing Detroit.

I don't think this woman would have been very comfortable making a similar comment about African Americans (though Detroit is largely African American, and there has been racial tensions along black-white lines for decades). Yet, she did not hesitate in the slightest about making a "Muslim" comment.

Somehow, the fact that some Muslims have been involved with terrorism makes it "valid," in many people's opinion, to speak critically about Islam and to treat Muslims/Arabs/Middle Easterners differently. Nevermind the fact that "Islamic terrorism" (a problematic term in itself) only represents a tiny percentage of all terrorism in the U.S., or the more obvious fact that the vast, vast majoriy of Muslims do not have anything to do with terrorism.

This reasoning is not new: for example, when we were at war with Japan, overt racism and discrimination against Japanese Americans was suddenly trendy. Though Islamophobia definitely is an interesting case, in that it involves the conflation of race, nationality, and religion. Anyone can claim that they are not racist, but just have problems with the (supposed) tenants of the religion. This demonstrates the way in which "cultural reasoning" is often used as a more "progressive" sounding stand-in for racial reasoning (I expect to write a more detailed post about this topic sometime soon). Put plain and simply, rhetoric about "cultural difference" is often just thinly veiled racism.

In the case of Arabs/Muslims/Middle Easterners, "cultural difference" is a totally inappropriate framework in which to understand terrorism. Arabs, Muslims, and Middle Easterns have all been subject in different ways to colonial rule, neocolonial manipulation, capitalist exploitation, and racism of the "Orientalist" variety. This is the framework in which to understand terrorism. To avoid repeating myself, here are some links to previous posts on the subject:  MENA Dictatorships and Colonialism; The Death of Osama Bin Laden; Religion and Colonialism in MENA.

(And why is it that the "collateral damage" caused by U.S. military interventions in the MENA region is not considered "terrorism"?)

This just goes to show that, despite all the "progressive" trends that have occured throughout the past couple of centuries, we have not gotten past the point of socially acceptible racism.

Do I Stand for Anything?

This post is sort of a companion to my previous post about the "Occupy" movement. Although I still wholeheartedly affirm all of the sentiments expressed therein regarding the preferability of more thoroughly exposing and understanding the current system over constructing ideals and working through the political process, I feel that the cynicism of my blog has reached such levels that I must say something affirmative!

I still will not propose any type of ideal system or attach myself to any "-ism" other than Marxism, as a social critique, or pacificism. Yet, there are certain things in this world that I believe somewhat escape, or have the potential to escape, the reach of the current world system. These are not ideals, per se, but more representatives, in certain aspects, of things I believe in.

The World Social Forum
Here is a movement that refuses to work through official political channels, and that recognizes the reach of global relationships of power. It is a "big tent" that encompasses a number of diverse perspectives, all united for a single cause: radical transformation of the system.

Cooperatives
Cooperatives rely on non-capitalist relations of production. Still, they exist within a capitalist world system. Fortunately the internet has allowed many cooperatives to reach consumers directly, without the use of exploitative middlemen. Which brings me to...

The Internet
If anything has the potential for great good as well as great evil, it's the internet! What I like best about the internet, though, is that it allows for the creation of relationships that elude capitalist relations of production, involving anything from music to banking. Capitalist forces try desperately to control the internet, but it appears the internet is usually one step ahead. For instance, I can still get music for free, despite the Recording Industry's best efforts.

Debt Forgiveness
This is one of the few "political" strategies that I support. Debt is one of the most significant factors keeping Third World countries in servitude to the industrialized world, as well as draining their resources.  Debt forgiveness could help loosen those chains.

There are probably other things I could add to this list, but I feel like I can dust off my hands now and walk off into the sunset.

Why Does "Occupy" Need to Stand for Anything?

The biggest criticism I have yet heard about the "Occupy" movement is that its goals are not clearly defined. They have not as thoroughly articulated what they are for as compared to what they are against. In fact, I recently ran across an opinion piece arguing that the demonstrators could put their energy to better use by trying to work through the political process.

I disagree completely. One of my favorite philsophers, Michel Foucault, responded to a similar criticism (that he would not propose any ideals for which he stood), by saying that the real task for anyone wishing to actually change the system is to investigate and understand in greater detail how the system currently works - to expose all of the subtle and diffuse mechanisms of power that are commonly ignored. Otherwise, Foucault insisted, thought is so permeated by the paradigms of the current system that people only end up reproducing that which they are trying to demolish. The results of the Russian Revolution are a great example of this principle (the revolutionaries somewhat unwittingly created a more capitalist society), and it seems that the revolutions in MENA could take a similar route: individual figureheads are being replaced but the system is being preserved.

Above all else, channeling the momentum of the "Occupy" movement into the political process would be the best way to kill the movement and ensure that nothing is done. That's what the political process is there for: to direct energies into benign activities that preserve the social order... and make people think that they are "doing something" even though they are not.

I say, "Occupy" is good enough as it is!

Population and Contraception Part 2

A friend of mine brought the following article from National Geographic to my attention.  The article, along with my friend's proposition that capitalism/industrialization itself may reduce birth rates because of the increased costs associated with each child, provides a good alternative to the view that other (non-white) people in world have more kids because they cannot plan their lives as rationally as white people do.  People are responsive to their social/economic environment, almost always in adaptive ways.