Communism Doesn't Work because It Didn't Work

This is one of my favorite arguments ever. History is unlike Science in that you often only get one shot at a particular experiment. So, Communism doesn't work because post-world war II communism didn't work. What else do you need to know?

Right now, we are entering a grand new experiment of a really unequal society. Historically, we've done well with capitalism because we had a large and prosperous middle class. Can capitalism thrive without consumers? Will we end our regressive tax policies in time? Or will there be another truism about capitalism that everyone will be uttering 100 years from now?

Interestingly, corruption is one of those things that we haven't just gotten one chance to experience. It appears in virtually all time periods and virtually all forms of government. It also appears (gasp...no) in supposedly competitive markets. And cronyism and corruption are a big deal because, if unchecked, they will kill the host that feeds them. A decent society where everyone has a chance to succeed is by definition a society where goodies go to the qualified and not the connected.

Unlike capitalism and communism (both fairly theoretical economic systems that have never existed in a pure form), cronyism is something we have lots of historical experience with. And it has never been a viable long term option and it can tear apart a wide range of governments and societies.

I think once upon a time in America there was something called the goo-goos. It was some sort of good government coalition that came out of the progressive movement. I think that's what the democrats need to do. The problem of course is that the Dems are just as implicated as the Republicans in all this....

Having = Deserving or How to Sleep at Night if You're Really Rich

I'm reading "Flat Broke With Children" by Sharon Hays. It strikes me that when we say "everyone should work," we don't mean people with trust funds or stay at home Moms (with husbands to support them). If you're a woman without a man, you should work. If you're poor, you should work.

The ethics of drug use is more of the same. Drug offenders should rot in prison but frat boys shouldn't.

And of course there's stealing. Stealing from the government is apparently OK when a Bush crony does it, but it's completely immoral when a poor person does it.

It must be nice to be a rich person. Not only do you get to wallow around in piles of money, but you can wallow guilt free. By virtue of belonging to the golden class, your good morals are beyond question.

According to Hays, in 2002, the top 1 percent of American households earned on average over a million dollars. The bottom 10 percent earned less than 10,000 dollars. If everyone earning more than a million were taxed an additional 100,000, the average income of the desperately poor could be doubled. But that would be income redistribution which is deeply wrong because people who have money deserve to have their money. They are, in fact, the deserving rich. People who don't have money...well...the fact that they don't have any shows that they are not so deserving.

Women's Issues

I've been reading the latest issue of Oprah's magazine and a recent issue of Wired. It's a weird experience. We're a very gender segregated society when it comes to reading material. Somehow reading got to be an unmanly thing to do. Oprah apparently believes that her audience will read long articles. Wired doesn't think so. Oprah has stuff with heavy emotional content--domestic violence, breast cancer, etc. Wired is mostly about gadgets.

It would be super funny if these magazines had to take each other's topics for a month. I can just picture Wired trying to explain domestic violence with some sort of hip graphic. And Oprah would have to go into excruciating detail about tech companies and their drama.

Po-mo Koan of the Day: Does the form of these magazines dictate their substance? Or does the substance lend itself to a particular form?

Would I want to know?

I'm (after the Bush administration) probably a life long Democrat. Supposing the shoe were on the other foot and I'd helped elect an incompetent and corrupt bully. Would I want to know?

The answer is yes. I would not want the press to tell me only what I wanted to hear. I would not want the press to pretend like bullshit and the truth deserve equal time. Ultimately I would respect the press a lot more right now if I felt that they'd even attempted to tell the truth.

On Propaganda

The press is back to towing the line with "hopeful" stories about the relief efforts and New Orleans recovery and "not as many dead bodies as previously thought." For a few brief moments there it looked like we might actually have a free press and that the free press might actually provide a useful service for our democracy. But they're back to being Republican lapdogs a mere one week after Katrina.

I also thought for a brief moment that the press might start investigating things. Because FEMA is not the only can of worms in the Bush administration. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find a major agency that hasn't suffered an outflow of professional talent and an influx of party hacks.

As our news looks increasingly like propaganda, it is worth asking what it means to have a society where journalists tow the party line and fear falling out of favor. Because it is emperors and dictators who refuse to allow criticism. It is emperors and dictators who don't discuss their decisions with those they rule. An interesting dynamic (repeated in places as diverse as imperial China, the Roman empire, North Korea, Ethiopia) is that the emperor who makes a poor decision can remain popular with ordinary people because the ordinary people believe that he has made the poor decision because of bad information from his advisors.

Bush is one of the least accessible presidents in American history by design. He can get away with (apparently) virtually anything because the press must choose between distributing propaganda or getting no information at all. In this, the Bush administration has behaved like they are dictators rather than elected officials and they have gotten away with it.

A Liberal Jeramiad

There is something in this country's innocence that leads inevitably to hypocrisy. In my darker moments I think that we somehow deserve this president with his pretend ranch, his pretend courage, and his pretend innocence. If there is a God, maybe this is how he chooses to punish us.

The Blame Game

The Blame Game-- What a wonderful phrase. It implies that the person playing it childish and frivolous. It implies that person being blamed is only being blamed because of this frivolous game and not because he deserves it.

Charity and Justice

It's interesting that President Bush has taken to emphasizing the outpouring of donations and support for the victims from religious organizations. That fits in neatly with what Greedy Corporate Republicans want (we'll donate, just don't tax us) and with what Evangelical Republicans want (church as the cornerstone of society, not government).

But these victims are not refugees or charity cases. They are citizens. Furthermore, they are citizens who paid into our society by laboring and building and paying their taxes. Admittedly, these from red state citizens that grumbled about their taxes and voted for GW. But that doesn't take away from their claims that they are citizens deserving of human dignity and new start. Their government owes them that. It's another Christian value called justice that we've not been hearing so much about in the rush to say that it isn't the government's fault and the government won't have to fix it.

And by the way what are former presidents Bush and Clinton doing raising money for state governments? Are governments charity cases too? Are we going to stop taxing and start donating to our government?