Metal Reviews

Hi V...

5:00am? go to bed, man!

I read some and scanned most of the link- it's a long document and as I'm sure you're aware we are a little preoccupied by Tory villains staging a coup over here (exaggeration). Plus I have my first ever driving lesson shortly

The article does make a good case, but (it may surprise you to hear) I don't buy its argument that union corruption is endemic. No doubt crooks get into positions in unions, but in my view most unions are often self-correcting. If they are democratic unions (and let's be clear, if they aren't, I have no desire to defend them) then corruption gets rooted out. In the case of what used to be the Enron of unions, The Teamsters, a grassroots movement within the union proved incompatible with corruption. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teamsters_ ... atic_Union)

My main problem with the article is that it tries to link in legal and even moral issues upon which there are many different sides into the broad area of "corruption". E.g. voting influence and party donations, closed shop agreements, and slowdowns etc. are not, in my view, remotely synonymous with intimidation or corruption. They are brutal, blunt tools, but they're the only way that the gains the union have made (that we all agree on are good things) have been possible. That's a subject for another day, a long way off.

Finally, in my experience of employers generally, including but not limited to the US, it is very plausible that those ambiguities like "union related activity", are serious things, and reflect worse on employers than workers in the vast majority of cases. From what I've seen- maybe they are the worst cases- pretty harmless things like distributing flyers can attract very harsh retaliation- I never saw the due process you mention being respected. Manipulated, yes, respected, no.

The bottom line IMO is the economic one of convergence. Globalisation means that workers in the US have to compete with workers in, say, China, India, Bangladesh. That means that the inhumanities suffered by workers there are not something we can look at and go "oh, how awful"- they are actually potential models for employers in our own countries. It's not the case that we've got to a reasonable level, therefore unions aren't required. If those standards are to be defended, union power needs strengthening, not undermining.

Yet again, I've gone on longer than I meant to. Let's agree to disagree and say no more on the matter.

I think we can agree that globalization is having an adverse effect on our, and presumably your, workforce.
And I will agree that the workforce environment should be one conducive to productivity; a worker does their best when they feel good about their job, so it is to the advantage of an employer to have the type of management that promotes good morale.
I think we both have made our cases to their full extent and hopefully we will both come out of it with at least some food for thought.

Hey V...

Be interesting to see how the money is allocated / dispersed.

Also, the disparity could be due to the Democrat states having higher taxes than the Republican states, as the blue states are probably more apt to have a higher tax bracket (due to a higher wage earning power) overall.

Assuming that it is in the form of "welfare" is typical liberal dishonesty.
Like I said, I'd like to see how the money is dispersed, could be money spent on military facilities (which are more abundant in the mid-western states), could be disaster relief, could be unemployment insurance payouts due to a depressed economy (especially in rural areas), could be any number of things.

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/3383 ... arty-state

Are there any nutty left-wing conspiracy theorists out there? Why's it always Obama and Brown who are in thrall to Satan?

I think Marxists should begin to recognize politics becoming dominated by social issues (like abortion and gay rights in the West, or ethnic and cultural divisions in the East) as resulting out of politicians general inability to affect the economy. These diversions work to mystify the actual problems resulting out of capitalism while they also brew fundamentalism insofar as one's plight in life isn't attributed to your status within capitalism and projected onto the Other, whether that be Pakistan to India or Israel to Palestine. When countries hand over the economic process to transnationals like WTO or the IMF, they force politicians to resort to petty bullshit rather than addressing actual problems. Terrorism rarely seems to be addressing structural adjustment policies because there whole attitude towards politics has been warped by post-economic politics where problems are blamed on others, rather than confronted. This kinda relates back to the world systems theory, Rio mentioned in the UK thread, insofar as economies are planned in board rooms not in the market anymore.

Does this make any sense? I've been reading some Middle Eastern philosophers (Shue, Shiva) and some Zizek got me thinking this.

Thanks trapt! This makes sense as far as I know: I have some limited familiarity with world systems theory (I've read a bit on Thomas Mccormick and his 'World Systems' in diplomacy, and Wallerstein is cited in about half of the books I read).

A parallel from my own work is the diversionary tactics of 'other' I just wrote about concerning late tsarist Russia and their efforts to foster Russian nationalism as anti-Pole and anti-Jew.

Gramsci already left behind the idea of an economic foundation on top of which society is built, and replaced it with a cultural foundation. Much of what you listed above can be related to his ideas. Don't worry, you won't find many Marxists anymore who believe in the outdated creed.

IIRC Gramcsi saw cultural hegemony as growing on top of society's foundation, which was ultimately still an economic one. He disagreed with the orthodoxy that ideas and culture had no autonomy outside of economics- you're right, it would be quite a neanderthal Marxist who would disagree with that today.

World Systems theory is really interesting and I'm getting quite into it. Arrighi sees Gramsci and hegemony as being very important to the whole idea of a world system, though I will have to read up tonight and report back on why as I skipped over that part to get to the juicy stuff about systemic cycles of accumulation and all that funky jazz.

Wow umm did you really just say Gramsci thought hegemony didn't arise out of the economic? I'll get back to you on that. I'm sure you haven't read the prison notebooks so I don't know why I'm even getting into thiswith you.

Emphasizing the superstructure is quite different than saying it doesn't relate back to the base. If anything dialectically, the superstructure does come back to influence the base but primacy goes to the economic. The superstructure develops to reinforce the economic.

Police were attacking the Seattle protestors not because of their role as authority but to protect economic interests. The media wasn't casting protestors as violent anarchist for there own good but to denigrate the anti-capitalist movement.

So many high-falutin' ivory tower ideas and big brainy words...
so much masturbation disguised as intellect. To say what, exactly?
That man has exploited his fellow man for gain and personal power? That life is unfair?

All those $1,000 words and high toned, plagiarized arguments do not change the simple fact that humans, like all organisms, strive for dominance, i.e., survival, in a harsh and callous environment. Sure, we pretend to act civilised and make every attempt to surround ourselves with the trappings necessary to perpetuate the illusion that we ever really left the jungle, we even manage to fool ourselves most of the time, but humans are more isolated, vicious and egocentric than ever before, despite all the wonderful new gadgets, toys and other distractions we invent to continue this masquerade.
The farther man strays from nature, the closer to death (stagnation) he becomes.
And with man, like all organisms, the strongest are the survivors.
It is hard wired into our limbic sytem, through millenia upon millenia of survival instinct, so hard-wired, in fact, that it extends even into areas of sexuality.

Survival of the fittest, the weak be damned. This is nature's law. Nature is harsh, cold and uncaring. You either survive, or die. It's really that simple, and all this self-important theorizing is just an extension of Man's maniacal ego, the mind playing with itself, another distraction... could it be anything other than the pure over-inflated ego of Man that leads him to believe he can somehow overcome this impartial, all encompassing and eminently fair law, and create some mythical utopia where everybody is cared for, everyone is equal, brother and sister, naked and pure, and unicorns dance with pixies underneath a sparkly rainbow?
Everybody is NOT equal, life is NOT fair, and to have to even mention these things to adults, even young adults, seems ridiculous, and just a bit dismaying.
Trust me, even in paradise, man would find scapegoats for all his ills, create major differences (if just for the sake of having an idea or thought that is his own, therefore independent) and find something to grumble about, nitpick and eventually fight over; simple arguments over "so and so isn't pulling his weight", "do you HAVE to eat with you mouth open like that? You sound like a pig." or "What the fuck are you looking at", leading to bigger, skirmishes spilling over into neighboring cities, and eventually growing into tribal wars. Does anybody really believe otherwise?

It is only "human nature", after all, for some to seek power and dominion; and alternatively, for some to desire domination and letting somebody else handle the reins of power. This will never be changed, and as long as that desire is inherent in not only man, but all living organisms (all organisms, yes, but man certainly seems to have a real knack for it, doesn't he? the real king of the jungle, without any doubt), there will be those on the losing side... because there will always be the weak and the strong, the slow and the quick, the driven and the lazy, givers and takers, winners and losers, masters and slaves, those who covet what others have... has it ever occurred to anybody that perhaps there are those that desire to be ruled over, to be absolved of all responsibilty? Or that coveting what thy neighbor has (not necessarilly in any material sense, mind you) is a means towards advancement, both indivually and collectively, therefore life affirming?

All this talk of "colonialism", "exploitation" etc... all it does is re-affirm Nature's law; big fish eats little fish, and the fact that these "exploited" third world economies, nations (rife with resources they did nothing with, or did not know waht to do with, just waiting for somebody to come along and put them to use), culture's, etc allowed themselves to be dominated and exploited just proves they deserve nothing more, nothing less.
The stronger devouring the slower and weaker.
As for this one-world government Marxist ideal... just how, may I ask will this be implemented? Somebody has to be in charge, and that means they will by necessity have to have power to see that their grand plan is carried out accordingly... how will they achieve that, I wonder? A police force? A military? Saying "Pretty please, with a cherry on top?"
What about those that are defiant and want nothing to do with it and decide to fight it, as there absolutely certainly will be? How will they be "handled"?
And, by the way, how will who gets to run this thing be decided upon?
Will those in power, for the very first time in the history of mankind, incidentally, be immune to the usual corruptions that come with power?
History states otherwise... the human mind, whether collectively, or individually, functions in a set pattern. That is why "history repeats itself". What ego to think that this, this, and only this movement, World Systems theory, neo-Marxism, whatever you want to call it will be the exception.
Marxism has been tried, and it has failed. Miserably... how ironic that the very institutions that allow for these neo-Marxists to even freely exist is the very system they are against... a mere juvenile rebellion, albeit it one cloaked in quasi-intellectual rhetoric?
Hard to say.
Rhetoric. All it is, and all it will ever be, sorry to burst your bubble.
That pesky law of nature thing, ya know, but what the hell, nothing wrong with a little dream, is there?

V., you may dig this book (or at least find it interesting)- disassociating Darwin from that the idea of "all against all" is in any way a part of the natural development of evolution, and arguing that "mutual aid" has been a central characteristic of all human societies and indeed all successful animal societies. The whole text is free here:

http://www.calresco.org/texts/mutaid.htm



But the Seattle protests surely aren't an example of a an authentic tectonic collision of "base" conflicts between proletariat and bourgeoisie? I would say that those protests and the police reaction to them are both products of the superstructure- i.e. the products of ideologies. Whilst those ideologies probably do emanate ultimately from the "base", I reckon Gramsci would say they do have some autonomy of their own. I mean, I would argue that there are no shortage of middle class people who use anti-capitalist ideological frames not because of class consciousness but because they are appealing ideas regardless of any base... the iconography, if we're being sceptical, and humanist concern for the exploited if not.

The forms and nature of ideologies take are probably ultimatey conditioned by the relations of production at base, but within civil society they do have autonomous power to change and spread, I would say.

The police, for example- they're not beating down protestors because they explicitly want to preserve the class interests of the bourgeoisie. Or because they've simply been ordered to do so by people with those motivations. I'd imagine as individuals they would possibly legitimate their actions by framing them as in the "national interest", or alternatively in the interests of economic growth and trade. Those ideologies appeal to human rationality rather than naked class interest. It's just that a frame like "protecting the nation" is one which time and again HAS served dominant class interests (as with Seattle).

I'm probably agreeing with you, actually... I don't THINK I'm agreeing with Karmo... that would cause me a sleepless night or two.

Meh, I'd have to agree with just part of this, to give my non-marxist leftist viewpoint. Take the police beating miners up in Thatcher's day - they may have been thinking of them as working class scum, but they weren't acting solely to defend class barriers or fervently thinking that their beatings would save the economy. Although police back then were a bunch of thugs compared to nowadays, they were paid to do a job without personal political convictions getting in the way. Riot police are not generally known for their economic acumen, surely?

Like I was saying to you last night, any policeman cracking a skull makes me deeply uncomfortable, whatever I think of the crackee, and as long as protestors are given the space and patience to protest nonviolently there is absolutely no reason why marches should turn sour. Sure, there are probably a few hotheads looking for violence on both sides, but they shouldn't be given a reason to explode.

Of course, this doesn't apply to, say, Unite Against Fascism vs the English Defence League, where you just get a bunch of nutters on both sides making everyone hate them both.

Interesting reading Vally's post, btw. It's the kind of speech that Marlon Brando should have made in some awesome old film, and is a perfectly valid way of looking at things, although I'd want to argue that there's nothing wrong with at least trying to help the people at the bottom.

That's just it, though. I don't think that (in the majority of cases) those riot police were attacking people just because they were told to. Because then you're envisioning a society governed by force and authority alone, and that isn't what we have. Our society also depends on the active consent of those involved in it. The reason riot police consent to carrying out those orders which we might otherwise find inhumane, is because there is an ideology at work that they identify with. Maybe it's the idea of "economic progress", maybe it's the idea of "the rule of law". You don't need any special acumen as an economist or lawyer to buy into those things when they are widely presented as key elements of a functioning society. And if you do buy into them then it legitimates breaking a few skulls for the greater good.



Indeed. It's an interesting perspective, though allow me to shock you all by admitting that I don't share it. You might find that book I linked to interesting, although it's obviously very long and I've only really scanned it meself.

But I would say the axis of "naked self interest" at one end and "being very kind to those less well off because you think everyone deserves the same" at the other is a false dichotomy. The book argues that, objectively, successful societies are ones in which mutual aid is a cornerstone. Humans survived the ice age through mutual support (sharing food and shelter, cooperating to find these things)- had everyone simply looked after themselves we all would have frozen or starved. Just an example. I would imagine that people today in places that are genuinely difficult to inhabit (maybe the inuits, or saharan nomads) would find the idea that they are all individuals looking after themselves alone quite foreign to them. Though obviously this is complete speculation.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that it's not a question of being nice to some people at the bottom who are passive recipients of welfare payments or whatever. It's a question of some degree of collective support being a necessary condition of a functioning society.

Yeah, Rio, you're account of the police seems more fleshed out and probably more of what Gramsci was thinking. Just initially removing the economic sway entirely I think is wrong but you're right in identifying the levels with which ideology influences acts while the ideology can be influenced by the base yet still take on a separate existence.

At V, I'm sorry buddy but survival of the fittest has been proven wrong by science. What Rio says,"some degree of collective support being a necessary condition of a functioning society", is proven through archaeology and study of chimps and other animal's within nature. It's like you look at one lion pouncing a gazelle and see brutal, naked self-interest but if you look at the whole savannah, you'll see three other lions positioning the gazelle within that one's reach, not to mention them sharing the meal afterward. You can always see our debates as being in an ivory tower but I think you should also know it affects us in our practical lives and what we do on the weekends.

That's an interesting point. But, lions are predators.
And also consider that lions run in packs of their own kind, and there are still domiant members within their own group, typically males.

But, what happens when you throw an outside group competing for the same niche as the lion, for example the hyena?
Or other, smaller felines?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion#Biology_and_behavior


And, keep in mind when I post something, it often times is merely me musing out loud, so to speak.

Still, I don't see an application of large-scale Marxist policy as being in line with natural law.

This is interesting.





What a twat the man is.

Generally speaking, I'm not a big fan of the police, though I am sure there are some decent ones out there.

I agree that those that need help should recieve it; in fact, there should be more of that behavior. I wasn't necessarilly stating the way I think things ought to be, just the way they appear to be and why I believe that a Marxist utopia will always be a pipe dream.
I could be wrong, though... it's happened before.

Damn, that's pretty harsh.
Maybe he's trying to help her overcome her phobia?
You know, like confronting your fear and conquering it?
Putin always struck me as a warm, caring and gentle person, after all.
No,wait...

Haha, the looks on their faces of wary fear and sheer Bond-villain-esque evil speak volumes.