Just found this fantastic blog page posted by an aid worker in Sudan:
Sleepless in Sudan. Uncensored, direct from a dazed & confused aid worker in Darfur, Sudan
While already on the subject of Darfur, here is another website related to the topic that lists what kinds of relief agencies are working there and what kind of aid they are supplying (among other interesting bits of information):
http://www.charity.org/globalalert/darfur/
It's difficult to stomach the fact that so few Western governments have stepped forward to really attempt to intervene with the ongoing genocide--mostly, these governments (especially MY government) have offered lip-service support of doing something to help alleviate the situation. Isn't it interesting how the "never again" oath sworn by so many of our leaders in reference to the Rwanda genocide (after the genocide had ceased, and nearly a million people had been slaughtered) was so quickly forgotten and replaced with a "We'll get around to it... Eventually" attitude.
Meanwhile, we're still busy "freeing" the people of Iraq and spending approximately 3 billion dollars a week to do it. And what is the justification they're spooning us these days? That it was, essentially, a human rights mission to remove an abusive and tyrranical leader (and install our own version of democracy while we're at it). Of course, we all know to expect lies from this government, and this is certainly not an exception... but how can this administration rationalize placing this thin "human rights" veil over our intent regarding our invading Iraq while blatantly ignoring government-instigated atrocities far more severe in scale that are currently happening and that have been happening for years? It seems like it'd be good for their case if they'd at least pretend to be concerned enough to do something to help.
Enough on this subject for now. I'm too emotional today for a discussion on global politics, if you didn't already notice...
Saturday, February 18, 2006
An Artsy Girl in a Digital World
This was a "statement of interest" I wrote to submit myself as a candidate into the applicant pool for the digital arts program at my school--well, this along with a very carefully put-together portfolio of some of my artwork (which was a much larger undertaking than I'd anticipated). Still don't know if I made it "in" or not.
I had an affinity toward and a passion for art at a very young age, before I had an interest in anything else. For me, the world has always been viewed from an "artist’s perspective," and it seems fitting that I should pursue a degree and ultimately a career that follows the path of my original passion. My path could certainly be that of the painter or another role in the traditional fine arts--however, the future of the art world, and the world with which it interacts, seems to be one that is increasingly more inspired by the digital realm, and the combination of the artistic and digital realms is an exciting and relatively new frontier for artists. I plan to forge my own path in bringing together my artistic visions and technological tools.
Digital arts give an endless supply of possibilities for creating a wide range of types of art. The kind of art that I am most drawn to create, that of depicting intimate portraits of human emotions in action—particularly in the sensual realm—does not seem to have been greatly explored by many in the digital arts field as of yet. I can see great potential in creating organic and emotional pieces viewed through the filter of precision that digital arts are often characterized by. To me, the merging of humanity (and the objects which we relate to humanity, e.g. living spaces, sacred symbols and monuments, items of popular culture, etc.) with technology is an appropriate marriage to depict the nature of our modern human culture. Whether it is on a population scale or an individual scale, technology has fused itself into our world views, surely affecting the way we perceive ourselves and, consequently, how we sense and feel.
Conceptually, I have often been inspired by artists who created the Mannerism style of the 16th century. Though chronologically far removed from the year 2006, artists such as Titian, Pontormo, El Greco, Ingres, and others had approaches to art that would depict an altered reality for the sake of conveying emotions or moods, just as much of the modern art I admire tends to do. The correctness of form is sacrificed to achieve a certain “feel”—and for me, art is all about feeling. In my book, “The Grand Odalisque” by Ingres will forever be one of the greatest works of art. Pablo Picasso’s work during the Blue Period is some my favorite 20th Century artwork, and has been very inspiring for me as a fan and (attempted) creator of mood-driven art.
Aside from providing another set of tools and mediums to create art mirroring the human condition, digital design skills will prove to be very practical for me with my current career as a professional musician, since digital art also bleeds into the multimedia world, which often greatly ties into the musical world of today. As a singer/songwriter, performer, and recording artist, gaining experience and skill as a digital artist would greatly enhance my abilities to further carry out my artistic visions as a musician. Designing and creating album art, websites, promotional material, merchandise, etc. are both tasks directly related to digital art. As an "artist" in the musical sense, I enjoy maintaining creative control over all aspects of my art.
I cannot think of a major that I would rather pursue than that of Digital Arts—the more I learn the tools of this breed of creativity, the more I look forward to learning even more. That, to me, is a sign of a path well-chosen.
Warning: Extreme Cynicism Ahead
I was in Political Rant Mode when I wrote this almost two years ago... and massively breached sentence-structure ettiquette while I was at it. Apparently I was having an "angry day". There was certainly plenty to be angry about, after all--and sadly enough, these same issues (and then some) are still pertinent today.
The reasoning behind this administration’s actions are oh-so-easy to follow, and even easier to justify!! I mean, what better way to curb the slaughtering of cellular clumps the size and functioning capacity of a fingernail clipping than to snatch back all medical funding from miserably poor third world countries, thereby rendering them unable to educate, medicate, and otherwise treat such insignificant, mild problems such as AIDS and rape-induced fistulas in women and infants and rampant unwanted pregnancies and other such hazards of sex. I’d say it’s a fair trade! After all, this reasoning comes from the same sources that have so rightly/aptly placed the blame for most of America’s (and indeed, the world’s—but we’re really the only ones that count, it seems) problems not on violence, not on under-funded education, not on poverty, not on bigotry (see definition under “G.O.P.”), but on the real perpetrator—pornography! Sex in general, really. After all, it’s wrong because Ashcroft says so. And President Bush. And God is on their side, don’t you forget (if you DO forget, we just might have to bomb you, too). But you CAN forget about the whole “weapons of mass destruction” rumor so nastily spread about under the Bush Quote banner… after all, no one really SAID “imminent threat.” Oh, except that one time on CNN… and the other time… well, enough with that. We freed the oppressed people, right?? That’s what we went there in the first place for, right? To feed them democracy as a way of life even if we had to tie them down and tube-feed them, right? And hey, it worked, right? I mean, what cries “democracy” like a militant police state and rioting and ongoing slaughter of innocent people?
The one thing that may indeed cause the Apocalypse to come crashing down upon us in the very near future—the one thing our valiant and, indeed, wise leaders are pouring their energies almost completely into in hopes of stopping such a horrible event—is the Civil-issued (within a Secular nation beneath a “Secular” government [read: “not fundamentalist like those damned backward Middle Easterner Islamic states… after all, we’re Christian, by golly—that’s different!”]) institution of Holy Matrimony becoming un-sanctified by the introduction of Gay Marriage. After all, they can’t have kids—and that’s just wrong. Overpopulation’s not an issue, after all. Those same naysayers who think differently will also feed you the line about “global warming.” Carbon monoxide, exhaust fumes, pollutants—they don’t cause ozone deterioration! The ozone is only thinning rapidly over Antarctica, after all, and we Americans don’t live there, so… so what? Plus, those SUV exhaust fumes sure do make for a pretty neon-orange sunset.
The reasoning behind this administration’s actions are oh-so-easy to follow, and even easier to justify!! I mean, what better way to curb the slaughtering of cellular clumps the size and functioning capacity of a fingernail clipping than to snatch back all medical funding from miserably poor third world countries, thereby rendering them unable to educate, medicate, and otherwise treat such insignificant, mild problems such as AIDS and rape-induced fistulas in women and infants and rampant unwanted pregnancies and other such hazards of sex. I’d say it’s a fair trade! After all, this reasoning comes from the same sources that have so rightly/aptly placed the blame for most of America’s (and indeed, the world’s—but we’re really the only ones that count, it seems) problems not on violence, not on under-funded education, not on poverty, not on bigotry (see definition under “G.O.P.”), but on the real perpetrator—pornography! Sex in general, really. After all, it’s wrong because Ashcroft says so. And President Bush. And God is on their side, don’t you forget (if you DO forget, we just might have to bomb you, too). But you CAN forget about the whole “weapons of mass destruction” rumor so nastily spread about under the Bush Quote banner… after all, no one really SAID “imminent threat.” Oh, except that one time on CNN… and the other time… well, enough with that. We freed the oppressed people, right?? That’s what we went there in the first place for, right? To feed them democracy as a way of life even if we had to tie them down and tube-feed them, right? And hey, it worked, right? I mean, what cries “democracy” like a militant police state and rioting and ongoing slaughter of innocent people?
The one thing that may indeed cause the Apocalypse to come crashing down upon us in the very near future—the one thing our valiant and, indeed, wise leaders are pouring their energies almost completely into in hopes of stopping such a horrible event—is the Civil-issued (within a Secular nation beneath a “Secular” government [read: “not fundamentalist like those damned backward Middle Easterner Islamic states… after all, we’re Christian, by golly—that’s different!”]) institution of Holy Matrimony becoming un-sanctified by the introduction of Gay Marriage. After all, they can’t have kids—and that’s just wrong. Overpopulation’s not an issue, after all. Those same naysayers who think differently will also feed you the line about “global warming.” Carbon monoxide, exhaust fumes, pollutants—they don’t cause ozone deterioration! The ozone is only thinning rapidly over Antarctica, after all, and we Americans don’t live there, so… so what? Plus, those SUV exhaust fumes sure do make for a pretty neon-orange sunset.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Feminist or "Feminazi", I wear the title proudly
It was great to have the opportunity to not only study some of the political aspects of Feminism through the works of great Feminist writers (again, in a class on Political Ideologies), but to be able to interject my own voice and meld my opinions with those of some of the pioneers of the Feminist movement...
Q: Marilyn Frye, in her article on Oppression, argues that women are oppressed in our society, living in a kind of cage constructed of societal rules and norms. Explain what Marilyn Frye means by oppression. Elizabeth Cady Stanton sets forth a Declaration of the Rights of Women that declares the independence of women from societal norms of the mid-1800’s. What societal norms are women still caged by? Does Frye’s concept of oppression apply to people of color, to gays, and to men? If so, how? If not, why not?
A: The various women’s movements in recent history have yielded many successes, such as bringing about women’s right to vote, women’s right to own property, women’s ability to enter the workforce on greater and more varied levels, women’s right to choose, as well as many other relatively new gains in rights and opportunities. Despite these steps toward women’s equality, women still experience a “less-than” gender status in a society which was created by men and which favors men. The only way to truly break through the barriers imposed by society is to acknowledge and do away with the oppression that creates these barriers to begin with.
According to Marilyn Frye in her essay “Oppression”, the word “oppress” is rooted in the word “press.” The point of “pressing” is to “mold things or flatten them or reduce them in bulk, sometimes to reduce them (Frye, “Oppression”, p. 373)”. This definition can also be used, in a less literal sense, to describe oppression of human beings—oppression restrains, immobilizes, reduces, and molds people according to society’s idea of what human beings should act like, look like, do, and be. Oppressed groups, like pressed objects, are “caught between or among forces and barriers which are so related to each other that jointly they restrain, restrict or prevent… motion or mobility (Frye, “Oppression”, p. 373).” As an oppressed group, women are given few options to choose from, and all options “expose one to penalty, censure or deprivation… one can only choose to risk one’s preferred form of annihilation (Frye, “Oppression”, p. 373).”
The cage metaphor that Frye uses to describe the effects and the perception of oppression is very effective in that it points out that oppression is not a one-issue problem, but an entire construct that works together as a whole, using many different avenues, to keep women from breaking out of the roles society has woven for them. Those who cannot see oppression as the multi-faceted issue it is resemble (in thought) those who stand too close to the cage and can only perceive one wire, leaving them to believe that it would be simple enough for a bird to fly around it. Both groups need only to step back a bit and view the bigger picture to realize that the single issue or single wire they were focusing on is only one of many, and that the parts interweave to create a system of barriers which work together so as not to allow escape (Frye, “Oppression”, p. 374).
During Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s time, during the mid- to late-1800’s, the cage of oppression certainly was rife with a greater number of wires than there exist today. A century and a half ago, women did not have the right to vote, the right to property after marriage, the right to choose employment (a great deal more restrictive than the current situation, at least), the right to most higher education, the right to minister, and the list goes on (Stanton, “Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions”, pp. 369, 370). Though the norms of society may have been quite a bit more restrictive in 1848, they certainly did not disappear as specific rights were gradually granted to women. For instance, women are still limited in job opportunities, in that the “service sector of the wives/mommas/assistants/girls is almost exclusively a woman-only sector; its boundaries not only enclose women but to a very great extent keep men out (Frye, “Oppression”, p. 378). The expectation for women to occupy “service” positions, however, is not limited to the workplace—women are expected and pressured to fill roles of service in all avenues of their lives, specifically roles involving the service of men. These avenues include, but are not limited to,
…personal service (the work of maids, butlers, cooks, personal secretaries), sexual service (including provision for his genital sexual needs and bearing his children, but also including “being nice,” being attractive for him,” etc.), and ego service (encouragement, support, praise, attention). (Frye, “Oppression”, p. 376)
Oppression can also take the forms of other societal expectations of women, often expectations which are contradictory and place women in catch-22 situations where no matter which choice they make, the reactions from some sectors of society will be negative. These situations include those of working outside the home or not, choosing to have children or not, being on welfare or not, having sex or not, marrying or not, and being heterosexual or not, among other things (Frye, “Oppression”, p. 374). Whichever choice a woman makes lifestyle-wise, she will be labeled negatively by some, and the labels will likely be based upon the conflicting expectations of women that oppression has ingrained into the fabric of society. The roles of “women, wives and mothers” (and I would also include “daughters” in this grouping) do not always compliment each other, as each comes with its own set of expectations, but each must exist together if these roles are to be taken on—once a wife becomes a mother, for example, she can’t do away with the expectations that come with being a wife in order to more thoroughly fulfill the expectations of being a mother, and if she does, she is looked down upon (Frye, “Oppression”, p. 374).
Women are not the only members of oppressed groups, however. People of color are also specifically mentioned in Fry’s “Oppression” essay as another group that is systematically oppressed within our society. They are another example of a group that is treated a certain way and burdened with certain expectations and roles for reasons based solely on the fact that they are members of a certain group and not because of their individual qualities. Frye states that “the ‘inhabitant’ of the ‘cage’ is not an individual but a group, all those of a certain category (Frye, “Oppression,” p. 376).” Whites, who dominate Western society, have created barriers in an obvious physical sense as well as in less tangible ways, an example of this being the creation of ghettos. People of color often times cannot get through the barriers that separate ghettos from white neighborhoods, barriers in the forms of wealth, jobs, and even the less specific barrier of prejudice and racist treatment, which would surely be faced outside the confines of the ghettos (Frye, “Oppression,” p. 378). There is a less extensive, less-specific reference to lesbians in “Oppression” when Frye discusses the labeling of women who do not engage in sexual activity with men. She refers to it as a negative label for women, which implies that non-heterosexuals are also an oppressed group, since labeling a person as a homosexual is meant to be degrading (Frye, “Oppression,” p. 374).
Men, specifically straight white men, are not included in the list of oppressed groups. It is white men who control society and the system of oppression it nurtures. Men are the oppressors—they have all of the power, and they are responsible for creating the systems that keep themselves in power. They therefore allow themselves to continue to wield power over women, over non-heterosexuals, and over people of color. It is to their advantage, after all. For example, in reference to complaints of “restriction” men sometimes voice regarding their inability to find jobs in the women-dominated service industries, Frye states
“that barrier is erected and maintained by men, for the benefit of men… that barrier is protecting his classification and status as a male, as superior, as having a right to sexual access to a female or females. It protects a kind of citizenship which is superior to that of females of his class and race, his access to a wider range of better paying and higher status work, and his right to prefer unemployment to the degradation of doing lower status or “women’s” work (Frye, “Oppression,” p. 378).”
The cage of oppression still holds strong within our society. The little steps women and all oppressed groups have taken to overcome pieces of oppression that construct the cage certainly help living conditions, but equality cannot yet be claimed to have been achieved until the cage is no more. In order to take it apart, however, the majority of society—or at least the ones wielding the power to create massive social change—must first see oppression for what it is, notice where it comes from, have the desire to dismantle it, and sway the rest of society to adopt the anti-cage way of thinking. Most people, unfortunately, do not see the cage, even including those trapped inside of it. This issue is exactly the reason that feminist writers such as Marilyn Frye and Elizabeth Cady Stanton should have their works read and studied by many—to raise awareness of social conditions that many do not recognize the existence of, but that so very many feel the effects of. Only then will all have a chance to be truly equal.
Q: Marilyn Frye, in her article on Oppression, argues that women are oppressed in our society, living in a kind of cage constructed of societal rules and norms. Explain what Marilyn Frye means by oppression. Elizabeth Cady Stanton sets forth a Declaration of the Rights of Women that declares the independence of women from societal norms of the mid-1800’s. What societal norms are women still caged by? Does Frye’s concept of oppression apply to people of color, to gays, and to men? If so, how? If not, why not?
A: The various women’s movements in recent history have yielded many successes, such as bringing about women’s right to vote, women’s right to own property, women’s ability to enter the workforce on greater and more varied levels, women’s right to choose, as well as many other relatively new gains in rights and opportunities. Despite these steps toward women’s equality, women still experience a “less-than” gender status in a society which was created by men and which favors men. The only way to truly break through the barriers imposed by society is to acknowledge and do away with the oppression that creates these barriers to begin with.
According to Marilyn Frye in her essay “Oppression”, the word “oppress” is rooted in the word “press.” The point of “pressing” is to “mold things or flatten them or reduce them in bulk, sometimes to reduce them (Frye, “Oppression”, p. 373)”. This definition can also be used, in a less literal sense, to describe oppression of human beings—oppression restrains, immobilizes, reduces, and molds people according to society’s idea of what human beings should act like, look like, do, and be. Oppressed groups, like pressed objects, are “caught between or among forces and barriers which are so related to each other that jointly they restrain, restrict or prevent… motion or mobility (Frye, “Oppression”, p. 373).” As an oppressed group, women are given few options to choose from, and all options “expose one to penalty, censure or deprivation… one can only choose to risk one’s preferred form of annihilation (Frye, “Oppression”, p. 373).”
The cage metaphor that Frye uses to describe the effects and the perception of oppression is very effective in that it points out that oppression is not a one-issue problem, but an entire construct that works together as a whole, using many different avenues, to keep women from breaking out of the roles society has woven for them. Those who cannot see oppression as the multi-faceted issue it is resemble (in thought) those who stand too close to the cage and can only perceive one wire, leaving them to believe that it would be simple enough for a bird to fly around it. Both groups need only to step back a bit and view the bigger picture to realize that the single issue or single wire they were focusing on is only one of many, and that the parts interweave to create a system of barriers which work together so as not to allow escape (Frye, “Oppression”, p. 374).
During Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s time, during the mid- to late-1800’s, the cage of oppression certainly was rife with a greater number of wires than there exist today. A century and a half ago, women did not have the right to vote, the right to property after marriage, the right to choose employment (a great deal more restrictive than the current situation, at least), the right to most higher education, the right to minister, and the list goes on (Stanton, “Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions”, pp. 369, 370). Though the norms of society may have been quite a bit more restrictive in 1848, they certainly did not disappear as specific rights were gradually granted to women. For instance, women are still limited in job opportunities, in that the “service sector of the wives/mommas/assistants/girls is almost exclusively a woman-only sector; its boundaries not only enclose women but to a very great extent keep men out (Frye, “Oppression”, p. 378). The expectation for women to occupy “service” positions, however, is not limited to the workplace—women are expected and pressured to fill roles of service in all avenues of their lives, specifically roles involving the service of men. These avenues include, but are not limited to,
…personal service (the work of maids, butlers, cooks, personal secretaries), sexual service (including provision for his genital sexual needs and bearing his children, but also including “being nice,” being attractive for him,” etc.), and ego service (encouragement, support, praise, attention). (Frye, “Oppression”, p. 376)
Oppression can also take the forms of other societal expectations of women, often expectations which are contradictory and place women in catch-22 situations where no matter which choice they make, the reactions from some sectors of society will be negative. These situations include those of working outside the home or not, choosing to have children or not, being on welfare or not, having sex or not, marrying or not, and being heterosexual or not, among other things (Frye, “Oppression”, p. 374). Whichever choice a woman makes lifestyle-wise, she will be labeled negatively by some, and the labels will likely be based upon the conflicting expectations of women that oppression has ingrained into the fabric of society. The roles of “women, wives and mothers” (and I would also include “daughters” in this grouping) do not always compliment each other, as each comes with its own set of expectations, but each must exist together if these roles are to be taken on—once a wife becomes a mother, for example, she can’t do away with the expectations that come with being a wife in order to more thoroughly fulfill the expectations of being a mother, and if she does, she is looked down upon (Frye, “Oppression”, p. 374).
Women are not the only members of oppressed groups, however. People of color are also specifically mentioned in Fry’s “Oppression” essay as another group that is systematically oppressed within our society. They are another example of a group that is treated a certain way and burdened with certain expectations and roles for reasons based solely on the fact that they are members of a certain group and not because of their individual qualities. Frye states that “the ‘inhabitant’ of the ‘cage’ is not an individual but a group, all those of a certain category (Frye, “Oppression,” p. 376).” Whites, who dominate Western society, have created barriers in an obvious physical sense as well as in less tangible ways, an example of this being the creation of ghettos. People of color often times cannot get through the barriers that separate ghettos from white neighborhoods, barriers in the forms of wealth, jobs, and even the less specific barrier of prejudice and racist treatment, which would surely be faced outside the confines of the ghettos (Frye, “Oppression,” p. 378). There is a less extensive, less-specific reference to lesbians in “Oppression” when Frye discusses the labeling of women who do not engage in sexual activity with men. She refers to it as a negative label for women, which implies that non-heterosexuals are also an oppressed group, since labeling a person as a homosexual is meant to be degrading (Frye, “Oppression,” p. 374).
Men, specifically straight white men, are not included in the list of oppressed groups. It is white men who control society and the system of oppression it nurtures. Men are the oppressors—they have all of the power, and they are responsible for creating the systems that keep themselves in power. They therefore allow themselves to continue to wield power over women, over non-heterosexuals, and over people of color. It is to their advantage, after all. For example, in reference to complaints of “restriction” men sometimes voice regarding their inability to find jobs in the women-dominated service industries, Frye states
“that barrier is erected and maintained by men, for the benefit of men… that barrier is protecting his classification and status as a male, as superior, as having a right to sexual access to a female or females. It protects a kind of citizenship which is superior to that of females of his class and race, his access to a wider range of better paying and higher status work, and his right to prefer unemployment to the degradation of doing lower status or “women’s” work (Frye, “Oppression,” p. 378).”
The cage of oppression still holds strong within our society. The little steps women and all oppressed groups have taken to overcome pieces of oppression that construct the cage certainly help living conditions, but equality cannot yet be claimed to have been achieved until the cage is no more. In order to take it apart, however, the majority of society—or at least the ones wielding the power to create massive social change—must first see oppression for what it is, notice where it comes from, have the desire to dismantle it, and sway the rest of society to adopt the anti-cage way of thinking. Most people, unfortunately, do not see the cage, even including those trapped inside of it. This issue is exactly the reason that feminist writers such as Marilyn Frye and Elizabeth Cady Stanton should have their works read and studied by many—to raise awareness of social conditions that many do not recognize the existence of, but that so very many feel the effects of. Only then will all have a chance to be truly equal.
Democratic Socialism + Evolutionary Socialism = Good Ideas for an Ideal World
A paper on comparing different political theorists' ideas on Socialism, written for a very interesting class on Political Ideologies...
Q: In what ways does the evolutionary socialism of Edward Bernstein and the democratic socialism of Michael Walzer modify Marx and Engel’s material dialectic? In what ways does it change the nature of the agenda to be followed by the socialist movement? Which vision do you find more accurate? Explain your position.
A: Edward Bernstein and Michael Walzer take the socialist ideas of Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels and meld them with less radical modern political ideas, with the results being ideas that are much more easily swallowed by the more moderate-minded person. They each show evidence of having weeded through the works of these early socialist writers in order to pluck out what they see to be the essential truths of socialism and to discard many of the ideas they see as being the results of biased reasoning. In the process, Bernstein and Walzer re-define what they believe to be a more realistic and effective movement toward the universal incorporation of the core ideas of socialism that they find to be true and to be truly capable of realization.
According to Marx, much of what happens in human society is dictated by the material world—history has been shaped by a “history of class struggles” between the oppressor and the oppressed, the haves and the have-nots (Marx & Engels, The Communist Manifesto, p. 209). In The Communist Manifesto, it is assured that the consolidation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands will continue to be the trend as bourgeoisie capitalism continues, and that the system will eventually completely collapse, whereupon socialism may blossom. Neither Bernstein nor Walzer indicate that this linear view of the consolidation of wealth is accurate, nor that collapse of all capitalistic social and governmental systems is crucial in order for socialist ideas to be realized. Instead, they advocate the socialistic idea of “the extension of democratic decision making from the political to the economic realm (Walzer, Town Meetings and Workers’ Control, p. 55)” using non-revolutionary means as the basis for most of what they write.
Bernstein argues in Evolutionary Socialism that the material dialectic Marx uses to predict the economic and social conditions of the future (leading toward the rise of socialism) does not fully translate into reality. For one, “the number of wealthy people for many years had increased, not decreased” at the time this piece was written (Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism, p. 228), which is contrary to the idea that wealth will consolidate into fewer and fewer hands over time. This contradiction to the Marxist theory is just one point used to exemplify the major flaw Bernstein sees in Marx’s dialect—stagnancy regardless of changing times. He compares Marx’s dialect to architecture, in that Marx brought his own scientific insight into previously existing scaffolding, and “kept strictly to the laws of scientific architecture as long as they did not collide with the conditions which the construction of the scaffolding prescribed, but he neglected or evaded them when the scaffolding did not allow of their observance (Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism, p. 228).” Bernstein argues that the movement toward a more socialistic state is, in reality, more organic—that newly emerging facts and experiences should not be disregarded as they are under the rigid “scaffolds” of the material dialect, but instead be paid attention to, even if it means parts of the original scaffolding must be re-built in ways that fit the changes in current reality.
Like Bernstein, Walzer adapts certain socialist ideas and expands on them rather than pushing the ideology in its entirety. He sees much similarity between the “central commitment of socialist politics” and the democratic ideal, which is “the abolition of the power of man over man” (Walzer, Town Meetings and Social Control, p. 54). Unlike the Marxist school of thought regarding the material dialect, Walzer does not seem to view the current state of society to contain such a marked antagonism between the upper and lower classes on all fronts. He sees democracy as a positive and successful force in government, for instance. He instead focuses on what he sees as being the biggest ongoing power-struggle for the workers of the world: the private business realm. The phrase most fitting of his views regarding sharing of power, “what touches all should be decided by all (Walzer, Town Meetings and Workers’ Control, p. 55)”, extends only to the political realm and, he says, should extend also to the economic realm. In order to do this, he states that at a certain point of development, when private business’ actions start to directly affect others, these businesses must be allowed to be publicly controlled (Walzer, Town Meetings and Workers’ Control, p. 61). Unlike Marx, it is not argued that the only way we can assure the abolishment of man having power over man is to do away with private property altogether—instead, he sees the main culprit as being large private businesses, which have authoritative control over many aspects of many peoples’ lives.
These alternative views on incorporating parts of socialism into the political and social landscape would significantly alter the nature of the movement and the end result of the movement. In my opinion, the main change would be the need for an all-out revolution would no longer be seen as the only viable option for the emergence of socialist values. If “company democracy” gave workers equal power in the workplace as opposed to the more watered-down power given through “union democracy” (Walzer, Town Meetings and Workers’ Control, p. 60), feelings of dissatisfaction and antagonism would dissipate immensely. And if legislation were passed to make it so that the “rights of the propertied minority have ceased to be a serious obstacle to social progress”, then “the appeal to a revolution by force becomes a meaningless phrase (Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism, p. 229).”
Under Walzer’s democratic socialism, the socialist goal to do away with private property would no longer refer to all private property (as I mentioned in ¶ 4), but only to private property in the realm of private businesses that employ and wield control over their employees under the current un-democratic economic realm of society. Similarly, under Bernstein’s evolutionary socialism, legislative reform in favor of the worker would not only prevent the eruption of the revolution called for by revolutionary/scientific socialism, but would also encourage the distribution of wealth into more and more hands—this would do away with the encouragement of wealth consolidation, which Marxist socialism requires to happen for the eventual success of socialism, and in its stead would promote the spreading of social wealth (Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism, p. 228).
Between the views of Marx (and Engels) and the modified socialism views of Bernstein and Walzer, I feel that the more modified views would be much more readily accepted as viable alternatives for the current state of society, economics, and politics by the great majority of the population than would the views of Marx and Engels. The “abolition of private property”, as is advocated by Marx and Engels (Marx, The Communist Manifesto, p. 216), would be a major point of contention alone. However, if this view were tempered down to the advocation of the “abolition of private business (when it affects other people)” would seem like more of an extension of democracy than a destructive, revolutionary idea. After all, there are already attempts made by certain parties involved in democratic government to restrain the control wielded by big businesses. It would also seem to be merely an extension of democracy for there to be a movement in legislation towards compromising between the proletarian majority and the bourgeoisie minority, which Bernstein advocates (Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism, p. 229). Because neither of these visions are extreme enough to insinuate complete system collapse, people wouldn’t be as frightened of accepting the change.
If I could only choose either the vision of Walzer or that of Bernstein, I would choose Walzer’s. I agree with his views on the need for the extension of democracy in the economic realms, and I agree that it would address many of the problems with inequality and lack of control that affect people today. I also agree with Bernstein on many points, but I find his belief that wealth is actually dispersing to more hands under capitalism to be inaccurate when applied to the modern age. Evidence almost universally points to the opposite, in fact, as our society sees its middle class shrink and lower class balloon in size. Bernstein also glorifies the effectiveness of unions in vastly improving the lives of workers, whereas today the government increasingly attacks and diminishes the power of unions to affect change of any sort. Because of these discrepancies between the reality that inspired the views of Bernstein and the realities of today, I cannot consider his views to be accurate. I do, however, agree with his insistence upon the need for changing the nature of the movement to match the changing of the times—the fact that the reality of today and of the days of Bernstein are so different regarding the condition of the workforce is proof enough that there must be room left for the changing of ideas.
It remains to be seen as to whether the government and economic structures of today will crack as the class rift widens, as Marx and Engels predicted, or whether enough change can occur through democratic or evolutionary socialism to prevent complete collapse. Either way, there is truth in all presented arguments in that something needs to be done to abolish the “power of man over man” in order to finally give back the power that the workers of the world have been denied of for so long.
Q: In what ways does the evolutionary socialism of Edward Bernstein and the democratic socialism of Michael Walzer modify Marx and Engel’s material dialectic? In what ways does it change the nature of the agenda to be followed by the socialist movement? Which vision do you find more accurate? Explain your position.
A: Edward Bernstein and Michael Walzer take the socialist ideas of Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels and meld them with less radical modern political ideas, with the results being ideas that are much more easily swallowed by the more moderate-minded person. They each show evidence of having weeded through the works of these early socialist writers in order to pluck out what they see to be the essential truths of socialism and to discard many of the ideas they see as being the results of biased reasoning. In the process, Bernstein and Walzer re-define what they believe to be a more realistic and effective movement toward the universal incorporation of the core ideas of socialism that they find to be true and to be truly capable of realization.
According to Marx, much of what happens in human society is dictated by the material world—history has been shaped by a “history of class struggles” between the oppressor and the oppressed, the haves and the have-nots (Marx & Engels, The Communist Manifesto, p. 209). In The Communist Manifesto, it is assured that the consolidation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands will continue to be the trend as bourgeoisie capitalism continues, and that the system will eventually completely collapse, whereupon socialism may blossom. Neither Bernstein nor Walzer indicate that this linear view of the consolidation of wealth is accurate, nor that collapse of all capitalistic social and governmental systems is crucial in order for socialist ideas to be realized. Instead, they advocate the socialistic idea of “the extension of democratic decision making from the political to the economic realm (Walzer, Town Meetings and Workers’ Control, p. 55)” using non-revolutionary means as the basis for most of what they write.
Bernstein argues in Evolutionary Socialism that the material dialectic Marx uses to predict the economic and social conditions of the future (leading toward the rise of socialism) does not fully translate into reality. For one, “the number of wealthy people for many years had increased, not decreased” at the time this piece was written (Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism, p. 228), which is contrary to the idea that wealth will consolidate into fewer and fewer hands over time. This contradiction to the Marxist theory is just one point used to exemplify the major flaw Bernstein sees in Marx’s dialect—stagnancy regardless of changing times. He compares Marx’s dialect to architecture, in that Marx brought his own scientific insight into previously existing scaffolding, and “kept strictly to the laws of scientific architecture as long as they did not collide with the conditions which the construction of the scaffolding prescribed, but he neglected or evaded them when the scaffolding did not allow of their observance (Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism, p. 228).” Bernstein argues that the movement toward a more socialistic state is, in reality, more organic—that newly emerging facts and experiences should not be disregarded as they are under the rigid “scaffolds” of the material dialect, but instead be paid attention to, even if it means parts of the original scaffolding must be re-built in ways that fit the changes in current reality.
Like Bernstein, Walzer adapts certain socialist ideas and expands on them rather than pushing the ideology in its entirety. He sees much similarity between the “central commitment of socialist politics” and the democratic ideal, which is “the abolition of the power of man over man” (Walzer, Town Meetings and Social Control, p. 54). Unlike the Marxist school of thought regarding the material dialect, Walzer does not seem to view the current state of society to contain such a marked antagonism between the upper and lower classes on all fronts. He sees democracy as a positive and successful force in government, for instance. He instead focuses on what he sees as being the biggest ongoing power-struggle for the workers of the world: the private business realm. The phrase most fitting of his views regarding sharing of power, “what touches all should be decided by all (Walzer, Town Meetings and Workers’ Control, p. 55)”, extends only to the political realm and, he says, should extend also to the economic realm. In order to do this, he states that at a certain point of development, when private business’ actions start to directly affect others, these businesses must be allowed to be publicly controlled (Walzer, Town Meetings and Workers’ Control, p. 61). Unlike Marx, it is not argued that the only way we can assure the abolishment of man having power over man is to do away with private property altogether—instead, he sees the main culprit as being large private businesses, which have authoritative control over many aspects of many peoples’ lives.
These alternative views on incorporating parts of socialism into the political and social landscape would significantly alter the nature of the movement and the end result of the movement. In my opinion, the main change would be the need for an all-out revolution would no longer be seen as the only viable option for the emergence of socialist values. If “company democracy” gave workers equal power in the workplace as opposed to the more watered-down power given through “union democracy” (Walzer, Town Meetings and Workers’ Control, p. 60), feelings of dissatisfaction and antagonism would dissipate immensely. And if legislation were passed to make it so that the “rights of the propertied minority have ceased to be a serious obstacle to social progress”, then “the appeal to a revolution by force becomes a meaningless phrase (Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism, p. 229).”
Under Walzer’s democratic socialism, the socialist goal to do away with private property would no longer refer to all private property (as I mentioned in ¶ 4), but only to private property in the realm of private businesses that employ and wield control over their employees under the current un-democratic economic realm of society. Similarly, under Bernstein’s evolutionary socialism, legislative reform in favor of the worker would not only prevent the eruption of the revolution called for by revolutionary/scientific socialism, but would also encourage the distribution of wealth into more and more hands—this would do away with the encouragement of wealth consolidation, which Marxist socialism requires to happen for the eventual success of socialism, and in its stead would promote the spreading of social wealth (Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism, p. 228).
Between the views of Marx (and Engels) and the modified socialism views of Bernstein and Walzer, I feel that the more modified views would be much more readily accepted as viable alternatives for the current state of society, economics, and politics by the great majority of the population than would the views of Marx and Engels. The “abolition of private property”, as is advocated by Marx and Engels (Marx, The Communist Manifesto, p. 216), would be a major point of contention alone. However, if this view were tempered down to the advocation of the “abolition of private business (when it affects other people)” would seem like more of an extension of democracy than a destructive, revolutionary idea. After all, there are already attempts made by certain parties involved in democratic government to restrain the control wielded by big businesses. It would also seem to be merely an extension of democracy for there to be a movement in legislation towards compromising between the proletarian majority and the bourgeoisie minority, which Bernstein advocates (Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism, p. 229). Because neither of these visions are extreme enough to insinuate complete system collapse, people wouldn’t be as frightened of accepting the change.
If I could only choose either the vision of Walzer or that of Bernstein, I would choose Walzer’s. I agree with his views on the need for the extension of democracy in the economic realms, and I agree that it would address many of the problems with inequality and lack of control that affect people today. I also agree with Bernstein on many points, but I find his belief that wealth is actually dispersing to more hands under capitalism to be inaccurate when applied to the modern age. Evidence almost universally points to the opposite, in fact, as our society sees its middle class shrink and lower class balloon in size. Bernstein also glorifies the effectiveness of unions in vastly improving the lives of workers, whereas today the government increasingly attacks and diminishes the power of unions to affect change of any sort. Because of these discrepancies between the reality that inspired the views of Bernstein and the realities of today, I cannot consider his views to be accurate. I do, however, agree with his insistence upon the need for changing the nature of the movement to match the changing of the times—the fact that the reality of today and of the days of Bernstein are so different regarding the condition of the workforce is proof enough that there must be room left for the changing of ideas.
It remains to be seen as to whether the government and economic structures of today will crack as the class rift widens, as Marx and Engels predicted, or whether enough change can occur through democratic or evolutionary socialism to prevent complete collapse. Either way, there is truth in all presented arguments in that something needs to be done to abolish the “power of man over man” in order to finally give back the power that the workers of the world have been denied of for so long.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
