I Have A Daughter

One of my Facebook friends recently posted an image that read: “What if I don’t have daughters and therefore no way of knowing that women are people? Good news, all women are people all the time, not just when assholes have daughters.”

On HuffPost, one writer criticized “a couple of celebrity men [who] put out statements or gave interviews about [Harvey Weinstein’s repeated assaults on women]…emphasizing that as fathers of daughters, they found this behavior abhorrent.”

My Facebook friend and this writer are pissed off because “men see each other as humans. And a lot of men still don’t view girls or women that way.” The “I have a daughter” trope confirms this reality because it stands as “the flip side [to] sexual assault. In both situations, a woman is an object — to grope or protect from groping.”

I get their anger. But I don’t think they’re giving the “transformative” power of having daughters enough credit (even though the HuffPo writer links to that article in her post). I don’t know if they’re fully grasping what that transformation consists of.

The goal of every feminist is to reduce the level of ignorance, to bring those who are not yet capable of it to the realization that women are people too. I’m not sure we have the right to judge the ways in which an individual is brought out of that ignorance. To do so is to put the method ahead of the result.

The HuffPo writer makes an assumption that the men who make these comments do so to protect their daughters from being groped, and in some ways, I know that they do, but couldn’t they also be making these statements because they’ve grown as human beings? Not because they want to protect their daughters, but because they want to defend the rights of everyone to live their lives free from harassment and oppression?

It is a process to bring someone out of their ignorance, and it takes generations to do it on such a massive scale, but with each parent, teacher, and celebrity brought out of their ignorance, humanity gains one more person capable of providing those who are most easily influenced with earlier and earlier opportunities to be brought out of the systemic ignorance.

I appreciate the desire to critique the “I have a daughter” trope, but it seems as if it’s being done with too much judgement, almost as if we’re screaming at someone for not getting it earlier, when maybe we ought to appreciate that, given the society they continue to live in, they ever got it at all.

People only know what other people can teach them. Let’s not forget that children are often our greatest teachers.

A Communist Sympathizer

I mentioned a few weeks ago that I’m currently teaching a class on Communism & Socialism. That crazy left-wing teacher that the Republican right seems so afraid of? Yeah, that’s me. I literally spend my days teaching high-school-age students about the ins and outs of communism (as best as I understand them).

But I’m not sure if I’m a communist. I definitely have communist sympathies, which is to say, I try to sympathize with those who are oppressed, and through my daily teaching, strive to prevent the next several generations from being as oppressive as the previous ones.

I don’t do this to make money. It’s true, I make money doing it, but like most Americans, I struggle to make the money I need to keep my creditors at bay (among whom are my employers: everyday, I owe them my lunch money, and even that debt is creeping up).

This is why I am not a capitalist: I don’t have enough money to be. In order to be a capitalist, one must spend money in order to make money. In other words, your goal must be to make money.

It’s true that money is only a method of exchange, so if one wants to engage in a specific kind of exchange with another person, one must somehow acquire money. But I’m not talking about that. What a capitalist does is engage in an exchange where the goal of the exchange is for the capitalist to end up with more money — not more goods, not more services, but more money.

The economic purpose of the capitalist, then, is to make money; unfortunately, in an economy based entirely on debt, money is always in demand. Where the economic purpose of a clockmaker is to make just as many clocks as the market demands, when it comes to money, the market only demands.

Think of the economic crisis of 2008. When all that money disappeared, where did it go? It’s not like it existed in the real world (money no longer equals gold, remember); it literally must have went poof! and disappeared, like an icon you delete off your laptop. When virtually all the capitalists say they lost their money, they were not being metaphorical: they lost it — they literally could no longer find it; their wealth on the screen kept going down, and there was nothing they could do to stop it.

So what did they do? They convinced our government to give them money for free. The government reduced the interest rate on money to zero, and let anyone who understood how to ask for it, receive it. I’m not talking about the loans Pres. Obama executed to the motor industry; roughly 90% of the money loaned out through that program has been paid back.

I’m talking about the banks who “bought money” from the government when it was being offered at zero cost, but who then turned around to the rest of the economy and sold it at significant interest and with a robberbarons’ wealth of fees attached; and when they didn’t do that, they hoarded it to themselves. As Matt Taibbi explained for Rolling Stone:

“Banks used their hundreds of billions for almost every purpose under the sun – everything, that is, but lending to the homeowners and small businesses and cities they had destroyed. And one of the most disgusting uses they found for all their billions in free government money was to help them earn even more free government money [through interest on their reserves].”

In other words, during the economic crisis of 2008, the government of the people, for the people, and by the people voluntarily, through their elected representatives, chose to power our entire economy through an increase in the weight of our debt to the banks.

Debt is a struggle, a weight on our backs. We all of us crawl hunched over, moving from experience to experience with the weight of all our bad decisions as a country on our back, our economic dependence on slavery being foremost among them, but also our continued decision to channel the majority of our energy into an aggressively postured and aggressively acting military, itself the equivalent of a scared and angry child stealing the oxygen out of a seemingly held-hostage classroom, crying out for all the world to “Look at me! Look at me! Look at me!”

We see it everywhere: the economic cost of our “independence.” We see it in the size of our student loan debt. We see it in the size of our credit card debt. We see it in our past due notices and in our healthcare debt. We see it in the increase in our incarceration rates.

Someone has to carry all of our debt. It started with slavery. While it’s true you had to be rich to own a slave, everyone who wanted to get rich had to, sooner or later, become dependent on a slave. The economic engine that drove everything was and still is slavery, oppression, and exploitation.

It’s just now, we slave for something called wages. As David Graeber explains:

“Throughout most of recorded history, the only people who actually did wage labor were slaves. It was a way of renting your slave to someone else; they got half the money, and the rest of the money went to the master. Even in the South, a lot of slaves actually worked in jobs and they just had to pay the profits to the guy who owned them. It’s only now that we think of wage labor and slavery as opposite to one another. For a lot of history, they were considered kind of variations of the same thing.”

The wages we earn today don’t release us from our debts to our masters. If we work hard enough on whatever it is they tell us to work on, we might be able to postpone our deaths for at least another week, and maybe even a few months if we’re lucky. But it’s still the same thing as slavery. We work for our masters in order to, literally, survive.

When I say “the masters,” I’m not talking about the small business owners. Those motherfuckers work as hard or harder than everyone else, and they earn every penny. Most of them carry even more debt than the rest of us, but they’re able to carry it in a different way — small business owners are not only hard workers, but they’re pretty damn good at managing a balancing act.

No, when I say “the masters,” what I’m talking about are the financial investors. The capitalists. The ones to whom the small business owners are also indebted.

This group is the bourgeoisie that the communists keep talking about, the ones who literally have no economic masters above them. These are the fuckers who make the rest of us carry them around on our backs so that their goddamned golden feet don’t have to touch the dirty, dirty ground. They are a class of human beings who just seem to be getting bigger and bigger and bigger, and who just keep stuffing themselves with more and more food, and more and more oxygen, and more and more clean water, and more, and more, and more, until finally, the weight of them is so goddamned heavy that the rest of us have no choice but to have our knees buckle with each and every step we struggle to take, knowing that at any moment, and through no real fault of our own, it could all come crashing down on us — the entire system just too fucking big for anyone living under it to survive.

That’s what the communists are talking about. They’re trying to get everyone to realize that all of that weight — all of it, the entire weight of our history — has found its apotheosis in the capitalist.

Apotheosis literally means the turning into of a god, as in, the process of deification, the making of a deity.

The communists are trying to show us that all of human history — all of the wealth that has ever been created from the time before we were cave men until now — has been created through an act of oppression; our history begins — and it will end — on the question of oppression: who oppresses who, how long will the oppressed be able to take it, and what will be the manner of its revolution (how and when will all of those oppressed people turn the tables on their oppressors).

The communists imagine that there must be a better way to survive. They mean this on both an individual and an international level.

There must be a better way to survive the daily struggles of human experience, a way where the struggle at least seems more worthwhile, a way where all of us can be as creative as we’re able without worrying about whether we can put food on our plates or roofs over our heads.

And goodness knows that there has to be a better way to survive internationally than simply waving our nuclear-missile dicks in everyone’s faces, telling them that if they don’t contribute to an International Monetary Fund that only our best friends have access to, then there’s a damn good chance we’re gonna shove our bullets and bombs down their throats.

From what I’ve been able to gather in my limited readings, Marx wasn’t a communist in the sense that he gave us a clear vision of what communism would look like; he was a communist in the sense that he wanted something better for humanity than what he had found.

He saw the system for what it actually was (and what it continues to be). He didn’t blame anything on God. He looked at what humanity had wrought over its time on Earth, and he judged it not worthy of us. He saw in us something better, something grander, something worth more than the relentless pursuit of money, driven by a minority of masters riding on the backs of a majority of slaves, every clean dollar acquired at the top spit out brown and nasty from below, leaving in our wake a cesspool of dirty money.

When humanity is gone, Marx asked us, what will we have left behind? What will be materially different thanks to us?

Where capitalists have made an idol of money, communists make humanity their golden god. They don’t want humanity’s story to be dictated by the production of money; they want it to be dictated by the goal of improving humanity, both in a material and in a moral sense.

Communists look at the problems facing the Earth right now and acknowledge that humanity is overcrowding the rest of the Earth’s population, and they see in that a form of oppression: humanity’s oppression of the rest of Earth’s creatures. This is what leads them to the legalization of birth control, and eventually, to strict regulations on the possible number of births. This is not radical; it’s the basic reality of whatever future humanity wishes to exist in. The only question is, what is the acceptable limit? Unfortunately, if we go over a certain point, the Earth will no longer negotiate with us, and it will rain down a hellfire the likes of which we can only read about in our Bibles.

But regulating the number of births does not mean abolishing them altogether. It means respecting life in all its forms, and only wishing for it to continue (the question as to where life begins, of course, being among the most tricky of the ones still facing us).

This is not harsh ideology. It’s basic math. We can quibble over the methods we use to get from the problem to the solution, but the solution will always remain the same: we have to control the rate of our births. The Earth is a finite resource, measured in soil, water, and oxygen, so we have to limit the number of people putting pressure on that resource.

Okay, the communists say, so we reduce and/or abolish the ways in which we oppress the other creatures on planet Earth. Then what?

The answer is to reduce the incarceration rate. Those who finds themselves inside of a prison are often there through no real fault of their own. Something within the existing system failed them. Because they do not actually belong in  a prison, we ought to re-imagine the system that placed them there.

I’m not talking about jails right now. While we absolutely have to reduce the incarceration rates of our people — jails are the toilet bowls of our current economic system, filled with dark bodies that just spin around and around and around until they finally disappear — I’m not talking about that right now.

What I’m talking about is an entire system that depends on the oppression of a majority by the strength and weight of an ever-increasing and ever-more oppressive minority, where the majority is made up of those of us struggle to survive on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis, and the minority are the rich men who just won’t ever seem to go away and who are constantly poking at us through the tiny little holes we leave open in our front doors, and who are calling us up at all times of the day and night to harrass us, and who sing to us on the stage of our living rooms about the lives we could be leading if we were only someone else, somewhere else, with someone else, a dream they’re willing to sell us a simulacrum of for the low, low price of a never-ending series of easy monthly installments, a simulacrum that can only be created through a series of exchanges that ultimately end in someone else’s oppression (e.g.), someone other than, but no different from, you.

How do you reduce the incarceration rates? It’s simple. You provide adequate education and healthcare, and you treat every social ill as a disease that can only be cured with better education and better healthcare. You ensure healthcare includes concepts for both birth control and mental health, and you ensure that educators act as an early warning defense system, giving them the training they actually need to do their jobs well and the microphone to sound the alarm whenever it seems an individual’s humanity is at risk. You create a nimble and effective task force that is both large enough and supported enough to address each individual case as it arises, and you address it with wraparound measures that work to support the individual at home, in school, and eventually into whatever style of meanginful life they are capable of both creating and enjoying on their own. You look at abuse as a systemic issue and not as a moral one. You stop it when it happens, and you offer to help everyone involved, including the abuser, who (after all) is almost always a victim of abuse, the prevelance of which is symptomatic of the system, which is itself based entirely on the ever-present and ever-growing weight of the rich men’s continuous abuse of the rest of us.

If the vast majority of incarcerated individuals are victims of a systematic abuse that stretches back in their family tree for generations and generations, where every person’s father and/or mother and/or guardian was not only an abuser but also the victim of abuse, an individual who received from a very young age the historic blows of whatever representative of humanity happened to be in charge of them and who had pounded into them from the start a low sense of human worth, often by a family member but always, at the end of the chain, by their economic master — if such a vast majority of those people end up incarcerated in the prison of their own sociopathic ignorance, then wouldn’t it make sense to invest our energy in eradicating the channels through which abuse continues to be generated, the ultimate source of which can be traced back to the minority’s oppressive need for the majority to live in debt, usury being the world’s most lucrative form of abuse?

I don’t know if I am communist, but it seems to me that Marx’s interpretation of all the ills of society finding their ultimate origin in humanity’s economic dependence on slavery and oppression is correct. It’s the origin of our healthcare crisis, our education crisis, the crises within our families, and the crises that effect us on an international level.

The entire system requires us to live our lives with our backs broken by the weight of humanity’s debts, but until we recognize that those debts are held not by a God or by ancestor, but by a living and active class of capitalists whose desire to rape and pillage the Earth and all of its inhabitants seems to know no bounds, until we recognize that they are the actual, material cause of all of our troubles, then we will never be able to find the solution.

Take A Knee

When I played football as a young lad, anytime our coaches wanted to have a serious talk with us, they would say, “Take a knee.” If we leaned too far back on our ankles or if we sat down on our butts, they’d give us a look to let us know we needed to straighten our backs and give them our full, respectful attention.

Today, I’d like to ask you to take a knee.

As pretty much everybody knows by now, there’s quite the controversy going on around the decision of dozens of professional athletes to take a knee during the playing of the national anthem. They are following the lead of Colin Kaepernick, a former quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, who explained in a statement to the NFL that he “would not stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”

He made the decision in August 2016 and followed through on his promise throughout the rest of the year. Each week, more and more athletes followed his lead, with the story seeming to come to a head this weekend when President Trump decided to weigh in on the controversy, saying during a political rally that NFL owners whose players disrespect the flag should “get that son of a bitch off the field right now; he’s fired!” Trump followed his statement with a series of tweets attacking the players for “disrespect[ing] our Great American Flag (or Country).”

In response, almost the entire NFL demonstrated their support for Kaepernick and the other kneeling players in a variety of ways. One team stayed in the locker room during the anthem; others locked arms to show their solidarity against Trump’s attacks; and still others kneeled for the first time. Owners from around the league, as well as the Commissioner of the NFL, put out statements supporting the players’ right to demonstrate during the anthem.

But in all of the controversy, several things seem to have been lost.

First, we must note that while Kaepernick began the protest movement by sitting on the bench during the anthem, he and the others who had joined him shifted their demonstration from sitting to kneeling. One of the players, Eric Reid, explained that, “after hours of careful consideration, and even a visit from Nate Boyer, a retired Green Beret and former N.F.L. player, we came to the conclusion that we should kneel, rather than sit…because [kneeling] is a respectful gesture. I remember thinking our posture was like a flag flown at half-mast to mark a tragedy.”

The form of their protest — kneeling during the playing of the national anthem — is meant to convey two things: respect for those who have defended our country and condemnation for a system that oppresses people of color.

Yet, the controversy that has erupted from their demonstration is not about whether America does or does not oppress people of color. Instead, it’s about what some people see as the athletes’ disrespect for the flag.

The critics are not angry because of the players’ disrespect for the cloth, but because they see the demonstrations as disrespect for the values they believe the cloth represents. As one commentator wrote on Facebook, “That flag stands for FREEDOM!” Another wrote on Fox News that the flag is “an eternal reminder of how blessed we are to be Americans.” When Kaepernick and the others take a knee in front of the flag, these commentators and others see the players as disrespecting the very idea of freedom and the very concept of America.

What’s more, they see it as disrespect for the men and women who have fought for the country, the service members who volunteered  to defend  the values they believe the country represents. According to these critics, when the athletes refuse to stand for the anthem, they are disrespecting the memory of those fine men and women.

If all that were true, their anger would be as righteous as they believe it is.

But the fact that the players actively sought out the advice of a veteran before conducting the demonstrations shows how incorrect that interpretation is, as does the fact that thousands of veterans across the country have come out in support of the athletes’ efforts.

The entire demonstration has nothing to do with the flag or the anthem or the veterans, and allowing it to be reframed that way is to allow oneself to be manipulated by those who benefit from dividing the people of this great country.

This is not a “love it or leave it” situation. As the great James Baldwin once wrote, “I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.”

The message of those athletes who are kneeling is that America is “a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”

You can agree or disagree with that assertion. You can discuss it with your family, friends, and colleagues. You can keep an open mind and research it on the Internet. But what you shouldn’t do is allow the media to manipulate you into ignoring it.

It’s not about the flag. It’s not about the knee. It’s only ever been about our need to reflect on the state of our society. The powers that be don’t want you to think about that. Don’t be foolish enough to fall for it.

A Version of a Speech I Need to Give My Students Tomorrow

Okay guys, I’m floundering. I need your help.

About the only thing I know about this class is its frickin’ title: How to Combat Online Bullshit. When I came up with it, I had a whole idea about learning all about fake news — how it’s created, how it spreads, what kind of effects it can have — and then teaching you how to combat it.

The problem is, I don’t know if you care about fake news. I want you to feel a sense of righteous indignation toward it, but at least two of you don’t. I don’t really understand why, because my own righteous indignation is so close to the surface.

I make my living trying to get young people to understand and examine certain truths about the world, not truths that I necessarily have access to, but truths that I have received. One of those truths is that democracy is good; another is that democracy is hard; and another is that an enlightened electorate is the only weapon capable of of defending it. If that weapon gets any weaker, then the great experiment that is America will come to an ignoble end.

You two, the ones who are throwing me for a loop in this class, you two are still two or three years away from joining the electorate. But me and him, we’re already there.

And both of us are telling you that the information you find on the Internet is often completely fake, regardless of how real it may sound. I suspect (I hope) you already believe that, but I’m not entirely sure you understand the ramifications of it.

There’s something else I’m not sure about: I don’t know how much you read, or if you do, what kinds of things you might read.

When I conceived of this class, I made (and continue to make) an awful lot of assumptions about you, and I realize now that one of them is that you care (at least somewhat) about some of the events that are taking place beyond your own lives. That may have been a mistake.

Some basic knowledge of current events is necessary if I’m to rile up that righteous indignation I assumed you would already have. But if you don’t have this basic knowledge — if you don’t at least somewhat depend on the news to guide your understanding of reality — then you have no context from which to draw your anger from; you simply have no idea that we are currently being attack by an onslaught of verifiably intentionally-fake news.

Which means we need to go back to step one.

The purpose of a high-school education is, primarily, to prepare the future citizens of this country to continue the great experiment that we call democracy. Anything you learn above and beyond that in high school is just gravy.

But the key ingredient to democracy is, again, an enlightened electorate. And in order to cultivate that, I need you to become critical of everything you read, hear, and watch — I need you to become critical of media.

Because that’s where the battle is being fought now. It’s where democracy is currently being attacked. This is not hyperbole. This shit is actually going on.

Russia, that great enemy of my childhood, is literally attacking our country, and almost everyone has a reasonable suspicion that Russia may have even compromised the Chief Executive of our government, a possibility that is being diligently investigated by an incredibly powerful — and by all accounts, highly ethical — civil attorney, as well as by some of the more patriotic members of Congress. Reality is now literally a bad 80s movie that has been reboot for the 21st century, where the writers have replaced nuclear bombs with information bombs.

I shit you not.

My question to you is, “What character do you want to play in that movie?” Do you want to be someone shoveling your own shit in the background, or do you want to be someone driving the enemy all the way back to its capitol?

In the 21st century, heroes may not jump out of helicopters; they may work quietly and furiously on a laptop; but the dangers are just as real. The same menacing villain, a former high-ranking officer in the menacing KGB, is directing the same group of menacing bastards to train their sights on America. Behind it all stands a shadowy group of menacing rich bastards, luxuriating in the arrogance of their wealth, while in front of it all, the same innocent victims fall prey.

It’s up to somebody to stop them. Why shouldn’t that someone be you?

If it’s not, that means you’ve opted to become just another victim, and that  means America’s great experiment in democracy has failed.

I’ll say it again. Our democracy is really and truly under attack — not by some shadow terrorist, but by another sovereign nation whose military may not be as evolved as ours, but whose ability to engage in information warfare seems to be operating on a completely different level.

You’re both going to be 18 soon, which means, first, you’ll be eligible to participate in our democracy, and second, that you’ll be eligible to fight for it.

I want to teach you what the fight is actually about, and then teach you to defend yourself and throw a punch. I have the skills to do that.

But first, you have to show me what you know.

Notes on a Bullshit Class

I’m teaching a course this quarter called “How to Combat Online Bullshit.” I have three students in it, at least one of whom is a deep thinker, and all three of whom are genuinely interested in the topic.

In preparation for the class, I’ve found just an ungodly number of resources on the Internet, thanks to Pres. Trump’s somewhat casual relationship with what most people call “truth,” the proliferation of Russian-generated “fake news” during the 2016 Presidential Campaign, and the renewed commitment of most schools to teach students to be critical consumers of both corporate dominated and independently generated media. I read a lot of those resources, bookmarked a bunch more, and started scanning for common threads.

I also read an academic treatise titled On Bullshit, by Harry G. Frankfort, Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton, to provide a more theoretical perspective on the topic. Frankfort argues that “bullshit” differs from “lies” in that lies have some concern for the truth (if only to better integrate with it as a lie), whereas bullshit could not care less about what is true and what is not — it’s only motive is to convey an impression of the bullshitter, to provide the listener with the understanding that regardless of whether the bullshitter is correct, he or she is, at the very least, being sincere, and his or her sincerity is more important than whether he or she is right.

One can’t help but think of Pres. Trump again, whose every public appearance seems designed to convey a sense of authenticity and sincerity but whose every word and action only demonstrates the opposite. He doesn’t care if you fact-check him, because it doesn’t matter if he’s right. What matters is that he believes it, and that his audience believe he wouldn’t lie to them about that.

But my students have more to worry about than bullshit. An entire industry of willful miscommunication exists: headlines, articles, videos, tweets, Instagram photos, fake friend requests…there’s an entire economic niche of bot programmers, media copywriters, religious hucksters, and political malefactors whose financial futures depend on their ability to trick other human beings into believing things that are demonstrably false.

As media consumers, we charge face-first into these well-funded armies of bullshitters and liars each time we turn on the news or scan our feeds for headlines. If the truth is to be victorious, we must fight the bullshit and lies with everything we’ve got, and that doesn’t just mean rage and fervor; it also means with an understanding of how beliefs work, and how opinions can best be changed. It means respecting the dignity of people who have been hornswoggled, and sympathizing with the difficulty of admitting that one’s beliefs and opinions are wrong. It means understanding the modes of logic, and knowing when to include healthy doses of ethos and pathos in your argument. Finally, it means recognizing when the continuation of a discussion does more harm than the ending of it.

We all have responsibilities in this battle for the truth, but the goal for all of us must be the same. It isn’t to establish “our truth” as the dominator of discussions. It’s to re-instill the right of truth in the abstract, to remind people that words and deeds and facts and numbers matter. It’s our duty as critical consumers of information to respect the experiment that can be verified, the mountain that can’t be moved, and the logic that makes an argument valid and clear.

The process of doing so is not always simple. It can be time consuming and frustrating to chase after the truth, and even more frustrating to explain to someone else how they too can find it. But the difficulty does not release us from the duty.

It is a just war that we fight, and fight it we must.

Otherwise, and I don’t say this lightly: all that humanity has gained will be lost.

Communism at the Door

In the fall, I’m teaching a course on Communism & Socialism, so if you’re a regular reader of this blog, be prepared to read some posts on those subjects in the coming months. Plus, you know, the Patriots, God, video games, Heidegger, music, politics, the writing process, and other stuff like that. Anyway…

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels present, in effect, ten measures that the masses will take when effecting the Communist revolution. This post explores those ten measures.

1. Abolition of property and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Marx & Engels are not being coy. The first measure taken by the Communist state will be to abolish private property. It’s important to understand why.

The Communist Manifesto is not a political platform. Reading it is not like reading Hilary Clinton’s policy prescriptions for the United States. It’s more like reading an essay on climate change. It aims not for prescription, but description: this is what is happening; this is why it is happening; and this is what will happen if things keep going the way they are.

The first measure abolishes private property not because someone from the government will knock on your door with a piece of paper and take your house from you, but because an angry horde of unwashed men and women who you’ve long forgotten existed will soon be smashing down your picket fence and taking your house and all of your belongings (which is exactly what happened to the last Czar).

The horde that takes it from you will not have their best interests at heart. They will not send you packing and then settle into a calm and peaceful repose in your living room, where they soon discuss the division of labor when it comes to accomplishing the chores of the house. Instead, they will come and go as they please, taking or pissing on whatever they like, and the property will be owned by no one. In this way, it becomes the property of everyone, piss and all.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

With the abolition of property, the horde of unwashed men and women, and now you too, are going to need someplace to live. The world already has enough structures, so you’re free to make yourself welcome in one of them. But if you want something that feels secure, you’re going to have to pay for it somehow.

There is only one way to pay in a Communist state: with your labor. In Das Kapital, Marx makes clear that whenever we discuss an exchange value, all we can ever be talking about is the value of human labor (see Das Kapital for more). If you want your home to be secure, you have to either make it secure yourself or pay someone else to do it, but if you pay someone else to do it, you are now in debt to them the amount of labor that they have provided to you (see Debt: The First 5,000 Years for a great analysis of how most exchanges between humans in society eventually reduce to debt).

You could enter into an equal exchange where you do something for your security staff that they can’t do for themselves or you can pay them back by contributing your labor to the State. With an equal exchange of labor throughout the economy, your security force will know for sure that their labor will eventually return to them in some recognizable form.

The State, however, only exists to regulate this exchange. If people contribute more labor than they have coming to them, the State controls that excess of labor at a graduated rate to the laborer. The unwashed men and women don’t want anyone working too hard just to earn a wellspring of their labor.

This is not to say that people can’t work hard. But it is to say that people who are able to work hard need less support from their fellow men and women, and as they contribute in greater proportions to the development of society, so should they contribute in greater proportions to the security of that society; after all, who among us would not want to protect the society in which we’ve invested so much of our hard work?

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

The unwashed horde will not give a shit who your father is. Your inheritance is not property owned by your father; it is the carried debt of our extraneous labor. You don’t earn the right to lord over our debt just because you spewed from his seed; our debt to your father dies with him.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

You think you can run? You think you can hide? That’s no problem at all. Take your body wherever it wants. But your property — the embodied form of our extraneous labor — that stays with us.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Again, for Marx, capital reduces to human labor. Credit, then, is a surplus in human labor. If you have ideas for how to use some of that surplus human labor, we the people who contributed it (i.e., the State) want some say in what gets done with it.

Want to use our surplus labor to dump nuclear waste into one of our rivers? Not going to happen.

Want to use it create your own private exchange where others would be able to get capital (i.e., surplus labor) without having to deal with those of us who actually contributed it? Yeah, no.

Want to use it to reduce the costs and improve the exposure and distribution of regional artisanal beers? Well, hey now, that’s something we’d be happy to put our backs into.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

The great unwashed come, take your house, and tell you how much you’re worth. They don’t want to kill you (per se) and they don’t want to sell you to some slave trader. You are free to live in the world on your own, completely isolated from everyone else, but the moment you want to enter into any kind of economic relationship with anybody, the moment you want to exchange goods and services with your neighbors, then extraneous labor is worth what extraneous labor is worth, and after the great unwashed got done with you, you now possess no one’s extraneous labor but your own.

That’s the scene. So why the centralization of communication and transport?

Simple, a lone human individual wandering atop the surface of the Earth possesses no extraneous value beyond its body; it can only walk as much as it can walk, and it can only yell as loud as it can yell. The moment the human body attempts to move more efficiently than its physics allow or tries to reach an audience beyond those who can physically see and/or hear it communicate, it enters into a material relationship with its environment, depending on resources provided either by nature or the efforts of another human body (or of a thousand human bodies).

When you ride in a car, you ride on the backs of those individuals who contributed their labor to its existence — the drillers who retrieved the fossil fuels, the shippers who transported it, the miners who dug in the caves, the secretaries who coordinated schedules for such massive projects, the programmers who designed the GPS system, the engineers who rocketed the GPS satellites into space, the scientists who developed the polyester that forms your seatbelt, the factory workers who connected the bolts to the nuts, etc. .

The State (re: the rest of society that you depend on for your existence) wants to make sure that everyone in that process receives a square deal. In addition, it wants to make sure that those with capitalist intentions (i.e., with the intention of hoarding the extraneous value of everyone else’s labor) do not have two powerful weapons with which to dominate the economy: the roads and the communication network.

It is true that the centralization of communication and transportation opens the State to the horrors of propaganda and martial law, just as it would if they were centralized under the Capitalists. No one doubts this. The difference is that the State is not trying to steal society’s extraneous labor and use it for the benefit of individuals in a small and privileged class; the Capitalists, however, aim to do just that. Instead, the State wants to harness the power of that extraneous labor for the benefit of all those who contributed it.

7. Extensions of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands,and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Without private property or a private exchange of human labor, the State comes into abundance and all may apply to receive their due. However, as a State that doesn’t reach utopia as much as conclude the economic slog of human history, the State (in the form of the people whose labor makes a real contribution) must prepare to survive beyond the current moment. It must invest some of its stored labor into improvements in the instruments of production: the factory that needs to stop polluting, the road that needs to be repaired, the river that needs to be dammed, the machine that needs to be invented, the medicine that needs to be researched, the field that needs to be tilled, and yes, the art that needs to be encouraged.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

I have a student who is a dishwasher, and his interest in Communism is the main driver behind why I’m even offering this class in the Fall. I have another student who is a hostess, and she’s the only other student who signed up for it. Both of them are in their late teens, and both of them, in different ways, are some of the most intelligent people I’ve ever met.

But they are a dishwasher and a hostess.

Do you think you’re better than them? Then why is the time you contribute to society worth more what they contribute? After all, we need dishwashers and hostesses more than we need, for example, financial sales agents. According to the latest data available, the U.S economy employed 506,450 dishwashers and 404,360 hostesses to 353,780 financial sales agents. We have more dishwashers and hostesses in our economy because there is more of that kind of labor to be done on behalf of society.

Unfortunately, very few people like to wash dishes. Plenty of people will give you a load of hooey about the meditative nature of the exercise, but most of us would prefer to spend our meditation time resting in a peaceful garden under a fruit-filled tree than we would standing in front of a steam-filled sink with slop on our aprons and gray water in our shoes.

With so few people wanting to wash dishes and so many dishes to be washed, we either need to draft an army (an industrial army) or invest some of our surplus labor into the development of a more efficient way to clean the dishes our society generates each day…and until our investment pays off, we may need to do both.

Luckily, with everyone receiving an equal value for their labor, those who come to the rest of us (i.e., the State) for employment will have plenty of tasks to choose from, with everything ranging from CEO of a mining operation to the lightbulb purchaser for mining helmets to the dishwasher who soaps the pots and pans in the cafeteria where the mining executives eat their lunch.

But just like how the Army doesn’t give you a final say as to where you go and what you do, so it will be when you apply to do a task for the State. As with the Army, individuals are responsible for recognizing the relative worth of each other, and we truly hope that you end up exactly where your talents ought to take you, but we also realize that sometimes a task that needs to be done and all that’s needed to do it is a body (in some forms of agriculture, for instance), and for those menial tasks, your body is no better and no worse than anybody else’s, so when you apply to do a task for the State, you have to realize that you may, in fact, end up with one of those unforgiving tasks, at which point, we trust you’ll soon prove your worth.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

In Marx’s time, there was a vast distinction between town and country. The town had the factories; the country had the food. They entered into a tense economic relationship with one another, with the country producing and selling its raw materials in exchange for commodified goods produced in the factories. The town made the toaster, while the country mined the metal, dammed the river, harvested the wheat, milled the flour, and transported it to the baker.

With all of that investment of human labor in a single piece of toast, it’s a wonder anyone can afford a slice. But if someone was able to, they’d be delivering the entire cost of that slice to the last person in that chain, who, after paying off the guy in line behind him, is left with any extraneous value created by that labor. As the first person in line at the payout and the person most responsible for overseeing the equity of that payout to the rest of the laborers who contributed to the ultimate form of that toast, the retailer is able to pocket most, if not all, of the extraneous value of that labor, keeping the others’ work for himself.

With more and more of the retail markets moving from the country to the town (don’t believe me? try getting good ethnic food out in the country), more and more of the extraneous value of labor makes its way there as well, allowing the people in the town to increase the value of their local community through investments in education, entertainment, transportation, or what have you, the effect of which is to draw more members of the country into the town in the hopes of living an improved lifestyle.

This ultimately drains the country of its labor, which then starves the town of its raw materials, which forces the people of the town to enscript an army to march into the country to till the fields, cut the forests, dam the rivers, and mine the mines, all of which will still go towards the benfit of the town (think District 1 vs. District 12 in The Hunger Games; also think of the army of scared slaves [aka, “undocumented workers”] we now depend on to harvest our fields).

Marx & Engels think the only way to stop the cycle is to distribute the factories out among the agriculture, to reduce the differences between the town and country. The only way to ultimately reduce the differences, however, are to eliminate them entirely. Since the differences between them are ultimately measured in population, Marx & Engels realize that an equable distribution of the population is necessary. No red states and blue states; just a uniformed and united State.

What Marx & Engels perhaps didn’t realize is that are other ways to unify the town and country. If the unfairness begins with the final exchange between the laborers and the purchaser of their extranerous labor, then perhaps all that needs to happen is to move that retail market out into the country: make the sons and daughters of farmers into retailers, give them a market to exchange the extraneous value of their labor with their neighbors, and create outlets and transportation routes to distribute the extraneous value of other people’s labor from one community to another.

This reveals the isidious nature of Amazon’s and Wal-Mart’s relationship to society. They’ve both contributed, by design, to the death of local retail markets. Both Amazon and Wal-Mart aim to become the sole retail market of the world. But Amazon and Wal-Mart exist nowhere; they are local to no market. That means a significant portion of the extraneous value of all of the world’s labor ultimately flows from a local material reality out into trans-local space: for Amazon, cyberspace; for Wal-Mart, multi-national space. They both bully the local retail markets out of existence, robbing the country of the opportunity to keep the extraneous value of its labor local, where it can be put to good use by those who contributed that extraneous labor in the first place.

10. Free education for all in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form (1848). Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.

If everyone’s body is worth exactly the same until it proves otherwise, then everybody’s mind should be as well. The only way to tell if one person’s mind is worth more than another’s is to put them both through the same forms of training, allowing each of them to discover their unique talents through the way they apply them to the problems of society.

Education should not just be a catching up on what society has discovered and created. Our youngest and most energetic ought to put their energy towards solving the greatest problems facing our society. We should not use them to accomplish menial tasks that only require a body (with its army of workers, the State has plenty of bodies to dedicate to any task worth its labor).

At the same time, education must also prepare members of society for life within that society, and so students should dedicate some of their time to the means of production, in both body and mind. They should understand how production works, test their aptitude for different modes of it, and apply their passion to reforming it for the good of all.

Remember, too, that education is not just for the young. It includes professional education and training for adults who seek to improve their worth to society. Communists call for free education for all in public schools; not just free education for kids who can’t work yet.

~~

So…those are the top measures to be effected by the Communist revolution. Some sound pretty good, and most sound, I think, eminently defensible; but they all rest on the very first one: the abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to the public purpose.

Without that, the Communists have nothing.

But as I said above, when you read Marx & Engels, it’s less like reading an op-ed and more like reading a report on climate change. It’s not a question of if. It’s a question of when.

Knock knock.

President Trump Did What Now?

I haven’t written about politics in a bunch of weeks. The reason is simple: it’s only a matter of time before Donald Trump gets impeached. There seems to be enough smoke now for any fair-minded person to agree that there must be some kind of fire. I don’t claim to know exactly what it is or who was involved, but I don’t doubt that the act of collusion includes the man at the highest level.

The NY Times is now reporting that Presidents Trump and Putin had an undisclosed, private conversation that lasted as long as an hour during the G20 Summit. It’s true that the conversation occurred in front of many of the world’s leaders, but except for Presidents Trump and Putin, only a Kremlin-employed interpreter knows exactly what was said.

Trump is attacking the Times for the story — “Fake News story of secret dinner with Putin is ‘sick.’ All G 20 leaders, and spouses, were invited by the Chancellor of Germany. Press knew!” — but it’s not about whether the press knew about it (nor is it about the President’s use of quotation marks around “sick” — does he think he’s quoting somebody or is he misunderstanding  the use of scare quotes?). It’s about whether the press reported the conversation, and until now, they had not.

Journalists know a lot of things. They don’t report on everything they know. The best of them only report on the things they know for sure, which means they have evidence to support it.

And what did the NY Times journalist, Julie Hirschfeld Davis, report?

She reported that “hours into” a G20 dinner, President Trump rose from his seat and joined President Putin for “a one-on-one discussion…that lasted as long as an hour and relied solely on a Kremlin interpreter.”

She wrote some more words to allow the White House to register its reaction,  and she wrote some others words to provide context for more casual readers, but at bottom, those are the only facts that she reported.

And President Trump calls it “Fake News!,” not because he denied it happened, but because he’s upset someone thinks such a conversation should be news.

This is the reason those of us on the left think he is an idiot. He can’t stop getting in his own way. How hard is it to not have a private conversation with the person you’re being accused of colluding with? And if you must have a conversation, how hard is it, really, to arrange a truly private one?

You know how hard it is for this president? Incredibly hard. Everyone in the bureaucracy is out to get him. He can’t make a phone call to anyone on the planet without someone else knowing about it, and with the leak culture being encouraged by the press and, let’s face it, the American people, that someone else is more than likely to let the information slip. How much worse would it look if President Trump tried to arrange an actual secret meeting with President Putin?

He had no choice. He can’t just not talk about the situation with President Putin, collusion or no collusion, so his only choice is to do it in the most public place possible.  If he actually wants to talk about the collusion issue, he can’t trust the State-department interpreter to not share the details of their conversation, even if only under oath to a prosecutor.

So what the President did, collusion or no collusion, makes complete sense. But to think, even if only for a minute, that such a conversation doesn’t deserve to be news is to think something bat-shit stupid. If the President of the United States had a private, one-on-one conversation with the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, the existence of that conversation would make the news — and I don’t even know if they have Prime Ministers there. To imagine it wouldn’t be news when you do it with your alleged colluder in treason…that’s just dumb.

That’s why I haven’t been writing about politics lately. I’m so done with trying to understand this President. I don’t have to anymore. I get it, and I honestly don’t think he’s a match for the one-two punches that keep coming at him from the bureaucracy and the press. If Mueller is as ethical as the press suggests, then it’s only a matter of time before they take him down.

At this point, writing about Trump feels more like trying to catalog and predict the ending of a one-sided fight — will he go down because of some kind of final, powerful blow or will he just succumb to a continuous onslaught of jabs? Making those kinds of prediction can be fun some of the time, like trying to predict which character on your favorite HBO show is going to die next, but more often it feels like trying to get excited about the arc on a crappy reality show.

There’s a danger in feeling that way, of course. If we allow ourselves to get bored by the lack of progress or overwhelmed by the case’s ever-growing details (how many fucking people were in that room with Don Jr. and how the fuck are they all connected again?), then we risk losing the urgency of the resistance. I get it.

But seriously, let’s look at this shit. Yes, the Republicans are trying to fuck up all kinds of shit in Congress, and yes, the President is doing a ton of real damage via Executive Order, but it seems the most they can do right now is all short-term stuff. They’re not organized enough to ram something through Congress — Trump is too unhinged and vague, and the Republican Congress has to reconcile the desires of too many “moderates” (as if…) with too many Tea Party crazies. If the Democrats can stay united in their resistance, the Republicans can’t deliver on the biggest promises they’ve made to the electorate, and they’ll continue to look and act completely dysfunctional.

Yes, there are things to do. Yes, there are real dangers to fight. But in all honesty, it seems like those who are doing the fighting for my side of things are doing a damn fine job, and I’m trusting them to continue to do so.

Me? I’ll keep going to work each day to teach the next generation of leaders how to think for themselves. It’s the least I can do.