I am relieved that the nervousness of teaching my own lesson is over with. Today’s class sparked some amazing conversation, however I never was able to fully dive into the theories of Foucault and how the supermax prison industry illustrates those theories explicitly. I want everyone to understand his discourse on social control, but I will not discuss it here (you will have to complete the reading for that).
I am constantly trying to figure out how to change policy; how to make real change. Lenny, you said that rallies are great, but what do they really accomplish? You need to go through the process of talking with officials and changing legislation, and waiting years for visible change; which nobody wants to do. Alex, you said that they best way to accomplish change is to become a politician, make changes from the inside out. Honestly, I am far past this. I feel that by negotiating with legislators or becoming a politician would be playing their game, and I am not about playing games. Foucault says that without knowledge you do not have power. But I know that in this society, you also do not have power without money. My ideal existence would be one without money, but I know that this will not be a reality anytime in my near future. Until then, I propose that we attack those with the power where it hurts the most; their pockets. I feel that the whole system needs to be dismantled completely and rebuilt from scratch. We already learned from several recessions that when there is economic crisis, things begin to crumble. The amount of social control that is being imposed on us is getting stronger by the second; even as I post this blog entry. So my question is, Do you think this is possible? Do you think that I am being too radical? Can anyone provide a solution that does not bow down to the American Corporatocracy? Does that make me a socialist, or a communist to say that the availability of shelter, food, water, education, healthcare, and contentment should be available for all, including internationally? What is so wrong with communism anyway? The theory is great, it is the dictator that gives this ideal model for society a bad name.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
What an interesting self assessment you have made. Do I think you are a Communist? I do not know. I have to read Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto to answer that question. You asked if the ideas you presented were possible, I do believe they are possible but require sacrifice, hard work (like Lenny pointed out in class), and unity. Power to me, even in this society lies not with politicians, not with green paper or metal objects with dead president’s faces on it but with the human spirit and numbers. The more people willing to obey or resist determines who or what has power. Is it possible Christina, but the journey to accomplish your goals will be arduous. Change is scary, routine is comfortable, and revolution is forbidding. With hope anything can be accomplished. You told us how you tried to get your cousins to read a book or watch the news instead of playing video games and watching MTV, well to accomplish your goals you have a whole nation that needs the same push. I think in order to accomplish a Utopian or Communist society there needs to be an awakening in which people realize the material things and other ideas they hold onto are the same things that chain them from being absolutely free. When the majority of society begins to turn towards a common goal, then there needs to be planning to determine how to accomplish the common or majority’s goal and then there needs to be action. Action will be the hardest part; unless there is universal awakening, action will cause conflict. This will determine how much sacrifice, hard work, and unity the people have in order to accomplish their goal of a Utopian/ Communist society.
Are you being too radical? Well let me provide a quote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” (Thomas Jefferson). Now let me ask you that a question, “Are you being too radical, or are you measuring up to the 'true' American Ideal?”
Communism, the word sends people into frenzy. This is because of the stigma attached to it. Some words are called “loaded words” that means that they have attached meanings to them that are common to many people. (Roberts) The word “mom” tends to bring up a pleasant image to most people. (Roberts) Communism has become a “loaded word” almost a blaspheming word in some situations, but that does not mean the attached meaning is true. You’re right, Christina, that the dictators do give the idea of Communism a bad name, but it is also the propaganda of our society and capitalistic societies that perpetuate that idea.
The U.S. government is set up so that issues can be debated. It allows people an opportunity to bounce ideas off of one another and speak their mind freely without restriction. Voting at 18 is a right, of which some people take advantage of and some do not. Voting allows those who are not part of the executive, legislative, or judicial branches to have a say. The U.S. government allows people to elect representatives and vote on changes in their communities. Although things take time, the reason why it takes time is because the decisions that are made are sensitive; we need to be sure of our decisions and in doing so it must pass through the proper stages.
If anyone has a better suggestion as to how the U.S. government should be setup, I would be open to hearing what they think. But until I do hear something that I feel has the potential to be better than the current system then I can not think of a better, more effective way for the U.S. to conduct its government while maintaining the rights, and privileges that so many people leave their home country to come and experience in the United States of America.
First of all, I want to thank Christina for a successful class! I do not know why but I was picturing out that we had actually to stand and teach the class (not to lead the discussion). The reason might be my teaching experience in a high school…
“Foucault says that without knowledge you do not have power. But I know that in this society, you also do not have power without money” – this is my favorite point. I have a constant debate on how a person should choose his/her occupation: whether one should enjoy what he/she is doing or focus on some occupation/profession that can bring some sustainable income. The ideal solution would be a combination of both. What if it is not the case? What is the right choice to make?
I was born in a communist country. I do not remember too much about it because it collapsed when I was 4. I read about Communism, only criticism and nothing positive. While getting my education back in Ukraine and here, I received only negative comments about it and saw skeptical smiles on the faces of people. I cannot explain why it is so. Communism definitely had some drawbacks but no system is perfect. The only thing what I remember from my childhood is that my parents had their salaries on time and we did not think what was going to happen tomorrow because we had nothing to eat. Yes, it is true that we did not have a variety of the resources and ten hundred choices of jeans or shirts. But there was no need for that because middle-class people were not exposed to luxury. Now, a person spends all their salary on the pair of Nike sneakers (the prices are much more expensive in Ukraine that they are over here). At the same time, people are starving in the streets. We definitely need some changes in a society!
Christina, I always admired your passion and desire towards changes! I wish I had at least a half of it. I realize that we need immediate changes but do not know where to start from. Furthermore, I think it might take some decades when they occur…
Joseph, you never fail to amaze me. You are so quiet in class, and then you have amazing responses on the blog each week. Are you sure you’re writing these? Thank you for the kind words.
On another note…
I know many people who have come to this country for a better way of life, for freedom, and for justice, including my grandfather. But I also know many people who come here because our minimum wage, a whopping $7.25 (sarcastic of course), is higher than in most countries. Not every immigrant comes here to live “the American Dream” or because they are escaping horrible conditions in their country. In fact, many people that I speak to do not necessarily like it here, but they sacrifice several years here in order to have a better life where they come from. Many Americans are mad because they feel that immigrants abuse the American system, but if they were able to earn decent wages home, they would never step foot here.
Are the low wages earned in other countries determined solely by their country’s leaders, their country’s economy, or is it a combination of many factors including the influences of United States corpratocracy? I once heard a businessman in a great documentary called “The Corporation” describe how he is actually helping communities in foreign countries by paying them only a few cents per hour. He explains that they are so desperate that they will work for anything, and that they are grateful for him and others like him because they have provided them with income, as little as that may be. However he does not explain how part of the reason that they are so desperate is because of the way that corporations have destroyed their land, air, and water; that outside governments have allowed dictators to take over the land in the interest of profit from natural resources. If he was so interested in helping those people, why not pay them more, instead of just enough to live—if that’s what you call it? My theory is that this man and other’s that think like him believe that those people are not worthy of having a decent living. They believe that those people are savages and that they should be lucky that civilized people like us allow them to have the little bit that they do. I can understand why people like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, and many others believe in Manifest Destiny, and that America is the best place to be. Our history books for many years have developed a sense of pride, patriotism, and nationalism through lies about our forefathers and the origins of this great “democracy”. Christopher Columbus was not the first European explorer of the Americas, and neither were the pilgrims. The settlers of Jamestown did not merely stumble upon an open land to be used as they wanted. The truth is that the unhygienic explorers that arrived before them, whom had already developed disease resistance, brought bacteria and viruses that wiped out 96% of the Native American population. There are accounts of pilgrims robbing graves, abandoned homes, and eating crops that were planted by deceased Natives. The few “Indians” that were left had no other choice but to befriend that settlers who would later betray them! Those books tell us that the great founders of this country built our nation from the ground up, without giving recognition or fair share of this country’s wealth to the slaves and their descendents that labored for free for many long years.
Cont...
Cont
Katie, how can the people of America trust their government to listen to their demands when someone like the mayor of New York, a billionaire, BOUGHT a third term and calls protesters disgraceful when they organize a rally against firing teachers and yelled out their frustrations loud enough to drown out Cathie Black’s excuses. President Obama said, “If American workers are being denied their right to organize when I’m in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes and I will walk on the picket like with you as president of the United States.” He has yet to visit Wisconsin. There have been hundreds of thousands of people protesting against the attack on union workers, yet republican representatives pass a bill supporting union busting in the middle of the night. Governor Walker, thinking that he was talking to billionaire Republican party funder David Koch, talked about planting trouble makers into the crowds of peaceful protestors. If 80,000 people in one day at the capital of Wisconsin chanting with picket signs is not loud enough for those in government to hear, what can we do for them to hear us? They hear us, they just don’t care!
What defines a democracy? Depends which kind of democracy are we speaking of, consensus democracy, direct democracy, or representative democracy. I believe that here in the United States we are operating under a representative democracy. The Christian white men who created the constitution thought that this way was best because they feared that the opinion of the majority might influence the minority too much, therefore designing what is called a constitutional republic.
Perhaps the answer is not socialism, or communism, or even direct democracy. Perhaps there is another way that no one has thought of yet. Maybe we will only know when it is forced on us because this way is no longer sustainable. I do not know the exact structure that would be better than American government, but anything is better than this!
Nadia, very well said. In my Inventing History class this week we discussed communism and how it is portrayed so negatively. There is a girl in my class that is also from a communist country, and she has no qualms with that type of society, in fact she loves it! I appreciate your point about not having designer jeans and not being exposed to luxury. The mentality that I see everyday among people who must have designer labels and brand names in order to feel important, loved; it is a bit sickening. How can we hold on for dear life, these concepts of capitalism and consumerism knowing that there are people starving to death, literally? Both of my grandfathers are very upset and concerned about my radical views. I have always been one who defies authority, challenges norms, and demands freedom, but over the past few years (since I have began college, especially John Jay) I have taken a much more radical and revolutionary perspective. Like I told my Grandpa yesterday, it is no longer about democrat vs. republican, left wing vs. right wing, capitalist vs. communist, whatever label you decide to give it. We should be far beyond these ideologies created by the primitive human brain and realize that the debate is now a concept far more obvious, moral vs. immoral. I understand that philosophically speaking this can also be considered a construction of the human mind, as someone like Foucault does not believe in universal truths, but starvation is the same no matter the color of your skin. Being cold and having no place to seek shelter will kill anyone after a certain point. Working in the blistering sun for hours on end with no water is no easier for miners in South America than it is for a man here in the US. AIDS, although at one point we thought it did, does not discriminate! There has to be a point when we realize that every human being on this planet should have access to the same basic needs. Perhaps after that is accomplished we can begin to think about extras, but even that is concerning. A billionaire may consider himself rich in his world, but in the grand scheme of things, ethically he is no less impoverished than the woman working in a maquilladora for pennies a day!
Christina, interesting post. I expected nothing less, although I must say that I am disappointed that my statements in class were so misunderstood. Of course I understand and appreciate the value of the masses standing in solidarity for or against government policy. Rallies and protests are an important tool, best used to push through or stand against a proposed legislation. That said, it must be understood that to protest any injustice is to call for change, and to call for change is to put forward an idea, a plan of action that will best suit society.
Strategic planning and implementing policies. These are tasks best accomplished by representatives elected by the people, to carry out our will. I prefer to distinguish between two types of representatives, the politician and the statesmen. As Gorbachev once said, "a statesman does what he believes is best for his country, a politician does what best gets him re-elected". Unfortunately, Americans (young, idealistic ones in particular) have a nasty habit of turning our statesmen to politicians at the first sign of turbulence. Our once upon a time 'hopes for the futures' quickly become our 'disappointments with government' and we never look back to think about what they have accomplished, or what they might accomplish, given the support they once received. A politician has now become a person with whose politics you don't agree, but if you agree with him, he's a statesman (David Lloyd George). In what world does EVERYONE agree? Is it not the aim of a democracy to provide a platform for more than one perspective?
Karl Marx once said, "Revolutions are the locomotives of history." Certainly, the start of 2011 stands as a testament to this notion. But a catalyst is only necessary when there is no chance of mobility or negotiation. After all, a revolution spurs a change or modification of an organizational structure, but not the dismantling or removal of ALL structure. In the wake of a revolution comes slow social, cultural and economic change, often coinciding with the transformation of 'revolutionaries' to 'statesmen' and soon after to 'politicians'.
Communism and capitalism are both merely theories. To be thought upon and discussed and implemented, in part, to the sectors of society to which they satisfy. Neither theory will ever lead to a utopian society. Moreover, the idea of a utopia only exists because it can never be achieved.
Christina, you are correct to propose that perhaps the dichotomies between popular lines of political thought are false. I agree that they are. Marx himself also said "Democracy is the road to socialism." Personally, I think that innovation and cooperation are the fundamentals of progress.
I must now apologize for what I recognize to be a fairly disorganized, grammatically faulty, stream of consciousness (read: rant). But I must also admit my frustration at my own inability to adequately harmonize my thoughts in a way that express everything I'm thinking without offense. In any case, my obligatory participation in this particular conversation has brought me to a place that I do not at all enjoy and do not wish to revisit. Debate is a truly integral part of the learning process. Most valuable when it accomplishes the goal of creating a more complete understanding of any issue, for all parties. I am almost certain that this goal, on these issues, will not be achieved. So congratulations on reaching the end of my rant, unfortunately it means very little because I haven't really said anything new.
Quick question or point of clarity, re: Lenny:
Can you clarify your statement, "capitalism is merely a theory"? I can't say I agree with you. Indeed, what is "capitalism"?
Capitalism is an economic system that emphasizes private ownership and competition.
Communism is a sociopolitical theory which promotes an economic system that emphasizes public (shared) ownership and cooperation.
From Merriam-Webster-
Theory: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another, abstract thought, speculation, the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art, a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action, an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances, a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena, a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation, an unproved assumption, conjecture, a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
So yes, in more ways than not, capitalism= theory.
But really... semantics.The point is that it doesn't matter anyway.
Hmmm, communist...like Joseph said I don't know, you would be the best person to answer that question. And like Christina: Joseph, b-e-a-utiful quote and usage, I was blown away.
I must say I agree with Lenny. Communism and Democracy are theories in the same way that Utopia is: many have stated ideas of what they ought to be, and what they should look like, however none actually exist or existed. Communism was envisioned yet never achieved and, personally, I believe such a politico-socioeconomic system is impossible to achieve because hunger for power will exist in those at the top and there will be those willing to not put in their fare share at the bottom. Socialism was what existed in the Soviet Union, not Communism, and like Utopia it will not exist unless for a few seconds.
Capitalism is in the same boat as Communism. A true capitalist system would have no government regulation, government support for the poor, no healthcare, no social security, etc.; all of these things exist in one form or another within "capitalist" countries around the world. America is not a true capitalist nation just as it is not a true democracy, we are merely apply capitalist theory to guide our economic system and democracy to guide our governmental system. Like utopia, communism, democracy, and capitalism are philosophical abstractions until they are achieved in the real world.
But! Now to backtrack from the thoughts of philosophers to the actions of revolutionaries! Economic crisis brings unrest and unity, a pain in the pockets typically forces action, but we cannot forget, like Jefferson said, the blood of patriots is necessary for revolution. Despite the fact that "it takes all kinds", from rioters and organizers to youth in revolt and suited businessmen, those with the passionate fire of fighting for change until their legs have buckled and their vocal cords shot are essential to get the ball rolling.
And something to keep in mind: with Lenny organizing, Christina on the streets, and apparently Joseph speechwriting, I think anything can be revolutionized.
Christina,
Thank you for a very interesting class discussion on Thursday! I think that we uncovered quite a number of deep-seated issues regarding not only the ever-growing security within the prison systems but also the politics behind this system.
What stood out the most to me was Rhodes reference to the prison system as “the prison industry.” When I think of an industry, I think of a lucrative business or the production of something. Her reference leads me question the premise for the constant advancement in technology that being pumped into the prison system. What is the “prison industry” producing? Broken and numb people? Changed and self-aware individuals? Money? Historically, prisons were not created to be an industry, but somehow it has evolved into that over time.
I can’t help wondering where this boom will eventually lead the American society. With all the funds being pumped into this “industry,” do you think that its negative effects will eventually override society’s more practical concerns like maintaining health and encouraging education? OR, perhaps the question is, has this "industry" already overridden such practical matters?
Given that we are focusing on perspective (point of view) this semester, I think it is so interesting that your lively blog conversation this week illustrates both the perspectives of rather entrenched positions and frustration with perspectives that seem incomplete or inadequate even to themselves. While the communism v. capitalism debate still has legs, most of you seem to want something else or at least seem to be pointing out that these systems exist somewhere in the gray area between theory and experiment. Maybe this is what Lenny means when she writes that we can never satisfactorily resolve the debate about communism v. capitalism -- maybe we need different perspectives.
Two other points about perspectives:
1) in response to Joseph's Jefferson quote, which is a good one. It is important, particularly now, to remember the context of that quote. I believe he said it in response to Americans' growing concern over the increasing violence of the French Revolution. While Jefferson did have pretty radical ideas about government, there were other perspectives, such as those by John Adams, who thought that at a certain point violence just led to more violence and not necessarily to better government (he was fairly horrified by the direction of the French Revolution). He learned this though watching mob violence in Boston before the American Revolution and through life in France during these years. Having selected Washington to be the head of the army, he was not against violence, but he was equally concerned about what other trees could take root in such blood. Something to think about in this moment of revolution.
2) As horrifying as Professor Waterston's description of the $ spent on defense was, I have to confess to feeling relieved -- at least fleetingly -- that Obama couldn't be painted by Republicans as being soft on defense and that this would help him get re-elected, which, whatever disappointments one might have with his metamorphosis from statesman to politician (good characterization, Lenny), has to be hoped for when you consider the alternatives. (I still remember the political conversation of 2000 when disgruntled Democrats said there would be no difference between Gore and Bush and we needed a real choice -- we got Bush and learned what a real and disastrous choice that in fact was.) So what perspective is this? Pragmatist? Reformer (as opposed to revolutionary)? Coward?
I have to say Christina this is a beautiful post. I am so sorry I missed your class. I do not think that you are too radical, but I have to say, radicalism passes for idealism these days. I think Joseph is right in many ways, power lies in the people and the people are too comfortable with routine. It is going to take a GLOBAL CATASTROPHE to shake the reality of those who live in “veiled comfort” to realize that the plight of the underprivileged is also their plight. As for communism, I once held a belief in it. But I no longer think that it holds the possibility for true change (the reason is long and more detailed than I could explain here). But I think that simply we just need to understand that we are all connected, that my life depends on the poor Colombian farmer picking coffee beans in the mountains of Colombia and that his life depends on me and that this relationship must stem beyond the human world to incorporate the non-human. The problem is that we are all horse wearing blinders blind to the people and all else that exist with us. But as I stated before, radicalism often times quickly evolves into idealism as is obvious from my post.
Chad Out!
I share the frustration over the broader philosophical issues that Christina poses and that you have all responded to from various perspectives. As Lenny points out, though, the devil is in the details; although one’s utopian fantasy of government should ostensibly drive on the ground decision making, this is not always so. What is pragmatic often trumps ideological preferences. In this regard, I came across two things in this week’s news that struck me as particularly Foucaultian dilemmas. I am interested to see what you think.
The first involves a new level of surveillance in New York City jails. Since 2009, every single prisoner telephone call (except to lawyers and doctors) has been recorded by the Department of Corrections. Remember, people being held in jail have not yet been convicted of any crime. Thus, it seems that prisoners’ rights are being violated. Okay, are we all breathing fire over civil liberties?
Wait. How are these recordings being used? As it turns out, they are being used to obtain convictions against men charged with domestic assaults. They are being used to demonstrate that, in violation of court orders, the men are staying in almost constant contact with the women they have beaten, mainly in order to persuade them-through manipulation or threat-not to cooperate with the prosecution. The recordings lead to convictions in cases where women refuse to testify against their partners, which is about 75% of the time. The district attorney’s office says the recordings are the single most effective weapon that the legal system has developed against domestic violence. Okay, how do we feel now?
The second piece of news is about the rising use of prisoner labor to close state budget gaps. In increasing numbers, prisoners perform services that, prior to the recession, were done by government workers or private contractors. This offsets the costs associated with imprisonment. Jobs include cleaning up roadkill, repairing leaking water tanks, cleaning government buildings, etc. One might think that the progressive establishment would be up in arms protesting the forced labor (prison-industrial complex anyone?) but, instead, most (including the Director of Vera) are calling it a win-win because such programs teach offenders a trade for when they are released. Even prisoners seem to like it because it gets them out of the prison and offers them some sense of productivity.
On the other hand, you have to wonder about the incentive to keep the prison population up when you can use their services for free, in the meantime also reducing the number of people who you would have had to employ at minimum wage.
It’s not so easy to coordinate the ideal and the real. I think it was Jean-Martin Charcot who said “Theory is fine but it doesn’t stop facts from existing.” Of course, he said it in French, so it sounded even cooler.
Dear Christina,
Great post! However, I must agree with Joseph (well said posts!) you aren't being a communist for believing so much in change, just as Jefferson said change needs to come every so often to assure that the past and the future can happen. Imagine if we still lived in the past, wearing the same clothing, following the same rule of law without amendments, old fashioned technology we laugh at in the museums, and so on. Could you see yourself ever advancing, could you see yourself moving forward, or do you see repression at its best.
This could be a debatable subject, however, there is a great debate in human rights by Othman in which she states that muslims living under Shari'a law live in the past and have no sense of modernization because of their religious and cultural beliefs.
However, I disagree because the protests occurring now in the middle east demonstrate a desire for change from ages of authoritarian rule. But that debate is open to anyone interested.
But going back to your post, I must say Christina that your passion to want to make change is the same passion we all hold. The issue becomes, how do we make change, do we protest, do we boycott, do we have violent rallies, or do we threaten the ones in power to do what we ask? But the answer is complicated, it is complicated because like change, it needs planning, understanding, and acknowledgment. Imagine going to congress and having violent protests for congress to pass a bill, to later find out the bill wasn't properly planned out, or even made a change. Thats disappointing, and yet, a lesson learned.
As Lenny said in class it take a lot of work and dedication to make change. I am not saying that you can't do it, because I encourage everyone to make a change, change is good, routine holds you back from living and experience. But just remember as you make a change, you need to plan your steps, make sure your plan helps for the greater good, not just these people and not everyone. Change as some say derive from desire, and to desire is to dream to have better things, a better life, a better standard of living; but before you want and need, you need to believe in yourself to get what you want and know how to achieve it.
I'm sure you already know that, but overall, I don't think your a communist, I believe your just as passionate and capable of making change; my only advice is, don't let the system fool you or bribe you. As I say, do what you need to do to make things better and forget the negatives, they'll only discourage you from your path.
Post a Comment