skzb – Page 37 – The Dream Café

Equality and Justice and why the difference matters

I just saw the following on Facebook. Take a moment to think about it.

funny-equality-justice-baseball-fence

Does it seem reasonable? Think again. You see, to me, equality is not about who is standing on which box. It is about tearing down the god damned fence.

The name of the political party of which I am a sympathizer is the Socialist Equality Party, and the word “equality” was not pulled out of a hat. It is a hallowed term, reminding us always of our goal. In this context equality means something fairly straightforward: an end to social privilege. This refers to economic privilege above all, and then the reflections of economics in politics, law, and culture. The United States provides a good example of the historical movement: a deeply unequal country that was founded on the principle of equality. The continual resolution and re-assertion of this contradiction has led to (roughly in order): propertied male suffrage, white male suffrage, the ending of slavery, male suffrage, human suffrage, and the end of Jim Crow segregation.

There is a great deal more to do, and in my opinion (you, of course, are welcome to disagree), we’ve reached a place in the exhaustion of capitalism such that there is no way forward without the mass, combined strength of the working class fighting under a socialist program. And it is at this point that these sections of the pseudo-left come out, in so many words, against equality.

What does it mean? What do they mean by “justice?” Look at the picture. They do not mean the ending of privilege, they mean the shifting of privilege. To use John Scalzi’s famous and excellent analogy, they want to alter the difficulty settings on the game, not replace the game with an entirely new one. They are saying, in other words, “I want a taller box to stand on,” not, “tear down the fence.” And the theoreticians behind this movement—already privileged sections of the upper middle class—want a taller box for themselves alone. They believe the fence will always be there. And in many cases they want it there; it keeps the rabble out.

Behind those three figures are masses of people struggling to survive. The figures on the fence aren’t even thinking about those who are behind them, but they matter. They are the millions, and they are the ones who create everything—including those boxes the figures are standing on. Think about that for a minute.

The task of the day—hell, of the hour—is equality: a direct attack on any and all social privilege, and I am happy to talk to anyone who agrees with that, even if we disagree about the best way to go about it. I have nothing but contempt for those who wish to elevate themselves at the expense of the poor, the oppressed, the exploited. And that is exactly the agenda of those who reject the fight for equality.

A Suggestion for the Resolving the Hugo Controversy

Guest Post by Paarfi of Roundwood

While I myself am not excessively familiar with the many nuances and details of the “Hugo Award Controversy,” I am reliably informed that it has caused no small degree of acrimony within the community of those who concern themselves with letters—I say those, but it is only fair to observe that I, myself, am part of this community in my role of historian, while continuing to be, for obvious reasons, one whose experience is external to the community and, therefore, to the acrimony. Indeed, it is exactly this—my simultaneous involvement, and, if the reader will forgive my use of the word, externality–that could, and perhaps does, provide me with a unique and potentially valuable perspective.

I would like, with this in mind, to make certain observations. To begin, I believe—indeed, if I may be permitted to say so without giving undue offense (a circumstance which the present situation renders extremely undesirable, however tempting it may be to do so deliberately, or how simple it may prove to be to do so accidentally), it is so obvious as to require no evidence beyond what has been frequently placed before the public eye—that some of the suggestions for resolving the matter go, in severity, far beyond what is called for by the crimes committed. In particular, I speak of those who wish their opponents summarily brought to the Executioner’s Star, in some cases advocating this without even the formality of a trial. Must I remind my reader that we are literary individuals, concerned with culture, education, and, in general, the higher, even spiritual, concerns of humanity? To so much as suggest one’s opponent in this matter be deprived of life goes well beyond what ought to be reasoned, scholarly debate—a debate we ought to encourage, but which excessive punishment will only stifle. Hence, I believe we ought to drop even the discussion of repercussions to our enemies that go beyond a severe flogging, or perhaps minor mutilation for the most extreme cases. If I may be permitted to share the lessons of my own land, when scholarly debates threaten to break out into hostility, it is nearly always sufficient to “round up”, as the saying goes, the most egregious of our enemies and forcibly enlist them in the army, and send them to the White Rocks region near the borders of Suntra, where their aggression can be put to good use, and where their fate will serve as a most stern reminder to others of the importance of civility in all disagreements concerning the Arts.

And yet, there is one other matter which, were I to fail to discuss it, would leave me culpable in the same way Biernet is culpable in the well-known children’s tale of that name for not mentioning the frayed rope holding the bucket of chalk: It would seem that Lord Hugo has acquired a great deal of influence within the community—influence that, no doubt, is merited. And yet, with all that has happened of late, I cannot help but wonder why Lord Hugo has failed to make his own wishes, feelings, and desires known. Speaking for myself, should I ever acquire similar influence, and should this produce such hostility and acrimony among various partisans, I would, without question, see it as nothing less than my duty to make my position on the matter clear, even if doing so would to a certain degree compromise the dignity that those who remain apart from these conflicts naturally assume.

Therefore, to resolve the matter, I beg to submit that all discussion of such issues as voting, granting of honors, and giving of such artifacts as may honor one or more persons or institutions be temporarily suspended until Lord Hugo himself should deign to make his position on this matter clear.

I hope this humble suggestion makes a small contribution to restoring peace and harmony within the community of letters.

On Not Seeing Fantastic Four

Every once in a while, Hollywood pulls in all its resources, organizes itself, and everything comes together to create a perfect movie to skip. Last night, I really enjoyed not seeing Fantastic Four. I can’t tell you any details about it (because, you know, I didn’t see it), but I can say that I’ve rarely had such a wonderful time not seeing a movie. Now, I admit, I was a little worried before not going into the theater. I had earlier not seen Ant Man and I still have sort of mixed feelings about it. Would not seeing this be more rewarding? Well, I shouldn’t have concerned myself–from the time the lights didn’t go out, I knew I was exactly where I wanted to be.

It opened with me not being there, and I was instantly enthralled. To be fair, there was a moment about half an hour in where I regretted not having any popcorn, but then I remembered that I had my own popcorn. I made it, and from then on, not seeing the movie was simply an utter delight. By the time the movie was over, all I could do was sit there and say, “Wow. And I still haven’t seen it.” I assure you, this is an experience I’m going to not carry with me for the rest of my life.

I understand we all have different tastes, but if you’re like me, then you must not pass up your chance to not see Fantastic Four. I promise, you won’t be disappointed.

Another Example of the Idealist Method in Action

A Facebook discussion of a particular aspect of so-called cultural appropriation led quite naturally—perhaps inevitably—to an underlying difference in method that has vital ramifications for those of us who fight for a more just, egalitarian world.

Here is the remark that, in my opinion, expresses it best: “Lack of respect as people for black people is the root cause of police assassination of black people”. And, lest anyone think this just sloppy or careless expression, not really meant, the commenter goes on to say explicitly, “economic issues are a thin veneer — a cover — for implicit prejudices that are then built into the society.” She only neglects to explain why prejudices are implicit—presumably because of Original Sin.

The root cause is seen as lack of respect as people for black people. Not a contributing factor, not an expression of a deeper problem, not an effect of conditions, but the “root cause.” “Respect” is an idea, or a set of ideas—the word describes a relationship between the thoughts in one person’s head, and another person. Thus, the root cause, is, to the commenter, an idea. This is a perfect example of the philosophical method called idealism—a method that sees conditions as a reflection of ideas, rather than the reverse. The materialist believes that, as Marx said, being determines consciousness, something recognized at least in a limited and confused way by those who say, “You just believe that because you’re white.”

“Race” as we understand it today (it previously meant nationality or ethnicity, eg, the “French race,” the “English race”) is a creation of the 18th Century, and only became popular in the United States in the early 19th when it was found useful for justifying African slavery and stealing the land of the American Indian–and speaking of, I believe the argument that tribalism is the same as racism, and is part of the human make-up, is refuted by, if nothing else, the generally friendly reception the American Indian gave the first Europeans.

The continued existence of racism—its promotion by the political Right, its acceptance as permanent by sections of the pseudo-Left—are just as much products of actual, material needs and wants as its use two hundred years ago. Then, it justified slavery and theft. Today, for the Right, it interferes with the working class unity that would challenge their property rights. For the pseudo-Leftist, it permits them to advance claims that will benefit themselves—a tiny, privileged section of the upper middle class—and ignore the genuine suffering of the masses.

Behind the idea, always look for the conditions that produced it. This, by the way, applies to the materialist method itself: materialism, emerging in the 16th Century, is the result of improvements in the technology of discovery spurred by improved lens-grinding techniques (telescope, microscope) as well as by the needs of the newly emerging bourgeoisie to break free of the rigidity of the Church regarding social status and political power.

And here’s the rub: The two differing methods produce tremendously different results. If we are to fight oppression in all its myriad forms, we must, above all, understand it scientifically. The belief that racism is “innate” leads to whole groups that stop after pointing it out—they have no program for, or hope of, actually ending it. Their activity is confined to calling working class white women racists if they wear dreadlocks. To understand racism as a product of class society is the key to developing a program both for attacking the cause—that is, the destruction of capitalist property relations and the ending of social privilege—and also a guide for battling racism itself as part of that fight:

1. The continued killing of African-Americans is an attack on the entire working class, and the working class must unite under a socialist program to destroy the system the police are using violence to defend. The fight against police violence and other forms of systemic racism has to be part of the fight against capitalism—not by (as some have accused me of advocating) “waiting until the revolution fixes everything,” but exactly the reverse: taking on the mechanisms that oppress our brothers and sisters is part of building a movement that can carry the revolution to victory.

2. Problems of racism within the working class have to be fought as part of the struggle for class unity: we must tirelessly point out, not how the white worker “benefits” from racism, but, on the contrary, how he is harmed by it—how it works in the favor of the class enemy.

This is a materialist approach to addressing the problem. What has the idealist approach to offer?

The Fantasy World called “Practical Politics”

One of the most important things to a writer of fantasy is to know how to make a magical, impossible world seem real to the reader. This is one of the skills we share with capitalist politicians. There is a conversation many of us have heard over and over, which, distilled to its essence, goes something like this:

“There is actually no way forward for the oppressed unless the working people unite and challenge the two parties of big business.”

“Agreed. But in practice, that’s never going to happen, or at least not for a long, long time. So, in the meantime, wouldn’t you rather vote for someone who is at least going to support <insert favorite liberal hobby-horse>? That’s something that affects real people, you know, and until this magic day (in which I don’t truly believe), we should do the best we can.” This is often found in neat, succinct form in such phrases as, “Who is your viable alternative?”

This is, by the way, closely related to the “lesser evil” theory. One difference between the usual fantasy setting and the Land Of Practical Politics is that, in the latter, the protagonist is recognized as evil, which is something I find potentially interesting in fiction, but rather frightening in reality.

In constructing a fantasy world, one of the key elements is misdirection–“Hey, reader, look over here, at the wonderful meal, or the explosive magic, or the sword fight, or the witty dialogue–nothing to see over there.” Or, “Hey, reader, look over here at the dangers of terrorism, or how jobs are going overseas, or how despicable our enemies are, or our inane dialogue–nothing to see over there.”

At this point, I must tip my hat to Bernie “As Trustworthy as Syriza” Sanders, who has mastered what is, for fantasy novelists, a key technique: injecting just enough reality to be convincing. If I have roses in my novel, and I can manage to describe the sight, smell, and texture well enough that the reader fully identifies this with his or her own experience, the reader will then be that much more likely to believe my wizardry and sorcery and witchcraft. In Sanders’ case, he talks about actual problems that no other bourgeois politician is addressing, which makes the reader think that he’s going to do something about them. Then, when he bows out of the race and throws his support to Hilary Clinton, you won’t notice him smiling and muttering, “gotcha” under his breath. (Of course, if he were somehow elected, it wouldn’t be any different–he remains a capitalist politician).

Point being, for a fantasist, there are things one doesn’t want the reader to think about: Magic isn’t real; in many cases, the economy simply doesn’t make sense; sometimes, for the story to work, the author must introduce basic errors in biology or geology or even metallurgy. If the author is doing things right, the reader will never notice. For a capitalist politician, the big thing the reader’s attention must be directed away from, at all costs, is history, but pretty much every other realm of social science can also break the “willing suspension of disbelief” that leads to electoral victories.

History teaches us that, when reform is possible, it is accomplished not by “kinder, gentler” politicians, but by the ruling class’s fear of the movement of the masses. Just in this country we saw the women’s suffrage movement emerge from the Civil War, and become a powerhouse with the 1909 New York garment workers strike; the mass movements of the ’30s in the wake of the Bolshevik revolution that led to the rise of the CIO and produced the New Deal; the mass movements and riots of the 60s that resulted in Medicaire and Medicaid; and the mass movement against racial inequality that led to the end of Jim Crow segregation. Can someone show me a serious step forward in equality that was not accomplished by mass action on such a scale that the ruling class felt threatened? They don’t give away their power because they want to have less–they give away some of their power when they fear they have no other choice except to lose it all–again, assuming there remains the possibility of reform.

Short version: when reform is possible, it is only the threat of revolution that produces it. When reform is impossible–in my opinion, that is the case today–a reformist party will inevitably betray those who trust it into the hands of the most reactionary, right-wing elements. We saw that in Hungary in 1921, in Italy in 1922, in Germany in 1933, in Spain in 1936, and on and on–until the latest example, Syrzia (not even really a reform party, they just like to sound like one) that has opened the door of Greece to the Golden Dawn.

Of course, the question “is reform possible” never comes up, because in the Land of Practical Politics, reform is always possible–the fascist dictatorships that arose were simply errors made by bad people, having nothing to do with intolerable social crisis.

And in the Land of Practical Politics, capitalism is permanent; it is the economic system that is the final culmination of human wisdom. The fact that no other economic system has been permanent in history, and that it has inevitably required revolution to replace it, is simply not the case in this fantasy world.

In the Land of Practical Politics there is no history–the past is gone.

In the Land of Practical Politics people have opposing viewpoints just because.

In the Land of Practical Politics there is no possibility of understanding economics–things cost what they cost, and we can never understand why.

In the Land of Practical Politics there are no social classes–political parties just represent folks who kind of think alike.

In the Land of Practical Politics racism and sexism are sins in the hearts of individuals, not products of definite economic and social relations.

In the Land of Practical Politics the masses can do nothing for themselves, and it is up to the Enlightened Middle Class to ease their sufferering a bit when their attention can be spared from improving the condition of the Enlightened Middle Class.

In the Land of Practical Politics nothing ever changes in a fundamental way, because things have always been the way they are.

In the Land of Practical Politics we are helpless.

In our world, revolution happens when intolerable conditions produced by an economic system meet the end of that system’s flexibility. Sometimes the revolution is successful, sometimes it is not. One of the factors that determines its success–the key factor–is how ready the revolutionary class is to take and hold power. In modern society, preparing the revolutionary class is the task of the vanguard party. Preventing the revolutionary class from being prepared is the task of the authors and distributors of stories set in the fantasy world called Practical Politics.