Category: Politics

A Simple 5-Point Program For Economic Recovery

1. Close loopholes on corporate taxes

2. Significantly increase taxes on the top 5%

3. Use increased tax revenue from (1) and (2) to employ people for massive infrastructure repair

4. Raise the minimum wage

5. Nationalize all banks and major industries under workers’ control without compensation and install a workers’ government that will use state power to protect the working class from the police, counterrevolutionaries, and other thugs of the corporations

In a pinch, we could probably skip 1-4.

Rant: Idiocies About the American Indian

Someone on Facebook published this quote by Ayn Rand:  The Native Americans didn’t have any rights to the land and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using…. What was it they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their “right” to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves above it. Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent.

I would like to believe no one on this blog needs an explanation about how utterly disgusting that is.  In my opinion, it flows naturally from the concept that property rights are above–or a part of–human rights.  This is what one would expect of such an ugly, reactionary philosophy.  But it was the comments of some of those attacking the quote that made me roll my eyes.

“They were one with the land,” went one predictably inane remark.  And, “they were a part of nature,” went another.

First of all, probably the most offensive thing is referring to American Indians as a monolith.  I mean, seriously?  The pastoral (in the literal sense) lifestyle of the Navajo is somehow identical to the complex agricultural life of the Powhatans or the Aztecs?  The nomadic life of the Lakota is the same thing as the settled life of the Cherokee or the Seneca? The ancestors of the Pueblo who lived in Mesa Verde had the same life as the Iroquois of the Great Lakes?  Some tribes in the Kansas Territory supported abolition, others owned slaves  But they’re all the same?  What the fuck?

Second, what is this, “one with the land,” bullshit?  Like every human being ever on the planet, the American Indian, in different ways, according to the development of productive forces and the nature of his environment, consciously altered that environment. That is what human beings do.  If we are “a part of nature” then the form that “oneness” takes is conflict.  We wrest our living from nature, in conflict, as does every other living thing right down to the microscopic parasites in the intestines of our dogs.  What makes human beings unique is our ability to planfully alter nature in accordance with our wishes–we not only build tools, but we build tools to build tools.  This activity changes nature, adapts it to our needs.

This “one with nature” crap is only one, tiny step up from the racist “noble savage” idea every serious anthropologist had abandoned by the end of the 19th Century.   And speaking of anthropologists–it is very popular today to dismiss the work of Lewis Henry Morgan, and cry racism for his use of terms like, “savagery” and “barbarism” and “civilization”  in defining cultural states.  But Morgan, who took the time to study and learn the nuances and subtleties of the different tribes with whom he lived, was far, far more respectful than the “one with nature” types we run into today.

By claiming that those who lived on the North American continent didn’t planfully change their environment, and by lumping them together, you are, in essence, denying them humanity, every bit much as Ayn Rand does.

 

The Police in NYC: Stating the Obvious

The mayor of New York City is no working class hero. He is a representative of the exploiters–just, perhaps, a different flavor of exploitation than some others. So why is NYPD so down on him? Why are they publicly insulting him? Forgive me if I’m stating the obvious, but it’s not and never was about De Blasio, or his mealy-mouthed admission that just maybe when unarmed people are being murdered by the police, not everything is exactly perfect. No, what this is about is the cops using the pretext of the death of two officers to assert their power over the civilian authority. They are being militarized, they are being let off the leash, and now they are saying that they are willing to show the world that no one has any authority over them. “Civilians are not in charge of us, we dictate to them, both as individuals (‘Obey police orders or get hurt’) and now on the level of government.” The frayed, tattered–though still in some ways noble–remnant of democracy that has been chipped away at for years is now being assaulted with dynamite. This is another movement toward a police state. We need to not lie to ourselves about it.

Reviews and Criticism: Some Things to Think About

This post is aimed at writers.  As we in the science fiction community deal with some ugliness that has taken a quasi-political form and had a powerful negative effect on many writers, here are some things you may want to consider.

I will sometimes read reviews of my work. I will go to Amazon and click the 5-star ones, and read others that are full of lavish praise. I do this because sometimes I need cheering up–I need to remind myself, “Yeah, I can do this.”  I mean, in my more cynical moments I believe that the way to tell if you’re a “real writer” is that you sometimes think you’re not a real writer.  It’s good to have ways of pulling yourself out of that, especially if it has a bad effect on the quantity or quality of your work; if you’re lucky enough to have reviews out there that will help you do that, hey, what the hell.

With a few exceptions, I do not read negative reviews of my work, or even pay attention to the negative comments (“My only complaint is….”) within a positive review.  The book is done.  Moreover, if there is something someone hates about it, it is a gimme that it is the same thing that someone else likes, so I’m not “learning” anything from it.  I have a list of people for whom I have a great deal of respect, and to whom I listen when they speak about what needs improvement, either in a particular work or in my writing in general; nothing good can come of listening to anyone else.  The exceptions, with reviewers, are people who, over the years, I have determined are smart, perceptive, know what I’m trying to do, and can articulate where I failed to do it (yes, Jo, I’m looking at you).  These reviews can, in fact, give me useful information.

I can see you nodding along with me.  Good.  We agree.  I’m glad to hear it.

Now consider, for a moment, reviews or criticism that call you, for example,  a racist, because you didn’t include anyone of some particular race, or you did but someone thinks you were stereotyping, or being insensitive, or whatever.  These comments are every bit as legitimate, in my opinion, as any other sort of criticism, and deserve exactly the same consideration.  To wit: if you’re getting the comment from someone you know and trust, take it the way you would any other comment, give it due consideration, and decide.

I mention this because one of the things I see going on around me, is that reviews and criticism that focus on these things are treated as if these comments are special–particularly if aspects of the personal identity of the reviewer (race, sex, disability, sexual preference, &c) is a factor in the review.

I beg to submit that these sorts of reviews are no different from others, and deserve no special status.  If it is coming from a reviewer or critic you trust, then it should get the same consideration as any other sort of criticism; and if it is not, by making an exception, you are, in my opinion, doing yourself and your writing no good whatsoever, and are granting people you have no reason to trust, far, far too much power over the work you produce.

 

Ferguson: This is not just more of the same.

It is, in my opinion, very dangerous to see what is happening in Ferguson as “more of the same.” I’ve been alive long enough to see many cases of police getting off free after committing murder, but never, never has there been this degree of provocation. 1000 cops, plus National Guard troops, were mobilized a week before the decision, and the contempt for the law shown by the prosecutor has never, never been this blatant–they publicized the result, they let us see that there is no justice, then stood there behind the militarized police and said, “What are you going to do about it?” We are being challenged.

Of course, it could be simply coincidence that this happens at a time when there is the greatest degree of economic inequality since the Depression. Oh, wait–no, it couldn’t. The ruling class knows very well what happens when there is that much inequality, when so many working class families are threatened with losing everything–those who still have something to lose. They know we will fight, because they’ve seen it again and again. With their right hand, they pull out military force, and with their left, they insist racism is the only issue* and try to channel our rage into harmless support for the Democratic Party–the same Democratic Party that is led by the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, while those National Guard troops were called out by a Democratic Party governor.

What will be the result? That depends on what we do–on how we fight.   But being clear on what is happening is the first, important step.

“The masses are long-suffering, but they are not clay out of which you can fashion anything you want to. Moreover, in a revolutionary epoch they learn fast.” — Trotsky
.

 

*I am aware that there are those on the right who deny racism is an issue in this at all. In my opinion, these people are not worth the trouble of arguing with.