Sunday, September 25, 2011
Totalitarian Politics
Over the next couple of weeks we are going to talk about totalitarianism. We'll talk about the origins of the word, the conditions out of which totalitarians forms of government emerge, its goals and features, the relationship between the government and the citizen, and a number of other interesting topics related to this type of political arrangement.
Like socialism, the state government plays an important role in a totalitarian political arrangement. But, in a totalitarian system, the power and presence of the state is intensified well beyond that of a well functioning socialist democracy like Norway.
In a totalitarians system, like in North Korea or what is emerging in Iran, the state and its charismatic leadership become omnipresent features of peoples' everyday lives. Indeed, in the most extreme cases, the aspects of your life that you usually call "private" (e.g. life in the house, emotional and intimate relationships, business transactions, etc.) practically disappear. The state government becomes a feature of most every aspect of one's life. For instance, in Iran, there is a moral police who enforce a public dress and appearance code. It is illegal for men to wear necklaces and certain kinds of hair cuts are outlawed. Also, at Iranian universities, men and women may be separated.
During the 1930s and 1940s, many Americans started asking publicly: Can America become a totalitarian state? With the rise of Japan, Germany, Italy, and Spain under totalitarian governments, some Americans were concerned that in the case of a nuclear threat from a foreign enemy the US Constitution would be streamlined -- civil liberties would be curtailed and Americans' lives would be totally mobilized against the foreign threat.
Below are some features of populations governed by a totalitarian regime.
1. Party Minded -- the individual person sees their selves as an instrument of the political party.
2. Patriotic -- there is an intense love, affection, and loyalty for one's country, historical myths, and political leadership.
3. Collectivist -- the individual's own private prerogatives, goals, aspirations, enjoyments are downplayed, while the public goals of the collective are the most important.
4. Vigilant -- the enemy is seen as dangerous, everywhere, and camouflaged. So, there is a more or less permanent sense of readiness to uncover the activities of the public enemy of the people, the state, and its leadership.
5. Hate filled -- the enemy of the people, the state, and its leadership are the object of this hate, which is matched by a strong sense of patriotic love of the one's country.
6. Love work and political activism -- contemplation and reflection is shunned, while positive political action and work that benefits the community is celebrated.
7. Disciplined -- people easily obey figures of authority and curb their own private desires for the betterment of the collective.
8. Modest and puritan -- there is an emphasis on self sacrifice, self denial, self discipline and, in general, taming individual desires and wants.
What do you think?
Do any of these eight features associated with totalitarian governments resemble aspects of life in our political system? Which ones? Can you describe how they resemble aspects of our political system?
Or, alternatively, do none of these eight features of a totalitarian system resemble our own system of government? Is our system and a totalitarian system opposites with nothing in common? What do you think are the key differences between our system and a totalitarian system?
Do you think it would be possible for totalitarian politics to emerge in the US? Why or why not?
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Class War in America
Most people in Politics and Government seems to agree that in America there are economic classes, as your comments to last week's post attest.
In The Iron Heel, Ernest says that these economic classes have distinctly different interests -- that means the wealthy man cannot understand or fairly represent the poor man's interest. Each economic class must have their own representatives in Congress who will fight for their class interests.
Bernie Sanders, a Senator from Vermont, is neither a member of the Democrats nor Republicans -- he is an Independent. He is the only US Senator to describe himself as a "socialist." Watch this short video of Bernie Sanders on the floor of Congress. He argues that there is a class war being waged in America -- and the wealthy class is winning against the poor:
Jimmy Hoffa, the president of the Teamsters union, also says there is a class war happening. Hoffa means that unions are having their legal ability to collectively organize and negotiate for better pay and benefits taken away. For examples, a newspaper near my hometown reported that local teachers have had their rights to collectively bargain taken away.
Instead of a war against the poor, US Republican Senator Paul Ryan says that President Obama is waging a class war against the wealthy by trying to increase taxes on those that make more than one million dollars per year.
What do you think? Do you see yourself as a member of any particular class? Do the different economic classes have different interests? Or, do the capitalist and the worker have exactly the same interests? Or maybe the capitalist and the worker share some interests, but not all? And, even more importantly, is there a class war happening in America right now? If you think so, which class do you think is winning and which class is loosing?
In The Iron Heel, Ernest says that these economic classes have distinctly different interests -- that means the wealthy man cannot understand or fairly represent the poor man's interest. Each economic class must have their own representatives in Congress who will fight for their class interests.
Bernie Sanders, a Senator from Vermont, is neither a member of the Democrats nor Republicans -- he is an Independent. He is the only US Senator to describe himself as a "socialist." Watch this short video of Bernie Sanders on the floor of Congress. He argues that there is a class war being waged in America -- and the wealthy class is winning against the poor:
Jimmy Hoffa, the president of the Teamsters union, also says there is a class war happening. Hoffa means that unions are having their legal ability to collectively organize and negotiate for better pay and benefits taken away. For examples, a newspaper near my hometown reported that local teachers have had their rights to collectively bargain taken away.
Instead of a war against the poor, US Republican Senator Paul Ryan says that President Obama is waging a class war against the wealthy by trying to increase taxes on those that make more than one million dollars per year.
What do you think? Do you see yourself as a member of any particular class? Do the different economic classes have different interests? Or, do the capitalist and the worker have exactly the same interests? Or maybe the capitalist and the worker share some interests, but not all? And, even more importantly, is there a class war happening in America right now? If you think so, which class do you think is winning and which class is loosing?
Sunday, September 11, 2011
American Workers, Middle Class, and the Wealthy
This week and next week we are reading The Iron Heel, which talks a lot about economic classes and class antogonism.
What are classes? Basically, economic classes break down like this:
Workers own little to nothing but their ability to do manual labor, which they sale for a wage--hence, workers are sometimes called "wage slaves." Workers then take that wage and spend it on consumer goods that they just made at the factory.
The capitalist class do not labor for a living -- they do not sale their labor for a wage. Rather, they own the machines and factories ("the means of production") in which workers labor each day for a modest wage and they own the stores in which laborers purchase their goods.
Middle class folks sit somewhere in between the workers and the capitalists. They probably own a nice home and they may own a small business, but they probably work there each day alongside their employees, or they may be middle managers who earn a good salary but are not wealthy.
In America, the poor and working class is getting larger. The middle class is getting smaller as more people fall from middle to working class. Workers and the shrinking middle class in America work more with fewer days of leave, less maternity leave, and fewer days of paid vacation compared to others around the world. Click on these images for a better picture of the emerging situation in the US:
At the same time, the wealthy are fewer and getting richer. CEO pay keeps going up while worker pay stays about the same.
The gap between the wealthy and the working class is getting bigger -- while we keep imagining that it is not, as this video shows:
What do you think? Are there classes in America? Is the gap between the classes too large? If you think that gap is too large, what should be done to close the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest? Or, is the gap between the wealthy and the poor just about right? Should our policies aim to keep the wealthy wealthy and the poor poor? Are there any potential political problems of high levels of inequality?
What are classes? Basically, economic classes break down like this:
Workers own little to nothing but their ability to do manual labor, which they sale for a wage--hence, workers are sometimes called "wage slaves." Workers then take that wage and spend it on consumer goods that they just made at the factory.
The capitalist class do not labor for a living -- they do not sale their labor for a wage. Rather, they own the machines and factories ("the means of production") in which workers labor each day for a modest wage and they own the stores in which laborers purchase their goods.
Middle class folks sit somewhere in between the workers and the capitalists. They probably own a nice home and they may own a small business, but they probably work there each day alongside their employees, or they may be middle managers who earn a good salary but are not wealthy.
In America, the poor and working class is getting larger. The middle class is getting smaller as more people fall from middle to working class. Workers and the shrinking middle class in America work more with fewer days of leave, less maternity leave, and fewer days of paid vacation compared to others around the world. Click on these images for a better picture of the emerging situation in the US:
At the same time, the wealthy are fewer and getting richer. CEO pay keeps going up while worker pay stays about the same.
The gap between the wealthy and the working class is getting bigger -- while we keep imagining that it is not, as this video shows:
What do you think? Are there classes in America? Is the gap between the classes too large? If you think that gap is too large, what should be done to close the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest? Or, is the gap between the wealthy and the poor just about right? Should our policies aim to keep the wealthy wealthy and the poor poor? Are there any potential political problems of high levels of inequality?
Monday, September 5, 2011
Surveillance and Government
Surveillance is an important way that one person or group can exercise some amount of control over an emerging situation.
On the individual level, recall the father's actions in The Road. He regularly uses binoculars to scan the landscape and to look for any signs of people or movement. If he sees people at a distance, then the father avoids contact. Surveillance is a useful way to exercise some amount of control under conditions of anarchy.
The government also uses surveillance to exercise control over the population -- this includes domestic populations and international populations and can be as simple as passing through security at the airport or going through a sobriety road check .
Here are some of the ways that the government uses different kinds of surveillance to exercise control over different populations:
1. The US government and other governments around the world request that Google provide user data. Here is a nice graphic that illustrates the frequency of requests.
2. The US federal government has recently empowered the FBI with greater surveillance powers over the domestic population:
4. The FBI uses GPS devices to track peoples' movement. Without a warrant, FBI agents secretely attach a GPS tracking device to a person's bumper and monitor their movement.
5. City governments also conduct surveillance. Major metropolitan areas like Washington, DC, New York City, and Chicago have extensive surveillance systems that enable police agents to monitor peoples' activity. Chicago has 10,000 cameras placed around the city, for instance.
Here are my questions for you to consider and thoughtfully comment on:
What do you think? Surveillance is an important aspect of modern government. Does that mean all government surveillance is justified? For reasons of security, should the government be able to conduct as much surveillance as deemed necessary? Or, can there be too much governmental surveillance? If there can be too much governmental surveillance, where is the limit? Who should be responsible for drawing that limit -- and saying this is the proper amount of surveillance and we will accept no more? And, what are the potential risks to the population if the government collects information on all aspects of peoples' lives? What is the value of having a part of our lives that are outside of governmental surveillance?
On the individual level, recall the father's actions in The Road. He regularly uses binoculars to scan the landscape and to look for any signs of people or movement. If he sees people at a distance, then the father avoids contact. Surveillance is a useful way to exercise some amount of control under conditions of anarchy.
The government also uses surveillance to exercise control over the population -- this includes domestic populations and international populations and can be as simple as passing through security at the airport or going through a sobriety road check .
Here are some of the ways that the government uses different kinds of surveillance to exercise control over different populations:
1. The US government and other governments around the world request that Google provide user data. Here is a nice graphic that illustrates the frequency of requests.
WASHINGTON — The Federal Bureau of Investigation is giving significant new powers to its roughly 14,000 agents, allowing them more leeway to search databases, go through household trash or use surveillance teams to scrutinize the lives of people who have attracted their attention.The F.B.I. soon plans to issue a new edition of its manual, called the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, according to an official who has worked on the draft document and several others who have been briefed on its contents. The new rules add to several measures taken over the past decade to give agents more latitude as they search for signs of criminal or terrorist activity.3. Some members of Congress (not all members of Congress) are working to pass laws that would empower certain domestic police agencies to gather "geolocation data" -- that is, the information stored on a person's GPS and cell phone that tracks their movement. This would enable the FBI to gather that information.
4. The FBI uses GPS devices to track peoples' movement. Without a warrant, FBI agents secretely attach a GPS tracking device to a person's bumper and monitor their movement.
5. City governments also conduct surveillance. Major metropolitan areas like Washington, DC, New York City, and Chicago have extensive surveillance systems that enable police agents to monitor peoples' activity. Chicago has 10,000 cameras placed around the city, for instance.
Here are my questions for you to consider and thoughtfully comment on:
What do you think? Surveillance is an important aspect of modern government. Does that mean all government surveillance is justified? For reasons of security, should the government be able to conduct as much surveillance as deemed necessary? Or, can there be too much governmental surveillance? If there can be too much governmental surveillance, where is the limit? Who should be responsible for drawing that limit -- and saying this is the proper amount of surveillance and we will accept no more? And, what are the potential risks to the population if the government collects information on all aspects of peoples' lives? What is the value of having a part of our lives that are outside of governmental surveillance?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)