Monthly Archives: February 2016

Treat Everyone Like a Valentine

Posted on by

Marx, Saint-Simon, and Owen both address the inherent issues of capitalism. In his writing of “Estranged Labour”, Marx suggests that the worker will never be satisfied because of labor’s “alienation.” As workers produce more, the owners and employers take in the product and become wealthier—the workers gain little. Individuals work for survival purposes; they do not partake in labor because of any passion or interest. Because the worker gains nothing except for the ability to survive, the worker becomes alien to not only himself, but society. The worker is merely a “product” of nature ((Karl Marx, Estranged Labour)). Saint-Simon argues that hard work and honesty do not always lead to success. Because of the “struggle to the death,” ((Comte de Saint-Simon, The Incoherence and Disorder of Industry)) only a small number of individuals will succeed and all the rest will fall. This, in turn, leads to some individuals who do not succeed to partake in immoral acts such as lying and stealing in order to gain an advantage and acquire more wealth. While these two authors write about the struggles capitalism creates, Robert Owen suggests in his short chapter that workers should not accept the injustice they face in capitalistic society. Owen argues that workers should unionize and protest their injustices, while at the same time calling for the wealthy and the intelligent to change society because they have the ability to do so. ((Robert Owen, The Legacy of Robert Owen to the Population of the World))

Today (you knew that was coming), the top 1% of society take in the majority of the wealth. As a result, millions of Americans, and citizens abroad, suffer from poverty. While many individuals engage in unionization and protests, their actions do not carry enough weight to change capitalistic society. But their voices have volume. Millions of people around the world, including public officials and administrators, are listening. The unfortunate thing is, though, only the wealthy have the means to actually enact new laws and new ways of life. Yes, I’m going to mentioned Bernie Sanders. Sanders’ idea of democratic socialism appeals to millions of Americans because of its capacity for opportunity and equality. Sanders, Marx, and Saint-Simon all have similar visions of an equally successful society. I thought that Owen’s writing best illuminates the state of our society today. In his invigorating, passionate tone, he called for the wealthy to come together and give everyone a chance. Today, millions of individuals including Sanders are urging the wealthy to change their money grubbing ways in order to create opportunity for all citizens. Overall, the issues of capitalism plague our society, and individuals such as Sanders are doing their best job to do something about it.

Is capitalism the most ideal system, or is it bound to fail?

Are we afraid to change are capitalistic society?

Where are we going? Will things change?

Collectivism: What is the Government’s to take?

Posted on by

With the birth of the Soviet Union and the beginning of communist rule, the new government had to establish socialist norms for those living in the country. The All- Russian Central Executive Committee established these new rules, as on March 21, 1921 the committee addressed NEP in the Countryside, The Tax in Kind. In this document, the committee established collectivism norms for peasants in the form of taxing for the needs of the government and overall Soviet State. A little more than a year later, on May 22, 1922, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee spoke again, this time on the Right of Private Property in Commerce and Industry. This document clears confusion around the rights to private property in the Soviet Union, however also states that the decree is not retroactive, and does not return the right to property confiscated by the Soviet Union back to previous owners.

Both documents exemplify the complexity involved in changing the kind of government in a nation. Moving from Tsarist rule to communist rule involved a complete transformation of government and therefore laws and societal norms. Ideas that once did not need clarification, such as what is considered one’s private property or crops, suddenly needed vast explanation. The committee does seem to at least attempt to protect the rights of peasants and farmers within the confusion of the documents.

In my opinion, both decrees were confusing and somewhat contradictory. The first decree on NEP in the Countryside is hard to understand what rights exactly the government had to farmers’ crops and supplies. The second decree on the Rights to Private Property was a bit easier to follow, however at the end stated that the decree does not act retroactively in returning past confiscated property. With that being said, and considering how much property and land the Soviet Union confiscated at this point already, the second decree seems somewhat useless. Also, the wording of the documents and idea flow throughout the documents is hard to follow and was most likely not understood by the typically uneducated peasants. With that, the government most likely was able to get away with not following these laws as most of the people they applied to, the peasants and farmers, did not understand them. It seems that the government released these decrees just as a means to cover up any possible accusations of abuse of power.

 

 

Jingoism in America’s Economy

Posted on by

Most Americans would argue that a capitalist economy is one of the strongest factors in forming a nation, however Karl Marx and Comte de Saint Simon, two enlightened philosophers, found major flaws in this system. Marx points out in his essay “Estranged Labor” how a capitalist economy alienates certain workers. Specifically he pointed out how some workers do not own the goods they produce and solely work for others, which in turn lends to a loss of self. ((Karl Marx, Estranged Labor)) Comte de Saint Simon criticized capitalism as well, however focused less on the worker and more on how capitalism could affect the people as a whole. He hypothesized that the competitive nature of capitalism would only allow a small elite group of people to gain from the system and it would also lead to people making fewer honest decisions in order to gain. ((Comte de Saint Simon, The Incoherence and Disorder of Industry))

 

These two men have very opposing views from Adam Smith, the English philosopher that we as Americans draw most of our influence of capitalism from. Smith argued that a capitalist economy would increase production and instigate innovation. ((Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations)) Neither Comte de Saint Simon nor Karl Marx necessarily disagreed with these points, the question they ask is; at what cost? They ask if we would rather risk our honest work and our sense of self for a few individuals to succeed?
The question I now pose is one based on a term we learned in class the other day: jingoism. Are Americans so strong willed to believe that we are right no matter the obvious issues with our economic system that we would never consider changing it? Comte de Saint Simon and Karl Marx might say so.

War Communism and the New Economic Policy – the Bolsheviks’ Experiments with Economics

Posted on by

As the Russian Civil War (1917-1922) neared its end, Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky sought to utilize the war energy and spirit to help improve the economy. Under their leadership, the Bolsheviks began to convert military units into “labor armies.” The first of these troops to be converted was the Third Red Army, which became the First Labor Army in 1920. The troops new orders, as evidenced by Trotsky’s “Order to the Third Red Army – First Labor Army,” and Lenin’s “Decree on the First Revolutionary Labor Army,” were to help laborers in tasks of carpentry, blacksmithing, and farming. Furthermore, armies and laborers shared food and registered each worker and item produced. Trotsky and Lenin meant for the system to be organized and working within the framework already set up by locals. These orders are filled with Marxist ideology, especially in their valuation of equality, unity, and the spread of knowledge. However, it seems this system did not work as well as Trotsky and Lenin had hoped, because only a year later, Lenin introduced new economic policy.

 

This “New Economic Policy” (NEP) acted as a significant shift in direction, perhaps best indicated by the chart below.

NEP_diagram

[1]

 

The biggest change between the old War Communism, and the New Economic Policy was the introduction of a tax-in-kind. According to a document put forth by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, the tax-in-kind was percentage-based, progressive, and precisely timed.[2] After the government collected the tax, laborers could use the surplus for consumption and exchange, or trading with the government for other items of consumption and agricultural machinery.

 

In other documents, such as the “All-Russian Central Executive Committee, The Right of Private Property in Commerce and Industry” and “Law on Land Tenure and Use. May 22, 1922,” Lenin especially utilized and emphasized a rational system. The documents meticulously lay out what items could be considered private property and what could be contracted.[3] They also specifically attend to landowning, and the types of land-tenure an agricultural community could have.[4] In allowing a community to elect which type of land-tenure to use, the law enabled the laborers to choose. Furthermore, the documents dictate that if one is unable to fulfill their duty, they will be able to hire help, or if one enters the military, the community will take care of the land for him/her. However, the documents appear a little too idealistic in their expectations for people to think rationally, and perhaps this is why Stalin retracts many of the policies in 1929.

[1] Comparison Between War Communism and the New Economic Policy. Digital image. The New Economic Policy. Evaluate. Accessed February 14, 2016. https://isemodernworldhistorygrade9.wikispaces.com/The New Economic Policy. Evaluate.

[2]V. I. Lenin, “All-Russian Central Executive Committee, The Tax in Kind. March 21, 1921,” Collected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1934), Vol. XXXII, pp. 214-228.

[3] “All-Russian Central Executive Committee, The Right of Private Property in Commerce and Industry. May 22, 1922,” Russian Information and Review. Vol. I, No. 20 (15 July 1922), pp. 478-479.

[4] J. Meisel and E. S. Kozera, eds., “Law on Land Tenure and Use. May 22, 1922,” Materials for the Study of the Soviet System (Ann Arbor: G. Wahr Pub. Co., 1953), pp. 133-138.

Dehumanized: the Individual in Regards to Industry

Posted on by

Karl Marx’s “Estranged Labour” details the ruthless system that is ‘The Money System.’  This system strikes chords similar to those of Thomas Hobbes’ theory on the state of nature where every human is in competition with one another; Marx states that “the political economy promotes greed and competition amongst the greedy” ((Marx, Estranged Labour, 1844))  which adds a layer of economy to Hobbes’ theory.  However, Marx takes it yet another step forward by asserting the dehumanization of those who work in industry.  He asserts “The worker puts his life into the object; but now his life no longer belongs to him but to the object” ((Marx, Estranged Labour, 1844)) and “the greater this product, the less is he himself.” ((Marx, Estranged Labour, 1844))In both these statements, Marx is alluding to the loss of individual identity within the confines of industry, as the owners of these industries are only concerned with the money they will be making through these people, and not their individual interests.

Marx could not be more correct with making these assumptions of the human identity.  As individuals become more engrossed in their mundane work, they lose what makes them different from others.  With this loss of identity comes the loss of a person’s interests in the workplace; their industrial occupations have become mind-numbing tasks that have become solely a means for currency; there is no other purpose for them to be at the job aside from providing a way of survival.

Although Marx’s summations of industry are grim, they are true.  One can even see Marx’s assertions about the individual working in industry in today’s world with entry level jobs found in food service or retail sale; many people work those jobs for no other benefit than accruing cash.  How many people actually worked at McDonalds over the summer because they loved being around those deep fryers all day?  A single person’s interests are not a priority in the eyes of big businesses; their goal is to make as much money at as little cost as possible.

How, if at all possible, could industry conditions be improved?  What implications would this have on the entire industrial system?

Also as a side note it was unclear to me what Marx explained in section XXV of this reading where he wrote about who owns the product of labor.  I understand it was somewhat abstract, but could somebody please clarify the first few paragraphs for me?  Specifically the concept of the ‘alien being.’

Rebuilding Russia

Posted on by

In the early 1920’s Russia was recovering from the revolution and the following civil war. A famine was underway and the country was in disarray after the chaos of the last few years. In response the Soviet Union started enacting new policies to get the economy and the industrial section back on track. First they established the First Labor Army. This organization used men from the military to do labor in order to further the industrial sphere of Russia. The labor included coal, lumber, and others. It was enacted not only to further the industrial area of Russia but also to keep people alive. Russia was in the midst of a famine because of the disorder in the country. The workers in the factories were losing ground and a major act was necessary to turn things around. Also enacted was the New Economic Policy. In 1921 the Soviet Union changed the ways peasants were taxed. Instead of the grain requisitions, excess food was to be given to the government. As it became more common, this tax, in the form of supplies, transitioned into a monetary exchange. This policy was unusual for the Soviet government as usually exchange happened through the government rather than this people centered form. Both of these policies were criticized for their similarities to pre-revolution ideas. Many peasants believed that the labor army and the new form of taxation were too similar to serfdom. But these new policies fulfilled their purpose: rebuilding Russia.

A Consequence of Capitalism

Posted on by

Comte de Saint-Simon disparaged laissez-faire industry in “The Incoherence and Disorder of Industry”, saying that capitalists are not concerned with the well being of society and are solely individuals looking to profit. This leads to men emphasizing their cunning and shrewdness and leading them to be “lost to humanity”. ((Comte de Saint-Simon, The Incoherence and Disorder of Industry)) Marx took an equally negative stance on capitalism in “Estranged Labor” although he chose to focus on the worker and not the capitalist. Marx argued that every step of the production process estranges the worker from the product they are creating, as the more the worker produces, the less he is able to possess. The worker is also estranged from the process of production, as Marx writes, “labor produces for the rich wonderful things – but for the worker it produces privation”. ((Karl Marx, Estranged Labor 1844. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm)) Workers are estranged through the process of production as they are not affirmed by their work and they do not enjoy it. Marx wrote that as men are alienated from their work their labor becomes forced labor, therefore workers only feel completely free when performing animal functions, such as eating, drinking and procreating.

Marx and Saint-Simon highlight similar issues with how capitalism impacts interpersonal relationships. Saint-Simon points out that men are inherently competitive and that this leads them to enter a potentially lucrative industry, creating a few successful men and many who are completely ruined. In a similar vein, Marx discusses the estrangement between men as those who produce are under the dominion of those who own the means of production. This creates a dichotomy between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ in terms of who wields the most influence in society and has the most opportunity.

Marx and Saint-Simon were both writing near the nineteenth century when the Industrial Revolution was impacting many different areas. Many of the problems they identified with capitalism are still present in society today, is there any way to correct for these issues or reduce their impact? Is today’s society reducing the divisions between workers and owners or are the divisions growing?

Deities of Derivatives

Posted on by

In Zamyatin’s bizarre and ingeniously sobering novel of “We”, ((Zamyatin, Yevgeny. We. New York: Modern Library, 2006.)) rationality triumphs emotion as mathematics reigns as the supreme dogma of the individual’s life and mind. Of course, in this case, the term “individual” refers to the collective mass of workers known as ciphers who exist as mere figures in the long string of omnipotent code that is the dull and gray One State. Freedom is condemned as an uncouth crime while whimsical dreams and fits of inspiration are cruelly filed under the category of epileptic anomaly. The hero, and eventual martyr, of the story is D-503, a thirty-two-year-old cipher who is in charge of building the Integral, a marvelous product of modern science and technology purposefully constructed in order to integrate extraterrestrial societies into the blissful monotony of the One State. D-503 venerates mathematics and the exquisitely logical “Table” that dictates every hour of his daily life apart from his sexual, and even that is governed by the rules of “Paternal & Maternal Norms” and pink tickets. His life changes drastically as he is violently birthed into a world of vibrant color and independent thought propagated by a female cipher, I-330, who quite literally grasps him by his shaggy, primitive-like hands and pulls him out.

New, revolutionary ideologies spread within D-503 like a cancer, resulting in the proliferation of disinformation and disaggregation that are so dreadfully toxic to the prosperity of the One State. The cast-iron hands that of the Benefactor that seem to preside over all are defied, rejecting one of the core principles of the later Russian Revolution; the worship of industry and enthrallment of efficiency, as seen through the famed ideas of Taylor the economist that are so imbued within the novel. Zamyatin sees the dark side of the revolution, and generates an unsettling world that causes one to fear philosophies such as that of the poet Kirillov in his work The Iron Messiah. ((Kirillov, Iron Messiah)) The novel continuously examines the effects of antireligion, in which old, conservative traditions are ironically replaced with new progressive ideals embodied in the exaltation of mathematics and machinery. Through the terror of the guardians and vice-like grip of Communism, the people are forced to march along with eyes lowered and minds shut. Nonetheless, the subjugation by the One State of its people is not infinite; as per the existence of the irrational root of negative 1, there will always exist a number that rational governance is unable to enslave.

The Divinely Rational

Posted on by

518NyrtPIkL._SX306_BO1,204,203,200_

In 1917, Nicholas II, Emperor of All Russia, was toppled, leaving in his wake a slew of provisional governments which could be likened to anarchy. In the midst of a bloody three year civil war, Yevgeny Zamyatin wrote his dystopian novel We. The work presented a futuristic society in which people were identified by letter and numbers and worked mindlessly for the betterment of the “One State.” ((Yevgeny Zamyatin. We . Translated by Natasha S. Randall. New York: Random House, 2006.)) The main character, D-503 recounted his descent from a respected mathematician of good standing within the state, to the accomplice of a revolutionary looking to return society to its natural state. Zamyatin sharply satirized the utopian ideals of many of his contemporaries, specifically those pertaining to the glorification of machinery. Zamyatin often likened D-503 to a machine, at one point his hero explicitly stated “I am like a machine being driven to excessive rotations: the bearings are incandescing and, in a minute, melted metal will begin to drip and everything will turn to nothing. Quick: get cold water, logic.” ((Zamyatin, 119))

The concept of man as machine alludes to those in 1920 Russia who feverishly purported that mechanization was a savior; if the proletariat could be made into machines, Russia would infinitely prosper. After D-503’s revolutionary lover I-333 hatched a plot to steal the Integral space ship, the State Gazette, the newspaper of the “One State,” announced a forced procedure to remove all citizens’ imaginations. In this announcement, the benefits were described as “you will be perfect, you will be machine-equal.” ((Zamyatin, 158)) This desire for the automation of humanity, for a “divinely rational” ((Zamyatin, 61)) life culminated in the loss of all mortal values and joys; happiness became the absence of thought and arithmetic replaced all emotion. Zamyatin criticized both the ideas behind and the very revolution that had occurred in front of his eyes. D-503, in attempting to confine the world to the finite, spoke for a Bolshevik blinded by utopian ideals: “our revolution was the last. And there cannot be any more revolutions…everyone knows that…” ((Zamyatin, 153))

Picture from: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/518NyrtPIkL._SX306_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Emotion versus Reason

Posted on by

We by Yevgeny Zamyatin is a complex and revolutionary novel of Science fiction. D-503 is a mathematician living in the One State, journaling his daily life in order for future generations to learn about his society once the journal is put on the Integral (the spaceship D-503 is building). As a mathematician D-503 experiences the world in equations, from describing pleasing aesthetics to eventually emotions such as love with math (L=f(D): love is a function of death). ((Zamyatin, We 119)) Everything in the One State is measured and accounted for, using a Taylor system of time tables to block off the day. I-330 is the catalyst of all change in D-503’s life. Through the acquaintance of I-330, D-503 develops “an incurable… soul” and becomes aware of the confines of life within the One State. ((Zamyatin, We 79)) I-330 is a member of MEPHI (Mephisto), a rebellion group which stands for Anarchy, and who’s goal is to help the cave-man like creatures that live beyond the enclosing wall of the One State’s territory to break through and take down the current regime. ((Zamyatin, We 144)) Eventually D-503 is overcome with the events and turns himself in to the Bureau of Guardians, thusly turning over all of the rebels as well. The novel ends with a short entry from D-503 post-Opperation and devoid of human emotions. D-503 is only a shell of his former self as he watches without sympathy as I-330 is tortured for information, finally saying that “reason will win” and once again becoming a full supporter of the One State. ((Zamyatin, We 203))

We is a novel full of dichotomies, the most prevalent of which is reason versus emotion. The One State is obsessed with controlling it’s population, causing the people to become more machine than men. As D-503 states. “love and hunger are the masters of the world”; by regulating everything in life so closely even natural human emotions such as love become a designated hour of the day. ((Zamyatin, We 20)) Emotions have the power to effect change, which is one reason why I-330 is able to create a following of revolutionaries. One cause of the creation of the Operation is the rebellion, and the need to eliminate ‘dangerous’ qualities of people for the safety if the One State. The great struggle of the novel is increasing regulation over the daily life of citizens of the One State, with the inhabitants being as oblivious as possible, because once time doesn’t belong to themselves the only option left is to devote their entire lives to the good of the state.