For our wedding, Anita and I recorded this four-song album. The first two songs are cover songs recorded in our bedroom, and the last two were professionally recorded at Jon Hasz's studio in Ramona, California. Here's a link to this awesome dude's work: Ramona Music Center. Have a listen, and download any of these songs for free!
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Friday, August 19, 2011
Zizek: Living in the End Times, Acceptance (Part VII)
And now we come to the final article in my series on Zizek's book, Living in the End Times. After exploring his Introduction, Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Bargaining again, and Depression, we can all exhale and relax because we've come to Acceptance.
He begins by talking about the 1968 riots in France, argued to be the end of structuralism, in favor of individualism. This is argued because the riots were not carried out by one particular group (like a minority group or a political organization), but were carried out by individuals. The riots seemed to transcend race and culture and age and class and they don't fit nicely into a structuralist narrative. What Zizek takes from this is, following Lacan's assessment of the event, "the explosive events were ultimately the result of a structural shift in the basic social and symbolic texture of modern Europe," and his point is that one structure was replaced by another. So long as human psychology is governed in large part by the Symbolic (words, language, useful ways of organizing data and 'slicing up the world'), we will never truly experience a 'Post-Structuralist' world. What happened in the 1968 riots in France is that a structure in which individuality reigns made its grand entrance. The structure of extreme individuality, for a functioning economy, relies on the motif that "all people serve". That is, ordinary people serve the State and the State serves the people. The King becomes a 'servant of the people'. Zizek writes, "This logic reaches its climax in Stalinism where the entire population serves: ordinary workers are supposed to sacrifice their well-being for the community, the leaders work night and day, serving the people" (353).
In a personal example, I work at a call center for a company that recently raised its rates. Since the price change I've gotten many, many, many calls from upset customers who've been customers of the company for a long time and feel that, for their loyalty, they should not be included in the price change. The idea is that they serve the company (they didn't become customers for their own private interests and for the value the company gave them - they became customers because they were serving the company). The other idea is that the company is there to serve them (the service is made available to customers for the primary reason of providing a public good). The whole infrastructure of the customer service industry heeds the call of this motif - companies can not exist solely to rake in profits: they are there in large part to serve. What we end up with is an awkward conversation in which questions of loyalty are brought up among anonymous individuals and an abstract corporate entity, and tensions run high at the thought that the public good isn't being served, even as we know CEO's make their decisions with deference to investors and not, necessarily, the consumers (the company does serve the people - that is, the people who invest in it). If the customer quits the company, it's also overdetermined by the ethical call to serve the people: "I will cancel my subscription on principle: to protect the rights of the consumer!" At every level, an infrastructure of 'service to the people' takes precedence.
According to Zizek, the riots of 1968 marked the end of "the hierarchical Fordist structure of the production process" and ushered in a new "spirit of capitalism". This new spirit encouraged employee initiative and autonomy. As all aspects and roles within the business need to serve the function of service, even those at the top, "(i)n place of a hierarchical-centralized chain of command there were new networks with a multitude of participants, organizing work in the form of teams or projects, intent on customer satisfaction, and a general mobilization of workers thanks to their leaders' vision" (356). The hierarchy has become so unimportant that today it's considered rare and likely unwise for a professional to stay with the same company too long. Resume's should reflect great diversity and personal initiative.
Alongside this call for personal authenticity and individuality, and we're seeing more and more a call for social solidarity. Zizek makes the point easily with a reference to advertising. In the 1980s and 1990s advertising focused on the individual, whereas now effective advertising makes us feel like a part of a responsible and ethical social body: "the experience referred to here is that of being part of a larger collective movement, of caring for nature and for the ill, the poor and the deprived, of doing something to help" (356). Here is an example from Tom's Shoes, an extreme example of 'ethical capitalism':
The success of Tom's Shoes lays in its including in its price the cost of making a second pair of shoes and distributing that pair to a child in need. Its success is in exploiting this call for social solidarity and for serving the larger good (or, the People). For Zizek, it entails paying for the sin of consumerism: "the sin of consumerism (buying a new pair of shoes) is paid for and thereby erased by the awareness that someone who really needs shoes received a pair for free" (356).
I own a pair of Toms Shoes. I also own several other pairs of shoes. I did not need my pair of Toms Shoes, but I wanted them, and I had enough money to easily afford them. I now own a pair of shoes I don't need with peace of mind because it wasn't an act of mere consumerism, it was in part an act of charity. I need not worry about sideways glances as I sport the new shoes - when the Toms logo is seen, people will know that I am a conscious and responsible member of the society.
Here we see an example of the autonomy and sense of servitude felt since the riots of 1968 mixed together with a growing sense of social solidarity and widespread mobilization, especially if I were to purchase a more expensive pair of designer Toms. Zizek says, "you cannot even drink a cup of coffee or buy a pair of shoes without being reminded that your act is overdetermined by ecology, poverty, and so on. Again, an ad, and note the end: "It's Bigger Than Coffee".
Zizek is not saying that supporting a child who doesn't have shoes is bad, or being rewarded with a free cup of coffee for voting is terrible, but he's deeply concerned that this overdetermination may misdirect our focus. If we are seriously to make progress against the ecological crisis, the consequences of the biogenetic revolution, the imbalances within our social-polical-economic systems, and the explosive growth of social divisions and exclusions (these being the four-riders of the apocalypse his book's been focused on this whole time), we may need to question the very thing such overdetermination makes us forget: these problems were made possible by the very structures that makes these companies possible. Free-Market Laissez Faire Global Capitalism has brought rise to the four-riders of the apocalypse, and they can't be combatted as such. Zizek's message is radical - "'formal' freedom is that freedom to choose within the coordinates of the existing power relations, while 'actual' freedom grows when we can change the very coordinates of our choices" (358). The 'freedom' these companies offer us is formal. It changes nothing to the infrastructure. It explores the available terrain from within the boundaries of the Capitalism they grew up in. As bounded, one's freedom is not expanded, but rather unearthed. To truly empower the dispossessed, we cannot merely buy them shoes, or vote in the right politician. If we want to provide universal healthcare, we can not adjust a for-profit medical establishment. We must be more radical than that. We must redefine the very coordinates that made that which we seek to change possible. Zizek writes, "The lesson to be learned is thus that freedom of choice operates only when a complex network of legal, educational, ethical, economic, and other conditions form an invisible thick background to the exercise of our freedom" (359). It's paramount that we always challenge this thick background and look for ways to expand our freedom.
Zizek ends this section with reference to the French riots of 2005. This burning of cars was an irrational revolt without a cause. While the 1968 riots brought in a new era of Capitalism, the riots of 2005 brought to the streets what remained of it thirty-seven years later: "the social space which is progressively experienced as 'worldless'" (364). As Capitalism has gone global and made itself work in every civilization it's encountered, whether that is Christian or Hindu or Buddhist, the idea of a worldview has been replaced with the "global market mechanism," something we all encounter. Zizek, responding to riots that are increasingly anarchist, warns us that the question of what that 'other world' would look like is increasingly difficult to contemplate.
After writing the book, riots have erupted in Greece and England, not to mention the profound riots of the Arab spring. There are important aspects of these social uprisings that indicate some sort of meaning that wasn't there in 2005, and they are occurring in light of late Capitalism's failures. Deficits have reached their default point, and with rising inequalities, people are pissed. It's of vital importance to study these events and think about their meaning in light of global Capitalism and the four-riders of the apocalypse. Are we approaching a new dawn? A radical structural shift? A post-post-structuralism? And, in the context of Capitalism and the global market mechanism, will this shift be part of a locality, or is it destined to take on a global nature itself? We are left with many questions, because the "End Times" Zizek refers to is not a literal apocalypse, but the end of an epoch. And what is to come is open for discussion and creative engagement.
He begins by talking about the 1968 riots in France, argued to be the end of structuralism, in favor of individualism. This is argued because the riots were not carried out by one particular group (like a minority group or a political organization), but were carried out by individuals. The riots seemed to transcend race and culture and age and class and they don't fit nicely into a structuralist narrative. What Zizek takes from this is, following Lacan's assessment of the event, "the explosive events were ultimately the result of a structural shift in the basic social and symbolic texture of modern Europe," and his point is that one structure was replaced by another. So long as human psychology is governed in large part by the Symbolic (words, language, useful ways of organizing data and 'slicing up the world'), we will never truly experience a 'Post-Structuralist' world. What happened in the 1968 riots in France is that a structure in which individuality reigns made its grand entrance. The structure of extreme individuality, for a functioning economy, relies on the motif that "all people serve". That is, ordinary people serve the State and the State serves the people. The King becomes a 'servant of the people'. Zizek writes, "This logic reaches its climax in Stalinism where the entire population serves: ordinary workers are supposed to sacrifice their well-being for the community, the leaders work night and day, serving the people" (353).
In a personal example, I work at a call center for a company that recently raised its rates. Since the price change I've gotten many, many, many calls from upset customers who've been customers of the company for a long time and feel that, for their loyalty, they should not be included in the price change. The idea is that they serve the company (they didn't become customers for their own private interests and for the value the company gave them - they became customers because they were serving the company). The other idea is that the company is there to serve them (the service is made available to customers for the primary reason of providing a public good). The whole infrastructure of the customer service industry heeds the call of this motif - companies can not exist solely to rake in profits: they are there in large part to serve. What we end up with is an awkward conversation in which questions of loyalty are brought up among anonymous individuals and an abstract corporate entity, and tensions run high at the thought that the public good isn't being served, even as we know CEO's make their decisions with deference to investors and not, necessarily, the consumers (the company does serve the people - that is, the people who invest in it). If the customer quits the company, it's also overdetermined by the ethical call to serve the people: "I will cancel my subscription on principle: to protect the rights of the consumer!" At every level, an infrastructure of 'service to the people' takes precedence.
According to Zizek, the riots of 1968 marked the end of "the hierarchical Fordist structure of the production process" and ushered in a new "spirit of capitalism". This new spirit encouraged employee initiative and autonomy. As all aspects and roles within the business need to serve the function of service, even those at the top, "(i)n place of a hierarchical-centralized chain of command there were new networks with a multitude of participants, organizing work in the form of teams or projects, intent on customer satisfaction, and a general mobilization of workers thanks to their leaders' vision" (356). The hierarchy has become so unimportant that today it's considered rare and likely unwise for a professional to stay with the same company too long. Resume's should reflect great diversity and personal initiative.
Alongside this call for personal authenticity and individuality, and we're seeing more and more a call for social solidarity. Zizek makes the point easily with a reference to advertising. In the 1980s and 1990s advertising focused on the individual, whereas now effective advertising makes us feel like a part of a responsible and ethical social body: "the experience referred to here is that of being part of a larger collective movement, of caring for nature and for the ill, the poor and the deprived, of doing something to help" (356). Here is an example from Tom's Shoes, an extreme example of 'ethical capitalism':
The success of Tom's Shoes lays in its including in its price the cost of making a second pair of shoes and distributing that pair to a child in need. Its success is in exploiting this call for social solidarity and for serving the larger good (or, the People). For Zizek, it entails paying for the sin of consumerism: "the sin of consumerism (buying a new pair of shoes) is paid for and thereby erased by the awareness that someone who really needs shoes received a pair for free" (356).
I own a pair of Toms Shoes. I also own several other pairs of shoes. I did not need my pair of Toms Shoes, but I wanted them, and I had enough money to easily afford them. I now own a pair of shoes I don't need with peace of mind because it wasn't an act of mere consumerism, it was in part an act of charity. I need not worry about sideways glances as I sport the new shoes - when the Toms logo is seen, people will know that I am a conscious and responsible member of the society.
Here we see an example of the autonomy and sense of servitude felt since the riots of 1968 mixed together with a growing sense of social solidarity and widespread mobilization, especially if I were to purchase a more expensive pair of designer Toms. Zizek says, "you cannot even drink a cup of coffee or buy a pair of shoes without being reminded that your act is overdetermined by ecology, poverty, and so on. Again, an ad, and note the end: "It's Bigger Than Coffee".
Zizek is not saying that supporting a child who doesn't have shoes is bad, or being rewarded with a free cup of coffee for voting is terrible, but he's deeply concerned that this overdetermination may misdirect our focus. If we are seriously to make progress against the ecological crisis, the consequences of the biogenetic revolution, the imbalances within our social-polical-economic systems, and the explosive growth of social divisions and exclusions (these being the four-riders of the apocalypse his book's been focused on this whole time), we may need to question the very thing such overdetermination makes us forget: these problems were made possible by the very structures that makes these companies possible. Free-Market Laissez Faire Global Capitalism has brought rise to the four-riders of the apocalypse, and they can't be combatted as such. Zizek's message is radical - "'formal' freedom is that freedom to choose within the coordinates of the existing power relations, while 'actual' freedom grows when we can change the very coordinates of our choices" (358). The 'freedom' these companies offer us is formal. It changes nothing to the infrastructure. It explores the available terrain from within the boundaries of the Capitalism they grew up in. As bounded, one's freedom is not expanded, but rather unearthed. To truly empower the dispossessed, we cannot merely buy them shoes, or vote in the right politician. If we want to provide universal healthcare, we can not adjust a for-profit medical establishment. We must be more radical than that. We must redefine the very coordinates that made that which we seek to change possible. Zizek writes, "The lesson to be learned is thus that freedom of choice operates only when a complex network of legal, educational, ethical, economic, and other conditions form an invisible thick background to the exercise of our freedom" (359). It's paramount that we always challenge this thick background and look for ways to expand our freedom.
Zizek ends this section with reference to the French riots of 2005. This burning of cars was an irrational revolt without a cause. While the 1968 riots brought in a new era of Capitalism, the riots of 2005 brought to the streets what remained of it thirty-seven years later: "the social space which is progressively experienced as 'worldless'" (364). As Capitalism has gone global and made itself work in every civilization it's encountered, whether that is Christian or Hindu or Buddhist, the idea of a worldview has been replaced with the "global market mechanism," something we all encounter. Zizek, responding to riots that are increasingly anarchist, warns us that the question of what that 'other world' would look like is increasingly difficult to contemplate.
After writing the book, riots have erupted in Greece and England, not to mention the profound riots of the Arab spring. There are important aspects of these social uprisings that indicate some sort of meaning that wasn't there in 2005, and they are occurring in light of late Capitalism's failures. Deficits have reached their default point, and with rising inequalities, people are pissed. It's of vital importance to study these events and think about their meaning in light of global Capitalism and the four-riders of the apocalypse. Are we approaching a new dawn? A radical structural shift? A post-post-structuralism? And, in the context of Capitalism and the global market mechanism, will this shift be part of a locality, or is it destined to take on a global nature itself? We are left with many questions, because the "End Times" Zizek refers to is not a literal apocalypse, but the end of an epoch. And what is to come is open for discussion and creative engagement.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Cover Song: Grenade (and others)
Anita and I, as founding members of The Mighty Have Fallen, have tried to put an interesting spin on a number of cover songs. Here is our latest attempt: Bruno Mars' Grenade.
Here is a youtube video of the original:
And here is a youtube video of another cover we 'adjusted':
And here is a youtube video of another cover we 'adjusted':
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Zizek: Living in the End Times, Depression (Part VI)
We ended with Bargaining, parts I and II, which was a Marxist critique of the ideological notions surrounding late Capitalism, and this leads us to the fourth stage of grief in Elisabeth Kubler-Ross's psychological model of how the human subject deals with grief: Depression.
Again Zizek's critique is aimed at late Capitalism, as its ideological grasp has led us toward the 'End Times' in the first place (again, the ecological crisis, the consequences of the biogenetic revolution, growing imbalances in the system itself, and exploding social divisions). Developing a great postmodern insight, Zizek writes, "(I)n the postmodern universe, pre-modern 'leftovers' are no longer experienced as obstacles to be overcome by progress towards a fully secularized modernization, but as something to be unproblematically incorporated into the multicultural global universe - all traditions survive, but in a mediated 'de-naturalized' form, that is, no longer as authentic ways of life, but as freely chosen 'life-styles'" (283).
Of course! In the past, prior to multiculturalism and secular society, modernization involved a bloody struggle to overcome the other. Native American tribes were wiped out, the Trail of Tears was walked, concentration camps were established, racism abounded, and xenophobia prevailed. What is happening now? The Capitalist nations do not fear the Native American, his spirituality, his oral traditions, his sense of belonging or not belonging. Capitalist nations try to turn those deep seeded truths into commodities. They try to overcome the other through a bill of sale. What's left over in the end is a washed up reflection of the Idea. How else can we explain Tibetan Flags sold at REI, Penguin Books publishing of the Dalai Lama, the success of New Age bookstores and the great variety of their overpriced products, and the coveted copy of the I Ching sitting in my bookshelf? Check out this article on Narcissism and Spirituality by Kabutsu Malone.
There was a time when these items would have left one ostracized, punished, or burned, but now they pose no threat. Why? They are the "leftovers" Zizek refers to - those traditions that have survived globalism. As posing no threat, they are sold for profit, and one can freely choose to buy them or not. Should one take it a step further and really try and take on the tradition, one is not seen as privy to truth, but rather as having freely chosen one lifestyle over another. Just like we can pick a major to study at school, we can be a Buddhist or a Pagan or a Christian or an Atheist, and as such, we become part of a larger marketing scheme: an Atheist, as self-expressed on Facebook, should certainly get the advertisement that Sam Harris is coming to your town in a book tour...
Zizek argues that in a global capitalist world, actual lifeworlds are lost. So long as we sell our labor-power, we may perceive our actions as tied to a traditional lifeworld, but with modernity, "the lifeworld loses its immediacy." He provides a vivid example: "the Indian programmer thinks that in the core of his being he remains faithful to his traditional lifeworld, but his 'truth' is his inclusion in the global capitalist machine" (285). What does Zizek mean by 'truth' here? He is referring to The Act. So long as we act in allegiance and accordance with the imagined "Big Other", the "Big Other" is our 'truth'. The Big Other is global capitalism and multiculturalism, and so long as our identities are riddled with "gaps, failures, and antagonisms," we can understand ourselves as serving something other than a local, authentic lifeworld. Our labor, as given value by a machine much larger than us, as given a specialized job not imagined by us, as working toward a goal not determined by us, puts us in the position of being far more universal than we'd like to think. Zizek writes, "But what if it is our particular identity which does not exist, that is, which is always already traversed by universalities, caught up in them? What if, in today's global capitalism, we are more universal than we think, and it is our particular identity which is a fragile ideological fantasy?" (285). Zizek sees this fragile ideological fantasy amidst the all-powerful machinery of global capitalism as a source of depression for the postmodern subject. Zizek writes, "no matter how much we see ourselves as embedded in a particular culture, the moment we participate in global capitalism, this culture is always already de-naturalized, effectively functioning as one specific and contingent 'way of life' of abstract Cartesian subjectivity" (291).
Zizek provides an amazing example of "the political consequences of the loss of an authentic lifeworld in a global economy": China. In 2007, the Chinese State Administration of Religious Affairs passed 'Order Number Five' which gave the Chinese government the power to 'manage' the reincarnation of living Buddhas in Tibetan Buddhism. Monks are no longer allowed to reincarnate without government permission. Why would the Chinese government do this? Zizek argues, paradoxically, that it's to support religious and traditional ideologies in the midst of a prevailing modernity. That is, it's to support Tibetan Buddhist Religious Traditions in the modern world. He argues that the Chinese government, above all, wants social harmony. That is, after all, what keeps them in power. In the onslaught of Capitalist influence and expansion, social sustainability relies on religious and traditional ideologies to keep people ostensibly happy. The Chinese government, in addressing this, began a Cultural Revolution, in which Ye Xiaowen said, "religion is one of the important forces from which China draws its strength". He also said that Buddhism had a "unique role in promoting a harmonious society" (287). The Chinese then went on to protect Tibetan traditions against modernization. In November 2007, the Dalai Lama said that, most likely, his successor would not be chosen by reincarnation, but rather by more democratic means. This would end an ancient tradition in favor a modern political phenomenon. The Chinese government came out against the Dalai Lama, saying that his successor should be chosen through reincarnation, and that the Dalai Lama was being influenced by vested political interests.
What does this tell us? That the Chinese 'support' is informed from having learned from the European powers. Previously relying on military might, they are now relying on ethnic and economic colonization. A belligerent policy towards the Tibetans will only make their cause stronger. The best way to colonize a people is by turning them into a theme park. Treat them as we have the Native Americans. Give them their space and encourage a touristic gaze upon them. Bring them into the fold of a Capitalistic, Modern society.
What's lost is the authentic lifeworld, the deep-seeded identification beyond or before Capitalist exploitation. As Zizek details throughout this chapter, such a loss has resulted in a new subject: a depressed subject. Zizek cryptically notes, "This subject lives death as a form of life - his or her life in the death drive embodied, a life deprived of erotic engagement; and this holds for the henchmen no less than for his victims" (294).
Again Zizek's critique is aimed at late Capitalism, as its ideological grasp has led us toward the 'End Times' in the first place (again, the ecological crisis, the consequences of the biogenetic revolution, growing imbalances in the system itself, and exploding social divisions). Developing a great postmodern insight, Zizek writes, "(I)n the postmodern universe, pre-modern 'leftovers' are no longer experienced as obstacles to be overcome by progress towards a fully secularized modernization, but as something to be unproblematically incorporated into the multicultural global universe - all traditions survive, but in a mediated 'de-naturalized' form, that is, no longer as authentic ways of life, but as freely chosen 'life-styles'" (283).
Of course! In the past, prior to multiculturalism and secular society, modernization involved a bloody struggle to overcome the other. Native American tribes were wiped out, the Trail of Tears was walked, concentration camps were established, racism abounded, and xenophobia prevailed. What is happening now? The Capitalist nations do not fear the Native American, his spirituality, his oral traditions, his sense of belonging or not belonging. Capitalist nations try to turn those deep seeded truths into commodities. They try to overcome the other through a bill of sale. What's left over in the end is a washed up reflection of the Idea. How else can we explain Tibetan Flags sold at REI, Penguin Books publishing of the Dalai Lama, the success of New Age bookstores and the great variety of their overpriced products, and the coveted copy of the I Ching sitting in my bookshelf? Check out this article on Narcissism and Spirituality by Kabutsu Malone.
There was a time when these items would have left one ostracized, punished, or burned, but now they pose no threat. Why? They are the "leftovers" Zizek refers to - those traditions that have survived globalism. As posing no threat, they are sold for profit, and one can freely choose to buy them or not. Should one take it a step further and really try and take on the tradition, one is not seen as privy to truth, but rather as having freely chosen one lifestyle over another. Just like we can pick a major to study at school, we can be a Buddhist or a Pagan or a Christian or an Atheist, and as such, we become part of a larger marketing scheme: an Atheist, as self-expressed on Facebook, should certainly get the advertisement that Sam Harris is coming to your town in a book tour...
Zizek argues that in a global capitalist world, actual lifeworlds are lost. So long as we sell our labor-power, we may perceive our actions as tied to a traditional lifeworld, but with modernity, "the lifeworld loses its immediacy." He provides a vivid example: "the Indian programmer thinks that in the core of his being he remains faithful to his traditional lifeworld, but his 'truth' is his inclusion in the global capitalist machine" (285). What does Zizek mean by 'truth' here? He is referring to The Act. So long as we act in allegiance and accordance with the imagined "Big Other", the "Big Other" is our 'truth'. The Big Other is global capitalism and multiculturalism, and so long as our identities are riddled with "gaps, failures, and antagonisms," we can understand ourselves as serving something other than a local, authentic lifeworld. Our labor, as given value by a machine much larger than us, as given a specialized job not imagined by us, as working toward a goal not determined by us, puts us in the position of being far more universal than we'd like to think. Zizek writes, "But what if it is our particular identity which does not exist, that is, which is always already traversed by universalities, caught up in them? What if, in today's global capitalism, we are more universal than we think, and it is our particular identity which is a fragile ideological fantasy?" (285). Zizek sees this fragile ideological fantasy amidst the all-powerful machinery of global capitalism as a source of depression for the postmodern subject. Zizek writes, "no matter how much we see ourselves as embedded in a particular culture, the moment we participate in global capitalism, this culture is always already de-naturalized, effectively functioning as one specific and contingent 'way of life' of abstract Cartesian subjectivity" (291).
Zizek provides an amazing example of "the political consequences of the loss of an authentic lifeworld in a global economy": China. In 2007, the Chinese State Administration of Religious Affairs passed 'Order Number Five' which gave the Chinese government the power to 'manage' the reincarnation of living Buddhas in Tibetan Buddhism. Monks are no longer allowed to reincarnate without government permission. Why would the Chinese government do this? Zizek argues, paradoxically, that it's to support religious and traditional ideologies in the midst of a prevailing modernity. That is, it's to support Tibetan Buddhist Religious Traditions in the modern world. He argues that the Chinese government, above all, wants social harmony. That is, after all, what keeps them in power. In the onslaught of Capitalist influence and expansion, social sustainability relies on religious and traditional ideologies to keep people ostensibly happy. The Chinese government, in addressing this, began a Cultural Revolution, in which Ye Xiaowen said, "religion is one of the important forces from which China draws its strength". He also said that Buddhism had a "unique role in promoting a harmonious society" (287). The Chinese then went on to protect Tibetan traditions against modernization. In November 2007, the Dalai Lama said that, most likely, his successor would not be chosen by reincarnation, but rather by more democratic means. This would end an ancient tradition in favor a modern political phenomenon. The Chinese government came out against the Dalai Lama, saying that his successor should be chosen through reincarnation, and that the Dalai Lama was being influenced by vested political interests.
What does this tell us? That the Chinese 'support' is informed from having learned from the European powers. Previously relying on military might, they are now relying on ethnic and economic colonization. A belligerent policy towards the Tibetans will only make their cause stronger. The best way to colonize a people is by turning them into a theme park. Treat them as we have the Native Americans. Give them their space and encourage a touristic gaze upon them. Bring them into the fold of a Capitalistic, Modern society.
What's lost is the authentic lifeworld, the deep-seeded identification beyond or before Capitalist exploitation. As Zizek details throughout this chapter, such a loss has resulted in a new subject: a depressed subject. Zizek cryptically notes, "This subject lives death as a form of life - his or her life in the death drive embodied, a life deprived of erotic engagement; and this holds for the henchmen no less than for his victims" (294).
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
5 Reasons I'm STOKED about the new Debt Deal in Congress!
I'm STOKED about the new debt deal that President Obama signed hours before Washington's deadline to raise the debt ceiling, and I'll tell you why. The new deal raises the debt ceiling, while insuring a $2.1 trillion reduction in debt at the same time that it insures no new tax revenue from wealthy Americans and no additional stimulus for our troubled economy. Here are some of the reasons I'm very happy about it:
1) It only seems fair that the wealthy should not have their taxes raised, and the middle class should bear the brunt of our devastating deficit. For one, the middle class greatly outnumbers the wealthy. I mean, when we talk about the wealthiest Americans, we're talking about 2% of the population. Why should they have to pay taxes on all their income when they are such a tiny demographic? For years, they've been enjoying generous tax breaks and loopholes, and rightfully so. They use the roads, police and fireman services, libraries, and federal college grants so much less than the rest of us. Why should they have to pay so much for them? And further, they don't rely on a financially secure middle class at all. We aren't the ones who work for them and buy their products. We don't buy their gasoline and invest in their companies with our 401k's. They owe us nothing. They made their legacy alone. And one last thing - we don't want to tax them more, because they are the job makers (never mind the slight inconsistency between this and the last argument). By freeing up their wealth, they create jobs and jobs and jobs, and we've seen that throughout the recent recession. We don't need their money in the government's vaults - we need them to continue to raise us out of our economic misery, like they've been doing over the last twenty years: making the middle class strong, bringing up those that are impoverished, helping the United States lead the world in industry, even at their own expense. Thank you super-wealthy - you've already done enough, and you don't owe us a thing. We shall take care of this deficit, as the middle class created it. We should have been paying more all along, and now we're paying the price.
2) Also related, deficit cuts without new revenue will all but insure that programs like school nutrition and federal funding for graduate studies will be substantially cut. Well, that's okay. Rest assured, this will in no way affect President Obama's call to "win the future," as in, reestablish our place as leaders in the fields of science and technology. First of all, there is no evidence that a healthy diet provided by a school affects learning in children. And also, just because someone has to take our thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars in students loans and pay interest on them for years doesn't mean they will forgo a graduate program. Besides, they are using the school's services, why should a tax revenue based on a graduated income tax affecting the wealthy be responsible for funding that? Students are the ones who should pay it back, because, again, ONLY they benefit from it. They may, upon receiving their degree, go and work for a titan of industry, but this has no affect on that titan's revenues, or the health of the nation's economy or international standing for that matter.
3) This all but ensures that there will be no extension of unemployment benefits. Good. If workers were just taking their jobs more seriously, they wouldn't be unemployed in the first place. And by cutting off their funding, they will finally be put in a position where they have to go out and find the plethora of available jobs and start working again. Once everyone starts working again, our economy will finally be back on track, so thank goodness!
4) The most persuasive members of congress have called for a reduction in social security spending, and this is a great thing. I mean, I'm mostly coming from personal preference here, but I for one want to work until I literally can't stand. By extending out the age of those who can reap the rewards of social security, Americans will work much more in their life, which means they can produce more wealth for the nation, and pay more taxes, which will in turn help our deficit problem. And as for the wealthiest Americans and a potential tax revenue that would help retain social security benefits while reducing the national debt, they don't need social security anyways, so why would they have to pay for it again? Again, they have nothing to do with those Americans who can't fund their own retirement.
5) It's just fair: the wealthiest Americans, as exhibited in the recent banking crisis, have proven time and time again that they do not benefit from government handouts, so why should the poor? Why should the middle class? They have to earn every last penny they have, and so should everyone else. Also, by making them pay taxes on all their income, we set an unfair precedent. I for one don't pay taxes on all my income! Every year when I fill out my taxes, I check a box that says I don't have to pay taxes on a certain portion of my income. Well, it's only fair that the same should be true for them - they need their own box making it so they don't pay on a certain portion of their income. And you know what - there are really poor people that don't have to pay on any of their income, so they are really the ones who are robbing the system. And don't give me that whole, "They grew up in a sick community in which they had a sub-par education infiltrated with drugs and abuse." Whatever happened to pulling yourself up by your bootstraps?
These are my five reasons, and I hope you recognize the extreme sarcasm of the article and the subdued rage at an unyielding conservative strain of the government and a wimpy, back-bending self-titled "progressive" block that has completely sold out its constituency.
1) It only seems fair that the wealthy should not have their taxes raised, and the middle class should bear the brunt of our devastating deficit. For one, the middle class greatly outnumbers the wealthy. I mean, when we talk about the wealthiest Americans, we're talking about 2% of the population. Why should they have to pay taxes on all their income when they are such a tiny demographic? For years, they've been enjoying generous tax breaks and loopholes, and rightfully so. They use the roads, police and fireman services, libraries, and federal college grants so much less than the rest of us. Why should they have to pay so much for them? And further, they don't rely on a financially secure middle class at all. We aren't the ones who work for them and buy their products. We don't buy their gasoline and invest in their companies with our 401k's. They owe us nothing. They made their legacy alone. And one last thing - we don't want to tax them more, because they are the job makers (never mind the slight inconsistency between this and the last argument). By freeing up their wealth, they create jobs and jobs and jobs, and we've seen that throughout the recent recession. We don't need their money in the government's vaults - we need them to continue to raise us out of our economic misery, like they've been doing over the last twenty years: making the middle class strong, bringing up those that are impoverished, helping the United States lead the world in industry, even at their own expense. Thank you super-wealthy - you've already done enough, and you don't owe us a thing. We shall take care of this deficit, as the middle class created it. We should have been paying more all along, and now we're paying the price.
2) Also related, deficit cuts without new revenue will all but insure that programs like school nutrition and federal funding for graduate studies will be substantially cut. Well, that's okay. Rest assured, this will in no way affect President Obama's call to "win the future," as in, reestablish our place as leaders in the fields of science and technology. First of all, there is no evidence that a healthy diet provided by a school affects learning in children. And also, just because someone has to take our thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars in students loans and pay interest on them for years doesn't mean they will forgo a graduate program. Besides, they are using the school's services, why should a tax revenue based on a graduated income tax affecting the wealthy be responsible for funding that? Students are the ones who should pay it back, because, again, ONLY they benefit from it. They may, upon receiving their degree, go and work for a titan of industry, but this has no affect on that titan's revenues, or the health of the nation's economy or international standing for that matter.
3) This all but ensures that there will be no extension of unemployment benefits. Good. If workers were just taking their jobs more seriously, they wouldn't be unemployed in the first place. And by cutting off their funding, they will finally be put in a position where they have to go out and find the plethora of available jobs and start working again. Once everyone starts working again, our economy will finally be back on track, so thank goodness!
4) The most persuasive members of congress have called for a reduction in social security spending, and this is a great thing. I mean, I'm mostly coming from personal preference here, but I for one want to work until I literally can't stand. By extending out the age of those who can reap the rewards of social security, Americans will work much more in their life, which means they can produce more wealth for the nation, and pay more taxes, which will in turn help our deficit problem. And as for the wealthiest Americans and a potential tax revenue that would help retain social security benefits while reducing the national debt, they don't need social security anyways, so why would they have to pay for it again? Again, they have nothing to do with those Americans who can't fund their own retirement.
5) It's just fair: the wealthiest Americans, as exhibited in the recent banking crisis, have proven time and time again that they do not benefit from government handouts, so why should the poor? Why should the middle class? They have to earn every last penny they have, and so should everyone else. Also, by making them pay taxes on all their income, we set an unfair precedent. I for one don't pay taxes on all my income! Every year when I fill out my taxes, I check a box that says I don't have to pay taxes on a certain portion of my income. Well, it's only fair that the same should be true for them - they need their own box making it so they don't pay on a certain portion of their income. And you know what - there are really poor people that don't have to pay on any of their income, so they are really the ones who are robbing the system. And don't give me that whole, "They grew up in a sick community in which they had a sub-par education infiltrated with drugs and abuse." Whatever happened to pulling yourself up by your bootstraps?
These are my five reasons, and I hope you recognize the extreme sarcasm of the article and the subdued rage at an unyielding conservative strain of the government and a wimpy, back-bending self-titled "progressive" block that has completely sold out its constituency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)