Zakaria and Marx

The more I read Zakaria more I think he is essentially a Marxist without Marx's moral framework.  In other words, he looks at the world the same way that Karl Marx and Frederich Engels did but where they saw injustice and unfairness, Fareed Zakaria sees a wonderful new world in which all the world's people are eventually going to be happy middle class consumers living in modern -- though not Western -- liberal democracies.

I support this view with the following evidence:  Both Marx and Zakaria see the "rise of the West" as happening when the European nations went out and created a market in the Atlantic World.  But where Marx says that this is a step in the oppression of workers because the market is now larger and therefore social relations are reduced to economic relations (you're sister is not married to the butcher anymore), Zakaria sees this as the first wonderful step.  "Europe's naval expeditions...energize[ed] it. (p.51). 

Similarly, both see technology as a prime mover, a thing that shapes the world, but Marx sees its negative impacts whereas Zakaria only sees it as a wonderul thing.  The steam engine and mechanized factory enslaved men for Marx; the clock "freed man" for Zakaria (p.56).

What is so sad about this is that Zakaria should know better: 1492 wasn't the start of some wonderful first step in the rise of the West thanks to its cultural superiority over an inward looking China; 1492 was the first step in the European nation's enslaving 12 million Africans, decimating the culture of West Africa; 1492 was the first step in deforesting the Americas, rendering Caribbean islands ecological deserts; 1492 was the first step in the colonization of people's around the globe, transferring their capital -- biological, social, material capital -- to the nations of Europe.

That this system has now been globalized as the Washington Consensus, Neo-liberalism, etc., should not make us thrilled.  (On Neoliberalism, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#Post-1970s_economic_liberalism.

Instead, it should worry us because we now have no intellectual diversity in our approach to economics, justice, society, and culture.  I don't need to show that there is something inherently wrong in the neoliberal agenda of Zakaria -- though the fact that his "critique" supports the status quo with only small changes at the margins in tone and education spending.  I only need to show that diversity is a good thing.  To do that I would point to nature and say that biological diversity is a sign of ecosystem health, that cultural diversity is a sign of cultural and social health, and that intellectual flexibility is a sign of mental health.  Thus, when we see the whole world marching to one and only one drummer, I worry that there is something we are missing.  It could be we are missing a pending ecological disaster (Global Warming is a mere footnote to Zakaria) or it could be that we are missing a pending cultural disaster (according to the World Health Organization, mental depression will be the second leading cause of disease burden worldwide by 2020, followed by traffic crashes; see, http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/summary_en_rev.pdf p.2 Table 12.

I'm not saying Marx was right and Zakaria is wrong precisely.  I'm only saying that Zakaria's cheerleading for the status quo and the relative paucity of real alternative voices of the kind Marx represents is worrisome.  Are you worried?

Zakaria vs. Marx

Marx talks about how our society is turning into a communist country. I feel as though Zakaria has a more positive look on our country and the world as a whole. He shows how after the destruction of the Soviet Union, we have rapidly became capitalists. The financial force seemed to push things along also. There was “free movement of capital” as he said on page 23. I feel as though Marx is telling us that we basically have no more freedom in our country and this makes these two groups of society. I agree with both of their arguments/ statements. I think that we are turning into a total government controlled country, which I personally do not agree with. On the other hand, like Zakaria shows in his book, we are not as bad off as we think we are. America is not sinking to the other countries, but rather the other countries are just rising up. He called at least this past decade; unusually calm and that we are worried too much. He is not saying that another catastrophe won’t happen again soon, but up to today, it has been very much under control. I never thought of that before and it makes you think. Do we get too scared from media telling us about every incident that happens around the world? We used to not hear about everything, but it was still happening. I think it’s the showing of these incidents that make us more worried.

Ironic

The scene i found most interesting is the scene when the U.S. is shooting at the U.S as well. This seemed very ironic to me because the president was so worried about the destruction the planes were going to cause on Russia, he wasn't worried about something like that happening. I find this ironic because instead he caused this on his own country.

Ripper vs. Mandrake

From the scene when Mandrake enters Ripper’s office to the end of Ripper’s monologue. It became clear who the villain was. These two characters display good vs. evil in a non typical role. General Jack Ripper is the American villain with a befitting name, since the pseudonym “Jack the Ripper “was a serial killer, and his unwillingness to give up the code caused the Americans to attack the Russians. Also, he himself was killing the other Americans that were attacking his base while saying to Mandrake “the red coats are coming”. Mandrake was the British hero who cracked the code in his attempt to save the Americans. It was intriguing to see a British trying to save the Americans from themselves when the Americans were the ones fighting the British during the American Revolution.
Isn’t this interesting?

Communist and Proletarians

In section 2 of the manifesto it describes the relationship with proletarians and communist. The communist aim is to turn the proletarians into a class to over throw the bourgeois supremacy and the conquest of political power by the proletariat. The communist theory describes a movement underway which includes the abolition of private property.In what other relations do the communist stand to the proletarians as a whole ?

Wage-labor communist style

The communist claim that right now workers only get paid "minimum wage." This minimum wage is the sum of money it is needed to keep the worker happy enough to keep working. If the worker isn't happy then the job wouldn't be done. Also the worker is expandable and lives only as long as the ruling class demands it. With this the communist say: "in bourgeois society living labour is but a means of increasing accumulated labor. In communist society accumulated labour is but a means of enlarging, enriching, and promoting the existence of the labourer." So do you guys think the communist are right and that people are oppressed and slave away at there jobs to live a life properly? And they say they can make working seem more personal and more rewarding for the worker. How would they be able to do this with out off setting the concept of how work, trade, and the economy function?

Bourgeois and His Wife

The bourgeois is said to use their women like a tool. They treat them as such and enjoy trading their wives with other member of the bourgeoisie. They misuse all the women they have in their community. Their women band together in a secret community. It then says that the situation would not be as such with the Communists. They would be able to have a community that was exposed and they would be treated better. Could this possibly have been true 1848?

Business Personalization and Loyalty

As we have talked about in class, the market place changed with the Industrial revolution. This means that instead of all the little villages with their own market places, the market place became global. This hurt the little shoe makers shop in that little village but has made the marketplace more diverse also. I think that although we can get shoes from China now and we don't personally know the people that make our shoes, businesses try to make you feel like you have a relationship with their company. In my business class, they talk about loyalty. I understand that places like Wal-mart have a very big share of the market today because of the very low prices but not everyone buys from there. Some will pay more for what they think is better quality or if they do know the local bread shop they will buy from there because they have a personal relationship with them. Even big companies try to customize or have one-on-one help with you to solve your problems to make you want to buy from them again. I think that, although the Industrial revolution has changed our market place and classes of the people a lot, they have not forgotten about what people will also take in to consideration besides the lower prices, which is personal relationships and the loyalty they develop.

Re-establishing countries bad?

Also in Africa, there was all different tribes that had been established long before we came along. Then the US and Europe went over and started making our own countries like Liberia. I feel as though they made things worst for Africa because they were dividing or grouping people that never were together in the first place. What do you think?

The different names of Equiano

An important part of this book is right on the cover. In the title, Equiano puts all three of his names that represent him. There is Olaudah Equiano, Gustavus Vassa and the African. I think that putting all three names in the title shows his progression in life. First he was Equiano, which was his birth name, when he was a free man. After being enslaved, his master changed his name to Gustavus Vassa. This showed how in controlled he was at that time. The name also belonged to a nobleman, which seemed ironic to the situation. He fought the name but then gave in. The African is at the end of his journey. He became a Christian in the Americans after being freed but still was not considered the same as the “white man.” In the beginning, he was not the same as other people that lived in Africa, they were different people even if from the same country. Now after his journeys, he became “the African.” All the people involved in the slave trade were then referred to as “Africans” even though they might not consider themselves Africans. Although they, in a way, bonded and became brothers in America, where we branded them different even after they were “free.”

Still not getting the blogging we need.

I'm really at a lost just now.  There are some regular commentators and those who when asked will post, but we haven't achieved the critical mass in the class to make for a real discussion online that would make up for the missing class.  That's just disappointing to me because there are some in class who are making the effort.  Sure, it will show up in the grades, but that's hardly the point.

Why compare to the Jews?

Equiano continuously compares his people with the Jews because he believes that the Africans and the Jews originated from the same descendants. “Indeed this is the opinion of Dr. Gill, who, in his commentary on Genesis, very ably deduces the pedigree of the Africans from Afer and Afra, the descendents of Abraham by Keturah his wife and concubine.” (p.20)

In regards to his tribe, Equiano believes that the society of his upbringing was governed in the same way as the Jews were governed. “Like the Israelites in their primitive state, our government was conducted by of chiefs or judges, our wisemen, and elders; and the head of a family, with us, enjoyed a similar authority over his household with that which is ascribed to Abraham and the other Patriarchs.” (p.20)

I think that Equiano uses the Jews as an example because he believes that they portray his people best due to their similar traditions and superstitions.

Do you agree with my analysis?

"Pluck the chicken, but don't make it scream

This has been the the way of Haiti since the beginning of time. Even today after the earth quack that distroyed 1/2 the country the people in charge want to put a tax on the medical supplies and food that gets into the country to save the people of Haiti. Always keep them struggling. Even if we give all the money that was collected and give it to the people to rebuild their country, their country will find a way to tax it and collect it for them selves. Keeping the people at bay, just giving them what they need to survive keeps them quite and for the people of america who are triing to get their loved ones out for years still find themselves feeding their country money and no one leaves. This country is still a slave driven country and struggle to live as free. When they hire people to rebuild their country they will start in Port of Prince where Americans tend to visit and when country and political people are settled they will see what is left over for the real haitians in the country. Already the news for Haiti has stopped and I am sure there is still people dieing because they can not get food and water,but they are rebuilding the richer parts of Haiti. The so called " New Haiti" The new Revolution will begin soon when all who have lost all begin to fight to get just a little and America will be back in there triing to make Haiti whole again.

I want my revolution.

Where's OUR revolution?

posted 6 minutes ago by Dan Albert
So now we're looking at Equiano offering an idea that, while not revolutionary in itself, will lead ultimately to the very revolutionary act of EMANCIPATION.  Emancipation is revolutionary not because it frees people but because it TAKES PROPERTY.  Never before or since has the US government in one fell swoop taken so much private property and obliterated it as property.  So revolutionary is this act, in fact, that when the HAITIAN REVOLUTION happens - first in 1791 then for real in 1804, the US government insists that the slave holding French be paid off.

So, as I read about the FRENCH REVOLUTION and compare it to the AMERICAN i cannot help but wonder how truly revolutionary the US was.  The freeing of the slaves seems out of character.

Her's more evidence that we're not so revolutionary: in France the Third Estate led the revolution after about a decade of economic trouble.  Here we are in an economic crisis, we are told, with unemployment and all the rest, but no revolution.  Why not?  Where is our revolution?  I don't look forward to the Reign of Terror, but a revolution might be fun, especially if it is televised.

Why does the Ancient Mariner really kill the Albatross?

When I was given this question I was told it was a trick question.. So what I feel the answer is may be totally obvious and NOT the real answer.. I feel like it's right, but whenever someone tells you something is a trick question you obviously second guess yourself.. So here goes nothing.

I feel the Mariner kills the Albatross because it's more of a symbol for the wind. When we first meet the albatross, it's referred to as a good luck charm to the sailors. But soon after it takes post, the winds stop hitting. Feeling like it's the albatross's fault, the Mariner shoots the albatross. I feel like although an emotional moment for the Mariner, it's not the most significant thing that happened. I think his consequences are much more severe. He drifts from the belief that "all creatures great and small, the lord God created them all" so he suffers the consequences of his animal cruelty.

Any other thoughts? After all, it is a trick question.

The Mariner's salvation

In the story, the Mariner recalls his tale to the best man of a wedding. The Mariner is on a ship and the crew spots an albatross through the fog. The albatross is said to be a good omen so the crew is happy and welcomes the bird. The albatross follows the ship for days until the Mariner shoots it with his crossbow. The shipmates are angered so they take the body and wrap it around his neck as penence. The Mariner doesn't say why he shoots the bird. " 'God save thee, ancient Mariner! From the fiends, that plague thee thus! - Why look'st thou so?'- With my cross-bow I shot the Albatross."

A spirit then follows the ship and a curse decsends on them. All of the crew drop dead except the Mariner. He feels lonliness and fixedness on the moon and the stars. Then he feels his soul refreshed. What is the Mariner's salvation and what absolves him of his sins? Why do you think he killed the Albatross?

How The Rime of the Ancient Mariner relates to class

I feel that The Rime of the Ancient Mariner relates to Rousseau's second impulse: compassion, don't kill for fun. I believe the Mariner killed the albatross for fun and he learned his lesson the hard way. He had to watch other innocent men die while he lived for the crime that he committed. It wasn't until this stanza that he learned that everything is beautiful and there is no need to kill something for his own pleasure.

O happy living things! no tongue
Thier beauty might declare:
A spring of love gushed from my heart,
And I blessed them unaware:
Sure my kind saint took pity on me,
And I blessed them unaware.

Rousseau believes the world belonged to everyone including nature in which the Mariner interrupted. Also Voltaire believes human nature isn't perfect.In which we should not interrupt. What do you guys think?
-Courtney Lynch

Voltaire in Business Ethics and Society

I was helping a friend in their business ethics class; when talking about the ethics of derivatives and transparency (a management aim to understand risk) I ran across this quote:

"Candide is naive, but his transparency is seen by Voltaire as virtuous." - Justin Welby

I thought that this was an interesting quote to come across in a business book, but I also found it extremely true. What do you guys think about this quote? Transparency is a virtue.

Maddi Park

Candide and the new world

Candide is an extension of Voltaire in spirit, the book is all about how Voltaire would react if these things happened to him and what he thinks about these situations happening around his life. So what is Voltaire trying to say to us by having Candide escape to South America?

My conclusion is that in the 1750’s the European way of life was in chaos. The Seven years war was taking place, the enlightenment was also in full gear. It was a bridge between two eras of time. So with the turmoil brewing away Voltaire might have wished he left Europe for the new world. Thus he sent Candide there to tell people the stability of the old world is changing so you should get out now before is collapses and if something bad emerges you will be a whole world away.

What do you guys thinks about why he left, and do you also think that Candide is the blade in Voltaire's hand? He published most of his works for the nobles of Europe. Was he trying to tell them something with this book?

Pococurante; A noble, (bored) Venetian.

It seems as though Pococurante has everything imaginable. From elegant gardens, laid out and ornamented with beautiful marble statues, to neatly dressed pretty girls whom Pococurante takes to bed. As well as high price paintings, concerts taking place in his own home, and a library shelved with thousands of books.

None of the above makes him happy. He says things like..
"I am getting tired of these two girls as well"
"This noise.. utterly disgusts me."
"Neither I nor anyone else in Italy can take pleasure in these sorry extravagances."

What is keeping this man here? He gets extremely bored of everything so quickly. Voltaire points out that he is a man of sixty. Do you think because of his age he has seen so much greatness in his life and now nothing can please him? Maybe he has been like this his whole life? He has a lot of money.. and money can only buy so much. It is definitely not buying the Count happiness.

Then what does this man have to live for?

"I say what I think, and care little whether others agree with me." - Pococurante.

Free Will

"Do you think," said Martin, "that hawks have always eaten pigeons when they could find them?"
"Of course I do," said Candide.
"Well," said Martin, "if hawks have always had the same character, why should you suppose that men have changed theirs?"
"Oh, but there's a great difference," said Candide, "for Free Will..."

Free will is literally defined as the power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances. It is evident that Martin does not believe in free will. He finds no distinction between animals and humans. Martins pessimistic outlook shows that he has always seen the evil in man rather than the good. However Candide believes that what keeps animals and humans separate is free will. A mans ability to make his own decisions and decide his own fate.

So if humans posses the power of free will, then why, throughout Candide, does Voltaire provide the reoccurring theme of an evil man? In comparison, Voltaire shows his utopia through Eldorado. Why is the free will of the people different and how has that made their society different?

Lastly, I think Voltaire specifically brings in free will because it is ultimately related to the conclusion of the book. "we must go and work in the garden." If men came together and used their free will to work on the common good of the society rather than their individual fulfillment, progress in the "garden" would be much more extreme and rapid. But can another change someones free will?

For Better or Worse?

Rousseau says that "...the instant [people] began to stand in need of eachother's assistance; from the moment in which it appeared adventageous for any one man to posses the quantity of provisions nessecary for two, all equality dissapeared" (14, Communist Manifesto and other Revolutionary Writings).

Rousseau makes the argument that the more humanity develops, and advances itself, the worse off we become. We created ideas of property, which leads to power and greed. We developed pride, which harbors jealously, and anger. Rousseau continues to say that as our societies developed, mainly because of these constructs, our problems perpetually became greater. Voltaire also satires this in Candide, when he says "...things cannot be other than they are...everything is made for the best purpose"(20, Candide).

The question i pose is, are we, as a people, heading in the right direction? Is everything really for the best? At first this seems like a very simple question, but think about this; A statistic said that cavemen only spent a few hours a day gathering food. Think of all the time you spend at work, in class, driving, and staying up late doing homework, waking up early... Then ask yourself again. Rousseau's point can be seen as easily as it can be argued against.

So what do you think?

Policy by Voltaire

"No man, by his own individual care and exertion, can secure himself from evil; he requires assistance" Voltaire.

I chose this sentence because i believe just that. Although this may not be what Voltaire is saying I believe that people can only get by so far by themselves and that they need the people around them to help them out. Some people may believe that by blocking out the world and secluding themselves they will do just fine. I think that with a little help from friends or even people just willing to lend a hand you can go a long way.

What is Evil?

Candide is about what to do with a world that has evil in it as well as a real rip on philosophers and the clergy and the elites in Europe. 

The evil thing has me thinking about our views of NATURE today.  Nature documentaries and children's  books always locate evil in the great white shark or the big bad wolf.  But of course our modern, scientific point of view recognizes that dramatic ideas of good guys and bad guys are just human constructs.  The wolf is no more evil than the mosquito -- both might be a problem for us but they are part of a large ecosystem.  But NATURE has no moral framework.  So where do we get this moral framework from.  We seem to have a basic sense of FAIRNESS, but we know that life is not FAIR.  But still we cling to it.  Is that were GOD resides?

DISCUSSION SPACE FOR SECTION 12

RULES FOR POSTING:

• YOU SHALL POST AT LEAST ONCE A WEEK BY MONDAY,  9 AM
• YOU SHALL RESPOND TO YOUR CLASSMATES AND PROFESSOR
• YOU SHALL WRITE IN COMPLETE PARAGRAPHS WHEN POSTING
• YOUR POSTINGS SHALL BE ON THE RELEVANT READINGS
• YOU SHALL PUT YOUR FULL NAME ON ALL OF YOUR POSTS
• YOU SHALL TREAT EVERYONE WITH RESPECT