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.