BNW

First off, this author is weird. I mean sure, with all of the medical advances being made in the world today things tend to get a little wacky. But controlling human reproduction and raising of children by the govt? Its just a little to messed up for me.

Do people really go around thinking up of weird scenarios to write books about how effed up the future could possibly be?

The critique is something that you really have to look carefully at. The author is showing the dangers of what could happen when humanity gets caught up in the notion of perfection. The funky part is that this notion of perfection is clouded by the idea proposed by inherent disabilities. The alpha are "bred" to be the elite, and to know that they are elite. Walking around with a swagger because they have the knowledge of being the ruling class.

What I do not understand is why the author decided to go beyond just having an alpha and beta class. The five class institution seems to be excessive and not necessary to the brave new world.

The fascist system of control is used to knock down the current attitude of using scientific advances to their fullest. The author warns that science may have a much larger impact on the scheme of human life than you may expect, and in the end could end up controlling our lives.

V

So watching the movie in class today made me think a little about what was going on in the movie and how closely related real life can be. Obviously a masked swordsman jumping from roof to roof blowing up buildings and assassinating people is something a little far from the real world. The brutal British dictatorship however is something people might have an easier time putting into a real world scenario.

Firstly the surveillance is growing by leaps and bounds. Already in place throughout many developed nations to keep an eye out over the vast majority of its businesses, government buildings, etc, are cameras linked to computers. These computers could be forcibly or covertly hacked by the government to attain access to video footage in order to keep a closer watch on citizens and non-citizens alike.

Second, the world is a scary place. Many people do feel as if chaos is just around the corner, and a terror attack is simply seconds away. Fear is the greatest mobilizer of the human race. Scared and uncertain people may look beyond the scope of what is normalcy for protection from fear.

The movie is pretty sweet and I look forward to the rest of it on Wednesday.

Italians have sweet names

I wish I had an Italian name. Seriously the dudes name is Benito. Sounds pretty cool to me.

Anyway I digress. So when Prof. Dietz said that Fascism is ultra-conservative, she was dead on the money. The whole emphasis on the State being the epitome of life seems to be the central idea Mussolini is proposing as the "ideology of the future". The denial of the other prominent state driven ideologies of the time is essential to why the Fascism gained steam in the early twentieth century. Growing nationalist spirit combined with the economic depression led people to this idea that if you put all of your faith in the State you will be rewarded with a prosperous time for your nation.

Capitalism is still a central idea of the fascists. The exception that makes it fit into the system is that you are not producing for personal gain, rather for that of the goodwill of the State. Hard work for the State is emphasized as a goal that every Italian should strive to achieve.

This ideology might have found prominence if the leaders of the revolutions behind the ideas did not use excessive force and underground activities to usurp power of the state and thus alienating themselves from a broad portion of the mainstream populous.

The Muss should have thought about that before he had his blackshirts march on Rome.

Seattle Superprotest

Soo people are taking to the streets to protest against capitalism and those evil corporations who are trying to take over the world. Respeck. Nobody thinks that the protestors were in the wrong? Those individuals who were attending the WTO conference were simply trying to do their jobs. If a bunch of people stood up in front of where i worked and refused to let me through, I would be pretty pissed off, and I would definately call the police. If they broke the windows of my store I would expect reembursment, and I would hope they were arrested for vandalism.

The po-nine definately did use excesive force to remove the protesters from downtown Seattle, but seriously, protest a little better next time. Don't break the law when you do it.

Next, I didn't see the anarchist message throughout the protest. Not once did I hear the protestors mention anti-government, simply anti capitalism. Whats up wit dat?

dis be anarchism

Emma Goldman sure loved advocating popular ideas didn't she? A feminist, socialist, and anarchist in the early 20th century. The girl has brass buttons.

She speaks as if removing these three things will lead to the perfection of the human race: government, religion, and property. For some reason I think this lady was crazy. I agree on the point that religion is a little whacked out. The idea of fighting wars over a "God" which may, or may not exist is a little out there. The crusades created a rift between Christians and Muslims for centuries. The Hindus hate Sheiks and Muslims. Thank god the Buddhists are around to like everybody or every religion would have conflicting interests. But religion does serve good in the fact that it creates a system of morals for children to be raised on and adults to follow. So religion is not a complete debacle.

Gov't does restrict persons ability to freely do, well a lot of things. But without these restrictions think about what life would be like. No law against killing, you walk into a store, rob the cash register, kill the clerk, and make off with the dough. Without any pigs or laws, you are very likely to get away. Who is going to stop you? A civilian that had no stake in the store?

Finally property. Same scenario as above. You go to sleep at night in your home and wake up in the morning with five homeless people sleeping all over your house. There are no definitions of property so those homeless peeps are not in the wrong.


Anarchism is a far flung idea that would not work unless everyone in the world thought and felt the same way about...... basically everything. (Kinda like communism.)

Hahnel

So socialism is gearing up for a comeback..... alrighty, i'll believe it when I see it. Socialist Democrarts as they so label themselves, are so optimistic. Hahnel says that they need to stop regressing and move forward with positive changes to the current capitalist system. The notion is put forth that once everyone comes to the light and realizes the glory of saving the environment and contributing their wages to the greater good then socialism will take root.

A focal point in the article is that capitalism spawns greed. I disagree. Some people are really nice and would be happy to give away half their paycheck to help support the homeless, working poor, etc. I'm sorry but I am not one of those people. I work forty hours a week in constrution during the summer. I am not about to see the cash I work hard for to be just thrown at someone that may not even be working at all. Its not greed, its just life.

Bernstien Face off

So comes the inevitable clash of social theory. The argument is proposed that capitalism's abillity to adapt, combined with incresingly democratic societies will lead to the death of Marx' and Engels' social theory that the Proletariat will rise up, usurp the power of government, and create a classless society. I have to agree with Bernstien (history is on his side). As things continue to move forward the revolutions may have happened in several countries, but the key thing is that they did not suscribe to the core ideals of socialism. Marx did not like the things people were doing with his ideas. Somewhere along the line socialism got turned into an ecogovernology. An ideaology, a system of economics, and a form of government. This gave the Manifesto social theory a bad name. In the end you have to look at how these things did indeed impact for good. Social institutions have been placed more and more in current democratic countries improving conditions for the empoverished. Marx and Engels helped as well as hurt many nations with their idea.

marx aka the godfather

The communist manifesto! The book that started it all. Mr. Marx and Mr. Engels sure did stir up a lot of people with their ideas. I just do not follow. I mean they compare the control of the means of production (mop) to that of a sorcerer? Like really? People believe these guys to be legends? They foresee the overthrow of the Bourgeois by the Proletariat, and after they win, they take control of the government. Would you elect an uneducated factory worker to run a country? Hmmmm, sounds sketchy to me to say the least. Their view of a unified community is a bright spot in this dim doctrine. Unfortunately that would require all people to all of a sudden like each other. That does not just happen because there is no longer a middle class. Socialism is a flat failure of an ideology. Unfortunate but true. See its a great idea, but until it is proven to work I will be a naysayer for socialism and communism.

Heywood, this guy is allover the place

Who does this guy think he is? Speakin about socialism AND capitalism, what a pimp. Anyways he looks at the foundations of socialism, the inequallity, class system, and capitalism and how they attributed to the rise of the grandeur of socialism. People thought that this was great and it was a way out of poverty. This is probably a more radical idea as many nations have moved away from a strict socialist economy, and with it the class-less society seems to be vanishing. I wonder if someone could actually make socialism work.

Coulson: Vouchers are a terrible idea! please tell me if im wrong

I feel as if this blog might alienate me from some of the class. But really I do not mind. Coulson says that vouchers to attend privates schools should be given to the economically less fortunate. Unfortunately for him he contradicts himself in his own essay!:

Additionally, a student must believe he or she is capable of some degree of
educational success in order to undertake the effort to learn. In the field of psychology this is known as the "locus of control" effect; when a person believes a goal to be beyond his or her control, he or she is not likely to seek it.

^This is a quote he makes. Some people are naturally more gifted then others and have a higher intelligent quotient, or capacity to learn. Some schools are geared toward aiding more gifted people, some are not. If you give a voucher to someone who is not necessarily mentally capable with doing the work at upper echelon private schools, then you are wasting the schools time and the donors money.

This is simply one reason why the voucher system is a bad idea. I suppose if you instituted schools that specialize in teaching children of similar mental abilities via standardized tests this could work. Kids would have to be tested to see which range of schools they could choose from and participate in classes with peers of similar mentally ability. (If you disagree with me, please say so, I'm tough i can take the criticism.)

Freedom and Economics....

So Friedman argues that there cannot be democracy without capitalism. As a strong supporter of capitalism, is does my heart damage to have to disagree with a man who won a nobel peace prize for economics supporting such a glorious economic scheme. I suppose if he were talking about a completely socialist society, he might be right, but that to me would classify as a communist society. Canada and Sweden both have heavy elements of socialism in their economies. They are democratic and seem to be getting along just fine. (Well actually I am kinda wrong here, Sweden is technically a constitutional monarchy, but the kind does not really do much, plus, in theory Canada and Sweden both are considered market economies with socialist elements mixed in.) I feel as if just because no one has insitued a successful socialist economy in a democratic state just yet, does not mean that it is impossible. Only it would take a very skilled government, and a people that has tremendous faith in said governmetn to actually have a socialist democracy. But Friedman is a smart guy, and I like his knock on social security, because its gonna be in shambles before anyone in my generation has a chance to touch what they are puting into the gov't.

Freddy D: Wait What?

As I looked at this reading assignment, I began to muse about what Fredrick Douglass, an abolitionist, could have to do with Ideologies? I stopped and said "wait what?" Then I read the article (well most of it, I skimmed over some of the boring stuff but hey who hasn't?) and wait... yup at one time people actually thought that it was okay to have slaves. I particularly enjoyed the first part of the speech. To many who were listening to it on that day, they probably were thinking he was just praising the "fore fathers" for being patriotic. Reading it today, it is quite evident to see that he was drawing parallel after parallel to the slaves' collective struggle for freedom to the struggle that the revolutionaries did during the war.

We now live in a time when it seems that racism should be evaporating faster than the profits made in the stock market. It is good to remember how, can I say stupid?, okay stupid people were back in the day. One last thought, this speech reminded me of the Patriot (rip heath, you are the man) of the slave who was signed to serve by his "master." He was able to fight for the freedom of a nation, and his own personal freedom from bondage. Even after he serves his six months required to be free, he fights for a better world. I know its a movie, but still, its a good thought to end on.

John Locke and Civil/Political Societies: Failure and Success

John Locke approaches government and the social contract a little differently then our dear friend Hobbes. Locke seems to have a little more faith in humans than does Hobbes. He asserts that "men" will do what is necessary to preserve their fundamental rights of life, liberty, estate, and freedom from injury from other "men". He goes on to say that one way of preserving those rights peacefully is to come together as a community.

This community would become the foundation for Democracy and, to a lesser extent, the revolutionary era of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The application of citizens of a nation banding together to establish legislation over themselves was a radical idea at the time. In today's world most societies see it as the best form of government. Representative democracies and majority rule have led many nations to form peaceful and relatively long lasting governments. Notable democracies that have had success are nations like the United States, France, Canada, and the Scandinavian nations.

This is not the case in all democracies. Often people elected to public office become corrupted by power and dismantle their own countries. (Such is the case in many of the new nations of post-colonial Africa). This happens due to a variety of reasons. These reasons range from differentiation of ideas of how nations should be run, to long standing cultural strife's and controversies.

Although Locke's notions of self rule by a community of the willing to submit provide an excellent rationale for a nation, it is in no way fool proof. Does anyone know of a way to better his ideas, or figure out a way for a new system of government?