Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Principles of Oligarchic Collectivism, American style. Part I?

In 1984, Orwell is able to transmit the larger geopolitical factors of his dystopian world through a book written by the traitor Goldstein presented to Winston by its real author (or a member of the committee that wrote it) O'Brien. If 1984 the novel was written as the last warning of a dying man to an imperiled world, it is worth reexamining the properties of his new world order to see if there are any parallels in our system. We owe the great visionary that much.

The first principle to explore is that of unconquerable superstates. The US is the most obvious candidate, even if there were dire enemies out there it would be nigh impossible for us to be defeated, conquered, and occupied. But the other two superstates of the book roughly correlate to the present, I have my doubts whether the US even in alliance with another could conquer China or Russia given our current difficulties in foreign operations. The true importance of America's unconquerable status is that we can, and have, allowed our efficiency to atrophy. Orwell is very clear that it is fear of outside enemies that keep a ruling elite sharp and rooting in objective reality. Once this obstacle is removed, a ruling elite is freed to engage in exercises of "reality control" which would cause a normal state to fail in short order.

The US is, according the the Principles, a "self-contained universe" from the perspective of many of its inhabitants. It is incomplete in many ways, but through exercises of reality control these disappear from view. Worthless pieces of paper are accepted for valuable commodities which are rationed through fantasies of "free markets" such as manufactured goods, oil, and tropical agricultural products. I say fantasy because prices are more or less fixed by oligopolistic firms acting as gatekeepers for the necessities of life and it is the housing and service necessities such as health care and education that are really expensive. Though Americans can perceive the feeling of wealth through gadgets, even the poor are clothed and can eat cheap fast food through perverse incentives of our economic system.

The real source of social control is debt instead of simple shortages, intelligent Americans are kept in line through fear of individual crisis and distracted by entertainment. The key to a better life is still education, but for the ruling elite it is more the credentials of education than any skills learned. The killer instinct of members of the upper echelons of corporate life is internalized by many sources and to some degree hereditary, this goes by many names and the sanitized version is known as "entrepreneurial spirit." A key point in Orwell's Principles are the necessity of maintaining a hierarchical society, all methods and features of the system perpetuate this.

As the ultimate value of the ruling elite is not yet power for its own sake, independent thought is tolerated but never allowed to reach a critical mass among the population. While the US went through brief periods of actual imperial expansion and the liquidation of opponents, today discrediting ideas and those presenting them are sufficient to liquidate opposition. There also is a natural competition, pride, and exclusivity among independent thinkers of the left which limits their ability to affect changes to the system. While the Ingsoc party in 1984 sought to freeze history at a most advantageous point, our elite still use the cyclical nature of history to adapt and exploit events.

A pause in this analysis is necessary here, because the system is incomplete. In Orwell's world of 1984, atomic wars, national and civil wars, revolution and counterrevolution baptised the complete takeover of the world by three systems of oligarchic collectivism represented by the superstates of Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. But contemporary America has seen a more evolutionary takeover, each high point in the cycle approaching the completion in small steps. Politics and government may be, as John Dewey argued, "the shadow cast on society by big business" but one side has mastered the art of thought and reality control within its ranks that they are approaching convergence. Yes, I mean the republican party and the conservative movement that drives it. In 1984, the only opposition was a shadowy group supposedly led by Goldstein called "the brotherhood" that was everywhere and nowhere, at all times threatening to undermine unity and harmony. This is quite similar to the illusion working class republicans have of the supposed "liberal social elite" Thomas Frank presented in What's the matter with Kansas. But on the surface, the presence of a "loyal opposition" creates a valuable scapegoat for the ruling classes' disasters. It also serves to channel energy from independent thinkers to elite-approved candidates which then disappoint and dissillusion opponents while perhaps making minor cosmetic changes to the social fabric.

Stay tuned for the next installment where we will tackle the problems of continuous warfare, glorification and worship of violence, thought control, the two minutes hate, and the ominous destruction and rewriting of history that characterize at least one half of the American population.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Obama as Goldstein?

I came across this story in MMFA today and it made me chuckle a little. I'm not exactly sure what this tactic is called, inoculation maybe? But a blathering idiot on fox news told the truth by condescendingly "interpreting" the president's words that: "In effect, the president is saying that the American people are a stupid, dissatisfied electorate who are poisoned and brainwashed by Fox News." Of course, this mixes things up by conflating the entire population with the stupid fox audience that is poisoned and brainwashed by fox among other sources. At this point reality doesn't simply have a liberal bias, it is entirely optional.

Why it made me chuckle is that on a whim Saturday night I watched the film version of George Orwell's "1984" starring John Hurt and Richard Burton after downloading and listening to a lecture series on Orwell's life and the world he lived it in. It is hard to hear but the opening sequence of the "two minutes hate" has the audience screaming at video of the trotskyesque Emmanual Goldstein, the traitor to the revolution of Ingsoc (English Socialism) while he basically tells them the truth about the world the party members live in. If you turn on the subtitles you can read what Goldstein says over the din. Basically that the party enslaves you, big brother doesn't exist, the party wages war on the people to preserve its power, that sort of thing. In Oceania, two minutes is all that is required to maintain the allegience of outer party members by stirring them up in a conditioned frenzy against the blasphemer Goldstein. Anyone who questions what the party says by believing Goldstein can be identified and "reeducated" by the thought police in the ministry of love.

There is a difference between what this clown said of course, and how the party operates. First is that the American Goldstein isn't a shadowy figure randomly lobbing contrarian ideas, that guy was killed by fox's Goldstein, who happens to be the president. The other thing is that the party in 1984 could only afford to rile up the faithful for short times because they needed them to maintain control. Fox's audience is largely useless for the ultimate purpose, not of power as an end to itself, but for profit creation. Serving no intrinsic function other than to mindlessly attack reality and their "enemies" conservative foot-soldiers can be riled up and maintained in a state of frantic desperation at all times. And this story is one small aspect of that. In this case, telling them the truth and counting on their conditioning to go berserk at the idea that 2+2=4.

So, despite the president's repeated, and suicidal, attempts to reach out to this party of lunatics, despite policies that would be supported by conservatives in a less fanatical time. Despite getting his funding from the same sources as his opposition, and attacking his opponents in a pale reflection of what they do. He will always remain a traitor to "the American people" and sabotaur/revolutionary desperately trying to undermine our "harmony." "Inadequate information" is what the president actually said, what a milquetoasty way of characterizing the poison and brainwashing served up to the faithful, 24/7 on fox.

At least, for now, when one teabagger believes another can float, there are people outside of the bubble laughing at them.

Friday, September 9, 2011

On the utility of Nobility

What would you consider to be a proper way for the government and society of the United States to operate? For the purposes of this post, I have to assume that pragmatism is the only ideology that can serve the needs of Americans. A simple, straightforward practicality of understanding the problems in society and exploring possible solutions without the taint of dogma. The various "isms" in the last 100 years or so have rendered dogmatic rigidity a sure path to destructive consequences; communism, free market conservatism, fascism, militarism, religious fundamentalism and others. Liberalism certainly can exhibit dogmatic rigidity as well, but I have a harder time nailing these aspects down. For the simple reason that liberalism has taken so many different paths and mutated into so many new forms that it is hard to point a finger at one. It is also difficult for a partisan to self-diagnose too, which may explain why liberals today cannot find a consensus position on what to do. The situation in the US today is grave, getting worse and neither side seems to have a clue as to arresting the downward spiral.

It is starting to become obvious that we need an adult in the room, some element that can separate the children and punish the bullies. An element that could represent that national interest over the various special interests. Something that partisans could appeal to for purposes of nation-building from a particular point of view. What I am going to suggest is deeply unsettling to a committed democratic republican like myself, who feels self-government and self-determination are an entrenched and inalienable right for a free people. But here goes, the United States needs a nobility, and even a monarchy. Some element above the petty factionalism and tribalism and oligarchic self-destructive tendencies that are at the core of our decline.

I believe that a de facto nobility already exists, but they act more like robber barons than a responsible and yes, conservative, force grounding what is good in our society. The corporate elite, bankers, and old money families hoovering every scrap of wealth to themselves have no responsibility toward the commonwealth. It is Veblen's leisure class on steroids. But if there was some title or symbol that would seem more desirable than crass lucre, it may not have to be thus. As it stands, the extremely wealthy Americans have nothing to aspire to beyond simple accumulation, and if they can increase their score at the expense of the commoners, that is what they are going to do. There is simply nothing in our system as it stands that can replace this. The old saying "what can you get for the man who has everything?" Has been definitively answered, "more."

It is not as though titles are incompatible with a republic, Roman patricians went to great lengths though acts of charity and service to get various titles, which greatly benefitted the commonwealth. If the elite of America could compete over titles, "Duke of New York, Baron of Kings County, knighthoods" and so on instead of simply where you rank on the Forbes' 400 list, we might get past this relentless crushing of the middle class and all the other evils. What has taken its place? A corporation contributes a fraction of the cost for a new stadium and gets to have its name on it in perpetuity?

I have lost faith in the ability of people in the aggragate to choose leaders wisely, propaganda, demoguagery, and the simple vicious pace of modern life make it too hard for a critical mass to affect change. Although mechanics of bestowing titles is beyond the scope of this proposal, it would have to spring from existing organizations, lots of them, agreeing to knight a de facto aristocrat for clear and continued demonstrations of good works. Great wealth would be a prerequiste, and hereditary transfer of titles a no no. It is a fundamental fact that fortunes are made on the backs of many others, and in any case they already exist, conferring titles would be a way to spread that wealth back. As it stands, there is no way for society to make a claim on great fortunes, and if so-called conservatives succeed in eliminating the estate tax, even that small check on generational transfer will be lost.

Would the financial magnates go for it? Well, maybe not all of them but the score-keeping aspects of the elite leisure class may kick in if all of a sudden they have to start referring to "Sir Warren Buffett" or "Count Bill Gates" at country clubs. I would certainly rather see the evil koch brothers chase a knighthood by building something other than astroturf political pressure campaigns, but that's just me. The guy that wrote the Dilbert comics once wrote an essay arguing that society might get ahead if the rich could trade money for time, paying a premium to travel on a commercial flight without waiting in lines and so forth. Instead of fighting the tide of big money corrupting politics, perhaps it is time for us commoners to find a more productive way to spread the wealth. Big money has succeeded in turning most attempts at good government against the commonwealth by capture and redirection.

The democrats, bless their pointy little heads, seem in some cases to be trying to act as a responsible conservative force against the immature, greedy fanaticism of republicans but not getting there because from president obama on down they want to be above partisanship. If there was a class of nobles that really were above politics, perhaps we could have two opposition parties again instead of one party of bewildered morons and another of fanatics willing to kill the hostages they keep taking. A nobility may be the only way to bring some sense of shame back to what republicans do, no one can call them the idiot ideologues they are without it being diluted by partisan interest. What if boehner and mcconnell had to make their case for destroying society, honestly, to a monarch representing all the people?

Aside from superman swooping in to put the fanatics in their place and using force or the threat of force to coerce some of the selfishness out of the system, I don't see much hope for returning to a pragmatic era where America could be truly great again. Nobility could serve some function in this return, it certainly couldn't hurt, if the alternative is continued decline, severe partisanship and the apotheosis of greed and selfishness.