From Communism to Globalism. One Hundred Years Since the Russian Revolution of 1917.

Next year will mark the 100^th anniversary of the 1917 October Revolution in Russia, which brought us the first Communist experiment. There is little argument, even from orthodox Marxists, that the various revolutions favoring Communism have failed to attain their promise. They all established governments that progressed to the phase of Dictatorship of the Proletariat. But none were capable of progressing to the final phase: the Collective Ownership of Property. The next three paragraphs will be spent briefly elucidating the reasons for those failures. They are the predictable and pedantic expressions of hindsight, but they must be stated for clarity and the sake of a well-balanced critique. Following that will be a discussion of the benefits communism provided.

The reasons for this failure have as much to do with the nature of governments as they do with the nature of people. Governments are not designed to give away power; they exist to concentrate power into a few hands so that goals can be accomplished. Bureaucracies as well are generally seen as successful when they expand their functions and purposes. It is a constant struggle in Representative Republics to contain the size of government. Whether one approaches the State from the right or the left of the political spectrum, efforts are frequently, though certainly not exclusively, centered on limiting the role of government. Leftists, from a human rights perspective, are often attempting to curb the excesses of laws which limit personal freedom. Those on the right repeatedly find themselves working to curb government size, taxation and spending. Understandably, both sides also have political projects that serve to expand the role and size of the state apparatus.

People are also not designed to make themselves powerless and useless. Humans did not rise to the top of the food chain by being anything less than brutal and rapacious. Natural Selection is frequently subtitled “survival of the fittest” for a reason. One might argue that individuals who choose to lead a violent revolution, seize power and usurp the position of the previous ruling class, are less likely than the rest of us to surrender that power and control in the end. But it wasn’t just the nature of governments and the nature of people that undermined the success of Communism. An important additional factor was that Karl Marx never provided a mechanism for governments to give away power and property once they reached the phase of dictatorship. Without a framework that would provide a check on these regimes, they remain stunted in a situation of totalitarianism, unable to advance.

Advocates of Communism have argued that their vision was never permitted to advance because centralized authority was necessary to defend national borders against outside attempts to overthrow their regimes. In their view, the dictatorship phase was required to be extended until the victory of worldwide Communism. At that time, the transfer of power and property to the people could be completed. However, Communists always knew that Capitalists would go down swinging. They weren’t simply going to surrender wealth and influence as soon as the first revolution succeeded nationally. If Capitalists put-up a violent opposition within the borders of a revolutionary nation, they could equally be expected to fight the threatened spread of Communism abroad. The short-sighted excuse that enemies were responsible for the continuation of dictatorship is a transparent failure to take responsibility for one’s own actions or worse, a lie designed to justify continued autocracy. If an authority is unwilling to surrender power and wealth when it is smaller or national, how much less willing to surrender power will it be when it is global and has no opposition?

While those of us living under Capitalist and Democratic systems are familiar with the defects of Communism, we are less familiar with benefits it provided to its’ populations. From the perspective of the world’s poor, (its’ agricultural, industrial and unemployed workers), communism provided a way to meet basic needs. The systems these people were revolting against were autocratic and oligarchical. The priorities of these systems ignored inhumane working conditions, twelve hour work days and inadequate pay. The barest essentials of food, clothing and shelter, were not fully available to the populace. The goal of the Russian Revolution of 1917, from the viewpoint of the poor and workers facing the rifles, was to provide their children with enough to survive. This is why most historic revolts occurred at the onset of Russian winters; especially after a bad harvest. To those whose goals were greater distribution of food, shelter and clothing, the Russian Revolution was a success. At least, one can admit that the USSR succeeded where the Capitalist West continues to fail.

Another benefit was the provision of a dissenting, if imperfect, voice against the greedy rich in the world. Communist nations continually propagandized against the chief shortcoming of non-communist nations: the penchant to place profits above human need. Propaganda, along with the sowing of Communist parties in Capitalist nations and the threat of Bolshevist expansion, encouraged western reforms. Societies based on free markets were obliged to answer the challenging communist question: “What are you doing for those who are not rich?” Some responses, like the Kennedy-Johnson War on Poverty, failed. Some programs, (like Social Security, Job Training, Public Housing or School Lunch), remain as a social safety net today. The United States tolerates a good deal more Socialism than it would have without that dissenting voice in the world.

The mere existence of purportedly Communist nations, also prevented the level of economic exploitation one sees in unrestrained Capitalist Globalization today. If one had told a patriotic US factory worker in 1960 that the fall of Communism as a revolutionary force would mean that her job would go overseas, she would have been incredulous. US citizens thought that the absence of revolutionary Communist alternatives would lead to prosperity for all; that world markets would expand, producing a boom in production requiring more factories and higher wages at home. Instead, the wealthy 1% have used the lack of ideological competition as an opportunity to divide the spoils of the world amongst themselves. In 1960, the idea of shipping jobs and factories to poor nations, where residents would tolerate low wages and inhumane working conditions, would only have worked briefly. Workers would have recognized, (and would have been told by Communists), how badly they were being exploited. They would have then, as people did in so many situations, taken the guns offered to them by Russian-and-Chinese-backed Communist insurgents, and seized the means of production. Capitalists knew that their investments were safer in the US and Western Europe, so that’s where most of the factories stayed.

Globalization has led the international work force back to the exploitative days of the 19^th Century. Now, as then, unions are ineffective against greed. Since aggressive union activity in overseas workplaces would result in plant closure and relocation to another poor nation, there is little challenge to owner demands. Current treaties provide for some regulation around factory safety, working conditions and environmental destruction. However, these are only the first of Globalism’s treaties. They have to appear somewhat benign. But how long will the initial treaties last when there’s always a poorer community to where owners can build a factory? Communities where governmental leaders are willing to make human and environmental concessions for a kickback? And in regards to regulation of treaties, who pays the regulators if not the politicians that are bought by the rich in so-called democratic elections?

The rich are only becoming more wealthy and more powerful, as fortune is concentrated among fewer and fewer corporations. Over time, the methods of globalization will become even more sophisticated; more easily and deftly used by international businesses. We are only at the beginning of globalization. The trajectory is not pointing towards economic justice.

The answer to this dilemma is relatively obvious: Governments need to be more representative of the people they govern. There need to be limits on the amount of money given to electoral candidates in republics. The elected governments of those republics must then produce representatives to world councils which regulate international treaties & commerce in the interests of the people. The currently labeled communist nations like China and Vietnam are an animal never envisioned by Marx: nations run by a self-styled Communist dictatorship, but supporting a Capitalist economy. They and other non-democratic nations must abide by agreements that make provisions for worker’s rights and environmental protection, in order to do business with the democratic nations. We must find some way to regulate the power of currently unregulated businesses if we are to stop worker exploitation and environmental degradation.

This is a long struggle. The steps to success are not clear. Getting big money out of election campaigns has thus far proved an intractable problem. International networking and agitation by activists committed to preventing global corporate domination, has not been as effective as the efforts of big business to network and attain its’ goals. It’s a tall order. But in the end, a world with less exploitation of workers, healthier environments and more democracy, is a worthwhile objective. Since the opposite scenario is to permit less than 1% of the world population to control and exploit the rest of us, what choice do we have?

The Electoral College: Enforcing Reactionary Minority Rule.

The Electoral College was created with the ratification of the US Constitution. It was conceived during a time when states were far more politically distinct than they are now, and considered themselves to be self-governing bodies that existed almost as separate nations.  This College leveled the playing field between more populous and less populous states. It allayed smaller state fears of domination by larger states regarding presidential elections.

But the Civil War changed all that. Much of a state’s individual latitude and independence from the whole was curtailed with the South’s failure to secede from the Union. Prior to that war, Americans referred to their country as these United States. After the war, we became the United States. The Electoral College is a vestige of a time when separation of state and federal spheres of influence were considered necessarily more clear. So without its perceived original necessity, why do we still have an Electoral College? The answer is that less populous states still fear that they can be overwhelmed by the more populous ones.

Unfortunately, during two recent elections in our young 21^st Century, the existence of this body has produced a tyranny of the minority. Admittedly, it is a slight minority. In the Bush vs Gore 2000 election, Al Gore won the popular vote by over 540,000 ballots, but still lost the election due to the College. In the Trump vs Clinton 2016 election, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by over 2 million ballots, but still lost the election due to the College.

Obviously, for individuals interested in social progress, (environmentalism, peaceful international resolution of conflicts and human rights), this situation is intolerable. These elections, held ransom by a regressive, provincial, undereducated, minority in the middle of the country, is a travesty that has supplied the US two hostile presidents: The first, a war-mongering, anti-woman, anti-LGBTQ and anti-environment Bush, who turned our $127.3 billion national surplus into a $1.2 trillion deficit in his pursuit of killing 250,000 Iraqi civilians.  << http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/27/occupy-democrats/liberal-group-blames-bush-raising-deficits-credits/ >>  The second, a proudly racist, sexually assaultive, anti-Constitutional and frankly socially embarrassing demagogue, whose fulfillment of destructive potential awaits.

So what is to be done? How do we get rid of the vestigial and unnecessary Electoral College, whose results have produced such destructive politicians elected by the ignorant minority? The immediate answer is that nothing, besides a revolution that few want, will produce a change for the short term. The Republicans understand that they need the influence of this anti-cosmopolitan minority for victory. They control the Presidency, the House and the Senate. They will soon pack the Supreme Court to the fullest of their ability. Logistically, reform is untenable.

But the country is continuing to change. The most recent election was an angry backlash, by threatened conservative white people who know that their influence is dwindling. Without a doubt, the election of our first African American president brought the howling racists out of the woods. Just listen to the rhetoric of Trump’s supporters. But by 2060, 56% of the population will be composed of non-white people. << http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/06/its-official-the-us-is-becoming-a-minority-majority-nation >>. Some say this will happen by 2043. << https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_minority >>. Little of this data takes into account marriage between individuals of differing ethnic background (a phenomenon that Trump voters would no doubt call miscegenation). Inter-ethnic marriage will quicken the process. For now, the domination of the anti-cosmopolitan minority in the center of our country persists, and may continue to exist for a short while after the majority of our citizens are non-white. But eventually, the Electoral College will fail to prevent progress. While this chronology does not satisfy citizens who seek immediate gratification, it does arm us with a positive prognosis for a more peaceful and just future. It is unfortunate that there will be suffering caused by reactionary-elected demagogues in the meantime. If anyone has a solution, please feel free to post your views on my blog. As ever, I invite conversation that will inspire knowledge, humor and the spirited community capable of getting us though the next four years.

Lesbians, Gay Men & Population.

One of the greatest challenges facing humanity today is that our population is continually increasing. Consequently, we are using-up the world’s resources. In addition, the industrial activity that produces products for an expanding population increases global warming. We will continue to expand our population, consume resources and worsen global warming, until there is a crisis in a particular resource (food, water, energy, land, etc.) Conflicts will ensue over the remaining scarce resource.

Even before that crisis occurs, we will have destroyed the diversity of flora and fauna on the planet. Plants, whose chemical composition could provide advances in medicine, will disappear and we log and encroach upon their habitats. Beautiful, unique animal species will die off. Governments will find excuses to lease national parks to corporations for pillage of scarce resources. We will leave a poor, ravaged environment to our children.

Is there a way to have human beings voluntarily chose not to reproduce? Well, we do have two populations who reproduce much less than the average. They could save us from environmental destruction and the impending ecological crisis: Lesbians and Gay Men.

But how do we expand the lesbian and gay populations in a way that is democratic? Sure, we could isolate the genetic material that produces lesbians and gay men, thereby engineering a larger percentage of humans to have same-sex proclivities. But genetic engineering carries with it some frightening possibilities for abuse. The moral question of choosing an individual’s sexuality for her makes this route impracticable.

This is not, of course, the only obstacle. Prejudice against lesbians and gays, particularly from ignorant and dogmatic religious quarters, continues to exist. The ignorant and dogmatic resist efforts by same sex couples to live in peace without discrimination. Freedom from harassment by the prejudiced is essential both for human rights and for success of any program to make lesbians and gays a larger percentage of the population.

At present, the most logical, democratic route to avert ecological catastrophe is to remove barriers of discrimination from society, thereby encouraging the free expression of lesbian and gay self. In addition, if we provide unhampered access to services for any lesbian or gay man who wishes to have children with her/his genetic heritage, this will expand the percentage of humans whose sexual expression does not lead to reproduction.

A final, perhaps more fanciful suggestion, is to encourage as many gay men as possible to donate to sperm banks. (Come on guys, fifty bucks, free porn and a doughnut.) A larger percentage of gay genetics in the donor pool would do some good. Now all we need is a movement and a lot of plastic cups.

This is the beginning of a discussion. I am open and eager to hear answers that are improvements on my suggestions. I will modify this paper accordingly.

For pensive, rational non-fiction book reviews, see greatnonfictionbooks.blogspot.com

greatnonfictionbooks.blogspot.com

Successful population control. Three examples.

In his book Collapse, Jared Diamond presents three societies that utilized their natural resources and population control measures successfully for a time. They are the island of Tikopia in the southwestern Pacific, the New Guinea highlands and Japan during the Tokugawa shogunate. Each of these three societies innovated thoughtful solutions to manage their environments. They also effectively prevented their populations from rising. The following represents how these peoples kept their population numbers down.

All three societies employed abortion and contraception to limit their populations. Additionally, lone individuals practiced abstinence or celibacy. But as we have experienced in our present day societies, these techniques are not enough by themselves. So the following immoderate measures came into effect; none of which I can recommend.

Infanticide was a feature within each of the three examples presented by Diamond. Now, I’m sure we could manage this technique within our own society. Just introduce a squalling infant into a fine dining establishment and supply each table with a club. But I’m not clear that we could attain common agreement to its use.

Tikopia, Diamond mentions, has a history of suicide which is a minor population control method. Again, I’m not sure that this is a lesson we could employ. It is possible that we could convince our depressed teenagers to cut deeper in times of famine. But our results may not be effective enough to count this as a consistent policy.

New Guinea had the additional technique of warfare to control its population. In the highlands, competition for land among a multitude of tribes guaranteed almost constant bloodshed. Tikopia went one better than New Guinea by employing total genocide of individual tribes. Diamond records an incident where the Nga Ariki clan exterminated the entire Nga Ravenga clan during a famine. But to be fair to the abilities of the New Guinea warriors, a highland tribe may have committed genocide during New Guinea’s long history of constant warfare, we just don’t have a record of it.

Because the Tokugawa shogunate controlled a more cohesive society with a single leadership, their people did not have the option of inter-tribal warfare. Instead, “during the Tokugawa Period, there were 154 famines, of which 21 were widespread and serious.”* Hardly an improvement over war and genocide; but Tikopia and New Guinea had their shares of famine as well.

So there you have it. The keys to long-term sustainability and population control: infanticide, suicide, genocide, warfare and famine. I’m not sure that we could get a society to voluntarily plan such an internal policy, though I am sure that it’s what we would end up with in the absence of other solutions.

There are other factors that make the lessons of these three societies impracticable for the rest of the world today. First, each of the three environments were unusually rich in soils and vegetation. The rest of the world has less to work with, guaranteeing even more trouble than these societies encountered. Second, all of these locations are isolated islands, allowing them to develop in a relative vacuum. Only later did they experience external pressures. Third, each of these small, isolated situations was eventually invaded by outsiders who were aggressively expansionist in terms of both ambition and population. In the face of these invaders, all three societies drastically altered their population growth and environmental sustainability.

Given both the techniques that these societies chose to control their populations, and the exceptional nature of their environments and locations, I am not sure that the lessons they provide for population control can be applied to the world‘s current population predicament.

　

Diamond, Jared. Collapse. “Opposite Paths to Success,” pp. 277-308. New York: Penguin Books, 2011.

*Bendan, Lao. "A Chronology of Japanese History." A Chronology of Japanese History. Self, n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.

The Unavoidable Population Catastrophe.

Here’s the bottom line about humanity. We’re animals. We’re animals whose only biological reason for being is to put our genetic material into the next generation. Any greater or more noble “purpose” is less compelling and universal for our species.

As animals, we have achieved what other species have not. We have carpeted the planet with people. We are at the top of the food chain. We did not get to the top of the food chain by being humane. We got there by being selfish and ruthless. This isn’t a judgment, it’s a biological reality. We didn’t feed ourselves by sitting around a camp fire singing “Kumbaya” with the antelope. We ate them, devastated their species, and caused several other species to become extinct. So selfishness, voraciousness and ruthlessness, are adaptive survival traits that permitted us to put our genetic material into the next generation. As a result, some predominant traits passed-on to human offspring are selfishness, voraciousness and ruthlessness.

There are times when humans cooperate with other humans. This is only to satisfy selfish needs or survival needs. Humans may collect into a tribe to guard a watering hole against outsiders. Outsiders will also band together for survival. But when one group approaches the watering hole of another, and the resource is scarce, there is going to be a conflict. The loser will go off into the desert and die. The winner will survive to pass on the biologically-based traits of health, ruthlessness, cunning, violence and selfishness, that permitted them to retain control of the watering hole.

There are times when humans band into larger groups based around ethnicity, community values, government, etc. But again, this is a survival tactic. We wouldn’t place ourselves at the effect of governments and communities if it did not suit our survival needs. Witness how often we slaughter those of differing ethnicities, communities and governments, when their needs conflict with our own.

Currently there is a lot of discussion among human animals about how we are devastating our environment and overpopulating our planet. Many feel that we can come up with intelligent solutions to this problem and avert disaster, if we understand the causes and effects of our actions. They are wrong. It doesn’t matter if human beings understand why they are devastating their environment; they are going to continue to do it anyway. Because we are animals, whose reason for existing is to put our genetic material into the next generation, we will continue to reproduce. Our population will continue to rise until an ecological crisis occurs (a shortage in food, water, energy, etc). At that point, we will battle over whatever resource is scarce, like competing tribes at a watering hole.

Nature did not make enough provisions in our brains for long-term thinking about reproduction and survival. We have enough ability to face immediate survival threats and reproduce. That’s it. None of our planning and thinking over the last 50 years has produced a solution because there is no solution. Our biological need to reproduce is more powerful than our minds. Even the most draconian population control measures in China have failed. There have been small, temporarily successful efforts to control human population, in limited environments.  They will be discussed during the next installment.  But even those temporarily successful (and inhumane) efforts failed when self-contained populations came into contact with expansive populations.  We do not have a biological adaptation that would cause us to control our population.  Anyone who wishes to pit starry-eyed optimism against this reasoning need only answer one question: “Is our population going up, or is it going down?”