In an article titled "New Rule: Americans Must Realize What Makes NFL Football So Great: Socialism", comedian Bill Maher makes this observation about the Super Bowl:
New Rule: With the Super Bowl only a week away, Americans must realize what makes NFL football so great: socialism. That's right, for all the F-15 flyovers and flag waving, football is our most successful sport because the NFL takes money from the rich teams and gives it to the poor teams... just like President Obama wants to do with his secret army of ACORN volunteers. Green Bay, Wisconsin has a population of 100,000. Yet this sleepy little town on the banks of the Fuck-if-I-know River has just as much of a chance of making it to the Super Bowl as the New York Jets - who next year need to just shut the hell up and play.
It's no surprise that some 100 million Americans will watch the Super Bowl next week - that's 40 million more than go to church on Christmas - suck on that, Jesus! It's also 85 million more than watched the last game of the World Series, and in that is an economic lesson for America. Because football is built on an economic model of fairness and opportunity, and baseball is built on a model where the rich almost always win and the poor usually have no chance. The World Series is like Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. You have to be a rich bitch just to play. The Super Bowl is like Tila Tequila. Anyone can get in.
Or to put it another way, football is more like the Democratic philosophy. Democrats don't want to eliminate capitalism or competition, but they'd like it if some kids didn't have to go to a crummy school in a rotten neighborhood while others get to go to a great school and their Dad gets them into Harvard. Because when that happens "achieving the American dream" is easy for some, and just a fantasy for others.
That's why the NFL runs itself in a way that would fit nicely on Glenn Beck's chalkboard - they literally share the wealth, through salary caps and revenue sharing - TV is their biggest source of revenue, and they put all of it in a big commie pot and split it 32 ways. Because they don't want anyone to fall too far behind. That's why the team that wins the Super Bowl picks last in the next draft. Or what the Republicans would call "punishing success."
Baseball, on the other hand, is exactly like the Republicans, and I don't just mean it's incredibly boring. I mean their economic theory is every man for himself. The small market Pittsburgh Steelers go to the Super Bowl more than anybody - but the Pittsburgh Pirates? Levi Johnston has sperm that will not grow up and live long enough to see the Pirates in a World Series. Their payroll is about $40 million, and the Yankees is $206 million. They have about as much chance at getting in the playoffs as a poor black teenager from Newark has of becoming the CEO of Halliburton. That's why people stop going to Pirate games in May, because if you're not in the game, you become indifferent to the fate of the game, and maybe even get bitter - that's what's happening to the middle class in America. It's also how Marie Antoinette lost her head.
So, you kind of have to laugh - the same angry white males who hate Obama because he's "redistributing wealth" just love football, a sport that succeeds economically because it does exactly that. To them, the NFL is as American as hot dogs, Chevrolet, apple pie, and a second, giant helping of apple pie.
You can read the full article here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-football-sociali_b_815673.html
While reading Lester Faigley's Competing Theories of Process I couldn't help think about the above article forwarded to me by an old friend.
When 10% of the world’s population owns 90% of the world’s wealth how is it the case that free-markets and the capitalism do more to raise the standard of living for people? The wealthy have a vested interest in protecting their assets. And they are good at protecting them - there is a widening gulf between America’s rich and poor. The success of the American dream – the acquisition of a wealthy lifestyle for a few – rests on the misery of the many. Capitalism is a false idea whose real purpose is to promote the interests of those in power. As such, capitalism is a system of oppression. To think otherwise is to suffer at the hands of an illusion crafted by those in power. Any ideology that puts self-interest above the needs – and even above the survival – of others is an oppressive one. By keeping the focus on “me” instead of on “us”, capitalism works against the well-being of society as a whole and of underprivileged people in particular.
The “American dream” is part of the oppressive illusion. The American dream, much like the lottery, opens up the possibility that anyone can win, and like gambling addicts, we cling to that possibility. In fact, the less financial security we have, the more we need something to hope for. The American dream also tells us what we want to hear: that we are all “as good as” the wealthiest among us. It’s not supposed to matter that the wealthy don’t think that we are as good as they are as long as we believe it’s true. And it is not supposed to matter that “as good as” does not mean entitled to the same health care, material comforts, or social privileges, including the privilege of hiring the best lawyers should the need arise. It would be naïve not to think that the wealthy carry an air of superiority in their minds when considering the middle or working class. Just like there are those in the middle class who in all likelihood thumb their noses at the working class for a perceived lack of formal education, and so on.
Consumerism, a by-product or a subset of Capitalism, says “I am only as good as what I buy”. This creates the illusion that I can be “as good as” the wealthy if I can purchase what they purchase or a reasonable facsimile thereof (albeit on credit) not recognizing that doing so fills the coffers of the wealthy who manufacture and sell the consumer products I buy all while reaping the 15-20 percent interest on my credit-card bills. Not buying it (pun intended)? What clothes are you wearing? If we didn’t have this “I am only as good as what I buy” mentality, then we would all be decked from head to toes in Kmart brand or Thrift Store clothes - buying clothes for simply for utility.
The conservative middle class tends to resent the poor because so much middle-class tax money goes to government programs that help the poor. However, they fail to realize that it is the wealthy in positions of power who decide who pays the most taxes and how the money will be spent (in other words it is the wealthy who make the middle class carry the lion’s share of the responsibility). To keep the math simple, let’s say my combined household income is close to $100,000 / year – keep in mind that both partners are working. If we were taxed at 30% (again just to keep the math simple) our net household income is $70,000. Conversely, a couple with a combined household income close to $1,000,000 / year under the current tax laws would be forced to make do with a mere $700,000. Now, at first glance, a surface level analysis would conclude that this clearly demonstrates that the tax system shows no favorites – that $300,000 does more to help the poor than $30,000. But this myopic argument overlooks the fact that these are not aggregate totals. In other words, if the bottom 90% contribute somewhere in the range of $30,000, and there are roughly 300 million citizens, 270 million would be contributing $30,000 (or, approx. $8.1 trillion) Conversely, approximately .1% of Americans earn a gross of $1,000,000 (or more) (source: mybudget360.com). If so, only 300,000 citizens would be contributing $300,000 (or approx. $90 billion) In short, roughly $8.01 trillion MORE of the burden is being shouldered by the middle class. Again, capitalism is a system designed to protect the wealth of the wealthy. It is an oppressive system.
The better solution would be for the middle class to make an alliance with the poor in order to attain, through the democratic process, a more equitable distribution of America’s wealth by shifting some of the tax burden back onto the wealthy. I know that it is considered taboo to utter the phrase, “distribution of wealth”. But wealth IS getting distributed one way or another. The better solution is to side with the politicians who promote policies that favor “us” over “me”.This is what is meant by "pessimistic determinism" and the illusion of freedom. What was most revealing (even revolutionary) about Faigley's article is the notion that Language is a social practice - a social construct if you will. Says Faigley:
...any act of writing or teaching of writing must be understood within a structure of power related to modes of production (661).I haven't even addressed the issue of alienation of labor, I have much more to say about this topic but feel as if I have outgrown the scope of a blog. Even Faigley's idea of a Synthesis is borrowed from Marx's notion of dialectical materialism (thesis + antithesis = synthesis). What I hope I've accomplished in this blog is to shed some of the taboo and the mystique that surrounds Marxism for those that approached Marx in full MOPP (mission oriented protective posture) gear so that you might reconsider Marxism as an honest intellectual approach to theory.
First: I thank you for your attention to detail and explanation of Marxism. I agree that Marxist ideology is a valid interpretation of oppressive social systems as it serves as a conduit to possibly depart from systematic oppression.
ReplyDeleteSecond: I have a sneaking suspicion that your resistance to Faigley (I think I'm interpreting your post as resistance of sorts) is similar to what I experienced while reading his essay. I thought his arguments were positioned upon the notion that his audience both agrees with him or is not well-versed in the theories which he describes (and then moves to counter). I thought that his assessment of each approach to writing rendered an air of disapproval much like a father scolds his son for not using appropriate tackle form after a football game. And to me, that’s a bogus way to argue ways of thinking.
Third: I'm being critical, but I think your feelings of capitalism has muddied your argument for Marxism. While Marxism proves as a great "equalizer," you assume that to be fair is also to be equal. I would disagree. This is where you and I would have to try to understand where the other is coming from. Personally, I believe that we are oppressed by systems which exploit the underprivileged for personal or capital gain. I agree that America is more class-ridden (shall I say "caste" instead of "class?") than we would like to admit. The problem, I think, is not the system or Marxist theory or capitalist ideology. The problem is, dare I say, the "man" in humanity. I think that humans are flawed--that we like to decorate ourselves to project a certain image of identity, that we desire power, that we cling to majority-based beliefs because it feels SAFER than to surrender ourselves to the interest of marginalized populations (which is not to suggest this is right).
In addition, I will need your help to answer some questions: does Marxism assume that the individual desires an equal social status? How does Marxism handle the unique nature of the individual (his or her desires, interests, capacity to produce ideas or participate in his or her culture)? I remember you mentioning that you don’t particularly enjoy Ayn Rand, and you didn’t get to tell me why, so please don’t think I’m assuming you don’t agree with her principles of Objectivism. If it’s because of her writing style, I understand; her writing can be exhausting and more “preachy” than entertaining. However, I think that Marx and Rand would have been friends. They both, essentially, argue similar things but with different approaches. Rand maintains that the individual will, in fact, "do" what is best for society in general if he or she strives to "do" what he feels he must do to achieve his full potential. Marx may insert, here, that the systems currently in place do not allow for this personal progression to come to fruition. However, if either Marx or Rand had a clean slate to start with, I think that neither theories would survive. Why? Because the average person is probably not interested in achieving his full potential and not everyone's potential is as "full" as his neighbors. So where does this leave us?
ReplyDeleteIn terms of writing, let's consider that language is a means to construct our perception of reality. Therefore, the way I describe my ideas to you is already mediated by a social construct that I have no control over (except for thought…right?). I speak in subject-verb-object. I do something to you. The very construction of English language is telling: I do SOMETHING to YOU. You and I do not something do. YOU can do something to ME, too. The very construction of this sentence suggests that the two of us are separated by a verb--by doing or being done. Without getting too far into philosophical arguments best reserved for Saussure and Derrida, I will suggest that writing is simply a way for the individual to master his or her consciousness--to work within the confines of language structure or politics or economical forces that have been constructed BY us FOR us. That is not to say that I propose writing in a classroom setting or for an assignment is a form of "giving up" and letting others shape how we learn. Perhaps the best way to use both philosophies is to speculate that:
ReplyDelete1) Marxism allows for us to see the "self" as a mediated identity.
ReplyDelete2) Consciousness is a means to challenge oppressive forces.
3) Although we "see" the forces that oppress us, our interpretation of oppression is simultaneously constructed by cultural boundaries and social influence.
4) Identity is a concept which can be likened to a ball of clay. It can be pulled in opposite directions, molded, shaped. Essentially the shape of the clay is fashioned by outside forces. Can we ever have a "pure self," an unsullied identity--is individualism an illusion (like American freedom)?
5) In Rand's world, the ball of clay is not merely constructed by the hands of culture (or fate or destiny or Calvin Klein ads); it is a substance which is molded by these forces, yet is touched by Promethean hands and comes to life.
6) I see Marxism as a way to define human identity as passive pieces of clay, assuming that all people are constructed of the exact same combination of compounds and minerals.
7) I see Objectivism as a way to define identity whereas man begins as a separate piece of clay. All men (yes, I'll be sexist) are constructed of clay, yet each piece (individual) is made of various ratios of compounds, etc. We all seem to be clay, but we are different forms of it.
8) Therefore, our resistance to cultural forces varies from person to person.
9) If that is so, is equality the same as being fair? Do we hold each individual piece of clay to the same standard and ask it to give some of its resilient properties to a piece of clay which is lacking the ability to advocate for itself? Possibly, yes (which isn't wrong UNLESS it is asking for the individual to give "sacrifice himself to others" in my humble opinion).
10) The American Dream is constructed by men. Men are flawed. Therefore, The American Dream s flawed.
11) You say: “The American Dream is…an illusion.” I ask: Is "sameness" an illusion, too?
Finally, I'll try to bring us to terms because, as I stated before I think Marx and Rand may be on the same page about individual potential. I'll introduce this quote from the Ayn Rand Institute (aynrand.org):
ReplyDelete"Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."
If you’re discussing a more equitable distribution of wealth, I ask: what "wealth" SHOULD we share if we'd like to attain intellectual, political, and economic liberation and (possibly) equality? We should share our individuality. We should share our potential not to exploit others, but to improve our perception of reality and existence for "mutual benefit." I see this happening if an individual learns that he or she is oppressed through means of an education which is not free of political influence; the system teaches us to think alike so that we may be "good" citizens. Perhaps we should challenge the definition of “good”—which is something I think you ask us to consider. If the middle class joins the lower socioeconomic strata to equal the scale, then would this not make us “better” (or “gooder” if I really want to sound antiestablishment). If taxation is representation, why not represent us equally? If we’re at least entitled to similar benefits, then why should I sacrifice more of my myself (as a middle class person) to benefit someone else who doesn’t?
Being a "good" citizen, to both Rand and Marx, is to aid in the progression of humanity--to achieve some kind of peaceful equilibrium where the individual is truly free to operate in a society which grants basic rights to live and in an "us" society where “me” is still regarded as sacred and essential.
Oh, and we should be able to write like that, too.
My head hurts.
Jess, thanks for taking the time to write such a in-depth response. I really appreciate the chance for open dialogue. So, here is my initial response/rejoinder to your comments:
ReplyDeleteFirst, I would offer that while rushing to shed some clarity to Faigley’s cavalier use of Marxist vernacular, I may have unintentionally muddied the waters. My purpose was to demystify Marx in hopes of making Faigley’s essay more accessible. Marxism is less of a critique of the individual and more a critique of meta-economic forces. My main point I was attempting (albeit poorly) to convey is that often Marxism gets mistaken for Communism (specifically Soviet-style communism). This is not fair to Marx. What Marx observed in modernization/industrialization/urbanization terrified him. Marx saw humans becoming little more than gears, or sprockets, in assembly line manufacturing unattached to and alienated from their labor. As an unskilled laborer, I might make a hubcap to a car I’ll never likely see. To Marx, such an occurrence renders humanity void of our essence/soul… humanity. Marx saw value in skilled labor. You were the leather shoe you slaved over for a week. Furthermore, Marx recognized that economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources. For Marx, a system like Capitalism can only work by exploiting other people/countries etc. American capitalism might be okay for Americans, but at what cost to the rest of the GLOBAL community? And that was the point I was trying to convey with the 10% of the people owning 90% of the WORLDS wealth. So point number 1) Marxism’s primary focus is on economics (the allocation of resources) NOT on the individual. Point 2) I think your instincts are dead on. There is plenty of room for the individual in a Marxist world view – in fact, I would argue that with his attention to the dangers of alienation of labor, Marx is nothing if not a humanist deeply concerned about the individual. But because Marxism is primarily a critique of capitalism its focus on economics and the allocation of resources, I think your clay metaphor – clever as it is – misses the mark and is more suitable to a discussion about Soviet-style communism. That is all for now, more to come after Luke goes to bed!
I am digging this response already!! And what a timely discussion about politics, power & the individual considering the current protests in Egypt.
ReplyDeleteMore rebuttals:
ReplyDeleteJessica:
I agree that America is more class-ridden (shall I say "caste" instead of "class?") than we would like to admit. The problem, I think, is not the system or Marxist theory or capitalist ideology. The problem is, dare I say, the "man" in humanity. I think that humans are flawed--that we like to decorate ourselves to project a certain image of identity, that we desire power, that we cling to majority-based beliefs because it feels SAFER than to surrender ourselves to the interest of marginalized populations (which is not to suggest this is right).
Jonathan:
Is it possible to agree with someone while simultaneously disagreeing with them? Capitalism is the reason humans are flawed precisely because if fosters a desire to consume – to want and desire more than is needed. I buy clothes from the GAP because I, consciously or no, have an image I wish to project. The GAP, understanding my desire to create an image, exploits desire and in more than one fashion (pun intended). Exploitation ultimately leads to oppression. Breaking free from a Capitalist driven consumer mentality I would realize that 1) I need clothes to hide my nakedness – in a very fig leaf biblical sense. And 2) my desire to create an image and consume has contributed to exploitation and oppression of a worker half a globe away forced to do hours upon hours of alienated labor to construct my clothes for little to no wage. Marx is not anti-individual. He (perhaps naively) envisions a world where men and women are free to choose a vocation of their liking, and if they ever lose interest are free to change – a community of people happily contributing to a productive society that does not exploit. In a Marxist utopia, one would be able to craft an ‘individual identity’ sans elements of exploitation and oppression.
Jessica on Ayn Rand:
ReplyDelete[Ayn Rand comes across as] “preachy” than entertaining. However, I think that Marx and Rand would have been friends. They both, essentially, argue similar things but with different approaches. Rand maintains that the individual will, in fact, "do" what is best for society in general if he or she strives to "do" what he feels he must do to achieve his full potential.
Jonathan:
You probably already know this, but Rand was a Russian immigrant fleeing Lenin’s Russia. Here is where all conflict between followers of Rand and followers of Marx originates. I believe that Rand is guilty of what most Americans are guilty of and that is confusing one particular style of communism with Marxism. As a result, the minute anyone professes to be a Marxist or even attempts to defend Marxism, barriers to communication are immediately thrown up. For Rand, her distaste for and mistrust in government is understandable. For Rand, government is the oppressor – just as the Czars were for Lenin. For Marx, Capitalism is the oppressor. I think there is a strong tendency to equate Capitalism with Democracy, but we can be just as democratic in other economic systems.
As for Rand’s writing style… She had me at the Fountainhead. Howard Rourke is a fascinatingly wonderful character and one I think Marx would appreciate. Where Rand loses me is in Atlas Shrugged, and not just because she proselytizes the virtues of Capitalism while simultaneously decrying the role of government, but 1) Hank Rearden and John Gault are no Howard Rourke (though Dagnny Taggart is an interesting character). 2) What a cheesy “superhero” ending. I felt like I was reading the latest Marvel issue of the Fantastic Four. 3) The metaphor of Atlas Shrugging is brilliant, but put to nefarious purposes. Rand’s calculus is that great individual innovators are what holds the world in place, and she warns us that if governments continue to expand their sphere of influence, Atlas (great individual innovators) will shirk their role, and simply walk away – allowing the world to fend for itself. More government = less innovation + less freedom. Given her biographical background it is easy to understand how and why she comes to such a conclusion. But I feel her mis-trust is mis-placed. I think of Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” and I am glad government has a role regulating Capitalism. I think of Ralph Ellison’s “The Invisible Man” and I am glad government has a role in obstructing racism. I think of Lilly Ledbetter and I am glad government has a role in obstructing Sexism. To say that Capitalism gives us our best shot at equality overlooks a few ‘minor’ things. Capitalism can be just as oppressive. Furthermore, I should make mention that when I say ‘shot at equality’ I am not pursuing cookie cutter versions of the same ball of clay. I don’t think Marx is either. I am looking for the economic system that best suits Democracy. Unbridled Capitalism has proven time and again that it is not that system.
And lastly,
ReplyDeleteJessica:
If taxation is representation, why not represent us equally? If we’re at least entitled to similar benefits, then why should I sacrifice more of my myself (as a middle class person) to benefit someone else who doesn’t?
Jonathan:
You see taxation as the number percentage wise and that this number represents (or has the potential to represent) “fairness”. But we both know that money buys influence. And wealth gets distributed. Right now, and for the past 30 years, wealth has been getting distributed one way. Up. A more progressive tax scale can bring some balance back to the playing field. You, as a middle class person, should not have to ‘sacrifice’ more of yourself for someone else’s benefit. But, if you believe in Democracy, you should be willing to sacrifice some. And those who can afford to sacrifice more should sacrifice more. Democracy’s key tenant is to provide equal voice to all citizens – not just to the privileged few who can wield influence and gain access with their money. The more ‘equal’ the tax scale is (in terms of a number) the less equal our democracy becomes.