Brave New World

Aldous Huxley's book "Brave New World" is an obvious critique of our wold. How at the rate we are moving, our innovations and technologies will overtake us and, in the end, control our lives completely. However, when I am asked "what is wrong with the society in "Brave New World"?" I find it difficult to answer. Their world is set up so that everyone is happy all the time. They got rid of all pain, old age, disease, and they use soma to get ride of depression or confused feelings. Obviously, we can see that we would no like to live in this type of society, because we can see its flaws. We can see that epsilons have awful, backbreaking lives and very few people can even think for themselves. We can see that they have eliminated all free thought and purpose to life. When we look at the England of "Brave New World" we see a people without a purpose. A world that is built upon the sole function of simply existing. No New innovation, no forward mobility. However, what would a person reading a book about our world see? I think they would see a world hurtling towards its ultomate destruction. Whether its nuclear war or some kind of disease our world seems to be on an inevatable path to its doom. So what would you choose, a world that exists for the sake of existing, or no world at all?

Economy of Brave New World

The social structure of "Brave New World" implies that there is no need for an economy. In a world where there is no forward mobility and each person each person is not working towards a goal, I do not see the need for an economy. Economics are driven by Greed and selfishness but in "Brave New World" people spend money because they are conditioned to. It seems in the book as if the market needs constant stimulation but I do not understand why. In a world where an epsilon can be programmed to do any kind of menial labor, why pay them? Where is all of this money that goes into stimulating the economy of a stagnant social order going? I feel as if the only place all of this money could be going is into a dumpster somewhere. When there is money, there is the implication that people want to improve their lives in some way. However, the vast majority of the population cannot think further than "hungry" or "tired." The only people who might feel the desire to buy something new is an Alpha, and even then, they need very little after all of their conditioning. They are conditioned to constantly buy new things, and in a way, so are we, by the media and our society. But when we buy something, our money is going to another person who will then use it to buy something they need. Our money flows through people due to our greed. In "Brave New World" I simply do not understand how capitalism can work or why they need it in the first place.

V for Vendetta and freedom

If you want to discuss "freedom" in "V for Vendetta" or "Brave New World" first you have to decide what kind of freedom you want to talk about. I see two types of freedom in play in these societies. First there is a mental freedom, and then there is also a literal kind of freedom. In "Brave New World" people do not posses the mental freedom to think outside of each ones own metaphorical box. There is no need for a policing system or laws when no one has the will to do anything new or different; when they are mentally constrained. But in V for Vendetta people do have the mental ability to understand that there is something wrong with their world. However their lives are physically limited with constraining laws and curfews. This is why V could help them. If you are being retrained by chains, you can be cut out or released, but if you are restraining yourself then how can you be saved? This is what makes the question of who is more free so difficult and this is why I believe that the people in "V for Vendetta" are more free. They can be delivered from their evil captors by a savior, and once everyone has been saved, everyone can be completely free. Free of heir fears of the government, disease, or anything that confined them. They could be free to institute any kind of government they want. If V went into the England of "Brave New World" and blew up parliament, and made his speech, people would not understand what he was trying to say. One might say that they are already free because they can do whatever they want, they simply never want to do anything other than what they are programmed to do. But is this freedom? No, being mentally free to think what you want is just as important as being physically free.

reaction to age of rage

I think the current form of white supremacy is different from any before in world history. Most Fascist regimens are brought about due to desperation and because a country had no one else to turn. Hitler gained power because he was able to provide a scapegoat for the poverty that had engulfed his nation. The Jews had always been a target of persecution, they were a sensible target for his genocide campaign. Do today's youth need a scapegoat? No, while cities in Europe during the 1930's were saturated with the stink of desperation, today in America, this feeling does not exist. One of the primary reasons why a fascist dictator was able to take control has been eliminated. Instead of being desperate, the reasons why today's suburban youth are turning to ideas of white supremacy is out of boredom and ignorance. Teens today have grown tired of hearing about how "evil" white people are for committing racist acts in the past. They are bored of hearing about bad things their ancestors had done years ago. And in some areas, they simply have not been taught any better than to not listen to the skewed ideas of white supremacists. Because they are ignorant, thy look for a simple answer to their problems. Why do I get bad grades? Why am I being blamed for things my ancestors did? And the people who provide the easiest answers are today's Hitlers. The skinheads give the easiest answer as to the question of - who can I blame for my problems? This is one similarity between modern teen hate crimes and the fascist regimens of the 1930's. Both Hitler and the skinhead down the street give the simplest solution to peoples problems. They both provide a scapegoat, whether its the Jews, or gays, or Mexicans.
I have seen this kind of ignorance first hand. ON a teen tour around the country a few years ago. I was staying in a hotel and the mid-west (i don't remember exactly where) when a kid about my age overheard a conversation I was having about religion with a friend. He overheard me saying something about my religion, and that I was Jewish. At first I laughed when he asked me where I hid my horns, but I stopped laughing when he tried to have me thrown out of the hotel. Luckily his parents were around and brought him to his senses and this was as far as it got, but in places in America, where kids are not being taught enough about other cultures and lifestyles, this is the kind of thing that happens. A kid will turn to the easiest answer to what he doesn't know about. If he has never before seen a Jew, then he will listen to what the skinhead from his town told him about them. And thus, he will create an image of a money hoarding devil in his mind and over time, this image can develop into a violent tendency towards the Jewish people.

goldman - anarchism

Emma Goldman gives a direct definition of Anarchism in her essay "Anarchism: What it really stands for." She states that Anarchy is "The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary." I have two problems with this. The first is that this is as much of a condemnation of other forms of government as it is a definition of Anarchism. No where in her essay is there any proof that all other forms of government "rest on violence." There was just too much one sidedness for me to take Goldman's paper seriously. Secondly, there are governments and subordination for a reason. If a society could function properly without outside control, then there would be no government today. But no matter which society you look at, some kind of government has been set up so that people cannot simply do whatever they want. When cooperation between people is necessary, so is law that governs the cooperation.
She makes the state sound like an evil power hungry monster who only wants to take all control for itself and force all of its subjects into slavery. "Even a flock of sheep would resist the chicanery of the State, if it were not for the corruptive, tyrannical and oppressive methods it employs to serve its purposes." What these tyrannical and oppressive methods are, only god seems to know. Goldman tells about how society is a colorless, spiritless, taxpaying machine, but does she ever tell us what would change if all government were to be eradicated? No, from the way she makes it sound, I feel like she only wrote this because she doesn't like paying her taxes.

reasons for communism

Even though their goal is to create an entirely new form of economy, Marx and Engels give an abundant amount of credit to capitalism and the things it has achieved. I think they discuss capitalism because just as capitalism is a development, communism is as well. In the Communism Manifesto Marx and Engels discuss how the bourgeoisie (capitalism) is driven by competition. They discuss how "The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing instruments of production." How just as each industry is constantly being replaced with new industry and how the world is constantly being revolutionized over and over again. I think that they discuss how capitalism has revolutionized world markets, the time has finally come for capitalism itself to me revolutionized.

Even though Marx and Engels say that the bourgeoisie revolutionized the marketplace, it is falling apart upon itself. Due simply to having too much of everything. Too much food, too many things, and too many people. And the people who are hit hardest when capitalism fails them are the proletariat; the working man. The more the bourgeoisie develops, the worse off those who are at the bottom of the working class are. And there are more people in the working class than anywhere else. Because of this, first they form a political party, and then the idea of revolution develops. Because of these factors, capitalism becomes just like any other outdated version of society. Just like the way feudalism was uprooted by revolutionaries, so will capitalism. Therefore, a new solution is needed. And that solution, according to Marx and Engels, is communism.

positive woman

In Phyllis Schlafly's The Power of the Positive Woman, she makes many good points to the flaws in the liberation movements ideals. I agree with a lot of what she says, but I also thinks she does take her arguments for the stay at home woman to a bit of an extreme. There are two points which I whole heartedly agree with her on. She begins her essay stating the differences between men and women. She talks about how men are naturally, due to evolution, physically stonger, more logical, and more analytical while women are emotional, practical, and stable. For these reasons, there are cirtain places for which men are better suited and cirtain places for which wimen are better suited. However, I disagree with Schlafly when it comes to the point that these characteristics make women better suited for raising children and men better for going out into the workplace. This may have been so when the workplace was a forest and working involved throwing a spear, but today, there is no natural limitation on either sex that can stop them from going out into the world and making money. If a woman wants to go out into the workplace while her husband stays home, then no government or social standing should stop her. Even if both parents want to go out into the workplace, this should be allowed, as long as their children recieve proper care (being in a childrens center for ten hours every day is not proper care).

I also wholeheartedly agree with Schlafly when it comes to the point that the womens liberation movenent is taking its cause too far. To expect that there should never be seperation between sexes when they are so fundementally different. There are some things that boys have an easier time sharing with other boys and the same goes for girls. Also, the idea that women deserve prefirencial treatement because they were "discriminated against" for hundreds of years is rediculous. First of all it undermines the entire idea of complete equality and no separation. and secondly, discrimination is not discrimination when the women are perfectly content with it. It is only in the modern day that women have wanted the same treatement as men in all aspects of life. Women were never discriminated against, if it is more dificult for a woman to get a job in a factory, it is becuase she lacks the physical strenth to complete the task, it isnt discrimination, it is logic. I am not saying, as Shlafly is, that women should designate themselves to the household, i'm just saying that there should be no compensation becuase no wrongs were ever commited.

Green and dewey

Green rightly states that even though we have freedoms, such as the freedoms to act as we like, the reason why these freedoms exist is because we are not free in certain respects. We are not free to kill and steal and do whatever we want to compulsively, such as in Hobbes state of Nature. Because there are things that we are not allowed to do, because of government, the word freedom exists; it would not exist if we could do whatever we pleased. However, we need a governing body to give each individual rights to property. Therefore, by giving up certain freedoms to a governing body, we gain the right to our own property and we gain new freedoms that do not exist in a "state of nature." If we can work together, as a community, we gain new freedoms that are impossible if each person is savage.

John Dewey however, believes differently. Even though he understands that certain liberties are exchanged for certain rights, he also believes that this exchange comes with a high price. With control over the distribution of freedom, comes immense power. When freedoms are exchanged, there are always some people losing power, and some people gaining it. War and revolutions happen because of people who want to change the control over liberty.

That is is not wicked to be rich

Sumner's main argument in his essay is that people condemn others who have worked hard to make an earning and have made considerable profit. Many people argue, what is the definition of rich, according to John McCain, five million dollars makes you rich, others say that one million dollars mill wake you rich. Sumner's argument, is that it doesn't matter. If a person has become rich, it is because of his/her ambition and genius. In some cases, such as with lottery winners, becoming rich is a matter of luck. And there are cases where the process of becoming rich is evil, such as thieves and people who wish to earn capital with ill-intent. But for the most part, people become rich because they have earned it and have the right to have more than people who haven't.

CEO's who are said to make money because of their subordinates have the right to be rich, because even if they had help making money, would the subordinates who work hard for the CEO be doing the work without him/her? The reason why the top person of a company makes the most money is because they have the ability that most common people do not have, the ability to give orders and organize people into a smoothly operating machine. Heads of companies have the ingenuity to think of a product or service that society wants. Even if a coal miner puts his/her life in more danger, and works harder than the CEO, because the miner lacks these abilities, they will inevitably make less money.

So why would it be an act of evil to be rich? everyone has the same possibility of committing a crime, whether the person is rich or poor, they can abuse others. I think that it is not evil to be rich, it is not evil to be poor. Becoming rich is a matter of luck, ambition, and intellect. Having these qualities is perfectly OK. What makes a person evil is the crimes they may commit.

The Divisions of Labor

People are selfish and lazy. But they need to work together in order to achieve their ends. It is why trade and bartering exists, instead of each person simply making everything they need themselves. People work together in order to get what they need individually. Adam Smith demonstrates this in the first chapters of his Wealth of Nations. He also demonstrates the idea that the most effective and efficient method of producing goods is to have multiple people working together to complete different functions of the production process. Overall, human cooperation is what drives the worlds economy and its industry.

Humans are the only organism on Earth that will trade with another of its species in order to achieve its ends. This is because it is simply the most efficient way of getting something you want. It is the most basic concept of supply and demand. If one person has something another wants, and vice-versa, they can trade and both will be happy. Thing part of trade that Adam Smith stresses is the divisions of labor. It is the way of producing an item in te most efficient possible way. Instead of one person, who is most likey uneducated in many areas of making a cirtain item, making the entire thing, many people will cooperate together to make the item. The example Adam Smith uses is a pin making industry. Instead of one person who does not know all about ever aspect of pin making, making the entire pin, many people will make the pin, one person will make the head and others will make the point, etc... This process will cause a great rise in the number of pins being produced daily. However, many people will need to be hired, and each one will be paid less becuase so many people are working. If one person was working, he would be paid more and get less done. The next example of divisions of labor that Smith uses is with a wool coat, and this example is on a much larger scale. Instead of just a few people working together to make a coat, much more goes into it. There are dyers, spinners, weavers, dressers, and many many more people that are designated to do work that relates to making one wool coat. Without these labr divisions, industry completel ceases to exist.

Adma Smith's overal point is that cooperation is fundemental. It is the first thing that is necesary in not just factries, but in every day life as well. There is no one on this planet that can get through life without the help of the people around him. Cooperation not only makes the process of production easier and more effective, but it single handedly helps our economy progress.

Fredrick Douglass

Eloquently and powerfully, Fredrick Douglass bashed his audience on July 5, 1852. And rightly so. He began with inspiring words about the greatness of the founders of America and how they liberated America from British tyranny. How the forefathers petitioned and demonstrated in the name of their cause, and when all else failed, they revolted and gained their liberty. And July 4th, throughout history, will be remembered as the day of American independence, an will be a day of celebration. But not for a specific community. Slaves mourned while White Americans rejoiced, "your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns...are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy..." Douglass argued that the American celebration of this day was the ultimate hypocrisy. How can a country that prided itself on its freedom and liberty and that "all men are created equal," when it has certain men who are more "equal" than others. There is no clause in the constitution that alienates slaves as degenerative, or inhuman. They were people, just like all other Americans and were entitles to the same rights. But of course, you all already know this, you read the same speech that I did.
I believe that Douglass made this speech as a tribute to slaves all across America at this time. He delivered a moving speech about the hypocrisy of Americans on their most important day of the year. And he did it to shock them into looking at their ways in a new light. If I were a slaveholder who had sat through this speech, I would never be able stand on American soil again without feeling a sense of self-disgust. But even though he does a great job of guilting many people into either giving up their slaves, or simply feeling bad about having them, Douglass leaves room for the white Americans. He says that he is glad that our nation is young, so that it has time to reform and improve itself.

First Blog - on liberty

Well this is my first blog so I'm not completely sure what to write. I guess I'll just argue against John S. Mill for the time being. Mill believes that democracy breeds a mob mentality. That just because the majority of a population believes something, that does not make it right. Also, that those who make the rules, do not always know what is best for a population. I think that this, most of the time, is incorrect. There is a reason why societies with socialist and democratic governments prevail in this world. It is because democracy works. It gives as many citizens as is possible what they want. It is true that a persons surroundings effect what they believe, for instance, if you grow up in a liberal community, you will usually vote for the party with more liberal principles. Education is the only way to help a person develop their own point of view, and even then, a person can be swayed by the point of view of a teacher. This is not mob mentality, this is simply being influenced.
Another one of Mills points, that the rulers do not always know whats best, is also arguable. Sometimes, the rulers of a democracy make bad decisions. But it is done for the protection of those who they represent. And just because a ruler makes mistakes, does not mean that the absence of a democracy is a better idea. Most of the decisions of a leader do good for a society, otherwise the leader will be replaced, that's what democracy is.