#Bethany Marx | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

thephilosophiesofbea · 4 years

Text

Is Socialism the Most Appropriate Form of Government for the U.S.?

BY BETHANY HANNAN.

Socialism: Utopia or Dystopia?

In the U.S., if you’re in need of medical care, how long does it usually take to obtain it? After walking into the doctor’s office, maybe ten to twenty minutes? Now, imagine if that time quadrupled. In places governed by socialism, it is common to get put on a waitlist to see a doctor; the time of which you’re on that waitlist can range between six to eighty days. Some areas in Europe are particularly fond of this method of social organization. Two summers ago, my parents took a trip to Scotland, Ireland, Switzerland, and France. While in France, they came across a taxi driver who needed a knee surgery. He had been driving the taxi they were in for about five months, waiting for his turn to get a consultation. He was supposed to be on the waitlist for six months, but he had been waiting for a year to even figure out what he was supposed to do or what was going to happen. He didn’t get to pick his doctor, let alone for an important surgery that would determine whether or not he could walk afterwards. This is just one of the many different angles of socialism. This one, however, leans pretty heavily towards anti-socialism. Socialism has been, and always will be, a very controversial topic. But first, what is socialism? According to Lexico (funded by Oxford), socialism is “a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole”. Most would call that a socio-economic score, but the history of socialism and it’s concerning determinism begs to differ. Socialism started primarily with one man: Karl Marx, creator of Marxist socialism and believer in the “true” socialism and communism. He built up his definition of socialism to be “a society which permits the actualization of man's essence, by overcoming his alienation. It is nothing less than creating the conditions for the truly free, rational, active and independent man; it is the fulfillment of the prophetic aim: the destruction of the idols” (Fromm 5). Marx thought that a mind under a common good would be more securely operational than a divided mind under a self-benefiting, centralized force would be/had been. He found freedom in the fact that one could find solace in the shared communion of society, whereas a capitalist or otherwise individualistic government would segregate the people into hierarchies of social acceptance; in some ways, he was right. “The freedom in this field cannot consist of anything else but of the fact that socialized man, the associated producers, regulate their interchange with nature rationally, bring it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by some blind power; they accomplish their task with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most adequate to their human nature and most worthy of it” (Fromm 3). But socialism has developed many different interpretations throughout the years that force the people to look at it from multiple angles. It used to be considered an “old man’s ideology”, but with the youth’s increasing political awareness and personal beliefs, it is now the talk of the political century. Many believe socialism could be the key to the ultimate utopia for our country, but there are many cracks within the glass that suggest otherwise. Considering the stats, it seems socialism has hindered some countries’ economic prosperity more than it has helped them.

In 1999, Venezuela came under the rule of a socialist government, all thanks to their late president Hugo Chavez. When Chavez got elected, he intended to alleviate poverty and the suffering of his citizens, but only promised economic degradation of his once-prospering country. In his article, Daniel Di Martino tells a personal anecdote about the effects of socialism saying, “The regime nationalized electricity in 2007, resulting in under-investment in the electrical grid. By 2016, my home lost power roughly once a week. Our water situation was even worse. Initially, my family didn't have running water for about one day per month, but as the years passed we sometimes went several weeks straight without it” (Di Martino 2-4). Hyperinflation burdened almost every family in Venezuela and many places governed under socialism. Everyday assets were hard to afford, meaning those who couldn’t afford them, or were simply stripped of them, had to pay the price for choosing a political party they didn’t quite understand the gravity of. Because of Chavez’s aspiration for a community that was not yet achievable, Venezuela’s economy collapsed and hyperinflation (inflation accelerated to 700 percent, says The American Institute for Economic Research) destroyed the country’s currency. Chavez also failed to console the public’s concerns about it.

An editor from a Tribune Business News article states;

As The New York Times reported in 2007: ‘Chavez has threatened to jail grocery store owners and nationalize their businesses if they violate the country's expanding price controls.’ Last year, his government seized a Cargill rice processing plant for failing to produce enough rice at regulated prices. Venezuela's government-run grocery stores present shoppers with two prices: the precio capitalista, or capitalist price, and the precio justo, or just price. (Tribune Business News 3)

Di Martino even tried to escape to the United States to rid himself of Venezuela’s lasting socialist ways, but he was only met with (and disgraced by) the States’ attempt (prompted by Sen. Bernie Sanders and others) to harness ultimately socialist ways as well.

Granted, some will take the idealistic high road and argue that socialism works exceptionally well when everyone works under an “all-for-one” mindset. They defend their argument by providing evidence on how much the human mindset has already changed throughout the years we’ve existed because of the social status quo or a common statute or way of government, provided that capitalism has only existed for some 500 years, so there must have been some other way of functioning politically.

In his article, Richard Ebeling provides an example of what some hyper-enthusiasts and idealistic believers in socialism think, saying;

A true socialist society would mean more freedom not less, so it was unfair to judge socialism by these supposedly twisted experiments in creating a workers' paradise. Furthermore, under a true socialism, human nature would change and men would no longer be motivated by self-interest, but by a desire to selflessly advance the common good. (Ebeling 5)

But, to combat that far-fetched opinion, we must face the facts: man is powered by selfishness. It is in our DNA to want things only and tactlessly for ourselves, take the hunters and gatherers for example; only recently have we even considered, or more or less tolerated, sharing with others what we believe we worked hard for for ourselves. Although the human mindset contains room for growth and evolution and possibility for change, when it comes to sharing the fruits of our labors, it becomes a little less simplistic. We would become barbaric, or on the other side of the spectrum, realize we would never have to do anything ever again to earn said fruits, because they would be fruits of someone else’s labor.

Socialism has a good intention set forth, but it still needs several reevaluations before it can be considered a true rumination. Although some try to argue that socialism is making a sizeable dent in the political forcefield, it’s quite the contrary; the lasting members of the socialist party for the US are nearing their demise. In his article, Robby Soave advocates for this detail, saying, “As recently as 2013, the average member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) was 68 years old. Even today, the ideology's best-known spokesperson, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), is 77” (Soave 8). If anything, the socialist party will be fading come ten years from now instead of “uniting the people through means of commonality” like the enthusiasts hope. It could be possible, however, if the socialist party were to tweak some of their over-eager precepts, such as with Hugo Chavez’s plan to abolish poverty. Perhaps focusing on opening up more entry-level jobs for those that don’t have the money or experience for higher-level opportunities, thus preparing them for said higher-level opportunities by providing them work experience at large. Redesigning the whole government into a socialist “utopia” wouldn’t have been necessary, just redefinition of Venezuela’s old government. If we were to all agree to work towards a socialist world, the structure of every institution and every format of law would need to change. "Mere state ownership of key productive forces is not enough to create a socialist society; the people must exercise a sovereign rule over these productive forces and society as a whole, and the society must be organized to promote collective needs" (McChesney 11). Instead of reinventing the government in its entirety, the government should simply and unhesitantly address what caused all of the poverty. If it was actually democracy that ruined Venezuela’s socio-economic status or if, with any means of government, poverty would still be present in the country. In his article, Eric Foner brought the empty promises of socialism to the light, saying, “The Socialist party, although it elected hundreds of candidates to local office and obtained nearly a million votes for Eugene Debs's 1912 presidential candidacy, failed nevertheless to bridge the gaps between skilled and unskilled workers, and native-born whites, blacks, and immigrants” (Foner 2). Throughout the years, socialism and its tendency to manifest fickle infrastructure has never promised anything more than a contradictory mix of ensured laziness and chaos because of lack of assiduousness and satisfaction in one’s own achievements.

But let’s not ignore the elephant in the room: capitalism, “an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state” (Lexico, funded by Oxford). The nation’s silent assailant isn’t as innocent of charges as we grant it to be. Capitalism has accustomed some to receiving all, and others receiving none, therefore the idea of socialism is a bizarre and frankly forbidden concept some refuse to accept. "In the development of U.S. capitalism, the wealth of some was inextricably tied to the poverty of others, and race and gender largely determined which were which: Native American land, Black slavery, Latin American resources, and the underpaid labor of women and children factory workers formed the pillars of capital accumulation" (Mankiller 3). Under this mindset, US citizens, and anyone else under a fundamentally capitalist way of operating, often slip into a disposition to where they believe they are entitled to free choice. But free choice is merely a side dish that comes alongside capitalism, almost as a “thank you” package for putting it into place. US citizens forget to acknowledge all of the delicacies that capitalism has graced us with (or, rather, addicted us to). Let’s take phones for example: phones, iPhones in particular, have become the poster child of our generation, all thanks to capitalism. We are able to buy one whenever we want, get whatever model we want, get whatever update we want when we want, get whatever apps we want on there (excluding incidences of parental restriction, but even then, that’s a freedom within itself). We have a million different freedoms right between our palms and we forget it every day. With socialism, people tend to forget that it’s an “all-for-one” mindset, therefore those decisions are made for you, and you have no say in it. This is no longer a democracy, whether you try your hardest to believe it so or not. Now the government makes every action for you. Makes socialism look a little more restricting now, doesn’t it? Well, you’ll have plenty of time to have your complaints sent to voicemail, since socialism sits idle in office for four lengthy years. Surprise! Welcome to autocracy and favored aristocracy. Population, you. Also, don’t think socialism will pick favorites among the people, because it won’t. It will only make life easier for those with millions flowing out of their britches every month. For a solid amount of people, that’s a tricky and unconstitutional notion that they want to avoid letting their kids grow up with.

Speaking of the youth, institutions such as schools would change structures completely. Public schools under a socialist government would alter the democratic way the teachers teach in the classroom. Some view this alteration as a blessing in disguise, one that eliminates material competition for students and eagerly encourages a positive reinforcement teaching method. Students would be “placed in work based on their strengths and not be penalized for their weaknesses” (angelfire.com). Many teachers currently argue that a more well-rounded and socialized instructional method would “build character” and “effectively teach right from wrong”. Students would learn quicker and would legitimately welcome teacher instruction without fear of potentially ill-fitted punishment. Karl Marx argued for “‘polytechnical education’, linking schooling with the real world of production” (socialistsalternative.org). He believed this new method of instruction would differentiate those who “labored” and those who “thought”, thus progressing our society into what it needed to be to better the circumstances we live in. In the 1950’s, an institution called the Socialist Sunday School (SSS) changed mainstream instructional ways into those encouraging socialism. The school taught more diverse topics, like Philosophy, and encouraged students to look at things from a new, more socialized perspective; one that, they argued, schools under capitalism failed to endorse. Margaret McMillan, one of the school’s utmost supporters, put forth that there was “new intimacy between teacher and taught” (Reid 5). She then proceeded to state the freedoms our kids should have, and would have under a more socialist way of schooling, saying, “our children should draw freely” and “they should write more and talk more than is possible in the day school” (5). Furthermore, privatized education, under socialism, would encourage charter schools to place their books under public scrutiny because of public funding towards it. Many who believe in “true” socialism also believe in this notion coming into fruition; the public paid for those books to be given to charter schools, and capitalism has denied them from even using them, so socialism would, therefore, grant rights to things that were previously deemed “privatized”, which is one of the reasons why so many people are in its favor.

Education and political affiliations are bound to be interconnected. Differing governmental styles have a heavy influence on the infrastructure and lesson plans of a school’s curriculum. It ultimately determines what the students are exposed to, thus those who learn more prevalent material during their school years tend to have better chances to succeed later in life. Voxeu.com states, “treated individuals, who were exposed to socialist schooling for one less school year, exhibit 2% higher employment rates and 1.5% higher hours worked. For the older birth cohorts, less exposure to non-meritocratic access restrictions in the treated group leads to 4% higher wages and a 5% higher probability of having a professional job” (12). Schools functioning under socialism would presumably be more efficient as the years went on and the pure definition or representation of morals of socialism would be reevaluated. They would offer higher level thinking opportunities and give time for students’ problem solving skills to develop due to lessened authoritarianism in the classrooms. Socialism, in this instance, would solve many unnecessary setbacks in educational settings.

My parents’ taxi driver’s experience with socialism continues to be the poster child for why observers of any political movement should look at both sides of the road before crossing. Public healthcare in places dominated by socialist governments such as France could be considered an actor with an excellent facade. It will hold up it’s act until the curtains close and the lights begin to fade and nobody is around to see how genuinely flawed it really is. It’s mask is slowly developing cracks, yet those cracks are not enough to enforce change in legal structures. It won’t be enough until it breaks completely and tanks France’s governmental state too. Universal healthcare has not only shot down opportunities for free choice when it comes to doctors or waitlists, but it has also driven away any competition in the healthcare business due to one business centralizing all profit.

In his article, John Sieler demonstrates how ruinous universal healthcare could be if manipulated by those fighting for said centralization, saying;

TennCare (another experiment in medical socialism), explains the entry in Wikipedia, ‘was designed to expand health insurance to the uninsured through the state's Medicaid program by utilizing managed care.’ Centralization was supposed to reduce costs, with ‘free’ money from the federal government picking up any financial slack. But predictably, many companies stopped providing medical insurance, forcing employees to sign up with TennCare. ‘In short order, one quarter of the state's population was on TennCare,’ Patrick Poole wrote on AmericanThinker.com last January. TennCare ‘has forced dozens of hospitals out of business, pushed thousands of doctors and other health care professionals out of the state, destroyed any semblance of a competitive health insurance market, and nearly drove the state government into bankruptcy.’ (15-16)

Universal healthcare proves beneficial in theory, but as anything more than a hypothetical, it severely lacks any strong foundation. As it’s carried out, those who practice business under it will benefit, whilst those who are forced to live under it will fall prey to extended wait times and lack of free choice.

Socialism, as a whole, poses many thoughts about what freedoms man is granted at birth and upholding those freedoms throughout one’s lifetime. Moral and socio-economic angles have to be approached to come to a sensible conclusion. As of right now, the most logical conclusion, given the state at which socialism is currently, is that the political movement is not ready for export. Socialism begs too many questions and leaves too many loose ends free for it to be properly dished out. The leaders wanting to fight for socialism to become as mainstream as capitalism will ultimately let the centralized power get to their head, and subsequently, lose control of what was once a stable country. Karl Marx had a clear vision to which he was ready to manifest into fruition, given the economic state of the world around him. But the vision he wants to implement is too fool-hardy and quick to the gun. Maybe Marx’s dream for socialism will come true some day, once all is taken into revision. Then we, as human beings, can finally say we learned the way of mental plasticity, true change, and, thus, a reason to never doubt the supposedly impossible. But until then, man will continue to harvest, blindly and exclusively.

Works Cited (and Interesting Sites to check out!)

Ebeling, Richard M. "Why Socialism is "Impossible"." Freeman, Oct 2004. Sirsissuesresearcher, https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2267936372?accountid=41449.

Foner, Eric, and John A. Garraty. "Socialism." , 1991. Sirsissuesresearcher, https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2265463961?accountid=41449.

Fuchs-Schündeln, Nicola and Masella, Paolo. 05 June 2016.

https://voxeu.org/article/long-lasting-effects-socialist-education

Fromm, Erich. “Marx’s Concept of Socialism.” 1961.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch06.htm

Glover, Juleanna, et al. “What Would a Socialist America Look Like?” POLITICO Magazine, 3 Sept. 2018, www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/03/what-would-a-socialist-america-look-like-219626.

Mankiller, Wilma. Socialism. , 1998. Sirsissuesresearcher, https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2265472802?accountid=41449.

Martino, Daniel D. "Socialism Destroyed My Home, Venezuela." USA TODAY, 19 Feb 2019. Sirsissuesresearcher, https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2264363868?accountid=41449.

McChesney, Robert W. "Capitalism, the Absurd System." Monthly Review, 06 2010. Sirsissuesresearcher, https://explore.proquest.com/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2265594180?accountid=41449.

Soave, Robby. "Socialism is Back, and the Kids are Loving it." Reason, Aug 2019. Sirsissuesresearcher,

Reid, Julie. The Guardian (pre-1997 Fulltext); Manchester (UK) [Manchester (UK)]02 Jan 1996: T.014.

BY BETHANY HANNAN.

1 note · View note

maaarine · 5 years

Text

MBTI Typing Index: Names M-P

Name starts with: A B, C D, E F, G H, I J K L, M N O P, Q R S T, U V W X Y Z.

Seth MACFARLANE (ENTP)

Katie MACK (ENTP)

Emmanuel MACRON (ESTJ)

Rachel MADDOW (ENTP)

Shane MADEJ (ENTP)

Madonna / Madonna CICCONE (ESFP)

René MAGRITTE (NTP)

Rami MALEK (ISFP)

Michael MALICE (ENTP)

Terrence MALICK (INFJ)

Zayn MALICK (ISTP)

Marilyn MANSON (ISFP)

Mark MANSON (ENFJ)

Rooney MARA (ISTP)

Diego MARADONA (ESTP)

Jenna MARBLES (ESFP)

Miriam MARGOLYES (ENFP)

Julianna MARGULIES (ENTJ)

Meghan MARKLE (ENFJ)

Brit MARLING (INFJ)

Laura MARLING (INFJ)

Bruno MARS (ESFP)

Winston MARSHALL (ENTP)

Yann MARTELL (INFJ)

Chris MARTIN (INFP)

George R.R. MARTIN (INTP)

Melanie MARTINEZ (ISFP)

Karl MARX (INTJ)

Gaten MATARAZZO (ENTP)

Gabor MATÉ (INFJ)

Jim MATTIS (ESTJ)

Humberto MATURANA (INFJ)

Ava MAX (ESFP)

Theresa MAY (ESTJ)

John MAYER (ENTP)

John MCCAIN (ISTJ)

Meghan MCCAIN (ESFJ)

Paul MCCARTNEY (ESFP)

Matthew MCCONAUGHEY (ESFP)

Mitch MCCONNELL (ISTJ)

Charlie MCDONNELL (INFP)

Malcolm MCDOWELL (ESFP)

Rose MCGOWAN (ESFP)

Ian MCKELLEN (ENFP)

Ben MCKENZIE (INTJ)

Kate MCKINNON (INTP)

Seán MCLOUGHLIN (ENTP)

Adam MCKAY (ENTP)

Alexander MCQUEEN (ISFP)

Ben MENDELSOHN (INFP)

Stephen MERCHANT (ENTP)

Freddie MERCURY (ENFP)

Angela MERKEL (INTJ)

Lea MICHELE (ESFJ)

Miguel / Miguel PIMENTEL (ISFP)

Ina MOHALACHE (INTP)

Mads MIKKELSEN (ISTP)

Alyssa MILANO (ENFJ)

John Stuart MILL (INTJ)

Chanel MILLER (INFP)

Ezra MILLER (ENFP)

Gina MILLER (ENTJ)

Mac MILLER (ISFP)

Wentworth MILLER (INFJ)

Mike MILLS (INFP)

MIN Yoon-gi / SUGA (ISTP)

Nicki MINAJ (ESFP)

Anthony MINGHELLA (INFJ)

Marvin MINSKY (INTP)

Lin-Manuel MIRANDA (ENFP)

David MITCHELL (INFP)

Shay MITCHELL (ESFJ)

Hayao MIYAZAKI (INFP)

Moby / Richard HALL (INTP)

Yann MOIX (ENTP)

Jason MOMOA (ESTP)

Tana MONGEAU (ESFP)

Alan MOORE (INTP)

Mandy MOORE (ESFJ)

Caitlin MORAN (ENFP)

Dylan MORAN (INTP)

Tom MORELLO (ENFP)

Alanis MORISSETTE (ENFJ)

Chris MOROCCO (ISTJ)

Steven MORRISSEY (INFJ)

Viggo MORTENSEN (INFJ)

May-Britt MOSER (INFP)

Carrie-Anne MOSS (INFJ)

Kate MOSS (ESFP)

Bethany MOTA (ESFJ)

Wagner MOURA (ENFJ)

José MOURINHO (ISTP)

Robert MUELLER (ESTJ)

Siddhartha MUKHERJEE (INTJ)

Carey MULLIGAN (INFJ)

Marcus MUMFORD (ENFJ)

Randall MUNROE (INTP)

Eddie MURPHY (ESTP)

Bill MURRAY (ENTP)

Elon MUSK (INTP)

Dee Dee MYERS (ENTJ)

Angela NAGLE (INTJ)

Aparna NANCHERLA (INFP)

Steve NASH (INTJ)

Maajid NAWAZ (ENTJ)

Ruth NEGGA (INFJ)

Casey NEISTAT (ENTP)

Nekfeu / Ken SAMARAS (ISFP)

Maggie NELSON (INFJ)

Shirin NESHAT (INFP)

Benjamin NETANYAHU (ENTJ)

Isaac NEWTON (INTP)

Mike NIHCOLS (ENFJ)

Stevie NICKS (ESFP)

Friedrich NIETZSCHE (INFJ)

Ingrid NILSEN (ESFJ)

Anaïs NIN (INFP)

Cynthia NIXON (ENTJ)

Richard NIXON (ESTJ)

Edward NORTON (ENTP)

Graham NORTON (ENFP)

Samin NOSRAT (ENFP)

Tig NOTARO (INTP)

Amélie NOTHOMB (INFP)

BJ NOVAK (INTP)

Marti NOXON (ENFJ)

Martha NUSSBAUM (ENFJ)

Bill NYE (ENTP)

Safiya NYGAARD (ESFJ)

Jenny ODELL (INFJ)

Karen ORZOLEK (ISFP)

Conan O’BRIEN (ENTP)

James O’BRIEN (ENTJ)

Jack O’CONNELL (ESTP)

Georgia O’KEEFFE (INFP)

Shaquille O’NEAL (ESFP)

Bill O’REILLY (ESTJ)

Tyler OAKLEY (ESFP)

Joyce Carol OATES (INFP)

Barack OBAMA (ENTJ)

Michelle OBAMA (ENFJ)

Alexandria OCASIO-CORTEZ (ENFJ)

Frank OCEAN (ISFP)

Bob ODENKIRK (ENTP)

Leslie ODOM (ENFJ)

Olajide OLATUNJI (ESTP)

Jamie OLIVER (ESFP)

John OLIVER (ENTP)

Kim OLSON (ESTJ)

David OLUSOGA (INFJ)

Timothy OLYPHANT (ESTP)

Yoko ONO (ISFP)

Rita ORA (ESFP)

Orelsan / Aurélien COTENTIN (INTP)

Mallory ORTBERG (ENFP)

George ORWELL (INTJ)

Naomi OSAKA (ISFP)

Candace OWENS (ESTJ)

David OYELOWO (ENFJ)

Lee PACE (ISFP)

Chamath PALIHAPITIYA (ENTJ)

Sarah PALIN (ESFJ)

Amanda PALMER (ENFP)

Gwyneth PALTROW (ESFJ)

Larry PAGE (INTP)

Chuck PAHLANIUK (INTP)

Ellen PAO (INTJ)

Vanessa PARADIS (ISFP)

Sarah Jessica PARKER (ESFJ)

Trey PARKER (ENTP)

Dolly PARTON (ESFP)

Pedro PASCAL (ESFP)

Sara PASCOE (ENFP)

Ann PATCHETT (ENTJ)

Mandy PATINKIN (ENFP)

Robert PATTINSON (ISFP)

Jake PAUL (ESFP)

Logan PAUL (ESTP)

Sarah PAULSON (ENFP)

Alexander PAYNE (ENTJ)

Liam PAYNE (ESFJ)

Trisha PAYTAS (ESFP)

Valérie PÉCRESSE (ESTJ)

Victoria PEDRETTI (INFP)

Nancy PELOSI (ESFJ)

Sean PENN (INFP)

Louise PENTLAND (ESFP)

Simon PEGG (ENTP)

Laurie PENNY (ENFP)

Brandon PEREA (ESFP)

Esther PEREL (ENFJ)

Chelsea PERETTI (ENTP)

Katy PERRY (ESFP)

Luke PERRY (ISFP)

Matthew PERRY (ENTP)

Tyler PERRY (ENFJ)

Markus PERSSON / Notch (INTP)

Evan PETERS (ISFP)

Jordan PETERSON (ENTP)

Madelaine PETSCH (ESFJ)

Megan PHELPS-ROPER (INFJ)

Busy PHILIPPS (ESFP)

Adam PHILLIPS (INFJ)

Joaquin PHOENIX (INFP)

River PHOENIX (INFP)

Pablo PICASSO (ENFP)

Hasan PIKER (ENTP)

Pink / Alecia MOORE (ESFP)

Steven PINKER (INTP)

Scottie PIPPEN (ISFP)

Brad PITT (ISFP)

Nic PIZZOLATTO (INTJ)

Sylvia PLATH (INFP)

Aubrey PLAZA (ISTP)

Amy POEHLER (ENFP)

Benoît POELVOORDE (ENFP)

Sarah POLLEY (INFJ)

Michel POLNAREFF (INFP)

Sergei POLUNIN (ISFP)

Maria POPOVA (INFJ)

Gregg POPOVICH (INTJ)

Antoni POROWSKI (ISFP)

Natalie PORTMAN (ENFJ)

Post Malone / Austin POST (ESTP)

Will POULTER (ENFJ)

Colin POWELL (ISTJ)

Terry PRATCHETT (INTP)

Chris PRATT (ESFP)

Barbara PRAVI (ENFP)

Adam PRICE (ENFJ)

Prince / Prince NELSON (ISFP)

Jesse PRINZ (INTJ)

Florence PUGH (ESTP)

Philip PULLMAN (INFJ)

Evan PUSCHAK (INTJ)

Charlie PUTH (ESTP)

Vladimir PUTIN (ISTP)

Name starts with: A B, C D, E F, G H, I J K L, M N O P, Q R S T, U V W X Y Z.

#mbtiindex

6 notes · View notes

catsnuggler · 7 years

Text

Being a communist pagan is... interesting, to say the least, because I really want to google stuff like “Communist Pagan Rituals” or “Ancestor Worship for Karl Marx” but I know that if I get any results,most of the prominent ones, if not all, will be either from 40-something evangelical Christian (making up names) Vernon or Bethany, who wrote some strawman, ill-informed blog post to the effect of “MARXISM IS EVIL!! Progressive taxes, are sin, and ANYONE who says othewise IS UNAMERICAN AND WORSHIPS SATAN!!”

There isn’t a lot of pagan communist stuff out there. I wish that were changed; like, I’m talking multi-tradition, big tent stuff. But it would take me a while to think of what, exactly.

5 notes · View notes

afaimsarrowverse · 4 years

Text

My 15 Favorite Episodes of Arrow:

15. Deathstroke (Episode 2.18/41, Written by: Marc Guggenheim, Drew Z. Greenberg, Directed by: Guy Bee)

"They're calling you Deathstroke."

"That's a bit flamboyant. I like it."

The one in which: The Trinity of Villains makes life hard for Oliver and his friends while Slade goes gaga in the flashbacks.

14. Present Tense (Episode 8.4/164, Written by: Oscar Balderrama, Jeane Wong, Directed by: Kristin Windell)

"Someone told me the only way to change the future is to start doing things differently now."

The one in which: Oliver meets his time travelling grown up children and a new Deathstroke is running around.

13. Heir to the Demon (Episode 2.13/26, Written by: Jake Coburn, Directed by: Wendey Stanzler)

"We all have to keep secrets, Ms. Smoak."

The one in which: We meet Nyssa al Ghul, Sara is on the ladder, while in the flashbacks we learn more about the Lance Family before the Gambit.

12. Honor Thy Fathers (Episode 5.21/113, Written by: Marc Guggenheim, Directed by: Laura Belsey)

„Thank you for being here. I'd like to talk with everyone about my father. Our father. Based on further investigation, I can now state definitively that the allegations made against Robert Queen are... true. My father is not here to defend himself, and I cannot find the words to defend his actions. What I can tell you is that nearly ten years ago, in a moment of... of immense courage, Robert Queen chose to sacrifice himself so that I might live. So that I had the opportunity to leave behind a better legacy than he did. So that I might return and one day serve this city.“

The one in which: Oliver und Thea have to confront some stuff about their father and Adrian still has the last laugh, while in the flashbacks Oliver returns to Lian Yu.

11. Prochnost (Episode 8.5/165, Written by: Benjamin Raab, Deric A. Hughes, Directed by: Laura Belsey)

"That is the thing about teaching. It's not about what you want to say. It's about what they need to hear. Remember first thing i taught you? Living is not for the weak. Your children are not weak, Oliver. They're also not children. Whatever it is you have to say, they can handle it. If you do not, they will never learn to be heroes."

The one in which: Oliver takes his kids to Russia to meet up with Anatoly, who has words for Laurel.

10. State V Queen (Episode 2.7/30, Written by: Marc Guggenheim, Drew Z. Greenberg, Directed by: Bethany Rooney)

"You want the the pain to end and I can do that with Vertigo."

The one in which: The Count is back, Moira gets a verdict while in the flashbacks Oliver, Sara, Slade and Shaod are fighting for their lives.

9. Lian Yu (Episode 5.23/115, Written by: Wendy Mericle, Marc Guggenheim, Directed by: Jesse Warn)

"William's younger than you were, so he's gonna be fine, you know? And you have each other."

"What are you saying?" "Which is good. Oliver, that's good. Because it's gonna be lonely... without Mom and Felicity."

The one in which: Oliver recruits Slade and Digger Harkness for additional help, Adrian gets his revegene, Lian Yu gets blown up while in the flashbacks Oliver finally returns home.

8. Crucible (Episode 2.4/27, Written by: Andrew Kreisberg, Wendy Mericle, Directed by: Eagle Egilson)

„Sooner or later, we all go through a crucible. I'm guessing yours was that island. Most believe there are two types of people who go intro a crucible; the ones who grow stronger from the experience and survive it, and the ones who die. But there's a third type: the ones who learn to love the fire. They choose to stay in their crucible because it's easier to embrace the pain when it's all you know anymore.“

The one in which: The Mayor trys to kill Sebastian Blood, Laurel gets worse, while in the flashbacks Oliver finds himself in a new kind of hell.

7. The Brave and the Bold (Episode 3.8/54, Written by: Greg Berlanti, Andrew Kreisberg, Marc Guggenheim, Grainne Godfree, Directed by: Jesse Warn)

"Sometimes bravery isn't enough; sometimes the world requires us to be bold."

The one in which: Barry, Caitlin and Cisco come to Starling City and visit the Arrowcave and help Team Arrow fight Captain Boomerang.

6. Haunted (Episode 4.5/74, Written by: Brian Ford Sullivan, Oscar Balderrama, Directed by: John Badham)

„Your sister requires a restitution, the restoration of her soul to her body."

The one in which: We meet John Constantine and Sara gets her sould back.

5. Kapiushon (Episode 5.17/109, Written By: Brian Ford Sullivan, Emilo Ortega Aldrich,Directed By: Kevin Tancharoen)

"Go to Hell!"

"I've already been there, Oliver. And I've brought a message back for you."

The one in which: Oliver gets broken, and loses the tattoo we finally learn how he got in the flashbacks.

4. Starling City (Episode 8.1/ 161, Written by: Beth Schwartz und Marx Guggenheim, Directed by: James Bamford)

„Among the many misconceptions humanity holds dear is the fallacy that all beings are created equal. In truth, there are those who are greater. They are called heroes. But even among heroes, there are different echelons. The highest belongs to those known as the paragons. And they are the only hope of all creation."

The one in which: We relieve the pilot in a slighty different setting, while Mia and her crew still try to protect Stat City.

3. Invasion! (2) 5.8/100, Written by: Greg Berlanti, Marc Guggenheim, Wendy Mericle, Directed by: James Bamford)

"I didn't make those sacrifices for a reward, Thea. I did what I did because I thought it was right. And seeing all of this, it has just—it has shown me that there is still so much more to do, so please... I'm begging you to come with me because I cannot do it alone."

The one in which: Oliver and the others are stuck in a virtual reality, while the rest of his team works with Barry and Kara.

2. The Scienitst/Three Ghosts (Episode: 2.8/31-2.9/32, 32: Written by: Greg Berlanti, Andrew Kreisberg, Geoff Johns, Ben Sokolowski, Directed by: Michael Schultz, John Behring)

"The five years I was away, I encountered things that defy explanation."

The onse in which: We meet Barry Allen, three ghosts, learn what happened to Shado and all of this at christmas.

1. Reset (Episode 8.6/166, Written by: Onalee Hunter Hughes und Maya Houston, Directed by: David Ramsey)

"Oliver, I've seen one daughter die and come back to life twice. I've seen another come from some other Earth. I've seen a guy in red run so fast he can reverse time. This is not exactly outside the norm, is it? Also, I'm done learning my lesson about doubting you because that always bites me in the ass."

The one in which: Oliver and Laurel are trapped in a time loop where they fail to save Quentins life over and over again.

#Arrow #favorite episodes #everyone is entitled to their opinion #please respect mine

0 notes

antoine-roquentin · 7 years

Link

In a moment of high political and ideological tension, it is not surprising that Nancy MacLean’s new book, Democracy in Chains, might strike a nerve with the public: the book offers a close account of the early years of one particular strand of right-wing economics scholarship. And after the events of this past weekend, when white supremacy returned to the very grounds of the University of Virginia where a large chunk of MacLean’s story takes place, interest in what MacLean has to say will likely grow. As well it should, because MacLean’s account explains what happened in Charlottesville at two different but related levels. More concretely, the University of Virginia's status as a bastion of white supremacy and white-supremacist-validating scholarship is exactly what was at issue both during the period MacLean writes about it and today, and at a greater remove, the long gestation period of the current upsurge of white supremacist and anti-democratic sentiment is exactly her book’s foremost subject and concern.

By taking aim at the legacy of James M. Buchanan, the Nobel Prize–winning economist whose scholarship and political philosophy reverberate through the conservative movement to this day, MacLean’s book has pitched intellectual historians such as herself against Buchanan’s academic heirs, to whom she ascribes complicity in a long political devolution. While a few nonaligned scholars have entered the fray, the debate has so far largely been drawn along ideological and disciplinary lines. This is unfortunate because MacLean uncovers a crucial history in her book, one that economists especially need to grapple with.

It is evident from reading Democracy in Chains that MacLean takes a dim view of the economics profession. She writes scornfully about its standard assumption of rational behavior on the part of individuals and about the absence from the field of any notion that social power of the rich over the poor determines social outcomes. It would be reasonable for the reader to assume that MacLean does not know many economists, and those she does know, she does not like. I would go so far as to say the book starts from the assumption that economists would be a hostile audience no matter what it says, and hence it is not worth constructing an argument that might appeal, or even make sense, to them.

That is a shame, because MacLean does have quite a lot to say to economists that they do not already know and, given the tone of the book, that they are unlikely to believe solely on her authority. Namely, that foundational elements of their field arose out of a backlash to both the New Deal and the civil rights movement. Each of those political watersheds was built on the public pressure brought by small-d democratic social movements—movements that forced the government to intervene against the interests of a wealthy elite in order to deconstruct the existing hierarchy. MacLean shows how the building blocks of the neoclassical revolution in economics research, especially Buchanan’s work around Public Choice (a theory that uses economic tools to address political decision-making), were born from the backlash to these “big government” or “collectivist” “interventions.” Indeed, the new history that MacLean brings forward, and that Bethany Moreton’s review in this journal expands on, is that Buchanan and his Virginia research institutes were at the center of the political and academic architecture of white supremacy in the 1950s and ’60s. MacLean overstates the centrality of Buchanan and his “Virginia School” of Public Choice as the vanguard of the broad free market economics backlash to the New Deal and the civil rights movement, but she is not wrong that that was its aim and that this essentially political motivation had a profound effect on its scholarly trajectory and its intellectual legacy.

Economists of all stripes should take note. There are, after all, numerous historical precedents that rhyme with Buchanan’s strategies, and it is important to understand the context that gave birth to Public Choice theory and to neoclassical economics more broadly, to better see what they were (and are) up to. It is also vitally important to see how the heirs of the Virginia School—and their billionaire backers—still partake in a strategy of smoke and mirrors to disguise their political positioning as academic work. This essay first discusses precedents for such an intellectual-political alliance of the right in American history. It then draws out the conjunction between Buchanan’s academic clique and mainstream economics. Finally, it explains how Public Choice diverged from the mainstream of the economics profession in recent years, while at the same time pressing forward with its political and academic agenda on the strength of financial support from ideologically motivated billionaires.

• • •

To understand the neoclassical revolution in economics and its connection with white supremacy, it is worth extending the history of the nineteenth century that MacLean recounts to include Reconstruction and the circumstances under which it ended.

In the first half of the nineteenth century, the era of the “Second Party System,” the national debate about economic policy was over the federal provision of public goods, or “internal improvements.” At the time, South Carolina statesman (and two-time vice-president) John C. Calhoun espoused the philosophy that the only political right that matters is the right to own property. Anything that interfered with that right, according to Calhoun, is ipso facto illegitimate, and in order to preserve it, property-owners should have veto power over government policy to guard against tyranny of the propertyless majority.

But the only property that Calhoun was concerned with was the property of slaveowners, and he wanted to prevent the government overreach of any accretion of federal power for “internal improvements” that might bolster the power of that property to someday overturn the system of their subjugation. As Richard Hofstadter put it, Calhoun was “The Marx of the Master Class.” He despised democracy because he saw it as a threat to capitalist white supremacy, and he despised public goods because he discerned the threat they posed to antidemocratic social and racial hierarchy.

MacLean writes a great deal about Calhoun, since his philosophy of radical minoritarian rule (protecting the slave-owning minority’s rights from federal intrusion) is one that Buchanan’s followers have played up and celebrated, however coyly. In 1992 Buchanan’s disciples Alex Tabarrok and Tyler Cowen wrote a paper explicitly likening Buchanan’s political theory to Calhoun’s, but with only a passing mention of slavery as the ultimate motivation for the whole system. The fact that Calhoun explicitly stated that the property in question was other human beings while Buchanan and his acolytes did not does not relieve their complicity in that immoral and discredited intellectual system, a system that makes sense on its own terms only if black people are not people. To overlook the racist stench attached to Buchanan’s intellectual projects and that of his heirs is to fail to give an accurate account of it.

But Calhoun and the antebellum proslavery political interest is not the most apt historical precedent for Buchanan and Public Choice, even if it is the most obvious. The better antecedent is rather the political movement that overthrew Reconstruction in the 1870s and reinstalled former slaveowners, the so-called “Redeemers,” in positions of supreme power across the South. Like Buchanan’s Public Choice theory during and after the civil rights movement, this strategy married reactionary southern white supremacy with a not-explicitly-racist free market economic and political agenda. MacLean does not mention this history but she should have. She includes in her conclusion only a passing reference to late-nineteenth-century America as the model end-state for Buchanan’s and his heirs’ political advocacy.

In order to regain the power they had lost to the new black electorate under Reconstruction, the Redeemers forged a de facto alliance with a class of elite northerners, what in her book The Reconstruction of American Liberalism (2002) the historian Nancy Cohen calls “liberal reformers.” Following the Panic of 1873, class conflict came to dominate the national political debate. The lynchpin of the Redeemer strategy was activating the first wave of American-style “free market” economics to galvanize northern elite opinion. While initially the liberal reformers were careful not to adopt explicit racism in their appeals, race-coded rhetoric increasingly crept into northern publications such as the Nation. The American Social Science Association, for instance, which was formed after the Civil War to organize professional and quasi-professional research and “reform” movements, took on an increasingly partisan and ideological tone, crystalizing an elitist, reactionary political interest that sought to withdraw government from “interference” in the market, particularly in the South.

The two chief ideas that linked the liberal reformers and Redeemer interests were, first, that black people would not supply their compliant labor in the way that white supervisors, planters, and would-be industrialists needed in order for the southern economy to prosper; and second, that instead of working, freedmen displayed a talent and predilection for politics as an alternative means of supporting themselves as sponges off of the state. Frequently these two ideas were combined, for example in the notion that as newly autonomous workers, freed blacks had not yet acquired the civic understanding necessary to fully participate in government, and hence could not be trusted to wield power—because they were doing so in ways that impeded economic development, which in turn required their subservience as a quiescent labor force. As Cohen writes, “The freedmen’s alleged failure as an economic man and his propensity and talent for politics opened a window for the old proslavery theory of the childlike African to reenter in new-fashioned Darwinian dress.”

Crucially, this is exactly the same critique that Buchanan and his ilk later mounted against the civil rights movement: empowering labor, especially black labor, was dangerous to economic development. Moreover, state fiscal policies borne of popular democracy and characterized as redistributive—for example, public goods such as an integrated public school system—constituted an illegitimate perversion and subordination of government to “statist,” “rent-seeking” special interests.

Academic economists of the Gilded Age also espoused the view that inequality, whether between groups or individuals, was driven by innate characteristics and heredity. The more historically stable and wider those disparities, the stronger the evidence that they could not be overcome through so-called “class legislation.” The northern intelligentsia soon advocated both that Reconstruction be abandoned in the South and that Jim Crow–style policy be adopted in the North, namely the criminalization of unemployment and austerity in the face of economic contraction. As Cohen summarizes, “The doctrine of laissez-faire could become pretext, principle, and rationalization for the calls to remove federal protection from Reconstruction governments—for the reformers’ antidemocratic program to confine the genie of universal suffrage.”

But this alliance did not rely on anything like Calhoun’s flagrantly antidemocratic emphasis on property rights above all. In an essentially democratic political context, the alliance could undermine public support for equal rights and egalitarian economic policies by playing off race and class divisions. It worked, and thanks in large part to Buchanan and the intellectual movement he represented, it worked again in the 1960s and ’70s. MacLean argues it is working right up through our present moment—a formidable challenge to the scholars thus implicated, and hence an explanation for the hostility with which they have received her book.

• • •

Buchanan’s motivations during the civil rights era are seen most starkly in the example of education. Following the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) ruling, the state of Virginia implemented a policy of “massive resistance” to fight federally mandated integration. Schools across the state shut down during this time. When that extreme stand caused its own backlash—in the form of moderate white opinion that just wanted to get the schools open again—Buchanan constructed and presented an alternative: total education privatization.

If public education had to be integrated, and the federal government was not going to back down in the face of state resistance, why not just eliminate public education altogether? It was a means to buy off moderate white opinion while keeping the racial hierarchy intact and thwarting the federal government’s “interference” in Virginian affairs. While the rest of the state balked, the Prince Edward County school system took that radical step, staying closed for five years rather than integrate and instead handing out private school vouchers.

It is in this context that Buchanan developed his signature academic theory: Public Choice. In their article about MacLean’s book, Henry Farrell and Steven Teles, two political scientists, characterize Buchanan’s intellectual legacy in the following way:

Public choice economics is an approach that asks how special interests can seek “rents,” or income unrelated to economic productivity, by getting self-interested bureaucrats and government agencies to regulate in their favor. It examines the impact of institutional rules on economic outcomes, usually from the standpoint of an assumption that market processes naturally align with the public interest but governmental processes do not.

Farrell and Teles are some of the only non–Virginia School heirs to enter the fray when it comes to the Democracy in Chains controversy, and for that, I applaud them. But this decontextualized take on Public Choice theory reads quite differently divorced from the circumstances of its birth. Indeed, in this reading, it would seem the progenitors of this theory might have in mind the corrupt courtiers surrounding a hereditary monarchy, using its arbitrary and illegitimate power to enrich themselves. Farrell and Teles attempt some historical whitewashing by claiming that Public Choice can also explain the corruption that infects Donald Trump’s administration—likely a bid to gain the sympathy of readers who might tend more toward MacLean’s politics than Buchanan’s.

What this point of view totally overlooks, however, is that Public Choice theory evolved to explain what happened when, for the first time in a long time, black people won the vote. It reinterprets the outcome of the struggle for civil rights as the capture of government largesse for the benefit of social leaches who would otherwise “fail” in a fully free market. If the insight that Public Choice has to offer is just that governments are sometimes inefficient, democratic politics may not always serve the public interest (however defined), and special interests vie for power, then it is not a very original theory. What is original about it is also what is antidemocratic about it: the reinterpretation of social movements with political aims as inherently illegitimate and prone to “interfere” in “natural,” and also optimal, economic outcomes.

MacLean further claims that not only was Buchanan’s scholarship motivated by resistance to federal civil rights protection, but that his career, his institute, and his professional network were designed and funded to that end. Indeed, the Virginia School of economics was created as an intellectual-political machine, one that would supply a respectable way to oppose public goods and the political fruits of the civil rights revolution without having to resort to explicit, ugly racial terms. In that, MacLean is right as well, but her particular emphasis on Buchanan lets the rest of the profession off scot-free.

Among economists, Buchanan certainly led the way on the civil rights backlash. But he was not alone. The year after Brown v. Board was decided, Milton Friedman independently proposed an idea of school vouchers that mirrored Buchanan’s: rather than integrate public education, why not just end it? The theory of human capital—the idea that what workers earn in the labor market is a result of an individual’s education and marketable skills—also arose in this era to direct scholarly attention away from systemic discrimination and employers’ power over workers as explanations for wage inequality. And the new field of New Household Economics tried to rationalize gender inequality as arising from choices by women and men to undertake different roles in the household versus the labor market. New Household Economics could even be further interpreted as a means to cast doubt on the idea that involuntary unemployment is a social ill, or even that it is possible, if the “real” explanation for not having a job is the worker’s own “choice” to instead work in the household.

Moreover, a recent paper by the Center for Economic and Policy Research—by no means the first to make this argument—collects a large body of evidence that the Federal Reserve adopted its “dual mandate” of full employment and price stability in the 1960s in order to counter the threat of urban violence that was thought to be caused, at root, by unemployment among black populations. The ostensible failure of that policy during the inflation crises of the 1970s is what laid the groundwork for the “Rational Expectations revolution” in macroeconomics, which tried to reduce political influence over the central bank’s policy-making in favor of economists’ “expertise.” It also sought to eliminate any commitment on the central bank’s part to equalizing labor market outcomes. The ideology behind the (over-)complicated theorizing was that a “special interest” had gained control of, or at least influence over, economic policy and had thus perverted that policy in its favor—very similar to Buchanan’s Public Choice. The methodological innovations that revolution introduced into the field were enormously influential and remain so, as does the antidemocratic, elitist ideology.

Of course there was no shortage of funding to support this thinking. The Volker Fund, which gave the seed money for Buchanan’s institute at the University of Virginia, also funded the creation of the “Law and Economics” program under Aaron Director at the University of Chicago Law School. That program gestated a revolution in antitrust law and regulatory policy. It was also funded by the Olin Foundation, whose benefactor, John M. Olin, was motivated by his disgust toward university administrators for being unwilling to face down the demands of minority students. This was the same motivation that prompted Buchanan to write Academia in Anarchy (1970), a screed against the public university in the late 1960s, which he saw as operating outside the direct control of its benefactors in the state legislature and the business establishment, prone to “occupation” by student protestors, and under the supposed ideological stranglehold of its left-leaning tenured faculty.

But even among these many examples, Buchanan’s Public Choice scholarship was unique in its flagrant ideological motivation. When seen in the context of its birth—as a backlash to civil rights—it is impossible not to interpret it as a politically motivated hack job, albeit one with strong and disturbing links to the rest of economics.

One of the most startling revelations in MacLean’s book, though she is not the first to observe it, is that Buchanan overtly listed the ideological positions of his students and professional colleagues when recommending them for jobs and to outside funders. That is something you only do if you are operating an ideological political machine, not a scholarly endeavor, and the fact that such behavior was embedded in the academic economics profession could not be more revealing.

• • •

Even if today’s economists are willing to overlook the racist origins of Public Choice theory, and even if they are willing to ignore the explicitly political—not scholarly—aims of the subfield, they should at least find it impossible to see past how the Virginia School privileges abstract theory over data. As Moreton writes, referring to Buchanan’s best-known book, The Calculus of Consent (1962), “Reviewers noted that their analysis occurred entirely ‘outside any context of information,’ but as long as it was not required to account for real-world phenomena, their ‘ingenious logic’ produced a plethora of useful insights.” As empirical research has continued to undermine those insights, the Virginia School has been less than gracious, stubbornly unwilling to be held accountable by the real world.

For an example, look no further than the early 1990s, when economists David Card and Alan Krueger published two groundbreaking papers. Setting out to test the proposition that increasing the minimum wage would reduce employment, their research design focused on contrasting the change in employment in New Jersey, which had legislated a minimum wage increase, and Pennsylvania, which had not. They collected data from fast-food restaurants in each state, before and after the changes took effect. The basic empirical approach was “difference-in-differences”—in other words, that one could uncover the “true” impact of the minimum wage increase by looking at how the before-and-after comparison differed in New Jersey versus the “control” of Pennsylvania.

That research had a profound impact on the economics profession, introducing the “credibility revolution,” as some of its foremost proponents have dubbed it—namely, the use of empirical techniques to come as close as possible to drawing causal inference about how the world works. But the credibility revolution also threatened much of the received wisdom in economics about optimal policy: it turns out that increasing the minimum wage does not destroy jobs, that liberalizing international trade does not benefit all parties, that transfer programs targeted at the poor do not reduce their willingness to work, and that reducing taxes on the rich does not cause economic growth (nor does reducing taxes on corporations cause them to invest more).

Economists such as Buchanan who relied on Big Theory for legitimacy were, somewhat understandably, threatened. In April of 1996, Buchanan published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on the topic. Here is its most memorable paragraph:

The inverse relationship between quantity demanded and price is the core proposition in economic science, which embodies the presupposition that human choice behavior is sufficiently rational to allow predictions to be made. Just as no physicist would claim that “water runs uphill,” no self-respecting economist would claim that increases in the minimum wage increase employment. Such a claim, if seriously advanced, becomes equivalent to a denial that there is even minimal scientific content in economics, and that, in consequence, economists can do nothing but write as advocates for ideological interests. Fortunately, only a handful of economists are willing to throw over the teaching of two centuries; we have not yet become a bevy of camp-following whores.

The field of economics as a whole has not always been as welcoming to new methodologies and insights as it should be, but, starting with Buchanan’s temper tantrum in the Wall Street Journal, the Virginia School has been downright hostile. Since the mid-1990s, the Buchananite fringe has further separated itself from the mainstream, proving that the “scholars” who continue to espouse his positions, in contravention of the evidence are the real advocates for ideological interests.

In March, for example, Russ Roberts, formerly an economics professor in Buchanan’s department at George Mason University and now a fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, published a blog post that is essentially a rant against the whole idea of using empirics to gain understanding about how the economy works. Qua Roberts, empiricists have alternative methodologies and inconsistent findings, so there is no hope of uncovering the truth by their means. Instead we (economists) can do no better than intuiting it—and, as is apparent from the examples Roberts gives, that intuition must of necessity assume that state “intervention” and “collectivism” are self-defeating; that inequality is an unresolvable, even desirable, intrinsic fact about the world; and so on. His post rightly exposed Roberts to a great deal of criticism from commentators disposed to take him seriously, or at least sympathetically, but Buchanan’s influence in it is clear, as is the ideological privilege that defaults from “empirical work is hard” to “right-wing dogma must be correct.”

But what would we expect from people with appointments in institutes and departments that are funded by right-wing billionaires and clearly ideologically inflected? MacLean’s final chapter discusses how Charles Koch effectively seized control of the center at George Mason University that was named after Buchanan and used it for flagrantly political purposes, alienating Buchanan from his own life’s work in his final years. The march of ideologically-motivated private funding across the academic economics landscape has been notable and aggressive in recent years, and it provides a full-employment program for “scholars” who are trained in and espouse its very particular brand of propaganda. Its benefactors, after all, see academia as dominated by left-wing scholars, and hence requiring the antidote of an ideological-professional network churning out agitprop to fuel a political movement on behalf of the rich—nothing like the job description of actual scholars and academic researchers, whether or not they tend to the left.

And so when nothing that these institutes and individuals produce makes it into the leading journals or marquee conferences, they create their own, complete with all the trappings of academic seriousness and fancy-sounding awards, appointments, publications, and so on. This smoke and mirrors strategy serves a dual mission. First, it deceives those in the media and policy-making world into believing that actual scholars sanctioned the work—or at least, allows them to plausibly claim this is the case. And second, it deceives its own insiders into thinking they are successful, high-status academics, not coddled cogs in a ruthless ideological-political machine.

None of this, of course, would survive in a true academic free market.

• • •

I will conclude with perhaps the most disturbing and speculative aspect of MacLean’s book. She contends that the intellectual-political machine that started with Buchanan and has continued to this day with right-wing billionaires is unlike anything that has ever happened in American history. This is because the Buchanan–Koch nexus does not seek to simply sway public opinion, but rather to subvert and overthrow it.

As this review has made clear, I am in sympathy with MacLean’s characterization of the Virginia School as profoundly antidemocratic and anti-academic, but it is very hard to sustain any argument that says that something going on in the present is fundamentally different than anything which came before it. After all, the political movement based on a combination of right-wing economic policy and overt white supremacy has existed throughout this country’s history, and it achieved great success at controlling economic policy in the Gilded Age—the very era that Buchanan and his circle point to as their ideal. That the interest MacLean describes is longstanding does not imply one way or another that it will inevitably be defeated or that it will inevitably triumph.

MacLean clearly fears and suspects the latter, however, and provides good reason, showing how the right-wing economic and social agenda adapted its tactics and rhetoric since the years of massive resistance. While the closest it previously came to seizing national power was installing Calhoun as vice-president and Roger Taney as chief justice of the Supreme Court, it can be argued that in 2016, it succeeded in electing a president, and in 2017, it ushered in white supremacist street violence at the university where Buchanan did his most influential work.

As such, MacLean’s book is an important warning, and it should be read by all despite its rhetorical shortcomings. She at least has glimpsed the enemy, and it would be foolish to ignore her testimony to spite the messenger.

#this is an absolute murder

20 notes · View notes

stlwebsitedevelopment · 5 years

Text

George Washington University

The house is silent, six people sleeping above and below me, my brother across the hall. Once I finish my homework, now neatly arranged at the corner of my desk, I throw on headphones and, in full blast, turn on the video.

Since the onset of my freshman year, I’ve ended every night by watching recordings from history on YouTube. It started when I found the Kennedy-Nixon debates while scrolling through a list of recommended videos. I’ve since seen every Presidential debate, war recording, and broadcast from 1945 to the present day available within YouTube’s confines.

When I’m out of ideas, I always come back to the old CBS Evening News bulletins headlined by Walter Cronkite.

He is, in every way, the man whom I aspire to be.

In an era of record disconnect between media and public, a clean name means everything. Trust, the basic principle that journalists must adhere to operate effectively, is rapidly fading. In Cronkite’s time, things were different. When he spoke, the public took it in.

One video shows Cronkite’s impact on America better than all others: his report of the John F. Kennedy Assassination on November 23, 1963. Just after the shooting, CBS got Cronkite’s voice on the air. The cameras were barely ready, but CBS executives knew no one else could break the news to Kennedy’s country.

Hours later, a tearful Cronkite confirmed to a shocked nation that Kennedy had died, all the eyes of the country on his studio. He must have known this; but tears flowing, Cronkite let his emotions out, getting through the report while still processing the news himself.

Every day in my young career as a journalist, I strive to embody Cronkite and to push forth the ideals of journalistic integrity he believed in. I’m the editor in chief of two newspapers in St. Louis. I pursue the publishing of real, hard-hitting stories.

My future is in political journalism, informing and empowering the electorate. Our stories on interdistrict busing, Islamophobia, and LGBTQ+ rights have attracted thousands of views and many comments. We start conversations.

As a writer, I am in a unique position where my voice helps others understand the world better. To some writers, that means that you must be objective, never distort the truth with your opinion.

Walter Cronkite reported objectively, never straying far off the middle line. However, he argued — and I do — powerfully in support of the American citizen. Traveling to report for CBS in Vietnam, he shocked the nation by portraying the ills inherent in modern day conflict. His words became the clarion call through which an armed society gradually began to set down its guns.

I will be like Cronkite — the active voice, those piercing eyes, the distinctive mustache, telling it like it is.

————-

I’ve always had a thing for libraries. When I was younger, I craved the constant comfort of the Wildhorse Elementary School book nook. It was proof that at least one place existed for the kind of kid I was growing up to be — one with an unquenchable curiosity.

My friends all know me as the kid who memorizes Jeopardy games. They can count on me to recall obscure facts about the history and watch Premier League Football on Saturday mornings to get more cultured. I help them in quiz bowl matches.

When I was first introduced to George Washington University, I was told it was a place of enlightenment, where politically minded and socially active students like me are expected to come together and thrive. On my tour, I felt it — in Gelman Library, with its modern chairs and dynamic lighting, and atmosphere more conducive to learning than I’ve experienced in any other place; in Jack Morton Auditorium, colored by its history of incredible speakers that I can already quote for days.

I’ll take advantage of these spaces of learning as a student in the honors program.

It’ll start in my freshman year when I take Revolution with Professor Joseph Trullinger. We’ll analyze modernity through the lens of history, learn how society’s many cultural revolutions shaped it. We’ll scrutinize the meaning of the word ‘revolution,’ its benefits and shortcomings, and discuss how gradual political reform works better. I’ll study the Death of God with Professor Mark Ralkowski, putting my love of philosophy to the task while citing the interpretations of Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud.

Apart from the course list, being a part of the honors program will put me in a unique position to form an immediate community at GW. It’s a group of 500 students in a school of 27,000. I’ll live in West Hall, surrounded by inquisitive scholars with whom I’ll grow and learn from. I’ll use the contact course system to perform an honors internship, exploring my career path while growing as a writer with the Washington Post.

I’ll research it. Fascinated by communications, I am genuinely interested in how modern media platforms can influence electoral results. I aim to follow in the footsteps of student Bailey Mohr, working with Professor Kimberly Gross of the School of Media and Public Affairs to research how campaigns can improve their relationships with voters by using social media and messaging.

So I’ll end my GW student journey by studying Time with Professor Bethany Kung. I’ll try and make sense of its nature, questioning its objectivity, and burying myself deep into the treatises of the thinkers who commented on its real length.

I’ll find my fit, one of 27,000 self-motivated, determined Colonials. We’ll put our muskets together, united by the knowledge we seek.

—————-

I sat anxiously as my counselor went over a computer program, shifting the mouse to try and decode its patterns, looking over each scenario until she concluded that there was no way for me to fit the newspaper into the fourth-hour block of my crowded class schedule for the upcoming school year.

Our school’s master schedule had failed me — a bodacious newspaper student who’d grown as a writer since joining the year prior. The system threatened my obligation as the newly minted news editor.

So I wouldn’t just let my passion fall by the wayside.

So I made do, meeting with my newspaper adviser to go over the situation in detail, offering a course of action, and breathlessly awaiting a response. I told her that I would skip lunch every day to come to the newspaper and interact with my staff reporters. I’d stay after school two times a week to ensure that my news section had a solid foundation for each scheduled publication. When my adviser nervously consented, weary of my impending future of empty stomachs and bleary eyes, I did not let her down.

For the next year, I followed through. I woke up early to pack my trademark lunch — two pieces of white bread and Provel cheese — and expanded my role in the newsroom despite the fractured time with which I had to bond and work with the staff.

Today, I’m the editor in chief of this paper. We’ve redesigned the newspaper, emphasizing fresh looks and a renewed focus on factual, critical writing. I led the staff on our annual trip to the NSPA conference this year in Dallas, and have spent the year teaching our newest reporters how to lay out pages and pre-plan interview questions.

The lessons I learned while running from the third floor AP Environmental Science room down to the newspaper office, fighting the student traffic to have some time with my staff, taught me about vigilance. Moreover, every story of mine from that year, written entirely outside of class, rests as a show of what can be accomplished with hard work, some compromise and a little bit of provel.

For more information check out our company’s website: https://www.stlwebsitedevelopment.com/

0 notes

runridedive · 5 years

Text

Main solos to maiden title in East Rand Classic

Kent Main shrugged off a recent illness to solo to his maiden win in the Takealot East Rand Classic cycling road race in Kempton Park in Johannesburg today.

The 23-year-old ProTouch rider got away from a breakaway group with about 15km to go in the 98km feature race (formerly the Emperors Palace Classic) and was able to hold on for a satisfying victory.

He crossed the line in a time of 2:23:01, just more than two minutes ahead of teammate Rocco King and Cycle Power’s James Barnes.

Main, from Linden in Johannesburg, said he was pleased with his performance after returning from the Tour de Langkawi in Malaysia with a viral infection.

“Physically I’m feeling fine and that’s great because this was my first week back cycling after an illness,” he said.

“I have been riding every day just to get back into it, so I didn’t quite know how it would go.

“But this was the best I have felt all week and it’s really good to get a win under the belt, which is always a big positive for your confidence.”

Although he is known for his climbing prowess and had said this sort of route didn’t really suit him, Main added that there was not much sign of aggressive riding from his rivals.

“The main break of the day of about 11 riders came after about 20km, but there weren’t any real tactics going on, with almost a negative pace within the group.

“I eventually got away with James Barnes and we were working quite well together. But I wasn’t fully committed because it was still quite far to go and I wasn’t quite sure how I would feel after coming off an illness.”

The breakaway group closed the gap on the pair, but Main then put in another surge.

“At that stage I managed to get a small gap and as soon as I saw that I put my head down and it was a solo effort to the finish.

“That was quite hard but it was a good day out and a great test for my legs to see what sort of condition I am in.”

Sanet Coetzee celebrates her maiden victory in the Takealot East Rand Classic road cycle race (formerly the Emperors Palace Classic) in Kempton Park in Johannesburg today. Photo: Henk Neuhoff

The women’s feature race was won by Clover’s Sanet Coetzee, who outsprinted Heidi Dalton of Demacon MaxWax Racing in the dash for the line. Kim le Court, also of Demacon, came in third.

The 35-year-old Coetzee, from Faerie Glen in Pretoria, was delighted with her top podium finish after playing second fiddle to Demacon in a number of races over the past 15 months.

“It seems that I have been stuck in a ‘Demacon sandwich’, last year and this year,” laughed Coetzee, “so I was extremely happy to win this one.”

With it being a generally flat and fast route, Coetzee, who finished in 2:37:44, said none of the attacks in the first half of the race amounted to anything.

“Then, just past the 50km mark, Heidi and Kim launched a serious attack and I got onto their wheels.

“It was basically two against one and although I didn’t really want to work with them, I decided I must so I could at least try for a spot on the podium.”

On the final incline, Coetzee put in an attack of her own and managed to shake off Le Court.

“Heidi stayed with me and I was ready to take her on in a sprint finish, so I went hard for the last 5km.

“I know the race timing had Heidi a minute behind me, but it was a sprint all the way to the finish and I just managed to stay ahead.”

Saturday saw the 50km and 25km mountain-bike races taking place.

Jean du Plessis won the men’s 50km in 1:45, while Ruan Greeff took the shorter race in 53:56.

The women’s 50km title went to Tanielle Hermanson in 2:10:56 and the 25km version was won by Marlene van Heerden in 1:14:00.

Results

Men

98km road race

1 Kent Main 2:23:01 2 Rocco King 2:25:09 3 James Barnes 2:25:09 4 Barry Crouch 2:25:12 5 Andries Nigrini 2:25:15 6 Bradley Potgieter 2:25:52 7 Calvin Beneke 2:25:56 8 Du Hanekom 2:28:28 9 Dirkie Nel 2:26:33 10 Reynard Butler 2:26:33

45km road race

U15/U17 boys

1 Jason Eggett 1:21:26 2 Dylan Carroll 1:21:26 3 Nicholas van Rooyen 1:21:26

50km mountain-bike race

1 Jean du Plessis 1:45:06 2 Leonard van der Merwe 1:47:03 3 JC Nel 1:43:04 4 Dewald Coetzee 1:50:43 5 Bertus Odendaal 1:51:24

25km mountain-bike race

1 Ruan Greeff 53:56 2 Ruann Verweerd 55:07 3 Andre van der Walt 57:09 4 Frederik Booysen 57:22 5 Jayden Smith 57:33

Women

98km road race

1 Sanet Coetzee 2:37:44 2 Heidi Dalton 2:38:44 3 Kim le Court 2:38:44 4 Desray Neale Sebregts 2:38:44 5 Sannara Grove 2:38:45

45km road race

U15/U17 1 Chante Olivier 1:21:44 2 Kita Uys 1:22:40 3 Sonica Klopper 1:22:41

Junior

1 Natalie Long 1:22:41 2 Mischka Strydom 1:22:41

50km mountain-bike race

1 Tanielle Hermanson 2:10:56 2 Carmen Grobler 2:11:52 3 Etrisia Terblanche 2:14:27 4 Jade Skinner 2:19:23 5 Tahnee Upton 2:19:41

25km mountain-bike race

1 Marlene van Heerden 1:14:00 2 Hanli Marx 1:17:21 3 Bethany Fabricius 1:20:19 4 Lexi Olwagen 1:20:25 5 Cameron Capon 1:20:34

The post Main solos to maiden title in East Rand Classic appeared first on Run Ride Dive.

from WordPress https://www.runridedive.com/main-solos-to-maiden-title-in-east-rand-classic/

#News #cycling

0 notes

larryland · 3 years

Text

REVIEW: "Mamma Mia!" at the Mac-Haydn

REVIEW: “Mamma Mia!” at the Mac-Haydn

View On WordPress

0 notes

larryland · 3 years

Text

REVIEW: "The Wedding Singer" at the Mac-Haydn Theatre

REVIEW: “The Wedding Singer” at the Mac-Haydn Theatre

View On WordPress

0 notes

larryland · 3 years

Text

REVIEW: "Oklahoma!" at the Mac-Haydn Theatre

REVIEW: “Oklahoma!” at the Mac-Haydn Theatre

View On WordPress

0 notes

larryland · 7 years

Text

Berkshire Theatre Critics Association Announces Nominations for the Second Annual Berkie Awards

(Pittsfield, MA) – The Berkshire Theatre Critics Association is pleased to announce the nominees for the Second Annual Berkshire Theatre Awards, known colloquially as The Berkies. The purpose of the BTCA and the Berkshire Theatre Awards is to promote and celebrate the quality and diversity of theatre in the greater Berkshire region. The winners will be announced at the awards ceremony on November…

View On WordPress

1 note · View note

larryland · 5 years

Text

by Roseann Cane

The first musical written by the team of Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II, Oklahoma! opened on Broadway on March 31,1943. An box-office smash from the get-go, it ran for more than 2,000 performances. During the nearly 76 years since, it’s a fair bet that this deservedly celebrated American musical has been playing in a professional, community, and/or high school theater on any given day.

Oklahoma! has no plot, yet it set new standards, changing the Broadway musical forever. Building on the innovations of Show Boat, Oklahoma!’s book and music are integrated, and as such, they advance the story. The show, light-hearted as it may seem by today’s standards, succeeded in evoking a spectrum of emotions from its audience, rather than merely amusing and entertaining in the way of musical revues of the time. The show was psychologically sophisticated for its day. As in opera, Oklahoma! offers recurring musical themes throughout, further connecting the book and music. A 15-minute dream ballet, famously choreographed by Agnes de Mille, examines Laurey’s conflicted feelings about the two very different men, Curly and Jud, who want to court her.

Set at the turn of the 20th Century, in Western Indian territory on the verge of becoming a U.S. state, Oklahoma! presents the love story of a fetching farm girl, Laurey (Meredith Lustig) and a handsome cowboy, Curly (James Benjamin Rodgers) against a backdrop of low-key rivalry among local farmers and cowboys. With its many references to the wide-open country with “plenty of air and plenty of room,” the small round Mac-Haydn stage is hard-pressed to suggest such open, wild, natural beauty, and Katie Johannigman’s choreography does not always succeed in collaborating on the illusion. Nevertheless, the vital young cast is populated by excellent singers and dancers, and it was a real treat to hear this beloved score delivered with such charm.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Meredith Lustig, beguiling as Laurey, with a voice beautifully suited to the role, seemed initially not to fully inhabit her character. When Curly stops by the farm and chats with Aunt Eller (a feisty, cheerful Cathy Lee-Visscher), we know, along with Aunt Eller, that he’s really looking for Laurey. James Benjamin Rodgers has a singing voice warm enough to swim in, and his “Oh, What a Beautiful Mornin’” could not have been more appealing. (Oklahoma! also was the first musical to open with one actor singing, rather than a high-kicking chorus number, and the effect is deeply felt; the audience members quickly connect with the actor.) When Laurey emerges from the house and spots Curly chatting with Aunt Eller, the two younger people tease each other in the manner of two smitten schoolchildren desperate to disguise their real feelings. Lustig came across as overly harsh and dismissive, and Aunt Eller’s asides to Curly about Laurey’s real feelings (“She’s crazy about you”) lacked the charm they would have had if Lustig had softened her tone just a little, or seemed flustered about her feelings, avoiding Curly’s eyes. In spite of that, Lustig’s sweet singing voice and her interpretation of Laurey as a confident young woman worked very nicely, and created an intriguing counterpoint to the other actors on stage.

As Will Parker, Andrew Burton Kelley is a hoot, and he is well-matched with Rachel Pantazis’s Ado Annie, the girl who “cain’t say no.” While Curly and Laurey have a smouldering sexuality, Will and Ado Annie are downright randy, and great fun to watch and listen to. (I will say I was surprised that Pantazis’s choreographed splits, with her two legs in the air, exposed more of Annie than was appropriate for the role; I hope for the talented Pantazis’s sake that Johannigman and/or costume designer Bethany Marx will remedy that.)

I thoroughly enjoyed William Taitel’s Ali Hakim, as (judging by their reception) did the rest of the audience during the performance I saw. Too often actors in this role conflate the humor with the Persian accent. Taitel managed create a more complex Ali Hakim, and he thereby elevated the humor. Also deserving of kudos is Rob Brinkmann’s dark, angry Jud Fry, who injected just the right amount of foreboding into the ensemble.

The long Dream Ballet seemed incohesive to me. It’s not an easy piece to choreograph, even less so considering Agnes de Mille’s historical connection. Perhaps the Mac-Haydn stage presents too great a challenge to replicate or suggest the de Mille choreography; perhaps the ballet should be shortened and simplified, although I don’t know if the rights to the play allow that option.

Andrew Gmoser’s lighting design enhanced and deepened the action, and I especially admired a starlit, expansive evening scene. I have complained over the years about poor acoustics in this theater, often because the orchestra seems to override the singers, but I’m very pleased to report that Music Director Jillian Zack, Music Supervisor David Maglione, and Sound Designer/Audio Engineer Nathan Schlitz’s work made the music “fit” the space, and I was able to enjoy every note from musicians and singers. Except for the aforementioned mishap with Ado Annie’s costume, I thought that Bethany Marx did an excellent job dressing the actors. Kevin Gleason’s mostly minimalist scenic design was just right for the stage.

It’s a pleasure to see and hear such a dynamic and talented ensemble of age-appropriate actors (that is, mostly young and just starting out) deliver the goods on a joy-filled show that has an important place in theater history.

Oklahoma! music by Richard Rodgers, book and lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein II, directed by John Saunders, choreographed by Katie Johannigman, music directed by Jillian Zack Rodgers runs August 22- September 1 at the Mac-Haydn Theatre, 1925 NY-203 in Chatham NY. Costume design by Bethany Marx, wig and makeup design by Matthew Oliver, scenic design by Kevin Gleason, lighting design by Andrew Gmoser, props by Joshua Gallagher and sound design by Nathan Schilz. CAST: meredith Lustig as Laurey, James Benjamin Rodgers as Curly, Rob Brinkmann as Jud fry, Rachel Pantazis as Ado Annie Carnes, Andrew Burton Kelley as Will Parker, Cathy-Lee Visscher as Aunt Eller, William Taitel as Ali Hakim. and Jesse Lynn Harte as Gertie Cummings.

For tickets and details please visit www.machaydntheatre.org or call the box office at (518) 392-9292.

REVIEW: “Oklahoma!” at the Mac-Haydn Theatre by Roseann Cane The first musical written by the team of Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II, …

0 notes