During the 4th century BC, Athens dominated the Eastern Mediterranean artistically, economically, politically and philosophically. Sparta remained a power because of its military structure and political stability, but economically she exerted little influence. Fast forward 2500 years. The U.S. dominates the world politically, economically and sadly, culturally (Michael Jackson, Brittney Spears, etc.). There are a few militaristic nations that remain a power (China and Russia), but the U.S. is the sole superpower. Does Athens’ behavior have any correlation with its fate, and is the U.S. falling into the same situation?
Imperial Democracy: How the history of Athens may foreshadow the future for the U.S.
August 30th, 2006
8 Comments
Protectionism and Capitalism Win Smashing Victory Over Free Trade and Equal Opportunity.
July 24th, 2006
No Comments
The headlines don’t read so blatantly, but the failure of the Doha round of the WTO talks essentially results in the above title. With the U.S. unwilling to work to eliminate farm subsidies and the European Union and the U.S. unwilling to open their markets to poorer countris, they have only perpetuated the protectionism and poverty and limited the opportunities for third world countries to enter the world market. No wonder Hugo Chavez can argue that capitalism doesn’t work to take care of the poor and that the U.S. practices unfair economic policies because he is right on both accounts.
The U.S. demands that third-world countries open their markets, but as the richest, most prosperous nation, is unwilling to do so. If the U.S. is going to be a lasting world leader, they must lead by example, by implimenting the law of universality and allowing for application to itself the restrictions and recommendations it essentially imposes on other countries.
The Role of the Critic (and an appropriate response)
June 24th, 2006
1 Comment
Throughout history there have been those who argued against the status quo; who railed against the dominant paradigm; who were willing to point out that the emperor had no clothes. These range from Socrates, Isaiah and others anciently to Marx and Chomsky more recently to current political characters like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The question I pose is: how do we react to the words of the Critic?
Who's land is it?
June 5th, 2006
4 Comments
Bolivia president Evo Morales announced that he has initiated a program fundamental to his victory in late 2005. He promised indigenous Bolivians that if elected, he would redistribute farm land to them. This weekend, the program got underway with Morales giving state-owned land to indigenous communities. Privately-owned, non-productive farm land is next.
The Split Between Democracy and Capitalism-Focal Point: Latin America
May 31st, 2006
2 Comments
This is the outline of a speech I gave for a current events seminar. It’s somewhat rough, but gets out the ideas. I’m sure this will provide plenty for discussion and argument.
Equal opportunity is the bedrock of freedom. This nation was established to preserve, protect, and ensure that opportunity. The United States (and the world) will need to make a very important decision over the next 30 years: whether to choose democracy or capitalism. One system protects equal opportunity while the other stifles it. These opposing approaches to political economy have been bed-partners for over 150 years, being bound more tightly during the 20th century as the world attempted to settled the question of totalitarianism (as the face of fascism and communism) vs. parlimentarianism (as the face of capitalism).
Latin America provides an interesting focal point to discuss this split. Over the next few minutes we will discuss 10 questions that lead us through the issues. In order to explain this decision, we must first define our terms.
Competition v. Cooperation
April 8th, 2006
11 Comments
I took a week-long break (if any one noticed). Another break is anticipated as I have three finals this week. This post is taken from one of my finals.
Frank Knight wrote a piece in the Annals of America entitled The Ethics of Competition. Mr. Knight felt that competition could be replaced by cooperation as the dominant business model. His proposal was to legislate and enforce cooperation. This fails because forcing anything fails to institute a change in character and the fundamental problem (lack of moral goodness). However, Mr. Knight accurately identifies the inconsistency of the ethics of competition with happiness, spiritual well being, and compassionate human relations. He is correct that “the competitive system, viewed simply as a want-satisfying mechanism, falls far short of out highest ideals,” and that, “’Giving the public what it wants’ usually means corrupting popular taste.”
Finally it's starting to make sense
March 30th, 2006
3 Comments
The war in Iraq had never made sense to me. First we were told there was a connection between Al-Queda and Sadaam Hussein. Then we were told it was because they had weapons of mass destruction and were progressing toward nuclear capability. After the U.S. military arrived and toppled Sadaam and there were no WMDs we were told that the war was to eliminate a ruthless dictator and establish a foothold for democracy in the Middle East. I agreed that Sadaam was a bad dude, but there are a lot of other bad dudes in the world, so that made me ask: why Iraq? Was it about oil? Haliburton? And how seriously do we believe that Iraq will become a foothold for democracy, given that there is no history of this form of government in the region?
Labor Questions ca. 1922–Have we answered them?
March 27th, 2006
3 Comments
In the Annals of America Volume 14, I read a piece by Kirby Page entitled Labor Policies of the United States Steel Corporation. In this article originally published in the Atlantic Monthly, Page adresses the disparity between the pay for laborers and the profit for the company. Although he doesn’t address the risk factor that the capitalist accepts, he asks some very important questions in his conclusion.
Latin Americans immigrants: Conservative or Liberal?
March 26th, 2006
6 Comments
The Republican party is oblivious on many accounts (as is the Democratic). However, one which seems obvious to me is the role and values of Latin American immigrants. Most latinos have what conservatives would term “strong family values.” Most value traditional families, small community-based action and involvement, fiscal responsibility (they can’t get credit so they buy everything the old-fashioned conservative way: they save their money and buy it). Most latinos have strong religious and moral values. So why are they so drawn to the Democratic Party??? It is because the Demos tell them that they represent their interests. They court them and attempt to bring them into their camp. Meanwhile, the party of Lincoln attacks illegal immigration as if, as I heard today, they are “robbing a bank,” breaking the law and attempting to get something for nothing.
The battle between Labor and Capital: Workers' perspective
March 21st, 2006
3 Comments
This manifesto was included in the Annals of America.
Manifesto of the Industrial Workers of the World: As the weaknesses and failings and manipulation of industrial capitalism continued to be more apparent in the 1890’s and early 20th century, socialism and communism grew in strength as alternatives. Trade unions formed, based mainly on specific industries or trades. The IWW was formed as a class-based backlash against elite capitalists in an effort to organize all workers under a single organization to politically compete against capital. In describing the worker, the IWW manifesto states: “His wages constantly grow less as his hours grow longer and monopolized prices grow higher.” They also argue that the employers organize them into specific job descriptions that are outdated and artificial in order “that workers may be pitted against one another and spurred to greater exertion in the shop, and that all resistance to capitalist tyranny may be weakened by artificial distinctions.” At the same time the “capitalists carefully adjust themselves to the new conditions. They wipe out all differences among themselves and present a united front in their war upon labor. Through employers’ associations, they seek to crush with brutal force, by the injunctions of the judiciary and the use of military power, all efforts at resistance” and that their “methods depend for success upon the blindness and internal dissensions of the working class.”
