It has been a while since I've updated this blog. Since my last post I've been working on a project that is  similar to this blog but is more structured, goal oriented, collaborative, and well I'm proud to say mature. SocioPoliticoNurd has without a doubt documented my growth as both a sociologist, in the sense that I've been able to develop my interests and my thought processes, and as an activist who has been attempting to make sense of the social world and change it for "the better." I'd like to point out, due to my respect for the field of sociology, that this blog in no way deserves to be associated with sociology since it is not concerned with research methodology (a growing interest of mine) but is only sociological in the colloquial sense (discussion of sociological concepts). I decided to post on here because I've been writing so little due to the new project, and because I've become more inclined to write more lengthy and academic work. So due to the lack of writing I have been doing I have decided to jump back into the blog for a quick post.

I seriously had this idea that lasted a total of 5 seconds:

At some point after reading history books, economic books, psychology theories, social theories, anthropology, etc. etc. you forget HOW you thought before you read everything that you have. Your thought processes haven't changed, you still rely on schemas and scripts, but they just aren't the same as the one's that you used before. You have experienced a PARADIGM SHIFT, or have unconsciously adopted a NEW IDEOLOGY. Perhaps I'm being to extreme when I make these statements, but that's what it seems like to some extent. And this is what is frustrating. It is frustrating because the point of the entire endeavor was to flee ideology, wasn't it? But let's accept that this is true, that we have done nothing but adopted a new ideology. What can be said about this fact? Is it good, is it bad? The post-modernist in me says these questions are pointless. Perhaps a true post-modernist would say that these are good questions. I guess where I am currently is at the point where I am asking myself is ideology a relative concept in regards to good and evil? Surely a racist, sexist, homophobic ideology is less desirable ideology than an ideology that is tolerant, open, blah blah blah. Answering this question would require one to use one's ideology to determine the answer. Perhaps I haven't shifted paradigms or adopted a new ideology, but have gathered more information so that I can be come more ideological than before -- using facts, theories, and laws to strengthen my ideology. Some people often assume that ideology is a set of beliefs that shape one's thoughts and actions but are untrue, and that if one can escape ideology one can obtain truth. But wouldn't one have to abandon all beliefs in order to escape ideology? If we are psychologically predisposed to create schemas and scripts to deal with our social world then isn't it impossible to be free of ideology? If this is true then does one just choose between what ideology is better than the other?

AHHHHH!!

How to be political when excluded from the realm of politics

Three words: Life-Style Politics.

These three words might be associated with ideas like veganism, riding your bike, and not buying corporate goods like Nike, Coke, etc. And while I support these forms of life-style politics (for whatever reason), I want to argue that even these political acts are politically bankrupt and in a way just commodities -- in essence we are buying the experience of being political. 


The way I understand politics is it is the act of shaping society through influential techniques for the benefit of one group. Therefore if we are denied the chance to participate in shaping our lives by the hoops and hurdles of bureaucracy, etc. then we should not pursue that realm of politics. Instead I am arguing that we implement the political process in our daily lives. For example, if there is a problem like grandparents staying at home during the day sitting in front of the TV, then this is what we should focus on, and work with others in our local areas to solve the problem. By working with other to address everyday problems (and I want to emphasize that the problems chosen should not be typical political problems like low wages, but issues that we don't even think of as being political).


I think that by implementing the political process into our everyday lives we can draw attention to the fact that the public is not actually involved in city, state, national, and international political issues.

In solidarity with the experimental committee. 

Experimental Democracy!

The Myth of Honesty

There's this idea that being an honest person is respectable. An example of this is Abraham Lincoln who was later, as everyone knows, nick named Honest Abe because he could never tell a lie. The name Honest Abe, at least to my understanding, is not used nowadays to be pejorative.

Nowadays, and perhaps this has been going on for centuries, people will be malicious to someone but excuse their behavior by stating "I'm just being honest." For example, imagine Tom asks Steve if he looks good in his new shirt. Steve takes a look at Tom and says "That is the ugliest shirt I've ever seen! Why would you buy that hideous thing?" Tom replies with "why are you being so mean?" and Steve responds "I'm just being honest." Tom, the victim of brutal honesty is then forced to evaluate the situation by weighing the fact that Steve is both hurtful and honest.  Steve's behavior is without a doubt hurtful, but his actions are shielded by the virtue of honesty; and this is the problem.

In our society we have an understanding, at least to my knowledge, that honesty is the best policy, that you can never go wrong with telling the truth, and that honesty is the basis of good relationships. But like so many general statements, this isn't true, honesty is not always the best policy, you can go wrong with telling the truth, and honesty is not always the basis of good relationships (I'd argue that it is never the basis of good relationships). Instead honesty is only the best policy in situations where it is the most appropriate answer. For example, when one is in court on trial, honesty is the best policy because it is the most socially desirable response. When someone asks for directions, honesty is the best policy because it is the most socially desirable answer. But in many social situations, honesty is not the most socially desirable answer. For example, if you run into someone that you haven't seen in a while, like an old co-worker, and they say "it's so good to see you," the most socially appropriate answer is not "well I don't ever think about you, and I actually think you're a little dumb, and I really don't miss you at all," but something along the lines of "it's so good to see you too."

But what does it mean that honesty is not always the best policy? One interpretation is that protocol is the best policy, that you can never go wrong with following protocol, and that protocol is the basis of good relationships. We are not a society that respects unrestrained honesty, but a society that respects honesty when it is appropriate, and therefore we are a society that values protocol more than the truth.

analyzing reality through a systems perspective: constrained by the law and capitalism

(Scully from X-files can only think practically which means through the paradigm that she has been raised under, while Mulder thinks outside the paradigm and is able to see things that remain invisible to others)

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is without a doubt a deficiency of creativity in how we analyze our reality.

Perhaps not because we are unimaginative, but maybe because we are constrained by the perspectives of law and the culture of capitalism.

For example, a discussion of Bank of America forclosing on a house that results in the removal of a home owner, the common debate is between a liberal arguing that the Bank is unethical, and a republican arguing that the bank has done nothing wrong and that the former tenet is responsible for their actions and must pay the consequences. The liberal is reacting to the socially (unjust) conflicting laws that allow institutions to get away with such things. The republican is reacting based on the rules of the system while disregarding issues of right, wrong, justice, injustice, morality, etc. As they debate, they do so by arguing within the rules of the dominant legal and economic system, instead of from an alternative legal and economic system. One can not begin to challenge the legal and economic system if the questions they are asking do not challenge the system.  Asking whether an action is legitimate is concerned with an issue from within a system; we should be asking questions like "is law legitimate?" if we want to understand our reality and its complexity.

So what? 
Progressive mainstream news sources present issues from within the sphere of law and capitalism and rarely ever analyze issues creatively or imaginatively. They focus on whether issues are constitutional, efficient, profitable, etc. There is a lack of diversity in how the mainstream media analyzes politics, and this influences how the public discusses the political.

Sorry this post sucks.

Is The Left Religious?

There is this disconcerting question among activists, the left, and anti-capitalist rhetoricians: is anti-capitalism, communism, anarchism, etc. religion-esque? This question is disconcerting because like a critical analysis it challenges the set of beliefs one has. Unlike a critical analysis that points out a contradiction or assumption in a belief, the accusation that anti-capitalism, communism, anarchism, etc. is religious-esque seeks not to point out contradictions or assumptions but to undermine through associating it with religion.

For the sake of my argument I'll abandon my post-modernist paradigm and argue that there are three three kinds of beliefs. 1. Religious beliefs 2. Secular beliefs 3. Philosophical beliefs. The first two are similar in the way that they do not require or encourage believers to challenge their beliefs but to have blind faith. For example, a Christian is required to believe without question that God created the earth, then created Adam and Eve, and sent Jesus his one and only son to teach us how to live and die for our sins. Or for example, one might believe that education is the best thing for someone, or that men and women are naturally better at some things than the other, and that heterosexuality is normal. What religious believers and secularists have in common is neither set of beliefs are based on empirical evidence or pure reason. Philosophical beliefs, contrary to religious beliefs and secular beliefs are based on both empirical evidence and pure reason. I bring this up because last night some friends and family got into an argument about beauty which led to my sister's fiance arguing that all beauty is socially constructed, and my uncle arguing that beauty is subjective. This eventually led to the discussion of capitalism being fundamentally corrupt, and at one point my uncle called my soon to be brother-in-law prophetic "sort of like a fundamentalist Christian." I interpreted this as a jab at my sister's fiance, and I immediately wanted to defend him because I have also been the receiver of similar accusations. I think that any anti-capitalist, communist, anarchist, etc. accused of proselytizing or being dogmatic can turn the finger and argue that secularists are actually more like religious bigots because although the left and secularists are fervent about their beliefs, at least the far left and post left (IDK about post-left) base their beliefs off reason and are open to new interpretations.

But maybe I missed the point, maybe the statement that the left is religious-esque is not about their beliefs but about their stridency and proselytizing. While not everyone on the left believes in raising consciousness, etc. a number of us do, but so does the right, and so do the bipartisan. Politics just like religion is all about morality and how one should live their life -- if you think it's not then I'd ask if you are confusing politics with government -- the latter being the process of running a system that is based on ideology.

Anyone who has an understanding of semiotics can tell you that there are three aspects to a word: the sign, the signified, and the signifier.

(to be continued)
Going back to




I want to point out that there is a difference between religion and philosophy.

10 Documentaries That Everyone Should See

I created this list in order to help people interested in activism, social problems, and politics get acquainted with various contemporary issues. I hope that this list provides you with a source of informative, thought provoking, and entertaining documentaries and launches you into political activism. So grab a date and enjoy. Please share this on Facebook, Twitter, etc.

Introduction to Social Problems

1. People like us: Social Class in America: 
"A sprawling look at the class system in the United States, ranging from WASP elegance to trailer-park desperation, with lots of other stuff in between. "
videosift.com/video/People-Like-Us-Social-Class-In-America  (If someone finds this online please add the link to the comment section)

2. The Corporation:
"Documentary that looks at the concept of the corporation throughout recent history up to its present-day dominance."
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa3wyaEe9vE

3. Maquilapolis:
"Just over the border in Mexico is an area peppered with maquiladoras: massive sweatshops often owned by the world's largest multinational corporations. Carmen and Lourdes work at maquiladoras in Tijuana, and it is there that they try to balance the struggle for survival with their own radicalization in this documentary."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdVMlYEApac

4. Teached:
 "More than half a century after Brown v. Board of Education integrated U.S. schools, African-American and Hispanic students still perform far behind white students, and urban, minority youth are dropping out in record numbers. TEACHED Vol. I, a trilogy of three short films, provides a hard-hitting look at public education in America, exposing how the system virtually guarantees that certain populations will continue to fail."
http://www.teached.org/

5. Manufactured Landscapes:
"Photographer Edward Burtynsky travels the world observing changes in landscapes due to industrial work and manufacturing."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ie5SJ39LsDg

6. The Century of The Self:
"The Century of The Self is an award winning British television documentary film. It focuses on how Sigmund Freud, Anna Freud, and Edward Bernays influenced the way corporations and governments have analyzed,‭ dealt with, and controlled ‬people."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhxfArTAcfM

7. Food Fight:
"A fascinating look at how American agricultural policy and food culture developed in the 20th century, and how the California food movement rebelled against big agribusiness to launch the local organic food movement."
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVwxANELftg

8. Manufacturing Consent:
"A film about the noted American linguist/political dissident and his warning about corporate media's role in modern propaganda."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LVsiP0s33A

9. Tough Guise:
 "Tough Guise systematically examines the relationship between pop-cultural imagery and the social construction of masculine identities in the U.S. at the dawn of the 21st century."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPuyZEIG2G4

10. Death on a Factory Farm:
 "Death on a Factory Farm is a 2009 television documentary film concerning the animal rights abuses at the Wiles hog farm, and the subsequent investigation and trial."
http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/death-on-a-factory-farm/video/promo.html

Francois Hollande

Francois Hollande's recent victory in France's election was seen as a significant event in world politics. Hollande's election has led political junkies to ask "what does this mean for the rest of the world?" Certainly this is a symbolic victory for socialists -- libertarian or state socialists. But nothing but promises have been made by Hollande and the socialists. Although material changes haven't happened, Hollande's election may have threatened the global capitalist economy. If Hollande's victory can inspire other countries to elect socialists, then capitalism is in a precarious state.

We can hope for the best, but Hollande's victory does not let us off the hook from organizing our communities and changing ourselves.

ORGANIZE

2012: Nations and Their Governments

View Types of Government in a larger map

Creating A Common Language For The 99%

I created this because I know that 99% of Americans lack the vocabulary necessary to engage in political discourse. This list obviously isn't comprehensive, but I'm OK with that. I hope that this post reaches someone who has the time to create a platform for occupiers to add definitions that are important to our struggle, so that the 99% can have a reliable resource to reference. 


Anarchism: Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful,^[1][2] or alternatively as opposing authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations.^{[3][4][5][6][7][8]} Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical^[3][9][10] voluntary associations.^[11][12]
There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.

Anarchy:  Anarchy (from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία, anarchia, meaning "absence of a leader"), has more than one definition. In the United States, the term "anarchy" typically is meant to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority.^[1][2] When used in this sense, anarchy may^[3] or may not^[4] be intended to imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society.
Outside of the US, and by most individuals that self-identify as anarchists, it implies a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a nation state level although there are a few successful historical examples,^[5] that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society.

Austerity: In economics, austerity is a policy of deficit-cutting, lower spending, and a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided.^[1] Austerity policies are often used by governments to reduce their deficit spending^[2] while sometimes coupled with increases in taxes to pay back creditors to reduce debt.





Capital: In economics, capital, capital goods, or real capital are those already-produced durable goods that are used in production of goods or services. The capital goods are not significantly consumed, though they may depreciate in the production process. Capital is distinct from land in that capital must itself be produced by human labor before it can be a factor of production. At any moment in time, total physical capital may be referred to as the capital stock (which is not to be confused with the capital stock of a business entity.) In a fundamental sense, capital consists of any produced thing that can enhance a person's power to perform economically useful work—a stone or an arrow is capital for a caveman who can use it as a hunting instrument, and roads are capital for inhabitants of a city. Capital is an input in the production function. Homes and personal autos are not capital but are instead durable goods because they are not used in a production effort.
In Marxian economics, capital is used to buy something only in order to sell it again to realize a financial profit, and for Marx capital only exists within the process of economic exchange—it is wealth that grows out of the process of circulation itself and forms the basis of the economic system of capitalism.


Capitalism: Capitalism is generally considered a philosophy of economic systems that favor private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit or income by individuals or corporations, competitive markets, voluntary exchange, wage labor, capital accumulation, and personal finance.

Class: is a set of concepts in the social sciences and political theory centered on models of social stratification in which people are grouped into a set of hierarchical social categories. In common parlance, the term "social class," is usually synonymous with "socio-economic class," defined as: "people having the same social, economic, or educational status," e.g., "the working class"; "an emerging professional class."
 
Commune: is an intentional community of people living together, sharing common interests, property, possessions, resources, and, in some communes, work and income.

Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.

Cooperative:  is an autonomous association of persons who voluntarily cooperate for their mutual social, economic, and cultural benefit.^[1] Cooperatives include non-profit community organizations and businesses that are owned and managed by the people who use its services (a consumer cooperative) and/or by the people who work there (a worker cooperative).
Various aspects regarding cooperative enterprise are the focus of study in the field of cooperative economics.

Deregulation: is when government reduces its role and allows industry greater freedom in how it operates
  
Externality: In economics, an externality, or transaction spillover, is a cost or benefit that is not transmitted through prices^[1] and is incurred by a party who did not agree to the action causing the cost or benefit.

Gender: is a range of characteristics used to distinguish between males and females, particularly in the cases of men and women and the masculine and feminine attributes that they possess. Depending on the context, the discriminating characteristics vary from sex to social role to gender identity.

International Monetary Fund: The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is an international organization that was created on July 22, 1944 at the Bretton Woods Conference and came into existence on December 27, 1945 when 29 countries signed the Articles of Agreement^[1].  Countries contribute money to a pool through a quota system from which countries with payment imbalances can borrow funds on a temporary basis.

Marxism: Marxism is an economic and sociopolitical worldview and method of socioeconomic inquiry that centers upon a materialist interpretation of history, a dialectical view of social change, and an analysis and critique of the development of capitalism. Marxism was pioneered in the early to mid 19th century by two German philosophers, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marxism encompasses Marxian economic theory, a sociological theory and a revolutionary view of social change that has influenced political movements around the world.[ 

Manufacturing Consent: Using the propaganda model, Manufacturing Consent posits that corporate-owned news mass communication media — print, radio, television — are businesses subject to commercial competition for advertising revenue and profit. As such, their distortion (editorial bias) of news reportage — i.e. what types of news, which items, and how they are reported — is a consequence of the profit motive that requires establishing a stable, profitable business; therefore, news businesses favoring profit over the public interest succeed, while those favoring reportorial accuracy over profits fail, and are relegated to the margins of their markets (low sales and ratings).

Means of Production: Means of production refers to physical, non-human inputs used in production—the factories, machines, and tools used to produce wealth^[1] — along with both infrastructural capital and natural capital. This includes the classical factors of production minus financial capital and minus human capital. They include two broad categories of objects: instruments of labour (tools, factories, infrastructure, etc.) and subjects of labour (natural resources and raw materials). People operate on the subjects of labour, using the instruments of labour, to create a product; or, stated another way, labour acting on the means of production creates a product.^[2] When used in the broad sense, the "means of production" includes the "means of distribution" which includes stores, banks, and railroads.

Nationalization: is the process of taking an industry or assets into government ownership by a national government or state.^[1] Nationalization usually refers to private assets, but may also mean assets owned by lower levels of government, such as municipalities, being transferred to the public sector to be operated and owned by the state.

Neoliberalism: is a contemporary political movement advocating economic liberalizations, free trade and open markets. Neoliberalism supports the privatization of nationalized industries, deregulation, and enhancing the role of the private sector in modern society. It is commonly informed by neoclassical or Austrian economics. The central pillars of neoliberalism are the market and the individual.The central neoliberal goal is to 'roll back the frontiers of the state', in the belief that unregulated market capitalism will deliver efficiency, growth and widespread prosperity for all. In this view the 'dead hand' of the state saps initiative and discourages enterprise; government, however well-intentioned, invariably has a damaging effect upon human affairs. This is reflected in the liberal New Right's concern with the politics of ownership and its preference for private enterprise over nationalisation. Such ideas are associated with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Thatcher viewed the 'nanny-state' as breeding a culture of dependency and undermining freedom - freedom that is understood as freedom of choice in the marketplace. ^[1] The term neoliberal today is often used as a general condemnation of economic liberalization policies and advocates.

Open Market: In a general sense used in economics and political economy, an open market refers to a market which is accessible to all economic actors. In an open market so defined, all economic actors have an equal opportunity of entry in that market. This contrasts with a protected market in which entry is conditional on certain financial and legal requirements or which is subject to tariff barriers, taxes, levies or state subsidies which effectively prevent some economic actors from participating in them (see [protectionism]).

Permaculture: is a branch of ecological design and ecological engineering, which develop sustainable human settlements and self-maintained agricultural systems modeled from natural ecosystems.^[1][2]
The core values of permaculture are:

• Care of the Earth: Provision for all life systems to continue and multiply.
• Care of People: Provision for people to access those resources necessary for their existence 
• Setting Limits to Population and Consumption: By governing our own needs, we can set resources aside to further the above principles.^[3][4]

Permaculture design emphasizes patterns of landscape, function, and species assemblies. It asks the question, “Where does this (element) go? How can it be placed for the maximum benefit of the system?" To answer this question, the central concept of permaculture is maximizing useful connections between components and synergy of the final design. The focus of permaculture, therefore, is not on each separate element, but rather on the relationships created among elements by the way they are placed together; the whole becoming greater than the sum of its parts.
Production: In economics, production is the act of creating output, a good or service which has value and contributes to the utility of individuals.


Socialism  /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,^[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.^[2] There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism.^[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.

Social Contract: or political contract is an intellectual construct that typically addresses two questions, first, that of the origin of society, and second, the question of the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.^[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their natural rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory.

State: A state refers to a legal/political entity that is comprised of the following: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) a government ; and d) the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

Stock Market: or equity market is a public entity (a loose network of economic transactions, not a physical facility or discrete entity) for the trading of company stock (shares) and derivatives at an agreed price; these are securities listed on a stock exchange as well as those only traded privately.

World Bank: The World Bank is an international financial institution that provides loans^[3] to developing countries for capital programs.

Meet The 1%

1. Bill gates $61 Billion, 56, Microsoft.
2. Warren Buffett, $44 Billion, 81, Berkshire Hathaway.
3. Larry Ellison $36 Billion, 67, Oracle.
4. Christy Walton & Family $25.3 Billion, 57, Wal-Mart.
5. Charles Koch, $25 Billion, 76, Diversified.
6. David Koch, $25 Billion, 71, Diversified.
7. Sheldon Adelson, $24.9 Billion, 78, Casinos.
8. Jim Walton, $23.7 Billion, 64, Wal-Mart.
9. Alice Walton, $23 Billion, 62, Wal-Mart.
10. S.Robson Walton, $23.1 Billion, 68, Wal-Mart.
11. Michael Bloomberg, $22.3 Billion, 70, Bloomberg LP.
12. George Soros, $20 Billion, 81 Hedge Funds.
13. Sergey Brin $18.7 Billion. 38, Google.
14. Larry Page $18.7 Billion, 39, Google.
15. Jeff Bezos, $18.4 Billion, 48, Amazon.com.
16. Mark Zuckerberg, $17.5 Billion, 27, Facebook.
17. Michael Dell, $15.9 Billion, 47, Dell.
18. Steve Ballmer, $15.7 Billion, 56, Microsoft.
19. Phil Knight, $14.4 Billion, 74, Nike.
20. Paul Allen, $14.2 Billion, 58, Microsoft, Investments.
21. Carl Icahn, $14 Billion, 76, Leveraged buyouts.
22. Forrest Mars Jr, $13.8 Billion, 80 Candy.
23. Jacqueline Mars $13.8 B, 72 Candy.
24. John Mars $13.8B, 75 Candy.
25. Anne Cox Chambers, $12.5 Billion, 92, media.
26. John Paulson, $12.5 Billion, 56, hedge funds.
27. Donald Bren, $12 Billion, 79, real estate.
28. Ronald Perelman, $12 Billion, 69, Leveraged buyouts.
29. Len Blavatnik, $11.9 Billion, 54, diversified.
30. Harold Hamm, $11 Billion, 66, Oil & Gas.
31. James simsons, $10.7 Billion, 73, Hedge Funds.
32. Jack Taylor & Family, $10.4 Billion, 89 Enterprise Rent-A-Car.
33. Ray Dalio, $10 Billion, 62, Hedge Funds.
34. George Kaiser, $10 Billion, 69, oil & gas, banking.
35. Laurene Powell Jobs & Family, $9 Billion, 48, Apple, Disney.

$637.5 Billion

$637,500,000,000

We aren't going to attack the 1%, we are attacking an environment that allows a 1% to exist.

1. For profit banks / For profit investments -- (which disregard ethics)
2. Poor education system
3. News as entertainment
4. An environmentally destructive economy
5. Private ownership of the means of production

We seek a system that puts the society above the individual.

May Day #M1GS #OWS

What does the public do when Occupiers do something that gets their attention?

1. The public is informed by a news provider whose political orientation frames the issue

2. The public processes information in a conventional and non-contextual way

3. The public typically fails to understand events from the left's perspective

What do Occupiers do when the public reacts to something they did?

1. Occupiers process the publics' reactions to an event

2. Occupiers take a stance on the event -- often shaped by the public's reaction

3. Occupy either becomes stronger or weaker / united or divided

 

"It's The Economy"

I recently spoke with a close friend who I've known since high school. As we were catching up he told me finding a job hasn't been the easiest thing to do. I could relate to the difficulties that he has experienced. For example, the types of jobs he is looking for aren't available, and his resume isn't the most eye-catching either (I suffer from both of these). He then mentioned to me that his mom made, or makes, a comment about how easy it was for her to find a job when she was his age, and that she thinks it's easy to find a job. And then he said the thing that caught my attention. He said something along the lines of "she doesn't understand, we have a terrible economy, there aren't jobs available." I gave him a terrible response like "furreal," and then began pondering something. It seems that everyone I know attributes their economic situation to the economic recession. While I am aware that the economic recession has had a devastating impact on people all around the world, no one, especially the media, is blaming other aspects that shape their pitiful economic situation. There's not much being said about race and unemployment, gender and unemployment, class and unemployment, the private ownership of the means of production, stock holders, racist/classist social policy, geography, etc.

Perhaps it is worthwhile to mention that this reflects how economists/politicians evaluate the economy/society, that is, through indicators that do not reflect just or unjust economies or healthy societies. The absence of intersectionality in the conversation about the economic condition of individuals and society supports the claim that politics is not about the well being of society, but about the well being of institutions like the economy.

Considering Commodification

About a year ago I worked on a research project for my qualitative research methods class where I spent time with members of the electro dance music scene. When I started the project I had no idea what it meant and what it still means to be a raver or even what a 'real rave' was. After about a month of spending time in the scene I started to believe that the venue, people, and scene I was studying were not the things I thought they were. I entered the project with the understanding that I was studying ravers; it wasn't until I spent some time studying and observing the subjects did I realize that I was studying the product of a commodified subculture. The venue wasn't an authentic venue for 'real raves,' instead of a warehouse the events I attended were hosted in clubs. Instead of cultural beliefs like PLUR (peace, love, unity, and respect) constituting the collective conscious, drugs, sexual activity, etc. were. And instead of collective self-organization playing a role in the events, business owners were planning and throwing the events. Despite the fact that raves lost many of their core qualities, electro music was never able to be kicked out of the culture.

This is the role of commodification; to turn something, a service or item, into something that can be sold -- but more importantly, sold to the masses. Throughout history we have seen the commodification of products, services, and subcultures (punk culture), destroy the things we loved and needed. This was my reaction when I realized the rave scene had been commodified, packaged, and sold to the masses. But what I have recently realized is that by commodifying raves, electronic music -- one of the pillars of the rave scene, electronic music was able to enter the mainstream -- something that I assume the first DJs thought never could happen. Even though raves have been commodified for the masses, 'real raves' still exist and are being sought out by individuals who were reeled in by commodified raves.

Drawing from this example and the idea that commodification is the act of turning a product or service into something that can be sold to the masses, I feel that political subcultures can gain political power by commodifying their ideas for the masses.

COMODDIFY YOUR POLITICAL SUBCULTURE!

Politicians, Activists, The Internet, and The Epistemological Tug of War Over The Masses

Over the last 6 months I've watched, read, and talked about the following few things: Occupy Wall Street, the US political system, and the internet. As I think back on the past months, I begin to look closer to make sense of what has been happening.

Over the past 6 months I have spent a majority of my time on the internet. During that time I was practically glued to social media sites and news sources, and I was pretty engaged on Facebook and Twitter with Occupy Wall Street. Since I was living an hour away from San Francisco and Oakland I wasn't able to participate directly with OWS and therefore found myself in a cyber relationship with it -- promoting, liking, and discussing most things Occupy Wall Street. Learning, and being active online felt better than doing anything else, like hanging out with people I knew. The idea of using the internet to discuss issues with people during an unprecedented time felt invigorating.

Despite it being an unprecedented time in regards to activism, and despite the attention the movement received by the public, people I knew just weren't getting into it. Looking back on the months I wonder if our issues were too academic, abstract, and foreign to the masses to resonate with them. Throughout my time spent with OWSSF and OWSOAK I heard and discussed OWS and its fundamental connection to the Arab Spring. While I am aware that our conditions are similar, I think our differences have been neglected by mainstream activist circles. Our main issues have been about justice, equality, co-operative living, etc., but the issues of the Arab Spring were about overthrowing dictators – which is a concrete issue that resonated with the people of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, and Syria. I am aware that figuratively we have dictators AKA the 1%, and that we sell our labor and are pushed around and told what to do. But I believe that a fundamental mistake we made was associating ourselves with their experiences – average American's don't feel that they live under a dictatorship. I'm not saying the bourgeoisie and state don't matter, I am a strong advocate for class confrontation, and I'm not downplaying the significance of the state, I'm only stating that there has been a tendency to associate OWS with the Arab Spring which created a misconception about a global experience and which led us to neglect our differences and the concrete issues of average Americans.

But there are similarities in both the Arab Spring and OWS that are worth mentioning. For example, the economies from Tunisia to the US were hit and devastated by financial earthquakes that led to the decline of living conditions. In Saudi Arabia beachfront properties aren't being bought. But in Greece we saw and continue to see austerity measures and the privatization of public institutions. Even though similar aspects of our lives are affected, our experiences are different. For example, in the UK, the US, and France, students felt the reverberations of the stumbling economy. As a result, activists organized students to form massive protests. Thinking about the protests over cuts to education I can remember how many people were involved – a majority of them weren't activists – and when comparing it to OWS I can't help but attribute the non-activists' presence in the protests to the concrete reality of the issue.

Another similarity between The Arab Spring and OWS is the role of citizens who appear everywhere on the political spectrum. Both societies have citizens that defend the regime. For instance, recently in Syria there were protests against the Free Syrian Army, during the protests in Egypt supporters of the president rode patriotically into the crowds at Tahir Square on behalf of Mubarak, and the conservative Americans calling OWSers lazy, whinny, etc. on Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter. Conservatives are ubiquitous, but so is the entire left wing of the political spectrum. As I think about the number of conservative individuals around the world I feel baffled – how is it that we can live in a era where logic, reason, and liberal values are esteemed but play such a minor role in politics?

As winter came OWS began to lose its force while the US Republican primaries took over the front page of all US newspapers. The conversation had switched from national protests, global protests, and the 99/1%, to job creation, ending the war, and getting the country back on track to where we were prior to the economic downturn. Even on Facebook, I was more likely to see a comment or status update about the primaries than anything related to OWS.

Seeing the republican primaries in the headlines of the papers felt like a defeat. Especially when the youth of America, who are so active on social media sites, cling to Ron Paul and myopically buy into his libertarian rhetoric on individualism, liberty to own property, and the role of the free market.

Similarly the political pundits and junkies espouse the connection or relationship between the US and the rest of the globe. Contrary to OWSers, republicans and democrats focus on our nation and the masses position in the free market which further reinforces the idea that we are not connected to citizens in other countries. They successfully changed the national conversation from wealth inequality, nonexistent democracy, and an economic system that thrives on natural resources and consumption, to jobs, competitive advantage, the nation as a team, and have effectively united the 1% and the 99% together.

All this happens despite the events that have transpired over the past three years – banks going bankrupt, the burst of the housing bubble, more outsourcing, budget cuts, privatization, terribly low approval rating for congress, the budget deficit, extending the tax cuts, etc. Even if no one is buying it, politicians are able to dominate the conversation about politics. It's almost as if our house was partly burnt down, and despite its condition the fire department told us it was OK to move back in, and we did. Although we feel it isn't right, someone is saying “did you not hear them? They said it's fine we can move back in.” Our intuition tells us something's not right, but we go along with it because it's the only thing we know how to do. Therefore perhaps we need to appeal directly to the publics' interests.

But our society is fragile. Austerity measures, privatization of public institutions, and lost jobs are all evidence of this. New laws like the NDAA, and the crackdown on national protests are attempts to contain the epistemological tug of war on the masses. Just like the regimes in the middle east cracked down on national protests, the western world is fragile but plays it cool while increasing security. They hope that by not talking about it we'll ignore the situation. But every attempt to maintain the situation works in our favor. The only message politicians have is the one of “hope” that they will bring change – most salient with the youth in regards to Ron Paul who desperately hold on to the American Dream.

By occupying the internet we have found outlets – Facebook, Twitter, Youtube – to release our pent up frustration. The democratic experience of an online forum is far more stimulating and rewarding than sitting in a room of friends, family, or co-workers who dismiss or don't understand our critical comments. As our interests are hardly met by the majority of citizens, we seek communities online to find a voice, solidarity, and occupy our time. Our tendency to be conservative in regards to sharing our beliefs and feelings with in person relationships lead us to become addicted internet activists. Together we tug the masses toward our explanations, toward our views, toward our solution, via the internet. After years of moving society onto the internet, e.g. pawnshops turned into Craigslist, dating became online dating, businesses became E-commerce, etc., we should now export our behavior on the internet into society.

As both activists and politicians center their conversations around the economy, issues of race, sexuality, and gender are marginalized perhaps more than usual. As LGTBQ, people of color, and female and transgender folks are more likely to feel the adverse effects of the economy, race, sexuality, and gender get neglected and become issues to divide folks in order to gain momentum in the epistemological tug of war on the masses. In a time when the main issue on either side of the political spectrum is the economy, republicans and democrats pull in votes through issues of race, sexuality, and gender. For instance, the marriage debate gains or loses votes, contraceptive and abortion gain and lose votes, and issues of race gain and lose votes – all while distracting the masses from the conversation about economic inequality, private ownership of the means of production, and the nonexistent democracy. Their ability to divide us on these issues allow politicians to distract us from our common experiences and prevent us from focusing on the real other – (figuratively speaking) the 1%. The importance of uniting the public on these issues is critical to uniting us over the economy (in other words, it's not just the economy stupid!).

As the American Spring arrives I see it as a crucial moment for the discussion of social change. Rational discussion about academic, abstract topics alone will not work, and neither will the internet. I suggest we relate our issues to their issues, rely less on abstractions and more on concrete examples. I also suggest that we export the aspects of our digital relationships into our interpersonal relationships in order to reshape society. Let's bring democracy, stridency, and trolling to our friends, family, and the workplace in order to organize society more effectively.

Youtube

While many of us are trying to pin down the meaning of the web 2.0 revolution's effect on ourselves and our society, I have come to the point where I regard Youtube as more than a place to upload and watch videos. Because well we aren't just watching short films and uploading low budget movies.

Although short films make up a percentage of the videos on youtube, we also have a large number of tutorials, video responses to other videos, documentaries, recordings of real life events, music covers, rants, etc. So instead of Youtube simply being a place to upload videos, Youtube is in a way a

digital society

.
It's a place where communities exist, where hierarchies persist, where issues are hotly debated, where people learn, where people spend their time.

The Reaction:

If you look on the internet you'll find that people are concerned about the possibility that time spent on the internet fosters anti-social behavior. Here's one I just came across http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2203/hyperconnectivity-teens-young-adults-internet
At first glance the issue of spending excessive time online is presented as a major problem. But that itself is a problem. The issue of excessive internet use is presented as a problem and not a symptom of a problem. The time spent on the internet, and the neglect our personal relationships are getting, is both evidence of our weak interpersonal relationships and a reaction to them -- which, from a macro perspective, is a reflection of our fragile society.

I think that instead of stigmatizing excessive internet use, we should be asking "why are people choosing to spend their time on the internet and not with their peers?"

Perhaps then we would realize that our behavior is a reaction to broken relationships. In doing so we might be able to restructure our relationships and reconnect with our peers in person.
So as the

digital society

grows, and the supposed anti-social behavior increases, let's seek to understand the cause of the problem instead of stigmatizing the threat that might be the catalyst to new social relationships

The End of Political Parties In The US

Perhaps I should've titled this piece 'The End of The Vanguard.'

There is no end to political parties in government. There is however an end to the vanguard in the US.

Occupy Wall Street was an ostensibly horizontal social movement. It was a prefigurative political movement, and therefore it is a glimpse of the society occupiers envision and therefore it is the beginning of the end of political parties.

What do you think?

BROMANCE

Socialist Review: The generals, the Islamists and the Egyptian Revolution

The Socialist Review posted an article today detailing the current state of political affairs in Egypt. They explained that the recent election of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is facing opposition by citizens that relentlessly demand the abdication of the military.

The article also explains that the Muslim Brotherhood's core membership consists of conservative businessmen who are likely to not meet the demands of the protesters. The Brotherhood has stated that the military will step down when they are ready.

After a year of struggle, the Egyptian people continue to protest and now are in a position where they may have a new opponent -- the muslim brotherhood.

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=11901

Correlation Between Race and Property Value In The Bay Area

This PDF provides sobering graphics of the correlation between property value and race in the Bay Area.

Click here to view and download the PDF

Technology (ramble)

Technology appears to be one of the defining attributes of the 21st century. Technology is ubiquitous. We live in a techno-environment. It can be found in almost every aspect of our lives. The prevalence of technology is growing exponentially and brings a number of advantages to our lives. From the accuracy of clocks, to efficiency of engines, to the mobility of mass communication, to the consumption of information through electronic journalism, to entertainment in our homes and on-the-go. Things are being replaced by technology. Machines are replacing workers, stores are now E-commerce, and mail is now electronic.

There is a mainstream acceptance of technology; a minority that praise technology as our savior, critical skeptics that argue technology is making our condition worse, and everyone in between. Largely our attitude towards technology is determined by our attitudes towards the specific form of technology and its effect on that aspect of our life. For example, someone might praise biotechnology that creates a cure for a disease that they have. And anti-capitalists might hate security cameras that monitor workers.

As technology becomes normal to us, what happens to us as individuals when it is no longer a novel thing? I think we forget what it means to be natural. We no longer co-exist with nature, we are now exploiting it. Can nature and technology exist together?

We typically think of technology as being electronic.

We are able to return to nature any time we want. But we have destroyed nature to the point that we can't really return. Is a hyper-techno-environment inevitable? Are we on a path to becoming severed from nature completely?

Our relationship to nature is a yearly trip to the snow, or an annual hike up a mountain, or to a campsite for the weekend.

But we have this inherent idea that nature is good, and a techno-environment is bad. But can a techno-environment be good? I can certainly see how living in nature could be bad. If we lived under a tyrant then nature would not necessarily be better. So the quality (good/bad) of an environment is determined not solely on the setting but by the conditions and relationships between people living in those environments. The emotions one ascribes to entities such as nature are socially constructed. nature as a positive space, techno-environments as negative spaces are arguably constructed by our interaction and interpretation of those environments. Arguing for a return to nature is a subjective argument that is based on the social conditions and interpersonal relationships within a society, and how one interprets them. Feelings of good or bad associated with an environment are not intrinsic qualities of those environments but are created by the values we give them.

I Highly Recommend

I don't think I've ever promoted an author or an article on my blog, but this piece I just read about JSTOR and the lack of access the public has to academic research is something I believe needs to change.

http://m.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/locked-in-the-ivory-tower-why-jstor-imprisons-academic-research/251649/

DAY OF ACTION: SOPA, PIPA, OPPONENTS, AND THE META-CRITICS

On January 18th 2012, individuals and organizations in The United States pleaded with their fellow Americans to help stop two Bills – Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 or PIPA). But the opponents of SOPA and PIPA did not take to the streets for protest, instead the methods of protest – critical mass, call to actions, sharing political relevancy -- took place on the internet.

Zealous opponents of SOPA and PIPA-like policies have been around before SOPA and PIPA were proposed, but it was in the spring of 2011 when their anxiety over the precarious free-internet surfaced. Jordan VanderBeek from San Francisco says his initial reaction was “major members of the government and outside forces influencing the government are hell-bent on taking away our civil liberties to make a buck. The internet's the one good thing our generation's got.”

Introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chair Representative Lamar S. Smith (R-TX) and a bipartisan group of 12 initial co-sponsors, the SOPA bill, if passed, will

“Authorize the Attorney General (AG) to seek a court order against a U.S.- directed foreign Internet site committing or facilitating online piracy to require the owner, operator, or domain name registrant, or the site or domain name itself if such persons are unable to be found, to cease and desist further activities constituting specified intellectual property offenses under the federal criminal code including criminal copyright infringement, unauthorized fixation and trafficking of sound recordings or videos of live musical performances, the recording of exhibited motion pictures, or trafficking in counterfeit labels, goods, or services.”

But opponents of the bill state that it will crush young start-ups and actually be worse for the economy. Google published the following statement “[SOPA and PIPA] would censor the Web and impose harmful regulations on American business. Millions of Internet users and entrepreneurs already oppose SOPA and PIPA.”

At midnight eastern time, opponents of the two Bills began a strike. Wikipedia blocked its English page, Craigslist directed viewers to a black page stating

“STOP PIPA (Senate 968) & SOPA (HR 3261) Imagine a world without craigslist, Wikipedia,Google, [your favorite sites here]...News Corp, RIAA, MPAA, Nike, Sony, Comcast, VISA & others want to make that world your reality. 80 Members of Congress are in their sway, 30 against, the rest undecided or undeclared. Please take a minute to tell your Members of Congress you OPPOSE PIPA & SOPA. CLICK HERE for MORE INFO & EASY ACTION ITEMS. PS: corporate paymasters, KEEP THOSE CLAMMY HANDS OFF THE INTERNET!”

before redirecting viewers to their site. Google censored their logo on their search page. And then only seconds later, friends and followees began posting and tweeting incessantly to spread the word. Katie Marie, 22, of San Francisco said “I've seen about half my newsfeed post it today. I've seen websites posting about it for about a week, then there was a like sudden rush this morning”

Rumor has it that the days' online strike was “organized by highly-trafficked websites including Reddit, Google, and WordPress.” Although it is not clear whether the strike was organized formally or if it was the product of a 'follow the leader' generated movement, there seems to be a common message by all supporters – tell your members of congress you oppose PIPA and SOPA. But people are doing more than contacting their members of congress, they're spreading the word.

Vincent Le, an ex-pat in Bangkok, had this to say about why he shared about it on his social media accounts “I posted a well-made, educational video about SOPA because the internet has had a profound influence in my life. A world without free information, for me, is a matter of life and death. It's allowed me to connect to others, gain vital knowledge, make a living as a writer, and ultimately live life to the fullest. I hope that the video will help others understand these events as well as it helped me.”

While an overwhelming sentiment of anti-SOPA & PIPA has gone viral, there are critics of today's event. Some critics are claiming that while they commend individuals on their participation, they want to push participants to be more than 'slacktivists'. According to Steven Rodriguez of Santa Clara “Slacktivists are defined as people who just tweet or share news and petitions but don't take further action. We want the new protesters to take a more active role in politics and understand that everything is connected to the political, economic, and social structure. Bills like SOPA and PIPA react to these structures; these need to be addressed and can't be addressed through signing petitions.”

But what else is there to do? Take to the streets? Boycott the supporters of SOPA and PIPA? While the answer isn't clear there apparently seems to be a lack of options proposed. Perhaps the future will see a creative surge in activism.

While the day of action comes to end, what will be next for PIPA and SOPA and the participants of today's event? Will today be enough to stop PIPA and SOPA? At 11 AM the Los Angeles Times reported that "three co-sponsors of the SOPA and PIPA antipiracy bills have publicly withdrawn their support." And according to The Huffington Post, President Obama "will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet. The White House statement provides a broad critique that largely embraces the arguments of critics of the legislation, such as Google, Facebook and Yahoo.” While the debate over SOPA and PIPA is scheduled to continue sometime in February, where will the citizens of the US that participated in today's event go from here? Will their advocacy fade into history or will today be the beginning of their career in the world of politics?

"Vote With Your Dollar!"

While I support the idea, it is definitely a plea to the middle class who have the spending power necessary to vote with their dollar.

Occupy Wall Street Might be the Precursor to US Socialism

I feel that there are a few main issues raised by OWS. The first would be the role the government played in the economic collapse. Their role included not regulating the actions of economic actors or financial institutions, and bailing out the banks that were too big to fail. As a result the mantra "money out of politics" and "our government is a plutocracy" have made their place at the forefront of the OWS movement.
The second issue would be the ubiquity of wealth inequality and social inequality -- wealth inequality referring to the income disparity in the US, and social inequality referring to the discrepancy of life opportunities between the wealthy and the poor.

I believe that these two issues, if addressed adequately, can only lead to socialist-like public policy.

I am not saying that the OWS movement will turn the US into a socialist state

, I believe that we are far from that day. However I do believe that the issues raised by OWS, and the solutions to the problems will lead to a socialist atmosphere that may be the precursor to a futuristic socialist society.

The Effects of Mormonism on Romney's Politics

coming soon

POST-MODERNISM DEBATE!

Have you ever heard someone say "post-modernism isn't true according to it's own logic."?

Well I just realized why this is both true and false.

I believe that the comment "post-modernism isn't true according to it's own logic." is a pre-post-modern statement. Only under pre-post-modern conditions can post-modernism be true.

But, the comment "post-modernism isn't true according to it's own logic." can only be a valid point within a post-modern paradigm.

Awesome.

An Attempt to Tip The Scales