Towards a New Political Classification System

Over the years, people have tried to argue for many different ways to classify people politically.  The most basic is just a left to right spectrum, like this:

Communist———-Socialist——–Social Democrat———American Liberal————Conservative————Reactionary————Feudalist

This spectrum does fairly well when it comes to economic issues, but pretty much ignores social issues, personal liberties, and the variety within each point on the spectrum – put five Communists in a room together, and you’ll probably get five different Communist parties.  Plus, where do we put Libertarians?  And Fascists?  Given that the Libertarians were left out, it seems pretty logical that they would be the ones who would design a new system to replace the old: a diamond-shaped thing called the Nolan Test.

This is an example of the Nolan Test

The Nolan test does take social issues into account.  What it doesn’t look at is what that “economic regulation” is.  Is it no-bid contracts for well-connected corporations, or a public education system?  (or is it no-bid contracts for Halliburton to build schools?)  Is it palaces and pyramids for the rich, or food for the poor?

I base my model somewhat on Prof. Jonathan C. York’s work, of Mountain View College in Dallas, on the “LEO Test”.  You can find it in my blogroll.  Dividing the spectrum into liberty, equality, and order makes good sense, and I believe my system is but a variant of York’s.

My system starts with a basic left-right spectrum, like this:

Role of Government in the Economy

Give all to the downtrodden—————————————Do not intervene———————————————-Give all to the powerful

But sometimes, people support policies that go both ways – they want the government to intervene both for the rich and the poor.  And some people believe in government control of the economy for control’s sake.  How do we describe these factors?

In my view, with a pyramid, like this:

Everything that works is complex

The gold triangle at the top is the Libertarians.  The blue and red areas immediately below them are the Democratic and Republican Parties.  The green area represents the Green Party in the U.S. and most of the Social Democratic Parties in Europe.  The gray area represents “true pragmatists – people who really don’t care about ideology at all, and so end up right in the middle.  And the orange area represents the ideology of most major corporations, if they were completely amoral.

The pink blob represents the Socialist parties of the world.  The big brown square represents the various Fascist movements: Mussolini is in the top left corner, Hitler in the bottom center, and Franco on the far right.  The light purple area represents traditional feudalists and landowning elites.  Moving to the bottom of the pyramid, we have Communists in red (of course), pure statists (really with no ideology but that the state should control the economy) in light gray, and monarchists/supporters of a Pharonic divine god-king in purple.  And that’s world politics.

I think for true completeness, it needs another axis – it needs to be a true 3-D  square-based pyramid.  The other axis could be social regulation, with the far left wanting to completely remake society (i.e. the Cultural Revolution) the center doing nothing, and the far right supporting  a forced return to the society of centuries ago (but without the part where the Puritan women got married in their underwear).  This would likely move Socialists and Fascists further apart, which would make both happier.  It would also give more definition to the different factions within the Democratic and Republican parties.  But I’m not nearly good enough at 3-D in Paint to make this model right now.   You’ll have to use your imagination.  Plus, the economics is the important part.

Any thoughts?

 

Office Politics, or Why Slacker College Students Love TV’s Dilberts

The Office on NBC is a very popular show.  That makes good sense: it’s funny, a little oddball and wacky (oddball wackiness does well when the nation is feeling down, cf. Marx Brothers), and millions of Americans who work in bureaucratic offices pushing paper (though perhaps not quite so literally as a Dunder Mifflin sales rep does) can relate.  But why is it so popular among college students?  We’re not out in the ‘real world’ yet, going to 9-to-5 office jobs year in, year out.  Yet from all the evidence I see, college students love The Office.

Part of this is just because it’s a good show – you don’t have to be a lawyer to love Law & Order, after all – though there are enough lawyers in this country that they are probably a key target demographic for the networks.  But I’d argue that if we look at The Office from another angle, we can see it as the story of a socialist system existing inside a larger capitalist system – rather like the Soviet Union within the capitalist world-system.  I’ll get to why this makes it popular among young people later, but first we need some evidence.

Much has been made of how Michael thinks of his office like a family – he is perhaps trying to build the family he never had, says a psychological interpretation.  But if we look at Michael in another way, he can be seen as the leader of a socialist regime.

Michael loves his workers, and is committed to keeping all of them.  In one early episode, he tries to convince everyone (including himself, if I recall correctly) to take a 10 % pay cut so that everyone can stay on.  He takes a real interest in his workers’ home lives and tries to help them with personal problems.  Of course, this also means that he intrudes constantly into his workers’ personal lives.  And most of his schemes fail spectacularly, rather like the Soviet Union’s (the difference being that Michael can’t shoot or starve his employees (though he does run one over), so his schemes fail hilariously rather than tragically).  Michael also loves to regale his employees with long speeches, and believes in the importance of ideology.  And the office is rife with committees (Party (planning) committees, at that!).

In one episode, Michael even ends up leading a unionization drive among the warehouse workers.  He’s quickly shot down by the powers-that-be, but one can see where his sympathies lie.

Upper management, meanwhile, is more like a real corporation: focused on the profit and not the person, but not as capricious or Big Brother-esque.  Dunder-Mifflin Scranton is a socialist island in a capitalist world.

Many of The Office’s characters can be compared with segments of Soviet society fairly easily.  For example:

Michael= the government

Dwight = the KGB/NKVD

Jim = the dissident intellectuals

Creed = the criminal elements

Angela = the Russian Orthodox Church?

Toby = the central planners (because he’s always ruining the government’s crazy schemes by saying they can’t be done)/ The U.S. ambassador (because he comes from the “capitalist” management world)

Ryan = a post-Soviet oligarch?

The warehouse guys = the peasants/industrial proletariat

Most everyone else = disgruntled workers (to be honest, this fits everyone but Michael and Dwight, really.  Could Stanley be the Lech Walensa of Scranton?)

Recently, there has been another trend on the show to build the analogy.  The Scranton branch is doing very well in a tough economy (and Michael’s bosses have no idea why).  Likewise, the Soviet Union largely avoided the effects of the Great Depression (though it suffered a terrible famine in 1932-33, that was entirely self-inflicted by idiotic/genocidal Stalinist policy, and the Soviets built a massive industrial base through the 1930s – enough to defeat Nazi Germany about… 75% single-handedly, I’d say?).  If you really stretch, last week’s episode could be seen as an allegory for the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956, or of Czechoslovakia in 1968.  Or even Afghanistan in 1980, though the blowback hasn’t started yet in that case.

So why does this model of the show explain its popularity?  Well, first off, the whole American population has the Cold War on the brain – we may not be fighting it, but we sure think we are.  That’s why everything that Russia does is still big news (aside from the nuclear weapons and the Eurocentric nature of world political reporting in the U.S.).  But the idea of a socialist system inside a larger capitalist system has even more relevance for young people.

The United States is largely a very capitalistic, individualistic society.  Now quick, think of the most socialistic, collectivistic institutions within the U.S!  I don’t know what you thought, but I’d say the the education system and the military.  What do these systems have in common?   They are mostly inhabited by young people (which for the purposes of this piece is defined as under 30).  Thus, The Office is very relateable for most American college students and other young folks.

The education system fits the “friendly socialism” paradigm of The Office the best, so I’ll focus on it.  Think back to your high school days.  Everyone was (allegedly) treated equally by the system.  There was a democratic facade called “student government” to cover up the authoritarian system.  The system didn’t really think about individuals, but it tried to get everyone through (well, at least it didn’t “fire” (expel) students as often as a modern corporation fires its workers).  And there were periodic assemblies in which the people would gather to watch parades and hear speeches.  And a communal dining hall.

This is why conservatives hate the education system.  And to be honest, I don’t think private schools are all that different.

And that is why young folks who are years away from being Dilbertized (or hopefully not) love  The Office.

 

Isaac Asimov’s Foundation Series: Story With a Thousand Faces

A while back, there was a Batman cartoon show that ran an episode subtly poking fun at the different variations of the Caped Crusader’s personality through the years.  The episode showed a group of kids arguing about what Batman’s really like.  Some say he’s a happy-go-lucky, gadget-obsessed detective, some say he’s a mysterious, never-seen shadow, some say he’s just a man in tights…

So I thought I’d do something similar with Isaac Asimov’s Foundation “trilogy”.  There are actually quite a few books in the Foundation series: In the end, Asimov tried to tie together decades’ worth of writing (for any normal author at least – Asimov was incredibly prolific) into one epic future history.   However, this feat required some wild changes in plot, and increasingly reminded me of the hated “it was all just a dream” ending.  Also, the books Asimov wrote in the 1980s (and especially those authorized by his estate, but written by other authors) just aren’t the same as those written in the 1940s and ’50s.  It’s a little like the new Bond film Quantum of Solace – they’re fine books (well, some of them are) but they aren’t like the glorious originals. This is probably for 3 reasons:

1. Asimov had changed – he’d spent years mostly writing nonfiction (after the launch of Sputnik, he concentrated on helping the average American learn science so we could beat the Reds) and he was older.  His later Foundation novels are slower-paced: some take 500 pages to cover just a few years in one man’s life, while the original trilogy covers about 400 years of galactic history in around 900 pages.

2. The original novels weren’t novels at all – they were short stories, written for Golden Age pulp sci-fi magazines.  Actually, most of Asimov’s early output was short stories written for the magazines.  But by the ’80s, the market had changed and Asimov was writing novels like everyone else.  I, personally, am partial to his short-form writing, so this is probably a major reason why I prefer the originals.

3. Asimov’s original three Foundation novels seem to me to be (nice rhyme structure there) a bolt from the blue.  His Robot stories are good, but not as good as Foundation.  His Early Empire stories (Pebble in the Sky, the Stars Like Dust) are fairly weak (Asimov himself was never very happy with The Stars Like Dust, in particular).  His later Foundation novels start out very good (but story-breaking) and move into fairly unreadable territory in my view with the prequels.  In the prequels, Asimov tries to combine the scope of a thriller with the plotting of a philosophy piece.  It doesn’t work very well.  Of the pieces by Asimov I’ve read, only a few hold up to the standard of Foundation, and none of these pieces are even close to its length.  Foundation (the Original Trilogy, anyway) was something special.

So anyway, on to description!  There are many, many ways to interpret the Foundation series.  Here are just a few: MINOR SPOILERS

1. The Foundation series is classic pulp sci-fi space opera:  So there’s an empire ruling all the galaxy, but it’s collapsing… and only one man can save civilization!  It’ll take fantastic future science, quick wits and good old-fashioned charm to win the day – No problem!  Our heroes have those in spades.  But!  Can they face off against a terrifying mutant with the power to CONTROL YOUR VERY MIND?!

2. The Foundation series is Star Wars: There’s a galactic empire (whose capital world is all one big city), and pretty soon it turns evil and sends a big fleet of ships to attack our heroes on a small, isolated base.  “Han Solo” and “Obi-Wan-Kenobi” (read Foundation and Empire and you’ll see who I’m talking about) try to stop the invasion, but in the end only the power of the Force… of History can save the day.  Then another enemy captures the “rebel base”, and a rag-tag group of heroes (including one woman who bickers with/is in love with the captain) are chased across the galaxy.  In the end, a mysterious group of Force (of History) users save the rebellion and the galaxy.  People think they’re gone, but they and their force will in fact be with you… always.

3. The Foundation Series is an allegory for American History: So a big empire founds a colony in an isolated area.  Said colony is betrayed by its empire, and gains independence by manipulating the balance of power.  The colony holds onto power by projecting an ideal (that it does not live up to) to foreign nations.  When this begins to break down, it becomes an economic superpower, spreading trade and cultural influence throughout the world.  The colony defeats the imperial powers that used to be so powerful, but faces growing inequality, plutocracy and class conflict… and after this, the analogy breaks down, probably because Hitler and Stalin may have been terrifyingly persuasive, but they couldn’t actually control others’ minds from a distance.

4. The Foundation series is Marxist/Leninist: So the galactic empire is collapsing, and no one individual can do anything.  Well, except Hari Seldon, who has discovered the inexorable course of history.  By reading the flow of history, an elite group – a Party, if you will – can lead the masses to a better world.  But the Dead Hand of History triumphs over all reactionary opposition!

5. The Foundation series is The Dark Knight (well, based on timing The Dark Knight is the Foundation series): So there’s chaos.  But a group of dedicated people are trying to restore order.  They do great against ordinary foes.  Eventually, along comes a new enemy who doesn’t act like the others.  He has powers beyond the normal, and he can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with.  He just wants to watch the world burn unite the galaxy under his rule.  Gotham the Foundation is helpless beneath his power.  They are also plagued by internal corrupton.

Out of the shadows comes a mysterious power.  It doesn’t use normal methods and it never quits.  Once it’s won its fight against the Joker Mule, the Foundation is scared that they’ll be its next target.  The Foundation fights a secret war against its benefactor (while still somewhat depending on its help) and thinks this mysterious force is gone.  Is it?

6. The Foundation Series is pretty much unlike anything else you’ll ever read:  So there’s a galactic empire, modeled on Ancient Rome to some extent.  It is collapsing, very slowly.  One scientist has figured this out – he’s basically turned history into a hard science, like physics.  He calls it “psychohistory”.  He can’t predict what happens to individual “atoms” (people) but he can predict the trajectory of the whole.  He can’t stop the collapse, but he can shorten the interregnum before the galaxy is reunited by setting up a “Foundation” of scientists, ostensibly to compile the galaxy’s knowlege into a single place.  The Foundation’s journey from single town to galactic power is then told at length.  There’s very little action, but lots of tension and plotting.  Asimov also has an amazing talent to make long tracts of exposition truly fascinating – I’m not sure how he does it.

So I’d highly reccommend you read the Foundation series.  Maybe you can find another interpretation of it – maybe it’s really about baseball or the history of Belgium.  I’d give it a 9.5 out of 10.

Pros:

 - Grand scope

 - (Some) very memorable, believable characters

 - Unorthodox themes (inevitability of history, economic and social forces as major plot points)

 - Old-timey charm (if you have grown tired of science fiction that’s based on computers that know everything and nanotechnology that does everything, Foundation is quite refreshing)

 - No gratuitous sex/violence (to be honest, barely any sex or violence at all.  The only reason not to let your 8-year-old cousin read it is that they’ll be bored and confused.)

 - Detailed settings (Asimov spends about 4 pages at one point discussing the history of a small outlying world.  This world is the setting for about 24 pages of story.  Somehow, it doesn’t slow down the pacing)

 - Sufficiently villainous villains, shades of grey morality and a generally optimistic feeling (it’s pretty hard to have all three)

 - A combination of cheesy space opera (nuclear-powered ray guns!) with thought-provoking discussion of political/economic issues.

 - Far less overt racism/sexism than many books of its time.

Cons:

 - Very few female characters (though it’s probably ahead of its time, for a book set thousands of years in the future it isn’t ahead of its time enough.  Later books do change this, the problem is that they change far too much other stuff)

 - No aliens (though this is kind of an advantage too, as it simplifies the story – imagine if Seldon had to deal with all the various alien psychologies as well as human psychology!  The galaxy is all-human because of a dispute between Asimov and Astounding magazine’s editor, John W. Campbell.  Asimov tried to retcon in another explanation later, but this later explanation is silly and depressing.  I ignore it.)

 - Some logic flaws (Everything is nuclear-powered, which I find semi-plausible (and preiscient in 1942!) but others find quite annoying.  The capital planet has a population of only 40 billion, but yet is covered with skyscrapers and filled with tunnels miles deep .  With the same area as Earth, 40 billion people would result in something more like a global suburb if spread evenly.  And some people find the whole idea of psychohistory annoyingly implausible – they often whine about “chaos theory”, as if that proves anything.)

So in conclusion, everyone reading this should definately read Foundation, at least the first three books that Asimov wrote (Foundation, Foundation and Empire, and Second Foundation).  It’s a classic work that can truly be all things to all people, or at least most things to most people.

 

Just a little good news

With the apocalyptic economic panic going around the media, I figure it’s time to be a contrarian.  Admittedly, we have huge structural economic problems (far larger than the average establishment source will admit) that go back at least to the 1970s if not earlier.  I will discuss my view of these in a later post.  But for now, think about this: The oldest baby boomers are now 63.  In 2 years, they will be 65.

Now, I’m sure you’re all thinking that I’ve gone nuts.  It’s true that this means higher Social Security and Medicare costs, perhaps a later retirement age eventually, the Grateful Dead being used to sell calcium supplements, hordes of pseudo-hip oldsters swarming down the streets in golf carts, etc….  But just as importantly, think about what it means for the job market.  Even if the labor market is stagnant, millions of old folks retiring means millions of job opportunities, just 2 years away.

Truman once said that he wanted to find a one-armed economist to advise him, so that the answer to every question could no longer be “on the one hand this, but on the other hand that”.  I think I’m starting to understand where the whole vagueness thing comes from.

 

Election Times: What does it mean?

So we just saw a Democratic landslide election, at least in comparision to the last few.  53% may not be a huge mandate, but when it comes along with control of the House and Senate… well, I would bet that the DNC is pretty happy.  Was this an “electoral realignment”?  There is a theory that either the right or the left holds sway over the U.S. government, and that there have been five realignments of this since the parties coalesced – 1824, 1860, 1896 (sort of, really just a compounding of corporate power), 1932, and… well, it is disputed, but I would say 1972 or 1980.

So was 2008 a recapturing of the government from the Republicans?  At first glance it was, but at first glance 1992 was as well.  To really decide, I think we have to go into more detail.  Economically (and I’m going to focus on economic issues here) I’d argue there are four main ideological currents in the United States.  They are as follows:

1. Feudalists/right-corporatist: This group seeks to use the government to enhance the wealth power of the already rich.  They are the heirs to the old feudalist/monarchist tradition.  This group includes (or has historically included) Southern planters, some though not all corporate elites, and some wealthy inheritors.

2. The Libertarian/limited government right: These are the original (19th century) liberals, who believe that government should leave the market alone.  They gain support from our tradition (partly real, but partly exaggeration) of “rugged individualism” and entrepreneurship.  Generally the position of small business (though some fit in groups #1 and #3) and middle-class/upper-middle-class people who just want to be left alone.

3. Left-corporatist: Don’t get me wrong here – I am not calling these people fascists (I leave that to Jonah Goldberg).  But the idea, beginning primarily with Theodore Roosevelt, that the state, the major corporations, and the workers can ally for the benefit of all the people does share some characteristics with Mussolini’s original scheme for society.  Our corporatism is far less dictatorial or militaristic (well, maybe TR fits the militaristic part) than that seen in ’30s Europe.  And it has had some real successes in the past.  This area is where many moderate democrats fall, unless they have more anarchistic/socialistic/libertarian leanings.  One can see its roots in the Whig Party, with its large-scale infrastructure building.

4. The Populist Left: This is where the socialists fit in, though they are very few in number.  Basically, this is the home of liberals who don’t trust the major corporations enough to want to work with them.  Agrarian populists fit here, and so does Ralph Nader.

Looking at our politics since 1860, one can see the struggles unfold.  At first, group #1 was split but maintained control over both parties (planter elites in the South, corporate elites in the North).  This situation was untenable, and more progressive forces began to break out.

During the Progressive area, both parties were split down the middle.  Groups #2, #3, and #4 allied behind politicians such as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson (though his foreign policy’s another story) to attempt to level the playing field.  But by the 1920s, a loose alliance of groups 1 and 2 was running things again.

The Great Depression shattered this coalition and allowed the ruling Democratic coalition of the 1930s through 1960s to arise.  During the more radical ’30s, group 4 held sway.  But as the economy stabilized and communism replaced fascism as people’s top foreign fear, group 3 settled into the ruling position.

This corporatism had many achievements (the moon landings, a 50% reduction in poverty rates, steady economic growth) but discontent was growing.  Small business was stifled by high taxes (48% corporate, up to 70% income (marginal) in the late 1960s) and business-government collusion.  The market had become rigid and the entrepreneurs of the future wore blocked from the highest levels by entrenched capital.

At the same time, the Baby Boomers were angry about elite control of society.  Their movement had many factions, ranging from John Birchers (probably group 1) to the SDS (way on the far end of 4), but its main thrust was to smash the existing power structure.  In the 1970s, as dissillusionment with government grew, group 2 took control, though elements of 3 and 4 still had some power.

The 1990s saw the election of a Democrat, but his coalition was only weakly center-left.  This can be seen in Clinton’s actions (welfare reform, budget-balancing, NAFTA), his quotes (“the era of big government is over”) and his foes (Ralph Nader’s strong showing in 2000).  The Clinton coalition was made up of groups 3 and 2 sharing power, with 4 playing a supporting role.

Meanwhile, the Republicans were moving to the right.  In the Bush Administration, we saw the government move towards supporting corporate power for its own sake – group 1 was coming back into the fold.  The Bush Administration was a coalition of groups 1, 2 and a portion of 3.

But in the end, over issues such as civil liberties, competence and corruption, all but group 1 abandoned the Bush Administration.  This, plus McCain’s shift to the right in the primaries, left McCain too weakly supported to win the election.

Obama was elected by groups 3 and 4 wholeheartedly, with some support from group 2.  So what will be his governing coalition?  There are really only 3 possibilities that I see:

1. New Great Society: Group 3 leads, group 4 follows.  This would infuriate small business and libertarians, but could recaputure the economic equality of the 1960s and 1970s.

2. New New Deal: Group 4 leads, group 3 follows.  This is the postion the old left hopes Obama will take – statist liberalism that opposes corporate power, too.

3. Left-Libertarianism: Group 4 leads, group 2 follows.  This is what people mean when they say they want Obama to be a “21st century president” (unless they are right-wing Clinton Democrats, in which case they probably want group 2 running the show).

In my view, alternative 3 is the best (and most likely).  It allows Obama to trust the market while still “spreading the wealth” (when did that become such an insult?).  It allows him to reject corporatist elitism and decentralize power.  This isn’t a center-right country, but it is a “get government out of my hair” kind of country – people want the state to do something, but they don’t want it to be everywhere.  By allying the left with small government advocates in a way tried by Clinton, but ensuring that liberals take the lead, Obama can bring the Democrats to ascendancy.

But to be honest, I’m just happy that the feudalists aren’t calling the shots anymore.  Obama ’08 – Yes We Did!

P.S.: I owe an intellectual debt to Ferdinand Lundberg for much of this – book discussion of his The Rich and the Super-Rich is coming soon.

 

One small step for mankind, one giant leap for this Luddite

     Hello to my theoretically vast but most likely tiny audience!  This blog has been founded as a forum for the discussion of politics and literature, and how they interact.  I’m coming to this discussion with these postulates:

1. Everything is political, but sometimes it’s unintentional: There is a political meaning to every book ever written.  It may not be the primary meaning, but it’s there if one digs deep enough.

2. The author is not dead: Authors have intentions when writing, and these intentions matter.  I am not a postmoderrnist (but if you are, please try to convince me of why I should be one)

3. Sometimes a kangaroo is just a kangaroo: Not everything in a book has to mean something.  Or maybe we can find our own interpretations, but the author just thought that a parkour fight scene between a talking kangaroo and Vladimir Lenin sounded awesome.  If you want to interpret it as a metaphor for the British incursion into Russia in 1918-19, that’s a fine interpretation that adds much to the depth of this bizarre fictional book I’m imagining but it may not be the author’s.  This is kind of my counterbalance to #2.

4. When I say “literature” I pretty much mean any book: short stories, science fiction, even non-fiction.  I should probably put “books” in the title instead, but alliteration always adds awesomeness to anything.

5. This is a forum: if y’all have book reccommendations or long, rambling posts of your own, go ahead and post ‘em in the comments.  Please refrain from gratutious profanity or overly personal attacks on myself or other posters.

Well, let’s get to it!