Are Philosophers Responsible?

Someone asked in an article, "Are Philosophers Responsible for Global Warming?"

This writer listed a few people who in the late 19th and early 20th century warned about the dangerous effects of burning fossil fuels on the environment. The writer thinks that those warnings should have been heeded earlier and concern for the environment should have been made instantly part of our cultural mindset. In other words, philosophers should have taken up the task of making the conversation about global warming sooner, like forcing the issue into the media and making it part of the educational curriculum years ago. If so, we could have avoided the environment problems we face today. The writer believes that since we didn't listen up and act earlier the environment today is suffering unnecessarily.

My response as to why the environment hadn't become an issue or a movement earlier is because humankind had other things on its mind, like still figuring out what it wanted to be, democratic or communist. Back then humankind was also still preoccupied in fighting wars. Humankind then was also too divided to come together to be concerned about the environment. Philosophers could have screamed at the top of their lungs about the problem but not enough people would have listened to make a difference. Moreover, people had not yet experienced enough about the environment to make a difference. In other words, a critical mass of concern had not yet developed back then for the environment to become a central issue.

Anyway, from that question I made up my own question. I wonder whether philosophers can be held responsible for our present economic crisis. Of course not, I say. However, perhaps they are responsible. Take, for instance, Milton Friedman. He was an economist. But he was also a philosopher. What made him a philosopher, as opposed to a scientist, is that he didn't deal with definite matter, although he liked to think so. He dealt with hypotheses, often speculating in intangibles and ideas. His hypotheses and ideas about economics became mainstream and the economic mantra of the last 30 years, a source of today's economic problems.

Friedman was very vocal about the virtues of free market and that government participation in it should be minimal. Governments all over the world took his philosophy to heart, implementing Friedman's free market principles all over the place, with major successes. His free market principles helped bring down communism, because they helped accentuated communism's failures.

However, the free market has caused us a lot of headaches recently. But was it the philosopher Friedman's fault that this crisis occurred, because actually, it can be argued, many of Friedman's ideas were manipulated and abused by others. It is a shame that he hadn't spoken up about the abuses that occurred in his name before he died in 2006. Why, his opposite number, John Galbraith, had railed for years about the excesses of the unfettered free market. But the majority of people chose not to listen to his philosophy about a possible economic catastrophe if governments didn't work to modify and temper the free market.

So every question has its dueling philosophers. Economics had Friedman and Galbraith. So in a sense you can't blame philosophers for anything. They offer us advice and possible scenarios, and try to help the rest of us figure things out. Philosophers don't make policy. Then, It is the policy makers and implementers who take philosopher's theories and ideas whom we should blame.

We are all responsible, in some way. Guilty by association!

Photograph

I am looking at what I consider a very striking and revealing photograph. Not only is it conceptually and aesthetically pleasing but it reminds me of events that caused untold financial damage. It’s a picture I took in New York City, in 1997, of two buildings that, it subsequently dawned on me, house two financial companies that are now notorious for losing billions of dollars for their clients. One of those firms is no longer in business because of the extent of its wrongdoing.

It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. This one certainly is because of what it also inadvertently represents. I took the picture while waiting for a bus. It's a photo of two imposing buildings juxtaposing one other, the Citigroup Center on Lexington Avenue and the so-called Lipstick Building on Third Avenue. (It was nicknamed the Lipstick because of its color and resemblance to a lipstick container.) The Citgroup building, in the foreground, stands about ten stories above the ground on four columns and a central core, creating an open space beneath it's towering fifty stories above. (In the photo I just captured two columns and the lighted underside of its fifty stories above.) The open space created by the columns acted like a window through which I could see the Lipstick Building behind. It’s really a striking composition of two contrasting architectural structures. I obviously was enamored with the view, hence my taking the picture, and for the fact that I like tall buildings. There is also a kind of irony about the picture in that it shows two very solid structures that housed two firms whose foundations later turned to sand.

As I said, what makes the photograph also noteworthy is that it captures two buildings that housed firms that were instrumental in bringing unprecedented financial turmoil, inflicting much pain on individuals and institutions that invested with them. The most notorious of the two companies is Madoff Securities which operated from the Lipstick Building. Bernie Madoff, its president, is now infamous, and in jail, for perpetrating the largest Ponzi, pyramid scheme in history. Citigroup is famous for being one of the largest participants in the subprime financial market, which contributed to an unprecedented real estate bubble that eventually exploded. What also sunk both firms is the ethos of the day, and that they got ensnared in exotic financial instruments and the extreme leveraging of capital that had been sweeping the financial markets.

In a sense I find it extraordinary and poignant that I have this picture of two of New York’s most famous and noted buildings, historically and architecturally. They are not only famous for their design and presence but for the two firms they housed, two firms that embodied much of the excesses of capitalism that eventually overwhelmed America, New York City and the world.

Traditionalism

I find it interesting that conservatives and traditionalists can accept Darwin's theory of evolution when it comes to free market economics but not when it comes to how humans and nature came to be.

But, then, there is a salient, striking hypocrisy in traditionalism. For instance, traditionalists are against abortion but then are willing to see growing children sink into an abyss because they weren't born on the 'right side of the tracks' or not onto a 'level playing field' like they were. (Basically, their thinking is that they are not one of us.) They aren't willing to help foster such children along with decent healthcare and education. To their way of thinking such children should be treated like business - survival of the fittest, which, ironically, is Darwinian logic.

Traditionalists believe in a Creator and creationism. But when it comes to free market economics they do not. But something had to create the market and nurture it along. Something had to create the environment in which it flourishes. Yes, something did, imaginative governing bodies and imaginative people. It has been a concerted, cooperative effort. But now that the economy is in crisis, traditionalists cannot abide such cooperation, insisting that government should deliberately let the market find its own level, despite the potentially universal destructive nature of the crisis. They don't want any interference from government, especially if it becomes mutually beneficial. Instead, they are willing to sacrifice everything and go back to how things were, in the 19th century, when the divide between rich and poor was providence, according to them.

These traditionalists don't think in terms of what can be beneficial to the whole. They don't understand that if you help give a leg up to society's weaker members you are enhancing the whole, as well as their own security. People who are denied a fair shake by traditionalist can become potential revolutionists and threatening, like they became in the 60's. People who felt excluded rioted and destroy cities and communities in those years, as traditionalist well remember but didn't seem to learn from.

Traditionalist, like fundamentals, would like to inject more religious dogma into government. We saw this attempted during the Bush administration. But with that imposition traditionalists would threaten the very nature of democracy. Democracy requires a bifurcation of authority, a secularism, a separation between Church and State, which even Thomas Jefferson said was essential so that no autocracy could take hold in America. Ironically, in their pressure to have more religious influence in government, traditionalist would been embarking on a road something akin to an Islamic state where there is no separation between Church and State, and no democracy. Such an attempt would push America back into a darker era.

How can traditionalists live with this kind of hypocrisy.

Pragmatism

I have noticed the word pragmatic in use more often recently. Perhaps that is because I have become more aware and interested in it. But I do think its usage has increased due to the difficult economic times we live in. It has been used to convey the idea that we should be patient and practical in how we approach these difficult times, that we should endeavor to seek practical and utilitarian solutions to our economic problems and not throw the baby out with the bath-water, so to speak. For instance, we shouldn’t be too hasty or heavy handed in dealing with the banks who caused the crisis, but instead take a balanced, practical approach so that we don’t further damage the industry out some sense of injustice or wanting revenge. Pragmatism is telling us that we should be cautious and realistic in how we deal with the financial institutions that failed us because, after all, we need them for our economic recovery.

Pragmatism is from the Greek meaning 'a doing' - action. However, pragmatism in today’s usage denotes more the sense of practicality than action. So how did pragmatism come to mean practicality from the original meaning of action? I think that the idea of practicality comes from one's experience, noting that one can’t have practice or experience without action or doing first.

It is not surprising that the philosophy of pragmatism emerged in first America, because from its start America was a nation of doers and plenty of activity. And when it came to governance, America’s government was the first to be openly active and engaged with its people, getting involved in nation and social building in a big way, through an active legal system and an educational curriculum that was relevant to the people. The first true experiment of democracy America embarked on could not have transpired without a sense of pragmatism, of compromise and cooperation among its founding members. This nation building and activism the American government and its people adopted certainly reflected the spirit of what the Greeks called pragma.

In "The Sociology of Philosophies" Randell Collins writes, "Pragmatism was the product of interaction between religious Idealism and the research sciences fostered by American university reform". (The university reform was provoked and by the new and appealing evolutionary theory of Darwin.) From this one can conclude that pragmatism was born as a means of bridging the growing divide between those who chose to remain religious - traditionalists, and those who chose to believe in evolution and science - modernists. To this day America remains a divided country, where a majority still don't believe in evolution. However, America's philosophy, pragmatism, is a philosophy of compromise and reconciliation. It is a philosophy that puts theory into practice - walks the talk, becoming an operational philosophy as John Dewy believed philosophy should be. Through deeds and action, this philosophy cultivated a middle, practical ground in law and education.

If pragmatism hadn't been invented America may have been torn apart by its contradictory camps of traditionalists and modernists, as it was by the Civil War. Instead, pragmatism laid the common ground on which differences could coexist. Ironically, the philosophy of pragmatism began to take root after the Civil War, perhaps as a spirited means of healing the rift that was exposed by the war. With pragmatism America invented its own truth, that people from all walks of life and beliefs can live together - a rationale that had never been tested before in human governance. And to this day that truth still binds together people who are not always like-minded. Pragmatism, in how it traverse the divide, is what makes the illusion of equality a reality.

Rude awakening.

"Anyone who believes that politicians can do a better job constructing a healthy economy than the people they want to replace or manipulate in the financial world is in for a very rude awakening.”

That opinion was directed at the Obama administration, which is using government people and resources to fix the sick American economy. Our commentator also mentioned a ‘rude awakening’, which seems to be misplaced.

Today’s politicians, let alone the Obama administration, don’t and didn’t want the responsibility of constructing a healthy economy. That job belongs to the people because they are recognized as the best capable in doing it. The Obama team just wants to reestablish the environment in which ordinary people will themselves recreate a healthy economy, by bringing back trust and confidence to the system, and by reinvigorating the banking system that insiders destroyed. Throughout American history it has been government that has initially established the favorable circumstances, and common sense, in which a healthy economy can grow and flourish. There is no exception this time around and the Obama team recognizes its responsibility.

I was inspired to write this piece not only by the quote above but because of a book written by Felix Rohatyn: “Bold Endeavors: How Our Government Built America, and Why It Must Build Now”. Mr. Rohatyn is the former investment banker who helped rescue New York City from bankruptcy in the 1970’s, with the help of government aid. History knows that NYC recovered and paid back the government loans. From that government help, NYC went on to be better than ever. Nobody wanted to think what NYC could have become if it hadn’t gotten government assistance.

In his book Mr. Rohatyn also mentioned other great endeavors the government instigated over the years that expanded America’s economic vitality and prowess, projects that no single private corporation could have imagined or was willing to take on. There was the building of the Erie Canal, the Louisiana Purchase, the building of the Panama Canal, the government facilitation of the transcontinental railway, support for the Interstate highway system, NASA and the GI Bill. The government also laid the groundwork for today’s communication system and the Internet. In most cases the institutions the government inspired eventually were privatized. And let’s not forget the security government affords us so that we can go about doing our business.

I am thinking of Reaganomics, which virtually laid the groundwork for today’s economic fiasco, with it supply-side economics. It started the ball rolling towards the excesses that now hobble the economy. Reagan used to say, sardonically, that government was the problem. Ironically, though, he was correct because his hands-off, lax governing style, a style that gained acceptance over the years, was in part responsible for the events of today, the economic culture of imbalances and excesses that brought America to its knees. Rightly so, then, government is the problem if it neglects its governing and oversight duties.

Our commentator is right about one thing, about a rude awakening descending on us. But the rude awakening is courtesy of the last administration and not this one as suggested. This awakening, delivered via the Bush&Co, finally convinced the American people the importance of government and what negligence of duty on behalf of it can do to help destroy an economy. This rude awakening has also shown the America people that unfettered capitalism is, in the long run, a dangerous and destructive force. Now, it is only government that can pick up the pieces because it is, like most times, the savior of last resort.

It seems difficult for some people to understand that the economy is a concerted effort between two sectors, private and public. However, those sectors should remain autonomous from each other for best results. Unfortunately both sectors became a bit too chummy with each other over the years, effecting the economy’s honesty and efficiency. What the present administration is attempting to do is go back to when things worked better. However, because of the big mess the economy is in it is going to take a lot of aid and upheaval to do it, something some people are having difficulty accepting.

Capitalists always want governments to keep out of the way, especially in good times. But when things truly get rough, guess who they go to, crying cap in hand? Government! Government is the savior of last resort. And that, as Al Gore would say, is an inconvenient truth.

"Will things get worse?"

It bothers me that people think that the economic mess we are in is fueled by negative thinking on the part of the media and consumers. It follows that if we think this way the economy will naturally get worse and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. However, the argument goes, if we begin to think positively things will improve. To my way of thinking nothing could be further from the truth.

Recently an article in The Toronto Star argued such a point, that it's our collective negativity that is causing economic pain and making a recession a self-fulfilling prophecy. Its author is David Olive. Here is my response to his argument, which the paper published, edited of course:

David Olive overlooked today's precarious economic fundamentals, particularly in banking. Never have we seen such a calamity in banking caused by financial instruments that took on a life of their own. Derivatives have become contagions, so unpredictable that financial markets are frozen, continually waiting for the next shoe to drop.

Because of this there has been a lack of liquidity due to a lack of trust and confidence between financial institutions. And banks became over-leveraged to a point that became unsustainable. This was eventually exposed by the real estate bubble those financial institutions happily enabled.

Never have we seen large corporations like GM, Citigroup and GE, the backbone of the U.S. economy, in such dire straits. This alone is creating a "self-fulfilling prophecy."

At the root of the problem is excess – from over production to over capacity. There were too many stores, too many buildings, too many car producers. Eventually the economy became saturated; people could only buy and absorb so much.

Supply-side economics – "If you build it they will come" – got too far ahead of itself. Perhaps if money hadn't been so cheap this would not have happened.

Will things get worse? Most likely. But because of economic fundamentals that still need fixing, not people's misdirected psychology.

Bush the conservative

Somebody was wondering why people insist on calling Bush a conservative when he really didn't behave like a conservative while in office. For instance, if he really were a conservative he wouldn't have increased the size of government or its budget deficit as he did. True conservatives believe in small government and manageable budgets.

Well, George Bush declared himself a conservative, a passionate conservative at that, and we took him at his word. Many of his foreign policy decisions were conservative in comparison to the previous liberal-progressive administration of Bill Clinton. Bush’s core beliefs, notwithstanding, were conservative, especially in foreign policy, social issues and labor relations. His hands-off approach to his government’s rebuilding New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina was a typical conservative response. Another truly conservative position he took was his laissez-faire, unfettered one to capitalism.

What also made Bush conservative, although not exclusively, was his reliance on religion, faith and ideology. He stuck to those beliefs at the expense of empiricism and pragmatism, the true ways of America. However, over the years he may have lost his conservative streak due to the quagmires he got himself into, like the war on terror and the economy, that necessitated he release himself from the yoke of conservatism. Ironically, he more than most presidents socialized the American economy due to the blunders his administration committed. For instance, at the end of his term he had to enact socialistic policies to rescue the economy.

I think the main reason why conservatives can never truly remain conservative in their policies is because the world and reality tugs in a different direction – towards liberalism. The thing is, in their attempts to remain conservative conservatives make things worse, as Bush did. If only they could learn to be more balanced and pragmatic.

Bush relied on faith at the expense of experience. There is nothing wrong with religion and prayer. However, Bush often used religion and his faith to make policy decisions, which led to bad decisions. Because of his religion and faith he ignored science and its development, which could have help the economy. Because of a religious faith he blundered in the Middle East. It is the way Bush used religion that made him conservative, with his fundamental and absolutist beliefs. He is a creationist and doesn’t believe in evolution.

Another reason I think Bush was basically conservative in his presidency is because he thought simply and narrowly, a hallmark of conservatism. He himself said he didn’t nuance. Conservatives don’t do nuance. They think in black and white. He thought and talked like that when he mentioned good and evil and ‘either you are with us or against us’. Liberals don’t talk that way. Had he done some nuancing during his tenure perhaps the economy wouldn't be in such bad shape.

A major reason, and by no means the only reason, why the American financial system is in such distress is because of the collusion that was allowed to develop between the rating and regulatory agencies, both private and public, and the industries they were supposed to monitor. A monopolistic, crony system was allowed to develop between sectors that were supposed to be autonomous. For instance, government agencies that were designed to protect the people’s economic interests were instead working to enhance corporate interests.

One thing that has made democracy and capitalism a success is the bifurcation of authority and

an arms length relationships between sectors. During the Bush administration the bifurcation needed to prevent collusion and corruption was allowed to deteriorate between financial sectors, hence the economic and financial mess we are in to day. So I was thinking, America could have been in a far worst mess in its governance if conservatives like Bush were allowed to undermine the separation between Church and State as they wanted to do. That could have endangered American secularism, a stalwart of democracy. If that had occurred America might have become a theocratic state like may in the Muslim world.

On a related matter, I heard some good news. The King of Saudi Arabia has picked the first woman to be on the governing council of that Islamic nation. That is a ‘liberal’ act done by a very conservative regime. I am thinking that in doing this the King was bowing to the liberal currents that are churning in the world. And he knows that if his kingdom wants to keep up with the modern world it has to change and become more flexible and accommodating.

The Bush Legacy

A lot of people think that the financial crisis America faces today started before Bush, that the seeds of it were sown years ago. There is some truth to that. But really, it took on life after 9/11 when Bush told Americans to go shopping and spend, and make happy, because otherwise "the terrorists will have won". Allen Greenspan obliged by making credit as cheap as possible, enabling the subprime and the financial derivatives that are sinking America today.

The terrorists of 9/11 were hoping to disrupt and upend the American way of life, as America, in the terrorist's view, had disrupted and upended the Islamic world. Well, in a way the terrorist have won because of the financial turmoil the US is in today. With Americans heeding Bush's words after 9/11 they went out on a spending spree, jeopardizing the country with a massive debt and the worst economic crisis since the Depression. (That spending spree created unsustainable 'supply-side' economics, with too much capacity.) The terrorist couldn't have hoped for a better calamity to strike the US.

Also, the terrorists managed to draw Bush&Co. into two wars that have caused a financial burden that has put the US at further risk of loosing its status as the mainstay of the world. And it didn't helped that Bush didn't ask American's to sacrifice anything for the war effort.

But on reflection, Bush did get Americans to sacrifice for the war on terror, more than he could have imagined, by putting them and the country into hawk for years to come.

Perhaps Bush already has dementia, thinking that history will be kind to him by giving him a decent legacy.

Media bias?

I just read an article entitled "The Year of living Gloomily". It was about the media’s economic reporting over the past year. Its author thinks that in reporting on the economy the media has taken a bias, gloomy outlook. He thinks that the media’s gloomy reporting has made the economy worse and that its bias has led to a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words, if the media had been more upbeat in it’s reporting the economy wouldn’t be as bad as it is.

The argument is that bad, gloomy news sells. In general that is the case. Ironically, though, the media’s so-called bias and gloomy economic reporting may have also hurt it. The bad economic conditions that are going around have also affected the profitability of the news media, with news services cutting staff dramatically to stay in business or going bankrupt. So one would wonder, why would the news media deliberately sound gloomy on the economy if they were also the ones to be affected by such gloom? It sounds like the media is ‘cutting off its nose to spite its face’.

It seems the media can't win. The author is not saying that in it’s reporting the media helped create the economic panic or turmoil we face today. But by sounding negative about it he suggested that the media has compounded the problem. However, a similar argument about the media can be made at the other end: it helped drive up economy activity, to such dizzying heights that it helped created the economic bubble of investment that now has burst, spraying us with the toxic financial fallout we face today. As the economy was going up the media fed us stories that made us feel like losers if we didn't participate in it. Media hype drove speculation in the stock market, housing and other commodities. Wasn't the media equally bias when it failed to report more thoroughly on the abuses that were being perpetrated in the name of free enterprise?

Why would the media want to make the economy worse? The media and the press are supposed to report facts. If companies are having business problems and going bankrupt it is the duty of the media to tell us about it, not hide it from us or gloss it over. Likewise, if people are loosing their jobs or having problems paying their bills it should be reported. Under those circumstances, if the media choose instead to report that the economy was doing fine it would be negligent in its duty and be postponing the inevitable, and make things worse. That kind of gloss-over reporting was done in the Soviet Union, where the press was intimidated and manipulated by autocrats. That media manipulation and cover-up of a bad economy is what eventually led to the Soviet Empire’s collapse.

As I read this article I thought of Marshall McLuhan, the famous Canadian sociologist that studied the media. His most famous pronouncement and subsequent book title was "The Media is the Message". As the dictionary describes him, "He holds that the chief technology of communications in a society has a determining effect on everything important in that society, even the thought process of individuals".

I wonder how McLuhan would have reacted to this article about media bias? If the media is the message as he said it is, then, isn’t the bias of the media as much a part of it? Often the media is accused of having a liberal bias. So that should mean that being liberal is the media. In a free society the media is liberal, inherently so because if it wasn't it wouldn’t lead to a ‘free press’. If the media were anything else but liberal it would then be a suppressed and hamstrung one like it was in the Soviet Union. An open, democratic society must think liberal to be so. In its liberal bias the media, in the way of McLean’s thinking, works to reinforce that in the thought process of individuals.

Whether the media is considered leaning in one direction or another is not the point. Whichever way the media leans it is still getting out a message. In its recent ‘bias’ the media has been working to get the message out that the economy is in terrible shape. If it didn’t take that so-called bias stance, in a comprehensive way, people would not pay the necessary attention and alter their ways. People all across the board have been consuming far more than they have been producing. It’s time to pay the piper. Now, if the press didn’t take issue with that and exaggerate the point, in a bias way, people would not pay attention.

In other words, the press must act in a bias manner so as to get the message out, a message that would otherwise go unheeded, allowing for worse things to happen in the future. The media's job in bad times is to whip up a frenzy so as to get people to act before it's to late and alter their course. If people were more rational and acted more prudently from the beginning then the media would not have to act in such a bias, perverse manner, so as to motivate people to change their destructive ways, before it's to late.

Nature of Revolution

We were discussing two schools of philosophy, analytical and continental. In Europe, during the early part of the 20th century, they were quite influential. Analytical philosophers tended to be socialists and continentals Marxist or communists.

The discussion got me thinking about the Frankfurt School (founded 1923), a philosophical, sociological movement populated by neo-Marxists. I was thinking, then, that it was a movement of continental philosophers. The philosophy behind the school was based on the idea that a radical change in human governance could cure the ills of modern society. Its philosophy was also based on Hegel’s dialectical theory that perpetual change is essential to keep societies and civilization ‘alive’ and ‘awake’, from stagnating and atrophying. It was Hegel who introduced Marxists to the dialectic, the intellectual, materialistic engine of social change and reform on which the School was based.

The critical theory behind the school was Theodor Adorno’s combination of Marx and Freud. It was base on the idea that the politics of society should be grass roots, determined by the people and not by some hierarchal authority, like in the past. One cofounder of the school, Max Horkheimer wondered who would replace the proletariat as the social agent of revolution. Obviously it was a concern that the proletariat would not always be the cutting edge revolutionists of traditional Marxist thinking. Another member, Herbert Marcuse, gave the answer, that “a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women, homosexuals and other socially marginal elements” would carry on inciting political reform. How right he was. But one revolutionary agent Marcuse overlooked was consumers, whose demands would revolutionize societies more than any other. But, then, consumerism was probably the last thing on their minds and far too hedonistic for the Frankfurt School’s communist sensibilities.

The revolutionary agents Marcuse listed are the revolutionists of liberal democracies. They have been the ones who have kept liberal democracy open, progressive and socially just. These revolutionists, along with their proletariat counterparts, have also been the revolutionists that have transformed authoritarian regimes on their way to becoming open societies. They are the ones who are demanding and causing change in countries like China. The revolutionists that Marcuse listed are the ones who also have transformed American society since the 1950’s, through the civil rights movement, feminism, gay rights and now the environmental movement. The revolutionists for civil rights were the ones who changed America's political landscape sufficiently enough to made the election of Barack Obama possible

I came across BJ Fogg. He is considered a guru. He thinks that technology will be behind the next social revolution. He pointed to Facebook as a demonstration of how powerful it will be. I guess he means that it is changing social attitudes and opening up new avenues of discourse and communications.

Technology is another great agent of social revolution that Marcuse might have mentioned. Technology has been an agent of social revolution ever since the invention of wheel or the printing press. More recently, thought, television, the precursor of the Internet and Facebook, has been the big agent of social revolution. For instance, I don’t think racism in America could have been fought it if it wasn’t for television and the mass message it produced and dispensed. Besides the message, television also created the mass audience to absorb that message, that racism is un-American. It gave Martin Luther King and others the platform to argue against it and convince American’s that it was unjust. Television helped cultivate the political and social pressure that would eventually dislodge racism as an American way of life.

I mention consumerism as an agent of social revolution. It is the agent of social revolution least thought of. But consumerism has changed and transformed societies more than any other. It laid the foundation in the late 19th and 20th century for women to get the vote. As the earliest mass consumers and chief purchaser for the family household, women acquired a lot of influence and respect from merchants. With that respect they wheeled a certain amount of power in the community. Why, then, shouldn’t they get the same respect from their husband’s and government and be granted the vote. They used their position as consumers and providers of the household as leverage, through protests and strikes, to get the vote. And eventually they did. Consumerism is also eroding the authoritarian government in China. As consumerism grows in China the authorities are listing more to the demands of the people because their increasing numbers is putting pressure on authority to change. With consumerism people become more aware of their choices and rights. And China is realizing that to keep social order and stability the government has to respond ever more to the consumer demands of its people, materially and legally.

In the past revolutions were violent and cause a lot of death and destruction, like the French and Russian Revolutions did. Those revolutions occurred because societies were intransigent and would not change, and the hierarchal structures of governance would not budge or give more power to the people. However, civilization cannot afford to endure those kinds of revolutions anymore because they were too violent and destructive. Nevertheless, society still has to go through the process of some sort of revolutionary change in order to be invigorated and renew itself. So History had to devise a more acceptable means of revolution that would allow modern societies to continue without being totally upended or disrupted. It would be instead a sort of benign revolution based on the nonviolent agents mentioned above.

In the 1960s Canada had a revolution that changed the governance and organization of the country. It pitted Canada’s two founding cultures against each other. It was a Hegelian revolution, a revolution of ideas that didn’t insight the violence that could have torn the country apart. The prime minister of the time, Pierre Trudeau, sagely observed that Canada was going through a ‘silent revolution’ because its occurrence was difficult to discern. That is the kind of social revolution we are mostly facing today, stealth like, occurring through the modifying agents mentioned by the Frankfurt School, and the ones it didn’t, technology and consumerism.

A reason for the crisis

The guess is that the financial crisis and economic downturn wont go away any time soon. The consensus is that it will take several years to undo itself.

There are several reason why this crisis occurred, most of them listed before. But one that is never or hardly mentioned is the fact that the economies of the world have overproduced and there is to much stuff out there. The excess and oversupply will take time to be consumed and dealt with. This is a worry Marx had about capitalism, a natural penchant for producing and producing. Marx thought that at some point it would produce too much. Well, the world has. Perhaps there is just to much capitalism occurring in the world.

I think a classic example of overproduction is Dubai. Who is going to occupy all the real estate developed there? It is a place that is competing for the same business and entertainment dollar that a number of other centers around the world are. There just isn't enough consumers in the world to soak all this up. Someone once said, if you build it they will come. However, there is no yet enough prosperity around to absorb the offerings of Dubai and the numerous place like it.

Socialism

George Will, a columnist for the Washington Post, is a conservative, a Republican and is against socialism. He hates socialism like every good American conservative does. The other day he wrote an article in which he sounded very exasperated because no matter who was in power in Washington, be it Republicans or Democrats, Government kept getting bigger and more socialistic. Perhaps he hasn’t been reading the tea-leafs, but maybe socialism is the wave of the future. His article was entitled “‘Socialism’? It’s Already Here”.

When Bill Clinton was president he reformed social welfare and famously declared that era of big government over, then proceed to balance the budget and leave a surplus for the next administration. During his administration America was fairly solid in capitalism’s corner. And George Bush, the next president, reinforced those values by declaring himself a fiscal conservative who promised to keep government small. Ironically, though, it was Bush’s ‘supposedly’ conservative administration that pushed socialism to new heights. If Bush, who George Will enthusiastically supported, and his administration had been better managers, administrators and overseers most likely the creeping socialism America is experiencing today would not be occurring. Bush&Co.'s socialism is manifested in the mass financial bailout and ‘nationalization’ his administration has had to institute to rescue the failing U.S. economy.

In the Guardian Naomi Klein wrote and op-ed piece entitled “The Bush gang’s parting gift: a final looting of the public wealth”. What she was saying is that the bailout money Bush&Co. is spending in combating America’s financial crisis is going to its friends and cronies. Klein mentions that other rulers throughout history, before leaving office, had similarly raided the treasury to distribute money among their friends and supporters. In Klein’s eyes it appears that Bush was doing the same thing. A part of me thinks that perhaps Bush created the financial crisis for that very purpose, so he’d have an excuse to raid the lauder and distribute its goodies to his friends, the people on Wall St., before leaving office. I had a similar thought about 9/11, that Bush let it happen (he was warned about its possibility but ignored it) so he‘d have an excuse to invade Iraq.

There is no doubt in my mind that Bush&Co. is responsible for the financial crisis America and the rest of the world is facing today. It is not that they are responsible for everything that caused it or everything that has gone wrong. To be fair, the seeds of its potentiality were sown over many years, prior to Bush. But it is Bush&Co’s philosophy of unfettered markets and lack of oversight and discipline that pushed it over the top. What compounded the crisis further were Bush’s tax cuts, while simultaneously having a war that dangerously ballooned the deficit. It was all unsustainable. Bush&Co. also conveniently neglected, out of ideological zealousness, the rules and regulations that had developed over years to protect capitalism from its worst excesses. Elliot Spitzer, the former attorney general and governor of New York State, recently wrote an article in The Post on exactly that point. As state attorney general he and the other 49 US state attorney generals wanted to enforce laws to stop the predatory lending practices that were fueled the housing bubble and creating the subprime debacle, which eventually cause the financial crisis. However, they were blocked by Bush&Co. with a little know federal law, from the Civil War era, that was designed for the purpose of blocking states from acting on their own. And this, from a conservative administration that once said it would adhere to the Constitution and not interfere with state rights.

I am surprised that I haven’t heard any conspiracy theories about the financial crisis like those made after 9/11. If I was a conspiracy theorist I might thing Bush&Co created the crisis on purpose, to spread it around the world in order to bring the world to heal and under its influence again because for years America had been losing ground as the financial hub of the world. Until London has been gaining as a money center and much of the world, due to globalization, was bypassing New York as a financial deal maker. I’m thinking that Bush&Co. was also concerned about China and the rich oil producing states, awash in American dollars, that they would use those dollars as a weapon to destabilize and diminish American’s position it the world. My conspiracy mind is thinking that Bush&Co. wanted to preempt those forces that were nibbling at America’s financial prowess by creating a financial contagion, which would leave the rest of the world at the mercy of US and its bailout cure.

There are always unintended consequences, as Margaret Thatcher once pointed out. The unintended consequence Bush&Co. didn’t foresee is that with its financial bailout it was going against its own philosophy, its ideological practice of none interference and leaving markets to their own devises. And all this due to the fact that it acted recklessly and incompetently in economic matters earlier. And with its solutions it fell into the trap of employing the socialistic tactics it abhorred to help resolve the crisis and the contagion it created. Also, in acting this way, in a socialistic manner, with government intervention, America was now moving more in line with the rest of the world, something that sends shudders up the spine of conservatives like George Will. Furthermore, because of this economic crisis Bush&Co. lost political power – the White House, Congress, and demoralized its own Republican Party.

Vacation

This year we took our summer vacation on board The Queen Victoria, the newest cruise ship in the Cunard line. We boarded her in Venice after spending a night there in a wonderful little hotel in the district across the canal from St. Mark’s Square, near the Peggy Guggenheim Museum. From there we began our cruise of the Mediterranean, which was going to conclude in Barcelona after making several stops along the way, which include Istanbul, Massina, the Tuscan region and Marseilles.

We departed from Venice via one of its major canals. It was very impressive to be thirteen stories high on board ship as we floated through the city, looking down on it. I am sure there is no experience like it anywhere, traveling through a city on a massive ship to get out to sea.

Our first stop after leaving Venice was Dubrovnik on the Dalmatian coast, where the breed of dog with the same name comes from. Dubrovnik is in Croatia, which used to be part of Yugoslavia. Croatia declared independence in 1990, an independence that was instantly recognized by most of world. After it declared independence, though, war broke out, started by the Serbs, who wanted to keep Croatia in the Yugoslav Federation. As our tour guide explained, up until the bombing of Dubrovnik the world hadn’t paid much attention to the war there. What got the world’s attention was Dubrovnik’s designation as a world heritage sight. It was pressure from the rest of the world, which didn’t want to loose this gem on the Adriatic, that eventually stopped its total destruction. Our guide also explained that a major reason for Serbia wanting to keep Croatia in the Federation is that without it Serbia would be landlocked and have no access to the Adriatic Sea. So it was also of economic importance that Serbia keep Croatia within Yugoslavian. Dubrovnik was badly damaged from the bombing but now it is mostly restored. However, even thought it was full of tourists while we were there, with several cruise ships in port, tourism still hasn’t reached its pre-war levels.

We took a coach from Dubrovnik to a country inn where we had a wonderful lunch. On the trip back to the ship our guide said she hoped that we had a wonderful time in her country and hoped that one day we would come back. However, she wished that tourists would also come at other times so as to spread the tourism throughout the year in order to keep people more evenly employed. Tourism there is mostly concentrated over a few months in the summer. One day, for example, our guide told us, twelve cruise ships were in port at once. The place was pandemonium.

From Dubrovnik we sailed into Greek waters, visiting the islands of Katakolon and Mykonos. The islands were hot and full of tourists and merchants trying to sell them stuff. It was quite a sight to see our huge ship docked beside these islands. From there we went on to Istanbul.

It was very impressive sailing up the Bosporus into Istanbul, seeing from our balcony the “Eye of Sophia” and the “Blue Mosque”. After disembarking we met our friend who took us to both those sights and then on a tram ride to the famous Bazaar, where we bought three rugs. Here too it was very hot. But I was very impressed with the modern, articulated trams we rode on, which, although they were always crowded, were comfortable and air-conditioned. We also took a few cabs. I was impressed with the roads and how well the traffic flowed. Later, before boarding the ship, we had tea in a very swank hotel that once used to be a palace, which had fallen into disrepair. Our friend told us that Istanbul has become quite a destination for conventions from around the world. That kind of tourism has enabled the restoration of building like the former palace we had tea in.

From Istanbul we went to Messina, Sicily, where we took a bus tour to a beautiful town in the hills. From there we went on to Rome, where we spent most of the day, seeing such sites as the Coliseum and the Vatican. From there we sailed off to Tuscany. Tuscany was everything one would imagine, from its rolling hills, vineyards, unbelievable villages and beautiful food. Our next stop was Marseilles, from where we took a bus to Ariel where Van Gogh lived, pained and died. The interesting think about Ariel is that it didn't own any paints of the great artist. Barcelona was our port of disembarkation There we visited the famous Gaudi Cathedral, which is still under construction. We spent a pleasant day and night in Barcelona before flying home.

On board ship we had some wonderful meals. I think it was the best food we ever had on a cruise, though I found the coffee disappointing. This was our tenth cruise. We also met some interesting people on board, like always. And like on most cruises we’ve been on the majority of the passengers were Americans. But this time there seemed to more nationalities on board.

While we were on board ship the summer Olympics was happening. And as I noticed, our travels this past summer took us to three cities that once hosted the Olympics, Rome, Munich and Barcelona. Munich was where we change flights, on our way to Venice and on our way back home. And as I recall, we were also on water when the 1992 Olympics happened. That year we went barging on a canal in England. But our first cruise occurred during the Atlanta Olympics in 1996. That year we went to Alaska from Vancouver.

We were fortunate, like on most of our cruises. The weather everywhere was great. And our air journeys went smoothly.

Bush Legacy

Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are two corporations that were established by the American government under FDR to make loans to ordinary people so that they could buy homes. They were made necessary because other lenders were often reluctant to make loans to low income and first-time homebuyers. They were established to help fulfill the America dream of being an ownership society. But lately they have been in the news because of the financial meltdown brought on by the bursting of the housing 'bubble' in the US. These two corporations were seriously ensnared in it and have subsequently been nationalized and propped up with taxpayers’ money, because they were unable to survive on their own. I understand, though, that George Bush wanted to reform these institutions in 2006 but was prevent by a Democratic Congress.

Yes, Bush was stopped from reforming Fannie and Freddie. But how serious was he about reforming them? He put party cronies in charge to run those agencies. They were Bush loyalist, but poor administrators, a norm for his administration. This kind of cronyism set the tone for further financial calamities during his term.

Perhaps I don't have it quite right. Kevin Hassett of Bloomberge.com News wrote how the Democrats created the financial crisis by not supporting reform legislation for Fannie and Freddy. But his analysis sounded a bit like a parable that evokes the-barn-door-being-closed-after-the-horse-has-left. Even Kevin Phillips, author of “Bad Money’”, who is more knowledgeable about the origins of the present financial crises, doesn’t make such an indictment. He spreads the blame on many decisions and events, while Hassett’s explanation is just too pat and simple. The Democrats, in voting against reform for Fannie and Freddy, probably did exacerbate the problem, like many other decisions before. But Democrats alone didn’t create the problem. No, the seeds of this financial crisis were sown by many players over many years.

Phillips is a Republican. He foretold the rise of conservatism in America. But in his laying blame for the financial crisis he doesn’t make it a partisan witch hunt, like Hassett does, who is quite partisan and narrow in his criticism and finger pointing. 

If Bush really had wanted to reform those agencies he would have put reformers in charge, to reform things from inside. Instead he gave the jobs to party loyalists. Under those circumstances it's lucky Bush was stopped from reforming and privatizing Social Security, as he desperately wanted to. Image what an additional catastrophe it would have been if Social Security were connected to the performance of the stock market, as Bush wanted?

In a way I think it is fitting that George Bush is ending his tenure on this note, with one of the greatest financial debacles in American history. It is the crowning achievement for his abysmal presidency. Sadly, though, there's still time for him to screw things up.

I wish Milton Friedman were alive today to comment on recent events because of the free marketeer that he was. I am glade the financial meltdown occurred because it has helped put an end to a fallacy that Friedman supported, that the free market is the be-all and end-all. It also puts an end to the Reagan fallacy that government is the problem and not the solution. If one makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy as Bush did, with his neglect and incompetence as a manager, then government is the problem.

It is ironic that Bush was the first president with a MBA (Master of Business Administration). Just goes to show you that strictly MBA holders are not always the smartest people in the room. In Bush's case a MBA was a very hollow achievement, like most of his achievements. He should have also educated himself in other areas, like history and geography.

In the last few months Bush has been looking shell-shocked, like he did after 9/11. It's good that he has recruited grown-ups to look after this crisis, people who are trying to clean up the financial mess he helped create by not enforcing the financial regulations that were on the books.

Thanks to George Bush and his brand of conservatism America has become less influential in the world, and less relevant. When Bush started his presidency I sensed that he would drive America and the world into a state of despair. Low and behold he has. He said he was a uniter, not a divider. However, in most of his dealings he has been a divider and a very divisive president. Ironically, though, this one time, with the financial crisis he helped create, he has united not only America in economic pain but also the world.

When the reality of financial crisis was really beginning to become apparent it is said that Washington DC took on the feeling of a wartime capital, like it did after 9/11, because legislators were feeling shell-shocked by the magnitude and cost of the financial mess America was in. I found this interesting because of Bush's self-proclamation that he was a War President, fighting a ‘war on terror’. But he didn't expect to be this kind of war president, fighting a financial war. However, most of the time as War President, in both cases, he has acted like Don Quixote, tilting-at-windmills.

World Philosophy Congress

This past week the 22nd World Philosophy Congress opened in Seoul, South Korea. It happens every five years. The last one occurred in Istanbul and the one before in Boston.

I first learned of the World Philosophy Congress from an article in The New York Times, about the one in Boston in 1998. It had been held in Boston before, in 1926, one of the few occasions it had taken place outside Europe. For some reason The New York Times article choose to call the event The World Philosophy Congress but its correct title is the World Congress of Philosophy. The first congress took place in Paris in 1900. Today, since 1948, the event takes place under the auspices of UNESO, a United Nations agency, and the International Federation of Philosophical Societies.

Out of curiosity I looked up the history of the WCP to fine out who or how it started. I found nothing about its origin. But I was thinking that since the first one was held in Paris four years after the first modern Olympics were held in Paris there was a connection between the two events, seeing that first Olympics occurred in Greece as did the first philosophizing. It is also casually interesting that Athens bid to host the WCP in 2008, hoping to take it back to the home of Philosophy, but lost out to Seoul. Perhaps it will be announced in Seoul that Athens will get it next. (Seoul held the Olympics in 1988.)

The get-together that took place in Boston was the last one of the 20th century. The theme at that congress was "philosophy educating humanity" and the single question under discussion, appropriately, was "What have we learned from philosophy in the 20th century". (The theme in Seoul was "rethinking philosophy today" and in Istanbul "philosophy facing world problems".) Surprisingly nobody answered the question, some avoided it by talking about 'truth' instead and others got hung-up on the meaning of 'we'.

That kind of behavior is what gives philosophy a bad name among ordinary people and why so many considered it unimportant in the goings on of human affairs. And that's what Julian Baggini of the Guardian, who was covering the WCP opening in Seoul, was saying in an article. He suggested that anybody with a PhD who wants to get a job should keep quite about it. However he defended philosophy. He says that although philosophy is generally consider unimportant in culture, nonetheless, it is all over the place, in thinktanks, politics, science, journalism and ethic committees.

In that case, since philosophy has mostly been hidden from the public in other professions, then there must be things we have learned from it without knowing. What is philosophy about anyways? It is about talking things out and putting theories into practice. If that is the case we have learned a lot from philosophy in the 20th century, in subtle ways. We entrench human rights through philosophical discussion. Einstein philosophizing gave us a better understanding of the universe and physics. Freud philosophizing probed the human psyche so that we could understand ourselves and become better functioning human beings. Philosophical discussions have expanded our minds and made us more tolerant and worldly. And philosophizing about the advantages of democracy has facilitated its expansion around the world.

That reminded me of a question somebody asked: "What could Freud have to do with sustaining democracy?" It was explained like this: "If you're going to ask people to govern themselves then it's important that they know themselves. It is not only the leaders who, in a democracy, need a Freudian awareness of the dark side of the psyche. All men and women should comprehend their proclivities for destruction and self-idealization in order to make the best informed choices."

The World Congress of Philosophy may be to some a waste of time. However it is another means of inoculating the world from future conflicts, by just getting people to know each other better and to discuss their differences. Governments have not always been that good at healing the world's problems. So it’s good to see non-government agencies like the WCP taking up the slack and making a difference, by making people talk to each other and in the process become more conscious of the world's needs and aspirations.

Book reivews

I am reading three books simultaneously. One about Galileo, one about Samuel Johnson, the author of the first comprehensive English dictionary, and the third is called "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria.

I first started reading the book about Johnson called 'Defining The World: The Extraordinary Story of Dr. Johnson's Dictionary" by Henry Hitchings. The chapters in this book were headed with English words, followed by the definition Johnson gave them. The one revelation in the book that most struck me was in the chapter headed "English". The chapter starts off, " The eighteenth century was seized by a rage for order, manifest in a range of of new phenomenon: price tags, standardized weights and measures, the proliferation of signposts on public highways, the increased use of account books and calendars. The vogue was for organizing, structuring and methodizing" It was in this environment that Johnson compiled his dictionary. He obviously was also consumed by the need to organize and structure things, like his fellow Englishmen.

Galileo was another person who helped organize and structure the world. He straddled the 16th and 17th centuries. Originally he was going to be a doctor but instead he got interest in mathematics, to the chagrin of his father. He is known as the originator of modern science. Up until he came along science was a part of philosophy , its part known as 'natural philosophy'. Most of what was understood as science up to that point was based on what Aristotle had determined about the world, things that few questioned until Galileo came along. Galileo sensed there were things wrong about Aristotelian teaching, like the idea that the earth was the center of the universe and that the sun and the planets revolved around it. Another Aristotelian notion he questioned was that a heavier object would hit the ground before a lighter one when dropped from the same height. He discovered this was false. I tried it with the heaviest and lightest books to prove it and both books hit the ground at the same time.

Zakaria book is the heaviest of the three, both in weight and in subject matter. It discusses globalization and the nature of the geopolitical world. But it is also about a world that would not have existed if it wasn't first for organizers like Galileo and Johnson. Galileo got modern science started, the discipline that innovates and launches the technology that sustains us, a disciple that would be impossible for us to live without. Johnson organized the English language, the language that would become the main communications tool of the world.

As Johnson described in his dictionary, English is the language of England. It is interesting to note that with the expansion of the English language around the world followed the expansion of democracy. After all, England was the cradle of modern democracy, which was the home of the Magna Carta, which Zakaria points out, was the first "bill of rights" of the Western World. As a colonial power England spread English around the world and with it followed the seeds of democracy. India, the largest democracy in the world, was colonized by England. And England gave birth to the most powerful democracy, the United States

Milton Friedman

A lot of people think that the economist Milton Friedman (1912-2006) was a god. In his lifetime he was viewed as the god of the free market. His economic theories were adopted by, to name a few, Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Ronald Reagan in the U.S. Those economies, like may others, found new life in some of his suggestions, like tight monetary policy, tax cuts and privatization.

What first brought Friedman to prominence, and I think won him the Nobel Prize in Economics (1976), was his theory in monetary policy. He believed that the proper control of the money supply was the fundamental key to a healthy economy and a stable world. Good monetary policy was the key to keeping down inflation, an occurrence that has in the past caused great hardship and instability in many nations. Friedman's fame grew from his theory that if the U.S. had better managed its monetary policy or had controlled its currency better during the Great Depression, it may not have occurred. Likewise, it is believed that if Germany, after WW1, had not printed money like crazy in order to fulfill the financial demands put on it by its vanquishers, it would not have descended into the economic abyss it did and therefore become ripe for the despotism of Hitler.

My thought is that we learn from experience. So I think one should take Friedman's idea, that the Great Depression could have been prevented if the U.S. had managed it currency better, with caution and skepticism. What Friedman suggested, by the sounds of it, is that the U.S. and others, in the 1920's and 30's, had the wherewithal to be good monetarists, but failed to act on it. However, I think they had no such wherewithal in those days because people back then were still inexperience in such matters, such as prudent monetary policies. Nevertheless, people still insist on transposing the knowledge we have today on a less sophisticated world of the past. I mean, sure, with the knowledge we have today we probably could have prevented WW1 or WW2. But that was a different world, absent of the knowledge and the dynamics we have today.

Friedman's policies have railed against socialism. Now, I am not a socialist but I have socialist tendencies, like universal health coverage. Such coverage can lift an anxiety of people’s shoulders which potentially can free people to function better. And by what I see in the countries that do have it, for the most part, the practice of medicine works better than in the U.S. and the costs are lower, and life expectancy is longer. I thus believe in a mixed economy in which aspects of capitalism and socialism are mixed and balanced off against each other. And this type of governance is what is generally emerging around the world, including the US, albeit there, kicking and screaming all the way.

I appreciate and believe in some of Milton Friedman's ideas. And they would probably all work if the conditions were perfect. One thing he did believe is that if you have a free and open market in anything the facts and information about it should also be free and accessible. This is something that did not occur in the 'subprime market' and therefore the calamity that surrounds it. The information and facts surrounding subprime loans and their derivatives was not divulged or been honest. Instead, much of the facts and reality about the subprime market was manipulated by Wall Street and thwarted by the Bush administration in order to fulfill its own agenda of keeping money cheap so as to bolster its "ownership society".

Friedman realized that a measure of regulations and consumer protections had to be in place to keep markets honest and mutually beneficial. He knew that the unfetter market were not on their own the 'hole grail' because of the potential of human weaknesses and failures. This is something the present administration in Washington failed to see in its economic policies of free markets. In the process it has made the U.S. economy worse because it blindly believed that free markets left on their own could solve everything.

Milton Friedman's fundamental policies, in the wrong hands, have encouraged a naive and reckless approach to economic activity. They have also encouraged abuse. But he would be the first to recognize that that's what comes with the territory due to the natural capacity for humans to get things wrong.

War & Capitalism

I discovered that Einstein and Freud corresponded about the inevitability of war. In 1932 Einstein asked Freud if he thought humankind could ever divest itself of war. In his response Freud did not hold out much hope that man could ever stop warring. But what he wrote encouraged Einstein to think that there was a possibility that mankind could live in relative peace. Freud, though, was surprised that Einstein hadn't accepted war as inevitable and that it was an inexorable part of human nature.

Freud was not an optimist. However, in his letter to Einstein he left a ray of optimism in the form of the contradictory nature of mankind. He explained to Einstein a theory he had developed (as the magazine article explained) in reaction to the unprecedented brutality of the First World. Freud said that that man is driven by two equally powerful instincts, an instinct to create and an instinct to destroy, as in war. I don't pretend to understand Freud’s dark, perverse theory but something he said struck Einstein as encouraging, perhaps because Einstein focused more on the creative aspect of man rather that the destructive one, thinking that the creative instinct would some day overcome and harness the destructive one.

Freud's duel instinct theory of man was music to my ears because I've studied the contradictory nature of mankind. My conclusion is that man’s contradiction is part of life, a life force; humans can't exist, function or develop without that perversion, of contradicting themselves. And here, Feud was saying something similar. This also reminded me of the American economist Joseph Schumpeter who described capitalism as 'creative destruction'. That description was probably in reaction to the economic devastation capitalism wrought during the Great Depression. It was similar to Freud's reaction to war. Perhaps Schumpeter got this idea from Freud, or Friedrich Nietzsche who wrote about it before. Was capitalism similar to war?

Overall, Wars have become a thing of the past, especially between nations. Wars have become untenable and too destructive, as the world learned from two world Wars in the 20th century. Ironically, we have Einstein partly to thank for that development because of his discovery in physics, which led to the development of the ultimate weapon of destructive, the atomic bomb. The power of the atomic bomb was so destructive, as witnessed in the dropping of two of them on Japan at the end of WW2, that instead of becoming a weapon of choice it became a weapon for deterring War, as it did during the Cold War that occurred between the two super powers of the time, the U.S and the U.S.S.R. Perhaps Einstein foresaw this development as changing human attitude towards War. For this reason he may have seen Freud’s letter as encouraging because he felt that in time Man would lose his appetite for War as the weapon he helped created became potentially more and more devastating.

As war among nations declined capitalism’s prominence in the world rose. I don’t think this is a coincidence. Capitalism, apart from becoming the chief economic engine of mankind, became the foremost outlet and main envelopment of mankind’s two powerful driving instincts, creativity and destruction, as the economist Schumpeter identified. Capitalism harbored both instincts but in a more peaceful and productive manner than war. Had capitalism become the new war?

Wars were, unfortunately, once essential for reforming and shaping the world. Wars have removed many of mankind’s intransigencies and ironically have brought a unity to the world. But in the end war's destruction capability became too great, outweighed any gains they might have produced. However, without war as a means of world reform or as a manifestation of the destructive tendencies of man, mankind had to find another outlet for releasing its destructive tendencies. Man's inherent destructive nature had to be channeled elsewhere, into a less destructive but more productive means. This truly represents a paradigm shift. It came in the form of capitalism. Capitalism to my mind is the alternative to war. It also harbors a destructive nature as Schumpeter had observed but it also harbors the creative tendencies of mankind. Moreover, with its creative/destruction it is also the harbinger of the change and reform that is essential for mankind's survival, so that it remains vital without destroying itself. Even though capitalism does uproot lives and communities, as a form of change it is more desirable and much easier to stomach than war. So, capitalism is not only our chief provider it is also the chief catalyst for essential social reform.

Capitalism has now become worldwide, through the auspices of globalization. In hand with globalization it has united the world in a common activity and transcended the tribalism in the world that often led to wars. It has created a network and interdependence between nations that has defused the possibility of war between them. Capitalism has toned down and restructured the destructive nature of man so it is more bearable than war. Nevertheless, capitalism understands that a measure of destruction, in the form of competition and obsolescence, is still necessary to keep the world alive and awake. Its destructive, disruptive aspect is essential to keep mankind vital, innovative and agile, so that it has a future.

The economist Joseph Schumpeter labeled capitalism as 'creative destruction'. Creative destruction is a form of revolution. Mankind needs a certain level of revolution and reform to remain vital. War is no longer an option in that pursuit. But capitalism is.

Letter

I haven't written anything recently because nothing much has inspired me to do so. So for those of you who are wanting and expecting some new words of wisdom from me I will post a letter of mine that was published in a philosophy magazine. The subject deals with pop-culture, which was the theme of the particular issue of the magazine I responded to. And the particular subject I responded to was about "Captain America".

Here is the letter:

As I was working away framing pictures I was also trying to frame a philosophical idea in my head. Framing pictures and framing ideas are similar activities: both need boundaries to help define and animate them. The idea I was trying to animate has to do with Major Todd A. Burkardt's article 'Operation Rebirth: Captain America and the Ethics of Enhancement' in Issue 64. Burkardt portrays Captain America as an individual, but his creator might have intended him to represent all Americans. In other words, Captain America is symbolic and representative of the exceptionalism of America, in terms of its focus on freedom and liberty for all.

I think Kant would have liked the representation of Captain America as emblematic of peace, because he wanted to see people and nations live in peace. And Kant was right to speculate that democracies needn't go to war with each other. Creating enhance soldiers, as Burhardt advocates, would be counterproductive to the world's continuing efforts through agencies like the UN to make war a thing of the past. Creating enhanced soldiers would send the wrong message, certainly not one of peace. Instead we should work to enhance democracy so that countries don't go to war with each other, thus having no need for enhance soldiers. Enhanced soldiers, like any soldier, can't impose democracy, as we have recently learned with Iraq.

Hegel and politics

I'd like to expand on the idea that the dialectic is a metaphysical phenomenon which makes civilization possible.

As I wrote in an earlier essay, Robert Fulford of the National Post wrote an article about a metaphysical, behind the scene characteristic that is at the core of our existence. The article was "What divides us makes us Hegel". The article discussed the division that has existed between Canada's two founding but conflicting cultures, English and French. He writes that this division paradoxically has made Canada what it is today, an exceptional country. But as I see it he also could have been writing about the world in general.

Hegel, who popularized the dialectic, was a world-system thinker and a visionary. He saw a grand plan for the world, not determined by individuals but by civilization itself. He believed the whole world represented a single civilization on a common course. His thinking foresaw today’s globalism. However, he must have known that the coming together of the world wasn't going to be easy as he saw from the divisiveness that engulfed his beloved Europe of the 19th century. He believed, though, that unification would eventually come through the  political reconciliation of differences. He named the process by which it would happen the dialectic - the argument – the conflict/contradiction of opposing ideas culminating in resolution. Through the dialectical process Hegel believed humans would discover common sense and Reason, which would advance them and teach them to live in harmony. He believed that in the discourse of the dialectic the world would become a pragmatic place, where future human confrontations would be of a cognitive nature rather than physical ones. He saw the dialectic as a life force for human progress.

When Hegel formulated his theory of the dialectic shaping and making the world more intelligent he couldn't have imagined the physical conflicts the world would first have to endure, such as two world wars and countless other skirmishes, before it found a measure of common sense and Reason. Looking back one might imagine that after the destruction of WW1 the world might have learned a lesson or two and resolved to create the League of Nations, like many leaders wanted, in order to stop similar horrific acts. Obviously, though, WW1 was not horrific enough to bring sufficient reconciliation between nations as one might have imagined. The dialectic of ideas WW1 provoked was obviously not sufficient enough to bring Reason to bear so that the world might organize itself in order to prevent future wars. WW1 did not smarten up the world as Hegel might have hoped. It took a second world war to dialectically induce the world with sufficient Reason to establish a agency that could put an end to such wars, like the United Nations.

Hegel believed that we need conflict to remain alive and awake, to keep us from growing stale and atrophying. He didn't mean physical conflict but the conflict brought on by politics and the world of ideas. He believed that the conflict of ideas - the dialectic, and the struggle for resolution stimulates us cognitively , provoking further thinking and new ideas. This process not only revitalizes us but also keeps us lucid of mind and adds to our intelligence. The process is one of mentally spiraling upwards in which we develop new skills, which also brings forth solutions to complex problems we may never have imagined possible.

This is what Fulford was writing about, that the divisive and contradictory make up of Canada, with its two opposing cultures, is the engine that keeps Canada humming, in tune and alive. Canada, in true dialectic fashion, has used this division and the conflict that arises from it to its  advantage. It has learned from it, developed and improved its operational philosophies. Instead of these opposing cultures continuing to quarrel with each other they have learned to coexist and created an exceptional state of affairs. Subsequently, in its struggle to equalize things between the English and the French, Canada developed extraordinary governing skills that have become extremely useful in managing another of it unique situation, its growing multicultural society. Intellectuals recognized Canada as a Hegelian nation years ago because of its dualistic nature and that it didn't completely try to extinguish the clash between its two founding cultures but used it in a dialectical fashion to create a unique and exceptional country, something that would have made Hegel proud. And it the course of things Canada‘s experience has become an example for the rest of the world.

I want to use a phrase I just made up, ‘deliberative philosophy’. It is akin to deliberative democracy, a process that helps sustain Democracy. In a discoursive manner deliberative philosophy also is sustaining and is what the dialectic process is all about. Through the clash and the deliberation of two opposing forces, two ideas that are contradictory but are assumed equally valid, (like Canada’s two founding cultures) it reasons out and synthesizes a pragmatic philosophy and a course of action that is mutually beneficial. Confronted by two contradictory forces, its two cultures, Canada was wise not to abandon one in favor of the other but instead used both, through discoursive give and take, to devise a philosophy and political policies that has made it socially richer and more harmonious. Had Canada not taken this route and instead favored one culture over the other as its chief governance there certainly would have been a ‘clash of civilizations’ which most likely would have torn the country apart. One thing that has encouraged this process in Canada, of reaching out, is that the alternative was not an option and unthinkable.

I am fond of saying litigation creates civilization. What happens within the dialectic is a litigation of sorts. Under the proper conditions the dialectic provokes and enables litigation and mediation in resolving political and cultural differences, as those between the English and the French in Canada. As a result Canada has developed a unique civility between diverse cultures.

The economist Julian Simon once made a classic Hegelian remark, "that the world needs problems because they make us better. Problems make us better off than if they never happened." I am sure you can imagine what Simon was saying, that in having problems intelligent people work together and seek solutions, thus advancing themselves. However, I think Simon made that remark unsuspectingly because he was no Hegelian. Nevertheless, I think his remark proves that we live in a Hegelian, dialectic world whether one knows it or not. It also shows that what conflicts us can make us stronger if we work to resolve it. For example, after 9/11 a clash of civilizations didn't occur as some had predicted but instead the world that existed prior to it continued in its globalism and interdependence because people came together to resolve their differences, because there was the understood that we are all in the same boat and have common goals, of common needs and aspirations.

Hegel didn’t invent this system of the dialectic. He discovered it as he observed the world, knowing that it was the natural procedure of things. He also discovered it with the help of a previous thinker, Heraclitus, an ancient Greek philosopher who realized that the world is made of contradictions and that their existence and reconciliation makes the world possible. In his article Fulford expounded on this theme and the cultural contradictions that makes Canada possible, exceptional and vibrant.