Entries Tagged 'Fight Back' ↓

I am spoiled.

I am spoiled because I was able to avoid working a day job.

I am spoiled because I think I can have whatever I want (in the sense that I think my ideas about society will become reality).

Shouldn’t I enjoy being spoiled?  I mean, why bother thinking about other people who are not as spoiled when I can just enjoy being spoiled and that will be that.

"Weekend is too short."

"I wish I never had to work."

"But then you’d be bored."

"I wouldn’t be bored."

"You have to remember that I spent maybe at least 40% of the last 8 years not working."

"So that means you’re spoiled?"

"Yes.  But, I wasn’t bored."

So, in some sense, I had an appropriate comeback.  I successfully proved that I wasn’t (and probably wouldn’t be) bored if I wasn’t working.  Yet, I opened myself up to the idea that I’m spoiled, which is easy to see because I’m related to the owner.  And just like the idea that I have clinical depression or some other unstable mental illness, being seen as being spoiled chips away at my credibility.  

But, what credibility did I have before to be chipped away at?  And do I really want to have credibility in the first place?  So … it seems that I am being told in a relatively passive-aggressive manner that I am exerting too much authority in that room.  I must find my humbleness and make sure I do not close the space for others to exercise their need to have authority.

"I believe that all humans should have food, water, shelter, and clothing."  The ensuing discussion must have implanted a sense in some people that I felt I was right and they were wrong.  I probably came off that way in past discussions as well.  Some people seem angry that I can have that stance … almost as if only someone who’s experienced what it’s like to be spoiled could agree with the idea of ‘spoiling’ others by not forcing them to work in order to live.

The following is in response to Tyler S. Clark’s recent post about the two Democratic candidates for U.S. president.  Tyler, do you remember the old popularity contest in high school (maybe your high school was different if you don’t) where the two most popular students would stand in front of the class and promise all kinds of crazy changes in order to get elected as class president?  They’d promise vending machines, early dismissal, better food in the cafeteria, and other things kids might be interested in.  And then, once they were elected, they’d realize that they weren’t allowed to make some of those changes.  From my viewpoint, it never seemed to matter who the class president was because they were ineffectual in making any meaningful changes to my life.

The two Democratic candidates are the two most popular Democrats.  They’re promising so many changes that anyone who’s familiar with government knows they’ll never be able to make them all.  They’ll not be able to make even a fraction of them.  My point is, instead of focusing on which one of these corporation-backed candidates gets elected for the Democratic candidate for president, and then instead of focusing on which corporation-backed candidate gets elected President, why not focus more on the local elections and candidates and issues where people in your area are going to be most affected?

It doesn’t matter which of the popular (and wealthy) candidates become president because our lives will only be changed minimally.
When Bush stole his way into the presidency, eight years ago, everyone was saying things were going to get crazy, our lives would be ruined.  Some things have changed, new war, housing market collapse, potential economic recession, global warming getting worse, gas prices up, etc…  But overall, people’s lives are generally the same as they were prior to Bush being elected.  And in the rare cases where lives have been disrupted (say in the case where a family member died in Iraq or where someone lost their home due to foreclosure) those people often blame the circumstances, not the president, implying that any president would’ve had to put their family member in danger.

By putting our focus on the U.S. presidential election, we remove our focus from the real life problems around us.  The suffering that takes place due to capitalism.  The oppression that exists because of capitalism.  The exploitation that we’re forced into because of capitalism.  The domination over our lives because of capitalism.  And by capitalism, I don’t mean business or an indidivual’s ability to make money.  I mean an economic system that allows for some to be wealthy and comfortable while others are poor and living on the street.  If the goal of an economic system is to distribute resources to the people within that economic system, then the U.S. economy is failing because it allows for such differences between the rich and poor.  It’s making sure some people get many more resources while many others are getting very little to none at all.

All of this does, of course, only make sense unless you’ve completely bought into the Ayn Rand libertarian “I don’t need anyone else and anyone who does is weak” mentality.  If you believe that each individual has the “freedom” to “pull oneself up by one’s bootstraps” and get what they need to survive so if they haven’t, they’re weak/stupid/mentally unstable/etc…, then what I’ve written above probably doesn’t ring true.  If you think someone who’s poor is poor because of their own choices or the choices of their family, then not only do you think I’m full of shit, but you’re completely unaware of how the economic system in the U.S. actually works.

Don’t get me wrong, Tyler.  I think you have some great ideas on your blog.  I think you’re trying hard to make everyone happy.  I think you believe that you’ve found the way, through growing local businesses and focusing on the next U.S. president.  And because you’re writing about it, I respect and love you.  However, I don’t agree that your ‘way’ is the right way.  Rather, as writers and bloggers with some amount of reach to others, it is our duty to point out where someone might be getting conned.  So, let me point it out: You might be getting conned (or conning others) by following the hype that focuses on the U.S. presidential election.

So here I am on February 18, 2008 in the early morning, writing about the digital divide years and years after many others started talking about it and its consequences.  Today, I had my first ‘real’  realization of how little I know about technology and where I actually stand on the digital divide line.  

The digital divide is a term social scientists use in order to describe the impacts of technological innovation on society.  The idea is that technology is getting so specialized, expensive, time-consuming, etc… that certain people will be able to learn and successfully use the technology while others will find it difficult to get started and perhaps fail to take advantage of the new technology altogether.  The reasons for one falling into one or the other group varies depending upon one’s social milieu.  A commonly thought example of this, which is usually based on one’s age, is the old saying about not being able to program a VCR. 

Some social scientists see this phenomena as being a part of the cultural lag idea where the culture of society is always lagging behind the knowledge and abilities of that society, causing a necessary and natural conflict.  Others, like myself, understand that the digital divide is created purposely in order to further keep people from coming together and organizing for positive social change.

My Situation

In my case, I wanted to help developers create new social networking software.  I wanted to help because for the past few months, I’ve been searching for my voice on the Internet.  I don’t want to be anywhere near Rupert Murdoch and his MySpace.  I don’t want anything to do with the ultra-Libertarian influences and greedy owners of Facebook.  And Google with Blogger and other online applications is quickly spreading its reach to all corners of the Internet in 1984-authoritarian style.  Of course, there’s the king of kings, Microsoft, who not only controls a lot of information flow on the Internet, but also has a strong grasp on a large percentage of personal computers.  So, I found a grassroots development community who’s working on something different, something that might allow people to interact easily via the Internet but without the advertisements, the profit-making motives, and the data collection.  But I couldn’t help them (yet) because I don’t have the skills and/or knowledge.

I’ve always considered myself to be comfortable and knowledgeable about computers.  I’ve been using them since before the Internet, where I would dial into bulletin boards and try to hack open modem lines.  So, I thought I’d be able to learn what I needed in order to help the above effort.  I found out, however, that in order for me to learn what I need to just get the software installed on my computer, I would have to spend hours and possibly days figuring out details of another operating system (Linux).  And since I cannot set aside that time at this point in my life, I am unable to get it installed and therefore, unable to help.  Because I am used to being able to do what I want with computers, I am now aware (painfully!) that my computer use now has limits.  I am aware that technology is moving faster than I am able to keep up.  I am aware that I am moving closer to a technology user and further away from a technology maker.  I am now aware that I am on the downside of the digital divide.

This new awareness gives me a taste of what it might be like to interact with computers for the first time in 2008.  The overwhelming feeling I felt with the above must be similar to the overwhelming feeling someone might feel who’s learning how to type, use the mouse, or navigate around their computer.  The people I work with in my day job who struggle with new technology might also feel a good amount of stress when they are forced to learn new software and how to interact with new technology.  In the past, I’ve asked the question, "How can someone not understand how to use a mouse?"  Now, I know.  Some Linux developers are probably thinking the same about me and how it’s possible that I don’t know how to install Linux.  I now have an experiential understanding of the digital divide.

What Should I (We) Do? 

To a Libertarian, or someone who believes that improving oneself is the key to improving the world, all I would need to do is seclude myself for a few weeks (months? years?) until I am skilled on what I need to be skilled about.  If everyone did this, then everyone would have the skills they need.  So, I guess, I could do that and hope that others will do the same.  But, what if this isn’t the way things really work?  What if groups of people are treated differently so it becomes difficult or even impossible for them to learn the skills the people in these groups need? 

Another route I could go is to try and close the divide by offering any free time, energy, and computer knowledge that I have to people who have less … for FREE.  I’ve recently joined a local time bank.  The online time bank is a technological way of trading one’s time for services needed.  I’ve offered to do stuff and those people will give me hours out of their accounts in order to do those tasks.  And then, I can take those hours that I’ve earned and give them to someone who is willing to teach me more about the technology I need to learn about.  So, my request for help is up there.  I also have offers to help people with basic computer/web stuff.  And now I wait.  

…I wait some more…

…and a little more …

…still waiting…

While I’m waiting, I remember that the time bank is only going to include people who have the computer experience necessary in order to feel comofortable with that system.  I know that the time bank cannot be helpful on its own in order to close the digital divide.

So, what will close this divide?  I imagine there are many people in the U.S. and throughout the world that would like to do more with technology but cannot because of their own personal and social limitations.  How can I get to some of these people and help them bridge that divide?  I have a few answers to this question that I will share later.  Any thoughts on this are, as always, much appreciated.

I recently wrote an article regarding this issue at Rethos.com and I wanted to flesh out some more of my ideas on this potential.  One of the differences I notice between the writer’s strike and others strikes I’ve paid attention to is the amazing amount of publicity this strike is getting.  Obviously, the writers have connections to journalists, so it makes sense.  But, I think it’s precisely because of this publicity that the strike could be expanded to include other corporations connected to the big media corporations.

This strike is one of those strikes that has the potential to both end up in obscurity or spark fundamental change in U.S. society.  If the networks and other media corporations are successful in brainwashing people into ignoring the strike, then it’ll be added to the obscure strikes many of us fail to remember.  But, if the writer’s are successful in keeping their strike on the forefront of people’s minds and continue to add to the intensity of their tactics, then this strike has the potential to start other strikes and so on.

In the Rethos.com article, I proposed a boycott of any corporations connected to media corporations if the strike is not resolved by May 1, 2008.   Seeing as many people probably didn’t stop watching TV as a result of the strike, it’s unlikely that they’ll stop buying things as a result of the boycott.  But, just because they might not doesn’t mean they won’t. 

By the time May 1, 2008 rolls around, we’ll have been over-saturated with presidential politics to the point where it hurts to think politically.  We’ll be swamped at our jobs trying to recover from a slowing economy.  Our families will experience extra pressure because of the slowed economy and the housing market.  In some sense, I think we’ll all lose a little weight.  And with this lost weight, we’ll be in prime condition to take our lives by the reigns.  We’ll be ready to take on the corporations and start building the communities we desparately long for.

Picture this … It’s May 1, 2008 … Mayday.  You wake up.  Turn on the TV (possibly for the last time) and realize that the writer’s strike is still going strong.  That’s the signal.  You realize that your weight has gone down by about 10 or 20 pounds and your headache is starting to get worse.  That’s when you get the call.  "Hello," you say.  "Hey.  Have you heard?  Look outside," the voice says and the phone goes dead.  Adrenaline and endorphins begin to pump through you and your heart beats faster.  You start to take shorter breaths.  You move towards the window and can already hear an unfamiliar, yet eerily familiar noisy sound.  As you open the window, the light shines in just as the tail end of a red and black banner passes your window.  The strike and boycott have begun!

I recently had a thought regarding family leave and corporate social responsibility (CSR).  This is a term that some use to describe corporations who help society as opposed to corporations who hurt society.  Personally, I don’t think it’s possible.  You can find a great deal of discussion regarding this issue here: Rethos.com

On top of the many other things corporations must do and ways corporations must be in order for them to be truly socially responsible, here’s one more.  Corporations must also be concerned with the children of our society for they are the people who will one day take over.  To be responsible for the well-being of society’s children (i.e. be socially responsible), a corporation must allot as much paid time off for childcare as parents need.  For instance, a socially responsible corporation may offer up to 12 months of paid family leave (maternity, paternity, and general childcare) including full benefits.  This way, our society’s children will be taken care of adequately so they can grow into socially responsible adults.  This and other programs would help parents take care of children.  Society will necessarily benefit as well.

I recently came upon Greenpeace because my stepson is making a donation.  I noticed that they now have a way for people to set up their own blogs.  That’s cool.  Whenever I find a site offering free blogs, I type ‘anarchist’ in the search to see what kinds of people set up blogs on that particular site.  No anarchists probably means no serious discussions.  At least, that’s what I’ve noticed.  Three blogs came up when I searched on Greenpeace.  One of the blogs, mmmurphy (see blog), seems to have come to a similar realization that I wrote about previously … on an individual level, we’re not doing what we need to do in order to change things.

This reminds me of a story.  I worked at a grassroots anti-nuclear organization once and expressed to the executive director that I felt I wasn’t doing enough.  The executive director told me that the feeling is common and I should do what I can and try to enjoy the slow times in order to rest for the fast times.  I sort of nodded and said "yeah, I guess." But, I didn’t really internalize that.

When I started working again in the corporate sector, trying to help a company make money, it turns out that the above attitude of wanting to do more and feeling as though I’m not doing enough helped me rise above my coworkers because it helped me to work harder, do more, be more productive.  And instead of telling me to relax and enjoy the slow times, my bosses told me to do more and work harder.

Two different experiences.  Two different perspectives.  Two different ways of doing things.  And now, as I realize how important it is to do something, do more, work harder, risk more, I also realize that this attitude is not only valued by corporate-minded folks, but is encouraged and drilled-into people like me from a young age.  It feels natural to me when I work a lot.  I mean, sometimes it hurts physically or mentally, but overall it feels like it’s the right thing to do.  Whether that work is profit-based or changing-the-world-based, it still feels good to work hard.

But what if working hard is a symptom of capitalism and other systems of oppression, exploitaiton, and domination?  We know about the ‘rags to riches’ idea that gives U.S. partriots a strong sense of pride.  Work hard and one will make more money and be happier.  That’s an idea that I definitely grew up hearing.  Also, the people in power benefit from me working hard to either change the world or make a profit because it prevents me from acting outside of the realm of the reality they’ve created.  In other words, working hard is working hard and the powers that be like it.  

So, were the hippies right?  Drop out, work less, do less, just be, love one another and everything is going to be alright.  I don’t know.  I suspect it’s a balance between the two.  In sociology, we know that one way to analyze a society is to examine the interplay between the individual and the institutions of the society.  In this case, mmmurphy and myself have each experienced our lack of action on a personal, individual level.  My analysis suggests that the idea of ‘working hard’ may extend beyond the individual and might be caused by a more institutional force, something larger than any one individual.  It appears it may be a little of both.  But I can’t help feeling that the institutional level is having a stronger impact here.

My daughter was born recently. December 13, 2007 to be exact. The birth took place at home and was really wonderful. When I look at my daughter, I think of many wonderful ideas. I think that one day, she’ll be strong and capable of taking care of herself and others. I think that she’ll be aware of all the injustice, inequality, and oppression that surrounds us as we try to survive in the United States.

I told her the other day that this time ten years from now, she should meet me at the Eifel Tower at noon. She seemed to understand.

I’m on a paternity leave from work now. When I last spoke with the owner, he said, "Are you growing a beard?" I said, "I’m trying to save money by not buying razors." He laughed. Ha Ha. It’s easy to laugh when you’re the owner, when you’re the one responsible for the exploitation of every person who works for you, when your bank account grows while you chuckle. Truth is, the damn razors are expensive and wasteful too. Top it off, this happened in my own home, my own space for myself and my family. That’s bullshit. The owner thinks he owns me even in my own home! And again, the truth is, he does.

My last day of work prior to paternity leave, I asked a few people I work with if they realized that they are actually modern day slaves. Surprisingly, they said they did realize this. Not surprisingly, they also said they had no idea how it could ever be different. I said, "What if I call you a slave, will that anger you?" I could see the change in expression telling me that it would definitely be offensive. So, now that we’re in agreement that working people in the United States are modern day slaves, what are we going to do about it?

I used to rationalize the way suicide bombers fight back by asking myself and others, "If some stranger came up to you and forced you from your home, killed your friends, severely limited your freedom to move from place to place, oppressed and exploited you and your neighbors, wouldn’t you fight back in any way you could, even if that meant suicide?" I used to feel comfortable knowing that I would fight back. But, now that I realize I’m a slave and a stranger is trying to force me from my home, is killing my friends, is severely limiting my freedoms, oppressing, exploiting, and dominating me continually throughout my daily experience – and I further realize that I’m NOT fighting back in any way that I can – I wonder what it will take for me to start fighting back. What will it take? What am I waiting for?

I also liked to think that my words, my writing, is a way of fighting back. But I’m well aware of how capitalism eats opposition like candy and co-opts it into yet another system of oppression and exploitation. Writing this article isn’t going to change the world. If anything, it’ll help line someone’s pockets because it’ll encourage people to get on the Internet where someone will make money off them some way. So, what am I waiting for in order to truly start fighting back?

How to fight back:

1. Realize that you’re not fighting back.
2. Create a list of ways you can begin to fight against oppression, exploitation, and domination.
3. Do everything on that list even if it kills you.

Ok, I’m beginning to do numbers one and two, but when it comes to number three, that’s where I have problems. And I think that’s the psychology that gives current authorities most of their power … the fear of death … the attachment to life.

I have to ask myself, do I want my children to grow up and fear death, forever be attached to this life? Or, do I want to teach my children how to fight against inequality in the face of death? I suppose that should be number two and a half: decide whether or not you want your children to fight back or be slaves like the people in power want them to be.