'The Walking Dead' and Machiavelli

For a while I've been meaning to post about the political economy of one of my favorite shows, The Walking Dead.

Anybody who has been paying attention should understand the zombie apocalypse was just the catalyst for the breakdown of society. It could have been a plague, a nuclear war.... Over these 7 seasons, zombies have increasingly become background; the real drama is human. It is the drama of the survivors after civilized society has shattered.  (And I hope everybody realizes that the "walking dead" refers not only to the zombies, but also the survivors who are still walking. As Louis C.K. put it, we'll all spend way, way more time dead than alive.)

I'm a political science major.  So the last few seasons of The Walking Dead for me have been the best. I know a lot of fans miss the first few seasons, when survivors were frantically scavenging and trying to survive the hordes of zombies.  Then they figured out how to do that, and pretty well I might add. What they still haven't figured out how to do is survive other survivors.

My thesis is that The Walking Dead is a meditation on the nature of human civilization.  What the survivors are trying to do is basically run through the last few millennia of human civilization in just a few years in order to survive, an erstwhile civilization that developed on outwardly growing circles of human association, like tree rings: first family, then clan, tribe, groups of tribes, nation, nation-state, country, and global citizenship.

In the real world, our human civilization is located somewhere between country and global citizenship. I've posted before about Jeremy Rifkin's empathy thesis and what it will take for us to become a global citizenry....

In TWD, all of that development has been deleted.  We're back to the start. But even worse this time, most families have been destroyed, so the first and most basic human connection has been severed. The protagonists in TWD make do by making their closest fellow survivors a kind of surrogate family.  Rick's family has started over the first few seasons to extend into a clan or tribe... And that's about as far as civilization has progressed from the ashes.

So enter Negan.  What would Machiavelli say about Negan?  What would he advise Negan to do? Probably, "Be yourself."  There is really no viable alternative in the TWD world.

Where I predict the story arc goes -- and I haven't read the TWD comics, so I may be way off -- is that the threat of Negan is the catalyst to unite the disunited tribes in the vicinity, who will ultimately rise up against him in victory.  But without Negan, those tribes would have warred, traded suspiciously, or avoided one another for a very long time.  In a way, Negan is both an inevitability and a blessing to accelerate the rebirth of human civilization. If there were no Negan, another Negan would have arisen in his place.

But imagine Negan will be victorious in his parochial neck of the American woods.  We still have Fear the Walking Dead on the west coast. Surely we have other Negans or Ricks in the U.S. south, midwest, northeast, etc.  Eventually these groups -- call them tribes or more likely nations -- would develop, expand and encounter one another and be forced to adopt a policy of fight, trade and cooperate, or live and let live.  This takes us back to a period of human history before Christ.

Violence, conquest, slavery and exploitation were integral parts of human pre-history described vividly in the Old Testament.  TWD is about reliving all of those stages of human history in fast-forward speed.  I find it fascinating and can't wait to see how it all turns out.  In TWD, humans are the stars of civilization in rebirth, even as the survivors are surrounded by the (much less deadly) walking dead in the background.

So, for fans who miss the first few seasons, please understand that it couldn't have turned out any other way.  Negan had to happen.  And -- without moral judgment -- Negan is not necessarily a bad guy, considering all of the Negans in human history who united disunited, warring peoples and gave them some kind of security, and allowed some measure of human society to flourish -- including science, the arts, literature, and so on.

We aren't the heirs of just Socrates, Plato, Locke and the Founding Fathers, we're also the heirs of Alexander the Great, Julius Ceaser, Genghis Khan and Napoleon.  Don't knock Negan: the post-apocalyptic world needs him for now.
----------------------------------------------

One may point out that the development of human civilization today isn't congruent. In some parts of the world, like the Amazon or even Afghanistan, clan or tribe is still the dominant phase of human development. Thanks to globalization and the developed world's competition for resource dominance, those societies have come into increasing contact with the globalized, neoliberal, Western world. This incongruence inevitably leads to conflict. Yet this isn't a clash of civilizations; it is a clash of different levels of development.

Let's not confuse this clash with the clash created by refugee migrations caused by civil war, conventional war, or drug wars, as in Central and South America.  Iraq and Syria were, until recently, fairly developed countries economically with stable political systems, albeit undemocratic.  There war and the collapse of civil order pushed civilization back to association by tribe (based on religious sect); but sectarian or tribal conflict was a result, not a cause, of those conflicts and refugee crises. Just look at Aleppo today, where thousands of Syrians want to stay in their homes rather than become refugees despite merciless war crimes comritted against them.  They are being forced of their homes at the point of a gun.

In no way am I endorsing or even justifying the xenophobia of the Geert Wilders or Donald Trumps of the world.  Indeed, those populist demagogues are not only attacking "the other" in places like Syria but also peaceful citizens and residents of their own respective countries, most of whom have been living peacefully and productively in those countries for decades.  They are being scapegoated.

Call me a pessimist, but... (On Sustainable Development)

The idea of "sustainable development" is not radical, crazy or hard to understand. Most anybody would have a hard time arguing against it, in theory. It just means economic development today that doesn't happen at the expense of future economic growth. Some people have called unsustainable development a "tax on the future" because it's indeed stealing prosperity from the young and generations that haven't been born yet. 

The obstacle to sustainable development is not a lack of know-how or technology. By and large, we know what to do. But it does require trade-offs and sacrifices; and the pain won't be equally distributed. And that's the rub. 

The obstacle to sustainable development is politics -- to be more precise, power. Those with power don't like it. (As an aside: I posit that those in power, among them some very "smart" and "visionary" thinkers, rarely think seriously about the future, alas.) 

The people seriously concerned with sustainable development are by and large powerless: scientists, professionals in the "biz," activists, mid-level bureaucrats and such. They say and do and write enough to force those in power to pay lip service to their arrived at consensus. But that's about as far as it goes. 

No, I'm not talking about an opposing global conspiracy. Real conspiracies are rare, and they're usually stupid, for stupid, shortsighted aims.... 

The real obstacle to change is that power is concentrated in a few hands, yet separated by nations, cultures and geographies, with few formal nodes of interdependence, where common aims can be realized.... 

An attendant obstacle is certainly capitalism. More broadly, the obstacle is our global political economy, with its capitalistic innovations tacked on to feudalistic holdovers and narrow nationalistic structures. 

"There is a lack of global leadership," we hear again and again. True. But from where are the necessary global leaders supposed to emerge? It's asking too much from our global political economic systems. 

Ideally, democracy should save us. The good ideas should convince the majority of what is needed, and republican leaders should pay heed to their wishes. Ideally, yes. But that's naive.

First, we don't have real republican democracy in most countries, either by force of regimes or by failed states of many stripes. Second, even where there is formal democracy, concentrated power (read: wealth) still trumps democracy by various well-understood technical means. (Again: there is no conspiracy here; secrecy is not at all necessary for concentrated power to subvert democracy; the facts are are all well-documented for those who take the time to pay attention.)

So where does that leave us? Up the proverbial creek, I'm afraid. 

The richest nations do tend to be democratic. And democratic polities can exercise their power -- when dramatic events move them. But unfortunately, the world -- and sustainable development -- cannot wait for dramatic events to awaken the confused and slumbering giant of democratic public opinion. By the time the giant comes to, it will be too late.

Yes, I'm talking about global warming. And the death of our oceans and fisheries. And water shortages. And new global pandemics. And massive extinctions. And die-offs of millions if not billions of people. -- And for those ensconced in the relative safety of the developed, democratic world, something beyond mere discomfort and inconvenience, but drastic cuts in standards of living and overall well-being. 

By nature I'm not a pessimist. But I simply do not see how our current political economic system can react -- or should I say, fail to react -- otherwise. Everyone is to blame -- and hence no one. I hope I'm wrong and that smarter, more visionary and leadership-worthy individuals will prove it.

This post was inspired by this book review : http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61215-6

Russia and American exceptionalism

American exceptionalism in foreign policy is valid only if we believe that U.S. leaders, regardless of party or ideology, always act out of the best interests of the world.

If you're a Republican: do you think President Obama (or Clinton, or Carter) meets that criterion?

If you're a Democrat: do you think Dubya, Bush, Sr., or Reagan met that criterion?  

No, of course not. This alone should give the lie to the myth of American exceptionalism. The bulk of the evidence shows that the U.S. does what's best for itself, according to the judgment of current partisan administrations.

Now here's an interesting historical tidbit that I didn't know, courtesy of Tom Engelhardt.  Did you know? [emphasis mine]:

I’m talking about actual property rights to “American exceptionalism.”  It’s a phrase often credited to a friendly nineteenth century foreigner, the French traveler Alexis de Tocqueville.  As it happens, however, the man who seems to have first used the full phrase was Russian dictator Joseph Stalin.  In 1929, when the U.S. was showing few signs of a proletarian uprising or fulfilling Karl Marx’s predictions and American Communists were claiming that the country had unique characteristics that left it unready for revolution, Stalin began denouncing “the heresy of American exceptionalism.”  Outside the U.S. Communist Party, the phrase only gained popular traction here in the Reagan years.  Now, it has become as American as sea salt potato chips.  If, for instance, the phrase had never before been used in a presidential debate, in 2012 the candidates couldn’t stop wielding it.

Engelhardt spends some time talking about Putin and Russia.  I know a little about both.  We're oddly connected, America and Russia, although we may not realize or acknowledge it.

I mean, if there are two countries on Earth with delusions of exceptionalism, they are the U.S. and Russia. That's the irony of Putin's recent denial of American exceptionalism.  I have confirmed this in many conversations with Russians. They are always curiously eager to convince me of Russia's enduring greatness, its parity with America, what their country means to the world, and so on.  Nobody I've ever met from any other country suggests much less seeks out a conversation like this. A few times Britons, wistful for empire, have told me, "It's your problem now, you deal with it."  As if that's what we've volunteered for! 

The U.S. perspective is a bit different. Since 1992, we have taken our hyper-power status for granted. We basically stopped paying attention to Russia 20 years ago. So what I usually tell Russians, both to enlighten and provoke them, is that the average American doesn't think about Russia at all.  Many ignorant Americans still think the USSR exists; and yet Russians don't figure in our worldview anymore.  (For the mere fact of 8,500 nuclear weapons still in Russia's arsenal, Americans are quite mistaken in their disregard).

What most Americans don't realize is that Russians, like Americans, take inordinate pride from their country's foreign policy, and perceived military prowess. Just as in America, where rednecks who can hardly spell their own names feel an out-sized sense of personal pride for being the citizen of a country that can bomb, drone or nuke anybody on Earth, so do Russians -- who are mostly poor, without basic liberties and cut off from the outside world -- augment their self-esteem with pride in being citizens of a nuclear-armed super power that can bully its near neighbors with impunity and occasionally stand up to the U.S. in the UN Security Council.

So my rhetorical question is: are Americans just Russians with a different political economy? Or are we indeed different?  Is America exceptionally exceptional?  And if so, in what ways? Taking pride in our civilian-controlled (read: political) military can't be the reason why.

UPDATE (30.09.2013): FYI, here's a report on a recent Gallup poll of Americans' attitude toward Russia, "Poll: Half Of Americans See Russia As 'Unfriendly' Or Worse".  Looks like Putin is successfully lowering Russia's rating in the U.S.

Bragging Rights 

By Tom Engelhardt

September 26, 2013 | Tom Dispatch

URL: http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175752/

The morality of capitalism v. redistribution

Where to begin with the question "Is capitalism moral"? Let's start with the title. Kind of a loaded question. Anyway let's be precise. Pearlstein is really discussing political economy, i.e. how our laws and governance influence commerce and the general welfare. Pearlstein means to debate the role that government should play in the economy. 

To start, Pearlstein correctly notes that, "For most of the past 30 years, the world has been moving in the direction of markets," and yet increasingly over that same period we have "stagnant incomes, gaping inequality, a string of crippling financial crises and 20-somethings still living in their parents’ basements."

Thus Republicans have pivoted, Pearlstein says, to focusing on capitalism's moral superiority because they certainly can't make a prima facie case for capitalism's benefits. Unfortunately, Pearlstein takes their bait and tries to analyze, more or less objectively, which side -- the "free-market capitalists" or the "redistributionists" -- is indeed morally superior, and the flaws with each.

The truth, as with most things, is muddled and complicated.  But I want to lay down a few markers. First, very few liberals/progressives/Democrats insist on having this "moral" debate. Why? Because we liberals are outcome-based. By contrast, conservatives and free-marketeers believe that one's moral principles should determine the rules of the game, and if one's moral principles are sound, then ipso facto, the results will take care of themselves. More precisely, conservatives believe that economic results are morality-free; only our political economics must be morally sound.

Let's admit though that his whole debate has been predicated by recent shitty economic outcomes. For a liberal, a more appropriate question would be to ask: whose political economy is the most responsible for the shitty state of today's economy?  True liberals would be even more precise: what specific policies have led us to these terrible outcomes? Conservatives would obviously like to dodge this question, and instead talk in philosophical or moral abstractions, parables and anecdotes, because the facts -- the results -- of their 30 years of neo-liberal rule do not support the morality of their political economy.

Second marker: to quote Paul Rosenberg: "economics used to be called 'political economy', because the great classical economists never lost sight of the fact that economics was a thoroughly political activity, not something outside of the life of a political community." In other words, economics never, ever, ever happens in a political vacuum. Thus, the notion that, in some ideal country, the free-market capitalism of Adam Smith hums and churns along for the betterment of all, unfettered by and independent of government, is naive and silly. Government has a role to play, it sets the rules of the economic game, we all know that.  To what extent government is involved is a matter of degrees. 

Again, liberals believe that government's role should be evidence- or outcomes-based, i.e. tweaked according to the outcomes achieved, whereas conservatives believe that outcomes, like people, should take care of themselves. What's important for them is to set up a system of rigid, unchanging moral conditions under which people operate.

Third marker: noting the terrible results of recent deregulation, privatization-outsourcing and tax cutting is not the same as saying "capitalism is bad." Conservatives and perhaps Pearlstein would like to provoke us liberals into saying that. It's not necessary, or rather, it's an academic argument rather than a real one, since we have not had a "free-market" system for a very long time, if ever. Indeed the U.S. Government has been "meddling" in the economy for a very long time, just in different ways and to varying degrees. 

The recent political-economic bag is mixed: just as union membership has been plummeting, charter schools have been blooming, taxes on the One Percent were being cut, and regulations on Too Big To Fail banks were being torn down, so was USG spending on the military-industrial complex going through the roof (Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Department of Homeland Security apparatus), not to mention Dubya's tremendous addition to the Medicare entitlement -- altogether resulting in a 91 percent increase in our national debt from 2002-2009. 

To be sure, we also had the Great Recession from 2007-2009 that is almost entirely to blame for our persistently high unemployment and deficits since then. This begs the question: what political-economic philosophy was more responsible for the Great Recession? Because we wouldn't be having this discussion right now if it weren't for the Great Recession. You could skip all the junk I wrote above and below, and if you answer this one question correctly, then you are nearly at the truth....

But anyway, back to Pearlstein. He critiques liberals because "they have yet to articulate the moral principles with which to determine how far the evening-up [redistribution] should go -- not just with education but with child care, health care, nutrition, after-school and summer programs, training, and a host of other social services."  There are two big problems with where Pearlstein is going with this.

First, his critique is simply untrue. Liberals have laid out their moral principles, most eloquently in President Roosevelt's 1941 "Four Freedoms" speech that included the "freedom from want," and then in President Johnson's "Great Society" initiatives in the 1960s.  

In fact, our moral calculus is much easier to understand than conservatives'. We believe that, in the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world, nobody should go hungry, uneducated or without health care. Furthermore, we believe that our nation's children, elderly and disabled deserve special care and protection, including additional food, medical and housing assistance. This is pretty easy to understand, and to verify. Can a child perform well in school relative to his peers? Does a person go hungry or malnourished? Does a child have a roof over his head? And so on. Depending on the answer, we have a moral obligation to do something. It couldn't be easier to understand.

Second problem: Pearlstein asks liberals to lay out: 1) our moral principles [check]; but also, unfairly, 2) a formula for government redistribution that is clear and will work forever and ever, amen. That's just childishly naive, I'm sorry. Pearlstein needs to get real. First, he ignores political reality that demands compromise. Nobody gets his way all the time, 100%. And let's just remind ourselves why this matters: if tomorrow President Obama would say that a "fair share" of taxes on the One Percent was, say, 30 percent, then this would be all anybody could talk about. Conservatives and their armies in think tanks, cable and talk radio would parse and mince it to death for weeks and months. When in fact it's all relative; and liberals don't care what the number is, as long as it generates sufficient revenues and ensures economic growth. (But historically, until the 1980s, the top marginal rate didn't fall below 70%).  At the end of his essay, Pearlstein admits as much:

Moral philosophers since Adam Smith have understood that free-market economies are not theoretical constructs -- they are embedded in different political, cultural and social contexts that significantly affect how they operate. If there can be no pure free market, then it follows that there cannot be only one neutral or morally correct distribution of market income.

Second, Pearlstein fails to acknowledge that liberals, unlike conservatives, think and act according to feedback loops: from problem/result --> intervention --> result/problem, and so on. Therefore, without observations of actual events, we cannot tell you what will be a fair and equitable taxation rate 5, 10 or 50 years from now, or a fair distribution of wealth. We won't even hazard a guess. 

Such tolerance for uncertainty drives doctrinaire conservatives to conniption. But that's a fundamental difference between us.  Therefore, a real liberal would start with our current and projected expenditures and sources of revenue and go from there; he wouldn't start the analysis with, "Well, it's just plain unfair and immoral for somebody to pay more than x percent of his gross income in taxes."  And besides, if that is my "moral" conviction, then how in the world can we debate that? We'd start at an impasse.

Pearlstein does argue that the distribution of economic rewards will shift over time, but liberals already know this:

[T]he way markets distribute rewards is neither divinely determined nor purely the result of the “invisible hand.” It is determined by laws, regulations, technology, norms of behavior, power relationships, and the ways that labor and financial markets operate and interact. These arrangements change over time and can dramatically affect market outcomes and incomes.

Pearlstein's next critique of liberals is that they "have been able to create a welfare state only by addicting a middle-class majority to government subsidies -- subsidies that now can be financed only by taking more and more money from the rich." 

Do I really need to cite statistics about tax and income inequality and the disappearing U.S. middle class?  If so, read this, this, this, this and this. And don't even get me started about the $29 trillion bank bailouts, that primarily went to save financial markets in which the top One Percent owns 42 percent of all financial wealth, and the top 20 percent owns about 90 percent. The TBTF bank bailouts clearly demonstrate who is really "addicted" to Big Government and to what degree! 

Overall, although Pearlstein leans conservative, he touches on most of the important questions. The main take-aways from our debate are these:

• Pure capitalism (or socialism, for that matter) has never existed anywhere, nor can it;
• We are only worried about rising deficits and redistribution payments because of the Great Recession that in turn resulted from financial deregulation that conservatives support, even to this day;
• Liberals should never feel obligated to justify the morality of their political economy, when if fact we are much clearer on this than conservatives who claim to care about the poor just as much as we do, yet have no idea how to remedy persistent poverty;
• Liberals should not fall into conservatives' trap of naming "ideal" marginal tax rates, debt:GDP ratios, or anything of the kind, because 1) it's unwise tactically, in a political system that demands compromise, and 2) the correct answers will change over time.

A final note on political-economic morality: Pearlstein doesn't mention it but I will: conservatives' economic morality depends on personal pain and suffering. They firmly believe that pain teaches us lessons and can be personally redeeming; therefore, for redistributionist Big Government to deny a person the pain that he "deserves" is to deny him the chance to learn and improve himself.  

There is also a religious conservative variant of this belief: even if one's suffering wasn't caused by one's poor decisions, it may still be part of God's plan for that person; therefore, for redistributionist Big Government to prevent that pain and suffering is to interfere with God's plan for that person. Moreover, government assistance to a suffering person denies true Christians the opportunity to curry favor with God by performing charitable works for that suffering person. 

I hope I don't have to explain how sick and twisted such moral reasoning is, much less why it cannot be the basis for our country's political economy....

Finally, a note on redistribution. I will take the liberty here of quoting myself at length:

[L]et's recall for a minute what the U.S. Government -- any government from the dawn of human civilization -- actually does, in pure basics: it collects taxes from the people how it sees fit, and then spends that money how it wants. It does not, for example, say, "Mr. David Koch, since you contributed 0.01 percent of federal income tax revenues in FY 2011, we are allocating 0.01 percent of the FY 2012 federal budget to you."  

Since our government doesn't do this -- since no government has ever done this, ever -- then by definition, what our government does is redistribute wealth.  Moreover, sooner or later all government spending ends up in private hands -- just not necessarily (and not usually) in the hands that gave it its money in the first place.  If that's not redistribution then I don't know what is.

Is capitalism moral?

By Steven Pearlstein

March 15, 2013 | Washington Post

URL: http://wapo.st/WLTcrp

'Socialist' Adam Smith on owners v. labor

Rosenberg's latest post is worth reading in full; I'll just copy two quotes he gives from the father of economics Adam Smith regarding the "masters" and "workmen" of the world, because his observations still hold true. The first one relates to collective bargaining, without which individual workers are always at a disadvantage to their employers:

A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.

And here's a second one... so apropos the present-day USA!

Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.

Remarks Rosenberg:

This is why economics used to be called "political economy", because the great classical economists never lost sight of the fact that economics was a thoroughly political activity, not something outside of the life of a political community.

Politics -- not economics -- is why our "masters" of business are not only beating our "workmen" in the state-by-state battle against right-to-work laws and a higher minimum wage; it's also why they are able to win expensive federal and local tax breaks, not to mention direct financial incentives -- and meanwhile, nobody bothers to do a cost-benefit analysis, even ex post facto.

But we sure can see the effects on workers' wages over the past 30 years, despite their ever-rising productivity, there's no denying it.

Socialist firebrand Adam Smith points the way in struggle for a living wage

By Paul Rosenberg

December 15, 2012 | Aljazeera

URL: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/12/20121214131829224157.html