Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Credit to the T.W.U. – As Far as It Goes
A few of my own thoughts here (jotted down more quickly than I would have liked)...
I give credit to the T.W.U. for defying the Metropolitan Transit Authority and the state and going out on strike. These workers are doing an admirable and courageous thing. And I am sufficiently sickened by the rhetoric of our billionaire mayor, calling the transit workers "thugs" and calling them "irresponsible," etc. But I’ve got mixed feelings about how significant this situation is for all workers in the long run. I say, all power to the T.W.U. in their battle, at least they are doing what a trade union is supposed to do (much more than many unions in the present time). But how far does that go in affecting the lives and morale of other workers? Toussaint and other T.W.U. officials are spouting rhetoric about the significance to all workers, but that expression of broader workers’ solidarity seems like too little too late.
The feelings of other workers in New York City are mixed (and are actually deteriorating with each added day of inconvenience) in part as a consequence of the fact that the trade unions here have not been following a tradition of broader workers' solidarity. During times of trouble, we may see some small signs of solidarity between municipal unions, but that certainly doesn't carry over to workers in the private sector or workers who are not in any union and don't have the opportunity to join one (close to 90 percent of workers who are officially counted, and something like 92 percent of workers in the private sector). And it’s true that most workers don’t even have many of the advantages that the T.W.U. is striking to defend, from benefits to good pension plans, to decent salaries (vs. the cost of living), etc., because workers all over have lost such advantages a long time ago. This is not surprising, considering that there has been a lack of any movement that could bring all workers together, any visible workers’ struggle that in the least way addresses the larger social and political system that makes us wage slaves to begin with. And, of course, a big problem has been the trade union system, itself (especially in the present age), which encourages people within each shop or local to defend only their own, in the smallest and most narrowly focused way, and which can (ostensibly) defend the interests of workers only through the most hierarchical and corporate-like system, in which wheeling and dealing bureaucrats "represent" the workers but more often than not sell out the workers on a moment’s notice. (The T.W.U. has actually been exceptional for not following that pattern so fast.)
The transit workers are a little more militant than most in defending their own interests, but part of the reason for that is that they are among the few workers who have the power to directly threaten the system all on their own. Most other workers do not have such power, especially because they see no hope of connecting with other workers in any collective sort of way. (In fact, for most workers, that idea would never even occur now, and many probably can't even imagine such a thing.) Sadly, in most workplaces these days, there is the overwhelming sense that we are all replaceable and nobody’s going to stand with us if we try to defend our standard of living (or what's left of it) or our liberties or rights.
And how much have the transit workers participated in any larger movement of solidarity with all other workers? In truth, for the longest time, the transit workers, like everyone else, have avoided greater expressions of solidarity or any sense of mission beyond defending their own immediate economic interests. This is especially true of the union bureaucrats who "speak for" the transit workers.
The defiance of the T.W.U. may build morale for some, may help to give some other unions a little backbone. The tide may be turning, etc.; just as the political pendulum is swinging a little in other matters, within the strict conservative boundaries of the present corporate-led “mainstream.” This is somewhat heartening. Maybe the social regression can be slowed a little; maybe we will stop seeing endless victory upon victory of the extreme right wing.
But unions won’t ever make fundamental changes to the system; they will never, at this point, pose any real threat to capitalism or the power of capital.
All that having been said, once again, I have to say, credit to the T.W.U. I say, support this transit strike, but don’t overrate it, because it will be over soon enough and, for most of us, little will have changed.
I give credit to the T.W.U. for defying the Metropolitan Transit Authority and the state and going out on strike. These workers are doing an admirable and courageous thing. And I am sufficiently sickened by the rhetoric of our billionaire mayor, calling the transit workers "thugs" and calling them "irresponsible," etc. But I’ve got mixed feelings about how significant this situation is for all workers in the long run. I say, all power to the T.W.U. in their battle, at least they are doing what a trade union is supposed to do (much more than many unions in the present time). But how far does that go in affecting the lives and morale of other workers? Toussaint and other T.W.U. officials are spouting rhetoric about the significance to all workers, but that expression of broader workers’ solidarity seems like too little too late.
The feelings of other workers in New York City are mixed (and are actually deteriorating with each added day of inconvenience) in part as a consequence of the fact that the trade unions here have not been following a tradition of broader workers' solidarity. During times of trouble, we may see some small signs of solidarity between municipal unions, but that certainly doesn't carry over to workers in the private sector or workers who are not in any union and don't have the opportunity to join one (close to 90 percent of workers who are officially counted, and something like 92 percent of workers in the private sector). And it’s true that most workers don’t even have many of the advantages that the T.W.U. is striking to defend, from benefits to good pension plans, to decent salaries (vs. the cost of living), etc., because workers all over have lost such advantages a long time ago. This is not surprising, considering that there has been a lack of any movement that could bring all workers together, any visible workers’ struggle that in the least way addresses the larger social and political system that makes us wage slaves to begin with. And, of course, a big problem has been the trade union system, itself (especially in the present age), which encourages people within each shop or local to defend only their own, in the smallest and most narrowly focused way, and which can (ostensibly) defend the interests of workers only through the most hierarchical and corporate-like system, in which wheeling and dealing bureaucrats "represent" the workers but more often than not sell out the workers on a moment’s notice. (The T.W.U. has actually been exceptional for not following that pattern so fast.)
The transit workers are a little more militant than most in defending their own interests, but part of the reason for that is that they are among the few workers who have the power to directly threaten the system all on their own. Most other workers do not have such power, especially because they see no hope of connecting with other workers in any collective sort of way. (In fact, for most workers, that idea would never even occur now, and many probably can't even imagine such a thing.) Sadly, in most workplaces these days, there is the overwhelming sense that we are all replaceable and nobody’s going to stand with us if we try to defend our standard of living (or what's left of it) or our liberties or rights.
And how much have the transit workers participated in any larger movement of solidarity with all other workers? In truth, for the longest time, the transit workers, like everyone else, have avoided greater expressions of solidarity or any sense of mission beyond defending their own immediate economic interests. This is especially true of the union bureaucrats who "speak for" the transit workers.
The defiance of the T.W.U. may build morale for some, may help to give some other unions a little backbone. The tide may be turning, etc.; just as the political pendulum is swinging a little in other matters, within the strict conservative boundaries of the present corporate-led “mainstream.” This is somewhat heartening. Maybe the social regression can be slowed a little; maybe we will stop seeing endless victory upon victory of the extreme right wing.
But unions won’t ever make fundamental changes to the system; they will never, at this point, pose any real threat to capitalism or the power of capital.
All that having been said, once again, I have to say, credit to the T.W.U. I say, support this transit strike, but don’t overrate it, because it will be over soon enough and, for most of us, little will have changed.
Strike!
Too tired and overworked myself to write an adequate and coherent commentary on the NYC transit strike, but at least I have the energy to quote somebody else. Once in a while, I really do have to agree with the Trotskyists of the World Socialist Web Site, who are actually providing the best coverage of the topic that I can find right now. I’m going to quote my favorite paragraphs from the article The New York transit strike: A new stage in the class struggle (although I think the title overrates it somewhat – though this is pretty good as labor union strikes go these days). Of course, I have stopped the quote just short of the suggestion that we all help to build the Socialist Equality Party. I’m not so sure about that…but I like this:
The workers are in a powerful position. The MTA and the ruling establishment are unable to replace 34,000 workers and run the huge transit system with scab labor, as was done against the PATCO air traffic controllers. It cannot outsource public transportation or shift it to a low-wage haven. And the cost of the walkout to the city’s businesses is estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars daily. The frenzied ultimatums and threats cannot conceal the weakness of the city’s and state’s position.
At the same time, the strike has underscored the tremendous crisis of political perspective and leadership within the working class.
The greatest obstacle to the victory of the transit workers comes from their own union leadership. Local 100’s parent union, the TWU International, has branded the walkout as illegal and unsanctioned. The union’s international president, Michael O’Brien, intervened in the Monday night Local 100 executive board meeting that voted to call the strike. He called on the local to accept the MTA’s takeaway offer and refused to authorize the strike, depriving the city’s transit workers of the logistical, legal and financial support that is paid for by their own dues. At Tuesday’s court proceedings to impose fines on Local 100, lawyers for the international union intervened to insist that it bore no responsibility for the walkout, because it opposed the strike.
The TWU International’s web site has posted a statement calling on Local 100 to end its strike and return to work. Local 100 sources, meanwhile, report that the international union is threatening to place the local in receivership, a measure normally used in cases of gross corruption, where local officers are replaced by staff appointed by the international union. If this action is taken, the union will order workers to abandon the picket lines and add its own penalties to those of the city and state against those who refuse to submit.
Nothing could more graphically demonstrate the way in which the official trade unions have been transformed into instruments for suppressing workers’ struggles and blocking any challenge to American capitalism. They have integrated themselves into the Democratic Party, an unswerving defender of the financial oligarchy, while promoting baseless illusions that this party is somehow a “friend of labor.”
The current transit strike has once again demonstrated the fraudulent character of such claims. No prominent Democrat has come forward to defend the bus and subway workers against the savage attacks being carried out against them. New York’s Senator Hillary Clinton, for example, proclaimed her “neutrality” in this bitter battle, offering her services as a mediator while declaring her support for the Taylor Law, the principal weapon being used to bludgeon the workers into submission.
More starkly than any event in the past twenty years, the present strike by New York City transit workers poses before the entire working class the need to develop a new leadership and a new political strategy to carry forward their struggle, founded on a program that upholds the interests and needs of working people against the profit drive of the financial elite.
Because the transit strike, like every serious social struggle, pits workers against the profit system as a whole, it poses the urgent need for an independent political movement of the working class.
If this strike is to be successful, transit workers must be guided by a perspective that rejects the social, economic and political assumptions of the financial oligarchy and its political parties. The unending demands for reductions in the living standards of workers clearly demonstrate that their interests are incompatible with the requirements of the capitalist profit system.
And I like this (though I think it unlikely), from another article, New York City transit workers defy threats and strike:
Transit workers must act independently of the union and carry out the struggle the union bureaucracy has refused to conduct, to mobilize broader sections of the working class in New York, from unionized public employees to the low-paid immigrant workers, the unemployed and the youth in a common struggle against the policies of the financial elite. They must organize independent strike committees to conduct such a fight.
Mass demonstrations must be organized in defense of the transit workers and against any imposition of fines or other legal attacks against them, and immediate preparations be made for the calling of a general strike of workers in New York.
The workers are in a powerful position. The MTA and the ruling establishment are unable to replace 34,000 workers and run the huge transit system with scab labor, as was done against the PATCO air traffic controllers. It cannot outsource public transportation or shift it to a low-wage haven. And the cost of the walkout to the city’s businesses is estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars daily. The frenzied ultimatums and threats cannot conceal the weakness of the city’s and state’s position.
At the same time, the strike has underscored the tremendous crisis of political perspective and leadership within the working class.
The greatest obstacle to the victory of the transit workers comes from their own union leadership. Local 100’s parent union, the TWU International, has branded the walkout as illegal and unsanctioned. The union’s international president, Michael O’Brien, intervened in the Monday night Local 100 executive board meeting that voted to call the strike. He called on the local to accept the MTA’s takeaway offer and refused to authorize the strike, depriving the city’s transit workers of the logistical, legal and financial support that is paid for by their own dues. At Tuesday’s court proceedings to impose fines on Local 100, lawyers for the international union intervened to insist that it bore no responsibility for the walkout, because it opposed the strike.
The TWU International’s web site has posted a statement calling on Local 100 to end its strike and return to work. Local 100 sources, meanwhile, report that the international union is threatening to place the local in receivership, a measure normally used in cases of gross corruption, where local officers are replaced by staff appointed by the international union. If this action is taken, the union will order workers to abandon the picket lines and add its own penalties to those of the city and state against those who refuse to submit.
Nothing could more graphically demonstrate the way in which the official trade unions have been transformed into instruments for suppressing workers’ struggles and blocking any challenge to American capitalism. They have integrated themselves into the Democratic Party, an unswerving defender of the financial oligarchy, while promoting baseless illusions that this party is somehow a “friend of labor.”
The current transit strike has once again demonstrated the fraudulent character of such claims. No prominent Democrat has come forward to defend the bus and subway workers against the savage attacks being carried out against them. New York’s Senator Hillary Clinton, for example, proclaimed her “neutrality” in this bitter battle, offering her services as a mediator while declaring her support for the Taylor Law, the principal weapon being used to bludgeon the workers into submission.
More starkly than any event in the past twenty years, the present strike by New York City transit workers poses before the entire working class the need to develop a new leadership and a new political strategy to carry forward their struggle, founded on a program that upholds the interests and needs of working people against the profit drive of the financial elite.
Because the transit strike, like every serious social struggle, pits workers against the profit system as a whole, it poses the urgent need for an independent political movement of the working class.
If this strike is to be successful, transit workers must be guided by a perspective that rejects the social, economic and political assumptions of the financial oligarchy and its political parties. The unending demands for reductions in the living standards of workers clearly demonstrate that their interests are incompatible with the requirements of the capitalist profit system.
And I like this (though I think it unlikely), from another article, New York City transit workers defy threats and strike:
Transit workers must act independently of the union and carry out the struggle the union bureaucracy has refused to conduct, to mobilize broader sections of the working class in New York, from unionized public employees to the low-paid immigrant workers, the unemployed and the youth in a common struggle against the policies of the financial elite. They must organize independent strike committees to conduct such a fight.
Mass demonstrations must be organized in defense of the transit workers and against any imposition of fines or other legal attacks against them, and immediate preparations be made for the calling of a general strike of workers in New York.
Monday, December 19, 2005
And Now for the Next Blow: The New Credit Card Minimum
Like a lot of people who opened up their credit card bills this month, I got a nice shock: The minimum payment on my credit card, which I could barely meet before, was raised 50 percent. This is because of new regulations pushed through by the federal government – most specifically, the Bush administration – requiring that credit card companies raise minimum payments drastically in order, supposedly, to guarantee that consumers will make more progress in paying off their debts. (And in many cases, these payments are expected to double, by the way – for many, they will be going from 2 percent to 4 percent.)
During the past few years, it’s been a hardship for me to keep up with the minimum payments required to maintain my credit card, but I’ve still been doing it. At this point, though, that pattern will have to end. I am hoping that I don’t end up lagging behind on minimum payments altogether, because that will only mean late fees and even more astronomical interest rates. I believe that I can stay at a rate close to the old minimum if I freeze the credit card (i.e. cancel my ability to charge on it). But without use of the credit card, I have all the more reason to declare bankruptcy. Of course, the people who pushed through this legislation knew that a lot of people would start thinking that way; that’s why they made sure to push through the bankruptcy laws first. But those bankruptcy laws won’t deter a whole lot of people from filing anyway, because for too many, there simply is no other choice.
I did some searches for some reactions to these new regulations, but it took a while to find any good analysis, because many sites, publications, blogs, etc., were repeating the bullshit of the government and its favorite economists, that this law can only be a good thing. There are a lot of shit heads out on the Internet who can’t even figure out what it’s like not to be able to get by. They’re spouting some crap about how this law is so great because it will teach people greater financial discipline, and it will push them into paying off their credit cards at a rate that will actually eliminate their debt within a decade or so rather than thirty years (oh, joy) and cause them to pay lower interest in the long run. This may all be true, but it doesn’t mean a whole lot for people who can’t even think about what’s going to happen ten or thirty years down the road because they’re not sure where their meals are coming from next week. These same shit heads on the Internet are going on about how people will be able to pay the new minimums by skipping the next few trips to the movies or the next expensive pair of shoes. The problem with that idea, though, is that the people who’ve been paying only the minimums on their cards are far more likely to be the ones who’ve needed those cards for very basic things. I know that this is exactly why my credit card debt shot up several thousand dollars between 2002 and 2004. It wasn’t because I was purchasing luxury items; it was because I was using my credit card for dental treatment, food, and, for a month here and there, cash advances to pay the rent. And I was also using it as my social safety net when I ended up with far less in the way of Unemployment payments than I’d expected because of some technicalities built into a system designed to make sure that there are plenty of ways government bureaucrats can screw over the unemployed. So when some idiots on the Internet babble on about how this drastic increase in credit card minimums is a good thing because people shouldn’t be borrowing more than they can pay back and because it will teach them not to spend so much, that makes me angry.
The real reason that the government, in the interest of the credit industry, has raised these minimum payments in addition to passing these bankruptcy laws is that they know we’re in for some real financial disasters and they want to make sure that their rich sponsors get as much money as they can as soon as possible. It’s irrelevant that the banks won’t be able to make as much interest now over a course of 30 years, because they’re far more concerned with what they can do over the next few years, while they can still squeeze more money out of so many people who haven’t become destitute yet.
Fortunately, there are some blogs and sites out there on the Net that acknowledge the reality of what’s going on here – that this increase, just like the bankruptcy laws, is a very bad thing for most of us.
Starting with Prog Rod at the Daily Kos:
I find it disturbing that there has been so little coverage of the impending rise in minimum credit card payments which are about to double for many Americans. While the justification that doubling the payment will get Americans out of debt faster is certainly a good thing, the problem is so many Americans are already on the very margins just eeking by and waking up to find that your credit payments have just doubled with Winter approaching and fuel and heating prices skyrocketing this could be the straw that breaks the back of many average Americans who are already getting a savage beating in the Corporate free for all we like to call Bush's America.
And, going back a while, from Media Girl:
Now that they've got everyone in a choke hold that nobody can get out of, two credit card companies (so far) have doubled their minimum payment requirements....
Of course, if you can't make that payment, your interest rate goes up to 29.9% and they hit you with all sorts of fees justified in the fine print.
--Not that this would affect you if you’re a worthwhile citizen. No, if you're struggling, that must mean that you're irresponsible, a freeloader, beneath contempt. That's why the Republicans (and not a few Democrats) abandoned you and passed the credit card company no-more-bankruptcy-for-the-poor-and-middle-class bill. Because you are a bad person for being poor.
--That and that the financial industry paid them millions to do this.
Welcome to the "ownership society."
And from Steve Pizzo (found via Alternet and The Smirking Chimp):
I am referring to the looming recession. It's going to be a doozie. And it has begun, as it always does, when consumers suddenly discover they can no longer keep pace with their bills....
This is a particularly bad time for consumers to be tapped out. It comes at the beginning of the holiday spending season which can account for nearly half of many retailers income for the year. It comes just as gasoline prices reach European levels, hitting low-wage workers hardest, especially if they have to commute to work. It comes just as the first chills of winter begin spreading south from Canada and as heating oil and natural gas prices spiral to unheard-of highs.
Here's where it starts:
"Credit Card Minimum Payments on the Rise
San Diego, CA (PRWEB) October 4, 2005 - The minimum payments that credit card companies charge on a monthly basis are increasing. For credit card customers that either pay their bill in full every month or those that can afford substantially more than the minimum, this isn't going to be an issue and could even be benefit to them. For the approximately 40 million people that only pay the minimum, however, this could be devastating."
During the past few years, it’s been a hardship for me to keep up with the minimum payments required to maintain my credit card, but I’ve still been doing it. At this point, though, that pattern will have to end. I am hoping that I don’t end up lagging behind on minimum payments altogether, because that will only mean late fees and even more astronomical interest rates. I believe that I can stay at a rate close to the old minimum if I freeze the credit card (i.e. cancel my ability to charge on it). But without use of the credit card, I have all the more reason to declare bankruptcy. Of course, the people who pushed through this legislation knew that a lot of people would start thinking that way; that’s why they made sure to push through the bankruptcy laws first. But those bankruptcy laws won’t deter a whole lot of people from filing anyway, because for too many, there simply is no other choice.
I did some searches for some reactions to these new regulations, but it took a while to find any good analysis, because many sites, publications, blogs, etc., were repeating the bullshit of the government and its favorite economists, that this law can only be a good thing. There are a lot of shit heads out on the Internet who can’t even figure out what it’s like not to be able to get by. They’re spouting some crap about how this law is so great because it will teach people greater financial discipline, and it will push them into paying off their credit cards at a rate that will actually eliminate their debt within a decade or so rather than thirty years (oh, joy) and cause them to pay lower interest in the long run. This may all be true, but it doesn’t mean a whole lot for people who can’t even think about what’s going to happen ten or thirty years down the road because they’re not sure where their meals are coming from next week. These same shit heads on the Internet are going on about how people will be able to pay the new minimums by skipping the next few trips to the movies or the next expensive pair of shoes. The problem with that idea, though, is that the people who’ve been paying only the minimums on their cards are far more likely to be the ones who’ve needed those cards for very basic things. I know that this is exactly why my credit card debt shot up several thousand dollars between 2002 and 2004. It wasn’t because I was purchasing luxury items; it was because I was using my credit card for dental treatment, food, and, for a month here and there, cash advances to pay the rent. And I was also using it as my social safety net when I ended up with far less in the way of Unemployment payments than I’d expected because of some technicalities built into a system designed to make sure that there are plenty of ways government bureaucrats can screw over the unemployed. So when some idiots on the Internet babble on about how this drastic increase in credit card minimums is a good thing because people shouldn’t be borrowing more than they can pay back and because it will teach them not to spend so much, that makes me angry.
The real reason that the government, in the interest of the credit industry, has raised these minimum payments in addition to passing these bankruptcy laws is that they know we’re in for some real financial disasters and they want to make sure that their rich sponsors get as much money as they can as soon as possible. It’s irrelevant that the banks won’t be able to make as much interest now over a course of 30 years, because they’re far more concerned with what they can do over the next few years, while they can still squeeze more money out of so many people who haven’t become destitute yet.
Fortunately, there are some blogs and sites out there on the Net that acknowledge the reality of what’s going on here – that this increase, just like the bankruptcy laws, is a very bad thing for most of us.
Starting with Prog Rod at the Daily Kos:
I find it disturbing that there has been so little coverage of the impending rise in minimum credit card payments which are about to double for many Americans. While the justification that doubling the payment will get Americans out of debt faster is certainly a good thing, the problem is so many Americans are already on the very margins just eeking by and waking up to find that your credit payments have just doubled with Winter approaching and fuel and heating prices skyrocketing this could be the straw that breaks the back of many average Americans who are already getting a savage beating in the Corporate free for all we like to call Bush's America.
And, going back a while, from Media Girl:
Now that they've got everyone in a choke hold that nobody can get out of, two credit card companies (so far) have doubled their minimum payment requirements....
Of course, if you can't make that payment, your interest rate goes up to 29.9% and they hit you with all sorts of fees justified in the fine print.
--Not that this would affect you if you’re a worthwhile citizen. No, if you're struggling, that must mean that you're irresponsible, a freeloader, beneath contempt. That's why the Republicans (and not a few Democrats) abandoned you and passed the credit card company no-more-bankruptcy-for-the-poor-and-middle-class bill. Because you are a bad person for being poor.
--That and that the financial industry paid them millions to do this.
Welcome to the "ownership society."
And from Steve Pizzo (found via Alternet and The Smirking Chimp):
I am referring to the looming recession. It's going to be a doozie. And it has begun, as it always does, when consumers suddenly discover they can no longer keep pace with their bills....
This is a particularly bad time for consumers to be tapped out. It comes at the beginning of the holiday spending season which can account for nearly half of many retailers income for the year. It comes just as gasoline prices reach European levels, hitting low-wage workers hardest, especially if they have to commute to work. It comes just as the first chills of winter begin spreading south from Canada and as heating oil and natural gas prices spiral to unheard-of highs.
Here's where it starts:
"Credit Card Minimum Payments on the Rise
San Diego, CA (PRWEB) October 4, 2005 - The minimum payments that credit card companies charge on a monthly basis are increasing. For credit card customers that either pay their bill in full every month or those that can afford substantially more than the minimum, this isn't going to be an issue and could even be benefit to them. For the approximately 40 million people that only pay the minimum, however, this could be devastating."
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Some Quiz Farm Results
Not to be taken too seriously, but since a few people out there in the Blogosphere are kind of curious about these, here are my scores in a few quizzes over at the Quiz Farm:
What kind of anarchist are you?
Anarcho-Communist - 70%
Anarcho-Primitivist - 50%
Anarcho-Syndicalist - 45%
Anarcha-Feminist - 25%
Anarcho-Capitalist - 10%
Christian Anarchist - 0%
{Note: For some reason I took this three times. The only difference the other two times was that the top category was a little lower in points and the next category was a little higher, so that the gap was more like 5%; the order of the results was always the same.)
What philosophy do you follow? (v1.03)
Existentialism - 75%
Justice (Fairness) - 55%
Nihilism - 40%
Kantianism - 25%
Utilitarianism - 25%
Strong Egoism - 5%
Apathy - 5%
Hedonism - 5%
Divine Command - 0%
What is Your World View? (updated)
Existentialist - 81%
Modernist - 75%
Materialist - 63%
Postmodernist - 50%
Cultural Creative - 44%
Romanticist - 38%
Idealist - 13%
Fundamentalist - 0%
(Two quizzes in a row tell me that I'm more of an existentialist than I ever realized. But, then again, I do like Sartre, and I agree that "Hell is other people.")
What Political Party Do Your Beliefs Put You In?
Socialist - 100%
Communism - 92%
Anarchism - 75%
Green - 50%
Democrat - 42%
Fascism - 17%
Nazi - 0%
Republican - 0%
(I would have said communist then anarchist then socialist and put them all within less than five points of each other...but I don't mind these results, either (though I am trying to figure out where the 17% fascism came from).)
What kind of anarchist are you?
Anarcho-Communist - 70%
Anarcho-Primitivist - 50%
Anarcho-Syndicalist - 45%
Anarcha-Feminist - 25%
Anarcho-Capitalist - 10%
Christian Anarchist - 0%
{Note: For some reason I took this three times. The only difference the other two times was that the top category was a little lower in points and the next category was a little higher, so that the gap was more like 5%; the order of the results was always the same.)
What philosophy do you follow? (v1.03)
Existentialism - 75%
Justice (Fairness) - 55%
Nihilism - 40%
Kantianism - 25%
Utilitarianism - 25%
Strong Egoism - 5%
Apathy - 5%
Hedonism - 5%
Divine Command - 0%
What is Your World View? (updated)
Existentialist - 81%
Modernist - 75%
Materialist - 63%
Postmodernist - 50%
Cultural Creative - 44%
Romanticist - 38%
Idealist - 13%
Fundamentalist - 0%
(Two quizzes in a row tell me that I'm more of an existentialist than I ever realized. But, then again, I do like Sartre, and I agree that "Hell is other people.")
What Political Party Do Your Beliefs Put You In?
Socialist - 100%
Communism - 92%
Anarchism - 75%
Green - 50%
Democrat - 42%
Fascism - 17%
Nazi - 0%
Republican - 0%
(I would have said communist then anarchist then socialist and put them all within less than five points of each other...but I don't mind these results, either (though I am trying to figure out where the 17% fascism came from).)
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Return to Mott Haven (or, the Seemingly Inevitable Transitions of Some Neighborhoods)
I’ve been looking at apartment shares in The Bronx a lot this week. I shouldn’t speak too soon, but I’m probably going to settle for one in a nondescript area near Bronx Park (for various reasons that I need not go into right now). But the place that I’ll be settling on (hopefully) isn’t the most interesting place that I saw. That place was in Mott Haven, in the Clock Tower building. This neighborhood, which used to have a reputation as one of the bleakest neighborhoods in the entire United States, is becoming a new, up-and-coming bohemia of sorts. I visited there on a bitter cold night when the streets were almost deserted, so I couldn’t really get a complete picture of the area, but from speaking to the women whose loft I was viewing and from noticing a couple of neighbors and the interior of the building itself (walking in hallways where people displayed their fancy abstract artworks right on the walls!), I got the impression that the area had come a long way. In fact, it might have come a long way even since the last time I was there, about six years ago, back when I made a couple of visits to the squatters' and artists' space called Casa Del Sol... And even back then, Mott Haven seemed as though it was changing. But back in ’99 and 2000, people weren’t quite as fearful of impending gentrification and the disappearance of affordable spaces in the neighborhood.
The living space that I looked at was, quite frankly, far overpriced for such a spare form of "housing." That is, the personal sleeping space/work space that I was being offered amounted to a two-level coffin, though it was priced at $580 plus heat, bringing it into the 620s or more – a price that I would expect to pay for a really decent-sized room. (People in other regions might actually be shocked to see that as a price for any room in a shared apartment, rather than the whole apartment – but welcome to New York City; in prime Manhattan real estate, a share could be twice as much.) The communal/shared area of the loft space was kind of impressive (if not all that large), with windows that provided a spectacular view (from the bottom of The Bronx) that made the notorious Robert Moses highways seem, somehow, beautiful.
In addition to housing some of the world’s worst urban slums, the bottom of The Bronx did used to house a lot of industry. Probably, that’s something that was more concentrated in Mott Haven than in other parts of the South Bronx. And old industrial buildings that start to become arty do have an aesthetic quality that I love. Maybe it’s because of the bizarre contrasts, because people have just started to do aesthetically pleasing things with places that had been abandoned or ruined for a while, or maybe it's because people can call attention to the beauty inherent in old industrial structures by doing arty things to them. It's also very interesting when things built for one purpose turn out to be used for something entirely different. On the other hand, given all the things that I am aware of, I'll always have mixed feelings about an industrial section and/or working class neighborhood being transformed (which often means being abandoned and destroyed before being transformed) into some artists' bohemia.
It's true that creating art is a much more pleasant and rewarding endeavor than working in a factory, and places where art is created are much more humane than factories. But where does that leave the people who used to be able to work in the factory? And how long does all this go on before the interesting transition is over, the neighborhood loses its edge, and many more people just can’t afford to live there anymore (nor, in some cases, even want to live there anymore, after money has completely taken over with its sanitizing and homogenizing effects)?
When I talked to my potential roommates, we had a discussion about the dangers of the area becoming too much like Soho or, maybe not quite Soho, but Williamsburg. And we kind of wondered, was Mott Haven doomed to follow that familiar path, or was it somehow permanently rough enough to be spared? (A conversation I’ve heard a few times before, in different places...)
If it weren't for the capitalist system, of course, neighborhoods would never follow this inevitable path. Some people say that there wouldn't be interesting, edgy, creative neighborhoods, either, that this is a natural product of the great "entrepreneurial" qualities of capitalism. But personally, I think there would be many more creative, edgy, unusual and exciting neighborhoods, and more interesting transitions when buildings or blocks that served one purpose end up serving another (only without whole populations being driven out). As I see it, our local communities could become much more creative if we ever got rid of the old capitalist division of labor, because many more people would be able to spend their time doing many different things. I am reminded of something Andre Gorz once wrote, in Ecology as Politics:
The uniformity of consumption patterns and lifestyles which characterizes present society will disappear with the disappearance of social inequality. Individuals and communities will distinguish themselves and diversify their patterns of living beyond anything conceivable today. These differences will, however, be the result of the different uses to which they put their time and resources, and not of unequal access to power and social rewards. The development of autonomous activities during the free time available to everyone shall be the only source of distinction and of wealth.
...But maybe I'm getting way too far beyond the original topic now.
The living space that I looked at was, quite frankly, far overpriced for such a spare form of "housing." That is, the personal sleeping space/work space that I was being offered amounted to a two-level coffin, though it was priced at $580 plus heat, bringing it into the 620s or more – a price that I would expect to pay for a really decent-sized room. (People in other regions might actually be shocked to see that as a price for any room in a shared apartment, rather than the whole apartment – but welcome to New York City; in prime Manhattan real estate, a share could be twice as much.) The communal/shared area of the loft space was kind of impressive (if not all that large), with windows that provided a spectacular view (from the bottom of The Bronx) that made the notorious Robert Moses highways seem, somehow, beautiful.
In addition to housing some of the world’s worst urban slums, the bottom of The Bronx did used to house a lot of industry. Probably, that’s something that was more concentrated in Mott Haven than in other parts of the South Bronx. And old industrial buildings that start to become arty do have an aesthetic quality that I love. Maybe it’s because of the bizarre contrasts, because people have just started to do aesthetically pleasing things with places that had been abandoned or ruined for a while, or maybe it's because people can call attention to the beauty inherent in old industrial structures by doing arty things to them. It's also very interesting when things built for one purpose turn out to be used for something entirely different. On the other hand, given all the things that I am aware of, I'll always have mixed feelings about an industrial section and/or working class neighborhood being transformed (which often means being abandoned and destroyed before being transformed) into some artists' bohemia.
It's true that creating art is a much more pleasant and rewarding endeavor than working in a factory, and places where art is created are much more humane than factories. But where does that leave the people who used to be able to work in the factory? And how long does all this go on before the interesting transition is over, the neighborhood loses its edge, and many more people just can’t afford to live there anymore (nor, in some cases, even want to live there anymore, after money has completely taken over with its sanitizing and homogenizing effects)?
When I talked to my potential roommates, we had a discussion about the dangers of the area becoming too much like Soho or, maybe not quite Soho, but Williamsburg. And we kind of wondered, was Mott Haven doomed to follow that familiar path, or was it somehow permanently rough enough to be spared? (A conversation I’ve heard a few times before, in different places...)
If it weren't for the capitalist system, of course, neighborhoods would never follow this inevitable path. Some people say that there wouldn't be interesting, edgy, creative neighborhoods, either, that this is a natural product of the great "entrepreneurial" qualities of capitalism. But personally, I think there would be many more creative, edgy, unusual and exciting neighborhoods, and more interesting transitions when buildings or blocks that served one purpose end up serving another (only without whole populations being driven out). As I see it, our local communities could become much more creative if we ever got rid of the old capitalist division of labor, because many more people would be able to spend their time doing many different things. I am reminded of something Andre Gorz once wrote, in Ecology as Politics:
The uniformity of consumption patterns and lifestyles which characterizes present society will disappear with the disappearance of social inequality. Individuals and communities will distinguish themselves and diversify their patterns of living beyond anything conceivable today. These differences will, however, be the result of the different uses to which they put their time and resources, and not of unequal access to power and social rewards. The development of autonomous activities during the free time available to everyone shall be the only source of distinction and of wealth.
...But maybe I'm getting way too far beyond the original topic now.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Quotes About Work, Compiled by My Favorite Old Fug
I guess I will continue the thread of old anti-rock stars (or would that be rock anti-stars?)... Roaming around the Web, I stumbled upon a page of quotes about work compiled by Tuli Kupferberg. There are many good quotes here; these are a few favorites:
Formerly the master selected the slave; today the slave selects his master.
- Albert Parsons
The conditions of your life, even what you eat and drink, where you go and with whom you associate - it all depends on your wages... Yet they speak to you of your dignity, of "the dignity of labor." Can you think of any greater insult? You slave for the masters all your life, you serve them and keep them in comfort and luxury, you let them lord it over you, and in their hearts they laugh at you for your stupidity - and then they talk to you of your "dignity."
- Alexander Berkman
When white collar people get jobs, they sell not only their time and energy, but their personalities as well. They sell by the week or month, their smiles and their kindly gestures, and they must practise that prompt repression of resentment and aggression.
- C. Wright Mills
Workers are like lemons: when the rich have sucked out all the juice, they throw them in the garbage.
- Ricardo Flores Magon
You show me a capitalist, I'll show you a bloodsucker.
- Malcolm X
Formerly the master selected the slave; today the slave selects his master.
- Albert Parsons
The conditions of your life, even what you eat and drink, where you go and with whom you associate - it all depends on your wages... Yet they speak to you of your dignity, of "the dignity of labor." Can you think of any greater insult? You slave for the masters all your life, you serve them and keep them in comfort and luxury, you let them lord it over you, and in their hearts they laugh at you for your stupidity - and then they talk to you of your "dignity."
- Alexander Berkman
When white collar people get jobs, they sell not only their time and energy, but their personalities as well. They sell by the week or month, their smiles and their kindly gestures, and they must practise that prompt repression of resentment and aggression.
- C. Wright Mills
Workers are like lemons: when the rich have sucked out all the juice, they throw them in the garbage.
- Ricardo Flores Magon
You show me a capitalist, I'll show you a bloodsucker.
- Malcolm X
