Aflame with Frankfurt School Marxism

Siegfried Kracauer. Something feels right about his analysis of capitalist mass culture within his book, "Mass Ornament." The question is whether he's actually a Marxist.

He begins a historical study of capitalist society, like Marx, in terms of history. Kracauer, however, thinks that the best indicators of a cultural epoch are not the self-conscious judgments a given culture makes (or would make) about itself, but rather "its inconspicuous surface-level expressions." By this, I understand him to mean pop culture--or what would have passed for pop culture in the early 1900's. Pulp, may be a better word for it. His project, then, is distinct from Marx in that he looks at the superstructure of a culture that is an unconscious expression of itself, and sees it as the logical conclusion of the basis of that society. Marx, on the other hand, looks at the base (the means of production) and builds up.

Of course, nothing that Marx predicted or desired has happened, so what was he missing?

I think Kracauer may have a solid critique of Marxism going. He talks specifically about ornament, and Mass Ornament, in the example of the Tiller Girls. Synchronized body movements, not even really dancing, in which large masses of girls form their bodies--all identically dressed and made up--into simple geometric patterns. There is nothing individualized about this spectacle, for if one person would assert an individual presence it would destroy the effect of the show. Human elements are abstracted out of the spectacle; meaning is abstracted out of the spectacle. There is no greater truth to be sought within the ornament, it is an end in itself. It is reasoned, to the extent that the bodies are rationally ordered along mathematical lines and the natural body involved doesn't help you more clearly understand the spectacle. However, this rationality is illusory, or incomplete at best.

Reason is a human endeavor, and is employed to serve human ends (needs). This is in Kracauer's estimation, as I gather. There is no consideration for the human element in the Mass Ornament. Ultimately then, the ornament is a type of myth, an expression of "natural" force, versus reason.

At this point, Kracauer asserts that in these aspects the Mass Ornament is reflexive of the capitalist culture of which it is the product. Capitalist culture, essentially, removes the human elements from it's largest population. Profit is as autotelic as the ornament, it is it's own purpose. The masses of working people are externally determined in their actions and manner of life--they are not essentially free. Still, the production process which is so glorified is rational to the extent that is quiets the human urge for order and control.

So what is needed to complete the socialist revolution that seems to have been stymied somewhere along the line?

Kracauer is essentially an idealist, in that he asserts that reason alone will redeem the promise of the Marxist project. The fault of capitalism is not that it is rational, but that it is not rational enough. Aha! My old friend Immanuel Kant enters the scene. We are most free when we are most determined by reason, Kracauer seems to say--an essentially Kantian assertion. Reason would not foget to care for or abstract the human elements from culture. Kracauer desires some revived form of Enlightenment for the project to come to fruition.

And yet, nearly 100 years later, here we still are. My question now is why this Enlightenment of the masses has also failed. From this point I descend into depression considering the state of consumerism and thriving capitalism.

Ah, those nihilistic avant-gardes!

Delving into a grand study of "Modernism" (and very quickly doubting the appropriateness of such a term), I am finding very interesting and confusing professions of youth, energy, passion, and recklessness.

Enthralling, you can imagine.

I write this as preface to my trip to the Tate Museum of Modern Art. Looking forward to perusing such meaning-divorced works as Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain"



and perhaps a quick gander at some "poem objects" of Andre Breton--an early Dadaist and founder of surrealism, well known for his practice in automatic writing (basically stream of consciousness, and equally as crazy):








before finally wending my weary way towards my personal favorite, and our group's Name-Giver--to employ the Scandinavian saga hyphenation completely out of context--Salvador Dali:


You can all be jealous now.


UPDATE:
After the visit, I became really enthralled--as I think did Guadalupe--with Alberto Giancometti. Truly expressive sculptures.

Watch your backs...

...all of my smart compatriots! One of the courses I signed up for today is "Capitalism and Culture," so be ready to try and refute all my half-baked and sophomoric econo-political theories and opinions which I believe will be forthcoming!

At least, hopefully, I'll finally be able to keep up with some of you in conversation.

The Eyes of an Artist

I was thinking about books I wanted to read, or re-read, once I finish up Phillip Roth, and I thought about continuing my streak of Great Male Authors of the 20th Century with Saul Bellow and either Herzog or Sieze the Day. Then I suddenly thought of another Saul, one whom just the other night I happened to scroll past a picture taken with him and some friends on Facebook. Ah, Saul Williams, hip hop slam poet of the soul.

On visiting his website, I found a rather long and involved post he wrote about his recent trip to Israel and Palestine to read his poetry to a group of 1,000 or so, mostly Israeli youth. He is extremely cognizant of all the tension and troubles the American media can be expected to imbue in your average citizen, but he takes a more compassionate and creative eye to cities themselves. He describes his brief visit beautifully here on his website. Hopefully that link takes you to his "Thoughts" page, where it may still be the first post you see.

It is heartening to me, to read about the peaceful protests of the Palestinian people near Tel Aviv, and their strong desire for a single nation of Muslim and Jew living side by side. The reality of their situation is equally as depressing, though; angering and daunting in equal measure.

The tragedy of Haiti

I'm sure you've all heard the news of the devastating 7.0 earthquake that struck just outside of Haiti's sprawling capital yesterday. Casualties will likely be extremely high, given the lack of almost all basic infrastructure and social services, and given the architecturally tenuous position of most of Port-au-Prince's slums that line the city's steep hills. Haiti is about as dysfunctional a place as exists in the world (save perhaps Somalia...) and what little progress it scrapes together day after day is usually washed away or knocked down by tropical storms, riots, or, now, earthquakes.

But the tragedy of yesterday's quake is that, unrecognized by many, Haiti has been making rather enormous strides since the election of the Preval government in 2006 ushered in the the longest period of political stability and legitimacy that the island had seen in nearly a century. At the same time, an increasingly funded and manned UN stabilization mission charged with a broader development and security mandate was making slow but concrete progress towards disarming irregular militias, building an a-political police force, army, and civil service. Yglesias has more on this.

But I think the real tragedy would be if we decided that Haiti is to be forever doomed. It has shown that progress can be made. As much as our efforts have improved, they are still far below what a powerful neighbor like the US can and should do. Here are some ways to help.

The Ultimate in Nominative Determinism

Just found this purusing the Times Online. Not much of a link, but it led me to a pretty funny abstract of the work. Higgy, it's a good thing you didn't pursue that career in professional water polo!

Obama team falling back into old habits on Iran?

Iran expert Gary Sick participated in a simulated negotiation over Iran's nuclear ambitions and is unhappy with how closely the simulations resemble real life:

The goal of the American team was to assemble a consensus for new sanctions against Iran. The Iran team, on the other hand, felt confident that the US and its allies could not put together a package that would hurt us in any serious way, and that was indeed the case. By the end of the game, the Americans had driven away all their ostensible allies, and wasted immense time and effort, while Iran was better off than it had been at the beginning.

This was only a simulation, of course. But the moves of the US team were quite similar to the strategy actually employed by the United States over the course of the past three administrations. The pursuit of sanctions in this game, as in the real world, became an end in itself, with little impact on Iran or its ability to continue enrichment. The United States can (and in fact already has) put together a reasonable set of sanctions. These efforts may please the Israelis, the GCC states and other allies as a show of determination. But will they stop Iran?

He thinks they won't, and that after the deal to swap uranium fell apart in October, both sides have retreated into their respective corners. That is certainly the path of least resistance, and one of the biggest tests of Obama's foreign policy as articulated so brilliantly in his Nobel speech will be whether or not he and his team can overcome that inertia.

(h/t to the Dish for the link)

omg

Kermit takes a stand

Incredible:

Song for the new year

This new track from Kid Cudi and New York electro-rockers MGMT really hits the New Years vibe with the champagne/streamers aesthetic and its debaucherous-yet-wistful take on the ongoing search for happiness and fulfillment. Its been in my head all day, and I especially like the contrast of the party atmosphere and melancholy lyrics, finished off with the knife blade of regret at the end. Very New Years' Eve.



"Tell me what you know about dreams, dreams/...
You don’t really care about the trials of tomorrow/
Rather lay awake in a bed full of sorrow..."

It's Official

Greg Mankiw endorses Lady Gaga:

I am bit embarrassed to admit this, but the answer is Lady Gaga. Her music reminds me Blondie, which I enjoyed back in my student days. I particularly like the Lady Gaga song Bad Romance.

What can I say? The man has good taste.

Afghanistan

You may have heard about the president's speech outlining his plans for the ongoing war in Afghanistan. The speech was pretty classic Obama - he presented the extremes of both sides, explained why each, although well-intentioned, is mistaken, and then stakes out a thoughtful, moderate middle option. I also thought he did a good job laying out the different phases of the effort - military, civilian, and broader engagement with Pakistan.

In that sense, I found the address reassuring. I felt after hearing Obama lay out his reasoning that he had been exposed to and forced to consider the arguments in favor of a more-or-less immediate withdrawal. I never thought he would choose that course, in large part because he has been so consistent about escalating in Afghanistan from the beginning of his campaign, but I also think his decision to place a fairly firm and fairly short time limit on our involvement reveals his recognition that the benefits likely to accrue from that escalation are limited and amount to damage-control.

In a piece I've had up on my browser for a while and have been meaning to post, Spencer Ackerman delves under the hood of how Obama's decision making process has progressed, and why.

Sullivan thinks that Obama is placing the ball in the hawks court by given their most beloved tactic - a surge - a chance to work. If it does, great, and if it doesn't, its failure would be the most eloquent argument in favor of withdrawal.

But what does "work" mean? Like in Iraq, the goalposts have been moved so many times (not to mention that the situation is always changing) that "victory", "success" and "work" have little intrinsic meaning left. Obama, to his credit, narrowed down our goals from an incoherent, rudderless nation-building project to 1) rolling back Taliban gains and 2) destroying Al Qaida. But Marc Lynch argues that there is little in Afghanistan that is critical to our national security interests:

Obama needed to demonstrate that Afghanistan matters enough to American vital national interests to justify the escalation. He settled upon al-Qaeda as the reason. This makes sense for an American audience, I suppose... But it's not satisfying analytically. Al-Qaeda is not really active in Afghanistan anymore, and it is not equivalent with the Taliban (either the Afghan or Pakistani variants). Al-Qaeda Central still matters, but the decentralized network and ideological narrative around the world no longer depends on it. Nothing the U.S. does or does not do in Afghanistan will defeat al-Qaeda -- the failure of that movement will happen for its own reasons, if it happens (as it already largely has in the Arab world).

Moreso than the fact that Al-Qaeda is mostly not in Afghanistan any more (because they could always return after we leave) is the fact that our most potent weapon against them is not a massive occupying force. Most of the fight against al-Qaeda progresses based on the clandestine work of the CIA, which uses its intelligence to pinpoint and disrupt Qaeda operatives. This work could be continued and indeed escalated with a fraction of the number of military we have in Afghanistan.

Most of the troops, then, are not concerned with al-Qaeda. They are concerned with fighting the Taliban, building various infrastructure projects, training the Afghan military and police, and in general trying to build a semi-coherent, semi-democratic, semi-functioning state. But why - this seems to have nothing to do with al-Qaeda. Of course the argument then is that by building Afghanistan we are undermining potential support for al-Qaeda, since any "failed state" could be used as a "safe haven" for Qaeda training.

But, as Lynch again points out, the logic of this is absurd and dangerous. This would mean that it is in the US's vital national security interest to occupy and rebuild any and all "ungoverned" space in the world. After all, once Afghanistan is as functional as, say, Egypt, then al-Qaeda can simply move to, say, Somalia, and we'll have to follow them there with a 100,000+ NATO presence. Clearly that's not possible or desirable, and no sane person believes we should do that. While ungoverned spaces are a problem, they are a problem that the international community is going to have to learn to address with much more nimble means - better and better-shared intelligence, better law enforcement cooperation, and, when necessary, pinpoint military strikes.

Why then does that crazy logic apply to Afghanistan - especially when most deadly Qaeda attacks were planned and staged from Europe rather than Central Asia? The depressing answer is simply: because we're already there. And I think that Obama combines a recognition of the absurdity of our occupation with a truly deep-seated desire to deliver a blow to al-Qaeda from which it will not soon recover. He knows that pulling out immediately is simply not a real option - it would do real damage to his already precarious domestic agenda, weaken his credibility with the military leadership, and leave many of our allies in the lurch, both in Afghanistan and in NATO.

Instead, his approach is the patented cautious, incremental Obama. To the left, he says: we'll be leaving by the end of my term. To the right he says: I'm committed to salvaging what can be salvaged and I'm going to give our military all the tools to do it. To the Afghan government he says: we're not going to be here for much longer to cover your ass.

It could be a disaster, and if it is, Obama will be a one-term president. But it could look like this: by mid-2012 our troops have left a weak but functioning Iraq, they are mostly deployed away from a corrupt but stable Afghanistan, and Osama bin Laden sits in US custody. I think thats the best we're going to get out of this mess.

Contra a "protestant ethic"

A long time ago, in a country far, far away, the incomparable Max Weber developed what would become a very influential theory regarding the impact of religion on economic performance. The idea, for those not familiar with it, came to be known as the "protestant ethic" and centered on the contention that the values of protestantism - puritanicalism, a focus on saving, a fetish for work and a phobia of leisure time, an emphasis on individual autonomy and a disrespect for hierarchies - provided a more receptive environment for the success of capitalism than other religions. He argued that this ethic explained the predominance of protestants in the wealthy elites, as well as the shift of global economic dominance away from Catholic France and Spain and towards protestant Britain and Germany.

While this has always seemed more or less plausible, I am pretty skeptical of cultural explanations for sharp divergences in human behavior across societies. All this is to say that Tyler Cowen has linked to a paper that finds that, contra Weber, protestantism has had no effect on economic development. Discuss!

The nine nations of China

In honor of President Obama's first trip to China, Fallows links to a helpful multimedia presentation of China's "nine nations" - the nine very, very different regions that underly the modern fiction of a culturally homogenous Han China. Check it out, its fun and informative.

My favorite section is on the South Sea region, home to the perennial Cantonese rebel, Hong Kong:

The South Sea coast is China’s Back Door, far enough from the centers of power that nobody will notice if you bend a few rules. As locals put it, “The sky is broad and the emperor is far away.” Officials who were exiled to Yueh, as this land was once known, found it a fearful place whose inhabitants spoke strange dialects—Cantonese, mainly—and feasted on snakes, cats, and monkeys. But its clan-based villages, lush jungles, and rocky inlets offered ideal shelter for smugglers and secret societies to flourish. Unlike their staid northern cousins, these freebooters learned to take risks and profit from them. Other Chinese regard southerners as clever, sharp, and a bit slippery. But as rebels and renegades, emigrants and entrepreneurs, they infuse much needed flexibility and creativity into an otherwise rigid system.

God I miss Hong Kong.

Obesity epidemic as national security threat (Spencer bait II)

Over at the Atlantic Business Channel, Derek Thompson lists three reasons why skeptics should support a soda tax:

1) The Sin Reason
Sugary beverages account for up to 15 percent of the calories consumed by children, according to the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors wrote that "sugar-sweetened beverages ... may be the single largest driver of the obesity epidemic."

2) The Market Reason
There's a simple reason why sugary drinks and junk food are contributing to the country's obesity epidemic. They're very, very cheap... Raising the price of sodas, which plummeted relative to overall inflation in the last 30 years, strikes me as a responsible way to incent consumers to make healthier choices.

3) The Deficit Reason
But let's say it doesn't change anybody's eating preferences. Let's say Americans keep paying a couple cents more for the same amount of Pepsi. Well then fine, I say, at least they're helping to pay down the federal deficit. I hear the argument that a sales tax on soda (or alcohol) would be regressive, taking a larger percentage of poorer people's income and striking at the less fortunate demographic that is more likely to buy lots of soda in the first place. But health care reform would use those billions of dollars -- a 3 cent tax per 12-ounce serving could generate $24 billion in four years -- to pay for Medicaid and health care subsidies for less fortunate Americans, anyway.

I should say that out of those, I find (3) to be most persuasive. Thompson makes the under-appreciated point that those of us who want to see more aggressive spending on progressive social investments should be concerned less with the progressivity of any particular tax and more with the progressivity of the public sector as a whole. That means if the only way to eventually pay for, say, a single payer health system is through more consumption-side taxes, then liberals should take that deal. This broadly describes the equilibrium in many European countries, where very progressive public sectors are financed by regressive VATs.

But that point is really just an incidental set-up to the real point of this post which is an all-important 4th reason to support a soda tax:

The latest Army statistics show a stunning 75 percent of military-age youth are ineligible to join the military because they are overweight, can't pass entrance exams, have dropped out of high school or had run-ins with the law.

So many young people between the prime recruiting ages of 17 and 24 cannot meet minimum standards that a group of retired military leaders is calling for more investment in early childhood education to combat the insidious effects of junk food and inadequate education."We've never had this problem of young people being obese like we have today," said Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Fighting obesity isn't just about diabetes and the ability to wear sporty, slim cut attire any more. It has become critical to our very national security.

Kierkegaard, Despair, and Modern Happiness

Check out this article in the NYTimes by still-Kierkegaard Library curator at St. Olaf, Gordon Marino.

The slow revolution

Today was an important day in Iran's history - 13 Aban, the anniversary of the day that Islamicist students stormed the US embassy in Tehran and began a hostage crisis that would last 444 days. While this day has usually been marked in Iran by state-sponsored anti-US protests, today was a little different:



The pro-reform movement, again spreading news largely through social media, has once again turned out in what appears to be impressive force in an apparently deliberate attempt to embarrass the regime on one of its most mythologically potent days. Watching most of the news coverage of the past couple months, there's been a sense that the moment has passed, the movement has been surpressed and the momentum has died. In reality however, what we appear to be seeing is a long-term, cyclical pacing that eerily mirrors the 1979 revolution. Remember, it was more than a year, between 1978 and 1979, from when the protests started to when the Shah finally took his leave of Iran.

The reformists are not going away. The regime has missed its chance to crush them decisively, and it threw away its chance to co-opt them by allowing a run-off. The end result is still unpredictable, but Iran is a polity in tremendous flux, even when the movement isn't visible in the form of protestors and tear gas. Thats important to keep in mind when talking about the ongoing negotiating process - what kind of decisions is this regime capable of coming to at a moment like this? I am not among those who think that this should cause us to back off our policy of engagement, however - we must not do the regime that favor . The hard line elements of the revolution have always used noisy confrontation with the west to shore up support and justify draconian measures. Obama's open hand has thrown them off balance.

Ezra vs. the Public Option

Actually, this is quite a good post by Ezra and expresses well my own qualms about the public option:

This also illuminates one of the more problematic inconsistencies in the health-care debate. Insurers have been blamed for, among other things, doing too much to discriminate against bad health-care risks and refusing to pay for care far too often. They've been blamed, in other words, for saying "no." But they've also been blamed for doing too little to control costs.

But that is how they control costs. We saw this in the late-'90s, when tightly managed care brought cost growth down to the 4 percent range but also triggered a public backlash (it did not, however, appear to hurt health outcomes). Insofar as the public option has been presented as a big part of the answer to our health-care woes, it's been in part because it won't do the things that make insurers unpopular (the saying "no"), and in part because it will control costs. But the only way to make both those things true at once is to give the public option pricing power along the lines of Medicare, which it doesn't have in either the House or Senate bills.

Iran deal wobbling

After postponing a decision that was supposed to come last Friday, today Iran seems to have further dampened expectations for a nuclear deal. The original deal - which Iran informally agreed to several weeks ago - was that the majority of Iran's nuclear materials would be shipped out of the country and returned in the form of non-weaponizable fuel rods. This would allow Iran to maintain its nuclear program and avoid further sanctions, while giving the coup government one less issue on its plate as it tries to tamp down ongoing internal opposition to the regime. And in the eyes of the international community, it would represent a temporary moratorium on Iran's nuclear weapons development, a window that would allow for further negotiations to develop.

Now, however, Iran has counter-proposed that their nuclear fuels only be shipped off in batches, and not beginning until they have actually received the incoming fuel rods, due to arrive in a years time. If this report is true, it would be unacceptable for the international community, since the primary benefit of the deal for the west would be the immediate removal of the nuclear materials from Iran's possession. This could be Iran's way of saying that the deal is off, or it could be a desperate, last minute negotiating ploy.

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if the deal went either way. On balance, the deal is probably a bit better for the Iranians than it is for the western powers, whom I think are eager enough to engage Iran that they are willing to offer a generous opening bid. As it is currently structured, Iran makes no long term commitment and achieves several big benefits in exchange for one medium-sized cost - it gets fuel rods, the avoidance of further sanctions, and the high ground in exchange for a temporary delay in its nuclear capabilities. To my mind, it would make sense for the beleaguered Iranian ruling regime to cut this deal and kick the can down the road for a bit while they focus on internal affairs.

That said, governments do not always make the most rational decisions - especially governments as unstable and under as much pressure as this one appears to be. There could be various reasons why Khamenei backs away from a deal such as this. He may have calculated or he may have been assured that the Russians and the Chinese won't back harsher sanctions. He may think that harsher sanctions would actually rally support for the regime internally. He may be eager to test President Obama's reactions to Iranian gamesmanship. He may be especially wary of upsetting his hardline allies with anything that looks like he is selling out Iran's nuclear program to the west.

It could go either way at this point, but either way the result should be an interesting data point. Iran might back down and go along with deal, which could either signal a shrewd tactical retreat or a newfound willingness to deal with the outside world - or some measure of both. And if it happens that Iran has strung out western negotiators only to blow up the deal at the last moment, that might indicate that Zakaria is right that Iran is too committed to a confrontational stance and too devoted to its nuclear program to ever give it up. And whether or not these negotiations lead anywhere, the United States and its allies will both know more and be in a stronger position to act after having pursued them in good faith.

Spencer bait

Ta-Nehisi Coates lays it on thick for Ezra Klein:

I was going to wait until all of this was settled to say this, but the Lowery-esque starbursts are over-fucking-whelming: I've found Ezra indispensable over the past few months. Gasbags who run off at the lip about how bloggers don't report, and how bloggers are ruining journalism, need to sit the fuck down, shut the fuck up, read this dude and take notes on how to not suck at your job.

I don't ever want to brag about not reading--but I've basically stopped reading newspaper stories in this case, for Ezra's blog. (Along with Jonathan Cohn, by the way.) I'm sure part of that is because we're on the same side. But the other part is that I just find him his writing clearer, his reporting just as good, and his insights much sharper than anything else I've seen.

I agree. Klein's prose can get too cutesy, but on the topic of health reform especially I have not seen more determined, detailed, and substantive reporting anywhere else.