Karl Marx a Misogynist?

I was reading Ill Fares the Land by Tony Judt and was reminded that I wanted to read A Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles for a while now and I have it on my shelf.  And so I put down Ill Fares the Land and started reading A Communist Manifesto

I came across this sentence and found it misogynistic.  "The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labor, in other words, the more industry becomes developed, the more is the labor of men superseded by that of women.  Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class.  All are instruments of labor, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex".

Not that I expected Karl Marx to be a feminist activist, but I was surprised to find this sentence nevertheless.

Thoughts I Want to Put Down (But I'm Not Sure They Make Sense)

So in the night I woke up and couldn't sleep for a bit.  Random thoughts happen then, so reader beware.  By random, I mean potentially boring for you.  But the thoughts seemed so well formed and normal at that point.  I'm going to try to recreate them here and see just how, ahem, normal they seem now.

First, the reader should be aware of how much opinion news/politics shows I watch.  I TiVO Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann every day and get to actually watch them most days.  I also have been listening to a podcast when I run long runs called "Best of the Left".

So last night I was thinking about tax cuts.  Huh?,  you say.  Right, I say.  Middle of the night.  Tax cuts.

Anyway, I was thinking about the philosophy of tax cuts for the wealthy as a way to improve the economy via "trickle down" economics.  And I was thinking of our consumer-generated economy.  How the American Pursuit of Stuff underpins the entire global economy (am I making Americans too important here- ah, fodder for another post).  But I digress.  Back to the topic.  So Americans are counted on to buy stuff, and then throw it into the landfill when done and then buy more stuff.  At least, that's my current opinion on the matter.

But then I got to thinking about Christopher's and my habits, and the cultural mores around buying "new" (I think that thrift shop shopping and craigslist buying is a growing trend, correct me if I'm wrong) and I think we are on dangerous ground if we give tax cuts to the wealthy.  Now, Christopher and I do not fit the definition of "wealthy" according to the tax cutoff (over $250,000) but we are comfortable.  And we are in the market for baby stuff.  And we are so happy and excited when we find something that is gently used so we don't have to buy new.  Our decision is not based on our income (because we have the income to buy new).  But we care about the landfills getting too big and overflowing.  And we care about the pollution that factories making "new" stuff are generating.  And we know our use of this baby stuff will be relatively short in the grand scheme of things so we don't want to get to saddled with "stuff" we will shortly have to get rid of in order to reduce clutter.

And so, my middle of the night meanderings led me to this conclusion.  We need to discuss the efficacy of  "trickle down" economics in the context of our current cultural paradigm.  And I would love it if that's what the Republicans/Libertarians/Tea Party Folks would explain and defend.  But I know that will never happen. :(  It seems painfully obvious, *really obvious*, that a trend towards "less regulation" and "smaller government" brings us exactly back to the late 1800's and early 1900's.   At that time, there was unfettered wealth held by a few, small government and little regulation.  The wealth did not "trickle down" but rather led to the hugest plummet of American quality of life ever in the history of this country (IMHO)- the Great Depression.

Why are so many middle class Americans fighting for pre-depression conditions in this country?  Because the field of psychology in the area of marketing is so advanced.  And the wealthy know how to find the experts who will convince the average American that tax cuts for the wealthy are good for them too.  Oh sad.  So sad.

Academic Generalists- People Who Connect the Dots

Again, based on inspiration from Tony Judt's book Ill Fares the Land, I am prompted to explore the concept of "Academic Generalists".  By "Academic Generalists",  I mean people who care to get invested in various academic fields and investigate the similarities and differences of the seemingly disparate subjects.  My impression from my own limited graduate school experience is that structured academia values people who have an incredibly deep understanding of a small part of a field of study.  This way of doing things was not and is not appealing to my academic persona.  The more interesting parts of my graduate experience happened at my apartment where I was the only person studying chemistry among roommates who had studied economics and public policy.

A related area of investigation for me is the idea of institutions of higher learning as microcosms of the real world, with all the benefits and limitations of working closely with other humans.  I personally found graduate school to be limiting of free thought and was deeply disappointed at how important the human aspect of interactions were to success.  By this, I am referring to classic "brown-nosing".

I'm sure I will be developing these ideas in future posts.

A Brief Thought

I am reading Tony Judt's book "Ill Fares the Land" and I just had a spontaneous thought that I want to put into words.

Is it possible that the greatest evil on earth is taking advantage of the trust of another individual or group of individuals in order to achieve one's aims?  Okay, maybe not the greatest evil, but one of the greatest?

Rand Paul Hits the Big Stage

I am riveted by the whole Rachel Maddow/Rand Paul interview.  Rand was saying things I've heard people I'm close to, including relatives, say in private.  It was very satisfying to hear the complexities of his view come into full light in the national public spotlight.  His views are like makeup that looks good in the mirror under low light but looks awful in the full light of day.  When exposed to the full light of national scrutiny, his views leave a lot to be desired.

Rand has a world perspective that reflects his limited, cozy life experiences.  As his views get debated on the larger stage, I hope that the value of a broader education becomes the lesson for people.  If people spend a percent of the time they spent reading the Bible on learning more about the rest of the world outside of Christianity, they would serve the planet better.  Education is such a gift because it can give us a view outside of our life bubble.  I personally have a thirst to understand the experiences of others as best I can given the limitations of my perspective.  I hope that the lesson from Rand Paul is for more people to step out of their small, limited world view and attempt to see the world as it affects more people.  Only then can we have true empathy.

Two Days of School Left

The end of the school year is always particularly stressful for me.  As an ENFP personality type (see Myers-Briggs test) I am a big starter of things but necessarily a strong finisher.  There is so much I wish I had done differently and some things that went fine.  I have wonderful students.  The kids fill my heart- even the tough ones.

Summer begins soon.  I plan to write, so check back on this blog...

How the Media is Changing- An Interesting Conversation

This links to a video of an interesting conversation about the media and how to have a real impact in the world.  More discussion to follow.

http://lauraflanders.firedoglake.com/2010/02/25/beyond-echo-van-slyke-clark/