Equality Within Communism

What does "communist equality" sound like to a capitalist? Well, it probably sounds like a place where everyone wears the exact same uniform and marches to the exact same drum beat in an impoverished nation under the guise of a merciless regime. You've got to love that Cold War propaganda!

To be fair however, capitalism to me sounds like a country full of micro-dictatorships where all the workers serve their masters while wearing identical uniforms and listening to the same corporate radio stations. Actually, that's based more so on my real-life experience though and not just propaganda and rhetoric.

You see, to imagine that one could desire equality while also embracing an elite ruling party is such a contradicting concept that if I were to try and make sense of it my brain would probably go through a melt down. And capitalists pride themselves in opportunistic equality because anyone could some day make it to the top and have their own glorious enterprise dominion. It's such a beautiful thing when the exploited take their unprivileged opportunity of social mobility and become the exploiters. (Was the sarcasm apparent enough??)

All jokes cast aside, equality in reward for labor in no way implies equality OF the types of labor. When labor becomes enjoyable and non-oppressive, it becomes an honest obligation rather than a burden to the individual. And of course equality of reward doesn't imply no specialization. No one ever said that everyone is expected to know everything. A logical division of labor does not imply an irrational inequality in living standards.

Religion Is Merely A Tool Of Convenience

Today as I was reading some online essay on Reducing the Ego (http://www.taoism.net/theway/ego.htm), which was correlating Taoism to the idea of minimizing your own "false self-image" (ego), I had wondered, "Who would be inclined to actually read into Taoism?" Would an egomaniac be inclined to read about destroying their own ego? Would a humble person be inclined to read about boosting the ego? In all honesty, it seems that people with certain tendencies would be naturally swayed towards a familiar philosophy.

Like many religions however, Taoism has also been cherry picked by people with all sorts of tendencies. Some claim it is critical of competitiveness while others have written articles on Taoism supporting a laissez-faire system (free market capitalism). Also, consider how religion has been used in cases of civil rights. The same religion that influenced Martin Luther King Jr. to struggle against defacto, racial segregation in the south also influenced others to support slavery prior to that (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm).

For these and other examples of contradicting beliefs stemming from single religions, I want to correct my previous claim that Christianity itself "influenced" MLK. Christianity really didn't influence anything for the most part. It was just used (and still is to this day) as a tool of convenience. It's just a toy box of moral scriptures that people dig into to find what ever matches their already preconceived notions of morality. These preconceived notions of morality stem from culture and education.

This leads me to another worrisome observation. It seems that within the atheist trends today, some anti-theists flirt with the idea of ethnocentrism. The thought goes, "Christianity has done plenty to harm LGBT civil rights in western society, but we're still better off than the Muslim nations who embrace Sharia Law to the east." Ethnocentrism isn't exclusive to atheists, but it does unfortunately get thrown in with the criticism of all religions. This is why it is important to recognize that culture creates religion and morality and not the other way around. Both western and eastern cultures have been shaped by domination culture and various political conflicts and colonization (and the limitations that have been put into place by these factors) have been the leading influences on morality.

To conclude all of these observations, I would just like to state that religion is really an illusion in more ways than one... especially in politics. Religion is just a tool people use to rally in supporters. "I believe this and SO DOES GOD!" It's all tied in to the idea that our ideologies and tendencies should dominate and control populations of people. If one is to reject religion, one should also reject its significance.

Internet's Anarchy vs. Domination Culture

Once upon a time there lived a global phenomenon known as the Internet. Although it was littered with intellectual property, business spam and other various symptoms of domination culture, the Internet was largely a place where the average citizen could go to and escape many of the laws of her/ his government.

Because life outside of the Internet was in many ways bleak, riddled with alienation and lacked any real sense of community, many people became addicted to the Internet and spent countless hours floating through a seemingly lawless cyber space.

Now back in the real world, folks for the most part were still unaware of their own class consciousness and they went on their ways while going through the motions of a typical day of corporate slavery and doing as they were told. But as foreshadowing would have it, the Governments and their corporations grew wary as to what their little minions were up to in their little private online communities. "Too much talking and file sharing going on," Mr. Corporation said to Mr. Government. "Maybe we need to lay down a little law within their cyber utopias."

Being as how the Internet was the only real sense of community and freedom that the average citizens were allowed to experience, once they realized their online worlds were in jeopardy they began to buzz like an angry bee-hive. Suddenly the realization of corporate and government tyranny would clash with true freedom and community.

Now the only question left is... will the Internet share the same fate as the worker in chains? One can only speculate as the people will probably run to their corporate masters and seek what little solidarity and voice they do have against government mandates and imprisonment of their Internet.

Common Misconceptions Among Anti-Feminist MRA's

Mens' rights advocates often have a general idea of the problems associated with gender roles, but as TJ (aka The Amazing Atheist) points out... the overall concept flies over their heads.

The specific issues that are brought up by MRA's that supposedly disempower males are usually actually further evidence that patriarchy is still alive and well within our country.

To put gender issues into context, you must first realize what patriarchy is. It's instilled attitudes towards both genders which ultimately favor male domination. With the set notion that females are weaker, it's actually no surprise that when domestic abuse is caused by the woman, it's not taken as seriously. The main role of the woman in society is to be the damsel in distress and when the helpless damsel ends up being the abuser then the male victim is more likely to be seen as weak and/ or the issue isn't taken with proper consideration. This idea of the dominating/ strong male is also another reason why patriarchy plays as a disadvantage to homosexuals. Sexism = Homophobia.

So yes... when a man takes on the role of being submissive, weak, indecisive (all traits to which a patriarchal society lends to the female gender) then he is indeed disadvantaged because patriarchy seeks to keep male domination intact. When the courts side more often with women in child custody battles it's because the general attitude is that women belong more so at home raising the child (while the male should be out making the money to support his family).

As for the issue which TJ brings up with circumcision, I would argue that that's more of a childs' rights issue. Societies have plenty of overlapping domination structures and one of them is the nonconsensual violence used against children (corporal punishment, circumcisions... etc).

While it is a nice thought that MRA's do recognize gender inequality and specific roles, the main basis for all these roles (patriarchy) is overlooked and therefor misunderstood.

Abuse of Authority? I Am Not Amused

There are so many stories in the news, all day and every day, about people in power abusing their authority in some way. And every time it's, "Oh my God! How could this incident have happened!?" as if this is just some isolated occurence.

No, this is not an isolated incident. These are merely reccuring episodes of corruption generated from a system that was started, maintained and continuously produces violence in one of its various forms. And no, I'm not going to be surprised if the Occupy movement ends up having their own Kent State Massacre. It's actually rather vain of any country to raise hell over the loss of unarmed citizens while their armies commit Kent State Massacres all over the globe in other countries.

The Line Between Discipline and Child Abuse

There's been many times where I've been in one of these conversations:

"If I ever dared to talk back to my daddy, he would whoop my ass with a belt!"

There just must be something reviving in telling a story about childhood beatings that really sends a glistening glimmer in someone's eyes. It's almost as if to imply that "Those were the good ole days!" and parents today are just "too soft" or "afraid of their own children."

Around 1870 in the USA, beating your wife was officially made illegal. But what if instead... wife beating was legal, but you just couldn't leave a mark? What if we used child disciplinary laws as every day rules for daily interactions? And what exactly does it mean to draw the line between discipline and child abuse at leaving a mark? Why is leaving that mark so much worse than not leaving it? Is it because other people who see your child shouldn't be aware of the violence?

Hitting your child, in my opinion, doesn't look like a behavior problem for the child, it looks like a behavior problem of the parent. It looks to me as if the parent has lost control of their situation and decided to resort to violence. And this goes for spanking too. Which is another thing to wonder. Why is the butt the least tabboo place to hit a child? Seems to me that this is just a cultural norm that we use to feel better about hitting our children and to justify these actions.

Besides for the physical suffering of children who receive corporal punishment, studies also indicate that spanking lowers a child's IQ (http://psychcentral.com/news/2009/09/27/spanked-children-have-lower-iq/8620.html). Knowing this, I can't imagine why parents would want to risk their child's mental development all because they feel the need to project their aggression onto their kids through violence.

The fact of the matter is, children are people too. They're growing, naive, short little people with (hopefully) a long life ahead of them. In our society, witnessing violence first-hand is inevitable but there really is no need to introduce your kid to it right off the bat and pass on traditions of abuse. There should however be drawn a line. That line should separate a non-violent parent-to-child relationship to a violent one. No more "let's hide the abuse by not leaving a mark" or "just hit your child on the butt" or any other poor excuse to rid yourself of any guilt you may find yourself with after hurting your kid.

Is this taking a "too soft" approach to parenting? Is this just "telling you how to raise your kids"? Well, what some would consider "too soft," I would consider "social evolution" in progress. And I couldn't stop you from hitting your child just like I couldn't stop you from beating your spouse, but if advocating a violent-free relationship with your loved ones seems overly intrusive... then I can only apologize for suggesting a more loving relationship.

Lastly, there are alternatives to violence! For instance, using humor is a great way to discipline your child without expressing pain, revenge and agony. This is a great article that gives more detail: http://children.webmd.com/features/child-discipline

Urban Farming As A Means To A Better Society

(I've written about this before, but I thought I'd throw the concept onto this blog as well.)

If you look at a map with all of the various political beliefs in specific regions, usually what you'll find is that the big cities are more progressive while rural places tend to stay more conservative. Long story short... individual isolation stunts human progress. This is why, to me, it doesn't seem like a far stretch to suggest that the bulk of society should work towards condensing itself into certain areas.

Now let's say one were to buy into this pretense but then asks, "How do we cram society together to promote social progress?" That is precisely where urban farming comes into play. Furthermore, it's also a call to eliminate rural farming all together.

Reasons to eliminate rural farming:

1) Inefficient.
2) Weather dependent.
3) Stunts social progress.
4) Waste of land space.

Urban farming would serve as a better alternative because instead of depending on the weather to dictate the seasons in which we expect our foods, we could focus on building artificial climates to provide the ability to grow any food, any where and at any time of the year. Also, if we instead crammed these "urban farms" into buildings, we wouldn't rely on vast lands to produce our food.

If we could control the environment we would eliminate the need for pesticides. Healthier fruits, healthier people! And on that note with the environment, if society was condensed into smaller regions because of urban farming, that would be a great incentive for alternative energies to keep these small places nice and clean. Think also about all of the extra land this would free up. This could potentially be used as a way to also promote nature conservancy in certain places.

Suddenly, everyone lives in closer quarters with each other, society becomes more aware of itself and others, progress thrives, unity and community are strengthened and everyone has easier access to locally grown veggies.

How do we get this started? With today's economic powers waving over the heads of all the citizens, I really am not sure how to implement this strategy. I personally tend to live in a dream world where I can fathom communities self-organizing to better themselves and their own standards. It's hard to really say where capitalism will take us from our current point in time. Even to those who would argue that the state also plays too big of a role in our market... either way, the status-quo (however one would interpret it to be) doesn't really seem to be open to this idea at the moment. But maybe one day...