30.1.13 I have a little time to write, so here I go. I was thinking I might come across as a real egotist after not denouncing Ayn Rand like so many others do. After all, she’s a champion of egotism, and indeed, you might consider me to be one of her followers in some respects. I was telling my family over Christmas, I think she’s a hero for writing what she did. From what little I’ve heard of her, I understand that she immigrated to the US from the Soviet Union when she was about 20, that she didn’t speak any English when she came, but she overcame this hurdle with flying colors, eventually becoming a very popular writer and influential political figure. Having read only Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, I find that she was trying to show Americans the great things that they’ve had in their country. She seemed most adamant about the pursuit of happiness and success that all Americans are allegedly entitled to (evidently this was something new for her, coming from the Soviet Union), but she also incorporated into these works the necessary role of government in people’s lives, or rather, the necessary lack thereof. This latter part may have been secondary to her, but I guess it had the greater political ramifications. I’m not sure what she would think, if a big government would not be so problematic as long as people still had the chance to achieve their dreams. Conservative politicians might appeal to her philosophy when addressing the subject of taxes. They might say that taxing people is wrong, because people’s money is a measure of their success, and the founding doctrine of America prohibits the limitations of citizens in this way. You might also see Ayn Rand’s spirit in the uncompromising nature of the conservatives. I get the impression that Rand was a really stubborn person who considered the smallest compromise equal to an absolute defeat of her principles. As hard as it may be to agree with the politics of taxes that might have resulted from her works, it’s not hard to understand it: any increase in taxes is precedent for more; if the government can raise taxes this year, then the government won’t have to worry about how much money it spends, and then how do we know that they won’t come back again next year with another tax increase? Of course, conservatives have so blinded themselves to the idea of compromise they don’t see that liberals are willing to sacrifice government programs which cost a lot of money (not only the military (which, not surprisingly perhaps, Rand actually condoned as one of the few purposes for government spending)). I think the following compromise makes sense: for every dollar in tax hikes there should be a dollar in spending cuts. In the end, no side loses face, taxes go up as the size of the government goes down, and in the end the national debt decreases. Who could complain? The people will complain, that’s who; how can they fork over more money when the pursuit of happiness (an education, a sports car, a house and a family) already costs so much? 6.2.13 I’ve not only been reading political literature on the greedy side of the spectrum. I’ve also finished reading a small pamphlet called “The Manifesto of the Communist Party,” that’s right, the one and only. I didn’t understand it entirely, and might read it again sometime. It’s not very long, and it’s rich in ideas, so it might be worth another reading. As with Rand, I disagree with some points made by Marx and Engels, but also am fascinated by some of their ideas. While Marx goes into specific examples of the working class and its exploitation by the aristocracy in different times and places, thus demonstrating a historical relationship between these two extreme classes, Engels, in the second part of the pamphlet, explains what communism is all about and also gives something of a ten-point plan as a political platform for the party, wherein lies some interesting points and suggestions for the structure of society. One of these points that I really find fascinating has to do with education. Evidently, one of the problems of the time when the authors wrote was the severe exploitation of workers in factories. These workers were given a menial task to do under rather harsh conditions. If these were too harsh for the worker, then he or she would be fired without any loss for the employer, as there were thousands of people literally dying (of starvation, for example) to get a job. (One example of this story is told in the novel ‘the Jungle,’ which brought to light this sort of order in the American meat industry in the early 20th century.) What I understand from Engels’s explanations is that under communism workers were to be trained to do many different things. This way, if workers were in a meat or vegetable factory, for example, they wouldn’t be able to only chop meat, or shovel guts, but they would do both equally as well, in fact they would be trained in all aspects of farming and agriculture so that they wouldn’t have to rely on a single menial skill in order to get by in life, but could apply any number of skills where and when they needed to. This is a brilliant idea, one which I think has been adapted into our society – even our greedy capitalistic one in the west – but which, I think, could be taken to an even further extreme. You see, one of the things I might not like about my current job is its monotony. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not about to quit being an English teacher because of the fact that it’s the same thing day in and day out. As a matter of fact, I have to admit that most other jobs would be much more monotonous than the one I have, and I don’t think I could possibly change jobs until I find one equally as demanding in creativity, planning, perseverance, and other aspects, all of which I can’t imagine as applicable in any other profession as in my own. As various the demands of my job might be, however, there’s no avoiding the eventual monotony of the same rhythm of work day in and day out. Why can’t I get some further training, maybe in a new field of expertise? I’ve so much as even toyed with the idea of finding work at some restaurant and learning the ins and outs of food preparation, or at least taking a cooking class, if only I could find the chance and the time to attend. The really sad fact is that this monotony is something we have to deal with in most jobs. No matter what career a young man decides to undertake, it’s invariably only one thing, all day, every day, for the rest of that poor young man’s life. How can a person enjoy their job when they do it over and over again for the span of decades? They are inspired as children or students at university, they go down a certain road and then they realize to their horror, regardless of the road they chose, that there’s no way out. There are no other roads left. All doors are closed, your way is chosen, or in other words, your life is more or less over. No wait, life begins again at retirement, when you’re sixty or seventy, and you can’t walk up mountains or run marathons like you used to, but if you’re lucky you still have a few dozen years to take your arthritis medication and enjoy the sunsets in whatever home you’ve managed to afford yourself… 9.2.13 Life would be better if people had many different jobs. This is what Engels was suggesting almost two centuries ago, and the suggestion is still applicable today. When I walk to work at this time of year, I often see so-called guest workers, who come from former Soviet states and current regimes that have little to offer their people in the way of education and employment. I see them chipping ice or shoveling snow from the sidewalks with large picks and shovels. I see them and am a little jealous that they can enjoy the outdoors and use their muscles as much as they do. Russians will laugh at me if I tell them that I’m envious of the poor guest workers who have to do this menial labor to get by in order to live in sordid conditions and to help their families back home with what little they earn and don’t waste on cheap vodka. Of course I don’t want to be in their economic position. I don’t want to have to do that kind of work, but I would like to be permitted to do it every once in a while instead of repeating the same toil of the previous days and weeks. I would love to give a Tajik a break, do his job and chip ice just for one day. My arms would be sore and my fingers calloused after a few hours of this challenging labor, but my psyche would be flooded with endorphins of a kind I haven’t felt for a very long time, ones that come from doing hard work of a different kind. You’ve heard of the idea of a balanced diet. I say this idea doesn’t apply only to food, but also to every sort of activity, including our professions. What could the Tajik be doing during the day that I work for him? He could teach English, or if he doesn’t know it, he could study the language and learn to teach it, or he could train to professionally occupy himself with something new and interesting to him, cooking for example. This idea of balance in our professions and of continual growth and development of the working class isn’t new. It probably reeks of socialism, the validity of which westerns have long since refuted, foolishly basing their judgment on the history of the Soviet Union. But there are other countries, some of which might be called socialist, where this sort of balance is possible (I’m thinking of some Scandinavian countries). It’s perhaps most necessary that the people want to acquire new skills. It’s then necessary, if not sufficient, to employ lots of teachers in every area of profession that society needs. The former necessity might be circumvented if a government simply forced people to learn new things, and the latter necessity would be fulfilled trivially (also by the government). This sounds somewhat draconian, but is it any less so to force a child to eat vegetable at supper? We are, after all, talking about a balanced diet here. Ironically perhaps, this idea could also appeal to the stringent capitalists out there, who are so concerned with their levels of production. Consider how much a professional of any kind can work in a week. Most people can work forty, maybe fifty hours a week, doing their single profession the entire time. If, however, these people didn’t have one job, but three, then they could be much more productive. I think they could even work sixty hours a week, twenty hours at each job, and they would finish the week having produced more at less expense to their psychological health because they will have done a larger variety of different tasks, instead of spending the entire time on a single profession and, therefore, a less balanced diet of work. Do you see how simple this is? This is capitalism and communism working together: production is maximized when the working class members have a variety of different jobs, and are allowed to balance their work with further training, with the goal of enriching their lives further with even more avenues of occupation.