John Edwards 1988 - 2007

I just learned that a my other former roomate last year has passed on as of yesterday night. While I was sleeping, this guy that I roomed with for an entire year was struggling for his life.

John Edwards is a great guy. He studied science and was in the process of become of the world's best doctors/researchers. And he enjoyed life. He worked hard, and played hard definitely.

We don't know the details yet. But why? Why?? He was only 19 years old, and still had so much to give to and receive from the world.

Thank goodness I only have one class today because I can't concentrate on anything else right now. I'm so sorry John. You deserved much more.

I can't tell you how this experience is making me appreciate everyone's life. Please stay well.

Another Harvard Political Review Article

(Finalized article not yet published.)

City Laboratories of Democracy

I

In 1932, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously mused that “a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” These days, however, cities have had to step into the role of democratic laboratories in order to address critical issues where the efforts of state and national government leave much to be desired. On issues such as the environment and healthcare, cities are progressively creating and experimenting with public policy to address these critical issues.

A Green City

For many, the federal government has not taken enough steps to preserve the environment and mitigate global warming. In an interview with the HPR, Chicago Department of the Environment Commissioner Suzanne Malec-McKenna stated that “the federal government certainly has not been pro-environmental. There are too many competing interests and the priorities do not seem to be where they need to be.” Lackadaisical attention to global warming and issues concerning the environment prompted cities such as Chicago to address problems at the local level that arose from these federal deficiencies.

Ever since 1989 when Mayor Richard Daley first stepped into office, one of his major goals was to the make the city of Chicago the most environmentally friendly city in the country. Since then, the city has passed legislation ranging from reducing carbon emissions, encouraging low sulfur diesel fuel in city vehicles, planting more than half a million trees, and developing almost four million square feet of green roofs. When asked about how Chicago had become so obsessed about the environment, Commissioner Malec-McKenna stated that “there was an evolution of perspective for all of us… being environmentally friendly became a part of the city infrastructure.” Newly created city departments and infrastructure allowed Chicago to utilize its unique resources, such as being able to hasten the building permit approval processes as an incentive for green development, to truly become one of the nation’s greenest cities.

Healthcare by the Bay

Despite federal deadlock concerning the state of healthcare in the United States, or perhaps because of the impasse, San Francisco decided earlier this year to phase in universal access to health care for all San Franciscans in city and county clinics. People, regardless of ability to pay, immigration status, or existing medical conditions have access to this affordable and preventative care.

Similarly to Chicago, leaders in San Francisco felt that federal and state governments were neglecting a critical need in society. Dr. Dana Hughes, Professor of Health Policy and member of the Institute for Health Policy Studies at University of California San Francisco, told the HPR that “For whatever reason, healthcare is not a priority in the country. San Francisco decided that it didn’t want to wait.” Zachary Tuller, legislative aide to Supervisor Tom Ammiano, the legislation’s primary sponsor on the Board of Supervisors, told the HPR that “The city pays a lot of money to treat people who have not received preventative care. There has been no help from the state and federal governments in any meaningful way to address the situation. We had to do that independently of the state and federal government.”

Support for the health care legislation was overwhelming, as Zachary Tuller described matter-of-factly to the HPR. “It passed with unanimous vote of the board, which on controversial issues almost never happens.” It even seems to be catching on at the state level too, Tuller adds, because “since the health program has come online, new programs from the state have been formed to defer some costs for innovative health care.”

When state and federal government fail to take charge or gridlocks on important issues such as the environment and healthcare, it is up to local governments as a last resort to respond to these problems and experiment for their country through their own “laboratories.” When asked what mayors and other city leaders should think about when considering progressive urban reform, Barry Matchett, co-legislative director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center, told the HPR that “Cities are flexible. They’re smaller than states; they’re certainly smaller than the federal government, so they can do things that work for their localities, that work for their business communities, and that work for their citizens.”

Politics and Popular Culture in Historical Materialism

Politics and Popular Culture in Historical Materialism

In this essay I discuss the nature of Karl Marx’s historical materialism and evaluate his philosophy in terms of modern day examples. While Marx was right about many things, including the tendency of capitalists to exploit workers in his time and to this day, I argue that he did not adequately take into account the political and cultural influences on human history in his materialist conception of history. Instead, he emphasized economic conditions which motivate change in human history. Throughout the essay I use several examples to support the importance of political and culture influences on the development of society, such as stock options, psychology, political aspirations, etc. In the end I use China as an example to show the complexity of politics, culture, and economics in historical developments to both prove certain aspects of Marx’s philosophy, and disprove other aspects of Marx’s historical materialism.

During the 19^th century, laborers worked in squalid conditions for subsistence wages. A great question of that time was how society would react to labor exploitation, and what political processes would be devised to ensure that the poor were taken care of. To this day, in many places such as parts of China and Africa, this question still exists. The conditions of extreme labor exploitation led Karl Marx (1818 to 1883), a political philosopher whose methodological study of history, economics and philosophy influenced his understanding of human society, to the conception of historical materialism. An important tenet of historical materialism invokes the role of economics in the development of human society. Human history, he believed, is shaped by the methodology and quantity of goods and commodities that humans are able to produce. The rise of China and the growth of popular culture in the United States show, however, that his use of historical materialism and reliance on economic circumstances, particularly the conditions of the laborer, to explain the inevitable rise of communism from capitalism is fundamentally flawed. While people in general are motivated by their economic condition to seek improvement, historical evidence has shown that the economic condition of mankind is one of several factors that influence history.

Marx’s materialist conception of history is that human history is a linear development between human societies and modes of production. Marx derives his authority in being able to forecast the future rise of communism based on the predictable nature of linear history. A basic premise in historical materialism involves the tension between social classes. To establish this tension, Marx begins with the basic idea that humans create commodities and their means of subsistence through a combination of nature and human labor, which he defines as the mode of production. Marx observes that the division of labor, however, is unequal—which results in the division of social classes. Inherent conflict exists between the economic base and the social superstructure of society when the modes of production develop more rapidly than changes to the relations of production. Finally, the superstructure of society evolves when an emerging class overcomes the dominant class and creates a new social superstructure to fit these changes in production.

Following Marx’s theory, there have been several historical stages of economic development which have led to new superstructures of society: tribal society, ancient society, feudalism, and capitalism. Marx states that each superstructure was adapted to fit the new economic conditions of that time. In Marx’s theory of socio-economics, capitalism divides human labor between the work force and those who own the means of production. Those who own the means of production have acquired the role of masters, and those who provide human labor serve as slaves. The relationship between master and slave is shaped by the capitalist social superstructure that keeps order in society and allows the current economic condition to persist. The capitalist superstructure, Marx asserts, will fall when the next reforms to modes of production are made.

According to Marx, inherent contradictions within the capitalist system will result in capitalism’s downfall. In his A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx states that “The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production – antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social conditions of existence – but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism.”[1] Therefore, the rise of communism from capitalism, according to Marx, is inevitable because of inherent tensions within the rules of capitalist society itself, not of the people who comprise capitalist society. Furthermore, in The German Ideology, Marx states that millions of “excluded” proletariats and communists will, in time, lead a revolution in which to force their inclusion into society.[2] This is problematic because it is based on a faulty assumption. First, Marx assumes that proletariats are excluded from society and that their interests are mutually excludable from those of the “bourgeoisie” and the capitalist. Such an assumption underemphasizes and neglects the role of political, cultural, and other incidental and/or spontaneous events in human history that do not necessarily arise from economic conditions.

Marx’s idea that the proletariats are excluded from society and that their interests are mutually excludable from those of the capitalist can be explored in part six of Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, where Marx discusses how capitalists exploit workers through unpaid labor and conceal exploitation under the guise of paying wages. In effect, once the laborer is hired by the capitalist for a period of time, the worker no longer owns his labor-power. Marx states that “as soon as his labour actually begins, it has already ceased to belong to him; it can therefore no longer be sold by him. Labour is the substance, and the immanent measure of value, but it has no value itself.”[3] In this manner, the capitalist can exploit the worker by deriving more value from his laborer during the working day than the capitalist pays the worker.

As the value of labour is only an irrational expression for the value of labour-power, it follows of course that the value of labour must always be less than its value-product, for the capitalist always makes labour-power work longer than is necessary for the reproduction of its own value. In the above example, the value of the labour-power that functions through 12 hours is 3 shillings, which requires 6 hours for its reproduction. The value which the labour-power produces is however 6 shillings, because it in fact functions during 12 hours, and its value-product depends, not on its own value, but on the length of time it is in action.[4]

In this example, the capitalist pays three shillings for an entire day’s labor that creates six shillings worth of value. To Marx, the idea that labor-value could create six shillings of wealth and yet only be worth three shillings is an absurd contradiction within the modes of production in capitalist society. Marx continues to argue in subsequent chapters that the surplus profits of the capitalist who underpays their laborers is used to maintain worker-laborer versus owner-operator class relations that are perpetuated in a cycle of capital accumulation, re-investment, and under-payment for labor services.

Modern theories on economics and modern examples conflict with the Marxist view of labor exploitation and capital accumulation. First of all, Marx’s theories on the exploitation of laborers would lead us to believe that capitalism will predominantly breed two classes in modern society and that their interests conflict: the low-paid worker class and a smaller upper-echelon of individuals who own the means of production. In the United States, this does not seem to be the case. Most households currently occupy a decidedly middle area of the income spectrum. Marx doesn’t take into account United States government policy that enhances its middle class, and the rise of a white-collar professional class that was a relatively smaller sector of his 19^th Century European experience. Furthermore, Marx doesn’t take into the account the benefits of capitalist re-investment into society. By raising the amount of goods and commodities available to consumers and by increasing efficiency and productivity through new inventions or new production methodologies, the innovative capitalist is able to raise the living standard of everyone in society. In essence, as the saying goes, a rising tide lifts all boats. There are also many examples of rich capitalists such as Bill and Melinda Gates, Rockefeller, and Warren Buffett, who re-invested their riches not only in capital development, but also directly in society itself.

In fact, the interests of a company’s success and a company’s workforce can be intertwined in many ways. Most directly, the interests of a company and its workforce can be merged through employee stock options. A real-life example of this can be seen in the case of Bonnie Brown, who was Google’s in-house masseuse but who is now a multi-millionaire because of her Google stock options[5]. Therefore, the benefits of increased corporate profit and efficiency do not have to be monopolized by an elite class that excludes the proletariat. Furthermore, most workers in the United States who have a retirement account, or who own a brokerage account, have (and are currently) invested in corporations and are thereby directly affected by corporate growth and profits. Secondly, and this is especially true in the modern state, companies are increasingly competing for skilled employees. With the proliferation of public schools and the increased availability of colleges since Marx’s time, access to these jobs and demand for these skilled employees are at its highest at any point in history. Thirdly, Marx doesn’t take into account the psychological relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in instances where the proletariat’s goals may be similar to that of the bourgeoisie. In some cases, a number of proletariats may come to identify with the bourgeoisie and similarly desire the continuation of capitalism in the hopes of one day owning the factory that he/she works in, which is possible in our fluid society. These psychological implications are more complex than Marx details in his philosophical texts. Finally, un-skilled employees are able to resort to unions and government in order to address their needs so that they are not entirely excluded to the degree that Marx implies. Companies may even offer perks and higher wages preemptively in order to prevent their employees from organizing, such as in the case of Starbucks. Workers are able to organize without resorting to revolutions in order to get management and/or government to address their needs.

Marx would correctly point out, however, that even in light of these circumstances there is still a vast income inequality between the richest members of society compared to that of the poorest members of society—and that this disparity is increasing. Another counter-argument is that the excluded proletariat does exist, if not within the same country such as that of the United States or Japan or England, then it exists in other countries such as Bangladesh and Mexico. If there is to be a proletariat revolution, however, it does not seem likely that the currently most advanced countries such as Japan, United States, England, Germany, etc. are ready to move toward communism. Their support would be necessary for a worldwide switch from capitalism into communism. Furthermore, movements toward more democratic governments have negated many of the needs of the proletariats to revolt. In this case, Marx might have been right about the tendency of the capitalist to take advantage of the lower classes and increase their wealth, but his solution may be too extreme. United States and Western European history has shown this to be the case (so far), because they have resorted to shaping social policy to help the proletariat rather than switch from a capitalist society to a socialist society. These are the very states that Marx believed would lead the change toward communism because of the great labor exploitation of his time. Then again, it is true that there are companies that are still known to be exploitative in their labor policies, a prominent example would be Wal-Mart. Even in the case of Wal-Mart, however, the company has responded to widespread negative criticisms and has started offering more perks and health care to its workforce.

Marx argues on another level that the alienation of workers from society also exists fundamentally when humans sell their labor and are consequently removed from their labor-product. In conceding this point to Marx (some jobs are undeniably dull), I would argue that the effects of worker alienation has been lessened through the development of popular culture since Marx’s time. While workers may be alienated from their labor, after work and on weekends laborers have the opportunity to pursue their hobbies and interests, or partake in social mass culture as an outlet for creativity. Furthermore, especially in countries such as the United States, typically its most impoverished citizens (excluding extreme examples), that is to say a great majority of its citizens, earn a living that supports some luxury. That is to say, most people have a television, access to a computer, access to books, and social clubs and organizations, etc. that allow them to enjoy life and these luxuries negate some of the need for revolution. Even citizens who cannot afford these luxuries in the United States are able to access them through public services such as libraries, affordable housing for the poor, social welfare, etc.

In his “Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy”, Marx states that it is the economic condition of man that determines man’s social consciousness. “The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”[6] In this philosophy, the economic conditions of China should not have led to the People’s Revolution in the 20^th Century. Rather, the poor economic conditions of the Chinese at the beginning of the 20^th Century should logically, in Marx’s linear historical development theory, first led to capitalism and then communism. China, however, skips capitalism and moves right into communism. How and why did this happen? There is a strong argument that political influences helped China make the leap to capitalism. The Communist Party of China is still the primary political party of China to this day. While this example may prove that Marx underestimated the role that political aspirations of people such as Mao Zedong may play in the making of human history; China’s failure as a communist state is evidence supporting Marx’s theory that states need to move to a proper level of productive capacity only available to capitalists, before successfully moving onto the communist stage. Regardless, it has been shown that political and cultural influences, shaped in part by popular culture, psychology, technology, etc. complicates Marx’s reliance on economics as the driving factor behind the development of human history.

---

[1] This quote is derived from a Marxist online database of Marx’s writings. The website sources K. Marx’s A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1977 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm

[2] Marx, Karl The German Ideology Norton The Marx Engels Reader, Second Edition Page 168 reads “Thus if millions of proletarians feel by no means contented with their living conditions, if their “existence” does not in the least correspond to their “essence,” then, according to the passage quoted, this is an unavoidable misfortune, which must be borne quietly. The millions of proletarians and communists, however, think differently and will prove this in time, when they bring their “existence” into harmony with their “essence” in a practical way, by means of a revolution.”

[3] Marx, Karl Capital, Volume One Penguin Classics Part 6 Chapter 19 Page 677

[4] Marx, Karl Capital, Volume One Penguin Classics Part 6 Chapter 19 Page 679 to 680

[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/technology/12google.html?_r=1&em&ex=1195016400&en=e5d6c0dae476cfbe&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

[6] This quote is derived from a Marxist online database of Marx’s writings. The website sources K. Marx’s A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Progress Publishers, Moscow 1977 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm