The Negation of Capitalism?

Lately I've been reading Makers of the Modern Mind by Thomas P. Neill. In his section on Marx, he explains Marx's dialectic in terms of negation. For example, a system (thesis) will negate itself (antithesis). Then, a new system (synthesis) will emerge. In this fashion, capitalism will negate itself, and socialism will emerge. Socialism will negate itself, and the result will be communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc.

This appears to be exactly what's happening in the current financial meltdown. Our economic system is negating itself. Just to be safe, I went to Merriam-Webster's for the definitions of negate:

1 : to deny the existence or truth of
2 : to cause to be ineffective or invalid

Looks pretty much like what's happening now!

Perhaps I also need to consult Adam Smith and more Marx for more information, but I'm going to stick my neck out a bit.

Is securities speculation part of capitalism as they understood it?

How much of the current situation is due to the status of any means of production, as Marx understood them?

Capitalism, according to M-W:

an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

In securities speculation, people do own shares of companies, or debt obligations of companies. They can also own anything from futures to any sort of derivative.

But are the speculators interested in what the company's actually does, or are they more interested in turning their securities over at a profit?

My take is that a capitalist is someone who has an interest in an enterprise for the purpose of making money through the enterprise actually doing something. In my mind, the enterprise comes first, moneymaking comes second.

Now, the moneymaking has come first, apparently, sometimes to the detriment of the enterprises (GM, Ford, Chrysler, the various failed banks, AIG, for example). This is also evident with income trusts; a company is set up to produce income. Of course, but what about the business? Seems like putting the cart before the horse.

Here I am showing my knowledge gap. This is more of an impressionistic reading of the issues.

However, if capitalism is more about ownership of capital goods, which implies a more than cursory interest in them, then can a shift to "profits first" be considered a negation of what capitalism is about? Or is it that capitalism has evolved from concerning itself with capital goods to concerning itself with financial foo-foo dust?

Ars Gratia Artis

I once thought I'd be a great painter, but found that this was a pigment of my imagination.

Financial Meltdown

Seeing all the losses in the financial markets this week made me hope for something.

I hope that people at all levels of the game become more responsible.

What do I mean by "responsible"? I will illustrate with some examples of irresponsibility: selling sub-prime mortgages that many people wouldn't be able to afford; creating, selling, and buying the securities backed up by these types of mortgages; the government not regulating or outlawing these kinds of mortgages & securities; buying a house one cannot afford, except if the housing market stays hot.

It's like there was a collective notion of, "Hey, we shouldn't be doing this, but it looks like it's working, and nobody is telling us we can't, so let's go with it for as long as we can. Maybe somehow it'll all work out." Perhaps in the future our financial system will be more prudent.

There is no free lunch after all - everybody ends up paying, unless you are really good at trading stocks, bonds, funds, derivatives, etc., got out when the getting was good, have a golden parachute from the investment bank you helped run into the ground, or have had your money in fixed rate CDs/GICs (or in a mattress) all these years.

Military Advice

If one is battling the Russian Air Force, it is best to be under no Ilyushins.

Social Networking

Yesterday a work colleague was discussing Social Networking websites. He said something quotable:

Social Networking draws people closer together; it just doesn't get them out of the house.

I can't vouch for the truth of this statement, but it certainly made me laugh!

"Non-objective" art

Last year I got an opportunity to visit the Guggenheim Museum in New York. I found this quote from Hilla Rebay:

Non-objective paintings as companions to our daily life will spread spirituality, rest, pleasure, beauty, and earthly forgetfulness, but most important, a joyful subconscious influence, to develop in us the wonderful faculty of intuition.

I wouldn't have thought this, but do recall having an experience along these lines after looking at some Ad Reinhardt paintings at the MCA in Chicago.

The idea of having such paintings as companions is intriguing; who could afford it? Would prints suffice?

This brings back the memory of an experience I had in a furniture store when I was a child. When admiring an abstract painting in one of the displays, a lady came by and asked me if I liked it. I said that I did, and she replied to the effect that school children could do better paintings than that.

Perhaps Rebay should have added "arouse feelings of hostility" to her list!

Rushin' around

Someone who has traveled widely in Russia can be considered well-verst.

The Beauty of the Sea

Our family took a trip out to the beach this afternoon. Typically, in Nova Scotia, the ocean doesn't get warm enough to swim in comfortably until September, but today it was warmer than I can remember.

Even though my wife & I spent most of our time looking after our kids, we did get some time to swim. Swimming in the ocean is my favorite aquatic experience. When I'm swimming or floating on some large waves, I feel especially the grandeur of nature. Something about looking up to the horizon and realizing the next stop is Bermuda is awe-inspiring. Plus, as the swells move me it seems like I'm traveling on the earth's heartbeat. I could stay there all day.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

The Gulag Archipelago has been in my book collection since 1975. I attempted reading it back then, and found it rather impenetrable. Not that I didn't understand it; I couldn't fathom the viewpoint of an ex-prisoner writing a massive tome about not only his experience in the "system", but a veritable history of the system.

Solzhenitsyn was fascinating because of his experience of Soviet oppression and because, even though he lived in the US for over 20 years, he never became "one of us". In fact, his criticism of the US was as sharp as that of his home country.

When he returned to Russia in 1994, he was able to speak his criticism of the country openly, and had done so ever since, although he spoke approvingly of Vladimir Putin as someone who was restoring Russia's greatness.

About a month ago I began reading the Gulag again. After 30+ years it is no longer so impenetrable. It is fascinating, illuminating, depressing, and terrifying. It is also a testimony to the difference one person can make.

Solzhenitsyn was never co-opted politically. He spoke the truth to power in a dangerous and bold way. He put everything on the line, and, although his particular vision might not have prevailed, he was vindicated by the fall of the Soviet Union.

He might not have been treated as a conquering hero on his return to Russia, but he has definitely left a legacy that demonstrates how a person can comport themselves with dignity in the face of monstrous tyranny. And tyranny is something we face in many forms, on many levels.

Finding Fulfilment

You may have noticed a title in the Books I'm Reading section called The Acting Person. Back in 1999 I read a biography of Pope John Paul II which mentioned it, which he had written in the 1950s. I found a translation on the internet and have been reading it slowly since last year.

The other day I came across an idea that is quite radical. He writes that human fulfillment is realized when a person acts authentically:

To fulfill oneself means to actualize, and in a way to bring to the proper fullness, that structure in man which is characteristic for him because of his personality and also because of his being somebody and not merely something; it is the structure of self-governance and self-possession.

It is radical for me, because I tended to think that "fulfillment" was about doing particular things that bring one outside one's everyday world, like skydiving, mountain climbing, anything exciting or extraordinary. Anything other than, say, going to work, cleaning the house, shopping for groceries, etc.

He goes on to say that authentic acts have not only an external effect (I cleaned the house, and now it is clean), but an internal one as well (I cleaned the house and was satisfied with my work; I know it is a job well-done). While the external effect is transitory, the internal effect is lasting. When one acts authentically, one is strengthened and validated in one's personhood.

This was interesting to me, because, in addition to seeing "fulfillment" as something extraordinary, I thought that I could be validated externally only, as in being recognized for a job well-done; if someone didn't notice it, it didn't happen.

I've had intuitions of this for a long time - nice to see that I wasn't totally out to lunch!

Surprise from Keats...

A few weeks ago I browsed through The Norton Poetry Anthology (Fourth Edition) and stumbled across a poem that contained my theme:

On First Looking into Chapman's Homer
John Keats

Much have I traveled in the realms of gold,
And many goodly states and kingdoms seen;
Round many western islands have I been
Which bards in fealty to Apollo hold.
Oft of one wide expanse had I been told
That deep-browed Homer ruled in his demesne,
Yet did I never breathe its pure serene
Till I heard Chapman speak out loud and bold:
Then I felt like some watcher of the skies
When a new planet swims into his ken;
Or like stout Cortez when with eagle eyes
He stared at the Pacific - and all his men
Looked at each other with a wild surmise -
Silent, upon a peak in Darien.

The Saxophone

Yesterday I was at a music store to get my amp fixed. After dropping it off and looking for gifts for my kids, I browsed the music book section. Beneath the bins containing the jazz compilations, I found something called The Real Book - Sixth Edition.

This is a classic fake book that I've sought for almost 30 years. Back then, it was illegal and somewhat akin to bootleg LPs, so I was surprised to find it at all. A quick scan showed that it was now legal, published by Hal Leonard, but retaining the quaint, homemade look.

I had gotten The New Real Book back in the early '90s, but didn't like it. For one thing, I got the version with few of the standards that I liked. It didn't have Take Five, Blue Monk, to name a couple.

Last night I played through Blue Monk, Cherokee, and The Blue Room and had a blast.

My purchase was rung up by a fellow who is a reedman. I related a tale of woe to him about how I began my musical career on alto saxophone. I played in the school band for 2 years, and asked my mother if I could take private lessons. She signed my up at a local music store.

The "school" consisted of a bunch of small rooms with no windows. This was the place I would take bass lessons 9 years later, by the way. My teacher would come in, close the door, light a cigarette, and have me play.

I could barely breathe! I thought this was crazy, but at that age (around 9 or 10), I didn't feel comfortable confronting an adult about something like this. Besides, my mom smoked!

I couldn't continue under this regime, so I told my mom I wanted to quit. I didn't tell her why - I was afraid to confront her smoking even indirectly.

After hearing this, the fellow at the cash said empathized and informed me that they rent saxophones and other instruments. The thought had never occurred to me, although I considered taking up the sax again around 1983. Visions of tenors ran through my head, and when I got home I did some checking online, and concluded that if I rent a sax, it will probably be an alto to start with.

An odd feeling of anticipation followed!

The Evolving Bassist

I've been playing bass guitar earnestly since 1976. For some reason, I resisted taking lessons for 3 years, learning solely from listening to songs on the radio and on records.

I was fortunate to have picked up on the patterns that music uses, and how they are applied to bass. I was blessed with a fairly good ear, too.

I signed up for lessons at the local music store in 1979. Sometime after this I picked up a method book called The Evolving Bassist by Rufus Reid. Over the years I've made at least 3 attempts to work my way through it, each time giving up. Why? I found the repetition (and mistakes) inherent in and necessary for mastering the exercises too frustrating. I wanted it all, "now".

Most of the music I played at that time didn't absolutely require the skills that would be honed by doing the exercises. Still, something inside me felt that I ought to do the exercises at some point.

My latest attempt at working through the book began in 2005. I'm still at it - a bit more than halfway through.

Over the last 6 years I've practiced more intentionally, intensively, and fruitfully. Working through books like The Evolving Bassist and Patterns for Jazz is immensely helpful.

Still, most of the music I play these days still doesn't require the skills developed in these books. As a result, I find myself somewhat over-prepared when I play, but I've come to the conclusion that this is better than coming to gigs as a kind of "blank slate". My focus is now on how I can best contribute, rather than on how I'm going to reinvent the wheel by spontaneous inspiration. Fewer unpleasant surprises this way.

The Osmond Brothers

Yesterday I caught the Osmonds' 50th Anniversary Concert on PBS, which I believe was filmed in Las Vegas last year. I hadn't thought about them in awhile, and really didn't think too much of them in their heyday.

I remember them being omnipresent in the '70s, and, as with virtually every other "omnipresent" celebrity, band, movie, etc., I tended to ignore them. They were too gimmicky, too squeaky clean. Their music had no edge, no sense of danger that emanated from bands like The Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin, other than the fact that Wayne Osmond resembled Jimmy Page.

At one point in the show, Marie Osmond introduced their two eldest brothers, both of whom were born deaf. She explained that the reason they got into show business was to raise money to get them hearing aids so they could go on their Mormon church mission.

I'd never heard this before, and thought it was pretty cool. I would never have guessed that they had two elder brothers. They all did a rendition of "He Ain't Heavy (He's My Brother)" with the eldest brothers interpreting the song in sign language. It brought a tear to my eye...

As far as the earlier comparisons with the Stones and Zeppelin (and let's throw the Beatles in for good measure): I figured that the Osmonds began playing professionally at least 2 years before any of them. It put things in perspective.

The Osmonds appear to continue the old show business tradition of being great and making it look easy!

I hereby recant all the bad things I've ever thought or said about the Osmonds.

Lunar Eclipse

Moon's rapid phasing
Reflects the colour spectrum
In about three hours

Three Birds

A raven looking
At two crows on a building
Croaks to them sadly

Precipitation

Rain washes old snow
Wind flows in bitter currents
Like a lion-spring

Music as Religion

Back in 1989 I had the opportunity to see Paul McCartney in concert. This was special, because I had been a devoted Beatles fan, albeit beginning 4 years after they broke up.

On this tour, his show opened with 3 films shown simultaneously on 3 screens above the stage. They were, if I recall correctly, produced by Richard Lester, who had produced the Beatles' first movie, A Hard Day's Night. The films showed various aspect's of Paul's life through the years, from his early years to the present. They pace was rapid - I enjoyed spotting various familiar images on the screens, and watching them built an incredible anticipation. At one point I said to myself, "I'm really going to see him!"

See him I did. Heard him, too. When he did his various Beatle songs (especially Hey Jude) and other solo hits, there was a palpable sense of awe. I felt like it was one for the ages.

Years later, I would identify that event as one of worship.

Last year I read a book entitled Earthly Powers: The Conflict Between Religion & Politics from the French Revolution to the Great War by Michael Burleigh. In it I found a passage that explained how going to the symphony, opera, etc., used to be about doing business or looking for a wife. During the post-Revolutionary era in France, it became a secular religious experience, and composers expected it to be treated as such.

When I read this, I thought about the McCartney concert, and felt that I fit in with the historical progression, at least! I was surprised that this phenomenon had any kind of deliberation behind it. Beginning in the realm of classical music and opera, no less. I thought it "just happened". Perhaps the elevation of popular music to this status was unique.

In any case, I again thought about this phenomenon when I recently read a passage from John's Gospel. Jesus speaks of His Father, and says, "Yes, I know Him well, and I keep His word," (Jn 9:55). I thought of Paul McCartney's (and others') words and how I "kept" them. If that's what it took to get to Heaven, I'd be "saved"!

My Favourite Tree

White bark peeling loose
Vibrates stiffly in the wind
Winter's counterpoint

Bald Eagle Sighting

White-headed raptor
Is attacked by crows when they
Spot him on their turf