Wisconsin: A Marxist Approach

Paul Krugman is a Marxist. 

No, you have not stumbled upon some right-wing blogger criticizing the liberal economist's every New York Times atricle.  In fact, I'm not criticizing Krugman at all.  Instead, I've noticed that his recent column about Wisconsin matched markedly with one of the critical approaches to literature and history that I have studied in my English class this week. 

I'm not calling Krugman a socialist.  But the way he has analyzed Governor Scott Walker's attempt to remove public-sector unions of their collective bargaining rights deals with power, class struggle, and other considerations that Marxist critics take into account. 

Let's remember that, before writing on economics, Karl Marx was a historian who viewed all of history in terms of class struggle.  Later, in Das Kapital, he added economic idealogies of socialism and communism as the eventual next step after capitalism, and thus we remember Marx as the founder of socialist thought.  But Marx's view of history in terms of power and class struggles - the oppression of the proletariat - applies clearly to Wisconsin's struggle today.

The crux of Krugman's argument is that unions are the last powerful lobbying voice for the working middle class among countless influential lobbies of Wall Street investors, bankers, and the rich.  This is the best argument I have heard for maintaining collective bargaining powers for workers - more convincing than merely arguing that budget shortfalls caused by this bargaining are not that bad, for everyone will have to sacrifice in the interest of fiscal responsibility.

And while articles like this, printed in The New York Times, note that this measure would not really cut debt but just put it off, Walker and other Republicans insist that workers must make sacrifices.  Furthermore, Walker has said that unions are not serious about coming to the negotiating table.  As both Krugman and the NYT article note, budget shortfalls could be corrected in other ways, such as higher taxes on the rich, but the Governor is unwilling to do this.

This case is just one example of what a Marxist critic would call class struggles in politics today.  Last year, when the Bush tax cuts were set to expire, Obama was forced to let the cuts continue for the rich as well as the middle class.  Although it was clear that tax cuts for the rich were economically unnecessary and fiscally irresponsible, many Americans and their representatives insisted that the rich continue to benefit at the expense of everybody else.  And even though about 55% of Americans supported ending these cuts for the rich, the bill went through, showing the power of the wealthy lobbies and the upper-class status of the legislators.  This is just one of many examples of the immense power of the upper class, and is an example of why Krugman calls modern America an oligarchy.

From a Marxist standpoint, it is clear to see that power is concentrated with the upper, ruling class.  At the end of the day, union workers will likely be powerless to stop passage of the budget bill stripping their rights.  Public sector unions will thus lose power in Wisconsin and, with the precedent set, possibly other states as well.  And the rich will gain even more influence within our state houses and in DC.

The angry protests of teachers, engineers, and other union workers in Wisconsin are a possible sign of the uprising of the proletariat.  In the Marxist view of history, this is just another step along the road from capitalism to socialism to communism.

I, however, would prefer to keep capitalism around.  So please, Wisconsin, say NO to the bill!

Democracy: With Us.

At the outset of the Egyptian protests, the United States was in a strange position - awkward at best, devastating at worst.  The people of Egypt rose up against the dictator America had propped up for almost 30 years, and our choices seemed to be between promoting democracy or maintaining our strategic hold on this powerful Arab state.  In fact, just last week, I expressed my hope that America would remain on the side of democracy and not support despotism over uncertainty.

President Obama has navigated this uncertainty quite well.  In a speech on Friday, after Mubarak tendered his resignation, Obama praised the Egyptian protestors for their relentless march toward democracy.  He called their nonviolent means inspiring, voicing his clear and unambiguous support for democracy in Egypt.  As Nicholas Kristof puts it, Obama finally "left wishy-washy behind."

And indeed, Obama's handling of the Egypt situation, as many other commentators have said, is to be praised.  Marc Lynch, in his blog for ForeignPolicy.com, notes Obama's almost-immediate recognition of America's back-seat position in the movement.  He and blogger Michael Cohen both point out that the administration worked first and foremost to ensure the safety of the Egyptian people, dealing behind the scenes with the Egyptian military to ensure a "soft landing".

And yet, Obama insisted that democracy now was the only option.

In addition, the language and tone of his speech on Friday is especially noteworthy.  By alluding Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous "arc of history" line - the arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice - , and later including MLK's name directly, tied Egypt's narrative with perhaps the most inspiring, and most uniquely American, movement in our history.

He also used words like nonviolence, words coined by Ghandi's revolutionary movement in India, to further connect Egypt's struggle to the ideals of freedom and equality that we all share.  It is both impressive and encouraging to see a US President tying together the complexities of foreign policy and international relations with our most basic values as a people.

Obama's moves over the past few weeks may well be remembered as his greatest foreign policy achievement to date - the ouster of an Arab dictator and the (hopeful) triumph of a true democracy in the Middle East.  Obama's support for the Egyptian people should serve as a warning to other oppressive dictators in the Middle East that, if your people demand democracy, we won't stop them.

But I'd like to remember Obama's speech on Friday as a dramatic shift in the way we speak about democracy in the Middle East.  No longer are we bringing democracy over in tanks and planes, bestowing it upon people whether they want it or not.  Instead, we are giving legitimacy to the democratic urges of much of the Islamic world by allowing them to make the first move and showing that we will help them if asked.

As Lynch points out, Obama has now overseen the removal of two Arab dictators within the past few months - Ben Ali in Tunisia and Mubarak in Egypt.  Hopefully, with the tone set on Friday and throughout the past few weeks, the arc of history will continue to bend towards justice, towards democracy.

Please let me know what you think about this topic, my post, or anything else by commenting here.

Democracy: With Us or Against Us?

As the protests in Egypt continue, one phrase seems to be on everyone's mind: Mubarak out, Democracy in.  This is the goal of the Egyptian protestors occupying Tahrir Square in Cairo, and it is what hundreds have died and thousands have been injured for in these past two weeks.  Finally, after the lives of thousands of American soldiers have been lost in two wars waged to spread democracy to the Middle East, the people of a Middle East nation have gone to the streets in a revolution for representation and freedom.

And yet, America is afraid.

The United States fears the ouster of Egyptian "President" Hosni Mubarak (I use quotes because the word president implies a real election), a dictator we have supported for 30 years.  Despite his despotic rule, Mubarak has taken billions in US foreign aid to maintain a "cool peace" with Israel, and Americans from Obama down fears democracy will allow Egyptians to elect leaders less willing to compromise their beliefs for some cash.

But, as columnist Nicholas Kristof insists in his recent blog post, we should not worry about democracy in Egypt.  Indeed, I say, we should celebrate it.  And here's why:

Americans have been taught to see democracy and Islam as diametrically opposed; one is Western and just, the other is foreign and dangerous.  The protests in Egypt, however, have come to show that democracy has an increasingly crucial place within Islam.  In an opinion piece written yesterday in The New York Times, policy expert Reuel Marc Gerecht asserts that democracy not only represents the justice and freedom so integral in the Islamic religion, but it can work well in Egypt.  And he cautions us not to think of Egypt today in terms of Iran in 1979.

In 1979, a fundamentalist Islamic movement took power in the political vacuum left by the removal of a Western-supported despot carried out by a democratic revolution of the people.  Sound familiar?

The stage seems set in Egypt for a repeat of '79 Iran, a political shift that led to the rise of an oppressive Islamic regime that continues to pose perhaps the greatest threat to peace in the region.  But the movement in Egypt offers several stark contrasts.

First of all, as both Gerecht and Kristof note, the Muslim Brotherhood that seems poised to take the lead in the democratic process in Egypt has been forced by the Egyptian populace to abandon its most authoritarian theories of government in favor of representative rule.  The long-term rule of the Muslim Brotherhood is subject to a large group of Christians within the country that will be at the polling places keeping them in check.

In addition, the Islamic population of Egypt is mostly Sunni, not Shi'ite, and thus the leaders of the Brotherhood are not Ayatollahs and religious heads - those that fill the power structure of Shi'a tradition - but lay people, some with liberal beliefs.  Both columnists note that these leaders can and must be more receptive to the needs and wants of the Egyptian populace, and, even if they do rise to power, they will be held accountable by the energized voters of their nation.

The Egyptian protests offer Americans an important lesson: Islam and democracy are not mutually exclusive.  Although Mubarak's ouster could worsen relations between the Egyptian government and both the US and Israel, at least in the short run, this does not mean we should prevent democracy from taking hold.  For, as the bringers of democracy to the world, we cannot choose to whom it goes and when.

Indeed, I say, it is a sign of America's grand successes over the past 250 years that people in far regions of the world, who hold ideologies quite opposed to ours, want to model our system.  Egypt's democracy may come about just how ours did - in a hard-fought revolution against an oppressive regime.  Let's take this opportunity to separate ourselves from this oppression and be the nation that escaped the grasp of tyranny and created a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Just because, this time, these people aren't all white Christians, does not mean they're not people.