Monday, December 26, 2011

The Great Successor


The best represents the optimal. To gain the best requires constant work to stay above the worst. In the case of Kim Jung-Un, he serves as the best of the worst. Suffering from economic mismanagement, North Korea relies heavily on international aid. In addition to economic mismanagement, North Koreans lack the basic human rights that many people enjoy. A dominant belief that the leader of North Korea serves as a deity grants power to the Worker’s Party of Korea. The North Koreans live under some of the worst standards. In contrast, the leader enjoys a lavish lifestyle. Former North Korean ruler, Kim Jong-Il, enjoyed 700,000 $ of cognac a year along with the controversial shark fin soup, probably in front of his television playing one of his 20,000 DVDs[1]. The key difference between Kim Jong-Il, apart from the obvious age difference (Kim Jong-Il being 52, and Kim Jong-Un being 28), revolves around the social technological and cultural differences between North Korea and the rest of the world. Although Kim Jong-Un’s power provides him with any possession available, the lack of freedom to indulge in the cultural and technological advances of other countries will ultimately create a political problem for Kim Jong-Un.
It is true that Kim Jong-Un is rich enough to buy anything, but you cannot buy the NBA (or the American culture that defines the NBA), a strong passion of the new North Korean leader. A fierce basketball player and fanatic, Jong-Un even spotted some pictures with Kobe Bryant[2]. His passion for basketball leaves him with only two possible ways to keep up with the season: internet or cable. North Korea has no food, and I doubt internet and cable available to the North Korean people. Kim Jong-Il enjoyed cognac and movies, but he could buy these pleasures with little contact to the outside world, discreetly. The internet and cable, however, require a link to the outside world. The link may remind Kim Jong-Un of what his country lacks. The pleasure, the culture, and the advances of other countries may sway Jong-Un against the country that remains backwards relevant to many other countries.
Caving into his curiosity for the west, Jong-Un’s older brother lost preference with his father, and the privilege to succession. Embarrassment followed the news of Kim Jong-Il’s eldest, Kim Jong-Nam, capture at the Tokyo Disneyland with a fake passport. The prominent propaganda of North Korea’s supposed superiority lost a follower. His dark glasses, pressed suit and elegant surroundings encourage his defection from an oppressive ideology[3]. In his voice, there seems to be no disappointment in a loss of favor with his father. He might even pity his younger brother because apart from the great responsibility, Kim Jong-Un is stuck. Jong-Nam carries the stigma of his upbringing, but enjoys the pleasure of his money- mostly in places much better than North Korea.
As the United States, and other countries around the world, advance with the coming years, North Korea remains stagnant. The people focus more on surviving adversity than on the advancements that exist outside of North Korea. In fact, the people do not know past the controlled media’s reports of the occurrences on the outside. Knowledge of the outside would create a fight for the ability of survival, the access to more efficient services, and the introduction of an easier life. Though North Korean, Kim Jong-Un knows of the outside, and he loves it. His pleasures permeate the love of basketball, but the fact that he is stuck in North Korea will only create a conflict in his mind. In a matter of time, Kim Jong-Un might want to leave it behind like his older brother, and when that time comes, we will see how the world and the political structure of North Korea reacts. But, if you were in the same shoes, what would you pick: The red pill or the blue pill? Being a demigod or being free?

Monday, December 12, 2011

Karl Marx and Business


Karl Marx and Business
Introduction:
I have actually had the desire to work on this post for awhile. After digesting some Karl Marx readings, I came to the conclusion that I vehemently disagree with the man, and that his views will never work efficiently in a political system. Nonetheless, considering that in Marx’s time the government strongly favored industry over industry’s workers, it is no surprise that Marx’s ideas spread when they did. But, in the end, government intervention in the workplace worked against Marx’s ideas. Therefore, the fact that the government intervenes to protect the rights of the workers (i.e. work days, minimum wage, collective bargaining rights, etc.) proves Marx wrong. However, the fact that big businesses dwell strongly on immigrant labor and the fact that they lobby vigorously for deregulation leaves me with this question: “Are corporations, big businesses, and politicians who campaign against collective bargaining rights indirectly Marxist?”

The Era
In order to fully understand Marx’s argument you have to understand the political atmosphere of his writings. He completed the first edition of his famous Communist Manifesto in 1848 in London, but it was not until 1850 that the manifesto was translated into English. During this time, factories and business were growing rapidly in London culminating into two social dichotomies that Marx would label: The bourgeoisie (The factory owners) and the proletariat (the workers in the factory). The simple nature of such an argument has made it extremely applicable even in today’s society because it translates to: the people who have money and the means to make more of it in an economic struggle with those who don’t have money but work to make more of it. However, Karl Marx assumes a government that favors industry over its workers. Though, Marx does touch on many aspects of a capitalistic economy, my main disagreement with Marx is the assumption that united workers work in a capitalistic society in a mutually exclusive relationship.

Marx’s Argument on the Worker
I will provide a very watered down and simple presentation of Karl Marx’s argument, though it does no justice to Marx’s intricate arguments, it is easier to work with my argument and the scope of this post. I am taking arguments from his works The Critique of Capitalism, “Capital: Volume One” and The Communist Manifesto. Initiating his argument, Marx provides the idea that there is a surplus of a workforce, meaning that there are more workers than there are jobs. Marx argues that it will always be in the interest of the capitalist to get more out of one worker and pay one wage instead of paying two wages. The capitalist wants to get the most work for the least amount of expense in order to yield higher profit margins. Thus, the capitalist begins to let go of his skilled laborers to cheaper unskilled labor, and then he moves from adults to children because they are cheaper. Wages correlate with the demand of workers. When demand for workers is high then wages go higher, but when demand is low, then wages fall. These cycles keep the power of the worker low and usurp their power to the capitalist. Moreover, the competition that capitalism uses in its laissez-faire approach to economics does not affect only companies or commodities, but it also trickles down to the work force. When there is a surplus workforce, a low demand for labor, and (the key distinction in Marx’s argument) a lack of unions, then the workers fight for jobs by offering to work for lower wages. The workers fight for lower wages because a lower wage is better than falling into pauperism: “the dead weight of the industrial reserve” where the “demoralized and ragged, and those unable to work” waste away without an income (On Capital).

Unions: The Solution
Karl Marx offers the solution that “the real fruit of their battle lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever-expanding union of the workers” (The Communist Manifesto). This solution serves as a paradox that proves both Karl Marx right and wrong at the same time. Yes, the workers did need to unite in order to live as human beings and not as machines that were constantly being exploited by the owners of all the capital. Yet, this model assumed a government that did nothing for the proletariat. The establishment of anti-trust laws, child labor laws, collective bargaining, and a minimum wage have depleted the atmosphere of 1850, and transformed it into a new one in which the rights of not just the workers, but of American citizens were valued over profits. Though, it may be argued to the extent in which people matter over profits (this is a whole different issue at large), we no longer live in this state of economic nature in which we have to fight for lower wages to at least have a job. As long as laws that uphold collective bargaining and other worker’s right prevail, the more Karl Marx’s arguments become silenced by a government that favors individual’s rights.

Indirectly Marxist?
Business becomes indirectly Marxist when business favors deregulation to the extent that Karl Marx becomes relevant again. When politicians like Ron Paul call for the end of the minimum wage, or when governors like Scott Walker try to eliminate collective bargaining, they only empower the arguments of Karl Marx even more. Why? Well, because the times before minimum wage and collective bargaining were very evident and relevant to the time when Karl Marx wrote his manifesto. Moreover, the lack of these measures failed, to the point that government had to interject and enact progressive reforms throughout late 19th century and early 20th century in the United States. I will be the first to concede that Karl Marx was an idealist in his political model, but not anymore than Adam Smith was. To think that governments without a central figure run by workers was very idealist, in the same way that an economic model that solves its own problems is. We now know that communist ideals lead to totalitarian governments or figures. Nonetheless, the “invisible hand” aids the flow of money through the economy only to turn around and stick the middle finger to those who turn capital into wealth. My main point is that Marx and Smith represent two very opposite economic ideals that cannot work in isolation. There must be a balance between the two, and this balance only becomes more defined through time, progress, and much thought as policy is applied and reformed. Nonetheless, Marxism’s close ties to capitalism (and much more with the laissez-faire form of capitalism), the more Marxism finds relevance in any attempts to make the economy more capitalistic in nature.

-          WSQ