Kony 2013

2012 saw probably one of the biggest, and the most pervasive campaigns on Facebook. Released in March, produced by the invisible children inc, and directed by Jason Russel, the Kony 2012 video ended with about 95,800,000 views. The year passed without capturing Kony which goes to show the effectiveness of a platform, such as Facebook, and the reality of actually catching a warlord within nine months. 

Social Media: Like many, I found out about Kony through constant (and I mean constant) reposting of the video link to my newsfeed from friends who probably don't necessarily follow current events. Perhaps, it came down to publicity, and not necessarily advocacy. People will be more familiar with something that is much more publicized; however, the comprehension of the situation in order to donate, or  to act comes at a higher opportunity cost.

Possibility: Kony is not necessarily high on the list of evil men we want to take down. First comes Al-Assad  with hundreds of people dying in Syria, and then probably Kim Jong-Un. The famine and concentration camps within North Korea have been a strong motivator for Human Rights Groups for decades. Moreover, the more technical difficulties of working within an anarchic system make the possibility of actually taking down a warlord much less realistic. A world government does not exist to enforce laws or initiatives, and world organizations are hardly powerful (i.e. failed collective action in Syria through the UN security council). 

Kony 2012 was a successful campaign, but the success of its original initiative is questionable (goal: stop Kony by the end of 2012). The follow-up video to Kony 2012, Kony: Beyond Famous, garnered 2,500,000 views. Once the publicity faded, so did the attention. Moreover, the possibility of focusing solely on Kony while disregarding all of the other bad guys out there was just not going to happen. 

Also, some other things to consider, such as the way the director Jason Russel used his 5 year old son in the video campaign. Being 5 is awesome. It's a time when you still think that you'll get a dollar under you're pillow for losing a tooth, or that when you grow up you can still be a power ranger. Therefore, it's not a good time to explain mass murder and genocide to your kid, even for views. Also, if you are the director of a famous work, then don't do this. Nonetheless, we'll see if The Invisible Children Inc. can follow up with any incoming news and progress considering the popularity of the video and Obama's deployment of military advisors.

Wait...What is a liberal?

Introduction:

I do most of my contemplation running. It’s my way of meditation. Today’s hour long run paired a two hour long podcast lecture on Tocqueville by noted conservative pundit Michael Barone[1]. I enjoy Tocqueville and his interpretation of American democracy, and Barone did a great job to fill in the gap to reflect a more modern political climate. However, his use of conservatism versus “New Deal” Liberalism made the argument too simple, and frankly, untrue. He follows Marx’s example. Marx pairs the capitalists against the proletariats in the same way Barone pits conservatives against so-called “New Deal” liberals.

Individual Choice:

According to Barone, what separates a conservative and a liberal is that one values individual freedom and that the other assumes that people are too stupid to make a choice, so he depends on the federal government. Not only is this view grossly wrong, but it is far too simplistic. First off, I don’t think that anyone disputes individual freedom. Anyone that thinks otherwise would rather point fingers than actually partake in serious discussion. The real question will always be the type of government we want to preside over a particular issue, and in this sense there is no such thing as “more” or “less” government, just the type of government. In this argument, I am taking voting as a form of government. Any regulation or deregulation is ultimately voted on and thus put under the authority of government known as the voting system.

What is a Liberal or a Conservative?

I don’t know. People spend so much time categorizing others’ opinions and interpretations instead of some solutions. And, in the end who cares? The majority wins. Sometimes the so-called conservative or liberal solution, politician, plan will win and sometimes it won’t. The policy just depends on what the people want.

Taking Sides

I don’t have to pick a side. If mainstream politics means trying to predict the future and picking at history to try to fulfill a robust political ideology, then I’d rather focus on the big picture and remain a pragmatist.  

---

[1] The podcast is C-SPAN – American History TV – Lectures in American History. If you’re an American History and Politics buff, then this is worth some of your time. 

French Minority Groups and American Public Diplomacy Implementation

Introduction:

Europe has undergone a massive change in racial make-up. Rapid immigration has changed a predominantly white population with one that is more mixed and based around North African, Middle Eastern or Muslim minority groups. American public diplomacy efforts must change with the new issues and concerns that evolve with a changing population. A more diverse population group harbors assorted opinions, wants, and needs. Nonetheless, a more diverse population may also induce backlash from nationalist groups and movements. A national government’s stance may stand opposed to that of the United States’. Many questions begin to arise: Must American public diplomacy cater to the national government or the general population, including minority groups? Would public diplomacy initiatives to minority groups in foreign countries be seen as a usurpation of power by the domestic government? In the following essay, I will focus on France’s increasing Muslim minority, the French government’s reaction to the growing minority, and the United States’ role in public diplomacy pertaining to France.

France’s Diverse Population:

The conclusion of World War II led to a spike in immigration into France mainly from North African colonies still under French rule, such as Algeria and Morocco. Fueled by the need for laborers to facilitate a growing economy, immigration grew in post- World War II France. Algerians had greatly benefited from free circulation between the two countries; with 1.7 million Algerian immigrants in 1946, the number doubled to 3.4 million Algerian immigrants in 1975. Around this time, mainly in the mid-1960s, immigration to France by Moroccan and Tunisian immigrants developed rapidly as well[1]. In more recent times, Immigration from African nations has overtaken immigration from any other place in the world and it has even doubled the number of immigrants from France’s second biggest immigration source, the European Union. Immigration from African nations peaked in 2003 with 101, 658 immigrants eclipsing the European Union’s peak of 55, 941 immigrants in 2005[2].

Opposing Cultural Identities:

In Religion and Incorporation: Islam in France and Germany, Riva Kastoryano explains that religion is closely tied to national history. The national identity of many European countries is based on a long term influence of religious wars and religious communities. Currently, Muslim populations that have been “outside the history of the relationship between church and state that shaped Western national character” demand greater recognition in national society. [3]Islam as a growing social and political force in Europe challenges already accepted notions of national identity. France runs on an idea of secularism called “Laïcité.” Article 1 of the French Constitution of 1958 provides a definition for this idea: “France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs. It shall be organized on a decentralized basis”[4]. Yet, recent political events in France seem directly opposed to this idea of multicultural pluralism under the pre-supposed notion of social equality. For example, in the French Presidential election of 2012, far-right nationalist party candidate Marine LePen won 18% of the vote during the first round beating the more liberal candidate Melanchon for third place[5]. Despite the perceived rise in nationalist sentiments, tensions against minority groups had been rising within the last decade. President Chirac’s proposal to ban the use of headscarves in public schools emphasized France’s dedication to secularism. The ban won popular support from the French people, and the law even joined secularists with feminists who were dismayed by the percentage of girls who wore the headscarves[6]. The more controversial law, however, came in 2011. The law banning the wearing of the full-veil niqab, brought into question the place of Islam in a secular society. Moreover, the law brought into light questions of its origin considering Interior Ministry’s estimate that a mere 2000 women in France wear the niqab[7]. More generally, in a study by the National Academy of Sciences in 2010 where the incomes and job opportunities of Senegalese Muslims and Senegalese Christians were compared, Muslim families were found to make 400 Euros less a month than Christian families. According to the study, there seems to be a negative Muslim effect on household income[8].

America’s Place in French Public Sentiment

The United States has always harbored a complicated relationship with France. Though there has been perceived political hostility towards the United States in the past, such as when Charles De Gaulle withdrew France from NATO’s military command in 1966, it hasn’t stopped the “Titanic” from being France’s all-time top box office film, or McDonald’s from selling “McBaguettes” on French street corners. The truth is: French people love America, or at least its products. Though French politicians often discredit one another by calling each other “L’Americaine,” Former French president Jacques Chirac still invited Steven Spielberg to the Elysee Palace and awarded him the “Legion D’Honneur.” It’s important to note that consumption does not equal affinity, but it is even more important to emphasize that a diverse social population calls for a more dynamic approach to public policy[9]. The French may like our popular culture, but that is not enough to ensure future cooperation or improved bilateral relations. More importantly, the term the “French People” can be taken as a fallacy because the diverse social composition and recent controversial laws have changed public sentiment. According to a poll by the German Marshall Fund in 2011, 59% of France’s population is concerned about illegal immigration, 33% of the population believes that there are too many immigrants, and 66% of the population sees France’s management of immigration as “poor” or “very poor”[10]. Recent events in France, such as the shootings in Toulouse, or more lasting events, such as the September 11 attacks, can often lead to misconceptions about Islam and its ability to integrate into a Western society. Such misconceptions can not only cause turmoil for the national government, but it complicates the mission and the practice of public diplomacy.

Current American Public Diplomacy in France

It’s important to make clear that these are France’s problems, not those of the United States. Whatever the French national government decides to do to alter the integration of immigrants resides in their own capacity. The importance of this information to American public diplomacy lies in its ability to make diplomacy more efficient and impactful in order to secure American interests in France and facilitate Franco-American cooperation in the future. The United States already has a strong and active presence in France through its embassy, and its efforts should not be overlooked. In January, the U.S. Embassy in Paris invited an NGO named Cahier Vert, a mentoring association, to take high school students on a tour of the embassy[11]. In April, influential Jazz musician Herbie Hancock visited French high school students[12]. Finally, U.S. Embassy Paris invited Monica Dodi, Senior Executive of the Women’s Venture Capital, to lead discussions on a three day speaker program focusing on women’s entrepreneurship[13]. Nonetheless, public diplomacy in France should work through a stronger grass roots initiative and a more profuse approach, decentralized from a strong emphasis in Paris. If Muslim immigrants feel harassed by their laws, then sponsor talks with Muslim-American journalists and activists. According to the Modern Language Association, French is the second most studied language in institutions of higher learning, just behind Spanish[14]. Then, support scholarships or grants that place college graduates in classrooms as English teachers or assistants in areas where public diplomacy initiatives (i.e. discussions, visits, etc) are not possible.   

Conclusion; Questions of Public Diplomacy Implementation:

Socially, France has been changing. Since the end of World War II and the independence of former colonies, immigration has increased rapidly. The more diverse social make-up has caused questions of national identity, namely “what makes a French person French?” The case for France is different because its constitution is based on the idea of secularism. Nonetheless, recent success of far-right nationalist groups and laws that affect hyper-minorities bring into question the difference between secular and predatory policy. The United States’ place in this capacity is not to change or influence French policy, but to understand the changing French social composition to better fulfill public diplomacy goals. Consumption does not equal affinity. Just because the French eat McDonalds and listen to Kanye West does not mean that the French public will necessarily agree with American foreign policy, commercial interest, and political views. It is clear that France, and the rest of Europe, is quickly becoming more heterogeneous. Diversity is something we share with France. Thus, public diplomacy needs to take a stronger grasp of our diversity to link our citizens to their citizens. But, public diplomacy is not an easy task. The money available for public diplomacy initiatives is fickle, variable, and more often than not, inaccessible. Recent economic cuts have affected posts across the board. Also, it cannot be sure that public diplomacy initiatives directly with French minority groups will not seem like a usurpation of power from the national government. Often what sounds good in theory falls short in practice which can discourage change in public diplomacy implementation.  Though France is the U.S.’s oldest mission, the diplomatic relationship with the new French social composition will be one more complicated than before.

-          Walter Quintanilla

---

[1] http://www.histoire-immigration.fr/dix-themes-pour-connaitre-deux-siecles-d-histoire-de-l-immigration/emigrer/de-1945-a-1975

[2] http://www.ined.fr/fr/pop_chiffres/france/flux_immigration/depuis_1994/

[3] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2004.tb00234.x/pdf, pg: 1234-1235

[4] http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/english/8ab.asp

[5] http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/root/bank/pdf/conseil-constitutionnel-108521.pdf

[6] http://www.economist.com/node/2404691?story_id=2404691

[7] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/world/europe/12france.html

[8] http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/11/17/1015550107.full.pdf+html

[9] http://www.economist.com/node/5323762

[10] http://trends.gmfus.org/immigration/country-profiles/france-2011-transatlantic-trends-immigration-country-specific-results/

[11] http://france.usembassy.gov/event20120118.html

[12] http://france.usembassy.gov/event20120426.html

[13] http://france.usembassy.gov/event20120316.html

[14] http://www.mla.org/pdf/2009_enrollment_survey_pr.pdf

Capitalism and Competition: The Conclusion

My conclusion must start off with the notion that the state is made up of people, not numbers. The idea of the state derives from an idea of protection and overall benefit that ameliorates the individual away from the lack of justice in the state of nature. This idea of some benefit permeates all forms of government from monarchy to democracy. People willingly (in theory of course) are part of the state because they derive greater benefits being socially tied than to be individually detached from others. Democracy, in turn, made the government the people. Thus, the government, elected by the people, represents the wants and ideals of the people that voted for it. For this reason, I never really understood such animosity towards the faculty or the idea of government. Are we supposed to give up on government (our own faculties) for the results of economic liberation, which are not elected? Of course, some will argue that choice dictates economic liberation. I make the choice where I want to buy something, and thus in the end, the capital accumulation of a certain entity ultimately relies on my choice. But, I deduce this thought to two questions: 1. Since when did political freedom ever have to do with money? 2. At what point was I making a decision on the social and political structure of the state when I chose to buy a cheeseburger at McDonalds or a notebook at Wal-Mart? On the first question, I would argue that money would have to be the antithesis of political freedom. Repressive monarchies, nobility, and religious institutions used their faculties and ideas to gain more wealth and prestige. Monarchies waged war, nobility claimed their role as warriors as a good excuse to tax people, and religious institutions (Christianity) discouraged usury as a way to collect inheritances (along with tithes and indulgences) to accumulate more wealth. The beauty of voting for a government is that ideally the people that are voted in represent the ideals of the majority and the general will. In history, the great accumulation of wealth never benefited the political well-being of the majority. Karl Marx wrote in a time when factories and the bourgeoisie (those with the capital to mass produce) were more favored than the workers. For this reason, Marx is very pessimistic and negative towards the socialists. He believes that they are completely unrealistic to believe that the government would ever help the worker because the government would only help the capitalist. But, we can even go farther back in history to the French Revolution. Turgot’s enlightened idea to tax the nobility in order to alleviate growing economic deficits in 18^th century France came under intense scrutiny from the nobility showing that the political order of the day still favored the 1% of the population that was part of the nobility while completely ignoring the 97% of the population that belonged to the third estate. As we slowly progress to the contemporary, democracy and government have slowly become more for the people, from the direct election of senators to the granting of collective bargaining rights. In the end, the government is the people by proxy of vote, and the government makes decisions made by the majority will. So, the decision of the government is sovereign because it is legitimized by the will of the majority. Capitalism is an economic theory that is based on competition, but because capital seems to accumulate it becomes the responsibility of the government to regulate it. Competition must be regulated because if it is to work in the state it must work for the benefit of the majority, not the few, which is the political legitimacy of our political state. But, moreover, we must concede that competition is what makes the term “capitalism.”Monopolization by the lack of competition and government regulation renders the loose usage of the term “capitalism” more of an ideal than a practice. People and politicians argue that government intervention hinders capitalism, but if the government and the majority choose to regulate competition to favor the majority, then how does that hinder capitalism? Capitalism is based solely on the preservation of competition between everyone and government regulation just keeps political influence more focused on voting than on consumption.  

Capitalism and Competition: Part 2, Marx and Capital Accumulation

Marx and Capital Accumulation

In On Capital, Karl Marx emphasizes the effects of competition, not on prices, but on wages and unemployment. Though the effect of competition within capitalism lowers down prices for the consumer, it also lowers wages and working conditions when jobs are scarce and the need for employment is high. Without the government to prevent the worst affects of capitalism, “it creates for the changing needs of the self-expansion of capital, a mass of human material always ready for exploitation”[1]. Karl Marx’s reasoning derives from the phenomenon that uncontrolled capitalism tends to unevenly accumulate resources and capital over time. As capital is allocated within the means of a few businesses or enterprises, competition begins to disappear, and capitalism along with it. Marx first introduces this idea when he talks about the liberation of labor and how machines set labor “free”. Innovation, Marx seems to assess, sets free not “only the laborers immediately turned out by the machines, but also their future substitutes in the rising generation”[2]. Though I have nothing in particular against the notion of innovation, Marx introduces machines as a means of capital and disrupting labor. While the capitalist, in Marx’s terminology, invests more on machines and innovation to make a faster product and a cheaper process, he cuts away at jobs that individuals are dependent on. Nonetheless, I must concede that Marx does not assess that investment may create new markets and thus new jobs. Yet, the argument here is not the growth of the market, but the allocation of capital, and how available it becomes to both competitors (those who may want to enter the market) and the workers, the proletariat. Marx’s most compelling argument comes through his introduction of his idea of pauperism, not only does it call for some form of government intervention into a capitalist economy, but it also shows the effects of an uneven allocation of capital. Fewer workers are needed when capitalists begin investing into innovation, thus the creating what Marx calls the “surplus-population”. The surplus-population consists of three categories: those able to work, orphans and pauper children, and the demoralized, ragged, and those unable to work[3]. The effects of pauperism play into his discussion within the Manifesto of the Communist Party. Marx adds, “owing to the extensive use of machinery and to division of labor, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and consequently, all charm of the workman”[4]. Once the skill of the worker is negligible, then anyone can fulfill the work. From this point, child labor and gender discrimination arises, as historically, these types of workers were more susceptible to lower wages and increasingly dangerous tasks. Competition for wages with pauperism as a consequence showed the most negative consequences of capitalism in Marx’s time. Though I will not go as far as Marx and say that all private property should be abolished, I will once again ask, how much capital can be allocated within one enterprise, business, or individual until competition and thus capitalism ceases?

Capitalism is short-lived because competition can only be sustained as long as individuals can compete. Viable competition means that the allocation of resources and capital keep a realistic barrier of entry and prevents monopolization of business. My argument is that capitalism no longer exists in the United States due to the lack of competition. Instead of garnering local competition between companies, huge multi-national enterprises hold the most capital, and though they may offer the cheapest product, they don’t necessarily offer the best. Nonetheless, any company or small-business that would want to compete against a Wal-Mart or a McDonald’s for example would not be able to, simply because the resources and capital to do so is so unequally allocated in the favor of Wal-Mart and McDonald’s. According to Forbes, the top five companies in 2011 made a collective 296.66 $ billion dollars of revenue[5]. Moreover, the top ten richest Americans in 2011 compile a collective 291 $ billion dollars of net worth[6]. To put this more into perspective about how much money and capital this is, in 2011, the collective nominal GDP of countries in Central America[7]caps off at around 167.326 $ billion[8]. Five companies and ten individuals in the United States have a bigger revenue and net worth than seven individual sovereign countries in Central America (both individually and collectively). If sovereign Latin American countries cannot even compete with companies and individuals in the United States, then how can regular individuals compete with them? We do not live within capitalism, but we live within the negative effects of capitalism. The accumulation of resources and capital has always been a reoccurring criticism of capitalism. For this reason, capitalism, more specifically fair competition, is a short lived phenomenon. The more accumulation of resources, capital, and money that the “winners” or those who are successful acquire, the more difficult it becomes to compete with these winners. That’s how you end up with your Carnegies and your J.P. Morgans. Marx saw the effect of this early on, but looking at the numbers above it doesn’t seem that it stalled. Now, we have companies that have a bigger net worth or revenue than the nominal GDP of a whole country, and you expect someone to compete with that? And from here, comes the introduction to both a radical notion and a radical conclusion: in order to preserve fair competition and an accumulation of capital that keeps capitalism from becoming a plutarchy, capitalism needs government intervention.

---

[1] The Marx-Engels Reader, Edited by Robert C. Tucker, W.W. Norton & Company, pg. 423

[2] Ibid., p. 427

[3] Ibid., p. 429

[4] Ibid., p. 479

[5] http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/21/private-companies-11_land.html

[6] http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/

[7] Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama

[8] http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=88&pr.y=9&sy=2010&ey=2012&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=268%2C339%2C278%2C283%2C238%2C253%2C258&s=NGDPD&grp=0&a=

Capitalism and Competition: The Introduction

The Introduction:

Being in a country like France, I don’t know what’s more shocking, the great differences between the political and social structure of France and the United States, or the faces of French people when I tell them that our healthcare isn’t free, or that going to a University for under 1,000 $ a year is a fantasy. Simply, it comes down to this: France is socialist, and the United States is capitalist. France believes that people should be more equal, or at least have some programs provided through taxation. The United States believes that the ultimate freedom comes from choice, and there comes no better choice, than choosing what you consume, when you consume it, and how you consume. In turn, competition fueled by the choice of the consumer fuels the economy, and the static entity of government just stands and watches. Competition is the main, and arguably the most essential feature of capitalism. Nonetheless, the effects of capitalism spread to both negative and positive avenues. Karl Marx responded to the most ill effects of capitalism during the industrial revolution, and after some child labor laws, some union movements, and some anti-trust legislation, capitalism was on the right track again. It seemed that the government was only supposed to keep the ill- effects of capitalism from plaguing the nation in order to keep fair the competition that was to keep the economy alive. The invisible hand was venerated until it somehow went missing when the stock market crashed in 1929, and the government had to go find it during and after World War II. Then the financial crisis of 2008 came along and changed the way Americans saw economics. Some reacted by going against capitalism while others fought harder for it. In the end, both sides based their arguments on an assumption that capitalism still exists in America. However, it seems that competition in the United States seems to have suffered due to an unfair accumulation of capital, and thus the viability of companies to compete in markets. The lack of competition within markets would then seem to diminish the presence of capitalism in the United States. If capitalism seems to be fading, then when did it go away, and what are we now? In the following essay, I will invoke Karl Marx’s argument against capitalism to focus on its ill effects during the industrial revolution. Then, I will argue the importance of competition to the whole thought of capitalism. Finally, I will argue that the lack of competition for resources and the high barrier of entry into markets have ended capitalism in the United States. 

...more to come - WSQ