Mediaboss Marketing

At the beginning of his short book Why Not Socialism?, G.A. Cohen asks the reader to think about a group of friends going on a camping trip together. He doesnt describe anything out of the ordinary. The friends find a site and set up a tent. Some of them fish, some of them cook, they all go on hikes, and so on.

What Cohen wants the reader to notice is that the way this trip is run looks a lot like how socialists think society should be run. The pots and pans and fishing poles and soccer balls, for example, are treated as collective property even if they belong to individual campers. When the fish are caught and cooked, everyone gets to partake equally of the result of the collective effort, free of charge. Cohens hypothetical campers act this way not because of anything especially noble about them, but because this is how any group of friends would act on a camping trip.

To make the point more sharply, he invites us to imagine a far less normal camping trip one thats run according to the principles of a capitalist market economy. One of the campers (Sylvia) discovers an apple tree. When she comes back to tell the others, theyre excited that theyll all be able to enjoy apple sauces, apple pie, and apple strudel. Certainly they can, Sylvia confirms provided, of course . . . that you reduce my labor burden, and/or provide me with more room in the tent, and/or with more bacon at breakfast.

Another camper, Harry, is very good at fishing, and so in exchange for his services he demands that he be allowed to dine exclusively on perch instead of the mixture of perch and catfish everyone else is eating. Another, Morgan, lays claim to a pond with especially good fish because he claims that his grandfather dug and stocked it with those fish on another camping trip decades ago.

No normal person, Cohen notes, would tolerate such behavior. They would insist on what he calls a socialist way of life. Why, then, shouldnt we want to organize an entire economy around the same principles?

Many defenders of capitalism would insist that, however obnoxious or unacceptable it would be to treat your friends this way, people still have a right to assert private property claims including claims to private property in the means of production and that it would be unacceptably authoritarian for a future socialist society to abridge such rights. Cohen doesnt spend any time in Why Not Socialism? on this defense, perhaps because he addresses it at length in two of his other books, Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality and History, Labour, and Freedom.

Instead, he devotes the later chapters of Why Not Socialism? to objections that even some progressives might have about whether socialist principles can scale up from a camping trip to an entire economy. Is whats possible among a small group of friends really possible for a whole society? What about economic calculation problems? What about human nature?

Cohen takes these challenges seriously, but cautions against premature defeatism. He admits that its possible that the closest well get to the fully marketless economic planning modeled by the camping trip on a society-wide scale is some sort of market socialism although he thinks its premature to rule out the possibility of going further than that.

Either way, Cohens view is that the ideal is one worth striving for. Even if we dont get all the way there, a society that more closely approximates the way of life found on the camping trip would be better than one further from it.

Why Not Socialism? was published in 2009, the year Cohen died. Five years later, libertarian philosopher Jason Brennan came out with a critique entitled Why Not Capitalism?

In it Brennan argues that instead of looking at the flaws of actually existing socialism and those of actually existing capitalism, Cohen was weighing a socialist ideal against the warts-and-all version of capitalism. Such a lopsided comparison, he thinks, proves nothing.

Brennan illustrates the point by discussing the animated Disney show Mickey Mouse Clubhouse (not to be confused with the older variety show The Mickey Mouse Club). In a parody of Cohens camping trip chapter, Brennan describes the show as it actually is everyone seems to be friends with everyone else and there doesnt seem to be any poverty or serious social distress, but it looks like a regular market economy. Minnie Mouse owns a factory and store for hair bows called the Bowtique, Clarabelle Cow is a reasonably successful entrepreneur (she owns both a sundries store called the Moo Mart and a Moo Muffin factory), and Donald Duck and Willie the Giant both own their own farms.

Brennan then asks the reader to imagine a hypothetical version of the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse Village where some of the villagers started doing what Stalinist regimes did in the name of socialism. Donald forcibly collectivizes all farmland like Stalin did in 1929, Clarabelle Cow starts a secret police force, and so on. Obviously, that would be horrible!

If you dont think this hypothetical proves anything about capitalism and socialism, Brennan writes, you shouldnt think Cohens camping trip argument does either. In both cases, the problem is that like isnt being compared to like. And Brennan further argues that, even as an ideal, capitalism is better than socialism because in a laissez-faire capitalist world, anyone who wanted to secede and form a commune with their own preferred rules could do so.

There are three problems with Brennans argument. First, he is not comparing like to like in his attempt to satirize Cohen. After all, Cohen isnt describing some idealized fantasy of a camping trip; hes describing the kind of camping trip that untold numbers of people go on every year. They all work the way Cohen describes. The Mickey Mouse Clubhouse Village is a trippy sci-fi fantasy of animals interacting in a half-imagined society, one where its unclear whether a state exists or what sorts of labor laws or regulations it potentially enforces. To compare like to like, Brennan would have had to find a mundane experience that many readers have had, or at least are very familiar with, where a capitalist way of life would be obviously preferable.

Second, Cohen isnt contrasting the small-scale implementation of socialist ideals with the worst things that have been done in the name of capitalism. Sylvias insistence on her property rights stops the other campers from getting apple strudel she isnt denying any of them life-saving medications because they cant afford to pay. No one hires other campers to stack firewood for them and then hires Pinkertons to beat or kill the firewood stackers when they go on strike. Cohen doesnt come up with a camping trip version of the British East India company or the enclosures that drove peasants off their land and made them desperate enough to take jobs in early factories or Adolf Hitlers declaration of emergency powers to protect Germany from the threat of left-wing revolution.

Instead, all of Cohens examples are examples of people asserting exactly the kinds of economic rights that defenders of capitalism are eager to endorse the kind that everyone would have in Brennans libertarian ideal of capitalism! Morgans grandfather passed on his property to his descendants, Sylvia is asserting her property rights in the means of apple strudel production as the initial discoverer of a piece of unowned property, and the other two are simply trying to bargain for the best deal they can get in a free market.

If Brennan wanted to seriously engage with Cohens argument, hed have to explain why, if its not okay to act this way on a camping trip, it wouldnt even be desirable to try to figure out a different way to organize a society.

Cohen thinks that whats wrong with introducing a capitalist way of life into a camping trip and with it serving as the guiding principle for an economy is that capitalism fails to live up to an ideal that its defenders often tout: equality of opportunity. In each case, some people are doing worse than others due to factors outside their control not having seen the apple tree first, not having a grandfather who bequeathed the particularly good fishing pond, or just not being lucky enough to have been born with the same skills as their friends.

Similarly, Cohen thinks, no one deserves a worse life just because they didnt grow up in a rich family or they werent born with the skills that allow some to climb up the social ladder. He contrasts bourgeois equality of opportunity, meaning that there are no formal impediments to anyone succeeding (for example, racial discrimination) and even left-liberal equality of opportunity, which attempts to go beyond bourgeois equality of opportunity with programs like Head Start that compensate for certain social disadvantages, with socialist equality of opportunity the principle that no one should have a worse life due to factors outside of their control.

If different people, for example, want to make different decisions about how many hours to work and how much leisure to enjoy, its not unjust to reward more industrious choices with greater consumption. But no one should have a worse life because of who their parents were or how well they do on tests. Cohen supplements this with a socialist principle of community: if you recognize other people as part of your community, youll try to make sure they dont suffer too much even from bad choices they make of their own free will.

Id argue Cohens list of principles is somewhat incomplete. Historically, socialists have, for very good reasons, emphasized equality of power (although, to be fair, Cohen writes eloquently elsewhere about the unfreedom that workers suffer under capitalism).

I also wish hed read about other models of what socialism could look like. As an achievable halfway house between capitalism and completely marketless, moneyless camping-trip-style socialism, Cohen discusses John Roemers scheme under which every citizen would be awarded equal stock ownership, but Cohen doesnt seem to be aware of, for example, the slightly more radical conception of market socialism advanced by David Schweickart. I wish he had, because in implementing democratic control at the workplace, Schweickarts conception comes closer to Cohens ideal while still seeming realistic in the short term.

Despite these minor defects, Why Not Socialism? is an excellent introduction to socialist ideals. The form of presentation is intuitive and even deceptively simple, while the underlying arguments are careful and sophisticated. You can finish it in an hour, and Cohens points will linger in your head for years. Read it.

Read the original:
GA Cohen Showed Why We Should All Be Socialists - Jacobin magazine

Is Brave New World or 1984 more relevant?

Surprisingly many conversations Ive had in the past half a year half a year, not 1.5 months! have to do with the Orwell vs. Huxley dichotomy.

Thinking about this dichotomy. And taking into account casual libertarian pro-individual mindset begins to make more and more sense every day.

The side that would win has to be the side that makes it more cost-effective to a) keep the people working, and b) keep the people from comparing.

Seriously, thats it. Whether its UBI or open dictatorship is merely a question of economy-based competition of various mindsets and ideologies. And the stronger one is very likely to win.

In other words, if you have preferences, instead of arguing from moral and persuasion grounds, just watch closely and help your preferred side show its strength.

My side is the one that supports individuals in the live and live fashion, for at least as long as their freedom does not infringe on others freedoms.

I hope my side will emerge victorious. Myself, I am doing and will do what I can. But Im also well aware my side might lose, in which case, assuming humankind and my bloodline continues, my kids and all of us left would have to learn to live under a different paradigm.

In conclusion, that this has happened many times before. And the thought that today is not quite exceptional gives me hope and optimism. Lastly, sharing just in case this thought may boost your morale too.

What is the difference between Brave New World and 1984?

The main difference between Brave New World and 1984 isthe way the citizens are controlled, furthermore, in 1984 they are controlled by the government through fear, while in Brave New World the government controls them with pleasure.

Read more here:
Is Brave New World or 1984 more relevant? - Rebellion Research

Scratch a libertarian and you will find a prude. It's a truth beautifully illustrated in the season finale of "Minx," HBO's breezy-yet-sharp comedy about a fictional '70s-era magazine that combines Ms.-stylefeminist editorial with dicks-out Blueboy-esque nude male centerfolds. The show's two "shock jock" characters, Willy (Eric Edelstein) and Franco (Samm Levine), use their airtime titillating drive-time listeners with stories about how much they love sex and partying. But Willy's wife Wanda (Allison Tolman) gets her hands on a copy of "Minx" and decides to stand up for her own right to enjoy her life, instead wasting her time giving her husband joyless hand jobs between serving him meals. Suddenly the libertarians aren't so pro-liberty anymore.

The politics of equality are useless, unless joined with a politics of pleasure.

Instead, the shock jocks interview Bridget Westbury (Amy Landecker), a Phyllis Schlafly-esque city councilwoman to announce a new partnership combining "men's rights" with this religious right-tinged war on pornography. With the studio's prominent nude painting of woman looming over the scene, the councilwoman rants about how she plans to clean up San Fernando Valley, and the two men eagerly join in with the anti-porn sentiment they discovered the second they found out that women have sexual fantasies, too. The whole scene is very reminiscient ofDonald Trump smirking next to a smug Amy Coney Barrett, the "libertine" and the Bible-thumper joining forces to crush the hope of women's liberation.

RELATED:Stop feeding Joe Rogan's trolls: Progressives must reclaim the politics of pleasure

It's a hilarious satire of the sort of men who vote Trump and listen to Joe Rogan, and like to imagine they're "pro-freedom," despite having political views that stifle the much more real freedom struggles of women and LGBTQ people.

Amy Landecker in "Minx" (Photograph by Katrina Marcinowski / HBO Max)But this bit also serves a larger, more pointed message aimed directly at the American left, which needs to hear it more than ever: The politics of equality are useless, unless joined with a politics of pleasure. "Give me bread, but give me roses, too" was a feminist slogan in the early 20th century, but it resonates across the 1970s and today for a reason. People aren't moved by dry political treatises about justice. What moves people is imagining what a better life would be like. That means talking about pleasure.

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

And on "Minx," that means talking about dicks. "Minx" is primarily the story of the unsubtly named Joyce Prigger (Opehlia Lovibond), a feminist Vassar grad who reluctantly agrees to helm a male nudie magazine for porn publisher Doug Renetti (Jake Johnson). Joyce wants to publish a rather strident feminist magazine originally called "Matriarchy Awakens" but finds, understandably, no one in "respectable" publishing is willing to bet on such an obvious money-loser. But Doug is willing to back her with his company Bottom Dollar. He believes women want to see pictures of sexy naked men and he hopes padding the porn with more high-minded writing will make it an easier sell on the newsstand. Joyce hates the idea of porn and finds the whole subject of sexual pleasure uncomfortable. Still, she goes along, because otherwise, she's never selling her magazine.

Sexy photos are more than just the sugar that helps the feminist medicine go down.

What Joyce soon finds out, with the help of her sister (Lennon Parham) and Bottom Dollar employees Bambi Jessica Lowe) and Richie (Oscar Montoya), is that sexy photos are more than just the sugar that helps the feminist medicine go down. On the contrary, pleasure is central to the feminist project. One reason that sexism chafes so hard is that it deprives women of their right to pursue happiness. But if women don't even know what happiness could look like, it's hard to convince them to fight against the forces that keep them from having it.

Ophelia Lovibond, Lennon Parham, Jessica Lowe, Oscar Montoya and Idara Victor in "Minx" (Photograph by Katrina Marcinowski / HBO Max)

As I've written about before, in recent years, progressives seem to have forgotten about the importance of pleasure. Much of the discourse on the left has taken on a hectoring tone, focused on pressuring people to give up stuff they enjoy, rather than imagining all the new joys that await us if we can liberate ourselves. The pandemic bears much of the blame, of course. The right wing resistance to emergency measures like social distancing and mask-wearing caused far too many on the left to start seeing these misery-inducing behaviors as moral signifiers instead of temporary inconveniences. Truth told, however, the turn to the grim on the left had started well before the pandemic, fueled by the way that social media rewards self-righteous posturing and the politics of showy self-sacrifice over the politics of pleasure.

RELATED:Why "Bridgerton" probably won't make Benedict queer (but should)

It's been especially troubling for me, as I came up as a late third wave feminist and was part of the early aughts explosion of feminist blogging. We early feminist bloggers married the transgressive politics of pleasure to our demands for equality. We didn't just say rape was bad. We had pro-pleasure actions like Slutwalk. We argued that the ever-present threat of rape constrains women from enjoying their lives, by preventing us from doing everything from taking early morning jogs to having late night sexual adventures. We didn't just talk about reproductive rights in terms of coat hangers and young mothers damned to poverty. We talked about how contraception and abortion allowed women to having fun dating and to experiment sexually, instead of being tied down to the first guy you ever slept with.

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

"Minx" is set in the '70s, but very clearly speaking to the social dynamics of our time. The joyless progressivism one finds on Twitter is reimagined on the show as a New York City dinner party. Joyce's pretentious Manhattanite friends sneer at her little porn magazine and trot out ignorant assumptions about how Bottom Dollar employees must be a bunch of lost souls and losers. That's probably not how people talked at dinner parties then, but is very reminscient of lefty social media now, with its focus on over-the-top trauma talk and tendency to treat fun as an embarrassing waste of time. Joyce ends up sneaking out to have a drink and make out with a cute guy at a bar. In a sign of how much she's grown, she refuses to apologize for wanting to have a good time. She doesn't even try to justify it by calling it "self-care."

Ophelia Lovibond and Taylor Zakhar Perez in "Minx" (Photograph by Katrina Marcinowski / HBO Max)

As "Minx" cleverly demonstrates, this kind of pleasure-centered feminism has real power. If nothing else, it exposes how the supposed "libertarian" right is no such thing. Evensupposed hedonists like Trump are happy to pass all sorts of draconianrestrictions on sexual freedoms and even free speech, just to keep women and LGBTQ people from enjoying the pleasures that come from equality.

As "Minx" cleverly demonstrates, this kind of pleasure-centered feminism has real power.

Unfortunately, all the grimness on the left these days has served Trump and his acolytes well, allowing them to portray themselves as the "fun" ones opposed to "cancel culture." This, even though Republicans are trying to cancel your sex life, your ability to read what you want, and now even Oreos and Disneyland. The right's is a mean and narrow view of pleasure, mostly about cheap insults and lame trolling. Even figures like Joe Rogan only appeal as some counterpoint to the supposed scolds of the left, but don't really have much on offer in terms of actual fun, especially for anyone who isn't a cis straight guy.

"Minx," in keeping with its pro-pleasure ideas, is a fun show, with lots of laughs and plenty of genuinely sexy stuff. (Though the comically fake penises are a rare misfire.) Freedom is a great idea in the abstract, but to make it worth fighting for, you have to remind people what it looks like in practice. On "Minx," that's lots and lots of dicks. But it can be anything you want, as long as you give yourself permission to enjoy it.

More stories to read:

Original post:
"Minx" is a breezy good time reminding the left to reclaim the lost politics of pleasure - Salon

Leo Morris

In the current political context, I am more traditional than progressive, although with a few liberal skeletons in my conservative closet.

But in my philosophical soul, I am a libertarian, with a fervent belief in individual rights and a tolerance for only the minimum government necessary to protect those rights.

A libertarian, not an anarchist, though it can be an admittedly fine line between them, a line I swear the government is making every effort to drag me across.

That is the thought uppermost in my mind as I note the disappearance of the Great COVID-19 Epidemic from the news. Have you noticed that, after two years of raging like a blazing inferno, COVID is now drifting away like the smoke from a dying campfire?

Certainly, one reason is the relentless onslaught of newer fascinations and anxieties. At home, we have spiraling inflation and our race and gender struggles; abroad, there is a war with global implications and real heroes and villains to admire and despise.

But there is also an element of crisis fatigue. We can keep our alert level only so high for so long, so finally we just let it go. Those still dying from COVID will no longer be icons, just victims, like those succumbing to the flu or perishing in one-car accidents on a rural road at night.

We finally just got tired of the whole thing. At least I did, since I should be careful not to project too much.

Tired of being lied to. Tired of being manipulated. Tired of being treated like a child one day, a prisoner of war the next, and a pawn on a chess board every day.

My respect for authority, marginal at best, was stretched to the breaking point. The government, always citing the unchallengeable truth of the great god science, issued contradictory edicts we were all expected to follow. The economy was upended, our schools crippled, lives lost or damaged not by disease but by stupidity. And when the mistakes in judgment became obvious, those in authority doubled down.

And the press, which we should have been able to look to for objective reporting and analysis, took sides and became just another player in the circus. COVID became one more manifestation of the red state-blue state battle to the death, angry mobs inflamed by media cheerleaders.

So, the question we should all be asking in this soon to be post-COVID world, is: What will we do next time? When there is an even greater crisis and there will be one, perhaps with the survival of humanity in the balance to whom should we give our trust?

The answer is what it has always been, forgotten though it may be. We should trust ourselves. We take in all the information we can from every source available, process it based on our own knowledge and experience, and use our own best judgment.

Thats the foundational principle of the United States, is it not? We are not ruled by the majority, nor by the wisdom of our best and brightest. We give public servants the ability to use their best judgment, and limit the authority they have in myriad ways, because we know that power is the greatest threat to individual autonomy, and the protection of individual autonomy is the only way to thwart tyranny.

We wont find our salvation in our groups, whether they be defined by race, sex, gender identity, religion or even political-opposition-in-exile advocacy. One tribes advance is often another tribes retreat, with those in power defining the favored tribe of the moment.

Rights inhere in the individual. That is the great truth that makes our constitution the greatest document of freedom in history. And it is the truth we were in danger of abandoning even before Covid and that seems almost beyond reach today.

And we have to get it back. Without a firm belief in ourselves as individuals, we cannot summon even the minimal trust we must give the government, so we will forever cross another of those fine lines, from skepticism to cynicism. Even libertarians cannot survive long in that arid environment.

See original here:
OPINION: We can trust ourselves - Daily Journal

LENOIR Primary elections give voters the opportunity to decide from a pool of candidates who should ultimately be nominated by either political party to run in the general election.

Friday, April 22 at 5 p.m. is the deadline for Caldwell County citizens to register to vote or to change their party affiliation.

May 10 is the last day for residents to request an absentee ballot by mail by 5 p.m. Election Day is on May 17, when the polls will be open from 6:30 a.m. until 7:30 p.m.

Registered voters across the state can vote in the primary, said Director of Caldwell County Board of Elections Chad Barnes. However, voters affiliated with any political party will be given a ballot of candidates for their party. Unaffiliated voters may choose the ballot of candidates for either the Republican or Democrat party primary. Therefore, unaffiliated voters in Caldwell County in the May 17 primary may choose only a Democratic or a Republican ballot.

For early voting, or One-Stop voting, there are two locations where individuals can vote early: the Resource Center (lower level of the library), located at 120 Hospital Ave. in Lenoir, and the Shuford Recreation Center, located at 56 Pinewood Rd. in Granite Falls. Early voting starts on April 28th and ends May 14th. Residents can come by to submit their votes each weekday from 8 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., as well as Saturdays April 30th, May 7th, and May 14th from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.

In Caldwell County, the Democrat Party does not have a primary for Clerk of Court, County Commissioners, Board of Education, N.C. House of Representatives, N.C. Senate, or U.S. House of Representatives District 5, N.C. Supreme Court Associate Justices, or N.C. Court of Appeals Judges. Any Democrat who properly filed for office will therefore appear as the partys nominee on the general election ballot in November.

Right now, the total number of registered voters in Caldwell County is 53,999. The total number of registered Republicans is 26,267, and the total number of registered Democrats is 10,418 people. There are currently 16,939 residents who have registered as unaffiliated, and 375 people have registered as Libertarian.

In 2022, the Libertarian Party does not have any primary elections because there are no contested Libertarian nominations for any office. Any Libertarian candidate who properly filed for office will therefore appear as the partys nominee on the general election ballot in November.

Continue reading here:
Deadline to register to vote in primaries is April 22 - Lenoir News-Topic