Via Crooked Timber is an interview with Karl Marx.#

DS OK. No one underestimates your renown. But you must agree: Marxism is not what it used to be...

KM In reality my work has never been as important as it is now. Over the last 40 years or so it has conquered the academy in the most advanced countries in the world. Historians, economists, social scientists, and even, to my surprise, some literary critics have all turned to the materialist conception. The most exciting history currently produced in the US and Europe is the most "Marxistic" ever. Just go to the annual convention of the American Social Science History Association, which I attend regularly as a ghost. There they earnestly examine the interconnection between institutional and political structures and the world of production. They all talk about classes, structures, economic determination, power relations, oppressed and oppressors. And they all pretend to have read me-a sure sign of success. Even diplomatic historians-or at least the best of them (a small bunch admittedly)-now look at the economic basis of great powers. Of course much of this work is crude economic determinism. But you can go a long way with "vulgar" Marxism. Look at the success of simplistic theories propounding the view that empires collapse because they spend too much. Well, at least the economy is back in. Social history, the history of ordinary men and women, has supplanted the idiotic fixation with great men. Of course, many things have moved on. Thank God for that. I was never one for standing still. Das Kapital was unfinished, and not just because I died too soon but because, in a very real sense, it could not be finished. Capitalism moves on and the analysis always trails behind.

[...]

KM The socialist struggle presents an unavoidable contradiction. We need to fight for reforms but each gain saps the revolutionary will of the workers. Strong workers extract real improvements. Weak ones starve. You don't seriously think that the bourgeoisie would have conceded the eight-hour day, paid holidays, old age pensions, a free health service, education for all, and national insurance in a paroxysm of philanthropy? To get these things it was necessary to strike not at the heart of the capitalists but at their profit. You don't imagine that capital goes to Thailand, Taiwan, Bangladesh or Brazil hoping to find well-organised workers, conscious of their rights and able to secure high wages? The conditions of life achieved by workers in the west cannot be writ large over the entire planet. Capitalism can be global-as I explained a long time ago when capital was but a gleam in a vast worldwide bog dominated by petty commodity production and peasants. But can everything else go global? Swedish social democracy? Or the lifestyle reached by many American workers? Even the Catholics know that they can't all be popes. Will one day the 1.3bn Chinese and the 1bn Indians go to work driving their own cars powered by cheap petrol? And return home to air-conditioned rooms? And in the morning spray their armpits (4.6bn of them!) with deodorant without hearing the deafening sound of the ozone layer cracking? Are there no limits to growth?

Brian Kieffer links to just how small we really are.#

Zane Thomas discusses Decentralization and Evolution.#

In my experience of current culture the words 'centralization' and 'centralized planning' are overwhelmingly perceived as negative. And I think a pretty solid body of science and reason demonstrates, as a generality, that the perception is accurate. In the terms of evolutionary science life is a complex problem and evolution is a process of finding "good enough" solutions to that problem. Different species have evolved different solutions, and some solutions are still good enough.

[...]

What that has to do with centralization is this: Centrallly controlled environments reduce the randomness required by evolution and so solutions to complex problems may not evolve. Moreover, if you include the concept of coevolution - the mutual dependence of the evolution of both the solution and problems, as evidenced by the complexity of life - there is good reason to suppose that a too-controlled environment will not only reduce the propagation of solutions but it will also fail to lead to a diversity of problems to solve. The world would not be interesting with only roses and bees - although it could be very efficient.

Michael at 2 Blowhards points out what annoys him.#

When I was a young whippersnapper, the moviegoers I found most annoying were the ones who find it impossible to stay quiet and still during sex scenes and nudity. I love erotic scenes in movies myself, and, generally speaking, the artier they are, the better I like 'em. (I find it fascinating that there are people who have no problem with the nudity in something lowdown like "American Pie" but who find it next-to-impossible to keep still during highbrow art-nudity. Any thoughts about how to explain this?) There are always a few people in a movie theater who, once the sex or nudity begins, feel compelled to cough, or fidget, or whisper to their next-seat neighbor. To me, a devotee of aesthetico/religio/philosophico erotica, this kind of behavior used to be infuriating. It was like someone misbehaving during a church service.

[...]

Not quite in the same league but still pretty amusing was an older Chinese man sitting alone in the row in front of us at "In the Cut" yesterday. He was a small guy with an armful of snacks -- cans of soda, boxes of candy, a huge container of popcorn. I checked him out with concern before the lights went down, but he turned out to be OK -- a discrete and lowkey spectator. Or he was until Meg Ryan's first sex scene, that is, when he began eating his popcorn faster and faster and faster. And louder and louder. The chomping got so frenzied that I looked over at him in alarm; he was moving popcorn from the tub to his mouth about as fast as a human being could. He clearly wasn't doing this to be funny; it was his way of handling the intensity of the scene. I turned my own attention back to the screen; Meg was doing a swell job with her character's erotic moment. And then -- honest to god -- just as the scene's climax was reached, the little Chinese guy popped open a can of soda. Pffffssssst!

d/blog scolds McDonald's for their recent mid-life crisis.#

What the shit is happening to McDonald's? Are you all seeing these insane "I'm loving it" ads, in which multi-ethnic youths with a street edge engage in extreme activities, and mention is made of things like Steak n' Cheese Flatbreads? I didn't know corporations suffered mid-life crises, but here it is in plain view: Ronald McDonald gets his nose pierced, dumps his wife and starts a rap-rock band with the teenage prostitute he impregnated. Dude, take it easy. Sure, people hate getting fat all of a sudden, and they blame you. Work the veggie burgers then, forget about the frat-boy hijinx and the Steak n' Cheese Flatbreads (what's healthy about that, anyway?). Stick to the shit you do well, like fries, meat cookies and brainwashing children. You're embarassing us.

Glenn Reynolds links to James Miller on why the U.S. will maintain it's hegemony for at least 30 years to come.#

Pinkerton writes that if an alliance between France, Germany, and Russia "were ever to crystallize, the countries of 'New Europe,' sandwiched in between these far greater powers, would likely fall into line, as they always have in the past." I disagree, and believe an alliance among these three would cause Eastern Europe to seek U.S. protection. Napoleon, Hitler and the communist czars all used their periods of military dominance to conquer weaker European nations. After World War II, America, in contrast, forwent the opportunity to militarily subjugate Western Europe. Consequently, if forced to choose between a European and American power block, nations such as Poland would always prefer protection under America's nuclear umbrella to submission to Germany and Russia.

Trust of America is also a reason to doubt the rise of a China-led Asia. Pinkerton correctly points out that the decline of the Soviet Empire means that Europe has a lesser need for U.S. protection. Pinkerton fails to factor in, however, that an increase in Chinese power would cause Asia to have a greater need of U.S. assistance. Comparisons between America's military occupation of Japan and China's occupation of Tibet undoubtedly demonstrate to all Asians whom they can trust for military protection.

From Matrix Essays (Broken Permalink) is an analysis of the Revolutions trailer.#

Bacchus links to some proof that you need faux lesbianism to excite men these days. (Not work safe.)#

Norimitsu Onishi writes in the New York Times about the decline of formality between Japanese workers.#

What is clear is that the use of honorific language, called keigo, to elevate a person or humble oneself, has especially fallen out of use among young Japanese.

Japanese, perhaps more than any other language, has long taken account of social standing. While French speakers must decide between the familiar "tu" and the formal "vous" in addressing someone in the second person, in Japanese, there are many ways to say I or you, calibrated by age, circumstance, gender, social position and other factors. Verb endings, adjectives and entire words also shift according to the situation.

Joi Ito writes about following crowds and business.#

I saw some people doing exactly the opposite. Even though there were ticket windows open, they would go to where people were lined up. If there was a crowd, it often attracted more people. Even if people were ahead of the pack, they walked slowly and were engulfed by the crowd.

I think investing and business development is a bit like a theme park where new rides are opening and various things changing, with the crowds rushing from one area to another. I think you should focus on trying to find cool things to do in less crowded spaces. Don't be worried because there's no one there yet. You should try to stay ahead of the crowd if the crowd is headed in the same direction. If you see the crowd coming your way, get your business done quickly.

John Robb on why the attacks in Iraq are not terrorism.#

If you read the works of Mao, Che, and others on this topic, they would call these attacks a valid form of geurrilla warfare. Why? To borrow from Martin Van Creveld: war is only considered war when each side is at risk of destruction at the hands of the other. Any form of lethal violence that doesn't risk mutual destruction is considered slaughter and not warfare. 9/11 was slaughter. The lives of the attackers were never really at risk except by own hands. It fits with our sense of what the word terrorism means. In Iraq, attacks against US military targets puts the attacker at risk.

The US government would call these attacks terrorism. Why? Modern states have had a legal monopoly on violence (but not one in actuality). In their eyes, any lethal violence that is not within the framework of a nation-state to nation-state struggle is terrorism. Modern states have also extended the definition of terrorism to include non-lethal attacks on property. In this way, "terrorism" is currently used as a word of approbrium by nation-states for all forms of unlawful violence.

Charles Miller denounces the "Hacker Logo".#

It captures nothing about what it means to be a hacker. Worse, its drab nature captures every misconception we'd rather get away from. It's the logo equivalent of "You sit in front of a screen all day typing? And you enjoy it?"

Notably, it even fails to capture the one thing that every widely-adopted hacker-created logo has in common: an amused disrespect for the concept of the logo. (Think of Tux the Penguin, the BSD Daemon, SSH blowfish…)

It's an attempt to impose culture from above. If one claims to be an historian, one should observe and record history, not be so presumptious as to try to write one's own role in it.

Ryan McGee on life.#

And well, this lack of practical knowledge is at the heart of it, isn't it? Not knowing what the answers are. You can't turn to the back of the book, even for the odd-numbered ones only. (That never made sense to me, but that's an entirely different essay altogether.) Life's a bit like "Let's Make a Deal". You've got your three doors, and in hindsight, if you knew Door #2 had a mule behind it, you'd inevitably go for Door #1 and it's brand new kitchenette. Just makes sense that way. But we don't know, and usually, two of the three doors have booby prizes.

You can kick yourself, and God knows I do, until the cows come home about incorrect steps taken along the path. Especially the ones that, at the time, seemed so "right". They felt right. Looked right. Tasted right. And then, they turned as sour as can be right before your very eyes. As if the illusion melts away in an instant and you're left with that wonderful, "Dear God what have I done" moment of anti-zen. Up until that moment, though, the brain, especially one oversensitive, arrogant, emotionally loose, self-loathing, and angry, can create an amazingly brilliant series of positive illusions of possible outcomes, all the while storing all the negative ones aside until you actually act upon your impulses. It's a wonderful turnaround. Positively anti-Marlins-esque in scope. (Four of you got that. That's OK; that's four more people than get some of my references. See? Arrogant!)

Tony Pierce on his future.#

ever feel like you just cant do it? super hot chicks surrounded me last night. a few started asking me about my future. i dont see any future. not in a sad way, just in an honest way.

one chick had all these great ideas for me but it was like how some dogs look good in hats and some dogs look stupid in hats. guess which dog i am.

one chick said how come you just dont write all these people and tell them that you want to write for them, and i thought cuz i would end up with the job and look like a dog in a sweater. id try to stick my tongue out and play it off but i would still be someones bitch in a sweater.

I don't read Playboy. But I would if Tony wrote in it.

Tony Pierce would like Blogger to have a blog like mine. Tony is too nice.#

lets say a blog was writing about music. not only would i write about that blog's take, but then i would take that take into a new tangent. same goes about sports. same goes about religion, same goes about life.

the idea would be to write about a dozen blogs a day. then a few times a week have AOL IM interviews with specific bloggers and ask them about their lives and how they put their blogs together.

[...]

i think the Blogger Blog could inspire other blogs to do things like what the Friday Five does, giving people topics to write about when they dont have any idea but they want to write.

I attempt to put similar ideas next to each other, and I really like the idea of interviews with bloggers - both textual and audio. Maybe Tony would have more luck running the Blogger blog, than the Playboy blog?

Doug Miller makes me blush sooo much. I just a silly linker who likes to read the thinkers.#