communism vs. Communism

With "communism" being America's second favorite scapegoat behind "terrorists," I thought it might be interesting to some people to see a quick briefing on the subject. A disclaimer: I'm still very much just a student of Marxism and socialism in general, so there may be some small errors; I do believe that it is mostly sound, though.

First, a distinction must be drawn between Communism with a capital 'C' and "regular" communism, as well as between communism and socialism. We'll concentrate on the former for now. Communism, in most people's minds, conjures up images of the Soviet Union, of gulags, rations, and secret police. This is not exactly a coincidence or a mistake, but that's a story for another time. While the Russian Revolution of 1917 began with good intentions—the overthrow of the political and economic elite and emancipation of all workers—its vision was eventually led astray by a number of factors; what many think of when they hear the word communism is more closely associated with Stalinism. Stalinism is rejected by many socialists as a perversion of Lenin's theory of the state and of Marxist communism in general. For the same reason, among others, many do not consider Castro's Cuba—and certainly not China—as real socialist states, despite their proclamations.

One of the defining characteristics of the USSR under Joseph Stalin was the cult of personality surrounding his image as Lenin's spiritual successor and the one who could make Russia a serious competitor on the world stage. Stalin dealt harshly with critics and opponents, to a degree far exceeding Lenin's dealings with his. It is Stalin's USSR that often comes to mind when one thinks of a "police state." The centralization of control around a single dictator with near unrestrained power is antithetical to true communism; Marx and Engels warned explicitly against personality cults and vesting too much power in too few leaders. Eugene Debs phrased the reasoning for this rather well when he said, "Too long have the workers of the world waited for some Moses to lead them out of bondage. I would not lead you out if I could, for if you could be led out, you could be led back again." It is up to the workers to think and act for themselves, because no single leader, no matter how ostensibly righteous, can be trusted to act in their interest. The Stalin kind of dictatorship is far removed from Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat," a temporary phase of revolution in which the workers defend their control of the state from the hostile remnants of the bourgeoisie. (Recall the saying "Power concedes nothing without a fight.")

As a result of Stalinism's indelible imprint and the legacy of the McCarthy-era Red Scare, the word "communist" is often used as a pejorative term against someone who challenges the existing social order, or engages in other transgressive advocacy for such causes as universal health care; progressive taxation; gay rights; gun control; corporate responsibility; the protection of civil rights; et cetera, ad nauseam. This use of the word carries with it a strong sense of anti-Americanism and a disdain for democratic institutions; "commies," by this token, are automatically America-haters. The irony, however, is that true socialist organizations are far more democratic than the two-party shell game we have here in the United States. Marxist/Leninist conceptions tend to require strong accountability, electing officials by a direct popular vote (as opposed to the electoral college/delegate system that we use) and providing for the instant recall of an official in the event they don't do their job.

Next up: The fallacy of arguing that the collapse of the Soviet Union discredited communism's viability.

Don't Be Evil

(This is not a tirade against Google, nor is it a paranoid Unabomber-esque treatise against technology. Just some thoughts. Also, yes, I know, much of this is not an original idea; I've read 1984 and The Minority Report as well. :P)

A nice sentiment indeed, and it's a great PR bite. But is it really Google's philosophy? How can we be sure? Google is worth a hell of a lot of money. Now that it's publicly traded, there is the expectation of stockholders that it continue to make more and more money. Raking in money and not being evil often seem like incompatible goals; will those at the helm be able to resist the greed and corruption made so tempting by wealth and power? Will they bend their definition of "evil" to justify questionable deeds or remain relevant?

These are serious questions, because Google has amassed a huge amount of power and influence in its short life. www.google.com is the home page for an awful lot of people, myself included. Google software is becoming ubiquitous, to the point where people type in www.google.com to make sure they have an internet connection. "Google" is a colloquially accepted English verb. Consider also Google Maps. Google News. Google Desktop.

Google Earth.

Power indeed. History has warned us time and again to be wary of placing too much trust, too much authority in any one entity. Google's server farms are some of the most concentrated stores of processing power in the world. Search is an incredibly useful application of that power, and it has undoubtedly sparked a radical shift in the way we remember and recall information. But many of us tend to limit our conception of search technology to civilian and scientific use. With more and more personal data being digitized and stored on networks, could such technology be put to more nefarious ends?

Imagine an instantly-searchable database of personal dossiers on each of a country's citizens: Who they are, where they live, bank accounts, jobs, hobbies. Search by the name of a "person of interest." Search for keywords in the annotations on a citizen's file (collaboratively edited by law enforcement officials using Google Docs, perhaps?). Find all men aged 18-40 of racial minority with prior convictions for assault in Los Angeles County. Compile a list of citizens with a history of political activism known to reside near the planned site for a leader's public address.

Sure, money talks, but information is the real gold in future economies. If Google were to travel the truly evil path, it may have the best chance of any corporation at not just manipulating a government, but becoming one. Forget the police state. Prepare for the Google state.

Professors Par Excellence

Since it's near the eve of my graduation (only one quarter left!), I thought I'd take a moment to reflect on some of the professors I've had who left an impression on me. They're not listed in any particular order.

• Dean Tullsen - For CSE 140/141, the Digital System Design sequence. This course was fairly tough, given that it was hardware-level (as in machine-language programming) stuff. But Professor Tullsen demonstrated that he lives and breathes this stuff by presenting the material in an easy-to-absorb format, and accurately and concisely answering students' questions. It's hard not to share his enthusiasm; he turned a potentially terrifying class into an interesting one.
• Jim Hollan - For COGS 120, Human-Computer Interaction. Jim's got kind of a quirky sense of humor that I can appreciate, as well as a real enthusiasm for his field. His lectures are always interesting and entertaining, and he always seems so damned energized. Hollan is one of the professors that has inspired me to consider teaching.
• José Jara - for ENGL 202, Critical Thinking and Writing (at Mira Costa). A lot of people that took Jara's class didn't like it, because his grading scheme was based partly on how many pieces of writing you submitted throughout the year. Thus you really had to earn that good grade, because credit wasn't automatic; you only got credit for a paper after it shows sufficient polish, detail, and overall style. Credit was unlikely to happen on the first submission. He's a fascinating guy because no matter what your topic is, he knows enough about it to give you advice on making your paper better. It was a good deal of work, but my writing and editing skills improved more from Jara's class than any other writing instruction I've had.
• Farrell Ackerman - For LIGN (general linguistics) 176, The Language of Politics and Advertising. Ackerman is a kooky guy; that's about the best word I can think of to describe him. I really enjoyed his lecturing style in the class that I took. I personally think this class should be a part of the core curriculum at UCSD, because its implications for everyone's lives are so profound. Ackerman, again, showed that he is an expert in his field, and seemed to have total command of virtually all things linguistic. The assignments and readings were compelling and really helped to foster understanding of the topics. This is one of my most favorite classes ever. Ackerman is another professor that inspired me to give back to education.

I'm sure there are others, but these few are, apparently, the really standout examples. Nice work!

Unlimited Nothing

In an article in this month's Wired, about a proposed subscription-based music service for the Zune: "After all, why buy an iPod if a Zune will give you songs for free?"

This statement is, in my opinion, simplistic and a bit naïve. The Zune wouldn't give you anything for free. One of the reasons that CDs—and even vinyl LPs—are still around despite all the online music services (and piracy) is that people are hoarders. People like to own tangible things that they can hold and touch and collect. Some argue that charging for copy-protected music is wrong because you're basically just buying a bit pattern. But at least under this scheme you still have something to show for your purchase: A local file on your computer.

Music subscription services are different*. You pay a set fee each month, and you can listen to as many songs as you want, and even put them on your MP3 player. Great, right? Sure, as long as you keep paying the subscription. But once you quit, that's the end. You can't download any more music, and the files you do have turn into little digital bricks. Subscriptions like this are less appealing, at least to me, because once you quit paying for them, you have nothing to show for the money you spent. No disc, no record, no reel of tape. Nothing.
*This is my understanding of the way music subscriptions work; I may be wrong...

If all the music labels and electronic distribution services disappeared tomorrow, my Discman (and car, and computer, and Xbox, etc.) would still play CDs. My turntables would play vinyl records. Hell, even my iPod would still play all the MP3s I've bought through iTunes. But I wouldn't have any remnants from my Rhapsody subscription. It's not particularly Buddhist of me, but I just don't care for that idea.