Act 4

TCA4 0035 Version 1.30 01/11/07 10 Pages Public

___________________
The Truth Commission

Act 4

"Completing The Cycle"
___________________

This Act compares this worker's revolution to other historic revolutions where the mode of production was change to the majority pick. So far, we have had 3 major changes.

Mode of Production	Classes
Slavery	Masters- Slaves
Feudalism	Lord- Peasants
Capitalism	Capitalist- Worker
Socialism (prediction)	No classes

________________________

Scene 1
"Karl Marx"
________________________

MARX 9256 ver 1.00

Sociological Theory 235

Professor Richard Lachmann

November 3, 2004

Karl Marx

Through out history, humans have been harnessing nature for survival. Humans take nature and turn it into whatever they need or want. And over time our means of production have gotten better with use of better tools and more knowledge. Karl Marx said that history moved forward by changes in the means of production.

There has always been a class struggle between those who do the work and those who benefit from the work. Marx classified history of every society into four stages.

In slavery the salves do all the work and the masters come and take it all away. In feudalism, the lord owns the land and allows peasants to live and work on the land, in return for taxes and whatever else the lord decided to take. This dialectical relationship in which one class clearly exploits and steals from the other is how production was done for the most of human existence. Mark saw that this same dialectical relationship of exploitations of workers from a controlling class was the same in capitalism, however much more complicated.

The exploitation in slavery and feudalism was easy to see, in capitalism it is hidden and workers can work their entire lives and not know they are being exploited. Of the two classes, capitalist are the owners of business and factories, etc, and they control all of the means of production. They hire workers to make products and they sell their products for profit, Marx called this profit “surplus value”. This profit comes from paying workers less then they are worth and the owners are making out while the workers are not. Marx says this is not fair for two reasons. First being historical reasons, where did this ownership come from and who owns what. The first owners stole their land and claimed it as their own. The second being slavery, slave traders kidnapped people and sold them. This money that was made was the first capital that was used to build the capitalists factories.

Over time, individuals become aware of their class identities and interests. As capitalism develops, there is a polarization of workers and capitalists. Every one gets lumped into one or the other, before capitalism most of the population was farmers.

Capitalists try to make as much profit as possible, and one way that they do this is by a process called scientific management. Scientific management breaks down tasks that would normally take a highly skilled person and gives it to many low skilled people. This allows workers to work more quickly and get paid less.

Eventually, when things get worse, workers realize that they are being exploited. Workers join together and form unions, these unions give the workers leverage against the capitalists. The union’s demands higher wages and better working conditions as well as worker benefits like health insurance and over time pay. To enforce these demands, workers can strike to force their companies to not exploit them. To compete with unions, Capitalists use the government to pass laws that prevents worker strikes. For example, if workers have a demand that is not followed they can stage a sit in strike. This prevents the capitalist from firing all the workers and hiring new ones. The capitalists use the government to pass a law against sit in strike and the government can use force to make the workers stand down.

Workers can only make so much progress with unions. Capitalists use the government to weaken unions, so the next step that workers take is they form worker political parties. These socialists’ parties use the government to win benefits for all workers. Worker can take control over big businesses and give out benefits equally. The problem with this is that the capitalists have tremendous reach into the political world.

To illustrate how this works, Marx takes a look at what happened to capitalism in the French government in the 1800s. After the French revolution in 1789 and Napoleon‘s rain of power, the French were defeated but the British. Great Britain wanted to rebuild the French government so it would be weak, so they would not have another world take over. They quickly installed a puppet king into the French government to keep France from regaining world power. However this puppet king was very unpopular and in 1848 the French rose up and overthrow this king.

The people of France overthrow this government and wrote a new constitution. This new constitution was one of the most democratic constitutions in the world because it gave all men the right to vote. Marx then looked at the three new political parties that were formed. The first was the Montagne party, which consisted of Paris and workers. The second, the Party of Order; this was made up from the Catholic Church, peasants and Capitalists. The third party was the True Republicans, who were committed to keeping the constitutions.

Now with the new government in power, there was immediately a new conflict in the national assembly. The Party of Order wants to reinstate a new king. The party fought over who was to be the new king. Marx stressed that it is important to look at who was backing each of the two different kings, and sure enough there are two different groups of capitalists supporting their king, each with different interests which they wanted. The two competing groups of capitalists were the finance and industrial capitalists. The industrial capitalists were the owners of factories and property and were the ones involved in production of goods to be sold. The Finance capitalists were not involved in production; rather they were the owners of banks and stocks, so they controlled the money. The conflict came over what each of these groups wanted. The Finance capitalists wanted interest rates to be high and for a strong international dollar, so they could make the most money from loans and stocks. The industrial capitalists wanted interest rates to be low so they could expand and so consumers could barrow money to buy their goods. They also wanted a weak international dollar to prevent consumers from buying outside the country.

The big problem came when political leaders ran for office. Politicians need money for their campaigns so they go to capitalists. A contradiction occurs when political leaders need do what is right for popular support or if they should do what’s right for their campaign contributors. Another problem was in the Montagne party. This was a pro-worker party, but it had one disadvantage, a majority of it was peasants. The peasants were unaware of political issues and were not that concerned with economic issues either. Instead they were attracted to religious and military issues, so they supported capitalist parties even though capitalist did not help them. Because politicians need votes, they must deliver to their supporters, but they also must deliver to their financial supporters. What ended up happening in France is they helped out the capitalists and lost support of peasant voters. As a result the National Assembly lost legitimacy and the President gained power. In other words the legislative branch got weaker and the executive branch became more powerful. In 1850 the Party of Order moved down because the peasants didn’t support them anymore. The Montagne gained power and was on its way to workers wining power. The capitalists did not want the workers to win power because they would lose money so the capitalists increased support of the executive power. Louis Bonaparte became dictator of France and the new democracy was gone.

The capitalist could have either lost freedom or lost their money; in this case they choose to lose their freedom. If the workers had won, then the capitalist would be weak and socialism would take over. Capitalists don’t like dictatorships because they are subjected to arbitrary power. This the dictator wanted to take over your factory and give it to a friend of his, there is nothing you can do about it. Capitalist ideal situation is a limited democracy. This prevents a dictator from just taking their goods, they can manipulate the government to keep worker interests away, but they can also use the government to protect them from work rebellions.

In a limited democracy, Marx says that capitalists control the government to focus on issues not related to worker’s rights. A focus on non-economic issues like religion to take attention away from class issues, Marx called these “false issues”. This is great for capitalists because it cause workers to vote for very pro-capitalist candidates who keep workers even more weak and unorganized. In a true democracy workers would get what they really wanted because they are the majority. When workers come close to getting what they want, capitalists can abandon democracy to save them selves. If workers could protect democracy, it would lead to socialism.

End of Act 4 Scene 1

________________________
Scene 2
"The Founding of the Bureauracy"

________________________

Weber 9225 Version 1.00

Sociological Theory

December 14, 2004

Weber said that the world is becoming less traditional and more bureaucratic. Traditional authority is a system in which people do what they do because that’s the way it’s always been done. In bureaucratic societies, people follow the rules because those are the rules.

Bureaucracy is a highly organized system with a chain of command that allows large groups of people to work together. Over time organizations become more and more bureaucratic. Bureaucracy is very expensive so it only works in highly capitalist societies, but has many benefits overtime. Capitalist companies can make lots of money in a bureaucracy. The problem with bureaucracy is that there is a centralization of power. Organizations get so big and have so much money and resources, that they become really powerful. For example, one of these large companies’ decisions can affect the entire country.

C Wright Mills was a sociologist who studied Max Weber’s study of bureaucracy. Weber said that bureaucracy centralizes power and that there was a small number of people who controlled the country. Mills called these people elites and asked who are these elites and who has this power in the United States.

First, what does centralizing power mean? In a bureaucracy, big organizations have lots of resources. So the people who lead these organizations become really powerful. In capitalism, the goal is to make money, and that’s what theses businesses do. Karl Marx said that capitalists controlled the world, which would mean that around 2 million people or so in this country make decisions for the country. Mills said that it is the elite that control the country. Not the people who own the businesses but the people who manage and run the corporations. So a much smaller number of people are actually controlling the country.

Mills says that there are three different elites that have power: economic, political and military. There are less then 10,000 people controlling economic power. These people are the upper level management of the top 100 companies in the world. These people make the decisions that affect the 300 million people that live in the United States. They decide what we buy and where we live and how we get around. For example, there is a lot of money to be made in car and oil companies. So these companies have made a system in which our only way of getting around is to drive. All this is derived from bureaucratic office.

The other two elites are political and military, controlled by less then 1000 people in each. All 3 elites work together to help each other make money and get more power. The car and oil companies work with the government to make roads for us to drive on. The military spends government money on buying weapons from economic defense contractors.

Weber proposes to limits the power of bureaucratic offices. The reason that this has to be done is because one of the problems with bureaucracy is this centralization of power. The best way to explain this is with an example: lets take a drug company, if the leaders of this bureaucracy want something done, let’s say they want to make a lot of money (as opposed to a goal of actually healing people who are sick), they have lots of specialists and experts to help them find the best way to achieve their goal. So this drug company makes a drug that they are going to sell for a profit. The general population doesn’t know anything about medicine so they buy what doctors tell them they need. But what stops this drug company from selling you dangerous of useless drugs. The government has created agencies that regulate theses companies, in this case the FDA. So the FDA hires their own experts to study theses drugs to make sure they are safe and effective. The problem is that there are only two groups of experts that are regulating this huge market. And what’s worse is that these regulating agencies get caught up in the business that they are trying to regulate. For example, in some cases it is ambiguous as to what is the best drug for a certain ailment. The FDA has no bias but the drug company wants their product to go on the market. So the experts of the drug company have a meeting with the experts of the FDA and try to convince them that this new drug is okay. So the FDA has the drug company’s experts pushing them one way and no one pushing them the other way. And it is not clear as to what is the best.

Another really big problem is when the experts are in the government, and then there is no government regulation. For example the military and the Vietnam war, the experts in the government say that we have to go to war, they say that they know what is best but they cant tell us why because then the enemy will know. Another example is pollution, companies don’t care if they pollute. But people put pressure on politicians to reduce pollution. So companies say that they reduced pollution to a safe level. But it’s a technicality, who knows what is safe. Also the government organizations that are supposed to regulate pollution are undermined by politicians who get money from companies to keep them quite.

So what can be done to limit this power of the elite? Weber said that the legislative branch of the government is the best means to help reduce this power. He proposed that the legislative branch hire their own experts to regulate companies and businesses. The legislative branch’s interests are closest to that of the general public, more than the executive branch. With this type of regulation, Mills’ elite will be less likely to work.

Mills’ power elite derives all of its power from bureaucratic office. And with this power a relatively small number of people have a lot of control over everyone else. The elite uses their power to serve their own interests and that can, most of the time, harm a lot of other people. Weber imposed some policies such as strengthening the legislative power to help control the elites’ power. With this measures in place, we can limit the power of bureaucratic officials and their capitalists allies.

________________________
Scene 3
"The Death Penalty"

________________________

DP 9224 Version 2.00

Philosophy 115L, Moral Choices

November 23, 2004

One of the reasons the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional (violative of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment”) in Furman was its “arbitrary and capricious” application. Likening the sentence of death to being struck by lightning both in its rarity and its freakishness, the Court noted that there is no principled way to predict who will get the death penalty. Many who commit equally atrocious crimes do not get sentenced to death but rather get terms of imprisonment. In addition, there is a great deal of evidence that race and class play a significant role in determining who gets the death penalty. Ernest van den Haag argues that both the claims of arbitrariness and discriminatoriness are irrelevant to the issue of justice. Explain his argument. Who provides the strongest argument, and why?

Ernest van den Haag addresses many of the issues concerning capital punishment. The leading issues that are used against the death penalty are: 1) that it is racial and economically discriminatorily, minorities and poor people get it more then anyone else. 2) Arbitrary as to who gets it, two equally atrocious crimes, one gets the death penalty and one gets life in prison. 3) Innocent people being executed. And 4) the value of human life, if we value life how can we kill someone who has committed murder?

Ernest van den Haag believes that justice is more powerful than these concerns against capital punishment. First he argues that there is no racial discrimination and arbitrariness to the appliance of the death penalty. He says that “Punishments are imposed on persons, not on racial or economic groups. Guilt is personal” (Arthur, page 132). The only important question that needs to be asked is whether the guilty person deservers to be executed. His argument against the death penalty being arbitrarily applied is that even if its randomly selected as to who gets the death penalty, those who are guilty and get the death penalty are still guilty and are not unjustly punished. This irrationally discriminatory would not make the penalty unjust or cause anyone to be unjustly punished (Arthur, page 132).

This view agrees with Kant’s view of retribution. Kant says that the guilty brought their punishment on themselves, though their voluntary actions, they choose to be punished. Punishment respects the offender as an autonomous moral agent. In the Gregg v. Georgia article it says that we have to respect the dignity of man. “The taking of the life ‘because the wrongdoer deserves it’… [is] the total denial of the wrong doer’s dignity and worth (Arthur, page 123). This is wrong because if we do not punish the guilty then we are not treating them as moral agents, we are treating them more like children. In a system where we don’t punish the guilty, I call this the ‘bad parenting analogy’. When someone commits a crime and we do not punish them or we just give them a warning, that is not justice, that’s like not disciplining your children and letting them get away with what ever they want. And then the other children see that you didn’t get punished so they think they can do whatever they want and not get into any trouble as well. That’s not the way a criminal justice system should work. If someone commits a crime, especially murder (when they take away someone else’s right to live) they should be treated the same way. Not life in prison, they deserve death just like they cause that innocent person. Kant said that the only fitting punishment for murder is death.

Haag continues to defend capital punishment even though there is a possibility that innocent people are executed. He says that between 1900 and 1985 there have been about 7000 executions in the United States and that only 25 of them were innocent people (Arthur, page 133). His argument is: innocent people die in car accidents but we don’t give up driving because of the practical benefits of driving. To say that we should stop using the death penalty because some (according this Haag’s data, a very low percentage) innocent people are executed is like saying we should stop punishing people because there is a chance that innocent people are getting punished. So should we outlaw punishment all together? Or should we stop driving cars because some innocent people are killed? No the death penalty has practical purposes (carrying out justice) just like driving cars do.

What is the point of the death penalty and what does it do? Do we use it to protect society from dangerous people, or do we use it to ensure justice is carried out? Another important issue concerning capital punishment is whether it helps deters crime from happening in the first place. For example, does having a death penalty decrease the murder rate, and is it a ‘uniquely effective deterrent’? In utilitarian view, if the death penalty prevents crime then it is justified and worth keeping at expense of the costs and the moral problems associated with it. However, if life in prison would provide the same amount of social protection, but with less pain, then death is excessive and not worth its costs. Both the death penalty and life in prison without parole incapacitates the guilty. A retributist would say they don’t care about the facts. They don’t care if the death penalty deters people from committing crime and they don’t care if it costs too much. Retributivism says that the guilty deserve to be punished. It is a backward looking theory that’s justification is based on what has been done, not on what may protect society.

One last issue concerning the death penalty is its tremendous financial cost. Death penalty cases cost millions of dollars, all of which comes from tax payer. Is it worth the money? Particularly when half of death penalty defendants don’t end up getting the death penalty and the other half are eventually dropped. From 1995 to 2003, New York State spends $160 million dollars on prosecuting death penalty cases and executed not one. Retributists would say they do not care about the financial cost; the only thing that matters is justice, no matter the cost. I deem that the monetary costs are not a problem with the death penalty but a problem with the legal system. The capital punishment system needs to be seriously reformed to prevent so much money from being wasted. Still the death penalty continues to be useful and until that perfect legal system if found, it is the product of justice and should be used for justice’s sake, it should not be used recklessly or unjustly. It should be used fairly and with careful thought for the good and justice and dignity of everyone.

________________________
Scene 4
"Liberty"
________________________

Liberty 6224 Version 2.00

David W Coon

Moral Choices 115

Prof. Bonnie Steinbock

October 28, 2004

Jack

"Mill says that “harm to others” is the only justification for interfering with an individual’s liberty. Is he right about this? Why or why not?"

In John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty (1859) he asked under what conditions and for what reasons can the liberty of the individual be restricted? Mill said that the only reason that a person’s liberties can be limited is when it prevents harm to others. The “harm principle” is the only justification for laws to limit freedom. Mill rejects any law restricting the liberty of an individual even if it is for there own good or the greater good. “His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant (page 359)”

Mill rejects legal paternalism, legal moralism and offence principle laws. Legal paternalism allows the state to coerce people for their own good. Examples of paternalistic laws are drug policies. Marijuana and heroin are illegal for your own good. Legal moralism allows the state to pass laws that prevent immoral (though non-harmful) behavior. Laws such as adultery and violent pornography do not cause any physical harm but are considered sinful. Offence principle laws allow the state to prohibit non-harmful, offensive behavior like public nudity.

Why does Mill believe that the harm principle is the only justification for limitations on liberty? Mill is an utilitarianinist and he believes in the greatest good for the greatest number. This does seem a bit contradictory but he does have utilitarianinist grounds against limitations on liberty. First he says that ‘I know my self better then anyone else’, “the inward domain of consciousness (page 360)” and second ‘I care about my self more then anyone else’, “liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our lives to suit our own character…without impediment from our fellow-creatures (page 306)”. So no one else has the right to restrict my liberties so long as I’m not hurting anyone else.

I disagree with Mill that the harm principle is the only justifications for limitations on freedom. “No man is an island”, Mill misunderstands the connections between peoples actions. Part of Mill’s ideologies came from the relationship he had with a married woman. He was criticized by his peers for his relationship with this woman, and he felt that he wasn’t doing anything wrong and that he should be able to peruse his own happiness. This idea that no man is an island, his actions do not just affect him. Perhaps his relationship with this woman caused no harm to anyone directly, but maybe it influenced other young men to do the same in their relationships and maybe the results were not so harmless. Mill’s responses to this by admitting that one persons “mischief” does affect those connected to him and to “a minor degree, society at large (page 363)”. For example if a man has started a family, he has to take care of them. If he fails to provide what they need because of his own negligence, then he might be justly punished; but for “breach of duty to his family, not for negligence” (page 363). I still feel that the influence that this neglectful father has on his children will cause more damage and other precautions could have been made to protect this family, and that is society’s job: to pass laws that will protect its citizens from them selves and others. If the father was neglectful due to gambling problems, his family could have been saved if society made laws against this dangerous activity. And Mill’s harm principle is too limited to include it. Also, true liberty is what an individual really wants, and no mentally healthy father would want to neglect his family for some short-lived fun, so a law that prevented him from engaging in gambling in the first place, would be really what he would have wanted, even I if he doesn’t know and doesn’t agree with the law.

Examining Mill’s harm principle as the only justification to limiting liberties more, I have found that it is still too limited. Mill agrees that part of the qualifications is that the harm principle only applies to normal adults. “We are not speaking of children, or… those who are still in the state to require being taken care of by others (359)”. Why is it okay for Mill to protect children but not ignorant people? In the case of the neglectful father, wasn’t he ‘ignorant’ to the fact that gambling would hurt his family? Or why is it okay to protect the madman and not the fool? Perhaps this neglectful father was just a fool, and a law could have been made to protect him and his family. Why can’t society try to protect people from dangerous behaviors?

One example of this is cigarette smoking. Should the state protect us from this dangerous and addictive habit? Some people say no, you are free to do what you want, and you choose to accept the negative health consequences. But what if that isn’t what you really want. What if someone starts smoking and doesn’t understand what they are getting into? I think that society should help us by passing laws even if they are paternalistic. The government should be able to provide us with laws that help keep us safe. This new smoker might not understand why there are theses laws that prevent him from doing what he wants, even though he is not hurting anyone else, but it really is for his own good and it is what he would have wanted. Suppose that you saw a man who was about to cross an unsafe bridge over a raging river. You know that the bridge is unsafe and you assume that the man does not want to fall into the river. There is no time to warn the man so you grab him and turn him away. The man’s liberties were not violated: “for liberty consists in doing what one desires, and he does not desire to fall into the river (page 365)”. As with the cigarette smoker, he may not want the addiction and health problems, maybe he just doesn’t know.

So what would Mill say about drug use? He would say that as long as you don’t harm anyone else, then you should be able to use what ever drugs you want. Thomas Szasz explicitly studied Mill’s discussion of liberty and applied it to legalization of drugs. “It is none of the government’s business what drugs (a man) puts into his body (page 501)”. Both Mill and Szasz agree that if some one hurts others while on drugs then they should be punished for hurting someone else, not punished for being on drugs, same thing for alcohol.

Currently there is no system that gives people complete liberty and protects innocent children, ignorant people and fools. Mill took a step in the right direction but came up a bit short with the harm principle being the only means of liberty restrictions. Perhaps expanding the harm principle or maybe there is something else missing, but in the mean time, society has to protect its inhabitants from dangerous activities, and protect people from them selves and others.

________________________
Scene 5
"To the Human resource Department at REG Inc"

________________________

To The Human Resources Department,

To Whom It May Concern:

July 31^st 2005

I, David W Coon, am presenting to you my statement of appeal. I have submitted a prior appeal to the Regal Cinema 18 management staff and it proved unsuccessful. I feel I was unjustly fired from Regal Cinema 18 in Crossgates Mall due, mainly, to the poor communication between members of the management team.

I was terminated on July 16^th 2005, after one year of employment, by Ed Flynn due to what he called “insubordination”. I had been written up over the past year for some incidences I feel did not deserve such harsh punishment. The first write-up occurred a couple of months into my employment when I called out sick due to a stomach virus. I felt that I gave them enough notice to find a replacement when I called in the morning to inform them I wouldn’t be there for an evening shift. The second incident occurred on April 20^th 2005 when I failed to ask a secret shopper if they would like to upgrade to a combo. That incident was my mistake, but I feel that being written up was an extreme repercussion. How ever, due that situation I made a very big effort to raise my combo sales, and was successful.

The third, and most unjust of the incidences involved two members of the management team, Christopher Quivey and Jack Flynn. On July 11^th 2005, I came in for a main stand shift and was asked, at the end of the night, to go and do the counts for the up stairs stand. I went up and completed the counts, when I was finished I asked Christopher Quivey if I could leave. He gave me permission to go at approximately 11:10pm. When I came in to see a movie the following day, my day off, Adam Muhs informed me, at the ticket window,that Ed needed to speak with me. I went into the office and met with Ed, he told me that I had been written up by Jack Flynn for insubordination because I had left with out permission. I explained to Ed that it was a miscommunication between Quivey and Flynn. Ed made little effort to resolve the situation, when he did speak to Quivey, he told Ed that he had told me to stay. My girlfriend was seeing a movie at the time with some friends, when she came out of the theatre I told her that I was leaving and we walked out together. Her statement is enclosed. The fourth incident occurred on July 16^th 2005. A few weeks prior I had requested the weekend of the 15^th, 16^th, and 17^th off for my birthday, I mistakenly wrote my request in the wrong spot and was ultimately scheduled for those days. The moment I saw the schedule I informed a manager of the situation, they sent me to talk to John, the manager in charge of scheduling. He told me it was my responsibility to get rid of the shifts. I managed to get rid of Friday’s and Sunday’s shift with no problem, Saturday’s shift I traded to another employee named Mike Lash, for his 7:00pm rain call. I went to john and informed him that I had done my best but I would still not be able to come in for the rain call if they needed me. He completely ignored me and made no comments so I thought he understood me. On July 16^th, my 21^st birthday, I was called at home by Adam, I missed his call but returned it a few minutes later. He said they needed me to come in for my rain call; I explained the situation to him and he said it was ok, but I was most likely going to be written up. I thought the situation had been resolved with John so I didn’t worry too much about it. When I went in for my shift on Tuesday the 19^th , I was informed that I had been fired on July 16^th for not coming in for my rain call, on my birthday.

I am very upset with the whole situation and feel that the effort I put into my job was a complete waste. I am a good, hardworking employee who only wants to be treated fairly. The incidences that occurred could have been prevented through better communication between managers and through better management staff relations. I feel that my punishment was harsh and that I deserve another chance to work at Regal Cinemas. I enjoyed my job and was liked by many of the employees and managers; I am very hurt by the way things ended and am hoping to resolve the situation. I would like to speak with a representative; if possible, I can be reached anytime at phone number (518) 810-4649. Thank you for your time."

David Whittmore Coon

End of Act 4 Scene 5

________________________
Scene 6
"Consuming Culture"
________________________

NEW

David W Coon

English 300W: “Global Americas”

May 6, 2006

Culture of Consuming

Contemporary culture- from film to television to music to the internet to commodities such as the iPod- is fascinated with “globalization”. What is it about our culture that is so obsessed with consuming? What does consuming and globalization have in common? Is it that “we live in a culture of infinite choice (Vanderkam),” and that we are constantly being bombarded with advertisements for products from all over the world. In our relentlessly busy lives filled with cross-promotion and multi-million dollar ad campaigns everywhere in sight, how am I as a person supposed to define myself without the newest, most popular brand name shoes and technology?

I would like to discuss a number of issues in this paper to try to understand myself, my culture and how I fit into this new globalized world where most of the stuff that I am wearing right now was made by someone working for a slave wage on the other side of the planet. First I would like to discuss some of the stuff that we consume everyday, some of the products that have come into our lives and that we cannot live with out. I am going to use the iPod as my primary example of this. The second issue I want to explore further is how and why we are interested in the stuff in the first place, and how these products came into our lives. I am going to look at company advertisement campaigns and some particular ads and how advertising influences our culture and our ways of life. Finally, I am going to discuss the process of where this stuff comes from and how it is part of our capitalist society. I am going to investigate our modern form of capitalism and who it benefits and who its does not.

Part 1: The Consumer and his Commodities

Are we defined by what kind of clothes we wear or by what kind of music we listen to, or more importantly theses days, how we are listening to music. Unless you are listening to music from your slick new iPod, you are not as trendy as you could be. This is the view of the Cyborg consumer. Theses are people that are so dedicated to their consumer habits that they cannot live with out their constant consumption of their several different technologies, ranging from Viagra to MP3 cell phones. I am somewhat guilty of this myself, I feel naked without my cell phone, and I feel disconnected with the world if I do not check my e-mail every few days. However the iPod is one of the most interesting of these new must have, cannot live without commodities. “The iPod is no longer just an instrument or a tool, but part of myself. It’s a body extension. It’s part of my memory, and if I lose this stuff, I lose part of myself. (Kahney)” This is somewhat on extreme side, but I think that it does represent my main point: people are obsessed with consuming and they are addicted to it and they can’t stop. Which is good for the capitalist corporations who are making money every time one of these consumer cyborgs need their daily fix of whatever it is that they can’t get enough of.

Americans are so consumed with consuming that despite recent record high gas prices, America shows very little interest in driving any less. And I think that is in part to do with our culture of consuming. Our economy is based on a system of that is rooted in consumers being able to drive to the mall and buy whatever it is that they need and then driving home. This is how it usually works: after watching my favorite TV show and being inspired by some on screen gizmo, I know that I must have it, and most of the time I don’t even know I saw the commercial (more on this the advertising section). This historic trend however is changing and going to continue to change in the near future. Not the ‘must have consumer mentality’ but the driving to the mall and buying the products myself. Consumers are now buying more then ever from the internet and getting their consumer goodies delivered right to their door. With the click of my mouse and my credit card handy, the world is at my frond door.

Part 2 How they get us: New Creative Methods of Advertising

The main point of advertising is to “impart information about products which consumers use to make brand choices.” (Frith) Advertising in American culture is with no doubt very powerful and is a significant part of our culture. It is through advertising that brands are made popular, ideas are passed along to huge audiences and companies make more money. However there is more to advertisement then just selling brand names. Advertisements have a lot to say about our culture and how people interpret the meaning of ads. There are explicit meanings, implied meanings and perhaps most importantly unintentional meanings. Ads have additional secondary social or cultural messages that reflect society, and by breaking down ads, you can start to see how the role that advertising plays in the creation of culture. (Frith) Unintentional meanings support cultural norms and stereotypes, and are often some of the most influential means of advertising. Subconsciously, viewers are being exposed to advertising without them even knowing it.

Product placement, cross-promotion and synergy are especially inventive ways of advertising products, marketing to huge un-expecting audiences in TV shows and movies. Synergy is defined as: the interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects. What could work better then using products in TV shows to get popularity? Tim Bajarin, the principle analyst at Creative Strategies, a high tech and consulting firm, says that Apple has the longest history of doing this. Apple had its iPod appeared in the December 6, 2005 episode of NBC’s The Office, titled "Christmas Party". I saw this episode and I have to say that I did not even know it was product-placement. Product placement is when products are woven into the story of TV shows or movies and the viewers can see how merchandise is used in real life settings. The Office, which is an offbeat comedy satire of office life, was playing Secret Santa at the company’s Christmas party. Secret Santa is a Christmas ritual involving a group of people exchanging gifts usually with co-workers or collogues. There is often a limit to how much can be spent on the present and then presents are then exchanged anonymously. The boss broke all the rules and got someone an iPod, and then told everyone he did so his gift would be the best. Everyone was annoyed with him as usual, so the boss decided to change the ceremony from its traditional form to "Yankee Swap". This is when players take turns, and can either open a new gift, or steal a previously opened gift. Of course everyone wanted the iPod. It was a funny episode and it gave the iPod great TV exposure. It almost made me want to get an iPod myself. This is a very fine example of product placement, however an NBA executive said that producers of The Office draw the line when product placement infringes on the authenticity of the characters.

A study by the PQ Media research firm last year said that product placement has grown and will continue to grow in the future because of it’s effectiveness and popularity (Goo). I think that it is just a matter of time before we get to see commercials-free shows that completely rely on product placement and sponsorship. TNT is already doing this for the debut of two of their best original dramas, The Closer and Saved. These dramas will air commercial-free for the season premieres (reported by TV.com). These are just a few ways that advertising is making its impact on culture. Companies now have the power to be even more influential then they already are. I have to admit that I didn’t even notice that in the episode of the office they said “iPod” at least a dozen times or so. Advertising is shaping culture, penetrating it, changing and molding it. There is no other source of media that reaches so many people. And now companies are advertising without the viewer even knowing it. Advertising is a key part to what makes our culture so consumed with consuming. This brings me to my final issues, the foul consequence of capitalism.

Part 3 Globalization and Capitalism

“As corporations mime an expanding global labor market for maximum efficiencies, will many workers be left behind?” This is a question asked by Mark Trumbull in his article titled “A chasm grows in ‘flat’ world”. He brings our attention to a meeting of the Union Network International that took place in late October 2005, where representatives from 900 unions worldwide met to discuss a labor movement that is trying to put pressure on Wal-Mart to boost pay and benefits. But why? The answer is because capitalism is the cause of some tremendous inequality worldwide. Globally, inequality is worrisome. And “Clearly, unless we put new rules around the global economy, real guarantees of workers’ rights and environmental safeguards and new constraints for global corporations- we will all be driven to the bottom in wages” said world labor leader John Sweeney. The only way to avoid the race to the bottom is with education and training (Trumbull). This has to be the main focus of every nation, or else they will get sucked into the corporate machine.

Wait a minute, what is going on here? How did I go from advertising to the fight for labor laws? Because they both part of the same corporate monster. Why are there some countries getting the economic crap kicked out of them by the global market? Karl Marx answered this question for us in 1848. The answer is the capitalist system’s goal is to make as much money and profit with as much proficiency as it can. “Markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising (Marx)” the traditional form of capitalism is premised upon the separation of the worker from the means of production, so that the worker must sell her labor power to the capitalist. However the playing field has changed yet again.

Now that capitalism has expanded to the new digital market, the rules have changed. More on this coming up. Wal-Mart, Apple, the iPod, Sony music, The Office, are all capitalist institutions and organizations that are trying to make money. The problem is when Wal-Mart employees are not getting paid enough to survive while the Wal-Mart CEO managers and stock holders are racking up more money then I’m sure they know what to do with. This is the problem with capitalism, the inequality that it causes

How does capitalism relate to the iPod? Take this contest that Apple hosted, the iTunes 1 billionth customer contest. The billionth song was ironically “Speed of Sound” (speed of technology and society) off of Coldplay’s album “X&Y”. The winner was a kid from West Bloomfield, Michigan and as the grand prize winner he received a 20-inch iMac, 10 fifth generation iPods and a $10,000 gift card good for any item on the iTunes Music Store. In addition, Apple will establish a scholarship to the world-renowned Juilliard School in his name to commemorate this milestone (http://bureaucrash.com/node/2121). All that for buying a $.99 song. Only with capitalism can this kind of stuff happen. Companies like Apple have so much money, and they are only going to make so much more. This is what capitalism is all about. And with television exposure like that they get on NBA’s prime time: “Apple racked up more then four minutes of free exposure to audiences of The Office alone”.

Consumption patterns are changing from material to informational, from ownership to access. “…it is not only the production process that is becoming digitalized and the organization that is becoming knowledge-based, but the products themselves, both those used in production and those purchased by consumers are becoming digital. And digital commodities, though they will never replace material commodities, have a logic that confounds the principles of capitalism at a very basic level (Wilkie).” Confounding capitalism? I knew if they was a way they would find it. This is the future of capitalism, and the few corporations that corner this market are going to continue to have success like that of Apple selling 1 billion iTunes, this is globalization.

What is consumer globalization? 2006 is the era of consumer globalization. This is a time when corporations have more money then you know, have more control then you might think and more power then ever before. They have followed the principles of capitalism and have found new markets, new ways of expanding those markets and they have even found new modes of production that do not require as much human labor. They are making all of the money and they are leaving us consumers in the dark, all alone with our iPods. I wonder what the world looks like from the point of view of an iPod?

Annotated bibliography

Products Resources

Vanderkam, Laura. Love (or not) in an iPod world. USA Today, 2006. I like this article because it talks about all the choices that we have in our society. It compares the world of today to the world of yesterday and finds some brilliant contrasts of lifestyles choices. It proposes that these differences are a consequences of out consumer culture.

Kahney, Leander. My iPod, My Self. Wired News. I picked this article because it introduces the term “cyborg consumer”. Cyborg consumers are consumers that are almost completely controlled by their consumptions. For example: someone who is completely lost without their cell phone and internet connection. The iPod is one of the most interesting. “The iPod is no longer just an instrument or a tool, but a part of myself. It’s a body extension. Its part of my memory, and if I lose this stuff, I lose part of myself.”

IPod therefore iAm. IPod stories -www.mymacexperience.com/ipod. I am going to use this site as my outside resource. This is research that explores how consumer technologies including computers, the Internet, the iPod and how they “alter the social fabrics of our lives and our identities”.

Advertising and Influential Resources

Frith, Katherine. Undressing the Ad: Reading culture in advertising. New York: Peter Lang, 1997. I am going to explore advertising and what makes up an advertisement in the hope that I can understand more about our consumer culture. I am going to look at an ad’s unintentional meaning as well as ads secondary social or cultural messages.

Goo, Sara. Here’s a shiny Apple for Hollywood to bite into. Washington Post, from the Los Angeles Times. April 2006. This is an article about synergy, and how marketing and product placement is used in TV and movies. Apple had its iPod in an episode of “The Office”. I saw this episode and I have to say that it was well placed. The Office was doing secrete Santa with a 20 dollar limit, but the arrogant boss broke the rule and got someone an iPod, so he would be the favorite. They ended up playing Yankee Swap and everyone wanted the iPod. It was a funny episode and it almost made me want to get an iPod myself.

Globalization and Capitalism Resources

Trumbull, Mark. Chasm grows in ‘flat’ world. The Christian Science Monitor. In a two part section of my paper on consuming, I would like to talk about capitalism and globalization. This article is about a labor movement that is trying to put pressure on Wal-Mart to boost pay and benefits.

Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. Manifesto of the Communist Party. 1848. The reason that I want to talk about capitalism and globalization is because I am a senior and a sociology major and I think that this paper is a great opportunity to express some of my concerns and ideas with capitalism and our consumer economy. I am very knowledgeable of social theories and I have some really good ideas that I can write about.

Wilkie, Rob. The Day Dreams of iPod Capitalism http://www.redcritique.org/WinterSpring2005/thedaydreamsofipodcapitalism.htm

The Red Critique 10 (Winter/Spring 2005) REDCRITIQUE.ORG. I picked this article because nicely explains “…the logic that confounds the principles of capitalism at a very basic level”. It relates Marxism to the digital iPod era.

English 300W: “Global Americas”

May 6, 2006

Culture of Consuming Contemporary culture- from film to television to music to the internet to commodities such as the iPod- is fascinated with “globalization”. What is it about our culture that is so obsessed with consuming? What does consuming and globalization have in common? Is it that “we live in a culture of infinite choice (Vanderkam),” and that we are constantly being bombarded with advertisements for products from all over the world. In our relentlessly busy lives filled with cross-promotion and multi-million dollar ad campaigns everywhere in sight, how am I as a person supposed to define myself without the newest, most popular brand name shoes and technology? I would like to discuss a number of issues in this paper to try to understand myself, my culture and how I fit into this new globalized world where most of the stuff that I am wearing right now was made by someone working for a slave wage on the other side of the planet. First I would like to discuss some of the stuff that we consume everyday, some of the products that have come into our lives and that we cannot live with out. I am going to use the iPod as my primary example of this. The second issue I want to explore further is how and why we are interested in the stuff in the first place, and how these products came into our lives. I am going to look at company advertisement campaigns and some particular ads and how advertising influences our culture and our ways of life. Finally, I am going to discuss the process of where this stuff comes from and how it is part of our capitalist society. I am going to investigate our modern form of capitalism and who it benefits and who its does not. Part 1: The Consumer and his Commodities Are we defined by what kind of clothes we wear or by what kind of music we listen to, or more importantly theses days, how we are listening to music. Unless you are listening to music from your slick new iPod, you are not as trendy as you could be. This is the view of the Cyborg consumer. Theses are people that are so dedicated to their consumer habits that they cannot live with out their constant consumption of their several different technologies, ranging from Viagra to MP3 cell phones. I am somewhat guilty of this myself, I feel naked without my cell phone, and I feel disconnected with the world if I do not check my e-mail every few days. However the iPod is one of the most interesting of these new must have, cannot live without commodities. “The iPod is no longer just an instrument or a tool, but part of myself. It’s a body extension. It’s part of my memory, and if I lose this stuff, I lose part of myself. (Kahney)” This is somewhat on extreme side, but I think that it does represent my main point: people are obsessed with consuming and they are addicted to it and they can’t stop. Which is good for the capitalist corporations who are making money every time one of these consumer cyborgs need their daily fix of whatever it is that they can’t get enough of. Americans are so consumed with consuming that despite recent record high gas prices, America shows very little interest in driving any less. And I think that is in part to do with our culture of consuming. Our economy is based on a system of that is rooted in consumers being able to drive to the mall and buy whatever it is that they need and then driving home. This is how it usually works: after watching my favorite TV show and being inspired by some on screen gizmo, I know that I must have it, and most of the time I don’t even know I saw the commercial (more on this the advertising section). This historic trend however is changing and going to continue to change in the near future. Not the ‘must have consumer mentality’ but the driving to the mall and buying the products myself. Consumers are now buying more then ever from the internet and getting their consumer goodies delivered right to their door. With the click of my mouse and my credit card handy, the world is at my frond door. Part 2 How they get us: New Creative Methods of Advertising The main point of advertising is to “impart information about products which consumers use to make brand choices.” (Frith) Advertising in American culture is with no doubt very powerful and is a significant part of our culture. It is through advertising that brands are made popular, ideas are passed along to huge audiences and companies make more money. However there is more to advertisement then just selling brand names. Advertisements have a lot to say about our culture and how people interpret the meaning of ads. There are explicit meanings, implied meanings and perhaps most importantly unintentional meanings. Ads have additional secondary social or cultural messages that reflect society, and by breaking down ads, you can start to see how the role that advertising plays in the creation of culture. (Frith) Unintentional meanings support cultural norms and stereotypes, and are often some of the most influential means of advertising. Subconsciously, viewers are being exposed to advertising without them even knowing it. Product placement, cross-promotion and synergy are especially inventive ways of advertising products, marketing to huge un-expecting audiences in TV shows and movies. Synergy is defined as: the interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects. What could work better then using products in TV shows to get popularity? Tim Bajarin, the principle analyst at Creative Strategies, a high tech and consulting firm, says that Apple has the longest history of doing this. Apple had its iPod appeared in the December 6, 2005 episode of NBC’s The Office, titled "Christmas Party". I saw this episode and I have to say that I did not even know it was product-placement. Product placement is when products are woven into the story of TV shows or movies and the viewers can see how merchandise is used in real life settings. The Office, which is an offbeat comedy satire of office life, was playing Secret Santa at the company’s Christmas party. Secret Santa is a Christmas ritual involving a group of people exchanging gifts usually with co-workers or collogues. There is often a limit to how much can be spent on the present and then presents are then exchanged anonymously. The boss broke all the rules and got someone an iPod, and then told everyone he did so his gift would be the best. Everyone was annoyed with him as usual, so the boss decided to change the ceremony from its traditional form to "Yankee Swap". This is when players take turns, and can either open a new gift, or steal a previously opened gift. Of course everyone wanted the iPod. It was a funny episode and it gave the iPod great TV exposure. It almost made me want to get an iPod myself. This is a very fine example of product placement, however an NBA executive said that producers of The Office draw the line when product placement infringes on the authenticity of the characters. A study by the PQ Media research firm last year said that product placement has grown and will continue to grow in the future because of it’s effectiveness and popularity (Goo). I think that it is just a matter of time before we get to see commercials-free shows that completely rely on product placement and sponsorship. TNT is already doing this for the debut of two of their best original dramas, The Closer and Saved. These dramas will air commercial-free for the season premieres (reported by TV.com). These are just a few ways that advertising is making its impact on culture. Companies now have the power to be even more influential then they already are. I have to admit that I didn’t even notice that in the episode of the office they said “iPod” at least a dozen times or so. Advertising is shaping culture, penetrating it, changing and molding it. There is no other source of media that reaches so many people. And now companies are advertising without the viewer even knowing it. Advertising is a key part to what makes our culture so consumed with consuming. This brings me to my final issues, the foul consequence of capitalism. Part 3 Globalization and Capitalism “As corporations mime an expanding global labor market for maximum efficiencies, will many workers be left behind?” This is a question asked by Mark Trumbull in his article titled “A chasm grows in ‘flat’ world”. He brings our attention to a meeting of the Union Network International that took place in late October 2005, where representatives from 900 unions worldwide met to discuss a labor movement that is trying to put pressure on Wal-Mart to boost pay and benefits. But why? The answer is because capitalism is the cause of some tremendous inequality worldwide. Globally, inequality is worrisome. And “Clearly, unless we put new rules around the global economy, real guarantees of workers’ rights and environmental safeguards and new constraints for global corporations- we will all be driven to the bottom in wages” said world labor leader John Sweeney. The only way to avoid the race to the bottom is with education and training (Trumbull). This has to be the main focus of every nation, or else they will get sucked into the corporate machine. Wait a minute, what is going on here? How did I go from advertising to the fight for labor laws? Because they both part of the same corporate monster. Why are there some countries getting the economic crap kicked out of them by the global market? Karl Marx answered this question for us in 1848. The answer is the capitalist system’s goal is to make as much money and profit with as much proficiency as it can. “Markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising (Marx)” the traditional form of capitalism is premised upon the separation of the worker from the means of production, so that the worker must sell her labor power to the capitalist. However the playing field has changed yet again. Now that capitalism has expanded to the new digital market, the rules have changed. More on this coming up. Wal-Mart, Apple, the iPod, Sony music, The Office, are all capitalist institutions and organizations that are trying to make money. The problem is when Wal-Mart employees are not getting paid enough to survive while the Wal-Mart CEO managers and stock holders are racking up more money then I’m sure they know what to do with. This is the problem with capitalism, the inequality that it causes How does capitalism relate to the iPod? Take this contest that Apple hosted, the iTunes 1 billionth customer contest. The billionth song was ironically “Speed of Sound” (speed of technology and society) off of Coldplay’s album “X&Y”. The winner was a kid from West Bloomfield, Michigan and as the grand prize winner he received a 20-inch iMac, 10 fifth generation iPods and a $10,000 gift card good for any item on the iTunes Music Store. In addition, Apple will establish a scholarship to the world-renowned Juilliard School in his name to commemorate this milestone (http://bureaucrash.com/node/2121). All that for buying a $.99 song. Only with capitalism can this kind of stuff happen. Companies like Apple have so much money, and they are only going to make so much more. This is what capitalism is all about. And with television exposure like that they get on NBA’s prime time: “Apple racked up more then four minutes of free exposure to audiences of The Office alone”. Consumption patterns are changing from material to informational, from ownership to access. “…it is not only the production process that is becoming digitalized and the organization that is becoming knowledge-based, but the products themselves, both those used in production and those purchased by consumers are becoming digital. And digital commodities, though they will never replace material commodities, have a logic that confounds the principles of capitalism at a very basic level (Wilkie).” Confounding capitalism? I knew if they was a way they would find it. This is the future of capitalism, and the few corporations that corner this market are going to continue to have success like that of Apple selling 1 billion iTunes, this is globalization.

What is consumer globalization? 2006 is the era of consumer globalization. This is a time when corporations have more money then you know, have more control then you might think and more power then ever before. They have followed the principles of capitalism and have found new markets, new ways of expanding those markets and they have even found new modes of production that do not require as much human labor. They are making all of the money and they are leaving us consumers in the dark, all alone with our iPods. I wonder what the world looks like from the point of view of an iPod?

Annotated bibliography

Products Resources

Vanderkam, Laura. Love (or not) in an iPod world. USA Today, 2006. I like this article because it talks about all the choices that we have in our society. It compares the world of today to the world of yesterday and finds some brilliant contrasts of lifestyles choices. It proposes that these differences are a consequences of out consumer culture.

Kahney, Leander. My iPod, My Self. Wired News. I picked this article because it introduces the term “cyborg consumer”. Cyborg consumers are consumers that are almost completely controlled by their consumptions. For example: someone who is completely lost without their cell phone and internet connection. The iPod is one of the most interesting. “The iPod is no longer just an instrument or a tool, but a part of myself. It’s a body extension. Its part of my memory, and if I lose this stuff, I lose part of myself.”

IPod therefore iAm. IPod stories -www.mymacexperience.com/ipod. I am going to use this site as my outside resource. This is research that explores how consumer technologies including computers, the Internet, the iPod and how they “alter the social fabrics of our lives and our identities”.

Advertising and Influential Resources

Frith, Katherine. Undressing the Ad: Reading culture in advertising. New York: Peter Lang, 1997. I am going to explore advertising and what makes up an advertisement in the hope that I can understand more about our consumer culture. I am going to look at an ad’s unintentional meaning as well as ads secondary social or cultural messages.

Goo, Sara. Here’s a shiny Apple for Hollywood to bite into. Washington Post, from the Los Angeles Times. April 2006. This is an article about synergy, and how marketing and product placement is used in TV and movies. Apple had its iPod in an episode of “The Office”. I saw this episode and I have to say that it was well placed. The Office was doing secrete Santa with a 20 dollar limit, but the arrogant boss broke the rule and got someone an iPod, so he would be the favorite. They ended up playing Yankee Swap and everyone wanted the iPod. It was a funny episode and it almost made me want to get an iPod myself.

Globalization and Capitalism Resources

Trumbull, Mark. Chasm grows in ‘flat’ world. The Christian Science Monitor. In a two part section of my paper on consuming, I would like to talk about capitalism and globalization. This article is about a labor movement that is trying to put pressure on Wal-Mart to boost pay and benefits.

Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. Manifesto of the Communist Party. 1848. The reason that I want to talk about capitalism and globalization is because I am a senior and a sociology major and I think that this paper is a great opportunity to express some of my concerns and ideas with capitalism and our consumer economy. I am very knowledgeable of social theories and I have some really good ideas that I can write about.

Wilkie, Rob. The Day Dreams of iPod Capitalism http://www.redcritique.org/WinterSpring2005/thedaydreamsofipodcapitalism.htm

The Red Critique 10 (Winter/Spring 2005) REDCRITIQUE.ORG. I picked this article because nicely explains “…the logic that confounds the principles of capitalism at a very basic level”. It relates Marxism to the digital iPod era.

End of Act 4 Scene 6



End of Act 4

I hope that you are enjoying the play so far. Please Continue one to Act 5 to see the exciting conclusion of our story.