How the phone won the Cold War

So I got into a discussion with my mother as to why I thought socialism would never work. I basically made it up as I went along, but I think I actually put out some very good ideas that I'd like to save before I forget them. After all, in case anyone wants me to sue them for stealing a thesis from me later on in their lives, I think it's a good idea to have a hard copy to save for court.

Anyway, the reason I said socialism would never work is because Karl Marx expected men to practice it. This is a completely unreasonable expectation - men at the very cores are selfish, self interested creatures that will enhance my ability, and the ability of my offspring, to survive. Consequently, this immediately degrades the presence of all others besides the individual person. Of course, circumstances and situations could certainly demand cooperation between individuals, working together towards common goals of survival, gathering food, building shelter, etcetera and so forth, but in the face of a predator or disaster, all individuals break down and find regard for their own being, and in certain circumstances, their immediate family.

Notice a word I deliberately used in that paragraph: individual. Not just "one person" or "being". Individual. The word holds profound meaning in the argument I present: the individual is alone, separated, apart from others. No matter how empathic or sensitive and individual is, the still retain those very primordial blocks within their psyche that intentionally walls them off from the others of their species. That's why the only time in the entire course of the natural world has social ever worked, it's been in hive environments, restricted primarily to insects. Should some sort of evolutionary quirk arise that allows mankind to develop the characteristics of a hive mind, then certainly, socialism would work and flourish.

But the fact of the matter remains that humans are not hive creatures, but individuals, and as such, are selfish, greedy and self interested. What results when you put the average person in a socialist system is predictable almost to the letter. A few unsatisfied individuals will begin to covet power for themselves, and assert that they hold the knowledge of improvement to the systems of lifestyle which exist. These few will rise to power, creating a communist form of government. Two branches of political thought develop: Conservative and liberal. Conservatives, the current aristocracy, cling to the past and the power they currently posses, fighting vigorously to maintain the status quo. Liberals are the closet aristocrats, rebels who preach improvement and a desire to rip the power away from the current rulers with the promise of making life better. Of course, the classic liberal (rebel) belief is that the only way to a better life is through the way that they themselves see it, logically demanding that they (the liberals) allocate all of the power to themselves.

My next point as to why socialism will never work in our world is simple and clichéd - technology. At the time of Marx's initial thought and publications, the Industrial Revolution was occurring. Mankind's progress to that point has been rather measured and plodding: An invention here, a development there, but nothing so dramatic as to change the course of life too much over the last two centuries or so. Marx wrote his works in a vacuum, believing that even if socialism didn't take when he presented it initially, things would remain fairly constant enough in terms of lifestyle that socialism would eventually succeed and flourish. What occurred in the century and a half after Marx's work, however, completely invalidated the basic tenants of socialism.

Before I delve further into my argument of technology further, however, I need to back up and explain myself. Marx saw socialism most effective in restricted communities, with a few people assigned to a few roles that everyone contributed to equally in a communal fashion. Ideally, these communities are small, say, of less than a thousand people, and are spaced out enough that it becomes difficult for any sort of central power system to develop to every really coordinate these communities in an effective manner. This, after all, reflected what most life in the mid nineteenth century was, farming communities that were just devolving as the factory lifestyle was picking up and cities began booming. Marx still held the belief that sedentary life could be revived under socialism, and the allure of sprawling metropolitans would fade away.

This is the point at which technology invalidates Marx's theories. The technological boom that followed Karl Marx's writing was almost completely unanticipated, since there had never been a boom similar to it in the entire course of human history. In the time following the initial proposal of socialism, telephones, cars, planes, television, the Internet, cell phones, personal multimedia devices, and uncountable more developments were made in only the twentieth century. All of these devices served to accomplish one purpose: Making the world smaller. Where a hundred mile trip was once a chore that made transporting goods inconvenient, the car made for rapid transportation of goods and people. Where traveling to another country was once only possibly by sea, for possibly months at a time, planes made the entire ordeal less than a day long. Sending a telegram took weeks, preventing anything from being time sensitive and allowing for tasks to be done at a leisurely pace. With the telephone and Internet, work was expected to be done not only by a certain deadline, but at the instant someone was told about it.

The world was made smaller, which allowed for much easier central control by a group of select individuals who had consolidated the bulk of power. A few businessmen and politicians effectively run the entire world through the use of a few technological devices. People are controlled with only a few clicks of a mouse, controlling the information they receive, the amount of money in their banks accounts, and the time of day at which they sleep. Of course, the response to the assertion I make is that mediums like the Internet allow for free discourse and ideas to develop (Much like this essay I'm writing) and that because of this, central governments can never really hold the power I claim. This is foolishness. These are quirks allowed for by the system. By giving the illusion of rebellion, of a possibility of freedom, the central bodies create valves which relieves pressure that is built up by the demands of the rebellious few. Eventually, as the rebels age and gain "common sense", conservatism sets in, and the aged rebels then seek to maintain the status quo.

The key linchpin in order to make socialism ever work would lie in having the population of the human race explode at an exponential rate, but then immediately fly off into the four corners of the universe. Note, I didn't just say the world: I meant the entire universe. Light years upon light years would have to separate pockets of people in order to keep them from falling under the influence of one centralized power group. Until that day comes, and who knows if it ever will, socialism will never work.

Bars, notes and lyrics, in proper order

I've discovered I'm very picky when it comes to the music I listen to. First and foremost, if I dislike the sound of the lead singer's voice, I will not listen to the track. Plain and simple, I will skip over a song if the voice I hear had a strange twang or quirk to it. Notable examples are Joy Division, Interpol and the Hot Hot Heat. Whenever I hear these strange sounding voices, it makes me cringe and wonder why everybody thinks imitating Eddie Vedder's voice is a good idea. It's not. I suppose it's also a product of the music I've listed to previously, as well as the conditioning of American musical sensiblities. There simply isn't any sort of historical precedent for a deep, almost bass-like lead vocalist in modern rock. Most American rock requires a high pitched, almost lilting male voices driving the vocals of rock bands.

Another thing I despise is when the lead singer, even if they have a fine voice, begins to yelp. For some reason, over the last five years or so, several lead singers in bands decided it would be a really good idea to yelp in the middle of their songs. Most of the time, it catches me off guard. A seemingly good, normal track, and then all of a sudden, I hear a dog yelping, except, no, that's the lead singer, yelping some word. It's worse than hearing nails across a chalkboard. I can't listen to any of the early stuff by Bloc Party because the lead singer seems dead set on yelping every other word into the microphone, resulting in probably the first album made for dogs.

Finally, the thing that grates me the most is nonsensical musical twists, i.e., the lead guitarist in a band suddenly deciding that, to push the boundaries of musical vision, they will play the guitar with their tongue. At least, that's what some of this shit sounds like. I personally don't get it. I understand that you believe that the sound you're creating sounds revolutionary, novel and completely cool, but trust me, it's just shit. If the music isn't catchy and foot tapping, why make it? Boundaries are made to be broken, but not at the expense of being able to listen and enjoy the music. I don't mean this in term of selling records, I just mean this in terms of sparing the ear drums of the sorry fucks who have to listen to you try to channel your inner-Hendrix.

What gets most frustrating for me is when people begin recommending this stuff to me, thinking it's right up my alley. Everybody seems to think I should love the White Stripes. After all, they're an indie rock group, they have a nice little blues rock sound going, and they have a number of catchy little tunes. Well, I hate the White Stripes. I can't fucking stand them. Seeing Jack and Meg White play all by their lonesome, hearing the same repetitive lyrics for three minutes drives me fucking crazy. I honestly can't stand it. Even worse is Last.fm. I signed up on last.fm in an attempt to try and expand my musical horizons, feeding it my tastes in the hopes of finding a cool new bunch of bands to listen to. What do I get? Fucking Dave Matthews Bands, The White Stripes and The Smiths queued up to listen to. These are all bands I hate. It makes me question the quality of this shitty site. It also makes my life harder, as I have to try and find good music by scouring for it and spending all kinds of time digging around when that's what the job of last.fm is. Ugh. The future is not much easier than the past.

My view as Atlas

My life definitely isn't normal. The events of peoples lives, those moments which define people, that people look back upon with fondness and nostalgia, these moments are depressing and crushing for me. I never went to junior prom. I did go to senior prom, but it was a comedy of events unlike any the world has ever seen. First, I couldn't find a date, so I ended up taking my sister's friend who has been strung out on coke since she was 13. While driving my father's car to prom, I rear ended the car in front of me and rolled up to prom with the front bumper of the car I was driving hanging off. I don't actually remember prom itself. There was music and lights and dancing, but I only remember emotions of angers and shame and fear tinging my vision that followed everything I did.

Other life defining moments that have been ruined by my existence? My first kiss. My graduation. Freshman year of college. Getting my driver's license. Playing football. Everyday of my life is tinged with tragedy and melancholy and failure. I honestly question my existence in this world. Am I here for the sole purpose of making other people's lives better? Am I the focus of misery and unfortunate circumstances in this world? I never asked to bear this pain and suffering. I can't stand it.

I don't have pleasant memories. I wish my mind could be erased and filled with happier things. Fake memories are better than real memories of pain.

The way we speak, and how we speak it

There are two parts to spoken or written conversation: content and process. Content is the actual thing you are speaking about, the sum of conversation and what people are convinced is the thing that actually matters in human interaction. Process is how we speak to one another, how we relate the things that come out of our mouths or flow from our finger tips. Some people have fantastic content they come up with in their minds, but lack the ability in process to keep people engaged and interested in what you are saying, because how you are saying it is treacherously boring. Still others have absolutely nothing relevant to say in their content, and yet they possess fantastic powers of process, twisting people and entertaining them and convincing those whom they speak to that they must be interesting, because they engage people so well.

My personal observation of myself is that I lack the abilities of both process and content. It appears that to me in a great deal of the time I speak to people, anyhow. The content I have in my end seems endlessly entertaining, engaging and worth a couple laughs. Yet when the words flow over my tongue, escape my lips and ring out into dead air, the palpable silence I hear is painful. It feels like needles poking holes in my heart. It's painful and intolerable and horribly depressing. I don't know why I can't get the content straight, after twenty one years of books and movies and television and reading and education. In all that time, I would have figured some worthwhile content would have been generated.

Yet, there's hope for me in the process, correct? Even if what I have to say is banal and dry, at least it sounds interesting, right? Wrong. My weakness in process is even worse than that of my content. When I speak, I unconsciously pitch my voice to this strange, "You should be laughing at what I am saying" sort of tone, setting up for a punchline that never arrives. I guess that's what my fatal flaw is: I'm setting up for a punchline every time I open my mouth, but there isn't a punchline that will ever come. I'm pretty certain this is why I can never be a stand up comedian, because my sense of timing is terrible. Delivery is key not only in stand up, but in conversation as well. If you can't deliver a hammering blow to your points, make things stick and drive them into the heart of you audience, you don't have a snowball's chance in hell. Because snowballs and cold, and hell is hot, so the snowball would melt. Alright? Glad we could clear that up.