Why I'm on the political left (in a few sentences)

Culture is a product of your material existence. If that is one of poverty, particularly on a generational scale, it would certainly influence your culture. Even if you live in the developed world and share cultural similarities with those who are relatively rich, a lack of real word resources creeps into your more abstract understanding of who you are. Despite what both liberal and conservative theorists tell us, the way to fix poverty doesn't simply lie in changing people's behaviors, and therefore their culture. It is much more simple, and complex, than that. The solution to poverty is a massive redistribution of wealth, from those who "own" the commanding heights of the economy to those who do the tasks that make our society function. You would be surprised how social pathologies fade away when you no longer have to explain to your kids why your existence is lacking key resources.

Drones are pretty much the perfect weapon

There is no anti-war movement to speak of. There is, however, a small core of activists that like to think of themselves as the movement. Understandably, they have focused their attention on drones. This will continue to isolate them. Put bluntly, your average American doesn't give a shit about drones.

Most people, myself included, aren't terribly interested in the abstract legal justification or condemnation of U.S. drone use. (Domestic law almost always takes a backseat to perceived national security threats and many Americans scoff at the very notion of international law to begin with. How dare the rest of the world tell us what to do!) Morally speaking, Americans continue to support "the troops" when they shoot kids in person so it's highly unlikely they're going to be too bothered when some nameless, faceless Pakistani boy gets blown up via a command center in Nevada. Sure, drone attacks create more "terrorists," but so does smashing down doors in the middle of the night to stick a gun in the face of a guy who pissed off his local U.S.-backed warlord. Certainly drone strikes are less invasive than an occupying force.

The Obama Administration has taken Donald Rumsfeld's "light footprint" doctrine to a qualitatively higher, much more workable, level. The drones-based arms race is the only thing I can think of that might give the State Department and Pentagon a moment's pause. But, as we've seen in the past, that moment will be quick. The trick is to stay ahead of the curve. Other countries are developing their own drones. But by the time they're up to speed, we'll have bigger and better toys.

Yes, the possibility of drone use on U.S. soil will continue to rile up some people. Paranoid anti-government folks will unite with aging hippies, but to little avail. That isn't to say some unforeseen event couldn't happen and trigger a mass movement against our growing use of drones. No one knows the future. But as of now, drones are nearly perfect for exercising imperial force. Drones don't have families to deal with. They don't come back from combat all fucked up in the head. They do exactly as they're told. 

The talented and beautiful Joy Dolo...

My family plugging continues:

We finally got my wife's website up and running. Check it out:

www.joydolo.com

Venice

My brother and sister-in-law's take on the slow, yet gorgeous, descent of Venice.

Venice: a slow and beautiful decay from Aaron Anfinson on Vimeo.

http://www.handsomefoto.com/

Hugo Chavez, Rest in Peace

I have this vivid image in my mind of Hugo Chavez pushing through various handlers of assorted powerful people in order to get on stage at the UN General Assembly and recommend Noam Chomsky's latest book. I picture a boyish gaze as he famously hands Barack Obama a copy of "The Open Veins of Latin America." Chavez was drunk on ideas. I remember the feeling of radicalization. The difference being, of course, when I began to give heed to such ideas my main concerns were rent and beer money. Chavez was the leader of one of the most oil-rich nations in the world.

I met Alan Woods, who was an informal adviser of sorts to Chavez, a few years ago in Italy. I was there for a organizational congress (we are part of the same political tendency), and had a chance to hear him talk a few times about Chavez. He would mention all the achievements of course, but he'd always temper them with an aside like, "well, Chavez is no Marxist..." I took that to mean he's still learning. Not in the sense that, yes, we're all still learning and that's a good thing, but in the sense that he still believes you can somehow reconcile the thick contradictions ripe within private ownership of the commanding heights of the economy. For all this talk about Chavez the strongman, which in many respects is true, he appeared to have a somewhat bizarre faith in good old enlightenment values. He seemed unaware that these once revolutionary ideas can be shaped and perverted into freedom of speech being interpreted as freedom to buy political office. Freedom, liberty- words that have long been slogans for commodities- need a rebranding. If we simply apply them to the structures of the state as is, they are often tools of manipulation.

I'm not suggesting Chavez was naive. (Certainly anyone who has been on both ends of a coup has learned to watch his back.) I'm also not suggesting he was ineffective. (Chavez was able to reduce poverty to such an extent he is assured to be remembered as one of the best leaders of our time among a large swath of the world's population.) I do, however, think he was indecisive. At least when it came to the big question. He sat on the revolution too long. There is likely a million reasons why, but you can't wait capital out. You have to, as they say, strike while the iron's hot. From the oil fields to the grocery shelves, they have fought Chavez. They will trade short-term profit for long-term power every time.They don't feel the national, or Bolivarian, pride that teemed within Chavez. They would have a million slum-dwelling children die ten times over before they would allow any fundamental change in the system that offers them so much privilege. Despite the boisterous rhetoric, deep-down Chavez seemed to believe he could appeal to them. Instead of replacing the corrupt state, he built parallel structures. This allowed much of the "old crap" to remain. 

That said, running a revolution is fucking hard. The negative obituaries by the usual suspects are proof enough of his legacy. He scared the right people. He gave power to people who never had it before. The hard part is now. We have to finish with what Chavez was unable to.