Release Your Inner Critic

  There are generally 3 types of critic: The Professional Critic, The Armchair Critic, and the Social Critic. The word critic is usually associated with Professional Critics, or critics of pop culture – movies, music, and literature. They offer their opinion, which is presumably (hopefully) tempered with experience and refined sensibilities, as a means to make a living. While they may irritate artists, particularly when their criticisms aren't flattering, they do serve a useful purpose by helping the rest of us to avoid the “fluff” that makes up a large portion of pop culture, allowing us to spend our precious leisure time appreciating the art that truly deserves our attention.

  Then, there are of course the Armchair Critics. These are regular people, who mostly enjoy criticism for its own sake, and who do not serve any useful purpose. While this type may think their tastes are worth sharing, this is, in my experience, typically not the case. These are people who, rather than helping to elevate the tastes of others, criticize more as a means of making themselves feel better about their own lack of any discernible talent. It is always easier to criticize than to create, and the reason this group is particularly irritating to most people is that all they offer is criticism, rarely constructive, and without putting forth any better alternatives. This essentially boils down to useless whining.

  Finally, there is the Social Critic, the sort that I'm talking about. Overall, They are not Professional, as they only occasionally concern themselves with pop culture, and are rarely paid for their observations. Nor are they Armchair Critics, because they are, as a rule, genuinely informed about the subject matter, and do offer constructive criticism, paired very often with alternative visions of how things might be. The Social Critic, as the name implies, is concerned with issues that run deeper than most of those addressed by pop culture – politics, education, crime, religion and other social issues. I believe that they are the most useful, as they are most needed in order to have a functional and vibrant democracy. Unfortunately, they are also the very type that is most lacking in many societies today. This is the sort of critic I aspire to be, and encourage others to become – one who can recognize deficiencies in our policies, and through public criticism of these flaws, spur the kind of debate that in turn stimulates change.

  Critics are important because discussion and debate are core components of any evolving society. Without these, societies cease adapting to the times, fall into dogmatic repetition of old mistakes, and ultimately crumble from within. Fear of criticism is the ultimate weakness of dictators and despots for this very reason, and the reason why such regimes all ultimately fail. Journalists used to play the role of Social Critic, but in this they are increasingly losing their backbone, afraid of being excluded should they ask difficult questions. The competitive nature of journalism makes this an inevitable problem unless every journalist sticks to their principles, but it seems clear that principles are less important in journalism today than they were in the past...one look at FOX News should be ample evidence of that. Partisan politics is taking priority over objective truth in many cases, which results in journalism barely worthy of the title, and public discussion that solves nothing because it asks all the wrong questions. This is where the new Social Critic comes in...the blogger, the private observer of the public sphere, the voice from the crowd. With no career or political agenda to advance, such “citizen journalists” can be objective in a way that many professional journalists can't, and honest in a way that public figures often shy away from. Political correctness has no place in either a meaningful debate or an interesting blog, and this is but one of the many reasons why the internet is a unique and powerful tool to promote free speech.

  Of course, the internet is full of Armchair Critics...or “trolls”, as they are better known online. It is human nature to voice an opinion even if it is loosely informed, and to avoid admitting a mistake at all costs. This type of discourse dominates the internet, because the anonymity it offers lends itself to obnoxious behaviour. However, on some level we all value the truth, and for some of us this is far more important than getting our two cents in at every opportunity. When we place value and emphasis on objective truth, and when important issues are discussed without anonymity, we can use criticism to burn through the bad ideas, and collaborate to find new and better ones.

  Criticism indeed has some negative connotations because it is essentially making fun of bad ideas. Some ideas, however, deserve to be made fun of. We have to get past the idea that we should never offend anyone, as if being offended gives us some sort of special right or bargaining chip with which to hold the rest of society hostage to our opinions. Sometimes the only way to break down bad ideas is to relentlessly criticize them, regardless of how offended this may make the people who try to prop them up. The Flat Earth, Earth as the centre of the universe, slavery – these are all bad ideas that fell under a relentless assault from informed critics. Ideas which were once considered sacred or core philosophies have been tossed into the dustbin of history, and rightly so, because enough people spoke out against them. Bad ideas often cloak themselves in a layer of righteousness in order to deflect criticism, but being aware of this tactic can help us to immunize ourselves against it. If everyone simply asked questions, relentlessly, where questions are merited, our society could rid itself of bad ideas in no time at all.

  If you desire a life in a free society, one which is modern, just and well-off, being an informed Social Critic is the most productive way to make that happen. Social injustice happens everywhere, all the time, but where leaders know that the people will hold their feet to the fire it happens a lot less. An empowered, educated, and above all vocal population are the ultimate antidote to oppression and bad ideas, and a fertile ground where new ideas can grow. Don't be afraid to be offensive if required – if you're right, people will still respect you, and if they don't, then they're not worth worrying about anyway. In the end, you will accomplish far more and influence many more people if you speak your mind than if you stay silent. There is plenty of time for silence in the grave.  

The Closet Socialist

  I'm willing to go out on a limb, and bet that you actually like socialism more than you might think. That's right, the closet Socialist isn't me, it's you. Frankly, I'm not in the closet about anything.

  In an episode of his show Real Time, comedian Bill Maher spoke at length on the the subject not too long ago. There, he made a simple yet important point: if people actually knew more about what Socialism implies, they would probably realize that it's not a dirty word. It is, in fact, one of the more successful schools of political thought, with the potential to help take our emerging global society to the next level. Let me tell you why in a little more detail.

  In a nutshell, Socialism is simply about sharing risks, responsibility and goals; by working together, we reduce our collective risk, share the collective burden of our responsibilities, and achieve mutual goals that would be far beyond the reach of any one of us working alone. It's about sharing expenses, so we all pay less in times of trouble, and about getting more bang from our collective tax dollars. Smart countries understand this, and although they don't all call it Socialism, to the extent that they do these things, that's exactly what it is. Here in Japan, where I've lived for some time, I see Socialism at work all the time. It's a very collectivist culture, and as such, they understand that working together effectively is a great strength in a society. As a small island nation, Japan has made such a huge mark on the world and in the Pacific Rim in particular because it knows all about teamwork. There is a sense here that everyone watches out for one another, and working toward a common purpose, and this is a powerful motivator. The workforce here is willing to make sacrifices in the name of the common good, and as such are capable of great feats of productivity and innovation relative to their numbers and resources. This is the very kind of motivator needed in any society that ever aspires to call itself “great”.

  In Western society, and in the US in particular, the opposite mentality is often popularized: individuality. The idea is that it's better to be able to stand on your own, fend for yourself...the rugged individualist, the self-made man, these are iconic images in Western society. But unfortunately, the entire concept is a lie. On my more cynical days, I think it was a lie constructed to sell more cigarettes and blue jeans, but there is also something deeper to it than that. During the Cold War, even though the West had many of the same social practices as the Communists, there was a practical need to differentiate itself from its ideological adversary. It chose to do so largely by emphasizing the collectivist/individualist dichotomy. In the poisonous and distrustful political atmosphere of the time, any policy or person with even a whiff of Communist on it became anathema, even if the policy was hugely beneficial or the person a well-intentioned genius. Socialism became an unfortunate casualty of that time. The stale remnants of this Cold War mentality linger even still, far beyond any usefulness, hindering our progress, and it is well past time to dispel them.

  Individualism is a lie because we all, to a greater or lesser extent, live in a society, and depend upon that society for a great many things. While a skilled outdoorsman might claim to be able to survive without the rest of society for a time, he still grew up in a society, got his education as a school paid for by tax dollars, received medical care at a community hospital, and drives the roads paid for by his fellow citizens. While there are those that complain about paying taxes, they nevertheless enjoy the benefits that tax dollars provide, and complain loudly when such amenities are taken away. Living in modern societies, we are products of a social system, like it or not, and the quality of our lives depends very heavily upon just how seriously our particular government takes its social responsibilities. Contrary to the beliefs of some, it is not the job of the government to merely concoct onerous legislation and collect tax money. The most critical responsibilities of any government revolve around how well it administers its tax income to provide essential services. Any government anywhere is not worthy of leadership if it cannot provide for the health and welfare of its people. The popular counter-argument, of course, is that the free market will fill whatever gaps the government can't. Some might go so far as to argue that the government shouldn't be involved in social services at all, leaving even hospitals, prisons and fire departments in the hands of private enterprise. I would struggle to think of any worse idea than this, and for an immense plethora of reasons. However, since I want to keep this under 10 pages, I'll just address the most important ones. 

  Firstly, private enterprise is not looking out for you, and it never will be. Any for-profit organization will share this flaw – the profit motive inevitably poisons its motivations, and corporations have proven time and time again that they are willing to sacrifice quality, people's health, public welfare, public resources, the environment, and just about anything else in order to pad their profit margins. No matter how well regulated, businesses are in it for their shareholders, and if they think they can get away with cutting corners, that is exactly what they will do. In regards to essential services, where you want to ensure quality, a bureaucracy may not always be perfect, but at least with government oversight you are eliminating the profit motive from the equation. Government agencies still can (and do, in many cases) make a profit, but when we're talking about educating our children, safeguarding our health, maintaining our critical infrastructure or protecting us when we sleep, profit should never be the primary motivator. In a socialist system, it isn't.

  Secondly, the free market is not perfectly self-correcting. This is a myth that many conservatives seem to believe with a sort of religious zeal, but it is simply not true. The worst financial disasters of the century, including the recent recession from which we are just now recovering, were perpetuated by financial organizations and corporations that were allowed to run largely without any serious regulation. Left to their own devices, they did not create a perfectly fair and balanced system – they engineered a system that robbed people of their life savings in order to line the pockets of an elite few. Due to weak legislation, they were free to manipulate the markets, exploiting loopholes and nearly bringing the world economy to its knees in a staggering display of self-interest, cronyism and corruption. Afterwards, these same organizations accepted taxpayer money in the form of bailouts, from which, I might add, they saw fit to pay their chief executives salaries that could only be described as grotesque and embarrassing, given their very recent and very staggering incompetence. In short, this does not sound like a self-correcting system to me. Government oversight and regulation are how the people ensure their rights are not trampled on by corporations, and the moment these regulations are relaxed, as we have seen, the trampling almost immediately begins. In a socialist system, the government does not dictate how the market works, as many may think it does. Rather, it harnesses its innovative power to maximize the market's potential, via tax incentives and similar programs, while mitigating the harm a free market may cause, such as damage to the environment or to public health. Common sense, right?

  Finally, I would argue that too much choice is a bad thing. While the free market is admittedly great at providing consumers with options, these options are not always necessary, or different from one another in any but the most cosmetic ways. While some choice is certainly desirable, surveys and other market research often find that consumers are actually overwhelmed by the huge array of choices that they can find in most Western markets. This is a large part of why Western markets produce such gargantuan amounts of waste – with so many options, many simply get tossed aside. It also creates a dangerous false mindset that there must be limitless supplies of everything available in order to produce such options. This is turn makes people waste more and conserve less – pretty much the exact opposite of what we need if we are to have any hope of combating climate change. What we need are goods that are functional, sustainably produced, easily recyclable, and long lasting. The market has demonstrated (ad nauseum) that it won't do this without regulation. Anything that costs a bit extra up front, even if it may pay off in the long term for both society and the business itself, is generally a no-go. The regulation of the means production, while perhaps a touchy subject due to its “Commie” overtones, is actually a very viable argument if we ever hope to reign in our society's rampant consumption and waste. Perhaps, with the advent of 3-D printing, consumers will be able to bring the means of production home, making exactly what they need exactly when they need it. By encouraging this technology, government could bypass mass producers entirely, and even put the worst environmental offenders out of business by eroding their market. This is socialized production, and to me, a very elegant solution to a number of problems at once. Similarly, subsidies and other means of government encouragement could also to socialize energy production, with solar panels on every home, making the grid much more diffuse, clean, stable and resistant to natural disasters. This is already widely practised in Japan, and with great success – it probably even saved lives after the devastating earthquake and tsunami in 2011.

  So we all, in some way, benefit from socialist principles. In essence, it is strength in numbers. When you think about it, this is really all that society is in the first place, so it does baffle me a little how we got to the place where some of us actually ridicule socialism. Whenever people take the time to understand and dispel preconceptions, it's not even a very hard sell; most people find that somewhere, deep down, they actually supported socialism all along, and all they needed was a little push to come out of the closet.