Mussolini during the Great Depression and today

In the reading by Mussolini, he asserts that the importance of the State and peoples' desire for its guidance in economics and politics has been growing since 1929. When I think of that year, the first thing to come to my mind is the stock market crash that October. I'm more familiar with the poor state of economics in the U.S. during that time than I am with the economic standings of other countries in the '30s, but I'm guessing we weren't the only ones who had it rough.

Anyway, Mussolini says these crises could only be solved by the State. He throws it in capitalists' faces that the people at the time were supposedly begging for the government to get involved in business operations, almost as if to say "Ha, deregulation was what you wanted, and look how badly the economy is doing now."

The parallels to today are obvious, as everyone is comparing today's economic crisis to the Great Depression. So it makes me wonder how long it will take for people to start calling Obama fascist. He's obviously NOT, but he himself has already said the American people will have to make sacrifices and he's also said many of his rescue policies will not be popular. I'm sure there will be some Republican businessmen out there who are pro-capitalism to the death, who will have a lot to say about Obama's economic relief efforts, once they start happening.

But as Mussolini queried in the reading, "What would they say now to the unceasing, inevitable, and urgently requested interventions of government in business?"

College students could learn a few things from the Freeskool

I was pretty frustrated by some of the thing that were said during Wednesday's heated discussion about the documentary, "This is What Democracy Looks Like." And the sad part is, I wasn't surprised to hear the comments that disheartened me. Questions were raised as to why we should even care about the protest enough to form opinions about it, as well as to what the actions of the Nike company have to do with the plight of workers in third world countries. The fact that these questions were even raised is simply disappointing.

Just because an event in history was not widely publicized, does that mean it’s not worth learning about? Of course not. One would assume that of any classifiable group, college students (who pay thousands for their education) would be the most eager to consume information and stretch their brains. But this is clearly not true.

The bottom line is that we have come to take a post-secondary education for granted. A college education is an expectation, and (for some people) an almost assumed right, instead of the privilege that it is.

This lack of motivation to learn is exactly what anarchism opposes. In the Goldman reading, she asserts that anarchists oppose religion and government because they require to subordination of the individual, and prevent individuals from thinking for themselves. As college students, we NEED to think for ourselves. This doesn't require becoming an anarchists, but it does require opening our minds.

As an expression of anarchist ideology, the Ithaca Freeskool represents the belief of free-thinking. As stated in the article, the skool is based on the idea that humans have a natural urge to teach and learn together, and that no diplomas are needed in order to prove knowledge has been gained.

It seems that many students come to college ONLY for that diploma, that piece of paper that makes them more likely to be hired after graduation. But the truth is, there's more to it than that. An education is more than just a piece of paper.

So when professors show relevant documentaries and ask their class to form opinions about recent, real issues that affect humanity (and believe it or not, affect us directly) we should be grateful.

Socialism gives human nature the benefit of the doubt

Compared to conservativism and liberalism, it seems as though socialists are the group most willing to give human nature the benefit of the doubt. At least from Heywood's interpretation and "spelling out" of what socialists believe it, this is a group that likes to think to best of society. While this optimism is all well and good and could both cause and perpetuate public service by making people feel like they are invested in each other's well-being, sometimes that optimism goes a little too far.

For example, at the end of Heywood's piece, he highlight's Marx's assumption that the state would eventually just wither away. Also, anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin's assumption that people would work together in harmony within a stateless society reads a little like an episode of Barney. I do think there is something to be said for thinking the best of people and society, but too much of this positive thinking is more like wishful thinking.