Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiTaking Politics Seriously: Looking Beyond the Election and Beyond Elections
We have nothing against voting. We plan to vote in the upcoming election. Some of our best friends are voters.
But we also believe that we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that the most important political moment in our lives comes in the voting booth. Instead, people should take politics seriously, which means asking considerably more of ourselves than the typical fixation with electoral politics.
First, we won't be coy about this election. Each of us voted for Obama in the Texas primary and will vote for him in November. We are leftists who are consistently disgusted by the center-right political positions of the leadership of the Democratic Party, and we have no illusions that Obama is secretly more progressive than his statements in public and choice of advisers indicate. But there is slightly more than a dime's worth of policy differences between Obama and McCain, and those differences are important in this election. The reckless quality of the McCain campaign and its policy proposals are scary, as is the cult of ignorance that has grown up around Palin.
Just as important, the people of this white-supremacist nation have a chance to vote for an African-American candidate. Four decades after the end of formal apartheid in the United States, in the context of ongoing overt and covert racism that is normalized in many sectors of society, there's a possibility that a black person might be elected president. Even though Obama doesn't claim the radical roots of the anti-apartheid struggles of recent U.S. history, the symbolic value of this election is not a trivial consideration. This isn't tokenism, but a sign of real progress, albeit limited.
But even though we make that argument, we will vote knowing that the outcome of the election is not all that important, for a simple reason: The multiple crises facing this country, and the world, cannot be adequately addressed within the conventional political, economic, or social systems. This is reflected in the fact that neither candidate is even acknowledging the crises. The conventional political wisdom -- Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative -- is deeply rooted in the denial of the severity of these crises and hostility to acknowledging the need for radical change. Such a politics of delusion won't generate solutions but instead will lead us to the end of the road, the edge of the cliff, the brick wall -- pick your preferred metaphor, but when the chickens of denial come home to roost, it's never pretty.
These crises are not difficult to identify; the evidence is all around us.
Economics: We aren't facing a temporary downturn caused by this particular burst bubble but instead are moving into a new phase in the permanent decline of a system that has never met the human needs of most people and never will. It is long past the time to recognize the urgent need to start imagining and building an economics based on production and distribution for real human needs, rejecting the corrosive greed that underlies not only the obscene profits hoarded by the few but also the orgiastic consumption pursued by the many. We can't know whether McCain or Obama recognizes these things, but it's clear that both candidates -- along with their parties and the interests they represent -- are not interested in facing these realities.
Empire: The way in which First-World nations have pursued global empires over the past 500 years to grab for themselves a disproportionate share of the world's wealth has never been morally justifiable. The recent phase of U.S. domination in that project is particularly offensive, given U.S. political leaders' cynical rhetoric about democracy. But whatever one's evaluation of the ideology behind the U.S. attempt to run the world through violence and coercion, the project is falling apart. The invasions and occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq are not just moral failures but pragmatic disasters. While McCain and Obama have slightly different strategies for dealing with these disasters, neither is willing to face the depravity of the imperial endeavor and neither argues for abandoning the imperial project.
Ecology: It's no longer helpful to speak about "environmental issues," as if we face discrete problems that have clear solutions. Without major changes to the way humans live, we face the collapse of the ecosystem's ability to sustain human life as we know it. Every basic indicator of the health of the ecosystem is cause for concern -- inadequate and dwindling supplies of clean water, chemical contamination in every part of the life cycle, continuing topsoil loss, toxic waste build-up, species loss and reduced biodiversity, and climate change. Unless one adopts an irrational technological fundamentalism -- the faith-based assumption that new gadgets will magically rescue us -- this means we have to downsize and scale back our lives dramatically, learning to live with less. Yet conventional politicians continue to promise to deliver a lifestyle that constitutes a form of collective planetary suicide.
So, we live in a predatory corporate capitalist economy in a world structured by the profound injustice produced by an imperial system that is steadily drawing down the ecological capital of the planet. The domination/subordination dynamic at the heart of this world is rooted in the ideologies of male domination and white domination. This belief in the inevitability of hierarchy grows out of thousands of years of patriarchy, reinforced by hundreds of years of white supremacy. Any meaningful progressive politics also must address not just the worst behaviors that come out of these systems -- the overt sexism and racism that continue to plague society -- but also the underlying worldview that normalizes inequality. Yes, Obama is black, and McCain selected a female running mate, but neither candidate ever speaks of patriarchy and white supremacy.
There are two common responses to the analysis offered here. The first is to condemn it as crazy, which is the response of the majority of Americans. The second, from people who don't find such claims crazy and share the basic analysis, is that we have to be realistic and tone down our arguments, precisely because most Americans won't take seriously anyone who speaks so radically.
But if being realistic has something to do with facing reality, then arguments for radical change are the most realistic. When problems are the predictable consequence of existing systems and no solutions are plausible within them, then arguing for continued capitulation to those systems isn't realistic. It's literally insane.
We live in a country that is, in fact, growing increasingly insane. Fashioning a strategy for political organizing in such a country, and shaping rhetoric to advance that organizing, is indeed difficult. But it must start with a realistic description of the problems we face, a realistic evaluation of the nature of the systems that gave rise to those problems, and a realistic assessment of the degree of change necessary to imagine solutions.
Taking politics seriously in the United States today means recognizing the limits of electoral politics. Voting matters, but it's not the most important act in our political lives. Traditional grassroots political organizing to advance progressive policies on issues is more important. And even more crucial today is the long-term project of preparing for the dramatically different world that is on the horizon -- a world in which an already unconscionable inequality will have expanded; a world with less energy to deal with the ecological collapse; a world in which existing institutions likely will prove useless in helping us restructure our lives; a world in which we will need to reclaim and develop basic skills for sustaining ourselves and our communities.
These challenges are daunting but also exciting, presenting us with tasks for which the energy and creativity of every one of us will be needed. Can we find a way to talk about that excitement which could encourage others to explore these ideas? Can we develop projects to put those ideas into action, even if only on a small scale? When we have tried to articulate this worldview in plain language in recent political lectures and discussions, we have found that a growing number of people not only will listen but are hungry for such honesty.
We don't pretend that number is large right now -- certainly not a majority, and not anywhere near the number needed for a mass movement -- but one wouldn't expect that in this affluent society in which many people are still insulated from the worst consequences of these systems. But that's changing. As more and more people, from many sectors of society, face these realities, they join the search for a community in which to confront this together. Our political work should focus on connecting with people on common ground, articulating a realistically radical analysis, and working from there to construct a just and sustainable society.
So, we will vote on Nov. 4, without hesitation. But more importantly, on Nov. 5 we will be realistic and continue talking about the radical change necessary to build a different world.
88 Comments so far
Show AllOk, a non-race question for everyone reading this article. How many of you called/wrote up your Senators/Representative to thank them for voting against the bailout, like I did (assuming they did), or called/wrote to blast them for voting for it?
(I moved this response to Jacob Freezes or Matti posts to the top since it is a recurring discussion)
I agree that the phrase "white supremacist" is engaging in hyperbole. Jensen is prone to that and his style irritates me too.
But the bigger problem is the racism-denial going on among whites - and a few upper class blacks like Obama.
The facts are that very recent studies, (done in this well-established field of science called "Sociology":)) continue to show that working class black people face considerable discrimination at job interviews (or even in resume selection if they have a "black-sounding" name), renting, applying for a loan, and especially they are treated by the police.
A black person can only offset this discrimination by being impeccably dressed or impeccably groomed at all times, getting rid of their accent, and eschewing their culture, then, if they work three times harder than a comparable white person. Then, with a lot of breaks along the way, if they achieve the ranks of "black professional" (doctor, lawyer, corporate boss, etc.), they will often escape most discrimination - but they still have to watch what they wear and how thy talk when on the street or anywhere near a cop.
I've been in Portland, Oregon a few times, and I found it to be as segregated a city as anywhere in the US. The blacks people all living in that sprawling neighborhood across the river to the east around "Martin Luther King Blvd" (one in every US city!) It was as bad as Johnstown, PA, where the very moderate congressman Murtha, upon observing a Nccain rally, recently observed, in spite of the harm to his re-election chances, "western Pennsylvania is racist!" I agree.
As far as government going as far as it can, I disagree. Existing antidiscrimniation laws go virtually unenforced these days. Properly administered affirmative action, where race-discrimination is used as a factor when evaluating equally qualified applicants, also has a role to play.
I was straining to hear Obama suggest this during his Philly "race speech". Nothing.
In many ways we have moved backward since the days when addressing discrimination was taken seriously. Black enrollment at my old school - Virginia Tech, plummeted through the 1980's and 1990's. I see very few black students up here at Pitt or Penn State too - although to be fair I see few students from working class backgrounds of any race.
ARAQUIN-
There are no quick "solutions". Yes, many people are ignorant or downwrong racist, of course. But there are an awfully lot of conservative heartland people who are democrat. Except for some exceptions the Red/Blue state divide is a myth, at least as far as the national election goes. For the most part it swings 55-45 depending on which state and that is not a huge difference when you think about it.
I think progressives and especially lefties need to put aside this rhetoric of "us vs them" and be more inclusive. So many of us have had good educations or have been exposed to other points of view but it does not help our cause to belittle the plight of those less fortunate.
We all know the education system and the media are to blame, the fact that people are reiterating this stuff on main street or in the saloons and taverns is sad but for the most part people who hold ignorant or mean-spirited beliefs were taught them.
We are fighting the system, not people abused by the system. Our anger should be directed at that.
LOGOS-
Yup. We need to heal ourselves and each other first. I look at the language and posturing on the left and think, "sure I agree with your views but I don't want to trade angry right-wing ideology for angry left-wing ideology." I am not anti-radical or anti-revolution but we need to have cool heads or we will never succeed. We need to have a humanist ideology and not be reactionary.
REPUBLICAN TROLL-
I agree with you but I have been trying to engage people on this site with the idea of trying to use this new momentum from the Obama campaign to win over more progressives and try to force the Dems to become more progressive, and if that does not work to then use that coalition to get behind a third party. I don't understand the logic of realizing there is so much at stake yet then not be willing to compromise.
It seems that so many of the third party people are just casting a vote to ease their conscience. Then they irrationally espouse that Obama would not make things at least a little better for those they say they care about.
If I were Joe six-pack and came to this site and saw what was happening here I would think progressive were just a bunch of squabblers who couldn't care less about the real world and just cared about pushing their own agendas down people's throats. There is no community here just people ranting at each other. It is too bad because unlike places like Huffpost, here you are allowed to really discuss issues and it is more open to non Obama supporters.
I don't know. I want to get involved in the community again but it is hard with all these egos ideologues in it.
If we took the study of the human psyche more seriously, politics would tend to take care of itself.
I totally disagree with that idea. There's no such thing as politics "taking care of itself." That's a laissez-faire idea, which will always lead to domination by the strongest.
What has to be studied is the dynamics of social organization -- things like social class interactions; how power works; conformism & group pressure; the influence of media; & the concept of producing to satisfy human needs, as opposed to making profits. It's more Marxism, with emphasis on sociology & economics than it is an inward-looking study of "the human psyche" -- though to be sure, there's a psychologogical element as well (the dynamics of conformism & group pressure).
"There's no such thing as politics "taking care of itself.""
Sure there is. A revolution pretty much takes care of it...like the market taking care of itself...by melting down. Of course, it's far better to fix what's wrong rather than wait for a revolution.
I think LOGOS.NINE is just saying that we need to be the change we want to see. To think that we can elevate society without elevating our consciousness as a society is not realistic.
Yes, we need strategies and we need to study theories but it will be a hell of a lot easier to connect with people who are "awake" so to speak. Many people vote against their own interests for one reason or another.
Progressives need to join together in what unites us and not focus on details of how we disagree.
For instance you say that you "totally disagree" at first and then end up more or less agreeing at the end.
I don't know, I guess I just wish we were all a little more thoughtful about our communications. We seem to be so passionate about what is wrong with the world but we have to work together. To just spout ideas about how things should be and yet not be the type of people who can implement that change seems dishonest and hypocritical.
We need to be pragmatic and emphasize how to bring about change or else we are just preaching to the choir.
why can't we both join together in what unites us and examine and understand the details of why we disagree?
logos.nine--I couldn't agree more!
We do need to work on changing limited belief systems that have narrowly and immaturely defined human nature for several thousand years. We cannot create a world that sustains and rejuvenates and affirms our highest selves, while holding beliefs that we are innately 'sinful' and flawed by virtue of our humaness. And then look toward religious authorities to forgive us and lead us. No, not just religious authorities, but that is the underlying paradigm here. It is the template for all the hierarchical/patriarchal systems.
It goes very deep.
Pat, Bob,
Great article. Also thank you for bringing Naomi Klein to Austin last week.
Charlie Jackson
Texans for Peace
http://www.texansforpeace.org
There's one thing I don't get. Most polls show Obama trailing McCain by 10 to 15 points in Texas. So, why would someone on the left vote for Obama, knowing that we face this list of crisis, and knowing that Obama will do little to improve them and may well make them worse?
Isn't that a good time to vote for someone like McKinney or Nader who seem to have views much, much closer to these authors than Obama?
In general, any votes for any of the alternative candidates help lead to future changes. This is because its a way of publicly standing up and stating that you don't agree with the course this nation is on and that you want serious and real change.
When people look at the results of this election afterwards, every person who doesn't believe in the awful policies of Reagan\Bush\Clinton\Bush\McCain\Obama in these key area of crisis, and they are all pretty close to each other in these areas, but whenever any person who doesn't believe in these policies votes for Obama, that diminishes the record that is made of who does and does not support these policies in this country.
A strong vote for these alternative candidates helps to send a message to the other Americans who can feel something is wrong that there are serious alternatives being built. But any vote for Obama helps send the message that Americans are happy with being a corrupt empire heading for ecological disaster, and it helps to discourage other Americans who think we need real change but don't see it developing.
Especially in a solid McCain state like Texas, I'd really wish these authors and others like them would take the opportunity to go on the record in opposition to the course this nation is on, and to do so in a way that is clear and obvious to everyone that says we want to build an alternative and that we are out there doing it right now ... come join us.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Nader and Mckinney aren't on the ballot, only as write-ins. The only 3rd party candidate on the ballot is Bob Barr and he's nothing but an opportunist ruining the Libertarian Party which Ron Paul tried to repair. Sorry but I'm voting for Obama so he can win the popular vote big. Nader should have run in 1980. He's too weak at this point to push for anything. Sorry.
.There are weaknesses aplenty, but the platform of Ralph Nader is not one of them. When compared with those of the two "major" candidates it becomes rather obvious that Nader's is the superior. Thus the real question is one of how you perceive your vote. Do you seek to cast your ballot for the "winner" as if it were some sort of TV quiz show? Or instead do you support that candidate who best expresses your own vision for this nation? How does one achieve change for the better when you continue to fall for such silly logic as you do?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
And what of McKinney? Do none of the progressives on this site look at Nader and McKinney and wonder why they both are running, AGAINST EACH OTHER? If the third party were to become realistic, then it might gain enough votes to matter. But then again, to become realistic in winning it would need to move away from the far left, which would lose all the ultra-progressives who now support them.
Think about who you are voting for. I would love to vote for myself and win, since I am the only person who I agree with entirely... but does that sound realistic? If a third party wants to get serious it needs to build up it's support and divide it with several candidates. Build up a viable third party from the lowest levels of government up.
If we continue to just dream of a third option it will never happen.
“One of the most tragic things I know about human nature is that all of us tend to put off living. We are all dreaming of some magical rose garden over the horizon-instead of enjoying the roses blooming outside our windows today.”
-- Dale Carnegie
.But you contradict yourself,RT.
"If we continue to just dream of a third option it will never happen"
I do not choose to dream, therefore I vote for the candidate of my choice, not the party most likely to win. That McKinney runs, Nader runs, Barr runs, some flat earther too, is not relevent to the discussion. The more choices we get the better our democracy works.
I do not disagree that a viable third party ( or two or three) would be desirable, especially if they resulted in seats in the Congress, and some day they will I believe. But I firmly oppose your belief that a candidate should pander to the center in order to win an election based upon a false stance. I do not, not for one second, believe that Barack Obama is running a deceptive campaign, I believe that he is who he states himself to be, a corporatist, a war monger, a centrist and one who is wedded to the status quo of money buying governance.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
For those who think racism is not a major feature of American society why the election of Obama as our president is such a big deal for so many people?
For those people who persistently deny that racism is rampant in America, may I quote or paraphrse Shakespeare, "Hey dude, you protest too much!" You have just exposed yourself for what you are, a closet racist or a racist with a guilty conscience.
By the way, you have evolved a rung or two above those racists who are proud to be white-supremacists and who refuse to proffer any justification for protecting and promoting the status quo, saying that they need no justification.
to jacob freeze:
i want to make it clear, i am NOT, repeat NOT calling you a white supremacist. i am saying that your comments smack of some unresolved issues around white privilege.
"Obama doesn't claim the radical roots of the anti-apartheid struggles of recent U.S. history, the symbolic value of this election is not a trivial consideration."
If Obama loses, all of us "progressives" should vote for Alan Keyes or Colin Powell in 2012.
I know they don't stand for any progressive values, but they're considered black, and the "symbolic value" of their skin color "is not a trivial consideration."
Or, if voting for a person with dark skin is all that is important to someone, then they could vote for Cynthia McKinney in this election.
At least then you'd be getting a President who's good for something beyond 'symbolic value'.
But yeah, you are right on. Most Obama voters seem to be easily able to rationalize themselves into a vote for Alan Keyes or Colin Powell. Many of them seem to have made up fantasy versions of Obama in their heads anyways, so why could they just make up a fantasy that Alan Keyes is really a progressive and then go vote for him.
Heck, Colin Powell is probably already to the left of Obama anyways. For the people who argue that we should be happy to take tiny little steps in the 'right direction', then moving from Obama to Colin Powell would be such a step.
And yes, I consider Colin Powell a war criminal. Its just that I'd also expect to consider President Obama a war criminal by 2012, based on his stated policies.
(Actions that would make Obama a war criminal .... continuing the war in Iraq instead of immediately ending it. The first time he follows through on his promises to attack inside the sovereign nation of Pakistan. When he follows through on his promise to attack Iran to stop them from getting the bomb that both the CIA and the IAEA say they aren't building. Should he delay at all in not only closing Guatamino AND the rest of the CIA's black prison system world wide, and should he delay at all in stopping the policies of having the CIA kidnap, extraordinarily rendition, and torture.
One reason I won't vote for Obama is that I consider it highly likely for him to be a war criminal, and it may not take too long into his administration for him to decide to become one. Ain't no way I can possibly go vote for someone who I consider likely by their own statements to commit war crimes.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
I completely agree with the analysis. Yes, indeed!
BUT: As far as I can see, the majority of Americans is so uneducated and dumbed by TV or whatever distraction they are into, that any of the lucid conclusions the authors are offering just won't work.
Austin is an exception in that area anyway, as one knows, but these two surely haven't been travelling in the American Midwest lately. Or "heartland".
They surely haven't left Austin and they haven't just talked to the folks in Texas generally. Because they probably would have contemplated suicide if they had.
So: YES re your conclusions, but NO re your expectation, which I sense:
America is a structurally conservative country. Think Saudi Arabia, to get an idea.
Actually an EXTREMELY conservative country. To do what you want, you'd need an entire overhaul of the very system your kids are taught to be basically divine and untouchable and the best in the world at school. They are not taught that theirs is the only country on earth that hasn't changed its rules of the game for more than 200 years, mind you!!
Try to beat that exercise in brainwashing!
If they can give $800 billion to the bankers in two days they could Impeach Bush in a couple hours given all the work has already been done. Shame on you Democrats!
This is one of the few calls for a vote for Obama that actually makes some sense. I am sick to death of people who argue this election with grand abtractions like "McCain equals fascism" and "Obama equals hope". These are the most difficult years of any we face, particularly so now in face of the financial crisis and the ongoing imperial war that both parties are up to their blood soaked collars in, and our sociopathic denial of the obvious.
12 days left to Impeach Bush and Cheney.
Jensen and Youngblood have described the problem accurately, but that's the easy part. On the harder part, offering a nebulous concept like "radical change" will not do. So here is an arguement for socialism.
The people of the United States are struggling with a marked escalation of the class war. Maybe no one has a firm grip on "what is to be done?", to borrow Lenin's phraseology. But it is for sure a time to reject fatalism, defeatism, nihilism and any other current which involves the people in rolling over to die quietly.
If Karl Marx was right, we have reached the end times not of humanity but of the capitalist economic system. It is a time when the working class was, through its collective discipline and might, supposed to conduct and win a war with the bourgeoisie and establish its rule. Then the building of socialism was to commence. War, racism and poverty would be banished in the ensuing years along with all of capitalism's pathological influences on man.
What are the prospects for this scenario? However likely or remote, the idea should not be given up on because the other choices are too horrific to passively accept--the Orwellian state, bands of survivalists roaming a scorched landscape, the extinction of the human being.
So it comes down to a must win for the working class and its allies among the petty bourgeois over the capitalist ruling class and its allies among the petty bourgeois (those among the intelligentsia that spread hopelessness and confusion among working people for 30 pieces of silver).
There are, it seems, two loci of power in the ruling class. First are members of the class based on the ownership of the means of production--the financiers, the industrialist, and the other human repositories of massive wealth (Gates, Cheney, Paulson, the Bush Family, the Walton Family...). Then there is the military high command, the last card in the capitalist deck, without which, the civilian side of the ruling class is essentially powerless once their economic superstructure collapses.
An important question would seem to be, what is the potential for splitting the not wealthy military top brass from their masters? The rank-and-file soldier has already been deemed unreliable and so the formation and building of Blackwater, a private bourgeois shadow army. It's possible that rather than writing the bourgeoisie's errand boys in the Congress we should try to reach Petraeus, Fallon, Mullen, Odierno, Powell, Wilkerson and others and remind them of Cheney's five Vietnam deferments before they acquiesce in his commands to the brigade shipping from Iraq in October to serve as "an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks" here inside the United States.
Meanwhile, on our side of the class struggle, there is admittedly no US political party or other formation which expresses the destiny of the working class to power and socialism. Class consciousness would seem to be an endangered sentiment. But think about it, would not the United States be the last place where a consciousness of themselves as a class would seize the minds of working people? That's what empire, that's what imperialism, that's what racism functions to do.
Class consciousness can develop very quickly in a people though! It is on the rise in the US right now in the reaction to the proposed Wall Street bailout. It will accelerate as the material cocoon provided by the world's dominant economy wears out.
Workers, united across all artificial boundaries created by capitalism, whether nation, race, sex, or religion are the only hope now. This is the only force capable of staying the hand of the bourgeoisie and insuring the human experiment "shall not perish from the earth", to borrow Lincoln's phraseology.
In your circle, however large or small that may be, in everything you write and say, draw the boundary lines clearly for people between the opposing forces in this final class war. Don't confuse them with Democrats and Republicans. The ruling class is wealthy, we work for a living. Build our forces by raising class consciousness and giving every worker the best chance of making the right decisions in the battles just over the horizon now.
Thanks for the well-reasoned discussion! I think you are right, we need to spend less time pointing out the problems of the free market and spend some of that time pointing out why socialism is better for workers.
or less time pointing out anything and more time doing something, but im sure you agree
Can't do much better than to have Lenin respond for me. "Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. This idea cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity."
"Yes, Obama is black, and McCain selected a female running mate, but neither candidate ever speaks of patriarchy or white supremacy."
And I say that at this moment in history, we should all be thankful for that.
If Barack Obama laced his stump speech, ads, or media interview responses with references to the evils of patriarchy and/or the sins of white racism in American history and society, thousands of voters would recoil from his candidacy and flee overnight in droves to endorse four more years of Republican rule. Just look at the price Barack paid during the primaries for a fleeting moment of clumsy candor at a San Francisco fundraiser, when he mentioned rural working class folks beaten down by the economic system bitterly clinging to their guns and bibles. Karl Roves's sound bite spinmeisters would have a field day. Goodbye to reaching across the aisle for dialogue transcending the era of divisive, partisan wedge issue politics.
By the same token, I shudder to think what words would tumble forth from John McCain or Sarah Palin's lips at their GOP constituents' rallies if they began speaking openly about feminazis, or the dangerous looming spectre of giving Reverend Wright's brand of black liberation theology a spare key to the back door of the White House.
Sometimes, silence really is better than either honesty or hypocrisy, at least until the ballots have been cast and counted.
Bill from Saginaw
you say that obama's silence on the evils or patriarchy and the sins of white racism are better. better for who?
Nice article, guys. I would have liked some broad ideas about what we can do (anti-recruitment, attend the School of the Americas protest in Ft. Benning Georgia this November, protest the next G8 meeting, join a progressive activist party/group, join an environmental activist group). But your perspective was dead on.
I also wish you would have mentioned that it is criminal for someone who realizes these things (that we live in an ecologically unsustainable, imperialist system) to vote for one of the two major parties *in a safe state*. I live in CA, and the knowledge that millions of people who sit far left of the Democratic Party will cast their votes for Obama on Nov 4th--entirely unnecessarily, since he would win by a landslide even if they sat at home--frustrates and angers me.
BTW, I will be a little smug and say that, if anyone had done their homework on Marxism, they would have come to your realization long ago. The individual-rights emphasis of the French and American revolutions was progressive, because it swept aside all inherited rule (monarchy), medieval castes, and feudal privilege. But it was always inevitable from the very beginning that a pure system of inalienable rights for individuals--alongside inheritance, so that wealth many times greater than a single generations' worth can be accumulated--would lead to a new class system. And indeed it has: single individuals and families own sections of our economy greater than some small countries. This inequality is actually greater than anything experienced in feudal societies, despite the fact that nowadays the exploiters and exploited are all technically just "citizens" (as opposed to a complex system of nobility and inherited titles). It will take collective organizing and collective action to fix this system. Correct utilization of our individual rights--the secret ballot, freedom of speech, etc.--in this struggle is important, but ultimately, only for the purpose of organizing ourselves. Any real and lasting/final progressive victory in an advanced class system such as our own requires a strong collective consciousness, expressed in the formation and strengthening of collective organizations (labor unions, etc.). Not voting for politicians put up by one of the two capitalist parties.
Well said jimmyjazz.
The true goal of capitalism has always been the creation of only two classes: masters and slaves.
There is no way to Peace. Peace is the Way.
the way to go is the way we came...stop, turn around, go back...undo, unmake, unbuild...clean up, replant, repopulate...
we must pick a day in the not-too-distant future when all will begin to live the 'new way'...lone individuals attempting to leave the cyclic (school\job\property ownership) pack, wise though their actions may be, will have very difficult roads ahead if forced to do so under current conditions...those trapped in the cycle tend to reinforce one another...only many, willingly abandoning this cycle and entering the 'new way' together, will have a chance, due to the imperative nature of large-scale fundamental, philosophical change...it will take large numbers of engaged participants to create the impetus for success...we pick a day, then spend the interim preparing, cleaning, planting...
Let me, as a part of a much larger like-minded group, do one single act in this life that feels like a genuine move in this planet-restoring direction, rather than a token, throw-away gesture in the face of the tsunami...
"The second, from people who don't find such claims crazy and share the basic analysis, is that we have to be realistic and tone down our arguments, precisely because most Americans won't take seriously anyone who speaks so radically.
But if being realistic has something to do with facing reality, then arguments for radical change are the most realistic. When problems are the predictable consequence of existing systems and no solutions are plausible within them, then arguing for continued capitulation to those systems isn't realistic. It's literally insane."
And therein lies the most dissonant part of the problem that faces those who understand the inherent contradiction of reinforcing a self-destructive system, but who also advocate voting for "The Party" that harms us through that system.
Engaging in behavior that only harms us, does nothing to address the root problem. Do you wish to continue harming yourself, your community, your nation, other counties in your global neighborhood... and the very Earth that sustains us all?
If so, walk through door number one and vote. If not, opt out, walk through door number 2 and work for change that you will not be able to achieve by choosing most all that is behind destructive door number one.
The problem is that we are conditionable... We Pavlovian voters can not help ourselves. Even when the result of the stimulus: "vote", leads directly to self-defeating consequences, we will still vote.
The lie: "Every Vote Counts!"
Vote! It doesn't matter if it is more or less than a dime's worth of difference (for Congressional approval it's about a dime, for Presidential approval it's about two dimes)... the point is, it's not enough to add up to "real change". It's "chump change" on a self-defeating scale... and every four years, that dime is devalued.
In this "buddy can you spare me a dime" world that you point to, we expect YOU to get it. Why? Because all your analysis is nearly spot on... it's just your conclusion that is "insane".
But the *really* insane thing is that YOU KNOW IT... you just can't shake that conditioning, nor (here it comes) do you want to try.
If the Liberty Bell is nothing more than a conditioning agent to gain validation for those who continue to destroy the future for almost all of us, then we must modify our behavior in a way that IS radically different... in a way that is life-sustaining. Disabling those who attempt to disenfranchise us is our only sane choice. Voting will only nurture that corrupt system and continue to diminish any protest to the consequences, after the fact.
Yes, we howl when voting hurts, but we can't blame others when it is "We the People" who are self-inflicting the pain... and those who ring the bell know it. Nobody (yet) forces you through door number one... but they do condition you to choose it.
So, I will NOT vote on Nov. 4... or with some hesitation, I will issue a protest vote. But more importantly, on Nov. 5, I will continue to be realistic and talk about the radical change necessary to build a different world.
If ever there was a time in modern history that invited people to listen to arguments for and understand the positive consequences of radical change... it is now.
Prove me wrong.
Didn't somebody say that if you repeat the same action while expecting a different outcome then you must be insane? That, I am afraid, is what we are doing with this periodical "voting binge". We are insane.
There is no need to prove you wrong becaue I think you misunderstood what they are saying. They are NOT saying you should NOT be radical or have radical arguments. They are saying we should tone down the rhetoric. That is, to present radical analyses with less radical jargon. Jensen wrote a book called Writing Dissent, which is precisely about this. Its a great book.
There are semantic ways of pointing out the problems of our economic system to less "radical" people than using terms like "private ownership of the means of production" or "socialism."
That is their point.
I got it... unfortunately, to me that is the same as saying... "participation in the democratic process can be measured by a vote count once every four years"... as in the "shut up and vote" conditioning that the entire population is constantly barraged with.
I don't think the rhetoric is LOUD enough... that is why we only have ONE party.
Those who promote radical approaches to finding solutions to our problems by concluding that voting is currently a part of any real solution, are either self-deluded or they are cleverly part of the spin... for some of the reasons I outlined.. and which you refused to address.
And although this post openly admitted it was more of a "feel good" act than anything else... the conclusion was similar to most all other posts promoting Obama... yes, lesser evil, but vote for him anyway and protest softly... if at all.
This post is just one more version of the "I'm (fill in the blank with a label du jour), but I'm voting for The Party"... the tired old propaganda that CD has been inundating us with for weeks (Thanks Craig). Tone it down??? I haven't even started to turn it up!
The reason we are in this mess is that almost *everyone* has "toned it down" to the extent that those who are supposed to SERVE... can't hear us... or refuse to hear us because we are not *demanding* change.
We are a nation parked in front of a phony reality TV program called "America's Top Corporatist"... and all the so-called progressives/radicals/leftists are urging us to "phone in our vote" for their brand of right-wing corporatism. It makes me sick to believe that American politics have been co-opted to this extent.
Shut up? I think not. America is ready to hear some truth for a change, and it does not need to be soft peddled as nursery rhymes or spoon-fed as pabulum.
If you want radical action, start talking to people like they have a stake in this country and let them know in no uncertain terms that what is rightly theirs is being stolen from under their noses by greedy bastards who do not want us to speak out and speak loudly.
We need to take it back to the streets... and in a BIG way. NOW!
Saying that we live in a "white-supremacist" country with a "patriarchy" isn't "radical", its just plain INCORRECT.
The basic realization that the message is "not coming across well" with the People is good, and I suppose I should commend the Authors' for that.
But they are FAR too certain of the correctness of their analysis. It honestly never seems to occur to them that they migh not be "radical", that they might just be plain wrong.
Democracy is the meme that our Culture has grown around, therefore all messages have to speak in democratic terms, AND be based on the common understanding of the People to be successful.
The common understanding of the People is not that they are ignorant, racist jerks like these academics appear to believe. But is instead that they think Beyonce and Denzel are HOT, they have three Hispanic cousins, they work a job they hate for too little money, and all they ever get for "social analysis" and "politics" is the Wealthiest 20% shoving their own Classist concepts down everyone else's throat.
The sad part here is that these folks seem to come so close to this understanding, but can't seemed to leave their class- and socio-cultural prejudices behind.
It seems like this election coverage has been going on forever. Will it really be over in a couple of weeks? Probably not, the experts will continue their inane analysis of all the ramifications of the results; on and on go the blabbermouths of punditocracy. A serious look a both anointed candidates indicates a high probability of very little changing, at least from a top down perspective. Whoever mounts the executive throne will inherit unprecedented powers. Think Obama will willingly give those up? That much unchecked power is dangerous no matter how seemingly benevolent they appear on their way to the throne.
The most important vote is not with the ballot but with the wallet. The capitalist system, as it exists now, only survives by our purchasing consent. Refuse to buy their crap, they change to accommodate your wishes, or they perish. Of course that kind of conscious purchasing activity takes awareness, self education, and continual refinement, but most importantly it takes discipline. Looks to me like it's easier for most to sit back on their couches with their corporate burgers and beer and watch the corporate news as it feeds their dulling gray matter with sugar coated lies, deceptions, false "hope", and "exciting up to the minute coverage" of the latest bullshit contest of genuine nonsense.
I'll do my civic duty and vote, for Nader and our local progressives, but, after Nov 4, I'll continue to follow Voltaire's admonition in Candide and cultivate my own garden, (with like minded friends of course), doing all that I can, on a daily basis, to refuse to feed the machine.
Very good article. Jensen is always thorough & thoughtful. // The only point I'd question here is that according to polls, Texas will definitely go for McCain by a wide margin, so Jensen & Youngblood could easily vote for a real Left candidate, without fearing they'd be helping McCain.
It's worth noting that there's a world of difference between the article's sophisticated & thoughtful perspective, & that of the naive Democratic voter who simply votes for Obama, believing he'll be "a transformative president who will move the country in the right direction."
This difference is immense, even if the naive Dem voter & the article's authors vote for the same guy.
Jensen and Youngblood talk about "this white-supremacist nation"...
I guess Barack and Michelle Obama must have belonged to one of the oppressed minorities in "this white-supremacist nation" right up until...
When?
When Barack was elected to the US Senate by the white supremacists in Illinois?
When Michelle's salary was bumped $200,000 by white supremacists in Chicago as an (immediate) reward for Barack's election to the US Senate?
Was Barack still living in a white-supremacist nation when he got a full scholarship to prep school in Hawaii?
Was Barack still living in a white-supremacist nation when he got a full scholarship to Columbia?
Was Michelle still living in a white-supremacist nation when she got a full scholarship to Princeton?
Were Barack and Michelle still living in a white-supremacist nation when both of them got full scholarships to Harvard Law School?
The answer to all these questions is still Yes Yes Yes according to Jensen and Youngblood, and even after Obama is elected President, all of us will still be living in a white-supremacist nation, because if all of us weren't living in a white-supremacist nation, then...
Hypocritical race-baiting ideologues like Jensen and Youngblood wouldn't be able to get their ludicrous essays published anywhere, not even by the silly little peer-reviewed journals that are the typical venue for hypocritical race-baiting ideologues like Jensen and Youngblood, much less by a progressive internet news aggregator like Common Dreams.
Jacob Freeze
whoa. i see that you're having lots of feelings about this article. unfortunately, your questions speak clearly to the fact that the obamas are the exceptions that prove the rule.
so we don't live in a white supremacist nation because some people of color, somewhere, sometimes, in small groups, are able to go to college?
we also know it's not white supremacist because if it was, jensen and youngblood wouldn't be able to get their essays published?
you know, i tend to find folx' ability to deny angrily the entrenched legacy of white supremacy and institutionalized racism, despite so so so many examples, statistics, and studies that illustrate that legacy so nicely, proof of just HOW influential white supremacist attitudes and behaviors are.
a friendly-intentioned suggestion: if you do decide to look around for white supremacy, and the white privilege that feeds it so wonderfully, check yourself.
Harharharhar!!!
Anyone who can't see white supremacism everywhere must be a white supremacist.
Harharharhar!!!
Jensen, Youngblood, and now "cicely" aren't just race-baiting fanatics...
These guys are gibbering hallucinators!
Don't you see anything just the least bit weird about the assertion that a white-supremacist nation is about to elect a black President?
Doesn't that assertion awaken the tiniest glimmer of cognitive dissonance in you, "cicely?"
A white-supremacist nation is about to elect a black President!
Roll that beautiful phrase around once or twice in your brain!
A white-supremacist nation is about to elect a black President!
It sound like a pronouncement by the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland.
Harharharhar!!!
Or maybe it's more like Humpty-Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass:
"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'"
So when Humpty Jensen and Dumpty Youngblood use the words "white supremacist," it means "about to elect a black President," but when the rest of us use it, it refers to something more like the ante-bellum South...
But it's also possible that the delusional Jensen and Youngblood think the Confederacy also elected a couple of black Presidents.
It's obviously a typical feature of white-supremacist nations throughout history.
Harharharhar!!!
This suggests an excellent test-question for testing prospective members of Jensen and Youngblood's delusional race-baiting fraternity:
"Name three black Presidents of the Confederacy."
Anyone who can answer that question can probably also explain how a white-supremacist nation is about to elect a black President!
Harharharhar!!!
Jacob Freeze
part of what i wrote earlier was unclear, and as a result, unintentionally inflammatory.
JACOB FREEZE--i am not, repeat NOT, calling you a white supremacist. i AM suggesting that you might want to learn and understand what white privilege is, what it looks like in the world, and how it functions to feed white supremacy. also, you might want to figure out what it has to do with you.
also--is the confederacy really the only metric by which you measure white supremacy and racism?
Here's a clue:
Try to remember way back when you were in high school, in 2007, and somebody tells you that a club at your school is full of white supremacists.
Then you notice that the President of the club is black...
[And the penny still doesn't drop!]
But while we're talking about metrics, let's not forget the famous Jensen-Youngblood metric:
How many black Presidents of the Confederacy can you name?
Jensen and Youngblood can name 468 black Presidents of the Confederacy, because they are very, very sensitive to signs of white supremacism, as measured by the Youngblood-Jensen metric!
Jacob Freeze
While overt expressions of bigotry have become uncommon (but still heard here in western Pennsylvania), one must understand how embedded racism is in the machinery of our society.
In my city, I can go to the northeastern suburb of Penn Hills find waht look like incredible bargains in homes - solidly built well-kept houses for $40,000 to 80,000. Identical houses in, say the southern suburbs of Whitehall or Bethel Park sell for 95,000 to 160,000. The difference? Penn Hills is seeing an influx of black families and is mow probably about 25 percent black. And those houses actually aren't good bargains because they will continuing to decline in value proportional to the black population. So, even someone who insists they arent'r racist - even a black person - who can afford to lieve elsewhere, must make a race-based decision NOT to buy a house in Penn Hills, lest they face serious financial prbelems with a house that is worth less than the mortgage (we never had a RE bubble here in the rust belt) And mind you, these are middle class black poeple moving to Penn Hills, the houses are well kept, crime is low. RE taxes and schools are similar too.
Please explain this without invoking the role of racism embedded in a society - not individuals - a society.
But, the facts are there is plenty of racism among individuals too. Recently, my aging father who lives in the Northern Virginia/DC area was sent to a rehab center to allow him to recover from a severe ulcer that almost killed him. Several of my sisters visited the center and went into open revolt - insisting that the center was an awful place and that needs to someone "spring him" from the center and take him back to the retirement home and my mother. - even though it would be aginst medical advide. The e-mails went back and forth incresingly shrill, unlil my oldest sister - a trained medical techniciam, went to the center and determined that my father was actually receving good care. Her e-mail ended with a most telling note: ."...and just because the nurses and staff are from Africa or the Carribean doesn't mean they are bad caregivers".
So there you have it. It appears that mearly all this percepton of the rehab center being of poor quality was simply the skin color of the staff.
These are just two recent examples of things I witness every day. I am tiring of this racism-denial among so many people - including Obama himself.
Hell, I'd go to Penn Hills and buy one of those homes. I sure as hell would not want to raise a family in some non-diverse white bubble.
There is "racism" yes. which is silly because there are no such things as "races" of people.
But does this justify the Authors' repeated labelling of our Society as "white-supremacist"?
This is what Mr. Freeze was reacting to -a bit too exitedly in my opinion.
These people are a bit much frankly. They lost me when they just PRESUMED for themselves the Rare-possession-of-Truth, when they stated that "the response of the majority of Americans(sic)" to their ideas would be "to condemn them as crazy".
Yeah, professor, we're all against you because we're all ignorant jerks. Your ideas fail to gain traction only because of our -apparently purely reactionary and without merit- "responses". Its not the caustic and accusatory and SUPERIOR way in which you present them. And its certainly not any possible flaw in your analysis.
That was enough for me and I stopped reading.
Every time someone in Austin espouses a dark view of "race" and gender relations in the U.S., I like to remind them to do what I did: LEAVE TEXAS. And watch your worldview get sunnier.
You are absolutely correct when you state there are no separate races within the human species. There are only superficial ethnic contrasts. This fact is often lost on people who believe that the universe was created a mere six thousand years ago.
I presently live in new mexico. I am "white" and my wife is "black".
I can a assure you that "racism" is more prevalent here than in texas. My father lives in arlington so I have spent a good deal of time there. Very often here, if you are black or your last name is not hispanic, there is a none too subtle undercurrent of prejudice. This is particularly evident in the depressed job market.
There is no way to Peace. Peace is the Way.
here's a funny, but true, thing. paradoxical, but i find it to be well worth understanding: even though the scientists have made it clear that race doesn't exist biologically, race as a (powerful) social construct is alive and kicking.
you don't think our society is white supremacist?
you know, i unwittingly took your challenge: i left the south, where i'm from, and moved to progressive portland. i was waiting for my worldview to get sunnier. it got whiter and lighter, but as a black woman, i still deal with racism every single day.
You're "dealing" with "racism" in PORTLAND?
I'm pretty surprised, actually. I've found Portland to be a quite tolerant place. When you say you "deal" with this "every single day" what do you mean exactly? People shouting insults at you? Or a feeling you get that they are uncomfortable around you? My point is, are people DOING things which are "racist" or are you "sensing" that they have hostility.
I'm not doubting you here, but I think that we can agree there is a difference between my two hypothetical extremes.
Do you think refering to yourself as "a black woman" plays any part in keeping "race" "alive and kicking" as a "social construct"?
Again, no offense meant. But I think "racism" will only truly go away when we drop "race" as a concept -including as self-identification.
And no, our Society is most certainly NOT a "white-supremacist" one. If it were would mocking presentations of bigoted "white" people in support of John McCain send Obama's (a half African's) poll numbers UP?
I mean, this just seems kind of blindingly obvious to me, so its hard to understand people not seeing it.
We are a WEALTH-supremacist Society.
"White" was another "social construct" -just like "race" or "black"- that has now lost its usefullness since Wealth has spread beyond Anglo-Saxons and Europeans.
matti
you say you found portland to be "tolerant", i'm assuming about race. are you white?
The article would have been better and more unifying without getting into divisive gender and racial issues. There have been imperialists of every race. It grows out of a particular kind of ideology combined with some economic/military advantage, an advantage that Europeans and Americans held for the last few centuries, but which they are losing now. The Chinese and Japanese would find it funny and a bit strange to hear a US citizen speak of white domination in the present. And I find it a bit strange to read of the dangers of continued male domination when the majority of college graduates in the US today are female, and the percentage grows year by year, meaning that domination is soon coming to an end regardless of what any of us do.
And I may be mistaken, but I believe the authors are promoting a popular leftist worldview which demonizes hierarchies in general. Meritocratic hierarchies generally win competitions against other systems. It is not by accident that successful military and corporate organizations almost always are based on some form of meritocratic hierarchy. Hierarchical systems can produce extreme inequality, but it does not have to be that way. I can imagine egalitarian socialist hierarchies which could provide a roughly equal quality of life for everyone. And I do not see how the left can defeat the hierarchical right while completely abandoning that form of organization.
Terms like "meritocracy" and "successful" are a bit to subjective for my taste.
In a capitalist society the most "meritorious" individuals are almost exclusively the most ruthless, dishonest, avaricious and devoid of conscience. This is what leads to "success" in a system that rewards the most base tendencies of human nature while punishing hard work, productivity and honesty with impoverishment and marginalization.
There is a universe of difference between those who lead and those who rule.
A society which produced leaders would not require any formal hierarchical structure. Leaders arise from the general populace when circumstances require.
Such a civilization would also have little need for excessive military development since it would be motivated not by nationalism or ethnic bias, but by the need and desire to perpetuate the human species.
Rulers create and manipulate hierarchies to further their own agendas without regard for the commonality and its welfare. They also provoke and perpetuate war for the purposes of personal aggrandizement, advancing their empirical delusions and apparently take great pleasure in dispensing suffering and death indiscriminately.
There is no way to Peace. Peace is the Way.
so, gender and racial issues are divisive, but we shouldn't talk about them for the sake of a unity that apparently doesn't exist? will the choice to not talk about them constitute unity? at whose expense?
Cicely, it is my guess that you will be talking about racial and gender issues. And there will be many others doing so as well. As a matter of fact, I am quite confident that there will be many more talking about such issues than there will be people talking about the importance of promoting unity of the left.
the authors' made many really fabulous points--about the need to re-vision economic interactions, what democratic participation looks like, etc. i am all for unity. i am absolutely 100% behind standing in solidarity with people who reflect my views and share my struggles. i totally recognize that the people who fall into those categories identify as all manner of things that i don't: christian, jewish, atheist, white, latino, male, queer, etc.
but--my political and ideological views stem from my experience in the world. that experience is shaped and colored by my identity. 'black' and 'woman' are not the sole arbiters of my identity, or even necessarily the most important. however, they are the most visible, and hence the ones that folx react to the most. i refuse to give up part of my identity, part of what has shaped my values and politics, because it's 'divisive'. further, i refuse to accept that i can either talk about race/gender/oppression views OR get about the business of 'promoting unity of the left'. if the unity that is being promoted has no space for me and my entire identity, i want no parts of it.
so, i will be voting Green Party for president, and i'll continue to do the everyday tasks, too, things like: conversing with people whose ideas differ from mine, and looking for common ground (the real kind, not the kind where differences are ignored for the sake of 'togetherness').
It is all a matter of emphasis. For example, given an election where each candidate has a 50/50 chance to win in your estimation, would you support a Nader over a Hillary Clinton? Or would you support a Nader over a Barack Obama or some African-American not of mixed heritage? There are quite a number of "progressive" African-American females who would support a Hillary or Barack over Nader in that circumstance because of race or gender issues. And the corporatists know this and they will be grooming what corporatist female and black candidates they can find. And, if the nation becomes more accepting of gay candidates, you can be sure the corporatists will groom some corporatist lesbian, maybe a corporatist black lesbian (maybe Condi?), to run. The left has no chance to ever come out of the wilderness under those conditions.
Seems like the solution for you is to have someone pin the label "corporatist" on corpoate "whores". Maybe that is the only way because the election system we have, that is one based on corporations' money, nurtures ignorant voters. If this penultimate tactic do not work we would just have to wait for a revolution, don't we?
Successful military and corporate organizations 'win' because we; that is, most contemporary societies, have agreed to a rule set that says might makes right. Violence, overt or implied, has been accepted as a method of conflict resolution or social organization. When a value system regards self-aggrandizement as a reflection of self-worth, time is measured by how quickly you get results. Hierarchy works best. You don't have to spend time building and maintaining the trust required to live in cooperative and collaborative systems. Transformation from hierarchy to cooperative and/or collaborative ways of organizing will require a maturation of social consciousness. Defeat implies viewing this change through a hierarchical lens; therfore, nothing has changed, really.
I appreciate your arguments, but I would like to make a couple of points in response. First, violence may occur without acceptance or agreement by the victims or even by the bystanders or the greater society. Those committing the violence are operating under their own rules which might deviate significantly from the rules of the larger group or the group that is subjected to the violence. And they adopt such rules because violence can be the easiest way to achieve particular goals, including self-aggrandizement.
The second is that I would hope that human society could evolve to the point that we would not need to worry about competing against conservative hierarchical organizations, but they exist and they are formidable. I sometimes worry that ever since the McCarthy era the leaders of the American left have so feared accusations and attacks from the right that they have found too much comfort in supporting approaches that are not a threat to anyone with power and certainly not to the corporatists.
I enjoy imagining the day in the future when a "transformation from hierarchy to cooperative and/or collaborative ways of organizing" is possible. It may or may not provide an improvement in the human condition, but it would be worth a try at least. I just do not see that day coming soon, and certainly not while conservative hierarchical organizations exist.
I would find you argument more credible if you could show me a heirarchy that is meritocratic.
I havent' seen one yet.
Every place i've worked - private or government, the guys at the top get ther due to having an extra dose of power-hunger and greed in their personalities rather than any actual competency or talent.
But at least in government the pay is much more equal, so the motivation is more power than greed.
It is a matter of degree. Some systems are more meritocratic than others. Law firms are somewhat meritocratic. And we could all imagine ways to design systems that would be more meritocratic. I think of the social hierarchy in an American highschool. I have not experienced any workplace less meritocratic than that. Though my wife informs me that in Chinese highschools the social hierarchy is completely dependent on academic success.
If capitalism means gangsterism and democracy promotes gangsterism you will get exactlly the same outcome as you now have in America. Gangsterism lives pretty well side by side with so called "meritocracy" and "hierarchical organization". Perhaps it is not an exaggeration to say that meritocracy and hierarchical organisation will always ends up in gangsterism.
Is it possible to distil "goodness" out of both capitalism and and American brand of democracy which pre-suppose that as long as everyone pursues his/her own selfish ends some fairy tale "invisible hand" will somehow gets most thing right for most people if not for everyone?
Maybe both believe systems are flawed beyong repair because the fundamental philosophies underpinning them are false to begin with.
I agree that capitalism means gangsterism. I am a lifelong socialist. I completely disagree that meritocracy or hierarchical organization necessarily leads to gangsterism or to extreme inequality. Those outcomes can be prevented through appropriate childhood development. One sometimes needs fire to fight fire, but one must always recognize that fire is dangerous and must be controlled.
The revolutionists of the past have gone through the same cycle several times,think the French, the Russians and the Chinese revolutionaries.
They have resorted to harsh hierarchical organisation to fortify themselves against strong attacks from their all too real foes. In the end they found it impossible to give up the very same hierarchical organisations which invariably brought them their own downfall.
In gangsterism there never was anything close to what meritocracy was suppose to mean. It only mean that the gang's boss or bosses get to choose the best people to serve their predetermined ends. Since gangsterism was the constant throughout history, we never had meritocracy.
In ancient history, probably the closest system to that of a meritocracy was in China, which conducted national exams to determine who would become an official of the government, a mandarin, with high status in society. That system allowed China to make significant advancements and become one of the great civilizations of the world.
Jacobin revolutions lead to great chaos and to hastily and inefficiently formed organizations, with positions usually based on loyalty and affinity, leading to what could be called "gangsterism" of some form. And, as you point out, it has been difficult for the gangster hierarchies to evolve into something more sustainable and healthy, such as a socialist meritocracy.
I believe that it would be difficult to evolve any system into a socialist meritocracy, but not impossible. I liken it to the development of heavier-than-air aircraft, which involved overcoming several technical hurdles that had discouraged a great many from believing success was achievable. One of the greatest hurdles is the development of procedures to prevent accumulation of and abuse of power. However, we should not allow the failures of the US, Soviet, and Chinese governmental systems to deter us, as they all were based on quite elementary and primitive designs.
And, as I mentioned above, I believe that healthy childhood development could be helpful in reducing the risk of, and degree of, abuse by those with power in any hierarchy.
not maybe, but affirmatively
the invisible hand theory is just a rhetorical flourish for those who advance faith-based economics.
we have plenty of data to show that competition is not altruistic nor possible to maintain and constrain.
competition leads a race to the bottom at the expense of social, economic and enviornmental justice, and is not akin to some friendly sportsmanship game. The idea in economic competition is not to maintain comeptition but to squash it, to dominate, to radically unlevel the playing field so that more and more can be consolidated and consumed.
I wonder why you chose the word "better" to describe what amounts to little more than lying to ourselves. Because the fact is that racism is still a major part of our society, and sweeping it under the rug so we can delude ourselves about being unified wouldn't change a thing or do any good. It certainly doesn't help in seeing what we have overcome and what is left.
And in regards to the gender issue of college graduates, the observation is moot. Being a college graduate doesn't address the issue of gender relations or dominance. Again, while it is an improvement, using it as a means to disregard sexism certainly doesn't help in seeing what we have overcome and what is left.
I have seen tremendous progress in race relations in my life (I am 51). And focusing on racial differences allows the corporatists to continue using that means of dividing the opposition. And love him or hate him, an Obama presidency could not help but further that progress significantly. Also, the ascendancy of China will inevitably demolish what is left of any belief in white superiority.
I have seen comparable changes with regard to gender. Those female college graduates are not in their peak years of productivity and power yet, so of course the domination has not ended, but it will inevitably end when those graduates reach that point. I do not know what your situation is, but from where I sit I see the world changing radically. And again, I see the corporatists ready to use gender to split the left and maintain control. The completely corporatist candidate Hillary Clinton almost won simply by playing the gender card. And there will be more, probably much more, of that to come.
I am only 28 and I too have seen some progress, but my point is that we shouldnt delude ourselves into feeling united simply because we have seen progress.
While we should certainly recognize where we have improved we should be equally cognizant of where we can still improve.
The writers of this article pointed out that we have come a long way but we still got a long way to go. This is a reality we must accept and face.
"So, we will vote on Nov. 4, without hesitation. But more importantly, on Nov. 5 we will be realistic and continue talking about the radical change necessary to build a different world."
Completely agree. Citizenship lasts more than one day.
"The writers of this article pointed out that we have come a long way but we still got a long way to go. This is a reality we must accept and face."
Also completely agree with you, truthaddict.
In the words of William Hastie, the first black judge in this country at a federal level, "Democracy is not being, it is becoming. It is easily lost, but never finally won."
The illusion is that these "problems" are subject to progressive change.
There is not some path that we have a "long way to go" on. There is only evolutionary change, generation by generation, and the will to see the changes or not.
"Racism" and Sexism are now officially and completely untolerated in all aspects of life. This is as far as Government and the Law can go in solving these issues without turning toward Totalitarianism.
So, in terms of Government and Law, we have nowhere to "go" -we are already there- we just have to ensure that what we have established is well maintained.
Socially speaking -meaning actual generalized tolerance and even respect for different "races" and the opposite sex in society- change will only come generationally. In this area continued harping about old wrongs and firm belief in widespread problems can be just as harmful as actual antagonistic beliefs. They can have a sort of "anti-placebo" effect, nothing happened but you feel worse.
And all of this ignores the very obvious fact that Class trumps "Race" or Sex in these United States.
I think the article's authors should get out of Texas for a while and they might notice that the rest of the country ain't as bad.
I speak from experience. I was born in Texas.
Don't Panic,
-matti.
racism and sexism are not officially and completely untolerated in all aspects of life? i wish someone would tell that to the people who keep hitting me with that shit every day. they must have missed the memo.
If you would have kept reading you would have seen that I was speaking in terms of Government and Law.
It is now illegal for "racial" or gender-based prejudice to inhibit any Citizen from work advancement, property ownership, or even use of private service businesses like bars or restaurants. I can't think of any situation where someone could legally restrict your rights because of "race" or gender. And I can think of several situations where they couldn't even legally restrict you in matters that are not fundamental rights -job advancement for instance- on "race" or gender grounds.
Whether you -or anyone else- fight to enforce that legal intolerance is a separate matter altogether.
If people are "hitting you with that shit every day" then you might want to move to a more tolerant and progressive region of the country, or at least get one of the dozens of organizations dedicated SOLELY to combating this sort of thing involved.
whoa^2.
there are lots of examples of the way that white supremacy is codified in our laws. a well-used, but still correct one, has to do with the vastly disparate sentencing for possession and dissemination of different types of drugs.
why should i have to move? are my options love it or leave it?
i don't think so. i choose to stay where i live and get involved.
Not to mention the way the death penalty is applied to prisoners.
or marriage laws.
but even if laws addressed racism and sexism in all imagineable accounts it does nothing to remedy the existing playingfield that is anything but level. We are talking about justice, primarily economic justice.
look at South Africa too. For years the racist apartheid laws were intertwined with economic interests. Giving blacks freedom but no justice makes their freedom a sham.
There are racist marriage laws? Like, banning interracial marriages?
the marriage laws comment wasnt in reference to race, but sex. primarily, gay marriages. and its not just marriage eitehr. i am pulling from memory but i recall a few years ago a story about how either kansas or kentucky has a romeo and juliet law that reduces the penalty for crimes of passion conducted by teenagers since they are emotional and stuff. well a crime of passion was conducted by a homosexual and the law didnt apply because of his sexuality.
the point is the legal system still doesnt address all racial and sexual discrimination. and even if it did that doesnt necessarily translate into justice.
Dear Don Quixote,
That is a windmill, not a ferocious giant, that you are slaying...
Your Trusted Horse,
Rocinante
on the economic front, the writers said, "It is long past the time to recognize the urgent need to start imagining and building an economics based on production and distribution for real human needs, rejecting the corrosive greed that underlies not only the obscene profits hoarded by the few but also the orgiastic consumption pursued by the many."
Folks can find the effort to do this in participatory economics.
Let's all start local and build it up if we're going to get the fuck out of this two party insanity and stand up to being fucked and raped by the corporate/military/religious elites.
And we certainly should consider deeper forms of democracy that don't require elections or politicians at all!
The most democratic political system would be a parliamentary council of randomly picked citizens who would serve a term of a certain length. Their old jobs would be guaranteed when their term expires, and the pay would be attractive enough that few would turn it down if chosen.
Think of jury duty, but with attractive perks, and no meddling in the selection process by judges or the lawyers.
yes! this kind of stuff is so interesting and so fun to think about. also, it demands a re-visioning and re-building of ourselves, our communities, and our worlds, from the inside out and the outside in, simultaneously. which, sadly and counter-productively (to my ends) is why it's so hard for folx to give any credence to. i comment rarely, but read often: i often find your comments insightful and productive. thanks.
look into stephen shalom's parpolity or the book Real Utopia
I should give it a look. I'm not a huge fan of Alberts parecon, though.
Why not?
Rock solid Mr. Jensen!