Why I am a Socialist
The corporate forces that are looting the Treasury and have plunged us into a depression will not be contained by the two main political parties. The Democratic and Republican parties have become little more than squalid clubs of privilege and wealth, whores to money and corporate interests, hostage to a massive arms industry, and so adept at deception and self-delusion they no longer know truth from lies. We will find our way out of this mess by embracing an uncompromising democratic socialism-one that will insist on massive government relief and work programs, the nationalization of electricity and gas companies, a universal, not-for-profit government health care program, the outlawing of hedge funds, a radical reduction of our bloated military budget and an end to imperial wars-or we will continue to be fleeced and impoverished by our bankrupt elite and shackled and chained by our surveillance state.
The free market and globalization, promised as the route to worldwide prosperity, have been exposed as a con game. But this does not mean our corporate masters will disappear. Totalitarianism, as George Orwell pointed out, is not so much an age of faith as an age of schizophrenia. "A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial," Orwell wrote, "that is when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud." Force and fraud are all they have left. They will use both.
There is a political shift in Europe toward an open confrontation with the corporate state. Germany has seen a surge of support for Die Linke (The Left), a political grouping formed 18 months ago. It is co-led by the veteran socialist "Red" Oskar Lafontaine, who has built his career on attacking big business. Two-thirds of Germans in public opinion polls say they agree with all or some of Die Linke's platform. The Socialist Party of the Netherlands is on the verge of overtaking the Labor Party as the main opposition party on the left. Greece, beset with street protests and violence by disaffected youths, has seen the rapid rise of the Coalition of the Radical Left. In Spain and Norway socialists are in power. Resurgence is not universal, especially in France and Britain, but the shifts toward socialism are significant.
Corporations have intruded into every facet of life. We eat corporate food. We buy corporate clothes. We drive corporate cars. We buy our vehicular fuel and our heating oil from corporations. We borrow from corporate banks. We invest our retirement savings with corporations. We are entertained, informed and branded by corporations. We work for corporations. The creation of a mercenary army, the privatization of public utilities and our disgusting for-profit health care system are all legacies of the corporate state. These corporations have no loyalty to America or the American worker. They are not tied to nation states. They are vampires.
"By now the [commercial] revolution has deprived the mass of consumers of any independent access to the staples of life: clothing, shelter, food, even water," Wendell Berry wrote in "The Unsettling of America." "Air remains the only necessity that the average user can still get for himself, and the revolution had imposed a heavy tax on that by way of pollution. Commercial conquest is far more thorough and final than military defeat."
The corporation is designed to make money without regard to human life, the social good or impact on the environment. Corporate laws impose a legal duty on corporate executives to make as much money as possible for shareholders, although many have moved on to fleece shareholders as well. In the 2003 documentary film "The Corporation" the management guru Peter Drucker says: "If you find an executive who wants to take on social responsibilities, fire him. Fast."
A corporation that attempts to engage in social responsibility, that tries to pay workers a decent wage with benefits, that invests its profits to protect the environment and limit pollution, that gives consumers fair deals, can be sued by shareholders. Robert Monks, the investment manager, says in the film: "The corporation is an externalizing machine, in the same way that a shark is a killing machine. There isn't any question of malevolence or of will. The enterprise has within it, and the shark has within it, those characteristics that enable it to do that for which it was designed." Ray Anderson, the CEO of Interface Corp., the world's largest commercial carpet manufacturer, calls the corporation a "present day instrument of destruction" because of its compulsion to "externalize any cost that an unwary or uncaring public will allow it to externalize."
"The notion that we can take and take and take and take, waste and waste, without consequences, is driving the biosphere to destruction," Anderson says.
In short, the film, based on Joel Bakan's book "The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power," asserts that the corporation exhibits many of the traits found in people clinically defined as psychopaths.
Psychologist Dr. Robert Hare lists in the film psychopathic traits and ties them to the behavior of corporations:
- callous unconcern for the feelings for others;
- incapacity to maintain enduring relationships;
- reckless disregard for the safety of others;
- deceitfulness: repeated lying and conning others for profit;
- incapacity to experience guilt;
- failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behavior.
And yet, under the American legal system, corporations have the same legal rights as individuals. They give hundreds of millions of dollars to political candidates, fund the army of some 35,000 lobbyists in Washington and thousands more in state capitals to write corporate-friendly legislation, drain taxpayer funds and abolish government oversight. They saturate the airwaves, the Internet, newsprint and magazines with advertisements promoting their brands as the friendly face of the corporation. They have high-priced legal teams, millions of employees, skilled public relations firms and thousands of elected officials to ward off public intrusions into their affairs or halt messy lawsuits. They hold a near monopoly on all electronic and printed sources of information. A few media giants-AOL-Time Warner, General Electric, Viacom, Disney and Rupert Murdoch's NewsGroup-control nearly everything we read, see and hear.
"Private capital tends to become concentrated in [a] few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones," Albert Einstein wrote in 1949 in the Monthly Review in explaining why he was a socialist. "The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights."
Labor and left-wing activists, especially university students and well-heeled liberals, have failed to unite. This division, which is often based on social rather than economic differences, has long stymied concerted action against ruling elites. It has fractured the American left and rendered it impotent.
"Large sections of the middle class are being gradually proletarianized; but the important point is that they do not, at any rate not in the first generation, adopt a proletarian outlook," Orwell wrote in 1937 during the last economic depression. "Here I am, for instance, with a bourgeois upbringing and a working-class income. Which class do I belong to? Economically I belong to the working class, but it is almost impossible for me to think of myself as anything but a member of the bourgeoisie. And supposing I had to take sides, whom should I side with, the upper class which is trying to squeeze me out of existence, or the working class whose manners are not my manners? It is probable that I, personally, in any important issue, would side with the working class. But what about the tens or hundreds of thousands of others who are in approximately the same position? And what about that far larger class, running into millions this time-the office-workers and black-coated employees of all kinds-whose traditions are less definite middle class but who would certainly not thank you if you called them proletarians? All of these people have the same interests and the same enemies as the working class. All are being robbed and bullied by the same system. Yet how many of them realize it? When the pinch came nearly all of them would side with their oppressors and against those who ought to be their allies. It is quite easy to imagine a working class crushed down to the worst depths of poverty and still remaining bitterly anti-working-class in sentiment; this being, of course, a ready-made Fascist party."
Coalitions of environmental, anti-nuclear, anti-capitalist, sustainable-agriculture and anti-globalization forces have coalesced in Europe to form and support socialist parties. This has yet to happen in the United States. The left never rallied in significant numbers behind Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader. In picking the lesser of two evils, it threw its lot in with a Democratic Party that backs our imperial wars, empowers the national security state and does the bidding of corporations.
If Barack Obama does not end the flagrant theft of taxpayer funds by corporate slugs and the disgraceful abandonment of our working class, especially as foreclosures and unemployment mount, many in the country will turn in desperation to the far right embodied by groups such as Christian radicals. The failure by the left to offer a democratic socialist alternative will mean there will be, in the eyes of many embittered and struggling working- and middle-class Americans, no alternative but a perverted Christian fascism. The inability to articulate a viable socialism has been our gravest mistake. It will ensure, if this does not soon change, a ruthless totalitarian capitalism.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
106 Comments so far
Show AllTwo brief points...Education could, if given half a chance, allow those who are "proletarian" in some way to realize the bigger picture- this would tend to mitigate facism- as anybody who can think clearly about fascism will not likely WANT it...also, read "The Postman" by David Brin- 1,000 times better than the Kevin Costner movie- it offers a glimpse of how the current crop of fascist and similar brutes COULD take us all back to slavery,serfdom and much else... The Handmaids Tale by Margaret Atwood is also in this vein...we gotta think, know, ACT!!!
For more on the artifice of corporate existence, read *In the Absence of the Sacred: The Failure of Technology and the Survival of the Indian Nations,* by Jerry Mander, also author of *Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television.*
It is interesting that Orwell is confused to what class he belongs. I find it outright laughable when he talks about being part of the working class but whose manners are not his manners. WHAT A CROC! When the members of the bourgeois have their plush way of life threatened, manners are out the window! They could make drunken sailors blush with shame!
Read the fictional books by Dominick Dunne,i.e., A Season in Purgatory, to get a good idea of their so called class.
I hate to disabuse someone as smart as Chris Hedges of a warm and fuzzy idea that he hangs on to for the sake of his sanity in a period when capitalism is massacring innocents in Gaza and spreading famine, disease, slavery, environmental toxins and war across the planet. But socialism is an economic system that is ruled over by working people, the working class. As Marx explained, the shots are called by a “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
This dictatorship would be the most profound form of democracy humanity has ever experienced, economic democracy, but I doubt it conforms to Hedges’ idea. He seems to want what is best described as “capitalism lite”, a government run economy with the bourgeoisie still lurking around and having their “democratic” say about what goes on. In a socialist economy the bourgeoisie disappears never to be heard from again.
Much like Charles Darwin, who discovered immutable truths regarding of the origins and evolution of life, Karl Marx was a scientist. He guided humanity through the reasons capitalism was born, why it would thrive and dominate for a time, and how its inherent contradictions condemn it to death. Marx forecast capitalism, once dead and buried, would be replaced by a superior economic system. Nothing happening in our world today contradicts the hirsute one.
Living under capitalism, we have been taught to love Bill Gates, the gentle nerd, so it seems harsh to say his wealth will be seized and he will disappear from the air waves in a genuine socialist economy. But after the American Revolution the old ruling class, the monarchists, were never again allowed to freely and openly advocate a return to the old system. Was that anti-democratic? Of course not. Just as when we leave capitalism’s rotting carcass behind, the old bourgeoisie, will never again be heard in the political arena. In time the idea of a George Soros will be as anachronistic as the idea of a King George is now.
"The failure by the left to offer a democratic socialist alternative will mean there will be, in the eyes of many embittered and struggling working- and middle-class Americans, no alternative but a perverted Christian fascism."
Things have become pretty desperate.
A half century lacking any countervailing democratic socialist alternative to provide a little balance and sanity has perverted Christian fascism lookin' pretty good.
"The inability to articulate a viable socialism has been our gravest mistake"
Socialism is beautifully simple to ogranize and implement. Enlighten and empower the people with responsibility and THEY WILL TAKE CARE OF ALL THE DETAILS. What did you do today to enlighten and empower the people?
ENLIGHTENMENT AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PEOPLE
ENLIGHTENMENT AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PEOPLE
ENLIGHTENMENT AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PEOPLE
Completely free flow of information EVERYWHERE FOREVER. STARVE the elite establishment! Shift ALL of your exchange/association away from the elite establishment and toward the local economy! LOCAL economic/political power! Local self-sufficiency! Local self-deterimination! Get on with it people!!
"It is probable that I, personally, in any important issue, would side with the working class. But what about the tens or hundreds of thousands of others who are in approximately the same position? And what about that far larger class, running into millions this time-the office-workers and black-coated employees of all kinds-whose traditions are less definite middle class but who would certainly not thank you if you called them proletarians? All of these people have the same interests and the same enemies as the working class. All are being robbed and bullied by the same system. Yet how many of them realize it? When the pinch came nearly all of them would side with their oppressors and against those who ought to be their allies. It is quite easy to imagine a working class crushed down to the worst depths of poverty and still remaining bitterly anti-working-class in sentiment; this being, of course, a ready-made Fascist party."
Chris, you hit the nail on the head and all that. A lot of folks have been thinking these things for the last 8 years, at least. Longer, if they weren't asleep till 9/11. Many of us have wondered how such organizing can happen. At this point I think we are beyond any 'fix'. There comes a point in any emergency, for example a sinking ship or a burning building, when it is time to admit that the situation is beyond salvage. At this point it is pure survival. Then come the fights for the life boats, food, and water.
A Capitalist in a life boat. What a thought.
The Christians don't really believe their bible, for if they did they would have no care for 'property', and they would feed the hungry. Socialism is an invention, like law, and both should be an embarrassment to Christian people who believe that they live under a new covenant of grace rather than law. Like all inventions laws are created either out of necessity or laziness. If we were to wait around for Christian charity we would all starve.
As for capitalists, they don't really believe in free markets. If they did they would not be so quick to control the 'free market of ideas'. I believe the only 'law' they care about is the ones that force us to respect their property rights, forgetting that it is a greater crime to starve someone than for the hungry to steal to eat.
We see 'anarchists' wearing black masks at every protest, and there is much made about them. But never do we hear FROM them, in their own words, what Anarchy means to them. To most people Anarchy simply means lawlessness. That pretty much sums up Bushco and Corporate America (or is that Earth?). Social Anarchists on the street want the same thing that most Christians say they believe heaven to be - a place to live that has no Authoritarian form of government, but rather they are friends of God. They hope for a place where the law is simply compassion, where people are self-civilized. Law is, after all, just a poor substitute for respect or compassion just as socialism is just a poor substitute for (christian?) charity. I have yet to see any respect or charity coming from corporate or political America.
Funny thing is, Social Anarchists and Christians hope for the same things, and both are just as realistic. In reality we need socialism because we'll be waiting till Jesus comes back to see compassion in the form of charity. Besides, most people believed their religious upbringing that decent folk work for a living, pay their debts, and respect each others' property. Religion has been good at keeping people trying to pay their debts, nearly to the point of death, before taking up stealing. In reality we need law because some are lawless - but it isn't the black masks that are the truly lawless.
Bushco and his multinational banker controllers have accomplished the torching of faith in every human institution, just like Dostoevsky's words in his mouth at his second inaugural address prophesied. "Fire in the Minds of Men". We don't even have faith in ourselves anymore. All those weapons WE the People bought to defend ourselves in a cold war, instead used to fight endless other criminal wars are now turned toward WE the People.
That sinking feeling keeps getting lower and lower, beyond where I once thought possible. I'd like to know how we will accomplish anything at all. Voting? Prayer? The only other way I know is illegal, and likely to end very ugly. We did arm the anarchists (the lawless) quite well, after all.
I am not sure what you mean by "we did arm the anarchists quite well"...
Nor do I believe that anarchists are staying silent...
There are many websites and journals where folks who identify with the philosophy of anarchy do publish their beliefs... Infoshop.org... Indymedia.org...
There is also the issue of reinventing the wheel... When so much has already been written about economic and political theory by luminaries such as Marx, Bakunin, et al...
Then there is the issue of dispelling the myth that anarchy = lawlessness...
Anarchy only means rule without a king... Even a republic such as the USA would fit that meaning... Anarchy does not mean rule without law...
There are several forms of anarchy...
Primitavists want to return to a hunting & gathering form of society...
Neo-Luddites want to return to a pre-industrial agrarian society...
Anarcho-Syndicalists want to keep the profits of industry in the hands of those doing the labor, do away with the ownership class, and replace the dictatorship management model with the cooperative/collectivist model, where all workers are owners and have a say/vote in all decisions made that effect the company and community...
That is what really scares the capitalist elite... That workers of the world are starting to implement cooperatives in the factories and farms in Brazil and Argentina after they were abandoned by foreign investors
I think you misunderstood me. In fact, I think that you were trying to agree with me. I was pointing out irony.
As for your reference to the fact that Anarchy is not rule without law, I meant only that Anarchy, at its philosophic heart, seeks a society without an authoritarian or hierarchic system of government. In fact, you are correct about a democratic republic being a form of anarchy. I've always believed it to be an indication of humanity's evolution toward true anarchy.
Christians who actually read their bible should realize that the doctrines they are taught about the Devil they so fear are based upon a story in Ezekiel about the king of Tyre, whose wealth and commerce became so great that his heart was filled with violence, leading to the pride of seeking to be called God. That is ironic. Another irony is that living by 'law' is part of the Old Testament, and the old covenant that God made with Israel. The covenant of the Hebrews.
The law of sin and death was what Christians believe Christ set them free from, freeing them to live as friends and family to God, a true fellowship. Rather than an external imposition of authoritarian law Christians are supposed bear kindness, compassion, and civility as a fruit of the Holy Spirit granted to them after the ascension. Decency, not out of fear of punishment, but out of love. Law justifies nothing or Christ died for nothing.
Paul the apostle called legalism rebellion against the covenant of grace, when some tried to reimpose a sort of mosaic law over new Christians in Galatia. This is why I found it ironic that, on the one hand Christians seek to impose so much over non-believers while allying themselves with the truly lawless. On the other hand people who genuinely try to create a society based on cooperation, good will, respect, and democratic principles are so misunderstood by society at large because the 'Anarchist' view is never properly presented in a public forum. As far as the public is concerned 'Anarchists' are just provocateurs, saboteurs.
In both the case of the Anarchist and the Christian it is professed that the ideal society is one based upon honest compassion and cooperation rather than authoritarianism and fear of punishment. I would dare say that the Christian God is an anarchist (free will doesn't get him the obedience so many believe is at the top of his priority list) and their Messiah was a Heretic. I mean that with the utmost respect, in fact.
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
Read it! - carefully. It explains it all.
endCapitalism
You've done inquiring minds a great service by providing this web site. Thanks.
“A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial, that is when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud.”
Wow, Orwell sure got that one right! Everywhere one looks today one sees evidence of artifice and manipulation, not to mention the increasing use of force (tasers anyone?) and official intolerance of individual differentiation (snowzilla?).
What always astonishes me about these cycles is that even as the pendulum reaches its apogee of destruction, those controlling things remain blind to the damage they are doing, not just to the rest of us, but ultimately to themselves as well.
Dave
http://daveeriqat.wordpress.com/
"The Democratic and Republican parties have become little more than squalid clubs of privilege and wealth, whores to money and corporate interests, hostage to a massive arms industry, and so adept at deception and self-delusion they no longer know truth from lies."
I THINK YOU READ THAT CORRECTLY
I THINK YOU READ THAT CORRECTLY
I THINK YOU READ THAT CORRECTLY
"We will find our way out of this mess by embracing an uncompromising democratic socialism-one that will insist on massive government relief and work programs, the nationalization of electricity and gas companies, a universal, not-for-profit government health care program, the outlawing of hedge funds, a radical reduction of our bloated military budget and an end to imperial wars"
LOOKS LIKE A TEMPLATE FOR CHANGE, EHH?
LOOKS LIKE A TEMPLATE FOR CHANGE, EHH?
LOOKS LIKE A TEMPLATE FOR CHANGE, EHH?
IT FLATLY CONTRADICTS THE ELITE ESTABLISHMENT PROPAGANDA EHH? WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THAT? WILL YOU JOIN MR HEDGES IN EMBRACING DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM?
WE ARE ALL SOCIALISTS
WE ARE ALL SOCIALISTS
WE ARE ALL SOCIALISTS
Imagine by John Lennon:
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
No, they haven't won at all. Revelation 19 speakes of the merchants of the earth saying, the merchants of the earth were great men who deceived all the nations of the earth with their sorceries.
God & Jesus knew what they were up to long ago & that through Corporate/Commecialized politics, religion, business, & education all they will build is their notion of their politically correct hell upon the earth.
The Book of Revelation also speaks about the Buyers & Sellers of things & not in a good light at all. Prophecy does state that things upon the earth will get bad, so bad I am not sure I even fathom currently how bad things will get?
Life is good.
No historical proof for the existence of Jesus. As for the Bible, at times good story line, otherwise, contradiction, misogyny, dictatorial and vengeful authoritarianism and nonsense.
I think it's too late. I think they've won. They are so insidious they've corrupted the political and legal systems to do their bidding. The populace at large doesn't know it yet. It appears they are pychopaths. Where and when it will be stopped is anyone's guess. I fear the backlash, when it comes will be as bad or worse than the evils it seeks to redress. How do we get rid of the corporation as having the same rights as a person? I believe we are witnessing a spiraling decay of our democracy into God knows what. I am hoping for a social revolution. I don't know what it will take to reverse the current situation.
Could you survive & enjoy living in China? Having lived in a dictatorship, I feel the present states of: Cuba, Vietnam, China, Venezuela, Russia, Iraq, are all socialist states. At least they try to have free medical care, jobs for all, free college education, adequate housing for all and freedom of speech. I would like to see more Americans support a free medical system by taking vitamin C hourly. Unless people become their own first primary care provider, society can never provide adequate health care. Don't you agree?
There is no need to start raving about needing pure socialism just because the last administration totally wrecked a system that was working reasonably well. Of course there were difficulties, but they could have been managed and fixed if we could have avoided eight years of the wrecking crew. Face it, neither capitalism or socialism works on their own, but only if there is a proper mix of concern for all citizens (socialism), and a motive for profit for one`s labor and management,(capitalism).
It would be totally impossible to impose a completely different form of governing structure in this country without a bloody revolution, as others have found out, so we must continue to work with what we have, which is now a new chance to improve the situation. It does no good to cry about what we should have, but it might be surprising what could happen with a new leadership in operation. This is not the first time this country has been on the brink of destruction, and we may pull out of this disaster also with a little patience.
We are always going to be plagued with greedy individuals and criminals no matter what form of society we have, but this country is still worth saving and just needs people to believe it can happen.
Capitalism is self-destructive. It requires increases in the increases of just about everything: profits, labor and resource exploitation, etc. It is unsustainable, i.e., in the long run, unmanageable. The current collapse is normal.
I hate to disabuse someone as smart as Chris Hedges of a warm and fuzzy idea that he hangs on to for the sake of his sanity in a period when capitalism is in full scale collapse. But socialism is an economic system that is ruled over by working people, the working class. As Marx said, it is run by a “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
This dictatorship would be the most profound form of democracy humanity has ever experienced but I doubt it conforms to Hedges’ idea. He seems to want what is best described as “capitalism lite”, a government run economy with the bourgeoisie still lurking around and having their “democratic” say about what goes on.
Much like Charles Darwin, who discovered immutable truths regarding of the origins and evolution of life, Karl Marx was a pioneering scientist. He guided humanity through the reasons capitalism was born, why it would thrive and dominate for a time, and how its inherent contradictions condemn it to death. Marx forecast capitalism, once dead and buried, would be replaced by a superior economic system. Under socialism the shots would no longer be called by a wealthy few but by all the productive people in society in a genuine democracy. For the sake of human survival, sharing rather than competition would be at the foundation of the new system.
After the American Revolution the old ruling class, the monarchists, were never again allowed to freely and openly advocate a return to the old system. Was that anti-democratic? Of course not. Just as when we leave capitalism’s rotting carcass behind, the old bourgeoisie, will never again be heard in the political arena. In time the idea of a George Soros will be as anachronistic as the idea of a King George is now.
"This division, which is often based on social rather than economic differences..." huh?
You don't seem to be paying attention to those divisions on the Left very well Chris. I sometimes think that they are typified completely by those who can afford to travel to and stay in hotels for conferences and those who cannot.
Besides, if we go into this argument thinking that socialist governments are immune from the kinds of corruption that currently infect the two ruling parties and any number of other “democratic” capitalist systems around the globe, then we lose the impetus to create a system of governing in which the possibility of takeover by fraud or force is minimized to nearly nothing. This is done by enforce-able structures and frameworks, not by ideologies.
In this way the first Jeffersonians were nearly right, but the myriad flaws that have surfaced, in their design for a self-correcting system that has an automatic "eject" button when elected leaders become drunk with the powers bestowed upon them until they begin to behave as if they are owners of those powers instead of conductors and facilitators of powers that belong to the people, may not be corrected by the system those Founders left us as it was intended and/or has evolved... but I beg to differ with anyone who falls into the trap of adopting another "ism" as an apt replacement.
I believe the system that must replace this one has not been named yet and has yet to be created. Let us work on that and refrain from reliance on other structures that have shown through their own historical failings that they work no better than the one we have.
"Crashing down"? "Level playing field"? Yes, that's the answer! 2012 is approaching, along with the "cosmic trigger;" are you ready?
I have been reading a Norweigan online weekly newspaper for a couple of years now. Those people are so sane. They don't have all this drama around everything. They just look at something, try to see it clearly and then decide how to deal with it. Of course, there are conflicts and intrigues but it gets resolved. People are basically tuned in to the same wave length - making their country run smoothly. That seems to be everyone's agenda.
In a social democracy, the objective is for the whole to be taken care of. It's not about competition. That to me is the main difference I see between how they conduct their affairs and the way we do ours. Also their government officials are not glamorized. They seem to be accessible and held accountable.
I don't think their country is perfect but it seems to me that they are sincerely trying to do a good job of organizing their society so that it works for everyone. Norway has big corporations, too, but the needs and the rights of the people come first.
The revolution will come from the bottom up, from the grassroots. We can do this.
It is true. I did a WorkStudy in Scandanaiva for almost a year. But, USAns are too brainwashed to think that they would lose "freedom"...to die with your (non--you gave those up) rights on.
The Corporation BY DESIGN was created to get around the checks and blances of a true Free market.
Any true believer in a Free Market (and I suggest there are NONE. They simply spout the words because the word FREE is a propoganda tool) would ask that Corporations be banned.
That none ask for this shows clearly that the entire thing is a fraud.
PK
As to multinational corporations, it has long been clear that they could care less about US interests. At best, they might be occasional "allies" on occasional topics, but we can never rely on that, especially as former US companies are now controlled for foreign nationals.
Even as to the corporations that are 100% owned by US nationals and employing only US nationals, they have no real loyalty to this country, its needs, or its ideals. A corporation, usually even a privately held one, seldom can look or even wants to look beyond the next fiscal quarter or its own self interest. Whatever corporations say and do should always be viewed with suspicion.
For a time, there were some checks and balances on the greed and aggrandizement of corporations. It was provided by organized labor, the environmental movement, the free press, and liberal/progressive politicians and activist organizations. They were not perfect, but in pursuing their own interests, they tended to prevent any of the other groups, especially the corporations from becoming all powerful. Scrutiny. Exposure. Checks. Balances.
No more. The corporations collectively have either eviscerated or marginalized the other groups as they have done to unions or outright subordinated or intimidated them as they have the journalists. Effective opposition has vanished.
Worse, even as to corporations internally, both their corporate investors and lower management have been emasculated too. When was the last time cheated investors or workers ever got all or even a significant portion of their money due when individual corporations cratered? Interestingly, most of the men responsible tend to keep on in the same or similar jobs either in the same or similar corporations.
Do some go to jail? Sure, but how few, where and for how long? How many have to cough up from their private funds when caught? Tokenism. Usually, just overtly obnoxious ones.
Here is the interesting question. Why? Why do corporations seem to be so antithetical to all America once stood for? As hard as it is to accept, it is becoming increasingly clear the main objective of all those interchangeable, faceless corporations, both local and international ones, has been perverted into little more than a means for providing opulent lifestyles for CEOs plus a few favored board members.
Again, why? The answer seems to be that there has been an unannounced Class War being hotly pursued by the ubër rich for decades. The only difference between today and the Age of the Robber Barons in the late 1880s, another fierce Class War, is that the Robber Barons back then were open about their purpose of enriching themselves at the expense or impoverishment of everyone else. No one doubted it was War. There was not the pretense that merely mentioning the subject was an incitement to War. War was obvious to all.
Robber Barons? Trusts? Big Oil? Think about it. How many industries are not near monopolies controlled by conglomerates? Think of what has happened to the communications industry to name buy one example. John D. Rockefeller would be envious.
Here’s the clincher. Do you have any real doubt that the current financial crisis wasn't a direct result of the ubër rich emptying the pockets of the banks, their customers and astonishingly their own investors. The bailout money from the Treasury is seen merely as a new source of funds now that others have run dry. If you think otherwise, both examine the original proposal of the giveaway and how the money has actually been spent.
It's a war alright and people are dying. The primary weapons of the ubër rich are the heavy handed control of the corporations and the media. They didn't need to buy the politicians or judges if they control what everyone hears about them, although purchase of favorable legislation has long been a favorite tactic and continues unabated. Is there a politician with any possibility of getting elected or getting a voice that genuinely opposes the unbridled control and power of corporations? And, if he or she somehow makes it to office, how many are willing to jeopardize their stay in office by not accepting corporate contributions? The few voices in opposition are drowned out or denied a platform from which to be heard. When was the last time you heard an real Liberal with good debating skills allowed on the Sunday tv talk show circuit for instance?
We are losing the War, badly. Unfortunately, we seem to be too stupid to even realize we are at war, let alone do anything about it. They have diverted us with their divide and conquer strategy, getting us to focus on our fears and differences rather that our common interests in halting the attempted diversion of every dime from our pockets into theirs. Fear workers asking to speak in a collective voice. They must be Mafia controlled. Forget your lost pension funds. There might be gay somewhere that wants the same civil rights heterosexuals have always taken for granted. Fight health care for all. That’s Socialized Medicine as if we did not have socialized fire protection, socialized presidential protection, socialized police protection, socialized primary education, socialized air traffic control to name a few. And now, socialized corporation funding.
We have become defacto slaves for them, but the best possible kind from the perspective of the ubër rich... ignorant slaves who do not recognize that fact. I wish I felt optimistic.
I completely agree with your comments. However, and this is a real nitpick, but you wrote something that drives me absolutely NUTS everytime I see it written or hear it spoken. I am not picking on YOU, but on EVERYONE who uses this grammatical construction:
"As to multinational corporations, it has long been clear that they could care less about US interests."
You wrote " ... could care less ... " when you really meant to say "could NOT care less". It drives me up the wall. I know. I know. The implication is, "I could care less, but I really don't." And it has become accepted idiom. Still, it just drives me crazy. I know. You could care less what I think. ;)
-- EKATON --
"You wrote " ... could care less ... " when you really meant to say "could NOT care less". It drives me up the wall. I know. I know. The implication is, "I could care less, but I really don't." And it has become accepted idiom. Still, it just drives me crazy."
Boy, you shouldn't have told us that!!
.I really shouldnt, I know I really shouldnt, somebody stop me.........Aww I care about Ekaton's mental state, so I wont, ....but if I cared just a litle bit less.....Naah that would be careless.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
A good egg is never hard boiled!
It won't work, but it deserves its chance and certainly won't be worse than what we have right now. Trying to fix this society is like trying to renovate a crumbling slum instead of clearing it out completely and starting from scratch.
With appologies to Shakespear's great line in Henry the V, when that starting over begins "first we kill all the corporations and next we kill all the lawyers".
Poet
An alternative that's already working:
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2006/0706bowmanstone.html
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4016
background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative
Working ideas for an alternative:
http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=306271#post306271
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lange_Model
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=217944 (discussion that more or less set me on the path to becoming a socialist)
Whole books available online:
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/
http://books.zcommunications.org/books/polpar.htm
Some random other stuff:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm
http://libcom.org/library/commodity-fetishism-fredy-perlman
http://www.reuters.com/article/artsNews/idUSTRE49F5MX20081016
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/29/uselections2008.useconomy1
http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1967/intromet/index.htm
Barack Obama isn't going to do what is requested of him in this article. The struggle to build a socialist leadership begins in the workplace and the community. There's no other way. As for collapse, no wolf ever voluntarily removed its fangs.
The way I see it there is only one way out of the mess we're in. The wall of corporate greed, the government takeover by religious fanatics, the republicans, democrats, military, and all the rest is too damned high, and they'll never let us through, and there's no way to get around them.
Then too, there's all the dumbed-down people who'll never change as long as there's a way for them to get their daily fix.
It all needs to come crashing down, and once everything is leveled, the rebuilding can start - hopefully with balance - equal parts of commercialism and socialism - restructured, regulated, with oversight and safeguards against a president or a political party undoing them.
Lynden hopes
I just want to thank you for this. It is a voice I have been looking for.
Bill Walz
This is the forbidden conversation we need to be having in this country. Corporate capitalism is no longer a viable economic model. It is based on unlimited competition as its model of human behavior, and in an era of dwindling resources, it can only lead to increasingly sociopathic and even murderous behavior. An ever dwindling quality of life, as we have seen in the last fifty years in this country, will only accelerate under the present economic system.
Ultimately, I hope for a seemingly paradoxical new system of centralized decentralization in which the central government acts as the agent of setting standards of fairness and quality for a decentralized economy of smaller communities built around small farms & businesses that are dedicated to values of quality, compassion, mutuality, nature, meaningful creative labor and community caring. In other words, a society centrally planned around a dedication to democratic decentralization of the culture and economy. For this to not become a new tyranny, the highest priority must be placed on education so that there is a liberally educated electorate that has a sense of civic duty and a deep philosophical understanding of the human political experience.
We are in a time of evolutionary crisis for humanity, as every species faces when it falls out of harmony with its environment and resources. The corporate capitalist model has created this crisis and cannot be the model for solving it. The evolutionary trait of humanity is consciousness, an ever-expanding sense of inclusion in the consciousness of "I" and "we". This, by definition, requires a political/economic model of democratic socialism. There must evolve a new consciousness that enfolds the entire planet, all people, all cultures, all societies, all the animal and plant life, and the planet itself as a richly diverse conscious organism wherein, all these diverse elements of the whole have inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A huge leap, but an absolutely necessary one for there to be a quality long future for life on this planet.
The economic crisis we face now is exactly the time to bring this conversation to the table. The most obvious place to begin is where the profit motive has the least logical place and is doing great damage - Health care. We must force the conversation to abandon these ridiculous tamperings meant to preserve the corporate interests at the expense of the people and demand the single-payer, 100% coverage of 100% of the people. NOW.
In this, and in many issues, as this article has pointed out, our brethren in Europe have much to teach us. We are hampered by not having a European-style parlimentary system that nurtures reform parties. Political reform that strengthens third parties is essential. For this, I beleive we need to have instant runoff elections that will allow Greens and Socialists to become viable political options. Socialism NOW.
Sioux Rose
Bill Waltz: Excellent post.
I second that.
IMO what needs to be recognized is that corporations are tools, devices, machines created to fulfill a specific function, viz., maximizing the profit of corporate owners (shareholders) without regard for any possibly competing social function or purpose. Technique, Jacques Ellul taught us (The Technological Society) is not morally neutral. Technique is amoral. Only when the function of a tool and its inevitable and necessary concomitants become obviously and overwhelming inimicable to broader human social and political concerns will we decide to do away with that tool.
If we truly viewed reality clearly we would finally come to realize that what is 'best' for oneself, also benefits the whole and vice versa. We are intricately connected and humankind has never been able to understand this.
It isn't about self sacrifice (sorry christendom), or human sacrifice, but about growing up and waking up and seeing what we haven't learned from history. It is time to step out of history now. The worn out platitudes that have been around for hundreds of years, but never seem to translate into essential and progressive change ring hollow.
We need to radically re-envision human nature itself and start to create new systems that are based in a more sophisticated and true vision of who we are. If not, we are bound to keep creating a world that reflects a very primitive and destructive self image. Enough of the schizophrenic thinking, "We are capable of so much, yet we are destructive by nature". This has created the world we are witnessing now. The inner conflict can only be externalized. That is how it works.
For socialism to work, people need to change. You can't have a system that is more evolved than the consciosness that created it.
Sioux
READY TO TRANSFORM: Wonderful post. I fully agree.
I saw a video about the band U2, and the guitarist was saying that he picked a particular lead to one of their successful songs based not on his ability to do a dazzling lead, but on what the song needed. He played a very subtle guitar riff. He put the song ahead of his own ego.
The day society puts 'society' first and foremost of importance is when we will make a quantum leap towards peace and justice.
Until that day, we will continue of the current path of self-indulgent self-destruction.
Unions have fallen the same way as corporations, self-preservation even at the expense of community at large.
Scientists have fallen, claiming that they are just conducting science as they great genetically modified foods that are destructive.
The military industrial complex, no matter how much wealth it creates, still creates more misery than it prevents (not that preventing misery or bringing justice is the military's intention).
Basic Human rights for all, and until they are protected there will be no change.
www.NotOneMore.US
When Barack Obama voted to give the telecoms immunity for breaking the law and spying on US citizens, anybody with a brain should have seen that he would be no different than Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, etc, with regard to the selling out of our country to corporate criminals. I can't see that he will do anything different, he will just be more likeable while doing it. His military staff is unchanged, his plans to continue American Imperialism are unchanged, he has bowed down to the bailouts of banks, investment industries, insurance giants, bad car manufacturers, supported all of the recent US military misadventures, and wants to put 20,000 more troops in Afganistan. How is this change?
Telling that to folks such as JoeHope, Truth_Forward, Thomas More, etc ... ain't easy. They'll "accept" it only because Obama's a Democrat.
I didn't even know I was a Democrat...Thanks! All these years I thought I was an Independent.
Hmmm, I gotta admit. Based on your posts overall, you are indeed an independent. I know I'm an independent but being an independent can mean just about anything. I guess I do sound a bit too blue but that's pretty easy to do out in El Paso. Not sure I could be frozen blue in Houston or Dallas.
Even your feet would turn red in the Dallas suburbs!
Dallas proper may surprise next time...we hope.
If Dallas were to go 70% blue, TX would start looking closer to CA than FL. I can imagine Dallas though getting bluer since I know there's growth in diversity. It's still going to take a lot of work in the surrounding rural counties to see Obama match JFK.
Don't forget how close the total state vote was. Its not like McCain carried Texas by a landslide. I have high hopes for 2010. If the Dems and Obama push thru amnesty though you can forget Texas for 2010 and 2012.
.I did not know that....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
You have got to stop these effusive and overly long comments.
.OK
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I mostly enjoyed the article, though I was disappointed that as Hedges came to the brink of stating that the left needs to drop the social issues if it ever wants to unite and have success, he seemed afraid to say it.
actually - you probably misunderstood or expected the WRONG thing from his article.
he did NOT have to state that socialists should "drop social issues"
BECAUSE socialism IS about social issues. that IS where it takes its essence from.
BAD economis IS a social issue of justice in distribution of wealth created by the TRUE capital of any economy beyond the land and earth -- and that is PEOPLE and their labor.
Yes, I understand that economic issues can be categorized as "social issues." However, in the common dialogue in the US, economic issues are not typically categorized that way and are treated separately, probably because they dwarf most other social issues in importance in determining one's quality of life.
My comment was based on the passage from the article:
"Labor and left-wing activists, especially university students and well-heeled liberals, have failed to unite. This division, which is often based on social rather than economic differences, has long stymied concerted action against ruling elites. It has fractured the American left and rendered it impotent."
I believe he is implying that these "social rather than economic differences" give rise to problematic differences of opinion on what are generally termed the "social issues," or the "cultural issues," or even the "social/cultural issues," such as reproductive rights, gay rights, affirmative action, gun rights, school prayer, etc... It is just a practical matter that the left could unite and have a much better chance to defeat the corporatists if it did drop what I termed "the social issues" for now, with the opportunity to revisit them after the corporate menace has been defeated.
I agree.
In California, Tom Bradley, Mayor of Los Angeles would almost certainly have become governor if he had stuck to economic issues instead of beating the anti-gun drum. The gun-owning working class voted for guns against their own economic interests.
A syndicated story interviewed people in fly-over-country who voted against their own economic interests during the second Bush election that admitted they voted for Bush because of the Dems pro-choice stance even though they knew it would hurt them financially. I recall one woman said she was working three jobs to earn what she had once earned with one, but she didn't care.
If the topic was kept to economics, few workers would be voting for the representatives of the multimillion and multibillion dollar less than half of one-percent of the population that live off workers like leeches.
Neither governors nor presidents ought to be pushing social issues which require a change in laws. Administration jobs are to administrate. Changes in laws are the responsibility of legislatures. Even then, neither state nor federal representatives need present strong views on non-economic topics: a legislator can quite rightfully claim that, while he/she has an opinion, he/she is willing to study the issue in depth, discuss it with constituents and debate it in legislative session.
While social issues may not always be so easily ducked, they don't have to be part of stump speeches.
Yep. Most members of the working class cling to guns and religion (Obama was right about that) because they feel insecure, and they will continue feeling insecure until the entire system is upended. And the only way to upend the system is for the left to fully merge with the working class. And that will not happen as long as the great majority of the members of the left cling to the position that the importance of social issues should be elevated, particularly those social issues on which they disagree strongly with most members of the working class. And the corporatists never miss an opportunity to highlight the importance of social issues and to encourage the left to cling ever more tightly to positions unpopular with the working class (which is why it would really disturb me if Obama backs out of the Warren agreement, giving in to the progressives on the social issues and no others, to the delight of the corporatists). The elite corporatists seem to be playing the entire progressive movement like a cheap violin.
Most social issues have become "wedge" issues in the old game of divide & conquer...
Pit labor organizers against tree-huggers...
Pit Feminists against xtian fundamentalists...
Pit managers against employees...
Class division is just as necessary as racial and religious division...
For the ruling elite to continue this facade, they need a fearful populous...
Thanks, Mr. Hedges. You have given me more reason to leave this fascist country aka USA.
Another thought-provoker lacking any sort of suggested solution paths, aside from the laughable "If Barack Obama does not end the flagrant theft of taxpayer funds by corporate slugs and the disgraceful abandonment of our working class..." which is negated by the sentence previous anyway: "In picking the lesser of two evils, it threw its lot in with a Democratic Party that backs our imperial wars, empowers the national security state and does the bidding of corporations."
BO voted Yes on the TARPyramid, in case there was any, er, hope that he was planning on not doing that bidding of corporations thing...
Here's an idea: spend only with the "good" guys, support mom+pop whenever possible, and spread the word to your friends-and-family circle as often as you can. Since big unity remains elusive at the moment, focus on small unity first.
We will find our way out of this mess by embracing an uncompromising democratic socialism-one that will insist on massive government relief and work programs, the nationalization of electricity and gas companies, a universal, not-for-profit government health care program, the outlawing of hedge funds, a radical reduction of our bloated military budget and an end to imperial wars-or we will continue to be fleeced and impoverished by our bankrupt elite and shackled and chained by our surveillance state.
About half of the nation would rather be dead than live in a place described above. Joe The plumber, for one. During the Cold War, there was a famous bumper sticker: BETTER DEAD THAN RED. That still holds true for much of this country.
do people really need a better example of INTELLIGENCE and conscience together --when the most influential scientist of modern times - Albert Einstein HIMSELF not only was a socialist - but CLEARLY DEFINED what capitalism IS and what it DOES and its consequences?
as has always been clear, George Orwell was warning in his books of Fascism as the END result of Capitalism, which is always what I believed. it is its inevitable climax, really.
that is after all what DID happen to germany and italy . and what is now happening AGAIN in the USA and western imperial powers.
IMPERIALISM itself - as described by mao tse tung - was a "special result" of capitalism..in that -- having run out of "property" within its confines to feed on - it eventually MUST "expand" to steal other property, --such as lands and people's cheap labor to continue feeding. and that IS what happened to england - and others - whose imperial expansions REALLY were the RESULT of internal INSTABILITY caused by capitalism running out of "capital".
when will people learn?
hehe -- i'm glad to see Hedges used a favorite word i like to use about capitalism:
VAMPIRE. hehe
but on a more experiential note: a friend sadly related to me recently that her own brother working for an energy corporation -- that cut costs with employees, were not replacing the fired ones: 2 of them..but instead "elevated" her brother's position to make him work 3 jobs at the same salary.
that's capitalism for you.
it happens also , for example, in nursing homes...under capitalism...EVEN with the "partnership" of UNIONS who bow to the wishes of the corporations in order to have a "unionized work force" (at least that is the scheme in the USA) - a nurse aide (the women, primarily, who do the heavy lifting, wiping the asses of old heavy people, feed them, bathe them, put them to bed, bring them to the bathroom, and if they have any time left between running from old person to old person, duty to duty, are still expected to SMILE with their breaking backs, and elbows and wrists and shoulders and knees, to act like the family of the old people whose family members are too busy at work and come snapping their fingers when they visit)...has to do jobs that no one in his or her right mind would do given the way they are treated or paid - like slaves.
in those circumstances -- "workers" are made to feel as if , by being paid a PITTANCE - they should finish their "shift" quota of, say , 12 old people with very heavy dependence, and finish EVERY specific duty , from brushing teeth, to combing hair, to bathing, to feeding, PERFECTLY done, AND document them in VOLUMINOUS detail...all in the space of a working day . that is physical impossible.
but capitalism REQUIRES it. because the shareholders, boardmemebers have to cover their asses from government "checkers" or ELSE they don't get their "medicaire, medicaid" payments.
\but UNDERNEATH that system - are the poor workers ,women, who break their breaks trying to not just take care of the old people but , just because they are human beings, can not help but feel compassion and LITERALLY BECOME the family members of the old people...trying to make them laugh and sing and play.
capitalism DESTROYS.
That is the stone cold truth.
Denial of the psychopathology and addiction is the heat under the pot cooking the frog. The fuel is advertising media. Advertising advertises advertising as Marshall McCluan saliently quipped. Denial only functions when there is denial of the denial. The water is the perpetually deferred promise of human completion through acquisition of what advertisers advertise. There is no completion, there is only a journey and choice of how to participate in it.
Overheat the fuel, speed up the boiling process and the frog jumps out. Like any metaphor, the frog transcends time and space and transforms according to mode of envisioning.
Functionaries (which most of us in the population are at one level or another because of the narrowing of meaning to practically nothing but economics) fear our 'inexperience' in any system other than what is familiar. Our delusion is in believing the monoculture conditioning of utter rejection of names of other systems (like socialism). Under any name exist all of the same elements of life that creatures depend on. This is evidenced by the fact that lives, however complicated by the shock of the system, are still based on being alive. In the process of adjusting, the unnecessary is shed and one chooses whether or not to focus on emerging as a loving, fearless and caring human being. One of the beauties is that one begins to recognize innumerable commonalities, weakness and strengths - how we fit together. One of the hardest things can be coming to terms with a deeply ingrained pattern of seeking advantage rather than cooperation. Sort of a difference between looking at and seeing through.
Thank you Chris Hedges for speaking such brazen truth.
Although I understand that this is critically important subject matter, and that the article is only one person's perspective, I'm reeling from all the doom and gloom here on C.D.
I will continue to let people know that this forum exists, in the hopes that a sufficient number of properly-informed individuals will make a difference. But personally, I think the stress and sleepless nights might be starting to get to me.
"the nationalization of electricity and gas companies,"
Would you give the electricity and gas companies to Bushite Republicans to administer? Not today at least. That's the problem with nationalization.
Why not give equal shares of non-transferable stock in these companies directly to the people instead of to the best government money can buy?
"The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population."
The problem is that the representatives of the people can be bribed or coerced. We the People cannot. http://ni4d.us/
"Coalitions of environmental, anti-nuclear, anti-capitalist, sustainable-agriculture and anti-globalization forces have coalesced in Europe to form and support socialist parties. This has yet to happen in the United States. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights." "
If We the People owned equal shares of non-transferable stock in our public treasure, accrue dividends from and have equal voting rights in shareholder's meetings, We the People would rule as the largest most powerful corporation to which all others would have to turn to. Only socially and environmentally responsible ones need apply.
Politician got on his jogging shoes,
Must be running for office, got no time to lose.
He been suckin' the blood out of the genius of generosity,
You been rolling your eyes - you been teasing me.
From Bob Dylan
Hoa binh
One of the reasons the Left can't get it together is the "more Left than thou" syndrome. While the Right has been accused of putting up tests for purity, the Left is doing the same thing. Someone is not environmentally aware enough, or is not anti-war enough. Even being a regular churchgoer has become taboo no matter what progressive causes they support. For some, if you don't support Nader or the Greens your leftist credentials you're just another right wing corporate whore.
While a diversity of opinions is a wonderful thing these purity tests are off putting. Imagine what this looks like to someone who is exploring and trying to find a home in the Left?
Help reduce the National Debt - TAX CHURCHES!
.All you note is that there are those on both sides who lack vision and intellect, so what else is new? Opinions run strong, especially on subjects such as this one which involve ones religion and cultural imperatives. I have seen little in the way of purity tests, only great angst and emotions.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"if you don't support Nader or the Greens your leftist credentials you're just another right wing corporate whore. "
Name me one single Democrat who ain't a Republican. If you wanna play the "Buddy Bears" version of go-along-get-along shit, be my guest but aren't you sick and tired of getting betrayed by the same Democrats who promise you one set of things and then flip-flop to the rabid rightwing once in office? Yes, the so-called "left" has its issues and pandering to the "right" is what's killing them.
"Name me one single Democrat who ain't a Republican." I don;t know Kucinich seems to fit. Now here is your challenge: Name me one progressive group that won't give a person shit for, say, owning a gun or not being 100% pro-choice.
Help reduce the National Debt - TAX CHURCHES!
"Name me one progressive group that won't give a person shit for, say, owning a gun or not being 100% pro-choice."
The DLC and the Democratic Party. If this country had go-along-get-along "buddy bear" DLCers such as yourself back in 1945, America would have been speaking German and wearing lederhosen. Your idiotic obsession with social issues is why you so-called "liberals" are all fucked up. So how's your state of MISERY (MO) doing? Had enough of getting economically bulldozed? If not, keep on railing about guns, churches, and abortion. You're only making false accusations and trying to appease the rightwing Republican NAZIs. Abortions went up under Republican rulings, gun control doesn't exist and is a red herring and Democrats aren't stupid to bring it up, and churches are already losing church goers thanks to the economy rotting to the core.
"Help reduce the National Debt - TAX CHURCHES!"
Too bad the Democratic Party ain't even gonna try. If you wanna tax the churches, you need REAL PROGRESSIVES, not phoney fakes that you keep begging us to accept.
"...Kucinich seems to fit."
- You probably imagine that's a clever retort, but it's really not. For one thing, Kucinich is not the slightest bit typical of Democrats. And that's the only reason they keep him around -- so he can be used as "advertising" -- as a "Left Ornament" to dupe naive antiwar types into believing that the Dem Party must be OK since someone like Kucinich finds a home in it.
For another thing, Kucinich always toes the party line when push comes to shove. For all his antiwar activity, he still wound up supporting the warmonger Kerry in 2004, and agreed to completely abandon his promised push for an antiwar plank in the Party platform. Anyone who heard him speak at the 2004 Convention would've been justified in thinking he'd had a lobotomy. He agreed to give a pro-Kerry speech in which he didn't so much as mention the words "Iraq" or "war."
In 2008, he did the same thing. Early in the debate season (before he was banned from the debates), a "moderator" asked the 9 Dem candidates if they'd pledge, right then & there, to support the eventual Dem nominee, no matter who it would turn out to be. Kucinich very bravely said, "Not unless that person renounces war as an instrument of policy." But when Obama became the nominee, Kucinich supported him ANYWAY. Obama certainly has not renounced war as an instrument of policy.
Dennis also is very careful to NEVER criticize turds like Pelosi or Reid in public. He says only the very sweetest things about Pelosi, who belongs in jail almost as much as Cheney does.
And finally, despite his flaws, there is no one else remotely like Kucinich in the whole fucking Democratic Party. The fact that he's in the Party says nothing about the Party. The party stinks, and is really Republican in everything but name -- EVEN WITH the one possible exception of Kucinich.
Thanks for providing that sad but truthful info about Kucinich in the party. I can see why Ralph Nader and Cindy Sheehan never wanted to join that second Republican party that calls itself "Democrat".
Thanks for providing that sad but truthful info about Kucinich in the party. I can see why Ralph Nader and Cindy Sheehan never wanted to join that second Republican party that calls itself "Democrat".
What you said, doubled. A post that is past excellent. And very important points made.
Thanks. That's something I've been wanting to say for a long time.
Help reduce the National Debt - TAX CHURCHES!
And as long as you tell us to shut up and support GOP-lites as "Democrats", your wish of taxing churches ain't gonna come true.
Amen!!!
VOLUNTARY SIMPLICITY!
Well, thats one view. Every problem to Chris is a nail, so he always brings a sledge hammer.
He did make some good points however, especially about Corporations.
.Thomas, I find this trend of yours to oversimplify, to criticize or damn with faint praise rather tedious, dont you? I would love to see, every so often, a detailed post enumerating your exact positions or reasons for diagreement. That would certainly be refreshing.
After reading scores of your efforts here I can say with all honesty that I dont know who you are or what, if anything, you stand for. Not to say you arent a nice guy and all, but really.......
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Oh well, we centrists are a tedious lot. We tend to see both sides of an argument. As to this conflict I can assure you that you can't see what my position is on this, because I simply can't reach a definitive answer.
Both sides have right and wrong on their side. I can't just say..."oh the poor Palestinians."
Things I'm sure of.
The Israeli have a better historical claim to the land....the original boundaries.
The Israeli have a better legal claim to the land by the vote of the UN and
International law.
The Palestinians are pawns to the militant's. Otherwise this would have been
settled long ago.
The only reason I can see tactically or strategically to fire Rockets into Israel is to stir the pot.
The Israeli are wrong to blockade Gaza.
Egypt is wrong to close her borders to Gaza.
Thats about it.
To which you will probably reply, if you don't know more than that, shut up, unless replying to a particular point. Which may be just the ticket. Please...no cheers from the peanut gallery.
edit...two things...I just heard Bush back Isreael, which strengthens Hamas's case (sort of kidding) and I was completely unaware of the Mecca accords.
.This is about more than a legal right of Israel to exist. They do of course have such a right. Yet so do the former residents that were displaced by Israel, all 750,000 of them.
The seeds for this unending violence came when two basic occurrences took place. Great Britain changed its mind about ceding their colony to the new state and armed and incited the indigenous Arab population there thinking that further slaughter of those who survived the holocaust would bring about a world wide clamor for British involvement. Israel ousted the aforementioned three quarters of a million folks. Obviously they did this to retain a majority in the new nation, and the tone was set as early as 1937 when David Ben Gurion mandated that the displacement of up to one million current residents ( Arabs) would be necessary to achieve autonomy.
But, after sixty years of this war, after the retaliatory redoubling of Israels responses to a few rocket attacks, after the blockading of food , medicine and money
a call for sanity is much in order. Had Israel responded with compassion and intellect rather than to its fear of another holocaust Hamas, Hezbollah, et al would have had no fodder on which to feed and grow stronger. It is almost asif Israel provokes and refuses to take any step to alleviate the problems. That leads me to believe they have an ulterior motive, one that needs the death and maiming to come to fruition....awful huh?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"That leads me to believe they have an ulterior motive, one that needs the death and maiming to come to fruition....awful huh?"
That it is. I read P Buchanan's's column about the Gaza Blitz, this added to your posts, including this one, which reminded me of the British strategy, you had mentioned the turning over of the forts, added in the Mecca accords which I was unaware of and I may be a lot closer to an answer for me than I was.
I really hadn't paid as much attention as I should because we have almost as bad, even deadlier problem on our Southern border as you know, Darfur is more serious, some African problems are as close, Pakistan and India are far more dangerous...not to excuse some of my ignorance, just fact.
Hillary has a far better chance of getting something done than Sleeza ever did. The change to Obama could help, should help simply because he's not Bush.
If you get a chance read PB's column, I'd be interested to hear your impression.
.As one addicted to The McGloughlin Report on PBS I am familiar with Pat Buchanan, one rather intelligent SOB to be sure. I always find myself nodding along with his discourse, right up to the time he reaches a silly conclusion...Hey, that's sort of like I do with your posts too...I would love to read the article, can you link to it?
You continue to look in the wrong places and to the wrong people for relief of problems. At least in my opinion.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"Hey, that's sort of like I do with your posts too"
Pat and I are very pleased to provide entertainment, I've been watching McGloughlin forever. Not all the conclusions, surely! Seriously I try to catch a bit of everybody. I balance the Nation thats about as far left as you can get with Human Events which is about as far right as I'd care to go. Human Events stops short of Limbaugh mostly.
"I would love to read the article, can you link to it?"
I think you have read it. I posted it for NYCartist and you may have mistaken it for my posting. I put, "here's Pat Buchanan's article" above it.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/12/29-6#comment-1101262
If you did, tell me how to avoid that happening again...in fact as I'm asking advise, should I post a whole article like that or just link it?
Just in case ....http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/12/pjb-bush-obama-and-the-gaza-blitz/
Happy New Year!
.I read and responded there and again just now.....
Linking is facilitated by such as this:
a colon indicates what follows is an intact message and quotes " " indicate the words are not your own.....works for me..If this site was a bit less primitive we could use italics or bold to highlight and make more coherent. Of course that is just one item on my wish list....Imagine if we could somehow see if there were responses to our posts without laboriously rereading all responses to the articles again and again....and again.
Heck, imagine an ignore function.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin