Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe United Haters of America
Somewhere deep inside the authoritarian minds of the ultra right-wingers, the fear, helplessness and paranoia that have always been so evident have reached the boiling point. For them, Obama's election and, perhaps even more so, the sight of him standing on the Capitol steps and taking the oath of office, have brought home a grim truth. They have tried to deny it for many years now, but America is not what they think it is. And because of their own incompetence, blindness to reality and the changing demographics among voters - the growing minorities and young voters who have rejected the GOP - they have lost America, perhaps for good.
And so now we hear, sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly, their wish of failure (and perhaps worse) for America.
Karl Rove and Marc Thiessen, the former chief White House speechwriter, have been warning that Obama's new anti-terror policies (such as closing Guantanamo Bay, prohibiting torture and stopping rendition to CIA black sites) may put the nation at risk. In The Washington Post, Thiessen wrote, "If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible - and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation."
One can read the anticipation between the lines - "When there's a terrorist attack, Republicans will rule again because that will prove Obama was wrong and Bush was right!"
Well, of course it would do nothing of the sort. First, there is no evidence that any of Bush's anti-American policies - illegal wiretapping, coercive interrogations, extraordinary renditions, or holding people without charges, lawyers or trials - have prevented any attacks. In fact, most military and intelligence personnel agree that these policies have increased terrorist recruiting and made American less safe. They have also resulted in far more terrorist attacks around the world.
Bush and Dick Cheney made similar claims during their beauty pageant goodbye strolls while completing their terms in office. The most important legacy for them is that there were no terrorist attacks on the U.S. after 9/11, and they argued that Obama's reversals of Bush's policies could invite future attacks. That argument is utter nonsense.
Leave aside the fact that more than 4,000 U.S. soldiers have died, many from terrorist attacks, and that more than 150,000 Iraqis have died, many from terrorist bombings, and that hundreds more died in terrorist assaults in London and Madrid and India and Indonesia and elsewhere. Even had none of these things happened, the cause-and-effect argument simply isn't logical. It's just after-the-fact rationalization.
There is also no reason to think that most people will blame Obama if terrorists strike again, even though that's what all this noise from the right wing is about - laying the groundwork to blame the new president. Despite the evidence that the Bush administration ignored blatant warnings about 9/11, went on vacation and did nothing to stop the attacks, Americans rallied around Bush. They would likely do the same with Obama.
Now there is fear-mongering about what would happen were we to grant some rights to offenders at Guantanamo - that some would go free and incite violence against us. Well, here's a news flash: That has already happened, under Bush. The U.S. has already released more than 400 prisoners from Guantanamo, many held for years without any legal rights whatsoever. Some have simply gone home. But some have taken up arms against us (perhaps some of them because they were held without cause). The New York Times reported that one became the deputy leader of Al Qaeda in Yemen. The militant, Said Ali al-Shihri, was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and is suspected of involvement in the bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen in September.
Where are the howls of protest about this outrage? If this happens under an Obama administration, the Limbaughs and the Hannitys will be calling for his head. But, in their blind devotion to Bush, they say nothing about policies that led to an arrest and incarceration of a terrorist but were so ill-conceived and poorly managed that they forced his release. Similarly, some charges against terrorists have been or will be thrown out because Cheney and Rumsfeld and Bush allowed their torture. The very policy they so lovingly embraced has actually helped the enemy.
But that actually isn't that surprising. Right-wingers have always seemed to have a strange enthusiasm for the things terrorists do and say, then they react in a way that helps the terrorists. The administration based U.S. military and foreign policy on what the terrorists said they were going to do - imagine, running U.S. policy based on the lies and threats of a bunch of wanton murderers. Bush put the country trillions more into debt to fight wars and finance tax cuts for the rich so that he could say we were taking the fight to the terrorists but could still go shopping. He let terrorists' threats lead him to ignore the Constitution, erode our moral standing in the world and drive a wedge between the U.S. and its allies. And his policies have allowed murders to go free and kill again - exactly what the right-wing claims Obama is going to do.
So it's not much of a stretch to think that, somewhere deep down, some in the extreme right wing will gain a smug satisfaction if terrorists do strike again in America. They can't wait for the blame game to start. People like Rush Limbaugh and Rove and Sarah Palin seem to think that liberals hate America. But, who, really, are the haters?
Limbaugh and many of his listeners have said they hope Obama will fail. That means they want America to fail. Or, at least, they want the kind of America that Obama stands for to fail - you know, the one where civil liberties are respected, where the rule of law prevails, where a multi-lateral foreign policy is embraced to increase homeland security, and where an African-American Democrat can become president.
They hate the America that is a liberal democracy, which it has been through most of its history. They hate the idea of equal protection for gays, of rights for the accused. They hate the idea of any kind of social welfare. This is a group that would destroy an entire industry because they hate the union workers who are fighting for better health care and wages. Yet they barely bat an eye at millions stolen by CEOs and investment bankers who raped their companies and banks and gave away billions in bonuses while the economy collapsed all around.
During the run-up to Obama's inauguration, some newspapers ran series of interviews with people about their hopes and fears for the new presidency.
The hopes, mostly from Democrats: New and more accountable foreign policy, less cronyism, less corruption, more fiscal responsibility, and more moral accountability in government.
The fears, mostly from Republicans: The expansion of social welfare programs and allowance of gay marriage.
Really? That's what they're afraid of, after these last eight years? Well, in fairness, maybe they do have a deeper fear.
What they are really afraid of is that President Obama, and America, will succeed.
141 Comments so far
Show AllThe whole premise of the rightwing hate speech is completely bogus.
The Bush Gang did 9/11 in order to get their blank check to make themselves billions in the big svanger hunt for other countries' natural resources.
9/11 worked--gullible USites fell for it hook, line and sinker--and even the absurd disinformation that Saddam Hussein was involved.
So another 9/11 simply was not necessary--all the Bush Gang had to do was threaten USites that another 9/11 was in the works and everyone took off their shoes and poured out their Duty Free purchases and called themselves patriots.
And those patriots, it seems, received at least part of what they deserved.
The problem is that in a globalized planet, when USites get what they deserve, folks in other parts of the planet get what they DON'T necessarily deserve.
glenn ford (a great actor in my humble opinion) said about my post this only statement:
"Law applied unevenly is no law at all."
Many nations have laws that are not applied evenly in their respective societies, including the USA. In fact, some laws are applied unevenly simply by mere circumstance (i.e. Are abortion laws applicable to men? Can one person marry another of the same biological sex? Is every job available to a blind person? These despite protections against discrimination and to ensure that, supposedly, everyone is equal under the law inside the USA?).
He seemed to have taken offense when I suggested that adherents and followers of neoconservatism should not have the laws that THEY have created applicable to them. Ironically, the idea of sending neoconservatives overseas without trial and tortured indefinitely for costing the USA billions of dollars waging wars based on false pretenses (the main cause of a possible Great Depression II - certainly neoconservatives are responsible for the current global recession) while destroying USA reputation is what neoconservatives stand for against "terrorists" right? As it turns out, neoconservatives have committed economic terrorism against its own citizens. Let me guess, and this is just a guess...you are a neoconservative and perhaps even a Zionist sympathizer too huh glenn ford?
Limbaugh and every one of the people who called into his show to wish that Obama fails should be ostracised for being un-American. For all their talk of un-American Liberals who should be killed or sent to Guantanimo whenever any criticism of Bush was delivered, the same needs to happen to them. Fortunately, only those who truly hate Government and most Americans of their kind, are slowly turning into the Minority. Wishing for another attack on America so that their party might regain power is TREASON!, especially in a time of so-called War!
"Water water everywhere, and we can't drink a drop!"
I'm not sure what the haters are afraid of. So far Obama has done everything to kiss their a**.
Nothing has changed if you examine the rhetoric closely. Obama's soundbites are just that - in reality, deep down, there is no change.
Holder is one case in point - they are refusing to investigate torture allegations to get him appointed.
Removing family planning from the stimulus is another.
But I could be wrong !
OK, now this comment is a bit over the top.
Yes, Obama removed SOME (not all) of the funding for family planning from the stimulous bill.
However...and these are BIG things....
1). He actually put that funding there in the first place.
2). He removed the gag order on charities regarding family planning and abortion services.
3). He has rescinded nearly all of Bush's last-minute executive orders.
4). He has told the EPA to not implement any Bush directives
5). He has made serious moves to close GITMO
6). He has ordered the closure of all black-sites
7). He has ordered the practice of 'rendition' to stop pending review.
8). He has ordered that ALL "enhanced interrogation techniques" cease immediately.
9). He has ordered a culture change with regard to obtaining information from the agencies of the executive branch. In effect, he is re-opening government to external scrutiny once again.
And it's been ONE WEEK!
Now I'm not going to sit here and disagree with you about some things. He is not doing EVERYTHING that I would like to have him do either.
But good grief! What has already happened is FAR from "nothing has changed"
and "really deep down nothing has changed"
I will concede that MORE change is required. But to claim that nothing has changed is really ridiculous....I mean seriously. Do you honestly expect that McCain or even Clinton would have moved so far so fast????
Despite the fact that I am NOT a 100% Obama convert and I am NOT happy with some of his policies (like Afghanistan and Israel) you really do have to give him quite a lot of credit for what he HAS done.
It's pretty clear to me that, though he may not be the perfect president for me, he's turning into a damn fine one!
I would agree in substance with your comments, excepting the last one as it is far too early to judge the man's Presidency. This thing could go either way, Obama is ,after all, a friend to the financial community,dedicated to expanding the "war on Terror", his efforts at bipartisanship may certainly blow up in his face and his own party seems uncomfortable under his leadership.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
Change is inevitable, and I believe that Obama boarded that train of inevitable change and is riding it for all it is worth, the real question that begs to be answered might very well be what of this change can we accredit President Obama with?
Those keen leaders always know when to abandon their sinking ship and as I recall it was not ultimately Obama but also McCain who admitted that the old ship was going down in flames.
If we are too smart for our own good we will continue to imagine the great changes we want are waiting on or will happen only through President Obama's favor. That is nonsense we already shed in our past wisdom and if we cannot see the massive changes underway, we will become nothing but a drag on the new day.
The change is upon us folks, climb aboard because the train is leaving.
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
When the people lead the leaders must follow...I think Nelson Mandela said that
I would really like to believe you are right in that the ship is indeed sinking and that massive change is underway. I am rather cognizant of the massive nature of our government, the great wealth and resilience of our corporations and the way our politicians are wedded to those campaign checks. In addition I see the vast numbers of military, paramilitary and police forces in this land, each dedicated to preservation of the status quo. I do not see a relinquishment of the cash cow that is our government being a nonviolent or easy transition.
When you ask me to climb aboard, exactly what is it that I am boarding? Do you request that I throw away my long experience and disappointment with the Democratic Party and climb aboard that train? Do you wish me to have faith in the Obama experience? I really see promise in the early stage of this Presidency, but I also see the gathering clouds on the horizon marshaling to stop the progress. I noted that not one single Republican voted for the 850 billion dollar Obama request to stop the sliding economy and create a million and a half jobs.I hear John Bohner making very militant speeches and rallying his troops this weekend at a retreat. I see democrats gathering to stab that billions of dollar beast with their steely knives, ensuring their "fair share" of the pork. Cynical, me?
When you speak of change I believe you to be referring to something ethereal rather than concrete. I see many folks believing in the cult of Obama but far fewer understanding that the beast is capitalism and that until we tame it we will make little progress. Sorry for the wordy reply,Leea, but I am a bit of a didact at times....
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
Rick, Hi. I'd ask you to board no train but am curious about which routes you believe in. Your 2nd sentence stated you hope the ship is sinking and massive change is underway.
I assume you hope for positive change. Do you care to extrapolate on hoping for the ship to sink on one hand and massive change on the other?
If it goes like this-The uber-elite have concentrated our wealth as the poor have grown in number causing a decimated standard of living, and thus, to forestall further foreclosure of people's homes and souls, looting of their retirements, to attain health care and equitable allocation of our resources for all, we'll have to take it all back by force, sink the ship, build new, I think I get it. Bu-ut, tell me, wadda ya's think Rick? azjoe.
Leea:
Do you believe that this (hoarding of the cash) is driven by fear or security?
azjoe:
I assume you hope for positive change. Do you care to extrapolate on hoping for the ship to sink on one hand and massive change on the other?
If I may answer both together. I think that the amassing of wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer while creating a third world nation out of the wreckage of the USA is an unconscious process, one stemming naturally from the "capitalism gone wild" deregulation process. I further believe that we are all of us obligated to share a certain guilt at this outcome of rampant greed at every level of society. We reveled in our credit cards and easy loans, our second mortgages or even thirds should the whim to buy a boat or car strike us. Of course some benefited more than others to be sure, and those like Bernie Madoff were a natural result of all our collective flaws.
Unregulated capitalism becomes a constant search for ever unattainable profits. A decently functioning company, one that employs workers, pays a decent wage, produces a good product and makes a fair profit is simply not enough any more. The need for more and more every quarter leads inevitably to the abuses and criminality we see around us today. Can you or I honestly say that, over the decade or more of this trend, we never thought that it would come crashing down around us? Or did we just go along for the ride because we did benefit from it. Certainly all out of proportion to the way the elite benefited but we were satisfied.
The question, from which I strayed in order to paint a more accurate picture of my views, was if I hope for the ship to sink. I think it will either sink, causing untold damage to many innocents ( or almost innocents) or it will gain an ever tightening control over our government and our lives, bringing even more damage to our fundamental principles, our democratic republic as the founders envisioned it, as well as our economic lives.
I think that our new President will attempt many changes, inspired by the good to be certain. But I think also that he will be stopped short of anything more than cosmetic
change. I believe that he is far too wedded to a sick and sad system that may very well be beyond repair. I further believe that most of us share that same vision in the rightness of our system, sad to say.
I hope I have at least partially clarified my views, or a few of them anyway. I understand that this all sounds rather grim and pessimistic as well, but then, these are grim and pessimistic times.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
Red Rick,
Thank you for your tireless sincerity in sorting out your understanding and sharing it with us here. I think that sincerity is a ship we can all climb aboard and sail through our next eon of humanity.
Sometimes the big change we expect to make a difference overshadows the little change we find actually makes all the difference in the world.
I look forward to further dialogue with you Red.
Peace.
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
Gee, maybe I stumbled into the right place? Thank you.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
"I do not see a relinquishment of the cash cow that is our government being a nonviolent or easy transition."
Do you believe that this (hoarding of the cash) is driven by fear or security?
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
Its going to take 30 years of domination by a real Democratic party to undue the thirty years of fake fiscal Right wing Neocon Republican Capitalistic Imperialism.
Real education in our schools, you know , the kind that teaches the Constitution as Law of the Land.
The writing is on the wall, this is just the beginning, more young people who come from hard hit economic family's have and will join the Democratic Party.
Limbaugh and Hanity will have an audience of super brain dead zombies that will drink their mean spirited kool aid all day long.
Their numbers will never be great enough to make a difference in elections for year to come.Because their values are told to them every day by Dumb and Dumber.
These people are mean and potentially dangerous.
Buckle up Republicans, you are going to be in the back seat for the next 30 years.
BornFreeMen
Both Parties are decrepit. Both parties are the root cause of our problems. Change will come after the collapse of the economic system. It will not be nice, nor pleasant, but the current Corporate Party with two heads have too much wealth at stake for their class for anything meaningful to occur that will help the working class. After the collapse? Who knows? It's like as asking the crew on the Titanic what are you going to do at the same time as it strikes the iceberg. I'd say. Dance!
Please please don't refer to those idiots as 'super-brains'.
They are perhaps super ass-kissers.
I run around a pretty intelligent crowd. And it is rare that you find ANYONE who thinks those guys are in any way intelligent. They are not that bright. Except, perhaps, when it comes to telling the media CEO's what they want to hear so they can make loads of money. In that one area these people are selfishly brilliant.
I think that is supposed to be read as super brain-dead.
This is just so typical: a mainstream, Obama-supporting, good-guy democrat rails against the mainstream, evil republicans. Hey Guy Reel, there's much that you avoid by your so-easy analysis of good vs. bad.
"The hopes, mostly from Democrats:"
(1) "New and more accountable foreign policy." You mean like having a more balanced approach, instead of taking sides in Gaza? You mean like not escalating our occupation in Afghanistan? You mean like vastly reducing our war budget and the numbers (>730) of our overseas military bases - so we can seem less of an Empire to the rest of the world?
(2) "less cronyism, less corruption." You mean like the president should surround himself with advisors and appointees who aren't Clinton/Bush holdovers, or Zionists, or neocons?
(3) "more fiscal responsibility." You mean like not throwing money at banks, Wall Street crooks and incompetent CEOs who ran their businesses into the ground because they have no concept of the terms innovation or sustainability?
(4) "more moral accountability in government." See numbers 1, 2 and 3.
"The fears, mostly from Republicans:"
(1) "The expansion of social welfare programs." Don't worry republicans. Obama says "We expect that discussion around [Social Security and Medicare] entitlements will be a part, a central part, [of efforts to curb federal spending]."
(2) "allowance of gay marriage." Most likely scenario: It ain't gonna happen.
It isn't just the GOP who "have lost America, perhaps for good." It's we the people.
"What they are really afraid of is that President Obama, and America, will succeed."
Sounds like all the Obama-bashers here on CD.
Joe, Succeed at what? What possible successes that Obama and this nation could achieve would engender such fears as you state? Seriously, I am very interested in what you meant, and it is hard to comprehend your meaning from such jingoistic sloganeering.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
Ending the Iraq war, ending torture, restoring civil liberties, protecting the environment, shutting Guantanamo etc...
All things that many so-called progressives said he would never do.
Now they're just too full of pride to admit they were wrong.
You failed to answer the question which referred to your statement that "they are afraid Obama will succeed". Are you inferring that "they" do not want to end that laundry list above? That would be rather disingenuous of you.
I believe that you are a faith based political person, Joe, and I believe that faith may have its place in a person's life, but pragmatism works far better in the political arena. I applaud the initial steps of our new President but there is ample reason to continue to watch him closely and there is never any reason to abandon the critiquing of those things you object to in his actions.
You act as if criticism is unAmerican when it is absolutely essential to the process. You should really stop insisting that those who do not toe your own particular political line are somehow disloyal, they are certainly not that.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
We have yet to depart Iraq, and there is far more to go before civil liberties are fully restored, but yes President Obama has been acting exactly the way I had hoped he would. Also, wayyyyy more needs to be done environment-wise (I was pretty involved in clean energy stuff last year).
Well, at least you support Obama.
Yes I do, I voted for him and got involved in my county Democratic party for the election, helping out both local and national candidates. I couldn't do much because of school, but I'm glad he got elected.
"Sounds like all the Obama-bashers here on CD."
I think this mindset is a bit familiar. I seem to remember an incompetent crook president's supporters calling all critics of his administration "Bush bashers". It couldn't be that there are REAL reasons to critique Obama, could it? If we are to push Obama, which he himself said you should if you want difficult policies enacted, how do we do that without logically and factually critiquing him? I wish the world I live in was as simple as yours.
Excuse me.
But there is a line between being a critique and saying things like "nothing is different" and "he's the same as all of them" which are common themes I have seen running through here.
And I have to laugh because before Obama took office and he was pretty quiet, this place was rife with people insisting that we'd voted in the biggest conservative since Sarah Palin.
And that's OK really, because Obama was pretty quiet and didn't really do much and we were all speculating in a vacuum.
But what really gets to me, and probably to many others, is that after the EVIDENCE comes in, which is basically proving that Obama was very serious about many progressive things the rhetoric just doesn't stop. It just moves on to those areas that he hasn't moved on yet, or hasn't moved as quickly as some might like.
The reason I shifted leftward from my centrist position I held in the 90's was because I could see that the right was wholly abandoning evidence-based policy.
The left was beginning to embrace it.
Please folks, don't push guys like me away just because you don't like the balance of the evidence!
"But there is a line between being a critique and saying things like "nothing is different" and "he's the same as all of them" which are common themes I have seen running through here."
For one, it is silly and simplistic to put every person who critiques Obama, like me, and place them in the same boat as the worse case scenerio, as least from your perspective. I have not said there is no difference. I, and many people here, have acknowledged the good he has done. We also are pointing out ways in which he seems ideologically opposed, like in Gaza or "free trade" (listen to the same old crap comments of his economic advisors) and say that on some extremely important things he is NOT taking progressive positions. The people saying there is NO difference are being silly, probably overly cynical after the last 30 years of corporate looting.
If there is not a fundamental break with "free trade" or neo-liberalism things like universal healthcare will not be possible. If he isn't willing, or can't, go after the some of the basic assumptions within DC, which seem to be the ideological foundations of his foroeign policy team, then we will continue to have an interventionist and reactionary foreign policy and will continue to back the most reactionary leaders (like in Colombia). I have a FACTUAL and LOGICAL problem with certain positions, I am not a blind ideologue and know the issues I'm talking about.
I don't speak for people who aren't objective, and you'd be wise to not see every critique from the left of Obama as that, but there are real concerns with some of his policies. I'm happy on many of the positions he's taken, it's a VAST improvement over the previous government, but he will need to be PUSHED in certain directions, because of his or his adminitrations ideology or institutional barriers that are hard to overcome (like entrenched interests). There's no way to do that without critique and being active. I DO get a sense from many Obama supporters, maybe you aren't one of them, that ANY critique of Obama is inherently irrational and only helps the right wing. I've heard it many times and it is irrational and counter productive. The man is doing a decent job but is not god, can and will be wrong.
Well said, physicscitizen.
Folks like jimmyjazz are jumping on Obama worse than the Republicans.
I often wonder how many of these Obama-bashers might actually be paid Republican operatives sent here to sabotage Obama's agenda.
Well, no surprise: I'm *way* further to the left of Obama than the Republicans are to the right of him. So it makes sense. Were you not aware that there were positions way to the left of Obama?
You're still a centrist.
And Obama is, as of January 25th, a murderer of women and children. But it's OK, they weren't Americans.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/jan/26/afghanistan-protest
"Leave aside the fact that more than 4,000 U.S. soldiers have died..."
Come on, folks - let's get the numbers right. Change we can believe in, remember?
US military deaths - Iraq and Afghanistan: 4878
US military wounded - over 35,000 (that we know of)
US military suicides - over 500 since 2003
So, Mr. Reel and all others, instead of saying "more than 4,000 soldiers have died," how about "more than 45,000 soldiers have been killed and wounded"?
The more we drive home the TRUTH, the more likely the insanity will cease...
Based on your own numbers Mr. Reel was correct.
The statement "more than 4000 soldiers have died" is a true statement by your own admission.
The combined total of: (1) the bailout money to the banks, Wall Street and corporations, (2) the deficit and national debt and (3) the cost of the military occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan is only more than $1,000. So I don't know what everyone's so worried about.
Not only that, if you add any future bailout money and war costs to this combined total it will still only come out to be more than $1,000. So, again, I don't know what everyone's so worried about.
I'll bet the terrorists aren't really mean at all. I'll bet we could even drop Rush Limbaugh from a helicopter into the mountains of Afghanistan where all the terrorist are congregated and nothing bad would happen to him. Let's try it and see if I'm right or wrong.
Since Rush is a traitor who has sold out for $; hates the U.S.A.; and wants Obama to fail; he would probably be welcome with open arms!
Well, you could try it in a couple of neighborhoods in my city. They wouldn't care whether he was famous or not there--but I doubt he'd last much longer.
Heroes of the Progressive Left since WW2 (a partial listing): Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Yasser Arafat, Hugo Chavez, Robert Mugabe, Eldridge Cleaver, Leonard Peltier.
Heroes of Judy Levy (a partial listing): Augusto Pinochet, Alfredo Stroesner, Mobutu Sese Seko, Idi Amin, Ferdinand Marcos, the Shah of Iran, Nguyen Van Thieu, Soeharto.
Touche!
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
Judy Levy. Hi there! Now Judy, Pol Pot and Mugabe only seem like Progressive Left when your heart and mind lie to the right of their politics and butchery. I suggest reading CD articles, meditation and exorcism.
Now Senor Chavez? Mucho Coran de Alma. azjoe.
Well, you actually got a couple correct....Are these presumptions of yours or are they delusions? Where, I wonder, did you get your list of supposed left wing heroes? Did you ask people of they were leftist and then ask them who they admired?
More likely you just meant to insult, admit it, and a pretty worthless effort too...
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
My, my, a hatchet job from a right-winger...what a shock...
How about heroes aplenty: those who fought for civil rights, some of whom were killed by the anti-progressives of that time; those who fought for Medicare and Social Security against continuous nay-saying by anti-progressives; those who stood up for truth even as the radicals of the right gave us false reasons for war, attempted to destroy Constitutional protections that they had sworn to defend and uphold. There are so many heroes of the progressive wing since WWII. They have kept the nation from disaster--and the last eight years under anti-progressives show what Judy's side has brought us to...
Its Judy's turn to cry.
This is Judy Levy's list.
The erosion of the voice of opposition in this country began with the denial of civil rights to self-professed Communists. Certainly Amerinds, Blacks, Women, and Immigrants were victimized from the outset, but there were those who supported them and their voices were tolerated. Certainly there were no hearings to oust self-professed Abolitionists from government, much less witch hunts to dismiss people from public life because of charges of Abolitionism. Liberalism castrated itself when it jumped on the bandwagon to eliminate all discussion deemed Communist or socialist or Marxist (whatever these terms may mean. Marx himself denied being a Marxist.) Accept Communism and find a way to move forward or continue to flounder in the shadow of the anti-Communist monolith.
Actually slightly prior and in conjunction with the communist repression was the Palmer Raids a suppression mostly of Anarchists( and Syndicalists?). Gold was made illegal to possess in the USA because Red Russia was feeding the USA poor in soup lines( and making ten million party members) with defeated White Russian gold.
Actually Communism as I read it in my dictionary sounds a lot like the Democracy we purport to be. I am no expert but it sounds like the defining difference between it and Capitalism is the power lying in a small elite private group, and the power lying in a large common public group. Communism also sounds very similar to Socialism which is what I think Republicans often accuse democrats or liberals of being?
Anyway the demonizing of Communism based on some long dead leaders who had their own ideals for it, have little to do with it's general theory as far as I can tell.
In all these social systems the ideal seems to be that they will promote the greatest good.
Capitalism seems to be one big failure to that end but a great success in promoting the greatest greed.
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
Any Government that is antithetical to the wealthy,ruling elite and their vested interests worldwide, is demonized as bad and an anathema to them. They use the ad hominem that they are the bad guys and a threat to our way of life, when what they really mean it is a threat to THEIR way of life that concerns them. Call it by any name you want i.e. Communism, Marxism ect. it does not matter.
True, true. Terrorists being the label that has been flung about all too freely in regard to anyone opposing said "prosperity". Although, is prosperity the word we want to use to describe what we have been witness to? It seems awful benign, and though our president may, due to understandable circumstance, be slave to benignity, the people are not.
I would call what we have witnessed with Bush and his greedy cadre, economic terrorism, plain and simple.
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
this is actually correct. the "failure" of communism as an ECONOMIC system was due NOT to the ideals or methods of communism itself -- but because NO TRUE communist system has been installed. INSTEAD -- under the USSR what happened was a TOTALITARIAN "one man dictatorship" likewise in china - or "one party" system -- which communism NEVER pretended to propose - but according to marx is more a "people's power" as OPPOSED to MONEY CAPITAL power - that CAN be expressed in MULTIPARTY socialist ECONOMIC principles - and it was practiced as STATE CAPITALISM...
no different REALLY from NAZI germany or Fascist italy or even
USA CORPORATISM.
in ALL of them the PEOPLE had NO voice..and the tenets of ECONOMIC communism - which was for getting rid of the "bourgeouisie" sentiments in order to instill a just distribution of economic wealth through democratic participation - was twisted..and of course became a "whipping boy" for the CAPITALIST economic SySTEM to DEFINE as "failed".
in reality -- we haven't really arrived in that true communist or socialist ideals.
BUT it is instructive that WHERE even a MERE mixture of SOCIALISM with capitalism -- such as sweden, norway, Finland, France, -- has created populations that are FAR MORE ADVANCED as a civilization than ANY the UNITED STATES has to offer as the model.
one begins to wonder, in the light of the IMPLOSION of the VERY HEART of capitalism's MONEY structure - whether the TRUE CAUSES of instabilities IN such "mixed economies" as france or swedene etc .. are the CAPITALIST PART of the mix -- considering that the recessions in those countries are DIRECTLY rooted and tied WITH the VERY THINGS that are imploding the US itself -- the "CHAMPION OF CAPITALISM".
one wonders.........
Thanks for the input teddy, and btw, I really like your style of punctuating your thoughts with caps. It creates a strong impression for me of your thinking style.
It seems that the number one tool in the contest of manipulating thought is mislabeling. Mislabeling a failed totalitarian government as "communist" works well for the right, as well as the old message that those labeled communists were enemies or traitors of and trying to undermine the good in America. Should we label them "communists" then as they intend it to mean? Capitalism seems to be the good word, communism the bad word. Or perhaps we need a new label all together to describe our newly ascribed to governing system, such as Changism? :)
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
It is a mistake to think that we have a fully free, capitalist market in the U.S., especially over the last eight years. The overwhelming amount of money and power residing in huge corporations, abetted and defended with the help of government, renders smaller businesses and independent workers powerless.
True free market capitalism resembles a middle eastern bazaar more than Wall Street, where only the enormously wealthy are given a free hand.
So what we have is more akin to Corporatism than Capitalism.
Nor has western Europe a strictly capitalist market, for most European countries have a far more encompassing social safety net and the governments supervise their corporations more strictly.
The problem with communism is, simply, it doesn't work. Anywhere. And despite the current crisis, western economies that are market oriented do -- for the most part -- work.
What we need to do is reform, increase government oversight, reduce the number and reach of behemoth corporations, and encourage small businesses; while creating a social safety net.
I don't know, I don't think we can call the last eight years of market in America 'capitalistic' per your description of true Capitalism. I think that what we saw develop was a system of market closer to________.
But, we can reject outright the system imposed on us through the Bush years and still and more likely create a new system to match the new day we are all champions of.
Is "true Capitalism" what we want?
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
What we have been exposed to for at least the last eight years is called Predatory Capitalism. Something only some of the ultrawealthy and coporations want.
My new description of it is economic terrorism, thank God that we have President Obama in office, the chance for change through choosing to acknowledge the need to change. Yes, we are.
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
We live in a Republic... With representative government...
We use the electoral process of Democracy to elect our representatives...
We have an economic system based on a corporatist version of capitalism...
The nations currency is "lended" to the public at interest by a cotege of private banks... The Fed...
The profits of production are privatized, the costs of production are subsidized,
the damage to society and nature are externalized, the deficit and national debt are our legacy...
The wages of labor are taxed, any service or asset is commodified, property is subdivided...
The scarcity consciousness that results from corporatism creates a paradigm of competition...
A mentality of Us vs. Them leads to obesity & famine, mansions & homelessness, war for profit...
GoldenMean, I see you did not pick your screen name for nothing! Might I add to your excellent observations the possibility that what you have described is falling quickly to the past, and the new age is rushing toward us. Change becoming inevitable, and what we live in quickly becoming a whole new world.
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
Hey Leea....
thanks for taking it to the next level... finding the synthesis in the antithesis...
I feel it is important to seek out clarity in describing our shared "reality" as much as one can... the solution to the problem is usually inherent in how one views the characteristics of the problem...
yet it is easy to get stuck in a reactionary or antithetical mind frame with all the problems in the world and in our own lives... the wage slave consciousness of scarcity and competition and cognitive dissonance that the working class have been socialized to believe in is quickly becoming outmoded...
Each major social institution that has wielded power and control over the masses or their constituency for hundreds if not thousands of years is now crashing down all around us... the Catholic church & mega-churches with their pedophilia... Imperial American Hegemony as it is bogged down in multiple quagmires,...Corporatist Capitalism as the stock market tanks... even scientific materialism is losing its luster as more research is being conducted in quantum physics and genetics...
As these antiquated systems fail, there are healthier systems based on social justice and natural laws that already exist and are able to expand and become more efficient in the vacuum that is created by the decline of the old paradigm... appropriate technology, service based economy, social democracy, cooperatives, sustainable agriculture and development, holistic medicine, consensus, etc...
there are already hundreds of millions of people around the world who are active within these "new" systems in one way or another... whether it is buying local organic food, building straw bale homes, or sharing ideas at the World Social Forum...
these two worlds exist simultaneously super imposed on the same space, and time is sweeping along this transformation of the entire planet to a higher consciousness, whether we like it or not... Our current economic and political and religious models and methods have expanded outward until they reached the inherent limitations... when something can no longer grow outward, it must grow inward... either mutate or metamorphosize into something that which transcends the previous paradigm...
Yes, yes, I could not say it better!!
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
I suppose there are some irreducibly nasty people in this nation. That certainly seems to have always been the case, since the beginning.
However, at this particular juncture in the history of the United States, there seems to be something else at play as well, a supplemental factor that intensifies the nastiness and the hatred: the nasties have suffered a defeat on a number of fronts (this is so even though Obama is by no means a left-wing politician), and we know from the backlash to the sixties protest and civil rights movements (the Reagan phenomenon, the BushCo luminaries, and their evangelical hordes, which, in the weeks leading to the 2004 election, Karl Rove called 'the hidden angels') that they do not take well to defeat, that defeat excites their nastiness and makes them desperate, so desperate that they are now more or less openly calling for another 9/11, for blood and murder. For violence, verbal and physical, is really their only argument.
The thing that the hyper-nasties and Karl Wehrmacht's (a name I am borrowing from Mordechai's post below) angels of night can stand least is to be dealt a defeat through non-violent means, because that exposes their true nastiness, their desperation, their wretchedness, and their backwardness. Indeed, if the rejection of their nastiness had been violent, they would still be on their own turf and have justification for retaliatory violence. This option is not available to them at this point, and that is why they wish for a terrorist attack, the pretext that would justify them in unleashing another round of violence, politically and otherwise.
In this respect, one does well to recall our great Christian preachers Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson's response to 9/11: to them the attacks were well deserved punishment for the sins of the American Civil Liberties Union, homosexuals, "abortionists," feminists, and all the other secularizers of America. The events offered our mega-evangelists an occasion to castigate and indict all the things they loath about the modern, liberation-crazy world in which they happen to find themselves. The relevant portion of the conversation that Falwell and Robertson had about 9/11 on September 13, 2001 is cited at www.beliefnet.com/story/87/story_8770.html.
It seems that members of the GOP and believers that neoconservatism is a viable ideology that is beneficial to all concerned are simply unable to accept the fact that they have been severely weakened. The truth is that membes of the GOP has never cared for the well-being of the majority of USA citizens. It is through them and their decisions, both foreign and domestic, as to why the USA and the international community is in such bad shape as well as why most people worldwide can not stand USA society or the government.
History has several examples of groups of people who were very similar to neoconservatives as a political force as far as ruining the societies in which they lived - and were punished accordingly. I believe the empirical evidence that has shown how much neoconservatism has ruined the USA is sufficient enough to conclude that adherents and followers of neoconservatism have caused more harm than good to USA society. They also fail to recognize that they are weakened which makes them particularly dangerous.
Please recall the time during the late 1940s and 1950s in which the GOP blacklisted and arrested Communist USA citizens. This was at a time when Communism was in no way going to be adopted by the USA Government - and was therefore not a threat. Nevertheless, it was through their paranoia and the corresponding propaganda that make most USA citizens fearful of something they do not understand, that severe injustices were dome to people who did not deserve it. The perpetrators of this was, of course, followers of rightwing ideology. They have set the parameters of debate. They created the criteria of who is an ideal Ameican and who is not. Last but not least, Neoconservatives, Republicans, and GOP members believe that revenge and scapegoatism are virtues. The have demonstrated this by borrowing billions of dollars to go overseas to raise Hell while objecting to borrowing billions to improve and repair USA infrastructure.
If anything, GOP members should feel greatful that President Obama is offering an olive branch to these people. He should be asking GOP politicians something like, "what do you propose we do to fix the problems that you have created here and throughout the world?" If I was the President of the United States right now, I would do some political cleansings that have long been overdue. There is no group of people right now that is more deserving of being outlawed than the GOP - for obvious reasons.
GOP members should be thrown in jail for treason - without trial. Habeus Corpus and the Geneva Conventions should not be applicable either.
Amen.
Law applied unevenly is no law at all
If you take what has happened to our economy and put just the slightest variance on 'terror' which is unlawful violence, and reiterate what most people believe happened under the Bush administration, an unlawful violation of our constitutional rights and our leaders constitutional obligations, we have a terrorist attack that came from within. I cannot think of what strikes greater fear into a people beyond physical violence, except for economic violence. There was an extreme and unlawful force to violate with unbridled greed our economic well being all for more and more profit, and a total lack of reinvestment into our infrastructure perpetuated by corporate America. Lets face it, this act of terror is sinking our ship of state. Lets not be fooled into believing that there is only one definition of terror that fits the bill for mass upheaval and destruction. One comes with the intent to harm, the other comes with the intent to hog. Both cause great damage, one to which we can respond with vengeance, and the other to which we are responding to by vindicating the perpetrators. Stranger than fiction?
What happens when snowflakes stick together?...............friends come together and have snow ball fights. :)
Leea
But why do the Democrats keep begging for support from those rightwing Evangelies even when they never vote for them anyway? Obama and the Democrats continue making the mistake of conceding everything to them and saying FUCK YOU to the liberal base and even giving moderates a queasy feeling that they're opportunists. Yet, the far right still insists on more more more ! Until progressives and liberals quit acting like sissies as they keep having this silly fear of being labelled "too soft on defense and terrorism" and "too liberal", they can shut the hell up and quit criticizing the conservatives. Either pound the conservatives or get pounded !
I believe absolutely in free speech whether one agrees with it or not and Rush and the rest of his ilk are entitled to their opinion just like Goebbels would if he were on hate radio, but what a lot of people do not realize is ( and I have witnessed this first hand ) is there are many right wingnut, extremists that cannot stand that a black family is living in the White House, with plenary power, and these gloom and doom hate mongers stir up the most ignorant racists and could be putting President Obama's life in danger; especially, when they say they want him to fail.
Actually Goebbels did not have the right to promote genocide nor does the AP or BBC have the right to encourage or promote ethnic cleansing in Afghanistan or Gaza.
I read this unbelievable article in Vanity Fair written by a guy who stayed at a Jesus Faith Clubhouse ( I forget the specific term they used for themselves)in the DC area, of which there are a couple. Lots of congress people go there to meet with ambassadors and top evangelicals. Among many others,I believe NM US Senators Dominici and AZ Senator McCain are members.
What do you make of those who use the privilege of free speech to deny free speech to certain groups or constituencies?
Internationally, legally there is no right ( because it is a crime) to promote genocide or ethnic cleansing. See current war crime trials for Rawandan Radio Announcers.
Die, USA, die!
Just a word, sneak: therapy.
And because of their own incompetence, blindness to reality and the changing demographics among voters - the growing minorities and young voters who have rejected the GOP - they have lost America, perhaps for good.
George Wanker Bush . . . Cheesedick Cheney , , , Karl Wehrmacht . . . Heinrich Himmler . . . Joseph Goebbels . . . Rush Luftwaffe . . . the United States has not seen the bottom yet. The far right will be back, courtesy of the legion of heedless and half-assed American people whose memories are about two centimeters long.
Educate, do not give up before you lose.
Gee... These folks hate Mexico, Canada, Costa Rica, Panama, Chile, and 13 other countries, for that is what America is. He should have written "Universal United States Haters."
There have been no terrorist attcks on the United States. There have been legitimate counter-attacks against the United States and its assets globally by people willing to defend Palestinians, Iraqis, Panamanians, Afghanis, and so forth as the United States wages(ed) war upon them. And since it's very clear the United States employs the doctrine of Total War, which makes civilians legitimate targets in contravention of International Law, it's opponents see it as quite fair to utilize it too. Too many people worldwide have had a "Luke Skywalker Moment"--the one where he races home only to find his surrogate parents burned to a crisp by Imperial Stormtroopers and is motivated in a way Obi Wan could not have to become a Jedi and join the fight to eliminate the Empire, not much unlike what millions have suffered over the decades from the US Empire and has created an unknown number of Lukes.
Discussion of the US Empire is what is being blacked-out by media and other writers like the one above. That the Empire's actions could create legitimate enemies who are unafraid to fight back in whatever way they can is a totally taboo topic, even for enlightened authors like Juan Cole. Instead, like 1984, we are treated to another evil foe that is global in scope so as to legitimate the global crusade by the US Empire to dominate the planet, an ongoing project since the end of WW2.
The Empire MUST DIE for the republic to live.
karlof1 you cut it to the bone, got it right, yassuh. But the truth is too frightening to accept for all but a few old geezers who remember the horror of B-52s over Vietnam........ The world as a whole will have to decide how it deals with the gringo empire and any others which somehow succeed it.....it can't be solved by the various voting publics with the media in the hands of the corporatists, the ideologues, the fanatics.......unless something truly earth-changing occurs.........at times like these I recommend prayer, meditation, right-living and lots of deep breathing........we seem to be at the end of something and wondering what comes next....
Looking deep under the surface perhaps we can see a totally different human civilization coming: perhaps much smaller in numbers, much simpler, much more humble. I say let's keep on proclaiming a peaceful approach, dialogues, mediation, forgiveness and willingness to sacrifice our material advantages for the good of the biosphere.
namaste
Out of the mouths of bandidos. Very good.
If Mr. Reel is not on the payroll of the Business Roundtable, he ought to be. The only way we could ever throw off corporate control of the government, the economy, and the society is for the poor, the working class, the intellectuals, and the progressives to unite. So one of the main goals of the corporate predator class is to keep those groups divided, and Reel's framing certainly helps to do that, increasing the hostility, mistrust, and misunderstanding between non-wealthy social conservatives and non-wealthy social liberals. The corporate elites would heartily approve.
And your skewerd, circuitous logic will accomplish what, exactly?
Find me a corporate elite, if you know any, who would "heartily approve" of Mr. Reel's presentation and I'll eat my hat.
Would you like some ketchup with your hat?
I have politely suffered through your comments for months without objection (in part because none were directed at me), but here you force me to respond.
The corporate elites heartily approve of the framing which fans the flames of the culture wars, demonizing the poor ignorant working class whites and setting progressives against social conservatives when they both need each other to have the political power necessary to fight against the corporate forces and other economic elites.
As for corporate elites who would "heartily approve," one good example would be those at Wachovia Corp., which has a perfect score for supporting gay rights (according to the Human Rights Campaign) and also actively supports right-wing ("hate") talk radio. But there are a large number of huge US corporations that actively support gay rights (note that corporate policies are never done for the public interest, as the officers must act only in the shareholder interest) while contributing primarily to Republican candidates, and never ever raise gay rights as an issue when lobbying those candidates or apply any pressure whatsoever on social issues. They are sophisticated players. They know what they are doing.
Kivals ----- Class wars are also not productive. Look at every successful social movement and you will see that wealthy, even aristocratic people helped to fund them. The problem is not in the wealth it is in the use of it. Just as a poor person with a gun is not a problem if he hunts for food and does not kill MLK or an Afghan.
"Look at every successful social movement and you will see that wealthy, even aristocratic people helped to fund them."
Read about the history of the civil rights movement, or the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles in the former "Third World".
The early Civil Rights movement, really beginning with the Abolitionists, were radicals. Leftists went down to the South during the early part of the 20th century, when there were no cameras detailing the brutality in front of the country. They were beaten up, killed and "disappeared". The Communist Party stepped forward to defend the Scottsboro Boys. Rosa Parks was not some woman who decided to not get up one day on the bus. She was an activist, worked for a group working on behalf of workers rights, social and economic justice and was a member of an NAACP that was formed in large party by radicals of that time.
In the Third World, usually the "bourgeois" elements sold out anti-colonial and anti-imperial struggles. Some times they'd take power and were committed nationalists, but because they were wedded to capitalism contradictions between rhetoric and results grew. This caused them to take sides, many of them picked Western capital, and we have a world dominated by poor countries, in which the formerly Western educated elites of the anti-imperialist movements did well, as did Western capitalists, the majority of people in the countries not so well. Most of the Third World revolutions, successful or not, were done by people who were literally dirt poor and had nothing. At best they might get help from one of the members of the former Second World, the help given was not small, but no where near as large as the West's.
When do rich people usually get involved with these struggles, there are exceptions, generally? Many times rich people support progressive movements when they fear policies and programs emerging from social movements that might harm them and their interests. They usually fund one group over another, to "divide and conquer". There are some exceptions, but lets not pretend these funds are benign when they USUALLY aren't.
The Great Leap Forward. The Cultural Revolution. Great anti imperialist and anti colonial successes they were. Or are you going to argue that Mao was a "bourgeois"?
Also, Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah, they would fit your classification of "bourgeois". Not dirt poor.
Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, Ruth First, none of them were dirt poor. They are / were "bourgeois".
And if you own a computer, and have high speed broadband to make your posts here on CD, you too are certainly "bourgeois".
It's funny, I use the word "bourgeois" (in parenthasese mind you) and your post was entirely about that word alone. I could have articulated what I meant better.
Mao was from a middle to do peasant family, by definition no, he wasn't "bourgeois", which is why the peasant in China replaced the industrial worker in Maoist philosophy. I also don't think that the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution had anything to do with anti-imperialism, they were internal programs to create "new men" within China and to industrialize as quickly as possible outside of the countrol of the world market. You might know that Mao had when he first came into power, in line with Soviet foreign policy at the time, a popular front gonvernment including many non-communist groups, and turned over time to the Cultural Revolution as a result of the contridictions he saw. So no, he wasn't bourgeois.
"Also, Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah, they would fit your classification of "bourgeois". Not dirt poor."
Are you under the impression that there aren't endless examples of what I'm talking about. Leaders whose ideological objection made it impossible for their countries to independantly develop, and that their opinions weren't the exact opposites of the movements who brought them to power? What exactly ARE you arguing, a word?
I wasn't implying at all that the left did not make mistakes. "Socialist" Algeria made a mistake when they removed Ben Bella just as he was reaching out to the social movements again. Many of the socialist countries made mistakes when they governed from above and didn't allow imput from bellow, and as a result misalocated funds and sapped enthusiasm from the people who brought them into power.
That is different than leaders put in power by the West and trained to follow economic policies that the people in their countries didn't want. Or leaders who got to where they were by talking left and governing from the right. Latin America has a long history of this.
Many of the leaders of the third world were educated outside of their countries in the West, which is where many times they encountered Western philosophers and got the skills needed to lead their struggles. Many of the Vietnamese went to France and discovered Marx, some (like the Central American dictators) went to schools here to teach them how to torture and terrorize their countries, and others went to school in the West and studied "bourgeois" economics.
There would be no destructive neo-liberalism if there wasn't a tiny, educated elite in the poorer countries doing the West's dirty work. There wouldn't have been many of the horrible dicatorships in the poorer countries if these elements weren't willing to implement capitalism at "the barrell of a gun" (Ruth First, right?).
Most of the problems of the poor countries of the world are systematic, there isn't much that can be done at the present time unless they all act as one, which was the aim of the "Third World" in the decades after WWII, and even then it would be very hard. They failed, and are hampered in many ways, by the power of the financial markets.
You might notice though that Latin America is breaking away from the control of the West. How are they doing this? They certainly are lead by the "bourgeois" in some instances, Correa in Ecuador has a PHD in economics for example. They're also lead by former peasant farmers (as in Bolivia) and former radical trade union leaders (like in Brazil). All of them, throughout Latin America (El Salvador might be next), however are ignoring or at least paying far less attention to the advice given from the "bourgeois" economists who lead them to despirate poverty & reliance on the West. They are doing this also by not allowing the reactionary elements of the military, lead by entrenched interest to keep the status quo, from taking over. Who were these reactionary elements? Who were they funded by and for what reason?
THIS is what I was talking about. The mistakes of the left have been analyzed over and over again, usually sensationally and for the purpose of propaganda. None the less, mistakes WERE made, and the left has had to look itself in the mirror and to learn.
The "bourgeois" elements have not been made to do the same. There has been no world wide condemnation of "neo-liberalism" or "free trade" like there was with communism, especially in this country. It is still a "respectable" philosophy in the West, despite it's failure, and unlike leftist experiments I see no sign that the adherents of the philosophy are willing to learn from history. There is a growing questioning of the philosophy in Latin America, again, and those leaders are fighting the very elements I was talking about. In Bolivia, who is the radical right wing, what is their ideology and who supported these groups? Who did the leaders of these groups turn to, for their own reasons, for support against the general public and the social movements? Venezuela? Haiti? Brazil? Chile?
There may always have been wealthy who cleverly funded both sides of a conflict and there surely has always been Rosa Parks foot soldiers (heros). But that has no bearing on the existence or non existence of wealthy patrons of social movements, any one you name, I can name probably a few sincere wealthy donors. Abolitionists are to many to name. You can start with all the wealthy Quaker supporters and continue to the one sea captain enslaved people trader who wrote Amazing Grace and was extremely instrumental in banning the enslavement trade in Great Britain and some protectorates.
I don't consider Rosa Parks a "hero", and I doubt she would consider herself one. She was one of many people who took a stand against institutional racism, and she was active with workers groups, those fighting for social and economic justice. Her stand crystallized what was wrong with the South at that point in time for many, and our culture just loves to make heroes out of people. We HAVE to be lead by great people, we can't lead ourselves and have articulate people use their intelligence and education to further causes in arenas working people can't. As I said, there are exceptions to elites financing social movements. The financial support however is a minor part, social movements exist with or without money, and usually exist as a result of a lack of money and the fact that they're in an economic system where money is needed to survive. MLK was a great person, he inspired (and angered, like his 1967 Riverside Church speech) but he would have been a little known preacher or academic if thousands didn't organize decades before he was even born.
As I said, USUALLY funding comes from elites who want a say in the direction of the social movements. Many social movements are egalitarian, and if successful they very well could choose policies that harm elite's economic interests.
I'm not saying this to downplay charity. If a rich person or corporation gives (a corporation LEGALLY can only give charity by justifying it to shareholders that it will be good PR) and it helps people, we should support that. Any improvement is better than no improvement. However, we shouldn't lionize giving by these entities, because by themselves they usually are band aids on gaping wounds. Many of these same elites who give for selfish reasons are the same people who stand in the way of institutional change that would stop the problems the social movements are working to fix. When it comes to elite financing of social movements in developing countries you'll find this to be the case far more often.
"Globalization", "neo-liberalism" and "free trade" IS class warfare by the way.
This arguement fails to recognize that were "wealth" more evenly distributed in the first place, there would be no need of class warfare. That a few "wealthy patrons" might have a conscience is hardly a defense of wealth, it is a defense of conscience.
Yes a Bill Gates is to be applauded for his Social Conscience, but that hardly defends a system that allowed him to accumulate some 60 billion dollars of wealth and properties.
What has to be asked is.. Is there a NEED for a small group of people to acquire billions in wealth . Does such create more good then harm? Are there alternatives to such unfair distributions of resources that are better for mankind as a whole.?