Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Beyond Scarcity: Re-Inventing Wealth in a Progressive World
The current economic crisis is causing a massive redistribution of wealth across society. With a newfound capacity to shape our nation’s destiny, progressives can take this opportunity to redefine ourselves - especially our ideas about wealth and prosperity - as we seek to build a flourishing society.
It is often the case that people who dedicate their lives to the betterment of society are hindered by a particular obstacle - what I call the scarcity mindset.
This mindset can be described in several ways:
- The belief that a person has to compromise his or her values to make money.
- Harboring an impoverished view of wealth as merely money or accumulation of material stuff - and seeking to avoid being identified with this activity.
- A recurring feeling that there just aren’t opportunities to do something meaningful and satisfying.
- A cynical view of collaboration.
- The belief that people who seek wealth are selfish or greedy.
This mindset can be explained in several ways. One mechanism comes from the study of system justification, a theory developed by NYU psychologist, Jon Jost. Jost observed that people in oppressed groups often internalize negative stereotypes that the dominant group perpetuates to justify its superiority. An example of such a stereotype is the “gangsta thug” that frames inner city black young men as violent thieves who peddle drugs and guns. This stereotype has been internalized by many inner city youth and reduces the aspirations and self-confidence necessary to engage them in the process of rebuilding their communities.
Progressives are in a similar situation with our political views. Conservatives have set the terms of debate for decades, introducing their ways of thinking about government, markets, human nature, and yes, prosperity. Their view of prosperity should be familiar. Just think of the glorification of wealth in our media-saturated, celebrity-worship society and you’ll get a solid impression. Conservatives typically view wealth as material accumulation within a rampant form of capitalism. A “good” business person exploits everything possible to increase the riches of his estate.
This view of wealth is appalling to progressives. Our sentiments are motivated more by the empathetic bonds we feel with other people and the natural world. So what happens when we recoil with disgust at this exemplar of selfishness and greed? A negative stereotype is introduced - that the progressive businessperson or political activist must oppose the accumulation of wealth. We must “take the moral high road” and sacrifice personal comforts for the sake of our communities. In short, we are to be ascetics, “hair shirts,” hippies, low-wage teachers and social workers, and so on.
We project this negative stereotype onto ourselves, thus defining our identities in opposition to that which we detest - the conservative elites’ view of exploitation for personal gain. This is what one might call a “reactive trap,” because the dynamic is one of reacting to the views of another group. What we need to do instead is empower ourselves with a proactive position on prosperity. More on this in a moment.
Starving Our Own for the Greater Good
These stereotypes are not merely internalized at a personal level. Our scarcity mindset has been built into many of our institutions, as we can see with progressive philanthropy and the hiring practices at nonprofits. The guiding principle of the progressive world is to starve our own for the greater good.
While conservatives lavish young talent with communal supports and lucrative careers, we refuse to invest in our own. Progressive foundations are only willing to fund projects that are “accountable” and “cost effective” - understood as “accountable to higher authorities” (the funders) and “minimizing waste” by treating workers as an expendable resource. These ideas should sound familiar. They are foundational concepts in the conservative attack on government and the governing philosophy that dominates the corporate world.
This is no accident.
I’ve often heard George Lakoff speak of the divergent philanthropic strategies of conservatives and progressives. He recounts the tale of a few wealthy conservatives - the same families who funded the vast network of think tanks and media outlets that dominate our culture today - advising progressive philanthropists to apply cost-benefit analysis to their grant offering programs. The covert goal of this suggestion was to undermine efforts to build a progressive infrastructure.
This advice was taken. Progressive foundations today typically offer small grants, with lots of strings attached, and the absolute minimum of resources to hire people to do the work. This ensures that “costs” (aka investing in people) are minimized. It also ensures that no money is available for long-term “big picture” work to advance the movement as a whole.
The same is true in the nonprofit world. Progressives must fight amongst each other for scraps from the foundations that support us. Taking a job at a progressive nonprofit is seen as a noble act because of the obvious personal sacrifice one makes in choosing a vastly lower salary to “do good” instead of “make money.”
In a classic sleight-of-hand maneuver, these same conservative leaders followed the opposite path - offering huge block grants with no strings attached to be sure enough resources were available to “do whatever is necessary to succeed!”
We can see the difference in the institutions we have today. Conservative organizations pay salaries comparable to the private sector to attract talent that might otherwise go the corporate route. Billions have been spent in a multi-decade strategy to create a conservative infrastructure in the form of a network of think tanks that keep conservative talent comfy as people shift from think tank to political office back to think tank. Just try to imagine Donald Rumsfield without a six-figure salary while he lurks in the shadows… not a likely scenario.
By contrast, the progressive movement is divided and has no real infrastructure to speak of. Our resources are spread thin across “issue silos” with no obvious connection across them. Conservatives have a refined elevator speech for what it means to be conservative. Progressives don’t have a clear sense of how gay rights are connected to the climate crisis.
As we’ve learned from the study of cognitive policy, we make sense of things through our patterns of experience. Our interactions with progressive organizations reinforce the sense that scarcity is widespread. Every time a passionate young person seeks to “make the world a better place” they are taught that the only way to do this is to volunteer for free or accept subsistence wages as a demonstration of their commitment to the cause. The negative stereotype is perpetuated every time this happens.
Challenging Scarcity at Its Source
The only way to address this problem is to get at the root cause - our deepest understandings of wealth and prosperity. We need to recognize that “doing good” versus “making money” is a false choice. We can - and must - find the middle way and reframe the meaning of prosperity.
Conservatives treat wealth as material accumulation - those who show discipline and work hard can be seen through their material success. We progressives see wealth at a more fundamental level. The progressive understanding of wealth comes from a deeper idea:
Wealth is Well-being
Wealth is seen as the well-being of individuals, society, and the earth. Wealth is already present in nature; it is not “created.” Clean air and water, strong communities, and fertile soils are inherently valuable because our well-being depends on them – independent of markets.
In this view, to “do good” is a form of wealth preservation. We can see this with a form of common wealth that we all depend upon - the air we breath. The logic works like this:
- Wealth is anything that creates well-being
- Clean air increases well-being, so it is a form of wealth
- Dirtying the air reduces well-being, so it is a loss of wealth
- Keeping the air clean is preserving wealth.
Put another way, as progressives we recognize that even the hardest working person will starve if there is no food. Conversely, we believe that the Good Life is about more than money (beautifully depicted in this video by Free Range Studios).
Contrast this with the conservative understanding of wealth:
Wealth is Material Accumulation
Wealth is seen as (1) money accumulated by corporations and their investors; (2) “created” through resource extraction and labor; and (3) owned by whomever controls it.
According to this view, people are actors who seek to maximize their profit. Industrious individuals are seen as “creating” wealth through the process of production. Wealth created by industry will “trickle down” to the people. There is no need to protect the common wealth – shared resources of general benefit to society – because there is no concept for common wealth in this perspective. The central consideration is protecting the profits of hard-working individuals (and, by extension, the corporations that represent them).
In other words, conservatives believe hungry people should just work harder and “earn” their necessities, or suffer the consequences.
Progressives can challenge this notion - and end the plague of scarcity in our politics - by recognizing the real source of wealth in the world. As a community, we depend on one another. Economists call this “mutual provision.” A simple example is the division of labor in a complex economy. One person grows crops that another grinds into bread. This feeds yet another who manufactures tools that enhance farming practices. Shared effort is built on the common wealth of the land that supports everyone. The wealth of society grows as people cooperate and share the benefits of their efforts.
At the core of this is the Principle of Human Dignity. Every person is valued for the part they play. Work is dignified because it (a) provides for the provision of the worker, while (b) enhancing the capacity of society to support its people.
The ironic thing is that the very people who seek to promote well-being - progressive philanthropists - are running their institutions based on a model of human exploitation. People are seen as an “add on” to the grant offering. Focus is given instead to a set of material goals for some marginal group. An example would be to fund poverty reduction in Sub-Saharan Africa while keeping aid workers at a subsistence level in our own society. Another is the use of unpaid interns to “externalize” costs and “outsource” the workload - the standard model of worker exploitation cultivated and refined in the corporate world.
Our Own Stereotype - The Protector of Well-Being
We can change this. The first step, famously articulated in Alcoholics Anonymous, is to admit that we have a problem. Our concepts for wealth and prosperity are obstacles to success. We cannot build a fair and prosperous society without living the values we profess. And it all starts with how we think about ourselves.
A good place to start is with the stereotype that “represents” us. We may not be selfish gluttons who bask in the glory of conquest, but neither are we self-sacrificing fools who would rather suffer than join the rat race. What we really are is Protectors of Well-Being. We understand that we are all in this together. It is clear to us that many of the vital life supports we depend upon are being ransacked by runaway capitalism. So we dedicate ourselves to ensuring that those around us are protected against harm and have the opportunity to seek fulfillment.
The source of our wealth is the foundation of well-being. Our rewards are many - providing for our families while also resting peacefully at night because we devote ourselves to helping our neighbors. One very important way that we protect our communities is by challenging perspectives that threaten our ability to provide for one another. We reject the false choice of “making money” versus “doing good” and instead create new institutions that promote well-being across society by valuing the work of nonprofit employees, teachers, social workers, and anyone else who dedicates themselves to the betterment of society.
The timing is ripe for this transformation to begin. The economic philosophies of the 20th Century have lead to unraveling markets and widespread malaise. Now, as we build new economic safeguards and invest in the future, we can learn from this past and change what it means to be wealthy. All that conservatives can muster is an appeal to our selfish tendencies with their calls for tax cuts (and continue to advance their covert agenda to destroy the fabric of society). We can offer a profound alternative that appeals to our better selves and leads to real and lasting change.
Historic Opportunity to Re-Invent Ourselves
You might ask why I’m calling out the scarcity mindset during a time when funding is drying up for nonprofits as we go into a full-scale recession. My answer is that this is an opportune moment for us to set the agenda for the new growth that is sure to follow. President Obama and the Congress have just passed the first stage of an economic recovery plan. The experts agree - we need to invest in infrastructure that lays a foundation for 21st Century civilization.
This is as true for the progressive movement as it is for our cities and towns. Getting progressive politicians into office isn’t enough to solve the climate crisis or reign in terrorist networks in the Middle East. Our problems are bigger than 20th Century thinking. We’re going to need to engage citizens personally and at unprecedented levels. This will require that we invest in each other and value people as a centerpiece of our efforts. A coherent vision based on a different set of values is needed to rise to the challenges we face.
We have the opportunity to go from being underdogs to agents of change, as my colleague Sue Kerbel points out in her article, Now What? A Note of Caution, and An Invitation, to Progressives. This is an historic moment that warrants self-evaluation as we envision a better world. And the vision we project to ourselves will be reflected in the world we create.
Change always starts from within.
- Posted in

101 Comments so far
Show AllThis is easily one of the most interesting articles that I've read on this site.
As the republicans and their media organs continue to spout Reaganist rhetoric ("TAX CUTS!TAX CUTS!TAX CUTS!"), Progressives must be relentless in countering that the right is depserately clinging to the same economic politics that have, as the author noted, "lead to unraveling markets and widespread malaise."
Before we can do so, however, there MUST BE reform of the media, not only in the US but throughout the world. Large corporate media structures must be dismantled and replaced with independent local and regional elements.
As long as evil people control the dissemination of information, good (i.e. Progressive) folks will never be heard.
q
I also think this is one of the most interesting articles I've read on CD. But I saw a call for introspection of leftist views. A call to change some of our misconceptions and thinking.
"The belief that a person has to compromise his or her values to make money.
Harboring an impoverished view of wealth as merely money or accumulation of material stuff - and seeking to avoid being identified with this activity.
A recurring feeling that there just aren’t opportunities to do something meaningful and satisfying.
A cynical view of collaboration.
The belief that people who seek wealth are selfish or greedy."
These are all obviously false, but closely held positions for decades.
Conservatives don't rely on money but just take a stab at it all and let the money come on top of things. My wife has helped a few local pols and people of significant positions who are progressive do likewise and as a result, money doesn't hurt them. Imagine the rest of the progressives scattered throughout TX doing the same.
Good point!
How does the author explain the Obama Phenomena whereby he collects dough from millions of small progressive donors, gets elected and goes out of his way to hire neocons, while not hiring one progressive??????????????????????
"The belief that people who seek wealth are selfish or greedy."
Thomas,
This one isn't obviously false to me.
While it might be false to say that all wealthy people are selfish or greedy, the actual seeking of wealth is a selfish and greedy enterprise. Wealth, as a byproduct of good work that helps others, or the smart application of abilities (again, while helping others), is one thing. The actual seeking of wealth (in terms of money, and that which it can buy), has been decried by all our famous teachers. One must be single-minded and ruthless in the search of wealth, and that single-mindedness leaves little room for other things, such as compassion, magnanimity, and even love.
One great teacher in particular warned us. Something about a camel and the eye of a needle comes to mind.
"One must be single-minded and ruthless in the search of wealth, and that single-mindedness leaves little room for other things, such as compassion, magnanimity, and even love."
Ted
I'd say that the accumulation of vast wealth does require that, but wealth or even comfortable circumstances does not. It simply takes hard work and still leaves plenty of time for church, charity, compassion and love. So I guess we'll just disagree.
"One great teacher in particular warned us. Something about a camel and the eye of a needle comes to mind."
But remember the "eye of the needle" was a small gate in the walled cities that required camels to get on their knees to pass through. Not impossible to get through, just required a bit of humbleness.
Actually, that is a uniquely USAn interpretation of that passage.
Most scholars of the original Greek Gospels believe Jesus was referring to a sewing needle or to an eye splice of a rope.
---USAn---
Ah! True I believe, but the Hebrew scholars, I talked to the ones at Temple Emanueal in Dallas agree with the "gate"
But either could be right. Though there is no doubt that there was a gate called the "eye of the needle" in the old walled cities of that time. Its referenced in many histories.
Interesting what comes out in somne of these threads.
As a non USA-an, it sounds depressingly like more of the same in different clothes - quote "Getting progressive politicians into office isn’t enough to solve the climate crisis or reign in terrorist networks in the Middle East. Our problems are bigger than 20th Century thinking. "
Better get crackin' to git them terrorists Airabs in the Middle East yeeehar!
The truth is that those who have the power get the wealth, ultimately from the barrell of a gun. Wealth stolen from generations past also form a persistent foundation for subsequent generations, and the western/european nations tended to be rather good in that regard. The USA story is far more recent, but it's still been one greedy manipulating and destructive culture.
The mindset you have to change, is that you think you're doing good, e.g. "spreading democracy" when in reality you're meddling in order to profit.
And stop blaming the South's condition on "our own leaders", cause they're abley supported by your stinking lot.
Same advice to Australia, Britain, Canada etc. All countries dripping with the ichor from genocides many years past. I mean, what does it mean to say you're fucking sorry, when nothing really changes?
Great article except I'd like to add one more important point. Until progressives and liberals get back to focusing not only on the presidential race and a few close house and senate races but also on local and state wide races just like the conservatives have wisely done since 1960, Washington will stay as conservative no matter who's in office. I'm not saying that we should write off presidential races but we need to take a stab in all directions and allow room for error. My wife has been helping local candidates out here in El Paso and win or lose, it's enough to wipe one's tears off our otherwise depressing political dysfunctionality. Maybe there is hope. When we can remind each other to buy local, we can surely remind each other to go local on politics and plant the seeds for a brighter tomorrow. And for a change, why not each of us discuss our local politics and try relating to one another and build some better communications as a result? Our individualist mentality is wrecking this country and it's time to stop that madness.
JWVerez - "Our individualist mentality is wrecking this country and it's time to stop that madness."
That sentence says it all. For nearly a half century I've been trying to find my place in the political world. My parents were Democrats, so of course I thought that was where I belonged, but was so disgusted with the wimpy, tail-between-their-legs dems that I dropped out totally. I had, however noted the other party's bullying ways that went against everything I stood for.
In the past fifteen or so years I've spent a lot of time studying the repugs, and have to admire their cyborg-like (sorry, my son is a "Star Trekkie") control. They hated McCain in 2000, and beyond, but when he became their candidate, they all fell in behind him.
I've watched their RNC meetings, and saw how organized and no nonsense they are. They have a very clear platform, and every member of the party knows what it is. I tried to learn about the dems, but couldn't find anything. I have no idea what their platform is, even though I'm a registered democrat.
I'd love to see progressives use a pattern similar to the repugs to get it together, and build a strong, motivated party that others like me would have no trouble learning about and becoming a part of.
But like that sentence says, we've got to learn to put aside that individualistic mentality. If we don't we'll end up forever under the domination of the powerful "cyborg" repug machine.
wilmoor
"cyborg-like (sorry, my son is a "Star Trekkie") control. They hated McCain in 2000, and beyond, but when he became their candidate, they all fell in behind him."
Love the Cyborg analogy! I'd suggest to you that if they had all fallen in behind him he would have won. Fortunately he pushed hard on illegal immigration and it defeated him.
I was very interested in your explanation of your search for a "home" I believe it mirrors many people.
I'm not sure anyone needs to give up their individuality, perhaps we just need to look at what we say, the knee-jerk thinking that seems to go on....a re-thinking of what our goals really are. What we really believe in, rather than what many say they believe in.
Its hard to build anything when so many are intent on seeing what they want to see rather than the truth, like Gaza. I read a great article by a leftist that explained that better than anything, but you aren't likely to see it on CD or Alternet.
So post a link to it, I'm sure many of us would like to read it.
Details, details zmann....I'm looking!
Ah-Ha! http://inthesetimes.com/article/4261/israel_gaza_and_the_left/
If you have an interest, check the Wage Theft article under "popular" #6 I believe, at bottom right.
Mr More,
My perspectives of Isreal/Palestine and my decision to strongly and unequivocably condemn Isreal, while finding the Palestinian movements largely blameless, come from years of research regarding the actual flesh and blood and brick and concrete facts of this region. This includes the Isreali-created facts on the ground of the West Bank and Gaza which yes, can only be accurately described as a slow, deliberate ethnic cleansing. This including time spent viewing satellite imagery and maps of the area, attending many talks and discussions with people who have visited the Palestinian territories, and listening and reading the counter arguments of those defending Isreal's actions.
I am a civil engineer and I know how to analyse data including the imagery data.
The In These Times article you cited is largely a blather of ad-homeim and straw-man accusations like I've heard before from the "cruise milssle left" that dominates this publication and other compromized publications like The Progressive, Mother Jones, and The Village Voice. This article did not address a single fact regarding the issue, and has not changed my mind on the issue at all.
When you show me just one Isreali who was forcibly driven from their demolished home and is living in a squalid refugee camp, I will look further into the Isreali's arguments.
---USAn---
USAn
It wasn't meant to change your mind about Israel and Gaza. And though his point about how the Jews ended up in Israel is well taken in my view, not even that.
"Yet rather than receiving nuanced and measured analyses, readers of Alternet (as well as many other progressive news outlets including In These Times), have in many instances been fed heavy-handed propaganda that demonizes practically every aspect of "fill in the blank"
This was what I was referring to. Its what I see here and other places. One sided articles and one sided discussions. Deviate from the approved attitude or "facts" and you will get your head handed to you.
Its the major failing I see to getting progressives together to make a move. All the hyperbolic language used so often is less than helpful. All my opinion of course.
But we discuss things...you favor a Marxist view and I favor a liberal view, but we seldom have trouble exchanging views. I don't think I've ever changed your mind on anything, but I know you changed mine on someting on this very subject as a matter of fact. (blockade)
Thanks for posting this link; I don't read In These Times as often as I should. The author makes the point that "progressive" outlets like CD and Alternet (the ones I always read along with Counterpunch, Dissident Voices and Black Agenda Report)and even In These Times too often take a less than "nuanced" understanding when it comes specifically to the issue of Israel and Palestine. I believe that his article is actually more susceptible to clear discussin than the rather nebulous "Lakoff"-ish frame analysis of Brewer, which analysis always makes my head swim. (maybe because of the deficiencies of my "head"). Ken Brochiner is quite explicit in the view that "leftists" simply don't have enough sensitivity to be able to understand the position of Israel, leading to consistent exaggerations of what KB admits is the truth, that Israel is quite brutal in its dealing with Gaza; its just not THAT brutal. For example, he wonders why leftists cry "war crime" about this when they ignore much more brutal conflicts elsewhere in the world. He asserts as a necessary "senstivity" of leftists that we should recognize that Israel has made good faith effort to reach a peace settlement (prove that one, KB), and winds up with the zinger that we should just understand how this brutality is not the result of any deliberate evil-doing by the Israelis, but reflects a natural reaction to the genocidal suppression of themselves from which they were escaping when they went into Palestine. None of this blather convinces me that we must be a whit less condemning of Israel's aggressions in Gaza and elswhere; and it sounds like only more of the "bad faith" excuses by means of which Israel justifies its war crimes. By the way, on that "exaggeration" that there were 1.5 million Gazans who were harmed by the Israeli incursion, that figure was based on the (justifiable) observation that virtually ALL Gazans were harmed psychologically; if you don't believe that, please use your own "sensitivity" and imagine how a child in Gaza reacts to the "only" 5000 who are physically wounded and killed and the chaos and property destruction of the assault. But don't get me started!
Mr. Rose
"The author makes the point that "progressive" outlets like CD and Alternet (the ones I always read along with Counterpunch, Dissident Voices and Black Agenda Report)and even In These Times too often take a less than "nuanced" understanding when it comes specifically to the issue of Israel and Palestine."
That was pretty much the whole point of the article to me. Its the one sided view that drives me crazy. I don't take all the things in his article for gospel of course...including the ones you point out. Especially the "only 5000" comment. You can tell he's never seen a shot fired.
Actually it wasn't even the Israeli /Palestinian question itself that struck me, it was the concept of the resistance to discussion and refusal to consider any other possibilities by the left as he addressed them.
My view is that we need to return to liberal roots and values....but of course I would since I'm a liberal.
Thanks for the kind words.
This is a good start in understanding the true problem that humans face today.
A first step to which a second, third, fourth and so on must be added. Joe Brewer may be the person to take that next step, or another person who can add to this little bit of clarity to see beyond the trap we are in.
JWVerez, your comments are encouraging. I hope that progressives can be active as your wife is active, and that we have the energy to keep trying.
I was encouraged by this article, too. I think that we have too often fallen into the false dichotomy presented by the ruling ideology of scarcity. I also believe that progressives' understanding of wealth is the most sustainable and human-centered. However, Joe Brewer doesn't touch on another of the tactics conservatives use to gain political power and fund their movements -- they exploit every means possible regardless of the ramifications for egalitarianism, justice, or democracy. They will use family and religious connections, circumvent the law, create extra-democratic relationships, lie, cheat and steal to gain power, whereas progressives will try to treat everyone equally, conform to laws and rules about funding, and generally avoid manipulating religious organizations for the purposes of gaining power.
We may have a mistaken notion of scarcity, but the truth is that those dedicated to amassing personal wealth and stripping the environment of resources in order to do so are monopolizing the common resources available. Yes, we do need to value our workers -- but more importantly, we need to create a common consciousness of our interdependence. Why do progressives find it so difficult to build common consciousness? I know lots of people who are poor or middle class who absolutely refuse to consider social action that would provide benefits to everyone, even when the cost to them is small or none. They don't believe that anyone should get a "free ride," even if they ultimately benefit, also. I think that this is our largest hurdle.
I cringe a little bit when authors suggest that we mimic the tactics of our opponents in order to gain the political power we need to make true change effective. It's not black and white, and I think Joe Brewer does a great job in bringing forward some of our destructive assumptions, but there is a big difference. Progressives value individuality and consensus, and rarely seek power for the sake of wielding power. Could we really create the kind of political machine that conservatives have built without sacrificing ideals like egalitarianism, diversity, and consensus? Maybe so. I think we should try.
Hi TextGuru,
You've beautifully captured a key element of what I attempted to get across in this article with this statement:
"Could we really create the kind of political machine that conservatives have built without sacrificing ideals like egalitarianism, diversity, and consensus? Maybe so. I think we should try."
I'd like to elaborate on your point a bit by drawing attention to the significance of the values we embody in our institutions and our personal actions. The era of militantism toward progressive goals is over. We cannot perpetuate the values we opposed in our own actions. Building institutions ranging from political campaigns to service organizations that embody the progressive vision will require that we introspect about ourselves. We must identify our core values (something I've learned to do with the help of cognitive linguistic analysis) and build them into our lived experience.
This is not something that others can do on our behalf. We each go through a growth process of personal transformation as we transform the world around us through political and cultural reform. Both must happen together if we are to succeed.
In solidarity,
Joe Brewer
Founder, Cognitive Policy Works
uh, progressives have already built "the kind of political machine that conservatives have built". it's called "the democratic party".
This comment is a clue that we're on the right track. Conservative "trolls" drop unpleasant and completely hollow assertions with no evidence and a mean spirit. I suppose they don't realize that insulting us won't make us go away.
;-)
Joe
RL's taint isn't a conservative troll. He is simply pointing out the reality of the Democratic party. He is a bit off-topic though.
---USAn---
sorry mr. brewer, i didn't expect to have the author responding here. i'm pleasantly surprised and will try to moderate my tone.
but when i criticize your views, can i also not be called "troll", "cynical", "insulting," "mean-spirited", etc.?
no one would deny that a change in consciousness is a prerequisite to any political change, big or small. but mr. brewer, i think you set the bar way, way too low, in both your analysis of the current progressive mind and the solutions you offer to its problems. our system is much less amenable to change thru electoral politics than i think you'd be willing to admit, and existing power structures are more violent, entrenched and aggressive than your analysis would indicate.
but...just my opinion, and so my opinion is also that something more radical/revolutionary is required.
in any case, would you care to adapt your perspective to a particular concrete, existing historical situation? say, the recent assault on gaza? or something on the domestic front, say prop. 8 in california? it's all complicated, so if you care not to respond here, perhaps as one of your upcoming articles, hopefully to appear on CD?
thanks for your time,
jason
Here's one that addresses a concrete and timely issue... At Cognitive Policy Works we outlined a strategic initiative in response to Prop 8:
http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com/what-we-do/strategic-initiative-on-prop-8/
We put this up on our website in early November just after the elections last year. It's not meant to be comprehensive, but rather more of a sketch of what needs to be done.
Hope this helps ground my commentary in a specific issue for you. I want this kind of work to be practical and applicable for as many people as possible, yourself included.
Best,
Joe
P.S. My apologies for the "troll" comment. A bit presumptuous on my part.
There is some practical advice in there. Congratulations!
thank you joe. i'll definitely take a look.
Dear Joe, i'll think a bit more about the link you sent, but in general sounds good, something a lot of people could agree on, and i'm sure many progressives already do agree and try to act out. the false sense of an "us" vs "them", failure to recognize a common humanity, etc., is at the root of a great many problems, maybe the root.
my question is: it's in somebody's *interest* to stoke the flames of hatred b/n straights & gays (or immigrants/natives, iranians/americans, blacks/whites, whatever). who are they? why do they do that, for what gain? and then what do we do?
thanks again for your time.
Jason
Mr. Brewer
RLT's no troll. We disagree from time to time, but a troll he is not.
uh, yeah if you say so.
"I know lots of people who are poor or middle class who absolutely refuse to consider social action that would provide benefits to everyone"
These people are spellbound by the elites and their anguish and confusion prove the spell a cruel hoax. These people believe the only way to fight the elites' class war aggression is to compete for their very own elitehood, which most people find repulsive. So they become trapped in a limbo, in slavery to the elites, believing that they have no really good options. The fact is that the people's victory over the elites' class war aggression is a really great option.
"Could we really create the kind of political machine that conservatives have built without sacrificing ideals like egalitarianism, diversity, and consensus?"
The people's "political machine" that will overthrow the elites' "political machine" will have almost nothing in common with it. The people's "political machine" will be dispersed among the people, residing within each individual. When organized pressure must come to bear on a new elite cancerous tumor in the society, individuals react automatically, by shifting their individual exchange/association away from the elite cancerous tumor, thereby starving it. We have to instill this program in the K-12 civics curriculum. This is one of the pillars of the people's "political machine" among a few others.
funny, i find these lakoffian analysis articles, like david michael green's, to be the dullest, most unininformed, and soporific. Pe Ran Tau's comments above (February 24th, 2009 10:38 am) are worth more than volumes of this drivel.
Behind every great fortune is a great crime-balzac. you can't norman vincent peale/lakoff your way out of some simple truths.
It strikes me as yet another variation of the old 'change starts with reforming consciousness' motif, New Age, Law of Attraction etc. I strongly suspect that the right wing subrosa gang is behind all this stuff, because when all the smoke has cleared away it ultimately advocates inaction.
You don't eliminate poverty by redefining 'wealth.' Sounds like Sportin' Life: I got plenty of nuthin' ...
People have expressed some amazement, or at least puzzlement, at how docile we are despite the obvious outrages perpetrated against us. It's as if an entire populace is on Prozac. Too many opiates for the masses already exist.
Might we be better off if somebody were to smash a few windows in response to the next insult?
This response is classic cynicism.
Gorsegrower, you missed the bulk of the content in the article. Perhaps you might want to go back and read it again more closely. The whole point is that we have to do a lot of work to build a better world... but we have to have a vision that embodies the right values if we are to succeed.
And, for the record, yes we can eliminate poverty by redefining wealth. The gross injustices of current disparities of wealth stem directly from the flawed concept of wealth I outlined in this article. The alternative - shared prosperity - will never materialize if we keep using that impoverished idea moving forward.
Put another way, our ideas about the world matter a great deal. We have to get them right as we roll up our sleeves. Otherwise all our effort will merely perpetuate the failed system we seek to replace.
Two questions.
"And, for the record, yes we can eliminate poverty by redefining wealth."
Is it your opinion that poverty can be completely eliminated?
What do you make of the insistance that all Charity boards are comprised of at least 50% minorities?
Uh...make that three....do you think it would help to dump all the Fascist, Hitlerian, hyperbolic language?
'... yes we can eliminate poverty by redefining wealth."
Just as we can "redefine" the rate of inflation, the unemploymnrt rate, and just about every other economic indicator. We could probably redfine the composition of the atmosphere to show CO2 concentrationms are lowering, not rising.
But then this item didn't address my expectations based on its title. I anticipated a discussion about the great imperative for changing the economic--and thus socioeconomic--paradigm, and how scarcity related to that.
This article is definitely about mass empowerment. It's interesting that sometimes we're more open to the idea than others. It could be that we're less open after exposure to the elites' enslaving propaganda, and more open when inspired by the "miracle" of nature including our own individual potential.
Mr. Brewer,
Who is this "we" who have this flawed definition of wealth and prevent sharing of prosperity? Not me, kimosabe. There is a "them" that refuse to share our propserity - and they have names, addresses, and name plates embossed on their corporate board room tables.
And yes, with few exceptions, people must make at least some compromises to their principles to earn much more than the pathetic US minimum wage.
And I agree that people generally don't seek wealth because of greed, they seek it because the capitalist system compels them to - if you are a CEO of a big corporation, you must seek wealth and power or get fired.
And the great disparities of wealth originate from the institution of Capitalism, not form any of the touchy-feely reasons you give. Please read some Marx!
I agree with Goresegrower's comments, your article largely does read like the usual bourgeois new-age stuff - where everything is rooted in a personal problem that "we" have.
And yes, it is a prescription for inaction.
The problem isn't with "we" it is with a system fiercely and aggressively defended by a "them". I hear this same stuff from the wealthy white liberal donors who have largely rendered our own Peace and Justice Center to an inactive state, by driving out the more radical youth who still understand the old saying: "The problem is the System!"
---USAn---
Sioux Rose
PDJ: Amen, brother! You nailed it!
it is the rich who are the criminals. some day their wealth will be ours-perchik
oh, if they'd agree i'd agree-tevye.
............
riches are the world's curse-perchik
may God smite me with it, and may i never recover!-tevye
fiddler on the roof.
Sioux Rose
Hey Joe, I hope you're a good shot, because you sound like David aiming at Goliath. Good luck with that. Have you read "The Shock Doctrine"? Do you see what the left is up against? Disaster (now) is precisely the circumstance the right makes use of to further its own agenda. I am FAR from convinced that Obama is NOT working with those powers, even if his own intelligence holds a capacity to negotiate certain concessions that otherwise would not be the case. The house of cards is coming apart, the fiscal equation is so far off kilter that pretty sounding words are not going to fix it. The American public does not know what's going on thanks to a 24/7 disinformation "news" media.
Your advice probably would have made sense 30 years ago. Now the blowback of karma is returning to this nation and the wealth built on wars of choice, on using mafia-like trade tactics to leverage profit from the poorest of the poor, is equivalent to the castle made of sand. There may come a time, ten or twenty years from now when the ideals of the left and "the right attitude" to command their backing in cash AND human energy bears fruit... I'd be happy to be wrong on this one, but I do NOT see this happening any time soon. In a sense making it a matter of inner attitude puts the burden on those without resources to feel responsible for that outcome. Isn't that another take, if inverted, on the basic premise of Calvinism?
Sioux Rose
GORSE: The rightwing has had a HUGE influence on WHAT gets published. Just as Jesus' name was co-opted while the warring ways of the Romans continued on; the publishing houses elected to push books that were all about wealth, but infused them with semi-spiritual sounding mantras, recipes, and formulas.
Before the Reagan/Thatcher years, spiritual books were just that: spiritual and they did not exalt wealth. There has been so much presure on GETTING STUFF, even getting "The stuff" of knowledge, or attending this seminar or that seminar. I smelled the rat for a long time, and realized that as all the so-called New Age books (again, this trend really took off after l981) pushed the inner path to self-realization and thus nullified action on a collective scale.
I have spent a lot of time with agents and publishers and it was always about sales, the bottom line, and dumbing messages down.
Can't you just publish/post what you want online?
omg gorsegrower. they can foreclose and layoff millions of homes and people, transfer the wealth of the nation to a few banks, destroy two countries, etc., etc. but smashing windows would be property damage.
A few comments....
The History of Great American Fortunes by Augustus Meyer (sp?)(I don't have the book nearby, I do own it) lays out, in 1914 and 1936 the fact that a lot of money came to the wealthy by CRIMINAL means...the book was attacked all through the 20's- came out in MODERN LIBRARY and it is a horrorshow....but informative.
The fact that ideas and values permeate our lives makes it IMPERATIVE that the subversion of our Educational system, and of our media, and of our Religions MUST STOP. Community, tolerance, society...even LOVE...should be celebrated- not selectively applied or respected when profitable or merely soothing...
Progressives must live their values, as well as write about them or even broadcast them. If the Movement is not TRULY grassroots/personal/effective- the
FASCISTS will, for sure, win as they have GREED and IGNORANCE on their side.
So, a great article, and we need to keep our focus and our strength so the current DISASTER may be the last...or at least...the true beginning of the end of FASCIST/GREED/NEO-CON/INTOLERANT/ETC era....
Finally a progressive progressive. Thank you for taking the time to figure this out and lay it out clearly, concisely and optimistically for us all.
Readers might also be interested in my Nolan Chart column, "Wealth, Illth, Money, and the Financian Crisis":
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5480.html
--
Dan Clore
Smygo: News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Eyrie of the Arch-Anarch:
http://www.nolanchart.com/author341.html
Instead of trying make people behave by changing their mindset, its a lot better to remove the causes of bad behavior. Since having too little money or having too much money are major causes of bad behavior, why not balance things out with a yearly referendum deciding how much money a person can have? One million? Ten million? "Enough for every man's need but not enough for every man's greed"?
The nostrums that money is power, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, applies perfectly to the neocons that have caused our financial disaster, bloody wars, healthcare and education crises, the wasteful MIC spending, the billionaire counterproductive WOD, the defunding of family planning and rising world populations that cause resource depletion, removing pollution controls, corporatizing government, uniting church and state and vastly increasing the gap between rich and poor. Most everything that conservatives touch turns to shit.
Actually, liberals and progressives got ourselves into this mess for letting us be led by reactionary, regressive, loudmouthed, lying conservatives instead of taking the bull by the horns and working and voting only for liberals and progressives.