Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiA Reality Check From the Brink of Extinction
We can join Bill McKibben on Oct. 24 in nationwide protests over rising carbon emissions. We can cut our consumption of fossil fuels. We can use less water. We can banish plastic bags. We can install compact fluorescent light bulbs. We can compost in our backyard. But unless we dismantle the corporate state, all those actions will be just as ineffective as the Ghost Dance shirts donned by native American warriors to protect themselves from the bullets of white soldiers at Wounded Knee.
“If we all wait for the great, glorious revolution there won’t be anything left,” author and environmental activist Derrick Jensen told me when I interviewed him in a phone call to his home in California. “If all we do is reform work, this culture will grind away. This work is necessary, but not sufficient. We need to use whatever means are necessary to stop this culture from killing the planet. We need to target and take down the industrial infrastructure that is systematically dismembering the planet. Industrial civilization is functionally incompatible with life on the planet, and is murdering the planet. We need to do whatever is necessary to stop this.”
The oil and natural gas industry, the coal industry, arms and weapons manufacturers, industrial farms, deforestation industries, the automotive industry and chemical plants will not willingly accept their own extinction. They are indifferent to the looming human catastrophe. We will not significantly reduce carbon emissions by drying our laundry in the backyard and naively trusting the power elite. The corporations will continue to cannibalize the planet for the sake of money. They must be halted by organized and militant forms of resistance. The crisis of global heating is a social problem. It requires a social response.
The United States, after rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, went on to increase its carbon emissions by 20 percent from 1990 levels. The European Union countries during the same period reduced their emissions by 2 percent. But the recent climate negotiations in Bangkok, designed to lead to a deal in Copenhagen in December, have scuttled even the tepid response of Kyoto. Kyoto is dead. The EU, like the United States, will no longer abide by binding targets for emission reductions. Countries will unilaterally decide how much to cut. They will submit their plans to international monitoring. And while Kyoto put the burden of responsibility on the industrialized nations that created the climate crisis, the new plan treats all countries the same. It is a huge step backward.
“All of the so-called solutions to global warming take industrial capitalism as a given,” said Jensen, who wrote “Endgame: The Problem of Civilization” and “The Culture of Make Believe.” “The natural world is supposed to conform to industrial capitalism. This is insane. It is out of touch with physical reality. What’s real is real. Any social system—it does not matter if we are talking about industrial capitalism or an indigenous Tolowa people—their way of life, is dependent upon a real, physical world. Without a real, physical world you don’t have anything. When you separate yourself from the real world you start to hallucinate. You believe the machines are more real than real life. How many machines are within 10 feet of you and how many wild animals are within a hundred yards? How many machines do you have a daily relationship with? We have forgotten what is real.”
The latest studies show polar ice caps are melting at a record rate and that within a decade the Arctic will be an open sea during summers. This does not give us much time. White ice and snow reflect 80 percent of sunlight back to space, while dark water reflects only 20 percent, absorbing a much larger heat load. Scientists warn that the loss of the ice will dramatically change winds and sea currents around the world. And the rapidly melting permafrost is unleashing methane chimneys from the ocean floor along the Russian coastline. Methane is a greenhouse gas 25 times more toxic than carbon dioxide, and some scientists have speculated that the release of huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere could asphyxiate the human species. The rising sea levels, which will swallow countries such as Bangladesh and the Marshall Islands and turn cities like New Orleans into a new Atlantis, will combine with severe droughts, horrific storms and flooding to eventually dislocate over a billion people. The effects will be suffering, disease and death on a scale unseen in human history.
We can save groves of trees, protect endangered species and clean up rivers, all of which is good, but to leave the corporations unchallenged would mean our efforts would be wasted. These personal adjustments and environmental crusades can too easily become a badge of moral purity, an excuse for inaction. They can absolve us from the harder task of confronting the power of corporations.
The damage to the environment by human households is minuscule next to the damage done by corporations. Municipalities and individuals use 10 percent of the nation’s water while the other 90 percent is consumed by agriculture and industry. Individual consumption of energy accounts for about a quarter of all energy consumption; the other 75 percent is consumed by corporations. Municipal waste accounts for only 3 percent of total waste production in the United States. We can, and should, live more simply, but it will not be enough if we do not radically transform the economic structure of the industrial world.
“If your food comes from the grocery store and your water from a tap you will defend to the death the system that brings these to you because your life depends on it,” said Jensen, who is holding workshops around the country called Deep Green Resistance [click here and here] to build a militant resistance movement. “If your food comes from a land base and if your water comes from a river you will defend to the death these systems. In any abusive system, whether we are talking about an abusive man against his partner or the larger abusive system, you force your victims to become dependent upon you. We believe that industrial capitalism is more important than life.”
Those who run our corporate state have fought environmental regulation as tenaciously as they have fought financial regulation. They are responsible for our personal impoverishment as well as the impoverishment of our ecosystem. We remain addicted, courtesy of the oil, gas and automobile industries and a corporate-controlled government, to fossil fuels. Species are vanishing. Fish stocks are depleted. The great human migration from coastlines and deserts has begun. And as temperatures continue to rise, huge parts of the globe will become uninhabitable. NASA climate scientist James Hansen has demonstrated that any concentration of carbon dioxide greater than 350 parts per million in the atmosphere is not compatible with maintenance of the biosphere on the “planet on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.” He has determined that the world must stop burning coal by 2030—and the industrialized world well before that—if we are to have any hope of ever getting the planet back down below that 350 number. Coal supplies half of our electricity in the United States.
“We need to separate ourselves from the corporate government that is killing the planet,” Jensen said. “We need to get really serious. We are talking about life on the planet. We need to shut down the oil infrastructure. I don’t care, and the trees don’t care, if we do this through lawsuits, mass boycotts or sabotage. I asked Dahr Jamail how long a bridge would last in Iraq that was not defended. He said probably six to 12 hours. We need to make the economic system, which is the engine for so much destruction, unmanageable. The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta has been able to reduce Nigerian oil output by 20 percent. We need to stop the oil economy.”
The reason the ecosystem is dying is not because we still have a dryer in our basement. It is because corporations look at everything, from human beings to the natural environment, as exploitable commodities. It is because consumption is the engine of corporate profits. We have allowed the corporate state to sell the environmental crisis as a matter of personal choice when actually there is a need for profound social and economic reform. We are left powerless.
Alexander Herzen, speaking a century ago to a group of Russian anarchists working to topple the czar, reminded his followers that they were not there to rescue the system.
“We think we are the doctors,” Herzen said. “We are the disease.”
315 Comments so far
Show AllAll right, to all you self-righteous trolls out there, please stop. Your directed personal attacks make the comments on this thread nauseating to read. I think a good number of us are so used to being marginalized that we get more jumpy than should when we do disagree amongst ourselves.
As for the issue at hand, I agree more Hedges and Jensen. To address your points, V.L Love, our modern standard of living has much more to do with the increased rate of resource extraction (and the subsequent human cost) than it has to do with any inherent efficiency of capitalism. In fact, regardless of ideology, any attempt to replicate our modern lifestyle would demand some form of centralized efficiency (whether in the private corporation or state) to ensure the flow of resources.
These "negative externalities" economists speak of include the entire life support of this planet. Destroying it makes any economic gains meaningless since humans would not exist. Of course, decades ago, when most of it remained intact, not calculating the damage did not skew the results, but today, as the destruction is near complete, not calculating costs is not only foolish, but also harmful to future generations. This is the greater reality that encompasses the reality of man and our currently urban world.
The corporations and governments hold the most power and thus, are the most ones most liable for environmental problems. Thus, Jensen's strategy of engagement is the most direct solution.
The individual solution, however, is easier (in terms of scale) to accomplish. However, without collective action, either with your neighbors to not buy corporate products, or by acting against further environmental degradation, one can't really lead by example. Furthermore, this method takes too long to systemically change society because it is dependent solely on consciousness raising (nor is it sufficiently uniform, raising the possibility for regression). Hence, such methods are necessary, but not sufficient.
Some detractors may argue some (less extreme) variant of the following: the "apocalyptic" future of global warming and resource depletion requires so much sacrifice in terms of reduced living standards (since that's implied with reduced resource consumption) that radical environmentalists are in league with tyrants in attempting mass starvation, sterilization, and murder in an attempt to reduce the population and better enslave/control/reduce the power of the masses. Indeed, man has exceeded his carrying capacity on this planet (mostly by his own actions in resource depletion) and global warming will reduce this further. Modern industrial civilization in the First World is living beyond its means; it survives only by exploiting the Third World and expropriating its resources. The future can only bring reductions to populations and consumption, likely by further conflicts and by famine. The real question is not how to stop this, but how to not destroy ourselves (by nuclear war) in the process, how to uncouple our norms of happiness and progress from consumerism, and how to ensure that at least some group of humans, somewhere, will continue a free existence in a relatively safe environment. All this requires the end or serious revision of the existing capitalist/fascist status quo.
Tailfeather, Mairead,
Your comments assume so much, that I am not sure where to start. Maybe it would help if I begin buy saying that for 30 years, I have done more than just talk about environmentalism. My wife and own a small business that produces furniture and furnishings out of waste materials, mostly deadfall. We began by using firewood permits and gathering only from the forest floor in the Tahoe Basin. As we got older it became too demanding to carry logs and limbs out of the woods on our shoulders so now we only make lampshades, a product which is made from handmade paper, that was originally made to suit a line of rustic lighting that we made back in early 1990s. Now, partly due to the housing slowdown, and partly due to the fact that we are burnt out on making things, we have downsized down to the bare minimum and my wife has taken a job as a park ranger. Put simply, we grew up in California at a time when parts of the country were having acid rain and burning river issues and we have been involved on the solution side ever since.
So my problem with this article and much of what I read on these threads is that there is so much pretentuous nonsense. Claiming for instance that corporations use 90% of water with 10% applied to consumers is not just sophmoric but embarrassingly ignorant to those who know these arguments. Consumption has been assigned to the consumer since the time of Marx and Ricardo, but here, consumption (water and energy) is being applied to producers as opposed to the timeless standard of assigning consumption to the end user, or, the CONSUMER. This "reassignment" assumes that the needs of consumers could be met without water for producing alternative goods, that thereby leads to the conclusion, that consumers can exist without staple goods. It might seem to some that this is a dishonest ploy, although, it is not clever enough to fool anyone other than the uninformed. So I can only assume that this is simply the "blind leading the blind".
So, I am not advocating Corporatocracy, but instead trying to help expose fraudulent claims. ANY sophisticated reader would recognize that this article is almost nothing but generalizations, distortions, and unsupported claims, so it is not that I fear that the ideals represented here might gain traction, there is no chance of that. I read articles of this ilk for the entertainment, they are funny to me. But I also try to reply in a responsible way so as to offer a more learned view. And in this case, the absurdly broad contention that all corporations are counter-productive and should therefore be destroyed with "whatever means necessary", also with any and all alternative solutions left to presumption, also based on faulty economic premises, and with no recognition of the progress that has been made, wow.
Instead of assuming that wasteful production is a given, as if some irreversible trend has no other solution but to be destroyed, what about the fact that the combination of technology and mechinazation are on the virge of finally allowing the needs of humanity to be met. And it is not a given, that responsible and harmless ways to meet the needs of ALL people might not be forthcoming. The recent failure of the EMH, the Laffer Curve (supply-side economics), has made possible the closing of escape routes to capital flight funds and this is huge in regards to the potential for progress. This will affect everything via global and domestic wealth redistribution, world trade problems, the do-things-my-way or I'll take my money and leave influence on domestic politics (power), developement loan vanishing propensities, etc.. So progress is being made, it is just complicated, as is the world we live in. Which is all the more reason that those who are uninformed should dedicate their time to reading rather than writing.
So there are solutions being found on many fronts and I can only guess, but I suspect that corporations are doing more good than harm. But that says only a little about my views on the Corporatocracy issue.
Any conversion of resources into usable forms of material requires waste by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is true for all life, not just humans. Of course, if the energy used to perform this waste is renewable and sustainable and the resulting product can be reabsorbed, such production, mimicking natural systems, would not pose any problems. Unfortunately, no modern global corporation does this.
Nor can they under our current system. They are highly "inefficient" because by virtue of size and hierarchy, they must spend large amounts of money on administration and overage. Of course, technology and good practices (though these tend to maximize one type of activity--the result usually leads to inflexibility) can reduce the costs between any two links of the transaction, but the largest corporations are under constant pressure to grow. The more links they acquire, the more costs in managing the links (which increase more than linearly). Since technology often doesn't develop faster than stockholder or public demand, corporations need to take other measures to curb the costs associated with growing larger. Usually, this means cuts to environmental, public, and worker health, wages, and managerial competence, while hours at work increase.
Of course, the above also drives the ethic for technical innovation and efficiency, but that too is constrained by marginal returns. It costs much more these days to perform innovative research because much of the basics, requiring much less technology, time, or cost, are already known. Even when developed, because society is so much larger, implementation takes longer. The result is that large corporations must resort to the above tactics.
(You might argue that Moore's "Law" is a counter-example. However, there are physical constraints on packing chip components; just like populations, after the exponential growth phase, the population must stabilize to some upper bound. Similarly, despite the hype about the biotech, nanotech, and quantum computing revolutions soon to pass, these technologies will be constrained by energy and materials requirements.)
The only way to halt the above is to change the cultural paradigm of constant growth as implicitly good. Hence, we favor local production (simply because there's fewer chains of waste and hoarding and more cycling), but unless the existing problems (large corporations and subservient governments) outside of this paradigm are reformed or removed by the force of numbers and actions, our attempts mean nothing because they hold most of the power right now.
tailfeather,
I agree with you more than I don't. I too believe that the math leads to localized commerce if negitive externalities are accounted for within the origins of where the most benefit is derived. I am something of a biochar fan and I am also well informed on matters of world trade. But you are getting into logistical and administrative considerations that are assumed to be solved through profit motives. That does not mean though that by including the costs of negitive externalities that the equation will not change, or that there is no room for improvment. But so far, your argument is just talk, it needs numbers. You must explain why productivity numbers and PE ratios keep rising as corporations grow. You must also explain why the percentage of average income applied to staple good costs keeps improving.
You are trying to win a battle with words in a war that is fought with numbers. The area you are pontificating about is where Dr. Krugman's work lead to a Noble Prize. So, essentially, you are trying to refute the mathmatical findings of Princeton's Economic Department while simutaneously contradicting Marx's theory of Monopolistic Concentration (I may not have name of theory correct?). Anyway, I do not disagree with your assesment of the problems but your propensity for unsupported claims will not fly in the realm which you seek to change. ( if I could remember the name of Krugman's book on this subject I would include it , but I don't?)
R.L. Love,
Could you explain why you concentrate on "Staple Products" having a favorable cost under big corporate production.
What about housing and healthcare and water? What about the cost of Debt of too big to fail Corps... how do these fit in your argument? cheap bread and milk is good but when the hyper-inflation hits and gas rises, even the staples will bust the unemployed that the rise in productivity from layoffs with the giant corps swallowing the little ones bring.
Your argument seems to be more valid the more narrowly you define it.
Jim,
In the interest of saving time, read this article, it is telling and then some: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-are-we-spending-more-on-healthcare.html.
(I am so sorry. I left "care" off of "healthcare". I can only hope I did not waste any of your time.)
I am not advocating corportism so much as I am trying to explain why it is foolish to attack corportism on its stongest front, the effeciency front. Most readers here do not understand why negitive extertalities MUST be assigned to consumers and producers and alike. And why consumer consumption must be assigned to consumers. This is integral to understand because it explains the very economic essence of the modes of production in a democracy. It is not possible to understand much of anything economic without grasping where these responsibilities must fall in democratic society. If you have time and are interested, read all of what I said here to Mairead and Tailfeather. Their side, with all due respect, is not necessary to read. You will need to look at the times in some cases, the conversation is mixed up a bit. I think though I explained what are some complex but critical aspects pretty well.
"consumer consumption must be assigned to consumers"
You can't consume something that wasn't somehow procured or produced. Thus, you can't separate consumption from production.
Note, consumption has negative costs only because the production and transportation of consumed things involves the conversion of labor and resources in ways that produce harmful by-products such as pollution, exploitation, etc. The consumer can only be responsible for the harm caused by aiding this process with his dollars (and the blame is spread thin over the entire population), but the producers are responsible for planning, encouraging (via advertisements and propaganda), executing, and in many cases, actively preserving (lawsuits and lobbying against disliked legislation) their production and attendant destruction. Per capita, the producers have far more power in this whole process. Thus, the producers, especially those with the most power (the largest), bear the most responsibility.
"the very economic essence of the modes of production in a democracy"
Since when was democracy linked to one or a few modes of production? Of course, real democracy (defined as each person under a governed area having say over the affairs of governance) tends to prohibit modes of production (like slavery) in which some portion of the population has fewer rights than others, but I don't see much else.
Consider why the amount of time needed to produce your average commodity has shrunk. In that blog post, it was treated as a given, but the reasons lie in the improvements in technology and method (mechanization, monoculture, the assembly line, irrigation, pest control, railroads). These technologies function only with massive amounts of energy, in the form of electricity or heat, usually generated by abundant fuels (mostly fossil fuels) or in human coordination, usually by assigning mechanical jobs to human beings. This created such a massive surplus (at least when compared to the pre-industrial world) that bosses could afford to pay workers more than nobles would to a serf while still being richer than any noble. This creates the attendant rise in average wages. However, this can only last if the supply of energy keeps coming and the materials needed to procure them are infinite or recyclable, but the current energy regime isn't while the wastes produced only become greater than before. Thus, these technologies and methods only make production more efficient by extracting more energy (either in electricity and fuel or treating workers as disposable machines), so the net increase is negative.
tailfeather,
You are simply wrong about consumption assignments. You are also too stubborn and disrespectful to warrant anymore of my time. I will say one more thing though, if you think a Nobel Prize winning economist isn't aware of "improvements in technology", and if you are unable to understand that his point is served by your "given", you are really confused. Which sums up your entire comment.
I do have a semi-mathematical model. I'm not an economist, so I probably don't have the full numerical arguments to refute the counterpoints, but I haven't really thought much about this since I envisioned this several months ago.
Let each unit of a business (a store, mine, bank) that generates profit be represented by a point. For the business to function properly, each unit must have some degree of coordination both with the management (a central point) and with each other. These are administrative costs. For each additional point, the number of connections (or additional administrative costs) increases by the number of previous points while profit increases only by the value of one point. Thus, the increase of administrative and maintenance costs is linear (at the least) while the increase of profit is constant (at best) as a company grows, holding all else constant. Thus, if one takes the limit of company size to infinity, revenue becomes negative.
Someone may object and note that top-down management avoids this as each new point (or source of profit) would only link to a fixed number of the previous points (the managers and not fellow workers/divisions), but naturally, as size of a company grows, so must the manager class.
Others may object that technology and innovations can bring costs down, but all it really does is increase the value per each new unit of business and decrease the cost of connection between any two units of business; it allows businesses to grow larger, but doesn't remove the existence of a maximum upper size.
A third objection lies in the fact I'm giving a theoretical upper bound on size; existing corporations may be so much smaller than the predicted values that the generated limits are practically useless. (Again, I don't have the data to test this.)
I didn't link this idea in my last post to conditions, so I'll state it here:
When a company first starts out, the marginal revenue is positive. However, once it establishes a presence in an area (in this case, we assume the globe), the rate of gain in revenue slows due to market saturation and increased management and maintenance costs. Thus, to maintain the rate of growth, companies find ways to increase the average productivity per unit (mechanization, increased division of labor, worker education and benefits, low wages, cheaper materials, etc.) or by lowering maintenance and management costs (top-down management rather than workplace democracy, less oversight over sectors of the company). However, each one of these innovations requires increased costs, either on society (of educating the workers and providing benefits to them or on the costs of crime, environmental degradation, defective products, etc.) or on the business itself (in terms of the increasing need for managers, quality control, medical insurance, or other aspects).
As for your point about the rise of living standards as to the cost of food, most of the credit should go to the agricultural sector. No nation would exist without the production of food, and as populations exploded, food production increased at a faster rate, thanks to modern technologies and techniques of the Green Revolution that maximized production of grains (over the environment as a whole). This was true in all modern nations, not merely the capitalist ones. Now, however, the soil is incurring marginal returns, as is our chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
tailfeather,
Economics as a field of study is coming out of a confused period of about 30 years of duration. Now, a shift back toward less reliance on models and algebraic theory, is bringing some much needed reason back into the "dismal science". But whether numbers are used, (which in your argument numbers are surreptitiously absent), or whether reason is relied upon, to refute an argument (mine) which is presented with more than ample support, with abstract theory without support, as if you have it all figured out -- so we should just take your word for it, tiresome.
Some of the numbers I supplied to support the rise in "living standards" are based on a 100 year period. The "Green Revolution" only applies to the latter half of that period and even if the first half of that period is ignored, YOUR period includes extensivive subsidizing. So you start with a false premise, and then:
Your: "No nation would exist without food production", implies that all nations supply their own staple goods, as if exports and imports do not play a role. And then, Your: " This was true in all modern nations, not merely the capitalist ones. Now, however, the soil is incurring marginal returns, as is our chemical fertilizers and pesticides." This is just one unsupported claim after another, each a declaritive statement loaded with implications which are also unsupported. Your claiming that the false premise you started with "was" true in ALL nations. So, essentially, you are claiming that my defence of the modes of production are flawed because "you" think that your conclusions, which are based on distortions which are derived from false premises, premises which rely on exclusions and other unsupported contentions, all presented with complete generalizations, are to be taken seriously, tiresome. And I agree with most of your implications, but the lack of integrity in your arguments is allowing you to reach false conclusions.
Can you present to me your sources detailing the decrease in food costs?
Just looking at some Internet data today, food production in the US (just to use an example) grew by 0.4% annually from 1910-1939 and 2% since, but population growth in the US was around 1.5% per year from the period of 1900-1950 (and have declined since the 1960s). Then I looked at some statistics detailing the price of basic foodstuffs (eggs, I think) showing an overall decrease in real costs over the last 100 years; however, I will note that until 1920/25, the costs were fluctuating at around $6 a dozen. Only since then did the decrease truly begin.
Now, let's correlate these gains to history. Food prices decreased (especially considering the halving of real costs from the eve of the Depression to the end of WWII) from 1925-1950 even though population was growing faster than food production. It seems minimum wage policies and the jobs/wages generated by rearmament seem the likeliest culprits. These policies, regardless of what ideology uses them, would likely bring similar results (consider the Nazis or the Soviets, for example).
"'No nation would exist without food production' implies that all nations supply their own staple goods, as if exports and imports do not play a role".
Imports and exports do play a role, but no nation can survive in the long term unless they have the means to use their own land to feed themselves. If a nation has to repeatedly trade finite resources (like minerals) for food and water, such a nation will starve when they run out of things to trade, or if trade becomes prohibitive (which is very likely when oil peaks), because if managed properly, soil, and the food produced from it, is a renewable resource while oil, coal, gas, uranium, diamonds, copper, etc. are not.
As for the soil incurring marginal returns, most agricultural land around the world that's been under the cultivation style of the Green Revolution is no longer fertile. Increasingly more fertilizer must be applied to maintain and expand yields. Chemical usage has increased and has reverted to more toxic compounds as weeds and insects have adapted resistance while their natural enemies have died from our pesticides and herbicides. I don't exactly see why you find this "unsupported".
tailfeather,
Here is a great article on histoical economic trends, written by a Nobel Prize winner named Robert Fogel: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-are-we-spending-more-on-healthcare.html.
I don't have much time. You need more facts and examples though, and you presume that just saying that, "is no longer fertile", for example, is a given, but it is not an accepted norm. Your next sentence needs to say something like, "Increasingly more fertilizer", up to x pounds per acre in some cases, the average increase in Kansas from 2003 --2008 was x pounds per acre "to maintain and expand yields". And once you had looked at the numbers, you would probably have realized that a more honest claim would be: "is no longer AS fertile". Because if the soil you refered to ("most", but only 3% of all land is classified as highly fertile) were "no longer fertile", then the stench of the dead would cover the planet, or there would be nothing but dust, or something along those lines.
(p.s. edit, 5 hours later)One reason you might think that what you claim is a given, but isn't, is because there is what the the scientific journal NATURE has named a "black revolution". This has to do with adding charred waste materials to soil, a process which expotentially increases microbial populations. At a depth of one meter, the carbon content in normal soils is 30 - 150 tons per hectare, with biochar the carbon content at one meter is 150 - 500 tons per hectare. So soil not only becomes more fertile due to the increase in microbes, but it also sequesters carbon at a depth that allows tilling without releasing the sequestered carbon. As with most everything, there is some controversy attached to boichar, although that is beside the point here, the problem here is that you assumed that soil degradation was a given. When that assumption is attached to your defence of an article that advocates that the circumststances are so desperate as to warrant destuctive measures to solve the world's problems, without considering potential progress that is clearly worthy of consideration, you are signalling presumptive ignorance. Not to say that we all do not do so from time to time, but instead to say that serious claims demand serious considerations.
( There is well researched article on soil issues in the Sept. 2008 NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, "Where Food Begins" -- I don't have a web address although if you just put in BIOCHAR there are sites and a wealth of info on biochar. The NG article though is golden and it covers a broader range in regards to soil issues.)
And when you generalize, if you must, include exceptions, because there are nearly always exceptions, or say somethig like, "without exception". Generalizations are a signal to the informed reader that bs is headed his or her way. Most of us simply move on.
Your claim that systems other than capitalist systems also needs support, which systems? A claim that broad and controversial needs numbers.
This might seem unfair, but the more unaccepting you are of the status quo, the more explaining necessary. Conservatism has an accepted norm advantage due to the MSM bias and so on, victors writing history and all of that, but it is what it is. And for someone who does not understand why it is not only unfair but also inaccurate to assign consumption and negitive externalities to producers in a democracy, and to not consider what progress is underway, for that someone to advocate destuctive means to reach presumed ends, that is sophmoric at best, but it only need be a phase and the remedy is simple, be honest, especially with yourself.
( I explained why consumer consumption and negitive externalities are not assigned to producers in a reply I made to Mairead (Oct. 24, 11:28, p.- 1 ).
Do I understand you correctly? Your little innocuous two-person business was/is a corporation and that makes corporations okay in general? That's your argument?
Mairead,
It is odd to me how presumptuous you ARE when it suits your beliefs, even to the point of delusion, but when things do not suit your beliefs, things must be spelled out for you. Our business was larger than your assumption supposes, although I did not include what I consider to be -- beside the point. That point, which you have clearly chosen to ignore, is that my wife and I felt strongly enough about environmentalism so as to mold our lives accordingly. And if you understood my closing statement in regards to "Corporatocracy", and what that implies, you would then understand how misinformed a person must be to say: "that makes corporations okay in general". So, it must follow that a person with such narrow thinking might somehow then also miss the obvious fact, that my argument is almost entirely substantive. It explains quite clearly that informed people are taking the necessary steps to make progress, where progress can and should be made. That you do not understand how important it is to eliminate safe-haven banking is not my responsibility. In fact, somewhere on this thread, I wrote "that fringe thinking can not exist without fringe standards". So the essence of my contention is that your beliefs depend on your ignorance so as to protect those beliefs. A contention clearly supported by your snarky little reply.
What does big keybord mean?
The 'corporations in general are okay' summation comes from your statement that
-----------------------------------------
all lead to the indisputable conclusion that corporate capitalism is far more efficient than any system in human history. ... only the uninformed or delusional would contend that the corporate system is wasteful as a mode of production.
-----------------------------------------
Those sound like admiring assertions, to me. Corporations are efficient and non-wasteful. Uh-huh. The junkyards and landfills are figments of our imaginations, and products are carefully designed and produced to last many years without replacement or repair? Of course they're not. Corporations are *extremely* wasteful, waste is the only reason their owners are wealthy. Corporations waste everything, including human beings, non-humans, and Earth herself. Decapitated mountains, heaps of tailings, open-pit mines, befouled rivers, clearcut forests, acid rain, smog, dead zones in the sea, lung cancer, tens of thousands of on-the-job fatalities every year and Goddess knows how many injuries, sea bottoms stripped bare of life, coral reefs poisoned, Tokyo Bay so polluted that tuna haven't been anywhere near it in nearly a hundred years, whole species driven to extinction, the Cuyahoga so polluted it caught fire, the Love Canal scandal, the destruction of the Aral Sea, the creatures living in it, and the health of the humans living near it.... I could keep going.
But I'm going to stop here, because if you haven't already 'got' it, you're not interested in getting it.
Mairead,
Now you are taking something I posed in a context regarding the effeciency of the modes of production, and assigning negitive externalities to the producer. That is simular to the mistake made in the article although in your case a little more understandable because you are not presenting yourself as an authority on this subject. The flaw in your argument, other than the fact that you distorted the context of my argument, is that producers in a capitalist system are expected to meet the demands of the market. Your assertions blame the modes of production as if the consumers, and the regulatory agents (government), had no choice but to consume what was produced. But of course the producer must create supply to meet demand if that producer is to profit. And without profit things do not get produced in this system. So, all stakeholders must share in the blame and that is where this becomes a political issue. Because of course in a democracy the citizen has choices. So by Corporatocracy, I am suggesting that the problem is the combination of corportism and democracy. In other words, I see the much needed solutions to most of the world's problems as being multi-dimensional, which of course they are.
And why I am taking the time to explain this to someone who is so rude, someone accussing me of being insensitive to environmental issues, after I explained that I molded my life around those concerns, which lead to the very knowledge that I have tried to share here, when I clearly have nothing to gain here, and a rudeness based on uninformed presumption, is a question I have no answer for.
Your interpretations are quite self-serving, including your imputation of 'rudeness' to my criticism of your pro-corporate political position. Few would agree with you that to criticise your politics is to criticise your person.
This is rather stunningly disingenuous, straight out of the canon of corporate apologetics:
----------------------------------
producers in a capitalist system are expected to meet the demands of the market. Your assertions blame the modes of production as if the consumers, and the regulatory agents (government), had no choice but to consume what was produced. But of course the producer must create supply to meet demand if that producer is to profit. And without profit things do not get produced in this system. So, all stakeholders must share in the blame and that is where this becomes a political issue. Because of course in a democracy the citizen has choices.
----------------------------------
There's quite a good study of FDR's New Deal and the difference between the hagiography that's presented to us as history and the actual changes for which FDR and his administration were responsible. "End of Reform: New Deal Liberalism in Recession and War", by Alan Brinkley. Brinkley is the Nevins Professor of Am. History at Columbia, highly respected and at least conventionally lib-left, so it's not a hatchet job by some rightwing nitwit.
FDR and his crew were committed to saving the US for the 'ordinary' oligarchs by preventing the Marxist revolution brewing among the alienated, dispossessed working class, and the fascist one by the top 0.1% of the ruling class (who might well have succeeded in installing fascism had they been smart enough to pick, say, MacArthur rather than Smedley Butler to do their dirty work).
To save the US for capitalism, they concluded that they had to distinguish 'the American Way' from the attractions of both Soviet Communism and the German and Italian Fascisms. They decided, quite cold-bloodedly, that we would have an economic system based on endless consumption. After the war, Europe and Asia would be all but ruined, and could be exploited to produce goods that the US corporations could cheaply import in endless quantities. To be sure that people would continue to buy them (thus keeping corporate profits high), the goods would be poorly made with 'planned obsolescence', and the power of the advertising industry would be used to make people continuously unsatisfied with 'only' having last year's car/dress/suit/fridge/furniture/house/whatever. (During that same period, he handed over the control of military procurement to his 'dollar a year men' who, of course, weren't subsisting on that dollar -they continued to draw their salaries and perqs from their corporate employers and naturally saw no reason why the military shouldn't be able to buy whatever it wanted from those same corporate employers. Whence the birth of the infamous 'military-industrial complex'.)
This consumption-economy scheme, they felt, would satisfy both the oligarchs and the working class, because the latter would be unwittingly enslaved to the former by the manufactured need to 'keep up with the Joneses'.
When GIs began bringing back Volkswagens, the more perceptive Americans realised the real purpose of 'planned obsolescence'. The Volkswagens were produced to a completely different ethic, with badges given out by the factory to cars with verifiable high mileage, and yearly changes subtle enough to make identifying the year of manufacture a matter of some expertise. Just as in Germany, perceptive US VW owners took pride not in having the 'latest and greatest' VW, but in having an old one with one or more high-mileage badges that still looked and ran like new. It was a real counter-culture, and bothersome to the corporatocracy until they managed, with tariffs and arm-twisting, to end the threat.
So your claim that corporations 'must create supply to meet demand' turns reality on its head. What they actually do, and have done since 1946, is create a demand for the crap they wastefully supply.
That famous photo of Black folk in the breadline under the poster of a White family in their car is priceless precisely because it exposes the fraudulent, destructive nature of the consumerist scheme imposed on us.
Mairead,
You are still assuming that wastefull production is a given. A problem which can only be solved by destroying the modes of production. Your premise suggests that we destroy the good along with the bad. All based on your unwillingness to admit that some progress has been made and that it would cause more harm than good if all production were sabotaged somehow. As if humanities needs might be met by some sort of miracle during the transition to your leisure based alternative.
Where your premise reaches a level contradiction beyond confusion and ignorance, is that the you would destroy the machines that will eventually allow the leisure of your desires, and without the exploitation that you so convenietly ignore in your nastalgia. You also ignore the fact that during the most prosperous decade of the first half of 20th century, during those wonderful times of leisure and plenty, the poverty rate in this country reached 71% (before the crash).
Your contention that "reality" has been turned on its "head" suggests that consumers are being forced to buy what they obviously choose to buy. If consumers choose not to buy a product it is no longer produced and to argue otherwise on a macro level is delusional.
What you call "stunningly disingenuous" is just a standard explanation of the basic capitalist system in a democratic society. That you would take an objective explanation as having an "apologetic" agenda behind it, that is disingenuous.
I'm going to stop here. You continue to 'respond' with nothing more than obfuscated assertions without so much as a shred of support. I don't know what you think you're doing, but I do know what I think you're doing and I'm not interested in helping you do it.
mairead,
Now you are ignoring the fact that it was you who criticized my criticism of the article. Notice though how you tried to defend the article without using a single reference from the article, and notice especially that I used the very references in my original critisism that could not have been any more applicable. Interesting that you would use the term "obfuscated".
As for what you claim I did not support, as I have exlained on this very thread, it not necessary to support the claim that "water is wet". I also wrote, somewhere on this thread what the burden of proof is in regards to accepted norms. You should up on THAT SUBJECT.
I am glad you are through supplying me with examples that serve my primary premise here: "fringe thinking can not exist without fringe standards". I have well more than enough examples. Thanks for the help, but I could do without your help, forever.
I have read hundreds, maybe even thousands of works on subjects related to the premise of this article, works including academic research, books by Nobel Prize winning economists, privately funded studies, and of course the daily contributions of magizine and newspaper articles. But Mr. Hedges is the first writer in my experience to contend that corporations (all) are wasteful in regards to inputs(costs related to production).
Over the past 50 years the percentage of average income spent on staple goods has fallen from about 75% to about 35% (U.S., [studies vary slightly]). And this trend, especially when combined with simular productivity trends, birth-rate trends etc., all lead to the indisputable conclusion that corporate capitalism is far more efficient than any system in human history. During these past 50 years the amount of disposable income per household has risen steadily, even though for the last 30 of these years wages have been stagnant. There is a perfectly valid argument here regarding wealth distribution, and/or an argument against materialism-consumerism etc.; but only the uninformed or delusional would contend that the corporate system is wasteful as a mode of production. Any such argument even refutes Marx's theory of monopolistic concentration, this of course being based on the unfair advantages inherent to LOWER input costs, not higher.
The premise of this article seems to be that, if those on the far-Left would stop drying their clothes in their backyards, and use that time more wisely, in an effort to destroy the modes of production, that the planet might be saved. This equates to a plan based on destroying the only good part of the Corporatocracy, while ignoring all that is bad. Evidently, because the author is not aware of what the essential argument is about. Which makes this the most delusional article I have ever read. I would provide more support for that claim here, although I have other comments on this thread that do just that. And a book's worth of examples might not be enough to explain all that's wrong, dishonest, and delusonal about this article.
Yeah. I rather agree. I have railed against the GW deniers for YEARS, and hold Exxon TREASONOUS for their funding the denier community, but TRASH CAPITALISM? I hate the amount of power modern corporations have been allowed to gather, but TRASH ALL CORPORATIONS? EVERYWHERE?
I like the CommonDreams.org website, with its refreshing liberalism. But if it plans to advocate, as lately many articles seem to, for the destruction of our economic system, for the upending of our means of production/allocation, for ACTUALLY forcing people onto farms to grow organic/vegetarian produce, then SCR*W THAT!!
Here's four ideas (admittedly 10-40 years too late):
1. Don't reduce the maximum marginal income tax bracket below 90%, OK? When someone makes over $3 million a year, just TAKE the amount over $3 million, and tax the rest at the lower rates. It worked fine for the 'Greatest Generation' (1930-1980), it can work fine for us. Sheesh.
2. Don't trash Glass-Steagal, or ANY of the FDR banking legislations from the Great Depression. Keep investment banks and commercial banks separate. Dump derivatives and other clever schemes for creating money where none exist. Eventually, such money turns out to be worthless, which it was all along. The game that is being played is to NOT BE THERE when this true value finally comes calling. This is not investment, its predation.
3. Do whatever Jimmy Carter tells you to do on alternative energy, including putting solar water heaters back on the White House Roof.
4. Incorporate agressive anti-trust legislation: once an American corporation grows to employ more than 2000 employees worldwide, break it into two companies. This keeps the labor/management ratio low enough for labor to have a fighting chance just on the threat of its number one asset: loss of its labor. Anti-trust against corporations, on behalf of labor, is much more effective than labor unions, at keeping labor valuable to the modern production process. (BTW: the investors don't care HOW many companies you break their ownership up into: they still own the same amount. What you're breaking up is MANAGEMENTS.)
Nowhere in this is a call to TRASH CAPITALISM! Its enough of that talk. What that talk does, is give Glenn Beck and the new McCarthyists ammunition to paint the 'climate change' crowd as a threat to capitalism, because, frankly, it IS THREATENING CAPITALISM. The theat of global warming is a human threat, exclusive of economics or politics. Get the luddite, 'back to nature', organic, vegetarian, anti-corporatism off this issue. It doesn't deserve it and is more likely to drown it than anything else. And, if it does, we may ALL drown... for real.
You shouldn't agree.
R.Love is forgetting *how* capitalism produces those 'wonderful' effects: by forcing Earth and third-world peoples to pay the real costs. Paul Hawken has shown that the true cost of goods is *never* fully accounted-for. And that's why we're in so much trouble today.
If the real costs in terms of resource depletion, pollution, and misery were factored into the price of the crap we so carelessly buy, we wouldn't be able to afford it. The rare earths that go into cell phones? Paid for in human and non-human blood, pollution, and habitat destruction. Fruit from Israel, Mexico, or New Zealand? Paid for with fossil-fuel depletion and deadly climate change. The list is endless.
If we want to stay in business as a species, we have no other option than to change our way of life the world around, growing more of our own food, weaving more of our own clothing, sharing communally-owned goods, cooperating rather than competing. Earth can no longer afford to let us party-hearty at her expense.
We will *certainly* stop, the only question being whether we'll still be alive after.
Mairead,
That which you are claiming that I am "forgetting" are what economists call "negitive externalities". What you have said here is beside the point, and so I did not forget, I instead tried to explain that it is delusional to call for the destuction of the modes of production when these modes are not the problem. You, as is the author in question, are assuming that wasteful production is some sort of given. He then also advocates destuction of what produces more good and necessary products than harmfull products without offering an alternative.
I would imagine that Hedges didn't spell out the alternative for the same reason I didn't: it seems so obvious. The alternative is a world in which things are made only when needed, or as artistic craftwork, not with all the quality squeezed out of them to maximise the profits of the few.
This is in the literature, so you can check it if you doubt me: most people in most jobs do not put much of themselves into their work because their work has nothing to do with who they are. It's just how they earn the money to stay alive. Free them of the need to work for money and you see what truly engages them. It might be gardening, or teaching or needlework or cabinetmaking or playing the fiddle for dancing or working with kids or something else. In all cases, it's their 'calling', and they put everything they've got into it.
Read the early Foxfire books, especially the stories told by the older people, those born around 1900. They had had relatively little in material goods, but they had been rich in culture and leisure time. If something needed done, they did it, trading skill for skill. If nothing was needed, they didn't 'build up inventory' or 'get laid off', they simply relaxed, visited, played music, read, did craftwork, or found something else enjoyable. One of the Foxfire sources, a man born around 1905-1910 and highly artistic, commented about how impoverished modern life was because nobody had time to stop and enjoy themselves anymore. Time was, he said, that someone passing by in the road would be more than happy to stop and 'set a spell', spending half a day smoking, talking, playing music, drinking cider, eating, whatever seemed enjoyable in the moment. Now it was all changed, he said, and everyone had money in their pockets but were poorer in their hearts.
Mairead,
The next time I read an article which advocates the destruction of all corporations, because they are all of course evil, I will know to assume that things will just work themselves out in a leisurely way. To further improve my presumption skills, I will presume that the author of that article has better things to do than explain things. Or I will assume that he knows that the unexplainable is often best left to presumptuous readers. Thanks.
I'm at a loss to understand why you're being sarcastic.
Do you *really* believe that private-profit corporations --economic feudalism-- is the only way to produce things?
Do you *really* believe that working our arses off to enrich the few so that we can buy crap-quality 'stuff' made by near-slaves in maquiladora sweatshops or pollution-pits in Guangdong is the only way for us to live?
I find that all but impossible to accept, since I presume you're an adult and that the same information is available to you as to me in libraries and even the internet. How could you be so limited in your perceptions, unless by choice. And if by choice, *why*?
All,
I answered Mairead at this point by a reply addressed to Tailfeather and Mairead in tandom. This part of the thread got out of order also because Tailfeather's initial reply to my comment was put at the top as opposed to attached as a reply. So the only way to make sense of this conversation between the three of us is to look at the times. Sorry for any confusion that I caused.
My four perscrptions elevate government power over corporate power and, through wealth redistribution, help return our democracy to the people by slashing concentrations of wealth that currently corrupt the process. Elevating a government that has been returned to her people will do much to increase the proper evaluation of the true costs of economic activity. Breaking corporate managements up reduces the lobbying power of individual corporations and, as I mentioned, decreases the labor to management ratio so labor has the leverage needed to make an honest wage.
But the primary aspect of capitalism remains intact. All economies, centrally-planned or otherwise, take in high quality energy and excrete low quality energy. All organisms do the same. All chemical reactions do the same. Indeed, nothing MOVES without taking in high quality energy and excreting low quality energy. With better planning we can do a better job of evaluating the costs associated with economic activity. But we will never stop impacting our environment by taking some of its high quality energy and returning lower quality energy, not unless we stop existing. Fortunately, all high quality energy ultimately comes (in this neck of the woods) from the sun, and earth subtends only one-billionth of the suns total solar output, so there's room for growth...
It's not clear to me that centralised control is much better when carried out by 'elected' oligarchs than when carried out by un-elected ones. Both groups seem not to care a fig about us. Perhaps it would help to include the idea of devolved government?
Your point about being unable to escape entropy is of course unimpeachable. But as even Lincoln (smart man!) pointed out, any labor is unproductive and wasteful that goes into moving something that could just as well be produced at the destination. Jane Jacobs said much the same thing when talking about the economic health of cities and their catchment areas: the more local needs that are met by local production rather than imports, the healthier.
So I can't quite see how central 'command and control' by government is significantly better for us proles than the same thing by any other organism. In theory it's better, sure, because in theory we control government. But in practice?
If I'm misunderstanding you, I apologise and grovel.
The biggest stumbling block in the argument is equating corporations as corporations instead of groups of people. Doing this is less effective then the mentioned Ghost Dance dresses. Viewing corporations as groups of humans leaves the avenue for a human solution. The word "corporation" has become an idolatrous image linked to negative self-righteous vibrations that also limit if not block the best of human creativity. Be human, see human.
But corporations *aren't* 'groups of people'. Corporations are deathless, unpunishable legal fictions controlled completely by a few oligarchs who are themselves immune from being called to account for the destruction they indirectly cause.
The only 'groups of people' are the employees and possibly the owners, neither of which have any say at all in the running of the corporation unless they're able to completely band together, which in general they can't/don't (sound familiar? it should!)
The article states: "We can save groves of trees, protect endangered species and clean up rivers, all of which is good, but to leave the corporations unchallenged would mean our efforts would be wasted."
It is becoming clear that while individual examples of living sustainable are necessary, it won't be enough until we do it collectively.
And if we continue to vote for Obamas or Clintons who are more concerned with protecting the status quo and the power elite, we are not acting in a manner which will bring about the fundamental changes that are necessary for our survival.
It is time for a culture change, one where we ask before decisions are made, if our action negatively impacts basic humans rights or the requirements of a sustainable environment. Anything less is going to guarantee the downward path to the bottom of constant unnecessary suffering and misery.
To change the status quo will require participation by every single person out there. Unfortunately, if the current situation didn't get everyone off their ass and into action, there probably isn't anything that would do it until it is too late.
It may already be too late to make the change that is necessary for our survival.
so it goes
Great article Chris Hedges. It doesn't tell us how, but it tells us what needs to be done. We have to be clear about what has to be done before we can find the appropriate hows.
Joe
Corrections!
Ranjit Kumar posted at 10:44 a.m. today:
"Olemanriver didn't finish high school but he has been a gifted learner on this site."
While I thank you for the compliment, I got my diploma in 1961 and was a National Merit Finalist, was offered scholarships but they weren't enough because my parents had divorced and spent all their spare money fighting court battles over younger children's custody.
I was a college dropout, not a high school dropout. I attended five colleges and universities including Berkeley and CCNY. But IT WAS THE SIXTIES!!! I met Mario Savio during the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and would later work with The Chicago Seven and was heavily into journalism. I knew I was witnessing a revolution in consciousness that transcended formal education, but that didn't mean I eschewed learning (unlike "Shawn Berry," who calls "himself" a "blue collar progressive" and then disparages a college education).
Not having a degree can be a serious impediment financially, and for most of my life it has been. I spent a year living in a storage space and surviving by dumpster diving (the Great Recession of 1982-83). Great books have been written about how fortune changes. I worked for several banks including the Federal Reserve and BofA as well as a couple of really great newspapers as an investigative reporter and for some college textbook publishing houses as a copy editor and proofist. I APPRENTICED into these jobs by reading and practicing and self-discipline, and, yes, desperation and sometimes just plain luck. I was also able to live coast to coast working as an offset printer, again, APPRENTICED.
***
As for "Shawn Berry," I have done something of a linguistic analysis of "his" semantics on this thread and others, and I think we have all been truly suckered. I doubt that "Shawn Berry" actually exists as an individual person. I think/suspect/believe that "Shawn Berry" is a COLLECTIVE Agent Provocateur.
"His" technique so far has been to make essentially ridiculous personal attacks that suck in our egos to compel us to defend ourselves against what we usually rightly regard as absurdities. "His" modus is to reduce as much as possible everything to personal attacks (Latin: ad hominum) for the purpose of diverting attention from the serious issues raised by the articles and threads on CD. If you spend some time studying "his" syntax in "his" attacks I believe that you will find as I do that no one person is writing this garbage. "Shawn Berry" is a Committee of Trolls trying to subvert Common Dreams, and I do agree with those who have posted that at least some trolls are PAID to do it. After all, CD consists of nearly 200,000 readers/participants interested in "progressive" causes. In this day and age that is nothing to sneeze at and can represent a threat to some very evil people. "Shawn Berry" is among them. "He" has used virtually every trick in the Book of Sophistry to misrepresent a host of threads by other people at CD, for the purpose of diversion from a study of what ails what passes for "civilization" today. That his primary target has been Sioux Rose should tell us a great deal.
"Blue collar progressive" my ass. "Shawn Berry" is the "personification" of Corporate Personhood. Fascism posing as a human being. Exercising "his" First Amendment "right" to Free Speech. This orchestration of a Corporate Collective even goes so far as to pretend that its human feelings are hurt by attacks like mine. As time goes on we're gonna see more of this crap on the Web.
One final note to the editors of CD. I think you have been judicious in not censoring. Trolling is an evolving issue. At least half the comments on this thread were internecine rivalries thrust upon us by diversionary tactics. Keep publishing Chris Hedges. His is among the few voices of sanity left, and his life-experience credentials are impeccable. I'm a fellow war correspondent. Mine was The War At Home (some may recall the film by that name). There were many times when I lived daily expecting a bullet through the head for what I was writing when I was inhaling police tear gas because there wasn't any air, back when I had a by-line. And backing from courageous Publishers. Keep up the good work.
-30-
Sioux Rose
OLE MAN RIVER: Thank you for taking the time to share your insights and observations in this post. (And by the way I DID answer you on the Naomi Klein thread and was MOST appreciative of your kind words.) I am fortunate that when I go bike riding (it's about THAT time now), whatever spirits live in the forest send insights my way. I clear my thought process and reflect on many things, like the antipathy created in this forum by a few interlopers. Due to the use of anonymous names as identifiers, the same handful can seem like a much larger group. I find that troubling. Since I am a professional writer who uses her name in this forum, I am less invisible, and perhaps an easier target.
In any case, so long as there are still wise souls, well-informed thinkers who generously give of their time, knowledge, and caring in this forum, I will be compelled to return. I would prefer that Craig Brown find a way to put some kind of control on the board so that a dominant poster cannot repeat himself (or herself) over and over again. Twelve is a nice metaphysical number. I vote for max 12 posts per thread from any single source. In any case, thank you again for being "the lady's champion" and pointing out the imposter.
I certainly do NOT agree with all opinions posted here, but in 95% of the cases, I appreciate reading them, potentially learning from another viewpoint, and certainly honoring the other individual's point of view. Redundant stupidity, opinion without substantiation, and character assassination are quite to the contrary. These items reduce the level of discourse and have probably scared some worthy persons away. Thank you again.
More lies and bs. Craig Brown knows better than to do what you would ask him to do. Be careful what you wish for.
YOU GOT IT ABOUT SHAWN BERRY! I THINK MOST OF US HAVE FIGURED OUT HE'S A PLANT
Stop shouting. You're the one acting like a plant. You just appreciate thinking differently, do you?
Nicely stated. I respect and admire your integrity. As a Viet Vet, dumpster diving is also a part of my experience following the Viet War. The collective mask you refer of one moron, along with the Obama bot resurgence on CD is because the Obama Administration is in campaign mode again. One only needs to note the resurrection of people who were only participating circa the last election to know Obama is in trouble on the left and now scrambling to undermine us by taking on progressives like Hedges. Keep the fires burning – my metaphor for staying true to one’s inner compass.
Unproven lies and conspiracy theories. I'm no paid Obamabot. Stop lying.
Excellent analysis OleManRiver,
That is my assessment as well. The sock-puppet in question is always aggressive, however the rant ranges from illiterate "Professional Wrestling" stammer to coherent vocabulary within a few posts. The shear volume of postings assures us that it's not one person. The fact that it often contains pro-war undercurrents leads me to suspect DOD.
What a fascinating life you've lead.
Thanks for standing up for Democracy all these years.
TJ
"To criticize those in power, is the highest form of patriotism" - Thomas Jefferson
Another pack of lies. You and your associates aren't standing up for Democracy. You're standing up for fascism of your own. You don't know me.
I apologize for my mistake. It was a long day at work. You might be interested in knowing that in my Indian culture, getting an undergraduate degree is not considered getting a degree figuratively speaking. Getting a master's degree is what it takes to be culturally considered educated. I haven't been to India in 15 years but Sioux Rose would know the latest in education expectations in Indian society.
AAAHAHAHAHAHA ! Glad I wasn't an Indian in this life time. I didn't need a useless money wasting college degree to be a smartass ! AAAHAHAHAHAHA !
You can't stop lying about me can you? If the CD editors wanted to censor, they would not censor my posts because they would have found out that I wasn't the mean one. I was just another progressive defending myself against lies and bs. You have nothing to back up your claim that I am a paid troll other than heresy but that is not proof or evidence whatsoever.
The only way to dismantle the corporate state is to stop giving them our money. Stop buying anything but essentials, and get those from a local supplier. Ditch the car- stop donating to the oil companies every week. Turn your heat down, heat only the rooms you are in. Throw the cell phone out the window. Stop borrowing and paying interest to banks. Buy only used clothes and wear yours until they wear out. Power down in a big way. Don't buy cleaning chemicals- anything from the big corporations. Quit buying processed foods. Don't fly anywhere- all your spending is propping up the corporate state. Of course its not just you and me, but if enough of us cut off the money, we could bring them down.
You speak of reality. The reality is that we don't live in a pre-industrial world. We live in a world of billions of people, most of whom live in extremely complex and very technology-dependent urban and semi-urban conditions--far from nature, far from being able to earn a living or even subsist in an agricultural world, still less a nomadic or forager's world. Corporations are a serious problem, but they are a branch, not the root. Communist countries polluted as well as any other country.
There is no viable alternative to oil. Not unless you want to kill off half of humanity. It is pure fantasy to think so--and biofuels are scarcely the answer, neither is nuclear power.
It's simple. It's called fatality. Read some Greek plays. Play chess. Make the wrong moves and you reduce your possibilities of action. You run out of space and time. The root is industrialism, and the planet has become fatally dependent on it. And industrialism depends on a mental formation that began already at the time of the Renaissance. It is a desacralized view of the cosmos--a fatal view, because--and this is Reality:
"in Him we live, and we move, and we have our being."
Of course, it goes without saying that modern man on the whole doesn't want to hear this. That too is fatality.
Your Christian zealotry may represent your reality and world view, it does not represent mine.
The Greeks also offered incredible insight on the psychological dysfunctions guiding the values of conspicuous consumption tied to the industrial world view of Eurocentric peoples, even though they wrote long before that period. The myth of Sisyphus comes to mind to describe a psychological mind-set in need of fulfilling all its addictive tendencies driven by greed; an insatiable appetite filling an empty hole inside that can never be satisfied. My people called these types “hungry ghosts.”
jwgn,
Well said and wise.
the right to 'own' property, which funds the monied world, must go...
Global Start Date: September 22, 2012...the world's citizens unanimously withdrawing from the current system...acoustic, agrarian, sustainable life...local governance...local necessities, local defense...
Great comments from most everyone. There is a lot of debating I see on where to fix the system. Some choose to fix from the inside while others choose to fix from the outside. I generally choose the latter option but am willing to try from the inside until I know that at some point enough is enough. Changing a system from the inside still keeps it intact and prone to reverting back to its bad status. It is like trying to change the Democrat Party and move it to the left only to watch it fail again and move further to the right. I for one though would like to see a European model, a mixture of socialism and regulated capitalism. We could rein in corporate power that way.
MichaelGoodhart, welcome to Common Dreams. As Cee Miracles pointed out, there is a long road ahead for you to follow and I wish you lots of luck recovering out there. There is a lot to learn here. I hope this site helps speed up you recovery. Again, welcome aboard.
Hey you remind me of my Uncle Stan, who was also new to this site a couple months ago and he was also shy like you and he didn't want to post comments til he had read for a while, but even though you are shy, you stepped right up and wrote about 89% of the comments in this thread today. You also sort of remind me of my new roommate who used to be a republican but now is probably progressive but might vote third party. I wonder what ever happened to Uncle Stan.
Leave her alone, troll. Go back to your Obama cave and repair Obama.
Thank you Ranjit. NoMoreForCorps is just an Obamabot troll.
Thanks Jennifer for the welcome as well. I look forward to learning and reforming. I'm slow to learn but I'll give it my best.
I still think change from within can't hurt. I think we need to fix the system from both the inside and outside 50/50.
This is Chris Hedges' best article yet.
"The corporations will continue to cannibalize the planet for the sake of money."
Here is what I take away from the article:
1. Sacrifices of a small minority alone will not stop the global devastation and suffering caused by unregulated corporations and aided and abetted by our government, ever.
2. Although we do have power in our choices, the real power is held by our government and we can change that by voting out those who aid and abett and vote in those who will reform and transform.
3. Unregulated corporations are a threat to our existence, our health. If someone or some entity threatens your life and that of your family's, do you take action to protect yourself and your family?
From my perspective, our family includes the earth, animals, all people.
The actions we take to protect ourselves can be inclusive and results are not necessarily based on a single solution.
For me, socialism is not a dirty word, yet neither is capitalism. In fact, I believe that it would be the answer to a lot of issues for we need innovation now as never before.
However, in order for that to happen, the sine qua non, corporations should be declared as illegal entities.
There are two different ways to view the issue: (1) we ARE the system, so in order to solve our problems we will have to change ourselves, and (2) the capitalist system exists outside of ourselves, and in order to solve our problems we must bring it down. When I think about these issues, these two different views flip back and forth in my mind like one of those optical illusions. Which suggests to me that they are but two aspects of a single reality; which further suggests that either approach might work.
CH seems to be calling for a revolution--and while some revolutions may work out well, most seem to end in disaster, generally because they're led by the same creeps who caused the problems in the first place.
Personally, I think we'd be better off if we seriously work on changing ourselves and those in our immediate vicinity.
Amen nick. We are the government we choose to keep just like we are the companies we choose to keep. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in total denial and delusion. There's no point in trying to change forces outside of one's own control. Fix from within and make oneself tougher to defeat and then confront those external bad boys if you have to.
The author is right. Those corporations won't go down without a fight and they already have allies, us. It's easy to be dishonest and say that you don't work for those corporations or are affiliated with them in any way but it's obviously hard to be honest about it without getting flamed. A few months ago, some user admitted to working for the DoD and got flamed but he did strike back and expose the attackers' dishonest and hypocritical modes of denial. I know I am on a lot of people's hate lists on this site for honestly admitting that I own an SUV for business purposes and that hybrid equivalents are not cheaper. No problem, that's why the corporations win. Would these same people join me in asking those dealers to lower those steep prices on those hybrids so that more people can afford them and help save the planet instead of pointing fingers? I would be shocked if any of them said yes. That aside, let's face it. As long as all of us post on this site, we will rely on coal, gas, and oil to keep those machines and servers powered. As long as we drive, we rely on oil. We would have to be complete luddites to defeat those corporate interests 100% but where would we or CD be? None of us would be here typing on this site. Leea, MichaelGoodhart, and Cee Miracles raise excellent points about the need to reform from within. If we look to our inner selves for our inner strengths and make the best of it, the corporations will be controlled differently by different people and just maybe corporate power could be put to good use just like political power used to be before it fell into the wrong hands.
I love Hedges, and Jensen. USA Truth tellers par excellence. I have 3 questions however to throw into the discussion.
1. Dismantle the system by ANY means (because it in fact is destroying life on the Planet, incl ours) nonetheless creates a violent reaction w/o the necessary consciousness shift that can make healthy changes permanent;
2. We the people in fact legitimize & cooperate with the system w/our lifestyles, taxes, voting for twiddle dee or twiddle dumb,burning fossil fuels, buying their crappy consumer items, passivity VS lifestyles of resistance/noncooperation. Thus, radical changes in our individual & collective lives removes the engine engine from capitalism and needs to be an intrinsic part of the resistance strategy. In fact our individual & local actions of simple living and radically reduced consumptive/carbon lifestyles do count because we do not understand the transcendence effect on others. That our individual actions in local communities by themselves will not save ourselves from catastrophe is not a reason not to do them. If the structural/systemic changes do not happen no matter our political organizing and resistance actions, no matter how massive, so be it.
3. It is a leap in human consciousness that is sought w/o which nothing really new is able to emerge. If this shift does not happen, then our demise, even extinction, is a warranted eco-system corrective mechanism that will not be averted by desperate actions;
Tearing down the infrastructure to save lives is like blowing up the foundation to save the building. See how many lives are lost when people can't access food or clean water (both provided by the system, thank you), when telecommunication bites it, and so on and on and on.
If you want change, you must target the decision-makers: The CEOs and executive committees. Make THEIR lives miserable NOW if you want change. When THEIR lives and their children's lives are on the line, you'll be surprised how quickly a big corporation can become a force for positive change. Like they say, the best way to get cheap organic tomatoes and fair farm-worker treatment is to make MacDonald's demand such from their suppliers. It's merely shifting corporate power toward constructive change and away from the race to the bottom. They won't do it without a good reason, like saving their own skins. Not CORPORATE skins but flesh and blood skins.
Second, a little rhetorical shift here please. Our effect on the planet doesn't even amount to a hot flash. So enough of this talk about "killing the planet." Mother Earth has seen far worse than us; just ask the dinosaurs.
Well said. Individuals, and only individuals, participate on all levels. We are all tied into the same system and consciously or unconsciously participate, whether we like it or not. To suggest that all our individual efforts are meaningless is nonsense. All we have are individual efforts.
Suggesting we "dismantle the corporate state" and "target and take down the industrial infrastructure" sounds great. Where do we start? Should I throw out this corporately produced computer, end my internet subscription with AT@T, junk my Toyota pickup, throw out my DeWalt tools? Walk to work and start chiseling away at some stone tools so I can finish the renovation job I'm working on? Oh wait I'll have to scrap the Pacific Lumber and drywall I just bought and throw out the Georgia-Pacific mud (I think I saw some reeds in a swamp near the house, maybe I can look up how to build a thatched roof, but I can't do that because I threw out all the books that were printed on the subject being that they were printed in China by MaGraw_Hill).
Corporate states are abstractions that exist because with give them the power to exist. Creating an alternative world only happens by individual means. Suggesting that it's a big bad abstraction that is destroying the planet is dis-empowering.
Corporate capitalism demands chewing up more of the planet each year than it did the year before. I mean this is built into the system- growth forever. bigger gdp. well all this cannot happen without killing the planet. because the planet is finite, it cannot sustain infinite growth. and since this is what capital demands, it's gotta be stopped.
This is like real simple arithmetic. The reason so many people, including right here, can't see it is cause they don't want to. and who can blame them? we are all so deeply enmeshed in this system we can't imagine any other way. but still we must. Because we can't let our planet be murdered to satisfy corporate greed.
it's capital against the planet, and we gotta choose. which side are you on?
"The oil and natural gas industry, the coal industry, arms and weapons manufacturers, industrial farms, deforestation industries, the automotive industry and chemical plants will not willingly accept their own extinction."
No kidding. They will slander, bankrupt, fight and, if need be, kill anyone who tries to stop them.
They are afraid of us but they will prevail because we are even more afraid of them. The change must come from within the power structure by the family members of the elite. I wish it weren't so. The physical problems of this planet are nothing compared with the spiritual depravity of the elite of humanity.
I personally do not want this civilization to go to the stars and apply their exploitaion to some other hapless planetary life forms.
Better that corporations destroy this planet and us than for this monster amoeba corporatism that rules humanity grow strong enough to leave this planet. As a former pilot and air traffic controller, I apologize for having loved technology so much and try every day to live as frugal and earth friendly a life as I can. It's all I can do. I will not fight physically. Condemn me as a coward if you wish. I respect that. You are probably right.
AGG:
Especially, they will slander.
I will not fight, too.
Non-cooperation! Resist!
Dear Leaders of countries possessing a few primitive nuclear weapons:
If any of you would like to be remembered for eternity as the savior of the planet, act now. With your few SCUD class missiles and primitive fission bombs you have the capability of creating a world wide Electromagnetic Pulse that will stop industrial pollution in its tracks and position your people, adapted as they are to subsistence, with the best possibility of long term survival. Only the criminally insane have no interest in the survival of future generations. What I am asking you to do is to stop the criminally insane from destroying us all, including all future generations. Never has so much been asked of so few. Please, only you can pull the plug on this madness before the industrial machine kills us all. Please act now.
Herb Ruhs, MD
Note: Homeland Security, the above is meant as a satire and not to encourage or facilitate any hostile or terrorist intent.
Normally I am very impressed with Chris Hedges's articles, but I really think he misses the boat on this one.
His characterization of evil giant corporations chewing away at the earth like big destructive caterpillars is a joke.
The problem is not corporations. The problem is the consumers which enable these giant corporations to profit from environmental destruction. As the collective conscience of consumers improves, we have seen small niche markets go mainstream. Think of how widely available organic food and free range meat is now vs. 20 years ago. It was not a bunch of misguided ELF fanatics blowing up factory farms that made this change possible. It was an due to an increased consciousness about the food we eat. This is how to change things in a positive way. Violence and militancy are never the solution. Corporations which are successful due to consumer demand cannot be changed through force, and any aggressors will undermine their cause through violence. Trying to destroy a corporation driven by consumer demand is the same as trying to destroy grass by mowing it. If you want to change something, you need to look to the source. That source is the consumers.
The problem of corporate abuse, however, lies exclusively with the government. It wasn't corporations that filled the US Treasury with ex-Goldman Sachs employees, it was the federal government. It isn't corporations that provide huge corporations and industries with undeserved capital and entitlements, it's the federal government. It isn't corporations that expand the money supply making money available to corporations who would never receive it in a true free market. It's the federal government. It isn't corporations that permit corporate lobbyists to write legislation, it's members of Congress.
Rather than focusing on corporate power, the main focus of all Americans in initiating change needs to be to sever the federal government as an enabler of abusive corporate power. If you want to stop a war, you don't attack the soldiers, you find and take out their ammunition supply.
Right now, that supply is the Federal Reserve. The expansion of money allows the federal government to pour billions of dollars into every corrupt industry that exists without affecting the public in an immediate and drastic way. If their ability to expand the money supply stopped today, you would see immediate change. Faced with a finite money supply, Congress would have to visibly cut into services provided to the general public in order to enrich the wealthy elite. This, in turn would result in public outrage, and a balance would be found between corporate and public interests. Right now, the alarming increase in corporate power we are seeing is a direct result of huge infusions of newly fabricated government money into their coffers. This, above all, needs to stop.
I feel like many people here at CD, though progressive, are missing the boat to how central this is to fighting corporate abuse, stopping the wars, and preventing the environmental destruction subsidized by the federal government.
In 2008, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin all got together and agreed on four uniting principles. This is what they came up with on the Federal Reserve.
http://www.votenorth.org/node/75
The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.
Right now, there are 303 cosponsors in the House and 30 in the Senate for an Audit the Fed bill. More than calls for tea parties or heaven forbid, taking up arms against corporations, Americans need to unite against the Fed and pressure Congress to put this to a vote.
Once the Federal Reserve is forced to expose itself, the American people will be outraged and real change will come. This is the first step that NEEDS to happen to start cleaning house in Washington.
Go here to sign the petition.
http://www.auditthefed.com/
Great post Euato! Unfortunately most of the American people are either fooled or indifferent or have been successfully brain washed into believing in the American way of entitlement.In denial about the struggling majority of our fellow human beings.
How can a nation or a modern world for that matter,that for the most part consumes,relatively the biggest share of the planets's resources without conscience,while at the same time,several billion other human beings live in atrocious misery.
The Americans truly seem to believe that they are owed three car garages,more than one home,several bathrooms,the updates (stainless steel ,granite, hardwood floors),the excesses ,well everyone gets the picture.They worked for it,right.
The corporations are corrupt and money driven but if we all cut back to common sense living, wouldn't it make a difference.Corporations of the planned obsolescence and indulgence era are going to have to disect their philosophy and change. Just helping or sharing with one one family somewhere,just one cause for each one of us,who are priveleged,would have to impact the planet's mire and influence positively the marathon towards the cliff. Maybe we won't be the lemings that we seem hell bent to imitate.
Good post Euarto Gullible,
But, why do you keep talking about violence? Chris doesn't say anything in his article about violence. You can't commit "violence" against an inanimate object can you? Every since the Pengram trolls showed up here screaming "Violence, Vilolence" now they've got everybody doing it.
I know the corporate empire would like to frame everything as "domestic terrorism" or "violence" against corporate property, but it's an absurd lie. Taxpayers and Voters have the right to boycott and stay home if they get the "blue flu". They have the right to peacefully assemble as the British recently did on the rooftops of parliament in London. Did the Brit protestors break a few light posts and roof shingles in the process? No doubt. But property cannot be injured. Breaking things in public is not "domestic terrorism" no matter what the mindless turds in at Homeland Stupidity tell you. Corporations are not people and never were until last century.
What a ridiculous suggestion, that a corporation is a person. Rather than pick the bank or the corp as the villain in this story, let's play it safe and pick both. They are partners in crime. You cannot have one without the other.
But the huge Federal Government that acts as body guard to all these injustices is a bigger villain. Join the Libertarian Party. Push for a weak central government today.
Good Article Chris. Great comments everybody.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Phrases like "use whatever means are necessary" and "sabotage" mean violence.
The definition of 'violence' is the massive, sudden, destructive use of energy ("the storm's violence"). So sabotage is not necessarily violent. Someone who quietly shoves a spanner into the gears and wrecks the machine has not committed violence by the definition most people would understand. A fall of rain isn't seen as violent; a thunderstorm probably is. Picking someone's pocket isn't violent; coshing them first, is. The difference is in how sudden and dangerous the release of energy is.
Similarly with 'whatever means are necessary'. It might come down to violence, but the few who would make violence their first choice are psychopaths or loonies. Violence usually occurs only when there's no other avenue left open to change an unfair situation. Nobody can justify unfairness on any ground but pure, unmitigated selfishness. Nobody is ethically obliged to suffer the selfishness of others.
I am continually getting English lessons on this site from people who don't seem to understand the language.
The term "use whatever means necessary" is a well-known euphemism meaning readiness to perpetrate extreme violence. "Sabotage" is something typically carried out in wartime. And if you have any doubt about its intended meaning in the article, just notice the reference a few lines later to the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, a violent organization which includes "guerilla warfare and kidnapping" in its repertoire (just click on the link provided by CH and see for yourself).
If you're going to comment on an article, try to understand it first.
Nick, you've just illustrated the concept of meta-ignorance.
Coming from you, I will take that as a compliment.
Twice.
Euarto,
This comment shows much intelligence but it is not consumers, but instead stockholders. It is a Corporatocracy as opposed to a "tiny oligarchy". You are on the right track though.
Sioux Rose
Interesting thread. We are so conditioned to look at life through the team we belong to, or otherwise through an external category noting a specified reference. Our conditioning results in a tendency for our minds to divide into oppopsing perspectives. Is Chris Hedges right, that "I of mine own self can do nothing," it is ALL about the corporations? The truth is that the best answers are found on "both sides of the net."
OBVIOUSLY corporate footprints are DEVASTATING the planet; and while our small personal efforts--even when they act as magnets and draw others into similar practices--are important, ultimately they are insubstantial given the magnitude of the tide that needs to change course. Still, there is merit in BOTH aspects, and then some.
My personal kudos to the following:
--Benningwentworth (8:35 AM), interesting beat prose
--Elohim 7:54 PM (good use of metaphor, and it is NOT your imagination. Today's pretender logged 19 posts by the time I logged on.)
--Toquevile (4:25 PM) great quotes and analysis of Fromm's material.
--Rtdrury (4:51 pm) excellent on the path to sustainability
And : Gene Therapy (4:22), Lefty (1:42 PM), and Cygnus (11:30 AM & 9:59 AM). You are so right about the power of media and what the absence of access to genuine understanding is costing America's collective psyche.
"--Elohim 7:54 PM (good use of metaphor, and it is NOT your imagination. Today's pretender logged 19 posts by the time I logged on.)"
Again, baseless lies and bs. You don't know who is pretender and who isn't unless you actually own the site and I doubt that you do. If you in fact did own the site, you would have seen your own accusations being proven wrong. The only bad posts here are paranoid freako posts making baseless accusations with no evidence or proof to back it up. Nobody could possibly be paid to troll. This is a public site and everyone is free to express their views related to the given article, not off-topic bs. Everyone else is getting along fine here. You and elohim are acting totally immature. Grow up.
Prove it.
Sioux Rose
Opinions are like a--holes and yours IS in full view. 56 posts on the Naomi Klein thread most tossing calumny and accusation, but when YOU are called to task on doing this, you project the blame onto others, as if YOU have not done the very thing you accuse others of having done. I come from a place of integrity, whereas you have not convinced me you are not a paid shill. And lately, you seem to have a lot of time on your hands, posting on this site from dawn till past midnight.
Just ignore her Sioux, she is most likely off her meds. I think BH said it best, "the oars on her little boat are ready to snap."
Lies, lies, and more lies with nothing to prove it.
Lies, lies, and more lies from the queen of black magic. Sioux Rose invents false accusations to bully others the way she desires. 56 posts means nothing to some, discussion to others, trolls to the haters. Sioux Rose turns to hypcrisy, lying, and name calling when she cannot debate or make an argument. Like George W Bush and most Repugs, she refuses to debate. She has no proof or evidence to back up her lies on my being a paid shill. The burden of proof rests on Sioux Rose and her associates. 56 posts and when I post is no proof that I am a paid troll. Notice how Sioux Rose spends all day posting but falls apart like a house of cards and tries to blame people who disagree with her as all day trolls. Sioux Rose could learn a lot from Gandhi rather than act like a corporate neocon repug in progressive drag.
I don't understand what you and Ms. Rose have to fight each other about. Both of you have a lot in common than either of you realize. Ms. Rose has a right to give her enlightening views on this site and I love her points of view. Sometimes, we have to look outside the box to understand our problems. Put it this way. When I moved from India to America, I was better able to see what was wrong with India. When my cousin moved to Europe and Ms. Rose lived in and visited other nations, she was better able to pinpoint what was wrong with America. My parents moved from India to America for one big reason. Inside, they felt that they were missing something and that something is called self esteem. My father was the worst. He would believe in self-defeatism and suggesting that we stay backwards. The more my parents grew up here, the more assertive my mother became and finally brought some sense to my father. Likewise, we can keep lying to ourselves that we're not improving but it is not until we put our foot down and face the fact that we did our best but something outside of us is blocking our progress and we must stop that. When you work from the outside, you will have a better shot at defeating the outside forces.
I have had a wonderful conversation with her when she told me about her trip to my parents' home country of India some months ago. She has been through plenty of suffering and I don't think she needs any more of it. I am sure that even you suffered a lot when you lost your father to divorce after what he did to your mother as you wrote in another thread. You may disagree with her view that today's newcomer is a pretender and I agree that there is no way to prove that claim but that does not make her immature. I don't think you are MG either. Based on your posts, both of you think somewhat differently and have different writing styles but let's not get into unnecessary fighting. If someone writes an accusation that they personally believe, it is usually obvious and best ignored. Why don't you and Ms. Rose discuss the issues where you agree with her? If there is something you do not understand, please do not hesitate to ask. Either she will answer it or those of us who know her posts very well will. Calling her posts "black magic" is just as sophomoric as are people accusing others of being that person.
I read your posts on your lack of education and even though I don't take kindly to uneducated people at times, I still think you have another chance. Olemanriver didn't finish high school but he has been a gifted learner on this site. I suggest you go to Ms. Rose's site, www.siouxrose.com, and read her articles. Her site has been mentioned here before if you had actually read the archives. I also suggest that you take the time to read the archives and compose yourself. Even a blue collared hick can be compassionate.
Sioux Rose
RANJIT: Thank you for taking the time to play diplomat. SHAWN has conflated my serious studies of astrology with the accusation that my EDUCATED opinions on this marginalized (by authoritarians like himself) subject constitutes "black" magic. This is an ancient form of calumny that is intended to demonize me and diminish the value of what I have to say. The FACT that such assertions were used to MURDER many women like me centuries ago is still a justifiable "sore" spot with me.
I would not strike up ANY conversation with someone of his narrow mindset had he not repeatedly attacked me first. He is here to use the premise of diplomacy or polite unity to forge a consensus with the status quo that is killing people abroad, ruining lives at home, and decimating nature. He does not appear to wish to learn a thing. On the Naomi Klein thread from Friday of the 230 posts, over 50 were his. That is obsessive by ANY count. Either he's a self-centered narcissist or a paid interloper, and either way, I would prefer to have NO virtual contact... however, if he sees fit to try to darken my reputation, I will respond in like measure.
Ms. Rose, I just read more replies and I'm starting to find Shawn getting more obnoxious. He replied accusing me of being your associate which I am not. I think that it is best to ignore him. He should be out soon. He's a typical blue collared hick who cannot be reasoned with. He might just be another paid Obama spokesman trying to get some money to pay his back taxes or late monthly payments for all we know.
Have you all lost your independence? You can't debate so you cluster?
You're another one lying and bs-ing. I'm not a paid troll. I'm just another regular American. Who are you?
From my previous post:
The crescendo of her speech covers the spectrum of incessant complaining to insufferable whining extends easily to projection, stereotype, and personal prejudice. The world is always wrong for Harriet because of too many environmentalists, progressives, Turks, Indians, or Muslims living and working where She is used to whining about every other thing that captures her limited attention.
Sounds all too true. I think you are making my words prophetic.
Clustering around again, aren't you? You're making no sense whatsoever. Who is Harriet? She has nothing to do with this conversation.
You can't make a point. You attack Michael and Leea for respectfully disagreeing with the article. You go offtopic into third parties and baseless conspiracy theories about other people on this site. You don't get it do you? Just what is it that you expect to accomplish? This is a public site, not a private bash-Obama site. Go set up your own blog for you and your associates to rant about. This a progressive community website not intended for corporate neocon repugs in progressive drag such as you. The election is over and there's no point in going into campaigning mode 24/7/365/4.
I don't know who you are or what to make of you. If you are not another one of SR's associates, fine. I read her site and her articles. She makes some sense until she gets to the gender part and uses all this Mars vs Venus division crap to blame men for everything. If she wants to play sexist like that, she's doing progressives a total disservice. I don't know her personally but whatever suffering she went through, she's pushing it too far with her using Mars as a blame men for everything figure and Venus as some female object to be used to play the women are victims game. If SR suffered domestic abuse in the past, then I'm sorry she went through it. My mother went through it too but she didn't go out there showing her contempt for men. Sometimes, SR posts decently but other times, she gets too cranky. Maybe she needs to do some more yoga and meditation before joining the paranoids and blowing off.
I have respect for both men and women and I believe that both genders have their faults that must be worked out. Some time back, there was a user, forgot his name, who was upset about SR doing her gender bias and she bounced all over him and later apologized for being too angry at him.
I disagree with your argument on looking outside to solving the problem. True, at some point a third party force will have to step in and bring radical changes when nothing can be fixed anymore from within but that's often not the case. Why not make your system rock solid from the inside? IMHO, that has to come first and then we can worry about external forces beyond our control. Leea and MichaelGoodhart explain it best.
PEACE
Your post is completely laughable. First, you start out by further attacking her credentials without any basis and then you wish to place the "PEACE" sign at the end of that filth? It's like destroying a democracy and turning it into a dictatorship and then putting a peace flag on it.
Laughable? So let me get this straight. Using some god or supernatural bs to justify natural events and explanations is credit worthy? You and Sioux sound just like the Republicans using X-tianity to justify their fascism.
What nonsense ! Go get some mental counseling.
213,183 humans are added to the world's population every day.
Reality check: If we love our children and want them to survive, stop population growth while we still can do it voluntarily and humanely (ie, allow every woman on Earth to choose family size)
World Vital Events Per Time Unit: 2009
Time......Births................Deaths ........increase
-----------------------------------
Year...134,434,533....56,622,740......77,811,793
Day...........368,314.........155,131...........213,183
--------------------------------------
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/pcwe
If obesity and gluttony were curtailed ,there would probably be enough for all of us.Eat til you throw up or til you force yourself to.Get your lips thickened or your belly sucked out.The starving,if they knew about the USSA teenage country of excesses,could easily conclude, that the west is evil, as evidenced by the deliberate annihilation policies that go unheeded by this hedonistic society. All moderation is lost!It is painful to learn about and even worse to try to share with the deaf and apathetic.
The women of the earth should go on a reproductive strike and refuse to provide their governments with any more soldiers, the world's corporations with any more consumers and workers, and their religions with any more malleable minds. Children born now are going to be exposed to very real horrors, possibly including the extinction of humankind. Any survivors will be fighting for their lives. Have a baby now? What a bad idea.
For some of you new people, this is a heads up to be alert to one clown who uses multiple sign on names and often carries on a conversation with herself to undermine authentic left voices like Hedges. I like to call it the Harriet or Harvey Wunkerpud syndrome.
This should not surprise anyone, since all of Harriet's other virtues have long been truncated by spiritual pauperism, commodity fetishism, and juvenile delinquency.
But such is the age we live in. It is void of self awareness for those guru worshippers taking up one's valuable time:
Harriet sub-exists much like the domesticated animals he keeps in bondage for pleasure or food, while not recognizing she is one of them, also in chains. Therefore, she is incapable of true compassion for herself or for the beasts she tortures because this type of compassion would require a formidable look from without, from outside her senseless condition. Additionally, and because her bondage does not bother her or she is simply not aware of it, she fails to recognize political or social dissent. The right to dissent or to revolt peacefully or with blood, against the cancerous, corporate, gluttonous, materialistic ethos seems to her the exclusive enterprise of some historical ancestor, "the Patriot." Finally, Harriet refuses to take responsibility for her freedom, or to be responsible for anything worthwhile and good. True rebellion, righteous rebellion, is seen, alternatively, as bad form, a vice, or only to be employed as a means to insure that the easy and disposable life she is addicted to continues. Living perpetually in a self imposed cage, she is anxious of the very idea of the cage's door opening for good. As such, Harriet will bite the very hand of her liberator. Plenty of food, much diversion are nevertheless accepted.
Like the film Groundhog day, Harriet wakes up each day to the same surreal and alienated life, parrots the expected script and meaningless text, moves from one thermostatically stable environment to another, pushing buttons, pulling levers, and punching cards. SHe has transformed herself into a wheeled cyborg, half human, half car, for whom walking is seen as a form of rebellion, or deviant act she just will not tolerate.
S/He has substituted moral or righteous indignation with acting out behavior, violence, passive aggressive agitation, incessant complaining, or insufferable whining. Her entire vocabulary comes either at the promptings of her handlers or is punctuated by a tendency of self-pity and injured ego dramatics. The crescendo of her speech covers the spectrum of incessant complaining to insufferable whining extends easily to projection, stereotype, and personal prejudice. The world is always wrong for Harriet because of too many environmentalists, progressives, Turks, or Muslims living and working where She is used to whining about every other thing that captures her limited attention.
Of course, we cannot blame her for this. Harriet lacks any understanding of how her own consciousness is affected by propaganda and ideology. SHe lacks any understanding of the way language is crafted by others, of how technical jargons make many important facets of life interruptible into a cohesive matrix that might inform him in ecological, social, and/or mythical terms. Such is Harriet's predicament and social plight or interminable existential angst against which he is a victim of her own ignorance.
Off-topic lies and bs with nothing to prove it. I can't believe they allow this kind of slander. Please stick to the topic.
This may come as a surprise, but you do not decide what is/ or is off topic on this forum. Get over yourself.
Tell me, is this the part (from my post) that provoked your rage:
S/He has substituted moral or righteous indignation with acting out behavior, violence, passive aggressive agitation, incessant complaining, or insufferable whining. Her entire vocabulary comes either at the promptings of her handlers or is punctuated by a tendency of self-pity and injured ego dramatics. The crescendo of her speech covers the spectrum of incessant complaining to insufferable whining extends easily to projection, stereotype, and personal prejudice. The world is always wrong for Harriet because of too many environmentalists, progressives, Turks, or Muslims living and working where She is used to whining about every other thing that captures her limited attention.
Sioux has more integrity, maturity, and insight than your useless rambling non-sense since the first day you showed up on this forum. Given the level of your existential angst, I guess a few of us really hit a raw nerve - Jung called it the shadow; faced with the denuded truth and fantasy overturned, you strike back with an authoritarian thunder. (How many rants on this one topic?)
Attack me all you want to under as many sign on names that you can dream up. If you had any class whatsoever, you would get off Sioux's back. She did nothing to you.
More lies and bs as always.
Neither you nor Sioux Rose are the boss of this site. This is a public site and we're all free to post our views and replies. Ignore if you don't like it.
SR uses religion to post half her posts and it's just like the Republicans using X-tianity to justify their actions.
You have no basis, proof, or evidence to back up your lies that I am somehow posting under several names.
You and SR are the ones doing all the bullying and attacking while I'm standing on my own two feet independently. You and your associates can gang up and cluster around as you wish but this is why we're going nowhere. You senselessly attack your own progressive allies just like you did under the Laura Flanders article.
I have every right to call out SR's black magic bs as an individual. You and your associates can worship her for all I care. You have a knack of dishing out to others and not accepting constructive criticism.
Notice how you and your associates sound like corporate neoconservative repugs in progressive drag?
Sioux Rose
ELOHIM: Thank you. I think the party in question is more interested in attack than understanding, and had I not had this EXACT experience with another (who I believe comes form the same paid source) a few months ago, I might be more patient or humorous about a storm of false accusations. While some may question the veracity of astrology, which is fine, I do not post exclusively on that topic. And furthermore, many in this forum know that I try to practice good manners and diplomacy while fashioning opinions on a variety of subjects. I appreciate your chivalry.
Archives don't lie. You only play nice to people who agree 100% with you or prop up hate Obama hate Democrats talk. You viciously attack others who disagree with you just like you did to Boyd Collins and Thomas More to name a few. Only your associates who have been with you would agree with you. Any independent thinker knows you post too much bias. You have no basis for your lies about who's a paid troll and who isn't. You invent false accusations without proving them and then when you're out of facts to back up your statements, you turn to using Mars and Mammon as your scapegoat. No sensible astrologer would do such a thing.
Sioux Rose
I have had MAJOR debates with INTELLIGENT persons on this site, and I welcome GENUINE discussions. You conflate my life work with black magic and play fast and loose with facts. That sort of character defamation is NOT discussion, nor are you worthy of respect in the least. You are a mosquito that buzzes around me, so I swat at you. I have sometimes agreed with Boyd Collins and Thomas More, given his knee jerk jingoism about militarism and his intolerance towards "illegal" aliens has indeed heard my STRONG responses.
I am VERY glad that most see you for what you are, whether a group of trolls or one loud, impossibly arrogant ignoramus. As stated more than once, I would just as soon NOT have ANY dialog whatsoever with you, but if you seek to damage my reputation based on nothing short of calumny, I will be forced to respond. You completely simplify--to the point of idiocy--what I have to say about the inherent sexism of patriarchal society. To you, it's the false matter of personal problems I may have had with men. If that's the case, then that's true of many millions of women.
You do NOT belong on this site, particularly when you spout opinions without facts to support them. You are only here to waste our time, and mine is a bit precious for this sort of nonsense. Please, go back under the rock you're obviously comfortable residing beneath. And if I was into black magic, I would put a spell on you that made your pecker ineffective, even with mega doses of Viagra. Think about that...
SR scribbles:
"I have had MAJOR debates with INTELLIGENT persons on this site, and I welcome GENUINE discussions. You conflate my life work with black magic and play fast and loose with facts. That sort of character defamation is NOT discussion, nor are you worthy of respect in the least. You are a mosquito that buzzes around me, so I swat at you. I have sometimes agreed with Boyd Collins and Thomas More, given his knee jerk jingoism about militarism and his intolerance towards "illegal" aliens has indeed heard my STRONG responses."
Yeah right. Only when they agree with you.
"I am VERY glad that most see you for what you are, whether a group of trolls or one loud, impossibly arrogant ignoramus. As stated more than once, I would just as soon NOT have ANY dialog whatsoever with you, but if you seek to damage my reputation based on nothing short of calumny, I will be forced to respond. You completely simplify--to the point of idiocy--what I have to say about the inherent sexism of patriarchal society. To you, it's the false matter of personal problems I may have had with men. If that's the case, then that's true of many millions of women."
More personal hate, bs, and lying.
"You do NOT belong on this site, particularly when you spout opinions without facts to support them. You are only here to waste our time, and mine is a bit precious for this sort of nonsense. Please, go back under the rock you're obviously comfortable residing beneath. And if I was into black magic, I would put a spell on you that made your pecker ineffective, even with mega doses of Viagra. Think about that..."
You're the divisive one who doesn't belong here. You think you can bully on this forum with your astro bs, don't you? You drive everyone but your associates off this site. If a dictator needed a partner, you'd be his perfect lifetime partner. HA !
Nicely stated my friend. Keep the fires burning. I always had an interest in astrology but my plate is always full. Maybe in the next life-time.
Keep the flames burning? More flame wars in other words. Is this how you represent the party of peace? You give third parties a bad rap. Richard Nixon would be blushing watch the two of you imitating him.
It is your woundednees on display for all to see, not mine. At this point, you only look foolish. Take the last word and make it memorable, just like the other day.
Your wicked behavior never stops aflaming, does it? You and your associates brought this among yourselves while I shot down your bullying and hammered your lies and bs. I'm still standing independently and doing fine while you and your associates are falling apart like a house of cards.
I rest my case.
Here's my summation of what Jensen (and Hedges?) is saying; forget all the personal attempts at changing your lifestyle, or working to build sustainability, just go out and blow up bridges.
Okay Jensen, you first.
And I see the implicit acknowledgment that our choices reduce to acceptance, ballots, or bullets and that we'd better get our arses into gear. But I see no suggestion that we should start blowing things up, whether bridges or something else.
It's unrealistic to expect the elites to suddenly get healthy when their pathology is so ingrained and personally serviceable, so either we accept their pathology, their exploitation of us, and the probable consequences (the extinction of high-order life on Earth) or we band together to turf them out of power by the use of the ballot.
And if the ballot doesn't work because they cancel elections or do something else to make Emma Goldman prescient, then our choices reduce to resigned acceptance or bullets.
But the key concept is *doing things together*. People as diverse in their backgrounds and methodologies as Marge Piercy, Bucky Fuller, Saul Alinsky, and Stanley Milgram have found that people working together in groups create a gestalt effect in which the power they can apply is greater than the sum of their inputs as individuals. *That's* where the 'forget all the personal attempts' comes into it. There's nothing wrong with 'personal attempts', but the most likely outcome is Not Much. We need a helluva lot more than that if we want to live.
Every time I run into the writings of or reference to Mr. Jensen, I have the same feeling. It is not that I disagree that corporate power has to be dismantled, but I get annoyed at the fact that he downplays the personal responsibility aspect of that process to the point of calling it useless.
What does he think, that 1% (or so) of us who believe it needs to be completely dismanteled can accomplish this on our own? We need the buy in of a large majority of the population.
As accurately pointed out, people depend on the corporate system for life sustaining items. How will they turn their backs on the corporate system if they do not see there is a way to survive without it? For example, it is easy to say they should turn away from large scale agri-farming, but what alternative do people know?
The efforts of the "morally pure" are essential to their solution, which is why I do not understand how they could be so smart yet (as someone else pointed out) build walls between those that are the foundation of their solution.
I admit I am making these comments without once having previewed the Deep Green Resistance. I am certainly interested in learning more about his ideas as I do believe they have much merit.
But ultimately it is not the planet that will die, it is us. The planet will survive, and other forms of life will give it another try (just ask the dinasours).
What I see him saying is that working in isolation isn't going to do the job. So there's a 'personal responsibility', but it's somewhat pointless to express it by doing things in an uncoordinated, atomistic fashion.
CORP IS BORG.
Life and art imitate each other. Captain Picard had to put the Enterprise on 'auto-destruct' to rid his "ship" of the Borg...
St John had to have a nightmare to process the "Anti-Christ" out of his subconscious.
The corporatists (real people who run this monster) will take it down to the wire. Their skills and value system are inappropriate to the situation we face. Their game is over.
For all you kids out there who might be inspired by CH, go read "The Monkey Wrench Gang" by Abbey.
And, a note to certain geeks out there: stop f@#king with twitter and Facebook and put your net-a-toge talents to actual use - the web is quite the evil corporate target-rich environment.
Are corporations the problem, or is it too many people and too few with too much?
It seems to me that they are two ends of the same piece of string.
I wouldn't downplay the Power of the GHOST DANCE!
Chris Hedges is right to say that banishing plastic bags and other (necessary) changes in life-style will not solve the huge problems we are facing, but still these are steps in the right direction.
I also share Derrick Jensen’s apocalyptic mood because our morally corrupt leaders will never admit that the economic dogmas they have adhered to, are complete BS...
Appeals to reason do not work ...a more radical approach is clearly required. However, telling people that “we need to target and take down the industrial infrastructure (that is ultimately killing the planet)” is no great help either.
What exactly does he mean? Sabotage? Trying to scare business execs and economic “experts” into submission? Force them to realize that an economy based on ruthless competition and endless growth is absolutely insane, that a market society is incompatible with the social needs of human beings because it turns everything into commodities – including people (the “labour-market” is basically a kind of slave-market since labour does not come without a human being attached to it, so we have to sell ourselves to the market..) and eventually life itself..
Hedges is right to diagnose that “corporations are indifferent to the looming human catastrophe” but so are politicians, the only difference is, the latter pretend to take measures against the disaster (see “climate conferences”, etc.) while the former still try to downplay or even deny the facts to avoid the painful admission that what they are doing is sick and is creating even sicker people in the process....
In the late 1970s Erich Fromm published “To Have or To Be?” I find his observations still relevant today i.e. he writes about how our economic system has shaped society and human character (for the worse):
“...Both tendencies are present in human beings; TO HAVE – to possess – that owes its strength ....to the biological factor of the desire for survival; the other TO BE – to share, to give, to sacrifice – that owes its strength to the specific conditions of human existence and the inherend need to overcome one’s isolation by oneness with others. ... from these contradictory strivings in every human being it follows that the social structure, its values and norms, decides which of the two becomes dominant. ... it is the socioeconomic structure of a given society that inclines us toward one or the other.... “
In other words: GS-people like Paulson or the CEOs of oil giants were not born as greedy bastards who could not care less about the social and ecological consequences of their immoral dealings but they are the result of a socio-economic system: unfettered capitalism, a political system who seeks “Full spectrum dominance”...
These guys are mentally ill and ought to be taken away in straightjackets but the system has succeeded in “normalizing the abnormal”. In earlier societies these people would have been despised, expelled or even killed by their tribe but now they are on the cover of glossy magazines, celebrated as quasi-heroes, whose only achievement was "making" obscene amounts of money.. The huge damage to society and ecosystems they have created in the process is of no no concern.
Fromm:
...”What is surprising is that this need [to share, to give, to show empathy, etc.] could be so repressed as to make acts of selfishness the rule in ... industrial societies and acts of solidarity the exception... (>>health insurance???)
“A society whose principles are acquisition, profit and property produces a social character oriented around HAVING, and once the dominant pattern is established, nobody wants to be an outsider, or indeed an outcast; ... so everybody adapts to the majority ....... as a consequence of the dominant attitude of selfishness the leaders of our society believe that people can be motivated only by .. material advantages; .. a “radical different socio-economic structure and a radically different picture of human nature” is necessary ..... “
“If we look into the behaviour of almost all people, into our political leaders, it is undeniable that our model of what is good and valuable is the pagan hero. European-North American history is a history of conquest and greed; our highest values are: to be stronger than others, ... and exploit them....”
.” .. the work of the peasant as well as of the artisan was not a hostile exploitative attack against nature. It was co-operation with nature: not raping but transforming nature according to its own laws...
Behind the Christian facade arose a new secret religion “industrial religion” that is rooted in the character structure of modern society (not recognised as a religion). ... it reduces people to servants of the economy ...”
The total economisation of society changed the social character, Fromm calls it “the Marketing Character” ..because it is based on experiencing oneself as a commodity .. people must now know how to “sell their personality” (and to shape it as the “market” requires it to be....) ... “their identity rests upon participation in the corporations (or other giant bureaucracies). Where there is not authentic self, there can be no identity...” [if your “identity” and prestige in society is dependent on making tons of money at the expense of others and nature – then what have you become? Have you not lost your humanity?]
“The supremacy of cerebral, manipulative thinking goes together with an atrophy of emotional life. Since it is not cultivated or needed, but rather an impediment..., emotional life has remained stunted... The Marketing Character can also be described by using a Marxian term, the alienated character: ... persons .. are alienated from other human beings, and from nature. ... “
“Everything the economist takes aways from you in the way of life and humanity, he restores to you in the form of money and wealth”. (Marx)
... and even that (the second part) is no longer true for the majority of people...
Nicely stated. I would suggest that if you don't like the word 'sabotage' you can always substitute it for monkey wrenching.
Corporations are, per se, morally neutral--their managements are not. Corporate personhood (origianlly corporations had no such status) is an amoral fiction behind which uscrupulous people hide despicable deeds and it needs to be revoked.
If workers all owned and managed the businesses at which they worked, power, responsibility, and liability would be dispersed over a wider range of opinion and knowledge. In the multitude of counsel there can be both wisdom and strength.
If the cost of all products sold included the social costs (environmental pollution, depletion of resources, safe disposal of toxic materials) both rampant consumerism and the destruction of the environment could be slowed if not stopped.
In the then Federal Republic of Germany when AIDS tainted blood was discovered in the Red Cross blood bank, the head of that organization was sent to prison. In the US when the same thing happened, the head of the Red Cross (Elizabeth Dole)ended up running for the Republican presidential nomination.
Poet
Corporations exist for the sole purpose of making a profit, and the pursuit of profit-above-all is not moral.
Corporations are not alive (regardless of what the courts say), so the concept of morality--neutral or otherwise--does not apply to them. We can say the same thing about cluster bombs and chemical weapons. The concept applies to the people who use these things.
I am not sure that corporations are morally neutral. The corporate form shapes the attitudes and goals of the individuals making the decisions for the corporation. The limited liability, along with corporate law requiring officers to only consider profit and not the welfare of individuals or the society, inevitably makes the decisionmaker more reckless with the welfare and even the lives of others, changing the risk/greed equation where greed becomes a greater factor than it would be for an individual operating in a non-corporate capacity. And as excessive greed is generally considered to be a moral failing, in large part because of the social harm it often causes, then maybe one can say that corporations are not only amoral but immoral as well.
oops--deleted
kivals,
Impressive.
I agree with your conclusions--in fact your film board of Canada awarded a prize to the team that produced an excellent documentary called "The Corporation" that showed that corporations as presently constituted are effectively psychopathic (without conscience in other words) in their behavior.
By removing personhood from the corporate form, by requiring that any corporation must be owned and run by those who work for it, and that as such, the "owners"are jointly and severally liable for the corporation's acts and the consequences of such acts, responsibility and its consequences can be rightly apportioned.
I would also add the requirement that any corporation be limited in time to a fixed chronology. Either when the corporation's mission was complete or perhaps 50 years--whichever came first. In other words no more eternal life for such an institution as a corporation.
Many of the silicon valley start-ups in computers started out as worker owned, financed, and managed and have done quite well thank you very much. Farmer cooperatives like Organic Valley dairy products have been organized the same way.
Poet
"The Corporation"...a MUST see.
If workers all owned and managed the businesses at which they worked, power, responsibility, and liability would be dispersed over a wider range of opinion and knowledge. In the multitude of counsel there can be both wisdom and strength.
------------------------
But it's well-documented that group decision-making too often suffers from groupthink, and group-made decisions too often are mediocre
Perhaps it would be better to argue from democracy instead: there's no solid reason why people shouldn't have the right to control their own lives, including the economic aspects. Contrary claims all resolve to Platonic guardianship, depend on everyone's acceptance of a-priori assumptions, and can't be supported on rational grounds.
Mairead sez:
"But it's well-documented that group decision-making too often suffers from groupthink, and group-made decisions too often are mediocre"
************
Right now mediocre would be an improvement don't you think?
Mairead also sez:
"Perhaps it would be better to argue from democracy instead: there's no solid reason why people shouldn't have the right to control their own lives, including the economic aspects."
***********
That's what I thought I was proposing.
Poet
"That's what I thought I was proposing."
------------------------------
Ooops, sorry then, I misunderstood. I thought you were arguing that larger groups are better at taking decisions.
But Mairead, no way, if workers owned and managed the factories they would not be alienated from the means of production with the resultant soul withering inherent within slave-labor.
Then they would have a total stake in the product. Would GM employees have manufactured trash if their survival depended on not doing so? Divorced and alienated from the product, production, planning and profit they did so.
We're on the same side, Joe! Only justifying it differently.
Yeah Mairead-or the same...enjoy your posts, read 'em all too.
"These personal adjustments and environmental crusades can too easily become a badge of moral purity, an excuse for inaction. They can absolve us from the harder task of confronting the power of corporations"
We on the far-left have a comprehensive strategy. By changing our personal lifestyles to be self-empowering and independent, we set a good example for others to do the same. This is an interaction among people that deliberately leaves the elitevil out of the loop. As the people work to bring ever more people into the fold, to change lifestyles, to disengage from the elite establishment, we build a stake in the new system giving us personal incentives to defend it.
Most aren't compelled to defend sustainable lifestyles today because most are still dependent on the elite establishment. As long as we remain dependent, and addicted to the opiates, we're part of the problem, not part of the solution. If some of us organize into small bands of nonviolent class warriors to confront elite power, and wrestle power away from them, we will then be perceived by the people as "the new boss, same as the old boss", because they were excluded from the process.
So to avoid that problem we set as our goal the empowerment of the people, i.e. the ideal. As a side effect, the elites will lose their slaves, dry up and blow away, among many other side effects that support universal equity/justice. These tactics to confront elites directly may complement the basic strategy but cannot substitute for it. Such a multi-pronged approach, with the people's empowerment as the centerpiece, has the greatest chances of success.
"The damage to the environment by human households is minuscule next to the damage done by corporations."
Most of the damage done by corporations feeds the public consumption machine, so the people's change to local, sustainable lifestyles denies the corporations workers and consumers. Our change of lifestyle has to be comprehensive. It won't work to start a compost heap while still working for an industrial godzilla. We have to shift our exchange/association entirely away from the elite establishment and toward the local alternatives.
Mr. Hedges should take some English classes. Then choose a subject that interests him, and then dedicate a few years to the study of that subject and then, he can join the thousands of people who have already served their apprenticeships. It is not as if though dedicated people are ignoring the subject at hand.
I have read 3 of the articles on this site written by Mr. Hedges and in each the pattern is the same. Each consists of one unsupported claim after another consisting of half-truths, complete falsehoods, generalizations, stereotyping, distorted facts, contradictions, and essentially everything but responsible writing, complete with solecisms, redundancies, misspellings, and punctuation errors.
It may seem hypocritical of me not to support the claims above but I did set out to do just that. As it turns out though nearly every sentence in this article exihibits an example of at least one of my claims. So essentially I have decided to use the entire article as my substantiation in the interest of saving time. All the reader needs to do is read each sentence in turn and notice that nothing supports anything else. The few facts that are included now and then are nearly always distorted and the best example provided that clarifies this, is in this sentence; "Municipalities and individuals use 10 percent of the nation's water while the other 90 percent is consumed by agriculture and industry". To begin with it is misleading to assign consumption to a producer of something that is actually consumed by a CONSUMER, hence the term. Producers do of course also consume although if it is assumed that this producing might be possible without any consumption, well, that would be magic and that would need some explaining. This is distorting facts, a way of using an equation that assumes that there is an alternative where an alternative does not exist, or can not exist. That is not say that there is anything wrong with unorthodox claims or solutions, but instead to illustrate that, the more a claim varies from accepted norms the more the need for substantiation. And the work of Mr. Hedges does just the opposite. There are almost nothing but unaccepted claims and unsupported accusations and almost nothing substantiated.
However, none of this has anything to do with my positions on anything regarding the political, or socio-economic implications of this article. I am in fact a staunch advocate of biochar and localized commerce as the key solutions to climate change and many other issues.
Misinformation does however have a splintering affect that is becomming an effect. And I offer our nation as SUPPORT to that claim.
mercy R.L.- such trouble you take to stay in denial! Most of this piece is quoting or elaborating on Derrick Jensen. Now I don't know what kind of "support" you want him to provide, but all you really need to do is open your eyes and look around at our planet ok well maybe you need to do some reading about the polar ice cap and stuff. But basically all we are saying is the planet cannot live with global capital chewing up bigger chunks of it every day. And you can't talk your way out of it either
abuelo,
I have been active in the environmental movement for more than 30 years. I also participated in the Sandinista Revolution and have been part of the labor movement since the early 1970s. I grew up in California and lived in the "Haight" back when protests still had meaning. I think if you knew what "biochar" and "localized commerce" is about, your comment would not have been so insulting. I also think if you were to read my comment more carefully, and also the replies, and the replies to the replies, you might see things differently. Until I hear otherwise I will presume you spoke in haste?
I have problems with CH's writing, too; but even more with your criticism. In the one and only place where you deign to give a specific example of his shortcomings, you come up with this:
"it is misleading to assign consumption to a producer of something that is actually consumed by a CONSUMER, hence the term."
I don't think this sentence is grammatical, but in any case I can't understand what it means. Maybe you should attend those English classes along with Mr. Hedges.
nick,
Explain WHY and we will have something to discuss. "I don't think" is almost good enough to warrant cheap shot status; but without SUPPORT, it is more of an affirming example for me than anything else. Which is only strengthened by your admission: "I can't understand", in regards to what is a fairly clear remark. Then if you could explain what my shortcomings have to do with my contentions, how for instance, if a murderer who witnesses a murder has any affect on whether a murder has in fact been committed, then your reply might be redeemed. In the meantime all I can say, given the lack of integrity that your reply allows, is that I did "attend those English classes" but I am confused as to what that has to do with ANYTHING.
When you attended the classes, did they teach the difference between "affect" and "effect"?
As for my "I don't think", I added it because grammaticality is a judgment call; actually I'm pretty sure the sentence is not grammatical, but since I don't understand it I can't be sure. The trivial part seems to be saying that consumption is called consumption because it (what?) is consumed by a consumer; but as for what the substantive part is saying, I cannot figure it out (and I gave it a good-faith try).
As for your remark above, about whether a "murderer who witnesses a murder has an affect (sic) on whether a murder has been committed"--obviously he does, since he's a murderer. So I am confused yet again.
I fail to see how my remarks "lack integrity"--you fault CH for saying general stuff without backup, but you have no problem slandering me with no backup at all. I agree that my comment may have been snotty, but certainly no nastier than your own first comment.
Nick,
"I don't think", "actually I'm pretty sure", "I don't understand it", "I can't be sure", "seems to be", I cannot figure it out", So I am confused yet again", "I fail to see", (do you notice a pattern?)
Notice that you almost never commit to your claims. Then you evidently seem to think that a lack of resolve absolves you of any responsibility of supporting your quasi-claims. Your underlying premise is that if you do not to understand a sentence (or chose not to understand), then that sentence "is not grammatical". I must also assume that this inability-to-understand-standard also explains your inability to understand my use of the words "affect" and "effect",(which I KNOW that I used correctly). And you are also having trouble understanding that there are two murderers in my sentence; so I will accept that my sentence fails to meet YOUR-UNEXPLAINED-STANDARD, and therefore I will write another sentence: When a murderer witnesses a murder being committed by a second murderer, does that INFLUENCE the fact that a murder has been committed?
That you are unable to understand also that economic protocol dictates that consumption is assigned to the consumer (end user), serves the premise of my original comment. As does the use of "trivial" and "substantive" as words used to describe the parts of a sentence by someone who critisizes with "pretty sure", and "almost sure". As does your defence of Mr. Hedges because your standards are simular to his. And my premise, that irresponsble writing can have a splintering affect, and an effect as well, is meant to say that falsehoods are harmful to any cause.
As falsehoods are eliminated from a debate this process of elimination brings people together as independently discovered conclusions lead to consensus. This is of course the formula for a healthy democracy. But Mr. Hedges wants us to form a consensus based on false premises. "Tiny oligarchy" for example, must be reconciled with the broadest possible use of "corporation" as the root of all evil. But how can tens of thousands of corporations with all of the stakeholders and stockholders be "tiny".
And, at best, the accepted norm here would be "small oligarchy"; and so for this "tiny" claim to taken seriously, considering that history provides a very long list of some very small oligarchies, that leaves "tiny" suggesting that the world is being destroyed by a large number of corporatists who use the same tailor as the Gieko Lizard. And I think if you look closely at the splintering affect, it has the effect of pushing away the very people who have the much needed information to provide the counter balance of understanding. So, what remains is the apt term: Splinter group. And to each his own, I suppose.
Alas, most of what you are saying is gibberish, and most of the rest is wrong. I'm sure you will disagree, so let's just leave it there.
You have a great last name, anyway.
Nick,
What is there to disagree with. You seem to think it is clever that you sling your childish and completely unsupported insults without providing ANYTHING. Then a coward's farewell, a poke in the back as you scurry away. I suppose clever is different things to different people.
I included you in my reply to azjoe. There is chance there for redemption. It is a challenge but you will need more courage and integrity than you have shown thus far.
R.L.
You speak of English classes Chris needs in your 1st sentence, then mangle and butcher the grammar/punctuation in the last sentence of the very same paragraph.
Neither statistics, specifics or the minutiae of grammar matter;
"RESIST OR BECOME SERFS." Author unkown-untracable forever, but-
That macro concept says it all, and is what DOES matter,
peace R.L. Love (I admire your passion, forget punctuation, you got corazon de alma!)
azjoe,
See my reply to nick, it fits your reply too.
R.L, it don't fit; as I said before, I admire your passion, we are but briefly diverted by details-punctuation or whathaveyou, when I know we share common ground, dreams and vision; of worlds without war or famine, hate or fear.
azjoe,
It does fit because you do not understand that without the narrowing and concentrating affects of integrity, those who put justice before all else, will continue to fail. We have truth on our side but we must agree on what defines truth; and the process of elimanating falsehoods and distortions does of course narrow the field of potential truths, and anything beside the point, such as your assertions about my language skills, is pointless and delusional. The democratic process relies on independent thought and the consensus thereof, so the sooner we agree, the sooner we have the power to affect the much needed changes. And my language skills have absolutely nothing to do with whether Mr. Hedges is helping or hurting the cause of progress.
As far as I can see, the above comment is PROFOUNDLY meaningless.
It is a trivial matter to point out the obvious errors and doublespeak; e.g., "affect" for "effect (twice), and the observation that "anything beside the point...is pointless." And you are right that language skills are not relevant anyway--except when you make them so by telling other people to take English lessons.
But when you contrast "truth" with "defining truth" and "potential truths"; when you talk about the "narrowing and concentrating affects (sic) of integrity", and about "those who put justice before all else" (who are these people? what do you and/or they mean by "justice"? and why exactly is it bad to put justice first in general, and ahead of doublespeak in particular?)--well, to me it seems that your comments lack the very integrity you extol, since they present an appearance of substance that they seem to lack.
Sorry if my remarks seem unfriendly. Obviously I have too much free time on my hands...
R.L. Love.
Chris Hedges is our finest writer.
you gotta try elimanating spelling errors
if yer gonna say he needs mo schooling
azjoe,
If you truly want to defend your champion (Mr. Hedges),you must refute my basic premise. Since that premise has so far been ignored (which is almost certainly my fault), I will pose my premise another way. My premise is this: "fringe" thinking can not exist without "fringe" standards. By putting it this way I hope that you, nick, and whoever else, will be better able to understand that by focusing on my shortcomings, regardless of how vast and hypocritical those may be, it is that which is becoming increasingly absent, that increasingly strengthens my premise. The rules of debate are simple and timeless. And my original comment is a clear challenge to prove my premise wrong. You must use something from the article and show refuting evidence. Everything else is just evasion, and based in denial, and more evidence that serves my point, no matter how many words I misspell (petty). Thanks for all of the support so far.
Are you on drugs?
nick,
No to drugs. I am scared though. "The corporations", every last one of them from what I am able to gather, "cannibalize the planet". And there must thousands of these cannibals just in my immediate area.
I am confused too. I thought cannibals only eat their own kind. It even says so in my dictionary so I hope you are able to understand my confusion.
The only solution seems to be "militant forms of resistance". But there is no mention of how the modes of production might be replaced. Sadly, (I am also sad), I happen to know that only 3% of the earth's land mass contains highly fertile soil. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that without industrialized farming a great many will starve. You may have noticed that I have stated somewhere here that I have been involved in environmentalism for more than 30 years. Did my apprenticeship out in the woods for ten of those years and my wife is a park ranger. So I happen to know things that are causing me to be scared, confused, and sad. And to make matters worse I have recently learned that my spelling and punctuation are well below standard. But no drugs today.
R.L. hi, how are you? It was Chris who said Resist or Become Serfs. Corazon de Alma, which I said you have, means Heart and Soul. A common use of the word cannibalize is to "cannabilize a car for parts," as a verb it's meaning is different than the noun form.
A safe m.o. here on CD that I've found is this; swear illiteracy up front, I say always "I was not learned past grade number 8," (I gotta BA in Intl Studies sssshhhh), then only go after macro principles and truths, supportable by same, (details and numbers can be diverting bs,) for ex Forms of production, now arms- based, would become infrastructure-based. Wham. Finis!
I am sorry you don't do drugs if that includes pot-I will get high now twice to address this cosmic imbalance.
antiwar.com
informed comment (juan cole)
commondreams; they tie us together,
gossamer tendrils of hope
azjoe,
I did not say that I do not do drugs.
I did anticipate that folks would attack me. And I made it perfectly clear that attacking me only srenghtens my case. My premise, "that fringe thinking can not exist without fringe standards", is about denial and delusional thinking. I did not purposely bait my readers, but I did not go to any great lengths to edit out any mistakes either. The fact that the standards used to write the article in question were not defended serves my point perfectly well. The fact that the premise of the article was not used in an "end justifies the means effort" adds additional strength. The truth is that Mr. Hedges uses dishonest writing to mislead and that is the convesation that I wanted to have. The fact that we did not have a conversation on that ISSUE, an issue that I tried so hard to bring into play is even more TELLING.
I stand corrected on the use of "cannibalize". The paperback dictionary that I use most, did not include the verb usage. But my unabridged dictionary describes its use very much the same as what you have. I am no longer confused on that front!
I was an English major although I was not able to finish. That was a very long time ago and I have forgotten a great deal. These days I rely heavily on my computer for editing although, this site tends to expose those of us who use these threads, as you well know. Mr. Hedges does not have that excuse and that fact makes the attacks on me petty, and even more delusional. And as you alluded to in your "blogging" advice, my hypocracy became a distraction. But it was you and nick who made the premise about my gramatical shortcomings. So, considering that the two of you also have some grammatical shortcomings, who is actually being hypocritical here. My premise was never about grammer, you and nick on the other hand just keep the digging the hole you share, a hole you created together, deeper.
And for you to advise me on how lower standards might be more effective on THIS site. In a conversation intended to be about standards, but wasn't, but is, although about lowering standards as opposed to raising them, wow. I just hope that those who read this do not assume that you and nick are shills; because this is almost too good to be true. I should not have made so many efforts to ADVISE you and nick on how to redeem your positions, because your stubborn and willful foolishness does seem suspicious. But it is too late take anything back, so I'll just say thanks for the help.
" .... the more a claim varies from accepted norms the more the need for substantiation."
And where, exactly, do the "accepted norms", of which you speak, derive in this corporate driven system?
Hedges is largely referencing material that, as a rule, is eclipsed by information sources (read "news") owned almost exclusively by the very entities criticized. Had the American people been properly informed, lo these past decades, what do you suppose would be the "accepted norms" of the day?
Gene,
Based on the example I provided, your questions seem to imply that corporations have influenced the laws of basic math. If corporations use 90% of the water needed and consumers use 10%, if the equation were changed to 50% and 50%, the same amount of water is needed to produce the same amount of goods. That should explain so far as my example is concerned.
It has always been accepted that water is wet and so no support is needed. The further one deviates from that "acceptable norm" however the more explaining needed. In other words, you are blaming corporations for a timeless standard.
Nanoo
R.L. Love, You seem to have a problem with the water amounts used between corporations and consumers. I'll give you a personal example. Years ago I worked for Jennie-O-Foods, midnight shift in the clean-up department. The plant I worked at processed turkeys. I was amazed at the amount of water used. I used a fire hose, pressurized and had a hell of a time since the force was close to lifting me up from the floor. I can't give you a figure for how many gallons per bird, but I know damn well it was way, way more than a at home cleaning process for a turkey. I'm sure in many other industries water is used not carefully or conservatively.
Nanoo,
Your point is a good and valid one but beside the point insofar as my premise is concerned. I used the percentages regarding water use to explain a math issue regarding writing standards.
Sorry that I did not see this reply sooner.
Terrific Thread and Article-
But, dismissing Revolution though great and glorious, as something that eill only come when there is "nothing left," when it transpires is superficial, IF THIS;
The ONLY resolution to the updrafting of wealth by the elites as the population skyrockets= more people less assets every hour, every day, will BE a Revolution.
Glorious or Not
Anything left or Not;
When the disenfranchised lower classes rise up and storm the gates, The Nightmare Will End. Not one nanosecond before.
Go CH; Chris is our Best Voice.
KC Napa writes…With respect to corporate power: how does one reconcile the very obvious need to expunge corporate dominance - and in the process theoretically eliminating a large number of jobs provided by coprorations - with the need for jobs/employment in order to subsist?
The corporation doesn’t need to disappear, but rather it must be tightly regulated by a government whose only allegiance is to the public interest. Who cares if corporation is making money if the environment, its employees and the community benefits? However under the current system corporations have highjacked the government to the extent that the public interest is marginal at best. The media, our election process (and therefore our elected officials) and our overall education is corporate friendly. As a result of this powerful corporate influence, the majority of citizens feel confused, angry and vulnerable as all of us are trying to figure out a way to put Pandorra back into the box. If, by some progressive revolution we can actually replace private interests with public interests, the economy will not collapse. More jobs will actually be created as the gap between rich and poor closes to a more acceptable level. Capitalism is like a bull terrier; it can be trained to be gentle and responsive to its owner, but you must keep it on a short leash and recognize its instinct to do otherwise.
Thank you for the insight.
I know mine was a rather unsophisticated query, especially in light of the discourse usually taking place here.
My thoughts correspond perfectly to your post. It is the inability to clearly iterate these thoughts and arguments which can be so frustrating...especially when confronting those who staunchly support the status quo on an almost daily basis. I am constantly striving communicate more effectively; I think our complacent culture would serve itself well to do the same.
We are all trolls in the other poster's reality check.
Even if Ralph Nader hypnotized all the banks that ever had to deal with the International bank of Settlements into signing a new new world order of consumer power, the evolutionary forces that compel the revolution is our reality of social evolution...
the trolls will still be around.
I don't think anybody is a troll. I have a lot of respect for both those of us who voted for Obama and the rest who voted for Nader or Mckinney. We need to unite all sides of our side and I am saying this as a recovering conservative Republican who left the party because it went too far in being extremist. I don't mind disagreements but I hate dividers and wish God would put them in a hurt locker.
Good reply.
This is all very simple, but the complex part, the part that so few of us clearly and thoroughly understand is why we cannot act according to our knowledge.
What is stopping us is within us, it is how we all perceive our world and that is the twin mirror of the corporate reality, a blind monster of reality that imprisons us, deactivates us, dumbs us. That corporate disease is something the majority carry within, you have to diminish it here before it will diminish in power collectively as outer corporate bodies. That work has nothing to do with how we act, it has to do with how we think. The challenge is to change our mind, and the way has not yet been shown. Changing our mind is so foreign to us all, so beyond understanding to most, it is the key, and yet so few give it any attention or notice. That is how it works, what will save us from what we are doing, is beyond our grasp and view because what we do to save ourselves does not unveil it, instead it further builds the walls that further block us from understanding. The longer we build these confusing walls and the longer we wander the eternal maze created, the worse our condition becomes. When we are able to stop building these mental walls, construct of our current mental reasoning habits, and instead create bridges to understanding with wisdom and love, we will set ourselves and the world free from the poisoning of our time. This counter power, to create these connecting bridges for growth, lies mostly dormant within us, we must but believe in it so we may awaken in our time of need. Sadly Chris is not building anything but more walls, even as his intention is pure in tearing them down.
A social science professor once told our class that the most important textbook we would ever have would be one on critical thinking.
The class was full of engineering students so I'm afraid this idea was lost on most of the students, however I've remembered it to this day because critical thinking, in short, has allowed me to metaphorically eject myself out of the corporate matrix that you speak about.
Thanks for the Alice in Wonderland response. Hedges has forgotten more progressive praxis than you will ever discover while sitting in your cubical of woe.
Will you give it a rest already? All you do is attack and accuse. What is exactly wrong with what Leea said? Leea's right. We can't just change something from the outside. Sometimes, we have to change things from within. Corporations are controlled by people and it's the top people that bear the brunt of responsibility. Likewise, we need to show some peace, love, and respect for ourselves and each other. Instead of flaming everyone, why don't you change your disgruntled attitude and open your mind to peace, love, respect, and understanding? I'm a recovering conservative Republican going progressive too. If you want to help progressives win, then you must stop your intolerant fault finding. Mr/Mrs elohim, TEAR DOWN YOUR WALL !! IF YOU HAVE NOTHING NICE TO SAY, THEN DON'T SAY ANYTHING AT ALL !!!
Oh, Dear, another new identity for Ctl-Z, Hamster, and QuickStep, my my, the 24/7 groupie spews out her multiple personality disorder faster than Carter manufactures pills. (my answer has been moved to the top of the thread.
elohim, be careful when you upset the obsessive compulsive types. She actually has many more sign on names than those you allude, what provoked her angst this time was your comment to leea another one of her disguises. Methinks that the oars on her little boat are about to snap.
Do you have any proof or evidence to back up your accusations? Can you learn to stick to the topic instead? Or are you another one of those associates who gets into paranoia and calls anyone who disagrees the same person? Your crew is starting to sound like Richard Nixon. Either prove that Leea or MG is Harriet or whatever her name is or keep your mouth shut and stop lying and flinging bs.
No, I am not another identity. STOP THAT ! Look, I wished I could go back and vote Cynthia Mckinney for you so you could shut up but I can't. Now will you please grow up and stop misbehaving? You're just as abusive as the Republicans.
Michael, relax. Not everyone hates you. There are a few troublemakers on this site but most everyone here is cool and receptive. Elohim gets obnoxious with everyone even with those who slightly disagrees with her. When they can't debate, they make up baseless conspiracy theories with no proof or evidence to back it up. She has made enemies even against some of her own friends. Most people don't her seriously around here.
Oh, and you're not a loser either. Learn to believe in yourself. We understand what you have been through and we're here to help. Most of us anyway. Keep a calm and cool mind. You don't want to play into your enemy's hands. Boyd Collins had an excellent discussion on that which you can see in the archives. Well, back to building. Later.
One more cautionary note. Watch out for Sioux Rose. She can get out of control sometimes. From her archives, she has been known to bullying others and name-calling them as whatever same person. Don't let her "psychic" talk scare you. Sometimes, she can post sanely but often gets into wild mood swings and has been known to post messages calling for censorship and control of this site. She has also been very obnoxious in wishing people ill will and cursing them of being reincarnated as some bug to be crushed or a woman who will be abused all her life. The archives don't lie.
Shawn, thank you too for your kindness from your second paragraph.
For the rest of your reply, I have said this before when I talked with some others and I will say this again. I am not here to start flame wars. I have had excellent discussions with others on this site. I do not know elohim or Sioux Rose well enough to judge either of them.
I was upset at elohim earlier for posting an angry response to my take on Hedges's article. Her response was about blaming me for voting for Obama. I told her my regrets I had on voting for him and that I wished I could turn back the clock and change my vote and don't millions of us wish the same thing. But I can't. Sometimes, we have to work beyond politics to solve day to day issues. I was also upset at elohim for attacking a beautiful post by Leea which I just so happened to agree with. I do not understand why she resorted to accusing me of being another person on this site. I did not join this site until last month, didn't start posting until Oct 10, and have only posted occasionally. I am still doing more reading on this site for most of the time I do spend here. I still wish elohim well and hope that she will clear up her misunderstandings.
With reference to Sioux Rose, I do not know her personally so I have no authority to judge her and do not wish to offend her. So far I have read most of her posts and find them to be educational. I may not agree with some of them but I am willing to think things out and revisit it down the road. On a special note, one of her long time friends who introduced me to this site is a huge fan of Sioux Rose and believes that I will enjoy learning from her posts. She has not offended me directly but if I am the one who she called "pretender" from one of her posts, I am afraid she is mistaken. However, she is entitled to her opinion and I respect that even if it is wrong. I have communicated rather well with most people on this site even when I have had my disagreements. Lots of people to meet here hence more from me on this one. I did not know that some could be offended by them. I do not wish ill will against anyone. I look forward to continuing to learn from her posts and others' on this site. If I have a question about what she says, I won't hesitate to ask. As I have said earlier, I'm here to learn and reform.
Sioux Rose
Boy, you are working on grounds for being sued for slander. I bully and name call? Sure! IF someone like you attacks MY life work, a fool like you who has NO credits or credentials, tries to take away those that I have earned... you're damned right you'll get snapped at. How dare you! The archives don't lie? I have posted about 4000 comments on this site. There may have been 10 where in defending myself against the baseless accusations of a low life like yourself, I showed some temper. Good for me! If I had you in person, I'd slap you across the face.
Wow ! Such barbaric display. Archives do not lie and your attempted bullying does not affect me. I am trying to help you but you are refusing to be reasonable. I could easily countersue you for slander if you tried to sue me. I know you have neither the time nor money to get into trouble for taking me to court on false accusations. You preach peace one minute and the next minute you resort to violence. I get the impression that you are being wickedly dishonest with yourself. You need help.
Some people rely on the wrong people to make the wrong judgments. I feel blessed not to have gotten into all that astrology black magic bs. She gives astrologers and astrology a bad rap.
Once you go inside the Corporation, you are part of it. As you struggle your way up the corporate ladder to a point where you think you can effect change, the corporation is changing you. It's insatiable drive for profit become your thinking, your sole reason to exist.
You become the very thing you tried to resist.
You become part of the machine that is killing all of us.
And you won't even feel it...
That's only assuming that everyone will do nothing about it. Corporations are like machines. Unless there's the juice to run and active controlling, it's just a sitting thing. We may be part of what we get into but the least we can do is do our best to reform the corporation where possible. Corporations vary their levels of changing people. Some corporations are filled with tougher leaders with powerful influence while others are not. It is possible to turn most corporations into helping people for good causes. I try to strive for a positive solution and give it my best shot. We all can be our own courageous heroes by doing what is right even if we lose. The rest is beyond our control.
Gee, MichaelGoodhart, I thought, oh, oh, oh, another elohim through the looking glass where everything becomes distorted. ... and then, you addressed, "Mr/Mrs elohim, TEAR DOWN YOUR WALL! ... and I breathed a sigh of relief.
Since you're "a recovering conservative Republican going progressive," I know how astoundingly upside-down that place is. I grew up in a conservative Republican household with very Victorian principles [which is not all bad certainly] and Dad was definitely THE PATRIARCH.
Just discovering after I left home at a young age, newly married [what women were fit for only] and becoming part of a University community because my then husband was getting his Ph.D. in psychology, I discovered, from listening to conversations, that Harry S. Truman was not an idiot and consistently had done everything wrong, that there were other viewpoints than voting Republican because the stock market would stay up where it belonged, and Richard Nixon was not "an all-American square shooter" with a perfect wife named Pat. ... A long climb and transformation from there ... to independent evaluation and concluding from as many facts and actual results as possible.
There still are a few very good Republicans out there and and a few very good Democrats, not too many anymore whose sincerity and integrity cannot be questioned, but they really cannot get anywhere near a presidential bid because of the now, totally-controlled media.
So here we are.
One of my criteria for evaluating is, is this a life-affirming or life-destroying policy or decision and is it for the common good or for the good of just a few or just for The Party or just for my nation?
Welcome to the long road, MichaelGoodhart, ... and where it goes, none of us knows now.
peace, cm
I replied to rvwalker on what drove me Republican when I was in college and what forced me to change. I learned my lessons the hard way and it wasn't pretty. I'm glad you found out the easy way by listening to conversations. I wished I had done that all through my 20s. I don't know if I'll get to vote in 2010 or 2012 if I move to another state because of my job or I get married and I am not able to get my registration updated in time. I look forward to traveling that long road. Thank you.
PS: I still wish elohim well and hope that he or she will overcome his or her anger and be reasonable. Maybe it's just a bad day.
Are you talking to me, elohim? If you are, you missed the essence of what I was saying.
And Alice fell down a rabbit hole. I stand with two feet planted on the earth and go from there and it's far more of an adventure, heavy-duty stuff included, than fantasies.
Alice also stepped Through the Looking Glass. It seems to me that you may have done that to yourself too.
peace, cm
I agree totally with what you have said, Leea. And it is from my own life experiences where there is nothing left of the moorings that I was taught, that I learned as the way to do it both naturally and with a sense of responsibility and love ... to realize this or that, to have this or that, to achieve this or that. Also all the moorings of family, either by death or distance or other reasons have been gone for a long time.
I will spare you the details of the struggle of my now senior years, living pretty much as a very low-income hermit on a natural wonder of acreage and falling-down everything else.
I am not who I was which was much more focused on the external. However, that doesn't mean that there are not very practical considerations now that are all but overwhelming.
HOWEVER, who I have become I will take with me wherever I go, and that is good, but I also know that my little experiences are nowhere near those who have drone bombers flying overhead and decimate one's family in the blink of an eye; are nowhere near those whose lives were simple and reasonable in tribal villages until machetes cut them all to pieces and fire burned down the rest and for years now survivors wander or huddle in camps waiting for the gruel that may or may not come. These horrifying things are no accident, and I also know that too.
My point is that I really believe/know that sometimes things have to get really, really bad ... like steamrollers over sweet, innocent buttercups and bright-faced, feisty dandelions ... none of which previously have encountered anything called want and true suffering.
We are inevitably entering steamroller time. We've actually entered it with the foreclosures happening; the money running out; the jobs being lost, etcetera.
Real pain, real deprivation on a sustained basis make for a wake-up time or a terrible numbing or angry and bitter violence against what is thought to be "the enemy" or maybe some "easy pickins" for survival.
Obviously, the train is almost at the end of the track.
The answers are within ... from the past into the present and the now. Most people choose denial as long as they can; some blow their brains out; some get it and the life force and the inner wisdoms and creativity rise out of the depths and they survive.
We do have to change our minds and the way we think, but that comes with the sometimes exquisitely painful process of really feeling everything, being in touch with the worst of feelings, and staying with them (and not popping pills or taking other substances) until the Life Force kicks in and then there can be a clearing and an exhilaration and renewal. Hello, I'm alive, really alive.
I cannot foretell the future, nor do I have all the answers. All I know is that this is the moment that is fast upon us, and it will either lead to a positive transformation of a good number of our species [the ancients and the native peoples knew and already know] or it will all go kaput or life will truly become a gray 1984 ruled by the very wealthy corporate elites as they "think" is the best way to go and the best outcome, and the already well-trained sheople will have succumbed.
Can't help but wonder as I see the ubiquitous Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller, decidedly up there in years whether they've already been cloned ... Richard Cheney too ... little copies to carry on after they pass? Ya' never know.
Righteous anger that leads to action is not a bad thing, Leea. A very wise woman in a wheel chair, horribly crippled said that to me once when I was on a peace march across the country and was having second thoughts about the peace plan I had authored and was disseminating. I was renewed, but then months later after it had been delivered to every head of nation and there were responses coming in and Eugene McCarthy was going to talk about it at the National Press Club, my sister committed suicide and my mother went bonkers. Talk about a stopper ...
Anyway, life goes on and we're going to find out where it goes ...
with love, cm
Cee, your post touched my heart. I believe some of us are already getting steamrolled. I'm already a loser for being unemployed for a long time and struggling to keep a job at 32. I don't know if I will even get to vote if I have to move from state to state depending upon my job status. I have a strong feeling that as soon as both the young and the seniors find out the same situation they are in, there will be a stronger call to mutual love and respect.
Who flagged my comment? If that's you elohim, then stop it ! If it wasn't you then whoever did it, please come out and explain.
MichaelGoodhart October 19th, 2009 8:47 pm -- I've never understood what flagging a comment means. If you, or someone else, are/is still around, would you please explain that?
I did an archive checkup on this site to see who could possibly be doing it and I have a pretty strong guess. Don't worry about the flagging. The moderates know that kids usually do it to cause trouble. They read carefully before deciding to take action. Just keep it cool and if you're new here, welcome to Common Dreams.
Peace
Thanks for the welcome. I kindly appreciate the warm welcomes here. I don't care to know who specifically did it. If they want to be honest and come forth and explain just what it is he/she didn't like about my post to flag it, I welcome their explanation. I may debate but I don't pick fights with anyone. I don't mind disagreements but I will not be dragged into flame wars. I enjoy learning from this site both from the articles and the constructive comments minus the off-topic flames and posting my thoughts once in a while and interacting for improving my knowledge and continuing to reform myself. I understand that elohim is upset about the election but this article is about corporations and their adverse effects on the environment and Obama vs Green Party has no place here.
Thank you, MG. I think you wrote this after you responded to Elohim, and I thought at first you were bashing me, so there is another post below to you.
My daughter's husband who is 60 just got terminated. My son who made a mega-income for many years was terminated twice because he was the broker/mediator between the housing broker and the loan corporations, and the Housing Bubble, deliberately created by Goldman Sachs' manipulations, and then the oil bubble and skyrocketing prices last year also deliberated created by GS ... with the help of others on both, did those and many other positions in. My son's house is on the market for a substantial loss.
However, neither my son-in-law nor my son are losers, even though they are suffering losses as so many, many, many are right now. Neither are you a loser.
So many new college graduates with great expectations are waiting tables or taking fast-food orders at MacDonald's.
Regardless of age, many, many, many are and will be in the same boat.
Think outside of the box. Consider living in a cooperative green community and helping to grow food and become self-sustaining. Intentional Community, the Mother Earth oldie website with various offerings: ic.org
See what's going on with those who are starting businesses in green energy production. Lots of stuff going on right now with young to not-so-young entrepreneurs. Read YES! magazine online and other similar publications that have many articles on possibilities into actualities. CD lists many.
My very early experiences/memories of The Great Depression/WWII time was the sharing that people did and the feeling of WE'RE ALL IN THE SAME BOAT. Lots of good stuff.
However, that was my neighborhood. And it likely was different in some other places
such as the Deep South with the racism ... a black soldier who came home with an honorable discharge and a bunch of medals still couldn't drink out of a "White's Only" water fountain nor get a job.
Let us keep faith that we will all become more with what we are facing together. And our numbers will likely increase. Hopefully, love and respect will increase too.
peace, cm
Thanks again Cee for those words of encouragement. Sweet dreams. :)
Just seriously reread Daniel Estulin's book [available on Amazon.com] from my reading of about 10 months ago: THE TRUE STORY OF THE BILDERBERG GROUP [UPDATED, REVISED AND EXPANDED NORTH AMERICAN UNION EDITION - copyright, 2007, 2009.
Now with the advent of Obama and his reversal on just about all of his earlier pronouncements when he was a candidate, and the escalation of the tragic "war" in Afghanistan, and his appointment of and advice from just about everyone who is closely associated with The Bilderberg Group as member or invited attendee, and the associated groups below, everything falls into place.
The Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations grew out of the secret conversations among the Bilderberg members/attendees.
Just a few quotes from the Title pages of PART 1 & PART 2 [OF 4 PARTS] below:
"PART I / THE BILDERBERG GROUP: MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE"
"a clique of the richest, economically and politically most powerful and influential men in the Western world, who meet secretly to plan events that later appear just to happen." THE TIMES OF LONDON, 1977
"It is difficult to re-educate people who have been brought up on nationalism to the idea of relinquishing part of their sovereignty to a supra-national body." - Bilderberg Group founder, Prince Bernhard.
"World events do not occur by accident: They are made to happen, whether it is to do with national issues or commerce; and most of them are staged and managed by those who hold the purse strings." Denis Healy, former British Defence Minister.
"PART TWO / THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS / (CFR)
"The Trilateral Commission doesn't secretly run the world. The Council on Foreign Relations does that."
Sir Winston Lord, President of Council on Foreign Relations, 1978; Assistant Secretary of State, the U.S. State Department; Member of the Order of Skull & Bones [references]
++++++++
I'll add my own now: A very knowledgeable, angry populus is a very dangerous and potent energy.
++++++++
In Estulin's book you will find the names that begin with the 1954 attendees. You will find the names of prominent attendees through the years, and the attendees of the June 5-8, 2008, Bilderberg meeting in Chantilly, Virginia, USA.
I think you will be surprised at so many familiar names. Do enjoy the photographs of Henry Kissinger and Tim Geithner and old David Rockefeller and so many others.
++++++++
WE HAVE BEEN HAD, BIG TIME! A lot of folks knew this in the '60's, but likely not to the extent that WE HAD BEEN HAD, BIG TIME!
Trouble is, these Bilderberg people seem only to envision more wealth, power and control. What good will that do them or any of us if we don't have a viable planet anymore?
READY FOR BEAR! - I salute you, Chris Hedges, author Daniel Estulin, et al.
/cm
Cee, they are seeking Full Spectrum Dominance. In Afghanistan that means building an oil pipeline thereby not enriching Russia by using Russia's pipeline. Secondly they are attempting to surround both Russia and Iran. The idea is an old one, dominate States and Peoples militarily and control their resources. To dominate Eurasia requires continuous warfare, also their strategy. They profit from the MIC. This adventurism is based upon a greed for power. Clearly it will lead to America's ruination. We are bankrupting America through this foreign adventurism. America is in serious internal decline yet they choose to continue their efforts at Eurasian hegemony. Given America's rate of change, the speed of dark, it is highly likely that they will trigger WW3. As the dollar falls and depression takes hold, they will begin a third world war. If they succeed in doing so, we will enter into a very dark age of war, accelerated climate change, terrorism through germ warfare, and nuclear terrorism, resulting in mass death and disease. Obama has bought into this mindset and once he decides to send more troops the die will be cast. American's will not know what hit them. What a tragic ending.
Yes, Stone, I am aware of this essential scenario of seeking FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE. Daniel Estulin speaks to this in THE TRUE STORY OF THE BILDERBERGS, but it's been apparent for quite some time.
It's been fast forward since Selection 2000 with the terror-creation of 9-11, the immediate bombing of Afghanistan and then Iraq, and since those South American "upstarts" are now creating their own currency and are not exactly lying down to be steam-rollered by the U.S. of A. again, suddenly Colombia is bristling with new military bases ... Same scenarios over and over.
Nuking Iran wouldn't surprise me, even though that is an ultimate insanity toward that "tragic ending" for Americans as well as most living things on earth.
FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE of a gentler kind by the people is the possibility I continue to envision ...
/cm
Yes and there are so few of them and their imaginations for wealth power and control are so narrow and driven by savage and primal thinking patterns. They are in the grip of the worst kind of psychic plague and it spreads from one member to another with frightening speed. Obama is probably the most recent member and he has contracted this mental plague. Maybe he will fight it off and recover, maybe not.
Understanding these people are infected and sick, even insane with their contracting and backwards mental reasoning, put's them in the appropriate category of humanity.
We now see Hitler as insane but his type of insanity has not diminished in the human being, it is spreading. This disease has been well understood by humans, and we have used various means as antidote to it. One of the main antidotes to such mental sickness was a belief in a higher God, and connection and communion with mother nature as God. As these belief systems have become victim to a mind ever bent on cognitive reasoning, ever bent on material gain to supplant spiritual gain, as we exchange spiritual love for consumer obsessions our situation grows more and more dire.
In this scenario our chance to survive as a species is being threatened by a simple disease just as the article says and the highest concentrations of the disease found in the top five percent of our human population are currently something most our society find to be in envy of. There is not one human with concentrated wealth and power that escapes the having with it the greatest concentration of psychic delusion. They have gained the whole world by selling their souls.
"One of the main antidotes to such mental sickness was a belief in a higher God, and connection and communion with mother nature as God."
I'm not so sure this has been such a great antidote. I know it has been a great tool, via an opiate for the masses. I also know that it has been a tool (See Dubya) for their ilk to justify their insanity.
btw, the professor was Professor Badrinath Rao at Kettering University in Flint, MI
I have read CD for a few years, trying as much as possible to absorb the insight and intellect present in this community. I am a recovering self-proclaimed "liberal", slowly realizing that my once cherished notions of right/left/wrong/right are simply products of the conformity preached by those in power.
With respect to corporate power: how does one reconcile the very obvious need to expunge corporate dominance - and in the process theoretically eliminating a large number of jobs provided by coprorations - with the need for jobs/employment in order to subsist. Is there a resolution to this short of a full-scale revolution? Is the answer simply that we need to do away with the current economic model altogether?
I may have answered my own question, though would be quite interested in further discussion. I am a sponge, hardened by years of conformity but slowly yet eagerly venturing outside the mainstream.
First and foremost, this culture of consumption is not sustainable. When you project it out to populations like China and India, you quickly realize the planet will be left in ruins. The country must quickly work on a program that educates people and promotes lifestyles that are environmentally sustainable. Such programs would include:
1. Development of energy efficient mass transit throughout the country.
2. Massive investment in green energy sources. Solar and wind are currently at the top of the list.
These two initiatives alone would employ millions of people. Massive rebuilding of our decaying infrastructure and rebuilding our urban areas could also employ millions more.
As a social Democrat, I feel that the corporation can exist but only under careful government regulation. Certainly worker ownership and coop are the long term goals.
Immediate steps we should take today:
1. Nationalize the energy and oil industries.
2. Nationalize the banking industry.
3. Nationalize the insurance/pension industry.
These are societal infrastructure needs. Without them, we collapse. Having them in the hands of private interests has historically done great damage to the world's societies.
We need to transform our society to one of education and innovation in order to develop sustainable lifestyles. We need to measure our success not based on GNP but on GNH (Gross National Happiness). Sustainability and quality of life need to take front and center. War and greed need to be shown the door.
Thanks for the excellent question.
I very much concur as to the obvious unsustainability of our culture of consumption, as well as the very real need for expansion of mass transit and green energy. And nationalization of these "markets" is a logical way around the problem of corporate infection.
On a more practical level: how do we go about accomplishing these goals? Do we continue to attempt to employ our solutions within the context of the current "democratic" (sarcasm intended) system? On a practical level, given the deep-seeded corruption and greed which figuratively defines said system, I am left skeptical at best that any means exist within the current system which would provide a realistic way forward.
Sometimes it all seems so overwhelming. How does one combat such VAST ignorance and greed?