Changing the World
One of the most cherished items in my possession is a postcard that was sent from Mississippi to the Upper West Side of Manhattan in June 1964.
“Dear Mom and Dad,” it says, “I have arrived safely in Meridian, Mississippi. This is a wonderful town and the weather is fine. I wish you were here. The people in this city are wonderful and our reception was very good. All my love, Andy.”
That was the last word sent to his family by Andrew Goodman, a 20-year-old college student who was murdered by the Ku Klux Klan, along with fellow civil rights workers Michael Schwerner and James Chaney, on his first full day in Mississippi — June 21, the same date as the postmark on the card. The goal of the three young men had been to help register blacks to vote.
The postcard was given to me by Andrew’s brother, David, who has become a good friend.
Andrew and that postcard came to mind over the weekend as I was thinking about the sense of helplessness so many ordinary Americans have been feeling as the nation is confronted with one enormous, seemingly intractable problem after another. The helplessness is beginning to border on paralysis. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly a decade long, are going badly, and there is no endgame in sight.
Monday morning’s coffee was accompanied by stories about suicide bombings in the heart of Baghdad that killed at least 150 people and wounded more than 500 and helicopter crashes in Afghanistan that killed 14 Americans.
Here at home, the terrible toll from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression continues, with no end to the joblessness in sight and no comprehensible plans for fashioning a healthy economy for the years ahead. The government’s finances resemble a Ponzi scheme. If you want to see the epidemic that is really clobbering American families, look past the H1N1 virus to the home foreclosure crisis.
The Times ran a Page A1 article on Monday that said layoffs, foreclosures and other problems associated with the recession had resulted in big increases in the number of runaway children, many of whom were living in dangerous conditions in the streets.
Americans have tended to watch with a remarkable (I think frightening) degree of passivity as crises of all sorts have gripped the country and sent millions of lives into tailspins. Where people once might have deluged their elected representatives with complaints, joined unions, resisted mass firings, confronted their employers with serious demands, marched for social justice and created brand new civic organizations to fight for the things they believed in, the tendency now is to assume that there is little or nothing ordinary individuals can do about the conditions that plague them.
This is so wrong. It is the kind of thinking that would have stopped the civil rights movement in its tracks, that would have kept women in the kitchen or the steno pool, that would have prevented labor unions from forcing open the doors that led to the creation of a vast middle class.
This passivity and sense of helplessness most likely stems from the refusal of so many Americans over the past few decades to acknowledge any sense of personal responsibility for the policies and choices that have led the country into such a dismal state of affairs, and to turn their backs on any real obligation to help others who were struggling.
Those chickens have come home to roost. Being an American has become a spectator sport. Most Americans watch the news the way you’d watch a ballgame, or a long-running television series, believing that they have no more control over important real-life events than a viewer would have over a coach’s strategy or a script for “Law & Order.”
With that kind of attitude, Andrew Goodman would never have left the comfort of his family home in Manhattan. Rosa Parks would have gotten up and given her seat to a white person, and the Montgomery bus boycott would never have happened. Betty Friedan would never have written “The Feminine Mystique.”
The nation’s political leaders and their corporate puppet masters have fouled this nation up to a fare-thee-well. We will not be pulled from the morass without a big effort from an active citizenry, and that means a citizenry fired with a sense of mission and the belief that their actions, in concert with others, can make a profound difference.
It can start with just a few small steps. Mrs. Parks helped transform a nation by refusing to budge from her seat. Maybe you want to speak up publicly about an important issue, or host a house party, or perhaps arrange a meeting of soon-to-be dismissed employees, or parents at a troubled school.
It’s a risk, sure. But the need is great, and that’s how you change the world.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
107 Comments so far
Show AllWith apologies Mairead, but wouldn't that be a subject for another article and another thread?
-30-
I don't know, OMR. It seems to address the current subject, which unless I'm mistaken is the thesis that we have become passive spectators rather than the active participants in shaping the political and economic world that people like Goodman were during Civl Rights days.
The idea that Mondragón and a major US union have joined forces to provide an alternative to corporate wage slavery seems to fit with the idea that we should get up off our buts [sic] and start using the power we have. What do you see as being off-topic about it? Perhaps I should be looking at it differently.
(incomplete edit that somehow got posted)
I'm shocked (maybe I shouldn't be) that nobody here seems to care about Mondragón and the Steelworkers agreeing an initiative to create an alternative to corporate wage-slavery: socialist businesses. Worker-owned socialist businesses.
Do people really not care, or not understand, or what?
dpjr writes in reply to my post:
"I find it confounding that, at once, you are "pissed off" by my comments about the public tit (it is a fact that the average social security beneficiary, over the course of his or her life, will receive significantly more benefits than the total of the lifetime contributions and any reasonable rate of return on those contributions would ever produce, thus "the tit"!), yet go on, in the very next paragraph to admit it is so; "I am fully aware... the young might be subsidizing my old age". I suppose, in spite of the remaining hypocritical rhetoric, that I should be satisfied with your affirmation of my observations...thanks."
Your economics is subject to well-documented disagreement in re Social Security. For example, if what I paid into SS over the decades had been earning a fair return via interest. In fact, this was one of Dubya's arguments for privatizing it. As for Medicare, a hugely disproportionate cost of Medicare is "end-of-life" procedures requiring hugely expensive machines and constant attention by medical staff. I know this from personal experience.
My roommate at a Humana hospital was a former police officer (I'm not making this up) who had been hit by a car and had been thrown head-first into a brick wall. He was literally missing half his brain (and much of his skull) and was on PERMANENT life support. He was brought into Humana because his more permanent residence, a nursing home, found him in medical crisis. For two days I watched him in the bed next to mine and at one point had to call in the nurses when he started having trouble breathing. He had at least half a dozen tubes and monitors plugged in and it took several nurses (no doctors present) to get him back to something like homeostasis. At one point when he was back to "normal" I stood at the end of his bed and stared at him for a long time, trying to find any sign of real consciousness in his eyes. What I saw as he saw me was a plea: PLEASE KILL ME! I later discussed this with the nurse in charge of the third shift as she sat on my bed, and with tears streaming down her face, she explained that he was "a gold mine." Today we would call him a Terri Schiavo. The guy was in his mid-thirties. Cost of long-term care, millions.
Cost of my three days at Humana for their misdiagnosis of my throat situation: over $12,000. Today it would be close to three times that.
Cost of that experience with America's health care system: priceless!
There has been a lot of literature written about the ethical dilemmas here, not the least being "Johnny got his gun." You might start by reading it. As for my bringing up the prospect of next generations paying for my Social Security payments, in a better world we would have built up the social infrastructure that enables them to assure their children's futures. Instead we waste our national treasury on insane wars that assure "scarcity." How about fecundity instead. How about restoring the soil instead of draining it of all nutrients so corporations can ammonianize it?
Meanwhile, believe me when I say the next generation will be better off for my having been here. They already are. Even you! And I'm not done yet.
***
To dubet:
Thanks for the Emily Dickinson poem on "hope." I have read a bit of her work and some biography and as I grow older I appreciate her more. I am constrained by CD's 1000 word limit from saying more.
***
To teddy:
You hit the nail on the head. That is what the Social Contract is all about. I just wish you would be a little more succinct but I truly appreciate your stuggle in trying to get it right. Democracy, if it is to exist, must demand "redistribution of wealth." Inherited wealth aggregates upon itself more power and if unchecked will destroy civilization. Just look at the history of the Bush Family! Or Nero for that matter. Truly, hubris exists in our world as a pathology. Too bad Washington has become a culture of "I want mine, too, while I can still get it and society be damned." There have been exceptions. Mostly going to older wealth. Andrew Carnegie seems to have been an exception. (Come to think of it, I'm gonna have to go out and buy Nader's latest "fiction" on how billionaires can save the planet. I hear it's 900 or so pages! Fiction, my ass. Probably a blueprint. I love Nader, but he has Parkinson's and in the event he were elected he'd be sidelined within days, so all you Naderites out there, seek an alternative. And I don't mean Ron Paul, ethical as he is.
***
Could some "fat lady sing" and get this all over with? Your turn, kids. I'm getting kind of tired and my teeth are bad! Who at this site can still do a quadratic equation? I used to spend hours at home going over that stuff on paper. I wasn't very good at algebra but I was great at geometry. Can one recover that stuff in old age? I'd love to! Does E really equal MC2. Did Newton have it right? Why isn't "what goes around comes around" part of the pantheon of physics?
Best to all. Even to dpjr.
-30-
Every once in a while I read a social commentary thread on CD where just about everybody has a well-organized response to the original article and to each other, and when that happens it really makes my day. It's like the universe came together and hope rises up in my chest and I want to get the hell out of the house and do something real. I've just spent over an hour trying to digest the comments here, and this isn't one of those times. It is almost as if the universe is temporarily asynchronous and the planets are misaligned.
I was especially pissed off by a certain commenter who suggested that we who survive on Social Security and Medicare are somehow living "off the public tit." I spent most of my adult life paying into Social Security and the Medicare Trust Fund and today I know that some of my employers skimmed that money and never sent it in, and the Congress raided the Social Security Trust Fund and used it for current operations, e.g. STOLE IT instead of keeping it in a "lock box" as Gore proposed back in 2000, and now that I want the money back that I paid in as a form of "social insurance" I am somehow a leech? Whatever happened to the Social Contract and the Commonweal? For more than four decades I paid a Premium from my earnings into this Social Contract.
Meanwhile, I am fully aware of the demographic disproportionality through which the young might be subsidizing my old age, but believe me, they won't be! I'm a smoker so I'll die too young so my pay-in may be your pay-out (if you are not polluted to death by other means!). In most of my jobs I was making a real contribution to society (unlike those bastards on Wall Street and in Washington), providing positive services to other people while being underpaid for doing so and knowing I was going to retire poor if I managed to retire at all.
As for the demographics, it occurred to me decades ago that an economy that depends on increasing the population to support the elderly is a recipe for disaster because the planet cannot sustain it. (Take the Catholic Church, please!) Decades ago China adopted a one-child policy, and while of course it isn't perfect they started from destitution (due in no small part to Western Imperialism) and look where they are today.
As for WHAT TO DO? Stop buying "stuff." After they were devastated by WWII, the Japanese got it right with their minimalist interior design and their surge to once again become an economic powerhouse instead of a consumerist economy. Unlike ours.
There is no going back, people. There will be no "recovery," a delusional term. They may manage another bubble or two, but they will implode as the last two have, each with more profound consequences than the last. They are trying to hide the pending inflation from the recent bailouts but it is inevitable, like death and taxes. Not for nothing do they call Economics the dismal science.
Face it. The United States remains something like six per cent of the world population while using some 25 per cent of world resources and is the largest spewer of greenhouse gases and eschews responsibility for our wondrous "lifestyle." Fat, diabetic, ignorant, selfish, we send our naive, pumped-up-on-steroids and amphetamines youth to fight "terrorists" in foreign lands that never attacked us, so Big Pharma can control their poppy production and run oil and gas pipelines through their lands. We will now be spending decades trying to explain to our wounded why they went there. As though we know!
And, per another commenter, yes, I am among the clinically depressed, for good reason. It is called "exogenous depression." It is also called Realism. Show me the "hope"! Show me the "change" I voted for! What we have in America is the Politics of Betrayal, again and again and again. This is why most people do not vote. I spent all of my adult life trying to be a responsible CITIZEN and all they did was kick sand in my face. Today, the major reason I am depressed is that a major part of me wants to kill the mutherfuckers who have turned this world into a nightmare of negativity and harm while I do not believe in killing. See the cognitive dissonance here? I tried to make it otherwise and I lost the war. The bastards ground me down and won. The killers won. The assassins won! They assassinated JFK, MLK, RFK, Adlai Stevenson, Mark Clark and Fred Hampton of Chicago, Malcolm X, etc., etc.
Back in 1968, probably the seminal year for recent American politics, there was a white ghetto militant group in Chicago called "Rising Up Angry." They were armed and dangerous and organized and smart. The Chicago Seven organized a meeting between them and the blacks led by Clark and Hampton. I attended that meeting. The idea was to stop the ghetto wars and to work for social justice. I came out of it feeling very positive, but not long after, Mayor Daley's cops murdered Clark and Hampton in their sleep while claiming they were druggies. I witnessed them at that meeting and they were totally sober. Today, Chicago has a second Mayor Daley and America has Obama, from Chicago and its legacy of betrayal.
I fear for my children and my grandchildren. "Hope"? My ass.
(Close here with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann quoting Edward R. Murrow: "Good night and good luck.")
-30-
ALl I can say > OleManRiver -- is
SHAME ON THOSE that look down upon people "living on social security" .
social security is something people have earned over their lifetime -- regardless of how "small" or "big" their "contribution" to an ECONOMY is.
people do what they can to survive and function WITHIN a particular social and economic structure ...and whether it is a person that "could only" sell fruits and vegetables all his life from a small patch of land...or someone that worked odd jobs, or had a nice office ....
they worked with whatever they had under the circumstances..and simply as human beings - they deserve a decent living towards the later part of life when their strengths...however they have used or squandered them as may be (which itself is also tied to WHAT a society imposes one veryone)
REGARDLESS.
SHAME on anyone that , for ANY reason, begrudges others of "social security".
if anything - that is the LEAST that a civilized society - if it has the means - such as the USA certainly HAS - can give to its own members when they are getting older. because that is just human reality.
we ALL face our years of great and increasing weakness as we grow old.
and society should have it within ITS philosophy to take care of them and honor them simply for being human beings.
and I might add , OleManRiver:
People who denigrate anyone that has to end up relying on social security, and most old people also rely on medicaid, and as everyone knows, "private insurance" is NEVER enough and even gouges out people of their lifelong savings only to drop them like hot potatoes...and then their families have to pony up some more to supplement whatever is lost....
people who begrudge older people their decency in their old years when they can no longer work ...are WORSe than animals, imo.
you don't do that EVEN to DOGS.
how much more to people who have entered their later years..who mostly have been merely trying to survive in this world under the circumstances created and "managed" by the FEW that are utterly selfish and greedy and unbelievably hungering for even more "personal wealth?"
people who begrudge older people a decent old age from a common contribution , regardless of who these old people are,
might as well begrudge their own parents any comfort when they TOO can no longer stand up, or bend down, or carry a bag, or feed themselves properly.
it's simply cruel and inhumane.
EVERY generation has its mistakes and culpabilities and things to answer for .
BUT old age is a time when ALL the POWER in the world can not save a creature, dog or bird or human, from
the REALITY of FRAILTY.
and it is WHEN someone IS frail - "no longer contributing" as they would say - that a society's , and its members', TRUE ethics and morality comes forth:
WILL that society and its members CARE FOR its members BECAUSE they are weakened ? or will it leave them to 'fend for themselves?"
it asks the question - when one sees a BABY on the street, crying in hunger, "not contributing to the economy".....
does one snap at it and leave it? or does not one succor it because one IS stronger than that baby and one's strength given in succor and care for the weak - THE MARK of one's HUMANITY?
it is the same when people have become frail ONCE MORE -- because they are OLD - just as they were when they were babies.
and it is the same when a society and its members think of THIS as ITS HIGHEST HONOR and PRINCIPLE.
to take care of THOSE that are weaker - or weakened - BECAUSE of it, rather than INSPITE of it....
because we are ALL going to BE weak one day, just as we WERE when we arrived on this Mother Earth of ours.
a Society is NOTHING civilized unless it can BE A MOTHER , a LOVING, CARING mother to ALL - ESPECIALLY towards its "weaker" or "weakened" children.
ole man river ~
I appreciate your experiences and the wisdom you gained from them...thank you for sharing them...
hope is difficult when publicly decried, particularly by those fearing action based on such hope, as naive or ignorant...
sometimes, hope can and should be a private thing...warming, comforting and encouraging, without need of explanation or justification...
emily dickinson:
Hope
Hope is the thing with feathers
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune--without the words,
And never stops at all,
And sweetest in the gale is heard;
And sore must be the storm
That could abash the little bird
That kept so many warm.
I've heard it in the chillest land,
And on the strangest sea;
Yet, never, in extremity,
It asked a crumb of me.
peace to you, brother...change is coming...
Just wanted to repost information I first learned on another CD thread, that of the National March on Washington (from Oct. 18th - Nov. 3rd) and National Strike Day on Nov. 3rd. being organized by Let Freedom Ring.Community - http://letfreedomring.community.officelive.com/services.aspx. Their itinerary can be found at - http://letfreedomring.community.officelive.com/Itinerary.aspx. Unfortunately, many of the events were cancelled because the woman leading this effort fell ill. But, she is still encouraging everyone to continue on. Are others out there still participating? Is anyone still marching on Washington? Or, organizing events in other cities? We can only make change by joining together, not just online, but locally and then nationally.
I find it confounding that, at once, you are "pissed off" by my comments about the public tit (it is a fact that the average social security beneficiary, over the course of his or her life, will receive significantly more benefits than the total of the lifetime contributions and any reasonable rate of return on those contributions would ever produce, thus "the tit"!), yet go on, in the very next paragraph to admit it is so; "I am fully aware... the young might be subsidizing my old age". I suppose, in spite of the remaining hypocritical rhetoric, that I should be satisfied with your affirmation of my observations...thanks.
Mr. Herbert, bless his heart, is full of shit.
Is he and his peers (especially at the Times) without complicity in our dilemma(s)?
Their printing presses and broadcast centers should be the first things neutralized (non-violently of course) when the camel's back finally breaks.
Then, off with their heads. (Just kidding, you know!)
:)
first and foremost people need information
BUT we are not getting the information unless we dig for it
WHY?
because of government corruption
the media was given over to the people who corrupted the government in the first place
the watch dogs have been lobotomized
until the media is brought back to being a public service
nothing can be done to mobilize the people to action
we who know how bad things are had to dig to find the info
we who know how bad things are have been thoroughly discredited
as loonies and chicken littles by the same media that enables the government corruption
few people are willing to work to be informed when they think they are already informed
what the media is telling people is every thing is ether all right or the fault of the lazy poor sucking on the government tit keeping the problems from being solved
never will they admit that the root of the problems is government corruption that they profit from and that are part of
Given that perpetual war + global warming + economic collapse = doomsday and since time is running out, doesn't this mean that changing the world isn't just a dream, it's a necessity? So the question isn't whether, it's how? How to loosen the grip that apathy and helplessness have on us, such that, "This is just the way it is, nothing one can do about it so why try" turns into "Well wadayaknow, it's happening, count me in." Fortunately for us such turnabouts can take place seemingly overnight, as in those mass uprisings that swept Eastern Europe a couple decades ago, catching even the CIA unawares. Uprisings that took place despite the widespread apathy and feelings of hopelessness at that time among Eastern Europeans under Soviet occupation. That's not to imply that the hardships that Eastern Europeans faced back then were comparable to what we're experiencing now, just that whenever conditions are rapidly deteriorating, watch-out, powers that be, the heretofore helpless may rise up. Does that apply to the U.S.A? And if it does, how will the word get out? Online, of course, since the masses are never more than a mouse click away. Who'll lead the uprising? Each & every one of us, that's who, since that's what it'll take to bring about change. What's more there is no alternative, what with time running out.
Well Bob, when we elected Obama we thought we were electing a leader to show us the way. It turns out he's just a two-faced shill for the wealthy.
"We will not be pulled from the morass without a big effort from an active citizenry"
But do USan elites deserve to be rescued from their morass by an active citizenry? Given that elites will view as fodder for exploitation whatever the people manage to accomplish, it's probably better to let the elites continue to impale themselves. Meanwhile, the active citizenry can gather/process wild food, avoiding the elites' factory food, and everything else elite.
Bob Herbert, bemoaning passivity and helplessness and dreaming of an active citizenry, fired with a sense of mission seems to be utterly unaware of the Tea Party movement! Amazing!
Everyone is aware of the tea party... so what.
In response to many fine articles, day after day, this one included, deploring our economic and environmental and political condition, post after post do nothing but engage in discussion, with no concrete plan presented on how we can get from where we are to where we need to be, on how those who understand and care can reach out to enough people to amass the needed economic and political power, on how to organize great numbers of people, as Organized Labor did in decades gone by.
Until you do more that just think and talk, absolutely nothing will change.
Those who wield economic and political power do lots more than just talk; they act vigorously and effectively. Of course, they have the advantage of lots of money, but you could have the advantage of numbers if you only got off your asses and acted effectively.
And acting effectively does not mean simply business as usual - doing what you've been doing for the last several decades. It means striking out in new directions that have the genuine possibility of enlisting enough participants to seize power. That's the key - great numbers.
If the people who read Common Dreams can do no more that express thoughts, with no plan of action that is capable of turning the tide, what hope is there?
The answer is simple: none.
John Conner grassroots1@pa.net
Hi, John. I agree with you and I'm glad you used your real name. I was starting to think I was alone out there. Obviously neither one of us are alone, even if we're nearly alone. There's someone else down there who used his real name, and his location in Maine, and a "Michael C." who clearly shares our position.
I've been trying to help people on CD get started with their local organizing for quite some time, with little result, just one email from someone who read my list of pointers but unfortunately does not have time or good health to act. It's pretty depressing. This is one of just two or three premiere informational forums on the net for people with generally shared ideology, yet hardly anyone cares to act. Yet act, and encourage others to act, we must.
I'm not somebody who just wants to generate traffic for my blog out of ego. I'm not trying to start a national organization. Everything I write is about local, not grandiose, organizing. If you google for news that has happened in New Paltz, NY between 2002 and the present, you'll find ample confirmation that the small crew of progressive organizers in our town have been pretty darned successful. Most of what we do ends up either in the legislative books and/or wins in the ballot booth. I can't come to your every town and start doing it -- it doesn't work that way even if I could, because I'd be an outsider, and local groups have to be local. That's the attraction and the glue for your organizing. But successful local organizing, as the early labor movement (and many others) proved, and all organized religion proved, is the path to bigger things. It works the same way no matter what your ideology, no matter what your topic. As I write in my blog, it matters not if you're a volunteer fire department, Alcoholics Anonymous, or a neighborhood environmental group. It works the same way. The good news is, it works. Heck, I got elected to the school board a year an a half ago, first place over two incumbents, and I don't even belong to a political party, I have no money, and my working group was around 6 people. A member of that working group got elected, first place again, last May. Now we have a majority and we're changing the way our schools are run, and the kids are benefitting.
Check it out. Go to www.commonplans.blogspot.com. Get started. I hold no copyright, and you don't need my permission. You just have to be a self-starter.
Steve
Here's a media contact list.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=111
Every time you hear a lie or distortion contact the source an call 'em out on it.
You can find contact info for most of your local media in under a minute on google.
You should make it your goal to try and dominate the discussion in your local media websites.
Call, write, yell and scream every single day.
Here's the free number to the White House operator: 1-800-828-0498.
Call as many times as you want. They'll connect you to any congressperson.
Then pass all this information to your friends and relatives and tell them to do the same.
What a bizarre headline. Since when did the USA morph into the world. Chris Hedges must be correct, Americans are delusional. When that health reform kicks-in better get to the the doctors for an anti-psychotic prescription in order to get a clear view of the actual world and not just a portion of North America.
I do know "Changing the USA" doesn't sound or read nearly as dramatically as Herbert's title but it is accurate. Frankly the world is quite happy from what I gather and if some unwelcome visitors would just come home I'll bet the world would be even happier, certainly more peaceful and prosperous.
There *IS* a world-change that's just started: the Steelworkers Union and Mondragón Corporación Cooperativa have just agreed an initiative to create socialist businesses in the US.
There are only three things required to stop the regressive forces. They are not money, a third party, and a website. They are courage, commitment, and a realistic place to start. That is all.
Courage means you step outside your comfort zone. You use your real name. You take risks, and you make sacrifices, and I don't mean watch less television (but that should be done on its own merits) or cross-posting your blog to fewer blogs. You don't take that summer job at your roommates' father's law firm, and instead you get on that voter registration bus to Mississippi, even though the Klan is down there. You don't go to grad school this year because you're devoting yourself to your fieldwork. You don't seek that job promotion that you know is going to raise your income, because you also know it's going to require you to travel a lot and eliminate all your organizing time. Etc.
Commitment means there's no date when your courage, and the means by which you express it, expires. It also means you budget a minimum amount of time every day, week, and month you will devote to your activities, and you never fall below it, just like you devote 40 hours per week to your job. If you were trying to be a concert pianist, the idea that it would take three hours per day wouldn't phase you at all. Well, if you want to stop war, or the death penalty, or abusive private health insurance, or any and all of what you care about, you have to commit your time.
The realistic place to start is right where you are, at home, in your neighborhood, town, or county (depending on the size of your locale). You don't get grandiose and expand outwards until the starting point is firmly grounded and consistently running. Let people in the next town get started in their town. If you're handling your span of organizing control well, you'll meet soon enough.
www.commonplans.blogspot.com
No excuses. Just do it.
"just like you devote 40 hours per week to your job"
Who only works 40 hours a week these days?
Creating a complacent, non-original-thinking proletariat is the purpose behind the 60 hour work week. As Carnegie famously said (I'm paraphrasing), 'if I give them (my workers) the extra time off, they'll just spend it drinking. I'm doing them a favor by working them extra hours'
So both of you have totally missed my point. You cannot come up with some number, say 1 hour a day, or four hours a week, or some number, and some day, like Wednesday at 8 PM in the public library community room, when you'll meet every single week, like anyone who belongs to a bowling league? That's all it takes. That is, if you actually want to do things, which is what Herbert (and I) are wondering about.
So both of you have totally missed my point. You cannot come up with some number, say 1 hour a day, or four hours a week, or some number, and some day, like Wednesday at 8 PM in the public library community room, when you'll meet every single week, like anyone who belongs to a bowling league? That's all it takes. That is, if you actually want to do things, which is what Herbert (and I) are wondering about.
Bob Herbert correctly assesses all the problems: "The helplessness is beginning to border on paralysis. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly a decade long, are going badly, and there is no endgame in sight." .
"Monday morning’s coffee was accompanied by stories about suicide bombings in the heart of Baghdad that killed at least 150 people and wounded more than 500 and helicopter crashes in Afghanistan that killed 14 Americans.
Here at home, the terrible toll from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression continues, with no end to the joblessness in sight and no comprehensible plans for fashioning a healthy economy for the years ahead. The government’s finances resemble a Ponzi scheme. If you want to see the epidemic that is really clobbering American families, look past the H1N1 virus to the home foreclosure crisis.
The Times ran a Page A1 article on Monday that said layoffs, foreclosures and other problems associated with the recession had resulted in big increases in the number of runaway children, many of whom were living in dangerous conditions in the streets."
Bob's assessment of these symptoms and sorrows is correct --- and so is his assessment of the single underlying cancer causing all these problems "at home" and "abroad", which is the same assessment as Hannah Arendt --- "Empire aborad (always) entails tyranny at home".
Yes, Bob, "The nation’s political leaders and their corporate puppet masters have fouled this nation up to a fare-thee-well", because the nation (our country) is now almost fully controlled by a ruling-elite corporate/financial EMPIRE that is hiding behind the facade of its two-party 'Vichy' sham of democracy --- which Obama will not even dare to whisper about.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Thank you, Alan MacDonald, of Sanford, Maine
Sincerely,
Steve Greenfield, of New Paltz, NY
When I was a kid the old people would tell a story about a hypothetical man who was so lazy that his neighbors decided to bury him alive. The whole town was headed for the cemetery with the lazy man being hauled in the back of a wagon.
The company chanced to meet a man hauling a load of corn to market, and when he understood the situation he offered to give the lazy man his corn as a humanitarian gesture. The lazy man would no longer be a burden on his neighbors and the neighbors would not have blood on their hands.
The neighbors were relieved not to have to carry out such an odious chore and everyone was ready to return to town when the lazy man asked
"Is it shelled?"
"No" was the answer of the corn owner.
"Drive on"
This story is not funny, and the lazy man's fatal flaw was not laziness but apathy. Anybody who has been clinically depressed can identify with the lazy man.
Mental institutions are full of people who have simply decided not to deal with their problems. They have chosen instead to let their family or society deal with their problems.
I visited one such institution once. The inmates had to do chores to earn their food, time in the game room, and even the company of other inmates. All who refused to do anything were confined to their cells and given nothing to eat but a tasteless but nutritionally adequate liquid.
The same personality traits which were responsible for most of them who had committed themselves were also responsible for their choice to remain in their cells. It was a kind of suicide, except that they didn't have to do anything.
This can happen to whole societies. We know that nuclear war and global climate catastrophe are inevitable sooner or later unless we do some things differently and stop doing some other things.
We have apparently chosen to "Drive on". We do not actually sit in a cell, but we won't change our habits either.
George H.W. Bush said it best:"The American way of life is not negotiable."
Don't kill people. Don't become a soldier. Don't work for the military industry, even as a cleaning lady. Don't design bombs. Don't produce DU ammo.
Don't steal the government's money.
Don't repeat lies, especially if you're a journalist. Don't be a crook. Don't think of yourself as somebody who's clever because you screwed so many people.
Don't buy what you don't need, just because you want it. Don't trust your 'wants', because you don't know how come you came to want what you want.
Don't insult people. Make use of your brain, of your heart.
Have respect for yourself.
Be careful.
===
What seems best to me is to start small democratically-run, worker owned cooperatives, initially to sell products made in an econmically and environmentally just manner, and then, when sufficient profits has accumulated, start manufacturing such products.
This effort can begin in churches, schools and organizations that work for economic, environmental or political justice.
In fact we at the Grsssroots Coalition are now starting this process. Join us - grassroots1@pa.net
Given our ginancial limitations, it has to start small, but it can and will grow.
John Conner
Are you aware that Mondragón and the Steelworkers Union just yesterday agreed an initiatiative to start socialist businesses in the USA? They're going to use Mondragón's experience of turning a 5-engineers-and-a-priest paraffin-stove factory into the current €15G p.a. socialist business 'empire' that's into everything from basic research to retail groceries.
Have we a URL as well as the email address?
There are an infinite number of possible depths of analysis and it is virtually impossible to get a large number of people together at the same depth, as may be necessary for successful mass action, unless it is a very simple and surface one. Conversely, the corporatist elites have among them extremely sophisticated and capable people who can operate at great depths, and since there need be few of them, they can find a common level at which to operate and coordinate actions that is quite sophisticated.
One elite strategy I believe is borrowed from the martial arts, where the combatant uses the momentum of the other combatant against him/her. Every mass social movement, except maybe for the most pure in directly countering corporatist goals, such as the movement promoting economic equality, will be used by the corporatists against their foes. One good example is that of the Obama phenomenon, which was thought of by many to be the culmination of the struggle for African-American civil rights, but instead is being used by the corporatists who are taking that good will and positive momentum to complete the consolidation of corporatist power. I am afraid that the environmental movement can just as easily be used for corporatist gains, as can the women's movement and the gay rights movement. Note that the environmental movement has supported corporate toady Al Gore, the women's movement has supported corporate toady Hillary Clinton, and the gay rights movement has to some extent protected corporate toady Barney Frank.
My two cents is that the only way the left may achieve the solidarity and clarity of purpose necessary to successfully challenge corporatist power is to focus solely on achieving rough economic equality, by one means or another. All other leftist goals and objectives could be reached from there.
The movement that will bring all the others together is the peace movement.
All is lost with War!
We can't have good health care, sustainable economy, justice, clean air and water with War... not anymore with the ecology and human condition at the tipping point.
If we want a better life, we can't afford war any more.
kivals says:
"My two cents is that the only way the left may achieve the solidarity and clarity of purpose necessary to successfully challenge corporatist power is to focus solely on achieving rough economic equality, by one means or another. All other leftist goals and objectives could be reached from there."
Interesting idea...wherein lies the economic power of the corporation? Wherein that of the 'left'? Are the two not entwined? How can the left equal or surpass the corporation in this contest?
The source of all economic 'value' is the planet...the planet is the source of everything...my proposition would be taking the land back from those bankers and landlords who would claim ownership...to do so globally, en masse, at the same time, at gunpoint, if needed...
would this not be an example of achieving economic equality?
The problem lies in what follows such achievement, as the living world cannot support further generations pursuing industrial or chemical careers...which brings us back to local living...acoustic, agrarian...hunting, gathering and growing...and hoping we haven't contaminated things so badly as to be irreparable...
Some objective realities - the oligarchs have 95% of the media. They have 98% of the disposable income. They have 100% of the military, plus the CIA, FBI,and all the other repressive bodies at state, local, and federal level.
They have worked out an ideology based on individualism that seemingly resonates with a good chunk, probably a majority, of White America. They organize these (mostly armed) people for activism through their churches and right-wing media, and inspire them with the simple idea of "reclaiming" or "defending" "America's greatness," which is usually conflated with Jesus in some way.
Meanwhile, progressives or the "Left" have no such motivating concepts or organizing strategies. We are battling a 50,000 watt radio transmitter with a bullhorn.
I don't see how we can win this fight. I'm reminded of what Chris Hedges wrote the other day, quoting some Russian anarchist, "We think we are the doctors. We are the disease." To me, that means, "Don't try to fix (doctor) this society. Try to speed up its death throes."
I agree with Bob Herbert that we should be organizing. For one, what else do we have to do? And for another, knowing your neighbors and co-workers might help us survive the crash. But I don't hope for much more.
"
I don't see how we can win this fight. I'm reminded of what Chris Hedges wrote the other day, quoting some Russian anarchist, "We think we are the doctors. We are the disease." To me, that means, "Don't try to fix (doctor) this society. Try to speed up its death throes."
The Russian anarchist was Aleksander Herzen, talking about the Tsar.
Look whom and what in the end replaced the Tsar. What replaced what was killed was just as bad.
Remember that the Western-supported Whites started the terror and the Reds responded in kind. The corporatists will never, never, allow the opposition to win in a clean, blood-free manner. The elite predators, in our day corporatists, will make sure it is very clear that there are only two alternatives -- accept being enslaved or be prepared for a bloody and morally-problematic mess. That is obviously the right play for a group that has zero concern for the welfare of the great majority and is as ruthless as can be, and we should realize by now that our current crop of elite corporatists qualify as such a group.
The ideology the elite fascists bamboozle the rubes with is simplistic, but the strategy is not (convincing millions of people, no matter how unsophisticated they are, that Jesus supports and has always supported brutal fascism is a trick in itself). Once the useful idiots are finished with their jobs as foot soldiers in the battle to crush the remaining resistance to fascism, they will become expendable.
"The source of all economic 'value' is the planet...the planet is the source of everything...my proposition would be taking the land back from those bankers and landlords who would claim ownership...to do so globally, en masse, at the same time, at gunpoint, if needed..."
I would have no problem with that approach.
One house party, one street demonstration, one howitzer, one high-powered rifle--let it grow, and let the rich beware.
I'm not down for that either. And no, I am not a complete pacifist, sometimes it's good to have soldiers on your side. But why commit violent crimes?
Just channeling Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et. al.
Careful. Two of those three were slaveholders. None of them advocated shooting the rich. They were all rich. None of them were freeing "the people" from the tyranny of the rich. When they were done shooting, they created a rule of law under which only white, property-owning males, just like themselves -- a small minority even back then -- could participate in decision-making, and in which following their model of rising up against the tyranny of exclusion in armed rebellion was punishable by death. I sure hope you're not advocating anyone take up shooting on the principles of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et al.
I don't argue against armed struggle because it doesn't ever work. I'm aware of history. I'm arguing against it because it's not sufficiently more effective, or more frequently effective, than non-violent resistance, therefore totally fails to justify all the killing, maiming, and suffering, and has unstable results because to any degree to which it achieves even limited objectives, it reinforces the methodology for anyone who doesn't agree with the side that won, and so on. It's a bad idea.
Count me out on this crap. That's not how it works.
The evidence is widely available; the passivity related here finds its roots in the welfare state we have created; from seniors on subsidized medicare and social security (hypocritically arguing against a public option, all the while sucking on the state tit), to a government guided and regulated in complicity with insurance companies and medical facilities and providers resulting in absence of any personal accountability for expenses incurred at the individual level; to corporations (recently - banks and auto, previously - agribusiness, steel, and on and on) receiving every kind of support and subsidy; the list goes on. We have become a nation of people willing to seed our freedoms, the fruits of our labor, our very thoughts and opinions to the state and its various appendages (corporations, unions, political parties, etc.). A return to the simple vision our founders had; one in which personal freedoms were sacrysanct, government is correctly limited and always suspect, and personal responsibility reigned. I am perfectly capable of hanlding the bulk of my affairs, and of choosing who deserves my helping hand. I am repelled by the risk of losing my freedoms and choices with the threat of force, even mortal force, to bring about my compliance. As a simple example; I reject the premis that I should be forced by my government to deliver to undeserving individuals the fruit of my labor such that they might continue to behave without regard for my interests, but that I should act with regard to theirs.
to dpjr
WOW the shine on your brain is blinding me
how on earth did your brain get so clean
been watching fox news all day or was it rush limburger on the radio
blaming the poor will not solve our problems
but
it will keep the problems from being solved
Oh, and you, in yout onmscence, know who is "undeserving" and who isn't...
Think of it this way. The cost of giving healthcare to that undeserving individual you worry so much about living on the sidewalk will cost all of 0.004 cents worth of the fruits of your labor (I calculated it).
And, other people will be giving their 0.004 cents to save your ass if you are living in a gutter and get sick..
Ever thought of it that way?
What hooey. The Founders did not hold personal freedom sacrosanct (and they could spell, too), as evidenced by the preamble to, and remaining content of, the Constitution they wrote, not to mention how many of them were slaveholders who refused to sign on to the independence movement and The Constitution unless slavery was protected. In fact the only danger of government to which they all openly subscribed was in the area of armed forces. The Second Amendment was largely to provide for national defense without the requirement of significant standing armies -- the vision, as its establishment clause states, was that the right of the individual to own arms was inseparable from the need for that to be the center of our national defense posture. Would that gun proponents and armed forces proponents could get together on that founding concept -- you'd see a lot of gun control people sign right up.
But I digress. The point is the founders were very clear about personal freedom not being unlimited, both in word and deed. They were also very clear that the whole point of the amendment process was to allow future American societies to have recourse with our "holy" documents as times and technologies advance, so they didn't want to be held responsible for any decisions Americans would make two hundred years after their passing. In other words, they didn't want you quoting/blaming them in 2009. If your view is your view, than claim it as your view. Don't try to validate it by pretending it was the view of demi-gods, who were mere mortals, morally challenged, and not in agreement with you. It's bad enough the Christians always make the same claim, and the Republican so-called "originalists." They're wrong, too.
Steve, my hope for you is simple; that you never lose your misspelling righteousness by ever inadvertently misspelling a word (an apparently significant shortcoming you have, to this point in your life, avoided - good for you!)
I am happy to claim my desire to protect my personal freedoms, as well as my aversion to have them usurped by such as you. A simple rereading of the Declaration of Independence refutes your assertion, though, as you rightly point out, these are not "holy" documents, and their creators only men with opinions.
Why, though, did you avoid commentary on the meat of my rebuttal to the original article; that the passivity related is due to the broadening welfare state? It is with passion that I believe that, while there are certainly those (a fractional minority) who are in genuine need and arguably incapable of caring for themselves, the vast majority of government subsidies go to individuals and institutions who, rather, have made poor choices. As with a child who faces no consequences for bad behavior, they are affirmed in their choices by a complicit society, often because the institutions empowered to discern between genuine need and fraudulent need are incapable, either by regulation, litigation or apathy. On the other hand, I believe I can discern for myself which are the truly valuable social service providers based on my values, as I beleive you can based on yours.
One poster asked who am I to assume I can discern who the frauds are. A fair question, indeed. Rather you and I should discern than some politically motivated lackey, though. Assuming that you and I are serious about our commitment of time, talent and treasure to community service, aren't we best situated to learn and discern how our service is best distributed? Or are you of the elitist mindset which assumes most are too selfish, unsophisticated, or uninformed to make such judgements for themselves. From my reading of your other posts you do not seem so. The risk, of course, comes from those who consider themselves to be so enlightened. It is they who assume to know what's best for me.
I will end by saying respectfully that I welcome this debate and hope it can elevate us both over time.
Sincerly,
Don McGee
Melbourne, FL
I didn't contend with your core theme that the welfare state is the cause of passivity because you just said it, without evidence, like the assertions you made about the founders, so I assumed it to be a declaration of your personal faith rather than something you thought was convincing, either on the face of it or through evidence in its support. But if this is what you want, fine. There is absolutely no evidence to support your claim, and substantial evidence to refute it. Numerous western countries that are open and unapologetic about their evolution into social democracies and expansive welfare states have substantially more active citizens than we do. It's as simple as that.
The libertarian presumption that what's best for all of society aggregates when everyone does what's best for themselves is, as it has always been, total horseshit, and represents a single sentence cherry-picked from Adam Smith, a man who wrote eloquently about how much he did not subscribe to that notion. All that theory represents is the desire of an individual to feel moral when he knows he's a totally selfish jerk. Short version, if capital is always best invested in proportion to how market demand would absorb its products, then 90% of medical research in this country would be devoted to reversing baldness and sculpting figures, and millions of people a year would still be dying of smallpox (a plague through all of human history that was eradicated from the entire face of the earth, in just a couple of years, only by government action). I could give you around a thousand more examples, but I won't because the mountains of evidence against your core beliefs are ineffective, or you wouldn't still hold them.
OK? Now can we get back to organizing?
www.commonplans.blogspot.com
Interesting. Here I am open to classic learning through debate, and here you are knowing it all. My apologies for assuming otherwise! Fascinating use of labels, though.
DP
PS We have organized. Visit our sight www.clubesteem.com
Don't be cute. I don't know "it all." I do know some. You asked me about one thing. It's something I know about. I'm 48 years old and I've traveled a lot, and read the news, and talked to others. Full welfare states have more active citizens than the United States. That's a fact. It's also a fact that unfettered capitalism absolutely does not create the maximum good for the world's people and the ecosystems that sustain their biological ability to live.
If we were really having a debate, you'd simply show me where I was wrong in my two statements and the evidence to support them. I did what you asked, and you did not respond in kind. So debate was never your concern.
I was only guessing about the part where I said you would not find the evidence convincing -- I don't know you personally, but based on your boilerplate libertarian rhetoric, it was an educated guess. But you quickly proved me right about that, too. One bit of organizing advice -- you attract more people when you can make a reasonable case that what you're presenting is reality-based. Otherwise you're going to be doing a lot of work to create and maintain a small cult. But I know you'll have a great time talking about guns, and nannies, and drugs, and tyranny, and Ludwig von Mises, and John Galt, and what losers everyone else is, and that makes for a pretty good night, so by all means, go for it.
I think that you fail to understand both human nature and the purpose of social groups.
Humans make mistakes. It's part of the human condition. Indeed, as far as we know (and that's quite far) making mistakes is part of life. We know of nothing that lives that never makes a mistake in its life, though many individuals only make one.
Society exists not to be a 'shooting zoo' for predators, as psychopaths believe, but to be a buffer against predation and simple random disaster. That's its whole purpose.
You can live alone if you'd rather, never partaking in any way of the fruits of social work -there are still places on Earth where nobody wants to live. But your first mistake is likely to be your last one, too. Miss your footing and snap your ankle? Not see the rattlesnake? Be standing in the hundred-years-dry riverbed when the flash flood comes by? It's all over. You have to be either perfect or perfectly lucky. And there's no record of such a person ever having lived yet.
Or you can pay the price of having the insurance that a healthy society provides by its very existence (the US has a predator society at the moment. But that's due to change). Part of that price is that you help bail out people who, being human, make mistakes ('bad choices' in your phrasing). Of course, if you're sufficiently stupid AND lucky enough never to need bailing out, you can resent having to pay your share of helping other people recover from their mistakes or bad luck. But nobody *wants* to make a mistake or have bad luck, so a smart person would rejoice at their own trouble-free life, not complain about having to help rescue the less-lucky.
M, I am very pleased for you that you DO "understand both human nature and the purpose of social groups". I freely admit that my understanding, and more importantly, my influence over this nature and such groups is limited. I am, after all, human, and thus subject to the mistakes and miscalculations of "the human condition".
I am frankly confused by your allusion to the "shooting zoo" and the living alone thing.
As stated, I believe that most decisions for the use of the fruits of my own labor are best determined by me. Thanks to certain aspects of human nature, I have been the beneficiary of support groups, from family and friends, to AA. In each case those who supported me through my mishaps and missteps freely chose to do so, and in each case held me personally responsible for my subsequent behavior. Thankfully I now have the ability to pass it forward, as I do within my various social circles and communities passionately, by my own choice, targeting MY favored beneficiaries, and sharing my own resources as I see fit.
As for the "bailouts" I presume you to refer to, can I also assume you include those bailouts that fall outside of your preferred social support model, such as the recent bank and auto bailouts? I certainly don't support them, and, if given the freedom to choose would have withheld my own support. Of course, that freedom was usurped, with the threat of prison or worse, by my fellow citizens and the broadly reaching government most of them apparently support. This, of course, is the antithesis of the freedom I seek.
In the end, I trust YOU to support those interests that are consistent with your values, applying your resources as you see fit more than I trust others to choose for you.
I am frankly confused by your allusion to the "shooting zoo" and the living alone thing.
------------------------------------------
Most of those who oppose social goods such as safety nets and publicly-paid healthcare would get a 'psychopath' diagnosis (technically 'Antisocial Personality Disorder' these days) if it weren't for the embedded classism in the APA's diagnostic manual.
In general, the wealthy elites (and their minions and dupes among the non-wealthy-but-greedy) believe that society exists for the benefit of the few -- that 'all for ourselves and nothing for other people' is how anyone would rig things up if only they could.
I liken that psychopathic attitude to that of the cretins who think it's 'sport' to shoot tethered non-humans who are perhaps elderly or even have a history as someone's pet. Arthritic lions abandoned by a zoo, deer that were once hand-fed by children, and similar harmless creatures. The cretins then brag about their hunting prowess in the same way the economic psychopaths brag about how they got their wealth by their own personal hard work.
The only ethical way to refuse to pay into the common wealth is to stop tapping social goods. Live *totally* alone. Self-educate from the cradle, self-doctor, never read a book you didn't write in a language you didn't invent, never look at a picture you didn't draw, never walk on a pavement you've not laid yourself. Grow your own food from seeds you find in the wild, catch your own fish on fishhooks you make of bone with a knife made of flint that you figure out how to find and shape, make your own clothing from skins or from cloth you weave yourself on a loom you invent in a house you invented. *Never* take advantage of any part of the common human social heritage, because the only way to pay for all that went before is to build on it for those yet to come.
Too many 'Libertarians' think the world begins with their greed. They imagine that they sprang into being fully formed, owing nothing to anyone. It's a very convenient attitude, but massively immature. It's a 'Master of the Universe' fantasy in its way, universal in two-year-olds tho most mothers would say more virulent in boys, and it makes another appearance at puberty, when boys dream of having unlimited power, unlimited nooky, and no responsibilities. Note that there are relatively few women who become 'Libertarians' on their own. There's a reason for that.
---------------------------------
As stated, I believe that most decisions for the use of the fruits of my own labor are best determined by me.
---------------------------------
I wouldn't argue with that. Most such decisions properly should be yours to make.
But not all. Not if you want to be an ethical recipient of the myriad of social goods you depend on for your very life every single day of your life.
----------------------------------
As for the "bailouts" I presume you to refer to, can I also assume you include those bailouts that fall outside of your preferred social support model, such as the recent bank and auto bailouts?
----------------------------------
Not even slightly. Those 'bailouts' would more properly be termed 'fruits of extortion'. Only living creatures have a right to benefit from the common wealth. The people who pull the strings of the toxic, non-living corporations weren't suffering and had no right to demand a private social safety net of their own, which is what their extortion amounted to.
There is such self righteous arrogance and naivete in the libertarian view.
The assumption, as in free markets devoid of regulation, that people left to their own devices will always demonstrate a high moral principle--which totally defies the experience of history.
The law of the jungle of self-driven ambition at the expense of others is the corruptive force that raises greed to a religion and everything else be damned. It is cooperation that furthers the interests of the common good, and the reality is it requires restraint on those whose "personal freedom" is limited to their own entitlement when it ignores the rights of others to even survive.
Well said.
Thank you.
Vern: Good post!
dpjr and c cruz...
well said...the individual must return to primary prominence in their own sustenance...it is not the job of the distant farmer or local grill to provide food for you...grow or gather your own food...health care? stop eating crap and exercise...we live as ignorant infants, sucking on binkies, gorging on media...
the underlying principal strangling all of us is the requiring of money for land...land is taken by force, sequestered, raped for resources, and sold back to the highest bidder...therein lies the planet's, and our, peril, as the planet includes all of us, along with every other living thing here...
the flip side of the insanity of dependence upon money for necessities is the crzy notion that one who has money is successful, and need not do much else to help out, virtually regardless of how that money was obtained...
In the 1930's two things didn't exist that now do - the mass media and the American diet of processed foods.
In the 1930's there was no mass media - only radio and film had been invented. While it had some impact, there were only a handful of stations and most people read for information. Today, the growth and power of the media is almost unfathomable. Television, cable, satellite, video games, internet, cell phones, CD's, DVD,s, movies, imax, theme parks, etc. Americans live in a bread and circuses environment of Orwellian proportions. Reading forces you to think and consider what is written. Listening or watching television causes you to not think, to passively accept things. No wonder dictators prefer to use television and radio for propaganda rather than the written word. Maybe that's why the Soviet Union failed - the Soviet engine prefered paper to TV. Americans are a different story.
The other issue is the American diet of fast foods and processed foods served up by corporations. In the 1930's people cooked at home. Many lived on or near farms. They ate whole foods. Today they eat microwaved foods out of boxes, umpteen types of salty chips, factory-made foods laden with corn-syrup, and Wendy's and Taco Bell. I've heard that when lab rats are fed a diet similar to the Standard American Diet (SAD), they become passive and lethargic, unwilling to even go through a maze to get to the cheese at the end, or bother with running in a wheel. They just sit there, lazy and apathetic.
The end result: you couldn't engineer a more compliant populace if you were a dictator with the intention of doing so. Coincidence? In places like Argentina they banged pots in the street. There culture there and in other places outside the U.S.remains somewhat traditional - people still read, aren't surrounded by the media blitz, and eat traditional diets. I supect when change comes, it'll be from outside our borders first.
Thanks, Alex P. Jones. Like your libertarian buddy, you're completely wrong. There was mass media in the 1930's besides radio and film. That would be newspapers. That's how consent was manufactured prior to television and the internet. There were periodicals and newsletters. And by the 1930's radio and film were extremely powerful. The two political parties were not only fully machine-controlled, but much more openly tied up with violent gangster elements and private armed forces like the Pinkertons than today. But labor, racial minorities, and women fought for justice, and to a fair degree they got it.
I gotta go. I'm due back on Planet Earth.
The media of the 1930's and even the 1960's - notably print, was far more diverse and honestly covered genuinely newsworthy events to a much greater degree that the corporate media today.
You have read Herman and Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" haven't you?
If Gandhi or MLK were attempting to achieve today what they did back in their day, their causes would be ignored, and they would be regarded nuts with a tiny following - exactly like Rev. Wright. If like Rosa Parks, they comitted a CD action, they would be sent to jail in obscurity and that would be that.
And before you ridicule anyone who proposes armed struggle, it does, in fact have a pretty good record at effecting change through world history - twice in the last 234 years on this continent. We are a long way from that point, but surly, there must be a stage in any struggle where it needs to be considered.
I'm not arguing against armed struggle because it doesn't ever work. I'm arguing against it (not ridiculing -- that wasn't there) because it's not sufficiently more effective, or more frequently effective, than non-violent resistance, therefore totally fails to justify all the killing, maiming, and suffering, and has unstable results because it reinforces the methodology for anyone who doesn't agree with the side that won, and so on. It's a bad idea.
It's my understanding that we would be doomed, if it were not for a group of incorruptible, enlightened men who have the ability to galvanize BILLIONS of people into action....to finally solve our major crises, such as environmental degradation, hunger, extreme poverty, and war. They are about to step forward and begin working with humanity, calling on everyone who believes in a new way forward, away from greed and war.
The global peace & justice movement is ONLY BEGINNING.
Sharing = Justice = Peace
www.Share-International.org
Holy crap, pun intended. I just looked at the website. Wow. The situation here amongst the Common Dreams posters is worse than I thought.
Agreed but please don't stereotype Common Dreams posters based on this nut.
When you watch Fox News you see a well-funded, well-oiled smear machine dedicated to preventing any change to the status-quo by labelling it communism and unleashing the Tea Party attack dogs. Every change Herbert calls for is being fought, and anyone who stands up to pursue them is being targetted. Fox News won't tell its attack dogs that the crisis that are hollowing out the country are actually good for international business interests and hence its advocacy. While the ordinary young American is being targetted for third world status, great care is being taken to pull the attack dogs from those segments of the population who've benefitted the most from a previous generations largess (ex-military, rural folks, older folks on Medicare). Such people from the start can't feel the pain of others because society has been generous enough to them in the past and still is. Add a healthy dose of misinformation of the 'you did it all yourself' variety, and off they go. It helps Fox that these people are operating on faith, it makes it easier to train them.
In effect, America's corporations are engaged in training the very thugs that killed Andrew Goodman in '64. They are numerous, extremely well-armed, and WILL start killing people if they are pushed into a Fox-defined 'point of no return' corner (such as passage of healthcare legislation).
Herbert: "Americans have tended to watch with a remarkable (I think frightening) degree of passivity as crises of all sorts have gripped the country" Goodman's generation were, lets admit it, a little naive about the threat posed to them in Mississippi. Today, we are more like the Germans or Italians of 1930s, watching helplessly as no less than one-third of our countrymen goose-step their way into a glorious corporate future. Those folks are taking names, making lists, and preparing retribution. Under such circumstances, passivity may be the better part of valor.
I understand the argument for passivity. I do not buy it. In fact, there is another word for passivity, and that word is cowardice. It is not that the American people are passive. It is that they, like Obama, are gutless. Spineless. I think often of going to the Canadian border [a few miles from my home] and altering the sign at the border to read: Welcome to America, home of the terrified. And if people on Medicare are in some special well off category, I'd be interested in knowing about it. I am on Medicare, and Social Security. My total income is 1140 dollars per month, 100 of which is taken for the partial health insurance I get. No dental, no vision, and lots of doctors will not accept us, for the government will not pay the exorbitant fees they charge. I have been an activist all my life. I have nothing but contempt for the majority of Americans who allow 'passivity' [read cowardice] to destroy this once great country. I am a veteran, and proud of it. I love my country, but I despise my government. And I especially despise the corporations who own it.
Here here Michael C....I am in total agreement!
You can call it what you want, but we are channeling it right now. And I think the appropriate historical reference point to study and combat it is NOT America's civil rights movement as this article implies, but Germany's Wiemar Republic, and Italy's fall into fascism (see also Spain 1920s). In all three cases, corporations funded fascist parties and media who targetted immigrants, other countries, and leftists. They expanded debt and maintained permanent war-status (leading to World War) to explain and distract the debt. Then, as now, fascists encouraged a view of society that was two-tiered by bearing rather than class. Upright, forward looking, never wavering: all attributes I've seen literally promoted by Fox as indicative of 'truth'. Fox is telling its minions: 'Don't listen to what I said, listen to the way I said it'. Hitler gave much the same message. And, yeah, I think those of us who see parallels with Hitlers Germany are justified in being scared and reacting with cowardness. There are some forces of human psychology that are tidal in their outcome. Start with debt, target foreigners, permanent war, emphasis on 'bearing', Heil Hitler.
Read Bonner and Wiggins 'Empire of Debt'.
The economic parallels are especially frightening. People are now scared, and are being misinformed by Fox etal as to the source of their fear. Thirty years of supply-side economics are coming home to roost, and all that's left is to misdirect people toward a scapegoat. For many people, that scapegoat is named Obama, and the people surrounding him.
You sound like old Hitler and Fox News has you in a psyops prison camp.
So what if people are scared, how long do you want to be ruled by that kind of groupthink?
the real line of attack and defense will be found at the door to one's dwelling, the edge of one's property...under the guise of eviction and foreclosure...
that is where the economic realities of industry, law enforcement and incarceration meet the finite, dwindling resources of this living planet and the human business destroying such...
will you be alone in your financial plight at that moment, or will neighbors band together and provide defense and shelter? we must reassess the notion of private property, as it enslaves us all to the detriment of our living world...
service economies cannot self-sustain...
neither can planet-destroying economies, as we have no more planets...
the bankers and landlords vs. you and the living world...
that is the future...how many will fight with the bankers?
The question is not how many will fight, the question is, are you gonna fight?
that is right, sir, and yes...the time between now and then is for preparation...freeing one's mind from the current cultural grip is not easy...local food, water, shelter and alliances already in place will go far in relieving the individual fear of fundamental change and confrontation, a not unreasonable fear in a world typified by groups of armed officers assaulting already-bound individuals at will with no repercussion and robotic weaponry being fired at innocents from thousands of miles away...the core idea would be that many who currently side with the establishment, for whatever reasons, would cease to do so that day...
the interwoven fragility of our living world and the industrial tyranny of our current society, together, threaten all existence...a united, global movement to retake the physical planet for the sake of the living planet is the only way to prevent the death of all things...
Global Start Date: September 22, 2012...time to plan and plant...
Seriously - is it so difficult to understand why we 'average' Americans have all but given up 'the fight'?
My folks were environmental activists for 30-some years - and said environment is worse now than it's ever been...
The anti-nukers - also 30+ years... and more nukes than ever, including the new, sexy bunker busters!...
We worked our asses off and still lost the 'war on poverty.' Not just lost - the score was like 52-3...
And, every single day, we read about how 'our' government is owned by Big Bankster and their Big Everything Else partners, and about how they so easily bribe 'our' Congress with peanuts to never, ever actually represent the will of The People...
Front page, right out in the open: "Frankly, they own the place." Not renting it, not leasing it - THEY OWN IT!
And, since we know that any owners of the government with both the mightiest military, and mightiest private armies, in history ain't giving up the reigns without a fight to the death, we Americans have decided that living like this is still better than being shot by a Blackwater mercenary working for a ruthless Goliath just for holding up a sign and walking in circles...
This passivity and sense of helplessness most likely stems from the refusal of so many Americans over the past few decades to acknowledge any sense of personal responsibility for the policies and choices that have led the country into such a dismal state of affairs, and to turn their backs on any real obligation to help others who were struggling.
===================
I came across a statement by an american poet -- but I no longer can remember his name:
"WE AMERICANS ....CAREFULLY NURTURE AN ATTITUDE OF DETACHED INDIFFERENCE TO THE SUFFERING OF OTHERS...EVEN IF *WE* ARE THE CAUSE OF IT".
IS the perfect amalgamation of "america".
despite fine, conscientious individuals...it is now a "nation" that can only be described as has BEEN described - by people high or low, famous or unfamous:
:"....the PEOPLE are CORRUPT"..Benjamin Franklin
"...we are a Nation of Racketeers"..General Smedley Butler, US marines
"...an Accident...a Disastrous accident"...Sigmund Freud
"...hubristic and arrogant"
"...the most entertained and the least informed"
and America "the nation" keeps JUSTIFYING those definitions.
America trying to "change" the world?
isn't there a line that goes:
"PHYSICIAN, HEAL THYSELF?"
I really dont know that there is much that we can do about it, anything reasonable that is.
The politicians are all corrupt, no matter who you vote into office. The politicians are also controlled by the corporations and the lobbyists. The media is controlled by the government. The people are not longer represented by their government.
There are only a couple choices really and they are not easy or comfortable to entertain. And if the people decide, there will be no turning back.
Please. Workers were powerless against owners when the labor movement got started. Blacks were powerless against Whites when the civil rights movement got started. Women were powerless in the workforce (and practically everywhere) until they organized. All eventually became extremely powerful. To the extent that they are less powerful today, it is because of backing off their organizing, not because anyone is inherently powerless or powerful.
You're missing Herbert's theme. It's the elephant in the progressive living room. Almost nobody amongst us actually organizes. The blogosphere hasn't helped -- we've all decided to be writers instead of organizers, as if powerful institutions will leap into existence if enough people read about the need for them. But what you have to do is organize -- from scratch, in your own town or neighborhood. The goal is to become a lobby as powerful as the regressive lobbies. None of them grew into power overnight. IBM was once a ten-key manufacturer in a small town in central NY. The entire Hughes empire came from a drill bit, and in only 30 years was a manufacturing, entertainment, and travel empire, before defense contracts even came into the picture. General Electric was once a poorly educated guy in New Jersey with a light bulb he built at home. And you don't need patents, lawyers, government contacts, and Ivy League educations to do it. The Crips started out as a small, neighborhood street gang, and achieved nationwide power without benefit of high school diploma. Everything that is now large and seemingly unassailable got started and was built.
Get started, and build. Herbert is right, and everyone here who is criticizing and complaining about him, his column's parent company, and the immutability of powerlessness is wrong. Get started, and build. Build until you're as big as you need to be to get what you want. www.commonplans.blogspot.com
Right. And do it now. It is true that we who have been on the front lines against environmental destruction and against the increasing power of corporations have so far lost. It does NOT mean the fight is hopeless. And even if it is, we can not go down without a fight. 30% of the colonials in N america fomented and ran and fought a revolution. Very few blacks stood up for their rights. Feminists were scorned by their own female contemporaries.
FUCK APATHY. FIGHT FOR OUR GRANDCHILDREN!!!
IT IS NOT so much that the "politicians are all corrupt" ONLY.
it is that AMERICA "the PEOPLE are CoRRUPT" ..as Benjamin Franklin long ago ALREADY OBSERVED.
mind you -- he phrased it by linking the FUTURE to the PRESENT character of what he already was seeing:
"should this nation fall...it SHALL fall NOT because of foreign enemies or threats, real or imagined...but because the people ARE Corrupt".
the politicians - where there is no longer a case of just " a few bad apples " but the ENTIRE system of governance is corrupt
can ONLY be explained by the nation-wide Tacit agreement , or TOLERANCE of THE PEOPLE to have such a system driven to such corruption.
it is the ACCUMULATION of CHOICES by the collective will of americans -- shared throughout the nation -
which starts with LOCAL politics, then town-wide, then city-wide, then boroughs and districts, then state, then federal...
you add it all up like little stones and pebbles
and it all becomes a MOUNTAIN of corruption.
but WHERE does it really start?
in the conscience, the PREFERENCES , the CHOICES of the everyday american.
therefore - it can justifiably be said that while there are no perfect nations or cultures or people...
NO CORRUPTED SYSTEM has evolved with SUCH COMPLICITY by an entire culture and people AS america.
if anything - this CORRUPTION - that is so intrinsic and so ESSENTIAL to america - is really an example of what the German writer Friedrich Nietsche called "WILL TO POWER"...
AMERICANS WILLED Themselves to POWER (and brag about it as "american ruggedness and ingenuity and hardwork..and all other ingredients that have led to hubris) --
and what they WILLED is CORRUPTION as the way TO power.
Thanks, Teddy, for stating the obvious.
Pogo's long ago comment is being proved more and more critical with each passing crisis.
'We have met the enemy and he is us!'
So stop being the enemy... your surrender to Corruption is your own failure.
Pick yourself up off the floor.
What is it with the defeatist attitude of these first ten posts?
Demonized? This story is about people who got murdered. You're afraid to be demonized? How come the teabaggers aren't afraid to be demonized? Why isn't Dick Cheney afraid to be demonized? Why aren't the Christian Right and the NRA afraid to be demonized? All of them are demonized, and justifiably so, but they keep on plugging away, and they keep on getting their way.
Bob Herbert using his column to encourage the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine will do nothing, given that the Fairness Doctrine only applies to two themes, both of them called Friedman, that is, Thomas or Milton. Both "sides" of the Fairness Doctrine promote the same theme -- American global hegemony. You're barking up the wrong tree.
Bob Herbert is also not The New York Times. He's an opinion writer, and the Times, for all the obvious faults of its editorial policy as manifested in its "news" stories, publishes a diversity of opinions, and Herbert is valid as Herbert. He's the only mainstream pundit in America talking boldly about there being no such thing as a jobless recovery, and the social crisis time bomb that pretense is building. No one can touch him in speaking plain truth.
Most important here is his reminder that the only institutions that work are the ones we create ourselves, which is the only thing we as individuals control. We can't change the Fairness Doctrine to include the full spectrum of opinion. All we can do is skip over the Fairness Doctrine completely by organizing and communicating in forums of our own creation.
Ask Herbert where to start? It's your neighborhood, not his. Ask yourself. Look around you. What needs fixing most? That's where you start.
And all of you, so far, are finding reasons to declare him wrong? The struggle for change is overly ambitious? Egomaniacal and megalomaniacal in its own fashion? A NY Times conspiracy? Wow. Who are the real surrender monkeys? Is this the Common Dreams readership? What are we to expect of less ideologically homogeneous readerships? Why is so much money coming in on that thermometer every three months? So the publisher of CD can make a nice living by providing us a comfortable whining zone in which we massage each other into surrender? This is pathetic. The Democrats are spineless? No, they just know that we are, so they're free to ignore us, and have plenty of spine as they do that. Progressives of today don't deserve the weekends the labor activists of yesteryear fought and died for. Died for -- people with families, shot on picket lines, murdered in their homes. And you're claiming we can't organize today because we'll be demonized. Do you people even make a reflection in the mirror?
No, you can't change the world by organizing in your neighborhood. But you can change your neighborhood. And when a critical mass of neighborhoods have been changed, you can step back and see that the whole country has changed. That's how it works. That's how it's always worked, and there are no reasons, only excuses, for claiming it can't -- or shouldn't -- be done now. Especially when the regressives are doing it, and so aggressively and relentlessly, and so successfully.
No excuses. Go out and do it. Getting started is simple. Go to www.commonplans.blogspot.com for pointers that definitely work.
Right, Steve. And some few of us are 'doing', while the rest sit in their recliners with a beer watching tv [where they will never see us, because the owners of the tv companies and other media - 5 of them, worldwide] don't want the public to know we are out here. There IS hope. If you are a veteran, join Veterans for Peace, for we are becoming a force in the nation. Or join Iraq Veterans Against War. If you are not a veteran, join your local Peace and Justice Organization. And give your self and your family the biggest gift of your life - put your television in the dumpster and never look back. It will alter your life forever and for the betterment of you and your children. It is the biggest weapon in the arsenal of the super rich and the corporations. Kill your Television.
You said it Steve.
It takes lots of dedication to fight for change after reading most of the defeatist surrender ramblings on Common Dreams.
Still, I see changes in the world.
Sure things are gonna get worse, a lot worse.... that is why we are here to make our own lives better and help our friends and neighbors if we can.
.
When millions of Americans marched to oppose the invasion of Iraq the New York Times ignored the protests with a vengeance. When millions of Americans seek to discover the truth about the events of 9/11/2001 the New York Times ignores their calls for a meaningful investigation with a vengeance. When millions of Americans shout warnings about global warming the New York Times ignores their cries with a vengeance.
When labor laws that protected workers attempting to organize a union were gutted the New York Times supported those changes. When bankruptcy laws that protected ordinary people were gutted to benefit the banksters the New York Times supported the banksters. When George W. Bush for eight years administered the worst presidency in history the New York Times failed to do its duty to judge his errors harshly.
If the New York Times would really like to lead the cause of change in the United States they would fire, for cause, every member of their editorial board, and their publisher should fire himself with Bob Herbert leading the parade out the door.