Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Calling All Rebels
There are no constraints left to halt America's slide into a totalitarian capitalism. Electoral politics are a sham. The media have been debased and defanged by corporate owners. The working class has been impoverished and is now being plunged into profound despair. The legal system has been corrupted to serve corporate interests. Popular institutions, from labor unions to political parties, have been destroyed or emasculated by corporate power. And any form of protest, no matter how tepid, is blocked by an internal security apparatus that is starting to rival that of the East German secret police. The mounting anger and hatred, coursing through the bloodstream of the body politic, make violence and counter-violence inevitable. Brace yourself. The American empire is over. And the descent is going to be horrifying.
Those singled out as internal enemies will include people of color, immigrants, gays, intellectuals, feminists, Jews, Muslims, union leaders and those defined as "liberals." They will be condemned as anti-American and blamed for our decline. The economic collapse, which remains mysterious and enigmatic to most Americans, will be pinned by demagogues and hatemongers on these hapless scapegoats. And the random acts of violence, which are already leaping up around the fringes of American society, will justify harsh measures of internal control that will snuff out the final vestiges of our democracy. The corporate forces that destroyed the country will use the information systems they control to mask their culpability. The old game of blaming the weak and the marginal, a staple of despotic regimes, will empower the dark undercurrents of sadism and violence within American society and deflect attention from the corporate vampires that have drained the blood of the country.
"We are going to be poorer," David Cay Johnston told me. Johnston was the tax reporter of The New York Times for 13 years and has written on how the corporate state rigged the system against us. He is the author of "Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense and Stick You With the Bill," a book about hidden subsidies, rigged markets and corporate socialism. "Health care is going to eat up more and more of our income. We are going to have less and less for other things. We are going to have some huge disasters sooner or later caused by our failure to invest. Dams and bridges will break. Buildings will collapse. There are water mains that are 25 to 50 feet wide. There will be huge infrastructure disasters. Our intellectual resources are in decline. We are failing to educate young people and instill in them rigor. We are going to continue to pour money into the military. I think it is possible, I do not say it is probable, that we will have a revolution, a civil war that will see the end of the United States of America."
"If we see the end of this country it will come from the right and our failure to provide people with the basic necessities of life," said Johnston. "Revolutions occur when young men see the present as worse than the unknown future. We are not there. But it will not take a lot to get there. The politicians running for office who are denigrating the government, who are saying there are traitors in Congress, who say we do not need the IRS, this when no government in the history of the world has existed without a tax enforcement agency, are sowing the seeds for the destruction of the country. A lot of the people on the right hate the United States of America. They would say they hate the people they are arrayed against. But the whole idea of the United States is that we criticize the government. We remake it to serve our interests. They do not want that kind of society. They reject, as Aristotle said, the idea that democracy is to rule and to be ruled in turns. They see a world where they are right and that is it. If we do not want to do it their way we should be vanquished. This is not the idea on which the United States was founded."
It is hard to see how this can be prevented. The engines of social reform are dead. Liberal apologists, who long ago should have abandoned the Democratic Party, continue to make pathetic appeals to a tone-deaf corporate state and Barack Obama while the working and middle class are ruthlessly stripped of rights, income and jobs. Liberals self-righteously condemn imperial wars and the looting of the U.S. Treasury by Wall Street but not the Democrats who are responsible. And the longer the liberal class dithers and speaks in the bloodless language of policies and programs, the more hated and irrelevant it becomes. No one has discredited American liberalism more than liberals themselves. And I do not hold out any hope for their reform. We have entered an age in which, as William Butler Yeats wrote, "the best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity."
"If we end up with violence in the streets on a large scale, not random riots, but insurrection and things break down, there will be a coup d'état from the right," Johnston said. "We have already had an economic coup d'état. It will not take much to go further."
How do we resist? How, if this descent is inevitable, as I believe it is, do we fight back? Why should we resist at all? Why not give in to cynicism and despair? Why not carve out as comfortable a niche as possible within the embrace of the corporate state and spend our lives attempting to satiate our private needs? The power elite, including most of those who graduate from our top universities and our liberal and intellectual classes, have sold out for personal comfort. Why not us?
The French moral philosopher Albert Camus argued that we are separated from each other. Our lives are meaningless. We cannot influence fate. We will all die and our individual being will be obliterated. And yet Camus wrote that "one of the only coherent philosophical positions is revolt. It is a constant confrontation between man and his obscurity. It is not aspiration, for it is devoid of hope. That revolt is the certainty of a crushing fate, without the resignation that ought to accompany it."
"A living man can be enslaved and reduced to the historic condition of an object," Camus warned. "But if he dies in refusing to be enslaved, he reaffirms the existence of another kind of human nature which refuses to be classified as an object."
The rebel, for Camus, stands with the oppressed-the unemployed workers being thrust into impoverishment and misery by the corporate state, the Palestinians in Gaza, the civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the disappeared who are held in our global black sites, the poor in our inner cities and depressed rural communities, immigrants and those locked away in our prison system. And to stand with them does not mean to collaborate with parties, such as the Democrats, who can mouth the words of justice while carrying out acts of oppression. It means open and direct defiance.
The power structure and its liberal apologists dismiss the rebel as impractical and see the rebel's outsider stance as counterproductive. They condemn the rebel for expressing anger at injustice. The elites and their apologists call for calm and patience. They use the hypocritical language of spirituality, compromise, generosity and compassion to argue that the only alternative is to accept and work with the systems of power. The rebel, however, is beholden to a moral commitment that makes it impossible to stand with the power elite. The rebel refuses to be bought off with foundation grants, invitations to the White House, television appearances, book contracts, academic appointments or empty rhetoric. The rebel is not concerned with self-promotion or public opinion. The rebel knows that, as Augustine wrote, hope has two beautiful daughters, anger and courage-anger at the way things are and the courage to see that they do not remain the way they are. The rebel is aware that virtue is not rewarded. The act of rebellion defines itself.
"You do not become a ‘dissident' just because you decide one day to take up this most unusual career," Vaclav Havel said when he battled the communist regime in Czechoslovakia. "You are thrown into it by your personal sense of responsibility, combined with a complex set of external circumstances. You are cast out of the existing structures and placed in a position of conflict with them. It begins as an attempt to do your work well, and ends with being branded an enemy of society. ... The dissident does not operate in the realm of genuine power at all. He is not seeking power. He has no desire for office and does not gather votes. He does not attempt to charm the public. He offers nothing and promises nothing. He can offer, if anything, only his own skin-and he offers it solely because he has no other way of affirming the truth he stands for. His actions simply articulate his dignity as a citizen, regardless of the cost."
Those in power have disarmed the liberal class. They do not argue that the current system is just or good, because they cannot, but they have convinced liberals that there is no alternative. But we are not slaves. We have a choice. We can refuse to be either a victim or an executioner. We have the moral capacity to say no, to refuse to cooperate. Any boycott or demonstration, any occupation or sit-in, any strike, any act of obstruction or sabotage, any refusal to pay taxes, any fast, any popular movement and any act of civil disobedience ignites the soul of the rebel and exposes the dead hand of authority. "There is beauty and there are the humiliated," Camus wrote. "Whatever difficulties the enterprise may present, I should like never to be unfaithful either to the second or the first."
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop," Mario Savio said in 1964. "And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all."
The capacity to exercise moral autonomy, the capacity to refuse to cooperate, offers us the only route left to personal freedom and a life with meaning. Rebellion is its own justification. Those of us who come out of the religious left have no quarrel with Camus. Camus is right about the absurdity of existence, right about finding worth in the act of rebellion rather than some bizarre dream of an afterlife or Sunday School fantasy that God rewards the just and the good. "Oh my soul," the ancient Greek poet Pindar wrote, "do not aspire to immortal life, but exhaust the limits of the possible." We differ with Camus only in that we have faith that rebellion is not ultimately meaningless. Rebellion allows us to be free and independent human beings, but rebellion also chips away, however imperceptibly, at the edifice of the oppressor and sustains the dim flames of hope and love. And in moments of profound human despair these flames are never insignificant. They keep alive the capacity to be human. We must become, as Camus said, so absolutely free that "existence is an act of rebellion." Those who do not rebel in our age of totalitarian capitalism and who convince themselves that there is no alternative to collaboration are complicit in their own enslavement. They commit spiritual and moral suicide.




388 Comments so far
Show AllWon't someone, anyone, write a comment?
Why didn't you write one?
q
What else is there to say?
Not bad, Chris.
Revolution is fine with me as long as the members of the controlling elite suffer and suffer quickly and horribly.
How do we get to the ones that we can't see? Easy; just start eliminating the ones that we can.
Unfortunately, these monsters have the money to put countless drones between the rebels and themselves and many people who simply cannot understand what Hedges is saying will suffer. Perhaps their suffering is inevitable or if it's even possible to get there.
The corporate leaders will see to it that children die - as many children as possible. As these bastards look at it, if they need more workers then they can always create more children.
The French Revolution succeeded when the situation for most people became so dire that the army turned against the royalty. I wonder how far we are in the US from that breaking point.
BTW, Hedges lists the Jews among the groups which will be targeted for exclusion. I'm pretty sure that he doesn't mean zionists.
q
My suspicion is that the soldiers of the French army in the eighteenth century were more intelligent and better informed about the power structures in their own country than American soldiers are now at the dawn of the last century. So I'm not optimistic. As always, our armed forces, national guards, police forces, etc. etc. etc. will be making common cause with the right-wing wacko groups and their fascist masters.
And as long as they're paid, they'll behave like every other instrument of state repression throughout history.
My suspicion is that as far as Jews are concerned, Hedges is right: Lots of them will die. The rich ones, just like the rich pasty-faces, will retreat into their gated communities, complacent in the belief that they will manage the slaughter from a comfortable distance.
I have been suggesting our bastille day for a while.
This is a brilliant article by Mr. Hedges, which makes us examing the way we interact as humans. This is not a condition that is peculiar to America. It is how power is achieved even in a democarcy.
We again come up against our existence, and the dichotomy between those in the know and those outside of the that sphere of incfluence.
What do you know? You will come up against people who things differently than you, and people who choose not to know things at all. At some point, you will assume the role to be a politician, to campaign for what you know is right.
Who you know is all important, and that is why the college system becomes important. And in the college system, as we have seen in california, those who can establish themselves with the power brokers children go on to make good. The others end up protesting. Even there, those who already have the power dictate things. Ok, so now YOU WANT to be in their position.
Let us say that the Utopia Hedges suggests comes to fruition. (How it would is another story- how do you pick and choose who to eliminate from the power hierarchy? why do you eliminate them?) So let us say that only what you know becomes important, and we are all only working towards the commong goal of common good.
So no one "rises" in the system? and who judges that?
Who establishes what degree of Greed is ok? and its starts with things really small, because we are not talking of a world where goods are not that abundantly available, for our moral green conscience should technically speaking not allow us to produce.
I dont know the right way, I just think we have too many laws already, and to radically jerry the system to be more equitable more of us will need to speak louder, and some of us will have die for it. And once we have the leaders of that movement, they will become the targets of some new mcCarthy's, and new emperors.
And so the cycle goes...........
Love
Zero
"Revolution is fine with me as long as the members of the controlling elite suffer and suffer quickly and horribly."
You completely missed Chris's, and more specifically Camus' point. We must consider revolt as a means in and of itself, for a validation of this otherwise incompreghensible thing called "being". Otherwise, we are just waiting for Godot, death, nothingness.
Chris picked a very tough way to sell revolt in in this impressive manifesto. But, I suspect that Existentialism is pretty foreign a concept to most USAns.
No, I don't believe that I missed anything. I simply added my own observations about revolution and considered some of its ramifications.
If we (the non-elites) are going to define ourselves through our response to desperation (including our death) then I wish to define myself not by the particular action that I choose to take (or in the way that I end my life) but in my choice of whom to affect (take with me).
Please reconsider this quotation from the article: "'There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop,' Mario Savio said in 1964."
Hedges is inviting us to consider how we will apply ourselves when things become unbearable; he is not simply indulging in some depressing ritual of navel-gazing.
Just making yourself cannon fodder would be meaningless.
From the article: "We must become, as Camus said, so absolutely free that "existence is an act of rebellion."
Freedom, as Kristofferson famously wrote, means that you have "nothing left to lose."
q
There is a god. She sent Chris Hedges.
Thank you Chris for the pure and singular beauty of your courageous example of one who cannot be bought.
The vast majority of Americans are utterly clueless regarding how far the US has fallen and exactly how dire circumstances really are. Public schools have been transformed into medium security prisons, our universities have been bought by the corporate military industrial complex
There's a nation of people utterly bereft of education and humanity.. Times are dark, and an ill wind blows across the land.
Chris Hedges knows what time it is.
"The vast majority of Americans are utterly clueless ..."
You may be right but the vast majority of them - according to poll after poll - see the US going in the "wrong direction."
There is potential out there! We can't allow the mainstream to channel this energy rightward!
"Public schools have been transformed into medium security prisons..."
Really? Interesting how an article about the collapse of a society is twisted into an indictment of the only social construct that brings people together.
Fascists always have the answers, simple as they may be.
good article, but c.h. leaves out the fact that nature is becoming more violent toward us who are despoiling her. the impact of this fact on our future, political & otherwise, is unpredictable.
in any case, if you want a group to target for political action, might i suggest the d.c. public transportation sector, the washington metro area transit authority? striking workers here could shut this whole country down. besides the fact these workers are treated like crap by WMATA, something i learned 1st hand riding various bus routes extensively for a job in N. VA. outside DC, 1/3 of the DC work force takes metro to the job.
shut 'em down.
Agreed. There's three huge trains all headed for the same intersection, all loaded for bear, and as self righteous and ego bound as possible. They are: Political, economic and environmental. What good will come out out of this disaster remains to be scene, but this much is sure, they will all impact each other and the environmental and natural disasters will both encourage and mitigate the other two extremes in ways expected and unkown!
" If we do not want to do it their way we should be vanquished. This is not the idea on which the United States was founded."
I disagree. The USA was, in fact, founded on crushing those who couldn't defend themselves from the latest technological gadgets.
Whatever happened to *their* revolution?
And do working class Americans think they can defend themselves any better than the Cherokee? Perhaps we have all grown used to the idea of being herded into little potemkin "prolo reservations" in front of our TVs and cinema screens?
What technological gadgets? The industrial revolution would not reach the US until almost four decades after the US was created.
q
I think he means guns.
The native population of America was easily identifiable and separable from the gringo population. That conflict was a genocidal war, not a revolution.
It does not matter what technological gadgets they have to use against us. We are enmeshed in the body of America; any violent action taken against us will kill the entire body. We are like a cancer spread throughout every part of the American body. In it's current weakened state, it will not be able to stand the cure.
Thank you Chris, for calling it as you see it. I fear you may be one of the most accurate analysts I see on this or any other site.
That we are a dumbed down and distracted society plays into the hands that hold and retain power here. There is always that reactionary anti-progressive tendency that can be rallied by fear-mongering and paranoia, the George Wallace voters in 1968 and '72, the Perot campaign in '92. The "tea party" folks now are a latest manifestation.
The high hopes cultivated by the Obama campaign will add to a cynical, hopeless period on the left among those who hoped for a quick fix. It won't be quick; it will be a struggle, the same struggle it has been since the fight for the 8 hour day, for women's right to vote, for civil rights, and every other progressive issue. Organizing and struggle...for health care, for peace and justice, for the environment, for education.
Even when you have pessimism in the head, you need optimism in the heart. Fight back, feel human, do what you can; don't just wring you hands or sulk. We need to figure out how to fight together.
We already know how, Joe.
Again, and again, we hear the end is nigh and yet ANY reasonable suggestion on how the people can do things in a united, coordinated fashion gets ignored, or unspoken, or dismissed. Maybe, I´ll try, yet again myself here. Obvioulsy, I everyone else here to write a comment, too. But cd´ers are becoming quite pathetic in their "sky is falling" admission while doing absolutely nothing to encourage realistic--and potentially quite powerful resistance.
For example, yesterday in Iceland over 90% of the people took it upon themselves to vote a resounding "NO" to a plan that would force each person to pony up tens of thousands of dollars to pay back to England for example, the losses created by the USAmerican-copying banksters who ruined their economy. The people said no.
How about a general strike?
How about joining a union, or creating one at your workplace, where most USAmericans spend 40+ hours of their lives weekly, and force companies to treat people better and pay better wages alonwith better working conditions.
Ever heard of a 35 hour week? Or 4-6 weeks PAID vacation yearly? or...
SINGLE PAYER...where anyone who gets sick gets treated for free?
All those things Europeans--and others--fought for, usually starting with their unions, demanding, then fighting for on the streets.
Get off your computers and get together--start in your workplace, then your neightborhood and spread it from their. Jesus people! Do something!
"Get off your computers and get together--start in your workplace, then your neightborhood and spread it from their. Jesus people! Do something!"
What are you doing?
I don't mean this in a snarky way, I'm just starving to hear what others here on CD are doing. Maybe we could join up if we're neighbors.
A first big step would be to read the comments; otherwise, nobody will know that Ted wants to meet or communicate with you to promote solidarity.
I would assume that he has read the comments in full but is concerned about the quality of some of them. Someone once talked about quantity vs quality and I have wondered the same on the bigger blogs and forums having thousands of comments per article. I would rather read 300 comments at the most per article than 10,000 per article because the fewer the number, the greater the odds of more thoughtful discussion that could actually help. Contrary to what I used to believe, I don't think he opposes posting at all but worries about whether the Internet's advantages are slipping into disadvantages similar to what happened to TV and radio.
The first part of the article seems to reiterate an idea of Zizek's (which he attributes to Benjamin, who probably would attribute this insight largely to Marx's writings on the French Third Republic), that Fascism is consequence of failed leftist revolutions. So, America's shift to the right is largely a reaction to the failed "revolutionary change" of Obama. It is largely debatable whether America 2010 is similar to the 1920's Weimar Republic or in the case of Zizek.. the former Yugoslovia- but certainly worth contemplating as a serious "terror" possibility.
As for the existential rebel stuff... without a vanguard or revolutionary class, that anarcho view may feel good, but in the bigger scheme of things is largely symbolic.
I agree with Hedges.
But if his notion of "revolution" is quotations from Camus and Mario Savio ( I was at Berkeley at the dawn of the Free Speech Movement and all that ensued, by the by) I have no idea what that will look like, but it surely will not look good.
Some weeks back I cited a Robinson Jeffers poem titled 'Shine, Perishing Republic,' and was called every kind of hopeless defeatist in the book.
So be it.
Although I enjoy and am inspired by Hedges' rhetoric, it somehow leaves me cold as far as a practical guide to action beyond "rebellion." I found Robert Jensen's March 2 piece, where he interviews radical activist Abe Osheroff, to be closer to where the fight takes place "on the ground."
I agree with Hedges that we are sliding towards a corporate totalitarian state, and enough pieces are in place to suggest that it is already here, just ask all those "illegal aliens" incarcerated in what amount to black sites hidden away in office parks in our cities. Or ask all those people who are on "no fly" lists compiled by Homeland (Fatherland?) Security. Most people don't know or undertand what is taking place, or are glad that the government is acting to "keep us safe."
I also believe, with another poster, that nature is not giving us much time to get it right or start to reverse, let alone stop, the damage we do. I think rebellion at this point may simply lie in understanding and speaking out against what is happening to each other, to nature, to the planet. Those kinds of connections are not part of the discussion.
"nature is not giving us much time to get it right or start to reverse"
This comment implies the existence of a universal external conscience that discerns right from wrong.
Only humans make that assertion. To assume omnipotence has been our unnatural downfall from the beginning. Certainly we continue to practice the righteous arrogance that will destroy us. It would make more sense to assume that our species has been an inglorious freak of nature and the sooner we destroy ourselves the better.
This is indeed a brilliant manifesto.
Lets make it so! EVERYONE to DC - MARCH 20 - LAFAYETTE PARK.
No excuses.
www.march20.org
If you can't make it to DC, get to a demonstration near you. Portland, Oregon or Seattle for West Coasters? San Francisco?
Good article. I'm confused though, Hedges has stated he's a Christian and even written a book denouncing atheists. The last paragraph seems to contradict that stance. Just wondering.
One can be a Christian - furthering the values Christ spoke of, without also buying that being nice and pasive while waiting for the the sweet by-and-by-pie-in-the-sky nonsense.
In fact, Christians invented Existentialism way before it was re-discovered by Camus, Sartre or Beckett.
I figured as much, thanks. Don't hear about that type of Christian much anymore in this country.
Buddhists were existentialists long before the followers of John the Baptist invented the fictional Christ.
Agreed.
The Buddha was an existentialist at least 1000 years before anyone else, although he he presented a far less despairing prescription to it than Camus or Sartre did, nor did he even need to resort to a paradise after death like Jesus did.
None of this "the only serious question in philosophy is whether to commit suicide" (Camus), or "Hell is other people" and all that "nausea" stuff of Sartre.
As far as whether a historic Jesus Christ actually existed or not, or for that matter whenther Siddhartha Gautama Buddha existed or not, does not interest me much. What is important is that the teachings attributed to them are valid.
Beat me to it.
Christianity is really just a mixture of ancient Judaism and Buddhist philosophy anyway.
q
Good point. Why would a hater of atheists be quoting atheists like Camus? desperation, perhaps?
Can you cite a source for Mr. Hedges's supposed "hate of athiesm"? Accusing someone of being a "hater" is a strong accusation, You need to back it up.
I think corvo is confusing C. Hedges with C.Hitchens.
more hedges brilliance, and for a change, most posts here as well.
as hedges points out, the cunning of the corporation is merciless. we are a country divided. the rebels will be cast aside as the sheople buy obama's slick talk and palin's tight skirts on fat thighs routines.
quickstepper, i agree with all you say except for the killing of children. from the corporation's point of view, wouldn't it be easier to rid the children of their strength: mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, and grandparents? much easier to manipulate the young through a false sense of security, controlled by deep fear. the 10 year old rebel is much easier to break than the 40 year old rebel.
the "monkey wrench gang" concept is perhaps the only means of taking back what is ours, and is perhaps something we should all be practicing. if there's a better way, i'm all for it, and am open to suggestions.
"from the corporation's point of view, wouldn't it be easier to rid the children of their strength: mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, and grandparents? much easier to manipulate the young through a false sense of security, controlled by deep fear."
You make a good point.
My view is based on the fact that the adults have the skills that the corporations need right now and threatening the lives of their children is what the elites see as the easiest way to control them.
Yes, the ten-year old is easier to break but he or she can't provide skilled labor.
But perhaps you're correct. The corporations so far have been successful in convincing skilled workers that they can be part of the elite. That is, until their jobs are outsourced.
q
The corporate culture doesn't need to do any more than it already has to our children: financially crush their parents so much that the parents have little time to spend with their children, so the children are plopped, at an early age, in front of the boob tube to begin their indoctrination into the consumptive (pun intended) media culture.
Later, the children will be ready for dehumanizing violent and sexist movies and video games, insipid TV "dramas" and "comedies", then iPhones, iPods, iPads and the Internet so they can remain passive, electronically-addicted drones easily manipulated by the corporate-militarists who run everything.
For one antidote, see https://www.adbusters.org/ View some of their brief videos and spoof ads.
"the "monkey wrench gang" concept is perhaps the only means of taking back what is ours, and is perhaps something we should all be practicing. if there's a better way, i'm all for it, and am open to suggestions."
Agreed. How do we monkey wrench the system?
My suggestion is to do it economically. But that will require us to embrace austerity and to form community with others to do the same.
Are there other ways?
My suggestion is to work at political reform politically, not via economics. We need to separate the two realms in our thinking as a first step.
In very general terms, the wrong people are making the decisions, and that should be the focus of our efforts. Change the political structure so that the people make the decisions, not a bunch of mere politicians.
Decentralize. Abolish the Congress. Become a true democracy.
No austerity is required, only concerted action. But the prerequisite to that is a much clearer vision of the problem.
I tried that, even got a t-shirt for my troubles.
Good luck, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
Agree 100% about Monkey Wrench Gang, direct action gets the goods and works, when I was in California we saved a couple of groves of Redwood trees by direct physical but non violent confrontation with power.
In fact the only disagreement I'd have with Hedges is he seems to imply the U.S. as a Federal government collecting taxes is going to survive all this which I doubt, I think revolution will come from the bottom up first as random events like the nut in Austin with has airplane, but eventually leading to revolts against *both* the governments and corporations in whole regions like northern California, Oregon, and places like Vermont. I believe the long term outcome of this won't be a Federated U.S. but rather people taking care of everyone and the environment in bioregions without need of governments or cops through cooperative syndicalist arrangements. At least that is the dream. I personally think the U.S. government is played out and not worth saving, that a Republic is just more monarchy where the proles are pacified by the pretense of choosing pre selected people in a jeerry rigged system not all the different than voting in the Soviet Union. The only difference is that here it is money instead of a party elite selects amongest itself who they are going to present to us a "leader" to rob and control us. Fuck "leaders" and hierarchy!
First things first though Hedges is right we need to abandon reformist thinking that the Dims are going to save us and start rebelling against the fascists currently in charge to save ourselves. Only we are going to be able to save ourselves no government is going to do it for us.
I suspect that popular and large-scale actions meant to defend America’s civil society against the work of its polity and the global economy will fail if they take the form of an insurrection. My suspicion springs from my belief that the observation and crowd control techniques now available to the security-surveillance technocrats and their political controllers will prove to be vastly superior to the methods used in the past. Briefly put, crowd control today need not be bloody to be efficient and effective thanks to the developers of Long Range Acoustical Devices and other kinds of potent but non-lethal weapons. Likewise, contemporary surveillance technologies need not depend on informants to be effective. Both efforts mostly require a working electrical grid and the will to use the technologies already at hand.
Given this constraint, what method might a present-day resistance movement take from the past? The general strike, for one. Why choose this method? Simply put, the general strike makes sense today because massive and complex social systems like we have in the United States need the governed — the overwhelming majority of those living here — to conform to its norms and methods. They sputter and cough when the lower classes fail to conform to its ways. America’s worker bees must work, consume and obey! Goods need to be made and distributed, water needs to be cleansed, the electricity must remain flowing throughout the grid if the system to function effectively. It also helps when the worker bees stay sober much of the time, pay their taxes, obey the traffic laws, refuse to shoot Pentagon Security Guards or annihilate federal office buildings. Camus’ weak and insignificant individuals have social roles to play. They may be unimportant as individuals. But the social roles they occupy must be filled if the society in question is to function adequately. Because these worker bees are needed, insofar as they fill their worker bee roles, and because they are not wholly without significance, they can always seek to make their historical marks in solidarity with others. They need only act to affirm their personal humanity and also the humanity of those others who share the common fate of weakness and insignificance. They need only to act collectively and reasonably under the circumstances of the moment. Solidarity is the antidote to personal insignificance.
I believe a general strike would not only express the presence of this self-organized solidarity, it would also enable the weak to circumvent, in part, the techniques of control and observation now in the hands of the powerful. It promises to be both morally justified and potentially effective as used.
Political success is not guaranteed, however and unfortunately. Acting also has its risks; so too a failure to act.
General strike yes absolutely, and hopefully that's enough. However if it isn't I am *much* more confident we can fight back and win against the security forces. We have all the resources available to us that the insurgents have in Afghanistan to fight back with and they are fighting the U.S. military to a stalemate. Further he military would have to use far more restraint here because if they attack civilians widely it won't just be us on the left fighting but the militia people as well, I strongly believe that even though they disagree with us ideologically that they wouldn't stand for U.S. military attacks on civilians, most would understand that would be their dreaded New World order in action.
My brief and obviously under-supported reply: There are social and political problems with the insurgency option. Among them I would include:
First, an insurgency would militarize America’s civil society and deepen the militaristic biases found in American politics. I cannot think of any reason whatsoever to hope that a militaristic politics or an armed insurgency would serve to promote freedom and solidarity, democracy and social rationality. Such a politics would, I believe, normalize violence as a political technique. Arms, not reason, would resolve all conflicts. El Salvador during its civil war, Lebanon decades back, Afghanistan since the late 1970s and Iraq since the 2003 invasion provide just four examples of societies that have fallen into this quagmire. There are more, of course. Each example points to an outcome sensible Americans would want to avoid, I would think. They would wish for this because catastrophes of this kind remain relevant for quite some time. Indeed, the United States has yet to recover from its Revolutionary and Civil Wars!
Second, a durable insurrection, one that would not quickly fizzle out or end in a crushing defeat, would likely spawn political organizations that would threaten if not directly vie for state power. They would manage pose this threat whether or not they meant to undermine the existing state. Opponents of the current regime might consider this threat and the possibility it indicates a desirable outcome Americans would want to achieve if they had the choice before them. A much better world — who but the evil sort oppose this kind of future? Yet, this utopian future must also be assessed in light of its dystopian alternative: Not only would America’s existing “liberal democratic” state respond to the threat with force, the very nature of the insurgency along with the revolutionary situation it generated would produce organizations constructed to manage the emergency that had replaced normal social life. These organizations can be expected to create dictatorships when they become sole holders of state power. After all, once they secure state power, they tend to mobilize the forces at their command to restore order or to create a new order. Necessitas legem non habet (Necessity knows no law), as the maxim goes. The rule of law would become a practice of the past, so too the security and minimally rational control it provides.
Assuming the truth of this line of reasoning, I believe sensible Americans, should they opt for the insurrectionary option, would thus find themselves participating in what looks to be a lose-lose situation: They would be active or passive supporters of the dictatorship in power or the dictatorship in the process of coming to power. Speaking for myself, I’m not a proponent of any form of enlightened despotism. Despotism is just that — tyranny or dictatorship. The government produced by the resolution of the revolutionary situation would initially stand before “the people” as such and before individual Americans as an actual threat to democracy and freedom or, in the worst case, as the realized destruction of democracy and freedom.
Third, an insurrection or civil war would not only destroy the old regime if it proved to be successful, it would also destroy some or a lot of the old society worth preserving. Consequently, the post-insurrection society and its government would need to rebuild some of what was consumed by the civil war. This point leads me to pose a rhetorical question: What sense does it make to destroy homes, farms, capital and infrastructure in an age marked by resource depletion and growing global consumption of the resources which remain? There is little sense in destruction of this sort.
Fourth, I would not count on any current or prospective and likely American government exercising restraint when it comes to controlling an organized and violent opposition movement. It is prudent to expect the governors to defend their positions along with the positions of the economically and socially powerful. What from their point of view makes the new technologies desirable? I believe it is the non-lethal and massive output of these weapons. Putting a million people on the Mall in Washington, DC is impressive up and to the point when a sitting government can deploy weapons which quickly pacify the whole crowd without killing anyone. The near effortless pacification of so many protesters most be considered a significant act in itself. It signifies the futility of directly and actively confronting a government possessing these capacities. The ‘beauty’ of the technology: It enables the government to pacify society while preserving its hoard of worker bees!
I also would not count on the federal government backing down when it confronts home-grown terrorist attacks and guerilla war-making. We already know that the federal and many state governments have already failed to practice restraint in the past. This history also includes the recent past. The present situation does not indicate that the elite have learned not to use violent and destructive methods when they believe these to be necessary. It does not care if it jails, tortures and murders its own citizens. Why, after all, did the government create NORTHCOM if it did not intend to use the capacities located there. Besides, producing a military stalemate in the United States is not at all an attractive goal for radical democrats for the reasons I gave above.
The upshot: The ability to take the fight to a militarized government is neither a necessary or sufficient condition for achieving desirable social and political goals. Civil war may actually be counter-productive.
To my mind, self-organization, solidarity and the use of the general strike form the basis of any feasible and defensible strategy for the left.
Obviously we should try general strikes and other non violent tactics first and foremost. My only point was that *if* those don't work I don't think we are hopelessly screwed and we keep forging forward.
Heges notes:
"The engines of social reform are dead. Liberal apologists, who long ago should have abandoned the Democratic Party, continue to make pathetic appeals to a tone-deaf corporate state and Barack Obama while the working and middle class are ruthlessly stripped of rights, income and jobs. Liberals self-righteously condemn imperial wars and the looting of the U.S. Treasury by Wall Street but not the Democrats who are responsible. And the longer the liberal class dithers and speaks in the bloodless language of policies and programs, the more hated and irrelevant it becomes. No one has discredited American liberalism more than liberals themselves."
Now that is speaking truth to power and to the Lip Service liberal/progressive class!
Amen!