Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Rocky Times Ahead: Are You Ready?
This isn't a future you can, or should, face alone. How to make sure you don't have to.
"I don't believe the economy is getting better," says Billy R., a member of a mutual aid group in Oregon that he jokingly calls "my reality support group." "All around me I'm surrounded by media and advertising urging me to keep borrowing, buying, and sleepwalking. I love meeting with others who are staring down the potential risks and challenges of the future."
Maybe more of us could use a reality support group.
Even with the announcement that the official unemployment rate fell to 9.4 percent, millions of people remain in dismal economic straits. The pace of home foreclosures has barely slowed and millions remain out of work. Even upbeat scenarios still assume protracted unemployment and economic stagnation for much of the decade ahead. The unspoken scenario is that things could get worse.
Can forming a small group like this really make a difference, when the problems we face seem so overwhelming? History tells us they can.
So here's the point: you must not face the future alone. Find your own "reality support group" (we'll tell you how below). This year, make a resolution to deepen your relationships with people around you with whom you can face what's coming down the pike.
Sometime during the next couple of years, there will likely be a fundamental shift. It might be another economic meltdown along the lines of 2008, or a shock to the economy thanks to a rapid spike in energy costs. It could be a series of extreme weather events that result in flooding, drought, or unprecedented heat waves. Think Hurricane Katrina on a larger scale. These changes could lead to food and water shortages-and test our personal and community preparedness in ways that we have not experienced in our lifetimes.
You should know that we, the authors of this piece, are not apocalyptic, bunker-building, pessimistic people. We're both parents, gardeners, and active in our neighborhoods. We like a good football party-though we root for different teams (Patriots v. Steelers).
We believe our society has almost everything we need to build stronger communities, reduce inequality, live in harmony with the earth, and make a graceful transition to a new sustainable economy. But we won't get there ignoring the data, and we won't get there disconnected from one another.
We're not talking about yet another issue campaign. We certainly need to remain engaged in the good fights around economic justice, peace, democracy, the environment. But there is something huge missing right now in our approach to social change. Our social movements are weak and, with some inspiring exceptions, not changing the political dynamics. The "Net Roots"-online organizing and social media-are creative ways to aggregate money and power in specific situations, but online activism is not a substitute for a movement based on durable and trusting face-to-face relationships. In some religious and labor traditions, this is called solidarity.
Fearful, Alone, & Ashamed
Presently in the United States we are witnessing the emergence of politics based on fear and the erosion of status. Millions of people saw their livelihoods and dreams collapse in the aftermath of the economic meltdown. People lost their homes, jobs, savings, and sense of a positive future. They've had to adjust their expectations-for example, facing the reality that they may never be able to retire or improve their standard of living.
Some people respond to these circumstances by blaming themselves and feeling ashamed about their difficulties. Many are hunkering down, feeling depressed and withdrawn. In the U.S., we tend to think everything is about the individual-even blaming ourselves for things that are largely beyond our control.
Others of us respond by scapegoating others, often those more disadvantaged. These responses often come from a place of fear, isolation, and shame.
There is good reason to be angry and focus on powerful financial and political actors who are responsible. But, as in the grieving process, we must move from anger to a place where we can boldly face today's difficult realities and also initiate pro-active responses. We can start by learning to accept and live within new limits set by economic and ecological reality. Many people are already deliberately moving away from the old economy, and they're finding new types of security and abundance. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they often feel much richer than they did in lives defined by the "work-watch-spend" cycle.
Rebecca Solnit, in her remarkable book A Paradise Built In Hell, reminds us to look for the "shadow governments of kindness," the deep reservoirs of resilience and compassion that emerge during disasters and troubled times. All over the planet, people are defying the stereotypes of the self-centered "economic man" and instead caring for one another, building alternative economies, and deepening solidarity.
A Movement to Build Economic Security
The good news is people are already coming together in small groups to form and strengthen relationships. Some are called "common security clubs," while others go by names like "mutual aid groups," "resilience circles," and "unemployed support groups."
Call it what you want, but the purpose is the same: getting together regularly-8 to 15 adults-to face ecological and economic change. Small group organizing is part of the missing architecture in our social movements ... which may be why it's catching on so quickly.
Such groups are designed to strengthen our personal and community resilience. They typically have three purposes: to learn together, support one another through mutual aid, and engage in social action.
Learn together. It's hard enough for each of us alone to keep up with news about the ways our changing economy and ecology are impacting our lives. But it's particularly challenging to face unsettling realities in isolation. In order to move forward, we need a community to help us learn and figure out how to deal with our fear, anger, loss, and feelings of betrayal.
Group members watch videos, read articles, talk to each other, and organize forums. Since the "experts" mostly got things wrong two years ago, participants are investigating things for themselves. What's really happening in the economy? What caused the economic meltdown? What's changed? What are the ecological risk points? How will the decline of cheap, easy-to-get oil affect the future economy? What will a transition to a new economy look like?
Mutual Aid. Our mutual aid muscles are out of shape. We need to find ways to increase our real economic security and web of support through shared resources, skills, experience, and capacities. Some folks do this through extended families, religious congregations, and ethnic and fraternal associations. But millions of people are disconnected from extended family and the immigrant and civic associations that helped earlier generations survive. And many religious congregations have gotten out of the practice of being centers of mutual aid.
Common security clubs often gather around potlucks, sharing food and recipes for healthy, low-cost meals. They support one another to get out of debt, brainstorm about employment options, share tips on saving money. They form bartering circles to swap skills, tools, and time. They talk about the challenges of parents moving in with children, children moving in with parents-and adjusting to new norms and limits as a result of the changing economy and future.
Social Action. Many of us want to make meaningful change at the local and national level. We want to find ways to constructively channel our anger and fear to resist further Wall Street destruction of our local economies. We want to act together in ways that go beyond online petitions or phone calls to our member of Congress. Think "affinity group" or "social action group"-a place to deepen our effectiveness as a small unit, but be part of larger movements.
Common security clubs in particular have worked for national policy changes, from universal health care and Wall Street financial reform to the extension of unemployment benefits. Many clubs, animated by the "break up with your bank" and "move your money" efforts, relocated personal, congregational, and other funds out of Wall Street, and into community banks and credit unions.
Other clubs have connected with community-wide "transition" efforts, inspired by the Transition Town movement sweeping England and now moving U.S. communities into action. Transition neighborhoods and towns proactively prepare themselves for climate change, economic hardship, and the decline in easy-to-get oil and cheap energy-with its huge implications for transportation, food security, building design, and our standard of living. Within the broader initiatives, small personal groups like common security clubs provide a place where people can meet to practice mutual aid and reciprocity. Both transition towns and common security clubs are integral components of building needed personal and community resilience.
A Few Stories
Encouraging stories are emerging from common security clubs and other mutual aid groups.
A group of unemployed workers in Maine created a resource sharing exchange. They met regularly at the library and laughed so much the librarian didn't believe they were economically struggling.
A group in Greenfield, Massachusetts calls themselves "the neighbors" and meets monthly to check in, sing together, and practice mutual aid. On another night they meet for a monthly game night-what one member called "fun and affordable entertainment."
In Fort Wayne, Indiana, a network of Unemployed and Anxiously Employed Workers meets weekly and has formed committees to help educate one another about computer use, unemployment insurance, stress management in tough times, and green job opportunities. "Part of our work is to help face the unemployment bureaucracy so people get their benefits," said Tom Lewandowski, a founder of the group. They invite people leaving unemployment offices to join the group. Members volunteer at libraries on Sunday afternoons to help unemployed workers file claims online.
Small Groups in Social Movements
Can forming a small group like this really make a difference, when the problems we face seem so overwhelming? History tells us they can. At many crucial moments in our past, small groups have played an essential role in incubating the seeds of great change.
During the Great Depression of the 1930s, more than 27,000 "Share Our Wealth" clubs formed to discuss the causes of the Depression and advocate for a radical program of wealth redistribution.
Also in the 1930s, seniors organized "Townsend Clubs" to advocate for old age pensions-a formidable social movement that added to the pressure to establish Social Security. By 1936, more than 8,000 Townsend Clubs had been formed with over 2 million members. In ten states-including Oregon, Colorado, California, Florida, South Dakota-there were more than 50 clubs per congressional district.
In the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, people formed nonviolent direct action groups to engage in sit-ins and keep up morale. Activists rooted in faith-based congregations and tight-knit communities were able to take greater risks knowing that if they should be jailed (or worse), there were others to care for their children and elders.
The women's movement was built upon small consciousness-raising groups, which enabled millions of women to reflect on their identity. "The personal is political" was experienced in thousands of face-to-face gatherings, ultimately shifting gender attitudes throughout the society. The anti-nuclear movement in the late 1970s formed "affinity groups" as part of direct action efforts to prevent power plants from being built.
In the labor movement, the success of organizing female clerical workers into trade unions depended upon an organizing approach that included small support groups. Large mega-churches have grown upon a foundation of "small group ministry" in which members connect through smaller, face-to-face groups. A growing number of organizers today are examining the "power of networks" in social movements.
Given the challenges we're collectively facing in the present, where are such movements today? It appears that without a lived experience of "solidarity" in our personal lives, it can be difficult to respond to an abstract call for the common good. It may be that small group organizing is central to our hopes for broad-based change.
|
How to Start a |
Potential Shock Points
There is good reason to believe that the next 10 years are going to be very different than the 10 years prior to the 2008 economic meltdown. Persistent unemployment means that millions of people may live out the decade in an economic depression.
Moreover, the underlying economic structures that brought on the collapse have not been addressed. We remain at risk for more financial nosedives. As a result, new Wall Street economic bubbles and busts may emerge. The "danger" light on the dashboard is still flashing...
In fact, the future could bring any number of "shock points": another economic meltdown along the lines of 2008; a further increase in unemployment, even to 20 percent; more extreme weather events (hurricanes, floods, droughts, heat waves); new spikes in the cost of energy; rapid deflation as the value of money falls; a dramatic increase in the cost of food; and/or shortages of fresh water.
Because of the extreme inequalities of income and wealth that have opened up over the last generation, the brunt of these changes is falling, and will continue to fall, most intensely on lower and middle income and disadvantaged folks. But these changes will touch everyone in various ways, even those who believe they have built a wall of economic security around their families.
These are some of the reasons people need to face the future together and strengthen the social fabric of our communities. This is not a future you can, or should, face alone.
The Transition to the New Economy
Eight million jobs in the old economy are not coming back. But new jobs, enterprises, and livelihoods are emerging. We are seeing vibrant new kinds of enterprises in the local food sector, green building, and alternative transportation, as well as locally rooted cooperatives and producers. These are the pieces of a new economy that is emerging piecemeal around the country-an economy based upon entirely different models of economic growth and indicators of community health, and also new conceptions of wealth, community, and governance.
This new economy includes financial institutions invested in the real economy, like community banks and credit unions walled off from the Wall Street speculation that adds no real value to our economy. It includes respect for "all that we share"-our commons of public and private institutions such as libraries, schools, or agricultural knowledge. It is based on sound management and protection of the gifts of nature including water systems, seed banks, and land conservancies.
In the current political moment, leadership for large-scale transition to this new economy will not come from Washington, D.C., but from movements around green jobs, local manufacturing, alternative transportation, regional food, and more. This is a moment for each of us to reflect on our own power and agency. We each have a role to play, but perhaps we aren't sure what it is yet. This is where your small group is important. Small groups help disconnected individuals find their roles, turning them into community players who contribute to the movements toward the new economy.
If we are prepared for a transition, we will be in much better shape than if we simply hope life will somehow return to normal. If we have our "core group," we can face changes with less fear and more sense of our personal agency. Together, we will be able to work toward an economy that works for everyone.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


115 Comments so far
Show AllIt was the New Deal that has saved this country from total economic collapse. Why the Democrats don't tout this is suspicious. It has also made the WEALTHY PREDATORY CAPITALIST WELFARE KINGS wealthy beyond their wildest imagination even though they would never admit it as they are egomaniacs and attribute their success to themselves while bribing politicians to transfer the wealth of others to them.
Oh come on. The poorhouses, the old-age homes, the asylums of the not-so-distant past were worse than death. With the political thinking of this country always moving "right," charity is not going to solve our problems.
'Charity' should be outlawed. It is our government's obligation to take care of its people.
Would the church folks then support their government?
Charity means that the fortunate few decide who gets what and when. Public programs mean that the many make that decision - as a community.
Since the current social structure is based on control with money being ancillary to that, it is control that we most need, not money. Money is the mechanism for controlling us, not the control itself. The rulers - bosses, landlords, management - are more than willing to part with a little money if it helps them retain control.
For humans at least, evolution, ceased being based on mere strength, and flourished more and more, based on social strengths and disciplines. When faced with danger from either within or without. virtues like sharing, compassion, cooperation, and a helping-hand became the strengths that insured survival. Only by building a stronger social network will capitalism survive. The overwhelming desire for wealth must be replaced by an overwhelming desire for common good. The US may have the strongest military in the world, but otherwise our society has seriously weakened. How much longer will be able to care for our basic needs if we continue down this path of materialism, wealth, and greed?
The history of the labor movement is a good example and reminder of what mutual support and solidarity mean. Too bad contemporary labor seems to have largely forgotten or ignores this lesson.
The rest of us don't have to, though. The idea of mutual help and having informal networks of people who will listen, suggest, and help as they can, is a good one. Just remember that if there's money involved, access must always be through a democratic process with multiple approvals required.
---------------------------------
I would rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for what I don't want and get that. -- Eugene V. Debs
The Deb's quote is a great example that CHANGE occurred outside the 2 main parties.... the 2 main parties are great at soaking up all that energy and dropping it into a black hole......
True progressives CANNOT be a part of this democratic party and be progressive.....
that's akin to being anti-drug and going home every night to shoot up heroin.....
and remember:
Change you can believe in: beleive means not having to THINK
and Hope = not having to ACT
I pretty much agree with that, but you know not everyone is ready to hear what you said.
I prefer Jamie Court's ideas for refusing a seat at the table and working to change from the outside.
The Dem Party drains and mistreats volunteers. I realize ymmv but I experienced on a variety of occasions how volunteers were spoken of by paid OFA employees, not that all of them are bad. Nothing drains enthusiasm like getting more and more involved in the Dem Party. I suppose if I went in with a corps of likeminded people to take over the Party change would be possible but people are pretty readily compromised and seduced to remain silent, look the other way, go along to get along.
Anyway, black hole seems particularly apt in my experience though I do understand there are people who are more successful at subverting the knuckleheads and shortsighted morons often ruining the Party at local levels, no offense to the good ones.
the Share the Wealth Club's were a Huey Long creation..
Huey Long stated he wanted a Maximum Wage in America - just as we have a Minimum Wage.....
Here's a good Idea: rip out your Lawns and plant a garden.....
Food Not Lawns - google it....
We're heading for a hard time considering that:
1. 80% of new income is on Wall Street
2. The top 6 banks are bigger than ever - and now control 64% of GDP - up from 17% when Clinton passed his Financial Modernization Act(that worked out well for them didn't it?)
so plant a garden, buy a canner(and share it w/ neighbors, buy up plenty of mason jars and lids etc
and to keep from getting too depressed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKEZoY-TMG4 dirty f$%*ing hippies were right
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yge311sFhC8 song for wall street - Jump you fuckers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMTv44FHG3Y hard times come again no more
I think they haven't thought circumstances through to their logical conclusion. That is that poverty will become absolute.
No amount of community will prevent children dying from hunger and lack of medical care.
Here's something the article doesn't propose.
FIGHT.
FIGHT to stop oppression and exploitation.
And I can't stop thinking of the young man in Tunisia who killed himself in desperation, in powerlessness, in humiliation, in hunger, in betrayal, in impotent anger.
He and his community tried self reliance too.
But even that isn't allowed by evil.
They don't just want to exploit us, they LIKE it when we suffer.
Are you suggesting the individuals become lone wolves or do they need to learn to trust others and build little seeds of community at the same time?
The focus of the article isn't on fighting. It's on organizing and building each other up.
This isn't about armies of one.
Most of us are near impotent when we act alone. Most of us need practice building/organizing before "fighting". Otherwise, you might as well invite people to murder themselves out of frustration.
We live as individuals, and have to learn to come together as we, before we can fight.
I strongly sense people want to skip what it actually takes to effectively fight, directly to the fighting, where we have little chance.
Organizing to fight back is not the same as organizing to help people surrender.
No, it isn't. And it's a very odd thing for you to say.
Getting everyone in the streets is a pipe dream. I see a lack in ability to organize altogether and these as beginnings. These efforts don't put organizing in a box, but are potential seeds to things greater.
Does organizing like this make future organizing in a way that you approve of, more possible or probable?
It's easier to just call it surrender then do the work that you can do now.
Getting people in the streets is a matter of survival. Call it a pipe dream if you like, but you are couching your preference as though it were a prediction.
Organizing like this is for the express purpose of suppressing any serious resistance from happening. It is time to put childish fantasies away and stop lying to ourselves and others about this.
If it were not true that organizing like this is for the express purpose of suppressing any serious resistance from happening, then there would be no cause for you to have problem with what I am saying. If I came to your small group and said the exact same things I am saying here, you would still have a problem with it. That is because your claims here about the value of this are misleading and disingenuous.
Your condescension and attempts at a personal smear are noted. Rather than address what I am saying - which you cannot do and still defend the small group idea the way you are here - instead you are trying to characterize critics in various pejorative ways through insinuation. If I had any doubt whatsoever previous to your remarks that the purpose of this idea is to suppress serious organizing and solidarity, your responses have erased it now.
Same old same old.
You want the fight without laying the foundations. You seem to be against local organizing that doesn't involve immediate "fight" and I have already heard multiple times why that is the case. You want fight, fight, fight. Fine, urge others to fight as single individuals and watch them be crushed. That would suit your worldview wouldn't it. I am not in disagreement that fight is necessary but if you really want people working TOGETHER to fight back, these are the necessary steps, building movements locally, more cells of political association, discussion, and mutual education and support.
But no, you ignore and ridicule what others would build because you want to jump to some more advanced step and "fight" back whatever that even means to you. I hear over and over from the same who want to burn the place down so their dream can rise from the ashes. Any things that would reduce the suffering or patch a broken system must be resisted because ruin is necessary to deliver their particular utopia.
I am a little tired of those who are so lazy and self-righteous that they would attack our only ways of ever fighting back that have ever worked.
Who flagged the above comment? That's very mean.
Anyway, I suppose I should elaborate on my post.
Sure, we should do what we can to make our lives better, and the type of organising as laid out in the original article will in all probablity become the norm.
But it will not stop the grinding down of the masses by the capitalist class nor alleviate the effects of envirinmental degradation.
Only after people have tried everything will they see that the system itself has to be changed rather than accommodated.
I did not flag the comment, and would never do that.
This is a straw man argument, and your remarks about the messenger rather than the message are ad hominem attacks.
I did not take any such position as you claim and then criticize here.
If I didn't have the personal insight that I do, your accusation of logical fallacies would be more powerful to me.
If you were responding to what the other person said, rather than trying to raise suspicions about them = which is a form of ad hominem attack - your "personal insights" about the other person would be irrelevant, wouldn't they?
You make excellent points, Morticia.
The article is from Yes Magazine, so I suppose it tries to stay on the sunnny side of things. And while poor people getting together for a laugh now and then is a positive thing, it doesn't change their circumstances. Perhaps, the article is just too general, although I still applaud its solidarity ideals.
At some point, all organizing must focus our collective brains. People must understand cause and effect under the system. That's actually painful to grasp. For instance, unemployed people need to know that former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan used to talk about there being a "natural unemployment rate." It was something like seven percent, if I recall correctly. That is, under (Milton Friedman) capitalist thought, unemployment is needed to ensure profits for investors.
There are many such "modest proposal" assumptions under which we live. The concept of "military Keynesianism" is another ugly concept that keeps us poor, kills people abroad and makes the rich even more wealthy.
People need to be educated about the system. And let's call it for what it is - capitalism and plutocracy for the one percent. The next step, I'm afraid, is to destroy the system. Now, how anyone can communicate all of that - and still have fun together in a group - is a tall order. Really, it will take fun to keep it together somehow.
-TIA
Exactly. Well said.
See the movie "Collapse" and you'll understand. This is beyond politics and beyond anyone's control. Resources are being tapped out while populations are increasing. We have a convergence of issues that are connected in one way or another. Climate change, food and water scarcity, and peak oil. The shit has hit the fan and no political party can do a damn thing about it now.
Nothing is "beyond politics." We are social beings, no matter what happens.
And for gods sakes stop buying into the Bilderburgers talk of being short of resources and over populated!
I gaurentee if they get their way you will not be any part of the 50,000 allowed to survive and inherit a paradise earth.
Google; "Bilderburger" then take off the blinders!
>^^<
Okey dokey.
"Even with the announcement that the official unemployment rate fell to 9.4 percent..."
Please stop repeating the government's lies as if they are facts. At least mention that the 9.4% figure is highly suspect.
"Shadow Stats is reporting that the Unemployment rate in the United States is at 20% if measured like it was in the 1930′s."
http://www.tribbleagency.com/?p=5220
the drop was caused by over 230,000 of the unemployed dropping off the rolls - coupled w/ a 103,000 increase in jobs.....
problem is we need over 250,000 new jobs a month to keep pace with population growth.....
When was the last time people talked about the population problem?
As a nation, Cuba has been forced by US to live like this for years. They have lots to teach us about organic gardening, medical care, cheap transportation and self sufficiency. When the shit really hits the fan, the oligarchs will have to eat their money
Human beings are social creatures, and they yearn to belong to some social group and achieve some rewarding level of social status in that group. The problem we little people have today is that the plutocrats, as they consolidate their hold on wealth and power, are defining their social group in a very limited way, with the little people being completely excluded. We are the expendable "outsiders," and those of us who are alert enough to recognize this process are probably even thought of as "enemies."
Furthermore, the plutocrats improve their social status in their group by creating the perception that they are effectively crushing the little people and removing resistance to the continued accumulation of wealth and power by the few. Crushing the little people quickly and completely is particularly important now given that:
(1) the plutocrats have developed highly sophisticated propaganda techniques to convince the little people that what the plutocrats do is justified and resistance is futile;
(2) the plutocrats feel confident that they will have adequate security given advances in computer technology, weapons (e.g., new crowd control technologies, drones, and robotic soldiers), and the development and expansion of private security companies;
(3) energy resources are dwindling;
(4) the continuing increase in the rate of resource use could have disastrous consequences for everyone, e.g. global warming; and
(5) advances in medical technology allowing for greatly extending the human lifespan appear to be on the horizon and costs for offering this technology to the general population would be astronomical and worsen overpopulation, so a clear boundary must be set between those allowed access to such technologies (i.e., the "deserving") and those not allowed access (i.e., the "undeserving").
> costs for offering this technology to the general population would be astronomical and worsen overpopulation, so a clear boundary must be set between those allowed access to such technologies (i.e., the "deserving") and those not allowed access (i.e., the "undeserving").<
Don't worry, we have that now, Look at Pelisi @ 80 something, and Schwrtzenegger in his 70s. We pelebes will never see health care like that!
>^^<
We started a ‘Socrates Café’ group in Grinnell, IA a year ago. There are hundreds of these groups across the country and in other countries that meet regularly to discuss the issues of the day and of interest to the group. We are open to all meet at the local library once a week for 90 minutes and choose the topic at the beginning of each meeting. Christopher Philips’ book called Socrates Café is the inspiration for the groups. Chris is the Johnny Appleseed of just the kind of community relationship you discuss in your article.
I have a concern about organizing that I have not seen addressed in these comments...
it seems to me that organizations that begin to show any sign of success in this area are quickly infiltrated by agents working to disclose members and information about the groups activities to those in power...
those of you that claim organization must precede action do not seem to deal with this aspect...
how do you maintain integrity within a group's membership or activites so as to avoid infiltration and arrest?
how is creating such a group not inviting such infiltration?
I don't have the answers but the group needs to be on guard wrt anyone advocating violence.
Not everything needs be discussed before people actually do organize.
Find a group or start one and just be open about it without inviting suspicion of fellow members either. Could just ask members to tell the lead organizer(s) if there is ever the suspicion.
And why should we let it stop us?
I suspect there are books out there that can better advise.
The leaders of the progressive and liberal organizations are the infiltrators and saboteurs.
SOME are. Without that condition of some, what you wrote was ludicrous. There are many organizations that are solidly decent and well led.
All are, if they are to be successful. It is the nature of progressive and liberal politics - herding people back into the system. Many good and well-intentioned people are so herded, and that is whom I am talking to, I am asking them to question where they are being led and how they are being manipulated.
Progressive and liberal politics are about giving people faith and hope that the system can be made to work. Once herded into that pen, people can then be told that for reasons of practicality and being realistic, we must compromise. Then we are exhorted to feel more strongly, to care more, to keep trying like the little engine that could. Year after year this fails, and the political climate moves farther and farther to the right. But you tolerate no questioning of this failed and dangerous doctrine.
I don't expect you to agree with me, but I would ask that the point of view I am offering be considered. If right wingers can post here - and they do - and get a hearing, then a left wing point of view that criticizes the gentrified and weak approach being taken by liberals and progressives certainly warrants a seat at the table. The very fact that right wingers, racists and bigots have an easier time here than left wingers do illustrates exactly what I am talking about.
You have yet to directly address any of my points, let alone discuss them or reveal your position. Your posts are all an attempt to get people to dismiss what I am saying out of hand and give it no consideration.
Of course, all are to you, just like the people referred to in the article.
Your ideas are destructive even if they come from someone who so often expresses eloquence to the anger and pain we all often feel.
Your call of arms to relocate your little camp of progressive-haters to a new place is easily google-able.
You may be right though. If CD is going to have rightwingers spewing nonsense, why shouldn't you have equal opportunity. It's only fair, right.
Quit with the insinuations and personal attacks. Talk about what I posted, not what I am supposedly "up to" - in your imagination.
My point is that much of progressive and liberal politics is about beating down the Left - more so than fighting against the right. Calling leftists destructive, negative, speculating about their supposed agendas and dangerous nefarious plans, etc. are the various forms this takes.
Yes, all people who promote the idea that we can work within the system are people who promote the idea that we can work within the system. I happen to disgaree with that point of view. Is that not allowed?
So, are you saying that the challenge we face is much, much bigger than people imagine, that the emergency is much more dire, that the hour is much later than people think, that a much more profound and radical course is going to be required?
I would say that all of the liberal and progressive organizations are tailor made for exactly the sort of problems you are describing.
People cannot tell who is friend and who is foe. Why would that be? If you cannot tell who is friend and foe - if you have no sound and reliable basis upon which to make any determination, is that really merely a problem of infiltration, or is it a problem of misapprehending the true nature of the situation, a problem of having no sense of the problem and no idea of the goals?
Almost every thing we here from liberals and progressives amounts to kinds sorta feeling that things need to be different, or at best some fantasies about "regulation" or the New Deal or some vague ideas about "restoring" the country back to the supposed good old days. Who is seen as a friend and who is seen as a foe is completely based on whether or not people use the right cliches and slogans. Anyone who does is welcomed in. Anyone who does not is attacked as a mole or infiltrator. Ergo, we have cut ourselves off from the very perspectives and analyses we most need - we see people expressing those as enemies - and we willingly accept enemies and see them as friends providing they parrot the correct liberal and progressive cliches and slogans.
"Almost every thing we here from liberals and progressives amounts to kinds sorta feeling..."
TA, I can't imagine why "liberals and progressives" react negatively to anything you might have to say, selective hearing much?
"Who is seen as a friend and who is seen as a foe is completely based on whether or not people use the right cliches and slogans."
To a certain extent I agree with that especially when the "fight" can easily be identified as between the bottom 98% and the ones who are benefiting most from this new normal. However, words matter, and recognizing ideas that support your efforts and those that don't is necessary part of communicating.
Not following you. "Liberal" and "progressive" is not an ethnicity or personal quality. It is is particular approach to politics. Can that approach not be questioned? Must we see the approach as a personal identity and therefore held immune from critical analysis? If so, that locks us into a particular way of approaching politics that is miserably failing.
Critical analysis? Where? Saying what liberals/progressives say amounts to feelings about such and such counts as critical analysis? Yes, miserably failing is what I was thinking when I read what you wrote as well. You are sharper than what you wrote, so I can't help but think you are playing rhetorical gamesman. Count me skeptical.
?
Fantastic article! Go people power.
Well, I'm really glad I have the community of CD to come home and share ideas with. When the summer comes and I'm trying to coax some veggies from the ground I will thank my lucky stars that I live in Vancouver BC were we still have lots of farmland within walking distance and lots of people still growing food for local consumption.
The values that American's have been taught, individualism, ego, competition, selfishness, linear thinking, dominion, etc., are opposite those needed for survival through the turbulence. These are the values that created the problems. Instead the non-ego values of acceptance, cooperation, and reciprocity are the necessary values needed to successfully navigate the transition to a New Economy. Unity and Solidarity are very necessary. The comments evidenced in this thread still reflect the individual and separatist ideologies of the 20th Century and will likely die with those espousing them.
That's a tough call. I could make the case that hive mentality, aversion to risk, acceptance, cooperation is the glue that holds this corporate fascist empire together. Looking at what we have become, having this empire collapse in a shit storm isn't that bad of an alternative.
The values of acceptance, cooperation, and reciprocity are American Indian values and we lived here for 12,000 + years successfully. I am not posting for argumentation Lefty, but for thought only. I do not seek to change anyone's mind, but just to offer what I see as a useful and valid alternative.
I'm thinking in terms of group dynamics regarding what is being proposed in this article. Unless ego's are greatly diminished, group progress will be slow or non-existent. Another useful tool is the talking stick. The stick is passed around the group and the only person allowed to speak is the person with the stick. That way, people cannot be shouted down by loud ego driven voices or opposing voices. Respect is given to the person with the talking stick and they get the benefit of fully expression their thoughts for respectful consideration.
Respect, dignity and integrity are considered to be the tools of the weak in this society. I ask you, who looked more dignified Hu of China or ObomberBush in their recent meetings?