Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
On Wisconsin and America
We are now having a major dispute about what kind of society America should be.
Right now, the flashpoint in this controversy is Wisconsin, where tens of thousands of people are demonstrating every day in an effort to block Governor Scott Walker's plan to all but end collective bargaining rights for public employees.
But the debate is a national one. The Wisconsin showdown is only the first in a whole series of pending state conflicts. And, over the next few weeks, a corporate-friendly Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives may decide to shut down the federal government.
The clashes in Wisconsin and other states, and in Washington, D.C., are dressed up in the language of budget debates. But these debates have nothing to do with "fiscal responsibility." They are about what kind of society we want.
Do we want government to provide vital services, or exacerbate inequality? Should we have strong protections for health, safety, the environment and economic stability, or should giant corporations be free to impose their rules on the rest of us? Will we protect the right of workers to join together in unions, or will we permit private and public employers to drive down wages in the interest of generating more profits or lowering taxes for corporations and the wealthy?
Corporate plutocracy or a working democracy?
The people in Wisconsin who are demonstrating to stop Governor Walker's union-busting plans are acting not just to preserve Wisconsin's democratic traditions, but to make the case for a better America for all of us.
The people in Wisconsin -- including many Public Citizen members and friends -- need our solidarity. Even more, they need us to join with them in fighting for the America we all want.
Today, people will be gathering in state capitols to do just that. Please join them. Find a rally near you here
As we engage this contest for the future of America, it's important to understand how we got into our current circumstance, and exactly what is at stake.
How Did We Get Here?
The Republican line on state and federal budgetary shortfalls, echoed by too many in the media, and by too many Democrats, is that we are spending beyond our means and "mortgaging our future." This is not true.
States are not suddenly spending more than they were two, three of four years ago. (This is true for the federal government as well, with the caveat that there was an addition of federal stimulus spending, now winding down.) The reason states are facing acute budget crises is because revenues have declined. The reason revenues have declined is because the economy crashed. And the reason the economy crashed is because an unregulated Wall Street enabled a housing bubble, and then built a financial bubble on top of the housing bubble.
In other words, Republican governors are blaming state employees for the budget crisis, when the blame actually rests with Wall Street. Making things even more obscene, while state employees are seeing salaries and benefits slashed and jobs cut, the Wall Street titans are paying themselves outrageous bonuses. Wall Street paid out more than $20 billion in bonuses last year, while Wall Street profits totaled more than $27 billion, the second highest total on record.
This central point can't be emphasized enough: The story of the current state and federal budget challenges is the diminished tax revenue that has followed from the Wall Street-induced recession.
Raising Revenues
OK, you might say. Maybe Wall Street deserves the blame, but what choice do governments have?
Well, the states are under an obligation to balance their budgets. The simple solution for this problem is for the federal government -- which does not need to balance its budget -- to give them grants. Unfortunately, that solution is not forthcoming.
Still, the states have options. Notably, they can raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy, as some are now preparing to do.
Amazingly, however, those most vociferously demanding state and federal budget cutbacks in the name of fiscal rectitude also support tax cuts for those most able to pay. In Wisconsin, Governor Walker -- who took office just this January -- has pushed through $127 million in tax cuts. Meanwhile, in D.C., last December's tax deal between President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans gives about $120 billion in benefits to the wealthy over the next two years.
Would it be unreasonable to ask for a rule that anyone supporting such tax breaks for the super-rich is prohibited from claiming they care about balancing budgets?
There are, of course, other ways to raise revenues. Cracking down on corporate welfare would be a good place to start. States have given away billions in corporate welfare deals, as Good Jobs First has documented. Walmart alone is grabbing $400 million a year in state and local tax breaks. At the federal level, there are tens of billions of dollars in corporate welfare giveaways that should be eliminated or reformed, involving everything from loan guarantees to nuclear power plants to export promotion schemes for big corporations.
The federal government has other ways to raise revenues that would be worth pursuing as good policy, in addition to their revenue implications. A very small tax on Wall Street trading, for example, could raise more than $100 billion a year. It would force Wall Street to offset some of the damage it has inflicted on the rest of the country. And it would slow the dangerous churning of stocks, bonds and derivatives.
The Role of Government
The Republicans' insistence on cutting back government spending is ultimately a disguised way to advance their agenda of selectively limiting the role of government in society. (It is selective because they and their corporate backers DO support an aggressive role for government when it comes to policies and activities that benefit big corporations.)
That the real issue is the role of government itself is underscored by congressional Republican budget proposals. As Congress debates a short-term government funding bill, not only are the Republicans proposing to slash vital programs, they are seeking to block, stop or undermine government restraints on Big Business -- an array of rules, regulations, programs and enforcement schemes that have little or no budgetary impact, but are hugely important for protecting the public and the environment from predatory corporations.
Among many, many other troubling measures, the House Republican proposals would:
- Eliminate funding for a new consumer product safety database. Removing its funding would deprive consumers of a critical tool -- three years in the planning -- to report and research safety incidents on toys and other products.
- Slash the budget for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission by roughly a third. Saving only $50 million, this measure would completely hamstring the agency charged with implementing some of the most important components of the Wall Street reform law.
- Eliminate the presidential public financing system.
- Stop the Environmental Protection Agency from listing coal ash as hazardous waste, enforcing rules that would curtail mountaintop-removal coal mining, issuing new rules that would protect rivers from coal waste, or improving air quality standards.
It's important to emphasize in this discussion that the Obama administration budget proposals, while far superior to the Republican alternative, accept many of the Republican premises -- including the most important one, that the government should be reducing spending.
At a time when one in six people who would like a full-time job are unable to find one, the government should be spending more money to put people back to work, get the economy moving and prevent the waste of letting workers and plants remain idle. Instead, the Obama administration has essentially conceded the need for austerity.
Adopting the false politics of scarcity, the president needlessly proposes to shortchange vital public programs. A distressing example is his proposal to slash $3 billion from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which provides cash assistance to poor people to help them pay their utility bills.
One can go program by program, or rider by rider, and explain how misguided are proposals from both the Republicans and the administration. But even more important is to insist on what we want our government to do. We need a strong government. There are of course government programs that should be eliminated or improved. But we do need a government that is able to educate our children, ensure access to health care for all, move us to a clean energy future, keep the economy working, provide a social safety net, and protect us from corporate predations. We need a government that takes seriously its duty to advance the General Welfare.
The Role of Unions
At this point, the debate in Wisconsin is no longer about obtaining givebacks from teachers, nurses and other public employees. The public employee unions have agreed to the governor's economic demands.
What is now in dispute is whether public employees will maintain the right to be represented by unions.
What a sad state of affairs.
The right of workers to join together into a union to bargain collectively with their employer is a basic First Amendment right and a fundamental right of workers everywhere. Unions enable workers to band together to offset the otherwise overwhelming bargaining power of employers, and make the economy and workplace a fairer and more just place.
We all benefit from a strong union movement, whether or not we are union members. Because they organize workers to act together, unions are -- by far -- the most important countervailing force to concentrated corporate power.
It's not just a matter of unions supporting particular policies. By their very existence, unions change the political terrain, making it more possible to advance justice, fairness and equality.
The severe decline of unions over the past 40 years is a crucial contributing factor in explaining why inequality has risen so dramatically and why corporations have been able to increase their political influence.
The remaining union stronghold in the U.S. economy is the public sector. If Wisconsin, followed by other states, manages to undermine unionization in the public sector, it's not just public sector workers who will be worse off. We all will be.
Let's Get to Work!
It is now incumbent on all of us to make Wisconsin just the beginning of something much bigger.
We start by demonstrating on Saturday.
36 Comments so far
Show AllDespite MoveOns sponsorship, and despite the American Dream was never a reality I will be there.
My Placard " Overcome the Global Corporate Oligarchy"
The protests against the Plutocracy needs to start organizing at the state level. It's grandiose to only protest against the USG. This is what the fascists are doing, organizing state by state. They have the money, the MSM for its propaganda and decades of instilling mindlessness into the psyche of American society. The mindlessness fund those plutocrats that plot against them. This plotting began in earnest in the 60's and it has incorporated and financed the pretend christian churches, towers of babel with false doctrines all to divide the society into competing fraction. The ultimate goal is to change America into another Indonesia complete with a military dictator. The "C" street gang cites this goal which is the unofficial Repubican Party policy, official policies are for propaganda PR purposes. The hero's of C Street are:Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Suharto. Pinochet and every other dictator, the harsher the better. C Street exempt themselves from all moral restrictions but pass laws and subject the rest of society to them.
Why are states mandated to balance their budgets, but not the federal governent? Shouldn't we try to live within our means at all levels? If we didn't allow these economic depressions, then we wouldn't need to apply the Keysnesian solution (which is an ad hoc measure never meant to be the permanent function of government). Or, are we addicted to the phantom-wealth generator magic machine?
This comment sounds like a preview of the Air Force's Persona Management Software. http://tinyurl.com/4rouyv3
After transfering the nation's wealth in money to the very rich the 'haves' are busy seperating themselves fron the 'used to haves' - this reminds me of the partation of India after independance or of Palestine after Israel. Civil war II?
If Governor Walker is sincerely interested in balancing his state's budget then he should urge Washington to slash the military budget as well as cutting off the funds for the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. The savings that would be gained from doing that should be able to help solve Wisconsin's woes as well as other states in this country.
"Corporate plutocracy or a working democracy?"
Vote here:
https://votep2.us/login.php
Hitching our wagons to MoveOn and a large slate of similarly-corporate groups contains its own risks. If it took a fascist broadside to get this lot to cooperate, their democracy credentials are suspect. Proceed with vigor, but exercise caution.
The plutocracy's strategy, Walker said it, "Let them demonstrate all they want eventually one of the senate 14 will crack and when they do the bill will become law." The Governor is right--short term. In a way all this demonstration is just wearing us down and when the demonstrations end and the Governor gets his way it will leave us even more despondent. We have to think a step ahead. This issue will be decided finally by elections. We will win if a year from now we get him out of office. If he rebuffs a recall he wins. Let's recall those Republican Senators who so willingly have gone along with Walker as well. You can bet that the other side is already planning to use the recall to remove the 14 Democratic Senators that are holding out. They are confident they can turn out their side. What about our side? We can win if we can change the opinions of 10 % of the voting Wisconsin populous and motivate about 50% of those favorable to us to vote. A more arduous task than demonstrating. Let's get to work.
This is false. Please don't tell people to give up and crawl back into the "work within the system" partisan political process, with its "gradual change" and "baby steps" and "practicality" and "lesser of two evils."
We have a chance to break out of that hopeless pattern of futility and failure. Why drive people back into it?
If you want to do that, you go ahead. But please don't try to stop or discourage others. If partisan electoral politics worked there would be no need for anyone to be on the street. People are glimpsing the possibility of a new reality for the first time - don't take that away from us. People are building solidarity, they are becoming radicalized, motivated, inspired, determined. Don't stomp on that.
This is not about Walker, it is far bigger than him, far bigger than any election. Don't herd people back into that same old cage now that they have broken free. Please.
Right you are. Radical historical alternatives exist that are not dainty and nice:
general strike- where nobody shows up for work in the abusive work climate
massive corporate boycotts- to shut down sales and profits made from oppression
tax withholding- to forestall kickbacks and corporate welfare gifts by corrupt politicians at the expense of citizen taxpayers who are no longer represented.
No doubt all are conveniently classified as illegal- favoring those in power. It will require great courage to follow our forebears historical example of revolt against the parties in power.
During the Great Depression, when capitalism had been discredited in the minds of millions and fears of both communism and fascism were abroad in the land, FDR managed to raise a few modest rhetorical challenges to the "economic royalists" of that day and to put in place a few programs intended to reduce unemployment. According to some, he saved capitalism from itself. The middle class, like the volunteer army, was small, and the country did not resort to fascism or communism, even though some voices advocated for them.
Today, a large but shrinking and besieged middle class seeths with fear and anger that it has been losing ground economically since the era of the OPEC oil embargoes in the early 70's. This suburban middle class represents a major conservative force that did not exist in the 30's, and it is not in a generous mood, as it tended to be a little more in the 60's, when so much progressive legislation was passed, legislation that would never see the light of day now. Resentment and small-mindedness rule.
I think this steady economic decline of the middle is a major reason behind the climate of resentment that has gripped the nation's politics for almost 40 years. Most Americans tend to know little of their own history, and, trying to hold on to whatever they have (many haven't - I have met homeless people under Wacker Drive that only a few years before were living comfortable lives in the suburbs), they have allowed themselves to be seduced by right wing politicians and media demagogues who play to tribal politics and have suceeded in persuading millions of middle and working class people that the Federal government represents only groups they consider a threat to their interests in a zero sum or worse game, that it wants greater economic justice at their expense, and that it holds them in a kind of contempt. Meanwhile they continue to fall behind.
In this controlling atmosphere of resentment, fear, and meanness of spirit, any sense that the public interest even exists, much less needs protection, is lost, while large corporate interests go about consolidating enormous technological - economic, then political power. Ayn Randers have contolled economic and financial policy in Washington since January, 1981.
Until the country can find a way out of tribal politics, and a major political movement appears that will somehow manage to challenge the power that corporate money and a relative handful of superrich families and individuals have over the two principal parties, and also get rid of an economy mobilized for total war, things will continue to get worse, and the future will be a grim one.
A new political party won't be enough as it's the culture that needs changing.
Now you are actively discouraging people from taking political action, saying that it is useless without a spiritual revival. That is why your doctrine is not neutral and harmless. Pursue spirituality all you like for yourself, and preach away to as many people as will listen to you. But presenting that as an alternative to political action, and telling people that political action is futile is very dangerous.
You seem to think politics is somehow seperate from culture. That is an error. Politics arises from culture, not the other way around. And I have in no way tried to stop anyone from taking political action. I merely stated a truism that forming another political patry won't solve the problem humanity faces, as this is NOT just about the United States.
Ah, thanks. That explains what you mean. You think politics arises from culture. I don't think our two points of view can be reconciled.
Your stupidity is astounding. You must have failed both sociology and anthropolgy, and barely managed a D in political science.
"This suburban middle class represents a major conservative force that did not exist in the 30’s and it is not is a generous mood, as it tended to be a little more in the 60’s , when so much progressive legislation was passed,legislation that would never see the light of day now.”
This doesn’t agree with your first paragraph postulation of a discredited capitalism during the Great Depression- caused by the royalists! FDR did not just get lucky, he had a wealth of protest and anger supporting changes.
The masses are angry (left, right and center) because they are understanding that they have been driven/lied to by politicians with corporate agendas- not theirs. Obama won with a progressive voice and it touched the hearts of Americans who hoped he would act with concern for the middle classes and the poor. They hoped he was a community activist, bringing change and respect for democracy. He threw down that cloak and managed to quash with despair any populist left movement. A populist message about people is what drew all Americans as it will now and again. Americans pushing for the privileged? No. Its the media propaganda magnification and the lies of the rich and powerful- overwhelming the hopes and dreams of the majority in America- similar to the the 30’s and in reaction to the greed and corruption of the royalists.
You just want us to think we aren’t a majority- in fact we are a great, unwieldy, growing middle that is centering on our own interests as honest citizens in America.
Michigan woman,
FDR's programs were supported by ordinary adults of that generation because he offered hope to the poor and unemployed in a still mostly rural and small town country, and because he gave voice to the abuses and threats that capitalism, especially finance capitalism, posed to the public good. The popular literature of the day was filled with Marxist ideas, even outright tracts, of which Steinbeck's is only the best known. (The Grapes of Wrath influenced Roosevelt.) That was the era of penny stocks and passage of social insurance based on the German model. I think it was a different time, but by "millions" I did not necessarily mean a majority; there were lots of other people, especially the rich, who frothed at the mouth at any mention of Roosevelt.
Regardless, the feeling by many that capitalism was a failure diminished with the post war economic boom and the ideological indoctrination, especially of the young, that accompanied the Cold War. As things improved for the expanding middle class, and as the Depression did not come back, the children of the Depression adults concluded that maybe capitalism wasn't so bad after all. Further, Cold War propaganda worked to impose the idea that the only available choice was between two starkly opposed economic and political systems.
I don't mean to paint with one brush, but my point was that this large and relatively prosperous middle class that appeared after WWII, built partly on an unsustainable total war economy and strong unions, flourished unchallenged because most of Europe and Japan were rebuilding from the rubble. The UK was bankrupt. Little international economic competition appeared until those economies recovered in the early 70's, and then the rather easy prosperity (of the white middle class) of the 50's and 60's disappeared very quickly, around the time of the oil embargoes and Nixon's abrogation of the Bretton Woods international monetary system. The era of rising expectations hit a wall, and resentment began to rule public life.
One result was that many in the shrinking middle believe that the economy has become a less than zero sum game, and that advances, real or potential, in social justice will come at their expense in order to help minorities, the "undeserving" poor, and all those leftists who they have been convinced hate the country. This has fed a prolonged backlash exacerbated by the latest crash, look into the faces of the people in the town meetings during the leadup to the health care bill. No, this anger and nihilism does not fill the hearts of everyone, and some of it is orchestrated, but it is still significant, and it is frightening. The country has increasingly fallen into polarized tribal politics, and I'm not sure that any group is a political majority looked at through that lens. But I am sure that it's harvest time for demagogues whose goal is to keep the tribes at each others throats.
Populism is political mobilization from below, not from the middle class, and it has been notoriously susceptible to demagogic exploitation. Now, the media-dominated "populism" we see every day has been aimed directly at this shrinking middle, and it has featured veiled racism, ideological opposition (to the point of repeated ridicule) to government efforts to address issues of social justice and to any effort to scale back America's war budget.
A threatened and declining middle class, especially its most insecure lower reaches, has historically been a seedbed of political reaction. In more extreme conditions, they tend to show up in brown shirts or white robes. But I do agree - actually I know - that many people, definitely including some "Main Street" conservatives, see right through what is going on and I also agree that not everyone internalizes and identifies with the opinions of their oppressors against their own interests. But many do. They confuse conservative ideals of personal independence, freedom, and responsibility with the BS coming from political and economic elites interested only in consolidating power in all its forms at the very top, in favor of global capitalism, deindustrialzation, and the war economy. How much damage all this will do at the end of the day is anyone's guess. Madison and increasingly settled popular support for health care may be signs that things are changing, but it isn't over by a long shot.
Oh my, I can't believe I'm going to sound like one of these tea baggers now but someone here needs to do it. There are so many flawed premises in this article I don't know where to even start. While I agree that the working people have been getting screwed for decades now (really as far back as history goes) what this article advocates as a "fix" is both not very helpful in the long term nor is it really what we should be fighting for.
"The Republican line on state and federal budgetary shortfalls, echoed by too many in the media, and by too many Democrats, is that we are spending beyond our means and "mortgaging our future." This is not true."
How can anyone look at this statement and actually believe it. Of course we are spending beyond our means - perversely beyond our means. Take a look at the unneeded and wasteful military spending. What the author should have stated is that we ARE spending an inordinate amount of money of basically b.s. that does nothing for the people of this nation except to enrich a very tiny minority and that the huge shortfall in revenues to pay for those things we should be paying for are because we no longer tax corporations or the wealthy. Unless we want to outright default on our national debt (which may happen regardless of wants) how can we say we are not mortgaging our future by running yearly deficits no matter the state of the economy. Excess spending in "good" or "bad" times is NOT what deficit spending was ever meant to be. And our deficits aren't because we're investing for the future by building and repairing the infrastructure we so desperately need. We're using deficit spending to pay for current government - and have been almost continuously since the 1960's.
"This central point can't be emphasized enough: The story of the current state and federal budget challenges is the diminished tax revenue that has followed from the Wall Street-induced recession."
Again, B.S.
The budget challenges - at all levels of government - are nothing more than the fact that this nation has refused to tax the rich and the corporations. We have enacted and supported polices that purposely shift manufacturing out of the country and that drive the nations trade balance into the red. We have turned over not only our money supply, but our nations fiscal policy to the PRIVATE central bank and its members.
And then we can talk about the cumulative effect of "pork barrel" spending on things that government should never spend taxpayer money on - NFL stadiums, NASCAR, all manner of local special interest "museums" the "bridge to nowhere". The list goes on and on.
The "Wall Street induced recession" is nothing more than a SYMPTOM of the disease. It could never have happened if we had not cut the taxes on the top 1-10% and the corporations, all the while taking away any regulation or impediment to how these businesses and wealthy individuals could act.
"The simple solution for this problem is for the federal government -- which does not need to balance its budget -- to give them grants. Unfortunately, that solution is not forthcoming."
Maybe in the form of emergency loans - but outright grants? No F'n way. My state, California could certainly use a cash infusion like all the rest, but why on earth should we give states money when they are still free to throw government (taxpayer) money at building new fancy sports stadiums. When most - if not all - the states refuse to cut the outrageous EXECUTIVE pay and perks that they throw out. We had a public university president who built a $50,000 dog run for her private university residence the same week that student fees went up.
And many of the states simply need to stop giving their own tax breaks to businesses. If New York stopped rebating its Wall Street financial transaction tax it wouldn't have a budget deficit. Same goes in California - if we simply taxed our state's businesses instead of allowing them to exploit loopholes by claiming profits weren't earned in state then it would be financially sound.
And why would anyone on the left want to transfer even more of their money to "red states" so that they can continue to shove their vile crap down the rest of the nation's throat?
"At a time when one in six people who would like a full-time job are unable to find one, the government should be spending more money to put people back to work, get the economy moving and prevent the waste of letting workers and plants remain idle."
I agree here, except where is the demand to get us the hell out of these free trade agreements that will ALWAYS result in shedding wealth making jobs. Just once I would like to see someone advocating pumping more government money into hiring workers explain how an economy is supposed to work without actually producing physical things. Throwing government money at jobs without ensuring that manufacturing is returned to this country is a temporary measure at best.
News alert!
You CAN NOT have "service" or "finance" jobs without actually having the manufacturing jobs that they service and finance. We can't all simply sell each other things. Think of the economy as your body's circulatory system where money, like blood gets pumped around. Now think of shipping our dollars off to China or elsewhere for manufactured goods due to free trade like having a large wound - the blood (money) spills out and less and less is available to circulate at home.
You can not fix the nation's economy without fixing "free trade".
There's a reason the right wing lunatics have so easily won over these "tea baggers". And that is precisely because of the simpleminded garbage that this article puts forth.
I agree with your assessment of the article, which is why I didn't bother to deconstruct it the way you did. Rather, as you can see, I attacked the underlying culture and posit that it's the root of the problem. We have a culture that cultivates Sin rather than one cultivating Virtue. All sorts of shallow changes to the political economy could occur that still leaves us with a dysfunctional society because the disease causing the dysfunction would still live. The 60's Hippies had the right idea with their Commune Movement, but they made no attempt to change their culture and succeed--a widespread Counter Culture was never born. The current age has an either/or demand the 60s lacked: Either humanity changes its current culture or it goes from dysfunctional to terminated.
It's rather simple. We want a functional society, which is a society where ALL of its members's needs are satisfied and the fundamental life giving/maintaining orgamism--the planet--is well cared for. Such a society does NOT allow disparities as they destabilize society and render it dysfunctional--as we all can see very well given human history over the past 12,000 years. This also means that the current political economy--Neoliberal Capitalism--must be replaced as it's based on exploitation and accumulation, which is at odds with what makes a society functional. A functional society celebrates those capable of sharing the most with their fellows, not who can keep the most away from others, which is what's championed now in our very dysfunctional society. The mentality that says "every child has to have its own" must be eradicated and be replaced with "every child has to share its own." There still exist a few functional societies, but the reason they remain functional is because they are isolated and haven't been polluted--yet. So, it's not enough for one nation to rid itslf of the disease causing dysfunction; all the world's nations must stamp out Envy and Greed that causes the disease. That probably sounds simple, as if the root of dysfunction is more complex; but a thinking person can easilly see that the failure of culture to control the aspect within human nature that gives rise to Envy and Greed is the culprit--if humans only desired the satisfaction of their needs and shared their surplus with those needing help to attain theirs, then societies would be functional and peaceful, while the lifeforms we share the planet with would never find themselves threatened as there are today.
Right on Karlof
The vast majority of people, close to 90%, do already only desire the satisfaction of their needs and do want to share their surplus with those needing help to attain theirs.
The problem is that all of our social arrangements and conventions support the 10% or so who so not subscribe to that view, who can (and are motivated to) keep the most away from others.
Ergo, the problem is not with human nature, it is with our social system. That we can solve. Human nature? Not so easy. Improve the conditions, and the moral tenor of the people will improve. Try to improve people, and neither may ever get better.
We would not fail to act to stop rape or murder merely because it was "human nature" and "had always been with us." Nor should we fail to act to stop exploitation.
There were people before Emancipation who argued that slavery was a symptom of a sickness in human nature, and that the only way to end slavery was to change the human heart to eradicate that sickness. They argued against ending slavery as the first step, rather they advocated the dubious, open-ended and vague task of changing human nature.
If the system of exploitation known as Capitalism is to be seen as "human nature" then would not the resistance and fight back by those suffering from it also be "human nature."
I have stated our society is dysfunctional and have provided its root cause and a solution for it. Culture is what shapes and governs societies, and culture itself arises from human nature and the need to control its excesses. I noted that the mess we've evolved into has taken 12,000 years, and it will not be undone or modified soon in a rapid fashion. Only when it dawns on the great majority that we're about to destroy humanity will rapid change become possible. Some extraordinary people recognize the beast and are changing themselves and their communities--Transition Town, Community Solutions and Post Carbon are three of their organizations, but they are not the only ones. A great number of people here at CD deride one of those organizations--Yes! Magazine--which should inform you that your 90% figure is too high. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all tried to reign in the forces of human nature causing societal dysfunction and failed, and people now blindly follow them without knowing what those religions were trying to accomplish when they came into existence, with the story of Moses and the Ten Commandments being the most telling.
Functional societies have very very strong cultures, which is why they're functional. The taboos are often very strict, sometimes invoking death for their transgression. The concept of individual free will is kept extremely narrow because it must if societal function is to be continued. What passes for culture in our world today is a far cry from the above; and yet, as much as culture needs to change, it cannot be done at the point-of-a-gun--it must be self-actualized, but on a mass scale, which is why religion was the previous vehicle chosen to do the job.
At least you replied and struggled with the problem; yet, no one else bothered. It's kinda hard trying to foment systemic cultural change when few are even willing to discuss the nature of the problem. Too many are still fighting to get their own.
Just a few added thoughts:
In U.S. society, the runaway human ego had made extravagant consumption and war look like a good. I love what Eckhart Tolle has to say about the human ego and the plight of our troubling times: “The greatest achievement of humanity is not its works of art, science or technology, but the recognition of its own dysfunction, its own madness”. A materialistic culture suffocates opportunities for spiritual growth and personal transformation. The domination of consumerism and the imperial ego obliterates the contemplative mind and the higher pursuit for spiritual wisdom. Spiritual wisdom is really about the ability to change.
Thanks for your contribution, Stephen. Your final observation, "Spiritual wisdom is really about the ability to change," is very important as there's been little effort to construct a new spiritual force over the past 1400 years--since the rise of Islam--and that created a vacuum filled by materialism which metastasized into consumerism. Those actors most central to The Age of Reason failed to understand the necessity of linking Reason to Spirit, and thus nothing arose to replace the Church/Mosque/Synagog as an institution that would abet and help expand the Spirit of Reason. It is of course unknown if the Spirit of Reason's rise would have been capable of promoting an alternative to destabilizing and destructive Capitalism. That the Wisconsin protests are being framed as a moral issue is a step forward that ought to create space for something new to appear.
I think we should be cautious in applying religious solutions to political challenges.
No matter how much spiritual change a person makes, that does not change who has power over them, and that is where people's lives are being damaged - not by their own personal choices or internal spiritual state. The materialist culture is an effect, not a cause, of the tyranny under which we live.
We need to back the police state off in order for there to be any freedom for cultural or spiritual improvement, the police state being the violent militarized enforcement agent for the capitalist system that has been imposed on us. We saw that demonstrated in Egypt recently. Once they backed the police state apparatus down, new cultural, social and spiritual ideas could flourish. The police state here has people far more intimidated, and has a far more destructive effect on culture and spirituality. People's adaptive responses in order to live under this tyranny and survive are not the cause of the tyranny.
Those who recommend making cultural and spiritual changes first, as a prerequisite to social and political change, need to check their privilege at the door. It is akin to telling people to pray for a miracle, in lieu of taking practical steps to save themselves and their loved ones. The degree to which people believe that this can work is the degree to which they are through good fortune relatively immune from the worst and most direct effects of the police state, or the degree to which they are or can be in denial about that.
It is the police state that "obliterates the contemplative mind and the higher pursuit for spiritual wisdom."
When there is great danger from external sources it is the wrong time to look inward.
My post was not to contradict your analysis, but rather to suggest looking at it from a different vantage point.
I am one of the people "deriding" the organizations you mention.
I think that the historical record more than amply supports the view that political and economic conditions changed, and that this then led to changed cultural ideas. Cultural changes are an effect of the conditions, changed by Capitalism, and are not a cause. Therefore, the Transition Town and Yes magazine approach is trying to change the root cause of the problems by changing the symptoms, the effects. I do not think that can work. That is the sum total of my disagreement with them, and with you. Disagreeing with that view is not "derision" necessarily.
Capitalism has smashed traditional culture, relentlessly, everywhere. It is ongoing today. Capitalism did not emerge as the product of a debased and depraved culture. Capitalism caused that depraved and debased culture. The current conditions do not permit improving the culture. Ergo, we must first change the conditions under which we live so that people have a chance to improve, rather than focusing on improving people. That means going to the root cause, and that means overthrowing the power that is imposing those conditions on all of us. That is a political challenge, not a spiritual challenge.
Thanks again for your response. You'll have noted my hypothesis states the root of our dysfunctional society occured about 12,000 years ago, long before the rise of Capitalism. Societies up to that point were functional--they provided for their members's basic needss, otherwise no society would exist. The establishment of settled agriculture and the accumulation it made possible was the big change, and cultures had to be modified to contain the excesses in human behavior this caused. As time passed and cultures were unable to cope with the destabilization this change caused, there were attempts to provide societal functionality through organized religion--a whole new cultural phenomenon. Yet, every religion invented by humans has failed to reign in those aspects of human nature that destabilize societies and render them dysfunctional, and indeed some religions were co-opted to help further distort societies--the Catholic Church is a well known example. You see, the problem is much more deep-seated than you imagine--its occurance is not recent; capitalism is only the most recent scourge. The communes of the Hippies failed because they hadn't established a culture capable of controling the aspects of human nature that give rise to pettiness, envy and greed, which are the same aspects that have rendered society at large dysfunctional and contributed to the commune failures. If we are somehow able to overthrow the current tyrants, another set will eventually establish themselves because there's no taboo to stop them from doing so.
I am familiar with that theory, yes.
"Corporate plutocracy or a working democracy?"
Yes, and another name for "corporate plutocracy" is "fascism."
I remember not too long ago when the mainstream newspapers would not even accept a letter to the editor if the author dared to suggest that the corporate powers were pushing this country deeper and deeper into a fascist form of government. Well, we're there--and the media need to stop using the euphemistic terms for a corporate takeover of the government and call it what it is: fascism.
This article is typical of Business as Usual thinking. The real issue here is that we have entered the era of declining resources. And while I agree that the likes of the Koch brothers should be taxed at a much higher rate, that alone will not change the fact that everyone, union member and non-union member alike, is going to have to get used to doing with a lot less.
I for one welcome it as it means that our mindless consumer society is finally coming to an end.
Let me see if I am following you. A person gets robbed, and your response is that they need to learn to get along with less? And you are glad that the person has been robbed, because you think they should not be so materialistic?
And thinking that robbery is wrong, and should be stopped, you call "business as usual" thinking?
Unanswered: why are R governors failing to blame Wall St? They can blame teachers, tax them like Snyder in Michigan wants to and create gross failure- then bring in the “fiscal emergency managers” to again capitalize and privatize from the disaster. Doing the same with local governments that fail. Power to the state and its cronies! Screw everybody else.
Rick Snyder takings:
1.2 Billion dollars from schools, public employees, local government
Snyder corporate welfare cronies: 1.8 Billion dollars
Unanswered: why isn’t the federal government helping the states in need? Inflicting this pain without an offer of help and relief must have a purpose. Could it be state fiscal emergency managers and bankruptcy? Power to the Feds and the corporate backers. In both scenarios, all contracts will be broken that protect working people, their savings and rights.