EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Birth of the People’s Party?
Look at the outrage in Madison, Wisconsin. Look at the crowds in DesMoines, Iowa. Look at the demonstrations in Indiana and Ohio and elsewhere around America.
Hear what they’re saying: Stop attacking unions. Stop making scapegoats out of public employees. Stop protecting the super-rich from paying their fair share of the taxes needed to keep our schools running.
Stop gutting the working middle class.
Are we finally seeing average Americans stand up and demand a fair shake in an economy now grotesquely tilted toward the wealthy and the privileged? Are Americans beginning to awake to the fact that our economy now delivers a larger share of total income to the very top than at any time in living memory? That big corporations are making more money and creating more jobs abroad than in the United States?
That this concentration of income and wealth has so corrupted politics that corporations can extort whatever they want from the government — tax breaks, loan guarantees, subsidies — while the super-rich can take most of their income as capital gains (taxed at 15 percent), and the rest at the lowest top rate in 25 years? And that because of this our kids are crowded into classrooms, our streets and highways and bridges are falling apart, and our healthcare bills are out of control?
The Tea Party grew out of indignation over the Wall Street bailout — an indignation shared by the vast majority of Americans. But the Tea Party ended up directing its ire at government rather than at big business and Wall Street. Was this because billionaires Charles and David Koch and their like funneled money to the Tea Party through front organizations like Dick Armey’s Freedom Works, and thereby co-opted it?
Now we may be seeing the birth of a genuine populist movement. Call it the People’s Party. Like the Tea Party, the People’s Party doesn’t have a clear organization or hierarchy or single address. It doesn’t have lobbyists in Washington. It’s not even yet recognized by the mainstream media.
But the People’s Party seems to be growing in numbers and in intensity. And it’s starting to push elected officials — first at the state level — to listen and respond.
Robert Reich, one of the nation’s leading experts on work and the economy, is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. Time Magazine has named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including his latest best-seller, Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future; The Work of Nations; Locked in the Cabinet; Supercapitalism; and his newest, Beyond Outrage. His syndicated columns, television appearances, and public radio commentaries reach millions of people each week. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, and Chairman of the citizen’s group Common Cause. His widely-read blog can be found at www.robertreich.org.
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...
237 Comments so far
Show AllIt would be worth becoming an american for
> It would be worth becoming an american for
Yep!
I'm a recent convert to the Green Party. Like many commenters, I had long thought them eccentric, if not wholly irrelevant. But when I saw populism emerging on the Right(!), I became convinced that the idea of a "people's party" is even more chimerical. Perhaps one-quarter of all "the people" are predators, or what Bob Altemeyer (http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/) calls "authoritarian leaders". Authoritarian leaders will subvert any future "People's Party" just as effectively as Barry Obama (and cronies) have subverted the Democratic Party. Only the Green Party has an agenda that can frustrate these authoritarian perverts: you can't f*ck with Mother Nature.
But true, the Green Party will be a slow-growing tree. While waiting for it to blossom, smart tactics are essential: Do take a look at Ellen Brown's prescription for Wisconsin: state banks ( http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/07-9 ).
The Green Party is doomed. It's pro abortion Green Party plank divides people, Unfortunately on this issue the left is just as extreme as the right is on war. It's killing and it's wrong. Unity is lost on Green Party politics and separation and death are enhanced. It's well beyond shameful. Death does not enhance life, it ends it. One cannot morally argue the evils of war while supporting abortion. It's a hollow argument. I'm convinced that people will NOT recognize the importance of a life culture until death is on their doorstep and unstoppable. Humans can be dense beyond rational understanding.
Anybody's abortion plank divides people: people don't agree about abortion.
Thank you, Bardamu.
I agree. I like a lot of what the Greens have to say, but the abortion thing is a big barrier for me.
OMG, so this is it? Failing to adhere to religious dogma is what stops the Greens from becoming a political force in the USA? The USA truly is doomed. I have yet to see a shred of evidence that souls are granted at conception and not at birth, but that wont stop these religious wackos claiming that anyone who disputes their dogma is somehow dense. And there are black kettles here that have the gall to point the finger claiming the Iranian pots are religious wackos.
"OMG, so this is it? Failing to adhere to religious dogma is what stops the Greens from becoming a political force in the USA? "
What religious dogma? I said nothing about religious dogma! I am speaking of human survival. Life breeds life and death breeds death. Choose death and die, that is the message. The extreme left has lost it's ability to change, just as the extreme right has done. I cannot change either but I can express the idea for those rare few capable of thinking and changing. Battles are won by fractions.
Nobody is pro abortion. Sensible people think that a woman should be able to make her own decisions about her life, body and children. They believe (correctly) that each individual should be able to manage their own personal affairs. They should be the ones to choose. If the government gets that decision making power, won't they then be able to decide other things for us? But the bottom line is this. If you are anti choice and pro war you have such amazing cognitive dissonance that you are probably a religious fundamentalist and belive that Jesus' Momma never had sex and priests are entitled to a little blowjob from the chior boys. The anti choice neanderthals are afraid of sex. Probably because they don't know how to treat people well enough to have ever been offered any without upfront money. Further, you protect an idea, an event, that has not yet occured which calls for absolutely no effort on your part. However, in regards to war, the murder is currently happening and on a massive scale. Maybe the wealthy elite know that children who's pre existence social status allow their parents to even consider abortion are most likely to serve in their state supported murder of poor people as poorly paid soldiers. Hmm. But the real story here is that death is a part of life. Try not to be so afraid of that.... But of course you feel better even about that as long as you can end the lives of brown and poor people prematurely, then you win by comparison. In death, you will find, we are all the same.
"One cannot morally argue the evils of war while supporting abortion. It's a hollow argument."
Or maybe the corollary:
One cannot morally argue the benefits of war while supporting pro life. It's a hollow argument.
Stone - The Green Party of California, I don't know about "The Party" in your state, stands up for women, which means standing up for women's health care, health care which... IS ABORTION! ABORTION IS WOMENS' HEALTHCARE, regardless of the Christian Right's definition of health care, which OBVIOUSLY, according to them, means MENS' HEALTH CARE, like ensuring their VIAGRA is covered by, not only by MEDICAID and MEDICARE but also MENS" PRIVATE INSURANCE, where the same INSURANCE and HEALTH CARE providers will not even guarantee women coverage for SIMPLE BIRTH CONTROL! I divorced myself from my religious, right-wing, authoritarian FATHER when I was sixteen AND HE HAS NOT HAD THE RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO SINCE, AND NEVER WILL, AND NEITHER WILL YOU. When are women in this country will realize that AUTHORITARIAN MEN WILL ALWAYS WANT TO CONTROL over THEIR BODIES AND THEIR LIVES! It's time for ALL AMERICAN WOMEN to just so NO to men, and I mean NO means KEEP YOUR AUTHORITARIAN HANDS OFF OF ME! Strong women stand up and just say NO to MEN like STONE!
It sounds promising though slightly desperate & hopeless.
I could join no party/group that did not condemn Israel with US subsidy for
oppression of Palestinians, continued occupation,(And more.)
Please factor into the "mix" the prescriptions of "NSC 68", signed by Harry
Truman in April of 1950, classified until 1975. A good analysis of its
contents is in Noam Chomsky's "Deterring Democracy".
Any political movement that has at its core (1) taking money out of Washington, (2) restoring government to the people, and (3) cleaning up the corruption in government would be a good start towards the evolution of a political party that would serve the people, not special interests.
As usual, Dr. Reich, well said.
Philosopher, yes there is a compelling need for a peoples party.
That seminal compelling need is that the current ruling-elite global capitalist corporate/financial/militarist EMPIRE which has fully taken over the US by hiding behind the facade of its bought and owned TWO-Party "Vichy" sham of faux-democratic government (and media) is forcing us toward extinction in our lifetimes or that of our children!
Unfortunately the mere 'symptom problems' of which Empire is the hidden cancerous cause go far beyond the items you validly note, and include all problems foreign and domestic.
Fortunately, the necessary Revolution to expunge and excise Empire has begun.
But mild or slow measures of any movement that do not focus on the real and deadly cancer of Empire won't engender much engaged (or enraged) popular progressive social participation unless it is honest FROM DAY ONE that the real confrontation is "Against Empire" (Parenti).
Being "Against Empire" is the Sine qua non of the global revolution that has now started.
Being overtly for "The Coming Insurrection" (Negri) is the catalyst of the already lit global REVOLUTION against the collapsing capitalist corporate/financial/militarist EMPIRE that now IS the US 'Vichy' faux-government, and this global REVOLUTION is already occurring in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia (Fri), as well as Wisconsin, New Jersey, Maine, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, and all American states in 2011.
Being openly against the Empire's "Inverted Totalitarianism" (Wolin), and candidly/courageously confronting this sick hidden "Empire of Illusion" (Hedges) that is the US centered Empire on a global and domestic basis is our only and last "line in the sand" before extinction.
Being for real democracy and liberty over violent empire is the show-down point that the Empire has already forced on the "Multitude" (Hardt) --- and no band-aid subtle political delaying tactics are going to divert the global multitude of anti-Empire forces at this late time in history.
In summary, good idea for action ---- just need to add the 'action'.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
"Liberty over violent empire"
Party headquarters
The whole world is now shouting, "Give me Liberty over violent empire or give me death", and the global ruling-elite Empire would prefer the later --- which means we must commit to the former and fast.
I can't argue with anything you have said. I believe it can happen, but do we have the will to make it happen? That is my greatest concern.
Yes, I think the will is there. The organization of millions of people to make it happen is absent.
I'm sorry Sagebrush, but the party outlined by your 3 principles would immediately be taken over by the right wing and would be a disaster.
"(1) taking money out of Washington, (2) restoring government to the people, and (3) cleaning up the corruption in government." You do not mention that the government is owned and controlled by corporations and by the super-rich, who are the real government today. They control the media, the entire Republican party, and perhaps 3/4 of the Democrats, and are robbing all of the rest of us.
Any new political group that doesn't understand and enunciate the CLASS nature of our current crisis will simply be another Tea Party, and the Koch brothers will be proud contributors.
!
Sagebrush,
I agree.
If we can get away from its associations with communism, the name "People's Party" could stick. I can see Beck and Limbaugh furiously trying to make those connections, but failing in the long run as more and more people get fed up with Republicans and Democrats. Maybe the People's Party would be less a formal party and more a means of identifying politicians who reject the corporate "take" on things. I can't imagine many of our present politicians could earn such an endorsement from the People's Party, but there might be more in the future. The important thing is to frame politics as "pro-corporate" or "democratic", a distinction the mainstream media will never accept. How often have you heard Katie Couric mention a "corporate slant" on the news? We must emphasize the distinction between democratic and "pro-corporate" policies whenever we talk about issues in the economy, healthcare, foreign policy, or education. That is the only way people will come to understand what the real enemy is.
RE: The important thing is to frame politics as "pro-corporate" or "democratic"...
I agree. And, part of the understanding that the "People's Party" needs to have is that political "frame" can be one, or the other, (corporate or democratic) but not both.
Working and unemployed Americans need to grasp the concept that you need to demand a yard if you hope to ever end up with an inch at the end of the day.
The right wing understands this concept very well.
Pre-Obama the right wing made outrageous fascist demands and got at least half of what they demanded, thereby moving their platform and the platform of the Democratic party ever rightward.
Since Obama took over, the right wing makes the same outrageous fascist demands. Instead of giving them half of what they demand, Obama gives them everything they demand and then throws in additional fascist action (just to prove he is "bipartisan").
Until the US working class and poor start demanding socialism, they will continue to watch both parties move more rightward. Even if you don't want to live in a socialist nation, you need to demand socialism if you hope to get any movement to the left. This concept was proven in the 1930s during the Great Depression when socailist and communist candidates were getting significant vote counts in elections, thereby giving the Democrats leverage to convince enough Republicans to vote for the New Deal as a means of keeping the US from going commie.
Exactly right, but how the hell do we break thru the decades-long propaganda, layers and layers of it, aimed at the working class that socialism is an invention of Satan? Most Americans who are the most negatively impacted by all the machinery of capitalism are adamantly opposed to the very idea of socialism, and have been for 50 years. They think it means their "freedom" is going to be taken away, even when they basically have no freedom left that means anything. They think their right to make "choices" will be stolen from them, even if the choices they now have reduce down to choosing between which product brands to buy, when they can afford any at all.
The brainwashing against even considering socialism is like a Berlin Wall running through the American psyche, only with an opposite meaning. It's as forbidden territory as western Europe was to east Europeans pre-1989. How do we break down this wall that declares capitalism beyond serious critique or dispute? You know, Margaret Thatcher's infamous TINA declaration. Tinkering with it is all we ever get from the political class, and the media validates this hands-off style every time there's an election and all the time in between.
The brainwash you mention has been the policy of our government for a very long time because, as Joseph Goebels said, "The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus become vitally important for the state to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lies, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the state." You can fool all of the people all of the time if the press and the government are one. And that is where we are with our corporate media.
We need to turn off that propaganda machine in our homes and get out and talk to people in our community. Best time to do that would be at a massive peace demonstration this coming Saturday, March 19th the anniversary of Shock and Awe and our illegal war of aggression against Iraq. Do it before we attack Libya.
What the propaganda cannot do is improve conditions. As the conditions deteriorate, the gap between what people see and experience - unemployment, lost homes, stagnant or declining wages, crumbling infrastructure - and what they are told grows wider and wider. Conditions are what people care about, not ideas or ideals or beliefs or opinions or philosophies. Conditions will drive events and events will drive opinions. Then, ideals or beliefs become irrelevant when contrasted to reality, and ideas or opinions or philosophies only become valuable to the degree that they are useful and congruent with reality, to the degree that they help all of us to accurately perceive and understand reality and respond to it.
Ergo, our task is to talk about reality - about objective conditions in material reality - not to sell or preach about beliefs and ideals.
This all contradicts what we are taught in school about politics, but it is how things work outside of the class room in the real world.
RE: ...but how the hell do we break thru the decades-long propaganda, layers and layers of it, aimed at the working class that socialism is an invention of Satan?
For those who grew up during the Cold War, the chances are much smaller to break through. But for those under 35, they haven't been subjected to the socialism = Stalinism, anticommunist hysteria. Young people don't have that ideological baggage (they have other baggage).
Hi Ephraim,
I think Americans are not dead set against 'socialist measures' and/or 'social protections and infrastructure', but what they fear, I think rightly, is an overarching socialist revolution that eclipses and replaces all we've come to identify America as meaning – and that ultimately is a Liberal Constitutional Democracy.
There are many forms of Socialism, and not all are going to work here, based on the history. And this is why I consistently espouse Democratic Socialism (Bernie Sanders party), as America's best and first viable step, instead of a futile and untenable step, in the *correct* direction.
I'm with you on this, SS. There's not much chance on the majority embracing that which seems thoroughly alien; and there's no need to. Simply dusting off the "lip-serviced" ideals as espoused in the preamble will be a good start: promote/provide for the general welfare, establish justice, provide for our common defense. These ideas are real and neatly suumarize EVERYTHING that humankind should be doing, and MUST do, to continue to survive.
Socialism is not alien to people. It is the "brand name" and the "belief system" that the ruling class propagandists - with immense and critical assistance form liberals and progressives - have trashed, But since Socialism is not a brand name or a belief system, people have not been turned against Socialism, they have been turned against considering it, and turning people against considering Socialism necessarily distorts all of their thinking and perceptions about reality and politics at the same time. This effect is more pronounced the more educated and successful the person is, since that is where the most intense indoctrination occurs.
Politics is not driven by "ideals."
Were Socialism alien to people, the human race would have never survived.
This is another example of how liberals think they are observing something - "the people don't want Socialism" - that they are actually causing when they make these "observations." That is the same rationale that lesser of two evils Democratic party apologists use - "the country is center right, so we have to compromise and move to the right or we won't get elected!" They are confusing cause and effect there. "We can't move to the Left" is really a lie. People who say that do not want to move to the Left, violently oppose the Left.
I agree with you TA. To me, promoting the general welfare =socialism (small-case "s")=family, friends, neighbors co-operatively looking after one another's well-being (ie. food, clothing, shelter, supplying useful jobs to aquire these things, etc...looking out for one another). The unlawful owner/operators of the global empire ALWAYS use slick propaganda campaigns to trash these humane & natural efforts to "promote the general welfare", so we should be prepared to THOROUGHLY counter these attacks. The constitution is actually on OUR side in this battle, and THEY are the treasonous bastards, NOT the working-class people. THAT is the the kind of "branding" I want to see, because it is the truth.
Yes, Socialism is about promoting the general welfare, specifically in response to the modern threat to the general welfare - Capitalism.
Socialism is to Capitalism as the Abolition movement was to slavery. In addition, Socialism represents a scientific approach to politics and economics.
Capitalism is a historical phenomenon, not a belief system or ideology. Socialism is an analysis and response to that phenomenon and is not an alternative belief system.
There are some things in the US Constitution that favor the working class, but mostly the purpose for the Constitution was to suppress and control working class people and institute the rule of a new aristocracy. Even the Bill of Rights, though, ignores the fact that those rights mean nothing because they are not extended to the economic realm. Freedom isn't freedom if you have to buy it, and if economics impact your life a thousand times more than politics do. The wealthy, and their sycophants want to talk about rights and beliefs and ideals - intangibles - and not about hard economic realities. Right here at CD we have many people deriding the actions by working class people and organized Labor in Wisconsin because people there are fighting over economic issues rather than over beliefs and ideals.
Beliefs and ideals are not driving the ruling class in their assault on us. Oh, they spout a lot of nice-sounding words about "freedom" and claim to be motivated by beliefs and ideals. That is a lie. The only thing they believe in is they believe in helping themselves to all they can grab. The only ideal they seek is all of us being in servitude to them.
We can not effectively fight back against the assault in the realm of beliefs and ideals. (This is not to say that beliefs and ideals are bad and wrong, nor to deny that they play a role in politics. Rather, they are the wrong tool for the job.)
Imagine if you were a victim of an armed robbery, and your assailant said "I believe in freedom. Only through freedom will we all prosper. Why do you hate freedom? Don't you believe in freedom?" Whom would it serve to then get into a debate about beliefs and ideals rather than talking about what the crook was actually doing? The ruling class talks about beliefs and ideals while they have a gun to our head and their hands in our pockets.
So long as there is a gun to our heads and the crooks are grabbing our wallets, what difference does it make what "beliefs" and :ideals" we have, or they have? What would lead us to believe that we could change the crooks' beliefs and ideals, and prevent the robbery that way? Worse yet, many people hare at CD argue that we should be trying to change the beliefs and ideals of the victims of the robbery.
You present your case well, and convincingly. You have won an argument, convincingly, upon the field of IDEAS, just now. You have fulfilled the 2nd commitment of OUR preamble; ESTABLISH JUSTICE, and cleared the way to fulfill OUR 3rd commitment: provide now for the COMMON DEFENSE of we the PEOPLE; you have pointed the way to its' justification, to be found in OUR declaration of independence, which points out OUR duty to remove unrepresentative government. All of these IDEAS are OUR intellectual property; OURS. NOT available for abuse, by the unlawful owner/operators of the global empire. THAT is what I mean when I talk about the field of ideas. I do hear you , that actions speak louder than words, that actions MAKE REAL the IDEAS espoused. We are on the same side, and I appreciate your speaking up often to keep us on the right track. thank you.
I mean to say that you point accurately to our need to fulfill our 2nd commitment expressed in OUR preamble; ESTABLISH JUSTICE, a just & fair condition in this situation. I'm an electrician, not a wordsmith. I don't express myself too well sometimes. Also, our 1st commitment; promote the general wefare, is the governing principle. That is what is familiar to americans. The means by which this is accomplished is open to discovery; and socialism (small case "s") looks more suitable for this purpose. Whatever works; instead of "teams" rooting for the one or the other way of promoting the general welfare. The record is now pretty clear that capitalism leaves much to be desired in promoting the general welfare, and for THAT reason should be rejected as not in keeping with our mission statement in our constitution; the preamble. This way we the PEOPLE keep the moral high ground every step of the way, defending our flanks from the oligarchy's propaganda attacks & attempts to undermind.
You express yourself very well.
Capitalism, operates directly against the general welfare; always has; can do nothing other than that. It cannot be reformed to do the opposite of what it is designed to do and can only do - enrich the few at the direct expense pf the many. No successful capitalist denies that self-evident fact, and few blue collar workers do. But liberals and progressives deny it, and fantasize about "making Capitalism work" or making it do "good things." That reflects the conflicted and contradictory nature of liberalism - simultaneously supporting the ruling class and existing social arrangements and hierarchy, so as to protect their positions in it, while at the same time posing as friends to the working class and decrying the worst and mist obvious excesses of Capitalism.
Right wingers can just out and out say "hey this is the way it is. This is how things work. The clever few get rich and too bad for the rest of you lazy slobs." Liberals and progressives can't do that, can't tell the truth, because that would blow their cover - they could no longer pose as friends to the rest of the working class and their questionable loyalties would be exposed.So they try to stake out some "moderate" "middle ground" and try to go in two directions at once - defending the existing conditions while decrying the existing conditions. That is why we see so many illogical and contradictory ideas, such as the idea that the "duopoly" is a cause of the problems, yet the partisan electoral political process is good and can be made to work and used to cause social and political change, for example; claiming to support "democracy," but then calling for strong charismatic leaders as a prerequisite to starting a movement, for another.
The breeding ground for Capitalism is, and always has been, the middle class. That results in an oligarchy, the masters, as well as a small army of support staff - what people call the "middle class" - the house slaves, about 10% of the population.
The house slaves (this idea comes from Malcolm and I will post an excerpt from a speech of his below for those unfamiliar with the concept) perform the service of policing the field slaves - the rest of the working class people - and suppressing the political Left. From that group arises new capitalists. and landlords, managers, and technicians, all working for the ruling class. The viewpoint of that group is the one most commonly expressed in liberal and progressive circles, including here at CD.
Malcolm X -
To understand this, you have to go back to what the young brother here referred to as the house Negro and the field Negro - back during slavery. There was two kinds of slaves. There was the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes - they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good 'cause they ate his food - what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved their master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master's house quicker than the master would. The house Negro, if the master said, "We got a good house here," the house Negro would say, "Yeah, we got a good house here." Whenever the master said "we," he said "we." That's how you can tell a house Negro.
If the master's house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, "What's the matter, boss, we sick?" We sick! He identified himself with his master more than his master identified with himself. And if you came to the house Negro and said, "Let's run away, let's escape, let's separate," the house Negro would look at you and say, "Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?" That was that house Negro. In those days he was called a "house nigger." And that's what we call him today, because we've still got some house niggers running around here.
This modern house Negro loves his master. He wants to live near him. He'll pay three times as much as the house is worth just to live near his master, and then brag about "I'm the only Negro out here." "I'm the only one on my job." "I'm the only one in this school." You're nothing but a house Negro. And if someone comes to you right now and says, "Let's separate," you say the same thing that the house Negro said on the plantation. "What you mean, separate? From America? This good white man? Where you going to get a better job than you get here?" I mean, this is what you say. "I ain't left nothing in Africa," that's what you say. Why, you left your mind in Africa.
On that same plantation, there was the field Negro. The field Negro - those were the masses. There were always more Negroes in the field than there was Negroes in the house. The Negro in the field caught hell. He ate leftovers. In the house they ate high up on the hog. The Negro in the field didn't get nothing but what was left of the insides of the hog. They call 'em "chitt'lin'" nowadays. In those days they called them what they were: guts. That's what you were - a gut-eater. And some of you all still gut-eaters.
The field Negro was beaten from morning to night. He lived in a shack, in a hut; He wore old, castoff clothes. He hated his master. I say he hated his master. He was intelligent. That house Negro loved his master. But that field Negro - remember, they were in the majority, and they hated the master. When the house caught on fire, he didn't try and put it out; that field Negro prayed for a wind, for a breeze. When the master got sick, the field Negro prayed that he'd die. If someone come [sic] to the field Negro and said, "Let's separate, let's run," he didn't say "Where we going?" He'd say, "Any place is better than here." You've got field Negroes in America today. I'm a field Negro. The masses are the field Negroes. When they see this man's house on fire, you don't hear these little Negroes talking about "our government is in trouble." They say, "The government is in trouble." Imagine a Negro: "Our government"! I even heard one say "our astronauts." They won't even let him near the plant - and "our astronauts"! "Our Navy" -that's a Negro that's out of his mind. That's a Negro that's out of his mind.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1145
If I read it correctly, I'm in error to claim the present system as "ours" (ie. the slaves'). Yes. I get that that is foolishness. I'm attempting mental "jiu jitsu", or "hoisting them upon their own pitard". The ideals are real. The owner/operators are being criminal in their lies & hypocrisy. Hell, even the Devil quotes from the Bible (to attempt to seduce Jesus to worship him). That DOES NOT indict the words of the Bible. THAT INDICTS the Devil for his crimes of lying, fraud, misleading, misrepresenting, etc...
I see I haven't responded to your scenario of "crook-with-gun-and-flowery speech-on-freedom" (well stated btw). To me the situation seems more like a crowded room with a CONTINUOUS dialog on-going about how the crook has a right to assault me; is (perhaps) "getting back"some money I stole from him, to either convince the crowd to help him, or stand aside & not interfere. Perhaps some in the crowd were thinking of intervening. THIS is the point where ideas are absolutely necessary. I must convince the crowd that HE is the thief & I am the VICTIM(& the crowd too, eventually) of his crime, so "let's get him" before he goes on a crime spree.
I'm OK with Bernie Sanders, but the problem with your argument is that hardly any Americans will even embrace the mild "Democratic Socialism" he sort of represents. And I have no idea how any socialism worth its name is going to be at odds with a "Liberal Constitutional Democracy," assuming any such thing existed. It may have once here, in someone's ancient dream of the USA, but part of the problem with these discussions is that we all get far too caught up in words and phrases that we THINK express something concrete and real, when they're really not much more than passing fancies and long-suppressed desires.
None of us knows what kind of socialism will or won't work here; we can't possibly know any such thing. The problem before us is how do we effectively oppose CAPITALISM. Or whether we even begin to understand that it's the very essence of all our endless problems, unless we're prospering capitalists who benefit from the suffering and subjugation of countless millions. Because if we cannot, or fail to, do that, then all this bickering about what kind of socialism we will or won't countenance is no more than whistling or pissing into the wind.
re: "the problem with your argument is that hardly any Americans will even embrace the mild "Democratic Socialism" he sort of represents."
If this is the case, then are we supposed to force upon them something they ultimately don't actually want? My argument is that something that adopts *many of the socialist measures you prescribe* is easier to sell to the American people – and your response seems to be that not enough will buy that, so we must take away all their options, and simply give them what they *need*... which is full-on Socialism – which kind, you're not willing to predict.
re: "I have no idea how any socialism worth its name is going to be at odds with a "Liberal Constitutional Democracy," assuming any such thing existed."
They wouldn't be at odds at all. It would be the fulfilling of the original intention of the founders to create a truly representative Liberal Democracy, with a powerful social contract and infrastructure.
re: "It may have once here, in someone's ancient dream of the USA"
The ideal was, and never has been achieved. But the main idea has come to the fore many times in the US, to be alternately pushed to the background... where perhaps its will be snuffed out forever. But we know, and have seen what we're fighting for. The progress of civil rights and workers rights in the 20th Century, coupled with strong social safety-nets and adequate taxation and regulation was as close to the pinnacle as we've seen. We get back to that vision.
re: "part of the problem with these discussions is that we all get far too caught up in words and phrases that we THINK express something concrete and real, when they're really not much more than passing fancies and long-suppressed desires. "
I'm very sorry to say this, but this describes ideological and full-on socialist revolution perfectly.
re: "None of us knows what kind of socialism will or won't work here; we can't possibly know any such thing. "
Well, I know what I want looks like. And that's what I'm going for.
re: "The problem before us is how do we effectively oppose CAPITALISM. "
This is just the tip of the iceberg. An intrinsic part of it, sure, but capitalism, once killed, is just the front of the line of monsters that must be slain to engineer a 'perfect world'.
You are certainly not my adversary Ephraim, so please don't mistake my tone for antipathy... I simply have to fight for the side of reasonableness on this issue of final goals. I'm already radical enough in my own right, wanting to nationalize all natural resources, but I have to do what I can to remain, in my mind, reasonable. Social responsibility, yes. Socialist revolution.... not no, but no sold.
I have no idea what "full-on socialism" even means. And I'm neither in a position, nor would I ever wish to, "take away all their options" and force some kind of totalitarian socialism on Americans. I've read my Orwell, too. But since you know exactly what you want, go for it! Do you really think you can re-create the world in your image of it?
I say I have no real idea what the kind of socialism that may (most likely will never) come about would look like, mainly because I KNOW I'm not going to be one of the shapers of it. I just have this sense of things. All I'm really interested in is getting people to begin questioning capitalism, not with a view to tinkering with it so it works better for a small clique not currently reaping its bounties, but to replace it with a system that actually works for the common good.
Many years ago I learned that people the world over have been calling this Socialism, putting it into practice when and where they could, and then watching capitalist economic and political states do everything in their power to destroy it. Now I'm finding that most Americans are simply too brainwashed against even entertaining the notion of socialism. They'd insist they're too enlightened, of course. They want something that configures more to their dream life, which is American born and bred, and I've been toying with alien and scary ideas. Me and 50 other people aren't going to spark a "full-on socialist revolution." What was I thinking?
re: "And I'm neither in a position, nor would I ever wish to, "take away all their options" and force some kind of totalitarian socialism on Americans. "
I definitely don't claim you ever have. On the contrary, and based on earlier posts of yours, I'm pretty sure the types of systems we both wish to structure human society around would be mostly complimentary.
re: "But since you know exactly what you want, go for it! Do you really think you can re-create the world in your image of it? "
I know exactly what I want, because I only want so much. My philosophy and politics support the idea of the crafting and maintaining of a solid and secure *raft or stage* (non-invasive, but powerful social infrastructure), but does not seek to impose what takes place on the raft/stage. Again, I know much of what I want, because much of what I want is simply a world free to express itself, with the structures of society giving a helping hand, not a slap in the face to those in need.
re: "I say I have no real idea what the kind of socialism that may (most likely will never) come about would look like, mainly because I KNOW I'm not going to be one of the shapers of it."
We're talking about what we want, vs what will be. I never have any idea of what will be.; one thing I do know, is it most likely won't be much like what I expected, hoped for, or strived for. I still know what *I* want and I'll pursue it.
re: "All I'm really interested in is getting people to begin questioning capitalism,"
And I think its working. But in my mind, because capitalism is dangerous (like an engine) and powerful (like an engine) and can be misused and driven irresponsibly (like an engine in a car) it requires strict regulation, and constant vigilance to ensure people don't die. And people do die. All the time, even though most people follow the rules, and some break them. I myself see the huge priority of changing the way we make cars and drive... and to remove the tyranny of the car from our towns and cities, and likewise wish the tyranny of capitalism tempered. But I don't want to get rid of cars!
re: "Now I'm finding that most Americans are simply too brainwashed against even entertaining the notion of socialism. "
Most. But I think we can woo them to Democratic Socialism. The closest models that we could aspire to would be those of Scandinavia, and in some ways France, Belgium and the Netherlands. We could convince them of the need for healthy unions, social security, education, universal healthcare - the rescinding of corporate personhood and the Citizens United case. Americans already want these things. Vermont is a good direction for the rest of America. Bernie Sanders isn't scaring aware Americans, he's attracting them by the droves.
Cheers
Hello Salusa,
Since "socialism" has so many meanings to Americans, from Cambodian Stalinism to Swedish social democracy, how about we just substitute the name "community democracy," or "co-operative community democracy." These are words for which most of us have only admiration.
Also, since a large number of the people who call themselves "socialists" do believe in total state control, the sooner we divorce ourselves from them the better. A federation of independent workers' and consumers' co-ops is something most Americans could really learn to love. Why confuse it with a lot of unsavory history?
Lawrence,
I see a lot of merit in what you say, "Why confuse it with a lot of unsavory history". Quite possibly I would not enjoy living in a state controlled system any more than I would enjoy living in a stupid theocracy.
But the socialism verses capitalism concept is orthogonal to the democracy verses dictatorship concept. But brainwashing has managed to convince people otherwise. If you dont think that "community democracy" can be demonised similarly, then please read "1984".
Your achievements will be small if you dont break the system. We have a system where our elected politicians are beholden to those with wealth. We call it a democracy, but the poor dont own any media outlets, nor have the means to bribe politicians. If you think the people are in control because they can vote for D instead of R, then you have failed to observe that it makes no difference whatsoever.
The money is in control. The people are not. The money is in control, beginning with peoples minds. You can see evidence of this everywhere. Observe the commercial poison drinks that are sold as "refreshment" at every food outlet. I believe that without advertising, there would be other alternatives besides the worlds most advertised product. The demonisation of the word socialism conflating it with absolute state control is another example. You can live in a socialist democracy just as easily as you can live in a capitalist dictatorship.
Without breaking the system, with corporate media control in place, "community democracy" is not going to get far.
Good comment. I'm with you on this.
Well, I'm not one of those Stalinists who believes in some retrograde "total state control," so please don't put me in that box. Personally, I don't give a damn what it's called and would just as soon drop the word socialism altogether. It's too toxic a term for Americans, as I've found in trying to debate this with Salusa S. The word scares her silly, so I'm done trying to use it. If "community democracy" is more suitable, and if it would in fact somehow manage to replace capitalism, I'm all in favor. There are already a number of consumer and independent workers co-ops, and I've been a member of several of them since the late '70s. I'm still a member of a food co-op. Curiously, they haven't replaced capitalism AT ALL, not in any measureable way. Unless it's that a fair portion of my own money has been spent there and not at corporate food outlets. I've never yet been inside a WalMart. Am I doing my part to smash capitalism? Am I being the change I wish to see?
Nonsense. "Total state control" is what we have. The privileged few - "middle class" - the educated white collar professionals may not experience it that way, but they live in an insulated bubble and have been heavily indoctrinated in all of the mythology about "our wonderful system." Since "our wonderful system" does take pretty good care of them, their self-interest is in alignment with their supposed "opinions" about politics. As for the millions who are left out, and who suffer in order that the few can enjoy their "American middle class," they can all be dismissed with "I do care about them" and "we are working on those things, but it takes time."
Why is it that Capitalism and liberal democracy are not invalidated by the hundreds of vicious tyrants and police states that system has spawned, but "Stalin" supposedly means we have to fear Socialism and steer clear of socialists? Because we have been indoctrinated to think that, that is why.
This is akin to the house slaves saying that the field slaves who are fighting for freedom "believe" in the "plantation system" and are somehow the real threat to freedom.
I know of no one who "believes" in "total state control" more than US bourgeoisie liberals and progressives. "Socialists might be Stalinists and they believe in total state control!!!" is fear mongering and McCarthy era red-baiting. It has no place in any serious discussion about politics.
We need to find different words to define current circumstances - and try to keep these terms as far from the circulating propaganda as possible. Words like socialism and People's Party have toxic connotation/denotations. I would think it could be done. I desperately hope so.
That's why I've thought, for the past several years, that an actual, dues-paying, "citizens' union" would out-flank the "communist" tag, and welcome in all wage & salaried workers who see the empire of financiers & corporate cartelists as the REAL enemy of humanity, for many centuries (this is actually the 4TH ROMAN EMPIRE we're dealing with; via Rome/byzantium/venice/NEW venice of relocated venetians to dutch/anglo/american localities).
Let us pray.