Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Corporate State Wins Again
When did our democracy die? When did it irrevocably transform itself into a lifeless farce and absurd political theater? When did the press, labor, universities and the Democratic Party—which once made piecemeal and incremental reform possible—wither and atrophy? When did reform through electoral politics become a form of magical thinking? When did the dead hand of the corporate state become unassailable?
The body politic was mortally wounded during the long, slow strangulation of ideas and priorities during the Red Scare and the Cold War. Its bastard child, the war on terror, inherited the iconography and language of permanent war and fear. The battle against internal and external enemies became the excuse to funnel trillions in taxpayer funds and government resources to the war industry, curtail civil liberties and abandon social welfare. Skeptics, critics and dissenters were ridiculed and ignored. The FBI, Homeland Security and the CIA enforced ideological conformity. Debate over the expansion of empire became taboo. Secrecy, the anointing of specialized elites to run our affairs and the steady intrusion of the state into the private lives of citizens conditioned us to totalitarian practices. Sheldon Wolin points out in “Democracy Incorporated” that this configuration of corporate power, which he calls “inverted totalitarianism,” is not like “Mein Kampf” or “The Communist Manifesto,” the result of a premeditated plot. It grew, Wolin writes, from “a set of effects produced by actions or practices undertaken in ignorance of their lasting consequences.”
Corporate capitalism—because it was trumpeted throughout the Cold War as a bulwark against communism—expanded with fewer and fewer government regulations and legal impediments. Capitalism was seen as an unalloyed good. It was not required to be socially responsible. Any impediment to its growth, whether in the form of trust-busting, union activity or regulation, was condemned as a step toward socialism and capitulation. Every corporation is a despotic fiefdom, a mini-dictatorship. And by the end Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil and Goldman Sachs had grafted their totalitarian structures onto the state.
The Cold War also bequeathed to us the species of the neoliberal. The neoliberal enthusiastically embraces “national security” as the highest good. The neoliberal—composed of the gullible and cynical careerists—parrots back the mantra of endless war and corporate capitalism as an inevitable form of human progress. Globalization, the neoliberal assures us, is the route to a worldwide utopia. Empire and war are vehicles for lofty human values. Greg Mortenson, the disgraced author of “Three Cups of Tea,” tapped into this formula. The deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq or Afghanistan are ignored or dismissed as the cost of progress. We are bringing democracy to Iraq, liberating and educating the women of Afghanistan, defying the evil clerics in Iran, ridding the world of terrorists and protecting Israel. Those who oppose us do not have legitimate grievances. They need to be educated. It is a fantasy. But to name our own evil is to be banished.
We continue to talk about personalities—Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama—although the heads of state or elected officials in Congress have become largely irrelevant. Lobbyists write the bills. Lobbyists get them passed. Lobbyists make sure you get the money to be elected. And lobbyists employ you when you get out of office. Those who hold actual power are the tiny elite who manage the corporations. Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, in their book “Winner-Take-All Politics,” point out that the share of national income of the top 0.1 percent of Americans since 1974 has grown from 2.7 to 12.3 percent. One in six American workers may be without a job. Some 40 million Americans may live in poverty, with tens of millions more living in a category called “near poverty.” Six million people may be forced from their homes because of foreclosures and bank repossessions. But while the masses suffer, Goldman Sachs, one of the financial firms most responsible for the evaporation of $17 trillion in wages, savings and wealth of small investors and shareholders, is giddily handing out $17.5 billion in compensation to its managers, including $12.6 million to its CEO, Lloyd Blankfein.
The massive redistribution of wealth, as Hacker and Pierson write, happened because lawmakers and public officials were, in essence, hired to permit it to happen. It was not a conspiracy. The process was transparent. It did not require the formation of a new political party or movement. It was the result of inertia by our political and intellectual class, which in the face of expanding corporate power found it personally profitable to facilitate it or look the other way. The armies of lobbyists, who write the legislation, bankroll political campaigns and disseminate propaganda, have been able to short-circuit the electorate. Hacker and Pierson pinpoint the administration of Jimmy Carter as the start of our descent, but I think it began long before with Woodrow Wilson, the ideology of permanent war and the capacity by public relations to manufacture consent. Empires die over such long stretches of time that the exact moment when terminal decline becomes irreversible is probably impossible to document. That we are at the end, however, is beyond dispute.
The rhetoric of the Democratic Party and the neoliberals sustains the illusion of participatory democracy. The Democrats and their liberal apologists offer minor palliatives and a feel-your-pain language to mask the cruelty and goals of the corporate state. The reconfiguration of American society into a form of neofeudalism will be cemented into place whether it is delivered by Democrats, who are pushing us there at 60 miles an hour, or Republicans, who are barreling toward it at 100 miles an hour. Wolin writes, “By fostering an illusion among the powerless classes” that it can make their interests a priority, the Democratic Party “pacifies and thereby defines the style of an opposition party in an inverted totalitarian system.” The Democrats are always able to offer up a least-worst alternative while, in fact, doing little or nothing to thwart the march toward corporate collectivism.
The systems of information, owned or dominated by corporations, keep the public entranced with celebrity meltdowns, gossip, trivia and entertainment. There are no national news or intellectual forums for genuine political discussion and debate. The talking heads on Fox or MSNBC or CNN spin and riff on the same inane statements by Sarah Palin or Donald Trump. They give us lavish updates on the foibles of a Mel Gibson or Charlie Sheen. And they provide venues for the powerful to speak directly to the masses. It is burlesque.
It is not that the public does not want a good health care system, programs that provide employment, quality public education or an end to Wall Street’s looting of the U.S. Treasury. Most polls suggest Americans do. But it has become impossible for most citizens to find out what is happening in the centers of power. Television news celebrities dutifully present two opposing sides to every issue, although each side is usually lying. The viewer can believe whatever he or she wants to believe. Nothing is actually elucidated or explained. The sound bites by Republicans or Democrats are accepted at face value. And once the television lights are turned off, the politicians go back to the business of serving business.
We live in a fragmented society. We are ignorant of what is being done to us. We are diverted by the absurd and political theater. We are afraid of terrorism, of losing our job and of carrying out acts of dissent. We are politically demobilized and paralyzed. We do not question the state religion of patriotic virtue, the war on terror or the military and security state. We are herded like sheep through airports by Homeland Security and, once we get through the metal detectors and body scanners, spontaneously applaud our men and women in uniform. As we become more insecure and afraid, we become more anxious. We are driven by fiercer and fiercer competition. We yearn for stability and protection. This is the genius of all systems of totalitarianism. The citizen’s highest hope finally becomes to be secure and left alone.
Human history, rather than a chronicle of freedom and democracy, is characterized by ruthless domination. Our elites have done what all elites do. They have found sophisticated mechanisms to thwart popular aspirations, disenfranchise the working and increasingly the middle class, keep us passive and make us serve their interests. The brief democratic opening in our society in the early 20th century, made possible by radical movements, unions and a vigorous press, has again been shut tight. We were mesmerized by political charades, cheap consumerism and virtual hallucinations as we were ruthlessly stripped of power.
The game is over. We lost. The corporate state will continue its inexorable advance until two-thirds of the nation is locked into a desperate, permanent underclass. Most Americans will struggle to make a living while the Blankfeins and our political elites wallow in the decadence and greed of the Forbidden City and Versailles. These elites do not have a vision. They know only one word—more. They will continue to exploit the nation, the global economy and the ecosystem. And they will use their money to hide in gated compounds when it all implodes. Do not expect them to take care of us when it starts to unravel. We will have to take care of ourselves. We will have to create small, monastic communities where we can sustain and feed ourselves. It will be up to us to keep alive the intellectual, moral and culture values the corporate state has attempted to snuff out. It is either that or become drones and serfs in a global, corporate dystopia. It is not much of a choice. But at least we still have one.
214 Comments so far
Show All"Do not expect them to take care of us when it starts to unravel. We will have to take care of ourselves. We will have to create small, monastic communities where we can sustain and feed ourselves. It will be up to us to keep alive the intellectual, moral and culture values the corporate state has attempted to snuff out. It is either that or become drones and serfs in a global, corporate dystopia. It is not much of a choice. But at least we still have one. "
If you drop Reverend Hedges' "monastic," this is similar to what i wrote at the top of the "Empire" thread:
"Stop screaming at each other about which party politician to not vote for! Work with people you know to build shared understanding such as this, and fight for a chance to build something decent that takes care of people and respects the Earth."
In addition to party labels, I have been more leaning towards dropping ideological labels as well. Insane as it may sound, I feel that we are losing are abilities to build the shared understandings you describe. I have lost my sanity for so long helplessly looking at and getting angry at people judging candidates by their party and ideological labels rather than by their stands on the issues, historical background if any on their handling of the issues, and on principle.
Everything you wrote is so true. The party and ideological labels are worthless, anymore. They've lost their meanings and they do divide us. Judge the speakers by what they do and don't give a moment's consideration to the crowds who are still blinded by words like "liberal," "progressive," "conservative," or "libertarian." To take it even further, I can call myself anti-war or pro-civil rights, but if I support Obama when he goes to war or give him a pass when he spies on us, I am neither.
It's funny how words can be so powerful at times and so meaningless at other times, isn't it?
So, have you stopped feeding at military trough yet?
Hi Jennifer,
I know what you mean. Ideological labels, like party labels, no longer work for me. Nor do they work for those who feel they have been left out of the game. The labels have been co-opted and are now used to confuse. And maybe this is all for the best as labels have historically pitted one group against another. Divide and conquer.
It does not appear to me that you have lost your sanity, though, if one were to lose it, staying angry at people is a sure-fire way to do it. Expecting people to act as we think they should is like pushing rope - it doesn't work.
What I homed in on in this article was this: "We continue to talk about personalities—Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama—although the heads of state or elected officials in Congress have become largely irrelevant."
Doesn't this say a whole lot? It does to me. The more we focus on personalities, even the ones we think could help us, the more ground we lose. This is because the system in a positive feedback loop in that it rewards self-aggrandizement and shuns working for the common good. Washington is a lost cause for the common good. We need to really understand that or we will continue to lose ground to the point of (more) serious pain and hardship.
Webwalk said it best: "Stop screaming at each other about which party politician to not vote for! Work with people you know to build shared understanding such as this, and fight for a chance to build something decent that takes care of people and respects the Earth."
It's where I am. It's what I have come to see as the only way, and I've tried many ways. We need to work with each other for another way and stop looking to someone else. It's what all the wisdom teachers throughout the ages have taught us. I think it's time we took their teachings to heart.
I have been reading the comments and just cannot decide who to reply to since my reply is to all but I thought of yours as standing out some. I thank you, Sioux, lefttown, and GWNorth for their extensive feedback and moonpie and likeitornot for the compliments. This may take a while but I think that I have been overwhelmed and angered by one too many despicable events both politically and non-politically. Today's article on authoritarianism and its tyrannical effects against women only confirms what I have been through and have witnessed in my community and state. I try not to cry over spilled milk but overcoming loss is never so easy and by the time I can barely overcome sorrow, I end up with another misery and feel that my efforts are wasted and there I am having to repeat the process. I am disgusted with the tea baggers in my state and I blame Obama for letting it get worse. I wished that people would stop allowing "personalities" to dictate who to vote for and get it right on the substance come election day every time. Election after election, such losses make any hint of repair and recovery beyond possible.
If not that loss, I feel overwhelmed at our losses on overcoming materialism. For me, I am having no trouble buckling down and giving it my best on being less materialistic. However, trying to hold on to my efforts can be difficult and people's addiction to money, for necessities or otherwise, as Sioux points out can make it difficult for us few to resist falling into the trap.
I will be rereading the comments and thinking this through while I also continue to interact with some of the interesting Swedish and Russian forums and blogs I came across, time permitting. Yes, I might have to learn those languages but I have no problem with that. It beats arguing on politics too often. Besides, I cannot always travel around the world so I might as well try to make the best of the Internet and reach out even if it is not the same as meeting in person.
Jennifer, you're not alone. Just know that.
Wonderful perspective, JB.
Maciek, a thought voiced by the oppressed over millenia. I heard the saying this way: "One flea makes the elephant itch. A million fleas bleed the elephant to death." This may be class warfare from the view point of the rich and super-rich but it is a war of the flea from my perspective.
So just what is your stand on gay rights since you refer to gay as "bull."
Ideological labels have been corrupted, particularly in the US. Liberal and conservative mean very little in the US
Still, being a socialist actually has meaning, even if the term is often mis-applied.
The label is not the person, but labels provide an easy means of identifying ones alliance with like minded others and are essential to movement building.
Yep....I've been saying all this stuff too....for about a year now. Looks like Hedges is on "all of our page" now.
Once again, Chris Hedges tells it like it really is here in the land of make believe. Everything we do is just fine because we are god's favorite people and can do whatever we like to anyone anywhere while waving the red, white and blue. Now, let's get back to what is important in the world - the royal wedding !
What is happening with Charlie Sheen ...?
Haven't heard much about him in the latest news cycle and it's making me jumpy....
bree is with me now.....
Corporatism is here to stay, at least until The Great Collapse hits, which may not occur for quite a long time. The thing is, Chris, we love the 'burlesque.' We would be truly angry if the elites took this away from us. I mean, 'watch out for the shit to hit the fan from coast to coast if we don't have a pro football season this coming fall. And I say thank god for the democrats who truly make real, meager efforts on behalf of the common man.
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” - Benito Mussolini.
Check out Democracy Now today, at about ten minutes or so , into the news update at the beginning, for obama's response to Bradley Manning situation.
Obama is as clueless as Bush was. He isn't a bright or well informed guy. I am on record, boringly enough, however, i am continuously surprised all over again.
The sad thing is that Obama is NOT clueless. He has a well seasoned, learned contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law.
Obama's just looking out for Obama. He's preparing for his post presidential career (staring in 2012 or 2016). He won't take any stands that may anger his future employers (e.g. as a board member for Goldman Sachs) or clients (e.g. commercial endorsements, lobbying) or cut into his speaking and book writing prospects. He has a bright rich future. And us? Who? Get outta here!
"readytotransform"
I really, really do NOT believe that Obama (or Bush) is "clueless."
Lying, manipulative, sadistic, and fascistic, Just like the vast majority of their colleagues.
Turn off your tv - it is making you stupid (and poor).
Exactly. Kill your Television. It is the single biggest technological fiasco in the hisotyr of mankind. The most effective propaganda machine ever devised. Bring down all TV towers. If the hoy palloy has no sports to watch, maybe they will help do something constructive.
People had diversions long before the television was invented.
But none so all encompassing and pre-cooked as TV!
Watching television is participating in your own corportae indoctrination.
I don't agree.
If one watches TV discriminately (CSpans, local and State government access) one gains a ton of info about how the system operates.
Here in PA on PCN we get to see how our Governor is ramrodding the mass industrialization and poisoning of our environment through Marcellus shale hydrofracturing by appointing Corporate shills and hacks into administrative oversight.....rendering the crimes quite visible, and blatant.
The Human Planet 6-part series currently showing on Discovery is breathtaking photography, and a lovely educational insight to the human condition.
Just don't watch the crap-------same as food and drink intake ----- be sane about it.
"The massive redistribution of wealth, as Hacker and Pierson write, happened because lawmakers and public officials were, in essence, hired to permit it to happen."
This is where I say that not even capitalism could go that far by itself. Yes, it is a slippery "faith based" system unlike socialism. However, neither socialism nor regulated capitalism, if allowed to exist, would allow pols and their business cronies to fleece the taxpayers this way and that.
"It is not that the public does not want a good health care system, programs that provide employment, quality public education or an end to Wall Street’s looting of the U.S. Treasury. Most polls suggest Americans do. But it has become impossible for most citizens to find out what is happening in the centers of power. "
I generally agree with Hedges on that except that I find polls to be teasers more than helpful. Yes, the majority if properly informed and not ill-conditioned will do their best to reflect on the polling.
"We live in a fragmented society. We are ignorant of what is being done to us. We are diverted by the absurd and political theater. We are afraid of terrorism, of losing our job and of carrying out acts of dissent. We are politically demobilized and paralyzed. "
A triple THANK YOU to Chris Hedges for mentioning this for this is what I had meant when I had said that this nation is sooo rugged individualist even within the American "Left". As a matter of fact, my saying this when I was very angry and upset probably angered some on this site and others even to the point of their mistaking me as carrying out rightwing memes on feminism and the American "Left" when I had based my judgment on the same kind of criteria Hedges had based his judgments on. However, I do apologize if I offended anyone on this issue.
"Our elites have done what all elites do. They have found sophisticated mechanisms to thwart popular aspirations, disenfranchise the working and increasingly the middle class, keep us passive and make us serve their interests."
This has made me wonder if that might explain why we are so divided on how to respond. Well, we each do what we can and nobody has the right to accuse others of "being passive" when in fact we are trying to understand the problems at heart.
To the boorish village idiots who call us "futility mongers, you cannot take the same action and expect a different result every time. Yes, we will take action and we will draw the line where we each realize or believe that we cannot continue on that route. If you want to call us "Republican shills" for us refusing to pinch and stifle ourselves into following your insane methods, then please do so and rot in hell !
P.S.: I thank Chris Hedges and CD once again for giving us the truth no matter how hard it hurts.
Yeah, JB is definitely on a roll this morning.
J.B: I think Hedges is brilliant, but I think he falls into a trap that you also fall into. To on ONE hand state that Americans want the very policies NOT being enacted, and then shift gears to suggest there is this predominant WE that is lending its acceptance to all the inversions of justice going on is either inaccurate or unfair.
Amerika is the most armed and dangerous society on the face of the earth. As some in this forum have pointed out, on "parade" for us to witness are clear examples where the protections of The Constitution and Bill of Rights are no longer viable. Just speaking truth to power can have one arrested, or perhaps even sent to a prison that's outside of any remote form of judicially-sound jurisdiction.
If the public is NOT behind the policies underway, then to use the pronoun "WE" to suggest consent is not accurate.
It is true that media has created a soporific form of crowd control, and it is true that many are terrified of losing their homes, jobs, and what little security they can still muster.
In addition to my personal objection to the use of the word WE to suggest consent where it does not exist, I also feel that Hedges' articulation of the future is inaccurate. The people walking to market in Pompeii thought it was just another day, until the volcanic ash froze them for all time.
Things go along their tracks until the final straw breaks the camel's back. This can happen through a battery of weather/climate/geological events, through the U.S. dollar losing any credibility in world markets, or through war hitting OUR shores. With all the weapons sold 'round the globe, and all the $ pouring into Arab nations, sooner or later some group WILL access them. Homeland Security is a joke. They look for the obvious, are trained to think INSIDE the box, and whatever comes our way won't conform to previously distinguished "norms." For all the bludgeoning the US armed forces have done unto the Arab lands, such a reflex would make sense.
Notions like "The left is dead," or "Feminism is Dead," or other comments of this nature, in my view, reinforce the right wing smear machine. Of course Hedges makes a very significant point (and it's been volleyed around in this forum by some astute minds), that most agencies, wittingly or otherwise, serve the corporate state. Party differences are just smoke and mirrors.
Capital means money. The human race, according to Hindu mystics, was destined to (recently) pass through its most materialistic phase. We are so accustomed to the conditioning behind words like "freedom," "progress," "growth," and "civilization," that most don't understand the sensibilities that have been lost. These represent largely unused portions of the modern intellect, such things as empathy, imagination, and intuition. The wise elders of Indigenous tribes counted on these senses and were able to tune into nature (and the invisible energies that envelope the planet) in a way most people could never understand. They saw and understood what modern mankind does not.
Capital, or money, has become the god of the modern world because people have been trained to define all of their needs through materialistic channels. Since the l950's, the costs of things like homes, cars, and education have doubled many times over, while wages have not. Thus the POWER OF MONEY has come to dominate life. This explains why "The Left," as Hedges sees it, sold out. Universities had to cater to their wealthy donors in order to stay "in business," and as the Lobby system took over DC, would-be honest politicians had to do likewise.
Money has trumped all other values in Western civilization, and I think this dis-ease is worst in Amerika. Eisenhower warned that the Military Industrial Complex was positioning itself to wield undue influence over America's foreign (and domestic) policymaking. Because so much money is made from war, war has become Amerika's chief export.
To blame the Left for the larger forces that had enconsced humanity so densely INTO MATTER at the very cost of the same living ecosystems it relies upon, is a short sighted analysis. Everything he says is true, but the context needs to be enlarged to take these greater shaping influences into account.
We ARE headed full speed ahead into a paradigm shift. Like the citizens of Pompeii, many will not see it coming. More and more of my friends are noticing how a nation like Japan, its economy largely in shambles, has registered NO perturbation on the Stock Market scale. Economies are complete fictions at this time. The captured media speaks in the language of illusion. It is not an accident that diverse prophecies from divergent sources ALL point to this time period as THE time of Transition for mankind.
Every empire has its "sell by this date" stamp... this, too, shall pass away. The mystics have a better understanding of the larger processes than does a political analyst, even a GENIUS like Hedges... who I deeply admire.
I concur with much of what you say and this to add to it with a somewhat different opinion on what meant by the term "we" and why Hedges not far wrong.
Fear fuels fear. This truth an old one , but when talking of "we" and "they" we have to try and understand what it is that truly differentiates us from one another IF anything at all.
The underlying problem of the human condition in my humble opinion is the disparity in the distribution of wealth and then power. With this disparity we can never truly understand the other.
As example it is much easier for a person who is comfortably middle class to be seemingly more concerned with causes like social justice or an ecosystem then a person who us at the bottom of social status just trying to survive. It much easier to condemn a person hunting seal fur to make a living when one is earning 50k a year and that seal hunter makes less then 20k a year.
It is easy for a person with a steady job to condemn the woman selling herself into prostitution saying "I would never do that". It is easy to condemn the criminal that holds up a liquor store so as to pay the next months rent when one is comfortable in their own home telling the world they would never resort to such in the same situation.
By the same token looking at it from the bottom looking up.
How many people at the very bottom of the social structure who suddenly came into great wealth or even became middle class would not become more like that group of people they once condemned?
It is the system the "Collective We" have created that begins to shape the individual "I". Just as a species will adapt and change and evolve dependent on its environment so too does the human species.
In Capitalism and its inequitable distribution of wealth and power we have created an environment wherein the singular "I" has little influence over that "we". As such the system is the enemy and what will retard true progress and it that system which is shaping us that must be dismantled.
There can be no true progress under Capitalism. We must come before I.
GW NORTH: Your perspective is totally valid. The concept of hierarchy, who "deserves" wealth and who does not, is one that has plagued the human condition for many centuries. Perhaps my understanding of American Indigenous culture is somewhat romanticized (I am, after all, not a historian), but it seems to me they operated in a far more egalitarian fashion, where each held a measure of individuality while not having that quality subsumed in the process of adding their contribution to the whole (or well being of the tribe). Something along those lines would be my ideal of a positive societal model. And according to Indian mystics like Sun Bear, modern America will see its children revert back to these teachings and survival modes. The ecological clock is ticking and appears to be determining that inevitability.
KANE: Science is hardly the item that will fix this. It's about consciousness raising. And for the record, I am tired of people like you--along with those that are repulsed by the notion that Earth is a LIVING BEING--equating my beliefs with "mumbo jumbo."
MILLIONS if not billions of people believe in reincarnation. Astrology is NOT new age, if anything it is an ancient, ingeniously integrated system of correspondences. Relating the wisdom of people like Yogananda hardly qualifies as anything bogus. These sages spent their lives studying how the human mind operates. They trained their minds to hold to stillness, and through that venue saw through the plane of illusion. Most people today, educated or otherwise, have been indoctrinated to relate to a model of life that is entirely limited by gross materiality.
To understand other forms of sentience, you might want to look up the compelling material that came through Jane Roberts 30 years ago. As I am not new to mystical teachings, what is passed off as New Age is in many cases a more commerically-friendly version of ancient, often sacred, truths. This "movement" that began in the l980's, (and I term it "Republican spirituality") put materialism before the duty of inner development, and in my view, lost much of its spiritual credibility. There was a time where the Initiate had to prove his or her spiritual valor by passing specific tests before being given privileged knowledge. Those of us who made it our life work to study the ancient mysteries are NOT new age, and I am TIRED of this false and misleading conflation of terminology.
Thanks Siouxrose, amazing posts, as usual! ;)
BP: Thank you. Compliments always feel good.
LIVE IT: I have never heard the reference to "chicken skin," but if that's a good thing, great.
Siouxrose
Chicken skin is Hawaii vernacular 'pidgin English' for goose bumps or god bumps.
GwNorth, you validly question, "Fear fuels fear. This truth an old one , but when talking of "we" and "they" we have to try and understand what it is that truly differentiates us from one another IF anything at all."
I would propose, after much thought on this seminal question, that what "differentiates us" between "we' and "them" as you query is that 'we', the vast majority have minds that have advanced/evolved to the level of "democracy-thinking", whereas 'they', those who either just aspire or actually achieve ruling-elite status, have minds that are stuck at the non-evolved level of "empire-thinking".
I would love to have the much more scientifically based opinion of George Lakoff review my hypothesis about the human mind being differentiated as "democracy-thinking" vs. "empire-thinking".
While Lakoff may be able to use the most advanced cognitive science and fMRI technologies to discern such differentiation of 'us' and 'them', and might even use such testing to characterize the subject as 'normal' and 'sociopaths', I would hope that he might look at the percentages in the human population of 'empire-thinking' CEOs, Hedge Fund managers, political egomanics, etc. (2%) compared to 'democracy-thinking' good, average, middle/working-class Americans (98%), and conclude with scientific precision that there is an exact correlation and analogy with sociopaths (2%) and normal humans who are not sociopathic (98%).
This, of course, is just a guess on my part, but I'm convinced that 'empire-thinking' correlates with being a 'sociopath', and that what I call 'democracy-thinking' correlates with what we all call being a normal human being, with empathy, and humanist thought processes.
Maybe, George Lakoff, who after all wrote the wonderful and revealing book, "The Political Mind", and who often reads and writes for CD, will see my hypothesis here on CD about 'democracy-thinking' vs. 'empire-thinking' and decided in his own 'democracy-thinking' mind that such a study should be undertaken by those possessing scientific minds (which I lack), and determine if deep and advanced cognitive science can differentiate 'democracy-thinking' people from 'empire-thinking' people --- which would delight me.
But in the mean time, I'm quite sure that I can very clearly, very quickly, and very accurately differentiate through brief discourse with someone whether they are what I call a majoritarian 'democracy-thinker' or an elite 'empire-thinker'.
Of course, not all 'empire-thinkers' actually become "Masters of the Universe", and some merely stay as aspiring empire-wannabes and traders to their class, although a few minutes of discourse with such disturbed people is enough to determine for me whether I would like to continue the conversation beyond this 'testing' stage.
Sincerely your's and friend to 98%,
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Liberty & democracy over violent empire -- People's Party 2012
Global People's Anti-Empire Action -- 2011/Now!
I agree with your assessment that without even being aware of it, Money is the current god, above all others, in any country, but especially in the US. I disagree though with the mystic mumbo jumbo.
What it's really going to take is some invention, some technology, by some unkown team of well-meaning scientists that makes money irrelavent. Something that pulls the rug out from under the financial bullies.
Siouxrose,
Thanks, I have a extreme case of 'chicken skin' after reading your comment. Full speed ahead, for sure :)
Kane,
Are you willing to consider that your own prescription (a technology-invention that makes money irrelevant) could be termed 'techno mumbo jumbo?
"The mystics have a better understanding of the larger processes than does a political analyst, even a GENIUS like Hedges... who I deeply admire."
Mysticism and a people's politics are like oil and water. They do not mix.
Attempting to build a political movement based on mysticism is a regressive and elitist concept.
There is a connection between all things in the great cosmos.
I politely disagree. Consider Leo Tolstoy, Mohandas Gandhi, Dorothy Day, Thomas Merton, Martin Luther King Jr, and Dorothy Soelle. Of course, it all depends on what we mean by "mysticism" and "peoples' politics"...
They may have come to politics through a mystical perspective, but no movrement has ever been built on mysticism.
Their is an elitism inherent in politicized mysticism that conflicts with mass based democratic politics. It's generally referred to as theocracy.
Guru knows best is no way to build a popular movement.
While spiritual, Martin Luther King was hardly a mystic. His politics were well grounded in the mundane world.
Even Ghandi's movement was not based in mysticism but in the popular aspirations of the people.
Your point is well-taken. While I'm primarily committed to the mystics' path (in a ramshackle kind of way), one goes into it like one goes into her/his grave; alone & unaccompanied by any other human (even the pall-bearers turn & walk away. Of course one may be accompanied by the physically unseen, attendent "helpers, guides, guardians, mentors,etc..." but I'll not go into that). That's why I always refer to socio-eco-economic-political activities as events occurring/concerning "the Western Front". The path of mystics, shamans, monks, etc... is concerned with events on the "Eastern Front". I palpably feel the differentness of the two. This is WHY revolutionary societies were set up as SECULAR democratic republics because it's concerned with life on THIS SIDE of the grave, and RECOGNIZES the futility of trying to IMPOSE a mystic/spiritual path upon one & all. One just has to live this "two-track" way to participate in both realms. Of course, right-relations among & between people is necessary to a good life on the "western front", but that isn't mysticism, nor even religion. That is ethics & morality.
"This is where I say that not even capitalism could go that far by itself. Yes, it is a slippery "faith based" system unlike socialism. However, neither socialism nor regulated capitalism, if allowed to exist, would allow pols and their business cronies to fleece the taxpayers this way and that."
No.
The point of capitalism, of a capitalist is to maximise returns on his / her capital. That means if your regulations get in the way of that maximisation of returns, your regulations will be opposed by the capitalist.
Fleecing the taxpayers is PRECISELY the point of capitalism. Or more correctly, if fleecing the taxpayer results in the higher returns, that capitalism is all for fleecing the taxpayer.
Rfloh, I agree with you as far as capitalism in the USA is concerned. However, we must make our distinctions between allowing one too many risks and forcing disaster. Capitalism may do the former but it does NOT do the latter. The latter is done by corrupt pols who are in bed with their business cronies.
I believe in socialism and yes, I have a weak spot in asking for just a wee bit of wiggle room, hence a little capitalism. That is completely different from the monied elites who ask for privileged "socialism" for themselves at the expense of forcing disaster "capitalism" against the rest of us.
There is no real distinction between capitalism in the US, and elsewhere. All capitalists, regardless of whether they are American or not, want to maximise returns on their capital. In some countries, there are more regulations, however, this does not mean that any owner of capital does not wish that those regulations could be done away with to maximise returns; in others, less so. But, the basic desire of capitalists is the same, everywhere.
" However, we must make our distinctions between allowing one too many risks and forcing disaster. Capitalism may do the former but it does NOT do the latter. The latter is done by corrupt pols who are in bed with their business cronies.
"
It DOES do the latter. You talk about corrupt pols and business cronies. What are those business cronies, other than capitalists who want to maximise the returns on their capital?
"I believe in socialism and yes, I have a weak spot in asking for just a wee bit of wiggle room, hence a little capitalism. That is completely different from the monied elites who ask for privileged "socialism" for themselves at the expense of forcing disaster "capitalism" against the rest of us.
.."
The problem isn't wanting "wiggle room". It isn't a weakness. I have no problem acknowledging that capital has its uses. What I disgree with is when well meaming people like you are fooled by talk about supposedly more benign forms of capitalism, into forgetting that at heart, the principle of capitalism, all capitalism, is to maximise returns on the capital for the owner of the capital.
The Mondragon cooperative principles are explicit: "The sovereignty of labor, and the instrumental and subordinate nature of capital." Gotta have capital; can't have capitalism.
Corporations are the enemy.
Our weapons are few. General strikes don't work because people can't afford to get fired. Protests don't work because they are are forcibly fenced off, are not part of the nightly news, and would-be protesters are afraid of being seen by their bosses and geting fired. Unions don't work because people are afraid of getting fired. People are afraid to use bumper stickers.
Anonymity allows lots more folks to partcipate. The only anonymous action I see is BOYCOTTS.
Boycott Exxon/Mobil, Shell, BP, GE, Coca Cola, Citi, BofA, GoldmanSachs, Georgia Pacific, WallyWorld, McDonalds, Home Depot, Cracker Barrel, Sara Lee, IBM, etc.
http://www.topplebush.com/boycott_rush.shtml
http://foxnewsboycott.com/fox-news-sponsors/
True, by themselves general strikes don't work and you're right. It's all about fear and the economic catch-22s. But a similar case can be made on the idea of boycotts. I'm all for both general strikes and boycotts. My question to you and others pushing for boycotts is what do you replace them with and why not have the system changed so that we don't end up with the same shit under a different name? Let's put it another way. Do we just boycott Walmart and replace it with Target or do we prevent devils such as the Walmarts long term?
Max,
I prefer action to long-winded rants. That's why I keep harping on Boycotts and the Six Word Amendment ("A Corporation is not a Person"). They are actions we can take now, and I don't see many other alternatives.
I disagree with your statement about Boycotts being subject to fear and economic catch-22s. A boycott is perfectly anonymous and hits 'em where it hurts.
Your point about Target is good. We are all consumers by necessity, so we all need to go buy bread somewhere. Therefore, we can each choose to boycott "the worst of the worst," corporations that have shown complete disregard for humanity.
Target has been flash-actioned (excellent video), and they are known to have spent Millions to promote anti-gay legislation. If we share such info, folks can choose where to buy bread, gas, consumer goods.
It's amazing that BP isn't being severely harassed and boycotted, especially in states along the Gulf.
We can both rant and take action. What's wrong with that? I'm not saying that we shouldn't boycott but we need our replacements and backups to follow up on it. Let's take BP and oil companies in general as an example. Where's the market for alternative fuels? They don't exist but worse than that, there's no room for other companies to compete with the current oil companies. BP is not the first nor will it be the last of the big oil companies to escape punishment. I'm all for buying cars that run on electricity instead of gas as a means of boycotting BP and the rest of the oil tycoons. My issue would be expense and availability of electrically charging that car. That's where I'm seeing the difficulties of getting a successful boycott. Other than that, I can't argue against the fact that boycotting can be successfully effective. Public transportation would be a better way of boycotting BP by the way but differences in political attitudes can cause availability to vary from one state to another. I can't imagine Alabama or Kansas getting serious about PT but there might be some luck in some states if crude oil prices go beyond 200 a barrel.