Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Power – and Limits – of Social Movements
Dissidents not only have to be willing to tell the truth about the delusions of the dominant culture, but make sure we don’t fall into delusions of our own.
The following is a version of a talk presented to the Houston Peace and Justice Center conference on July 9, 2011.
In mainstream politics in the United States, everyone agrees on one thing: We’re number one. We’re special. We’re America. We’re on top, where we deserve to be.
In dissident politics in the United States, we have long argued that this quest for economic and military dominance can’t be squared with basic moral and political principles. We’re on top, but it’s unjust and unsustainable.
Whether or not the United States has ever had a legitimate claim to that top spot -- or whether there should be spots on top for any nation(s) -- the days of uncontested dominance are over: Our economy is in permanent decline and our military power continues to fade. We are still the wealthiest society in history, but we are no longer the dynamic heart of the global economy. Our military is still able to destroy at will, but the wars of the past decade have demonstrated the limits of that barbarism.
How should the U.S. public react to this shift? One approach would be to acknowledge that predatory corporate capitalism based on greed and First World imperialism based on violence have produced obscene levels of inequality, both within societies and between societies, that are inconsistent with those basic moral and political principles. Our task is to reshape systems and institutions before it’s too late.
That kind of critical self-reflection also leads to the conclusion that our society not only fails on the criterion of social justice but also is ecologically unsustainable. We are a profligate, consumption-mad society, in a world in which unsustainable living arrangements are the norm in the developed world and spreading quickly in the developing world. We can’t predict the time frame for collapse if we continue on this trajectory, but we can be reasonably certain that without major changes in our relationship to the larger living world the ecosphere will at some point (likely within decades) be unable to support large-scale human life as we know it.
These crises, if honestly acknowledged and squarely faced, would test our capacity to analyze and adapt -- there’s no guarantee that enough time remains to prevent catastrophe. Without such honesty, there is no hope of a decent future.
So, the bad news is that we’re in trouble.
The worse news is that the mainstream political culture cannot face this reality.
Dissident political organizing must take into account the fact that contemporary America is deeply delusional. Our collective life is shaped by a propaganda-driven political system that ignores and evades. Political leaders -- from the reactionary right of the Republican Party to the liberal left of the Democratic Party -- are not interested in creating new systems to face these challenges but instead are mired in trivial debates about how to duct-tape together the existing social, economic, and political systems to allow us to live in our delusions a bit longer.
In addition to critiquing the delusions of the dominant culture, we dissidents have to make sure we don’t absorb those same delusions. We have to be honest not only about the promise of social movements but their limits. My fear is that many -- maybe even most -- people who identify with progressive/left/radical politics are in denial about the depth of the crises and, therefore, prone to misjudge the potential of traditional social movements. Those of us who define ourselves by our commitment to social justice and ecological sustainability -- those who want to make the world a better place -- have to be careful to avoid delusions of our own. Here’s how this often plays out:
A dissident speaker offers a critique of some aspect of the dominant culture’s political, economic, or social systems. The task of taking on those systems seems overwhelming, and someone in the audience asks, “Is there any hope that we can change things?” The speaker acknowledges the difficulty of the task, but points out that social movements in the past have faced great challenges, lost many battles along the way, and persevered to make the world a better place. In the United States, the speaker often cites the civil rights movement as an example: Courageous people organizing over centuries to challenge the deeply entrenched white supremacy that defined the country, ending first slavery and then formal American apartheid. The speaker reminds the audience that the work of popular movements remains incomplete and that we owe it to generations past and future -- and to ourselves -- to press on.
I’m familiar with that exchange because I’ve both been in those audiences and also been the speaker offering that analysis. It’s an honest response -- historically accurate and morally defensible -- but these days I’m less comfortable with that stock answer. Yes, we must remember the promise of social movements, inspired by past successes. But we also need to be clear about their limits in the present and future.
Let’s push the example of the civil rights movement a bit:
When Martin Luther King, Jr. stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in the 1963 March on Washington, he spoke of “a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.” He argued that “the architects of our republic” had signed “a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir,” which guaranteed “the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” For black Americans, that note “has come back marked insufficient funds,” King said. “We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.”
In 1963, King was speaking in a world that promised endless bounty, and his claim was that black people had a right to their fair share of that bounty; the metaphor of checks and banks was not only metaphorical. He spoke of political liberty, but the assumption was that with the “riches of freedom” would come, if not actual riches, certainly a more equitable share of the country’s wealth. White America didn’t particularly like letting black -- or indigenous, Latino, Asian -- people into the winner’s circle, but once it became impossible to maintain apartheid-by-law, white folks gave a bit of ground. White society grudgingly gave that ground in the middle of a post-World War II boom that promised endless expansion. The fight for racial justice took place on a relatively stable platform of U.S. global political power and economic growth.
The same context applies to other social movements of that period fighting for workers’ rights, women’s rights, lesbian/gay rights, ecological awareness. Moving into the 1990s, it also applies to the global justice movement that focused on the economic imperialism of the First World, and even to the anti-war movement of the early 2000s.
There were, of course, ups and downs in these decades. The U.S. debacle in Southeast Asia led to doubts about U.S. power and methods, but those were washed away by the demise of the Soviet Union and the American “victory” in the Cold War at the end of the 1980s. There were economic recessions, but they didn’t disturb a widely shared belief that the economy, over the long haul, would grow indefinitely. There was a brief period of concern in the 1970s about environmental limits, but when predictions of short-term disaster proved imprecise, most people quit worrying.
Most of the dissident political analysis and organizing of the past half century also has gone forward with an assumption of economic growth and ecological stability. The goal of much of this organizing was to make that stable, growing world a fairer place with a more just distribution of power and resources. I believe that even many of those fighting against U.S. domination of the world expected -- and wanted -- to live in a world in which the United States remained if not central and obscenely wealthy, at least important and comfortable.
To borrow a phrase from songwriter John Gorka, that is the old future, and the old future’s gone -- dead and gone, never to return. While the dominant culture may indulge its delusions of endless bounty, that’s not how the cards are falling. What does that mean for political dissidents? With so many variables and contingencies, any attempt at specific prediction can’t be taken seriously. But we have to do our best to anticipate what is coming so that we can organize as effectively as possible.
The key shift: We will be organizing in a period of contraction, not expansion. There will be less of a lot of things we have come to take for granted (energy and natural resources) and more of other things we’ve been hiding under the rug for a long time (toxic residue and environmental disruption).
That less/more reality in the physical world will no doubt have an effect on our political/economic/social worlds. It may well be that the liberal tolerance that has been hard-won by subordinated groups will evaporate rather quickly with intensified competition to acquire energy resources and avoid toxic disruptions. A willingness to share power and wealth during times of abundance doesn’t automatically endure in times of scarcity. Scapegoating, a time-honored tactic, is especially useful during hard times.
My concerns about this are exacerbated by two trends in contemporary society: a diminished capacity for empathy and a dwindling connection to the natural world.
On empathy: Capitalism defines human beings as primarily greedy, self-interested animals designed to maximize their own position, especially in the acquisition of material goods and status. That instinct obviously is part of our nature, but -- just as obviously -- that is not all there is to human nature; given the long evolutionary history of humans in band-level societies defined by solidarity and cooperation, we should assume the greedy instincts probably are not primary. Yet in capitalism that sociopathic instinct is rewarded and reinforced. With each generation that lives in such a system, our capacity for empathy is undermined. This is not an argument against individuality or for complete subordination to the collective, but merely recognition of one of the ugliest aspects of capitalism -- the belief that we can ignore the fate of others and still make a decent world.
On nature: In a high-energy/high-technology society that is increasingly mass-mediated, with each generation we grow more alienated from the larger living world. Just as capitalism undermines our connections to each other, industrial society undermines our connections to other species and the ecosystems on which we depend. The industrial world is a dead world, and our immersion in that world makes it harder for us to see what is dying. This is not an argument against all technology or human’s use of our creative capacity to change our environment, but merely recognition of one of the scariest aspects of modernity -- the belief that we can ignore the living world and still live in the world.
There is nothing terribly new in these warnings. Let’s go back to the civil rights movement and another of King’s memorable speeches, “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence,” delivered on April 4, 1967, at Riverside Church in New York City. In his critique of the U.S. attack on Vietnam and the larger forces behind that attack, King said: “I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”
Ask yourself, where do we stand on the struggle to move from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society? What about our obsession with machines and computers? The culture’s worship of profit motives and property rights? How much progress have the past four decades of progress brought?
None of this is a call to abandon organizing or sink into the paralysis of despair. It’s simply a suggestion that we deal with reality. Is the sky falling? Of course not, because the sky doesn’t fall -- that’s the wrong metaphor. Better to ask, is the sky darkening?
What is my program for organizing in a world beneath a darkened sky? I have no program, only some observations and tentative conclusions, maybe nothing more than gut instincts.
First, we should focus on creating more actual physical spaces and real human networks based on progressive/left/radical values, putting as much energy as needed to anchor and solidify them, even if it takes time away from issue-oriented campaigns. As we work on specific policy issues, let’s organize with an eye toward building not coalitions but communities. In hard times, coalitions evaporate, but communities have a shot at surviving.
Second, whatever projects we pursue, there should be a component that connects people to the non-human world and includes physical work in that world. We need not disconnect completely from our abstract analytical work and computers, but every project should give us a chance to do physical work with others, outdoors as much as possible.
Those first two instincts have led me to redirect a considerable amount of my time, energy, and money to a progressive community center we are building in Austin, TX, 5604 Manor, http://www.5604manor.org/. There is important and exciting organizing and advocacy work going on there, but just as important is the community-building activity as we renovate the building, clean up the back yard, plant gardens, and get to know each other across lines of age, race, and language.
These instincts are captured in the first stanza of William Stafford’s poem, “A Ritual to Read to Each Other”:
If you don’t know the kind of person I am
and I don’t know the kind of person you are
a pattern that others made may prevail in the world
and following the wrong god home we may miss our star.
My third instinct may seem obvious: We need to tell all the truths that we know and feel. My sense is that this is our most difficult task, to speak honestly of the darkening sky. In the dominant culture, such talk is most often ignored -- people either refuse to listen, laugh it off, or deride it as defeatist. Even in dissident circles, attempts to discuss these subjects bluntly often lead people to disengage or demand that I only speak in a positive manner.
But every day there are more people -- though still a small minority -- who want to face what is coming, even though such a reckoning deepens our grief. Our task is to speak aloud what others may feel but may be afraid to voice. Perhaps the most radical act today is to speak the truth about a darkening sky and remain committed to organizing, knowing there is no guarantee we can endure, let alone prevail.
This spirit is captured in the last stanza of Stafford’s poem:
For it is important that awake people be awake,
or a breaking line may discourage them back to sleep;
the signals we give -- yes, no, or maybe --
should be clear: the darkness around us is deep.
The potential power of social movements at this moment in history flows from this commitment to speaking the truth -- not truth to power, which is too invested in its delusions to listen -- but truth to each other.
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...
49 Comments so far
Show AllI have always liked Jensen and know how sincere and insightful he is. Will get back to this when i have the time. I really appreciate his overall theme here. But i believe that using the time worn traditional perspectives of 'left', 'right', etc. goes against his overall thesis. Also, the use of 'developing world' plays into the imperialist mindset.
As i've said, i shall read this more thoroughly and get back here. I agree, overall.
Sorry, i know i will be bashed for pointing these things out. But Jensen himself won't be on that list. And thanks Robert, for your great work and deep caring.
Right, katrine. It's the ego and individualism, so much prized by capitalism, that's being pandered to by these social media.
We need a site that buries the ego in favor of cooperative effort on a national scale.
I find this article helpful in these dark times. I often have similar experiences speaking and organizing. And groups keep focusing outward to recruiting but mere numbers are not all. I think building community is vital now and we need to allow, in our political work, building spaces, as Jensen says, to sustain ourselves. Suppressing the dark thoughts doesn't keep them from acting on us. I think we need to grieve the reality of the damage done. Hard as that is, I believe it can free up our energy for the tasks ahead. And yes we probably waste our breath speaking truth to power at this point better to turn to each other in honesty and compassion.
A fine article by a man who understands the problem and, unlike most who tell us we must organize, actually has a functioning plan for organization.
What is needed now is a central site where where we might examine and coordinate projects such as Prof Jensen's on a national scale, with an eye to forming a mass progressive movement.
When I say, "We are screwed" that does not mean all is lost, just our political virginity of ignorance and indifference.
That's Life.
Terrific article. I disagree however, on the time frame on basis of the metrics of analysis being used. Western science does not have data on the dynamics of planetary biome/systemcollapse occurring not on a linear global charting methodology that can be shaped into a pie or other type of chart. It is a dynamic of feedback loops that science does not yet recognize sufficiently for analysis.
It is in full swing. The western propensity to categorize and identify by reductionist/deduction, for instance, does not factor human social phenomena as integral to the dynamic. The political/social/spiritual implications of the fundamental separation of nature as object rather than as a being (with all the measurable metrics of a body) will always return a misreading arrogating essential data. Neither does western science recognize other ways of knowing that are local, regional and originary in their relationship to what the west refers to as 'biome'.
It might be likened to a surgical patient, that has been misidentified, on the operating table with surgical teams that don't talk to each, have their own surgical mandates and working at cross purposes and each trying to prove dominance to the detriment of the patient. In this case however, autopsy is not a learning opportunity.
Excellent points. I have always found an interesting parallel between the desire to reduce or divide reality into ever smaller objects and how our communities divide to the point wherein the community itself becomes irrelevant and all that is important is the Individual *I* and his or hers wants and needs.
It is Western Science that drives this but , quite ironically , they seem to have come full circle as a good many of them now conclude there in fact no "separateness" which a whole lot of the "Primitive peoples" have suggested the case all along.
"...Yet in capitalism that sociopathic instinct is rewarded and reinforced..."
another great Jensen quote.
In my area, the local public library, which receives public funds, is censoring political books that can be considered unpatriotic. And to think I used to love the library. The greatest danger of censorship of dissenting political books is that when a book is banned the general public does not know that this is happening. I wonder how widespread this censorship is? Is this a national problem or does this only happen in New England?
I work in a library in the Pacific Northwest and the librarians here are some of the toughest, bravest, and most determined people I know. There is NO censorship. If I were you, I'd contact the local librarians society or association and complain.
Remember, it was librarians who were among the first to come out against provisions in the Patriot Act.
In general a good article but there are problems:
RE: "The key shift: We will be organizing in a period of contraction, not expansion."
Right. So, why look at the movements of the 1960's? The appropriate period would have been the labor struggles of the 1930's. Our Great Recession (soon to be the NEW Great Depression), unemployment, underemployment, the foreclosures, the attacks on public workers, on public education, rising health care costs and the myriad cuts being made to essential services by states (not to mention a permanently insecure employment future), are ALL attacks on the working class. How could Jensen have missed it?
RE: "First, we should focus on creating more actual physical spaces and real human networks based on progressive/left/radical values..."
The first part of the sentence is fine but the second is problematic. "Progressive" and "radical" values are not necessarily compatible. The term "progressive" is essentially a renaming of what used to be known as an (honest) liberal. Progressives want to return to a perceived liberalism of the past "when the Democratic Party really was the 'party of the people'". This was never the case, and this corresponds to some the delusions Jensen speaks about.* Radicalism, however, "goes to the root" and seats the problems we face - from economic to environmental - at the capitalist system itself. Real radicals want to overthrow capitalism; they are revolutionaries. Progressives are not.
*See Lance Selfa's brilliant book "The Democrats: A Critical History."
The observation about etymology of 'radical' is great to see - terms and their manipulation is a fundamental aspect of sustaining meaning of one's voice, and strike me as being something to consider in all public speech.
Very interesting and comprehensive article! I can't think of any political figure who would be able to productively lead such a nationwide movement more successfully than Ralph Nader!
I appreciate the way this article eloquently expresses many things that I have thought myself, but have not been able to express as well.
In 2003 I saw a movie called 'The Revolution Will Not Be Televised' and I was impressed by the level of consciousness and organization in Venezuela. I got out my old Spanish books and learned to read and more or less to speak the language. I started following events in Latin America and I have traveled in Venezuela, Honduras, and Mexico. I think that at this point Latin Americans are far ahead of the USA in their awareness of reality, especially regarding empathy and nature.
Two good sources: upsidedownworld.org and venezuelanalysis.com
The two links you provided are worthwhile indeed. The venezuelananalysis.com site is interesting because although it largely backs Chavez, there is at least one article that pillories him for handing over Colombian rebels to the Colombian government.
A very good sampling of news from different viewpoints than are available here.
Highly recommended to my fellow readers.
Peter: So true!
Old Goat: Great posts today!
I generally agree with this article but a few things:
1. Let's build both coalitions and communities.
2. I prefer Tom Larsen's take on the word radical over what Jensen calls radical. Anyone can sound like a "radical" by taking radical language and playing drama king/queen for 15 minutes of fame but that seldom accomplishes anything.
3. Organized movements aren't perfect but it's better than nothing. True, past organized movements were successful mainly because the environment that existed at that time made it easier. Today's environment doesn't make it any easier but I still don't give up organizing or joining one when I get the chance. I also won't deny the fact that organized movements with stronger thinkers also stand a better chance of succeeding.
Now here's what I strongly like about this article.
1. The metaphor on the sky falling vs darkening is a useful one. If the sky fell, we'd all be wide awake and organize and fight back whereas if the sky just darkens, we're more likely to be like frogs in a lukewarm pond slowly getting boiled to death.
2. His discussion on the need to speak the truth up and let it all out. I don't think people are necessarily afraid or outright refuse to hear the truth. Does it have to be tailored positive? No and I think it's perfectly ok to give it unfiltered or unaltered no matter how inconvenient it is and people will still get it. The trick, I think, is to be able to express it without throwing them off by giving them the wrong impression that you're only saying it because it's personal or just trying to sound like a drama king/queen about it.
I agree about the need to avoid replicating the system's deep delusions. One such delusion, however, might be the tendency to over-socialize blame via "cultural" talk. So, when you say "The culture’s worship of profit motives and property rights?," I want to ask you why you trace this to the whole culture? Most people I know do not worship profits and property. So, why lay it on everybody equally? Why not talk about the power structure and the overclass?
Meanwhile, IMHO, the real main obstacle to organizing is not culture, but television. That's what people are addicted to, and it is a hugely pushed process, from above, as always. People's immersion in TV and TV's sophistication are both now way deeper than they were when Dan Rather could show US troops torching huts and Birmingham fire hoses got entire, open-camera newscasts, at a time when those things were about the only thing "on."
By "worshiping", he means that people are still clinging to the idea of money and property ownership as if they're worshiping them without realizing it. I agree with you on the television but I think that the solution will have to be both media reform and getting people away from the box.
You make good points, but I am not sure if they apply to this article. I re-read the article and couldn't find your "The culture’s worship of profit motives and property rights?" However, it is important to note that "culture" is heavily influenced by the capitalist system. If that line is there, then it is an minor inconsistency in Jensen's piece.
In my view the following are two of the most important and "radical" paragraphs in the article:
On empathy: Capitalism defines human beings as primarily greedy, self-interested animals designed to maximize their own position, especially in the acquisition of material goods and status. ... [The] recognition of one of the ugliest aspects of capitalism -- the belief that we can ignore the fate of others and still make a decent world.
On nature: In a high-energy/high-technology society that is increasingly mass-mediated ["TV" would be defined as part of mass media], with each generation we grow more alienated from the larger living world. Just as capitalism undermines our connections to each other, industrial society undermines our connections to other species and the ecosystems on which we depend. ... [The] recognition of one of the scariest aspects of modernity -- the belief that we can ignore the living world and still live in the world.
~~~
The reason I call these two "radical" is that most progressives would accept them as givens - maybe to be regulated - but otherwise accept them as unavoidable. In an important way this distinction truly separates radicals from progressives. Radicals see fundamental aspects of humanity differently from progressives or liberals (who tend to merge systemic causes - due to capitalism - with natural ones, and therefore beyond solution).
Tom, after reading that last paragraph of your reply, I went back and reread the discussion we had on the meaning of radical vs progressive/liberal and I had thought about a lot of conflicts I had run into in the past and how it relates to what you said. In so many ways, even the best of progressives/liberals seldom practice what they preach but I don't think that they intended to do so. What I think they lack is the will power to apply what they learned fearing that they'll lose their "purity" on their thinking and actions. Anybody can talk like a "radical" and try to claim intellectual superiority on any issue be it socialism, feminism, less materialism, environment, anti-war, you name it but none of that means a thing without any encouragement from them to see to it that others get there.
I used to run into a few loudly proclaimed anti-war activists who suddenly went pro-war when I would tell them my past employment. They would wonder how I could think progressively and yet work in a controversial industry. They would not only brag and boast about their anti-war credentials but they would also suddenly talk with a rightwing attitude claiming that there are more jobs that aren't tied to the military and that the costs of living aren't that bad when nothing could be farther from the truth. One of them even tried to wish "bad karma" which is generally a bad idea and a sign of mental health problems. It was a long time ago and most of them reconciled especially as I made it clear through time that I was doing what I could to develop a class conscious to help me overcome my inner conflicts of having to pick between goodwill and economic survival when there was no one to help thanks to fewer jobs being non-military related and those few being beneath my educational and skilled levels.
On the issue of socialism, I've run into a few of the worst mean spirited people who would try to claim that they were personally the best socialists but ask them how they would help others see socialism their way or what they are doing to bring about socialism for a greater number of people and they would go off like an angry rightwinger with their "I got mine F you" talk. Hilarious but sad, they would turn out to be acting exactly like the ruling class elites who say "socialism for me, capitalism for you". One of them is this "eat the rich" idea poor demonstrated by a foam at the mouth couch potato. His idea was to wait for Donald Trump to collapse and then eat him up. But wait. The man is so fattened up, I wouldn't be able to eat past one of his hands. Now how about sharing that meal with the poor instead of burping and farting away? You will never hear that from those loudmouths who personally call themselves "socialists". And this is where their failures to be real socialists start all the way up to failure to respect and support the Green/Socialis/any left leaning party/candidate. They lack the true will power but will resort to trying to psychologically "own" the Left. I can't promise anyone that we'll all make it to socialism as a country but I certainly won't give up pushing for socialist ideas and practicing them on my part even if all we get out of it is regulated capitalism.
Even on the issue of feminism, while I generally have no problem communicating with feminist thinkers, I ran into conflicts with a few progressives and liberals, assuming they're that, who would argue that I'm no "friend of feminism" just because I don't see it their way 100%. I never claimed to have the most knowledge on the subject but I would take whatever knowledge I had on feminism at any given time and apply it as much as possible to the real world and connect it to some of the issues as I had come to understand the relationship between feminism and the issue being discussed. In that way, most feminist thinkers would see me as understanding feminism and trust me as one of the men who would just the majority of women in trying to help bring feminism to where the war against women on all fronts would be prevented and that gender equality, tolerance, and understanding would be the norm. True, some of them would frown when I would tell them that I don't believe in revenge of the genders of any kind but even that they would understand and overlook.
Sorry if I bored you on the details but I think I'm slowly realizing some more about what all in life each of us does that's truly radical but doesn't realize it. I have lots of respect for those who are strict thinkers on one or more leftist ideas and I've found them to be a handy reference and guide, up to a point, on what actions to pursue next. Thanks again and I hope we'll be able to check back on more on this in future discussions.
Okay, Max... You're obviously trying to draw me in here, with your trying allusions to those you debate on the subject of feminism. Without checking what the dictionary or some computer source says, let's hear YOUR definition of feminism. Then, if you'd be so kind, since this is a subject you talk about, as if it's what you just ate for lunch, how about another one on what "matriarchal" means, and then please apprise us of your enlightened understanding of what "patriarchy/patriarchal" signifies. The reason I can't take you seriously (or for sincere) is the way you dwell on these things, turning them into pabulum. It's almost like a Seinfeld episode where Jerry's gang gets hold of a specific word, and everyone dwells on it.
Where's the beef?
Sioux, I meant nothing personally against you when I wrote that paragraph but you must realize that what you said to me yesterday had me thinking this issue over again. I even went through the trouble of having my wife and a few of my feminist friends assure me that it's not as if I don't get it on feminism. Now, a couple of things. First, I never said or implied that I had my own definition of feminism and there's no reason to expect that I ever would. Second, you probably didn't mean for any of this to happen but you did throw me off when you claimed that I have little to no understanding of feminism, patriarchy, and matriarchy simply because I didn't see feminism your way 100% and then blamed me for "dwelling" on it and turning it into a pabulum. You could have made it easier for both yourself and me by clearly specifying where it is that you disagree with me on feminism and/or where exactly you think I'm getting it wrong on feminism instead of painting a broad brush mistaking me as not a "friend of feminism" when you already know from my posts over the years that we have more in common on each of our understandings on feminism even if I'm not a scholar on the matter. I don't think it's too much to ask for you to kindly point out where it is you disagree with me on feminism or where exactly you believe that I'm getting it wrong. If it will make you feel better by the way, I'll try not to let myself get taken away too far on this issue since I'm pretty sure that we have it close on our agreements on feminism. Sorry if my follow up reply disappointed you by the way but I think that it's for both your good and mine. Thank you.
The word socialist, like anarchist can be just another label. It doesn't mean that the person self-identified as one knows very much. One of the most important concepts in socialism is working class solidarity. If someone claiming to be a socialist is putting you down because you're not "sophisticated enough" then they are violating one of most important tenets of socialism. Every one of us is at a different level of political awareness. That's normal and no excuse for belittling someone at a different stage of their political development. Even major socialist theoreticians were neophytes once.
Check out the website http://wearemany.org/
They have dozens of lectures on all kinds of complex theoretical or historical issues that are explained in simple language. It can save you a lot of time and give you an idea quickly about all kinds of things as viewed by socialists. As the Socialism 2011 conference just ended, over the the next month or so, many new lectures will be appearing there. For example, Glenn Greenwald has a lecture called "Civil Liberties under Obama" that he gave as part of the conference.
Relating to your post you might listen to this one:
http://wearemany.org/a/2010/07/roots-of-womens-oppression
That website is familiar and it has been years since I last saw it. It looks like the site has undergone improvements and it looks like promising. I took the time to listen to Sarasvati's audio conference from the link you provided and it reminded me of what Jennifer Bedingfield and Kay Johnson had said about feminism being dead in the US and on Elizabeth H's discussion on some of the women of the younger generation in the US being hesitant about embracing feminism. I understand where they're coming from and while I can't agree that feminism is dead, I think that the reason feminism is not resonating as much even among the younger generation of women in the US at least is due to lack of education on feminism and the abstinence-only distortion of sex education. I can't deny the fact that most of the fundamental changes that feminists successfully fought for all the way up to the 1970s have either been abolished or marginalized to irrelevancy, Roe v Wade being one example. Big thanks for the site and audio link on this issue. I'll try to remember to pass this site and audio link to Jennifer and Kay when each of them show up and get each of their thoughts on this and more.
It appears that throughout history, an individualist attitude often took hold over the idea of working collectively and keeping it fair for all thereby making it easier for capitalism to dominate and make unexpected comebacks even when socialism would be at its highest in any given country and its given time in history. The audio lecture and hopefully others on that site that I will take the time to listen too is helpful for us to see where we're repeating historical mistakes that we would otherwise have no idea about or its unintended consequences that would arise from doing so. From the audio on the roots of women's oppression, I came to the assumption that in the thousands of years that a lot went wrong, there was room for taking the time to see where it actually went wrong and what might have been the best solution in each case. It would have been nice if serious changes at early stages to avert any outbursts of gender inequality could have been done or at least pushed even with the ruling class generally having a carefree attitude probably because they stood to benefit from any divisions including those related to gender. An overhaul of the system would usually come out to be a better idea but I can see why the ruling class would fear it as a threat and do everything they could to stop it from succeeding at all costs unless they thought that they could manipulate that new socialistic type idea in their favor and trick the laboring class people into hating it in return.
Robert Jensen will be a featured speaker at the Veterans For Peace convention in Portland, Oregon August 4-7. The public is invited to attend. See www.veteransforpeace.org for more information.
IWONDER: Should you come to this thread, in my view, the concluding portion of Mr. Jensen's always incisive, elegant, and humane essay is the answer your recent spammed post deserves. In it, you attempted to poke fun at, or delegitimize the very real areas that demand our concern. You turned what's actually going on, and any voice given to it, as a parody on fear itself. It was an attempt to pretend that there is no darkened sky... no cause for grief. In short, it was entirely dishonest.
I am not sure that you could become enlightened; however, if that possibility did exist, than I'd say the insights revealed in this article/essay might aid that process... for you considerably.
"I am not sure that you could become enlightened.."
all have the ability.
VDB: Some are unteachable and have closed minds. As a shaman explained, "if one's cup is already full, nothing can be added to it."
It's not that the capacity to become enlightened only belongs to a few, and that was hardly my point. It's that many have no INTEREST and probably don't realize that there's a higher order way of thinking where their minds might go. Have you ever tried to have a conversation with a fundamentalist Christian? They are a whole different ilk here in the US Bible Belt... than whatever the breed in U.K. Have you done any reading on the authoritarian mindset? Or did you think no one from that "sensibility" visits this site?
Siouxrose - my comment was on your judgement and had no malice.
I was reminded of Gandalf's reminder to Frodo that even the wise know not which part each has to play.
(the best way to flummox a fundie is to ask if, as lusting is tantamount to adultery, does that make preparing for war equal to murder?)
In short, turn on, tune in, drop out. The hippies figured this out 50 years ago.
Here's the truth! European invaders purposefully extinguished 112,000,000 American Indian lives, stole their land and resources, prospered for two hundred thirty five years on the spoils of genocide, and are now being pursued by the same great evil that they inflicted upon American Indians. American Exceptionalism is hubris ! It's not by accident that this little fact is absent in Jensen's analysis. American's are blind to the truth and cannot find it.
RE: The truth
1) "European invaders purposefully extinguished 112,000,000 American Indian lives, stole their land and resources..."
- The number seems high but otherwise I have no problem w/ what you're saying.
2) "...prospered for two hundred thirty five years on the spoils of genocide..."
- Certainly the ruling class prospered. For most of that time, blacks, Hispanics, women and most of the working classes did not.
3) "...and are now being pursued by the same great evil that they inflicted upon American Indians."
- Are you saying Americans are being pursued by genocide? How so?
4) "American Exceptionalism is hubris..."
- It's not unique to the US. All empires share that arrogance (Pax Romana, Pax Britannica etc)
5) "It's not by accident that this little fact is absent in Jensen's analysis..."
- I think this conclusion is a bit of a stretch. Jensen is very critical of capitalism. The history of the USA is in lockstep with the development of capitalism. The early capitalists amassed their original capital through what Marx negatively (and Adam Smith and David Ricardo positively) called "primitive accumulation" which was carried out via the theft of land, theft of labor (slavery) and ethnic cleansing (or genocide of indigenous peoples).
"1) "European invaders purposefully extinguished 112,000,000 American Indian lives, stole their land and resources...""
"- The number seems high but otherwise I have no problem w/ what you're saying."
Read Charles Mann, "1491" and David Stannard, "The American Holocaust".
------------
"2) "...prospered for two hundred thirty five years on the spoils of genocide..."
- Certainly the ruling class prospered. For most of that time, blacks, Hispanics, women and most of the working classes did not."
The working class prospered powerfully until 1978, then the wealthy decoupled wages from productivity. .
--------
"3) "...and are now being pursued by the same great evil that they inflicted upon American Indians."
- Are you saying Americans are being pursued by genocide? How so?"
The wealthy among you are seeking a policy of depopulation, additionally, foreign cultures are seeking to destroy you. Given the relative ease of delivering weapons of mass destruction, it is likely only a matter of time. The American People are being pursued both internally and externally. American's like to believe that life is linear but that is unnatural. Life is circular and what you do to others will also be visited upon you. Time is the only variable.
--------
"4) "American Exceptionalism is hubris..."
- It's not unique to the US. All empires share that arrogance (Pax Romana, Pax Britannica etc) "
American Exceptionalsim is still hubris!
---------
"5) "It's not by accident that this little fact is absent in Jensen's analysis..."
- I think this conclusion is a bit of a stretch. Jensen is very critical of capitalism. The history of the USA is in lockstep with the development of capitalism. The early capitalists amassed their original capital through what Marx negatively (and Adam Smith and David Ricardo positively) called "primitive accumulation" which was carried out via the theft of land, theft of labor (slavery) and ethnic cleansing (or genocide of indigenous peoples).'
Perhaps, but I'm not swayed. It isn't about Capitalism, it's about genocide and speaking about it truthfully. Jensen, like most Americans is Euro-centric and fails to grasp the breath and depth of the Great American Genocide.
2) RE: The working class prospered powerfully until 1978, then the wealthy decoupled wages from productivity.
Not so. The US working class only "prospered" between the end of WWII and the mid-1970's when wages began to stagnate. The early to mid 1970's coincides with the rise of the neo liberal phase of capitalism (still dominant today despite being widely discredited). There is plenty of evidence that productivity and wages "decoupled" earlier than 1978 but I can live with that figure. However, the "prospering" of the US working class before WWII is pure fiction. Some of the most brutal struggles in labor history occurred in the 1930's.
3) RE: a) The wealthy among you are seeking a policy of depopulation,
Depopulation? Do you mean in places like Detroit? That's not depopulation, that is economic oppression. People move to where the jobs are, but that is not depopulation. Capitalism as an economic system privileges population INCREASE.
b) ...additionally, foreign cultures are seeking to destroy you...
This sounds like right wing nativism to me. "Foreign cultures"huh? The reality of the US has always been a multi-culture and polyglot society despite what any white racists claim. Are you talking about Hispanic culture? It is more indigenous than European culture. This is a wacky claim.
5) RE: It isn't about Capitalism, it's about genocide and speaking about it truthfully.
People don't engage in genocide for no reason. There are economic and ideological motivations. In addition, genocide is a relatively modern phenomena. The Ancients (Greeks and Romans) didn't engage in it.
England is the prototypical capitalist society. The early English capitalists depopulated the countryside through the Enclosure Movement (lasting a few hundred years) whereby farmland was converted to sheep grazing for the burgeoning wool market. The displaced peasant farmers were forced into the cities where they became wage labor in the new textile factories.
US capitalism was founded on the forced removal of the native population from the land. But the native Americans refused to become the exploited labor force for American capital. So, slavery was recreated (It hadn't existed since ancient times).
Genocide has everything to do with capitalism; they are inseparable. This is true of the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust (Nazi's) the so-called genocide by Serbs, and in Rwanda. Each was tied to an economic expropriation of wealth. Ideology was used to justify the atrocities. Standard operating procedure for what prof. David Harvey calls "accumulation by dispossession."
See: http://www.isreview.org/issues/26/roots_of_racism.shtml
"contemporary America is deeply delusional."
truth worth repeating.
Jensen provides us with a sound view of the problem society should be facing. However, it is most likely that it is being read by those already converted to the need to face up to reality. What is desperately needed is some means to ensure widespread sound decisions so some remedial action takes place. Gandhi, King and Mandela were able to inspire social revolutions but the current signs of awakening are very mute at a time when the global situation is dire. We could extend Jensen's three social technology guidelines with a fourth - social media. How do the plug and play digital natives learn to respect the centuries it took to get US civil liberties? yet today one cant envisage actions in the 'physical world' without related tweets and weebly's etc. How do we link social media into this broader social technology to generate Frith's 'widespread sound decisions'? Serious question no fixed answers - all contributions welcome. Thx Robert for starting this discussion.
Analysis nearly complete but a few things left out here:
1. Two-tier legal system in the US, which is technically a corporation and not a republic: Constitutional Law for USSovereigns and Commercial and Corporate Statutes for USCitizen chattel dependent on the System and its patronage.
2. The desire and intention of leadership to cull the human race of its non-consumptive and peaceful cultures. See the Georgia Guidestones. UN/UK/US intention is to cull humanity down to 500,000,000, after the method of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc.
3. That desire to promulgate human genocide may have been incited by acquaintance with Annunaki ETs, whose primary Mardukian dogma utilizes culling "inferiors" to prop up their elitist system of hierarchy after the styles of ancient India (caste system), Sumer, Babylon, Rome, Greece, always the same old, same old top-down system of dictation with slavery of one sort or another.
4. Thus the presence of Annunaki SLAVE DOGMA in Secret Societies and Churches presents a total challenge to the entire concept of unalienable rights, right off the bat, along with the paranoia expressed as "have the correct political view or get culled," as in political assassinations of leaders who have refused to accept the fiat currency model of banking and finance. (NOTE: "Nations of concern" are ALL on the list of countries refusing to comply with Rothschild banking.)
5. Cosmology. This planet has a history of regular catastrophes caused by regular intersection of this planet with the Wormwood system every 3616 years. However, top-down governments, being secretive and elitist never openly confront and deal honestly with the problem of cosmological change. They keep true planetary astronomy and ET-peopled world out of the public consciousness and out of children's textbooks.
6. I find leadership in this system to be despicable and repulsive, for their airs of superiority and their amoral--alas! EVIL--intentions. And I don't apologize for the stupefaction of the media and the public; I don't tolerate the lies and deceit.
I guess it's going to take another catastrophe to straighten things out again !!!!
YC, whenever I have an issue about one or more arguments on a post, I get to that instead of personally attacking one or more posters. That is, I attack the argument and not the messenger. It's how I maintain respect even for those who I disagree with the most so that in the future I can also have cordial discussions about agreements and friendly exchanges of ideas on any given issue. You should try that for a change, for your good and part of the greater good.
You ought to know Scribe/Yoho/Ekzile. I'd LIKE to use another name, given that suddenly we have an INFLUX of at least two other "Sioux" signatures in this forum, curious that... the very ones attacking me for using the name Sioux, suddenly sprout up with a claim to the same moniker. I'm not tricky enough with computers to figure out HOW to do that...and chances are, the first time I related something astrological, I'd be recognized. Just as every time the resident Indigenous poster speaks of Gringos, many know who's speaking; and every time Thomas More messes up the use of an apostrophe, it's pretty clear he's back under the next assumed name.
Actually, I found her post interesting. I am not quite so keen on the UFO connection, because I have not read up on it. I do think alien life at one point DID seed this planet. I suspect the poster is into David Icke. And unlike you, I can take from the post the areas I agree with, notice the intelligence behind the points made, and just detach from what does not resonate. I do not have to agree with it all.
You, on the other hand, have a pronounced KILLER instinct, and would prefer to attack and/or destroy that which you don't understand. That is the mark of spiritual impoverishment.
Your views on 911 reveal you for the government henchman that you likely are.
Anything else, genius boy?
Yes, people are too preoccupied with the rags-to-riches story of the U.S. to realize that we're going back to rags. We must focus not on growth but stability.
Very good article.
Just to mention something I've written about in the past that is somewhat relevant to the subject of this article...
I think we need to rediscover a sense of tragedy. Unexamined "positive thinking" is a product of the current world view that is taking us to oblivion. Capitalism and the concept of linear progression has deprived us of ancient ways of dealing as a community with tragic events. (I don't mean simply catastrophic; I mean tragic.) If everything "progresses", we are cut off from cycles and tragedy (and from joy of the whole) built into nature. It's an old concept. Catharsis in the process of recognizing and coming to terms with tragedy works on a level of solidarity and community. It allows us to regain motive life and encourages and imprints solidarity. We will see many tragic events in the coming years as we would be seeing them now (as tragic) if we weren't blindered.
In a way, it is a permutation of the Sufi "stops", when we are required to abruptly break the train of trivial and compulsive thoughts. We need to do this as a community, probably in a ritualized manner. Don't scoff at rituals. We are surrounded by rituals almost minute-by-minute that enforce a deadly and unbalanced world view.
I agree with Tom Larsen that the movement must be radical and thoroughgoing. The sooner we realize it, the better.
Profound post, Arry. So I invite you to share my stream of consciousness, if you want to ride "this train" with me (given your relating to Barbara E as I do)...
First, consider the amount of beer (and other booze) sold in this country on Friday nights and all through the weekend. Then think about the rates of Prozac and related anti-depressant usage. The sheer numbers. People WANT to be numb.
They are afraid to feel. And you're so right about that, "We must think positively at all times!" schtick.
I spent time at the home of one of Amerika's motivational speakers in California back in 2004. He had a gorgeous home, and every day he'd say, "it's another beautiful day in..... " (I won't give his name or the town away). He liked me for my blunt honestly. He knew I could be counted on for stating the truth as I understood it, as opposed to merely flattering him or agreeing with him. Therefore I would answer, "It's NOT a beautiful day! The rain hasn't come in weeks. Nature is dying!"
Next.
A friend of mine got her husband to go to a marriage counselor, presumably that being the last resort to save the marriage. The therapist articulated any number of scenarios, each intended to invoke an emotion. The ONLY emotion this guy could identify with was ANGER.
Amerikans are VERY angry. it's seen in the guns, the road rage, the racist rants, the sports that vicariously knock the shit out of whomever is on the field or inside the net. It's the main theme in films. Heck, every 4th word out of James Woods' mouth in ANY police action flick is a curse, with the default acting mechanism disgust and/or anger.
Amerika is a speed-driven nation. Even the sugar poured into soft drinks, or its fermented equivalent ingested as booze. Few contemplate, reflect, or take a pause... a moment to consider, or review. The entire nation is driven... and of late, driven over a cliff.
Just as The 12 Step Programs speak about taking a fearless moral inventory, our nation, addicted not only to oil, but to violence (wherein I'd add my bell sound, and the telling adage, "Mars rules") DESPERATELY needs to take that inventory... but to do so would mean looking in the mirror and facing the horrors that can otherwise be cast aside, left under the polite veneers, held inside the limbo state where evil itself gets merged into the banal.
Who knows... the US might end up selling front row tickets to its offshore torture campaigns. I would not rule it out.
I'm thinking of the insights revealed through the work of Wilhelm Reich on this whole happy/positive FACADE thing... as opposed to the sheer terror that exists underneath it.
Siouxrose,
Your word in caps, "DEPERATELY", jumped out at me. I agree wholeheartedly in your use of it. I was thinking in another context, that one of the characteristics of people in the U.S. is desperation. They are quite aware on one level, in my opinion, that they are on a road to nowhere, that they have given up everything worthwhile and sold their souls. A person would have to be utterly blind not to see it. But, as you say, the horror of looking at the truth in the face would be shattering, so they diminish and attenuate their perceptions, character, souls into a cartoon-like, one-dimensional simulacrum of a whole being and lash out violently like any cornered animal (or numb themselves.)
But (I know you agree), such behavior is encouraged and molded as socially desirable by the worst and most intrusive regime of psychological manipulation ever devised or used (television being the primary, not the only, tool.) Complexity and depth is the enemy. Unthinking and unbalanced energy is the (consumerist) goal.
Sentimentality is one of the primary tools in the arsenal of the oppressor. "Good old American know-how." "Somebody will think of something." "We have a job to do." Being the U.S., and considering its violent history, violence itself is one of the aces in the deck of sentimentality.
The U.S. is definitely into a stage of violent senility. It will take some very tough-minded and conscious folks to turn it around or at least to initiate the spark.
I agree Reich had some interesting and insightful things to say about the subject of true and false happiness.
(I'm off to a reunion with some old friends tomorrow so will be offline and unable to pursue this line on this thread. Take care.)
I agree that we need to organize in small communities, and then co-ordinate our action with other communities. Several organizations are setting that up with small house meetings this weekend to "Rebuild the American Dream". Find a meeting near you by going to http://civic.moveon.org/event/dreammeeting/116340.
Another move to form small communities are Resilience Circles. These are small groups of friends or people ins, say, a faith group, who get together to support each other, sharing goods and serv ices. You can find out about them at localcircles.org
I needed this article.
Here in the midwest, I often feel disillusioned by the predominant view that nature is for the taking. I have been feeling less and less like trying to get people to see the possible wonders which appear if we let ourselves give back to nature.
The other day, I pointed out to some relatives that there were Bluebirds nesting near their house. I was delighted. They said, "Huh, you mean Blue Jays?"
I explained the difference, even as I thought how I would have been delighted to find nesting Blue Jays also.
They said, "Huh."
Thank you Mr. Jensen and Common Dreams.
The Gods have always abhored hubrus.
except their own.