Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- In Arkansas, Exxon Is Threatening to Arrest Reporters But Otherwise Telling Nobody Nothing
- It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security
- Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?
- The Corporate Betrayal of America
- Why Would Anyone Celebrate the Death of Margaret Thatcher? Ask a Chilean
- The Corporate Betrayal of America
- The Elephant in the Room: Militarism
- Why Would Anyone Celebrate the Death of Margaret Thatcher? Ask a Chilean
- Global Wealth Inequality - What You Never Knew You Never Knew
- Exxon's Unfriendly Skies: Why Does Exxon Control the No-Fly Zone Over Arkansas Tar Sands Spill?
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Movement Too Big to Fail
There is no danger that the protesters who have occupied squares, parks and plazas across the nation in defiance of the corporate state will be co-opted by the Democratic Party or groups like MoveOn. The faux liberal reformers, whose abject failure to stand up for the rights of the poor and the working class, have signed on to this movement because they fear becoming irrelevant. Union leaders, who pull down salaries five times that of the rank and file as they bargain away rights and benefits, know the foundations are shaking. So do Democratic politicians from Barack Obama to Nancy Pelosi. So do the array of “liberal” groups and institutions, including the press, that have worked to funnel discontented voters back into the swamp of electoral politics and mocked those who called for profound structural reform.
Resistance, real resistance, to the corporate state was displayed when a couple of thousand protesters, clutching mops and brooms, early Friday morning forced the owners of Zuccotti Park and the New York City police to back down from a proposed attempt to expel them in order to “clean” the premises. These protesters in that one glorious moment did what the traditional “liberal” establishment has steadily refused to do—fight back. And it was deeply moving to watch the corporate rats scamper back to their holes on Wall Street. It lent a whole new meaning to the phrase “too big to fail.”
Tinkering with the corporate state will not work. We will either be plunged into neo-feudalism and environmental catastrophe or we will wrest power from corporate hands. This radical message, one that demands a reversal of the corporate coup, is one the power elite, including the liberal class, is desperately trying to thwart. But the liberal class has no credibility left. It collaborated with corporate lobbyists to neglect the rights of tens of millions of Americans, as well as the innocents in our imperial wars. The best that liberals can do is sheepishly pretend this is what they wanted all along. Groups such as MoveOn and organized labor will find themselves without a constituency unless they at least pay lip service to the protests. The Teamsters’ arrival Friday morning to help defend the park signaled an infusion of this new radicalism into moribund unions rather than a co-opting of the protest movement by the traditional liberal establishment. The union bosses, in short, had no choice.
photo: Daniel Oliverio
The Occupy Wall Street movement, like all radical movements, has obliterated the narrow political parameters. It proposes something new. It will not make concessions with corrupt systems of corporate power. It holds fast to moral imperatives regardless of the cost. It confronts authority out of a sense of responsibility. It is not interested in formal positions of power. It is not seeking office. It is not trying to get people to vote. It has no resources. It can’t carry suitcases of money to congressional offices or run millions of dollars of advertisements. All it can do is ask us to use our bodies and voices, often at personal risk, to fight back. It has no other way of defying the corporate state. This rebellion creates a real community instead of a managed or virtual one. It affirms our dignity. It permits us to become free and independent human beings.
Martin Luther King was repeatedly betrayed by liberal supporters, especially when he began to challenge economic forms of discrimination, which demanded that liberals, rather than simply white Southern racists, begin to make sacrifices. King too was a radical. He would not compromise on nonviolence, racism or justice. He understood that movements—such as the Liberty Party, which fought slavery, the suffragists, who fought for women’s rights, the labor movement and the civil rights movement—have always been the true correctives in American democracy. None of those movements achieved formal political power. But by holding fast to moral imperatives they made the powerful fear them. King knew that racial equality was impossible without economic justice and an end to militarism. And he had no intention of ceding to the demands of the liberal establishment that called on him to be calm and patience. “For years, I labored with the idea of reforming the existing institutions in the South, a little change here, a little change there,” King said shortly before he was assassinated. “Now I feel quite differently. I think you’ve got to have a reconstruction of the entire system, a revolution of values.”
King was killed in 1968 when he was in Memphis to support a strike by sanitation workers. By then he had begun to say that his dream, the one that the corporate state has frozen into a few safe clichés from his 1963 speech in Washington, had turned into a nightmare. King called at the end of his life for massive federal funds to rebuild inner cities, what he called “a radical redistribution of economic and political power,” a complete restructuring of “the architecture of American society.” He grasped that the inequities of capitalism had become the instrument by which the poor would always remain poor. “Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism,” King said, “but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all of God’s children.” On the eve of King’s murder he was preparing to organize a poor people’s march on Washington, D.C., designed to cause “major, massive dislocations,” a nonviolent demand by the poor, including the white underclass, for a system of economic equality. It would be 43 years before his vision was realized by an eclectic group of protesters who gathered before the gates of Wall Street.
The truth of America is understood only when you listen to voices in our impoverished rural enclaves, prisons and the urban slums, when you hear the words of our unemployed, those who have lost their homes or cannot pay their medical bills, our elderly and our children, especially the quarter of the nation’s children who depend on food stamps to eat, and all who are marginalized. There is more reality expressed about the American experience by the debt-burdened young men and women protesting in the parks than by all the chatter of the well-paid pundits and experts that pollutes the airwaves.
What kind of nation is it that spends far more to kill enemy combatants and Afghan and Iraqi civilians than it does to help its own citizens who live below the poverty line? What kind of nation is it that permits corporations to hold sick children hostage while their parents frantically bankrupt themselves to save their sons and daughters? What kind of nation is it that tosses its mentally ill onto urban heating grates? What kind of nation is it that abandons its unemployed while it loots its treasury on behalf of speculators? What kind of nation is it that ignores due process to torture and assassinate its own citizens? What kind of nation is it that refuses to halt the destruction of the ecosystem by the fossil fuel industry, dooming our children and our children’s children?
“America,” Langston Hughes wrote, “never was America to me.”
“The black vote mean [nothing],” the rapper Nas intones. “Who you gunna elect/ Satan or Satan? In the hood nothing is changing,/ We aint got no choices.”
Or listen to hip-hop artist Talib Kweli: “Back in the ’60s, there was a big push for black … politicians, and now we have more than we ever had before, but our communities are so much worse. A lot of people died for us to vote, I’m aware of that history, but these politicians are not in touch with people at all. Politics is not the truth to me, it’s an illusion.”
The liberal class functions in a traditional, capitalist democracy as a safety valve. It lets off enough steam to keep the system intact. It makes piecemeal and incremental reform possible. This is what happened during the Great Depression and the New Deal. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s greatest achievement was that he saved capitalism. Liberals in a functioning capitalist democracy are at the same time tasked with discrediting radicals, whether it is King, especially after he denounced the war in Vietnam, or later Noam Chomsky or Ralph Nader.
The stupidity of the corporate state is that it thought it could dispense with the liberal class. It thought it could shut off that safety valve in order to loot and pillage with no impediments. Corporate power forgot that the liberal class, when it functions, gives legitimacy to the power elite. And the reduction of the liberal class to silly courtiers, who have nothing to offer but empty rhetoric, meant that the growing discontent found other mechanisms and outlets. Liberals were reduced to stick figures, part of an elaborate pantomime, as they acted in preordained roles to give legitimacy to meaningless and useless political theater. But that game is over.
Human history has amply demonstrated that once those in positions of power become redundant and impotent, yet retain the trappings and privileges of power, they are brutally discarded. The liberal class, which insists on clinging to its positions of privilege while at the same time refusing to play its traditional role within the democratic state, has become a useless and despised appendage of corporate power. And as the engines of corporate power pollute and poison the ecosystem and propel us into a world where there will be only masters and serfs, the liberal class, which serves no purpose in the new configuration, is being abandoned and discarded by both the corporate state and radical dissidents. The best it can do is attach itself meekly to the new political configuration rising up to replace it.
An ineffectual liberal class means there is no hope of a correction or a reversal through the formal mechanisms of power. It ensures that the frustration and anger among the working and the middle class will find expression now in these protests that lie outside the confines of democratic institutions and the civilities of a liberal democracy. By emasculating the liberal class, which once ensured that restive citizens could institute moderate reforms, the corporate state has created a closed system defined by polarization, gridlock and political charades. It has removed the veneer of virtue and goodness that the liberal class offered to the power elite.
Liberal institutions, including the church, the press, the university, the Democratic Party, the arts and labor unions, set the parameters for limited self-criticism in a functioning democracy as well as small, incremental reforms. The liberal class is permitted to decry the worst excesses of power and champion basic human rights while at the same time endowing systems of power with a morality and virtue it does not possess. Liberals posit themselves as the conscience of the nation. They permit us, through their appeal to public virtues and the public good, to see ourselves and our state as fundamentally good.
But the liberal class, by having refused to question the utopian promises of unfettered capitalism and globalization and by condemning those who did, severed itself from the roots of creative and bold thought, the only forces that could have prevented the liberal class from merging completely with the power elite. The liberal class, which at once was betrayed and betrayed itself, has no role left to play in the battle between us and corporate dominance. All hope lies now with those in the street.
Liberals lack the vision and fortitude to challenge dominant free market ideologies. They have no ideological alternatives even as the Democratic Party openly betrays every principle the liberal class claims to espouse, from universal health care to an end to our permanent war economy to a demand for quality and affordable public education to a return of civil liberties to a demand for jobs and welfare of the working class. The corporate state forced the liberal class to join in the nation’s death march that began with the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Liberals such as Bill Clinton, for corporate money, accelerated the dismantling of our manufacturing base, the gutting of our regulatory agencies, the destruction of our social service programs and the empowerment of speculators who have trashed our economy. The liberal class, stripped of power, could only retreat into its atrophied institutions, where it busied itself with the boutique activism of political correctness and embraced positions it had previously condemned.
Russell Jacoby writes: “The left once dismissed the market as exploitative; it now honors the market as rational and humane. The left once disdained mass culture as exploitative; now it celebrates it as rebellious. The left once honored independent intellectuals as courageous; now it sneers at them as elitist. The left once rejected pluralism as superficial; now it worships it as profound. We are witnessing not simply a defeat of the left, but its conversion and perhaps inversion.”
Hope in this age of bankrupt capitalism comes with the return of the language of class conflict and rebellion, language that has been purged from the lexicon of the liberal class, language that defines this new movement. This does not mean we have to agree with Karl Marx, who advocated violence and whose worship of the state as a utopian mechanism led to another form of enslavement of the working class, but we have to learn again to speak in the vocabulary Marx employed. We have to grasp, as Marx and Adam Smith did, that corporations are not concerned with the common good. They exploit, pollute, impoverish, repress, kill and lie to make money. They throw poor families out of homes, let the uninsured die, wage useless wars to make profits, poison and pollute the ecosystem, slash social assistance programs, gut public education, trash the global economy, plunder the U.S. Treasury and crush all popular movements that seek justice for working men and women. They worship money and power. And, as Marx knew, unfettered capitalism is a revolutionary force that consumes greater and greater numbers of human lives until it finally consumes itself. The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is the perfect metaphor for the corporate state. It is part of the same nightmare experienced in postindustrial mill towns of New England and the abandoned steel mills of Ohio. It is a nightmare that Iraqis, Pakistanis and Afghans, living in terror and mourning their dead, endure daily.
What took place early Friday morning in Zuccotti Park was the first salvo in a long struggle for justice. It signaled a step backward by the corporate state in the face of popular pressure. And it was carried out by ordinary men and women who sleep at night on concrete, get soaked in rainstorms, eat donated food and have nothing as weapons but their dignity, resilience and courage. It is they, and they alone, who hold out the possibility of salvation. And if we join them we might have a chance.
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...


225 Comments so far
Show AllStopping violence is not violence, it is force.
Force does not violate, it defends and protects.
It's the difference between murder and manslaughter.
More like the difference between murder and justifiable homicide (in self defense; individual or collective).
Violence: Stage two in the five steps of grief (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance). The reason people are violent is because they have not yet dealt with their grief all the way through to acceptance.
Non-violence: Reaching a place of acceptance where you realize what needs to be done.
The reason this movement is non-violent ISN'T because we think it gives us more legitimacy. The truth is and to quote Chris Hedges:
"Tinkering with the corporate state will not work."
No amount of effort is going to cause the legislative agenda to change and we cannot FORCE laws to be passed to right the wrongs done to us by Wall Street.
We should be at a place now where we understand that we cannot change the system, but instead we must create a new system.
Violence = anger and destruction
Non-violence = acceptance and growth
Let us not waste time tearing down the old, that will only distract us from building up the new.
Do you think those who benefit from the system as it is now will sit idly by and allow change.
What will you do when they push back?
When they push back hard?
When the tanks start rolling?
When tens of thousands of people are taken from their houses in the night?
When they kill?
Of course, this presumes the military will do as the government demands. I'm not so sure about that.
And here is where the discussion needs to be. The reality in life is that often your opponent(s) dictate tactics and strategy as much as you do. Our mistake is not in advocating one method or another--I personally think sticking to one as a matter of principle is a grave error--but in failing to recognize that we have powerful enemies absent any ethical restraints, and we must decide collectively what our conditions for engagement are. We know theirs--they always leave everything "on the table".
Your questions are appropriate and need to be addressed. If those who are committed irrevocably to non-violence *in all contexts* are prepared to basically grind the system down with their corpses, they need to be honest and say so. We owe them the same transparency, by letting them know when we support different methods in achieving the overthrow of this system. No trickeration, no lying.
Right now, I like the OWS approach., I actually think movements for radical change progress in phases, and we are still in a consciousness raising phase, and so I strongly support the non-violent, civil disobedience approach taken by our friends. RIght now the movement is about visibility and about building courage to confront a poweful system and join up with others who feel the same. It's not the time yet to raid the armory...:) But IF that time comes, we cannot be held back because of a principle of opposition that demands we relenquish our right to self-defense.
I agree.
I believe Malcom X said something like that as well too. Something along the line of being willing to use "All means necessary" and that self defense was merely an act of intelligence in the face of evil. Like the poster below this one, I agree that right now we are in the stage of raising consciousness and building solidarity among the masses, both of which must happen first. Later, if the movement survives long enough, we can think more about tactics that might or might not be non-violent.
Of course if the ruling class decides before then to crush the movement with the military then, that will decide it all from then on and there will be no option left for the masses but civil war and violent revolution.
We owe them the same transparency, by letting them know when we support different methods in achieving the overthrow of this system. No trickeration, no lying.
I actually think movements for radical change progress in phases
- - - - - - - - - -
drone,
i also completely agree w/ you. what we're observing is the unfolding of a very long set of circumstances, like a very long set of dominoes falling one by one. the real question, for me, is how far will the american public go down the rabbit hole before it's too late ?
the newer environmental catastrophe argument, that has evolved considerably in the past 30 years, suggest that we've crossed an intractable line - that as a consequence of co2 emissions released into the atmosphere and the warming we are (and will continue to) experiencing - there is no hope of humanity redeeming itself.
i dunno. but, as for political process. i believe it's clearly been established that there are levels of political expression ranging from polling, signing petitions, petitioning/pamphleteering/blogging, voting, demonstrating at sanctioned events, demonstrating at unsanctioned events, non violent action (lock downs, blocking roads), destruction of property (hey, we blew up that missile factory), - then we cross a nebulous line into violence - like the unabomber - targeted assasinaitons, finally military assaults and suicide bombers before -- outright civil war and armed rebellion.
many will say this is preposterous. but, i would say read history. how do the underrepresented eventually overcome the evil (in a very hedgesonian moral/immoral way) when peaceful non-violent means of social change have been impeded or removed by the prevailing elites, it's inevitable that people will take more extreme measures.
but all and all i agree w/ your analysis. there is no mutually exclusive moral safe zone during revolutionary times.
...peace...
There is a recent and shinning example of the effectiveness of non-violent solidarity. The extremely repressive, cruel, and totalitarian Serbian government of Slobodan Milosevic was brought to it's knees by non-violent solidarity. The masses empowered themselves to shut down the government. They massed in the cities, the towns, and the country side. They shut down the roads, the highways, the bridges, and they shut down commerce. The army ordered to shoot and kill turned their tanks away from the 99%, of which they knew they were apart, and instead turned their tanks and guns on the government that repressed the 99%. The power of the 99% to progress toward a more equitable and sustainable future is in non-violent solidarity. It has worked and can work again.
Lol, umm what can you do?
If they start rolling tanks because:
I quit using credit cards/Debit cards
Paid off all my debts
Grew my own food
Started my own schools
Created a community with Doctors and Engineers capable of working for community benefit instead of corporate profit
and started a Government from the Community level
This is going to cause them to push back and roll tanks? Seems kinda far fetched. Stop listening to Alex Jones because you sound scared. Fear is the weakness.
I am not frightened . Realistic.
I suggest you study the Paris Commune in detail for a few months.
Versaille slaughtered 30,000 people because they did exactly what you listed.
Well, we all have a choice in how we chose to live. I don't see a problem with doing my own thing and letting the corporations do their own thing. That' freedom and it's something we should all be entitled to. I mean, I work for one, so I'm not in any rush to see the whole system turned on its head. If I decide to live a good and simple life and not support entities that I find repulsive then who cares if I get wiped out in the process. You act as if we're a threat for wanting to start something new. If anyone was a threat it's the people running around protesting and decrying the current system. They're likely to take out that anger, but as Buddha taught:
"Holding on to your anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone. You are the one who gets burnt."
It's not how you live that matters, but how you die. Should we just live the rest of our lives as it has been planned out for us. Work 40-50 years and hope we live through it so we can retire and idly wait to die?
I'll read up on the Paris Commune, but that was a different day and age. Who is to say that won't work now? I'm sorry you've seen so much of the bad and ugly in life, I'll pray that some of the good comes your way.
hey, TylerDurden!
you say:
~ I don't see a problem with doing my own thing and letting the corporations do their own thing. ~
are you serious?
General Dynamics is a corporation, and they do their own thing...
their 'thing' is building autonomous robotic drones to kill people...you are a person, Tyler...
they are building weapons to monitor, control, or kill you...
and to do so without end...to you...your children...theirs...
bad and ugly in life? coming your way, courtesy of General Dynamics...
praying won't shut them down...
No, but boycotting them will.
"But they receive tax dollars in the form of weapons contracts, we can't boycott them!"
If your tax dollars are going to companies like this, and you know it's morally wrong, then it seems pretty clear what needs to be done.
actually, I have a beautiful life
and life is to be lived, it's not about dying
further, we all have choices, whether we are aware of our decision making process or not
anger has no moral and buddha is wrong , anger is nothing but the recognition that things could be , should be different
what we think should be different is up to us, what we do with out anger is our choice
I choose to reject suffering
so, I utterly reject all you have written, all that you assume
"There is no danger that the protesters who have occupied squares, parks and plazas across the nation in defiance of the corporate state will be co-opted by the Democratic Party or groups like MoveOn. The faux liberal reformers, whose abject failure to stand up for the rights of the poor and the working class, have signed on to this movement because they fear becoming irrelevant."
I get it. You are more leftist than thou and hate the "liberal class". That could make you Rev. Hedges, another hard left conservative, Stalinist, or maybe a religious con trying to co-opt a basically liberal movement.
Not to defend the Democratic Party or Move On, but be wary of pundits that paint with a wide brush to divide and conquer. We are the 99%.
Bzzzt fail the Dims and MOVEONE are the 1% as collaborators with the empire/bank/corporate/state combine, and the 99% includes the decentralist left AND ex-military, and Libertarians and other people we perhaps aren't used to thinking of as allies. The ground is shifting EZ the direct democracy you rightly emphasize is happening in front of your very eyes at the general assemblies.
Incredible eh?
My point is that Rev. Hedges should stop demonizing liberals. Whether they are called neo-liberals or neo-cons, conservatives are solely responsible for the decay of the country and the planet.
Demonizing the "liberal class" and conflating it with neo-libs like Clinton divides and devalues the liberals that started this movement in the first place and makes me wonder what Rev. Hedges motives are. I think he is an old conservative trying to rescue the old conservatism from the depths of the hell modern conservatives have taken it by repeatedly bashing liberals.
ezeflyer
I see him as demonizing the establishment. Both liberal and conservative. I sure haven't seen any admiration of conservatives from him.
The Establishment is a bipartisan problem plaguing our nation.
"I see him as demonizing the establishment. Both liberal and conservative. I sure haven't seen any admiration of conservatives from him."
Why then, have we never read the least criticism of conservatives by Rev. Hedges, but plenty of frequent dissing of the "liberal class"? If by that he means neo-libs or conservative Democrats, he should say so instead of demonizing all liberals.
That said, many left and right conservatives are part of the 99%. We are, and I think we should remain a decentralized and diverse lot.
Though I read his articles, I've not read Reverend Hedges' books. You say he writes about Fascists and the Christian Right, but does he ever mention the word "conservative" in a derogatory way or at all? Or is he just down on fascists, the Christian right and liberals in general?
If you are convinced that liberals cause the world's problems, you may need to change your imaginary friend.
Read Hedges' books and earlier columns archived on CD or Truthdig, then get back to us.
His attitude toward U.S. conservatives is alluded to in his comment about Reagan in the above article: "The corporate state forced the liberal class to join in the nation’s death march that began with the presidency of Ronald Reagan."
The liberal class also applauded when it became necessary to take a piss test to get and keep employment. I refuse to demonize the liberals, they are just useless and in the way. How can you demonize a class of politically castrated people?
In Florida, our Tea Party Governor Scott who owns a chain of drug testing labs has ordered that all government employees take a urine test. He wants to expand drug testing to schools and everywhere else. Damned liberal...
Does Hedges ever blame conservatives for our current problems even as he smears liberals, or are we left to assume conservatives are the people he's talking about? In the next sentence he conflates the "liberal class" with Ronald Reagan, an arch conservative that led us to ruin. Having read many of Hedge's articles and despite ad hominems from his fans, I have posted my conviction that the good Reverend is, as most religious figures are, an old style conservative trying to rescue the good conservative name from the toilet that modern conservatives have flushed it down. It seems childish that he wants to do this by blaming liberals for what his modern counterparts have done. It is counterproductive and sad that anyone of such stature as Hedges, enjoying many followers in the progressive community, could confuse the definition of liberal to the point that former liberals (now progressives) join Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, the Heritage Foundation, etc. in their vocal hate for liberals. This I think is a great triumph of oligarchy propaganda.
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
John Kenneth Galbraith
What bollocks, read Hedge's excellent book American Fascists on Christian conservatives and get back to us. And no I am no shill for Hedges I have deep problems with the way he demonizes and dehumanizes atheists, but he is right that "liberal" Democrats are part of the oligarchy of corporate/bank/MIC control every bit as much as conservatives.
ezeflyer
Well, generally I would say that over the years he has been more than critical of conservatives. I would say that he feels at this point that it is the liberal left that can make the change, but he feels that there are faux liberals out there (he named most) that are holding things back.
I believe he doesn't think it will do any good bashing neo-cons and their like as they are not likely to help anyone but themselves. In other words, I believe he is trying to put pressure where it will do the most good and calling out those that are stumbling blocks.
I also believe it is the liberal elite (and deservedly so) that he is bashing, not "liberals" in general.
"Not to defend the Democratic Party or Move On"
I'm sure you would not!
That's my read.
Thanks for your reply alugilac. I do think the Reverend is referring to the neo-libs that pass for "liberal elites". However, I also think he comes off as a left-conservative-theocrat trying to rescue the meaning of old conservatives as frugal, careful, thrifty, traditional, from its newer meaning--war-mongering, fear mongering, raping, thieving, invading, murdering, criminal, corporate, banking, etc. assholes.
As far as defending the Dems or Move On, as a liberal I take it on a person by person basis and try not to use the conservative's "Kill them all let God sort 'em out" philosophy.
"As far as defending the Dems or Move On, as a liberal I take it on a person by person basis and try not to use the conservative's "Kill them all let God sort 'em out" philosophy."
You have a point here. I personally know people who are on board with MoveOn. They're good people, just easily duped. MoveOn's friendly hand lifted them onto the bandwagon, offered them a camaraderie they haven't felt in decades, and then failed to live up to their purported purpose, which was to put pressure on our elected officials. Just what are MoveOn's accomplishments, besides corralling voters into the Democratic Party's so called "Big Tent?"
Well I don't think he is as far gone as you, but I'm no particular fan of Hedges and agree about the same amount I disagree with him. So we'll just agree he isn't alway's right. :)
"As far as defending the Dems or Move On, as a liberal I take it on a person by person basis and try not to use the conservative's "Kill them all let God sort 'em out" philosophy."
You have a valid and good point. I'll go with you on this one.
I've always viewed you as a deeply confused poster, EZE, and I think here may illuminate why that is. You say this:
"As far as defending the Dems or Move On, as a liberal I take it on a person by person basis and try not to use the conservative's "Kill them all let God sort 'em out" philosophy."
This is a surprisingly conservative view of the way the world works here. A world without systems and institutions, structures or group mechanics. It's a self-realized aggregation of individual actions. For someone who raisl as much about "conservatives" (which, incidentlly, they are not--they are radicals), you embrace one of their most central tenets.
I think this is why you don't understand Hedges' writing. He's dealing with the unique properties of systems and institutions as influences beyond aggregate individual behavior.
Btw, the only difference between a neo-liberal and a classical liberal is that the new version believes in two additional things: the first is that economic "freedom" should be writ large globally. The second, and most unpleasant, is that all means to accomplish the spread of global capitalism are fair game. The second is a significant difference, sure, but intellectually, there's not a great deal of difference between the two.
"I've always viewed you as a deeply confused poster, EZE, and I think here may illuminate why that is."
No shortage of illumination meant for me here. But you left me even more deeply confused. (I wish you guys would stop trying to be the left's Cal Thomas and write plainly.) Anyway, I understood that you think liberals are conservatives, right?
I shouldn't have posted at all, honestly, and I'm sorry for that. You probably feel piled on.
Strictly speaking, in American politics, liberals and conservatives are kissing cousins. If that comes as news, maybe catch up on your Locke and JS Mill at a minimum.
The labels you use are wildly out of date and really don't apply anymore. I realize a lot of mainstream chatty heads use them, but they have no meaning other than one stands for the R and the other the D.
It's just strange that someone can advocate for something as radical as direct democracy and still think of the political world in terms of liberals v conservatives and not blink an eye at advocating a democratic framework that would destroy our existing political system.
Thank you, oh wise one
The labels conservative and liberals seem to apply now more than ever. Funny that conservatives think they start to lose any meaning when liberals are up and they are down. That was divisive to the 99% though and I hope Hedges can see that too
Your last points are unclear. Conservatives and neo-liberals are doing a great job of destroying our political system and the OWS are direct democratic and decentralized, so I don't have to advocate so much for what is becoming clearer daily.
The demonizing of liberals has just begun. The Heel of the Boot needs to be pressed against their necks until this is over. They are the enemy of the extreme poor and working class of this nation, indeed the world, with their global armies.
As far as nonviolence is concerned, great. I'm all for it. But there is a limit to the pain and suffering they will likely inflict. It will probably require Heavy Resistance to subdue the State from is violence against the Citizenry –and to dismantle it. These people won't go, nor will they cede their power, money and privilege without a bloody fight.
I hope I'm wrong.
you're not wrong.
remember el salvador, iran, nicaragua, the philippines, indonesia -- more recently egypt., tunisia, libya, bahrain, syria..... political transformation is always choppy and messy.
hoping we eventually will live in a world of democratic representation, respect of law and inherent human rights respected to all and of course...
...peace...
Right on guitarist. It is the General Assembly that is the heart of this idea. It is direct democracy and that is the anti-virus to the deformed bastard we call capitalism and the consumerist idea. Born out of a violent rape of the New World, the capitalist idea was baptized in blood and ever since has eaten everything it can get its hands on. Modern capitalism is the living embodiment of the popular idea of vampire. And I am sure that we are seen as werewolves by the elites. They are truly afraid that we will eat them.
But here it is, an idea that the elites can’t comprehend. Non-violent revolution that will make changes to the current system without asking anyone’s permission to do so. We no longer need to submit a memo asking for this change or that change. We have decided that much while marching in the streets. And when we no longer ask for change but simply make the change, the elites loose. And they are becoming very afraid.
When the rich become afraid they will call out the most brutal of police and the most hardened of the military to shut down a march. They will use the tanks to intimidate and maim and kill us. And for those who are picked up, beaten and arrested they will put them away in the darkest holes they can find. Many of us will die and many of us will go insane and in our madness we will inspire the next march, the next set of demands. And without permission we will roll up the streets and tear down the infrastructure of the rich. Until one day, and that day comes fast, like the turning on of a light in the darkness, we have what we want; dignity, freedom and a future.
Interesting juxtoposition in your last paragraph: you basically don't like Hedges accurate summary of the faux liberals like yourself because it hit home a little too harshly; then you take refuge under a disclaimer, BUT, "Not to defend the Democratic Party or Move On..." by linking yourself with the 99%. The regulars all know you are a Dem apologist and have been singing the same tune since you started on this forum.
You got me figured out. Clever fellow!
Yes, ezeflyer, I hope we do, and I mean that in the most charitable sense. Some close friends of mine are liberals, the current definition for whom is something like "good-hearted folks who think the system can be reformed." Some of my closest friends, including my wife, are liberals in this sense, but week by week I see their attachment to illusion weaken. I see the difference between liberals and hard-bitten right wingers as the difference between those who are close to awakening and those who are locked in dreamless sleep. We are all on the effortful path toward the light. Some are stuck in the darkness of their own inflexible dogmas because that is the easy way, or they might feel that resistance to corruption is futile. Others are moving toward understanding, which takes effort and is often painful and disorienting. Keep learning and growing, ezeflyer, you are among friends here.
Thank you?
And I also have some close friends who are liberals. (And a black, and a gay one or two even.) Its nice to have friends here and of course, I will accept your charity and try to keep learning and growing. Maybe one day I will awake from my dreamless sleep, leave the darkness of my inflexible dogmas, take the effortful path toward the light, leave my liberalness behind and accept conservatism as my religion. But not right now.
"...have nothing as weapons but their dignity,"
Dignity is what best describes what is happening, human dignity. Thank God for voices like Mr. Hedges'.
Hear, hear! Thanks, Mr. Hedges.
(Heading out to my Occupy! space.)
EZ , give it a rest!
We can't all be followers. We are the 99%
Direct democracy
EZ has been pontificating on the orthodoxy of the faux liberal class since he or she arrived here. SO when he notes "we cannot all be followers" it represents a simple metaphor of the Pot calling the kettle black!
Your pontification went over my head.
Does not surprise me. Things a little slow over at the DNC?
Ha ha. Intellectual AND witty too
you guys quit the one-upsmanship games or I'll sic Sister Mary Elelphant on u...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhG__-Ql8_I
thank you