EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- 'Tip of the Iceberg': Senators Warn Far More Data May Not Be Safe
- Playing the Obama Bumper Sticker Game
- Intentional and Evil: Court Marshall Sexually Assaults Woman, Then Arrests Her When She Protests
- David Brooks, Tom Friedman, Bill Keller Wish Snowden Had Just Followed Orders
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
- Bank of America Lied to Homeowners and Rewarded Foreclosures, Former Employees Say
- The Terror Con
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 AllA pretty good piece.
The first paragraph makes it quite clear who is who and generally what they stand for and correctly.
And his next to the last paragraph call's out the violence peddler's for what they are without throwing out the baby with the bath water.
The only thing left unsaid is where does it go from here? When does all the protest move to real political action? Move to effect real change? I still don't see this answer anywhere.
Added later: I actually got my answer about (where does it go from here) from "What I've Learned Occupying Wall Street and DC" by Lacy MacAuley.
I'm too impatient is my answer.
Also see this: Occupy Wall Street National Convention
http://www.businessinsider.com/occupy-wall-street-has-plans-for-a-coordinated-national-gathering-2011-10?mid=5052753
Thanks!
You know the supposed professional left - aka the 'liberal class' is becoming irrelevant when they act as if they are As Far to the Left as is acceptable - and so fill their talk shows with far right wackos or other corporate liberals -
I don't want or need to name names ( the nation, hartmann, rhodes, schultz etc)
Right, I think you can also add Ez to that list... :)
I guess a mob is part of the 99%
Is that really the best you can offer?
Okay, how about, "you've made a powerful enemy"?
Oh no: preacher Ez is going to have my tax records audited? Or perhaps you can activiate a black ops unit from your cubical at the DNC. Now you are showing your true colors Ez under the rubric of your faux liberal norms. If someone disagrees with your ideology, just threaten them. No wonder you love Obama!
I was just kidding. But you guys really ought to be doing your homework or you're going to flunk.
two comic personalities - Stewart and Colbert have also had a privileged position deserving of considerable scrutiny and challenge. The impact of the comic capacity to elide is broad at this particular juncture. Along with Maddow - this summer glammed as weighty anchor is still swimming in her boots - lots of room for growth all around - no exceptions...sighhhh
The 'mob' are the foot soldiers of revolution for We The People while the Police are the foot soldiers of the fascists -
I'll take the Mob - as it's just another example of the wealthy coopting Language attempting to discredit a powerful movement -
And best of all - the rich and powerful are Terrified of the Mob.
Call us a mob all you want - your words do not scare or intimidate me.
I guess following a mob is better than a following a leader
Many Mobs are leaderless - and that's why the powerful are threatened by Mobs - no leaders to off or co-opt........
I follow my own beliefs...........
"Liberals" and Rev. Hedge's "liberal class" can't be the same thing if the former are the opposite of conservatives and the latter are conservatives posing as liberals.
Thankfully I have you to teach me all that stuff
You're revealing yourself to be snider than I thought. "Mob" is an establishment name for people who are riled up, and in the current circumstances for good reason. I take back my earlier message to you, which I had hoped would be ameliorative. Sarcasm is not nice. Now play nice, please, or Sister Mary Elephant will continue to jump in your shit..
Always happy to welcome another fan
Hedges puts Liberals as the conscience part of politics (that did have an impact) but that is a very weak voice and has been co-opted. (he gave you plenty of examples) It does as it has to, lend a legitimacy to the bigger evil picture. Many people here have pointed this out on various levels. It is at the level of, the only way forward is not to play. Or, the reason this might work is because the beast is in big trouble and is failing of its own design. Plenty of old people are hoping they live long enough to see it. In a way OWS if it fails could act as a transfusion or really make a new path. It is about values so hold on to yours because you are going to need them.
Chris Hedges, in an article expanding on his defense of Cornell West, a distinguished African American professor at Princeton and former Obama supporter, discusses in more depth the self-styled liberals who savaged West for his attacks on Obama. Hedges had compared Obama's ascent to a morality play and the actors who took part in it to symbolic characters in such a play, saying West would be the voice of conscience, while Rahm Emanuel, "a cynical product of the Chicago political machine," would be Satan. "West would warn Obama that the quality of life is defined by its moral commitment . . .[the] willingness to defy the cruel assault by the corporate state and the financial elite against the poor and working men and women, and that justice must never be sacrificed on the altar of power.. .We know how the play ends. West is banished like honest Kent in 'King Lear'. Emanuel and moral mediocrities from Laurence Summers to Timothy Geithner to Robert Gates. . .take power. We lose. And Obama becomes an obedient servant of the corporate elites in exchange for the hollow trappings of authority."
West, who campaigned for Obama in sixty-five presidential campaign events, "now nurses, like many others who believed in Obama, the anguish of the deceived, manipulated and betrayed. He bitterly describes Obama as 'a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats. And now he has become head of the American killing machine and is proud of it.' "
This aroused a howl of protest from the so called liberal commentariat. Hedges argues that the "guiding ideological stance" of such mainstream liberals is concern for their own welfare and careers. Such liberalism "refuses to challenge the decaying structures of democracy" or the rising corporate state. Hedges points to liberals' faith in a powerful central government as the primary means to achieve progressive ends. Hedges believes this faith "abetted the cult of the self" as liberals "abandoned the human values that should have remained at the core of its activism."
Instead of face-to-face human contact, the connectivity of community as a powerful means of bringing about change, liberals have focused on bureaucracies, technocrats and experts to carry out their programs. Liberal experts design the programs, then for the most part go home to their comfortable upper middle class lives, keeping contact with the targets of the programs - for example, inner city and rural poor - as little as possible (except for youthful stints in the field, such as Obama's community organizing).
Hedges believes that this sort of liberalism has always needed the radical left - socialism, communism - to keep it honest and vital. "Liberalism, cut off from the radical roots of creative and bold thought, merged completely with the corporate power elite." Liberals contributed "a different flavor, face or spin to the ruthless mechanisms of corporate power."
It seems to me that the distinct liberal flavor or face - seen early on in the slice of the population that had left hippiedom behind to become yuppies, helped to spawn the culture wars of the 80s and 90s when those on the right and left were distracted by issues such as abortion and gay rights. These, while important, were inflated by mainstream media far beyond their true significance, allowing the corporate takeover of the democratic process and the ravaging of the economy that had supported the middle class to take place under the radar. (See Thomas Franks' "What's the Matter with Kansas?")
Hedges calls such culture wars allegiances "branding," as large parts of the population identify themselves with ultimately trivial cultural pursuits, adopting signs and significations such as hats and T shirts bearing the logos of NASCAR nation, pro sports teams and so on, or devote themselves to music industry denominations like country, bluegrass, or rock and roll styles: heavy metal, punk, funk, grunge, garage. Whether you ride a 4 wheeler or a bicycle, go skiing or snowmobiling, hunting or bird watching, counts for much in signaling your political views.
Branding has become all important in politics, where a politician's religious persuasion, lifestyle, ethnicity, race or sexual preference become important markers for his or her politics. Liberals, to their enemies on the right, are wine-sipping, effete elitists who read the New York Times and listen to NPR. Progressives, for far too long, looked to Democrats like John Kerry and Chris Dodd to put a stop to the Bush juggernaut, simply because of their stylistic characteristics. Democrats in Congress fulminated mightily against Bush policies but in the end did nothing. It was not a simple matter of "spine," though. Their protestations were always no more than an act, for Democrats stand in much the same relation with the corporate power as Republicans (the difference being one more of degree than of kind).
This kind of branding, Hedges says, "is the primary function of Obama." His brand as the first African American president is surely the most supremely significant of all.
NPR and public television can serve as a case study for all this. Their status as liberal media alternatives to Fox News, etc. derives much more from a thin veneer of branding, its wider range of announcers including a liberal dose of women and people of color, and of subject matter including topics of interest to college-educated people with much arts and education programming, than from the substance of its broadcasts. The media group FAIR has demonstrated this decisively over a long span of years, especially in its repeated studies of the MacNeil-Lehrer (later Lehrer) News Hour, which showed that by a large margin the preponderance of guests on the show are government and corporate officials, conservative and/or Republican, while their gender and race was sharply skewed toward white males. Even if the announcer is an African American woman, what impact she may have as such is swamped by the steady infusion of points of view emanating from but one quarter. The News Hour and also NPR News represent a distinctly center-right outlook when it comes to substantive reporting. NPR reporters, for example, cheer-led the invasion of Iraq nearly as much as CNN or the rest. The snark for progressives is that NPR stands for National Pentagon Radio.
The interview show Fresh Air deploys to the full this NPR atmosphere of unquestioning satisfaction with the status quo and with its own smarts and hipness, its liberalism mostly of the branding kind.
That was a fun read. I'll go short.
Liberals are capitalists who want more pie.
Media is the new god.
Cathy Mason, you might be interested an event:
".....In June 2002, during a budget crisis in Illinois, a state senator from Chicago's West Side, Rickey Hendon, made a desperate plea for a child-welfare facility in his constituency to be spared the axe. A junior senator from Chicago's South Side, Barack Obama, voted against him, insisting hard times call for hard choices.
Ten minutes later Obama rose, calling for a similar project in his own constituency to be spared, and for compassion and understanding. Hendon was livid and challenged Obama on his double standards from the senate floor. Obama became livid too. As Hendon has told it, Obama approached him, "stuck his jagged, strained face into my space", and said: "You embarrassed me on the senate floor and if you ever do it again I will kick your ass."
"What?" said an incredulous Hendon.
"You heard me," Obama said. "And if you come back here by the telephones where the press can't see it, I will kick your ass right now."..........."
For the full article read Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/13/barack-obama-cool-to-cold
I agree with most of what you say here as authentic and lucid. There is a consistency here on so many levels, I guess that is why they call it the 99%. I knew that the solutions that Obama spoke to and most Americans sought would not be forth coming in the way many people expected. It is like when psychology students effectively reinforce their instructor out of the class. The valence or perception is so strong that acting in a certain way is the only way to achieve results. I don't begin to understand Obama, I have to wonder though at a man that would want his job at this point in history.
Who knows what will emerge with the infusion of OWS into The News Hour and beyond. I've seen some very puzzled expressions in the media lately. I quit watching the News Hour years ago. Very good thoughts here.
Geez Cathy, just call them neo-liberals or petty bourgeoise and save yourself all that typing.
"A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested"
Tom Wolfe
Ugh! a reminder of Randi Rhodes. I abruptly stopped listening to that program in 2008, after a polite caller spoke about the multiple betrayals perpetrated by the Democratic Party against their own base. The caller was worried that Obama would follow suit and also betray the voters. Rhodes verbally attacked him, calling him a self-hating liberal. She told him he was foolish for not imagining, along with everyone else, the great path ahead that Obama is creating. Not only is she a shill for the elite, she's a kook! I guess it's just a job for her. Maybe I shouldn't be so hard on the American Dreamers. Seems most people at least wanted a stab at it.
This breakthrough moment is the first time I've been excited about the prospect of Wall Street spokesmodel Obama being re-elected. As Hedges so perfectly captures here, this corporate wax dummy and his fake party have energized the left to get out on the streets and demand change. If we get some Republican boogeyman in the White House most will retreat behind their keyboards and go back to talking uselessly about elections and impeachments.
Win Obama! Obama 2012! Let's have a second term and watch the people ride right over this Madison Avenue/CIA clown and the corporations that put him in office!
"A movement too big to fail" What????
Always better to state the truth. Of course
it can fail, let's be realistic. In fact, I would say it's likely to fail.
I am hoping it doesn't fail, and am trying to do my part but we all
have to live our lives. What I would say, everyone do your part as best
you can.
20 million people across the world protested the Iraq war.
from the article:
~ 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. ~
donated food...
where is authority? why do only assassins possess?
we can no longer live via purchase, nor gift...
we must take back the land, to live by our hand...
we must sacrifice industry, income and product...
the artificial lines drawn by the murderous bankers that parcel the land into perpetual profit for them must be erased, and title negated...
do these protesters intend to continue living employed, plumbed, electrified and tweeted lives?
for how long? the planet suffers many illnesses due to such living, and is only getting worse...every living thing relies upon the planet...
are these protesters truly in position to decide anything?
what?
"we must take back the land, to live by our hand."
Nice ring to this, and sort of a precedent.
Ethan Allen and the (then) upstate New Yorkers surrounded the courthouse, sent the judge back home, then burned the court records. Shortly thereafter, they broke their ties to NY and formed the new state of Vermont.
"are these protesters truly in position to decide anything?"
Only how to conduct themselves, while they wait for others to join them.
a tangent:
If the union shatters and areas reorganize, then I propose renaming southern Wisconsin; Morainia or Drumlinia as the oscillating terrain was formed by glaciers.
"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."
I stopped reading there. Chris, as much as I like your writings and the speeches of yours and despite my disgust over throwing dump on the garbage dump called the Internet, I simply have to reply to this nonsense quoted above. If you put it in this way, then the dichotomy between the poles is confusing, because the solution does not guarantee a better and more sound future.
It is true, the societies are moving towards a plutocracy (post-democracy?) in which the common people are not only alienated from the ongoings in the politics, but are in fact voiceless when it comes to express their views and feelings. God speaks through the television and over the airwaves and you cannot question him.
When you write that the movement is 'Too big too fail', then you imply that the underlying current, the basis on which it works and from which it gains strength, courage and ideas, has to be in such a state as to promote and encourage ideas, which are of such a kind as to move the current messed up one in a better direction. Yet, such is does not seem to be the case. It is naive to hope in a shift in the political spectrum and the way society functions, by merely advocating some all too known flaws, which had been exposed in the recent years. Nevertheless, a statement like 'capitalism is the crisis' points towards a strange schizo, because what would the alternative be? Capitalism? Socialism? Anarcho-Syndaclism? When I have to read in recent books (Manfred Max-Neef) on ecology and economy how we will make the change to a better future, then it seems to be that the times are dark indeed.
No, I do not believe in a change ... from either political spectrum.
"what would the alternative be? Capitalism? Socialism? Anarcho-Syndaclism? "
The answer has not proved to be any kind of representative government.
Direct democracy
This is a very good analysis of where we are, but
I am wary whenever the words "moral", "dignity"," virtue", or "free"(-dom or anything else) are used. These are the words of patriarchal hierarchy and they are used for imperial deceit as much as for equal justice.
The word "morals" comes from "mors". These are establishment restrictions which judge based upon tradition and thus, are suspect.
The word dignity implies that "worthiness" has different degrees and is often the hallmark of corruption. Obama has a very dignified way of speaking, so does the Queen of England, but neither of them really believe in equal justice.
"Virtue" is derived from the same word as virility and it is the adherence to all things vir-tual which is destroying this planet.
"Free" -ness is possibly the most dangerous. No one and no thing can exist free of connectedness. We are destroying the web of life (with pride - dignity's greatest temptation) because we are taught to believe that we can be free of our responsibility to this planet and each other.
Equal justice must accurately assess our advantages and disadvantages and work for balance with all of life. All people are NOT created equal and those with greater advantages must work for the benefit of those with fewer advantages or we are not deserving of anything.
Okay, I'm done with my seemingly useless diatribe against the insidious nature of these words.
I apologize if this has been a waste of your time.
Thanks Bird. You're never a waste of time. :~D
Well stated...Thank you....
Clarifying the meaning of words and honesty are never a waste of time. Thank you.
Not a waste of time at all. The meanings of the words you pointed to are colored, it not totally determined by context. All meaning depends on context (I know, I'm pontificating). I ask you to consider the meaning of "dignity" when applied to the SCOTUS as opposed to the dignity of an occupier in the rain speaking passionately to still-confused liberals who've stopped by to gawk.
what is the wet occupier so passionately clarifying for the confused liberal?
You name it. "What" is not the point, commitment and bravery are.
These are thoughful comments on some of Hedges' terminology, but my take on what he means by some of these words differs from yours. Morals are as you say rooted in tradition, religious or cultural, but I don't see this as necessarily a problem. Many Native Americans insist, rightly I think, that their traditions embrace and enhance their lives; that adherence to these traditions has kept them together in their different nations and nurtured them. I think Hedges is using "morality" in this sense.
As for dignity, it need not be a patriarchal value. I believe Hedges uses it in terms of human dignity, which involves respect for all human beings. Here is an excerpt of an essay I wrote in response to an article in which Hedges explains what he considers the shortcomings of the liberal class.
"Hedges points to liberals' faith in a powerful central government as the primary means to achieve progressive ends. Hedges believes this faith "abetted the cult of the self" as liberals "abandoned the human values that should have remained at the core of its activism."
"Instead of face-to-face human contact, the connectivity of community as a powerful means of bringing about change, liberals have focused on bureaucracies, technocrats and experts to carry out their programs. Liberal experts design the programs, then for the most part go home to their comfortable upper middle class lives, keeping contact with the targets of the programs - for example, inner city and rural poor - as little as possible (except for youthful stints in the field, such as Obama's community organizing)."
"Cathy Mason"
You highlight my concern.
It is precisely because the word "morals" has so many interpretations that I find it to be worthy of avoidance. Consider the fact that the behaviors of our corrupt government and its corporate controllers are probably viewed as perfectly moral behavior by those who benefit from them because it is the same behavior which has been manifest by the Pharaohs, by the Roman imperialists (both ancient and modern), and on down through the history of human "civilizations."
I have no way to dis-associate dignity from a hierarchical ordering of worthiness.
If we are all deserving of human dignity, then that makes the idea of dignity useless.
The problem I have with human dignity is that it separates humans from nature. If all of nature is of worthiness, then that makes human dignity useless.
These words are not and cannot be made to be unquestionably worthwhile. They are too easily used to pervert.
I appreciate your thoughtful comments, but I remain unconvinced of the value of these words and convinced of their proven insidiousness.
Thank you for helping me re-examine.
The problem is that humans, by virtue of our unique powers, ARE unique in nature. Only humans have the capacity to destroy ecosystems, each other, even the entire planet, as a result of our unbridled appetites, our impulses for territorial control, our adolescent sibling rivalries, etc. Morality, IMO, is simply a code of behaviors to enable culture to thrive while preserving ecological harmony. I think that the suggestion that all morality is suspect is a matter of throwing the baby out with the dirty bath water.
There's no question that the ruling class co-opts "morality" as an instrument of control. However, I believe that there is no such thing as "no law." It's either some form of moral code, or it's the law of the jungle in which the most domineering, the biggest, or the most manipulative and cunning are the winners, and everyone else is subject to their wills.
I have absolutely no problem with the idea that there is a "hierarchical order of worthiness" when it comes to behaviors. I also have no problem saying that some behaviors are beneath human dignity.
This has been an interesting discussion. If I may inject;
Words change meaning, language is fluid, a reflection of Life, so I try not to get stalled on past definitions. It is the ideas and feelings behind words that count. More often than not, we know what people are trying to communicate.
Morality: the stiffest competition for every living organism comes from its own specie. They have the same needs for survival; food, habitat, etc. The quest of human spirituality is to overcome the competitive urges and act in a selfless manner that benefits all other Life forms. There lies the harmony, which is a balance.
Is the lion immoral when it kills and eats lion cubs in times of stress? No. It is a matter of survival and the lions know no other way.
Is it immoral for humans to do the same? Yes. We have other choices due to our cognitive abilities/power.
The global movement is all about this choice.
competition vs harmony
Birdbrain Alley,
Hedges is a reporter on the street-philosophy beat. He assembles a narrative of how people are thinking, trying to make sense of it and trying to explain it. It is almost impossible to discuss this subject without resorting to abstract nouns such as "morality," "dignity," and "virtue." Talking about such things is unusual nowadays, hence all the jabs at "Reverend Hedges."
It is good to be wary of such words. Often as not a writer is using such a word without a clear understanding with the reader as to what, exactly, the word is supposed to mean. But the reader should meet the speaker halfway and look for clarity in how the word is deployed. If you insist on everyone using such words only in the manner you understand them, then a lot of worthwhile discussion has no hope of reaching you.
In particular, the etymological origin of words like this has little to do with current meanings (though it's often fun to discover what a word like "testimony" originally meant).
Maybe there aren't any words in English with the meaning we need. If so, we'll need to either make up a new word, or else bend the meaning of an existing word. I see expanding circles of association, spanning space, time, and species. I am a person of my family, tribe, nation, world; I am a person of my generation, of all people coming before or after me; I am a human, a mammal, an animal, a living thing. I want a word to describe the expansion of these circles of concern, solidarity, identity. Is it okay to bend "morality" to mean this?
- - - It is good to be wary of such words. Often as not a writer is using such a word without a clear understanding with the reader as to what, exactly, the word is supposed to mean. But the reader should meet the speaker halfway and look for clarity in how the word is deployed. If you insist on everyone using such words only in the manner you understand them, then a lot of worthwhile discussion has no hope of reaching you.
In particular, the etymological origin of words like this has little to do with current meanings (though it's often fun to discover what a word like "testimony" originally meant). - - -
words are words. when i was 14 (30 years ago) , my debate coach taught me 2 simple lessons. 1. read the nyt's daily and 2. become familiar w/ the OED, make it your friend. i agree w/ him on both of these points (the nyt's to understand official propaganda and the OED to understand how these words were introduced into a culture of empire).
healthy skepticism is always good, but understanding how words are both used and misused and how they were introduced into the language can be instructive. que pasa homey ?
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/homey
...peace...
>>Birdbrain Alley wrote: "I am wary whenever the words "moral", "dignity"," virtue", or "free"(-dom or anything else) are used. These are the words of patriarchal hierarchy and they are used for imperial deceit as much as for equal justice."<<
This is a sincerely written article by Chris Hedges. I really don't see why these words should be a problem, especially since the context is clear. Why take the words out of context?
Dignity can mean different things in various situations, but to me it is always related to, or stems from, a certain inner strength. It enables one to face and respond to bullies without descending to the level of the bullies. (That is one reason I do NOT consider myself "dignified" :) The only time I have a problem with the word "dignity" is when I encounter the derived word "dignitaries".
Here is an example of what I understand the word "dignity" to mean:
Here's Chris Hedges, appearing on a business show on Canada's CBC, where one of the hosts (himself a multi-millionaire) actually calls him a "left wing nutbar"! But Chris Hedges manages to complete what he has to say, though at the end he says it would be the last time he appears on that show.
http://youtu.be/MAhHPIuTQ5k
Also wanted to note that Hedges is right to point out the defeat of Bloomberg and the corporate state in their failure to clear Liberty Plaza. That was an absolutely historic moment where the people and this movement confronted the monster directly and the monster turned tail.
Stutter post.
Reminds me of the Phil Ochs song, "Love me, I'm a liberal."
ctrl-z, a longtime liberal.
"The liberal class functions in a traditional, capitalist democracy as a safety valve. It lets off enough steam to keep the system intact."
This is true but the liberal class and its progressive achievements served another important purpose. During the so-called Cold War, the USA was always under pressure to look good to the outside world as it was competing with the USSR to attract adherents to its ideology and its economic system. Segregation, poverty, crime, lousy schools and all the other evils of the corporate economic system had to minimized or swept under the rug.
Since the collapse of the USSR, the USA has ceased to pretend to care about its own working class and the corporate-run government is content to let its liberal facade collapse into irrelevance.