EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
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 AllYou might want to check the results of the French and Bolshevik revolutions. It wasn't what they thought it would be at all.
Changing peoples minds is the American revolution. Americans won't accept violent revolution, OWS is a first step.
Thanks for your reply Phantom_
"I'm not suggesting violence, just quoting history"
No problem at all then. But I would point out that the terror that followed the French revolution was worse that anything the people could imagine. Russia was fairly hard too.
I wasn't suggesting that the revolutions weren't successful, simply that they didn't provide what the people expected. Both got military dictatorships out of it. No revisionism, just making a point.
.
I agree
Right Phantom.
I would add that even Mahatma Gandhi's so called non-violent revolution was not close to being non-violent, mostly because the British murdered and beat thousands of Gandhi's Ahimsa and Satygraha acolytes.
Phantom_ *Holding signs isn't going to cut it, the elite's armed with nukes, don't forget.* And we can't forget the drone program with bases all over the US either.
Comments about "A Movement Too Big to Fail":
As Chris Hedges lists our present ills: " ... let the uninsured die, wage ... wars
to make profits, ... slash social assistance, ... gut public education, plunder the
U. S. Treasury ... ".
Now WHICH political party has -- when it was in power -- and can be expected
to continue to impose such ills? Reference: Paul Ryan's voucher substitute
for Medicare, proposals under George W. Bush's presidency to privatize
social security, duping the nation to go to war in Iraq, united opposition to
providing for medical insurance for all Americans, and promises to repeal
"Obamacare" in the furue. We all know what party that is.
Now listen: ONE PARTY WILL TAKE POWER IN 2012 ! If liberals, as depicted
by Hedges, do nothing that is political, then I reckon the worse political party
will take power. You think it's bad now, and that it can't get much worse, just
you wait. I agree with Denruter at 9:02: "Oh yes, it can get worse." I also
agree with Alan Bock at 10:40 -- "One way to guarantee [that it will get worse]
is to get behind Cain." Don't you all see that the offer of a BLACK but still a
CORPORATIONS' MAN is just a strategy by corporate America to put one
of their own into a position of power. I reckon the corporate plan is to split
the black vote.
I agree
" Don't you all see that the offer of a BLACK but still a CORPORATIONS MAN is just a strategy by corporate America to put one of their own into a position of power ".
Yep, that certainly worked well in the last election!
I quite agree. There is another element useful to the ruling elite: The Republicans create 'fear' within the Democratic base by trotting out complete whack jobs as candidates. This helps insure continuation of the status quo.
We are witnessing the beginning of a shift in paradigm that has to do with global equality and peace, interconnectedness and cooperation. With all due credit to Seinfeld: "This is Beyond B.O."
All of our traditional systems are crashing. For some, this is too much to bear. For others like myself, it is very much welcome. I only hope this shift is not too late to stave off ecological collapse.
There is this guy somewhere called President Obama...
Thank you, Chris Hedges, for an excellent piece of writing!
OWSsers might just be America's last hope.
Or maybe, finally, hope renewed and blaring, rising Phoenix-like from the ashes, throwing off the shackles.
As much as I agree with Hedges' analysis and have addressed many of his points in prior posts, including the pathetic and continuing decline of the Democratic Party, and as much as I share his bona fide anger, his indignation can also border on the overmoralistic.
Lewis Lapham, former editor of Harper's Magazine, noted in a July 1985 Notebook essay, "Moral Dandyism,"
"... but I have yet to understand why money has anything to do with morality. The two stores of value seem to me as different as symphony orchestras and old tennis sneakers. Like the rain, money confers its blessings on the just and unjust, on the criminal and the saint; it can commission Michelangelo's Sistine ceiling or underwrite the architecture of Auschwitz. The genius of capitalism consists precisely in its lack of morality. Unless he is rich enough to hire his own choir, a capitalist is a fellow who, by definition, can ill afford to believe in anything other than the bottom line. Deprive a capitalist of his God-given right to lie and cheat and steal, and the poor sap stands a better then even chance of becoming one of the abominable wards of the state from whose grimy fingers the Reagan Administration hopes to snatch the ark of democracy."
At its economic best (setting aside what it does to the natural world) capitalism can float a very large number of boats. At its worst it can, and does, reduce people to penury and corrupt government to its own purposes at the expense and even exclusion of the public interest. But it seems we have learned nothing from the Great Depression after all, or that we have completely forgotten what was learned - yessiree, in a brave new world of globalized capital, feckless oversight, and untaxed profits, everyone on the planet will have a chance to become a billionaire. But finally, the condition of the inner cities and most of rural and small town America, so long in decline, has forced the contradiction between the lies the elites have been shilling for 30 plus years and the actual experience of 90 percent or more of the country's inhabitants to a point where the chickens are finally coming home.
And what we see right now are a White House, a Congress, a chattering class, and an MSM all standing in front of the Occupy Movement with their pants at half mast.
In light of this movement, which appears to be as pure grassroosts as anything we have seen in our lifetimes, how can the President go barefaced in front of a camera and do anything other than offer a clear and unqualified mea culpa for the failure of the American political class and honestly explain, without overmoralizing, the deeply unjust consequences of its post-Cold War "Washington Consensus" polices of deindustrialization, deregulation, deunionization, casino finance capitalism, massive military spending decade after decade, and, finally, to concede once and for all the deliberate and prolonged attack on the American people that the right and its apologists have sustained for over 30 years, and the Democratic Party's craven response?
The American people understand that there are no absolute guarantees in life, but they also have a right to choose among potential leaders who are honest and just, especially when the issues at hand are basic and vital to the health of the social contract. If there is unavoidable historical economic decline that will compel a reduction in consumerism (in another essay, Lapham notes a visting Chinese diplomat who, after gazing into the shop windows along Fifth Avenue, remarked, "how can America claim to represent the future, when the example it sets is one of eating the future?" Today, replace the Mad Ave shops with a list of annual bonuses paid to professional gamblers on Wall Street who trade in paper fictions), then the need for a humane compact between capitalism and the public interest becomes more important than ever.
But what we have is an emperor without clothes. And the courtiers, past and present, in his Administration, and almost all members of Congress are standing stark naked right beside him.
Excellent post!
"but they also have a right to choose among potential leaders who are honest and just"
Theorectically, we have the right to choose but because the MSM controls most of the conversation, our right to vote is sorely compromised. Since the 70s, I've been voting for the best candidate, in my view, and I've been doing everything in my power to convince others that they can do it too and should. We have to stop making excuses for not supporting the very ones who are in the trenches, fighting to make our voices heard. As I have said many times over: It's not so much about winning an election as it is making our collective voice heard, supporting the truthsayers, and standing strong for what we believe in, no matter if only .05% are with us. "Lesser or two evils," "no demands voting," and burying our heads in the duopoly's sandbox helped get us to where we are today. We're not helpless, we could have stood firm decades ago, spoken out clearly and with heart, dug in our heels, and refused to wear the obligatory blinders. I know it's hard to resign oneself to pariah status. It's far easier and socially acceptable to go with the MSM orchestrated flow.
And I agree. My comment was intended to be taken somewhat ironically. Insofar as the electoral process is controlled if not outright managed by the MSM and big corporate PACs, the public will continue to get candidates indentured to big money and who will not level with them about what is going on in the country and the world, much less propose constructive if only mitigative measures to lessen the pain and change national priorities. I listened to the Louisiana Republican Buddy Rhoemer on CSPAN a few weeks ago, and he presented a long list of issues and grievances that contain a whole lot of overlap with progressive positions. But his policy of funding his campaign with a million $100 dollar donations from ordinary households and refusing PAC money, along with his other positions that challenge the control of PACs and lobbyists over politics and government, mean that he is a political dead man - he will not be invited to the Republican debates because he might embarrass everyone by injecting real ideas into the national discussion, and so is being completely ignored by the media.
Decades ago, after the withdrawal from Vietnam, the left splintered into single issue and identity politics that turned it inward, as manifested by its intellectual fascination with the excessively obscure, if not cultish, language and cultural theories subsumed under the overall heading of post modern philosophy. We didn't speak with one voice because we were too busy pushing various single issue positions. The right, increasingly bareknuckled and unscrupulous in an era of declining prosperity mostly ignored by the left's elites, blew right past. With OWS, maybe we can hope and also work hard for a new American left, supported, enriched and broadened by the influence of the global left, that will regain a "collective" voice that has gone missing for several decades.
And Occupy the Board Room too!
Here’s also where we 99% can send our messages to the 1%:
(Batches are being hand-delivered everyday to the 1%.)
http://occupytheboardroom.org
(Recently sent the following to Brian T. Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America; and other 1%’ers:
To Board Room Executives:
When a corporation must rely on its extreme greed,
While losing sight of fair and square practices,
In order to carry on with business activities,
Its tactics will surely become its deficits!
And you, as a head of such operations,
Would hopefully want to stop this,
And not be remembered as a top culprit!
Sincerely,
Sally Kline
One of the 99%.)
Nice. Who knows, maybe, if nothing else it will plant seeds.
"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."
It stands out that no mention is made of housing as a human right. Forces of reaction have been so successful in controlling the debate that even Chris Hedges fails to mention housing in his list principles betrayed. The banksters should be forced to turn all the homes stolen through the collateralized debt obligation / sub prime scheme to steal the life savings of minority and other poor working class people into public housing. It's obscene for people to be sleeping on steam grates while millions of homes sit vacant.
When winter gets here I hope people in the Occupy movement consider moving from public parks to foreclosed vacant homes en masse.
"The people united will never be defeated!"
If and when the Left makes a big comeback, and people like Hedges take over...
I'll be here defending the liberals from persecution and extinction.
The true, good liberals have been tricked and lied to (they are in some ways innocent souls, and are often susceptible to this). They've been hijacked by *NEO-liberal* corporate oligarchs (mostly through insidious pop-culture) and forced to be their mouthpieces by a corporate machine they didn't realize was stealing their souls.
Liberalism (based on the classic sense of the word) to me is about sensuality, spirituality, imaginative -sometimes frivolous even- creativity, individual enjoyment and pleasures, aesthetic and cultural discernment and development....
The finer things in life should not be discouraged because everyone can't afford it, or doesn't appreciate it.
Of course I'm not denying the central points made in the article... I understand that my point is tangential and based more on inference than a direct position of Hedges. In fact, I consider Hedges as one of the most powerful, important and influential voices out there speaking for OUR shared cause. In terms of his analysis of the crimes of the top 1%, I completely agree with him. I'm just concerned by his consistent use of language which I feel serves to alienate a sizable portion of the population (the other 99%) he could be more effectively swaying to fully join the OWS cause.
This is a time of solidarity, and action, of anger and resistance. Not a time to pursue hobbies, or sensual indulgence. But if our fight isn't to preserve the good things in life, to preserve fun, to preserve individual freedoms, -and- some frivolities... If in our struggle we forgo solidarity with all fair and reasonable perspectives, and with many others who don't share our spiritual or aesthetic beliefs, or even all our ethically advanced priorities, then this struggle will in my mind be for naught.
I just wish Hedges and more on the left would can all the liberal blame gaming (liberal betrayers! liberal betrayers! — No! its the bankster betrayers!). The *NEO liberal system* fucked us all up. The *NEO-conservative MIC* fucked us all up. But real conservatives and real liberals have always been on our side and deserve a strong representation within the movement. If we can get this message right, both the liberal wafflers and fence-sitters very likely would join the movement, as well as real Tea-Party people who understand how they've been being used as astroturf pawns by the Koch Bros.
There are people in the Tea Party all along who have railed against Wall Street and government's ideological refusal to put some kind of fence around it. They have also acknowleged the dire consequences of our unending military expenditures. As I have stated before on this blog, the Tea Party knows it is increasingly being consigned to an economy of fry cooks, deliverymen, motel maids, hairdressers, and meth lab entrepeneurs. In spite of its many atavistic ideas, paranoid delusions, susceptibility to exploitation by demagogues, racism, etc., etc., any successful initiative uniting the progressive left with a populist right, however temporary, might achieve something real, and it would scare the country's "economic royalists" and their vassals in Congress and the media absolutely witless.
Excellent post Ihhj, but it's important to define and defend our most cherished beliefs, collectively, and it matters what those beliefs are. I think some savvy and brilliant computer programmer could design a program - as a kind of "Wiki-leadia" - where opinions are elicited, brought under scrutiny, honed, tallied and then, somehow (enter magic), turned into policy. Beside the polls, I have no idea what the great majority really thinks. The MSM is always in the way, with their well financed big mouths and oily tongues.
Pandora for Politics.
As you may know, Senator Gravel and the National Initiative for Democracy have studied the problem thoroughly and have come up with actions the 99% can take now to achieve the direct democracy you aptly describe:
http://ni4d.us/endorsements
Very well said
In other words, if at this point you support the Dems, or the Republicans, you're not a goodl 'liberal', or a good 'conservative'. You are a status-quo junkie, a financial and corporate pirate or whore, a xenophobe, a chicken-shit chicken hawk or a 'Neo-Lib' or 'Neo-Con'.
Or, you might be a dupe who doesn't read the news enough, and who just thinks as you are told to think, in which case you are nothing much at all. A complacent sheep heading for the shears and blade.
Then finally, you might be a member of the professional left (this is a very small minority), many of whom are hedging their bets and truly believe they are still liberals while they continue to support, often with logic, reason etc, a completely fascistic system (the Duopoly). These are the liberal pragmatists, and they are simply existing in a liberal limbo. For whatever reason (could it be their bottom lines?), they cling desperately to some notion that reform can still come from existing players within the system. They are also fooled into believing change only comes through the system itself, which is historically inaccurate.
Again, they've been tricked, or bought off and 'leveraged' by the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs. These people are certainly liberals, and certainly compromised and deserve some calling out for it. But they are a tiny minority of the masses of actual liberals who only serve the oligarchs through their poor consumer choices — They aren't serving the system intentionally — in fact many are seeking ways to fight back, however ineffectually, and sadly can't see a world where corporate slogans and 'programs' are always to be distrusted, and where all they were taught they could trust since childhood has all just been a big lie.
Pure excellence. Thank you.
"Then finally, you might be a member of the professional left (this is a very small minority), many of whom are hedging their bets and truly believe they are still liberals while they continue to support, often with logic, reason etc, a completely fascistic system (the Duopoly). These are the liberal pragmatists, and they are simply existing in a liberal limbo. For whatever reason (could it be their bottom lines?), they cling desperately to some notion that reform can still come from existing players within the system. They are also fooled into believing change only comes through the system itself, which is historically inaccurate."
As much as I enjoy my progressive radio, programs this has to be said. Stephanie Miller...blind as a bat or is it blind allegiance. I find it painful to listen to someone who doesn’t even believe what they are saying but says it anyway. There is Randi Rhodes who is undergoing changes...or is that called seeing the light as the Occupy Wall Street Movement gets a bigger and bigger voice. The Vox Populi.
RE: "As much as I enjoy my progressive radio, programs this has to be said. Stephanie Miller...blind as a bat or is it blind allegiance. I find it painful to listen"
Oh, me too. Stephanie Miller is revealing a very sad character profile with her stalwart insistence in towing the party line. Nauseating usually. Stephanie, if you are reading — I used to laugh, -now I gag- when listening to your show. Randi has been an even worse Obama apologist in the last couple months, but finally has begun showing at least an iota of independent thinking, emboldened by OWS of course. Let's hope it wakes them, and shakes them all out of their 'Dem-inished' and 'Dem-oralizing' mind-sets.
I love you Salusa Secundus
Salusa S is consistently right on.
Thank you both ezeflyer and Zephyrbag. Glad I could help reinforce a perspective that I feel needs to be brought up more often here. The factionalized state of the Left needs to be healed and undone. People of conscience come in many colors, shapes and dispositions. But a conscience, and the need to see justice re-instated can unite us all against those who have no conscience. Just as some liberals can legitimately be said to be misled, so too can many socialists be criticized for the same (for different criteria, clearly).
I consider one of greatest flaws of either side to be the failure to find COMMON GROUND. Isn't that what this site is really supposed to be about?
Cheers and Namaste to you both. And Long Live The Occupation of the USA!
Here! Here!
Labels and blaming does not really work to carry a genuine movement to it's completion. Having a loving and tolerant as well as humble heart are paramount. Somehow when Ghandi and MLK Junior did their work, they kept to these principles.
It is easy to be mean hearted. That is what this corruption is all about. The path of the righteous is most difficult. I like that intelligent people are rejecting the log in Chris Hedges eye. We together will create something good by seeing the good together.
I announced my candidacy some time ago and so far have been ignored. Do you believe in democracy. Can someone tell me why I am not good enough to be considered a possible option. If the election were held today, who would you vote for? If you say, no one, I wish you would explain how voting for no one rather than for me advances your agenda. How do you expect a government to work if you and everyone who believes like you, doesn't vote. Are we moving to some new form of government where elections aren't held but somehow people live in freedom and with justice. Please explain to me how this is going to work. The problem is that most progressives are brainwashed into thinking they can't win, so they won't even try. No one goes into the voting booth with you to keep you from voting for someone you like, even if it's a write in vote. Even $2Billion can't keep you from voting for what you believe in. But you're afraid to consider anyone who isn't famous. A lot of hypocrisy going on in my view. http://www.gpln.com/announcing_for_2012.htm
good point! By the way, what's your platform?
I suggest you go to the link provided. In the document offered you will find everything you need to know about me. One of the links in that document is called What We Want. You can consider that my platform if you like.
I did just that ... and I like it. Keep it up.
I went to his site when he posted this before.
No thanks.
Reposted as a reply to myself above.
I don't know how many "impoverished rural" people Hedges has spoken to, but in the "impoverished rural" area where I live in PA where registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats by 3 to 1, the vast majority of people support unfettered capitalism, de-regulation of all environmental laws, and elimination of all taxes. They vote straight Republican tickets election after election. My sons & I have been ridiculed by most of the people we have told about our nights spent in Freedom Plaza. They called us "Communists," "hippies", and "crazies." Even the cashiers/photo processors at our local CVS made fun of our photos from the marches.
Two things:
1. That's democracy.
2. Gerrymandering is one of those things that makes voting a problem.
So what are you going to do about it? We still need honorable people in government if things are going to get better. You may have to educate people before they will vote with you. One thing you can do is make sure a Democrat never wins again until they produce a candidate who is better qualified to serve than I am, (or someone like me.) What are those qualifications: http://www.gpln.com/announcing_for_2012.htm
george, I'm feelin' ya'. I used to work on a farm 30 miles east of the capital. I could see the steam, but not stacks, of Three Mile Island. I could hear the groans of miniguns fired from A-10's. Choppers flew directly over regular, coming and going from Ft. Indian Gap Town.
Anyway, backing the republican party is generational there. When I would ask why they voted republican, they would say, "I don't know, my parents always did".
And, it got worse. The women would discuss the merits of torturing people. The towers collapsing justified everything. Suggest that the towers didn't just fall straight down without help and the names would fly; kook, idiot, conspiracy theorist, unamerican, etc. I give them credit because they got one thing right. I'm unamerican ..... so I left.
Turkeys voting for Thanksgiving.
Feed life and starve death.
Excellent and articulate article. You've said exactly what I've been thinking but unable to articulate.
“But the liberal class has no credibility left.” Hear, hear! I left the Democratic Party when Nancy Pelosi took “impeachment off the table”. This is a crime called “obstruction of justice”, and the crime was committed against the American people. More recently we hear from ‘the professional left’ like Thom Hartmann and Ed Schultz who continue to be Obama (and Democrat Party) apologists. And Ed Schultz still thinks that capitalism will work (maybe he’s worried about his investments in NBC).
Hedges also noted that “the engines of corporate power…propel us into a world where there will be only masters and serfs”. That time has been with us for awhile. Current labor law still refers to “the Master-Servant Relationship”. Public unions are prevented by law from going on strike. If you are a federal worker you must obey the order of your supervisor or face being fired for disobeying a direct order or for insubordination. And most of these supervisors and managers are in their positions because they could not competently perform craft duties. So when you don’t know what the hell you’re doing, they stick you in a management position. This class system continues to be implemented by the government and accepted by the public unions. It boggles the mind.
With regard to the argument on this board about what is, or is not a liberal – it still falls into a Capitalist paradigm. Whether you are a conservative or a liberal, under Capitalism it doesn’t matter. You are still part of the existing problem. Full implementation of Socialism, where the workers own and control the means of production and profits, is the only sustainable answer. Wall Street needs to be eliminated. Why are Stock Brokers and Banksters making money off the sweat and labor of others? These people don’t labor. They use money to make money. And once they realize that the rest of the world will no longer put up with their theft, the 1% will take their money to Israel where it can be protected with nukes and the Sampson Option. Our country (and others around the world) is/are under siege and occupation by this 1%. It’s this Sampson Option (Google it) that allows the extortion of $3B a year in “foreign aid”. You can’t rise up against the 1% if you refuse to identify who they are.
Finally, with regard to a solicitation to vote by Mr. Goldman - what a crock. The corporations have complete control over counting the votes. It doesn’t matter who you vote for – it matters who counts the vote. So long as they are allowed to continue to count the vote, it doesn’t matter who you vote for. In fact, your vote will be used to legitimize this same duopoly. There should be a “don’t vote” movement. If 90 to 99% of the people refuse to participate in this charade, then Congress and the Presidency are no longer legitimate representatives of the people. This is the only way that people will see that we don’t have a democracy.
How will not voting show people we don't have a democracy. And what if everyone did see that we no longer have a democracy. What are they going to do about it? Voting for me or someone like me would at least tell the people what you stand for even if your candidate can't win. But just opting out only shows that you opted out. It doesn't prove anything. Not voting doesn't inform anyone what you stand for or who you are. I'm sure a lot of people would be glad to have you stay home on election day. What kind of government will that lead to? How will you know when you can start voting again? I'm giving you a choice. What are you giving me? Not even the time of day for trying to help you. Oh well.
I admire your courage, but PEAdvocate makes a bewildering point: Since "they" count the votes (in the close races especially), how can your candidacy be more than an educational exercise for local yokels, even if your voice could be heard above the din? And if it could be, one would have to assume that you're rolling in dough. Maybe you have an automatic epiphany generator for those of the 99% who don't yet know how the system works.
I feel like Hedges held up a mirror for me to look in, and I see a lot that I don't feel very good about.