Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Ten Steps for Radical Revolution in the US
“I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values.” --Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 1967
One. Human rights must be taken absolutely seriously. Every single person is entitled to dignity and human rights. No application needed. No exclusions at all. This is our highest priority.
(Credit: WagingNonviolence.org)
Two. We must radically reinvent contemporary democracy. Current systems are deeply corrupt and not responsive to the needs of people. Representatives chosen by money and influence govern by money and influence. This is unacceptable. Direct democracy by the people is now technologically possible and should be the rule. Communities must be protected whenever they advocate for self-determination, self-development and human rights. Dissent is essential to democracy; we pledge to help it flourish.
Three. Corporations are not people and are not entitled to human rights. Amend the US Constitution so it is clear corporations do not have constitutional or human rights. We the people must cut them down to size and so democracy can regulate their size, scope and actions.
Four. Leave the rest of the world alone. Cut US military spending by 75 percent and bring all troops outside the US home now. Defense of the US is a human right. Global offense and global police force by US military are not. Eliminate all nuclear and chemical and biological weapons. Stop allowing scare tactics to build up the national security forces at home. Stop the myth that the US is somehow special or exceptional and is entitled to act differently than all other nations. The US must re-join the global family of nations as a respectful partner. USA is one of many nations in the world. We must start acting like it.
Five. Property rights, privilege, and money-making are not as important as human rights. When current property and privilege arrangements are not just they must yield to the demands of human rights. Money-making can only be allowed when human rights are respected. Exploitation is unacceptable. There are national and global poverty lines. We must establish national and global excess lines so that people and businesses with extra houses, cars, luxuries, and incomes share much more to help everyone else be able to exercise their basic human rights to shelter, food, education and healthcare. If that disrupts current property, privilege and money-making, so be it.
Six. Defend our earth. Stop pollution, stop pipelines, stop new interstates, and stop destroying the land, sea, and air by extracting resources from them. Rebuild what we have destroyed. If corporations will not stop voluntarily, people must stop them. The very existence of life is at stake.
We respect the human rights and human dignity of others and work for a world where love and wisdom and solidarity and respect prevail.
Seven. Dramatically expand public spaces and reverse the privatization of public services. Quality public education, health and safety for all must be provided by transparent accountable public systems. Starving the state is a recipe for destroying social and economic human rights for everyone but the rich.
Eight. Pull the criminal legal prison system up and out by its roots and start over. Cease the criminalization of drugs, immigrants, poor people and people of color. We are all entitled to be safe but the current system makes us less so and ruins millions of lives. Start over.
Nine. The US was created based on two original crimes that must be confessed and made right. Reparations are owed to Native Americans because their land was stolen and they were uprooted and slaughtered. Reparations are owed to African Americans because they were kidnapped, enslaved and abused. The US has profited widely from these injustices and must make amends.
Ten. Everyone who wants to work should have the right to work and earn a living wage. Any workers who want to organize and advocate for change in solidarity with others must be absolutely protected from recriminations from their employer and from their government.
Finally, if those in government and those in power do not help the people do what is right, people seeking change must together exercise our human rights and bring about these changes directly. Dr. King and millions of others lived and worked for a radical revolution of values. We will as well. We respect the human rights and human dignity of others and work for a world where love and wisdom and solidarity and respect prevail. We expect those for whom the current unjust system works just fine will object and oppose and accuse people seeking dramatic change of being divisive and worse. That is to be expected because that is what happens to all groups which work for serious social change. Despite that, people will continue to go forward with determination and purpose to bring about a radical revolution of values in the USA.
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...
190 Comments so far
Show Allwork is not life's meaning...
as if every morning, I don't wake up and get hard thinking about gorgeous women I might have sex with, but thinking of jobs I might get...
and women buy all those dresses and cosmetics and shoes and skin tight black yoga pants to emphasize their employability...
no, work is not life's meaning...that is part of The Lie...
Madison Avenue is so blatantly on top of it, if one looks...
learn from the teachers available...
love the one you're with...
Sativarius: Well-spoken.
Considering what I've read of your other offerings today, I can only wipe my brow, exhale a sigh oif relief and say 'thanks'.
Forget Manpower, low-wage, no-benefits, demeaning temp work. Mandate a maximum 30-hour workweek (it's been generations since we went to 40), establish another Civilian Conservation Corps to rebuild America's infrastructure and restore the environment, and provide a minimum income to everyone who can't work or wishes to take some time off.
No, it won't happen soon because we live under a predatory system called Capitalism, in which Capital (the owning class) is perpetually at war against labor, undercutting and destroying unions, outsourcing jobs, etc. Under Capitalism, the owning class invariably controls the government (more or less--more here in the US, less so in social democracies like Denmark and Sweden).
There should be work available for everyone able and willing to work, and free training programs for those who need them. A guaranteed income should also be implemented, so that everyone who wishes to can retire at around age 45 with a good pension. This could be a revamped Social Security system, in which the retirement age keeps being lowered, so we can employ more people who need jobs, and give people a break in their senior years to do some living, sans job.
With the billions saved from wasteful spending on the Pentagon, the govt. could put a massive infusion of cash into non-profit organizations working to help the homeless, those with substance abuse issues, the mentally ill, crumbling infrastructure, and development of renewable energy systems.
Quigley's vision is a good one, even if it is all dead on arrival given our current capitalist framework. But it gets people thinking.
all these points are funny, as they ignore the realities of violent power, but nine and ten contradict each other, and logical thought, so directly as to be worthy of isolated focus:
the natives of this continent, per point 9 were slaughtered, their land stolen...
the same land, at the same time, was stolen from those in point 10...
yes, the natives of the African continent, per point 9, were enslaved here...
the same land is worked by the willing slaves described in point 10, now...
the claim made in point 9, that the US was the recipient of this vast wealth, is a lie...
you weren't...I wasn't...
specific individuals, families and organizations hoarded that wealth...not the 'US'...
this is a common problem, of course, referring to criminals as 'the United States'...
you have no land...I have no land...
the rest is moot...
we must take back the land on September 22, 2012...negate all title...
finally, working to pay for land is what destroys the environment, which is another word for the world...which other points claim to wish to save...
duh...
we just want everything...jobs, a clean world, money, stuff...to never die...
and we're smart enough to know that we should be able to vote this into reality...
"we must take back the land on September 22, 2012...negate all title..."
Doesn't "take back the land", assume new ownership? How is this to proceed? And what is the significance of September 22?
Sane societies exist on this earth, where the needs of people are cared for, and those societies aren't war making ones. I think, moving toward THAT would make more sense, than trying to tackle the thousands of years human, and seemingly innate behavior, of land ownership.
"the claim made in point 9, that the US was the recipient of this vast wealth, is a lie...
you weren't...I wasn't..."
Half the people of this earth live on less than $2 a day. If you're making more than that, then you are the beneficiary of American genocide and resource wars and are disproportionately wealthy.
Correct. The wealth obviously wasn't distributed fairly, but if you are a citizen of this country, you enjoy benefits that have been wrung out of other people's lives. All our many excesses come at the cost of other people's suffering.
"... benefits that have been wrung out of other people's lives."
That's true of every "developed" country.
And what of the benefit to others rung out of my, your,, each other's lives? Does that count for nothing? Or am I missing seeing the slave quarters in my backyard?
If Marx was right, and profit is uncompensated labor, we've all been exploited far greater than the benefits we've rung out of the dishrag. If not, there'd be no idle, moneyed, investment class skimming the lion's share of the world's resources while throwing us "hyenas" the bones they've picked clean.
So we can fight amongst ourselves over who's been exploited more, or we can organize together in solidarity against the real parasites.
I don't think we need to fight over it, but I also do not think it harms us to recognize that a) some have benefited absolutely, b) some have been exploited and yet also have gained from the exploitation of others (probably suits most readers of this thread...), c) while some have been outright exploited and occasionally see a vaccine for their troubles...
Robert, it is really good to hear your "voice". Thank you, sincerely. Your several responses exhibit an unmovable gentleness. It is an example of the leadership we need, to educate and organize to achieve freedom. Are you familiar with Murray Bookchin?
Um, I think it's more like a third, but your point is well taken and correct. Americans of all classes have benefitted materially from the government's genocidal policies. That's a tough pill to swallow, but it's the truth.
Sorry Dubet, I have to disagree with at least one point: the U.S. was the recipient of hundreds of years of relatively "free" capital, labor and land from it's outset, and has leveraged that wealth ever since. Go to a country like Russia, India or China and see what it is like to have tenuous borders with powerful neighbors: hardly a sidewalk or a curb outside of major metro areas. They do not seem intuitively related, but they are the result of the apportioning of resources in uncertain scenarios.
I think the central point is that American society operates at a high level of ambient affluence, which is something that we all benefit from, both directly and indirectly. Even if it had not been horded, as you correctly state, and instead had been distributed equally, the US would still be functioning at a higher ambient affluence than any country in the "Old World" at the turn of the 20th century (perhaps more so). In any case, critically reflecting on and recognizing the origins of this affluence would be a lesson in how to apportion resources in the future.
Another "We must" article--with the usual tiny omission: WHO can do exactly what? All of the desiderata have powerful enemies, supporters of the status quo, from which they profit. They have worked hard to solidify their grip on the world and on us. Are you thinking an activist, informed, intelligent populace (in America?!) is going to rise up and (somehow) implement even one of these dreams?
Yes, we will rise up. whether we are successful or not depends on how 'stuck in the mud' we are. If we don't have 'relationship' with our community we are lost. If we start to share with all the folks we love, we will put a wedge between to people that really count in the world and the folks that just want to dig themselves a hole and just die. Put your trust in things that are real instead of wasting time making more money that you will hoard. Within our lifetimes, the idea that being rich will save everything, will fade like an old body with the ravages of cancer. The Earth will remain, but it really depends on us if there will be any people left. Yeah, you're right 'We Must', is the principle here, "Earth, Love It or Get Off".
This should form the basis of a national coalition of progressives.
>>#1: Human rights must be taken absolutely seriously. Every single person is entitled to dignity and human rights. ... No exclusions at all. This is our highest priority.
#5. Exploitation is unacceptable. There are national and global poverty lines. We must establish national and global excess lines so that people and businesses with extra houses, cars, luxuries, and incomes share much more to help everyone else be able to exercise their basic human rights to shelter, food, education and healthcare. If that disrupts current property, privilege and money-making, so be it.<<
*****************************************************
Accepting and respecting these points would IMMEDIATELY require the US to own up to its climate crimes and accept responsibility on a global basis, to cut down its greenhouse gas emissions per capita DRASTICALLY!!!
The climate crimes by the US and certain other rich countries have a DIRECT impact on the human rights and the very lives of people elsewhere. All kinds of MAJOR changes would be needed in how people live their lives, and that goes for the 99% in the rich countries too -- who are actually a kind of elite from a global perspective! And point #10 must be subordinate to this point, for #1 to be valid!
If the above two points are accepted, point #6 will follow automatically:
*****************************************************
>>#6: Defend our earth. Stop pollution, stop pipelines, stop new interstates, and stop destroying the land, sea, and air by extracting resources from them. Rebuild what we have destroyed. If corporations will not stop voluntarily, people must stop them. The very existence of life is at stake.<<
*****************************************************
Point #9 cannot be stressed highly enough, even if people may think they were NOT direct beneficiaries of past conquest and colinzation. Why? Because, "The US has profited widely from these injustices and must make amends" and that is why an average US middle class person or family in the past could enjoy a much higher standard of living compared to someone else doing the SAME job in some other countries, often working harder and longer, and NOT due to some mythical or mysterious powers. Consider this: if nothing changes in Israel/Palestine and several generations later, would the future people, even ordinary people, living in Israel owe an apology to the Palestinians or not?
Of course, the list of people that the US must apologize to is kinda long!
However, for any of this to become reality, the "nation must undergo a radical revolution of values" as stressed by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. And if it does, then accepting point #1, #6 and #9 alone should point to the right course of action. Like George Carlin did with the ten commandments, this list could be shortened.
"Consider this: if nothing changes in Israel/Palestine and several generations later, would the future people, even ordinary people, living in Israel owe an apology to the Palestinians or not?"
No they--personally-- would not. The Israeli state may issue an apology, speaking for past generations, but not individuals, imo. If you are born into, or immigrate into, an oppressive system your duty is to try to change that system. You can't apologize for something someone else did generations ago.
Actually it is vitally important to acknowledge and apologize for past crimes and the ongoing and recurring benefits. This is the first step in reconciliation. Your entire premise is facile and callous.
I can't apologize for something I didn't do. That is not callous. That simply derives from basic notions of individual, not collective responsibility. I don't believe in collective punishment. As I said, a state can make an apology speaking for past generations; an individual cannot. Ongoing recurring benefits require rectification, not personal apologies. The individual moral duty is to change an oppressive system, not apologize for acts one did not commit personally. Note, I am referring to personal apologies, not reparations.
On a practical level, it is entirely unreasonable to expect people to personally apologize for actions THEY did not commit. It's not going to happen. Thus, it is not a "first step", it is a non-starter.
People apologize for others actions all the time. You are doing it right now. People apologize for the terrible actions of family members, friends, strangers. It is called empathy. As for 'rectifying' ongoing recurring benefits: how would you start?
I guess we'll have to disagree on this point. I don't apologize for the actions of strangers, and I don't know anybody else who does--even more so for strangers separated by *generations* (which is the issue we are discussing).
I don't believe in "racially", ethnically, or otherwise genetically transmitted "sin". (Race is a socially constructed category.) I realize that some people do think in such collective terms, but I oppose such thinking. I believe in individual, not collective, responsibility.
I have empathy for all sentient beings (cats especially -:) ). That fact in no way leads me to apologize for the actions of strangers. I might as well apologize for every bad act of every person that every existed. Why limit myself to this or that group or this or that time period? "My fellow humans have acted badly. I apologize for all of them. "
As far as rectifying recurring benefits, you start by changing the system that confers those benefits.
I am asking what would be your first step? Also: There is no individual. We are a collective humanity. There has never been an individual human being. No human being exists with out the community. Perhaps your first step might not be acknowledging criminal behavior, but how would you know which behavior to change if you do not reconcile belief with reality, if you do not confront lies with truth, if you do not have a collective rather than individual thinking on these things? These are not disingenuous questions. Does not your empathy for all sentient beings understand the feelings of the victims, their families, our community? Or just the criminals? Or is it not criminal to accept the benefits of the crime?
"..if you do not have a collective rather than individual thinking on these things?"
I actually believe in One Spirit underlying all individual manifestations. That doesn't negate individuality and individual moral responsibility though-- oneness and individuality are both real. What I reject is partial, self-limiting, socially constructed identities, like "I am a white person, that is my collective identity" or "I am an American, that is my collective identity" and so on.
"Does not your empathy for all sentient beings understand the feelings of the victims, their families, our community? "
Yes.
"Or just the criminals? "
No.
"Or is it not criminal to accept the benefits of the crime?"
It is wrong to accept the benefits of a crime. I have never claimed otherwise. As I said, one is morally obligated to reject the benefits of a crime AND to try to change the system that confers such benefits-- not to apologize for the action of a criminal act that was committed by a stranger generations ago
If I received stolen property, my moral obligation is not to apologize for the person who stole the property who is a stranger to me, but to return the property and try to create a system that minimizes the crimes in the first place..
"I am asking what would be your first step?"
I believe the global system of capitalist/militarist domination and exploitation is so complex that there is no single "first step" on a linear path of steps.
I support all actions that challenge the system, from actions like OWS to protests against austerity in Europe, from worker strikes in China to proposals for new international agreements on climate change, from feminist challenges to patriarchy in all its forms to actions against the abuse of animals...and so on and so forth.
Ultimately, I think it will be the sum of many, many steps occurring simultaneously on myriad fronts that will change the direction of life on the planet.
I am not so arrogant as to suggest that I have figured out a clear, singular path to global social change and that I can tell everyone what the first and subsequent steps should be.
WOW. This is powerful, thank you. I really appreciate your interaction with me here. You have synthesized something valuable, I feel. This is one of the steps. I dig what you are saying, I often refer to this concept as the wave particle duality-it is both simultaneously, energy matter everything in its time all at once. I often am too arrogant.
I love you, PostScarcityAna....
I love you, Progressive Populist.
Restitution is not punishment. Nor is it an apology. Nor does it take away anything from you. In fact, it is not about you at all, and your assumption that it is may be where you are missing the point.
I never opposed restitution. Nor did I ever make the assumptions you are attributing to me.
OK. I wasn't sure what you were saying.
As to point #2 - well, how about just stop voting for Democrats and vote for non-major party candidates and/or run your own? I agree about the whole self-determination thing, but honestly especially in states with decent ballot access laws THERE IS ZERO EXCUSE FOR EVER VOTING FOR ANY DEMOCRAT. Any and every movement and project one can think of would become 100x easier to enact with reliable lefties in office, ones who aren't there beholden to anyone and outside of a completely corrupt party structure.
When I hear liberals talking about reordering America and NOT mentioning that the Democrats need to disappear I'm a bit wary. There's no bigger anchor around the neck of the left than the false salvation party, the graveyard of social movements.
You're a fool. Without the dems the rich take over, period. With dems at least our dwindling unions have a minor voice. Without dems: nothing. Haven't you heard? "Liberal" is a dirty word. We must now use "progressive" to have any hope of attracting moderate's interest. The left is nowhere close to a majority. The moderate and conservative ideologies have the voice in the MSM. Sure, many liberal ideas are popular, but the MSM makes sure that any changes for the better are achingly slow. By the way, if you are short of cash, perhaps the republicans would pay you to write this kind of crap (always a silver lining).
The left is in the majority, or the word has no meaning.
Your position, that everything is impossible, therefore we should all settle for the lesser of two evils, is illogical.
Your assumption, that liberalism is rejected because it is too radical and that the population is too moderate to support it, is false.
"With dems at least our dwindling unions have a minor voice." God, that is pathetic. You have things exactly backward there. The Democrats need us far, far more than we need them.
And you have the temerity to call the other poster a fool?
Two, I don't think you read my post, or else you didn't have your brain engaged. For instance your statement "Your assumption, that liberalism is rejected because it is too radical..." is completely false. I said no such thing. I said many liberal ideas are well supported, but the MSM will always work for the right-center point of view. I have hope that may someday change.
"We must now use 'progressive' to have any hope of attracting moderate's interest."
"The left is nowhere close to a majority."
You disguise that which you are advocating as mere observations. You then deny saying what you are in fact saying. You then claim to be advocating - "I hope it will change" - the opposite of what you said before.
I had to smile. Your post is a wee bit convoluted.
That must be a vertical smile- thank you 2 americas, that was an enjoyable exchange to witness. Greg R - why do you insist on agitating here? You are a provocateur, is it the money? Are you a human being?
We have yet to have any sort of intelligent discussion at all and I haven't bothered putting in any time and effort into presenting much to you. Should you decide to go beyond tossing around talking points I am more than willing to put more time and effort into responding to you.
WITHOUT the Dems the rich take over?
Jan '93- Jan '95 - who had control of BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENCY? Democrats. What did labor get? Fast-track NAFTA. What didn't labor get? Repeal of Taft-Hartley.
Jan '09- Jan '11 - who had control of BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENCY? Democrats. What did labor get? Further free trade agreements with countries that murder labor leaders. What didn't labor get? Repeal of Taft-Hartley. What didn't anyone in Wisconsin, Ohio or Indiana public sector workers' unions get? ONE PEEP OUT OF OBAMA OF EVEN THE MOST TIMID SUPPORT. What did Wall St get? A TRILLION DOLLARS.
Here in Philadelphia Democrats control all aspects of government and have for 60 years - if it weren't for City Charter stipulations about single party rule there might be 1 Republican in local office, as it stands owing to said charter there are 4 (out of about 25 offices) . The union paramedics have been working WITHOUT A CONTRACT FOR MORE THAN 3 YEARS. Public schools are BEING CLOSED and turned into charters to break the teachers' union. Unionized library employees are subject to rolling brownouts. Meanwhile rich people get a 10 year tax abatement on new construction, and the current mayor when a city council member sponsored the bill that let Comcast (which contracts out a lot of labor to avoid unionization) become a cable monopoly.
How many times does Lucy have to pull away the football before you learn something?
I know what you're saying, but in the real world voting 3rd party will sadly make things worse.
"In the real world" you say. IN THE REAL WORLD, DEMOCRATS DO MORE HARM IN OFFICE THAN REPUBLICANS BECAUSE LIBERALS LIKE YOU DON'T LIFT A FINGER TO COMPLAIN.
I swear I'd rather live in a world with one formal party than two, because apparently the two party stupid parlor trick is more than enough to switch the brains off of half of all Americans.
"... will sadly make things worse"
HOW?! And did you notice how I constructed an argument with supporting examples? Can you try and do that when making a blanket statement of that sort - ANY supporting fact whatever? If you can't come up with any perhaps you should rethink the statement.
Stupid Dem zombies.
Having the third branch of government made up of gems like Scalia and Thomas should cause you to think. Having a party that refuses to raise taxes on the wealthy by any tiny amount and wants NO estate tax should cause you to think. There's 2 examples. There are more.
Which party are you referring to?
"Having the third branch of government made up of gems like Scalia and Thomas should cause you to think."
... to think what exactly? They aren't elected you know. There's not a damn thing that the SCOTUS has to say about 99.99% of the federal legislation passed every year. The SCOTUS didn't give us fast-track NAFTA and "end welfare as we know it." The SCOTUS doesn't order drone strikes and spend more than half our discretionary budget on the military. Do you have any concept of how many miserable decisions have been made in the federal courts by Democratic nominees?
Folks, the only way to take out the Democrats is to aim for the head. It's OK, the people you knew who became Democrats died long ago and they can no longer feel pain. They crave brains and they want to eat your flesh. Don't let them bite you or else you'll be putting an Obama '12 sticker on your Prius.
The only way to get reliable lefties in office would be to change the election laws at municipal, county, and State levels. For decades, getting on a ballot has been a weird, perverse mating dance, unless the candidate was an incumbent. Dump the Electoral College, dump the primaries, and shorten the campaign process. Move election day to Sunday, as is the case in the rest of the world. Instant run-offs and proportional representation have been enacted successfully elsewhere. Time to modernize the election process. Oops - that won't happen until the dumbing-down stops.
I never get how people claim that there won't be any change in who we elect until we change the way elections happen.
Problem #1 - How exactly do you expect to enact said change without getting people of quality into office first? Do you expect the two major parties to voluntarily enact suicide?
Problem #2 - It's just a canard and I feel an excuse. Elections - even ones with screwed up access laws - are the only venue in which a plurality can stick to their guns and manifest real change. (My retort to the "nothing will change until instant run-off" people is that in a first past the post system YOU ONLY NEED AS LOW AS 34% TO WIN AN OFFICE, less with 4 or more candidates. If people actually made Democrats EARN a vote this would be a PIECE OF CAKE.)
Just as background I'll say that I've run for federal office in Pennsylvania. which has some of the most regressive ballot access laws in the country. Several friends of mine and I gathered 3000 signatures for ballot access, and I hired a lawyer to fight a challenge to same.
It took 8 months and thousands of dollars but we did it.... and that effort DID NOT MATTER because we were crushed by braindead zombies voting for a corrupt Democrat. Election laws present hurdles but the Democratic Party is a coffin. We can jump hurdles, we can't escape from a coffin.
I do agree that we should move voting to the weekend - I say make it both days. When I've been an election monitor abroad this is exactly what happened. It works.
Excellent response to the old canard. We will change the voting laws by ...... wait for it...... participating in the process- electing people from the community. Get involved everyone, run for office, and vote for other members of the community. Which community? Ours.
The average American watches five hours of TV daily. What do you expect, revolution of the brain dead?