Governments and Quasi Governments aka Corporations - wherever and however constituted - have always declared a legal right and primary legal duty of deciding who gets the money! For that reason, every single form of "government" has been corrupted by greed and self interest. Top to bottom - front to back - left to right - republican to democrat - CORRUPTION is the business of "government". No other outcome has ever been possible, based on man's collective lack of creative thinking and the reality of embedded false beliefs.

 

 

 

JD -

Differences of opinion aside, I would clarify Reform/Revolution as best I can with the following:

Within society: Whenever a change leaves the internal mechanism untouched, we have reform; whenever the internal mechanism is changed [or attempted to be changed], we have revolution....(per thoughts of Daniel DeLeon).

In our capitalistic society, there are governing bodies:  Demopublicans and Republicrats...both heads attached to the same horrific monster.  When viewing one or the other, it matters not -- separately -- why they do what they do.   It all feeds the same monster.

Striving to change the internal mechanism before we are consumed is what Revolution is.  

Giving the monster a haircut and a shave still leaves the monster....Reform.

R 

Theoretically and aesthetically, I absolutely agree with your position - small steps... Unfortunately, as I grow older and the harsh truths of reality flood in on my old mind, I begin more and more to see the sense behind figures such as Mao and Lenin who believed that the only possible way to true radical change of the system is to rip the gold from the cold dead hands of the rich and powerful, utterly destroy their corrupt systems of oppression, and start anew, regardless of the brutal cost to society. So in that sense, I strongly believe that Ron is the more practical. Revolution is the last choice of the oppressed. Regretfully, even that choice might be in danger as technology and psychological terror techniques being developed over recent decades make their marks upon social structures the world over via rapidly expanding intelligence services. America, in that context, may indeed already be beyond saving at this point. So the future of the world may lie elsewhere, less contaminated by the filth that has corrupted and corroded American society and structures. Viva Bolivar.... ;-)

I think even radical Ron might agree with his belief “that revolution is necessary...that it ishas been an ongoing battle....not an event.” Some differences of opinion are semantic—but I think learning another's vocabulary and idiom can help you understand your own language even better.

JD wrote : Both are brilliant—but I tend to side with Foucault's hesitation to overthrow a system on speculation about human essences and the sort of social organization that might be designed based on those speculations. Hence my advocacy of safe experimentation and reformation of the current system, rather than violent revolution with its somewhat “brutal, rapid change.” I completely agree and to the risk of repeating myself, I support small changes and experimentation of smaller scales.. I dont like anyone falling in the cracks.. The greater challenges is to make people realizes that our way of life must changes in order to survive failing this people are just going to stay the course on the wrong track. I am surprise to hear that Paul underwent what we call strategic voting by voting for Kerry and this does contradict jonah's notion that Paul or the left doesnt compromise...

Ron says: “the producers of wealth are the people and the people deserve to cut that pie up their way.” I say, “the world over, they already have.”

And the other thing is that Jonah didn't do his homework either on this post or on my publication record during and since 2004. For better or worse, I made the lesser evil argument (regarding "swing" and "contested" states), saying that Kerry may have been corporate neoliberal Coke but that Bush was not Pepsi and was instead far right Crack...too dangerous to enable in any even indirect way. I voted against Bush (and therefore "for" Kerry) in a swing state.  I didn't do it only with a nosepin but with a full-blown gas mask but I did it. Regardng '08, my preferred Democratic candidate would be Dennis Kucinich but he will have no chance by definition in the dominant system even though his specific policy positions will enjoy wide support. Perhaps some of my past and future writing on B.O. could encourage some Dems to choose an Edwards over a Hillary or a Barocksar to be the appointed lesser evil against the true and total low-life Guliani (can't see McCain getting the nod). That's a reasonably modest and "pragamtic" hope and ambition in our fading "democracy" or whatever it is we have now.

JD

I try to look at issues with emotion...from the gut, if you will. "How does it make me feel" sorta thing. Don't get me wrong. I do my in-depth homework long before I give in to my instinct. I guess, after being in the trenches (working class) for as long as I have, my points of view are somewhat biased.

I like to think that I recognize what exploitation is. It is not, as you say, paying unfair wages. It is, however, a major front in class warfare. It is using the power and position of ownership of the means of production to capitalize and maximize one's power and position. It is using the concept of divide and conquer. It is very clear to me what the motive is of capitalism, profit...by any means. From a class perspective, one only needs to fill in the blanks.

I am in full agreement with Victor's comments: "...the whole pie should be given back to the people who are rightful owners in the first place" ....the producers of wealth are the people and the people deserve to cut that pie up their way.

Reformation (that you support) of the current system is "band-aid" at best. It is a bread crumb approach. They give only a little and take a lot. But all the while, they continue to exploit, capitalize, and maximize.

I am a believer that revolution is necessary...that it ishas been an ongoing battle....not an event. In our current degraded society, one only need to withdraw allegiance from the state and its machines of war, from corporate Amerika and its horrible drive for profit, ...from all states, all bullying authorities, all dogmas (per Zinn). We can be a cause of change. Vive la revolucion!

Scratch the veneer of a radical...indeed.

 

Ron—

        I've worked for McDonalds (I'm for employee owned businesses), I've been in the Military (I'm for peace and mostly non-Interventionism), and I've taught at a university (I'm currently a mentally disabled artist who tries to simplify complex ideas (see my website address below)).  We're all in the trenches, Ron, but those trenches may cause you to lose the forest for the trees.  I've also done a lot of research, some of which contradicts the sort of myopic view one can get from their limited particular perspective. Common sense and the standard view are often wrong: I think we both know that.  

      I'll make an unpopular confession here: I'm not an anti-capitalist.  But, I am definitely not for pure-capitalism, and I am definitely for Reformation of our current system.  For those who have the “Manufacturing Consent” DVD, or can check it out, I suggest looking at the special feature section with the discussion between Chomsky and Foucault—that is the intersection of intellectual traditions that I'm interested in.  Both are brilliant—but I tend to side with Foucault's hesitation to overthrow a system on speculation about human essences and the sort of social organization that might be designed based on those speculations.  Hence my advocacy of safe experimentation and reformation of the current system, rather than violent revolution with its somewhat “brutal, rapid change.”

      You can definitely be pro-democracy, and very far left: Paul thinks the public pillory/podium should be open to all  and that if opened up, and more representative, maybe his views would be more popular than fascist ones: his views are definitely more popular with me.  But— and this was the point I was trying to make before being trampled on for, I believe, not being anti-capitalist— Isn't advocacy of Democracy inherently an advocacy of the moderate?  A more legitimate, imo, counter to my claim would be that ideologies determine what is moderate, not the median voter.  That's the debate that Victor took up a little, with the excellent insight that “propaganda” and “indoctrination” would be key factors.  My counter was that public opinion is not constructed by the media: although it can definitely be skewed (setting up what is talked about publically in the first place).  Who decides what is far left and far right?  

     My contention might be: scratch the veneer of any radical and you get a moderate.

 J.D. Casten  

www.jdcasten.info

Well, I've been away for the Jesus-mocking mass consumption holiday and will admit at the start that current obsessions ("strategic planning" and the like) will prevent me from engaging the full spectrum of this discussion here. I thank sk and SuyiE for mentioning the Curtis White book. I had heard that he represented a non-radical snobbery/armchair detachment but the subject matter is interesting to me and so it is on my book purchase list. All people knew to get me was bookstore gift cards so I'm looking at a literary windfall.

SGTR is wrong if he thinks nobody "buys" "my" radical views; I know at least 18 people who do...I'm joking because it's actually many more. I've heard wonderful things from hundreds upon hundreds of people over the years saying basically right on. But talk to more well known radicals like say Chomsky or Pilger or Tariq Ali and they'll tell you about good feedback from many thousands upon many thousands. NC reports unprecedented U.S. attendance at his lectures and remarkable recent and ongoing interest in his books. I'm trying to get my Empire and Inequality book (which has the best cover-photo [which I found] of any left book since 9/11) to Hugo Chavez so he can mention it at the UN sometime. I heard that helps sales.

SGTR goes on to ask for personal professional details ---  a juvenile and insulting request intended (consistent with the dominant and pathetic bourgeois concept of "human nature")of course to reduce substantive criticsm of academia's institutionally compelled subordination to power to petty career jealousies.  I'm actually  relieved not to be in or around the academy at present...I found the work very clerical and exhausting, making it hard to focus on things that matter (but this was more to the lower end, where the course loads are high and the pay is low...things are much more pleasant at the elevated levels). SGTR then falsely equates political radicalism with the often masturbatory and indecipherable and incestuous rantings of professional academic "multicultural deconstructioniism." This is a frequent and predictable mistake on the right. 

I've been "blogging" long enough to recognize that a certain part of your commenting readersahip is like someone trying to provoke you to take a wild swing at the bar.  The idea is to make it so you can be painted out as the aggressor after the cops and parademics leave.  

The always clever jdcasten wonders if my admiration for forthright and non-ambiguous politics leads to find  "people on the truly radical right" to be "morre admirable" than "the moderate left."   He  says "maybe 'fascists' deserve more air time too?'"

Huh.  Well, at least in part I guess I do find some radicals of the right to be more admirable at least in their willingness to have a forthright politics.  I have long advocated an opening of the U.S. party system beyond the corporate duopoly with the awareness that a real system of , say,  proportional representation would probably lead to some elected reps from the radical right.  I'm a militant defender of free speech and  convinced that fascists and their ilk would lose out in a true democratic "marketplace of ideas."  I don't know if jdc has Obama and the Times in category of "moderate left," but if he does than we disagreee..I have them in the corporate neoliberal center on the whole (though you occasionally see Obama saying some things that would put him rhetorically to the left of that  perhaps, like when he embraces check-card certification for U.S. unions) .  People I've met on the far right have tended to have a fair amount of progressive/radical energy tied up in terrible, toxic and tragic [generally racist] confusion that often relates to their own generally disadvantaged backgrounds and very limited educational (as well as socioeconomic) options.  By contrast,  the "moderate" "liberals" I've known have tended to come from advantaged backgrounds and were in more of a position to know better.  Their embrace of terrible hiearchies (domestic and imperial) is therefore in some ways more morally corrupt besides being more insidious since more covert and illusory.  Someone suggested that "liberals" have no ideological monopoly on tbe  idea of "pragmatism" and I agree with that.  The fact that I'm personally "far left" hardly means that I never have to make "pragmatic" calls.  We all do.   

And then there's the whiney attack that arrived below from Jonah as I was writing this. Yes, it's just a joke that Obama so lovingly embraces dominant hiearchies, capitalism (our wonderfully "efficient" "system of social organization") and Empire (I have various pieces on this...will link if I get more time later). I point out the deep conservatism of a. B.O. or for that matter a Vilsack or a Hlllary/Billary or a Richie Daley and so I am a frothing "fundamentalist."  Please.  

I admit it: my own personal and political distaste is much higher for people like Jonah than it is for straignt-up hard right-wingers.   

So, since Obama is so evil, is Paul Street going to say he's just like Bush too (as I'm sure he did with Kerry)? Maybe he can nominate and support his uncle Jake for President, or just skip the bullshit and vote for another far-right, born-again oil man? Or maybe, if he could come down from his fundamentalist* crack high, he could instead actually work towards a better administration, even if it's not led by, oh, one of greatest leaders EVER. Not everyone can be King, that's why he was so special. Duh. Of course, King himself was viewed as a sellout by many, many people (which is insane, of course, even moreso than this dude Street's ranting is).

His list of Obama 'sins' is a joke. Obviously, no one has a perfect pedigree on any level. Beyond that, democracy waters down ideals, I get it (does he?). To be a viable candidate for our a high position in our system of government (or to have far-reaching influence in any system, really), you need to make compromises with people and things you may find abhorrent. You need to get over your dogma. That's what democracy is about, for better or for worse.

If fundamentalist progressives win us another far-right Republican administration, that would be so sad.

*Right or left or Christian or Muslim or whatever, fundamentalism is the disease.

I must say, that after having read the exchange of all -- re: Paul's original Liberal comments -- and, in particular, viewing the comments of jdcasten...absorbing it all (two or three times over) has caused me to reply.  After a certain amount of mind-numbness accrued in such an exchange, a regrouping of my thoughts are necessary.  

I admire and agree with the comments that you provided to jdcasten.  JD was interesting in approaches to a couple of varying topics but, from my "in-the-trenches" perspective, I can emotionally and honestly say, JD is full of crap. The armchair approach doesn't work for me and JD seems expert at it.

JD's comments on wealth, taxes, rich, poor, global this-and-that, survival, radical moderate, etc., seem to be sorry intellectual rhetorical excuses for the cold realities that, if a snake, have already bitten JD square in the face. So, who is "mind-numbed" in this volley of ideas?  To not recognize the obvious -- re: labor history from a laborer position, distribution of wealth and poor from a social perspective, war/peace from a veteran's point of view, capitalistic exploitation from a peon position, imperialism from the occupied....(oh, I am so grateful for Howard Zinn's history perspective) and untold other issues of the ruling elite and powerful  -- exposes a blatant ignorance of the obvious. 

So, in the interest of not beating a dead horse any further than necessary, may I say thank you for your comments.  Please continue onward. 

R

Probably, as power is a corrupter of the first water.

The people in power in the world now? In governments and shadow governments. Almost to a man/woman.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

My Baptist upbringing was not totally wasted.

The Scarlet O´Hara remark was meant for the, thankfully dead, Mr Friedman. I have no complaints about your writing style, just your slippery ¨reasoning¨.

mdruss42@yahoo.com

Actually had the same thought myself, Victor.

Both US Dems and Reps buy into corporate American, and self-consciously so. Some are a little more like watch dogs, others like cheer leaders—but they share the assumption that our semi-capitalistic economic engine provides the bread and butter that keeps us fed with a semi-socialistic government that provides some safety nets.

True. Both Dems and Reps buy into corporate America, and as shown on so many occasions, are also bought by corporate America. A true win/win situation for both, wouldn't you say? And of course we know just how socialistic America is, how she cares for her people, providing all those safety nets. By the way, there appeared a really good ZMag article recently on how well America is treating her workforce (good to have all these cheerleaders and watch-dogs around - I'm sure it makes the average American worker feel so much more secure. It explains the massive shift in wealth from American workers to those beneficent capitalists you mentioned. Seems that through outsourcing, and involuntary conversion of jobs from full-time to part-time, or to "consultants", Corporations are transferring billions of dollars annually (about a trillion since 1980s) from wages, benefits, health insurance and retirement to the bottom line. How about that for a trickle-up economy? After being callously re-categorized from full-time, these folks are also in many cases "excluded by law from access to protective labor legislation like the Occupational Safety and Health Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, and Family Leave and Worker Retraining Acts. Courts are even split on their rights under the Civil Rights and Disability Rights Acts." But I'm sure you were talking about some other safety nets? See the link to the ZMag article "Welcome to the New World Job Order" by Jack Rasmus: http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Dec2006/rasmus1206.html

I think they see globalization as an economic investment in future prosperity for the entire globe (the wealth of all nations rising through free trade)—an experiment that would fail if starving people were merely fed. Ideally it's one of the those “win/win” situations where PWM can do good while doing well.

That's your opinion, JD - perhaps you should consider a job (part-time, of course) working as a corporate PR specialist). Personally, I think they see globalization as a means to bigger profits and expanded markets, simply put. Frankly, I don't think they really give a damn about people or the effects upon them and their families. And if they could get by with only feeding folks, they would do that if they thought they could get away with it. Don't for a minute believe that they wouldn't.

There seems to be a long-term conservative project to fund global welfare states by taxing super wealthy investors—that seems to be the logic to me: keep people employed, let the super rich get progressively richer, and tax only the wealthiest in order to fund welfare: the trade off is how fast to let the super rich get rich vs. how much welfare to dole out now. And social advocates come from weird places: like US auto manufacturers wanting universal government health care, so they can drop their own health plans and compete more globally.

Heavily tax the super wealthy? Fund Welfare States? What welfare? What states? Keep people employed? On this planet? JD, do you and I even occupy the same planet? Let me tell you something about wealth. At any given moment there is just so much of it. If the rich are getting richer, then others are getting poorer. And while new wealth is being created all the time, more and more of that new wealth goes into the greedy hands of the rich, and less and less to the Great Unwashed. The recent report on World Wealth by the UN demonstrates that the rich are truly getting richer and the poorer classes are growing. Perhaps you should read it. And somewhere someone has said that you can always tell who really runs a country by who pays the least taxes. Wanna take a really wild guess as to who that is in BushCheneyLand, JD? As for US Auto manufacturers, they are too busy outsourcing jobs and transferring manufacturing overseas to China and India. America is rapidly losing her manufacturing base. When hard times come, and they will, she will have little domestic production capabilities to fall back on. She will suffer greatly for that. But I'm sure all those cheerleaders and watch-dogs are on top of these things. Our Congressional leaders and our President are all on the job looking out for their constituencies, protecting the American worker through fair labor laws, fair taxation and fair income distribution, and generally providing "semi-socialized" protection for us all. (Not)

If you don't mind, what is your email address? I would like to discuss a book.

Cyrano— You know I don't have the answers to all the problems you pose: I suspect that anyone who claims they do is either self-deceived or a liar. But a lot of people have ideas—and for the most part, left, right, center, radical, or whatever, I genuinely believe that Most people have basically good intentions (altruistic values), but severely disagree on how to achieve what are usually diverging goals with common values. The results can be deadly though due to all sorts of actions and inactions, so cautious debate is necessary. I thought I made it clear to Mariam that I don't buy into AC Brook's book (what a self-serving propagandistic joke: I (accidentally) happened to have the 700 Club on TV in the background while I was writing a comment on the blog, and saw it being plugged)—but I think it is important to understand where other people are coming from. With joke phrases having a serious bite like, “Political Bigot” I don't mean to hurt feelings, but just possibly provoke a little respect for my “radical moderate” position. PWM like myself (at least with my Billion + imaginary dollars) know they aren't as powerful as they'd like others to believe they are (everyone has constituents): I think centralized power is a myth, and I think I've discussed this with folks on these blogs before. Folks like Mariam seems to have a sense of humor about their invective though, and so garner my respect. Judging the present from the future takes a really good ethical crystal ball. Both US Dems and Reps buy into corporate American, and self-consciously so. Some are a little more like watch dogs, others like cheer leaders—but they share the assumption that our semi-capitalistic economic engine provides the bread and butter that keeps us fed with a semi-socialistic government that provides some safety nets. I think they see globalization as an economic investment in future prosperity for the entire globe (the wealth of all nations rising through free trade)—an experiment that would fail if starving people were merely fed. Ideally it's one of the those “win/win” situations where PWM can do good while doing well. There seems to be a long-term conservative project to fund global welfare states by taxing super wealthy investors—that seems to be the logic to me: keep people employed, let the super rich get progressively richer, and tax only the wealthiest in order to fund welfare: the trade off is how fast to let the super rich get rich vs. how much welfare to dole out now. And social advocates come from weird places: like US auto manufacturers wanting universal government health care, so they can drop their own health plans and compete more globally. I don't have much of a clue as to contemporary US military foreign policy: it seems like an arrogant world-historical imperialistic habit somehow justified on consequentialist grounds. I digress though… and for that I apologize to Paul and the rest for wasting too much time and space on the ZNet blogs.

of labels. I do not know what anyone means when they call someone a liberal or a conservative, or a libertarian for that matter.

Jd is busy offering me bromides from the CATO Institute, then a book from AC Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute, home to illuminatti like Newt Gingrich, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Richard Perle, that purports to prove that conservatives are more giving of charity than liberals. There was nothing said about why so much charity is necessary.

To me, Libertarians are just another avenue of control for the PowerfulWhiteMen who reckon they are born with the right to ruleñ or steal as is the case of the Kochs who put up the start money and have funded the CATO bunch.

Liberals are like Mother Teresa, who collected probably $100,000,000 in her career to ¨care for the sick and dying, but never managed so much as an asprin for the sick or dying, but supported the policies of the church that are directly responsible for much of the suffering in the third world. She also seems to have had a cult of suffering......loved it........in the poor and downtrodden you understand, not in herself. 

Conservatives are the superrich and the wannabes who are trying very hard to keep the road to wealth closed to as many as possible, because they know that if Bill Gates has $50,000,000,000 then there are a whole large city or country´s worth of people living on subsistance for that to be possible........and wealth is finite so it can only be divided so many ways. 

Paul, add to my understanding. Sorry about the off topic quagmire. 

JD, I agree economic system like parecon ideas must get experimented and implemented first on smaller scales. A thing is I am positively sure, our societies should stop secluding and blockading the left because many hold very altruistic values. J.D I do agree about some political variantes and sponsors in US politics however, I think the problem with US "demos and reps" is that the corporate world were/are able to redesign these political parties to reflect their agendas.. their agenda often conflict with the have-not in what its seem that their policies continues to keep the have not in being poor.. Take the complete desintegration of small countries like Afghanistan and Iraq ( and many other small nations) another internal examples negative to the US population are taxe cuts and globalization, how come JD our governements ( I would include puppet canada too) always end up pushing an agenda that their people don't benefit?

Sidestepping the exchange here so far, Of course, I'd agree with you. Liberals are frustrating in a way that grates deep beneath the skin: they simultaneously ackowledge oppression while protecting it. What I want to add, not as not a reprimand, but as part of the constant debate I'm having in my head, is that I feel liberals often have a much more radical analysis (after a few drinks), but allow their pragmatism to be completely defined by their liberalism. When I have hope with them, I imagine a message that targets this foolish "realism" (that is so what they think it is) as the abject surrender that it is, while offering successful strategies: the pro-immigration strategies, the CODEPINK stuff, and counter recruitment work. Unfortunately, I feel like we haven't offered the same aggressive strategies that the liberal organizations have. Moveon will send us a million emails getting people to come out to do voter registration and phone parties. Why isn't there a similar structure for targeting military recruiters? It would be an easy on-ramp for people who could start off "jusst being against this war," but would fundamentally have an implicit emphasis on participatory democracy and all the radical shenanigans that that brings along with it. Because, again when I have hope, I know that the liberals on the ground (not the Obamas), are projecting their hope and geting so fervent for losers like Kerry, because they know that this is all wrong. We just have to figure out the vehicle to capture and alter the pragmatism (which, in turn, can alter their analysis). When I don't have hope, eh. I drink.

Mariam— 

     The CATO Institute is a rather one-note organization: less government.  I agree with them about ½ the time, the other ½ I vehemently disagree.  They believe that freer markets would actually feed more people: would that help?

      Is your silence on “sustainability” approval?

      And is the Scarlet O'Hara remark a comment on my writing style?  That probably stems from the books I've read: if it's pompous or off-putting, I apologize— that is not my intent.  If arguments aren't easy to understand, then they're possibly politically elitist.  Intimidation through assuming an “expert” tone can obviously rhetorically alienate some people, I agree—but can't some people just be themselves without being suspect for being different?

        Mariam: you tend to perceive people in “power” as inherently evil.  Why?  Is there a whole class of human beings that aren't even human in your opinion: just raping robots trying to steal the poor's money?  Who would really want to join that exclusive club, and learn their secret handshake?  A genuine human being?  Or some sort of straw man?  (What does PWM stand for?)

       Here's a book loaded with bias: “Who Really Cares”

 http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216    

 The bias is that individuals should give rather than governments—but I think it demonstrates that some of these “evil” conservatives care too.

    I'm all for revolutionary perspectives: that's where we often get the motivation and ideas for good change.  But suggesting that the entire “system” stinks from top to bottom seems out of touch with reality: imo, reality is the everyday mundane, not the worst cases of suffering—and even for an individual in dire circumstances, most of the day is usually not spent suffering the insufferable— but maybe laboring away, feeling depressed, bored, daydreaming, etc, until BOOM!! You are dead.

I mentioned the willingness to die for an ideal.......there is a difference. I do not think we progressives, pol bigots, inconveniences, have any martyr complexes, but that willingness to do whatever is necessary, without becoming the thing we fight, to claim the right to a decent life for all the people of this world has to be there just like the armies of governments has to be there to make it possible for them to carry out their various depredations.

The CATO Institute started by the Kochs of Oklahoma who are famous for defrauding the Indians of billions of oil money? Supported by the Coors family, with Rupert Murdoch on it´s board, and gives the Milton Friedman Prize? That CATO?

How do you reckon those charmers mean to benefit the rest of us?

Scarlet O´Hara said it is easier to steal from the poor than from the rich. She did not have to write 10 lb books with every word over three syllables she could find in the dictionary to make the reader feel that the author knows much more and is an ¨expert¨. 

Miriam— I knew I'd catch heat for expressing my opinions here. Your energetic outrage is healthy and legitimate, imo. A point I was making is that some forms of outrage (against misogyny, racism, etc.) do not map directly onto and justify attacks on everything you don't like. Racism and the plight of the poor in semi-capitalist societies may definitely be intertwined: but that doesn't mean that your sense of righteousness because you may be right on one issue means you're just as right on others. I don't think the Forbes, Bushes, Rockefellers, et al are in heaven. Although we all need something to eat, and a place to live, dissatisfaction with life probably wouldn't be solved by having their money. If you have your health, then what's the problem? Do you feel exploited? Why? How do you define slavery? If I'm free and healthy, why care about other people's excess wealth? I don't care if wealth makes other's feel relatively poor: I just care that people survive and aren't exploited. A call for global health and non-exploitation needs to be separated from a call for equal wealth: e.g. materialistic envious greed. I said “reduces” to the same, because I enjoy plurality, and respect for differences: tolerance not bigotry. I think political bigotry will be the last type of bigotry to go, if ever. You're the one who mentioned dying for an ideal. To use your strategy of arguing: would you die so that everyone had blue eyes and blond hair? The Divergent DNA idea is an analog: not all divergences from the norm create the ability to survive in the environment more successfully (evolution). I see progressives aimed at evolving society: but not all progressive ideas are necessarily the “right” ones. Communists are considered progressive by some (at one time at least): their mismanagement cost millions of lives. (Chomsky somewhat callously cites, concerning the Cambodia Industry: “deaths were in the thousands or hundreds of thousands from all causes, primarily from ‘brutal, rapid change,' not ‘mass genocide,'” as if “brutal, rapid change” is an OK necessity: how much better than genocide is a revolution that kills so many people? Is it better because it's a revolution? E.g. is it more justified because it was done on the way to “progress?”) Better dead than red? What about both?

But JD you did ask me. I am Mariam, btw, you know, not Moses´ sister, his cousin. 

By demanding nothing less than full rights as our forerichwhite fathers recorded for themselves and as a sales tool to make their revolution work, when they decided they were not getting a big enough piece of the empire pie from George, and decided to make their own, as they had before them untold wealth just waiting to be plundered, blacks, workers, abolitionists, women  were all considered radical, unreasoning, and most of all inconvenient for the PWM who needed a quiet, controllable, herdable population to assist in the looting and theft which included the theft of the lives of said population as barely paid or not paid workers.

There was not and is not any DEMOCRATIC COMMUNITY to define your MODERATE. Is that something like ¨a little bit pregnant¨?

The DC was/is a myth, fairy tale, sales tool to keep the population herdable and quiet. The PWM knew about wannabes so cut from the herd likely candidates who, for a feeling of power, and a little bit of the wealth  would do the herding for them. So was created the middle class, now called managers class or some such silliness.

MUST DIE FOR, AND HENCE KILL FOR?

Did MLK go out armed?

Did Ghandi?

How many bazookas and tanks did the women´s movement use?

Was the labor movement armed with tanks, guns, and bazookas?

But some of these people were injured or killed, because they knew what the PWM knew....the people actually have the power if they know how to band together and use it. So the PWM having arms and fear reacted.....but did not stop the movements.

EQUALITY OF EVERYTHING reduces EVERYTHING TO THE SAME

Very telling.

Why not ELEVATES EVERYTHING?

Because you are speaking from the perspective of the PWM for whom equality with the laborer, women, black person, brown person, or whichever peon got stroppy this month, reduces him.

I´M FOR SURVIVABILITY FIRST, EQUALITY SECOND.

So was the slave owner. So was/is the factory owner. So is the Bush Admin.  And they always got to define ¨survivability¨.

Please tell me about progressive changes that will kill millions. I must have missed that on all those sites that talk about plans for population reduction. Accidental experiments as opposed to the secret, non accidental experiments already done by gov scientists? DIVERGENT DNA? splain please.

ARE YOU AGAINST DEMOCRACY?

HAVE YOU STOPPED BEATING YOUR WIFE/HUSBAND YET?

TOO OFTEN, SO CALLED PROGRESSIVES ARE PEOPLE WHO JUST WANT A BIGGER SLICE OF THE PIE, POLITICALLY OR MONETARILY... AS IF THE CONSERVATIVES WERE TRYING TO MAINTAIN SOME EXCLUSIVE HEAVEN THAT THEY ARE IN.

FINALLY!! You hit the nail squarely on the head.

Yes, we political bigots, radicals, inconveniences, want the pie, which is the property of us all, divided differently.

Haven´t you ever read Forbes Mag?

Have you ever been in one of those gated, guarded heavens?

How far do you think the Forbes, Bushes, Rockefellers, et al will go to maintain these exclusive heavens?     

     Victor—

     I think we agree that something like “direct democracy” would measure what I call the moderate even more accurately (and “my” moderate is a global moderate, not a national one).

    We differ majorly on three items, on which I probably disagree with many at ZNet:

1)      The Definition of “Exploitation” (Is it simply ownership of the means of production?)

2)     The Media Constructs the Opinions of the Masses.

3)     Representative Democracy is a Total Failure.

 

As to 1)—Although an advocate of partial employee ownership of businesses (½  by employees, ½ by public to diversify retirement investments)—I don't have a big problem with Private Property, including owning a sewing machine and contracting someone to use it.  I define “exploitation” as paying unfair wages.  I think Taxation was the public's solution to the private/public property/no property debate long ago: current mainstream debate is about how high to set taxes.  I wouldn't, in a million years, advocate a “shock and awe” implementation of Parecon: It's still in the experiment phase.  Like Foucault's critique of Chomsky, I think evolution is largely blind—setting up ideal political solutions is dangerous: but to follow Chomsky, I would say that at least having ideals is important in order to critique the lacking elements of the present “system:” Parecon has some good values that I think could help guide the evolution of our current system (hence my advocacy of employee ownership, etc.).

As to 2)— Could the media construct a Holocaust denial accepted by the masses?  Why or why not?  Although the system may perpetuate itself on the whole (advertising itself promotes consumption) I see consumer demand much more powerful than media seduction: A new snake-oiled flavored milkshake from McDonald's isn't going to sell no matter what the advertising campaign.  I buy very much into Lincoln's statement that, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”  The Nazi's didn't start from scratch, as far as I know, they exploited predispositions that had been developing for quite some time; their propaganda took advantage of the population's long-term self-indoctrination.  It seems to me that these “brain-washed” simpletons of the public are always “someone else.”

As to 3)—I suggest a look at Donald Wittman's “The Myth Of Democratic Failure: Why Political Systems are Efficient:”

http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Democratic-Failure-Political-Institutions/dp/0226904237

A helpful outline can be found here:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/pubcho2.html

     Ironically, conventional wisdom is that politics, because so much money is involved is bought off.  This means the public at large is skeptical of politics—maybe more so than need be, as only ~10% of all races are in play at any one time in the US.  I don't buy that the right shifted the center through propaganda (which I see as short-term)—the last elections turned out well for the democrats (although they had to go more centrist to win) but there are probably many factors involved.  Bush may have miss-represented himself as a “compassionate conservative”—a weird confession for the conservatives to make: that they're not typically compassionate + note the Republican defense of itself:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1912.cfm

Of course democracy has to be held in check, especially by human rights: I think that's one reason that Fareed Zakaria wrote his “The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad:”

http://www.amazon.com/Future-Freedom-Illiberal-Democracy-Abroad/dp/0393324877/sr=8-1/qid=1167149497/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-0040949-5198302?ie=UTF8&s=books

A point of pointing out these various perspectives is to demonstrate that IF truth and our access to it is determined by an adversarial system—many sides will be allowed to make their case, and the public will be allowed to decide who made the best case.  I think Paul is troubled by the fact that his team of lawyers isn't even making it to the court of public opinion.  Would the public really take on the case if presented to it right now?  Why or why not?  The problems the ZNet community critique are very real: why aren't their solutions taken more seriously en mass at least in the US?  I personally think that as views move to the margin, they multiply: how many marginal views can the masses be expected to take into account? 

JD

Too often, so called “progressives,” are people who just want a bigger slice of the pie, politically and monetarily: as if the conservatives were trying to maintain some exclusive heaven that they're in. I smell political bigotry.

We agree on many things. But here is where the border might lie. Simply put, I want all the pie. In fact the whole pie should be given back to the people who are rightful owners in the first place. As you can see, I'm pretty bigoted here. I would disagree that democracy is moderate. I think that the closer we get to a true democratic system (not the US version which is not democracy in any shape), the more politically radical the system becomes relative to all other forms of government in the world. Indeed, the American system is a "republic", not a democracy - not even close to a democracy, and not even a good republic. Unless you count "image" - it does have the appearance of democracy. Even the appearance is wavering now however. As for the idea that "moderate" represents the results of some kind of coalesced cross-cut of society, you might have a point, but only superficially - a sort of bell curve of the opinions of the populate comprising the "democratic" system being observed. The middle ground is where the composite opinion lies - the middle of the bell, so to speak. But that's not all of it, is it? (rhetorical question) In such a system, it is of supreme importance what kind of framework, or political structure, is in place to "measure" this "moderate opinion" that operates within its context. Is that structure open to abuse by a few special interest groups? What if those few can buy all the candidates who stand for election, no matter which party is concerned? Where does the "democratic" choice go? What are the "choices" of the "moderates" under such circumstances? What if those few also own the editorial power of the major media, including the movie and television and news industries? What if those few can influence "culture" through this structure from cradle to grave? In other words, what if those few can define the moderate position? The Nazis were quite adept at this culture management thing, wouldn't you agree? More recently, it is well-known that the neocons were able, by taking a hard right political stance, to draw the "center" toward the right, making a new center. Suddenly, "moderate democracy" changed. If the problem is what is a moderate, or what is the moderate position, I would say that only from a rather narrow perspective does the concept of the "moderate" lie with the population from which it rises. Certainly the moderate position can be seen as the measure of the resultant pattern of a population - it's "culture", if you will. But that's where it ends - a measurement. It all depends upon the influences being brought to bear upon that culture and how it changes it over time - for culture can be influenced externally (see Nazis above), and culture does change. In a capitalistic system, we say that the free markets determine price. In politics, the ability to manage culture determines what is moderate. The closer that culture management is to the people themselves, the closer you get to true democracy, and the concept of what I think you really mean by "moderate". However, the further the culture management is from the people, the further you get from true democracy, and the closer you get to extreme forms of government, mainly classed under the general heading of totalitarianism. In the Dark Empire, culture management has fallen into the hands of a few. And while the bell curve determining "moderate" most certainly still exists, it's THEIR curve.

Miriam— How do you know what is so right that you'd die for it? God? Logic? Reason? Or just possibly it is those values that are inherent in a community? Deep values that we all share, even if some of our superficial values do not cohere with them. You don't address my claim that the democratic community is what defines the moderate. I would agree that that community is in conflict with itself, and needs to iron out some conflicting values. But again, where do those values arise from? You seem to think that equality is the value that must be died for (and hence killed for?) Equality of everything reduces everything to the same. I'm for survivability first, equality second. Women's and Civil Rights, (and Gay Rights) movements grew out of deeper values that the community has held that have surfaced and gladly battled inherited notions of some right to power for strait white males. These rights of the repressed are about surviving with dignity. But then you lump in the labor movement: I'm for employee owned businesses, but since when does the labor movement equate with being recognized as being an equal human being? Paul seems to have this problem too: as if racism were an indictment of capitalism. It is not. Just because SOME progressives are part of the better future does not mean that all progressives are. Some want changes that would kill millions, by experimental accident. Just because divergent DNA has led to evolution, does not mean that all divergent DNA is good: most often it goes fallow, or results in painful deformity. Are you against democracy? If so, what would you replace it with? Grand Emperor Miriam? Or the principle of equality extended in every direction as the final solution? Is there anything that should be unequal? (Like intelligence, beauty, aptitudes, interests, etc.)? Too often, so called “progressives,” are people who just want a bigger slice of the pie, politically and monetarily: as if the conservatives were trying to maintain some exclusive heaven that they're in. I smell political bigotry.

JIm Hightower says that the middle of the road is where one finds dead armadillos and yellow stripes. HE´S CORRECT.

Where do you think the women´s movement, the civil rights movement, the labor movement, when we had one and it actually made any difference in the lives of the working stiff in these United States of Amnesia, would be if the leaders had all been trying to see how moderate they could be? These people knew you had to be willing to die for what you know is right.

Do you know that?    

That is another book on my list. I will need another suitcase. 

I watched a few episodes, probably old, of the James Spader, Capt Kirk Law firm and wondered how they were on as some of the issues explored in cases are real and compelling.......then, after a few, I noticed the end where the two friends discuss the day and life with a drink and cigar on the balcony,,,,,,¨Oh you Democrats¨ and ¨Oh, you republicans¨, like the differences are nothing but cosmetic and that does not matter........there is no alternative way to think.

  

I think Paul' blog entry is relevant to recent public discussions of Republican and Democrat campaign strategies: Divide and Conquer vs. Seize the Middle Ground. Obviously lamenting the failure of the left to be radically left, or at least respect the radical left, I wonder what Paul really thinks of people on the truly radical right: are they more admirable for being “radical” than the moderate left is for being a little left? What does Paul look like in the inverse mirror, far across the room? Maybe “fascists” deserve more air time too? (Not that Paul is necessarily that far left). I'm a “radical moderate,” and by that I mean several things, including recognizing the complexities of negotiating the valid points of both of those on what I perceive as the legitimate right (such as capitalist “CATO” Libertarians who've studied economics copiously and are troubled by the fact that economic growth and economic redistribution are inversely proportional), and the legitimate left (such as Sustainability folks, who concern themselves with ecological survivability, and workers as partners rather than employees). My negotiation between these poles, Sustainable Libertarianism, is informed by a global democracy—if such could possibly be measured. I have no problem seeing that radical US military reduction would pay for a lot of social issues, and reduce global resentment of the US. Democracy is inherently the moderate perspective (and also, education does not necessitate a radical left position). There is something called “median voter theory:” the voter who's ideological predisposition is half-way between the left and the right of the full population always get's their way in a vote. I've done copious research on “vote buying:” my conclusion is that something may turn on the highest amount allowed to be donated to candidates, not because the super rich, or corporate interests can buy off elections, but because the upper-middle class is able to afford the amount it takes to max out a contribution limit. Such “vote buying” theories have not been proven academically, though, and often disrespect that people are semi-rational and have real political predispositions (it's the uninformed undecided voters who are in play). So, for the most part, aside from long-term ideological indoctrination that may be left or right of some pie-in-the-sky ideal of a self-righteous intellectual, the public gets what it wants in a sort of delayed and retarded drunk-driver swerving left and right sort of way. Things can get complicated by gerrymandering, but piss off enough people, and things change there too. The point being that democracy can be refined; but again, ISN'T DEMOCRACY INHERENTLY MODERATE? And isn't moderate compromise where the rubber hits the road, and we actually get results? As to Curtis White; look, I've enjoyed reading Joyce's Finnegans Wake and Proust's Remembrance of Things Past AND enjoyed a good episode of Seinfeld. White appears to be an intellectual snob, who in a possible irony, doesn't appear have the insight that it's the intellect that you bring to bear on your subject matter that's as important as what you're studying. A possible irony, because White brings to bear his intellect on his subject matter. Critical thinking can be about learning to see, appreciate, and find the valuable in the most common, as well as tearing down the “façade of normality.” His criticism of mediocrity is the same old criticism of mediocrity that's been going on for ages: “People need more critical education” repackaged for the 21st century. Why not question the critique of mediocrity? I celebrate the mediocre: why stress out about being “perfect” or taking a quality dump all the time? Also, I wonder what the effect of an active radical left is on the moderate left. I think Paul would like it to pull the left further left—at least as if in some sort of haggle. But possibly it pushes the left to the center: guilt by association with the extreme. Maybe some of both. Do I seem dishonest?

Please liberates us of liberals and neocons alike liberates us of their distortioned tunes, of their different scratches, and the noises of their different discs.. Amen. ( for what I heard about elitist Obama, I also dislike liberals ).

This is the Harpers (March 2002) essay from which the book germinated and here's an audio interview of Curtis White, author of 'Middle Mind'.

I'm reading that book at this very moment. You finished it already? Could you give a quick review? He's very radical, but doesn't root himself in the positions I'm used. He also has another book just published: The Spirit of Disobedience: Resisting the Charms of Fake Politics, Mindless Consumption, and the Culture of Total Work, which I'm definitely going to read next.

Paul, you might be interested in The Middle Mind. Curtis White devotes much of it to criticising the sitcoms, movies etc, the 'soft' part of the media that conveys the capialist bias and view point. I think you (or somebody else on ZNet) mentioned that radicals should pay as much attention to that as we do the distortions in the 'hard' news.

FYI, an interesting examination of how the "American liberal, pseudo-intellectual consciousness" has fared (and been taken for a ride) in the "marketplace of ideas".

Paul, if democracy is in a sense, the market place of ideas, it seems that you are pissed that knowbody has purchased your idea of "radicalism."  If that is the case, you're not the "democrat" that you claim to be but somesort of authoritarian hoping to force your views on others, hiding in "democratic clothing."  Also, is there something you're not telling us when you complain about academia?  Did you not get a job or something?  From what I remember of college, with all the multiculturalist deconstructionists running around, it was easy for a radical to get put on a tenure track.  So, what happened to your various positions at the various colleges you were teaching at? 

Paul I can't commend you enough on this post! You have nailed dead on my contempt and frustration concerning the socalled modern left in America. There is tipicly no need for the right to censor us because as you basicly state the sqiushy majority on the so called left do it for them.Let's say this current political enviorment in America was a game of tug of war. Our hevest members would appeaer to be leaning foward as we struggle to keep our footing to pull our country back to reason and some sence of fairness. Thanks and please continue. 

Interesting you say that Freeman. Today's New York Times refers to Obama as a "liberal Democrat" and cites a National Journal ranking giving him a "82.5 percent" voting record as a "liberal" (Jeff Zeleny, "Testing Waters, Obama Weighs His Limitations," NYT, 24 December 2006, sec. 1, p.1). Now go to pages 86-87 of Obama's nauseating book The Audacity of Hope and read the following passage: "The Founders recognized that there were seeds of anarchy in the idea of individual freedom, an intoxicating danger in the idea of equality, for if everybody is truly free, without the constraints of birth or rank or an inherited social order....then how can we ever hope to form a society that coheres?" On pages 149 and 150 of his truly revolting exercise in Harvard-pedigreed power worship, Obama declares his faith in the "business culture" of capitalism --- falsely called "our free market system" --- as  the source of an American "prosperity that's unmatched in human history."  He proceeds to compare the relative wealth of "even our poor" with the abject misery of the Third World and concludes that "our greatest asset has been our system of social organization, a system that for generations has encouraged constant innovation, individual initiatve, and the efficient allocation of resources."  Oh yes, so "efficient" that we are responsible for what is it a quarter or a third of the world's carbon emissions (even though we are home to 5 or 6 percent of the world's population), therby bearing leading reponsibility for the unfolding climate catastrophe; so "efficient" that hundreds of thousands of our own children live at less than the federal government's notoriously inadequate poverty level while the super-opulent owners and managers of Boeing and Lockheed Martin and Haliburton and Raytheon get yet richer off a vastly expensive exercise in imperial racism, mass murder and corporate welfare called the occupation of Iraq....and while the [fill in the blank]. 

The U.S. ruling-class will surely approve Obama's decision to compare America's ("our own") poor with those of Bolivia and Haiti (where truly shocking poverty is intimately related to U.S. policy) rather than with those of Sweden and France and other more civilized parts of the industrialized world ---  where comparatively social democratic policies make for considerably less misery at the bottom and for more relatively egalitarian social structures. 

The lead editorial of the liberal Times on the day before Christmas praises Bush for "publicly acknowledging the need to increase the size of the oversretched Army and Marine Corps." ("A Real World Army," sec. 4, p.7)

Scratch the veneer of a liberal and you get a conservative.