Zcom_simple

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

Lewis Beyman's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/lewisbeyman
Bio: When I was a kid growing up in Brooklyn the "left" was very different from today.  In  fact, almost 180 degrees different on the issues.  The only thing the same is the eth... (More)

All Beyman Blogs

Recent Beyman Content

Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts

The Holy Grail

By Lewis Beyman at Dec 30, 2007


Change Text Size a- | A+

The Left and the Holy Grail


All political camps want to have consistent ideology and program and try to enforce that position on all its members. This is of course sensible as consistency is important in presenting a policy that you endorse and hope to get widely accepted. There is generally logic and reasoning behind a particular policy that is sensible in the general scheme of the argument presented.  However I am not happy with the new, new left.

What has happened is that “political” positions have shifted dramatically over time. In the 1920’s Leftists were usually behind the prohibition movement and opposed to gambling and greed. After all gambling and drink harmed the poorer people most. This was also the position of progressive churches that saw their Christian duty as to promote the interests of the poor. The Left was also opposed to the licentious culture as exemplified by the Roaring Twenties; the money drenched culture that the crass capitalist system promoted. The left was the supporter of “traditional values” as exemplified by the thinking of the Bellamy’s. and the Socialist Party and even the Industrial Workers of the World and other left groups. Now many right wingers are denouncing the licentious nature of capitalism. It is amusing that there has been an almost 180 degree shift in cultural perspective.


Another political position that has shifted dramatically is the question of dams and other large construction projects. Now so called leftists are vehemently against just about any large man made project in the name of environmentalism and in the name of defending indigenous people no matter how much the indigenous people would actually benefit from the project. It is quite amazing to see the convoluted reasoning that is put forward to defend what in my view is a reactionary position. Back in the thirties it was the left that promoted dams and the local people who applauded the electricity, fishing and recreation facilities that they created. Some of the well designed dams also reduced flooding and improved down stream agriculture. It was right wing reactionaries who called this creeping socialism. Now it is the World Bank that is promoting dam building.  I have not come across any dam (or large) project that the so called left approves of.

Back in the 1920’s-30’s it was the lefts slogan to “let the nation own the trusts” or “let the workers own the trusts”. The left was not opposed to the large corporations but wanted the workers to take them over. The IWW I believe still holds that view and wants industrial organization to be based on Industrial councils, a rationalization of production. They wanted to make the corporations work for the benefit of the workers, the ordinary people. In fact they wanted larger organizations, they wanted industry wide organization and research centers, Technocracies, and organization based on “best practice” engineering principles. Now the so called left hates the corporations and talk about “small is beautiful” and completely refuse to understand why (in part) the corporations got to be so large that they can control our lives for their greedy ends. The left no longer respects sociology  and a scientific perspective that started with Marx  and Dirkheim. They no longer want industrial progress but a romantic notion of going back to small communities.  In this regard the left has acquired strange bedfellows; a group of ultra right wing capitalists called Libertarians but with a strong paleoconservative bent. Now people like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are considered to be supportable by many elements of the left.

The Left’s bete noir is Wal-Mart, the object of derision and hate, no matter the fact that most people appreciate being able to buy cheaper goods. These blind ideologues ignore that Edward Bellamy pointed out in his book, Looking Backwards, that central distribution was just more efficient. These blind ideologues ignore C Wright Mills analysis of the competition ideology and the false nature of the attack on “competition” by the little guys, that is, the somewhat smaller merchants. The so called “left” entirely dismiss or ignore the business cycle and how and why there is always a contest between monopoly and competition in market economies. Marx pointed out that capitalism in the long run will end competition and create a mostly monopolistic market system. (Which it almost is now!). Wal-Mart is not anything new under the sun. They are no more exploitive of their workers than any other capitalist firm. The left can eat as heavy a dose of hypocrisy as the right.

It seems to me that the so called “mainstream” left does not know what it should stand for. They don’t understand elementary economics of the market system that they live under. They mostly claim they are opposed to socialism but they don’t know what socialism is. Sometimes it is hard to understand why they call themselves left as they now mostly champion reactionary positions in the name of the less well off. (except on foreign policy as they mostly oppose imperialism especially when the imperialists are Republicans as in Iraq but they mostly favored the attack on Yugoslavia when the imperialists were Democrats).


There are many different types of "left" in the world. Most Americans fall into the category of "liberal left", these are mostly the people I am talking about who have no conception of socialism. They espouse basically a form of idiocy. They want to stop imperialism but not change the nature of capitalism nor change the nature of the political organization that continues the domination of the rich and powerful. It can't be done!

On the other hand there is the more "radical left" that has a somewhat more realistic understanding of the world as they go to the root of issues and try to analyze the world in terms of the social sciences. There is an overlapping and a continuum of views but there is a greater need for clarity of thought. A greater need to avoid dogma!

Hopefully the left will move back to its radical roots and stop sounding like libertarian wannabees. Another absurdity of the so called left is “multiculturalism doctrine”. This too is 180 degrees off from the original left position.   I will discuss this later.

Person

Re: The Holy Grail

By Beyman, Lewis at Jan 12, 2008 17:31 PM

Thanks for your response Justin it is good to know that someone has read what you wrote.

 

I have recently downloaded two movies from One Big Torrent, (formally called Chomsky Torrents) one called Zeitgeist and the other called The Money Masters. I have not seen either one completely but I noticed the meme.  It is old 1920\'s-30\'s fascist doctrine now disguised as being a left point of view.

 

I guess I am shocked at the stupidity and ignorance that exists in our country when it comes to political or economic issues. Why is the so called left now espousing the gold standard and attacking the Federal Reserve? Why is the "left" attacking the Tennessee Valley Authority as Creeping Socialism (old slogan of the right) or Statism ---which is the new doctrine of right and left?  Since when and how are Charles Lindberg and Barry Goldwater leftists?

 

Obviously the current so called Libertarian left does not know what the left stands for. Who wrote the law that small is always beautiful?  Big is beautiful  and grand also. Maybe I should remind some people of history. Hitler was a vegetarian and back to nature advocate also.

Reply this comment


589149

By Agnostic, Justin at Dec 31, 2007 16:15 PM

A few things.  First there has always been a libertarian left, the various iterations of anarchist movments being the most obvious examples.  Second, I think alot of what you are describing can be broken up into two categories: an opposition to the totalizing effect of capitalism; and the lack of a prescriptive consistency on the left.

In regards to opposing the totalizing effect of capitalism I think you are right that the left here often has strange allies in right - libertarian and provincial forces.  But that is the nature of politics, one often finds discomfort in alliances because by definition alliances describe a overlapping of interest between two groups that do not share all interests. And it is worth pointing out that the one could oppose the totalizing effect of monopolistic market forces and state centralizing forces at once and be completely consistent.  The point is that when large institutions seek to reorganize the lives of people without the input of the people who\'s lives will be reorganized that choice, on the individual and small community level is lost.  You put this concern for difference and choice in opposition to the material well being of working people, and that is probably accurate in some contexts but I am not convinced it is most of the time let alone always.  I am concerned with any coercive nondemocratic power, whether it be deemed private or public.  I would point to your own example of building dams as an example.  Dams are sold on the idea that they will bring greater prosperity to an area as a whole, and that this is worth doing even if this requires short term pain for those who currently use the water as it is, or say live in an area that the dam will flood.  But, those promises of greater prosperity for the average person have often not materialized (instead there has been centralized and unequal resource distribution), and have often had disastrous effects on independent farmers, the environment, and indigenous peoples.  I would point out that it is the rich who live in pristine untouched natural landscapes and the poor that live in the polluted places or those places prone to man made ecological disaster (e.g. the poor African American population that lived the bellow the sea level in New Orleans and suffered most dearly when the levies broke).

As to the lack of prescriptive consistency on the left.  I feel your pain, but I do not think the answer is to recreate the positions of the old left without taking serious consideration of the history of the failures of the statist left, and other oppressive forces that the old left often ignored such patriarchy and racism. I think it is natural and that the left is to some degree uncentered in terms of what it proposes for a positive program after the failure of so many Marxist experiments.  I do not think that this is a state we must feel resigned to remain in, but the way out has to be serious analysis of the lefts past successes and failings.  But I do agree that we could do with some serious study of the basic economic mechanics of capitalism, and what we propose as an alternative.

Justin

 

Reply this comment

Loading_border