About Me

Name: Curt Day
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

There Still Be Drums In Zuccotti Park

Is there life after a violent eviction raid? The answer for Occupy Wall Street at Zuccotti Park is an emphatic YES! I went to Zuccotti Park on the first Saturday after the eviction and there was plenty of life. Activists from Maryland to Vermont and from as far away as the state of Washington were there to participate. The park was visited by an Italian filmmaker and it hosted a gay wedding. There were think tank discussion groups, a collection of speakers who talked about the world's food supply and a talk on free trade and food. There were people holding signs for those passing by to see as well as guitarists playing and singing inside. But most important is that the drum circle was still there.

Upon approaching the park, I got the impression that NYC and the owners of the park made every effort to make the park look like a prison. A perimeter consisting of double barricades surrounded the park except for 2 small entrances on opposite sides. There were plenty of police along with Zuccotti Park's own security guards some of who sympathized with us. The rules for entering the park went well beyond judicial orders. Guitarists were being told that they could bring their guitars in the park but not their guitar cases. Skateboarders were forbidden to bring in their skateboards because, as the police would tell these kids, times and circumstances have changed. And then came the confrontation with the police over the drums.

Two people brought enough drums and percussion instruments to allow for 4 people to join the drum circle. They began to play when a policeman came up to tell them that the owners of the park had forbidden drums from being brought in. I wondered if a dress code requiring a suit jack and tie would be the next. Then came the one drummer's response: "NO," the drummer replied. Actually, that was the Readers Digest version. For right before the police came, there was an announcement from the National Lawyers Guild that drums would be allowed. And so this drummer stuck to his guns. The conversation was loud enough to draw the attention of others. And as the police officer walked away, the size of the crowd listening to the drums tripled as a talented breakdancer moved to the music. Either the police didn't know what to do or they were bluffing with their orders. In either case, one of the most integral parts to the occupation, the drum circle, performed for the rest of the day to the delight of the activists who had attended.

But the shortened version of that one drummer's response to the police concealed the other issue of the day. This issue is physical abuse practiced by the police. While saying no to the police officer who challenged him, the drummer angrily complained that he had already been beaten up by the them. Later on, I ran into a young woman whose arm was in a sling. She had suffered a dislocated elbow because the police unnecessarily manhandled her to the ground earlier in the week. Others had been beaten by police either at the park during the eviction or during the November 17th protest. 

Of course, New York is not the only place to be if you want to experience police brutality. I read one report where a protester, who was already lying on the ground, was beaten and kicked by police officers and suffered a broken back. There was the baton beating of Cal Berkley students and the pepper spraying of UC Davis students. Of course this does not include the military Veteran who, while at Occupy Oakland, was struck in the head with some kind of police projectile and was placed in critical condition in the hospital. You can see other  examples of police abuse on Youtube.

And here is the second issue. Why are we tolerating physical abuse practiced by the police? Why don't we categorize their violence as being as abusive and criminal as other forms of abuse such as wife beating, child beating, or sexual abuse? Why do so many passively defer to the police's use of force on peaceful protesters?

The answer to these questions is unfortunate. The maintenance of abusive relationships requires three parties. Of course there is the abuser and the victim. Those who have mastered abuse know how to make the victim feel responsible and, thus, ashamed of being abused. But one more party must play their role here. That party is the enabler. Enablers either take an active or passive role in the abusive relationship.  And one of the concerns with the Penn State sex scandal was the role that enablers played in allowing abuse to continue. 

This is where the public comes in. Those who either witness or know about abuse but don't speak up are, by default, siding with the abuser. They are telling the abused that the suffering is their fault and if they had been good little boys and girls, they would not have been attacked. To such people, there is no such thing as a disproportionate response. A lawbreaker is a lawbreaker and, since order must be maintained at all costs, the police have the right, if not the obligation, to use any measure to stop the lawbreaker in his/her tracks. In essence, the enabling public is telling those who suffer abuse that it is their fault, so don't complain. The enabling public is thus attempting to shovel shame on to the victim rather than on to the abuser. 

The police, those who are practicing the abuse, have perfect excuses. First, they have been hardened by being exposed to inhumane violence practiced by some criminals. Some have lost some sensitivity to what it means to be human. But that is not their trump card. Their main excuse is that they are just following orders and, of course, everybody knows that orders must be carried out. Thus, it is obvious that if these same police officers would jump of the Brooklyn Bridge if so ordered.

Though following orders relieve the abusive officers from feeling guilty for for their actions, those in the military know that some orders are illegal and thus cannot be followed. In addition, the Nuremberg trials did not excuse German officers from committing far more serious forms of abuse because they were following orders. And though the abuse that the protesters have experienced pales in comparison to what the victims of the Nazis suffered through, the principle is the same. Just because one is ordered to do something wrong doesn't mean that those who follow such orders can maintain their innocence. 

We must hasten to say that most police officers are not abusive. In addition, being a police officer is a very tough job to do. But the difficulty of the job does not excuse officers for being abusive. And though most officers are not abusive, many of them are enablers of abuse.  They are enablers when they do not effectively speak out against the abuse. We should note that this lack of speaking effectively is what many fault Joe Paterno for doing after he was told about Sandusky's actions. 

As a result of either direct action or timidity in taking a stand, some can see their neighborhood's police force as a center for abuse. That is right, the people who were entrusted with the heavy responsibility of protecting the people are now seen, by too many, as the primary obstacle to peace in a neighborhood.  

This enabling of police abuse of citizens is simply a compounding of abuse. For the police are ultimately protecting those who financially abuse most of the 99%. They abuse us by paying for laws that create an abusive economic system. A system whose faults and oppression are partially listed in the Declaration of the Occupation of New York.

Police protection for those who economically abuse others has a historical precedent. The police often attacked laborers who demonstrated for rights in the early part of the labor movement. 

But something more must be said. The accepted abuse practiced by authority figures, whether those people come from the private or public sector, shows an authoritarian mentality that can lead to Fascism. The signs of Fascism can be found at this link: http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm. We will list some of those signs below as they apply to what is being reported by this article.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights 9. Corporate Power is Protected 10.  Labor Power is Suppressed 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws.  
So it is up to both the public and the police to curb the abuse practiced by some police officers. This is what the drummers at Zuccotti Park did by insisting on their right to drum over the police orders not to bring drums into the park.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (28) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Blaming The Prophets

The article linked to below is about how we blame today's prophets for our rejection of their message:

Blaming The Prophets



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Many Christians Don't Occupy

I have written an article on my religious-political blog called Why Many Christians Don't Occupy. If you want, read it by clicking the link below and write what you agree and disagree with in the article

Why Many Christians Don't Occupy



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What is Fascism?

The term Fascism is more often used as a pejorative than any other way. Conservatives, especially those who have read Jonah Goldberg, are  seeing Fascism on the Left while waving the flag and singling out America's enemies.

But something is overlooked with these accusations. When one looks at Fascist regimes like Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy or Franco's Spain, little, if anything, in the Left points to Fascism. Currently the Left is heavily involved with attempting to spread Democracy, and thus dispersing power, rather than consolidating power.

Dr. Lawrence Britt has provided a list of 14 shared characteristics of the Fascist regimes of Nazi Germany, Spain and Italy of the 30's, as well as Suharto's Indonesia as well as some other countries. The list can be found at the link below:

Characteristics of Fascism



Tags: fascism  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Authoritarians Vs Free Thought

What is apparent on my blog is that some want to shout so loud and so often as to shut up all who disagree whether their dissenters come from the Right or the Left. Such is the view of the Authoritarian. The Authoritarian believes in labels over concepts, generalizations and distortion over nuance and precision, and insults over rational discussion. The Authoritarian doesn't want any other side to be heard because they don't want the audience to think for themselves. Having others think for themselves is their greatest fear.

Something else is true about the Authoritarian. They believe in self-exaltation and aggressively attack those who disagree with their self-assessment.

Authoritarians are not limited to one political camp. Rather, it is a personality type demonstrated by those who are compensating for something--they will not say what--and they can be seen in all camps of the Right and the Left. They will do anything to place themselves on a pedestal while putting others down. I will not continue to respond to authoritarians on my board--that is regardless of their target. Authoritarians don't want a rational discussion; they want to dominate and thus, what they really want is to distract the audience from the subject.

The subject of my last post was how OWS is both Footloose and Noah's Arc. One only needs to read the second paragraph of the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City to see why they are both. It reads:

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments-- from The Occupied Wall Street Journal

Note the similarities between the authoritarian and the corporations that are oppressing more and more people in our own country and around the world. Domination is their game and survival of the fittest is their only moral ethic. And this should be of no great surprise to us. After all, corporations are not run democratically, they are totalitarian in structure regardless of the individual kindness of some of their participants.

But also note the call from those in OWS to all others. If we are to survive, we have to cooperate. We have to watch each other's back. We have to know the limits of competition and expand our collective consciousness. Otherwise, we will be guilty of enabling or even furthering the Social Darwinism that is so prevalent in today's world.

So if you run into an authoritarian on this board or any other, ignore them. They don't want to discuss, they want to destroy discussions.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OWS Is Both Footloose And Noah's Arc

During the last Presidential election, I believe it was George Will who said that America was choosing between their elites or our elites. For Will, their elites belonged to Obama and the Democrats while our elites were belonged to the Republicans. We should note that some elites belonged to both groups.

This talk of elites tells us about our current political and economic systems and why OccupyWallStreet (OWS) is important. We really don't live in a democracy. Rather, we are ruled by elites. And the only difference between a "democracy" like ours and a totalitarian regime is that the former changes elites through elections while the latter changes elites through revolutions. Other than that, the elites rule and the people are expected to "shut up and sing" to borrow a title from Laura Ingram. Of course there is another difference between a democracy like ours and a totalitarian system. That difference is that we believe we are free because we vote.

However, a star has risen from the East. That star started in Egypt, Greece, and Spain. Then activists from the East came to New York to help OccupyWallStreet get started. And though its beginning was inauspicious, OWS just could become Time's People Of The Year. But we should note that OWS is merely a continuation of what we saw, and cheered for, in Egypt.

Much has been made about OWS's lack of both coherency and their "one demand." Those who make that claim have only shown their ignorance, an ignorance due to being blinded by ruling elites. OWS hasn't released a statement containing their "one demand" because they are living their demand. OWS has shown us how we can escape the tractor beam control of our ruling elites by becoming self-governed. And by making decisions the painful way, that is by listening to each other and coming to a consensus in their General Assembly, they have become a self-governing community rather than a community that is destructively ruled over by others.

It is because they have become self-governing that OWS has become what the rest of us are not: free. Their reliance on their General Assembly and their courageous standoffs with the police have made them, as Chris Hedges admiringly said, New York City's only free people. It is this freedom and the freedom they are advocating for the rest of us that has made OWS a real life Footloose. What we have are the kids sneaking out to dance while danceaphobic adults object in both anger and confusion. To those objecting adults, the kids have gone wild and are out of control. But we should note that "out of control" is relative. In short, OWS has changed the paradigm instead of having destroyed all order and thus the elites' paid attack dogs have only demonstrated their ignorance by showing they still believe that the world is flat.

But OWS is not only a real-life Footloose, it may be our Noah's Arc to save us from the flood of elite rule that exists today. That is because the way the elites are ruling us now is not only environmentally unsustainable, it is self-destructive. But since 9-11, Western elites, especially those from America, have convinced most of us that in order to protect us, they must be given more power and be able to act with impunity. What has helped make their case is that some of their targets are the scum of the earth making evil relative. But what has sealed the deal is that too many of us have traded liberty for prosperity and self-delusion, rather than security, while convincing the rest of us that we have bought some security.

As a result, we are sliding faster and faster down the slippery slope of Fascism. There are two roles to play in this kind of society. There are the wolves posing as shepherds and the sheep. Until recently, the sheep were happy to be oblivious because enough of them had been feeding in lush pastures. And many, especially the older sheep, want to maintain the same old same old. They want to believe that it is only the other group's shepherds who are wolves so all they have to do is find the right shepherds and things will be ok. But they are deceived and thus doomed.

The trouble with our emerging fascism is that the first concern of the ruling elites is to maintain the status quo regardless of the suffering they thrust on others. If after securing what they want they see fit in sharing their table scraps with the rest of us, they share but with ulterior motives. Thus the problem has become relying on elites in the first place. And this is what, however imperfectly, what OWS has freed itself from by relying on consensus rule and its General Assembly. Thus, the more we follow OWS's example, the more we can free ourselves from the rule of others and the doom they bring. 

There is a tradeoff with following OWS's example however. It means that we must trade some leisure for responsibility and comfort for hard work. Direct democracy can be both boring and demanding. However, its reward is freeing because instead of acting like children who must obey their parents, as we do when we submit to elites, we become adults and act more like adults by making our own decisions. Thus we find ourselves maturing and being stretched.

I have been at OWS twice but have not had the opportunity to participate in their General Assembly. But I have participated in a General Assembly meeting at Freedom Plaza ind D.C. with the October 2011 movement. It is freeing to express a minority opinion without fear of being attacked by elites. One gets a stronger sense of belonging when one's own opinions receive the same respectful hearing as the views of all others. And the decisions arrived at through consensus are easier to support than the decisions made for us by elites whose first concern is themselves.

Certainly the elites from both political parties see the self-governance practiced by OWS and the other occupy groups as their only competition. This is because in a two party system, the elites from each side only insure the job of the elites from the other side when their own inevitable failure comes to fruition. Thus if we really want a change from the rule of elites and the doom, we will abandon their ship and insist on self-governance as those at OWS have done. And abandoning their sinking ship is something we must do to survive.


This is why OWS's example of direct democracy is our lifeboat on the sinking ship of our corporate owned and controlled government. Again, elites rule to maintain their position no matter how it affects others. We now have example to both inspire and instruct us on how we can be together differently in a more constructive and considerate way. And as the declaration of New York City says, our fate depends on how well we will work with each other. The question is, will we follow their example or will we continue to slide down the slippery slope to fascism?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (135) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Manifesto For Real Democracy Now

Fed up with centralized powers killing our country's democracy? Then read what people are saying in Spain:

Manifesto for Real Democracy


Tags: democracy  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why I will be there

Below is a link that explains why I will be in DC participating with the October 2011 Movement's occupation of Freedom Plaza.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What Will It Take To Save The American Republic?

To find out the answer to this question, please check the article linked to below:

Saving The American Republic




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (51) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Between A High Debt And A Hard Place

The only way to look at our government's resolution of the debt ceiling crisis is to see it as a stay of execution. We cannot forever afford the high debt, especially as it continues to grow. At the same time, we cannot morally afford to do without many of the services we are or should be paying for. In the meantime, the only alternative being offered is financial suicide (defaulting on our debts).

Our economy is suffering from its own form of AIDS. It is losing the ability to heal itself, the ability to recover from injury, and thus is losing its ability to fight off what could kill it. This has less to do with debt and more to do with the flow of wealth. The flow of wealth is upwards, it is consolidating. Rather than "enjoying" a "Trickle-down economy, we are hanging on while suffering from vacuum-suctioned economy. Our wealth is being sucked into a central location. That central location is not the government, it is a small elite center in the private sector. In the meantime, our lost financial resources are being replaced by new bills caused by the skirting of responsibility by the same group that benefits from our vacuum-sucked economy.

Our problem is that the government's current debt resolution plan does not address the many ways by which money from the lower and middle classes is being confiscated by small groups in the upper class. We can see this in the availability of jobs with livable wages for the lower class. This is the forgotten class, the invisible class. Their concerns are either never, or superficially at best, addressed by both the media and the government. Their jobs have been lost to outsourcing. Their jobs have been given to either foreign workers or technology and their jobs have not been replaced. We can call those in the lower class "surplus people"--to borrow a Naomi Klein term. And thus, the rare times that the needs of the lower class are addressed, those in power decide on how to best warehouse--to borrow a Jeff Halper term--them, the people who are not needed, the people who offer no benefit to the system. So we store such people until we can throw them away without guilt. Our economic system shows them no respect and, in turn, we should only expect no respect in return. And if that is not enough, many government resources that could help them be needed again are spent on the rich.

The only thing that has made some in America, a few from the middle class, aware of what is happening to the lower class is that they realistically fear that they could become its newest members. Why are their fears legitimate? It is for the same outsourcing reasons that were already mentioned. In addition, they are beginning to suffer from bad karma. The disregard that the conservative middle class have had for the poor is now being shown to them by the rich. The rich have decided that not only do they want to contribute to the warehousing of the poor, they no longer want to support the lifestyles and infrastructure of the middle class.

The newest catalyst in our economic and social demise has been the Tea Party. Their employment of reductionism that says all of our problems are do to high taxes and government spending, and its employment of individuals and small businesses as phantom beneficiaries if we mindlessly slash our government's budget and phantom victims if we don't is behind the ceiling battle. In the name of the middle class, they shield the rich from their adult obligations. Their protection of corporations and the rich from being taxed is like building an iron curtain around all of the pharmacies to keep people buying medicine.

Regardless of the proposed cuts in military spending, until we see a revised tax structure that shifts more of the burden to those who are getting richer, we continue on the same road to the poorhouse and economic death. Regardless of the proposed cuts in military spending, the biggest beneficiaries of government spending are the rich. And it isn't until we see a change in the flow of our wealth that we can start on the road to economic recovery. The debt ceiling compromise, and the debate itself, avoided discussing what is needed to heal our economy. So our economy has hours, days, weeks, months, or a few years to live. All we have gained from the latest showdown is some time. The question becomes whether we will take advantage of this time.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (34) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Greeting For AIPAC

A flashmob greeting was given to AIPAC at Union Station in DC on Friday. You can watch it by clicking the link below


The lyrics are below:

Hava nagila,
Hava nagila
Hava nagila
Va nisma cha

Hava nagila,
Hava nagila
Hava nagila
Va nisma cha

“Hey! AIPAC is meeting”

AIPAC is meeting
We have a greeting
Cuz they’re not speaking
For any of us

Justice is dying
AIPAC is lying
Lies we’re not buying
No No No!

AIPAC doesn’t speak for me
Apartheid’s not my cup of tea
Palestine to Tripoli
We want democracy

Buying Congress with their cash
All opposing views they bash
Can’t have them talking trash
No No No!

Move! Move!
Move over AIPAC!

Move over your weapon hawking
Move over your racist talking
Move over we’re freedom seeking
Move over cuz we are speaking
Move over move over
For a free Palestine



Tags: AIPAC  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is The American Dream a Christian's Nightmare?

Fresh from the Flaming Fundamentalists For Peace blog comes an article that challenges the current trend practiced by many Conservative Christians in America. That practice is the pursuing of the American Dream.

The American Dream






Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Socialism?

Why not! When we embrace capitalism, we embrace the abusive relation described in the article below.

see 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (9) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Where Is The Beef Against Socialism?

Since switching my political convictions from being a conservative Republican to becoming a Socialist, I have experienced a great number of discussions/debates/arguments about Socialism and why people disagree with it. One could easily summarize the objections to socialism as a rejection of the Socialist label more than the concepts. And, most efforts to focus attention on the key concepts of Socialism are usually rebuffed by redirecting the spotlight on the Socialist label.

What is apparent in most complaints against Socialism is that  Conservatives allow themselves to enjoy some luxuries that they prohibit others from experiencing. Take the association of the tyrants from the past with Socialism. It is more than obvious to those who have read American Socialists is that the subjugation of others is not consistent with the basic tenets of Socialism. Thus, we have a parallel with those whom Republicans call Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) and those tyrants who are Socialists In Name Only (SINOs). We could use this term if conservatives allowed others to play by the same rules they play by. But we are barred from doing so by those who want to prevent anybody from considering other choices to Conservatism than impotent Liberalism. 

Or take the Conservative charge that all attempts at establishing social justice end in tyranny. There are so many problems with this position that it is difficult to decide where to start. Does this assertion imply that we should never work for social justice? Is this declaration historically accurate? What about the elimination of both forms of slavery here or apartheid in South Africa? Though the results were certainly not perfect, did they end in tyranny or an improvement? What about all of the European and South American countries that serve as hybrids of Socialism and Capitalism, but would be considered totally Socialistic in comparison with what Obama has stood for? Have these countries become totalitarian? What about our own nation's forefathers and their search for religious freedom? Isn't the search for religious freedom a quest for social justice? Or we could examine a specific example Conservatives use to denigrate Socialism with: the Nazis. What Conservatives claim is that the Nazis promised social justice but delivered one of the most horrifying tyrannies of all time. Those Conservatives who make this assertion are 1 for 2 here because while the latter assertion is true, the Nazis did not promise to establish social justice; rather, they promised to return Germany to both its glory days and its traditional values. Hitler also promised to eliminate democracy while campaigning for office.

But more importantly, do those who have called themselves Socialists have a monopoly on tyranny or is the desire to rule over others an unfortunate part of the human condition? This challenge is similar to the problem Chris Hedges posed to Christopher Hitchens when Hitchens listed sins of those who were religious. For example, Sheldon Wolin calls our nation's current political system an "inverted totalitarianism" where, instead of some demagogue dominating over economics, economics rules over politics including our democracy. The bailouts, which are strongly objected to by many Conservatives, can be seen as being inevitable given a system where deregulation carries the day and the primary dependence for our officials' elections rest on unlimited corporate donations. So as where Conservatives want to claim that tyranny and Fascism are the necessary results of any attempt to establish social justice via Socialism, inverted totalitarianism can be just as much the fate of those who continue to strip away social responsibilities from the business world.

What is most ironic here is that the same Conservatives who wish to scare us to death regarding the "foreordained" tyranny they claim follows all attempts at Socialism are the same people who object to the concept of extended democracy and the curtailing or ending of American Empire. 

In addition, the jumps in logic that many of today's Conservatives use to try to frighten people from Socialism find parallels in the CIA's propaganda war against Allende who eventually became the President of Chile during the early 1970's. And what was the result of the CIA's actions in Chile? They helped orchestrate a military coup that turned into a bloody dictatorship. One can only hope that the parallels between today's Conservatives who try to bury Socialism with false accusations and the CIA propaganda program that tried to do the same to Allende stops with the rhetoric--though such hope ignores the authoritarian personality types that Conservatism often attracts.

True Socialism is something that arises from the masses rather than something that descends from the government. This is because, and we cannot mention this enough times, extended democracy is an essential part of Socialism. And what we have in America are a few isolated working examples of Socialism that have flown in under the radar. For example, Isthmus Engineering and Manufacturing is a worker cooperative business that is run democratically (see Isthmus Engineering ). Another such example of at democratically run company is the Union Cab Cooperative in Wisconsin (see Union Cab). That sounds strange because we have been indoctrinated into thinking that Socialism must start with some form of big government. If we are going to understand Socialism, we must realize that none of the basic tenets of Socialism imply big government. In addition, those who complain the most about big government do so selectively because the big military and homeland security that they support is also big government.

Certainly there are some Conservatives who understand that Socialism is about giving workers a real place of ownership and control over their workplaces.  They still object to it because they support the status quo. They believe if the current system is tweaked according to Conservative values, things will work as they should. But their beliefs fly in the face of reality. For the most part, our current system has been tweaked according to Conservative values with the exception of some, but not all, of what Obama has done. The economic problems we see under Obama's Administration are extensions of the problems we saw under George Bush's Administration. Debt has been jumping upwards while fewer and fewer regulations are surviving.  And the message that is being passed down to the U.S. by the newly elected Republicans is that what makes life and a future possible is no longer sustainable because such would place too heavy of a tax burden on those who are the richest and benefit the most from the resources and services that government provides. In essence, the rich are in it for a free lunch and are trying to treat the middle class in the same way that Conservatives from the middle class want to treat those in need. That is they have become hyper vigilant in guarding with whom their tax money is shared though they have no qualms with receiving the tax monies of others.

The real challenge for Socialists today is to get the past image of Socialism that comes from history's SINOs to get to the substance f Socialism which includes extended democracy, collectivism, and being anti-empire. We must be honest regarding those who have betrayed the movement just as we must show Conservatives that they need to be honest regarding those who were never Socialists in the first place. Thus, it may be beneficial in some cases is to advance substance without using the label. At that point, one could at least see what the real objections to Socialism are. We could see what people really object to in Socialism. Do most people who work really object to having more say at their workplace? Do most people really object to sharing that which is necessary to live? And do most people really object to eliminating an unsustainable empire? We will never know unless we go beyond the label and into the content.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (40) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

America's Socialists Need New Symbols

The April 9th antiwar protest displayed an interesting irony.  First, we need to describe who was there. Most participants, from what I could tell, were Socialists. That is fine with me because I am a Socialist--I am now a Socialist Workers registered voter. One could tell those who were socialists by their conversations or apparel worn. Socialist apparel displayed the hammer and sickle, China's red star, Che Guevara's picture, or a fist rising in the air.

By themselves, the inconsistencies are not strong though I favor none of them. But there is a problem when participants wear these symbols at an antiwar protest and that problem is obvious though not trivial. These symbols represent both violence and oppression. This is not lost on many who wore such symbols on their clothes. At a previous demonstration, a young American Communist loathed the tyranny of the old Soviet Union as we talked about Communism. A young demonstrator I talked with at the antiwar protest who was wearing a Chinese red star on his baseball cap was adamant in denouncing Chinese Socialism. He went on to explain that he wore the hat because it was the only Socialist symbol he could find.

So American Socialists, like myself, have a challenge. On one hand, we need to be faithful to advancing revolution in our country  but on the other hand we cannot betray our antiwar-anti violence-anti empire values. And there is a third hand to consider here as well. We need to distinguish Socialism American style from both actual and pretend forms of Socialism that do not represent our convictions and it would help here if we were better read on past American Socialists. Here I am thinking of people like Helen Keller, Eugene Debs, and Martin Luther King. Note that I did not include Barack Obama. American Socialists know that Obama is not a Socialist. We know this because we are Socialists. 

When one reads the writings of American Socialists, one sees three themes emerging: extended democracy, collectivism, and an antiwar-anti violence-anti empire stance. We should explain what extended democracy means. To a Socialist, extended democracy is applying democratic practices to the other institutions we participate and environments we find ourselves in such as the workplace and community. These institution and environments must belong to the participants and thus be run by them.  Economist Richard Wolff explains how this could be implemented at a place of business. All employees could work for 4 days on producing. The fifth day would be set aside for participation in democratically selected committees that would make decisions on issues of production and working conditions.   

We should also note that collectivism does not mean the elimination of all private property. Rather, as Eugene Debs said, only those things that are needed by all should be owned by all. This definition shows a certain faithfulness to business's old, and unfortunately expired, definition of a stakeholder. That late definition included all who are impacted by a business, including the community of the location of a business, as being stakeholders in contrast to the new definition that consists of only the shareholders and some executives. Tragically, the latter  has executed a definition coup in today's business world. Ironically, those demanding their freedom the loudest, those in the Tea Party example, favor the latter definition of stakeholder, which is an embracing of authoritarianism, while the other definition shows some similarities with Deb's view of extended democracy. 

We should note that none of the three Socialist themes mentioned above can be fairly represented by pictures of Che Guevara, the hammer and sickle, the Chinese red star, or a rising fist in the air. Rather, those images contradict what American Socialists have said. Wearing these likenesses shows ignorance more than anything else. So the question becomes, why not forge our own symbols? Why not make symbols that express the openness of Keller and Debs, King's passion for winning people over, in addition to the antiwar-anti violence-anti empire  convictions of as well as the solidarity that is felt for those who are without? Why not find our own voices rather than relying on past ones?

The benefits to creating such new symbols could help our cause. For one thing, we might help people realize that the totalitarianism practiced by the Soviet Union and Chinese was and is not socialism--that is if we hold to extended democracy as being an essential part of Socialism. Another benefit is that new symbols could be created for the expressed purpose of inviting others to the cause. For how could an average American who remembers the Cold War ever listen to a person wearing symbols of Red China or the old Soviet Union especially when even some Socialists are put off by these symbols? And what is the average American to feel when he sees a raised fist except threatened? Some of these old symbols might appeal to our spirit of defiance but it does, at the most, nothing to appeal to those who have not been economically displaced. Today's Socialism needs a joining of those who are without with those who believe in democracy, equality and collectivism.

Finally relying on the old symbols of oppression lulls us to sleep to the constant danger that threatens every group including our own as well. That threat is accepting authoritarianism which is a real danger for those who say, "Marx is right." Marx was right about what? Was he right about everything? Certainly not! Though his analysis of Capitalism's treatment of labor is still relevant and very insightful, some of his suggestions are counterproductive if not harmful and oppressive. So some of us just might favor a despotism if it consists of authority figures who are from our own ranks; but such an acceptance would contradict our basic values. And we must be on guard against accepting domination even within our own group so we can, with credibility, show the inverted totalitarianism, as Sheldon Wolin calls it, that now exists for America because of its present form of Capitalism. 

It is time for American Socialists to be creative and open. It is time for us to reach out to all who disagree. And what better way to do that than to create new symbols of Socialism, symbols that represent, rather than contradict, what we preach.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (202) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive