Where Do We Go When All Hope is Gone?
By David Glenn Cox


Where do we go when all hope is gone? Where are the answers to be found when our leaders refuse to seek them? I do not see in Washington either hope nor change. I do not see the answers; I don’t even see any questioning for the answers. The Democrats in Congress whined for two years about all that they would do if only they were in the majority. So, now there they are, and what do we get?

We get lame excuses, futile half measures, and right-wing rhetoric balled up as centrist humanitarianism. Under the Republicans, banks and big business got all their needs promptly attended to. What is different now? What has changed? The wars go on and are expanded as the President calls for government agencies to tighten their belts during the worst economic times in a century. The Pentagon is, of course, exempted. But even worse is the total abdication of care for the American people.

George W. Bush was publicly pilloried over his failure to provide humanitarian relief after Hurricane Katrina. One million people were displaced by the storm and were in need of immediate government assistance. Today, in the worst economic times in over a century, two million more families are expected to lose their homes; three million families lost their homes last year, and the total is rapidly approaching ten million families! Forty million people out in the street and we don’t even get a flyover from Air Force One. We’d paint “help” on our rooftops but we no longer have rooftops. We no longer have jobs; the President's stimulus package was expected to, and this was revised, “to create 'or save' three million jobs in next two years.”

Hello! Earth to Obama, we are losing six hundred thousand jobs a month; your stimulus program was out of date in January. Instead it is marked completed and put in the done basket. The administration forced the chairman of GM to resign and questioned their plans to return to profitability, but just this week GM announced plans to begin importing Chinese-made automobiles and the administration nodded their heads in approval! States with automotive suppliers have been hit especially hard by the movement of more jobs to China and Mexico. This is beneath contempt; this is rubbing salt in our wounds, borrowing money from us so you can buy a gun to kill us.

What was the point of bailing out GM if there is no benefit to we, the people, but only to we, the stockholders? If we are just going to continue to hemorrhage jobs why should we, as a nation, subsidize it? There is a major global disconnect out there. I have heard all the arguments about free trade and the global economy. But the economy is not global. It is the US being screwed globally so that the capitalists can profit from cheap labor. In Germany the docks are full of BMW’s, Mercedes, Volkswagons and Porsches ready for export; Germany is not importing cheap cars from Korea or China. Of course they could be made less expensively in Asia, but the German government is looking out for the German people. Germany exports $1.53 trillion and imports $1.2 trillion in products, but of all that trade her eight largest trading partners all have like economies and wage scales.

Only 6% of Germany’s imports come from China. Japan and Korea didn’t even make the list. In the United States 17% of all imports come from China, followed by Canada 15.7%, Mexico 10.6%, Japan 7.4%, leaving two of our biggest trading partners with third-world wage scales. It’s a good, old-fashioned barnyard screwing for the American worker. With millions unemployed and millions losing their homes the government cares not a whit for their survival or their livelihood. It is as if we don’t exist to them. The elections are over, back to the business of maintaining the rich at the expense of the poor.

The President is expected to make his first Supreme Court nominee, and after eight years of Republican choices it should be refreshing. It should be, but instead the President has hinted that it will be a moderate woman with the emphasis on woman. Gee, how about a good, old-fashioned, liberal woman? The Republicans placed Scalia and Roberts, and Obama is looking for a moderate? What is this, an episode of Hannity and Combs?

The President announced plans to close Guantanamo, well, mainly close it, kind of close it. Yesterday the Democratic majority refused to give the administration the funding needed to close it out of political fear. Spineless jellyfish, afraid of how it might appear in Peoria, they are more concerned with the appearance of good works than in doing good works.

My son bought a car from a woman yesterday; she was twenty-four and a college graduate. She was selling the car because she was going into the military. It was the only job she could find. She had lost her job and moved back in with her parents. So, sadly, her last recourse was to join America's last growth industry, its war machine.

Where do we go when all hope is gone? Do we keep sending in proof of purchase box tops to the government? Hoping against hope that they will look up and take notice of the millions of stray dogs and cats that used to be the American middle class? What is the true purpose of a government? What constitutes a failed state? Would the largest trade deficit in the world qualify? How about a nation with the world’s largest trade deficit that advocates for even more free trade? Would the abdication of concern for its people apply? It would seem to me a government with no concern for its citizens would qualify only as a tyranny.

I had a long talk with my brother-in-law about free trade and he explained that it could not be stopped because it was the way the world operates now. He wasn’t interested that the rest of the world isn’t operating that way, that Germany doesn’t operate that way. Japan doesn’t operate that way; Korea doesn’t operate that way. Only America opens her borders to goods manufactured in the third world in factories owned by American companies to exploit cheap labor and subvert American wage scales.

“Well,” he said, “I don’t know what you can do to stop it. It’s the law.”

I answered, “It's only the law that keeps you safe in your bed at night. You can call the cops if you hear a prowler, but who you gonna call when you hear a million prowlers?”

Strange how the "hope" campaign crushed all hopes.

Exactly.

I can only conclude that this a big, three-ring circus, and the Powers That Be want it this way.

It was just a marketing campaign, like these 4 x 4 vehicles that they show shredding through off road terrain on tv, when in reality they will be sitting in city bumper to bumper traffic for most of their life.

Yes, a marketing campaign; probably the most deceptive, manipulative and successful of all time.

Question- is there such a thing as the PTB?

Yes, Two Americas, in fact I don't know if you know this, the Obama campaign beat Apple Computers for the best marketing campaign of 2008!

http://adage.com/moy2008/article?article_id=131810

that hang together. I'm not saying that they smoothly coordinate a transnational agenda, or anything.

But, to assure oneself of their influence, all one has to do is look at their campaign contributions to each candidate.

A great marketing campaign.

To paraphrase Noam Chomsky, "He is taking of his consituents. It's just that you're not a constituent of his. Wall Streeters are his constituents." Again, I'm paraphrasing; but, you get the idea.

Yes Maat, I'll paraphrase another luminary, Joseph Stiglitz said the banks were bailed out because of their campaign contributions to politicians.

All this stuff about Obama and small donors was over-hyped. If people wanted someone who was really funded by small donors they should have voted Nader or McKinney...

“Change Big Donors Can Believe In”
By Amy Goodman

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2008/10/23/amy_goodmans_new_column_change_big_donors_can_believe_in

That is how I see it, as well.

Although, the CEOs answer to someone, who answers to someone.

I did a big research project on that. The Obama campaign intentionally set out to create a cult following.

Where do we go?

It's even worse than I thought it would be.

I happen to think part of the solution is getting beyond the Republican/Democrat, Liberal/Conservative divide. Opening people's eyes to this reality. Howard Zinn, Danny Glover and some other people have talked about needing a movement to challenge Obama. I think the times when you see major political change, you also see a significant social movement(s). I don't know enough about history to know precisely what it is that brings about these movements, although I think they are more likely to occur in economic downturns than in more prosperous economic periods. I would say if the economy doesn't turn around by the policies pursued by Obama, we may see more discontent in this country, and folks coming out into the streets and organizing for real decipherable change; but this is no guarantee and we could also see America turn back to the Republicans and think the odd mix of laissez faire, fascistic, and socially conservative policies that the Republicans pursue, are a way out of our current dilemma (I certainly hope Americans are smarter than this because it seems to me that these are the precise policies that brought about the current problems, maybe the Republicans could also go the way of Ron Paul or tweak their philosophy in some other way to regain power and credibility).

This is chlamor's blogsite- http://chlamor-deepintheheartofnowhere.blogspot.com/

This is something that is part of the institutional knowledge held by a few old-time PIers. If anyone has anything to contribute to solutions, this chlamor thread will hold them- http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=83253

I am one of the old time PIers - was here as mberst. Good to see you Virgil.

I agree with you that things are unstable and volatile.

"Beyond right and Left" scares me, because that always means "disappear the Left."

Social upheaval follows an 80 year pattern, with smaller upheavals at the halfway points. This has something to do with generations - no one listens to their parents, and no one thinks their kids have anything to say. But when the discussion skips a generation, the oral history about social resistance and rebellion is transmitted. I remember in the 60's talking to veterans of the 30's, who had heard stories from organizers from the 1890's about their discussions with Abolitionists from the 1850's.

Major social upheaval in Anglo-American history:

1690's, 1770's, 1850's, 1930's, 2010's.

Hang onto your hat. If you are sixty or so, talk to people in their teens and twenties. If you are young, talk to the old timers. If you are in-between, listen to both of them. The old people are the tie to the resisters from the past. The young people have the clarity of vision and the energy.

What is wrong with a left wing pro-Labor movement? The struggle never changes, throughout history. Who cares about brand names?

Definitions, for the sake of clarity -

Left wing: the people who have to work for a living, and the placing of labor above capital.

Right wing: people who make money off of money and do not need to work for a paycheck, and the placing of capital above Labor.

I agree with you that things are unstable and volatile.

"Beyond right and Left" scares me, because that always means "disappear the Left."

What I meant is that progressives should not be carrying water for either side (this of course should not be the case if/when the Democrats or others propose genuine progressive policy such as single payer). Like the debate about Pelosi currently, I don't care! I'm not a supporter of Nancy Pelosi's, I don't agree with her opportunistic, weak kneed approach to politics. The CIA may be lying about her, but since both are not progressive neither are my allies, it is an argument between two entities that need to be replaced with something else.


Social upheaval follows an 80 year pattern, with smaller upheavals at the halfway points. This has something to do with generations - no one listens to their parents, and no one thinks their kids have anything to say. But when the discussion skips a generation, the oral history about social resistance and rebellion is transmitted. I remember in the 60's talking to veterans of the 30's, who had heard stories from organizers from the 1890's about their discussions with Abolitionists from the 1850's.

Major social upheaval in Anglo-American history:

1690's, 1770's, 1850's, 1930's, 2010's.

History is a funny thing, many have tried to predict it but have been mistaken. We shouldn't bank on any generation or group being the engine of change. If what you're suggesting works out, fine, but I'm not going to sit back and wait for it.


Hang onto your hat. If you are sixty or so, talk to people in their teens and twenties. If you are young, talk to the old timers. If you are in-between, listen to both of them. The old people are the tie to the resisters from the past. The young people have the clarity of vision and the energy.

Everyone always needs to talk to everyone about issues (especially those who are not political), if progressives just become our own echo chamber we will never break through the smokescreen of the corporate media/lies.


]What is wrong with a left wing pro-Labor movement? The struggle never changes, throughout history. Who cares about brand names?

Nothing, I think the problem is that everybody wants their own movement nowadays, the hip hoppers, the punks, the ecologists, the feminists, whatever the case may be, we need better ways to link struggles. And I think class and economics need to be important to all, the less fortunate no matter what race, gender, sexual orientation, identity, etc. always suffer in a capitalist economic system.


Definitions, for the sake of clarity -

Left wing: the people who have to work for a living, and the placing of labor above capital.

Right wing: people who make money off of money and do not need to work for a paycheck, and the placing of capital above Labor.

To me left wing and right wing are about ideology. The CEO might be a socialist, and the trucker might be a Limbot who dedicates his life to Fox News. Part of our problem is too many that are not part of the upper/ruling class align with policies that support them (the upper class), and that are against their own self interest.

It is grandpa's revolution to fight. It is him that cannot stand the bitter taste of betrayal of government. It is him that went through life not knowing much, but that for a while he was good at Paycheck. Now there are no jobs, people are sick by means of Rockefeller Medicine. It is not hard to understand Deep Capture. Hell, there is a website for the video if you are thick.

I could say more, but don't be surprised when I offer Caning Words. It looks like I will have to return to BumperStickers except I am going to engrave BS into locally made canes. I am a one song soloist, I am stuck on "The Oligarchy Rules" and "The hardest thing to say in life is I am wrong." of course on a cane.

You can buy nice oak canes for $4 made by all the unemployed furniture makers, many who would be considered cabinet makers which corresponds to the tool and die man of the machinist trade.

I said once that the LED light would be the symbol of the awakening/Revolution/Realization because it would defeat Al Gore as savior of the environment with his hazardous and more inefficient mercury-laden CFL bulbs.

Remember the scene in Billy Jack that brought the torches at the end. I think there will be LEDs on canes. I think people will gather for talks instead of speeches and when the person speaking needs illumination, the crowd will point there LED and create a spotlight.

But whatever, I better start practicing with my cane.

Yep, you were one of the first PIers.

Good commentary. Much appreciated.

I agree that we as leftists should not be engaged in the shallow partisan feud between the two parties.

When I talk about the 80 year pattern, I am not predicting history but watching the dynamics - what is there, not what I predict will be there.

The smokescreen of corporate media lies affects mostly the progressives, not the every day people. One way it affects us is that it gets us to think it is much more powerful than it is, and that it is "rallying" some "base" or reflecting the thoughts of half of the population. We are thereby deceived as to the nature of the battle and the enemy, and are paralyzed and confused. We - the politically aware - are the ones the corporate media lies are creating a smokescreen for.

Here is what is happening with the inability to find common cause and build a movement. It is not different causes, it is not different political ideas.

You know what people are doing? They are sorting themselves out according to beliefs. That is why they are so intolerant of dissent - beliefs are being challenged rather than ideas when you debate with them. It is not much fun debating with them after a while, because they get offended and hurt and angry.

DU is purging all who do not believe in Obama - that is the main belief there.

"I believe in Obama."

"I believe Republicans are evil."

"I believe 911 was an inside job."

"I believe in organic."

"I believe Israel controls the US government."

"I believe in New Age spiritual stuff."

"I believe guns are evil."

"I believe rednecks and fundies are the enemy."

Now those beliefs may or may not be "true" but so long as they are held as beliefs by people, rather than as thoughts, political solidarity and progress are impossible.

One is free to express ideas, so long as you do not challenge any of those beliefs (depending upon which group it is.) People will say "I am so glad that I found a place where I can speak my mind" but what they mean is "where my beliefs will not be challenged."

People can hold more than one of those beliefs, and most do, although most have a prime belief - "the cause (or issue) I am committed to" they will call that.

If you challenge the beliefs the particular group is committed to protecting from criticism, people will throw tantrums and badger and hound what they see as heretics. They throw huge shit fits - it is just amazing. They hold their ideas as true personal enlightenment, not as opinions or ideas. Disagree, and you are seen as dangerous and evil or perhaps tolerated as ignorant and unenlightened provided you can be caged off and neutralized.

If people are challenged too much, and the powers that be in the group refuse to respond to their temper tantrums and punish the offenders, they leave and look for happier environs.

Each of these beliefs is laboriously constructed so as to preclude the consideration of any left wing politics. That is interesting. We can see this, because anyone talking left wing politics offends EVERY group.

As each group becomes more homogeneous, it becomes more and more boring and even the true believers wander off and stop participating. For example, one board had a "New Age" section that got a lot of activity, but true believers in there just went berserk with outrage when any contrary opinions were posted until critics were run off. But once the critics were run off, that was the end of any activity in that forum. Other boards have farming and food boards, but true believers there - "Monsanto evil, organic good" - would not tolerate any in-depth discussion, ran off the critics and knowledgeable people, and now there is no further discussion at all.

The various liberal groups are every bit as much faith-based and rigid and doctrinaire as any fundy group - more so I think. So long as I don't attack people, I can post contrary opinions and get into interesting discussions with various groups of Christians for example, without anyone blowing a gasket. The difference is that the beliefs of Christians are not fashionable and stylish, are easy to mock and ridicule.

What the boards should do is take all of the discussions they are having and move them into a "belief systems" forum, and leave the rest of the board for sane people to actually have intelligent discussions.

I do not think there is any "ideology" involved in politics. Politics is about, always has been about, economics and power. Making people think that it is a matter of ideology is a way that the ruling class spays and muzzles us.

The "ideology" of the right wing was created - intentionally and at great expense - as a marketing campaign. It has nothing to do with scholarship, philosophy, or ideology. That is well-documented and not controversial.

Yes, the thing the Evil Masters have that serfdom lacks is orchestration. It is one big Purple Show with the goofiest lines and no counter-orchestration.

All of this, there are signs the economy improving stuff, is sickening. It is like a cell refusing to let the insulin dock to unload any more sugar. The thinking is so tortured it inflicts torture. There is nothing that can be said and we keep getting nonsense.

Things are too wrong not to see. The power to fear is government. People feel that fear. The government is producing terror in American hearts and minds.

It is Illusion v Reality with intellectual thought having a clear champion.
=================

Two Americas speaks to "atomization" of everyday life where the caricature of American life is the lone person in front of wired portal. My terminology calls it "chaos slavery" where "atomization" is complete success in "perception management."

Now I know this seems somewhat stupid, but somebody has to translate reality to the Mythlanders. Nobody has figured out how to reach the enslaved minds to tell them they are enslaved. The fact that there is chaos when it could all be settled on television with Mberst of PopulistIndependent.com and Two Americas above, chlamor, and Tinoire hosting a panel of experts and truth-tellers if given a show just one hour a week on a big time network.

It is not that hard to figure out. Everything is upside-down in the Illusionist World. Anyway "managed perceptions" and "perception management" is a Reality-word that you need to grip. People believe what they believe because their minds have been assauted to manage their perceptions. These specific terms are important to know. The CIA is charged with managing perceptions. There will be no fit with PI without understanding the significance of "managed perceptions."
================

Part 2

It is good to see some verve, Mike.

I am in pear country these days, 2,000 miles from home. An old-timer stopped by today and was reminiscing about picking cherries for two weeks in Michigan back in the 50's. He and a friend were traveling through during harvest and were getting low on cash.

The every day people see it.

The reason the serfdom lacks orchestration can be found on the political boards, and at the liberal organization gatherings in real life.

The people are virtually as one on a few basic ideas:

"The rich get richer and the poor get poorer."

"It is a rich man's war, and a poor man's fight."

There is your domestic policy and your foreign policy. We smart people cannot even recognize those two ideas as everything that would be needed for overthrowing the tyranny of the few under which we suffer.

It is rare to get any two of us - those with the skills and interest to be the communicators and leaders for any popular movement - to agree on anything for more than two minutes. That is because as "house Negroes" we are first and foremost committed to our self-centered individuality. We obsess over our "personal values" and "choices" and "ideology" and "positions on issues."

This process decapitates the working class. Those with the verbal skills and the knowledge and interest in politics to lead and organize are busy arguing with each other about their belly button lint, or else engaged in feel-good weekend hobby activities to "do good."

A few months ago, there were two threads on another board that were very revealing. The first asked "would you give up your life for your country?" and the second asked "are you willing to go to jail for your principles?" I think there were two of us who answered "yes!" to both questions. Dozens and dozens of people answered "no!" to both, and most said "hell no, under no circumstances!"

There is your "leadership," and there is the answer to the question of why we cannot make any progress politically.

When I talk about the 80 year pattern, I am not predicting history but watching the dynamics - what is there, not what I predict will be there.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'watching the dynamics'.


The smokescreen of corporate media lies affects mostly the progressives, not the every day people. One way it affects us is that it gets us to think it is much more powerful than it is, and that it is "rallying" some "base" or reflecting the thoughts of half of the population. We are thereby deceived as to the nature of the battle and the enemy, and are paralyzed and confused. We - the politically aware - are the ones the corporate media lies are creating a smokescreen for.

I don't know it seems to me most of the people talking any sense, are not even allowed on the telescreen (except for programs such as Democracy Now and the like). I'm not sure that that high of a percentage of Americans even reads the/a newspaper. We've got to break through this seemingly impenetrable discourse, that doesn't allow people to envision any other options (than the ones suggested by the duopoly or corporate elite).

We are told MSNBC is 'the left', when military contractor General Electric wouldn't allow any kind of real questioning of U.S. policies on military spending, the relationship with Israel, working people organizing for a greater piece of the pie, corporate personhood, I could continue...


As each group becomes more homogeneous, it becomes more and more boring and even the true believers wander off and stop participating. For example, one board had a "New Age" section that got a lot of activity, but true believers in there just went berserk with outrage when any contrary opinions were posted until critics were run off. But once the critics were run off, that was the end of any activity in that forum. Other boards have farming and food boards, but true believers there - "Monsanto evil, organic good" - would not tolerate any in-depth discussion, ran off the critics and knowledgeable people, and now there is no further discussion at all.

The various liberal groups are every bit as much faith-based and rigid and doctrinaire as any fundy group - more so I think. So long as I don't attack people, I can post contrary opinions and get into interesting discussions with various groups of Christians for example, without anyone blowing a gasket. The difference is that the beliefs of Christians are not fashionable and stylish, are easy to mock and ridicule.

I don't think progressives or the left are going to agree on every issue. It seems the divide between the constituency of the right and that of the left is one group views each man (or woman) as an island, and the other wants to work collectively for social change.


What the boards should do is take all of the discussions they are having and move them into a "belief systems" forum, and leave the rest of the board for sane people to actually have intelligent discussions.

I'm not that concerned about boards, hopefully with something like PI we are just developing our theory to better inform our practice (of social change and/or political organizing). You're right I think there is a tendency on boards to develop a groupthink constituency (for any board). In the real world we have to fight this, like I said there are lot of 'progressive' groups organizing under different banners. These groups and individuals in some way need to come together to put pressure on the career politicians in Washington. Folks can also work at the local level to build alternatives, but I think I'm at the point where as hard as it will be we have to get the government to better work for the vast majority of people (not just the wealthy and corporations).


I do not think there is any "ideology" involved in politics. Politics is about, always has been about, economics and power. Making people think that it is a matter of ideology is a way that the ruling class spays and muzzles us.

I don't think I understand your point. A person can be populist on the right or left for example. Like the Rethugs think there is some kind of 'liberal elite media' conspiracy to bring down the country; where as we on the left see nearly every institution in American society as deeply conservative (except for perhaps university campuses, and even they are very flawed).


The "ideology" of the right wing was created - intentionally and at great expense - as a marketing campaign. It has nothing to do with scholarship, philosophy, or ideology. That is well-documented and not controversial.

How does that take away that the right-wing ideology is not a legitimate ideology? It is about the rule of the few over the many, raping the Earth of all its animal life and resources, and denying rights to all sorts of individuals and groups of people (not to mention crushing democracy). This seems to me to be a rather potent and insidious ideology, indeed...

I have been thinking about geezers and greenhorns a lot lately. I remember in the 60's hearing the stories from the grizzled veterans from the 30's, and they told stories they had heard from the people two generations before them who were talking about people two generations before them. It skips a generation, because no one wants to hear what their parents have to say, and no one thinks their kids know anything. But ask the grandparents... or now, in my case tell stories to the grandkids...and valuable stuff can be passed along.

I don't think I would have noticed this if not for my interest in traditional music. As a kid, I was learning from people my grandparent's age, and was fascinated to find this enormous repertory of music that had been passed down for hundreds of years. Adults cannot understand this, but kids can. Children live in that world (we all do actually, but as adults we forget that we do.) I had a musician friend who was doing a PHD on children's rhymes, collected them and traced them back in history. The little girls in my neighborhood were always skipping rope and chanting strange rhymes, and my friend would sit on my porch and point out words or stories that could be traced back to Africa. These rhymes stayed in an age group, so that what ten year olds were chanting today ten year olds were chanting 100 years ago, while older kids had forgotten them and younger kids had yet to learn them. So they were passed on within an age group. Interesting.

As a kid, it made perfect sense to me that tunes were passed on, but as an adult when I would say to another adult "this tune is at least 300 years old, and has never been written or recorded" I would get blank looks - as though this was not a remarkable thing. They cannot "get" it the way that kids automatically can. "This tune has been passed down through the generations" is just a phrase to them, something they think they "know" and are not surprised by. They think they are knowledgeable and sophisticated because they are not surprised by that, bu the opposite is true. They should be surprised - that is the sophisticated and knowledgeable response - because that is a glimpse into another realm, the true history of the people, an inviting beacon into a more accurate and valuable view of reality.

To this day I occasionally say from stage "this tune goes back hundreds of years, was passed down without any benefit of recordings or written music, from one untrained musician to another, by ear, generation after generation" and look out on a sea of blank faces, devoid of any expressions of wonder or amazement. They think they know, but they do not. Very rarely does someone come up afterward and say "wow, what you said changed my life - changed my entire view of the world, of history, of reality." But they should - had they really heard what I said.

Now, how can we know that a tune goes back 300 years or more if it has never been written down and dated? By a process of elimination. If, in 1960 a person - usually many people - 80 years old says that they learned the tune as a kid from someone who had learned it from another musician 70 or 80 years older than them, and that person had said THEY had learned it from someone 70-80 years older than them, we are now back to 1720 - I learned it in 1960 from a person who learned it from a person who learned it in 1880 who learned it from a person who learned it in 1800, who learned it from a person who learned it in 1720. Compiling hundreds of stories like that, and a clear picture emerges.

Then, you can look at what HAS been written. Now, that works to eliminate the possibility that a tune is recent, and the reason that works is because such a tiny percentage of the music of the people has ever been written (or today, recorded.) This is also true about all history. Educated adults assume that most of what can be known can be known through what is written, and that oral history, traditional music and the like is just a little spice in the mix. "Field work" the academics call it - most of life, most of reality, is relegated to a category called "field work" and what is in the books is seen as "reality."

In music, what has been written (and now recorded) represents what the church, the landed aristocracy, and now "the suits" control. It is the upper class narrative, controlled by the upper class, and serving the upper class. So too is this the case in our history and our politics. What the ruling class gives us is also very small and limited - 1% of the total experience, if that.

Anaxarchos did a tremendous amount of research on this and wrote a great article that explains exactly how the right wing "ideology" was concocted, made to sound as though it were a philosophy, and out to use to advance the interests of the wealthiest few. It is really a "must read" for any who wish to oppose the right wing in any serious way.

[link:www.socialistindependent.org/anax01.htm|Mr. Anonymous and the Not-So-Spontaneous Birth of the Libertarian "Movement"]

Excerpt:


But, what about "ideas?"

In our search for cash and connections without parallel, it might be argued that we have missed the "great ideas" of Libertarianism. The simple explanation is that there are none. Beyond a pro forma agreement on the evils of Marxism, Keynesianism, and "big government" and a thoroughly mystical, near religious belief in capitalism and "free-markets", reduced to paper-thin slogans such as "Personal Freedom" and "Individual Liberty", there is no other point of consensus. Pressed beyond such platitudes, the "theoreticians" of this "movement" have always descended into the most bitter disagreements about the most substantial of issues. Such might easily be suspected of an "ideology" that embraces a political spectrum which includes right-wing Republicans, and neo conservatives and neo liberals and neo-Fascist Ayn Randians, and "classical Liberals" and Libertarian Party members, and "anarchists".

The economic historian, Jamie Peck, in setting out to write a history of the theories of the Austrian School, was dismayed to find that he could not find an "Aha moment" in that history, nor could he see substantial points of agreement between any of the authors (beyond the obvious), nor could he detect a coherent point-of-view that remained constant amongst any one of them for long. "There was nothing spontaneous about neo-liberalism; it was speculatively planned, it was opportunistically built, and it has been repeatedly reconstructed", wrote Peck.

We will deal with this subject in accompanying material, but for the moment it should be said that even the above misses the point. Beyond congenital disagreements, the embrace of Libertarian Economics as political slogan from the beginning meant that the "science" (and it is only as "economic science" that the ideology has ever had even nominal roots) was still-born, no matter how miserable its stock in trade may have turned out to be. Hayek said as much at the time of his "Nobel Prize". He complained that Serfdom. had ended his "career" as an "economist" and implied that it began his life as an "ideologist". No matter what illusions he may have harbored as to his own "destiny", the comment passes down to us as the complaints of a paid shill of the real Libertarian "science" - the science of propoganda, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Volker Fund - with Hayek only counting as just another whiney paid-professional, complaining about his job-title.

There is no evidence that the much larger irony ever occurred to Hayek:

Tens, perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars, hundreds of millions of books, hundreds of journals, dozens of universities, tens of thousands of people and thousands of professorships, and so on in a network touching virtually everyone in the "Western Democracies" - all of it centrally planned, all of it subsidized, none of it capable of existing by itself in the commercial marketplace or in the "marketplace of ideas" and all of it failing dozens of times until hooked into the river of cash produced by the the simple subsidies of the rich designed to derail the "free" evolution of ideas as they were actually proceeding... is there any such example in all of human history of a "movement" so far at odds with its own self-proclaimed "principles"? No problem, though, for William S. Volker, for whom "belief" was always optional. Mr. Anonymous got exactly what he paid for.

http://i578.photobucket.com/albums/ss221/shadyobama/hope_and_change.jpg

I remember talking to Obama operatives back four years ago, and they were completely open about their plans. What they saw was a coming blowback, a revitalized Left in response to the Bush administration. They saw one of two possibilities, neither desirable. First, there was a possibility that the Democratic party would become a Left wing party and that people would overthrow the aristocracy that controls the liberal organizations and the party. They would rather lose to the Republicans than lose control over the Democratic party. The other possibility, not as big a concern, was the "McGovern effect" - activists would succeed in nominating a left wing candidate, and the Republicans would crush that ticket. That would then out the conservative aristocracy back in power in the party, but would postpone electoral victory and possibly lead back to the first scenario.

The challenge was to use the Left to beat the Republicans, while at the same time neutralizing them once they were no longer useful. That is why right up until the election we heard "Obama is left wing. Stop saying otherwise. He has to run to the right to get elected. Be practical!" while after the election the same people are saying "what ever gave you the crazy idea that Obama was left wing? He as always a centrist, and never claimed anything else. You people are delusional." They are following the script, a script that was worked out in detail four years ago.

They are gambling that the Left is a small inconsequential fringe that can be dismissed and ignored. That includes Labor, public school teachers, GLBTQ people, anti-war people, safe food and family farm advocates, defenders of the Constitution and the law, environmentalists and many others. Now, while the advocates for those causes are few (all politics is driven by small groups competing for public attention, and that includes the Obots) the people they are speaking for are the majority of people in the country. So the people are being betrayed, not just the Left.

The people have been betrayed before by politicians, of course, but never so intentionally, so cynically and so completely. That is saying a lot.

The carefully released pictures of Che Guevara posters at campaign hqs, the use of kids in Gaza manipulated into blogging for him and sending painful cries to the world... And all the while buzzards like Kissinger in the background, still pulling the strings.

The people were masterfully defeated at a time where there really was hope for change.


Paragraph 2 is spot on also. The cynical dishonesty stuns even me. Those people think we do not remember their words? That we imagined things? They know we're not gullible dreamers so I fully expect shady repercussions against the left. It's business as usual but more ruthlessly because they know the only thing standing between them and the pitchforks is that "hope".

http://i565.photobucket.com/albums/ss96/boloboi2008/WhereismyCHANGE.jpg

It's damn good to see you Mike

Strange lull right now, isn't there?

and a fake lull during the shady back-room "how much more dare we rob them" dealings from interested parties?

What do you make of it?

I believe that some essentially retired ultra-rich people are involved, as well as some "trust babies," who may or may not fall into other mentioned categories as well. There are private-equity types involved, no doubt (e.g. Carlyle or Blackstone types).

When I worked in defense contracting, in finance-accounting, the defense CEOs and top echelons kept in touch and had meetings, including meetings with other rich folks; they were totally disconnected from most individuals' reality. It made me want to ...

:puke:

I remember being worried that this would happen; still, I'm always a bit too optimistic.

It is the strangest thing I have ever seen in politics.

The people spoke clearly, and this is borne out by Pew Research surveys - and they have utterly rejected the religious right and Reaganomics. Now Obama is busy resurrecting both. "Hope" and "change" were great for campaigning, but now what? This New Age-y idea that hope and change and belief have some intrinsic value - that if we all hope and believe real hard 24 hours a day, then something to hope for and believe in will magically appear - is not going to fly with the general public. What I heard more and more as the election approached from blue collar people and rural people was "we need another New Deal." That represents a remarkable shift. Nothing even remotely like another New Deal is happening.

"This New Age-y idea that hope and change and belief have some intrinsic value - that if we all hope and believe real hard 24 hours a day, then something to hope for and believe in will magically appear"

I've recently seen people bank their whole intellect, if you will, on "faith" that things will work out if we only believe. It's something I saw years ago, but I figured those who opposed the loudest then are now those that need conformity and acceptance. This partisanship doesn't help those trying to understand just exactly why Obama is not nearly the change we were told we should expect.

DU was a fun place when everybody was in opposition. Now they can't talk freely about the failures of the Democrat, deride those who dare to question anything, and a genocide under the bus.

Obama is more dangerous than Bush. False hope is worse than no hope.

I don't think the hope thing is cutting it for most people anymore. When you can't put food on your table because they gave it all to the crooks, hope dries up.

The only people still "hoping" are those who have an entrenched interest in keeping their victims "hoping".

http://images2.cafepress.com/product/330106012v4_240x240_Front.jpg

Everyday, I meet more people who realize, on their own, that they were scammed. The lull we sense may be the quiet before the big storm. It's still a ways off though.

I think the general public is awake and angry enough, but they lack leadership - they lack a voice. They lack a voice because we who could be that voice are missing in action.

It is we who are hesitant - we are kinda sort still hopin', still identifying with the party, reluctant to let go of the hope that the party may still be reformable.

but I agree with you re "we who could be that voice are missing in action".

I tried very hard but it got to the point where I asked myself why I was complicating my life, risking it even (had one good friend turn up dead, drowned, ductaped mouth and ductaped hands behind his back but the police called it a "suicide". Nothing to see here folks, a dead Palestinian activist, move on...) when the very people you were trying to help were perfectly content with the status quo.

Since then, more have woken up, more are angry and your point about the voice is correct. *I*, not that I'm any sort of a voice, am tired right now. Tired from slaving for a corporation and being financially raped by the state and feds, barely able to rub two nickels together on some weeks. Tired and reluctant to spend what's left of my energy organizing resistance in all this [link:www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8428385#8429196|high fructose syrup] that condones torture, illegal detention and the continued rape of the deluded blind.

The party is too rotten to reform. I don't think the problem is this or that party but the system that was set up in the US.

I think another problem is that we, on the left, are too fragmented. As you well know, I've regretfully contributed to that and wish it could/would be undone. There was no reason for me to take such offense when you defended a certain poster and make a total, snow-balling mess of things.

I'm not hesitant Mike and hope that from sites like PI, PI/SI, OET, PP, a voice will rise up; a voice that knows how to unite people after others have woken them up.

It is understandable to have hope. I was so critical of the party, going back to 1999, that I kept getting thrown out everywhere I went on and off line for speaking heresy. Yet I was still talking to Democrats as though there was some hope of bringing them around, still working to get Dems elected, and now I find myself stunned at what the new administration is doing.

I keep reading that as "good to see the old fart..."

You know how argumentative and stubborn I can be. But I never hold personal grudges or animosities.

We have been fighting with one arm tied behind our backs. I am just as guilty as anyone of that. The arm tied behind our back is our feeling that we need to see the party loyalists and liberal leaders as allies, get along with them, try to persuade them, work with them, no matter how right wing they get. That has turned us one against the other, divided us into little camps advocating isolated and discrete causes, squelched our voices, and backed us farther and farther into the corner.

They hate us more than they hate the right wing. I lost my patience for that but still admire yours. I see my mission as helping questioning people of good will & conscience make their way across the treacherous bridge, to independent thought. Because talking with them has divided us into little camps, I'd done talking. Their whole purpose is to divide us into little camps to keep the crumb throwers happy while they crowd the people away from even the thrown crumbs.

How do we untie more hands? When do we break free from their convoluted ploys?

I've about many good sites, MP3 files, authors, speakers and books here.

:hug: