There is a discussion at CD - does it make any difference if we post here, or is it all a waste of time - and the usual suggestions for "making a difference" - stop eating meat, stop buying corporate stuff, vote third party, work local for progressive candidates, go back to the gold standard (a few Paul zombies are always there.) Someone then said that CD was an oasis where we beautiful enlightened people who were not brainwashed and corrupted like all of rest of those stupid Americans out there could support each other.

So I posted this:

Actually, the value of posting here is that it is an opportunity to break through our own brainwashing and corruption - by "we" I mean those following politics, reading and writing and analyzing, mostly college-educated and professionals and middle management, or sympathetic to that crowd. Whatever brainwashing Republican voting people or Fox news watchers have received, it pales in comparison to that of the educated and successful people, liberals and progressives or whatever. We are first and foremost indoctrinated to support and promote the social norms and conventions, the "meritocracy," "democracy," and all of the current social arrangements and assumptions. To then claim to be a "progressive" is to merely decorate that enormous and monstrous reactionary edifice with a few nice-looking trimmings, some feel good nothingness.

Never mind what the majority is thinking, or what we are constantly told they are thinking. Politics is always a matter of several small factions competing for the attention of the public. We are enormously important, and every bit as big and as powerful as the right wingers are, as the neo-liberal idiots controlling the Democratic party are. The problem is not with the general public, it is with us. The right wing can steer the public because we on the Left are missing in action, whining and wringing our hands and comparing belly button lint between one enlightened person and another with all of the yammer about how we feel, and what we believe, and what we are doing with our personal lifestyle, and how we are going to cast our one individual vote in this or that election, with all of our esoteric "plans" to fix the system and get it to "work," which usually take the form of those idiotic numbered lists - "10 things you can do to save the planet" - that liberals and progressives are so in love with (as though the solution to the political crisis were merely on the level of seriousness as making out a grocery list or something.)

The working class is decapitated, because those who could be speaking and writing on behalf of the working class are thoroughly neutered, bought off and compromised, in the service of the ruling class. We are house slaves, working for master and betraying the field hands - blaming them for the mess, calling them ignorant and stupid! - in exchange for living in master's house, and eating master's food, and wearing master's clothes, and pleasing master in all things. Has there every been a more co-opted, compromised and impotent group of intellectuals in history?

Working for or contributing to the Sierra Club and other liberal organizations - who received massive funding from BP and then were strangely silent during the Gulf catastrophe - is living in master's house. Defending and apologizing for the Democratic party is living in master's house. Talking about voting for a gentrified third party as the solution to the dire crisis we face is living in master's house. Worrying about the tea party and Palin and whatever is living in master's house. Denigrating the blue collar people in the working class - they watch TV, they shop at WalMart, they vote Republican, they are "low information voters," they don't eat organic - is living in master's house. Seeing politics as being all about partisan elections and parties and candidates is living in master's house. Playing "if I were King of the realm" and coming up with pseudo-intellectual technocratic "plans" and "solutions" to impose on society and thereby get this corrupted and deadly system back to where it is "working" again is living in master's house. "Speaking truth to power" is living in master's house. Lecturing others about "making the right choices" is living in master's house. Talking about being "realistic" and "practical" is living in master's house.

It is a cruel joke and it is morally depraved to continue to tell the field hands that if only they made the "right choices," or got an education, or voted a certain way that they too could live in master's house. It is a lie, it is the big fat liberal and progressive delusion. We need to get out of master's house, stop defending master, stop accepting master's miserly bribes, and humbly place our verbal and intellectual skills into the service of advancement of the working class - our class, our people.

The field hands going on strike and shutting the mother down is what created the middle class, what enabled any of us to attain the education and skills we have, enabled us to sit around and muse about politics in the first place. We betray that legacy every day with our words and actions. THAT is the brainwashing, the lethargy, the complacency, the cowardice, the self-absorption, and the corruption that we need to break through, and if that is not what we are trying to do here then we are wasting our time and squandering the opportunity that this discussion represents.

is your discussion?

Gotta link to the article?

There is a core group of libertarians at that site even if they don't know that's what they espouse.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/09/09-6

The idea that society can progress is closely tied to the myth that progress and Capitalism are one and the same.

"Progressive" then means "progressive Capitalism," which means "Capitalism that works."

Just as liberals try to disguise the fact that liberalism means and always has meant "free markets" and individualism, so too progressives try to disguise the fact that progressive politics mean support for Capitalism. When things get bad, liberals start calling themselves progressives. They both differ from conservatives in that conservatives don't pretend that Capitalism means anything other than dog-eat-dog, while liberals and progressives harbor the illusion that it could be made nicer and kinder.

They even go so far as to think that if all of us became nice and kind within Capitalism, that Capitalism - and society - would then become nice and kind, and that the way to bring this into being is to personally set the example by being nice and kind (or green or vote third party or whatever.) "Be the change you wish to see."

This naive and foolish notion that Capitalism can be regulated or reformed so that it is good for everyone would be akin to changing the TV show Survivor so that everyone gets to stay on the island. But then that would not be the same game, would it? But they refuse to consider discarding the game.

"We want individualism that isn't so...you know - individualistic. We want free markets that aren't so, oh I dunno... not so free."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/09/09-11

Politics is not about "belief systems." What you feel, or believe, or what anyone else feels or believes is completely irrelevant. It also has nothing to do with what people call themselves - brand names and teams and marketing slogans is all that is.

Leave beliefs where they belong - in religion. Politics is about economics and power, about objective material reality - who does and who does not have power and access to resources, and why and how. Politics is about changing conditions, not about changing beliefs.

The only difference between what you are promoting and what most liberals are promoting is in what each of you claim to "believe." We cannot know, or measure or judge your internal state of beliefs and feelings. That makes it all entirely subjective, and therefore politically impotent and meaningless.

If we are going to talk about politics, we need to talk about conditions, about how things work, about what is happening in external objective reality, not about what might happen or what might work if we believe or feel this or that way, or mouth this or that magical incantation.

...

All of society is organized around the idea that people can control others based on their relative degree of access to resources (which gives them yet more access to resources.) It is that idea that is incompatible with democracy, not unlimited wealth. Examples such as the activities of the people in the article and the power they have to control others are no different than every landlord-tenant and every boss-worker relationship in the country. All of our social interactions and relationships are based on control over others based on their economic clout- control or be controlled, dominate or be dominated. People who wish to control and dominate others, who know no other way to relate to people, who cannot or will not treat others as equals, are driven to amass capital to facilitate that and then enforce it on the rest of us. Why should we expect any democracy in Washington when there is no democracy in the work place? Why should we expect money not to rule at the top when we let it rule at the bottom? Why should we be surprised that a few control the political process nationally by virtue of having capital when that is true in every aspect of our lives everywhere? If we are not going to challenge and overthrow the social conventions in our day to day lives, abominations such as that described in the article are absolutely inevitable.

The entire society, top to bottom, is structured to conform to this dictate: dominate or be dominated, control others or be controlled. We live this reality every day in every social interaction and relationship. It permeates, corrupts and perverts all of our relationships. Those most motivated to dominate and control others, no more than 12% or so of the population probably, because they know no other way to relate to other human beings, because they cannot or will not interact with other people on an equal basis, are the most driven to amass capital, since that is the way to control others.

Yet few question this - "he who has the most money therefore has the right to control the lives of others." Odd that we accept that and barely even "see" it, even though we are forced to make all decisions based on it, and do - so we must "know" it on some level as the saying goes - and even though it controls our every waking moment. That describes the national social sickness. It is not "human nature," it works against every human social urge, it contradicts everything that it means to be human, and it takes a tremendous amount of force to hold in place.

...

That has not been my experience. People - liberal and progressive intellectuals - do not need to be persuaded or sold or marketed, they need to be shaken up, and somewhat jarring and abrupt language is the most effective for doing that.

Historically, the Left has always been told to be polite, to tone it down, to not alienate "potential friends and allies" (which is code words for "successful and important people with whom we should curry favor"), told that "it is not what you are saying I object to, but the way you are saying it." That is never true. Demands for leftists to be "polite" and "courteous" really means be deferential and subservient, respect your betters, and those demands are not politically neutral by any means.

Only those in the ruling class, and their henchmen and mouthpieces, can afford to speak in cultivated and modulated tones. The people who are persecuted and suffering - the people with whom we should be siding, not the successful and beautiful and accomplished people - need to scream to be heard, and they should scream, and we should be screaming right along with them. You may "alienate" some of the more sophisticated and gentrified people by doing that - about 10% of the population at the most - but you will get rousing cheers and support from the other 90%. And is it not the other 90% for whom we fight?

Liberals hang a lovely sign out front of headquarters - "we defend the poor, the downtrodden, the persecuted, the suffering" - and then complain bitterly when the rabble actually shows up and tracks mud on the beautiful imported carpet.

Get rid of that carpet, or take that down that sign.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/09/08-6

We have been watching a steady dismantling of all of the gains by the working class. Those gains were achieved only because there was at one time a strong and militant organized Labor movement, and a strong and militant Left. Those pieces of legislation from the past that people hold up to justify their various "regulated Capitalism" and "incremental change" ideas are like the golden eggs, and the militant Left is the goose. Liberals and progressives say that they wish to have some of those golden eggs back now. There will be no more golden eggs, because they killed the goose. Even today we hear liberals and progressives saying "we want those golden eggs, those will solve the problems, but we don't want that nasty goose around."

Those advocating voting third party, or supporting the Greens are saying "look, our platform calls for golden eggs! We don't need that goose, we don't need to get all radical, we don't need to organize and shut this thing down, all we need to do is vote ourselves some of those golden eggs!"

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/09/07-6#comment-1608479

Don't throw up on your way in.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/09/10-3#comment-1608921

Feel free to jump in. How did you find us?

spam?

in his message I would guess spam.

Didn't notice that. It's a spammer.

Message moved to "T!me Out to Chill Out" forum. You can visit it [link:www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=217&topic_id=375 | here] .

http://pipclub.com/spam-free.gif

[div class="excerpt"]AnthEmic November 17th, 2010 1:28 pm

I find all the talk of "devolving" societies and "unevoloved" people in these comments a bit disturbing. This kind of talk scares the crap out of me and hints at a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory that plays right into the "religious" thinking scheme that DMG lays out.

And no, I am not a creationist arguing that evolution is religion... let's get that out of the way first.

When someone talks of "devolution" or "unevolved people" s/he is making a teleological argument that, in my opinion, is not a whole lot different from what I hear coming out of the mouths of conservative preachers. It's an assumption that evolution has some end in mind... as though evolution is conscious, knows what is best, and has a plan to get us there. Hmmmm... kind of like how God has a plan and purpose for us all. Something can't devolve or regress unless there is an end that it is moving toward. More importantly, only a select few of us are intelligent and "evolved" enough to have observed how the "unevolved" masses, with their superstition and ignorance of "the truth", are leading us away from the straight and narrow path that leads to our true evolutionary destiny. Forgive them Darwin, they know not what they do...

Evolution doesn't work like that. It's not about growth, or change, or adaptation to meet an ideal... it's about death. If an individual organism does not possess traits that are adaptive to its environment it either fails to reproduce or dies. Those that possess the adaptive trait(s) get to keep playing the game of musical chairs until the next time the music stops (when stuff changes around them). What is adaptive today may be maladaptive tomorrow... and vice-versa.

The unfortunate thing about looking at what's happening around us from this perspective, however, is that it would appear that the superstitious mindset that DMG decries is, in fact, a trait that is well suited to our current environment. Evolutionary theory suggest that if it wasn't it would have died out long ago. Looks to me like it's thriving while rational thought is working it's way to the junk drawer of evolutionary history.

After all, a head full of CommonDreams articles (and the neurosis/"intensity" that appears goes with that) doesn't exactly confer a huge reproductive advantage in a society that invented "truck nuts".

ps.. Is "regressive" the new term the marketing folks want us to use instead of "right wing" or "conservative". Seems like all the progressive superstars have been throwing the term around in their articles this last month. Guess I need to update my talking points... :S[/quote]

[div class="excerpt"]Two Americas November 17th, 2010 6:17 pm

Excellent post.

"When someone talks of 'devolution' or 'unevolved people' s/he is making a teleological argument that, in my opinion, is not a whole lot different from what I hear coming out of the mouths of conservative preachers."

Very good.

"Evolved" and "enlightened" are code talk for "superior." That serves two purposes. First, it frames the discussion in an anti-democratic way so that we are then to assume that we are talking about which faction of the aristocracy should be in control and imposing its ideas. If we are to assume that politics is merely a matter of choosing which group of superior beings will lord over us, then the case can be made that progressives would be better compared to "Palin" et al.

Secondly, it distracts attention from the material interests of the speaker, which are the rock solid foundation of their political arguments - the protection of their own status and relatively higher degree of access to resources, their position in the social pecking order as "house slaves."

In other words, progressives are protecting their own self-interest, and are trying to convince people to support their interests with appeals to beliefs and myths. That means that the political program of most progressives differs in no serious way from that of the "tea party" people they decry, and their methodology for analyzing social and political phenomena is very bit as faith-based as that of the dreaded "fundies."[/quote]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/11/17-4#comment-1670639

.

http://www.scuppie.com/images/555_Handbook_cover_5.JPG

SCUP·PIE /skәp·e/ n. (Socially Conscious Upwardly-mobile Person)

1. A person who desires all the best life can offer and strives for those goals in a socially conscious manner.

2. One who is dedicated to the pursuit of peace, happiness and cash (not necessarily in that order).

3. Someone ‘green’ -- i.e. one who understands the love of money does not preclude the love of nature...and vice-versa.


http://www.scuppie.com/gordongekkogoesgreen.html




Gordon Gekko Goes Green: Yuppies find religion


In the 1987 movie “Wall Street,” fictional corporate raider Gordon Gekko utters perhaps the most memorable words in the annals of yuppiedom:

“The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that greed...is good,” he tells the transfixed shareholders at an annual meeting. “Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind”.

Admittedly, that sort of rampant rapacity once resonated all too powerfully, at a time when the most pressing issue for a generation of upwardly mobile young Americans seemed to be whether to opt for the cabriolet or targa roof on the Porsche 911, once the stock options finally kicked in. But today, it seems as dated as nouvelle cuisine. It’s as if one morning we all woke up and, while fumbling with our whitening strips in the bathroom mirror, took a good look at ourselves and realized that the obsessive, ruthless pursuit of power, money and expensive toys had become, well, a bit déclassé.

We suddenly understood the importance of other things in life—such as protecting the precariously fragile ecosystem of our planet, aiding the impoverished and homeless in our own communities, working to better conditions for workers in the Third World, helping dissidents bring democracy to oppressed countries, rescuing stray dogs from animal shelters. At the same time, we hesitated to completely turn our backs on financial success and the material comforts to which we’ve become accustomed. Sure, we admire Mother Theresa and the Dalai Lama, but we don’t want to give up our daily double latte with extra foam, the flat-panel home entertainment system or that comfy goose-down quilt on our $3,000 Swedish Tempur-Pedic bed. And while we care about global warming, we’re not quite ready to quit driving to work and go live on an organic farm in Vermont.

But fortunately, we don’t have to do any of that. It’s possible for even the most inveterate Rolex-and-suspenders-wearing capitalist tool to evolve into a higher state of social consciousness--in which anyone can help save the planet and look stylish while doing it, in which conspicuous consumption is fine, provided that it’s done with a conscience. It’s possible to be successful, live well and do good, all at once. In pop psychology lingo, we’re experiencing a paradigm shift—the metamorphosis of Yuppie into Scuppie, the Socially Conscious, Upwardly-mobile person.

For more evidence of the trend, consider that the Toyota Prius, the gasoline-electric hybrid sedan that’s emerged as the status symbol for Scuppies, attracts buyers with an average income of nearly $100,000. Beyond that, look at what’s happened to the über-yuppies, the ‘80s and ‘90s moguls whose hard-driving quest for wealth provided the blueprint for a generation of business-school grads. Microsoft founder-chairman Bill Gates used to grind competitors into the dust; now he’s using his billions to improve public health in the Third World. Texas oilman-corporate raider T. Boone Pickens? These days, he’s touting the future of alternative fuels. If Gordon Gekko was real, it’s an even bet that today, he’d be busy endowing an alternative school in the South Bronx, or leading an international campaign against land mines. So forget greed. Green is good.




Although this article is behind the times now. Scuppies are buying up farms in Vermont and talking about how adorable they look tending goats.