Though, Wolf, I don't know whether I'm buying this old saw

Jesus Christ and the American G.I. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

Ever notice how they always portray the US as liberating Europe--when it was the allies with Russia losing a generation of men. But still it is always exclusively framed as the American GI mythology. And that mythology is cynically used to keep the poor young signing up either for practical, economic reasons (which they are typically ultimately denied) or seduced by this illusion of fearless liberating heros--who, in essense are little more than cannon fodder for rich boy's riches.

My own father was bamboozled by this crap, enlisted, went to Korea-"Heartbreak Ridge" and saw for himself the barbaric lunacy. His best friend was blown up while he stood next to him and he carried the schrapnel from that explosion in his back 'til the day he died. He never talked of it, but re-lived it in his dreams while he was dying. He knew the score on US military adventures and was opposed to the Viet Nam war and wanted no military markers on his grave, as if it was something to honor.

The mythology and the actual sacrifices made by the men are two different things.

Most people don't expect the mythology to match the reality about America, and are not shocked and surprised when they don't. Most people think of the people when they think of America, not the government.

We betray an identification with the ruling class when we don't make this distinction. Blue collar people are loyal to the people and to the ideals of America, not to the government and the mythology. For educated people, groomed to be the palace guard for the ruling class, it comes as a shock and seems to be earth-shattering news that America does not live up to its ideals. For blue collar people, they know that the conflicts the government starts are "rich man's wars and poor man's fights." They know that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. They enlist and make sacrifices in spite of that.

Overcoming the myths about America is only an exciting and dramatic subject for a relatively small percentage of the population - those identifying with the ruling class.

people die for the mythology.

people die for the mythology.
No. No they don't. They would die for the country regardless of the mythology.

in Iraq, Mike.

in Iraq, Mike.
It wouldn't matter where, it wouldn't matter why. Rural people here don't enlist and serve because they agree with the policy - or even think about it - or because of any mythology about America.

Most people don't expect the mythology to match the reality about America, and are not shocked and surprised when they don't.
I'm not completely sure about that, Mike. I know there've been a number of Russians (and no doubt others) who actually went back after having come here believing the 'land of opportunity' propaganda. The reality was of course totally different, and they felt betrayed. They hadn't understood that it's a land of opportunity only for the already-wealthy or the totally-but-carefully unscrupulous.

in Iraq, Mike.
It wouldn't matter where, it wouldn't matter why. Rural people here don't enlist and serve because they agree with the policy - or even think about it - or because of any mythology about America.
You mean they know they're doing it for Cheney's profits?

You mean they know they're doing it for Cheney's profits?
Yes. Often they do, and more so than we do.

But whether they did or not, it wouldn't matter - in the context of serving their country, that is.

Raph and Mairead - I merely ask that you give this idea I am expressing a hearing, that's all. I am not trying to contradict what either of you are saying. I am bringing what I hear from people around here to the discussion as accurately as I can, not espousing my opinion or theory, and I am convinced that there is something they are saying that we aren't hearing, and that it would be very, very powerful if we did hear them.

You mean they know they're doing it for Cheney's profits?
Yes. Often they do, and more so than we do.

But whether they did or not, it wouldn't matter - in the context of serving their country, that is.

Raph and Mairead - I merely ask that you give this idea I am expressing a hearing, that's all. I am not trying to contradict what either of you are saying. I am bringing what I hear from people around here to the discussion as accurately as I can, not espousing my opinion or theory, and I am convinced that there is something they are saying that we aren't hearing, and that it would be very, very powerful if we did hear them.

The term you want is noble-sacrifice IMO, in all contexts including loss of life. Nathan Hale as a celebrated example: he wasn't foolish enough to not realize the implications of being a spy.

Its just another example of assigning ludicrous motives to people as a way to paint them as ignorant or inferior. No one would serve their country if they knew it was all a *lie*..would they?

I wrote somewhere else of my own father's experience, but they themselves are victimized by others who are cynical enough to use the idea of duty to a cause greater than themselves--service to country, a noble calling and all that to further their own gameplan. I really do think this needs to be addressed--it is where all that "support the troops" mentality comes from too--and it is left deliberately hazy so it continues to be exploited. I understand the sentiments behind it but I am losing patience to those who cling to it while being screwed-instead of turning on those who twist it to serve their own ends. When they got nuthin, at least they got their pride in being American. The bone thrown.

There is nothing honorable in the brute horror of war. That is the lesson my father learned. What the hell does honor, sacrifice or duty to country have to do with Zionist gameplans or oilwells?

No one would serve their country if they knew it was all a *lie*..would they?
Yes. Thank God.

Again, don't confuse "government" with "country." We are oriented to the upper class view of things. We see "country" as meaning "government" - in other words, we see "country" as meaning "ruling class" without realizing that we do. Then we are oh so shocked to discover that the ruling class ("country" we say) doesn't have our best interests at heart, and that what they are telling us is all a lie. Blue collar people listen to that and think "how can those supposedly smart people be so stupid?"

We are always talking, then, about fixing up the ruling class - or shaming them as in “speaking truth to power” or influencing them. All a fool's errand. Why should the average person give a shit about our opinion as to how the ruling class should act? What is in it for them? Nothing. If we were to talk about overthrowing he ruling class, on the other hand, we would discover that the ignorant people were already there far ahead of us. Until then, we all look like just another spoiled and pampered faction of ruling class shills. That is because that is what we a re.

To the people “country” mean the people and the ideals, not the ruling class or the government. They serve the people and the ideals, not the government or the ruling class. That is what they fight and die for. They already know – have known for generations – that what the ruling class says is all a lie. It only comes as a shock to those of us who have some degree of indoctrination in being shills for the ruling class.

We are steeped in the rhetoric, assumptions and the logic of the ruling class, and we are only dimly aware of that. That corrupts and sabotages any and all efforts to build a Leftist political movement. The people don't trust us, nor should they, so long as we speak for a faction of the ruling class.

When we confuse “country” for “government” that tips people off that we are speaking for the ruling class.

I wrote somewhere else of my own father's experience, but they themselves are victimized by others who are cynical enough to use the idea of duty to a cause greater than themselves--service to country, a noble calling and all that to further their own gameplan. I really do think this needs to be addressed--it is where all that "support the troops" mentality comes from too--and it is left deliberately hazy so it continues to be exploited. I understand the sentiments behind it but I am losing patience to those who cling to it while being screwed-instead of turning on those who twist it to serve their own ends. When they got nuthin, at least they got their pride in being American. The bone thrown.

There is nothing honorable in the brute horror of war. That is the lesson my father learned. What the hell does honor, sacrifice or duty to country have to do with Zionist gameplans or oilwells?
All true. Still missing a key piece of the picture, though.

We shouldn't mock duty, honor, self-sacrifice and patriotism.

The ruling class misuses those. Democrats and liberal activists are reluctant to attack the ruling class. So rather than accusing the ruling class of exploiting people's sense of duty, honor, self-sacrifice and patriotism, they attack the virtues themselves. That leads to a gross misunderstanding between the activists and the people and drives a wedge between us and them. The only way to make that false construct hold together is to see the average person as stupid and ignorant. Seeing them that way widens the gulf and increases the misunderstanding between us and them, and makes us completely useless and impotent and aligns us with the ruling class and turns our activism into promotion of interests of the ruling class.

They're not fighting for the people of the country, or freedom or to get the tewwowists who hate us for our freedoms. They ARE fighting and dying and killing for the ruling class. More so than ever.

They're not fighting for the people of the country, or freedom or to get the tewwowists who hate us for our freedoms. They ARE fighting and dying and killing for the ruling class. More so than ever.
They always are. They always have been. They have always known that.

Therefore we are spinning our wheels if we are not addressing the war in a much broader class struggle political context.

We might be shocked, we might find it to be dramatic and exciting to realize OMG the ruling class is screwing us!!! OMG the ruling class is feeding us bullshit!!!

We misconnect with the average person not because they are insufficiently radical about this, but rather because we are.

What seems radical to the house Negro is not any big news to the field Negro. The house Negro is still shocked to discover that massa isn't what he claimed to be. The house Negro is still thinking in terms of good masters or bad masters. "Look how bad this master is!! If only those field Negroes weren't so stupid and realized how bad master is and woke up, we could speak truth to master and get what we want!!"

Same master, different indoctrinations. The field Negro doesn't find anything surprising in our great revelations and enlightenment about master. The Field Negro doesn't think that anything we are saying will help him. He is right.

What the hell does honor, sacrifice or duty to country have to do with Zionist gameplans or oilwells?
Nothing. That doesn't matter. What does learning about Zionist gameplans and oilwells have to do with building a radical opposition movement? Nothing. That is only of interest to a few with the luxury of time and the skills to analyze things.

Are the house Negroes being radical if they say those field Negroes need to realize the historical underpinnings and political context and the theory of this or that and the other? “Oh those stupid field Negroes always being duped by master. If those field Negroes would stop being so stupid and stop working the fields for master, then we could have some change." Meanwhile we keep setting a nice table for master and washing his underwear. But we have the enlightened theory about it all!!

We need to realize that going into the military is not the only form, or even a very important form, of supporting the ruling class. We all do exactly the same thing all of the time, so we are way of-based when we try to project the whole mess onto those paying the highest price.

Let's say that the people in uniform are being duped, are killing people under false pretenses, and are stupid for doing so. So they are killers and stupid and complicit. But we are all doing far, far more valuable and essential service for the ruling class, and doing it with many more perks, and with much less personal risk. If the people in service are killers, then we are all guilty of hiring the killers and planning the killings. At least those who go to war take some of the personal risk.

You can't say they are hip to the master but still willing to die for the master because it is a matter of honor to country. It is not and as long as they are enslaved by that code they are in chains to the master. It is they who can not differentiate--and maybe they should. I am not interested in romanticizing the underclass, only in fairness- and they are screwing themselves as little more than cannon fodder while the chickenhawks squawk all the way to the bank. Think of the ruling class as British overlords and now ask--whose side are you on, anyway.

We misconnect with the average person not because they are insufficiently radical about this, but rather because we are.

What seems radical to the house Negro is not any big news to the field Negro. The house Negro is still shocked to discover that massa isn't what he claimed to be. The house Negro is still thinking in terms of good masters or bad masters. "Look how bad this master is!! If only those field Negroes weren't so stupid and realized how bad master is and woke up, we could speak truth to master and get what we want!!"

Same master, different indoctrinations. The field Negro doesn't find anything surprising in our great revelations and enlightenment about master. The Field Negro doesn't think that anything we are saying will help him. He is right.

Frighteningly apropos.

but I think what she and I are saying, Mike, is that if people know it's for Cheney's profits and they do it anyway, then there are only 2 possible explanations: they're willingly killing and dying to make Cheney wealthier...or they're doing it because of the 'dulce et decorum' mythology (and it is mythology, if what's really going on is Cheney's profits).

It's either for a base reason--money and power--or for some noble-but-non-referential idea such as 'love of country'. There aren't any other choices. Real or unreal, together those cover 100% of the possibilities

but I think what she and I are saying, Mike, is that if people know it's for Cheney's profits and they do it anyway, then there are only 2 possible explanations: they're willingly killing and dying to make Cheney wealthier...or they're doing it because of the 'dulce et decorum' mythology (and it is mythology, if what's really going on is Cheney's profits).

It's either for a base reason--money and power--or for some noble-but-non-referential idea such as 'love of country'. There aren't any other choices. Real or unreal, together those cover 100% of the possibilities


What's so unreal about the nobility of dying for one's country? It is most certainly real to the men and women willing to do so.
What makes a hero? Military training says this guy (http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2007/01/04/nyc_loves_subwa.php).

Note this comment of his At the City Hall press conference, Autrey said again that he wasn't a hero and said the real heroes are the young men and women fighting in Iraq.

Whatta fucking FOOL, right? Let me know how that goes for you politically.



I think raph has a pair o' hangers, btw. You might ask fer clarification ;)

Who is fighting for glory and sacrifice for their country? The US GI or the Iraqi tewwowist insurgent? Did the gestapo or the Nazi soldier just following orders fight for country and honor? When does it become a crime?

but I think what she and I are saying, Mike, is that if people know it's for Cheney's profits and they do it anyway, then there are only 2 possible explanations: they're willingly killing and dying to make Cheney wealthier...or they're doing it because of the 'dulce et decorum' mythology (and it is mythology, if what's really going on is Cheney's profits).

It's either for a base reason--money and power--or for some noble-but-non-referential idea such as 'love of country'. There aren't any other choices. Real or unreal, together those cover 100% of the possibilities
You are missing what I am saying.

Service is not a choice depending upon what Dick Cheney is doing. Nor should it be. We are responsible for Dick Cheney, not the people in uniform. They don't see service as something you pick and choose depending upon how you feel about the leaders.

What you are saying is a set up for blaming the grunts for Dick Cheney and letting Cheney - and us, as opposition activists - off the hook.

What's so unreal about the nobility of dying for one's country? It is most certainly real to the men and women willing to do so.
Does belief make it real? Or does it only make the person the victim of a delusion? That's really not an unimportant question! Is God on both sides? Or neither? How can anyone tell?


What makes a hero? Military training says this guy (http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2007/01/04/nyc_loves_subwa.php).

Note this comment of his At the City Hall press conference, Autrey said again that he wasn't a hero and said the real heroes are the young men and women fighting in Iraq.

Whatta fucking FOOL, right? Let me know how that goes for you politically.

The late psychiatrist Eric Berne had a little story he liked to tell to students. It was about a young man who lived with his widowed mum. One evening he came home all excited and told her he'd got a big promotion. She was ecstatic for him, made a big dinner, broke out the bottle of wine she'd been saving, and they celebrated. Finally, she asked him to tell her all about it. 'It was amazing, Mutti. I left home this morning a mere guard. Now I'm in charge of the ovens.'

Were they right to be happy about his promotion?

(Autrey is certainly a hero in my book. His disclaimer is merely a becoming modesty.)




I think raph has a pair o' hangers, btw. You might ask fer clarification ;)
er, what??

You can't say they are hip to the master but still willing to die for the master because it is a matter of honor to country. It is not and as long as they are enslaved by that code they are in chains to the master. It is they who can not differentiate--and maybe they should. I am not interested in romanticizing the underclass, only in fairness- and they are screwing themselves as little more than cannon fodder while the chickenhawks squawk all the way to the bank. Think of the ruling class as British overlords and now ask--whose side are you on, anyway.
They aren't dying for the master. They are dying for us.

We are the ones on the side of the British overlords, not the "cannon fodder." Can't you see that? We are the ones who can make a difference, they can't. We are the ones with "choices."

What if we established a socialist government here, and right wing fascists tried to overturn it. Should people then pick and choose how they felt about defending the country? The men and women in service are - and should be = apolitical about service to country. They will fight and die to protect socialism just as they do to protect Dick Cheney. Which of the two they are defending is up to us, not them. They are defending us. We chose Cheney. They will defend us no matter what we choose. And we did choose Cheney, dammit. Some voted for him. We, on the other hand, rolled over, or supported others who rolled over. We go about our lives la ti da hoping Cheney will go away. We hide behind fancy words – we have the right analysis, we are right and all of those knuckle draggers are wrong – rather than pay the price to go after Cheney. We cooperate. We excuse, We apologize for the system.

Anyone paying taxes is every bit as much culpable as those in uniform. Anyone playing the game and making their way and cooperating with the system is every bit as culpable as those in uniform.

You can't say they are hip to the master but still willing to die for the master because it is a matter of honor to country. It is not and as long as they are enslaved by that code they are in chains to the master. It is they who can not differentiate--and maybe they should. I am not interested in romanticizing the underclass, only in fairness- and they are screwing themselves as little more than cannon fodder while the chickenhawks squawk all the way to the bank. Think of the ruling class as British overlords and now ask--whose side are you on, anyway.
They aren't dying for the master. They are dying for us.

How can they be dying for us, Mike? We're not in danger. If A kills B because A has delusional disorder and believes that B is a CIA hit man about to blow up the world, is A a hero or only a very saddening, deluded man?

How can they be dying for us, Mike?
Because that is what they signed up to do.

They don't know that "we are not in danger" and it is not for them to decide that, anyway.

If they are being misled and exploited, that is our fault, as civilians, not their's.

First, let me say how good it is to be back amongst you'uns ("you'uns" the Southern Appalachian equivalent of the Deep South "y'all" and Brooklyn "youse," and therefore always plural).

Second, I think this may be the most important discussion we will ever have because it touches on all the issues implicit not only in the debate on strategy and tactics but the even larger question of correcting the demonstrable flaws in socialism and therefore the ultimate question of what is (and is not) possible.

Third, when the standard of class warfare is applied to military service -- not only was I once a soldier but seriously considered making a career of it -- what we experience in uniform is merely an extreme form of what we experience in the factory or the office: we serve our ruling class masters because we have no choice, though at least in the factory or the office we can (sometimes) form unions and thereby ameliorate the conditions of our servitude. It is absurd to condemn us for working for The Man when the only alternative is starvation.

Fourth (and here is the REAL reason I was ousted from both DU and PI), I will regard our political efforts as meaningful only when we are approached by organized labor and asked to function as their think tank: when that happens -- and only when it happens -- will I believe we can truly say we have earned the right to serve the working class. (This is an especially important point given that organized labor is finally awakening to the fact that capitalism cannot be reformed but must somehow be replaced.)

Fifth, as to why young men and women today risk their lives in the military, a survey I saw somewhere a couple of years ago showed that about 90 percent of today's enlistees signed up not out of some misguided sense of glory but out of the grim realization the associated educational stipends offered them their only possible path toward a college degree. (Indeed this is similar to the reason I enlisted in 1959: I had exhausted my college financial options, thus could not imagine I would ever be able to afford college -- in fact and entirely because of poverty, it took me until 1976 to earn even a BA -- and so I embraced the life of a soldier as far far better than anything else available to me at the time.) Hence I understand perfectly what motivates today's enlistees: remember that the United States is the only industrial nation in the world that does not provide universal free public education K through doctorate.

Sorry this is so hasty; today is a working day and I have to get on it ASAP, but goddess willing I'll be back this evening to continue our conversation.

How can they be dying for us, Mike?
Because that is what they signed up to do.

They don't know that "we are not in danger" and it is not for them to decide that, anyway.
It is for them to decide that, though. If they claim to be adults.

This is one of those things where we may have some problems, Mike. I can be sympathetic to the plight of someone who signs up for something because se's a trusting soul who believes what se's told by the ruling class. I can honor them for the part of their behavior that took courage, and the part where they showed compassion (if they did). But I'm not going to go along with the delusion that they're in the right or that they're doing it for me any more than I'm going to go along if they tell me that catastrophic climate change is a fraud and the earth was created 7K years ago. And if that keeps them from joining us, so be it.

This is one of those things where we may have some problems, Mike. I can be sympathetic to the plight of someone who signs up for something because se's a trusting soul who believes what se's told by the ruling class. I can honor them for the part of their behavior that took courage, and the part where they showed compassion (if they did). But I'm not going to go along with the delusion that they're in the right or that they're doing it for me any more than I'm going to go along if they tell me that catastrophic climate change is a fraud and the earth was created 7K years ago. And if that keeps them from joining us, so be it.
Most of the rabid support for the war comes from people sitting in comfort in their armchairs, and we should call them on that: those who, in the words of Lincoln, are "invincible in peace, but invisible in war." Their pro war position is in indirect proportion to their proximity to the battlefield, in other words. Don't confuse that with the simple respect that veterans deserve for their service and sacrifice.

You are asking something of the poor working class enlistee that we are ourselves unwilling to do. That is, take a stand against the ruling class. We have no oath to break. We have less excuse to not stand against the ruling class. But we aren't.

Or are we asking the poor soldier to stand against a particular policy, to spare us the sacrifices we would need to make here at home to change the policy by going to the root.

This is one of those things where we may have some problems, Mike. I can be sympathetic to the plight of someone who signs up for something because se's a trusting soul who believes what se's told by the ruling class. I can honor them for the part of their behavior that took courage, and the part where they showed compassion (if they did). But I'm not going to go along with the delusion that they're in the right or that they're doing it for me any more than I'm going to go along if they tell me that catastrophic climate change is a fraud and the earth was created 7K years ago. And if that keeps them from joining us, so be it.
Most of the rabid support for the war comes from people sitting in comfort in their armchairs, and we should call them on that: those who, in the words of Lincoln, are "invincible in peace, but invisible in war." Their pro war position is in indirect proportion to their proximity to the battlefield, in other words. Don't confuse that with the simple respect that veterans deserve for their service and sacrifice.

You are asking something of the poor working class enlistee that we are ourselves are unwilling to do. That is, take a stand against the ruling class. We have no oath to break. We have less excuse to not stand against the ruling class. But we aren't.

Or are we asking the poor soldier to stand against a particular policy, to spare us the sacrifices we would need to make here at home to change the policy by going to the root.
I don't think I/we are asking either one, Mike. I acknowledge economic necessity. That's legitimate--people have to eat. I took a job as a plainclothes warmonger (though I didn't realise it at the time) because of economic necessity.

What I'm saying is that if in order to sleep at night they need to lie to themselves about what they're doing, okay, but I'm not going to collude. Nobody colluded with me. I lived. I was an underclass kid--not working class, underclass--and had little more political consciousness than a head louse at that point in my life. The agency I worked for was/is not beloved by anyone, and I heard about that. And hearing about it, being forced to work my way through the contradictions, that's what put me on the road to where I am today.

So I'm saying that if they gotta do it, okay. They get credit for bravery, they get blessings for compassion, they get all the fixup we can give if they got wrecked -- but they don't get to hear (from me, at least) that it was a good idea or that I'm glad they went. They need to understand that their trust and idealism were abused by arseholes.

No one would serve their country if they knew it was all a *lie*..would they?
Yes. Thank God.

Again, don't confuse "government" with "country." We are oriented to the upper class view of things. We see "country" as meaning "government" - in other words, we see "country" as meaning "ruling class" without realizing that we do. Then we are oh so shocked to discover that the ruling class ("country" we say) doesn't have our best interests at heart, and that what they are telling us is all a lie. Blue collar people listen to that and think "how can those supposedly smart people be so stupid?"

We are always talking, then, about fixing up the ruling class - or shaming them as in “speaking truth to power” or influencing them. All a fool's errand. Why should the average person give a shit about our opinion as to how the ruling class should act? What is in it for them? Nothing. If we were to talk about overthrowing he ruling class, on the other hand, we would discover that the ignorant people were already there far ahead of us. Until then, we all look like just another spoiled and pampered faction of ruling class shills. That is because that is what we a re.

To the people “country” mean the people and the ideals, not the ruling class or the government. They serve the people and the ideals, not the government or the ruling class. That is what they fight and die for. They already know – have known for generations – that what the ruling class says is all a lie. It only comes as a shock to those of us who have some degree of indoctrination in being shills for the ruling class.

We are steeped in the rhetoric, assumptions and the logic of the ruling class, and we are only dimly aware of that. That corrupts and sabotages any and all efforts to build a Leftist political movement. The people don't trust us, nor should they, so long as we speak for a faction of the ruling class.

When we confuse “country” for “government” that tips people off that we are speaking for the ruling class.

I agree 100%, my question was my (lame) attempt at being sardonic

...they don't get to hear (from me, at least) that it was a good idea or that I'm glad they went.
Going into the service was not a good idea? Not sure what you mean here.

They need to understand that their trust and idealism were abused by arseholes.
Why? We don't ask that of ourselves. We comply. We go along. We compromiose. We adjust to society. Isn't our trust and idealism being abused by arseholes? We are telling them that they need to understand that. What about us? What do we need to do?

I agree 100%, my question was my (lame) attempt at being sardonic
Oh. :oops:

Missed that.

@Maidread: so I guess the question is who you intend to work with, who you are working for, and why.

If you propose to only accept those who share your particular enlightened outlook, you are leaving out most of rural America. Newswolf is right of course, many of the 'volunteers' are looking for money for college but its serious business and they don't get much choice in the matter, do they?

If it is unconscionable to work *with* those people, then are we working *for* them in spite of how objectionable we find them? If so why? Why not just prep as much as you can and wait for this whole thing to collapse? Ecologically, economically, nuclear devastation, whichever comes first.

I mean, Raph says Kuchinich's actions and positions are unconscionable and you say "yeah, but..", so I don't see your distinction here

...they don't get to hear (from me, at least) that it was a good idea or that I'm glad they went.
Going into the service was not a good idea? Not sure what you mean here.
Going abroad to kill and maim innocent people at the behest of arseholes is what's not a good idea. It wouldn't be if I were doing it (and wasn't when I did, albeit by proxy, do it) and it's not a good idea when someone else does it. I have to live with having been an instrument of imperialism even though I never personally shot or even threatened anyone and hardly ever carried a weapon at work. But I served US imperialism in Vietnam and globally. I contributed to the killing done by others. All my life I will remember that. Not with shame--I acted out of exactly the personal motives we're talking about, and they were good motives--but with sadness, anger, and regret that I wasn't smart or aware enough not to be used in the service of keeping despicable people rich in power and money.



They need to understand that their trust and idealism were abused by arseholes.
Why? We don't ask that of ourselves. We comply. We go along. We compromiose. We adjust to society. Isn't our trust and idealism being abused by arseholes? We are telling them that they need to understand that. What about us? What do we need to do?
I presume that's a rhetorical question, because of course we're being abused by arseholes. And our job is broadly the same as anyone else's: understand what's happening, get out from under, and turn the tables on the arseholes.

@Maidread: so I guess the question is who you intend to work with, who you are working for, and why.

If you propose to only accept those who share your particular enlightened outlook, you are leaving out most of rural America. Newswolf is right of course, many of the 'volunteers' are looking for money for college but its serious business and they don't get much choice in the matter, do they?

If it is unconscionable to work *with* those people, then are we working *for* them in spite of how objectionable we find them? If so why? Why not just prep as much as you can and wait for this whole thing to collapse? Ecologically, economically, nuclear devastation, whichever comes first.

I mean, Raph says Kuchinich's actions and positions are unconscionable and you say "yeah, but..", so I don't see your distinction here
Go back and re-read the response where I mentioned having been a plainclothes warmonger myself.

but it is an interesting discussion that I looked forward to logging on this morning to follow.

Important point:


It is absurd to condemn us for working for The Man when the only alternative is starvation...

...Fifth, as to why young men and women today risk their lives in the military, a survey I saw somewhere a couple of years ago showed that about 90 percent of today's enlistees signed up not out of some misguided sense of glory but out of the grim realization the associated educational stipends offered them their only possible path toward a college degree. (Indeed this is similar to the reason I enlisted in 1959: I had exhausted my college financial options, thus could not imagine I would ever be able to afford college -- in fact and entirely because of poverty, it took me until 1976 to earn even a BA -- and so I embraced the life of a soldier as far far better than anything else available to me at the time.) Hence I understand perfectly what motivates today's enlistees: remember that the United States is the only industrial nation in the world that does not provide universal free public education K through doctorate.


Last night, while I was sitting on the bridge between states, I heard the first story reported on NPR news on the hour--I guess it was Greenspan's replacement claiming that "ENTITLEMENT"(listen to the languge)programs--social security & medicaid-- were the dark threatening cloud gathering on the horizon and threatening to crush the US under a terrifying future bleak economy crumbling..How many trillions can the Pentagon not account for--that Rumsfeld literally shrugged off and there was no accountability? How many billions have been spent on this war with the cynical justification that we must support the troops? Ironically enough, the next story reported was that the Pentagon had a manual for accusing terrorists based on heresy and unsubstantiated claims.

Ah, the military-Industrial complex sets up the dynamic that eliminates all options as "entitlements" leaving the military as the escape hatch for those without the resources and connections to pave their way. And when the time comes the military, like the insurance companies will seek any loophole to re-nig on the deal.

They aren't dying for the master. They are dying for us.

We are the ones on the side of the British overlords, not the "cannon fodder." Can't you see that? We are the ones who can make a difference, they can't. We are the ones with "choices."

... We chose Cheney. They will defend us no matter what we choose. And we did choose Cheney, dammit. Some voted for him. We, on the other hand, rolled over, or supported others who rolled over. We go about our lives la ti da hoping Cheney will go away. We hide behind fancy words – we have the right analysis, we are right and all of those knuckle draggers are wrong – rather than pay the price to go after Cheney. We cooperate. We excuse, We apologize for the system.


Can't you see that? We are the ones who can make a difference, they can't. We are the ones with "choices."

So, what you are saying here is that they are just little stupid children who don't know any better? It WAS NOT us who voted in Cheney--more likely it was THEM, Mike because they were so stupid and gullible and easily seduced in their misery and ignorance to buy into the whole flag waving festooned-gotta-get-the- tewwowist, good ol'boy have a beer with Bush, god & country, yellow magnet unity 911 WMDs pablum spoon-fed them. It's our fault? Us, who were accused of being un-patriotic supporters on bin Laden. C'mon.
You, on one hand, can't claim they know better, and then claim they don't.

Last night, while I was sitting on the bridge between states, I heard the first story reported on NPR news on the hour--I guess it was Greenspan's replacement claiming that "ENTITLEMENT"(listen to the languge)programs--social security & medicaid-- were the dark threatening cloud gathering on the horizon and threatening to crush the US under a terrifying future bleak economy crumbling..How many trillions can the Pentagon not account for--that Rumsfeld literally shrugged off and there was no accountability? How many billions have been spent on this war with the cynical justification that we must support the troops? Ironically enough, the next story reported was that the Pentagon had a manual for accusing terrorists based on heresy and unsubstantiated claims.

Ah, the military-Industrial complex sets up the dynamic that eliminates all options as "entitlements" leaving the military as the escape hatch for those without the resources and connections to pave their way. And when the time comes the military, like the insurance companies will seek any loophole to re-nig on the deal.
Right on, Raph. Talk about cooking the books, those bastards never do anything but. They lie endlessly, and without the slightest shame or regret. Psychopaths, the whole boiling of them.

So, what you are saying here is that they are just little stupid children who don't know any better? It WAS NOT us who voted in Cheney--more likely it was THEM, Mike because they were so stupid and gullible and easily seduced in their misery and ignorance to buy into the whole flag waving festooned-gotta-get-the- tewwowist, good ol'boy have a beer with Bush, god & country, yellow magnet unity 911 WMDs pablum spoon-fed them. It's our fault? Us, who were accused of being un-patriotic supporters on bin Laden. C'mon.

You, on one hand, can't claim they know better, and then claim they don't.
Should we insist on this context, I am not seeing how we we differ in any meaningful way from the Democratic party, the Green Party, DU or PI.

If the problem is all of these people you are describing here - the stupid ones - then we should just work within the Democratic party. The solution to the problem, if it is as you describe it, would be an aristocracy of more enlightened and intelligent people, and the Democratic party offers opportunity to work for that.

So, what you are saying here is that they are just little stupid children who don't know any better? It WAS NOT us who voted in Cheney--more likely it was THEM, Mike because they were so stupid and gullible and easily seduced in their misery and ignorance to buy into the whole flag waving festooned-gotta-get-the- tewwowist, good ol'boy have a beer with Bush, god & country, yellow magnet unity 911 WMDs pablum spoon-fed them. It's our fault? Us, who were accused of being un-patriotic supporters on bin Laden. C'mon.

You, on one hand, can't claim they know better, and then claim they don't.
Should we insist on this context, I am not seeing how we we differ in any meaningful way from the Democratic party, the Green Party, DU or PI.

If the problem is all of these people you are describing here - the stupid ones - then we should just work within the Democratic party. The solution to the problem, if it is as you describe it, would be an aristocracy of more enlightened and intelligent people, and the Democratic party offers opportunity to work for that.

I'm not reading Raph's comment the same way you are, Mike. She's not saying they're stupid, she's saying that you portray them as stupid (or at least not based in the same reality we here seem to share). She's saying they're not stupid, they're ill-advised at best, psychopathic arseholes at worst.

I'd think the Colorado cartoonist Chuck Asay might be a good avatar for them. He is a very good cartoonist, but the way he construes events in the world is sometimes completely disconnected from anything I can recognise as reality.

I'm not reading Raph's comment the same way you are, Mike. She's not saying they're stupid, she's saying that you portray them as stupid (or at least not based in the same reality we here seem to share). She's saying they're not stupid, they're ill-advised at best, psychopathic arseholes at worst.

Raph said that “It WAS NOT us who voted in Cheney--more likely it was THEM” and that “they were so stupid and gullible and easily seduced in their misery and ignorance to buy into the whole flag waving festooned-gotta-get-the- tewwowist, good ol'boy have a beer with Bush, god & country, yellow magnet unity 911 WMDs pablum spoon-fed them.”

That is one way to look at it. It is a dead end. There is no next step, other than work within the Democratic party (analyzing the problem the way Raph did is exactly the way the Democrats look at it) .

Setting this trap up is what we are guilty of doing. While our role in the mechanism is supposedly “no, no, no we didn't vote for Bush. We are the against-Bush people” but that is just an illusion. Divide and conquer is what is really happening. Playing a safe and circumscribed role of “being against” as we wash our hands of responsibility and point the finger of blame over there – at half of our fellow citizens - is the prime way that we support and defend the ruling class.

I'm not reading Raph's comment the same way you are, Mike. She's not saying they're stupid, she's saying that you portray them as stupid (or at least not based in the same reality we here seem to share). She's saying they're not stupid, they're ill-advised at best, psychopathic arseholes at worst.

Raph said that “It WAS NOT us who voted in Cheney--more likely it was THEM” and that “they were so stupid and gullible and easily seduced in their misery and ignorance to buy into the whole flag waving festooned-gotta-get-the- tewwowist, good ol'boy have a beer with Bush, god & country, yellow magnet unity 911 WMDs pablum spoon-fed them.”

That is one way to look at it. It is a dead end. There is no next step, other than work within the Democratic party (analyzing the problem the way Raph did is exactly the way the Democrats look at it) .

Setting this trap up is what we are guilty of doing. While our role in the mechanism is supposedly “no, no, no we didn't vote for Bush. We are the against-Bush people” but that is just an illusion. Divide and conquer is what is really happening. Playing a safe and circumscribed role of “being against” as we wash our hands of responsibility and point the finger of blame over there – at half of our fellow citizens - is the prime way that we support and defend the ruling class.
Okay, you make a good point about d&c. Divide and conquer is their Number One Ichi-ban Favorite Strategy for sure. So where does that leave us? We have to agree that someone who shoots dead a tired ER doctor who didn't stop at a checkpoint is a noble defender of our freedom? I suspect I'd spend too much of my time sicking up to do much other political work.

The right wing propagandists, in service of the ruling class, want us to believe that their extreme views represent 50% of the population. They want us to think they own all of those people.

If we blame the yellow magnet beer swilling WalMart shopping people we are confirming and endorsing the right wing propaganda. We are saying that yes, the right wingers do own them. We are setting up a context that precludes any possibility of a successful Leftist political movement.

What we are doing there is herding - driving - half of the population right over into the arms of the right wingers. And for what? So we can think our hands are clean? So we can be the smart ones as opposed to the stupid ones? So we can say "don't blame me I didn't vote for them" as we watch the world destroyed? On what planet will we be having the self-congratulatory conversations? "Well we warned those stupid humans, but they destroyed the planet. We were right, but they wouldn't listen to us."

The right wing propagandists, in service of the ruling class, want us to believe that their extreme views represent 50% of the population. They want us to think they own all of those people.

If we blame the yellow magnet beer swilling WalMart shopping people we are confirming and endorsing the right wing propaganda. We are saying that yes, the right wingers do own them. We are setting up a context that precludes any possibility of a successful Leftist political movement.
Talk to me about the people who think BushCo is swell, and the guy who casually shot dead the ER doctor is a hero. Talk to me about how we relate to them.

I'd really like you all to answer the question I posed to PPLE about that little story of Dr Berne's: were the people in the story right to celebrate the promotion?

Though I find the story rather strawmannish, I will say they were right precisely to the degree I am happy about an upcoming commission check.

No sinner is more heinous than another.

We are complicit. We cannot help but be complicit in the murderous game set up by the capitalists.

We are no less complicit than one of those idiotic flag waver soldiers.

We forget that out our own peril, the peril of irrelevancy.

the people who think BushCo is swell is a pretty small crowd.

You cannot relate to someone humanly if their politics bother you?

Do those people not face the same financial stress we do? Are they less concerned with fairness and honesty?

Sure, some people are just rabidly tryin' to get their "side" to win, arguing nothing but ad hominem. But those are followers, not leaders or culture makers. They'll rabidly advocate for whatever power structure talks to them the most. They are not really too germaine to the way forward. But most people are as interested in fairness and honesty and decency as the next person. I find those very relatable qualities.

The right wing propagandists, in service of the ruling class, want us to believe that their extreme views represent 50% of the population. They want us to think they own all of those people.

If we blame the yellow magnet beer swilling WalMart shopping people we are confirming and endorsing the right wing propaganda. We are saying that yes, the right wingers do own them. We are setting up a context that precludes any possibility of a successful Leftist political movement.
Talk to me about the people who think BushCo is swell, and the guy who casually shot dead the ER doctor is a hero. Talk to me about how we relate to them.
No such thing. There is no class of people called "think Bushco is swell." It just isn't that simple.

I'd really like you all to answer the question I posed to PPLE about that little story of Dr Berne's: were the people in the story right to celebrate the promotion?
I wasn't sure how you were applying it to the discussion. I didn't see a connection.

We have to agree that someone who shoots dead a tired ER doctor who didn't stop at a checkpoint is a noble defender of our freedom?
Not sure what that is about. How do you think that applies to what we are discussing?

Can't you see that? We are the ones who can make a difference, they can't. We are the ones with "choices."

So, what you are saying here is that they are just little stupid children who don't know any better? It WAS NOT us who voted in Cheney--more likely it was THEM, Mike because they were so stupid and gullible and easily seduced in their misery and ignorance to buy into the whole flag waving festooned-gotta-get-the- tewwowist, good ol'boy have a beer with Bush, god & country, yellow magnet unity 911 WMDs pablum spoon-fed them. It's our fault? Us, who were accused of being un-patriotic supporters on bin Laden. C'mon.

You, on one hand, can't claim they know better, and then claim they don't.
Would it be elitist to assign the fastest typist to put together a newsletter? To ask the strongest person to move the dresser?

Saying that there are different skills from one person to the next is not say that those with some skills are superior. I didn't say that we were better.

You are describing some cartoonish caricature of the people. I hear the suave pundits on NPR describing the people that way - NASCAR dads, and soccer moms, etc. I think they are wrong. I know they are wrong. Their stance is an elitist one - “here in New York we just can't make heads or tails of those hillbillies out there.” So they develop entertaining and inflammatory stereotypes. They don't have a clue. They have a built in ruling class bias in all of their thinking. There commentary just reeks of condescension and superiority.

The people you are talking about are just people. It isn't "romanticizing" them to say that. Romanticizing them is not the only alternative to questioning the usefulness of the persistent and derogatory stereotype. They are not a monolithic group. Setting up these groups of good guys and bad guys is all a product of a divide and conquer strategy by the ruling class.

Republican voters are no better and no worse than Democratic voters.

They are not a monolithic group. Setting up these groups of good guys and bad guys is all a product of a divide and conquer strategy by the ruling class.

Republican voters are no better and no worse than Democratic voters.

But those Republinazis hate fags like me. At least my friends the Dems *act* like they will do something for me politically. If I was still the sort who goes cruising, I would be picking up trade among the Republicans more easily than among the Dems.

I want my rights!

Waa Waa

What were we talking about again?

Oh Yeah - CLASS.

One more time, what class are these evil morons who wave flags, shoot guns, and believe the teevee?

I'm happy to work on projects of mutual benefit with people with whom I otherwise disagree. That's not the issue, nor has it ever been.

The issue, as I've repeatedly said, is that I'm not willing to 'go along to get along'.

I'm not willing to agree with the idea that BushCo is saving the country or that the guy who shot that doctor dead and walked away was just doing his job and deserves praise for that or that terminal climate change (thanks Wolf--have you ever thought of becoming a writer? :lol:) is a left-wing fraud, et lengthy cetera.

I have the itchy feeling that 'go along' is a subtext here. I keep asking about it in different ways, and I keep not getting an answer back.

That's part of why I brought up Berne's little litmus test. My politics are very simple and easy to lay out: live and let live. Don't interfere with people who are doing no harm, and, if possible, stop those who do want to interfere with them. So my answer to my question is: no, they shouldn't have been celebrating. Being a success in a pathological environment is not a cause for rejoicing and should not be a career goal for anyone aspiring to be human. (Berne's answer was the same, and for broadly the same reasons)

So let's get it on the table one way or the other: if someone comes up and says they want to work with us to overthrow the Dem Party and [this is a enumerative 'and', not a causal] preserve US Capitalism's hegemony....how do we respond, 'welcome', 'get lost', or something else ?

The issue, as I've repeatedly said, is that I'm not willing to 'go along to get along'.

I'm not willing to agree with the idea that BushCo is saving the country or that the guy who shot that doctor dead and walked away was just doing his job and deserves praise for that or that terminal climate change is a left-wing fraud, et lengthy cetera.
Well, either we are refusing to answer, or what you suspect isn't there. I don't know who is trying to get you to agree to those things.

I don't know how you are getting the idea that I am suggesting going along to get along, so I can't really respond to it.

to the elitism of the "it's up to us, they don't know any better" kind of assumption.

The issue, as I've repeatedly said, is that I'm not willing to 'go along to get along'.

I'm not willing to agree with the idea that BushCo is saving the country or that the guy who shot that doctor dead and walked away was just doing his job and deserves praise for that or that terminal climate change is a left-wing fraud, et lengthy cetera.
Well, either we are refusing to answer, or what you suspect isn't there. I don't know who is trying to get you to agree to those things.

I don't know how you are getting the idea that I am suggesting going along to get along, so I can't really respond to it.


So if someone comes up and says they want to work with us to overthrow the Dem Party and [this is a enumerative 'and', not a causal] preserve US Capitalism's hegemony....how do we respond, 'welcome', 'get lost', or something else ?

The issue, as I've repeatedly said, is that I'm not willing to 'go along to get along'.

I'm not willing to agree with the idea that BushCo is saving the country or that the guy who shot that doctor dead and walked away was just doing his job and deserves praise for that or that terminal climate change is a left-wing fraud, et lengthy cetera.
Well, either we are refusing to answer, or what you suspect isn't there. I don't know who is trying to get you to agree to those things.

I don't know how you are getting the idea that I am suggesting going along to get along, so I can't really respond to it.


So if someone comes up and says they want to work with us to overthrow the Dem Party and [this is a enumerative 'and', not a causal] preserve US Capitalism's hegemony....how do we respond, 'welcome', 'get lost', or something else ?

I would hope this never becomes a get lost environment.

I would hope this never becomes a get lost environment.
Okay, so if you're ruling out 'get lost' (are you?) then what would your answer be? I'm not trying to give anyone a hard time, I'm only trying to calibrate my expectations. Do we say 'welcome' and mean it, 'welcome' but have our fingers crossed, or equivocate, or be forthright and say something like 'we're good with the overthrow the Dems part, but the evidence shows Capitalism to be species suicide in a shrinkwrapped box and we're committed to replacing it'?

'we're good with the overthrow the Dems part, but the evidence shows Capitalism to be species suicide in a shrinkwrapped box and we're committed to replacing it'

I like that bunches!

For my part, I am hopeful the pop indy site can be a place for people who are committed and active in their local community to compare notes and discuss important topics while also becoming a resource for relevant information.

But for this place to be anything at all, it will have to have a means of dicsussing things which does not lead to breakdowns, censorship and division. We can control the discourse or we can control the membership. I believe the former is the right way to go.

By controlling the discourse, I do not mean controlling the discussion content. Rather, I mean avoiding the circular firing squad by have a deliberative process in play with clear goals.

So far here, I am not yet seeing sustained discussion of this or of site architecture.

So if someone comes up and says they want to work with us to overthrow the Dem Party and [this is a enumerative 'and', not a causal] preserve US Capitalism's hegemony....how do we respond, 'welcome', 'get lost', or something else ?

The overthrow-corporate-tyranny/preserve-capitalism contradiction is one of the self-nullifying constructions that paralyze the U.S. electorate, all the more politically obstructive in that it is undoubtedly the majority opinion whether Republican or Democratic. The way around it -- precisely as demonstrated by the entire history of Leftist agitation -- is patience. In other words, if someone approaches us from the (vastly typical) viewpoint you describe, the only response is a conditional (but no less warm) welcome predicated on the high probability (as demonstrated by the U.S. Civil Rights Movement) that involvement will lead directly to more complete knowledge of socioeconomic truth (including class struggle) and thus to further radicalization. An important aspect of this is ignoring party labels: Mike and I both know working-class rural Republicans who are far more instinctively socialist than even the most politically "correct" bourgeois Democrats.

But those Republinazis hate fags like me. At least my friends the Dems *act* like they will do something for me politically.

The ultimate example of Democratic hypocrisy on matters of sexual freedom is the Democratic claim to be "pro-choice" when reproductive choice in the United States (due to the fact we are the only industrial nation without universal health care) is entirely a matter of socioeconomic status; thus the Democrats' consistent votes for the methodical impoverishment of the American worker via NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, WTO etc. are as methodical a denial of reproductive choice as any anti-abortion edict, all the more so since the wealth of the ruling class and its servants in the bourgeoisie will always guarantee access to abortions and birth control even if they are made illegal.

Democratic weaseling on homosexual marriage is another hypocrisy of the same order. While it is true the Republican Party has very deliberately resurrected the American penchant for homophobic violence, this was never anything but predictable because the GOP has been the nation's defacto fascist party since its alliance with the Ku Klux Klan (which began in the 1920s) and its unabashed support for the German Nazis during the 1930s, which lasted until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. But the Democrats have done far worse: pretended to enthusiastically support gay and lesbian rights even as they work to undermine them: note for example Clinton's don't-ask/don't tell policy, tantamount to telling African Americans that as long as they pass for white, they won't be discriminated against.

You can't say they are hip to the master but still willing to die for the master because it is a matter of honor to country. It is not and as long as they are enslaved by that code they are in chains to the master. It is they who can not differentiate--and maybe they should. I am not interested in romanticizing the underclass, only in fairness- and they are screwing themselves as little more than cannon fodder while the chickenhawks squawk all the way to the bank. Think of the ruling class as British overlords and now ask--whose side are you on, anyway.
Your analysis is correct, more or less, but not of any particular value. You are taking one side in a fight between two factions of the ruling class, and misunderstanding the working class.

Both are true – many blue collar people are motivated by patriotism and noble ideals, see service as a willingness to protect and defend the “:country” - that being defined as family, friends and neighbors – while at the same time actually being used in the service of the ruling class, and knowing and living with that contradiction. That contradiction does not only exist in militarily service, it exists in all facets of modern American society.

It is woefully inadequate to merely point out that contradiction, and very weak to see it only in certain areas of society, in this case military service.