My working plan for this blog is to go around in circles, treating in order the topics I put out there in the very first post: the "both and" topic (that we must generally strive to respect both individual and economic rights and liberties, as exemplified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and also in FDR's proposed second Bill of Rights); the importance of unions; the need to have more voices and parties represented in the national dialogue (beyond two parties); the urgent need to abolish coroporate personhood; the case for the abolition of money; and finally, anarchism. Also part of the working plan is to have a post following the completion of each cycle for a general topic, reflection, book report, or whatever, before returning to the cycle of topics for one more round.
The last post was that "wild card" post, a book report on Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine," the reading of which was the main stimulus for this blog.
This post should represent a return to the cycle, and specifically to the "both and" topic. Somewhat providentially, a friend recommended a book which seems to be on point with further consideration of the values of the Universal Declaration and of Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights. The book recommended by Ronnie Rodriquez, is "The Spirit Level" by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. Today's post is not exactly a book report, because I just got the book from the library and have barely begun reading it. But I'm already quite excited by briefly skimming its contents and getting a general sense of what the authors are up to. Wilkinson and Pickett are MEDICAL researchers, and this book is their report on extensive researches into the effects of social inequality on health and happiness. Their conclusion is present in the subtitle of the book: "Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger"
Intuitively, this makes sense to me, but it feels good, REALLY good, to pick up a book that suggests that there may be fairly hard empirical evidence confirming that this is the case.
I'll probably post a full report down the line once I've read and digested "The Spirit Level." In the meantime I hope some of you reading this blog will check out the book as well. Thanks for the suggestion, Ronnie. http://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Level-Equality-Societies-Stronger/dp/1608193411/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374819536&sr=1-1&keywords=the+spirit+level
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Book Report: "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein
"This blog is my political activity. I am making it because I don't want to feel helpless and overpowered, and because I don't just want to sit on the sidelines and watch others work." That was how I began this blog in April. The stimulus to those words, and this blog, was Naomi Klein's profound and scary 2007 book, The Shock Doctrine, subtitled The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.
Throughout my adult life my heart has belonged to the left and to progressive causes and the progressive mind-set; but I have, excepting a few marches, letters to the editor, and a radio call-in or two, been a passive sideliner who voted Democrat at election time. I have been a passive sideliner, because of a pretty deeply ingrained sense of helplessness. The Shock Doctrine really did SHOCK me: it showed me WHY I have felt helpless, and WHY I resigned myself to helplessness. The Shock Doctrine convinced me moreover that there are people out there who want people like me to feel helpless and stay on the sidelines. The book has convinced me that the people who want people like me on the sidelines know just how to make people like me feel helpless and behave passively, and that they actively work to create these feelings, and they actively work to keep us feeling that way and on the sidelines.
When I realized this, I became angry, and at the same time, almost instantly, I didn't feel helpless anymore. I resolved that from this point forward I was going to find ways to speak up, and be active, and learn, and agitate, and look for kindred spirits, and change the way things are. And that's where NOT ONLY THE FUTURE came from.
The argument of Klein's book is that for a long time there has been a strategy--NOT a conspiracy, a strategy--to exploit the "shock and awe" of disasters, natural like tsunamis or human-inflicted like wars, to advance the cause of unfettered free-market capitalism. Klein's argument is nuanced, complex, and rests on a lot of detailed study of different examples of the Shock Doctrine's implementation over the last thirty-five years.
http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372400750&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Shock+Doctrine
A nutshell summation of the book's arguments are provided in Michael Winterbottom's film of the same title, which can be streamed here: http://www.amazon.com/The-Shock-Doctrine/dp/B006GUW718/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1372401225&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Shock+Doctrine
Klein has distanced herself from the film, and I would caution viewers that what the book is about does NOT lend itself to being put in a nutshell, so the movie is no substitute for a careful reading of the book itself.
The most brilliant section of The Shock Doctrine for me is Chapter 12, "The Capitalist Id," which is essentially a capitalist critique of capitalism, making the point that capitalist system ceases to work very well (or at least ceases to work well for more than a very few), once the system itself has no real competition.
Throughout my adult life my heart has belonged to the left and to progressive causes and the progressive mind-set; but I have, excepting a few marches, letters to the editor, and a radio call-in or two, been a passive sideliner who voted Democrat at election time. I have been a passive sideliner, because of a pretty deeply ingrained sense of helplessness. The Shock Doctrine really did SHOCK me: it showed me WHY I have felt helpless, and WHY I resigned myself to helplessness. The Shock Doctrine convinced me moreover that there are people out there who want people like me to feel helpless and stay on the sidelines. The book has convinced me that the people who want people like me on the sidelines know just how to make people like me feel helpless and behave passively, and that they actively work to create these feelings, and they actively work to keep us feeling that way and on the sidelines.
When I realized this, I became angry, and at the same time, almost instantly, I didn't feel helpless anymore. I resolved that from this point forward I was going to find ways to speak up, and be active, and learn, and agitate, and look for kindred spirits, and change the way things are. And that's where NOT ONLY THE FUTURE came from.
The argument of Klein's book is that for a long time there has been a strategy--NOT a conspiracy, a strategy--to exploit the "shock and awe" of disasters, natural like tsunamis or human-inflicted like wars, to advance the cause of unfettered free-market capitalism. Klein's argument is nuanced, complex, and rests on a lot of detailed study of different examples of the Shock Doctrine's implementation over the last thirty-five years.
http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372400750&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Shock+Doctrine
A nutshell summation of the book's arguments are provided in Michael Winterbottom's film of the same title, which can be streamed here: http://www.amazon.com/The-Shock-Doctrine/dp/B006GUW718/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1372401225&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Shock+Doctrine
Klein has distanced herself from the film, and I would caution viewers that what the book is about does NOT lend itself to being put in a nutshell, so the movie is no substitute for a careful reading of the book itself.
The most brilliant section of The Shock Doctrine for me is Chapter 12, "The Capitalist Id," which is essentially a capitalist critique of capitalism, making the point that capitalist system ceases to work very well (or at least ceases to work well for more than a very few), once the system itself has no real competition.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
ANARCHISM
I identify as an anarchist, but admit that I'm very much a beginning student. I've found the Anarchist FAQ online to be enormously informative and thought-provoking, but I have only scratched its surface. http://www.infoshop.org/AnAnarchistFAQ
Here's an introductory pass at what I mean (and don't mean) when I say "anarchism." Anarchy is a situation freed of hierarchies, in which power relations between people are as equal as can possibly be made. Anarchy is an ideal, and not an ideal to be realized in a mechanical, or a mechanically purist way. Some authority relationships are very hard to dispense with. As a parent and a teacher I have found myself in situations where I've reluctantly had to impose my authority, and in other situations where I caught myself enjoying my position of being able to call the shots, or anxiously clinging to the reins in fear of what would happen if I sought a more democratic way to approach a particular problem.
Another basic ideal of anarchism is the faith that human beings, freed of fear and coercion, will ultimately do the right thing. I have this faith, though I know that fears and coercions run deep; that they are not just imposed externally, and that there is much teaching and healing and re-framing to be done before this ideal becomes concretely real.
Henry David Thoreau opens his "Essay on Civil Disobedience" as follows: "I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — 'That government is best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — 'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have." "When men are prepared for it" is the wise, key phrase in all of that. Preparing for it entails struggles and education both inward and outward: the leveling of power structures in work, government, school and family; and the building within of a responsible, compassionate, gracious and noble human individual.
The freeing of trade, of markets, and of trusting the invisible hand, have nothing to do with anarchism. That is because markets and predatory businessmen are the only things that end up being "free" in a "free market." The neo-liberal economics of Milton Friedman and his followers create hierarchies and reinforce power relationships between people; they do not abolish them.
Free improvised music has been an environment in which I've felt something like real and functioning anarchy: mutual respect and trust between musicians as we make something together with no leaders. Another musical situation that has given an experience of a different sort of anarchy is in performing certain ensemble scores of John Cage. Many of Cage's compositions involved his giving up many of the intentions traditionally imposed by a composer. He would also allow freedoms to performers not customarily assumed. There is an experience playing such a score of discovery, of intensified responsibility, of exhilarating surprise, that all feel connected to the relative leveling of hierarchies among and between performers and composer.
I grew up in a very very small town. There was no mayor or city council or police. I remember few crimes or trouble requiring the sheriff be called. In emergencies, people would figure out what to do. There was a volunteer fire department, and my mother, a registered nurse, would step up to be the equivalent of the town doctor when needed. There would be differences of opinion, and these could sometimes be tense, but it still feels to me that it made a whole lot of difference in how that community functioned, that we all had the luxury of actually knowing by face and name everyone living in or around town. Relatively, this was anarchy.
More about anarchy and anarchism in future posts. Thanks again for reading.
Here's an introductory pass at what I mean (and don't mean) when I say "anarchism." Anarchy is a situation freed of hierarchies, in which power relations between people are as equal as can possibly be made. Anarchy is an ideal, and not an ideal to be realized in a mechanical, or a mechanically purist way. Some authority relationships are very hard to dispense with. As a parent and a teacher I have found myself in situations where I've reluctantly had to impose my authority, and in other situations where I caught myself enjoying my position of being able to call the shots, or anxiously clinging to the reins in fear of what would happen if I sought a more democratic way to approach a particular problem.
Another basic ideal of anarchism is the faith that human beings, freed of fear and coercion, will ultimately do the right thing. I have this faith, though I know that fears and coercions run deep; that they are not just imposed externally, and that there is much teaching and healing and re-framing to be done before this ideal becomes concretely real.
Henry David Thoreau opens his "Essay on Civil Disobedience" as follows: "I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — 'That government is best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — 'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have." "When men are prepared for it" is the wise, key phrase in all of that. Preparing for it entails struggles and education both inward and outward: the leveling of power structures in work, government, school and family; and the building within of a responsible, compassionate, gracious and noble human individual.
The freeing of trade, of markets, and of trusting the invisible hand, have nothing to do with anarchism. That is because markets and predatory businessmen are the only things that end up being "free" in a "free market." The neo-liberal economics of Milton Friedman and his followers create hierarchies and reinforce power relationships between people; they do not abolish them.
Free improvised music has been an environment in which I've felt something like real and functioning anarchy: mutual respect and trust between musicians as we make something together with no leaders. Another musical situation that has given an experience of a different sort of anarchy is in performing certain ensemble scores of John Cage. Many of Cage's compositions involved his giving up many of the intentions traditionally imposed by a composer. He would also allow freedoms to performers not customarily assumed. There is an experience playing such a score of discovery, of intensified responsibility, of exhilarating surprise, that all feel connected to the relative leveling of hierarchies among and between performers and composer.
I grew up in a very very small town. There was no mayor or city council or police. I remember few crimes or trouble requiring the sheriff be called. In emergencies, people would figure out what to do. There was a volunteer fire department, and my mother, a registered nurse, would step up to be the equivalent of the town doctor when needed. There would be differences of opinion, and these could sometimes be tense, but it still feels to me that it made a whole lot of difference in how that community functioned, that we all had the luxury of actually knowing by face and name everyone living in or around town. Relatively, this was anarchy.
More about anarchy and anarchism in future posts. Thanks again for reading.
Friday, May 31, 2013
Moving Beyond Money
I've been looking forward to this topic. The abolition of money seems to me a crucial challenge for real human progress. Yet I don't hear many people talking about this. There seems to be a general acceptance that money is either a neutral utilitarian thing, or at most a necessary evil. And there is all the quasi-mystical conversation about manifesting success, self-affirming that "I deserve to have lots of money," and treating it as a natural or supernatural resource that can be used for good ends or bad ends depending on the user.
My thinking on money is deeply informed by Norman O. Brown's book Life Against Death, especially the chapter "Filthy Lucre." Brown's book will get its own spotlight entry in this blog very soon. For now a quick summary of the isolated chapter which for me is the best account of what money "really" is. Life Against Death as a whole is a summary, a critique, and an extension of Freudian theory as applied to Western Civilization as a whole (as opposed to its usual application, the neurotic individual). "Filthy Lucre" is the main illustration of applying psychoanalysis to a broad social phenomenon, in this case money. A basic assumption of the book is that all people, and civilization as a whole, are afflicted by a general neurosis, or to put it another way, there is no such thing as normal mental health, either individual or collective. It follows that there is no such thing as a reasonable or realistic or utilitarian point of view or institution. All institutions and points of view partake of delusion, and of the infantile fantasies that ultimately drive us in all areas of our lives.
Money is no exception to this rule. Freud himself had analyzed money as rooted in the traumas of the anal developmental period, and had stated that what money is to us, unconsciously, is shit, and that what we do with money is basically play with it as we once played with our own shit. Brown develops this idea, connecting it to witchcraft, and other kinds of human waste: locks of hair, fingernails, the little pieces of us that are used in witchcraft to attain power over those to whom they formerly belonged. That's money too--useless bits of paper and metal used to magically wield power by those who hoard those useless little bits. From the symbolic to the magical to the real: money is power, and the means to power. It is NOT a reasonable and pragmatic medium of exchange. It is a tool of power used by those who want to have power over others. That's what money is for, and that's why it (and capitalism) are anti-human and anti-democratic.
This is a very brief, and perhaps crazy-sounding summary of Brown's argument, which is actually eloquent, detailed, and amazing. I recommend it very highly. And no, I don't at this point know how we move beyond money, and what economy, trade, and prosperity look like without money. I do think it would be important for all of us to think about this problem.
My thinking on money is deeply informed by Norman O. Brown's book Life Against Death, especially the chapter "Filthy Lucre." Brown's book will get its own spotlight entry in this blog very soon. For now a quick summary of the isolated chapter which for me is the best account of what money "really" is. Life Against Death as a whole is a summary, a critique, and an extension of Freudian theory as applied to Western Civilization as a whole (as opposed to its usual application, the neurotic individual). "Filthy Lucre" is the main illustration of applying psychoanalysis to a broad social phenomenon, in this case money. A basic assumption of the book is that all people, and civilization as a whole, are afflicted by a general neurosis, or to put it another way, there is no such thing as normal mental health, either individual or collective. It follows that there is no such thing as a reasonable or realistic or utilitarian point of view or institution. All institutions and points of view partake of delusion, and of the infantile fantasies that ultimately drive us in all areas of our lives.
Money is no exception to this rule. Freud himself had analyzed money as rooted in the traumas of the anal developmental period, and had stated that what money is to us, unconsciously, is shit, and that what we do with money is basically play with it as we once played with our own shit. Brown develops this idea, connecting it to witchcraft, and other kinds of human waste: locks of hair, fingernails, the little pieces of us that are used in witchcraft to attain power over those to whom they formerly belonged. That's money too--useless bits of paper and metal used to magically wield power by those who hoard those useless little bits. From the symbolic to the magical to the real: money is power, and the means to power. It is NOT a reasonable and pragmatic medium of exchange. It is a tool of power used by those who want to have power over others. That's what money is for, and that's why it (and capitalism) are anti-human and anti-democratic.
This is a very brief, and perhaps crazy-sounding summary of Brown's argument, which is actually eloquent, detailed, and amazing. I recommend it very highly. And no, I don't at this point know how we move beyond money, and what economy, trade, and prosperity look like without money. I do think it would be important for all of us to think about this problem.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Corporate Personhood
I was going to think up some wacky absurd title about corporations being people, but decided to play it straight this time. Although my favorite snarky comment about all this is "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one."
For those just joining this more-or-less-weekly journey through my version of politics, I'm in the midst of devoting a post apiece to each of the five main topics I'd listed in my keynote post, and I've been doing them in reverse order (for no particular reason, except it seems to make sense to do it this way. So corporate personhood is up this week.
The "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision a while back has increased my and many others' concern about the legal status of corporations. The "Citizens United" decision concluded that corporations, having the legal status of persons, cannot be constrained regarding the amount they can contribute to political campaigns, since this would amount to an infringement on a "person's" freedom of speech.
The problem has been portrayed as simply being one of fairness, since corporations have so much more money they can throw into a campaign than a normal person could.
I think the real problem is this, and it is at the heart of why a corporation should not have the status of personhood (except for technical convenience in making contracts, for which a corporation is considered a "fictitious individual"): A corporation should not be considered a person, because a corporation does not have the interests, and therefore should not the unalienable rights, that a person has. Going back to the Declaration of Independence, does a corporation have "life," let alone an unalienable right to it? Of course not. That's why the "Texas" joke is funny. Does a corporation have or need "liberty?" Maybe in a certain sense, but a corporation can't be sent to jail or sold into slavery or pressed into the navy, so no, it doesn't. Does a corporation pursue happiness? No, it pursues profit. In fact, that's what a corporation is, a profit-pursuing machine.
The bill of rights guarantees specific rights of persons, by way of assuming and assuring the "big three" unalienable rights posited in the Declaration. Assigning those rights to a profit-making machine is wrong and dangerous. It skews democracy and endangers the life, liberty and happiness of all the actual persons in our republic.
That's all for now. Thanks for reading.
For those just joining this more-or-less-weekly journey through my version of politics, I'm in the midst of devoting a post apiece to each of the five main topics I'd listed in my keynote post, and I've been doing them in reverse order (for no particular reason, except it seems to make sense to do it this way. So corporate personhood is up this week.
The "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision a while back has increased my and many others' concern about the legal status of corporations. The "Citizens United" decision concluded that corporations, having the legal status of persons, cannot be constrained regarding the amount they can contribute to political campaigns, since this would amount to an infringement on a "person's" freedom of speech.
The problem has been portrayed as simply being one of fairness, since corporations have so much more money they can throw into a campaign than a normal person could.
I think the real problem is this, and it is at the heart of why a corporation should not have the status of personhood (except for technical convenience in making contracts, for which a corporation is considered a "fictitious individual"): A corporation should not be considered a person, because a corporation does not have the interests, and therefore should not the unalienable rights, that a person has. Going back to the Declaration of Independence, does a corporation have "life," let alone an unalienable right to it? Of course not. That's why the "Texas" joke is funny. Does a corporation have or need "liberty?" Maybe in a certain sense, but a corporation can't be sent to jail or sold into slavery or pressed into the navy, so no, it doesn't. Does a corporation pursue happiness? No, it pursues profit. In fact, that's what a corporation is, a profit-pursuing machine.
The bill of rights guarantees specific rights of persons, by way of assuming and assuring the "big three" unalienable rights posited in the Declaration. Assigning those rights to a profit-making machine is wrong and dangerous. It skews democracy and endangers the life, liberty and happiness of all the actual persons in our republic.
That's all for now. Thanks for reading.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Party Lights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zncsJKtEd_M
OK, there's the soundtrack. (Emma Goldman's statement that "If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution" is one of the permanent mottos of whatever movement this blog is part of)
Shooting from the hip this week. It seems to me that the two-party system is an inhibition to genuine democracy. If it were simply a natural result of prevailing opinions, that would be one thing, but my understanding is that campaign finance regulations and other factors (such as the electoral college) really do close out parties other than the Democrats and Republicans.
Intuitively, it feels like having only two parties (at least only two that have a genuine shot at winning the presidency) makes the game much easier for anyone who wants bring their money's influence to bear. If you have to lobby 3 to 7 parties, that seems like something that would be more difficult to manage than lobbying just 2. And it likewise feels intuitively right that it is in the interests of real democracy to make lobbying more difficult, because that amounts to reducing the role anybody's money has in influencing the outcome of elections.
Letting more parties into the game also allows more voices and perspectives to come to bear on the various challenges confronting our society, and in my experience diversity of opinion is what allows us to collectively think outside the box.
I approach this with some caution, because I do see the unpredictable outcomes that can come to pass in parliamentary systems where coalition governments between strange bedfellows make it difficult to get things done, or where extremist parties right or left suddenly have more power than you'd expect a fringe party to end up with.
Nonetheless, I feel that the current situation in the US is really a one-party system, the real governing party being the "Corporatist party", no matter whether Democrats or Republicans have the presidency or majorities in Congress. And that stands to reason, since corporations have more power to influence elections and reward candidates than anyone else. The Citizens United decision has only made the truth of that sentence more emphatic, and other action needs to be taken to reduce corporate influence on elections, but re-thinking the way we do party politics definitely has to be part of the fix.
I will return to this topic again, and in the meantime I'll do a bit more homework, see what others think, what the laws actually are, and what real prospects for change might be out there.
OK, there's the soundtrack. (Emma Goldman's statement that "If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution" is one of the permanent mottos of whatever movement this blog is part of)
Shooting from the hip this week. It seems to me that the two-party system is an inhibition to genuine democracy. If it were simply a natural result of prevailing opinions, that would be one thing, but my understanding is that campaign finance regulations and other factors (such as the electoral college) really do close out parties other than the Democrats and Republicans.
Intuitively, it feels like having only two parties (at least only two that have a genuine shot at winning the presidency) makes the game much easier for anyone who wants bring their money's influence to bear. If you have to lobby 3 to 7 parties, that seems like something that would be more difficult to manage than lobbying just 2. And it likewise feels intuitively right that it is in the interests of real democracy to make lobbying more difficult, because that amounts to reducing the role anybody's money has in influencing the outcome of elections.
Letting more parties into the game also allows more voices and perspectives to come to bear on the various challenges confronting our society, and in my experience diversity of opinion is what allows us to collectively think outside the box.
I approach this with some caution, because I do see the unpredictable outcomes that can come to pass in parliamentary systems where coalition governments between strange bedfellows make it difficult to get things done, or where extremist parties right or left suddenly have more power than you'd expect a fringe party to end up with.
Nonetheless, I feel that the current situation in the US is really a one-party system, the real governing party being the "Corporatist party", no matter whether Democrats or Republicans have the presidency or majorities in Congress. And that stands to reason, since corporations have more power to influence elections and reward candidates than anyone else. The Citizens United decision has only made the truth of that sentence more emphatic, and other action needs to be taken to reduce corporate influence on elections, but re-thinking the way we do party politics definitely has to be part of the fix.
I will return to this topic again, and in the meantime I'll do a bit more homework, see what others think, what the laws actually are, and what real prospects for change might be out there.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Getting Wobbly
First of all a big thanks to Sound Propeller for the encouraging and thoughtful reply to "BOTH AND." Sound Propeller's blog looks great. Here's the link: http://amomai.blogspot.com/
May Day would have been an auspicious day to make this particular contribution, but I have been preoccupied with rehearsing and performing. How to juggle everything else and life AND include activism and organizing will be the topic of more concentrated musing soon!
Moving along through my menu of topics (see my first post, "Not Only the Future"), we come, in reverse order to the topic of UNIONS. The degree to which the labor movement has been weakened and quieted is a frequent topic in the news, and it is a great concern for me. It has been noted elsewhere that that point in our history generally held up as the greatest period of general prosperity was the 1950's. It is no coincidence that the 50's was also the greatest period of strong organized labor. The three-way relationship of government, business, and labor at that time has been called an IRON TRIANGLE, in which each element had great power and commanded great respect from each of the other two. It reminds me of the three branches of government, and the checks and balances the executive, the legislative and the judiciary wield over each other. The weakening of the labor movement, as well as the pressure to de-regulate have compromised the Iron Triangle, and created a situation which is undemocratic and economically lopsided. Some will prosper in such a situation, but general prosperity and fairness are made highly improbable.
What is to be done? I had always been taken with the ideas of the Industrial Workers of the World, the I.W.W. Their big idea was that there should be ONE BIG UNION; that all workers should have the backs of all other workers, not simply those with whom they shared a common trade. I wasn't sure if the IWW (nicknamed the "wobblies" back in the day) were still around, but emphatically, yes, they are: http://www.iww.org/ So my current plan is to join this union. I hope to find a local group here in Seattle, but no luck thus far. If it comes down to it, I'll join online. In the meantime I encourage all of you to read the information at the IWW site, and to join also, if that feels right to you.
May Day would have been an auspicious day to make this particular contribution, but I have been preoccupied with rehearsing and performing. How to juggle everything else and life AND include activism and organizing will be the topic of more concentrated musing soon!
Moving along through my menu of topics (see my first post, "Not Only the Future"), we come, in reverse order to the topic of UNIONS. The degree to which the labor movement has been weakened and quieted is a frequent topic in the news, and it is a great concern for me. It has been noted elsewhere that that point in our history generally held up as the greatest period of general prosperity was the 1950's. It is no coincidence that the 50's was also the greatest period of strong organized labor. The three-way relationship of government, business, and labor at that time has been called an IRON TRIANGLE, in which each element had great power and commanded great respect from each of the other two. It reminds me of the three branches of government, and the checks and balances the executive, the legislative and the judiciary wield over each other. The weakening of the labor movement, as well as the pressure to de-regulate have compromised the Iron Triangle, and created a situation which is undemocratic and economically lopsided. Some will prosper in such a situation, but general prosperity and fairness are made highly improbable.
What is to be done? I had always been taken with the ideas of the Industrial Workers of the World, the I.W.W. Their big idea was that there should be ONE BIG UNION; that all workers should have the backs of all other workers, not simply those with whom they shared a common trade. I wasn't sure if the IWW (nicknamed the "wobblies" back in the day) were still around, but emphatically, yes, they are: http://www.iww.org/ So my current plan is to join this union. I hope to find a local group here in Seattle, but no luck thus far. If it comes down to it, I'll join online. In the meantime I encourage all of you to read the information at the IWW site, and to join also, if that feels right to you.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
BOTH AND
"We want a society in which all are physically safe, economically secure, properly nourished and adequately sheltered, with access to equal educational opportunities and health care; and in which freedom of expression and assembly and the right to privacy are understood and respected. We want the society articulated in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human rights, the document the US refused to ratify (because of the guarantees of economic rights) and which the USSR likewise refused to ratify (because of the guarantees of individual rights). The time has come for us as human beings to demand that society guarantee both, and to NEVER settle for anything less."
That was the general thesis-type statement with which I concluded my first post. Here is a link to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights itself. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
It is high time that we all were fed up with the "realism" of leaders who tell us we cannot have BOTH the economic rights AND the individual rights which would be guaranteed in a ratified and legally binding version of this document. That is not realism; it is blind loyalty to dogmas which only amount to a choice of prisons: "Which dungeon do you prefer? That of insecurity, poverty, and being the pawn of fortune? Or the dungeon of silence, intimidation, and confiscated individuality?" Human dignity REQUIRES BOTH AND.
Franklin D. Roosevelt understood this, and in 1944 expressed with his usual eloquence a proposal for a second Bill of Rights to the U. S. Constitution, that would have made that document a more complete and perfect guarantee of the rights to which every human being is entitled. Here is an excerpt from FDR's speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmdW3hFPjC0
Here are the President's own typed notes for the 2nd bill of rights section of his speech:
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/images/exerpt_c.jpg
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/images/exerpt_d.jpg
Both FDR's speech and the UN Declaration were composed in the 40's at a time when depression and war had ravaged the world, and when it must have been especially clear that something needed to be done, on both the national and international scale, to provide what guarantees could be made to affirm human dignity, and to prevent such massive violations of it as had just occurred. Sadly, memory is short, and no decisive action was taken with respect to amending the US Constitution, or to ratifying the UN's Declaration.
But it's not too late. Perhaps now is the time for us to demand BOTH AND.
That was the general thesis-type statement with which I concluded my first post. Here is a link to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights itself. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
It is high time that we all were fed up with the "realism" of leaders who tell us we cannot have BOTH the economic rights AND the individual rights which would be guaranteed in a ratified and legally binding version of this document. That is not realism; it is blind loyalty to dogmas which only amount to a choice of prisons: "Which dungeon do you prefer? That of insecurity, poverty, and being the pawn of fortune? Or the dungeon of silence, intimidation, and confiscated individuality?" Human dignity REQUIRES BOTH AND.
Franklin D. Roosevelt understood this, and in 1944 expressed with his usual eloquence a proposal for a second Bill of Rights to the U. S. Constitution, that would have made that document a more complete and perfect guarantee of the rights to which every human being is entitled. Here is an excerpt from FDR's speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmdW3hFPjC0
Here are the President's own typed notes for the 2nd bill of rights section of his speech:
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/images/exerpt_c.jpg
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/images/exerpt_d.jpg
Both FDR's speech and the UN Declaration were composed in the 40's at a time when depression and war had ravaged the world, and when it must have been especially clear that something needed to be done, on both the national and international scale, to provide what guarantees could be made to affirm human dignity, and to prevent such massive violations of it as had just occurred. Sadly, memory is short, and no decisive action was taken with respect to amending the US Constitution, or to ratifying the UN's Declaration.
But it's not too late. Perhaps now is the time for us to demand BOTH AND.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
This blog is my political activity. I am making it because I don't want to feel helpless and overpowered, and because I don't just want to sit on the sidelines and watch others work. Its title was discovered by a chance operation in John Cage's text composition How to Improve the World (You Will Only Make Matters Worse). What is the title's meaning? Stop putting off political activity, it should happen in the present, not only the future. What is another meaning? I believe the best politics is impure politics, inclusive politics, synthetic politics, pragmatic politics, not-only politics, and the more we move toward not-only politics, the brighter our prospects for the future, hence "not-only": The Future! If you read other meanings in my title, they are legitmately there; that is the beauty of chance operations.
I've put together a list of topics that I feel are the most important for me politically. They are the following:
Anarchism: I believe with Henry David Thoreau that "That government is best which governs not at all, and when people are ready for it, that is the government they will have." My understanding of "anarchism" is as a striving towards a balancing of relations of power; moving towards a society not defined by anyone having power over anyone else.
Abolition of Money: Money is at best a provisional idea; at worst it is a genuine evil which reinforces and unbalances power relations, rather than helping us balance them. How do we move beyond money?
(those are ideals, those things to which we aspire, visions of the future. but this blog is not only the future. the following topics are more practical and present)
Get rid of corporate personhood. Especially since the Citizens United decision, the notion that corporations are legally "persons," a bad idea to begin with has become yet more toxic. Again the problem is that making corporations persons both significantly unbalances power, and reinforces that unbalance. Corporate personhood must be abolished in order for real democracy (not corporocracy) to prevail.
Get rid of the two party system. More voices need to be heard, one, and it needs to be more difficult for the wealthy and powerful to exercise their influences on our representatives. Making candidacy more wide-openly available accomplishes both.
Re-establish and re-invigorate the labor movement. Vigorous and powerful unions, and a broadly understood sense of their importance, are crucial to democracy and to real prosperity. For the same reasons that we value checks and balances in our political system, we must maintain economic checks and balances as well.
(and those are the nitty gritty real world topics. finally, a broad, thesis-style statement of purpose type topic)
We want a society in which all are physically safe, economically secure, properly nourished and adequately sheltered, with access to equal educational opportunities and health care; and in which freedom of expression and assembly and the right to privacy are understood and respected. We want the society articulated in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human rights, the document the US refused to ratify (because of the guarantees of economic rights) and which the USSR likewise refused to ratify (because of the guarantees of individual rights). The time has come for us as human beings to demand that society guarantee both, and to NEVER settle for anything less.
Thanks for reading. Let me know your thoughts. More to come.
I've put together a list of topics that I feel are the most important for me politically. They are the following:
Anarchism: I believe with Henry David Thoreau that "That government is best which governs not at all, and when people are ready for it, that is the government they will have." My understanding of "anarchism" is as a striving towards a balancing of relations of power; moving towards a society not defined by anyone having power over anyone else.
Abolition of Money: Money is at best a provisional idea; at worst it is a genuine evil which reinforces and unbalances power relations, rather than helping us balance them. How do we move beyond money?
(those are ideals, those things to which we aspire, visions of the future. but this blog is not only the future. the following topics are more practical and present)
Get rid of corporate personhood. Especially since the Citizens United decision, the notion that corporations are legally "persons," a bad idea to begin with has become yet more toxic. Again the problem is that making corporations persons both significantly unbalances power, and reinforces that unbalance. Corporate personhood must be abolished in order for real democracy (not corporocracy) to prevail.
Get rid of the two party system. More voices need to be heard, one, and it needs to be more difficult for the wealthy and powerful to exercise their influences on our representatives. Making candidacy more wide-openly available accomplishes both.
Re-establish and re-invigorate the labor movement. Vigorous and powerful unions, and a broadly understood sense of their importance, are crucial to democracy and to real prosperity. For the same reasons that we value checks and balances in our political system, we must maintain economic checks and balances as well.
(and those are the nitty gritty real world topics. finally, a broad, thesis-style statement of purpose type topic)
We want a society in which all are physically safe, economically secure, properly nourished and adequately sheltered, with access to equal educational opportunities and health care; and in which freedom of expression and assembly and the right to privacy are understood and respected. We want the society articulated in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human rights, the document the US refused to ratify (because of the guarantees of economic rights) and which the USSR likewise refused to ratify (because of the guarantees of individual rights). The time has come for us as human beings to demand that society guarantee both, and to NEVER settle for anything less.
Thanks for reading. Let me know your thoughts. More to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)