Maybe the Bottom Line is Whether or Not We All Seek the Same Depth of Changes In Our Society

[Orwellian_Ghost]

There is no doubt in my mind that at present the US government is completely owned and operated by big business interests. The number one beneficiary of political decisions, be they foreign policy or domestic, will be large industries/the extremely wealthy - that is, the general protection of the status quo, and the continuation of a capital-before-people mentality, the right of the US to impose its will on nations for the benefit of its corporations.

The years slip by. Conditions grow worse. The danger grows and grows. The ruling class gets stronger and stronger. Polite nicey-nice "can't we all get along and play nice?" is bringing no positive returns and there is nothing to lose by speaking the truth as harshly as needs be to get the message across.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bjqmGmHDb1w/SSp6cAKK09I/AAAAAAAABoI/7J-eJ8Xpgmo/s320/Great+Depression+World%27s+Highest+Standard+of+Living+Breadline.jpg

[arcadian]

1. True, for some "change" means bringing us back to the status quo of U.S. superiority.

The economy and our system is complete failure? Hell, let's change it back to what it used to be before we got off track. That being global dominance and a economic and military monopoly.

[stillcool]

2. I don't see any nicey-nice...

going on anywhere.

[blindpig]

36. Well, we're still asking nicely

instead of demanding. General strikes would communicate that we ain't playin'. That is what is needed.

[TBF]

3. Some complain about how things are said - and they say things like

"it's not what you said, it's how you said it". I have found in my life that such statements are at best disingenuous. It very much is the substance they disagree with. And they will disagree no matter how you say it.

[MedleyMisty]

8. It depends

I would agree in some cases and not in others.

Some people object to protests and say that we should all be civilized and polite. Yeah, that pretty much is code for defending the status quo.

But then other times people object to personal attacks, and I think that there is some truth there - I know that if I am insulted my basic emotional response is to get upset and defensive and not hear any sort of message because all I can see is the insult.

I guess maybe it's macro versus micro and also external versus internal. If people are talking about how a group in general does its thing and how those complete strangers on the TV are choosing to protest, that's one thing. Not liking to be personally attacked as an individual by an individual is another.

[Hydra]

4. The fact is that lots of people like being part of a powerful empire

Even if they themselves never really benefit from it.

They sure THINK they do, though!

[maryf]

5. "The World needs anger..."

“The world needs anger. The world often continues to allow evil because it isn't angry enough.”
Fr. Bede Jarrett OP

The fact that people aren't enraged and shouting about the conditions of huge numbers of humanity, is truly beyond me...K&R

[TBF]

6. I'm a pacifist. Don't like thinking this way... but our voices have to be heard

one way or another. Right now it's business as usual. I don't believe Obama can do this himself, he needs public opinion in his favor, and not some distorted media "view" of what the public wants. Let's make our opinions known!

[maryf]

15. The pen is mightier than the sword...

and can wield anger much more constructively...

[Supersedeas]

29. there was a day when that might have been true-when most social commentary and debate was in writing

however, today most social commentary is carried on airways and television cable -- and who controls access to that?

[maryf]

47. The airwaves belong to the people...

We need to claim our right to them...but we can still write to the stations, to the sponsors. What you say is losing to the internet which is why they are pushing so hard to limit the use/access of it, and we have to keep fighting for it (thank god for the geeks!). The internet has exponentially increased the degree of communication people can have with their representatives. And it has forced the hand in several cases. IMHO, it has the potential to truly make this a country of, by, and for the people where the representatives have to listen...

[maryf]

48. Serendipity

Just after talking to you about internet efficacy and here in my mail, proof in the pudding:

Dear Mary,

Congratulations!

Time Warner Cable’s price-gouging scheme came crashing down yesterday.

In a spectacular victory for Free Press and supporters like you, the company buckled under public pressure and abandoned its plan to impose Internet penalties against those who go online for more than e-mail and basic Web surfing.

If they had gotten away with this scam, users of online innovations like Web video and radio would have been forced to pay up to $100 more per month for full broadband service.

Time Warner Cable didn’t cave because of a sudden spurt of good conscience. They reacted to a torrent of protest from Free Press members and from Internet users across the country.

Savor this victory, because it belongs to you. You proved -- again -- that when we pull together, we can defend our online rights against even the biggest of Big Media giants.

But this fight isn’t over. The threat of this kind of price gouging is not going away. Big media companies like Time Warner Cable, Comcast and AT&T know that the new media landscape -- with Internet users watching video at YouTube, listening to radio at Pandora and making phone calls using applications like Skype -- is a threat to their monopoly control.

They’ll do whatever it takes to protect their profits and limit your freedoms.

Our victory is a lesson in what we’ll need to keep doing to stop these companies from squeezing our use of the Internet:

* In less than a week, Free Press generated more than 16,000 letters to Congress, urging members to launch an immediate investigation of Time Warner Cable.
* Our policy advocates are working with pro-Internet policymakers on Capitol Hill to stop these sorts of anti-competitive scams and make sure more Americans can get online.
* Our media outreach fueled a withering barrage of negative press (including mention of our work in more than 50 prominent news stories), consumer complaints, blog postings and other opposition to Time Warner Cable's scheme.

[MedleyMisty]

7. Apparently being enraged and shouting

helps continue it, though. Being upset that people are capitalist tools makes you a capitalist tool.

[maryf]

14. Depends on how the tool is used...

Anger as a catylist is preferable to complacency and ignorance, which are far more dangerous tools used by the status quo, I believe.

[TBF]

18. "Being upset that people are capitalist tools makes you a capitalist tool"

How so? Please explain because that makes absolutely no sense.

[cali]

9. The type of language that you frequently employ is pretty ineffective

and no, we don't all see things the same way. You for instance want to destroy the system. I want to alter it. You want an end to all capitalism. I want capitalism strongly regulated and some businesses- like health care- natiounalized.

You want instant presto change and actually believe that there is a Candide best of all possible worlds. You seem to believe in the noble proletariat. I believe human nature doesn't differ from class to class.

Yep, people believe different things.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

11. You got it all backwards

"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."

-Karl Marx's 1859 Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

But yes it is clear you support the status quo in a system that is grotesquely unjust. And yes people believe different things mostly based on which class they identify with.

“While there is a lower class I am in it; while there is a criminal element I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free”

- Eugene Debs

[cali]

16. it's not either/or.

and no, sorry, I absolutely do not support the status quo. not even fucking close, Mr Oilwellian. I believe the system is grotesquely unjust and needs major reform. I identify chiefly with the people surrounding me. They're largely poor and working class. Quite a few are hard to pigeon hole into a class. They're rural. They're straight. They're gay. They're intellectuals. They're people who have never read a book. They run the gamut.

As you're into quotes, here's one for you- from an excellent essay by E.M. Forster. And I believe he's right on.

"I believe in aristocracy, though - if that is the right word, and
if a democrat may use it. Not an aristocracy of power, based upon
rank and influence, but an aristocracy of the sensitive, the con-
siderate and the plucky. Its members are to be found in all
nations and classes, and all through the ages, and there is a secret
understanding between them when they meet. They represent
the true human tradition, the one permanent victory of our queer
race over cruelty and chaos. Thousands of them perish in
obscurity, a few are great names. They are sensitive for others
as well as for themselves, they are considerate without being
fussy, their pluck is not swankiness but the power to endure, and
they can take a joke. I give no examples - it is risky to do that..."

[KharmaTrain]

10. The Best You Hope For Is A Delicate Balance...

Life isn't fair...and neither is human nature. No matter what type of political or economy system you have, there will always be "leaders" and followers and with it there will be the wealthy and the poor. Greed is a human condition that will always be part of our "genetic coding"...as we all want something bigger and better. For some that's a bigger house or fancy car...for others, it's some political ideal...such as a reformed health care system that they can benefit from with lower costs and better preventive care. The best to expect is a balance where the "leaders" and the more aggressive in our society are kept from exploiting the followers. You'll never find an economic utopia...as we saw with the Soviet system. Their socialism failed due to trying to hide the greed under a facade of deprivation for all. The ruling elite in the USSR became as detached from their people as the rich and elite in this country now have from the workers and what's left of the middle class. The pendulum will swing away from this inbalance, but it won't swing the other way.

The elite still haven't realized that a strong middle class is what fueled 40 plus years of prosperity...they only look at the past 25 years of unlimited greed. Now that their cash machine has broken down, eventually they will have to adjust to rebuilding the middle class...the consumer machine. They can't do it with credit cards...it'll have to be with jobs and wages. But this will take time and a lot of suffering for all ahead. The government is trying to make this a soft landing, but the latest "guilded age" is collapsing. What will replace it? I have no clue...but it will be different than what we've endured for the past 25 years.

My hopes is for a revival of regulation and real oversight. It's pushing for clamping down on greed and price gouging. But you can't legislate against human nature. All you do is ask for it to go underground.

[Hannah Bell]

13. "greed" is no more nor no less "human nature" than "non-greed".

i really get sick of people pretending "greed" is some fundamental touchstone of human reality.

[KharmaTrain]

17. Pretending?

History books are loaded with greed. I can't really think of many examples of "non-greed". If you'd like to cite one, I'd be interested in how this would work...especially in the reality many are now facing.

Yes, greed is instinctive. Be it the alpha male in a troop of gorillas to the more aggressive pup surviving while the passive one starves. I don't think it gets more basic than that. Hording is a byproduct of greed...be it stashing away more acorns than you may need for a winter or large sums of cash.

We would hope that human intelligence could trump human nature, but it never has...

[blindpig]

20. Greed is an option, so is benevolence, empathy and cooperation

The behavior which humans exhibit is conditioned by their social habitat. In a capitalist society where greed is so richly rewarded greed will be an attractive option. A society which has other mores will tend to produce different behavior. By ending capitalism we de-institutionalize greed and thus reduce it's frequency.

[KharmaTrain]

21. So What Is Your Explanation Of The Failures Of Communism?

Wasn't that a society based on conditioning a society to share resources? And aren't resources wealth? How do you explain how most of those socities have either collapsed or had to develop some type of capitalism to remain in power?

[cali]

23. oooh oooh, ask me. I know the stock answer to that?

Ir failed because it wasn't implemented properly.

[blindpig]

30. It never hardly got started.

Beset from the git-go by the utter hostility of of the capitalists nations, invaded, counter revolution, famine and saddled with transforming a near feudal society it is a wonder that it lasted so long. The triumphs of those societies were many and thusly ignored by the capitalists west, vast increases in longevity, diet, health care and education for a start. An essentially agricultural nation was transformed into a formidable industrial power. The most powerful army in history(up until that time) was defeated. It took 70 years to drag them down.

[Hannah Bell]

41. 99.9% of the world's people live in capitalist countries. most of them are poor.

haiti is a capitalist country. so is somalia.

be sure to weigh *all* the evidence in your balance sheet of "failure".

there's never been a communist country; there's never been a non-class society.

[KharmaTrain]

43. History Provides Plenty of Evidence...

Somalia isn't a nation...it's a disjointed and dysfunctional feudal state. In many ways, so is Haiti and Afghanistan and Colombia. The "third world" is one we can discuss country by country...each has its own problems both internally and externally created. Inversely, some will say countries like Sweden or Canada that have a combination of socialism and capitalism provide a better road map of what works and doesn't.

I'm not the one weighing what is a "failure"...history is the judge as countries that can't provide for their own people can and do crumble. Excesses of any form lead to an inbalance that can lead to a breakdown in authority and society. Be it Romans, Soviets or, now, Americans.

There's a good reason there never has been a classless society...it's impractical. Someone will always be looked up to to be a leader or will try to take the lead. Someone will have to make decisions...even in rule by committee. The best systems find balance between all economic and political interests have input...corporates and workers...leaders and followers.

Cheers...

[Hannah Bell]

44. i see. when capitalism fails, it's not capitalism. that way, you're always

right.

classless society doesn't mean "no leaders".

[blindpig]

45. You hear that all the time.

The double standard serves the capitalists well.

[anaxarchos]

46. The opposite...

There has never been a class society except for the last 5-10,000 years. How do we know? Because none of the "institutions" of pre-class societies could or did survive the rise of classes. In places like ancient Greece, the rise of class society is much more recent, and documented. Of course, you can act like Samuelson and call a bow and arrow, "capital". But, that has nothing to do with understanding reality and everything to do with making shit up to apologize for some crazy current shit.

Come to think of it, reviewing what you have written...

[cali]

22. behavior is hardly solely formed by environment

very, very few scientists will back you on that one. It's not, for the millionth time, either/or. And ending capitalism won't fucking change human behavior, Candide.

[KharmaTrain]

24. We All Need A Utopia

don't we? :sarcasm:

:hi:

[cali]

25. yeah, but being blind to science is such a fundamentalist wingnut thing

goes to show you that there are non-religious fundies too. And some are right here.

[blindpig]

31. Didn't say that.

By saying 'conditioned' I am saying influenced, not the sole factor. Of course inheritance is a factor and each factor affects the other. Yet environment is very important, or would you have us trash all attempts to improve the human condition?

You keep trying to paint me into a corner, but it is only in a room of your paltry imagination.

[Skidmore]

12. I think it is more that there is a fundmental blind eye being turned

to the fact that social change is wrenching to societies and that it tends to occur incrementally over time. The seemingly gutwrenching change that the * administration brought with it did not happen overnight or in a vaccuum. However, that being said, the old saw of "being careful what you wish for" is doubtlessly on the minds of many traditional conservatives now. Likewise, we need to be careful what we wish and proceed judiciously as we bring the rest of the nation along with us. There is nothing to be gained by creating a swift backlash and no momentum to be sustained by alienating those we have brought along with us to date. I strongly believe that we should not be about stifing dissent or using the same tactics that were used against us over the past decade. It is wrongheaded and divisive. That is part of the change I sought, with an eye toward truth, justice, equality, and fairness. I believe that we have been moving toward all those goals as time and system change permits. As a man pointed out, we're turning an ocean liner.

[TBF]

19. How long will it take?

If we all just sit back in our armchairs determined not to ruffle any feathers and wait for change to come it will never arrive. All the gains we've achieved in women's rights, gay rights, labor laws, they've all come because people have been willing to stand up and get in the streets - fight for their rights.

Sadly the Republican Right, dim as they are, seem to understand that. Their tea party protests were ridiculous, yet they have been successful if they cause us to sit back and say "must not move too fast". Fuck that.

[maryf]

50. "they've all come because people have been willing to stand up

and get in the streets - fight for their rights." die for their rights, suffragettes, civil rights workers, unionists, the path has been bloody for all of this. The courage is there among many, lacking in many more perhaps, the impetus, the catalyst is needed...

[blindpig]

32. Big change is not incremental.

Yeah, change can be wrenching, nonetheless it happens in burst and it hardly matters what any given individual wants. It is the mass of society driven by it's needs which makes these big changes unavoidable. It is analogous to punctuated equilibrium in evolutionary theory.

[leftstreet]

39. An abscessed tooth isn't removed incrementally

The economy is dying.

Jobs are bleeding away.

Attaining food, shelter, healthcare and basic necessities is placing enormous strain on an underpaid, underemployed frightened citizenry.

Change must be swift and large.

[TBF]

55. That is a very good analogy - I like that.

Perhaps when Obama was talking about "change" he simply meant cultural changes. Sensitivity to race, sexual orientation, less emphasis on religion in society, etc... he didn't mean systemic political change.

[havocmom]

26. more likely: whether or not we are logical enough to accept that it can't all change at once

.

[TBF]

27. Where is the logic in thinking things will change if you just wait long enough? n/t

[havocmom]

51. That is not my posititon

Nice straw bail trying to form into a man though

[TBF]

54. Then state your position rather than a nonsensical one-liner.

That helps with responses as well.

[havocmom]

56. The 'one liner' is not nonsensical. And it is a position

Can't do everything at once. Triage is not just for the staff at a hospital.

[Echo In Light]

28. That approach only yields what we've got now

[havocmom]

52. No, it isn't. There is only so much that can be done at once

Frankly, the Administration is making more headway on more issues that seems humanly possible, especially in light of the fact that they don't have all positions filled yet.

The mess we are in took DECADES of steps in stages. It cannot all be fixed, across the board, in a few months. Insisting it can IS illogical and borders on magical thinking.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

53. Not true

Things can happen quite rapidly.

For example the military budget could be cut virtually overnight.

The US troops in Iraq could be removed in just a few months.

Things are not going in that direction, quite the opposite, so I don't see what "issues" you are speaking of.

[leftofthedial]

33. For too many "democrats," "change" means nothing but

having someone in office who puts a "D" beside their name. It doesn't matter *at all* what they actually do or whose agenda they actually promote.

This country needs changes that elections can't make.

[kctim]

34. The problem is that

half see govt as too big and controlling, and half see business as too big and controlling.
We fight amongst ourselves instead of fighting for ourselves.

[maryf]

57. Its not the size of the government or business

Its the size of the problems of the populace that need to be solved, the number of people that need help and relief...the government needs to be as large as needed to solve these problems, and is beholden to the people, not beholden to the businesses except where the businesses can be positively effecting the people's problems not exacerbating them.

[JoseGaspar]

35. Maybe the bottom line is whether many seek "change" at all?

Anything is alright. Anything can be explained away. Anything may be personalized and incorporated into an individual fantasy. Dante had a sub-basement for this crap.

The fundies talk about "moral relativism". They don't have a clue.

[JackRiddler]

37. What's grossing me out is the populist door being left open for the Republicans...

So far they're showing why they really, really suck at this kind of thing. The danger is that they may yet learn. In two years it will be more obvious than ever the people were screwed to rescue and reward the bankster-criminals who wittingly generated the financial crisis for their own gain. I fear a selective blame where the incumbent gets hammered if the Republicans ever get their shit together to the point where they can successfully play the populist, ANTI-BANKING reaction. (The contradiction being of course that they will never be anti-banking, but so what? They've fooled people with Republican "revolutions" in the past.)

[TBF]

38. I see that as well - and I think they (sophisticated Republicans) do too.

These "tea parties" are undoubtedly being facilitated by some pretty deep pockets. The participants may misspell their signs but it was a pretty organized event & they are planning more. Democrats should heed the warning.

[leftstreet]

40. It sickens me to think about it

I shudder at the thought of the Democrats dropping the ball to the point that the Repubs pull heads from asses and, say, tout single payer healthcare.

Game over.

[Hannah Bell]

42. yes, it's a dangerous situation. looking at the employment numbers,

very worrisome. my town = 15%.

[anaxarchos]

49. It is going to happen.

It almost happened in 2008 with Ron Paul. The problem was the whack-job combination of libertarian-racist-monetary-conspiracy weirdness with a criticism of Imperialism and a populist sentiment that surprised the shit out of the Republicans. In truth, the last was positioned well to the left of the Democratic Party... and was able to build a small base even in Romney-land. There is a long history in the U.S. of "populist Republicanism" and a much deeper history outside of the U.S. There is even a deep history of "populist Fascism". Take a look at Peron. Whatever things may look like today, there is no long term base whatever here for Eric Schmidt New Democrat-ism. There is a very wide "opportunity" opening up, as a result... and at least half of that opportunity belongs to the nastiest people in the society.