Saturday, April 17, 2010

Market-Driven Hysteria and the Politics of Death

 

by: Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Feature

photo
(Photo Illustration: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t)

If we take seriously the ideology, arguments and values now emanating from the right-wing of the Republican Party, there is no room in the United States for a democracy in which the obligations of citizenship, compassion and collective security outweigh the demands of what might be called totalizing market-driven society; that is, a society that is utterly deregulated, privatized, commodified and largely controlled by the ultra-rich and a handful of mega corporations. In such a society, there is a shift in power from government to markets and the emergence of a more intensified political economy organized around three principal concerns: deregulated markets, commodification and disposability. In spite of the current failure of this system, right-wing Republicans and their allies are more than willing to embrace a system that erases all vestiges of the public good, turning citizens into consumers, while privatizing and commodifying every aspect of the social order - all the while threatening the lives, health, and livelihoods of millions of working class and middle class people.

If we listen to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and an increasing number of their ilk, free-market fundamentalism is not only sexy, it is an argument against the very notion of politics itself and the power of the government to intervene and protect its citizens from the ravages of nature, corrupt institutions and an unregulated market. In this discourse, largely buttressed through an appeal to fear and the use of outright lies, free-market capitalism assumes an almost biblical status as an argument against the power of government to protect its citizens from misfortune and the random blows of fate by providing the most basic rights and levels of collective security and protection. Before he died, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt advocated precisely for such rights, which he called a "second bill of rights," which included the right "of every family to a decent home. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health. The right to adequate protection form the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment. The right to a good education."[1] That is, those social, economic and individual rights that provide a secure foundation for people to live with dignity and be free to become critical and engaged citizens, capable of both expanding their own sense of agency and freedom while being able to work with others to fulfill the demands of an aspiring democracy.

But in the truncated notion of freedom espoused by the right-wing extremists of a market-driven society, democracy is a deficit, if not pathology, and freedom is reduced to the narrow logic of an almost rabid focus on self-interest. This is a truncated version of freedom, defined largely as freedom from constraint - a freedom which, when not properly exercised or balanced, loses its connection to those obligations that tie people to values, issues and institutions that affirm "the existence of a common good or a public purpose."[2] This type of depoliticizing inward thinking with its disavowal of the obligations of social responsibility and its outright disdain for those who are disadvantaged by virtue of being poor, young or elderly does more than fuel the harsh, militarized and hyper-masculine logic of reality television and extreme sports; it also elevates death over life, selfishness over compassion and economics over politics. But more so, it produces a kind of dysfunctional silence in the culture in the face of massive hardship and suffering. There is more than moral indifference and political cynicism at work here; there is also a culture for which there is not much room for ideals, a culture that now considers public welfare a pathology, and responsibility solely a privatized and individual matter. This is a politics of disinvestment in public life, democracy and the common good. Hence, it is not surprising that we hear nothing from the faux populists Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, and other cheerleaders for an unchecked capitalism about a market-driven landscape filled with desolate communities, gutted public services and weakened labor unions. Nor do they say anything about a free-market system that in its greed, cruelty, corruption and iniquitous power relations creates the conditions responsible for 40 million impoverished people (many living in their cars or the ever-growing tent cities), and 46 million Americans without health insurance - one result of which, according to a Harvard University study, is the needless deaths of 45,000 people every year.[3] Nor do they register any alarm over a system that, according to a recent study released by the Johns Hopkins Children's Center, claims that "lack of adequate health care may have contributed to the deaths of some 17,000 US children over the past two decades."[4] What do they have to say about a deregulated market system with its corrupt financial institutions shipping jobs abroad, swindling people out of their homes and gutting the manufacturing base of US industry? What do they have to say about a political system largely controlled by corporate lobbyists? Or insurance companies that pay employees bonuses when they maintain a high level of rejections for procedures that can save people's lives. Not much. All they see amid this growing landscape of human suffering and despair is the specter of socialism, which amounts to any government-sponsored program designed to offer collective insurance in the face of misfortune and promote the public good.

For right-wing extremists, a market-driven society represents more than a tirade against "big government"; it constitutes a new kind of politics that privileges exchange values and quick profits over all noncommodified values, resists all forms of government intervention (except when it benefits the rich and powerful or uses force to maintain social order), celebrates excessive individualism and consolidates the power of the rich along with powerful corporations - currently coded as mammoth financial institutions such as the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and big banks. Moreover, the ability of this previously devalued market-driven system to endlessly come back to life is truly astonishing. How can the Dick Armey's of the world be featured in The New York Times as if their ideology and ruthlessness is worthy of a major news story? How is it that an endless number of ex- and current politicians, who are wedded at the hip to corporate interests, can be taken seriously as spokespersons for the larger public? And as the fog of social and historical amnesia rolls over the media and the country in general, it does so in spite of the current financial crisis, the debacle following Hurricane Katrina and the in-your-face payout of big bonuses by institutions that were bailed out by the government. Clearly, market fundamentalism is alive and well in the United States, suggesting that it also works hard through the related modalities of education and seduction to induce the public to conform to the narrow dictates, values and dreams of totalizing market society, regardless of how disruptive it is of their lives. Shouting against the evils of big government does little to register or make visible the power of big corporations or a government that serves corporate rather than democratic needs.

What is unique and particularly disturbing about this hyper-market driven notion of economics is that it makes undemocratic modes of education central to its politics and employs a mode of pedagogy aimed at displacing and shutting down all vestiges of the public sphere that cannot be commodified, privatized and commercialized. Consumers are in and citizens are out. Fear and lying are the discourses of choice while dialogue and thoughtfulness are considered a weakness. To a greater extent than at any other point in liberal modernity, this regime of economic Darwinism now extends economic rationality "to formerly noneconomic domains [shaping] individual conduct, or more precisely, [prescribing] the citizen-subject of the neoliberal order."[5] Most crucially, this struggle over the construction of the market-driven consumer subject, especially as it applies to young people, is by and large waged outside of formal educational institutions, in pedagogical sites and spaces that are generally privatized and extend from the traditional and new media to conservative-funded think tanks and private schools.[6] As corporate-controlled spheres and commodity markets assume a commanding role educating young and old alike, pedagogy is redefined as a tool of commerce aggressively promoting the commodification of young people and the destruction of noncommodified public spaces and institutions. How else to explain that it is almost impossible to read about educational reform in the dominant media except as a tool to educate people for the workforce? In other words, education is a form of commerce and nothing more. Education for democracy today sounds a lot like the idea that health care for everyone is socialism. Clearly, what we are witnessing here is not just the rise political theater or media-driven spectacle in American society, but a populism that harbors a deep disdain for democracy and no longer understands how to define itself outside of the imperatives of capital accumulation, shopping and the willingness to view more and more individuals and groups as simply disposable waste products no longer worthy of the blessings of consumption.

As moral and ethical considerations are decoupled from the calculating logic and consequences of all economic activity, the horrendous human toll in suffering and hardship being visited upon all segments of the American population is lost in the endless outburst of anger, if not hysteria, promoted by right-wing extremists - shouting for a return to the good old days when financial institutions and money markets set policy, eventually ushering in one of the most serious economic crisis this country has ever faced. As the values of human togetherness, community, friendship and love are once again subordinated to the notion that only markets can give people what they want, the culture of fear and cruelty grows in proportion to the angry protests, the threat of violence and the unapologetic racism aimed at the Obama administration. In part, this is exemplified in not only the endless public pronouncements that make a market society and democracy synonymous, but also in the ongoing celebration, in spite of the near collapse of the mortgage sector, of the excesses of the new Gilded Age. Like those dead bodies that endlessly return in George Romero's film classic "Night of the Living Dead," right-wing Republicans and Democrats are back shouting from every conceivable platform to demolish any vestige of reform that relies on "big government." The right-wing infatuation with the word "death," as in the fictitious claim about Obama's death panels, is telling - more a projection of their own politics than a serious critique of health care reform. Despite a change in US political leadership, these forces - if left unchecked - will continue to promote and fight for a transformation of democratic governance and citizenship until they are both completely destroyed.

As democracy is increasingly reduced to an empty shell and the rise of a corporate and punishing state looms heavily on the 21st-century horizon, the market-driven principles of deregulation, radical individualism and privatization penetrate all aspects of daily life. Such market-driven values and their accompanying power-shaping institutions now profoundly influence the very nature of how the American public think, act and desire. All of which are increasingly wedded to the epicenter of a grotesque consumer culture, whose underside is a heartless indifference to the suffering and hardship of the millions of people without jobs, homes, health care and, increasingly, hope. The current fight against health care reform is not really just about fixing a terribly iniquitous and broken system; it is a struggle against the prospect of a better future for young people, the poor, the excluded and those struggling to stay alive in America. What are we to make of an ideology that moves from dismantling the welfare state to embracing the punishing state, an ideology that increasingly turns its back on those individuals for whom the prisons are now deputized as the only welfare institutions left in America, or, if they are lucky, find themselves in one of the emerging tent cities found under bridges and located in other invisible landscapes - used in the past to get rid of waste products, but now used to dump poor working class and middle class families?

Where is this hysteria going given that we now have in office an administration that refuses to fight for the ideals it campaigned on? We get a glimpse of where it is going in the tirades let loose recently by people like Sarah Palin, a dumber than dumb version of Ayn Rand, and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota), who, when she is not calling for members of Congress to be investigated for their communist sympathies, is railing against Obama's socialism. In leading crowds in Washington, DC, recently with the chant, "kill the bill," Bachmann displays not simply an angry protest against the reform of health care. On the contrary, there is a much broader notion of politics at stake here, one in which she and others are protesting for an utterly privatized and commodified society where corporations and markets define politics while matters of life and death are removed from ethical considerations, increasingly subject to cost-benefit analyses and the calculations of potential profit margins. In this scenario, each individual is on their own in confronting the many systemic problems facing American society, each of us responsible for our own fate, even when facing systemic problems that cannot be solved by isolated individuals. This politics of hysteria and ruthlessness that is now on full display in America is not just an attack on the social state, big government, the public sphere and the common good, but the very essence of politics and democracy. This is truly a politics that celebrates death over life.
    --------

    Notes:
[1]. For an excerpt of Roosevelt's call for a second bill of rights, see Bill Moyers, "Interview with James Galbraith," "Bill Moyers Journal," (October 30, 2009). Online at: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10302009/transcript4.html.
[2]. Bill Moyers, "Interview with James Galbraith," "Bill Moyers Journal," (October 30, 2009). Online at: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10302009/transcript4.html.
[3]. US Census Bureau Press Release, "Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2008," US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. (September 10, 2009). Available online at: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/014227.html.
Paul Klayman, "Harvard Study: 45,000 People Die Every Year," Institute for Southern Studies (September 18, 2009). Online at: http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/09/uninsured-die-every-year.html.
[4]. Editorial, "Lack of Health Care Led to 17,000 US Child Deaths," Agence France-Presse (October 29, 2009). Online at: www.truth.org/1030099?print ,
[5]. Wendy Brown, "Edgework: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Politics" (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), p. 41.
[6]. For an excellent analysis of the control of corporate power on the media, see Robert W. McChesney, "The Political Economy of the Media," (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2008).

Creative Commons License
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.


There is nothing civil about civil wars!

Is the NRA Encouraging Anti-Government Extremism?

| Thu Apr. 15, 2010 9:06 AM PDT
 

Apparently the actions of National Rifle Association member Timothy McVeigh didn't teach the organization that its violent anti-government rhetoric can have dangerous consequences. 

On a day when thousands of Tea Party activists are taking to the streets to protest Tax Day, the Violence Policy Center has released a report today chronicling the increasing ties between the gun lobby and the Tea Party movement, and the NRA's adoption of much of the "Patriot movement's" anti-government language. The center sees direct parallels between the NRA's current activities and those in the years leading up to McVeigh's fateful decision to blow up the Oklahoma federal building:

"The gun lobby is once again embracing—and, equally important, validating—the anti-government rhetoric being offered by activists that range from Tea Party members, through pro-gun advocates, to members of the militia movement. And as was the case with Timothy McVeigh, the risk lies not so much with the organized members of these groups, but with the "lone wolves" who not only embrace their rhetoric, but are willing to act on it with violence."

The report connects the NRA to the organizers of this Monday's Second Amendment March in DC, an event the VPC finds ominous. The VPC quotes march organizer Skip Coryell, who wrote a March article in Human Events describing the event's purpose:
My question to everyone reading this article is this: "For you, as an individual, when do you draw your saber? When do you say, “Yes, I am willing to rise up and overthrow an oppressive, totalitarian government?”...I hear the clank of metal on metal getting closer, but that’s not enough. The politicians have to hear it too. They have to hear it, and they have to believe it. Come and support me at the Second Amendment March on April 19th on the Washington Monument grounds. Let’s rattle some sabers and show the government we’re still here. We are here, and we are not silent!

The NRA is not an official sponsor of the event, but it's provided an unofficial blessing and has helped promote the march to its members. The VPC finds the connections disturbing given that the march will feature such speakers as Larry Pratt, a Tea Party member who played a pivotal role in a 1992 meeting of racist and extremist activists in Colorado that essentially launched the modern militia movement.

The VPC also finds a big overlap between the NRA's election volunteer coordinators and Tea Party activists in many states, and notes that the NRA has capitalized on the movement by marketing a line of "Don't Tread on Me" T-shirts and other apparel regularly sported at Tea Party rallies. The report closes with a quote from Aitan Goelma, a former federal prosecutor who helped win convictions against McVeigh and Terry Nichols in the Oklahoma City bombing case, who told the Christian Science Monitor in March:

Anytime you have group-think and this churning of ridiculous ideas back and forth, eventually you’ll get someone like McVeigh who’s going to say ‘I’m going to take the mantle of leadership and fire the shot heard around the world and start the second American revolution...’ Some of this is fantasy. I think the idea is that it is kind of fun to talk about a UN tank on your front lawn and the New World Order...but when someone blows up a building and kills 19 kids in a day-care center, it’s not so glamorous anymore"

As the VPC report suggests, the NRA ought to think twice before egging on people who frequently talk about how the tree of liberty needs periodic watering with the blood of patriots. A few of them might start to take that line a little too seriously. It wouldn't be surprising of some of those folks showed up next week at the Second Amendment March—an event that promises to make today's Tax Day antics look like, well, a tea party.If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...


There is nothing civil about civil wars!

Whole Foods, United Natural Foods Muscle Suppliers to Boycott Consumer Group



24 Corporate Crime Reporter 12, March 21, 2010

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) carries a big public interest stick.

It can mobilize the 850,000 people in its network to pressure corporations and governments.Organic Customers Association

The goal – clean, safe, organic foods and products for America.
One way that OCA raises money – it charges for ads on the group’s popular web site – organicconsumers.org.

Two companies had purchased logo space on the OCA web site – Organic Valley and Nature’s Path.

Until last year.

That’s when the groups dropped their sponsorship.

Under pressure from Whole Foods Market and United Natural Foods – the two companies that dominate the organics market in the United States.

That’s according to OCA’s national director Ronnie Cummins.

“National sponsors like Organic Valley and Nature’s Path have been threatened by Whole Foods and United Natural Foods that if they continue to support the Organic Consumers Association they will suffer repercussions in the marketplace,” Cummins told Corporate Crime Reporter in an interview last week.

“We had to take down those logos,” Cummins said. “We understand. We don’t want a company to go bankrupt simply because they support the right thing.”
Cummins said high ranking executives at the Organic Valley and Nature’s Path told him about the threats – but asked that he not disclose their names.


“Whole Foods is very careful,” Cummins said. “Whole Foods has threatened to sue us a number of times. But they are very careful when they do this sort of arm twisting and intimidation to not leave any evidence of it. This was all verbally committed over the phone or in person.”

The executives from Nature’s Path and Organic Valley “apologized to us and made me promise not to use their names,” Cummins said.

“We are trying to protect these companies and these individuals from the fallout from Whole Foods and United Natural Foods,” Cummins said.

Cummins estimates that OCA lost a total of $40,000 in projected ad revenue as a result of the move.

But he understands that Organic Valley and Nature’s Path can’t afford to offend Whole Foods and United Natural Foods – the main distributor of organic foods in the United States.

“Whole Foods sells $10 billion out of the $75 billion sold a year for the industry,” Cummins said. “So for most companies it’s at least 15 percent, but often up to 25 percent of their total sales. And it’s not just Whole Foods. United Natural Foods was in on it to.”

If they were cut off by those two, they would be driven out of business?

“You would go bankrupt immediately,” Cummins said. “We call Whole Foods and United Natural Foods the organic mafia. And it really is like that. There is tremendous fear in the industry to say anything critical of Whole Foods and United Natural Foods.”

When did Whole Foods and United Natural Foods begin pressuring OCA?

“It has happened over the past twelve months as we stepped up this campaign to expose the myth of natural foods,” Cummins said. “And at first, Whole Foods and United Natural Foods thought they could ignore the campaign. But then they noticed we had an alliance with the United Farmworkers and with the Teamsters.”
Cummins wants Whole Foods and United Natural Foods to sign a Food Sustainability Pledge.


“That requires them to stop marketing conventional chemical foods as natural,” Cummins said. “And to sell only foods in their store that are certified organic or are in transition to organics. And it requires them to recognize fair trade principles – not just overseas, but in the domestic supply line.”

Whole Foods spokesperson Libby Letton said that Whole Foods did not pressure the two companies to pull the ads.

“For the OCA to continue to mislead consumers about Whole Foods Market and UNFI is alarming and disheartening,” Letton said. “When the OCA launched an untrue campaign against us last year, we did contact our stakeholders, including our suppliers, Team Members, and shoppers, because we wanted to clear up the misinformation that was being spread by the OCA’s campaign. We find it troubling that while the OCA accuses us of pressuring our suppliers against them, they openly call on Whole Foods Market to ‘put the pressure on’ suppliers to transition to organic.”

“Meanwhile, the truth is that Whole Foods Market continues to champion organics more than ever. We take enormous pride in working with hard-working and ethical organic farmers and food producers to offer our shoppers the very best organic products on the planet,” Letton said.

United Natural Foods could not be reached for comment.

[For a complete transcript of the Interview with Ronnie Cummins, see 24 Corporate Crime Reporter 12(12), March 22, 2010, print edition only.]

Corporate Crime Reporter
1209 National Press Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20045
202.737.1680


There is nothing civil about civil wars!

Friday, April 16, 2010

Iraqracy At Work

IRAQ
 Ayad Allawi



More than a month after Iraq's parliamentary elections on March 7, Iraq's politicians still have not been able to form a government. "Protracted negotiations over who will lead the country are still underway, even in the face of a recent spate of violence and terrorist attacks in the street," reports Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Brian Katulis. Incumbent Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's State of Law coalition received two fewer seats than the Iraqiyya coalition, which is led by former interim Iraqi prime minister Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite. Iraqiyya draws much of its support from secular nationalist Sunnis, though one of its leading figures, Tareq al-Hashemi, currently Iraq's most senior Sunni Arab official who, until recently, led the religious Iraqi Islamic party. Reports indicated that the Iraqi National Alliance -- a coalition made up largely of religious Shiites and led by the Sadrist party of Muqtada al-Sadr -- and Maliki's State of Law coalition were close to a merger, which "would put the combined bloc within two seats of the 163-seat majority needed to form a government." Journalist Gregg Carlstrom notes, however, that the parties "still need to decide who's going to be the prime minister," as the Sadrists have made clear that they oppose Maliki. On Wednesday, Allawi "warned that the country could slide into a sectarian war if his group is shut out of the next government and said the United States should work more aggressively to prevent that from happening."

THE ROLE OF IRAN AND SAUDI ARABIA: Though some have called the recent elections "a defeat for Iran," Iran's continuing influence in Iraq was demonstrated by the fact that Iraq's leading Shiite and Kurdish parties all sent delegations to Tehran after the elections. On April 9, the Iranian government called on Iraqi leaders "to include Sunnis in the long-overdue new government and said Shiites would have to form an alliance with them for that to happen." The statement marked a shift for Iran, which has long supported a Shia-dominated Iraq and whose influence is believed to have been behind the attempt by Iraq's de-Baathification commission to disqualify large numbers of Sunni candidates in the weeks leading up to the election. An Iraqiyya delegation also visited Iran this week in order to secure Iranian government support for Iraqiyya-led government. At the same time, Iraqi vice president Tareq al-Hashemi visited Saudi Arabia for talks with Saudi King Abdullah. Hashemi's visit to Riyadh "follows similar trips by leading Iraqi politicians from all communities" -- Kurdish and Shiite as well as Sunni Arab, including Ammar al-Hakim, leader of the Shiite Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI). ISCI has strong ties to Iran, and also enjoyed the early backing of the U.S. coalition government, but has fared poorly in subsequent elections. Predominantly Sunni Saudi Arabia "is most concerned about Shiite arch-rival Iran's potential influence over any Baghdad administration."

CONTINUING TENSIONS: Iraq continues to face a number of serious problems. Though violence has stayed down from its 2006-7 peak, Iraq still regularly experiences terrorism. A recent study "found Iraq the number one country in the world most at risk for terrorist attacks." Though al Qaeda in Iraq has been significantly weakened, it retains the ability to carry out massively destructive acts like the recent bombings of the Iranian and German embassies and the Egyptian Consulate, which killed 41 and wounded 237. A recent report from Refugees International also said that "Iraq faces a dire humanitarian crisis as huge numbers of displaced Iraqis struggle to survive in squalid camps." The United Nations estimates that some 4.7 million Iraqis have been displaced since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. "Of the 1.5 million internally displaced people (IDPs) forced from their homes in 2006 and 2007," the report said, "33 percent or 500,000 live as squatters in slum areas." Tensions between Iraqi Arabs and Kurds remain high, especially over the status of oil-rich Kirkuk.

MAINTAINING THE DRAWDOWN: Some analysts have argued that Iraq's continuing problems show the need for the U.S. to slow its drawdown of troops from the country. Tom Ricks, a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, wrote recently that "probably...the best course" for Obama would be to "break his campaign promises about ending the war, and to offer to keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for several more years." The Brookings Institution's Ken Pollack wrote last month that one problem Obama faces is a domestic political base that is "fanatical that he keep to this drawdown schedule regardless of what happens in Iraq." But, as Katulis notes, "If anyone is 'fanatical' about adhering to the troop withdrawal timelines, it is the Iraqis. Iraq's leaders demanded a clear timeline for troop withdrawals in its negotiations with the Bush administration, and there are strong political actors in Iraq who are demanding an end to what they view as an 'occupation.'" One of the most important moments in the consolidation of sovereign Iraqi political authority was the U.S. military's withdrawal from Iraq's cities, celebrated all over the country as Iraqi Sovereignty Day. "The United States should carefully monitor the situation inside Iraq as it continues the troop withdrawal outlined by the Bush administration," Katulis writes, "but it would be unwise to look for excuses to stay longer than Iraqis want."



There is nothing civil about civil wars!

A Proud Tradition

PROGRESSIVES

Today is "Tax Day," and as a Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. quotation inscribed on the IRS building says, "Taxes are the price we pay for civilized society." American society is the result of more than 200 years of progressive thought, political leadership, and social movements. Conservative pundits like Glenn Beck and Jonah Goldberg have sought to re-write this history of progressivism, outlandishly claiming the Nazis were progressive thinkers and the modern American left has its roots in fascism. Center for American Progress experts John Halpin, Conor P. Williams, Ruy Teixeira, and Marta Cook have written a series of papers that offer a proper history lesson of America's progressive intellectuals, politicians, and social movements. The "Progressive Tradition Series" sets the record straight, showing that progressivism, at its core, is grounded in the idea of moving beyond the status quo to more equal and just social conditions consistent with original American democratic principles such as freedom, equality, and the common good. The three essays that comprise the CAP series take readers on a whirlwind tour of American progressivism over the past two centuries, -- covering everything from the philosophical tracts of John Dewey and the rise of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal coalition, to the mass movement that won civil rights for African Americans -- and provide an invaluable historical perspective for Americans who seek to learn from the past so that they may continue the long progressive tradition of fighting to expand justice and opportunity for all. Today's Progress Report reviews the three papers:

PROGRESSIVE INTELLECTUAL TRADITION: Halpin and Williams' "The Progressive Intellectual Tradition in America" deals with the "philosophical and theoretical development of progressivism as a response to the rise of industrial capitalism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries." "Progressivism as an intellectual movement emerged between 1890 and 1920" -- known as the "Progressive Era" -- as a response to the rapid economic changes associated with the Industrial Revolution. Reformist intellectuals, concerned with the increased concentration of wealth, unsafe working conditions, political corruption, and the misuse of natural resources, laid out the philosophical basis for tangible reforms. Progressives reformed the political system by expanding suffrage and instituting direct senatorial and primary elections; to the economy they brought the graduated income tax, the right to organize, unemployment insurance, and food and drug safety laws. Reformers began to demand "that Americans consider whether the consequences of their economic and political institutions were consistent with American notions of equal treatment and justice." Herbert Croly embodied these concerns with his 1909 book The Promise of American Life, in which he called for a strong state to counteract the power of concentrated wealth. Progressive Era thinkers went on to denounce the "static, conservative interpretation of the Constitution...as retrograde and insufficient for the modern age," preferring to look at the document instead as a vehicle for the "realization of democracy" that would allow for progressive reforms. This view was adopted by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who, in his famous essay "The Living Law," argued that the meaning of the Constitution had shifted as our democracy "deepened." Brandeis wrote that courts could not be "deaf and blind" to "newly arisen social needs" and laid out the legal basis for an expansive welfare state. The notion of unbending literalism in interpreting the Constitution was anathema to progressive intellectuals just as it was to Thomas Jefferson when he said in 1816, "Laws and institutions most go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind." Altogether, progressivism "paved the way toward the midcentury 'mixed economy' that lifted living standards for millions of people, reduced poverty and inequality, and helped to create the vast American middle class."

PROGRESSIVE TRADITION IN AMERICAN POLITICS: In "The Progressive Tradition in American Politics," Teixeira and Halpin detail the expression of progressivism "both within and outside the major political parties, beginning with the early protest movements of the populists and other third party insurgencies to the transformative candidacies of William Jennings Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt." In the late 1890s, Americans were increasingly restless over the poor state of the economy for most of the country's citizens. Dissatisfied farmers formed the new Populist Party to address these concerns. The party promoted ideas such as an eight-hour workday and direct election of senators, both of which were eventually adopted by major parties. In 1892, the Populist Party won eight percent of the national popular vote and carried five states, an impressive showing for a third party in American politics. After the assassination of President William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt came to office and began implementing sweeping progressive reforms and fighting against monopolistic corporate practices. During a 1902 United Mineworkers strike, he threatened to seize the mines if employers did not agree to impartial arbitration, which won the workers a nine-hour day and 10 percent wage increase. During his tenure, Roosevelt went on to expand federal inspection of the meatpacking industry, regulate railroads as a "trustbuster," and "vastly" expand the national forest system. Roosevelt was followed by Republican William Howard Taft, who faced the ire of progressives within his own party and eventually faced a strong challenge from Roosevelt, who ran as the nominee of the newly formed Progressive Party. During Democrat Woodrow Wilson's tenure, the income tax and direct election of senators were approved, and the great progressive Justice Louis Brandeis was confirmed to the Supreme Court. Then, World War I brought with it police suppression of civil liberties and nativist hysteria, and the decline of progressives in American politics. Yet by 1932, with the nation mired in Great Depression and reeling from a 24 percent unemployment rate, progressive Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected by a coalition that included blue-collar workers, urban Catholics, blacks, Jews, and white Southerners that later came to be known as the New Deal coalition. With the support of this coalition -- and pressure from liberal politicians and activists like Huey Long and Francis Townsend --  FDR successfully enacted the New Deal, a set of tough financial regulations like the Glass-Steagall Act, and social programs, like Social Security, that, along with the military build-up around World War II, eventually pulled the country out of the Depression and created decades of prosperity in which income inequality was at a record low. Shortly before his death, FDR laid out "Four Freedoms" that enshrined the progressive promise: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. The two decades following the death of President Roosevelt saw governments that continued progressive achievements. In the 1960s, Democrat Lyndon Johnson championed reforms as a part of his "Great Society" programs and passed Medicare, the universal single-payer health care system for the elderly. Prodded by the civil rights movement, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965, making it the federal government's responsibility to ensure the rights of racial minorities. Unfortunately, an unpopular war in Vietnam and southern resistance to civil rights measures fractured the New Deal coalition, led LBJ to decline running for a second term, and saw the rise of Republican Richard Nixon and an overwhelming defeat for progressive Democrat George McGovern in the 1972 presidential election. By 1980, right-wing Republican Ronald Reagan won the presidency, solidifying center-right control of the government for decades. Yet this does not change the fact that in the years before Reagan's victory, progressives had built a government that had enhanced human freedom and expanded social justice dramatically.

PROGRESSIVE SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: As the late historian Howard Zinn once said, real change in our country works "its way from the bottom up, from the people themselves. That's how change happens." It is this spirit that animates Cook and Halpin's "Social Movements and Progressivism." Throughout our history, progressivism has been built on "a vibrant grassroots foundation, from the Social Gospel and labor movements to women's suffrage and civil rights to environmentalism, antiwar activism, and gay rights." There are two major strains of progressive social movements in the United States: movements for equality and individual rights, and movements for economic justice. The first of these movements finds its roots in abolitionism. Americans who opposed slavery used a variety of tactics to further their cause. William Lloyd Garrison co-founded the American Anti-Slavery Society and the newspaper The Liberator. The freed slave Frederick Douglass wrote an autobiography to explain the slave experience. Religious organizations used their church pulpits and religious writings to attack the institution of slavery. "The moral and political activism of the abolitionists" seemed to embolden Abraham Lincoln's resolve to abolish slavery during the Civil War. In the early 19th century, women began organizing to demand the same rights as men. Starting with the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848, feminists laid out platforms that included full voting rights and legal equality for women, drawing on the moral promise of the Declaration of Independence. By 1920, the movement won women's suffrage with the passage of the 19th Amendment. The women's movement continued on through organizations like the National Organization of Women in the 20th century to successfully win social and legislative battles over marriage and divorce rights, sexual freedom, and workplace equality. The civil rights movement can be traced back t 1909 with the founding of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which mobilized throughout the 20th century for the cause of racial justice, but reached its peak activism in the 1960s. During that decade, African Americans and their allies in other communities took aim at racial segregation, voter intimidation, and legal racism in the South, and engaged in a massive campaign of civil disobedience that included sit-ins, marches, and boycotts that resulted in Congress passing the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was the most famous of these civil rights demonstrators, and eventually expanded his activism to other issues he saw as essential to achieving social justice: ending reckless militarism and building a just economy for all, and spent his last days supporting striking sanitation workers in Memphis, TN. Movements for economic justice expressed themselves through the labor movement starting in the late 19th century. By the mid-1880s the Knights of Labor, the country's first major national union, reached a membership of 750,000; for the next half-century, workers continued to organize in greater numbers, regularly using the power of organized labor and strikes to achieve better working conditions, pay, and benefits. Being a union organizer was often dangerous, with labor leaders regularly intimidated by big businesses and their government allies. One particularly violent confrontation between mining families and coal operators in Ludlow, CO, led to the killing of eighteen men, women, and children by the Colorado National Guard. By the time of FDR's tenure, the environment changed drastically. When striking autoworkers in Flint, MI, in 1936 took over the General Motors factory there to demand fair wages and conditions, the company and allied police officers attacked workers. Michigan's Governor and President Roosevelt sent in the National Guard to prevent violence, but refused to use them against the striking workers, who went on to win their labor battle. By the end of World War II, labor represented 36 percent of the American workforce. Unfortunately, the proliferation of anti-labor laws, the changing workplace, the failure of unions to properly globalize, and other factors have resulted in only 12.3 percent of American workers belonging to a union in 2009. Regardless, the positive legacy of the American labor movement continues to affect us all by its long list of achievements, like the eight-hour workday, the weekend, and health benefits at work.

There is nothing civil about civil wars!



The Global Economic Crisis: Riots, Rebellion and Revolution



Remember that revolution so many of us thought we wanted back in the late 60s and early 70s? Well, it's here and it ain't what we had in mind!


When Empire Hits Home

By Andrew Gavin Marshall

April 14, 2010 "
GR" -- April 07, 2010 --

As nations of the world are thrown into a debt crisis, the likes of which have never been seen before, harsh fiscal ‘austerity’ measures will be undertaken in a flawed attempt to service the debts. The result will be the elimination of the middle class. When the middle class is absorbed into the labour class – the lower class – and lose their social, political, and economic foundations, they will riot, rebel, and revolt.

Ratings Agency Predicts Civil Unrest

Moody’s is a major ratings agency, which performs financial research and analysis on governments and commercial entities and ranks the credit-worthiness of borrowers. On March 15, Moody’s warned that the US, the UK, Germany, France, and Spain “are all at risk of soaring debt costs and will have to implement austerity plans that threaten ‘social cohesion’.” Further, Moody’s warned that such ‘austerity’ measures increase the potential for ‘social unrest’:

"Growth alone will not resolve an increasingly complicated debt equation. Preserving debt affordability at levels consistent with AAA ratings will invariably require fiscal adjustments of a magnitude that, in some cases, will test social cohesion," said Pierre Cailleteau, the chief author.

"We are not talking about revolution, but the severity of the crisis will force governments to make painful choices that expose weaknesses in society," he said.[1]

In other words, due to the massive debt levels of western nations taken on to save the banks from the crisis they caused, the people must now pay through a reduction of their standards of living. Naturally, social unrest would follow.

This has not been the first or only warning of “social unrest” in the west, and it certainly won’t be the last.

The Economic Crisis and Civil Unrest

At the onset of the economic crisis, these warnings were numerous. While many will claim that since we have moved on since the fall of 2008, these warnings are no longer valid. However, considering that the western world is on the verge of a far greater economic crisis that will spread over the next few years, from Greece to America, a great global debt depression, these warnings should be reviewed with an eye on the near future.

In December of 2008, in the midst of the worst period of the crisis of 2008, the IMF issued a warning to government’s of the west to “step up action to stem the global economic crisis or risk delaying a recovery and sparking violent unrest on the streets.”[2] However, governments did not stem or stop the economic crisis, they simply delayed the eventual and inevitable crisis to come, the debt crisis. In fact, the actions governments took to “stem” the economic crisis, or delay it, more accurately, have, in actuality, exacerbated the compound effects that the crisis will ultimately have. In short, bailing out the banks has created a condition in which an inevitable debt crisis will become far greater in scope and devastation than had they simply allowed the banks to fail.

Even the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the most prestigious financial institution in the world – the central bank to the world’s central banks – has warned that the bailouts have put the global economy in potentially far greater peril. The BIS warned that, “The scope and magnitude of the bank rescue packages also meant that significant risks had been transferred onto government balance sheets.”[3]

The head of the IMF warned that, “violent protests could break out in countries worldwide if the financial system was not restructured to benefit everyone rather than a small elite.”[4] However, he is disingenuous in his statements, as he and the institution he represents are key players in that “small elite” that benefit from the global financial system; this is the very system he serves.

In late December of 2008, “A U.S. Army War College report warn[ed] an economic crisis in the United States could lead to massive civil unrest and the need to call on the military to restore order.” The report stated:

Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities ... to defend basic domestic order and human security.[5]

Further revealed in the news release was the information that, “Pentagon officials said as many as 20,000 Soldiers under the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) will be trained within the next three years to work with civilian law enforcement in homeland security.”[6]

Europe in Social Crisis

In January of 2009, it was reported that Eastern Europe was expected to experience a “dangerous popular backlash on the streets” over the spring in response to the economic crisis:

Hit increasingly hard by the financial crisis, countries such as Bulgaria, Romania and the Baltic states face deep political destabilisation and social strife, as well as an increase in racial tension.

Last week protesters were tear-gassed as they threw rocks at police outside parliament in Vilnius, capital of Lithuania, in a protest against an austerity package including tax rises and benefit cuts.[7]

In January of 2009, Latvia experienced the largest protests since the mass rallies against Soviet rule in the late 1980s, with the protests eventually turning into riots. Similar “outbursts of civil unrest” spread across the “periphery of Europe.”[8]

This should be taken as a much larger warning, as the nations of Eastern Europe are forced into fiscal ‘austerity’ measures before they spread through the western world. Just as throughout the 1980s and the 1990s, countries of the ‘global south’, which signed Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) with the IMF and World Bank, were forced to undertake neoliberal reforms and harsh fiscal austerity measures. The people of these nations rioted and rebelled, in what was cynically referred to as “IMF riots”. What our nations have done abroad, in the name of ‘aid’ but in the intent of empire, is now coming home. The west will undergo its very own “IMF riots”.

The fears of civil unrest, however, were not confined simply to the periphery of Europe. In January of 2009, a massive French strike was taking place, as “teachers, television employees, postal workers, students and masses of other public-sector workers” were expressing discontent with the handling of the economic crisis; as “A depression triggered in America is being played out in Europe with increasing violence, and other forms of social unrest are spreading.”[9]

By late January, France was “paralysed by a wave of strike action, the boulevards of Paris resembling a debris-strewn battlefield.” Yet, the ‘credit crunch’ had hit harder in Eastern Europe and the civil unrest was greater, as these countries had abandoned Communism some twenty years prior only to be crushed under the “free market” of Capitalism, leading many to feel betrayed: “Europe's time of troubles is gathering depth and scale. Governments are trembling. Revolt is in the air.”[10]

Olivier Besancenot, the leader of France’s extreme left “is hoping the strike will be the first step towards another French revolution as the recession bites and protests multiply across Europe's second largest economy.” He told the Financial Times that, “We want the established powers to be blown apart,” and that, “We are going to reinvent and re-establish the anticapitalist project.”[11]

In January of 2009, Iceland’s government collapsed due to the pressures from the economic crisis, and amidst a storm of Icelanders protesting in anger against the political class. As the Times reported, “it is a sign of things to come: a new age of rebellion.” An economist at the London School of Economics warned that we could expect large-scale civil unrest beginning in March to May of 2009:

It will be caused by the rise of general awareness throughout Europe, America and Asia that hundreds of millions of people in rich and poor countries are experiencing rapidly falling consumption standards; that the crisis is getting worse not better; and that it has escaped the control of public authorities, national and international.[12]

In February of 2009, the Guardian reported that police in Britain were preparing for a “summer of rage” as “victims of the economic downturn take to the streets to demonstrate against financial institutions.” Police officials warned “that middle-class individuals who would never have considered joining demonstrations may now seek to vent their anger through protests this year.”[13]

In March, it was reported that “top secret contingency plans” had been drawn up to counter the threat posed by a possible “summer of discontent,” which “has led to the ­extraordinary step of the Army being put on ­standby.” The report revealed that, “What worries emergency planners most is that the middle classes, now struggling to cope with unemployment and repossessions, may take to the streets with the disenfranchised.”[14]

As the G20 met in London in early April 2009, mass protests took place, resulting in violence, “with a band of demonstrators close to the Bank of England storming a Royal Bank of Scotland branch, and baton-wielding police charging a sit-down protest by students.” While the majority of protests were peaceful, “some bloody skirmishes broke out as police tried to keep thousands of people in containment pens surrounding the Bank of England.”[15] Protests further broke out into riots as a Royal Bank of Scotland office was looted.[16] The following day, a man collapsed and died in central London during the protests shortly after having been assaulted by riot police.[17]

On May 1, 2009, major protests and riots broke out in Germany, Greece, Turkey, France and Austria, fuelled by economic tensions:

Police in Berlin arrested 57 people while around 50 officers were hurt as young demonstrators threw bottles and rocks and set fire to cars and rubbish bins. There were also clashes in Hamburg, where anti-capitalist protesters attacked a bank.

In Turkey, masked protesters threw stones and petrol bombs at police, smashing banks and supermarket windows in its biggest city, Istanbul. Security forces fired tear gas and water cannon at hundreds of rioters and more than a hundred were arrested with dozens more hurt. There were also scattered skirmishes with police in the capital, Ankara, where 150,000 people marched.[18]

There were further protests and riots that broke out in Russia, Italy, Spain, and some politicians were even discussing the threat of revolution.[19]

As a debt crisis began spreading throughout Europe in Greece, Portugal, and Spain, social unrest followed suit. Riots and protests increasingly took place in Greece, showing signs of things to come to all other western nations, which will sooner or later have to face the harsh reality of their odious debts.[20]

Is Civil Unrest Coming to America?

In February of 2009, Obama’s intelligence chief, Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the economic crisis has become the greatest threat to U.S. national security:

I’d like to begin with the global economic crisis, because it already looms as the most serious one in decades, if not in centuries ... Economic crises increase the risk of regime-threatening instability if they are prolonged for a one- or two-year period... And instability can loosen the fragile hold that many developing countries have on law and order, which can spill out in dangerous ways into the international community.[21]

What this means, is that economic crises (“if they are prolonged for a one or two year period”) pose a major threat to the established powers – the governing and economic powers – in the form of social unrest and rebellion (“regime-threatening instability”). The colonial possessions – Africa, South America, and Asia – will experience the worst of the economic conditions, which “can loosen the fragile hold that many developing countries have.” This can then come back to the western nations and imperial powers themselves, as the riots and rebellion will spread home, but also as they may lose control of their colonial possessions – eliminating western elites from a position of power internationally, and acquiescence domestically: The rebellion and discontent in the ‘Third World’ “can spill out in dangerous ways into the international community.”

In the same month, the highest-ranking general in the United States, “Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ranks the financial crisis as a higher priority and greater risk to security than current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” He explained, “It's a global crisis. And as that impacts security issues, or feeds greater instability, I think it will impact on our national security in ways that we quite haven't figured out yet.”[22] Rest assured, they’ve figured it out, but they don’t want to tell you.

Again, in the same month, the head of the World Trade Organization (WTO) warned that, “The global economic crisis could trigger political unrest equal to that seen during the 1930s.” He elaborated, “The crisis today is spreading even faster (than the Great Depression) and affects more countries at the same time.”[23]

In February of 2009, renowned economic historian and Harvard professor, Niall Ferguson, predicted a “prolonged financial hardship, even civil war, before the ‘Great Recession' ends,” and that, “The global crisis is far from over, [it] has only just begun, and Canada is no exception,” he said while at a speaking event in Canada. He explained, “Policy makers and forecasters who see a recovery next year are probably lying to boost public confidence,” while, “the crisis will eventually provoke political conflict.” He further explained:

There will be blood, in the sense that a crisis of this magnitude is bound to increase political as well as economic [conflict]. It is bound to destabilize some countries. It will cause civil wars to break out, that have been dormant. It will topple governments that were moderate and bring in governments that are extreme. These things are pretty predictable.[24]

Even in May of 2009, the head of the World Bank warned that, “the global economic crisis could lead to serious social upheaval,” as “there is a risk of a serious human and social crisis with very serious political implications.”[25]

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Adviser, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission and a key architect of ‘globalization’ warned in February of 2009 that, “There's going to be growing conflict between the classes and if people are unemployed and really hurting, hell, there could be even riots!”[26]

In early May 2009, the New York Times reported on the results of a major poll, suggesting, “A solid majority of people in the major Western democracies expect a rise in political extremism in their countries as a result of the economic crisis.” Of those surveyed, 53% in Italy and the United States said they expected extremism is “certain to happen” or “probable” in the next three years. That percentage increases to 65% in Britain and Germany, and is at 60% in France and Spain.[27]

Over the summer of 2009, the major nations of the west and their corporate media machines promoted and propagandized the notion of an ‘economic recovery’, allowing dissent to quell, spending to increase, stock market speculation to accelerate, and people’s fears and concerns to subside. It was a massive organized propaganda effort, and it had major successes for a while. However, in the New Year, this illusion is largely being derided for what it is, a fantasy. With the slow but steady erosion of this economic illusion, fears of riots, rebellion and revolution return.

On March 1, 2010, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan warned President Obama about civil unrest, saying:

When we can't feed our families what do you tell us? Thou shalt not steal? When survival is the first law of nature? What are you going to do when black people and poor people erupt in the streets of America? It's coming! Will you use the federal troops, Mr. President, against the poor?[28]

A March 8 article in the Wall Street Journal speculated about the discontent among the American people in regards to the economy, suggesting that it is “likely” that the economy has “bottomed” and that it will simply “trudge along” until November. However, the author suggested that given all the growing discontent in a variety of areas, it wouldn’t be surprising to see some civil unrest:

Now, contrary to what you may read in the New York Times or the Huffington Post, the ugliness could come from anywhere – the Left, the Center or the Right. Almost everyone in America thinks they’ve been betrayed.[29]

Clearly, the possibility and inevitability of riots in the United States, and in fact in many western nations becomes increasingly apparent. The middle classes will likely become the most angered and mobilized populace, having their social foundations pulled out from under them, and with that, they are overcome with a ‘failure of expectations’ for their political and economic clout. With no social foundations on which to stand, a class cannot reach high in the political and economic ladder, nationally or internationally.

As documented in Part 2 of this series, the middle class, for the past few decades, has been a class living on debt, consuming on debt, surviving on debt and existing only in theory. As nations collapse into a global debt crisis, the middle classes and the college students will be plunged into a world which they have seldom known: poverty. As documented in Part 1 of this series, the global social systems of poverty, race and war are inextricably interrelated and dependent on one another. As the middle class is absorbed into the global poverty class – the labour class – our nations in the west vastly expand their hegemony over the world’s resources and key strategic points, rapidly accelerating military involvement in every region of the world. As war expands, poverty grows, and racial issues are exacerbated; thus, the government asserts a totalitarian system of control.

Will the Middle Class Become Revolutionary?

In 2007, a British Defence Ministry report was released assessing global trends in the world over the next 30 years. The report stated assuredly that, “During the next 30 years, every aspect of human life will change at an unprecedented rate, throwing up new features, challenges and opportunities.”[30] In regards to ‘globalization,’ the report states:

A key feature of globalization will be the continuing internationalization of markets for goods, services and labour, which will integrate geographically dispersed sets of customers and suppliers.  This will be an engine for accelerating economic growth, but will also be a source of risk, as local markets become increasingly exposed to destabilizing fluctuations in the wider global economy... Also, there will continue to be winners and losers in a global economy led by market forces, especially so in the field of labour, which will be subject to particularly ruthless laws of supply and demand.[31]

Another major focus of the report is in the area of “Global Inequality,” of which the report states, over the next 30 years:

[T]he gap between rich and poor will probably increase and absolute poverty will remain a global challenge... Disparities in wealth and advantage will therefore become more obvious, with their associated grievances and resentments, even among the growing numbers of people who are likely to be materially more prosperous than their parents and grandparents.  Absolute poverty and comparative disadvantage will fuel perceptions of injustice among those whose expectations are not met, increasing tension and instability, both within and between societies and resulting in expressions of violence such as disorder, criminality, terrorism and insurgency. They may also lead to the resurgence of not only anti-capitalist ideologies, possibly linked to religious, anarchist or nihilist movements, but also to populism and the revival of Marxism.[32]

The report states quite emphatically that there is a great potential for a revolution coming from the middle class:

The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx.  The globalization of labour markets and reducing levels of national welfare provision and employment could reduce peoples’ attachment to particular states.  The growing gap between themselves and a small number of highly visible super-rich individuals might fuel disillusion with meritocracy, while the growing urban under-classes are likely to pose an increasing threat to social order and stability, as the burden of acquired debt and the failure of pension provision begins to bite.  Faced by these twin challenges, the world’s middle-classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest.[33]

Is Revolution the Right Way Forward?

As the world has already experienced the greatest transfer of wealth in human history, the greatest social transformation in world history is soon to follow. The middle classes of the west, long the foundations upon which the consumer capitalist system was based, are about to be radically reorganized and integrated into the global labour class. As this process commences and accelerates, the middle classes will begin to protest, riot, rebel, and possibly revolt.

We must ask ourselves: Is this the right way forward?

History is nothing but an example that when revolution takes place, it can quickly and effectively be hijacked by militant and extremist elements, often resulting in a situation worse than that prior to the revolution. Often, these elements themselves are co-opted by the ruling elite, ensuring that whatever regime rises in the ashes of the old, no matter how militant or radical, it will continue to serve and expand the entrenched interests of elites. This is the worst-case scenario of revolution, and with history as a guide, it is also a common occurrence. To understand the nature of co-opted revolutions and entrenched elites, one need only look at the revolutions in France and Russia.[34]

While the righteous indignation and anger of the western middle class population, and in fact, the global population as a whole, is entirely justified, there is an extreme danger in the possibilities of how such a revolutionary class may act. It is imperative to not take violent action, as it would merely be playing directly into the hands of states and global institutions that have been preparing for this eventuality for some time. Nations are becoming ‘Homeland Security States’, setting up surveillance societies, increasing the role of the military in domestic issues and policing, expanding the police state apparatus and militarizing society in general. Democracy is in decline; it is a dying idea. Nation states are increasingly tossing aside even the remaining vestiges of a democratic façade and preparing for a new totalitarianism to arise, in conjunction with the rise of a ‘new capitalism’.

Violent action and riots by the people of these nations will only result in a harsh and brutal closing of society, as the state clamps down on the people and installs an oppressive form of governance. This is a trend and process of which the people should not help speed along. Violent acts will result in violent oppression. While peaceful opposition may itself be oppressed and even violently repressed by the state apparatus, the notion of a clamp down on peaceful protesters is likely to increase dissatisfaction with the ruling powers, increase support for the protesters, and may ultimately speed up the process of a truly new change in governance. It’s difficult to demonize peaceful action.

While people will surely be in the streets, seeking to expand their social, political, and economic rights, we must undertake as a global society, a rapid and extensive expansion of our mental and intellectual rights and responsibilities. We cannot take to the streets without taking on the challenges of our minds. This cannot alone be a physical change in governance that people seek – not simply a political revolution – this must be coupled and driven by an intellectual revolution. What is required is a new Enlightenment, a new Renaissance. While the Enlightenment and Renaissance were western movements of thinking and social change, the new global Enlightenment must be a truly transnational and worldwide revolution in thinking.

Western Civilization has failed. It will continue to insist upon its own dominance, but it is a failure in regards to addressing the interests of all human civilization. Elites like to think that they are in absolute control and are all-powerful; this is not the case. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Take, for example, the integration of North America into a regional bloc like that of the European Union, an entirely elite-driven project of which the people largely know little or nothing about. Elites seek to force the people of this region to increasingly identify themselves as ‘North American’, just as elites in Europe increasingly push for a ‘European’ identity as opposed to a national identity. While the intended purpose of this social reorganization is to more easily control people, it has the effect of uniting some of these people in opposition to these elite-driven projects. Thus, those they seek to unite in order to control, are then united in opposition to their very control.

As the ‘globalization project’ of constructing a ‘new world order’ expands, built upon the concepts of global governance, elites will inadvertently unite the people of the world in opposition to their power-project. This is the intellectual well that must be tapped as soon as possible. Ideas for a truly new world, a true human ‘civilization’ – a “Humane Civilization” – must be constructed from ideas originating in all regions of the world, from all peoples, of all religions, races, ethnicities, social groups and standings. If we are to make human civilization work, it must work for all of humanity.

This will require a global “revolution in thinking”, which must precede any direct political action. The global social, political, and economic system must be deconstructed and built anew. The people of the world do not want war, it is the leaders – the powerful – who decide to go to war, and they are never the ones to fight them. War is a crime against humanity, a crime of poverty, of discrimination, of hate. The social, political and economic foundations of war must be dismantled. Socially constructed divides between people – such as race and ethnicity – must be dismantled and done away with. All people must be treated as people; racial and gender inequality is a crime against humanity itself.

Poverty is the greatest crime against humanity the world has ever known. Any society that permits such gross inequalities and absolute poverty, which calls itself ‘civilized’, is only an aberration of the word, itself. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stated:

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.[35]


Endnotes

[1]        Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Moody's fears social unrest as AAA states implement austerity plans. The Telegraph: March 15, 2010: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7450468/Moodys-fears-social-unrest-as-AAA-states-implement-austerity-plans.html

[2]        Angela Balakrishnan, IMF chief issues stark warning on economic crisis. The Guardian: December 18, 2008: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/dec/16/imf-financial-crisis

[3]        BIS, International banking and financial market developments. BIS Quarterly Review: December 2008: page 20

[4]        Angela Balakrishnan, IMF chief issues stark warning on economic crisis. The Guardian: December 18, 2008: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/dec/16/imf-financial-crisis

[5]        Military.com, Study: DoD May Act On US Civil Unrest. McClatchy-Tribune Information Services: December 29, 2008: http://www.military.com/news/article/study-dod-may-act-on-us-civil-unrest.html

[6]        Ibid.

[7]        Jason Burke, Eastern Europe braced for a violent 'spring of discontent'. The Observer: January 18, 2009: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/18/eu-riots-vilinius

[8]        Philip P. Pan, Economic Crisis Fuels Unrest in E. Europe. The Washington Post: January 26, 2009: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/25/AR2009012502516.html

[9]        Adrian Michaels, Europe's winter of discontent. The Telegraph: January 27, 2009: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4363750/Europes-winter-of-discontent.html

[10]      Ian Traynor, Governments across Europe tremble as angry people take to the streets. The Guardian: January 31, 2009: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/31/global-recession-europe-protests

[11]      Ben Hall, French workers stage strike in protest at job losses and reforms. The Financial Times: January 29, 2009: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/71c25576-eda6-11dd-bd60-0000779fd2ac.html

[12]      Roger Boyes, World Agenda: riots in Iceland, Latvia and Bulgaria are a sign of things to come. The Times: January 21, 2009: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5559773.ece

[13]      Paul Lewis, Britain faces summer of rage – police. The Guardian: February 23, 2009: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/23/police-civil-unrest-recession

[14]      Geraint Jones, MI5 Alert On Bank Riots. The Express: March 1, 2009: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/86981/MI5-alert-on-bank-riots

[15]      Sam Jones, Jenny Percival and Paul Lewis, G20 protests: riot police clash with demonstrators. The Guardian: April 1, 2009: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/01/g20-summit-protests

[16]      Telegraph TV, G20 protests: Rioters loot RBS as demonstrations turn violent. The Telegraph: April 1, 2009: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/g20-summit/5089870/G20-protests-Rioters-loot-RBS-as-demonstrations-turn-violent.html

[17]      ITN, Police 'admit contact' with man killed at G20 protest. In The News: April 6, 2009: http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/health/crime/death-at-g20-police-silent-on-assault-reports-$1285968.htm

[18]      Henry Samuel, Riots across Europe fuelled by economic crisis. The Telegraph: May 1, 2009: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/5258634/Riots-across-Europe-fuelled-by-economic-crisis.html

[19]      Ibid.

[20]      David Oakley, et. al., Europe fears rock global markets. The Financial Times: February 4, 2010: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a124518a-11cb-11df-b6e3-00144feab49a.html

[21]      Stephen C. Webster, US intel chief: Economic crisis a greater threat than terrorism. Raw Story: February 13, 2009: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/US_intel_chief_Economic_crisis_greater_0213.html

[22]      Tom Philpott, MILITARY UPDATE: Official: Financial crisis a bigger security risk than wars. Colorado Springs Gazette: February 1, 2009: http://www.gazette.com/articles/mullen-47273-military-time.html

[23]      AFP, WTO chief warns of looming political unrest. AFP: February 7, 2009: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gpC1Q4gXJfp6EwMl1rMGrmA_a7ZA

[24]      Heather Scoffield, 'There will be blood'. The Globe and Mail: February 23, 2009: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/article973785.ece

[25]      BBC, World Bank warns of social unrest. BBC News: May 24, 2009: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8066037.stm

[26]      Press TV, Economic Crisis: Brzezinski warns of riots in US. Global Research: February 21, 2009: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12392

[27]      John C. Freed, Economic Crisis Raises Fears of Extremism in Western Countries. The New York Times: May 6, 2009: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/world/europe/07poll.html

[28]      WBEZ, Farrakhan Warns Obama of Civil Unrest. Chicago Public Radio: March 1, 2010: http://www.wbez.org/Content.aspx?audioID=40331

[29]      Evan Newmark, Mean Street: America’s Coming Civil Unrest? The Wall Street Journal: March 8, 2010: http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/03/08/mean-street-americas-coming-civil-unrest/

[30]      DCDC, The DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme, 2007-2036, 3rd ed. The Ministry of Defence, January 2007: page 1

[31]      Ibid, page 3.

[32]      Ibid.

[33]      Ibid, page 81.

[34]      For a look at the co-opting of the French Revolution by elites, see: Andrew Gavin Marshall, Global Power and Global Government: Evolution and Revolution of the Central Banking System. Global Research: July 21, 2009: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14464; For a look at the relationship between the Russian Revolution and powerful banking and corporate interests in America and Europe, see: Andrew Gavin Marshall, Origins of the American Empire: Revolution, World Wars and World Order. Global Research: July 28, 2009: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14552

[35]      Rev. Martin Luther King, Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence. Speech delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on April 4, 1967, at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html

© Copyright Andrew Gavin Marshall, Global Research, 2010
 

There is nothing civil about civil wars!