tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post3175365558015688332..comments2024-01-08T04:16:25.601-08:00Comments on Ché (What You Call Your) Pasa: Socialism for the Rich! Yay!Ché Pasahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01926630891287949373noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-52402210427713769492008-09-11T06:32:00.000-07:002008-09-11T06:32:00.000-07:00Oh, DFH = "Dirty Fucking Hippies", a catch-all des...Oh, DFH = "Dirty Fucking Hippies", a catch-all description for everyone who isn't aligned with the current power structure, including but not limited to the handful of hippies still around... <BR/><BR/>"Anarchists" is what the Defiant Ones in St. Paul called themselves, at least according to their web postings. Of course that sobriquet has been challenged... !Ché Pasahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01926630891287949373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-28659641047597286312008-09-11T06:29:00.000-07:002008-09-11T06:29:00.000-07:00Excellent points, ingsoc. Just as the original Pro...Excellent points, ingsoc. Just as the original Progressive "Revolution" was intended to support and maintain the interests of capitalists, with a few bones thrown to the masses, so it was with the New Deal. But those efforts to get a couple of scraps and bones for the masses couldn't have succeeded at all without pressure from below: the Populist movement in the 19th Century on the one hand, the mass unemployment and misery of the Depression (leading to a good deal of Communist and Socialist "alternative thinking") on the other.<BR/><BR/>But these are stop-gaps, aren't they? With the pupose of holding the line against the interests of the masses in order to maintain the power and authority of the rich and their manager-class.<BR/><BR/>People seem to be oblivious, but I'm not convinced that's really what's happening. Instead, I think there may be a real searching for coherence in the face of chaos. The old paradigms and ideologies have been too badly discredited (ie: Communism, even to some extent Socialism, while Fascism may turn out to be the default -- but not a welcome one -- in the absence of Socialist/Communist activism). No new paradigm or ideology has grown up to fill the gaps. <BR/><BR/>Secular Fascism seems to be the direction the Plutocracy is headed, while many of the masses are headed toward out and out Theocracy. Neither one has any room for Democracy, and neither one provides a sustainable and progressive economic model, at least for those who aren't rich. <BR/><BR/>If we're going to get back on a real progressive path, we're going to have to find some ways to dismantle both the Fascist and the Theocratic models that are being foisted on us now.Ché Pasahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01926630891287949373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2304235862479840318.post-73076049769658174352008-09-09T14:39:00.000-07:002008-09-09T14:39:00.000-07:00DFH anarchists? ¿Cómo?Also, I think pressure tacti...DFH anarchists? ¿Cómo?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Also, I think pressure tactics alone aren't going to work. What the "left" (however defined) needs is a coherent political movement that will work to ensure that this kind of thing doesn't happen again. I'm of the opinion that the best way to do that is to expropriate the big capitalist institutions like banks and megacorps and socialize their assets. The New Deal was an experiment at rigorous regulation, and I think the inability (and unwillingness) of New Dealers acknowledge the fact that leaving the system intact inevitably leaves the foxes guarding the hen house. This is not to say that it was all their fault, of course, as the New Deal was not as rigorous as it was intended to be (the Southern Democrats did what they could to prevent that), but that the US has never had a government that was serious about economic democracy and social justice except where such things made a profit. The New Deal is the exception that proves this rule.<BR/><BR/>I think a good way of thinking about it is to envision all of these problems as being tied up in the Gordian Knot of capitalism. Since capitalist property can't help but encourage people to do the kinds of things we're objecting to, we're going to have to replace it with a property form that allows us to do what we want. Our opponents derive their power from ownership of capital, so even if capital <I>per se</I> weren't the problem, capital is still implicated; in order to attack the root of their power, we must attack their capital. Since we're not about to replace one set of masters with another, the baby must be thrown out with the bathwater. Time to go back to the drawing board for the American Experiment.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps this time we can do it without the religious exceptionalism, racism, sexism, classism, etc. The ideal that we hold up as our self-image need not be a mere ideal; it can be reality. It's going to require very hard work to get there, but I think we can manage it if we work smart.IngSochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07511241598629928574noreply@blogger.com