We’ve lived so long under the spell of hierarchy—from god-kings to feudal lords to party bosses—that only recently have we awakened to see not only that “regular” citizens have the capacity for self-governance, but that without their engagement our huge global crises cannot be addressed. The changes needed for human society simply to survive, let alone thrive, are so profound that the only way we will move toward them is if we ourselves, regular citizens, feel meaningful ownership of solutions through direct engagement. Our problems are too big, interrelated, and pervasive to yield to directives from on high.
—Frances Moore Lappé, excerpt from Time for Progressives to Grow Up

Wednesday, October 14, 2020

Posts that I especially recommend today: Wednesday, October 14, 2020

  • Liberalism and Fascism: Partners in Crime by Gabriel Rockhill from CounterPunch. (Note: Rockhill is using the term "liberalism" in the classic sense which means the ideology of capitalism.) My commentary follows:
I agree with most of this article with the exception being that he does not distinguish capitalist "democracy" or,  a more familiar and equivalent term, "bourgeois democracy", from socialist democracy. Lenin laid down the theoretical framework for the latter, but immediately after the Russian Revolution, Russia was under attack mainly by Britain, France, Japan, and the USA--especially by Britain which interfered with Lenin's plans. Also the quashing of the Communist party in Germany contributed to the distortion of Lenin's plans and resulted in a bureaucratic ruling class headed by the authoritarian Stalin. 
A socialist democracy has yet to be created or established, and it doesn't seem likely to appear given the limited amount time humans have due to the threat posed by the ecological crisis and the bellicose and aggressive nature of the US/Anglo/Zionist Empire. The latter poses the threat of a catastrophic nuclear war.
To be sure, after WWII the Western intellectual apologists for capitalism had to extensively ignore the reality of the fascist roots in capitalism, and went on to extensively rewrite the history of WWII that is de rigueur throughout the present day Empire.
I think there is a basic conflict between capitalism and socialism, and that is the question of allegiance to the extended family versus society. If one chooses family, capitalism provides the means to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of families which are the owners of economic property (and their supporters) over those who don't own economic property.
This is a powerful motive force which is the basis for many conflicts among humans, particularly those who, otherwise support socialist policies; but faced with the loss of jobs and careers, that would bring poverty to their families, many choose a capitalist path. The choice of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was capitalism, and she greatly benefited from her choice. She described her choice in a nutshell that embarrassed a number of members of the capitalist class because it was so true. She said there was no such thing as society, there were only families, and added that maybe neighbors as well.
Capitalist ruling classes have often used this control over jobs and careers in an exaggerated way to co-op people into activities that they would otherwise not engage. This is especially true of highly educated people necessary to maintain and protect all the capitalist machinery necessary for the system to enhance the wealth and power of the ruling class. This practice has led to the corruption of many highly trained professional and managerial people throughout every institution in the Empire.
  • James Corbett Encourages You To Do Your Own Research from Corbett's website. (My reaction: The only problem with Corbett's views is that he blames the "media" for using experts as a way to support their authoritarian directions. He doesn't yet see that a capitalist ruling class controls major media corporations.)
at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,