Why ideology matters
I have posted articles on this site previously, which no one has read, or has read but did not like.
From a recent article on Senator Sanders' endorsement of Mrs. Clinton:
Not only Sanders, but all of the various middle-class organizations—the International Socialist Organization, Socialist Alternative, Solidarity, and the Green Party—that promoted him are now politically responsible for the consequences.
I am among those who are complicit in this accusation.
I shall never support a "mainstream" candidate ever again. Jill Stein is mainstream, too, because she is running on a set of ideas, and not a coherent theory.
Without theories, there is no resistance to anything. Issues can be bartered or traded, then the deal ignored. Individuals can be coerced to participating, as Senator Sanders has.
There was never going to be any revolution. It takes more than rallies. It takes more than a campaign, than a protest. It takes a formation, a system of ideas, which give the LEADERS a solid conviction on which to act.
There is no one who is able to undertake the kind of formation necessary in the United States or anywhere else for that matter. The reason for this is that the channels of communication have been destroyed. It is impossible, psychologically and technically, to transmit any coherent theory of "how the world works" without being dismissed by those who are blind or who work to maintain the status quo. There is no one to educate the former, and the latter are so prevalent and so powerful as to make any communication impossible.
There is simply nothing left to do but total non violent resistance, even if that means questioning everything one hears, sees, and assumes. Of course, one cannot question what one does not perceive, the problem of the fish-and-water.
The fact is, that Bernie's platform, with which many can identify with, was never enough to withstand the political forces, because it is not grounded in a solid theory of society, economy, and political action.
I am among those who are complicit in this accusation and I am ashamed that I sacrificed my principles for something this cheap.
My money is better spent in the hands of a homeless drug addict. At least such a person is honest and does not mean to cheat me.
Peace and love be with you, reader.
Comments
I like some of what you say here, that to sustain a movement
and/or a viable new party, we have to have a coherent ideology. Otherwise we'll start to lose sight of the important issues. I think this is something that Jill, at least, could easily express, since Green is pretty specific and clear.
However, I object to blaming the middle class, Jill Stein, various socialist parties, or even Bernie for the political consequences of this election. Primary responsibility needs to be kept firmly in the laps of the Dem and Repug party establishments, who are fighting change, fighting for the corporatists, and fighting against the average American with everything they have. They have rigged the system so that we don't even know how much the system is rigged.
I went to your link and note that it is a socialist Web site and concludes:
Thus all the previous parts of that article, including the blame game, looks a bit self serving in the end. Just more politics as usual? "Everyone else is bad, vote for ME!"
That article made some interesting points too. But blaming the entire known universe other than Jerry White wasn't one of them.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
There is no sustainable movement
without a clear understanding of why one is moving, on what principles things move, and the energy involved.
I am not a member of any political party, and yes, anyone who has been reading the WSWS for any length of time certainly understands the direct style of many articles.
At least they are direct and upfront about it, unlike most media channels, which use all sorts of psychological and rhetorical tricks, innuendo and lies, in order to get us to vote against our interests.
I am not a member of the WSWS or the Communist Party or have ever been so. However, I will say this: at least I am reasonably confident that they are not working AGAINST my interests in trying to convince me to consider seriously what they are printing. The reason I am certain of this is because they want power, do not have power, are not part of the system, and wish to influence opinion. Therefore, they are going to present a rather different bias concerning events, one which counters the bias of the media.
And everyone, you and I, we are biased. Better to have a well-developed bias, than to fall for someone else's.
I do blame myself, for breaking my rule, which is not to be involved with any political party which is based on "issues" and not on a theory which can withstand the force of political and economic interests who will stop at nothing, including murdering, torturing, incarcerating, or otherwise molesting you or me, if necessary, in order to maintain and increase their control.
As for Senator Sanders: I thought this revolution was not about the ideas, and not the movement. So insofar as I like many of Senator Sanders' ideas, I cannot get behind the movement, because it is based on - nothing. Sorry, but there is nothing but a list. That is not good enough for me.
If anyone can show me where Senator Sanders, on video, lays out his socio-political theory, other than saying "democratic socialism," which is little more than bourgeois capitalism, then please send me the information, because I am unaware of this.
I know what the socio-political theory of the other candidates is: there is none, except the satisfaction of the greed of a few benefits all, with the caveat that either 1) a restricted class should be in the few or 2) a slightly wider class should be in the few.
A sustainable "movement" requires some set of ideas which are coherent, which explain behavior, and which predict a better outcome than what we have now.
Until I hear a candidate with those skills, I am going to withhold my contribution.
I will still vote for Dr. Stein, if I can, again, perhaps the counters will count it. It is a protest vote. I like many aspects of the platform, but random noise is about as coherent as the party's theory.
Peace and love be with you, reader.
I also prefer that people declare or display their bias. That's
why I tend to be partial to the Young Turks, Lee Camp, and sites like here. I also read some "moderate" stuff and find it tends to lean to the right, so my progressive readings offer a good counterpoint.
I think the ideas and the movement are based primarily on concern that income inequality has gone way too far. It's okay for people to benefit from smarts and talent, but not to the extent that others are suffering from lack of basic human needs.
The theory is that everyone is born with a right to food, water, shelter, and so on by virtue of being born. And there is plenty to go around, if the top would stop taking too much of it. It's the same as our founding theory: Everyone is endowed with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The ideas behind the Greens, AFAIK, are that our exploitation of the environment is unsustainable, and it adversely affects our health, our future, and the health and futures of those we share the planet with. They have added Bernie's progressive ideals because environmental exploitation generally goes hand in hand with human exploitation, all by the corporate overlords, so there is a good fit there. Some don't like Dr. Stein's stance on vaccinations or homeopathy, but all she is saying is that research needs to be performed independently of those who will profit from it, so that we can trust the results, which is coherent and consistent with the rest of her stances. Corporate overlords cheat in whatever ways they can get away with it. We all see this.
Of course, I am just figuring this out from what they do say. I don't know that anyone has laid it out explicitly in the way it needs to be laid out.
Since FDR was the most socialist President we have had, and we recovered from the Great Depression and then had decades of a widespread middle class as the result of his policies, it certainly seems like a more socialist democracy does predict a better outcome in the future. Since about 70% of Americans believe that we need to do something about climate change, it certainly seems that more money and thus power to the non-corporate people will provide a better outcome for that too.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
The premise of books and movies like “The Matrix” or,
less apocalyptically, “The Truman Show.”
Ownership and control of mass communication gives a privileged few near-monopoly power over what you are led to accept as real. After you notice there’s an organized effort to keep you in a bubble, possibly including tracking your every word and deed, what do you do then?
Trying to get Bernie nominated turns out to have been as futile as Truman Burbank’s efforts to get to Fiji to find his mystery girl.
I agree that an explanatory theory(s) is needed to make
sense of what is going on in the world.
To me, the only time-tested theories are those associated with Baran & Sweezy's Monopoly Capitalism of 50 years ago and refined and updated by many including Magdoff and John Bellamy Foster. This both explains the globalization of capital and the marginalization of labor and predicts - accurately so far - the course of international capital. Other economic theories - neo-classicism, neo-Keynesianism, monetarism - are all inadequate in various degrees.
I think the political answer is international worker solidarity. After all, big capital moves across borders in an electronic instant. Labor cannot pick up and move, due to human concerns, this fast. However, with an international framework to operate under, workers can compete.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
I agree with your statement.
Money needs no translation, it has its own culture that most want to embrace. How to get workers in Idaho to trust their colleagues in Russia or Spain or Guinea, for example? This is a significant problem.
Peace and love be with you, reader.
When are the forces of capitalism are aligned against
any stirrings of solidarity, the problem is immense.
In the 19th century, there was a possibility and the hope is that people will realize it's the 1% vs the 99% and orgainizational talent will emerge. I am not particularly hopeful though at this point.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
There was one attempt at global worker trust going back to 1905…
the “Wobblies.”
http://iww.org/
Thanks for the link, lotlizard. n/t
Only connect. - E.M. Forster
Do you have a link...
...where I may familiarize myself to the theories to which you refer? thanks.
Compensated Spokes Model for Big Poor.
Good question
Where to begin? I could take the cheap way out and say, that you have to read everything and digest everything that has been written about social philosophy, political philosophy, media, economy...
If I could recommend only one book to read, it would be Hegel, Phenomenology of the Spirit. That is the fountain of everything that has happened since.
For a really cheap introduction, which is still accessible, which may be stimulating, there is this by Zhizhek, A Pervert's Guide to Ideology.
Note: I am not an unabashed fan of Prof. Zhizhek, I think his analysis is too often simplistic and wrong, but when he makes mistakes, they are of a level of insight much greater than when I make them.
The works of Lenin are also interesting in this regard. Again, I am not a Leninist. However, there has been since the US and French Revolutions no more coherent set of statements which attempt to apply a philosophical system to solving real problems of social and political economy. Despite the later failures and fundamental problems, I cannot think of a better exercise. Correct me if I am wrong.
Even if you wind up hating these things you read (maybe you can survive Zhizhek in tact), and hating me, you will never be able to consume ANYTHING that any talking head or stupid politician tells you again. You have been warned.
If you want to discuss anything you read or any ideas, I will listen as much as my time allows.
Peace and love be with you, reader.
I would visit The Monthly Review web page.
Sorry, but with my hand-me-down laptop and lack of tech skills, I can't provide links.
I think you will find the Monthly Review - publishing since 1949 - worthwhile
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Monthly Review website is here:
http://monthlyreview.org/
Thank you for providing the link.
Cheers!
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
All opinions are fine
I only object when it is a call to hopelessness. What is accomplished by quitting?
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
Hello mhagle: who is quitting?
I read more of your comments
And will reread them when I have time.
Are you suggesting we all gain a better intellectual understanding of what is going on in the world? You are probably right that we need better ideology.
I view the world much more simplistically. (Not that it is a better way.) The climate crisis is about to fuck with us all and I have teenage kids. So we have to do something about that. And I just cooked dinner, now have to fold clothes, then take a teenager to an appointment. But I will try to take the time later to ponder you essay better.
I was also deeply moved by Alex Ocana's recent essay. We are too trivial.
Glad you are not quitting.
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
I understand your feelings
and think this great advice for everyone:
I might disagree on some points but, don't we all? Either way, I share your frustration. There has to be a solution to this problem short of revolution and I'll be damned if I will give up. Keep up the faith and activism Aardvark, we will eventually succeed.
There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties.. This...is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.--John Adams
Given a lever long enough,
the world can be moved.
Peace and love be with you, reader.
Good Government Protects People Before Profits.
Ideology is important. Good government is necessary for a 1st world country. Government should serve and protect the people first. Good government protects people before profits.
This was completely implied in Bernie's "issues" campaign, but it was not articulated on it's own.
Instead, the anathema to that ideological vision that was put forth: Billionaires & Oligarchs running the joint -- a crude, simple, and effective expression of corporate sponsored public policy where profits are before people.
This was solid for engaging people and getting them riled up -- pointing them at the problem, but it fell flat because the narrative and ideology were not well connected and were not clearly articulated.
Counter Narrative: Corporate Sponsored Public Policy
I have great success talking about corporate sponsored public policy. People completely understand that narrative -- big money buys politicians, lobbies congress, draws up legislation, then our rotating band of bogeymen hit the airwaves and pass that shit for their sponsors at the expense of the People.
Elections are corporate sponsored, and as such, corporate gets the talent they need, first, then we get to choose from the pre-selected products.
We are not experiencing corruption. This is the Business of Government™. This is how this shit works. Just look at how brazen the entire Establishment is on Gerrymandering and being "honest" on the horse race.
Conceptualizing Big Corporate & The Oligarchs
This is the conceptual underpinning of Bernie's Greatest Hit: "Big Corporate & the Oligarchs".
That conceptual underpinning is movable too. It fits like a glove when examining local politics and the media. Hell, it's almost the same model as the corporate media -- government is selling the American people (or our wealth) to the corporate sponsors. The American citizen (and our wealth) are the product being sold. We are the product.
It fits all over American society. Is there anything of value in our society that is not corporate sponsored?
But that is still just the anathema to us, not a positive expression of our ideology. It is simply a diagnosis of current problems.
Putting our ideology into words and practice is tremendously difficult. We've been operating under the ideology of business for so long now -- 45 years or so -- there is just about nothing that doesn't have the stink of money and profit on it.
"But the Post Office Doesn't Make a Profit!"
Seriously, that's where we're at today. Since when did the Post Office, or any government institution have to run a profit?
How about those highways!!!? When are they going to recoup their costs? The American Interstate Highway System is a black hole of money costing American taxpayers $50B per year. When are they going to start making profits?
Oh, and don't even get me started on the $1.5T black hole that is the Pentagon. When are they going to turn a profit?
Public Policy Is Often a Terrible Business Plan
Government is not a business. A Business runs to create profits for shareholders. A Government runs to protect and serve citizens. These two aspects of society are often at odds.
Unfortunately, over the last 45 years, Public Policy has become synonymous with Business Plan. So we routinely have vital public services run through a standard ROI and found wanting. There is so much more money to be made there... It could pay for itself, even make money.
Passing on Costs vs What the Market Will Bear
Americans are all well aware of the idea that if you tax corporate that they will raise prices, passing on this cost to the consumer. It's a nice story. It's bullshit, but a nice story...
Corporate charges whatever the market will bear, and not a cent less. I mean, that's a maxim of business. The hidden hand is a bad ass when it comes to that one...
You are going to get charged as much as society can afford, regardless of how much the product costs. The end.
Costs don't get passed on to the consumer. They get broken down, itemized, and rationalized into whatever price the market will bear. Privatization means that we will pay whatever the market will bear, regardless of cost.
For instance, the Post Office:
1863 1 oz letter:
$.06
2016 1 oz letter:
$.47
Can you imagine what we will be paying to send a letter if the Post Office were privatized? How about 150 years from now?
Political Costs
Outside of the billions of dollars for elections and lobbying, the political costs of doing the People's Business™ is turning off the electorate and hollowing out government so it can't perform it's function.
This is fine for Republicans, because they have been trying to sabotage government for 51 years now and have served as the Property Party for nearly a century. But for Democrats, this creates a massive ideological problem.
Cohesive rhetoric, values, and policy are key for democratic politics. You have to have ideological moorings, and doing the people's business via corporate sponsored public policy is clearly out of the People Party's wheel house.
What Political Markets Will Bear
We are getting a look, right now, at what political markets will bear. Despised, polarizing Presidential candidates. Fear -- war against Russia, fascism hits America -- with a demoralized electorate that might not even bother showing up.
Truthy, gotcha media masquerading as "serious" political news coverage but conveniently omitting or shading key stories to the benefit of the corporate sponsors.
We're hemorrhaging voters. We don't believe in politics. We don't believe in government.
These are the political costs of buying into government as business and participating in corporate sponsored public policy.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Excellent material here - Thanks
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
All of the movements
I've been involved with have been composed of several working theories. Thinking back on the civil rights movement MLK preached and practiced non-violence. Malcolm X and the panthers took a more active protest stance. Both contributed to the movement.
The progressive movement of the early 1900's had women suffrage, union rights, trust busters, anti-war,...activists. I think it takes many theories and TOLERANCE of a variety of views for any real movement to produce substantive change.
Uniting all progressives from anarchist to communists to socialists is needed to produce change.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”