In The Quiet Of The Night - Reading

I do like the wee small hours - I also have moderate insomnia anyway so I might as well enjoy it. It also gives me the absolute quiet here in the countryside to read. So one article tonight I'm thinking about by George Monbiot.

No country with a McDonald’s can remain a democracy

[He turns one piece of old "common wisdom" on its head]

I picked a couple of poignant paragraphs and I do suggest reading the whole thing.

Remember who was on the side of these before they evolved

Above all, the power that should belong to the people is being crushed by international treaty. Contracts such as Nafta, Ceta the proposed TransPacific Partnership and Trade in Services Agreement and the failed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership are crafted behind closed doors in discussions dominated by corporate lobbyists. And those lobbyists are able to slip in clauses no informed electorate would ever approve of, such as the establishment of opaque offshore tribunals, through which corporations can bypass national courts, challenge national laws and demand compensation for the results of democratic decisions.

I have quoted the same FDR reasoning previously, it bears repeating as often as possible.

In 1938 President Roosevelt warned that “the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism.” The Democrats saw concentrated corporate power as a form of dictatorship. They broke up giant banks and businesses and chained the chainstores. What Roosevelt, Brandeis and Patman knew has been forgotten by those in power, including powerful journalists. But not by the victims of this system.

If you can talk about national sovereignty without getting mired in xenophobic patriotism and isolationism. Stop looking at the end result for a second and look at how we got here. It had nothing to do with immigration or "the other" it had everything to do with what politicians were elected into office. Independent of party, they fed from the same trough. They were continually elected no matter what their performance for "the people" actually was, often votes were merely cast for or against a letter after the name.

Mixing in race in discussion about income inequality, confusing separate issues with identity politics helps nobody.

It is self evident that with racism or sexism income inequality and access to services are negatively affected and disproportionally felt by minority groups. There is always a danger of the tyranny of the majority.

This does not mean that you cannot discuss both racism and income inequality separately especially when the economics are the driving force.

Once you have the reasoning for income inequality clear then you can think about/discuss the additional negative effects of racism, sexism etc.

Look at which party proposed and passed these trade agreements, look at who voted for which, I think you will find there is a truly bipartisan force at work. Even if they change their view when it becomes convenient, their votes when it actually mattered, matter more. The point is that we should elect people who know/study the potential consequences of their actions before they actually decide, not ten years after.

The one issue that affects every man woman and child is climate change and when looking at these free trade treaties that heavily favour many of the same corporations/individuals that deny its very existence. The powers contained within "trade agreements" often override any attempts by other treaties to reduce the sources of the problems of climate change.

I also believe that one of the main sources of conflict [wars and terrorism] is income inequality due in part to corporate globalisation/imperialism. Asset stripping one population to benefit/keep your own happy is one sure way of instigating conflict, add to that playing the regime change game to ensure corporate dominance build the flames ever higher. Hence I treat "exceptionalism" as one of the worse curse/swear words anyone can utter, think what others hear for gods sake.

Climate change could be/will be/is the main source of global conflict and income inequality in the coming years [sooner than many think]. Yet even those who "believe in the science" are willing to sign trade agreements that undermine any attempt to combat its effects. Therein lies the conflict that undermines our very democracy and undermines any attempt to change how we change the conditions.

I watch how the individuals vote and who finances them and yes money does matter, votes, legislation and money often go hand in hand to the alter of Mammon, democracy is suppressed.

As always when even the vast majority suffers from income inequality any sub groups/minorities will suffer even more so and throw an "ism" into the mix and you have the recipe for a disaster.

Late night ramblings.

Tags: 
Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

Steven D's picture

of reading material from one insomniac to another.

up
0 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

up
0 users have voted.

So do I, and was thinking as I read how much impressed I am with yours. Keep 'ramblin'' on, for all of our sakes!

up
0 users have voted.

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Redstella's picture

Whose 'assets' are these that some strip and some try to defend? Do they belong to the people who inhabit the lands in which they are found? Do they belong to those that have the capital to exploit or capture these assets? Throughout history some people have moved and overtaken the indigenous peoples. How long do they stay before they become legitimate owners of those assets?

The native americans have a concept that they belong to the land and the land does not belong to them. That is not the concept that western societies have developed. Now, we are facing the ruination of the planet because we are greedy and the native americans are not in control. So how do we shift from our ruinious ideas to ones that allow us to share with other people? How does that fit into ANY concept of nation or tribe?

These are the thoughts that keep me up at night. By the way, I do love the early morning quiet when these thought come.

up
0 users have voted.
solublefish's picture

Throughout history some people have moved and overtaken the indigenous peoples. How long do they stay before they become legitimate owners of those assets?

You already answered your own question, but I will echo: No one can EVER be "the legitimate owners of those assets" because they don't "belong" to anyone; they are the common "property" of all - meaning their possession and use is "proper" and necessary to all of us as creatures who by nature depend upon those things. Earth, clean water, clean air, NO ONE has a right to use up or destroy - even to presume so is the act of a sociopath, by definition - because on these things all our lives depend, and those of countless other creatures besides.

And to those things I would add: access to adequate food, clothing, and shelter; safety and security from arbitrary harm; work, education, and access to healthcare - all of these things, too, are demonstrably "proper" to humanity, as such, and therefore the common property of us all. Any and all who conspire to take that property, or to use it up, or to destroy it, I am inclined to regard as the common enemy of humanity.

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

Earth's assets are sociopaths. And we have seen the actions that those sociopaths from our country have done for over two centuries in this country alone as well as other countries around the world.
Starting with taking the Native American's lands and the contents on or below them. Then this country started going abroad and doing the same things in other people's countries.
How many of the so called wars are only so that those sociopathic corporations can justify killing over a billion people so that they can steal their resources?
The people in those countries have no say in the matter either.
In the process of getting those resources they have destroyed millions of acres of lands, waterways and the air we breathe and have put our planet in peril from climate change that will see more destruction and loss of lives.
The corporations use eminent domain to take what is ours and destroy what belongs to all of us, not only the corporations who buy out our government.
It doesn't matter if people's families have owned the lands for decades or longer, they use eminent domain to take what they want or build what they want and we the people have no say in the matter.
And before they finish destroying everything and people try to stand up against them using their rights that our constitution gives us, those people are going to be met by the militarized police and private mercenaries who apparently have the authority to use whatever power they want against them.
We saw them attempt to inflict as much bodily harm or in my opinion attempted to kill them with water when the temperature was below freezing, firing 'less lethal' weapons at people's heads and faces and shoot concussion grenades at them from point blank range.
The LRAD machine has been used but so far no one has lost their hearing, but how long until someone does?
What will it take for them to bring out that microwave device that can kill people by heating their ski or boil their blood and brains?
Yes those people who are willing to destroy this world and take those actions against us are truly sociopaths.

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Dear snoopydawg - thank you for so often expressing my thoughts so much better than I could ever hope to.

And for the billionth time, thanks to JTC for this oasis of sanity, also being one where people can actually follow a train of thought and logically extrapolate! In such places and people as this, much of my hope rests and is validated.

up
0 users have voted.

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

janis b's picture

for your true and meaningful thoughts.

up
0 users have voted.

I uphold a farming mentality with respect to this, make the "land" better than it was before, if you cannot, at least do no harm.
Stewardship rather than ownership.
Asset stripping is taking out more than you put in, eventually you end up with a barren wasteland.

up
0 users have voted.
phillybluesfan's picture

I'm presently rereading Derek Jensen's A LANGUAGE OLDER THAN WORDS

There is a language older by far and deeper than words. It is the language of the earth, and it is the language of our bodies. It is the language of dreams, and of action. It is the language of meaning, and of metaphor. This language is not safe, as Jim Nollman said of metaphor, and to believe in its safety is to diminish the importance of the embodied. Metaphors are dangerous because if true they open us to our bodies, and thus to action, and because they slip— sometimes wordlessly, sometimes articulated—between the seen and unseen. This language of symbol is the umbilical cord that binds us to the beginning, to whatever is the source of who we are, where we come from, and where we return. To follow this language of metaphor is to trace words back to our bodies, back to the earth.

We suffer from misperceiving the world. We believe ourselves separated from each other and from all others by words and by thoughts. We believe—rationally, we think—that we are separated by rationality, and that to perceive the world “rationally” is to perceive the world as it is. But perceiving the world “as it is” is also to misperceive it entirely, to blind ourselves to an even greater body of truth.

The world is a great dream. No, not fleeting, evanescent, unreal, immaterial, less than. These words do not describe even our dreams of night. But alive, vivid, every moment present to and pregnant with meaning, speaking symbolically. To perceive the world as we perceive our dreams would be to more closely perceive it as it is. The sky is crying, from joy or grief I do not know. Waves in a wild river form bowbacked lovers and speak to me of union. Industrial civilization tears apart my insides.

up
0 users have voted.

Few are guilty, but all are responsible.”
― Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Prophets

solublefish's picture

Jensen I have never heard of, but he reminds me of, hmm, Norman O. Brown perhaps (Love's Body)? Or Charles Reich (the Greening of America)? I like the Wendell Berry expression better.

I have to ask: what is that thing in your lap?

up
0 users have voted.

up
0 users have voted.
solublefish's picture

Not something one sees often (or ever) where I am. I don't think I've ever been close to one.

up
0 users have voted.

A number of people made and played dulcimers. It's an Appalachian thing.

up
0 users have voted.
phillybluesfan's picture

up
0 users have voted.

Few are guilty, but all are responsible.”
― Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Prophets

solublefish's picture

I'll check some of those out later today. Interesting fretting on that instrument.

up
0 users have voted.
solublefish's picture

Do we call it a diary? Not sure the right word here.

Once you have the reasoning for income inequality clear then you can think about/discuss the additional negative effects of racism, sexism etc.

I agree. This is one reason I dislike the current fad of "intersectionality", which tends to (or requires) treating all forms of exploitation as "equal". I applaud the egalitarian impulse of the demand; but I think it is misplaced. Like you I see class as more fundamental. But I could be wrong. I don't know how to prove that. I do know how I came to believe it, though, and that was from studying the intersections of race and class in the US in 1960s - and in the 1890s. The 1960s radicals - from Frantz Fanon to Huey Newton and Bobby Seale - taught me to see race as a function of class; my study of Populism and the emergence of Jim Crow confirmed the lesson.

(I did not learn these things "in school" - not even in grad school - admittedly some time ago that was. But I damn sure teach them to my students.)

But as I said, I could be wrong. Radical feminists after 1968 argued that gender was more primordial still, the 'original' and mother of all other forms of exploitation. They seem to have some justification for this argument. Anyone please correct me if I am wrong, but my impression is that gendered division of labor and status are commonplace in primitive ("stone age" equivalent) societies we know of; one assumes these same features were evident 10,000 years ago, even prior to the Neolithic Revolution and before the emergence of 'class'...

And yet, the pursuit of women's rights has not yielded a just society; nor has the pursuit of "civil rights". Rather: though women and black Americans have unprecedented access to power in American society (as women do in European society, too - though perhaps not yet Jamaicans, Algerians, Turks) - yet the society remains exploitive and profoundly inhumane. Certainly that must make class the more pressing issue. It certainly SEEMS like the true mother of all exploitation.

Thanks for the elegant reflection.

up
0 users have voted.

makes some kind of sense, I have the tendency and habit of calling this a diary.

up
0 users have voted.
Song of the lark's picture

"One of the answers to Trump, Putin, Orbán, Erdoğan, Salvini, Duterte, Le Pen, Farage and the politics they represent is to rescue democracy from transnational corporations."
These leaders are nationalist, statist thinkers and in that sense anti globalist at least when they are talking to their people. For that reason they run on national populist platforms and they often have massive support in country.

up
0 users have voted.
solublefish's picture

was an effective distraction from class issues in the Gilded/Victorian Age just as it is now. The 'nationalists' you mention have of course no intention of destroying class, and every intention of manipulating masses of voters to keep themselves in power. If pressed, they will prefer fascism to the slightest whiff of socialism. They are the Krupps - and the Boulwares - as well as Trump, Duterte, etc.

AS Walter Benjamin said: "Behind every fascism is failed [socialist] revolution".

up
0 users have voted.
Song of the lark's picture

Is good ends up with misguided thinking. The same was true of his famous or rather infamous nonsense about peak oil not being true. Yes there is enough carbon around to fry us. He was correct in that but no that doesn't mean peak oil is false. Conventional oil peaked in 2006 and were are already in thermodynamic collapse with EROEI. Erroneous framing on his part.
From the Monbiot opinion piece above
"In his book The Globalisation Paradox, the Harvard economist Dani Rodrik describes a political trilemma. Democracy, national sovereignty and hyperglobalisation, he argues, are incompatible. You cannot have all three at once. McDonaldisation crowds out domestic politics. Incoherent and dangerous as it often is, the global backlash against mainstream politicians is at heart an attempt to reassert national sovereignty against the forces of undemocratic globalization." This is true.
The nationalist, populist, Brexit, movement is a democratic movement. How did Erdogan put down the coup. People power.
The leaders of this movement are of course false especially Trump who might put Rex Tillerson CEO of Exxon Mobil one of the largest corporate entities on the planet as SOS. The movement itself is essentially a democratic ANTI movement. Anti globalist, anti corporate, and anti government, anti power over. I do agree with Monbiot that democracy is good...but be careful the democracy you wish for. I don't know how this is going to end up but I do think we are at the beginning of and in the infancy of a major paradigm shift. Blame it on the fourth turning or whatever.

up
0 users have voted.

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

Regardless that they were told that they didn't have the permits.
Who didn't see this coming?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=share&v=Sqh5IfT5Q-I
Anyone believe that the Obama administration is going to Make Them Stop Drilling?
Obama told BP to stop spraying corexit and the next day there was BP spraying it over the ocean, the land, waterways and people.
Gee maybe Elizabeth Warren will finally go to the DAPL protests and make sure that the protectors aren't hurting the pipeline workers who are only doing their jobs.
Yes she actually said that after she praised the ACOE from 'stopping' or not giving them the permits.

Warren's shameful exploitation of Standing Rock Victory
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/06/elizabeth-warrens-shameful-exploi...
She also posted that on her FB page and got hammered in the comments.
(Anyone know why some YouTube videos aren't supported here?)

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

big business and chain stores. Wasn't Republican Teddy Roosevelt the trustbuster?

up
0 users have voted.

which in itself harked back to Teddy's more progressive side. The Financial Services Act of 1999 in an act of bipartisanship repealed it. Even though John Dingell warned that the Banks would become "to big to fail" they went ahead anyway and in the end proved Dingell correct.
Senate vote 90 for to 8 against.
House vote 362 for to 54 against.

Signed happily by Bill Clinton into law

Today I am pleased to sign into law S. 900, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This historic legislation will modernize our financial services laws, stimulating greater innovation and competition in the financial services industry. America's consumers, our communities, and the economy will reap the benefits of this Act.

Beginning with the introduction of an Administration-sponsored bill in 1997, my Administration has worked vigorously to produce financial services legislation that would not only spur greater competition, but also protect the rights of consumers and guarantee that expanded financial services firms would meet the needs of America's underserved communities. Passage of this legislation by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of the Congress suggests that we have met that goal.

A few years later of ever increasing income inequality the "too big to fail banks" were bailed out by an act of socialism for the wealthy of truly epic proportions. Well at least the top 1% benefited eh? The other 99% are still dealing with the crisis engendered by this act of gross stupidity.

up
0 users have voted.

big business and chain stores.

up
0 users have voted.
solublefish's picture

Clayton Antitrust Act and Fed Trade Commission among two vehicles for his action to reign in the excesses of private power. Both Dem and Republican parties had progressive, 'reform' wings until 1912 election - before Wilson it was William Jennings Bryan who carried that banner for the Dems.

Me, I would have voted for Debs every time...

up
0 users have voted.

With a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress until 1919, the Wilson administration saw a number of landmark laws, including the Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act, the Revenue Act of 1913 (soon after ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment)4and various war-related acts, some of which are mentioned later in this Part 5.

http://caucus99percent.com/content/presidential-elections-and-liberals-l...

My working theory currently is that, Republican administrations, starting with Lincoln, were the progressives and Democrats began imitating them because Republicans were doing so well at the polls, especially for the Presidency. The Democratic strongholds were of course, the South and, outside the South, very populous cities, which were mostly white ("Chinatowns" and similar aside), at least until the Great Migration, which began around Wilson's time.

But, by saying "Democrats," rather than "Wilson and I," FDR made it sound as though his party, apart from him, had had a long history of breaking up banks and big business, which is untrue. Of course, both of them passed good legislation with majority Democratic Congresses, so FDR was not being dishonest, but the impression his statement gave me was some long history, prior to FDR, of Democratic administrations having done good things, not only Wilson.

And, chain stores survived both Wilson and FDR quite handily. The A & P and Woolworth's leapt to my mind as soon as I read FDR's words in the blog entry that starts this thread.

up
0 users have voted.
solublefish's picture

Cf. Andrew Jackson.

As for your theory: I am inclined to beat it up a little. There was little "progressive" about the Republicans before TR: they were solidly the party of business from Lincoln on down to McKinley. For a BRIEF time, in the wake of the Civil War, the 'radical Republicans' championed an extraordinary degree of "intervention" of the Federal government in the society of the South, in order to protect the rights of (newly minted) black citizens. That was indeed 'progressive': government intervention as champion of the rights of ordinary people against private power - and it was a premonition of the theory of government that would come to prevail (after much struggle by industrial and mine workers and farmers) in the Progressive and New Deal Eras of the 20th century.

But it did not last. The champions of the cause of emancipation and black rights soon changed their spots, and by the 1870s the party came increasingly under the domination of the self-styled "Liberals" (and yes, that is the origin of the term in American political culture) - who argued FOR capital AGAINST labor, and who embraced (!) the argument that southern blacks (and poor whites) were probably too stupid to have been given the right to vote, so it were better to allow the white planter aristocracy to reassert control. Hmm, not exactly progressive!

What changed this was a massive revolt of the American population: three decades of worker agitation and increasingly violent class war plus 5 million farmers so pissed off at banks, railroads, and the political establishment that they formed their own "People's Party" to combat them. By the early 1900s, there were 4000 strike actions per year in the US (up from 1000/year a decade earlier), a Socialist Party (able to elect mayors across the nation), and an avowedly socialist union (the IWW) committed to uniting all the workers to overthrow capitalism completely.

As you might imagine, in the face of such signs and portents, the politicians began to see the light...

up
0 users have voted.

I am also not sure your post supports your claim that Democrats from Lincoln to McKinley were more progressive than Republicans. (Please note: I am not saying you're wrong; I'm saying only that your post does not seem to support your assertion.) For just one thing, I am not sure that "progressive" then was a synonym for either "populism" or for "anti-business." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism Moreover, my post referred to Republicans before Wilson, so let's not arbitrarily exclude Roosevelt and Taft.

As for the modern definition of "progressive," I don't know that anyone knows that it means. Though most seem to think it is a universally understood term, different people also seem to have different ideas about its meaning. IMO, is the Chance Gardiner of political terms. Hillary and Obama both claim to be progressive. The Progressive Policy Institute is a DLC offshoot, and so on. Yet, many assume the term to mean about the same as "liberal" was understood in the Sixties. It is not. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-betw_b_9...

I do know about the definition of liberal including laissez faire as to business (which is not necessarily either pro-business or anti-business). However, I don't think that has been the common connotation of the word. It certainly does not seem to be how Republicans understand it, when they spit it out like an epithet. It doesn't seem to be how Hillary understood it when she looked as though she wanted to fidget out of her skin when Matthews called her a liberal--and during the primary, no less.) If anything, I think we need a new word that means the same as "lliberal" was understood to mean in the Sixties, but without any possibility of being understood as laissez faire toward business. In general, America has always been protective toward business, which is not laissez-faire. At certain times, though, America has also protected unions, too, creating a tension.

If the early definition of "progressive" included the concept of being anti-business I'd have to question whether either the Democratic party or the Republican Party could have been described as "progressive" from Lincoln to McKinley. You claimed that Republicans were pro-business. However, when comparing two parties, that is not enough. Are you saying Democrats were not pro-business during that time? And, I think one has to be careful to distinguish between Southern Democrats and the Democratic Party as a whole.

Forming to stop spread of slavery, as did the Republican Party was more progressive than supporting the spread of slavery, IMO. After slavery ended, Democrats up to and including Wilson, were the pro-Jim Crow Party. Southern Democrats were the party of the KKK, lynchings, etc. I don't think that's progressive by any definition of the term.

I am also not clear about the context of your comment about thinking African Americans were too dumb to vote. Is your point that Democrats through McKinley were better in that respect than Republicans? As far as I ever knew, Democrats also controlled the voting machinery of the South until the South flipped, after the Civil Rights Act; and the Great Migration did not begin until around Wilson's time. (BTW, I am not at all sure African Americans were kept from voting because anyone thought they were too dumb to vote. I can think of several reasons why Southern Democrats may not have wanted African Americans to vote, including that many African Americans were Lincoln Republicans. To the extent that African Americans were uneducated, that was inflicted on them intentionally, and not only during slavery--and not necessarily because people thought they were too dumb to learn. If I been a slaveowner, I would have wanted to keep my slaves uneducated and I certainly would not have wanted to see them vote after Emancipation.

As an aside, I note in passing it's odd to me that you refer to your disagreeing with my working theory as "beating It up," but I'll leave that one where it is.

up
0 users have voted.
riverlover's picture

as I understand what you are saying, I propose Hippie. Not as in DFH. But I realize that nearly excludes PoC, unless their name was Jimi. So perhaps a new word. Hippie may be too loaded. I was only a wannabe then. And half the world (approximately) did not exist then.

up
0 users have voted.

Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.

solublefish's picture

There is too much in your wide-ranging response to address all of it; and much I agree with (especially concerning the hollowing out of the terms 'progressive' and 'liberal'), so I will limit to a few things where we seem to differ.

I do not claim that "Democrats from Lincoln to McKinley were more progressive than Republicans". Nor did I make any comparative claims about relative "progressivism" - or for that matter the racism - of Ds and Rs in the 19th century. I sought merely to place your theory into some historical context.

As for the term "progressive", it is an anachronism when applied to the politics of the 19th century. Gilded Age Republicans styled themselves the party of 'Progress', to be sure, but the word had nothing of the sense of the term 'progressive' as you appeared to use it in your comment. That term (progressive) comes into wide use only in the early 20th century, as a label for a particular kind of reform politics that has champions, as I noted, in both political parties; and which may be defined, as I suggested, by government intervention to secure the rights of ordinary citizens, consumers, and workers (as citizens, as consumers, and as workers) against concentrated private (economic) power vested in individuals (e.g. factory owners and the remainder of the planter aristocracy) and corporations. The intervention occurs primarily through regulation (as e.g. of economic and social relations) and redistribution (of wealth from few to many). The embrace by 'mainstream' politicians of national stature (like TR or Wilson) of progressive politics in the sense defined was made possible by the development of a political ideology that emerged largely (not solely) out of the political agitation of the Agrarian Revolt and the worker uprisings against capital that defined the era. Nor was this formation unique to the US: the social democratic ideology of industrial European states emerges at the same time, and out of much the same sources (especially industrial ones).

You are correct that the Republican party was formed in part to prevent the further spread of slavery; and in that sense one might call it 'forward thinking' - which is rather the commonplace sense of the term 'progressive'. But this formation notably lacked the political ideology that would be of essential and foundational importance to the progressive reformers of the early 20th century. Still, the "free labor" ideology of the Republican party at the time of its formation did play an essential role in the emergence of the later progressive (or 'social democratic') ideology.

I don't think there is anything particularly odd about the views I expressed: they are well known to historians of the period (of which I am one). 'My perspective', as you call it, is one you or anyone could readily gather in reading one of the really good works on the Gilded Age -- e.g. Eric Foner's Reconstruction or Rebecca Edwards' New Spirits . Foner's classic study offers a good overview of the way the politics of the era was shaped by intertwining issues of race and class, and was among the first to detail the collusion of the Republican party's self-styled 'Liberal' elites, beginning in the 1870s, with the racial agenda of white Southern Democrats. In doing so he helped to spawn a tremendous effort among younger scholars to trace the intersection of race, class, and politics in that era, which is still ongoing today. Edwards' deceptively slim and more wide-ranging volume on the Gilded Age is deeply informed by that work and shows, I think, how fruitful it has been in shaping our understanding of the nature and origins of the Progressive politics of the early 20th century.

up
0 users have voted.
janis b's picture

Last night I returned from a few days visiting a friend in the beautiful Hokianga. The Hokianga is in Northland New Zealand, and is one of the original homes to the first people of NZ. The population there has suffered for a long time from the abuse of colonisers to their home and culture. There is very little work, and much poverty as a result; and youth suicide is a significant issue being addressed currently by many of its people. New Zealand’s PM resigned two days ago. I only hope his successor from the same party will address this issue, as well as others, in a more humanitarian way.

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

countries taken from them and it seems that most of them are suffering from poverty.
All of them should get paid reparations for what was done to them and their lands stolen from them.

The area looks beautiful and I hope to see some of your photos this Friday.

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

janis b's picture

I will post some of those photos Friday. The NZ gov't has been somewhat accomodating in regard to reparations, but unfortunately not enough. It's ongoing, but I am hopeful.

up
0 users have voted.
dervish's picture

No country with a McDonald's can remain a democracy

Rumor has it that McDonald's is pulling out of Beirut.

up
0 users have voted.

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

mimi's picture

I do believe that it's class or social and economic/income inequalities among people that are the core reasons for conflicts and wars and uprisings, not race, ethnicities and gender inequalities, they come on top of it, but are not the cause.

Simply said watch how siblings get in conflict. The main reasons are the perceived unequal and unjust distribution of wealth their parents might have had and transfer over to them. It's not their gender that causes conflicts between sisters and brothers in a family, it's that one "has more inheritance and access rights" than the other.

Take a multi-ethnic family, in which the children can turn out as if they belong to different races or ethnicities. One child is browner than the other, other children can "pass as" white, black etc.
Conflicts between those children are not based on their racial appearance. They feel betrayed and conflict arises only, because they might not have been treated equally by their parents when it comes to their inheritance or equal access to education. (boys get the chance to education first, girls only if the money allows the parents to educate all of their children the same way - was even true in my mother's generation among Europeans, all born around the 1900eds.)

Where racial or gender issues starts playing a role among that hypothetical multi-ethnic family set-up, is when they realize that one gender or one racial appearance (usually the whiter ones) in our current post-colonial, corporate imperial times, has easier access to opportunities to make a living.

In that sense I see LaFeminista's arguments proven right. People are "angry" when they perceive that one person has more access and opportunities to build their livelihood than the other. The fact that historically those inequalities were related to their race and gender is an add-on to the conflict, but not the core reason.

You can also observe that for the role of women in indigineous societies. Few in the Western democracies would not agree to say that in polygame marriages the women are exploited or oppressed and have different rights than the man. Yet conflicts among those women in those family structures arise only, if they feel being treated unequally by their husbands or their children being treated differently. I guess women accept unequal and gender related separation of labor between them and men, because the unequality is determined by their biological functions.

I remember discussions among tribes, who were traditionally polygam (without it being driven by their religions, ie sub-saharan non-islamic polygamism), who argue that a woman in a polygamic marriage is better protected from sexual and violent exploitation than being left unmarried at all and having to live with their children (which are always born no matter what) alone. Women have accepted that in the past. It's just during the last six to eight decades that this is now questioned by both men and women and they try to rely on human and civil rights laws introduced into their societies by Western influence. It remains to be seen how that will work out.

up
0 users have voted.
solublefish's picture

Simply said watch how siblings get in conflict. The main reasons are the perceived unequal and unjust distribution of wealth...

Yes, I remember well that backseat bickering between my brother and I on long trips in the car: "he's on my side! (huff)". Out of the mouths of babes comes twisted truth.

up
0 users have voted.
riverlover's picture

but they also understand the "not fair" aspect of another member being treated better. Less concern with those being treated worse. At some small point, social customs may either gloss over that (so maintaining class) or attempt to bend individuals to feel and respond as equal, requiring equal treatment.

We are born selfish, our organism first. That can play out in different ways. Many seen from outside are cringeworthy. If empathy does not get instilled, sociopathy emerges. If empathy does, Charity in its worst form can emerge. Where the wealthier look at the poorer as "projects" the class system is maintained. And the wealthier feel good because they are doing so, perhaps inadvertently. I am not sure.

I have a relative by marriage who is a Narcissist. She is in it all for herself; to complain, lie, calculate how to cheat the system, she is all for that. And that makes her feel good, to believe that she one-upped. And won. A battle most of us would see as a equable transaction IS a battle she won or eventually will. I get tired trying to think that way.

up
0 users have voted.

Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.

dervish's picture

[video:https://youtu.be/meiU6TxysCg]

They are hilarious, and quite precocious.

up
0 users have voted.

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

up
0 users have voted.

I first learned about how 'Trade' deals allow corporations to over ride sovereignty from Monbiot several years ago.

Always like his work.

How about beyond sovereignty?

How about beyond maps? And beyond borders?

This is a deep piece on these issues including pointing out that the colonial project where by the western countries took over primitive countries and stole their resources and a silent partner was maps, as well as the public partner, economics.

By the French scholar Bruno Latour

Onus Orbis Terrarum: About a Possible Shift in the Definition of Sovereignty

Abstract
Starting with an insight from Peter Sloterdijk about the enduring notion of Empire in the European
idea of sovereignty, this article explores a problem common to the discipline of International
Relations, and more generally, geopolitics as well as social theory: the very origin of the notion
of an entity endowed with some sort of autonomy over a territory. It is argued that the notion
of a bounded entity triggers many artifacts that explains, in part, the failure and denial of world
politics, especially over the question of climate change.

up
0 users have voted.
Lookout's picture

we confuse capitalism with democracy. Our society is not democratic it is capitalist. The goal of capitalism is profit. The end point of that logic leads to slavery - which maximizes profit.

We have an economic system that doesn't value people nor the planet and its resources. As long as that is the system I don't think democracy can exist - even (or perhaps especially) a representative democracy because they can be purchased.

Capitalism evolved from feudalism, but maybe feudalism has just morphed into corporate feudalism - except that feudal lords understood the work of the common people benefited them. Global capitalism has no concern for the worker.

What can we do?

up
0 users have voted.

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

solublefish's picture

and it's quite deliberate:

we confuse capitalism with democracy

The 'Chicago school' of Milton Friedman and F. Hayek did so very explicitly. But even before them, the confusion or conflation of the two things was achieved in American political rhetoric. Woodrow Wilson offers fine examples in his speeches, most notably his War Message about the need for the US to join WWI so as to "make the world safe for democracy" - by which he meant capitalism, as Senator Norris pointed out in his rebuttal ("We go to war upon the command of gold").

up
0 users have voted.
LamontCranston's picture

I must have missed reading that article: Thanks for bringing it to my/our attention.

up
0 users have voted.

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." - Howard Zinn

ggersh's picture

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/07/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-a...

Capitalism, like all ism's is the problem, it is an enabler of class rather than an equalizer of class.

up
0 users have voted.

I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish

"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"

Heard from Margaret Kimberley