The Condition That Our Condition Is In

Submitted by strollingone on Thu, 07/20/2017 - 12:21pm

Introduction:
This piece is an attempt to close a loop opened by two other pieces published here over the last week (“Why Does the Right-wing Working Class Vote Against Its Own Self-interest” on 7/13 and “Capitalism” on 7/16) and to meet the obligation of suggesting a positive response after pointing out a fault or shortcoming. It is the premise of all three of these pieces that, throughout the history of humans, there has been a sustained and often violent reaction by the most conservative element whenever tradition has been debunked and set aside. They feel threatened and lash out searching for a way to reestablish the status quo. It is further a premise that this is what happened immediately following the popularization of the events and attitudes displayed during the “Summer of Love” and thereafter. These “conservatives” feared for their lives, their way of life, and became determined to do something about it. Always before, the conservative element could run to the king or emperor for redress, but that is not possible in a democracy. Outnumbered two to one, faced with blasphemous Supreme Court decisions, pinko sympathizers in the federal government, liberals in control of the media, rock and roll, drugs everywhere, Humanist Manifestos, licentious and ungrateful children, sycophants living off of their tax money, they realized that democracy was a losing proposition for them. And so, in order to save their Country from the Godless heathen, from dirty hippies, and from doctor-commie rats, they abandoned democracy and went feudal. As a consequence, words spoken and actions taken by them now seem, in the context of a democracy, to be both thoughtless and self-defeating when, in actuality, they are the words and actions required of them by bounden duty. When they are silent on matters of social justice it is a statement that they are outside of what once was public discourse.

The dead on the lawns of Kent State, the beaten bodies in the streets of Chicago two years later, the millions of aborted babies, and the firebombing of an entire Philadelphia neighborhood in 1985, were signs to them of the severity of the situation, the desperateness of the times, and the weakness of their opposition. Public executions by cops provides additional evidence. Through hard work, selfless dedication, long term planning, and sheer tenacity, they have, fifty years later, succeeded entirely. They put their shoulders to the wheel and strove against the pendulum lest it go too far. And that is the situation that we find ourselves in today.

Feudalism developed during the time of the consolidation of many sets of principalities and city-states into single entities which, after further regrouping, became the nations that appear upon our maps today. As such, it is designed to enhance the consolidation of power vertically versus the intent of democracy to spread power out horizontally. Feudalism has returned to prominence because of the rapid merging of tens of thousands of corporations into the very few “multinationals” that will control the earth’s resources at the end of this process. One consequence of this emphasis is the concomitant lessening of the importance of the nation and a weakening of the energy that holds a democracy together as hierarchies are strengthened within it. The allure of feudalism increases with uncertainty. Should a democracy see the election of a series of national leaders that promise to give the people what they need and then deliberately neglect to do so, then the people will naturally look for a more predictable form of government. Should the elected representatives turn upon the people and favor the few over the many, constructs over citizens, then it is a democracy no longer. Those elected officials might appear to be corrupt, but they are merely participating in the operative form of government—feudalism—and that is the way they see it. They are very happy to be reaping the first fruits of the “new” system.

The question before us is, given the above, what then must we do? Guns in the street is immediate and exciting, but has proven to be self-perpetuating. Besides, it is the approach preferred by the feudalists. The Founding Fathers, regardless of intent, made a good beginning by including repeated warnings that the issue was not resolved and would have to be reopened periodically. In recognition of that fact, they tried to build in checks and balances and flexibility into our form of government. Two hundred years wasn’t a bad run. What can be built upon their foundation?

The feudalists have earned their victories by starting at the bottom—in every locality, in every state: with varying success, but nationwide nonetheless—and ensuring allegiance all the way up to whomever is selected for national office. There was no opposition. That means that –at least temporarily—the checks and balances, the flexibility, of our government is lost to us. A Constitutional Convention could well be the ultimate disaster. Therefore, whatever response is made must needs be outside the government itself and pose no direct challenge to either the government or the feudalists in charge.

Something’s got to give. Our current form of government is designed to function on the level of a nation. The threat is multinational. It would seem that an effective response would be multinational as well. A union, perhaps. Not a labor union, per se, and not one to replace any of the unions that we have now, but a Union of like minds. Not a union with halls and dues and bosses, but a way to provide mutual support in the time to come. The last election demonstrated how political action can be successfully taken without much infrastructure. Candidates for public office can arise from the membership regardless of their party affiliation. Yes, such a Union would be infiltrated and, yes, there may well be a ringer or two, but candidates would at least be supported for the truth in their words rather than the sincerity in their voices and selecting a ringer would sharpen our powers of discernment. Choices could be made from among good people rather than between the lesser of two evils. The “what” and the “why” would be decided going in: our energy could be put into “how”.

Such a Union could be designed to be multinational with one overarching charter and a set of simply stated principles to be adhered to by each human member. A chapter could be reserved for the citizens of each nation on our two continents to be established by them when they are ready. A more perfect union. A Union of the American Peoples. Does this seem like an appropriate response?

Tags:

Union reactionary politics

Vote

Comments

Submitted by edg on Thu, 07/20/2017 - 2:21pm

Thumb's up...

for the title, which is a line from Kenny Rogers and the 1st Edition's 1968 hit song "Just Dropped In (To See What Condition My Condition Was In)". Yeah, yeah, oh yeah. The song was written by Mickey Newbury.

Submitted by dkmich on Thu, 07/20/2017 - 1:30pm

We have so many great contributors here...

@edg

I have hard time keeping up with them.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by strollingone on Fri, 07/21/2017 - 2:14am

@edg I'll do ANYTHING to get a

@edg I'll do ANYTHING to get a thumb's up!

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Fri, 07/21/2017 - 2:49am

Dear Mr. Perambulator, you've earned a thumbs up from me.

@strollingone

Submitted by dkmich on Thu, 07/20/2017 - 1:44pm

What must we do? Herding cats - is it possible?

I keep escaping into fantasies of separate nations with a wall around theirs. They are like dog poop on the bottom of a shoe. No matter how much you shake, scrape, and try to wipe it off, it never goes away. 60 years later and they are still pissed off at the 60s.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by Big Al on Thu, 07/20/2017 - 1:53pm

Why should we have to keep making choices among people

to make our decisions for us? When do we get to have more of a say in our lives than just electing politicians?

"Choices could be made from among good people rather than between the lesser of two evils."

Maybe we should separate ourselves into those who want freedom and those who don't.

Submitted by arendt on Thu, 07/20/2017 - 2:52pm

Have you heard of Delegative (a.k.a. Liquid) Democracy?

Contrasted with direct democracyDirect democracy is a form of popular control where all collective decisions are made by way of the direct votes of constituents. Two key differences include:

Optionality of direct involvement. Delegative democracy can be called a "voluntary direct democracy" in that you can be included in decisions (and are usually expected to be, by default) however you can "opt out" by way of abstaining or delegating your voting to someone else if you lack the time and/or interest to vote on the delegated matter.

Reviewable decisions. Though not a perceived advantage, decisions are capable of (in a number of ways, dependent on the exact policies of the organization) being reviewed by the constituents. This is contrasted with direct democracy where decisions can only be changed (since the constituents will already have decided one way on matters.) This difference, though, is mostly overhead on the delegative model.

Outside of these two main differences, delegative models are seen as essentially a form of direct democracy. So much so that some have taken to calling the system a "direct democracy with delegable proxies" (though that name is less common.)

-Wikipedia, Delegative Democracy

I'm not saying I endorse it, but it deals with one of my main arguments against today's representative democracy - the lack of specialization. Anyway, its an alternative that actually is used today (IIRC, in Switzerland).

Submitted by Big Al on Thu, 07/20/2017 - 2:31pm

Well ya, put that on the flipboard.

@arendt If only we could get the flipboard up and running.

Submitted by arendt on Thu, 07/20/2017 - 2:50pm

@Big Al

@Big Al

Is that "Will you put it on the flipboard?" That is, a request?

Sorry for ignorance; what is "the flipboard"?

Submitted by Big Al on Thu, 07/20/2017 - 3:01pm

Oh sorry.. In business or government meetings,

@arendt flipboards are often used to brainstorm options and ideas in meetings and conferences. Sometimes anything and everything people can think of are put on the boards, then discussed, fine tuned, whatever to come up with a plan.

My point was if we could only get to the place where we could discuss options for better governing ourselves instead of being ruled by the rich.

Submitted by arendt on Thu, 07/20/2017 - 3:13pm

@Big Al

@Big Al

Got it. We called them "flip charts" back in the dark ages before PowerPoint.

Submitted by Big Al on Thu, 07/20/2017 - 2:36pm

And thanks for that,

@arendt no, I hadn't heard of it.

Submitted by arendt on Thu, 07/20/2017 - 2:55pm

@arendt

@arendt

Correction: Switzerland is an example of completely direct democracy (as opposed to delegative). Some cantons have a giant town meeting where everyone votes on bills.

The Wikipedia article says that Delegative Democracy software is used by the Pirate Party and by some folks in Australia.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Thu, 07/20/2017 - 9:31pm

I keep an essay of yours handy

To: @arendt

I don't know where you published it. Someone sent me a text copy. It deconstructed exactly the issues posted here, which interest me greatly.

It was written before the 2016 election and it's an important piece to read to help prepare for discussions like these. Hope you don't mind if I quote a passage.

In 2016, Progressives face a Sophie's Choice

Sophie's Choice is one version of an ages-old moral dilemma: should you participate in a dictated choice that has no good outcome for you? In the novel, Sophie’s Choice(S'sCh), the Nazis offer Sophie a poisoned chalice: pick one of your two children to be killed or we will kill both.

My take, and many philosophers' take, on S'sCh is to refuse to participate in what is known as a double bind. If someone else set up such a double bind, it is their responsibility, not mine. If I participate, I make myself an agent, an accessory to murder. So, IMHO, Sophie should have said nothing. The two murders would then have been on the hands of the Nazis. By choosing, she became guilty, was consumed by that guilt, and soon committed suicide - which brings us back to our very own S'sCh.

So, when the corporate elite dictates this hideous S'sCh: vote for HRC or "be responsible" for Trump, I refuse to participate. A vote for Trump is a vote for a nationalist, proto-fascist dictatorship and continued crony capitalism, racism, sexism, and decay. A vote for HRC is a vote for continued neoliberal austerity, the global race to the bottom, the corporate coup against democracies, and endless neocon wars. A vote for HRC when Sanders could easily defeat Trump is watching the villain pour water into the desert sand in front of a dehydrating prisoner.

Now, moral dilemmas have not had much mindshare in the 21st century. The media are about sex and violence, not about any kind of philosophical thinking. Americans go about their business guilt-free as we destabilize and pulverize country after country. By the elite-engineered failure of the Democratic Party at the polls, we collectively condone the increasing brutality of our own country: the dismal statistics on gun violence, police violence, childhood poverty, medical rationing, structural unemployment, drug addiction, and mass incarceration.

At this point in time, I have no idea how to get out of the trap we are in. Princeton researchers have statistically demonstrated that government policy responds to elite opinion only, not to citizen opinion. Ex-President Jimmy Carter is on the record that the US is no longer a democracy. So supporting the status quo is simply nonsense.

I have no idea how we literally, as a country, as a planet, survive this moral dilemma. To supporters of the status quo, you don’t get to tell me how I vote. You don’t get to tell me how I respond to a moral dilemma you refuse to even acknowledge.

I am desperately looking for some alternative that works.

How did it turn out?

Do you have a link for it?

—

Carry a burning candle and share the light.

Submitted by arendt on Thu, 07/20/2017 - 10:07pm

@Pluto's Republic

@Pluto's Republic

I posted it on May 9, 2016. If you can't find it at DKos (I refuse to give them the clicks to check it.), I can post or email you a complete copy. Looking it up, I noticed that it is quite long.

To: #5

I don't know where you published it. Someone sent me a text copy. It deconstructed exactly the issues posted here, which interest me greatly.

It was written before the 2016 election and it's an important piece to read to help prepare for discussions like these. Hope you don't mind if I quote a passage.

In 2016, Progressives face a Sophie's Choice

Sophie's Choice is one version of an ages-old moral dilemma: should you participate in a dictated choice that has no good outcome for you? In the novel, Sophie’s Choice(S'sCh), the Nazis offer Sophie a poisoned chalice: pick one of your two children to be killed or we will kill both.

My take, and many philosophers' take, on S'sCh is to refuse to participate in what is known as a double bind. If someone else set up such a double bind, it is their responsibility, not mine. If I participate, I make myself an agent, an accessory to murder. So, IMHO, Sophie should have said nothing. The two murders would then have been on the hands of the Nazis. By choosing, she became guilty, was consumed by that guilt, and soon committed suicide - which brings us back to our very own S'sCh.

So, when the corporate elite dictates this hideous S'sCh: vote for HRC or "be responsible" for Trump, I refuse to participate. A vote for Trump is a vote for a nationalist, proto-fascist dictatorship and continued crony capitalism, racism, sexism, and decay. A vote for HRC is a vote for continued neoliberal austerity, the global race to the bottom, the corporate coup against democracies, and endless neocon wars. A vote for HRC when Sanders could easily defeat Trump is watching the villain pour water into the desert sand in front of a dehydrating prisoner.

Now, moral dilemmas have not had much mindshare in the 21st century. The media are about sex and violence, not about any kind of philosophical thinking. Americans go about their business guilt-free as we destabilize and pulverize country after country. By the elite-engineered failure of the Democratic Party at the polls, we collectively condone the increasing brutality of our own country: the dismal statistics on gun violence, police violence, childhood poverty, medical rationing, structural unemployment, drug addiction, and mass incarceration.

At this point in time, I have no idea how to get out of the trap we are in. Princeton researchers have statistically demonstrated that government policy responds to elite opinion only, not to citizen opinion. Ex-President Jimmy Carter is on the record that the US is no longer a democracy. So supporting the status quo is simply nonsense.

I have no idea how we literally, as a country, as a planet, survive this moral dilemma. To supporters of the status quo, you don’t get to tell me how I vote. You don’t get to tell me how I respond to a moral dilemma you refuse to even acknowledge.

I am desperately looking for some alternative that works.

How did it turn out?

Do you have a link for it?

Submitted by snoopydawg on Thu, 07/20/2017 - 11:58pm

I would love to read the one that Pluto wrote about

@arendt can you send me a copy in this site's message system please?
Is your username here the same one on DK?

Never mind, I see that you posted a link to it.,
It's great.

—

Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.

Submitted by mhagle on Thu, 07/20/2017 - 5:27pm

Union - based on the Leap Manifesto?

https://leapmanifesto.org/en/the-leap-manifesto/

"Feudal" is the word that went through my head a few years ago while a right-wing friend was explaining his political doctrine to me. I just listened.

—

Marilyn

"Make dirt, not war." eyo

Submitted by strollingone on Fri, 07/21/2017 - 2:20am

@mhagle The Leap Manifesto is new

@mhagle The Leap Manifesto is new to me. Went to the site and read all I could. Same spirit for sure. Thank you for sharing it.

Submitted by strollingone on Thu, 07/20/2017 - 7:36pm

Yayyy

Thank you all for contributing to this discussion. I was terribly worried that it was still too soon to discuss alternatives. Delegative democracy sounds cool...an iteration beyond consensus voting, perhaps? As for the multinational Union: REMEMBER...you heard it first here at caucus99percent!

Submitted by arendt on Thu, 07/20/2017 - 8:21pm

FYI- I just found my old, defunct Distributed Government website

Apparently, the Internet is forever, even if you don't pay your bill to your ISP.

The link to the homepage is:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090802184436/http://www.poly-ticker.org:80/...

I have tried a few links and they all seem to work. Wowza. Free web hosting.

-----

Let me know what you think.

Submitted by strollingone on Fri, 07/21/2017 - 2:12am

@arendt Poly-Ticker is GOOD stuff

@arendt Poly-Ticker is GOOD stuff, Arendt. A Lot of hard work. Thank you for that. The Sophie's Choice essay is spot on. I am now determined to look at every single link in Poly-Ticker. 2008??? Holy-moly...

Submitted by arendt on Fri, 07/21/2017 - 10:03am

@strollingone

@strollingone

Yeah, 2008. And a previous try at it on DU in December, 2002. (That one cannot be found, I think DU axed the archive.)

I have thought about how to do design a working democracy for over 20 years. The technology and the ideas are available. But, today, in the face of corporate barbarism, rational, theories of democratic governance are laughed at[NOTE] by people whose only currency is raw power. By the time we dig out from under the rubble they have created (and will create even more of in the near future), I will long be dead. I see nothing but civil war and corporate feudalism in my future. So designing governments is really useless at this point.

NOTE: Dick Cheney: "“We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."

Submitted by strollingone on Fri, 07/21/2017 - 11:04am

@arendt Your Cheney quote

@arendt Your Cheney quote flushed out one that Lewis H. Lapham preserved in his most excellent book, "Age of Folly". Michael Ledeen gave us the "Billygate" stories in 1985 and the "yellowcake" stories in 2002 when he was a consultant for DoD. He hides out in the American Enterprise Institute. Here's his insightful, statesmanlike, compassionately conservative dictum: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business." Cheney and Ledeen are two of those who are making America great.

Stephen Gaskins is quoted as saying "It's all falling apart. We just have to make sure that it doesn't fall on us." From a Monday Night class session in 1968.

Submitted by QMS on Thu, 07/20/2017 - 8:49pm

where is the music?

my new/old macbook won't post like the new/ old windows dinosaur

https://youtu.be/6WUTlCTi7fg

—

question everything

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Fri, 07/21/2017 - 3:03am

The sound was just fine on my new/old Mac

@QMS The picture is of Jeff Bridges

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Fri, 07/21/2017 - 3:25am

So much here that is essential to understand.

As always an reasoned intellectual exercise raises questions, sometimes more than can be answered, either briefly or in totality. Thus it is that I find so many aspects of this essay worthy of further discussion.

My understanding of feudal was the system of vassalage existing before the arising of the middle class forerunners. Now, of course this means somewhat different context at the top of they power pyramid, though the serfs (us) remain at the bottom. The new apex of society are indeed elitists/corporatists (including MIC, etc. as opposed to "divine right" ordained kings and queens. Functionally the difference is only semantic. The results are the same.

Should a democracy see the election of a series of national leaders that promise to give the people what they need and then deliberately neglect to do so, then the people will naturally look for a more predictable form of government.

Dictatorship is a predictable form of government being neither humane nor just. The current elitism is predictable in ensuring the status quo until the bitter end. We are close to the end. As things change, which they always do, rigid societal practices are bound to fail. Ours is failing and at advancing rate. [As a side-note, Islam is being wracked by its need to enter modern times from their very real feudal, oppressive ideologies].

Only in the long term, the Hegelian dialectic of governmental/economic/societal will be manifest. As arendt noted, the interim (interregnum?) will be necessarily accompanied by chaos and violence. The elitists do not understand this as well as most of the great unwashed.

Societies stabilize by rigidifying social/economic rules, no matter what those rules be. The interim period of chaos and violence is where the change occurs; yet, once stability returns inevitably is a new status quo.

Sophie's choice in retrospect could have been "solved" if Sophie herself drank the poison before choosing either child to die. A hard choice no doubt, but still one which would have spared her the misery culminating in her death.

I fail to understand the thesis of liquid democracy or whatever it is called.

Optionality of direct involvement. Delegative democracy can be called a "voluntary direct democracy" in that you can be included in decisions (and are usually expected to be, by default) however you can "opt out" by way of abstaining or delegating your voting to someone else if you lack the time and/or interest to vote on the delegated matter.

To my mind, more than half the population has abandoned direct participation in our sham democracy. They simply do not vote and do not care. Nobody forces people to vote, even though when the people DO vote, their choices are constrained by special interests and we all know who they are.

Submitted by arendt on Fri, 07/21/2017 - 10:14am

I only noted Liquid Democracy. I posted a link to my own idea...

@Alligator Ed
... in a reply above (FYI- I just found my old, defunct Distributed Government website)

I fail to understand the thesis of liquid democracy or whatever it is called.

As I said, I do not endorse it - because I barely had time to look it up. What interests me is the "division of labor" in the idea of delegating your vote to someone else, which is the same motivation as my ideas. Of course, the mechanics of how division of labor is done is critical to the usefulness of the idea.

----

It is true that more than half the population doesn't vote - because they realize the system is a joke, a sham, a useless waste of energy to follow. And that is a relatively recent phenomenon, as politics has become dominated by billion-dollar war chests that buy: pollsters, focus groups, talking points, spin doctors, massive media campaigns, computerized GOTV operations. Retail politics is dead. So, there is no substance left. The politicians are empty suits spouting lines concocted by ad men and broadcast by robotically-manned TV and radio stations.

I do not blame the public for not voting. Many of them are hanging on by their fingernails, and don't have time to waste on the Kabuki that is politics today.

Perhaps, if there were an alternative system that cut out all the Madison Avenue intermediates and the wealth primary, people might get interested again.

As always an reasoned intellectual exercise raises questions, sometimes more than can be answered, either briefly or in totality. Thus it is that I find so many aspects of this essay worthy of further discussion.

My understanding of feudal was the system of vassalage existing before the arising of the middle class forerunners. Now, of course this means somewhat different context at the top of they power pyramid, though the serfs (us) remain at the bottom. The new apex of society are indeed elitists/corporatists (including MIC, etc. as opposed to "divine right" ordained kings and queens. Functionally the difference is only semantic. The results are the same.

Should a democracy see the election of a series of national leaders that promise to give the people what they need and then deliberately neglect to do so, then the people will naturally look for a more predictable form of government.

Dictatorship is a predictable form of government being neither humane nor just. The current elitism is predictable in ensuring the status quo until the bitter end. We are close to the end. As things change, which they always do, rigid societal practices are bound to fail. Ours is failing and at advancing rate. [As a side-note, Islam is being wracked by its need to enter modern times from their very real feudal, oppressive ideologies].

Only in the long term, the Hegelian dialectic of governmental/economic/societal will be manifest. As arendt noted, the interim (interregnum?) will be necessarily accompanied by chaos and violence. The elitists do not understand this as well as most of the great unwashed.

Societies stabilize by rigidifying social/economic rules, no matter what those rules be. The interim period of chaos and violence is where the change occurs; yet, once stability returns inevitably is a new status quo.

Sophie's choice in retrospect could have been "solved" if Sophie herself drank the poison before choosing either child to die. A hard choice no doubt, but still one which would have spared her the misery culminating in her death.

I fail to understand the thesis of liquid democracy or whatever it is called.

Optionality of direct involvement. Delegative democracy can be called a "voluntary direct democracy" in that you can be included in decisions (and are usually expected to be, by default) however you can "opt out" by way of abstaining or delegating your voting to someone else if you lack the time and/or interest to vote on the delegated matter.

To my mind, more than half the population has abandoned direct participation in our sham democracy. They simply do not vote and do not care. Nobody forces people to vote, even though when the people DO vote, their choices are constrained by special interests and we all know who they are.

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Fri, 07/21/2017 - 11:40am

Why does so much of the left wing continue to vote against its

own economic interests while asking why the right wing continues to vote against its own economic interests?

The red blue divide grows more illusory by the month, especially when it comes to economic issues. It's all of us against all of them, but most of us keep falling for the divide and rule gambit.

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Sat, 07/22/2017 - 11:06pm

You have named the reason

@HenryAWallace Divide and rule. When we stop looking across the plain at our red or blue adversaries, we fail to look up the mountain to see where the trouble lies. I believe a shift is coming away from the "us-them" paradigm to the up-down view. We should make common cause with reds/blues/greens/ and any other hue on those things upon which we agree. Watch some of the conservative YouTube channels and you will see this is happening. However, too much time is wasted on diversionary tactics to affect issue-related debates and actions.

Submitted by strollingone on Fri, 10/20/2017 - 9:42am

Amen, brother. eom

@Alligator Ed