So let me get this straight.
The US is in decline, mostly because not even the international investor classes trust it anymore. But we're down with that, right?
But, hey, that's cool, everyone's okay with that, right?
They've been genociding western Asia for the past two and a half years, but that's cool, right? And this is the logical end-result of government by Epstein Island, but that's cool, right?
They're a little less cool with it in the UK, but we're America, right?
Maybe in Minneapolis they've figured it out, but the rest of America is waiting to be, as Tolkien would put it, dragged away to the Lockholes. And they, with the blessings of both parties, are vastly expanding the Lockholes, but America doesn't mind, no. See, in other countries, all of this collective sadism and malignant narcissism might cause a bit of a crisis of legitimacy, but here in the States, everyone thinks Lockholes are more fun than Hobbits, right?
So, to sum things up:
And, until that time, the rest of the world is going to be asking: what does it take? Perhaps part of the problem is that we don't have an adequate definition of revolution. Revolution implies a change in the institutional imaginary, in the relationships between the institutions and the mass public. Right now we are in the middle of a revolution, but it is what Antonio Gramsci called a passive revolution, in which the popular will is irrelevant and the ruling classes look for more convenient ways of disposing of the masses. You down with that, dogg?
Thus all of those nice well-meaning people who surround me will be relieved of their burdens one way or another. Either their crap politics will render them irrelevant, or they will render crap politics irrelevant. Which one will it be?
Comments
Which one will it be?
Those of us who have a choice, must continue to learn how to best apply it for the common good, even if limited to family and friends, plus the environment.
It is already irrelevant.
n/t
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
That is the most important fact to face
I can't get enthused over efforts to punish pols who are implicated in the Epstein saga. In the abstract, of course, I would expect that the "law" to be enforced against child abuse. But we live in an utterly corrupt social order and making "an example" out of one or ten or twenty bureaucrats who patronize the services of somebody like Epstein would only be a spit in the ocean of capitalism.
I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.
Do not see much sway
.
one way or the other.
The PTB's goose is cooked already.
Unless they shut-off the heat, it will burn.
They bit off a bit more than can chew.
The rest is just regurgitation.
Zionism is a social disease
or
and
Zionism is a social disease
Well, writing about it here won't accomplish much to that end...
...but the fact is, anyone who is going to do anything revolutionary is going to have to be smart enough not to advertise it.
UNLESS you are NATO trying to start another war, in which case of course it's reversed, it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission.
The Revolution will, at least for the most part, not be televised...for the sake of the Revolutionaries.
Yes, tasteful adulterations to the above by yours truly
In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.
Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!
I don't think that anyone' on the Internet is hiding anymore
unless they've found a way of disguising their IP numbers. At any rate, we could -- one option -- think of revolution, by which I mean a good revolution and not the one that's taking place now, as a far-away goal, one which might be possible after we have thought carefully about what sort of institutions we might want from the future. Or we could assume an easy revolution, since the Powers That Be violate the Constitution every day.
"You exclude the poor, not necessarily by disenfranchising them, but by giving them nothing to vote for. By giving them two candidates who are both members of the oligarchy." -- Michael Parenti
Wait a second...
.
Is the general consensus here that the Plutocrats and Neocons controlling the US Federal Government .... have lost their battle?
They've been exposed ... and they are done?
There's no need to fight a revolution (in the US) to permanently overthrow the dominant system ideology. Reforms can be put in place.
.
I don't disagree. In fact, I am certain that people's firmly held beliefs can affect reality.
But I can't quite visualize the global monsters of the West just walking away.
There is so much national wealth up for grabs, and so much programming and prejudice already imbedded in the population....
This is really well stated, Cass. It's elegant. And I want to know what People believe is possible. It really matters.
Interesting and pertinent question
My own fearless forecast predicts the end of the American Empire as the necessary first step toward a new world order with several billion people disappeared.
Many other voices that I respect hold the opposite view that the American ruling class is seriously trying to rule the world -- as originally schemed by Dick Cheney. I don't buy it because I don't think anybody is that idiotic.
No matter the outcome of that disagreement about the actual end game, for now I hope more Americans get pissed off all this absurd bullshit.
I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.
Interesting and pertinent question
My own fearless forecast predicts the end of the American Empire as the necessary first step toward a new world order with several billion people disappeared.
Many other voices that I respect hold the opposite view that the American ruling class is seriously trying to rule the world -- as originally schemed by Dick Cheney. I don't buy it because I don't think anybody is that idiotic.
No matter the outcome of that disagreement about the actual end game, for now I hope more Americans get pissed off about all this absurd bullshit.
I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.
I could think of one battle they will easily lose.
And that will be the one they'll be fighting against Iran.
The path to $10/gallon gasoline is clear. Zionist billionaire fools and their useful idiots in the political class tell Trump that unless he attacks Iran he'll get no support from them. Trump tries through backchannels to arrange a token strike, and is rebuffed at every turn. The Zionist entity attacks, and Trump is forced to join in. Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz and sends out the Oreshniks, Israel sets off a nuclear weapon, and jihad ensues. Maybe we could organize sarcasm marches, organized by the parody-organization "Committee for $10/ gallon gasoline."
We've got people thinking "Hey -- let's trust a guy who suffers from malignant narcissism and dementia as our President. Yeah, that's the ticket!" It worked with Biden, didn't it? Revenge-missions with metastasizing ICE troops, with maybe 8% of the people they scoop up having any criminal records, yeah, that's really good for business so it should be super-easy to sell in election run-ups.
Do the people matter? They do, but the problem with the people is that they haven't put much serious thought into what is to replace the existing system. Well, maybe in Minneapolis they've thought about it.
"You exclude the poor, not necessarily by disenfranchising them, but by giving them nothing to vote for. By giving them two candidates who are both members of the oligarchy." -- Michael Parenti
Defining Revolution
I've been thinking about this, too. It is a topic discussed and debated among historians. Ordinary people also have big assumptions about what a Revolution is.
The Revolution Definitions that I believe fit:
• Revolution is a broad battle fought inside the borders of a single nation. The fight is for the dominate ideals and goals that can unite the country. It affects the life of every citizen.
• If a Revolution stretches across several nations, it becomes a war that may involve race, nationality, and prejudice. So, practical Revolution goes out the window. Instead, the individual states are either left in ruins OR they form a NATO or UN-type coalition to make agreements, keep the peace, and prevent abuses. It is a rickety arrangement that is easily gamed. The coalition might last a century, or so. Empires are generally forced coalitions that tend to last about 250 years — on average — before they fall apart.
• A global Revolution is very unlikely. I do not know why Capitalist wackjobs think they can win and control the nations that span the world for their personal benefit. They, no doubt, would turn to slavery to make it work. And, from a modern Revolutionary viewpoint, this planet is probably still too primitive and too expensive to organize, based on the ideals of cooperation. Plus, Homo sapiens are not yet sentient. Their brains may or may not be capable of epigenetically shared visions or values. They have the wetware, but they are not using it collectively yet. These areas of the brain are used for coping and adapting — and largely occupied with religious fantasies and closed-loop begging for divine intervention. Harmonic convergence and group-think has not been initiated yet.
SOME WRITERS WHO WILL LIKELY BE RECOGNIZEDD
Have Recently been Discussing the Need for Revolution.
.
It's a very long and remarkable thread. Check it out.
In the hopes our categories can become malleable in some way
This is the definition of civil war, no? What should we call revolutions which aren't civil wars? I prefer my definition, in which revolution involves changes in the institutional imaginary. The US Civil War, for instance, was important as a civil war but more important as an event involving the economic ruination of the southeast US than as a revolution. An important detail: for the most part the slaves did not liberate themselves, nor were they liberated by an army of John Browns.
Nation, race, nationality, prejudice, all of these terms have specific historical origins and destinies and are thus not eternal. Here I would recommend Kees van der Pijl's Nomads, Empires, States and of course Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities.
"You exclude the poor, not necessarily by disenfranchising them, but by giving them nothing to vote for. By giving them two candidates who are both members of the oligarchy." -- Michael Parenti
Very good clarification.
I did consider if this issue would become a civil war or whether it would be seen as a revolution. Experts talking about it seem to lean toward a Revolution. The research indicates that both actions are violent, and government reforms alone probably will not stick. The current government leaders have to be gone.
The AI Summary:
See More AI Details:
Framing the necessary changes as a Revolution — or as regime change — is ideal. This would put all USians on the same side, pulling together for common goals. The transparency that comes with regime change — and the legislation that originates with the People rather than legislative cronies and industry lobbyists might restore the confidence and trust that is now largely missing in government. For decades, Plutocrats and their media monopolies have pushed intense oppositional politics. They used media propaganda to divided the people into self-destructive polarity. They used this playbook to block any form of political common cause among the People, fearing that the People might unite one day to kick the Big Donors out of government and put a stop to their political payola with lawmakers. Another example of a revolutionary reform might be a demand for ethical election finance laws that are ratified by the People. This would certainly chill the pay-to-play corruption in Congress that has so deeply degraded the financial security of the American People for the past 40 years. It is even possible that the United States government might develop an authentic form of Democracy — one that responds to the needs of the American People, and continuously improves their lives.
Was our “democracy” ever “authentic”?
At best our representative democracy was a truncated version from the start. At the present time, a benevolent dictatorship might be preferable to a fully authentic democracy due to the predominance of mis and dis information we, the people, are being fed from all sides. Bad choices will be made with bad information.
The degradation we all seem to recognize in the quality of those who govern our affairs continues regardless of which “side”
stealsreceives the most votes. The entropy is baked in.It is important to recognize that this process of degradation did not just “happen”, it has been carefully designed to keep us afraid, confused, angry and dived. We have been made impotent and powerless so we pose no threat to those who rule over whoever we “elect” to represent us.
Waking up to our reality is very difficult and should not be confused with the popular notion of Woke. As bad as Trump’s version of governing is, the “other” side has been equally inept at improving the quality of our, so called, Democracy.
“Even in science, falsehood can not live for too long.”
- Immanuel Velikovski - Bonds of the Past (1972) https://youtu.be/kkS-jDzxnrU ]
Revolutions are not violent in an interesting way
Hi Pluto --
The central question about AI in political writing is this: can AI do anything more than echo an ideology? We know, for instance, that AI cannot author anything, nor can it be a living audience for any writing.
AI writing appears as a product of the ideological notion that what matters in writing is choosing the right words, and not being an author or appealing to an audience. That's why I avoid it.
Here you would benefit from avoiding references to "experts" and "research" without granting names to these experts and/or without saying who is doing the research.
At any rate, revolutions (at least by my definition) are not violent in any interesting way. Two examples should prove the point: the American and French Revolutions. Let's start with the background. Certainly you remember the Nine Years' War, or the War of the Spanish Succession, or the War of the Austrian Succession, or the Seven Years' War? If you don't, this is doubtless because Europe at that time was in a constant state of warfare, and was moreover in a constant state of internal conflict because, well, because both capitalism and the situations which preceded it were characterized by the constant application of violence. To say that the American and French Revolutions were violent, then, can be both true and incredibly cherry-picking.
The Russian revolution, moreover, occurred in the midst of World War I, certainly a violent undertaking. No?
So I stick with my argument here. What makes the idea of revolution interesting is not the participation of revolutionaries in any sort of violence, but rather the changes in the institutional imaginary which characterize what is officially named a revolution. The French Revolution, for instance, was defined by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, a document about how people are to relate to institutions.
"You exclude the poor, not necessarily by disenfranchising them, but by giving them nothing to vote for. By giving them two candidates who are both members of the oligarchy." -- Michael Parenti
I would agree with that
Civil wars are fought over something, religion, ethnic differences, political rivalries, a lack of fairness against some segment of a population. A revolution seems a general unleashing of anger towards a oppressive government within a countries borders. I mean, it would be hard to see the Canadians rise up in unison with us to overthrow their government if we do. Especially when we have Chuck Schumer leading the charge.
A “revolution” that would leave Chuck Schumer or anyone like him
in charge, could hardly be called a revolution.
The present-day Powers That Be? They’ve all got to go, or it ain‘t no revolution.
yeah
I forgot that /s thing.
institutional imaginary
.
having trouble cogitating that concept
otherwise I would tend to concur
Zionism is a social disease
I am still baffled by the term
Webster's dictionary:
I confess to being a stodgy old former English major. I always thought that imaginary was an adjective. Cass frequently deploys the word as a noun apparently under the impression that the audience here grasps what he means by using this fault of diction as a guiding principle.
In context I guess that the term and the source material that coined it are intended to refer to the image that people have in their heads about The Big Picture of civilization. I prefer the old fashioned, "ideology." Or, "Big Picture."
People need to have a clear mental picture of what they do not want the government and society at large do. It would be helpful if we also had a clear picture of what we want to replace the Status Quo with. Kind of a pipe dream, like the one Martin King talked about in his most famous speech.
My suggestion remains to concentrate on specific things we want to stop, leaving personalities out of the schtick. I disagree with the strategy of calling Trump names, especially accurate ones.
I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.
Were we able to define objectives in more concise terms
.
it would be more clarifying IMO. Nothing against the intended
message. Concepts do not benefit from vagaries.
Zionism is a social disease
You've persuaded me!
Here it is used as a noun:
Imaginary (sociology)
The John B. Thompson definition is best. The (social) imaginary is "the creative and symbolic dimension of the social world, the dimension through which human beings create their ways of living together and their ways of representing their collective life."
The point is to get people to think of themselves as imagining beings. We imagine; it's what we do. An imaginary, then (using the word as a noun), is composed of those things which we imagine collectively, or togeether.
So here's a quote from my forthcoming book. It suggests one aspect of the capitalist social imaginary.
So if we look at the world as a vehicle for commodity production, as capitalists do, the world appears as "natural resources," "raw materials (unrefined and then refined)," "consumer products," and "waste." By callling all of this viewpoint an imaginary, I am arguing that it comes out of a collective imagination. We imagine the world that way.
"You exclude the poor, not necessarily by disenfranchising them, but by giving them nothing to vote for. By giving them two candidates who are both members of the oligarchy." -- Michael Parenti
Our elections
are indeed a laughingstock- primarily because they resulted in you being president, you unutterable pinhead. We already no longer have a country that I can recognize. But, even having said that: I doubt that I’ll bother voting, if you make it a requirement that I be shaken down by your goons every time for the privilege. I’ve voted enough already, and it has essentially never resulted in a change for the better…
https://x.com/Osint613/status/2020529581342519580
In CO, we voted for permanent vote-by-mail for ourselves, and you want to overturn the outcome of that plebiscite? The words “fuck right the hell off” are not strong enough…
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
Work on this angle --
If there are Trumpies in your neighborhood you can use this argument to find out if they believe in any of what they said they believed.
"You exclude the poor, not necessarily by disenfranchising them, but by giving them nothing to vote for. By giving them two candidates who are both members of the oligarchy." -- Michael Parenti
Yup.
Spot on.
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
Then what?
Convincing yourself that Trumpies are irrational and inconsistent is pretty easy to do. Once convinced of their mental weakness, other than congratulating ourselves, where does that get us?
If the idea is to flip them away from Trump and MAGA with embarrassment over their logical inconsistencies, please let us all know how that works out.
I kinda already figured that Trumpies were dim as well as irrational. I don't think it is useful to tell them how stupid they are.
This is not intended as mere snark. I really want to understand how others intend to oppose the ongoing effort to have lots of idiotic wars.
I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.
I am not convinced that Trumpies are stupid.
Alternate explanation: Trumpies are smart, but it's that their smarts lie in other domains than politics. Rather, Trumpies are like the apathetic people depicted in Nina Eliasoph's Avoiding Politics, except that they've decided to vote for, and support, Trump for cultural reasons, probably for the same ones that motivate them to watch FOX News, enjoy NASCAR, or make occasional pilgrimages to the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally.
There are already people within that cultural milieu who are talking smack about Trump. It's not a hopeless thing.
"You exclude the poor, not necessarily by disenfranchising them, but by giving them nothing to vote for. By giving them two candidates who are both members of the oligarchy." -- Michael Parenti
Excellent response
I don't think smart and stupid are useful terms for multiple reasons. Most significantly, as I have argued on this board before, there is no legitimate way to measure intelligence. And I agree that many people may seem unintelligent about the Big Picture because their path through life has obliged them to concentrate on things other than The News or sociology or political science.
Getting past vocabulary, I believe our thoughts are harmonious about the need for developing a common consciousness about how we want to live on this planet. And the lack of such a common consciousness is why we are n such a fix right now.
Although I don't use the word "imaginary" to describe it, as a baby boomer in the 60s and 70s I watched our generation develop a common vision of the good life that did not include dropping bombs on people or asserting that white people are higher on the evolutionary chart than non-white folks.
I am hoping for a similar social development in this benighted century.
I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.
Just from talking to people
Trump voters to me kind of fell into groups. The first was the paycheck to paycheck people. Things are bad no matter who is president or governor. Things don't change for the better, they're the left behinds. A few dollars too much to get government help, not enough to live. They believed Obamas hope and change and then believed Trumps version of hope and change and voted for it.
Then there are the better paid workers, union or trades or small business people who view anything that helps someone else is taking money away from them. They aren't getting much government help, why should you?
Then there are the wealthy, and of course the racists religious bigots.Nuff said about them.
In the final analysis,
the underlying subtext is greed, of course. Add in a heaping helping of boorish and sadistic crudeness, which Trump has proven to be uniquely qualified to provide, and you truly have a political dog's breakfast.
Those who gravitate towards Trump are either a) already wealthy, in which case the overall thought is "I've got mine, so fuck you", followed by an atavistic glee in the suffering of the Other, or b) the "temporarily embarrassed would-be" wealthy, who cannot abide anyone else being ahead of them on that path (whether via government assistance or otherwise), in which case the thought is "I won't tolerate you getting yours so that I can get mine, so fuck you", followed by an atavistic glee in the suffering of the Other.
In any case, there's not much to be accomplished by talking to them, given that they are united by their utter lack of even the slightest shred of compassion for their fellow man. They desperately want everyone who isn't themselves to to suffer mightily (and publicly), so that they can smile as they step on the Other with impunity. The "fuck you" is real, and worn with pride.
This is the human condition, amped up with a goodly dose of now-acceptable, over-the-top assholishness, as in a cherry delicately placed atop a shit sundae. Unbridled greed has been the end game of entire civilizations, since time immemorial. The terminology is irrelevant: until this foundational atavistic tendency towards zero-sum greed is bred out of H.Sap., I expect no change, whether imaginary or otherwise.
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
harrumph
That's a mighty granular diagnosis of 70 odd million people. Not the slightest shred of compassion? What does that even mean, other than you don't like Trump? I despise him too. But I know Trump voters who are really nice human beings even as they ignore Trump's evil deeds. I call them relatives.
Good luck with writing off 70 million fellow citizens.
I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.
Thanks.
Truth be told, I have found my quality of life to be much improved, since I realized the futility of trying to interact with those folks. I no longer accept the idea that I have to change my approach to life to accommodate theirs, whether they are relatives or not.
However, be aware that I will continue to make whatever observations I feel are in order. I do not write my contributions here for you: I write them for me. Since they seem to offend you, please feel free to ignore them.
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
nothing personal intended
just disagreement with what you had to say in that post. Good on you for not writing to please me to anybody else. I hope you can cope with disagreement without making it personal.
I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.
Politics and simple minds
I forget the year -- probably 1970 or so -- we were at a family gathering including my grandfather, several relatives and a few friends.
My grandfather was a union man. He got busted out of his job during the national packing house strike of 1924. Out of work, he moved his family to Sioux Falls, South Dakota where he got a job as a packinghouse worker. In 1935, he had the stones to lead another strike. He went on to become a Big Shot in the Amalgamated Meat Cutters Union. He had guts and he put everything on the line to fight for a better life.
He retired in 1968. At the family gathering, myself and a couple of my cousins were talking about resisting the Vietnam War. Grampa Sam, as we called him, cleared his throat and said, "You are all forgetting one thing: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. . ."
This guy was an actual revolutionary, fighting scabs and Pinkertons with clubs in the street. Yet he was a sucker for patriotism. Trump and his co-conspirators hit these memes with a vengence.
I do not presume to judge the soul of my grandfather or of any of the MAGA nincompoops. But a lifetime of organizing workers taught me not to judge the sagacity or the ethics of workers who oppose an organizing drive. People can change their mind and they can learn. If you dismiss everybody who looks at life differently than you do, you won't ever change anything.
I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.
It's like I said in response to Moonbat
We need not invent new institutions in order to see an institutional change. All we need to do is to support the power behind the existing ones, which is to say, the ones which support the US Constitution.
"You exclude the poor, not necessarily by disenfranchising them, but by giving them nothing to vote for. By giving them two candidates who are both members of the oligarchy." -- Michael Parenti
Who are they, Cass?
I am not seeing a great deal of support for the Constitution from any particular institutions.
I wouldn't hesitate to give them support.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Maybe I am communicating in shorthand
Obviously, the institutions are not themselves going to give us institutional change. But I'm sure there are plenty of people in the US, generally, who think of the Constitution as something worth defending, and they may wish to promote institutional change to, you know, give people the rights enumerated in the Constitution. I am, then, suggesting that there may at some point be a revolution for the sake of preserving the Constitution.
"You exclude the poor, not necessarily by disenfranchising them, but by giving them nothing to vote for. By giving them two candidates who are both members of the oligarchy." -- Michael Parenti
I can imagine quibbles
but affirmatively demanding that the Constitution be followed strikes me as a unifying effort. The quibbles involve the archaic nature of the 18th century text that is far from ideal.
I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.