FAIR USE NOTICE

FAIR USE NOTICE

A BEAR MARKET ECONOMICS BLOG

Occupy Dissent


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Taking Over: A Model for Mutual Self Interest and Solidarity


Taking over Post-Arnold California

Interview with Richard Oxman

What do you think of Obama’s reaction to the Gates incident? Who killed Michael Jackson? Why did Palin resign? Why are 90% of the large fish in the ocean gone? Which question doesn’t belong?

California-based organizer, educator, activist-writer, and playwright (and, oh yes, home schooling father and devoted spouse) Richard Oxman knows the answer. He’s more than aware that our current system – our very culture – is designed to shove the “big” questions to the fringes. This is why Oxman has conjured up a unique form of dissent: TOSCA — Taking Over the State of California.

“A necessary, urgent action,” he calls its, “designed to put thirteen non-politicians into the Sacred Seat in Sacramento (the Governor’s seat)… with all of those citizens having an equal say… along with the working figureheads who will be our candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor in the 2010 gubernatorial race.”

Oxman feels California is ideally suited for such an effort and has begun the important work of getting the campaign (so to speak) rolling. I recently asked him some questions via e-mail and here’s how it went:

Mickey Z: What is it about the state of California and its political apparatus that makes it a logical venue for your efforts?

Richard Oxman: The Governor of California can wield great influence in the state, having the legal right to move unilaterally on many fronts without having to compromise with opposing politicians. The state itself is tremendously influential, nationwide, internationally. Her/his role — the Guv’s — in Higher Education alone could change the world. Think divestment, for one. And because California is in serious — historic — trouble on several counts, citizens there are primed to follow a new paradigm for change. They are desperate.

MZ: If/when this succeeds, what might be the first obvious difference the public would notice?

RO: It will succeed, it must… or we are doomed. Everything else on the table is either disingenuous or moving at an arthritic snail’s pace. Once in office all decision-making meetings will be filmed for public consumption, to help citizens to self-educate, and decide for themselves who has their interests at heart, what to demand, who to pressure, etc. Our Guv can actually teach citizens HOW to pressure. That’s one of several aspects of TOSCA that have no historical precedent. Our tenure in office will be citizen-centered and communally-centered, NOT about the self-interest of career politicians or their money men.

MZ: Speaking of money…

RO: Our campaign will be waged on a ZERO budget. Whereas people concerned with the influence of money in campaigns to date have tried to change things with efforts such as campaign finance reform… we will Be The Change We Want To See. Meaning, we intend to demonstrate what miracles can be wrought with no money. TOSCA is all about opening up a window to see what the public will do on their own once they see how much can be accomplished without any funds whatsoever. How much pure joy can be generated, how much human connection can be had… with nothing in one’s pocket.

MZ: Considering the roadblocks involved with even getting a candidate on the ballot, how do you intend to accumulate enough votes?

RO: One thing we’re going to do is do away with all the time, energy and money that’s always put into getting on the ballot. What we save there we’ll put into recruiting… on an intimate basis. Not with signs, petitions, online blah blah, meetings, announcements or any of that habitual generic stuff. Sure, we’ll accept high profile plugs, but our basic m.o. will be to have friends contact friends one-on-one, bonding in an unprecedented way, passing the word incessantly; we have a huge jump on others already. No real time needed. That 61% who didn’t show at the last statewide election will provide mucho. Then there are the voters whose votes weren’t counted because of carelessness, more than what the Green Party garnered! None of our unaffilitated write-in votes will be lost in that Black Hole. I can’t fit “reasons” and much else into this telegraphic bite, but… contact me. There will be easy crossovers from major and marginalized parties… for it’ll be effortless to sell the notion that we need deep institutionalized changes… like detaching our economy from the Pentagon… which no one else can offer. Before much longer highly influential souls will take up TOSCA’s cause… almost exclusively. And then the first step in our legal, non-violent revolution will kick in.

MZ: Okay, I’ve asked to sound-bite and condense and reduce your idea to an easily digestible morsel to keep it ready for prime time…but now imagine you have a totally different audience: radicals, activists, etc. Why should, say, an anarchist get on board the TOSCA Express?

RO: Express, yes! Everyone should get on board “yesterday” because individual freedom will be of paramount importance — on an ongoing basis — for all connected with TOSCA. There are different kinds of anarchists, of course, but like the vast majority of anarchists… TOSCA’s core members believe that an appropriate economic order cannot be created by the decrees and statues of a government. We’re into the collaboration of workers in all aspects of production… keeping in mind, however, please… that we have no intention to approach “production” along traditional, environmentally destructive lines. The taking over of management in all facilities by the producers themselves is of prime importance to us, and of great appeal to most anarchists, I believe. We see separate groups within industry as independent members of the Big Industrial Picture, carrying on production/distribution of products in the clear interests of particular communities… on the basis of free mutual agreements. That said, it doesn’t mean that the thirteen people serving as Governor together will not be trying to influence decisions made in each little corner. Everyone has an obvious vested interest in moving in solidarity respecting certain environmental facts, at the very least. And, by the way, this business of anarchism should not scare anyone away. For everyone who opposes the Pentagon being inextricably bound up with our economy’s success, functioning… must, absolutely must acknowledge that we’re going to have to have radical institutional changes in order to create greater democratization in society. To say nothing about other equally important (related) issues…like abominations abroad… which we will spotlight daily on our own media outlet.

MZ: When you talk about the need to move in solidarity respecting certain environmental facts, are you saying that we may differ on certain issues but everyone is heavily impacted by 80% of world’s forests being gone?

RO: Perfectly put. We are all doomed if everyone is merely doing their own thing. TOSCA would respect anarchists more than any other group in office in history, but… we would do our damnedest to help everyone self-educate about our mutual environmental threats, and do what we could to encourage those making decisions in little corners to deeply consider larger communal concerns. Their own survival, to put in another way.

MZ: Who — besides me — have you asked to serve as an advisor and who have approached about being a candidate? What kind of response have you generally gotten?

RO: High profile figures and others such as Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, Bill Blum, Derrick Jensen, Glen Ford, Afshin Rattansi (in Iran at present), Jennifer Loewenstein, Greg Moses, Wallace J Nichols, Michael Stocker (of Ocean Conservation Research), the great African specialist who constantly risks his life to get great news to us… Keith Harmon Snow, Dave Lindorff, Cindy Sheehan, Ron Jacobs, Kim Petersen (of Canada), Henry A. Giroux (who Routledge named as one of the top fifty educational thinkers of the modern period), L.A. attorney/author Ellen Brown, Argentina’s Marie Trigone, Bruce Anderson (of the Anderson Valley Advertiser), Devinder Sharma (of India), Ronnie Cummins (Executive Director for Organic Consumers Association), David Yearsley, organic farmer Dr. Shepherd Bliss of Sonoma State University, Murray Dobbin (of Canada), Stephen Martin, and artist Jerry Fresia (in Italy) are just some of the people who have offered us their public imprimaturs.

We’re still in the process of trying to recruit Mike Davis, Paul Hawken, Michael Albert and Arundhati Roy… and everyone else! Noam Chomsky hasn’t come on board yet, but we haven’t given up on anyone, and even people like Noam — who for very legitimate reasons want to take “a little more time” to consider all aspects of what we’ve put on the table before adopting a public stance — have taken the heartbeats to go back and forth with us, very generously. Much is not written in stone, and so we can take the time to ask people to make recommendations, to feel free to tweak this and that to, possibly, suit their own purposes… their angle on society.

MZ: So the reactions have been encouraging?

RO: Everything considered, I’d say that we’re getting an over-the-top positive response. I mean, the above list was compiled over a period of only about two weeks of me working alone, spending only minimal time on recruitment. That’s actually phenomenal by any standards, yes? And one really has to factor in that we’re coming out of nowhere, dumping ourselves in the inboxes of individuals and organizations quite suddenly, absolutely no prep for what’s essentially, arguably, the most radical proposal in the realm of politics… for the electoral arena… in the history of the country. IRV is one of our big/small potatoes.

Some groups and some activists are truly puzzling in their responses, but that’s another book, as they say. The reasons for silence in response to my missives sometimes, the dropping of the ball inexplicably by some, the lack of nurturing well-intentioned efforts like TOSCA’s, and premature dismissal of what we put on the table for consideration now and then is all part of the animal we’re taming. By which I mean any effort to mobilize citizens for the purposes of moving in solidarity meaningfully — not in lockstep automatic meaningless mode following old paradigms for protest/change — is going to encounter all kinds of resistance for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which is what I call territorial trauma. But that’s part of the beautiful satisfaction that’s coming our way, this TOSCA making a dent in all that. The fact is that there’s nothing else on the table that I know of which has a shot in hell at saving this “heaven on earth” in time.

MZ: How can readers learn more and get involved?

RO: Readers should contact me directly IMMEDIATELY. They can reach me at tosca.2010@yahoo.com or at headburg@yahoo.com for starters. Urgent connection is crucial… whether one wants to limit one’s participation to only ten minutes total running up to the election in 2010, OR whether one wants to work alongside me 24×8 to create this watershed in history. PLEASE NOTE that I always get back within 24 hours at the outside. If one doesn’t hear back from me directly within that time frame, something’s amiss. The link http://oxtogrind.org/archive/353 is a decent place to start learning about TOSCA, and a reading of that can be followed by encouraging others to contact me.

Mickey Z. is the author of two upcoming books: Self Defense for Radicals (PM Press) and his second novel, Dear Vito (The Drill Press). Read other articles by Mickey, or visit Mickey's website.

Nine More Go to Jail for Single Payer

Home

Nine More Go to Jail for Single Payer

By David Swanson

Update: photos.

Following a pattern of civil resistance in Washington D.C. and around the country, citizens in Des Moines Iowa on Monday risked arrest to press for the creation of single-payer healthcare, the establishment of healthcare as a human right, and an end to the deadly practices of Iowa's largest health insurance company, Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield.

Dr. Margaret Flowers, who has herself gone to jail for single-payer in our nation's capital, was on hand to speak in Des Moines. She called me with this report. Nearly a month earlier, on June 19, 2009, Des Moines Catholic Workers had delivered a letter (PDF) to Wellmark addressed to its CEO John Forsyth requesting disclosure of Wellmark's profits, salaries, benefits, denials and restrictions on care. The letter had not been acknowledged by Monday, and the Catholic Workers and their allies decided to take action again.

Thirty people arrived in the Wellmark lobby in Des Moines and asked to see Forsyth or any of the members of the board of directors or the operating officers. They were told that none were available, and instead the police arrived. Nine of the 30 refused to leave and were arrested. Flowers did not yet know what the charges will be but suspected trespassing. The nine latest supporters of single-payer to go to jail for justice are:

Mona Shaw, Renee Espeland, Frankie Hughes (age 11), and Frank Cordaro, all from Des Moines Catholic Workers; Leonard Simmons from Massachusetts; Robert Cook; Eddie Blomer from Des Moines; Kirk Brown from Des Moines; and Chris Gaunt from Grinnell, Iowa.

These nine and others like them around the country represent, I think, the incredible potential to energize the American public on behalf of a struggle for the basic human right of healthcare, a potential being blocked by the work of activist organizations that reach out from Washington to tell the public that single-payer is not possible, rather than reaching into Washington from outside to tell our public servants what we demand.

Here's a blog from Digby acknowledging the reduction of the public option from where it started to next-to-nothing. It's not clear whether Digby thinks it would have been smarter to start with single-payer, in order to end up with a better compromise than what you get by initially proposing the weakest plan you'll settle for. But Digby argues that proposing single-payer from the start would not have given single-payer itself any chance of succeeding, and this is proven -- Digby says -- from the fact that the public option is having such a hard time succeeding.

I can't prove this is wrong. Everything Digby writes is smart and to the point. But this does omit an important factor or two. Namely: single-payer turns an obscure wonkish policy mush into a clear and comprehensible civil rights issue. Even with it blacked out and shunned by the White House and astroturfing activist groups, single-payer still has people sacrificing and going to jail for it. Nobody goes to jail for a public option.* Nobody even knows what it is. Nobody will even know whether they got it if a bill is passed until experts debate the point for them -- at which point it's too late. Making healthcare a right rather than a legislative policy energizes people, and that potential has hardly been tapped and should not be written out of consideration.

John Nichols understands this, as does Glen Ford from Black Agenda Report.

Even defenders of a public option depict it as a step toward single-payer, while missing the potential of single-payer activism in the short term to improve the public option. So, all agree that in the long run a movement for single-payer is needed. It can begin with phone calls this week in support of these measures and with a massive presence on July 30 in Washington, D.C.

Image shows a previous protest at Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield by Des Moines Catholic Workers.

* Note: Joe Szakos of Virginia Organizing Project went to jail this week for a public option, but nobody he'd organized went with him. His action, like that in Iowa, was protesting an insurance company, an entity that would be eliminated only by single-payer.

More Robber Class Perfidy


Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox

More Robber Class Perfidy by Cindy Sheehan

Perfidy:
Deliberate breach of faith or trust; faithlessness; treachery


According to foreclosure listing service RealtyTrac Inc., more than 1.5 million households received at least one foreclosure-related notice during the first half of the year. That's a jump of nearly 15 percent.

The nation's official unemployment rate in June rose from 9.4 to 9.5 percent, its highest in 26 years. But, it’s even far worse than that: the nation's actual unemployment rate in June rose from 16.4 to 16.5 percent, the highest figure by far since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began keeping the data in 1994. During the Great Depression of the ‘30’s and ‘40’s unemployment reached 25%

With all of this awful news, the Robber Class Banksters must be “hurtin’ for certain,” right? Wrong! And as a matter of fact, the number one Evil Robber Class Banking Cartel, Goldman Sachs posted record profits for the second quarter of 2009! Goldman Sachs has been a company for 140 years and has never done better as it did last quarter. This mega-Robber Class company will payout an average of 77,000.00 in bonuses to its workers.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics: As a group, Goldman Sachs bankers have been the country's top political campaign contributors this year and have given $29.5 million in contributions since 1989.

Even more troubling than Goldman Sachs posting record profits in a recession/depression caused by that very same company, is the fact that even after tens of billions of dollars of government welfare, it was stated in a recent article that Goldman Sachs was able to do so well because of “Secretive trading operations.”

“Secretive trading operations” are so mysterious that when one googles the term, nothing comes up, except this article announcing GS’s boon. So what are these STO’s? Derivatives? Mortgage Back Securities? Drugs, like opium from Afghanistan? Arms? Slaves? One can speculate and think the worst and the scary thing is, the worst is probably nowhere nearly as bad as we can imagine.

There is little outrage over this Robber Class treachery, and as a matter of fact, in an article entitled: Little Outrage on the Hill over Goldman Sachs Record Profits, Senate Majority Wimp, Harry Reid (D-Nv) said: “ And I am not in this statement criticizing Goldman Sachs.Because I don’t know how they made their money, ok? But I’m glad, as I indicated, that someone made some money.” (Italics added for incredulous emphasis). Senator Reid puts the milk in toast and he knows who butters his proverbial bread…there will be no outrage or significant oversight coming out of the 111th US Congress, (Sponsored by Goldman Sachs with major underwriting by Health Insurance Companies, big-Pharma, and the Military Industrial Complex).

Are WE outraged, though?

Sadly, I am not so sure many of us are.

It's time to break the sick relationship that we have with the Robber Class and do something about it!



Myth America - 10 Greatest Myths
Of The Robber Class

From Dick Eastman


It's time to break the sick relationship that we have with the Robber Class and do something about it!
They can only rob us, if we allow them to.
# Myth One - America Is The Greatest Nation In The Universe!
# Myth Two - Elections Matter
# Myth Three - There's A Huge Difference Between Democrats And Republicans
# Myth Four - It Is Noble To Kill And Die In Robber Class Wars
# Myth Five - The Federal Reserve Cares About You
# Myth Six - It's A Privilege To Pay Income Taxes
# Myth Seven - Housing, Health Care And Education Are Privileges, Too
# Myth Eight - America has a Free Press
# Myth Nine - The Environment, Who Needs it?
# Myth Ten - 19 Muslims With Box Cutters Did 9-11
See full text of article below
Cindy Sheehan Takes On The Robber Class
By Bob Fitrakis
The Free Press
7-15-9
The United States has produced several mythic historical figures Paul Bunyan, John Henry and the like but our actual prophetic peace activists are actually far more interesting. People like Eugene Victor Debs, Emma Goldman, and in our present day, Cindy Sheehan.
Myth America: 10 Greatest Myths of the Robber Class and the Case for Revolution places Sheehan firmly in the pantheon of progressive heroes. Myth America is an online book by Sheehan geared towards destroying the military industrial and security industrial complex that killed her son Casey in the corrupt war in Iraq.
Sheehan is calling for re-localization and the uncoupling of the "robbed class" from the war profiteers and new high-tech robber barons that are flourishing under globalization. The beauty of Sheehan's work, directly echoing the speeches and writings of Debs, is its sheer bluntness.
I interviewed her for freepress.org, and she began by pointing out that "the last month or so in Iraq does not show that the war is winding down, and that part of Obama's plan to withdraw from the cities in Iraq simply involved redefining the border of the city." She termed the so-called withdrawal "painfully slow."
"The peace movement has been co-opted by the Democratic Party," Sheehan said, while on her way to a national gathering of peace activists in Pittsburgh on July 10. She ran a Congressional campaign in the Democratic primary last year against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and raised the issue of Pelosi being aware of the practices of torture and waterboarding.
Sheehan favors the appointment of an independent special prosecutor to look into the issues of torture and war crimes in Iraq. She is well aware that if you begin digging up facts concerning the practices of the Bush administration following 911, you're going to "pull up some Democratic skeletons as well."
Sheehan argues that it's necessary to dig up all the bodies and bones or there'll be "no healing."
In one sense, Sheehan is both old-fashioned and cutting edge she uses the appropriate term in discussing U.S. foreign policy "imperial." When asked she believes current U.S. policy is imperialist, she replied "Of course."
But her focus is more on re-invigorating the peace movement at the local level, which she says is doing a "bad job" under the Obama administration. Make no mistake, Sheehan sees the current imperial policy of the U.S. reflected in a domestic "class war" as well. The book poses a key question: "What can the vast majority of Americans do as the "robbed class?" She recently wrote: "The so-called Ship of State that 'turns slowly' cannot turn at all if the rudder keeps pointing in the direction of economic piracy for the Robbers and economic pillage for We the Robbed." This populism from below sentiment has usually been a harbinger for large-scale social economic movements, from the original Populists to the Socialists, Wobblies, progressives and New Leftists.
Her new book analyzes the relationship between the U.S. government and the six or so transnational media corporations that control 80% of the world's for-profit content. Sheehan's strategy is to avoid the Robber Class corporations as much as possible, whether its through publishing e-books and articles on the internet, or re-allocating one's capital in a different direction.
Sheehan's pitch is to free ourselves from our co-dependency with the Robber Class. "Only buy used, only use cash or bank debit cards, or only buy from local merchants," she recently wrote. They can only steal from us if we enable them." And when the Robber Class steals from us they generally get away with it. Sheehan argues that Bernie Madoff was punished so severely because he stole from the rich.
Sheehan's book is a plea for the robbed class to take back their independence and the wealth that they produce, not only for their own good, but for the good of all the people on the planet.
Bob Fitrakis is the Editor of freepress.org and the author of The Idea of Democratic Socialism in America and the Decline of the Socialist Party.

Monday, July 20, 2009

In defense of Marxism

ISR Issue 66, July–August 2009


CRITICAL THINKING By PHIL GASPER

In defense of Marxism

Marx's ideas are back--and beginning to be attacked in the mainstream media

LAST FALL, when the depth of the economic crisis in the U.S. and around the world started to become abundantly clear, articles began to appear in mainstream media sources around the world talking about the return of Karl Marx. Time magazine even put the author of Das Kapital on the cover of its European (though notably not its U.S.) edition in February, with the headline “What would Marx think?” While rejecting what it called “the prophetic, prescriptive parts of Marx’s writings,” the inside article drew attention to Marx’s “trenchant diagnosis of the underlying problems of a market economy that is surprisingly relevant even today,” and which “is almost uncannily prescient about globalization’s costs and benefits.”

It was to be expected, however, that Marx would not continue to get the kid glove treatment forever. In May, the Financial Times published a lengthy review of three books—about, respectively, the history of self-identified communist regimes, Marx’s comrade and collaborator Frederick Engels, and Marx himself—by its Brussels bureau chief, Tony Barber, which takes a much more dismissive attitude to Marx’s ideas. If there are arguments against Marxism that deserve to be taken seriously, then one might expect to find them in such a prestigious publication. But in the end, Barber’s case is not very impressive.

Barber acknowledges early on that “[c]apitalism is in its worst shape since the Great Depression of the 1930s” and concedes that “some of the criticisms that Marx and Engels leveled at mid-19th century capitalist economic systems do not appear out of place 150 years later.” But he also argues that it would be rash to conclude that “Marx and Engels [are] about to be proved right after all.”

Barber’s argument against Marxism echoes two lines of criticism that he notes were used during the Cold War to “hit back at the Marxist foe.” The first response was that “Whatever the theory, the practice stank. The second riposte was to point out that the theory stank too. As a prophecy of mankind’s future, supposedly based on scientifically discovered laws of historical development, Marxism-Leninism was pure twaddle.”

In fact this way of articulating the argument already makes clear its one central assumption. “Marxism-Leninism” was the name given to the distortion of Marxist theory used by Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union from the late 1920s and by other regimes that followed the Stalinist model after the Second World War, in an effort to legitimize their own rule. Similarly, the practice against which Marx’s ideas was and is being judged is the practice of these regimes, which I agree certainly did stink. But if the assumption that Stalinism had anything to do with the actual ideas of Marx and Engels is false, then this argument against those ideas loses all its bite.

On the face of it, it is rather difficult to square the practice of Stalinism, which created police states and rule by self-perpetuating bureaucracies, with anything that exists in the writing of Marx and Engels. From their earliest involvement in politics, Marx and Engels were radical democrats who wanted to dramatically expand democratic control of society and to create conditions that would permit human freedom to flourish. They were led to communism when they concluded that private control of society’s forces of production was antithetical to both of these goals. In the Communist Manifesto, they envisage the working class winning state power and transforming society in such a way that “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”

Although the working class was a small minority of the Russian population, it was able to successfully lead a popular revolution in October 1917, which placed power in the hands of democratically elected workers’ and soldiers’ councils, or soviets, across the country. Stalin’s rise to power in the 1920s represented not a continuation of that process, but its defeat as a result of economic backwardness, isolation, invasion, and civil war. The soviets were left as empty shells, and power was usurped by a new bureaucratic ruling class that used brutal methods to industrialize the country in an effort to catch up with its economic and military competitors in the West. Later communist regimes had even less to do with workers’ revolution and economic democracy. They stank not because they were attempting to put into practice Marx’s ideas, but because they had rejected them.

Barber offers a reply of sorts to this defense of Marxism. He “wonders what Marx and Engels would have made of the murderous Stalin, the megalomaniac Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania, the paranoid Enver Hoxha of Albania and other blood-stained despots who claimed” to be following their ideas, and admits that “one cannot blame the appalling Soviet and Chinese utopian experiments on two German-born intellectuals writing 50 to 100 years earlier.” But then he adds that, despite this, “Marx’s vision of a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ that would usher in communism was wide open to abuse by fanatics such as Vladimir Lenin, Stalin and Mao.”

I will have to leave it for another occasion to defend Lenin from being lumped together with Stalin, and Mao. The argument now is not that Stalin, Mao, and others were doing what Marx intended, but that Marx somehow opened the door for them to do what he did not intend. But how exactly is he supposed to have done this? By being careless in his choice of words? By advocating a way of organizing society that would inevitably fail, giving rise to its opposite? Neither charge has much merit.

If workers were able to carry out a successful revolution, Marx believed that they would need to use state power to prevent the old ruling class from staging a counterrevolution. At the same time, however, society would become much more democratic, because workers and their allies would make up the vast majority of the population. This is what Marx meant by the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Marx and Engels viewed the short-lived Paris Commune of 1871, in which workers ran the city for almost two months, as an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat in practice. Crucially, the Commune instituted a variety of political mechanisms to make the state more democratic, including abolishing the standing army in favor of local workers’ militias, making all government positions electable and recallable, and paying elected officials no more than the average worker. As Engels noted, “In this way an effective barrier to place-hunting and careerism was set up, even apart from the binding mandates to delegates to representative bodies which were also added in profusion.”

It is hard to confuse the Paris Commune—which was defeated by external force, not as a result of any inherent contradiction in the effort to establish workers’ power—with the dictatorships over the proletariat set up by Stalin, Mao, and all too many others. Marx and Engels were utterly clear that they were advocating a more democratic form of government, and there is not the slightest reason to think that the attempt to establish a workers’ state must be somehow doomed to failure from the start. Marx did not unwittingly lay the groundwork for dictatorship by a minority by advocating an impossible goal.

There is?one other criticism of Marx that Barber raises, this time of a more theoretical nature. Noting that Marx “revised and reshaped his ideas throughout his lifetime,” he points out that in 1877, Marx “wrote that Russia had a chance to bypass the capitalist stage of development and move straight to socialism.” But this suggestion, argues Barber, if “taken at face value, completely blew apart his previous theories of economically determined historical progress.”

Did Marx hold theories of economically determined historical progress? Marx certainly held that economic and material factors shape the rest of society, but Marx was no crude economic determinist, and he did not believe that historical progress was in any way inevitable. Indeed, Marx and Engels note at the start of the Communist Manifesto that class struggle—which they did think was inevitable—might end “either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large,” (a historically progressive outcome) “or in the common ruin of the contending classes” (a regressive one).

In fact, in the letter of 1877 that Barber is referring to (and which it is possible he did not actually read), Marx responds to a critic who sounds a lot like Tony Barber. Marx writes that this critic

feels himself obliged to metamorphose my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into an historico-philosophic theory of the marche generale [general path] imposed by fate upon every people, whatever the historic circumstances in which it finds itself, in order that it may ultimately arrive at the form of economy which will ensure, together with the greatest expansion of the productive powers of social labor, the most complete development of man. But I beg his pardon. (He is both honoring and shaming me too much.) Let us take an example.

In several parts of Capital I allude to the fate which overtook the plebeians of ancient Rome. They were originally free peasants, each cultivating his own piece of land on his own account. In the course of Roman history they were expropriated. The same movement which divorced them from their means of production and subsistence involved the formation not only of big landed property but also of big money capital. And so one fine morning there were to be found on the one hand free men, stripped of everything except their labor power, and on the other, in order to exploit this labor, those who held all the acquired wealth in possession. What happened? The Roman proletarians became, not wage laborers but a mob of do-nothings more abject than the former “poor whites” in the southern country of the United States, and alongside of them there developed a mode of production which was not capitalist but dependent upon slavery. Thus events strikingly analogous but taking place in different historic surroundings led to totally different results. By studying each of these forms of evolution separately and then comparing them one can easily find the clue to this phenomenon, but one will never arrive there by the universal passport of a general historico-philosophical theory, the supreme virtue of which consists in being super-historical.
Marx returned to the question of possible developments in Russia in other late writings. In a preface to a Russian translation of the Communist Manifesto published in 1882, Marx and Engels directly address the question of whether peasant communes in Russia could become the basis for a communist society, without Russia having to pass through a phase of capitalist development. They respond as follows: “If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of the land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.”

The bottom line is that in his various remarks on Russia in the last years of his life, Marx did not abandon or contradict the materialist framework that he and Engels first developed in the 1840s. What he did show, however, was that this framework is far more subtle and sophisticated than his latter-day critics seem able to grasp.


Phil Gasper is the editor of The Communist Manifesto: A Road Map to History’s Most Important Document (Haymarket Books, 2005) and a member of the ISR editorial board.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Conscience of a Progressive: Chapter One




Those of us who are at middle age or beyond have lived through a revolution in political and economic theory and practice, a revolution so profound that few of us can even begin to appreciate its significance, much less its peril.

Future historians, however, will understand and appreciate this revolution and will wonder at the passivity of the public today and the ease with which those who instituted this upheaval achieve their success. The same historians, I will venture, will be equally or more amazed at how this moment played out. But this we cannot know, for their past is our immediate future. We are the agents of that still-to-be written history. The United States of America, in this year of 20068 is at a hinge of history. Our fate, and that of our successors, rests directly in the hands of all of us who are politically alert and active today. As Edward R. Murrow famously said, “we can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result."

Those factions and interests now in control of the United States government declare that their policies, which they choose to call “conservative” and I prefer to call “regressive,” are an advancement in the course of human history. Those who disagree, and the pollsters tell us that they are a majority of the American people, believe that in the past seven years, and arguably in the past twenty-seven years, the people of the United States and their government, have suffered a grievous setback.

I count myself among this dissenting majority. In this book, I will attempt to articulate that dissent, criticize the foundational dogmas of the regnant, “regressive” regime that now controls our country, and justify the principles of “progressivism” – the political-economic ideology that distinguished and honored our past, and if we are both determined and fortunate, may once again guide and enrich our national future.

It will be helpful at this outset to briefly identify the “players” in this political contest.

Regressivism: A Preliminary Sketch:
To begin, it is important to note that the regressivism that controls and supports our present government is not a unified political doctrine. Rather, it is a coalition, some factions of which are in strong disagreement with others, most notably “the libertarian right” and “the religious right.” Later in this chapter, we will identify and examine these and other factions at some length.

In general, most regressives tend to believe that the ideal society is merely a collection of autonomous individuals and families in voluntary association. In fact they assert that strictly speaking, as Dame Margaret Thatcher once proclaimed, “There is no such thing as a society,”1 and Ayn Rand, “There is no such entity as ‘the public.’”2 It follows that there is no such thing as “public goods” and “the public interest,” apart from summation of private goods and interests. Moreover, there are no “victims of society.” The poor choose their condition; poverty is the result of “laziness” or, as the religious right would put it, a “sin.”

Each individual, by acting to maximize his or her personal self-interest, will always act “as if by an invisible hand” (Adam Smith) to promote the well-being of all others in this (so-called) “society:” that which is good for each, is good for all. Accordingly, the optimal economic system is a completely unrestricted and unregulated free market of “capitalist acts by consenting adults.” (Robert Nozick) Moreover, private ownership of all land, resources, infrastructure, and even institutions, will always yield results preferable to common (i.e. government) ownership and control. Finally, the regressive firmly believes that because economic prosperity and growth are accomplished through capital investment, the well-being of all is accomplished by directing wealth into the hands of “the investing class;” i.e. the very rich, whereby that wealth will “trickle down” to the benefit of all others.

The libertarian right insists that the sole legitimate functions of government are the protection of the individual’s unalienable natural rights to life, liberty and property. The libertarian’s demand for individual autonomy and government non-interference entails a tolerance and respect for privacy, and thus the libertarian has no use for sodomy and drug laws, for laws prohibiting gay marriage, abortion, and least of all for government endorsement of religious dogma or enforcement of religious practice. Thus the libertarian fully endorses John Stuart Mill’s pronouncement that, “over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”3 In general, the libertarian advocates the fullest possible freedom of the individual, consistent with equivalent liberty of all others. In these respects, there is much in libertarian thought that should be attractive to the progressive.

The religious right, of course, vehemently rejects the libertarian’s uncompromising tolerance and insistence that the government has no right whatever to interfere in the private life of the individual. The religious right, to the contrary, believes that the government is entitled to enforce moral behavior and even to support religious institutions and “establish” religious doctrines in the law. In the most extreme cases, the religious right advocates the establishment of “biblical law” in place of our present system of secular Constitutional law.

With the exception of the dispute between the libertarians and the religious right regarding private behavior, all the other tenets of regressivism share this characteristic: They all lead to policies that benefit wealth and power (“the masters”), to the disadvantage of all others; i.e., the “ordinary citizens. We elaborate on this contention in Chapter Four.

There is much more to the regressive platform and agenda, which we will explore throughout this book. But this brief sketch will serve as a beginning.

Progressivism: A Preliminary Sketch:
“Progressivism” is essentially the “liberalism” of most of the twentieth century, as promulgated by both Roosevelts, by the Kennedy Brothers, and by many Republicans, such as Dwight Eisenhower, Jacob Javits and Earl Warren. “Progressivism,” to put it simply, is “liberalism,” free of the slanderous connotations heaped upon it by contemporary right-wing propagandists.

In general, progressives endorse the political principles of our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, as well as the fundamental moral precepts of the great world religions and the ideas of many secular moral philosophers – precepts most familiar to the American public through the moral teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Accordingly, progressivism is founded on enduring “conservative” principles. Thus the familiar “liberal vs. conservative” dichotomy is a hoax. Moreover, the Right, far from being “conservative,” in fact endorses a radical political doctrine, with policies designed to return society and the economy to a condition of autocracy, wealth and power for the privileged few, and servitude, poverty and ignorance for “the masses” – a condition which, until recently, was generally believed to be permanently discredited and relegated to the distant past. Hence my preferred term, “regressive.”

In contrast to the regressive, the progressive regards society not as an aggregate of autonomous individuals but as an “emergent” entity that is more than the sum of its individual human components. In this sense, a society is like a chemical compound such as table salt or water: substances with properties that are separate and distinct from the properties of their component elements. It then follows that there are “social goods” and “public interests” that are demonstrably separate from the sum of private goods and interests. Moreover, there are genuine “victims of society” who are in no way responsible for their suffering and poverty. (The illegitimate child of a teen-age heroin addict did not choose her parents. The corporate decision to “outsource” a job was out of the hands of the worker who loses that job).

Because society (or “the public”) is demonstrably distinct from the sum of its component individuals, behavior that might be good for each individual, may be bad for society as a whole; and conversely, that which is “bad” for the individual (e.g., taxes and regulations) may benefit society at large. These fundamental precepts: “good for each, bad for all” and“bad for each, good for all” are of such essential importance to the defense of progressivism, and by implication to the refutation of regressivism, that we shall devote two entire chapters (Chapters Five and Six) to these precepts specifically, and they will also be applied throughout the book.

The progressive is not “against” free markets, but rather believes that in the organization and functioning of society and its economy, markets are invaluable servants. But markets can also be cruel masters. Thus, in the formulation of public policy, markets should count for something and even for much, but not for everything. There is a “wisdom” of the marketplace, but that “wisdom” is not omniscient. Adam Smith was right: each individual seeking his own gain might act, “as if by an invisible hand,” to the benefit of all. But as Adam Smith also observed and regressive economists tend to forget, there is a “back of the invisible hand,” whereby self-serving action by each individual can bring ruin upon the whole – a warning that was vividly presented by Garrett Hardin in his landmark essay, “The Tragedy of the Commons.” (1968)

Progressives are so much in favor of a market economy that they are determined to protect it from its excesses and from its innate tendency toward self-destruction. The progressive recognizes that the natural tendency of “free markets” is toward monopoly and cartels, which are, of course, the end of the free market. Thus the progressive endorses anti-trust laws, which means, of course, a rule of law enforced by government.

The progressive also recognizes that market transactions, especially those by large corporations, affect not only the parties of those transactions (the buyers and sellers), but also unconsenting third parties, the “stakeholders;” for example, citizens who reside downwind of and downstream from polluting industries, citizens who are enticed by false advertising to endanger their health, and parents whose childrens’ minds and morals are corrupted by mass media. “Stakeholders” should thus have a voice in these corporate transactions, and the only agency with a legitimate right to represent the stakeholders is their government; hence the justification for regulation of corporations.

The progressive agrees that economic benefits “trickle down” from the investments of the wealthy. But he also insists that the wealth of the privileged few “percolates up” from knowledge and labor of the producers of that wealth – the workforce – and from the tranquillity and social order that issues from a public that is served well by and freely consents to the rule of its government. The progressive insists that the workers are most productive and prosperous when they participate, through collective bargaining, in determining the conditions of their employment. The progressive also recognizes that the productivity of that workforce results from public education and from publicly-funded basic research that might otherwise be neglected by private entrepreneurs. .

In addition to the libertarian’s defense of the government’s function of protecting the rights of “life, liberty and property,” the progressive believes that it is also the function of government “to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, ...[and] promote the general Welfare.” Critics from The Right, who choose to call themselves “conservatives,” should note that these words are quoted directly from the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States.

Also, along with the libertarians, the progressive endorses the “like liberty principle” which affirms that each individual is entitled to maximum liberty, consistent with equal liberty for all. Likewise, as I will argue at length in this book, the “no-harm principle,” expressed in the familiar folk maxim, “my freedom ends where your nose begins.” However, the libertarians fail to come to terms with the full implications of these principles, for their program results in freedom for the privileged few at the cost of the freedom and welfare of the many. To put the matter bluntly, the progressive disagrees with the libertarian, not because the progressive values liberty less, but because he values liberty more.

The progressive insists that certain institutions and resources are the legitimate property not of private individuals, but of the public at large. These include, first of all, the government itself: the legislature, the executive, and the courts. In addition, the natural environment – the atmosphere, the waterways, the oceans, the aquifers, wildlife – can not be parceled out, marked by property lines, and sold to the highest bidder. Language, the arts, literature, the sciences, are common heritages which must be protected and nurtured for the common good, and not be used and exploited exclusively for private gain.

Finally, the progressive demands that government belongs to the people, and not exclusively to those interests that can afford to “buy into” access to and influence upon the government. “Governments,” the progressive reminds us, “are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” and that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” And if the (self-described) “conservatives” find such sentiments to be treasonous, they should again take note of the source. These words are from the founding document of our republic: The Declaration of Independence.

Accordingly, far from being “traitors,” as Ann Coulter would have us believe, progressives are among the most authentic of patriots.

Liberal Ideas: Old and New
We’ve all heard these complaint from the right:

“The Liberals have no new ideas.”

“Liberalism has run its course, it’s burnt out – no longer relevant to the unique conditions of the new century.”

“Liberalism lacks a firm ideological foundation, so all that’s left for the liberals are their old worn out slogans.”

So we are told by the right-wing “establishment:” the AM radio talk-show hosts, the “conservative” think-tank luminaries that dominate the Sunday TV gab-fests, the pundits of the mainstream media, and, of course, Republican politicians.

“No new ideas?” That’s a strange complaint to be coming from self-proclaimed “conservatives!” But more to the point, the accusation is plainly and demonstrably false. After all, as the left proclaims and the right complains, university faculties are predominantly liberal, and universities are “idea factories.” It is the job of university professors to come up with, and to critically examine, “new ideas.” Either that, or find another line of work: “publish or perish.”

But newness and novelty are not the primary virtues of political ideas. Newton’s laws of motion, and Euclid’s geometry are no less valuable for being old.4 Nor are the political doctrines of our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

New or old, cogency and relevance are the criteria of ideological value. Put simply, a “cogent” idea possesses the capacity to answer the simple question, “Why should I believe this?,” clearly, forcefully, and convincingly. The hallmarks of cogency are an abundance of supporting evidence, logical consistency and coherence.5 Relevance is the applicability of the idea to significant social and political problems, and its capacity to provide solutions to these problems.

On all these counts, progressivism is a superior political ideology to regressivism.

That’s easy enough to say. Proving it is quite another matter. And proving the superiority of progressivism will be the essential task of this book.

A strong case for liberalism/progressivism can be assembled from the evidence of ordinary experience and common sense, without resort to the sort of technical vocabulary and subtle arguments that routinely put undergraduates to sleep. And this is fortunate, for the simplicity and common sense appeal of progressivism exemplifies its suitability as an ideology for a democratic society and a free people.

And so, at the outset of this task, I promise the reader that I will leave the technical vocabulary, the dry abstractions and the complex arguments of academe behind. Instead, I will use ordinary language, and deal with matters of common knowledge and experience.

We begin with a recognition that the language of political discourse today has been thoroughly distorted by the black arts of propaganda and public relations. We can scarcely begin our inquiry unless we define the terms of that inquiry, as we identify and then avoid the semantic traps that have been devised by the unscrupulous. That will be the task of the chapter that follows immediately after this.

The Ascent of the Right
Next, a quick review of how we have arrived at our current political condition. But bear in mind, this book is not an historical treatise. We will be much more concerned with the condition of the Right as it is today, than with the question of how it came to be.6

In the 1964 Presidential Election, Senator Barry Goldwater’s Republican candidacy was buried in an avalanche of votes for Lyndon B. Johnson. Goldwater received only 38.5% of the popular vote to Johnson’s 60%

Johnson, whose political exemplar was Franklin D. Roosevelt, successfully supplemented FDR’s “New Deal” with his “New Society.” It was the high water mark of liberalism – the enlightened employment of government in the service of the public good.

The prevailing journalistic and academic judgment at the time was that in the 1964 election, The Right had its moment, had failed, and would no longer be a significant factor in the American body politic. Consequently, like the victorious allies in 1918 and 1945, the Liberal Left disarmed. This complacency was to have dire consequences.

The defeated Right did not surrender. Instead, it withdrew, contemplated, and planned for the long-term. The liberals may have had control of the White House, the Congress, much of the Judiciary, and the mainstream media. But the Right had the advantage of unlimited funds, patience, and superlative tactical intelligence.

In 1971, corporate attorney Lewis Powell, soon to be appointed to the Supreme Court, wrote a memorandum to Eugene Syndor, Jr. of the US Chamber of Commerce. The memo,7 which was widely distributed among corporate leaders, right-wing publishers and billionaire supporters of right-wing causes, warned that American free-market capitalism was under attack by the usual liberal suspects: college and university faculties, the media, philanthropic supporters of the arts and sciences, literary and scholarly journals, etc. This threat, he urged, called for a counter-revolution with the funding of “conservative” journalists, scholars, publications, and think tanks, along with control of the mass media.

Similarly, in 1978 William Simon, Nixon’s former Treasury Secretary, published a book, A Time for Truth, also with a call for a well-funded, well-planned, and well-executed defense of corporate capitalism alongside of attacks upon environmentalism, the consumer protection movement, affirmative action, government regulation, and other core issues of the liberal agenda.

It has become a conventional wisdom of the left, that the Powell memo was the Magna Carta of the resurgence of the right: the catalyzing document that launched the movement that was to capture the mass media and all branches of the federal government, and which now has its sights set on higher education. Other liberal observers, among them Mark Schmitt of The American Prospect8 regards this as overblown poppycock.

We need not involve ourselves with this controversy. Whether, Lewis Powell’s memo and William Simon’s book were prime movers of the ascent of the Right, or were merely inconsequential prophecies of political things to come, both gave remarkably prescient accounts of what was to follow.

The program, first of all, was to establish an institutional foundation to defend and promulgate the doctrines of the right. This was accomplished through the “think tanks” – such as the American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation, The Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. These lavishly funded quasi-academic institutions assembled like-minded “scholars,” produced publications, and supplied “experts” to the media. They are “quasi-academic” in the sense that while they have the outward appearance of research institutions, their adherence to rightist doctrine is categorical. A “conservative” think-tank “fellow” whose “independent” train of thought veers to the left, is soon “included out.” “Conservative” think tanks have all the diversity of opinion of the College of Cardinals.

In addition, the Right set about to capture and dominate the media. And so they purchased newspapers, magazines, and broadcast stations, and then proceeded to merge. {Insert statistics on media ownership over the past forty years}. The process was accelerated with the abolition in 1987 of The Fairness Doctrine, initiated in 1949, with its requirement that political views expressed on the public airwaves be “balanced” with opposing views. The continuing trend toward media concentration was finally halted in 2003, with massive public opposition to the
proposal of FCC Chairman Michael Powell and the majority Republican commissioners to further relax ownership restrictions. {Continues today with attack on PBS and threats to the internet}

The contrasting emphases of right and left philanthropy also worked to the advantage of the right. Following the pattern of non-partisan centrist foundations such as the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, the leftist philanthropic organizations supported non-ideological and non-political causes, such as third-world agricultural development, land conservation, scientific research, the arts, community development, etc. In contrast, the right foundations such as Scaife, Coors, Bradley, and Olin, had an agenda: triumph over “the liberal establishment.” And so, according to the “National Committee for Responsive Politics”9 right-wing foundations donated $254 million dollars in “public policy grants,” primarily to like-thinking publications and think-tanks. In the decade of the nineties, one billion dollars were donated to conservative think-tanks.10

Finally, The Right built a coalition of voters, without which it could not exert political power. Immediately at hand was the traditionally Democratic white South. When Lyndon Johnson signed the voting rights act in 1965, he said “I’ve just lost the South.” His prophecy was right on the mark. Led by Strom Thurmond, numerous southern Democratic senators and congressmen switched to the Republicans. The South has now become the “anchor” of the Electoral College strategy of the Republican Party. The second leg of the Right coalition were the fundamentalist Christians, who were somehow persuaded that the GOP was the party of “righteousness” and the Democrats the party of sin, decadence and secularism. As we will point out shortly, this was no small feat of salesmanship.

In sum: the triumph of The Right is due, primarily, to tenacity, and an abundance of marketing skills and financial investment unconstrained by moral scruple or adherence to the founding principles of our republic. One of the most insufferable conceits of the Right is that they have "won" because their (so-called) "conservatism" has "the better ideas," and that "liberalism," unlike The Right, lacks a firm ideological foundation.

While this slander is flatly false, it is nonetheless widely believed by a public immersed in right-wing dogma, served out by the corporate media. While it is one thing to recognize the falsehood and immorality of the Right Wing message, it is yet another matter to convince the public of the shortcomings of The Right. This book will address that task.

As for the charges that "liberalism" is without foundation and bereft of relevant ideas, we will answer these charges directly by presenting and defending progressive ideas well-suited to address the emergencies before us. And we will articulate and defend the allegedly non-existent foundations of liberalism.

The Right Wing establishment is in a commanding strategic position, supported by limitless financial resources, dominating mass media, and now in control of all branches of the federal government. The right-wing operatives have proven themselves to be tactically brilliant. Even so, they are vulnerable. For regressivism, the political doctrine of The Right, is a fundamentally false, morally deficient and thus indefensible political ideology.

The right-wing operatives inhabit a fantasy world and, as devoted dogmatists, they are disinclined to consider contrary opinions or to revise policies in the face of ongoing events. There is surely a limit to the endurance and the credulity of the vast majority of citizens that The Right is impoverishing economically, and whose civil liberties it is violating. And the increasing estrangement of the Bush Administration from world opinion and commerce is bound to have devastating consequences.

In a recent New York Times article, Ron Suskind describes an encounter with a "senior advisor to [George] Bush:”
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you will be left to just study what we do.''11
This is insane! -- "insane" in the clinical sense of "detached from reality." Despite all their financial resources, all the subservience of the mass media, all the sophistical skills of the Heritage Foundation "intellectuals," all the power of the military, the Bush regime and it's allies on the right cannot, like King Canute, command the tides. They cannot abolish atmospheric physics and with it the threat of global warming. They can not decree that evolution is a myth, and that the Earth was created ten thousand years ago. Their budgets cannot outlaw simple arithmetic.

In the end, The Right will discover that Reality is a fearsome adversary, as The Left comes to appreciate that Reality is a formidable ally.

And that is why, eventually, The Right must fail.

But not, perchance, before humanity, both within and beyond our borders, suffers unspeakably due to the folly of The Right.

It is the task of the progressives to minimize the damage and to restore sanity to the body politic.

The Factions of The Radical Right.
The radical right is not a monolithic body; it is a coalition comprised of several factions. Moreover, it is an unstable alliance of with some “strange political bedfellows” which, if attacked by a skillful political adversary, might be sundered. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has utterly failed to demonstrate and apply that skill.

Here are a few of the prominent members of the alliance of The Right:

The libertarians are champions of “limited government,” believing that the only legitimate functions of government are the protection of life, liberty and property – by means of the military (defense against foreign enemies), the police (defense against domestic enemies), and the courts (protection of property). {cite} Taxes in support of anything else -- schools, the arts, environmental protection – are regarded by the libertarians as unwarranted seizures of private property, in a word, “theft.” In fact, many libertarians have either left the Republican Party or have never joined, due to basic incompatibilities with the religious right and other factions.12

The Free Market Absolutists. (The phrase is from George Soros). This faction embraces and promotes the economic program of the libertarians. The FMAs believe that all social problems and government functions can best be dealt with if all national assets are privatized, and if the free market exchange of goods, services and investment assets is allowed to proceed without impediment. In other words, the FMAs believe that the optimum social order is obtained, “as if by an invisible hand” (Adam Smith), through the summation of individual self-enhancing “capitalist acts between consenting adults.” (Robert Nozick).

The Neo-Conservatives articulate the foreign policy of The Right, as set forth in their 1997 manifesto, Project for a New American Century (PNAC),13 and more recently, their white paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for the New Century."14 PNAC proclaims the right of the United States to initiate “pre-emptive”war, to execute “regime change” “at a time and place of our choosing,” to forbid the emergence of rival powers, and, as the sole remaining superpower, to enforce a “benevolent global hegemony.”15

The Plutocrats’ governing “ideology” can be distilled down to a single word: More! Like George Bush, they “don’t do nuance.” Plutocrats hate governments because governments impose taxes and because governments regulate the plutocrats’ enterprises. Plutocrats recognize no “public interest.” As Commodore Vanderbilt famously proclaimed, “the public be damned – I work for my stockholders.” Plutocrats defend and promote free enterprise and competition – among their rivals. For themselves, they much prefer monopolies. Despite their proclaimed enmity toward government, they seek control of government as an instrument of their personal wealth-enhancement.

The religious right provides the“foot soldiers” of the radical right. They supply the votes that are the foundation of the political power of the right. (Kevin Phillips writes that “according to national polls in 2000, evangelicals and fundamentalists cast fully 40 percent of Bush’s vote, and his 84 percent support among committed evangelicals was higher than any previous Republican nominee.”16). Without those votes, the political clout of the right-wing regressives would collapse, and the right would be appropriately relegated the fringes of the body politic.

Finally, “The Gullibles” – who might less charitably be characterized as “the suckers” or “the marks” (the latter a term used by confidence men), who have been persuaded to vote against their economic interests. Typical among “the gullibles” are the fans of the right-wing talkers such as Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh – individuals who Limbaugh calls, with uncharacteristic appropriateness, “ditto-heads.” While this group can scarcely be called a (doctrinally unified) “faction,” their proportion of Republican votes rivals that of the religious right. Lacking deep-seated, coherent and well-thought out ideologies, they are followers whose political “ideologies,” such as they are, are bundles of incoherent and vacuous slogans, encompassing such libertarian-regressive myths as “market absolutism” and “government is the problem, not the solution” (Ronald Reagan). They are unified in their hatred of “the wacko-liberals,” a largely mythical entity concocted by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, and the GOP propaganda machine – an entity characterized in 2004 GOP TV and radio campaign ads as “those chardonnay sipping, brie cheese eating, Volvo Driving, New York Times reading, elite liberals.”

(There are still other components of the Radical Right alliance, such as the adopted southern segregationists, and the “paranoid right” of militias and skin-heads. The latter are not really part of the coalition, and often an embarrassment thereto. For the sake of simplicity, we will leave them aside. For a detailed list of the components of the Right wing, see the Political Research Associates17).

Together these factions constitute a formidable political force. The plutocrats supply the money, the libertarians, neo-conservatives and free marketeers articulate the political dogma, and the fundamentalists and gullibles provide the votes.

This is a very agreeable arrangement for “the secular Right” -- the libertarians, the free-marketeers, and the plutocrats, who have little to dispute amongst themselves. But the alliance of the secular right with the religious right is a marriage of convenience – convenient for the secular right, which prefers to keep its pious “partners” barefoot, ignorant and pregnant. “Barefoot” in the sense of impoverished, ignorant of how they are being exploited, and “pregnant” in the sense being productive of votes.

On close inspection, the secular and religious right have little in common, and so the secularists are anxious that the religious right refrain from such inspection.

Consider the contrasts:

Many of the most prominent promoters of libertarianism during the past forty years have been avowed atheists; among them Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Brandon, John Hospers and Robert Nozick. Yet this appears not to bother the evangelicals.

In addition, libertarians share with many liberals, a categorical opposition to government interference in the private lives of individuals. Accordingly, contrary to the religious right, the libertarians endorse the legalization of marijuana, pornography and prostitution, and they oppose anti-drug laws, restrictions on abortion and discrimination against homosexuals.

It was said of Ronald Reagan, that he “took government off our backs and put it in our bedrooms.” This is fine with the religious right. To the contrary, the libertarians want government both off our backs and out of our bedrooms.

The secularists, of course, are scientifically sophisticated, and thus accept evolution and reject biblical literalism.

Finally, the morality and behavior of the secular right is antithetical to the traditional Christian virtues of pacifism, humility, compassion, charity and non-affluence.

The Factions of the Left.
The left also has divergent factions, of course, and they are in competition with each other. But theirs is a competition for public attention and support. Among these factions there are few doctrinal differences such as those which on the right separate the secular libertarians from the religious right. For example, environmentalists do not usually disagree with the aspirations of the advocates of racial justice, gay pride, trade unions, etc., nor are these advocates, for their part, inclined to deny the validity of the environmentalists’ concerns. They differ as to priorities, each faction demanding a larger share of financial support, of legal remedies, of political clout.

Thus, when Martin Luther King joined the anti-Vietnam war movement, in his Riverside Church speech in April 4, 1967, many of King’s colleagues in the civil rights struggle felt betrayed. Harvard Prof. Charles V. Willie, a long-time friend and associate of King, recalls the response:
Carl Rowan said that after the Riverside Church speech, King became persona non grata to Lyndon Johnson at the White House. Ralph Bunche of the United Nations disagreed with King. Bunche said King had overstepped his domain. Congressman Adam Clayton Powell proclaimed that "the day of Martin Luther King has come to an end." Powell ridiculed and disparaged King, calling him Martin Loser King.
King's friends in the civil rights movement also criticized him, including Roy Wilkins of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Whitney Young and Norman Thomas "all pleaded in vain with King not to wade into the Vietnam controversy."18

The media was also hostile to King’s embrace of the anti-war cause, as the Washington Post wrote that King had "diminished his usefulness to this cause, to his country, and to his people." The New York Times characterized the Riverside Church speech as a "fusing of two public problems that are distinct and separate" and a "disservice to both."19

At times, the competition can lead one faction to express outright hostility toward another. For example, in 1970, Robert Crisman dismissed environmentalism (“ecology”) as “a racist shuck,” when he wrote:
The ecology movement has provided Americans a diversion from ... the black liberation struggle ... [T]he establishment has skillfully manipulated the movement....

... The national liberation struggles of black and Third World peoples throughout the United States and the world have exerted tremendous pressure upon the economic, political and cultural conditions of white America, and the ecology movement has emerged as a conservative reaction to those struggles.... 20
The left’s capacity for self-inflicted harm was vividly displayed in the recent Washington DC rallies against the Iraq War. Those who watched these events on C-SPAN surely noticed how a variety of speakers hammered on an abundance of distinct issues: Free Mumia, Save the Rain Forests, Gay Pride, Abortion Rights, etc. While most of these issues are dear to the hearts of progressives, many progressives do not embrace them all. Thus many protesters in the crowd, and viewers at home, were put-off by appeals to causes they did not endorse, while the ostensive purpose of the rallies, opposition to the Iraq War, was diluted or even lost in these distractions.

Because the varied issues of progressive concern are not, or need not be, at odds with each other, concerted action should be easier to accomplish, than on the right with its strange admixture of atheists and fundamentalists, of pro-choice and anti-abortion, of government “in the bedroom” and out. And yet this is not the case, as the left has become renowned for its propensity to alienate its natural allies, and to form “circular firing squads.”

In short, the left lacks the strategic discipline of the right. Progressives must learn to “keep their eyes on the prize,” focusing on the issue of the moment. There will be time and opportunity to deal with other worthy issues.


A look ahead: The reformation of our politics must begin with a repair of our language, which has been ruthless distorted and abused by the propagandists of the right. And so, in the chapter which follows immediately, we will address “the language problem.” Following that, we fulfill the promise to refine our account of the contending ideologies, progressivism and regressivism: “the left and the right.” Then we proceed to defend the bold assertion, made at the beginning of this chapter, that “with the exception the dispute between the libertarians and the religious right regarding private behavior, all the other tenets of regressivism ... lead to policies that benefit wealth and power (the masters), to the disadvantage of all others.”


NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Thatcher, Margaret, The Downing Street Years, Harper Collins, London. P. 626.

2. Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 109. (“Man’s Rights”).

3. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 439. In Jene M. Perter (ed.), Classics in Political Philosophy, Prentice Hall, 1989.

4. Quibble point: "But not true -- Einstein proved that." Einstein is right for intergalactic dimensions. Newton and Euclid serve terrestrial distances quite well.

5. Professorial quibble: Most logic texts define a sound argument as (a) an argument with true premises, that is (b) logically valid. Given these conditions, the conclusion is, by definition, true. Howard Kahane defines a cogent argument as meeting the above two conditions plus a third: (c) “We have considered all likely relevant information.” (6)

6. For an “inside” look at the recent history of the Right, see David Brock’s “Blinded by the Right.”

7. Lewis Powell, “Attack on American Free Market System,”

8. Mark Schmitt: “The Legend of the Powell Memo,” The Nation, April 27, 2005

9. National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, “Axis of Ideology:Conservative Foundations and Public Policy,” (Executive Summary)

10. David Callahan, “$1 Billion for Ideas: Conservative Think Tanks in the 1990s,” Commonweal Institute, 1999.

11. Ron Suskind: "Without a Doubt, " The New York Times, October 17, 2004

12. For more about libertarian doctrine, see my “With Liberty for Some” and “Environmental Justice and ‘Shared Fate’”.

13. http://www.newamericancentury.org/

14. www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

15. www.foreignaffairs.org/19960701faessay4210/william-kristol-robert-kagan/toward-a-neo-reaganite-foreign-policy.html

16. Kevin Phillips: "All Eyes on Dixie, American Prospect," 15:2, February 1, 2004

17. http://ajilan.pair.com/pra/research/chart_of_sectors.html

18. http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/01.17/99-mlkspeech.html

19. http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featdyson_mlk_p.htm

20. Chrisman, R. (1970). "Ecology is a Racist Shuck." Scanlon's Monthly, I (August), 46.
Copyright 2006 by Ernest Partridge

THE PROGRESSIVE MANIFESTO


"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)

"To speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it."
-Henry David Thoreau, "Civil Disobedience"

What is the purpose of government? Why do we collectively pool our tax dollars together? What are these trillions of dollars to be spent on? The expansion of Empire, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? Torture? The surveillance of peaceful citizens who disagree with the current Administration? Support of industry that destroys our ecosystem as well as our health? Or should it be to provide things like education, health care, clean water, clean air, safe food, protection from various toxins/radiation, fair wages and working conditions, economic justice, libraries, public transportation, public radio & TV, roads, and the protection of our Rights? America is supposed to be a just and free society, a Constitutional Republic, so that we will have the peace, health and free time to pursue happiness, an impossible endeavor when living in a closed, exploitative and oppressive society. The basic requirements for happiness are the protection of our born-with Rights, adequate food, shelter, and health care. Since the lack of these basics are inherently an issue of socio-economic and political injustice, the most common obstacles to a spiritually evolved society are political issues, and therefore require political action. A Republic is the best form of government because the rule of law, set forth in a Constitution that limits the power of government to violate the rights of citizens, takes precedence. The majority of people are good natured and they want their government to be used for the greater good, especially protecting everyone's Rights. However, there have always been the power-hungry and destructive few who want the incredible resources provided by government to be used for their own selfish ends. What's really happening here in the USA is basically a battle between a real Constitutional Republic and a Fascist/Oligarchic government.

The American Revolution was fought against an unelected government, the British Empire, which exploited and oppressed the American colonists. The Boston Tea Party, which helped spark the Revolution, was a direct action taken against a multi-national corporation, The East India Company, which was using an unregulated free market system provided by the British Empire/Bank of England, under “The Tea Act”, to wipe out the small businesses in the colonies. Today we are told that an unregulated Free Market which favors the rich and exploits the poor, and a private bank controlling our money supply (The "Federal" Reserve) is “American”, while our jobs are downsized and relocated overseas to foreign workers who are exploited and given slave wages with little or no protections. The neo-conservative movement in America today parallels exactly what the American colonists fought against. Multi-national corporations free from necessary regulation along with institutions like the corporate controlled Federal Reserve, The Council of Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, “The Bilderberg Group” and agreements/policy outlined by NAFTA/CAFTA, World Bank, IMF, and WTO undermine people's universal human rights and the democratic process, a fair marketplace/economic system here and throughout the world. We The People should rebel as the colonists did against fascist tyrannical rule (except nonviolently this time, since non-violent civil disobedience is always the most effective and morally sound), to restore a principle-based Constitutional Democratic Republic that protects the Rights of individuals and insures a just non-monopolistic competitive free-enterprise economic system. The Federal Reserve and the influence of the CFR must end if we are to have a true Democratic Republic, and freedom from endless debt and servitude to a few "elite".

The fundamental problem we and those in the past have faced is lack of democracy. It is the corporate right-wing control of our policy that needs to end; we need to have policy based on the Constitution and the majority's will, not the rich few. The world of the twenty-first century is filled with injustice and unnecessary suffering. We think that the majority of people on Earth have it in their interest to create new political policy that promotes real democracy, equal rights, individual freedom and social justice. We must no longer accept propaganda that blurs right and wrong, this has been a tactic to propagate injustice since the beginning of civilization.

After the events of 09/11/01, we had The Bush Administration telling us that the biggest “evil-doers” are Al-Qaeda, an “American –made” organization. The US government has been the greatest purveyor of violence in the world in the past century, and that truth is continuing into this new century, with over a million Iraqis and Afghani's killed since the imperialist U.S. occupations of those nations began. Those of us that are aware of what’s really going on must inform the rest of the public that has been brainwashed by the mass-media with government lies and propaganda.

All over the world, powerful corporations are working with politicians to undermine representative democracy. In the United States, individual liberties and constitutional rights are being undermined by the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Homegrown-Terrorism Act, etc. which was made law without any real democratic process. U.S. soldiers are dying and fighting in an unjust and illegal war, killing tens of thousands of civilians; a war that the majority of American people are against. The war is supposedly against terrorism, yet the evidence is overwhelming that the Bush Administration purposely allowed the 9/11 terrorist attacks to happen in order to carry out their “Project For a New American Century” which said it needed a “New Pearl Harbor” in order to execute its plans, which included a preemptive war with Iraq, because they would be unpopular with the public and Congress. Impeachment proceedings should commence immediately for lying to congress about the necessity for going to war with Iraq. (There were No WMDs in Iraq)

The evidence is also overwhelming that the 2000 and 2004 U.S. presidential elections were rigged. U.S. voting systems were visibly rigged in the 2004 presidential election, and the Supreme Court ignored Al Gore's win in 2000, enacting a coup d'état. Al Gore received more votes than Bush in 2000, and John Kerry certainly received more votes in 2004. The numbers were electronically changed along with millions of voters being unjustly disenfranchised. A lot of citizens became activists only for the presidential campaigns and afterward significantly lowered their resistance to injustice; by focusing on a single date, like November 4th (election day), the public disempowers themselves similarly as is done through belief in savior mythology. By putting all the weight on one day or one individual the power is lost from the People.

In the 2008 election why did the corporate media completely ignore Green Party Candidate Cynthia Mckinney, who along with Congressman Dennis Kucinich and others, were talking about 9/11 Truth, The Federal Reserve, and Election Truth? Is Obama winning really a “miracle”? Or is it just the move needed by the people that really run the show, to get the support they need for their “Big Picture” /“Esoteric” agenda (i.e. more centralized power, less personal freedom)?

There are brilliant progressive leaders like Noam Chomsky, Cornell West, Ralph Nader, Thom Hartmann, etc. whose arguments are greatly reduced in quality by remaining in the framework of known lies and propaganda (the official 9/11 story, “we had good intentions in Iraq”, Bush was legitimately elected) and so their words always lack the ability to bring significant change; the fascists will just repeat things like “war on terror” & “support our troops” “Bush/Cheney were elected by the People” and the Left is put back on the defensive instead of the offensive where it should and needs to be.

Throughout history, the greatest social injustices have happened when governmental power becomes concentrated in one small group, which then imposes its will on the Public, undermining democracy. The most important social changes occur when the Public makes active steps to declare its freedom and take power back from the few. Now is the time to return the power of the people's tax dollars to the Public, through a true democratic republic. Now is the time to reclaim the Free Press so we can end the misinformation campaigns that have served the harmful systems and policies of Empire. Contradictory to Biblical mythology of Adam and Eve, we need to eat the apple of the knowledge of good and evil, because the truth remains distorted and injustice continues as long as we don’t know what’s really causing harm and what is not.

In order to challenge irresponsible corporations and oppressive governments, local communities must become more self-reliant economically and politically. At the same time, local communities must communicate with other communities and groups around the globe to create a new solidarity based on economic, environmental and social equality. One way this can be achieved is by establishing a "Center for Peace and Justice" (and satellite “infoshops” ) in your community as a nexus for different groups, activists and educational materials. People need a gathering place and concise resources listing the exact solutions available, so they may mobilize and make their specific demands. This manifesto is an example of such a resource (make copies please) as are the books listed at the end of this pamphlet.

Our country's governmental powers have been taken over by criminals that are spreading harmful and unprincipled policy in our nation and the world. And the true representatives who do exist are being ignored, unjustly removed from office through sham elections, or assassinated (as was most likely the case with Senator Paul Wellstone: see the book "American Assassination: The Strange Death of Senator Paul Wellstone" for the evidence of wrongdoing) which may explain some of the lack of resistance by other progressive Democrats in Congress, perhaps they are afraid of having themselves and their families harmed as well. The strategy of fascists to assassinate leaders like Wellstone, Martin Luther King, Jr. John and Robert Kennedy has only one logical counter-strategy: to overwhelm the tyrants with large numbers of resisters so great that they can't fire/silence/blackmail/kill everyone, and then the truth will get out and the movement for justice and positive change will succeed. There are many examples of this strategy being used successfully in history; non-violent civil disobedience remains the most effective means of achieving revolutionary change.

Can we trust the federal government with the power to militarize space, control nuclear weapons, biological weapons, etc.? Recent history shows they cannot. With the mass violence against our own people on 9/11, along with lying to invade two nations where hundred of thousands have now been killed, along with the deceptions that preceded past wars (if not all) like Vietnam. The truth of 9/11 and the 2000 & 2004 elections will lead the way in ending the mass corruption and undemocratic agenda that has taken over our government.

We need a true democracy that is not dominated by the wealthy and immoral. Concentration of power in the hands of the economic elite has historically been the root of injustice, corruption, and tyranny. Whether it's corporate monopolies or non-participatory government, when the majority's voice is not heard, bad policy is always the outcome. This is the same story that has been repeated throughout history: the few taking power from the many always causes destruction and a halt of progress for human civilization, undermining democracy.

Protests and local organizing are very important, and should be used to pressure for political change. The largest protests in world history were against the illegitimate presidency and vice-presidency of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, demanding true democracy in the United States. When the majority's voice is not heard, bad policy is always the outcome. A lack of true democracy and human rights enforcement always leads to harmful and unjust policies. Impeachment proceedings should begin immediately for Bush & Cheney; they should be put on trial for their acts of treason, mass-murder of American citizens, and war crimes against the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, of which an estimated 900,000+ have been killed under the Bush reign. The British occupation of Ireland, China’s occupation of Tibet, and the US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq are all illegal and unjust and should end immediately.

A political party acts as an organizational structure, articulating the ideals and priorities of its members. The Green Party, for example, has a well-developed progressive political platform, and has the power to coalesce citizen support for political and social justice. Yet, we shouldn't be attached to labels such as Democrat, Libertarian, Progressive, Independent, Republican or Green. Regardless of party affiliation, whatever decreases democracy, health and individual rights is harmful policy; and whatever furthers democratic participation, personal freedom, equality, peace and social justice is good policy. We should also avoid dead-end philosophy like “Anarchy” or “Communism”: the former offers no constructive change and the latter leads to concentration of power and oppression. Democracy should be the focus; increasing it at the community and national level.

Our institutions are made of individuals whose personal actions and relations are critical to the whole. Respect for others' freedom and equality in all relations will further the cause of justice. When compassion and understanding fill our everyday behavior, and a true democratic system exists, progressive policies will naturally follow. We must also be aware of our everyday choices as consumers and think of who and what we are supporting, if a new positive paradigm is really going to come into place.

Listed below are not all the solutions, but examples of better policy choices that we can adopt immediately to the benefit of the majority of American citizens and people throughout the world. Each of these policy changes can be looked at as fundamentally a shift towards less violence and oppression and more well-being and democracy. Our current foreign, economic, health, education, housing etc. policies result in vast unnecessary harm to people, animals and the environment. Do your representatives support the alternative policies listed here? If not, ask them why. If the legislation for these policy changes has not already been introduced to your State Legislature or to the national Congress for you to support, work to have such legislation created and introduced. Also support the organizations listed below or look for similar organizations that may be in your area, or start your own if one does not exist. This is the front line of socio-political change and this is where citizen activist must organize, coalition build and take action if we are to have the society that we want and deserve.

The real Revolution is always against violence and oppression in its many forms. Join the resistance against empire and tyranny, and discover the amazing satisfaction and meaning that is found through the path of compassionate activism; it’s time to no longer accept lives filled with lies, mediocrity, depression, and superficiality. It’s time to rise up against the enemies of humanity, freedom, democracy and happiness.


PROGRESSIVE POLICIES TO ADOPT

  1. Begin War Crime prosecution proceedings immediately for both Bush and Cheney and re-open the 9/11 Investigations: www.prosecutegeorgebush.com,STJ911.org, AE911truth.org, 911Truth.org

  2. Remove all US troops immediately from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and any other sovereign nation that has not attacked us. Abolish all secret prisons and torture facilities: www.afterdowningstreet.org, www.amnestyusa.org/stoptorture

  3. Election system reforms: voter-verifiable paper ballots, publicly funded campaigns, abolish the electoral college, campaign spending limit, run-off voting, same-day voter registration, holiday/weekend election day, voter registration forms available at all post offices, end “winner take all” system, institute proportional representation, end the two party and corporate controlled Presidential Debate Commission, replace with a truly non-partisan Citizen's Debate Commission, end released felon disenfranchisement:www.truvote.com, www.commoncause.org,www.opendebates.org, www.verifiedvoting.org, www.blackboxvoting.org,www.whytuesday.org, electiondefensealliance.org

  4. No Police-State USA! Remove unconstitutional provisions of the USA Patriot Act and other legislation that violates citizen’s right to privacy and protection from unjust search, seizure and arrest. End “Terror Watch List” which restricts civil rights and “Enemy Combatant” labeling of American Citizens. Restore all rights lost under the lie of “The War on Terror”, as outlined in the books “The End of America” and "Give Me Liberty" by Naoimi Wolf. Ban use of tasers by law enforcement, and lift unconstitutional restrictions on peaceful assembly. Fully fund and increase number of public defense lawyers: www.aclu.org

  5. Create a universal single-payer health care system that limits insurance companies' power to restrict adequate health care: www.healthcare-now.org

  6. Abolish the corporate-run Federal Reserve and the unconstitutional Federal Income Tax (the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was never legally ratified by enough states). Have all money printed and managed by the US Federal Government. EndTheFed.us, www.freedomtofascism.com,

  7. Redirection of tax funds from military spending to human-needs spending, repeal tax cuts for the rich, reinstate the Estate Tax: Citizens For Tax Justice,www.ctj.org, Friends Committee on Legislation: www.fncl.org

  8. Establish a National Living Wage: www.livingwagecampaign.org

  9. End the so-called "drug war". Legalize responsible adult use of cannabis. Stress importance of treatment programs rather than prison for addicts of harder drugs, legalize Ibogaine for drug addiction treatment:www.drugpolicy.org, www.mpp.org, www.norml.org

  10. End unjust censorship of art, education and media: www.ifex.org

  11. Abolish the Death Penalty for all ages and Life Imprisonment without for parole for minors, End corporate control of prisoner treatment policy:www.ncadp.org

  12. Fund public schools equally across socioeconomic regions and institute full state scholarship for majority of high school students, nation-wide standard of free healthy breakfast and lunch available for all students:www.educationpolicy.org

  13. End the use of nuclear energy, coal and petroleum. Convert to clean energy: solar, wind, geothermal, ethanol/biodiesel (from algae, hemp, and other non-destructive sources), hydrogen, biomass. Promote public transportation, bicycle lanes, car-free areas and production of electric and compressed-air automobile engines: www.sustainableenergy.org

  14. End militarization of space and launching of nuclear materials into space (that can and already have spread throughout world during accidents, increasing world cancer rates): www.space4peace.org, www.abolition2000.org,http://peaceinspace.com

  15. End forest and wildlife habitat destruction. Create a national top-soil restoration and preservation fund/policy. Replace tree products with renewable fiber sources (e.g. hemp, kenaf): www.votehemp.com, www.livingtreepaper.com

  16. End corporate "personhood" and unjust tax breaks, subsidies, environmental damage, and social irresponsibility: www.corpwatch.org

  17. Establish recycling programs in every city working towards "zero waste":www.zerowastenetwork.org

  18. End imperial foreign policy that invites humanitarian crises and stifles democracy: www.unitedforpeace.org

  19. End production, testing and use of nuclear weapons and WMDs. Coordinate international nuclear disarmament: www.ploughshares.org

  20. End corporate media conglomeration. Expand independent and public media sources: www.indymedia.org www.democracynow.org, www.freepress.org

  21. Reform/Abolish IMF, WTO and World Bank, which act as fascist regulating organizations removed from the democratic process that bring destruction, exploitation and oppression. Institute a tax on financial speculation that would put the needs of people before profit : Third World Network:www.twnside.org.sg

  22. End pay inequality / discriminatory policy for minorities and women, gay, lesbian and transgender citizens: www.naacp.org, www.now.org, www.hrc.org,www.thetaskforce.org

  23. End cruelty to animals on factory farms, end animal experimentation. Promote and educate public on health and environmental benefits of veganism:
    www.veganoutreach.org, www.goveg.com,
    www.peta.org

  24. End “Union Busting” tactics of businesses, restore union independency from corporate control: www.cluw.org, www.goiam.org, www.aflcio.org

  25. End human right abuses of immigrants: www.immigrantsolidarity.org

  26. Create more affordable housing/job training to reduce homelessness:www.endhomelessness.org

  27. Change Columbus Day to Native American Day, end unjust policies on Native reservations, create Federal Native American Anti-poverty Fund, Promote Native American Hemp Industry, free Leonard Peltier:www.transformcolumbusday.org, www.aimovement.org, www.freepeltier.org

  28. Support Universal Declaration of Human Rights/International Criminal Court, end the U.S. exemption from prosecution by the ICC. Democratize the United Nations.

  29. End production of aspartame, MSG and other harmful food additives, hormones, antibiotics, etc. Abolish the WTO “Codex Alimentarius” food regulations, which will actually increase toxins in foods and decrease nutrients.www.healthfreedomUSA.org, www.naturalcures.org

  30. Create independent investigative body (the FDA has been corrupted) to study possible harmful effects of all personal care products, housing materials, modern technology (microwave/cell towers, etc.) and other products and chemicals for human and animal use as well the risks of cellular devices, vaccines (end mandatory requirement for schoolchildren or in “martial law” situation). Create a new higher standard for clean tap water, removing fluoride, hormones and other contaminants. Increase/standardize public notification of pesticide (and other toxin) use in public places, begin full investigation of “chemtrails” phenomena; end the “H.A.A.R.P.” program immediately.

  31. Fully fund natural medicine/nutrient aid to areas where people/children are dying of preventable diseases/malnutrition, fund research into curing/preventing AIDS that is not dependent on the artificial pharmaceutical industry. Encourage organic vegan foods.

  32. Begin full government disclosure and independent investigation of the UFO phenomena and any "free energy" or "zero-point" technology: http://www.disclosureproject.org/

  33. End ability of corporations to patent food and life forms through genetic modification, preventing re-seeding, lowering nutritional content and creating further corporate dependence. www.thefutureoffood.com

  34. End and reverse any privatization scheme for Social Security.

  35. Reform/Abolish the CIA, FBI, NSA, DEA and other government agencies/operations which have little to no oversight and accountability, responsible for countless assassinations, domestic/international terrorism, torture, illegal spying, overthrowing of governments, etc.

  36. Remove the Military J.R.O.T.C. from all high schools in the nation.

  37. End all government enforced curfew for youth and young adults (and adults too of course if they attempted that as well).

  38. Ban production of and destroy all existing nuclear weapons. End use of Depleted Uranium, White Phosphorus land mines and other "Generational Weapons" that violate international law by continuing to harm innocents after the use of the weapon. www.lasg.org

  39. End sanctions and trade embargoes on Cuba and other nations that are causing harm to children: www.globalpolicy.org

  40. End sweatshop labor by American multi-national corporations:www.nosweatshop.org

  41. Educate Public on overpopulation without tyranically requiring childbirth limit or mandatory sterilaztion: Encourage/Advertise children adoption programs:www.abcadoptions.com, NAFadopt.org

  42. FCC must enact/enforce cross-media ownership rules prohibiting one corporate owner from monopolizing print and electronic news in a defined population area. www.stopbigmedia.com


Recommended Books, Films and Websites

Books

  • Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush” by The Center For Constitutional Rights

  • The End of America” & "Give Me Liberty" by Naomi Wolf

  • Crossing the Rubicon” by Michael Ruppert

  • What Would Jefferson Do?: A Return to Democracy” & "Unequal Protection" by Thom Hartmann

  • "Nonviolence: 25 Lessons from the History of a Dangerous Idea" by Mark Kurlansky
  • How the GOP Stole America's 2004 Election And Is Rigging 2008” by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman

  • Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They’ll Steal the Next One Too” by Mark Crispin Miller

  • "Addicted to War: Why the U.S. Can't Kick Militarism" by Joel Andreas

  • "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out" Edited by David Ray Griffin, Also www.STJ911.org, www.AE911truth.org,www.septembereleventh.org

  • Ending The War On Drugs: A Solution for America” by Dirk Chase Eldredge, Also www.drugpolicy.org

Documentaries

  • "The Money Masters" http://www.themoneymasters.com/
  • American Blackout” directed by Ian Inaba, 2006 GNN Productions (www.americanblackout.com)

  • Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election/ 2004 Campaign Edition”

  • Eternal Vigilance: The Fight To Save Our Election System” directed by David Earnhardt

  • 9/11: The Myth and The Reality: David Ray Griffin”, directed by Ken Jenkins, (911TV.org)

  • 9/11 Mysteries” (www.911weknow.com)

  • 9/11 Press For Truth” (2006 DTT Documentaries/ 911PressForTruth.com)

  • Hijacking Catastrophe” Narrated by Julian Bond, (mef.tv)

  • The Hemp Revolution” Directed by Anthony Clarke

  • The Future of Food” (www.thefutureoffood.com)

  • America: Freedom to Fascism” Directed by Aaron Russo(www.freedomtofascism.com)

  • "Zeitgeist" & "Zeitgeist: Addendum" (www.zeitgeistmovie.com)

Last updated 05/21/2009.

Comments/Suggestions: author@progressivemanifesto.us