Just in case anyone is interested. There is a real progressive debate going on over at Common Dreams. Read the responses after the Hayden article. Here is a sample by RichM. (One could substitute Kitty for the slew of pundits operating over on AirAmerica.)

quote:

kitty_tc’s remarks deserve careful study, because they’re an instructive example of someone who imagines she has some special insight that others lack, while in reality, she doesn’t understand the first thing about the game.

Above, she’s pushing the fantasy that “we should just hijack the Democratic Party,” like the neocons supposedly hijacked the Republican Party. This notion can be sustained only if one ignores the the salient facts & actual history. The Repub Party was not really “hijacked.” There was never any real resistance to its rightwards move, because the party’s fundamental character was always a willingness to do whatever was required for advancing the interests of the US financial oligarchy.

The Dem Party, on the other hand, cannot be “hijacked,” because a great deal of care has gone into assuring that the party will remain impervious to any attempts to change it. The consultants, apparatchiks, pundits, elected officials, & big donors who make up the party’s controlling elements are perfectly well aware of the pesky idealists on the fringes who would like to “change” the party. You can be absolutely certain that they will allow such change only over their collective dead bodies.

But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that by some miracle a bunch of antiwar activists (& assorted others) managed nonetheless to “take over” the Democratic Party. In that case, the very first thing that would happen is that all the big donors would quit, en masse. The big donors come from big companies; all are corporatists, they are all doing nicely under the status quo, & would be unlikely to support a party suddenly proposing the serious reining in of corporate power. As the hypothetical “takeover” of the Dem Party progressed, the media would be shrieking hysterically that the party is being captured by “wild-eyed radicals and communists.”

In other words, the idea of “taking over” the Dems may sound nice — but only as long as you don’t really think about what it means. In practice, it suffers from 2 “little flaws”: 1) the people who control the party would never let it happen, & 2) even if it actually began to happen, the media would be at its throat, and all its funders would be supporting Republicans. Before anyone starts hawking the “let’s-just-hijack-the-Dem-Party” line, they should have answers for dealing with these 2 little problems

quote:

The Repub Party was not really “hijacked.” There was never any real resistance to its rightwards move, because the party’s fundamental character was always a willingness to do whatever was required for advancing the interests of the US financial oligarchy.

Hey Chris, hope everything is good.

I have to take issue with this statement. Bush has nothing to do with moving Republicans right and neither did the Republican congress on domestic issues. They did far more than the Clinton administration in pushing the social adgenda to the left. Their social adgenda included the perscription drug boondogle and Teddy Kennedy's "No Child Left Behind." They spent like Democrats and closed the final gap that made our political system a one party government.

The reason Democrats are in control of Congress now is that real Conservatives are looking for another outlet to place their support.

quote:

Originally posted by Sawdust:

quote:

The Repub Party was not really “hijacked.” There was never any real resistance to its rightwards move, because the party’s fundamental character was always a willingness to do whatever was required for advancing the interests of the US financial oligarchy.

Hey Chris, hope everything is good.

I have to take issue with this statement. Bush has nothing to do with moving Republicans right and neither did the Republican congress on domestic issues. They did far more than the Clinton administration in pushing the social adgenda to the left. Their social adgenda included the perscription drug boondogle and Teddy Kennedy's "No Child Left Behind." They spent like Democrats and closed the final gap that made our political system a one party government.

The reason Democrats are in control of Congress now is that real Conservatives are looking for another outlet to place their support.

The prescription drug mess was nothing more than a give-away to the drug companies. They wrote the law, Congress passed it, Bush signed it. More grbbing of the public coffers by corporations. This fits in with the Republican agenda under the guise of a social program.

The No Child Left Behind Act really has some serious flaws. Worthy goals with mis-application to achieve them. An expensive solution that really doesn't accomplish anything except breaking the school budgets.

The educational system does need revamping..and it's the wrong approach. The right wing isn't the only one that screws up.

The one party system isn't from social spending...it's from handing over the reins of government to the corporate structure with House and Senate members being the representative of corporate constituencies more than the people who elect them.

Corporatations have deep pockets, and both parties have their sticky fingers in them. Want re-election funding? Better pass their laws.

Both parties enabled corporate outsourcing to allow for "competitiveness". We're the only industrialized nation to sacrifice its home industries to remain "competitive". This is for corporate interests, not the national interests.

Its been a one party system for a long time. Same ideolgy with a different way of implementing it. One wants to keep a lid on potential social upheaval, the other doesn't.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

quote:

have to take issue with this statement. Bush has nothing to do with moving Republicans right and neither did the Republican congress on domestic issues. They did far more than the Clinton administration in pushing the social adgenda to the left. Their social adgenda included the perscription drug boondogle and Teddy Kennedy's "No Child Left Behind." They spent like Democrats and closed the final gap that made our political system a one party government.

The reason Democrats are in control of Congress now is that real Conservatives are looking for another outlet to place their support.

Don,

I don’t think you are reading accurately what the Cat had to say. His entire point is that both parties are controlled by moneyed elites. If any grass roots movement advances a truly progressive agenda inimical to those interests, the moneyed elites will simply change the game by infiltrating the other party to ensure their special status and interests to assert its continued dominance over ordinary people without access to power. As far as things moving left goes, I could not disagree more. If anything, the Dems have successfully moved their party to the right, thus cherry picking people who characterize themselves as Independents, but also happen to draw their livelihood from conditions best described as the status quo. And that represents most people in America who lack any resolve for authentic change. The people on this site (and that includes Hartmann) do not want to change the system. They just want to change the manager of the system. And whichever manager one votes for, you can be assured they will be working for corporations. These people ought to at least have the guts to stop pretending what they are getting by making such a vote.

I invite any one on this site to listen carefully to Hartmann and the way he constructs his arguments. Yesterday he referred to Gravel and Kucinich as “truth tellers” and asserted support for Kucinich’s health care plan. In the same paragraph he then abdicates his embrace of such a stance by also asserting Gravel as a “curmudgeon” and Kucinich as “unelectable.” Being the clever advertising executive he is, he understands people hear what they want to hear and mute out the rest. If Graville and Kucinich are “truth tellers” what does it matter their demeanor? If Kucinich has the best plan why abdicate to the corporate candidates who seek to crush it?

I have to rescind a characterization I’ve used in the past about Hartmann; he is not a “talking head” at all. What he is, is a deceiver of the highest order, on a mission to ensure the oligarchy continues on.

quote:

I am not sure about much, but this: change comes from within.

Chris, I agree with you about the nature of politics and money as it relates to the two parties. I don't share your enthusiasm for Kucinich or Graville but neither the Republicans or Democrats reflect my views about how the country should be managed. It would be interesting to see a third party candidate in the White House but I can't imagine how a third party candidate would function with the Republocrats in Congress. Further gridlock I would guess as the two major parties try to block an interloper trying to invade their club I would guess.

Kucinich and Graville will have as much success within their party structures as Ron Paul will have in his. We are doomed to politics as usual in our lifetimes I fear.

Don, I don’t know, it could end up just like you say. I tend toward prophetic voices of many indigenous elders who tell us (the younger brothers and sisters) that incomprehensible change is luring on our collective horizon. Perhaps nothing will ever significantly change, but an economic collapse on an order of magnitude never witnessed in history might usher in a shift in consciousness. Some assert that we will be fighting wars for water within the next 20 years. In such a scenario, it might give pause to those tolerant of hypocrisy for those they vote for and support with a closed mind. I guess we will see in time which way it goes.

On another point, it is no secret that my style invites rear end collisions and sucker punches. Having spent the better part of the last twenty five years working on behalf of justice for marginal communities and populations, I welcome attacks by twits.

At the very base of justice is a very hopeful message as one can find anywhere despite the methods one employs to insure it. Often this activism confronts peoples comfort zones, complacency, narcissism, and inertia. That is as it ought to be.

Many are now working outside of existing structures embedded in a system long dysfunctional and cowardly; and those who sleep walk through it with little or no personal insight for the magnitude of the problems for the poor and the earth.

But or collective psyche is rooted in the Judeo/Christian tradition which makes effective a teaching which, if taken seriously, would make possible all the difference. It is deeply ironic that our tradition (based on our sacred texts), which is deeply suspicious of the quest for wealth and money has acquiesced with very minor protest in a society which is built exclusively on making money; and often participates in the adulation of those who succeed by these standards. What most seem to have forgotten or rationalize away, is that it is impossible to serve two masters.

Nevertheless, that teaching is so critical to our tradition that it is certainly possible for people to engage justice a little more honestly, and a little more clearly. May it continue for those who can understand it!

Well said.

We go through the same cycle of rushing money to the top every so often even though it does lead to economic collapse. Historically, going clear back to Roman times, this has been so. The dynamics are such, and the economy so different, it happens much faster now.

What we are doing as a nation state makes no sense economically, there will be a collapse. My concern is...will we go into full blown facism to keep a lid on the existing structure for as long as possible, or deal with it in a manner that actually works.

The oil grab in Iraq is no different than what we have done all around the world. We take other nations resources at less than true value little better than theft through the winking eye of paid off "presidents", and keep the nations in poverty in the process. This country causes enormous suffering for a life-style of buying for buyings sake. We syphon the world's wealth to ourselves. The world's wealth in resources is siphoned to very few of its occupants.

Now we are doing it within our own country also. Siphoning the wealth to a few. When a country over-does this, it collapses economically. That is just how it works.

Compare the life-style of a middle class American to that of an African and its like comparing the life of a peasant to an emperor. We live the way we do on the backs, the starving and suffering of others. And glean maximum profit in the process.

Butos, the right has no concept of poverty in this nation. Many are in their own isolated communities separated from it. They haven't a clue..Psychologically, there is a level of poverty that does trigger violent revolt. It triggers the responses of the primitive brain which is still with us...a perceived threat to survival.

The left recognizes this, the right doesn't. Neither addresses basic justice. One will provide a minimum to keep the lid on it, the other sees the lid as not being a necessity because they can't grasp the problem.

Perhaps it may be even better for the far right to re-take Congress and the White House. Might bring things to a very quick head...my only fear would be a repressive fascist state to deal with the right's consequences. The very basis of fascism brings about an even more serious collapse than the ones they attempt to deal with in the first place after a brief period. The repressive measures become barbaric.

Yet, at this point, I don't see how any party can steer us away from a course of ultimate economic collapse. The damage has been too great. I don't see any major reversals or corrections in our global policies.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

Well, I was going to say that after the economic collapse of the late 1920's, the Democratic party did change--fortunately, not towards the totalitarian fascism of Natzi Germany, but something that did work better for a lot of people. Then the pendulum swung back. We forgot what we had gained and why, and acquiesced over just about all, with the populism of Reagan.

Now another collapse is on its way. Will we go through the same cycle, if we do indeed avoid right wing fascist control? I'm beginning to see this as a dichotomy between competition and cooperation. Those that believe competition is the natural way things are meant to be done, are the Republicans that can't see poverty, because all it means is that those living in poverty were bad players or competitors. They lost the game, what difference should it make to them, afterall, they played the game well and won, so they have a right to the booty. The cooperative mindset sees poverty as a responsibility of society as a whole, and also sees a win win for everybody in recognizing the connections we have and acting on those.

I wonder if that pendulum swing has a momentum powered by the division itself.

eley

Well, the Democrats do take into consideration social consequences of things. Had they not attempted to deal with the economic collapse of '29 and given people a sense that everything was being done that was possible, they would have been dealing with a social/political collapse as well.

They put in place programs designed to cushion this. The nation as a whole benefited after the war and the middle class expanded rapidly giving impetus to business expansion that now had a huge new potential customer base.

We've forgotten what brought this about. We've also forgotten the need to avoid social and economic dysfunction.

Europe has lived under the results of this. They have had their fascist and communist states.

There wasn't a revolution under the Russian Czar because he had the benefit of his population as a primary concern.

Hitler didn't come to power because of social and economic stability. Europe learned, though the memory is beginning to fade as those who lived under it die off. We didn't learn. I hope we don't have to live under full-blown fascism before we do.

Seems we are doomed to repeat the same old mistakes. Siphon everything to the top, bring chaos to the bottom, and economic collapse to everyone. A repeat of the very policies that started the whole mess of '29 in the first place.

Greed never gets it.

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of the oldest excercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness". - John Kenneth Galbraith

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

quote:

Originally posted by eleyballel:
... Will we go through the same cycle, if we do indeed avoid right wing fascist control? I'm beginning to see this as a dichotomy between competition and cooperation. Those that believe competition is the natural way things are meant to be done, are the Republicans that can't see poverty, because all it means is that those living in poverty were bad players or competitors. They lost the game, what difference should it make to them, afterall, they played the game well and won, so they have a right to the booty. The cooperative mindset sees poverty as a responsibility of society as a whole, and also sees a win win for everybody in recognizing the connections we have and acting on those.

I wonder if that pendulum swing has a momentum powered by the division itself.

eley

Thought provoking words, eley. Thanks.

poly,

what a quote:

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of the oldest excercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness". - John Kenneth Galbraith

quote:

I'm beginning to see this as a dichotomy between competition and cooperation.

Eley, I think you nailed it with that sentence. That's been my sense too, except I couldn't put it into words until I saw yours.

quote:

Originally posted by LisaP:

quote:

I'm beginning to see this as a dichotomy between competition and cooperation.

Eley, I think you nailed it with that sentence. That's been my sense too, except I couldn't put it into words until I saw yours.

Well, we are social beings. Social species surive best with cooperation, not competitiveness.

Man is one of the weakest species on the planet for his size. If competition were his innate nature, humanity never would have formed any community large enough to survive in the pre-stone age and stone age worlds. It required cooperation. It's in our genes, our basic nature. To the extent we go against that, we destroy ourselves...and rely on meds. to get us through the day. Or booze, or smokes, or over-eating, or shopping, etc.

We've reached the point technologically where we can literally destroy our own habitat, our own societies, and reduce the majority of humanity back to a life not much better than stone-age man...just through economics alone. Some on this planet, through economic structures live pretty close to that now.

We have all these wonderful things in our age. Rather than utilizing them in a way that benefits the species, we use them in a manner that reduces many to a death of starvation...50,000 a day to starvation and hunger related disease every day. This in the name of competing with one another for the biggest house, the largest car and the most expensive suit. The largest bank account. The most powerful and wealthiest corporate structures we can devise. Corporations compete with one another so see who can grab the largest share of world resources, cheapest labor and largest markets. The destruction left in their wake is greater than all the wars of the world combined. Even the 2nd World War didn't bring about 50,000 deaths a day. Year after year after year. Decade after decade.

The problem isn't lack of ability to produce food. We've been paying farmers for years not to grow it... it's economic structures. Structures based on competition for "more" for a few rather than cooperation to include the many. Everything is backwards.

Some quote Darwin's survival of the fittest as the justification. Not too many uncooperative species are left. Even fish cooperate by schooling as a species survival tactic. Herbivores do it in herds. Carnivores for the most part work as teams. Many insects cooperate too. They don't go against their own nature...don't need psycho meds...and they insure a large gene pool for continued evolution. It isn't always the "strongest" that assures continuity. It's sometimes those that carry a gene for adaptability to a new environment. Like global warming perhaps?

It wasn't the "strong men" of Hitler's Germany that won the war for Germany and Japan. It was the "intellectual and mental capacity genes" within our own scientists that accomplished winning it for us....and it was done through a cooperative effort.

Somewhere along the line, a dominate heirarchy of competition was begun. At one time it probably served a useful purpose. Now its become destructive.

We use economics as a justification for starvation, lack of shelter, lack of water, etc. Yet, originally, this was not the natural state. In some small societies it still isn't. They have never heard of economics that insist starvation for private gain is just "collateral damage" and that nothing can be done about it without upsetting an "economy".

We have developed very strange ideas and perceptions that are contrary to our design function. We were designed to be a cooperative species, not a competitive one.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

On cooperation verses competition, what is it that I am supposed to be cooperating on behalf of?

Politically, I am wondering if cooperation is possible when those making the decisions are on the payroll of corporations. Is anyone suggesting that politicians of either appellation cooperate with the spoken will of the people, or even that they listen to it?

It is good to support cooperation in a marriage. It is good to support cooperation with the Earth as demonstrated by life choices. It is good to support cooperation with interspecies value spheres. It is good to support cooperation for a way of living that takes one inward instead of outward and connects one to an enlivening way of being-in-the-world and demonstrates that the human spirit is still alive and not dead.

It is also good to cooperate with mystery, awareness, presence, authenticity for our own integrity, and a human spirit not crushed by consumerism or the addictions its spawns. It is good to cooperate with listening to the voice of the Earth, and the divinely manifesting face of marginal populations.

It is likewise difficult to accept any voice that advises capitulation to the status quo and the endless sleepwalking it promotes. While this may be interpreted as competition by some, in my view, it represents authentic empowerment.

Polycarp,

I wonder if it isn't that the two are unintegrated?
It's as if the two parts of the yin/yang symbol have come apart and sprouted boxing gloved fists and are batteling each other. Competition I believe may be a functin of testosterone, and somewhere useful, as you pointed out, but unleashed from cooperation it has been deadly destructive.

Just some thoughts.

eley

This message has been edited. Last edited by: eleyballel,

The cooperation vs competition point is in the thought process or mode of being that happens before the approach, before the action.

For instance: I recently had a class and the instructor split the class up into 5 groups. We were going to play a gambling game, but the purpose of the game was to not gain points or have the least amount of points. The instructor relayed the basic rules and we formed into groups to form strategy. Then the rounds commenced, and groups were pitted against each other, manuvering to make the other teams gain points etc... It was competition from the get go. However, had we stopped for one moment and collaborated inter-team, and cooperated on how we did our bidding, no one would have received any points and all teams would have achieved the purpose. There was no rule against collaborating, but apparently it didn't enter into the mindset of anyone to do so. We, for some reason (perhaps socialization), instantly went into competitive mode. It was a very enlightening exercise and just about everyone in that class learned something from it. I say "just about everyone" because unfortunately there were a couple who could not grasp the fact of not being "the" winner. With competition, there are winners AND losers; with cooperation, everyone wins.

Yep!

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

quote:

Originally posted by LisaP:
The cooperation vs competition point is in the thought process or mode of being that happens before the approach, before the action.

For instance: I recently had a class and the instructor split the class up into 5 groups. We were going to play a gambling game, but the purpose of the game was to not gain points or have the least amount of points. The instructor relayed the basic rules and we formed into groups to form strategy. Then the rounds commenced, and groups were pitted against each other, maneuvering to make the other teams gain points etc... It was competition from the get go. However, had we stopped for one moment and collaborated inter-team, and cooperated on how we did our bidding, no one would have received any points and all teams would have achieved the purpose. There was no rule against collaborating, but apparently it didn't enter into the mindset of anyone to do so. We, for some reason (perhaps socialization), instantly went into competitive mode. It was a very enlightening exercise and just about everyone in that class learned something from it. I say "just about everyone" because unfortunately there were a couple who could not grasp the fact of not being "the" winner. With competition, there are winners AND losers; with cooperation, everyone wins.

Extremely interesting Lisa!
Maybe you can add this to the thread or post you were planning to do.
I would love to hear more about this. So was the best that could be achieved was a tie? Almost a prisoner's dilemma, no?

Do you think that trade could be a form of cooperation?

What equitable trade isn't co-operation? The problem manifests when one side wants the "better" of the bargain...such as trading a bag of beads for Manhattan and all of its resources. Us vs. them. From an economists viewpoint, this makes sense. Perceived value for perceived value. And there was no morality, no equitability in it.

Had the Indians of Manhattan understood "property rights", they may have given us a long-term lease subject to periodic re-negotiation.

We still do this. We'll "purchase" a nations valuable resource such as bannanas, minerals or mahogany, and in payment give enough in exchange to assure the nation is kept in starvation and poverty. This isn't co-operation. It's convincing them their commodity is worth less than it is. Often done under coersion and the threat of military intervention or overthrow of a government.

We don't participate in co-operative trade. We compete with others for the trade, and back up our version of equitability with all the force the U.S. may be forced to bear. Corporations involved in it can see to it. In some instances, they are powerful enough to do it with only their own resources. Co-operative trade isn't us vs. them. Co-operative trade is equitable. It has a sense of morality to it.
Everybody wins.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"