FAIR USE NOTICE

FAIR USE NOTICE

A BEAR MARKET ECONOMICS BLOG

OCCUPY EVERYTHING

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, March 20, 2014

John Brockman: A Portrait The World Mind That Came In From the Counterculture

F.A.Z.

Feuilleton


John Brockman: A Portrait The World Mind That Came In From the Counterculture

 ·  Be imaginative, exciting, compelling, inspiring: That’s what John Brockman expects of himself and others. Arguably, the planet’s most important literary agent, Brockman brings its cyber elite together in his Internet salon „Edge.“ We paid a visit to the man from the Third Culture. 




© wowe Vergrößern At the age of three John Brockman announced: „I want to go to New York!“ For decades he has been a leading light behind the scenes in the city’s intellectual life.
 
The Internet had yet to be born but the talk still revolved around it. In New York, that was, half a century ago. „Cage,“ as John Brockman recalls, „always spoke about the mind we all share. That wasn’t some kind of holistic nonsense. He was talking about profound cybernetic ideas.“ He got to hear about them on one of the occasions when John Cage, the music revolutionary, Zen master and mushroom collector, cooked mushroom dishes for him and a few friends. At some point Cage packed him off home with a book. „That’s for you,“ were his parting words. After which he never exchanged another word with Brockman. Something that he couldn’t understand for a long time. „John, that’s Zen,“ a friend finally explained to him. „You no longer need him.“



Norbert Wiener was the name of the author, Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine the name of the book. Page by page Brockman battled his way through the academic text, together with Stewart Brand, his friend, who was about to publish the Whole Earth Catalog, the shopping primer and bible of the environmentally-driven counterculture. For both readers, physics and mathematics expanded into an infinite space that no longer distinguished between the natural and human sciences, mind and matter, searching and finding.


Like the idea of the Internet—which was slowly acquiring contours during these rambling 1960s discussions—the idea of Edge, the Internet salon around which Brockman’s life now revolves, was also taking shape. Edge is the meeting place for the cyber elite, the most illustrious minds who are shaping the emergence of the latest developments in the natural and social sciences, whether they be digital, genetic, psychological, cosmological or neurological. Digerati from the computer universe of Silicon Valley aren’t alone in giving voice to their ideas in Brockman’s salon. They are joined in equal measure by other eminent experts, including the evolutionary biologists Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, the philosopher Daniel Dennett, the cosmologist Martin Rees, the biological anthropologist Helen Fisher, the economist, psychologist and Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman, the quantum physicist David Deutsch, the computer scientist Marvin Minsky, and the social theorist Anthony Giddens. Ranging from the co-founder of Apple Steve Wozniak to the decoder of genomes Craig Venter, his guest list is almost unparalleled even in the boundless realm of the Internet. Even the actor Alan Alda and writer Ian McEwan can be found in his forum.

The bridge of the third culture


A question is sent out to all salon members at the start of every year. This year it is: „What scientific idea ready to be retired?“ The „editorial marching orders,“ written by Brockman, reveal the heart of Edge: „Go deeper than the news. Tell me something I don’t know. You are writing for your fellow Edgies, a sophisticated bunch, and not the general public. Stick to ideas, theories, systems of thought, disciplines, not people. Come up with something new, be exciting, inspiring, compelling. Tell us a great story. Amaze, delight, surprise us!“


Does he really need to spell all that out so clearly? After all, quite a few of the authors number among his clients. He markets them and their works globally, and they know exactly what he expects of them and what they can expect of him. As their literary agent, he never misses a business opportunity. Indeed, he has built a reputation for negotiating mind-boggling prices for individual works that, in contrast to Edge, adopt a more populist approach to the sciences. But above all, it’s his concept of The Third Culture that glitters, the miraculous formula that Brockman evokes to secure the supremacy of the so called hard sciences, even in the instances when the world and our place in it is surveyed in quasi-philosophical mode. As physicist, politician, and the novelist C. P. Snow lament, there is a chasm separating the twin cultures of the natural and human sciences; and the enterprising Brockman fills this divide with bestsellers from his Third Culture.

Business isn’t just blossoming, he says, it has never been better. Anyone harboring any doubts should pay him a visit on Fifth Avenue, where Brockman, Inc. has been spreading its wings of late in premises that are awash with light and where gravity seems to have been suspended. The two glass corner offices are a testament to transparency. The one for the company’s founder allows the Empire State Building to peek over his shoulder as he works at his paper-free desk; the other is for his son Max, the company’s brand new CEO, who can admire the perpetually breathtaking silhouette of the Flatiron Building though the gigantic windows. Between them Katinka Matson, the co-founder of Edge, President of Brockman Inc., mother of Max, and business and life partner of John—has stylishly set up shop. As the daughter of a literary agent, the profession is in her DNA. In her spare time she now brightens up the office with multi-colored, larger-than-life scans of floral images.


Brockman, who was born in 1941, could comfortably retire and devote himself completely to Edge, his intellectual hobby. But Edge is no mere hobby for him, no pastime pursued at times when the demands of work abate. „I have never thought of money. I have only ever done what interested me, and that always brought in enough to get me by.“ Before opening his Internet salon, he had published a newsletter with the same title and philosophical outlook. This evolved out of the Reality Club. „Trippy stuff“ topped the agenda when a group of people started meeting in New York during the 1980s, a group whose fluctuating composition included the physicist Freeman Dyson, the feminist Betty Friedan, the social revolutionary Abbie Hoffman and the film stars Ellen Burstyn and Dennis Hopper. They were charged with asking each other the questions that they asked themselves. No instant answers were expected. The focus was on asking the questions. In literary New York Brockman had never glimpsed the prospect of this type of exchange of ideas, the adventure that he wanted for himself and to share with others. He preferred the empirical study of our cosmos, on both micro and macro scales, to the imagined world. Not that this forced him to relinquish story-telling. With the frequently spectacular experiences they describe, the books and authors he represents offer him more suspense and excitement than he can find in any novel. And his own life? As he describes it, that too emerges as a collection of gripping stories that veer off in numerous different directions while always following a clear, very personal line. From Day One he was curious and hungry for knowledge, and had an appetite for excitement and new experiences.


A blueprint for the Internet


Brockman’s life-story begins with the proclamation: „I want to go to New York.“ He was three years old at the time, lying in a Boston hospital, seriously ill with cerebrospinal meningitis, and these are said to have been the first words he spoke when he woke up from a six-week coma. He finally made it to New York at the age of 20—enrolling as a graduate student at Columbia University where he completed a degree in business. After this he worked within the financial services industry, not that his life revolved exclusively around money and transactions at the time. The crazy 1960s burst into life and Brockman felt compelled to immerse himself in the vibrant cultural mix. He experienced the New York underground for himself on the stage of the Living Theater. It was culture shock, a call to action, an invitation to engage. But Brockman didn’t participate in the avant-garde experiments with his banjo and guitar, but with his gift for organization. Today we would probably call him a cultural impresario.


New York gave him confidence, telling him „You can be free.“ He didn’t need to be told twice. With Sam Shepard, who was still working as a waiter, he discussed ideas for „intermedia“ stage performances. In no time he had become an indispensable part of the multimedia theater and film scene. He was entrusted by Jonas Mekas, the great father of experimental film in the U.S., with commissioning films from Nam June Paik and Robert Rauschenberg for an „expanded“ film festival. His organizational skills even got him into the Lincoln Center Film Festival where he presented the work of newcomers like Martin Scorsese when he wasn’t escorting European guests—with names like Federico Fellini and Jean-Luc Godard—out to dinners. Even Jackie Kennedy, still not an Onassis, makes an appearance in the background during this period.

While the stars of Allen Ginsberg, William Burroughs and the Beatniks were slowly fading, and the folk scene around Bob Dylan dawning, Brockman was spending time working with Andy Warhol. But the drug-sodden collective in the Factory wasn’t for him. He needed to be his own master. For the same reason, things didn’t work out with the countercultural Yippies, after his friend Abbie Hoffman recruited him for the founding meetings of the movement. Brockman had no interest in revolution. However: „The ideas behind it interested me.“ Cage taught him how to perceive the non-linear structure of reality using cybernetics. With hindsight he came to feel this was „like a construction diagram for the Internet.“ He wrote a book with the title By the Late John Brockman, an aphoristic volume of his various insights and experiences.

In the circle of elites



And then, at MIT in 1965, he finally came face to face with a computer. There is precisely one example of this type of computer, a humungous contraption, surrounded by busy men in white lab coats, and secured behind a glass screen against which he pressed his nose. „I fell in love on the spot. It was pure magic.“ Brockman had no more doubts whatsoever that everything was interconnected: the arts and the sciences and the psychedelic shows with their flashing strobes, through whose cacophony of sound Marshall McLuhan trumpeted his theory of communications.


At the Esalen Institute, the personal growth laboratory on California’s Pacific coast, he listened to talks by scientists and madcap geniuses whose names hardly anyone on the East Coast knew. A treasure trove just waiting to be opened. An awakening. In 1973 this gave rise to his literary agency, albeit circuitously. Once again he found himself promoting something that interested him. Slowly but surely he realized that he had struck gold. Or, as he prefers to say, he discovered an oil well that has never stopped bubbling. Since then Brockman has been keyed to the Third Culture from head to foot. Famous scientists, researchers, entrepreneurs and sponsors are drawn to him like moths to a light bulb. At his desk in New York he clicks on the invitation to a party he is flying to in San Francisco the following day. The hosts include the co-founder of Google Sergey Brin, the Russian billionaire Yuri Miner, the co-founder of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg, and Art Levinson, Chairman of the Board of Apple Inc. and the former CEO of the biotech company Genentech. It is safe to assume that Brockman also enjoys get-togethers with such distinguished names.

But even more he evidently enjoys the gatherings at his picturesque farm in Connecticut with its numerous nooks and crannies. For one day or weekend every summer, he affords himself the intellectual pleasure of transforming his New England idyll into a swap meet for the latest scientific research and ideas. From Princeton and Yale, Harvard and MIT, Silicon Valley and New York’s executive suites, he invites thinkers, movers, shakers and clients—all of them friends—to discuss the hottest topics in their various fields. The most recent edition of these bucolic conferences held beneath ancient maple trees began with an up-to-date tour d’horizon by the economist Sendhil Mullainathan, who mused that the excessive volumes of data might threaten the qualitative character of science. The social scientist Fiery Cushman reported on the failure of algorithms in complex calculations, the experimental philosopher Joshua Knobe on the elusively ephemeral nature of the self, the psychologist June Gruber on the problem of positive emotion and the initial solutions.



In total 10 scientists gave talks on this perfect summer’s day, which now, thanks to Edge, no longer has to end. Since November Brockman has been posting the videos of the contributions on the Web. By February the day’s entire program should be accessible. Those online, however, can only guess at the pleasure John Brockman feels as he observes the mind games he has staged. „Edge,“ says its creator, „for me that means ideas, for me that means culture.“

Teen asks to see shotgun in Florida pawn shop then kills himself with it (via Raw Story )

Teen asks to see shotgun in Florida pawn shop then kills himself with it (via Raw Story )
A 19-year-old Michigan man walked into a pawn shop in Lake City, FL, asked the sales clerk if he could examine a shotgun, then used the gun to kill himself. Jacksonville’s News 4 TV said that the young man had been in the store the day before, but…

Sunday, March 16, 2014

Lakota Vow: ‘Dead Or In Prison Before We Allow the KXL Pipeline’



 

Lakota members marched during the annual Liberation Day commemoration of the Wounded Knee massacre. (Deep Roots United Front/Victor Puertas)


On February 27, Oglala Lakota and American Indian Movement activists joined in a four-directions walk to commemorate Liberation Day, an event to mark the 1890 massacre at Wounded Knee. As they do each year, four groups gather to the north, south, east and west and then walk eight miles until converging on top of Wounded Knee, where they honor the fallen warriors and the tribe’s rich history of resistance.

“It is an acknowledgement of the resiliency of who we are as a people,” explains Andrew Iron Shell, an organizer and activist of the Sicangu Lakota Nation. “It gives permission and courage for our up-and-coming generations to face the challenges of their time.”

The history of the occupation began with a massacre more than 100 years ago. On a cold day in December 1890, the United States army killed 300 Lakota men, women and children in a massive shoot out after a member of the First Nations refused to give up his arms. It marked the first bloodshed on Wounded Knee – although there had been many massacres of First Nations people by the colonialists before it. The event was also considered the end of the Indian Wars.
Eighty-three years later, on Feb. 27, 1973, about 200 Lakota members took siege of the town of Wounded Knee. Reclaiming a location that was written in the history books as a place of defeat, the Lakota stood their ground. They were there in protest of a failed attempt at impeaching the tribal president at the time, Richard Wilson, who was known to be corrupt and abusive. Initially a protest against the tribal government, the occupation took a turn when U.S. police forces arrived. The protestors switched the occupation’s focus to the United States’ frequent violation of treaties.

The armed warriors maintained control over the town for 71 days while the FBI encircled them. At the final standoff, two warriors were killed, about 12 people were wounded and over 400 were arrested. The Oglala were able to harness national attention through their occupation, using the spotlight to question the United States’ treatment of First Nations people. 

As history passed, later generations rarely heard about the occupation of Wounded Knee — or about first nation people at all. This skewed national memory should be unsurprising: When you have a society and a nation built upon the subjugation of people of color, you can expect nothing more than the constant erasing of certain histories.

Ongoing genocide


I recently visited Prisoner of War Camp 344, also known as the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. It wasn’t my first time in the sovereign Oglala Sioux Nation, but it was my first time joining in the ceremonies celebrating the 41st annual Liberation Day to remember the 1890 reoccupation of Wounded Knee.

The vibrant American Indian Movement flags waving in the harsh South Dakota winter wind reminded me of the old black and white photos I used to see in my history books. The Lakota would not disappear without a fight, regardless of what the United States’ intentions were. Children walked alongside elders who had taken part in the occupation, showing clearly the group’s intergenerational wisdom. These are children who are stripped of learning their people’s history in schools, but instead learn it through stories and dances. They are children who live in a sovereign nation that contains two of the poorest counties in the United States and who recognize the threats their families face every day.

One of these threats come from the so-called town of White Clay, Neb., where visitors can witness the way violence against the First Nations people has changed — but not disappeared — over the generations. Consisting of only 12 people and four liquor stores, White Clay was once part of a 50-square-mile buffer that prevented alcohol from entering the reservation. In 1904, President Roosevelt signed an executive order that removed 49 of those square miles. Since then, the town’s economy has been driven by the $4 million in alcohol sales to the people of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. There is no legal place to drink in or around White Clay: Alcohol containers can’t be opened on the property of the distributor, it’s prohibited to drink in the street, and the reservation is dry territory. Yet, somehow, the town of 12 people manages to keep four liquor stores open. Barely two miles from the reservation’s epicenter, and less than 200 feet from the dry reservation line, the town perpetrates a type of violence that is, on the reservation, known as liquid genocide.

The reason for this name becomes apparent when one examines the teenage suicide rate on the reservation, which is 150 percent higher than the U.S. national average for this age group. Many attribute this death rate to the sale of alcohol to minors, which White Clay store owners are known to do. The liquor stores also break the law by selling to intoxicated people, and by trading alcohol for pornography, sexual favors — including from minors — and welfare checks. The effects of free-flowing alcohol are devastating: On the reservation, 90 percent of all court cases are related to alcohol use.

Kate, a Tokala warrior, believes that alcoholism is part of a larger problem of the disappearance of indigenous culture. For her, the only way to live in the geographical region of Pine Ridge is the indigenous way. “We are the ones on the back roads, still chopping wood. We are living the way we used to live,” she said. “It’s not hardship; it’s the way it’s supposed to be.”

Kate and many others know that alcohol was introduced to her people as a means to steal from them. Living deeply connected to the history of their nation, they believe that if they shake free of the colonized mindset, alcohol wouldn’t even be an issue.

Threats to the land


In addition to trying to close down White Clay, the Oglala Lakota Nation is actively fighting the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. This 1,700-mile pipeline, which would carry 830,000 barrels of crude oil each day from western Canada through South Dakota en route to Texas. At two points it would even intersect with a pipeline that serves as a main water source for the Sioux Nation, affecting all of the Pine Ridge reservation as well as the nearby Rosebud reservation.

Advocates for the pipeline argue the pipeline is the safest way to transport crude oil. TransCanada, the company in charge of the pipeline, predicted that the first Keystone pipeline, which runs from Alberta to Illinois, would spill once every seven years. During its first year in operation, it spilled 12 times. The Lakota, along with other First Nations, have vowed to use direct action to stop construction of the pipeline.

For a nation whose land and sovereignty has been threatened for hundreds of years by U.S. politics, the Keystone XL pipeline is part of a long history of threats to the Lakota Nation – and to the earth itself. 

“They want to get rid of the Lakota, the protectors of the earth,” said Olowan Martinez, an organizer in the Lakota community. “But what they don’t know is when they get rid of the Lakota, the earth isn’t too far behind. Our people believe the Lakota is the earth.”

President Obama is scheduled to be make a final decision on the pipeline by the middle of 2014. While the Lakota are hoping he will not approve the project, they are also getting ready to stand up and fight. During the Liberation Day celebrations, the Lakota’s dances and stories relayed messages about sacred water and Mother Earth. The tribe has also united with other First Nations to organize a three-day direct action training called Moccasins on the Ground, which was designed to prepare people to act if the pipeline is approved.

“Dead or in prison before we allow the Keystone XL pipeline to pass,” the Lakota warriors, many mounted atop horses, repeated during the Liberation Day celebration. Their words carried the weight of 521 years, and counting, of lived resistance.


Camila Ibanez is a first generation "American" trying to connect with her indigenous Aymara roots in South America. She spends her time working at the intersections of climate justice and migrant rights on the National Coordinating Committee of Deep Roots United Front. In between telling the powerful stories of the frontline warriors, you can find her in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, learning from the nearest migrant wimmin and eating arroz con leche. Follow her on twitter @QuePasaApaza

Saturday, March 15, 2014

In Theory - Herbert Marcuse: One Dimensional Man?



In Theory - Herbert Marcuse: One Dimensional Man?

Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man was written in 1962, but much of it reads as if it could have been written today. In a forensic and robust re-assessment, political theorist Andrew Robinson highlights the merits, and lacunae, of this pivotal work.

 

In Theory, New in Ceasefire - Posted on Friday, October 22, 2010 


Tags:




By  Andrew Robinson



Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man was written in 1962, but much of it reads as if it could have been written today: the flattening of discourse, the pervasive repression behind a veil of ‘consensus’, the lack of recognition for perspectives and alternatives beyond the dominant frame, the closure of the dominant universe of meaning, the corrosion of established liberties and lines of escape, total mobilisation against a permanent Enemy built into the system as a basis for conformity and effort… It was product of a previous period of downturn and decomposition, similar in many ways to our own.

The largest difference from the present situation is that, contrary to thirty years of neoliberalism and the latest wave of cuts, Marcuse was writing at a time when the welfare state was growing and ordinary people were becoming more affluent. This gives a different sense to the repressive aspects of the context. Marcuse gives an impression of people lulled into conformity, rather than bludgeoned or tricked.

The ‘one dimension’ of the title refers to the flattening of discourse, imagination, culture and politics into the field of understanding, the perspective, of the dominant order. Marcuse contrasts the affluent consumer society of organised capitalism with a previous situation of ‘two-dimensional’ existence. The two dimensions exist on a number of levels, but for Marcuse express a single aspect: the coexistence of the present system with its negation.

In culture, this second dimension was expressed in the role of culture as critique, in the ways in which even conservative aspects of culture contrasts with the prevailing order, providing characters (for instance, tragic heroines and heroes) who are frustrated in the present world, and also in the existence of a lively field of radical culture. In thought, the gap emerges because of the distance between concepts and their particular uses, the possibility of conceptually separating an actor or object (a worker, a produced item) from its functional or systemic context (work, commodities), and the contrast between ethical values and existing realities.

The gap between the two dimensions is for Marcuse crucial to the possibility of social change. The gap separates the possible from the present, making it possible to imagine situations radically different from the current system. The elimination of the gap makes it impossible to think beyond the system’s frame, thus making it impossible to think of alternatives except as repeating current social relations. The two dimensions produce a gap or distance between what can be thought and what exists, a gap in which critical thought can flourish. They rely on an ‘unhappy consciousness’, discontented with the present and aware on some level of its problems.

According to Marcuse, the gap has been closed by a process of almost totalitarian social integration through the coordination of social functions and the rise of consumerism and administrative thought. Marcuse portrays this process as happening in a number of ways. One of these is that consumer culture infiltrates lifeworlds and public opinion comes into the private sphere: the system’s perspective comes into the home through television, radio and consumed goods with particular messages; it comes into communities through the inescapable news headlines outside newsagents, the dominance of ‘public opinion’ and the interventions of state officials.

Think, for instance, of the posters everywhere in Nottingham, UK, advertising the latest crackdowns and providing phone numbers for council ‘support’ in dealing with local problems in repressive ways (shop a benefit ‘thief’, report ‘anti-social behaviour’, CCTV is here ‘for your safety’, such-and-such enemy of the people is banned from this area for begging, petty theft and generally being poor…) One can barely walk the streets today without either passively endorsing or being jolted by such messages. Is this discursive onslaught really so different from the propaganda crusades of classic totalitarianism? And is it any coincidence that the rise of such discursive intrusion coincides with attacks on flyposting and graffiti, and even a ban on election posters on lampposts?

Furthermore, people are themselves ‘reduced’ through the rhythms of conformity. Conformity is induced through repetition and habit, with people lulled into a sense of hypnosis by the repeated rhythms of factory work and mass consumption. This is reminiscent of Barthes’s discussion of fashion: the system generates a kind of euphoria in its repetition of difference within a closed frame. Needs are artificially induced and manipulated, so they can be satisfied in systemically recognised ways (this claim later forms the basis for Ivan Illich’s analysis of schooling).

Systemic integration or social control is now based on satisfying rather than frustrating needs, the trick being that it satisfies needs that it itself creates. Marcuse could also have mentioned the ways in which work, family and consumption tend to eat up all the available hours in the day, so people no longer have time for introspection, creative pursuits, diversification of lifeways, or ‘functionless’ socialising – so that, as Hakim Bey puts it, simply finding the time for a group to be together without a basis in work, consumption or family is already a difficult task, and an act of resistance.

According to Marcuse, the various mechanisms of integration lead to a new kind of social closure which blocks even imaginary escapes. The loss of the critical gap produces a ‘happy consciousness’ which accepts the parameters of the system – though it is only superficially happy. Another aspect of Marcuse’s view is that, while people’s basic needs are satisfied, underlying fear, anxiety and aggression are never far from the surface and are themselves made functional for the system.

In culture, the second dimension has been flattened out through a loss of appreciation arising from the reduction of ‘high’ culture to ‘mass’ culture – the fact that music is being played in the background in supermarkets and classics of world literature can be bought cheaply in corner shops. This structural reduction reduces the distance between culture and the present reality, turning it into an appendage of advertisements and consumerism.

In recent times, we might think for instance of the way protest music, including punk, rap, etc., is included in suitably redacted form in the hit-parade and on mainstream radio broadcasts, reduced to its sales ranking as a commodity. Or one might think of the loss suffered by ‘classic’ critical texts, such as those of Marx, Deleuze or Sartre (or indeed Marcuse), as a result of being treated as something to be taught in classes and assessed in exams: instead of having relevance to one’s life, or even being assessed as irrelevant for good reasons, they are shunted into a field which is structurally constructed so as to appear irrelevant to one’s life.

And at the same time, people who are not students or academics do not read such things – either because reading them is study and therefore work, to be avoided if unremunerated – or because they are defined as ‘theory’, as ‘difficult’, and therefore only for students and graduates. Those who happen to have read such things may then be dismissed as reproducing something which is irrelevant to most people’s lives, simply because they have been consigned to a field of study which is defined in advance as irrelevant. Through this process, the texts in general reach neither the students who read them nor the people who don’t, and their critical force is lost – despite the texts remaining legal, widely available, and in many cases free online.

In thought, the rise of various positivist, functionalist and operationalist analyses repressively reduces thought to the present. Only what can be seen to exist is recognised as having a right to recognition in language, and as a result, past and future realities are excluded from language. Meanwhile, nouns are made to dominate over verbs – description over doing (for instance, “globalisation” as fact over specific practices of “globalising spaces”), and nouns are identified with particular functions, so that imagining the thing aside from its usual function becomes impossible (for instance, “democracy” is taken to refer to the existing practices of western regimes, rather than an ideal of self-government which these regimes claim to actualise).

Language-use thus becomes hypnotic, or is reduced to a command which cannot be refused (think for instance of advertising slogans and political soundbites). While terms like “functionalist” and “operationalist” are out of fashion, this way of thinking remains dominant in mainstream social science, and in the rhetoric of business and politics. Today we could take an example like “cognitive behavioural therapy”, which seeks to reduce dissatisfaction to dysfunctional thought patterns which the “patient” is induced or trained to abandon because the thoughts mean they are failing to meet their life-goals. Rather than using the fact that people are unhappy as an indictment of the system, it blames people’s unhappiness on their own capability for dysfunctional thought, and seeks to eliminate such thought-paths – an approach reminiscent of Orwellian brainwashing.

In addition, the rational and the real are fused in the purely instrumental nature of technological rationality as means-ends calculation within the frame of what can be observed. It becomes impossible to negate the system – to say that the system is wrong or irrational – in widely recognised language. This is because everyday language is rejigged towards always referring to functions within the system. Try arguing with a Third Way supporter that Britain is not free or democratic, and one comes up against this effect: either freedom is quantitative, measured by Britain’s better ranking in some measurement than, say, Zimbabwe, or it is systemically defined, referring to the formal recognition of certain rights, or else it is deemed to be something which is impossible and has never existed, and hence which Britain cannot be condemned for lacking, and which is useless as a concept.

This silences the voices of ‘other rationalities’: the actual fact for instance that people cannot protest for dissident causes without police persecution, that asylum seekers and people wrongly ‘suspected’ of terrorism are subject to terrifying dawn raids, that all kinds of harmless practices (wearing a hood or baggy trousers, meeting friends, giving out leaflets, riding a bike…) can be arbitrarily banned under state-mandated orders, become matters which are somehow irrelevant to the question of whether Britain is ‘free’ or ‘democratic’. Someone who actually draws the logical conclusions of such abuses is deemed to be living in a fantasy-world. One is thus dealing with a tautological process whereby the system is justified as a result of the fact that it exists, hence provides the only observable criteria, and hence passes these criteria.

Marcuse uses the example of procedural responses to workers’ grievances in factories: the administrative response insists that complaints be rendered more specific, that a complaint such as “wages are too low” be rendered more precisely as an individual complaint, such as that a particular worker cannot cover health expenses. Once thereby reduced, the demands can be met cumulatively through small reforms.

Marcuse believes this covers up the underlying antagonism, because the complaint that “wages are too low” actually combines two elements: the specific situation of the worker, and a general grievance against the wage system which implicitly refers to the situation of all workers and can only be satisfied through the overthrow of the dominant system.

In carving off and satisfying the former component, and reducing the entire grievance to this first component, the system silences the second component, making it seem irrational and unthinkable.




There is also a psychological aspect here. Marcuse refers to the present situation as ‘repressive desublimation’.

Sublimation is a psychoanalytic concept which refers to a defence-mechanism used to deal with a desire which has been repressed, and so is unconscious. Often, it resurfaces in apparently ‘higher’ forms, providing a basis for cultural creativity. In Freud, this might mean for instance, that a person with an oral fixation would become a skilled orator or singer.

For Marcuse, such repression can also affect political desires: the desire for liberation which cannot find conscious form (either as socially taboo or because of a lack of an appropriate language) can find indirect expression in fields such as art.

Marcuse argues that the peculiarly contemporary process of satisfying particular desires in consumer society through systemically recognised means leads to the elimination of sublimation: desires are ‘desublimated’, they can find social expression, but only in a repressive way which eliminates what is in the particular demand more than itself, the broader aspiration for liberation.
Here, I suspect that Marcuse exaggerates. Psychological repression in some fields, particularly in relation to expressions of anger, is still very pervasive, and the authoritarian family is alive and well, both directly and in its toned-down “liberal” form.

Furthermore, there are many ways the system continues to frustrate desires, even at a most basic level such as failing to provide sufficient housing.
But he theorises an aspect of the situation which does sometimes operate: the means of regulation today tend to decompose desires, leaving less of a consolidated block for the unconscious to work with.

The political implications of Marcuse’s account suggest the need for forms of resistance which radically refuse the dominant system, while remaining pessimistic about such possibilities. Marcuse maintains that western democracies are not really democratic, because people are quietly prevented from thinking critically, and induced into making choices which in any case remain within the systemic frame. Since this is a product of quiet manipulation, and since it is built on a social order which is basically authoritarian, it does not ground any claims to systemic legitimacy.

More theoretically, Marcuse also argues that prevailing needs can never provide a supreme basis for legitimacy, since the critique of a system also critiques its socially-produced needs. This system has various ways of managing dissent so as to maintain authoritarian closure. ‘Repressive tolerance’, for instance, is a practice whereby dissident perspectives are permitted only by being reduced to ‘opinions’ held as if as private property by individuals, ‘opinions’ the person is entitled to, but which have no pull on others, which nobody is obliged to take seriously as claims to truth, and which the dissident is not entitled to act on.

The reduction of verifiable truth-claims to ‘opinions’ destroys any requirement that the mainstream need to pay attention to them or address specific allegations; they can ignore the beliefs as simply personal matters, and suppress any attempt to act on them as unreasonable imposition of personal views. While this kind of argument is sometimes used to attack Marcuse as nascently authoritarian, it is better understood as showing the limits to ‘democracy’ in an authoritarian context, and the need for sustained critical engagement as a basis for genuinely inclusive social practices.

One limit of Marcuse’s account is immediately obvious. One-Dimensional Man was written on the eve of the 1960s wave of radical struggles and protests which was to shake the foundations of the dominant system. It is, perhaps, a limit of the work that it failed to foresee this rupture, though such events always seem to come unexpected, from unlikely sources. In my view, Marcuse makes this mistake because he gives insufficient attention to marginalised groups, both within America and worldwide.

The incorporation he discusses mainly affected the organised working class, who as a Marxist, Marcuse looked to as the agents of social change. Had he paid more attention, for example, to emerging decolonisation struggles in the majority world and the rise of protest movements among African-Americans, the limits to systemic closure would have been clearer. Marcuse also perhaps exaggerates the extent to which the closure of the system’s universe of meaning actually prevents imaginative escape or radical movements.

To be sure, it alters such ‘outsides’ because of the fact that they can no longer be realised inside the dominant frame, and for this very reason, makes their break with the system necessarily more antagonistic. It alters the form, not the possibility, of refusal. In this regard, Marcuse would have benefited from something more like Negri’s approach of theorising a cyclical relationship between new upsurges of resistance and new processes of control.

Incorporation was a response to particular compositions of resistance; it did not foreclose the possibility of resistance as such – something we should remain aware of in the current downturn. Another limit from my perspective is Marcuse’s persistent progressivism: in spite of his vigorous critique of technological rationality, he also persists in viewing it as ultimately progressive, as expressing the triumph of humanity’s struggle against ‘necessity’ or nature, a view which looks untenable in the light of later ecological critiques.
Marcuse’s emphasis on individuality and privacy as a basis for negative thought is also no doubt controversial. It depends on the view that certain spheres in earlier periods of capitalism provided space for autonomous subjectivity, a view which would be questioned by other theorists. For instance, feminists question whether the home has ever been truly ‘private’, arguing that it embodies gender dynamics which arise from the broader social structure and already render it a site of reproductive labour, even before consumer culture is added.

Indeed, Marcuse is well aware, and often adds qualifiers, that the older ‘gap’ was limited in often being a product of privilege. While recognising such problems, I believe it is important to sustain the idea of critical distance as a basis for escaping submersion. I think Marcuse is right that distance from social submersion is necessary to form critical perceptions, and that lack of awareness of this dimension has long been fatal for leftist attempts to reformulate politics.
It is not so much that the private is an untouched space, as that the creation of spaces beyond the dominant social field is necessary to escape from psychological and discursive pressures to conform. To be sure, such an escape does not guarantee that one will not remain pulled by forces which are absent but powerful, but it potentially loosens their hold.

While in societies where the ‘social’ remains a space of negation partially separate from the forces of consumerism and conformity, it is still possible for such a dimension to emerge first of all in collective spaces, in societies similar to that described by Marcuse, it is usually necessary for the initial break to occur on a personal level, as an assertion of refusal or critical distance which establishes a rupture with the system and hence also with the established forms of community.

Only after such a rupture does it become possible to recompose social relations on a different basis, among those who have undergone the rupture.


Andrew Robinson is a political theorist and activist based in the UK. His book Power, Resistance and Conflict in the Contemporary World: Social Movements, Networks and Hierarchies (co-authored with Athina Karatzogianni) was published in Sep 2009 by Routledge. His ‘In Theory’ column appears every other Friday.

Complete text here: http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/64onedim/odmcontents.html

Sunday, March 9, 2014

We are all right-wingers now: How Fox News, ineffective liberals, corporate Dems and GOP money captured everything

SALON




We are all right-wingers now: How Fox News, ineffective liberals, corporate Dems and GOP money captured everything

 

Is the left enjoying a moment of triumph -- or has a president with no bearings left the Tea Party in charge?




 
We are all right-wingers now: How Fox News, ineffective liberals, corporate Dems and GOP money captured everything 
 
Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders (Credit: AP/Ron Frehm/Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Reuters/Gretchen Ertl/AP/Toby Talbot)
 
 
I used to talk to the political scientist Adolph Reed, Jr. a lot back in the ’90s when we both lived in Chicago and wrote for the same magazines. I thought of him in those days as a man of brilliant skepticism, as someone who could always be counted upon to have the exact right word for the situation of the left in the Clinton years.

Reed has a great and important essay in the current issue of Harpers Magazine in which he assesses the situation under President Obamaand manages to throw bucket after bucket of cold water over a Democratic Party that is still exulting after its big win in 2012.

I got him on the phone last week to talk it over, and the conversation wandered all over the political map

In a lot of areas, the left appears to be enjoying a moment of triumph, Yet, the title of your article in the current issue of Harpers is “Nothing Left: the Long, Slow Surrender of American Liberals.” This is going pretty massively against the grain isn’t it?

Well, I dont know. Not in the circles I move in, its not. Not in the labor movement either. I guess everything hinges on how you define the Left and what you mean by it. Thats part of whats at stake. As I argue in the essay, by Left I mean an old-school understanding thats rooted in evaluation and critique of current circumstances from the standpoint of an ideal of equality and justice thats rooted in political economy.

That’s key: political economy. And you use the word “egalitarian.” That’s sort of what’s completely missing today. All of these victories on these other fronts, largely matters of identity politics, and where is the egalitarian left? 

Right, and my friend Walter Michaels has made this point very eloquently over and over again . . .  that the problem with a notion of equality or social justice thats rooted in the perspectives of multiculturalism and diversity is that from those perspectives you can have a society thats perfectly just if less than 1 percent of the population controls 95 percent of the stuff, so long as that one percent is half women and 12 percent black, and 12 percent Latino and whatever the appropriate numbers are gay. Now thats a problem.

Do you remember those wealth-management ads in the 1990s that said “Money: it’s just not what it used to be,”and it would have a black-and-white photograph of rich white people, rich white men, from a long time ago. And then they would have a photograph of what the rich look like now and it’s what you just described.

No. I didnt see that. But, yeah, its perfect. I wish I had. It would be a nice book jacket. Yeah, I think where we are now is, from one perspective, the result of either 30 or 60-plus years, depending on how you want to count it, of a left that has been able to take only what the other side would make available . . . would permit them to take. And what thats meant is that our political strategiesIm not saying this to fault activists; you can only do what you can do, but the political strategies and understandings that have constituted the Left have come increasingly to accommodate with neoliberalism. And the only place that thats a conspicuous problem is in the labor movement because thats the one interest group that basically cant be accommodated to neoliberal economic policy.

Interesting. So the other movements that make up the historical Left have prospered…

Right. Well thats true by some standard. Like in black politics, for instance, the subtle shift from a notion of equality thats anchored in the political economy to a notion of equality that tends to a norm of parity has been a really important shift. And when we look around now at academics and others who plead the case for racial justiceMerlin Chowkwanyun and I did an article on this in the 2012 Socialist Register, a challenge to the racial disparity discourse. The language through which briefs for racial justice are crafted at this point are much more likelyI mean, vastly more likelyto point to the problem as a racial disparity instead of inequality. And that might sound

I don’t get the difference…

I was going to say, it might sound like a pedantic distinction. But the notion of disparity as the metric of racial justice means that blacks should be represented roughly in their percentage of the population in the distribution of goods and bads in the society. So you can have 15 percent unemployment, but if blacks are only 12 percent of the 15 percent that are unemployed basically

Then it’s OK? 

Yeah. And while no one actually says that would be okay, the way in which the problem is posed leaves that implication and deflects discussion away from the underlying structural problems in the political economy that put anyone in the exploited or oppressed position. I just saw an article in Labor Notes a month or so ago about how  Kelloggs is jerking workers around in a plant in Memphis. And the slant of the Labor Notes article is that the moves that the company is making disproportionately hurt black workers. The logic of that argument, that type of argument is, in effect, that we can understand the costs of economic restructuring or whatever, but they need to be borne on an equitable basis. Because it was Labor Notes, I know thats not the intent or the perspective of the magazine or presumably the author, but that just makes the trope stand out even more.

Yeah, you hear that all the time.

Right, and my argument is: well, lets back up.

Maybe the whole project of economic restructuring should be called into question. 

And the funny thing about it when you think about it, Tom, is that if youre concerned with the conditions of black Americans, most black people are working people. One might say even disproportionately. And what improves the condition of the working class is going to improve the condition of more black people than the disparity focus would. Thats not to say its either/or. But the fact is weve largely dropped the one in favor of the other. You can see the same thing in the women’s movement. I made this point in the article. It wasnt that long ago when the political agenda of the womens movement included stuff like comparable worth and universal child and elder care. And right now, attention to that stuff is shriveled. The defense of reproductive rights is a constant, of course. But the political-economic program that gets touted by the womens movement is directed toward the glass ceiling and the first woman president. Stuff like that.

I was thinking of Sheryl Sandberg. 

Right. She is the Alexandra Kollontai of our moment.

Who? 

Or the Clara Zetkin. The radical Bolshevik theorist who was also a feminist. I guess I should say that Sandberg is the Alexandra Kollontai of the bourgeoisie at this point.

Wow. That is a tough metaphor. 

Sorry (laughs).

You use this word “electoralitis”to describe what’s happened to the left.

Well, its a bizarre one, man. I wrote a progressive column on this 20 years ago or close to it. And it just seemed somewhere in the mid-’90s almost like I didnt set my alarm one night and woke up and the rules of being on the left had changed. Everyone was focused on electoral politics. Thats a phenomenon thats like cause and symptom. Its certainly a symptom of not having any other kind of traction in the social-movement world as a left. And once again, I acknowledge there are all kinds of people out there doing all kinds of good stuff. Who are trying to make peoples lives better. And to the limited ways its possible to succeed, succeeding. But there is not a left social movement thats got any capacity to do anything. That has any institutional capacity. And most of all, that has any capacity to alter the terms of political debate at the national level, or for that matter even the local level.

So in the absence of that, what can you do? Well, voting has come to seem more important as a form of political practice. Weve lost the capacity to do anything else. And when you think about it now weve got at least a generation of people who never had any experience with any other kind of politics.

You’re talking to one of those people. What other kinds of politics is there than voting? There’s protesting, I suppose…

Well, actually I think protesting is overrated. In fact, I think protesting was always kind of overrated in the sense that its not so much the protest that produced the change; its the movement that produces the capacity for the protest to be effective. Thats the source of the change.

So it goes back to the movement?

Yeah. Yeah. But I would sayand a bunch of us have been saying for a whilethat I think its much more useful . . . to look at elections as vehicles for consolidating and expressing power thats been created on the field of social-movement organizing around issues. Ultimately, mass mobilization around issues that connect with concerns that are broadly shared among the mass of people that live in the countrythose of us who are expected to get up and go to work every day. And thats how the nature of the debate changes.

Heres a factoid: a Roper poll a month before the 1944 presidential election found that 68 percent of respondents said that they would not favor a political and economic system no matter what it was called that didnt pivot off of a fundamental right to a job, that didnt rest on the fundamental premise that everyone in a society who is willing and able to work should have a right to a job.

Sixty-four percent?

Sixty-eight percent. Thats a month before the 1944 presidential election.

What ever happened to that view?

Well, the other side won. Theres an interesting literature on the streams of the defeat. The public opinion industry was mobilized in the support of selling the gospel of free enterprise, which itself was only invented in the late 1930s. The term wasnt even around before then. But there is a steady mobilization of bias, as political scientist E. E. Schattschneider used to call it, against left ideas.

I wonder if you did a poll today what would happen?

Yeah, I wonder. The numbers might be higher than one might think. What full employment meant then in terms of the full-employment bill that passed the Senate and was defeated in the House

You’re not talking about HumphreyHawkins are you?

No, no. Im talking about the full employment bill of 1945 that went down, despite passing the Senate so it wasnt a gimmick bill — that would have mandated that the federal government take action, both in public spending and public works job creation when unemployment crossed the 3 percent threshold with the goal of moving the full employment threshold over a decade to 2 percent. By the Kennedy Administration the full-employment bill became four percent with fingers crossed. Now, I understand its 6 percent.

By that metric we’re almost there!

(laughs)

The problem is we’ve given up on movement building for elections. But not just elections, elections between the two parties. This was driven home for me most emphatically after the 2000 election, when lots of people voted for Ralph Nader, and here Al Gore loses. Theoretically, the people who voted for Nader, if they had played by the rules of the two-party system, Al Gore would have won. This frightened a lot of people.

Well, theres a lot of crap going on there, too. And Ill come clean. I voted for Nader in 2000 partly because I lived in Connecticut and it wasnt a big choice because I knew the Democrat was going to take the state anyway. But partly also because I had lived in Connecticut in the ’80s and I had a track record to maintain of not ever voting for Joe Lieberman for anything.

But I was struck, too by the incredible vitriol that the Dems directed at Nader and anyone who supported Nader after that defeat. And it was a defeat that Gore wouldnt even fight against either, which they tend to forget. My response to them was, the vitriol was a signal that they were looking for a scapegoat because their flawed candidate couldnt even carry his home state. I mean, if he could have carried his home state he would have won the presidency. But I always said to them the best explanation of the defeat in 2000 came from a 1970s R&B singer named Ann Peebles with a song called I Didnt Take Your Man, You Gave Him To Me.

The Nader thing. The vitriol of the reaction was striking to me because it communicated that the Democrats felt entitled to every left-of-center vote, but that they didnt have to do anything to get it. They didnt have to appeal at all. And distaste for Lieberman notwithstanding, I would have voted for Gore if he wouldnt have run such a right wing campaign. Thats part of it. And this goes back to Clintons first campaign too. I worked in the short-lived [Tom] Harkin campaign and the word we were getting in that campaign from people in the South in particular was that Clintons people were coming through and saying, Our guys going to win the election so you better get on board if you want any consideration. And dont ask for anything because if you ask for anything we probably arent going to give you any access.And thats pretty ugly. And thats the way they can be. And I think that Clintonism basically polished off the purge of the left wing of the Democratic party.

So it was a success in that regard.

Yes it was. It was an utter success in that regard. But its the cycle though, right? So theres nothing to do at election time except vote for the Democrat because the Republican is almost invariably going to be worse and despite the Third Party votes Ive cast in my life, thats no response to anything. And that speaks to another problem thats an element of the electoralitis within the left and thats that the same thing happens every four years. Around this time you begin to look around and see how the Democratic presidential field is shaping up. Then one strain of lefties will say, God, Hillary Clinton? This looks terrible. We need to find a progressive candidate.” So now there’s talk about an Elizabeth Warren of the Democrats that’s supposed to an alternative to the corporatist Clinton wing, and there’s even talk of Bernie Sanders running. Well, at that point, its too late. You cant build a base for a candidacy in a year or two years or even four years. The only way to get candidates worth having is to build the social force that will create candidates worth having.

So it comes back to movements again.

Yeah. It comes back to movements all the time really.

The two-party system is so frustrating for someone like me. I often wonder why the Republicans dont ever make a play for disaffected Democrats. They certainly could have in 2012 and they had almost no interest in that.

Well, no. There are a couple things going on. One of them isI think the capture by the Tea Party tale is overstated. Its true that that element has somea disproportionateimpact in the primaries, and I may be wrong about this, but Im still hard pressed to think that there is anything truly organic in the Tea Party movement that wasnt already the sort of Birchite nut cases on the right flank. And now theyve been fueled by the most cynical kind of right-wing money.

But Republicans, why don’t they play those guys the way Clinton and company played the Left?

Well, they did with Romney and McCain. They get their candidates. I remember back in 1996 when Pat Buchanan won in New Hampshire and he came out of there with a big bounce and was moving down to South Carolina next which is where his real base was. His main bank roller was a mill operator down there named Milliken. So I was afraid enough to begin to wonder what I was going to do if he won the presidency. Either head north or head south, across the border. But whats fascinating was that the Moral Majority pulled the rug out from under him in South Carolina. The holy rollers backed [Bob] Dole. And thats where the field capacity was in South Carolina, among the holy rollers. And youd wonder, well, why would they do that, right? Partly, its because they made the rational calculation that the interests that the elites in the right wing with populist tendencies are fundamentally connected with right wing corporate and financial sector interests.

And they want the presidency. They’re not fooling around.
Exactly. And they figured that in strategic terms theyd be better served by getting behind Dole and helping to deliver him the nomination than by going down in flames with their version of Henry Wallace, I guess. Its interesting in that regard too that year when they had the big jamboree they had down in Dallas. I think it was Jerry Falwell. I often get him and Pat Robertson confused. But he said that the two things God was most interested in that year were cutting capital gains taxes and I think the other may have been the estate tax.

(Laughs) That’s what God wants them to do…

Make it plain, why dont you. So in effect, and I think this gets to the point I was making in the article, that the choice is between two neoliberal parties, one of which distinguishes itself by being actively in favor of multiculturalism and diversity and the other of which distinguishes itself as being actively opposed to multiculturalism and diversity. But on 80 percent of the issues on which 80 percent of the population is concerned 80 percent of the time there is no real difference between them.

When people say things like that they often run into trouble. Because, you look at something like Fox News, and they talk about Obama as if he were a socialist or a communist or a dictator. And as you point out in your article, Obama’s entire career has been triangulation, conciliation, and compromise — and yet they look at him and see red.

Well, yeah, kind of. This gets into another issue. In a way, I think their hysteria about Obama being a communist or a socialist is in a funny way a backhanded acknowledgment of the success of the Civil Rights movement. Because they cant say hes a n—– in the White House. Right? And I dont even necessarily think that people are being consciously disingenuous about it. I think they sell

So instead they say, there’s a communist in the White House. Someone actually had a song that they would sing at these Tea Party rallies, Theres a Communist in the White House.

Ill tell you, its that Birchite psychosis. This is the social base of fascism, really, is what they are.

They don’t have the street gangs.

No, thank God. Not yet anyway. And I guess thats partly because a lot of them are pensioners.

Theyll get you with their golf carts.

But I still think theres a lot of astro-turf there. I go back to the founding moment of the Tea Party. And Ive watched this clip a number of time since then. That day that Rick Santelli

I’ve written about that at great length.

Oh good, I need to read that because when I watched it after the founding moment it seemed pretty clear to meI mean, you can tell me if Im wrongthat the co-host knew what was coming. That this was not a spontaneous rant.

It might have been planned, I dunno. You know what got me about it, is that it was on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade. And you think about Populist movements, like my favorite one from the 1890s, where the Chicago Board of Trade was the pit of evil. And heres a guy launching his populist movement from that same spot. Remember, hes not yelling at the traders, hes not chastising the traders, hes speaking on their behalf. What kind of populist movement is that? It’s like they were trying to reverse the fundamental symbolism (of populism). Because that’s what the Tea Party movement is: it takes all of the classic populist symbolism and reverses it.

Right. Thats exactly right. Thats exactly right. Yeah.

Here we are in hard times, second only to the Great Depression itself and what are the demanding? An end to the welfare state. Destroy our unions.

Right. Thats exactly right. And it says something about the extent to which content has been drained out of our politics too.

The symbolism is quite persuasive to some people.

Sure. Well yeah because theres nothing else. The Democrats dont have an alternative to offer. Right? I mean, thats the problem. My son said in 04 that either, in the industrial Midwest in particular, either Kerry would talk about NAFTA and trade or Bush would talk about gay marriage. And thats what happened. And I recall

Now the shoe’s on the other foot.

It sure is. Which is kind of funny. And frankly, it also says something about how successful an egalitariana reasonable egalitarian programcan be if it doesnt cost anybody anything. If it doesnt raise the backs of upper-class economic interests.

You’ve got to explain that a little more.

Well, in not much more than a decade, gayness has gone from being if not completely stigmatized, certainly not normalized. . . .

Yeah, you’re right. Ten years ago, remember, those ballot initiatives all over the country in the election of ’04 to outlaw gay marriage and it was instrumental to winning Bush’s reelection.

Thats right. And here we are like a decade later and thats. . . .

Going the other direction now. But the symbolism of this is all very interesting. In your Harpers article you talk about Obama as a symbol, that he’s a cipher. I think you’re quoting someone…

I think Im quoting Matt Taibbi I believe, but Ill take it. Ill take credit for it also. Because he is. Hes always been a cipher. You know that.

Obama’s a highly intelligent man. You’ve met him.

Yes.

Maybe hes a cipher in the sense that hes a symbol. But he’s not a cipher of a human.

I dont know. Look, Ive taught a bunch of versions of him.

You mean you’ve had people like him as students?

Yeah. So his cohort in the Ivy League. His style. Theres superficial polish or theres a polish that may go down to the core. I dont know. A performance of a judicious intellectuality. A capacity to show an ability to understand and empathize with multiple sides of an argument. Obama has described himself in that way himself in one or maybe both of his books and elsewhere. Hes said that he has this knack for encouraging people to see a better world for themselves through him.

Yeah, he’s like a blank slate.

Right. Which in a less charitable moment you might say is like a sociopath.

Come on now!

Im not saying that. But Im just saying. Im not saying hes a sociopath but

That (blank slate personality) seems like the classic … the kind of people who lead the Democratic Party. Only he’s got considerably more charisma than most of them.

Hes better at it than most. And this is another point that I make. That any public figure, especially a politician or a figure in a movement, is going to be like a hologram thats created by the array of forces that he or she feels the need to respond to. Thats how it was that we got more out of Richard Nixon from the left than weve gotten from either Clinton or Obama.

That’s a provocative point right there.

Not that he liked us any more, to put it bluntly.

Yeah, he said terrible things. Right? Kent State, all that…

Right, but the labor movement and what are now called the social movements of the 60s had enough traction within the society that, as part of his understanding of who he was as someone that had to govern the country, was that he had to take them into account in some way. Clinton, as he pointed out, felt our pain, except for maybe Ricky Ray Rector. And when he dreamt of a world he would like to see in his earnest moments Im sure it was closer to the world that you and I and others like us would yearn to see, than anything that Nixon ever wanted. But he screwed us a lot more. And the same with Obama.

That’s interesting. If Nixon had to take the left into account and Clinton didn’t, that’s very interesting.

Well, in fact, I go a step further about Clinton. He not only didnt have to take the left into account, his presidency was in good measure about making that clear to the left.

Making it clear to the left that they were of no importance or significance?

Thats right. That they were cue-takers, and cue-takers only. NAFTA. Welfare reform. The effective elimination of the federal governments commitment to provide affordable housing for the poor.

Yeah. There’s a long list: deregulated the airwaves, deregulated banking…

Ive got the photo of him signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

With Larry Summers at his elbow I believe.

Indeed. Indeed. The ’70s, and even to some extent the ’80s, perhaps especially the ’80s, were among other things a moment of contestation within the Democratic party between what would later be understood as the neoliberal wing. You remember these guys

Sure. The new Democrats—the Democratic Leadership Council.

Them. And the Atari Democrats and that crowd. Clinton, who had been president of the DLC, as had Gore, that administration is what installed them basically.

It’s funny though, now that people look back, younger people—people younger than me…I mean, I barely remember any Democrats other than Clinton myself. The Carter Administration which was not exactly the greatest time in the world. Before that you got Johnson. Vietnam. People look back at the Clinton years and see success.

Yeah, but success by a really shallow standard. Just that he won.

Exactly, he won. That’s right. I live here in Washington now. For people here, that’s it. It’s one or zero and he got one.

Even then, yeah. Ill accept that hes a savvy pol and all that, but Kerry, I think, got a higher percentage of the vote losing in 04 than Clinton got winning. Maybe either time. I know one of them for sure. Because in both cases the smartest move he made was when Ross Perot filed to run. Thats the only standard. But thats the other thing thats happened. As the left constituencies have shriveled and have been pushed to the side, the inside-the-beltway types that we know and love set the agenda. I wrote this in a symposium years ago. Rick Perlstein did a symposium in the Boston Review that was later published.

I believe I’ve got a copy of that around here somewhere.

And one of the points I made was that the rise of the political consultants is an expression of the problem because the service that they sell is the alternative to popular electoral mobilization. So of course they have no time for that. They dont think its necessary. They dont think its important. You target this. You target that. But on the other hand

Exactly. I’m here among them and they, Democrats, don’t think they don’t need to worry about…all the problems you’ve identified sort of making people angry, lose interest. They dont need to worry about this. They think they have an iron clad coalition behind them. They have this term for it: the Coalition for the Ascendent. I forget what it is. Made up of these groups, and labor is not one of them.

Really?

Generally, who do they mention? Women, minorities, and millennials—meaning young people.

Which is not a group. Thats a demographic category. Its bullshit, like the other bullshit that theyve come up with. Remember the National Security Moms?

Yes. When was that? What year was that?

I think that was 04.

Yeah. And they were going to deliver the election for Karl Rove or something like that?

No, Kerry.

But they’ve got it all figured out. You don’t need movements like what you’re describing. For the Democrats to continue to win you don’t need movements.

Thats right. In fact, you dont want them.

Well they would only complicate things.

Thats right. And get in the way.

You had so many fascinating passages in this article and I want to unpack them more. You started talking about the left itself, and you say that they careen from this oppressed group to that one, from “one magical or morally pristine constituency or source of agency to another.”You nailed it there. But you need to tell us what you mean. That is fascinating.

Some peasants somewhere. The urban precariat. The Coalition of Immokalee Workers in Florida.

These are all real things though, right?

Well theyre real, but the problem is the fantasy of the spark. That theres something about the purity of these oppressed people that has the power to condense the mass uprising. Ive often compared it to the cargo cults.

Ouch!

Well thats what its like. Frankly, what Ive come to describe as the Internet fundraising leftCommon Dreams, TruthOut, and all the rest of that stuff.

I probably get 10 solicitations a day.

Me too. Yeah. But I think the proliferation of that domain, no pun intended, has exacerbated this problem. Because there is always a crisis. There is always something thats about to happen. I think, frankly, a lot of the demoralization and the fretting that followed in the wake of the UAWs defeat in the Tennessee plant was the product of expectations that had been unreasonably stoked in advance. This was going to be the thing that reinvigorates the labor movement. It would be like the CIO going into the South. It would be like the Flint sit-down strike. It was a 1500 member bargaining unit in a rabidly anti-union state for Gods sake. So you would expect that the greater likelihood would be to lose, right? Thats whats happened.

Why do we put our hopes in these magical constituencies?

I think there is a good reason and a bad reason. Well, no. Theres a nice reason and an ugly reason. The nice reason is that people see how desperate the circumstances are and they feel a sense of urgency and they want to have something happen that can begin to show signs of turning the tide. And when somebody says, You know, we didnt get into this overnight. Were not going to get out of this overnight,then people start to yell at them for being insensitive to the suffering and the urgency. The other side of the coin by that reasoning is they dont want to do the organizing or they cant figure out how to do it or their sense of how political change is made is so underdeveloped that they cant conceptualize a strategic approach to politics. So its like the bearing witness stuff basically.

That’s a fascinating term. So they want to bear witness. I think another word for what you’re describing is, they’re “fans.”

Yes. Exactly. For some as well its the expression of an earnest but naïve, or too self-centered, inclination to stand publicly against injustice.

They want to watch it. And we have this army of bloggers and everybody wants to be an op-ed columnist. I shouldn’t complain here because I used to actually be one. And its great and everything. But can you have a movement that’s just made up of commentators?

I think thats corrosive in another way as well. Yes its true that any fool with a computer and internet access can call himself or herself a blogger. But to the extent that people actually see the blogosphere as kind of like the audition hall or the minor leagues for getting onto MSNBC, then it encourages a lot of individual posturing, the conceptual equivalent of ADHD, hyperbolic crap. And youre right. The answer is, no, you cant have a movement of just commentators. But theres so much of that back and forth, so much of it, and it just seems to me like noise, the great bulk of it. Because it comes along with a senseand I think this is also an artifact of the larger condition of demobilization and defeat. But the notion that being on the Left means being seriously well-informed about everything thats going on with the world, every travesty, and tragedy, outrage and victory. So Im sure there are a lot of people around now demanding that we do something about Ukraine. Like, what the fuck can we do about Ukraine? Theres nothing. The only thing we could do is something bad which would be to join the chorus for the U.S. to invade.

Lord, please don’t go there, Adolph Reed.

AR: Im telling you. The last time I actually talked to Chris Hitchens we got in an argument about this at a bar on Dupont Circle. It was during the Iraq War and I kind of stopped him in his tracks, which didnt happen often, I said to him, Theres no place in the world thats been made better by the presence of the 82nd Airborne, not even Fayetteville, North Carolina.

I was going to say, the town, wherever they’re based is probably…

Its horrible. I used to work down there. Although my son, who was actually born there when I was working there, pointed out to me that it was the 82nd that JFK sent to Oxford, Mississippi, in 1962 to quell the riot after James Meredith integrated Ole Miss, where among other things they confiscated the arsenal from cheerleader Trent Lotts frat house. So thats the one place in the world that has been made better by the presence of the 82nd Airborne.

So you make another point about the left that’s very good, and we’re sounding very negative here, but there’s also some victories. [You write:] Radicalism now means only a very strong commitment to anti-discrimination, a point from which Democratic liberalism has not retreated. But then you say, you modify this: rather, this is the path Democrats have taken in retreating from a commitment to economic justice.  Explain, sir.

It goes back to the disparity thing. The Democrats have been very good in pursuit of the goal of reducing racial and gender disparities, which is a good thing. But it is as a small wheel, within the big wheel of pursuit of an economic policy that is all about regressive upward transfer.

Right now the hot topic in D.C. is inequality. They’re all talking about it. Larry Summers is talking about it.

Well, there you go. (laughs)

Upward transfer, that is inequality. They’ve signed on to this deliberately you think?

That theyve signed onto the upward transfer?

Yeah.

Well they certainly havent done anything to stop it. Look, stuff like thisthe Transpacific Partnership, financial sector deregulation, the transfer of subsidies from poor people to employers of low-wage labor.

That’s in the Clinton years.

Well, the same thing with Obama. Heres the rub, too. Its one thing to talk about inequality. Most people who are not on the Fox list will at least nod and say, yeah, inequality, tut tut. But then the question becomes: what approaches do we take for combating inequality? And thats where you look at stuff like cultivation of petty entrepreneurship, human capital tales, breaking teachers unions and destroying the public schools to make them better.

So, these are all things that they have done? These are steps that they’ve taken. They have all backfired.

No, they havent backfired. I mean, they wouldnt produce other than what they produced anyway. Thats whats creepy about it. There is an open question as to how genuine they are in the belief that these market-based approachesthat are, at best, an attempt to dip the ocean with a thimble basicallycan produce anythingand to whatever extent thats cynical. Its a tough call. My father used to always say that ideology in one sense is the mechanism that harmonizes the principles that you like to think you hold with what advances your material interest. Then he would say something like, Ill bet you that God has paid off so well for Billy Graham that he probably even believes in Him by now.

That’s harsh.

So there is an element of true belief there. For instance, I believe that Obama truly believes that this kind of self-help twaddle that he talks is a way to combat inequality. I also believe that he believes, in his heart of hearts, that public schools are for losers and that what you got to do is identify the bright kids from the ghetto and get them into the Lab School or the Lab School equivalent. So in the ideological frame of reference that the dominant elites within the Democratic party operate now, this is the element that defines the center of gravity of political liberalism and also sort of has captured the imagination of those who want to think of themselves as being on the left. They, often enough, will invoke the same general principles at a high level of abstraction that we associate with the Democratic Party and its history back to FDR. But the content that they load into those lofty symbols is neoliberal and reinforces the logic of a regressive transfer. If you cut public services and privatize and outsource, that hurts people at the bottom half of the income queue, or the bottom two-thirds of the income queue. Theres no way around that. You can only talk about equality and support that kind of agenda if you are fully committed to a neoliberal understanding of an equality of opportunity.

The labor movement. You said to reverse all this, it requires a vibrant labor movement. How on earth is that going to happen? Actually I’ve made this point to progressives and they don’t understand. They’re like, “What’s so special about labor?”They don’t particularly like labor. Culturally, it’s not them. They don’t really get it.

They like their workers when theyre brown and really abject and getting the shit beaten out of them but they dont like them when they try to work through institutions to build power for themselves as a class. Thats one way to put it.

These are people on the left that I’m talking about.

Thats who Im talking about too. Thats exactly who Im talking about. Its a few things. One of them is the cult of the most oppressed that I mentioned a while back. And as my dad used to say, If oppression conferred heightened political consciousness there would be a Peoples Republic of Mississippi.And the fact is all that oppression confers is oppression really. Theres that which connects with the cargo cult aspect that kind of fills the whole of

Wait, stop for a second. Did you say, “The fallacy of the most oppressed?”Is that what you said?

Yeah.

So it’s like a logical fallacy?

Well, yeah in the sense that, Ill tell you what happens. Theres a conflation of the moral imperative and the strategic imperative. In fact, its not even conflation, its substitution of moral imperative for a strategic imperative.

So what do you mean? We choose the one that our heart goes out to and imagine that they are the ones who have the answer?

Exactly. In a way, from an organizing standpoint, that often means that youre stacking the deck against yourself or picking, choosing, to focus on the populations that have the least in the way of resources, the least in the way of institutional capacity. Take a group like the Coalition of Immokalee Workers in Florida. Theyre really good organizers with good, sharp politics doing that work, and they understand that those workers are so weak in their market position that they cant assert power on their own against the owners. Theyre dependent on mobilizing middle-class consumers to bring pressure on the fast-food companies and supermarket chains to get the chains to get the growers to sign the accord. Its a clever approach for marginally, or maybe more than marginally, improving the conditions of these highly exploited workers. But you cant generalize from that to a strategy for political change.

So with labor, how is it going to happen? In my lifetime all theyve done is lose.

Well, theyve won some.

In the big picture…

No, thats right. Look, Ive spent upwards of 15 years working in an effort to build an independent political party thats anchored in the labor movement. I wouldnt say that a political party is the model. But I think that whats got to happen isand this may sound like doubletalk, but trust me, Im not a University of Chicago political theoristjust as a revitalizing trade union movement is essential for a grounding of a real left, a serious left is important for revitalizing the labor movement. There are a lot of leftists with serious politics in responsible positions in the labor movement. I dont just mean the rank and file fetishist guys. I mean people who are core leaders. And Im not talking necessarily about internationals, but at the district level. Big locals, and there are a lot of them around the country, who function in something like that old CIO social movement unionism capacity around the country now. . . . So theres stuff like that going on.

Let me ask you this. One of my hopes for Obama was card check. Remember, he had been in favor of that when he was a senator.

Well, no, he wasnt. He said he was. I had no illusions nor did anybody I know in the labor movement have any illusions that that was going to last. And it functioned kind of cynically, to be honest, as part of what union activists could point to to build a turnout that elected him and that also meant there was a tendency to exaggerate the significance of the E[mployee] F[ree] C[hoice] A[ct]. I mean, how many things did you read that touted it as the most important piece of labor legislation since the Wagner Act?

Well, I don’t know about that, but certainly there has to be some change in the playing field.

Yeah, and its certainly much better to have card check than not to have it. But the problems that confront the labor movement arent that simple. That would help around the edges but there are structural problems too, not the least of which is that the Democratic party said to go punt and treats the trade unions like a 3 a.m. booty call. They come by when they need the money


But that’s exactly right. I mean, how much longer can that go on?

I wonder. Yeah. I wonder.

Thomas Frank's most recent book is "Pity the Billionaire." He is also the author of "One Market Under God" and the founding editor of "The Baffler" magazine.