FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

A Concrete Agenda for Progressives

Photo by Timothy Krause | CC BY 2.0

The party system in the US is based on a false dichotomy between Neo-classical and Keynesian economics.  Republicans push for unrestricted corporate control of policy and the Democrats push for the same thing implemented in a softer, gentler fashion.  Both parties have been compromised by corporate money into accepting the same ultimate goals; so anyone telling you that you must support the lesser of two evils in this system – as Bill Maher has recently been rabbiting on about – is arguing for corporate control of the country.  Whether he’s a Democrat or Republican only indicates how fast his choice will push us down that road, and a faster tack might be more likely to provoke an effective response than the slower, boiling frogs approach.

Of course, this false dualism currently fuelling the drive to further levels of oligarchic control is based on a shared dogmatic, even religious, conception of capitalism as the only valid mechanism for distributing wealth.  According to this credo, class can be safely ignored since the gates of prosperity are open to everyone (leaving us free to crap on anyone without a job since it must be their own choice), and a top-down flow of authority is assured by limiting democratic participation to a carefully devised two-party political system and banishing it from the workplace.  A more comprehensive dualism would balance the current top-down approach against a bottom-up approach.  But what would that bottom-up approach look like?

The difficulty in defining what this bottom-up, ‘progressive’ approach is concretely can be traced back to the deceptively obvious observation of 19th century British novelist, Anthony Trollope, that conservatives (using the traditional meaning of the word) will always be able to rally around a common goal: maintaining the status quo.  Liberals can agree on what they’re against but are forever arguing with each other about what they’re for.  And even when significant numbers of people manage to unite behind efforts to find an alternative to accepted dogma, the status quo has been able to divide, co-opt and eventually quash these movements.

On the right, Trump’s promise to the disaffected that he is the champion of an anti-establishment solution to their woes has been shown to be a lie by his capitulation to any and all corporate interests.  Sanders’ caving in to the Russia-gate nonsense, his support of Zionist geopolitical calculations, and his general acquiescence to the Democratic party indicates just how far the progressive left has been swallowed up by the two-party political machine.  Both these movements on the left and right have provided tantalising views of how things might be changed, but they were both murdered in the cradle; and this demonstrates that a political solution in the current environment is probably doomed to failure.

Perhaps if we manage to avoid a major war long enough, political options may become viable as the ranks of the disaffected grow; but in the meantime anti-establishment movements on the right and left must do a better job of elaborating comprehensive bottom-up policies they can both agree on.  And this gets us back to the economic solutions that are and aren’t allowed to be considered in polite society.

The current choice presented to Americans is limited by a failure to come to terms with capitalism’s failings.  Since Marx elaborated the first comprehensive, convincing critique, supporters of the status quo have managed to prevent honest discussion of capitalism’s drawbacks by demonising the man and all historic attempts to reform economies in his name.  But simply because there are still disadvantaged people in Cuba is no reason to adhere to an unquestioning acceptance of capitalism.  This unfortunately is the logic of the establishment’s refusal to consider or even teach alternative means of wealth distribution and class consideration.  And it’s what has created the preconditions for oligarchic takeover we’re now experiencing.

From a theoretical perspective, a party supporting bottom-up policy formulation, an extension of democracy to the workplace, …etc. is needed to represent the economic losers in the current system.  Balanced against an establishment Dem/GOP alternative, such a party would reflect the real economic and class conflicts in society.  The practical challenges of establishing such a party or movement, however, must be better understood in order to be overcome.  Otherwise we’ll end up with another  politician raising people’s hopes only to dash them as he is ground to bits by the machine.

The most immediate challenge is the establishment driving wedges to divide and co-opt the new movement.  To counter this, a clear set of basic principles must be established: something like what Alain Badiou – former chair of Philosophy at the École normale supérieure (ENS) – formulated with his four principles.  This will provide an objective measure that the new platform and anyone claiming to represent it can be judged against.

But the biggest challenge is the unwillingness of people to assume the responsibility that a bottom-up approach requires.  They will not be convinced by intellectuals setting themselves above them spouting pretty theories, and they won’t act if they don’t see anything concrete in it for them.  Bernie Sanders’ campaign promises showed that people are willing to be convinced, but that convincing will involve demonstrating that alternative ways of doing things will work for people.  Strengthening alternative news outlets and undermining mainstream media will help by opening people up to analysis and narratives that better explain the reality they’re experiencing.  Becoming involved in efforts to promote Democracy in the workplace will show that worker-owned companies can compete successfully while offering a higher standard of living to their employees.  These and many other initiatives need to be elaborated once the basic set of principles has been established, and through their evolution and success (as well as the growing ranks of the disaffected), people’s unwillingness will gradually dissolve.

All this work needs to begin now.  And we don’t need to wait for a leader to push it forward.  It just requires concerned people to start communicating and formulating a plan.

More articles by:

December 10, 2018
Jacques R. Pauwels
Foreign Interventions in Revolutionary Russia
Richard Klin
The Disasters of War
Katie Fite
Rebranding Bundy
Gary Olson
A Few Thoughts on Politics and Personal Identity
Patrick Cockburn
Brexit Britain’s Crisis of Self-Confidence Will Only End in Tears and Rising Nationalism
Andrew Moss
Undocumented Citizen
Dean Baker
Trump and China: Going With Patent Holders Against Workers
Lawrence Wittner
Reviving the Nuclear Disarmament Movement: a Practical Proposal
Dan Siegel
Thoughts on the 2018 Elections and Beyond
Thomas Knapp
Election 2020: I Can Smell the Dumpster Fires Already
Weekend Edition
December 07, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Steve Hendricks
What If We Just Buy Off Big Fossil Fuel? A Novel Plan to Mitigate the Climate Calamity
Jeffrey St. Clair
Cancer as Weapon: Poppy Bush’s Radioactive War on Iraq
Paul Street
The McCain and Bush Death Tours: Establishment Rituals in How to be a Proper Ruler
Jason Hirthler
Laws of the Jungle: The Free Market and the Continuity of Change
Ajamu Baraka
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at 70: Time to De-Colonize Human Rights!
Andrew Levine
Thoughts on Strategy for a Left Opposition
Jennifer Matsui
Dead of Night Redux: A Zombie Rises, A Spook Falls
Rob Urie
Degrowth: Toward a Green Revolution
Binoy Kampmark
The Bomb that Did Not Detonate: Julian Assange, Manafort and The Guardian
Robert Hunziker
The Deathly Insect Dilemma
Robert Fisk
Spare Me the American Tears for the Murder of Jamal Khashoggi
Joseph Natoli
Tribal Justice
Ron Jacobs
Getting Pushed Off the Capitalist Cliff
Macdonald Stainsby
Unist’ot’en Camp is Under Threat in Northern Canada
Senator Tom Harkin
Questions for Vice-President Bush on Posada Carriles
W. T. Whitney
Two Years and Colombia’s Peace Agreement is in Shreds
Ron Jacobs
Getting Pushed Off the Capitalist Cliff
Ramzy Baroud
The Conspiracy Against Refugees
David Rosen
The Swamp Stinks: Trump & Washington’s Rot
Raouf Halaby
Wall-to-Wall Whitewashing
Daniel Falcone
Noam Chomsky Turns 90
Dean Baker
An Inverted Bond Yield Curve: Is a Recession Coming?
Nick Pemberton
The Case For Chuck Mertz (Not Noam Chomsky) as America’s Leading Intellectual
Ralph Nader
New Book about Ethics and Whistleblowing for Engineers Affects Us All!
Dan Kovalik
The Return of the Nicaraguan Contras, and the Rise of the Pro-Contra Left
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Exposing the Crimes of the CIAs Fair-Haired Boy, Paul Kagame, and the Rwandan Patriotic Front
Jasmine Aguilera
Lessons From South of the Border
Manuel García, Jr.
A Formula for U.S. Election Outcomes
Sam Pizzigati
Drug Company Execs Make Millions Misleading Cancer Patients. Here’s One Way to Stop Them
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Agriculture as Wrong Turn
James McEnteer
And That’s The Way It Is: Essential Journalism Books of 2018
Chris Gilbert
Biplav’s Communist Party of Nepal on the Move: Dispatch by a Far-Flung Bolivarian
Judith Deutsch
Siloed Thinking, Climate, and Disposable People: COP 24 and Our Discontent
Jill Richardson
Republicans Don’t Want Your Vote to Count
John Feffer
‘Get Me Outta Here’: Trump Turns the G20 into the G19
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail