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:
September 18, 2018
Dean Baker
Getting It Wrong Again: Consumer Spending and the Great Recession
September 17, 2018
Melvin Goodman
What is to be Done?
Rob Urie
American Fascism
Patrick Cockburn
The Adults in the White House Trying to Save the US From Trump Are Just as Dangerous as He Is
Jeffrey St. Clair - Alexander Cockburn
The Long Fall of Bob Woodward: From Nixon’s Nemesis to Cheney’s Savoir
Mairead Maguire
Demonization of Russia in a New Cold War Era
Dean Baker
The Bank Bailout of 2008 was Unnecessary
Wim Laven
Hurricane Trump, Season 2
Yves Engler
Smearing Dimitri Lascaris
Ron Jacobs
From ROTC to Revolution and Beyond
Clark T. Scott
The Cannibals of Horsepower
Binoy Kampmark
A Traditional Right: Jimmie Åkesson and the Sweden Democrats
Laura Flanders
History Markers
Weekend Edition
September 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Carl Boggs
Obama’s Imperial Presidency
Joshua Frank
From CO2 to Methane, Trump’s Hurricane of Destruction
Jeffrey St. Clair
Maria’s Missing Dead
Andrew Levine
A Bulwark Against the Idiocy of Conservatives Like Brett Kavanaugh
T.J. Coles
Neil deGrasse Tyson: A Celebrity Salesman for the Military-Industrial-Complex
Jeff Ballinger
Nike and Colin Kaepernick: Fronting the Bigots’ Team
David Rosen
Why Stop at Roe? How “Settled Law” Can be Overturned
Gary Olson
Pope Francis and the Battle Over Cultural Terrain
Nick Pemberton
Donald The Victim: A Product of Post-9/11 America
Ramzy Baroud
The Veiled Danger of the ‘Dead’ Oslo Accords
Kevin Martin
U.S. Support for the Bombing of Yemen to Continue
Robert Fisk
A Murder in Aleppo
Robert Hunziker
The Elite World Order in Jitters
Ben Dangl
After 9/11: The Staggering Economic and Human Cost of the War on Terror
Charles Pierson
Invade The Hague! Bolton vs. the ICC
Robert Fantina
Trump and Palestine
Daniel Warner
Hubris on and Off the Court
John Kendall Hawkins
Boning Up on Eternal Recurrence, Kubrick-style: “2001,” Revisited
Haydar Khan
Set Theory of the Left
Farhang Jahanpour
Fascism and Islamic Fundamentalism
Sandy Tolan
After Oslo: How Peace Became a Dirty Word in the Middle East
Nino Pagliccia
The United States’ Disregard for International Law is a Menace to Venezuela and Latin America
Peter Certo
Nobody in the White House is Part of The Resistance
Fizz Perkal
Prison Labor is Slave Labor and We Should Get Rid of It
RS Ahthion
Two Long-Standing American Traditions: Committing War Crimes & Ignoring International Law
Ralph Nader
Where is the Democrats’ Contract with America 2018?
George Wuerthner
The Threat to Montana’s Wilderness
Rev. William Alberts
The Normalizing of Immorality
Chuck Collins
The Wealth Hiding in Your Neighborhood
Russell Mokhiber
Facebook Dostoevsky Postman and the Demise of Deliberative Democracy
Arnold August
Cuba’s ‘Sonic Attacks’ vs Edinburgh University: The 40% Mystery
Luke Ruediger
Smoke, Haze and Hypocrisy at the BLM
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail