|
Hedges strikes me as someone who considers himself to be a righteous demagogue. People are like, "whoa slow down hedgey boy its not fascism its plutocracy" like he doesn't understand the difference. All he cares about is finding a way to radicalize the most people possible. e:which is a good thing imo Miltank fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Nov 9, 2014 |
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
'Fascism' being a contentless term for 'politics I don't like' by morons is a well-established and widely mocked stereotype though, so I don't think that strategy actually works. Just look at this thread. The OP tried to dismiss it as stooges of the system not liking his truth bombs but it's mostly people who agree with him asking him not to be and/or talk like a personality cultist. Maybe it works better on people not already familiar with the material.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I guess I don't perceive this processing towards nationalism... Isn't that kinda the point of the "corporate" part of the "Corporate Fascism?" That it has nothing to do with nationality? It's international vested interests. Their race or nationality is irrelevant. I would agree that authoritarian would be both less loaded and more accurate. But the point is the 21st century evolving of international corporate powers that can affect policy from Boston to Beijing, the Mediterranean to Montana. They are nationless, as far as policy goes. Some rich enough buy media sources on multiple continents to keep the message straight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
How fortunate! I've been reading "Death of the Liberal Class" lately (my first Hedges book). I could be totally off-base here, but I was under the impression that Hedges used fascism in the sense of "union of corporate and state power," rather than the "ideology of permanent violence" definition that seems to be more commonly used here. It might not be a very useful definition because it's so polarizing, though. The part of "Death" that I've found most interesting is his description of the rise of a kind of authoritarian, paternalistic liberalism and the connections he draws to the Wilson administration and the CPI. Growing up in an extremely liberal/left-ish household, I never understood the right-wing accusations of elitism that were bandied around in the public sphere. Sure, I could conceive of an authoritarian left (Bolshevism, etc.), but I just didn't see it in wishy-washy liberalism, so that's one of my big takeaways. Are there any works that people can suggest that talk more about the rift between liberals and the left in America? Also, what are the arguments (if any) against Hedges' reading of the historical record in this instance? The connections between the Wilson administration, the CPI, public relations, and mass culture seem pretty damning. Reading Hedges has inspired me, as a diehard socialist, to read more about left-anarchism. I'm not sure if that's good or bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
accusing someone of plagiarism for repeating themselves is a counter-revolutionary endorsement of intellectual property rights, the even-worse offspring of physical property rights sorry sedanchair its time for your show trial
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:accusing someone of plagiarism for repeating themselves is a counter-revolutionary endorsement of intellectual property rights, the even-worse offspring of physical property rights stabbinhobo for chairman of the vandguard party
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Kharol posted:How fortunate! I've been reading "Death of the Liberal Class" lately (my first Hedges book). That connection is the same one Glenn Beck makes repeatedly, and is the subject of at least one of his books.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:That connection is the same one Glenn Beck makes repeatedly, and is the subject of at least one of his books. Ah yes, noted historic scholar Glenn Beck. (not a dig at you, just felt appropo.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Chris Hedges believes that the propaganda US citizens were subjected to under the Wilson administration more or less broke the country.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Chris Hedges believes that the propaganda US citizens were subjected to under the Wilson administration more or less broke the country. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/05/27/glenn-beck-progressives-fight-for-american-hearts-and-minds/ "thanks largely to Glenn Beck, who in turn seems to have been influenced by a tiny cluster of academics at conservative outposts like Hillsdale College, Wilson has emerged as the Tea Party's No. 1 "President You Need to Hate," as he's described on the "Beck University" Web site," http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2010/10/hating_woodrow_wilson.html e: does Hedges list by name the propagandists responsible? Dilkington fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Nov 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:accusing someone of plagiarism for repeating themselves is a counter-revolutionary endorsement of intellectual property rights, the even-worse offspring of physical property rights Couldn't you sense my ambivalence?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I think the issue is simply about refining definitions, I think "Free Market Authoritarianism" is probably a better descriptor simply because Fascism in itself is such a unique form of ideology that is more than simply racist, militaristic and totalitarian state. ITT a poster thinks corporations want free markets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
free markets for the global underclass
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:That connection is the same one Glenn Beck makes repeatedly, and is the subject of at least one of his books. Broken clock syndrome? Nazis marched against the Iraq War, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:ITT a poster thinks corporations want free markets. It is a descriptor of their ideology not the actual result. Also no, a "free market" is never going to exist under any liberal system. Authoritarianism is the natural result of any free market ideology. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Nov 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Miltank posted:free markets for the global underclass What was so unique or awful about what Wilson, apparently, did? I would really rather not wade through a bunch of Glenn Beck poo poo, and what little I know does not stand out compared to the Red Scare of the turn of the century, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It is a descriptor of their ideology not the actual result. Its certainly the name they give their ideology but they're all protectionist as gently caress. I'd also disagree with whoever said earlier that Corporationistas have no ideology but money, for some thats certainly the case but there do certainly seem to be some "class conscious" ones actively suppressing democracy and markets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I believe the usual withering term our forefathers used was "Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor." Well he was a Democrat, pretty racist, a war time authoritarian and a interventionist, he also demanded a break from the past of international relations and at least established the beginning of how it is suppose to work in the modern era. That said, the most damning of all...the federal reserve was created under his administration and therefore deflationists absolutely loathe him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Well he was a Democrat, pretty racist, a war time authoritarian and a interventionist, he also demanded a break from the past of international relations and at least established the beginning of how it is suppose to work in the modern era.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Right but people are saying Wilson's propaganda did this. What was his propaganda which broke America? Or is it just the Fed thing? I think he specifically is referencing to his war time policies (the Espionage and Sedition acts), but I suspect the Fed itself has had been the implicit argument for a lot of his other critics. Libertarians and conspiracy junkies will always hate him the most because of the Fed, and the other stuff he did is sort of icing on the cake.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Who here has seen Hedges' interview with Wolin? http://youtu.be/YjfKosDBOzQ
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:That said, the most damning of all...the federal reserve was created under his administration and therefore deflationists absolutely loathe him. Whoa, whoa, deflationists? As in people who want deflation? Is this just a case of "inflation bad, therefore deflation good", or do they actually have some kind of theory backing it up?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:Whoa, whoa, deflationists? As in people who want deflation? Is this just a case of "inflation bad, therefore deflation good", or do they actually have some kind of theory backing it up? In a sense, yes. Lots of people from the Austrian school and its descendents are very concerned with inflation, to the point where they either are unaware of or downplay the dangers of deflation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
The wartime propaganda under Wilson was extreme, and coupled with the Espionage and Sedition acts, did an excellent job of squashing any protest. Any newspaper even vaguely opposing the war was censored (given that at the time, many newspapers were delivered by the postal service, government censorship had a huge impact). World War I drastically undermined many socialist and left organizations in the US (classically anti-war), and authorities used the new laws and tacit understanding to attack them and anyone else anti-war with impunity. Vigilante justice also became pretty big, especially given that authorities often did not investigate crimes against people against the war. In many areas, people were shamed, attacked, or even killed for opposing the war. There was a mood of utterly rabid patriotism On top of that, things that weren't even anti-war were censored because they could possibly undermine morale. For example, as the 1918 influenza epidemic began ravaging the country, there was either complete media silence on the issue, or newspapers constantly published that it was no big deal and would be over soon. Parades promoting war bonds were allowed to go through, even as scientists and doctors were calling for quarantines. Any quarantines that were eventually imposed came far too late.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Dengue_Fever posted:TLDR; Corporations control everything, including both parties. Therefore we should not get angry about or invest any energy in the farce of electoral politics. We should instead focus on building economies that exclude powerful, hierarchical corporations. To return more to the intent of the thread, which really should be less about Hedges specifically and more about combating the power of corporations, I want to disagree with eschewing elections. Participating in elections as a third party is indeed participating in a rigged game, but it's a game that a lot of everyday people pay attention to. Through participating in elections as an alternative to the two corporate parties, we can give voice to various demands or issues that are actually important. There are also unopposed candidates everywhere, especially at the state and local level, and we can drag them leftwards or even win. Elected offices can act as a platform from which to speak. Through building popular support on an issue and candidate, we also can begin to create organizations of people that can do more than win elections. I think that building alternative economies isn't a great solution. Corporations have immense access to resources and power, and if alternative economies ever become an actual threat, they'll use the state and political power to combat them. Then, you'll have to fight through civil disobedience, mass movements, and elections just like if you started with labor struggles or politics to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Through participating in elections as an alternative to the two corporate parties, we can give voice to various demands or issues that are actually important. History would tend to prove otherwise, except in cases where one main party was so weakened as to not run at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:History would tend to prove otherwise, except in cases where one main party was so weakened as to not run at all. I don't mean the third party will necessarily win (though occasionally they do) especially in lovely FPTP system awash with corporate money, but that they will change the conversation. The Democrats adopting the silver currency as their issue after the populist party gave voice to it is a rather famous one. A recent one would be Kshama Sawant and Socialist Alternative making a $15/hour minimum wage the focus of Seattle politics. It is not, unfortunately, a left-wing only phenomenon. The Tea Party has dragged the Republicans right on various issues too, after all. To be clear, elections should not be the goal of a third party or a movement, only another tactic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Couldn't you sense my ambivalence? look this is bigger than both of us now and an example must be made i'm pretty sure if you confess and apologize they'll only send you to a labor camp
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Wilson's propaganda machine was so powerful that pacifists, or even people who simply didn't enlist, were being dragged out of their beds at night by posses to be tarred, feathered, and hanged.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
The Walking Dad posted:Wilson's propaganda machine was so powerful that pacifists, or even people who simply didn't enlist, were being dragged out of their beds at night by posses to be tarred, feathered, and hanged. Did the people doing the tarring serve in the National Guard? How'd they get away with not being tarred?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
http://monthlyreview.org/2014/09/01/the-return-of-fascism-in-contemporary-capitalism/ Eh here is a thing that tries to expand on what the OP is trying to say. I saw it and I linked it to this thread, it neither is indicative of my personal beliefs nor am I endorsing it, but it makes a case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:To return more to the intent of the thread, which really should be less about Hedges specifically and more about combating the power of corporations, I want to disagree with eschewing elections. Participating in elections as a third party is indeed participating in a rigged game, but it's a game that a lot of everyday people pay attention to. Through participating in elections as an alternative to the two corporate parties, we can give voice to various demands or issues that are actually important. There are also unopposed candidates everywhere, especially at the state and local level, and we can drag them leftwards or even win. Elected offices can act as a platform from which to speak. Through building popular support on an issue and candidate, we also can begin to create organizations of people that can do more than win elections. I see your point, and it makes sense, giving voice to certain issues. But when we put energy into electoral politics we not only vote for the legitimacy of this or that candidate but also the electoral system itself. I don't think that most candidates and especially the system deserves a vote of confidence whatsoever. There are other ways to popularize messages, as OWS showed. In Alabama with racial discrimination in the sixties they had no political recourse; they had to use economic means. We are in the same boat today, except it's much bigger and covers a wider cross section of people, making it more difficult to organize. I do think, though, that the only way we will effect change is through hurting those who hold the most economic power economically through boycott or alternatives. It's just a matter of getting enough peopleon board.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:I don't mean the third party will necessarily win (though occasionally they do) especially in lovely FPTP system awash with corporate money, but that they will change the conversation. The Democrats adopting the silver currency as their issue after the populist party gave voice to it is a rather famous one. A recent one would be Kshama Sawant and Socialist Alternative making a $15/hour minimum wage the focus of Seattle politics. It is not, unfortunately, a left-wing only phenomenon. The Tea Party has dragged the Republicans right on various issues too, after all. I know what you're saying, you're still wrong. Third parties as a way to get a message across to a wider audience are not really ever successful. Socialist Alternative didn't make $15 an hour happen, Seattle is literally one of the most left leaning cities in the country and they were only pushed to it because of the SeaTac $15 an hour wage floor for most workers. Also the Tea Party is not a third party, you clown.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I know what you're saying, you're still wrong. Third parties as a way to get a message across to a wider audience are not really ever successful. Socialist Alternative was not the only factor in Seattle's minimum wage increase, but Kshama Sawant's campaign, which focused on $15 as its central issue, mobilized tens of thousands of people, and was able to defeat a 16-year incumbent Democrat on that issue, was very significant in pushing the Democrats in Seattle to support it. Another example to look at would be the role of the CCF/NDP in Canada in getting the Liberals to pass national public health care.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Rogue0071 posted:Socialist Alternative was not the only factor in Seattle's minimum wage increase, but Kshama Sawant's campaign, which focused on $15 as its central issue, mobilized tens of thousands of people, and was able to defeat a 16-year incumbent Democrat on that issue, was very significant in pushing the Democrats in Seattle to support it. Yeah, I think there is a rush to too easily dismiss Sawant when having a seat on the city council meant she look keep the issue in the limelight after the election. It very likely could have died, been delayed or been cut back farther than it did. Seattle is "liberal" at times but if anything has in more recent times far socially liberal more than it is has been economically left-leaning. There are plenty of libertarian/pro-business types out there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Rogue0071 posted:Socialist Alternative was not the only factor in Seattle's minimum wage increase, but Kshama Sawant's campaign, which focused on $15 as its central issue, mobilized tens of thousands of people, and was able to defeat a 16-year incumbent Democrat on that issue, was very significant in pushing the Democrats in Seattle to support it. Or the role of NDP in Canada to get Conservatives into government for the past how many years now? It feels like it must have been at least 8?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, I think there is a rush to too easily dismiss Sawant when having a seat on the city council meant she look keep the issue in the limelight after the election. It very likely could have died, been delayed or been cut back farther than it did. Yeah there's a bunch of leftists but there's a still a solidly "economically libertarian" group as well because of all the techies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Yeah there's a bunch of leftists but there's a still a solidly "economically libertarian" group as well because of all the techies. Yeah, and I also think Seattle just has more of a institutional pro-business lean, you have a lot of large companies in and around it that can push for a lot of influence and Seattle at this point it quite a wealthy town. Also, Washington State has a whole can be pretty right-leaning at times especially on economic issues even is Seattle is quite socially liberal. I actually thought it was quite a coup to get a law as strong as it was. It would be great if Portland could eventually get something similar, and even with the Democrats firmly holding every branch of government they probably aren't going to lift the state wide minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Or the role of NDP in Canada to get Conservatives into government for the past how many years now? It feels like it must have been at least 8? The Conservatives are in power because of the collapse of the federal Liberal Partty. While the NDP has played a role in the rise of Harper it doesn't make a lot of sense to single them out as the sole or primary cause of the Conservative government. It is true that in 2011 the NDP's surge in the polls split the anti-Conservative vote but that mostly reflects a really terrible campaign by a right wing Liberal party under the leadership of Michael Ignatieff. The NDP have been in existence since the 1960s and yet the only Conservative majority government in that time period until now was Mulroney in the 1980s. In other words the presence of a socialist third party in Canada's parliament has not been a structural guarantee of conservative victories. Instead our Liberal party has ruled us for most of that period, and meanwhile the NDP has played a crucial role in implementing universal healthcare. That isn't to say that the modern NDP hasn't made mistakes or that vote splitting is never an issue. However the implication that all the NDP is really doing is making it easier for the Conservatives to win is misleading. Your missing the fact that there is a deep structural change in Canadian society nicer way, driven by the decline of our manufacturing based Eastern establishment I. Quebec-Ontario and the rise of our Wstern energy producing provinces (most notably Alberta), as well as the decline of the once mighty Liberal party which relied on the dominance of Quebec-Ontario. For instance the Liberal party used to be the party of immigrants in Canada. In the last election cycle immigrants largely switched to the Conservatives, giving them the edge in a lot of seats in Ontario and especially the GTA that they couldn't have won otherwise. If you wanted to explain the Conservative majority due to a single factor then I'd say the switch in the "ethnic vote" in Ontario is a better explanation than the presence of a party to the left of the Liberals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, and I also think Seattle just has more of a institutional pro-business lean, you have a lot of large companies in and around it that can push for a lot of influence and Seattle at this point it quite a wealthy town. Also, Washington State has a whole can be pretty right-leaning at times especially on economic issues even is Seattle is quite socially liberal. I actually thought it was quite a coup to get a law as strong as it was. The rightward lean is pretty obvious, just look at the state's tax system. The most regressive in the country to an almost shocking degree even before you get into the fact that it's supposed to be a "blue state".
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2014 22:46
|
|