Monday, August 25, 2008

The Olympics are Finally Over

Here are a few reflections on the Beijing Olympics. Across the political spectrum many bloggers, mainstream commentators, and even late night television comedians have (to their great credit) been blunt in their condemnation of this farce. I hope there is a special circle within the Inferno for the International Olympic Committee. We've all heard the baloney about the how the games would help to improve China's record on civil liberties ... dream on. The Boston Globe put it this way:

"The Games have certainly had a lasting effect on one part of Chinese society - the 1.5 million men, women, and children expelled from their homes in Beijing to make room for the construction of Olympic facilities and urban beautification projects. To clear them out, the Geneva-based Center on Housing Rights and Evictions found, Chinese authorities resorted to "harassment, repression, imprisonment, and even violence." Demolitions and evictions frequently occurred without due process. Many dispossessed residents were not compensated; those who were usually received a fraction of the amount needed to make them whole."


"Beijing skies are so polluted that Chinese authorities are planning emergency measures for the Olympics. For example, protesters will now only be run over with hybrid tanks."
Jay Leno

The Olympics are over. At least we won't have to look at those ugly "cute" avatars that Google has attached to its search engine page. Little pictures of bunnies and ponies will not hide the fact the Beijing Olympics was a propaganda vehicle for a totalitarian government. Check About.com for more Beijing jokes. The games may be history but the dictatorship soldiers on. One local note: I have yet to see much in the way of criticism from Regina's local paper the "Leader Post" on the Beijing Olympics. Well what would you expect from a paper where a former editor and sports writer, years ago, remarked that "legality equals morality"?

"China has announced that during the Olympics, protesters will be allowed to assemble in designated protest areas. Yeah. Or, as they're commonly called in China, jails."
Conan O'Brien

Here is Amnesty International's summary of the so-called improvements in human rights in China. How about jailing an elderly woman who tried to make use of the official "protest" sites near Beijing or an activist like
Ye Guozhu who was held in police custody during the Olympics after already completing a four-year prison sentence in connection with his attempts to draw public attention to alleged forced evictions in Beijing due to Olympics-related construction? Amnesty received reliable reports that police beat him with electroshock batons before his trial and he was subjected to further beatings in prison. AI's branch in Australia had this to say:

China, which has more Internet users than any other country, has the most extensive, technologically sophisticated and broad-reaching Internet filtering system in the world.

And the major overseas Internet companies operating in China – Yahoo!, Microsoft and Google - have, in one way or another, facilitated or colluded with the Government’s censorship practices.

Yahoo! has given authorities confidential information about its users; Microsoft admitted shutting down a blog because of a Government request; and Google has launched a censored Chinese version of its international search engine. (I've tried various "bounce" tests using the Chinese version of Google and this and other blogs to see if these can be reached from inside the "Great Firewall". It's an "on again, off again" experience. During the last two weeks there was some improvements though I don't expect this to last).

Policies ignored

All three companies have shown a disregard for some of their own policies. They made promises to themselves, their employees, their customers and their investors; it is questionable as to whether they are upholding these promises in China’s environment of huge profits and Government requests.

In defending their actions in China; Yahoo!, Microsoft and Google say they’re obliged to comply with local law. And they argue although it’s not an ideal situation, their presence in China has a positive influence. They say even if they weren’t operating in China there would still be censorship, and that censored information is better than no information.

Sanctioning censorship

But China has had the Internet for more than a decade, which means these companies can no longer be considered to be helping bring a new technology to China. Instead, they are trying to gain an increasing share of a rapidly growing market, with the knowledge that it will expand without or without them.

Effectively their actions are facilitating and sanctioning censorship rather than challenging it.

Read more about Yahoo!, the first major foreign Internet company to enter the Chinese market, Microsoft, which has the best access to the upper echelons of the Chinese Government, and Google, which set up the Chinese version of its search engine relatively recently.


Monday, August 04, 2008

Gruesome Murder on Canadian Greyhound

Yet another story from the peaceable kingdom. Most of the world knows about this one by now judging from the results on google. The allegations and theories are flowing fast and furious. The loony was a "schizophrenic" as if that tells us ANYTHING. Sort of like saying the "nut was a nut". One site claims that the sleazy hollywood movie, a remake of an old TV show called "Zorro" , shown on the bus caused the problem. Something about a villain keeping somebody's head in a jar. That one's probably no worse then some of them. Apparently the scumbag did have a history of paranoia like going off on bus trips to "buy land" even though he had no money. The only thing he said, after appearing in court for an arraignment, was to the judge "Please Kill Me". Well he'll probably get something worse than death in some "mental health" facility though I doubt this will be any consolation to Tim McLean's family and friends. Below the picture is an item I posted on my own blog.
>><<
The general level of violence in western Canada has always been higher than the national average but this story still seems unbelievable. Last Wednesday night near Portage La Prairie, Manitoba, on a greyhound bus, one of the passengers a 22 year old was murdered apparently for no reason. Tim McLean was on his way home to Winnipeg. He was listening to music and sleeping in his seat when he was stabbed to death and then decapitated by Vince Weignuang Li. Both originated from Edmonton. The mass media is peddling this story as the latest "hot" item and the sickening details are now available to anyone capable of using a search engine. There are now eighteen facebook groups set up for the victim. One of these has seventy-two thousand members. News agencies and comment trails are producing predictable results. The usual mainstream stuff includes ghoulish interviews with passengers along the lines of "how did it feel". Some normal people are calling for more policing of passengers, metal detectors on buses (maybe a good idea) while others make reasonable observations about the costs associated with an airport style "security state". This would be difficult ... travelling on the bus is an informal business. The "dog" stops at many small towns, most without a bus depot ... sometimes it's just a gasoline station or a wider spot along a highway. Passengers tend to be working class people, students and the young. The relative low cost of bus travel makes this the only affordable means for many of these people. The bus drivers union wants greater security but admits the costs associated with this would be resisted by the companies. Using cameras on buses has been suggested but, as in the case with England where video surveillance is at Orwellian levels, there is really no proof this would be helpful. A few people have suggested putting guards on buses. It used to be common practice to have conductors on urban transit buses. Simply having someone walking around the bus, selling tickets, making sure that passengers were on safely, etc was considered a normal procedure in the past! When I travelled in the UK in the nineteen sixties the common sense view was still that the driver did nothing other than control the bus!! The conductor signalled when to stop/start and otherwise looked after things. The expense of a "permanent" passenger, possibly armed, on interurban schedules shouldn't be that much. And just the suspicion that there is some "big guy" at the back of the bus with a nine millimetre under his coat might be a restraining factor on the nutbars who seem to be attracted to this vulnerable form of transport. The cops wouldn't like this very much since they want to maintain their monopoly on "deadly force". What was interesting was the relative common sense displayed by passengers, the driver and a passing truck driver who stopped to help. Passengers ran off the bus and despite their fear were able to help the two professional drivers keep the loony-tune locked inside the bus until the police showed up. The murderer tried to take off with the bus but the driver managed to disable the engine (mounted in the rear fortunately). Quick thinking.
>><<

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Tributes Coming in for Construction Worker ... Dead at Fifteen Years

This story doesn't have much direct bearing on our current "topic" of discussion ... the general failure of C of A. But tales from everyday life might help us to see more clearly what is wrong with this world and perhaps " speak peace unto" those who claim a desire to improve things. Anyway it's hard to forget something as awful as the construction site accident that killed Andrew James at Stony Mountain, Manitoba, Canada. This is a small community north of the provincial capital of Manitoba which is known throughout the Great White North for its single industry ... a jail! James was buried under a truckload of asphalt which came down from a truck where the load wasn't secured correctly to restrict the flow. The teenager had just turned fifteen a week before the accident. Manitoba labour laws forbid anyone under sixteen working on construction sites. Most industrial accidents involve younger workers who lack the skill to avoid injury. I've known younger labourers who have been in some near misses. As one of them told me this is the reason older workers seem to be kind of slackass at times ... you know "the four city workers watching one guy shoveling" story. Back in the sixties my first job involved working for the city of Regina waterworks department. On payday afternoons our foreman and crew of two used to spend the afternoon in the Romanian club redistributing our ill gotten gains for the greater glory of Molsons and Carlings breweries. BUT we were still one of the most productive crews on the payroll! Let's hear it for self-management/autogestion! Anyway there's at least a hundred listings under Google on this evil story. Here's one more from the Globe and Mail.


STONY MOUNTAIN, Man. — Tributes began flowing Saturday for a 15-year-old boy killed when he was buried under searing-hot asphalt on a job site the day before.

About 125 people had joined a tribute page dedicated to Andrew James on Facebook, a social networking website.

“I love you baby brother. I will see you again one day,” wrote his sister, Sabrina Ellison.

“He cared for everyone and was always there to lend a hand for anyone,” wrote Brittany Sulyma.

Other people wrote of the teen's strong work ethic and his ability to make people laugh. The page mentioned how James “loved the outdoors, especially camping with his papa.”

“You touched many lives, worked hard, and were a friend to many,” wrote his aunt, Kim Ellison. “We love you Andrew, and will miss you.”

James, who was too young to work on construction jobs under Manitoba labour laws, was part of a paving crew working on a parking lot in the Winnipeg bedroom community of Stony Mountain.

“I believe [the truck] dumped off way too much asphalt unexpectedly,” said Stony Mountain fire Chief Wallace Drysdale.

“I was one of the first members on scene and we just saw the hair sticking out of this individual. It was extremely hot asphalt. Our crews, when we were digging out, had to shuttle different members in and out in about four- or five-minute intervals because our feet were burning.”

Sunday, July 13, 2008


WHY ANARCHIST PROJECTS FAIL/PART 2-THE GENERATIONAL QUESTION:

The following is part 2 of 'Why Anarchist Projects Fail', copied from Molly's Blog. One hopes that it will not elicit defensive reactions from childish American Maoists as part 1 did.But who knows. Silly people such as that are not the real target that I intend to insult. They have condemned themselves to irrelevance already by their choice of cult, and I am much more interested in getting under the skin of people who are a "real threat" to the development of a realistic anarchism. So onwards..
........................

ANARCHIST THEORY;
WHY ANARCHIST PROJECTS FAIL PART 2/THE GENERATIONAL PROBLEM:
The medieval woodcut on the left by Cornelis Anthonisz depicts the 10 stages of life, from infancy to death. On the left a baby lies in a bed. On the right a man sits with his legs dangling over the grave. Each stage of life is accompanied by a representative animal. The symbolism is thought provoking, and we should examine the question of "generations" in the anarchist movement today in relation to "why anarchist projects fail". This is the second instalment in the series of "why anarchist projects fail".
...........................
To begin with there are very few countries in the world where there is a living continuity of generations in terms of anarchism. We are hardly in the situation of pre-Civil War Spain where families such as the Urales family passed their anarchism on from generation to generation. The conditions of modern totalitarianism, either fascist or communist, basically exterminated such families. In my own family I had a grand-uncle who fought with Nestor Makhno, but he was killed by the Nazis in his "refuge" of Germany after fleeing the Soviets(his family language of a mixture of French/German/Russian persuaded him that Germany was a good place to go to-silly guy). My mother became an anarchist in her old age after both studying Russian and reading Kropotkin. But still...my basic upbringing was left social democrat, as per the politics of my Irish father.This sort of upbringing made it actually quite easy to transit to the type of gradualist anarchism I hold to today.


Only France and Italy preserve the real continuity of anarchist generations, unaffected by mass extermination. When I visited Spain and the offices of the CNT in Barcelona there was a collection of quite elderly men in the "meeting room" in one section. The editor of Solidaridad Obrero was somewhat younger than me, and we tried to communicate through our mutually bad French. What I noticed was an absence of "middle-aged people" on the premises. The headquarters of the CGT in Barcelona was a little bit better, with a better mix of generations- but not by much. The youth of the staff was quite obvious. Well, and good. What does this mean, especially in the situation of most of the world where anarchists are overwhelmingly young, as in Canada.


Anarchism is in the throes of a revival, and it is to be expected that most of its adherents will be quite young. This has both its good points and its bad points. Let's travel through them.
..................................
THE SPRINGTIME OF ANARCHY:
People generally come to anarchism when they are quite young. This may be as little as 13 years. It may be as late as graduate school. The complaint that the vast majority of people who adopt anarchism as a younger age are not anarchist in a few years is actually quite ancient. Emma Goldman commented on it almost a century ago, and she waved it away (as she waved away so many things in her life-yes, Molly has never liked Goldman) with the snappy one-liner that "we have had the best of them". Insofar as this goes it is true, but it obscures many things.


When people first come to anarchism they usually infused with "the light of conversion". Their enthusiasm is boundless, but so are their expectations. They far too often imagine that all they have to do is present "the idea" , and huge numbers of people will flock to the banner. When this, inevitably, doesn't happen they are left with stark choices. One of them is to adopt a rational long-term view of the anarchist project. A small minority-the best- take up this option. They may adopt any number of long term strategies. One of the most popular today is the "platformist" option. Another is to simply wipe the whole commitment off their memory and go on to different things. This is the option of the vast majority of ex-anarchists. Their choice may indeed be rational, especially if they have seen the worst of the anarchist movement close up. A third, the worst option, is to take their emotional frustration as a guide to action and enter into what Molly calls "kindergarten terrorism" under the false assumption that more militant actions will impel the "masses" that initially rejected them to join them. A pretty silly delusion actually, as the vast majority of such wanna-be terrorists usually pick ideological positions that are rock solid guaranteed top be rejected by the ordinary person.

Whether it be the end of civilization or neo-Maoist nostalgia in terms of crime "in the name of" racial minorities the end result is the same. The ordinary person sees them as one more "urban nuisance", and applauds the police actions against them with the same emotions that they applaud city actions against other pests such as mosquitoes. The comparison is quite apt as the actions of such groups are on the level of "increased insect populations", not the "great threat to the rulers" that they imagine.


It is hardly surprising that "student anarchists" will rethink their ideological position after a few years. Their life situation is, of course, inherently unstable. For the majority it lasts 4 years, and then they go on to what is sadly called "reality". In developed countries the majority of young people attend some sort of "institution of higher learning", whether it be university or a technical college. It is there where they first meet anarchism, but it is an anarchism that is specific to their circumstances. It is rootless and ahistorical, lacking any long term perspective. It imagines great things can be accomplished in a tiny bit of time. Some will go on from this apprenticeship into the opportunities offered by the "established left" after their graduation. Insofar as they "remain anarchists" they will eternally compromise their original ideals.

Sometimes they will lie about such compromise and claim that they haven't changed their opinions at all. This tactic, traditionally associated with (ex)Trotskyists, depends upon the modern illusion that anarchism is no different from fashionable leftism. If Molly were to give a "corrective" to this I would suggest that every would-be "anarchist" adopt at least ONE position that is at variance with the leftist subculture and defend it vigorously. The actual content doesn't matter. The reaction of the leftists will be the education that is needed. Adopting such a position would provide a bridge to maintaining anarchist opinions in the world that faces a person "after graduation", if for no other reason that it would provide training in "being contrary".
THE HIGH NOON OF ANARCHISM:
As I said above there are very few "middle-aged" people active in anarchism in most countries today. This may be understandable as people enter their reproductive and career-building stage of life. Nobody who hasn't had children can appreciate the great, humongous time-sucking commitment that this requires. To be quite frank it is entirely understandable-and admirable in Molly's view- that the preservation of one's genetic heritage should take precedence over any political ideology, anarchism included. The alternative is a cancerous growth of belief that would lead to immense suffering, as the disastrous career of murderous Marxism has proven in the last century.


Still, it is sad that so few of our younger recruits manage to carry their anarchism on into their further life- beyond that they decide to extend their adolescence into middle age (cheered on by a tiny minority of evil people ensconced in the anarchist movement who encourage such actions for profit-you know the type). THIS is a failing that a mature anarchism will eventually correct. Whether it be by the gradual building of anarchosyndicalist unions that offer people an opportunity to carry their anarchism forward into the real world- something that is being done as we speak. Whether it be by the formulation of long term plans such as the platformists are trying to do today. Whether it be by the gradual growth of other anarchist alternatives that aim for long term growth. All these things come together, and they are considerations that anarchists should think about if they are not enraptured with the illusion of "revolution" or, worse, simply sticking their finger up the nose of ordinary people as certain primitivist and "post-leftist" sectarians do.
THE AUTUMN OF ANARCHY:
We all eventually reach this point, and many who first came to anarchism in the late 60s/early 70s, have done so already. Such is Molly's sad situation. As such she gets to observe such atrocities as "presumed elders" of the anarchist movement who have been alive less than the time that she has been active advocating the continuation of silly, self destructive tactics that, incidentally, will rebound to the financial benefit of the advocates. The advantage of age is to be able to cynically recognize crooks because one has seen their like dozens of times before. The disadvantage is that we get stuck in the thought patterns of our youth. Memory is not thought. It may be an advantage to recognize patterns that were great and gross failures before, and the same "justifications" that are offered for them today which are the same as those offered years ago. The example of "kindergarten terrorism" was mentioned before.


What is sad is that there is little "opportunity" offered for older people in anarchism today. Most older anarchists, when retirement finally comes about, immerse themselves in the struggles of ordinary people that have little connection to anarchism. In some ways this is a great thing, as they carry the struggle into exactly where it should be, amongst people that younger anarchists are often too snotty to approach. The gradual growth of anarchism means that there will be an increasing number of such people who will spread the anarchist idea in a much more efficient way than flashy demonstrations can. But it is still sad that there is so little interchange between this older generation-who now exist in greater numbers than they did when I first became an anarchist-and the younger people who come to anarchism imagining that it was invented with punk rock.


So what does this mean in terms of "why anarchist projects fail" ? The limitations of projects initiated by younger people whose life situations are inherently unstable should be obvious. To make them survive the "graduation" of their founders requires exquisite planning that often-usually- is not possible. The limitations of anarchism in "middle-age" are also obvious, and they will only be overcome by gradual growth, something that younger people don't see as necessary. As to older anarchists one may say that they should very much carry on as they do now, but perhaps they should make a greater effort to reach out to (and if necessary argue with) younger anarchists who are in need of their experience.
Labels: , ,

Friday, July 11, 2008


WHY ANARCHIST PROJECTS FAIL:
This project has obviously failed, and there is little doubt that the reasons are many. But it has, at least, inspired me to start a series over at Molly's Blog about the subject of why, in general, anarchist projects have such short life spans. Sometimes this may not be such a bad thing. The following is copied from Molly's Blog as installment # 1.
................................
WHY ANARCHIST PROJECTS FAIL-PART ONE:
This series of posts has been inspired by the recent lack of interest in The Carnival of Anarchy, an attempt at a "blog carnival" dealing with this, that and the other thing revolving around the subject of anarchism. This first installment will hardly be applicable to the CoA, but others in the future may be.

Molly has been playing this game since the early 70s, and she has certainly seen her share of "ex-anarchists". Most of these can be put into the "bought-off" slot. It is entirely possible that anarchism is very much like Trotskyism and the Jehovah's Witnesses in that there are far more ex-members of these two groups than there are present members(by perhaps a factor of 10 to 1 at any given time), and this has been true for many decades. It is also possible that the basic outflow is the same. In the case of the Trots this is obviously true as the "general left" affords infinitely more career possibilities, whether they be in social democracy, the unions, the NGOs or whatever, than Leninist sectarianism offers. There is also little-or none- barrier to a Trot becoming an ex-Trot and still believing that he or she hasn't changed his or her beliefs at all. One would assume that there should be a "crisis of conscience" when anarchists get bought off in this manner, but our present situation is quite different from that when Molly first became an anarchist back in the Mesozoic. The advantage that anarchism has gained by basically becoming the ultra-left has been bought at the cost of the dilution of what anarchism means. It is entirely possible that an anarchist could as easily become a functionary today as Trots have always been able to do. But there are worse things to become than a sell-out.

The grossest example of this was perhaps provided by the disintegration of the late (and unlamented-in Molly's view) Love and Rage Federation. The decision to "sell out" is actually an act of intelligence, with a rational calculation of self interest as its basis. The decision to go from one leftist sectarian organization to another of considerably less intelligence, moral rectitude, aesthetic appeal, sophistication, etc. is another matter entirely. This is neither rational nor intelligent. In particular it depends upon a lack of what Molly styles as "emotional intelligence" which is something quite separate from "book-learning" (often quite superficial amongst leftists) or even common sense(though a good modicum of common sense should provide a barrier to such religious impulses). It has to be admitted that many of the people who initially joined Love and Rage were quite juvenile to begin with, and that set the stage for the organization's eventual disintegration. The "left" that they couldn't see was different from anarchism was far different from the left of our day. The Maoist illusions, particularly in the USA, were far more prevalent than they are today, and they were reinforced by a sort of cultish guilt-mongering that, while it still exists today-once more especially in the USA-is far weaker today. The brutish decision of some of the split-offs from Love and Rage to adopt neo-Maoism as an ideology or to hanker after a cultish religion of "race-politics" would hardly be repeated today except in the worst shadowy corners of modern anarchism. The majority are now immune to such bizarre delusions, because of the march of history.

Anarchism has certainly produced its own share of monsters over its history, but I cannot think of anything so ultimately silly as what some of Love and Rage became. Other examples such as the advocacy of Spaniards such as PestaƱa with his Syndicalist Party and Garcia Oliver's eventual conversion to conspiratorial quasi-Leninist politics at least preserved some connection to reality. Going from anarchism to Maoism is no such thing. One can be comforted that such stillbirths are very much dependent upon their national milieu, and they will hardly be common outside of the USA.

So...stick with us as we explore the question of "why anarchist projects fail" in greater length in future posts.

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Where Has Everyone Gone?


The Kitty Says It All

Monday, June 09, 2008

Positive Freedom vs Negative Freedom

Should we make this our June topic?

Friday, May 09, 2008

In Light of the Debate on Single Payer...

I thought I'd post this:

Part of the problem with the chart for friends of liberty may be that
libertarian socialists tend to view positive freedom as important too.
They feel that having access to the material necessities of existence
is part and parcel of being able to flourish as a unique individual.

And they are more likely to chastise individuals they feel are
hoarding resources, and thus forcing others to obey their whims/meet
the standards of others, so that they can gain access to them.

The classical "socialist anarchists" (a term that would be considered
redundant by them) argued that capitalism was a system of domination,
because you had to mold yourself to the wishes of a controlling boss,
so that you could survive.

Nowadays, there are people influenced by Rothbard (the anarchist of
right-libertarianis
m) who are trying to take seriously this tradition.
Roderick Long, Charles Johnson, and Kevin Carson are just three names
that make up The Alliance of the Libertarian Left.

My local comrade Brad Spangler, and I are members of it too.

Check us out at http://all-left.net/

The interesting thing about me is that I was reading Noam Chomsky
before I was reading Murray Rothbard. I was an anti-state
anti-capitalist Emma Goldman loving rabble rouser in my teen years

( :

At age 15, I was marching with the black bloc against the IMF-World
Bank meetings in D.C.

I had a big red and black anarcho-syndicalist flag.

I am not trying to say "look at my ego here". I am just telling what
is hopefully an interesting bit of my personal history.

Anyway, I am off to a anti-drug war meeting!

Cheers,

"Nick"

Libertarian socialists tend to attack hierarchy across the board and have more concern for positive freedom.

Libertarian capitalists tend to focus on coercion and have more concern for negative freedom.

Neither always thinks the other has any right to use the libertarian label.

Emma Goldman says:


Direct action, having proven effective along economic lines, is equally potent in the environment of the individual. There a hundred forces encroach upon his being, and only persistent resistance to them will finally set him free. Direct action against the authority in the shop, direct action against the authority of the law, direct action against the invasive, meddlesome authority of our moral code, is the logical, consistent method of Anarchism.
Emma Goldman also says:
For true liberty is not a mere scrap of paper called ''constitution,'' "legal right'' or "law." It is not an abstraction derived from the non-reality known as "the State." It is not the negative thing of being free from something, because with such freedom you may starve to death. Real freedom, true liberty is positive: it is freedom to something; it is the liberty to be, to do; in short, the liberty of actual and active opportunity.


You can see that Emma considers anarchism to be a philosophy that is broadly concerned with authority and hierarchy. And she doesn't limit the achievement of freedom to opposing the state's attempts to thwart negative freedom. The folks on here arguing for single payer as the best of statist worlds are doing so in the spirit of positive freedom.

Or so I think. Tell me if I am wrong!

Thursday, May 08, 2008

You Are The Patient, I Am The Real Person

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Health and Single Payer in the United States

In the spirit of our subject here below is an item from Scientific American, March 31/08, outlining that for the first time the majority of doctors in the United States now support a national health service or "single-payer" as it is called here in Canada. Of course this is hardly anarchism but it demonstrates that sanity is beginning to take hold down south among thinking people. Whether this will lead to a kind of "rational authoritarianism" (as opposed to the current quasi-theocracy) built along the lines of current European practice remains to be seen. My guess is that an American social democracy will be at best inspired by a "gradualist" social gospel in the tradition of Martin Luther King. But this possible train of events could depend on many things. If the United States continues to decline economically then things could get uglier. A welfare state is no guarantee of civil liberties as experience in the United Kingdom has demonstrated although is it also true the decline of liberty in England has gone in step with the weakening of reasonable state services like the NHS. Germany had state medicare with total coverage for "citizens"beginning in 1935. My "second approximation", and hope, is that an American NHS would be a cadillac service which Americans would come to see as a moral equivalent to their post office ... and last I heard the US postal service is fairly well regarded by citizens.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday. The survey suggests that opinions have changed substantially since the last survey in 2002 and as the country debates serious changes to the health care system. Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed, 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it, researchers reported in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. The 2002 survey found that 49 percent of physicians supported national health insurance and 40 percent opposed it. "Many claim to speak for physicians and represent their views. We asked doctors directly and found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, most doctors support national health insurance," said Dr. Aaron Carroll of the Indiana University School of Medicine, who led the study. "As doctors, we find that our patients suffer because of increasing deductibles, co-payments, and restrictions on patient care," said Dr. Ronald Ackermann, who worked on the study with Carroll. "More and more, physicians are turning to national health insurance as a solution to this problem."


PATCHWORK

The United States has no single organized health care system. Instead it relies on a patchwork of insurance provided by the federal and state governments to the elderly, poor, disabled and to some children, along with private insurance and employer-sponsored plans. Many other countries have national plans, including Britain, France and Canada, and several studies have shown the United States spends more per capita on health care, without achieving better results for patients. An estimated 47 million people have no insurance coverage at all, meaning they must pay out of their pockets for health care or skip it. Contenders in the election for president in November all have proposed various changes, but none of the major party candidates has called for a fully national health plan. Insurance companies, retailers and other employers have joined forces with unions and other interest groups to propose their own plans. "Across the board, more physicians feel that our fragmented and for-profit insurance system is obstructing good patient care, and a majority now support national insurance as the remedy," Ackermann said in a statement. The Indiana survey found that 83 percent of psychiatrists, 69 percent of emergency medicine specialists, 65 percent of pediatricians, 64 percent of internists, 60 percent of family physicians and 55 percent of general surgeons favor a national health insurance plan.

A Short Rebuttal of Hobbes

Freedom, Democracy and the Delusions of Power

For all his faults and the faults of the endeavour he was involved with, Jefferson was right on the essential point, in terms of political theory, which is the rebuttal that lays waste to Hobbes, the fantasy which still imprisons our minds and world, and that is: "If you can't trust men to govern themselves, how can you trust them to govern others?"

The core premise that I am addressing, the premise that you can't trust human beings, is the root of the Hobbsian fallacy. There are strong reasons to disagree with this premise, and I do, but let’s accept it for the moment for the sake of argument. Assuming, for the moment, that you can't trust people, who then, do you propose to govern people? The argument put forth by Hobbes, and accepted by so many scholars, politicians and business men, though it is clearly ridiculous, is this. You say you don't trust people, therefore you give some people enormous power. This should strike us as patently absurd, if not simply delusional. If you do not trust people with a little power, the power over their own lives, then why would you entrust them with overwhelming great power? Is not Lord Acton more sensible here? “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I think there is a great deal of confusion surrounding the issues of power in society, and the implications - as we have seen in Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, China, Russia, Cambodia, and across the "Third World" in so many brutal, soulless, self-serving dictatorships - are extreme.

It seems to me that if you are afraid of people, if you take it as a basic assumption that you cannot trust people, then you have basically two choices - assuming there is no place to go to get away from people, or that you choose not to do so.

One choice, is the path of Hobbes: seek, cozy up to, or align yourself with some great power, in order to feel safe(r). But as we saw with Stalin, to name just one example, cozying up to power is no guarantee of protection, and as we see in all dictatorships or tyrannical regimes, of either right or left, seeking the protection of such powers leaves one in great danger from the very same powers. And seeking power oneself, when it is not a cozying up as a courtesan underling, or a mousy tugging at the coat tail for protection from above; when it is a grasping at the highest level of power, ie: becoming top dog oneself, this too is fraught with the greatest of danger, both from external and internal threats. The latter course leads generally to a life of paranoia, as it is always a reality that such power is impossible to guarantee, and even powerful emperors and empires fall to dust, invariably.

Therefore, the three variations on the first strategy - seek, serve/cozy up to, or align with a great power, is totally unreliable, and cannot ensure safety - far from it. In fact, this strategy opens the doors to even greater dangers.

The alternative to looking to power - your own or someone else's - to protect oneself, which is the essence of the Hobbesian hypnosis, or delusion, is to disarm - both oneself and others. This is what Jefferson aimed to do, I would say. And this is the basic premise of classical liberal democracy. (Jefferson was simply more coherent and consistent with regard to such views than many others at the time or since – though he too had his contradictions.)

To make an analogy: if you are afraid of people, you can get a gun - better yet, become a mob boss, a big gun - or you can lick the boots of the mob boss who has the guns, hoping he'll protect you, and won't get angry for some unforeseen reason one day and feed you to his dog. This is basically the power-seeking/power cozying-up/protect me mister powerful man set of patterns. Become a mob boss, or lick the boots, or whatever else is required, of the mob boss, and hope this strategy keeps you safe. It doesn't. And moreover, it should be repulsive to anyone to do either.

The alternative to becoming a mob boss, or licking the boots of the mob boss, is to eliminate the mob bosses - to disarm the threat. This is the basic gist of constitutional democracy, when intelligently applied, and particularly to that more robust form of constitutional democracy which is Jeffersonian democracy. Do not seek to gather power or align with centers of power, but rather, seek to distribute power and empower all, so that none have such excessive power that it could easily be abused.

To make another analogy, in a world where you perceive danger everywhere, as Hobbes did, you can start an arms race, hoping that great power will protect you, or you can work toward mutual disarmament. The former path is the one we have been on for some millennia now, and it has been a path of disaster. At this time, our weapons have grown so powerful that to continue down this path is a virtual guarantee of self-annihilation. The path of mutual disarmament is now the only viable path for human survival. This applies not only to the obvious aspects of disarmament, such as the universal elimination of all weapons of mass destruction, but to the more essential point of dissolving excessive concentrations of power in society, distributing power more broadly, and empowering all in equality, so that none have the means to terrorize or oppress others. Jefferson thus was far more sensible, more rational, and simply more sane than Hobbes.

Ultimately, the kind of elitist thinking which Plato and Hobbes represent, forms the basis of both feudal and fascist orders. Liberal democracy is antithetical to such notions, and libertarianism - left libertarianism, to be clear – is the most consistent application of this line of thinking which rejects elitist and authoritarian social structures. This is where Jefferson, for example, intersects with Chomsky. Jefferson understood the need to keep power decentralized politically in order to prevent its abuse, and understood equally well the need to place firm checks and limits on the powers of corporations, and what he called “the new monied aristocracy.” Jefferson, were he alive today, would be aligned with the libertarian left.

Chomsky put it remarkably succinctly when he said, ultimately, “you’re either an aristocrat or a democrat.” In other words, you either believe in rule by an elite, or you believe in rule by the people. The monarchies and aristocracies of feudal times were forms of elitist rule. The Caesars and Pharaohs and Babylonian kings represented forms of elitist rule. The theocracies of the Ayatollah Khomeini or the Taliban were forms of elitist rule. The reign of local thugs and war lords in parts of Africa is a form of elitist rule. The regimes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mussolini and Hitler were forms of elitist rule. And the emerging de facto world government, as the leading business journal, the Financial Times calls it, seated in Davos, Switzerland, is of course another form of elitist rule. All of these are antithetical to democracy, antithetical to freedom, antithetical to human rights, and antithetical to human dignity. They are a crude form of barbarism, masking itself, as always, as the salvation of the world. And there is now a powerful and dominant faction of the world’s business elite who want to create a most thorough form of elitist and authoritarian rule. We should shudder, and of course, defeat all such adolescent and dangerous dreams of self-deification. It would be very unwise to think that such infantile grandiosity, delusions of grandeur, or fantasies of total power have gone away, are a thing of the past, or can be dismissed as minor concerns. There are always a few who dream of complete domination, and will go to the greatest of lengths to attain their goal.

Plato became disillusioned with democracy after the council of Athens sentenced his teacher, Socrates, to death. Famously, he advocated a society ruled by philosopher kings. It sounds good in principle, but in reality it has almost without exception turned into a nightmare. Elite rule has almost universally brought oppression, tyranny, irrationality, stupidity and destruction upon humanity – over and over again throughout five thousand years of recorded history. Shall we try again? Have we not repeated this pattern enough? At present, the global business elite is planning the same routine, once more, and working fiercely and consciously to create Plato’s dream. They have decided that they are the wise kings, and want a global rule, with them in full control. Sounds like a recipe for total disaster to me, as I’m sure it does to most people. Yet here we go again. If we do not oppose the current trend, that is, if we do not reclaim our power, we will have a global feudal fascist order, and soon.

It is time we dispensed with our Hobbesian delusions, and decentralized power. Authentic democracy, freedom, human rights, and even human survival, now requires mutual empowerment and the dissolution of excessive concentrations of power in society. This would mean greater power for individuals, families, communities, states and provinces, joined together in federations of shared power and mutual aid and protection; and diminished power for national governments and large corporations. It would require firstly, however, a dismantling or opting out of investor rights agreements which transfer real power to unaccountable and undemocratic transnational centers of power, namely the global business elite. NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA, the WTO, IMF, World Bank and SPP all concentrate real power in society in the hands of a few international business elites, as does the current global monetary system. All of these therefore are anti-democratic and incompatible with a future of social justice, democracy or freedom.

In order to decentralize power and reduce the possibilities for power to be abused or become oppressive – as Jefferson advised and even urged - the power of the nation state and national democracies must first be strengthened however, for it is the power of the nation state and national democracies which are one of the powers potentially available to people to fend off and reverse the growing concentration of power in the hands of a global investment elite. To save democracy, the global business elite must first be put in check, their powers limited and rolled back to a level where they can no longer dominate national governments, communities and the lives of virtually all of humanity. Once this is accomplished, and it will be, then we can look to decentralizing power further, in order to take democracy and freedom to new levels of maturation and fullness. I think I’m safe in saying that three of the thinkers I respect most, Chomsky, Jefferson and Thoreau, would all agree on this. First reduce the power of the global business elite, and return power to national democracies. Then we can talk about a future of sanity, sustainability, justice and peace. Until then, we are on the road to serfdom and slavery, if not self-destruction. It is time to take the power back.

Thomas Paine was right. The central issues of power in society are not so very complicated. Ultimately, it is largely a matter of common sense. The primary obstacles are fear, disempowerment and illusion. The answers therefore are clear. They are courage, empowerment and a basic clarity of mind. These three elements are all within our reach.

The future is in our hands.


J. Todd Ring,

February 13, 2008


Essential reading:

The Chalice and the Blade – Rianne Eisler

The Ecology of Freedom – Murray Bookchin

Mutual Aid – Petr Kropotkin

Escape from Freedom – Eric Fromm

The Discourse on Voluntary Servitude – Etienne de la Boitie

On Civil Disobedience – Henry David Thoreau

The Pedagogy of the Oppressed – Paulo Friere

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism – Max Weber

Powers and Prospects – Noam Chomsky

Year 501: The Conquest Continues – Chomsky

Necessary Illusions – Chomsky

Shock Doctrine – Naomi Klein

The End of America – Naomi Wolf

Trilateralism – Holy Sklar

The Collapse of Globalism – John Ralston Saul

The Great Turning – David C. Korten


Writings of J. Todd Ring

Wordpress: Writings of J. Todd Ring

YouTube - Prajnaseek's Channel

May 08: Anarchy + Health : Health + Anarchy