lonestone revolution

Marching for the lives of teachers

2010-03-21T11:18:00.002-06:00

Photo of students with banner, “It’s in your hands to respect and value life. I love it, do you?”

Dear friends,

More than 2,000 students and teachers marched through the streets of Puerto Berrio on March 17 to protest the killing of a teacher and his wife. Duvian Rojo and Veronica Cadavid were killed by two gunmen in the center of town on the evening of March 13. Puerto Berrio is controlled by paramilitary death squads that have relations with the police and military, and the killing occurred just two blocks from the police station. Duvian and Veronica were the parents of twins that are less than a year old.

The paramilitaries have been extorting more than 20 teachers in the town – demanding that they pay protection money in order to avoid being killed. Duvian filed a complaint with the prosecutor’s office that led to the arrest of two men, although none of the paramilitary leaders were arrested. His colleagues believe that he was killed in retaliation for speaking out about the extortions.

I felt a lot of tension at the beginning of the march, more so than at any other activity I’ve accompanied here in Colombia. I asked the parish priest, who had invited us to the march, if I could take some photos. He responded that it would be better if I did not. One of my teammates, who had been married by the priest, talked to him later and he agreed to let me get some shots. I was introduced to a man who then walked with me to the front of the march. The march stretched out for several blocks and it was very inspiring to see so many students in the streets of Puerto Berrio.

We met with a group of teachers after the march in the church, Our Lady of Sorrows. One man was wearing a t-shirt with a photo of Duvian that read, “Friend Duvian, you will always be in our hearts.” The teachers were very concerned about their safety and asked us to not mention their names. “You wonder if you’ll be the next victim,” one of them told us.

They described the relationship of the paramilitaries with the police and military. “These groups are mixed together with the authorities.” They also talked about the location of the killing – two policemen are usually stationed there and it’s near the station. “They (the killers) exited to the left and the police came in from the right.”

Puerto Berrio is a town of 50,000 inhabitants, located two hours south of Barrancabermeja. Two paramilitary groups are fighting for control of the cocaine trade in the region, and one of those groups has apparently entered into an alliance with the National Army of Liberation (ELN) guerrillas. The priest told us that three to four people were killed each week in Puerto Berrio during February. In the midst of all this, the teachers are determined to continue forward and to denounce the abuses that occur in their town.

Sister Miriam accompanies workers in the palm oil plantations near Barrancabermeja. During the meeting with the teachers, she said “Peace can appear to be a distant dream. However, there are new sprouts and signs of hope. We’re weaving together networks of people.”

In love and solidarity,

Scott

Class Treason

2010-03-13T16:37:00.003-07:00

Here is the latest from the Pinky Show: Re: Structure, Power, & Privilege

It is brilliant and captures so much of what I've been thinking and feeling lately.

Questions:

What about committing Class Treason? Can this be done?

What about us pushing students towards university?

What about being a teacher inside institutionalized education? Is there nothing I can do to subvert it?

Law and Order

2009-03-29T12:52:00.012-06:00

The "loss" of law and order that Barry Goldwater complained of when running for president in 1964, iterated (on behalf of Capitalism) an up-dated effort to save the legitimacy of the social and economic system in crisis. The true voice behind that iteration was Capitalism itself. As the only true subject of modern history, Capitalism was frantically seeking dry land. Needing a pretext to stave off the structural crisis it faced in the 1960’s and 1970’s, capitalism began a string of wars on strawmen: drugs, poverty, illegal immigration and terror. The mask it would choose would be the “rule of law.” Over the past 44 years, trillions of dollars have gone towards the control of the class structure and social revolution. Whether it is the Military Industrial Complex or the Prison Industrial Complex or the Surveillance Industrial Complex, our world must come to terms with the nasty reality that the "ideology of the rule of law masks, or is meant to mask, the fact of class rule" (John Gibler, Mexico Unconquered, 2009). As a result of these complexes of control serving to maintain the “rule of law,” we have an extremely paralyzed society unable to muster a serious fight against the enormity of it all.

Goldwater—and each subsequent president—would have to make a center piece of their campaign platform the return of law and order. However, there was never a “loss” of law and order, but a sudden realization that the rule of law (read: authoritarian control) had been weakened by massive social upheaval. Normally, when people get feed up enough with the crappy reality of their lives, they rise up. Capitalism needs to contend with this, so control of unhappy people is necessary.

Nixon said while campaigning in 1967: "America has become among the most lawless and violent [nations] in the history of free people." Depending on whom one takes to be the "criminal" (i.e. the capitalists, or union organizer, or Black Panther, or the dope-smoker) Nixon could be understood as extremely honest or dishonest when he blamed liberal decisions for "weakening the peace forces against the criminal forces." Ronald Reagan "aspired to nothing less than readjusting the balance between the forces of law and the forces of lawlessness." George Bush Sr. concentrated on five areas of crime, three of which dealt with illicit drugs, and as he infamously said: “Take my word for it. This scourge will stop!” Bill Clinton was perhaps the toughest on "crime" with his unprecedented Crime Bill, because he believed the "first responsibility of government is law and order." George W. Bush meant what he said when he warned “if you break the law, there will be a consequence.”

Slavoj Zizek recounts an old parable that helps us understand how the subjective manifestations of violence like a homicide, or a rape, or an assault, or a drug bust, or a bank robbery, or an international conflict, or terror, or civil unrest do not happen against a background of zero violence. In fact, it is the background which is the most insidious, egregious and violent of all. Violence in the objective forms of systemic and symbolic violence is ever-present and constant. The resulting pathologies, anger, abuse, and violence are all a result of a cosmic dissonance of violence already done to us.

In the parable, Zizek tells of the “worker who is suspected of stealing. Every evening, as he leaves the factory, the wheelbarrow he rolls in front of him is carefully inspected. The guards can find nothing. It is always empty. Finally, the penny drops: what the worker is stealing are the wheelbarrows themselves…”

As the guardians of our own society, “we need to learn to step back, and disentangle ourselves from the fascinating lure of this directly visible “subjective” violence, violence performed by a clearly identifiable agent. We need to perceive the contours of the background which generates such outbursts. A step back enables us to identify a violence that sustains our very efforts to fight violence.”

The Prison Industrial Complex is a multi-billion dollar industry. After killing the black leadership of the 60's, they next thing to do was to put millions in prison. Of the 2.3 million American prisoners (roughly seven times the amount in 1971), over half are black.

Building a Prison Industrial Complex has served many purposes:

Class control
Billions of dollars of profit
Deal with civil discontent
Deal with the ugliest aspects of capitalism’s objective violence: i.e. vagrants, welfare mothers, the mentally ill, etc.
Deal with the effects of neoliberal globalization: “illegal” immigrants

Being “tough on crime,” the “War on Drugs,” the “War on Poverty,” and—the most Orwellian of wars—the “War on Terror,” have all served a simple ideological purpose of perpetual wars on strawmen/scapegoats. When violent reaction reaches the absurd levels of today's world it can no longer be called an aberration, but an inherent reality of an inhumane, anti-democratic, and anti-environmental system that prefigures it. The one true crime boss is the system itself. It has successfully pitted us against ourselves and the system’s spectacular marketing has masked the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Docile and scared like sheep, we huddle together and tremble, until the master’s of mankind divide us further and further so that we can be easily picked off one-by-one.

Local Neutrality

2009-02-11T10:34:00.003-07:00

Che Bob is busy so I'll (Troutsky) jump in briefly with a tale about a down home storm brewing over this issue of neutrality or perceived bias or "balance" in pubic school teaching. A lovely colleague of Che Bobs (who I had the pleasure of a long conversation with last night) was confronted by her school board and an irate parent when one of her students reported home that she had watched an "anti-capitalist" film in her science class and that it was part of the liberal teachers "agenda".

I actually got to see the film last night (The Story of Stuff) and it does provide a critique of current market fundamentalism but does not call for the workers to own the means of production or for an end to the profit-wage system. Which is beside the point. The point of course being academic freedom, the ability of teachers to present challenging material to high school students. After a long, detailed power-point presentation by the conservative Dad ( who has a more favorable view of "stuff" and "the invisible hand"), the teacher was censored not due to the showing of inappropriate material, but because "she had not provided the proper context" ie , had used her position of power in a way that reflected her bias.

Her "bias" is that she believes in ( she told me she actually loves) science. Her "bias" is she believes the ecosystem is in trouble and we need to start paying attention. To the ideological Right (and religious) this is an attack on their belief system, including the "free market" (I think they are correct) and they are caught between pedagogy and what is more and more obviously a bankrupt ideology. Pedagogically speaking, (almost) every teacher starts from a pro-capitalist bias in whatever discipline they teach, history, English, social studies, etc. Yet theirs is unquestionably considered the normatively "neutral" position. Conservatives scream for "balance" because their basic paranoid delusion entails a "liberal education establishment". (anti-God, anti-capitalist, anti-white)

Well I want "balance" too, if that's how they want to play it. Every white supremacist, communist, pagan, hermaphrodite, fascist, holocaust denying believer in aliens should demand "equal time " from their school boards and we'll see what "neutrality" really looks like! Troutsky

Neutrality...yeah right!

2008-12-26T09:58:00.003-07:00

The false god of neutrality is yet another effect of modern capitalism! Neutrality represents an attack on classical liberalism and the idea that each of us is a searching, self-perfecting being. Capitalism would like us to believe that in some Hegelian way we've reached the ideal state (economically, politically, and ideologically). Even if Fukuyama thought that the capitalist state wasn't perfect and that plenty about capitalism isn't fair (think CB and Sonia), he did believe it is the best system available to humans. So if we teach neutrality it must be based on the idea that we cannot transcend the current economic system. Neutrality can now be centered on a capitalistic system. All value follows from there.

So neutrality is therefore neither possible nor desirable. If we teach neutrality we teach moral apathy and this is something capitalism demands of its teachers. It is parallel to the intolerance taught by religions. So to me, the best place to start getting rid of our world's three-headed monster (hierarchy, capitalism and religion) is none other than school themselves.

I remind my colleagues on a daily basis that schools are supposed to be those places where nothing is sacred...that place is church. I remind them that inside the halls of education everything must be treated in revolutionary terms. We must seek to transcend our current understanding. We must seek to move beyond what we treat as common sense. We must assume we are unfinished. We must look, prod, pull, smash, tear and deconstruct everything. This includes our language, our ideas, our ethics, our science, etc.

We cannot allow the moral police to enter our sphere (though they are ever prevalent and vigilant) anymore than they already have, unless they are willing to be adult about their positions and subject them to ruthless critique. If they continue to isolate themselves from analysis, they must be ignored. School boards are chalk full of the conservative religious types and they need to go away...and since this isn't happening, they must be ignored!!! Their values have place in churches, not schools. Leave the sacred (superstition) to the church or private religious schools! They have nothing to offer schools but a case study in superstition, intolerance and imposed ignorance. More importantly, teachers must be willing to be fired defending the cause of critical, revolutionary education.

Neutrality is even a claim of our media. Everywhere neutrality is claimed despite the self-deception that it is impossible and assumes certain values. These values are themselves debatable in how they are applied versus how they are abstractly discussed. That is why any knucklehead can go to their local high school and watch a couple of young debaters in a Lincoln-Douglas debate use the same exact value to dispute each others positions on complicated social, political and economic issue.

So a teacher naively hoping to be neutral could say: "using the value of 'justice' one of you defend the death penalty and the other oppose it." We now see that defining 'justice' then becomes the location of the debate. What is the neutral position in this highly debated issue like the death penalty or abortion? Does one exist? One could perhaps offer nuance to one of these issues, but it doesn't make them neutral. So how can a neutral position exist in the academic realm on issues concerning social or political relations?

Is the social studies teacher capable of neutrally recapitulating history? Not if he or she is ethical they aren't.

Can the English teacher be neutral when discussing Anne Frank's Diary or To Kill a Mockingbird?

Is the Spanish teacher neutral who takes students to Nicaragua and chooses not to ignore that the U.S. was condemned by the International Court for terrorism?

How can an ecology teacher be neutral or value-free when teaching about the environment today?

It Has Been Way Too Long

2008-12-07T17:37:00.000-07:00

I was blown away to realize I haven't posted since July! It's been an absolute whirlwind getting into this school year, organizing with the Two Rivers Branch of the IWW and CAJA (Community Action for Justice in the Americas). So I thought I'd maybe give a quick update of the things that have been going on lately.

I took 10 students and three parents to Nicaragua with Global Exchange at the beginning of November. The organization that led our tour in Nicaragua was called Matagalpa Tours. I was very impressed with their work.

Some of the highlights of this tour were a two-night homestay in a Fair Trade coffee community called El Roblar; a baseball game with that community's youth; a soccer game with one of the only women's soccer teams in the entire country; visits with Nicaragua's "Civil Coordinator" (equivalent to a human rights expert), unions, women's radio station (La Vos), water and electricity defender; a visit to a "free-trade zone" with sweatshops; a jungle canopy tour; and most powerfully a visit to the municipal dump called La Chureca.

This fall, I was also occuppied with a student retreat to the mountains outside Helena, MT to create a student group called Students for Social Economic and Environmental Justice (SSEEJ). During this retreat the students decided on campaigns to affect change within their own school, including an effort have the school's coffee kiosk become 100% fair trade coffee; an effort to have the school's apparel to become 100% sweatfree; an effort to reduce the amount of the overall energy consumption; and finally, an effort to improve recycling efforts within the school.

Finally, back in October I was very busy helping to organize a speaking tour from Mexico Solidarity Network to Missoula, MT. Carlos Euceda, a community organizer, and Willy Barreno, a film-maker, came through Montana to talk about the recent passage into law of the Merida Initiative that will guarantee nearly $1.4 billion in military aid to Mexico over the next several years. Their tour was very successful and their message reached many Montanans.

All in all, this has been a very busy beginning to another school year, but I hope to be able to give more attention to my blog now.

Trying Not To Think Of "Worker" As Negative

2008-07-21T00:23:00.006-06:00

Stemming from the discussion of my last post, I thought further discussion was necessary to talk about the "working class"...or whatever that means anymore, and our efforts to get our society organized along revolutionary lines. I think it prudent to look in as many directions as possible for lessons, ideas, and theory. I recently found Murray Bookchin's short essays about the anarchosyndicalist revolution of 1936 instructive.

Please forgive the wholesale use of Bookchin to elucidate what I was trying to say in my last post, not too mention what I think John Holloway is also trying to say in Change the World Without Taking Power, but here you go:

The limitations of the trade union movement, even in its anarchosyndicalist form, have become manifestly clear. To see in trade unions (whether syndicalist or not) an inherent potentiality for revolutionary struggle is to assume that the interests of workers and capitalists, merely as classes, are intrinsically incompatible. This is demonstrably untrue if one is willing to acknowledge the obvious capacity of the system to remake or to literally create the worker in the image of a repressive industrial culture and rationality. From the family, through the school and religious institutions, the mass media, to the factory and finally trade union and "revolutionary" party, capitalist society conspires to foster obedience, hierarchy, the work ethic, and authoritarian discipline in the working class as a whole; indeed, in many of its "emancipatory" movements as well.

The factory and the class organizations that spring from it play the most compelling role in promoting a well-regulated, almost unconscious docility in mature workers--a docility that manifests itself not so much in characterless passivity as in a pragmatic commitment to hierarchical organizations and authoritarian leaders. Workers can be very militant and exhibit strong, even powerful character traits in the most demanding social situations; but these traits can be brought as much , if not more readily, to the service of a reformist labor bureaucracy as to a libertarian revolutionary movement. They must break with the hold of bourgeois culture on their sensibilities--specifically, with the hold of the factory, the locus of the workers' very class existence--before they can move into that supreme form of direct action called "revolution," and further, construct a society they will directly control in their workshops and communities.

This amounts to saying that workers must see themselves as human beings, not as class beings; as creative personalities, not as "proletarians"; as self-affirming individuals, not as "masses.' And the destiny of a liberated society must be the free commune, not the confederation of factories, however self-administered; for such a confederation takes a part of society--its economic component--and reifies it into the totality of society. Indeed, even that economic component must be humanized precisely by our bringing an "affinity of friendship" to the work process, by diminishing the role of onerous work in the lives of producers, indeed, by a total "transvaluation of values" (to use Nietzsche's phrase) as it applies to production and consumption as well as social and personal life.

Get Organized in the Workplace Now!

2008-06-24T16:37:00.002-06:00

It is interesting that while many of us involved in social and economic justice expend a great deal of energy and effort struggling for justice around the globe, we fail to see ourselves as workers. And why should we want to? Be “workers” that is. US Americans are taught a highly contradictory message about our labor, which is: we must admire the blue-collar sector for its hard work and invaluable contributions to our society, but we mustn’t aspire to be them. So most of us go to college in order to avoid becoming “them.” I know I did!

“We do not struggle as working class, we struggle against being working class, against being classified… There is nothing good about being members of the working class, about being ordered, commanded, separated from our product and our process of production. Struggle arises not from the fact that we are working class but from the fact that we-are-and-are-not working class, that we exist against-and-beyond being working class, that they try to order and command us but we do not want to be ordered and commanded, that they try to separate us from our product and our producing and our humanity and our selves and we do not want to be separated from all that. In this sense, working-class identity is not something “good” to be treasured, but something “bad,” something to be fought against, something that is fought against, something that is constantly at issue.

The working class cannot emancipate itself in so far as it is working class. It is only is so far as we are not working class that the question of emancipation can ever be posed… The working class does not stand outside capital: on the contrary it is capital that defines it (us) as working class. Labor stands opposed to capital, but it is an internal opposition. It is only as far as labor is something more than labor; the worker more than a seller of labor power, that the issue of revolution can even be posed.” -John Holloway, Change the World Without Taking Power

Many of us already hold jobs, yet I imagine most of us have put little thought into organizing our own workplaces. There are many, many reasons for this, but the fact remains that US American labor remains largely unorganized (also for a number of reasons) and as a result we reinforce the market forces which continue to divide us. Sacrificing our time, energy and labor for the cause of economic and social justice while helping to reproduce the social order seems counter-productive and highly contradictory. Don’t we reinforce the capitalist way of life (with all its vicious divisions, exploitation, thoughtless consumption, concentration of power, etc.) and undermine our own good intentions and social initiatives to create a better world if all we do is change shopping habits? The collaboration between state and capital is incomparably more powerful than the combined efforts of protest, boycotts, and rallies. Fifteen million people took to the streets to stop the invasion in Iraq and yet our memory of that day has faded away.

Even the most radical and revolutionary non-profits (and especially NGO’s) often reproduce undemocratic corporate business models that disempower employees/associates (workers) by separating them from the very decisions that affect their lives. Everywhere we look we are reproducing the world against which we as activists for peace and justice struggle. We are not slowing thoughtless consumption and the production of destructive weapons; we are upholding it by refusing to seize power in the workplace where it is all created.

Many of you are fellow workers, so I am going to be a little pushy and ask that you give these ideas some serious thought. I know that all of us are very passionate about what we do and to which causes we give our efforts and energy, so I completely appreciate the way in which our time is limited. However, I did not arrive to this point by accident or haphazardly. I too spent—and continue to spend—a good deal of my creative energy and passion struggling for the goals and objectives of three groups: Community Action for Justice in the Americas (I'm a board member), Witness for Peace and Students for Economic and Social Justice (University of Montana). I love, with all my heart, these organizations. And they are an integral part of the struggle for a better world. However, I feel there are self-evident limits to the kind of effects that that work alone can have in changing the system. At the same time, I am not in the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) because I expect to see a revolution or to smash capitalism while I am alive (although I love to say these things and it would be nice! J). I do, however, expect to see and experience a drastic increase in democratic and direct discussions and actions that will lead to very tangible and material benefits. Above all, I expect to see drastic changes in power relationships. And we all agree that it is power who decides (i.e. bosses and their politicians).

Our social factory (including the Spectacular Society) has done such a thorough job of inoculating us against viral thinking such as the rights we should have to determine what work should be done and by whom, how it should be organized, or to what end. Also, we have not been encouraged to participate with power in how society as a whole might shape its own role in democratically organizing our material lives. No, we have been limited to negotiating the price of labor (a “negotiation” that has led to little more that a savage wage slave system).

I would hope that we think about the possibilities of directly participating in the class war through our workplaces and of all the potential that has for genuinely struggling alongside the faceless multitude of sweatshop workers for whom we fight. Beyond the inherent contradiction of fighting for social and economic justice without our selves being engaged in workplace democracy, we have a chance to address the complexity of globalization, off-shoring, immigration, and exploitative labor practices right where we work. How can we relate to workplace struggles if we are not engaged in them? We shouldn’t want better wages here and there, we should expect the world! Even in non-profits, we should be telling our board of directors: “one worker, one vote.” Without us there is no non-profit. “Labor has to become more than labor, the worker more than a seller of labor power.” Let’s open the books and let’s look at the numbers together. Clearly, non-profits are not a primary target for IWW labor organizing (though the IWW has already organized a couple of non-profits and is developing a model for non-profit workplace democracy right here in Missoula), but I expect many of us will end up working in this industry, so we shouldn’t forget the contradictions that exist even in the more ostensibly benign workplaces.

So let’s start telling the boss that we are going to make some changes in the workplace. We are going to start making decisions democratically. When we can do these things here and now, we are going to be much more credible as a force for justice over "there"! There is no war but class war!

Unfinishedness

2008-03-28T14:04:00.001-06:00

“I like to be human because in my unfinishedness I know that I am conditioned. Yet conscious of such conditioning, I know that I can go beyond it, which is the essential difference between conditioned and determined existence…In other words, my presence in the world is not so much of someone who is merely adapting to something “external,” but of someone who is inserted as if belonging essentially to it. It’s the position of one who struggles to become the subject and maker of history and not simply a passive, disconnected object.” Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of Freedom

I am so thankful that we don’t have pre-determined existences, and that we have socio-historical vocations to determine ourselves ontologically. Call it free will, call it an ontological vocation, or call it choice. Needless to say, we have a choice and we can become active agents actively pursuing our being in this world, instead of passive receptacles of a life pre-determined by the conditioning of external forces. In the modern context, these forces stem from the market-system which conditions us, and prefers us to be and to feel as we do (reticent, tired, overwhelmed, hopeless, helpless, crazy, irrational, isolated, etc.). The perceived divinity of market forces conditions us to believe our roles as workers, students, parents, consumers, citizens, spouses, children, elderly, etc. are both predetermined and limited by the “invisible hand” of the market.

So what is one of the most radical things we can do? Become aware of our conditioning and sharpen our edge for perceiving all of the socio-cultural, historical and even genetic factors that have conditioned our construction. Recognize that “it would be ironic if the awareness of my presence in the world did not at the same time imply a recognition that I could not be absent from the construction of my own presence.” If we fail to recognize our role in determining who we are and how we’ll live our every moment, we renounce our “historical, ethical, social, and political responsibility for [our] own evolution.” So in that sense, according to Freire, we are renouncing our ontological vocation to intervene in the world.

Once we recognize that we are alive and free to pursue our ontological vocation of becoming, we must remain vigilant to external conditioning. Instead of thinking of it as burdensome “work,” we should celebrate the freedom of determining for ourselves who we want to be, and think of it as our duty to ourselves. And with the choice to become a constructive presence in our own worlds, comes necessary training, education, self-reflection, and yes, dutiful “work.” There is a two-steps-forward-one-step-back pace to life.

Here is where our vigilance and constant recognition of the conditioning is all important. Externally, market forces recognize and capitalize on our unfinishedness and lead us to believe that without the market we cannot resolve our anxieties about being unfinished. Indeed, market forces wish us to see our “unfinishedness” as simply a phase in a pre-determined life. Market forces further strap a relatively benign idea of unfinishedness with notions that the “vocation of becoming” is more burdensome than one can manage alone or with the limited time one has to pursue such frivolousness. “Oh, if one only had more energy, money and time!”

And, frankly, we have lost our time. We have lost our energy. And so we have lost our roles in our own lives. We are not actually making history anymore, though the mediated images of the spectacle delude this perception so that we see ourselves as choosing. All we are doing is surviving. We are managing pre-determined lives from debt to debt, from holiday to holiday, from grocery visit to grocery visit, or from out-dated laptop to out-date laptop. In between, we might go through a phase of cleaning house and “taking control” over our lives. We suddenly become determined to turn our lives around and get into shape only to lose track of that fleeting emotional “choice” to the burdens of economics and diminishing time. Trapped in a tide of ceaseless pounding by market forces, we are clinging to rocks like barnacles: inert, inactive and eating whatever the waves bring us.

The difference between a market-driven plan to “take control” of one’s life and the kind of conscientization called for by Freire is fundamental. Rather than a Dr. Phil “Relationship Rescue” plan that ignores the cosmic conditioning of our lives and pretends to end our problems after a pre-determined program of study, Freire asks us to recognize our incompletedness as fundamental to the human condition. Our lives require a constant cycle of research, reflection and then action. From each action will undoubtedly evoke new challenges that will require more education, reflection and subsequent action. This kind of ontological—and radical—action on our parts both individually and collectively subverts market determinism and increasingly liberates the human experience.

In order to undermine the monoliths of inevitability, and pre-determination which was historically influenced by fear, superstition, and cosmological anxiety and then institutionalized by neoliberal philosophy and religion, we must insist on the necessity of conscientization. Becoming aware of our conditioning and our unfinishedness lends itself to an honesty and curiosity that rarely manifests in our world.

Can you imagine a world of conscientious, curious and honest people?

Missoula's Labor Film Festival and the Bay Area's Anarchist Book Fair

2008-03-15T09:41:00.006-06:00

Damn! I'm jealous! Another year, another Bay Area Anarchist Book Fair, and I'm not there. My friend in Oakland tells me about this every year and I still haven't had the fortune of being there.

Check out the link and see for yourself what makes this event so amazing. There are many video posts and descriptions of the kinds of books and vendors that are present.
Last night, Missoula hosted the first night of their 3rd annual Labor Film Festival in the Roxy Theater. I'm proud to say it, but there were more Wobblies in attendance than any other single union! (Way to go Wobs)! There were three great films, including Morristown (which I borrowed from the organizers to show to my class!), all about the devastating effects of trade liberalization on Mexico and the U.S. The film is an excellent discussion with U.S. workers whose lives have been ruined by NAFTA and corporate off-shoring.

Tonight there are two more films, including a film by Ken Loach called Bread and Roses. We will also be raffling off some prizes, including a $200 gas card, a .22-caliber semi-automatic rifle (I hope a Wobbly doesn't win it, then people will think we are arming ourselves!), and many other things.

Montanans continue to express interest in the IWW as our numbers and community support grows. Our presence is increasingly noticeable; we are seeing our decals, buttons and t-shirts around on the streets. Fights are brewing, so bosses beware!

Mariposas

2008-03-10T18:11:00.001-06:00

Infantile World

2008-03-06T18:24:00.012-07:00

I know it may be asking too much for idiot ideologues, pundits, and politicians to be honest enough to admit that it was Colombia that crossed the border of a sovereign nation, not Venezuela, but things are getting ridiculous! Likewise, we know Obama and Clinton to be intelligent enough to read and understand the verifiable truth about Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador, but getting them to be honest enough to actually read it and then admit THE TRUTH may be too tall an order.

Here's the thing that sucks. Even when handed the evidence on a silver platter (as I've done here) ideologues won't read it (there are actual studies on this kind of blind dogmatism). Secondly, once they read incontrovertible fact, they'll deny it. Like petulant children they'll stomp their feet and say it just can't be true, because rather than grow up and admit the flaws in their thinking, they carry on with infantile behavior. Perhaps that is the reason they often choose not to read the facts...it forces them to admit that they are wrong. Oh the shame...the shame of admitting we are wrong or that we don't have a clue what we are talking about! Surely not "wrong"...that's worse than death!

But I've decided to give the benefit of the doubt to this hapless bunch in case they can be honest enough to read the evidential record (all of the highlighted links in this post are actual evidence, documents and articles, not homepages of websites) :

1) Colombian paramilitaries are responsible for 70% of all human rights violations in Colombia, not the FARC. These incontrovertible facts can be found in the following links Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Global Exchange, Witness for Peace, et. al.

2) The paramilitaries (AUC) are an armband switch-a-roo away from being Colombian military and police. Thereby making the actual terrorist organization the Colombian government and their criminal leader: Alvaro Uribe.

3) The U.S. is therefore a major sponsor of terror! To the tune of $5 billion since 1999 through Plan Colombia to fight the FARC and ELN, not the AUC paramilitaries.

4) Just in case $5 billion is not enough, a U.S. corporation has been linked to the paramilitaries to fund their repression of organized labor and carry out assassinations, torture and disappearances. (Just in case you try to say the paramilitaries have demobilized...we've got that one covered with, gasp--EVIDENCE! and more EVIDENCE!)

5) Oh yeah, what about that sorted business Uribe's gotten himself all caught up in called "Para-politica," which hasn't even led to a pause in U.S. funding.

6) Chavez has won democratic elections consistently since 1998. Then when one of his policies was defeated, he graciously accepted defeat. Despite what ever fantasies ideologues may have, Venezuela under Chavez is a democracy. (Just in case someone tells me to move there, let me interrupt you and say that I'm staying here because I want to bring democracy to the U.S.!)

7) The U.S. has already tried to overthrow Chavez once (2002) and failed. We funded and gave tactical support to the coup through the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID. Yo fool ideologues! You don't have to do your homework today since I did the research for you. Here are some declassified documents...just in case you actually decide to be honest and begin doing actual research and look at actual evidence, here you go: EVIDENCE

The ridiculous obsession of some people who love to demonize Chavez despite contravening evidence makes them sound like fools!

The credibility, like the fantasies of so many ideologues, continues to crumble away since they continually fail to provide any kind of factual evidence to back their ridiculous claims. Even the U.S.'s own documentary record condemns them. One only need go to the National Security Archive and read through the declassified documents there!

When those of us seeking the truth are forced to hold our noses as we read and listen to the undocumented claims of ideological quacks and jingoistic pundits all day long, we are often foolish enough to wait for evidence from them. Then we come to our senses and realize who's shilling the shit! However, far more shameful than holding out hope for some honesty, are the ideological hacks and lazy asses that repeat these false claims and try to pass off opinion as fact whenever it suits their narratives. If they were my students I would have to fail them for not providing evidence to back their claims.

Fortunately, I don't feel as though I've wasted my time, nor my breath on ideologues who--by their very definition--will likely not change even when struck by lightning! Nope! My students will read and witness for themselves the infantile world they have the misfortune of inheriting.

An Anonymous Challenge

2008-02-27T16:43:00.005-07:00

I recently received the following comment on one of my older posts from an "anonymous" writer, and was challenged to see how "economists," the wealthy or "their fans" might respond to this comment. That has, of course, peaked my interest. Although I fear I can predict many of the responses, I do want to be entertained by good ol' Beaker-boy (an enamored, and unashamed aficionado of concentrated wealth)...so have at it.

P.S. I rather enjoyed this rant and agree with a great deal of it.

Don’t believe one optimistic word from any public figure about the economy or humanity in general. They are all part of the problem. Its like a game of Monopoly. In America, the richest 1% now hold 1/2 OF ALL UNITED STATES WEALTH. Unlike ‘lesser’ estimates, this includes all stocks, bonds, cash, and material assets held by America’s richest 1%. Even that filthy pig Oprah acknowledged that it was at about 50% in 2006. Naturally, she put her own ‘humanitarian’ spin on it. Calling attention to her own ‘good will’. WHAT A DISGUSTING HYPOCRITE SLOB. THE RICHEST 1% HAVE LITERALLY MADE WORLD PROSPERITY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. Don’t fall for all of their ‘humanitarian’ CRAP. ITS A SHAM. THESE PEOPLE ARE CAUSING THE SAME PROBLEMS THEY PRETEND TO CARE ABOUT. Ask any professor of economics. Money does not grow on trees. The government can’t just print up more on a whim. At any given time, there is a relative limit to the wealth within ANY economy of ANY size. So when too much wealth accumulates at the top, the middle class slip further into debt and the lower class further into poverty. A similar rule applies worldwide. The world’s richest 1% now own over 40% of ALL WORLD WEALTH. This is EVEN AFTER you account for all of this ‘good will’ ‘humanitarian’ BS from celebrities and executives. ITS A SHAM. As they get richer and richer, less wealth is left circulating beneath them. This is the single greatest underlying cause for the current US recession. The middle class can no longer afford to sustain their share of the economy. Their wealth has been gradually transfered to the richest 1%. One way or another, we suffer because of their incredible greed. We are talking about TRILLIONS of dollars. Transfered FROM US TO THEM. Over a period of about 27 years. Thats Reaganomics for you. The wealth does not ‘trickle down’ as we were told it would. It just accumulates at the top. Shrinking the middle class and expanding the lower class. Causing a domino effect of socio-economic problems. But the rich will never stop. They will never settle for a reasonable share of ANYTHING. They will do whatever it takes to get even richer. Leaving even less of the pie for the other 99% of us to share. At the same time, they throw back a few tax deductable crumbs and call themselves ‘humanitarians’. IT CAN’T WORK THIS WAY. This is going to end just like a game of Monopoly. The current US recession will drag on for years and lead into the worst US depression of all time. The richest 1% will live like royalty while the rest of us fight over jobs, food, and gasoline. Crime, poverty, and suicide will skyrocket. So don’t fall for all of this PR CRAP from Hollywood, Pro Sports, and Wall Street PIGS. ITS A SHAM. Remember: They are filthy rich EVEN AFTER their tax deductable contributions. Greedy pigs. Now, we are headed for the worst economic and cultural crisis of all time. SEND A “THANK YOU” NOTE TO YOUR FAVORITE MILLIONAIRE. ITS THEIR FAULT. I’m not discounting other factors like China, sub-prime, or gas prices. But all of those factors combined still pale in comparison to that HUGE transfer of wealth to the rich. Anyway, those other factors are all related and further aggrivated because of GREED. If it weren’t for the OBSCENE distribution of wealth within our country, there never would have been such a market for sub-prime to begin with. Which by the way, was another trick whipped up by greedy bankers and executives. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. The credit industry has been ENDORSED by people like Oprah, Ellen, Dr Phil, and many other celebrities. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. So don’t fall for their ‘good will’ BS. ITS A LIE. If you fall for it, then you’re a fool. If you see any real difference between the moral character of a celebrity, politician, attorney, or executive, then you’re a fool. WAKE UP PEOPLE. The 1% club will always say or do whatever it takes to get as rich as possible. Without the slightest regard for anything or anyone but themselves. Vioxx. Their idea. Sub-prime. Their idea. NAFTA. Their idea. Outsourcing. Their idea. The commercial lobbyist. Their idea. The multi-million dollar lawsuit. Their idea. $200 cell phone bills. Their idea. $200 basketball shoes. Their idea. $30 late fees. Their idea. $30 NSF fees. Their idea. $20 DVDs. Their idea. Subliminal advertising. Their idea. The MASSIVE campaign to turn every American into a brainwashed credit card, pharmaceutical, love-sick, celebrity junkie. Their idea. All of which concentrate the world’s wealth and resources and wreak havok on society. All of which have been CREATED AND ENDORSED by celebrities, athletes, and executives. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. So don’t fall for their ‘ good will’ ‘humanitarian’ BS. ITS A SHAM. NOTHING BUT TAX DEDUCTABLE PR CRAP. Bottom line: The richest 1% will soon tank the largest economy in the world. It will be like nothing we’ve ever seen before. and thats just the beginning. Greed will eventually tank every major economy in the world. Causing millions to suffer and die. Oprah, Angelina, Brad, Bono, and Bill are not part of the solution. They are part of the problem. EXTREME WEALTH HAS MADE WORLD PROSPERITY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. WITHOUT WORLD PROSPERITY, THERE WILL NEVER BE WORLD PEACE OR ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE. GREED KILLS. IT WILL BE OUR DOWNFALL. Of course, the rich will throw a fit and call me a madman. Of course, their ignorant fans will do the same. You have to expect that. But I speak the truth. If you don’t believe me, then copy this entry and run it by any professor of economics or socio-economics. Then tell a friend. Call the local radio station. Re-post this entry or put it in your own words. Be one of the first to predict the worst economic and cultural crisis of all time and explain its cause. WE ARE IN BIG TROUBLE.

To Vote or Not to Vote...

2008-02-16T16:45:00.009-07:00

“There is a difference between an inconsequential left and a consequential right, the difference is they both do the same things, but one says they don't.” Subcomandante Marcos

There is simply no way for democracy to adequately function within the capitalist system. For that matter, we cannot consider our federal system a democracy... perhaps it's a republic, corportacracy, state capitalism? It's certainly not a functional democracy. For this reason, I can only conclude that to participate in the presidential elections is to uphold a corrupt system and makes us complicit in its crimes.

Bought and sold by big money, Clinton and Obama (like Republicans) are in no way beholden to those they pretend to represent. They have prostituted themselves to those that are truly running and "electing" our leaders! Are they different then the Republicans? Sure, they do the bidding of big business in sheep's clothing, making their airs of benevolence that much more hateful!

It is often purported that Hillary is left of Obama. This is flatly false. She is and has always been the candidate of big business: a reality that puts Hillary in a position directly in conflict with the struggles of the poor, unions, social, environmental and economic justice. She was featured on the front page of Fortune magazine as the best candidate for big business, for god's sake! As the article points out she has been allowed to get away with--and I have heard many reminiscing with her--saying that the 90's were better. But it was the 90's in which all of the vicious free trade deals that crushed unions, the working class and the poor of the earth were devised, "negotiated," and signed! By supporting the business agenda she is also promising to accelerate environmental destruction of our planet. The poisonous elixir of free trade agreements that reduce environmental standards which allow corporations to further pollute our planet and her stated rejection of the Kyoto Protocol is the recipe she has in store for our world. She is also the candidate that repeatedly voted for the Iraq War and is muscling up to be tough on terror and national security. She is morally reprehensible and should not be thought of as someone above the fray of prostitution "democracy." She like all other candidates is opportunistic, power hungry and vetted beyond human recognition.

It is utterly insulting to hear Hillary Clinton use the slogan "Sí se puede" which she has shamelessly co-opted. This slogan is meant to overthrow tyrants, not to be used by them!

When discussing the issue of whether or not to participate in our elections, the issue of welfare, social security, funding for education, etc. is an often repeated concern. Well, the Republic of Lakotah pointed out that despite the generosity of the U.S. government for the past 155 years in the form of welfare and food stamps, they have the lowest life expectancy for males of any nation in the world (44 years)! They have an unemployment rate of 85%. An amazing 97% of Lakotah people live below the federal poverty level! And the suicide rate is 150% of the national average! Wisely--I think--they decided to go at it alone. I have no idea what their plan is. Frankly, it's not my business. But I can honestly say that they couldn't be much worse off no matter where in the world they were living, so why not try a new direction? In relation to voting, what has it gotten any American Indian? What has voting achieved for any of us? Real change has never come from voting, if it did, they'd outlaw it!

Please bear in mind that the TV/Toothpaste Elections intend to make us feel as though any of these candidates actually cares. They smile at us and make us feel reassured that someone is going to stick up for us. Someone is going to calm things down, "get us out of the war" (remember this recent promise?), unite the "divide" in this country, etc., etc. But it is the PR industry that elects our leaders, and "super delegates," not us!

By the way, is the country actually divided? No. The country is not nearly as divided as we've been led to believe. Confused? Yes. In the abstract we are divided, but placed within context our country is far less divided. A recent NY Times/CBS poll showed that 64% of Americans would willingly pay $500 more per year in taxes in order to have universal healthcare! Americans want out of the war…immediately! Americans overwhelmingly believe CEO's make an unfair, bloated salary and believe money should be more fairly distributed. The majority of Americans believe we should be signed onto the Kyoto Protocol. And on and on and on. So why is there such a huge disconnect between public policy and public opinion?

To me the answer is simple: we continue to allow our system to shill false hope that anything of significance will come from federal elections and so each time we vote we further legitimize our system, and so are complicit in the drawing out of global misery. We also demonstrate a measure of contempt for democracy by knowingly participating in this sham. Just think what it would be like if Americans were appropriately aware of this sham and through a rapid decrease in participation gave a vote of no confidence to our federal system. If we coupled abstention from voting with education and organization, we could build a resistance to mental colonization and prepare ourselves for how we are going to have to provide for ourselves. Couldn't this lead to democratic changes? Possibly an end to the two-party dictatorship? Or Instant Run-off Voting? Or campaign finance reform? Or more?

If our concern is democracy than we should protect it, fight for it and stand up for it by creating it on our own in the workplace, and local communities! No to federal elections!

Back Door Capitalism

2008-01-20T14:53:00.000-07:00

Capitalism is such an insidious bacteria, it seems to find any and every crack to seep its way into public space. Education is no exception. Smaller Learning Community grants are given to public schools across the U.S. The grants promise schools to answer the problem of students slipping through cracks when isolated within anonymous, large school populations by creating "smaller learning communities." What progressive couldn't get on board with that, right? As one of the SLC Grant Coordinators I was excited by the possibilities of this grant to address prejudice, violence, isolation, suicide, etc. In fact, I'm still somewhat positive that these things can be accomplished, but not by outside private entities whose primary motivation is ultimately profit!

Many of the private consultants that attend the SLC Grant conferences (like the one I attended in Florida this weekend) are armed with canned answers, books, workshops, private consultations, PowerPoints, handouts, brochures, etc. Perhaps, not too surprising, they were also once educators themselves. (Warning: the following is one big tongue in cheek!). Now, however, they have found more "profitable" ways to help educate our children. Their ways are always "more efficient," "more logical," and always "common sense." They're above the fray and have broken free from the fetters of bureaucratic public education to discover more streamline models that are obviously much more sensible and realistic approaches to education.

In reality, these former educators couldn't handle the growing list of duties and unrealistic demands placed on teachers, nor the never-ending prescriptive policies (such as NCLB) that go unfunded. So they quite their jobs to get rich saving education. Shouldn't these former educators be admired for recognizing the limits of public education and seeking to solve problems with efficient, steam-line private monies. After all, the free market will redress any level of corruption and profiteering, right? Or should they be recognized as opportunistic vultures whose most intelligent assessments were acknowledging that they'd never get ahead on the front lines of education? Did they figure out that instead they'd be smarter to exploit a very vulnerable and desperate institution? (A vulnerability and desperation that are predicated on under-funding, and the cultural devaluing of education as a social priority).

(A quick pre-emptive for Wiser) The amount of work a teacher does is utterly under-appreciated! Enough said!

What I observed this past week was nothing short of criminal. Former educators costing our school district more than $12,000 to fly a delegation of eight educators (principal, counselors and teachers) to Ft. Lauderdale, FL. We dutifully helped our flailing economy (and capitalism's inside group) by paying for flights, meals, hotels, transportation, and then the big whammy: a conference of private entities shilling their less-than-professional books, tapes, DVDs, overheads, and flimsy science that would rescue our sorry schools. Interestingly, the money came from our SLC grant. Our grant is a $5 million grant (spread among several high schools in the area) that our government feels can best be spent on contracting with outside private companies. Ahhh, the perfect asymmetrical relationship contracting the public to the private (stage one in which Milton Friedman gets his oats!); just as the private companies likes it: no accountability, no audits, no transparency.

In reality, this kind of profit looping is all too common in the modern capitalist system. Can the Patriots be stopped? Can criminal profiteering? The Revolution Will Not Be Funded!

Business as Unusual

2008-01-05T09:26:00.000-07:00

One fine example of democracy in the workplace that I recently witnessed firsthand was off Lakeshore Avenue in Oakland, CA. ARIZMENDI is a bakery cooperative that was inspired by an earlier bakery in California, the CHEESEBOARD, that wanted to experiment with democratic decision-making and horizontal management. Though foreign to most in this country the longevity of these experiments says something about their viability.

A couple of years ago, Troutsky introduced me to a delicious beer, FULLSAIL, that is made in a worker-owned factory. Reading the labels and packaging is often entertaining itself. The workers sound very pleased with their work situation as well.

The viability of employee-owned, democratic workplaces seems less a novelty these days than one might think. The U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives has a substantial list of such places.

Back to Basics

2007-12-31T11:27:00.000-07:00

Che invited me to his blog as a guest a while ago and I think I finally found the right topic to write about. Che and Trout seem to have the political side of things nailed down far more than I do so I won't go there; but I do think I can add something meaningful.

Che pondered how we can move forward with a new politics in his last post. I'm not posting to attempt to answer that question, but instead to ask bloggers and authors to think about how many people they aren't reaching because of their word choice and sentence structure. In Che's last post, he quoted Bookchin, and I requote part of that here:

"For political radicals today to simply resuscitate Marxism, anarchism, or revolutionary syndicalism and endow them with ideological immortality would be obstructive to the development of a relevant radical movement."

What a mouthful. The little I have read of Bookchin is like that too. Why didn't he just say that if political radicals want a movement that works they should drop the idea of breathing life into old ideologies that weren't developed with the problems of today in mind.

In essence, my gripe here is that leading intellectuals alienate themselves from a large segment of the population because of their word choice and sentence construction. It doesn't matter what your great idea is on a new political movement or path forward if you can't explain it in clear, concise language.

I understand that sometimes choosing a relatively obscure word will save you from writing 50 other words to explain the idea, but that isn't always the case. How often do we get stuck in the trap of using 5 dollar words to sound smart. Has anyone ever thought that if they didn't use large words or write in a certain way they wouldn't be taken seriously. Forget about that! With the fast pace of today's society, if you can't reach an audience in the first go they aren't going to bother trying to decipher what you are trying to say.

Where Has Che Been? Lived? Want to go?

2007-12-30T02:30:00.000-07:00

ZOOM IN.

CLICK AND DRAG THE MAP IN ALL DIRECTIONS TO SEE MY MAP IN MORE DETAIL.

Trout and Che Go Fishing

2007-12-24T18:00:00.001-07:00

Troutsky and I are currently searching for a revival of politics and a means for restoring faith in the democratic tradition that so many of us still revere. We hope to find a way that moves beyond revolutionary partisanship, individualistic liberalism, and all variety of political thinking that haunts any prospect of altering the human species path to self-immolation. Murray Bookchin describes this tension as appropriate:

"As we enter the twenty-first century, social radicals need a socialism--libertarian and revolutionary--that is neither an extension of the peasant-craft "associationism" that lies at the core of anarchism and Marxism. However fashionable the traditional ideologies (particularly anarchism) may be among young people today, a truly progressive socialism that is informed by libertarian as well as Marxian ideas but transcends these older ideologies must provide intellectual leadership. For political radicals today to simply resuscitate Marxism, anarchism, or revolutionary syndicalism and endow them with ideological immortality would be obstructive to the development of a relevant radical movement. A new and comprehensive revolutionary outlook is needed, one that is capable of systematically addressing the generalized issues that may potentially bring most of society into opposition to an ever-evolving and changing capitalist system."

While we may disagree as to the exact means for a return to the political and radical democracy, we agree traditional anarchism, Marxism, many socialist groups, unions, et. al. fall short of addressing the myriad issues and concerns a modern society confronts. The diverse variety of subjectivities struggling for social power makes individualistic liberalism untenable. So Trout and I look to challenge the traditions of simplistic sloganeering by organizations such as our very own Industrial Workers of the World. For one, we can't see how an anachronistic slogan such as "the employing class and working class have nothing in common" can possibly serve a revolutionary cause with such a misguided appreciation for modern identity politics. However the question remains of how to move forward against the tide of the incessantly encroaching capitalist system?

What is CAJA?

2007-12-21T21:59:00.000-07:00

Community Action for Justice in the Americas (CAJA) challenges and seeks to fundamentally alter the unfair distribution of wealth, power, and resources. Through education, advocacy, and grassroots organizing, we strive for social, economic, and environmental justice in solidarity with marginalized people throughout the Americas.

The Best of MESSI: Top 17 Goals

2007-12-01T09:25:00.001-07:00

And to think Lionel Messi is only 20 years old...scary!!!

Besides, he plays for the world's greatest club: FC Barcelona. A team worthy of support for refusing to sell the front of its jersey to sponsors. Instead, they are donating $1.9 million to set up international cooperation programs by supporting the UN Millennium Development goals. Furthermore, their jerseys don the UNICEF logo instead of some huge multi-national corporation, which helps promote the UN's efforts. FC Barcelona is also the bastion of anti-fascist resistence and a team owned by their fans!

Forza Barca!

In Your Wildest Dreams Friedmans and Co.

2007-10-20T14:46:00.000-06:00

It is fascinating to me the way neoliberal capitalism is defended through fanciful, mythological success stories that do not bear in reality. No matter how much one researches these supposedly glowing examples (Chile, South Africa, Poland, Brazil, Argentina, China, et. al.) of neoliberalism's economic miracles, one only finds the ways in which Milton Friedman and Co. have wreaked havoc across the globe. To be fair, I must admit that neoliberalism has been very successful for a select few, including the beautification of many of the poorest countries' shiny neo-neoliberal capitals, all the while ignoring the surrounding suburbs and rural poverty. This is best exemplified by Thomas Friedman's (no relation to Uncle Milty--I think?) praise of Bangalore. It makes one wonder if he ever bothered to travel around the rest of India. Anyway, the problem is that not only were there doctrinaire promises made about how neoliberal capitalism would solve the world's economic problems and end poverty, but there are still so many people ideologically singing its praises despite contravening evidence. This makes these people either blind fools or its beneficiaries.

Freeing up markets, privatizing everything, stamping out organized labor, lifting restrictions for capital's free reign, removing environmental standards, giving corporations the rights of human beings, reinvesting social spending in production infrastructure, etc. has served its designed purposes perfectly! The gap between rich and poor has never been wider! (An undisputed fact!) Labor markets are cheaper than ever, not competitively driving wages upward as was promised. Instead we are racing ourselves to the bottom. It's as if we are sprinting backwards to the Dark Ages. Not surprisingly, most of the same families that ruled today can be traced back to the aristocracy of the old world.

Perhaps the most stunning feat accomplished by modern capitalism is the way it has been able to return our societies to global slavery, but now however, the capitalists are not even having to finance the transportation of its slaves, instead the 'wretched of the earth' are forced to gravitate where the work is on their own dime, and then forced to work as slaves away from their homes, land, families, and cultures. One will even find among those that have posted on this blog people who believe this kind of exploitation is a necessary step towards the alleviation of such insanity. Such irrational critiques ignore the social, political and economic situations prior to this latest phase of capitalist terror (the neoliberal age). For example, Chile, Argentina, and Brazil were all in much better shape prior to the neoliberal invasion, when many countries such as these and around the rest of the world were developing social democracies, socialist states, etc. Stunningly, they ask us to hold out hope for capitalism's eventual delivery of promises yet unfulfilled. You know, the classic theory in order to save the village we first have to destroy it.

So I am very anxious to hear from those that continue to praise capitalism. I'm excited to hear about their newest example of a capitalist miracle. I'm happy to do some further research and see what I can learn about capitalism in action where it is actually delivering on its promises. However, I would encourage these enthusiasts to own up to the lack of veracity in their claims since the evidence overwhelmingly denies their positions.

Anarchists in the 1936 Spanish Civil War

2007-10-13T19:55:00.001-06:00

We Are a Cancer

2007-09-29T20:24:00.000-06:00

"To protest in the name of morality against 'excesses' or 'abuses' is an error which hints at active complicity. There are no 'abuses' or 'excesses' here, simply an all-pervasive system." --Simone de Beauvoir

God how I wish Sitting Bull, Chief Joseph, Cochise, Red Cloud, Crazy Horse, Geronimo, Washakie, Tecumseh, Little Wolf, Plenty Coups, Manuelito, Pontiac, Osceola, Dohosan, Little Crow, Mehkskehme-Sukubs and others had prevented our cancer from spreading across the globe.

Genocide
Environmental holocaust
Torture
Endless war
Assimilation....

Bury my heart at Wounded Knee, as well.

The Shock Doctrine by Alfonso Cuarón and Naomi Klein

2007-09-12T22:01:00.001-06:00

2007-09-10T12:38:00.001-06:00

Michael Franti - Bomb the World

[via FoxyTunes / Michael Franti]

2007-09-09T22:50:00.001-06:00

Manu Chao - Me gustas tu

[via FoxyTunes / Manu Chao]

2007-09-07T22:18:00.001-06:00

Sweatshop Union - Thing About It

[via FoxyTunes / Sweatshop Union]

Sweatshop Union

2007-09-07T22:10:00.000-06:00

Sweatshop Union - Try

[via FoxyTunes / Sweatshop Union]

"Trickle-up" Economics

2007-06-04T17:16:00.000-06:00

I finally decided on a study path when I was 24. I tried to pay for college through various restaurant jobs as I was attending school, but it was impossible. So, I began taking out student loans. The debt that I have accumulated over four years of undergraduate and three years of graduate school exceeded $100,000. Amazingly, all that money invested in education has landed me a job making $32,000/year as a fourth-year teacher in Montana. You can do the math.

Despite self-deluding myths, this country does not have the most competitive college graduates, nor offer the best education to the vast majority of Americans. What's more, there are countries that offer comparable if not outright superior educations and countries where a teacher's education is free or mostly free. I am not advocating for there to be a compromise that teachers continue to be underpaid in lieu of a free education, but quite the opposite! Teachers salaries should be increased without compromise immediately. Furthermore, to attract the very best and brightest young students into the venerable profession of teaching, the U.S. must move immediately in the direction of making a teacher's education FREE! In the U.K., this has happened and succeeded in encouraging an entire generation of new young educators from among the most talented and competitive pool of U.K. youth.

It is time for the U.S. to wake from its own delusional myth-making and realize that many of the most important jobs millions of Americans take are grossly underpaid before one even considers paying back student loans. The loan "forgiveness" program for teachers is laughable. Teach five years in some of the hardest areas in this country and we'll forgive $5000 of your Stafford loans. That amounts to $1000 per year. Yet if I stay put in a less harsh area where teacher pay is already higher, I can earn more than that $1000 per year after covering higher living costs! It is no incentive at all! This is thinly veiled cynicism.

In fact, they have created a system designed to fail. Not only is there no incentive, student loans demands are much less likely to be met being involved in one of these "incentive" programs. Basic math will reveal this cynical reality. So in the end, the places most in need of energetic and talented teachers who might even care to perform kind acts of civil service are unable to afford it. Screwing the Native Americans of Eastern Montana and Western North Dakota yet creating programs that allow for plausible deniability. "We care about the Native Americans...look we've even made an incentive program designed to attract teachers to help. We can't help it if people just don't want to live and work there!"

What's more, Montana is basically a Title 1 state yet we teachers are some the poorest paid in the nation. Add student loans to our teacher pay and we are unable to raise a family, buy a home, on and on. The American dream is completely bogus. A teacher should be able to buy a nice home, raise a normal size family and have money left over for satisfying basic consumer desires and retirement. Yet we know that the American family has been ripped apart by private tyrannies (corporations) that have led us to a point that there is no longer the possibility of a parent staying home to raise children and create a safe and healthy home. NO! Now our families are torn apart by an unaffordable life--driven primarily by the costs of health care, insurance, housing, fuel, food and higher education. With each passing generation we get further and further away from the basic economic rights our parents enjoyed. We have to go to our parents--even as double-income families--to ask for down-payments that our parents cannot afford on fixed incomes.

No legislator or president can claim to stand for family values through vacuous rhetoric. "Trickle-up" economics are on the way! The theory is anger and discontent with American "democracy" will result in a continued "trickling-up" of our frustration, anger and outrage until we replace this intentionally ineffectual system dominated by private corporations with one that respects an American's rights beyond the political realm to include economic rights!

More From a Decadent Empire

2007-05-29T20:16:00.000-06:00

Don't you just love it? Around every corner is more proof of our lovely system's most endearing effects. This time it's about cheating. Cheating to get ahead. Cheating to look good. Cheating to please mom and dad. Cheating to please oneself.

Here is a fantastic survey taken by collegehumor.com all about cheating in American universities. There are some real doozies. My favorites? Well, let me be completely predictable and say I love the one that indicates that religious students cheat at a rate of 65.4% and non-religious students cheat at a rate of 58.3%. I love it! So much for the moral chumpass...err...compass.

There are some other real gems. How about the real basic 61% of all college students cheat!!! Or...perhaps the most significant in this system of have's and have-not's is that the average GPA of cheaters is 3.37 vs. a GPA of non-cheaters at 2.85. "Screw you teacher, if I'm going to get ahead in this world I'm gonna cheat. The system doesn't reward wholesome principles, or even actual knowledge...it rewards GPA!" A whopping 64.8% of men cheat versus a seemingly modest 42% of women. A sarcastic silver lining of solidarity can be found in the statistic that says that 45% of students allow others to cheat of them. Finally, students that cheat in school are 11% more likely to cheat in their relationships.

In my own high school classes I've decided to circumvent this banal tendency and simply told my students to go ahead and cheat if they want. Considering I've devalued the points they can earn from traditional classroom products such as exams, homework, etc. and based the bulk of their grade on effort and sacrifice, they find it rather pointless to cheat on any of my exams. Also, I randomly make exams worth 1000 or 2000 points to teach them of the pointlessness of grades. They never know what is worth more, a homework assignment, a test, a quiz or a presentation. They really have a difficult time letting go of the idea that I actually reward their in-class participation and attendance more than anything else.

Removing the pressure of a getting a good grade the majority of my students stay engaged in subject. They aren't competing against a system that rewards the "best," but a system that rewards their best efforts and the sacrifices of showing up. Our classroom environment is cooperative, challenging and flexible to the diverse interests, needs and learning styles of my students. My students have to un-earn an "A." And that is a very difficult task. It happens, but not often. The absence of pressure to succeed in the traditional format has invited learning for the sake of learning. We also don't bullshit each other with useless, decontextualized material. We delve into meaningful and pertinent topics. My students love engaging me in politics and cultural/social critiques. All the while, we are learning Spanish.

On the other hand, I offer no magical classroom management techniques to solve the problems colleges and universities face. Instead, I laugh and cringe at the real effects of a system that rewards greed, power, lust, luxury and self-interest. May the wheels fall off this Roman Vomitorium Bus soon!

Exploiting "Revolution"

2007-05-18T16:39:00.000-06:00

Sonia-belle and I have been having a long exchange over my last post, which has now turned into this blog. The topic? Cuba.

This post is derived from the following comments and questions Sonia presented to me:

"Excellent questions, Che Bob.

(Che Bob asked: Did US corporations operating in Cuba prior to 1959 have to exploit and denigrate Cuban civilians to such a degree as to warrant and precipitate their removal?)

Do you really believe that Castro won his revolution because US companies were exploiting Cuban civilians ? If you believe that, ask yourself this: why Cuba ? Why not Bangladesh ? And if exploitation leads to revolution, why there was never a revolution (not even a strike) in North Korea in over 50 years.

I am not saying US companies weren't exploiting people. I know they were. But I know that THIS had nothing to do with people like Castro coming to power. Nothing at all.

The reality is that revolution occur not when oppressors are strong, but when the oppressors are weak. And they don't occur to replace oppressors by humanitarians. They occur to replace weak and indecisive oppressors by better oppressors - more ruthless and more cunning.

This applies to so-called 'leftist' revolutions (Russia in 1917, China in 1949, Cuba in 1960), but also (SURPRISINGLY) to so-called 'right-wing' revolutions - Romania in 1989 for example - there too, the ineffective Communist bureaucracy, unable to control the people anymore, was replaced by the latest, most ruthless version of capitalism.

If you really want to improve people's lives, evolution is the only ticket. Spain, South Korea, Taiwan and Chile - those are the most remarkable examples of positive changes in recent years."

My response:

I completely agree that revolutions mostly occur when oppressors are weak and not strong. This was certainly the case of Fulgencio Batista, King Louis XVI, King George III, Czar Nicholas II, Anastasio Somoza, and many others. I also agree that these weak and indecisive oppressors are often replaced by better oppressors— not always, but often enough. However, your logic does not compute when you admit that a weak oppressor is replaced precisely when he is weak, yet you cannot imagine how Castro was able to capitalize on Batista’s weakness and the historical disdain Cubans had for American imperialism (read: exploitation) that had been coursing through their veins since long before Castro. Castro, for all his faults (and there are plenty), reminded Cubans of the prophetic warnings of José Martí and the looming threat the U.S. posed to Cuba. Martí denounced and resisted the brutal and indentured slavery Cubans had endured under the rule of Spain only to see (posthumously) his descendents re-chained by oppressive American corporations under the weak, indecisive and puppet-like rule of Batista.

At the same time, I can only give cursory credit to Castro for the “revolution.” Revolution was in the Cuban blood long before Castro came along, the same way it has been in the Venezuelan society for much longer than Chavez has been on the scene. In fact, I deny Chavez’s and Castro’s cult-like following for the very reason that is stultifies the true revolutionary changes human beings seek when trying to escape oppression. Figures such as Lenin, Castro and Chavez co-opt and then stunt revolutionary change. Institutionalizing revolution with political parties and authoritarian bureaucracy they sap a revolution’s spirit and hope for genuine social and economic justice.

As far as North Korea and Bangladesh are concerned, I can only offer a guess that the extremely oppressive police state existence makes revolutions very difficult. In other words, the leaders of both these countries have ruled with a tight fist and continually crushed opposition. In other words, their grips are not weak. However, Bangladesh’s recent history has been littered with attempted insurrection, and general strikes only to see them crushed. Ironically, Bangladesh is officially recognized as a “parliamentary representative democratic republic.” Not unlike other ridiculously named “democracies” throughout history.

Which brings me to another concern: so-called “democracies.” Many democracies are by and large a complete sham when the industrial system is controlled by any form of autocratic elite, whether it is owners, managers, technocrats, a vanguard party, a state bureaucracy, or whatever. Whether State Socialism or State Capitalism, the classical liberal ideals cannot be realized under conditions of authoritarian domination or the orders of any boss including the supposedly "soulful elite" in the U.S. whose true goal is profit, power, and growth.

Besides, these false democracies have—in many cases—a far more insidious, coercive and oppressive power with which to control and dominate human beings. That is they give people the false impression of sharing wealth and power. They allow for ostensibly vigorous debate that straddles a digestible and allowable spectrum of opinion while dismissing all measure of divergent opinions that fall outside this permissible spectrum. This faux political spectrum amounts to a system of propaganda that undermines truly critical debate. Therefore, people in countries such as my own believe they are being challenged by our faux debates and that we have a vibrant political discourse here in the U.S. Under dictatorships, on the other hand, the propaganda machine presents itself as a bludgeon and is more likely to foment revolutionary/counter-revolutionary sentiments: Soviet Union, Argentina, Chile, Spain, China, Cuba (today and before 1959), Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc.

Violent discontent is pulsating in South Korea, so I’m not sure I would use that as a positive model. Likewise, the disparity between the wealthy and the poor in Chile has reached an all-time high and no ranks Chile 7^th among its South American neighbors for wealth distribution. Yes, Chile has experienced tremendous growth, but so has the U.S. year after year. Unfortunately, fewer and fewer people enjoy the benefits of wealth production! Chile is far from a model society. Spain is rapidly devolving into a massively consumeristic society, propelled by its “hidalgo” complex. This complex demands obedience to those whom are able to create the most compelling aristocratic appearance despite economic reality. The wheels will definitely fall off that bus soon enough. As far as using Taiwan, I’m pretty sure that place is a sweatshop hell waiting to freeze over.

The biggest error I find among many of us here in the blogosphere is our silly struggle to identify the preferred historical model. I’m not satisfied with any of the political and economic models the world has to offer…so far. As far as I’m concerned, we have a long friggin’ ways to go and a short time to get there: hello Mother Earth!!

What Do We Do When We Are Wrong?

2007-05-07T18:20:00.000-06:00

Over on the blog Left in East Dakota, two sworn opponents of the left, Beakerkin and Sonia, have made a mess of understanding the Spanish Revolution--among other things. But, likewise, it is all too common to observe their opponents (a group to which I belong) failing to admit faults and mistakes made within the historical trajectory of our ideologies. I do not imagine that Beak and Sonia simply lack the ability to read a book (both seem to be very sharp), but rather I believe their misconceptions are blindly driven by ideology. So what if they had read the same books as I did about the Spanish Revolution? Or if I had read their books (assuming they've read about the Spanish Revolution before commenting on it)? How much different would our understandings be? Would either of us be willing to be intellectually honest and cede ground to the other if evidence and reason mounted up against our ideologies?

In the aforementioned post (and many, many others throughout the blogosphere), a discussion ensues in the comments, and one cannot help but notice the hesitation by either side of the argument to give ground, even at the expense of intellectual honesty and rational discourse. Both sides are seemingly guilty of not admitting when they are wrong--historically or about politics today.

SPANISH REVOLUTION

George Orwell had to flee Spain in late 1937 thanks to the treachery of communists of the "right-wing" Leninist/Stalinist variety, socialists and moderate republicans who, like the Western democracies, had no interest in seeing the anarchist revolution succeed. Once again, we observe the threat of a good example. Orwell discusses this in his own words in Homage to Catalonia. I would prefer to take George's own word for it over that of an ideologue like Beakerkin.

In fact, as the historical record reveals, the anarchists (numbering over one million in 1936) were completely isolated by right-wing fascists, Western "democracies" and the whole slew of supposedly leftist groups. The Spanish "communists" (authoritarian version) were no more interested in the success of the social revolution than were the fascist for an obvious reason: power!

ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY

There is a tendency for corrupt, illegitimate and oppressive power consistent throughout history with all governments. It has been especially egregious wherever right-wing communism, and of course fascism, has emerged. But let's concentrate our criticism on the communist variety that far too many leftists attempt to defend. Let's look at Cuba, one of my favorite studies and a place I have experienced firsthand. While Cuba, like no other "communist" nation, has accomplished an unprecedented level of social and economic justice (bearing in mind that the stagnant economy cannot be discussed separate from the devastating toll of the U.S. Embargo), they have done little to distribute the political power of their nation and are guilty of all variety of human rights violations. But so are we here in the U.S. We allow millions to starve and live without homes in the wealthiest nation the earth has ever known. We make money off of other people's misery. We are as selfish and greedy a nation as the world has ever seen.

However, since many of us hate to admit it, let me say for my part that Cuba is not a democracy! A student asked me last week if I want to go live in Cuba, to which I responded, "hell no!" I love many of my rights here in the U.S., but I am appalled by--and want to change--the heinous inequality and social injustice we experience across this country. Not too mention most of what we enjoy materially, politically, and economically is as a result of imperial plunder. I hate what my country represents running roughshod over the world, stuffing its face with cake, committing war crimes, violating human rights on innumerable fronts, and on and on. I, like the Cubans I visited with on the streets of Havana, am displeased with all manner of sins committed in the bullshit name of my country. We must believe more can be done here and in Cuba and everywhere else. But rather than punishing good examples because it threatens our fragile little ideologies, have the stones and honesty to admit it when something is working to serve the common good.

Castro, like most all world leaders (ESPECIALLY U.S. PRESIDENTS), has committed many crimes and should be held accountable. Especially by those of us that claim to be struggling for social and economic justice.

INTELLECTUAL HONESTY

Beak and Sonia seem incapable of intellectual honesty or perhaps a nuanced answer when discussing politics and economics. At the same time, giving ground and admitting the horrific tolls of human lives destroyed under the name (AND NAME ONLY!) of "communism," or "socialism" is imperative. We do a tremendous disservice to the merits and value, not too mention those killed struggling for these ideals, by associating them with Soviet, Chinese, and other examples. Besides, we have plenty of ideologues to try to make blanket statements about socialism. We would be smart to never defend that which is obviously beyond defense.

Perhaps we all need to ask ourselves the question my student asked me: "Would you live there?" Would any of us on the left have wanted to live in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc.? Would those on the right have wanted to live under Pinochet, Videla, Franco, etc.?

Justice!

2007-05-02T18:12:00.000-06:00

"The ruler, the capitalist, and the priest rested that afternoon in the shadow of an ash tree whose leaves shined brightly in the mountain canyon.
The capitalist, visibly agitated, mashed a red booklet into pulp with his hands, and said between sighs:
"I've lost everything: my fields, my cattle, my mills, my factories; everything is under the power of the ragged bums."
The ruler, trembling with rage, said:
"This is the end. Nobody respects authority anymore."
And the priest raised his eyes to the sky and said remorsefully:
"Damned reason! It has killed faith!"
The three estimable persons thought, and thought, and thought...The previous night had seen fifty revolutionaries storm into the village, and the working people who lived there had welcomed them with open arms; and while the revolutionaries were searching for the ruler, the capitalist, and the priest to demand of them a strict account of their acts, they had fled to the canyon seeking refuge.
"Our domination of the masses has ended," said the ruler and the capitalist in a single voice.
The priest smiled and said, in an assured tone:
"Don't worry yourselves. It's certain that faith has lost ground, but I can assure you that, through the means of religion, we can recuperate everything that we've lost. At first glance, it appears that the ideas contained in this damned booklet have triumphed in the village, and they will certainly triumph if we do nothing. I don't deny that these evil ideas enjoy a certain sympathy among the common people; but others repudiate them, above all they repudiate those that attack religion, and it is among these that we can foment a reactionary movement. Fortunately, we three could escape, because if we'd have perished at the hands of the revolutionaries, the old institutions would have died with us."
The capitalist and the ruler felt as if a great weight had been lifted off their backs. The eyes of the capitalist flashed, burning with greed. How? How could it be possible for him to return to enjoying the possession of his fields, cattle, mills, and factories? Had it all been nothing but a cruel nightmare? Could he return to having all of the people of the region under his power, thanks to the good offices of religion? And, rising to his feet, he shook his fist in the direction of the village, whose country houses shined brilliantly white beneath the sun.
The ruler, emotionally, said with conviction:
"I have always believed that religion is the firmest support for authority. Religion teaches that God is the primary boss, and that we rulers are his lieutenants on Earth. Religion condemns rebellion because it holds that the rulers are above the people by the will of God. Long live religion!"
Fired up by his own words, the ruler snatched from the hands of the capitalist the red booklet, tearing it to shreds and throwing the scraps in the direction of the village, as a challenge to the noble insurrectionary workers.
"Dogs!" he cried. "Recieve this along with my spit!"
The scraps of paper flew happily away, blown by the wind, like big toy butterflies. They were the Partido Liberal Mexicano manifesto of September 23, 1911.
The first shadows of night began to fall in the valley, and in the twilight one could see waving, above one small house in the village, a red flag bearing in white letters this inscription: "Land and Liberty." The ruler, the capitalist, and the priest screamed, waving their fists at the village:
"Nest of vipers! We'll soon crush you!"
The final rays of the sun still shone in the west as it set; the frogs began their custormary serenade, free, happy, ignorant or the miseries that men suffer. In the ash tree, a pair of songbirds sang their song of free love, free of judges, priests, law clerks. The peaceful beauty of the hour invited the human heart to manifest all of its tortures, and for those sentiments to materialize in a work of art.
Making even the rocks shake, a formidable cry rolled up the canyon: "Who is there?"
The ruler, the capitalist, and the cleric trembled, anticipating their end. Night had finally laid all of the rays from the sun to rest; the songbirds grew quiet; the frogs fell silent; a gust of wind agitated frighteningly the branches of the ash tree; and in the darkness, frightfully, returned the ominous cry: "Who is there?"
The three estimable persons remembered in a single second their crimes: they had enjoyed all the good things of life at the cost of the suffering of the humble; they had maintained humanity in ignorance and misery in order to satisfy their appetites.
The sound of energetic footsteps grew louder: they were those of the soldiers of the people, of the soldiers of the social revolution. A round of gunfire left rolling in the dust, without life, the representatives of the hydra with three heads: Authority, Capital, Clergy."

-Ricardo Flores Magon, Regeneracion, November 13, 1915.

Debunking Choice

2007-04-21T09:06:00.000-06:00

"The Gringos provide the weapons, Colombia provides the dead," reads a billboard near the home of Yaneth Perez who recently spoke across the state of Montana. This is Yaneth's second visit to the Big Sky country in as many years. On this particular visit to Montana she spoke in front of 18 different audiences to as many 800 people. Fortunately, nearly 375 of those able to hear her speak were high school students!

Hallelujah! because at least some high school students in Montana were exposed to the firsthand testimony of an actual Colombian whose real lived experience differs from the doctrinal version sold hook, line and sinker to them the rest of the 179 school days! Surely, dozens of those high school students didn't pay attention or even care what Yaneth had to say, but for many others, seeds of doubt and serious questions about U.S. foreign and economic policy were raised.

As I was in attendance at four of the high school presentations, I can attest to the high level of concern Montana high school youth expressed for Yaneth's precarious existence. And as Yaneth explained to them the role American lifestyle plays in the wide-spread killings in Colombia through the consumption of cocaine and oil, these students were moved. They were moved because unlike the vast majority of adults who live in massive denial about the effects of their lifestyles and who don't get the most basic lessons of economics, the high school students understood that if we stopped providing the demand then it would follow that Colombians would stop killing each other in order to provide the supply.

As a side note, one of the most disconcerting tendencies I've heard out many of my own students this year is the notion that choice plays a significant role in the harsh realities most of the world suffers. Nearly 70% of my students believe people choose to be poor, homeless, etc.! If there were one single aspect of American indoctrination that most concerns me, it is this bullshit myth.

American culture provides us with so much in the way of meaningless choices (thousands of cold beverages, shoes, etc.) that we begin to assume all areas of our lives are a matter of choices. Choices that are simple to understand, but difficult to discipline ourselves to take. Ah! discipline. If only we were all as "disciplined" as the wealthy! At least 70% of my students are convinced that "making it" is a matter of their choosing. On the other hand, they are equipped with an excuse already made for them, that if they don't "make it" it was due to poor choices and lack of discipline. In other words, they chose not to overachieve and strive and assuredly the disinterested economic and political structure had nothing to do with it. In fact, many Americans may go so far as to believe these structures provide encouragement and assistance when discipline is present. In other words, they not only failed themselves, but they failed a benevolent system and have become a drag on the whole society. Besides living in poverty, the poor should feel ashamed of having wasting a golden opportunity! A basic assumption these students are making is that these structures are in essence benign and simply a matter of disciplining oneself to learn how to navigate their complex labyrinth.

Someday soon, many of these high school students will become American adults and will join their parents in undisciplined choices, denial about the role their lifestyle plays in the rest of the world and the orgy of thoughtless consumption. Thanks to some teachers efforts to demystify American myths and deconstruct power relationships and expose the omnipresent institutional flack machine, some students may begin to question things as they seem. Thanks to Yaneth Perez, an unmediated actual person, at least a number of them have now heard some of the "unofficial" story.

Been Caught Thinking

2007-04-17T17:37:00.000-06:00

Thanks to Troutsky and his tagging me with a Thinking Blogger Award, I'm going to have to start thinking about my thinking!

Here are five bloggers that keep me thinking:

Aprilloper at Idaho Blue is not a frequent blogger, but offers deep reflections about our world and looks at a diverse range of topics. Were she not so busy being a mother, running her businesses, remodeling her home, and volunteering perhaps she would give more time to blogging. Or perhaps she says just enough.
Marie Trigona at Latin American Activism is on the front line of important struggles throughout Latin America. Her dedication to libertarian struggles in Argentina are one of a kind in the blogosphere.
Graemeanfinson over at Left in East Dakota is another thoughtful blogger. He keeps me laughing with all variety of blogs. Not too mention, his sight honors the IWW!
Very little need be said about the Mutualist Blog, but it definitely keeps me on my toes and gives me plenty to ponder.
Without a doubt, Thoughtstreaming is the blog I always start with for my daily dose.

Should you choose to participate, please make sure you pass this list of rules to the blogs you are tagging.

The participation rules are simple:
1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to 5 blogs that make you think,
2. Link to this post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme,
3. Optional: Proudly display the ‘Thinking Blogger Award’ with a link to the post that you wrote.

Bush Unwelcome in Latin America

2007-03-11T18:51:00.000-06:00

A quick browsing of CNN Español’s online video clips reveals the continent-wide hatred our latino neighbors reserve for our commander-in-chief—the government’s devastating economic and political policies in tow. Meanwhile, protests have erupted throughout Latin America where President Bush is desperately seeking a place to land Air Force One where he might be welcomed. Instead, Latin Americans from Guatemala to Argentina are reminding Bush that should he land his airplane in their territory it will be to voices chanting in unison: “asesino” (“murderer”).

Of course, this ire should not belong to Bush alone, as he is only the most current version of imperial master. After 500 years of regional oppression, isolation and division Latin Americans are looking increasingly towards each other for solidarity. Loosely modeling of regional integration after the European Union, today’s Latin American leaders Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Rafael Correa of Ecuador, Lula da Silva of Brazil, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Nestor Kirchner of Argentina and Tabare Vazquez of Uruguay are rejecting American foreign and economic policy in lieu of their own trade and diplomatic agreements.

Notable among the majority of voices rejecting Bush is one dissenting voice: American ally Alvarez Uribe of Colombia. Not surprisingly, Colombia is the third largest recipient of American military aid and is seeking to have President Bush extend our nation’s inhumane aid package called Plan Colombia. This U.S. taxpayer-funded “plan” has led to the loss of ten of thousands of innocent lives, environmental destruction and made possible the continuation of an insanely brutal war. Conspicuously absent from the list of nations highlighted in the easy-to-dismiss “Human Rights Report” issued by the U.S. each year (besides itself) was Colombia where thousands of people are killed every year at the hands of Colombia’s military/para-military forces that our glorious government funds. Does hypocrisy and irony know no limit?

Getting Horizontal

2007-03-06T18:30:00.000-07:00

If you have not already read or heard of a newer book called Horizontalism by Marina Sitrin, RUN—DO NOT WALK—TO FIND IT.

This amazing collection of voices emerging from the nearly-impossible-to-describe Argentine reality is revolutionary. This book works ontologically to discuss all variety of issues including power structures, language, participatory politics and economics, among other important social issues.

Even now, as I try to recapitulate this book’s assessments I am denied access. The point is Argentines are recreating, reinventing and defying reification. I have even had a discussion with an American who recently returned from his stay there that spanned several years. The voices and testimony provided in this book have even eluded him despite his sincerest intentions and seemingly open mind.

If the voices Sitrin collected from across Argentina continue to exist there, it would seem there is ample reason to have hope that a complete reworking of civilizations is possible. Entire communities are asking deeply critical and existential questions about the nature of our old and out-dated ways of thinking.

“Hope,” however, is not to be confused with utopia. What is being discussed, discovered and practiced is sticky, messy and painful. However, presuppositions about the untenable contradictions of capitalism have put many of these Argentines on the doorstep of deciding to permit the dissolution of humanity or create a whole new civilization. At the same time, these horizontal processes and movements are equally suspicious of all of history’s revolutions. They seem determined, in many cases, to avoid co-optation by leftist politics as well. As the voices in the book continually resound, they are seeking new paths for organizing their societies.

In college, getting “horizontal” had an all too banal meaning. That too is being reworked in my mind.

Teachers in a World of "Shock and Awe"

2007-03-02T22:01:00.000-07:00

As if teachers don’t get enough blame heaped on them, I’m going to heap some more. Being a teacher myself, I deserve a share of the criticism. It seems that we teachers are completely oblivious to the hypocrisy of our “do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do” approach to education. We also have a tremendous knack for criticizing our students for not learning things we never teach them, namely causality, critical thinking, and self-reliance. Some mention should be made that whatever negative impact we desperate teachers could be having on today’s youth, it pales in comparison to the “shock and awe” society-at-large, which includes our government, corporate capitalism and its lackey media, and the resulting deterioration of family life. However, it is my contention that teachers have a unique opportunity to provide hope for future generations by standing up to manufactured political “controversies” and discuss head-on the issues that pervade a student’s mind. We must demonstrate a willingness to confront society’s hypocrisies, social injustice, and global crises instead of perpetuating America’s hopeless delusions of exceptionality, success through bootstrap discipline, and our divine blessing.

“Shock” is exactly how I felt when I heard the news that at my high school several kids premeditated an attack of another kid in order to capture it on their cell phone video cameras. The goal was to upload it onto the Internet. The attacked kid went into convulsions and was hospitalized. “Shock” rules the day in an increasingly irreverent and impulsive society. However, the responses and reactions I heard teachers making were equally dismaying. Here is where the hypocrisy of educators begins.

We act shocked and surprised that our youth are acting out and impulsive yet my fellow teachers vapor locked when I asked them to look at the society of “shock and awe,” right down to the language chosen by our leaders to carry out a murderous rampage on innocent lives. Our act in Baghdad was an utter act of irreverence for human life and we titled it “shock and awe.” Shock jock radio and shock jock TV (Jackass) are stepping up their campaigns to shock, including a recent on-air death of a mother trying to win her son a Nintendo by drinking two gallons of water without urinating. She died from drowning her own tissue. (Radio station employees got fired, young child lost mother). One upping and shocking is rapidly devolving the most basic levels of common sense. What could this be saying about the subconscious thinking of our decadent society? Nihilism? Zero sum?...Or are we desperate to wake up from our “idiocracy”?

Enter the teacher. We have an opportunity to teach accountability by modeling it before we demand it from our students. If I was in a student’s shoes, I’d wonder what the fuck kind of hypocrite my teacher was for asking me to act more responsibly and to hold myself accountable when all around me I see the adults in society failing to hold their government accountable for crimes against humanity, and human rights violations. As a student I’d be outraged that a teacher demanded from me accountability when in textbook Orwellian fashion I perpetuated obvious lies for the sake of ideology. A psychological study needs to be done on teens in this country that aimed at assessing the anger festering in our youth on a latent/subconscious level as they must clearly know they are being handed off a much more fucked up world environmentally and geopolitically than we were given.

A common complaint among my colleagues is that “kids today don’t get causality.” As if irony knew no limits, these teachers don’t know why! Just to be snarky and smug, I sometimes ask them why they think that is. Sad to say the usual responses deflect blame from our dear old profession. So I say again, “modeling for students what we expect them to learn might yield fruit.” Besides that we can do a revolutionary thing: we can teach it! That’s right, we can teach causality. I’m pretty sure the kids get that straightforward concepts of causality they learned in science class, but they rarely see it applied by their teachers, let alone the rest of society.

In fact, I asked my students why it was we (our media, educators, government, et. al.) don’t ever seem to discuss the causes of a massive immigration problem, but instead deliberately choose to study and cover the effects down to the very last detail. I am proud to say one of my students was quick to reply, “because we won’t like what we see when we look in the mirror!”

Even if we think kids aren’t listening they are. It’s just they are good at tuning out the bullshit. When a teacher decides to be honest and stop presenting the world as a clean, linear, desexed Elysian paradise for the disciplined few, and instead models how a committed individual should be denouncing hypocrisy, social injustices, and resisting illegitimate authority without utopian illusions, that is when students may start to truly listen. However, for many school is already a lost cause and surviving it is a major struggle. Needless to say, teachers are in a unique position to model accountability beyond faux democratic processes such as voting. Teachers could get their asses organized and pressure the institutions that undervalue education, rather than modeling excuse-making. It’s no wonder students feel powerless and hopeless. Where in society do they see it modeled?

Ecuador's New Government

2007-03-02T09:38:00.000-07:00

lonestone revolution: Latin America News Review: Ecuador's New Government Talks Default on Debt: Latin America's New Reality

Non-profits: Help or hindrance?

2007-02-25T16:23:00.000-07:00

"In the United States, nonprofits play a critical role. They provide almost all social services, arts and other culture, education, advocacy, religion, pro bono legal services, and free health care. In addition, nonprofits are leading the charge, and in many cases, are the only organizations working on saving the environment, ending racism, protecting civil rights and civil liberties, and promoting full acceptance and recognition of the rights of women, sexual minorities, people with disabilities, and seniors. In general, then, almost everything that is creative, humane, and promoting of justice is brought to us by a nonprofit" (Klein, Kim. Fundraising for Social Change. Jossey Bass: New York, 2001).

Ever since I read the preceding words written by one of the most important figures in the field of grassroots fundraising, Kim Klein, I can't stop wondering if in fact nonprofits prevent the possibility for true social, economic and environmental justice. Doesn't the massive nonprofit sector provide capitalists with a philanthropic out? Paulo Freire once said: "In order to have the continued opportunity to express their "generosity," the oppressors must perpetuate injustice as well."

When one considers the enormous amounts of human energy through volunteer hours organizing, educating, advocating, and fundraising to provide the most basic of human rights, one must question whether or not American capitalists are avoiding their responsibility for the maldistribution of wealth, resources and power. Nonprofit activists are often caught up in a tense conflict of their principles by asking the wealthy for money to save the environment that they, "the wealthy elites," polluted; or nonprofits often have to ask for the blood money the wealthy earned in their stock portfolios from the profits of companies like Coca-Cola that has a direct role to the murder of union-workers in Colombia; and the list goes on and on.

What if nonprofits stopped providing their services? What if nonprofit activists stopped investing their time, energy and scant financial resources providing basic human services that are the responsibility of the entire society and instead focused its collective energies organizing for systemic revolution? What if the nonprofit sector stopped begging for blood money, closed its doors and forced Americans to look to its government for help? Would that apply the kind of pressure needed to get universal health care? Would that force Americans to start rethinking the myths of American exceptionality and capitalism's benevolent "invisible hand"?

Perhaps the time has come to stop bailing capitalism out and start organizing for a revolutionary future.

The "Hidden Rules" to Ruby Payne's Success

2007-01-29T13:12:00.000-07:00

"Freedom without opportunity is the devil's gift." --Noam Chomsky

Ruby K. Payne has been bilking tax-payers, school districts, as well as their administrators and educators for over ten years with little resistance. Payne is the founder and CEO of aha! Process Inc., where she publishes her own work: making academic scrutiny of her ideas and theories impossible. Payne will be speaking in Helena, Montana on Wednesday, January 31, 2007 where thousands of teachers, Title 1 workers and administrators from around Montana will converge to give her the tax-payer’s money. What will the thousands of dollars get them? A classist and racist perspective on poverty…oh yeah, plus her book!

If Ruby Payne is so bad, then how has she been able to get away with it for so long? An education professor from Illinois State University recently decided to do some of her own investigations of Ruby Payne since she had been hearing so much about her. Professor Anita Bohn thought that maybe the next Jonathan Kozol (Savage Inequalities) had arrived to the scene to help lead the struggle against poverty and education’s role in addressing it. Bohn’s initial search in her university library catalog yielded no results. A secondary search again turned up dry. However, as the professor’s story goes, “[w]hen I typed the name “Ruby Payne” into a Google search, though, I hit a jackpot.”

Payne has reached hundreds of thousands of educators across the country “and even in Australia and New Zealand,” yet she is virtually unknown in the academic world. Just to test this theory last night, I called two professors of education at Carroll College (Helena, MT) and the University of Montana (Missoula). Neither knew much of anything about her work. In fact, only I had read her book. By self-publishing, Payne avoids having her “evidence” scrutinized and—similarly—her “theories” steer clear of scholarly analysis. In sum, Payne’s work remains outside the academic pipeline which may help explain her phenomenal success.

Payne charges between $60 and $300 per individual registrant. Missoula County Public Schools is paying $60 per person. The Townsend School District is paying $150 per person. If Payne’s past success in drawing large crowds is an appropriate indicator, Payne can expect to rake in a cool $60,000-$200,000 for her one-day conference! According to Professor Bohn’s research, “[s]ince 1996, Payne and her assistants have been conduction 200 seminars a year training as many as 25,000 teachers and school administrators to work with children from poverty, making her the single biggest influence on teachers’ understanding of children from poverty in the United States.” According to these numbers, if Payne were charging every single registrant the low end $60/head, she is taking $1,500,000 a year from tax payers to misinform the public education system! Bohn asserts that the cost to attend a conference is $300 (at this rate the income would be $7.5 million). Perhaps Montana’s poor got a break from kind Mrs. Payne at $60-$150 per head! P.S. Ruby Payne's aha! Process, Inc. is not a non-profit organization!

In two days time, I will be attending Payne’s conference. I was invited by my school district along with two busloads of fellow teachers from Missoula. When I decided to go I had not yet read Payne’s work, but like hundreds of thousands of others, my interest was piqued by Payne’s catchy book title: A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Perhaps most misleading, however, was the title Payne gave herself—thanks in no small part to her ability to self-publish—“The Leading U.S. Expert on the Mindsets of Poverty, Middle Class, and Wealth.” Amazingly, that title was not given to her due to academic achievement or by accomplished educationalists within the field of education or sociology.

Having now read her book, I don’t know what is more disconcerting: 1) that Payne appears to have few detractors which means—for the near future at least—she will continue to exert her damaging influence on public education; or 2) that so many educators have failed to demonstrate the ability to detect the blatant racism, classism, and assimilationism she is being allowed to pontificate. It is a sad state of affairs either way. The academic community must be alerted to her demagoguery and the snake-charmer’s appeal her one-size-fits-all answers profess.

Should Payne be allowed to be heard? Absolutely. If we don’t believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, we don’t believe in it at all. However, Payne’s work has not been exposed to the rigors of true academia. Therefore, she should be judged by peers and professionals, before school districts imprudently dump tax-payer’s money into her coffers. A Framework for Understanding Poverty is overtly emotional and anecdotal making it extremely alluring and seductive to teachers looking for magical solutions to the overwhelming issue of poverty. However, instead of addressing the causes of poverty, she misdirects readers to understand the effects of poverty to be understood as causes. Instead of questioning how the richest nation in the world could have such abject and deplorable scenarios of poverty, she stereotypes poverty with anecdotal scenarios and offers as a solution that educators teach children how to think, act and aspire to be middle class. Give them kids some bootstraps to start pulling themselves up by!

Why should anyone aspire to transcend to the next class level if one had previously experienced that class as oppressive? Should it be a child’s goal to obtain the money and power to oppress those below them? Are we supposed to inspire kids by explaining to them that if they make it to our level they will no longer be on the bottom and then they can have someone else dig their ditches, or pick their fruit? Where is the debate about the legitimacy of maintaining a system that allows for poverty and oppression? Are we to teach kids that poverty is inevitable and that nothing can be done to distribute the “American Dream” equitably? Payne’s attempt to abstract “the hidden rules” of the class system from the unimaginably complex “bigger picture” of economics, society, culture, and politics for observation intentionally ignores our “me-first” society’s biggest dilemma: the equitable distribution of wealth. Instead of offering a solution to poverty, Payne is helping to maintain it. The poor need money, food, housing, health care, and education, not “hidden rules.”

To read the ONLY TWO scholarly critiques available (please do your own Internet searches and let me know if any other school’s of education are on to her) on Ruby Payne follow these links:

Savage Unrealities: Classism and racism abound in Ruby Payne's Framework

A Framework for Understanding Ruby Payne

Montana educators should also be alerted to a recent Missoulian article expressing contentions that the UM Native American Studies department has with Payne’s work.

Writer Panned by Educators for Stereotypes...

Please help save underfunded school districts money by forwarding this story.

Diversity of Opinion

2007-01-19T17:43:00.000-07:00

I want to thank Che Bob for inviting me to Lonestone Revolution as a contributing author. I am truly honored. Although the bulk of my first post here is not written my me. I do think that it will serve the tone which Che Bob and the other authors have set here.

One of the big differences between myself and the some of other authors is how I arrive at my opinions. Che Bob believes that the crisis is the system, capitalism, and it is here now. My beliefs are more along the lines of; the system is the cause of a worldwide convergence of three crises, global climate change, peak oil, and over population, soon to come. We both agree that capitalism has run it's course and will soon be economic history, and that economies and governance will soon be localized and not global. When and how this relocalization takes place is another differance between us.

So in honoring that we both maybe right, I want to offer the following essay from Mike Ruppert. I believe that it portrays that the two camps of thought on which crisis we are dealing with, are not mutually exclusive and that the end goal is the same for both of us.

Aprilloper

EVOLUTION
by Michael C. Ruppert

© Copyright 2006, From The Wilderness Publications, www.fromthewilderness.com. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web site for non-profit purposes only.

Cultural diversity is not only humanity’s hallmark of progress, but an insurance policy against extinction as a species. Diversity gives not only cultural and economic riches derived from different perspectives on natural resources and what it means to be human, but options to problem solving that are stifled in a homogenized society. When such a society is organized around economic goals that are measured by profit margins for private gain by powerful elites, where the demands of those who bear cash as the ticket of admission to the marketplace rule, rather than the needs of people, then those who are deprived – and those who have never been part of such a global economy – must necessarily suffer. The genocide of tribal peoples, therefore, is symptomatic of a deep malaise in the world’s metropolises. Indigenous peoples will suffer the most, but humanity as a whole will suffer the loss of some of its memory, not only of a unique knowledge of the natural world, but of its ability to cope with the future in various, diverse ways.

THY WILL BE DONE, The Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil, Gerard Colby with Charlotte Dennett

Harper Collins, 1995, p. 685

November 7th 2006, 4:39PM [PST] – Nature protects itself through diversity. It stands to reason then that when threatened – as it is now on so many fronts – Mother Earth will exert itself aggressively; enforcing rigid boundaries that ignore the lives of individuals – plant or animal – in order to preserve the diversity which protects all life. That human beings as a species also show such characteristics is proof of the connection between man and planet. In some ways this is not unlike the point in time when a child must break with parents in order to fulfill its own destiny, with its own unique life path, thus guaranteeing that the evolutionary process – life itself – is protected; that something better and new might follow.

All individual life ends so that that life as a whole may go on and evolve. As I have said in so many lectures, the human race is now being faced with a choice: either evolve or perish.

Americans tend to think of the Third World as “the frontier”, a place still open to settlement as if it were a divine right just for the willingness to endure a little hardship. With overpopulation and dwindling global resources, the “frontiers” are defending themselves to protect diversity in many ways; ways that are far more effective than any resistance to colonization in previous centuries. Global warming has been characterized as a planet developing a fever to rid itself of an infection. I believe that increasing global tensions might also be mirroring that process.

The human side of this resistance is also organic and, in Latin America, Venezuela is its heart. It has now taken solid root, emerging almost simultaneously in Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador. I do not think it can be stopped. It is an anthropological resistance.

Living in Venezuela has been an amazing, brutal, and illuminating lesson. It is a truly alien culture that I find simultaneously beautiful, hard, giving, unfamiliar, uncomfortable and definitely self-protecting to the extreme. That is why I am confident that Venezuela, and most of Latin America, will survive the coming crash of Peak Oil better than any other region of the world. I believe it is already starting to protect itself. It doesn’t need me or any outsider to survive. But as a general rule, only those who are native here will be protected by its blessings.

It is not just that I am blond haired and blue-eyed, which does get me a lot of double takes – some hostile. It is as though I am a fish used to swimming in a different kind of water. The way that I swim affects the other fish here, already swimming too much in a superimposed American cultural blanket that has been enforced by scores of coups, debt enslavement, colonization, exploitation, genocide and war over the course of the 20th century and into today. In order to understand this picture a British citizen trying to drive in super-crowded Caracan traffic where there are few rules. Under stress the Brit might instinctively react in a way that might tie up streets. Now change the image of traffic to a culture adapting to dwindling energy reserves, conflict or panic. The Brit would be singled out quickly and forced off the road so that the rest might “function” in ways they were accustomed to.

However, the powerful lessons and principles of human justice, sustainability, harmony with the land, freedom from the mandate of endless capitalist growth, openness, and localization contained in the Bolivarian Revolution led by Hugo Chavez are powerful survival tools that can and must be studied and adapted to other regions. If one reads Richard Heinberg, Matt Savinar, Megan Quinn, Post Carbon Institute, FTW, or any of the great sustainability writers, one will find those same principles; arrived at through different means.

Forget labels. This is what will work.

The Bolivarian Revolution is different from the main body of sustainability literature in one key respect. It is the practical, hands-on implementation of these principles on local, national and continental levels; something all European and North American sustainability advocates know little or nothing about. How could they? While US and European sustainability advocates write about “shoulds” the Bolivarian Revolution is an evolving process of actual doing. It must be watched closely by all who would learn from it.

The irony is that for the most part, the Bolivarian revolution does not see itself as a sustainability movement but rather as a political and economic one. Now for another of my trademarked quotes: Until you change the way money works, you change nothing. The Bolivarian Revolution is doing just that.

PROTECTING DIVERSITY

The Bolivarian Revolution and Venezuelan culture inherently knows that it cannot make too many exceptions to the rule that diversity must protect itself or else the rule will have no meaning. That’s exactly what I was asking it to do (though I didn’t know it) when I came here. I am not just one migrating gringo. Mike Ruppert could not be assimilated without changing something here: the Tao of politics.

That is why, after 15 weeks of waiting, after only one interview, a formal petition and a lot of pressure from influential Americans and Venezuelan-Americans (some with direct government connections) I have not heard a word on my request for political asylum. Venezuelans are inherently suspicious, let alone of a blond gringo who is an ex-policeman who came from a US intelligence family. It is possible that within the massive and glacially slow bureaucracy, some who are not loyal to Chavez have buried my request under a pile of papers. In Latin America things take much longer and I can see now that the waiting process, never guaranteed to be successful, is part of a natural selection.

My thirty year record of activism and sacrifice in the US means little in Venezuela. Those deposits were made in a bank belonging to a different ecosystem. There are no ATMs for that kind of withdrawal here.

The first real kindness shown to me by a full-blooded Latin American with government connections, came about two weeks ago as “Tano”, a bearded artist and long-time revolutionary who had worked with Salvador Allende in Chile, looked at me with true compassion and said, “Venezuela will run you through a gauntlet. It will ignore you. It will make promises and never call you back or fulfill them. It will mistrust you even if you have lived here for ten years, twenty years.”

It took me 12 weeks to get to Tano and it was not by a linear, logical path.

Tano is a famed artist and thinker knows Hugo Chavez personally. He has traveled with him. His kindness and sympathy was abundant and visible. Kittens slept on his massive belly as he spoke from behind a desk cluttered with papers. Two dogs gravitated to him as though he was a magnet. He offered to open doors and make some introductions in certain ministries. As opposed to many other unfulfilled promises since I have been here, he meant it. Promises are made quickly here and soon forgotten, even between native Venezuelans. But it was already too late. My health was gone, I could not make one important event and I had already been rejected like an invading organism; rejected by the differences in culture and an environment I had trouble adapting to.

I was introduced to Tano by my young Venezuelan friend Ivan, who, at 27, who had just quit his job as a trader at J.P. Morgan because it was too stressful. He was too Venezuelan to live the life of a Venezuelan posing as an American. Good for him.

It would be embarrassing to many people if I named the names of all of those back “home” who, learning that I had come here, told me that they had been considering the same move. They said that when things got intolerable in the States, or the UK, or Canada, they would just move here; or to Costa Rica, or to New Zealand, or to someplace else. My pains and troubles here will serve as an object lesson for all that the time to relocate in advance of Peak Oil has, for almost everyone, long passed.

DISTINCTIONS

The important distinctions about adaptivity are not racial at all. US citizens come in all colors. American culture is the water they have swum in since birth. A native US citizen of Latin descent who did not (or even did) speak Spanish would probably feel almost as out of place here as I do. They would look the same but not feel the same. And when it came time to deal collectively with a rapidly changing world, a world in turmoil, a native-born American’s inbred decades of “instinctive” survival skills might not harmonize with the skills used by those around him.

Another one of my trademarked lines is that Post Peak survival is not a matter of individual survival or national survival. It is a matter of cooperative, community survival. If one is not a fully integrated member of a community when the challenges come, one might hinder the effectiveness of the entire community which has unspoken and often consciously unrecognized ways of adapting. As stresses increase, the gauntlets required to gain acceptance in strange places will only get tougher. Diversity will become more, rather than less, rigid and enforced.

As energy shortages and blackouts arrive; as food shortages grow worse; as droughts expand and proliferate; as icecaps melt, as restless, cold and hungry populations start looking for other places to go; minute cultural and racial differences will trigger progressively more abrupt reactions, not unlike a stressed out and ill human body will react more violently to things that otherwise would never reach conscious thought.

Start building your lifeboats where you are now. I can see that the lessons I have learned here are important whether you are thinking of moving from city to countryside, state to state, or nation to nation. Whatever shortcomings you may think exist where you live are far outnumbered by the advantages you have where you are a part of an existing ecosystem that you know and which knows you.

If the time comes when it is necessary to leave that community you will be better off moving with your tribe rather than moving alone.

Evolution is guaranteed. Useful knowledge gained by ancestors is incorporated into succeeding generations. It may not be used in the same way that it was when acquired. It may lie dormant for years or decades, safely stored in DNA or the collective unconscious. But it is there, and it will always be available should the day come when it is needed.

Playing the Game

2007-01-14T14:19:00.000-07:00

People are failing to appreciate the system that oppresses them and continue to believe—wrongly—that a politician such as Barak Obama is the solution. Obama is being called a "unifier," and people are swallowing this shit up. Obama smiles at us, and talks to us, and makes us feel all good inside, but we know nothing about his policies. And this is very intentional. This helps maintain the wide gap that exists between public opinion and public policy. Along with keeping the public out of the policy-making arena and leaving that business to elected elites, the American political system degenerates any possibility of making meaningful elections possible by engaging the public in a tense battle of voting for personalities and forgetting about the issues. So how do we narrow the gap and make the political system respond to our demands? Do we play the game and risk expending valuable energy and money on politicians or strike out in our own direction of local organization that can lead to powerful direct action? Do we need to take more personal risks in the spirit of civil rights activists from the 60s or turn of the century workers fighting for the right to organize, or do we sit back and wait for Obama, Clinton and Tester to “deliver us from evil”?

Just like Bill Clinton before him, people see this charming personality in Obama and hear his rhetoric of unifying a divided country, but the true divide exists not between conservatives and liberals, but between public policy and public opinion. Policies in this country are generally more conservative than the American public. A prime example is that Americans want universal—even socialized—health care by a wide margin (70%), but we can't get our politicians to even recognize this demand. When we hear politicians talk of “mandates” one is in danger of dying from laughter unless they say they have the mandate of the American people to institute universal health care.

Too many assumptions are being made that a woman (Hilary Clinton), an African-American (Barak Obama), or a Carhartt-wearing farmer (Jon Tester) are going to level the playing field, based deceptively on their roles as minorities or as members of the working class. However, we never hear their proposals, their policies, etc. We only hear about how they are going to unify a divided country, but they can’t put the slightest dent in unifying the rest of their fellow policy makers in D.C. with the majority of opinions held by Americans. Most Americans believe we shouldn’t be fighting a war in Iraq, that we should be respecting the Kyoto Protocol; paying teacher’s more money; protecting the border with Canada (not Mexico); engaging antagonistic countries through diplomacy not war; respecting the international rule of law; punishing crooked politicians the way they punish other criminals; investing in alternative energy in a meaningful way; reforming campaign finance laws; narrowing the gap between CEO and worker pay; etc.

An equivalent to an “activist” doesn’t exist on the Republican side of affairs; they are just called “the base.” That which would be considered the concerns of right-wing activists (were they to exist) are simply taken up by the Republican Party since they are in line with the American political spectrum that is shaped by the wealthy, property owning class. However, non-profit and activist causes from the left exist because of gaps in public policy and a system that fails to provide for its society. Therefore, activists must dig deeply to find politicians (even from the supposed “left”) to take up their causes, and since these causes from the left generally fall outside the accepted political spectrum a champion from within the political elite is hard to find. This reality results in social justice causes dividing their energy and money between their cause and a politician that they hope will risk mentioning it on the floor of congress. On the other hand, a right-winger simply gives their money to their cause through one easy-payment to the Republican Party.

Americans need to look at the system and critically assess their blind faith in the American political structure to bring about meaningful change. Included in this assessment should be the role modern marketing and money plays in shaping elections and political decisions. A deeper and more honest analysis would surely reveal the evidence and reason to demonstrate how social justice and the American economic and political system are irreconcilable. Depending on the coddling of our American founding fathers and “heroic” politicians has only served to perpetuate on-going violence and injustice. Making a sound decision to organize oneself locally in order to give a voice with power to public opinion is just a start. Consistent and creative organization that forgoes institutional dependency and seeks to maximize pressure on the system would serve two purposes: 1) reveal the illusion that American elections equals democracy, 2) that direct action and participatory democracy are the most effective means for meaningful social change.

Granted the question of protecting oneself, society, and the world from vile politicians such as Bush, McCain, et. al. by “playing the game” and helping to elect center-right democrats is a valid one. What do we risk if we fail to participate in elections, their campaigns, etc. while working on our genuine concerns? While working for social revolution how much energy and money do we give to helping elect more moderate conservatives such as Obama and Clinton? Giving/wasting donations on Tester, Obama and Clinton in order to toss out the neo-cons means donating to the system in lieu of donating to organizations that are seeking to change the system. How can we ensure that “playing the game” doesn’t become tantamount to perpetuating it? If you look at the places in the world with meaningful democracies such as Venezuela and Bolivia, one cannot ignore the roles extreme poverty, oppression, and violence have played in prepping that society for social revolution. What do we do with complacent and morally apathetic Americans? What will motivate them? Four more years of reactionary neo-con train wrecks? Or a “democratic” revolution that lulls us further back to sleep?

Latin America News Review: Ecuador's New Government Talks Default on Debt: Latin America's New Reality

2007-01-06T21:04:00.000-07:00

Latin America News Review: Ecuador's New Government Talks Default on Debt: Latin America's New Reality

Dissolving the Right-Wing "Left"

2006-12-19T23:53:00.000-07:00

Revolution must NOT be directed toward the seizure of power, but the dissolution of it. Marx continually stressed the preconditions for freedom as economic ones and he declared that the "ultimate goal" would be a stateless society, however, one must not forget that right-wing Marxism (a.ka. Leninism) smuggles in intensely authoritarian methods and institutions for advancing economic development.

Mikhail Bakunin adamantly disagreed with Karl Marx about the historical role of the state. While Marx believed the state's historical role to be "progressive" and that centralization was an advance over localism and regionalism, Bakunin correctly understood a federalist structure that embraced localism and regionalism to be the most direct means through which the individual would control his/her life. "These seemingly abstract theoretical differences between Marx and Bakunin lead to opposing conclusions of a very concrete and political nature. For Marx, whose concept of freedom is vitiated by preconditions and abstractions, the immediate goal of the revolution is to seize political power and replace the bourgeois state by a highly centralized 'proletarian' dictatorship. The poletariat must thus organize a mass centralized political party and use every means, including parlimentary and electoral methods, to enlarge its control over society...A revolutionary group that turns into a political party, structuring itself along hierarchical lines and participating in elections, Bakunin warns, will eventually abandon its revolutionary goals. It will become denatured by the needs of political life and finally become coopted by the very society it seeks to overthrow." The historical record of these highly centralized "dictatorships of the proletariat," has continually proved Bakunin to be prophetic.

The immediate goal of the revolution for Bakunin, however, is to "extend the individual's control over his/her own life" by dissolving power. The revolutionary movement must reflect the society it is trying to create. So if it sets as its "ultimate goal" a stateless society as Marx claimed should be the aim of communism, it must maintain itself as such throughout its revolutionary trajectory. Working away from the center and returning direct/participatory powers at the local level must be the goal: i.e. federalism.

"If the movement is to avoid turning into an end in itself, into another state, complete conformity must exist between its means and ends, between form and content." "If people are to achieve freedom, if they are to be revolutionized by the revolution, they must make the revolution themselves, not under the tutelege of an all-knowing political party." Bakunin appreciated that a "revolutionary movement was needed to catalyze revolutionary posibilities." He suggested the movement be organized into small groups of dedicated "brothers who single-mindedly pursue the task of fomenting the revolution."

Yet another black mark on the historical record for Marxism (Leninism) is its criminal treachery and deceit in the most advanced, large-scale social revolution the world has ever witnessed: the Spanish Revolution. The anarchist revolution of Spain challenged every popular notion of a libertarian society as an unworkable utopia. Unfortunately, due to the criminal treachery of socialists and communists alike, in league with the major powers of the world, Spain (and the rest of the world) was denied an historical human right. On the other hand, I guess we can continue to marvel at the accuracy of Bakunin's predictions about right-wing Marxism's betrayal of the revolution.

Thanksgiving

2006-11-23T11:03:00.000-07:00

The Sun Never Says

Even after all this time
the sun never says to the earth,
"You owe me."
Look what happens with a love like that,
It lights up the whole sky.

As yet, I don't believe in God... but I do believe in my family.

Yesterday my mom, 64 years old, broke her tibia and fell down the last four steps of the staircase she was descending. My dad rushed her to the hospital were she had to undergo an immediate surgery to put a pin in her leg. Thankfully, she wasn't hurt worse.

The news reached our family and the response was not surprising at all. My twin sister called off her Thanksgiving plans. She and her husband loaded their van with their family of six, his tools and in the late of evening headed from Montana to Colorado on a 13-hour journey. They stayed in Jackson Hole just to wake up this morning and drive into Steamboat Springs, Colorado where my parents were working to fix up the building that was the home to our family business for years.

They will arrive and my sister will immediately go to work to make a Thanksgiving dinner for my mom, dad and her family. Her husband will spend the next three days of his Thanksgiving break doing construction with my dad. Then he'll load up his kids and drive them back for school on Monday morning. My twin will stay in Steamboat until my mom can travel and then take her back to Montana to take care of her until she can use her crutches.

Next week, my older sister will take her youngest son, 17, with her to Steamboat from Idaho to work on the building until all of the work is finished so my dad can come home to Montana. My parents' sole source of income is tied up in that building and with it in disrepair, their livelihood is very fragile.

Just a month earlier, this same big sister--in an act of total unselfishness--bought plane tickets for five of us: my older brother, his wife and daughter, my fiancee and me. She did this so that we could attend an uncle's funeral in San Diego. This sister is anything but financially secure, yet she didn't hesitate to make possible our family's gathering for this solemn occasion.

This family of mine is not without a history of conflict and pain, but what is amazing is that through the years we've worked hard to resolve and forgive each other for our missteps and mistakes. Most of all, this family has shown its true colors when we've most needed each other.

Gandhi once said that:

"Life will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic circle whose centre will be the individual always ready to perish for the village, the latter ready to preish for the circle of villages, until at last the whole becomes one life composed of individuals...the outermost circumference will not wield power to crush the inner circle but will give strength to all within and derive its strength from it."

My strength to struggle for peace and justice, and risk my livelihood para la causa is derived in every way from my family. For me, it's definitely worth the pain to reach across the fire and make my relationships work. It's worth it to forgive. It's worth it to distinguish my true needs from my desires, and then to let go of as many of my cravings as possible. I will remember that to be "right" I often label others "wrong": I will work to let go of the desire to be right. I will try to remember that the consequences of my actions are the very ground upon which I stand: I will try to stop actions that cause others to suffer. Today especially, I give thanks to my family for all its grace.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Deja Furniture

2006-11-13T23:36:00.000-07:00

It may be time to seriously consider joining Gregrandgar in returning to the "natural." I'm in the process of moving and I can hardly believe the amount of crap I have re-accumulated in just four short years.

Four years ago, alone in my house, wife vamoosed for a saner existence, I realized it was time to make some serious changes. A journey began that I know see as an eternal and ontological one. I sold nearly all I owned (I had to keep some of my clothes and my kitchen supplies as chef), but I let most of it go.

The twisted twist of fate began at the very moment I sold my things. A young woman I was rapidly falling for keep coming around my house buying up all my possessions. Guess what? We're getting married just four years later! I barely stopped living with the very things I wanted so desperately to escape. I was going for minimalism and ended up right back where I started. I want the woman, not the crap. It's starting to feel like a Borgesian labyrinth.

Tomorrow, I will move my/her things one more time to one more new "home." The best I can do is get rid of things every time I move. Maybe I should move more often?

2006-11-10T17:55:00.000-07:00

bob marley

This is what put the "Bob" in "Che Bob." This man was amazing!

2006-11-10T17:08:00.000-07:00

Silvio Rodriguez - Ojalá (mano a mano)

Listen to the audience serenade Silvio.

2006-11-10T16:31:00.000-07:00

reBurger

The Yes Men

2006-11-10T16:09:00.000-07:00

Flurry Of V's - V For Vendetta

No comment!

Missoula, Montana

2006-11-10T11:38:00.001-07:00

I wonder what other U.S. cities can claim to be as politically pivotal as Missoula, Montana?

Missoula gave the U.S. Senate to the Democrats on a platter. Voter turnout in Missoula was over 70%, and it was this town that voted overwhelmingly for Jon Tester! Jon Tester and Jim Webb (newly elected Senator from Virginia) were in the deciding races that gave control of the Senate to the Democrats. Appropriately, this is a country of political apathy with voter turnouts usually hovering around 40%, but not in Missoula (original home to the Wobblies "free-speech fights"). In Missoula, one can find an over-educated/under-employed population that turns out 3000 people for a Day of the Dead parade in the cold, dark of the night to watch floats walk by that include protestors denouncing the U.S.'s history of violent intervention in Latin America! Our congressional delegation is smart to move their headquarters to Helena, Great Falls or Billings where they will not have to face the protests in front of their offices. In Missoula, one can attend a rally called "Dump Bush!" with 5,000 angry citizens. Missoula passes every educational mill levy. Missoula is currently trying to adopt a Sweat-free Community resolution thereby making the city purchase sweatfree products only! Ahhh Missoula, take a bow!

With only 900,000 people in this state, each and every vote carries tremendous power. Montana's U.S. Senator-elect, Jon Tester, was elected with only 198,302 votes and only won by a margin of roughly 2,800. In Virginia's tight senatorial race, Jim Webb with 1,172,671 votes won by a margin of 7,000 votes.

Montana is a Red State despite the fact that we've now got a Democratic Governor and two Democratic Senators. Missoula, however, is a relatively progressive pocket in this state. This is due in no small part to the presence of the University of Montana, a reputedly progressive university. It is often chided and ridiculed for its progressive politics around the state. With its university in hand, Missoula is thus known endearingly as that "damned hippy town!" Considering the results this town has produced by delivering to American politics a new face with a 70% voter turnout, I'd have to say the old notion that "marijuana breeds apathy" has been turned on its head.

Speaking of marijuana, Missoula passed an initiative that may prove it deserves much of its reputation. By a relatively comfortable margin, Initiative 2 was passed by Missoula voters on election day. This initiative makes enforcing marijuana offenses against adults the lowest priority for Missoula County law enforcement. Appropriately, Missoula voters understood the need for law enforcement to focus on serious crimes instead of the massive amount of energy it has focused on arresting marijuana users. Over the last couple of years, marijuana arrests in Missoula County have skyrocketed while cases of robbery and rape have gone unsolved. The reason for this disproportionate enforcement can be explained politically. By focusing on marijuana crimes county law enforcement can have high arrest rates and appear to be doing their job. Unfortunately, serious crimes have been committed in this town and remained unsolved. Missoula voters saw through the politics and took measures into their own hands.

"The world is full of bastards, the number increasing rapidly the further one gets from Missoula, Montana." --Norman Maclean

Meddling

2006-11-04T12:18:00.000-07:00

With elections fast approaching in Nicaragua, the US is MIGHTILY concerned that their old nemisis, Daniel Ortega, appears to be in a position to clinch the victory. So , in an act of such blatant hypocricy one has to wonder what these fools are smoking, the usual assortment of conservative congressmen, state department lackeys and pundits are directly interfering in the sovereign internal workings of a countries democratic process. They are intimidating and threatening the voters of Nicaragua through various low down and underhanded means including a threat to block the remittances sent home to families in Nicaragua by members living and working in the States. Remittances play a large role in the economy of this impoverished nation, a further injustice who's structural underpinnings lie in capitalist exploitation and for which I would need another page and a half to rant about.

Suffice to say, when somebody like Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez DARES to express support for a candidate in, say, the Peruvian elections, the US oligarchy goes ballistic with charges of "meddling". The "democracy" the US supports is the kind where our handpicked technocrat wins, something like the purple fingered farce in Iraq. The kind of democracy we punish is the kind where less-than neoliberal or War on Terror-friendly candidates come out on top...think Hamas victory in Palestine.

Statement of Concern

2006-10-18T14:50:00.000-06:00

To the Federal Government of Mexico,

CAJA (Community Action for Justice in the Americas), a Latin American solidarity group from Missoula, Montana, U.S.A., wishes to publicly express its concern about indications coming from Mexico that a violent intervention will take place in the political conflict that is occurring in the state of Oaxaca. We strongly urge that a path of nonviolence through dialogue and restraint be sought.

We have been informed of the possibility of an armed-intervention in Oaxaca against the striking teachers and the APPO (Popular Assembly of the People of Oaxaca). We fear that if these forces were to enter Oaxaca to end the conflict that they will only escalate violence and result in further tragedy. In addition, there is a media campaign being carried out by the Oaxacan state government on national TV, which intends to criminalize the social movement and justify its call for the entry of federal forces. We denounce the media’s efforts and we maintain that a violent response is not the solution to this conflict.

Furthermore, we believe that a violent response to the conflict represents a serious violation of international accords on the defense of human rights and a departure from the democratic process that Mexican society has struggled to construct. A violent response will only serve to promote the systematic violation of human rights in Oaxaca. Various other national and international institutions have also expressed their concern sending urgent actions and recommendations that your government show restraint.

Therefore, we strongly reject any use of violence as a resolution to this conflict. It is in the hands of the Federal Government of Mexico to respond to the people of Oaxaca, and the APPO—to whom we give our full support—through dialogue and a complete respect for human rights.

Sincerely,

Community Action for Justice in the Americas

More Victims of War

2006-10-18T10:17:00.000-06:00

"Sometimes when you take a life it is funny. Watching a human body instantly become lifeless and tumble awkwardly in the heat of battle is a stress reliever; knowing that you eliminated the enemy (before he elimiated you) and watch him disgracefully land head over heels. Killing is what we as the US military are trained to do, whether you like it or not - that's just the facts. Why else have a military?" --posted by Killed Anyone Lately?

I read through this exchange and was very disturbed. As I read the comments I was overwhelmed with grief that these soldiers are so stripped of their humanity. I am not at all “glad” that they are wired so. I’m not at all glad that they are able to kill. The American war machine has made killing an easier thing to do, and it says that at least its soldiers are ready when it’s necessary. Well, what happens when it’s not necessary, like when they’ve come home to their families? I’d prefer that they were like anyone else, i.e. reluctant to kill, afraid to kill. Yes, we’d be an ineffective army, but I’d prefer that we weren’t so good at killing. For one, I still don’t believe this country has ever fought a “necessary” war like we’ve been taught to believe. World War II was way too full of contradictions and pretexts to be so easily billed as an “honorable” war. If you haven’t read Howard Zinn’s work on WWII, please take a look.

To me, one of the tragic victims of these wars is the soldier him/herself. Look at what they are capable of feeling, thinking and doing! It’s horrifying! These soldiers are completely blind to the causes of wars, and have very little capacity for doubting the merits of the wars they are fighting. One of the reasons they so quickly and vehemently defend their acts as “necessary” is an automatic defense mechanism against the cosmic guilt they must feel for committing these acts! They have these ready-made, fabricated responses all cued up and ready to spew: “we’re protecting your asses!”, “we’re protecting your rights to free speech!”, “we’re taking the fight to them, so they won’t bring it home to you!”, and on and on… They need to believe these lies so that they can manage the internal psychological war they are fighting. They hate it when people like myself say: “it’s not your war, this is a class war and you’re killing your brothers and sisters!” Or, “you’re not protecting freedom; you’re fighting a rich man’s war over resources!”

These soldiers so deeply identify with these wars because they have to! They have to in order to combat the guilt they feel when they recognize that their sacrifices or their killing was all for the power and wealth of the rich man who continues to control their lives even after the war is over! If my job description was, “protector of freedom…may require killing some innocent people, but that is the price of freedom,” what do you think I’m going to say to people who oppose war? Of course, I’m going to be defensive, even perhaps violent! Unless I’m willing to face massive shame and guilt and admit that I’d been foolishly or unwittingly duped into believing that my nightmare existence was necessary, I think I’d do every thing I could to continue the illusion! Fortunately, it doesn’t have to come down to a soldier’s individual guilt or complicity. That soldier had been indoctrinated, even brainwashed, into believing the nightmare to be true and could do little to resist it. I feel a great deal of compassion for the soldiers of war! They are victims of the worst kind. Not only do they suffer the internal contradictions of knowing something is amiss in what they are doing, they must take the memory of their acts with them for eternity.

How to Resist

2006-10-11T11:44:00.000-06:00

*Educate

*Organize

*Emancipate

Resist corporate corruption and support local industries by creating local communities committed to social and economic justice. Communities across the U.S. are passing binding Sweatfree resolutions. In my own community (Missoula, MT), an amazing organization, CAJA (Community Action for Justice in the Americas: www.caja.org), is finding wide support for a Sweatfree Community Campaign. If you like, you can read about Sweatfree communities at: www.sweatfree.org

Another simple thing one can do is to support local farmers' markets. You know: Buy Fresh/Buy Local. These kinds of actions are neither frivolous nor superficial. Through buying our food from local farmers (Missoula's farmers' market has grown into a hugely popular cultural event!) one is also conserving massive amounts wasted energy in the transportation/storage costs implied in our food system. Simply planting one's own garden in any green space in our community can become a revolutionary act. Take back our public space with community gardens—even in urban settings—and we are resisting the corporatization of our world. Local farmers (who are largely Hmong, Hudderite, Hispanic, and Russian minorities) are benefiting from this local action.

Set up local "free-schools." Very little money is needed, just a belief in unfettered community education. Anarchist Spain once ran free-schools with the idea of encouraging self-reliance, critical consciousness, as well as community and personal development. Young idealistic students set up the Missoula Free School with these very same beliefs.

Foster direct democracy by promoting community organizing. Encourage neighborhood groups to demand a role in local decision making. Take back local governments that were hijacked by conservative elites in our communities. For example, look at local school boards that are being manhandled by conservative bankers, lawyers, and business owners. Replace them with citizens from the growing poor class. When all else fails, encourage local level communities to take direct action to affect change.

Finally, one of the best ways to tie education, organization and emancipation together is through radical union participation. We must get people to organize themselves through their daily work. Unions like the Industrial Workers of the World still exist. Organizing all workers into One Big Union is still a practice: making an injury to one an injury to all. Only when the working class controls the means of production will they begin to be "free."

A lucid example of the genuinely positive effects of a general strike, took place in a most recent event in Chile. The high school students in that country were able to rally together the largest mass mobilization since Pinochet to their cause. Joining them in the general strike were their teachers, administrators, educational experts, labor unions, churches and other social stakeholders. As a result, they won a voice in the decision-making process for the reform of that country's educational policy in a relatively short time period (three months).

Calling the system "evil" is not enough! Educating our fellow community members of the benefits to supporting local business is tantamount to resisting corporate capitalism. The most recent E. Coli scare is a great point of departure for this kind of education. Why not encourage local communities to take direct control of their lives, especially control of our most basic needs: i.e. food, housing, and labor. Can't we imagine an organized group of local farmers benefiting from the protection of an educated local community that demanded their local products in lieu of the heavily subsidized Agribusiness products that are genetically modifying, chemically processed and unsafe?

Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, suggested posing problems for communities to solve and making education an informal process. This means that we engage in dialogical learning rather than the transmission of “facts.” Instead of having “teachers/leaders” educate the masses from on high, the oppressed can only become aware of their oppressor through action that is informed and linked to certain values. Creating the “time and space” for a community to dialogue about its problems is the key. As mentioned above, these spaces—where praxis is linked to education—are local: farmers’ markets, neighborhood circles, free schools, unions, etc.

"America" is Not Evil

2006-10-10T23:35:00.000-06:00

The U.S. is definitely dysfunctional! However, I can't go so far as to use the word "evil." What a tricky word! In particular, it seems precarious to try to personify "America" by qualifying it as "sick" or "evil." I cringe at the thought of the potential faces one puts on the idea of "America" when personifying it--especially when one holds it to be "evil."

For one thing, I am an American. I am not proud of my government. I disdain patriotism. Likewise, I loath its symbols and myths that misdirect and misinform. I do not, and will likely never, say the Pledge of Allegiance. I am a teacher, and I would never teach my students with the objective of making them patriots. I teach them to think critically of their reality. I teach them to assess their own crimes, misdeeds, etc. and to take responsibility for them. I teach them to set for themselves higher standards then they set for others. I teach them to see the interconnection of our entire globe.

However, that said, I am quite proud of many aspects of American culture and history. For example, I am proud of my fellow workers that have suffered –yet struggled against—the wrath of the employing class throughout American history. I am proud of the struggles of oppressed races, genders and sexual orientations. Therefore, if I were asked to personify "America" and put a face on it, I suppose I'd opt for the working class, American Indians, etc. Quite clearly, this face should not be seen as "evil" or "sick."

One of the things I respect about Fidel Castro--despite some obvious flaws--is that he has always been clear to distinguish between "America" and the "U.S. Government." Hugo Chavez seems to be embracing a similar pattern. This is important when discussing this North American empire. As a member of the working class, I see quite clearly that I have nothing in common with the employing class. Since the U.S. Government is beholden to the elite employing class, it represents as much of an obstacle to achieving true freedom and dignity to the American working class as it does to the working class around the world. Therefore, my common ground is with the global working class, the poor, the oppressed, etc.

On another level, "America" as an identifier is additionally tricky because it includes North America, Central America and South America. Perhaps we should reclaim the understanding that we are all Americans. Por eso, me gusta como actualmente el mundo hispano-parlante se está distinguiendo a los habitantes del imperio como "estadounidenses" en vez de "americanos." Todos somos americanos: peruanos, guatemaltecos, mexicanos, canadienses, etc. Al mismo tiempo, cuando uno quiere destacar un aspecto negativo, o un comportamiento feo ("malo" o "enfermo") cometido por unos estadounidenses, uno debe agruparles como "yanquis." No soy ni "yanqui" ni “gringo” ni “gabacho,” pero sí soy americano al mismo tiempo que soy un estadounidense…y sí hablo español. [Translation: "For that matter, I like how the contemporary Spanish-speaking world distinguishes the inhabitants of the empire as "United Statesians" instead of "Americans." We are all Americans: Peruvians, Guatemalans, Mexicans, Canadians, etc. At the same time, if one wants to highlight a negative aspect or some ugly behavior ("evil" or "sick") committed by a "United Statesian," one should call that person a "Yankee." I am not a "yankee," nor a "gringo," nor a "gabacho," but I am an American as well as a "United Statesian"...and yes, I speak Spanish."]

I do not believe “America” is something “to be got rid of." The U.S. government, perhaps! But better yet, let’s look at the system that precedes the thinking that one might—for lack of a better word—call “sick.” If there exists a system—a superstructure—that pervades every aspect of our lives (Mexican, Angolan, and American alike) especially the formulation of our thinking, what hope is there that we will ever “get rid of” any of the dysfunctional effects by calling them “evil.” It isn’t the effects that are “evil” or even dysfunctional, but the cause. That cause is a system that divides, oppresses, and has an insatiable appetite for profit over people. That system is capitalism. It isn’t the “Americanization” of the world one should fear, but the “Coca-Cola-ization” or “McDonaldsization” of the world! Resist branding by corporations! Resist corporate globalization! Resist capitalism! Resist orthodoxies como el fin de la historia!

Direct Action

2006-10-09T12:10:00.002-06:00

Yet another example of how direct action through mass mobilization can lead to a more democratic process took place in Latin America this year. This time it was in Chile. The honeymoon for the "first-ever woman elected president" Michelle Bachelet ended in April of 2006 as Chileans "organiz[ed] against market-based education" (International Socialist Review, Sept. 2006), which Bachelet showed no signs of ending. It's odd that Bachelet was reluctant to reform the educational system that her once arch-enemy, Pinochet, established as means for providing huge profits to private industry. However, where Bachelet seemed complacent, the students seemed more than willing to motivate Bachelet to action!

Not too long ago, I remember being struck by many progressives' enthusiasm for Bachelet despite her unabashed support for neoliberal economics through free trade agreements. Sure, she was knowingly elected as a "social democrat" that promised that in Chile "la Alegria ya viene" ("happiness is on the way"). While several improvements may have taken place, including the end of "senator-for-life" appoinments, the immense wealth generated by Chile's copper is still not reaching its poor. One of the notable area's of Chilean society not receiving any benefit from Chile's copper wealth was education. The reaction should therefore not be surprising.

What has ensued is a mass mobilization unwitnessed in Chile since Pinochet. Most of the protests and marches have been led by student/parent/teacher groups. Some have actually led to takeovers of school buildings. There has been repression and arrests of students, but this has only lended itself to the continued rise in numbers protesting the government's repressive actions. "Among the students' short term demands were free bus fare and the waiving of the university admissions test (PSU) fee, while the longer term demands included: the abolition of the Organic Constitutional Law on Teaching (LOCE), the end to municipalization of subsidized education, a reform to the Full-time School Day policy (JEC) and a quality education for all" (Wikipedia: "2006 student protests in Chile").

Since April, 2006 nation-wide mobilization and protest had grown. Students were joined by parents, teachers, administrators as well as other trade unions. As the movement grew so did the police repression. The Minister of Education, Martin Zilic, continually refused to meet with the students further provoking their protestations. President Bachelet had to take notice of the growing protests. Finally, in response to school-takeovers, Bachelet began to sound like a man that was once responsible for her own capture and torture: Pinochet. Bachelet said: "Let me be crystal clear. What we have witnessed over recent weeks is unacceptable. I will not tolerate acts of vandalism or intimidation. I will apply the full force of the law."

On June 5, 2006 an estimated 900,000 students assembled for a national strike. This was the largest mobilization since 1972! The students are not buying Bachelet's bill of goods who has told the students there is no money. A student was quick to point out that for the "price of just one of the seventeen F-16 jets she bought for the armed forces this year is enough to cover all or our demands."

The movement forced the president to concede to create an advisory committee. While the students pointed out that the committee should consist of "students, teachers, school administrators, education experts and other social stakeholders...[and that] half of them should be determined by the student assembly," the government explained that the president was free to decide who would be included. Six of the 73 members of the committee are high school students. With the formation of this committee, the students agreed to end the strike, return to school and continue negotiating for the end of the LOCE, a notorious legacy of Pinochet and neoliberal economics.

To me, the most important lesson learned from our Chilean brothers and sisters is the effect of direct action as a means for achieving change when the representative deomcratic system seems to represent/favor mostly the interests of the polictical and economic elite. Watching the changes in Bolivia, Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, et. al. is inspiring. As long as the U.S. is tied up in Iraq, it seems that there may be too many fires for our government to put out. Recent events in Oaxaca, Mexico are yet another example of popular resistance led by teachers. Que viva los maestros y los estudiantes!

Who Can Afford Life?

2006-10-01T21:49:00.000-06:00

What a truly dysfunctional society we have created that tells us that some lives are worth more than others. Only those that can afford a safe car, car seats, side-collision airbags, reinforced steel, etc., etc… “Larger, heavier cars with poor ratings may easily produce better results than smaller cars with good ratings” (safecarguide.com). But who can afford the heavier cars? For that matter, how many poor families in poor states like Montana—which happen to have very high traffic fatality rates—can afford a new car with basic safety features at all? Besides, even if you’re lucky to be in one of the safest small vehicles, you will still not survive a collision with Richie Rich’s Hummer.

What does a poor family choose to do as winter nears and they have to decide whether or not to buy much needed new tires to make their cars safer or to take their sick children to the doctor during flu season? The fact is money doesn’t go far enough and millions of American families are forced to make decisions that one should not be forced to make.

Health care is but one of many factors in the widening gap of haves and have nots. Fewer and fewer Americans can afford the best medical care. The rest are left to decide whether or not they should tough out preventable and curable illnesses. Disclaimers, caveats and loopholes make many group medical plans (HMOs, etc.) dangerously deceiving to unsuspecting and ignorant policyholders. In some cases, specific procedures that are necessary for survival are seen as “elective,” such as some organ transplant surgeries. Millions of Americans depend on their employee insurance to protect them and their families, yet are completely unaware of exactly what their insurance affords them. Besides, the out-of-pocket expenses make insurance a less-than-effective means for sound health care. Again, the “unaffordability” of health care determines that only a select group of people are worthy of care.

It is striking to think of the political platform of many American politicians and their supporters that claim to be against abortion, calling themselves “pro-life.” In many cases, these same politicians are the ones that are against socialized medicine—a system of medical care that nearly all of the first-world countries employ. Not coincidentally, first-world countries with socialized medicine have much better overall public health and health care. What on earth are we waiting for? A “pro-lifer” seems to be telling the world that they are “pro-life” only up until the point that the person is born, then afterwards…not so much!

Money buys one the means of production, influence, power, safe cars (that kill the people in the little cars), best lawyers, best education, best houses, best cars, best health care, best food, luxury items, best clothing, best vacations, and on and on…those without money, well…I guess you can join the rich man’s army and fight their wars.

The sickness of capitalism is further highlighted in “terminator seeds.” Terminator Technology, a brainchild of the monstrosity known as Monsanto, was designed as a means for restricting the natural process of seed regeneration, thereby forcing farmers to purchase their seeds each year from, you guessed it: Monsanto and Co. To me, very few modern business practices more eloquently express the incompatibility of a capitalist system and the natural order. A company thinks up a way to create an everlasting monopolistic dependency by modifying the most basic processes of life: life itself. The process creates seeds that are sterile so that they can not regenerate. Perhaps this is capitalism at its worst, but innumerable cases such as Monsanto abound, and they only serve to add more evidence of its “anti-life” by-products.

Capitalism cannot be reformed, nor would an informed and aware populace wish to reform it. Since the world is divided into a capitalist class and a working class, the work must be to continue to point out to the working class the absurdity and “anti-life” nature of capitalism. We must be made more and more aware of the oppressor. This work involves highlighting the fundamental disparity between capitalism and democracy. Theses two concepts have been too closely linked and they should be clearly demarcated through education.

The Wobblies, IWW, in Butte, Montana from 1905-1920 believed that the raising of the social consciousness and the overall education of the working class was a natural process of direct action. They believed that true revolutionaries would lead the revolution through direct action and the working class that participated in these actions were learning of the actual power, inherent rights and dignity they had when they acted.

Perhaps many once believed that the feudal system was inevitable, immutable and eternal. Yet a quick glance through history reminds us that there is a definite trend towards libertarian socialism. Long live the social revolution!

The Superbowl of Fascism

2006-09-12T23:34:00.000-06:00

Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile described "fascism" in an entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana as such: "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." (Although Gentile should be properly credited with this original definition of "fascism", Benito Mussolini would later strike Gentile's name and add his own). Bearing in mind this definition, what do the terrorists in Afghanistan have to do with "fascism"? They are neither a state nor corporation. On the other hand, what can be said about those fighting the terrorists? Is there a trend of the "merging of corporate and state power" in the U.S.?

Score after definition #1: American fascists-1, Islamofascists-0

According to Wikipedia, the definition of fascism should include other important distinctions: "Fascism is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism, and anti-liberalism." Again, the question stands: what similarities are there between trends in this country and this definition of fascism? Does "militarism" apply? "Nationalism"? "Corporatism"? How about something as simple as "anti-liberalism"? Also included under this definition, we begin to see some the characteristics of fundamentalist Muslims as well.

Score after definition #2: American fascists-7, Islamofascists-6

Returning to history, in 1944, Vice President Henry A. Wallace, described a "fascist" as "one whose lust for money or power is combined with such an intesity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends." In this case, perhaps many Americans leaders and CEOs could fall under this definition as easily as the terrorists they claim to hate. I remember hearing a therapist once say something about "projection"... Could it be that American fascists (or Islamic Fundamentalists) are full of self-hatred for falling below their own basic standards of humanity and attributing their own unacceptable behavior to another? Here I am giving both groups the benefit of the doubt, granting them human status and wishing they could be extricated from their denial. Unfortuanately, the result of this denial is the incredibly inhumane treatment of oneself and others.

Score after definition #3: American fascists-17, Islamofascists-15

Wallace continues: "The supreme god of a fascist, to which his ends are directed, may be money or power; may be a race or a class; may be a military, clique or an economic group; or may be a culture, religion, or a political party." It's interesting that Wallace invoked a religious concept to describe a fascist's blind obedience, since in the case of both "American fascists" and "Islamic fascists" a central element of their ideologies of hate is a religion: Christianity and Islam. Tragically, neither group seems rational in their understanding of the central messages of their "messiahs": PEACE! A closer examination of this portion of Wallace's definition is instructive for an evaluation of current American fascists since his definition includes a dogmatic worship for institutions beyond religion, such as a "political party," or a "military," or a "culture."

Score after definition #4: American fascists-27, Islamofascists-23

(In the case of "culture", much more could be said, however, it is worth noting that neither fundamentalist Christians nor fundamentalist Muslims are reflecting the central tenets of their religions, but instead the distorted morality of their cultures. Too many Christians are unable to reconcile their capitalist lifestyles with the more benevolent message of Christ. Similarly, a harsh culture of theocratic rule that conveniently imposes a highly deterministic interpretation of the Koran on its followers in order to maintain power, have stifled a good deal of secular humanist growth in the Islamic world.)

Wallace also points out and gives distinction to a type of American fascist as someone who would not necessarily resort to violence, but instead: "[h]is method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power." Perhaps this portion of the definition is more easily located with the American fascists since they overwhelmingly control access to information, but a dearth of divergent viewpoints in the Muslim world lends itself to concept of controling "truth."

Final Score in the Superbowl of Fascism: American fascists-30, Islamofascists-25

Sadly, the toll of modern day "fascism", if that is what it should even be called, is obviously tragic. More important to me than the thought of who is being more fascist, is that as an American, I am obligated to prevent the crimes of my country--full stop--.

The Rise of American Fascism

Project for the Old American Century

Henry A. Wallace's The Danger of American Fascism

It's Not Ours to Destroy

2006-07-18T15:33:00.000-06:00

In light of the on-going misinformation emanating from the Middle East, I implore you to find information and evidence contradicting prevailing attitudes towards this crisis that exists in abundance, but that is almost completely ignored by our media. If one were to watch any of our major news networks ranging from Fox News to CNN, one would get the impression that Israel is defending itself. This is a very convenient misimpression for the Israeli,

U.S.

and British governments. On the other hand, this is most inconvenient if one is Lebanese or Palestinian. The asymmetry of death and destruction in the region (“More than 200 Lebanese, most of them civilians, and 24 Israelis have been killed in the fighting”/ “Lebanese civilians are being killed by savage aerial bombardment from at least 2,000 sorties by Israeli war planes.”) is strangely analogous to the asymmetry of media coverage. No one seems to be reporting anything but politically deterministic positions. Politicians, right in step with the media, are also clamoring for solidarity with Israel, including Senators Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton…solidarity with a country that is raining down hell and fury on the innocent people of Palestine and in Lebanon with complete impunity.

A small amount of research would yield far different results and explain why the international community is condemning the actions of Israel. Perhaps by learning that this most recent phase was actually begun around the beginning of June as Israelis fired missiles and killed 9 Palestinians in Gaza, or perhaps we should know that an Israeli soldier was “captured” (not “kidnapped”) in response to an actual “kidnapping” of a doctor and his son by Israeli soldiers on June 24. The reporting on the “capture” of Corporal Gilad Shalit is well reported and therefore stirring sympathy. Conveniently, or inconveniently depending on one’s point of view, the “kidnapping” of the doctor and his son is unreported. This “kidnapping,” after all is a war crime, as is the killing of the 9 Palestinians back in beginning of June. Conveniently then—for the Israeli government—no one cares to report on these crimes. Just like no one wants to—or perhaps, is “allowed to”—report on the actual chain of events and extremely disproportional “response” by Israel against

Lebanon

.

So please, don’t allow the media to shape your opinion. As Americans we are funding these tragic deaths (there is no such thing as an “Israeli gunship”, MADE IN USA!). We owe it to the innocent/non-collateral victims of violent self-proclaimed masters throughout the world to stop this killing machine. We must remember a truism, which is that we must first concern ourselves with our own crimes. We can and must stop our government from funding this tragedy. We must denounce the media for its role in this crime. Be brave to speak the truth, even with loved ones, as there are definitely healthy and positive ways to speak to ill-conceived notions. Remind our friends and family that America is not the world and that there must be resounding reasons why the U.S., Israel, Marshall Islands and Britain vote alone on U.N. resolutions that pass unanimously each year (170 to 4) condemning Israeli behavior in the region, or condemning U.S. behavior towards Cuba (171 to 3, as even Britain disdains the Cuban Embargo).

In a world of diminishing safety and security (due to our own actions), we grow reactive and reactionary. Our choices as consumers, our pursuit of convenience and wealth, our choices…our choices… What kind of thought goes into our choices? One American Indian perspective that I shared with my students this year was that we are borrowing our world from our grandchildren and great grandchildren and great-great grandchildren ad infinitum. Well, I’ve tried to make up an analogy of loaning someone something you covet only to have it returned destroyed and useless, but there is nothing that can compare to the precious gift that is Mother Earth and human life. Words fail to describe the power of the choices we are making for future generations. We must act now to stop war everywhere. We must stop our government from selling arms and ammunition to foreign governments. We must disarm our own country immediately. We must remove the capacity of destruction from human hands and we must start with our own. We must also act today to end our assault on Mother Earth. Today, I ride my bike. Tomorrow, I walk.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=10577

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=10591

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=10589

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=10590

Rascism and Demagoguery in the Governor's Mansion

2006-06-16T10:43:00.000-06:00

Dear Gov. Schweitzer and other "bashers",

What would be wrong with calling Governor Schweitzer a "dictator"? Would it be harmful? Would it be politically-incorrect? Would it simply be inaccurate? Or would it sound ludicrous, possibly driven by ideology or irrational prejudice?

On two separate occasions, Governor Brian Schweitzer (D-MT) called Hugo Chavez a dictator. In a 60 Minutes interview with Lesley Stahl, Schweitzer said: "'Why wouldn’t we create an economic engine that will take us into the next century, and let those sheiks and dictators and rats and crooks from all over the world boil in their own oil?' Schweitzer has called them rats and crooks and hasn't held back on bit. 'Hugo Chavez, the Saudi royal family, the leaders of Iran,' he said. 'How about the countries that end with 'stan'? Nigeria? You tell me. Sheiks, rats, crooks, dictators, sure.'"

Calling Hugo Chavez a "dictator" is harmful, irresponsible and deserves our strongest condemnation! Hugo Chavez has been DEMOCRATICALLY-elected three times (one was a recall referendum). Each of these elections were observed by myriad election observers from around the world.

The Organization of American States and the Carter Center held a joint press conference proceeding the recall election. OAS Secretary General Cesar Gaviria and Nobel Peace Prize winner and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter declared: "electoral observation mission's members had found no element of fraud in the process." In fact, several observers commented that the elections in Venezuela were much more legitimate than those in the U.S. (Florida 2000/Ohio 2004).

Interestingly, what people admire about Chavez and Schweitzer is their tough talk. However, a rational analysis of their rhetoric would bare extremely different results. For one, a rational observer would see that Chavez bothered to check his facts before commenting, while Gov. Schweitzer's comments would be an impassioned appeal to the prejudices and emotions of uninformed and frightened mass of Americans seeking order and security. The latter's comments more accurately describe the behavior of a dictator!

Gov. Brian Schweitzer clearly cannot mean what he has said on more than one occasion about Hugo Chavez, so we must disregard his comments. The reason he and others cannot have meant what they said is because of the level of deep rascism that it would require to hold this belief. By lumping Hugo Chavez, his majority supporters, the millions of Arab and Muslim people, or anyone who might oppose being treated as cogs in a machine that serves a miniscule minority into one group as "the sheikhs, the dictators, the rats and crooks around the world who are bent on destroying our way of life," is a textbook definition of rascism. This attitude conveniently ignores fact. To find the sheikhs, dictators, rats and crooks one need not look any further than the buried mirror that conveniently denies and defies honest self-reflection!

The overwhelming majority of people in Venezuela support Chavez (approval rating of Chavez is higher than Schweitzer's: 70%). National pride in that country is based in revolutionary missions that are serving a country's essential needs. Hugo Chavez has led a charge to feed, house, educate and medically treat its people. Hugo Chavez has criticized American foreign policy and stood up to ignorance and irrationality in a time of extreme rascism and global crises. Billions of people that suffer the effects of environmental devastation, smash-and-grab mentalities from imperial countries, and a rascist misunderstanding of their situation have found a powerful voice in Hugo Chavez.

Ending Isolation and New Beginnings

2006-04-10T19:34:00.000-06:00

"The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world he didn't exist." --Verbal Kent in the film The Usual Suspects

Corporations have had similar success. These private tyrannies have been able to rape the world with very little effective resistance, especially in the country which harbors these criminal institutions. Alexis de Tocqueville warned us in Democracy in America that he knew of "no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America." However, the unchecked and unqualified belief we Americans have in our democracy makes us much less aware of the oppressive institutions. We are effectively rendered powerless beyond an occassional trip to the ballot box.

I do find hope however, even if that hope is something that will likely need to be imported. Venezuelans are inspiring. When President Hugo Chavez was temporarily removed from office by a U.S.-backed coup d'etat, and Venezuelans had no leadership that was further hampered by a complete communication blackout, they spontaneously took to the streets despite vicious and brutal police repression. It was as though the collective consciousness of Venezuelans banded them together in solidarity and said, "Let's not allow this coup. Let's take our country back!" And that is exactly what they did. Without any leadership or central organization the people of Venezuela took their country back and resisted tyranny.

This kind of grassroots consciousness gives hope to the idea that the Bolivarian Revolution is much bigger than just one man. It gives hope that what really stands in the way of taking measures into our own hands is ourselves. Though the obstacle of forfeiting our material comforts and facing the most powerful institutions in the world is nothing to take lightly, it is worth considering the old adage of Karl Marx: "We have nothing to lose but our chains."

So if you're ready and would like to join me, let's start a revolution. Let's start creating our own security and order from within. Let's reassure each other that the constitutive tension we feel from being so dependent on everyone around us even though we know nothing about each other (both of which are effects of capitalism and the modern society: atomized yet interdependent) can be changed by taking our lives back and connecting. Join a social justice group or start your own. Whatever you do, get connected. Get to know the people in your community so we can stop fearing the people upon whom depend for all kinds of unknown reasons. Let's talk about issues and stop allowing the institutional terror that is isolating us to take control. We must stop fundamentalists and reactionaries from driving the collective consciousness of this nation towards greater fear and isolation. Let's unplug from the media, advertisers, fundamentalist clerics (Christian, Muslims, et. al.), government, and public education. Let's stop speaking truth to power and start speaking truth to each other! The revolution starts now!!!

"Why do they hate us?"

2006-03-11T11:00:00.000-07:00

President Bush and the power elites know the true answer to the question “Why do the hate us?” They know, for instance, that it is their very existence, self-serving over-indulgence, mass murder and policies of hate that have brought on the wrath of the world population. In order to avoid a correlation being made between the suffering/oppression abroad and that closer to home, the elite has depended on its most important institutions (education, religion, media, et. al.) to perpetuate a myth that Americans are “one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, the working class of this country shares nothing but benign intent in common with the ruling class. Therefore, it must be a prime directive of American politics to clearly differentiate between the American working class and the rest of the world’s poor, colonial working class. The elite must seek to prevent Americans from empathizing—despite its basis in reality—with Muslims, Cubans, Colombians, Venezuelans, Vietnamese, Indians, Haitians, and Africans that have suffered imperial brutality for centuries. This way, those that “hate us” will not become Americans.

What do any of us share in common with the world’s powerful elite that is meaningful? For instance, I can’t use patriotism to buy food. I cannot pay for my medical bills with the “American Dream.” I cannot own a home with the Pledge of Allegiance. I cannot stop the most violent nation in the world from killing more innocent people with the “Melting Pot”, let alone the U.S. Constitution. (Hell, no one can stop the president from breaking the law these days!) Do we share their values? There is a pathetic manufactured perception that the American masses are “just like” their political and economic elite. However, evidence does not bring to bare this reality. Economically, this country’s inequality is a human rights violation. How can the wealthiest nation in the history of the world let its own people starve, live without homes, or equal access to health care? To deliberately perpetuate a class system, by refusing to end the cycles of poverty, and institutional, individual and social racism, this country’s elite—through its actions not its words—is loudly pronouncing just how much it appreciates the masses.

Taking for granted the uncommon ground we, the working class of the world, occupy—one that is morally high and righteous—and they, the ruling elite, occupy—one that is morally bereft and cruel, I would like to posit this: why do they hate us? That is, why do the elite hate us, not the other way around? They hate us because we control their future. We can refuse to do their work. We can refuse to fight their wars. We can refuse to shine their shoes. We can and must refuse to perpetuate their lies and myths.

Socialism Will Smash the Capitalist World-Economy

2006-02-26T21:59:00.000-07:00

While it is necessary for a socialist economy to be run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small aristocratic, plutocratic, or capitalist class in order for it to be considered “socialist”, its use of markets is not “unsocialistic”. In fact, socialist economies must adhere to the laws of the market as much as any other economy without being capitalistic. Therefore, a socialist economy can operate without contradiction or the risk of undermining its principles within the global market economy. It should therefore be understood that Venezuela’s exploitation of its only comparative economic advantage—oil—in the global capitalist markets is not a contradiction of principles. It would, however, lack socialist principles if the wealth generated from its oil failed to benefit the majority of its people. Most importantly, socialist countries such as Venezuela—unavoidably intertwined in the modern world-economy which is capitalist—must look to export its ideas above all else and help lead the systemic destruction of global capitalism. Backed by the momentum of Venezuela, global access to information and destabilizing societies across the world, socialism has reached an historical turning point and it must lead the way in shaping a more socially just and democratic world.

Capitalism and the World-Economy

One possible way to better understand socialism is to distinguish it from the capitalist system that dominates the world-economy. A capitalist economy gives priority to the endless accumulation of capital. However, if we say that a system “gives priority” to such endless accumulation, it means that there exist structural mechanisms by which those who act with “other motivations” are penalized in some way, and are eventually eliminated from the social scene, whereas those who act with the “appropriate motivations” are rewarded and, if successful, enriched.

According to economist and historian, Immanuel Wallerstein:

World-economy and a capitalist system go together. Since world-economies lack the unifying cement of an overall political structure or a homogenous culture, what holds them together is the efficacy of the division of labor. Historically, the only world-economy to have survived for a long time has been the modern world-system, and that is because the capitalist system took root and became consolidated as its defining feature.

Fortunately, the biggest weakness of the capitalist system is that it cannot exist within any framework except that of a world-economy. A world-economy with so many strikingly conflictive interests is too tumultuous for capitalism’s long-term survival, especially considering the explosion of readily-available and accessible information that is reaching more people in more manifold ways. Capitalism demands a very special relationship between its capitalists and the holders of political power. If the latter are too strong, their interests will override those of the economic producers, and the endless accumulation of capital will cease to be a priority. So what would this mean for capitalism if political power were held by an increasing number of people, the working class, or a “rogue” nation such as Venezuela? Another weakness of capitalists it that they require not only a large market but they also need a multiplicity of states that are willing to work in favor of “their interests”. This means that capitalists must work incessantly and exert massive efforts to maintain “their interests”. So how do capitalists ensure their future?

Socialization

Even in the modern world of mass information, households still serve as the primary socializing agencies. They seek to teach us knowledge of and respect for the social rules by which we are “supposed” to abide. They are of course seconded by state agencies such as schools and armies as well as by religious institutions and the media. But none of these come close to the family in actual impact. What however determines how the households will socialize in their members? Largely the way in which the secondary institutions frame the issues for the households demonstrates exactly how to socialize one’s family members. It also cannot be understated the how defenseless overworked and fractured families are to the effects of oppressive secondary institutions.

Of course, the powers that be in a social system always hope that socialization results in the acceptance of the very real hierarchies that are the product of the system. They also hope that socialization results in the internalization of the myths, the rhetoric, and the theorizing of the system. Although this does happen rather comprehensively in highly nationalistic countries such as the U.S., it never fully takes root (thanks to dialectical dissonance). On the other hand, there are some families that socialize their members to be rebellious, critical-thinking and self-reliant. To be sure, up to a point even such antisystemic socialization can be useful to the system by offering an outlet for restless spirits as long as the overall system is in relative harmony. In such cases, it is predictable that such anti-establishment socializations will have only a limited impact on the overall system. However, when the historical system comes into structural crisis (viz. 1960s) suddenly such antisystemic socializations can play a profoundly unsettling role for the system.

There is little question that across the globe today, people are more fully aware of the political issues that affect their personal lives then at any time in the past. They are more aware, more willing to struggle for their rights, more skeptical of the rhetoric of the powerful. More importantly, one not need look any further than Venezuela to see the effects of political power that is shifting into the hands of the masses. Venezuela’s example is a serious threat to the global capitalist system and this can best be observed in the extent to which corporate forces and secondary institutions are going to prevent there being genuine political democracy. As a socialist revolution, Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution could be the source of a paradigmatic shift away from a world-economy that “gives priority” to the endless accumulation of wealth.

One must remember that history is not at its end, and that every time elites have claimed some “golden era” which was reflected in their satisfaction with the status quo, events followed shortly after that highlighted the ridiculousness of those claims. Remember the decades that followed the “Roaring 20s” or the 1950s? Perhaps more salient to this discussion, can we all recall the victory dances of 1990s when grand pronouncements were made that socialism was forever dead, and capitalism has proven its superiority? So as we get closer to a point when the majority of the world is vastly more aware of the oppressive power structures and the capitalist system that is rushing us towards destruction, perhaps we will be able to think in terms of building a political economy based on systems of cooperation, equality, self-government, and individual freedom.

Voting Against Yourself

2006-02-12T13:16:00.000-07:00

Fellow blogger, Aprilloper, recently posed some important questions concerning American politics and its electorate. She asked why Americans vote against their self-interest. I wanted to try an attempt at answering this question. (Consequently, I ran headlong into deeper, more troubling issues I face everyday as an educator). An answer to this question would deepen an understanding of American politics and would provide directions in which one might begin deeper inquiries that would lead to positive solutions.

Here is a quote from an interesting book called Don't Think of an Elephant by George Lakoff. Lakoff is a linguist and cognitive scientist. This book tries to answer just such puzzling questions about the American public which seems, all too often, schizophrenic when it comes time to picking who their oppressor will be (i.e. election time). Here is one of his suggestions:

It is assumed that voters will vote their self-interest. Democrats are shocked or puzzled when voters do not vote their self-interest. “How,” Democrats keep asking me, “can any poor person vote for Bush when he hurts them so badly?” Their response is to try to explain once more to the poor why voting Democratic would serve their self-interest. Despite all evidence to the contrary, Democrats keep banging their heads against the wall. In the 2000 election Gore kept saying that Bush’s tax cuts would go only to the top 1 percent, and he thought that everyone else would follow their self-interest and support him. But poor conservatives still opposed him, because as conservatives they believed that those who had the most money—the “good” people—deserved to keep it as their reward for being disciplined. [In other words, they “earned” it]. The bottom 99 percent of conservatives voted their conservative values, against their self-interest.

It is claimed that 35 percent of the populace thinks that they are, or someday will be, in the top 1 percent, and that this explains the finding on the basis of a hoped-for future self-interest. But what about the other 65 percent, who have no dream that they will ever get that tax cut but still support it? They are clearly not voting in their self-interest, or even their hoped-for future self-interest.

[…] People do not necessarily vote in their self-interest. They vote their identity. They vote their values. They vote for who they identify with. They may identify with their self-interest. That can happen. It is not that people never care about their self-interest. But they vote their identity. And if their identity fits their self-interest, they will vote for that. It is important to understand this point. It is a serious mistake to assume that people are simply always voting in their self-interest.

Since the same people that market beer and SUVs to us are the same people that run a candidate’s campaign, it is easier to understand how people can be made to identify with candidates despite themselves. But, as Naomi Klein pointed out in No Logo, we are no longer buying products but instead image and identity. What this means to the question at hand is that it is irrelevant what the product can actually do as long as the consumer/voter is convinced that by purchasing (“voting”) a certain product, they are guaranteed a better, happier, sexier, more convenient life. Bearing in mind the frame that encompasses the lives of the majority of voting populace—an imposed “frame” that depicts for the hard-working, underpaid American patriot what it is that one needs and wants, such as “good ol’ American values”—the political elite can say what people want to hear and then get these people to vote from them despite their self-interest.

The American public is an easy thing to control thanks to indoctrinating practices such as the Pledge of Allegiance, the National Anthem, public education, patriotic rhetoric around every corner, and monolithic notions about American Democracy. As a teacher, I combat the notions of “American Exceptionality” everyday when kids bring to the classroom their inherited prejudices, biases, jingoism and ethnocentrism. The sources of these perpetuated notions are obvious, but how does one subvert them? Especially when one considers the power of the media—especially the ones that pretend to be “liberal” or “objective” (e.g. PBS, NPR, CNN, etc.)—who gives the American public the impression that we are being protected by their scrutinizing work. After all, we see people from both sides of the “spectrum” on their shows, don’t we? Forget the fact that the “spectrum” being presented by these networks as representative of human reality is so narrow that anyone who falls outside of the accepted spectrum is dismissed as “radical” or “irrelevant”. Thus, the media controlled by the corporate world (including PBS and NPR heavily funded by nefarious corporations) become an invaluable resource to the ruling class in the maintenance of the status quo. If the media does its job properly, people will believe America is full of meaningful choices as it pertains to their daily lives and that the true beauty of America lies in its ability to give everyone an opportunity to assert themselves in ways that will serve to better their individual lives. Again, this is understood by most Americans despite reality.

Along those same lines, one can almost hear those American centrists that never lose their hope that politics, “like life” they say so assuredly, is like a pendulum and so it has a way of balancing itself out. They say, like wise elders, that America swings to the left, then to the right, the back again. They too believe the spectrum of that swing has a broad back upon which the burden of “truth” is carried. Unfortunately, they fail to see that they only difference between a Democrat and a Republican (the spectrum of choice in this country) is the color of the tie they wear. More importantly, the notion that “truth” is sorted out through the inevitable swing of the pendulum assumes that the resulting center is somehow desirable for the masses forgetting that in all this time we’ve been a country, we’ve continued to ignore the millions of Americans that live in abysmal poverty; the perpetual violence our country has leveled against “enemies of our interests”; structural racism, sexism and homophobia; the irreversible damage we’ve done to our environment; the daily appearance of new and more profound disorders due to sped up lives and stress; and the inequality, shrinking freedom and diminishing democracy. But how long can we wait for the pendulum to be freed to swing to include the broadest spectrum of thought possible. I see this as the biggest problem with American notions of democracy. For that matter, I see our ruling class as opposed to democracy since it would be too free if it were to be embraced in the literal sense.

People believe in some ridiculous parallel between democracy and capitalism. Correlations are made between the balancing effect that the Legislative, the Judiciary and the Executive that democracy is supposed to have but does not, and the even more farcical notion that capitalism is free-market economics when it is anything but “free-market”. There are too many things that the majority of Americans do not understand about the authority that rules their lives. Perhaps through gaining an appreciation of the convoluted reality of American politics better helps explain why Americans vote against their own self-interest.

For anyone interested, I would highly recommend the book Pedagogy of the Oppressed, written by Paulo Freire, for thoughts and ideas on how one might go about the task of helping the oppressed see their oppressor. In other words, helping Americans see that their vote is simply a decision of who will be their oppressor, and end the cycle of Americans seeing their leaders as someone with whom they share anything meaningful.

What's So Bad About Democracy?

2006-02-03T23:05:00.000-07:00

Could we all be naive to think the U.S. is letting matters in Iraq distract them from the bigger picture of Pax Americana? How much do we know about our country’s abilities to spy, invade, control, manipulate, deceive, and distract? If the war in Iraq is “unwinnable”, which the U.S. government has surely assessed by now, why not assume they are already planning for how they will regain control of Venezuela and the rest of Latin America? (Note the recent call by President Bush to increase the troop deployment to the border of Paraguay from 500 to 1400). For that matter, is it possible that the U.S. has downplayed coverage and attention towards Hugo Chavez in order to make silent preparations? Whatever the current plan is, the U.S. government’s immutable trend of opposing democracy continues undeterred.

The U.S. is clearly opposed to Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and the “populist/socialist” movement in Latin America. Donald Rumsfeld stated his disdain for Chavez saying that he [Chavez] “was elected democratically, the same way Adolph Hitler was.” Couldn’t this notion apply to any democratically-elected leader? Say, George W. Bush? Again, possibly referring to his own country’s government, Rumsfeld continued to describe how “corruption is something corrosive for democracy.” Another recycled Reaganite—the much-reassigned and failed transitional ambassador to Iraq—John Negroponte, described how Evo Morales’ “administration is continuing to send confusing signals as to its intentions.” Overall, the U.S. is sending the message that it opposes the direction of Latin America, that Venezuela is the “biggest threat to the United States.” If that threat resides in its level of democracy, I would have to concur.

Over the last couple of years, the U.S. has aided in a failed coup d’etat in Venezuela (2002) through its financing of opposition groups through the National Endowment for Democracy and tactical support from our Navy in the Caribbean; ramped up “transition” plans for a post-Fidel Cuba (again with money from various groups including NED and USAID); overthrown the popularly-elected president of Haiti (Jean-Bertrand Aristide); supported and trained (through—surprise!—NED and USAID money) ruthless militias from Haiti to prevent the Lavalas political party from returning to power; continued its multi-billion dollar military funding of the Colombia army and paramilitary; undermined democracy by imposing its “free-trade” agreements in Central America; and now seems poised to oppose the newly-elected president of Bolivia if he allies himself with Chavez. It should be interesting to watch the presidential elections in Peru, where the candidate currently leading the some polls, Ollanta Humala, is another “left-leaning nationalist” and “friendly with Chavez.” Is it too wild to speculate the U.S. is already trying to influence these elections?

According to Noam Chomsky, the U.S. government has opposed democracy in Iraq since the invasion. In fact, he contends that the U.S. did everything in its power to “prevent” the elections that they were supposedly so intensely hurrying to implement. It’s the threat of democracy that most frightens the U.S. government. A true democratic society is likely to ask for more than the ruling class is willing to sacrifice. In fact, the most democratic thing the current U.S. government could do would be to create universal health care, since it is the one political issue most Americans agree upon at 70%. However, in the case of the U.S., it appears that democracy has its limits.

The title of a public talk given by Noam Chomsky that I attended was "Imminent Crises." He described the three crises he feels threatens our survival: global nuclear war, environmental destruction and the disappearance of democracy. It is therefore imperative that the "threat of democracy" be realized in popular movements such as those in Latin America. Likewise, a more vigilant, active and involved American public must come forward. Only by educating each other that the biggest threat to democracy in this world is our own country, can we end the tyranny our government poses to democracy around the world. Finally, it is utterly imperative that we not allow our own government to repeal more of our own freedoms at home as we descend towards fascism.

Bolivarian Socialism, What Is It?

2006-01-04T15:25:00.000-07:00

"Si saber no es un derecho, seguro será un izquierdo." ~Silvio Rodríguez

There is a definite trend in Latin America towards the left. Over the last decade governments have grown increasingly cold towards Washington D.C. One can simply look at a map of South America and find that only few country’s governments are still taking orders from Crawford, Texas: Colombia, Paraguay, Ecuador and Peru (though changes towards the left are possible in the upcoming elections in Ecuador and Peru). The most obvious inspirations for this tack away from the “Washington Concensus” (a policy of neoliberal economics between the

U.S.

and Latin America) have been the Bolivarian Revolution, Hugo Chavez and

Venezuela

. Some have called what is happening in Venezuela “progressive,” “populist,” “socialist,” “democratic social reform,” or have even called it “revolutionary,” but the most commonly held belief is that this swing to the left in Venezuela—as well as the rest of Latin America—is inspired primarily by a sentiment of anti-U.S. imperialism. From this belief stems the hope that an end to

U.S.

intervention and meddling in the region will precede an end to suffering. This is an unfortunate perception because it only gives us half of the picture.
Credit must be given to Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution for reinventing socialism for the 21st century and showing the rest of the world a way towards a more socially just future. Chavez’s unorthodox and open-minded approach to revolution is unique and deserves a more critical analysis. It should also be noted that the positive results and advancements of social justice are a result of the right of unfettered self-determination from inside

Venezuela

’s democratic government. In this case, as it is in all other, it was not due to the “benign intent” of white men in Washington making empty declarations of “freedom and democracy.” While the impact of the U.S. imperialism in Latin America over the last couple of centuries has been decidedly devastating, and an end to U.S. intervention would logically do a lot to reverse perpetual poverty and war, it should be recognized that the unprecedented achievements of the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela in such a short time is rooted—more than anything else—in the radical departure from capitalist/neoliberal economics and its decisive path towards a new kind of socialism.
This shift to the political left is marked by several major events over the last seven years, but it is undoubtedly highlighted by the Bolivarian Revolution in

Venezuela

. The ripple effect of the radical changes made by Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, is being felt throughout the Latin American region and has incited the wrath of the

U.S.

government who, according to Chavez, is planning his assassination and has even practiced war games (Operation Balboa) to invade

Venezuela

. There is little reason to doubt Chavez’s fears considering the

U.S.

government’s involvement in a failed coup attempt in April of 2002, as well as the recent fatwa issued by religio-politico Pat Robertson to “assassinate” the Venezuelan leader. What cannot be denied is that

Venezuela

’s revolutionary changes, radical social advances and its fierce anti-imperialist rhetoric has inspired popular social movements throughout Latin America and has bolstered other countries struggles to throw off their own chains of oppression.
Shortly after Chavez was elected, he advanced his social program by having 20,000 Cuban doctors brought into

Venezuela

to take care of people that had previously never seen a doctor in their lives. Chavez also brought in many more Cuban educators that began an unprecedented literacy program to empower the disaffected illiterate masses through education. He recognized, as did Castro, that if people are educated they can better defend themselves from the negative effects of anti-revolutionary propaganda. It is likely that Chavez received much of his inspiration from the Cuban Revolution and Castro himself. However, there is something that sets Chavez apart from previous revolutionary projects.
Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution continue to buck the traditional trends of popular socialist movements from the past. Primarily, Chavez has—as of yet—not followed in the dictatorial footsteps of Soviet Bolshevism, Chairman Mao or the Cuban Revolution. One can even observe the peculiar expressions of some doctrinaire socialists who express frustration that Chavez is not following “the prescriptions” of socialism. It is as though they learned nothing from the past, and are concerned only that Chavez is not confining himself to a strict socialist doctrine. As a result, they are unable to recognize that Chavez’s departure from their stagnate socialist doctrine may indeed be the reason the Bolivarian Revolution has been successful thus far.
Chavez has done several things that would unnerve the likes of Castro, Mao, or Stalin. For example, 1) Chavez has not limited free expression. Chavez still faces a vituperative media which consists of an ultra-conservative corporation that owns twelve channels that are fiercely anti-Chavez. Chavez has refused, up to this point, to put any restrictions on the media or any other form of peaceful demonstration. Additionally, 2) he has not stifled the electoral process, as many of his predecessors had. During a referendum vote to remove Chavez from office in August of 2004, international election observers called it a transparent and fair election of the highest standard—especially compared to the 2004 presidential elections of the U.S. (Chavez won that election with nearly 70% of the vote). 3) Another difference is that Chavez did not execute or even imprison the plotters of the coup from 2002. Finally, 4) Chavez has still not expropriated all of the land and natural resources of

Venezuela

(though the redistribution of land is an important aspect of the revolution), but he has seen to it that all of

Venezuela

’s wealth from its natural resources was immediately used to benefit Venezuelan people.
The most striking difference of Chavez and other revolutionary leaders has been his effort to “decentralize” the government. This completely breaks with tradition. Chavez has encouraged the growth of grassroots organizing in the form of local level cooperatives. He believes this will eliminate the “corrupt bureaucracy” by putting the decision and means of making local level changes in the hands of cooperatives. When Chavez was elected into office in 1999, there were 762 cooperatives in

Venezuela

. Today there are 83,769 cooperatives that are concerned with “local development.” The cooperative policies “are adjusted to their specific conditions and employing local resources, equity and human development are prioritized. The official interpretation of ‘endogenous development’ also emphasizes the importance of local, diversified and sustainable development, and the commitment to respect Venezuelans’ different cultures and identities.” By embracing this kind of grassroots organizing, Chavez is genuinely placing the “means of production” (the central tenet of socialism) in the hands of the masses. Chavez is truly decentralizing his government and preventing all kinds of potential corruption and the concentration of power that led to the atrocious oppression in the Soviet Union.
Chavez has also reached out to other, more radical movements in Latin America and within the Bolivarian Revolution, namely the Worker-Occupied Factory Movement. In October of this year,

Venezuela

hosted the first-ever WOFM conference in Caracas. Chavez spoke at this conference inviting these spontaneous anarchists to advance their movement. Chavez spoke of the "potential of the workers in our continent to break their chains and leave capitalism behind". Again, Chavez is showing himself to be unafraid of letting the social revolution spread its wings through his explicit endorsement of the WOFM. Critical observers, including radical economist Michael Albert (founder of South End Press and author of Parecon, Life After Capitalism), have commented that “the Bolivarian revolution is most ideologically clear […] regarding political democracy and political participation where it seems to be already committed to a well conceived, compelling and innovative institutional vision that outstrips what any other revolutionary project since the Spanish anarchists has held forth.” By including the most radical proponents of social revolution in the advancement of this most definite human trend (libertarian socialism), “Chavez appears to be a remarkable detonator of insights, himself moving leftward at a great pace.”
It may be giving Chavez too much credit, but he very well may recognize that every previous socialist project stalled as soon as clamps were put on the most radical elements of the social revolution that had demanded a further shift to the left. Typically this happens through the concentration of power, the limiting of debate and criticism within the left-wing itself, and finally, through the rooting out and persecution the avant-garde. Up until this point, Chavez has not reacted as such and this may indicate his appreciation that people cannot be asked to be patient forever and once they see the potential of radical socialism they will clamor. Chavez has, up to this point, encouraged an open-minded and limitless approach towards socialism and the result has been the historically unique and radical Bolivarian Revolution.

Venezuela, Bolivarian Revolution, and Chavez

2005-12-17T23:44:00.000-07:00

"The trust of the people in their leaders reflects the trust the leaders have in the people." --Paulo Freire

The social improvements made in Venezuela over the last six years need to be thoroughly investigated and then appropriately recognized. Bringing more attention to the achievements of this "socialist" revolution are essential for the greater struggle for social justice in our world. It is easy to be cynical about the usually predictable reaction many Americans have towards socialism. For instance, most can't accept fact that "socialism" is capable of rewarding the widest section of any society with more equality, freedom and dignity than capitalism. (Furthermore, the material comforts that Americans have experienced through the capitalism of the U.S. has always come at a very high cost for masses of people who are intentionally obscured without a voice). However, I have also found that many non-socialist Americans are presently poised to listen because of growing dissatisfaction, the relentless campaigns of socialists around the world, and the shining examples being provided in countries such as Venezuela and Cuba. Many Americans are so disaffected by the politics and economic reality within the U.S. that such a discussion at this point in time is more possible than usual. In order to help translate the outrage masses of Americans feel towards the reality that they can't get basic health care, a dignifying job with a dignifying wage, etc., revolutionary leaders and educators must begin with what Paulo Freire describes as an essential faith that people will sense their oppression and work to overthrow it. Such faith is "essential" since most people will live up to the expectations the leaders have of them. Freire said that we must help people understand that their "ontological vocation is to become more fully human," but the first step is to exhibit a faith in people that they are capable of realizing such an existence. Finally, the quesiton remains as to how to counter the negative propaganda that Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution face in order to amplify the message of positive gains being made by --gasp-- socialism! How do we get those Americans that are "too" comfortable to listen?

While it may be more effective to relate working class struggles here to the improved dignity experienced by peasants and working class of Venezuela, what issues are the middle class of the U.S. likely to be sensitive to in order to improve their hearing? I recently got into a discussion with a teacher from a very conservative area of Montana that began as a discussion of the overly-punitive nature of our schools and led to a full-blown discussion of Socialism. What I found was that this teacher was very intrigued and inquisitive about alternatives to tried, tested and failed attempts of market principles to solve the problems of equality in the U.S. What else can revolutionary leaders do to improve their chances of reaching out to more people? Interestingly enough, I have found that my family is the most difficult set of people to communicate these seemingly obvious facts about socialism to despite their own tendency towards socialist thinking.

Is it easier to get people to listen to the concrete examples emerging from Venezuela and be sensitive to the overuse of terms such as socialism bearing in mind the conditioning most Americans have towards "socialism"? That is, should we let Venezuela, Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution's positive gains speak for themselves and then set the hook that what is happening down there is socialist? As an educator, finding points of access to my students is as important as any information and evidence I have compiled. I find this access through listening which is not always easy in public education that demands so much rote assessment. But I tend to agree with Freire that as my faith in my students wanes, so does their faith that they can change anything in their future. The result is inevitably that they stop caring.

How do we talk about the growing socialist movements of the world? What else beyond maintaining faith in people would Paulo Freire have to say?

Self-Managed Behavior vs. Typical Behavior Plans

2005-12-02T21:09:00.000-07:00

Morality cannot really be imposed on a child, but must instead arise out of his/her own trials and tribulations. Likewise, this principle applies to behavior. A child must not be expected to intrinsically appreciate “appropriate” behavior that they have not manifested to be “appropriate” from within themselves. Building “Social Contracts” with peers through trial and error, while at the same time providing an emotionally safe environment to discuss what is and is not working, are essential needs for fostering the growth of intrinsically-motivated children. Therefore, formulaic behavior management plans employed by public schools throughout this country must be scraped onto the heap of Skinnerian Behaviorism that has only led to failed attempts to control and “manage” human lives. Conversely, “self-management” is logically the only approach to child-rearing and classroom management to have any long-term positive effect since it is generated from within; and at the same time, a child/student’s self-selection of an “appropriate” behavior is clearly the least coercive and least harmful, hence, the most desirable. Finally, only self-management can claim a genuine belief in the much-hoped-for goal of educating youth to be “self-reliant, independent, and critical-thinking.” It is necessary to state that there are instances when the assertion of authority is legitimate and not capricious: SAFETY. Such cases need only be discussed within context. If a child were about to run out into a street it is easy to prove that the assertion of authority was not arbitrary but legitimate.

When is the Resort to Violence Acceptable?

2005-12-02T20:56:00.000-07:00

“A new society rises out of the actions that are taken to form it…” Noam Chomsky

Blogging has helped me grow. Through an extended debate on my last post concerning the moral validity of violence as a means to achieve revolutionary hopes, I was provoked and challenged by thoughtful bloggers that contributed to the debate until I finally stumbled upon a parallel debate on violence that Noam Chomsky had with Hannah Arendt and Susan Sontag, et. al. The debate truly opened my eyes and expanded my thinking on the moral dilemma of violence within a revolution. Although a perfect answer remains elusive even to the likes of these brilliant intellectuals, the argument provided by Noam Chomsky is the most rational discussion I have ever encountered on the topic. I strongly encourage a thorough read of this debate and would welcome any further discussion on this complex issue.

To read this debate, go to:
http://www.chomsky.info/debates/19671215.htm

Don't Listen to Corporate Media

2005-11-05T00:56:00.000-07:00

Chris Matthews called violent protestors in Argentina "idiotic". He called them idiots for destroying their "own" town. Matthews is not alone in such short-sightedness. Most of the mainstream media portray corporate property as somehow beneficial to the general public. In fact, most Americans would likely agree with this point of view despite reality. That is, we somehow stumble blindly through life believing "our towns" belong to us. However, look closely at what these "idiots" were destroying: multinational banks, Burger King, McDonalds, etc.

The "piqueteros" of Argentina (the large majority of the violent protestors) have been struggling since the dramatic collapse of the Argentine economy in December 2001. Their means of protest became control of the streets and highways with blockades. Through these blockades they have been able to pressure their government to face problems that capitalism and neoliberal institutions have caused. they have forced an otherwise moderate politician in Nestor Kirchner to respond to their pressure. However, these protests also represented an opportunity for the "piqueteros" to step up the pressure with an international audience watching.

To the "piqueteros" the Fourth Summit of the Americas (Mar de Plata, Argentina 11/04-11/06) represents everything that has gone wrong in Argentina and Latin America in a "race to the bottom." Noting the outrage most Latin Americans feel towards the neoliberal plans that emerge from these summits and that has led to widespread increases in poverty, it is not hard to understand these riots. What's more, the property these Argentines are destroying is definitely not theirs. In fact, such property is an affront to the working class around the globe. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon reminds us that "property is theft." So where Chris Matthews sees the breaking of corporate glass as "idiotic", I say it is a necessary step towards recognizing the negative effects of corporate greed. We can only hope that this is the start of an ever-intensifying pressure on the glass-ceiling of capitalism.