How Should An American Socialist Dress?

"It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic, of all things physical and metaphysical, of all things human and all things superhuman, of all true manifestations of the head, of the heart, of the soul, that the life is recognizable in its expression, that form ever follows function. This is the law." ~ Louis Sullivan 

To Sullivan, "function" didn't mean merely "utility" or "pragmatic use." Instead, it meant something like "life force." His "form follows function" dictum expressed a kind of essentialist vitalism. The "essence" of a thing in nature (an eagle, a cloud, a river) is its life force. This life force results in the outward form of that thing. In Sullivan's own words, "Unceasingly the essence of things is taking shape in the matter of things."

"Whether it be the sweeping eagle in his flight, or the open apple-blossom, the toiling work-horse, the blithe swan, the branching oak, the winding stream at its base, the drifting clouds, over all the coursing sun, form ever follows function, and this is the law. Where function does not change form does not change. The granite rocks, the ever-brooding hills, remain for ages; the lightning lives, comes into shape, and dies in a twinkling."

Every Force Evolves a Form

One problem with "form follows function" is that it is tautological - it presupposes that every form in the natural world exists as it does because of functional requirements. We start with the end result (the form), look backward toward its origins, and assume that the results were inevitable. But there are any number of reasons why something might have a particular form (chance, malevolence, whim, purposeful design, play, folly, and numerous combinations thereof).

A better, less tautological mantra comes from Mother Ann Lee (1736–84), founder of the Shaker movement in America: "Every force evolves a form." From this perspective, form doesn't simply, dutifully follow a set of functional requirements. Instead, dynamic forces gradually forge resultant forms. These forces aren't simply functional; they can also be communal or spiritual, as was the case with the Shakers.

For working designers, "every force evolves a form" is a more useful rule. The design process actually begins with something that doesn't yet exist but needs to exist, and it moves forward toward a formal result. Function alone doesn't drive the resultant form. The form evolves from the holistic forces of the project—audience needs, client desires, ethical obligations, aesthetic inclinations, material properties, cultural presuppositions, and yes, functional requirements. "Function" is rightly seen as a single, isolated, quantifiable aspect of the overall "force" driving the form.

True, the Shakers did esteem utility. They found it beautiful. According to one of their slogans, "That which in itself has the highest use, possesses the greatest beauty." But more forces were bearing on the form of Shaker furniture than mere utility. The teachers of the Bauhaus also esteemed utility, but the forms of their furniture are far from identical to the forms of Shaker furniture because a host of other historical, philosophical, and material forces in addition to mere utility were affecting and evolving both forms.

What is the Function of Clothing?

The primary function of clothing is to improve the comfort of the wearer. In hot climates, clothing provides protection from sunburn or wind damage, while in cold climates its thermal insulation properties are generally more important. Shelter usually reduces the functional need for clothing. For example, coats, hats, gloves, shoes, socks, and other superficial layers are normally removed when entering a warm home, particularly if one is residing or sleeping there. Similarly, clothing has seasonal and regional aspects, so that thinner materials and fewer layers of clothing are generally worn in warmer seasons and regions than in colder ones.

Clothing protects people against many things that might injure the uncovered human body. Clothes act as protection from the elements, including rain, snow and wind and other weather conditions, as well as from the sun. However, if clothing is too sheer, thin, small, tight, etc., the protection effect is minimized. Clothes also reduce the level of risk during activity, such as work or sport. Clothing at times is worn as protection from specific environmental hazards, such as insects, noxious chemicals, weapons, and contact with abrasive substances. Conversely, clothing may protect the environment from the clothing wearer, as with doctors wearing medical scrubs.

Humans have shown extreme inventiveness in devising clothing solutions to environmental hazards. Some examples include: space suits, air conditioned clothing, armor, diving suits, swimsuits, bee-keeper gear, motorcycle leathers, high-visibility clothing, and other pieces of protective clothing. Meanwhile, the distinction between clothing and protective equipment is not always clear-cut, since clothes designed to be fashionable often have protective value and clothes designed for function often consider fashion in their design.

The wearing of clothes also has social implications. They are worn to cover those parts of the body which social norms require to be covered, and act as a form of adornment, as well as other social purposes.

Cultural Aspects

Gender differentiation: To promote sexual equality, socialist men and women should dress the same.

Social status: Socialists, whose goal is a classless society, should avoid the wearing of the western business suit and necktie.

Ethnic and cultural heritage: People may wear ethnic or national dress on special occasions or in certain roles or occupations.

Future trends

The world of clothing is always changing, as new cultural influences meet technological innovations. Researchers in scientific labs have been developing prototypes for fabrics that can serve functional purposes well beyond their traditional roles, for example, clothes that can automatically adjust their temperature, repel bullets, project images, and generate electricity. Some practical advances already available to consumers are bullet-resistant garments made with kevlar and stain-resistant fabrics that are coated with chemical mixtures that reduce the absorption of liquids.

Does American Socialism Have a Dress Code?

1. The 'dress code' of American Socialism is common sense. Recycled or surplus clothing is always a good choice. 
2. Throw on loose fitting jeans or cargo pants. You're a Socialist now, you don't have the inclination to buy pants that are tight fitting. Just as long as they cover you up they're doing their job just fine.
3. Wear a plain, solid colored, button-down work shirt, or polo shirt. Black or dark blue are good color choices.
4. Don boots. They should look like you haven't cleaned them up since you bought them years ago. For summer wear, sandals are appropriate.
5. Sport a plain, beat-up looking overcoat. It should be warm and practical, and not all that easy on the eyes. (Army surplus field jackets are always good.)
6. Formal wear: Sun Yat-sen Tunic
7. Everyday wear: Classic Mao Jacket
8. Casual Wear: Vintage Vietnam Fatigue Jacket
9. Head-wear:  The Che Beret
10. Foot-wear: Classic 'Communist' Sandals

That should give you some food for thought....

Communal Housing Is Coming Of Age

Seniors are beginning to see the advantages of shared living complexes.

GRASS VALLEY, CALIF. — Suzanne Marriott's brave drive into the future started with a traffic jam, which gave her a lot of time to think about what she was getting herself into -- and out of.

Newly widowed and recently retired, the lanky 64-year-old was making her way to the Sierra foothills to meet a group of complete strangers that she might just spend the rest of her life with.

Left behind in the rearview mirror was a sprawling ranch house in Castro Valley, near Oakland, that managed to be full and empty all at once, jammed with the stuff of a long, happy marriage but drained of life since the death of her husband, Michael, from multiple sclerosis six months before.

For decades, the couple, avid backpackers and mountain bikers, had wandered the world together. Now she was striking out on her own, placing big bets on the rest of her life and on a nascent movement called senior cohousing.

Marriott was betting that she could join a group of like-minded people -- all relatively healthy and not that old -- and together they could build a community that would be something between commune and condo complex.

She was wagering that they could all live there to the end without burdening family members or enduring life in an institution picked by somebody else. And she hoped they would have fun in the process.

So as Marriott navigated Interstate 80 toward her fellow pioneers in late-life living, she was more curious than terrified.

"I wanted to see if there was a way to make more meaning in my life now that Michael was gone," she said. "We'd been together 30 years. I thought I was being led to something that would be meaningful and be a way to move forward."

In the 18 months since she hit the highway, Marriott and her future neighbors have done something only a few groups of forward-thinking seniors in America have accomplished.

Along with the architects who imported the idea of cohousing from Denmark 20 years ago, they have designed their 30-unit complex from the ground up, complete with an elaborate common house where they plan to dine together several nights each week.

They've attended scores of meetings, made thousands of decisions -- all by consensus -- buried one beloved member and welcomed others. They have pledged to "support each other through rough times, whether physical, emotional and/or spiritual." They have learned how to listen and how to disagree.

And if all goes according to the meticulous planning of the 16 women and four men who have so far signed on, Wolf Creek Lodge will break ground in spring here in the heart of Gold Country. It will be California's second elder cohousing community and only the fourth such project nationwide; a dozen or so others are in the works.

"Many people don't have an extended family, or it's an extended dysfunctional family," Marriott said. "We'll have this close community for, well, the rest of our lives."

Poor By the Numbers

A household must earn $37,105 a year to afford the national average two-bedroom fair-market rent of $928 a month. A full-time worker would have to make $17.84 an hour to afford the average 2 bedroom if no more than the recommended guideline of 30 percent of income is spent on housing. 

The average American family of four spends 20% of their income on food and drink. (Roughly $8,000 per year.)

Clothing accounts for another $2000... Transportation another $8000... Entertainment (to keep your mind off of how poor you are) another $2500...

Hey, we're at $32260 - and we haven't even thought about medical insurance, or a host of other things people spend their hard-earned money on! That's $15.50 an hour! If you make less than that you are poor, and, without medical coverage, that poverty will lead to an early death!

A moral economy for our own time would certainly take on the unbridled accumulation of wealth at the expense of the majority (and the planet). It would also single out for special condemnation the creation of an ever-larger stratum of people we call "the poor" who struggle to survive in the shadow of the over consumption and waste of that top one per cent.

Some facts: early in 2011, the US Census Bureau reported that 14.3 per cent of the population, or 47m people - one in six Americans - were living below the official poverty threshold, currently set at $22,400 annually for a family of four. Some 19m people are living in what is called extreme poverty, which means that their household income falls in the bottom half of those considered to be below the poverty line. More than a third of those extremely poor people are children. Indeed, more than half of all children younger than six living with a single mother are poor. Extrapolating from this data, Emily Monea and Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution estimate that further sharp increases in both poverty and child poverty rates lie in our American future. 

Some experts dispute these numbers on the grounds that they neither take account of the assistance that the poor still receive, mainly through the food stamp programme, nor of regional variations in the cost of living. In fact, bad as they are, the official numbers don't tell the full story. The situation of the poor is actually considerably worse. The official poverty line is calculated as simply three times the minimal food budget first introduced in 1959 and then adjusted for inflation in food costs. In other words, the US poverty threshold takes no account of the cost of housing or fuel or transportation or health care costs, all of which are rising more rapidly than the cost of basic foods. So the poverty measure grossly understates the real cost of subsistence.

Moreover, in 2006, interest payments on consumer debt had already put more than four million people, not officially in poverty, below the line, making them "debt poor". Similarly, if childcare costs, estimated at $5,750 a year in 2006, were deducted from gross income, many more people would be counted as officially poor.

Nor are these catastrophic levels of poverty merely a temporary response to rising unemployment rates or reductions in take-home pay resulting from the great economic meltdown of 2008. The numbers tell the story and it's clear enough: poverty was on the rise before the Great Recession hit. Between 2001 and 2007, poverty actually increased for the first time on record during an economic recovery. It rose from 11.7 per cent in 2001 to 12.5 per cent in 2007. Poverty rates for single mothers in 2007 were 49 per cent higher in the US than in 15 other high-income countries. Similarly, black employment rates and income were declining before the recession struck.

In part, all of this was the inevitable fallout from a decades-long business mobilisation to reduce labour costs by weakening unions and changing public policies that protected workers and those same unions.  As a result, National Labour Board decisions became far less favourable to both workers and unions, workplace regulations were not enforced and the minimum wage lagged far behind inflation.

Inevitably, the overall impact of the campaign to reduce labour's share of national earnings meant that a growing number of Americans couldn't earn even a poverty-level livelihood - and even that's not the whole of it. The poor and the programmes that assisted them were the objects of a full-bore campaign directed specifically at them.

Corporate Capitalism would have every American worker living like a slave, the minimum wage as the norm, living in a cardboard box, eating one meal a day at MacDonald's, poorly educated, and without adequate medical treatment... That's the trend. That's where this country is headed...

Is this the life that you want for your children? Your family? Your self?

If not, you had better wake up. 

And, that's the Truth!

US Wages War Against the Poor

Widespread poverty and further welfare cuts have created a need for revolution in America.

We've been at war for decades now - not just in Afghanistan or Iraq, but right here at home. Domestically, it's been a war against the poor, but if you hadn't noticed, that's not surprising. You wouldn't often have found the casualty figures from this particular conflict in your local newspaper or on the nightly TV news. Devastating as it's been, the war against the poor has gone largely unnoticed - until now.

The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement has already made the concentration of wealth at the top of this society a central issue in US politics. Now, it promises to do something similar when it comes to the realities of poverty in this country.

By making Wall Street its symbolic target and branding itself as a movement of the 99 per cent, OWS has redirected public attention to the issue of extreme inequality, which it has recast as, essentially, a moral problem. Only a short time ago, the "morals" issue in politics meant the propriety of sexual preferences, reproductive behaviour or the personal behaviour of presidents. Economic policy, including tax cuts for the rich, subsidies and government protection for insurance and pharmaceutical companies and financial deregulation, was shrouded in clouds of propaganda or simply considered too complex for ordinary Americans to grasp.

Now, in what seems like no time at all, the fog has lifted and the topic on the table everywhere seems to be the morality of contemporary financial capitalism. The protesters have accomplished this mainly through the symbolic power of their actions: by naming Wall Street, the heartland of financial capitalism, as the enemy, and by welcoming the homeless and the down-and-out to their occupation sites. And of course, the slogan "We are the 99 per cent" reiterated the message that almost all of us are suffering from the reckless profiteering of a tiny handful. (In fact, they aren't far off: the increase in income of the top one per cent over the past three decades about equals the losses of the bottom 80 per cent)

The movement's moral call is reminiscent of earlier historical moments when popular uprisings invoked ideas of a "moral economy" to justify demands for bread or grain or wages - for, that is, a measure of economic justice. Historians usually attribute popular ideas of a moral economy to custom and tradition, as when the British historian EP Thompson traced the idea of a "just price" for basic foodstuffs invoked by 18th century English food rioters to then already centuries-old Elizabethan statutes. But the rebellious poor have never simply been traditionalists. In the face of violations of what they considered to be their customary rights, they did not wait for the magistrates to act, but often took it upon themselves to enforce what they considered to be the foundation of a just, moral economy.

Rampant poverty and further welfare cuts have created a need to move towards a moral economy of the many, not the few. Now more than ever, we need socialism in America. Not just 'welfare socialism' where the politicians can systematically cut the people's benefits as they please - but a real militant socialism that will establish a people's democracy and redistribute the nation's wealth.

And, that's the Truth!

Fight Police Brutality!

When unarmed peaceful civilians are killed or brutalized by the police, they are being killed by agents of the government that is supposed to represent them. It is this failure of government that must be addressed.

Here are 5 Ways To Stop Police Brutality:

1. Protests

Police stations, city hall and other government venues must be protested against and marched on after every incident of police brutality.

2. Record the Police

We must use our cameras every time police harass us to catch them in the act. Then we can use the Internet and the viral media to expose these actions worldwide. In their heyday, the Black Panthers would do this.  They had a police watch and would follow the police with a camera and record their actions.  Now that cameras are so cheap and people have cameras on their phones, it is a lot easier to hold the police accountable for their actions.

3. Vote Out Politicians Who Condone Police Brutality

Politicians who do not address issues like police brutality must be voted out of office. Rappers should be spending a lot less time glamorizing black on black crime and dissing each other, and more time documenting police brutality. African American entertainers and activists have a strong voice in America and they must also use that voice to fight the problems in our community.

4. Engage in Dialogue With the Cops

We must use moderate police organizations to work with the police to stop police brutality. Groups like '100 Blacks in Law Enforcement' have done a lot to combat police brutality and people should work with them as an intermediary to deal with community issues with the police.

5. Take Legal Action Against Police

We need to take legal action as well. The best way to hurt police brutality is by hitting them in the pocket. If the police keep on getting sued for brutality they’ll be forced to deal with the issue. Every incident of police brutality should be reported to both the government and the media.

The people pay taxes and therefore they also pay police salaries. Police should be in the communities to serve and protect not to harass and arrest. The war on drugs is really a war on minorities. Americans are treated like insurgents in occupied territory and not citizens in need of protection. We need to end so-called 'wars' waged by our government on American citizens.

And, that's the Truth!

How To Be A Socialist

Socialism is the answer to over-population!

"You can't make an omelet without breaking any eggs." or "How many Republicans are there in the United States?" (Answer: There are 47 million registered Republicans in the United States.)

Does this right-wing propaganda poster give you any ideas?

Keep in mind that Corporate Capitalism STARVES  14,235,000 CHILDREN TO DEATH in the world every year! (So, in ten years their murder rate is over 142 MILLION - and that's only children, and only from hunger!) Here is a system that has murdered 23,000 innocent bystanders with drones, pointing the finger at socialists for killing people. Its laughable. But its not funny...

So you want to be a Socialist?

Socialism refers to collective ownership of the means of production, thus a classless and stateless international society and the end of exploitation and oppression. It was used as a synonym for communism by Marx, Engels, and many other socialists at the time, but it has also been used to refer to either a 'transitional stage between capitalism and communism' proposed by Vladimir Lenin.

1.- Read Marx. Read and analyze the writings of Marx and Engels' Das Kapital for a comprehensive economic analysis of capitalism and the theory of surplus value. Consider the concept of "common ownership of the means of production" or "workers control of the means of production".

2.- Read interpretations of Marx. For basic introductory books about Marx consider the following;

Introducing Marx by Rius (the best),

Introducing Marxism by Rupert Woodfin,

Marx's Kapital for Beginners by David N. Smith and Phil Evans,

An Introduction to Socialism by Leo Huberman

Marx: A Beginner's Guide by Gill Hands,

Rebel's Guide To Marx by Mike Gonzalez,

Socialism: A Very Short Introduction by Michael Newman

Marx: A Very Short Introduction by Peter Singer.

3.- Read Leon Trotsky on international socialism. In Defence of Marxism, The History of the Russian Revolution and The Revolution Betrayed.

4.- Consider studying less well-known socialist writers. Such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Rosa Luxemburg and Daniel De Leon.

Writings of Daniel DeLeon by Daniel DeLeon

What is Property by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

God and the State by Mikhail Bakunin

The Basic Bakunin by Mikhail Bakunin

The Essential Rosa Luxemburg by Rosa Luxemburg

The Rosa Luxemburg Reader by Kevin B. Anderson

5.- Buy clothes and stickers with socialist slogans. Some people may ask you about them.

6.- Tell your views to people both moderate and extreme. Moderates may agree with some a few things you say, but free market enthusiasts will have a lot of differences with you. Know all you can about history and figures so that you can try to sway the opinions of different people. Collaborate and plan with your supporters. Remember, that many believe that socialism enslaves and oppresses the middle class by handing out unaffordable goodies and then levying higher and higher taxes on those who can supposedly afford to pay. Be prepared to discuss the particulars of countries using the most socialist systems, and know the measures they are taking to try to create a sustainable system.

7.- Read socialist newspapers and magazines. This will keep you up to date on current affairs. Magazines and news sources such as The Green Left Weekly[2], Indymedia[3], Red Pepper[4], Socialist Worker[5], Socialist Review[6], International Socialist Journal[7], New Internationalist[8], New Left Review[9], New Politics[10], ZMag[11] and Socialist Standard[12]. Etc.

8.- Organize solidarity in your workplace. Getting involved in the workers organization movements is generally considered something socialists engage in.

9.- Attend the World Social Forum and the left forum in New York City.

10.- Join a socialist party or organization and campaign for socialism.

Tips

The Marxists Internet Archive is a good resource and has a good student section.

Warnings

* Some purported "socialists" really want wealth and power concentrated in the hands of the few rather than the many.

* Social democrats or welfare capitalists are not the same as socialists.

* Keep in mind that many people equate socialism with state capitalism or Communism. Before you start discussions with these people, understand and explain the differences to them.

* If you are going to argue with someone, keep it civilised.

Things You'll Need

* An independent mind

* The willingness to test all ideas with thoroughness.

* The will to act on what you have learned.

* The will to swim upstream the rest of your life, if need be.

Read:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/index.htm

Corporate Capitalism Pushes World to Brink of War

While local police use excessive force and violence against OWS protesters, the U.S. government, completely controlled by the 1%, continues to attempt to spread "freedom and democracy" of this exact same kind around the world. Reports come in daily about beatings, clubbings, tasering, a female having her bicycle thrown at her and disabled veterans being abused.

Meanwhile, Libya attempts to free itself from this "freedom and democracy" scourge brought to Libya by thousands of terrorists: murderers, psychopaths, head chopping nut cases - that enjoy bodily mutilation even when the body is already dead - raping women, looting, burning. Oh, the joy of freedom and demon-crazy compliments of NATO lapdogs of Corporate Capitalism.

NATO literally dumped this murderous trash into the country, to fight alongside local criminals and traitors in order to plunder the country's resources. But NATO did more than drop illegal weaponry, including chemical and biological agents... white phosphorous, depleted uranium, sarin. Outbreaks have occurred of tuberculosis due to biological weapons.

The water supply has both been bombed out of operation and poisoned. Western citizen taxpayer money was spent to "break the backs" of Libyans who will not submit to the terrorist government of NTC.

Now to move on to the brinkmanship being created with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Logic tells us that since the government of Iran gave its support to NATO and NATO's terrorists in Libya (a fruitless, thankless ill-conceived and cowardly decision) that they should be cut loose from our efforts at defense for the innocent. But a sense of humanity won't allow the world to do that and abandon them as they abandoned Libya to NATO terrorism.

One has a human duty to stand between murderer and victim. One has a human duty to expose lies that get people killed. One has a human duty to protect those being falsely accused.

The people are not the government. These people are descendants of a great culture and civilization who have shown compassion and kindness to their neighbors in distress. They don't deserve to suffer the fate of other victims of Corporate Capitalist imperialism. We must keep trying to succeed where our efforts did not prevent these horrors in the past.

No matter what, imperialism, colonialism and greedy capitalist exploitation must be opposed on every front it rears its ugly head. Other sectarian concerns must be set aside. The left has to get their collective heads out of the sand. Where, pray tell, is the anti-war movement?

Most Americans and westerners, when thinking of Iran, only see images of "hostages" being held, they've been taught to moan, groan and whine about it, but mostly to hate, without thinking about what precipitated that event.

They have have been led to believe that their countries were innocent victims of BAD, bad people and that their countries never do anything wrong, anything bad, anything evil when the opposite is true.

You see, Iran had elected a democratic, nationalistic government, that of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. His government didn't think it was exactly fair that Iran get only 15% of the profits from their own oil, while the remainder went to British interests. They nationalized Iranian oil for the benefit of the Iranian people.

Therefore, a coup against Mossadegh, perpetrated by the United States, put the bloody dictator, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, into power. He was only too happy to please his benefactors with agreements beneficial to them.

The Shah's government got the help and guidance of the CIA in creating the Iranian SAVAK, a vicious, brutal, fearsome secret police, something that the Iranian people can hardly forget.

Then the United States armed and instigated Iraq to attack Iran, with the unspoken goal of weakening both countries. They provided the very chemical and biological weapons they demonized Sadaam Hussein for. They also introduced nuclear energy to Iran. How's that for irony?

The U.S. is fast becoming a hopeless case unless the people wake up. All presidential candidates want war with Iran with the exception of one (not likely to be elected either probably for that very reason).

Corporate Capitalist instigated wars are fought to keep the military industrial complex booming, read rolling in cash, controlled by the one percent elite, while everyone else has to pay the enormous costs that allow that privileged elite to get richer, fatter and more arrogant.

In the process, jobs are lost, taxes go up, homes are lost to foreclosure, people are denied a health care system because millions are spent on the propaganda designed to create the illusion that hard working fellow citizens don't deserve health care if they cannot afford it, it's just that horrid thing known as 'socialism'.

But the same people think nothing of the multi-million billion trillion dollar welfare handouts to the banks and corporations. They think nothing of the trillions being spent for war operations, bombs and keeping bases overseas...but heaven forbid a poor person get a stinking $100 treatment in an emergency room with some form national health insurance.

There have been a succession of incidents that in essence are acts of war against Iran. First, there were the Twitter terrorist attacks at election time. There was the Stuxnet cyber attack.  There have been explosions on Iranian military facilities. Several Iranian scientists have been murdered. Then the drone flights to conduct espionage which culminated with Iran's downing one such craft.

The west moves for more and more crippling sanctions. Never forget to learn from history...that every war has begun with the imposition of sanctions. The result? We stand precariously on the brink of confrontation... World War III!

The senior commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Ali Ashraf Nouri, said that the Iranian government has made the decision to close the Strait of Hormuz where a significant portion of the world's oil passes if the country's oil exports are blocked. There is nothing that gives justification for such a blockage.

Then from the other side, an American threat:

"We made very clear that the United States will not tolerate the blocking of the Straits of Hormuz," Panetta told CBS television. "That's another red line for us and that we will respond to them."

Really, Panetta should take that "red line" and cram it where the sun don't shine, who gave US the right to cross the ocean thousands of miles away and bother these people who haven't done anything to any one?

U.S. behavior in making threats and taking actions against Iranian rights to develop peaceful nuclear energy are in violation of the Nuclear Non Prolifteration Treaty and the UN Charter in threatening war. Yet the mainstream corporate controlled media does not communicate these facts to the public.

With all the ships converging in close proximity in the Strait of Hormuz, an ideal opportunity presents itself: The sinking of the USS Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin, the Korean ship sinking they tried to blame on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea... American or Israeli ships or aircraft can be given Iranian markings and attack a U.S. ship in order to serve as a false flag pretext for starting a war with Iran.

Millions of lives will be lost in the process as the U.S. and Israel are conducting operations in close proximity to Russia, making it entirely possible for the atmospheric contamination to carry over by weather patterns onto the territory of Russia. Russia cannot tolerate this situation.

In Libya, we have seen how drug addicts, alcohol fiends, psychos and rapists have been used as cheap short cuts to achieve resource grabbing. The world is already quite familiar with the lies, the false flag operations, the need to create an excuse to start something frequently used by the U.S.A.

The workers of the world need to cut them off immediately, in such an instance, and not give them any sympathy or support, just the opposite. If people allow these things to happen and progress as in the past... 2012 - if the world manages to survive until the end of it - will be a year fraught with unknown danger.

Does anybody really want to risk global nuclear war so the 1% can make more $$$? 

I don't think so!

The Time Is Now!

If there was ever a time for REVOLUTION in America that time would be NOW.

"Interesting idea - the 99% - the coining of this new phrase opens the way to interesting ways to talk politics to people. We are living at a critical point in history for working people. Either we build organizations and a political party to take power away from the 1%, or we get dragged into fascism and war. The American people seem to be realizing that the two party system is a sham, which really means two pigs with their snouts in the same trough. But the time left to build the alternative is short. I reckon we have about two years before things really fall apart. Then we will be in the middle of wars, revolution and attempts at violent counter-revolution. Time to learn to use a 30-30, I reckon. Build the revolutionary party!"

~ James (NYC)

Who does the 'two party system' serve? Why it serves the establishment - the status quo! Did you think it served the people? Do you think Corporate Capitalism gives a rat's ass about the American people, or people anywhere? All the 1% care about is money and their own collective 'fat ass'. The only time they will make concessions is when they are afraid. So, guess what? The purpose of the revolutionary party is to put the fear of God into Corporate Capitalism!

"Well, yeah, I can dig that," you say. Therefore, the real question becomes: "Just how exactly do we build a revolutionary party?"

I used to have a book on the 'Long March' that I found at a garage sale... To bring yourself up to speed on the Long March click HERE. Well, to make a long story short, the Soviet Union was trying to run the revolution in China by following the 'book' that was written in the Russian revolution. Needless to say, this got most of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) wiped out. Beginning with the Shanghai massacre of 1927, things got pretty grim for the CCP... the result of the Long March was that they began to see 'daylight' again. But according to the author of this book about the Long March (an American journalist who was sympathetic to the Chinese communists) the secret of the Communist Party's success was the creation of 'Soviets' (communes). The Chinese communists became almost completely self-sufficient. They made their own clothing, their own weapons, grew their own food, and all ate from a common pot. They learned communism from living it, not just reading about it. They learned how to fight by fighting. They were deadly serious because the alternative to victory was death.

By living, working, fighting and dying together the Chinese were able to defeat the international capitalist 'mercenaries' of the KMT, the Imperialist Japanese aggressors, and build a real revolutionary Chinese communist party. It should be possible for us to do the same thing here in the United States.

I am not suggesting that we try to become Chinese. I don't think that is even a distant possibility. Nor am I suggesting that we immediately go to 'war' against Corporate Capitalism. War is created by 'events' and 'existing conditions'. These histrionic forces are often beyond any body's control, and often begin to spin out of control as soon as a dramatic series of events start to unfold. (As in the Bush administration's war against Iraq.) Once the dogs of war are unleashed it is very difficult to call them off. Therefore, it would behoove everyone to keep a cool head and try to think things through carefully.

No, what I am suggesting is that the reason militant socialism hasn't taken hold in this country is because socialists (and communists) have been 'talking the talk' but they have failed to 'walk the walk'. You have to put your 'money where your mouth is' and LIVE your beliefs. A communist - a militant socialist - has to live among the masses! He can't be just a visitor, or an 'ambulance chaser' who runs from one crisis to the next trying to stir shit up.

Yo! Mr 'Vanguard' leader of the downtrodden masses! Where is your community? Where is your 'network'? Haven't you heard that 'a revolutionary is a fish that swims in the sea of the people'?

Why do you think the man went after the Black Panther Party? Because they were real. Why wouldn't the Panthers unite with you? Because you are not. You are holding back. And that's what separates the 'men from the boys'.

Talking about politics is not enough. They want to see what you've really got. Are you going to show it to them or not?

The cops hose down some little old lady with pepper spray... Go hose down their mothers! People behave themselves because they know what goes around comes around... not because they are basically good. The authorities are torturing people - torture them and their families! Tit for tat.

A revolutionary doesn't go for any bullshit! That's why the 1% are afraid of them. You know that they are peeing in their pants when you see all the security, and police, and military... These are not signs of strength - they are signs of weakness!

Anybody who's been there knows when your time's up it's up. You can't cheat the Grim Reaper. Do you really think an Army is going to save you from your fate. It didn't save Hitler.

And, that's the Truth!

Decline of American Society

Meryl Streep’s eerie reincarnation of Margaret Thatcher in “The Iron Lady” brings to mind Thatcher’s most famous quip, “there is no such thing as ‘society.’” None of the dwindling herd of Republican candidates has quoted her yet but they might as well considering their unremitting bashing of everything public.

What defines a society is a set of mutual benefits and duties embodied most visibly in public institutions — public schools, public libraries, public transportation, public hospitals, public parks, public museums, public recreation, public universities, and so on. 

Public institutions are supported by all taxpayers, and are available to all. If the tax system is progressive, those who better off (and who, presumably, have benefited from many of these same public institutions) help pay for everyone else. 

“ Privatize” means pay-for-it-yourself. The practical consequence of this in an economy whose wealth and income are now more concentrated than any time in 90 years is to make high-quality public goods available to fewer and fewer.

In fact, much of what’s called “public” is increasingly a private good paid for by users — ever-higher tolls on public highways and public bridges, higher tuition at so-called public universities, higher admission fees at public parks and public museums.  

Much of the rest of what’s considered “public” has become so shoddy that those who can afford to do so find private alternatives. As public schools deteriorate, the upper-middle class and wealthy send their kids to private ones. As public pools and playgrounds decay, the better off buy memberships in private tennis and swimming clubs. As public hospitals decline, they pay premium rates for private care.

Gated communities and office parks now come with their own manicured lawns and walkways, security guards, and backup power systems.

Why the decline of public institutions? The financial squeeze on government at all levels since 2008 explains only part of it. The slide really started more than three decades ago with so-called “tax revolts” by a middle class whose earnings had stopped advancing even though the economy continued to grow. Most families still wanted good public services and institutions but could no longer afford the tab. 

Since the late 1970s, almost all the gains from growth have gone to the top. But as the upper middle class and the rich began shifting to private institutions, they withdrew political support for public ones. In consequence, their marginal tax rates dropped — setting off a vicious cycle of diminishing revenues and deteriorating quality, spurring more flight from public institutions. Tax revenues from corporations also dropped as big companies went global — keeping their profits overseas and their tax bills to a minimum. 

But that’s not the whole story. America no longer values public goods as we did decades ago.  

The great expansion of public institutions in America began in the early years of 20th century when progressive reformers championed the idea that we all benefit from public goods. Excellent schools, roads, parks, playgrounds, and transit systems would knit the new industrial society together, create better citizens, and generate widespread prosperity. Education, for example, was less a personal investment than a public good — improving the entire community and ultimately the nation. 

In subsequent decades — through the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War — this logic was expanded upon. Strong public institutions were seen as bulwarks against, in turn, mass poverty, fascism, and then communism. The public good was palpable: We were very much a society bound together by mutual needs and common threats. (It was no coincidence that the greatest extensions of higher education after World War II were the GI Bill and the National Defense Education Act, and the largest public works project in history called the National Defense Interstate Highway Act.)

But in a post-Cold War America distended by global capital, distorted by concentrated income and wealth, undermined by unlimited campaign donations, and rocked by a wave of new immigrants easily cast by demagogues as “them,” the notion of the public good has faded. Not even Democrats any longer use the phrase “the public good.” Public goods are now, at best, “public investments.” Public institutions have morphed into “public-private partnerships;” or, for Republicans, simply “vouchers.”

Mitt Romney’s speaks derisively of what he terms the Democrats’ “entitlement” society in contrast to his “opportunity” society. At least he still envisions a society.  But he hasn’t explained how ordinary Americans will be able to take advantage of good opportunities without good public schools, affordable higher education, good roads, and adequate health care. 

His “entitlements” are mostly a mirage anyway. Medicare is the only entitlement growing faster than the GDP but that’s because the costs of health care are growing faster than the economy. That means any attempt to turn Medicare into a voucher — without either raising the voucher in tandem with those costs or somehow taming  them — will just reduce the elderly’s access to health care. Social Security hasn’t contributed to the budget deficit; it’s had surpluses for years.  

Other safety nets are in tatters. Unemployment insurance reaches just 40 percent of the jobless these days (largely because eligibility requires having had a steady full-time job for a number of years rather than, as with most people, a string of jobs or part-time work). 

What could Mitt be talking about? Outside of defense, domestic discretionary spending is down sharply as a percent of the economy. Add in declines in state and local spending, and total public spending on education, infrastructure, and basic research has dropped from 12 percent of GDP in the 1970s to less than 3 percent by 2011. 

Only in one respect is Romney right. America has created a whopping entitlement for the biggest Wall Street banks and their top executives — who, unlike most of the rest of us, are no longer allowed to fail. They can also borrow from the Fed at almost no cost, then lend the money out at 3 to 6 percent.

All told, Wall Street’s entitlement is the biggest offered by the federal government, even though it doesn’t show up in the budget. And it’s not even a public good. It’s just private gain. 

We’re losing public goods available to all, supported by the tax payments of all and especially the better off. In its place we have private goods available to the very rich, supported by the rest of us. 

Even Lady Thatcher would have been appalled. 

And, that's the Truth!

A Cynical Exercise in Duping the People

The January 3 Iowa caucus, the first contest for the Republican presidential nomination, marks the official beginning of 2012 US election campaign, an exercise in mass deception whose purpose is to legitimize the individual whom the financial aristocracy chooses as its political champion for the next four years.

The campaigning by the Republican candidates in the run-up to the Iowa voting marked a new low point in American capitalist politics, with an unprecedented barrage of attack ads financed by “Super PACs” set up by wealthy supporters of the candidates. As for the candidates themselves, it would be hard to come up with a more reactionary collection of corporate flunkeys, religious fanatics and influence peddlers.

Despite the electoral trappings - caucuses, primaries, debates, rallies, conventions - and the accompanying onslaught of media coverage, there is not a shred of genuine democratic content in the selection of the next American president. The election provides the illusion of choice, but there are no fundamental differences between the two corporate-controlled political parties. Both the Democrats and the Republicans defend the wealth of the super-rich and the worldwide interests of American imperialism.

From the standpoint of working people, it does not matter in the slightest whether Barack Obama is reelected to a second term in the White House or replaced by any of his Republican challengers. The next president, whatever his name or party, will function as the representative of the political, military and corporate elite that controls all the levers of power.

The usual suspects will line up behind the Obama reelection campaign, citing the right-wing ravings of the Republican candidates as an argument for, once again, dragooning the working class behind the Democrats as a “lesser evil.” These arguments are already being rehearsed by pro-Democratic Party publications such as the Nation and the New York Times.

These apologists have hard going, however, since the performance of the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress has largely dispelled the popular illusions that accompanied the elections of 2006 and 2008. The promises of “hope” and “change” have given way to the reality of a government even more right-wing than the Bush administration, committed to imperialist war, domestic austerity and attacks on democratic rights.

It would be hard to overstate the cynicism of the Obama reelection campaign and its pseudo-populist posturing. This was on display the night of the Iowa caucuses, when Obama addressed Democratic caucus-goers over closed-circuit television. In response to one woman’s question about criticism that his administration hasn’t done enough for working people, Obama said, “We’ve done a lot, and we have a lot more to do. That’s why we need four more years.”

This should be taken as a threat that a reelected Obama administration will move even further to the right. In that context, the most important political event of the 2012 campaign so far is not the rise or fall of the entirely insignificant and forgettable candidates for the Republican nomination, or the results of Iowa caucus balloting, but Obama’s signing of the National Defense Authorization Act on December 31.

The legislation gives the president the authority to order the open-ended military detention of any American citizen, without trial or charge, and with no legal recourse. As the prominent civil liberties lawyer Jonathan Turley noted in the Guardian, the American media has been completely silent about a measure that effectively abolishes constitutional principles laid down in the Bill of Rights more than 200 years ago.

The popular disillusionment with Obama and the Democrats gives an opening for the Republicans, who are well practiced in exploiting working class hostility to the right-wing, pro-corporate policies of the Democrats, to advance even more right-wing policies.

The co-leader in Iowa, former Senator Rick Santorum, gave an example of this in his victory speech late Tuesday night, in which he presented himself as the advocate for laid-off steelworkers and other victims of the collapse of US manufacturing in industrial states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana and Illinois.

These workers have been completely abandoned by the Obama administration, but the right-wing nostrums of the Republicans—deregulation of industry, tax cuts for corporations and millionaires, gutting of collective bargaining rights—would only deepen the attack on jobs and living standards.

US elections have increasingly become a media spectacle aimed at distracting the population while the political establishment shifts further and further to the right. There is a definite progression, however, as working people have increasingly bitter experiences with the capitalist two-party system.

The 2008 election, particularly the contest between Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, and then Obama’s successful general election campaign, engendered significant popular illusions in both the Democratic Party and the new president. These have long since been dissipated, and in the 2012 campaign the entire exercise seems even more empty and hollow.

There is no popular enthusiasm either for Obama or his Republican opponents. Millions of working people have begun to draw the conclusion that neither of the two big business parties offers any solution to the crisis of the profit system. Both are committed to the defense of corporate interests and obey their real masters in the financial oligarchy, regardless of what they say to the voters in the course of an election campaign.

Passive alienation and hostility are not enough, however. The working class must break with the official political framework of the United States, in which two right-wing parties exercise a monopoly and exclude any policies that threaten corporate interests. Working people need a new political road: the building of an independent mass movement based on a socialist program and fighting for the abolition of the Corporate Capitalist System.

And, that's the Truth!

Corporations Are Not People

"A MAN WHO DOES NOT KNOW THE TRUTH IS JUST AN IDIOT BUT A MAN WHO KNOWS THE TRUTH AND CALLS IT A LIE IS A CROOK!" --BERTOLT BRECHT

Individual freedom is the basis of the United States of America. It is what our “Founding Fathers” risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, to create.

But what happens if groups of people, i.e., collectivist entities, form together for the purpose of getting the government to grant unearned special privileges to them? How will this affect the marketplace? Well, this has actually happened in America, and the result is that these collectivist entities with their government-bestowed privileges have taken over our economy, in some particular cases to the benefit of some particular individuals, but to the overall detriment to individuals in general. These collectivist entities are known as “corporations."

By deliberately obscuring the boundaries between individuals and corporations, politicians have caused themselves to treat corporations as if they were individuals, thereby assisting in the corporate takeover of America, and the McDonaldization of practically everything and practically everyplace, all over the globe – “Globalization.”

Plainly put, corporations are anti-American. They are anti-individual. The word “corporation” does not appear in our Constitution.

Plainly put, corporations are anti-American. They are anti-individual. The word “corporation” does not appear in our Constitution. Large institutions of all kinds (both government and business) were suspect in colonial and early America. In fact, the Boston Tea Party was not a protest against taxes, but direct action taken against the East India Company, which represented the commercial interests of the British elite.

It was not until 1886, after a series of cases brought by lawyers representing the expanding railroad interests, that the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were “persons” and entitled to the same rights (actually more) granted to individual people under the Bill of Rights. This sinister ruling, discussed by Thom Hartmann in his 2002 book Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and The Theft of Human Rights (Rodale Press) has led to the corporate dominance of the individual – a thoroughly un-American state of affairs. As Hartmann points out, the largest transnational corporations fill a role today that has historically been filled by kings. They control most of the world's wealth and exert power over the lives of most of the world's citizens. And they pretty much own the U.S. government: the revolving door between corporate boardrooms and the top echelons of all recent administrations is no secret.

Managers of corporations have more in common, as a class, with government bureaucrats than they do with individual entrepreneurs.

The corporate form of enterprise encourages short-term thinking. Instead of thinking how to preserve and maximize the benefits of the assets under their control for, say, the next thirty years, the corporate manager is concerned with beefing up the bookkeeping profits on a quarterly basis - just look at how many giant corporations in the last few years have had to “readjust” past “earnings,” and take “charges” against current “earnings” for manipulative accounting.

In their book Natural Resources: Bureaucratic Myths and Environmental Management (Pacific Institute, 1983), Richard L. Stroup and John Baden state: “The appropriate focus in analyzing public sector behavior is the individual decision maker. It is the individual bureaucrat, the professional public servant, who makes most of the decisions about governmental operations.”… “Salary, position in the bureaucracy, amount of discretionary budget control, workplace amenities, and office perquisites all contribute to the bureaucrat's well-being. If an agency is expanding its budget and authority, these components of the bureaucrat's welfare improve also. On the other hand, a decrease in the agency's size and budget are generally accompanied by fewer benefits to the bureaucrat. Thus, bureaucrats face strong incentives to increase their agencies' authority and areas of responsibility.”

That is why governments are so inefficient, and why the bigger the government, the more inefficient it is.

The same thing is true of corporate managers – and that if “the appropriate focus in analyzing public sector behavior is the individual decision maker,” then the appropriate focus in analyzing corporate behavior is the individual corporate bureaucrat – and he, like his government counterpart, faces strong incentives to thinking the short run.

Stroup and Baden say, “Unconstrained by the need to generate profits, bureaucrats may ignore or exaggerate the economic efficiency of the projects they administer.” True, but so is this: Constrained by the need to generate the appearance of profits every quarter, corporate bureaucrats may ignore or exaggerate the economic efficiency of the projects they administer. Precisely because they are entities which literally cannot exist without a special privilege granted by the government, virtually any criticism made of government, could also be made of corporations – but politicians do not do this. Why? Because they are controlled by the Corporations!

Corporations should not be able to go into their treasuries and spend millions and millions of dollars on a campaign in order to buy elections.

The Constitution of this country has served us well, but when the Supreme Court says that attempts by the federal government and states to impose reasonable restrictions on campaign ads are unconstitutional, our democracy is in grave danger.

The ruling has radically changed the nature of our democracy. It has further tilted the balance of the power toward the rich and the powerful at a time when the wealthiest people in this country already never had it so good. History will record that the Citizens United decision is one of the worst in the history of our country.

At a time when corporations have more than $2 trillion in cash in their bank accounts and are making record-breaking profits, the American people should be concerned when the Supreme Court says that these corporations have a constitutionally-protected right to spend shareholders' money to dominate an election as if they were real, live persons. If we do not reverse this decision, there will be no end to the impact that corporate interests can have on our campaigns and our democracy.

Think about the consequences in Congress. When an issue comes up that impacts Wall Street, like breaking up huge banks, what will senators be thinking about when they decide how to vote? Every member of the Senate, every member of the House, in the back of their minds will be asking this: If I cast a vote this way, if I take on some big-money interest, am I going to be punished? Will a huge amount of money be unleashed in my state?

It's not just taking on Wall Street. Maybe it's taking on the drug companies. Maybe it's taking on the private insurance companies. Maybe it's taking on the military-industrial complex. Whatever powerful and wealthy special interests members of Congress are prepared to take on -- on behalf of the interest of the middle class and working families of this country -- they will know in the back of their mind that there may be a flood of money coming in to their state. They're going to think twice about how to cast that vote.

When the Supreme Court says that for purposes of the First Amendment, corporations are people, that writing checks from the company's bank account is constitutionally-protected speech and that attempts by the federal government and states to impose reasonable restrictions on campaign ads are unconstitutional, when that occurs, our democracy is in grave danger.

Corporations are not people.

They do not breathe. They do not have children. They do not die in war. They are artificial entities which we the people create and, as such, we govern them, not the other way around.

The Citizens United ruling marks the most extreme extension of a corporate rights doctrine which has eroded our First Amendment and our Constitution.

What can you do?

Write the President, and your Representatives, and  Send a message that now is the time for a 28th Amendment that lifts up the promise of American self-government: of, for, and by the people.

"It's time for a constitutional amendment that makes it clear Free Speech is for people, not corporations. It's time for a constitutional amendment that lifts up the promise of American self-government: of, for, and by the people."

~ Jim McGovern

If your elected representatives do not act then dedicate yourself to voting them out of office. It's time politicians decide who they are serving, the People or the big corporations! The 99% or the 1%! They cannot continue to pretend that they can serve the interests of BOTH at the same time!

And, that's the Truth!

Rethinking Economics?

During periods of boom, people do not want to hear of criticisms of the forms of economics they benefit from, especially when it brings immense wealth and power, regardless of whether it is good for everyone or not.

It may be that during periods of crisis such as now, the time comes to rethink economics in some way. Even mainstream media, usually quite supportive of the dominant neoliberal economic ideology entertains thoughts that economic policies and ideas need rethinking.

Harvard professor of economics, Stephen Marglin, for example, notes how throughout recent decades, the political spectrum and thinking on economics has narrowed, limiting the ideas and policy options available.

Some have been writing for many years that while the current economic ideology is flawed, it only needs minor tweaking to correct it and make it work for everyone; a more compassionate capitalism, but capitalism nonetheless. Others argue that capitalism is so flawed it needs complete doing away with. Others may yet argue that the bailouts by large government will distort the markets even more (encouraging bad practices by the big institutions) and rather than more regulation, an even freer form of capitalism is needed.

As a small example, Raj Patel notes how the price of an item (fundamental to neoliberal capitalism) often doesn’t capture or reflect true value.

Patel argues that the markets in their current shape have created a convoluted idea of value; “value meals” are cheap but unhealthy whereas fruit and veg are often more expensive; rainforests are hardly valued whereas felling trees adds to the economy.

Flawed assumptions about the underlying economic systems contributed to this problem and had been building up for a long time, the current financial crisis being one of its eventualities.

"But there is a recognition among the public and some politicians that today’s economic crisis is a failure of free market thinking, and not a warrant for more. In response to popular outcry, politicians around the world seem ready to discuss how to regulate and restrain the market. The question is, can they, and, if they can, in whose interests will this regulation work?"
~ Raj Patel

What is hoped is that fruitful debate will increase in the mainstream.

This will also attract ideologues of different shades, leading to both wider discussion but also more entrenched views. Those with power and money are less likely to agree to a radical change in economics where their power and influence are going to diminish, and will be able to lobby governments, produce compelling ads and do whatever it takes to maintain options that ensure they benefit.

The highly regarded Hazel Henderson has written about how difficult it has been for years to get mainstream economists to think about a broader economic system that considers the environment and ethics. She goes into how many mainstream universities and economists have actively avoided these alternative thinking from as far back as the 1920s, but suggests that now may be a time for change.

Drawing on the work of Karl Polanyi’s The Great Transformation, Raj Patel notes that:

"What Polanyi offers is a way of understanding not only why the economy and society are part of the same set of processes, but also why we erroneously believe that market and society are separate. The culture of profit-driven markets, what Polanyi calls the myth of the self-regulating market, turns out to need society far more than it pretends to—but the myth that economy and society are two distinct realms needs to be widely propagated if the self-regulating market is to spread farther."

In times of crisis, the myth becomes far easier to see through. After all, the failure of the banks could have spiraled into total economic meltdown were the public sector not there to catch it. Capitalism can no more bail itself out than it can stand on its own shoulders. The market has always depended on society, which is why the language of 'too big to fail' simply means 'so big that it can depend on society to pick it up when it topples.'”

The logic of laissez-faire always needs a social base, and this is why Polanyi does not separate the way we live into “government and the free market” — for him, it’s simply “market society.”

As another example, Canadian economist Jeff Rubin notes that access to oil is a crucial element of the current form of globalization because manufacturing has been moved to very distant places from where the goods are used (so transporting those goods require oil, and hence cheap oil is important to make that affordable). As oil prices increases, it threatens globalization itself.

Amongst the various implications is that alternative energy sources and localization (e.g. reviving local industries that have long been in decline as a policy of globalization, regional trade, etc.) may therefore be a necessary strategy as globalization may unravel due to the inability to afford transportation of manufactured goods from far away. But those who benefit (money and power) from the current form of globalization are hardly going to agree to fundamental changes that this implies, just like that.

It is perhaps ironic to quote, at length, a warning from Adam Smith, given he is held up as the leading figure of the economic ideology they promote:

"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people."

"Merchants and master manufacturers are … the two classes of people who commonly employ the largest capitals, and who by their wealth draw to themselves the greatest share of the public consideration. As during their whole lives they are engaged in plans and projects, they have frequently more acuteness of understanding than the greater part of country gentlemen. As their thoughts, however, are commonly exercised rather about the interest of their own particular branch of business, than about that of the society, their judgment, even when given with the greatest candour (which it has not been upon every occasion) is much more to be depended upon with regard to the former of those two objects than with regard to the latter."

"Their superiority over the country gentleman is not so much in their knowledge of the public interest, as in their having a better knowledge of their own interest than he has of his."

"It is by this superior knowledge of their own interest that they have frequently imposed upon his generosity, and persuaded him to give up both his own interest and that of the public, from a very simple but honest conviction that their interest, and not his, was the interest of the public."

"The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers."

"To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens."

"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
~ Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book I, (Everyman’s Library, Sixth Printing, 1991), pp. 87-88, 231-232 (Emphasis added. Additional paragraph breaks added for readability.)

With the mainstream media often representing such entrenched interests, true democratic participation will be very critical.

Freethought

*** Not to be confused with Freedom of thought or Free will. ***

Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or other dogmas. The cognitive application of freethought is known as "freethinking," and practitioners of freethought are known as "freethinkers."

Freethought holds that individuals should not accept ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason. Thus, freethinkers strive to build their opinions on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry, and logical principles, independent of any logical fallacies or intellectually limiting effects of authority, confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmas. Regarding religion, freethinkers hold that there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of supernatural phenomena.

A line from "Clifford's Credo" by the 19th Century British mathematician and philosopher William Kingdon Clifford perhaps best describes the premise of freethought: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."

In Buddhism a type of freethought was advocated by Gautama Buddha, most notably in the Kalama Sutta:

"It is proper for you, Kalamas [the people of the village of Kesaputta], to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blameable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill, abandon them. "...Do not accept anything by mere tradition... Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures... Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions... But when you know for yourselves—these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness—then do you live acting accordingly."

How to be a free thinker

In the same way a man can be chained to an oak tree, a mind can be chained to an assumption, a religion, a political party, or any idea of any kind. But the idea, like the tree, should not be blamed. They are inanimate things and are good or bad only in how they are used by the living. Instead it is the chain that must be questioned, along with the motivations of people who work to close minds while calling themselves educators. A mind is unique in the world for its infinity of ideas, for it can be used to think about almost anything in a million different ways. Any act that deliberately confines a mind to a singular way of seeing the world can not be acting for good. Most communities, from families, to schools, to gangs, have ideas members are expected to adopt without question. This doesn’t make them evil, but it doesn’t make them bastions of freedom either.

Like the rules to a new board game, we read these rules with our minds at half-power, as our goal is to learn and follow. Even under the guise of what we comically call education, most of us, most of the time, are taught to copy. To memorize. To understand someone elses’s theories. What are we being trained for in life by this other than to perform these same thoughtless behaviors when we graduate? And the things that are considered taboo in our societies, acts that violate our traditions, are often followed without anyone involved, from parents, to teachers, to leaders and other enforcers, understanding why. Why is being seen in underwear embarrassing, but being seen in a bathing suit is not? Why are nipples and flesh so scary, when everyone has them? Why are alcohol, nicotine and Prozac legal, but marijuana and Absinthe criminal? It’s un-free thinking, this accepting of an idea simply because someone else said so. If the reasons are so good, they should do well in debate and discussion on their merits, shouldn’t they? Nothing should be beyond discussion.

The beginning of wisdom starts with asking two questions. Why do we believe what we believe? And how we know what we know? They should be stamped on every school book, in every meeting place and in every home where independence of mind and free thinking are advocated. It should be tattooed on the forehead of anyone arrogant enough to dictate orders for others to follow. The children’s game of why, where a child says “Why?” to every answer that an adult offers, often ends with the parent embarrassing the child. “Stop being silly” they say. But it’s the parent who should be embarrassed by their hubris. Why is it so uncomfortable to say “I don’t know”. Why isn’t their pride in their children learning things they don’t know?  Isn’t that the basis for progress? We all know less than we think we do, and if we wish to learn more it’s only going to come from taking comfort from questions instead of fearing them. Ignorance is not dangerous if you admit to it. Same for lack of control. It’s a fact most of what we experience in life is hard to understand and out of our control. To feel shame or joy at a fact of life is a decision we’ve forgotten is ours to make.

Without questions we can’t discover the chains we’ve hidden. Chains forced upon us as children when we did not have the will to refuse or ask questions. Chains we bound ourselves to in order to fit in to school, or work, or a community. To be a free thinker means forever seeking relief from assumptions, whether it’s those we’ve made or have been given to us, and to work towards beliefs and ideas of our own choosing. Freedom of thought means a perennial willingness to discover better ideas, smarter opinions, more worthy faiths, more honest feelings, a willingness not only to abandon ideas you’ve held dearly, but to actively seek moments of discovery, moments when you learn a closest held belief has been held for the wrong reasons. The first time I ate Ethiopian food I had to ask three times “Are you sure it’s OK to eat with my hands?”

Never having thought before that a) they are my hands b) it is my mouth, c) I’m paying for the food, and I should be able to do whatever I damn well please with all three. For all of America’s wonders of freedom, we are still tyrannized by the burdens of silverware. Then of course I went to India, and was scolded for eating with my left hand. I’m always wrong at meals it seems. Travel makes clear how arbitrary many rules and customs we defend truly are.

The first challenge is the fear of being wrong

Ready? You are wrong. You are wrong much of the time. I’m wrong too and some of what I write in this essay will be wrong (except for this sentence). Even if you are brilliant, successful, happy and loved, you are wrong and ignorant more than you realize. This is not your fault. None of our theories about the world are entirely true and this is good. If we had perfect answers for things progress would be impossible, as to believe in the idea of progress requires belief in the many ignorances of the present. Look back in time 100, 50, or even 5 years, and consider how misguided the wisest, smartest people of those days were compared with what you know now. Governments, religions, cultures and traditions all change, despite what they say, and there is not a one of them still standing that is exactly the same as it was when it started. The traditions that have remained may have value, but ask yourself: who decided what to keep and what to throw away? And why did they decide what they decided? Without knowing the answers to the questions, how can you know exactly what it is you are right and wrong about in what you believe? Especially if these traditions have been changing for 100s or 1000s of years? It’s OK to be wrong if you learn something and grow from it. In fact often there’s no way to learn without making mistakes.

In many ways you are a wiser, smarter more experienced person than you were in the past. If you believe any progress in your own thinking and understanding, especially regarding your own life and what it means to you, you must admit that the same kind of progress is possible for you in the future. And that progress is accelerated only by freeing yourself from the obligation to always be right. Instead of allegiance to a specific idea, put your faith in your ability to grow and learn. The former is a chain held in place by your own hand. The latter is a door you can hold open, a door to a better self.

The second challenge is other people

Children survive only through conformity. It’s by recognizing the behavior of adults and adjusting to it, fitting in, that they’re able to survive. If babies didn’t learn which kind of cries got them fed, or what kinds of smiles got them attention, they would not live long. We are designed from birth for survival more than freedom. Consider how absurd most advice from gurus sounds if directed at a 5 year old. Start with Buddha’s excellent advice:

“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it, even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your reason and your own common sense.”

This is the opposite of what children are told by every adult in their lives. Schools teach them specific answers, teachers test and judge them on their ability to memorize and internalize those answers, and parents define rules that control children’s lives in spite of the child’s clear desires. We treat children as if they have no common sense, and for good reason. Often they have no sense at all, common or otherwise. But the question remains: at what point do we teach our children to think for themselves? And how can we be certain they’ve unlearned the lessons we worked so hard to teach them until that day? There are no required college courses called “undoing the damage of the last 18 years of your life” or “how to escape the evil tyranny of your corrupted youth”. We are, perhaps as it always has been or always should be, on our own to figure out what freedom means. But there is no starting gun, no wake up call, for when to become free, much less how to go about doing it given how much of our lives function on our being un-free.

Joining a “Free thinking” group can be nothing of the kind, especially if everyone in the group shares the same brand of atheism, deism, or anything-ism. Freedom grows best in diversity. The more ideas you hear, understand and compare, the greater the odds you’ll think freely about all of them. This can’t happen if you mostly spend time “philosophizing” with people who share 97% of your philosophy. Instead you’re likely just sharpening your prejudices. Sharpening prejudices can be fun. I do it all the time. But it’s not thinking, free or otherwise, and it’s not good philosophy either.

The third challenge is to be alone

Many of history’s great spiritual leaders chose to step away from their cultures and their worlds for a time. Jesus, Buddha, Moses and Muhammad all took long retreats away from everything they knew, freeing themselves from conventions and commitments of normal life. Only then were the able to discover, to transform, to learn and understand themselves in ways that changed the world. They had to separate from the chains and bonds before they could be free, and only then, with new perspective and priorities, did they choose to return. For anyone who knew them, I doubt this choice was popular. Their children, friends, landlords, and tennis partners were less than thrilled about the prospect of them wandering off the face of the earth for 40 days, or 6 months, or however long they chose. They say the fish is the last to see the water. But what if the fish could step out of the tank now and then? You are not a fish. You can take that step whenever you like.

This begs the question, when was the last time you were free from others? The last day you spent alone and let all the thoughts you bury and hide in everyday life rise in your mind? Travel, meditation, long baths, a run in the woods, are all ways to give ourselves a taste of the solitude needed to think freely. Needed to understand ourselves and feel who we actually are. How can you know how much of what you think you want, and think you need is really coming from you? It may be that our truest, freest voice, the voice we call our heart of hearts, is always talking, but it’s quiet and timid and can’t be heard over the chatter of everyday life. Unless we make quiet time to learn how to hear it. And of course, we’re still free to ignore that voice, but at least we’ve given ourselves a chance to listen. Only then is it possible to sort through our lives to strengthen the connections with others who truly share our feelings and thoughts about life. Being free has never been easy, which explains why so few, despite what they say, truly are themselves.