Chris Hedges Calls Out The Faithful

[Rakhmetov]

The one method left open by which we can respond—massive street protests, the destruction of corporate property and violence—will become the excuse to impose total tyranny. The intrusive pat-downs at airports may soon become a fond memory of what it was like when we still had a little freedom left.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/power_and_the_tiny_acts_of_rebellion_20101122/

[Soviet dude]

Who gives a shit what that raving anti-communist liberal says about anything?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Who gives a shit what that raving anti-communist liberal says about anything?

As much as we agree on many topics, where do you see this guy as a "liberal"? He calls for a Socialist revolution.

[Salyut]

Who gives a shit what that raving anti-communist liberal says about anything?

what

[cb9's_unity]

There is something interesting in this new breed of radical liberalism. There are groups now that are completely breaking away from Obama, the democratic party, and even the mainstream media view of things. There's a group that essentially gets how bad things have gotten, but have very little understanding about why.

The problem with these groups is that they often continue to take a completely orthodox liberal view of communism. Thus we have people like Michael Moore and Chris Hedges, both of which have become quite good at attacking the current government, but have no idea what to propose instead. Michael Moore doesn't want big bad socialism, so he suggest the significantly less radical idea of "democracy in the economy" (whatever that means). Chris Hedges is significantly more confused in his rhetoric, he wants "socialism" but not the super evil authoritarian communist kind. His "socialism" is more of a constant wishing that the re-animated corpse of FDR will finally come back to perfect the welfare state and make capitalism more human.

What keeps radical liberals from becoming socialists is also the reason why radical liberals are so confused; they have little to no class analysis. If they could read a little Marx they would then understand that FDR and the New Dealers didn't do what they did because of some now-gone moral superiority. The New Deal was created for the sole purpose of saving capitalism from continued chaos or complete collapse. Economic crisis always increases the tension between the classes, government welfare and 'entitlement' programs serves to temporarily ease that tension. Today capitalism isn't as close to the brink of collapse as it was in the 1930's, thus there is no political faction that will put some restrictions on the capitalist class in order to ensure the well being of capitalism. Instead the bourgeoisie will only support groups that allow for reckless attempts at growth in the economy. Economic conditions, not the random rise of moral actors, determine what political movements eventually gain power and success.

[Salyut]

Chris Hedges is significantly more confused in his rhetoric, he wants "socialism" but not the super evil authoritarian communist kind.

Uh...I fail to see how that is a bad thing.

[cb9's_unity]

Uh...I fail to see how that is a bad thing.

I was being slightly sarcastic. From what I've seen his basic conception of communism isn't much different than 'that thing that try's to be Utopian but always ends up with Stalin himself murdering a few hundred million peasants'.

He doesn't take a real look at communism as an option and dismisses it with the same baseless theoretical and factual arguments that liberals having been teaching 3rd graders since the 1950's.

Being a non-leninist who is becoming increasingly interested Rosa Luxemburg, I obviously don't agree with those who view communism as being authoritarian (yes class struggle is inherently authoritarian, but not in the liberal sense of the word). But i find that the only way to criticize other elements of the communist movement isn't through petty liberal attacks, but instead through Marxist theory.

[Salyut]

He doesn't take a real look at communism as an option and dismisses it with the same baseless theoretical and factual arguments that liberals having been teaching 3rd graders since the 1950's.


Where'd he say that? I agree with you but I might as well play Devil's Advocate here.

[cb9's_unity]

Where'd he say that? I agree with you but I might as well play Devil's Advocate here.

This isn't the first I've seen of chris hedges. Check out this http://fora.tv/2009/12/08/Chris_Hedges_Empire_of_Illusion

I watched it a few months back so I don't remember everything about it, but it left me feeling that the sum of what he talks about doesn't add up to anything more than angry liberalism.

To clarify though, the man can be absolutely brilliant. His critiques of our current capitalist society are incredibly intricate and thought inspiring. However at the end of the video I wasn't left feeling that he had any serious or credible solutions to society's problems. He laughs off Marxism by explaining that he isn't that radical. If the man were to take a serious look at Marxism it would help to more concretely explain, along with many other things, the corporate dominance that he fears so much.

[graymouser]

This isn't the first I've seen of chris hedges. Check out this http://fora.tv/2009/12/08/Chris_Hedges_Empire_of_Illusion

I watched it a few months back so I don't remember everything about it, but it left me feeling that the sum of what he talks about doesn't add up to anything more than angry liberalism.

To clarify though, the man can be absolutely brilliant. His critiques of our current capitalist society are incredibly intricate and thought inspiring. However at the end of the video I wasn't left feeling that he had any serious or credible solutions to society's problems. He laughs off Marxism by explaining that he isn't that radical. If the man were to take a serious look at Marxism it would help to more concretely explain, along with many other things, the corporate dominance that he fears so much.
Well, yes, this is what it looks like when a former liberal ideologue turns to the left - they are often confused and bring as many bad ideas left as they do good ones. This is the sort of thing we should expect to be seeing more and more of in the coming years, as the crisis and the bourgeois subservicency of the Democrats sends some liberals in a leftward direction. For Hedges, who mixes religious ideas in with the whole thing, I'm not convinced it's occurring in a coherent fashion, but that's again to be expected.

It's important to take the right stance with such people, especially when they have more than a few people listening. It's wrong to just tote them around and have them talk, which is what some leftist groups love to do with people like Hedges, and say "isn't it great that somebody with name recognition is moving in our direction." Well, it's got positives and negatives, you know? On the other hand, it's too easy to simply write off a person like Hedges as an anti-communist, because he does have really bad ideas about Marxism and what it means and what communism is. What we really need when people like him (there are others, I think the most recent to come in a similar vector is Cindy Sheehan) is to sort of challenge him, to say it's good that you've come this way but it's necessary to go all the way to consistent, revolutionary socialism. It's an opening to have a public debate that can be really edifying, and it's a shame that most groups are either opportunist or sectarian toward people like this.

[x359594]

...I watched it a few months back so I don't remember everything about it, but it left me feeling that the sum of what he talks about doesn't add up to anything more than angry liberalism...He laughs off Marxism by explaining that he isn't that radical. If the man were to take a serious look at Marxism it would help to more concretely explain, along with many other things, the corporate dominance that he fears so much.

Hedges has changed his tune since then. I recently finished his current book The Death of the Liberal Class where he excoriates liberals and credits communists for spearheading popular struggles for workers' rights and civil rights in the US. He writes that Marx was entirely correct in his analysis of capitalism and that "we have to learn to speak again in the vocabulary Marx employed." Radical social and labor movements come in for praise while the liberals take a verbal beating from him.

It seems to me that Hedges is moving step by step toward a revolutionary socialist position. I hope he goes the distance.

[Peace on Earth]

Hedges is a good example of former solid Democrat liberals becoming increasingly radical. The key is welcoming in with our proposed solutions, instead of criticising them for having been socialists since birth.

[Amphictyonis]

Who gives a shit what that raving anti-communist liberal says about anything?

I was thinking of this guy-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

Perhaps you were as well? Hedges is more of a reformist though. Fabian perhaps.

[Rakhmetov]

Hedges is more complicated than he looks at first glance. He criticizes Marx but then admits that there are things about Marx that are worth studying. He's a semi-Marxist socialist, whatever that means. :mellow:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081229_why_i_am_a_socialist/

[Salyut]

He has actually rejected reformism in his recent works. The problem is that he rejects the possibility of revolution - he believes a total collapse is more likely. (http://www.countercurrents.org/hedges120210.htm)