Die Neue Zeit
26th December 2011, 20:23
I'm not going to quote the whole politically reactionary article, but a number of interesting points are made: http://www.benzinga.com/general/politics/11/12/2184181/new-american-revolution-or-new-american-civil-war
It's a critique of a Marketwatch critique of an article on buzzwords (http://www.revleft.com/vb/super-rich-vs-t166218/index.html).
It appears that Luntz believes that by modifying popular phrases & political targets and by removing key words from one's political vocabulary, governors could shake up the political battlefield in their favor against Occupy Wall Street.
[...]
Farrell's analysis of Luntz's advice is intriguing, but at first glance, Luntz's advice appears to be advocating a contemporary form of Orwellian "Newspeak" to address America's political problems. To say the least, such advocation of Newspeak should concern the American public, both old and young. For Republican governors to undertake such linguistic modifications now that reporters have brought this advice to light may very well backfire for the simple fact that the American public doesn't want to be brainwashed by their state governors.
If there is to be another American civil war, it will most likely not look anything like the first one. No blue and gray uniforms, no muskets, no pitched battles by the farmhouse and chicken coop. We have to keep in mind that many of our ancestors came to America to escape other war-torn lands far, far away that were rooted in feudalism, aristocratic inequality, and overt exploitation.
[...]
Farrell addressed the free market in his article as Luntz recommended that the word "capitalism" be replaced with the phrase "free market". But lo, just because you call an economic system a "free market", that doesn't make the system a free market in truth. And likewise, just because you call an economic system "communist", that doesn't mean it's so.
[...]
The American mainstream media could be taking a substantial step in being a helping hand to quell the ideological conflict in the US, but instead, the media appear to be fostering and nearly encouraging the ongoing conflict between right and left. The mainstream media in some ways are feeding the ideological conflict via shoddy, biased reporting and incoherent commentary while trying to appeal to a diverse, incohesive audience.
Far from being a source of middle ground as a sort of ideologically-neutral "Switzerland" in American society, the mainstream media are taking sides and may be adding to the political polarization in society. Rather than providing a neutral forum for political discussion, the media are busy reporting on the Kardashians or Lady Gaga. One following CNN may very well develop a hunger for real news if he knew better. Even on CNN.com this morning, among the "featured" headlines: "Nation pauses to recall Pearl Harbor", "Sugar on the menu for kids' breakfast", "Rock Hall takes Chili Peppers, Beasties", and "2011's top tweets may surprise you" with a picture of Mila Kunis. Are you serious?! "Sugar on the menu for kids' breakfast"? This is what news in America has been reduced down to?
[...]
Many today see a few people holding signs and exchanging political zings as being class warfare, but the situation is devolving as people become more desperate. As such, I think a few people holding signs up in the street chanting slogans is not necessarily class warfare -- but the situation could evolve into a more counter-productive scenario. As I explored previously, for now Occupy Wall Street protesters are blocking up streets and bridges with their bodies, but given enough time, protesters could use new tactics that could seriously allow them to wield more power.
I wrote previously: "The potential to disrupt traffic on roads and highways may evolve into a serious issue for law enforcement across the nation if the Occupy movement continues to grow. For now, the protesters are occupying the streets with their bodies. What would happen if Occupy protesters began to clog up roads, highways, and major high-volume thoroughfares with cars and/or tents? One could only imagine the mess that would be created where a hundred protesters (acting in civil disobedience) to drive fifty or so cars on highways leading into Washington or Manhattan -- only to park their cars in the highway lanes and stop there indefinitely -- thereby clogging up traffic and commerce."
If there is to be anything that could be called a civil war in the US coming in the future, it will most likely not look like the first American Civil War. Given Americans' appreciation for civil peace and prosperity, I think such a "civil war" would be better termed a "great refusal" akin to Herbert Marcuse's philosophical concept. In such a "great refusal", Americans would begin to reject the establishment not through violence or even protest...but by ignoring the establishment altogether. Just like your mother told you to do with bullies on the playground: Just ignore them. Given Americans' keen sense of reasonability (I can thank the legal profession for that), social welfare (at the end of the day), and commercial wisdom, I think a "great refusal" by the American public would be make for an interesting phenomenon.
For example, I recall hearing that Occupy Wall Street protesters were requesting that worker-councils be set up to effectively replace local governments and unions. Though those not familiar with political economy may not recognize it, this idea is effectively that of "soviets". The word "soviet" in Russian can mean "council"; a soviet could be used to refer to a local workers' council. And thus, "Soviet Union" etymologically connotes a union or congress of these local workers' councils. Given our civil rights, there is really nothing stopping Americans from setting up peaceful local workers' councils, but the crux does come back to supply and demand. Is there a demand for local workers' councils in the US?
Other pertinent examples of a possible Marcusian great refusal include Americans' rejecting things like the mainstream media, fast food, bureaucratic norms, and cultural norms. Could you imagine if mass amounts of Americans began to stop getting fast food or watching shoddy news media outlets? These industries would be forced to change their ways; arguably, this is already happening as fast food restaurants feel the need to offer apples and carrots in children's meals; the same is applicable for governance.
In effect, Americans could simply ignore these facets of our society. I would go so far as to argue that a "great refusal" of these things is already taking place owing to socio-economic imperatives. Again, we have the example of arbitration and mediation in legal affairs; are individuals and firms embracing alternative dispute resolution or are they rejecting the courts and justice system altogether? Of course, you can only ignore something so much before it gets in your face, but still.
[...]
There is nothing stopping Americans from refusing to participate in a broken establishment. Whether that be a local government, a church council, or a parent-teacher association, citizens can use this "great refusal" concept to effectively reject the system and/or force the system to change its ways. I think the prospects of any sort of future American revolution or civil war have to be framed with this in mind. Americans have to and are starting to think outside the box politically and socio-economically.
Other thoughts here, too (http://www.benzinga.com/general/politics/11/12/2225848/us-economy-unemployment-what-is-to-be-done):
However, from how I interpret Marx, in a genuine revolution, workers would be effectively forced to revolt...workers would be backed up against a wall and would have no choice but to revolt for the sake of their own survival. As there are no jobs and no hope for employment, developments in the current Occupy Wall Street movement hearken back to this idea that citizens would have no choice but to revolt owing to capitalist crises.
In this sense, Farrell's analysis sounds a bit reminiscient of the more neo-Marxist tone of the books "Empire", "Multitude", and "Commonwealth" by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. That is to say, this specter of a worldwide revolt appears to be manifesting itself owing to the younger generation's struggle to survive. This specter rises up while individuals think to themselves in the same manner as Elsenpeter: What are unemployed people supposed to do? What am I supposed to do in order to survive in the world? What are we going to do after our unemployment benefits run out?
When it comes to class warfare, crony capitalism, and revolution, we can learn much from history. Even so, the world today finds itself in somewhat uncharted territory. And as I mentioned previously, the human collective consciousness is changing. Humanity has ways to deal with class warfare and the struggle for survival in order to overcome modern-day socio-economic obstacles.
One viable method of dealing with such heavy socio-economic problems that I have often discussed is communalism. I am a bit surprised American society has not yet moved more towards a communalistic culture. Nevertheless, I think at some point if economic struggles continue, many will have no choice but to move towards communalistic living. In time, if the economy fails to improve, there is a fair chance that American society will have to re-evaluate (and in some case, dismantle) things like bureaucratic government, common law, civil codes, higher education, employment, and retirement. Enter communalism.
In the spirit of the Occupy Wall Street movement, many may grow to simply reject bureaucratic processes, legal processes, and political processes in favor of workers' councils and communes, where each commune would have its own court. But even then, there would have to be sufficient demand for such a system. Nevertheless, in a society where individuals cannot afford the high costs of litigation in courts of law with attorneys, citizens will effectively reject the status quo and set up a viable alternative. And when the financial system and political process appear so rigged, so dysfunctional, and so broken, at some point, many may begin to stop playing the game altogether.
It's a critique of a Marketwatch critique of an article on buzzwords (http://www.revleft.com/vb/super-rich-vs-t166218/index.html).
It appears that Luntz believes that by modifying popular phrases & political targets and by removing key words from one's political vocabulary, governors could shake up the political battlefield in their favor against Occupy Wall Street.
[...]
Farrell's analysis of Luntz's advice is intriguing, but at first glance, Luntz's advice appears to be advocating a contemporary form of Orwellian "Newspeak" to address America's political problems. To say the least, such advocation of Newspeak should concern the American public, both old and young. For Republican governors to undertake such linguistic modifications now that reporters have brought this advice to light may very well backfire for the simple fact that the American public doesn't want to be brainwashed by their state governors.
If there is to be another American civil war, it will most likely not look anything like the first one. No blue and gray uniforms, no muskets, no pitched battles by the farmhouse and chicken coop. We have to keep in mind that many of our ancestors came to America to escape other war-torn lands far, far away that were rooted in feudalism, aristocratic inequality, and overt exploitation.
[...]
Farrell addressed the free market in his article as Luntz recommended that the word "capitalism" be replaced with the phrase "free market". But lo, just because you call an economic system a "free market", that doesn't make the system a free market in truth. And likewise, just because you call an economic system "communist", that doesn't mean it's so.
[...]
The American mainstream media could be taking a substantial step in being a helping hand to quell the ideological conflict in the US, but instead, the media appear to be fostering and nearly encouraging the ongoing conflict between right and left. The mainstream media in some ways are feeding the ideological conflict via shoddy, biased reporting and incoherent commentary while trying to appeal to a diverse, incohesive audience.
Far from being a source of middle ground as a sort of ideologically-neutral "Switzerland" in American society, the mainstream media are taking sides and may be adding to the political polarization in society. Rather than providing a neutral forum for political discussion, the media are busy reporting on the Kardashians or Lady Gaga. One following CNN may very well develop a hunger for real news if he knew better. Even on CNN.com this morning, among the "featured" headlines: "Nation pauses to recall Pearl Harbor", "Sugar on the menu for kids' breakfast", "Rock Hall takes Chili Peppers, Beasties", and "2011's top tweets may surprise you" with a picture of Mila Kunis. Are you serious?! "Sugar on the menu for kids' breakfast"? This is what news in America has been reduced down to?
[...]
Many today see a few people holding signs and exchanging political zings as being class warfare, but the situation is devolving as people become more desperate. As such, I think a few people holding signs up in the street chanting slogans is not necessarily class warfare -- but the situation could evolve into a more counter-productive scenario. As I explored previously, for now Occupy Wall Street protesters are blocking up streets and bridges with their bodies, but given enough time, protesters could use new tactics that could seriously allow them to wield more power.
I wrote previously: "The potential to disrupt traffic on roads and highways may evolve into a serious issue for law enforcement across the nation if the Occupy movement continues to grow. For now, the protesters are occupying the streets with their bodies. What would happen if Occupy protesters began to clog up roads, highways, and major high-volume thoroughfares with cars and/or tents? One could only imagine the mess that would be created where a hundred protesters (acting in civil disobedience) to drive fifty or so cars on highways leading into Washington or Manhattan -- only to park their cars in the highway lanes and stop there indefinitely -- thereby clogging up traffic and commerce."
If there is to be anything that could be called a civil war in the US coming in the future, it will most likely not look like the first American Civil War. Given Americans' appreciation for civil peace and prosperity, I think such a "civil war" would be better termed a "great refusal" akin to Herbert Marcuse's philosophical concept. In such a "great refusal", Americans would begin to reject the establishment not through violence or even protest...but by ignoring the establishment altogether. Just like your mother told you to do with bullies on the playground: Just ignore them. Given Americans' keen sense of reasonability (I can thank the legal profession for that), social welfare (at the end of the day), and commercial wisdom, I think a "great refusal" by the American public would be make for an interesting phenomenon.
For example, I recall hearing that Occupy Wall Street protesters were requesting that worker-councils be set up to effectively replace local governments and unions. Though those not familiar with political economy may not recognize it, this idea is effectively that of "soviets". The word "soviet" in Russian can mean "council"; a soviet could be used to refer to a local workers' council. And thus, "Soviet Union" etymologically connotes a union or congress of these local workers' councils. Given our civil rights, there is really nothing stopping Americans from setting up peaceful local workers' councils, but the crux does come back to supply and demand. Is there a demand for local workers' councils in the US?
Other pertinent examples of a possible Marcusian great refusal include Americans' rejecting things like the mainstream media, fast food, bureaucratic norms, and cultural norms. Could you imagine if mass amounts of Americans began to stop getting fast food or watching shoddy news media outlets? These industries would be forced to change their ways; arguably, this is already happening as fast food restaurants feel the need to offer apples and carrots in children's meals; the same is applicable for governance.
In effect, Americans could simply ignore these facets of our society. I would go so far as to argue that a "great refusal" of these things is already taking place owing to socio-economic imperatives. Again, we have the example of arbitration and mediation in legal affairs; are individuals and firms embracing alternative dispute resolution or are they rejecting the courts and justice system altogether? Of course, you can only ignore something so much before it gets in your face, but still.
[...]
There is nothing stopping Americans from refusing to participate in a broken establishment. Whether that be a local government, a church council, or a parent-teacher association, citizens can use this "great refusal" concept to effectively reject the system and/or force the system to change its ways. I think the prospects of any sort of future American revolution or civil war have to be framed with this in mind. Americans have to and are starting to think outside the box politically and socio-economically.
Other thoughts here, too (http://www.benzinga.com/general/politics/11/12/2225848/us-economy-unemployment-what-is-to-be-done):
However, from how I interpret Marx, in a genuine revolution, workers would be effectively forced to revolt...workers would be backed up against a wall and would have no choice but to revolt for the sake of their own survival. As there are no jobs and no hope for employment, developments in the current Occupy Wall Street movement hearken back to this idea that citizens would have no choice but to revolt owing to capitalist crises.
In this sense, Farrell's analysis sounds a bit reminiscient of the more neo-Marxist tone of the books "Empire", "Multitude", and "Commonwealth" by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. That is to say, this specter of a worldwide revolt appears to be manifesting itself owing to the younger generation's struggle to survive. This specter rises up while individuals think to themselves in the same manner as Elsenpeter: What are unemployed people supposed to do? What am I supposed to do in order to survive in the world? What are we going to do after our unemployment benefits run out?
When it comes to class warfare, crony capitalism, and revolution, we can learn much from history. Even so, the world today finds itself in somewhat uncharted territory. And as I mentioned previously, the human collective consciousness is changing. Humanity has ways to deal with class warfare and the struggle for survival in order to overcome modern-day socio-economic obstacles.
One viable method of dealing with such heavy socio-economic problems that I have often discussed is communalism. I am a bit surprised American society has not yet moved more towards a communalistic culture. Nevertheless, I think at some point if economic struggles continue, many will have no choice but to move towards communalistic living. In time, if the economy fails to improve, there is a fair chance that American society will have to re-evaluate (and in some case, dismantle) things like bureaucratic government, common law, civil codes, higher education, employment, and retirement. Enter communalism.
In the spirit of the Occupy Wall Street movement, many may grow to simply reject bureaucratic processes, legal processes, and political processes in favor of workers' councils and communes, where each commune would have its own court. But even then, there would have to be sufficient demand for such a system. Nevertheless, in a society where individuals cannot afford the high costs of litigation in courts of law with attorneys, citizens will effectively reject the status quo and set up a viable alternative. And when the financial system and political process appear so rigged, so dysfunctional, and so broken, at some point, many may begin to stop playing the game altogether.