Monday, May 25, 2015

Social Liberalism and Anarchism

New Mexico Democrats Update

Tom Udall has joined Martin Heinrich in opposing the president's drive to ram through his NAFTA-on-steroids trade deals with American Capitalism's Pacific Rim and European Neoliberal race-to-the bottom Capitalist allies -- i.e. the TPP and TPIP, which are designed to further depress wages, allow corporations to copyright practically anything almost forever, and give corporations supra-national powers to extract financial compensation from countries, or localities for that matter, that try to protect their workers or environments with mere laws.

Michelle Grisham has also been "making a difference in New Mexico," as her group email puts it, by courageously filing a bill to protect wild horses.

Ben Lujan smiles a lot.

Grisham by the way hasn't responded to revelations that she was named in a congressional Ethics Committee report for taking expensive gifts and a paid Caspian Sea vacation, aka "conference," secretly funded by big oil and a foreign government, knowing the local media won't press her on it and in hopes it will go away.

The Albuquerque Journal covered this after a fashion, but didn't question Grisham about it and if you read the Washington Post article the Journal's article was based on, it's worse than the Journal makes it out to be and will be attack ad fodder for anyone who wants to run against Grisham, which is why she hopes it goes away. It won't go away from this web log, where it will be repeated regularly for the sake anyone who types Michele Lujan Grisham into a search engine.

Religious Center

A new Gallup survey reveals that as many Americans now consider themselves social liberals -- 31 percent -- as think of themselves as social conservatives, which Gallup says marks a high for social liberalism. The rest, around 40 percent, are social "moderates" or didn't understand the question, I guess.

As in historically socially conservative Ireland, where, for the first time in history, actual voters have made gay marriage a constitutional right, a big majority here accepts gay marriage, 61 percent, and, also a new high, 64 percent, say it's morally OK be gay. On the "homosexual agenda" the religious right has been thoroughly routed.



You'd think the religious right would be moaning and wailing, but I don't see it. Because (a), as the chart shows, they know the people who send them money are changing and (b) it was all hypocrisy in the first place; red meat tossed out there to raise money. Most of the top people in that industry aren't that socially conservative themselves and for example knowingly hire gay people to work for them.

I remember once maybe 10 or 15 years ago listening to the Marlin Maddoux radio program Point of View, one of two or three top religious right radio shows, while I was driving along somewhere. He's been dead for a long time but they keep his show going because it's a big money bag. It's how those people make their living. Anyway they were in fund drive mode, and they were using the "homosexual agenda" to get people to send in money.They just kept repeating the phrase "homosexual agenda" in various contexts and giving out the phone number.

Fiscal Conservative and Anarchists

Unfortunately all this social liberalism, while it's great for the oppressed and scorned among us, doesn't really do them or the rest of us much good. Gallup talks about social liberalism but I see no polls about fiscal liberalism. That subject is verboten.

It's as I've been saying, Democrats have become Republicans who are socially liberal on a couple of issues -- i.e. abortion and gay rights. When it comes to fiscal matters and the budget, Democrats have adopted Reaganomics, i.e. Neoliberalism, and there just aren't any "fiscal liberals" to vote for. There's only Bernie Sanders, and maybe a few others, who still believe workers have a right to the wealth their labor creates. If you look at how the political system is set up it's designed to vet out candidates who aren't approved of by the ruling class, and the two pro Capitalist parties keep a pretty close monopoly on ballet access.

As Lucy Parson said;

"Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth."

Lucy was a famous Anarchist. Anarchists are interesting and you've seen their influence more and more in my posts. They have a Marxist economic analysis but differ with Socialists in what to do about Capitalism. Socialists favor gaining control of the state. Anarchists favor doing away with the state and having that power be exercised in smaller more local forums. Anarcho-Syndicalists would make workplaces, or unions, the centers of power. If you've ever read up on the Spanish Revolution you know they had a pretty significant Anarcho-Syndacalist economy going in Spain at that time.

The IWW is an anarchist union. They eschew signing contracts, favoring to hold and use their power more directly. If the paycheck isn't what it should be you just don't come in the next day, or you stay there and occupy the place and maybe break up a few machines while you're at it to let the boss know you mean business. Many Anarchists even eschew voting. Why hand your power over to someone else on a silver platter?

I think the Anarchist point of view is kind of hard to express (besides the fact that the word "anarchy" has taken on a different meaning in modern times.) This is why I've been pushing the idea over several posts now that nothing of any consequence is ever accomplished through government. Government might end up enacting and enforcing certain laws, but they passed and enforce them only in reaction to some kind of popular pressure. The Civil Rights Movement. The Labor Movement. The Anti-War Movement. The Women's Movement. Or what are often called "riots."

Those movements -- uprisings, organizing efforts, whatever form they took -- came first and were necessary preconditions. They were the source of the power that led to the changes. Their power was expressed through government. It's sometimes repeated that government derives its power from the consent of the governed, or something to that effect, but people for the most part have lost conscious awareness of that fact, and just the losing awareness of it gives government itself most of the  power.

We hold elections, but as I noted above the choices there are limited by a vetting process controlled by elites, and then you just hand over your power to one of those who have been pre selected for you, who have gone thorough that screening process, and right now it's all Neoliberal Democrats and Republicans who are that or worse.

An understanding of power, though, is critical to an Anarchist. Their understanding of the effect power has on the people who hold it is why they don't favor taking control of the state but rather would do away with the state.

Most of the original organizers of Occupy Wall Street were Anarchists, and you could see that in how they tried to set up their little governing bodies that operated by pure democracy, everyone had a vote and had a say. There are various worker collective movements that are Anarchist in nature. Mondragon, in Spain, for instance. Stay tuned.





No comments:

Post a Comment