Skip to main content

View Diary: Can an electoral wave wash out a financial edge? (132 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  'The oldest, coldest war' (0+ / 0-)

    From my perspective at the economic bottom of this country, the war of the rich against the poor continues without end.

    So rich people are waging war against me, my family and the communities I've lived in on a constant basis. Often with the witting and unwitting participation of liberal, 'mediating' classes (gatekeepers). You only need to walk through any ghetto or trailer park in this country to see a landscape devastated by this unending war on the poor.

    Civil and human rights diversify the political terrain, giving disempowered people a terrain to fight battles from a stronger position than our winner-take-all economic system or its bureaucratic apparatuses might allow.

    But civil, human and social rights have been under systematic assault - along with the social welfare state - since 1975 and the rise of the neoliberal/neoconservative state.  

    Collapsing these rights and dismantling mediating and counter-balancing institutions and laws, is central to saving monopoly capitalism and instrumental in creating a globalizing corporate, New World Order.

    By stripping ordinary people of any redress to the inequities of a totalizing socio-economic and political system, authoritarianism can advance without challenge. So you can't separate human rights from economic rights. Attacks on human rights are necessary to strip people of economic rights more effectively. Which is the bloody point of all this violence............

    The goal of the new world order is to make states subservient to corporations and people subservient to states. This is the path to serfdom.

    This war is waged on all fronts - from the interpersonal to the international - and on all planes of human struggle. Pretending its not a war is the first and most dangerous notion of all, because you are a rabbit caught in the headlights when you discover otherwise.  

    It is folly to pretend that we can find 'common ground' without viable and balancing power to confront them. War is fought on many more planes than simply the plane of physical violence.

    Every general understand this. I was simply inverting military strategist, General Clauswitz's, observation that "war is politics pursued by other means."  

    Democratic activists need to get up close and personal with some classic war manuals, until they can understand the metaphoric ideas articulated within and can imagine those tactics applied on planes beyond literal violence and war.

    You need to do this because these classic texts are on the required reading list of your political opponents. They are making you look like fools because you are unprepared for political battle.

    To use the common metaphor that describes Democratic political incompetence. If you show up to a gunfight without backup or a plan, what's to stop them from shooting you? Violence - in all its forms - is the ratio ultimo of political struggle. What's your plan to counter their ruthlessness?

    On the other hand, if you choose to walk unarmed into a metaphorical gunfight AND the trees are filled with your snipers - to provide a viable counter-threat to the guns you will face with flowers - then you are applying a sophisticated understanding of political warfare to your situation.

    And if you choose the 'take a bullet' strategy - as Aquino did literally to restore Filipino democracy - their violence will be their undoing. Assuming your backup plan is in place.  

    Now you are applying the tactics of war, well within the great tradition of non-violent civil rights struggle, to defeat political violence.

    Do you think Gandhi didn't read war strategy manuals? I could match his stratagems to Sun Tzu's advice all day. He warned the British that if they didn't work with him, armed resistance groups would finish them off. So even Gandhi used the threat of violence to achieve his ends, even as he is also our finest example of non-violent struggle.

    The first goal of war, as Sun Tzu saw it, was to 'take the city without firing a shot.' So you can read that entire manual and translate his stratagems into pacifist political strategy.

    Power not only doesn't accede nothing without a demand, it doesn't give up shit unless its power is viably threatened.

    •  If you have all of this inside you and have (0+ / 0-)

      be somewhere else creating community. That is the only and definitive antidote to conservative rhetoric, to feckless Liberal rhetoric as well.
         Do you have another option?  To be human is to be conscious. To be conscious is to think. To think is to act. To act is to decide.
           I do not disagree with the content of what you say, I disagree with the interpretation that you have revealed to me.
        What is it you want? Do you hunger to win a war? Are you so upset by facts that you cannot formulate a strategy that overcomes the facts? Is it just easier to be angry? If so, is that your deepest feeling after all that you tell me? Are you defeated and giving your enemies the reasons they have won and the reasons you have to be angry and impotent? Are you afraid that you might look like a fool? To whom? To the people that you hate or to yourself?
         Is there some reason that you think that your spirit and will are not involved? How are they not involved, if you are so angry?
            Non violent struggle is a whole different animal than war. While it is important to know about war, it is important to invent your own struggle. You have to risk your life either way.
          I mean you no disrespect, go in peace Tom. You are very close to a unifying answer, your turmoil is real and rightfully so. It is also a necessary step to a new consciousness, you cannot avoid it.
         I do not now what it is like to be in your skin, I can only tell you that I've been there. Do not stop there, it looks like a lousy place to stop.

      Liberty Valence Saying, ''consumer protection'' is like saying, ''slavery protection.''

      by libertyvalence on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 05:13:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Please don't pathologize me (0+ / 0-)

        I doubt we'd find much common ground at a strategy table, because I only get involved when I know the people around me understand the score and the stakes.

        Otherwise, I have better things to do.

        Your failure to understand metaphor, allegory, the terms of oppositional politics - never mind the stakes - is evident in your literal interpretation of my words.

        Your discursive attempt to shift the discussion to 'my feelings' is a disingenuous, marginalizing tactic I'm all too familiar with.

        So you don't make this mistake again, a little advice: when the issues at stake involve people's lives and livelihoods, don't reduce it to a discussion about 'their feelings'.

        Because from our side of that conversation, its not only insulting and dismissive, its kinda creepy.

        •  I do not doubt that you believe everything that (0+ / 0-)

          you say. I won't do any of those nasty things any more. I'm sure that you have better things to do with people that understand metaphor and think like you.

          Are you ticklish also? Don't worry.

          Liberty Valence Saying, ''consumer protection'' is like saying, ''slavery protection.''

          by libertyvalence on Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 09:50:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site