There's a rec'd diary right now that claims Greenwald doesn't have an alternative to corporatism. He does, but he doesn't give it to us in the article in question. He gives it in the body of his work.
Greenwalds article in question is simply trying to give people a paradigm shift in how they view the political landscape. The same paradigm shift I presented right here on Daily Kos four years ago.
Below I will review both his and my own articles and it should be glaringly obvious what the alternative both I and Greenwald see as the only solution.
First, let's refresh on what I said in my original diary, There Is No Spoon:
So much of the argument on the "left" is about the DLC centrist policy, or appealing to the centrists, or reaching out to moderate voters, etc. We have to recognize something very simple:
There is no spoon. The "center" doesn't exist. Neither does the "right" or "left". The fact of the matter is, we fight over wealth distribution. And once we recognize that the political landscape isn't a linear one, then we realize where we really stand in this struggle. And I got a clue for you: it isn't on the left.
When the DLC says we should move towards the center, we have to remind them, there is no spoon. And here's how:
First, let's define the eco-political landscape.
If we have laissez faire capitalism, we have a handful of super rich elitists, no class mobility and a lot of poor (read slave) laborers and nothing has much changed since Pharoahs time. If we have socialism, we have no motivation whatsoever to get off our fucking lazy asses and do anything more than we absolutely have to. There's still no class mobility except for the ruling class elite and the working class. What you've got is Pharoahs age but the pyramids are half-assed peices of shit that will never be completed and if they are, wont' last thousands of years cuz the workers are all drunk on vodka because what the fuck else have they got to look forward to in life but to keep doing the same damn thing for the same damn pay, day in and day out. But at least they can sit around, be lazy and get drunk.
Either way kinda sucks.
The third way, and I'm not talking about the DLC's mythical "third way", I'm talking about the REAL third way, is Progressivism. We limit the amount of wealth the upper class can amass and redistribute it to the lower class so they aren't in abject poverty. This keeps class mobility fluid, gives everyone something to bust their butts for and allows for what is commonly known as The Land of Opportunity.
There's no right, there's no left, there's no center,there's only this
As you can see, the top of the pyramid represents all the wealth in the hands of a few. The bottom of the pyramid represents all the wealth evenly divided. The red parallelogram superimposed on the pyramid represents Progressivism, the wealthiest are the top, there are many, the poor are the bottom, yes there's always more poor than wealthy, but the wealth is not as evenly distributed as it is in socialism, nor as hoarded as it is in laissez faire capitalism. It is capped at the top and the bottom is raised up through redistribution.
So what does "right", "left" and "center" really mean?
When you use the above pyramid for reference of what is REALLY going on and you look at the American political language, what you see is Right in US lexicon means the the top of the pyramid and left means the bottom.
And there is the problem with todays national debate.
Progressives aren't "left". They are in the middle. This is why socialism is considered "far left". So what does it mean to be "moderate"? It means moving away from the Progressive position on the pyramid and towards the upper portion. What does it mean to say someone is "centrist" in the American lexicon? It means they are moving towards the top of the pyramid.
This is impossible. The Progressive position cannot move. It IS the center. Any shift in that political position results in a shift towards laissez faire capitalism.
There is no spoon. We ARE the center. When Clinton called himself a moderate what he was saying is he wasn't a progressive. It turns out that was true and he proved it by passing NAFTA.
When progressives complain that the DLC is selling them out, they are absolutely correct. The DLC's philosophy of moving towards the center is simply a thinly veiled attempt to pull us away from progressivism and towards laissez faire capitalism. There can be no other way to describe it. But it sounds nice all couched in terms of "moderate" and "centrists" as if we are finding a "compromise" between left and right.
Progressivism IS the compromise between left and right!
If you want to know why the country has swung so far from Progressivism, the false analogy of left vs right as it is presently being used in the American lexicon is one of the major reasons. It infers that there is a middle ground. There isn't because we are not leftists we ARE the middle ground.
"centrism", "centrists", "moderates" none of these terms have any meaning in our current language. We think they do, but that is a fantasy. If you were to give them meaning it would simply mean Nudging Towards Laissez Faire Capitalism.
The good old days of company towns and slavery.
Now compare this to what Greenwald is saying:
Implicit Claim 1: Most Supporters of the Democratic Party are living in a state of false consciousness
Because most supporters of the Democratic Party see the political landscape in terms of left vs. right, which is the model produced by and for the benefit of corporations and the ruling party, ergo, most supporters of the Democratic Party are currently living in a state of false consciousness. This means that most supporters are arguing, campaigning, donating, and otherwise working for a party that directly runs counter to their personal and collective interests.
Sound familiar? It's what I was describing above when I said
"centrism", "centrists", "moderates" none of these terms have any meaning in our current language. We think they do, but that is a fantasy.
Implicit Claim 2: The Only People With Consciousness are those who See the Battle Against "Corporatism" as the True Political Landscape
The answer, the alternative that the diarist of the rec'd diary doesn't see, is given in the lifetime bulk of Greenwalds work. It happens to be the same alternative given by me in my own diary. Because it is the only functional alternative: progressivism. The redistribution of wealth from the wealthiest to the poorest by providing a cap on wealth accrual and a safety net for poverty.
In short, while libertarians like Kos see the battle against corporatism as the true political landscape, only progressives see a viable alternative. Libertarianism simply leads right back to further laissez faire capitalism.
From Greenwald:
As I've written for quite some time, I've honestly never understood how anyone could think that Obama was going to bring about some sort of "new" political approach or governing method when, as Kilgore notes, what he practices -- politically and substantively -- is the Third Way, DLC, triangulating corporatism of the Clinton era, just re-packaged with some sleeker and more updated marketing
But, as I said, there is no "third way":
So what does it mean to be "moderate"? It means moving away from the Progressive position on the pyramid and towards the upper portion. What does it mean to say someone is "centrist" in the American lexicon? It means they are moving towards the top of the pyramid.
This is impossible. The Progressive position cannot move. It IS the center. Any shift in that political position results in a shift towards laissez faire capitalism.
There is no spoon. We ARE the center. When Clinton called himself a moderate what he was saying is he wasn't a progressive. It turns out that was true and he proved it by passing NAFTA.
When progressives complain that the DLC is selling them out, they are absolutely correct. The DLC's philosophy of moving towards the center is simply a thinly veiled attempt to pull us away from progressivism and towards laissez faire capitalism. There can be no other way to describe it. But it sounds nice all couched in terms of "moderate" and "centrists" as if we are finding a "compromise" between left and right.
Progressivism IS the compromise between left and right!
Look again at the link to the pyramid I gave in my initial diary, There is No Spoon. You'll see why so many libertarians, far right extremists like the Ron Paul groups, progressives on the left and the average American all find common cause against corporatism: Everyone except the wealthy elite, lose when the economic landscape resembles the top of the pyramid and a few control all the resources and power.
The only alternative is progressivism.
Which is why this website should seriously rethink its premise that this is a democratic party website, not a progressive website. Until it does, it offers no platform from which to make change.
