1. A disclaimer at the outset: I'm not an economist nor even academically qualified in any way to discuss economics. With that in mind, first, as i see it, a) MMT is a theory; not a fact. i.e. it's a framework of ideas about how money 'flows; through a currency-creating government; of relationships between taxi…
1. A disclaimer at the outset: I'm not an economist nor even academically qualified in any way to discuss economics. With that in mind, first, as i see it, a) MMT is a theory; not a fact. i.e. it's a framework of ideas about how money 'flows; through a currency-creating government; of relationships between taxing and spending, etc.
b) Though there are many fans of MMT in the social media world, it appears to me from some commentary that is a lot of oversimplification, leading to misinterpretations, as well as leaps to unfounded conclusions. One of the latter which I've frequently encountered is that, because a state can print its own currency (which, in many cases is not backed by a fungible asset like gold), "debt therefore doesn't matter". i.e. debt doesn't matter because the state can simply just issue more paper currency.
While that seems true up to a point, it is ONLY up to that point. What has largely allowed the U.S. to run such massive debt is not just because it (through the Fed) controls monetary policy AND controls the supply of currency. We must include in our considerations its relationship to the global economy, foreign trade- and foreign-owned debt.
As long as the U.S. maintains the hegemony of the U.S. dollar as the world's standard reserve currency, all is good. But this will eventually fold, just as the Empire itself will. Other nations, including obviously the BRICS bloc, have already signaled that the dollar's current standing as global reserve currency is being willfully eroded.
(As an aside, a few previous efforts to bypass the petro-dollar have led to Washington-conducted regime change operations and assassinations (e.g. Qadafi)....illustrating how dependent Empire is upon the supremacy of its coin).
With the U.S. National Debt including substantial amounts of liabilities to foreign states (and China, is, I believe, the largest holder), should the dollar lose perceived value against other currencies (because it is no longer required to do business), those other debt-holders will be encouraged to dump their treasury notes / bonds. depressing their value, and making it difficult for the U.S. to maintain any sense of balance in foreign trade.
This is unsustainable, of course; and I conclude that the U.S. standard of living is going to take a serious hit vis a vis the rest of the world, because of this debt. We are already seeing that R's are gunning to cut social spending. Some D's in the past have signaled their willingness to accept some concessions thereto, as well. As the D's have become the even louder War Party, of course, they're caught... they can't keep ratcheting up defense spending while pretending to care about health care, education, infrastructure, and that 'third rail' that is Social Security and related safety net provisions. Yet those who run the system know full well that they must continue to suppress any dissenters (such as Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela) and continue to flex muscle around the globe in order to keep that dollar hegemony. At the same time, the debt massively grows to fund that house of cards. Fed policies have helped keep it standing, but the greater global implications suggest it is not going to stand much longer.
Secondly, re. "5 million protestors in DC...", I don't think you'll get them going by talking about a money scam. There is indeed, a kind of scam, as suggested in the above; but it's too complicated, and when distilled to simplistic slogans, is too easily debunked.
That said, I agree that large-scale dissent in the streets is likely to be needed, and I don't exactly have the answer to what the 'battle cry' should be. And even more importantly, public, in-the-streets protests are just one facet of what will be needed. I'd suggest that if people really want to organize effectively, they have to do it strategically, and that is likely going to require people organize their resistance in the ways they still have some power. That would include such things as strategic, sustainable boycotts, divestments, labor actions (sickouts, strike, etc.), and any other non-violent actions that can be organized to "perturb" the economic interests of those currently running the show.
An excellent summary, Roger. I would only add that when the end comes (the loss of dollar control of the global economy) the collapse will be swift and irreversible. Like runs on banks, there will be little warning of it coming. Military power will have absolutely no ability to stop it.
Large scale dissent in the streets is seen as needed only when you limit your thinking of the state of reality.
Limit it to believing that only a coterie at the top could and would or can 'fix things'.
That being the case 'large scale dissent' is needed in the streets in order to frighten them or something. Isn't that right? That's what you want your 'large scale dissent' for?
But that, of course, simply reinforces their positions. Simply cements into place their power. Simply sets in stone the injustice the inequity and the marginalisation of human beings, the people, reality.
Reality.
For the reality is that everything is with the people. Power. Ability. Everything.
We do not live by the grace of the gangsters at the top. They live by our grace. We are the fools who put them there. We are the fools that gave them 'power over us'.
And that latter is even more incredible for that 'power over us' is the 'power' to order us to make war on ourselves. Is what it always is. It is always the power to order one section of us to make war on the rest.
And we stupidly blindly obey never thinking never questioning what we're doing.
It should be obvious as soon as we start hurting each other that we are obeying bad commands and it should be implicit in all of our 'conceding power', 'handing power up the chain', 'granting power' that we do it NOT in order to cause any harm to ourselves.
And we should not obey such commands.
The powerful actually would love to see us frantically, violently protesting in the streets for it reinforces their position, it avoids the question of the validity of their position.
They laugh for right there we applaud them as we protest against them: for aren't the protesters ringed about by us, the police, our own selves, the people and don't they generally obey them? Aren't they dispersed in the end by the people? Aren't some of them then caught up and prosecuted and fined and imprisoned by the people for having the temerity to be angry with the powerful?
See? Total misdirection of energies from start to finish. Misunderstanding of the nature of the problem.
We should not look to them for solutions in such cases. Find the solutions within ourselves.
Some will say that is what having an election and changing them is. But it is not. Apart from the awkwardness and slowness and vulnerability and etc. of it what that does in the end is simply seek to establish another 'power bloc' that will gave a stamp of approval to the actions we know are right.
That's very clear. Explicit most of the time. 'We need a govt that will legislate this' is an example of it.
No. If we want 'that' then we just do it. We don't need it rubber stamped by any government at all.
Decisions should be ours, not theirs. It is written in the ostensible design: government of the people BY the people. Or in the job descriptions: 'representative OF the PEOPLE'.
Actually of course we have government of the people by coteries, cabals, gangs.
And 'representatives' simply represent one or other cabal.
We need more than dissent in the streets, we need dissent at the ballot box.
63% of Americans don't like either the Democratic or Republican parties, yet we can't raise a viable third party. So, given the choice between two evils, we vote for the lesser evil in fear that the greater evil will win if we vote for a third party. What kind of logic is that?
We need to find someone with vision and sensible priorities, and rally around him/her (whoever) come election day. That's the way we take back our government. If we don't, we are doomed.
I wouldn't myself want to suggest that we ignore electoral politics altogether. Indeed, it is worth supporting truly principled, wise people with the backbone to continue to work for the people- i.e. our broad collective interests . Given the trends over the last 5 decades that I've observed, however, I believe much more energy and focus must be given to organizing along the lines of what I described, where people use their only remnant power- their collective ability to shape and 'perturb' the economy and economic interests of those who write and implement the laws.
Roger, you wrote "it is worth supporting truly principled, wise people with the backbone to continue to work for the people- i.e. our broad collective interests" and I agree. However, the principle thing needed by anyone running for high office is name recognition and in our culture that means celebrity as few follow politics. It's no accident that we've had such as Reagan and Trump, both of them media stars, or that we saw more than one Kennedy put up for the presidency, so also for the Clintons and the Bushes.
I think Cornel West exemplifies the kind of candidate you would like to see, but the first thing I run into when mentioning him to others is "never heard of him" and I doubt that later on they check him out.
I thought you were gonna say "the problem is money in politics". Name recognition is more a trick used by those with money. But it is one of many tricks.
Listen, I was all for Cornel West but I do not think the guy is serious after he hired Hillary Clinton's former advisor Peter Daou. I loved Cornel when he announced his run but he's done the opposite of what a serious candidate would do to win. I mean I don't think the greens are serious about opposing Dems, but Cornel even just disassociated from them!!!! I mean doesn't that mean he won't be on the ballot in 90% of states?
Truly, I was so excited about Cornel West. Until I heard him defend Joe Biden for an hour on Jimmy Dore. It was soul crushing.
Thank you, Cliff for being willing to listen. I understand that a lot of people view Dore as "just a comedian", or maybe they think he's stupid, but I gotta say, if we had free and fair elections, Dore would win the presidency, easy. This guy is So on the pulse of the American people, I honestly fear for his safety. I've not heard someone speak like him since Carlin, but Carlin didn't have a weekly show that reached millions of Americans. Jimmy Dore has that magical ability to reach the so-called right and the so-called left (but NOT identity politics-left, no no, Jimmy is a leftist from the old school, where money talks and bullshit walks.)
Note you can listen to the episode on any major podcast player, but here's some links I found helpful, beyond the interview. Because I felt like I needed some therapy after that doozy.
Original interview, that is obviously suppressed algorithmically on YouTube, as I could not locate it by searching within YouTube:
The only good that came out of this was discovering Garland Nixon. Damn this guy is also on it. If you find yourself after the Dore/West interview saying, "what the hell just happened there? Am I crazy or did West just say that?", this evaluation by Garland Nixon will help. A lot.
One last thought. The mainstream media smears people who try to unite left and right. If there is one running theme on Jimmy Dore, it is that corporations control the US government, which is run by a uniparty. The people go broke while the corporations get rich. THAT is why power hates Jimmy Dore.
Power SLAMS Jimmy Dore on other issues, but I think they do that because they know that if all Americans heard Dore, a majority would cheer on his diatribes. So this isn't about anything but Dore's insistence that the American people are going broke, and if we don't unite we are screwed. This Dore/West interview broke Dore's heart. You can see it right on the screen. Dore thought West was honestly trying to win the presidency by focusing on stuff that unites us. When West came on his show and thoroughly walked back that stance, Dore was devastated, along with many of his viewers. All to say, don't believe the hype. Trust your instincts.
Yes, there are some fundamental barriers to getting good/capable people elected, and you touch on one (name recognition / celebrity). Closely related, of course, is $$, which both corrupts and compromises and in any case, easily controls (in a controlled info media setting) what the electorate sees, and effectively, how they think. The electoral system itself being so completely compromised and corrupted, this is one more reason why I personally put so little faith or effort in making the needed changes electorally.
We have to stop looking for a saviour. WE are the saviour. The people have got to learn to make use of this fantastic new tool: the internet and our smartphone connectivity to it - and 'talk to ourselves' and find out all we need to know about any issue and what we all think about it. And then command that be done. And that requires no change in our organisation at all.
Even to the commanding. The mechanism is already there. Those elected reps are to be commanded: Do This. That's what they're there for.
Only it has NEVER been done.
Has it?
Think about it. We 'give up' from the world go and don't even try to elect a representative of ourselves - do we, really? Even the most avid lover of a Party knows he is electing not a representative of himself but of that Party - a small claque of vested interests somewhere he knows not of.
No. We choose one of two options generally and then let them go their own way with our fingers crossed.
ENTIRELY the wrong thing.
Rather we elect anyone - literally anyone at all, doesn't matter - and then figure out en masse what we went and then TELL THEM TO DO IT.
You either get what I mean or you don't.
Rallying around someone else is craven following and abdication of your own rights and responsibilities and complete perversion of what democracy is supposed to be about.
The problem with TELLING THEM TO DO IT is THEY DON'T LISTEN. Furthermore, THEY don't have to listen. WE don't make the rules - THEY make the rules. Yes, WE elect them to make the rules, but, in getting to make the rules, THEY also get to select the candidates, and THEY only select candidates who will follow THEIR rules. So WE only get to choose between selectively chosen candidates who follow THEIR rules and not our wishes.
The THEY I am talking about are the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties. Compared to WE, the voting public, THEY are a very small group of people, but THEY truly have our political system wired to support their patrons rather then their constituents. As a result, the only things they listen to are the desires of their patrons and the counts at the ballot boxes
As for a "savior", I argue that it is necessary to look for leader. To build an organization requires money and leadership. Once an organization is on its feet, a good manager can take over, but it takes a true leader to get it to that point. No organization in the world has ever achieved success without leadership. To win elections, you need organization (in politics we call them parties). The two primary political parties are well managed but are committed to serve their patrons whose desires are not consistent with the needs of their constituents. The other political parties are fledglings that are still attempting to fly, but lack the necessary leadership for growth.
We need to free ourselves from bondage to the Democratic and Republican parties and to do that we need to build an organization to defeat them at the ballot box. Regardless whether we attempt to rejuvenate one of the existing "other" parties or build an entirely new party, we will need money and a leader. Without the leader, it won't happen.
The point you avoid is that we do not tell them what to do. We run around with the mantra 'what's the use' and don't tell them, that's what we do.
AND it is not so important to 'tell them what to do' and have them do it in this instance, whatever it is. What is important is to demonstrate to them that this is the way it is going to be. In other words it'll take time to tame them because we've had this paradigm for a long time.
The two party system has to be broken.
It gets broken by putting the fear of the electorate into the individual politician. And we do that by:
. Zoning on on the guy and 'telling him what to do' and demanding accounts of his doings on a regular basis - monitoring constantly and let him know he'll be voted out - him, individualy, if he doesn't do what we ask.
. Following through.
And all this is managed not by building organisations with leaders which are going to end up simply as another political party with appropriate corruption and coercion but by the electorates having it dawn in their consciousness that THIS is what democracy IS: the people governing.
The people cannot govern unless the people govern.
Don't include me in your collective we. I write at least 6 letters monthly to my "representatives" in Congress and get the same response each time thanking me for my concern for world peace and wishing me a good day. Only once have I gotten past the receptionist in one of their offices and that got me only as far as the lowest level staffer. As for other representatives and senators, They don't even have the courtesy to send me a polite rejection.
If you truly believe you have any influence over your own representative or senators, try setting up an appointment for a one on one meeting, or try going to lunch with them. A senator or representative from another state won't even accept a letter from you much less meet with you. But you can have a meeting with any representative or senator in the country simply by approaching them with $100,000 for a campaign contribution. They will even go with you to lunch, a golf outing, boating or an airplane ride to about any place their little hearts desire.
Try it! You will find they listen to money, but not to you.
yes. so you can see clearly that the problem is the people all around you are doing nothing, isn't it?
they have the collective power and today with the internet etc. they have the collective communication and all that signifies.
and they are learning to use it. they are becoming 'one' within that paradigm.
but right now, of course, they 'meet' and become communal in the most ephemeral and trivial ways: social nonsense chitchat on FB, Twitter (as was) and all the rest of them.
they have not yet begun to turn their attention to serious things.
but they will, they will. how else could it be?
but we just have to keep speaking quietly about how it should be and wait for a break in the chatter and the nonsense - wait till we start to hear our own words coming back to us from the throng....
The point was never and never will be that everything or even anything changes simply because you or I ask. Was it? Is it?
I don't understand how you expect change to occur without expressing a need for change. I feel your comment is talking in ideas and concepts more than real suggestions at change. Sure, power has no power but that which we give it. But tell that to my husband's boss. Talk in the realm of doable action and I'll engage more.
We can use that as an example. It has been the way for centuries.
Right so here we are in some slave labour place (exaggerate your husband's problem a bit for the sake of effect) where all the slave labour is being hounded and persecuted to the extreme.
Right?
Now imagine everyone wakes this morning with the idea that they are people and they will not hurt people and they will identify anyone who tells them to hurt people as the real enemy.
So in that workplace today none of the workers get persecuted. Because none of the workers tasked with persecuting will persecute.
This non persecuting runs right up the chain with no one persecuting anyone until we get to the top monster who rants and rails but can do nothing.
Forgive me if, as I suspect, I don't fully understand your point here. I don't see how large scale, organized and peaceful public dissent, such as Rachel seemed to advocate and which I think will be a necessary part of the broader public response, reinforces the positions and power of the establishment. Nor do you explain this.
Keep in mind, I am not advocating for 'frantically, violently protesting'.... I specifically mention nonviolent protest. Such as Gandhi helped inspire and organize. And such as led to the eventual U.S. withdrawal from Viet Nam. (of which I was part.)
There are two purposes for this: one, to wake up / educate the rest of the public and give them the courage to join. Second, to embarrass & weaken that establishment, by making it clear that the leadership lacks the public support and mandate to continue policies (such as warfare, massive military spending and its resultant massive indebtedness (now est. at a bit under $100K per American citizen).
You speak of "reality", yet then say, "No. If we want 'that' then we just do it. We don't need it rubber stamped by any government at all. "
As if you, and some undefined "we" already can somehow control foreign policy, what $$ the U.S. sends and to whom, what trade agreements this nation holds with others, how the money flows between financial institutions, etc. Is there some magic wand that gives such power? Or perhaps you can illustrate what you have in mind with a successful example in history?
A few thoughts in response:
1. A disclaimer at the outset: I'm not an economist nor even academically qualified in any way to discuss economics. With that in mind, first, as i see it, a) MMT is a theory; not a fact. i.e. it's a framework of ideas about how money 'flows; through a currency-creating government; of relationships between taxing and spending, etc.
b) Though there are many fans of MMT in the social media world, it appears to me from some commentary that is a lot of oversimplification, leading to misinterpretations, as well as leaps to unfounded conclusions. One of the latter which I've frequently encountered is that, because a state can print its own currency (which, in many cases is not backed by a fungible asset like gold), "debt therefore doesn't matter". i.e. debt doesn't matter because the state can simply just issue more paper currency.
While that seems true up to a point, it is ONLY up to that point. What has largely allowed the U.S. to run such massive debt is not just because it (through the Fed) controls monetary policy AND controls the supply of currency. We must include in our considerations its relationship to the global economy, foreign trade- and foreign-owned debt.
As long as the U.S. maintains the hegemony of the U.S. dollar as the world's standard reserve currency, all is good. But this will eventually fold, just as the Empire itself will. Other nations, including obviously the BRICS bloc, have already signaled that the dollar's current standing as global reserve currency is being willfully eroded.
(As an aside, a few previous efforts to bypass the petro-dollar have led to Washington-conducted regime change operations and assassinations (e.g. Qadafi)....illustrating how dependent Empire is upon the supremacy of its coin).
With the U.S. National Debt including substantial amounts of liabilities to foreign states (and China, is, I believe, the largest holder), should the dollar lose perceived value against other currencies (because it is no longer required to do business), those other debt-holders will be encouraged to dump their treasury notes / bonds. depressing their value, and making it difficult for the U.S. to maintain any sense of balance in foreign trade.
This is unsustainable, of course; and I conclude that the U.S. standard of living is going to take a serious hit vis a vis the rest of the world, because of this debt. We are already seeing that R's are gunning to cut social spending. Some D's in the past have signaled their willingness to accept some concessions thereto, as well. As the D's have become the even louder War Party, of course, they're caught... they can't keep ratcheting up defense spending while pretending to care about health care, education, infrastructure, and that 'third rail' that is Social Security and related safety net provisions. Yet those who run the system know full well that they must continue to suppress any dissenters (such as Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela) and continue to flex muscle around the globe in order to keep that dollar hegemony. At the same time, the debt massively grows to fund that house of cards. Fed policies have helped keep it standing, but the greater global implications suggest it is not going to stand much longer.
Secondly, re. "5 million protestors in DC...", I don't think you'll get them going by talking about a money scam. There is indeed, a kind of scam, as suggested in the above; but it's too complicated, and when distilled to simplistic slogans, is too easily debunked.
That said, I agree that large-scale dissent in the streets is likely to be needed, and I don't exactly have the answer to what the 'battle cry' should be. And even more importantly, public, in-the-streets protests are just one facet of what will be needed. I'd suggest that if people really want to organize effectively, they have to do it strategically, and that is likely going to require people organize their resistance in the ways they still have some power. That would include such things as strategic, sustainable boycotts, divestments, labor actions (sickouts, strike, etc.), and any other non-violent actions that can be organized to "perturb" the economic interests of those currently running the show.
An excellent summary, Roger. I would only add that when the end comes (the loss of dollar control of the global economy) the collapse will be swift and irreversible. Like runs on banks, there will be little warning of it coming. Military power will have absolutely no ability to stop it.
I suspect that you're right in this. First, there are signals. Then an unstoppable flood.
I think the loss of dollar control is already happening!
Large scale dissent in the streets is seen as needed only when you limit your thinking of the state of reality.
Limit it to believing that only a coterie at the top could and would or can 'fix things'.
That being the case 'large scale dissent' is needed in the streets in order to frighten them or something. Isn't that right? That's what you want your 'large scale dissent' for?
But that, of course, simply reinforces their positions. Simply cements into place their power. Simply sets in stone the injustice the inequity and the marginalisation of human beings, the people, reality.
Reality.
For the reality is that everything is with the people. Power. Ability. Everything.
We do not live by the grace of the gangsters at the top. They live by our grace. We are the fools who put them there. We are the fools that gave them 'power over us'.
And that latter is even more incredible for that 'power over us' is the 'power' to order us to make war on ourselves. Is what it always is. It is always the power to order one section of us to make war on the rest.
And we stupidly blindly obey never thinking never questioning what we're doing.
It should be obvious as soon as we start hurting each other that we are obeying bad commands and it should be implicit in all of our 'conceding power', 'handing power up the chain', 'granting power' that we do it NOT in order to cause any harm to ourselves.
And we should not obey such commands.
The powerful actually would love to see us frantically, violently protesting in the streets for it reinforces their position, it avoids the question of the validity of their position.
They laugh for right there we applaud them as we protest against them: for aren't the protesters ringed about by us, the police, our own selves, the people and don't they generally obey them? Aren't they dispersed in the end by the people? Aren't some of them then caught up and prosecuted and fined and imprisoned by the people for having the temerity to be angry with the powerful?
See? Total misdirection of energies from start to finish. Misunderstanding of the nature of the problem.
We should not look to them for solutions in such cases. Find the solutions within ourselves.
Some will say that is what having an election and changing them is. But it is not. Apart from the awkwardness and slowness and vulnerability and etc. of it what that does in the end is simply seek to establish another 'power bloc' that will gave a stamp of approval to the actions we know are right.
That's very clear. Explicit most of the time. 'We need a govt that will legislate this' is an example of it.
No. If we want 'that' then we just do it. We don't need it rubber stamped by any government at all.
Decisions should be ours, not theirs. It is written in the ostensible design: government of the people BY the people. Or in the job descriptions: 'representative OF the PEOPLE'.
Actually of course we have government of the people by coteries, cabals, gangs.
And 'representatives' simply represent one or other cabal.
It is ludicrously simple.
We need more than dissent in the streets, we need dissent at the ballot box.
63% of Americans don't like either the Democratic or Republican parties, yet we can't raise a viable third party. So, given the choice between two evils, we vote for the lesser evil in fear that the greater evil will win if we vote for a third party. What kind of logic is that?
We need to find someone with vision and sensible priorities, and rally around him/her (whoever) come election day. That's the way we take back our government. If we don't, we are doomed.
I wouldn't myself want to suggest that we ignore electoral politics altogether. Indeed, it is worth supporting truly principled, wise people with the backbone to continue to work for the people- i.e. our broad collective interests . Given the trends over the last 5 decades that I've observed, however, I believe much more energy and focus must be given to organizing along the lines of what I described, where people use their only remnant power- their collective ability to shape and 'perturb' the economy and economic interests of those who write and implement the laws.
Roger, you wrote "it is worth supporting truly principled, wise people with the backbone to continue to work for the people- i.e. our broad collective interests" and I agree. However, the principle thing needed by anyone running for high office is name recognition and in our culture that means celebrity as few follow politics. It's no accident that we've had such as Reagan and Trump, both of them media stars, or that we saw more than one Kennedy put up for the presidency, so also for the Clintons and the Bushes.
I think Cornel West exemplifies the kind of candidate you would like to see, but the first thing I run into when mentioning him to others is "never heard of him" and I doubt that later on they check him out.
I thought you were gonna say "the problem is money in politics". Name recognition is more a trick used by those with money. But it is one of many tricks.
Listen, I was all for Cornel West but I do not think the guy is serious after he hired Hillary Clinton's former advisor Peter Daou. I loved Cornel when he announced his run but he's done the opposite of what a serious candidate would do to win. I mean I don't think the greens are serious about opposing Dems, but Cornel even just disassociated from them!!!! I mean doesn't that mean he won't be on the ballot in 90% of states?
Truly, I was so excited about Cornel West. Until I heard him defend Joe Biden for an hour on Jimmy Dore. It was soul crushing.
Thanks for your comment, Rachel. I will make it a point to go watch that Jimmy Dore episode.
Thank you, Cliff for being willing to listen. I understand that a lot of people view Dore as "just a comedian", or maybe they think he's stupid, but I gotta say, if we had free and fair elections, Dore would win the presidency, easy. This guy is So on the pulse of the American people, I honestly fear for his safety. I've not heard someone speak like him since Carlin, but Carlin didn't have a weekly show that reached millions of Americans. Jimmy Dore has that magical ability to reach the so-called right and the so-called left (but NOT identity politics-left, no no, Jimmy is a leftist from the old school, where money talks and bullshit walks.)
Note you can listen to the episode on any major podcast player, but here's some links I found helpful, beyond the interview. Because I felt like I needed some therapy after that doozy.
Original interview, that is obviously suppressed algorithmically on YouTube, as I could not locate it by searching within YouTube:
https://youtu.be/YeTe9Z7Zkjk?si=OB0aWeJwSSilw1XS
Dore's short follow up to it (he is visibility rattled and shaken by West's ferocity and different tune): https://youtu.be/IqBj-gS0nKc?si=PSq93HANptcokEMT
The only good that came out of this was discovering Garland Nixon. Damn this guy is also on it. If you find yourself after the Dore/West interview saying, "what the hell just happened there? Am I crazy or did West just say that?", this evaluation by Garland Nixon will help. A lot.
https://www.youtube.com/live/r6gNnsouORY?si=ug3Na2DaFGlkRWtI
One last thought. The mainstream media smears people who try to unite left and right. If there is one running theme on Jimmy Dore, it is that corporations control the US government, which is run by a uniparty. The people go broke while the corporations get rich. THAT is why power hates Jimmy Dore.
Power SLAMS Jimmy Dore on other issues, but I think they do that because they know that if all Americans heard Dore, a majority would cheer on his diatribes. So this isn't about anything but Dore's insistence that the American people are going broke, and if we don't unite we are screwed. This Dore/West interview broke Dore's heart. You can see it right on the screen. Dore thought West was honestly trying to win the presidency by focusing on stuff that unites us. When West came on his show and thoroughly walked back that stance, Dore was devastated, along with many of his viewers. All to say, don't believe the hype. Trust your instincts.
Yes, there are some fundamental barriers to getting good/capable people elected, and you touch on one (name recognition / celebrity). Closely related, of course, is $$, which both corrupts and compromises and in any case, easily controls (in a controlled info media setting) what the electorate sees, and effectively, how they think. The electoral system itself being so completely compromised and corrupted, this is one more reason why I personally put so little faith or effort in making the needed changes electorally.
We have to stop looking for a saviour. WE are the saviour. The people have got to learn to make use of this fantastic new tool: the internet and our smartphone connectivity to it - and 'talk to ourselves' and find out all we need to know about any issue and what we all think about it. And then command that be done. And that requires no change in our organisation at all.
Even to the commanding. The mechanism is already there. Those elected reps are to be commanded: Do This. That's what they're there for.
Only it has NEVER been done.
Has it?
Think about it. We 'give up' from the world go and don't even try to elect a representative of ourselves - do we, really? Even the most avid lover of a Party knows he is electing not a representative of himself but of that Party - a small claque of vested interests somewhere he knows not of.
No. We choose one of two options generally and then let them go their own way with our fingers crossed.
ENTIRELY the wrong thing.
Rather we elect anyone - literally anyone at all, doesn't matter - and then figure out en masse what we went and then TELL THEM TO DO IT.
You either get what I mean or you don't.
Rallying around someone else is craven following and abdication of your own rights and responsibilities and complete perversion of what democracy is supposed to be about.
AMEN.
"WE HAVE TO STOP LOOKING FOR A SAVIOR."
BINGO.
The problem with TELLING THEM TO DO IT is THEY DON'T LISTEN. Furthermore, THEY don't have to listen. WE don't make the rules - THEY make the rules. Yes, WE elect them to make the rules, but, in getting to make the rules, THEY also get to select the candidates, and THEY only select candidates who will follow THEIR rules. So WE only get to choose between selectively chosen candidates who follow THEIR rules and not our wishes.
The THEY I am talking about are the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties. Compared to WE, the voting public, THEY are a very small group of people, but THEY truly have our political system wired to support their patrons rather then their constituents. As a result, the only things they listen to are the desires of their patrons and the counts at the ballot boxes
As for a "savior", I argue that it is necessary to look for leader. To build an organization requires money and leadership. Once an organization is on its feet, a good manager can take over, but it takes a true leader to get it to that point. No organization in the world has ever achieved success without leadership. To win elections, you need organization (in politics we call them parties). The two primary political parties are well managed but are committed to serve their patrons whose desires are not consistent with the needs of their constituents. The other political parties are fledglings that are still attempting to fly, but lack the necessary leadership for growth.
We need to free ourselves from bondage to the Democratic and Republican parties and to do that we need to build an organization to defeat them at the ballot box. Regardless whether we attempt to rejuvenate one of the existing "other" parties or build an entirely new party, we will need money and a leader. Without the leader, it won't happen.
No.
The point you avoid is that we do not tell them what to do. We run around with the mantra 'what's the use' and don't tell them, that's what we do.
AND it is not so important to 'tell them what to do' and have them do it in this instance, whatever it is. What is important is to demonstrate to them that this is the way it is going to be. In other words it'll take time to tame them because we've had this paradigm for a long time.
The two party system has to be broken.
It gets broken by putting the fear of the electorate into the individual politician. And we do that by:
. Zoning on on the guy and 'telling him what to do' and demanding accounts of his doings on a regular basis - monitoring constantly and let him know he'll be voted out - him, individualy, if he doesn't do what we ask.
. Following through.
And all this is managed not by building organisations with leaders which are going to end up simply as another political party with appropriate corruption and coercion but by the electorates having it dawn in their consciousness that THIS is what democracy IS: the people governing.
The people cannot govern unless the people govern.
Don't include me in your collective we. I write at least 6 letters monthly to my "representatives" in Congress and get the same response each time thanking me for my concern for world peace and wishing me a good day. Only once have I gotten past the receptionist in one of their offices and that got me only as far as the lowest level staffer. As for other representatives and senators, They don't even have the courtesy to send me a polite rejection.
If you truly believe you have any influence over your own representative or senators, try setting up an appointment for a one on one meeting, or try going to lunch with them. A senator or representative from another state won't even accept a letter from you much less meet with you. But you can have a meeting with any representative or senator in the country simply by approaching them with $100,000 for a campaign contribution. They will even go with you to lunch, a golf outing, boating or an airplane ride to about any place their little hearts desire.
Try it! You will find they listen to money, but not to you.
yes. so you can see clearly that the problem is the people all around you are doing nothing, isn't it?
they have the collective power and today with the internet etc. they have the collective communication and all that signifies.
and they are learning to use it. they are becoming 'one' within that paradigm.
but right now, of course, they 'meet' and become communal in the most ephemeral and trivial ways: social nonsense chitchat on FB, Twitter (as was) and all the rest of them.
they have not yet begun to turn their attention to serious things.
but they will, they will. how else could it be?
but we just have to keep speaking quietly about how it should be and wait for a break in the chatter and the nonsense - wait till we start to hear our own words coming back to us from the throng....
The point was never and never will be that everything or even anything changes simply because you or I ask. Was it? Is it?
I don't understand how you expect change to occur without expressing a need for change. I feel your comment is talking in ideas and concepts more than real suggestions at change. Sure, power has no power but that which we give it. But tell that to my husband's boss. Talk in the realm of doable action and I'll engage more.
what's your biggest problem? Your husband's boss?
We can use that as an example. It has been the way for centuries.
Right so here we are in some slave labour place (exaggerate your husband's problem a bit for the sake of effect) where all the slave labour is being hounded and persecuted to the extreme.
Right?
Now imagine everyone wakes this morning with the idea that they are people and they will not hurt people and they will identify anyone who tells them to hurt people as the real enemy.
So in that workplace today none of the workers get persecuted. Because none of the workers tasked with persecuting will persecute.
This non persecuting runs right up the chain with no one persecuting anyone until we get to the top monster who rants and rails but can do nothing.
Got it?
Forgive me if, as I suspect, I don't fully understand your point here. I don't see how large scale, organized and peaceful public dissent, such as Rachel seemed to advocate and which I think will be a necessary part of the broader public response, reinforces the positions and power of the establishment. Nor do you explain this.
Keep in mind, I am not advocating for 'frantically, violently protesting'.... I specifically mention nonviolent protest. Such as Gandhi helped inspire and organize. And such as led to the eventual U.S. withdrawal from Viet Nam. (of which I was part.)
There are two purposes for this: one, to wake up / educate the rest of the public and give them the courage to join. Second, to embarrass & weaken that establishment, by making it clear that the leadership lacks the public support and mandate to continue policies (such as warfare, massive military spending and its resultant massive indebtedness (now est. at a bit under $100K per American citizen).
You speak of "reality", yet then say, "No. If we want 'that' then we just do it. We don't need it rubber stamped by any government at all. "
As if you, and some undefined "we" already can somehow control foreign policy, what $$ the U.S. sends and to whom, what trade agreements this nation holds with others, how the money flows between financial institutions, etc. Is there some magic wand that gives such power? Or perhaps you can illustrate what you have in mind with a successful example in history?