Exploring every means of resistance to tyranny
Choices
In a letter to Henry Lee two years before his death, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: (1) Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. (2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist; and in every one where they are free to think, speak and write they will declare themselves."
How then is it, when our most enlightened Founding Father stated the matter so succinctly, that those of us who labor long for the rights of the common people, who rail against the rampant selfishness and greed of the upper-class and who long to protect our very planet from the degradation of spirit typified by Bush & Co. find ourselves accused of somehow being Un-American?
Even the pointing out the obvious fact that there is indeed such a thing as an upper-class and that their interests are not the same as those of us who have not been granted such advantage by luck of birth is to open yourself up to charges of Communism. But the fact is that Jefferson was essentially correct in his observation. And the fact is also that the former class has won the fight so far.
Today we face a fantastic array of institutions and systems all of which are directed to serve the interests of those who would dis empower (and in many instances even disembody) the people. Through the media the general public is inundated with fear and desire. The subject matter of television programs and the sophisticated assault on the mind and senses generated by advertising all serve to keep the public in a state of confusion-essentially misdirecting our attention and energy into useless tasks and pursuits at the expense of building a civilization worthy of the name.
Through the control of information the "malefactors of great wealth" as Teddy Roosevelt called them, have succeeded in creating the conditions whereby they are now close to be able to transcend citizenship and civic responsibility and spread their selfish actions to every corner of the globe. No longer are the predations of the rich a matter of concern for people close at hand as in the days of the Baronial Estates. No longer are the costs of their rampant greed borne merely by their workers and the communities that they pollute and destroy with their factories. No longer is it even a single nation that must bear the brunt of supporting their enterprises at the cost of public benefit (I am thinking of how GM received billions in the early 80's because they failed to manage their business effectively). Now it is the very globe itself which must pay the price for the activity of a relatively small handful of social and economic predators.
Thinking beyond the boycott and living in the possibility of being able to reimagine civilization I have been researching ways in which communities can protect themselves from the degradation of wealth. I suppose the simplest solution would be to establish, through progressive taxation, an upper limit on wealth. But no matter what limit you impose, 5 million, 25 million or a billion dollars there will always be those who cry, "That's Communism!". It isn't of course and in point of fact choosing between economic systems is not a matter of black and white. We are seeing what the "Free Market" is capable of doing. On the plus side it certainly helps generate work and activity for the people and it does reward without concern for moral or ethical values those who bring something of value to the marketplace. But without regulation and restraint the free market is nothing more than an economic jungle where smaller beasts are gobbled up by larger ones and, in the end, monopoly is the outcome.
We can see this phenomenon reflected in the business pages of our slowly dying anachronisms every day. For instance Pixar Studios did for a while what Disney was incapable of. They innovated and generated fresh entertainment for kids and parents. They used new technology and a much less structured manner of working to provide funny and financially successful products. So, unable to compete effectively due in large part to the conservative culture of the organization Disney simply ate Pixar. Now Pixar rests in the belly of the beast in a symbiotic relationship that benefits Disney far more than Pixar-because in reality Pixar presented a threat to Disney's very survival-the threat of choice.
Choice is an anathema to huge corporate interests so they attempt to buy out or otherwise co-opt competition but they still present the 'consumer' (don't get me started on the repugnance I feel for that term!) with an illusion of choice through branding. But the truth is that no matter which widget or soda or other product you choose you end up benefiting the corporate greed machine at your own expense.
Is this only true with Coke and Pepsi? Or is it also true with other so-called choices we have presented to us, such as Democrat or Republican? I think you know the answer to that because Jefferson has already told us the truth-behind each "choice" lies the hand of the person making the offer. behind that person lies the organization that supports them and behind that organization lies the power behind the throne. Men and women who fear and distrust us and who would seek through every means to enslave us or destroy us.
Understanding these dynamics and the truth of the matter that Jefferson spoke of is of dire importance-because the hour is late and the time is drawing near when that former class will unveil their master plan. It may not be as obvious as the dystopian future of outright fascism and global corporate dictatorship supported by for-profit armies. It may be more subtle, with European style social programs and legalized marijuana and lots of porn. But whichever plan is proffered to us as necessary we can rest assured that unless we are personally taking responsibility to improve the conditions of our neighborhoods and educate our friends and family as to the realpolitik power structure of the world we will be slaves regardless. To do that I think it is necessary for us to recognize that Jefferson may have been partially wrong in his assertion. Wrong because he was viewing society through the lens of an elite. The fact is that we are all "the people" and we are all in this boat together, rich and poor, weak and strong and that it is the survival of our species that is at stake.
-Lew
"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: (1) Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. (2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist; and in every one where they are free to think, speak and write they will declare themselves."
How then is it, when our most enlightened Founding Father stated the matter so succinctly, that those of us who labor long for the rights of the common people, who rail against the rampant selfishness and greed of the upper-class and who long to protect our very planet from the degradation of spirit typified by Bush & Co. find ourselves accused of somehow being Un-American?
Even the pointing out the obvious fact that there is indeed such a thing as an upper-class and that their interests are not the same as those of us who have not been granted such advantage by luck of birth is to open yourself up to charges of Communism. But the fact is that Jefferson was essentially correct in his observation. And the fact is also that the former class has won the fight so far.
Today we face a fantastic array of institutions and systems all of which are directed to serve the interests of those who would dis empower (and in many instances even disembody) the people. Through the media the general public is inundated with fear and desire. The subject matter of television programs and the sophisticated assault on the mind and senses generated by advertising all serve to keep the public in a state of confusion-essentially misdirecting our attention and energy into useless tasks and pursuits at the expense of building a civilization worthy of the name.
Through the control of information the "malefactors of great wealth" as Teddy Roosevelt called them, have succeeded in creating the conditions whereby they are now close to be able to transcend citizenship and civic responsibility and spread their selfish actions to every corner of the globe. No longer are the predations of the rich a matter of concern for people close at hand as in the days of the Baronial Estates. No longer are the costs of their rampant greed borne merely by their workers and the communities that they pollute and destroy with their factories. No longer is it even a single nation that must bear the brunt of supporting their enterprises at the cost of public benefit (I am thinking of how GM received billions in the early 80's because they failed to manage their business effectively). Now it is the very globe itself which must pay the price for the activity of a relatively small handful of social and economic predators.
Thinking beyond the boycott and living in the possibility of being able to reimagine civilization I have been researching ways in which communities can protect themselves from the degradation of wealth. I suppose the simplest solution would be to establish, through progressive taxation, an upper limit on wealth. But no matter what limit you impose, 5 million, 25 million or a billion dollars there will always be those who cry, "That's Communism!". It isn't of course and in point of fact choosing between economic systems is not a matter of black and white. We are seeing what the "Free Market" is capable of doing. On the plus side it certainly helps generate work and activity for the people and it does reward without concern for moral or ethical values those who bring something of value to the marketplace. But without regulation and restraint the free market is nothing more than an economic jungle where smaller beasts are gobbled up by larger ones and, in the end, monopoly is the outcome.
We can see this phenomenon reflected in the business pages of our slowly dying anachronisms every day. For instance Pixar Studios did for a while what Disney was incapable of. They innovated and generated fresh entertainment for kids and parents. They used new technology and a much less structured manner of working to provide funny and financially successful products. So, unable to compete effectively due in large part to the conservative culture of the organization Disney simply ate Pixar. Now Pixar rests in the belly of the beast in a symbiotic relationship that benefits Disney far more than Pixar-because in reality Pixar presented a threat to Disney's very survival-the threat of choice.
Choice is an anathema to huge corporate interests so they attempt to buy out or otherwise co-opt competition but they still present the 'consumer' (don't get me started on the repugnance I feel for that term!) with an illusion of choice through branding. But the truth is that no matter which widget or soda or other product you choose you end up benefiting the corporate greed machine at your own expense.
Is this only true with Coke and Pepsi? Or is it also true with other so-called choices we have presented to us, such as Democrat or Republican? I think you know the answer to that because Jefferson has already told us the truth-behind each "choice" lies the hand of the person making the offer. behind that person lies the organization that supports them and behind that organization lies the power behind the throne. Men and women who fear and distrust us and who would seek through every means to enslave us or destroy us.
Understanding these dynamics and the truth of the matter that Jefferson spoke of is of dire importance-because the hour is late and the time is drawing near when that former class will unveil their master plan. It may not be as obvious as the dystopian future of outright fascism and global corporate dictatorship supported by for-profit armies. It may be more subtle, with European style social programs and legalized marijuana and lots of porn. But whichever plan is proffered to us as necessary we can rest assured that unless we are personally taking responsibility to improve the conditions of our neighborhoods and educate our friends and family as to the realpolitik power structure of the world we will be slaves regardless. To do that I think it is necessary for us to recognize that Jefferson may have been partially wrong in his assertion. Wrong because he was viewing society through the lens of an elite. The fact is that we are all "the people" and we are all in this boat together, rich and poor, weak and strong and that it is the survival of our species that is at stake.
-Lew
Comment
About
Unknown News
Tree Hugger News
Anti-War News
Reuters Headlines
© 2009 Created by LewBrown on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
You need to be a member of Boycott Corporate Control to add comments!
Join this Ning Network