Thomas Paine A Contemporary? Perhaps Chris Hedges Has Key To An American Spring
By Cully Downer
27 May, 2014
Countercurrents.org
Chris Hedges in an article published today invokes Thomas Paine as a model not just for the past but for the situation we find ourselves in today. He quotes “My motive and object in all my political works, beginning with Common Sense,” Paine remembered in 1806, “… have been to rescue man from tyranny and false systems and false principles of government, and enable him to be free.”
The essential element of the socialist ideal as Chomsky says remains: to convert the means of production into the property of freely associated producers and thus the social property of people who have liberated themselves from exploitation by their master, as a fundamental step towards a broader realm of human freedom.
Pfft you can hear the neo-cons snorting, why shouldn’t the rich be allowed to keep the product (i.e.cash) of their labors? After all they earned it!. The question of whether they earned it or stole it is central to the Occupy movement I think. … The essential point of social equality is that everyone …including the administrator of an organisation share in the wealth that it produces. The manager no doubt would have a bigger expense account than many workers… but that is all. The workers are, in an ideal society also the shareholders.
This concept could also be known as anarcho-syndicalism in a pre-socialistic society because it reflects the belief that no person on this planet should have a master. There would be no discussion about the size of a CEO’s bonus because all would receive the same as managers are not be definition 'better human beings'. No person then would be economically enslaved by another.
There is also a contradiction here, we assume that capitalism is operationally different from socialism when in fact money is the end result of both enterprises and products are still bought and sold.
It is theoretically possible also to talk of social equality in a way that is fundamentally different than capitalism. This would be an economy based entirely upon resources with no central banks. Parliaments, congress etc would be replaced by ‘constituent assembly’s’ or something similar. These would be more directed toward solving the problems of supply and demand to its own citizens and sharing this technology with other sovereigns than it would be interested war and other foreign adventures as there would be no capitalistic advantage to war.
However, I wonder if labels like socialism so commonly derided, misunderstood, and in my view deliberately falsely associated with communism would stand a chance in the world of realpolitik. .
I suspect not.
There is a link, at least theoretically, between socialism and capitalism which is widely accepted and that’s 'democracy'.
There is a further link between democracy and Thomas Paine who debatably was one of the most influential founding fathers. He was sidelined later on mainly for being more outspoken about being anti-religious than the others, but also because he believed that democracy was for everyone and not only ‘the most capable set of men’
His aims were it could be argued essentially socialistic and yet you can refer to him without employing that term and garner much support from the American people. A focus on the works of Paine would be one way of uniting 'Patriots' and socialists without the need to refer to either the left or right in political terms.
Perhaps the issue at hand then is that Occupy and other potential reformers first need to demonstrate that democracy does not work in the US. And then once achieved that this diversion to corporate totalitarianism is not what the founding fathers intended..
Many presidents since Washington in have fact specifically warned against it, as well as the power of the banks. And since Eisenhower of course also warned against the dominance of the military industrial complex.
It can be argued that there were two choices after WW2 …for government spending to be militarized or socialized. The later was rejected precisely because it had a democratizing effect. In other words people would care where a hospital was built in their community but not about the next generation of tanks. This allowed the pentagon to continue it's work without the interference of the middle class who seemed satisfied as long as they could remain consumers.
This led to a fairly rigid but invisible form of State planning where all of the major technological developments were in fact socialized in the sense that they were paid for by the taxpayer through the Pentagon. However instead of being owned by the taxpayer they were then given to private companies to profit from.
Many companies like Lockheed or Boeing were then given huge State subsidies in order to remain profitable. Now all corporations seem to expect this consideration and that means that for the rich 'free trade' is a lie. Walmart being the most obvious example is a company totally dependent upon repression and a belief in corporate socialism.
While corporations are the biggest welfare recipients, the people whose jobs have been replaced by slave labor in 3rd world countries have, for the most part, remained unemployed and yes even blamed for the financial chaos that follows the banking corruption even to the extent that their meager family benefits have been further reduced.
While all this has been developing the US has fought democracy in at least 50 countries replacing 30 governments with fascist dictators. There is no example when they have created and tolerated a thriving democracy because such a country would develop a form of economic nationalism not acceptable to amoral multinationals. In other words they could not be ruined by the IMF or the Bank of Settlements and then raped of their resources when they could not repay their loans. Keep an eye on how this works in the Ukraine.
There is no example I can think of in any of these countries when this did not happen. Look only then at Venezuela as an example of how the US treated a democratic socialistic country. It is a mere example of a country demonized by Government and media for attempting to improve the lot of its own people.
So perhaps we need to demand democracy first.... not just for US citizens but all people of the world. This would if it was genuine coincidentally reduce the rapacious ravaging of the planet and vastly improve conditions for indigenous people and the poor of the world.
As the 2 existing parties are both right wing business parties there is effectively no choice, therefore no democracy. This is especially true when controlled media do not allow 3rd and 4th candidates into the debate.
The only solution as a first step in the world of Realpolitik then, at least it seems to me is to withhold our vote. Demand more than is being offered and don’t mention socialism. This way an American Spring may stand a chance of producing real change, but it will still be a long and painful road as very powerful interests will have to be hit hard at the same time by a refusal to listen to their propaganda (in an internet age we don't need TV's do we?) or buy their products.
I think perhaps Occupy could achieve this simple objective and Thomas Paine is in fact a contemporary guide.
Read Chris Hedges Thomas Paine, Our Contemporary
Cully Downer is staff writer for AhaaNews
Comments are moderated
