Sanders is saying no more or less than FDR, who said,

"That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.”

His brand of "socialism" only sounds "radical" to some because of the successful push for the idea that not only can money equate to power and control, but that it should.

Somehow a large block of our culture has been convinced that the core principal of America is the unimpeded pursuit of wealth and power. That money and guns equal speech, but speech itself is irrelevant.

It's only radical to oppose those things to the extent people are afraid to change them. It's only "revolutionary" because we have been pushed and shoved and trampled past the point of recognizing the way our democracy is supposed to work.

I am reminded of a friend who spoke to the state legislature on a women's issue, and had a state representative respond in utter confusion to the idea that she could be standing there, representing people who "wanted something," as though that was rude or inappropriate. I think she asked him whether lobbyists and campaign contributors ever came to him "wanting" something, at which point he sputtered, and said something about "young lady" to this woman who was probably five or 10 years his senior.

We have lost track of where we began. It may be a long way back, but that doesn't mean it is crazy to start off.

It just means we need to hurry.

all day, every day, he fills requests from corporate interests, while ignoring real people.

i wanted people to see him squirm while i turned the table on him, and described what it's like to not have sick days -- so i did it from the perspective of one his family members. like, "sure it's all fine and well if it's you as an employer not providing sick days to an employee, but what's it like to be the husband of someone who falls ill?" or like, "let's say it's your daughter who can't take care of her kid who has to stay home sick from school."

it went on like that for every Republican on the panel. we were in Q/A; i'd burned through my prepared statement, so i was just riffing.

good times.

everything that Sanders talks about is reform. that it requires a "revolution" in numbers of people to get involved, that's tragic. but it's not the traditional meaning of revolution. it's just an INDEX of how far behind we've fallen.

are of him, even though they don't realize they are really just afraid of pushing aside the status quo.

K & R

regardless of the outcome of the campaign. that's why there's red-in-the-face rhetoric.

there's plenty of folks, here even, who blanche at the idea of breaking up the monopolies, or standing up to corporations. they think we should be "working together" as if our interests intersect with the companies who are robbing us blind.

The established order thrives on keeping people insecure. It wants workers to feel insecure so they won't argue about wages or working conditions -- so unions are systematically weakened. It wants the poor to feel they're not entitled to anything so they'll be grateful for what few crumbs they get. The health care system, the system of student loans, the ever-rising cost of housing and certain other necessities (even as electronic toys become cheaper) are all exploited to keep people worrying about where they might end up if they don't toe the line. Even pee-in-a-cup regulations are designed to keep anyone subject to them feeling that one wrong step could spell doom.

These things are commonly justified in terms of some variety of social Darwinism. Either a high level of insecurity is needed to keep people on their toes, or docile workers are needed to keep American business competitive, or some other variation on the same theme. It's all a real-life version of Survivor where most of us will end up being voted off the island.

But that isn't how human beings thrive. It isn't how they innovate and invent and create. It isn't how we got here and it isn't how we can move on from where we are now.

And trying to reduce inequality as long as we maintain a system that continues to foster insecurity will not solve our most fundamental problems.

others for the problems caused by TPTB.

As I often say, when human beings compete, some survive, some do not: When human beings cooperate, we all evolve. Judging by the nature of your post you have been developing these themes for many years (or so it seems). Do you think we have reached a "critical mass" of social consciousness wherein the truth can no longer be stage managed and suppressed?

I don't know what it would take to reach a critical mass, but we're not there yet.

b/c it deserves more than my ADD and tiredness can spare right now... but for now... eggsactly.

all these instances of insecurity that people endure are examples of gifts to business to create shortcuts to thicker bottom lines each and every quarter.

we've created a new "right" to corporate profit, and taken away all the other rights that human used to enjoy that included the pursuit of health and happiness.

when we speak of revolution we have to recognize that the most radical revolution has already happened, in which individual human rights have been transferred to corporations, and we're now chattel.

insecurity is indeed a key lever to corporate power. people who live in a constant state of insecurity INTERNALIZE mechanisms of control, so that the state or corporate powers (same diff) don't have to expend the resources on EXTERNAL control. we do it ourselves. so efficient.

And he wants us all to do it together.

No.

is the sole solution to what needs fixing. I take heart, though, that what was initially dismissed as a fringe campaign by an unelectable "socialist" candidate, has taken wing based on exactly that "socialist" distinction.

That is the difference between leading and simply maneuvering, and it's inspiring to see it.

as he recognizes. Is America willing?

Thanks for the thread

fwiw -- i KNOW -- amazon is horrible. but this is good.

I mainland all 10 hour long episodes this weekend.

I've only watched the first two episodes so far, though.

BTW in the TV series the airport in New York? was called
The George Lincoln Rockwell airport .. it only flashed for a moment but many wouldn't get that reference.
I did because he use to live in our neighborhood in Northern Virginia

I watched the whole series and the production values were excellent to the smallest details on what a Nazi home or office would look like including the art displayed as well as a Japanese officials office.

The IMbd section of each episode is filled with tons of info in the Trivia section

Eight hours twenty five mins

I think its a good reading of the novel by the speaker follows the book exactly.

The Man in the High Castle won a Science Fiction Achievement Award (Hugo Award) in 1963. It has since been translated into many languages,

"milton meyers" "they thought they were free"
das kampf

to be mindful of how free we actually are. i haven't read this, but i'm familiar with the notion (from many other places) that we're hardwired to replace the real conditions of freedom, equality, justice (etc) with simulacra, in order to fit in and find our place within our tribes.

participating in a "lie agreed upon" is a rite of passage for all sick cultures.

in a place far far away

i was taught in a civics class
---
To be free is difficult:
it's about responsibility and duty:
to be informed
to keep an eye on government
to keep fighting (word used for fighting means also verbally/in press/nonviolent as well as violent )every day to keep corruption and tyranny gone
to stay alert
and when they come to lead you to the slaughter, you'll see them first and avoid them, or stop them before they can get that far

if you want to be comfortable be sheep:
sit back in the sofa
eat
watch mindless pap on tv
ignore elections and politics
and don't complain when dragged to the slaughter

Freedom is about making choices, informed ones, all the time, this doesn't make one popular, not with neighbors, and not with authorities.
---
the lesson was on democracy conversion into tyranny

and i've quoted that part as exactly as i can remember it, i'm sure i got most of it right

it's the part about not being popular with neighbors and authorities that really grabs me. i wish more people would appreciate how ephemeral that is.

that people don't understand that being free, means making choices that make you unpopular


but thanks for teaching me *nods* did not know this word ephermal and now i do
e·phem·er·al
əˈfem(ə rəl/
adjective
adjective: ephemeral

1.
lasting for a very short time.
"fashions are ephemeral"


learning is part of being free, i CHOOSE to LEARN so i can EDUCATE others and ELECT the ones i need to and EDUCATE myself


heh
i'd be a horrible civics teacher, i'd flunk 80+ percent most likely

This might be of interest.

In this alternate history, the corrupt United States president Ferris F. Fremont (FFF for 666, ‘F’ being the 6th letter in the alphabet) becomes Chief Executive in the late 1960s following Lyndon Johnson's administration. The character is best described as an amalgam of Joseph McCarthy and Richard Nixon, who abrogates civil liberties and human rights through positing a conspiracy theory centered around a (presumably) fictitious subversive organization known as "Aramchek". In addition to this, he is associated with a right-wing populist movement called "Friends of the American People" (FAPers).

trying to do the math...how many years ahead of his time was PKD? 30, 40, 50 years?

The main Earth religion is Mercerism, in which Empathy Boxes link simultaneous users into a collective consciousness based on the suffering of Wilbur Mercer. In the shared experience of the Empathy Box, Wilbur Mercer takes an endless walk up a mountain while stones are thrown at him, the pain of which all users share. The television appearances of Buster Friendly and his Friendly Friends, broadcast twenty-three hours a day, represent a second religion, designed to undermine Mercerism. Mercerism is ambiguously portrayed in the novel.

Dudeism is a philosophy and lifestyle inspired by "The Dude", the protagonist of the Coen Brothers' 1998 film The Big Lebowski. Dudeism's stated primary objective is to promote a modern form of Chinese Taoism, outlined in Tao Te Ching by Laozi (6th century BC), blended with concepts by the Ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270 BC), and presented in a style as personified by the character of Jeffrey "The Dude" Lebowski, a fictional character portrayed by Jeff Bridges in the film.[1] Dudeism has sometimes been regarded as a mock religion,[2][3] though its founder and many adherents regard it seriously.[4][5][6][7] March 6 is the annual sacred high holy day of Dudeism: The Day of the Dude.

Excellent post!

I totally neglected to thank you for posting this article that sees the connection between the book and the Sanders campaign. The authorities in PKD's book saw the danger of people thinking that a better world could be more than a fantasy, that the ideal could be made real.

And sure as heck the establishment in our world is relentless in trying to marginalize any movement for change that would upset their comfortable position.

Right after we get the money out of politics, converting our system to publicly financed elections, the next most important thing we can do for our future is to rid ourselves of the ludicrous notion that Corporations are PEOPLE!

The "Divine Right of Corporate Profit," as you call it, is an apt metaphor for Capitalism, and as Al Gore has stated, we need a new kind of capitalism: one that puts the public good before the bottom line of profit! How about the Divine Right of the Common Good? THAT IS Democratic Socialism!

Go Bernie!

You say... "As Al Gore has stated, we need a new kind of capitalism: one that puts the public good before the bottom line of profit!"

There is no kind of capitalism that "puts the public good before the bottom line of profit." The foundations of capitalism are the exploitation and expropriation of the working class. There is no other kind of capitalism that can function any other way.

It is only the degree of that exploitation, expropriation, and theft that can be mitigated under "reforms and regulation." The foundations of capitalism are rotten to the core. Capitalism has distorted and corrupted every human social relation and arrangement. Nothing is free from its clutch. Nothing positive can exist within it for the WHOLE. That is the unadulterated material and historical reality of capitalist social relations. The sooner those seeking real change get that...the sooner real change will be possible.

And this statement of yours has in no way been proven:

There is no other kind of capitalism that can function any other way.

because that was your only out in proclaiming such utter and complete unhistorical nonsense. First off... Al Gore is nothing more than a mouthpiece for big business and the ruling class and has never been anything else. That you view capitalism as the "end of history" and the only possible human social relations that can "restore humanity" is an absurdity so disconnected from the material reality of human civilization that it's not even worth addressing.

Second...the idea that there is a new capitalism that is not based on the exploitation and expropriation of the working class is beyond laughable. In tribute to your username it's certainly an idea of "Utopian" Fantasy. Unfortunately... it's not an idea that's "Leftist" in any, way, shape or form. The history of capitalist social relations and the facts on the ground -throughout that history - are crystal clear and the verdict is in. Hundreds of millions of lives destroyed through death, abject poverty, wars and the rest all brought about by the capitalist death machine.

The supporters of capitalism - no matter how they couch their feel good platitudes and language - are supporters of the criminal theft of labor. No amount of crumbs, "reforms", and "minimum wages" thrown to the workers can EVER compensate for the CRIMINAL THEFT that is wage-slavery.

Despite your protestations there is not a "leftist" of any stripe that exists that would make the absurd statements you have made in your post. Your post is liberal tripe and that's giving it more credit than it deserves. I'm not even sure the liberals would proclaim such absurdity as "facts."

Thanks for not taking the time to attempt to understand what I've written, and instead twisting my words and composing a knee-jerk response that criticizes me personally, instead of explaining what is allegedly incorrect in my thinking.

Welcome to being the first poster on this board that I have blocked. You well deserve that idiotic distinction.

it's called cognitive dissonance. The fight for real leftist change in human social relations can never be reconciled with any form of capitalism. The end result of capitalism will always be oppression and exploitation of workers and the complete degradation of the working class in the long run. So thoroughly do you identify with "some different type of capitalism" - as the only way forward - that you take any criticism of that stance as a personal affront. Leftist politics is not about what YOU think is real in the subjective. Leftist politics is about what's real and what isn't in objective material and historical reality. Capitalism can never provide an equitable distribution of production and resources in a way that takes care of the population as A WHOLE. That is the bottom line and there is no historical narrative that proves otherwise as evidenced by the impoverishment and the death of millions on the ground throughout the history of capitalist social relations.

The only thing idiotic here was your absurd premise that -- "We will have a new and improved capitalism that is nothing like the old capitalism and from there our movement will grow and lift the boats of the dispossessed and oppressed throughout the lands." There is a difference between calling you an idiot personally and calling your ridiculous illusions idiotic. Whether you're an idiot or not is irrelevant. That's a criticism of a bankrupt ideology and your inability to reconcile that fantasy with material reality and not you as a person. It is not possible to reconcile your vision - of "a new type of capitalism" that will "save humanity" - when the entire history of capitalism proves that to be a false notion.

It is also reality that the New Deal and the "middle class prosperity" - that some realized for a short period - was nothing more than a bribe and crumbs thrown from the capitalists to keep the working class in line and pacified. If Sanders wants to get out a message... he needs to address and start talking about working class political power and put this feel good "help for the middle class" bullshit to rest. The middle-class is a decomposing social structure that was nothing more than a few decades long aberration in capitalist social relations that lifted SOME and certainly not ALL. Capitalism IN ANY FORM makes a "social contract" of what's good for THE WHOLE impossible. A foundation built on the expropriation of labor of the working class (which is the vast majority) and the commons is not a social contract at all.

As far as your block goes... that is on you. Sticking their fingers in their ears to avoid the truth is the easy way out for many who can't take the next step and denounce capitalism as the parasitical scourge on the human condition it is and always has been. I'll leave you with this old bit below from an actual leftist on such matters as it describes such thinking with perfect clarity.


"You know you are a reactionary Philistine when you insist on attaching an adjective to the word "Capitalism", as in "Crony Capitalism", "Financial Capitalism", "Disaster Capitalism", "Shock Capitalism", "Unregulated Capitalism", Private-Equity Capitalism, or that old standby, "Greedy Capitalism". It is Capitalism, pure and simple, and there can be no confusion. What we see is what it is.

Perhaps there was slightly more justification for this jive two decades ago. Today, there is no possibility of a debate. The End of Ideology has itself ended. Instead of bringing "stability" to the world, capitalism has brought depression and fragmentation. Instead of bringing democracy and prosperity to the world, it has wrecked local societies where they hung on by a fingernail. No extended criticism is needed because criticism itself - social, political, and economic - has become a criticism of capitalism.

It has been this way for a long time. In the 19th century, capitalism was that which ripped small holders from the land, chained children to machinery, and pushed entire populations, on threat of extinction, across the surface of the earth. In the first part of the 20th century, Capitalism was synonymous with War and Fascism. Imperialism? Colonialism? Famine? Genocide? All the faces of Capitalism...

They told you that Capitalism changed or can be changed ? They lied.

If you hang your hat on reforming Capitalism, believe that your "freedoms" depend on the continuation of Capitalism, or think that Capitalism is "still preferable to everything else", all it means is that your turn hasn't come yet...

and you speak in the tongues of the reactionary Philistine..."

For post. Philip K. Dick ws since he died but is still one of my favorite SciFi authors.

but i almost like his bio and his exegesis more than his straight up fiction. it's like he was reaching for something that he could almost see or feel. i guess that's why he's called a visionary

He once gave a speech about how aghast he was when some of his stories literally came to life.