Americans have been called to celebrate the peaceful passing of the Presidential torch from the conservatives to the liberals. This passing will mean more peaceful killings of unborn and newly born babies, more peaceful killings of sick elderly citizens, even if those showing signs of recovery, and more peaceful killings of sick poor people of every age; by rich people. This is even though our history, in our Land of Opportunity, is filled with rags to riches stories of poor people who eventually became award winning assets to the entire nation; take as an example Henry Ford.
Of course Americans celebrate because historically wars have been fought over less, and because the conservatives are planning on peacefully getting the torch back in four year. But, in reality the conservatives don't have a viable plan for regaining the torch at all, let alone in four years. The Republican Party is dying because it has been focused on avarice at the expense of the economy, at the expense of social justice, and at the expense of the environment. Even paleo-conservative Republicans, who are for the most part less prone to avarice than the rest of their party, don't even have a viable plan for winning back the torch. This is even though they believe that they have the solutions that can save America from itself. So there is really no reason to truly celebrate and the conservatives need a new party, now.
Of course Americans celebrate because historically wars have been fought over less, and because the conservatives are planning on peacefully getting the torch back in four year. But, in reality the conservatives don't have a viable plan for regaining the torch at all, let alone in four years. The Republican Party is dying because it has been focused on avarice at the expense of the economy, at the expense of social justice, and at the expense of the environment. Even paleo-conservative Republicans, who are for the most part less prone to avarice than the rest of their party, don't even have a viable plan for winning back the torch. This is even though they believe that they have the solutions that can save America from itself. So there is really no reason to truly celebrate and the conservatives need a new party, now.
The Neo-populist Party would be a viable party for conservatives. I believe a candidate that runs on neo-populist principles could win the next Presidential election. He or she would have no trouble winning the rural US's farmers, ranchers, and self-employed. However, if history is any indicator, winning with populist/neo-populist ideas in the urban areas would be more difficult, but not as difficult as winning as a Republican. The Neo-populist Party, itself, is currently so inactive that Wikipedia doesn't even have an adequate page on the subject, and its politicians have joined the Democrat Party. For example, Montana Democratic Senator Jon Tester is a Neo-populist. neo-populism is a new version of the Populist Party. The most active Neo-populists belong to the Midwest Populist Party (http://www.midwest-populistamerica.com/articles/a-new-kind-of-populist/). Even they are little more than a few Yahoo Groups that like to post thousands of electronic postings a month. They so far have refused to try endorse a candidate, let alone back their own candidate. They did like Ron Paul, even though they refused to endorse him.
Neo-populists exists in many countries, like Europe and South America. They even have activist working at the United Nations. However, the US has its own distinctive version of Neo-populism. According to those who write books and essays on neo-populism, like sociologist and political scientist, Dr. Aram Ziai, professor at Aachen Technical University, in Aachen Germany, neo-populism is an outgrowth of something called post development theory that seeks to develop solutions to poverty for the people by the people. Post development theory began in the 1980's. It asserts that all of the worlds current problems are caused by what they call development theory, development theory in its most basic form is factories, the government bureaucracies that come along with factories, and the Western mindset that factories make Western people smarter than indigenous people; ie...everything made by a factory is better than everything made by hand. For examples all pharmaceuticals are better than all home remedies, brick homes are always better than all huts, and people who own factories and their government bureaucracies always have better solutions to problems then people who live in tribes and huts etc.... Personally, as a side note, I believe that post-development theorist are completely blind to the most glaring accomplishment of development. It may be true that since its conception development may have caused harm to maybe a billion people, though death and dismemberment by fatal environmental pollutants and injury on the job, but those who promote development have at least learned how get very large groups of people to live in peace during the passing of political power from one group to another, and in some cases, like Iceland and Denmark, they have also learned to live with relatively no crime rate. That definitely can't be said for most indigenous societies. They accomplish peace by remaining in small groups. Their peace seems to evaporate when they try managing large and very large groups. US neo-populists, however, are not usually concerned with blaming factories for all of the problems of the world or moving out of their homes into tepees. They point the finger at big government, The Federal Reserve, and even corporations that don't own factories for failing to employ people for a equitable living wage, and hiring immigrants instead. They want financial security for the people by the people, in a pollution-free environment, while staying in their brick or mobile homes.
According Dr. Ziai many neo-populist seek to solve what they see as the biggest problems of our times, poverty of the masses and Global Warming with non-government, non-corporate, cooperative solutions. They see the cause of of these problems as greedy governments and greedy corporations. This is especially true of US neo-populist. Many US neo-populist think government agencies that oppress the common people (the middle class) in favor of the rich, like those on Wall Street, should be closed, environmentally responsible cooperatives should replace corporations, and organic family farms should replace corporate farms. Senator Testor, for example, is an organic grain and vegetable farmer. It should however be noted that since US neo-populist ideas of a just workplace include factory made technology (some neo-populist shun all development technology), US neo-populist ideal workplaces can be even more dangerous than factories. Farming is currently one of the most dangerous US occupations especially farming that utilizes a tractor. As an example of the reality of this conflict in US neo-populist reasoning, Senator Testor is missing a finger that he lost while working in the butcher shop that his family owned when he was growing up.
There are several types of US neo-populists. Examples include, ACORN (www.acorn.org), various labor unions, and various bloggers (www.neopopulism.org), various Yahoo Groups, and various Google Groups. These types are all somewhere on the spectrum between post-Marxist neo-populist and non-Marxist radical democracy neo-populist. Each seeks to return the power from the elite back to the people. US post-Marxist neo-populist have a Robin Hood mindset. They seem to realize that communism has failed but, they believe that it is good and moral to steal from the rich if what they have was gained by oppressing or committing crimes against the poor, such as unethical business practices, like payday loan businesses. They believe that everything in society rightfully belongs to everyone. The question is not whether to give someone a fish or to teach them to fish, but who owns the fish in the first place. Their answer is; everyone, (so have they really learned that communism has failed). The community organizing group, ACORN, is an example of a post-Marxist neo-populist organization. They were the ones that got in trouble for registering people to vote multiple times. They also were very active in building replacement homes for the victims of Katrina.
US Non-Marxist radical democracy neo-populist, on the other hand, have a cooperative mindset. They believe in democracy, not communism, and sometimes not even socialism. They believe in private property and that if you work hard for it, it should be yours. They believe that a just society should be made up of credit unions, mutual insurance companies, energy cooperative, and cooperatively owned farms, ranches, factories, businesses, and stores. Some would go so far as to propose self-sustaining communes instead of government housing and homeless shelters. They are famous for writing a lot of books and essays on the subject, but outside of the family cooperative, very little has successfully been accomplished. Their major hurdle is that outside of historic and enduring success of the family farm or ranch, the family business, energy cooperatives, credit unions, mutual insurance companies, and religious intentional living communities like the kibbutzim (Jewish communal farms), Catholic Worker Houses, Anabaptists like the Bruderhof Communities (now known as Church Communities International), and the Hutterites, few cooperative have enjoyed long-term success. Cooperatives of many kinds have had a very high failure rate, especially cooperative grocers. Spain is the only country that bases its economy on cooperatives and it hasn't worked out that well for them economically. They haven't failed, they are doing better than some others, but they are not wildly successful, as the economy has been under a corporate factory economy. The question for radical democracy neo-populist is whether or not to let the government give someone a fish or to teach a community to organize to fish, (so who is an expert at teaching communities to organize to fish? Not any university that I know) .
The foremost neo-populist writer is historian and sociologist, Professor Micheal Foucault, of University of California at Berkeley. He died in 1984. His focus was on neo-populist theories of power. There are about nine post-Marxist neo-populist writers, of which for time's sake I won't mention here by name. Some of the writers who wrote about non-Marxist radical democracy theory include, retired marine and retired Professor C. Douglas Lummis, who used to teach at Tsuda College in Tokyo, Japan, and retired Professor James Petras, who used to teach in New York and Canada at Binghamton University and Saint Mary's University.
How effective has the neopopulist movement been historically? Well, in spite of all of the faltering of the modern neo-populist movement, the Populist Movement of the 1880's to the 1920's an underdog wins story. They went from being a band of complaining bankrupt middle class citizens to an effective political party. They first organized in response to the rural economic Panic of 1873. Eventually, they were successful at getting several laws passed, and saving a lot of common people from foreclosure. Many of the energy cooperatives that the populists organized to save their farms are still in existence today. Some of their concerns were addressed by the White House when Republican Progressive President Theodore Roosevelt was elected in 1881. Then, in 1896, they almost got one of their Progressive Presidential candidates, Williams Jennings Bryan, elected. Incidentally, Bryan ran as a Democrat even though he was from the Populist Party. They changed the US from a place that was forcing them into foreclosure, into a place where they could thrive into the American Dream.
Parties that were a part of the Populist Movement included The Populist Party of 1880 and 1890 aka the People's Party, The Greenback Party of 1874-1884, aka the Independent Party, the National Party, or the Greenback-Labor Party, the Progressive Party of 1912 aka the Bull Moose Party, and the Progressive Party of 1924. Cycles of the Populist Movement rose during hard economic times for the common masses (middle class), but once the economy recovered, and the suffering of the common masses subsided, the corresponding cycle of the Populist Movement declined. However, there was no rise of any populist movement during the Great Depression.
Parties that were a part of the Populist Movement included The Populist Party of 1880 and 1890 aka the People's Party, The Greenback Party of 1874-1884, aka the Independent Party, the National Party, or the Greenback-Labor Party, the Progressive Party of 1912 aka the Bull Moose Party, and the Progressive Party of 1924. Cycles of the Populist Movement rose during hard economic times for the common masses (middle class), but once the economy recovered, and the suffering of the common masses subsided, the corresponding cycle of the Populist Movement declined. However, there was no rise of any populist movement during the Great Depression.
If history is an accurately informed educator, than this is probably the US' current course: our government will fall deep into debt by trying to fix our current 'recession' with the solutions that were used to attack The Great Depression. The consequences accumulating unmanageable federal debt (which America did not have during the Great Depression) will cause global unrest, as the US continues to live beyond our means at the expense of our international lenders, (and living at a higher standard of living than our international lenders). The dollar will lose its standing as the World Dollar Standard. The solutions that didn't work for the Great Depression will also not work now and we will continue to languish in 'recession' this time with an insurmountable federal debt and international lenders balking at our requests for more credit. Diplomacy will run out between international diplomats, but America will struggle to get the economy running again. Then just as a weak economic upturn begins, an economically devastating hurricane of flood will hit and America will be to economically devastated to respond adequately. Terrorist will sense that America is floundering and strike. War will be declared. Our common masses will begin to suffer as our poor and homeless always do. They will hang our heads in despair feel like everything we touch turns into a failure. Those who live in the urban areas and those who live in the rural areas will feel like failures. Unemployment will soar without remedy. Our factories and stores will close. Prize middle class neighborhoods will turn into ghettos, with few stores, and dilapidation. The common masses will feel ashamed when we look into the eyes of their hungry children. They will not be able to afford health care, no matter how hard they try. And all this while the rich will continue to live in luxury. No matter what solutions the politicians organize, they will never enough. They will feel like they can never get away from the the wolves of failure that will catch up with them every time they stop to catch their breath. But our common masses (middle class) will not sit still for the suffering as our poor and homeless do. They will organize cooperatives and intentional living communities to survive until the 'recession' is over. When the recession is over, they will save up their money and when war is over each surviving soldier will come home and collect his family from the cooperative living situation, gather the savings, and return to a private home of his own. All the home buying will cause an economic boon. But who knows what else will happen when the war is over?. Who know what nation will emerge as the super power, and who know what will happen to the international balance of power?
How far better it would be to avoid all of this by cutting the federal debt and solving the recession at the same time. How far better it would be to do this while not causing the middle class to suffer hunger and homelessness, while the rich continue to vacation in leer jets, and renovate their offices to the latest designs. How far better it would be to give the middle class the assurance that they are not going to continue to be victimized by the rich. Why not make the officers of the Federal Reserve, and Fannie Mae and Freddie mac elected positions? Maybe then they would not keep serving the avarice of Wall Street, and more diligent about protecting the middle class by preventing foreclosures,
(The Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac could have avoided this entire foreclosure fiasco, in 2002, by passing federal regulations that required all building and loan companies, and all mortgage companies to refinance all foreclosing homes according to 25% of the gross income of the homeowner instead of at market rate. They could have advised home builders and mortgage CEO's to cut back on their standards of living. After all most of them weren't in as much danger of foreclosure of their only modest home, like the middle class was. They could have sold some of their mansions, their Manhattan condos, their fleets, their yachts, and their leer jets to make up for the drop in income).
How far better it would be to find entrepreneurial cooperative solutions to our problems. How far better to do this now, or in four years, instead of after war breaks out and millions of middle class people fall into the lower classes.
(The Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac could have avoided this entire foreclosure fiasco, in 2002, by passing federal regulations that required all building and loan companies, and all mortgage companies to refinance all foreclosing homes according to 25% of the gross income of the homeowner instead of at market rate. They could have advised home builders and mortgage CEO's to cut back on their standards of living. After all most of them weren't in as much danger of foreclosure of their only modest home, like the middle class was. They could have sold some of their mansions, their Manhattan condos, their fleets, their yachts, and their leer jets to make up for the drop in income).
How far better it would be to find entrepreneurial cooperative solutions to our problems. How far better to do this now, or in four years, instead of after war breaks out and millions of middle class people fall into the lower classes.
Let's face it. The Republican Party simply doesn't have the framework to produce truly viable solutions. The Republican framework went out on a limb far away from its small-government, self-responsibility platform too produce the solution of $600 stimulus checks, but the moderates working with a Non-Marxist radical democracy neo-populist framework wouldn't even have to go out on such a limb to produce a solution like the following;
- A government program that awards middle class homeowners, who are living beyond their means, for making the patriotic decision to sell their 4000 square foot house and buy a state-of-the-art high-tech automated 2000 square foot LEEDS certified, zero energy house or a similar low-risk duplex in their same school district and take the extra money to pay cash for restaurants and vacations instead of using credit cards. Instead of just $600 extra from a stimulus check to spend they would have at least $1500 - $1700 a month extra to spend living in the zero energy house instead of a conventional house. The savings would come from downsizing to a smaller house and eliminating the power bill, and greatly decreasing the water bill. They would have $3500 - $3700 extra dollars a month to spend if they move into a profitable LEEDS certified, zero energy duplex, where they rented the second duplex as landlords.
- Another government program could recycle the old 4000 square foot house into a 2000 square foot zero energy duplex, while the family lives in a hotel, or goes on vacation. This would be an inexpensive way for the government to cause an economic boon to mortgage companies, restaurants, and the travel industry.
While we are at it, we might as well say it, the Democratic Party does not have the framework to produce truly viable solutions either. US Automakers can't meet their immediate bills, so they give them a multi-billion dollar government bailout that will probably only delay the inevitable. The auto industry is just not sustainable enough, not in operations or and not their products. Problems:
In the near future, urban dwellers are going to be using less private transportation and more mass transportation as city planners seek to build communities where everything is within walking distance, and better mass transit systems. Computers and cooperatives are going to allow more people to telecommute from home, and less work commuting. The auto industry is not addressing these problems.
Commuters who continue to commute have needed cars that get at least 70 miles to the gallon since the 1960's, (when Global Warming was first discovered by scientist, and the technology for such cars was first invented). Rural planners hope to install technology along rural highways that can carry cars from town to town, like a giant conveyor belt. The auto industry is almost completely asleep at the wheel in addressing this problem, and when they aren't asleep at the wheel, they have not money to address it. The hybrid cars and SUV's that get 30 - 70 mpg are the only products that are currently being offered to the public that aren't completely asleep at the wheel.
Middle class people, and lower income people with bad credit simply can't afford the auto loan packages that are currently available. While some financial experts have come up with bad credit loans, and auto repair insurance, they have yet to invent anything in the auto industry that is comparable to the reverse mortgage for the elderly that the mortgage industry has invented.
Since the space travel industry has become mostly defunded by the government, and there is a demand for space travel amongst the very rich, instead of bailouts, a neo-populist framework could look at all of these problems and propose an auto industry merger with the aerospace industry, and the mass transportation industry. Mergers between some of the car companies would result in some job losses, but not as many as the auto industry filing for outright bankruptcy. They better meet the needs of their customers by canceling every model of motor vehicle that doesn't get more than 30 mpg by 2010 and then every model doesn't get more than no more than 40 mpg in 2015, and then every model that doesn't get more than no more than 50 mpg in 2017 etc...
How far better it would be to take a neo-populist approach and study cooperatives that have been successful over time, as well as the pitfalls of the populist of Nazi Germany (Nazi Germany had populists who thought that cooperatives had to be homogeneous; that they thought successful political groups had to have all of its members be the same race, in order to be successful). How far better to use the knowledge gained from that study to improve neo-populism, so that won't be a flash-in-the-pan effort. How far better to cancel every government program that we can, and replace it with some type of neo-populist government contract that allows people and communities to operate in an entrepreneurial capacity. Here is one more little example of how neo-populist framework can be applied to create other solutions;
...currently, if a woman with children under six years of age becomes impoverished she may choose to be supported by the US government instead of working outside of the home. This national divisive program is very unpopular with middle class workers, who often don't have an equitable standard of living as those being supported by the government, even if they are working two jobs. Those who are being supported by the government often have more food, nicer homes, better health care, and easier access to college for their kids, than those working two jobs can afford. This is especially true if they earn just a little too much to qualify for any government assistance and must pay for everything themselves. Middle class workers resent this because their high income taxes go to pay for the poor to have nicer things than they do. They are working hard and are still not able to achieve the American Dream, while at the same time much of their money goes to pay for better lives for the poor than they have.
Such government programs could be replaced with kibbutz-styled boarding school where impoverished women could live for free until they are able to secure an education and a job that would allow them to live independent of government assistance. These boarding schools could be run without government funds, if they follow the conventional kibbutz economic model. While rural kibbutz are usually flower farms that make enough money to support all of the families that live there, urban kibbutz are multi-family run hotels where all the families also live in one of the hotel buildings. Urban kibbutz also make enough money to support all of the families living there. Kibbutz have historically been of the few cooperative models that have not failed to succeed.
Such government programs could be replaced with kibbutz-styled boarding school where impoverished women could live for free until they are able to secure an education and a job that would allow them to live independent of government assistance. These boarding schools could be run without government funds, if they follow the conventional kibbutz economic model. While rural kibbutz are usually flower farms that make enough money to support all of the families that live there, urban kibbutz are multi-family run hotels where all the families also live in one of the hotel buildings. Urban kibbutz also make enough money to support all of the families living there. Kibbutz have historically been of the few cooperative models that have not failed to succeed.
There are at least 1000 solution like this that could save America. But we are not even thinking about trying them. No, we are saying 'Celebrate peace,' while the killing continues, and there will probably be even more death and even more destruction, because our solutions are much too superficial. Let the wise person hear and understand the times that we are in....
No comments:
Post a Comment