dagblog - Comments for "Princeton Scientific Study: America is No Longer a Democracy; It’s Now an Oligarchy"

Let me reword that. Rejecting

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:44:25 +0000

In reply to I'm afraid you're missing the

Let me reword that. Rejecting the status quo was a means of opening peoples' mind to alternatives AND the proposal of an alternative was a means of persuading people to reject the status quo. The two together are self-reinforcing. Either on its own is mostly useless.

I'm afraid you're missing the

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:27:49 +0000

In reply to You are quite correct that

I'm afraid you're missing the point of the historical examples. In all these reforms and revolutions, rejecting the status quo was not a means of opening peoples' mind to alternatives. To the contrary, the proposal of an alternative was a means of persuading people to reject the status quo.

You are quite correct that

Peter — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:36:09 +0000

In reply to Yet both the abolitionists

You are quite correct that "rejection of the status quo is not enough" but it is the first step necessary to free your mind from the limitations imposed by the Gatekeepers. The Ruling Class fear and loathe the idea of people thinking freely because they might begin to act as free beings and join with other like minded people to resist and even overthrow the Oligarchy. There is nothing that the Ruling Class fear more than the Mob, the seething mass of humanity not reined and trained to know their place, voicing the quaint notion that people have the right and ability to rule themselves.

What would you do or have us

moat — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 02:23:26 +0000

In reply to Your AA analogy may be more

What would you do or have us do that would not be counted as selfish defense of the status quo?

Yet both the abolitionists

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 02:22:15 +0000

In reply to Your AA analogy may be more

Yet both the abolitionists and the socialists attached positive visions to their rejections of the status quo. The abolitionists' idea was relatively simple--freedom for all people--while the socialists' idea was complex and sweeping. That's why the socialists were so much more influential than the anarchists, who were active at the same time but failed to articulate a compelling alternative to the status quo.

In other words, rejection of the status quo is not enough.

Your AA analogy may be more

Peter — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 00:17:01 +0000

In reply to Before any "solution" can be

Your AA analogy may be more apt than you think, Michael, people cling to their illusions and belief in myths, like a drinker to his bottle. Two of your examples, slavery and Marxism make my argument for me, both required rejection of the status quo and required armed conflict. I have watched for 40yrs as progressive groups have pushed for reform and they have lost most every battle while the Oligarchs have steadily increased their power and control. Working within the corrupt system for reform has failed miserably and continuing to do so invites more failure. I understand the tendency for people who depend on the status quo for their security to hide from the reality of the Princeton Report or to become reactionary and dismissive but these are selfish motivations that must be overcome or the Oligarchs win.

Acknowledging an oligarchy =

Anonymous PP — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 23:16:41 +0000

In reply to Before any "solution" can be

Acknowledging an oligarchy = "powerless"?

Some of the country's

trkingmomoe — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 21:34:16 +0000

In reply to Princeton Scientific Study: America is No Longer a Democracy; It’s Now an Oligarchy

Some of the country's population don't know what the term oligarchy means but they are aware of the fact that the fat cats have all the money and power. There is a push back at work right now in the country. It is in the grass roots activism that is getting traction. This is why they are creating voter suppression. The general public may not be aware that some of the members of SCOTUS should be brought up on ethics charges because of their attendance at ALEC meetings and workshops. But they do know that Citizen United ruling is wrong and the redefining the VRA so there can be more voter suppression is wrong.

OWS changed the focus on deficits to income gap. It forced the media and congress members a way from chained CPI to reduce SSI. It shined a spot light on gross over payment of wages to CEOs. It brought to light the 1% and the plutocrats. It made the government aware of the fact that the population did not like the way the banking industry got away with crimes. It changed the conversation to how immoral their attitude was towards the lower economical classes in this country.

People know that congress is not responding to their needs and only responding to the fat cats that pay their way into office. They also know there is corruption at the state level and we are seeing a push back there. There are grand juries in several states looking at Governors that may have miss handled their office. We used to only see this once in a while and now there are several the country is focused on.

Will this power of the rich continue? No because people are growing tired of it.

Before any "solution" can be

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 20:32:41 +0000

In reply to Before any "solution" can be

Before any "solution" can be formulated enough people have to give up their illusions, that we have a functioning Democracy, and face the reality that we are ruled by an Oligarchy.

Sounds like AA for the downtrodden. Step 1: We admitted we were powerless over government—that our nation had become unmanageable.

While this may be applicable to individuals, it doesn't work on societal scale. Successful reform movements always start small, and they always supplement social critiques with ambitious proposals. Martin Luther and John Calvin did not wait for Europe to abandon the Church before they laid out the tenants of Protestantism. The abolitionists did not wait for Americans to acknowledge the depravity of slavery when they began fighting for its eradication. Marx did not wait for the general public to reject capitalism when he wrote Das Kapital. The first progressives did not wait for the public to reject party machines and laissez-faire markets when they began advocating progressive reforms.

In these cases and many others, the articulation of a better alternative helped show the public how bad things had become and offered them a cause to rally around. That is not to say there is anything wrong with social critiques like this one, but a social critique without a solution cannot galvanize the masses.

I guess you think everybody

rmrd0000 — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 20:02:48 +0000

In reply to This post isn't about me,

I guess you think everybody was asleep when background checks were considered reasonable by a majority including gun owners. You may remember that it occurred after a massacre of children. Congress did nothing. People realize the situation.

Your approach is to tell us what we already know, criticize us, and then proudly announce that you have no solutions.

People can push back. Public push back quieted the drumbeat to crank up aggression with Syria. Public pushback got a Stop and a Frisk altered in NYC. Public awareness may keep Koch financed Rep Cotton from becoming a Senator in Arkansas.

Yell at us when you have answers. People are already paying attention.