An Article by:
Ben Tanosborn

No gold watch for Alan Greenspan as he retired from serving the elite – we can hardly call it public service!  After almost two decades as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, this Robin Hood for the rich and powerful was bestowed, as he was about to step down, the highest honor in the land – now shrinking in prestige at about the same pace as the United States dollar – the Medal of Freedom.
Now, two and a half years later, as this nation is mired in a recession which is likely to turn into a prolonged economic disaster, something which Mr. Greenspan almost single-handedly brought about, the laudatory decibels for this low talker, and mumbler, have gone down considerably.  Of course, he’ll never lose the admiration and gratitude of those he ended up serving so well: the powerful elite and the aspiring affluentocracy.  Americans in those two groups, flag pins on their lapels, still consider him an economic wizard.  But more than a wizard, he should be dubbed as the rich man’s Santa Claus.

Wizard… what a crock!  An accomplished musician turned into a mediocre economist at best, but with the boot-licking capacity of a male courtesan to American presidents, from Reagan to Bush Son.  A prestidigitator with a facility for gentle criticism; a coiner of cute names for dire situations; misleader via inappropriate numbers and gobbledygook, Greenspan was not the economic genius Wall Street and government leaders portrayed him to be… far from it.  He was definitely no economic rainmaker for America, only a charlatan with a dowser!  Let’s just say that as inhumane as Shrub’s foreign policy has been towards Palestine and the rest of the Middle East, the former saxophone player’s economic policy has proven to be just as genocidal; something the American citizen is finally beginning to experience.  And they have barely let the lions out of their cages at the Coliseum!

Already six to nine months into the recession, government leaders are still telling us that it is just a period of slow growth, a pit stop in this economic race that we’ll eventually win, so worry not, my friend.  That explains to us what “garbage numbers” government is using to rose-color the state of the economy in terms of growth, unemployment and inflation.  We are probably the most lied-to people by their government on the planet, at least among presumably developed and educated nations.

Gullible us!

No matter what Bernanke, Greenspan’s successor, or Treasury Secretary Paulson tell us, we have already entered an epic bear global market the likes of which take us back three generations.  But then WWII was able to bail us out since our economy was half of the world’s… and we were the international creators of wealth and credit, our economic and social well-being then based on savings, not just spending.   Now we produce weaponry, and little else, in a planet which certainly doesn’t need it… and in a global economy where we appear to be an increasingly less important player.  Months we are told before things will start to turn around.  Optimists, you say?  Try liars!

And, please, don’t just point the finger at the sub-prime mortgage loans, house flippers and proverbial greed in the real estate industry.  That was just the catalyst, for our entire economy was out of control or, rather, lacking in proper controls.  Home-ownership as part of the American dream has always been a questionable policy before, and one completely foolhardy as our nation adopted globalization.  Sure, realtors and politicians gained by proclaiming such idiocy – and still do – but the reality is quite different as it only redistributes wealth via tax sheltering; creates a less mobile society, worsening unemployment; and really slams the brakes on economic growth.  People have been brainwashed to think this simple shelter should be equated to both savings and investment in a truly disproportionate way; and that’s the kind of mentality that got us to where we are today.  Not just the abandoned, foreclosed homes, but there still remains a multi-trillion dollar overvaluation in “normal” housing, pseudo-wealth, which because of owners’ psychological inelasticity to the “loss of wealth” will be either eroded slowly by inflation, or lost overnight as people are forced to sell… whatever the reason.

Even Britain has phased out in a two-decade period of tax-sheltering in housing… and we seem to be among the last in the world to accept its regressive concept.  Let’s face it, these misnomers of “ownership society” and “popular capitalism” are but the elite’s way to confuse and enslave an already servile society… simply with clever PR.

There were a few of us during the past decade who questioned Greenspan’s sanity in going overboard granting easy credit to stimulate the economy solely through housing; a good chunk of the money used: unrealized interest from savings seniors had faithfully accumulated during a lifetime; seniors de facto forced to be donors to an industry which turned out to be not just obscenely greedy but predatory as well.
I hope this to be the last time I write about Mr. Greenspan… he has proved to be all the negative things I always wrote he was.  That doesn’t make me a visionary… but makes him either a fool, or a practitioner of deception; or maybe both.

Can anyone fathom greater recent blunders than Paul Bremer’s disbanding of the Iraqi army as he was made “governor” of Iraq… or Alan Greenspan’s monetary policy during his last five years as head of the Fed?  Well, if you are an American and can come up with one, even if of lesser magnitude… there is a Medal of Freedom waiting to be bestowed on you.  At the Kennedy Center in Washington DC… by George W. Bush!

Tags: Ben Tanosborn, economics, economists, government, labor
Categories: Commentary, Economics, government, Labor, Ben Tanosborn
No Comments »

 Introduction to American Radicalized Sociopolitical Movements in Informationalism and the Network Society

a working paper by

Russell Cole

After becoming versed in this typically neglected aspect to the American story [Populism and the People’s Party], I became fixated on the truly unique poignancy it deserved in any narration of American sociopolitical history; one characterized, in most every other instance, as a historical rendering that has obfuscated class; economic inequality; as well as stratifications extant within sociopolitical institutions; all of which can be conceptualized – although they rarely happen to be – along patrician and plebeian dimensions. This stratification has persisted for so long and it has had such a profound influence upon the cultural codes circulating through American social formations that it has gone unmarked in the preponderance of American discourse.

It should not be understated the impact that implicit sociocultural traditions have upon the surface reality, the veneer of American politics. As Tocqueville pointed to, Americans rarely voiced radicalized sentiments toward their sociopolitical institutions and their operations. In fact, as he considered, American democracy – in the form it assumed – might not be possible without such willing obedience among the population of America.

The deferential posture that Americans have been conditioned to assume in relation to civil and political institutions reinforces this lack of discursive treatment of a society divided along elitist and commoner lines. American history, by and large, has been accounted for under the pre-determinacy of Whiggishness, discounting enduring quasi-caste distinctions as if they are temporal aberrations, epiphenomena to an underlying narrative that ultimately tells of America’s advancement toward an increasingly democratic condition. There are, of course, notable exceptions to American Whig renditions of history, such as The People’s History of the United States. However, another treatment of these issues is by no means a contribution to an already saturated field of political sociological inquiry.

Coming to Terms with Populism

As both a result of my new interest in an organization that called itself the Populist Party of America as well as a family history - although fairly distant at this point in time - that included political participation in populism - I began researching the history of this movement, which presented itself in its fullest embodiment in the form of the People’s Party. After becoming versed in populism, I was awe struck at what appeared to be an under treated anomaly when in taken in the purview of the overall course of American sociopolitical history: a narrative that persistently omits accounts of sociopolitical and economic inequality; a lack of criticality that contributes to a facade of civic egalitarianism originally manifested in what has become the persisting mythology of Jeffersonian republicanism. This false ideology configures a conceptualization of American political relations, which neglects to recognize the influences had upon political opportunity by the material conditions belonging to the economy.

The Jefferson’s early articulation of Libertarianism exclaimed the virtues of the citizen agriculturalist; a body collectively composed of citizens who stood side by side one another in lateral sociopolitical uniformity. Thus economic class was left unconceived in the Jeffersonian account of American sociopolitical relations, and, needless to say, such an account failed to address the impact that economic inequalities, or class, had upon the feasibility of each citizen coequally affecting the public policies of the American state[4].

Populism – as it was incepted in economic affairs of the Midwestern and Southern farmer in the latter part of the Nineteenth Century – was an emergent pattern of economically directed intellectualism, which – through processes of its development – came to identify itself as a political movement with a more prodigious agenda than mere economic reform. Furthermore, it was a consequence of organic intellectual social processes. By that, populism culminated largely out of social mechanisms that existed independently from the institutional guard belonging to the Academe and other vested interests. Of course, populism was affected by Marxism, and, on occasion, in some of its expressions, it appeared proto-Marxist. However, the populist critiques of the economy and, in particular, the finance and monetary systems proved to be not only original and penetrating, but, additionally, they ultimately served as the precipitants of economic reforms that had lasting legacies.

For instance, the contemporary conceptualization of the free-market is heavily indebted to the populist movement in America. It was through populism that legislative fixtures intended to promote free-market competition, such as anti-trust and anti-monopolistic statutes, came to regulate the practices of capitalist interests. Indeed, we can go so far as to say that it was through populism that the modern conception of the free-market came about. Even more, it was due to its emphasis upon a competitive market[5] that the Democratic Party was amenable to the infusion of the populist ideology into its platform, which would come to mark its public disposition throughout the first half of the Twentieth Century. I realize that many students of American political history would delineate among the Populist era: the period when Bryan was the leading figure; and the Progressive era – associated with Wilson, as well as, the New Deal, which, of course, was the domestic policy of FDR. No matter, as John Gerring has demonstrated through a careful content analysis of American Party rhetoric, the consistencies among the three proposed eras out-weighed the significance of the differences demonstrable in the three proposed historical periods of Democratic Party ideology.

Many discount the ethical accomplishments of the People’s Party, which was the first to embrace multiple racial identities; the first to include women in its organizations, prior even to Women’s suffrage; and the first to demand in a recognizable voice the democratization of various political institutions that had been, till then, the decision-making province of political elites. Recourse to the denial of populism as an event that demonstrated advanced ethical and moral sensibilities on the part of its conceivers, promoters, and adherents is typically sought through citing aspects of the multi-faceted social critique leveled by populism, with the intended result of identifying internal inconsistencies in the populist ideology.

For instance, one of the more prevalent criticisms of populism is that it reflected a racial tolerance while, concurrently, possessing a nativist agenda. However, this criticism speaks more of the lack of analytical faculties by those who make such a claim as it points to the lack of sophistication in the populist social critique formed in reflection of the American gilded age. I am always dumbfounded each and every time I find myself explaining to detractors of populism that there is no a priori analytical relationship between nativism and racism. Although there might be empirical relationships between the two conditions, where nativists tend also to be racists, this has nothing to do with the People’s Party, per se. America was already a multi-racial society prior to populism’s emergence, and the nativist policies taken up in the advocacies of the People’s Party were not latent with racial discrimination. Objecting to undesirable immigration is not necessarily predicated upon race. Instead, as in the case of the People’s Party, it was based upon the impact that particular elements of any society might bring about if permitted to migrate to the United States.

Additionally, and this should be apparent to anyone who has expended any efforts, at all, when attempting to come to terms with American immigration – despite the conventional wisdom, belonging to American economics – which we are persistently instructed to embrace and believe – immigration does not proportionally benefit all sectors of the economy. One such group that certainly does not experience positive outcomes resulting from immigration consists of those who dwell in the middle and lower tiers of the labor market. Immigration both diminishes the value of labor in every sector of the economy to which its skills happen to apply, as well as, posing obstructions to the successful formation of cooperative institutions, either constituting organized labor, or qualifying as the financial cooperatives, such as credit unions, that leverage the monetary resources of those who are excluded from the many implicit trusts that dominate the financial industries controlled by organized-capitalism.

Indeed, the recent revelations concerning the use of Visas for the import of labor to be employed in the technology sectors of the economy reinforces the conclusion that immigration is not advantageous for labor. Despite the conventional wisdom, as it turns out, the overwhelming preponderance of Information Technology workers who are allowed entry into the United States are in the lower strata of the technocratic hierarchy comprised of Information Technology laborers. Therefore, America is not taking in the best and the brightest; rather, corporate America is merely increasing productivity by importing cheap labor that is only qualified to work in the most entry level of positions in an organization’s IT infrastructure. This – topped with the fact that wage stagnation, in recent history, has been an enduring feature of the employment market for the middle and working classes – indicates that immigration is only beneficial for those who dwell in the higher socio-economic tiers of American social relations; the ownership classes belonging to corporate America.

Another ill conceived critique of populism consists of instances where commentators remark upon the internal inconsistency of populism’s anti-statism along with many of its ‘socialist’ sentiments. It is true that populism called for the nationalization of the railroading industry as well as the banking industry. However, unlike what nearly amounts to ideological absolutism on the part of contemporary Libertarians, the populists were not constrained when devising possible solutions for social problems by a conviction that all instances of government should be curtailed, even in scenarios where the absence of government intervention appears to create a more undesirable social condition. Additionally, populism and its instances of economic cooperatives is more an expression of anarchistic sensibilities than anything approaching socialism. Certainly, no one can credibly contend that organic cooperatives intended to extricate the American farmer from his social positioning that amounted to serfdom was motivated out of an affinity of statist institutions. Indeed, it was only until such endeavors proved to be ineffective against the trusts that had been established by organized-capitalism that the populist movement became politicized.

This is not to say that populism – especially when taken up by the Democratic Party – did not come to reflect a pro-statist position on the majority of matters qualifying as issues of public concern. Nevertheless, this ideological posture on the part of Democratic populists was perceived as a necessity in order to guard against the publicly harmful excesses of what came to be called “predator elites” in the economy. To paraphrase The Great Commoner; also known as William Jennings Bryan:

Men are the creation of God. Corporations are the creation of man, and what man creates man can destroy.

In respect to this – which can be identified with less ambiguity as the regulatory measures needed to quell the popularly harmful greed of the corporation – that the adoption of a pro-statist approach toward public policy reveals its real character: Government was a device of necessity, and the pro-statism of the Democratic populists should not be conflated – in its interpretation - with the authoritarianism embodied by the Whig-Republicans and their mercantilist conception of political and economic social relationships.

Finally, what more that can be said about populism arises from an inference that is generated from mechanisms that are alien to the processes of scholarly research, but deserves mentioning, nonetheless. The populist movement seemed to stimulate the activation of ethical dispositions belonging to the social characters of those who would come to be participate in this movement. Individuals, whose ideologies had been immured in white supremacist backdrops, eventually identified with African-Americans, as social agents with whom they suffered the exploitations engendered by common same social conditions. In fact, there are accounts of former slave owners coming to advance the causes of African-Americans by serving as chairs to African-American farmer alliances.

Therefore, rather than specifically addressing fabricated shortcomings of the People’s Party, it is more worthwhile for a student of political sociology to treat the aspects belonging to this movement that set it apart from nearly all other facets of the American experience. Specifically, what strikes the attention of the epistemic agent – who is not predisposed to dismiss the accomplishments of the various farmer alliances and the People’s Party, which they came to establish – is the fact that these dissolute, degraded, and politically inexperienced agrarians could come to mount the most redoubtable third-party insurgence to the duopoly embedded in partisan politics in the whole of American history.

Families in the Midwest and South – who dwelled in a social condition where observances of women and children afoot in bare feet was commonplace – arose from a state of sociopolitical ignorance to one of penetrating insight and criticism upon American social relations. Even more, the political ideology developed by populists was emergent, composed from intellectual processes that were organic. Additionally, the populists were faced – when developing this intellectual formation – with constructing their own social institutions through which their knowledge could be manufactured as well as disseminated. Journals needed to be published and circulated. Travelling lecturers had to be trained and financially supported. Financial schemes had to be creatively fostered a deployed in an attempt to coerce other economic agencies into bargaining directly with the farmer alliances, so that the trust under which the crop-lean system[6] was actualized and enacted could be overcome. Finally, populism transcended sectionalisms – which were the by-products of superficial material conflicts in American society, such as white supremacy and its opposition to African-American interests – in order for African-Americans as well as Southern Whites to attend the same gatherings and applaud enthusiastically as the political orator explained racism as an instrument used by Southern elites to deflect the attention of the farmers from their real adversaries, whom Blacks and Whites commonly faced.

The Contemporary Significance of Populism

Recently, I had listened to a service given by a Unitarian Church in New York, which commemorated the outing of the Pentagon Papers. At this service, I became audience to descriptions of the subversive inner-workings of activists responsible for the publication of these documents, which were entered into the Congressional Record by Gravel, and, finally, published in book form by a Unitarian publishing syndicate. I was struck by words that were spoken in reference to Gravel that remarked upon an aspect to American culture where Americans are taught – from the time they assume comfort upon a parent’s lap – to, “avoid looking silly,” or foolish; to avoid orating that which strays beyond the comfortable parameters of orthodoxy. According to the wisdom embedded in this shared stock of social knowledge, not adhering to such standards would render the speaker as suspect to aspersions labeling him or her as a crackpot or a voice from the margins of society to be dismissed, because he or she conveys sentiments that are outside of the recognizable: the familiar domestic environment qualifying as the mainstream.[i]

In contrast to the insightful words spoken of Gravel and his current candidacy for the Democratic Nomination, in recent weeks, I have also heard a speech given by Bill Clinton during the memorial for Arthur Schlesinger. Clinton’s - in remarks that can only be interpreted as self-congratulatory - lauded Lincoln, who had also given oratory at the theater where the service was being held, for attempting to reach out to the, “Great American center,” prior to the collapse of the Nation into civil war. According to Clinton, Lincoln’s initial attempt to avoid confrontation, by remaining amenable to slavery as long as it did not extend into new territories and states, demonstrated an understanding of the great American center and how it allows for progress to be made during intervals belonging to a larger cyclical pattern; where the mushy middle of American politics would slightly tip its balance toward the Left or toward the Right. During instances where the Left was favored, small, incremental steps of progress could be made. However, it required a savvy leader who could continue to appeal to the middle, in order to coax the Country in the right direction without inciting a backlash by introducing proposals that were too radical, which would entail too abrupt a departure from the trails that had already been worn into easily transverse paths.

What are we to make out of these two contrasting stylizations of political existentiality? It is in respect to this question - more than anything else - that has led me to firmly believe that populism has a role to play in the development of the sociology of democracy. My understandings of populism are primarily derived from the historian, Goodwyn, who possessed the uncommon tenacity for summarizing the necessary antecedents for an authentically democratic insurgency to unfold: First, a group must obtain the institutional autonomy needed to formulate a conceptualization of sociopolitical mechanisms operative in a political structure, which foments in contradistinction, and in to varying extent, opposition to the preemptive orders of knowledge and the sociopolitical institutions that are arranged under the cloak of legitimacy derived from these hegemonic discourses. However, as Goodwyn wisely points out, such a development - an alternative episteme - is not, in and of itself, sufficient for democratic insurgency. In America in particular, there is a long untreated - yet, all too pervasive - posture of deference habitually assumed by commoners in relations to the established institutional guards of sociopolitical power. Without a shaking off of the deference toward institutions of the old guard encumbering the shoulders of those - who have long been conditioned to internalize the identity of plebiscite - the provision of an alternative interpretation of the Human Condition - currently embodied in the way things stand - would fail to incite the mobilizing of masses.

According to this parsimonious and elegant rendering of the necessary conditions for a democratic insurgency to take root, Goodwyn goes on in his minor masterpiece, A Short History of the Agrarian Revolt, to catalog the events that culminated in the establishment of the People’s Party. The process that resulted in the type of psychic characteristics necessary for democratic insurgency was a slow incremental process, involving quite a few setbacks and failures on the part of the various farming alliances as they initially endeavored to extricate their members from the crop lien system, which basically amounted to a trust comprised of financial interests along with manufacturing - both of which maintained credit as well as distributional relationships with local town agents, who dealt directly with the farmers. These relationships that were established and protected by the these interests precluded the farmers from entering into the necessary financing arrangements for them to bypass the insufferable arrangements imposed upon them by the local town agents, who extorted as much as possible from the farmers each time the farmer was forced to obtain credit for the oncoming year.

It is in these considerations that Web 2.0 assumes significance. The democratization of representational spaces in civil society fosters both the intellectual autonomy necessary to form alternative sociopolitical interpretations as well as the political self-respect necessary to abandon to the deferential posture assumed in relation to the institutions of the old guard.

[1] The Green Party has associations with other Green Parties that exist in other states around the globe. However, these relationships are loosely defined and often more symbolic than anything else.

[2] The Populist Party of America is a micro-party that was incepted 2002, and is based in Las Angeles. At this point in time – with some exceptions – it is a virtual community that is radicalized. The exceptions consist of activism – involving activities such as the distribution of literature – that has taken place in the Las Angeles area.

[3] Grounded Theory is the approach that is typically assumed by sociologists who perform ethnography

[4] As Charles Goodwyn has pointed out, the Jeffersonian ideology was a major obstacle to the political radicalization of the populist movement.

[5] Free-trade was a staple of the Democratic ideology during the period when it opposed the mercantilist protectionism of the Whig-Republicans.

[6] The crop-lean system was enacted by the trust of economic relationships assumed by financial firms, manufacturers, and local town agents, who extorted farmers for as great as a share of the yearly productions of agricultural commodities by withholding credit that was necessary for the farmer to procure the manufactured supplies that were a requisite for planting and harvesting in the oncoming season.

[i] The Pentagon Papers Then and Now: Unitarian Universalists Confronting Government Secrecy

http://www.uua.org/events/generalassembly/2007/presentations/30971.shtml; UUA

Tags: constitution, corporations, democracy, direct democracy, economics, education, Farmers, government, history, labor, legislation, politics, populist party, self governance, Social Change, society, sociology, third parties
Categories: Commentary, Economics, Society, Populist Party, Democracy, constitution, government, Education, self-governance, Politics, Third Parties, Legislation, Labor, Farmers, Corporations, Direct Democracy, Social Change, Sociology, History
No Comments »

The need for direct democracy in America has never been more apparent than it is right now. We - the populace - are left impotent as the politicians whom we elected to office as representatives neglect to embody in their advocacies the will and interests that we - the American Public - possess, whose demands for a withdrawal from Iraq; whose oppositions to the advancing diminution of civil liberties; whose sentiments concerning illegal immigration; are all falling upon the unreceptive ears of the Congress and the White House.

It has become clear following the Democratic procurement of power in the two Congressional bodies that the people of America do not have a voice in the affairs of their government. Despite the lofty declarations of intent enunciated by the Democratic leadership during the campaigns leading to the expulsion of Republicans from Congress, the Democrats have delivered nothing.

For example, the marginal increase in the minimum wage successfully installed by the Democrats is absolutely meaningless, since most States have already passed legislation rasing their own minimum wages to levels that exceed the hike enacted by the Democrats in the House and in the Senate. Furthermore, the additional sum specified in the legislation fails to amount to anything approximating a living wage. Therefore, what is the point? since those unfortunate enough to be working for minimum wage will continue to need assistance from government services, and - despite the hours and frenetic intensities at which they toil at their occupations - they will fail to accumulate the resources necessary to reinvest in themselves - through education or entrepreneurial ventures - so that they might ascend to a higher stratum within the American socio-economic stratifications.

Another instance of Democratic ineptitude involved the abundance of time that was wasted in the legislator-deal-making charade of representative democracy, which only resulted in a stunning failure to pass immigration reform. This demonstration of astoundingly acute incompetences on the parts of the Democratic and Republican leadership in the Senate will always have a place in the recesses of my memory due to the gaspingly condescending and equally idiotic speech given by Harry Reid, where he quoted Dr. Sues at length in an ill conceived rhetorical ploy to make his enormously convoluted, internally contradicting, and substantively hollow piece of legislation appear to be a pending bill that even a child could recognize as meritorious legislation in need of passing by Congress.

Reid’s lengthy quotation from a children’s book even outdid his previous remarks in support of legalizing illegal immigration, where he alluded to the need of casinos in his own State of Nevada not to lose their workforce of Latino maids. Although I certainly have sympathy for the Latino migrants who are exploited by the Las Vegas gambling industry, I cannot imagine a sector in the United States economy for which I could possibly possess less concern.

It is a wonder how this self-righteous idiot - the Senate Majority Leader - not only obtained his seat in the Senate, but came to control the Democratic caucus in this esteemed deliberative body.

To push on beyond Reid, we can cite the Democratic concessions to the White House with respect to the funding of the Iraq War. In defiance of the campaign promises that propelled the Democrats into power in the Congress, the Democrats in the House and Senate have given the Bush Administration exactly what it has insisted upon in form of the supplemental funding bills needed to persist in the financing of this black hole that has formed in what was previously the sovereign state of Iraq.

And finally, to top things off, the Democrats have passed a bill that was advertised as the modernization of FISA, which, in actuality, had nothing to do with revamping FISA in order for it to adequately address new technologies; rather, the legislation merely dismantled and discarded with significant aspects of the oversight that was previously performed by FISA. In short, going over and beyond even what was requested by the Imperial Presidency, the Democrats gave powers to the Executive Branch to monitor the activities of citizens without any oversight or check by the Judicial Branch of Government.

It has become clear that the Democratic Party presents no alternative venue of political representation for those of us who had, heretofore, perceived the Republican Party as the real threat to American civil liberties and economic prosperity. I think, at this point, we should feel compelled to accept what has become ostensible: America is not a democracy in any sense of the word. Remember, the Soviet Empire had elections, as well. However, similarly to the condition of American politics, the mere casting of a vote in an election had little or no consequence because, ultimately, government and its administration of public policies would be entirely the same no matter who came to be elected in the various branches of polity.

Russell Cole

Tags: bush, congress, democracy, Democrats, direct democracy, economics, government, labor, political parties, politics, Russell Coles Blog
Categories: Commentary, Economics, Democracy, government, Russell Cole's Blog, Politics, Congress, Labor, Direct Democracy
No Comments »

The overly optimistic assessments of the economic conditions that are accompanying the communicative innovations associated with the Information Age; a transition to the Human State of Affairs precipitated by the digitalization of documents and the information they express; falls flat on the face when challenged with the empirical reality in which laborers now find themselves. The fastest growing demographic in American society are single females - working for the modest salary of $20,000 to $30,000 - who tend to relocate every 3 to 5 years.  I submit that the nomadic existence that is suffered by so many in the contemporary workforce - who go from job to job as contingent, contractual labor - is a direct consequence of the flattening of labor markets, which is, in turn, a manifestation of the expansion of digital communications.  As much as individuals enjoy the flexible working environments - a rhetorical device used to promote the casual workers labor market - I think that they would prefer to have access to medical coverage, not to mentioned a sustained expectation of a niche in the economy; a benefit that more and more Americans are finding to be in a state of scarcity. 
With this said, I will republish one of the most significant works that have been published on this site -yet, all too overlooked - by an Australian sociologist, who was influential in the original shaping of this Web design and content management project. The following is an extract from a contribution by Bill Templer:
“hard work, competition, motivation, self-reliance, flexibility, boldness, daringness, innovation and success…essential components of the entrepreneurial individual” (Kenny 1999 p. 54).
Great on the surface, but what of those people that don’t possess the education, skills and mindset to become entrepreneur’s? They get left behind! We are no longer creatures of the jungle where only the strong survive; we formed civilised society so that we could work together and help those that are weaker, slower and disadvantaged. Why? Because it is in our best interests and we will achieve a lot more together than alone!
This enterprise culture has manifested itself in Australian employment policies with the introduction of Australian Workplace Agreements (AWA’s), the promotion of contract labour, a decrease in collective bargaining and an increase in casual labour. These policies are articulated as “providing flexibility and choice to Australian workers”, “everyone can be their own boss, while promoting economic growth for the great nation that is Australia.”
However, there are a few things that stand in the way of this growth, mainly the liability that is paying workers unnecessary benefits such as holiday pay, sick pay and overtime. But the one thing that provides the greatest obstacle to the implementation of these policies is a unified force of workers; together, we would never accept policies that hurt us, but alone, there is not much we can do.
We have to start making our collective voice heard, whether it be by joining a union or taking part in this forum, or dobbing in a dodgy boss [informing on a tricky boss]; We can fight for a fair go, for a decent share of the profits of our employers and for decent working conditions, But we must do it together. CASUAL WORKERS. UNITE!

Tags: casual workers, economics, Farmers, labor, Midwest, unions, workers
Categories: Commentary, Midwest, Economics, Labor, Farmers
No Comments »

Episteme 2.0

A study in the sociology of mass media and the sociology of social movements; both directed upon the emerging venue of mass communications, referenced as the World Wide Web, explor­ing the transformation of sociopolitical possibilities engendered by the proliferation of a represen­tational space that is largely free from institutional gate-keeping devices and a means of publicity that is easily accessible and obtainable by a vastly greater proportion of the population

Forward to Episteme 2.0

Abstract

The forward of the document will outline the scope of the study - including the relationships of the research to preexisting literature, also devoted to the subjects referenced in the content matter herein. In short, the executive summary will serve as a type of abstract. However, since the doc­ument object, abstract, is typically not included in the contents of manuscripts that purport to be more than articles, the deployment of the artifice, forward, is more appropriate in this context; a document object that entails many of the same significations; however, it allows for greater flexi­bility when it comes to the duration and specificity of the content.

Scope and Objectives

This document expresses an assessment of the prospects for the Human Condition in the emerging epoch termed by Castells as the Network Society. The study is not a foray into futurism; nor, does the document constitute a relapse into the absolutism¹ of historicism, and the ideological dogma that it inspires. The document and its flow of contents explores a field of diverse possibilities that are hypothesized to exist and reside in the current social configuration - which, of course, is a material and ideological formation that has connections to the past; a pro­cess that currently instantiates a field of potential trajectories that, presumably, can be actualize through the way we orient and posture ourselves in the present in order to react and contend with the contingencies arising from our historical situated-ness; thus shaping the unfolding of the future in the most informed and equipped manner, according to the aesthetics² most desirable.

More germane to the interests of this paper, however, are the unconventional tactics employed - to certain extents - by the movement in order to actualize some of the conditions defined by its teleology. The formation of collectivities in response to the inaccessibility of capital - a circum­stance attributed to the Gold Standard³ of currency evaluation, which had consequences for farmers, preventing them access to necessary sources insurance against the risks involved in the production of agricultural commodities. Specifically, the inclusion of this historical narrative contributes to a theme that appears to be emerging in the sociology of social movements, which has taken a detour from the stock of knowledge - comprising its long established conventional wisdom, which presumed the success of social movements to be the consequent of antecedents including the networking resources though which the movement could affect the decision-making of elites responsible for the formation and administration of public policy - in order to come to terms with developments in Latin America. Although the abandonment of the macro-oriented pol­icy strategies characterizing the neoliberal ideology of global consortium, such as the World Monetary Fund, in pursuit of local, organic initiatives certainly is a recognizable factor operative in the dynamics culminating into the mass electoral mobilization, which lead to the usurpations of legitimate sociolopolitical power by populist socialist movements in Latin America, the ability of the successful social movements to opportunize off of the Social Capital produced by activism conducted at the local level - identically - cannot be ignored⁴. The social movements - and this might be considered an attribute belonging to the connotative definition expressed in the sociological analytics of social movements - of course, were not social formations with the degrees of institutionalization needed to qualify them as organizations - in the sociological sense of the word - although they certainly did and continue to possess a form of organization - rather, the associations⁵ among agents contributing to these movements constitute - if anything - instances of networking, which, in these instances, transcended nation-states and their geo­graphical parameters.

The problem, as defined in this document, is relevant to the current activities typically referred to as Net-roots Activism⁶; a form of networking conducted through the communicative possibilities precipitated by the growth of Informationalism.

Tags: direct democracy, economics, Farmers, government, history, labor, media, Midwest, politics, populist party, Russell Coles Blog, Social Change, society, sociology, sociology web 2.0, sociopolitical institutions, third parties, web 2.0
Categories: Commentary, Midwest, Economics, Society, Populist Party, government, Russell Cole's Blog, Web 2.0, Politics, Third Parties, Labor, Farmers, Direct Democracy, Social Change, Media, Sociology, History
No Comments »

I feel compelled to continue to plead for a dialog concerning illegal immigration that extends beyond the bombastic PC oratory that is projected, oftentimes, by members of American society that do not suffer from the economic impact that the constant influx of cheap labor manifests.

Economists, as they always do in respect to contentious issues, have taken a manifold of positions regarding the benefits or detriments of illegal immigration.  However, I can state that the economists who support the opening of the border with Mexico appear to deploy justifications, such as, immigrant labor forces those without highschool degrees to further their education, so to ascend to employment niches that require technical skills, and, accordingly, pay better.

This type of rationalization on the part of those who advocate an open-border with Mexico seems to me, at least, to be as callous, if not more so, than those who want to establish legislation, making illegal immigration a felony.  To compound the effects of this rhetoric upon popular-opinion, media sources are parading small to middle sized business owners, who claim that they would not have a work force without a stream of temporary labor.

Never do the interviewers query the petite capitalists as to the amount of income that they extract from their operations on a yearly basis, in order to assess whether a rather severe reduction of the profiteering conducted by the owners of the modes of production might provide for the opportunity to attract American citizens to assume these labor capacities by offering a living-wage.  Therefore, from the failure to disclose such pertinent information, the population is proferred a tilted narration, including only limited content, in regards to the multiplicity of aspects that demand consideration, when externalizing the experiences of the people who stand to either profit from an open-border or descend deeper into financial distitude.

Further, not once have I observed an interview with a member of the African-American urban communities, in order to reveal the negative effects that this constant injection of bodies into the unskilled labor-market has upon their earning potential as well as their ability to even procure a job.  I, over the years, have worked in various warehouses, as a teamster, and I can testify, from my own experiences, that the individuals who take these jobs have families consisting of dependents, and so forth.

This is why I become infuriated when I read yet another inflamatory essay by a member of the New-left establishment who claims that any opposition to illegal immigration is an embodiment of a racist, white-supremist ideology.  What do these people know about the effects of illegal immigration?  They exist outside the deplorable conditions in which the people, who must compete with this continuous exportation of another country’s underclass, live.

Additionally, the rhetoric, consisting of platitudes and hyberbole, expoused by these brave defenders of illegal immigration, who have nothing personally to lose, are conspicuously absent of empirical content.  Rather, this discourse consists of ridiculous generalizations that reduce the complexity of this issue into a dichotonomy between those who embrace multi-culturalism and diversity and those who are reactionary in the sense that they are endeavoring to preserve some crystalized conceptualization of American culture, which, as most of us who side with the American wage-earner, know not to exist in the first place.

This issue should have nothing to do with cultural or ethnic considerations.  Quite simply - and it would be ostensible, as well, if not for the obfuscating discourse emanating from brave, white-middle-class activists who triumphently blow their horns of self-righteousness - this social-problem is comprised of multiple concers; one of which is the plight of the American wage-earner and his or her further exploitation resulting from the strange marriage between the New-left and the neo-conservatives,  who chime in harmony as they advocate a policy that will further saturate the American labor market, allowing both the Mexican elites and the American corporate-elites to continue to fill their pockets.

Russell Cole

Tags: economics, economists, establishment, immigration, labor, living wage, National, neo cons, pc, politics, Russell Coles Blog
Categories: Commentary, National, Economics, Russell Cole's Blog, Politics, Labor
1 Comment »

Workplace ‘Flexibility’: Comment from Australia Relevant to Populist Perspectives on Labor and a Fair Wage Stateside

Here some strong commentary on ‘casual workers’ and the ‘enterprise culture’ from an anonymous hospitality industry worker down under. It can speak to the predicament faced by many workers across the American Middle West. As he says: “We can fight for a fair go, for a decent share of the profits of our employers and for decent working conditions, But we must do it together.” In Australia and Middle America, the struggle is one.  This is from the site http://www.workersforum. info/   Perhaps the Midwest Alliance needs a similar forum for contingent and low-paid workers.

As labor historian Stan Phipps noted:

“the legacy of the People’s Party to the modern workers’ movement and the struggle for independent political action is substantial. They demonstrated how the plain people in society could build upon the existing democratic forms in the U.S. to generate democratic aspirations capable of mounting a serious challenge to the business-oriented opinion leaders and policy makers. Farmers and workers showed by example how marginalized people could create for themselves the psychological space necessary to organize a first rate struggle for a level of social and economic change which opposed the existing unjust status quo through the creation of an independent political movement that put the interests of farmers and workers first” (“The People’s Party: An Insurgent Party of Farmers and Workers,” Socialist Organizer, http://www.theorganizer.org/LP/USHistory/peoplesparty.html

Maintaining the myth of flexibility: The enterprise culture and Australian Workers

On the surface it would appear that the Federal Government’s employment policies provide flexibility and choice to workers, enabling people to effectively balance work, leisure, family and educational commitments. The reality is that these policies create inequality. The myth of workplace ‘flexibility’ is a weapon of control that is used by employers and the Federal Government to serve the interests of business above those of workers. In an era of reduced union membership, our rights come under attack on a daily basis. The full-time job is no longer attainable for the majority of Australian workers and many of us are forced to work for poor pay and under appalling conditions, often in more than one job, just to make ends meet. I have worked in hospitality for almost ten years and too often have I generated thousands of dollars for an understaffed business in the space of a few hours; only to be rewarded with a wage that could barely buy a large round of drinks and a slap on the wrists for not working fast enough.

The Howard Government’s workplace policies are a result of an increasing global trend towards economic rationalism. Advocates of this neo-liberal thought advocate an “enterprise culture” that promotes:

“hard work, competition, motivation, self-reliance, flexibility, boldness, daringness, innovation and success…essential components of the entrepreneurial individual” (Kenny 1999 p. 54).

Great on the surface, but what of those people that don’t possess the education, skills and mindset to become entrepreneur’s? They get left behind! We are no longer creatures of the jungle where only the strong survive; we formed civilised society so that we could work together and help those that are weaker, slower and disadvantaged. Why? Because it is in our best interests and we will achieve a lot more together than alone!

This enterprise culture has manifested itself in Australian employment policies with the introduction of Australian Workplace Agreements (AWA’s), the promotion of contract labour, a decrease in collective bargaining and an increase in casual labour. These policies are articulated as “providing flexibility and choice to Australian workers”, “everyone can be their own boss, while promoting economic growth for the great nation that is Australia.”

However, there are a few things that stand in the way of this growth, mainly the liability that is paying workers unnecessary benefits such as holiday pay, sick pay and overtime. But the one thing that provides the greatest obstacle to the implementation of these policies is a unified force of workers; together, we would never accept policies that hurt us, but alone, there is not much we can do.

We have to start making our collective voice heard, whether it be by joining a union or taking part in this forum, or dobbing in a dodgy boss [informing on a tricky boss]; We can fight for a fair go, for a decent share of the profits of our employers and for decent working conditions, But we must do it together. CASUAL WORKERS. UNITE!

Tags: australia, economy, fair wage, federal government, labor, workplace
Categories: Co