[CIMC-work] Re: political spectrum

[Chris Kaihatsu]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Westgard" <tom at ilmechliens.com>
To: "Chris Kaihatsu" <ckaihatsu at myrealbox.com>;
<imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 2:37 PM
Subject: [CIMC-work] Re: political spectrum


> PREFACE
>
> Well, I fear that this thread may take over the list if pursued too
> aggressively, but at the same time it seems an important definitional
issue
> for the organization if it has not yet been addressed.  I think most
likely
> I will make this my last post on this matter unless a lot of people show
an
> interest
>
> INDYMEDIA SHOULD FOLLOW STANDARDS PRIMARILY OF JOURNALISTIC CHARACTER
>
> I think it's important that Indymedia have some guidelines for what fits,
> but I would like to think that the guidelines will be on a unique,
Indymedia
> view of what constitutes "quality journalism," not just trying to make
sure
> that whatever gets put up here is "qualified lefty."  There are already
> people doing that, some very effectively.


Thomas,

I appreciate your concern about these matters. On the journalism issue,
maybe you could provide links to examples of Indymedia journalism that you
find to be of quality, for the sake of illustration? And/or could you come
up with criteria?


>
> AYN RANDERS PRESENT A POLITICAL CONUNDRUM, BUT NOT NECESSARILY A
> JOURNALISTIC ONE
>
> Witness the Ayn Randers as potential contributors to Indymedia.  Let me
say
> as a caveat that every time I remember that a major publishing house for
Any
> Rand works is (or was) the "Center for Independent Thought," I have to
laugh
> at the oxymoron.  If they're so darn independent, why do they need a
center?
> There's some interesting insight into the contradiction at the base of
that
> paradox in a book called, "Why People Believe Weird Things," in which the
> author postulates that, despite the emphasis on objectivity, Ayn Rand had
> (and has) people who would best be described as "followers," who exercise
> her philosophical perspective in a cult-like fashion, with her support and
> encouragement.  Despite that, Indymedia's genesis matches a topic which
Ayn
> Randers have been contemplating for years.
>
> Like other perspectives that seem to come more naturally to Indymedia, the
> Ayn Randers don't get much mainstream press.  Also, they aren't in favor
of
> "privatization of certain resources and technologies among a select few,"
at
> least not in the same way as it currently works.  The Randian philosophy
> argues for elimination of all corporations and inheritance, among other
> things.  Thus, any and all individuals can build from their own skills,
free
> from constraining concepts of property ownership that were designed to
> support a monarchical hierarchy (or so the theory goes, anyway).


My understanding of Randian 'objectivism' is that it favors private
property. That's (politically) problematic: What is a society to do about
issues that are necessarily collective: pollution, sewage, clean drinking
water, etc.? Public management issues must be dealt with publicly and
collectively, not individually.


>
> Indymedia's birth comes from a protest against the globalization of
commerce
> by a cadre of the privileged.  I don't think anyone concerned in this
debate
> believes that world trade itself is wrong, it's that major corporations
work
> hand-in-hand with governments to control it in ways that "we" find
> objectionable.  Expand that idea to the transmission of ideas in the world
> commons, and KABAM! you have a need for Indymedia.  So here we are,
agreeing
> with the Ayn Randers on that point, at least.
>
> Further, the "right wing" has a serious fault line that the "left wing"
> somehow fails to exploit, namely the gap between fiscal conservatism
(where
> Ayn Randers are often filed) and social conservatism.  Despite the
rhetoric,
> the social conservatives view government as a useful tool which should
have
> extensive powers over wide aspects of human interaction.  Social
> conservatism calls for utilizing large governmental resources, e.g. police
> and prisons, to enforce certain definitions of marriage, to prevent
> particular sexual practices, to prevent abortion and/or birth control, to
> enforce restrictions of chemicals (FDA, DEA, etc.)  Paying to investigate,
> arrest, and keep people in prison for these perceived social ills is
> anathema to the "small government mantra" that the fiscal conservatives
> promote.


Personally, I have no problem with the concept or practice of government --
the question is who's running the show, and who's benefitting from it?
Government is currently bourgeois, accepting of, and encouraging
capitalistic enterprises. Capitalism requires scarcity in order to create
markets -- since air is freely available it cannot be 'scarcified,' and
therefore cannot be commodified. Capitalism will 'scarcify' anything it can,
whether or not it is currently scarce -- "social conservatism" to me just
means the extension of that 'scarcification' process, to the realm of
personal human relations.


>
> CONCLUSION
>
> In summary, that governments should allow the "little guy" a chance to get
> some of the benefits is something that Indymedia and Ayn Randers share,
and
> frankly, the Ayn Randers have a lot more experience talking about it and
> researching it, albeit from a perspective that Indymedia may find foreign.
> There are some kooks there, but there might be some good ideas.  Why not
let
> them participate?  Especially if they write well.
>


Thomas, the main Indymedia site (indymedia.org) has a very generous policy
when it comes to hiding posts. I'm quite sure that position statements from
Randers will not be summarily hidden.


> AFTERWARD:  DEFINITIONS
>
> This is long enough, so I'm not going to include all the other things that
> come to mind on this topic.  I have to say that your definitions are
> troublesome:
>
> LEFT  Although I like Democrats (center left) better than Republicans
> (center right) as a rule, your definition, "leftists are for generalizing
> the fruits of the earth and technology to all people of the world," is
> pretty hard to take seriously.  Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Gerhardt
> Schroeder (and Stalin!) are all from left-wing parties, but they aren't
> accomplishing anything significant in "generalizing the fruits of the
earth
> and technology to all people of the world."  They are broadly in favor of
> the status quo.  As are the Republicans, for that matter.  The WTO would
say
> that their promotion of trade is intended to accomplish exactly this.  Are
> they some of the good lefties we want to help?


There is more to the political spectrum than just the mainstream U.S.
political process. Both left and right positions extend wider, past the
establishment spectrum. These days I would place the Democrats and
Republicans as being status quo on the left parameter, and reactionary on
the right parameter.


>
> RIGHT I discussed the social/fiscal paradox above.  The "right" is not a
> monolith any more than the left is.


Republicans, conservatives, and reactionaries are not a monolithic force --
I agree with you on that -- however, the mainstream political process has
always adminstered US government affairs. The two main political parties
would not let go of power willingly.


>
> APATHY  Well, I'm sure we're all familiar with the expression about the
> universality of opinions, and if this proves that no one is apathetic,
then
> of course, you're right.  However, voting rates in this country are much
> lower than in other developed countries.  Ability to name elected
officials
> and candidates is much lower in this country than in other developed
> countries.  We are the world leaders in time spent watching (apolitical)
> television.  Most people in this country know more, and care more, about
the
> Bennifer breakup than the social impact of their economic choices.  And
the
> number of people who will go out and demonstrate is razor thin.
>


This point deals with strategy and tactics. You're basically saying that
people would be more empowered by voting for political candidates, and by
demonstrating -- this is debatable.


Chris




>
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-chicago-working mailing list
> Imc-chicago-working at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-chicago-working
>