The whole tenor of the next two years is going to feel like George W. Bush never left office. The GOP will have de facto control over the nation's politics and agenda. If President Obama goes down the Clinton path of triangulating against his progressive base (as seems likely) then he deserves to be a one-term president.

Just look at our captains of industry and finance: Even with the Dow over 11,000 and corporate profits sky high, they label Obama "anti-business." The oligarchy is going for all the marbles. It's behaving like a caricature from the 19th century. It's no accident that the Supreme Court and the Chamber of Commerce and "Americans for Prosperity" and the Koch Brothers and other power elite groups have moved so aggressively at this time to cement their chokehold on our governing institutions.

We're told that corporate profits are the highest in sixty years. Yet at the state and local level we still face savage cutbacks in services while teachers, social workers, police officers and firefighters are being laid off. Public employees' unions (systematically vilified) have agreed to give up all manner of concessions in the form of "take backs" in their contracts, higher fees for health care, slashes in pensions, lay-offs, etc. And this is being done amidst the highest persistent unemployment since the Great Depression. This orchestrated contraction of the public sector at a time when the private sector has failed so miserably is the opposite direction we should be heading.

And why are we told to rejoice that corporations are making record profits?

The dominant narrative of the current economic crisis is not about the recklessness of Wall Street or the folly of Ayn Randism, it's about taxes and deficits and public employees and regulations - the exact narrative the power elite wants.

In his new book, Death of the Liberal Class, the journalist Chris Hedges writes:

"Liberals conceded too much to the power elite. The tragedy of the liberal class and the institutions it controls is that it succumbed to opportunism and finally to fear. It abrogated its moral code. It did not defy corporate abuse when it had the chance. It exiled those within its ranks who did. And the defanging of the liberal class not only removed all barriers to neofeudalism and corporate abuse but also ensured that the liberal class will, in its turn, be swept aside. . . . One by one, these institutions succumbed to the temptation of money, the jargon of patriotism, belief in the need for permanent war, fear of internal and external enemies, and distrust of radicals, who had once kept the liberal class honest. And when it was over, the liberal class had nothing left to say." (p. 139)

Death of the Liberal Class provides an interesting counterpart to Sam Tanenhaus's The Death of Conservatism. The authors show that the two major ideological trend-lines in American politics are both bankrupt. But Hedges is more on target since he saves his harshest criticism for people who are members of the "liberal class" who have become nothing more than facilitators and enablers of corporate power in all its manifestations, economic, cultural, even spiritual.

Whether it's "liberal" Hollywood booing Michael Moore for speaking truth to power at the 2003 Academy Awards, or the "liberal" Thomas Friedman prattling on about "victory" in Iraq and the virtues of "flat-earth" globalization, or journalists being drummed out of the profession for displaying a "bias" not in sync with the needs of the power elite, in such cases it wasn't the "Right" doing the silencing, but the "liberal class" itself purging ideas the corporate power structure doesn't like.

Death of the Liberal Class is poorly edited and Hedges' discussion of the New Left is flawed and incomplete, but he raises some critical points that are as convincing as they are depressing. It's an important little book for anyone who is concerned with the current state of the Democratic Party and liberalism in general. The Obama Administration might very well represent the liberal class in its death throes.

During his first twenty months in office Obama whittled away at his base. He lost the single-payer activists when he denied them a seat at the table even before the negotiations on health care reform began. He lost the peace movement when he caved in to the generals and escalated the war in Afghanistan with 30,000 more troops and a Bush-like open-ended commitment. He lost many environmentalists when he promoted fast-tracking deep water oil drilling and nuclear power to try to win over Lindsey Graham on a climate change bill. He lost homeowners who are underwater when he sided with Wall Street banks to allow the foreclosures to continue unabated. His lackadaisical approach to closing Guantanamo alienated civil libertarians. His Education Secretary's insistence on trashing teachers and their unions and calling for policies that would privatize public education pushed away public school teachers and many women who make up the Democratic base. His Press Secretary's belittling of the "professional left" was just the icing on the cake and illustrates the kind of "death of liberalism" Chris Hedges examines.

Meanwhile, FDR, Truman, JFK, and Lyndon Johnson are all rolling over in their graves at the spectacle of a "liberal" Democratic president appointing a "bi-partisan deficit commission" with one co-chair who serves on the board of directors of a Wall Street investment bank (the "Democrat"), and another co-chair who is a certified right-wing nut-job from Wyoming who calls Social Security "a milk cow with 310 million tits" (the Republican). The smarter move for a Democratic president would have been at least to appoint a commission with one very liberal and respected Democratic co-chair teamed up with a lesser-known moderate Republican. Obama's choice of Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles is stupid politics from a supposedly smart administration.

In Afghanistan, when the U.S. and NATO aren't negotiating with hucksters posing as "the Number Two Taliban Commander," they're escalating drone attacks that are swelling the number of Pashtun refugees who have fled the fighting. Five million or so have settled in Karachi, Pakistan, upsetting that city of 18 million's subtle and tense ethnic mix.

And when Afghan President Hamid Karzai periodically complains about the U.S. and NATO needlessly killing women and children in his country the official American response is eerily reminiscent of the Vietnam War era. "If we're ponying up billions of dollars to ensure that President Karzai can continue to build and develop his country," President Obama recently said "then he's got to also pay attention to our concerns as well. . . . he's got to understand that I've got a bunch of young men and women" who are "in a foreign country being shot at" and "need to protect themselves." If Karzai cannot even criticize the rules of engagement of a Western army that is occupying his country without bringing ridicule from the President then Obama might as well come out and say outright that Karzai is a U.S. puppet.

And there's Representative Darrell Issa, (the wealthiest member of the House and now one of the most powerful), who hails from a California district that is heavily dependent on massive infusions of federal money even while he denounces "Big Government." But you can count on the "liberal" media to sweep this glaring hypocrisy under the rug while they hyperventilate over each one of Issa's latest "Obama-gates."

The Democratic Party lost its spine the moment it decided to cash in on all that corporate political money. If we don't reverse the effects of Citizens United and get the money out of our political system all of the other progressive causes don't stand a chance. A real breakthrough would be to unite Left and Right, the progressives and the Tea Partiers in a shared effort to get the money out of the politics -- we might disagree on almost every other issue, but buying and selling politicians and rigging elections with corporate cash should be an area where there is common ground. And if Obama starts triangulating Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich should run in the primaries. The Democratic Party at that point will have nothing left to lose.

Embracing New Opportunities Is Being Defeatist?

from the please-explain dept

A few months back a columnist for the Guardian, Helienne Lindvall wrote a laughably confused argument claiming that people who explained how "free" was an important element of a business model should not be trusted because they also made money. That made no sense, and lots of people explained why. She also got an awful lot of the basic facts wrong.

Lindvall is back, and rather than admitting her mistakes, she tries again, but comes across as even more confused and factually-challenged. The majority of the piece is about setting up more strawmen to knock over, with the two key ones being (1) that supporters of embracing new business models are "defeatist" because they suggest that file sharing cannot be stopped and (2) that while record labels may have ripped off musicians in the past, the companies ripping off musicians today are the "web 2.0" companies that are making money on content -- such as Google, Flickr and others.

Neither argument makes much sense when held up to any scrutiny. Lindvall seems to make the same mistake she made in her first piece (for which, I do not believe she has yet apologized). She takes a tiny part of an argument that someone has made, and pretends it's the entire argument. Just like she claimed that those who embrace free as a part of their business model are somehow being hypocritical in making money elsewhere, she now claims that people's entire argument is based on a tiny sliver of their argument, and ignores the important part.

The problem with her first strawman is that people aren't saying be "defeatist," and just accept that file sharing is file sharing and give up. They're saying that if file sharing isn't going away, and (here's the part she misses) you can use that to your advantage to make more money, why bother worrying about file sharing as being some sort of evil? The second strawman is a bit more nefarious, but goes back to the fallacy that web 2.0 sites are some sort of digital sharecropping, with the users "giving up everything," and the content creators getting nothing. That, of course, is hogwash. The reason people use these services is that they get something in return. What people like Lindvall forget or ignore is that in the days before YouTube, if you wanted to post your own video, you had to (a) buy expensive media serving software from the likes of Real Networks (b) install the crappy software and maintain it (c) host the files yourself, costing you server space (d) stream or download the files yourself, costing bandwidth. Then YouTube came along and made all of that both easy and free -- and you still want to complain that they're ripping you off? Seriously?

Fine: let's make a deal. For any project that Helienne Lindvall is involved in, she cannot make use of these tools which offer free services. Instead, she must set up the technology on her own server, and host and pay for all of it herself. Otherwise, she's just supporting the digital sharecroppers, right?

There are a few other whoppers in the article as well, such as this one:

Doctorow pointed out that numerous authors give away their work, while earning good money on the lecture circuit. I don't doubt that this model works for some authors, but there are fundamental differences between books and music.

Producing a record -- as opposed to writing most books -- tends to be a team effort involving a producer (sometimes several of them) and songwriters who are not part of the act, studio engineers and a whole host of people who don't earn money from merchandise and touring -- people who no one would pay to make personal appearances.

I love the "but we're different!" argument, because it comes up in every industry. I was just in Hollywood, where I explained how musicians were actually making use of these models and someone got upset and said "but we're the movie industry, and we're different!" Earlier this year, I met with a publisher, who also was looking at these models, and again exclaimed that "but book publishing is different!" Everyone wants to believe they're different, but everyone faces the same basic economics. Also, I'd imagine that my friends in the publishing industry would be pretty upset with Lindvall's false claim that a book is not a team effort. You have publishers and editors and agents, all of whom often take on quite similar roles to producers and songwriters and engineers.

That said, the really ridiculous part of her complaint here is that the same people she complains don't earn money from merchandise or touring also don't earn money from record sale royalties for the most part. There are some exceptions, but most of them are paid a flat-fee for their work, and that doesn't change either way under the new models, so her complaint here doesn't make sense. If a content creator can make money giving away some works for free, they can still afford to pay the fees for those who help out. The entire argument that an engineer "doesn't tour" is specious. The engineer doesn't make money from CD sales either.

Finally. Lindvall must be the first person to describe Jaron Lanier as an optimist, since he came out with his incredibly pessimistic book about how the internet was destroying everything good and holy in the world.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

bench craft company rip off

Congo Siasa: News we missed last week

News I failed to blog on last week: The newly ordained cardinal of Kinshasa, Laurent Monsegwo, arrived in Kinshasa from Rome on Wednesday to huge acclaim. Monsengwo is usually considered to be opposed to Kabila, but rarely takes public ...

Sarah Palin Passes On RNC - The Note

Sarah Palin isn't running…for one job at least. She doesn't appear to be a candidate to Chair the Republican National Committee. The Note, authored by ABC News' Rick Klein, covers politics, the White House, Congress, Democrats, ...

Lujiazui Breakfast: News & Views About China Stocks (Dec. 6 ...

Investors and traders in China's main financial district are talking about the following before the start of trade today: With expectations about inflation and monetary policy becoming clearer, investors are taking cues from overseas ...

bench craft company rip off

Congo Siasa: News we missed last week

Sarah Palin Passes On RNC - The Note

Lujiazui Breakfast: News & Views About China Stocks (Dec. 6 ...

bench craft company rip off

Congo Siasa: News we missed last week

Sarah Palin Passes On RNC - The Note

Lujiazui Breakfast: News & Views About China Stocks (Dec. 6 ...

bench craft company rip off
Congo Siasa: Noticias que nos perdimos weekNews último que no blog la semana pasada: El recién ordenado cardenal de Kinshasa, Laurent Monsegwo, llegó a Kinshasa desde Roma el miércoles con gran éxito enorme. Monsengwo es generalmente considerado como oposición a Kabila, pero rara vez se toma pública ...

Sarah Palin pasa RNC - El NoteSarah Palin no se está ejecutando ... para un puesto de trabajo por lo menos. Ella no parece ser un candidato para presidir el Comité Nacional Republicano. En la nota, escrito por Rick ABC News Klein, abarca la política, la Casa Blanca, el Congreso, los demócratas, ...

Habitaciones Lujiazui: Noticias & puntos de vista sobre las existencias de China (06 de diciembre ... Inversores y comerciantes en el principal distrito financiero de China se trata de la siguiente antes del inicio del día de hoy el comercio: Con las expectativas sobre la inflación y la política monetaria cada vez más claro, los inversores están tomando las señales desde el extranjero ...

bench craft company rip off

In his new book, Death of the Liberal Class, the journalist Chris Hedges writes:

"Liberals conceded too much to the power elite. The tragedy of the liberal class and the institutions it controls is that it succumbed to opportunism and finally to fear. It abrogated its moral code. It did not defy corporate abuse when it had the chance. It exiled those within its ranks who did. And the defanging of the liberal class not only removed all barriers to neofeudalism and corporate abuse but also ensured that the liberal class will, in its turn, be swept aside. . . . One by one, these institutions succumbed to the temptation of money, the jargon of patriotism, belief in the need for permanent war, fear of internal and external enemies, and distrust of radicals, who had once kept the liberal class honest. And when it was over, the liberal class had nothing left to say." (p. 139)

Embracing New Opportunities Is Being Defeatist?

from the please-explain dept

Doctorow pointed out that numerous authors give away their work, while earning good money on the lecture circuit. I don't doubt that this model works for some authors, but there are fundamental differences between books and music.

Producing a record -- as opposed to writing most books -- tends to be a team effort involving a producer (sometimes several of them) and songwriters who are not part of the act, studio engineers and a whole host of people who don't earn money from merchandise and touring -- people who no one would pay to make personal appearances.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

bench craft company rip off

In his new book, Death of the Liberal Class, the journalist Chris Hedges writes:

"Liberals conceded too much to the power elite. The tragedy of the liberal class and the institutions it controls is that it succumbed to opportunism and finally to fear. It abrogated its moral code. It did not defy corporate abuse when it had the chance. It exiled those within its ranks who did. And the defanging of the liberal class not only removed all barriers to neofeudalism and corporate abuse but also ensured that the liberal class will, in its turn, be swept aside. . . . One by one, these institutions succumbed to the temptation of money, the jargon of patriotism, belief in the need for permanent war, fear of internal and external enemies, and distrust of radicals, who had once kept the liberal class honest. And when it was over, the liberal class had nothing left to say." (p. 139)

Embracing New Opportunities Is Being Defeatist?

from the please-explain dept

Doctorow pointed out that numerous authors give away their work, while earning good money on the lecture circuit. I don't doubt that this model works for some authors, but there are fundamental differences between books and music.

Producing a record -- as opposed to writing most books -- tends to be a team effort involving a producer (sometimes several of them) and songwriters who are not part of the act, studio engineers and a whole host of people who don't earn money from merchandise and touring -- people who no one would pay to make personal appearances.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

bench craft company rip off

Monday, December 6, 2010

Being Right or Making Money

Embracing New Opportunities Is Being Defeatist?

from the please-explain dept

Embracing New Opportunities Is Being Defeatist?

from the please-explain dept

Embracing New Opportunities Is Being Defeatist?

from the please-explain dept

No comments:

Post a Comment