I've written a piece over on AlterNet asking why it is that every itty-bitty Tea Party gathering is front page news while a meeting of 15,000-plus progressive activists in Detroit goes invisible.
Here's an excerpt:
It's not surprising that the mainstream media is paying little attention to the 15,000-plus community organizers and progressive activists gathered in Detroit, Michigan this week for the second United States Social Forum. After all, the center-left political establishment isn't paying attention either.Why is it that the Tea Party -- the right-wing edge of the conservative political sphere -- exerts a gravitational pull on the Republican party and the conservative mainstream while the United States Social Forum and the leaders and groups gathered here, who represent the left of the liberal mainstream, are disregarded as marginal and irrelevant -- that is, if they're regarded at all?
I give three possible reasons why the United States Social Forum has been ignored or overlooked by the center-liberal establishment. The third argument appears to have raised the most eyebrows across the political spectrum:
Mainstream liberals, especially in Washington, have bought into the false dichotomy that there is a necessary trade-off between seeking political power versus sticking to one's ideological beliefs. The Democratic party, the Obama administration and many Washington-based advocacy organizations have picked the side of political pragmatism. It would appear that the left wing of the left has also bought into this false dichotomy and chosen the ideology end of the imaginary see-saw. But what if more Americans agree with the Social Forum crowd than the DNC? Perhaps even a governing majority? In November 2009, a BBC poll found that 63 percent of Americans felt that capitalism in its current form wasn't working for them. What if the Social Forum crowd claimed to represent that 63 percent -- and then some?In his argument for hegemony as a left-wing aspiration, Antonio Gramsci wrote that before actually winning power, a political movement must believe it can win power and have a vision for how to use it. Yet the psychological failure to claim hegemonic aspirations -- let along make significant progress toward realizing majoritarian power -- can be linked to what another left philosopher, Frantz Fanon, dubbed the psychology of oppression. Communities so accustomed to personal and political marginalization have a hard time even imagining themselves as the ones wielding power as opposed to those over whom power is being wielded. Such hopelessness focuses a movement inward, leading to the kind of internecine fights around identity politics and issue positions that frequently divide the left. This explains United States Social Forum workshops like "The Struggle for Single Payer in the Time of Obamacare," piling onto the conservative attack on liberal policy in the name of left-wing ideological purity.
You can read the full article here and join the (very lively) debate over on AlterNet's site.
Follow Sally Kohn on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sallykohn
Wednesday evening plenary was about Detroits past, present and future was anything but internalized oppresion, or recycled marxism... It showed the dynanism of the people of Detroit, the creativity of young people engaging in rebuilding their city one garden at a time, the vision of 3 genreations of elders who have worked to help people make a way through the madness of the deindustrialization of the city.
There are some alternative reasons why was there little mainstream media coverage of the USSF.
1) it doesn;t serve media interests. This is not a stori thyat reinforce the current system.
2) Media can only handle simple messages handed to them on a platter. SIngle messages, not ones coming from at least 1700 workshops, in plenaries, or people's movement assemblies. Not the idea that people are coming together to explore a multiplicity of perspectives....
Simply put the USSF is not news because it is not a political party and it can't be packaged.
3) There are not people being paid to create messaging for the media, a media strategy etc.....
They complain about spending, government size, and other issues that exist under Bush yet they never said anything.
They complain about numerous government programs yet admit they themselves want some to continue....so....uh, they aren't really against these
They try to come off as Independent yet none of them voted against Bush...shocking
Anyhow, those there don't desire to hold power over another, because domination in all forms is not a goal of the forum. Visualizing ourselves in power then, becomes more difficult.
Either way, I highly recommend people to go to events like this. As a resident of Detroit, I appreciate that they left this city better than they found it (beautification, cleaning, donation of bicycles and even houses). There are still issues here we will have to deal with, but the Forum brought us the knowledge, network, and the greatest tool to deal with our city's issues. It brought us hope.
Thanks to Sally for that.
But I recommend a read of this recent Prof. Bill Mitchell piece on the appalling lack of any specifically identifiable progressive monetary policy that is any different from the standard neo-liberalism of the day.
bilbo -dot -.economicoutlook -dot -net - slash blog/?p=9932
Around the world, so-called Socialists are demanding the same level of austerity as, if not more than, the more conservative leaders.
The left plain and simple lacks a coherent monetary policy because of the basic ignorance of money systems of leftist leaders throughout history.
The only viable, sustainable, ecologically-based monetary policies are those advanced by Prof. Frederick Soddy and his allies throughout the first half of the last century.
By taking a scientific approach to the operations of the monetary system, he developed the earliest basis for public, debt-free money.
Where are the progressive economists when we need them to provide the new answer that can work today?
Naomi? Dean? Robert? Even to a lesser degree, Jamie?
Read Frederick Soddy - The Role of Money.
Let's begin again with a democratic money system.
The Money System Common.
www.monetary.org
It is money that is killing the planet. It is inhuman and primitive and it is time we let it go.Global calamity will in fact cause its elimination so it will happen...
The conference can address how wealth will be redistributed globally so that everyone has a home, transportation, food...no more Sudans. No more Dafurs. No more Ethiopias. Done. Lets release the human species from a bondage system it has set up on itself. This is the definition of stupidity. The definition of a unevolved species. The definition of a primitive species. When a species invents something that then leads to its extinction, this is evolutionary suicide.
YES? THE NEXT WORLD SOCIAL FORUM TOPIC? ENVISION A FUTURE WORLD WITHOUT MONEY. We can do it.
So we shouldn't be surprised to find a lack of coverage when we assemble, it's a symptom of the dishonesty inherent in our established "news?" organizations. In fact, this may confer an advantage to our purpose. We could inform and organize millions of people without attracting attention, that would enable us to present the world with a surprise on any given election day.
They are part of conservative political strategy whether individual Tea Partiers are aware of it or not.
This is what I've been trying to say when I comment that Obama and Democrats will have all the power they will ever need if they just do the right thing for the 'people'. They can rule the world peacefully simply by "doing the right thing"! The world is holding it's breath that they will come thru for us in the end.
But I've been mystified by Obama's reticence use his power to its fullest and to look for ways to get things done without having to go through Congress, which has become well neigh impossible.
Has he made some mistakes from following this course? Absolutely. Are there still areas where there is no change from W's boys? You know there is. But...all I hear out of anyone else is how their version of reality should be the right one. No compromise, no deals. Such things are now called evil. With that in mind, is the toxic landscape we're walking across politically so hard to believe?