Tuesday, February 8, 2022

The Five Real Conspiracies You Need to Know About

 

The Five Real Conspiracies You Need to Know About

While millions of people are spellbound by false conspiracy theories, the real conspiracies that are wrecking our world go about their business unheeded. Here are five genuine threats that everyone should know about—and take action on.

The world is awash in a deluge of dangerous conspiracy theories. Most notoriously, the bizarre QAnon fantasy postulates that a global child sex-trafficking ring is being run by liberal, Satan-worshiping pedophiles whose plot will be uncovered by President Donald Trump on a “day of reckoning” involving mass arrests. This surreal mass delusion is not the only one infecting millions of people around the world. Earlier this year, the Plandemic conspiracy video went viral on social media, instilling disinformation into millions of minds about Covid-19, falsely alleging that it was a hoax perpetrated by big business for the sake of profiteering by selling mass vaccinations.

One of the most harmful results of these bogus conspiracy theories is that they help deflect people’s attention from the real conspiracies that are systematically damaging billions of people around the world, destroying the living Earth, and—if left unchecked—may drive our entire civilization to collapse. These are the conspiracies everyone needs to know about. Unlike the QAnon and Plandemic nonsense, they are real. The facts about them are in the open, yet these lethal conspiracies hide in plain sight, flagrantly going about their destructive activities while millions of people have their attention diverted toward pernicious fictions.

Let’s take a look at five of the most damaging conspiracies out there. As you consider them, I invite you to ponder how it is that, while our mass media focuses attention on imaginary conspiracies, the real ones that threaten every one of us are barely even discussed.

1. Conspiracy to turn the world into a giant marketplace for the benefit of the wealthy elite

Back in 1947, as the world was rebuilding from the destruction of the Second World War, a few dozen free-market ideologues met in a luxury Swiss resort to form the Mont Pelerin Society—an organization devoted to spreading the ideology of neoliberalism throughout the world. Their ideas—that the free market should dominate virtually all aspects of society, that regulations should be dismantled, and that individual liberty should eclipse all other considerations of fairness, equity, or community welfare—were considered fanatical at the time. Over three decades, though, financed by wealthy donors, they assiduously expanded their plot for global domination, establishing networks of academics, businessmen, economists, journalists, and politicians, in global centers of power.

When the stagflation crisis of the 1970s threw classic Keynesian economics into disrepute, their moment of opportunity arrived. By 1985, with free market disciples Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher entrenched in power, they initiated a campaign to systematically transform virtually all aspects of life into an unrestrained marketplace, where everything could be bought and sold to the highest bidder, subject to no moral scruple. They crippled trade unions, tore up social safety nets, reduced tax rates for the wealthy, eliminated regulations, and instituted a massive transfer of wealth from society at large to the uber-elite. Every time a new crisis occurred of their own making, such as the Great Recession of 2008, they took advantage of the mayhem they caused to double down on their power, and extend their reach even further, bringing the ideology of the marketplace into domains, such as education, law enforcement, or wilderness preserves, that had previously been considered sacrosanct.

The Neoliberal conspiracy has succeeded in transferring massive wealth to the uber-elite

With the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic, this conspiracy has found yet another opportunity to squeeze wealth from the bulk of society into the hands of the few. In the United States, since the pandemic began, while 200,000 Americans have died from coronavirus and more than 50 million have lost their jobs, the collective wealth of this country’s billionaires has soared 29% to $3.8 trillion. Jeff Bezos alone could give every Amazon employee $105,000 and still be as wealthy as he was before coronavirus hit.

2. Conspiracy by transnational corporations to turn billions of people into addicts

In the 1920s, two ruthless men laid out a sinister scheme to gain control of the minds of Americans. Their plan? To identify people’s deeply buried needs and use subtle messaging to manipulate them into doing whatever they wanted without realizing it—even at the cost of their health and well-being. One of them, Edward Bernays, was Sigmund Freud’s nephew and used his uncle’s insights into the subconscious to develop his new methods. Their goal was to turn normal working Americans into manic consumers, training them to desire an ever-increasing amount of goods, and thereby converting their life’s energy into profit for American corporations. “We must shift America from a needs to a desires culture,” declared Bernays’ partner, Paul Mazur. “People must be trained to desire, to want new things, even before the old have been entirely consumed. We must shape a new mentality. Man’s desires must overshadow his needs.”

In 1928, Bernays proudly described how his techniques for mental manipulation had already permitted a small elite to control the minds of the American population:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government that is the true ruling power of this country.
​We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. . . . In almost every act of our daily lives. . . we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons . . . who pull the wires which control the public mind.

Since then, this conspiracy has succeeded beyond its instigators’ wildest dreams. Corporations have perfected the technique of mind control by tweaking core human instincts that originally evolved to support our ancestors’ flourishing in hunter-gatherer bands—such as the desire for status or fear of exclusion—for their nefarious purposes.

Corporate predators have learned that the most valuable population to ensnare are children. In the sinister words of chief executive Wayne Chilicki, “When it comes to targeting kid consumers, we at General Mills . . . believe in getting them early and having them for life.” Children in the Global South are turned into junk food addicts with the same callous contempt that factory farms turn their animals into chicken nuggets. Half of the children in south Asia are now either undernourished or overweight, conditioned by pervasive advertising to spend what little money they have on the empty calories of junk food.

A new generation of mind controllers are now using sophisticated data mining technologies to inject their power even deeper into our minds. At the ominously named Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab, a modern-day Bernays named B. J. Fogg has taught budding entrepreneurs how to use “hot triggers” such as thumbs-up signs and “Like” statistics to activate short hits of dopamine in our brains that literally get us addicted to our screens. With social media now infiltrating every aspect of many teenagers’ lives, the power of predatory corporate advertising to control their minds for profit has become even more formidable. In 2017, a leaked document revealed Facebook boasting to advertisers how they can identify in real time when teenagers feel “insecure” and “worthless,” and would be most susceptible to a “confidence boost.”

3. Conspiracy to plunder the Global South for the benefit of the Global North

Ever since Portuguese and Spanish explorers set sail in the fifteenth century on a quest for wealth and power, a small population of white Europeans have conspired to use their technological advantage to despoil, plunder, and exploit the rest of the world’s wealth for their own benefit. With the Treaty of Saragossa in 1529, Spain and Portugal carved up the non-European continents between them for conquest and booty. After the Industrial Revolution, the countries of northern Europe took over the plot for global supremacy, devastating the lives of tens of millions of Africans mercilessly chained and shipped as slaves to the colonies.

After the abolition of the slave trade, the brutal exploitation continued through an international system of indentured labor. Having destroyed their livelihood in their native countries, European potentates transported more than 60 million desperate workers from India, China, and the Pacific islands to territories where they were needed, in what was frequently referred to as the “new form of slavery.” This vast global scheme of human trafficking was promoted by colonial magnates such as Cecil Rhodes who declared: “We must find new lands from which we can easily obtain raw materials and at the same time exploit the cheap slave labour that is available from the natives of the colonies. The colonies would also provide a dumping ground for the surplus goods produced in our factories.”

In more recent times, the plot continues in different guises. During the decades after the Second World War, Global South leaders who demanded a fair role in the economic system were systematically deposed in coups arranged by U.S., British, and French militaries. In a vast loan sharking scheme, countries impoverished by colonialism then racked up unsustainable debts forced on them by Global North banks. When they couldn’t pay them back without bankrupting their nations, they were coerced into so-called “structural adjustment programs” which opened their labor markets and natural resources to further plunder by the North’s transnational corporations. The World Bank, IMF, and World Trade Organization are all controlled by a few wealthy nations that set the terms for international trade, with the result that through a combination of illicit financial flows, debt interest payments, and profit repatriation, wealth continues to flow from the South to the North at the rate of about $3 trillion per year.


The income gap between Global North and South has quadrupled since 1960. Data from World Bank.

4. Conspiracy to hide the effects of climate breakdown for corporate profit

For over fifty years, fossil fuel executives have known about the reality of human-induced climate change, yet they spent most of that time deliberately concealing their knowledge and obfuscating public discussion on the topic so they could rake in trillions of dollars in profit. In 1968, the Stanford Research Institute alerted the American Petroleum Institute—the national trade association that represents America’s oil and natural gas industry—to the fact that CO2 emissions were accumulating in the atmosphere, and could reach 400 parts per million by 2000. Their report warned that rising CO2 levels would result in melting ice caps, rising seas, and serious environmental damage worldwide. Exxon scientists studied the issue further, reporting to management in 1977 that there was “overwhelming” consensus that fossil fuels were responsible for CO2 increases. In an internal Exxon memo in 1981, scientists raised the alarm that the company’s 50-year plan “will later produce effects which will indeed be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the Earth’s population).”

Exxon—and the other fossil fuel companies—knew their actions would lead to climate breakdown, and instead of trying to solve the problem, they lied to the public to hide their misdeeds. Following the example of the tobacco industry, which had already condemned millions to early deaths through cynical deception, they embarked on a concerted strategy to dupe the public by paying fake experts to publish papers; cherry picking selective data to support false conclusions; and sow their own wild conspiracy theories to deflect attention from their crimes.

As a result of their immoral plot, the world is now facing a dire climate emergency. If the fossil fuel companies had confronted the issue honestly from the outset, there could have been a managed transition to renewable energy over decades, causing little disruption and saving millions of lives through reduced pollution. Instead, it will now take an immediate global mobilization to avoid a 2° C rise in temperature over preindustrial levels. The world is currently on track for more than a 3° C rise this century, with the high likelihood of stumbling into a tipping point cascade that quickly leads to a three- and four-degree world—one that becomes rapidly unrecognizable, with the Amazon rainforest turning into searing desert; coastal cities inundated by flooding; super-hurricanes tearing the windows out of skyscrapers; persistent massive droughts and famine across the world; and hundreds of millions of desperate climate refugees.

Meanwhile, by putting billions of human lives in jeopardy, the four biggest fossil fuel companies—ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, and BP—have made $2 trillion in profits since they began their campaign of lies in 1990.

5. Conspiracy to grow the global economy indefinitely, while killing most of life on Earth and risking the collapse of civilization.

In a barely noticed footnote to the daily news, the World Wildlife Fund recently released a shocking report revealing a devastating 68% worldwide decline in animal populations in the past fifty years. Even this dismal news hides more gut-wrenching statistics, such as the 84% decline in amphibians, reptiles, and fishes, or the 94% decline in animal populations in South America.

This is just the latest bulletin marking the demise of nature as it succumbs to the relentless growth of human economic activity across the world. Three-quarters of all land has been appropriated for human purposes, either turned into farmland, covered by concrete, or flooded by reservoirs. Three-quarters of rivers and lakes are used for crop or livestock cultivation, with many of the world’s greatest rivers, such as the Ganges, Yangtze, or Nile, no longer reaching the sea. Half of the world’s forests and wetlands have disappeared—the Amazon rainforest alone is vanishing at the rate of an acre every second.

Meanwhile, the world’s Gross Domestic Product is forecast to nearly triple by the middle of this century, by which time it’s estimated that 5 billion people will be facing water shortages, 95% of the Earth’s arable land will be degraded—and there will be more plastic than fish in the ocean. It’s been estimated by leading experts that, by the end of this century, half of the world’s estimated 8 million species will be extinct or at the brink of extinction unless humanity changes its ways. These depredations, combined with climate breakdown, are believed by an increasing number of analysts to spell the likely collapse of modern civilization.

The underlying cause of this headlong rush to catastrophe is our society’s obsession with economic growth as the sole criterion for measuring success. A dangerous myth of “green growth” propagated by techno-optimists argues that through technological innovation, GDP can become “decoupled” from resource use and carbon emissions, permitting limitless growth on a finite planet. This has been shown to be nothing but a fantasy: it hasn’t happened so far, and even the most wildly aggressive assumptions for greater efficiency lead to unsustainable consumption of global resources.

So who, in this case, are the conspirators? If you’re living a normal life in an affluent country, you don’t need to look further than the mirror. The wealthy OECD nations, with only 18% of the global population, account for 74% of global GDP, and the richest 10% of people are responsible for more than half the world’s carbon emissions.

Those of us who continue to benefit from the inequities dealt us by the global system, and aren’t actively engaged in curbing it, are like a few shipwrecked survivors on a gilded lifeboat kicking others desperately scrambling for life into the ocean to protect their own safety and comfort. We may not be actively kicking their knuckles, but by allowing this reckless system of unsustainable growth to continue, we’re implicitly making the same choice.

So, the next time someone tells you to “do your research” on their new conspiracy theory, please point them to the real conspiracies that are threatening life on this beautiful but troubled planet. The good news is that, since they’re real conspiracies, there is something we can do about them. We can vote in politicians that promise to peel back the neoliberal nightmare; advocate for curbs on predatory corporate activities; support the Global South in changing the terms of international trade; declare a Climate Emergency in our community to turn around carbon emissions; and become active in the movement to transform our global society to an Ecological Civilization—one that is based on life-affirming principles rather than accumulating wealth.


Jeremy Lent is author of The Patterning Instinct: A Cultural History of Humanity’s Search for Meaning, which investigates how different cultures have made sense of the universe and how their underlying values have changed the course of history. His upcoming book, The Web of Meaning: Integrating Science and Traditional Wisdom to Find Our Place in the Universe, will be published in Spring 2021 (New Society Publishers: US/Canada | Profile Books: UK/Commonwealth). For more information visit jeremylent.com.



Sunday, January 23, 2022

The Difference Between Liberals and Leftists

 

The Difference Between Liberals and Leftists

Nathan Allebach
Nov 24, 2021 · 12 min read

Nothing fuels online discourse like fights over language. New terms will popularize in a subculture then trickle into the zeitgeist until they lose universal meaning if it was ever there to begin with. Terminology such as “weaponize,” “virtue signal,” “identity politics,” “moral panic,” “bad faith,” and “cancel culture” gets diffused so widely and unsystematically that it feels impossible to pin down what someone means without a litany of qualifiers and caveats.

But one reason we fight over language is that we are after clarity. It’s not the only reason people have terminological disputes — sometimes, as Oliver Traldi puts it, those disputes are forms of gatekeeping. But it’s also true that clearly defining our terms gets us closer to being able to figure out whose arguments are strongest.

This piece aims to clarify a framework that is ubiquitous in online discussion — the definitional disconnect between liberal and leftist. These terms — and the broader political spectrum they belong to — are contested, seeing as their meaning has varied historically and around the world. Because they continue to be so widely used (and misused), and because they continue to function as the very categories we use to understand people’s political identities and associations, it’s crucial for their meanings to be as widely, uniformly accessible as possible.

Defining Labels with Positions and Ethos

When determining what makes someone a liberal or leftist there are two key models we can use.

The first looks at an individual’s positions. What policies do they support? Do they prefer incrementally reforming our healthcare system or shifting to a single-payer approach? Do they support prison abolitionism? Abolishing the police? Do they support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement? Do they generally favor universalistic provisions over means-tested ones? Do they favor policies designed to redress class-based inequities? This model uses policy preferences as an instrument to determine where one falls on the political spectrum.

The second looks at an individual’s ethos. This model is slightly harder to pin down, but has to do with political behaviors that don’t pick out one policy or another. For example, what “side” or ideological community does an individual critique more? What media do they consume? Which views do they think fall outside the bounds of reasonable debate? What slogans do they use — or, perhaps better, what slogans do they criticize? (“#Resist” and “eat the rich” reliably pick out two different groups.)

Both models — positions and ethos — are important. But it would seem people focus more on ethos. This makes sense, since most discussions aren’t over the technical specifications of one policy versus another. Rather, we pay more attention to elements like what a discourse participant tends to regularly emphasize or what they consistently fail to address. We look at things like who their audience is, who they most regularly associate with. Since people can easily claim to be politically this or that (“I’m a progressive but…” or “Although I’m a conservative, I think…”), many observers find it more illuminating to look at what these discourse participants spend most of their time discussing or defending. This can seem more representative of their political positioning than their nominal political affiliations.

Some broad binaries that illustrate common differences in ethos between liberals and leftists are reform vs revolution, pragmatism vs idealism, and compromise vs demands.

What’s In A Liberal?

In the U.S., liberals are standardly seen as social liberals rather than as some other form of liberal, such as classical liberals. One confusing aspect is rival ideological groups situate liberals in quite different positions on the political spectrum: liberals are seen as center-left or centrist by leftists, but seen as just generally-on-the-left by people on the right. So those to the left of social liberals see them as center-left, centrist, or even on the right, whereas those to their right see them as just being on the left.

Complicating things further is that “liberal” varies around the world. The Liberal Democratic Party of Japan (LDP) is considered conservative and Liberal Party in Canada is considered center-left, for example. In Europe, liberalism is usually understood to be something closer to neoclassical liberalism, or, as it might be known in the U.S., bleeding-heart libertarianism — favoring free-markets, softer borders, global commerce, and a focus on humanitarian concerns.

There is yet another meaning for “liberalism”: some use it to refer to the political philosophy centered around civil liberties, the social configuration usually tethered to democracy and capitalism due to its emphasis on robust private property rights and the belief that its inhabitants are free and equal members of society.

I’ll stick to social liberalism as the working understanding of liberalism, since that’s the group that most gets associated with the “liberal” label in the U.S. today.

Through an economic lens, liberals support capitalism with varying degrees of regulation and social programs to alleviate market inadequacies. This can range from a center-friendly neoliberal approach (favoring more markets and globalization) to a left-leaning social democratic approach (favoring a more muscular welfare regime and statist intervention). At times, and under different analyses, the economically neoliberal approach can be closer to a classical liberal or libertarian conceptualization of liberalism, whereas an economically social democratic approach can veer towards leftism or socialism. But even though economic liberalism can sometimes appear libertarian on the one hand or leftist on the other, liberalism is big enough to accommodate both the neoliberal and social democratic approach. In other words, it doesn’t have to be the case that implementing a more austere safety net (as historic iterations of neoliberalism have preferred) or very high marginal tax rates (as social democracies require) takes one away from being a liberal on economic grounds — again, this is a range of positions that liberalism can accommodate.

Through a social lens, liberals can be moderately progressive to radically progressive. Frameworks like feminism or intersectionality are frequently used by liberals to analyze issues through identity traits like race, gender, class, and geography. That said, there are also reactionary liberal contingents, such as gender-critical feminists and cultural critics who pump the brakes on what they perceive to be excesses of progressivism, without going as far as conservatives in their rejection of identitarianism. Democrats on the center-left often align with conservatives on issues like foreign policy, policing, or fracking as well. Though it sounds paradoxical, there are even illiberal liberals, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say liberals who are illiberal about certain fundamental elements of liberalism, e.g., social liberals who favor restrictions on speech to an extent that it complicates their ability to genuinely maintain that they believe in the importance of free speech.

In terms of ethos, liberals embody incrementalism, reform, pragmatism, and compromise. Their antithesis is the revolutionary or accelerationist impulse. Liberals emphasize gradual progress, they typically value consensus building, and they base policy decisions on what’s popular or feasible at a given time. Liberals are likely to applaud corporations, institutions, and media for increasing their inclusivity of minority groups, though they are perhaps the least capable of detecting that the symbolic gestures these entities offer are only just marketing ploys or PR campaigns. Inspirational messaging like Obama’s “Yes We Can” is meaningful to liberals because an underlying tenet of liberalism of the current variety is that progress doesn’t merely — or even principally — come about via systemic change, but rather follows cultural attitudes.

This is why some liberal rhetoric may sound revolutionary, or carry with it a tinge of moral urgency, only to later get dialed back during the actual processes of governing and legislating. This sets up a recurring rhetorical battle with leftists who expect revolutionary campaign promises to be fulfilled by revolutionary legislation — and when that doesn’t happen, rather than support the liberal candidate on at-least-they’re-better-than-the-right-wing grounds, leftists denounce the liberal in power just as strongly as the right, which frustrates liberals.

Although liberals at times appear aspirationally utopian, in practice they are interested in altering the status quo, not replacing it. Liberals, much like leftists, view our institutions as fragile, but unlike leftists, believe fixing them is a better solution than uprooting them.

What’s In A Leftist?

Leftists, a group mainly comprised of socialists, communists, and anarchists, are usually anti-capitalist. Liberals sometimes see themselves as leftists, or view themselves as being “on the left,” since liberals are likely to place themselves as left-of-center on the political spectrum — but leftists typically reserve “left” and “left-of-center” for people whose political orientation is to the left of liberalism. Those who lean right tend to use “the left” and “leftist” as a way of picking out anyone to their left, which includes the vast swathe of liberals.

Just as with “liberalism,” what counts as “leftist” varies around the world. The Socialist Party of France is considered center-left and Communist Party of India is considered far-left, for example. Historically, the term “left-wing” has been used to describe dozens of leftist philosophies including Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Trotskyism, and Anarcho-Syndicalism, just to name a few. Some also define social democrats as leftists, as well as left-leaning liberals with a substantive critique of capitalism or those who participate in labor movements.

Through an economic lens, though leftists sometimes share goals with liberals — such as when leftists and social liberals or social democrats want more socialized programs — leftists go further than liberals. Even in its most moderate forms, leftism supports actions undermining the capitalist superstructure in society, such as incentives for democratizing workplaces with unions and co-ops, or supporting mutual aid and communes. Radical leftists, going further, support a wholesale overthrow of capitalism, which can take the form of workers forcibly seizing the means of production, the abolition of private property, the nationalization of all industries with a view to full collective ownership, or even violent revolution. Within leftism, the end goals sometimes vary, but all forms of it situate capitalism at the core of our social malaise.

Through a social lens — which, under leftism, cannot meaningfully be separated from the economic lens — leftism’s goals sometimes overlap with progressive forms of liberalism. Not always, though — leftists and some socially progressive liberals might agree on, say, criminal justice reform, but they will tend to disagree on whether class or race is the most salient analytical input for advancing justice. Focusing on building class consciousness as opposed to engaging in what they sometimes deride as “performative activism,” leftists prefer to address material conditions rather than whatever symbolic changes end up being prescribed by a concern over racial “identity politics.” This is because leftists believe racial identity politics can be easily addressed without oppressed people gaining much of anything at all; corporations and institutions are able to play-act as though they are pursuing social reform but, according to the leftist, in the end it’s just a vacuous branding exercise. Minority representation doesn’t mean much if the system is exploitative through and through. There are also reactionary leftists such as parts of the “dirtbag left,” areas where left-wing and right-wing populism overlap, as well as authoritarian contingents that are pejoratively referred to as tankies.

In terms of ethos, leftists fundamentally view the world through the frame of power dynamics, such as anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, anti-hierarchy, and class conflict between workers and owners. They believe the systems in place are corrupted by capital. This totalizing framework is why ideas on this side take on a similar form: like “ACAB” (all cops are bastards) or decrying “lesser of two evils” reasoning during elections. They believe the clock is ticking on addressing matters like climate change, economic devastation, and the forward march of fascist regimes — liberals sometimes do too, but leftists see a greater urgency, which is one reason why they push for more immediate, more radical, solutions. If we’re operating with a simple binary of liberal or illiberal social configuration, many leftists will endorse tenets of philosophical liberalism (such as democracy), but they’ll believe social liberalism on its own will inevitably fail to defend them. Leftists believe in philosophical liberalism’s commitment to equality, but they think that this way of ordering society can easily fall into oligarchy and produce widespread social alienation. Some leftists also reject the liberal ethos of civil discourse or so-called respectability politics. To them, certain ideas that serve the goals of capitalists, fascists, and racists shouldn’t be debated and instead should be mocked, deplatformed, or violently fought — since to treat them politely is to grant them respectability, which in turn is to pave the way for their ability to harm.

Since there’s no prominent left-wing party in America today, leftists often ally with liberals in hopes to either reshape the Democratic Party or influence culture enough to start their own. Some leftists are big-tent advocates, while others prefer fracturing into niche communities.

What about Social Democrats and Progressives?

Social democrats have historically been part of the reformist wing of the socialist tradition, but social democratic policies fall within the economic parameters of capitalism so liberals embrace the label as well. Even some leftists call social democrats liberals because they argue their model maintains the status quo and is only sustainable by relying on developed countries for support and exploiting developing countries for resources — arguments that some social democrats reject, citing that not all global trade deals are de facto imperialist exploitation and that their model is a demonstrable transition to forms of leftism, or in some cases, sustainable on its own. More radical leftists believe social democratic reforms — such as FDR’s New Deal — act as mere bandages to the wounds inflicted by capitalism, wounds needing surgery rather than cosmetic changes.

Just as “social democrat” is a common economic label that has historically been a source of tension between liberals and leftists, “progressive” is a common social label between them. Progressives are colloquially seen as people wanting to move society forward on a number of social issues, in contrast to conservatives more in favor of retaining the status quo. Though it mainly picks out a social program, “progressive” can describe economic views as well, but the economic views are in service to the philosophy’s socially progressive aims.

Most prominent non-right-wing figures are characterizable as either liberal or left. Some have their places on the spectrum contested. For example, some liberals believe Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are leftist given their rhetorical openness to “socialism” and their preference for policies like Medicare-for-All; while some leftists see them as basically just liberals slightly to the left of most other liberals given factors like Ocasio-Cortez’s affiliation with the Democratic Party and Sanders’s endorsement of liberal candidates. Going beyond political figures and looking at people in the discourse more broadly, Noam Chomsky and ContraPoints have each run into the same critiques. Chomsky may be considered far-left by many in the mainstream, but some leftists consider him a moderate compared to more radical figures like Michael Parenti. ContraPoints was one of the first leftist creators to break through on YouTube in 2017 with video essays critiquing capitalism, yet has faced accusations of not furthering leftist ideas enough. Some figures may not want the baggage of the leftist label to begin with; some may wish to see socialism in the future but currently only care about social democratic goals; some may be more focused on social issues than theory; and others may simply not fit so neatly into leftist spaces. That’s why even though most people not on the right can be categorized as either liberal or left, there exists a substantial grey area between the two.

The U.S. is a mixed economy in a capitalist system, which is similar to most countries to varying degrees. Liberalism is the predominant political philosophy of the land, and conservatism is an ever-present orientation against most forms of rapid social change, making “liberal” and “conservative” the most commonly used labels. Leftism is growing in the U.S. today, but its more radical forms remain on the fringes. So whenever you see leftism, it’s usually the sort that has some overlapping elements with some of the least moderate forms of liberalism. All this makes it difficult to reach universally agreed upon labels, especially since political spectra are measured differently around the world.

Some people are strict in their label definitions, some avoid them all together, and others use several in combination. There’s no hard line between liberals and leftists that acts as a catch-all, which is why analyzing someone’s positions and ethos in tandem can help with loose categorization. Everybody wants belonging and identity, but there’s a limitation to labels when they mean something different to so many groups. Most people aren’t ideologically consistent and don’t fit neatly within a political compass quadrant. As the saying goes, ask 10 people in a group to define the group’s beliefs and you’ll get 11 answers. But as long as there are competing ideologies, there will always be worthwhile fights over the language to describe them in the discourse. If nothing else, these fights bring us closer to a place where we can evaluate which perspective, seen as a package, is closest to being correct.


Read the original article in Arc Digital:

Saturday, January 15, 2022

Seven Common Propaganda Devices

 

Propaganda - Institute for Propaganda Analysis

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis existed from 1937 to 1941; it closed down because, with war approaching, they couldn't maintain a dispassionate analysis of all propaganda. Their premise was a concern about increasing amounts of propaganda being used on the public. Their goal was to educate the public about propaganda and help them recognize and deal with it. Their concern was that increasing amounts of propaganda would weaken the peoples' ability to analyze and think rationally about issues. Their propaganda devices, listed below, were useful in 1939 but would be considered simplistic now.

One of their efforts involved identifying "seven common propaganda devices" that were commonly used in propaganda materials. These devices appear to be well known even now; they appear in an exhibit at the National Museum of Nuclear Science and Technology in Albuquerque, NM. We'll present them as the IPA did, then expand a bit.

The Seven Devices

  • Bandwagon: "Has as its theme 'everybody - at least all of us - is doing it!' and thereby tries to convince the members of a group that their peers are accepting the program and that we should all jump on the bandwagon rather than be left out." "Everybody is doing this." You've heard that before. The idea here is to convey the notion that if you don't get aboard you will be left out. This can also appear as news organizations jump on a "story" so as not to be left out.
  • Card Stacking: "Involves the selection and use of facts or falsehoods, illustrations or distractions, and logical or illogical statements to give the best or the worst possible case for an idea, program, person, or product."
    • Facts or falsehoods: In propaganda, the use of truth or lie is governed only by its credibility. If you are not familiar with the subject, you might not be able to detect a lie.
    • Illustrations or distractions:
    • Logical or illogical statements: The various reasoning fallacies fall in here.
    You might also include Cherry-Picking. The propagandist uses only those facts and details that support their argument. The selected reasons are used to support the conclusion. You will get misled if you do not notice that important details are missing. The worst part of card-stacking is that it can be very difficult to detect if you are not really knowledgeable about the subject.
  • Glittering Generalities: "Associating something with a 'virtue word' and creating acceptance and approval without examination of the evidence." These are vague, broad statements that will connect with the audience's beliefs and values. They really don't say anything substantive. Slogans make great examples. The vagueness means that the implications, though varying for different people, are always favorable. Think of peace, freedom, justice, family values, etc.

    You can check if something is a glittering generality by asking questions of the speech/slogan such as "How?" or "With what?" or "By what means?" If those questions are unanswered, then you may be dealing with a glittering generality. If they do answer the questions, see if their answers are substantive (details supported by evidence) or whether their answers are even more glittering generalities.

    • Recent Examples:

      Gov. Mitt Romney, during his 2012 Republican National Convention Speech in Tampa, FL: "I am running for president to help create a better future, a future where everyone who wants a job can find a job, where no senior fears for the security of their retirement, an America where every parent knows that their child will get an education that leads to a good job and a bright horizon, and unlike the president, I have a plan to create 12 million new jobs.
      Paul Ryan and I have five steps. First, by 2020, North America will be an energy independent by taking invented [sic] of our oil, are coal, our gas, our nuclear, and renewables.
      Second, we will give our fellow citizens the skills they need for the jobs of today and the careers of tomorrow. When it comes to the school your child will attend, every parent should have a choice, and every child should have a chance.
      Third, we will make trade work for America by forging new trade agreements, and when nations cheat in trade, there will be unmistakable consequences.
      And fourth, to assure every entrepreneur and every job creator that their investments in America will not vanish, as have those in Greece. We will cut the deficit and put America on track to a balanced budget.
      And fifth, we will champion small businesses, America's engine of job growth. That means reducing taxes on business, not raising them. It means simplifying and modernizing the regulations that hurt small businesses the most, and it means we must rein in skyrocketing cost of health care by repealing and replacing Obamacare."
      Link to the speech

      President Barack Obama, during his 2012 Democratic National Convention Speech in Charlotte, NC: "But know this, America: Our problems can be solved. Our challenges can be met. The path we offer may be harder, but it leads to a better place. And I'm asking you to choose that future. I'm asking you to rally around a set of goals for your country – goals in manufacturing, energy, education, national security, and the deficit; a real, achievable plan that will lead to new jobs, more opportunity, and rebuild this economy on a stronger foundation. That's what we can do in the next four years, and that's why I'm running for a second term as President of the United States.
      ...
      We're offering a better path – a future where we keep investing in wind and solar and clean coal; where farmers and scientists harness new biofuels to power our cars and trucks; where construction workers build homes and factories that waste less energy; where we develop a hundred year supply of natural gas that's right beneath our feet. If you choose this path, we can cut our oil imports in half by 2020 and support more than 600,000 new jobs in natural gas alone.
      ...
      You can choose a future where more Americans have the chance to gain the skills they need to compete, no matter how old they are or how much money they have. Education was the gateway to opportunity for me. It was the gateway for Michelle. And now more than ever, it is the gateway to a middle-class life.
      ...
      I want to reform the tax code so that it's simple, fair, and asks the wealthiest households to pay higher taxes on incomes over $250,000 – the same rate we had when Bill Clinton was president; the same rate we had when our economy created nearly 23 million new jobs, the biggest surplus in history, and a lot of millionaires to boot. "
      Link to the speech

  • Name-Calling: "Giving an idea a bad label and therefore rejecting and condemning it without examining the evidence." This is the use of negative words or labels to create prejudice against some person, group or idea. If you fall for this you have been driven to reach a conclusion without examining the evidence.
    • Recent Examples:

      President Barack Obama: "He’d ask the middle class to pay more in taxes so that he could give another $250,000 tax cut to people making more than $3 million a year. It’s like Robin Hood in reverse — it’s Romney-hood . . . " Video segment of speech

      Gov. Mitt Romney: "If I were to coin a term, it’d be Obamaloney" Link to excerpt of interview

  • Plain Folks: "The method by which a speaker attempts to convince the audience that he or she and his or her ideas are good because they are 'of the people,' the 'plain folks.'" The person speaking will adopt a demeanor that makes them look like "everyman." They will appear to connect with the audience and their point of view. Careful choice of clothing, vocabulary, and mannerisms is necessary to make the identity connection. Hitler was quite good at this.
  • Testimonial: "Consists in having some respected or hated person say that a given idea or program or product is good or bad." This technique has a well-known someone endorse, recommend or approve of a product, cause or program. Pop celebrities can work well here. Remember that testimonials aren't worth much, particularly if the endorser is not an authority in the field.
  • Transfer: "Carries the respect and authority of something respected to something else to make the latter accepted. Also works with something that is disrespected to make the latter rejected." This is an effort to transfer your approval of something you respect and approve of to another something that the propagandist wants you to approve of. Using a flag as a background for photographs helps.


Friday, January 14, 2022

Martin Luther King on Capitalism

 Martin Luther King on capitalism


Throughout his life, Martin Luther King Jr spoke often and with vision about the nature of capitalism.  The power of his words speak as much  to the present day as they did to the turbulent times he witnessed.

I imagine you already know that I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic… [Capitalism] started out with a noble and high motive… but like most human systems it fell victim to the very thing it was revolting against. So today capitalism has out-lived its usefulness.” – Letter to Coretta Scott, July 18, 1952.

In a sense, you could say we’re involved in the class struggle.” – Quote to New York Times reporter, José Igelsias, 1968.

And one day we must ask the question, ‘Why are there forty million poor people in America? And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth.’ When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I’m simply saying that more and more, we’ve got to begin to ask questions about the whole society…” – Speech to Southern Christian Leadership Conference Atlanta, Georgia, August 16, 1967.

Capitalism forgets that life is social. And the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism, but in a higher synthesis.” – Speech to Southern Christian Leadership Conference Atlanta, Georgia, August 16, 1967.

Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.” – Speech to the Negro American Labor Council, 1961.

We must recognize that we can’t solve our problem now until there is a radical redistribution of economic and political power… this means a revolution of values and other things. We must see now that the evils of racism, economic exploitation and militarism are all tied together… you can’t really get rid of one without getting rid of the others… the whole structure of American life must be changed. America is a hypocritical nation and [we] must put [our] own house in order.”- Report to SCLC Staff, May 1967.

The evils of capitalism are as real as the evils of militarism and evils of racism.” – Speech to SCLC  Board, March 30, 1967.

I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective – the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed matter: the guaranteed income… The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty.” – Where do We Go from Here?, 1967.

You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry. Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong with capitalism.” – Speech to his staff, 1966.

[W]e are saying that something is wrong … with capitalism…. There must be better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.” – Speech to his staff, 1966.

If America does not use her vast resources of wealth to end poverty and make it possible for all of God’s children to have the basic necessities of life, she too will go to hell.” –  Speech at Bishop Charles Mason Temple of the Church of God in Christ in support of the Memphis sanitation workers’ strike on March 18th, 1968, two weeks before he was assassinated.








Martin Luther King on capitalism