Joe Bageant: Americans Are "Hope Fiends" Because Honestly Looking at the Present Situation Would Destroy Just About Everything We Hold As Reality | | AlterNet

Why don't you go fox yourself.

Dont be a dick.

Sorry to everyone else but I have to give that an Amen.

Freedom and capitalism have not to do with each other.

Mike man, when are you gonna learn? There is no such thing as the free market, there never was.

Maybe in the 18th century, back in the days of Adam Smith, when people had trades and made things to sell at market. Maybe you could call that a free market.

But in the days of electrons and industry, there is no such thing. He who can make the most goods will dominate the market and buy out the government. It's inevitable.

It's been that way since after the Civil War, when there was no federal government and practically no regulations on the market.

Your point that we don't live under unfettered capitalism is correct, but also irrelevant to the larger issue, in my view. Capitalism suffers from the same moral deficiency as any system of commerce currently deployed in the world. Goods and services are mediated by money, a morally ambiguous measurement of wealth that can just as easily support the building of a school as it can the genocide of millions. Without a guiding moral principle of any kind, capitalism devolves into a system where profit is more important than people.

I said this in another post, but I think it bears repeating here:
Detaching value from actual resources, people and situations only succeeds in debasing the moral foundation of society. The farther we are removed from the consequences of our actions, the more immoral society becomes. Given that apparent reality, I don't see how pure capitalism succeeds in providing a more moral context for society. Capitalism does not value human life any more than governments do. As long as you value property as much as you value people, people will lose.

And just a note about your tone: I think your overuse of hyperbole is off-putting to people who would otherwise agree with you. It would help to engage in a more respectful dialog that is based around having a discussion with people about what could be true, instead of preaching that you have the answers. It's a hard balance to strike, and I'm sure I could be accused of the same thing from time to time, but I think it's important to keep in mind the good intentions and intelligence of those who disagree with you at the current time.

"It's been that way since after the Civil War, when there was no federal government and practically no regulations on the market."

And ironically, you can have all the regulations on the book you want, but it's absolutely meaningless without having effective enforcement of existing regulations.

This was the situation that led up to the current financial crisis, where Wall St. and Main St. felt entitled to ignore existing laws with the blessing Bush based on his fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of laissez-faire capitalism.

Bush and the sworn regulators (e.g. Greenspan) were only too glad to look the other way, in a mistaken interpretation that laissez-faire capitalism means NO regulation. As one example, Bush pretty much hamstrung the financial analysts working for FBI on financial fraud cases, to divert them to working on anti-terrorist cases following 9/11.

As a result, existing laws were widely ignored since there was no enforcement, and white-collar criminals were allowed to run rampant and continue their financial crimes. You know the rest.....

In the aftermath, people like Greenspan professed their ignorance of how the situation evolved, and claimed they had NO IDEA that human nature would allow people to steal from the unlocked candy store. Now we're ALL paying for the pilfered riches the high-level criminals were able to sequester, while the Keystone Kops were napping while supposedly on duty.

Well, if me and mine have anything to do about it we will again return to true freedom and capitalism. We can't just poo poo about how long it's been since we had it. Damn it, stand up and let's take this country back to its roots, I'm tired of fascism.

Sorry, but if you're an American, then you've never lived under either fascism OR capitalism. You haven't a clue.... Fox tells you we live under fascism, and you believe it? 99% of citizens in this country couldn't even DEFINE fascism, but they sure as hell can PARROT the word.

Shame you don't even understand the basic principles of the economic system you live under.

Very well said. Ron Paul 2012!

H3adline, the fact that people value material things more than other people shows the true nature of our species. The society you strive for will not be possible unless we as a species completely evolve. The only thing with intrinsic value to our species is pleasure. As you know pleasure is subjective to each individual, but for some reason there are some pleasures that our society seems to enjoy more than others, such as those we receive from material things. It is for these reasons that we have the economic systems in place today.

One good start in the evolution of humans is to quit raising our females to be prostitutes. From an early age we teach women to value gold, diamonds, cars, doctors, lawyers, etc. We have literally destroyed the quality of our race by creating a society run by the demands of our little daughters/prostitutes. I'm sorry if that offends anyone but it is so true.

Is this how you were raised ?

That's ignorant. I completely understand the system we claim to be under and it's a lie. This is fascism, plain and simple. We live under Corporatism not Capitalism we have fascism not freedom. Anyone saying otherwise is blind or gets a government paycheck to say so. Elderly Diplomats from Russia recently left and quoted to the news that they had never seen a police state such as the one they are leaving and they don't plan to return. That says a lot.
Convenient of you to use Fox like that. However, I happen to believe that all network television is shilling for the government. It's like good cop, bad cop they just change positions as they change administrations. Both sides pretend to be against the other but the end goal is taking more and more control away from the people and lining their pockets. So, your 'Fox tells you blah, blah, blah doesn't work on me or my brother Monkey_Films. Remember that so you don't waste your propaganda next time.

I agree with your response to Davidod's post. Politics today is like a movie, all the politicians pretend to despise each other when they're on camera, but once the scene is over, they all go out for lunch together. It's all Hollywood. The real problem is the banks, just look at what's happening to Iceland.

No, this is how the average American girl is raised by her parents, her school, television and everyone else she comes in contact with. Kudos to the very few who don't follow along and become another unhappy, 3 times divorced, prostitute. Kudos to women who care less about their American image and more about the environment and civil rights around the world, however uncommon they are. Amen to We Are Change. One of the biggest problems in America is undoing the damage we've done to our women by bringing them up with the wrong ideals. How can you stop over-consumption when a sign of success among our women is winning a man with which she can over-consume the most with? How can we feel for the poor in other countries when we don't care how many children die mining the diamonds for our wedding rings? How many hours did an illegal immigrant work for your reception and how much carbon did your wedding put out? Nobody cares because our little girls want to decorate themselves with cars, diamonds, clothing, houses and men. Then, they go home and spend hours watching television so they can gossip for days about how they feel sorry for the poor people in Haiti. Sickening. I'm 44 and never been married because I refuse to settle for a spoiled, mall loving, television watching, non-intelligent, gold-digging, gossiping excuse for a woman that we have here in America.

It's a nice idea, but the entities that control education are in bed with the same entities you would like to see them undermine. I would caution you that such a scenario seems unlikely to me. The interests do not line up in favor of your goal.

Agreed on the evil Republicans from the last administration but didn't you notice, NOTHING'S CHANGED. How can you talk about how evil the last admin. was, and it was, and not see anything wrong with the current administration continuing everything you claim to disagree with from the past one? Obama supporting Libs make absolutely no sense. He's a Far-Right Republican Democrat and you are supporting him? With a passion, I might add, even though all of his policies and actions are the opposite of his own party.

If you read what I wrote carefully, I did not say the word "administration" even once.
I did not even say the word "Obama" even once.

I did not say anything that had anything to do with your reply.

You did prove my point though- too many people don't have a decent education. Including reading comprehension.

Now, on your points:

1.) It's false to say nothing has changed. But yes, not much has changed. In case you did not notice, a change in administration does not mean a president becomes King, and can get everything he wants done with the wave of his hand.

If that were true, we would all have health care now.

Instead, reality demands that politicians play politics to get things done, and the Republicans have become the party of "no" and have blockaded every reform effort the Administration has attempted. Plus, the Democratic party is not so united, and does not back everything Obama puts forth.

2.) I NEVER claimed to agree with everything Obama does, or has not done. But unlike you, I realize he is NOT a far-right winger. That is just a stupid thing to say, with the far-right wing calling him a Communist. DO you even realize there are such things as moderates, or is everyone on the extremes to you?

3.) Now back to my point- I was not talking about politicians. I was talking about the populace. The populace votes, and thats what puts the politicians in office.

My point was the people on the right need to be educated about logic and reason, so they learn not to fall for extremist propaganda.

You have demonstrated that extremists on the left need that education too.

It is I that am calling Obama a Far Right Wing Democrat. You see, he belongs to the Democratic party and claims to be one but everything he does is extremely right wing. I don't give a darn what or whom the parties call each other, that's all Hollywood anyway. Yet, he is a communist. That is not name calling that is coming from his and his administrations writings and statements and policies. I don't call someone moderate because they call themselves that. I don't believe in political correctness. I believe in true and false, fact and fiction and so I call it as I see it without the nuisance of having partisan blinders on.

So, you are saying that to you, he's a far right-wing communist!?!?

That would be right next to a far left-wing capitalist.

Well, I think you just defined the word "moderate".

And BTW- statements like "I don't believe in political correctness" are a very politically correct thing to say. No one ever claims to believe in "political correctness", yet everyone accuses everyone else of doing so.

And statements like "I believe in true and false, fact and fiction and so I call it as I see it without the nuisance of having partisan blinders on" are meaningless things to say, because everyone does- even people who's "truth" is different from yours, who's "facts" you would call "fiction", and who would scream "fiction" at your so-called "facts".

Basically, it's a meaningless sound byte- like politicians say. Like I said in my previous post- it's not reason, it's propaganda.

It's not a position on an issue, like health care, the war, or same sex marriage- it's vague meaningless words shouted by pundits wrapped in the flag. Truth, Beauty, Liberty, Justice, Apple Pie, Mom.

Absolutely no statements of any kind are meaningless sound bytes if they're meant and acted upon. You assume that anyone in disagreement is spewing sound-bytes and wrapping themselves in the flag when they actually might, for once in the country's history, mean it. My other statements bother you because you are so used to lies and left/right ideologies. I can, however, claim to be non-partisan because I don't believe the current political parties should exist. We are one America, we only need one party with many choices narrowed down to a selection in the end. The left/right paradigm was created to give our twisted American values something to bicker about thereby allowing any true discussion to slip right by. I also don't subscribe to your pseudo-psychology that 'facts' are what you make them and there are more than one truth to every situation. Facts are facts and politics blur that line to those who can't seem to understand that universal law. I don't decide who's facts to call true or fiction, the facts decide that. Facts are scientifically provable and observable and cannot be watered down by New Age Psychology or BS Politics so you can keep your evaluation and feed it to someone more easily confused. Everything physically happening or existing in this world is accompanied by a certain set of 'FACTS' that cannot be denied or debated SCIENTIFICALLY and that is why I don't prescribe to any given political party because they can't seem to understand that TRUTH.

As for Obama, I'm saying his behavior is extremely right wing, more government, destroy the middle class, enrich the elites and allow corporations and insurance companies to run around without boundaries. He may claim to be a Democrat but according to their 'advertised' ideology, he is polar opposite. The only time he appears to be a Democrat is when he pushes his Socialized agendas and there you have his Communist tendencies.

Throughout this conversation, you have made numerous assumptions about me, my positions and beliefs- and none of those assumptions have had anything to do with what I wrote, nor do they have anything to do with me.

As such, you have proved my point- what you call "truth" is not based on scientific observation and analysis. It's based on your ideology, and preconceptions.

You would do well to read more, and write less.

Ah, you would do well to 'think' more and write less. Monkey's 'assumptions' seem to be directly based on the scientific analysis of your opinions and writings as shown here, not only in this conversation but after reviewing other posts, I happen to agree with him. Your positions are directly stated and then you return to say Monkey makes assumptions when he comments on your stated opinions. That makes absolutely no sense.

It seems to me that you try to use direct statements as if they were facts without relying on the previous evidence to back that up. My psychology training tells me that it's very possible you are a control freak and that is why you assume you can make 'truth' a partisan subject. Hell, if you outright claim your opinion as fact enough, it will become so. Not so much. Truth is truth, fact is fact, fiction is fiction, lies are lies and all can be observed and proven to be so. Anything else is a theory. So, while myself and Monkey appreciate your theories, I agree with him that facts are decided with the most accuracy when someone refuses to pick any side other than the truth. This is why partisan politics destroys our country. With partisan politics there is never any truth.

Oh, and I've never met anyone who READS more than Monkey_Films so that, my friend, was a wrong assumption not the interpretation of your statements by Monkey_Films

LOL!

So back up your "scientific analysis" of my writing.

Provide evidence.

Look at my first post, which had nothing to do with the previous administration or Obama, and tell me how his conclusion that I was blindly supporting Obama.

Show how that's a comment on my stated opinion.

Show where I have EVER claimed my opinions as facts- rather than simply pointing out where his statements have done exactly that.

Show me where I make truth a partisan subject, rather than simply pointing out how HE was making truth a partisan subject.

Please wow me with your "psychology training".

As far as whatever Monkey reads, he definitely does not read the posts he replies to.

And right now, my "psychology training" tells me that you are friends with Monkey, and you are jumping to his defense not out of "logic" or "reason" or reviewing my posts.

It's just your loyalty to him.

BTW- true loyal friends don't back up their friends when they make mistakes, thus making the mistakes larger. Instead they help them learn and grow past them.

... and while we are at it, if Monkey's opinions are based on rock-solid facts and the scientific process not simply his extremist views, give me the FACTS that PROVE that Obama is a Communist.

Do you know the difference between Communism and Socialism?

Show me the FACTS that indicate that Obama wants the United States government to seize control of the means of production, thereby making all companies part of the government. Not simply wealth distribution, which we have had since taxes first began, but actual Communism.

Wow, I was going to do the whole psychology evaluation thing but hey, that's even better. I have to be at the Capitol in the morning so I must sign off too soon. However, I will return with a lesson on covert Communism and how it is used to silently take over a Representative Republic.

Fine- enjoy your school field trip. It's a lovely backpedal when you realize that your friend Monkey jumped off the deep end.

And here is another reading comprehension lesson:

I don't want to hear a bunch of propaganda about "covert Communism".

I asked for PROOF that Obama- and specifically Obama- wants the United States government to seize control of the means of production, thereby making all companies part of the government. Not simply wealth distribution, which we have had since taxes first began, but actual Communism.

Perhaps you will learn the difference between Communism and Socialism.

"So I make one suggestion to anyone reading this: value people. Value our lives and our well-being. Because change begins when you do."

Reminds me of the words uttered by Aldous Huxley on his death-bed:

“It is a bit embarrassing to have been concerned with the human problem all one's life and find at the end that one has no more to offer by way of advice than 'try to be a little kinder.”

Of course, Huxley said he was embarrassed by finding he had nothing more to offer, as it's pretty clear he knows that such advice is going to be seen as simplistic, naive. More violent types killed pacifists such as Jesus and Ghandi, so the question is what is your goal: to die without blood on one's own hands by trying to change the world, or risk supporting what ultimately is shown to be the wrong course (and Huxley also said, "Hell isn't merely paved with good intentions; it's walled and roofed with them. Yes, and furnished too.").

Bottom line is, there's no answer. People act in their own self-interests, whether they're fighting to protect their fellow soldier, or fighting to protect their family and children. It's all about fighting for one's SELF-INTEREST. When YOUR self-interests align with mine, then we become allies.

As another famous writer said, "I was put on this Planet, not to improve it or try to make it a better place, but to experience it." It sounds lazy and ineffective, until you consider all the ill-conceived projects which have back-fired and led to the observation that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

You make some interesting points, but I think you may define "self-interest" too narrowly. How people look at what's in their best interest is not a simple matter. For instance, I believe it is in my best interest to avoid harming animals whenever possible. I don't get any direct boost to my selfish interests by this idea; I see it as a moral choice that makes life better in a general sense, even if it does not make my own life better in some substantial way. So we can define our self-interest to extend beyond the confines of our immediate body and everyday life to encompass more egalitarian means of existence.

Realizing that all human life is interdependent leads to a definition of self-interest that is not warped for corporate consumption. Despite what the dogma of currency would have believe, not everything is a zero-sum game, where you have to lose for me to win. Even with every incentive of our system insisting otherwise, people still cooperate without the intention of conquering each other. So I have great trust in the ability of people to accomplish a transition from this destructive system to something that values human life.

The road to hell may very well be paved with good intentions, but the road to paradise is surely not paved with ill-intentions. Seeing that we already inhabit a dystopian society, I don't fear that I'm messing with a good thing. I simply advocate the idea that all human life has intrinsic value, and we should structure our society around the idea that resources are not more important than other people. The specifics of the way forward are not clear to met yet. I intend to spend my life defining that path. But I do know that path must be paved with the good intention of valuing human life.

The motto of our culture , if it has one , is 'every penny counts' . What if it were 'every person counts' ? What if the earth was considered an entity , with rights , like the right to regenerate ? If corporations have personhood , surely , so should the Earth ! The Earth - too big to fail ! Is this the sort of change of heart , that you are suggesting ?

Very well said, indeed.