Often I am told that people simply can't say the things I do.
When I was growing up (as if I ever did) in the 1960's and early 1970's, I often heard denigration of the "liberal media." I don't recall ever hearing about the media as pro-corporate, pro-business, or pro-wealth, even conservative.
Only after much time, in the 1980's or 1990's, did I hear of the media as being anything but "liberal."
Now it should be clear to most people that the media is not liberal, and certainly not socialist or social democratic. Even public radio and television host far more conservative, pro-business, or pro-corporate commentators than liberals, social democrats, socialists, or anarchists. In fact I don't remember ever hearing ANY socialists or anarchists on public radio or television, though they would be a good counterweight to many on the far right (neo-falangists) that can be heard from pr firms such as Cato, American Enterprise Institute, and Heritage Foundation.
I've developed an idea how this worked. Quite often on the TV of the 1960's would comment about TV *not* being liberal, but rather fair, balanced, etc. But the very denial made the concept speakable, something that could be discussed. Never on the TV of the 1960's would you hear the opposite defense, that TV was *not* being conservative, pro-business, etc. The very thought of that was unspeakable. The one-sided denials themselves became a kind of endorsement of the idea. And all the more to cover the real truth, that commercial television funded by corporations cannot help but be pro-corporate, etc. He who pays the piper calls the tune. And there are other reasons too. That US citizens can criticize their government or government officials is constitutionally guaranteed. On the other hand, speaking ill of corporations could be found to be libel by the mainstream pro-corporate judiciary, as well as leading to a fall off in advertisement revenue.
So it is often that when something is unspeakable, it is the real truth.
And another such unspeakable truth is that women are, as individuals, more powerful than men.
It is absolutely obvious from mammalian evolutionary psychology that it should be like that. Women have control over the scarcer reproductive resources. This is clearly revealed in Steven Pinker's (becoming harder to find) book, How the Mind Works.
But in the 1970's and beyond, the 2nd and later waves of Feminism began to preach that women are generally oppressed by men, not just rich and powerful men but all men generally, and should seek to realize their natural superiority by throwing off generalized male oppression. One key figure in these later sexist Feminist movements has been the anti-porn feminist Gloria Steinem. Now I strongly support the original 1st wave Feminist movements, that are not so much about identity as basic rights, including the right to choose abortion. But the 2nd and 3rd wave Feminist movements became more about identity, generalized oppression, and natural superiority, and sometimes even become silent about abortion.
This has now become such an article of faith in left organizations that it cannot be criticized. And along with the new primary goal of ending generalized female oppression, it is only natural that there should be quota systems or similar mechanisms to guarantee that women are fairly represented, in organizations from the pro-corporate Democratic Party to the sensible left Democratic Socialists of America there are quotas to guarantee that women get their fair share of party representatives at all levels (district, state, national), save the ultimate election to Congress where ability to raise money alone prevails. Regardless of how many individuals of either sex who are competing for the jobs, or what their particular platform is, etc.
I attended the 2008 National Convention of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). In that convention, we elected the representatives who set on the central policymaking board; a group of 22 or so individuals. Just enough women had offered their candidacy as were needed by quota on the board. Therefore, all the women who volunteered were accepted, without having to speak before the body or face election. Meanwhile, there were about 50% more men who had signed up than could be allowed on the board, so every one of them spoke before the group, and had to face an open-ballot election process. About 70% of those attending the convention were men.
I was beginning to have my doubts that all the women who had automatically been selected simply by volunteering actually represented socialist viewpoints. I know at least one was an outspoken Christian, not generally expected among Socialists.
Sometime before the convention, Gloria Steinem had written an editorial in a mainstream newspaper that women should vote for Hillary Clinton rather than Barack Obama or any male candidate because sex is the most important political issue. This generated some comment, but not clear denunciation, at the socialist convention. It would seem to me that Socialism is first and foremost about making society fair for all working people, women and men alike. Nevertheless, Gloria Steinem remains an honorary directory of DSA. At the DSA convention, there was no motion to remove Steinem as honorary chair for anti-socialist remarks, nor any mention of changing the bylaws to remove the quota system for women and men.
I believe in Socialism. But to succeed, Socialism will have to cast off identity politics. As a political identity movement for specific oppressed groups, I don't believe it has any hope. There is only hope in unity of all working people, regardless of sex or other individual identities.
When I was growing up (as if I ever did) in the 1960's and early 1970's, I often heard denigration of the "liberal media." I don't recall ever hearing about the media as pro-corporate, pro-business, or pro-wealth, even conservative.
Only after much time, in the 1980's or 1990's, did I hear of the media as being anything but "liberal."
Now it should be clear to most people that the media is not liberal, and certainly not socialist or social democratic. Even public radio and television host far more conservative, pro-business, or pro-corporate commentators than liberals, social democrats, socialists, or anarchists. In fact I don't remember ever hearing ANY socialists or anarchists on public radio or television, though they would be a good counterweight to many on the far right (neo-falangists) that can be heard from pr firms such as Cato, American Enterprise Institute, and Heritage Foundation.
I've developed an idea how this worked. Quite often on the TV of the 1960's would comment about TV *not* being liberal, but rather fair, balanced, etc. But the very denial made the concept speakable, something that could be discussed. Never on the TV of the 1960's would you hear the opposite defense, that TV was *not* being conservative, pro-business, etc. The very thought of that was unspeakable. The one-sided denials themselves became a kind of endorsement of the idea. And all the more to cover the real truth, that commercial television funded by corporations cannot help but be pro-corporate, etc. He who pays the piper calls the tune. And there are other reasons too. That US citizens can criticize their government or government officials is constitutionally guaranteed. On the other hand, speaking ill of corporations could be found to be libel by the mainstream pro-corporate judiciary, as well as leading to a fall off in advertisement revenue.
So it is often that when something is unspeakable, it is the real truth.
And another such unspeakable truth is that women are, as individuals, more powerful than men.
It is absolutely obvious from mammalian evolutionary psychology that it should be like that. Women have control over the scarcer reproductive resources. This is clearly revealed in Steven Pinker's (becoming harder to find) book, How the Mind Works.
But in the 1970's and beyond, the 2nd and later waves of Feminism began to preach that women are generally oppressed by men, not just rich and powerful men but all men generally, and should seek to realize their natural superiority by throwing off generalized male oppression. One key figure in these later sexist Feminist movements has been the anti-porn feminist Gloria Steinem. Now I strongly support the original 1st wave Feminist movements, that are not so much about identity as basic rights, including the right to choose abortion. But the 2nd and 3rd wave Feminist movements became more about identity, generalized oppression, and natural superiority, and sometimes even become silent about abortion.
This has now become such an article of faith in left organizations that it cannot be criticized. And along with the new primary goal of ending generalized female oppression, it is only natural that there should be quota systems or similar mechanisms to guarantee that women are fairly represented, in organizations from the pro-corporate Democratic Party to the sensible left Democratic Socialists of America there are quotas to guarantee that women get their fair share of party representatives at all levels (district, state, national), save the ultimate election to Congress where ability to raise money alone prevails. Regardless of how many individuals of either sex who are competing for the jobs, or what their particular platform is, etc.
I attended the 2008 National Convention of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). In that convention, we elected the representatives who set on the central policymaking board; a group of 22 or so individuals. Just enough women had offered their candidacy as were needed by quota on the board. Therefore, all the women who volunteered were accepted, without having to speak before the body or face election. Meanwhile, there were about 50% more men who had signed up than could be allowed on the board, so every one of them spoke before the group, and had to face an open-ballot election process. About 70% of those attending the convention were men.
I was beginning to have my doubts that all the women who had automatically been selected simply by volunteering actually represented socialist viewpoints. I know at least one was an outspoken Christian, not generally expected among Socialists.
Sometime before the convention, Gloria Steinem had written an editorial in a mainstream newspaper that women should vote for Hillary Clinton rather than Barack Obama or any male candidate because sex is the most important political issue. This generated some comment, but not clear denunciation, at the socialist convention. It would seem to me that Socialism is first and foremost about making society fair for all working people, women and men alike. Nevertheless, Gloria Steinem remains an honorary directory of DSA. At the DSA convention, there was no motion to remove Steinem as honorary chair for anti-socialist remarks, nor any mention of changing the bylaws to remove the quota system for women and men.
I believe in Socialism. But to succeed, Socialism will have to cast off identity politics. As a political identity movement for specific oppressed groups, I don't believe it has any hope. There is only hope in unity of all working people, regardless of sex or other individual identities.
