Dear Jennifer,
Enjoyed your comments on the Doublespeak article.
You wrote (to PhilOfHi):
>It seems that the appropriation of terminology is
>always by those in power, or at least those with influence. The trend to
>the Right began two decades ago, really, but it was not apparent until
>fairly recently just how profound the ideological effects have been. Now
>it is apparent that populism, once a leftward strategy of popular power,
>has become one of the Right. When people are dissatisfied, these trends
>become more apparent than they were in the Reagan years, for example, as
>they gain larger followings. Do you think it as a matter more of ideas,
>terminology and the appropriation of the means of communication or of
>objective circumstances?
I'm not sure what you mean by your question, but I'll comment on
what it brings up for me.
In the two-decade period you refer to, there have been changes in
the content of media rhetoric (aka: "public discourse"), and there have
been changes in power structures -- in the U.S. and globally. If your
question is "Which of these changes is primary?", then the answer is
obviously that rhetoric serves power, not the other way around. Clearing
up terminology would not by itself change anything. Indeed my article
isn't really about terminology, that's only a device which facilitates
expressing certain ideas.
My view is that we are now in the midst of an historic cusp,
comparable to the last few decades of the eighteenth century. "Democracy"
arose circa 1789 as an alliance between the People and the Wealthy (to use
loose terms), working together to overthrow the Nobility-Royalty-Clerical
power structure. Since that time, there's been an ongoing wrestling match
for power between these allied forces for political dominance.
The People never really had a chance in this little game, because
they never really understood what it was about. They saw the establishment
of a governmental system which involved their participation to an
unparalleled degree, but they didn't realize that their benefit was but a
collatoral consequence of the new regime. The primary beneficiary was the
capitalist elite, who wanted a system wherein money, and money alone,
represented fundamental power.
Similarly, as economic development brought unparalleled (albeit
uneven) thing-prosperity, People again didn't realize what the game was
about. They competed for a share of the goodies, and didn't so much take
note of how equity ownership was steadily concentrating.
In any case, this nation-state-republic system persisted for these
two centuries _because_ nations served as the fortresses of capitalists.
German captitalists prospered in proportion to the reach of German arms (to
oversimplfiy slightly), and ditto for the other countries. Nationalism was
the religion which led the masses into the service of the capitalist elite,
and the elite supported nationalism.
All around the mulberry bush,
the monkey chased the weasel.
The monkey thought it was all in fun,
Pop! goes the weasel.
Left & Right, Tory & Labour, Movements & Absorptions -- these have
been the dances around the "modern democracy" mulberry bush. The elites
have fared well in the game, but they're tiring of the dance.
What Globalization is about is the destruction of the nation-state
system, and its replacement by one which no longer includes the People as
one of the partners-in-power (albeit a junior partner). Instead of relying
on their masterful ability to corrupt the democratic process, the elites
prefer now to scrap the process itself, and rule outright. GATT, NAFTA,
IMF, NATO et al are the embryonic sproutings of a new world government of,
by, and for the corporate elite -- with no pretense or mechanism of popular
participation or representation.
For much of the third world, national sovereignty is already a
thing of the past. The question of Cuba is not "socialism in one country",
it is rather "sovereignty in one country". In the first world there
remains, briefly, a window of opportunity -- while on-paper democratic
institutions still exist -- for People to seize control of "their"
governments. Once the privatization- deregulation- devolution-
globalization transformation is complete, this window will be gone, and we
will ALL have the same control over our destinies as, let's say, Bosnia or
El Salvador does today. In some sense what we're seeing is the
balkanization of the globe.
There are no conditions in the world today that make popular/
democratic empowerment any more likely or possible than at any other time
in the past two centuries. This is not comforting. Indeed the
sophistication of the propaganda machinery, and the global
coordination-capacity of the corporate elite, are so advanced that the
conditions are in fact worse than they have ever been.
However, this vanishing window (however narrow) is our last chance
to avoid a back-to-the-future corporate- feudalistic dark ages, and perhaps
the realization of this fact may be the very spark that could crystallize a
new kind of popular mobilization. It's a long shot, but it's the only
credible hope I can think of.
As long as the democratic mechanisms exist, then popular will --
potentially -- is sovereign. In that sense, "ideas, terminology and the
appropriation of the means of communication" have the potential to
_determine_ "objective circumstances". Currently, a professionally managed
propaganda regime serves to confuse and mesmerize the People -- it need not
mobilize them because their collective collaboration isn't needed
(technology has outgrown mass armies).
This historical cusp, this crisis moment for humanity, creates an
emergency situation. The responsibility of the intelligensia is to wake up
to this emergency and to act accordingly -- to employ every channel at
their disposal to educate and arouse the populace to the emergency, and to
contribute to the leadership cadre toward effecting a decisive progressive
mobilization.
There is no middle ground. The corporate elite have decreed that
compromise is no longer on offer, and have initiated a full-court press
against democracy. As Trotsky observed, people don't initiate revolutions
on ideological grounds -- revolutions happen when the people have no other
choice. In our case, we in fact have no other choice, but we're having a
hard time perceiving the reality of our situation.
That's why language is in some sense central.
Regards,
Richard
BTW> If anyone is preparing to respond that the American Revolution was not
forced by Britain, but was initiated spontaneously in the colonies -- let
me just remind you that no revolution occurred. There was a forced
separation from the parent, but an essential continuity of local
governance, a smooth evolution into the formal Constitutional system, under
pre-existing leadership.