The Necessity of Anger

Perhaps in an effort to provoke, I'll just say it; anger is a necessity. 

It seems as though the modern individual has forgotten the value of well-placed anger, of well-intentioned rage, and has instead replaced it with this 'softened' variety of false struggle -- one that lacks the vigor to fundamentally change anything. This is a primary concern and a major impediment to mobilization. It is this dilemma that cripples the common man's mind, forcing him to adopt deceptive reformist positions and play the elusive game of politics. This seemingly divides many of us to the point of abandoning personal convictions, limiting us to an inhumane extent, and ultimately renders us useless rather than a catalyst for change. 

The supposed cause, from my understanding? Bourgeois liberalism and the decaying of the left. Seldom ever do you witness any real economic criticism from today's left, rather you see some trivial reformist position and a pandering to identity politics. That is really all it has come down to: petty unsubstantial reformism. And consequently, there has also been some 'softening' in the left's once-held convictions -- they've relinquished them and trampled on them. The modern left must be reinvented and revived if it wants to hope to even establish itself to the status it once held. Even worse so, they've also become inexcusably weak in their criticism (when they do criticize something substantive). When did we start espousing this implied platform that everyone is 'free from offense' and 'nobody can be offended?' The supposed 'socialist' parties of Europe are notorious for this in their willingness to relinquish basic Enlightenment principles (i.e free speech, secularism & other civil liberties) to comfort smaller groups, especially the religious. It is sad that these parties, carrying the title of 'socialists,' are our only alternative to the right. This kind of liberalism is truly dangerous, because it has shown that it is willing to forgo our own freedoms all in the name of "improving public relations." Christopher Hitchens tackles this in one of his TV interviews much more eloquently than I have, in response to the Muhammad Cartoon Controversy of 2005; you can see that here.

Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the left has been in shambles. Rather then use their former criticisms, which are still valid, and reinvent themselves, many have adopted the positions of 'liberalism' and 'humanitarianism,' instead of tackling the issue of poverty itself. They've adopted the position of 'stop climate change' instead of questioning the destructive environmental effects the accumulation of capital brings. They've adopted the position against racism, which is very important, but they have been completely ignoring its linkage to class and socio-economic status. Why is it now that the primary concern of any 'leftist' is legalizing marijuana, or global warming, or some other reformist position that fails to tackle the crux of the issue? I just don't understand. 

Another point, that was actually first mentioned by philosopher Slavoj Zizek, is this; the demographic of leftist politics is changing. The Tea Party has begun to resemble something like the workers' rallies of the 1960s, with the same enthusiasm and conviction. This is disheartening as it is tragic. The right has managed to shift the layman's blame onto 'big government' rather than 'big business' and all the liberal left has done is make concessions, especially in the United States. The worst aspect, however, is that these people are voting against their interests. They have been convinced that such nicely-packaged 'change' will heighten their economic condition, when in retrospect this 'change' includes disproportional benefits to the wealthy. They are supporting the plutocracy, and status quo, and they've grown too numb to realize it. Their concerns are misguided, and their reasoning is skewed, and to mend their hearts and minds into the direction it once was is a task that the left has to wrangle with if it wants any real change; but seeing the slump they are in now, I fear the future is rather dim. Perhaps a threat to western privilege is what is necessary to wake the people from their apathy or misdirection, but until that opportune moment arises I remain an involved pessimist.

Now that I've laid down some of the criticisms, perhaps it is more obvious why there could be no better time to be angry. Be angry at politics, be angry at the inequitable system, and be angry at the dehumanizing culture, will you! Sensible rage is perhaps what we need to rekindle that emotional connection to struggle that has recently been absent. However, the most crucial step is translating all this agitation into real subversive action, and that is what the modern left must capitalize on -- as Stéphane Hessel writes in his small affront manifesto, this is indeed a "Time for Outrage!"

The Politics of Historical Revisionism

The American republic has been steadily degenerating in recent years - and it seems some want to resuscitate some lost patriotic zeal of the American dream with obscurity and contradictions. A deliberate false historic revisionism is happening; a 'rereading' of American history in an effort to make it fit with today's United States. This is the modern system that the founders envisioned, they argue, and we have to keep the status quo 'alive and well.' They are trying to put a square peg in a round hole and they have an entire rightist movement fooled. 

Thomas Jefferson, especially, has become a victim to this type of slander. He is portrayed, by the Tea Party and others, in cliché slogans of little to no historical significance. He is used falsely as a rallying call for free market-eteers; serving as an example that the United States was founded on the principles of "modern capitalism and democracy" and that this "still lives on today." In recent memory, he has been attributed to this false quote:

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not,"

Fits right into the right-wing anti-Obama agenda, seldom a surprise.

Thomas Paine's real reputation has also been ravaged and hijacked, even recently. The former conservative TV host Glenn Beck used to pride himself on being a scholar of the American founding fathers. He attempted to christen Thomas Paine as the new figure of conservatism - an obvious contradiction to anybody with a vague recollection of American revolutionary history. Thomas Paine was a radical leftist, an enemy of privilege and aristocracy, an anti-religious pamphleteer, a skeptic of capital accumulation, and a contrarian of his time. He died penniless and with little friends, a testament to his passion; in no alternate world would he ally himself with a wealthy Christian-conservative TV star. Not only that, he is diametrically opposed to the domestic conservative platform. He is credited as the precursor to the modern 'Social Security System,' in his work titled 'Agrarian Justice' he writes:

"In taking the matter upon this ground, the first principle of civilization ought to have been, and ought still to be, that the condition of every person born into the world, after a state of civilization commences, ought not to be worse than if he had been born before that period."

He goes on to advocate a 'National Fund' to guarantee such improvement:

"To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:
And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age."

He then goes into monetary details; breaking down costs in Britain at the time and how the system would be implemented. He also criticizes the institution the private property as being naturally restrictive and, if left to its own ends, would accumulate to a minority elite. He promoted his 'National Fund' idea to cure this malady of capitalism; and bear in mind this was formulated in a predominately pre-capitalist era. This was written over two centuries ahead of his time, remarkable in any respect.

Now, does this correspond with any right-wing rhetoric? This historical obscurity is a symptom of a broken political sphere where revisionism is deemed a valid strategy; this becoming the rule rather than the exception. Trying to push a ideology of 'American Exceptionalism' by disguising the historicity of American figures is dangerous in hindsight for it fools the public into believing that the modern status quo is what was intended at this nation's founding. It is this that perhaps, albeit subtly, discredits anybody questioning today's illusive 'American Dream.' The response has become "you're going against the American tradition." This is a kind of political religion, a type of dogma, and a false one at that.

And one just as the founders intended, surely - or so these modern 'patriots' claim.