Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
This week we welcome Sasha Lilley, to discuss her new book,
"Capitaland Its Discontents: Conversations with Radical Thinkers in a
Time of Tumult."

Sasha Lilley is a writer and radio broadcaster. She's the co-founder
and host of the critically acclaimed program of radical ideas, Against
the Grain [http://www.againstthegrain.org/]. She is also the series
editor of PM Press’ political economy imprint, Spectre—more Karl Marx,
than Ian Fleming. 

Leading this interview will be Angie Coiro. Angie is a freelance
interviewer and journalist living on the San Francisco peninsula. Her
radio and television credits include Mother Jones Radio on Air America;
Friday Forum on KQED in San Francisco; and Spotlight! on KCSM-TV.
Angie's the recipient of numerous awards for her interviewing work,
including public radio's national PRNDI award. She shares her 1923
cottage with three cats and countless scavenged artsy bits.

Welcome to Inkwell, Sasha and Angie!
  

    
Thanks, Julie. Sasha, welcome, it's marvelous to have you here.

If you don't mind, I'd like to address the goal of the book before we
get into its contents. And I'm coming at it from an angle much in the
news this last year or so.

The overriding element of political discourse these days is polarity.
Not only do we have more opportunity than ever to seek news and
perspective only from sources we agree with; but behavioral and
neurological scientists are piling up the evidence that facts bounce
off of already-convinced brains without making a dent. 

For example, a global warming denier, a 9/11 truther, a birther, are
all but immune to new information that undermines what they already
believe. 

A poll out last week showed that 44% on the right, 37% on the left,
get their news from sources they believe are sympathetic to their point
of view.

So not only can we exclude information sources that doesn't fit our
world view - our brains, especially the conservative brain according to
some sources, aren't open to whatever unpleasant facts might slip by
our filters. 

The more sharply this picture of how our political brains function has
come into focus, the more I wonder: what does this tell us about the
function and best use of new information?

Here you have a new collection of insights and analysis from Noam
Chomsky, Tariq Ali, and other bright lights. It examines the realities
and fallacies of capitalism. The book looks squarely at the crises
eating away at America and the dreams of its citizens, and lessons from
around the world that could lead us out of the mess.

Ideally, who will read it? What's it for? Are you seeking to change
minds, bring new information to those already active on the left, bring
new bodies to the cause?
  

    
Oops - "sources that don't", etc.

Damned verb/noun agreement.
  

    
Let me first say how pleased I am to be part of a discussion on the
Well -- and thanks so much to you, Angie, for leading it.   I'm really
looking forward to conversing with you and others here.

One of the themes of the book is how economic crises shape peoples'
political views -- such as their support for the free market or for
capitalism as a system -- and whether crises are necessarily auspicious
for left perspectives or the renewal of the radical left.  I would
argue that it's not automatically the case that crises are good for the
left, although they can be (a GlobeScan poll released last month shows
that between 2009 and 2010 the support of the free market by Americans
earning less than $20,000 a year fell from 76% to 44%).  Equally
they're often good for the right -- as can be seen with the growth of
far right parties in Europe and to a lesser extent with the Tea Party
in the U.S.  What one tends to see is that economic crises lead to
greater political polarization to both the left and right. 

And perhaps this is reflected in the media choices people make --
although I would suggest that this has its own separate logic, related
in many ways to how the internet parcels up information for various
niches, most particularly so as to sell products to different
consumers.

Is it a bad thing for those on the left to not read views from the
right?  I certainly believe that we ignore the ideas and the strategies
of conservatives to our detriment.  Their agenda is very much that of
whittling away the accomplishments of the left (feminism, the Civil
Rights movement, gay rights, environmentalism, etc), as meagre as they
may seem at times, and shaping political discourse and actions that
push a corporate agenda, often with a homespun, grassroots veneer. 
That said, I think that all of us -- whether we spend most of our time
on progressive blogs or not -- are saturated by rightwing ideology in
all aspects of our lives, whether we know it or not.  That is the air
we breathe if we live in the United States (where a center right
politician like Obama gets branded a Communist).  I think part of the
task we face is sorting out how these ideas permeate our lives and the
effects they have on political protest and other forms of oppositional
activity. 

With that in mind, "Capital and Its Discontents" is written for those
who might identify as left-leaning, with the belief that providing
nuanced and illuminating insights into the system we're living in --
its strengths and its weaknesses (as well as our strengths and
weaknesses) -- would benefit a renewed left.  And that's definitely the
agenda of the book: to contribute to the revitalization of leftwing
politics and movements.  I think we're living through quite interesting
times, after a period of general decline for the left over the past
three decades.  I hope that the some of the ideas in the book, by folks
like Mike Davis, Noam Chomsky, Ellen Meiksins Wood, David Harvey, and
others, might help bolster a reinvigoration of what have been very rich
radical traditions in this country. 
  

    
"Capitaland", I like that...a new term for the USA!!
  

    
This is going to be a great conversation...thanks so much Sasha and
Angie for doing this.

For me, it's been like going into the "Way back machine" and returning
to the dialogues of the 60's and 70's....very refreshing to get new
inputs to what is currently being discussed on the "Left"...

I'm too eclectic to label myself anymore, but your book has shaken my
tree...and that's a good thing.

From a structural perspective you seem to bring a magnifying lens to
the Global North/South political/economic systems now in place,
diagnose the various dynamics taking place as the system crumbles, and
invite speakers to express themselves as to what is taking place in the
"New Left" movement as well as examine what is taking place in the
"Old Right". Is that too simplistic an overview?
  

    

I'm very much looking forward to this conversation.  I circle back to
Angie's opening question:  how do progressives shape thought, language, and
argument to hook the attention of people with minds made up?  A 
revitalized left can't reach a wider audience unless and until our facts 
and our points seep into conscious awareness.  How to break the pattern of 
huddling together behind walls with those of like mind?
  

    
Which segues neatly into my next thought, which is the crippling
element of fear. <wickett>'s term "conscious awareness" is key here.
We're least conscious when we're acting out of fear. One note the Right
plays brilliantly is insecurity: it's worth sacrificing your civil
rights for safety; the economy will continue to fall apart if we tax
the multi-millionaires. They're very, very good at this.

The Left needs to hone its message to pierce the fear - or at least
acknowledge the fear of joblessness, home loss, poverty, before we can
make progress. Sasha, how did your many interviewees confront the topic
of fear or insecurity? What role do they play in how we move forward?
(I'll cite one example in the next post.)
  

    
Sam Gindin (Canadian activist and educator) responds to a question
about the lag between when people are hit by a crisis, and when they
respond - where in that picture are the opportunities?:

"There's going to be more volatility. There's going to be more
pressure on people to pay for the exit to this crisis. Insecurity isn't
going away. Inequality isn't going away. People see the BP oil spill
in the Gulf of Mexico, they see the kind of resources the state can
mobilize when it's trying to save the banks and they can contrast it to
the state's intervention in other ways. They're cynical. They're
skeptical. ***I don't think you have to convince people that capitalism
isn't wonderful. You just have to convince them that there is
something they can do about it.***" [Emphasis mine - AC]

So to risk a cliche here, Gindin paints these times of insecurity and
volatility as a teachable moment. Your other interviewees span the
globe, and bring perspectives from not just different professional
avenues but different eras. Is that their experience, that citizens in
a time of economic volatility can be moved to challenge the guts of
their economic systems?
  

    
It's very gratifying to know that the book has moved you in some way,
Ted.  I was not around for those discussions in the 1960s and 70s,
being of a younger generation of radicals, but I believe that many of
the same questions are being grappled with yet again. 

Your summary of the book is quite accurate.  Perhaps a different way
of framing it would be to say that the book attempts to look at the
system we live under today -- especially the form capitalism has taken
in the last three decades, which is often termed neoliberalism (and
politically associated with both the established right and the center,
including social democratic parties in Europe) -- its inner workings,
contours, and vulnerabilities, while also looking at how the strength
of what I'm calling the left has declined over the that same period,
especially in North America.  So the book tries to come to terms with
the legacies of the Old Left and the New Left, as well as the
anti-globalization movement and more recent radical protest movements.
  

    
You're absolutely right, Wickett, that one of the failures of the left
has been an inability to speak to those with different views of the
world.  There are obviously genuine structural obstacles that we face
in getting left ideas out to others (the media being one of them).  But
we would be wrong to blame those impediments solely for the problem. 
I think that as the left has contracted over the past many years, it
has created a certain degree of insularity, and perhaps many have even
lost faith that we can be successful in talking to others and changing
their minds.  But that's a real mistake.

This sort of insularity has shaped the sorts of actions and forms of
protest that we adopt -- often it seems like we're simply preaching to
the converted, rather than trying to engage with those who don't share
our views.  One of the contributors to the book, John Sanbonmatsu,
argues that there were two strains of thought within the New Left about
how to organize, which have left an enduring legacy.  The Civil Rights
movement had an orientation towards what he calls "the politics of
strategy" -- of figuring out how to have the most effect on those who
were either opponents or not on the side of the movement and acting
accordingly.  The other strain he terms "the politics of expression" --
of just getting out there and expressing one's outrage, whether or not
it has any impact on people who aren't yet with us or the powers that
be.  I'm afraid the second tendency has won out, by and large.  Often
our politics, ideas, and actions are oriented toward insiders, not
outsiders.  (That said, so is my book.  My hope is by addressing these
issues within the left, it can become more effective and powerful.)
  

    
Those are really important points, Angie. I think the consensus
amongst the people I spoke with was that moments like this -- moments
of crisis -- can be opportunities for the left, but are not necessarily
or automatically that.  As I mentioned earlier, they can be
opportunities for the right, who are a lot better organized than the
left, and they can also be times when people just focus on survival,
and pull inward.  As Sam Gindin emphasized in the conversation you
cited, many people are deeply pessimistic at the possibility of change.
 I think that's a block that's going to take a while to overcome.  Yet
there are moments when things burst through, such as in Wisconsin,
when people see others coming out and they are inspired to join them. 
(It also makes me think of what I've read of the late 1950s and early
60s, where the Civil Rights movements and the Free Speech Movement
bubbled up out of times of fear and cynicism about change following the
McCarthy Era -- so it can happen.)

Fear and politics -- and the politics of fear -- are questions that
fascinate me.  Partly because there are some segments of the left that
think we should also use fear to motivate people, such as against very
real threats like global warming.  I really disagree.  Fear tends to be
paralyzing and I don't think it serves the left.  In fact, there have
been a number of studies about the dissimilar brain activity of
progressives and conservatives, indicating that conservatives have
particularly high activity in the parts of the brain that are connected
to fear.  Perhaps one might conclude that fear trends rightward. 

That doesn't, of course, answer your question about what to do about
the pervasive politics of fear.  I think a start is to consider that
sustained social movements tend to grow out of some feeling of hope,
not fear, and that can be contagious (just look at what has been
happening across North Africa and the Middle East, where people have
defied fear because of their hopes for a better society).  I believe
that one serious problem we face is that leftists have lost sight of
our vision for a better world -- it's easier for us to articulate what
we're against, than what we're for.  Some of this, I think, comes out
of the experience of horribly failed experiments like the USSR and
China.  But I also believe that we on the left have ended up
internalizing the mantra, most famously stated by Margaret Thatcher,
that There is No Alternative to free market capitalism (often known as
TINA).  Yet unless we can articulate a vision for a world that is
substantially different than the one we're in -- that is able to
address the massive dislocations and ravages that capitalism inflicts
on the environment, the extinctions crisis, the enormous polarizations
in wealth and well-being, the speed up of people's work lives, and so
on -- we're not going to be very successful.  
  

    
 (Note: Offsite readers with questions or comments may have them added
  to this conversation by emailing them to inkwell@well.com -- please
  include "Capital and Its Discontents" in the subject line.)
  

    
Sasha, I like your point about shifting from expressive to strategic
politics--a rift I noted in my bio of Carey McWilliams, who favored the
latter.  I also like your urge to move from critique to prescription. 
About insularity and audience: How important is it for those
prescriptions to be clearly and memorably stated? I'm struck by how
successful the right has been with its simplistic formulations,
repeated endlessly, and I worry that the left's capacity (penchant?)
for nuance misses the visceral aspect of politics, which some political
psychologists (like Drew Westen) have argued is critical.  (Fear is
part of that, of course.)  
  

    

It seems to me that the left is too much interested in ideas and 
nuance--and put them before anything else.  Viscera is exactly what is 
missing.  Until we learn to appeal to the gut, we lose a potentially wider 
audience.  Fear is, of course, the easiest, cheapest, fastest, most 
compelling gut-hook, but there are others.
  

    
"Yet unless we can articulate a vision for a world that is
substantially different than the one we're in -- that is able to
address the massive dislocations and ravages that capitalism inflicts
on the environment, the extinctions crisis, the enormous polarizations
in wealth and well-being, the speed up of people's work lives, and so
on -- we're not going to be very successful."

That's it in a nutshell....the political future9(s) belong to those
who offer viable solutions in these 'teachable moments'; the difficulty
being that several systems are crumbling at the same time that the
future is so uncertain and all the old models of politics are
broken....Mr/Mrs Fixit is going to be the candidate of choice in
local/regional elections all across the country...unfortunately
starting out with almost no base and no money up against the old
dinosaurs who are well-heeled and know how to work every angle of fear
there is....too close to call really.

We deserve what we elect. Hopefully we can get a few good men and
women who not only can express themselves on the real issues but can
effectively work within a system in Washington that is clearly broken.
What could be simpler?! 
  

    
Thanks for your recap Sasha, much better than mine...The North/South
distinction rings a lot of bells for....I remember getting my hands of
the North/South report put out by the Trilateral Commission in
1980...pretty much been the blueprint for everything since....will be
nice to see that world order collapse, no matter what their intentions
were.

At the end of this topic I'd like to discuss some of the conclusions
you reached and strategies for the future balanced against the new Arc
of Power -- The Indian Ocean....your book doesn't address that, but I'm
sure those political realities are on everyone's minds...also talk
about the possibilities and directions offered up by all the new
political realities in the MidEast....no way to see that coming when
you put your book together....but that's all for later.
  

    
Very interesting about Carey McWilliams, Peter.  I agree with you and
Wickett about the importance of appealing to people in ways that they
can easily absorb and that have an emotional resonance with them. 
Those are questions taken up in the very useful book "Re:Imagining
Change: How to Use Story-based Strategy to Win Campaigns, Build
Movements, and Change the World" by the folks at smartMeme
(https://secure.pmpress.org/index.php?l=product_detail&p=199), which
explores how progressives often send mixed messages and do not harness
the power of visual or emotional ways of framing issues.

But it's worth remembering as well that the right has spent millions
of dollars since at least the 1930s to try to orient people away from
their natural affinity to the basic principles of the left: solidarity,
greed is bad, helping others is good, etc. 

I would also add that I don't entirely agree that the left is overly
caught up with ideas and complexity, although I would concur, as I
mentioned, that it doesn't do the best job of transmitting ideas to
others.  I actually think that ideas are really important -- that our
presumptions about the world around us (whether we're conscious of them
or not) shape what we think is possible.  And I also believe that we
need to deeply understand what we're up against, because it can help us
realize that the system we face is not monolithic, that elites are not
all-powerful, that with strategic thinking we might be able to
advance, and so on.  That isn't of course a substitute for action -- it
should ideally facilitate more effective action.
  

    
Thanks, Ted, for those thoughts.  Yes, as we move along in the
conversation hopefully we can discuss those questions.
  

    
As I read your book I kept seeing a picture in my mind of the United
States caught in the middle of the political/economic winepress of
Canada to our north and Mexico and South America to our south....these
countries are finding new models that work for them and may well
'squeeze' us to accept some kind of socialism incorporated into our
systems. Could you please speak to that; some of what is happening in
the favelas in South America, particular Ecuador and Brazil and any
impact Canada and Mexico (Zappatista movement e.g.) are having?

I know we aren't supposed to use the 'S' word here in America, but at
some point we are going to have to wake up to our realities. The joke
in grad school was that if you weren't a Marxist in your late teens you
just weren't thinking and if you weren't a progressive rationalist by
your mid-twenties you still weren't thinking. I suppose your book
evoked my memories from my teens in that respect. I think a lot of my
age group, the boomers, now coming into our so-called retirements, are
going to become quite politically active again due to the harsh
economic realities facing us over the next 30 years. I didn't get the
impression we were being addressed in your book, it seemed to be a
conversation among the young neo's. Am I wrong about that?
  

    
Once we get past the rhetoric it comes down to work and
action...here's a cool tool the French are using to study and track
political lobbying, it might have some applications here in the USA:

http://blog.okfn.org/2011/05/10/how-to-study-lobbying-with-crowdsourced-open-d
ata/
  

    <scribbled by tcn Thu 12 May 11 03:49>
  

    
Rethinking global governance:

http://bcove.me/av9vx7on
http://bcove.me/g2knla70
  

    

So great to see you here, Sasha!  Please remind our reads where and when we
can hear you on the radio.

I find it so disheartening to see how the simple, succinct lies of the right
kick the living shit out of the truth day after day.  I look for ways to
bring compassion and empathy back into the equation.  I grew up on "Ask nto
waht your country can do for you..." and watched in horror as "Are you better
off than you were four years ago?" and "Winning isn't everything - it's the
only thing" became the new watchwords.  capital has no heart and no
conscience.
  

    
It's not enough to make a living.   You have to make a killing.
  

    
I ran into a guy at our local post office awhile back. He was a
stranger, evidently didn't know that Charlen=e the postmistress shuts
up shop at 2 pm to eat lunch and take a constitutional. And when he
discovered the door to the counter area locked, he kicked it and said,
"Goddam Federal gummint." I told hin the Federal gummint didn't have
anything to do with it, that she needed to eat lunch. He said that he
bet she took two hours for lunch. I pointed out the window to where she
was walking back across the town green and said, "Nope. Here she
comes." But how much I wanted to say more!

Strange how these times have turned me into a defender of the federal
gummint. Or at least of the idea of a federal gummint. I guess when we
wanted to get rid of it, it was to replace it with love, which was
really naive. But they want to replace it with greed. Better naivete
than outright evil..