Sunday's referendum vote is not about one fiscal detail or another, a bad agreement or one that is less so. In its essence, Sunday's question is about dignity and our lives from this point on.
A heartfelt Soladarity! from a fellow Anarcho-Sindicalist!
“… criminal gang in suits”
That is the most basic understanding of who “our leaders” actually are!
Nails it again:
“… their pompous, arrogant belief that they can keep running the show, for ever.”
another key concept that defines our leaders has to do with parasitism, and here he also nails it:
“the parasite scum in suits and ties”
That, and criminality. captures the essence of our leaders: criminal parasites (or “parasitic criminals”, of you prefer)
Thanks for the explanation of your position. Distributed human intelligence is as much part of big still banging as stars and space. Corporatists in black suits really are parasitical pirates, they suck the joy of life from everyone and turn it to electronic currency digits — what a weird thing to do.
The last paragraph of David Korten’s 2015 20th anniversary edition of “When corporations rule the World”
Although the general direction we must travel becomes clearer with each passing day, no one has yet been where we must go. If we seek a well marked road, we will search in vain. To borrow the title of a book of conversations between Myles Horton and Paulo Freire, two of the great social activists of our time, e set our sights on a destination beyond the distant horizon and then “we make the road by walking”.
Corporate power is now more concentrated and operates further beyond human control. Its exercise is more reckless. Its political domination is more complete. Its consequences are more devastating. And system collapse is more certain and immanent.
All of this is now abundantly visible. People the world over have mobilized to resist and to build the foundations of a new life-serving economy in which money is a means, not an end."
Yes, but the parasites that Antonis was specifically referring to are the capitalists, not “our leaders”.
I’m mostly on board with this heartfelt piece. My only caution (in quality concern troll fashion)) is that this notion that nationalism is inherently right wing and reactionary–let alone the worst possible right wing orientation–is not entirely correct.
If it’s true conquering is easier when an enemy is divided, than this is also true for a global ruling regime. If nation states are the equivalent of sub-national demographic groups, then doesn’t it make some sense to divide them from each other i order to erode or bring down the global order?
The 'left" needs to understand its enemy and that enemy’s nature. Many on here do, which is a good thing. Many do not yet. In order to take on and defeat the emerging global corporate state, it’s almost inevitable that older, effective appeals to nationalism will be on the most important tools in doing this, in spite of the obvious historical dangers that such a volatile marriage would entail.
A sense of “people”–or “nation”–is what fires the forges of sovereignty in the Westphalian era. Syriza, Podemos, and other movements understand this as they battle the EU, which is the functional vanguard of the new corporate state. And it is sovereignty which will be the guide to resistance against this new order at the local level. It is the solidarity that comes with a national allegiance that will defeat corporate globalism. As a radical leftist, I, too, would prefer the emergence of a dominant class consciousness to replace all of these affinities. And that might still eventually be possible.
But right now–today–and in the near term, this will not be happening and will unlikely happen until people can get public control of their media back as well as their local mechanisms of rule.
I write all of this not to break wind for sport. Many leftists are hesitant to support the organized political resistance of the new Left movements precisely because they reject the lack of internationalism and heavy reliance on appeals to sovereignty that are turning the tide of the war in Europe (and elsewhere). In doing so, they are diminishing our ability to resist collectively, not enhancing it. The Trots of the ISO are merly one example where this dynamic is being played out.
This was never going to be an easy fight, and the fact that we even have to consider an attempt to harness nationalism as a rare force for good is a testament to that claim. But we must do this, because this is the only space open to all of us to rebel against the global financial regime. Yah, it’s risky as hell. But that’s just hte way things are.
Good luck this weekend, Greece. Nearly all of us are in your corner and fervently hoping you’ll take the first decisive steps to save not only yourselves, but the rest of us as well. Show us the way. We will follow.
I can’t agree with that characterization of revolution–a term so completely misused and misapplied these days as to be in danger of losing its real meaning.
Changing the hands holding power is always a struggle; a fight. Always. I know of no counterexamples of this proposition. But when I say “changing power” I’m not talking about this president or that parliamentarian. I’m talking about a fundamental reordering of social relationships in the Marxian sense.
Repair is the domain of reform, which I categorically reject. Reform implies that a system would otherwise be fine “if it were just done right”. But if the system is rotten to its core, then reform is irrelevant.
Woot, woot! You go! and we hear you.
Amen to all of the sense raised in this essay.
Thanks for joining Common Dreams, i like how you think.