Mallet Discourse

In this time of irrational, thought-choking discourse, perhaps the glaring light of a little critical thinking should be brought to bare on a few topics. Over the years the well-placed and well-to-do in this country have done a thorough job of wielding the blunt mallet of propaganda to control what we think and eventually what we believe is in our own best interests. They have done this largely by controlling mainstream debate, by controlling language and the meaning of words, and by controlling the dogma of our nationalist ideology. In doing so, just as intended, they have also controlled us.

The most effective tool, of course, has been the obligatory draping of the flag and the holding high, as on the mount, of the "American way of life" and our ideals. And should actual scrutiny come too close to revealing "that man behind the curtain", one simply needs to scream and shout and with furrowed brow to proclaim the imminent threats to that way of life and those we love. Those who would seek to change the status quo, or even stand in its way, are branded as traitors, unpatriotic, radical elements or - even worse - as terrorists. The American people, for the most part, have often fallen victim to and hastened the spread of this fever. And as the victims of the hysteria and insanity pile high, the status quo thus assures its survival for at least one more generation. The chief irony being that among the many victims are usually to be found the same ideals we thought we were protecting.

Communist was for a time a very useful term, invoking the same fear and ignorance as was being called a witch in merry old Salem. That usefulness has mostly ended, however, partly due to Joe McCarthy's "red scare", which may have gone farther than intended, and partly because to rail against communism at a time when China owns a large portion of America's debt is probably not a good idea. It's also better to keep the focus away from their partnership with corporate America and the fact that the communist Chinese are turning out to be better capitalists than we are. And that's part of the problem.

We in America have been led to believe that capitalism and democracy are the same thing. That without one, you cannot have the other. Even worse, we've been led down a path in which we increasingly believe the American way of life is capitalism. We are consumers, and the whole democracy business is merely something we have to deal with once in awhile, when we're not trying to spread it around. Sounds more like the flu.

Unfortunately, we have most often been led down the path of ignorance. It's not because we're just stupid. The status quo has been adept at making very seductive and convincing arguments. Arguments which have relied heavily on the ability to manipulate our most primitive emotional instincts. In contemporary society it's become an art form, with many of the most successful PR firms being hired to manipulate public opinion for corporations, governments, and even the most wealthy among us. And during their long history they have learned that the most effective way to affect opinion isn't through rational discourse and reasoned debate. It's through emotions.

The result has been an understanding of our social, political, and economic world that is more firmly grounded in our emotional responses than in any rational informed understanding. For instance, if I ask you to explain communism, many of you might struggle or simply not know. But if I ask you what you think of when I say communism, you're likely to say Russia, Stalin, Kruschev, Red China, and Chairman Mao. The same with socialism. Although you might likely explain that it's government control, you might still find a definition difficult. And yet images of Hitler and Nazi Germany would quickly come to mind. That's because images are planted to invoke emotional connections. They don't allow for the freedom of discourse or discussion.

They work in the same way that the image of a large, fat woman with ten kids was used to symbolize the "welfare mother" when they decided to dismantle social programs. Even though most of the needy families with struggling mothers were nothing of the sort, the images accomplished what they were intended to do. Most Americans seem to be finally coming to grasp with this, considering we are routinely being manipulated on a daily basis from every side. But we are still missing the element of critical thinking, and without it we'll be forever vulnerable to emotional manipulation by those who have our interests least at heart.

Critical thinking. The easiest way to explain it is perhaps to say it's similar to common sense. Although it differs in that common sense is often based on assumptions, whereas critical thinking is looking at all the facts, listening to all sides of the argument, deciding who the arguments are intended to serve, and then making up your own mind. Although not absent of it, emotion plays a limited role. And one is less likely to be manipulated when they have all of the facts in hand. But, considering "all of the facts in hand" rarely benefits the arguments of the status quo, it's no surprise that critical thinking is discouraged whenever possible.

Unfortunately, nowhere is discourse and understanding more discouraged than in the differences in social, political, and economic systems. It's ironic that our ancestors more than seventy years ago were more politically astute than we are today. I don't intend to delve deeply into a discussion, as entire volumes have been devoted to just that. But I will try to clarify some differences that should be already apparent, although they're usually not.

Let's start with capitalism. At its most basic, capitalism is a system in which capital takes priority. It's not dependent on a democratic society, as China is proving, and one could just as easily be living in a capitalist dictatorship. Even fascism tends to elevate corporate power to the highest levels. A fact we had best keep in mind. And capitalism, it should be noted, is an economic system, not a political one. When it begins to blur with the political as well, that's a movement towards fascism. There's a fact the status quo will never tell you.

Socialism, in turn, puts society as its higher priority, with capital taking a back seat. The greater common good, in other words. And the wealth of the nation, although still allowing for the wealthy, is meant to benefit the nation as a whole.

Communism, put simply, is similar to communal living in which everyone owns and shares the wealth equally. While no one prospers enormously, no one falls through the cracks either.

On paper, all three systems are equally viable, and each has its own pluses and minuses. The problem throughout history has been in the extremes these systems have been pushed to. And in each and every case, it's important to note, extremes were reached solely in order to support the wealth, power, and privilege of a minority of people. So it's never been a matter of one system being good and another bad. They all have the potential to work very well, or to become oppressive and unjust. That is why, if you know nothing else about these systems, you need to know this: If a minority of people are allowed power and privilege at the expense of the rest, any political, economic, or social system will become unjust and is doomed to become oppressive for the majority.

What we currently have in this country is a capitalist democracy. Big C, little d. That flirts dangerously close to fascism, and if the "d" gets any smaller, we'll be there. In any case, when capital begins to take priority over democracy, we again have the never-ending scenario of a system benefitting a minority, at the expense of the majority. And when that minority is writing their own rules, which they are, then democracy is fading.

That's why it saddens me and infuriates me that the current discourse being controlled by the status quo (the threatened status quo) is whether these policies are a move to socialism. That discourse should instead be one which asks who benefits if things change, and who benefits if they remain the same. With all that's occurred, perhaps we should be asking the status quo to defend its own business as usual demands. That might just prove to be a difficult task for them indeed ... with anything but a blunt mallet.