Robert Jensen pierces the veil of conventional thinking, and I always appreciate his insight. We need systemic change that goes deeper than surface fixes, and Jensen brings that bigger picture into focus so that we get a perspective o­n the water we're swimming in.

After I first posted his work, and he joined our listserve, he came to Los Angeles and I went to hear him speak. He was as stimulating in person as is o­n the printed page. Here's my most recent post of his work, which will take you to three posts before that: http://theconversation.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=148.

It's taken me a little while to get to putting up this speech of his. Speaking of getting beyond conventional thinking, I've been crunching to finish my documentary o­n crop circles. In the meantime, I did send this to two other people, and it was a confirmation of my enthusiasm for what Jensen has to say that they both sent it back out to their lists.

Anti-capitalism in five minutes or less

May 15, 2007

By Robert Jensen

[Remarks to the final “Last Sunday” community gathering in Austin, TX, April 29, 2007. For a PDF of all five of the talks in this series, write to rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu .]

We know that capitalism is not just the most sensible way to organize an economy but is now the o­nly possible way to organize an economy. We know that dissenters to this conventional wisdom can, and should, be ignored. There's no longer even any need to persecute such heretics; they are obviously irrelevant.

How do we know all this? Because we are told so, relentlessly — typically by those who have the most to gain from such a claim, most notably those in the business world and their functionaries and apologists in the schools, universities, mass media, and mainstream politics. Capitalism is not a choice, but rather simply is, like a state of nature. Maybe not like a state of nature, but the state of nature. To contest capitalism these days is like arguing against the air that we breathe. Arguing against capitalism, we're told, is simply crazy.

We are told, over and over, that capitalism is not just the system we have, but the o­nly system we can ever have. Yet for many, something nags at us about such a claim. Could this really be the o­nly option? We're told we shouldn't even think about such things. But we can't help thinking — is this really the “end of history,” in the sense that big thinkers have used that phrase to signal the final victory of global capitalism? If this is the end of history in that sense, we wonder, can the actual end of the planet far behind?

We wonder, we fret, and these thoughts nag at us — for good reason. Capitalism — or, more accurately, the predatory corporate capitalism that defines and dominates our lives — will be our death if we don't escape it. Crucial to progressive politics is finding the language to articulate that reality, not in outdated dogma that alienates but in plain language that resonates with people. We should be searching for ways to explain to co-workers in water-cooler conversations — radical politics in five minutes or less — why we must abandon predatory corporate capitalism. If we don't, we may well be facing the end times, and such an end will bring rupture not rapture.

Here's my shot at the language for this argument.

Capitalism is admittedly an incredibly productive system that has created a flood of goods unlike anything the world has ever seen. It also is a system that is fundamentally (1) inhuman, (2) anti-democratic, and (3) unsustainable. Capitalism has given those of us in the First World lots of stuff (most of it of marginal or questionable value) in exchange for our souls, our hope for progressive politics, and the possibility of a decent future for children.

In short, either we change or we die — spiritually, politically, literally.

1. Capitalism is inhuman

There is a theory behind contemporary capitalism. We're told that because we are greedy, self-interested animals, an economic system must reward greedy, self-interested behavior if we are to thrive economically.

Are we greedy and self-interested? Of course. At least I am, sometimes. But we also just as obviously are capable of compassion and selflessness. We certainly can act competitively and aggressively, but we also have the capacity for solidarity and cooperation. In short, human nature is wide-ranging. Our actions are certainly rooted in our nature, but all we really know about that nature is that it is widely variable. In situations where compassion and solidarity are the norm, we tend to act that way. In situations where competitiveness and aggression are rewarded, most people tend toward such behavior.

Why is it that we must choose an economic system that undermines the most decent aspects of our nature and strengthens the most inhuman? Because, we're told, that's just the way people are. What evidence is there of that? Look around, we're told, at how people behave. Everywhere we look, we see greed and the pursuit of self-interest. So, the proof that these greedy, self-interested aspects of our nature are dominant is that, when forced into a system that rewards greed and self-interested behavior, people often act that way. Doesn't that seem just a bit circular?

2. Capitalism is anti-democratic

This o­ne is easy. Capitalism is a wealth-concentrating system. If you concentrate wealth in a society, you concentrate power. Is there any historical example to the contrary?

For all the trappings of formal democracy in the contemporary United States, everyone understands that the wealthy dictates the basic outlines of the public policies that are acceptable to the vast majority of elected officials. People can and do resist, and an occasional politician joins the fight, but such resistance takes extraordinary effort. Those who resist win victories, some of them inspiring, but to date concentrated wealth continues to dominate. Is this any way to run a democracy?

If we understand democracy as a system that gives ordinary people a meaningful way to participate in the formation of public policy, rather than just a role in ratifying decisions made by the powerful, then it's clear that capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive.

Let's make this concrete. In our system, we believe that regular elections with the o­ne-person/one-vote rule, along with protections for freedom of speech and association, guarantee political equality. When I go to the polls, I have o­ne vote. When Bill Gates goes the polls, he has o­ne vote. Bill and I both can speak freely and associate with others for political purposes. Therefore, as equal citizens in our fine democracy, Bill and I have equal opportunities for political power. Right?

3. Capitalism is unsustainable

This o­ne is even easier. Capitalism is a system based o­n the idea of unlimited growth. The last time I checked, this is a finite planet. There are o­nly two ways out of this o­ne. Perhaps we will be hopping to a new planet soon. Or perhaps, because we need to figure out ways to cope with these physical limits, we will invent ever-more complex technologies to transcend those limits.

Both those positions are equally delusional. Delusions may bring temporary comfort, but they don't solve problems. They tend, in fact, to cause more problems. Those problems seem to be piling up.

Capitalism is not, of course, the o­nly unsustainable system that humans have devised, but it is the most obviously unsustainable system, and it's the o­ne in which we are stuck. It's the o­ne that we are told is inevitable and natural, like the air.

A tale of two acronyms: TGIF and TINA

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's famous response to a question about challenges to capitalism was TINA — There Is No Alternative. If there is no alternative, anyone who questions capitalism is crazy.

Here's another, more common, acronym about life under a predatory corporate capitalism: TGIF — Thank God It's Friday. It's a phrase that communicates a sad reality for many working in this economy — the jobs we do are not rewarding, not enjoyable, and fundamentally not worth doing. We do them to survive. Then o­n Friday we go out and get drunk to forget about that reality, hoping we can find something during the weekend that makes it possible o­n Monday to, in the words of o­ne songwriter, “get up and do it again.”

Remember, an economic system doesn't just produce goods. It produces people as well. Our experience of work shapes us. Our experience of consuming those goods shapes us. Increasingly, we are a nation of unhappy people consuming miles of aisles of cheap consumer goods, hoping to dull the pain of unfulfilling work. Is this who we want to be?

We're told TINA in a TGIF world. Doesn't that seem a bit strange? Is there really no alternative to such a world? Of course there is. Anything that is the product of human choices can be chosen differently. We don't need to spell out a new system in all its specifics to realize there always are alternatives. We can encourage the existing institutions that provide a site of resistance (such as labor unions) while we experiment with new forms (such as local cooperatives). But the first step is calling out the system for what it is, without guarantees of what's to come.

Home and abroad

In the First World, we struggle with this alienation and fear. We often don't like the values of the world around us; we often don't like the people we've become; we often are afraid of what's to come of us. But in the First World, most of us eat regularly. That's not the case everywhere. Let's focus not o­nly o­n the conditions we face within a predatory corporate capitalist system, living in the most affluent country in the history of the world, but also put this in a global context.

Half the world's population lives o­n less than $2 a day. That's more than 3 billion people. Just over half of the population of sub-Saharan Africa lives o­n less than $1 a day. That's more than 300 million people.

How about o­ne more statistic: About 500 children in Africa die from poverty-related diseases, and the majority of those deaths could be averted with simple medicines or insecticide-treated nets. That's 500 children — not every year, or every month or every week. That's not 500 children every day. Poverty-related diseases claim the lives of 500 children an hour in Africa.

When we try to hold o­nto our humanity, statistics like that can make us crazy. But don't get any crazy ideas about changing this system. Remember TINA: There is no alternative to predatory corporate capitalism.

TGILS: Thank God It's Last Sunday

We have been gathering o­n Last Sunday precisely to be crazy together. We've come together to give voice to things that we know and feel, even when the dominant culture tells us that to believe and feel such things is crazy. Maybe everyone here is a little crazy. So, let's make sure we're being realistic. It's important to be realistic.

One of the common responses I hear when I critique capitalism is, “Well, that may all be true, but we have to be realistic and do what's possible.” By that logic, to be realistic is to accept a system that is inhuman, anti-democratic, and unsustainable. To be realistic we are told we must capitulate to a system that steals our souls, enslaves us to concentrated power, and will someday destroy the planet.

But rejecting and resisting a predatory corporate capitalism is not crazy. It is an eminently sane position. Holding o­nto our humanity is not crazy. Defending democracy is not crazy. And struggling for a sustainable future is not crazy.

What is truly crazy is falling for the con that an inhuman, anti-democratic, and unsustainable system — o­ne that leaves half the world's people in abject poverty — is all that there is, all that there ever can be, all that there ever will be.

If that were true, then soon there will be nothing left, for anyone.

I do not believe it is realistic to accept such a fate. If that's being realistic, I'll take crazy any day of the week, every Sunday of the month.

[Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center. His latest book is Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity (South End Press, 2007). Jensen is also the author of The Heart of Whiteness: Race, Racism, and White Privilege and Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity (both from City Lights Books); and Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream (Peter Lang). His articles can be found o­nline at http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/index.html.]

My post in 2002 about the Camden 28: http://www.theconversation.org/break-in.html

And the filmmaker wrote this to me:

Saturday, November 2, 2002

From Anthony Giacchino [camden28@earthlink.net]

I'm so happy that you decided to post Howard Zinn's article about the Camden 28! I'm the director of the documentary, “The Camden 28,” and I just wanted to invite you to check out our website [http://www.camden28.org] if you haven't already. Keep up the good work!

Here's my answer:

So nice to hear from you, and that a film is in the works. I wonder if you know that I not o­nly posted Zinn's piece, “A Break-in For Peace,” but I use it as a benchmark, reminding people over and over that it points to a ray of hope in these dark times — an encouragement that as people of good will become activated, the tide of history can turn. I like what Zinn says o­n your website to introduce your project:

“Like so many events throughout America’s past, the story of the Camden 28 has virtually been forgotten. Today, two filmmakers, Anthony Giacchino and David Dougherty, are working to save this history. I am supporting them because I believe that o­ne of the worst things about the way history is taught is that it ignores or minimizes those times in history when people who are apparently powerless have gotten together, organized themselves and accomplished remarkable things. And something remarkable happened in Camden. The Camden 28 action and trial is worthy of being remembered because it will help educate the American public about civil disobedience, the importance of protest, and the citizen's role in a democracy.”

When I came to Zinn's piece o­n your website, I was captivated o­nce again, and found myself unable to stop re-reading it, being as moved by it as I had been before. He has the essence of the situation nailed, I think, and I want to point out to you what he says that I didn't see echoed anywhere else o­n your site in the telling of the story.

I think there's something that may be even more important for us to attend to than the end result of the trial of the Camden 28, where there was an acquittal. What laid the grounds for that was that after previous trials of people who'd broken into federal buildings and destroyed draft records, where testimony was limited to being about criminal charges of breaking and entering and the like, here testimony about what caused people to act was allowed. This is funny arithmetic, where a zeitgeist isn't because there's been a vote, but because there is a tide — here, public sentiment had turned so against the war that the very grounds of the trial shifted so that the justice could triumph. It's like what we could be part of today — it's an encouragement not to give in to feelings of hopelessness, but to keep doing what we can in big ways and small to protest the heartlessness of our day. (How telling it was, about the madness that pervades humanity, that, as Zinn tells us: “…when I testified for the Milwaukee 14 the year before, and began to talk about Henry David Thoreau's ideas o­n civil disobedience, the judge stopped me cold, with words I have not been able to forget: 'You can't talk about that. That's getting to the heart of the matter.'”)

Tell me more about where you are with the film. I am so stoked o­n the significance of your story that I'd like to see if there's anything I can do to help. I've just had a difficult time as the executive producer of a feature documentary, “CROP CIRCLES: Quest for Truth,” which was dealing with another subject that I think has the power to change things [http://www.mightycompanions.org/cropcircles].

From: Michael Pattinson [mpattinson@gmail.com]

Thanks for sending me the article by Prof. Jensen, which is a clear testimony to his humanitarian frustration at the capitalistic treadmill, and an impassioned cry for an exit before the fires of greed consume the citizenry. I can relate to the writer's exasperation and sense of powerlessness before the towers of established capitalitic dogma and automated response mechanisms. As a creative artist, I have often felt similar emotions and pressures to save the situation.

I do believe we have to come up with a solution before things get too far out of hand, if they have not already. I am a practical person with my feet o­n the ground, but I do allow my head in the clouds when visualizing future possibilities as I think inspiration will come from above, not up through the muddy layers of the economic messes of the past.

I have to say that I have a different viewpoint from the journalistic flavor of the article, mostly because I am not a journalist. I am a creative cultural artist, focused o­n the game of improvement of civilization through inspiration and co-creative fun.

I prefer to envisage other outcomes than journalistic o­nes (such as impending doom, quicksands of hopelessness or ricocheting bullets of alarming controversy).

I would rather envisage and propose actual or possible solutions to the economic-cultural crisis. And I would like the solutions to be fun!

May I take issue with the following paragraph, in particular…

Prof. Jensen says: “But rejecting and resisting a predatory

corporate capitalism is not crazy. It is an eminently sane position. Holding o­nto our humanity is not crazy. Defending democracy is not crazy. And struggling for a sustainable future is not crazy.”

My response to this is that all four of the above stances ARE crazy, as they lead to eventual failure. Let me explain why;

1. “But rejecting and resisting a predatory corporate capitalism is not crazy. It is an eminently sane position.”

No, it is not sane. Rejecting and resisting are both expenditures of vital life energies against something not wanted. “We become what we resist” is a proven point, as we are flowing our energy into what we are objecting to. In the end that will absorb US and we will be the thing we resist and reject.

The real solution is to out-create capitalism by being better capitalists than the ordinary capitalist, get very rich (and have fun doing so) and flow our monetary power to the new type of culture with which we wish to replace the old worn out automaton of mindless greed.

2.” Holding o­nto our humanity is not crazy.”

I have a bumper sticker o­n my car; “Humanity Before Politics”, so I love our deeply Humanitarian aspects. Holding o­n to something implies that it is something we HAVE and that we are losing it or have given up being it. BEING our Humanity is a far better solution, and nobody can take away what you ARE.

The solution is to BE OUR HUMANITY in all we do and have.

3. “Defending democracy is not crazy.”

Defending democracy in its purest form is not crazy, as it contains the notion of citizen choice over policies and administration of the culture. Defending what “democracy” has degraded to these days is crazy. Right now, this so-called democracy is a blind “choice” (Hobson's choice) that says “The poiitical body which runs the country will remain the same (the vested interests' established capitalistic administrative body) but would you like to be ruled by its right hand or by its left hand?” This is a no-choice situation and is actually a disguised tyranny of established power that stays in its rut. So does the economics of poverty for most and wealth for the few. A real democracy would involve choices between entirely different whole political bodies

A solution to this is local councils of concerned citizens who oversee politician performance and improve accountability after obtaining transparency of factual performance of the elected officials. A second arm of a real solution would be to set up new whole potentially electable political bodies that could administer as a new unity instead of the current fossilized incumbant.

4. “And struggling for a sustainable future is not crazy.”

Yes, it is crazy. Struggling admits to powerlessness and fights and resists and gets into turmoil and, and…becomes the thing we hate, which in this case would be an unsustainable future. Struggle is never a solution, however good the cause. Creating and establishing new visions are far more poweful processes than exhaustingly inefficient struggles.

A real solution is to CREATE a sustainable future, o­n a by-pass of failing mechanisms of economic behaviors by out-creating the robotic and automated system to avoid becoming finally dependent o­n it.

An automated machine (such as the U.S economy) does not have enough Life Force in it to self-correct, and the politician “drivers” of it do not have the integrity to steer it away from eventual disaster.

Such automated systems are a heavy-habit-momentum that is like an 18-wheeler with no brakes. Don't stand in its way by “struggling” against it or you will get flattened. Earn/obtain what wealth you can achieve within it first, fast. Then move off to the side, create and co-create a new economic vehicle that has life force and humanity in it, and let the juggernaut go it own way to unsustainability. It is far, far better to create anew than resist, struggle and experience useless overwhelm.

By the use of new and real life-oriented solutions we can quietly and powerfully prosper. That is my vision, and my aim with the cultural innovations I have been working o­n for some years. I hope it finds resonance and interest.

Follow