Tag Sam Smith

Capitalism Destroys Everything, Cont’d

If you read nothing else I’ve linked here today, go and read this post at The Progressive Review by its editor, Sam Smith.

Smith details how the “arrogant, autistic, and amoral class of late 20th century MBAs” have managed to spread the pernicious nothingness of mass capitalism into every avenue of American life over the past quarter-century.

The tragedy is that each of the infected cultures, organizations and individuals once had their own culture that often was infinitely more appealing, intelligent, inspiriting and honest than that which has sullied it. Why is the corporate and business school tradition preferable to that of the church, the artist, the non-profit, the political movement or education? Is politics just branding, is art just a product, is education just a learning process, would Martin Luther King have done better if he had gone to business rather than theological school? Each of these traditions have centuries of wisdom and experience behind them, but all that is increasingly put aside to fit the corporate model.

We pay for this in numerous ways. Some are obvious such as political candidates and public officials carefully avoiding real issues in favor of creating artificial images of themselves, backed by such words as “hope” and “change.” And if you don’t join with the change huckster, you are accused of “fear of change.”

A few years back I put it this way: “A cursory examination of American business suggests that its major product is wasted energy. Compute all the energy loss created by corporate lawyers, Washington lobbyists, marketing consultants, CEO benefits, advertising agencies, leadership seminars, human resource supervisors, strategic planners and industry conventions and it is amazing that this country has any manufacturing base at all. We have created an economy based not on actually doing anything, but on facilitating, supervising, planning, managing, analyzing, tax advising, marketing, consulting or defending in court what might be done if we had time to do it. The few remaining truly productive companies become immediate targets for another entropic activity, the leveraged buyout.” And this was all before the rise of the killer hedge fund.

It is tempting just to copy-paste the whole post right here, but I will limit myself to those two pull quotes. This is not a “things were better in the good old days” rant by a jaded ex-hippie; this, my friends, is the straight and unvarnished truth. Our fascination with “red vs blue”, “black vs white”, “Coke vs Pepsi”, whatever is strictly for show, keeping us distracted while the legions of lawyers and regiments of MBAs systematically gut everything we cherish, reduce it to “product”, then discard it when the product is no longer sufficiently profitable. The very world itself is now reduced to an item of consumption which has been overexploited so badly that we may cause our own extinction.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Cold War, Cool Jazz

Sam Smith at The Progressive Review has an excellent feature piece about jazz legend Dave Brubeck and his unofficial role as “cultural ambassador” during the Cold War years, touring many Eastern Bloc cities. The Brubeck Institute website also has more material as part of a 50th anniversary celebration.

I’ve been lucky enough to see Dave Brubeck perform in concert twice. The first time was several years ago with my friend Tony. Brubeck usually makes at least one appearance a year at the Berklee School of Music, but the night we went to see him he was ill with a cold and only played a couple of numbers at the beginning of the first set before excusing himself from the stage. He’s very old, but he’s obviously a lot stronger than he looked that night all huddled up inside a trench coat, because he keeps on touring. The second time was two years ago, also at the Berklee Performance Center. This time he was in fine fettle and played for the entire show and talked to the audience for a bit. He’ll be in town again in mid-June. If you haven’t seen him in person, do try to make the effort to go; at 87 years of age, his touring days are dwindling.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Yes We Can….What, Exactly?

Journalist Cassandra West has this article in the liberal magazine In These Times, which echoes my own most significant criticism about the candidacy of Barack Obama: he’s got a lot of nice platitudes and unfinished sentences, but he rarely, if ever, talks about what it is he proposes that can be done or changed or hoped for or whatever the nebulous-buzzword-du-jour-he’s-using’ed.

It’s no secret that, in general, Americans vote based on emotional response to a candidate rather than a reasoned decision — that’s how 49% of the country decided to vote for George Bush TWICE! He was “the guy you wanted to have a beer with” and got lucky enough to face two stiff and awkward (but vastly more intelligent and capable) guys in a row. Bill Clinton “felt our pain” (and our boobs). But, as the two aforementioned examples point out, that really hasn’t worked out too well. Frankly, I don’t know if this country can stand three charismatic-but-empty presidents in a row.

Sam Smith, writing on his blog The Progressive Review, explores the issue of Obama’s silver tongue in a little more detail. Smith says that he finds Obama’s platitudinous speechifying “boring”:

Then there are his words. The embarrassing truth is that Obama bores me. I find him platitudinous, single toned, , sometime pompous and often guilty of that classic Washington sin described once as confusing somberness with seriousness. To be sure, I don’t like listening to most politicians these days, but there is something so predictable and annoyingly didactic about Obama, as though he was trying to bring a bunch of freshman students up to speed, that I tend to turn him off and read the text instead.

That’s worth thinking about in the context of his speech earlier this week where he did a whole nifty tapdance around the undeniable truth about race in America. If you read the speech rather than listen to it, it is long (he spoke for more than half an hour), borrows unnecessarily from the Founding Fathers for rhetorical flourish, ends in a series of meaningless bits about unity, but offers little except a lecture to clueless white people about why black people are angry, a position which he is very clear to distance himself from.

Smith nails a couple of points right on the head: when you look beyond the color of his skin, Barack Obama is just another Harvard-educated lawyer with delusions of self-importance. To quote:

…an intelligent, analytical, somewhat self-possessed and arrogant fellow of innate caution and limited imagination. The sort of person you’d want around to handle your divorce or complete your merger, but far from the prophet whose role he has been assigned.

Moreover, when Obama finally does get around to specifics, it turns out that he’s far from progressive: he supports “No Child Left Behind” and the PATRIOT Act, he’s pro-death penalty, his healthcare plan offers far less than Clinton’s, and he’s been accused of lying in public about being against NAFTA. So what is it exactly that he proposes to change?

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

Yes, But…

Sam Smith at The Progressive Review has written this outstanding op-ed that I think paints a much more realistic picture of what the United States will face with Barack Obama as President than anything else I have read to date.

From the get-go, he points out some things that I think a lot of the Obama-maniacs have overlooked:

On the other hand we will still have a president who supports the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind law, the basic fallacies of the war on terror, the continued abuse of the war on drugs and a medical industry controlled by profiteering insurance companies. He also appears largely indifferent to the collapse of constitutional government. There is nothing liberal, progressive or enlightened in any of these positions and it is a marker of the dismal state of liberalism that Obama has not been called on them.

Instead of mindlessly shouting “Yes, we can,” liberals and progressives should be telling the Obama crowd, “Yes, but.”

Smith points out that Obama may simply be in the right place at the right time for a transition in American politics and society where much of the fervor that has been devoted to religious fundamentalism can be re-channeled back into positive political action, but that there’s an equal chance that Obama is indeed nothing but the empty suit many people charge him as:

Obama is an empty vessel. If liberals and progressives are as pathetically obsequious towards Obama as they were towards Clinton, that vessel will be filled with the desires of large financial institutions, health insurance oligopolies and foreign policy experts attempting to compensate for hormonal insecurities by invading this or that. And Obama will end his term with the status of Reid or Pelosi rather than of JFK.

In short, the Obamania needs to die on Inauguration Day, replaced by a movement to end American imperialism, restore the Constitution, unravel the evils of neo-capitalism and instill some eco-sanity. It will be the strength of such a movement, and not the new president’s virtues, that will largely determine whether he does the right thing and whether the right things happens.

I could not agree more.

EmailStumbleUponRedditFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Related Posts:

All Original Content Copyright © BrianKaneOnline
All Other Content Copyright © Its Original Authors

Built on Notes Blog Core
Powered by WordPress

Switch to our mobile site