Media Spin and the Hidden Poverty in America

It is simple to see: take the billions supposedly spent on the poor; divide that amount by the number of the poor. If the government gave this sum to each of the poor, they would be rich.

Chenab my friend, soon this thread is going to be relegated to the Chowk graveyard, so might I suggest that you collect your posts, compose an article and then we can discuss all you want, with input from others as well. IT would be quite fruitful.

I wont disappoint you however let me answer point #1 and the last point of your concerns for now

<<< a) The implication that intelligentsia is a sole custodian of objective reality that is denied to the passive ``masses`` is itself elitist. >>>

I don`t think that is the case. Give an advanced bureaucratic/capitalist society, most people have their lives and aspirations conditioned from on high. Independant though is nearly completely circumscribed. In this atmosphere, the intellectuals have the ability to transcend that structure and look at the invisible strings held by the puppet masters (the elite) that guide the movements of the masses.

<<< 6) Lastly, and again a repetition from earlier post, have you been engaged in your life in any such endeavor to ``separate from structures of power and joining the masses`` and to correct the flaws within the movements? >>>

According to the criteria assigned by this society, I am a loser alright (though I think differently, being able to transcend the moronic life that the masses have been forced into is no ``loss``) regarding wealth, job or access to power or social networks. I am effectively seperated from all structures of power as well as the corporate economy. All I can do is to try to reach the masses through various forum, and the movements they are involved in, and I do that to the best of my ability

In post #113, I had posed questions to your following statement:

``The solution lies in the intellegensia fixing their moral default by withdrawing from the structures of power in which they are hired hands and linking with the masses. I see no other solution.``

First of all, I have my own critique of many aspects of social movements and political indeologies (although I am cognizant that a movement has as many ideas and opportunites as the people it is composed of) that I had mentioned earlier. However, your essentialist statements of all movements (and yes, there are movement challenging the underlying structures!), including many current worker movements (that are bridging global solidarity, non-wage labor and indigenous labor) seems to be frozen in imagination or hugely ill-informed of dynamic evolution of movements presently. For this behemoth of a topic, summarily rejected by you as even worth considering, I will like to return at a different time and space.

I feel need for elaboration of your observation:
<<>>
a) The implication that intelligentsia is a sole custodian of objective reality that is denied to the passive ``masses`` is itself elitist.
b) If the agency of social movements to bring a liberating change is compromised by their propensity to be co-opted, how do the intelligenstia gain that agency when most of the ivory tower intellectuals are themselves spawns of accumulation of wealth and imperialism inherent in their institutions.
3) I believe you partially answered the previous question by suggesting that intelligentsia separate themselves from structures of power. What a wonderful idea! What mechanism would allow that - joining a social movement? Should the intelligenstia consider a crude practice of ``proletarinaization`` followed by many ``not perfect`` labor unions, i.e., joining working class professions to become part of the movement and thus benefit their friends by knowledge they think they have? If so, do have you examples of erstwhile progressive intellectuals doing that? You cannot neatly separate intellectual life from pratical life of individuals since both are informed and modified by each other.
4) And since many of the intelligentsia allegedly receive a profound knowledge of injustice through liberal academic programs, what can they do to ensure that the vast majority of people in the world also get the opportunity to go to universities? Should we wait for them to descend in the masses and launch a utopian system of equality or fairness for all (hopefully, if they have credibiltiy within the masses), or should we pursue even imperfect liberal measures for fairer opportunites for education and health as tactics to build a critical mass for a longterm strategy to topple the system?
5) Should the intelligentsia consider option for encouraging and joining organic intellectuals, that don`t depend on elite institutions to thrive on. Do you have any examples for such intellectuals?
6) Lastly, and again a repetition from earlier post, have you been engaged in your life in any such endeavor to ``separate from structures of power and joining the masses`` and to correct the flaws within the movements?

In addition to #111, let me clarify that I only use Chomsky`s media model, and I do not use him as a source on anything else. Chossudovsky is an economist and I find his work on the IMF/WB and the Third World to be well documented, other than that I don`t use any of his other work, Zinn is a historian and I use him for historical refereces not social movements. The only person whose work I use on understanding society and social structure, besides the classical theorists is C.W. Mills, and his standard work on organized labor in the US and its effectiveness or lack thereof is in tune with my conclusions and bourne out empirically by the shape of labor in current day US (which is contrary to Marxist aspirations in an advanced capitalist society), which brings me to Parenti who is a classical Marxist, a good tabulator of events but gets carried away by his ideology.

#110 Chenab <<< Your insight must be a monumental blow to your friend Howard Zinn who wrote about 800 pages narrating what he considered landmark and empowering social movements in the U.S. And I wonder what compelled your other frequent references (Chossudovsky, Parenti, Chomsky) to get arrested or lose jobs for ``fatalist``/co-optable anti-war movement? >>>

And at the end of it all, what have those movements achieved? They have perpetuated a system of tyranny, the largest ones among them, organized labor has been coopted and has lost all independant power to influence anything. Americans have got a few crumbs like the 8 hour working day etc but what has happened to the rest of the world under the system that has remained intact?

People who study social movements (unlike the above mentioned good folk) know the importance of resource mobilization in effectiveness of movements. The elite have all movements out resourced and so movements are coopted unless they seek changing structure and nothing short of it as the platform. Such movements would be physically and militarily attacked by this elite. The solution lies in the intellegensia fixing their moral default by withdrawing from the structures of power in which they are hired hands and linking with the masses. I see no other solution.

Re: # 109 <<< Social movements are usually coopted by the powerful by giving small time concessions. They are quite useless in creating revolution type consciousness and have usually worked within the given social strcuture, >>>

Your insight must be a monumental blow to your friend Howard Zinn who wrote about 800 pages narrating what he considered landmark and empowering social movements in the U.S. And I wonder what compelled your other frequent references (Chossudovsky, Parenti, Chomsky) to get arrested or lose jobs for ``fatalist``/co-optable anti-war movement?

#108 Chenab <<< Yet most convincing books, speeches or documentaries alone have not converted the masses >>>

Neither did I claim that they have or did but an intelligensia that links the masses, converting them into thinking publics while informing them as well as the powers that be of the consequences of their actions or inactions is indispensible. Social movements are usually coopted by the powerful by giving small time concessions. They are quite useless in creating revolution type consciousness and have usually worked within the given social strcuture, they are more akin to private solutions that have not worked, similar to what I suggest above.

Re: # 107

- Attainment of power is precisely my point. Other than wealth, organizing masses does shift the power relationships. Thus once one is conscious, the onus is on organizing people, otherwise one can be reduced to a position of armchair theoretician.
- Raising consciousness of the people is a laudable project. Yet most convincing books, speeches or documentaries alone have not converted the masses, or even when they momentarily moved the masses, they did not translate into lasting social movement. There is an art and science in organizing which is unique to theorizing, and if done effectively can be much more persuasive and lasting in bringing social change. Based on your strong religious convictions, I would assume you could be an asset for faith based/Alinsky model of organizing within mosques.
- Your analysis of poverty is wonderful. Yet many in your audience at Chowk are not the one needing to break their shackles but rather driven for their own race for the status quo. The poor masses don`t have to be convinced of injustice (if they get an access to radical literature on the internet or college campuses in the first place). They need action, and especially committment from their elite/highly educated sympathizers to join their organizations under a grassroots leadership. This is again a point where many sophisticated academic progressives act gingerly.
- A system that lays importance to people over profit is a wonderful idea. Yet one has to be aware of inherent contradictions within many progressive systems that propose to do actually that. There are many anti-capitalist strategies that are insensitive and sometimes an assault to working class or developing countries. Policies like nationalisation of resources may yield some benefits but also reveal many drawbacks like alienation of workers (ironically what Marx criticised capitalism for). Many Marxist organization also failed to recognise the entirety of race, gender, environmental injustice; eagerly trapped themselves in the hegemonic national identity; or failed to imagine non wage (home based) labor or indigenous communities` work as worthy of being organized through labor unions. The sectarianism within left, eurocentric bias of much of the left ideology, unwillingness to talk on Israel, or tokenistic response to racism has split movements including the anti-war movement in the recent past. These are some of the disturbing issues with alphabet soup of global left that broad critiques of anti-capitalism don`t address, and thus often fail to propose a practical way of organizing.
- Literature from academia is useful yet not the entire picture. Literature from the grassroots (subaltern studies, writings of slaves, or literature from grassroots organizers) can be much more insightful about the ground reality. Some suggestions for such books are:

A Movement of Movements, edited by Tom Mertes
We Are Everywhere: Notes from nowhere
Globalize Liberation, edited by David Solnit

Manzoor Cheema

#105 ballukhan the ignoramus writes

<<< It is a great idea for the western countries to stop giving any aid to these Islamic Republics........it would certainly help the mullahs to regain their ``hegemonic`` power over the people as it happened in Iran....................
>>>>

Deceptively or ignorantly he forgets that US aid to Iran stopped flowing after the mullahs not before and so their coming to power was independant of the aid business.

Chenab writes in #106

<<< Many unfortunate people you empathized with do not have the luxury to read such fine essay, and may need immidiate steps to pay the bills. What are the concrete steps to be taken to alleviate the massive problem? >>>

I do not hold a power position in the current social structure so I am helpless as you are and the majority are to cause short term change. However by making people conscious, we can certainly stride towards changing the social structure, to one that places human need fulfilment before profit maximization. By that I mean basic human needs of all have to be met before anyone can lay claim to any surplus, whatever label you want to apply to it is fine by me. The first step of course is consciousness. If the masses are distracted, seperated, confused, as is the hallmark of a capitalistic political economy, they will be kept on the margins in a happily deceived condition with private help, like non profits etc keeping them alive but on the brink. Once enough people become conscious of their misery and its causes and refuse to be part of such a social structure is when it will start to crumble. Instead of instant solutions (bandaids that capitalism offers), the solutions are more long term and are very easy. I point you to a couple of articles:

1. Global Apartheid & the World economic order http://ghetto.rationalreality.com
2. Several articles here (http://articles.asadi.org)

Re: # 103

<>

I agree about the extent of poverty and inequality in the U.S. and the rest of the world. I still am curious to know (as an activist) about what may be the alternative (or appear to be) and what concrete steps need to be taken to realize that alterative? Without that suggestion, overanalysis of the problem could lead to paralysis in term of action. Also, theory is good sometimes, and not when the house maybe on fire.
Here are some of my questions (I mention authors of some school of thoughts in parentheses): - are all forms of capitalism bad or a case could be made of capitalist model in many Western European countries and Canada? Whose definition of capitalism do you use - Adam Smith (which may appear pretty leftist ideology in today`s rehotric), Wallerstein (endless accumulation of capital), neo-liberal ideology (Milton Friedman).
Regarding alternatives: do you recommend nationalisation of all pubic resources as followed in certain commuist countries, mixture of private enterpreneurs and public welfare for the poor, anarcho-syndicalism/participatory economy (Michael Albert)/voluntary simplicity, capitalist development before maturing to socialist state (classical two-step revolution), or global south`s resurgence for their share of the pie (Walden Bello), etc.
Many unfortunate people you empathized with do not have the luxury to read such fine essay, and may need immidiate steps to pay the bills. What are the concrete steps to be taken to alleviate the massive problem? Joining unions? Counter-globalization movement? Gender equality to topple exploitation of female labor? Are these movements applicable in both affluent and deprived communities?
Have you been part of any such organizations/movements?

It is a great idea for the western countries to stop giving any aid to these Islamic Republics........it would certainly help the mullahs to regain their ``hegemonic`` power over the people as it happened in Iran....................

#103 by masadi

....the relative deprivation (comapred to what they see around them), much higher in the US ....

Solid point. I fully agree.

My impression of USA is that you may have two cars, a large screen-tv, mortgaged house, and lots of other leased stuff. But basically you live to pay the bills that arrive at the end of the month as well as keep up with the Joneses. By the time you manage to eventually become a `free-hold` owner of all this stuff, life may already have passed you by. Not everyone can cope with this acquisition-race, and many will naturally drop-out due to disillusionment.

In America, Its a dog`s life if you don`t have a couple of million in the bank.

Zeemax in #94

<< masadi,

I have with my own eyes seen a lot of `poor` drive into the gas station, fill up, and trade-in their food-stamps for pints of whiskey from the liquor store! >>>

Subjective observation, not based on a non random sample of the poor. Those who have done actual research on this have found no significant different in alcohol abuse among the poor and those above the poverty level


<<< Your threshold of $19k for a family of 4 is a lot of money in a country where a big mac costs about the same as Pakistan on a purchasing power parity basis, and gas is HALF the price. Did you know that? >>>

It is not my threshold, I rely on what the offical cut off point is, and don`t assume that just because that is the cut off point all the poor are at the top point, on average they make half of the cut off point which results in a very mean kind of existance, even at the cut off point, it is hand to mouth for a family of 4, that is why a large pecent of the US are in debt, with most of the debt comprising necessities. Yes, poverty in Pakistan is larger but not as large as the different in GNI per capita, and what makes the poverty of the poor worse in the US, like I mentioned before is the relative deprivation (comapred to what they see around them), much higher in the US and the family breakdown situation where most of the poor are single women bringing up children on their own without any sharing of resources or help social or material.

Kulharee writes in #100 <<< This article doesn’t make any recommendations as to what can be done to tackle the poverty issue >>>

Of course it does, chaning the structure of the economic institution to one that places human need fulfilment before profit maximization, there is no other solution to a society wide problem than to change the structure of the institution that is causing it.

Kulharee <<< think, USA should completely cut off all economic and other Aid to developing world to alleviate poverty at home. It should also deport leeches what suck on its system >>>

If the US cuts off economic aid it will lose its hegemonic power linked to that aid (which is one of the lowest percent of GDP wise compared to other developed countries). It will be a blessing to the developing world, they will lose the shackles. More power to your recommendation. As far as the ``leeches``, those few that you describe as leeches live in the most miserable conditions, doubling and tripling up while working their butts off to add greater surplus, per person than the fat white natives (one of whom you married apparently) that are a drain to the social service sector of this country.

Re: # 96 hamidmtoo {``..... no, we are not prepared to pay more taxes so that we can live miserable lives like the british ! ...... no offense, but the uk is like a third world country compared to the usa .... ``}

No offense taken...!! Having lived on both sides of the water I`d like to add a word.

My oncoming karma tried to prevent running over my dogma, but skidded and hit an oak tree. My dogma now pisses over my karma`s smoking wreck.

Winters in the UK suck big time. It`s April but my legs have goosebump while my rear cheeks are numb with damp and cold. The only way I stay warm and comfortable is if I stay indoor. But I am paying for my sins and I must remain active and fit to continue to commit more sins. It is hard being a hedonist.

America is a hedonist`s paradise. Twenty four years in America were mostly a bliss until the first bite of that forbidden apple. I now toil in damp mud four days a week and despite the best that polar-tech can offer, I crave the sun shine and the 70 degree (F) days of the Gulf of Mexico coast with its dunes blending into gently sloping white sand beaches.

The UK differs from America in that its half the size for twice the price. But this is temporary. It should get worse. It is further and faster to fall for the US as it is for the UK. The agriculture on this misty island is increadible. It is still possible, though by no means easy. But it keeps the arteries dilated and the waist under control. That`s good for the ticker and the pecker alike. At the half century mark these are high priority personal security considerations.

In the end, its a choice. As for the taxman... its a mugs game. The net confiscation by the governments that an individual suffers is almost identicle on both shores. The theoritical risk to self-sovreignty therefore is almost the same, but the British are clumsier, so one stands a better chance. It`s tough to be a hedonist.

Long Live the Queen.

...SR