11-16-05,10:54am
A common argument used by supporters of U.S. global hegemony, runs as follows: the U.S. as a human society has “human” shortcomings, the faults that are all too 'human', it might not be perfect (they say) but it is still “better” than most other societies around the globe.
There are several problems with this line of argumentation. First, it erroneously assumes that societies are mere sums of individuals that inhabit them. The total, society, is greater than the sum of its parts. Problems of societal structure might not be problems of individual members that inhabit those structures. Such reasoning confuses public issues, things that have to do with social structure and institutions that transcend individuals, with personal troubles of individual character.
Take the example of marriage: Inside a marital relationship, personal problems might exist between the couple which may lead to divorce, but when almost half of all marriages attempted end in divorce in a society, it has to do with the social institution of marriage and family, how it is changing and how other institutions are affecting or causing such change, in short it is a issue involving social structure.
Arguments that seek to excuse social issues as mere “human shortcomings” assume, as a premise, that what is happening in the various countries of the world is happening in vacuum-like conditions, where all nations are separate and compete fairly based upon merit and goodwill. They also assume that history is being made in the U.S. by the will of the people.
Both these assumptions are incorrect: in a capitalist society, when wealth, power and administrative control of the major institutions of society becomes enlarged and concentrated, the decisions (that have enormous consequences) are made by a microscopic minority that controls the wealth and the machinery of the various institutions. Further, the decisions of this power elite have global ‘life and death’ consequences for hundreds of millions; they are not limited by geographic boundaries of countries.
Further, the public in the U.S. is not making history; it has become the utensil of the history makers: the power elite. As part of the technique used by these elites for legitimating their rule, is the use of morally loaded master symbols in the form of slogans promoting democracy and freedom. These slogans are fed to an otherwise starving world through their domination of the public-relations apparatus.
However, the reality of the situation in the U.S. is that there is no substantive democracy. A highly bureaucratized social system molds and guides peoples aspirations and choices, thereby totally restricting their freedom. As ‘cheerful robots’ (see http://robots.asadi.org) they work the best parts of their lives in the corporate world thinking, due to bureaucratic adaptation and media programming, that life spent in an office cubicle is heaven on earth. In their free time they mass consume based upon desires that have been insinuated into them by a massive advertising industry.
That this “mass society” plays no part in the decisions that affect them is evident by major decisions being made by un-elected elites that populate the president’s cabinet, influential policy boards and think tanks. The fact that institutional mechanisms ensure that major decisions, policy parameters, campaign issues, campaigns and the people who will compete are predetermined before any voting takes place shows that the “mass society” is a mere spectator or forced actor in this ‘democracy’ facade.
The ability to mobilize resources for effective interest group formation as well as access to power networks for successful lobbying are dominated by the wealthiest. Supplementing this is the fact that the few that diligently vote among the U.S. public are given extremely restricted choices: choices restricted by a two party monopoly, not much different than a one party dictatorship, and further restricted by being structured through mass-mediated information controlled by privately owned media.
How else can you explain the fact that a microscopic minority, 1% of the population of the U.S., controls greater wealth and resources than the rest of the 99% combined, with little or no objection? It does not require great intellectual skills to conclude from this that the resulting access to 'life chances' and success in a society based upon ‘purchasing power’ is inherently unequal.
In this context, consider the case of the highly advertised “freedom of speech”: Five large corporations dominate the media in the U.S. that reaches tens of millions. These corporations are “for profit” businesses and as such have highly structured filters that manage the way in which news is selected and reported.
As Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman document in their book Manufacturing Consent, bias in favor of government and big business is structured into the news media by a few large bureaucracies subsidizing the content of what is used as ‘certified’ news by this media.
It is also structured by the over whelming use of “experts” by them for their commentaries, which are or were (a disproportionate majority) on the payroll of government or big business. In addition to this, their dependence on the ‘market’ for advertising, which is purchased by big corporations- and the fact that they themselves are ‘big business’ or their parent companies are corporate giants like General Electric etc., results in ‘self management’ and uniformity of output.
The product that is produced by them as a result, is scientifically predictable within a ‘propaganda model’, in that it seldom deviates from the official/corporate economic, social and political agenda. Thus, only the elite have access to millions by domination of the media airwaves, while the rest of us reach almost no one and have no part in the production of information.
The First Amendment without information is not of much use. When the information that the public receives is being supplied by the mass media, controlled by a few, the First Amendment (to the U.S. constitution that guarantees freedom of expression), is by fact and practice rendered null and void.
How do we reclaim our freedom in the face of these overwhelming social forces of control and domination generated by the elite?
The first act of emancipation from this condition is to recognize it for what it is, total enslavement. It is an act of understanding the fact that the vast majority of humankind in the world today have no say or control over major decisions, economic, political or military, they are mere spectators.
They are acted upon but cannot act, or when they do act, their actions have no structural consequences for their societies or the world. At any point when we recognize the true nature of our oppression and develop “human consciousness” (not merely class consciousness), we are forced to come to terms with the fact that as individuals we cannot change the social structures that exist in our societies and the world system.
However, we can surely learn how these structures function and consciously reject them. In this act of rejection is the first step towards eventual global change.
How can one reject the rising tide of bureaucratic control and not be marginalized in the process?
As individuals in a capitalist society, we are objectively among a crowd, the “mass society” but still subjectively alone (as psychological fact). It is in the emotional void that exists in capitalist societies that the advertising industry finds its effectiveness as cultivator of interests, seeking to create mythic symbols of affinity between the consumer and material objects that are being offered for sale.
An alienated individual, with weak family and group ties, makes the ideal consumer- the type sought by corporations for maximum profitability. Once a person’s “inner world” awakes, reason replaces material desires, consciousness develops and as a result, life is experienced more fully compared to the narrow existence offered by mere consumption.
The corporate elite, whose mode of production is geared towards profit maximization and not human need fulfillment, are mortally afraid of the emergence of a conscious society. This act of rejection is by itself a magnificent victory over their domination.
The American power elite are killing the world, directly through wars and indirectly through perpetuating underdevelopment upon the world by implicit control of the state and military institutions of developing countries. It is no secret that the profits of the American corporations depend upon access to cheap resources, cheap labor and the inability of the poor countries to manufacture what they buy at “monopoly price” from these industrialized countries.
Their practice, as objective fact, of relocation and domination of global trade empirically reveals this relationship. If the poor countries developed and started manufacturing products that would compete with the products of these corporations, they would go out of business and the economies of the over-developed countries, as centers of power, would collapse.
Operating with a specific worldview, driven by the profit motive, in control of the world’s wealth and the apparatus of public relations, these power elite ensure that their decisions will prevail over all others.
As a result human misery perpetuates generation after generation. We must begin by rejecting their official myths and distractions. In this first act lies our declaration of independence.
