Pete Seeger again

I have been grieving the loss of Pete Seeger and celebrating his life and ours--all of those he sung to.

John Nichols wrote a wonderful piece in the Nation. But it was one of the comments to that piece that really said it for me.

GemmaSeymour 

• 2 days ago

• −

The older I get, the more I get Pete Seeger. Never did better walk this Earth, and if you don't understand why, then I suggest that you have become trapped by your own arguments, unable to see beyond the boundaries your rhetoric has defined.

I believe in the equal dignity of all the living, a principle which demands equal respect for, and equal protection under the law of, the natural, common, inherent, and unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and an equal share in the gifts of Nature, which were never created by the hand of any individual. That is the only kind of patriotism worth having.

Our culture has devolved into abject neoliberal productivist selfishness, elevating self-interest, market worthiness, and acquisitiveness above all. Self-interest is only the lowest form of morality, a foundation, not a goal, upon which we build higher morality. As we form legitimate government powers based upon the sacrifice of certain rights of the people in order to protect others, so do we form higher morality based on the sacrifice of personal self-interest for the greater good of the group, the family, the community, the nation, and all of humanity.

We can choose to pretend that the United States of America is a shining beacon to the world, or we can choose to fulfill the grand dreams of our forebears. My committment to my country can best be described in the words of one of the greatest Americans in history, the Republican Senator from Missouri, Carl Schurz, who in his address on the floor of Senate in 1872 spoke these powerful words, much mangled by those seeking self-serving, jingoistic pablum: "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right, and if wrong, to be made right."


Also I've been listening to some of Pete Seeger's songs. Here is one I was not familiar with. Such a great epitaph to a great artist, man, and patriot.

My Rainbow Race

One blue sky above us, one ocean lapping all our shore

One earth so green and round, who could ask for more?

And because I love you I'll give it one more try

To show my rainbow race, it's too soon to die

Some folks want to be like an ostrich

Bury their heads in the sand

Some hope that plastic dreams

Can unclench all those greedy hands

Some hope to take the easy way

Poisons, bombs, they think we need 'em

Don't you know you can't kill all the unbelievers?

There's no shortcut to freedom

Go tell, go tell all the little children

Tell all the mothers and fathers too

Now's our last chance to learn to share

What's been given to me and you

One blue sky above us, one ocean lapping all our shore

One earth so green and round, who could ask for more?

And because I love you I'll give it one more try
To show my rainbow race, it's too soon to die

• 
  

  › 

Art and Revolution

Pete Seeger just died. He was a true hero of mine and a revolutionary and, as my son Aaron just reminded me, a true revolutionary because a compassionate revolutionary.

The event prompts me to add one more chapter to my little book The Next Revolution. I dealt with Religion and Revolution, Science, Ethics, Economics, Violence and Revolution. What about Art?

Art is the expression of a culture back to the culture. Like science, philosophy, religion, myth, and language itself, it is the search for and impression of meaning--the meaning of the universe, the meaning of humanity, the meaning of us. It takes life to a higher stage. By re-presenting and examining life, it make life worth living. It creates value.

The human capacity, the one that defines us most of all, is the capacity to imagine, to make images and use them to make sense of our surroundings and of us. It is a capacity that cannot be achieved, exercised, or developed alone. It requires our association with others, our ability to get under each other's skin, to agitate one another, to make us not passive spectators or followers but actors and leaders.

Diego Rivera did that with his painting, Albert Camus with his novels, Eugene O'Neill with his drama, Amiri Baraka with his poetry, Amy Goodman with her journalism, Judith Helfand with her environmental filmmaking, Martin Luther King with his sermons, Riana Eisler with her theology, and Pete Seeger with his songs. But of course, the counter-revolutionaries, absolutists and reactionaries, also express on radio, TV, newspaper, books, music, and drama. and often express well usually supported by well-healed patrons who have every interest in keeping things as they are or even turning back the clock a bit.

The role of art in revolution should not be underestimated. That is why oppressive regimes try to counter or control it through censorship, banishment, or worse. Art destabilizes, it causes people to think, it agitates. Yet at the same time art, like science and religion, seeks to find and create patterns in the chaos of life.

The "Beautiful" was classically defined as "what, when seen, pleases the observer." But that definition begged the question of why it pleases. Evolutionary psychology and neuroscience attempts to answer this by pointing out the brain's ability to name, to use symbols and models or images, to find and create patterns in the chaos of the universe. That is why one of the marks of a good scientific theory is its "elegance." It is also why artists are so fascinated with form.

The true revolutionary is both shaking up the present forms and presenting new ones often by rearranging the old. Good organizers know that organizing starts with disorganizing. Societies, nations, the world are already organized; but they are now organized to benefit some by exploiting others. That's what the organizer has to help the people to see. And art is her invaluable tool. Art with compassion. Art that brings people to sing along. Pete Seeger's kind of art.

Labor organizing

The new American revolutionary realizes that the working poor need to be organized not just at their working site, but at their living place. The progressive labor organizations recognize that unions should be engaged with broad based community organizations fighting for social, economic, and environmental justice through local publics.

At a book club meeting at the AFL-CIO yesterday, I heard from two of the contributors (Scott Paul and Harold Meyerson) of the new book Remaking of America, published by the Alliance for American Manufacturing which is pushing for a focus on manufacturing in the US and setting forth national policies that might accomplish more manufacturing jobs. They discussed the 11% decline in wages despite the increase in worker productivity, the off-shoring of jobs, the trade deficit, the misguided immigration policy, and the corporate use of profits and surplus cash to buy back stock rather than invest in R&D or workers. And they indicated how this is leading to general economic decline for the country as well as the greater disparity among rich and poor. They compared this shareholder capitalism to the stakeholder capitalism of Germany which includes worker input through councils and participation in boards.

But my ears especially perked up when Meyerson discussed the new demographics where the cities and where most of US residents live have elected progressive, usually Democratic mayors, which have become the locus of a shift of power from a national government that has been stymied by polarization. Recognizing this suggests a new organizing strategy for labor organizations by focusing energy and resources on local organizing in urban areas which will then influence state and national policies. A good example of this is the fight for raising the minimal wage to a living wage. But the same could be applied to training and incentives to immigrants, coordination instead of competition for locating companies, training and housing for workers, smart growth planning linking jobs, housing, and transportation, energy practices that keep down costs and maintain independence, and pressure on corporations to contribute more to their communities and their residents.

Most labor leaders would preach the same, but whether their practice will meet their rhetoric needs to be tested. The AFL-CIO has unions with locals, many participating in local Labor Councils, and has developed a worker center strategy that seems to be compatible with such a practice, but does not seem to be well implemented.

Since a number of us associated with organizing networks in various urban regions are discussing with the White House Council on Strong Cities and Strong Communities (SC2) the establishing of Local Resource Networks through "quarterbacking" community-based organizations, it seems to me that perhaps labor should be brought into the strategy. One payoff for labor would be the development of their worker centers. I will be contacting the Secretary/Treasurer of the AFL-CIO here in DC to see if they might be amendable and partners in our strategy.

Hope in Revolution

The character of the revolutionary is hope. Hope is an orientation to the future. Hope is the vision of new possibility in the here and now.

Liberation theologians teach that the God of revolutionaries is Future--that the divine nature is to be future. It is a Future which beckons us to leave the land of oppression and co-create a new place where victims become victors and the objects of history become the subjects of history. Like prophets they say: leave the land of oppression whether it is the rule of pharaohs and dictators, the necessity to scavenge to live, or the compulsion to stay stuck in victimhood.

Since creation is the divine activity in the world, those who co-create the future as a place of possibilities and a space of freedom are indeed embodying the divine act and so make Future present in the world, here and now. Such an act is not an onerous work but a joyful labour.

But here is where some roads might diverge. Some revolutionaries of an absolute mind fabricate the future in their own image. They have an ideology. They possess a blueprint of the future. They claim a special revelation of the will of God. In other words, they close possibilities by their ideas. And since the future is closed, set, already there, it is no longer open, emerging, teeming with possibilities, a matter of experimentation. It is no longer future at all. Already known as the right plan, it is executed by might, even violence--an armageddon, a dictatorship of the proletariat, a purge.

But the hope that liberation theologians are teaching is very different. It is connected to faith, which is an assertion into, not a dissolution of, tradition. It is an acceptance of the past to let it go. It is a seeing into the possibilities of the forms and institutions and teachings of the past rather than getting mired there and needing to destroy them. To be hopeful is to be faithful. It is to accept the past, the world as it is, the human condition and nature, in order to challenge it to achieve their possibilities. That is why liberation is not an act of hate, but of love. It is an engagement with what has become; it is a connection to all who are here and an affirmation that we all have a future together.

Faith, hope, and love--temporal dimensions of the same creative activity of building places of freedom where people can actualize their potential, search for infinity, desire to know everything, and achieve personal and public happiness.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel," said Samuel Johnson. And we know what he meant. How some of those who claim to be patriots who wear flag lapels and condemn flag burning, who say "love America or leave it" to protesters, who jail and kill prophets, who attack anyone who questions the military budget or does not support a war are some of the greatest scoundrels especially when they are personally gaining votes or revenue by their stance. The patriot scoundrel refuses to acknowledge and learn from his nation's sins.

Conversely many who would criticize some of the oppressive acts of their nation, who might even go to prison because of their opposition, are some of the greatest patriots. True patriots, persons who love their country, have great hopes, but are not blind to its past transgressions. They confess them with contrition. They ask forgiveness and accept the penance of consequences for these transgressions. They commit themselves to sin no more and work hard to make their country more just to their own citizens and to others around the world.

The progressive republican is attempting to reconstruct the Republic by renewing traditional values; not by restoring some nostalgic utopia image of the past, but by exploring the possibilities for freedom and justice in the present institutions, no matter how they got here.

The traditional values of the United States of America are articulated in two formulas: the Declaration of Independence "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and the pledge of allegiance "one nation under God" and "with liberty and justice for all." These express the heritage that guides republicans into the future.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness enunciate the most fundamental of rights for all citizens. Each refers to a distinct dimension of human existence: economic, cultural, and political.

Life refers to the right to live and to have all the necessities for biological survival including nutrition, shelter, health, safety, and education. We as a nation pledge economic sufficiency. We pledge that no one will be denied these rights though we may differ as to how they will be provided to all.

Liberty refers to the right to enjoy the style of life and personal values that one chooses--as long as they do not infringe on others styles of living and personal values or deny others the necessities of life. We as a nation pledge cultural tolerance. We pledge to allow people to think, to read, to believe, to worship, to love, to entertain, to protect their household, to have private property, and to behave in private anyway that they want without interference from government.

The pursuit of happiness refers to the achievement of recognition, dignity, and respect. We as a nation pledge political power.  We pledge that all citizens have full and equal access to public space, have the right to associate, to speak in public, to organize for action, to influence policy, and to create political institutions. We pledge to continually reconstruct our society so that it is "just and free for all"--the words of the pledge of allegiance.

But consider "one nation under God." The "one nation" does not deny that we are a country with many tribes, clans, classes, cultures, races, ethnicities, sexual orientations, languages, religions, belief systems, lifestyles, political parties, economic institutions, even many nations when we take into account native peoples. But it projects a hope that "e pluribus unum"--one from many, that people can listen and find common ground, that despite their differences they will engage with one another to ensure the promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the dream of a Republic that a nation is larger than the sum of its parts, that it has a character and therefore a "soul" or "spirit" that can transcend all differences. One nation was also a response to the civil war and expressed a hope that the nation could heal its divisions.

"Under God" Though a recent add on to the pledge of allegiance, we note that the founders used God language but, as men of the enlightenment, often meant Nature and the sum of the laws of Nature (Spinoza) or the Principle that got nature started and lets it work its way out (Deism). The people of the great evangelical awakenings and revival movements spoke of God as a supernatural spiritual entity above nature who acted like a parent with his children. In our postmodern age, "God," if used at all, is the process through which all consciousness and intelligence is converging or is the infinite point of ultimate convergence--a sort of Omega Point in Evolution. God is the be-coming one.

Even though "God" means something different in every religion and even within religions, it is certainly in the lexicon of the American Civil religion as demonstrated by how all presidents and candidates end their speeches with "God bless America." The positive in the use is the avoidance of deifying the nation which is under, but not divine. The negative is making the nation so exceptional that it is always right.

In any case, the Future is the unifying principle for the progressive republican, but a future that remembers its past and finds possibilities in the present.

New Year and Revolution

The New Year is the time to celebrate revolutions.

I finished my first draft of The Next Revolution (see previous blog) and sent it to some colleagues for review. My hope is to see it used to assist in the co-creation of more progressive revolutionaries.

In the meantime I am reading Ari Shavit's My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel. What a magnificent, moving narrative for all the concepts that I was trying to explain! I can see using this book as a text and my draft simply as a guide in a seminar on building a Progressive Republic.

All the stages from resistance to revolution are present. The progressive as well as the absolutist forms, the humorous, onerous, and ironic aspects, the demonic as well as the liberating consequences of revolution are so vividly and feelingly presented. And the continuation of history as a story of the oppressed liberating themselves by becoming oppressors. And the search for transcendence, for peace through justice, that motivates the violence and injustice of war.

From the top of the Mount, the gods or God or anyone who reflects must laugh at us mortals. And reading this book and seeing its parallels with the founding and continuation and triumph of my own country, has me laughing and weeping at the same time.

The rugged pioneers, resisting oppression in Europe, who inhabited the land under the protection of the British Empire. They took land or bought it from existing residents who did not want it and made it flower by working it with great intelligence and industry. They created small communes where everyone pitched in as they were able and everyone enjoyed the fruits of all.

These communities grew and more land was acquired. At times they had to protect their communities from hostile indigenous residents; but in general many of the indigenous residents prospered by the early settlers' industry as well. The communities came together and created a democratic nation, independent of Great Britain, with a constitution that guaranteed human and civil rights. They welcomed immigrants and became a place of refuge for those who had been persecuted or victims of war in Europe and elsewhere.

They had to further defend themselves from attacks of hostile nations and by indigenous residents to protect their borders and expand them as under the call of Divine Destiny. They developed new industries, powerful weapons, large new cities, great universities and cultural centers, and a strong economy. They developed a nuclear option and spread their influence beyond their borders often giving military aid to factions in other countries who would support them or topple governments who were hostile to them. They developed a civil religion based on their sacred scriptures and the interpretation of their tradition with various ways in which to participate in that religion. A significant faction developed a fundamentalist, evangelical, and absolutist interpretation that made them emissaries of divine will.

There was "blow back" by people who considered themselves oppressed by these actions in the form of massive demonstrations and then terrorist actions in vital centers. Concentration camps were built and torture permitted for the sake of security and self-defense.

Has the revolution, which brought about inclusive, public space where people would shed their victim status and fear to act positively for the good of all, been betrayed? Yes. Can it be redeemed? Only through a miracle. But not from outside. Not from some superpower. Not from a separate, distinct, supernatural God. The miracle will only come through new beginnings starting with the newly and recently born who can break the seemingly inevitable habits of their elders. The superpower within them acting together with new assumptions, new interpretations, and above all forgiveness and hope. The Next Revolution.

A Primer for Revolutionaries

Forward:

Nicolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince five hundred years ago. It is still relevant. Consistent with human nature, it is a valuable manual for those who would be princes. But those of us, who, like Machiavelli, recognize our political nature but see greater possibilities for humanity, need a different sort of handbook.

What I present here is for those who would oppose princes and their principalities in order to build republics. There are many politicians who say they are republicans, but in fact they take the patronage and do the bidding of princes who provide the resources for their elections and the directions for their policies. They adopt the princes’ perspectives, their explanations, and the courses of action they propose.

Let me acknowledge that I too am biased and my bias affects the way I observe what is occurring, the analysis of problems that I present, and the remedies that I recommend. My heart is not with the princes who take advantage of the present situation to enrich themselves. Because I identify with those who are poor, those who are culturally despised, and those who have been effectively excluded from power, I describe myself as culturally libertarian, economically social democratic (or socialist if you will), and politically conservative republican.  But this is not a fixed ideology. I know that there are limitations and ambiguities in each of these positions and between them.

By "conservative republican" I mean I am committed to conserve families, neighborhoods, religion, ethnic diversity, history, and the earth. And I hold that political power belongs to publics--not to the church, not to the state, not to the elite, not to the ethnically advantaged, not to unengaged masses, not even to elected representatives. Publics are where people come together as equals to discuss and act on behalf of their common interests, values, and associations. I think that conservative republicanism argues for an effort to build publics and create a new federalism among them. This is the task of progressive revolutionaries.

This new federalism is a return to what Catholic Social Teaching calls the "principle of subsidiarity": human affairs should be handled by the lowest and least centralized level of authority possible. It ties to a central canon of community organizing: "don't do for others what they can do for themselves." It assumes the principles of solidarity and social democracy through which the well-being and dignity of all are assured.

In the following thoughts for progressive revolutionaries, I avoid footnotes and references. The appendix will show many of my influences and teachers though I like to think that most of what I present is due to the magnificent progressive revolutionaries with whom I have lived, worked, and acted throughout my life. It is to them that I dedicate these words and express my deepest gratitude.

Chapter 1: Revolutionary Atmosphere

Chapter 2: Unfinished Revolution 

Chapter 3: Resistance, Rebellion, Revolution, Renewal

Chapter 4: Revolution that Renews

Chapter 5: Motives for Revolution

Chapter 6: Progressive Revolutionary Mind

Chapter 7: Humor and Revolution

Chapter 8: Progressive Revolutionary Analysis

Chapter 9: Violence and Revolution

Chapter 10: Religion and Revolution

Chapter 11: Ethics of Revolution

Chapter 12: Rules for Revolutionaries

Chapter 13: The End of Revolution

Afterword

Appendix: A Study Guide

Yes, we will!

(I had a dream last night in which I was reviewing my whole complex philosophy and theology. Loads of graphs and formulas were written on whiteboards while I was trying to explain it to my teachers and colleagues. When I woke up, Louis Armstrong's "It's a Wonderful World" was playing in my head. And I realized how simple it all was.)

It is a wonderful world.
Humanity has a beautiful future.
Our lives and deaths have purpose and worth.
The Universe is Meaning-full.

We will enjoy peace with justice.
Charity towards all will prevail over fear and hate.
Public happiness will overcome personal misery.
Society, its communities and publics, will be free.

Not a matter of philosophical argument, scientific proof, or religious teaching,
All this will be because we will to make it so.

Our faith is not a dogma, it is our decision.
Our hope is not a wish, it is our intention.
Our love is not a feeling, it is our action.

We choose to be free and powerful and so we shall be.
We decide for a wonderful world and so it shall be.
We act for universal meaning and Meaning shall be.

We, not I, are the masters of our Fate.
We, not I, are the captains of our Soul.
We, not I, are the Word of God.

Liar, Liar

Cousin Vinnie said that the reason a lot of old stuff about the President keeps being recycled (he sent me another silly birther rumor!) is because Obama is such a "chronic lyre (sic)." My response:


Read history. Every president including and especially Washington and Lincoln have been accused of being liars and devils. It goes with the territory.

When you make a promise that you cannot fulfill (I've done this a number of times myself if you ask my kids and Obama did on you can keep your own plan and Guantanamo) even though you tried to and wanted to, you are called a liar.

When you change your mind based on new discoveries or pressures (as did Wilson in WWI and Obama on universal health care ), you are called a liar.

When you make a mistake or misspeak or say something is so that isn't (even though you thought it was, like Bush and Powell on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and Obama/Rice on Benghazi), you are called a liar.

When you are found to be holding some information back because you judge it might be more detrimental to release it (like cracking the Enigma code or Obama on intelligence issues), you are called a liar.

When you act for something that you think is in the best interest for the most people or for the groups you most want to help, but others do not empathize with those people or identify with those groups (like Obama on infrastructure funding and health care), you are called a liar.

When you disagree with someone and cite false evidence that you really think is true (like you do all the time), you are called a liar.  

Indeed a chronic liar. 

Yes, we will constantly go through this old internet stuff that has been completely refuted because there are a number of fanatic true-believers out there who refuse to think, refuse to check out what they are saying or passing on, refuse to admit that they might be wrong, love rumors and conspiracies, see the world in black and white, fail to distinguish the personal from the public, always impute evil motives on people just because they don't agree with them. E.g. I can't believe how many people still think that Bush engineered 9/11. 

I'm not saying we have not been lied to. We have--often. Just read Zinn's People's History of the US if you dare. Mainly because telling the truth was not in the interest of the in-group. And people do not want to hear a truth that challenges their assumptions, values, interests.

Indeed, I would lie to save my family, friends, people with whom I most identify, and my country. But with a very troubled conscience because I know that transparency generally works to create trust which is essential for a vibrant republic. One of my biggest criticisms of Obama is that he saw the need for and promised transparency but had left the NSA continue its policies and has gone after leakers. 

On the other hand I know that I do not know the complete situation. And I do value the security of my family, friends, and community. So I will continue to criticize him for this and for other things that I do not like or consider wrong or not in the best interest of the people I love or the nation, or even evil. But I refuse to call him or you stupid, liar, evil because I disagree. The same for Reagan and Bush. (Nixon and Clinton who were trying to save their asses, Madoff, Limbaugh, Koch Bros who know what they are doing while laughing all the way to the bank are different cases!)

Be careful when you call people stupid, liars, or evil. You are really saying something about yourself. (PS you can pass this on to your friends, if you want.)

Freedom--a Socratic Dialogue

Starbuck's Coffee House Silver Spring again. Socrates walks in and sees Plato sitting alone nursing his cappuccino.

Socrates (walking over): Plato, sitting alone?

Plato: Join me, Socrates. Libertus was supposed to meet me here about 20 minutes ago; but he must have run into a snag.

Socrates (sitting down): Well, look! Here he comes now.

Libertus (hurrying over): Plato, sorry I'm so late. Solon had me cornered in conversation and I just couldn't get free. Hi, Socrates. So good to see you and glad you could join us.

Socrates: Thanks, Libertus, but I can't stay long. I want to get down to the gymnasium. But I am curious when you said that you couldn't get free. Are you saying that when you were talking with Solon you had no freedom?

Plato (laughing): Ha, I could see that coming a mile away. Libertus, you know you have to be awful careful what you say around Socrates.

Libertus: Yes, in a sense, Socrates. I was bound by a self-imposed duty to a friendship. But I was speaking analogously. I wasn't free because of a duty, but still I had freedom. I could have left and actually did.

Plato: I have a student called Aristotle who thinks everything is analogy. But I think there has to be an essence, a reality we call freedom and then we use "free" like Libertus did as an analogous concept in reference to the reality.

Socrates: Hmm, I don't think I'll step into your controversy with Aristotle on whether reality is univocal or analogous just yet. But at least we can clarify the meaning of freedom. So does freedom mean the absence of bindings or boundaries?

Libertus: Yes and no, I think we can bind ourselves by our choices as I did with Solon. But as long as I am choosing my bindings, I am still free. I think one is not free when he is bound from outside himself. Like a slave.

Socrates: So if one chooses to be a slave or a servant and isn't forced to be one from outside, he is still free, correct?

Libertus: Yes, but he gives up his freedom if he puts himself in a condition where he cannot do anything about that condition.  Say, he chooses to be a servant, but then cannot get out from under it because of some coercion.

Socrates: Well said, Libertus. But what if the binding doesn't come from outside but from some inner obsession? Today neuroscientists are discovering that the brain is very complex and often genetically disposed and culturally determined to certain behaviors.

Libertus: In that case I guess I would say that such a person is not free but the compulsion still comes from outside the person--i.e. his parents or his culture. So I think my definition holds: freedom is the state of not being bound by some outer force.

Socrates: So, would that mean that a "libertine," one who sees himself outside and unrestricted by the mores of society or the rules of religion or the laws of government, say, by practicing free love, may not be free at all if he acting out of some compulsion or addiction?

Libertus: Yes, if the compulsion was caused from outside. For example maybe he has been "brain washed" by society, religion, or government. To be free he has to be the "master of his fate and the captain of his soul" as the poet says.

Socrates: So your understanding of being free is being without any compulsion from outside oneself. Is freedom then a negative idea?

Plato: I hope not. If a person acts totally under her own power, she is free and in a state of freedom. And freedom is a positive state, an ideal, an eternal idea.

Socrates: What does it mean to act under one's own power?

Plato: It means acting in such a way that no other power is coercing you to act.  Oops, I know what you are going to say. That I am still defining freedom negatively--as being without coercion. But I have an answer to that. When you are liberating yourself from outside influence by liberal education to know all the coercive forces and removing them, then you are attaining freedom. Paulo Freire says that a liberating education is one where students are active subjects using language to create their own world, not passive objects being filled by the language and worldview of the existing social order.

Socrates: So freedom means liberation--the act or process of overcoming coercion or force so persons can act on their own?

Libertus: I think when a person, say through education or psychoanalysis, overcomes coercive forces so he can act on his own, then the person is free and has free will. So freedom is a negative idea in the sense that you are removing obstacles especially those coming from outside; but it is positive in the sense that you are taking definite steps to do that. But if you are born without outside constrictions, then you just have to stay that way.

Socrates: Is anyone born without outside restrictions? And can you ever get to the point where there are no restrictions, no limits, no coercions--a place of absolute freedom.

Libertus: I think so. Just throw off the shackles of government, society, and religion. Religious people say that a person is free only when the human spirit is totally united to God in heaven without the mediation of the body or any physical things. They say that libertines are not really free because their minds are not in tune with the will of God. But I think that religion is just another way to enslave people.
                      
Plato: Philosophers say that you reach freedom when you turn the eyes of the soul, the intellect, away from the shadows of material things and towards the Truth through pure contemplation. They say that libertines are not really free because they are caught up in material things and pleasures of the body.

Socrates: Since I am neither religious, nor a philosopher, I have my doubts about what both of you are saying. Perhaps being free just means that we recognize our limits, boundaries, and restrictions while we act to get what we want. However, we have been talking about psychological freedom or free will, what about political freedom?

Libertus: Same thing. When the slave no longer is bound by a master who can force his will or demand obedience, then that person is no longer a slave and is free.  In fact, it's easier to understand freedom in the social sphere, because you can much more recognize external forces there than in the psychological sphere. Just as psychological freedom is liberating yourself from others or outside forces influences in the psyche, so political freedom is removing the forces that influence your behavior in society.

Socrates: If freedom is liberation, is the slave like Spartacus who has united with other slaves to overthrow the masters more free than the slave who has been given his freedom just because the master does it out of noblesse oblige?

Libertus: Both have their chains removed and so are free as the person who had no chains at all. But there is something more admirable about a person removing his own chains. If a slave is given his freedom, he may be bound by gratitude or law or some other quid pro quo. Political freedom is acting not because of the laws of government which uses police or coercive force to uphold them, but because of the laws from within that you choose, that is, your own interests. Libertarianism is the political ideal--the winnowing away of the state and its coercive powers as Marx said.

Plato: But, on the other hand, you know what happened to Spartacus. He was crucified for rebellion. In an ideal Republic, I think that not everyone can be free. You need some people, especially the women and servants, to look after the things the body must have, so that freemen and especially the philosopher-rulers can act from a position of the True, the Good, and the Beautiful. Proper order, not total freedom, is the ideal for society. I know that's not politically correct to say in today's world--but that is why we are having such tensions today. We are not correctly understanding the essences of things.

Socrates: Wow! I'm going to set aside your women and slave position for now. But I do recognize your distinction between the necessities of life and the requirements of action. Life's needs, like food, exercise, sex, entertainment, and work to achieve and maintain the ability to consume is the realm of necessity. Its what we mean by the economy. And it is what must be done to make, grow, and maintain physical life. But when that is done, then certain people are freed up to act on their own without concerns for the necessities of life. Is that right, Plato?

Plato: Yes, Socrates. In the good society of the Republic, because some are concerned about producing what is necessary to consume to live, others are able to devote themselves to the arts, to thinking and discussing like we are doing now, so they can decide policies, that is, what the polis or city should be. And they can command the resources to carry out those policies. They leave the realm of necessity for the realm of freedom. That's the difference between the household (economy and the private realm) and the polis (politics and the public realm).

Socrates: So does that mean that if persons are totally caught up in work and making money, they are still in the realm of necessity and are not free?

Libertus: I guess that would be just like libertines who seem to be free but really are not because of their addictions and compulsions. But still as long as they are acting out of their own desires and interests, it seems to me they are free.

Plato: No, I think liberation is the act or process of moving out of the state of necessity where production for consumption is the major goal and into the place of concerted action--pure thought, disinterested speech, and unrestricted action for the good of the whole. And freedom is that action of freed men working for the true good. But again, that's why I think only a few people who already have all they need to live can truly be free and able to act in a state of freedom.

Socrates: You cannot conceive of a state in which all people can be free citizens, liberated from concern about the necessities of life and participate equally with others in thinking, speaking, deciding, and acting for that state of freedom?

Plato: That's a wonderful dream. But I don't think that would be possible in this life.  Maybe in some heaven with the gods after death when the body no longer has to eat food, enjoy sex, be entertained, or have more and more things. But in this life, if everybody is free from material concerns of life, society would dissipate. We would have pandemonium--"man a wolf to man" as Hobbes said. That's why the freed people have to make and run government (Leviathan) with laws to constrain the workers and servants to take care of the material necessities of life.

Libertus: I argue for no government or as little as possible. Freedom for me is being without the constraints that government laws backed by police coercion make. I think that unrestrained by outside laws and just guided by individual self-interest and personal desires, people will ultimately do the right thing and society will function fine.

Socrates: But is that realistic? Won't those with the most influence, especially those who control the resources for life, try to exert their desires on the rest of us just based on their own individual self-interests? And those few will still control the many but not for some enlightened, philosophic good, as Plato would have it, but to keep increasing their own material resources.

Libertus: Maybe so. But's that's life.

Socrates: Yes, that's life--the realm of the economy here people are focused on accumulating material resources. But we've established that there is also action when and where freed people get together to choose what is good for all. So maybe what you say, Libertus, is for the private realm of the economy; but what Plato says about proper order and choosing the common good is for the public realm of politics--though we may disagree about whether that is for the few or the many.

Plato: If there are two distinct spaces, economy or the realm of necessity which is focused on personal life's resources and politics or the realm of freedom which is focused on public speech and action for the common good, and if all persons go to both of them at different times, as Socrates seems to be inferring, how do we keep from confusing them?

Libertus: I guess that is what is meant by the separation of church and state, by the contrast between private morality and public ethics, by the difference between individual self-interest and common good. But my question is that if there is a conflict, which takes precedence.

Socrates: Well, you both are asking the most important ethical question, it seems to me.

Libertus: I think the economy has to take precedence over politics since you can't act in public unless life's needs are taken care of. How can people really take the steps towards freedom if they don't have enough to live on? Also as I said before, persons as individuals seeking their own economic interests is what makes up the fabric of society and the common good. So leaders, while they pretend to have everybody's good at heart, are really taking their position to accumulate more material resources.

Socrates: Perhaps. Yet don't we see people as heroes when they give up their lives to create or defend the state of freedom? For them the common good, a place where people are liberated, seems like the higher good, doesn't it? Isn't it a higher value to put other people and the community above the individual's life, even my own?

Plato: Yes, for sure. The good of the many outweighs the needs of the few.

Socrates: Do you mean the goods of the many--the consumables that keep them living well? If so, isn't that still putting economics above politics, the demands of necessity over the requirements of freedom? Is it just a number's game?

Plato: No, I guess not. Even if more people died so that fewer people could establish an ideal--a truly free society, that would be better it seems to me. I think of the revolutionaries who risked everything to bring down an oppressive government so everybody could participate.

Libertus: But if you look at most revolutions, they end in disaster.

Plato: Hannah Arendt says that the French Revolution was achieved in the societés or what de Tocqueville would call in his Democracy in America as voluntary associations. But the societés were consumed by economic demands because of the poverty and the tremendous gap between the rich aristocrats and the very poor. So the vengeance and violence of the Terror destroyed the revolution with its free associations. Same with the soviets in Russia when the Bolshevists put their party over all the soviets. So by putting economy over politics, freedom is destroyed.

Libertus: So Arendt means if you have a society that creates a government that is totally focused on economic goals like making money, creating wealth, accruing property, you are undermining freedom and the state of freedom. Then she is saying that libertarians who use the accumulation of money as their measure of success are not really free. They are like compulsive libertines who just think they are free.  But what about the American Revolution?

Plato: Arendt thinks that representative democracy killed the American Revolution. The town hall tradition was where people came together to speak, decide, and act. But when they elected the best and the brightest to lead, they left the public arena for others and just went back into their workaday world--which is just what I recommend for my Republic as long as the leaders are philosophers.

Socrates: Is that like what Libertus said before when slaves give up their freedom and can't take it back? We abandon the public places and elect our masters to make decisions for us.

Plato: Precisely. And even in the old days, it was only those with property, including other human beings, that could vote in the town hall meetings or be citizens and run for Congress. And then the elected became the rulers.

Libertus: Most elected officials need great sums of money to be elected. So many of them come from  the aristocratic class and do what the monied interests want them to do, like the big plantation owners or railroad tycoons and now the big corporations. So, yes, economic interests dominate.

Socrates: So I guess Hannah Arendt would think that the latest Supreme Court decision that gives corporations, totally organized for economic profit, the status of citizens and the ability to determine elections is the final straw. Now we have private corporations which are citizens just like you and I. They can pay off politicians to make policies that will increase they ability to make profit which is their main purpose. The public is totally subordinated to the private. The American Revolution is totally undone.

Libertus: But maybe that's just the reality of things. We just need to accept the world as it is. The needs and desires of life will always trump so-called higher goals of human spirit. There is no higher freedom than personal and individual self-interest without any outside limits or restrictions. And private corporations organized for private profit are the most powerful ways to make politics subservient to private interests. Read Ayn Rand.

Plato: You think that's the way the world is? Well maybe the shadow world of people who don't understand what is happening. And then we no longer have a republic. We just have the rhetoric and the trappings of the republic. Just like Athens when it became an empire and the same for Rome. In effect we have the rule by plutocrats who judge success by GNP--gross nation product for consumption measured by money.

Socrates: I applaud you both for struggling with the question of freedom. How we answer it will determine who we are and, more important, who we want to be. But now I must be off to the gymnasium.