From the Margins

As persons who have visited this blog before may note I have again changed the name of this blog. It is now entitled “Thinking From the Margins.” The reason for the change is that the earlier themes on which I initially wished to write have been too narrowly focused for any effective audience to be built. The first title “God’s justice and kingdom” while certainly central to my  thinking simply does not communicate much that is meaningful to most of the people.  Regrettably “God, Socialism, and Other things” has the same problem. Yes I feel good about my articles on the issues of God and Socialism. However  there is no ideological market for socialism within the United States. The minute market that does exist is saturated by the writings of the many Marxist Leninist and Social Democratic sects that do exist. Most socialists themselves read only the purely secular literature from these party sites.

So where did that leave me? It leaves me with the option of developing a blog in which the full extent to my personal interests in socialism, practical politics, theology, the origins of early Israel and biblical monotheism, Christianity, Islam, Isis, Marianism, and in fact most of the subjects that interest me can be discussed. That blog will be “Thinking from the Margins.” Why however  that title? Well it is descriptive of both what I think about and my life. I am a marginal person, a person who lives at the borders of things, and though most of my life I have always  taken the positions and ideas that are out of the mainstream that in fact have little popularity or of little interest to most people. I am in fact so marginal in most situations that I am marginal even to the marginal. For example at this time of my life I tend to see my self as having a Christian identity. However the fact is that I hold many beliefs that are simply not regarded as properly Christian. Those ideas such as my belief in the Goddess clearly place me to some extent within the range of the Neopagan community. On the other hand I have too much interest in and sympathy  for Christianity and the Bible to fit in that marginal movement either. The same of course applies to my political stance which can reasonably be described as a form of conservative socialism. Thus  on the issue of a socialist vision I am  more radical than most. However on a practical political level I tend to be a supporter of moderately progressive Democrats such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. On the level of practical politics the winning of political power and getting things done is more valuable to me than the grand eloquent statement which will ensure defeat.  Thus in many ways I  live as a sort of spiritual and political platypus neither fully mammal nor fowl, a person whose basic instinct is to combine things that most people believe are simply incompatible. So in regards to religion, politics, and in so many other ways the state of  being marginal and of thinking from the margins  describes well my existence. Therefore I might as well take what is a disadvantage and attempt to make something positive out of it.

Glenn King

What the Koran does not command!

The last writing I am going to post on the issue of Islam and women is a message that I wrote a few weeks ago in a heated discussion that occurred within a group called GoddessChristians. The analysis that I used is a basically based on what I have learned from writers Amina Wadud, Fatima Mernissi, and others.

 

Glenn

 

Ok , Theo perhaps I over responded to your comments. When I  responded to you I was particularly unhappy because while two of my own posts had been disapproved because they were “off subject,”  posts severely negative on Islam yours being one of them had continued. To be honest I also had the image of you in mind as being some young male zealous to show how enlightened he was by asking rhetorical questions which in fact were designed to show further disrespect for Islam. You evidently are not the person that I had in my head.

 

As far as this issue of Islamic repression of women goes, I do not deny the fact that in almost all Moslem society women face either greater or lessor degrees of discrimination and inequality. Some of the worse oppressions are female genital mutilation practiced mainly in African countries, honor killings of young unmarried women by family members for supposed sexual misconduct, about two of these in occur  in Pakistan daily, and in general laws that treat women as second class citizens.
However what I have objected to is the idea  that all Moslem women are slaves, beaten by  husbands, victims of pedophilia or uneducated. I also object to the idea that the Koran was developed as a text to oppress women. One of the articles which I wished to post was an article by one of the founders of the current Islamic feminist movement who believes that the Koran is a liberatory document for women. The post was not allowed.
 
So you may ask some good questions such as how can the Koran be liberating when it gives women lesser inheritance rights than men and commands men to beat women?  I will deal with these in order. The fact of the matter is that prior to the advent of Islam  in general though out the Arabian peninsula women had no inheritance rights at all. Of course a few did but it was not common. The Koran in contrast while it did not overthrow the full system legislated that on the death of parents that  daughters were to receive an inheritance of at least a half of what sons received. This inheritance was for the woman to use alone. It was to be controlled by her alone. In contrast it was expected that men would use their own inheritance to support both themselves, wives, and families. When this is seen the inequality of treatment can be seen as being some what less than it appears on the surface.

 

Another aspect of the inheritance issue was the issue of bride prices. Traditionally in Arabia the man paid an agreed upon amount of money to the father of the bride to marry her. The Koran instead states that the bride price is to go not to the father but to the bride herself. It becomes part of her own wealth in addition to her inheritance at the death of her parents. This “dowry” as it is sometimes called is not to be under the control of her husband. Further more it must be understood in looking at all of this that in general there was little real work for women outside of the home in pre industrial Arabia. It was normally expected that men would support women out of their own wealth and substance. Thus what the women owned directly themselves was for their own use only. The historical reality is that in general the Koranic defined property rights of Islamic women was greater that those of women in Western societies until as late as the 20th century.
 

However while Koranic legislation definitely raised the economic status of women a substantial degree \of inequality still existed. Why? The reason was that Mohammed himself was not all powerful within the Islamic community, and even he himself may have had some biases. When the Koranic rule came down that women were to receive inheritance along with the sons most Moslem men were enraged. They felt that since they supported their wives and women did not work ( obviously they did in the home)  that women should in fact receive no inheritances at all. Mohammed was the religious political leader of over 10,000 people. If he had attempted to go further than he did, if he had been more  equalitarian, more  forceful in favor of women than he already was he may have had a major male revolt on his hands that may have endangered  the future of Islam altogether. He did what he could realistically do. One might find a parallel in American politics in which Presidents get elected with certain goals and find that the power structures are such that only limited amounts of change is possible.
 
 
Ok well what about the issue of wife beating? To deal with this issue again an understanding of the situation of Arabian society prior to Islam is necessary. One must also understand both the example of Mohammed’s own life and the Arabic language.  In Arabian society no laws existed against spousal abuse at all. The family structure was patriarchal and it was very common for men to beat their wives. The second thing that one must understand is that no stories exist that suggest that Mohammed ever beat his own wives. He in fact was regarded by many Moslem men as what is derogatorily termed as “hen pecked.”  On one occasion Mohammed even left home as a result of a fight with his wives and went to live with Abu Bakr his best friend for a while.  One must also listen to what Mohammed said. He said “You should not beat the women servants of God.” He said “Do you beat your wife  like you do a camel, for you will be beating her early in the day and taking her to bed at night.” He said “the best of you are those who are best to your family.” All of these recognized hadiths would seem to suggest that Mohammed did not believe in wife beating.

 

Another issue is the issue of language. The word for “beat” that is used in the famous 4.34 of the Koran is “daraba” which certainly can interpreted as “to beat or strike.”  It can also have a multitude of other meaning one of them being “to leave” or “to separate from.”  Apparently it can also be used metaphorically “as to go to bed with” in the sexual sense. Here is one of the translations of the famous Koran 4.34, Yusuf Ali’s translation is: 

 

“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).”

 

It believed by some modern interpreters of the Koran that the  interpretation of the Arabic word “daraba” instead of  being “to beat” more properly should be translated as “to leave or separate. This of course gives a completely non violent meaning to the verse.  However lets assume that the proper meaning of this word daraba is to beat or strike. Still the intention of this verse when looked at in the context of the whole is not oppress women but on the contrary to further positive marital relations. What the verse does is to suggest a cooling off period in which discussion and sexual distance are to be used in dealing with a problem and only if they fail can a woman be hit. Yes there are of course problems with this and also with other aspects of the verse from a modern feminist egalitarian perspective. However in the context of 7th century Arabia the verse would have had the effect of moderating male violence toward women not the reverse. A few notes. Theo, most of the translators I have read believe that the “disloyalty and ill conduct” that is feared is in fact marital infidelity and not ordinary disagreements of marriage. The phase that women are “devoutly obedient”  means that they should be devoutly obedient to God not to husbands. In fact the Koran say little which can be interpreted that women must be obedient to husbands. 

 

Theo these are just two examples from the Koran which are repeatedly utilitized in the West to show that Islam is anti woman by its  nature. I think that  when analyzed in context of history and culture that these types of verses in general show something completely different. Many other verses  can be shown for example to demonstrate that both the honor killings of young pre married women  and  female genital mutilation are simply un-islamic. They are practices that to the shame of Islam have been permitted in some countries which pride themselves on their commitment to Islam. Some within these nations may even think that they are Islamic just like some Southerners prior to the civil rights movement thought that marriage between black and whites was in opposition to God. However they were wrong and those who practice the abominations of honor killings and female genital mutilations are wrong.

 

I will end this with your question about why we are even talking about Islam in a goddess group. Well in general this group never talks about Islam. However the issue was brought up by another and I feel very strongly that some of us must present the alternative side to the issue.

 

Glenn

A’isha’s Legacy

The second article I want to post is an article “A’isha’s Legacy” by Amina Wadud who is one of the founders of the modern Islamic feminist movement. By way of introduction to the article I want to cite the last part of the Wikipedia article about her.

 

Glenn

 

Friday prayerWadud was the subject of much debate and Muslim juristic discourse after leading a Friday prayer (salat) of over 100 male and female Muslims in the Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York on March 18, 2005, breaking with the tradition of having only male imams (prayer leaders). Three mosques had refused to host the service and the museum that had agreed to host it pulled out after a bomb threat. (The event was not the first time in the history of Islam that a woman had led the Friday prayer. See Women as imams for a discussion of the issue.)

In August 1994, Wadud delivered a Friday khutbah(sermon) on “Islam as Engaged Surrender” at the Claremont Main Road Mosque in Cape Town, South Africa. At the time, this was largely unheard of in the Muslim world. As a result, there were attempts in Virginia by some Muslims to have her removed from her position at Virginia Commonwealth University.

There has been objection and some support from Muslims around the world to Wadud’s imamate. In spite of the criticism, Wadud has continued her speaking engagements, and has continued to lead mixed-gender Friday prayer services. On October 28, 2005, following her talk at the International Congress on Islamic Feminism in Barcelona, Spain, she was invited to lead a congregation of about thirty people.

The majority of the Islamic community, whether laymen or Islamic scholars, are opposed to the idea of women leading mixed-gender congregations, but allow women to lead women only.^[1]However, some jurists, such as the Iranian Shi’i jurist Mohsen Kadivarhave espoused her view on the permissibility of female imams. It must be clarified, however, that most Shi’is do not agree with Kadivar’s views.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Media appearance

She was interviewed on WNYC radio on July 14, 2006, to discuss her book Inside the Gender Jihad. She responded to questions and comments about other activities including women in gender-mixed Friday prayer service.

[edit] Controversy

Wadud’s stance on issues such as women’s rights have generated outrage among Muslims such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has issued a fatwa, published in the Qatar press, in which he called upon Wadud’s death. Wadud, a leader of the progressive organization Muslim WakeUp!, has defied the fatwa on many occasions, such as holding a mixed-gender prayer in a conference hall at the Anglican Cathedral of St. John the Divine following a bomb threat. Three mosques and an art gallery had previously refused to hold the prayer because of the perceived danger.

Wadud published a book in 1999, Qur’an and Woman, which has caused controversy among Muslims due her extrapolation of women’s rights from the Qur’an, such as an example that the prophet Mohammad allowed a woman to lead prayer.

Enclosed is the beginning of the article A’isha’s Legacy.

A’ishah’s legacy

Amina Wadud looks at the struggle for women’s rights within Islam.

“I converted to Islam during the second wave feminist movement in the 1970s. I saw everything through a prism of religious euphoria and idealism. Within the Islamic system of thought I have struggled to transform idealism into pragmatic reforms as a scholar and activist. And my main source of inspiration has been Islam’s own primary source — the Qur’an. It is clear to me that the Qur’an aimed to erase all notions of women as subhuman…………”

On An Islamic Feminism

I am posting here a few of the web sites of Moslem women authors who are challenging the patriarchal control of Islam. I also want to post three recent articles regarding the current movement of Moslem feminism. The two web sites are those of Irshad Manji who is the author of a very controversial book The Trouble with Islam Today for which  she has received much criticism within the Islamic world. The link to her site is  http://www.irshadmanji.com/ While Miss Manji is perceived because of  her book and writings by many Moslems as being hostile to Islam what can be seen in her site is that in spite of her criticisms she is still very much a believer in Islam. The other site is that of the author Sumbul Ali- Karamali and of her recently published book called ”The Muslim Next Door.” The link to her site is http://www.muslimnextdoor.com/ I own a copy of her excellent book which I believe is one of the best analysis of  Islam in its entirety, One of the best chapters in the book is the one that deals with the issue of Islam and women rights. In this book I think that she takes on quite effectively some of the issues that have been raised in discussions here such as the issue of the supposed command that men hit their wives and the issue of inheritance.    I will include a link to the New York Times article “Women Use Koran to Demand  Equal Rights” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/world/asia/16iht-women.1.20210920.html which a represent some of the world Islamic feminist response to a ruling in February 2009 by the government of Malaysia to ban the practice of yoga as unIslamic. Enclosed are a few highlights of the article.     “The religious order banning women from dressing like tomboys was bad enough. But the fatwa by this country’s leading clerics against yoga was the last straw. “They have never even done yoga,” said Zainah Anwar, a founder of a Malaysian women’s rights group called Sisters in Islam. Anwar argues that the edict, issued late last year by the National Fatwa Council of Malaysia, is pure patriarchy. Islam, she says, is only a cover. It was frustrations like those that drew several hundred Muslim women to a conference in this Muslim-majority country over the weekend. Their mission was to come up with ways to demand equal rights for women. And their tools, however unlikely, were the tenets of Islam itself. “Secular feminism has fulfilled its historical role, but it has nothing more to give us,” said Ziba Mir-Hosseini, an Iranian anthropologist who has been helping to formulate some of the arguments. “The challenge we face now is theological.”…………. Glenn

On Islam and Women

Over the past month I have been participating in a group in which the issue of the nature of Islam particularly in regard to its relationship to women has come up. Many members of this Christo-Pagan group believe as do many  other people within the United States that Islam within its inter core is a violent and misogynist faith. For example many members believe that Islam commands husbands  to beat their wives and that the general effect of Islam even at its origins has been to support the domination of men over women. Even though these persons dislike Christian fundamentalism intensely they will often cite the writings  of Christian fundamentalists who supposedly have some expertize on Islam in support of their ideas. This attitude of negativism toward Islam is in marked contrast to the attitude of many Christo-Pagans regarding Christian origins.  Christo-Pagans often believe that the “real teachings” of Jesus was a message of love and that Jesus was a radical supporter of the rights of women. Only latter was this message corrupted by the forces of patriarchy. In contrast many Christo-Pagans believe that the Koran and Mohammed himself had misogynist views toward women from the beginning. Thus in contrast to Christianity, Islam has no redeeming positive core. That I believe is a profound error.

 

While my own theological beliefs are incompatible in many ways with those of Islam, I tend to want to argue in favor of  those  religions which I believe are being defamed. In past discussions on the internet I have argued against Christian fundamentalists in favor of Islam. I have also argued in defence of Christianity against  bigoted members of the Islamic community  who have argued for example that  St. Paul was a gay  pediphile or that Christianity has been guilty of hundreds of millions of deaths through out its history. All demonization of  the religions of others should be opposed. In the case of Islam which polls  http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/03/american-attitudes-toward-islam-and-muslims

show  is very unpopular in American society, I think that it is particularly important to point out the myths  that are often spread. In the next few posts I want to point out first that a world wide Islamic feminist movement exists which interprets the Koran and the life of Mohammed as in fact helping to liberate women from traditional male patriarchal structures. I also want to post some articles by one of the founders of the modern Islamic feminist movement Amina Wadud in which she shares her own thoughts and attitudes regarding the Koran and life of the Mohammed. Finally I want share a writing regarding the issue of whether the Koran encourages the beating of wives by husbands.

 

Glenn

A Forgotten Genocide

My last post at here was in regard to the forgotten genocide in Darfur. Just how forgotten is it? While two Sundays ago David Gregory interviewed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Meet the Press. The interview lasted for one hour  and most of it was obviously centered on issues of United States foreign policy. Not one question regarding Darfur was asked by Mr. Gregory during that interview. Mrs. Clinton did not bring the issue of Darfur up either. Thus we have traveled a long way on Darfur. About three years ago Darfur was still on the political map if just barely. Periodically the news media did pick it up. Now the silence is almost universal. I guess that this is just a symptom of our times.
 
Glenn

Apparently Genocide is Acceptable

One of the signs of the moral decadence of the modern world has been its refusal to act to end  the genocide that has been occurring in the Darfur province of Sudan since 2003. In spite of the outrage expressed  first by leaders such as Colin Powell in the Bush administration and now by the Obama administration little is being done. I really admire President Obama but he has done little so far to help the people of Darfur. Apparently genocide is acceptable to both the leadership and the people of this nation. Anyway I have attached is a link to one of the most recent articles by Professor Steve Reeves whose site sudanreeves.org at http://www.sudanreeves.org/index.html is one of the most reliable sources of ongoing information on Darfur. The article On the Re-writing of the Darfur Narrative deals with the current rewriting of the history of the current situation in Darfur by many who wish to justify non action on the issues of genocide. Among these are many in the “all so virtuous” political Left. Glenn

Themes of Work, Power, and Freedom

This article is an attempt to look at both capitalism and cooperative socialism in relation to the themes of freedom, power, and community. This article is not the normal type of literature which comes out of the modern socialist movement. It does represent how I think on these issues however. Further more I think that perhaps Christianity is also to a certain degree concerned about issues of freedom, power, and community. If I am correct in this then the discussion of these themes might be one way to think about the relationship between socialism and Christianity.

 

Note. I have spent most of my adult life working  in the human services branch of county government. Certainly many of the generalization that I make are based on my own experience in government and on my observations of the experience of those  around me. I have always been a line staff person and never in management. My current income is what I would call middle middle class. Therefore I suspect the situation of a majority of workers in relationship to power, freedom, and community is similar to mine.  However I am also aware that many higher status, professional workers often see themselves as in some sense privileged and may think that my analyses is skewed. What can I say? My thoughts are based on what I experience and on the best of my understanding.

 

Glenn

 

Themes of freedom, power, and community

 

 

 

Most Americans believe that we live in a “free” society. The United States is the land of the “free.” “Freedom” is one of the most important words in this nation’s political lexicon and most Americans take pride in the fact that America is a “free” society. I want to start out be examining this idea
of American freedom. First I want to state that I believe that the American idea of freedom is not in fact a delusional concept. It is real. Traditional American concepts of freedom, ideas that have to do with ideas of limited, representative government,  traditional ideas of freedom of
religion, democracy, the freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom from arbitrary state power are all valid concepts. They all have a certain degree of reality within the context of American society. They are not fictitious concepts. Americans have a right to feel pride in these freedoms.

 

While these freedoms are real, it is also a reality that there are aspects of American life which are lived in the antithesis of “freedom.” This realm of life centers primarily within the economic sphere of work and workplace. It is characterized more by freedom’s opposites, unfreedom, servitude, and submission. To initiate  discussion of this realm I will  start  by suggesting some definitions of “freedom.” This is  not easily done because freedom is generally not defined precisely by most people. However in spite of this, we can make some generalizations. Most people define freedom in primarily negative terms. Freedom is experienced as the lack of arbitrary oppressive restraints and limitations to one’s actions. Thus in America freedom is defined by the relative absence of governmental restraints on life, liberty, the use of property,etc. Often in the  conservative political lexicon, freedom is simply identified as an absence of governmental power or interference in one’s life.

 

However lets attempt to define freedom positively. One definition is that freedom is the ability of people and individuals to do what they want to do independent of institutional controls. Again in the American context the primary limitations of this freedom are normally seen as coming from government, the power of arbitrary religion, or from cultural limitations such as racism or sexism. What is intrinsically interesting about this is that the structure of the economic system or the  structures of individual companies and corporations are very seldom viewed as in any way limitations on the freedom of the individual worker or of people. In fact even within the political Left, economic oppression is normally seen as being only about the unequal distribution of economic resources. Left liberal analysis or even socialist analysis seldom questions the unjust and dictatorial structure both of the workplace and of economic institutions.

 

Yet this is what must be done. The real limitations of freedom in the modern world of advanced capitalism in fact comes not from the governmental realm but instead from the very nature of capitalist society itself. To initiate an analysis of the unfreedom that is built into the workplaces and economic institutions of capitalism one must first deal with the issue of “power.” Freedom can not be defined adequately in separation from the concept of power. The freedom to act in a certain way, the freedom to do as one desires only exists if one has the power or authority to do those things. If the  power or authority that another over you prevents you  from doing what you want to do in the way that you want to do it  do  then you are not free at least not in the immediate social context.

 

The capitalist work place of course is a system of structured power relationships in which the majority of workers in fact have little power over either the immediate workplace and certainly none over the over all direction of the firms and businesses which “employ” them. They do not make decisions either collectively or individually regarding the workplace or regarding the overall economic direction of the firms which employ them.

Thus in their lifes as workers they are not free. To characterize the situation further. Except for those born to wealth all people within capitalist societies must sell their labor to either the state, non profit organizations, or  more commonly capitalist firms in order to live. For the vast majority of people no real alternative to working for a weekly paycheck  exists. During the work day, often eight to ten hours, one is not free in any meaningful sense. One’s status is one of subordination to the economic firm to whom one is employed. One lives at the beck and call of one’s supervisor, boss, or the production schedule etc. The rules of the work environment is controlled by a cooperate office and corporate hierarchy which generally views its employees as an expendable resource, as a factor of production.

 

All of this of course explains many aspects of American life and particularly how Americans define freedom. Freedom in the American context is always about how one spends one’s “leisure” time. It is about the power of the consumer; it is about the beautiful automobile that symbolizes one’s freedom. It is about the golden years of secure retirement which is freedom; it is about one’s freedom as a consumer ala Milton Friedman. It is about one’s clothing styles, one’s sexual life style; ie it is about every thing except work.

 

Furthermore, freedom is almost always  defined as an individual good and not  communally. It has little to do with community. Now lets look at the issue of community within the context of American capitalist society. It is often stated, I believe correctly, that community has declined as an aspect of life within this society. What does this mean? What is this “community” which has declined.?
There seems to be two primary ways of defining community. One form of community is what can be called organic or
traditional community. By this I mean the traditional  hunting and gathering, horticultural, or agrarian village communities in which the vast majorities of human beings have lived through most of human history. These small scale traditional communities in which ties of kinship, common religious values, cultural ties, common political and economic activities united people in a deep net of relationships,.this form of community  scarcely exists within the United States any longer. The closest this nation has to this sort of community are the old ethnic working class communities of past generations.

 

However the increasing suburbanization and corporate individualization of people is increasingly erasing this sort of community from American life. What then functions as community for Americans? Church and organized religion? Religion is one of the strongest sources of “intentional” community in America. However since most church members share little of their lifes together either by ways of kinship, or in common economic or political activities; the actual communal bonds created by modern American religion are in general rather weak. The other great source of communal bonds, ie workplace friendships and relationships that Americans experience in fact comes from out of the workplace. This is true in spite of all that has been said previously about the oppressive nature of the capitalist workplace. It is true because in spite of its oppressive aspects

the workplace is still the place in which most people spend the greatest amount to their waking lifes. Therefore one would expect the workplace to be the source of many of the most important human communal relationships. In fact the work place in many ways is the modern equivalent of the tradition village in which the common work and shared life of the villagers was the norm.

 

Unfortunately the positive potential of the workplace as the basis of modern community has been severely compromise by its unfree nature and its hierarchical dictatorial structure. This is why for instance are there so few television shows such as “The Office” in which the life of work is shown as a dominating aspect of social life. The reason as is portrayed in “The Office” is that  generally the work place is not experienced by  workers as a place of freedom or as a place in which to express one’s creativity through work. Thus “The Office” wonderfully shows both the beautiful potential and the down side of normal work life. It shows the community that the work life creates and also the arbitrary problematic forces that work again it. Interestingly the character Michael Scott  the boss of the office is both the hero who alway strived to create community which simultaneously his arbitrary and often bizare actions undercut it. 

 

To summarize, Cooperativism wishes to destroy the dictatorship of capitalist control of the workplace. It seeks to end capitalist power and replace it with worker control over the economic institutions of society. The purpose of work within the cooperativist society will be not just to receive a bi weekly paycheck. It will also be about the expression of one ability to make decisions, to express one’s power and creativity through one’s work. The surplus value of one’s work within the cooperative firms of a socialist society will accrue to workers as individuals and workers communally be adding to  the firms capital base. Finally because the workplace will be experienced as being a place of freedom and self determination it will also be experienced as one of community.

Glenn King

A Song to Neda

Enclosed are links to both the Song to Neda and Poem for Neda  posted on The Writing Life II blog. As those  following the current political struggles  in Iran are aware,  Neda Agha-Soltan,  a 26 year old woman – was killed this past Saturday as she got out of her automobile for a breath of air. She was shot in the heart  presumably by forces firing at anti government protestors of the stolen Iranian elections. See the NYT’s article.  Her death was recorded on U-tube and has been circulated globally and Neda is now mourned as a martyr and a symbol of sufferings of Iran’s people. Perhaps this poem and the music may give a better picture of the true nature of the current events in Iran than would several news stories. Part of the poem goes thus”

 

Stay, Neda—
Look at this city
At the shaken foundations of palaces,
The height of Tehran’s maple trees,
They call us “dust,” and if so
Let us sully the air for the oppressor
Don’t go, Neda
-

Glenn

An Alternative Socialism

While the headline in a national news weekly recently started with an article entitled “We Are All Socialists Now,” the reality is obviously quite different. From all appearances Capitalism has won the ideological war against socialism which began when socialism took the world stage during the first half of the 19th century. Capitalism of some sort seems to most people particularly within the United States to be the natural destiny of humanity. However while capitalism won the war against the brutal perversion of socialism called communism and while the great social democratic parties of Europe seem to have given up on any socialist vision greater than that of a mixed social democratic economy, the instinct for social justice, human equality, community, and freedom that socialism historically has tried to realize has not died. The sparks of socialism still survive within  small groups and  within individuals in the United States and many other parts of the world. As the current world recession, energy, ecological and global warming crisis show; world capitalism’s future is not assured. Socialism could ultimately win the last war.

 

However a precondition for that victory must be a rethinking of the socialist vision. Most Americans and in fact most of the world’s people still imagine that socialism is primarily about the power of the state being utilized to dominate or control the economic direction of societies. This certainly has been the dominant conception of the Marxian and Fabian forms of socialism. Both European Social Democracy and Soviet Communism envisioned future socialist societies as being  based on statist models of  governmental ownership and control of all of the economic activities of society. Little if any role existed in either model for private enterprises or for companies which were directly owned and managed by workers themselves. The primary difference between these two was that Communism supported the totalitarian communist state and Social Democracy supported the western liberal democratic state. These are important differences.

 

However  historically other powerful minority forms of socialism  have existed which envisioned  alternative non statist models of a socialist future.   The socialist movement of  19th century France was dominated by “associational socialism” which foresaw a future socialist society in which workers themselves through their labor associations would ultimately take control of society. The economy of this future socialist society would be dominated by  worker owned and managed cooperatives / companies. Latter in the late 1800s and early 20th century this associative or cooperative socialism transformed into revolutionary anarcho syndicalism.  Anarcho syndicalism still  held the same basic socialist vision of a free society directly controlled by workers themselves however.   Spain and Italy were also dominated by anarchist ideals which also rejected the vision  of socialism  in which the state / government would hold absolute power over the economic institutions of society. In stead the socialism of these nations advocated a socialism of free producers or associations as did the French.

 

In the United States the socialist movement dominated by the Socialist Party of America reached its high point of influence in the early decades of the 20th century. Early American socialism seemed to take an intermediate position  between the purely statist concept of socialism and the more syndicalist forms of socialism. Out side of the American socialist movement during the 19th century  at least two movements one dominated primarily by American farmers and the other dominated primarily by American workers  developed ideas similar to that of Southern European socialism. These were the Knights of Labor one of the first and largest national labor unions that developed during the 19th century  and the other being People’s Party the agrarian party of reform which represented the interest of the impoverished  farmers of the American South and West. Both of these movements before they collapsed in the 1890s held a strong belief in economic cooperatives as the solution to the  “wage slavery”  of workers and the  poverty of indebted small farmers. Both typified the desire of workers and farmers for an economic system that  would incorporate the values of economic democracy and worker self management.

 

In France the anarcho syndicalist movement reached its height during the first decade of the 20th century and then disintegrated. The anarchists of Italy  fell together with the socialists before Mussolini’s fascists in the  1920s. The powerful anarcho syndicalist Spanish labor unions and anarchist dominated villages fell before General Franco’s fascist troops during the Spanish Civil War. From  that point in history it appeared that the alternative socialist tradition had been cast into the dust bin of history.

 

  However the vision of a worker self managed society or of economic democracy while it  ceased to be embeded in powerful  political movements continued in another form. Large numbers of workers and reformers beginning  in the 1800’s while avoiding politics and revolutionary rhetoric  worked hard to develop various  forms of  worker owned and managed businesses / cooperatives which have been  economically successful though out the world. These businesses if they were small often  are operated on principles of direct democracy by their worker owners. If large they are commonly governed  by workers councils elected by worker owners.  In general the worker councils of large cooperatives often having hundreds of workers  will hire a team of professional managers which instead of being to accountable to stockholders are ultimately responsible to  the worker owners of the company.

 

Today thousands worker owned cooperatives through out the world successfully compete for markets and customers. These cooperatives which are of many kinds agricultural, consumer, producer, service, etc have not become the dominant economic sector in the modern world. However many have become very successful in competing in the hostile environment of capitalism, Some  examples are the strong worker cooperative movement in the Emilia Romagna area of Northeast Italy. Of the 7500 cooperatives in this area over two thirds are worker owned. Over 10% of the work force in the region is employed by cooperatives. In Switzerland two of the largest supermarket chains Migros and Coop are in cooperative form. In Japan over 14 million citizens are members of the consumer cooperative movement.

 

However  the most successful example of worker owned cooperative success is the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation  head quartered in the town of Mondragon Spain. In 1956  five workers who had been trained at a technical school founded  by the Roman Catholic priest Don Jose Maria Aristmendi developed the first worker owed cooperative ULGOR to produce kerosene stoves. The company initially employed 24  worker owners. Now the world wide Mondragon Cooperative Corporation employs over 85,000 workers in various industries  in nations such as Brazil and China through out the world. The Mondragon Cooperative Corporation includes a united system of  self managing banks, insurance companies , a university and many other economic enterprises. Currently the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation is the 7th largest corporation in Spain. The example of the Mondragon and other successful examples of worker ownership and self management give the lie to the commonly held belief that workers simply do not have the ability to manage their own workplaces and companies. They give evidence that a different form of civilization is possible.

 

As this brief historical summery shows the statist form of socialism which is in fact what most Americans think of when they think of socialism has never been the only form of socialism. Another alternative form of the socialist vision has also existed.  I would argue that it is this alternative vision of socialism with which the future of the socialist movement lies. This is not to suggest that the anarchists, the syndicalists etc had all the right ideas. The political strategies developed by  these movements were extremely  flawed thus causing their  ultimate dismiss. Social Democracy in the form of the German Social Democratic Party, the France Socialist Party and the British Labor party were strategically much wiser in their overall championship of reforms which would help workers immediately. However I believe that the basic motivational vision of socialism lies in its vision of a free and just society in which workers themselves own the means of production. This is the liberatory vision of the alternative socialism in which the future lies.

 

Glenn King