Liberation theology on Capitalism

[kara speltz]

Here's another important piece by Boff, that expresses my beliefs around capitalism

Living Better or Living A "Good Life"?
Leonardo Boff Theologian
Earthcharter Commission

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


According to the dominant ideology, everyone in the world wants to live better and to enjoy a better quality of life. In general terms this quality of life is associated to the Gross National Product, GNP, of each country. The GNP represents all the material goods produced by a country. Then, according to this criteria, the better positioned countries are the United States, followed by Japan, Germany, Sweden and others. The GNP is a measure invented by capitalism to stimulate more production of material goods for consumption.

In the last years, in view of the growing of poverty and of the urban favelization of the world and even due to a sense of decency, the UNO introduced the category HDI, «Human Development Index.» The HDI includes intangible values such as health, education, social equality, care of nature, gender equity and others. It has enriched the meaning of «quality of life», that was previously understood in a very materialistic form: one enjoys a good quality of life who consumes more and better. According to the HDI, tiny Cuba is better off than the United States, even though her GNP is comparatively much lower.

First among all countries is Bhutan, lodged between China and India, at the foot of the Himalayas, materially very poor, but which officially established the «Index of Gross Interior Happiness.» This is measured by qualitative, not quantitative criteria, such as whether the authorities govern well, with equitable distribution of the subsistence agricultural surplus, of the harvest of vegetation, and the sale of energy to India, with good health and education and, especially, a high level of cooperation among everyone, to guarantee social peace.

In the native traditions of Abya Yala, the name of our Indoamerican continent, instead of «living well» people speak of «a good life.» This category entered the Constitutions of Bolivia and Ecuador as the social object to be pursued by the State and by all of society.

To «live better» implies an ethic of unlimited progress and brings us into competition with others to create more and better conditions to «live better.» However, so that some may «live better», millions and millions have to and had to «live poorly.» That is the capitalist contradiction.

On the contrary, a «good life» points to an ethic of that which is enough for the whole community, and not only for the individual. A «good life» implies an integrating holistic vision of the human being, immersed in the great earthly community, that includes, besides humans, the air, water, soil, mountains, trees and animals; it is to be in profound community with Pachamama, (Our Mother Earth), with the energies of the Universe; and with God.

The main concern is not to accumulate. Moreover, Mother Earth provides all that we need. With our work we supply that which due to excessive aggression she can not give us, or we help her produce what is enough and decent for all, including the animals and the plants. A «good life» is being in constant harmony with all, celebrating the sacred rites that continuously renew the connections with the cosmos, and with God.

A «good life» invites us not to consume more than what the ecosystem can support, to avoid the production of residuals that we can not absorb with security and spurs us to re-use and to recycle that which we have already used. It will be a frugal and recyclable consumption. Then, there will not be scarcity.

In this time of searching for new paths for humanity, the idea of a «good life» has much to teach us.





Leonardo Boff

03-27-2009

[BruceChris]

We may have to settle for a Lower Standard Of Living?

(I love the juxtaposition of phrases)

Having 4 super housemates is my quality of life thing, right now

Namaste' Bruce Chris

[kara speltz]

We may have to settle for a Lower Standard Of Living?
(I love the juxtaposition of phrases)

Namaste' Bruce Chris

Yep, that's the paradox, and the whole idea behind "simple living." We can't live high on the hog at the expense of the rest of the world.

kara

[peoplegottabefree]

what can be said but...amen. keep telling it like it is....

[scott snedeker]

First among all countries is Bhutan, lodged between China and India, at the foot of the Himalayas, materially very poor, but which officially established the «Index of Gross Interior Happiness.» This is measured by qualitative, not quantitative criteria, such as whether the authorities govern well, with equitable distribution of the subsistence agricultural surplus, of the harvest of vegetation, and the sale of energy to India, with good health and education and, especially, a high level of cooperation among everyone, to guarantee social peace.



What an amazing concept! I love it! check the link below!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan


A video by Coldpplay has provoked a lot of discussion. Many europeans see our election as the people of the USA overthrowing the repression of the republican party and Bush's reign of fear lies and terror across the world

44xirQ55IgA

I feel this is indeed a work of art and potently provokes thought and feelings of the dawning of our new era!

[RedneckDyke]

I don't know that capitalism has a monopoly on some people on the top exploiting other people on the bottom. No matter what the official form of government is... capitalism,socialism,facism, there are always people who get rich at other people's expense. I'm afraid it's part of broken human nature.

[BruceChris]

While under Communism, it's just the opposite! . (Redneck, I think you just said that.....

Peace, Love, and Rock And Roll, Bruce Chris

[Eugene]

According to the HDI, tiny Cuba is better off than the United States, even though her GNP is comparatively much lower.

I think that just about sums up the value of the HDI measurement.

[kara speltz]

I think that just about sums up the value of the HDI measurement.

I find it really interesting that people can't even conceive that perhaps in a country like Cuba, under communism, the quality of life is better than in the U.S.

We've been brain washed to believe that the U.S. is the greatest country in the world, but that's just a fantasy that Americans want to believe.

It's a fantasy, unfortunately that our president also believes. My prayer is that Americans wake up, and let go of the need to be number 1.

Years ago, we were #1 in education, health, and many other areas. But that is no longer true.

What Americans need to do, is understand that our concerns need to include all of us on this planet.

Kara

[Eugene]

I find it really interesting that people can't even conceive that perhaps in a country like Cuba, under communism, the quality of life is better than in the U.S.

We've been brain washed to believe that the U.S. is the greatest country in the world, but that's just a fantasy that Americans want to believe.

In my professional career, I've worked with and developed close friendships with two people -- one who immigrated from Russia and one from China. I'll take their word for it (and their choice of countries) that living in the USA is far superior to living in a communist nation.

[kara speltz]

In my professional career, I've worked with and developed close friendships with two people -- one who immigrated from Russia and one from China. I'll take their word for it (and their choice of countries) that living in the USA is far superior to living in a communist nation.

You miss the point. The point being that we Americans refuse to acknowledge that we are not the greatest nation on earth. And that God did not give us the right nor the responsibility of telling the rest of the world how to live.

Capitalism is against everything that Christ taught. Go back and reread the Acts of the Apostles. Look at how they lived their lives sharing everything.

Kara

[RedneckDyke]

There is a difference between a group of people voluntarily agreeing to share things or live communally and a government forcing people to.

[scott snedeker]

Capitalism is against everything that Christ taught [ and Buddha]. Go back and reread the Acts of the Apostles [ and the eight-fold path of Buddhist tradition] Look at how they lived their lives sharing everything.

Kara



In a response to accusations in 1987 by a journalist from UK's Financial Times that the pace of development in Bhutan was slow, the King said that "Gross National Happiness is more important than Gross National Product."[26] This statement appears to have presaged recent findings by western economic psychologists, including 2002 Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman, that question the link between levels of income and happiness. The statement signaled his commitment to building an economy that is appropriate for Bhutan's culture, based on Buddhist spiritual values, and has served as a unifying vision for the economy. In a survey in 2005, 45 percent of Bhutanese reported being very happy, 52 percent reported being happy and only three percent reported not being happy. Based on this data, the Happy Planet Index estimates that the average level of life satisfaction in Bhutan is within the top 10 percent of nations worldwide, and certainly higher than other nations with similar levels of GDP per capita.



King Jigme Singye Wangchuck only reluctantly recently allowed television and the internet and cell phone into the country because of the concern of how this would create a feeling of inferioirity and unfillable desire for possessions. Eventually he did because he did not want to repress the freedom of the people but not without apprehension of how it could adversely effect their well-being.



I think we could also consider Costa Rica. If you judge by people's individual happiness. most ticos who have lived in the US that I have known say they were happier in Costa Rica and plan to return or have returned and are happy to be back.

My experience living on a commune opened my awareness of a materialistic delerium madness that possesses and dominates so many americans to the point of blindness to the simple joys all around. Even discussing such raises hackles of fear: "Don't threaten my possessions!"

[Rick336]

My experience living on a commune opened my awareness of a materialistic delerium madness that possesses and dominates so many americans to the point of blindness to the simple joys all around. Even discussing such raises hackles of fear: "Don't threaten my possessions!"

Am I an exception here?

I'm very happy living here in the USA. I love it here. My family, my friends, and all of my loved ones live here. All the memories I've made over my lifetime were made right here. It's my home, and to me it's the greatest place on earth.

I also like the convenience and entertainment that my material possessions provide me. I like my cell phone, my CD player, my DVD player, my microwave oven, and my camcorder. All of these things add to the quality of my life.

But the one material possession that I own that contributes a great deal to my happiness is my computer. My computer is educational, it's entertaining, I can communicate with my friends with it, I can play games on it, I can be informed of current events, and I can express myself on forums like this one with it.

Who else among you who are reading this owns a computer?

Rick

[kara speltz]

There is a difference between a group of people voluntarily agreeing to share things or live communally and a government forcing people to.


No one's talking about a government forcing people to do anything? Why are you being so defensive? And why is it that Americans can't handle criticizing our way of life.

I'm with Scot in that I truly believe that our materialism gets in the way of our humanism.

Our inability to look at how capitalism is not serving people well, means we're unwilling to look at other possibilities.

Do I love my country? Yes. Do I want my country to be better? Yes

Kara

[BenL]

Yep, that's the paradox, and the whole idea behind "simple living." We can't live high on the hog at the expense of the rest of the world.

kara

Material things in and of themselves are neutral. I think simple living is more about how we treat our possessions and whether or not they come to possess us instead of the other way around. Simple living can be urged and recommended, but it can't be legislated. It's about what Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann calls "covenantal neighborliness," where society protects the weak, as symbolized in the Torah by widows, orphans and strangers. The simple life includes the notions of Sabbath (rest from labor) and Jubilee (forgiveness of debt). (Mandate to difference: an invitation to the contemporary church. Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007)

The trension is between me first, taking care of numero uno vs. putting others first and trusting in God that my needs will be taken care of. When attitudes change, economics and government will follow. Greed is the motivating principle of capitalism. Risk is the moderating force that keeps greed in check. Captialism without responsibility is dangerous for individuals and socieites. Consumerism is based on the principle that owning and possessing more equals happiness. If we once see that happiness transcends the acts of acquiring and possessing, we can enter into the joy of the "simple life."

[Eugene]

Am I an exception here?

I'm very happy living here in the USA. I love it here. My family, my friends, and all of my loved ones live here. All the memories I've made over my lifetime were made right here. It's my home, and to me it's the greatest place on earth.

No, you're not an exception.

[Eugene]

Capitalism is against everything that Christ taught. Go back and reread the Acts of the Apostles. Look at how they lived their lives sharing everything.

Seems to me that people in a capitalist society have more to share than people elsewhere. HRC and Lambda Legal have been beneficiaries of what I have to share by virtue of the capitalist economy of the United States.

I'm curious. What is the status of the gay rights movement in Central America? Or Cuba? Or anywhere else in the third world, for that matter.

I have a suspicion -- though I couldn't prove it because it's not something I'm motivated to investigate -- that there is a fundamental link between a nation's prosperity and a nation's time and willingness to attend to issues such as gay rights. Otherwise, all energy would be diverted to everyday survival.

[scott snedeker]

[QUOTE=Eugene;68200].

I'm curious. What is the status of the gay rights movement in Central America? Or Cuba? Or anywhere else in the third world, for that matter.

QUOTE]


Answer: Gay marriage is legal in Mexico. It is also legal in several predominantly socialist countries like Spain and Holland.

[kara speltz]

Seems to me that people in a capitalist society have more to share than people elsewhere. HRC and Lambda Legal have been beneficiaries of what I have to share by virtue of the capitalist economy of the United States.
I'm curious. What is the status of the gay rights movement in Central America? Or Cuba? Or anywhere else in the third world, for that matter.

I have a suspicion -- though I couldn't prove it because it's not something I'm motivated to investigate -- that there is a fundamental link between a nation's prosperity and a nation's time and willingness to attend to issues such as gay rights. Otherwise, all energy would be diverted to everyday survival.

How interesting that you bring up HRC at this moment in time, as we learn that the CEOs of so many of our supposedly LGBTQ support groups are making well over $250,000/year. See that's the problem with capitalism. People see nothing wrong in this outrageous salaries.

And we have more, because others have less - there is a relationship. It's all about getting all you can get at the expense of others.

And as Scott has pointed out, your suspicion is wrong.

kara

[Rick336]

How interesting that you bring up HRC at this moment in time, as we learn that the CEOs of so many of our supposedly LGBTQ support groups are making well over $250,000/year. See that's the problem with capitalism. People see nothing wrong in this outrageous salaries.


Kara, I think you are a person of great compassion for the needs of the less fortunate in the world. I think that is a wonderful value to have. But it sounds like the underlying message here is that the leaders of some of our LGBT support groups don't deserve their salaries. I don't know how much they should make for the work they do, but I feel really uncomfortable throwing stones at those who work for our equality.

I think Joe Solmonese is a great leader and does a wonderful job as head of the Human Rights Campaign. Until he proves otherwise, he's got my support.

Rick

[kara speltz]

Kara, I think you are a person of great compassion for the needs of the less fortunate in the world. I think that is a wonderful value to have. But it sounds like the underlying message here is that the leaders of some of our LGBT support groups don't deserve their salaries. I don't know how much they should make for the work they do, but I feel really uncomfortable throwing stones at those who work for our equality.

I think Joe Solmonese is a great leader and does a wonderful job as head of the Human Rights Campaign. Until he proves otherwise, he's got my support.

Rick


Oh don't get me started on HRC Rick. They totally screwed up last year when they abandoned the transgenders and I will NEVER support them again. They promised not to do that and then when push came to shove, they did. It was the T's who started our revolution at Stonewall and they are always the first to get put aside, when it comes to compromising.

And as for those salaries, no one, needs $400,000 a year. I wouldn't give them a dime.

kara

[Rick336]

Oh don't get me started on HRC Rick. They totally screwed up last year when they abandoned the transgenders and I will NEVER support them again. They promised not to do that and then when push came to shove, they did. It was the T's who started our revolution at Stonewall and they are always the first to get put aside, when it comes to compromising.

And as for those salaries, no one, needs $400,000 a year. I wouldn't give them a dime.

kara

It wasn't just the T's who started the revolution at Stonewall. It was also gay men, lesbian women, and bisexuals. They were all there that night 40 years ago.

But I do agree with you that transgendered people should have been included in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act even though 65% of the community surveyed thought it was okay as it was.

Still, HRC has been a leader for positive change for LGBT equality and for that reason I will continue to donate to the organization.

Rick

[RedneckDyke]

yeesh this thread has gotten a little heated. how bout them tar heels?

[andrewlittle]

I wrote this 3 years ago at the end of an essay on globalization and theology. I feel like it fits here:

The mainline church in the “First World” is in crisis and is trying desperately to re-imagine and re-invent itself to be restored to its former glory - using the same theologies and the same techniques and the same blurred vision from the same dominant cultural precepts that created the problem. Subjugated peoples the world over are trying to re-emerge and resurrect themselves from dehumanization, by faithfully, imaginatively and courageously reclaiming and contextualizing the biblical witness into a new praxis, absent the same patterns that have bound the “First World” church in chains. Is resurrection possible? Our faith demands it - and, it depends on it. The dialogue between these two extremes is waiting - waiting for the opportunity to bring freedom to God’s people. The “2/3 World” theologians are prepared and seated at the table - ready to teach and to learn. The context is established. Global vision is here. Dialogue, however, takes two participants - both willing to listen with ears eagerly pricked to learn - both willing to speak from the place of God’s abundant love. As yet, the second chair is empty – we’re too proud to hear criticism.

[Eugene]

How interesting that you bring up HRC at this moment in time, as we learn that the CEOs of so many of our supposedly LGBTQ support groups are making well over $250,000/year. See that's the problem with capitalism. People see nothing wrong in this outrageous salaries.

I don't consider $250,000.00/year an outrageous salary for a CEO. If you want the best people, you must compensate them adequately.

[Eugene]

Oh don't get me started on HRC Rick. They totally screwed up last year when they abandoned the transgenders and I will NEVER support them again.

Frankly, I was glad that HRC had the wisdom to try achieving what they could when they could. That's why I send them money.

And as for those salaries, no one, needs $400,000 a year. I wouldn't give them a dime.


Well, I'm sure all the populist furor over salaries and bonuses and so forth will dissipate over time. At least I hope so. I'm already as sick to death of it as I was sick to death of all the patriotic furor at the start of the Iraq war. I don't need people telling me how much money I CAN make any more than I need people telling me how critical of government I CAN be. It's two sides of the same coin, and that coin doesn't say "Liberty" across the face.

[Rick336]

Well, I'm sure all the populist furor over salaries and bonuses and so forth will dissipate over time. At least I hope so. I'm already as sick to death of it as I was sick to death of all the patriotic furor at the start of the Iraq war. I don't need people telling me how much money I CAN make any more than I need people telling me how critical of government I CAN be. It's two sides of the same coin, and that coin doesn't say "Liberty" across the face.

I agree. However, accepting millions in bonuses from a company when taxpayer money is used to bail out that very same company is neither smart nor ethical. Seriously, could these guys have not anticipated the outrage of doing that? Are they that out of touch with the American public?

Remember the campaign slogan "Country First?"

Yeah, right. :lol:

Rick

[Eugene]

Speaking of HRC, someone from there called me tonight to inform me that Iowa's supreme court has legalized gay marriage there. I didn't know, though I listen to NPR news regularly. Somehow I missed that bit of news.

And YES -- I am sending HRC more money.

Gay marriage isn't a big issue with me, but I figure that if this kind of progress is being made regarding marriage equality, equal job security (which is the most important gay rights issue to me) isn't far behind.

[Rick336]

Still, HRC has been a leader for positive change for LGBT equality and for that reason I will continue to donate to the organization.

Rick

I'm starting to have second thoughts about this. Even though I do respect HRC for the work it has done in the past, supporting a non-inclusive version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that excluded transgendered people was not cool. I'm sure there were many transgendered people hurt by their decision.

Rick

[Eugene]

Even though I do respect HRC for the work it has done in the past, supporting a non-inclusive version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that excluded transgendered people was not cool. I'm sure there were many transgendered people hurt by their decision.


One sure way to get no change at all is to insult those "privileged heterosexual" allies in Congress and across America who have come so far in their thinking but not as far as you'd like. You can throw their liberality back in their faces and snort at incremental change.

I am not opposed to equal employment rights for anyone. However, if Congress has enough members willing to brave their constituencies and pass laws to protect my job security, I expect HRC to be supportive. I DO NOT expect them to become ideological and stand in the way of incremental progress. And so I fully supported HRC's position. Even more so when they maintained it despite all the politically correct bitching within the LGBT community.

Somebody I don't know invented the LGBT acronym and decided it was a good idea to lobby for equal rights on a collective basis. That's all fine and good until equal rights are offered on a less-than-collective basis. You take what you can get when you can get it, and you then work for more from a stronger position. Any other approach is inefficient, and I wouldn't support it financially.

[scott snedeker]

One sure way to get no change at all is to insult those "privileged heterosexual" allies in Congress and across America who have come so far in their thinking but not as far as you'd like. You can throw their liberality back in their faces and snort at incremental change.

I am not opposed to equal employment rights for anyone. However, if Congress has enough members willing to brave their constituencies and pass laws to protect my job security, I expect HRC to be supportive. I DO NOT expect them to become ideological and stand in the way of incremental progress. And so I fully supported HRC's position. Even more so when they maintained it despite all the politically correct bitching within the LGBT community.

Somebody I don't know invented the LGBT acronym and decided it was a good idea to lobby for equal rights on a collective basis. That's all fine and good until equal rights are offered on a less-than-collective basis. You take what you can get when you can get it, and you then work for more from a stronger position. Any other approach is inefficient, and I wouldn't support it financially.

I can definitely see this point and have immense gratitude for what HRC has accomplished. I think we are talking about "lifeboat ethics" in a sense. The lifeboat representing protective legislation for gays and lesbians. try to rescue too many and the lifeboat sinks. Sacrifice a few and the lifeboat floats.

From the perspective of a survivor in the lifeboat the decision can be defended. From the perspective of the trans person not included obviously would be justified in feeling other than gratitude. That doesn't mean that trans folk won't be included in the future, however being classified as dispensable once again would certainly make me feel betrayed.

"Slum thinking" or accepting second class status and treatment by others is a psychological injury with many long term consequences and many creative compensatory strategies. My "Martyr Mind" did this very well (And probably always will to the extent that I let it.) I find that if there is a reward for my sacrifice I can handle it better and not get depressed and overwhelmed.

I honestly do not think that HRC loathes trans folk. In the future, I believe equality for trans folk will become the focus of the human rights campaign.

[Zerbie]

The distinction between a social movement and a political lobbying group.

HRC grew out of a social movement, but it is not one in itself. It's a sprawling, DC based, political lobbying organization. AS a lobbying organization, AS a political organization, they did the correct thing by lobbying for what was projected as attainable. Had they been a social movement, that gesture would have turned the tide on them, as that was a political strategy, and one that makes sense for a political group.

It took me a while to figure out why HRC's move seemed BOTH right AND wrong to me. Once I put my finger on the distinction between justice as a social movement and on the other hand, an issue-focused political lobby, I had my answer. HRC did the correct thing for a political organization. It is not, however, the correct thing for a social justice movement to do. That was one of a set of factors occurring around the same time which led me to my correct niche. I am not even remotely at home with political strategy. Social justice is where I belong. Finally, I had a focus for my energies, and for my financial donations. Social movements, not lobby organizations like HRC, are getting my pennies at the moment.

For those who were too put off by HRC's move trying to pass the ENDA, I suggest you belong in the broader field of justice as a social (as distinct from merely political) movement. For you, your donations more rightly should go to organizations that support the vision of justice you uphold.

In my opinion, real socio-political change takes both types of work. We require a grassroots social movement to keep the issues visible and to provide impetus for elected officials to act in our interests. I think we also need the political/lobbying groups to reach for shores more immediately attainable, while those of us unsatisfied by partial accomplishments can remain steering the boat towards more long-term goals from the social end of the spectrum.

[kara speltz]

The distinction between a social movement and a political lobbying group.

HRC grew out of a social movement, but it is not one in itself. It's a sprawling, DC based, political lobbying organization. AS a lobbying organization, AS a political organization, they did the correct thing by lobbying for what was projected as attainable. Had they been a social movement, that gesture would have turned the tide on them, as that was a political strategy, and one that makes sense for a political group.

It took me a while to figure out why HRC's move seemed BOTH right AND wrong to me. Once I put my finger on the distinction between justice as a social movement and on the other hand, an issue-focused political lobby, I had my answer. HRC did the correct thing for a political organization. It is not, however, the correct thing for a social justice movement to do. .


Dear Zerbie: I think you've made a very accurate observation in noting the difference between social movements and political lobbying. And like you, I'm involved with the struggle for justice.

Your analysis also helps with the issue of outrageous salaries that turned me off. The entire Soulforce staff is paid less than one of the CEOs of these political organizations.

Thanks for your clarity. I do consider myself political, and am clearly more of a socialist than a capitalist. But I long ago chose to only support social justice movements. Kara

[scott snedeker]

The distinction between a social movement and a political lobbying group.

HRC grew out of a social movement, but it is not one in itself. It's a sprawling, DC based, political lobbying organization. AS a lobbying organization, AS a political organization, they did the correct thing by lobbying for what was projected as attainable. Had they been a social movement, that gesture would have turned the tide on them, as that was a political strategy, and one that makes sense for a political group.

It took me a while to figure out why HRC's move seemed BOTH right AND wrong to me. Once I put my finger on the distinction between justice as a social movement and on the other hand, an issue-focused political lobby, I had my answer. HRC did the correct thing for a political organization. It is not, however, the correct thing for a social justice movement to do. That was one of a set of factors occurring around the same time which led me to my correct niche. I am not even remotely at home with political strategy. Social justice is where I belong. Finally, I had a focus for my energies, and for my financial donations. Social movements, not lobby organizations like HRC, are getting my pennies at the moment.

For those who were too put off by HRC's move trying to pass the ENDA, I suggest you belong in the broader field of justice as a social (as distinct from merely political) movement. For you, your donations more rightly should go to organizations that support the vision of justice you uphold.

In my opinion, real socio-political change takes both types of work. We require a grassroots social movement to keep the issues visible and to provide impetus for elected officials to act in our interests. I think we also need the political/lobbying groups to reach for shores more immediately attainable, while those of us unsatisfied by partial accomplishments can remain steering the boat towards more long-term goals from the social end of the spectrum.


Thanks for the information! Wow! I am impressed! I feel that I need to do more reading Any suggestion?

[Daniel]

Excellent observations Zerbie! All too often, we only see the world in which is are living in, when in fact, there are many worlds, in this case, the political and the social justice worlds. I guess the whole point is that they overlap in some degree.

[Zerbie]

Thanks for the information! Wow! I am impressed! I feel that I need to do more reading Any suggestion?

Thanks.
Not sure what you feel the need to read about. Could you clarify?

[Zerbie]

Excellent observations Zerbie! All too often, we only see the world in which is are living in, when in fact, there are many worlds, in this case, the political and the social justice worlds. I guess the whole point is that they overlap in some degree.

They sure do!

The distinction between the two was not clear to me until I was caught between a political campaign and a social movement, personally, not too long ago. The conflict was tearing me apart and I almost lost it.

It was only in hindsight that I saw a distinction was to be made. All I saw previously was the overlap, and I was tending to mentally translate political organizations into social justice movements. They (political groups) REALLY are their own animal. Even if we tend to view them through the lens of a movement.

The lobbying groups will speak to us in the language of the social movement that spurred them into existence, which leads to a further perception in our minds that they are social justice movements in themselves. They are more like highly-specialized offshoots.

[Rick336]

The distinction between a social movement and a political lobbying group.

HRC grew out of a social movement, but it is not one in itself. It's a sprawling, DC based, political lobbying organization. AS a lobbying organization, AS a political organization, they did the correct thing by lobbying for what was projected as attainable. Had they been a social movement, that gesture would have turned the tide on them, as that was a political strategy, and one that makes sense for a political group.

It took me a while to figure out why HRC's move seemed BOTH right AND wrong to me. Once I put my finger on the distinction between justice as a social movement and on the other hand, an issue-focused political lobby, I had my answer. HRC did the correct thing for a political organization. It is not, however, the correct thing for a social justice movement to do. That was one of a set of factors occurring around the same time which led me to my correct niche. I am not even remotely at home with political strategy. Social justice is where I belong. Finally, I had a focus for my energies, and for my financial donations. Social movements, not lobby organizations like HRC, are getting my pennies at the moment.

For those who were too put off by HRC's move trying to pass the ENDA, I suggest you belong in the broader field of justice as a social (as distinct from merely political) movement. For you, your donations more rightly should go to organizations that support the vision of justice you uphold.

In my opinion, real socio-political change takes both types of work. We require a grassroots social movement to keep the issues visible and to provide impetus for elected officials to act in our interests. I think we also need the political/lobbying groups to reach for shores more immediately attainable, while those of us unsatisfied by partial accomplishments can remain steering the boat towards more long-term goals from the social end of the spectrum.

Zerbie. I guess that means Soulforce is more of a social movement organization than a political organization. And since HRC is more of a political organization, they don't organize protests marches and civil disobedience events.

Thanks. This all makes more sense to me now.


Rick

[DiarePrabeVal]

GA_googleFillSlot200x200Blockwithinfirstpost;If I remember rightly. today is Liberation day in Nanjing.
I was very surprised to learn, when I lived in China, that Liberation Day celebrates liberation from the Nationalists, not the Japanese....
For those in Nanjing.
Please enjoy your sense of liberation today