Wondering, where are the blacks? Er, African-Americans…in Shithole, NC?

Has Joe ever attended a school where History I of the South at least alludes to the ruling classes’ pulling off Reconstruction by keeping poor whites hating AA’s — er, blacks, er, you get the idea? — by letting them ignore them or otherwise stomp, lynch or…discriminate against them?

I mean, DV is committed to “social justice” right?

And however badly they need “writers” — for fuck sake — do they need them bad enuf to have a fawning interview of Joe Bageant by Joshua Frank?

Well, I guess it makes perfect sense; especially since Mr. Bageant thought it fitting to insult his own audience, saying how the “thinking liberals” buy “idea-based” books (aren’t they all?) because they want to re-affirm their own values, by seeing them in print? I suppose if sex is merely mutual physical mastubation, then reading is mutual psychic masturbation, then?

Unless, that is, Mr. Bageant considers himself the only thinking liberal in America, and therefore his book is some sort of wrench in the gears of the “machine” that controls the public consciousness? And yet he feels bad about “all those trees” that died to print his book. (Or maybe he’s a willing particiant in the “publishing racket?”)

If Mr. Bageant has proven anything (in his book or in his interview on this site), he has proven that his writing and drinking are nearly identical– like bourbon & beer, a shot of self-righteousness is always chased down by a tall glass of self-pity.

Maybe I’m wrong, but I see Mr. Bageant’s stance to be little more than a narcissistic, smart-ass posture. Feel free to tell me I’m wrong.

The first myth to put away right quick is this widespread and deeply held belief there exists a “progressive movement” There isn’t. To the extent there are, in certain regions, concentrations of progressives telling each other what they want to hear, they goddamn sure aren’t moving.

(slogans of the government)
- George Orwell, 1984

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

- Sinclair Lewis

I hear where you are coming from. “In rural America, home of the “rednecks,” Wal-Mart is often the only place to shop.” This is definitely true for a lot of the places I’ve been in, from California to Massachussets, where Wal-Mart is the ONLY place to buy food and necessities for fifty miles in any direction.

But this just doesn’t hold true for larger rurban areas, like my hometown of Decatur, IL. People in towns of 80,000+ don’t have the excuse that folks in BuFu Nevada have, that Wal-Mart is the only game in town. My family continues to shop at Wal-Mart even though they can get better quality food and merchandise from local vendors and merchants. They do it because it is “cheap”—even though the produce costs more than that at the local farmer’s market and the merchandise costs no less than similar stuff at a locally owned store.

“Complaining that working-class people shop at X store or buy X brand (Nike, Coke, whatever) is just moralistic and pointless.” Who precisely is working-class in contemporary America? My sister, who works as a part-time sales “associate” at Wal-Mart? Me, working two jobs as a college secretary and a part-time undergrad philosophy instructor? My father, who was a sheet metal worker before he opened up his own contracting business and “made it”? I tend to agree that the folks who work at Wal-Mart—probably the closest thing to working-class out of the three examples above—don’t have much of a choice, but it also seems in my experience that the choices they do have are often exercised quite poorly. (For instance, my brother-in-law, a 5-year minimum wage employee at WM, has more expensive gadgets and gewgaws than anyone I know, but his kids get to eat substandard crap.) To point out to people that their consumption decisions have ramifications and to criticize those who continue to make bad decisions might be moralistic but I don’t see it as pointless.

That’s because it resonates with our American emphasis on individual responsibility, something that has sadly been co-opted as the exclusive property of the Right. The canned response about how capitalism constricts consumer choices has a great deal of validity, but its implicit denial of the individual’s ability to make an informed decision regardless of the choices offered goes a long way to explain why the Left is regarded as the “blame someone else for the consequences of your actions” school of thought in the US.

Timber is definitely right about one thing. Those in Decatur, IL, and thousands of towns like it, who still shop unthinkingly at Wal-Mart do so out of “laziness and apathy.” I agree 100% with that assessment, because all the info I give them about the bad side of Wal-Mart (and Target, etc.) and the readily available alternatives goes in one ear and out the other. As long as shopping there is easy and relatively cheap, all other considerations are moot.

Apply that same attitude toward civic participation, add more narrow choices provided by capitalism, and you get the shithole that is the US circa 2007.

In rural America, home of the “rednecks,” Wal-Mart is often the only place to shop, unless you want to spend a lot of money on gas driving to some other major corporate outlet or mall. Capitalism severly constricts consumer choices, especially working-class consumers, and complaining that working-class people shop at X store or buy X brand (Nike, Coke, whatever) is just moralistic and pointless.

And by the way, Wal-Mart’s workers in China have an independent union. So they’re getting better treatment from the company than American workers.

In case Joe reads this. thanks joe for your unique insights, i love reading ya.

I think Bageant has nailed it with this statement.

Question is, where is this reverence for authority coming from? No one is born with it. People are trained to reverence authority by churches, schools, and media. Ergo…um…well…shit. This thought certainly leads nowhere.

Not sure if you’re reacting to Joe’s article or my post, but for my part, I wouldn’t say that shopping at WalMart in the face of all the available information about how they treat their workers (esp. in China) makes you a “fascist reactionary,” but it does demonstrate laziness and apathy toward other workers, since it rewards WalMart’s owners for being the worst example of a bad system of exploitation.

I used to shop at WalMart too, before I learned about them. It was no great sacrifice to stop.

I find it ironic to drive by one and see all the big gas-guzzlers in the parking lot, driven by people who would no doubt claim that they need to shop at WalMart “to make ends meet.”

I hope the book will be a success, and am looking forward to getting a copy.

I’m sad to say that this interview sounds sorta pessimistic, with little to no hope for things shaping up for us in the country and world. I hope Joe knows that there are fighters among the younger generation, people trying to learn from those past heroes and past movements. Change is possible and there are still people who recognize the futility of the ballot box … flippin and burnin shit is still an alternative

Having said that, though, I find it interesting that Bageant dares to do what so many commentators won’t: admit that most people are either willing to go along with government policies or just don’t give a shit. How many times do I have to hear that “people are waking up” while I see no evidence to back that assertion up, other than some meaningless poll, or the election of a few moderate Democrats?

People can’t even be convinced to stop shopping at WalMart or eating at McDonald’s, much less to openly resist. As long as fascism doesn’t interfere with the ongoing escapism of church attendance, doesn’t pre-empt TV programming, and doesn’t close the malls or take away their “right” to drive a gas-guzzler, what difference does it really make to most Americans?

In a recent interview on the Head On Radio Network, though, Bageant claimed that the left needs to take the religiosity of mainstream America into account when we try to appeal to them to support a more progressive agenda, and here I take issue with him. Doctrinal Christianity (or Islam, or Judaism) makes a fetish of “obedience” and hierarchies, and offers little or no philosophical foundation for resistance to authority. There is little or no “liberation theology” being preached from the pulpits of the megachurches or the storefront ad-hoc “ministries” that are ubiquitous in the poor neighboorhoods of my city, just promises of heavenly rewards for the patient and submissive.

If that wasn’t what people wanted to hear from their religious leaders, those churches would be empty. It’s not some kind of plot organized by the GOP (though I agree that the GOP has been obscene in the way they have co-opted churches); the simple fact is that it’s just as easy for a right-wing bigot to cite the Bible in his defense as it is for a pacifist lefty, and the right-winger is offering people rationalization, while a lefty interpretation would confront and challenge.

There is fertile ground for a preacher who tells people that they are “anointed” and “blessed” for driving a Yukon and hating gays; the preacher who tries to hold people to some kind of Christ-like ethical code, or criticizes materialism and bigotry, will find himself speaking to empty pews. When even someone sympathetic to religion (like Bageant) takes it as a given that people’s religious views won’t change, he is acknowledging an obstacle that may very well be insurmountable in our efforts to address problems like climate change, overpopulation, or ending the “war on terror.”