Political Consciousness

There are five principal elements that together contribute to the development of political consciousness

• (I) moral civilization;
• (II) belief in democracy;
• (III) mistrust of 'scientific objectivity;'
• (IV) the search for truth; and
• (V) mistrust of the status quo.

I. Civilization

A politically conscious person recognizes that civilization has two dimensions to it: the moral and the material, and it is the former that is of paramount importance. By moral civilization it is meant the attainment of civilized attitudes and behavior vis a vis other human beings and other forms of life on this planet. Central to moral civilization is the attitude and behavior that is motivated by concrete efforts to respond to the question: What can I do, in terms of my personal attitudes and behavior toward all life forms (beginning with my immediate family and then extending outward to my relatives, friends, community, other communities, society, other societies and other planetary life forms, etc.) to make this planet a better place for them to live in? Associated with this this question would be such positive behavioral human qualities as altruism, love, morality, humanity, magnanimity, compassion, forgiveness, charitability, amicability, open-mindedness, humility, justiciability, and so on.
>>>NOTE: Notice that these are the very type of qualities that cultures that celebrate 'the ideology of machismo' (such as the one in the U.S. today) denigrate. Note too that these are qualities that the DMC or capitalist classes also disdain because they interfere with the processes of limitless acquisition of wealth. <<<

II. Democracy

At the heart of political consciousness is an unshakable belief in the ideology of democracy and its implementation, at both levels: the micro-level (that is, at the level of institutions and organizations) and the macro-level (that is, at the level of society as a whole). Now, since the term democracy has as many meanings as those willing to define it, it is important to be specific about what is meant by the ideology of democracy in the present context: it comprises the following core precepts:

(a) The uncompromising acceptance that all human beings, regardless of nationality, race, sex, religion, etc., etc., are entitled to equality of political, social and economic status. No single group of people can arrogate to itself superior status merely because of its nationality, race, sex, religion, etc.

(b) The uncompromising acceptance that equality of status must extend not only to citizens within any one single country, but to citizens in all countries of the world. We live in a world that is highly unequal, in which one third of the world's population consumes two thirds of the world's resources to sustain a standard of living that the remaining two thirds can only dream of. This inequality is neither divinely mandated nor genetically pre-determined; it is a function of human engineered international economic, political and legal systems in which those who garnered initial economic advantages through accident of history have shaped the 'rules of the game' to maintain and bolster these advantages. It must be remembered that the conditions of poverty or wealth are not a matter of choice for most people at the group level (and probably at the individual level too). The poor are not poor because they have chosen to be poor. Rather, these conditions are a product of historically rooted systemic factors. Consequently, the redress of imbalances in poverty and wealth necessitates fundamental changes in political and economic systems.

(c) The recognition of the fact that we live in a world of finite resources; therefore, an egalitarian distribution of these resources, such as to make it possible for the two thirds to enjoy the same standard of living as that enjoyed by the one third, necessitates the development of an economic system that is not only efficient in the production process at the level of individual production units, but also efficient at the national and international levels in terms of resource utilization an d product distribution. Such an economic system would have at its core of governing principles the acceptance of these two principles: first, that all human-beings on this planet, not just those of a given geographical origin, have an equal right to its resources--that is, a child born in a World-Majority country has as much right to a materially comfortable lifestyle as a child born in the World-Minority country; and second, that each successive generation holds the planet in trusteeship for generations that follow--with the consequent obligation not to irreparably exhaust planetary bio- and eco-systems via destructive greed and pollution.

>>>NOTE: The terms 'World-Minority' and 'World-Majority' are used in this summary in the place of terms such as 'First World' and 'Third World.' World-Minority nations are nations whose populations are dominated by Europeans or people of European ancestry. World-Majority nations are nations in which these same groups are either absent or form a population minority. Examples of 'World-Minority' nations include the U.S., Canada, Britain, France, Russia, Sweden, Germany, and so on. Examples of World-Majority nations include China, Brazil, Kenya, South Africa, India, Argentina, Jamaica, Mexico, Ghana, and so on. In this dichotomous classification of the nations of the world, the odd nation out is Japan. Japan ought to be considered a 'World-Majority' nation, however, because of its international economic and political stature it should be considered, for most purposes, (unless specified otherwise) as a 'World-Minority' nation. <<<

(d) The acknowledgment that democracy is not intrinsically tied in anyway to either the capitalist economic system or the socialist economic system. For, if this were so there would be no dictatorships in many of the capitalist countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America and nor would there have been dictatorships in the former socialist countries of Eastern Europe. Both, capitalist regimes and socialist regimes have been guilty of persistent mass violations of fundamental human rights of their citizenry. From Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia of yesteryear, to today's Iraq, China and Zaire--the world, sadly, is full of examples.

(e) The acknowledgment that the State must be so engineered as to represent the interests of all in society, not just a select few: those with wealth and power. In most societies today the State does not always represent the interests of all, but on the contrary, represents the interests of a select few (the DMC) most of the time. Note: one consequence of this fact is that there is really no such thing as the 'national interest.' Rather, there are only competing interests, in a context where the competition takes place on an uneven playing field that slopes in the favor of the DMC. The 'national interest,' is often simply a code word for the interests of the DMC. >>>NOTE: It should also be pointed out here that in a situation where there is no 'national interest,' unbridled or unquestioning patriotism is, to put it mildly, highly dangerous. Such patriotism has great potential to be hijacked--as was the case during the period of Nazism in Germany, or during the McCarthy Era and the period of the Vietnam War in the U.S. (or even in the recent Gulf War)--by those who will put forward the 'national interest' as a smokescreen for their own interests. Under such circumstances, unquestioning patriotism permits the DMC to waste scarce resources on such unproductive ventures as armaments building (from which they draw huge profits, but yet at the same time depriving the U.S. citizenry of funds to improve their quality of life); to send the young of other classes to their deaths by dispatching them off to wars in countries whose people have no quarrel with the U.S. (but which are fought in the interests of the DMC); to place the lives of all living things on this planet in constant jeopardy by relentlessly manufacturing the ultimate weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons; to pollute and destroy the environment; and so on. <<<

(f) The recognition of the need to respect the human rights of all in society; not simply those of the majority (or in some instances those of the minority with power). Moreover, these human rights must be constitutionally enshrined in a "Bill of Rights." Human rights must include not only political rights (such as freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from arbitrary arrest, etc.), but also economic rights (such as freedom from hunger, destitution, unemployment, etc.) In other words, there must be acceptance of the fact that there is a dialectical relationship between political rights and economic rights. The first set of freedoms are in themselves meaningless in a situation where the most basic freedom--freedom from hunger and destitution--is itself absent. Conversely, the second set of freedoms may not be attainable in the absence of the first set of freedoms. In other words, the traditional World-Minority concept of human rights with its singular emphasis on political rights, must be broadened to cover economic rights.

(g) The acceptance of the fact that there must be respect for the human rights of not only those who live in one given country, but also of those who live in other countries throughout the world.

III. Objectivity

A politically conscious person recognizes that there is no such thing as an objective approach to knowledge--especially in the area of human affairs--if by objectivity one means lining up the pros and cons of every given issue. Under such objectivity there would be pros for torturing children to death, for starving people to death, for mutilating the dead, for dismembering pregnant women, for massacring thousands of innocent civilians, for rendering millions refugees, for imprisoning thousands without trial; that is there would be pros for all this and more that has been undertaken in the defense of some mythical 'national interest' by nations and political movements throughout history up to the present. Similarly, there are no pros for racism; there cannot be equal time for racists (of whatever color they may be). However, even more basic than this; it is necessary to concede that regardless of how desirable it may be, objective social science is impossible and in fact does not exist. This problem was raised by, among others, Gunnar Myrdal (1969) two decades ago. He framed it thus:

"The ethos of social science is the search for 'objective' truth... . The most fundamental methodological problems facing the social scientist are therefore, what is objectivity, and how can the student attain objectivity in trying to find out the facts and the causal relationships between facts? How can a biased view be avoided? More specifically, how can the student of social problems liberate himself from [a] the powerful heritage of earlier writings in his field of inquiry, ordinarily containing normative and teleological notions inherited from past generations and founded upon the metaphysical moral philosophies of natural law and utilitarianism from which all our social and economic theories have branched off; [b] the influences of the entire cultural, social, economic, and political milieu of the society where he lives, works, and earns his living and his status; and [c] the influence stemming from his own personality, as molded not only by traditions and environment but also by his individual history."

Why is objectivity impossible in the social sciences? At the simplest because (as Myrdal alludes above) social scientists are human beings and human beings are not machines: they possess emotions, likes and dislikes, subconscious minds, values, and so on. Human beings possess culture, history and above all live in societies. All these factors will impinge on the outlook (ideology, world-view, etc.) of researchers which in turn will affect--whether they like it or not--their studies. Consequently, any study of any phenomenon or 'object' in the social sciences will invariably be colored (not necessarily consciously) by the researcher's own subconscious proclivities, and manifest at the level of choice of questions asked, choice of data collected and examined, choice of methods used, and so on. There is, however, another problem too: all work in the social sciences, even that which purports to be for the sake of the advancement of basic knowledge alone, is ultimately (and if not directly at least indirectly) programmatic. That is, all studies in the social sciences contain within them a mission--whether articulated or not--relating to the ultimate value or purpose of the study: which is to either preserve or change the status quo; this also has a bearing on 'objectivity' in the social sciences. Clearly then, there is no such thing as objective social science; those who pretend otherwise, usually the so called 'academic experts' are merely foisting a big lie on the unwary. (Some, such as Kuhn [1970], have gone so far as to say that even in the natural sciences there is no such such thing as 'objective' science.)

IV. Truth

A person who is politically conscious is a person who seeks the truth in relation to society as a whole with the objective of understanding how that society can become a better society for all its members in terms of social justice, economic progress, environmental safety, and so on. What kind of truth? It is truth relating to how the status quo has come about and how it is maintained--that is who benefits from it and who suffers from it. This task requires one to be fully conversant with all historical processes that explain the status quo, which in turn requires him or her to be multi-disciplinary in approach given the multidimensional nature of all human existence. For, in the words of that brilliant intellectual, Paul A. Baran, '... the seemingly autonomous, disparate, and disjointed morsels of social existence under capitalism--literature, art, politics, the economic order, science, the cultural and psychic condition of people--can all be understood (and influenced) only if they are clearly visualized as parts of the comprehensive totality of the historical process.' (1961:12-13) Since no society is perfect in terms of social justice, human advancement, and general human happiness, the politically conscious person is of necessity continuously questioning the status quo and striving for its perfection.

Consequently he/she is by definition an insurrectionist, a revolutionary (but whose weapons are pens and whose ammunition are words) because he/she does not wish to permit the beneficiaries of the status quo (the rich and the powerful) from obfuscating the truth: that the status quo, especially in capitalist societies, benefits primarily the rich and the powerful and that it has evolved to this end through human agency and not some supernatural being or even just 'nature.' It follows from this that even in those instances where an unjust order has been overthrown and a new just order is being constructed, the task of those who are politically conscious is not over. The new order will still have imperfections. Hence as long as human societies remain imperfect the job of the politically conscious is a permanent one. To put it differently: a politically conscious person is someone who is essentially, to use Baran's words: "... a social critic, a person whose concern is to identify, to analyze, and in this way to help overcome the obstacles barring the way to the attainment of a better, more humane, and more rational social order. As such he[/she] becomes the conscience of society and the spokes[person] of such progressive forces as it contains in any given period of history. And as such he[/she] is inevitably considered a 'troublemaker' and a 'nuisance' by the ruling class seeking to preserve the status quo ...." (1961:17)

V. Status quo

A politically conscious person is never satisfied with the status quo. >>>NOTE: The term status quo, in the context of this paper, refers to the existing imbalance in power relations and resource allocation between the dominant group and the dominated in society. The demarcating criteria for the dominant and the dominated can be class (rich versus poor), sex (male versus female), race (white versus black), religion (Christianity versus Judaism), ethnicity (Italian American versus Anglo-American), etc., etc. <<< Or to put the matter differently: a politically conscious person is not a conservative; that is he/she shuns the ideology of conservatism.

So, what then is conservatism? Very briefly it is an ideology that advocates the preservation of the existing or a bygone political, social and economic order. In other words it is an ideology that justifies maintenance of the status quo or its overthrow in favor of a past order (status quo ante). Historically, conservatism in the Western world arose in opposition to the revolutionary political, economic and social changes wrought first by the French Revolution and later by the Industrial Revolution. For example, Edmund Burke, one of the prominent conservatives of the 18th century England, and whose thoughts would influence conservative political theory in the 19th century, believed in the preservation of the power of the monarchy and the landed gentry (the upper class); retention of a close relationship between the State and the Church; and the limitation of voting rights to a select few in society.

Conservatism in the twentieth century has tended to emphasize laissez faire (meaning to 'leave alone' in French) economics, where there is no State intervention in the economy (except in circumstances explicitly requiring the protection of the interests of capitalists), and virulent opposition to the development of a welfare State. Conservatives, therefore, believe in absolute minimal government--except where capitalist interests are threatened (for example, conservatives do not object to the use of State power to smash trade unions--especially in situations of conflict between capitalists and workers). Since conservatism harks back to a past social order it follows that present day conservatives, such as those in the U.S., are opposed to many of the advances that have been made in the area of human and civil rights since the end of the Second World War, including rights for blacks, women and even children. They are also opposed to efforts by the federal government to regulate industries in order to protect consumers directly (e.g., from fraud, unsafe products, false advertising, etc.) and indirectly (e.g., from environmental pollution), and of course are vehemently opposed to any programs designed to help the poor.

On the basis of their pronouncements and on the basis of the foregoing it can be safely asserted that in general (there will always be exceptions of course) conservatives--depending upon the degree of intensity of adherence to their ideology--tend to display the following attributes: racism; sexism; favoritism toward the DMC; intolerance toward alternative viewpoints, ideologies and lifestyle; patriarchal tendencies; unquestioning obedience to law--even if unjust; disdain for programs, projects and ideas aimed at protecting the environment because they believe environmental protection costs capitalists money (and since they have money they do not have to worry about their own health: e.g., if you can drink imported mineral water why worry about water pollution); disdain for the poor and the handicapped (the former because they are considered lazy and the latter because they are considered a burden on society); and jingoism accompanied by much belligerency (since the DMC tend to profit from war and usually their children are able to avoid military service). Today in the U.S. in general, but not always, conservatives tend to be Republican party members and/or usually vote for Republican candidates, and in general they are DMC or come from DMC backgrounds. It is necessary to stress that not all conservatives will share all of these attributes; though all will share most of them. In a nutshell then conservatives are people who believe in a political and social order that would protect to the maximum possible privileges that they have garnered over the long course of human history at the expense of other human beings. (For an excellent account of the genesis of the conservative ideology see Moore [1966]).