[This is an excerpt from the Preface of America Beyond Capitalism, by Gar Alperovitz (Wiley, 2005). For more information, including interviews with Dr. Alperovitz and a study guide, please visit: www.americabeyondcapitalism.com.] Most people forget how marginal conservative thinkers and activists were in the 1950s—both before and after the Goldwater debacle of 1964. The ideas and politics that currently dominate American reality were once regarded as antique and ridiculous by the mainstream press, political leadership, and most of serious academic thought. Committed conservatives worked in very difficult circumstances to develop their ideas and practices and politics for the long haul—and though I disagree with them, they, too, have demonstrated what can be done against seemingly long odds. If you think I am recalling these various experiences and old war stories to suggest that even the most daunting political obstacles can often be overcome by those who are serious, you are right. I am, however, no utopian. I think it is entirely possible that, like Rome, the U.S. empire will fail and decay. Or that our domestic and international troubles will lead to violence and the suppression of what remains of American liberties. Indeed, as I shall suggest, at best I think things are likely to get worse before they get better. I note, however, that Chile has survived even Pinochet. Those who view things historically understand that the challenge is always to build to and through even the worst difficulties. The American Revolution itself stands as a reminder of how the then most powerful empire in the world could be challenged. (The signers of the Declaration of Independence, we do well to recall, did so knowing that if they failed, they would be hung for treason.) This book argues that the only way for the United States to once again honor its great historic values—above all equality, liberty, and meaningful democracy—is to build forward to achieve what amounts to systemic change. I shall explain what I mean in due course, but here let me note that fundamental change—indeed, radical systemic change—is as common as grass in world history. It may be that history has stopped in the United States circa 2004, but I doubt it. The lessons of Youngstown have been reinforced by the experiences I have cited—above all, that what seems radical is often simply common sense at the grassroots level and that a commitment to the long haul is the only way to test what might really be possible. One other lesson is important: serious ideas count. Moreover, people understand and respect serious ideas. Here I again honor committed, thoughtful conservatives (as distinct from right-wing ideologues who use ideas to bludgeon the opposition). Though I disagree with the writings of men like Russell Kirk, Henry C. Simons, and Friedrich A. Hayek, I respect their commitment to developing tough-minded theory—and their understanding that this is critical to the development of a truly meaningful politics. We often ignore this truth, thinking that what counts is "the message" or "how issues are framed" for public consumption. What ultimately counts is a coherent and powerful understanding of what makes sense, and why—and how what makes sense can be achieved in the real world. By "coherent" I mean rigorous intellectually as well as politically. Some feel that ordinary Americans are uninterested in ideas, or cannot understand them. I disagree. Historically it is not only thoughtful conservatives who have shown that ideas count but, in other eras and other times—whether one agrees or disagrees, Marxists and liberation theologians as well. And Americans at the time of the Revolution. And feminist theorists from Seneca Falls on. The lesson here is that it is time to roll up our sleeves and get serious about the intellectual work that needs to be done if an effort to achieve fundamental change is ever to succeed. We need to ask ourselves the following questions: If the current political-economic system is no longer able to sustain equality, liberty and meaningful democracy, what specifically do we want? And why, specifically, should anyone expect what we want to be any better than what we now have? And how, specifically, might what we propose deal with the everyday problems now facing most Americans? And finally even if we can say what "system" would be better, why, specifically, do we think it might be attainable in the real world? As I said, I am no utopian. Why in the world should anybody want to support a movement for serious change that does not attempt to give straight and tough answers to such obvious questions? My book, I hope, will help stimulate more tough-minded discussion of such matters. |
||