#DELETED Added in wrong place sorry
#title On Solidarity and the Institutional Progressive
#author _anonym
#LISTtitle Solidarity and the Institutional Progressive
#date 02/28/2013
#source Retrieved on 08/04/2018 from [[http://nineinchbride.com/index.php/author-blog-commentary/entry/on-solidarity-and-the-institutional-progressive.html][nineinchbride.com]]
#lang en
#pubdate 2018-08-04T10:26:19



I read with dismay about some hecklers at a rally calling Michael Moore out as a hypocrite as he passed, and general hostility toward celebrity entertainment figures as 1%-ers espousing 'socialism' from great mansions and unimaginable wealth. I think these hecklers are overlooking the nature of capitalism, which knows no moderation. Success in capitalist media necessarily involves 'stardom,' whether deserved or not, and obscene profits, because that is the return such venture capitalization requires. Being a capitalist structure, those at the top are rewarded irrationally and redundantly, like Michael Moore.

In the case of MM the radical documentary filmmaker, unlike those in commercial media, 'We the People' made him a 'star,' not some Hollywood studio, and it is a paradox of living in capitalist culture, not hypocrisy, to be catapulted to wealth and stardom even when your message is contrary to both. In his recent dotage he has crawled into bed with, of all things, the Democratic Party—but that is another story...

In the case of movie stars made by Hollywood, they cannot claim a particularly noble origin for their celebrity, but when they get there, some few have the wisdom and conscience to know their wealth is an absurd condition of capitalist culture and make use of their position and their money to advance the progressive agenda—to their great credit.

As MM is fond of saying, "I can walk and chew gum at the same time." That is not hypocrisy. It is wisdom and balance in the conflict of culture within culture. We all do it, consciously or not. None of us in this culture are 'innocent.'

But the individual celebrity has far more tenuous a bond to perform as desired politically and no real obligation to do so compared to political 'celebrities' of an institutional nature. And yet, whether for-profit business institutions with a progressive intent, or every other institution of the non-profit kind, the bourgeois form is the form the progressive institution takes, whether liked or not. And some do like it, apparently very much.

If not in fact a private club, most of these otherwise <em>sympatico</em> institutions, like all private companies, grow up to become a moated castle, replete with drawbridge and armed battlements, a thing unto themselves. Unlike the individual's responsibility to their progressive beliefs, these institutions have far greater responsibility to serve, by definition and raison d'etre, and are far more legitimate targets for heckling than flailing filmmakers like Michael Moore.

Coverage of culture in general and books in particular in so-called 'Alt' this and 'Truth' that progressive venues are persistently disappointing in their 'all's well, we have an authority here to anesthetize your pain, we have a store of awesome published writers who have it all worked out for you.' These writers may well be awesome, but 'published' is the keyword here, passive voice, as in approved by a for-profit publishing corporation for publication, and this fact is offered as being synonymous with authority. Some venues, like Truthdig.com and DemocracyNow.org, both persistent if not powerful institutions in the 'Alt culture' scene, will even tout their book review policy as exclusive to works with a for-profit publishing house imprimatur, as if this proved their value. Of course we all know, authority celebrates the system prevailing.

To define today's 'for-profit publishing' is to define the term 'bourgeois,' no less for its artistic pretentions, but it is also to endow the term #SolidarityCulture. It is not just mainstream print houses, but the few progressive publishing ventures that exist today, whether print or digital or both, are likewise not only elitist in the most clannish, degraded sense, but are so with an apparently avid buy-in to the self-same meritocracy of privileged, bourgeois credentials as the randiest for-profit enterprise. Following suit, the moated castle of Truthdig for example, an all-digital venture, features authors honored by their cousin fiefdom over yonder royal hill, the moated publishing castle of Random House, the both alike self-anointed bastions of what passes for counter-culture.

Thus culture in their book curation is bourgeois culture exclusively, a circle jerk of betrayal. Even where the hard news and analysis may be highly commendable, they remain isolated towers without soul or #CulturalSolidarity.

It is not the message, or its effective power, that matters to cultural reviewers and journalists at the likes of Truthdig and DemocracyNow, but the medium, that being the capital intensive <em>for-profit</em> print medium, or film alike for the same reasons, with all of their pricey accouterments, corporate motivations, and lordly affectations as gatekeeper of the meritocracy. In the end, it is not what is written, or written well, but who wrote it, and who knows who inside their castle walls.

If they had in their literary reviews the progressive <em>cojones</em> they have in other departments, they'd be giving independent authors equal time with bourgeois-certified 'publishing house' authors.

We bear witness that Indie publication is the only democratic literary medium in existence, and that for the first time in human history. At long, long last, the writer is liberated from the tyranny of the capital plant of the print house and the lords of that manor. Think about that, and think about what it is that makes a 'writer.'

With the advent of print-on-demand services like CreateSpace and others, not only are we living an historical first, but we are taking a giant step into the future. Now the Indie can have their voice, at least a chance in a crowded, confusing marketplace, slim as that may be without 'authoritative' PR funding.

What then makes a progressive publisher?

What justification can be made for an online progressive institution to wall up and practice the bourgeois arts of Big House exclusion? Ultimately there is no credibility to their litany of excuses:

 - we're swamped with just the print-house books
 - too much junk in indie pub-land
 - no staff, no time, no money
 - more important books, higher priority to other coverage
 - people don't want to know about people they've never heard of
 - doesn't sell ad space

If their premise is that they are an extractive capitalist fiefdom with no obligation beyond their castle walls, they can make these and like arguments, essentially business excuses for not spending time or money on principle, the excuse of the apolitical movie star, minus the wealth. In due course of time, they will be forced to overcome all of these objections anyway, when the Random Houses of the world are leveled in the independent digital juggernaut.

For generations of us, however, this will be too late. And until then, these progressive institutions remain no different in their formulas of exclusion than the <em>New York Times Book Review</em>, or any other capitalist class gatekeeper and pseudo-standardbearer, except of course in the smell of their hypocrisy.

With respect to progressive fiction, these cultural venues are what I call 'retarders,' and in fact cultural conservatives of the worst ilk. They cannot by any means call themselves cultural progressives for their self-serving double-standards.

Political artists of the world, and political readers—political fiction <em>afficionadoes</em> in particular—send a heckling email or copy/paste this post to the editors of Truthdig.com, DemocracyNow.org, Counterpunch.com, MintPressNews.com, TruthOut.com, MotherJones.com, theNation.com, Alternet.org, MonthlyReview.org, CounterCurrents.org, GreanvillePost.com, and the list goes on and on and on, every last one of the counter-cultural wannabies is culpable, not a genuinely progressive literary venue among them, no matter what good they may be doing otherwise. Frankly, I think the modest curation in my Twitter feed is as good or better an online magazine than many of their web site publications—using much of their own material in it. How can that be?

They don't know the meaning of solidarity.