Biasanya, taktik seperti ini akan dilakukan 2-3 kali. sampai yang ke-4 ketika dianggap sebagai pertemuan yang “serius”, kpk sudah malas datang.

Press release keesokan harinya, depkominfo tetap melanjutkan rpp penyadapan. ketika ditanya kpk kok ga dilibatkan, depkominfo akan mengatakan bahwa kpk telah diundang tapi tidak datang..

hmmmm… yang heran, kok depkominfo punya ide begini pas dipegang tifatul sembiring? bukan apa2, coz harapannya, seharusna tifatul bisa menjadi salah satu garda depan pemberantas korupsi.

mungkin judge ini juga terlalu dini, coz hanya membaca respon yang ada di media. mungkin kalo tau isi rpp penyadapan bisa lebih mudah bersikap.

by the way, kalau ada yang punya, mohon di distribusikan ya..

The collapse of the New Order regime in the late 1990s brought about a dramatic change in the relationship between the State and Society. The main pillar of the New Order’s regime, the military, Golkar and state apparatus lost their legitimary to rule and pave the way for emerging role of civil society. Weakened by severe economic crisis and growing ethnic and communal conflicts in Kalimantan and Sulawesi, the post New Order State lacked legitimacy to regulate the growing numbers of civil society organisations. Emboldened by their active participation in toppling the regime, civil society demanded more role in public sphere. Majority of newly emerged civil society organizations stricly adhere to rules and regulations, but there are many who simply use civil society as their means to pursue their unlawful goals.

Demand for a change in civil society law has long been articulated. But due to the sensivity of the issue, especially among civil society leaders, the Habibie Government and its successors the Wahid and Megawati Governments simply ignored the need to revise Law No. 8/1985 on Social Organization. Even the current government has for sometimes disregarded the urgency to revise the Law. The policy of disregarding the need to revise the Law has serious implication. Majority of civil society organizations do not take the Law into consideration before committing their activities. They regard the Law a legacy of the New Order regime and therefore it is no longer valid to the current democratic set up.

People in Jakarta have for sometime complained about the government’s inability to curb the activitists of local civil society organizations that exthort money from public to run their organizations in the name of native inhabitant. In Riau Province members of Regional Representative Assembly (DPRD) established civil society organizations and inserted in local government budget (APBD) financial support for civil society organizations so that their own organizations will get financial benefit. Attacks by religious organizations against followers of Ahmadyah organizations caused serious questions as to who should be responsible for State management of civil society organizations.

State management of civil society organizations are under the responsibility of three ministries, Law and Human Rights, Social and Home Affairs, ignoring religious organizations managed by Ministry of Religious Affairs. To complicate the matter, three separate laws rule civil society organizations, No. 8/1985 on Social Organizations, Law No 16/2004 on Foundations and Law on Association drafted by the Dutch Colonial Government in 1870. Recent violent attack in National Monument committed by Islamic Defense Front against National Alliance for Freedom and Religion have revived the urgency Law No. 8/1985 on Social Organization

Difficult Task

Taken up the responsibility to revise the Law, Ministry of Home Affairs has to deal with its own image problem. As legacy of the New Order State, Ministry of Home Affairs has long been regarded as State’s main apparatus responsible for implementing repressive policy against civil society organizations. Understandably, civil society organizations have deep distrust towards the Ministry. Problem of acceptability of the draft law is another issue. Ministry of Home Affairs tackles two issues by first inviting senior leaders of civil organizations to draft the Law and engaging civil society organizations in a number of workshops and seminars about the draft Law. Engagement from international donors are also invited to provide support and input into the drafting process. Despite all these, suspicion remains amongst civil society organizations. Some civil society organizations even do not regards the need to have a new law on civil society organizations.

The draft Law team has to deal with serious and difficult questions. What will the new role for the State in the management of civil society organizations. Will the State play a direct role or will the State simply play a backseat role in dealing with the management of civil society organizations. If the State will no longer play an important role, who should act as a regulatory body for the civil society organizations, will it be a commission that has a quazy-state status or simply an association of civil society organizations that becomes an umbrealla body for all civil society organizations. Even if it is a commission, there has to be ensured that members of the commission are selected from leaders of civil society organizations themselves to ensure credibility of its role.

Both option has its own dillematic proposition. Establishing a commission will not be popular option given the fact that public has complained about the growing number commissions funded by the State Budget. But, allowing the State to have direct role in the management of civil society organizations will encounter serious challenge from civil society organizations. Relying on the possibility of having an umbrealla body for all civil society organizations will be difficult given the nature of fractionalized civil society organizations in terms of ideology, programs and activities.

Civil Society organizations have long complained that apart from enforcing registration and probition, State does not do much to help strengthening the role of civil society organizations. What should be the role of the State in the new regulatory framework. Learning from various Laws on civil society organizations in a number of countries, the drafting team agree that State has to provide tax and other benefits to the civil society organizations. Benefits from State will have to be accompanied by enforcing standards that have to be met by civil society organizations in term of legality, transparancy, accountability and adherence to rules and regulations.

Funding from foreign sources are another tricky issue. Research conducted by number of civil society organizations revealed that majority of civil society organizations heavily rely on foreign donors. What will the new Law have to say about the issue. While people tend to relate foreign funding simply in relations with western donor countries, there has been a strong beliefs funding from organizations and countries in the Middle East also flow in into the countries to financially support religious organizations. Majority of foreign funding are chanelled through international banking network, some funding enter into the country using more traditional but difficult to be traced through hawala (personal courrier) business.

Institutional interests of each ministry in maintaining their role in regulating civil society organizations is serious obstacle that will have to be deal with if the new draft Law is to be effective. Apart from Ministry of Law Human Rights, Social Welfare and Home Affairs, even State Secretary for no obvious reason recently established a new directorate in charge of civil society organizations. Trusting one ministry upon another to play a pivotal role in managing civil society organizations as part of mainstreaming regulatory framework will be tantamount to dismantling one directorate and losing the battle for more budget allocation for the ministry. Here lies the challenge. Preliminary effort by Ministry of Home Affairs to open dialog with three other ministries have led to series of discussions but somewhat in the middle it reached to nowhere.

Building A New Civil Society

Conviction that State alone will not solve all the problem and therefore civil society has the legitimate and important role to be play, especially at the time when State no longer have the capacity even the provide necessary needs of the people is proved to be justified. Even in more advanced country like the United Kingdom, the importance role played by the civil society organizations is institutionalized. In partnership with the Charity Commission for England and Wales, Ministry of Third Sector is reponsible for the State support towards the civil society organizations. In indonesia, the growing number of civil society organizations reflects that social capital owns by people of this country remain strong and therefore the State has to abandon its old role of enforcing registration and prohibition, but comes up with a new paradigm.

Now it is up to the State and the civil society organizations themselves to set up a new paradigm in State – Civil Society relations that will be more appropriate with current democratic set up. State will undoubtedly continue to play its important role, but in different way. State will have to regards itself as a guardian ensuring those who commit good deeds must be rewarded in term of subsidies, incentives and other recognitions. While those who abuse and use civil society organizations for their own benefits have to be deal with the Law. Even here, State can longer do as the New Order State did banning the civil society organizations that being perceived as challenging its authority. It is up to the court to decide whether the deed committed by civil society organizations tantamount to violating the law or not.

Civil society organizations for the time being is divided as to what should be their response to the new draft Law. But experiences from the Philippines and the United Kingdom, among others show that building a strong and viable civil society organizations need well-defined and well-designed regulatory framework that will help to delineate the boundary between responsible civil society organizations and irresponsible people who simply use civil society as a mean to pursue their own goals. Engagement of civil society organizations will be a determining factor not only in term of acceptability of the new draft Law, but as a foundation to build a strong, viable civil society organizations that this country badly need.

source: http://www.legalitas.org/?q=content/building-a-new-paradigm-in-state-%E2%80%93-civil-society-relations

Kemaren saya nyoba lihat-lihat video di facebook dan kebetulan saya nemu video lucu, menurut saya kreatif banget. Saya suka sekali dengan video tersebut dan berniat untuk mendownloadnya ke komputer sendiri. Tetapi sayang setelah cari-cari ternyata nggak ada link downloadnya,  apa facebook nggak mengizinkan videonya didownload orang. Ada yang tahu???

Tidak sampai disitu, saya tidak mau menyerah dan setelah saya googling akhirnya saya menemukan satu cara mendownload video dari facebook. Cara ini hanya berlaku bagi anda yang menggunakan browser mozilla firefox, anda harus download plugin add-ons bernama Facebook Video 2.1.7.

Eiitthhh…tunggu dulu, biar jelas perbedaannya sebelum dan sesudah di install add-ons mozilla ini sebaiknya anda login dulu ke facebook, terus buka salah satu video, yang mana saja, terus pada bagian kanan bawah video lihat apakah ada link Download Video, Embed this Video, Convert Video.

Jika sudah selesai baru lanjutkan…

Klik Add to Firefox, tunggu sampai muncul jendela baru “Sofware Installation”. Selanjutnya klik tombol Install Now, tunggu sebentar sampai proses install selesai.

Cara menginstall add-ons mozilla firefox

Jika sudah selesai anda harus restart mozilla firefox anda. Jika ditanya “Firefox will try to restore your tabs and windows when it restarts.” pilih saja Restart.

Browser mozilla firefox akan ditutup secara otomatis, biarkan saja. Tunggu sampai browser anda muncul kembali dan secara otomatis window Add-ons mozilla aktif, tutup saja window tersebut.

Nah, setelah anda yakin add-ons mozilla sudah terinsall di komputer. Coba buka salah satu video lucu di facebook dan lihat apakah sudah ada link seperti Embed this Video, Customize Code, Download Video, Convert Video. Kalau sudah ada berarti add-ons mozilla sudah terpasang di komputer anda.

cara download video dari facebook

So, tunggu apalagi sekarang anda sudah bisa mendownload setiap video yang ada di facebook. Download Video untuk mendownload video langsung dari facebook, Customize Code untuk mengatur ukuran tampilan dari video, Embed this Video untuk anda yang ingin menaruh video tersebut diblog anda.

Pertanyaannya juga beragam mulai dari yang serius, semi serius (emang ada ya… macam film ***** aja), sampai dengan pertanyaan yang sepele. Sejak pertama buat akun facebok saya sudah banyak mendapat undangan untuk mengikuti quiz, bahkan terlalu banyak mungkin.

Sebenarnya anda juga bisa membuat sendiri quiz, masa ngikuti quiz terus. Ya nggak? Cara membuat quiz di facebook gampang, coba deh ikuti langkah2 berikut ini:

Btw, sebelum melanjutkan ada baiknya anda siapkan dulu nama quiznya, pertanyaannya dan tentu saja pilihan jawaban dari quiz tersebut. Lanjut…

• Seperti biasanya anda harus login ke akun facebok
• Klik link berikut http://apps.facebook.com/quizapps/getting_started
• Anda akan diminta konfirmasi, klik saja Izinkan. Akan muncul tampilan baru Create Your Own Quiz App! seperti berikut:
  

  Cara membuat quiz di facebook

• Jika sudah selesai melakukan pengaturan klik tombol Next, selanjutnya anda akan mengisi pertanyan serta jawaban dari masing-masing pertanyaan. Untuk gambar ukurannya harus lebih kecil dari 512 KB.
• Selanjutnya install developer Apps, caranya klik pada Setup New Aplication. Kemudian Create Aplication dengan mengisikan nama Quiz. Lanjutkan sampai anda mendapat “API key” dan “Aplication Secret”. API Key ini akan anda perlukan nanti, copy ke notepad atau tulis di sebuah kertas. Lanjutkan proses sampai dan pada saat diminta memasukkan kode API key, paste/tulis kode tersebut.
• Lanjutkan sampai proses membuat quiz selesai.

Sebelum membuat quiz, sebaiknya pikirkan dulu quiz itu seperti apa bentuknya. Usahakan untuk membuat quiz yang tidak sekedar menghabiskan waktu orang lain, melainkan memberi sesuatu yang berarti buat mereka.

Maaf ya, saya tidak melanjutkan tutorial ini sampai habis. Anda bisa mencobanya sendiri dan berekspresi sesuai kemauan anda. Cara ini bukan satu-satunya, ada banyak aplikasi di facebook yang bisa kita pakai untuk membuat quiz di facebook.

Agar tidak terjadi kesalahpahaman, penting untuk dipahami bahwa kenyataan sosiologis tidak dapat menjadi premis untuk menarik suatu kesimpulan mengenai kebenaran teologis. Maka kita harus menempatkan premis-premis fakta sosiologis, untuk menarik kesimpulan sosiologis. Bahwa praktik keagamaan yang dilakukan –secara sosiologis- justru menempatkan agama tidak sebagai risalah keselamatan yang mewujudkan keadilan, kesejahteraan dan perdamaian; tetapi justru menjadi kamuflase untuk melanggengkan kekuasaan, melicinkan jalannya eksploitasi ekonomi, membungkam upaya-upaya perjuangan hak, hingga menjadi legitimasi kebenaran ideologis terhadap tindak kekerasan terhadap kelompok yang berseberangan. Bahkan, kita juga perlu mempertanyakan peran pemuka agama yang merubah bulan Ramadhan sebagai pengekang hawa nafsu justru menciptakan masyarakat yang over-konsumtif. Fakta-fakta tersebut dapat digunakan untuk menarik suatu kesimpulan bahwa keyakinan manusia yang bersifat teologis belum mampu menghadirkan perilaku yang “benar” sesuai agama yang diyakini. Tetapi tidak untuk menarik kesimpulan bahwa aspek teologis agama tersebut yang tidak benar.

Fakta-fakta yang demikian dimungkinkan terjadi ketika agama dipahami dan ditempatkan sebatas sebagai sandaran dalam kehidupan. Menjadi sandaran manakala masyarakat tertimpa bencana untuk bersabar dan berdoa. Membangun refleksi moral tentang dosa dan ujian keimanan. Menjelang perhelatan pemilihan umum, bagaimana janji Tuhan akan merubah kondisi suatu masyarakat bila masyarakat mau merubah nasibnya sendiri menjadi legitimasi pengharapan baru yang ditanamkan oleh pemuka agama untuk mengarahkan suara massa dalam pencoblosan.

Tidak selayaknya menempatkan agama sebatas sandaran atau bahkan benteng pertahanan moral. Agama harus diajarkan, dipahamkan dan dibiasakan untuk menjadi motor penggerak sosial. Bukan motor penggerak untuk menebarkan kekerasan, melegitimasi eksploitasi atau modal-modal legitimasi kekuasaan politisi busuk; akan tetapi menjadi penggerak untuk menyuarakan kebenaran, menegakkan keadilan sosial dan berjuang mewujudkan kesejahteraan. Karena apa artinya keyakinan beragama ketika kebenaran-kebenaran risalah-Nya tidak mampu menjadi pendorong untuk berbuat kebaikan? Hanya menjadi alat pemuas pribadi untuk meyakinkan dirinya tentang surga? Bukankah itu berarti Tuhan telah mati (baca: dalam diri manusia) sebagaimana diungkap Nietzhe. Wallahua’lamu bi Shawab.

Beberapa teman alumni PPMI Assalaam Solo juga Insya Allah bantu.. coz sebelumnya saya terbuka untuk berbagi proposal TBM. Mudah-mudahan banyak TBM-TBM lain yang bisa didirikan, utamanya di daerah yang kurang akses bahan bacaan dan kegiatan pemberdayaan..

Buat yang tertarik dengan proposalnya (untuk referensi TBM atau mau bantu he3) silahkan download di
http://joogloscripts.com/file/proposal_tbm_immsukoharjo.pdf

Tapi saya menulis di sini karena satu hal, saya ingin berbagi balasan pesan yang saya kirimkan pada seorang kawan:

….
Salah satu hasil dari perjalanan panjang diskusi, refleksi dan kegelisahan IMM Sukoharjo; ditemukan bahwa Taman Baca merupakan pintu masuk yang paling rasional untuk pemberdayaan masyarakat.

Coz bisa juga masuk ke pemuda, orang tua and kerjasama dengan takmir masjid dll. Kita punya mimpi kalau di masjid ga cuman ngomongin cara shalat tapi juga sentra anti-korupsi, khutbah jum’at ga sekedar mengingatkan masyarakat pada Tuhan tapi juga untuk berani mewujudkan kesejahteraan dan keadilan.. Masjid juga harus punya taman baca, life skill dll… our People must Change!

fiuh… agak berlebihan mungkin. Aq ingin wujudkan itu, bahkan qu tawarkan alumni assalaam juga ngelola Taman Baca.. buat aq konsep itu ga harus di miliki sendiri, semakin banyak riak-riak kesadaran gerakan, semakin rasional gelombang perubahan bisa terwujud.. Dan masalah siapa yang akan di kenang oleh sejarah itu tidak penting. Kalau niatnya ikhlas Insya Allah akan dapat kemudahan, di dunia and akhirat.

lagi pula aq juga pesimis kalau hanya berharap pada demokrasi di Indonesia. Perubahan harus dari bawah, bukan kita sebagai “pahlawan kesiangan” tapi tumbuh berkembang dan menjadi kuat bersama masyarakat..

… kamu maksa aq jam 3.15 pagi nulis kayak gini, alamat ga bisa tidur nih.. he3

Akan tetapi aku baru mengalami bagaimana rasanya sakit yang begitu mendalam karena bersikap jujur..

Dan yang lebih menakutkan, hidup ditengah realitas dimana kejujuran dalam memegang prinsip menjadi sesuatu yang tak lagi dikedepankan..

Demokrasi senantiasa menjamin kebebasan mengekspresikan paham keagamaan yang diyakini oleh setiap individu. Maka, menjadi pertanyaan besar ketika di negeri yang demokratis seperti Indonesia, kebebasan berekspresi dan berkeyakinan agama setiap individu kerap kali mendapat kecaman, tudingan, bahkan klaim-klaim “sesat-menyesatkan.” Menjadi pertanyaan pula ketika klaim-klaim itu dibiarkan leluasa oleh Negara sehingga berujung pada terjadinya tindak anarkis oleh para pengklaim itu.

Fundamentalis meneror

Kenyataan di atas tentunya begitu memprihatinkan. Di saat bangsa kita berusaha bangkit menjadi bangsa yang diperhitungkan di dunia internasional, kondisi dalam negeri masih carut-marut. Hanya karena berbeda paham dan keyakinan, sesama warga bertikai dan saling membunuh. Dan, negara, yang salah satu fungsinya adalah menjadi payung buat semua warga yang berbeda paham dan keyakinan, ternyata kerap kali dengan mudahnya terkooptasi oleh kelompok-kelompok berpaham keagamaan tertentu yang mengatasnamakan mayoritas namun sesungguhnya hanya menggeneralisasi.

Tidak hanya terkooptasi, negara kerap kali bahkan dijadikan alat oleh kelompok-kelompok berpaham keagamaan tertentu untuk mengeksekusi warga bangsa yang berbeda paham dan keyakinan. Inilah bukti kuat bahwa ketika negara telah berselingkuh dengan suatu paham dan keyakinan keagamaan intoleran suatu kelompok, petaka dan instabilitaslah yang bakal terjadi.

Dalam negara demokrasi seperti Indonesia, agama memang menjadi begitu penting. Karena itu, agama sering kali dijadikan alat politik oleh kelompok tertentu untuk menunjukkan eksistensinya dengan menerapkan nilai yang mereka anut dalam kehidupan publik. Kelompok berpaham keagamaan fundamentalis sering kali menggunakan kekerasan untuk memaksakan keinginan mereka. Kondisi tersebut mengganggu negara dalam menegakkan dan memenuhi hak asasi warga negaranya.

Keinginan kelompok berpaham keagamaan fundamentalis untuk menyatukan persoalan politik dan privat dalam satu ide primordial tertentu merupakan ancaman serius bagi penegakan demokrasi dan pemenuhan hak-hak asasi manusia. Munculnya perda-perda dengan acuan nilai-nilai agama tertentu merupakan bagian dari paham keagamaan fundamentalisme. Penunggalan gaya hidup melalui berbagai kebijakan publik terbukti sering kali merugikan kelompok masyarakat tertentu. Penyeragaman nilai moral masyarakat bertentangan dengan kondisi ril masyarakat yang beragam dan plural.

Sayangnya, kelompok berpaham keagamaan fundamentalis itu menjadikan kekerasan demi kekerasan, pemaksaan demi pemaksaan, dan teror demi teror, sebagai senjata yang menyeramkan. Parahnya, untuk menjustifikasi kalau hal itu sebagai sesuatu yang suci dan direstui Tuhan, bahasa dan simbol-simbol keagamaan diteriakkan memekakkan telinga sehingga menambah horor yang menakutkan siapa yang mendengarkan. Tidak hanya itu,dari beberapa sweeping yang dilakukan oleh aparat kepolisian, tidak jarang ditemukan berbagai macam senjata, baik tumpul maupun tajam.

Peran Negara

Dalam situasi yang carut-marut semacam itu, peran negara menjadi amat penting. Tentu, negara yang lepas/netral dari kooptasi kepentingan kelompok berpaham keagamaan tertentu. Dalam posisi ini, negara menjadi pemberi jaminan yang sama kepada semua pihak untuk bebas menjalankan apa yang diyakini dan dipahami, selama itu tidak melanggar hukum negara yang telah disepakati bersama.

Tetapi, perlu dicatat, bahwa peran negara bukan berarti negara campur tangan ke dalam wilayah agama. Negara hanya mengatur lalu-lintas hubungan kelompok-kelompok berpaham keagamaan yang variatif dan toleran dalam semangat demokrasi (state regulate social relationship). Jangan sampai negara, dengan alasan apa pun, mencederai demokrasi yang tengah dibangun bersama ini dengan, misalnya, ikut andil secara langsung maupun tidak dalam bentuk intervensi yang tidak kondusif.

Jika tidak bisa, negara berarti telah gagal (the failure state) dalam mengayomi warganya dari berbagai intimidasi dan teror yang dilakukan oleh sesama warganya sendiri. Tidak terbayangkan jika kemudian negara tidak dipercayai oleh warganya sendiri.

Kelompok berpaham keagamaan fundamentalis, seperti dikatakan oleh Oliver Roy, selalu memiliki imajinasi politik akan ketidakterpisahan antara wilayah agama, hukum, ekonomi, dan politik. Sehingga, mereka, dalam hal-hal itu selalu berupaya keras untuk memformalkan agama. Selama hal itu dilakukan secara demokratis dan tanpa kekerasan, intimidasi, maupun teror, maka hal itu diakui sebagai warna-warna indah di alam demokrasi.

Negara bisa menjadi penting perannya, salah satunya, untuk menindak kelompok-kelompok berpaham keagamaan,apa pun itu, yang melakukan tindakan anarkis, intimidasi, dan teror, sehingga membuat kelompok lain ketakutan. Sudah saatnya, persoalan-persoalan yang kurang begitu signifikan dan relevan dengan persoalan bangsa dan negara yang lebih luas menjadi agenda utama.

sumber
]]> http://qahar.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/teror-fundamentalis-dan-peran-negara/feed/ 0 qahar http://qahar.wordpress.com/2009/01/17/filantropi-politik/ http://qahar.wordpress.com/2009/01/17/filantropi-politik/#comments Sat, 17 Jan 2009 05:37:07 +0000 http://qahar.wordpress.com/?p=129 ]]> Filantropi atau kedermawanan sosial merupakan wacana yang berkembang pesat di Indonesia. Mulai dari pemanfaatan ibadah agama sebagai filantropi, juga Corporate Social Responsibility sebagai filantropi perusahaan hingga menjelang pesta demokrasi pemilu 2009 juga memanfaatkan filantropi untuk meraup suara.

Filantropi ramai di bicarakan di Indonesia, karena di negara ini kemiskinan merupakan bagian dari keseharian sebagian besar rakyatnya. Semua pihak kemudian menggunakan istilah kedermawanan untuk menyembunyikan niatan yang sebenarnya. Meskipun saya tetap berkeyakinan masih banyak yang benar-benar memberikan dengan tangan kanannya tanpa harus diketahui tangan kirinya. Akan tetapi, selain kaya dengan korupsi, bangsa kita juga kaya dengan orang-orang yang narsis. Yang ingin diketahui amal baiknya oleh orang lain, ingin diketahui bahwa dirinya peduli terhadap penderitaan orang lain.

Kedermawanan sosial untuk membantu meringankan beban masyarakat-pun di gelar di mana-mana oleh aktivis politik. Untuk menunjukkan keseriusan bahwa partai mereka atau calon mereka peduli terhadap kondisi masyarakat; minimal di daerah pemilihannya sendiri. Dibungkus pelbagai alasan yang progresif untuk merubah kondisi kedepan, menanamkan harapan hingga meluapkan harapan hingga ke langit-langit untuk kembali dihempaskan ke bumi. Mati.

The collective consciousness of the U.S. working class is on the brink of a profound transformation. We grew up being told that capitalism was the best of all possible systems, with apparent confirmation being supplied by the fall of the Soviet Union. But we are now entering a new reality that has the potential to overturn all the old, established assumptions perhaps, in the final analysis, even to overturn capitalism itself.

The U.S. government, which has been lecturing other countries for decades about the virtues of privatizing state-owned enterprises, has recently embarked on a campaign of reversing its own dictates by partially nationalizing many of the financial institutions that were teetering on the brink of disaster. In other words, the U.S. government became a stockholder in these companies, thereby ironically taking a step in the direction of socialism socializing their losses, that is, not their profits. Meanwhile, for decades, the U.S. working class has watched helplessly as public education has been defunded, the environment has been progressively destroyed, and social services in general have shriveled, all supposedly because no money was available to launch a rescue operation. Yet the breathtaking speed with which the government threw a staggering trillion-dollar bailout to the financial institutions with no strings attached has not been lost on the working class. And more is on the way: the government has thus far pledged a total of $8.5 billion to help rescue the financial institutions. Workers, too, through their unions, are now demanding bailouts.

Policies that only yesterday appeared as irrevocable as acts of nature suddenly appear as they truly are: political decisions made by the federal government where Democrats and Republicans are united in their commitment to rescue their friends – the rich.

And fuel has been thrown on the fire. Recently, when asked for an account of how they spent the bailout funds, the financial institutions refused to oblige. After all, they calculated, why should they start becoming accountable to the U.S. public after all these centuries? This, too, has not been lost on the working class.

The working class also took notice of the modest but resounding victory scored by the United Electrical workers at the small windows and doors factory in Chicago. These workers did not have the advantage of working in a key industry so that if it were shut down, the reverberations would echo far and wide, thereby providing them with bargaining leverage. But they were emboldened by the outpouring of public support from across the country, and Bank of America, one of the most powerful banks in the world, backed down.

Finally, the working class was assured that the Great Depression would never see a second coming. Lessons had been learned and mechanisms were inserted to guarantee everlasting stability, we were told. All these assurances now look like more toxic assets, and working people will begin to draw the obvious conclusion: not only are recessions endemic to capitalism, but depressions are as well. And this realization will inevitably provoke questions about the desirability of capitalism itself.

The Defense

Harboring a rather grim view of human nature, capitalism’s apologists have argued for centuries that we are incorrigibly greedy to the core, meaning that we focus exclusively on our individual self-interest, not the interests of our neighbors or the community at-large or those who are most needy, and we define our well-being principally in terms of the accumulation of material wealth. Accordingly, Milton Friedman, leading member of the notorious Chicago School of Economics, reasoned: “The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm; capitalism is that system.”

Hence, capitalism is a system that embraces greed; its defenders insist that to do otherwise would be hopelessly naive and utopian. But, they continue, by placing certain restrictions on greed, such as rules of ownership and regulations governing production, distribution and exchange of property, capitalism succeeds in harnessing greed in order to maximize its effectiveness. In other words, greed is the fuel that energizes the system. Ayn Rand, the most virulent defender of capitalism, simply put it this way: greed is good.

Adam Smith, one of capitalism’s earliest and most eloquent defenders, argued that when individuals are allowed to compete against one another and pursue their private self-interest, everyone’s interests are advanced by means of an “invisible hand.” For example, if two businesses are in competition, then the business that manufactures the best product for the lowest price will prevail. In this way, everyone is motivated to excel, and progress in the production of wealth seems almost guaranteed.

The Veil Slips

But with economic turmoil engulfing the world where millions of people are being thrown out of work through no wrongdoing on their own part and where homelessness and hunger are on the rise, the arguments in support of capitalism begin to lose their compelling force. As the crisis deepens, faith in capitalism will be dragged down faster than the value of a worker’s 401k. And what was considered virtuous in the past will become the vice of the future.

For example, let us consider the role of individual self-interest and greed in the current crisis. The subprime loan debacle offers an instructive example. Financial institutions engaged in a frenzied flurry of brokering loans to people who wanted to buy a house but had bad or no credit. The loans were manipulated to entice the unsuspecting house buyer by originally pegging interest rates low, but, disguised by the fine print, jumping to much higher rates a few years later. Many homebuyers were consequently duped after all, we are not taught how to buy a house in school and put down their money only to discover not long afterwards that they could not afford the payments.

One might assume it was not in the financial institutions’ interests to negotiate loans that would certainly fail, but the opposite was in fact the case. Lenders were often rewarded with handsome bonuses in relation to the quantity of loans they brokered, not their quality. Moreover, these loans were routinely bundled together and sold to unsuspecting investors who had no idea what they were buying. The original lenders scored a quick profit and left the investors holding toxic bundles. It was all about greed and self-interest.

But the pursuit of naked self-interest, regardless of the misery inflicted on others in the process, surely does not represent an anomaly in capitalist society. Capitalist enterprises that are connected with fossil fuels are choosing to destroy the planet rather than curb their pollution. Clean operations cost money, and these companies would rather protect their profit margins than protect the environment. Automobile industries have vigorously lobbied against higher fuel standards, coal companies have invested millions in advertising in an attempt to convince the U.S. public to believe in the fantasy of “clean coal,” and oil companies, in a similar campaign, have tried to convince us that they are on the cutting edge of clean energy, while all of them are accelerating the destruction of the planet through the intensification of global warming. They have all carefully crafted policies in the self-interest of their particular company, and they have been willing to sacrifice everyone else’s interests in the process. This is business as usual for capitalism.

In a recent New York Times op-ed article (December 16, 2008), Thomas Friedman, in a fit of exasperation, vilified the toxic lenders, and concluded:

The Madoff affair is the cherry on top of a national breakdown in financial propriety, regulations and common sense. Which is why we don’t just need a financial bailout; we need an ethical bailout. We need to re-establish the core balance between our markets, ethics and regulations. I don’t want to kill the animal spirits that necessarily drive capitalism – but I don’t want to be eaten by them either.

But isn’t this rather like asking wolves to become sheep? Capitalism is driven by a basic set of rules, and if you do not adopt the rules, you do not survive. Accordingly, ruthless competition in the business world is a virtue. Selling products to people without warning them of their potential flaws, even fatal flaws, is simply good business sense. On the other hand, hiring people who are nice and desperately in need of work, regardless of their abilities, is a vice because, if such policies become the norm, the company will collapse under the weight of incompetence.

Morality isn’t something that is suspended in midair — always waiting for us if we tire of acting selfishly. Morality is nurtured by, and is inseparable from, the social structures we operate in, as Philip Zimbardo’s famous Stanford prison experiment illustrated. It showed that when people are placed in relations of vastly unequal power – some were assigned the role of prison guards while others the role of prisoners – individuals who are otherwise good, decent people will turn sadistic. Our morality is molded by the structures that surround us, and today these structures are defined overwhelming by market relations with their own agenda: profits are the highest good.

These market relations are not just a side-show in our society; they radiate from the economy and penetrate almost every sphere, particularly the political. Corporate America routinely gives huge sums of money to politicians. Does anyone really believe corporations would engage in this practice if they did not get a return on their investment? That is why, when Friedman states, “We need to re-establish the core balance between our markets, ethics and regulations,” one can only wonder, whom is he addressing? If he is directing this plea to the working class, we should point out that our concerns have never constituted a political priority. If he is addressing corporate America, Friedman should be informed they do not care about ethics except in rare cases when ethics and profits coincide. And if he has the politicians in mind, then the question should be redirected back to the corporations, their handlers.

Ben Stein, economic writer for The New York Times, paused after losing considerable wealth in the current economic meltdown and offered these musings in his December 28, 2008 column: “We are more than our investments… We are what we do for charity. We are how we treat our family and friends. We are how we treat our dogs and cats. We are what we do for our community and nation. If you had $100 million or $100,000 a year ago and now you have a lot less, you are still the same person.” In other words, he rightly concluded that family and community have real value, as opposed to the acquisition of meaningless things. Unfortunately, this insight only rises to consciousness when capitalism breaks down, and a lull interrupts the frenetic race for profits. As soon as capitalism revs up again, this insight is submerged and we are back to the routine of equating morality with money, offering our greatest respect to those with the greatest wealth and the most expensive cars.

The Problem

People are a social species. We need each other, not only to satisfy our basic physical needs, but also to satisfy our deep-seated psychological needs. We need to be appreciated, loved, and enjoy the pleasures of friendship. Capitalism, however, directs people to look to the accumulation of wealth as the highest good so that each of us competes against the others for “success.”

While some material wealth is obviously necessary for survival and for a comfortable life, when wealth is promoted to the supreme good — when people are valued on the basis of their income and not on the content of their character – then human needs become subordinated to the accumulation of material things. Genuine needs are forsaken for artificial substitutes. Once people accept this premise, then they embark on a lonely, futile road. When the accumulation of wealth proves unfulfilling, then these unwitting victims pursue even more wealth, but fulfillment and satisfaction always seem to recede to a more distant horizon. In short, they become more like drug addicts, always identifying happiness with a bigger fix, but becoming progressively more miserable in the process.

Capitalism has placed us at a crossroads in history. Our planet can no longer sustain the hyper consumption that this economic system encourages. 70 percent of the U.S. economy has been dependent on consumption; without it, we slip into a recession. When there is a national disaster, we are encouraged to go shopping. Meanwhile, the environment is breaking down. If these tendencies are not checked, it will suffer irreversible damage.

We are not greedy to the core; greed is not the origin of capitalism but to a large part its effect. People are placed in structures in which greed and selfishness are rewarded. Hedge fund operators have walked away with tens of millions, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars, and then successfully used their wealth to lobby Washington for low taxes. Meanwhile, teachers who are dedicated to helping everyone achieve their full potential must struggle to get by. Artists who want to make our world more beautiful, and us happier in the process, must struggle to get by. Hard-working maids and janitors must struggle to get by. People who do not like to compete but just want to do a good job must struggle to get by. But those who are only dedicated to money and themselves can indulge in every imaginable luxury.

If the environment were healthy and the rest of us had plenty, who would care? These money-obsessed fanatics could be dismissed as immature, self-absorbed and self-indulgent degenerates. But the irrationality and injustice becomes intolerable when this rapacious greed implies that millions of others will not have their basic needs met and the environment will be destroyed.

The Solution

Socialism is predicated on the premise that in order for society to operate in the interests of the majority, everyone must have both a voice and vote in democratically determining its direction. Instead of the economy being owned by a wealthy elite who run it entirely in their own interests while impoverishing billions of people around the world and destroying the environment, it would be placed in public hands. And its basic operating framework would then be determined by a public discussion, with all the relevant information available, followed by a debate and vote. In this way, the economy could be steered onto an entirely rational foundation so that its ability to serve the interests of ALL members of society would be maximized coupled with the recognition that our collective interests can only be served when the environment, which nurtures and sustains us, is healthy and vibrant.

Such a revolutionary transformation would represent a tremendous moral advance for humanity: the impulses of individual self-interest and greed would be replaced by a conscious commitment to defend the interests of everyone. Instead of the weak and frail being cast by the wayside to fend for themselves, society would redouble its efforts to ensure that their needs, too, were properly addressed. Instead of living by the uninspiring dictum, “Everyone for him or herself,” we would embrace the principle, “An injury to one is an injury to all” because, in the final analysis, the well-being of each individual is bound by millions of invisible threads to the well-being of all others.

Conclusion

The stakes are high. The U.S. working class will be reevaluating everything in these next years, and in particular the nature of the capitalist economy which runs most efficiently when wages and benefits are at rock bottom, or when workers can be replaced by machines and when unemployment is high. Although workers might not succeed in overthrowing capitalism during this profound economic crisis, their consciousness will emerge transformed. Capitalism will never again enjoy their unquestioning loyalty. If this crisis does not prove to be the end of capitalism, it will be the beginning of the end.