This is my understanding of spirituality.  Perhaps I have not expressed it as eloquently, but interrelated with the acquisition of certain spiritual principles, must come the acquisition of certain political principles.  Our struggle for justice is as much a human struggle as anything else, but our real world existence is as much a spiritual reality as anything else.  Politics, not of the electoral type, but of the principled type, is our method of struggling for justice, and should never be ignored in our quest for spiritual understanding.

Ometeotl

In Spanish, Che’s words refer to the revolution and not the revolutionary. He
states that a revolution either is victorious or it fails. It does not refer to
the revolutionary.

Vladimir Illich Lenin once wrote that it is easy to be a revolutionary at the
time of the revolution. That is, when social, economic and political crises,
create social movements capable of toppling old systems, creating new visions of
just societies, establishing new political directions and begin transforming the
old, then many segments of the population are pushed into action. So it is easy
to be a revolutionary at the time of the revolution.

In our times, we saw it during the 2006 marches for immigrant rights. Before
the powerful flow of the masses defending their rights, many who previously did
not stand up for immigrant rights were at the front of the march or declared
defenders of the rights of immigrants. Many may have become honest activist for
the moment or for the long-haul. Only their actions in the time will be
indicative of their commitment to profound societal changes. Yes, it is easy to
defend positions and sectors when these have risen to protect their rights and
move for change. It is easy to be a revolutionary at the time of the revolution.

Lenin pointed out that the true revolutionary is one that upholds revolutionary
principles, works to advance revolutionary organization and presses on for
profound changes even when social conditions are difficult, social movements
have receded to the foreground and political repression is the order of the day.
It is under non-revolutionary conditions that the beliefs and practice of
revolutionaries are tested. It is here where a revolutionary is truly
distinguished from non-revolutionaries.

Otherwise, we may be confused by momentary reformers or even, opportunists. And
most seriously, we would dismiss the valuable contribution of so many who have
lost their lives or sacrificed personal comfort in the name of revolutionary
change.

Che said of a revolution, though not of a revolutionary, that as a necessary condition, you will triumph or die, if it is a true revolution.

It made me wonder whether a revolutionary can exist outside of a revolution. Can a revolutionary, one who does those things that I describe, truly be a revolutionary if he does not win or if he does not die?

It is really a philosophical question, the outside practical necessities of everyday life, but so are half of my thoughts.

I supposed a revolutionary can exist outside of a revolution. Baseball players exist outside of baseball parks, judges outside of courtrooms, etc.

Then I wonder if Che’s words were simply encouaging rhetoric. He was writing to Fidel, who had triumphed, and he was moving on to a battlefield, when many wondered why he should.

I looked up the etymology of revolution. It comes from revolve, as in planets, as in Copernicus.

I then think of this thing evolution, which is, perhaps like revolution, but it takes longer.

Then I remember that I have to go to work.

But before I get up to leave, I remembered that Che’s words were in Spanish, “en una revolucion se triumfa or se muere, si es verdadera.” So then I wonder. Is he speaking about the revolution or the revolution who must triumph or die. Kind of ambiguous, but it seems more that he is speaking of the people or revolutionary who must triumph or die.

No profound revelation today, just a few disjointed thoughts.

In 2009 I wrote a piece about how at some foreseeable future, the right of the people to rule could be dismantled by other forms of power, simply due to a shift in perception over what constitutes legitimate authority. We will recall that the Catholic Church exercised control over many countries. For centuries, the only thing that maintained the Church’s authority over these different countries was its moral authority.

Kings paid loyalty to the Church and obeyed the Church for little other reason than because it was seen as the moral authority. The Church’s place in society was eventually displaced by two important shifts.

First there was revolution in thinking that the civil government, and not the church, had the right to govern. Secondly, there was a shift in power in that sovereign governments eventually became militarily and economically powerful enough to no longer need the blessing of the Church.

I bring this up to give some frame of reference for the rest of my argument. If the Church controlled a large section of the world simply because it had the moral authority to do so, and if its power was displaced by a force that had simply become more powerful, it may be possible to displace democracy with the same formula, a formula which already exists in many ways.

When I wrote the piece originally in 2009 my point was that about ten years earlier corporations had already began disregarding certain laws enacted by the people. In 1998, Citigroup and Traveler’s, for example, announced that they were merging, contrary to existing laws. The companies made the announcement, expecting that they could change the laws quickly enough to accommodate their merger. They were right. The Glass-Steagall Act was repealed the following year, which, by the way, was the first step toward our current financial crisis.

Since then, however, there have been more troubling developments. The Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United v F.E.C. decided that corporations had the same right to political speech as any human being, and that they could use an unlimited amount of money to produce political propaganda.

The threat to the country’s power, even militarily, has become clearer since then, as reports and even popular Hollywood movies continue to expose the point that private military contractors have relatively similar or superior tactical combat capabilities as the US. Their private mercenaries are better paid than even US military personnel. Today, private space tourism is a reality as NASA is being defunded.

In the United States the same formula that led to the decline of the Church’s authority is already in place. This time, however, democracy’s, not the Church’s, unquestionable moral authority is in a vulnerable place. I do not believe that in our lifetime we will see a cabal of CEOs formally seize power and occupy the White House.

Instead, I believe that the formula is in place in which a democratic government might just become less relevant and may simply, albeit slowly, be surpassed in power and influence. It is foreseeable that one day, a corporation whose interest is threatened, need not appeal to Congress for an invasion of a foreign power, but may simply send its own private army. Democratic government will continue to exist, just as the Holy Church exists. It may become optional, something to do on Sundays, something to ask others if it’s something that they believe in. The people and Democracy may still even be influential in elections, just as the Church is.

I don’t believe that there is a conspiracy by corporate America to formally seize governmental power, even though corporate America has been very vocal about diminishing it. I do believe, though, that the conditions to diminish Democracy in favor of corporate rule are increasingly being developed. A shift in relevancy and power has already occurred. The only force that can reverse the trend is the will of the people.

Also damning is a recent report by the Pew Hispanic Center which reports that more Latino children live in poverty than do white children, despite the significant difference in the total population count. Over six million Latino children in the United States live in poverty today.

One recent statistical bright spot, however, is also cause for pause. Latino college enrollment rates spiked significantly from 2009 to 2010. College education has always been an important vehicle in this society for upward economic mobility. A college education will serve the graduates very well. More power to them.

However, the benefits largely are individual and do little to alleviate the greater problems that the community faces. We simply can’t study our way out of this community problem. The model that the white community has used for generations simply will not work for us as a community. For generations, the white community has sent their children to college, which leads to a career and a family. It works for them because they have a much greater base of wealth in their community.

If we emulate this pattern without implementing any collective efforts to uplift our community, we will only produce a class of Latinos which will effectively be isolated from the bulk of our people, with little interest in the community’s well being. Some of this has already taken root, as policy initiatives like the Dream Act favor granting residency to college graduates before “regular” working class people.

Our success as a group is directly related to our ability and will to work together. What we need is group empowerment. Our most important first strategy in seeking this empowerment is support for mechanisms that can and do support empowerment in the community. Advocacy groups, conscientious small businesses, alternative media, mutual aid societies, progressive houses of worship all have the ability to help empower our community as whole because, by nature, they are collective enterprises.

Too often people are turned off by my direct discussion of race. People prefer to see our problems as something different than a racial issue. Some see it as exclusively a class issue. Some simply don’t like defining ourselves via race or ethnicity. In reality, until the statistics suggest that we do not constitute more than half of all felons, and that we do not have more poor children than any other group, it is nothing less than a racial problem…like it or not. The disparity is too great to call it anything else.

Our goal as individuals should be to support the mechanisms of power that, apart from having the ability to help our community, actually do so. Join the community organizations, spend at those businesses that give something back, pray with those who empower, and most importantly, tell others to do so. These are our first steps.

Chris Matthews

For those who know me, it is simply too expected to say that the war undesirable. It is an easy position to take, now that the majority of the country is beginning to see the cost of war. Perhaps, though, therein lays the heart of the issue.

When a country wages aggressive war at any cost, except any cost to itself, that country is an aggressor country. When that country begins to have success at these efforts, it becomes an imperialist country. When these efforts begin to finally bore the country, that country finally becomes an empire.

It was first in 2005 when I heard a columnist from a major publication call the United States an empire. Writing in Newsweek, Anna Quindlen wrote, “The most unattractive trait of the American empire is American arrogance, which the president embodies and which this war elevated.”

I’ll admit that finding relevant material for this column is more difficult than I expected. Under the world section of popular news sites, there is mention of seven US and NATO soldiers who died. On the “Top” news sections, however, there is no mention of it. There are, instead, stories on teen-star Miranda Cosgrove and Tiger Woods’ defeat.

All empires throughout history have failed…all of them. While the results of the US economic crisis will require that the US pull out of the Middle East, it is the attitude and the reason behind the inevitable pull out that should be most telling.

Spain pulled out of Mexico because it was no longer lucrative to maintain control. Britain pulled out of the US because keeping a colony was no longer lucrative. France pulled out of Asia for generally the same reasons. They all swam out in a pool of their own blood.

At the time that these empires were forced out of their victims’ countries, they were among the most powerful countries on the planet. It was their greed which led to their downfall. Their citizens cared little about the destruction that their troops caused abroad. They cared little about the fact that their victims were treated and classified as animals. They were simply too busy and well-fed. Perhaps, a little like us.

This country had its roots in aggression. In the beginning, it stole most of what it counted among its assets. It became imperialistic as it took more and more land, and now finally, as its people become too bored to worry about the destruction its troops cause abroad, it is an empire.

This war has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people on the other side of the world. These are people who had nothing to do with the events of September 11^{th or the non-existent nuclear weapons in Iraq. Even so, the US refuses to be bothered with counting certain civilian deaths that it causes, such as those caused by remote-controlled planes.}

The eventual reason that this country will pull out of the Middle East is not because people like you and I sympathize with the mothers and fathers halfway around the world. Instead, the US will stop bombing because the rich are growing more and more hesitant of spending tax dollars abroad, while the economy is in such a crisis.

While history teaches us that the United States has had a historic tendency toward imperialism, it is periods like today, when the people begin to awaken. Our souls begin to search for something more basic, something more human. As many of us begin to settle into our new post-crisis life, it is my hope that the human values which we are forming, will begin to project on the policies that govern the country.

The dangerous portion of frustration is that, unlike many other emotions, frustration is one hundred percent unsustainable.  Frustration causes people to act in order to satisfy their need or their desire.  The other dangerous truth about frustration is that it is growing internationally and domestically on both sides of the political spectrum.  In fact, the last time that this country possessed this much frustration, I believe, was the early part of the Civil Rights era.  The Civil Rights Movement actually tried to promote public policies which would alleviate the frustrations of the people.  When the movement could not deliver the people from the frustration, frustration turned into anger, and an era of violence opened up.

I am not old enough to remember the Civil Rights era, nor the frustration that accompanied it.  I can only compare frustration levels by my understanding of history.  I remember clearly the national tumult caused by the Rodney King riots, which was restricted to one city for a few days.  I could not imagine living through the assassination of Martin Luther King, during which one hundred ten cities rioted.  This is an experience which my generation still cannot comprehend. 

However, some of the same social ingredients which led to the violent atmosphere after the Civil Rights Movement are beginning to repeat themselves in today’s atmosphere.

Frustration On Both Sides

The base of the Democratic Party is now extremely disappointed in the lack of the Obama administration’s ability to deliver on key reforms he promised.  Immigration and education are top of mind in our community, but hardly anyone was pleased with the outcome of healthcare reform.  At the same time, ardent anti-Mexican bigots have, at least in their minds, been unable to advance their Arizona-like enforcement measures in certain, key states.  It does not matter to these people that Obama has succeeded in deporting more people that Bush did.  With frustration, it is the emotion of having an unmet desire that lays the groundwork for anger.  This profile of people are also frustrated because their jobs are not producing what they used to, if they have employment at all.  They look for somone to blame. Frustration, at times, has less to do with facts than with feelings.  Similarly, before the Civil Rights era, people on both sides of the argument had unmet needs.

International Frustration

Before the social movement in the United States, many progressive movements internationally turned to violence to attain their objectives of decolonization.  China, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea and many lesser successful revolts began to spring up all over the planet.  Today, politically frustrated folks look at countries like Egypt, Tunisia and Syria and see that the people are no longer willing to put up with unresponsive, oppressive regimes.

Strategies

Before the people began to openly advocate for and execute an armed strategy for self-defense in the late sixties, the people went through almost an entire decade of an organized, vocal strategy of mounting protests, rallies, then alternative parties and direct action.  Today’s movement for human rights for the so-called Latino people has been active for more than a decade, though the majority of the people did not start becoming involved until roughly 2005.  Groups all over the country are rethinking their strategies of placing the majority of their efforts toward mass rallies.  I do not believe that the people are on the brink of violence, but I fully believe that we are entering a new phase in which we are looking for new strategies to emerge.  Like the sixties, there will be a buffer period in which newer strategies are attempted.  Perhaps like the sixties, we will try alternative parties, direct actions and organized boycotts.  But in the end, if the people are not satisfied, frustration naturally leads to anger.  And what else would you expect of a husband and oldest son who are ripped from their family for a simple traffic violation?

I return to the idea that part of the power of frustration is the fact that it acts as a warning alarm.  If the powers that be do not hear the alarm, it will be to their own detriment.

In economic terms, the wages of many Americans working in the private sector represent a “market failure” of massive proportions. Even the most devout of free-marketeers — economists like Alan Greenspan and the late Milton Friedman — agree that it’s appropriate and necessary for government to intervene in the case of those failures (they believe it’s the only time such “meddling” is appropriate)…But a common fallacy is that wages are determined by market forces. They’re not, for a variety of reasons that require more explanation than space permits. I’ll focus on two: what economists call “information asymmetries” and coercion. Both are anathema to a functional free market, and both exist today, in abundance, in the American workplace.

I like original arguments, and I critique only to strengthen these arguments. The idea that coercion is used in the negotiation of labor is very insightful. Brilliant. Coercion is economic philosophy, but the practical theory is found in contract law. Of course, I have always known of the disadvantage of having rent on your back when you need a job, but I had never thought to consider it through the prism of contract law, or economic philosophy as you seem to do here. From the little that I know about contract law, this could be called “duress” in certain circumstances. The worker has to eat and keep shelter over his head, resulting in a great amount of duress should he not accept the offer to work. A contract signed under duress is often voidable. This duress argument might not apply if there are other market alternatives to the choice of employment. However, in the grand scheme of things, this duress argument might provide a greater theoretical framework for socializing all basic needs, rather than as an argument as to the efficacy of labor unions. So the worker is under duress from his need to eat? How does a labor union remove the existing duress?

As far as the asymmetrical information argument…I guess I have a couple of thoughts. On the one hand, I don’t know that workers are really that uninformed about their own product (labor). I understand that jornaleros (day laboreres) here in Houston, mostly charge $80 per day, sometimes $50 under specfic circumstances. It is true that many workers of all stripes are unaware of their rights, but I think most understand what price their labor will fetch. Perhaps if you detailed out the asymmetrical information argument and applied it specifically to worker’s rights (as opposed to only the price for labor) I might be more agreeable.

On the otherhand, the mortgage market collapse nakedly showed what an asymetry of information could do to collapse markets. A pool of overly informed suppliers of mortgages sold to a dismally uninformed pool of buyers (borrowers). The borrower’s lack of familiarity with product features led to the collapse of the market. The analogy is not exact, but perhaps still useful. In the mortgage market, the buyers were uninformed. In the labor market, the seller (of labor) is uniformed. Perhaps providing some examples in which uniformed sellers have collapsed market might bolster your argument.

I reiterate that your take on duress in the sale of labor, viewed through the prism of economic philosophy, is one that I won’t soon forget. I hope to develop the view through the practical applicaion of contract law.

The university upholds diversity throughout different courses of study as a goal, and sometimes chooses minority students in certain areas of study to help meet this goal. This is important to understand. Diversity is an intrinsic goal or value that the university is pursuing, among others. The court upheld the practice of using race as one of many factors in university admissions.

White activists quickly spoke out, and I was asked to debate a critic of the court’s decision on a local news radio station. Essentially, the critic suggested that we should try to be colorblind in the admission process. I quickly countered that we could not be colorblind without being outright blind. I was armed with statistics.

Funding
Helms Elementary is a predominately Latino school in HISD. Poe Elementary is one of the whitest elementary schools in HISD. In fact, Poe had a white majority until last academic year.

The difference in funding between this Latino school and this white school is outrageous. In 2010 Helms got $30,000 from the HISD magnet budget, whereas Poe got $387,975. Only a completely blind people could overlook the disparity in funding and the implications that it has on racial equity in education. Some people might want to be colorblind, but none of us wish to be completely blind.

It is important to note that this difference in funding is within the same district. The difference in funding between rich, white districts and poor, minority school districts is even more staggering.

Top-ten percent policy
There is also the issue of automatic admission for the top-ten percent of high school graduates. Statistics seem to indicate that this policy has increased minority enrollment at UT. However, the results have produced a cluster of minority students in social sciences, but the policy has not produced an adequate number of minorities in the areas of hard science and business.

Critics say that the top-ten percent admission policy is a colorblind solution to the problem of minority enrollment. However, it does not produce a sufficient amount of minority students in select course areas, and the university continues to fall flat in its goal of academic diversity. This answers the critics’ complaints that poor, white students should be given a leg up too. Whites are over-represented in select areas of study, despite the top-ten percent policy. In this case, affirmative action attempts to patch a hole that the top-ten policy does not address.

Constitution
As conservatives complain that affirmative action is not in keeping with the constitution, we should also look toward the constitution. The constitution will continue to be almost irrelevant to our community, as long as the document does not address the rights and needs of nations (minorities) in the United States. Legislators have gone through great pains to ensure that any rights granted in the document be granted only to the individual. A movement that will address group rights is far over due. One such right would be dollar for dollar equality between whites and minorities. Such a policy would have had a far greater impact on quality of education than did integration.

In sum
Traditionally, supporters have defended affirmative action by speaking about historical injustices aimed at people of color. Indeed, the recent court decision repeated the refrain that such affirmative action policies need not be extended for more than twenty five years, ostensibly due to the belief that the historical injustices would then be erased.

Again, let us not be blinded by such arguments. Affirmative action is not only necessary because my grandfather was required to attend the Mexican-only school in South Texas. Affirmative action is necessary TODAY because TODAY’S Mexican schools receive only a fraction of the funding that white schools do. When group rights are recognized through self-determination, and when funding is totally equalized, we will then see disparities disappear. At that point, affirmative action will be unnecessary and irrelevant. I pray for this to happen within twenty-five years.

It will not be time, but rather social conditions and funding policies that will dictate the end of affirmative action.

Besides the lack of personal efficacy in such work, many worry about continuing to empower the very system, and sometimes the very same corporations, which have historically contributed to the theft of Mexican land, the invasion of Central American countries and slavery.  Historically speaking, corporate America has disempowered minorities through systematic discrimination, loan usury and deception.

Less dependence

Self employment may not be a permanent or final solution to our community’s problems, but it creates less dependence on the above-described system.  As wise men have taught for years, dependence is control.  Texts as varied as the ancient Bible to the very modern 48 Laws of Power describe how creating dependence is simply a form of control.  Self employment via small businesses and professional services, offers individuals a way to avoid having many aspects of their lives controlled by a system that many times acts contrary to their own and their community’s interests.  It also acts to create a pool of individuals who have the position to protest and to rebel without being overly concerned that their livelihoods will be destroyed.

Values

Further we are at a time in which our community is facing a crisis of values.  Those in the middle class quickly get caught up in the materialism revered by a middle class lifestyle, and children of working class too often follow the path taught to them by a hyped up prison culture, which is targeted to them.  Communal, neighborly all-for-one values have all but disappeared.  Small business, by nature, requires certain values, which I believe our community sorely needs more of.  Small business people, in these times, are required to make the best decisions with their money, as opposed to spending it to keep up appearances.  Additionally, small business people are required to be team builders, and we need teams of closely knit people in our barrios.  Finally, you will hardly find a successful small business person without a tremendous work ethic, which is required during this time of Our Restoration.  These values can be found in all places, but many are prerequisites to have a successful business, and I have met many self-employed visit who exhibit these values and who have developed them through their businesses.

Socialization

Perhaps most importantly, is the public role that so-called Latino entrepreneurs play.  Small business people can wield a great deal of influence in the socialization process.  I have said over and over, that the path of success for our people does not lie in assimilation.  The most commercially successful immigrant group to the Americas has been the American Anglo.  He has been in these lands for almost four hundred years, and he has still refused to learn the Native language!  Not despite this, but rather because of this and other factors, he has been able to commercially dominate all others.  On a subconscious level, the work environment plays a great role in how our people think, behave and even if we value our own culture.  We spend more time at work than we do with our own family.  Work environments can either be a vehicle of assimilation or a vehicle in which we learn to respect and admire the idea of investing in our own community by valuing and practicing our own culture.

By no means do I intend to glorify all small business owners.  There are many small business owners, consumed with greed and their own success, who have ripped many people off.  Some small business owners fail to pay their workers adequately or at all.  The point that I am making is that our community has the oportunity to devise an intelligent way to use self employment for our communal improvement and for individual success.  It is one of the rare ways in which we may both improve our own individual standing and help to improve our community, when too often these interests are competitive.