Now, as we ourselves should be, the many "leading voices" on "the left," are generally consistent in their emphasis on a positive outlook for the future; specifically, many suggest that, in spite of mainstream polls which show widespread support for a gun-toting pResident, there is far more grass-roots questioning of elite doctrine than ever before. Chomsky, in particular, says that the pResident of today could never get away with the secret bombing of a Nixon, Kennedy, or Eisenhower.

In some way this is true, in other ways not; and we must be careful that our "positive" outlook not become a short-sighted means of masking over our own unwillingness to look at the naked truth.

Elite power is also more centralized and concentrated than ever before. The face of fascism looks more familiar than it has in a long time. Though the MaCarthyite "witch-hunts" of the 1950's have not yet returned in full swing, neither is the labour movement more than a shadow of its former self. The government is utterly bankrupt, yet permitted to borrow as much money as it needs to buy weapons to protect the company store.

What we see here is more of a spiral of escalating awareness and depravity, (than a linear progress in a single direction): a sharpening of contradictions; and it does not bode well for us to assume that we can keep going on in the same way, when most of what is feeding the grass-roots resistance is the virtually unmitigated advances of the Elite.

Such were the unspoken assumptions of many German anti-fascists in the 1930's -just before they were rounded up into concentration camps, never to return: an entire nation, continent, plunged into the darkness of unprecedented horror.

In the concrete terms of people, associations, and ideas, we don't know where things are going to end up; and there is certainly much room for debate as to whether certain developments represent "positive" or "negative" implications for "the movement."

In this light, we may also be able to look closer and see why the "left leadership" might have an extra incentive in maintaining a certain vision of what that "movement" is.

Before proceeding, it may be helpful to briefly step back and review what we mean by the terms "right" and "left"; for they do serve as the context for what we are talking about; and while some people may think such terms perfectly clear, there are, in fact, almost as many interpretations as there are observers.

In many cases, clear agreement exists on only the most-general of positions, though the desire for a sense of unity appears to be very strong.

Given this, it may be difficult to characterize the "right/left" paradigm accurately, without upsetting some people's sense of identity; and obviously, it's something best articulated through a dialogue involving numerous voices. I can only try here, to present this in as balanced a manner as I know how -in the hopes of stimulating a deeper sense of our common interest in this, our debate, and as a critical understanding of where, (if at all) my presentation of it has gone askew.

Here goes:

In a society/civilization/culture marked by widespread corruption, exploitation, oppression, it seems routine for there to be strident divisions between people, based on skin colour, language, custom, sex, and so on. These divisions are central to keeping "we, the people," from recognizing our common interests, in relation to the relative few who control the means of controlling the many.

One of the principal divisions in our modern era, is that which stands between what is known as the "left" and "right" political spectrums.

Before getting into the specifics of the two "positions," it must be apparent to the sober observer that neither "side" in this debate is absolutely free of blame, imperfection, or the need to grow.

As with practically all disagreements in life, even where one side is far-more at fault/error than another, the relatively-minor "fault" or flaw on the other side still tends to have its critical importance.

Now, in terms of the actual ideas between "right" and "left," it must be clear to the unbiased observer that the "right-wing" perspective is far more wrong than it is right. The "left-wing" perspective is far more considered, thought-out, real.

This is because the "right-wing" ideology is borrowed from a platform of privilege, (i.e. "white," "male," "western," etc.) which resists self-examination; whereas the "left" perspective arises out of a lack of privilege, and cannot escape self-examination -save that it becomes manipulated to resonate with the upper echelons of left/liberal institutions.

The foundation of this "right" privilege is an allegiance, (unconscious or not) to corporate capital, (money).

At the same time, even the colossal crimes of "right-wing" corporations cannot justify a refusal of leftists to look them/our selves in the mirror -to continually re-commit to the opportunity for honesty, growth and learning.

In this, the experience of many "leftists" may be likened to that of being in an abusive relationship; that is, the experience of oppression, deprivation, loneliness, alienation wounds us, weakens us, corrupts our perceptions. The deeper the wound, the more intense the denial; and hence, the greater the tendency for something to weave its influence into our lives.

Even as we struggle to elevate our experience through idealism, community service, (in search of a positive alternative) the emotional ocean we harbour inside ourselves is not so easily contained. The more-honest we are, the more-often our theorems and "solutions" leave us on the edge of a precipice -plunging into ever-deeper realizations of just how inhuman our modern experience really is.

Courage, in this world, means being willing to open our hearts to the more-tender of sorrows.

Not only do we need to be aware that an oppressive social apparatus exists, and that "another world is possible" -we need to continually re-examine how that oppression has affected us -and, more specifically, how we may collude in the continuation of that oppression, even as we think we are struggling against it.

This manifests itself on so many layers and patterns of perception that it would be impossible to adequately describe it here -without going into book-length detail.

Suffice to say: in an abusive relationship, beyond wanting and believing in something better, the victim must be willing to examine whatever beliefs and assumptions that still may exist within them/ourselves, which once allowed us to believe that the situation was acceptable; for unless we do, we will tend to seek out similar relationships with different faces on them; and further, our focus on the other, will interfere with our capacity to bond with our own, creative power, the basis upon which we are ultimately able to transform the relationship, and be "victims" no longer.

In contrast to the daily murders of campesinos in towns and villages around the world, it may seem irrelevant and unfair -that we be asked to go through the emotional pain, again and again, until true healing is at hand; and it's really only as we persevere through it, that we become conscious -of just how deeply connected our internal transformation is to that of the planet, and of humanity as a whole.

In this, we should also be careful not to totally internalize the oppression; for here, we run the risk of drifting off into an isolated, emotional experience fraught with delusion, (often as an extension of privilege).

So long as the oppressive institutions and forces exist in the world, they should continue to be the focus in our efforts for change. We must not confuse the concrete culpability, the criminals at the core of our collective deception, with those who unconsciously collude in their/our own increased pain; we must not lose sight of where the main gears of oppression are housed; yet we must also be careful NOT to separate that outward struggle from our own, internal one; rather, we must grasp the bitterest truth, and recognize in it a vehicle, of our creative transformation, that we may truly change.

If we use the crimes of others to distract our eyes from our own fears, doubts, limitations, then our shortcomings will only surface in other ways, (often in relation to those we are supposedly marching in solidarity with).

It is perhaps especially for those "leftists" who might claim that 'our shortcomings are insignificant compared to theirs' that we attempt to come to a better understanding of them here.

One of the main streams of our realization on "the left" follows from how we treat our colleagues in the struggle against the "right" Elite; and another, is in trying to understand the motivation of those on the "right," the "other side" -especially given the fact that the feelings and beliefs of the people at the grass-roots level of both right and left are usually far-removed from the actions of those in positions of leadership.

That is: the division between "left" and "right" generally corresponds to the division between "we, the people," and the corporate/institutional Elite. When people take a stand as either "left" or "right," we/they generally align ourselves to the forces supporting one side or the other; yet many can and do so unconsciously -in contrast to their/our real social condition, interests; and it is a major motivation of the various Elite institutions to sew confusion along these lines.

Many of you reading this will recognize that there is what we may call the left "facade" of mainstream corporate media, (so-called "liberals") and the "authentic" left: those seriously engaged in a critical evaluation of corporate power, (with whom we still may have disagreements, on this or that issue).

Thus, we see here various levels of "leadership" within each community, of varying degrees of closeness and connection to the grass-roots. This network of interwoven leadership and community constitutes the basic fabric of our political life.

The cherished values of those on "the right," (traditional morality, family, religion, simplicity) are mouthed and manipulated by the very forces which are most responsible for undermining them; that is, corporate capitalism. The leaders on the (mainstream) left," in turn, pay lip service to the notions of "social justice," "human rights," "the environment," etc. in order to win a sympathetic ear amongst its grassroots contingent.

In mainstream politics, the "right-wing" roughly corresponds to the Republican Party, and the "left-wing" to the Democratic Party; yet in actual fact, both parties serve the grass-roots of neither "right" nor "left"; rather, they serve one another, by ensuring that the system of privilege, (in which they each enjoy a big piece of the pie) remains unchallenged.

The "Republicrats" play the card of "hard-ball free-enterprise," "law and order," "back-to-basics morality," and find ample ammo in the corruption of the Democratic party, the meddlesome bureaucracies of big-government, and the apparent increase in violent crime.

The "Demoblicans" find ample ammo in the insane policies of their opponents: the ongoing march to war, the slovenly embrace of corporate welfare, the barely disguised contempt for women, and so on.

Both of these parties are disgustingly corrupt; yet what sustains them both is the illusion amongst the populace that either one represents a real choice from the other.

What most of us would consider to be the authentic left -"led" by such voices as Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Amy Goodman, Michael Albert, publications such as ZNet, The Progressive, Covert Action, and various organizations- are so-thoroughly shut out of the mainstream (corporate) media as to be all but the invisible "left" to much of the American population.

So in discussing the "left/right" schism, we must first be careful to discern between:

Once this is taken into account, we must acknowledge that both sides of this "left/right" division are partly "wrong," and partly "right," although "they" ("we") who are "wrong" or "right" are not so for the same reasons; and it is these distinctions which are critically important for us to discern.

As I believe our review here will show, "western" society is now moving to a point in its historical discourse, where the insights of the "right-wing" grass-roots is beginning to penetrate into the limits of the "left" perspective. Once this is embraced and understood by the grass-roots "left," the grass-roots "right," in turn, shall find itself transformed.

This is only in its' infancy; there is much bridge-building, dialogue, that remains to be established; yet the relentless increase in the concentration of elite power is clearly causing a continual expansion in the grass-roots dis-empowerment on both the left and right, which is bringing about a common recognition of the term, "anti-globalization."

It's also bringing about a common understanding of the term, "conspiracy-theory," which directly pertains to our subject-matter: the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and the response of various "leading" voices on "the left."

Consider this:

One of the fundamental signs of -and challenges to- "success" in democratic movements is the ability to maintain a basis of unity.

Precisely because the strength of democratic culture derives from a respect for diverse opinions and forms of expression, an underlying basis of unity is both, the most critical means of supporting such a dialogue, and the most vulnerable point of contention.

The basis of unity could be described as the reason why people "come together": based on common geography, workplace, or shared social condition, interest, etc.

It provides a focus by which we measure the value of our association, make progress toward a goal, define the contours of conversation, (when to speak or not speak) and so on.

The basis of unity can change. Sometimes it must; yet usually only through struggle; for our need, as individuals, to know where we stand in the midst of an association, is fundamental to that association's continued existence.

In political struggles, we often see that the basis of unity is created in opposition to something else: an exploitative employer, industrial polluter, corrupt politician, etc.

This is largely because, in the modern era of industrial capitalism, the traditional, rural, extended-family ties that have existed since time-immemorial have been rent asunder. In the relative absence of sustained communities, there is little ground upon which to sustain a stable, positive, (creative) basis of unity.

Thus, this "negative" basis of unity is the pre-requisite for the re-creation of more-enduring, sustainable communities; yet until such communities are firmly established, the political associations we form are fragile indeed; for, so long as our unity is based on an intellectual, critical analysis, (an agreement to disagree with others) our internal relations are destined to constantly be undergoing re-examination; and it is for precisely this reason that it's so important for us to maintain a constructive attitude in our criticism of one another's positions.

Given this movement towards stability, the basis of unity in our democratic organizations remains extremely vulnerable to the influence of tyranny, fear, and ignorance.

In contrast to the rigidly-controlled, hierarchical, private tyrannies of a corporate, moneyed, or military kind, the public discourse can be extremely vulnerable to disruption and disarray.

Even well-meaning, (unaware) people can easily de-rail a democratic discussion, simply by not listening to what is being said. Such a dialogue is like a living organism: it breathes by honest expression, and also by voices being heard; it is fed by those who see the line of input, and offer their/our contribution -in order to move it this way or that, while leaving room for others to express and explore their own interpretation. In short, it demands a high sense of social responsibility.

A society's democratic culture, as a whole, has a life-span, a historical line of maturity, just as does a single conversation.

In general, the more-carefully the participants listen to one another, the more-empowered each will be to express themselves; yet in the beginning, the early stages, the quality of the conversation tends to be reduced to the lowest common denominator, to the one least willing to listen and support the overall dialogue.

The contours of the "conversation" are largely constructed around the input of those ("leaders") who most-strongly feel a responsibility to move the discussion, the group consciousness, in a certain direction.

Though our ultimate goal is for ALL people to enjoy a share in the powers of expression and responsibility, we must also recognize that there is an important role for "leaders" to play, along the way.

Thus, the principle question in a "free dialogue" is usually one of control.

There is a constant, ongoing tension, between the input of "leaders," who provide a starting-point, a reference, an impetus -by which other voices are drawn together- and the willingness of those leaders to call upon, invite, and support the input of others.

This "willingness" is ultimately the result of participant's insistence to be heard, (that the "leaders" must listen); and yet, because the "leaders" may be seen to serve a legitimate role, and because the participants may not all feel sufficient confidence to speak, that "insistence" may be insufficiently loud for even the best "leaders" to hear; hence the ongoing tension.

Add to all this, the fact that this occurs within the context of an authoritarian culture.

Here, our commitment to an abundance of empathy, time to listen to others, is daily stabbed in the heart by the heartless demands of the dollar, the time clock, the lords of church and state who rule with an efficiency, almost enviable.

"Law and order" candidates: prolific as cockroaches. The dank odour of fear looms 'round most every headline; and so there is, in the movement for change, an element of suspicion for those who would "lead."

The pages of most history books have been so-thoroughly bleached clean of the bloody crimes committed on "we, the people," that we often don't see the need for such tender discipline, that we may come to even the simplest of agreements.

The grand theft upon which our cultural bankruptcy is based, as yet, has no clear, common name; so neither do our visions yet sound a smooth harmony. (To help clear the air, I recommend Howard Zinn's, "A People's History of the United States").

The history of "the left," (as opposed to "liberalism") is a long one, of brute struggle against seemingly "impossible" odds: illiterate, debt-stricken sharecroppers and factory workers, trying to organize themselves into a union, unarmed, facing the guns of the "company men," spies, vigilantes, the KKK, the "noble church" and state. We can see it in the ranks of peaceful marchers on their way to Montgomery, Alabama, being set on by guard dogs, billy-clubs, and fire hoses. We have the long list of assassinations, our visionaries imprisoned, silenced; and beneath this, (our struggle) we have the often unspoken cancer of racism, sexism, within our own ranks.

We have had to struggle tooth and nail for every victory we could get: and when authorities finally seem to grant an advance in one aspect, they undermine it another; so today, the anti-globalization movement: asking people to make great sacrifices, to face tear gas and riot police, in the name of protesting complex, hard to define issues and forces.

So it is understandable, what with the great difficulty in building and sustaining a grass-roots movement, in the midst of all the forces pitted against it, (with the weight of an enormous propaganda machine bearing down on our minds) that some of those most-dedicated amongst us, (committed to giving a "voice" to this movement) would be extremely sensitive to any speculation which could take our eyes off the already unsteady target.

The 'last thing "we" need,' [many of the leading voices on the left seem to be saying] 'is a lot of "conspiratorial speculation" [about the events of Sept. 11th] 'which only serves to distracts us from the facts which are staring us in the face: the U.S. military, as world's leading "terrorist" organization, the brutal invasion of Afghanistan, and so on.

As already indicated, what may be painfully obvious to informed citizens clearly may not be obvious to a large majority of the population -who apparently do not see in such an analysis, a reason to doubt the need to fight "terrorism."

So while there are advances to be made, in saying no to war and racism,