The Role of Non-Violence in a Society Without Recourse

Observing the alarming brokenness of our democratic system, it is growing increasingly harder to imagine true systemic justice, ever emerging out of any legal, current democratic recourse.  I believe I have some unique questions to discuss here, but I will begin with a quick bulleted preface, to give context to my analysis.

Whether we identify our government's obsolescence in empirical and documented failures:
-the direct influence of the free market on all branches of all levels of government i.e. revolving door, lobbyists, citizens united court decision (to cite a fairly current nail in the coffin)
-current inability to a pass a federal budget
-the pressure of multinational corporate intrests on our government
-the sequester
-2011 and 2012 National Defense Authorization Act
etc...
...Or documented cultural aberrations:
-nearly 50 million Americans living in poverty, 16% of the population, 20% among children according to November 2012 census statistics.
-skyrocketing unregulated costs of healthcare which is limiting access and bankrupting our budget
-the current financial infrastructure of the banks elevating themselves to a level of criminal immunity
-4,700 estimated civilians killed by drones. (that the government admits to)
-sustaining decade plus long wars on unidentified enemies
etc...
...Or documented political aberrations
-the 2012 election "voter ID" laws proposed
-"jerrymandering"
-time wasted in congress on reactionary and racist endeavors: attempted repealing Voter's Rights Act, stalling of Hurricane Sandy disaster relief (just to name a few brazen recent occurrences, etc..)
-blocking of third party debates from official presidential election discourse
etc...
...And all the other moral, philosophical, socio-economic catastrophes that could comprise hundreds of volumes of writing, taking all that into account,  can we not agree as a people that our situation is untenable?

Proving that proposition is not the aim of this article.  If, after careful observation of their social environment, the reader feels that the status quo, or some kind of purer adherence to a freer free market capitalism and more American style democracy as such, is the answer to our current national and global crisis, then we have little context for discussion.  My goal, here, is to pose questions about how truly the public wants change, and to examine approaches to extensive and fundamental political and economic rearrangement.

The current state of affairs that we have in America, beyond being untenable, seems to be unfixable within the current governmental structure. So what recourse does this nation have to stem the explosion of the complex crisis, just beginning to emerge?  Outside of democratic recourse lies a chaotic morass of interests and methodologies.  The shortcomings of the Occupy movement highlight this point.  Do we, as a population, even recognize the extent of the crisis before us and the destruction we sustain by participating in its reproduction?  Or would we identify fundamental and dramatic political and economic restructuring as unnecessary and not worth its risks?  What would a non violent transition of power and political paradigm look like?

In response to these questions and challenges, I would humbly suggest one small element of perspective.  Love, that which harnesses empathy and action, is the guiding force of successful revolution.  Radical love (and all true love is radical) that compels justice, is the ethos of true change.  Love, which always recognizes human dignity as the pivot of justice, this is the objectivity that demands revolution.  The will to power is subjective.  Love, in this sense, is objective.  Despite countless attempts to mechanize love as a rationale for oppression and condemnation, it remains a universally identifiable phenomenon, its antithesis equally universally identifiable.  Thus a true revolutionary spirit demands a justice springing from love.  While righteous anger has its role in mobilizing action and challenging injustice, it is philosophically static.  Compassion and empathy is procreative.   A subjugation of the weak by the strong, overturned by a subjugation of the strong by the weak  results in the same inequity.  The methodology and goal of a true revolution must respect the dignity of life, even in those who exploit and oppress.  But where is the role of the tradition of non-violence in a society whose population is often without shame, attention span, context, or empathy?  Where is the role of nonviolence in a global community governed by banks and their political organs?  Gandhi shamed the British out of their colonization of India because the philosophical tide of the world was on the side of independence.  Who is there to shame the exploitation and violence of our government to, when the rest of the industrialized world is on the same system?

I present these thoughts not because I have answers but because I have more questions than I have answers to.  I hope to stimulate your thoughts to respond to some of these suggestions and questions in the hopes of greater understanding and future peace and justice.  I would greatly appreciate your comments and discussion.

In Late Capitalism, if Freedom is Deregulation, then Justice is Authoritarian, but the Invisible Hand is Still a Bitchslap

There is a very weird perception that goes on in critiques of the left concerning how its goal is "less freedom" and ultimately authoritarian.  This is not true.  The fluffy construction of a notion of freedom that usually frames these critiques sets the stage for the cookie cutter argument that simply sustains the status quo, while pretending to "take back" a nation that has lost its "moral" moorings. 
Since when did prudent stewardship of our environment become a notion to scoff at?  Only when inserted into the value system of a profit oriented free market does this negative distinction make sense.  Since when did investment in strong public education warrant accusations of indoctrination and wasteful spending? The same can be said for the critiques of welfare, minimum wage increase, bank regulation, corporate tax increase, graduated income tax, demilitarization, universal health care etc... The right is not stupid.  Their ideology is so thoroughly enmeshed with the virtues of the free market (that happens to be currently cannibalizing not only the poor but also the middle class now) that they cannot reconcile an America outside of the parameters of capitalism. What I am getting at here is not a critique of the economic violence or failings of capitalism.  I am attempting to examine it's ideological hold on conservative America in the light of its psychological appeal to the "traditional" American ethics grounded largely in Christianity and individualism.  Max Weber elaborates on this in different fashions in "The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism".  A psychologically symbiotic relationship seems to exist between the traditional religious American right, and the value set of free market economics.
These values seem to relieve the population of what Erich Fromm would refer to as the "burdens of freedom" in his work: "Escape from Freedom".  In submitting to the ideals of capitalism, one can be assured that his labor exploitation is only temporary, because of the promise of upward mobility, reassured by his envy of the upper echelons of society that await him.  And in addition one can also be comforted by the fact that one's labor exploitation places them in a position morally superior to those unemployed or exploited more intensely than himself, (unfortunate groups guaranteed in vast numbers in a free market society).  I do not intend to admonish those who feel this way, but simply to identify the logical agreement, the intersection of values between "traditional" America and the values of the free market. 
From this perspective we can answer the initial question of this article.  It is easily understood how a government attempting to counteract the inevitable injustices of the system, they identify with on a social and psychological level, would be considered an enemy of freedom and authoritarian.  By blaming its injustices on the moral failings of individuals, they are not only freed of their burden of societal responsibility, any value set that would seek to bring justice to disenfranchised, marginalized individuals can be identified as immoral, authoritarian, and against "freedom".  In this sense "freedom" can be defined as the smooth functioning of the system, because any deviation is a breach of unhindered operation of things.  It is from this paradigm that the ideals of the left are authoritarian.