Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Rocky Times Ahead: Are You Ready?
This isn't a future you can, or should, face alone. How to make sure you don't have to.
"I don't believe the economy is getting better," says Billy R., a member of a mutual aid group in Oregon that he jokingly calls "my reality support group." "All around me I'm surrounded by media and advertising urging me to keep borrowing, buying, and sleepwalking. I love meeting with others who are staring down the potential risks and challenges of the future."
Maybe more of us could use a reality support group.
Even with the announcement that the official unemployment rate fell to 9.4 percent, millions of people remain in dismal economic straits. The pace of home foreclosures has barely slowed and millions remain out of work. Even upbeat scenarios still assume protracted unemployment and economic stagnation for much of the decade ahead. The unspoken scenario is that things could get worse.
Can forming a small group like this really make a difference, when the problems we face seem so overwhelming? History tells us they can.
So here's the point: you must not face the future alone. Find your own "reality support group" (we'll tell you how below). This year, make a resolution to deepen your relationships with people around you with whom you can face what's coming down the pike.
Sometime during the next couple of years, there will likely be a fundamental shift. It might be another economic meltdown along the lines of 2008, or a shock to the economy thanks to a rapid spike in energy costs. It could be a series of extreme weather events that result in flooding, drought, or unprecedented heat waves. Think Hurricane Katrina on a larger scale. These changes could lead to food and water shortages-and test our personal and community preparedness in ways that we have not experienced in our lifetimes.
You should know that we, the authors of this piece, are not apocalyptic, bunker-building, pessimistic people. We're both parents, gardeners, and active in our neighborhoods. We like a good football party-though we root for different teams (Patriots v. Steelers).
We believe our society has almost everything we need to build stronger communities, reduce inequality, live in harmony with the earth, and make a graceful transition to a new sustainable economy. But we won't get there ignoring the data, and we won't get there disconnected from one another.
We're not talking about yet another issue campaign. We certainly need to remain engaged in the good fights around economic justice, peace, democracy, the environment. But there is something huge missing right now in our approach to social change. Our social movements are weak and, with some inspiring exceptions, not changing the political dynamics. The "Net Roots"-online organizing and social media-are creative ways to aggregate money and power in specific situations, but online activism is not a substitute for a movement based on durable and trusting face-to-face relationships. In some religious and labor traditions, this is called solidarity.
Fearful, Alone, & Ashamed
Presently in the United States we are witnessing the emergence of politics based on fear and the erosion of status. Millions of people saw their livelihoods and dreams collapse in the aftermath of the economic meltdown. People lost their homes, jobs, savings, and sense of a positive future. They've had to adjust their expectations-for example, facing the reality that they may never be able to retire or improve their standard of living.
Some people respond to these circumstances by blaming themselves and feeling ashamed about their difficulties. Many are hunkering down, feeling depressed and withdrawn. In the U.S., we tend to think everything is about the individual-even blaming ourselves for things that are largely beyond our control.
Others of us respond by scapegoating others, often those more disadvantaged. These responses often come from a place of fear, isolation, and shame.
There is good reason to be angry and focus on powerful financial and political actors who are responsible. But, as in the grieving process, we must move from anger to a place where we can boldly face today's difficult realities and also initiate pro-active responses. We can start by learning to accept and live within new limits set by economic and ecological reality. Many people are already deliberately moving away from the old economy, and they're finding new types of security and abundance. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they often feel much richer than they did in lives defined by the "work-watch-spend" cycle.
Rebecca Solnit, in her remarkable book A Paradise Built In Hell, reminds us to look for the "shadow governments of kindness," the deep reservoirs of resilience and compassion that emerge during disasters and troubled times. All over the planet, people are defying the stereotypes of the self-centered "economic man" and instead caring for one another, building alternative economies, and deepening solidarity.
A Movement to Build Economic Security
The good news is people are already coming together in small groups to form and strengthen relationships. Some are called "common security clubs," while others go by names like "mutual aid groups," "resilience circles," and "unemployed support groups."
Call it what you want, but the purpose is the same: getting together regularly-8 to 15 adults-to face ecological and economic change. Small group organizing is part of the missing architecture in our social movements ... which may be why it's catching on so quickly.
Such groups are designed to strengthen our personal and community resilience. They typically have three purposes: to learn together, support one another through mutual aid, and engage in social action.
Learn together. It's hard enough for each of us alone to keep up with news about the ways our changing economy and ecology are impacting our lives. But it's particularly challenging to face unsettling realities in isolation. In order to move forward, we need a community to help us learn and figure out how to deal with our fear, anger, loss, and feelings of betrayal.
Group members watch videos, read articles, talk to each other, and organize forums. Since the "experts" mostly got things wrong two years ago, participants are investigating things for themselves. What's really happening in the economy? What caused the economic meltdown? What's changed? What are the ecological risk points? How will the decline of cheap, easy-to-get oil affect the future economy? What will a transition to a new economy look like?
Mutual Aid. Our mutual aid muscles are out of shape. We need to find ways to increase our real economic security and web of support through shared resources, skills, experience, and capacities. Some folks do this through extended families, religious congregations, and ethnic and fraternal associations. But millions of people are disconnected from extended family and the immigrant and civic associations that helped earlier generations survive. And many religious congregations have gotten out of the practice of being centers of mutual aid.
Common security clubs often gather around potlucks, sharing food and recipes for healthy, low-cost meals. They support one another to get out of debt, brainstorm about employment options, share tips on saving money. They form bartering circles to swap skills, tools, and time. They talk about the challenges of parents moving in with children, children moving in with parents-and adjusting to new norms and limits as a result of the changing economy and future.
Social Action. Many of us want to make meaningful change at the local and national level. We want to find ways to constructively channel our anger and fear to resist further Wall Street destruction of our local economies. We want to act together in ways that go beyond online petitions or phone calls to our member of Congress. Think "affinity group" or "social action group"-a place to deepen our effectiveness as a small unit, but be part of larger movements.
Common security clubs in particular have worked for national policy changes, from universal health care and Wall Street financial reform to the extension of unemployment benefits. Many clubs, animated by the "break up with your bank" and "move your money" efforts, relocated personal, congregational, and other funds out of Wall Street, and into community banks and credit unions.
Other clubs have connected with community-wide "transition" efforts, inspired by the Transition Town movement sweeping England and now moving U.S. communities into action. Transition neighborhoods and towns proactively prepare themselves for climate change, economic hardship, and the decline in easy-to-get oil and cheap energy-with its huge implications for transportation, food security, building design, and our standard of living. Within the broader initiatives, small personal groups like common security clubs provide a place where people can meet to practice mutual aid and reciprocity. Both transition towns and common security clubs are integral components of building needed personal and community resilience.
A Few Stories
Encouraging stories are emerging from common security clubs and other mutual aid groups.
A group of unemployed workers in Maine created a resource sharing exchange. They met regularly at the library and laughed so much the librarian didn't believe they were economically struggling.
A group in Greenfield, Massachusetts calls themselves "the neighbors" and meets monthly to check in, sing together, and practice mutual aid. On another night they meet for a monthly game night-what one member called "fun and affordable entertainment."
In Fort Wayne, Indiana, a network of Unemployed and Anxiously Employed Workers meets weekly and has formed committees to help educate one another about computer use, unemployment insurance, stress management in tough times, and green job opportunities. "Part of our work is to help face the unemployment bureaucracy so people get their benefits," said Tom Lewandowski, a founder of the group. They invite people leaving unemployment offices to join the group. Members volunteer at libraries on Sunday afternoons to help unemployed workers file claims online.
Small Groups in Social Movements
Can forming a small group like this really make a difference, when the problems we face seem so overwhelming? History tells us they can. At many crucial moments in our past, small groups have played an essential role in incubating the seeds of great change.
During the Great Depression of the 1930s, more than 27,000 "Share Our Wealth" clubs formed to discuss the causes of the Depression and advocate for a radical program of wealth redistribution.
Also in the 1930s, seniors organized "Townsend Clubs" to advocate for old age pensions-a formidable social movement that added to the pressure to establish Social Security. By 1936, more than 8,000 Townsend Clubs had been formed with over 2 million members. In ten states-including Oregon, Colorado, California, Florida, South Dakota-there were more than 50 clubs per congressional district.
In the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, people formed nonviolent direct action groups to engage in sit-ins and keep up morale. Activists rooted in faith-based congregations and tight-knit communities were able to take greater risks knowing that if they should be jailed (or worse), there were others to care for their children and elders.
The women's movement was built upon small consciousness-raising groups, which enabled millions of women to reflect on their identity. "The personal is political" was experienced in thousands of face-to-face gatherings, ultimately shifting gender attitudes throughout the society. The anti-nuclear movement in the late 1970s formed "affinity groups" as part of direct action efforts to prevent power plants from being built.
In the labor movement, the success of organizing female clerical workers into trade unions depended upon an organizing approach that included small support groups. Large mega-churches have grown upon a foundation of "small group ministry" in which members connect through smaller, face-to-face groups. A growing number of organizers today are examining the "power of networks" in social movements.
Given the challenges we're collectively facing in the present, where are such movements today? It appears that without a lived experience of "solidarity" in our personal lives, it can be difficult to respond to an abstract call for the common good. It may be that small group organizing is central to our hopes for broad-based change.
|
How to Start a |
Potential Shock Points
There is good reason to believe that the next 10 years are going to be very different than the 10 years prior to the 2008 economic meltdown. Persistent unemployment means that millions of people may live out the decade in an economic depression.
Moreover, the underlying economic structures that brought on the collapse have not been addressed. We remain at risk for more financial nosedives. As a result, new Wall Street economic bubbles and busts may emerge. The "danger" light on the dashboard is still flashing...
In fact, the future could bring any number of "shock points": another economic meltdown along the lines of 2008; a further increase in unemployment, even to 20 percent; more extreme weather events (hurricanes, floods, droughts, heat waves); new spikes in the cost of energy; rapid deflation as the value of money falls; a dramatic increase in the cost of food; and/or shortages of fresh water.
Because of the extreme inequalities of income and wealth that have opened up over the last generation, the brunt of these changes is falling, and will continue to fall, most intensely on lower and middle income and disadvantaged folks. But these changes will touch everyone in various ways, even those who believe they have built a wall of economic security around their families.
These are some of the reasons people need to face the future together and strengthen the social fabric of our communities. This is not a future you can, or should, face alone.
The Transition to the New Economy
Eight million jobs in the old economy are not coming back. But new jobs, enterprises, and livelihoods are emerging. We are seeing vibrant new kinds of enterprises in the local food sector, green building, and alternative transportation, as well as locally rooted cooperatives and producers. These are the pieces of a new economy that is emerging piecemeal around the country-an economy based upon entirely different models of economic growth and indicators of community health, and also new conceptions of wealth, community, and governance.
This new economy includes financial institutions invested in the real economy, like community banks and credit unions walled off from the Wall Street speculation that adds no real value to our economy. It includes respect for "all that we share"-our commons of public and private institutions such as libraries, schools, or agricultural knowledge. It is based on sound management and protection of the gifts of nature including water systems, seed banks, and land conservancies.
In the current political moment, leadership for large-scale transition to this new economy will not come from Washington, D.C., but from movements around green jobs, local manufacturing, alternative transportation, regional food, and more. This is a moment for each of us to reflect on our own power and agency. We each have a role to play, but perhaps we aren't sure what it is yet. This is where your small group is important. Small groups help disconnected individuals find their roles, turning them into community players who contribute to the movements toward the new economy.
If we are prepared for a transition, we will be in much better shape than if we simply hope life will somehow return to normal. If we have our "core group," we can face changes with less fear and more sense of our personal agency. Together, we will be able to work toward an economy that works for everyone.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


115 Comments so far
Show AllFearful, Alone, & Ashamed?
Isolation is the tool to dismantle the resistance to power.
Out of this grows our desire to band together.
Let's include EVERYBODY; except FOOLS!
There is no hope for someone with their head in the sand. Heck, include them anyway!
As long as it's a grass roots operation, it's cool. It's the big money that corrupts. (Tea Party come to mind?)
If we don't come together and debate what we know, we are doomed.
The GREED IS GOD mantra of the ruling class has brainwashed Americans into thinking it's every man for himself....
Instead of:
EVERY MAN A KING!
I wish we had one good thug like Huey Long on our side right now!
Unfortunately all the thugs are on the the elites side - while the LEFT has fallen hook, bait and sinker for the Lesser of 2 Evils bullshit.......
The Professional LEFT is DEAD and if not - they are USELESS apologists for the current Kleptocracy
the left is not dead
nor are we useless
ok then - where's the antiwar movement?
where was the protests over the trillions given the banksters or obama's naming of 2 corporate criminals to his white house?
or the tax cuts for the rich?
or the coming cuts to Social Security?
or the lack of help for the long term unemployed?
or the environmental degradation and fight against global warming.....
even Monsanto got their guy in the ag dept - appointed by obama.....
Show me - I need some good news!
Although the authors have a great idea, nearly all the people I know at home and work are blue team fans or red team fans, each of them blaming the other team for the problems we need to overcome.
Until these people start blaming their own team, how can we get them moving in the right direction, proposed by the authors?
Start with not talking about the teams but what each person believes and wants for themselves, their families, their community, state, nation, world's future?
The problems are beyond the political parties and avoiding landmines in discussion seems a start?
We already have what you are recommending in the Obama administration, as well as with all of the existing progressive organizations - being realistic, transcending partisan politics, working together with the other side, finding practical solutions etc., etc.
Again, start by talking about fighting back. Why is that not on the table for you?
How is this "start" when it is the same old approach that has been exhaustively tried for the last 40 years?
Actually you can talk with real life average American Republicans if you avoid jumping to blaming one Party or another and focus on what we agree upon. Nothing about what I said need be construed as triangulating, moderate, or "pragmatism" unless you are playing a game and being purposefully obtuse and avoiding understanding.
But you offer fight in place of building local movement and organizing?
You want the fight without what needs come first.
That's why you are going to be in the same place, because you are spinning your wheels, misdirecting your frustration, and ignoring the only thing that has ever worked.
If you are exhausted, you should rest, TA.
Nonsense. I am not exhausted or frustrated. Nor are we talking about me, no matter how much you may wish to focus people's attention on that distraction. How about you talk about the message, and stop trying to deflect the discussion over to being about the messenger?
I have not disputed that organizing is needed. Upon what basis we organize is at issue here. It is a weak defense of your position - and false and inaccurate - to say that you are advocating organizing and those who disagree with you about the basis for organizing are opposed to organizing. This is a variation on the "at least we are doing something!!!" argument, used to insulate people's proposals from any critical analysis.
There is still no reason to attack people who are beginning to reach out to others and build communities.
Ideas are being questioned, people are not being personally attacked.
Ideas are being questioned, people are not being personally attacked.
Of course not, because you don't know them personally.
You may call it ideas being questioned. I do not.
Make your case. Where did I make any personal attack?
There is an epidemic of this - people getting hurt feelings when their ideas are challenged and they cannot support or defend them, and then, because they have hurt or angry feelings they claim that they are being personally attacked.
If people feel personally attacked merely because their assertions and positions are challenged, that is their problem not anything that critics are doing wrong. By your logic here, all of the criticisms of Obama are personal attacks - because people "don;t know him" and because they hurt the feelings of Obama supporters. We could never criticize anyone or anything.
???????????????? and which Obama Administration would that be?? The one that rolls over everytime a disscussion is mentioned, The one that locked the Repubs out of the Health Care talks? Working with the otherside, you mean the bankster and corporate bailouts with no reforms whatsoever?? Practical solutions like expanding the phony war on terror, More War Crimes, More Civillian Survalance? Removing regulation for Banksters, Oil MegaCorps and Coal Mines? Assisting Companies in Outsourcing?
The Obama Administration I see is basicly a Republician front group, Passing RonnieRayguns trickle down Supply side B/S until the US is a 3rd world Shithole that makes Haiti seem a paradise!
>^^<
Yes, that one.
Of course the Obama administration is a front for Republicans. So are the liberal and progressive organizations.
"At least we are better than the Democrats!" - which is the position of liberals and progressives who are (for the time being) disaffected from the administration and the party - is not significantly different than the Democrats who say "at least we are better than the Republicans!"
Same dance steps, just a different section of the dance floor.
The unofficial policy of the Republican Party is for the USA to be fashioned after Indonesia complete with military dictator. ObomberBush lived in Indonesia while Suharto, the CIA installed dictator there, was President. This unofficial Repubican Party policy is articulated by the 'C' St. Family whose heroes, Hitler, Mussolini, Suharto,Stalin, Pinochet and all the other CIA installed tin horn dictators.It is the unofficial policy that is important, official policy statements are public relations propaganda
A move in the direction indicated in the article started in my community a few years ago. It was much more than people getting together to talk and there are many active programs in all areas, for example, in energy self-sufficiency, organic farming, local banking, transportation, care of elderly and incapacitated, care of the forests and streams, even local currency. Much to the surprise of organizers, many small business Republican-types were among the most enthusiastic. So, it did start moving in the right direction. The problem is when these efforts become successful nationwide (as they must) and seriously impact corporate profits or the desperate grasping of corporations for the remnants of disintegrating empire, there will be no choice but to fight. Then, how will the old red and blue polarity manifest itself? My hope, of course, is that people will come together and fight for what they have built. (That's why we can't put off building it.)
I'm not talking the far future. People worldwide are fighting for their cultures and sovereignty against the corporate steamroller. We are not exempt as will be seen clearly (as it should have been seen clearly already.)
I realize that conditions in my own community are not universally applicable in detail. It is rural and has a tradition of independence and self-sufficiency. It also contains a large community of long-time organizers, but diversity of places and methods is a good thing as long as it is clear what needs to be done and not too much time is spent in looking around and saying, "I wonder if we should do this."
I have to agree with you. The Left is not dead but we got blasted in the 2010 Midterms.
We need to really take this country back from the GOP/Tea Party. Their agenda is very un-progressive and very anti-citizen.
"We" - the Left - are getting blasted by Democrats, progressives and liberals, more so since the election of Obama than we were before that. I suppose before that we were useful to help get Bush and his crowd out of power. I am not sure what complaints liberals and progressives had about Bush, since the Obama administration has pursued the same agenda. Yet the criticism, interest and participation is not 1/100th of what it was when Bush was in office.
The Left did not get blasted in the mid-term elections. We were not on the ballot, and even if we had been we have no access to media.
The McCarthy purges were very real and the results were devastating. What little hope we saw in the 60's with anti-war radicalism ended with the war and the sellout of the boomer generation. The cupboard is empty. What remains is a handful of academics, many engaging in puffery in order to make themselves look bigger than they actually are. Few would seriously challenge this status quo. Zinn is dead, Chomsky will not live forever. What now?
Expect FBI moles to begin appearing soon at your local grass roots organization.
Man is by nature social, because his very survival as a species has always depended on a strong social structure. We humans did not survive because we were strong individually -- we survived because we learned to work together to form a strong, fit social group . Social societies in all species here on this planet have existed long before man and probably every species that survived for long, did so because of strong group cooperation. Competition within social groups had to take a back seat in order for the social structure to thrive and survive. Survival of the citizen was less dependent on might and cunning and more on the strength and unity of the community.
On the other hand weak communities without social bond, and even nations were easily destroyed either from within or from without, as history so warns us.
The chance of going back to pre industrial times as a nation seems unlikely nor is the sky falling, though there are always those that prefer to think it is.
"On the other hand weak communities without social bond, and even nations were easily destroyed either from within or from without, as history so warns us."
Here is a well stated truth and those that are working to destroy our social bond and our communities and nation are exposing themselves for what they truly are rather than what their cheap rhetoric claims they are.
"The chance of going back to pre industrial times as a nation seems unlikely..."
True. The US is becoming a looted POST-industrial nation, which many intelligent observers note could slide with astonishing rapidity into despotic Third World status given the right push.
"nor is the sky falling..."
So a catastrophic unofficial (though recognized) unemployment rate of 20+%, decaying economic power, rapidly depleting resources, and growing social inequality are not danger signs to you? Man, I wish I had access to your prescription or recreational meds...
"though there are always those that prefer to think it is."
They are called realists. Or people who actually pay attention.
Here's an example - Say you wanted to drive across Death Valley. During July. You pass the last sign advising you to carry water with you. This sign is there because numerous people have died of thirst when their vehicle broke down. My question is: Do you have enough water?
Non Serviam - I will not serve.
mitemeister and society know they do not have enough water to get through. They hit the pedal to the metal in hopes of minimizing their risk. They reckon driving faster will minimize the time in which something can go wrong. What a ride!
The "pedal to the metal" is the relentless juggernaut of Capitalism doing what it must do. It has to feed on itself now that all people and governments are under its dominion and all labor markets have been tapped and all resources are being pillaged at an accelerating rate. Yes, some (quite a few right here) are scrambling to insulate themselves from the unfolding catastrophe and couching that agenda as though it were political opinion. But for the moist part, the political leaders are just along for the ride and are as help[less as any of the rest of us are to stop what is happening (or cause it as far as that goes.) The destructive infiltration of investment capital into every nook and cranny of life has a force of its own. No one can control or direct it, or regulate or tame it.
There is absolutely no reason why there must be a "transition" to a "new economy" not any reason why any of us should be required to "adjust" to it. Nor is there any reason to believe that some sort of new entrepreneurship - green or otherwise - is going to help any but a very few. (the few that this article is directed at, as evidenced by this statement: "the brunt of these changes is falling, and will continue to fall, most intensely on lower and middle income and disadvantaged folks. But these changes will touch everyone in various ways, even those who believe they have built a wall of economic security around their families."
While forming associations for mutual defense and support is necessary, the authors omit the most important ingredient in their scenarios from the past and their visions for the future: fighting back.
The site that is linked in the article, Common Security Clubs, has a featured item front and center titled "Learning to Live on Less." Why not title it "Learning to Surrender?"
fighting back...yes...
I wonder, sometimes, if part of the problem isn't the illusion of possession...
if people truly understood they only possess whatever they possess based upon the flimsiest of justification, and further, only because no one has decided to take it away, they might be much more willing to engage...
it may take actually having things taken away before they reach that point...
my whole notion is to get there ahead of dire need, although such window is closing quickly due to chemical inundation and climate change...
I suggest Septmeber 22, 2012 as a date for all to act in concert, which is the key...individuals, alone, will certainly fall before the machine...
if we, all together, reject those running the globe via violent oppression and the continual theft, control and resale of land and necessities, we might be able to return to locally sustainable lives...
maybe the utopian dream of the naive, but the vision of the realist, based on current observation, is horrific...
alternatives might benefit from comparison...
"Possession" is a social agreement that has nothing to do with things. It is about control and power over others.
Those apologizing for the current conditions (and the current conditions and the system are inextricably linked) blur the line between the working class person's needs for food and housing, clothing and medicine, with the amassing of wealth by the few for the purpose of controlling and dominating others. They ant us to believe that the two are the same, when in fact they arise from opposite motivations.
Your vision is not utopian or naive, it is certain and inevitable and will happen very soon.
Plenty of interesting thoughts in this discussion.
What kind of fight club do you envision? What are we defending? I think forest's point is a valid one. You are putting the cart before the horse. There isn't anything to defend.
Is this really about stuff? Food, housing, clothing and medicine are generally available. Do you view a placated society that mounts wars of foreign aggression on behalf of its oligarchs as a good thing? Do you view our exploitation of foreign work forces that keep the clothes on our backs as a good thing? If they just threw us some more medicine in the form of single payer, all would be good? Our urban areas are barred prisons run by an economy of illegal drugs. Our suburban areas are monuments to consumption and waste. This is a stinking, rotting carcass of capitalism that we stare in the face of each day. Give us food, shelter, clothing and medicine and we'll whistle past the graveyard.
Capitalism. Capital is king. It is the disparities of wealth, education and security that are at the root of our problems. The end game in my mind's eye is the day capital and labor are valued as equals. If that day comes to pass, you will see these massive disparities disappear. Not a day sooner.
Over-consumption is a bad thing. Pointing this out and not trying to reduce one's over-consumption at the personal level is disingenuous. In a capitalist mindset, this might seem counter-intuitive. You are sacrificing for the sake of the oligarchs. From a world citizen perspective, you are respecting the planet and acknowledging the finite resources of the planet. Two trumps one in my mind's eye.
Where do we start? The capitalists have amassed tremendous power and they will not relinquish the levers of power voluntarily. Doing the math is easy. The question at this point is to what degree a centralized movement is feasible. Surely the capitalists would take notice. Even if they didn't, to what ends would a centralized authoritarian structure fill our needs? I say they don't fill our needs and are counter productive. At the same time, I see a specialized society in need of unifying goals. Let's face the facts, we will not be able to micro-economy our way out of this mess. When you consider 300 plus million people living in urban and suburban communities, you know that such micro-economies are not the be all, end all. How we turn ourselves into a sustainable society does not need to be answered today. The answers are there and they lie in the development of alternative energy, mass transit and local manufacturing. That said, we'll never get to that point because the capitalists stand between us and those goals. They preclude their development. The impediment must first be removed if we hope to get to that point.
I always blanch at time limits. I always think of sandwich boards. THE END IS NIGH! Very soon, very later, doesn't matter. I lean more towards "not with a bang but a whimper". More importantly, we can pay now or pay later. Pay later and the costs are rising precipitously.
I really do not have a clue how you could interpret anything I have said - ever in 50 years of writing about politics - as any of this:
Do you view a placated society that mounts wars of foreign aggression on behalf of its oligarchs as a good thing? Do you view our exploitation of foreign work forces that keep the clothes on our backs as a good thing? If they just threw us some more medicine in the form of single payer, all would be good? Our urban areas are barred prisons run by an economy of illegal drugs. Our suburban areas are monuments to consumption and waste. This is a stinking, rotting carcass of capitalism that we stare in the face of each day. Give us food, shelter, clothing and medicine and we'll whistle past the graveyard.
Explain your reasoning to me. It is a mystery.
Don't buy into the other poster's relentless attempts to intentionally misrepresent what I have said. Please read what I posted, not what someone else claims I posted.
Again - this is not a debate about whether or not to organize, but rather about the purpose for which we organize.
As I said initially, these were very good posts and were extremely thought provoking. Forest curled up into the standard hypersensitive ball, a common occurrence in these comments sections. No great shakes there. I was too verbose so I'll condense my points:
1. There is nothing to defend. I think the days of pondering an offensive are quickly approaching.
2. This isn't just about food, clothing, medicine and housing. The struggle is global in nature and the root problem is economic exploitation.
3. Both you and Forest envision some sort of central movement. I think a more realistic scenario is open sourced, opportunity versus planned.
PS: I commend you for challenging Forest's boiler plate "victim and enabler" rhetoric. His lack of credible response to your queries demonstrates the bankruptcy of his position. The corporate fascist beast is loose in the village with machete in hand, Forest would have us pool into groups, better for quick slaughter. Heaven forbid anyone do anything to disarm the beast.
Very good. Thanks for clarifying. I agree with what you say here completely.
I agree that "open sourced, opportunity versus planned" is the way to go, but organizing is still essential. The whole notion of "a plan" - which leftists are always attacked for not having, or for hiding - is itself authoritarian and repressive. Liberals and progressives typically "have a plan," as do all in the ruling class, because they are accustomed to thinking of themselves as bosses or associates of the bosses and strongly identify with those in power at all levels.
I suspect that many of the people advocating a gentrified "middle class" approach are good people and well-intentioned. Michael Moore and Marianne Williamson, both of whom I happen to know, come to mind for me in that regard, and they both get beaten up pretty badly here. But in both cases, whatever their "position" on the "spectrum" of partisan politics may be (I advocate tossing away that spectrum, not debating where each of us is located on it and what the variables are for determining where a person is on that imaginary spectrum - "he said nice things about Obama!!! He is the enemy!!") - they have each made some contributions in the realm of social and political criticism that are solid and useful. They are rich and famous, and that screws people up - even the best people. But how many here are willing to listen to social criticism about rich and famous, what that means, the role that it plays in the social dynamic? Hardly any. Who gets rich and famous, and how and why is presumed by most people to be outside of the realm of social and political criticism. That is especially true for the relatively comfortable, and the relatively comfortable completely dominate and control liberal and progressive politics. They have a certain degree of status and material well-being (or hope to, or think they deserve to, or are sycophants to and identify with those who do) and are not about to "bite the hand that feds them."
As I have often said about the Democratic party, but it also applies to all liberal and progressive politics -
The Democrats hang a sign outside the office that says "we welcome the downtrodden, suffering, and abused - we are in your side" but then should the rabble actually show up, they start clucking their tongues and complaining about how the riff-raff is wrecking their expensive imported carpet with their muddy boots.
They need to get rid of that sign, or get rid of that carpet. So long as they insist on keeping both - "we can have revolution AND live a nice 'middle class values' life - making the right choices and having the right positions and being polite" - there is a lot of consternation and frustration, confusion and miscommunication, anger and hostility, and the only way out of the resultant cognitive dissonance is to attack the Left.
Those running the world do so with the taxes paid by the citizens that they are stealing from. The Pentagon protection racket, 'fund the Pentagon to protect you or else.....', protect the worldwide assets of the INTERNATIONAL CORPORATOCRACY WEALTHY PREDATORY CAPITALIST WELFARE KINGS, many of which pay to USG taxes but derive the benefits of taxes paid by others.
TA, empowering others and ourselves is part of fighting back.
If you want something more "direct", go ahead and propose it.
Learning to live on less isn't unwise and it certainly isn't surrender. I don't see how anyone reads that and comes away selfishly attacking. The group in the article even disbanded. I'm sure, you, TA, must receive some satisfaction at that.
I have only praise for the authors of this CD article.
Your suggestion? Criticize those at least working in some small yet significant ways to build community? Wake up, TA. Your ideology isn't enemy to the people who are engaged in real community building. I suppose if no one built these small local community actions, the collapse you would like to see would come sooner?
These same shopworn cliches get tiresome - purist, negative, selfish, ideological, bad motives.
This is not about gathering in small groups or not gathering in small groups, it is about what we are permitted to talk about. We are permitted to talk about nicey-nice polite topics that appeal to the the gentrified few, with all of the appropriate feel-good buzz words and phrases, and we are not permitted to talk about working class solidarity and fighting back - that would then be purist, negative, selfish, ideological, bad motives and all of the rest of the smears that have always been used against the Left. Your post illustrates and proves that.
If what you are claiming were true, you would have no issues with what I posted.
TA, I say that as someone who has often liked what you have written and even praised it elsewhere on numerous occasions.
Actually the topic was about organizing despite your insistence upon pushing your tiresome twisting evading narrative and yet again playing aggrieved keyboard commando. Keep spreading the same anti-organizing wrapped in pro-fight rhetoric. If anything I have been entirely too patient and should have seen it sooner for what it is. How anyone finds fault with an article like this is nonsensical unless they know you better. Add to that the puerile debate tactics and I see why your ego really is bigger than two Americas and why it is especially appropriate.
Empowering those who have been run over by the elites in this country is a start, but you don't see it as anything but surrender. Whatever, TA.
You like the article and it resonates with you. That is fine. I wouldn't deny you the things you want in that regard - community and mutual support - and I think that the ideas you have about that play an important role. However, we will much sooner - and much more certainly and safely - get to those communities of mutual support within a context of mutual defense - and that means organizing for self defense against those who are - and will - destroy any serious attempts at building communities of mutual support.
All I ask is that you consider this point of view rather than so vehemently resisting it. I say we need both - communities of mutual support and communities of mutual defense. Of the two, the second is the more urgent need, and achieving the second makes the first much easier to achieve.
If it were as simple as just saying fight, wouldn't people already have enough motivation to begin?
If someone has fallen, what's the first thing to do, do you fight gravity or offer a helping hand up?
People need experience at organizing. The fight doesn't just materialize fully formed out of the ether. What we need is a whole hell of a lot more community organizers and many of them can/WILL grow into fighters but give them time because that is what is needed even though I'd prefer that weren't true.
My main point, I think, is don't attack those who are building support in communities for the purpose of building support for the "fight".
Others have said concisely that you put the cart before the horse and I agree with that.
The debate is about what cause we organize around, not whether or not we organize.
You are defending a particular political program - not organizing - and are disingenuously claiming that the debate is between those who want to organize and those who do not. You then go on to characterize those who disagree with you - about politics, not about methods - with every derogatory thing you can think of.You repeatedly misrepresent the posts you are responding to in order to ridicule and dismiss them - that is using the straw man logical fallacy to advance your argument.
Get over yourself, TA.
At least you are sounding more reasonable but it took someone getting in your face for you to become somewhat sensible. Your victim status may work with some people but won't work anymore with me.
You knew very well what you were attacking and why. If anyone wants to get a better idea of what this discussion is really about they can google you, it's not like you hide your attacks against the progressives and liberals you despise for their lack of purity or fealty to your ideology.
Let's discuss the message rather than the messenger.
Correct, I am not hiding anything. So what are the little hints and snide characterizations about?
I don't despise anyone, do not promote an ideology, and do not expect fealty from anyone. Nor could the "purity" charge be accurate, either, based on reading what I have actually written rather than on your malicious and false characterization of my motives and agenda.
Nor have I played the victim. I think you just threw whatever sort of damaging thing you could come up with into this latest post. Why are you doing that? It makes your position look very weak when you resort to this.
As I said, people posting extreme right wing, bigoted and racist opinions are not subjected to the sort of scrutiny, opposition and suspicion that you are throwing at me. That supports my argument, not yours.
I don't disagree with what you are saying here for the most part.
I would say that most people need more, not less. Nor does not have to mean environmental destruction, endless growth, etc. So I am not addressing scarcity. Scarcity is artificially introduced by Capitalism. People need more, not less. 90% of the people could have a lot more - and again it need not be toxic, wasteful, etc. - and yet the overall impact on the environment would be a lot less.
I don't see how we can respond to being robbed by telling all of those who are being robbed that they now need to do with less. That is what the robbers are telling everyone.
We will get to transition communities a lot sooner in the context of fighting back against the robbers and exploiters than we will ever get to ending the theft and exploitation by building transition communities. The rulers are not going to tolerate transition communities in any case. We have ample evidence from the past of exactly what the authorities can and will do to any efforts at forming independent communities.
While this article is a wonderful starting point, it is also a mid-song note from the canary in the Social Security coal mine.
This is evidence that people are recognizing that Government social support networks and programs are dying, not from a thousand cuts, but from out-right throat slitting performed by those axe wielding surgeons known as 'economists'.
There was a time on this continent when there was no social security system. That function was assumed by church groups, professional guilds, unions, charities and similar. They all pooled money which was used to care for those members or their families who became ill or died.
Of course, it was also the Gilded Age of the American Industrial Robber Barons and Banking Tycoons. Kind of like today, but with more fatal diseases and less TV/Internet.
Non Serviam - I will not serve.
If we didn't have Social Security right now we would be in the next Great Depression.....
and that's what pisses these vampires off - how can they grab EVERYTHING when Social Security allows a non-poverty(sort-of) elderly life.......
Obama is considering cutting out Social Security. Again, he's as powerless as any president over this situation.
Obama seized the moment to stack the catfood commission with enemies of average Americans too.
When the cat food commission didn't approve the agenda, ObomberBush took it upon himself to implement it and immediately he attacked SS.ObomberBush is setting racial relations back decades and the N work may be invoked again because of him.
We may be anyway if you observe your surroundings..instead of the illusions they fool you with