Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Whether in Egypt or America, It Takes Organization to Win
In 1981, my brother, John Zogby, ran for Mayor of Utica, New York. Like other factory towns across New England, the Mid-Atlantic and Mid-Western states, Utica was in decline. The factories that had employed tens of thousands had closed and gone south. With the loss of these jobs, the city was in the beginning of a steep decline.
In 1950, Utica had a population of 100,000. By 1980, it had dropped to 80,000 (today Utica hovers around 60,000). Loss of employment meant that neighborhoods were in decline, families were breaking up under the pressures of unemployment, and urban blight had set in, with once family-friendly neighborhoods now in decay.
Despite this troubling state of affairs, politics in the city had not changed. Machine politicians that had once fed off prosperity, now scrambled to feed off the spoils of a dying community.
John had a plan to revitalize this downsized city. He had written a creative study entitled "Utica 2000 ", projecting an economic plan that could lead Utica into the next century. His work captured the imagination of many intellectuals, civic organizations, and progressives across the city, spurring his bid to run for mayor. John's candidacy won the endorsement of Utica's television station and its newspaper. He had a cohort of professors at the city's college in his braintrust, but Utica's Democratic Party machine was threatened by this upstart campaign, and mobilized against this upstart movement. In that year's Democratic primary contest, John lost decisively.
I remember a conversation between John and former Senator James Abourezk, shortly after the election, in which John explained to the Senator how the machine had defeated him. He related how they had hired drivers to take people to the polls, provided them with marked sample ballots indicating their endorsed candidates, and, when needed, how they had used "walking around money" to sway voters to their camp.
Abourezk's take on the election was quite direct. "So what you're telling me", he said, "was that you were out-organized". It was not what we wanted to hear, but it was the truth, plain and simple.
In its purest form, politics in a democracy is about the contest for power. The best ideas don't always win, nor do the most deserving candidates or causes. It is the side that organizes the best and mobilizes its voters most effectively that carries the day and takes power.
This is a lesson we learned in 1981, and it is lesson that is being learned in the Arab Spring states of Tunisia and Egypt where elections will soon decide which side initially takes power and reaps the benefits of the popular mobilizations that led to the downfall of the regimes that governed for decades.
The uprisings in both countries have been called "Facebook Revolutions", but they will not have "Facebook Elections." Social media was but a communication vehicle that enabled young revolutionaries to break the regime's monopoly on information, to communicate with each other, and to mobilize demonstrations. They were able to brilliantly use these tools not only to organize in the streets, but to send powerful images to the outside world revealing their government's abusive and brutal use of power and to generate support for their valiant efforts to make change.
What remains to be seen is whether these same young revolutionaries, using these same tools, can organize voters and win elections, or will the older more established organizations with broad based support ultimately triumph?
An early indication of the limits of social media as an organizing tool came with the national referendum on "Constitutional Reform" held in Egypt in March of this year.
In that contest the sides were clearly demarcated. The young revolutionaries and many progressive reformers opposed the reforms being proposed by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces that had retained power after the departure of President Mubarak. The Muslim Brotherhood and other older established parties supported the military's proposal, since they saw the process outlined in that reform favoring their chances to win the next election putting them in the driver's seat to write the new constitution and consolidate their power.
A survey of social media posts in the period immediately preceding the vote, saw the revolutionaries clearly winning the Facebook war by a wide margin of tens of thousands opposed to the proposed reforms to a mere few thousands in favor. Friends associated with the progressive parties, with whom I spoke in the lead up to the vote, were confident of victory. In addition to being buoyed by the public support of the best known presidential candidates, former Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa and Mohamed el Baradei, they had been talking to each other and checking Facebook and were convinced they had majority support. The final tally showed how wrong they had been. The reforms won by a sweeping margin of 77 percent in favor to a mere 23 percent opposed. The revolutionaries had been out-organized.
Further evidence of the effectiveness of the Muslim Brotherhood's organizing ability came with their recent victories winning elections and consolidating their hold over Egypt's doctors' and teachers' syndicates.
With elections in Tunisia happening this week, and with Egypt's just around the corner, we need to be prepared to accept an outcome that may be disappointing to some, but should not be surprising to anyone. The new parties being formed by those who led the revolts have not yet jelled, nor are their roots deep enough or broad based enough to compete effectively.
But the final chapters of both revolutions will not be written by the outcomes of their first post-Arab Spring elections. If the young revolutionaries stay the course, build organizations strong enough to compete, and retain their commitment to freedom and democratic rights, they can be a permanent fixture on the political scene. Their time will come.
This was the view expressed by Ahmad Maher, one of the founders of Egypt's April 6th Movement, which played a central role in the Tahrir Square revolt. On my weekly Abu Dhabi TV program, Viewpoint, Maher discussed a long term plan of direct engagement and organization. April 6, he said, had not finished its work of bringing real change and social justice to Egypt. Social media had been a useful tool for organizers to maintain communication, but what was needed now was "to find new ways to reach people" on the streets where they live. And this will take, he noted, several more years of hard work. Maher was confident, however, that whatever the outcome of the election, change has occurred. The next President and Parliament will not be able to operate as Presidents and Parliaments of the past. An empowered and organized public, Maher observed, will now serve as a check on power and a voice seeking social justice.
That, incidentally, was the story that played out on a smaller scale in Utica. John bounced back from defeat. Not only did he build a nationally recognized polling company, becoming a major employer in Utica, but he and his allies also set about to revitalize a citizen's lobby to continue to push for change in the city. Today, the old "political machine" is gone and many of the ideas that were advocated in "Utica 2000" have been implemented. Utica, once dying, has stabilized with new immigrants coming to the city bringing new vitality and energy, creating jobs and rebuilding old neighborhoods.
The lesson here is clear. Victory doesn't come easy and it doesn't go to the side with the best ideas, or even to the one that expresses its ideas best, the most frequently, or to the largest audience. Whether in a small city or a big country, change will only come through organization and ability to mobilize people to press for change.
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...


99 Comments so far
Show AllI don't think Stone disagrees, exactly the point is OWS is a cooperative effort radically opposed to the top down "representative" politics controlled by oligarchic wealth we have lived with for too long.
Consensus process is the individual bring their idea to the local community to see if everyone can live with it, it's BOTH individualism and communal action, and worldwide networked communal action at that! All the occupies all over the world are learning from each in real time thanks to the net, this instantly networked intelligence in the service of BOTH individual initiative AND communal action is new to the 21st century, deal!
Right.
I don't agree that organization failed us -- I think what clearly failed us is total apathy of the citizenry in the face of massive corruption over the past 40 years.
In the past 40 years America has been totally railroaded, our systems of governance -- never perfect, but a work in progress in many ways -- were co-opted by corporations. They took control of our democracy: our elections finance, our media, our voting machines. It's really pretty straight forward. We got mugged, and they took our democracy, and many of us don't even understand what happened.
I think if we don't understand why democratic representation doesn't work now, we're in a lot of trouble, because our answers are going to be skewed -- like a doctor giving a diagnosis to a disease he really doesn't understand.
I would like to hear the Occupy folks address this issue beyond just calling for local, very small scale direct democracy. Elections themselves will continue -- corrupt, rigged, controlled by the powers at the top -- and they will continue to direct the course of our future. Just by ignoring them, we can't make it all go away.
40 years ago pffffft, America has NEVER been a real democracy, some hilights being the slaughter of Natives starting early in the 19th century, the fugitive slave act, then on to the terrible "Santa Clara Railroad" "decision" where a court clerk wrote in corporate personhood that wasn't even in the SCOTUS decision, (a big juncture IMO), the imperialist Spanish American war WWI and Bernay's propaganda, segregation, poll taxes. America didn't go off the rails of real democracy 40 years ago, because it was never on that rail in the first place.
OWS and local direct democracy IF it wins might be our fist shot at real democracy for ALL people ever here. Mediated faux "democracy," that serves the interest of the 1% is so unrepresentative of peoples actual needs that it doesn't deserve the name "democracy," but rather oligarchic (small r) republicanism. Oligarchic republicanism by it vey nature of being alienated from people being able to directly express their true needs is not reformable.
The entire history of humanity on Earth is riddled with genocide and the conquering of peoples by other peoples, it's how most modern societies were founded. You ignore the entire history of democratic struggle in America that actually yielded real results.
What caused that ongoing struggle toward real democracy to go off the rails was the wholesale takeover of the process by corporations -- something we CAN CHANGE.
Please point out one modern society that functions totally on a direct democracy model. If I could see, or even imagine, a way for that to work, I'd be rooting for you. In practice it has never worked. What model are you thinking of?
I gave you examples like Mondragon, the Spanish anarchists who controlled the eniire district of Catalonia in Spain in 1936, food co-ops, the Linux operating system, and the THOUSAND occupy general assemblies, and you ignored it all because you are a brainwashed volunteer tool of the 1%. You are a sort of junior league brownshirt lacking even the actual courage to be a real fascist on behalf of your class, so you vaguely shill for the system lacking conviction, and exemplify the old saying, "the second time as farce."
The saddest thing about you, little guitarist, is that you wouldn't have the guts to speak the frothing stupidity in person that you so cowardly vomit up on your posts because you know most people would kick your ass into the next town.
What a loony joke you are. I'm a quasi fascist because I'm defending representative democracy? You're one of the dumbest people I've ever encountered online. Good luck with your anarchist delusions. I'm done with you.
You are not defending "representative democracy." You are using that as cover for an extremely reactionary argument.
Now you talk about "kicking ass." Hmmm. But you WOULD be an ally, you claim, if only we would meet your demands.
I don't know with certainty, but I would suspect that guitarist talks the same way in real life as he does here. I know that I do. I get a good reception from 90% of the people. "Enlightened progressives" and liberals - disproportionately represented online - are the only people who have a problem. But would you really have any of us believe that they will be doing any ass-kicking? Oh, they will call the cops, they will inform to the police, they will turn leftists in - just as they did during the McCarthy era. THAT is what I call cowardly.
I don't give a shit what guitarist does, he's an idiot. As for you, you seem less so, but stop making assumptions about me, you have no idea who I am. I'm not an ally of guitarist, ever, or anyone in particular -- I just want to hear cogent and coherent arguments based in reality, not delusions, and I want to know what the hell the OWS movement is really about because it's taking up a lot of time and air in the universe and I'd like to know where its going. I'm interested.
However, if guitarist represents the movement, I'm outta here like, yesterday.
I don't know what you think I'm being reactionary about -- I DO believe in democracy as a very fucking imperfect system, as a work in progress, and only because I DON'T think anarchism is possible in our world now. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. But direct democracy and representative democracy are different tools and if the OWS people want to see the end of the latter and the national implementation of the former, there needs to be a pretty strong explanation for HOW that is going to work.
Mostly the problem is that the vast majority of people would not want to see the end of represenative democracy so it's going to be a pretty hard sell.
Though a combination of rep and direct is certainly possible and desireable, to me anyway.
I have showed you a half dozen examples of non statist collectivism (ie anarchism in practice) used by millions of people every day like Linux, and you refuse to acknowledge they exist, or grapple with arguments with anything other than ad hominem sneers, so who is the "idiot," again center right liberal?
I keep forgetting...
Sigh!
See my post in response to this higher up. You haven't made your argument effectively at all if you're talking about the end of representative democracy.
There are solid arguments for ending representative democracy and replacing it with direct democracy, the fact that you refuse to address those arguments is a flaw with YOU as a volunteer tool for the system controlled by the 1%, not a problem with the arguments themselves. If the argument I have presented is so easy to refute lets see you actually do so? Hint merely engaging in ad homimens does not refute an argument, nor does claiming you have never heard of such thing, therefore it can't be true. No one had heard of Penguins before we explored the poles that does not mean Penguins don't exist.
Sigh!
Yes I talk this way in real life too, some people can deal, some can't, I am not going to cry over the ones who can't. Here is some lyrics by Phil Ochs for our liberal friend.
I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal
The updated Jello Biafra version is good too. :)
You don't have to defend yourself against this insincere bully. He's just venting now that his world view looks more like smoke than reality.
Stone, it is you and Guitarist who are running around Common Dreams like crackheads telling everyone the old world ending and only you have the answers for the rest of us -- which apparently do not include the system of representative democracy that millions of people have died for up until today. You both sound like you're about 21 and have no clue about the wider world beyond your perception of your personal revolution. I am as sincere as they come, as I've been a dedicated social justice activist literally my entire life -- I was born into a family of activists who sacrificed a tremendous amount for the cause of democracy -- and I have never once in my life worked for money, only to try to change the world for the better.
But I have grown and learned, and I am no longer a young arrogant radical -- I have more respect for reality and the desires and needs of other people, and the complexity of our world. When I hear people saying they want extreme new systems of human governance, it sounds like I'm back in the hippy days or the anarchist days, and it's tiring. It didn't work then, it won't work now, on anything other than a small scale.
People want representative democracy, they don't want to sit around in councils all day unless they absolutely have to. They fought and died for the right to vote for representatives to government, and I don't believe their sacrifices and all they accomplished should be so casually tossed aside.
I think our system is broken and corrupted but I do not want to see it torn down to nothing. I think it can be fixed, and if the Occupy movement doesn't want to be involved with that, it's just not the movement for me, that's all. A sad thing, truly, but I'll survive the disappointment.
The so-called "democracy" in the US is not "representative." The government leaders represent the interests of the wealthy few.
A representative would be an errand runner, carrying messages, speaking as instructed to speak, acting as instructed to act, not a ruler lording over the people they supposedly represent.
While that would be better, even that is problematic if the representative is trying to represent a community with diverse needs and say a stifled minority.
The struggle that achieved results always happened outside of partisan electoral politics.
The "democracy" to which you refer - was it not "off the rails" when native peoples could not vote? When half of the white population - women - could not vote? When half of the population of the South was in chains? When Senators were not voted for by the general public? When the robber barons and bosses bought the politicians no matte whom the people voted for?
When were these "good old days" that you wish to restore? Is it not an illusion that you see as being threatened and wish to restore?
You ask us to "point out one modern society that functions totally on a direct democracy model." None of them do. That is the problem. Just because something isn't happening does not mean that it could not or should not. Your inability to imagine anything other than the way things are does not mean that no other way is possible.
Um . . . what?? Yeah, I really want to restore the times BEFORE the democratic struggles I'm talking about. No, I'm TALKING about those very struggles -- the struggles of people to gain the right to choose their own democratic representatives, the struggles they fucking fought and died in, those VERY SAME STRUGGLES -- that's what I'm talking about AS DEMOCRACY. That was democracy ON the rails -- tough rails, but that's how it happened. And people won. And corporate forces once again derailed through Valeo/Buckley and then Citizens United and many other moves on the chess board, including installing their very own voting machines to control the vote count when needed.
I cannot imagine direct democracy working on a large scale, no -- so go ahead and show us how its done. Even the Native American tribes didn't have such a system, and don't now, but I'm not saying it's impossible, I just can't see it.
Those struggles and achievements came from outside of partisan electoral politics. Election and partisan politics were then but a pale reflection, an effect, of social and political change that had already been won. Partisan electoral politics do not drive or cause change.
As to the "direct democracy" issue, I can't answer for guitarist or defend his point of view on this.
More centralized leadership to organize the 99%? Centralization is another word for dictatorship.
We have the means to stay informed and communicate. Now we need a method that lets us organize direct democratically but remain decentralized. Here is one well studied way among many:
http://ni4d.us/
"Thus the combination of parallel simultaneous creativity and the general assembly process harnesses the power of evolution in meme section which is much more powerful in generating complexity and adaptability than static lists of demands. "
To me, a General Assembly, doesn't sound like direct Democracy. It seems to be an attempted CENTRALIZATION of the process. A full understanding of DECENTRALIZED change would find no need for a General Assembly. A few people assembling to hammer out an issues agenda sounds more like a hijacking designed to shift DECENTRALIZED processes to a representative system, the very system that is failing us now.
I would encourage people to BOYCOTT the General Assembly and rely on direct democracy methods, decentralized methods. Why return to 20th Century methods? It makes no sense. Too many participants were probably motivated by media calls and Naomi Klein calling for focus and clarity.
The decentralized process calls for widespread participation that leads to visioning. Democratically derived visions result in creative actions. There is absolutely NO NEED to CENTRALIZE the process. The Occupy Movement is NOT the anti tea party movement. The Occupy Movement is much bigger than that and is a part of the processes to develop a new MYTHOS, a new way of living successfully in the world we are confronted with.
Today, Chris Hayes, attempted to identify the Occupy Movement as the anti tea party movement by suggesting that the majority of Occupy participants who answered questions suggested that it was.
There was no attempt to identify the methods or the poll, whatever. That is pure propaganda and shows the continuing efforts of the Democratic Party to identify the movement as the Democratic answer to the Tea Party. IT IS NOT!
Right on Stone!
"To me, a General Assembly, doesn't sound like direct Democracy. It seems to be an attempted CENTRALIZATION of the process". You lost me on this one.
Our general assembly meetings (in my small town of Roanoke, VA) are wide open and EVERYONE is listened to. We decide by consensus, but no one is obligated to follow group efforts and are encouraged not to do things they lack a passion for. Right now many of us are moving their money from any banks that were bailed out and going to credit unions that are LOCAL and discussing numerous other ideas. Another big push is spending absolutely zero dollars this Xmas at any chain stores. F-ck them. Some are buying zero gifts this year, others only crafting, making or baking them, while still others have committed to only shop at Mom and Pop stores. We are also working on a “time bank”. You help someone for X hours to achieve something, and they owe the same hours in return to help someone else in the group (in their skill set). Survival by barter/trade.
You need to go participate in person (if there's any near you or a town big enough to start one.) Make it what you want it to be! We protest at the big banks several times a week, and regularly occupy a corner at one of the city’s biggest parks. too. As it stands, the police have been VERY supportive. We’ve invited them to participate off duty and make it a policy to keep the park spotless. We also killed the “fist” icon on all our marketing materials in favor of a “hand up” (this was my idea and it was satisfying to offer it and get very loud approval!... imagine a handshake turned sideways). We're an enthusiastic bunch and recognize each others talents and ignore the differences. I have been pounding the word FAMILY. I would like to see this single word take hold in every community. This mental frame of mind - which is utter truth - CANNOT be beat by Big Brother if it takes hold throughout the movement.
Your “occupy” is yours. NYC does its own thing and it's irrelevant to the other cities except for being kindred spirits. If we all take ideas from each other without obligations, so much the better and stronger..
You got what I meant, LOCAL general assemblies, not some national gathering, which I agree would be co-optation attempt.
I meant the general assemblies held by our local occupies, not some national gathering, I agree that is bogus. Do they not call the meeting of activists at your local occupy a general assembly?
For reference here is exactly what I said about biggism and a national assembly over on another thread here:
"...[ I ] REALLY disagree with the biggism of a national assembly. For starters a consensus process will break down with over 10,000 people. Consensus and empowerment of all participants to speak and even to block is what makes the leaderless OWS a uniquely democrat process that empowers ALL people to reclaim their communities directly. So I have 3 points to make about a "national assembly," and the dangers of biggism and mediated (un)representational politics in general.
1. Nothing would be more antithetical to OWS than a national assembly where a few "movement leaders" make top down speeches to a mass of people mindless chanting slogans under the leaders direction, not only is this old school left model of activism inherently authoritarian IT HAS'T WORKED in almost 50 years.
2. Big institutions like big banks, big corporations, and the big imperialist Federal government have failed us utterly completely, to substitute our biggism for their biggism is the fundamental mistake Bolshevik Marxist Communist made. It is a recipe for alienating of empowering individual people from their ability to change their community at the very least, and perhaps a gateway to Bolshevik style outright tyranny at the worst.
3. Even if it's just a rally and not the new top down leadership, these rah, rah rallies are kind of meaningless, the real work is retaking our communities from the banks, corporations and their state protectors. The way to do that IMO is to occupy and stay until we win in our local communities and model direct democracy and cooperation in the actions of the occupation itself. We might win faster than you think with continued planned asset stripping economic disasters by the financial oligarchy causing more millions to suffer everyday, and imperial overstretch, the sort of thing that led to the end of the Soviet Union. Our vote for example, when the choice is Romney, Perry, or Oily Bomber is ALREADY as meaningless as voting in the Soviet Union was, and economic conditions are nearly as dire. OWS CAN be a non violent, non hierarchical, leaderless local direct democracy peoples revolution revolution if we don't let it be co-opted by the Dims and MOVEON and other hangers on from the current failed paradigm of top down 1%er "leadership."
I think the problem for a lot of people is that we literally don't know what you're talking about. You talk about running communities through direct democracy, but we don't know what that means. What does that look like? How does it work? How does it really handle anything serious? It seems impossible.
I'm not saying it is impossible, I'm saying it SEEMS impossible based on what we understand about humanity, the nature of our societies, including our industries, our trade, our globalism.
If there was some kind of model you could point to beyond the neighborhood anarchist collective . . . ?
Come down to your local occupy general assembly and WATCH it in action that is a much faster way for you to understand than trying to explain it in words. We can debate theory all day, but the proof is in the pudding of direct democracy consensus being used to run over a thousand separate occupations across the planet serving well over 200,000 people. Another data point is the Spanish anarchist Union CNT that ran the whole city of Barcelona as a democratic workers collective until first crushed by the Communists and then crushed again by the fascists. This is well documented in the book Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell:
http://www.george-orwell.org/Homage_to_Catalonia/index.html
Another example of non statist worker owner self management which is anarchism in practice is the 80,000 employee Mondragon cooperative that manufactures infrastructure level heavy machinery among other things. You go tell Mondragon they "can't work," good luck with that one!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
Another example is the Linux operating system that runs some of the biggest servers in the world that google. Linux as open source software is collectively developed, non profit and non state funded, So while you say nay, in essence "anarchist" collectives are doing real work all over the planet right now as we type.
Of course the ruling oligarchy doesn't want you to know that as it makes them piss their pants with fear that people CAN run their lives without parasitic and profit extracting overseers, boss and state. You have been sold a line of b.s. about "human nature," and other rot because it serves the interest of the 1% ownership class for the 99% to believe they can't run their own lives directly without coordinators, bosses, "representatives," bankers, and other parasites leaching off their labor.
First of all, with all due respect, you should drop your attitude. If you want to convince people of anything, it's best not to come off as some arrogant revolutionary who thinks everyone else is an ass. I asked questions in my post, if you think you have the answers, just answer without attitude. No movement is going to be attractive to people if the people involved act like they're smarter and better. That alternative elitism is what has isolated movements in the past and kept average people from getting involved.
Secondly, 200,000? You are still talking about VERY small groups of people -- we have billions of people on a heavily interconnected, technologically complex planet now. Linux? I don't care about Linux and open source software. I'm not talking about open source software for godsake, I'm talking about humanity on planet Earth and the incredible complexity of our societies, governments and industries now -- and the need for representation of groups in order to keep all sorts of complex systems running.
And come on, don't you feel the slightest bit hypocritical pointing to the Internet while you discuss the end of exploitative capitalism? Our whole effing globalized culture is the product of exploitative capitalism, including the materials that make our computers and technology -- plastic and mining and fossil fuel drilling and resource extraction, and slave labor worldwide, that's what has made our world and what continues to make it. Linux and all its techies do not exist independently of any of it AT ALL! I mean, that's just reality right now. Linux is nice and all, but the world is not one giant open source software company.
And most people, to be frank, don't give a shit about any of this, they just want theirs -- and they're not getting theirs right now, so they're angry. The middle class is becoming the lower class, and the lower class is sinking into deadly poverty.
I know you can have collectives in the workplace, and that can work, but I'm talking about government itself -- and not in Spain but here in America, and in what is now the EU. So again, if you really want to try for a global anarchist revolution, you're going to need to explain to people truly how it's going to work -- and does that mean the end of democracy and representation? -- and do it in a way that doesn't alienate them, and doesn't make you sound like some insulated ideolog techie on a laptop acting like you're holier than thou.
Also, I physically can't get to an Occupy meeting right now, so all I can do is listen to people like you talk about it.
The collectives ARE the example of people organizing their lives without governments or boss overseers fool! People are sick of kowtowing to fence straddlers like you to beg for a few crumb "donations," or "reforms," in a tainted murderous system. Do you have blue balls yet from your fence straddling, you don't even know what side you are on "liberal!"
So from now on if people shill for the system and claim it can fixed with a few tweaks, we are going to simply ignore you as you rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic. Some of us are busy lowering the lifeboats, you can join if you like, but you have to actually join, not shill on behalf of a representative sending a message to the captain for permission to lower the life boats, it's too late in the day for that tired crap.
I wouldn't join you if you were the last fucking person alive on the planet, seriously. You're a raving immature ideolog who I wouldn't trust to water my house plants. I'd rather have lunch with Ayn Rand than listen to your inane twaddle and stupid insults that have not one thing to do with who I actually am and what I believe -- of which you know 100% nothing. But other people, thank god, are dealing with reality. People like you have always been on the sidelines ranting into the wind, furious that the rest of humanity doesn't take you very seriously. And look, here you've found the Internet -- product of pure capitalism, but don't let the hypocrisy slow you down one bit -- on which to rant at the rest of us. How nice for you. And btw -- I've belonged to a food co-op for 20 years and grow most of my own food and have helped many people in my own community start their own gardens, and I have built a renewable energy non-profit for my community, which I'm pretty sure is a hell of a lot more than you've ever done in your life to make real change. But go ahead and rant, we're all enthralled with your insight and wisdom.
Some will never join. That is fine.Those who do will not base such an important decision on their personal feelings towards one other individual and they won't need any sales job or persuasion. Reality is the persuader. No one cares whether you like guitarist or not, and it makes not an iota of difference whether you do or not.
The Internet is not a "product of pure capitalism," not by a long shot. Nor is it hypocritical for people to use the tools at hand. Should slaves running away from plantations to reach freedom not have worn the shoes that master provided for them, lest they be hypocrites? The argument you are making about the Internet and hypocrisy is absurd.
Only guitarist -- the great purist -- should not use the Internet. Otherwise, I totally agree with you. I just can't stand this person posting as guitarist and I'd like to see his frothing lunacy curtailed by his own purism. His anarchic society would never have produced the Internet, which is actually a product of capitalism and militarism, to be more exact.
Also, "no one cares" etc -- try not speaking for everyone in the world, eh? A bit much to take on your shoulders.
Actually you are wrong, the anarchist CNT Union rang the entire city of Barcelona Spain including sophisticated for the time tech infrastructure like the telephone exchange as a collective non state workers democracy for a year, before first being crushed by the Communists, and then the fascists. Google Spanish civil war, if this period of history is unfamiliar to you, oh self proclaimed enlightened one.
Linux is again another example so in fact I should use the internet as it is an embodiment of anarchist principles both in it's actual infrastructure and in it's content being dispersed in a decentralized non hierarchical horizontal system of nodes, as opposed to being a top down structure. It is you in fact who believes in top down down hierarchy who should have stopped using the internet once it was no longer controlled by DARPA.
http://www.cafebabel.co.uk/article/31676/internet-anarchy-europe-pirate-bay-eircom-cinema.html
What you don't understand is that I'm not talking about a take-over of existing systems, I'm talking about creating them from the beginning. What has created our technology and its infrastructure has not been anarchism or any form of egalitarian ideological system. What created our technology has been exploitative, destructive, authoritarian systems -- and that is still true all over the world. The kind of societies you seem to want would not have developed brutal systems of resource extraction and major finance and elite institutions of education and training and credit and banking and the investment into militarism and technology that led to the global system of the Internet and the millions of computers in use today and the incredible number of social, environemental and economic systems they now control. To seize the controls of such a system, to nationalize parts o it, to make parts of it collective, is possible in a limited sense. On a large scale, horizontal, direct democracy systems alone would now make many parts of our infrastructure collapse. That may be what some people want, but it's not what a lot of people want, so that is the conversation that needs to be had if indeed the Occupy movement is advocating for the end of representative democracy. Which I don't think it is -- I think it's you and a couple of other people on Common Dreams pushing that idea, with just a few small and very limited examples of success to point to. I am certainly not talking about a telephone exchange in one city in the 30s!
As you rightly point out -- the anarchist movement was crushed. It would be crushed again. It has never proven itself capable of taking on its enemies, which are myriad and far more organized. Part of the problem is also that the punked-out kids who often gravitate toward the anarchist scene (I used to be one of them) actually scare and disturb most average people, so the movement never can grow into anything really transformational and relevant. The cops use this to their advantage of course by planting people in crowds who look like that type, and sparking violence, which happened a lot in Seattle.
Consider the difference between the young black protesters in the Civil Rights movement who risked their lives sitting at the lunch counters, etc. Look at the pictures of those people. They were well dressed and repsectable looking, fairly shining young people -- they looked ready and capable of taking on a role as capable members of society, as equals, and it was an obvious injustice that they should be considered otherwise.
Take the young protesters today who fit the stereotype of the dirty punk anarchist, and you see people who are self-marginalizing themselves and their cause. Most average people will side with cops even if they don't want to in fear of these kids unraveling the fabric of society or putting a brick through their window -- and every kind of slur can be thrown at them all too easily by the mainstream press. I wish to god the Movement in America would just grow up.
I am a 45 year old man with a philosophy degree from a top ten college, not a" punked pout kid" (ad hominem in lieu of substance) and know I will do my best to rally to prevent co-opters like you from have any influence on the revolutionary occupy movement.
Let me guess you probably think Oily Bomber is an agent of real change too?
Sigh!
Reading these comments I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I'm not physically capable of attending an Occupy scene anywhere so I can only watch form the outside right now. What I'm hearing is a combination of true energy, visionary inspiration, real community spirit . . . and also such stunning naivete and what often sounds like delusional arrogance and total lack of appreciation of the lessons of history . . . Really, I don't know what will come of all this. There are no guarantees.
Having been to many Rainbow Gatherings and also one Burning Man, I feel like some of the Occupy participants are so stoked and enamored of their little enlightened communities -- very much like the communities that happen at these other events -- that they are losing sight of a rather serious problem: A cadre of evil multi-billionaires are destroying the world and have stunning levels of power and control.
Now seriously people, I'm really happy to hear that you're spreading the Rainbow Family et al ethos around the country through the Occupy movement -- but what are we going to do about Mordor? What's our strategy?
What bothers me the most is that the mindset seems to be overwhelmingly "representative democracy is dead -- screw it" -- and lets focus on our little "direct democracy" circles at the Occupy movements and talk about barter and riding more bikes. That's great, but . . . Mordor???
Representative democracy is dead because corruption killed it. If we focused our efforts on looking at HOW AND WHY THAT HAPPENED, and reforming that system, getting the money out of politics, getting our elections systems away form corporate control, we could take American democracy back and make it what it has never yet been -- REAL. Really ours. Of, by and for the People.
I don't think many of the Occupy people understand this or even care. Especially the younger ones who find all this stuff boring and would rather live on a small communal scale and ride bikes and not have to think much about the big levers of power and how it all works. But this, I fear, will lead to absolute failure of this movement. It's not different than much of what happened in the 60s. We were too idealistic, too disorganized, and our enemies then were organized to crush us, as they are now.
I hope that the conversation turns toward Occupy Elections -- taking back our democratic processes that have been stolen and controlled by corporations. That may end up having to become its own movement -- one that I will gladly help further. Direct democracy works on a very small scale, not a large one, so at some point we're going to have to address the issue of representative democracy.
In the manner you are describing working together is fine. It is decentralized. What I was speaking about was a planned large national General Assembly in Philadelphia. It is THAT general assembly I would be opposed to, not the local ones, they are healthy.
Also, I'm having some difficulty understanding why we need to OCCUPY outdoors in the Winter. I'm not objecting to it. I do not see the real value of it. Since we have the net would it not be better to use our time inside debating and planning for the Spring season. Use the Winter to spread the gospel of change then re-occupy different places in the Spring. Not objecting, just asking.
Occupy is NOT a rainbow gathering I assure you having been to both. A rainbow gathering is basically a bunch of stoned hippies partying out in the woods for a month. Occupy is people from all walks of life sick of being exploited talking, AND taking action, and formulating an alternative culture to replace our unfixably broken one. It's not going to happen overnight it's going to take years, but as financier malfeasance, imperial overextension, and peak oil make the current American way of life unviable these occupations and their associated protests, through self organizing cooperating and dialog through general assembly consensus WILL continue until the system falls over of it's own weight like the Soviet Union did. Occupy is the nucleus of a new society and a process for meeting as communities to figure out what we are going to do in the aftermath of collapse. From here on out the oligarchs are going to face occupation and rebellion as has been happening ALL OVER THE WORLD for a year now. A very small scale is what we are going to be living at after the empire collapses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjFQLGVIJak
This is the new reality, get used to it!
Well, a post-collapse (peak oil, climate change, etc) scenario for Occupy makes the most sense. Communities will have to work together far more democratically and on a ground level if we find ourselves in that place. But my question about the viability of direct democracy beyond extremely small groups has yet to be answered by anyone. Do the Occupy people want the end of representative democracy altogether? Even in post-collapse societies?Because if so, I need them to explain how the hell that's supposed to work. For instance, given a full collapse scenario, what happens to our nuclear facilities? Who controls them? Cause if you don't control them, they melt down. And if they all melt down, we're ALL GOING TO DIE ALONG WITH ALL LIFE ON EARTH. Anyone taking that little factoid into consideration? We have a very complex world whether we like it or not, and thinking that we can revert to a quasi tribal or village level after all we've created here is very naive. We will need a transition to a more sustainable world that includes reality as it is -- and also the many people who have no desire or intention of living on a very small scale, and mayb have other ideas for transitions. So please don't tell me about the reality you're creating FOR me that I have to get used to -- doesn't sound too democratic or inviting to me.
It's happening whether you or I like it or not, the oligarchs have screwed the pooch, in terms financial stability, peak oil, imperial overstretch. And yes someone should be thinking about decommissioning the nukes. That expertise won't just disappear after the transition you know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjFQLGVIJak
Dmitri Orlov in this article specifically mentions decommissioning nukes as a concern.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/23259
The Soviet Union figured it out post collapse and we have to hope we do as well, and that we don't wind up like Russia with a Putin. That's what occupy is about is making sure we DO wind up with democracy and control of our communities.
Elections in the US were always controlled by the powerful few.
EVERYTHING is controlled by the powerful few. It doesn't have to stay that way. It's our choice.
I read the article and all 57 comments posted to date, of which ONE actually raised the possibility/probability that US elections are rigged electronically. I realize that was not the main point of the article but the premise of honestly counted elections seems to prevail throughout all the rest of these various viewpoints. There is, to put it very mildly, copious evidence to the contrary. None of which either the MSM or the "progressive" media will touch. If anyone wishes to explore some of it, you can begin with ElectionDefenseAlliance.org. It's gotten to the point where I actually can't bear to read, listen to, or watch things--however astute in other respects--that blithely assume that nonrigged elections premise. Might as well be watching a scripted Quiz Show or Reality TV episode.
Here is something I posted a month or two ago for what it's worth. This was just quick overview off the top of my head. Needs more details but the overview is sound.
LOTTERY ELECTIONS
At local level any voter can register as candidate.
A set number of lottery winners run for local offices.
For state elections, only local reps can register for lottery.
A set number of reps are drawn and allowed to run.
For national elections, only statewide reps can register for lottery.
A set number of reps are drawn and allowed to run for Congress.
For Presidential elections, only Congressmen can register for lottery.
A set number of reps are drawn and allowed to run for President.
No elected person can ever run for re-election to same office.
No advertising, contributions, etc allowed.
(Lots of public meetings, debates, etc.)
Also, here is a way for voters to verify their vote was properly counted. The way it works is akin to a raffle stub where you retain the duplicate half after punching or stamping both halves in a voting booth. Then you combine that idea with a return to using paper ballots for the vote counting. (The idea that it takes too much time to hand count is manure put forth to enable computer fraud. The people who volunteer to count votes one evening every couple of years enjoy it, and everyone is watching everyone.) There will still be some fraud, but there’s no way to steal entire elections with a few mouse clicks.
Note on votes; The code numbers of each voting stub would be published so the voters can anonymously go online or to the courthouse and match their stub.
We have a complex and deeply flawed "political" system that has evolved over centuries and has a great deal of texture and weight. It appears to be heading us to a very dark place. In response an unusually perceptive and concerned (and growing!) sub-group has not merely proposed but enacted a radical alternative model. Not exactly anarchic but certainly pointed in its rejection of representative democracy and celebratory of the processes and ethos of direct democracy.
The harsh and thus-far conclusive lesson of history is that direct democracy can't be successfully extended beyond the smallest of polities. There's a reason--and it's not mere corporate greed and evil--that representative democracy has been all-but-universally adopted at virtually all levels of political organization (where more authoritarian models don't still hold sway) on Earth.
Perhaps history itself is full of crap. Perhaps a New Age is truly at hand. But you bet very cautiously against the full weight of history because the one constant is a very slowly evolving human nature. You can call this "conservative" or even "negative," but I would prefer to think of it as careful observation.
I think the world needs the sober and it also needs the drunk ("inebriate of air am I, and debauchee of dew . . ."). The difficulty arises in conversations and transactions between the two. The Hari Krishnas dance, the Wu Li Masters dance, in the exuberant spirit of their belief. Why doesn't everyone join them? Why do the vast majority say 'no thanks' and prefer keeping their shirts on and watching football? Why, for that matter, are billions poured into some single sub or bomber, while we have bake sales and lemonade stands for election integrity and its sister causes?
I wish it were otherwise and a wish is a good place to start. I am moved to see this upwelling of organized objection to the blind march to hell that our "leaders" have set us on. But I maintain a rather dark view of collective human nature--derived from my particular lifetime of observation and interaction (and I guess I read Lord of the Flies at a very impressionable age)--and it's a view that says representative democracy is one hell of an achievement, given our collective propensities, and not something to be tossed into the trash like an apple with a brown spot by a lazy child.
It's a big brown spot, and there's probably a worm and some fungus. At some point it should be possible to marshal our forces to cut these blights away, and we could certainly do worse than to begin with wholesale election rigging. At some point soon the OCCUPY groups will have to choose whether they want to shoot their arrows at representative democracy itself or against the blights that have poisoned that democracy. This is a critical choice but it is one that does not yet seem to have come to conceptual fruition and clarity.