Observations on November

November came and went.  I did a little bit of protesting.  I read.  I talked with friends and acquaintances. I had some turkey and some pie.

The most important thing I read was a history of the early British colonies in North America, the so-called "Revolutionary" war, and the history of political 'agitation'.  It's really a page turner!  Kind of depressing and violent, but hey, truth is stranger than fiction.  In historical context, the Occupy movement has hit on aspects of revolutionary social change that have a long standing tradition in America.  Foremost is the tactic of 'protest for the sake of protest'.  The relationship between 'agitation' and social change is unequivocal.  The later never happens without the former.

Let anyone who thinks that the Occupy movement is 'pointless', 'unfocused', without 'goals', 'vision', etc...let any criticism of this sort be completely ignored.  Political agitation is an end in itself, and an extremely important one.  It is the only canvas on which social change can be painted.  If not against the backdrop of social unrest, no revolutionary ideas will ever be taken seriously.

Social reform is not new.  Slavery, womens' rights, civil rights.. all of these movements saw the same stuff going down pretty much the same way.  But what these social movements lacked is the GA.  Yes, I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  The General Assembly, the People's Mic, Direct Democracy...these are not frivolous aspects of the movement, not mere diversions or message boards or parties.  The GA carries all of the hopes and dreams of the revolution on its back.  And people in the movement don't even see it.

Historical perspective helps.  For years...in fact, decades, before the Declaration of Independence was signed (by a handful of members of the 1%, by the way...not to be mistaken with 'the people', whose name they usurp) the aristocracy practiced a form of Parliamentary Burlesque...essentially forming an 'illegal' government.  People's assemblies in the various states, town halls, political groups, etc.

This form of political organization led to the creation of a new government.  THE 'FAKE' GOVERNMENT BECAME A REAL GOVERNMENT. 


That government is the same government that holds its seat of power in Washington, DC to this day.  To dismiss the Occupy movement and the GA...to scoff and laugh at the prospect of the General Assembly becoming the mechanism through which a new government, a new constitution, and a new social order is born...is to ignore history.  Hell, it's to ignore what happened in Libya this year.  What was the National Transitional Council a year ago?  Two years ago?  And now it's the operating governmental body in the country.

An important note about the American Revolution is that we saw a group of very wealthy aristocrats, i.e. the 1%, reject the rule of another wealthy aristocracy, win independence through violence, thereby transferring executive power to America without actually changing the social order much.  So Occupy does not have the advantages the Revolutionaries had.  We are not rich.  We are not situated for any kind of violent resistance.  Our government can meet us with physical force (if and whenever they choose) in a much shorter time span.

What do we have going for us?  We are on the right side of history, and the whole world is watching.  Social conditions are *almost* ripe for a wide scale rejection of 'rule by the 1%, for the 1%'.  We are history's bastard children.  Our government was born as repressive and tyrannical as the society that bore it.  Our borders were established through military conquest as unjust and disgustingly violent as any history has ever seen.  Our economic system was built on the backs of slaves and near-enslaved wage laborers.  We were industrialized by capitalists who made themselves rich with the full support of the government, while handing out every human indignity imaginable to the working class.

Not one single United States citizen has more right to the land they stand on than the Occupiers have a right to Grant Park.  The owners of 'business capital' have no more right to it than common thieves and murderers have a right to their spoils.  How was the land got?  How was the economic system built?  We are an illegitimate generation...but we are a new generation all the same.  We did not perpetrate the sins of our fathers.  We have merely inherited the ill-gotten gains of their unjust wars and despicable social practices.

Now, why are social conditions only almost, but not quite ripe for throwing off the 1% as a ruling class, and establishing a new order where the 99% control their own destiny?  Because people refuse to reject the legitimacy of their government.  They refuse to accept the truth about the aristocracy/plutocracy.  They refuse to acknowledge that what's best for the economy is not necessarily best for the people.  They refuse to see that accumulating personal wealth is not the most meaningful way a person can spend their life.

We are a society of consumers.  The ills of society, the abuses of government and big business, are meaningless.  All that matters to us is that there is stuff out there to be had, and our social system allows us opportunities to get it.  Wealth is our god.  We worship the economy, and seem to be willing to sacrifice everything to it.  The logic seems to go that if the economy is good, everyone is happy, because people have jobs, and therefore we can all get a piece of the pie.

Wrong.  Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

The GA has potential to plant the seed that will grow into the American National Transition council, demanding a new constitution, one truly written by the people, for the people...not by the 1%!  But what's stopping our society from moving in this direction (a direction I would consider the 'forward' direction, from any reasonable perspective) is a seemingly undying patriotism and devotion to consumer capitalism in the USA and across a broad swath of the international community as well.

I don't know what it would take to change people's perspectives here, but at least Occupy has its sights set in the right place.

The 99% Dot Com

It's been far too long since I've protested. It's been far too long since I've worked out... eaten... bathed.

That all is not the point of this post. I've decided on my ultimate 'demand', my goal, my future state of being from which I can look back on the Occupation and say, wow, we really did it.

I'm convinced that, whatever might come after, the right first step is democratic control of the political process, democratic regulations on the media, and economic democracy within firms.

I read a little bit of Lenin writing on Marx. Two things strike me boldly, upon reflection on the topics of State and Revolution. First, that military force is no longer comprised of 'men at arms'. Operational control of a military as sophistocated as the US' is practically impossible by any imaginable revolutionary force, short of the generals and admirals themselves. I'm not holding out hope for a Revolutionary Occupying Force to which the military will deflect. I know, it sort of happened in Libya. I'm not saying violent revolution is impossible, I'm just saying it doesn't sound practical.

Second is the fact that there's no guarantee that a Revolutionary Occupying Force, like the current group in Libya, will form a government in any way preferable to the one we have. Look how things turned out for Russia with the Bolshevics in 1918. Lenin, the people's revolutionary, the champion of True Marxism, got off to a flying start with the murders and the censorship and the forced single party government. Classy!

No, I don't see revolution from without. I have seen the arguments, and I'm not buying the idea that a people's revolution from without, whether it be a Marxist proletariate taking over the State and all means of production in it in the name of 'the people', or an anarchist move towards total destruction of state power. I'm really thinking that revolution comes from within. Once there are practical democratic controls over government and industry (same thing), paired with fair flows of accurate information, then perhaps we can vote the state out of existence by uniting the economy with people's needs, one piece at a time.

I'm talking about General Assemblies at every level acting as 'committees' to vet out and pass along legislation. Keep legislative debate and voting procedures. But nothing gets in to be *considered* - in city hall, the state capitol, and Washington - without the okay of the people. Special interest legislation, earmarks, pork? No chance. In terms of time, it's not actually that impractical, given how much time bills spend in committee already.

Create one source (or several, limited) for factual information. Ban politically persuasive advertisements. Sure, it might not pass a supreme court challenge, but personally I think such a ban would uphold the people's first ammendment rights more than harm them. The 'press' can print anything they want...we simply demand that they print it to be published in the same place as everyone else. Why should big money entitle you to a wider audience and higher production value, when it comes to political participation?

And that right there is where it really boils down to. People have a right to have money. There's nothing wrong with being filthy rich. But political participation should not be for sale, not in the form of public speech and media, and not in the form of special access to the legislative process.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4

Star Spangled Banner

I understand now how that guy managed to pen that epic poem about the flag and the battle and everything. An entire night is a long time to spend anxious and surrounded by anxiety. Being in my tent at 11:30 in Grant Park (30 minutes after closing) is a bit unnerving.

We've been told about the ordinance we're violating. We've heard about how to get arrested without inciting violence. We've been told to move out if we can't tolerate being arrested. Everyone's been talking since 10 as if arrest was iminent and assured.

I'll believe it when I see it.

But in the meantime, there's the waiting. Sitting, waiting for what's going to happen next. I kind of wish that I could come up with something as epic as the star spangled banner. I've got all night...maybe I'll give it a shot.

Meh...it's not dawn yet, and I seriously have to pee.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4

Therapy

Have you ever been in a relationship that had issues brew and stew until finally someone says, "we need to talk?"

Dear federal government: We need to talk.  We need to talk about Wall St. and the banking system.  We need to talk about laws and regulations for corporations.  We need to talk about taxes.  We need to talk about the military.  We need to talk about the media.  We need  to talk about the political system.

Yes, we need to talk about our feelings.  We feel frustrated.  We feel disenfranchised.  We feel ignored.  We feel taken advantage of.  We feel left out.  We feel dehumanized.  We feel demoralized.

A number of people, myself included, have taken to the streets.  We have forced the issue.  We are expressing these feelings in a way that cannot be ignored.  The way we feel is not going to change any time soon.  We are not going anywhere until you convince us that you are listening and that you care about us.

Leadership

Okay, I'll admit it.  I'm looking for catch phrases.  I'm looking for language that gets an idea across well, is inherently persuasive, to the point, with wide appeal.  I am using twitter and now IRC chat as a sounding board.  I am using this blog as a way of brainstorming, thinking critically, and organizing my thoughts.

I am of the opinion that 'leadership' in this context means that people take the initiative to do things that need to be done.  Leadership is inevitable (one of my catch phrases).  The ideas that catch on will catch on.  Ways of organizing and working together collectively will come to be.

What do catch phrases have to do with leadership?  Well, things need to happen.  I said in one of my previous blog posts that I was optimistic that ideas would gel, demands would become coherent and practical, and the power of the movement would be harnessed for real change.  That can't happen without language.

At some point, someone is going to have to speak for the movement.  Demands will have to be presented.  The demands will have been decided collectively (if all goes well with respect to leadership) and delivered by someone.  And there's the key - leadership will be the people who make sure that collective decisions are collective, that everyone gets to speak, and that the language we ultimately use to make explicit what we want is truly supported collectively.

If I contribute language that ultimately shapes goals, suggestions, demands, then I'm a leader.  If I suggest ways of organizing that prove to be effective, then I'm a leader.  In general, if I get my ideas out there and people accept them, then I'm a leader.  If I manage to do that in a way that respects everyone else's right to 'lead' in this sense, then I'm a good leader, at least in terms of what 'good' leadership means in this context.

Do I want to be a leader?  Not particularly.  But I admit, I like the idea that something I say might help shape the movement and move things forward.  I'm already past worrying that what I'm doing is worthless.  I can already see that what I've done in the past few days has had an effect, made a difference, and helped the movement achieve its (currently nebulous) goals.

My best catch phrases so far?

Leadership is inevitable.
The movement needs a new vision for leadership, not a lack of it.
It's okay to be nobody and speak.
The power of the movement is not in any individual's voice, but in the collective.

Well, these are the ones I like anyways, and the ones that have been best received.  Take them for what they're worth think about them.  I sincerely hope that these help focus the collective voice.

Focus

The 99% don't have answers, but we need to be asking the right questions. Among the many goals shared to varying degrees is an end to apathy. So what do you say to a typical American to convince them that they should care?

Imagine that you are an East Texan living in a small town relatively unaffected by the recession. Good standard of living thanks to low cost of living and plentiful economic resources, i.e. fertile land sitting on top of an oil field. Heavily Christian, solidly Republican. We're talking steer, oil, guns, and football. Half the people you meet tell you within a minute how many tours their son or daughter did recently in Iraq or Afghanistan.

How are these people victims of corporate domination in politics and the media, perpetual foreign war for profit, and the enormous government sponsored concentration of wealth in the top 1%? What do they lose? What do they have to gain if any of that changes?

Let's start with foreign wars. Their kids are dying. Isn't that enough to get any parent out on the street, occupying the nearest major city demanding that the troops come home?

Unfortunately no, for at least a couple of reasons. Families are rightly proud of their service men and women. They are also laboring under the delusion that the wars are just and necessary for our security. This is tied back to media. In terms of emotional manipulation and misinformation, the damage is done.

Perhaps a more fruitful avenue for discussion might be the defense butget. If it's not enough that we're destroying thousands of lives with no tangible benefit, perhaps it will get them in the streets to think about the fact that we are literally blowing up billions of dollars. These are dollars we can ill afford to spend with our budget problems.

Corporate legislation and taxes might be approached the same way. Maybe it's too much to hope for, but in a town built by 'independent oil men', the idea that corporations have a first obligation to working families, then to the social and environmental health of communities, before they are allowed unchecked spending on frivolous luxury and politics, just might stick. Let's allow our corporations to pay no taxes when they create and sustain living wage jobs, and bleed them dry on tax penalties for polution, outsourcing, buying private jets and, worst of all, ad campaigns.

Okay, enough blathering. To the point. You, well off Mr. Smith, have the financial health of the government to worry about. There are economic consequences in your town when healthy wage jobs become fewer and farther between, even if you happen to have one.

And as a Christian, where is your sense of moral obligation in any of this? People are needlessly suffering. Blessed are the meek- blessed, then, are the 99%, who deserve a chance to speak up for themselves in meaningful ways.

I just might get a chance to put it to someone in East Texas. What if one of your independent oil men...

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4

Way To Go, Huff Po!

An entire page dedicated to Occupy Wall St.  Not bad, Huff.

Kinda sucks out some of my motivation as a blogger, though.  The movement is joined by legitimate bloggers on a legitimate site moving in the same direction, but on a jet plane compared with my walking.  I'm gonna try to look on the bright side.  But it's hard.

What's especially hard about apathy is that it comes at you from so many directions.  When you feel like nothing you do will change anything, you don't want to do anything.  When you feel like you want to do something anyways, and maybe even let yourself believe you might make some difference, you find out how many people are already doing the job 'better'.  Better credentials, better name recognition, better reputation and online following, better political connections, more money, more influence.  Who am I?  I am nobody.

But then, there's something different this time.  I get this hard to believe feeling that one of the most important aspects of what's going on now is that people like me are participating in rapidly increasing numbers.  The power is not contained in the individual names, credentials, and resources, but in the collective.

All of a sudden, it's okay if I pour my heart out into a blog no one will ever read.  It's okay if I feel foolish and idealistic.  If nothing ever comes of this, I won't have wasted my time.  If I don't make this choice, nothing can change.  Sure I'm depending on other people - but they're depending on me too.  Sure I might be let down; that's all the more reason for me not to let anyone else down.

Just 48 hours and I already feel plugged in to the community on twitter.  I can't wait to see #movement trending!  If it goes that far, I can say I helped start it, however small my contribution might have been.  And if I never see it come to be, what have I lost?

I Support The Movement

What movement, you ask?  Whether or not the various people forming groups, gaining momentum, and obviously sharing a common vision know it or not, they are a movement.  Guys, seriously - it's a real thing.

I am cautiously optimistic, but optimistic no less.  I think these groups will gain coherence.  I think they will achieve clarity of purpose.  I think they will find ways of making their demands practical, and putting some credible political pressure behind them.  At minimum I think they will decrease the number of people living in apathy and elective ignorance.

Why shouldn't I be optimistic?  They got me...that's one down.  Seems like there are more coming.  So that's it then - I'm here, and I want to help.

That's All Good, But...

Okay I know what you're thinking. Seriously, Dent, you want a new kind of handout for poor people? Yes, I know. I am the worst libertarian ever.

I want a lot of things Libertarians want. I want an end to US occupation and foreign wars. I want permissive social liberalism, including an end to the war on drugs. I want *practical* business and economic policies that allow maximum independence without jeopardizing individual rights.

I also happen to want participatory government. An adult can't participate if they're not educated; nor can they if they're ill; nor can they if they are shut out from having a meaningful voice.

Maybe I should clarify. I think that participatory government should be fair. That means that expenditures on things like education and health care are legitimate. It means that preventing any single group from dominating public discourse is a necessary curtailment of liberty.

If the government is functioning, it should be organizing the town hall, running it fairly, and preventing any kind of systematic exclusion. Exclusion from education, health care, and the ability to contribute meaningfully to dialogue, are all exclusion from participation. Preventing such systematic exclusion requires redistribution of some wealth (taxes) and curtailment of some liberties (i.e. no restrictively loud use of PA systems and microphones allowed).

If that's anathema to libertarianism, in the practical details surrounding inclusion, then I guess we disagree on what, exactly, the 'blessings of liberty' and the 'general welfare' are. Government limited to its stated constitutional purposes is still government that provides the means for meaningful participation to all citizens.

It is really just not okay to say we want participatory government, but that it's every man for himself, and if you can't find the means to participate, too bad! I don't accept that model.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4

Going Mobile

Within 24 hours I went from essential radio silence to having blogger and twitter on my mobile. I think this time I intend to use them.

I have resolved (sort of) to blog in the past. But as you may have gleaned from my little town hall fantasy, it's hard not to feel like the situation is hopeless. What purpose could my blogging possibly serve? Time on this earth is precious; is blogging really worth the time taken away from watching Star Trek and playing The Legend of Zelda?

I got my motivation this time from reading about the Occupy Wall St. and Occupy Chicago events. Those involved are noteworthy first for having organized without clearly spelled out goals or demands. They are further commendable for moving to create a list of demands democratically.

One member of one of these groups caught my attention, struck my fancy, and lit the proverbial fire, by saying that it would be enough just to increase awareness of realities and possibilities, hoping to fight apathy.

Apathy...an emotion? Perhaps a better word might be inertia. And what is the opposite of being inert? Being active. And what way do most of us have to be active apart from being vocal? By most of us I mean people who are not flush with cash.

Being vocal has never been easier. I can bang out a blog post in an hour. I can probably tweet and re-tweet 5 times in a minute. There's just no excuse for not being vocal.

Next steps...find or start a NFP to provide mobile communications devices and service cheap or free to low income families. More on this to come...

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4

This Whole Internet Thing is Probably Worthwhile

It occurred to me today that internet 'followers' are, despite being kind of creepily named, a very valuable form of currency.  I see it as very much like how knowledge is a form of currency.  So I suppose building an online network of interested readers via blogging, tweeting, and so forth might be worthwhile.

I have been thinking a lot lately about how all of this online stuff really changes the game when it comes to Media, as in "The Media".  Who controls the media?  Well, perhaps we the people can take control of the media by moving viewership onto the internet!  Imagining a day when corporate controlled news sources can no longer dominate public discourse makes me happy.

I mean seriously, imagine a town hall meeting that is supposed to be a forum for the free exchange of ideas.  Imagine the meeting is designed expressly for the purpose of Democratic government.  Everyone is supposed to get an equal chance to consider information, form opinions, and express preferences publicly, before collectively binding decisions are made by vote.

It's hard to imagine, I know.  Let me make it a bit easier.

When you show up to this town hall, you find out that behind the scenes,  certain privileged people have already set the agenda.  These same people have set up an enormous PA system and control the mics.  They spend 99% of the time allotted for the meeting expressing their views, giving out information that cannot be verified in short order, and may well be intentionally false and misleading.

Then, during the one minute in which everyone else is allowed to 'speak', everyone speaks at the same time with no microphones as loud as they can.  After that one minute, 'discourse' is cut off, and the issues are put to a vote.

Would it really surprise you to find out that participation in such a meeting might be extremely low?  Would you really expect anything more than apathy from all but the most optimistic, idealistic citizens, clinging to what little shred of hope is offered in that one minute of panic?  Or perhaps those who don't abandon the system cling to some hope, even further lost in my opinion, that some day the setup of the town hall meeting will change.  Everyone will get a turn at the mic; information will be verified and considered thoughtfully; everyone will get an equal chance to set the agenda ahead of time; and only then will we vote.

If you think political parties change the landscape in any meaningful way, think again.  If anything political parties have simply duplicated the same sham system at the party lodge as a way of deciding who will speak at the big town hall. The political parties are hardly distinguishable from the special interests that back them.

Is it too much to think that the internet might bring that system to its knees?  I don't know...what would it look like if a network of tweeters numbering somewhere near 100,000,000 were to tweet @town_hall, demanding certain things on the agenda?   What would it look like if something like 1,000,000 bloggers a day were to find verifiable facts and present analysis and opinions relevant to the topics on the agenda?

In my view, the only thing keeping Americans from meaningful participation in government is apathy.  The talent is here.  The channels are open; it just seems so pointless to try to use them.  On top of the fact that each voice seems to be drowned out to nothingness, no one is listening!