During several years now (since the mid-90's) I've had a certain understanding about what it would take to address the social dysfunction caused by the ascendancy and entrenchment of the corporate state. First, a large-enough segment of the population would have to have a clear understanding of the true nature of the system. Second, those who have reached that common understanding would then have to coalesce into a cohesive and strategic social justice/resistance movement capable of acting in concert against the corporate state. Third, the effort would have to be relentless, sustained, long-term, until it achieved its goal.
At least to me, in my eyes, in my mind, I've seen that understanding as a very basic proposition, i.e., a no-brainer, for many years now. However, my thinking about this issue has evolved in a very fundamental manner: I've come to the realization that what seems like a very simple, basic proposition to me, it is in fact the most overwhelming challenge when it comes to a viable social justice/resistance movement.
There are two main reasons for this shift in attitude... One is my wife's reaction to me stating that "basic proposition" for these many years, as well as the reaction of other people I've interacted with, both online, and in person.
To put it mildly, that "matter-of-fact," no-brainer approach to that discussion is not always received well.
I would tell my wife, "Okay, so the government has been captured by the wealthy and corporatist cartels who are in the process of dismantling the last remnants of democracy, and with it our constitutional rights. If the process is left unmolested, it will not stop until the citizenry is totally subjugated and enslaved by the ruling elite. Since the ruling elite is made up of a few thousand people who's actions are driven by a confluence of interests, all we need to do is organize in large-enough numbers in order to end the tyranny and oppression."
And so, every time I end my little speech, invariably my wife's expression is one of annoyance and disbelief, and I quickly change the subject as to avoid an argument.
Here's where I think I've been taking the wrong approach: What seems obvious to me about the system is not obvious to everybody else, and rightly so. Also, even if people agree with some of my conclusions about the system, many feel that it would be futile to try to do anything about it; obviously I'm in no position to dismiss out of hand those concerns, or views.
Many people feel that the futility in trying to take on the corporate state is based on two conditions: One is the fact that the corporate state/ruling class has built itself a formidable security/surveillance apparatus which would be impossible to challenge. Second, they feel that it would be almost impossible to organize a large-enough segment of the population into the type of movement I'm advocating.
Again, who am I to dismiss those views, those conclusions? I used to do just that, and that explains the hostility with which some people have reacted to my "matter-of-fact" pronouncements about both, the problem, and the solution, when it comes to the social dysfunction caused by the corporate state.
At this point, I'd like to call attention to what I think is one of the best things I've read in a long time, about the current situation in the United States. It's a superb diary by gjohnsit, titled "The Return of the 19th Century"
A friend once told me that the wealthy elite didn't want to just "roll back" the New Deal, they wanted to roll back the entire 20th Century. His point was that all the social gains of the 20th Century were granted to us in order to combat global communism, and that with the collapse of communism the wealthy elite are going it take it all back.
I didn't fully appreciate his sentiments until recently.
You see, to me, that has been my understanding of the situation for many years now, and that's why for most of that time I just thought that all we, activists who shared that understanding, had to do was to
help awaken people to it, and that the rest would manifest itself.
Yes, there is an element to that in the struggle for social justice, against the corporate state, as proposed by Bill Moyers in "Doing Democracy: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements."
Social movements involve a long-term struggle between the movement and the powerholders for the hearts, minds, and support of the majority of the population. Before social movements begin, most people are either unaware that a problem exists or don't believe that they can do anything about it. They believe the powerholder's societal myths and support the high-sounding official policies and practices, all of which seem to be consistent with the culture's deeply held held values and beliefs...
~snip~
The strategy of social movements, therefore, is to alert, educate, and win over an ever increasing majority of the public. First the public needs to be convinced that a critical social problem exists. Then it must be convinced that policies need to be changed. And then a majority of people must be mobilized into a force that eventually brings about an acceptable solution.
But I've come to the realization that this process can't be rushed, and especially it can't be pushed unto people. Not only that, one must be humble enough to listen carefully to what other people have to say about these challenges; about their ideas, their perspectives, their approach, their own timing on things. For it to be successful, it has to be truly grassroots, and come about organically.
One of the biggest challenges I've seen is that even if people believe there is something terribly wrong with the system, they may be even more leery of the idea of too radical a change, especially if the change is brought about by revolutionary fervor.
And again, if once I dismissed those concerns out of hand, now I take them to heart, and understand them.
And so, as I've continued changing my approach when it comes to (peaceful) revolutionary fervor driven by what I perceive to be the urgency of the situation (as the corporate state entrenches itself), I've taken time to do more research about the subject; research that has helped me understand the role of psychology when it comes to social movements.
Here's how Mark Lichbach describes it in "The Rebel's Dilemma: An Evaluation of Collective Action."
Whichever specific psychological processes are involved, it is expected that deprivations generate grievances about government; that grievances generate sympathies for similarly deprived actors [people]; and that these deprivations, grievances, and sympathies generate anger which eventually produces behavioral dissent.
In other words, it is very rare for average people to embrace "dissent" as an option without them being directly affected by
deprivations caused by a dysfunctional system.
And of course, once a large-enough segment of the population is ready to rise up in opposition to oppression, the most effective way of doing so is through peaceful dissent: "Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict"
For more than a century, from 1900 to 2006, campaigns of nonviolent resistance were more than twice as effective as their violent counterparts in achieving their stated goals. By attracting impressive support from citizens, whose activism takes the form of protests, boycotts, civil disobedience, and other forms of nonviolent noncooperation, these efforts help separate regimes from their main sources of power and produce remarkable results, even in Iran, Burma, the Philippines, and the Palestinian Territories.
Combining statistical analysis with case studies of specific countries and territories, Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan detail the factors enabling such campaigns to succeed and, sometimes, causing them to fail. They find that nonviolent resistance presents fewer obstacles to moral and physical involvement and commitment, and that higher levels of participation contribute to enhanced resilience, greater opportunities for tactical innovation and civic disruption (and therefore less incentive for a regime to maintain its status quo), and shifts in loyalty among opponents’ erstwhile supporters, including members of the military establishment.
The emphasis is mine
And getting back to Lichbach, the key is to get a large-enough segment of the population to engage in a sustained and coordinated effort:
Indeed, Mark Lichbach, a professor of government and politics, has written in The Rebel’s Dilemma, that when more than 5 percent of the population engages in sustained, coordinated civil disobedience, few governments can remain in power whether they are a dictatorship or a democracy. The path to reaching this 5 percent begins when people who are already active in resistance build solidarity and draw more people to the movement. As more people see the movement growing and that there is a strategy to win, they will have the confidence to join it. Achieving the 5 percent tipping point with a diverse cross-section of society then becomes well within reach.
The emphasis is mine
Finally, at this point I'd like to address an issue which I suspect is important to readers of this blog... I still believe that it is of paramount importance that we participate fully in the political process, and that includes campaigning, volunteering, manning phone banks, placing posters, sending out mailers, and of course, voting for the best possible candidates possible.
We can't give in an inch when it comes to political participation... However, I don't think at this point too many people would argue with the proposition that our entire political system is compromised by influence peddling corruption.
And that's why I, and many others, believe that we must do both: stay engaged in the electoral process and work within the system, and also become part of a strong, cohesive, strategic, and relentless resistance movement focused on removing the influence peddling corruption that results from the collusion or symbiotic relationship between wealthy/corporatist paymasters and politicians.
I argue that that condition is what's helping bring about "The Return of the 19th Century"
As the ongoing process of movement-building continues, we will notice The Sparks of Rebellion:
The most important dilemma facing us is not ideological. It is logistical. The security and surveillance state has made its highest priority the breaking of any infrastructure that might spark widespread revolt. The state knows the tinder is there. It knows that the continued unraveling of the economy and the effects of climate change make popular unrest inevitable. It knows that as underemployment and unemployment doom at least a quarter of the U.S. population, perhaps more, to perpetual poverty, and as unemployment benefits are scaled back, as schools close, as the middle class withers away, as pension funds are looted by hedge fund thieves, and as the government continues to let the fossil fuel industry ravage the planet, the future will increasingly be one of open conflict. This battle against the corporate state, right now, is primarily about infrastructure. We need an infrastructure to build revolt. The corporate state is determined to deny us one.
-- Chris Hedges
The emphasis is mine
In closing, when it comes to social justice activism, what are your priorities? What is your understanding of sustained and coordinated action? Do you see a need for it, or do you think the political system as it is enough to address the challenges we face? Do you feel hopeful about the future, or pessimistic?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market For The People |Ray Pensador | Email List | Twitter | Facebook