Stop asking

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Demand.

Stop fearing your government.

Make them fear you.

There is absolutely zero possibility that online petitions will work. We have tried this. We know the definition of insanity.

Meeting with our "Representatives" does not work. We have tried this and it has not worked. Once the meeting ends they head back to the Congressional chambers and various board rooms and do the bidding of their real constituents. That ain't you and me.

Heading off to the election booth to vote in the new improved version is not working. Once in office they backpedal and weasel out of just about every single "promise to the people", with fingers crossed behind backs, that they made. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on...

So what's the solution?

Well it may not be obvious or knowable but we do know at the very least that the answer to that question begins with: "Something else."

Discuss.

[frogcycle]

1. popular uprising WOULD be effective

if they had to walk past picket lines every time they came and went to the office or the Capitol; if they saw demonstrations on TV every night like we did in the 70's, it would get to them. You are right - faceless online petitions mean nothing to them. Real flesh-and-blood people shouting at them as they walk by - preferably not so wacko as to be dismissed - would affect them.

[readmoreoften]

9. You can't protest anywhere near government buildings anymore.

At the RNC protests in NYC, for example, we were over 10 blocks away from the site at closest. We were also herded into sections so that we couldn't ever form a large group and each section was full of space so that you felt empty and disconnected. Even with all this peaceful protesting people were swept up and put into detention centers--even people who just happened to be walking by.

Peaceful protest is considered about a hair away from terrorism now--and I'm not exaggerating. Regular protesters were under constant surveillance: the Fuji Blimp, black helicopters, masked men on rooftops.

[stillcool]

23. and that requires massive organization..

mobilization, and some kind of leadership. Come to think of it, I think what I'm describing has a different name.

[frogcycle]

25. yep

[Robb]

2. Harsh language?

Avoiding eye contact?

Ooh, ooh ... how about humming quietly?







Tickling?

[noamnety]

3. this is what I've been pondering lately

My thoughts:

Just like in the army, every mission peace activists do should have a stated objective, and the mission should help us get to it in a direct way.

Objectives can target public opinion, or congressional votes (or both).

1. Public opinion:
a. Things that make people care, on an emotional level, about a subject
b. Things that inform (inform people who are not already informed)

(I do not personally believe holding a "no war" sign at a vigil accomplishes either of these, at this point.)

2. Congressional votes:
a. Complacency is the friend of incumbents; Tension is their enemy.

[Fireweed247]

4. Start protesting the media stations?

Let them ignore that.

[dajoki]

5. Remember the '68 Dem Convention?

Protesters, riots, excessive police force, etc. Maybe the samething can be done in Denver and Minneapolis-Saint Paul, without the blood though, to show the nation that the government should not be feared and remind them that they work for us.

[readmoreoften]

7. Just a question...or rather a few questions...

How can you riot without risk of bloodshed? Can you riot peacefully? Will a mass sit-in show the nation that the government shouldn't be feared? Would they even really cover it on CNN? And last question: do they really work for us? I don't think they work for us at all. And even if they are somewhat reliant on our votes, they need their financial backers to deliver those votes.

[dajoki]

10. You took it...

way too literally. I don't want to see riots, what I meant was, that happened in 1968, I'm sure a large peaceful protest WOULD get the media's attention. And yes, I believe in this day and age with the way people are afraid to say the "wrong" thing or be seen in the "wrong" place, a mass show of civil disobedience could show that the government does not have to be feared. I'll have to agree with you on your last question though, of course they really do "work for us", but you would never know it, they are all bought and paid for.

[readmoreoften]

12. We had the largest global protests in world history at the beginning of the war.

The government wasn't the least bit frightened. Why would they be frightened now? How many people would be needed out in the streets?

[dajoki]

16. The world and nation...

have changed drastically since the begining of the war, people around the world and the country have come to see just what Bushco has actually done and what they stand for. And I never said that the government would be frightened, that wasn't the point. The OP suggested trying "something else, Discuss", so that is what I'm doing, discussing something else, I have no idea how many people would be needed in the streets, I would guess the more the better. If you don't like my suggestion just say so instead of hinting around it.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

17. Those were not protests

I was there.

[readmoreoften]

27. By that do you mean that they were just rallies and not really protests?

If so, I'd agree. I went to a few. They seemed more like caucus' to me. Like visual votes against the war being registered publicly. :shrug:

[Orwellian_Ghost]

34. Yes

That's pretty much what I was suggesting. Seemed more like a parade.

I've been to all the "mega" marches and numerous other rallies, demos, etc and they seemed pretty easy-going affairs looking back on it.

"Power cedes nothing without a struggle."

[readmoreoften]

36. The RNC in NYC was, well, interesting.

It was such a police state that raising your voice to a cop would get you arrested. Via the east side of the city, I somehow made it close to 34th--near where Bush was and it was Republican hooligans running around free with hand-painted tee-shirts. A religious woman in American flag clothes was screaming at the few passersby against abortion and islamofascism and so forth. The cops didn't bother her at all. She started screaming DYKES!!! when we passed and the cops told us that we were in the wrong place and that the protest was "a few blocks to the south". After being routed through barricades over about 3 avenues and 15 blocks south, then up two or three blocks north...there was the beginning of the protest. We might as well have been protesting in Brooklyn.

When critical mass blocked Broadway by riding thousands of bikes I watched cops arrest people standing on the sidelines cheering. I remember talking to one guy who is an organizer was is facing 4 years in jail for using a bullhorn. His people used to pass out flyers urging support for him. There was so much of this kind of thing going on....

And then there was the WCW rallies, which I took part in. To see only 2000 show up in NYC was disheartening. A lot of people I knew wouldn't attend WCW events because they're 'commies'. One of the best events I attended was actually a WCW event after the MCA and the loss of habeus corpus: the CCR lawyers (the gitmo lawyers), the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, and a few Hollywood actors were there. I much preferred meetings and information sessions to parades.

The mass march that was so powerful during civil rights--I think that strategy might be saturated. People don't pay attention to marches anymore. Besides that, they look more like parades. They don't exactly mirror the gravity of the situation. Both the Russian Revolution and the Religious Right Revolution in the US were accomplished by small groups of committed people. I remember reading somewhere that the amount of people participating in the October Revolution was 18,000 in the entire nation.

I'd rather be with a small committed crowd than a large crowd that's there to have a good time. Something has to be at stake. And, yes, you're right, there was to be struggle.

[bobthedrummer]

18. 50 million+ is a good starting point.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

8. There's no telling

All of the things that we are now in a position to DEMAND! that we get are only the things that are rightfully ours.

[dajoki]

13. It would be nice...

if we could get what is rightfully ours!! I don't think that is asking too much.

[readmoreoften]

6. Unfortunately change comes from people taking real risks.

The greatest problem that we face today comes from the fact that we, more or less, live in a simulation. By simulation, I don't mean that we live in an online gaming system. I mean that we live within a culture that tries to reduce stakes at all costs. We are possibly the most fearful, risk-adverse people in history. Silly executives have co-opted the concept of 'risk'. They make large bets that their bank accounts can comfortably withstand, bungee jump, and have sex with hookers. That's not risk. That's playing at being alive.

Our entire culture is organized around the fear of death: OnStar, cell phone leashes, gated communities, terrorist watch lists, home security systems with remote access, CCTV, cars that will only drive the speed limit, microchips in pets, RFID cards for middle school students, security guards with tasers, infrared cameras, satellites. That's not to say that a modicum of caution isn't a good idea, but we are so afraid of death that we don't live anymore. Life includes risk, and that means not knowing the outcome beforehand. We can't bear to not-know the outcome, and that's why we live in a simulation. For almost a decade now we've tolerated election fraud, the decimation of the economy, and an absurd ongoing series of wars of conquest because... why? Well because we don't know how to fight. And we don't know how to fight because we don't know how to live. And we don't know how to live because we're obsessed with avoiding death.

I have only made one small political risk: I went on strike and as a result lost my job, my health insurance, my apartment and I am still climbing out of the financial wreckage--all for a principle. The outcome would not have benefited me or harmed me. In the scheme of things, this risk was nothing--it's an embarrassment to even mention it. Considering that a friend of mine in South Africa--a white South African--went to prison for 7 years and suffered torture for doing the right thing on principle. But you know what? There's no more apartheid in South Africa because of good people like him.

Organizing for candidates, voting--all the easy stuff, no matter how laborious--is not going to stop the horror of corporate expansion. I think the best thing we can do is simply begin to engender in ourselves, in our friends, and in people who will listen that there will be no change without personal risk When you suggest a general strike people say "well that won't work! no one else will do it and I'll lose my job!" Very possible. Maybe we should do it anyway. When you suggest a mass rally that isn't 3000 feet from any public official people say "well that work work! no one else will show up and then the few of us who are there will get arrested and then I'll lose my job!" Very possible. Maybe we should do it anyway.

We keep backing down from civil disobedience and it keeps getting harder.

[noamnety]

11. If the goal is to reduce corporate expansion

we can do that by protesting and by getting ourselves arrested, maybe.

What can we do though to opt out of the expansion, and persuade others to opt out as well?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

14. That will not work

The individual response to a problem of this magnitude while understandable does not address the root problems and in fact further serves to disguise the profound and massive ills that are besetting us all.

For example, how would your proposal bring such a universal right as health care to each and every individual in the US?

Opting out is not an option. We are all in this.

[noamnety]

20. Ah, it doesn't have to be individual opt outs.

gardens, for example. When we grow a garden, we opt out, for our families, from the corporate growers, truckers, and sellers. But also, we typically give the excess away.

If we plant community gardens, it's no longer individual.

If we give away the excess at WIC offices, we gain those people's support.

If you look at what other resistance groups do around the world, the resistance groups that have massive popular support, they look at the the empty holes the government has created, and instead of sitting around waiting for a nonresponsive government that serves the corporations to do what's right, they begin to fill those holes themselves.

I haven't said opt out of society, mind you. I'm not suggesting living in a cabin in homesteaderdenial while the world goes to hell.

[readmoreoften]

22. Personally, I think we should abandon the concept of consumer protest.

By 'opting out' I'm going to take that as meaning an extreme form of consumer protest. I know it sounds shocking to oppose such a thing, but I'll give you a few reasons why I do:

(1) It is easy for the rich and almost impossible for the poor and working classes. It divides the world into "ethical" rich people who can afford to buy organic and local, who aren't so tired working two jobs where they stand on their feet that they can bike to work, who have an internet connection where they can do research to figure out where they can buy union made clothes, and "ignorant, lazy, immoral poor people" who continue to shop at Walmart and drive old cars and eat fast food. This isn't just about Walmart. It's about Target and Costco. It's about our computers and our TVs. Which leads to #2:

(2) Truly opting out is almost impossible. Opting out of the system is a radical life change. Not many people do it. I have met people who are so anti-consumerist that they do not exchange money (they only barter); they don't buy medicine (barter for organic, local yogurt if you need to cure a yeast infection, etc.); and they certainly don't drive. I find this to be incredibly utopian and--frankly--apolitical. I don't really think that enough people will do this long enough to even make the smallest dent in the global economy. I don't knock people who do it. I do knock people who think everyone else will. Most people don't want to live in communal housing and give up their computers. Which leads to #3

(3) Most liberalism today is predicated on partially opting out. We 'try' to use less gas. We 'try' not to buy things we don't need (I'm not convinced we even know what 'need' means.) We change our lightbulbs. We don't shop at Walmart. But as you can see, this easily slides into #1. It also has limited effect. Agro-business is not going to stop taking indigenous people's lands because we sometimes buy local food (when we can afford it.) The Iraq war isn't going to stop because people make one trip to shop and go to the gym. It may help the environment, but it's not going to stop global capital. Which leads to #4

(4) Corporations spend a lot of money on advertising that makes them look socially conscious. They also spend a lot of money hiring psychologists who run tests to see what is the most effective way to manipulate us. This makes people feel good about 'buying green' when they are really just buying a product with a green logo. The best we can do from an anti-consumerist angle is to teach people which leads to #5:

(5) Anti-consumerism sounds like nagging and it sort of is. I live in a poor neighborhood. If activists held a 'social change' meeting neighborhood people would show up holding Coke cans and wearing sweatshop clothes. The activists could point this out and use it as a teachable moment. But what happens when people come back the next week and they say: okay, we gave up the coke, now we're drinking tap water, but they're still wearing sweatshop clothes and now they're eating processed corn chips grown on stolen Mexican land and drinking cheap coffee from stolen Colombian land to stay awake at a boring political meeting after working two jobs. If the activists tell them to stop buying processed foods and only buy fair trade coffee, everyone is going to walk out. They are going to remind me that they can't afford to buy expensive food and that they can't get to fancy stores because they don't have cars. Of course that's when we tell them that they should be riding bikes anyway and they tell us we're nuts. Anti-consumerist activism takes something away from people without giving them anything in return which leads to #6:

(6) Shopping is something we do in relative privacy. It relies on the honor system and no one has any idea if anyone else is doing it. No one knows if I bought a Coke at the convenience store and no one can see the label in my clothes that reveals whether or not my clothes are sweatshop made or union made. And what about people who buy non-union clothes from thrift stores? Lastly #7:

(7) I think that activism that focuses against consumption reinforces that the only thing we can do is consume: we are consumers and the only tool we have is to not consume...although we don't know how exactly.

I DO think that protesting stores is a good idea. But the problem is that big box stores are public property and you will be arrested if you block the doors. You will also be defacto asking people to strike because you'll be blocking employees as well as consumers from entering and exiting.

I think labor-side shuts the system down more quickly. It replaces objects with community and gives everyone a sense of solidarity.

[noamnety]

24. I am thinking about this in a different way than you.

I agree with a few of your points, that opting out can - at its worst - be a self-indulgent thing that becomes elitist, yes.

And also that lecturing people without giving them something better is not the way to win people over.

Again, I'm going to go with military tactics here, our own, and resistance movements. I think peace activists are too reluctant to look at those tactics sometimes, or maybe they don't know where to look. In the military, we talk about winning hearts and minds. Peace activists look at the "we're building schools, winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis" and roll their eyes, rightfully so. (as do I.)

But that's where some peace activists just shut down. They miss the larger point, because the US military specifically has no credibility. The larger point is that winning the hearts and minds is a tactic successfully used to achieve political goals, which at the end of the day is the military's purpose. We may not always - or ever - agree with those political goals, but there's a reason Hezbollah, for example, enjoys popular support - and it's not cause they are waving flags on street corners, or because they shoot missiles around. It's because they get shit done for the communities they live in.

I bring up the food thing, because food security is everything in a resistance movement. I learned this from a friend, from his observations as a member of the special forces. Where people have the means of survival, when they can grow things and eat, they can resist. When they are dependent on money to buy gas to get to the store to buy food, when there is a government crackdown, they can't survive except by sucking up to the system.

Rich people buying designer organic food - perhaps elitist. Community gardens, not elitist. When I first got out of the army, I was unemployed, and I spent ten dollars to rent a ten by ten plot in a community garden for the summer, and the vegetables supplemented our WIC coupons. You'll have a hard time convincing me I was on the elite side of any class divide that garden created.

"Anti-consumerism" does indeed sound like nagging. We need to change our consumer ways, though. This is like quiting smoking - the most successful quitters aren't spending their time focusing on "I can't have a cigarette, I have to think of anything BUT a cigarette" ... they focus on breathing cleanly. If you take something away, you have to fill it with something better or people will feel deprived.

Shopping is indeed something we do in relative privacy. Community gardens is not. Community gardens in the commons ... with or without permission, that's a whole other thing.

Can a garden be a protest?

[readmoreoften]

26. Oh I'm all for community gardens. They're a fantastic idea. (And a protest)

Precisely because it gives people an alternative to giving up their commodities. Especially a community garden run by a co-op. Sorry if I ranted too long against the simplistic anti-consumerism. I'm a teacher and I deal with that question a lot of the time from students.

At the moment I'm very interested in picking apart the Zapatitstas, in seeing how the EZLN functioned, how the caracols were formed and so forth. I used to be 'into' them, but in a very superficial way. Now I'm looking at them from a thoroughly pragmatic angle--I supposed I'm a decade behind on this! :) But, also, the term 'netwar' was invented by the Rand corporation to describe the Zapatistas. The idea of tangentially related movements all supporting one another, 'swarming' the system, as Rand called it, I think this is the answer.

But as far as the US goes it is not a matter of what form revolt is going to take as much as getting through to the people who complain on message boards (and I speak of myself here because this is something that I constantly remind myself as well!) that we are going to have to take risks--locally or nationally--whether the revolution is televised or not, we're going to have to take hits. I think that people know what to do. It's not that difficult to figure out really! But when people say "yeah, but what are we going to do??!!! It's hopeless!!" What they're really saying, in my estimation, is "I'm not risking an unacceptable amount of comfort to engage in a struggle that might not pan out. Prove to me that it'll work and I'll join. Or make it enjoyable and relatively painless. I'll save $100 to donate or man a table on the weekends until you prove it's going to work. Heck, if you prove it'll work I might even man the table every weekend and pass out flyers!" But of course all the alternatives involve great personal risk (losing one's job, looking like a fool, risking arrest) and absolutely no enjoyment other than solidarity with other inspired people and the knowledge that win or lose, you're certain you're right. If you ask me, this is why we're losing. The religious right have yolked capitalism to family and nation and the followers really believe that they are right, that God is on their side, and that they are guaranteed to win. There's no real risk because whatever you lose on earth, you gain in heaven.

[noamnety]

35. Food security is a part of reducing the risk

and increasing the comfort zone. It's why people are more willing to strike when they have a union that provides strike pay. They may still be risking their jobs, but the union provides a layer of immediate security during the strike.

There's a video here on food security and Cuba. It's short, 3:34, and makes the point better than I have:

http://freedocumentaries.org/index.php?ct=32

[Two Americas]

33. the goals

The goals are freedom, justice, and equality. Corporate expansion is the obstacle, the tool of those opposed to freedom, justice, and equality. We can take that tool away from them - we must, if we are to survive. Looking for an easier or more comfortable or safer path is delusional.

[FirstLight]

19. I fully agree that risk is a feeling we seek only in "safety"

Many people live in a very sheltered life, even those with "problems" seek to numb the stress and pain...it is our nature to shy away from that which is uncomfortable. As a result we have no real way to gague what risk really IS. Or what it means to be motivated for drastic change no matter what the cost.

But there is one thing you leave out of this scenario...
He who has very little to lose, will fight like hell to hold on to what he has.

Once we get to that tipping point, then the people will have to push back, and perhaps those who have been sleeping will wake to fight for freedoms' reinstatement...and rebuilding things in a more equal fashion. Not to mention, scarcity and tribulation are great equalizers, and will no doubt help coalesce our fellow americans in a new way.

I honestly feel that people won't budge as long as they can shop, watch tv, and pretend their lives are "normal" ... it happened in Germany, too...didn't it?

[readmoreoften]

29. I think that desperation could push people to act, but I don't think we should rely on this.

Desperation can cause people to band together and act, but if we look to the global south, we see that there are some desperate people who fight and other desperate people who join US backed paramilitaries and slaughter their neighbors. Plus there will always be something to risk. Even when people are poor, they still have their children and their lovers to lose.

We also can't forget about disaster capitalism, which relies on chaos and the shock of loss as a pretext for stealing people's lands and setting up dictatorships.

Personally, I think the first thing we need to get rid of is our cynicism and nihilism and really start thinking in terms of how to fight with the movements already afoot in other nations. Whether desperate or just slightly uncomfortable, it will still take the ability to imagine and accept risk.

[OwnedByFerrets]

21. You should make that an OP....

it was a great post.

[readmoreoften]

28. Thanks, I may expand it a little and do that.

:)

[bobthedrummer]

15. Massive civil demonstrations and a demand for accountability.

No permits needed, all power to the people. 24/7 even when they do Iran and bring out the death squads.

[readmoreoften]

30. or to put it more succinctly for us...

here comes bobthedrummer!!! :bounce:

(I mean, now that they're openly showing microwave devices intended for protesters on 60 minutes and featured yahoo video. "Look they're going to cause pain to our fellow citizens for protesting! It's all just so fascinating! Wait who are they using this on again? What was I saying? No matter. Wow look at that shiny military object! Fascinating!)

[Two Americas]

31. it starts with two

Two is much greater than one, and two is the required first step.

Our ability to pull together, to find common cause, is badly crippled - so much so, that getting two people in communication and solidarity for very long is almost beyond our capacity, except on the most superficial and tenuous level. One must not tell the truth - that is how fragile our relationships are.

We do not know how to lead, nor to be led. We cannot communicate with each other, and we do not know how to build organizations. Wew have forgotten thoise skills. Our obsession with "personal choice" precludes even forming a community of two. We can worship heroes, or we can become cult followers or petty dictators - but we do not recognize true leadership anymore. We know whose ass to kiss, and who we can stomp on.

This is because the corporate model for organizing, for relating to one another, for having an effect on the world, has come to dominate every aspect of our lives. We can't speak, think, or act in any other way anymore, and the corporate model for organizing and communicating is inherently alienating and inhuman and divisive. Sales slogans and corporate board room meetings, marketing programs and product roll outs, office politics and pecking orders based on perceived status, and at all timesd limited personal responsiblity or commitment to anything beyond ourselves - we emulate the "winners," identify with our oppressors in all of our thinking.

It just takes two, because that is like lighting a small fire in a parched and combustible field. But there are not now two - not even two. That is how vicious and pervasive the pressure for social conformity is. The more "personal choice" and the more "individualism" the more homogeneity and conformity. we are a direction-less mob of alienated and isolated individuals, each making our "choices" as we robot-like approach life like shoppers at the mall.

Break it. Reach out to one and make two. Really stand with one other person. Stand for something. Tell the truth. Take risks. From there we can rally and mobilize millions.

[readmoreoften]

32. Agreed 100%. I rec this post.

And with corporate talk, let's also talk about the overuse of 'sounding rational.' Anything today can be done so long as it sounds rational. This is another gift of corporatism. For example, the WTO writes in boring technocratic language and kills millions. The millions rise up and it is called irrational deluded and passionate. Power doesn't yell. Power doesn't have to yell. Today vague abstractions inserted into contracts leave millions destitute--the vaguer and easier to explain away the better. For example:

"Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution:

The property of all land and water within national territory is originally owned by the Nation, who has the right to transfer this ownership to particulars. Hence, private property is a privilege created by the Nation. Expropriations may only be made when there is a public utility cause.
The State will always have the right to impose on private property the constrainst dictated by "public interest". The State will also regulate the exploitation of natural resources based on social benefits and the equal distribution of wealth. The state is also responsible for conservation and ecological considerations."

These changes, made in 1994, made it legal for private corporations to take over land owned by subsistence farmers in Mexico, setting up millions of people for imminent death. But it contains many reasonable words that make it sound sweet to liberals: "public utility, public interest, state regulation, social benefits, equal distribution of wealth(!), conservation." Why it all sounds so reasonable! A similar phenomenon happens during strikes for union rights. A few months into the strike the management comes up with the idea of a company union! What a magnanimous compromise! How reasonable! How civilized!

[Orwellian_Ghost]

37. Yes

K&R