“The world as it is, is not the world as it has to be!”

Posted by mobile phone:
Its interesting to watch McCain’s desperate attempt to fight his way up his impossibly steep hill to the White House. An entire early section of the debate focused on the tone and tactics of the two campaigns. McCain focused on lies against Obama’s character, while saying his campaign was focused on the issues. Classic strategy when you’re desperate: ignore the issues and attack the person. Here’s the catch: it doesn’t work. I guess Frank Luntz has taken this campaign off.

Posted by mobile phone:
I’m here at Hofstra University for the last of the 2008 Presidential Debates. I’ve been doing PowerVote organizing today, mostly talking to students in front of the ‘clean (sic) coal’ table about dirty energy (especially all forms of coal) and the necessity of a clean energy future.

Now I’m sitting in one of the debate watching parties in Hofstra’s student center cafeteria. There are a few hundred students here. Theres a lot of excitement in the air. More blogging to come in a few…

Posted by mobile phone:
I went to my local cell phone store today to upgrade my phone. As I was waiting for my new phone to be set up, I was reading through their pamphlet on cell phone insurance. Under the section on ‘exclusions’ from coverage included - I kid you not - ‘undeclared, nuclear, or civil war; and rebellion, revolt, revolution, or government actions taken to surpress any of the above.’

So be forewarned! In the event of civil war, nuclear holocaust, or revolution (do rightwing revolutions count?), you’re going to have to buy a new phone. Mindboggling…

I’ve been wanting to read “Winning Your Election the Wellstone Way” for a while.

From the people who wrote the book on running progressive electoral campaigns:

“We’ve put together all our campaign know-how into a practical, hands-on guide for progressive grassroots candidates and their campaigns on how to win.  This latest offering was written by Jeff Blodgett and Bill Lofy with Erik Peterson, Sujata Tejwani, Ben Goldfarb and others at Wellstone Action.”

I wrote this post a few months ago. I’m reposting it. Seriously though. If you want to win a new world, read The Art of War by Sun Tzu. And study strategy. Study your opponent. Study the art of winning.

“It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.” - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

The Art of War, written in the 6th century BC by Sun Tzu (Master Sun), is a 13 chapter Chinese treatise on military warfare and strategy. When read metaphorically, its a brilliant addition to those studying political strategy, and especially for those seeking fundamental social transformation.

Steve Bucknum posted an article called “George Lakoff vs. Sun Tzu” two years ago on BlueOregon where he recommended the ancient text to those interested in building progressive political power. Referring to text in the context of Oregon he said:

“Study of the ‘Nine Terrains’ (a chapter in the ‘Art of War’) is a good metaphor for having political strength in one part of the State, but not others — and how to maximize our strength and minimize the power of the other side. (If we attack their homelands, and cause them to defend their base, then they will not have enough strength left to attack our base. — Makes you want to spend more time/effort/money in Eastern Oregon!) There is a lot of good advice for strategy in these works — ‘When you are committed to employing your forces, feign inactivity. When your objective is nearby, make it appear as if distant; when far away, create the illusion of being nearby.’ These works have stood the test of thousands of years, in fact that some of it has risen to the level of ‘common sense’ in that we have heard parts before.”

Its a short book too, depending on the version & translation you get, the actual text is about 60-75 pages - and well worth every page. The translation I have can be bought here.

SEAC Election Guide: We’re excited to inform all our members of two great new pamphlets by SEAC and RAN. The first pamphlet, edited by SEAC National Council Member Dave Shukla and designed by Slim Lopez is called “Now and After: SEAC’s Guide to Student Organizing Around the 2008 Elections“. The guide explores why engaging with the 2008 elections and our current political moment is so vital to the success of building movements into the next year. Essays over topics ranging from analyzing our political moment, to advocating that we organize heavily to prepare for the first hundred days of the next presidential administration and congress, to why the climate movement needs to win economic democracy in order to achieve justice and equity.

RAN NVDA Pamphlet: Secondly, the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) has produced an amazing pamphlet on Nonviolent Direct Action called “Get Some Action: Taking Our Place in the History of U.S. Social Movements“, written by Joshua Kahn Russell, a RAN staff member and SEAC National Council Member. Like Dave and Slim’s pamphlet, it stresses the importance of the climate crisis and taking bold action at this point in history in order to advert catastrophe. Drawing from the rich history of movements for social justice and their strategic application of NVDA, it outlines the basics of this method, its history, and why its a vital tactic in winning the fight against climate change, dirty energy corporations, and environmental injustice. Josh can be reached at josh(at)ran.org

At 11:30 this morning, in another blow to the rightwing’s power, the Connecticut Supreme Court struck down a law banning same-sex marriage, ruling the state had “failed to establish adequate reason to justify the statutory ban.” Connecticut joins California and Massachusetts, becoming the third state in the nation to establish marriage equality for same-sex couples. Like in the two other states, out-of-state couples will be allowed to marry in Connecticut. You can read the decision here: ELIZABETH KERRIGAN ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HEALTH ET AL. (PDF File)

The Advocate reports:

“Oral arguments for the case took place in May of 2007. “Separate institutions for different classes of citizens are now unheard of anywhere in American jurisprudence,” GLAD senior attorney Ben Klein told the high court.  “Our history has taught us that separation serves no other purpose than to mark a class of citizens as inferior.””

“You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed, and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you just how deep the rabbit hole goes.” - Morpheus offering Neo the choice in The Matrix

In the movie The Matrix, Redpills are those whose minds have been freed from the Matrix. When you take a red pill, those who are waging a war against those who run the system (the “machines”), unplug you from that virtual world and allow you to see the truth for the first time in your life. You might have known that “something” was wrong with the world around you, but you never made the deeper connections as to how the whole system actually operated. And you certainly didn’t see an alternative to the world around you or any way to change it.

As organizers for social change, we are constantly faced with the question “what will be the ‘redpill’ for large numbers of people?” What will be the final piece of evidence, story on TV, book, event, or personal experience that finally makes someone start to radicalize? Its different for every single person. Some people radicalize due to personal experiences. Some people radicalize from education. Some people radicalize because of empathy for others and perceived wrongs going on around them. We can’t possibly know when a person is willing to step down the rabbit hole, but we can provide them with lots of opportunities to do so. Those opportunities need to be predicated on efforts that will actually make them more likely to take us up on our offer.

In The Matrix, one of the main characters, Morpheus offers Neo the choice between the two pills. But before Morpheus offered Neo the choice to be freed (we’d call it a “radicalizing experience”), Neo was selected for this opportunity because he was a computer hacker. He was actively seeking out “answers” and wanted to know more about the Matrix (a.ka. “the system” in our terms). If Neo hadn’t previously been a hacker - someone who didn’t exactly follow all the rules or buy into the official story of how things worked in the world - he quite possibly could have taken the blue pill and called it a night. A hacker is an example of one such person who might take the red pill. It doesn’t ensure they will, but it does increase the likelihood.

Whatever keeps people in line (i.e. prevents them from taking red pills), is called “hegemony”. Its the collected set of laws, processes, rules, regulations, and norms which keep people from making the connections needed to see themselves as people capable of leading free lives. How do you determine what are some of the major barriers to people changing their minds? Well, you can usually start by thinking of things that annoy the Right.

Rightwing positions which seem irrational or absurd are usually quite intentional. They are rational in that conservatives hold those positions for a reason. They know that their power is based on people following certain rules, without which other areas of their power would be challenged. When conservatives say that drugs, divorce, separation of church and state, free speech, free press, reproductive freedom, socialized programs, and gays will lead to the downfall of “Western civilization[sic]” they aren’t just serious, they’re quite right. They mean that the form of society in which they are on top will cease to exist if these things happen in increasing numbers.That’s because freedom is, well, addictive. Once you get some, you’re gonna want a lot more!

They only care about our sex lives insofar as keeping us (especially young people) scared of sex & sexuality will keep us obedient and allow them to maintain their power. They understand that drugs, and sex, and good education, and cooperative workplaces, and grassroots citizen media will lead people to take the “red pill” and free their minds. Its why they are against it.

Its also why those of us on the left need to take cultural issues seriously. Sure sex education, same-sex marriage, and  reproductive freedom are all moral issues. But they are also cultural issues that maintain the dominant hegemony. Its our job to break that hegemony. Leading campaigns against backwards laws, opening youth centers and alternative schools, and educating young people about our vision of the future should all be at the top of our priorities list. The Right will push back on these things without a doubt. We should respond to this push-back with an article alternative worldview, rooted in progressive values. If we are strategic in our efforts, we will win battles and expose the hypocrisy of the Right while we do.

In particular, revolutionary education necessarily includes (among other things):

• Sex and health education;
• Accurate information about drugs and alcohol;
• Diversity education so people shed stereotypes about other races, cultures, genders, classes, and sexualities;
• Time and places for young people to form real community;
• Information and experiences that show how solidarity, equity, diversity, and self-management are the most morally-just and efficient ways to organize society;
• Information about how the world really works, alternatives to the current institutions of society, and ideas about how they can create change.

The Left needs to take battles around culture very seriously. If we do, people will start to beg us to show them just how deep the rabbit hole goes. I guarantee it.

Pakistan is pronouced “Pahk-ee-stahn”, or so my Pakistani friends have consistently told me. Tonight during the debate, Barack Obama correctly pronouced the country’s name.

In case you aren’t familiar with the process, after every presidential debates, one of the types of experts that give their analysis are “body language experts”. They tell you how each candidates’ body and verbal language might be received by voters.

After today’s debate, one such “expert”, Lillian Glass, a (white) body language analyst from Beverly Hills, gave her opinion on the Senator’s language. The LA Times reported that:

“She also thought his inflection might be a turn-off to some voters. “He’d say, ‘Pahk-ee-stahn,’ or ‘Tolly-bahn.’ You need to say Pakistan and Taliban like everyone else [sic].”"

Of course she’s probably right. Obama’s inflection might be a “turn-off” to some voters. The major issue is that the implications of Glass’s comment - namely issues of race and racism - weren’t brought up, as has been reguarly the case in this election. There was no question of who would be “turn[ed]-off”, and more importantly, who would be turned-off if he purposefully mispronouced “Pakistan” in his public appearances.

Jason Linkins of the Huffinton Post made a similar comment, throwing homophobia into the mix (because, I mean, why not?), comparing Obama’s inflection to marching in a Leather Pride Parade. (Really now?):

“10:10 - Jason Linkins: Obama hasn’t gotten the memo from every right-wing blog in the universe that pronouncing the word “Pakistan” PAHK-ee-STAHN is the dialectical equivalent of spreading arugula on your body and marching in the Folsom Street Fair.”

Will Obama change his inflection? We can only wait and see. He hasn’t thus far. But we can’t predict the future. We can prepare to call him out on his obvious BS if he does purposefully shift his inflection. And more importantly, we can call out the types of people who bring up such non-issues.

Obama is widening his lead over McCain. Every move McCain has been making is costing him more votes. Obama is playing a near-perfect game. States like New Hampshire are going from the “toss up” category, to “lean Obama”. States like North Carolina, Indiana, and Missouri are going from “lean Mccain”, to “toss up”. Most of the swing states are leaning towards Obama - states like Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, Florida, and Virginia. Even states like Montana, Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia and West Virginia are no longer “safe” for McCain. They only lean his way.

Unless something drastic happens, Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States. The political context of Glass’s and Linkins’s comments makes them even more disturbing. They aren’t suggesting that Obama needs to use racist language in order to win the White House (not that that would make it any less repulsive). They’re just saying it just because that’s what traditional electoral strategy “wisdom” says, despite the fact that if the election were held today, Obama would win in a landslide of over 364 electoral votes (you need 270). But (white) voters get turned off by non-English words. Best to appease them and be safe the pundits say.

We can do better I think. We’ll see what happens at Hofstra.

Since our current economics crisis begun, I’ve continually seen “experts”, “economists”, and media anchors talk about how the current dip in the stock market is caused by the “irrationality” of investors who are pulling their money out of companies which those experts consider to be “sound” investments. Oil companies who’ve been raking in huge profits are cited as one example of a sound investment (another topic all together!) from which people are “irrationally” pulling their money.

This is a common theme among elites. While in this case they were referring mostly to investors, which includes those who’s companies or nonprofits have their pension funds invested in the market, the argument (and variants of it) are used for all sorts of  decisions that people make. Low-income people vote for Republicans? Democratic Party leaders say they must be irrational. Social anxiety? You must be irrational. Pulling your money out of “sound” investments? You must be irrational.

I always get bothered when this topic comes up. Rather than being “irrational”, these people are making quite rational decisions in the context of utterly irrational social institutions. Of course “experts” have to blame it on the individual. In times of crisis when people are making rational and panicked decisions, elites need to call their decisions “irrational”, taking advantage of long-seeded narratives about “personal responsibility” and individualism, in order to prevent people from making connections about the irrational systems we live under and starting to value solidarity and cooperation over competition and individualism.

White people fear not! You can watch the news, and despite hearing from dozens of (mostly white) Americans who are in deep financial trouble, they will attempt to slightly calm your mood by showing the arrest of one or more people of color at the end of the broadcast. Because its when we enter crisis that people start thinking more - for better or worst - and if they’re questioning capitalism, you certainly can’t have them questioning the white power structure as well.

(For the record I was watching CBS news tonight.)

Despite the fact that the bailout package was utterly insufficient to deal with the crisis we face and the Democratic Party’s history should lead to no surprises about where the Party’s real interests lie, the public discussion about the failure of the Bailout Vote to pass is quite over the top.
Huffington Post reports:

“House Republican Leader John Boehner said, “I do believe that we could have gotten there today, had it not been for this partisan speech that Speaker [Pelosi] gave on the floor of the House. I mean, we were — we put everything we had into getting the votes to get there today, but the Speaker had to give a partisan voice that poisoned our conference, caused a number of members who we thought we could get to go south.”"

So what did Nancy Pelosi say exactly?  What was so “out of line” that caused the GOP to vote “no” because their feelings got hurt? Well she commented that:

“Today we will act to avert this crisis, but informed by our experience of the past eight years with the failed economic leadership … We choose a different path. In the new year, with a new Congress and a new president, we will break free with a failed past and take America in a new direction to a better future.”

“It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush Administration’s failed economic policies-policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system.”

People do seem to be responding to the absurdity of the GOP’s claim - that GOP politicians got their feelings hurt and as such, risked the entire market collapsing by voting no - but right from the beginning the Democratic Party, lead by the Congressional leaders and Senator Obama, responded to McCain’s call for “bipartisan efforts” in a positive manner. Any party with the slightest hint of liberal politics would called the GOP out on their shit: the administration, corporations, and individuals who caused this mess have no right to claim the higher ground. They created the crisis - they don’t get to solve it - nor attack those who attempt to do so. And yes, partisan attacks in a time of fundamental crisis are very appropriate. Those who cause crises should face the public spotlight when they occur.

These comments are less about the actual bailout package, and much more about how those interested in genuine freedom should point out both the hypocrisy of the GOP’s stance and the unwillingness of the Democrats to stand up for what they call “Main Street”. Until they start foreclosing the war, the dirty energy economy, and poverty, the Democratic Party has no right to talk about “Main Street”.

She also went on, of course, to say that:

“Democrats believe in the free market, which can and does create jobs, wealth, and capital, but left to its own devices it has created chaos.”

Thankfully they actually admit what the free market does. It makes advocating opposition to capitalism and the presentation of democratic alternatives all the easier.

Without any doubt my favorite quotation from Karl Marx comes from The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon. He writes:

“The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living, and just when they seem to be revolutionizing themselves and things, in creating something entirely new, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service and borrow from the names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present the new scene of world history in this time honored disguise and borrowed language…. The social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot draw its poetry from the past but only from the future.”

Such eloquent wisdom is unfortunately seldom taken to heart by his disciples. The statement is equally true today: the social revolution of the twenty-first century cannot draw its poetry from the past but only from the future. The theories, strategies, ideas, and methods of the past need to be critically analyzed and, where flawed, revolutionized and not merely amended. A vision of a democratic society must be central to our message to add inspiration to our programmatic demands.

In order to win the war, those who seek victory must organize to build a new revolutionary left in the United States. The tasks of such a Left will be widespread and will require much debate, but some of these tasks can be easily summarized. There certainly might be other things, but a new revolutionary left will necessarily include among its focuses:

Humanism: learning from oppression that exist within past social movements, a new revolutionary left in the United States will seek to fundamentally transform the defining institutions and ideas in the realms of economics, kinship, culture, and politics. It will take each of these areas equally seriously, knowing that victory is impossible without a holistic and comprehensive revolutionary transformation of society.

Vision & Hope: understanding that our generation is overwhelmed with feelings of hopelessness, a new revolutionary left will formulate, discuss, debate, and refine, a vision of what a participatory society could look like, outlining the core defining institutions and social relations of what a participatory economy, feminist kinship relations, egalitarian inter-community relations, participatory democracy, international solidarity, and environmental justice will look like. It will bring this message of hope and positive alternatives to every community in America.

Organizing: actually making the change we want to see, a new revolutionary left is made of organizers, not merely activists, the latter being those who take action while the former being those who organize ever greater numbers of people to take action with increasing commitment and effectiveness. Such a Left understands that change can only occur if progressive forces are intellectually, institutionally, and politically ready to lead humanity to liberation.

Strategy: seeking maximum effectiveness, a new revolutionary left will study the art of strategy, learning from successful progressive social movements as well as from military, business, and rightwing strategy. It will train a generation of critical thinkers and thoughtful strategists.

Study: not wanting to replicate past mistakes and seeking to learn from past lessons, a new revolutionary left will be articulate, well-educated, and committed to on-going study, both of historical and current events. It will build programs of internal education for existing members and programs of external education to break down the dominant ideology.

Critical Thinking: loathing dogma, a new revolutionary left will train itself in the art of intellectual self-defense, emphasizing critical thinking, logic, reason, critical self-reflection and collective reflection, and summation of experiences. Instead of following old formulas and strategies, it will analyze the current situation and formulate appropriate strategies and methods relevant to the present day.

Numbers: in order to maximize participatory democracy and ensure eventual victory, a new revolutionary left will seek to build both a growing core of revolutionary organizers and a vibrant majoritarian progressive coalition aimed at breaking the rightwing domination of society. It understands that in order to win a new world, we will need tens of millions of people on our side committed to transforming society.

Raising Social Costs: understanding that hierarchical institutions are built upon the consent of the governed, a new revolutionary left will create dilemma situations whereby elites must choose: give into our demands or lose legitimacy and, as a result, aid in the growth of the Left. It will raise the social costs that elites must pay to carry out unjust policies, forcing them to give into our demands or pay infinitely more than they had expected.

Counter-Hegemony: since it has its fingers on the pulse of the nation, a new revolutionary left will seek to do everything in its power to break through the dominant culture and ideology. It shall seek to build a counter-hegemony, taking serious the task of education, cultural revolution, and revolutionary leadership.

Liberatory Practices: with its commitment to actively combat internal movement oppression, a new revolutionary left will develop thoroughly liberatory practices which develop and elevate the leadership of every individual in the movement, combating past oppressive norms of sexism, racism, heterosexism/homophobia/transphobia, class inequality, and authoritarianism. A new left will seek to embody the seeds of the future in present to the highest degree possible.

Effective Communication: embracing the power of language, a new revolutionary left will carefully craft its message so as to communicate effectively and precisely to the constituencies we want to win over. It will understand that our actions, words, slogans, and attitudes all convey a message to the public and that these messages are vital to our success.

Democracy and Participation: because it can’t win by using undemocratic means, a new revolutionary left will maximize democracy and participation within all of its organizations. It will understand that democracy and participation are dependent on access to knowledge, equal distribution of empowering work, and liberatory practices which level the playing field in a world which thrives on vast inequality. It will involve an ever growing number of people and, eventually, being to build new institutions based on democratic values, especially workers’, neighborhood, and kinship assemblies which will be the nuclei of the new society.

Leadership: following its commitment to democracy, a new revolutionary left will understand the responsibility of leaders to pass on their knowledge, skills, and lessons to an ever expanding core of revolutionary leaders. It will be a left that trains thousands of new leaders each year, preparing them for the challenges they will face as political organizers.

Relevancy: being in tune to the concerns, hopes and aspirations of large numbers of people, a new revolutionary left will orient its efforts towards being relevant to diverse communities who don’t yet identify as progressive, left, or revolutionary. It will build its program based on what the majority of the population cares about, what will most strengthen, expand, and prepare the movement for future gains, and what will make the most tangible difference in people’s lives.

Beloved Community: because it knows it can be better than the world outside, a new revolutionary left will be a warm, welcoming, and empowering Left. It will seek to embody all of our values to the highest degree possible. It will empower its members to grow. It will take seriously our internalized oppression and the need for each of us to heal the wounds inflicted upon us by the authoritarian society, by racism, by sexism, by homophobia, by gender binary, by alienation from work, by exploitation and oppression, and by detachment from our natural world. It will be a Left of love, of hope, and of compassion.

These are just a few tasks. When learning from the past, its useful to practice STORM’s principle of “take the best, leave all the rest.” We should take the best of theory, strategy, vision, and organizing methods, while leaving all the irrelevant stuff behind. In analyzing our own efforts, we should not merely seek to tweak what needs revolutionizing.

(Part Four coming soon…)