Don't Confuse Me with the Facts

Shorter Showers

One of the many pamphlets I picked up in Zuccotti park was an anarchist essay by Derrick Jensen “Forget Shorter Showers – Why Personal Change Does Not equal Political Change”. I didn’t take to it’s argument then, that change in the personal sphere has negligible effect on the public sphere, but it took what Chris Hedges had to say on liberals talking about the needs and interests of the poor without ever being in danger of meeting the poor for me to understand why not.

Personal change is essential for political change. Political change requires passion, authenticity and an ability to empathize.  As banal as it might seem, it is exactly learning to buy less that awakens us to the unsustainable nature of our consumer society. It is learning to eat better, to make our own food, to know what we are putting in our mouths, that allows us to realize the importance of promoting equal rights to good nutrition. It is precisely through caring for others that we come to understand our short comings as a society in caring for the needy.

If all we do is concentrate on grand ideas, theories and mass political movements in order to affect change, we are not likely to get very far. We need to marry these ideas to practical change on the ground. It is only when enough people stop believing that change is impossible that it starts to take place. It is only when people feel that change will affect them on a personal level that they will invest the emotional capital needed. How can we convince others to affect change if we haven’t made it ourselves? Who will believe is when we speak of hollow theory?

Even though the Arab spring is more about civil liberties and self determination while protests elsewhere are more about the consequences of economic oppression, what sparked and allowed these protests to grow is personal change, personal example which allowed masses of people to realize that they were in the same predicament. One of the reasons why the protest movement has not yet turned into a mass movement in the States is because the majority of people who are struggling are still embarrassed to admit it, still believe that somehow, magically they’ll realize the American dream.

Like others I believe that the watershed in Tunis, Cairo, Tel Aviv, Damascus, Athens, Madrid and Lisbon came when people no longer felt that they were the only ones that were struggling with the system. This loss of shame at not being able to keep up the farce that everything was ok; that although the economy is tough, you’re keeping your head above water; that although you need to bribe to get ahead, you are managing; that although your neighbor got dragged away by the secret police in the middle of the night, they won’t come for you. This is what is fueling the revolutionary change in governments, in the way so many of us are thinking about the way our world should look. It’s the understanding at a personal level that the status quo simply can no longer be maintained. It is seeing your friends and neighbors struggling, seeing them protesting, defying power, that will move you to join the attempt to reshape our world.

Greek Fire

With Athens ablaze and it seeming likely that another round of austerity measures are not going to extricate Greece from it's economic woes, understanding both the reasons for how it got where it is and what will finally solve its problems may very well be useful in thinking about our economies in new and innovative ways.

I have not spent a lot of time trying to understand the reasons for the depth of the current economic crisis in Greece. The claims that Greeks are a bunch of lazy, money grubbing free-loaders who simply borrowed to much and are now paying the price seems overly simplistic to me. Reading beware of Greeks bearing bonds by Michael Lewis only made me realize that there is something far more systemic going on. An interest was being served by successive Greek governments running up massive debts that where being swept under the carpet that goes beyond people expecting to have their pie and eating it.

Greece is but a more extreme version of where many of the rest of us find ourselves. The better we understand what has happened in Greece, how this was allowed to happen, the better we will understand how we allowed Glass-Steagall to be repealed.

Solving Greece's problem's might be the key to us re-imagining how our societies and economies will work in the future. So far, the regular measures have been very ineffective in restoring belief in the Greek economy nor do the Greeks seem ready to undergo further cuts to public spending. What new and old forms of economy will emerge as the current one collapses? We have already seen the return of a barter economy in many parts of Greece and desperation will like lead to further inventiveness.

Block Black Bloc?

Sometimes there is nothing better than a good disagreement when you want to better understand an idea. Recently Chris Hedges published an article, in which he called Black Bloc the Cancer in Occupy. Hedges, a war correspondent for decades and now a radical social commentator and activist describes in almost religious terms the need to maintain passive civil disobedience as the only effective means for achieving social change. He warns against the use of violence and specifically what he describes as the tactics of Black Bloc as playing into the hands of establishment forces and their attempts to de-legitimize the occupy movement.

The article caused a lot of very virulent feedback, most of it angry rants against Hedges, but also some excelent responses that detailed the nuances missed by Hedges.

Susie Cagle quite possibly does the best reporting on Occupy Oakland I have run across. In her piece she calls out Hedges for buying into establishment propaganda as well as berating both him and most other journalists for not bothering to do the leg work. As most of the references to Black Bloc violence in the Hedges piece refer to Oakland, she shows him to be both wrong and lazy.

David Graeber is an American anthropology proffesor, anarchist and one of the early organizers of Occupy Wall Street. In an open letter to Hedges, he explains that black bloc is a tactic and not a movement, the use of anonymity when confronting established power and that Hedges' call for imposing peaceful protest as interpreted by him (or someone else) as a  form of violence.

All three pieces are well worth reading and will leave you better informed on the complexities of a democratic protest movement where pluralism is put to the test, how there is a large gap between what is often reported even by those sympathetic to a cause and what people on the ground experienced as actually having taken place and what anarchy and it's tactics represent when not approached as a the destructive dogma it is often presented as being.

Thank you Chris for starting this fire.

Policies not Personalities

We really should stop looking for a messiah. Part of the reason why our societies look the way they do is because we keep on voting for personalities and not policies. We want to believe that we are voting for a transformative figure and are always disappointed when confronted by their humanity. Despite this, we will continue to project our hopes and desires on political figures.

I think of this as the other week journalist, author, actor, news presenter and all around celebrity, Yair Lapid decided to launch his political career, soon to start his own political party. This was followed by the announcement that Noam Shalit, father of freed IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, will be running in primaries for a seat in the Knesset with the labor party. Special men both, come to solve the special problems of Israel, to save Israeli democracy with their special insights. I don’t know whether to scream or barf at the idea of wasting another entire election cycle on the cult of personality. I just get angry at thought of these guys proving Shalom Hanoch right when he sang, “the public is dumb therefore the public will pay”.

The reason for my opposition to all these new celebrity players in the political game is because they don’t bring anything of value. I do not understand the popularity of either Lapid or Shalit when we know nothing of their political ideas. We have no indication as to their ability to garner political power or their ability to use it to achieve results.

I am not opposed to charisma in politics as long as it is married to a clear, definable ideology. Power for the sake of power is tyranny. A beautiful ideology divorced from the ability to deal with the day to day mud wrestling that is politics is a kind of masturbation. It will never lead to the birth of anything new. To believe things will be improved by having a specific individual in power is to buy into the cult of personality. It cheapens our part in a democracy, as Howard Zinn so aptly described:

All those histories of this country centered on the Founding Fathers and the Presidents weigh oppressively on the capacity of the ordinary citizen to act. They suggest that in times of crisis we must look to someone to save us: in the Revolutionary crisis, the Founding Fathers; in the slavery crisis, Lincoln; in the Depression, Roosevelt; in the Vietnam-Watergate crisis, Carter. And that between occasional crises everything is all right, and it is sufficient for us to be restored to that normal state. They teach us that the supreme act of citizenship is to choose among saviors, by going into a voting booth every four years to choose between two white and well-off Anglo-Saxon males of inoffensive personality and orthodox opinions.

The idea of saviors has been built into the entire culture, beyond politics. We have learned to look to stars, leaders, experts in every field, thus surrendering our own strength, demeaning our own ability, obliterating our own selves. But from time to time, Americans reject that idea and rebel.

And still we pine for our Ben-Gurions, Churchills, Kennedys, Begins, Reagans and Rabins; hoping that these new personalities will return us to these false memories of certainty and purpose. When will we reject and rebel and snatch the reins of power out of the hands of those that have been abusing it?

Michael Kordova, Social Media Manager and Online Spokesman for the Israeli Green Movement asks on facebook: “Will the Green Movement wise up and become part of the protest movement? I ask and who answers? Do we posses only ready made solutions or also the leadership that will take these ideas to the people?”  

Ideological parties in Israel, especially when they are socially left leaning, tend to shy away from political ambition in preference for beautiful, untainted ideas. It is not enough to know what needs to be done. In order to get elected you have to convince enough people that you have a burning ambition to see those ideas implemented. Voters understand that the political process crushes most initiatives and ideas; that if there is not a driving passion behind them, working to sell them, ensure their implementation, then they will go the way of the Dodo.

When we shy away from enthusiastically promoting our agenda because it reminds us of other ideological movements that we abhor, then we abandon the political field to them. I prefer parties to be strongly ideological, even if I am strongly opposed to them, as at least it makes the political discourse clear. It actually provides a choice between opposing ideas and not opposing personalities. Most of the parties in the very wide middle are nothing more than a collection of opportunists, celebrities and whores, each seeking to promote their private political ambitions, using whatever ideas are in vogue to get to the top. They are nothing but seat warmers in parliament, to be used by the ruling elite to perpetuate the status quo.

I prefer trying to answer Michael’s question rather than pondering if Lapid or Shalit are the newest messiah.

Worth Your Time, volume 2

This week with some of my favorite preachy people:

1. Naomi Klein tells us it's the end of the world unless...

http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate

2. Matt Taibbi details exactly how small and petty the 1% have become in their hysterical responses...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/uc-davis-pepper-spray-incident-reveals-weakness-up-top-20111122

3. Chris Hedges, probably the preachiest of them all, in a piece about his arrest outside of Goldman Sachs...

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/finding_freedom_in_handcuffs_20111107/

4. Arundathi Roy talks about imagining alternatives to capitalism...

http://www.truth-out.org/arundhati-roy-people-who-created-crisis-will-not-be-ones-come-solution/1322765555

5. Tom Tomorrow in a brief guide to class conflict in America...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/05/1041572/-Class-conflict

\

Practical Occupation

Last month protesters from OWS along with community organizers broke into a home in East New York that had stood empty since being foreclosed in 2008 and turned it over to a woman and her family who had been homeless for the last 10 years. In similar actions in Columbus, Atlanta, San Francisco and Southgate, foreclosed, empty houses are being occupied by Occupy and turned over to those without homes. Evictions, sometimes as soon as 2 months after failing to make a mortgage payment, are being resisted by large crowds making it impossible for police to force people out of their homes. Through this action, OWS is putting its money where its mouth is by highlighting poor communities and how they have been affected by our economic system. It is also exposing some of the central questions we should be considering if we want to rethink how we run our societies.

In order for the movement to grow the coming year it is essential that it proves its relevance in helping to solve problems. The true relevance of OWS in starting a new conversation on how we want to see the future of our societies can only be maintained by not restricting ourselves to pointing out what is wrong but by proposing alternatives and implementing them where possible. Only by testing our ideas can we ascertain if they work. We have nothing to fear from the messy process of trial and error.

The focus on repossessed homes exposes one of the central differences between capitalism and socialism, between private property and community property, between the right of the individual and the right of the community. The question is what is of greater value, the right of an individual to buy an apartment building and leave it empty, for whatever reason, or the right of 20 families to housing at the expense of the individual?

A city belongs to all its inhabitants. When you buy a plot of land in a city that has been zoned for dwellings, do you have the right to not develop that land? The permits and deeds give you the right to make a profit from developing an apartment building that will serve a number of families, it does not give you a right to not build that building.

Finding the correct balance between the rights of individuals as opposed to the rights of a collectives is tough. Within reason, there is much to be said for the concept of private property. It is not difficult to find examples where the tyranny of the masses, or those claiming to speak for the masses, has trampled the rights of individuals. That this can and does happen in collectivist societies should not be used as an excuse to prevent criticism of the opposite extreme.

We are witnessing a tyranny by individuals who have amassed enough wealth and political power to trample the rights and interest of the many in order to serve the privileged few. Besides highlighting these perversions, we need to make sure we spend enough time thinking about how we break these power structures without merely replacing them with equally unbalanced and perverse structures and then to act. The housing crisis, at the heart of the current economic meltdown, is the perfect testing ground to try and rethink the balance between these rights in very practical terms.