I read an interesting post on PostBourgie called “Do Big Marches Still Matter” responding to some of the interesting conversation emerging around the National March for Equality (a GLBT rights march that occured in DC this past weekend) and Barney Frank’s response that “the only thing that march will pressure is grass.” PostBourgie concludes:
“… Isn’t Frank essentially correct in saying that big rallies like the NEM have little influence on policymakers … There are undoubtedly tons of ancillary organizational benefits that come with big demonstrations. They allow advocacy groups with similar objectives to coordinate and network, to say nothing of the catharsis and goodwill that comes with rubbing shoulders with like-minded people. But to say they have a direct affect on policy seems like a stretch.”
I wanted to respond: Marches don’t matter. Organizing does.
The marches of the 60’s didn’t matter (as marches alone). Policy makers didn’t sign civil rights legislation, or switch positions on the war because of a single march. They passed the legislation because of 100s of marches (in towns across the country, as well as in DC, and major urban areas), as well as sit-ins, walkouts, strikes, and tons of other nonviolent methods that together constitute a real social movement. Legislators respond to these things because they disrupt the business-as-usual operations of politics and society (shutting down workplaces, schools, occupying draft boards, etc) and wind up raising a dilemma: meet our demands or face losing more and more legitimacy.
The movements also radicalized as time went on, moving from simple opposition to the war to opposition to all American foreign aggression to fundamental elements of American society and calling for out-and-out revolution. Nothing lights a fire under legislators asses to act like 100,000 American youth calling for revolution outside your office (in 1968 a New York Times poll estimated one-in-five college students believed a revolution was necessary in the United States).
The historical mythology of the 60s seems to go like this: “Black people were getting messed with, then there was a war and nobody liked either of those things and there were huge protests with some really great speeches and everything changed.”
But the real story is a lot longer, and frankly more boring (but truthful) and goes something like: “Some people started staying up all night to write leaflets, speeches, pamphlets, letters. They made tons of copies on the mimeograph machines, passed out tons of educational materials, had thousands of conversations, organized small little protests down quiet streets, studied politics, made more leaflets, had more conversations, planned tiny little rallies and, then went out and people started having more conversations, and more people started doing more planning and started studying politics on their own, and after more and more people did this for 5 – 10 years, the marches started getting really really big, and more people started having more conversations and started to teach more and more people.”
The marches and rally’s, protests, walkouts, sit-ins and so on, are the results of tons of organizing and education. It wasn’t that policy-makers were, are, or ever will be afraid or influenced by a single march that lasts for a day, two days, or three. What they are influenced by is a long-haul, ever growing, ever escalating political movement that represents a real contestant for power and legitimacy.
I believe this is one of the most fundamental lessons of the 60s and the most difficult to extract.
PS. And we have more opportunity and potential to build that kind of movement today than folks could ever dream of in the 1960s. Back then, if you wanted to mobilize people to a rally or protest you actually had to go to a landline and call people. Today we have text messaging, Twitface, blogs, instant messaging, cell-phones (shit, I’m getting a Google Wave invite as we speak).
Two friends of mine, both veteran organizers of the 1960s once told me “If we had the internet there would’ve been no stopping us. There would’ve been a total revolution.”
Capitalism: A Love Story by Michael Moore. Comes out October 2nd.
I’ve always felt a frustration with progressive artists and celebrities at their seeming hesitation to call a spade a spade. In other words they have a tendency to stop short of naming the system (i.e., capitalism). The culprit is always just Wal-Mart, or it’s Bush, Fox News, the health-insurance industry and other “bad apples.” So when I first saw the trailer for Michael Moore’s latest film Capitalism: A Love Story I was elated. “Finally,” I thought “a movie that’ll point out it’s the whole damn tree that’s rotten!”
My glee however was followed by an abrupt skepticism. Is Moore actually going to take this whole rotten system head on, or just give it a slap on the wrist? Is he going to give us a sense of direction, or get us riled up then leave us not knowing what to do next, sending us inevitably to a state of powerlessness (albeit informed powerlessness–almost worse!).
My anticipation and curiosity has been building since I saw the trailer for the film several weeks ago, so naturally I jumped at the chance to catch an early screening.
The opening credits flash between stock security footage of armed bank robberies, which could be taken as a double entendre. Symbolism for the desperation with which the free-market leaves us, and a metaphor for how the free-market leaves us so desperate. These are consistent themes throughout the film.
I won’t give away too much since the movie isn’t officially released until October 2nd. But I will say this: the film will please and exceed the expectations of even the most optimistic movie goer. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that this is his best flick since Roger & Me. Capitalism leaves very few stones unturned, while entertaining the audience (Moore let’s his talent to educate through humor flourish). The movie is relevant, accessible and moving (I’m not afraid to admit there were several times I felt choked up–especially the moments when people win change!).
Even a self-described anti-capitalist of over six years like me was shocked by the tales of the absolute inhumanity of our economic system. Moore shares stories of corporations that took out “Dead Peasant” life-insurance policies on their employees (one company was able to get over five million bucks from the death of one employee).
He also enlightens us with a little known tidbit of Presidential history. Capitalism includes never before seen footage of FDR proposing a “Second Bill of Rights,” which included the right to have a well paying job, housing, health care and a good education.
The movie certainly doesn’t escape criticisms. Moore seems to kind of celebrate Obama as a fighter for the everyday person, while laying into Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner, who Obama appointed following his election.
Republic Windows and Doors workers staging a sit-in strike. Moore shares this moving story in the film.
Moore makes a brave move in Capitalism to do what the Left has been unable to do, weave anti-capitalism into a narrative that speaks to traditional American values. “If America is a democracy,” he asks, “why do we go to a dictatorship everyday in the workplace?” He follows this question up with profiles of two American cooperative workplaces–owned and democratically managed by the workers themselves. He also tries to find the words “profit” and the “free-market” in the US Constitution. Instead he finds the words “We,” “union” and “welfare.”
This is what I take most from the film. Moore plays a valuable role in the progressive milieu as someone who can plant seeds among hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people. However, he can only do and say so much. The folks in the grassroots, have to treat those seeds to make them blossom. In Capitalism Moore starts to take on the responsibility of building a narrative that speaks to American values and points toward the need for an economy that is fundamentally just and democratic. Progressives have to pick up where this movie leaves off. Continuing to build that narrative, spreading a more coherent vision of an alternative, and facilitating people into taking action to create real change and build a fighting Left movement.
Moore’s Capitalism will move and inspire those who are already committed to making change and the fight for a better world. For others, I think it will enlighten and surprise. It’ll definitely entertain both crowds (did I mention the movie is actually really really funny?). And it’ll sure as shit terrify the hell out of teabaggers.
Some related links:
- Participatory Economics – A vision and model for just and democratic alternative to capitalism.
- Reimagining Change: A Guide to Story Based Strategy
Also, there are several reviews of the movie already out. I like the one from Labor Notes (by Jane Slaughter) in particular.
Lot’s to write about and I’m not going to get through it all. So here we go.
I’ve been incommunicado mostly because I’ve been run down by an internship I had through the summer at Teamsters for a Democratic Union, a rank-and-file union reform movement that’s been keeping the fight strong for over 30 years. The experience has been inspiring, educational and exhausting (because alongside working for TDU I still worked my weekend job, totaling close to 60 hours of work a week–but you know, I can’t complain).
Working for TDU and alongside some real labor movement veterans reinvigorated my commitment to the labor movement. It also raised serious questions about labor reform that as an [aspiring] labor activist I need to ask. What are the best strategy for radicalizing the labor movement? Working in existing business unions? Creating organization outside the dominant unions? Or other approaches? For better or worse, my experience with TDU raised more questions than it answered.
Over the summer tons of friends from out of town came to Motown and crashed with my roommates and I. Early in the summer my good compa Joshua Kahn Russell crashed along with folks from Substance, a nonprofit “merging arts, music and activism.” They were coming through town en route along the Freedom From Oil tour with Propagandhi and Strike Anywhere. Some friends I work with in Detroit and I helped canvas the crowd for FFO at afterward went bowling with some folks from the bands–it was like a punk rock fantasy fulfilled. These bands were so formative for me growing up as a budding activist, showing me that I’m not alone in my concern for social justice and my skepticism about American mythology. I imagine for the folks in these bands meeting fanatics like me can be just as intimidating as it is for me to meet them. The members of these bands changed my life (along with thousands of others) before they ever meet us. They were all incredibly nice people and very humble and gracious for my appreciation. We wound up drinking jager and Red Stripe and talking about music, politics and everything else. It was one of the most memorable nights of my life.
Not long after some friends from Toronto, the brilliant Anita Sarkeesian and Jonathan Macintosh, swung into town for the Allied Media Conference (but I suspect they really came to the D to try our delicious food). I love these folks. Anita runs the clever pop culture feminist vlog Feminist Frequency (vlogging sounds so intimidating so I gotta give her props for that alone, blogging’s hard enough for me). Jonathan is the guy behind the Buffy vs. Edward vid, a witty and inspired feminist critique of the Twilight series that got something like over 400,000 hits in it’s first week. You can check out his article on WIMN’s Voices explaining the vid and a report about it from the LA Times Entertainment blog.
Not long after another friend, this time from the East Coast and a fellow Michiganian (or is it Michigander?) dropped by. Andy Cornell and I met last summer when I was in NYC for the Fourth of July. He’s been doing fascinating research on the contemporary history of Anarchism in the U.S. and was kind enough to swing by during his time in the state. Andy along with Dan Berger wrote an article that was helped me get out of a couple of ruts early in my organizing, back during my time with SDS. The article is called 10 Questions for Movement Building and can be found over at the Monthly Review webzine.
Organizing has been slow over the summer months. One significant thing that occured was the changing of our local group’s name from the “Student Environmental Action Coalition” to “As Soon As Possible!” We decided that the name ASAP was more exciting and original and helped encourage ourselves and folks looking at us to have a more multi-issue perspective. It also conveys the profound urgency of the moment to stop the climate crisis, build a youth activist movement and take hold the great potential of our political moment.
My summer just recently wound up. Classes at Wayne State started Thursday and thus began the last year of my undergrad (fingers crossed tightly). Now that the moment’s here I’m thinking more seriously about grad school. I never thought seriously about grad school before, but can’t think of any reason to not go, unless something serious changes in the world or my life. I’m considering going into the Communications program at Wayne State. Communications comes across to me as kinda “politics in practice,” studying how ideas spread, etc. I have time to think about it.
Like I said, I can’t get through everything I want to write about. I’ll update more tomorrow.
I’d like to say one more thing and just point this out. Yesterday when I loaded Google News I saw the following headline (image taken from the news site).
Absurd enough. A co-worker pointed out to me that with any other president having the president address your kids would’ve been considered an honor, but now it’s all of the sudden a controversy. Then I saw this below the headline:
So the same people that find this kind racist of news compelling are also interested in people who claim to have found the Chupacabra.
Anyway, that’s my life! (Neil Hamburger’s catch phrase–a terribly offensive comedian but admittedly a guilty pleasure of mine) More to come, especially on the Van Jones resignation, healthcare and other things more important than my punk rock fantasies being fulfilled.
Note: This is a revised version of an older essay that was never published. With recent news concerning new green government programming and the grim news coming from Chrysler and General Motors, I hope this might broaden the debate a bit beyond what the headlines and pundits will allow. This version was also published today at MRZine.org.
“We hope for better days; it shall rise from the ashes.” – Motto of the City of Detroit (Coined after a citywide fire in 1805)
The green dream is coming closer every day. Green-collar jobs are becoming more and more of a household term and are moving closer to the center of the conversation about how we should recover from the current economic recession.
It’s a relief to me as a Detroiter. It gives me hope that our city, long hit by economic hardship, unemployment and poverty, can rise again through programs that will create millions of green jobs. In particular, more people are calling for a greening of US automakers in an attempt to halt their freefall. A cleaning up of the auto industry could certainly help lift the city and country out of this virtual downward spiral, but after witnessing an anti-union blitzkrieg that strong-armed workers into reluctantly accepting major concessions[i] one has to wonder, “What will a green auto industry look like?” Does our vision of a green-collar economy include autoworkers going back to factories making plug-in hybrids on subsistence wages, rolled back healthcare and poor job security? Or will we make a shift away from the growth-centered reasoning of the dirty energy past?
The competitive logic of the free-market encourages businesses like the Big Three to cut corners and skip the bill for the ecological and social costs of their production. Corporations are encouraged to keep costs low and profits high through pumping toxins into the air without concern for the health of communities, and forcing cuts in workers’ compensation (called “externalities” by economists). In other words, when profit is the name of the game, quality of life for workers and communities take a back seat (if they even get a seat in the first place). So, what will our green future look like
?
Creating a future that can protect our livelihood and the planet requires us to make gains right now. For example, we can put people back to work with good jobs that build the foundation for a the clean-energy revolution, cap carbon emissions and force polluters to pay for ecological damage, and create community-run Green Jobs training centers. But social justice and sustainability also demand that we look forward toward long-term alternatives to the competitive economics that reward businesses for refusing to take responsibility for the true-costs of ecological damage.
Workers at the cooperatively managed Zanon factory in Argentina vote in their assembly.
A green economy has to reject the notion that the profit driven markets, which brought us to this crisis, somehow “know” how to get us out of it. Instead of letting markets and corporations roll back environmental protections once they decide it costs too much (like they did to autoworkers and clean air regulations in the past), we should challenge the logic of these institutions, pressure them to reform and create democratic and cooperative alternatives. Worker-run businesses[ii] which employees manage together can ensure that workers’ livelihoods are secure, while democratic planning can set a new standard for social and environmental well-being.
For example, in a cooperative, green auto-factory workers would make decisions democratically in proportion to how they’re affected by the outcomes, and each person’s job would be balanced with equally empowering and difficult work. Instead of having a complex and unjust system of management that places the creative and empowering tasks into the hands of a few professionals, all the workers could enjoy the benefits of creative work.
In this green and participatory economy, everybody would have the right to fair compensation for their work based on the duration, intensity and difficulty of their jobs. A boss or manager couldn’t decide to take away your healthcare as a worker because the business is no longer “competitive,” since firms produce for social and ecological benefit. Workers would choose their criteria and negotiate their compensation together.
People in each workplace and community could participate in democratic councils of workers and consumers. Workers’ councils would create annual plans for the amount and type of goods and services they make which are matched to plans for consumption created by community council. Prices of goods and services can be adjusted in order to reflect the social and environmental costs of production. This way a business couldn’t simply choose to use dirty-energy or dump waste in somebody’s back yard just because it’s “cheaper”. In this way, we can directly hold businesses accountable and ensure that the health of communities and the environment are protected from harmful practices [iii].
Dirty-energy corporations are already trying to water down the definition of a green-collar economy. For just one example, take a look at coal companies in Michigan who are trying to win over support by saying they’re going to create “green jobs.” We need to be ever clarifying and refining our vision of a just and sustainable future in order to prevent this kind of cooptation. We can’t let green jobs we’re fighting so hard for be mutated into something as ludicrous as “clean coal”, or wage-slavery on the PHEV assembly line. We have to hold on to a vision of a future that will protect the planet and the people, and build the alternatives for the better world we want.
[i] See “Auto Workers Told to Take Concessions, Abandon Retirees” by Tiffany Ten Eyck in Labor Notes. < http://labornotes.org/node/1996 >
[ii] For real life examples of democratic cooperative workplaces see “The Cure for Layoffs” by Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis < http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/14-13 >
[iii] For more on democratic planning see “Power Shift to Economic Justice and Democracy” by Brian Kelly. < http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/06/21/power-shift-to-economic-justice-and-democracy/ >
Note: This is an essay I wrote shortly after last year’s Red Wings Stanley Cup victory. In lieu of Wings victory over the Ducks and today’s game against Chicago I’m reposting this short essay. A friend of mine explained to me after the Wings lost game six of the last series that “the Wings didn’t play like the Wings” and that’s why we lost. The loss put the Wings into a hard place, tying the series against Anaheim at 3-3. At this time of war and recession, maybe we could take another hint from the Wings’. The Left has been able to overcome incredible opposition in the past. Perhaps the Left should start to play like the Left?
"With the pass ...!"
I’ve come to the startling realization that few people outside of Detroit and Canada know or care about hockey [i]. So I would understand if you didn’t know about Detroit’s recent return to glory as the National Hockey League champion. So let me fill you in for a moment on what it was like after we won.
I haven’t seen people so happy in all my life. The streets of Detroit were filled to the brim with cars, motorcycles, and people parading, throwing their hands in the air, cheering, holding up issues of the next day’s paper reading “Champs!” It reminded me of something a friend told me. He’s a Romanian guy who was 20 when the country’s communist dictator was overthrown. “There is nothing in the world like a revolution,” he said to me, “the people are just so happy.”
The victory was warmly welcomed here. Many people here in the city’s metro area needed something to be happy about. Detroit is one of the cities hardest hit by the nation’s economic downturn, only adding to the city’s already poor reputation. A news article recently mentioned that the Red Wing’s success is offering some small bit of hope during the hard times. While many regard us as “America’s punch-line,” we can find pride in our ability to nail anybody on the ice rink.
In the second to last game of the playoffs, my friends and I ran downtown to celebrate what we thought would be our inevitable victory. The hundreds that we joined shared that sentiment of inevitability. “I know the Wings are going to win,” said one fan as we entered into the third period of overtime, “but will they just get this over with already?”
We stood outside, exhausted, nerve-wracked, and soaked from the near torrent of rain falling down on us in the final period. People rarely act like this. It’s not often that hundreds of people get together to put our passion and energy into something. Some friends of mine later told me that when they saw all the commotion they felt upset. “This is so stupid,” they told me, “I know it’s fun and all, but these people are putting so much into something that isn’t really important.” But it is important. Aside from the fact that it’s the Stanley Cup playoffs [ii], the game is giving people hope.
Looking at crowds of excited and impassioned people and saying, “No, this is wrong, they’re not caring about the right thing,” is not only alienating, but it’s missing the point entirely. The people on the streets wanted the championship and they believed that we would win it. Thousands of people turned out to support them. If we’re frustrated that people turn out to support sports teams instead of our movement, then we need to ask ourselves why we’re not getting that kind of support.
Most people desire a more peaceful world, one that is more equitable and just — just like most folks in Detroit who want their hockey team to win the league championship. Who wouldn’t want that? But people know that the Red Wings can win. Our challenge comes in convincing massive numbers of people (and ourselves) that change is possible with their participation. A team that win believe they can win. They take their goals seriously and go into action to meet them.
To keep going through the long season, a winning team keep their eyes on the prize and sees their mission as something long-term. Our mission is harder than winning a championship (imagine if all we had to do was beat the jerks in a hockey game!). Building a new world is an infinitely complex task, so, to build and sustain our momentum, we find markers for our progress. Rather than celebrating momentary skirmishes, a winning team in social change looks toward the movement.
A coach or captain of a team asks, “Okay, are we passing better than before? Are we shooting better? Are we playing better defense?” We’re a part of a movement that rejects that kind of hierarchy, so asking these questions becomes everybody’s responsibility. Are we building our skills? Radicalizing more people? Building more militancy? Are we sustaining involvement? Winning teams know that the stronger they get, the more likely they are to win what they’re after.
The Left has won before when it knew that it could. We’ve ended wars, won the right to organize unions, women’s suffrage, and civil rights. The draft ended for a reason.
Strong activists always believed in our movement’s potential for success. Can you imagine if the people you look back on for inspiration believed that we couldn’t win? It’s ludicrous, right? I couldn’t believe in Pavel Datsyuk [iii] saying he didn’t believe that the Wings could win.
Our movement has so much to offer. We offer a world that is classless and democratic. A world that is feminist and inclusive of people from all backgrounds and cultures. A world that is peaceful and sustainable. We can win it!
[i]I’ve been informed recently that Boston also likes Hockey. For those who don’t know, hockey is a game played on ice with sticks and is considered by many to be a sport.
[ii] Granting it immediate importance.
[iii] See Wikipedia. Search for Hero.
