At the turn of the 20th Century, there were great movements afoot in the US. Socialism was vibrantly touching the lives of working class people, and awakening them to their oppression, and an answer to ending that oppression. This was echoed across the world, of course, but I’m focusing on the US because it is the most militarised country in the world.
Federal troops and state militia, not to mention private armies such as the Pinkertons, were deployed to ruthlessly crush this extremely popular movement. The wider Socialist movement was not the picture of nonviolence, but the violence used against the movement was horrendous.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s there was a general uptick in uncoordinated anger and resentment within the US. Aside from a few tiny and marginalised organisations, this uptick was simply broad dissatisfaction with the status quo. Once again, the US government crushed this resentment with brutal military force, because of its incipient potential of self-organisation.
My point in bringing these things up is simple: there is not a chance that a non-violent (or even mostly non-violent) direct action to change the government will ever work in the US. It is a hopeless cause, and will only result in either being shot or have one’s skull bashed in by a police baton. Such direct action not only fails, but serves as the justification for the reinforcing and intensification of the oppression which fomented the anger to begin with. It is the ancient problem of violence only begetting more violence.
An organisation requires leadership, and leaders can be ‘removed’, removing the ideological font of what makes the group cohesive. That has been the practise of the US government since Public Enemy #1 were Bolsheviks in the washroom.
When people try to effect fundamental changes to their countries, the first and obvious thing to do is to attempt that change via the system needing change. This is not a method which will work, because that system is not responsible to anything except itself. Actual circumstances in the US are simple: there is no place for the people to voice desire for fundamental change. The era of this has passed long ago in the US; the legions of dead Socialists and civil rights supporters can attest to this.
The urgency of change is great, however, and the duty of people to facilitate this change cannot be shirked on excuses. Saying ‘well, that’s how the world really is’, or ‘I can’t lose my job’ is allying oneself with the status quo, and what it commits. The status quo needs to change, in very deep and fundamental ways. That will require deep and fundamental change in people as well. In my opinion this is a process which will happen with or without consent, so the choice is either to proactively change, or in ignorance be swept away.
At the root of the US/Western Empire expansion is the defence of corporations, not people. It is this root which was defended against the Socialist and civil rights movements, and it is this root which is being defended against WikiLeaks. It is also a root which pays human beings no consideration, other than the source of profits and flesh for war machines.
It is this root which must be fundamentally changed. However, this cannot be done through non-violent direct action. Violence itself has not a hope of accomplishing anything at all; it is incompetence to resort to it. The only way to change this root is to starve it of what it needs: our money.
In order for a movement to survive, it has to be non-organised, leaderless, and passive. There is nothing more non-organised, leaderless, and passive than simply not shopping at Wal-Mart, not using Visa and MasterCard, not banking at Wells Fargo and Chase. There is no law β and indeed never will be β against doing these things I mention, so there is no need to fear any reprisals at all.
The only tools to prevent this economic opting-out are the trinkets which one must give up. There is much to consider, but think of it all from a new perspective: it is bribery to keep one supporting the system. So, making the excuse of ‘I can’t give up [TV/Wal-Mart/my defence contractor job/whatever]’ is effectively saying ‘the bribery has been pretty good to me, actually! Long live the status quo’. The world needs rearranging, and so too do our lives in the US and Western Empire. These sacrifices must be made, or they will be made for us, I think.
Economic opting-out needn’t be a complete opt-out, either. If you can’t eliminate all your shopping at Wal-Mart, only buy what you absolutely must, and spend the rest of your money at local stores. If you have to use a credit card, do so; pay it off as quickly as possible, and never have any balance. If you need a bank account, have one at a local bank or credit union, and even then have only one account at all.
In essence, the important thing isn’t to go to a Thoreauvian extreme. Rather, it will only take 20% of US citizens shifting 80% of their economic support away from the status quo. Suddenly shifting spending from major chains to local stores, permanently, would ensure those corporations no longer have the money necessary to support their expansion. If 20% of defence contractor employees, or other high status quo corporations, were to quit and start up their dream small businesses, the government would no longer have the weapons it needs to spread its control across the planet.
If this is copied across the Western Empire, that empire will crumble forever. That crumbling will not be a dark age, but rather the first flowering of a new Renaissance: the corporate profits which are presently sucked off into the black hole of perquisites and performance bonuses would instead build communities; the resources poured into war machines would go toward building up the poorest of the poor.
It will only take a determined few of us to effect real change, but that change will neither be easy, nor from within the system. We must change the system from without. The tools for this change are simple: boycott the system, boost the community.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Micaela Ward
23/01/2011
Bravo, Andrew!
I’ve been boycotting Wal-Mart from its inception. Until about two years ago, I could honestly say I had never given them a penny of my money. Unfortunately, boycotting them entirely sometimes means driving 1-1/2 hrs or having to wait three days for cold medicine because my work schedule doesn’t allow me to get to a local store during business hrs, which are often limited here in Maine. So I broke my track record, but I can still say I can count the times I’ve been there on one hand. π
A lot of people in rural places like here are of the same mindset because they’ve seen what big box stores have done to the local mom n’ pops, or they have more trust in local banks where they know everyone and where their neighbors work, but how do we get the idea across in suburban areas, where you see strip mall after big box after strip mall? Most people only care about where they can get the lowest price. I say suburbs because I think a lot of people are getting it in the cities. Me, I’d rather have to spend a little more, even if that means I struggle financially and end up short at times.
Andrew McInnes
23/01/2011
Hi Micaela,
Thanks for your comment!
Yes, the urban destruction by Wal-Mart is a travesty, and utterly reprehensible. Your move is the best that we can all do: cut our expenditures there to the bone. The extra ‘expense’ of actually supporting community is paid back infinitely by the pleasure of having a real store to go to, with people who aren’t downtrodden zombies.
This benefit is hard to quantify, which is why, I think, a lot of the suburbanites have trouble wrapping their minds around the idea of spending a little more to get a lot more. It’s hard from that mindset to be able to see how a functioning city can be a good investment, simply because most suburbanites regard cities as ‘crime-ridden’ (read: non-white) places where ‘they don’t want to raise their children’.
Frankly, I expect most suburbanites to end up as economic refugees. They’re the most financially overgeared people in the US, and when they go down, they do it lock, stock, and two repossessed SUVs. Suburbanism is a way of life — the best way, they would claim — and they cannot get out of it by themselves. They will be dragged, kicking and screaming, back into the cities they have helped gut with their multi-million-dollar mortgaged houses, strip malls, and big boxes.
Best,
–Andrew
000
23/01/2011
Yes! We need a Operation Boycott against companies that are Boycotting WL π
Properly organised, it could send a message even the deaf and blind may have to acknowledge.
http://www.facebook.com/wikileaks#!/pages/List-of-companies-boycotting-Wikileaks/109018045837221
Andrew McInnes
23/01/2011
Thanks for your comment! π
Yes indeed, some sort of boycott operation is definitely something which could help. However, I caution that this isn’t just a temporary thing to get concessions, but permanent. We must cut our spending at big boxes and other corporations to the bone, for ever, because these corporations don’t just need to be chastised, they need to go away.
These corporations boycotting WikiLeaks is just the tip of the iceburg. That’s the action which helped bring us all together, after all! I was a member of that Facebook page until I got e-assassinated, and that’s a good list to start with.
However, and to repeat, these corporations — and frankly many more as well — are doing more than simply boycotting WikiLeaks. They are boycotting their responsibilities to the entire human race. This cannot be allowed to continue any longer.
Best,
–Andrew
000
23/01/2011
Andrew, could you please provide some links for reading up on what you say in paras 1,2 and 3?
Thanks π
Andrew McInnes
23/01/2011
Here are some good places to start:
Socialism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik/History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik/Eugene_V._Debs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik/Socialist_Party_of_America
Civil rights:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik/Kent_State_shootings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik/Student_Strike_of_1970
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States#1960s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik/1968_Washington,_D.C._riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik/List_of_race_riots#Civil_Rights_and_Black_Power_Movement.27s_Period:_1955_-_1977
aru
23/01/2011
Thanks for the links, Andrew. π
Andrew McInnes
23/01/2011
My pleasure, Aruna!
If you’d like, I’d be happy to start up a forum for discussing Socialism/civil rights further. Let me know.
–Andrew
aru
24/01/2011
I read through the links. Very sad but interesting. USG must employ very good PR people around the world.
But, why did the construction workers clash with the students? Hard hat riot – I don’t understand why the union workers would go against the students and support war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Hat_Riot
Andrew McInnes
24/01/2011
Oh yes, the US has the best kind of PR: it’s called gunboat PR. “Have a bad image? Occupy the world!”
Reading between the lines, I’d say that there are two general possibilities for the brutality of the construction workers.
1) This was just pure anti-communist madness.
2) The ‘construction workers’ were just paid goons dug up by the New York AFL-CIO to be, well, goonish.
Of course it could have been some mixture of the two. Frankly, I lean toward the latter hypothesis, because these ‘construction workers’ were effectively the trolls of yesterday.
–Andrew
aru
24/01/2011
A totally separate blog? Or a separate discussion thread?
I like it here. If it gets congested, perhaps then a separate blog can be started?
Also could you consider having a thread ‘Post to me/Hi/General thoughts’ thread so that irrelevant comments can be avoided on other posts? I generally go to an older posts and post some comment there if I want to get in touch with you. You have the sandbox and submissions, but if a separate thread is for this, everyone would come across it, wouldn’t they? It would be like a ‘General Talk’ thread? Discussions unrelated to posts(but those that don’t belong in sandbox) could take place.
Andrew McInnes
24/01/2011
I’ll start a separate discussion thread, on this blog, dedicated to civil rights oppression. I think it’s a good conversation to have.
That’s a great suggestion! Thanks for making it, and consider it done.
–Andrew
Jue Erart
23/01/2011
Isn’t Andrew’s article really good?
Two very important aspects I would like to add, though.
1st – Need for information vs. disinformation
What I gather from what I see and hear about the capability of the population to understand in order to act, is that disinformation is a very important part of the system today.
What is disinformation?
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=123467207698187&v=info
To be better informed, it is relatively easy to shift from mainstream media to real journalists , mainly thanks to the internet.
And, that would only mean that each individual would have his/her own view of things and would take his/her decisions accordingly.
This would be just perfect, if it leads to each individual being able to influence what happens with his/her “sand grain”. This would mean true democracy.
Studies are showing that populations are shifting to gather informations from the internet.
http://mashable.com/2011/01/04/internet-surpasses-television-as-main-news-source-for-young-adults-study/
Care must be taken to not stick to the disinformation media in the internet…
2nd – A “brain of brains”
What has not been possible in the past is in my expectation into the future of utmost importance.
Precisely the isolation of the individuals has been the cause for the success of disinformation and propaganda
by corporations
and the lobbying system
(ONE example, NOT the only one): http://www.aipac.org/Legislation_and_Policy/US_MiddleEast_Policy/default.asp
Now, since the internet and www are here to stay, it is enabling the previously isolated brains of the world to communicate in a much more intense way.
This may have the effect of becoming a kind of neuronal net
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/photo.php?fbid=494836239640&set=a.185381234640.117712.18793419640
that may bring the capability of a superpersonality on top of the individual personalities.
So if it in the short term does not quite bring the “thinking together” effect, this I expect to revolutionize the way populations or the world population as a whole percieve what is the right thing to do.
Why would the US-congress otherwise have introduced that internet data flow rates via the wireless acesses may be “slowed at will” by the corporations or the government?
It has been said to the population that is was a triumph to remain with no brakes on the internet data flow rates ( internet neutrality) in the wired environment. But it was hidden that the US-society actually just lost part of it all
http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/fccs-closed-door-talks-net-neutrality-internet
Example BP:
What would happen if a big part of a population would actually take a decision to boycott BP ==at the same time for a couple of months== for example, by everyone knowing fast that BP has just negligently spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, causing an abismal catastrophe
– http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-BP/119101198107726
– http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-spill/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid
and later has run the Alaska pipeleine to failure, causing a global price hike on fuel after having had to shut down the pipeline
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-spill/bp-questions-answers/?utm_campaign=videoplayer&utm_medium=fullplayer&utm_source=relatedlink
Would that truly have effects, without the need for violence?
Did the population do something about BP? No. They seem alive and well, just hurt to some degree.
-> No copyright to my thoughts, others have thought this and copyrighted.
I’ve tried to put all my Wikileaks threads (and SOME not started by me) accesible here:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=123467207698187&topic=236
Andrew McInnes
23/01/2011
Hi Jue!
As usual your posts are dense with information. I can’t get through everything now, but I will do so later on and leave a better comment. I just wanted to say thank you for your post!
Welcome to the corner,
–Andrew
Andrew McInnes
24/01/2011
Hi Jue,
The internet is definitely the tool for new levels of openness, transparency, and information sharing, and I agree that it is going to revolutionise the way that people interact with each other, with businesses, and with governments.
Those businesses and governments which can successfully retool themselves to function seamlessly with this new information environment. The more people both switch to the internet for their information, and learn how to discover information for themselves outside of the mass media, the more people will make good decisions.
The faster flow of good information will indeed affect how social activism, such as boycotting, takes place. The more, better information people get about where their products come from, and what is done by those corporations, the more those corporations have to ‘shape up’.
Frankly, I think that’s impossible, because corporations are based upon growth, not responsible actions, but that is for another thread. π
Thanks again for your thoughts, Jue!
Best,
–Andrew
John Lloyd Scharf
23/01/2011
Boycotts are only effective as an internal organizing tool. The have not been effective against Wal*Mart, Glenn Beck, or anyone else with a national “product.”
As with most attempts of anonymous movements like WIkiLeaks and Operation Payback, they FAIL. Civil disobedience works beause it does not avoid due process. It uses due process to win.
Andrew McInnes
23/01/2011
Hi John,
I fear I must correct a misconception about civil disobedience. As Mr Gandhi, for example, described it, CD is the act of selective violation of unjust laws. In my humble opinion, and as I had tried to make clear in my post, CD doesn’t work. It is too easy to ‘bait’ participants into committing acts which can be construed as violent, against which government forces can respond with asymmetric force.
Best,
–Andrew
John Lloyd Scharf
19/02/2011
No one can be “baited” without their consent.
You claim “CD doesn’t work.” Obviously, for Ghandi and King, it did. What does not work is a boycott. Even the boycottng of public transportation did not work. It was the change of the law in 1968 that worked.
Andrew McInnes
21/02/2011
Hi John,
Well, not to be terribly arch, but since you say boycotting will not work, I am filled with great joy. Boycotting will work marvelously.
Thanks for the pep talk! π
Best,
–Andrew
Jue Erart
24/01/2011
How about knowing of this?
Will this trigger boycotts?
BRAND NEW MASSIVE LEAK ABOUT PALESTINIAN CONCESSIONS TO ISRAEL FOR PEACE (1600 DOCUMENTS)
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=108734602494994&topic=5163
Follow all the links!
Andrew McInnes
24/01/2011
I saw the news about Al-Jezeera’s leaks. I certainly hope it will trigger boycotts, and soul-searching.
–Andrew
aru
24/01/2011
But Andrew, what about Indian Independence. Without CD, it simply wouldn’t have been possible.
Dandi March http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Satyagraha
Khadi
“No laws were being overtly broken, but the Raj was grinding to a halt as its activities were simply ignored by the Indian people.”
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mp/2002/08/15/stories/2002081500260300.htm
http://www.copperwiki.org/index.php/Khadi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swaraj
ββ¦[This nation is] aiming at the exclusive domination of the [world], lost in corruption, [characterized by] deep-rooted hatred towards us, hostile to liberty wherever it endeavors to show its head, and the eternal disturber of the peace of the world.β
~Thomas Jefferson, in 1815, on Great Britain.
Was the then British empire any different?
CD can be used to spread the message to Boycott the exploiting companies.
Very strong personal commitment to non-violence must be there for CD to succeed. But it can bring together large no. of people.
aru
24/01/2011
Also, since I don’t see the necessity of being obedient to anybody to just co-exist, I don’t identify myself with the term CD. I identify my actions with the term Non-Co-operation.
Andrew McInnes
24/01/2011
Hi Aruna,
I agree completely: without civil disobedience, India would not have gotten her independence. However, CD as we understand it was the brainchild, as part of Satyagraha, of Mohandas Gandhi. It was a very wonderful and effective tool… once. I believe Gandhiji understood this.
He was a constant innovater, both in himself, and in his techniques for Satyagraha. He knew full well that he had to keep changing techniques in order to remain one step ahead, or more, of oppressive regimes.
I have no doubt, if Gandhiji had lived, that he would have helped shape India into something very different from what it is today. As it is, though, India has repudiated basically everything he had hoped for the country. India has nuclear weapons, participates in military adventurism, and seeks to project power through violence. That’s on top of the exploitation by corporations of Indians, and India itself. Gandhiji would never have stood for this.
Because of his dynamic abilities, Gandhiji was watched closely throughout the world; oppressive regimes were deathly afraid of him, and could see no counter to his techniques. That is, until he was shot; Satyagraha collapsed as the forefront of India Home Rule.
Oppressive regimes had their answer for how to deal with civil disobedience: shoot the leader. This technique was applied successfully in the US against Malcom X and Martin Luther King Jr. Both movements which they supported collapsed almost instantly, following their assassinations.
So, this is why I say CD doesn’t work. It was done once, and cannot be used again, because it can be too easily blunted as a movement. The only effective, uncooptable method which I can think of is opting-out. Gandhiji experimented with this concept, specifically around textiles; I think it would have been the Satyagraha technique without parallel, sufficiently broadened in scope, and would have brought the British Raj to its knees.
Nowadays, this will be the technique which brings international corporations and supporting corrupt governments to their knees. A long explanation, but I hope it helps! π
Best,
–Andrew
aru
26/01/2011
It’s not just about opting out. It’s about creating a alternative source-product stream.
i.e., for the salt, they directly harvested it from the seaside and sold it at market.
For cloth, they harvested cotton, made them into threads, used hand looms to weave, unstitched clothing was worn.
Basically they circumvented the existing system by creating an alternative system. From start to finish.
If we want large-scale long-time participation, we can’t just opt-out without having an alternative that is as convenient and efficient as the existing system.
If we had ideologically suited systems that does the same function as PayPal and a bank, it would be the best solution.
Opting out is the inconvenient &/or short-term option for an individual. Long term, surely a supportive partner in the banking and e-payment sector is needed?.
Surely there must be like-minded people with experience in these sectors. If they manage to connect with each other, it would be a start. If a strategy can be worked out to get these people in touch with each other it would be a start for a long term alternative.
All we need to establish is an alternative path.
————————————————————————————————————————
I am also apprehensive about the shoot-the-leader strategy w.r.t. JA.
But as far as local CD or NC goes, with social networking, the need for a single face to mobilise people is no longer necessary. Hence I think that CD/NC are still good options.
Andrew McInnes
26/01/2011
Hi Aruna,
What you say is very true: the salt CD was a complete circumventing of the monopoly on consumable salt in India. It worked splendidly!
In the case of the US, there is no need to go that far: alternate systems are in place in the country, they are just considered ‘inconvenient’, ‘too expensive’, or just ‘too weird/not normal’. There are small purveyors of custom salt, for example, in my little hometown of Port Angeles! Clothing needn’t be made from scratch: go to thrift stores and resale shops. Like I wrote in this post, we needn’t go to Theaurovian extremes, just manage a shift from big-box to local and community. Community credit unions are all across the country, and if there isn’t one in an area, the NCUA always loves to assist in creating new CUs.
If you feel CD and NC are still viable, don’t let me stop you! π I think it’s great that you have enthusiasm for those techniques, and I have no doubt they still have applicability to the situation at hand. My perspective is that these are tools which governments have developed effective counters against wide-spread adoption. Small-scale CD doesn’t really require a great, visible figure, (a la MLK,) but if it were to become wide-spread, leaders would not be very safe.
Whatever the technique, though, I agree completely: all we need is an alternative path. I think there is a path at hand: the go local movement. Everything’s already in place. Let’s get on the team!
Best,
–Andrew
aru
30/01/2011
Benefit corporations:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/23/AR2011012303556.html
Thanks for linking NCUA. π
Andrew McInnes
31/01/2011
Hi Aruna,
Good to hear about the benefit corporation concept moving along! Thanks in return for that link.
–Andrew