Civil Resistance Law and Constructive Program Law

Civil Resistance is... well... civil.  As in, non-violent, courteous, by citizens, and in pursuit of just ends.  It is a broad term used to define a wide range of obstructive activities that build support for and participation in the movement.  The goals can be anything from trying to change the way the general public behaves, trying to change an unjust law, to upholding social norms against usurpers.  At its heart, Civil Resistance is "non-cooperation with evil" and can be done daily in our everyday life with small acts of resistance.  Resistance can take many forms, I consider deviating from problematic norms in our daily lives to be just as important as the larger more confrontational acts.  More confrontational forms include Civil Disobedience and Satyagraha.  Historically, Civil Resistance is far more effective at producing good outcomes for society.  (Check out  the book Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan if you don't believe me)
A related topic is Constructive Program, which I think of as "cooperative with good," and which is deeply interconnected with Civil Resistance.  It involves building just ways of life from the ground up, building the community's capacity, and building just institutions.  I have been thinking quite a bit about how this would work with the housing and the campaign finance issues, which I will probably write about later.  

For the past few months I have been trying to figure out how to use create a private law practice that supports just causes and stays true to my activist roots.  I want to call this practicing "Civil Resistance Law" and "Constructive Program Law."  So to coin the terms, I am going to try to define them.
In this definition, I do not think that only an attorney could or should do this work, I think it would be a collective process with the group.  Anyway, here is my first attempt at defining what an attorney practicing Civil Resistance Law and Constructive Program Law would do.  After reviewing this, I ended up categorizing this list based on the steps for successful movements that Martin Luther King developed.

1. Investigation!  Understanding the situation we find ourselves in is essential to finding a workable strategy to win changes.

• Research and describe the legal landscape the group and/or movement finds itself in, focusing on the topics that people want to change.  Find cracks and opportunities in the law that the movement can leverage.
• Research and analyze existing institutions
• Research the political landscape and help develop an understanding of how it fits into the legal landscape.  
• Help research the history of this issue and look for insights.  
• Research alternatives to what exists. 

2. Educate public, build support, and make a personal commitment.

• Help the group find resources.
• Distill the legal issues into easily understood explanations and parables.

3. Develop strategies based on the investigation.

• Imagine what changes to the law would bring about the group's goals, and what the details of the law would be.   
• Consider all of the findings of the investigation and help develop a strategy to achieve the goals of the group.
• Develop campaigns, campaign goals, and campaign sequence to achieve larger strategic goals.

4. Discuss options with opponents and negotiate

• Help develop strategies to build support and organizational capacity.
• Develop a negotiation strategy and fit it into the larger strategy.
• Develop and provide access to the system and officials.
• Help negotiate.

5. When negotiations inevitably break down

• Help develop escalation tactics.
• If the group wants to break the law, advise them what will happen if they do.  Note that legal ethics require that an attorney not advise clients to break the law, but may describe what will happen if they do.  The only exception to this is where the client wants to make a good faith challenge to the validity of the law (California Bar Professional Ethics Rule 3-210).  So ensuring compliance with ethics rules is something to always be aware of.
• Provide legal support for the group when they are arrested, and connect them with additional attorneys who can help.     

6. Reconciliation and change implementation

• Help develop a face-saving out for the opponent.  There are lots of advantages to this strategy, which I will probably discuss in a later post.
• Facilitate an agreement and reconciliation between the sides.  There will often need to be a lasting relationship, so an us v them mentality is not helpful.  
• Helping draft the legal changes and legal requirements.
• Ensure that enforcement options exist to enforce the changes and monitor compliance.

7.  Reflect and Repeat!

• Reflect on the campaign and how it worked.
• Go back to step one and start investigating for another campaign
• Help revise longterm strategy as necessary.  

I also think that the principles of Rebellious Lawyering are essential to this kind of practice of law, such as the emphasis on community leadership and problem-solving.   Anyway, that is what I have thought of so far, let me know what you think!

A Snippet of Wisdom.

Perhaps the greatest lesson I have learned from the ten years that I have really been awake:

The world is a place of cause and effect. You can never know the full extent of the consequences of your actions. However, the general effects can be distinguished... good creates more good, bad creates more bad. I have run numerous experiments in my life on this and it is very clear to me.
This is why the ends do not justify the means, you will never reach the fullness of the end you want through unjust means, you will only achieve a narrow end at the expense of the greater good.
In everything you do, try to do the right, and you will change the world for the better. This helps us muddle through the incalculable causes and effects in our lives to allow us to produce the ends we want. It is the golden rule in its fullest sense, treat others as you would want to be treated, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it is practically the most effective thing to do to achieve good ends.

Wars are Arguments #2

Building on my last post, I would like to explain more about Satyagraha which is a method of conflict that goes to the very roots of social ills. Satyagraha's focus is to change society at a very basic level through organizing the populace to both improve their own lot and to act in concert to improve the society. This can take an infinite variety of forms, from encouraging better diet and exercise habits to developing and implementing better political systems. It even takes the form of civil resistance and disobedience. But the main thrust is a transformation of society itself, which is not the government, but the population. Changing minds and people's daily activities is the primary goal. Everything else is secondary to that focus.

Many may question why one should prioritize changing society instead of focusing on taking over the institutions that run society and then use those as a tool to change it. A careful look at history will show that whenever a movement focuses on taking the reigns of power, it always loses sight of the initial goal of improving society and becomes corrupted by the very means they sought to achieve their end, and in most cases fail to achieve the end anyway. Focusing on direct programs and campaigns to improve society has a two-fold benefit. It actually achieves the end of improving society and it brings the added benefit of building political power almost unconsciously. This political power will then almost naturally bring the institutions of power into its orbit over time.

But this is a slow process and not for the weak. A movement must be strong-willed as well as undogmatic in their approach to how to change society. Ever-improving the methods through practical application and revision is essential. This work will bring a movement into conflict with many groups, but through the judicious use of non-violence, these groups can be successfully turned to either acceptance or support. The weak will resort to violence while the strong remain indomitable in the face of oppression. Oppression and other such evils must be met with principled resistance. I found this sweet video introduction to civil resistance from Waging Nonviolence here is the article: http://wagingnonviolence.org/2010/08/a-succinct-introduction-to-civil-resistance/ the video itself is embedded below. I agree with most of it, but, similarly to what was said in Waging Nonviolence, I disagree with the supposition that nonviolence is not about winning over your opponents. Most successful revolutions whether they are violent or not have won over atleast large parts of the military and police. Look at the French Revolution, there was basically no internal military support for the King. Anyway, the video is still a good watch.

Civil Resistance: A First Look from ICNC on Vimeo.

Wars are Arguments

All wars are arguments about something.  This principle can even be expanded to conflicts. These arguments are about a wide variety of things... in the context of war between governments, the arguments are often over the assets that help create power; land, resources, rights to use common resources, and public perception of the government's credibility.  Revolutions and insurrections are often an argument over the role of government, how it treats people, and the government's and rebel group's credibility.  Even personal conflicts are arguments about something, such as money, or one party feels insulted and the other party refuses to apologize (which can also be boiled down to the perception of credibility).

Violence is not inherent in conflict, arguments are.  Conflicts end when the argument is resolved in a way that both parties can agree on.  Historically, the majority of both parties believed that if your armies were defeated in violent war, then you were defeated and should defer to the victor's will.  For the most part, war was seen for over two millennia to be the ultimate arbitrator to resolve international conflict.  This was possible thanks to the simple fact that everyone involved made an unspoken agreement that if you were defeated in violent combat then you stopped resisting.

This stopped being the case on the international scale around the time of the Napoleonic wars when the democratic and industrial forces changed the nature of warfare.  Famously the Spanish, who were defeated by Napoleon's armies, simply refused to be defeated.  They had shaken loose the mental straight-jacket that said violent war was the ultimate arbitrator.  Their resistance, while often violent, was a sign of things to come, where simply defeating an army was not enough to bring a solution to the argument.

You are not defeated as long as you still have the dignity and will to resist.  Threats of death and even death do not produce obedience or even an end to the argument.  "Fearful people do not act well."    The logic of violence presupposes that the opponent will act in a certain way, which is obedience.  This social construct is entirely escapable.  Refusing to embrace it confounds the violent opponent, because they simply do not know how to respond; conferring a significant advantage both tactically and strategically.

When a violent force confronts a non-violent opponent, it is the violent force's objective to provoke the non-violent opponent into becoming violent.  The violent force always has the advantage when it comes to violence, so it is to their advantage to deprive their opponent of the advantage of being non-violent.  If the non-violent force has the discipline to maintain it's dignity and remain non-violent, it deprives it's opponent of the ability to use violence in a legitimate way.  When violence is used against a stubbornly non-violent force, the violent organization loses its legitimacy and credibility, and is often shamed into surrender.

It may seem odd that a violent enemy can be defeated through non-violent means.  But remember, all conflict is an argument.  The point of the conflict is to get the other side to concede to a mutually agreed-upon conclusion.  Convincing the other side to agree will never again be as simple as it was before the Napoleonic Wars.  Non-violent resistance to violence will always sway the opinion of onlookers in favor of the non-violent party, it is a principle of human nature.  It will even go so far as to make the violent party question themselves and their actions.  That is the power of non-violence, it creates allies who pressure the other party, it undermines the other party's power (support from their population/allies), and makes the other party question itself about its own actions and motives.  This pressure, both external and internal, will always lead to a more beneficial agreement to the conflict for the non-violent party.

An Attempt to Explain My Spiritual Practice

The following is a letter I wrote to Dave Belden about my spiritual practice.  It is probably the most articulate I have been on the subject yet, so I wanted to share it.


Dear Dave,
I have found it difficult to figure out a good approach to outlining my spiritual practice, because it feels like explaining my life.  I have an urge to tell stories about how I came upon my beliefs, but I think that would be alittle too long.  I have had to resist the urge to tell more of the history of my development.   To remain succinct, here is a simplified version of the principle behind my spiritual practice:

1. We all change over time.  We change in demeanor, behavior, passions, interests, and what communities we are a part of.  To be human is to be dynamic, thinking of ourselves or others as static limits our capacity and deprives us all of our humanity.
2. Willful action shapes how we change.   You can become the person you want to be through practice.
3. You have the power to decide how to act, behave and respond to any given situation.
4. Every moment is a chance to shape how we change and therefore who we are.
5. Living by broad, well-thought-out tenets facilitates positive personal change.
6. Learn from your mistakes.  Reflect on them at length, for days or months if necessary, to figure out what happened and how to change yourself to be more in line with who you want to be.
7. Reflect on your activities and behaviors and how they impact the world around you.  Try to change your behavior so it changes the people and communities how you want them to change.  
8. The whole world changes over time.  Our collective willful action shapes how it changes.  Even small scale actions change other people’s lives, and you can never know the full positive impact of a good deed.  Likewise, you can never know the full negative impact of a bad deed.

The practice of this principle is the difficult part.  I have used my conscience to good effect in this, when I have the impulse to do something, I will usually check it against my conscience and a myriad of tenets that I try to live by.  Then I act the way that seems to conform to those tenets, sometimes having to force myself to do it.  The most trying actions where I have to hunker down and really compel myself to do are often the most rewarding.  Self-control and a willingness to forgo other emotions and desires in favor of conforming to my practice has been essential in seeing my ability to shape myself become reality.  Likewise, awareness of what I am doing and keeping my practice always in the back of my mind is essential.

Perhaps my greatest experiment in my spiritual practice has been with the Golden Rule.  I started trying to live by the Golden Rule when I was 15.  And it, more than any other tenet, has pushed me to the limit of being the person I want to be.  It has forced me to do some difficult and crazy things.  When I say experiments, I indeed mean it that way.  Looking at the outcomes when I fail to follow the Golden Rule versus when I keep to it has given me the utmost faith it this tenet’s ability to positively shape myself and my world.  These experiments helped me be able to figure out the core tenet of my life and what I believe to be the answer to the eternal question “what is the meaning of life.”

    “People” are my purpose.  That one word encompasses a wide variety of issues, but in short, it means a devotion to other people, helping them, protecting them, and putting others before myself.  Here are the tenets I feel flow from this purpose:

1. Generosity is a tenet that has produced more happiness in my life than I can even conceive of.  I now even get great joy from the search for people to receive.  This includes being generous of myself and of my time, not just the property that happens to be in my possession.
2. Anti-materialism.  This helps alot with following generosity, but it basically means not being attached to possessions and being willing to part with them at any moment.  I have even started trying to re-interpret theft as surprise, unintentional giving to the thief.  Focusing on objects prevents us from seeing the humanity in each other.
3. Forgiveness of everything as soon as it happens.  This not only helps the other person heal but is of huge value in maintaining strong social bonds and one’s own positive outlook.  
4. Being stable.  I think this is the Buddhist part of my practice.  I try to remain calm and unmoved by events and maintain an emotional baseline of happiness.  I consciously let go of frustration and anger, which forgiveness is key in.  Being stable helps the people around me immensely, I have found.
5. Awareness of others and what is probably going on in their minds.  Trying to determine how they feel and what they think based on what I have observed.
6. Activism.  Personal interactions go a long way in changing the world, and bringing that to a larger arena as part of a group is very powerful.
7. Investing myself in the projects and activities I do and in the people around me.
8. Silence.  Being careful with words and listening to other people more than talking.  This shows to other people that you value what they think, as well as makes them value your words more.
9. Non-violence in word and thought as well as in physical presence.
10. Truth.  Not lying beyond white lies.  
11. Humanization.  When I think of other people, no matter who they are or what they have done, I try to humanize them in my mind, not letting myself write them off as bad people.  Seeing myself in other people is another way of saying this.
12. Faith that the universe is dominated by good, and reminding myself of this.
13. Reflecting on everything.  On my behavior, others behavior, consequences of any given action, tenets etc.  This includes the development of self-knowledge and an understanding of oneself.
14. Being non-judgmental.  Being judgmental gets in the way of seeing other people as full human beings, and it burdens you with unpleasant feelings and emotions.  Forgiveness helps alot with maintaining a non-judgmental outlook.  Besides, I feel like reality deals out harsh judgements and punishments to people as it is, I see no reason to add to that misery.

There are probably lots of other tenets, but those are most of the important ones that I could think of off the top of my head.  I would say as far as the practice goes, it is a continuous process.  I am always practicing, trying to make every action deliberate and in-line with who I want to be.  That is really all it boils down to... if you want to become someone else, practice being that person in your daily life and one day you will see yourself a changed person.  I am also always re-examining the principle and tenets behind my spiritual practice, looking for faults or situations that contradict it.   This has helped me maintain confidence in it and improving it when there is an issue.  

I hope that short summary was what you were looking for.
peace,
Will

Some content from a letter to Sarah #1

Here is some content that I wrote to Sarah around June in 2009.

I have always liked the idea of letters. They are like time travel, you get to send a message to someone in the future. And then that person gets to send it to you in the future. They also let you go into much more depth than phone, texts, or even email. Somehow email seems like it should be shorter in my mind, even though it is basically an electronic letter.
So, since we aren't able to get to know each other better face to face, letters will have to do. OK... so i'll start out by starting a mini-bio and see where that takes me.

I suppose I have led an unusual and interesting life so far. I grew up in rural Kentucky, in a town of 1500, surrounded by nature. I am the son of back-to-the-lander hippies, although they never got into farming. My Dad says he was never any good at it, but I remember planting and harvesting some really killer peas in our garden. They were so tasty. Growing up I helped my parents build our house (as much as a 3 to 12 year old can). I watched so intently and actually picked up alot of carpentry from it... but I think working with my hands runs in my blood. All my male blood relatives in my parents generation and both my grandfathers are/were carpenters. Some of my male non-blood relatives in my parents generation are/were carpenters as well. I really love building things, like that bed frame I cobbled together from dumpstered wood. I have wanted to learn to make nice-looking furniture for awhile, not just practical dumpster-scrounged constructs.

We lived on a 70 acre plot of land, mostly forest. Our house is on a ten acre field in the middle of the property. We get our water from a natural spring that has never gone dry in living memory, despite the droughts the area has gone through. I love that water, it is soooo delicious. As a kid I would go off into the forest with friends and sometimes alone and explore. Most often along the banks of nearby creeks. Our land bordered a smallish river where we would go swimming. It is amazing to live next to a river and to see it change over the years. The swimming holes shifted dramatically, as did this island where we used to hang out. Getting down to the river was a trip though. Probably a quarter of a mile walk, with stinging nettle at the end of the walk to punctuate it. I remember that pain pretty clearly, probably because I received a dose of it on a regular basis for a large swath of my childhood. It was with that experience that I conducted some of my first experiments with consciously suppressing pain. When I was like 12 or 13 I can clearly remember myself leading a group of friends down to the river and single-handedly clearing a path through the nettle with a stick so my friends could make it through unscathed. At that point i had managed to ignore the pain enough to complete the task. The worst part though, was if you were wearing flip-flops and there were nettle leaves on the ground... they would sting your toes. Anyway, that experience with ignoring and suppressing pain, i think, was the precursor to alot of my experiments with changing my emotions and behavior.

I went to school in a town an hour away, because my parents thought that their public school system was much better than the one in my home town (it was). My parents taught me true generosity through their selfless pursuit of putting me and my brother first, I hope to return the favor to my own kids one day. I think this early example of selflessness made it very easy for me decide to do my best to live a generous life.

I saw many things in Kentucky that have greatly affected my outlook and direction in life, such as the high rate of poverty there (23% of the population is below the poverty line in my home county in 2006). I am strangely proud of the fact that my parents weren't well off while raising me... for my first 7 years of life we had an outhouse. I remember the day my Dad installed our first toilet. My childhood imbued me with a passion to tackle social ills. I think especially the juxtaposition of the incredible hardships people had with the generally caring attitudes they had towards each other has convinced me from an early age that 1. people are inherently good and 2. that it doesn't matter what shit people have to go through, as long as they are with other people, they can get through it.

I saw racism and experienced its impact on other people. I know that growing up in a racist culture has imbued me with alot of racism, and it bugs the hell out of me. I make it a point to fight the passive racism in my own mind whenever I notice it, and to actively work to notice it. If I have what I consider a racist thought, I feel pretty bad and commit myself to not letting it influence my behavior and trying to ensure I stop having those thoughts. My own process for self-reflection and self-improvement has actually changed me a great deal... I will go into that later though, probably in a following letter. One of the scariest things I remember was that in my high school my senior year, every freshman male black student had atleast one failing grade. The school was about 40% African American. While it was not segregated per se, it was de facto segregation. The different races (mostly white, black, latino) didn't mix much. The cafeteria really showed this, with each group colonizing its own section every day.

I remember hearing lots of racist jokes, many of them told seriously. I also remember hearing of a big KKK rally, and a counter-protest called Unity Day during my sophomore High School year. I don't remember why I couldn't make it, but I really wish I had been able to. Most of my teachers were gung-ho about the Unity Day counter protest, which I remember thinking that was amazing. I also heard that it got a much larger turnout than expected and was significantly bigger than the KKK rally.

One of my favorite memories from childhood is star-gazing. We star-gazed alot. I have seen meteors that lit up the entire sky. In 2001 during a particularly spectacular Leonid shower in November, a group of friends and I stayed out all night watching. There were over 100 per hour that night, it was by far the most spectacular meteor shower I have seen. I remember watching comet Hale-Bopp hover in the sky for days, and be almost visible during early morning and late evening. And our sky was absolutely spectacular. On a clear night with a new moon, I could see millions of stars. The Milky Way was very clear and if you closed your eyes for a few minutes and then looked, oh, it would take your breath away. I have always had a love of space (yeah, i am a geek like that), which i atleast partly credit to the awe-inspiring sky I stared at as I grew up.

I was consistently in awe of nature during my childhood. We had a few giant trees on our land, which I found fascinating. They had survived the logging that happened in the early 70s (before my parents bought the land) because they marked the edge of the property. My Dad loves trees and taught me tons of random facts about them, how to recognize some of the species, and how to take care of the forest (which mostly involved leaving it alone). Did you know that if there is a vine growing on a tree (a tree you don't want a vine growing on), that the best way to kill it is not to chop it off, or pull it off but to just remove all the vine's bark in a circle around the base of the vine. This will slowly kill both the roots and the vine's trunk... this method works with most plants. The wildlife around my house was great. There were deer everywhere, lots of rabbits and infinite numbers of insects. I have almost stepped on copperheads (the only deadly snake in KY) 3 times, they are probably the animal I dislike the most. I am also not a big fan of skunks, having been within 2 feet of one, before both of us noticed each other (it was dark and i was walking without a flashlight). We both ran like a bat out of hell. Mammoth cave is also just utterly fantastic... To Be Continued next letter...

Purity on the Left

There are far too many people on the left who have purity issues. They see capitalism as impure (which it is) and try to cut out any connection with it from their lives. This is a DRASTIC MISTAKE. Personally, trying to maintain one's own purity is really self-righteous and selfish. Socially, it removes the influence all of us have over the society we live in. And with regard to the movement it is such SUCH a hindrance to effectively organizing and bringing about change.
To further explain what I am railing against, let me throw out a few examples. I see far too many people on the left simply refusing to befriend people whose ideology is counter to their own... whether they are capitalists or other sects of the left, like Maoists. There is such a stigma against some of these groups that people are afraid to interact or have them around.
<  rant >
(an html joke, for those of you who are wondering what the "" is about)
Life is messy, people. Do not expect to be able to live by one's ideals, it is good to attempt it, but taking it to the level of a dogmatic view of purity is just going to cause pain and turbulence to one and the people around them. Condemning people for their failings will not change them, the only effect it seems to have is it makes people feel superior, which creates such a negative environment.
The biggest failing of the 60s New Left was it's purity driven mentality, it utterly destroyed the movement. Divisions and hatreds developed because people were arrogant enough to believe their way was the only way. I do not want to see that happen again. The greatest success of the New Left, ironically, came from its rank and file members making a compromise between the ideals of the movement and living in a capitalist society. By living differently but still interacting with society at a fundamental level, they have changed American and global culture drastically. So much of the hatreds they railed against in the 60s have much less influence now. Racism is merely the most obvious.
What does this teach us about succeeding as a movement? That it is messy, that you have to have real relationships with people who disagree with you and that you can't shut yourself out of a dirty world for purity's sake. It is like Thomas Merton (a kick-ass activist monk from the 60s, like so many of the prophets of social justice, he died in '68) said, "In the end, it is the power of personal relationships that saves everything." This is literally true, societal change does not come from over-throwing the government, it comes from making friends with people who disagree with you. It comes from convincing young people to change the way they behave. It comes from loving those who you see as your enemy. It does not come from sequestering yourself from the world and not listening to the minds of your fellow humans.

< /rant >

Love 4: The Shining Revolution

Seeing myself as part of a larger whole makes generosity more than just a pleasant interaction, it makes it... I don't know, just make sense. It seems like the natural way to act. What is the point of life, if not to give. And so, my life is dedicated to the benefit of all others, who, in reality, are all part of me. I want us to be happy and liberated of the tyranny we impose upon ourselves. To live in a mutually-supportive society that does not follow the fools gold of false logics. To embrace love and spread security. To face evil and punch it square in the jaw with the fist of love. What I really want a revolution that shines.
Now that would be truly irresistible, as the author of a book I just read put it (The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne). That is where embracing love has lead me, and will led the world, to a different social system that does not claim its foundation to be greed and selfishness. A shining revolution will cast the light of love and joy on the dark places in the world. To set a floodlight on the twin oppressions of capitalism, poverty of possessions among the poor and poverty of the spirit among the rich. Oh, how they will quiver and scurry at the rays of light we cast upon them.
But enough with metaphors, a shining revolution will be one of generosity of love. It will be of people living acting differently in their daily lives and embracing love. At the center of it will be education, teaching about love, compromise, conflict resolution, and the nature of humanity. Put simply, living for each other in a direct way instead of the indirect way we live for each other now. Fighting with love and compassion. Having the courage to forgive our "enemies" and try to understand each other. All this is very general because it is up to everyone to decide how it will manifest itself, I am merely citing themes that I have seen in my most splendid visions of it.

A shining revolution would be positively contagious. Joy and love are among the most pathogenic emotions, even consuming the most immune of hearts. No one could evade this plague if enough people become infected. I have noticed this first hand, in the effects of my interactions with other people. When I am happy, which is most of the time, I am a veritable Typhoid Mary. When I am generous, people start acting more generous. I don't see how people can not see how powerful this is. A revolution that embraced this way of being would have more power than any government could handle. If we want our revolution to really change the wheel and win us a different way of life, than it has to be a revolution of love, one that shines and draws people like ants to food. Because it WILL be food, food for the souls of the starving and destitute populace who are hungering for the meaning and fulfillment that material consumption and meaningless work can never bring.

Politicians and power

Real power is not a commodity, it is consent.  Specifically, consent from large groups of people. Power can only be bought when people consent to being bought off, and it can only be stolen when people consent to giving it up through some form of intimidation.  But there is a difference between active consent and apathetic consent.  Active consent produces real, tangible power that can move mountains and change the wheel.  Apathetic consent produces the shadow of power, people go along with it, but their hearts aren't in it.  Consent to the activities and policies of politicians fall into the second category.  Only half the population is motivated to spend one hour or less to do something as easy as voting, now that is apathetic consent to be governed.   

Too many people believe politicians are able to do things, that they have power enough to make decisions themselves.  That is not the nature of the beast.  It was the nature of Monarchs and Emperors, back when people put more stock in the authority of their leaders and were much much more willing to act on their leader's wishes.  But it is not so today.  If a politician asked me to do something, I doubt I would do it unless it was something I was going to do anyway.  I bet the same is true for most of you out there.  We are forced to apathetically consent to their existence, because there is no alternative, as of yet.  Because they receive this type of consent, politicians do not have latitude to do what they wish.  We have stripped them of that power by our lackluster enthusiasm.  Like most of us, their hands are tied, they are stuck in Weber's iron cage of rules and regulations, and without support, they are unable to do what they want just as much as we are unable to create what we wish. 

I am reminded of a story about FDR.  During the early days of his administration, he met with labor leaders, they gave a presentation to try to convince him to adopt their policies.  At the end, FDR told them that they had convinced him and he completely agreed with what they were saying, and that now they had to go out into the public arena and force him to do it.  Hating politicians for being spineless and unable to do what we want is like hating grass for being unable to remain rigid against the wind.  If we want to shift the way the grass bends, we have to change the direction of the wind.  

I don't bother getting angry at politicians anymore.  Not worth the effort, they just do what they do and that won't change until we change our system of government.  Getting some active consent going for a policy will change policy, but it will not change the anti-participatory nature of our republic.  

It seems to me that too many people on the left focus on the people at the top levels of our government, and focus on them for failing to live up to America's ideals.  But they don't have the real power.  The population that apathetically consents to their existence has the REAL power, and they nullify it by being apathetic.  If we ever want to change our society, we have to change the minds of the population and get them organized and acting.  Politicians are a moot point, when the population's minds are changed, the minds of politicians will be changed. Just look at the environmental movement's success in converting the general population.  Even Republicans are now trying to appeal to green-minded voters.  We shouldn't waste our emotional energies decrying politicians and fighting the power-structures unless these activities are aimed at changing people's minds and mobilizing them.  And unfortunately, they often are not aimed at this, they are aimed at forcing authority figures to do what we want.

A Revolution is Just a Spinning of the Wheel

I mistrust the notion of revolution.  Far too many people put stock in it as an effective way to change society, but even a brief gloss-over of history tells me that it is not particularly effective. Take Russia for example.  They have had several revolutions in the past 200 years both violent and peaceful, yet they still have an authoritarian government, it may be composed of different people, but it is still essentially the same as the Tsar monarchy or the Soviet-style government. China too, several revolutions, still authoritarian.  Then there are countless third world countries that have had revolutions galore, and we can see how well that has worked out for them. We could take the French revolution as the archetype of revolution.  They overthrew an absolute monarch and large, powerful factions such as the Sansculottes pushed for direct democracy.  The core of the intellectual support for the French revolution supported more democracy, and indeed has inspired the rest of the world with its idealism.  Yet they ended up empowering Napoleon in the near absolute power of an Emperor.   If there were to be a revolution in the typical sense in America, I do not believe it would achieve the ends we desire. 

I am reminded of the analysis provided in 1984 about before Oceania's type of government:  there were always revolutions that would overthrow one group of oligarchs and replace them with another group.  Indeed, a republic is designed to institutionalize this process, stabilizing the switching of control and reducing disruption.  It also stabilizes the groups who maintain power, allowing them to entrench themselves more effectively and simply change places with each other every few years.  Kind of scary to think that a republic, what we have now in America, is an institutionalization of the cycle of revolution.  I am not particularly interesting in changing who has the reigns of power, which may be why I am never had a particular interest in working to elect politicians or bothering rich people to do things.

  

True to its definition, revolution is just the spinning of the wheel, you always end up where you started.  Myself, I am not interested in spinning my wheels... what I want to do is change the wheel itself.  History, again, can aid in understanding this.  There have been numerous wheel-changing events in history, among the most prominent are the industrial revolution and the enlightenment.  They both defined the lenses that the world has been seen through since they came about.  What is phenomenal about them is that they were not specifically directed at the power structures themselves, they were simple shifts in our view of the world and how one acts in it.  

I have come across the idea of wheel changing events before; something that happens that changes everything.  For indigenous populations, exposure to western civilization has been wheel-changing, their cultures are disrupted, and they are often forced to abandon their way of life.  Forced in the military sense, or in the generational shift-sense when the next generation has to stop living the way they did to survive.   But, the best description of a wheel-changing event that I have come across yet comes from literature.  The Riverworld series describes how an ancient society accidentally developed an artificial soul generator that automatically bound souls to new sentient beings.  So, this society changed its newborns without even knowing it, and in the space of only a couple generations, all the beings without these souls were gone because of old age.   This is a great metaphor for generational change.  One generation develops something, the next generation is imbued with it and it becomes an indestructible part of our society.

This seems to be the main wheel-changing method that humanity has at its disposal, and it can be boiled down to mass education, motivation, and changes in each of our ways of life.  To change society, you really have to change the way people think and act, because what else is society but the aggregate of all of our thoughts and actions.  

The industrial revolution was a revolution of mind, it shifted the priorities in life more directly toward profit, productivity and self-interest away from the typical human priority of social networking and the reciprocal economy.  It manifested itself in the day to day behavior of people and in their way of life.  It was compelling enough to spread like a plague across the earth, infecting all those it touched.  

I also think that the 60s was a wheel-changing event in opposition to the industrial revolution's, as it prompted people to change their priorities away from profit.  In fact, I believe that the old sds's long-haul strategy of radicalizing (educating) young people was key in the effectiveness of this specific event.  Without a de-centralized yet organized education and motivation effort, wheel-changing events are much harder to produce.  

Without this hard work of changing minds, we will not see success in our movement.  In the eternal words of Monty Python: "Power is derived from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony."  Too often people on the left focus on the power structures in a society, when we should be focusing on the real power in human society - each other.

Capitalism (the Game!)

The more I think about capitalism, the more it seems to fit into the "game" category. Except it is perhaps the most complex game out there, and your survival depends on playing it. I think the most game-esque part of capitalism is the stock market, where you watch a bunch of numbers go up and down and you try to make more money based on when you buy and sell. Almost all of the people playing have more than enough money to live comfortably, but they are still focused on raising their own personal score. It is a symptom of a culture that is obsessed with over-accumulation.


Consumerism. That was the answer capitalism developed to answer the problem of the "stationary state." This idea was introduced to me by a book by Eric Hobsbawm titled "The Age of Revolution." As profit is the main motivator in the game of capitalism, if people are not motivated to profit, they will quite soon reach a point where they are quite satisfied with their position in life, and no longer seek to profit.  This is a stationary state, where people no longer seek to profit because they have enough.  I have fallen into such a state, I really have no motivation to make money and my living conditions are pretty good. I am not being a very good consumer, and I could see that the capitalism system would be in deep trouble if most people acted the way I am.  To avoid this pitfall, that would have reduced profits, consumerism evolved.

It actually reminds me of many video games. In Dungeons and Dragons based games like Diablo II and Nethack you walk around killing evil things, getting gold and new equipment. That is all the game is, getting new stuff by killing things... it is almost like gambling, because every time you kill something you have a chance to get something really good. It can be pretty addicting. I wonder how many of you thought I could compare capitalism to Diablo II. In games like Age of Empires II and Starcraft your objective is to conquer your competitor, but to do that, you have to develop an economy where you accumulate resources and assets. If you manage your assests affectively, you win. If not, then you lose. In Thief, you have to steal a certain amount of money. They are all focused on counters... little numbers that tell you how well you are doing. Sounds like the stock market to me.

I was looking at my bank statement the other day and asking myself how much happier I would be if my account was larger. Would I be happier if it were twice as much? How about 100 times as much? What would be the point of having that? What would I do with it? Why are so many people happier when the number on their bank statements are higher? I am still not sure why, which is a failing on my part, failing to understand other people. The only possible explanation I have been able to come up with is that they are approaching it the way I approach games, in that it is fun to test one's skills and see how good one can get. Well, I hate to be the one to say it, but basing a way of life on what amounts to a game is a horrible, HORRIBLE idea. Games were meant as training for real life, not to become real life! It seems that this is another example of goal displacement.

The truth is, the only reason I would be happier if the number on my bank account was bigger would be because it meant I got to give my money away to my friends and family. To help them in whatever way I could figure out.  And once I did that, the number would fall sharply.  I see no other reason why I would want alot of money. Some would respond to that by saying, "oh, but then you wouldn't have to work." But I like work! I would get depressed if I did not have something to do, something to really sink my teeth into. I have done experiments on myself, "Sloth" makes me unhappy. I am quite certain I would just end up giving my money away if I had any extra beyond what I would want to have on hand during an emergency. I don't want to have any more, I do not want that burden. As Kahlil Gibran said in "The Prophet": "The fear of thirst when your well is full is the thirst that is unquenchable."

No, the meaning of my life is not profit, something I am greatly thankful to my parents for imbuing in me. The meaning of life (well, atleast mine) is other people. And I see no other motivator that could bring me as much fulfillment and happiness as that one.

The Dread of Thirst

One of my favorite quotes of all time. "The dread of thirst when your well is full is the thirst that is unquenchable." from "The Prophet" by Kahlil Gibran.

This is a great analogy for our current economic crisis. Fear of loss dominates the market right now, and caused the bank-runs and near collapse of AIG that we have witnessed. And that fear will consume the trust that keeps the market afloat until it is addressed. The ironic thing is, people with stocks are generally well-off. They have the material comforts they need, but it is still not enough, they still thirst for more. This thirst causes them to, as a group, act in ways that will cause pain , alienation, and mistrust which inherently dirupt human social interactions, including the market.

It is not only the unquenchable thirst that capitalism creates, but the inequity which it distributes wealth that has caused this economic trouble. As the average person finds it harder and harder to purchase their necessities, there will be less spending and fewer people spending. And that will hurt the economy. Let me put it another way, concentrating wealth in the hands of fewer people will decrease economic prosperity.

The foundation of the global economy rest on the necessities. Food, clothing, shelter, and each other. The more people who can have all of these, the higher the GDP. When more people do not have these fundamentals, fear begins to infect society. The thirst for more starts triggering the fear of less, and in our society, this seems to cause people to act selfishly. It is the selfish impulse to limit one's losses that has caused these banks to fail. I believe, that if enough people decided to have confidence in an organization, it would not fall apart. Belief in a social system is what keeps in afloat, whatever the system. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If people believe something stable, then it continues to survive even if it is inherently unstable. And so if dread of want, loss and, yes, thirst begin to prevail the social system becomes unstable because people have lost faith in it.

Bucky said something like this the other day, "For all the fancy math that economists do, it is amazing how much emotions and belief factor into how the economy is doing."

For our own sakes, I want us to stop dreading thirst.

RYM and societal change.

RYM.  The Revolutionary Youth Movement.  It is something I have been thinking about alot lately, analyzing and reflecting upon its historical impact. 

RYM was a strategic vision that SDS laid out in the 60s, not to be confused with the sds sectarian groups that named themselves RYM I (which eventually became the weathermen) and RYM II (that went maoist and communist and eventually gave birth to countless splinter groups).  Now, I don't think I am getting this exactly correct... but what Michael Lerner described in one of his unpublished books is the basis for this understanding of RYM...  The strategy was simple and very long-term.  The idea was education based: you make a concerted and structured effort to teach as many young people as possible about progressive politics, ethics, and ideas.  You convince them and give them a reason for investing themselves in those politics. When they leave school they will go into the world and spread the ideas, and live their lives by them as much as is possible inside the system.  This will have a culture shifting impact.  Their actions will shift the perceptions of those around them.  Their contributions to their communities will change localities.  

This strategy combines the finest strengths of the left.  Strength of ideas, education, embodiment of principles, decentralized structure and grassroots action are all combined into an extremely long-term strategy that appears to have been quite effective.  It acknowledged the shifts that always occur when generations turn-over.  As new generations come and older ones leave, culture changes.  RYM takes advantage of this natural process of culture change by attempting to reform society by reshaping the minds of new generations.  

Unfortunately, RYM was only practiced for... perhaps the better part of a decade, if not less.  But it's impact is striking.  Take the issue of racism for example.  50 years ago, racism was the dominant viewpoint among large swaths of the American public, including in my hometown of Edmonton.  But now, racism has been forced underground.  It is now a shameful thing to be seen as or acting as a racist.  

But aside from issue oriented changes, I would also like to see how 5 to 10 years of RYM affected the life of a single person... me.  I am proud to say my parents were both products of RYM, whether they know it or not.   The ideas they garnered from the 60s allowed them to move to rural Kentucky and raise me there.  My mom's strong strain of feminism probably would have not been able to develop had it not been for RYM, and I would have lost one of the major positive influences on the way I structure my behavior toward everyone.  My Dad's political side also had an immense impact on shaping my perspective and direction in life.   

The compassion and dedication both of my parents have shown through their social work were, in part, inspired by their politics which were shaped by RYM.   Their dedication to helping others, even if you have to live "in the trenches" as my Dad has said, has consistently inspired me to live up to their example.  

Now lets look at the town I grew up in.  It is a town of 1500 people in rural Kentucky.  The poverty rate is nearly 25%. According to my Dad, there were duels in the streets in the 50s.  However, over the past 3 decades things have calmed down.  There are still plenty of problems, but since the influx in the 70s of hippies and people shaped by RYM, the culture of the county has changed.  Many of these hippie settlers have become community leaders.  Their children have gone on to change the minds of their peers and further the reverberating effects of RYM.  I can see the culture-shifting affects in my hometown of the concerted efforts of relatively small group of tens of thousands of young adults over the course of several years trying to institute RYM.  If between 5 and 10 years of instituting RYM can so drastically change our society that a small rural town in the middle of no where Kentucky is impacted this much, then imagine what a organized effort of 20 years of RYM could do.  With this technique we could restructure the very foundations upon which our society rests over the course of the next 100 years.  

Strategy for Changing the US... Take 1

I wrote most of this about a month ago, and was going to add more, but life became really busy, so I decided to publish this as is, since it has been a month an a half since I wrote something.

The question in front of us is not naming the system, or even understanding it, but figuring out how to rebuild it and our society to reflect our highest vision. The people exist to do it. The resources exist to do it. The motivation exists to do it. The only reason it has not happened is because we don't agree on how to do it and we are not organized enough to implement it. We need to understand

This is my first try at setting down a skeletal strategy to restructure our entire society to make it more human, democratic, sustainable, and a generally affirming way of life. This strategy is still in bits and pieces at this point, but I think there is some worth in writing it down so i dont forget.

1. Create local democratic structures. Not sure what these will look specifically, but I imagine them as General Assemblies for non-administrative decision-making, with working groups (open to everyone) to execute tasks. If working groups become too large (What a problem that would be! Too much participation, is it possible?), then they can be split into several working groups that coordinate activity. The judicial system would stop being punitive, and become a rehabilitating presence. It would consist of a system where people would share their grievances and perspectives with each other, as well as consensus-based sentencing.

This really needs further study and experimentation in my opinion, hopefully with some resources behind this endeavor.

2. Non-violent Army. Just a really cool idea that has been stuck in my head for a few years now. They would have the discipline and cohesion of a regular army, minus the extreme hierarchy and violence. They would put their lives on the line for others, just like violent army soldiers and they would be extensively trained in conflict resolution, non-violent tactics and strategy, as well as human behavior. The non-violent army would be trained to confront violent forces as well as other non-violent forces. They would go on campaigns against various injustices across the country, mobilizing thousands. Again, resources are the key problem, as well as research into how to do it. The know-how is extremely important. Hopefully we will be able to create the equivalent of army manuals for the nv army.

3. Parallel Structures. With some local democratic institutions in place, these towns and counties could start forming parallel structures to state and federal governments. These would do everything that an organization composed of the entire community should do, including provide social services (police, hospitals, firefighters, general social support, protection and help)