The Small Acts of Kindness and Resistance

I want to reiterate what I wrote in 2008 in my The Small Things in Life post, about the small things in life being very important.  Small acts of kindness are the lifeblood of society and really make it work.  Without those acts of kindness, I think things would completely fall apart.  I want to see movements really start to use this hidden power, to do small acts of kindness as a central part of the process of changing society.

The Roman Empire was taken over by the Christians for many reasons, but I think the emphasis of early Christianity on being kind and giving to all was one of the main factors.  They helped plague victims when no one else would.  They lifted up the poor and helped those had lost their livelihoods.  Indeed, they became a poor people's movement and really disrupted the traditional society.  The only way the state could overcome them was to embrace them and set up a strict hierarchy (Constantine... sigh).  

I can only imagine how despairing the situation of early Christians must have seemed.  They were routinely tortured and crucified, killed because they persisted in living a different way.  The Roman Empire spanned the entire world they knew about, and there was no escaping it.  It must have seemed indomitable.  Yet they still continued doing those small acts of kindness and resistance.  The love and kindness they showed to the world was so contrary to the political status quo, and so surprisingly disruptive.  The Roman legal system was focused on property and not on people, prioritizing protection of property.  It was often up to the local authorities whether or not to persecute Christians, and they often did so in response to agitation from the public.  The public did not like the Christian emphasis on personal religion and their boycott of the pagan rituals that the public saw as essential to maintain the order of the universe.  As time went on though, Christians gained a reputation for being kind and giving.  I suspect killing Christians started to cause some cognitive dissonance among the public, should they kill people who act so kindly to strangers?  

Another fascinating aspect of this is how the official punishment was undermined as an effective tool.  Death was the usual punishment for righteous Christians, but more and more kept showing up to be killed.  The Roman magistrates even had to make a distinction between solicited martyrs and persecuted martyrs... they refused to kill solicited martyrs.  Can you imagine our court system refusing to punish people who willingly admit they broke the law?  That would be quite an interesting situation.  I think the number of people who were willing to step up and be killed shows both how powerful the message of kindness and love was and how deeply it was a resistance to the status quo.  Love and anger are the major emotional motivators, and early Christians figured out a way to combine love for each other with resistance to an unjust society.  It is an amazing feat.  They were so effective that they took over the empire.  All from the power of small individual acts and a willingness to suffer for their ideals.    

There is a great power in small acts.  With time they will win over a hostile public, and I can think of no other force that can change the inertia of a society so effectively.  

Thoughts on Self-forgiveness

I have come to truly admire religion's almost magic ability to facilitate people's self-forgiveness. A great example of this is the born-again experience or even something as simple as confession... from what I have observed, people who had wronged others and go through a religious ritual concerning being forgiven find it much easier to forgive themselves. I do not think secular people have anything that compares, or atleast I have not noticed it.

Many have little compassion for people who do wrong. I see no logical reason to hold that position. Everyone does things that are not right, and judging them for their trespasses does no good for anyone. We all have weaknesses and failings. Whether they acknowledge it or not, everyone is emotionally impacted in a negative way by their wrongs. Everyone is human so we are all deserving.

Forgiving oneself is much harder than forgiving others. The absence of self-forgiveness causes personal anguish that can adversely affect people's behavior, leading them to act out of this pain. This negative behavior can take many forms, usually providing only short-term relief while only adding to their long-term burden of guilt. Some behaviors I have noticed:

*people often try to belittle others to feel superior,
*hurt people so they don't feel alone in their pain
*being on-edge and easily roused to anger
*pushing people away - socially isolating behavior
*seeking attention through negative behavior
*when others expect negative things from someone, they react by conforming to that standard.
*identity shifting toward viewing oneself as a wrong-doer, reinforcing a cycle of pain
*feeling the necessity to act wrongfully to prove ones identity.

I think this and other similar behavior stems from the following emotions that run through people when they are saddled with a lack of self-forgiveness.

*Guilt
*Anguish
*Fear
*Anger, hatred
*Resentment
*Feeling isolated, and a fear of loneliness
*Social paranoid - expecting no one to like them
*A feeling of helplessness and like they are condemned for life.

The only way out of this that I can see is self-forgiveness. Making amends and seeking the forgiveness of those who one has wronged is, of course, essential in being able to forgive oneself. But usually this is just the beginning of the process. The pantheon of emotions above are powerfully strong and take serious effort to overcome. However, there is no way around it. People who do not forgive themselves end up adding the the cycles of pain that exist in our society and riddle their lives and the lives of people around them with difficulties.

This is why I always cringe when people say they won't help people because they aren't deserving. No one is an island, we are interconnected and refusing to forgive someone for their wrongs and help them actually just hurts society in general.

It seems to be a hidden trend in human culture, that when one person or a group of people harm others, they themselves are harmed as well, but in different ways. I see it in capitalism where the rich suffer a kind of horrid isolation and fear of loss of property while the poor struggle to survive. I see it in patriarchy where men suffer from a prison of false-emotionlessness and isolation while women are objectified and dehumanized. Wrongs by one party hurt everyone including themselves whether they realize it or not.

Forgiveness, self-forgiveness and reconciliation are the only logical way I can see to heal the wounds in our society.

Does the Law Pursue Justice?

Law school has been a thought provoking experience, both in terms of the nature of the law as well as how far it falls short of providing justice.

The common law system and indeed, the common law itself, has organically developed over time as an attempt to achieve justice for people unfortunate enough to go through the judicial system. While the righteous goal of justice is the stated purpose of the law, the people involved, all good people I am sure, seem to think that the maintenance of the system of law is sufficient to achieve this end. As far as I can see, this institution suffers from a severe case of goal displacement with the maintenance of the status quo of the law placed unequivocally over justice. Individuals are sacrificed on the altar of internal consistency of the law, where is the justice in that? It appears that Weber's classic bureaucratic goal displacement has taken deep root in the judicial system... the institution's own survival and interests are placed over the initial goal that its creation was meant to achieve.

The ironic part is that, while on the surface it appearz that judges interpret law in an attempt to be consistent and maintain the common law's integrity, they actually succeed in perpetuating a series of systematic hypocrisies.

An example. Violence is one of the prime criminal acts, it is considered detrimental for a wide ranging variety of reasons, many completely true and fair. Preventing and healing violence is an essential part of any system of justice, whether they are common law institutions or traditional ones like a sentencing circle. Yet, the judicial system endorses and perpetuates the violence of the prison system and the death penalty. How is that consistent? It is not at all, many of the reasons we dont want individual violence are the same reasons we don't want institutional violence. But this system supports the justification for the existence of the judicial system in its current incarnation, and indeed, helps maintain the view that it is a necessity.

Perpetuating violence in a society will likewise broaden the power of any institution that attempts to prevent and heal it. But when that institution, through a sort of endemic hypocrisy, actually creates more violence, it enters into a cycle of escalation.

Now don't get me wrong, the design of the institution is a very clever one. Have a whole industry of analyzers to seek the truth (both in fact-finding and in theoretical pursuits) in the pursuit of justice, have them discuss in minute detail the implications of organizing society in certain ways. That is a theoretical system that sounds pretty good to me. But in practice it is an unjust meat-grinder that is driven by greed and power, perpetuating an almost Orwellian-style acceptance of hypocrisy as justice.

Brainstorming New Political Systems

The political system needs a good deal of reform. Now with corporations able to pump as much money as they want into elections, there is going to be a much larger amount of corruption than before. So I think it would be a good idea to try to dream up different political systems that would avoid the pitfalls of corporate domination and moral bankruptcy.

1. Electing Ideas. I do not think that politicians should be the prime electees. Voting on broad goals (not specific things, like the referenda in CA often take the form of) would be a much more fruitful system... the system wouldn't get stuck in personal attacks and mudslinging, and corruption would be a much less endemic because it is much harder to corrupt ideas than it is people.

2. Electing officials through a series of trials. We should have a set series of tests and trials that officials have to pass through to become elected. These trials would put the skills of the candidates to the test, and all trials would be broadcast and chronicled by the media. People would have discussion forums to discuss how the candidate did and who was the top competitor. And trials could last a long time. One trial could be One trial could be managing a small government agency. Another trial could be to live on welfare for 2 months. The trials would be designed to both test the individual as well as acquaint them with the country (or state or whatever) they are going to govern.

3. Local Townhall meetings to set general goals of the bureaucracy in small areas. Included in this are a webpage forum for people to discuss things.

4. Some sort of public forum that is more participatory than the current media structures. I am not sure what that would look like.

5. Organized volunteer public works - the government should be more involved in organizing people to improve their locality.

6. Free, voluntary education programs. Basic for any thriving democracy to thrive.

Ok, that is all I have time for right now.

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.

Violence by the Oppressed

A typical pro-violence argument that I have heard is that some people are so oppressed that violence is their only option.  But the trend is that the size of the violent apparatus used in oppression is directly proportional to the degree of oppression.  So, for the most oppressed people, they would have the largest odds against their success in their violent struggle.  

I recently read Fredrick Douglass's autobiography (which is really amazing, btw).  And in it, he describes how at the age of 16 after a grueling 6 months under a devious, cold-hearted and brutal overseer he felt that his will was almost completely broken.  After one particularly bad beating, he fled 7 miles back to his master to ask for protection.  He received none.  On his way back to face his punishment for fleeing, he met up with another slave who gave him a root.  This root, the man said, would protect him from being beaten.  When Douglass returned he was confronted by the overseer, he decided that he was not going to be beaten again and fought back.  After what sounded like an epic 2 hour fight, the overseer finally gave up.  But the way he gave up was by saying something like "well, I didn't want to have to beat you so bad.  maybe next time you will think twice before disobeying me" and walked off.  He did not concede defeat, but he did not really win.  Douglass said the next 6 months were much less oppressive since he had won the respect of his overseer.  But, there were several other factors contributing to preventing Douglass simply being shot outright (something which he described happening to other people who resisted the way Douglass did).  The overseer had a reputation for breaking slaves, something he did not want to tarnish by either killing Douglass, or calling for help from other white people or the law.

Now, most would say that Douglass could have done nothing other than fight back violently. But in most cases when slaves did that were summarily killed, even according to Douglass who thought he was sure to die by fighting back.  Douglass recounts how in his child a man who simply refused to move was shot in the head.  Slaves who hit back were either instantly killed, or automatically shipped off and sold.  This does not seem to be an environment where violence is an effective strategy.  It is more likely to get one killed than anything else.  In fact, I would argue that Douglass's other activities were the most productive in fighting against slavery.

Douglass managed, in his childhood, to learn to read and write (mostly from white street urchins).  He started teaching this skill to his fellow slaves.  Lack of education was a key tool used to oppress slaves, so by spreading his knowledge he was directly undermining slavery.  He also spread his outlook and really had an immense impact on the lives of the slaves around him.  He planned escapes and finally succeeded.  After his escape, he wrote his book, which was widely read and has now achieved "classic" status.  His main contributions to ending slavery were not his violent altercations which could have easily ended with his death, but his spreading ideas and knowledge.  Changing people's minds is where the real power is.  If these minds had not been swayed, Britian and the rest of Europe would never have ended slavery.  And the civil war (one of the only instances where the end of slavery was accompanied by widespread violence) would never have happened.  The 13th amendment was passed because enough people thought slavery was evil.  A big part of that was because of publications such as the Liberator and Douglass's autobiography that exposed the fangs of the beast.  By making the violence of the system against unarmed people public knowledge, people's minds were changed.  No slave revolt could ever accomplish that.   

The Futility of Violence

Over the decade of contemplating the issue, I have really come to see violence as futile.  (I would like to make a distinction here, violence is completely different than resistance and force.  Both of which can be done more effectively without using violence).

  

The state has a monopoly on violence, and holy crap, do they exploit that monopoly.  They can easily harm and kill thousands without taking a single causality.  Their tactics have been refined over 5000 years of testing, and they have a institutional research infrastructure second to none.  Even from a violent standpoint the military and police arm of the government is so vast and so effective at violence that it is pointless to hit back.   Many may despair at the armies arrayed against the forces of social justice.  Not I.  For they may have the homefield advantage when it comes to violence, but they are so constricted and captured by the idea of violence that they are unable to fight any other way.  They are a prisoner of their own beliefs.  

By believing that violence is the only way to force people to do things, believing that it is the most powerful force known, and believing that it is, with all things considered, effective, is the key weakness that will allow non-violent resistance to triumph.  Non-violence performs a kind of ideological jujitsu on violence.  It turns what violence believes to be its greatest strength into its greatest weakness.  

Lets see, how to put this.  By committing acts of violence, people make themselves targets for the state to oppress.  The state's monopoly on violence is so ingrained in our society that when violence is committed by anyone else, that person automatically loses the moral high ground in the eyes of the public.  They are seen as a danger to the public, justifying the use of violence against them by the state, in the eyes of the public.  That is the typical scenario violent revolutions face.  Non-violent revolutions, however, totally throw off all the government's preconceived notions of conflict.  

How do you fight people who refuse to comply and refuse to respond violently?  With even partially effective politicking they can maintain the moral high ground against the government, making any violent sortie against them publicly deplorable.  They can non-violently provoke violence from the state in such a way that will undermine the population's belief in state supremacy.  Non-violence uses the violence of an oppressor to undermine their legitimacy. Turning their weapons into liabilities, and their attempted oppression into a PR disaster.  

A non-violent army would be 100x as effective as a violent one.  Imagine if we poured 200,000 unarmed people into our enemies' country?  What would they do?  What could they do?  They could try to kill them, but this would only cause them to lose prestige and support.  They could try to imprison them, but there are not enough prisons to hold them.  Deport them, they just come back.  Confine them and they will drain resources and sneak out.  Leave them alone and they will convert your population.  It is a lose/lose situation for a government.  None of their usual tools of control work against non-violence, and they are left utterly frustrated and stumped as to how to effectively fight back.  

There are some caveats to non-violence, however.  The cause has to be just, or one cannot maintain the moral high ground which is essential to victory.  The means have to be compatible with the end which is sought.  The people have to believe they are doing the right thing.  And, like anything else, it has to be organized, media-saavy, financially supported, and be able to maintain a certain base of support. 

So, this has been my most recent addition to the violence/non-violence debate.  As pre my previous post, I tried to write it in a non-competitive way that would not cause people who believe in violence to dig in their heels. 

The Violence vs. Non-Violence Debate

Wow, I haven't posted in awhile.  Oh well, I will try to make up for it.  

The debate over violence in the left gets pretty ridiculous sometimes, and has been the cause of way too many hurt feelings and splits.  It may seem like a fruitless debate, because there will not be consensus on the issue in the foreseeable future, but I think it is still important to have.  It can be a lesson in how to treat people who disagree with us.  If open to the lesson, one can learn a great deal about how to approach people and try to change their minds.  Analyzing their world-view and beliefs, one can practice adapting arguments to fit the target.  The real challenge in these discussions is not proving the other party wrong, but disarming them and planting the seed of one's idea.

Too many egotistical lefties just want to prove the other side wrong.  It is understandable, it is a nice ego boost to "win" an enraged argument.  But it is not likely to get the opposing party to change their mind.  It is more likely to get them to dig in their heels and refuse to concede.  It becomes a contest, and that is just counter-productive.  Playing verbal jujitsu is necessary to escape this trap.  Do not frame the discussion as a contest of who is right and who is wrong, switch the frame to something that is non-competitive, whatever form of that which is appropriate for the discussion.  

This is particularly hard to do since the American way of speaking, especially the male and academic ways of discussion are often framed as contests.  It has even been hard for me to come up with an example of a different way to frame a discussion.  In fact, I would deem this a great oppression, in a most Orwellian sense, in that our very manner of speaking has been corrupted to such an extent as to limit our capacity to imagine alternatives.

I wish the proponents of non-violence would take this tack on their discussions.  It is far more compatible with the style of non-violence than that of violence, plus I am definitively on the side of non-violence and would like to see the idea win more hearts and minds.  

Jubillee!

What we need to help fix this financial crisis is a Jubilee. I am not suggesting a full scale Jubilee (if you don't know what a Jubilee is, read the Bible Lev 25), but merely a small, simple Jubilee to repair some of the damage. It would not fix everything, but it would go a long way to restoring confidence. I am suggesting that instead of injecting nearly a trillion dollars into the coffers of banks to push them to lend, we simply remove the damage-dealing toxic assets. Yes, the government should pay off the mortgages (or part of them anyway) of all the people who owe on these toxic-assets.
I think republicans should like this, because it is the same idea as tax-cuts, a direct infusion of funds into the hands of people (smaller loan payment=money in pocket). Although I am sure they will complain about giving to the "undeserving." But that is just an arrogant, elitist argument that I will address at a later time. Democrats... well, I think if it didn't look politically costly to do this, they would do it.
A Jubilee has the same benefits as the previous examples of generous government policy has had. The GI bill returned an average of 7 dollars for every 1 dollar spent. The Marshall Plan after WWII is the reason that Europe has a functioning economy. The New Deal built a large percentage of our current infrastructure, without which we would not have as strong an economy. Generosity not only makes more sense, it makes financial sense. And a Jubilee is the ultimate shot of generosity.

Reconceptualizing Masculinity

Excerpt from my contribution to an email thread on the sds Men's Auxillary listserv:
Hey guys,
this is an awesome thread, and thank you both so much for putting yourselves out there like that, it is really inspiring. I hope the thread continues after my addition to it.

To throw my two cents in about the difference between objectification and attraction: I think objectification is one-dimensional physical attraction that tricks us into making an effort to dehumanize the person being objectified (through thinking of them simply as a body, or a body part or through not thinking about the impact of the situation on them, etc.) Attraction, on the other hand, is about the whole person. When I am attracted to someone, it is more than just their physical appearance, it is their personality and mind. Through observing the way I am feeling about someone, I have literally seen myself find them more physically attractive as I get to know them and find them to be more mentally awesome. And I have seen the reverse of that too, I have found unpleasant people become less physically appealing to me as I get to know them.

I have come to see that claims of being horny and wanting to get laid are a socially acceptable way for men to express their loneliness. Getting with someone for a short period of time, while alot of fun, is so fleeting it. It also lacks the emotional depth that I have found in long-term, loving relationships... and I cannot express in words the incredible feeling of fulfillment that I get from that.

One strategy I have found, that has helped me a great deal, is to interpret my sex-drive not just as an impulse to have sex but as an impulse to emotionally connect with a partner. I am so SOOOOOO much happier for it. Instead of focusing solely on sex, like I used to, I now focus on building a strong emotional bond and sense of understanding between me and my partner (which has the added side effect of making the sex much better, especially when you know someone well enough to be able to read their emotions and extrapolate what is going on in their heads). Now my refocused sex drive pushes me to fight the objectification of people in my mind and work really hard at getting to know them and connect before I go to bed with them.
That has been one way I have been challenging the negative ways I am socialized, and reconceptualizing my masculinity.

Sorry this is already a long email, but I am going to address the point of hypersexualization. I see the way our culture teaches men to be hypersexualized as an oppression, one that causes harm to both men and women. Feeling that I have to act hypersexualized to live up to my identity as a man has really messed with me and my relationships. I would also venture to say that women are taught to be hyposexual (something that awesome classes like FemSex fight against by teaching women about female sexuality). These cultural conditionings need to be changed from what seems like a predator/prey relationship between men and women to something more akin to a symbiotic relationship (gotta love analogies from biology class).

My guess as to why so many people condemn sexual activity is that they see the problems that arise from hypersexualization and think that discouraging sex will prevent it (this does not seem to be an effective strategy). Also from a functionalist point of view, before condoms and effective birth control existed, too much sex created too many babies which could destabilize societies, so these societies responded by developing customs to decrease the amount of sex people had.

Some questions to throw out there in the hopes this convo will continue.
*What are some nasty situations people have had that were caused/exacerbated by these issues?
*What are some effective ways people have found to reconceptualize mascuility/male sexuality and live healthier lives?
*How would an ideal feminist guy act in a relationship and treat their partner? How would he start the relationship? Has anyone managed to try this stuff? Lets hear some success stories!
*Men are socialized to not show emotions, how does this interact with hypersexualized male sexuality? How does it affect you?


Lets get some more voices out here, even just talking about this stuff is healing in itself.

peace and love
Will
Berkeley sds

Love 3: The sweet compulsion of generosity

To continue the blog series I inadvertently started, embracing love, even to the tiny degree I have managed, brings one a vibrant new life. Identifying oneself as primarily a part of something bigger is so incredibly liberating. Acting out of self interest and selfish desires seems hollow now, like a bewitched tree that will only bear rotten fruit. American culture beats utility maximization, money-seeking and selfishness into our heads and claims they will make us happy. Go shopping to make yourself feel better. Eat to get happy. Watch TV to escape the emptiness you feel. Well, these are false logics, I tell you, they are merely a pain killer and fail to address the real cause of our anguish. In fact, it is our faith in these prescriptions and the soul-sucking lifestyle of America that have caused our pain.

Librating ourselves from this pain is surprisingly easy. Generosity springs like a fountain from the embrace of love. Love makes generosity inevitable, a sweet compulsion that brings the gifts of happiness, secruity, strong social bonds with people, and a fulfillment that is so glorious it is hard to describe. Indeed, the life of generosity is the life of happiness. A quote from "The Prophet" by Kahlil Gibran comes to mind, " And there are those who give and know not pain in giving, nor do they seek joy, nor give with mindfulness of virtue; They give as in yonder valley the myrtle breathes its fragrance into space." That quote has been stuck in my mind for over a year, one of those puzzles that my mind runs circles around... and it finally clicked while I was writing this. It is inherently human to give, an inescapable aspect of our nature. You might try to escape the compulsion to give my being selfish, but your reward is always anguish. To try such is like the myrtle in yonder valley not breathing its fragrance, it is contrary to its nature and it would probably suffer from it.

I have started looking for opportunities to give. Not just give from my meager possessions, but give of myself. This mostly manifests itself as helping people. I try to help whenever I am asked. But the gems of the experience are when I can help someone without being asked, through understanding what is going on in their heads and lending a hand. It really makes people feel good.

But many of us flee from this kind of risk. Because it is a risk, to attempt to give as a way of life. There is always the fear of rejection, and the fear that we are missing out on something. Fear of rejection is understandable, many people do not like to accept generosity. But the fear that we are missing out on something is much more insidious. It is akin to the idea of "opportunity cost," and has the nasty habit of eating away at our joy while sowing the seeds of nagging doubt. This fear is the sickened finger of selfishness trying to tear us down, prevent us from embracing love fully. Another great line from The Prophet reads: "Is not dread of thirst when your well is full, thirst that is unquenchable?" Fearing that we will not have something in the future or that we don't have the best of something is a sign of feeling insecure and entitled at the same time. Watch out for this, it has destroyed much good in my life and I would hate to see it happen to you.

Love 2: Conquering Death

Building on the last post, I think that our culture's pernicious fear of death comes from our lack of embracing love. For, if we truly love, then we do not see ourselves as a sea of individuals but as a single ocean. A hand with fingers as opposed to separate fingers. As one cell among trillions in a multi-cellular. If I claimed that each of my cells was independent from the other cells, people would call me crazy. But, they are as independent of each other as humans are from each other and the rest of our environment. The fact that we do not see that is but a cultural blindfold.

Love is our cellular bond. It is what drives people to see themselves not as one individual that has a finite existence, but as part of a community that has existed for millions of years, and will be around when everyone we know is long gone. If we see ourselves this way, we do not fear our own death. Our identity is vested in something immortal instead of in our flesh and blood.

Accounts I have heard from soldiers, rescue personel, police and fire fighters makes me think that their subcultures are closer to achieving this than most of Western culture. Their job is to protect and help others (debatable how well the violent ones achieve that, but that discussion is for another day; the point is they see this as their job). They have embraced a love of their community and are willing to sacrafice their lives for others.

Now, this is not to say that people should not fear immediate dangers to their well-being. What I am talking about is the philisophical fear of death that makes people wish for immortality. It is this fear that caused people to develop the idea of an after-life; as an attempt to quell the thought of non-existance.

I remember when I was in middle school, I was deeply troubled by the thought of death, and I never found the idea of an after-life all that credible. Years of contemplation followed and slowly transformed into my attempts to explain the universe. I did really like the idea that heaven existed and it would be this paradise with all my loved ones, like one giant endless party. It would be pretty nice, but it felt wrong. It felt like false hope. This triggered a thought in my head that is very hard to put into words. I started to question the very idea that I was a singular unit. The idea of a soul, of an individual, of a person, is singularity. I was told by my culture that we are a single static being with neat boundaries and a single soul. My whole world came crashing down, slowly at first, while I still didn't realize that I was breaking down the foundational belief our cultural point of view is built upon. That is bound to have a tumultuous effect on one's mind. So sophmore year of high school was kind of rough.

Reality pushed me to see myself as something dynamic. The following is a summation of several years of contemplation from my adolecense: "I was certainly bigger than I used to be, and generally calmer. I have changed over time... I am not static. My cells turn-over at a fairly fast rate, I intake and expell lots of material. I am greatly affected by everything happening around me, absorbing ideas and behavioral patterns from other people. Maybe the boundaries of my individuality are not so clear cut as they are made out to be. I am as dependent on them for food, shelter, protection and love as the cells of my body are to each other. All this conflicts with the idea of a person having one soul. Why should each cell not have a soul, and I am just a conglomeration of the souls of my cells?" And that last question did it. BAM! My concept of individuality was in ruins and I was left a directionless 14-15 year old. But the seeds of my new framework were there. The best way I can put what I have settled on is: that I am but one small section of strata of a continum from the small to the large in the oneness of everything and everyone. And, without love to glue it all together, none of us would exist. Embracing love has allowed me the contentment of knowing that death is just a reordering of my strata, not the end all be all; I will still be around, because there is no destroying the unity that I find myself to be a part of.

This old saying is true in so many ways:
"Love is truly the only way to conquer death"

Love

Love is so magical. It manages to intertwine such pure joy with such a deep melancholy quite seamlessly and all the while it emanates a strong sense of sacredness. The versatility of love is astounding, it can generate any mix of emotions. The deepest hatred arises from the death of a loved one. The harshest anger can come from the same, as well as a rejection from a loved one. The most concentrated happiness from those rare perfect days spent with loved ones. The keenest sense of helplessness and apathy when we feel unable to help those we love. The deepest depression when we fail to feel loved. And the most overpowering fear when the possibility of losing a loved one arises.

Many people may consider love to simply be an emotion among many, but I think it is more than that. I think it is the root of everything, a force of nature that is all-powerful. It reminds me of gravity, something you can fight against for a time, but it will always win in the end. The prime effect of it is to bring things closer together, as if they longed for a sweet embrace.

Just as the foundation of physics is gravity, I think that human society is based on love. We humans are glued together with a collective longing to be together, to do good to each other and to be taken care of. We are united in our search for happiness and we seem to only find it with each other. I can think of no better word to describe that than love. The root of what makes us human is love, and those without it begin to become inhuman (I would note that in Harry Potter, Voldemort did not know love. Of course, I would venture to guess that this is because no one risked truly loving him).

I read someone say that love is like slavery. When in love you do whatever you can for your loved one. But it is a joyful slavery, one that is completely voluntary. If fear, greed, and selfishness prevent one from completely embracing love (something I have been deeply affected by, as well as seen and experienced), then we may start to long to be free of it. And that is as deep a loss as anything I have experienced, from both sides of the equation.

For most of my 4 year relationship with Ingrid, I was able to fully embrace love. I would not trade that experience for anything. My whole life bent around her, probably a third of my thinking time was devoted to her, and I would spend hours fantasizing ways to simplely make her smile. I molded my behavior to bring myself emotionally close to her as well as to bring her joy. I studied her ways because I wanted to fully understand her. I ran a 4 year experiment on our relationship revolving around practicing "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," which was probably the most informative experience of my life and a major reason I was able to dive into the relationship so whole-heartedly.

Fully embracing love was overpowering in the most wonderful way imaginable. I can see how embracing love caused an emotional spring in my heart that has never left me. Atleast once a month I am moved to tears. I let myself be moved, scared and riled up by movies. And I no longer hold the reighs on my emotions so tightly for fear of a lack of control. It has been both liberating and deeply meaningful. I find a mysterious pleasure in the melancholy feelings of loss I have been experiencing these past 6 months (since we broke up). It might be because I feel so in touch with humanity and what it means to be human when I feel that way. It could also be because I know that I can replicate it with my next companion.

Of course, toward the end of my relationship I realized that Ingrid was unwilling or as of yet unable to fully embrace love the way I had. So I tried to get distance from love. I am generally able to exert control over my emotions, thoughts and feeling; with stubborn, lengthy effort I can usually manage to change them. But try as I might, my feelings of love would always rear their heads in my mind. I know objectively that this is a good thing; if there is one thing I am unable to change about myself, I guess it is good that it is the perserverence of my feelings of love. And while it might seen easier to try to suppress or excavate them, I have not found that to be the case.

I targeted a great deal of anger and angst toward Ingrid in an attempt to disentigrate my emotional bond to her. It kind of worked for awhile, but I almost feel like I was trying to cut a jet of water with a sword. Of course I can cut through it in a moment, but the force of the water will always keep the jet whole. I know I am unable to turn the jet off, nor do I want to turn my love off... it seems that the only choice I have left is to try to redirect it instead of cut it. It has been an interesting experiment on love, one I hope not to repeat, because it has not been particularly fruitful. It caused me more pain than anything and did not have the effects I wanted it to.

I hope everyone manages to fully embrace love in their lives and relationships, it is the best possible outcome even if you eventually get burned. Not embracing it is a painful, guilt-ridden path to lonliness, something I hope Ingrid realizes one day (and everyone else for that matter). Without love, we are not complete, our human-ness makes us yearn for it. For it is the root of our lives, the foundation of human society, and the glue that keeps us together.

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.

Walk the Earth as Humans

Building upon the thinking in my previous post, motivation to profit has started to seem like the crutch on which capitalism leans. In "The Age of Revolution" Hobsbawm talks about how employers during the early stages of the transition to capitalism would complain about the "laziness" of their employees. These people would work enough to make ends meet, and then stop. They were not used to the consistent work of industry, where one needs to be on time and to stay the whole time. Workers were more used to the farm and rural mentality of working whenever, and making your own hours. The combination of lack of motivation to work extra and to stay working annoyed the employers... because it cut their efficiency and profits. And this didn't happen just in urban centers of proto-capitalist economies, it happened in colonies and the outskirts of "civilization" too. It is a stereotype in my mind that British colonial officials would always complain about the laziness of the indigenous people. Anthropology pointed out to me that our civilization stereotypes indigenous societies as lazy and unproductive too.

Once the capitalist motivation of profit took hold in people with authority and power, they sought to use other people as tools to profit, and when these people stubbornly resisted by not conforming to capitalist ideals of a worker. But, as people had become tools to profit in the eyes of business owners and employers, they justified terrible repressions. Material starvation was one tecnique that was used to get more work out of their workers. They cut wages, to force them to work longer, and used the law. When the workers fought back by forming unions, these were attacked by the methods of coercion at the disposal of the powerful. This began the protracted war over labor rights which continues to this day. Another method to motivate people was to place immense obligations on their shoulders, such as military service and debt.

But the most effective method they used was cultural re-education. The early capitalists wanted everyone to think like they did, that profit is what they should seek and self-interest is the primary motivator. After three centuries of capitalistic re-education of society and culture shifting, we can see the success of this approach. Our entire civilization is now based on money as a motivator. It is true, there has been significant resistence to this belief, which is why it is not too surprising how many people still live in poverty. Fear of making ends meet, of feeding your family and keeping a roof over their heads is an immensely powerful motivator, and it ensures that people continue to buy into the capitalism by selling their labor and conforming to the rules.

Martin Luther King said something like "Humanity has learned to swim in the sea like a fish and fly in the sky like a bird, but we still can't walk the earth like a man." I think to put it more correctly, we forgot how to walk like a person. This analogy is very astute and gets to the heart of the problem. Humans were not meant to live this way, it is physcially and mentally destructive. Placing profit over people corrupts people's souls, and is mentally oppressive to those who think that way. Walking the earth, as MLK implies, would require us to treat people as an end in themselves instead of a tool. Something that I think most lefties dont realize is that capitalism is an oppression on the affleuent and power as well as on the down-trodden and working class. Where the majority of people suffer from material poverty, the rich suffer from a spiritual poverty that I find to be much more oppressive. And by spiritual I don't mean faith in God, or religion, I mean how much fulfillment one gets out of life; how people treat each other and the ramifications that has on their minds; lack of a deeper meaning than materialism; and suffering from a severe disconnection with other people.

Spiritual poverty is generated because people are not meant to live this way. Humans are social creatures and we have certain dispositions toward each other that capitalism disrupts. Generosity, connection, reciprocacy, and the social glue that holds a society together are all hard-wired into our brains, and when capitalism disrupts them it lays a yoke upon the mind of a person. This burden is so heavy it causes us to flee to transient pleasures to dull the pain and try to escape.

In Kentucky, people took care of each other. It is true that poverty took its toll with alcoholism, drugs, alienation and mental illness. But poverty also brings people together, it connects them and can build strong social ties. Lack of material comfort does not seem too harsh if one's family and friends are there, protecting each other. The affluent world I gained a view of at Brown was much worse, in my opinion. In the words of the Union song "Bread and Roses" by Bobbie McGee, "Hearts starve as well as bodies." And I see starvation of the heart to be a common affliction among the rich.

The capitalist motivation meme seems to have taken on a life of its own. It spurrs us into spending our collective time and energy on things that are not important, into things and not into people. Last time I was flying I had a window seat, and as I looked down, I noticed that I could always see something made by people. We have built so much, and yet we don't realize that it is more important to put effort into people. This does give me hope though. If we could push ourselves to do all this, build this entire world in a couple centuries, then we could push ourselves to do anything. Human culture is surprisingly flexible and powerful, we have drifted so far from our nature, and its impact is also quite impressive.

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.

sds National Conference Account I Wrote up for Tikkun

The following is an account of the sds National Conference which I wrote for Tikkun.  It will probably go up on the Tikkun website under Current Thinking soon.  

The new incarnation of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) is alive and thriving.   SDS convened its third national convention in College Park, Maryland on July 24th 2008, with the mandate to pass a national structure.  The University of Maryland chapter of sds along with the help of other DC sdsers, played host for over 140 sds members from across the country.  The long plenaries were broken apart by singing, meals, collective liberation activities, workshops, caucuses and socializing.  After trudging through a very long and rushed two days of discussing structure, the convention passed a resolution outlining a National Working Committee as the administrative (and possibly somewhat executive) body of the organization.  This structure will need to be ratified by the chapter base to go into effect.   

Political/Spiritual Analysis

SDS is a complicated political entity.  It has a very politically diverse membership, ranging from Anarchists to Maoists to a smattering of mainstream liberals.  The majority of the membership is anti-authoritarian and very distrustful of hierarchy, and yet we managed to compromise on structure to allow for some hierarchy when it comes to coordination of the national organization.  This bodes well for the future of sds. Being able to unify a diverse group of political outlooks toward positive social change will build the power of the organization and encourage membership growth.

SDS has a very strong vein of spiritual analysis in it, although very few sds members would frame it that way.  Recognizing how people are disenfranchised and dehumanized, having compassion for those suffering around the world, feeling compelled by their consciences to resist an unjust system, believing a better world is possible, and developing human-need-oriented structures are all key elements of a spiritual analysis of society which sds has whole-heartedly embraced. It is still discussing spiritual issues surrounding the humanization of one's opponents, suffering as a method of social change, and interfacing with the spiritual/religious community. 

Religious/Spiritual Issues

Like any community of left-leaning people, there is a certain amount of anti-religious fervor.  This is mostly directed at religious institutions for their role in oppression and causing injustice.  There is however, some deriding of religious/spiritual people as simplistic and foolish.  Sds has taken a mature approach to this issue through starting a discussion around stereotyping religious/spiritual people and the counter-productivity of blindly attacking religions as monolithic-ally bad.  The discussion touched on the extremely high standards that religions are held to by anti-religious people.  The point that religion institutions are run by humans, so they have the same flaws as every other institution was made.  Unfortunately there was not much time for discussion and the development of a mutual understanding to develop, so continuing the healing of this rift will have to wait for another day.     

Community

More impressive though, is the role that sds has been able to play in the lives of political activists.  That is, the establishment of a national community of like-minded people.  Connecting new people into the network, and having groups for across the country for sdsers to join when they move.  Prevention of the overwhelming feeling of isolation is essential to the health of the movement, and sds's network fulfills this beautifully.   Whenever a high school sds chapter graduates a class of sdsers, they spread like seeds across the nation to build new or reinforce existing sds chapters.  When students transfer, they can plug into a nearby chapter.  When a college chapter graduates a class of sdsers, they inject veteran organizers into the real world, organizers who often believe they will dedicate their lives to the pursuit of social justice.  This community causes dedication like none I have ever seen.  It effectively shields its members against ghastly burnout and provides a sense of security that is hard to find in the present social system. 

And this community is often deliberately created and cultivated.  There was a workshop at the convention titled "Building a Community of Support within sds" where the group discussed what in sds made them feel isolated and dis-empowered and what made them feel hopeful, fulfilled and empowered.  This discussion was very healing for those who attended.  Events such as this will help us develop the behavioral technology to protect our communities from the corrosive effects of isolation, fear, mistrust, personality clashes and misplaced anger.  In addition to this excellent workshop, the organizers of the conference created an emotional support and conflict resolution team to attempt to heal many of the frustrations, anger, and miscommunication created during the convention's decision-making process.  While sds does not always focus on how to adapt its current structures to fit human needs, this conference did a substantial job of creating a setting that facilitated the creation and protection of community.

Campaigns

The National Convention gave its seal of approval to one campaign, the "Student Power for Accessible Education" campaign.  This national campaign will, in the short term, push for fewer loans for students, tuition freezes, more grants, lower textbook costs, and many other needed changes to the financial interactions between students and their colleges. Mid-term goals include establishing student unions across the US, and building student power.  The long term goals include fair and free education for all, since after all, education is a right.  Individual sds chapters, as well as any other organizations that want to join us, can plug into this campaign simply by beginning to act on their own campus.  The idea is to not only push for change in the education system, but to build a student movement with the confidence and the skills to be able to have a decisive impact on the greater society. National coordination or activity is a possibility, but that will likely wait until there is a significant presence of chapter campaigns. 

Funk the War on the Poor

On Monday the 28th, DC sds hosted an action for those attending the convention to attend.  It was a roving dance party (essentially a march) that protested the construction of the NAFTA Superhighway, I-69, through many poor communities in the Midwest and South.  This highway is actually going to pass about 60 miles from my home town, so it was surprisingly relevant to me.  The tactic of dancing was quite effective in keeping a good group energy and appealing to on-lookers.  The police showed up in force, nearly 50 of them to our 100.

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)