Thoughts on "Diversity Of Tactics: The Noise Before Defeat"

This is a fascinating read:  http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/07/26/diversity-of-tactics-the-noise-before-defeat/
It discusses the Black Bloc's use of violence and repressive tactics to silence debate about their violence.  It goes on to discuss the movement's failures to really develop a solid foundation of nonviolent resistance culture and institutions that promote and support it.

Here is an excerpt:

"That there are good reasons why it is difficult does not make the fact that it is necessary go away. We may not have the time for it, but we most certainly do not have the luxury of not doing it. Diversity of Tactics and the Bloc are simply one manifestation of how we fail to take our role seriously. A far more important consequence is that we are far less effective than we should be.

I like to use the metaphor of a craftsperson. They assess a particular task and choose a tool suitable to what it is they wish to do, be it a saw, chisel, or router. In the same spirit we should look at a particular political situation and choose one of the 198 different forms of nonviolent action because it will do the job that needs to be done.

The Bloc is a product of our collective ignorance; theirs and ours. We have a responsibility to them, to ourselves, and most particularly to the issues we claim to care about to be truly professional in our political work. Professional in the sense of being competent, knowledgeable and capable. That the Bloc exists is a testament to our failure to live up to that responsibility. "

Personally I have always found it odd how so many people who claim to be anti-war for a litany of reasons turn around and are willing to be violent toward property and people.  War is simply an extreme application of the same principle that legitimizes this violence and anger.  I can see no justification for war or even its effectiveness, so I see no justification for anarchist violence even though I would agree with many of its aims.  But I can understand how, in a culture so dominated by the justification of violence and the use of violence in attempts to achieve ends, that so many on the left would fall victim to this false prophet.

Thoughts on the future and Obama

I can't lie, Obama has moved me. And while I hope he institutes a progressive policy, it would not surprise me if he did not. Politicians have a responsibility to the public to do what the public wants, and if they think the public wants them to do A, they will probably go along with it. So while I am celebrating Obama being elected, I do not buy the "he was being centrist to get elected, he is really a progressive-wolf in centrist-sheep's clothing."

I would say the most moving part of his story, though, and the reason I am more hopeful of his ability than most other politicians are his self-reflective nature and his community organizing roots. Atleast according to various exposes of him in various forms of media, he spends alot of time contemplating himself, trying to develop self-knowledge. Self-reflection is so key to so much in my life, that I can't help but have some confidence in a leader who appears to have a similar relationship with it. That and various anecdotes that speak to the kindness in his heart give me cause to hope.
Now, if he can manage to transition his campaign arm into a grassroots organization with the purpose of passing progressive policy, oh man, that would make for an interesting future. The creation of a Democratic grassroots "machine", so to speak, that would have a progressive agenda of its own, plus an ameniable President and congress could be a recipe for significant change.

This is a rare opportunity. If the left can mobilize a grassroots mind-changing campaign along side a policy changing campaign, then we could see some real change. I hope sds manages to jump on this opporunity, because we could sway large numbers of people if we can manage to get our voice out there in a relevant and meaningful way.

Another interesting development that Obama's campaign's extreme grassroots nature could produce is a substantial uptick in the pariticipation of the public in our government. It could be the beginnings of a culture of participation, which will only lead toward participatory democracy. I wonder if Obama realizes the impact he could have on the way government works if he can transition his grassroots campaign organization into a more permeanent institution.

This campaign has also shown that you can get marginalized groups mobilized and involved, as well as the average citizen. They just need to be inspired and she the disillusionment that our system of government seems to naturally produce in people because of its unresponsiveness.

sds National Convention

The sds National Convention was a great time.  It was a very reinvigorating experience.  I have really missed a strong political community.  It was also wonderful to see my old friends from Brown and Providence, and to meet some of the new people there.  I am SO SO proud of them.  When we decided to start an sds chapter, I had a sense of the kind of organization I wanted to push Brown sds to become.  An organization that provided a space for a strong community that supported its members, and knew how important community is.  Well, I have to say, the organization has become what I hoped for.  The members of Brown and Providence sds emotionally support each other when they are feeling down, stay together and not explode at each other when they are dealt a set-back, and strongly interweave friendship and fun into their activities.  

And so, because the culture of Brown/Providence sds is so strongly community-oriented, they turn out more people, they work harder without burning out, they are ambassadors for the organization wherever they go, and they have incorporated sds into their identity.  Our small chapter turned out 9 people (10 if one includes me) to the convention, which is comparable to much larger cities, and more than came from the entire Northwest.  There was a workshop at the conference that focused on building a community of support within sds, and almost the entire chapter attended, because they realize how important it is.  SO AWESOME.  

I met alot of really awesome sdsers at the convention, and while the structure that was produced isnt ideal, I do hope that it manages to get things done and help coordinate the working groups.  I have the feeling that we will need strong organization to be able to absorb the influx of members that is likely to occur after Obama is inaugurated and is unable or unwilling to get things done.  

There is such a diverse group of people in sds, while I worry that the organization would turn in a direction that I am opposed to, I wish more people would acknowledge that every organization that has people in it is going to be messy.  There is way too much pure-ism on the left, people are way too willing to simply wash their hands of an organization that doesn't completely agree with them on everything.  That is such a prideful move... essentially saying that the only reason people would disagree with someone, that those who disagree are both stupid and monolithically unchangeable.  This is where sectarianism comes from, when people are more concerned with their own righteousness than with the health of the community.  It is so self-centered, and it is why there are so many splinter groups on the left.  People are so certain they are right, and so concerned about remaining pure and in a pure organization that they completely disassociate themselves from each other.  You can't organize a fundamental change to society if you can not even work together, much less compromise on something that enough people like that it could have traction in the general society.     

I want to make sure people don't think I am ranting at sds... while there are some people in sds who are self-righteous and anti-consensus, the vast majority of sdsers are awesome and flexible.  That is why I am still able to spend time with them without going insane, they generally understand that democracy is not about forcing one's views on others, but about dialogue and coming to an agreement with opposing parties.  

I also heard that there is a group at UCBerkeley that is thinking about affiliating with sds, which would be amazing.  I have so hoped that there would be an sds chapter around here that I could go to.  

So, here's to sds! 

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.  

A Lesson from History, for My Beloved sds.

One quick thought, which I had while reading historical analysis of the 60s.
There was a huge upsurge in sds recruitment in the post election time period between 1968 and 1971. While this may be attributed to the media attention that the DNC protest of 68 garnered, I think there is another reason that is more plausible. The 1968 election was the population's chance to change the direction of the country. Many people who saw the millions crying out against the war would first try the typical method for changing the direction. When this failed, they would become more cynical about its viability, and look for other methods to change things. Plus none of the standard methods for the rank and file citizenry can change policy (i.e. voting) were coming up soon after the 68 election. So people naturally looked for alternatives, since they tried voting and that didnt work. They saw sds and the new left. While many of them may not have been happy with the yucky sectarianism and negative feelings floating around sds at that time, they were the only game in town. And so, tens of thousands joined.

I am afraid for the future of sds. If whoever is elected fails to end the war (and my cynical side tells me they probably will), then the new sds will be swamped by new recruits, more than we can handle. So, I think our task in the coming year needs to be building the institutional capacity to absorb and teach all these new recruits. And that is one overwhelming task.

In the News

Awesome news. There is an article about my friend Brian Kelly in the New York Times. Check it out: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/nyregion/thecity/23sds.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=thecity

Also look at the list of media coverage of the sds 5th year anniversary events: http://studentsforademocraticsociety.org/march20/?q=node/26

It is so inspiring to see my fellow young adults being active and politically engaged. I am so proud of all my friends who got arrested in the past week. Ya'll are awesome.
This post is dedicated to all those who participated in those events! I love you all.

The Importance of Organization

I have talked some on organization alittle before on this blog. But I want to reiterate how important being organized is.
Maybe I should define what I mean by being organized. To be organized is to do the following:

1. Keeping your word. When you say you will do something, do it. This will give you a good reputation and inherently further your goals.
2. Hard work. Cliche as it is, hard work will get things done. And in the world of activism where it feels like not much gets done, this is a crucial attribute.
3. Coordination. Stay in contact with people and coordinate your efforts. Avoid duplicate tasks and work out a system by which everyone can be working toward a goal, and know what they need to do to make sure the whole group gets it done.
4. Community. Help, protect, care for, and love each other. No other facet of being organized will motivate people more than being a part of a strong caring community. It will also provide an unparalleled sense of security that is very hard to find in life.
5. Courage. Acknowledge and accept your fears, but do not let them interfere with your activities. Change takes the courage to fight (ever non-violently) despite the seemingly insurmountable odds. Of course, courage must be partnered with understanding and vision to prevent brave but pointless acts.
6. Understanding. To be organized, we need to understand the cause and effect relationships or our actions, and how our actions will impact different audiences. Understanding other people, and how they think is also crucial. Also, a general understanding of the world is important. Overall, the more knowledge and problem solving skills you can fit into your brain, the better. It is much better to build a sturdy net to catch fish than to try to catch them with your hands.
7. Mass numbers. To truly be organized, you need lots of people working toward a common goal. They do not necessarily have to all be coordinated, but it helps.
8. Planning. Use all of your understanding to plan a campaign to actually reach the goal. Make contingency plans and make sure everyone knows what the plan is.
9. Love. By far the most important. This one encompasses everything we seek to change in the world. It can remake our entire world if we have the courage to embrace it. Love everyone, and only denounce actions. Forgive and give whenever there is the chance.


If we look at corporations, who have a massive amount of power in our society, we see that they are very very well organized. However, they concentrate on only: understanding, hard work, coordination, planning and keeping your word. Because they have mastered these 5 skills, the relatively few people under any given corporations employ have managed to affect the other 6.5 billion people and often not in a good way. However, their lack of concern about mass numbers, community, courage, and love leaves them vulnerable. An organization that embraced the vision of organization I have laid out here would easily out-power them and be able to wield the fiery-sword of influence to truly slay the injustice that wreaks havoc in the hearts of so many.

There is a strength to this outline that may not be obvious at first. It will bring people in by the droves. Having an effective and loving group actively seeking change, one that fulfills its members deep need to care for each other will be an earth-shaking movement that will fundamentally remake civilization. I have tried to outline my view on organizing, that couples the "professionalism" of corporate America with the love, courage and community that I have found to be amazingly effective at motivating and improving people.

I hope to see a movement that embraces all 9 factors, because, I believe, if I do see it, then we will be able to heal the world.

"Students Against Hippies in Trees"

On Monday, I opened "The Daily Californian," the student paper of UC Berkeley, and I was greeted by a picture of a fellow I had just met on Friday at a welcoming party held by the Metta Center (a center for spreading education about non-violence). In the picture, he is just standing next to a tree, and cops are swarming him. He had been sitting in a tree on campus for the past couple weeks, trying to raise awareness about the undemocratic nature of the UC Board of Reagents. He was arrested on Friday around 2:15 and I met him around 4 at the party. He introduced himself as "Fresh," and I talked to him for awhile about the Democratizing the Reagents campaign. Pretty interesting stuff, he had alot of the same complaints that Brown students have, and is organizing around issues that sds is organizing around.
It is nice to see that even in places where sds does not exist yet, there are people organizing around some of the central issues which sds is doing across the nation. I am planning on contacting some of the other organizers of the campaign and tell them about sds, with the hope that they will hook into the sds network to help their cause (as well as maybe become an sds chapter :-) ).
But what I found hilarious about the article in the Daily Californian was that there is actually a group called "Students Against Hippies in Trees." And they showed up to protest the protest. Gotta love counter-protests, they are always kind of funny, especially when they have ridiculous names like that.
The thing that still boggles my mind is why the University cares that Fresh was in a tree for two weeks. It is not like the Oak Grove tree sit where they wanted to build something on the site. They had no designs on cutting down the tree that Fresh was in, so why did they make such a big deal about it? If they had just ignored him, his protest probably would have slowly trailed off and ended unceremoniously. But instead, they invested a tremendous amount of time, energy and symbolic investment into Fresh's protest. When he came down, it was in front of 150 people and he was arrested on the spot. Now that is an awesome climax for a protest, and bound to get plenty of attention, which is what he was after. If the administration had ignored him, I doubt he would have made it into the press very much. It is only because they responded that he even made a splash. It reminds me of that part in Harry Potter where Dumbledore is explaining to Harry that the only reason the Prophecy would come true is because Voldemort put worth into it and let it affect his actions. He sewed the seeds of his own undoing by putting faith in the truthfulness of that prophecy. Indeed, the prophecy is self-fulfilling, as long as he believed in it. The same is true of this protest. The administration believed that this protest would have an affect, and consequently, they reacted strongly to it. Strong enough to try, in the words of Fresh, a "sneak ninja attack" at night, and ban him from campus for a week when he came down. If they had just ignored him, I doubt anyone would have showed up to see the drama of a confrontation (there would not have been one if the administration had ignored him). Nor would the press have cause to write an article where there was no tension (they are annoying like that). The administration could have defused the tension of the situation by ignoring him.
All in all, this just shows the strength of non-violence. When your opponent strikes out, it only makes you stronger and your message more prominent. And while I am not sure how effective sitting in a tree for two weeks is toward democratizing the reagents (aside from getting press to the issue)... it sure makes for a good story.

A Glimpse of the Ocean of Hope Through the Oil Slick of Cynacism

Obama won in South Carolina!
I have spent a good amount of time (given my copious amounts of free time due to unemployment) observing the candidates and their campaigns. I have done some research, and I have to say that while Obama had my support from the start, he has only strengthened it. Edwards was also pretty awesome, but he is out of the race now.
Clinton, on the other hand, has always bothered me. It may have to do with the fact that I protested her when she visited Brown because she was to the right of Bush on the war at that time. She was saying we needed to commit more troops. But now she has changed her mind, and unlike Edwards she has not apologized for supporting the Iraq war in the past. That reeks to me of the acrid smell of an unwillingness to accept responsibility for one's actions. I have heard from friends in the Obama campaign that Clinton is using alot of nasty political tricks, like fake mailers. Clinton's campaign has seemed to be just trying to play the game and win that way. I have no respect for that, nor the use of underhanded politics. I found a webpage that outlines alot of the reasons I dislike Hillary... please refer people to this site: http://2parse.com/?p=210
Piled on top of all this, I recently read "The Left Hand of God" by Michael Lerner. He related the following account. The Clintons ran for the Presidency in 1992 on articulating a new "Politics of Meaning" (the same as the title of another one of Lerner's books). They wanted to make significant change, and had a fairly ambitious agenda. Lerner describes how he was called to the White House to advise them early in 1993. He describes how behind the scenes, they were excessively concerned about poll numbers and what they had support for. Lerner advised them to take a bold stand on issues, that if they made a good argument and appealed to people's moral compass, they would gain the support they need to make those ambitious changes. But, they chose to only do what they thought they had support to do (i.e. not much), to listen to what political consultants said, and abandon their politics of meaning. Especially with health care, Hilary chose to do what was "realistic" instead of taking a bold stand on something she knew was needed. Unfortunately, doing what is realistic is a self-fulfilling prophecy, it is like a runner deciding they will only try to run a 6 minute mile when they are actually capable of running a 4 minute mile with alittle more perseverance and courage. When I read this I understood why I could not support Hilary. She is not willing to be a leader and go against poll numbers. That is what is wrong with the Democratic Party overall, they do not have the confidence in their own beliefs to take stand based on them nor do they have the courage to do what is right even if it is thought to be unpopular. While I disagree with the Republicans on almost every issue, I do wish that the democratic politicians had their level of confidence and courage.

I am ever so thankful that the alternative to Clinton is an inspiring leader. I would hate to have another year when I am just voting for someone because the alternative is worse. I actually WANT to vote for Obama. I WANT to see him in office. He is not afraid to take a stand on issues (although still not as much as I would want), and he is smart. All the debates I have watched have shown the depth of his thinking, and his refusal to dumb it down when he presents it to the public. I feel like Clinton dumbs down her issues and does not believe the American people are smart enough to understand the nuance. Obama's policies, while not perfect, are a huge step in the right direction, and when you look at the details, they are quite different from Clinton's.
I feel that Obama could go farther than what is outlined in his current policies, especially given the way he is able to convey his message. A poorly written book is never read, even if its ideas are phenomenal. An engrossing book, however, will catch one's mind in an un-escapable lust to read it, even if it is void of good ideas. Well, Obama is that rare combination of an engrossing book with good ideas. He articulates his ideas to appeal to people's moral compass instead of their self-interest, which is far FAR more compelling than the typical Democratic party line of appealing to people's self-interest. Great leaders always as you to help others, not to help yourself. It is a far more appealing and engrossing message, and when coupled with good ideas, vision, and courage it will (and has) completely overhaul civilization as we know it.
But I would say the most inspiring thing I have read about Obama is how he treated Richardson during a debate. Richardson spaced out, and did not hear the question. Obama whispered "Katrina" to him. I found this story here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/29/14329/8255/991/445490
To me, this tells me more about who he is, and his ability to be a leader than anything. Understanding people well enough to instantly sense what is on their mind, and the will to help them if they need it is a treasured combination.
I truly believe that he is running because he thinks he has the chance to do good for people, not out of self-interest or ambition. I can count the number of politicians who seem to possess this treasured outlook, on one hand. I still do not think he will be able to do too much because of the way the government is structured (even Eisenhower couldn't end an infant military-industrial complex). However, if he can manage to employ his movement organizing powers while he is still in office, than I can catch a glimpse of the ocean of hope through the oil slick of cynicism.

I have been writing this post over a few days, and in the course of this my Grandpa has passed away. He was a kind and generous man who placed his family above all else. I am reminded of Exodus Chapter 19-ish, where it is explained that living a mean and selfish life will have ill effects lasting three or four generations in one's family, while living a generous and loving life will see rewards unto the thousandth generation. My Grandpa is a prime example of this, I can see the glow of his love reflected in my family, strengthening and helping us throughout our lives. Thank you Grandpa.

The Left and Religion

For anyone who is wondering why the right has come to dominate politics, i would suggest you read "The Left Hand of God" by Rabbi Michael Lerner.

The main point of his book is that the left is failing to appeal to the spiritual needs of the American people. By spiritual needs, I mean people's need to be part of a support community where they are valued for who they are and where they can escape from the often soul-crushing workplace that capitalism has created. Spiritual needs also encompass people's desire to have a meaning in their life, a purpose that they can turn to when they are despairing about the horrors of the world. Unfortunately for the left, the Religious Right has managed to monopolize the political landscape when it comes to appealing to these needs. Of course the left has not helped itself, being anti-religious and demeaning to toward the American public. Having an aversion to religion is destroying the left. And there is no reason for it. Over half the Bible is about poverty and there is no reason why the left should not start appealing to people's moral and religiousness when it comes to fighting for social justice. Religion need not be oppressive, as so many people find it to be. It is just another institution in our society that the left has lost its influence over.
In fact, it seems that the left has been unable to even admit to itself that most of its members are indeed motivated by loving, caring, generosity, and other values that are spiritually based. No, they delude themselves into believing their altruistic and spiritual tendencies exist because they are simply in their own self-interest. I am guilty of this myself, looking for my own self-interest in my altruistic nature. If we put ourselves out there and stopped trying to rationalize our motivations as self-interest, we would probably see a massive upsurge in the left.
I hope one day the left will stop being so anti-religious. Certainly religion has been used to do alot of evil in this world... but so has every other belief system. The left itself has its Stalins and Maos who murdered and corrupted society. But, those atrocities are not representative of the average person who is a member of that belief system. Most people are inherently good, intelligent and human. To assume that one group of people is stupid, evil, or somehow less than equal to oneself is a VERY slippery slope, and will only bring woe and contempt. I always seem to find myself trying to convince people of that. They tell me I am not realistic. Well, I think I am the one who is being realistic. It is unrealistic to think people are not inherently good. For one thing, you will always end up alienating them if you see them that way. On the other hand, if you believe people to be good, then they will often (not always, but often) try to live up to that belief. It is both morally right and practical to see people as inherently good. And, this extend to the institutions they are a part of. Certainly those institutions can be used for ill. But, at their core, there is good. We must search for and embrace that goodness. There is no reason why the left should continue to be anti-religious... it is a stereotyping that has similar negative social consequences to racism and sexism (although currently less severe than those).

I say this with full knowledge that some people may be religious themselves, but find evangelicalism to be offensive. I encourage such individuals to purge those feelings, because if you get to know evangelicals you will find that prejudice against them is socially and personally destructive.