Information must Remain Free

Download works by Gene Sharp, author of useful books on nonviolent resistance.

This list includes his most famous book, From Dictatorship to Democracy.

Link and spread the word.


CW

Guest Contribution: I am the System: A Manifesto to Occupy Wall St.

Folks, with great honor I introduce a piece by my colleague Joshua Call, from Penn State's English Department: we have worked together on a bibliography about the anti-psychiatry movement. Josh's intellectual sharpness, curiosity and energy has not ceased to amaze me. We are also fellow gamers, though owing different systems respectively: don't start a PS3 vs XBOX 360 fanboy quarrel, because we have neither time nor interest in it.

Darwin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am the System: A Manifesto to Occupy Wall St.

The single individual never exists in isolation. In her singularity, one being never escapes the network of relations. But this is not one world as some kind of homogeneous whole. In their multiplicity, social systems always exist as a conglomerate of singular individuals. We are caught in these systems. Systems like Wall St. Systems like large Corporations. Systems, like the monolithic apparatus’ of the government. But these systems are not in themselves bad, wrong, dehumanizing, destructive. These systems are caught in us, they are us, we are them; this is what this elusive “they”, the many voices of the system, will try to deny.

E pluribus unum, that old phrase imprinted on the seal of the United States represents for us the very symptomatic problem of our country, our world, our multiplicity of systems today. “Out of many, one” as if all these people, with all their individual situations, all their singular knowledge, all of their valuable uniqueness, must homogenize into one system, one unity, one voice. Corporations feed off of this slogan. They provide for us a system that appears as one but which is empty. No one is accountable. No one can find the leader. No one can see who makes the decisions. There are no “people who pull the strings.” Even the president, who is supposed to be our most powerful leader, finds himself flustered before the system.

We all know this. Our jobs drop away. Our houses are being foreclosed. Our stocks plummet on whims. Our money disappears. While somewhere else a few individuals get rich. We cannot understand it. We cannot connect the dots. So we protest. We want to occupy Wall St., to somehow get inside the system, to be part of it again. We want to be democratic, we want the demos, the people, to means something within the system. We are tired of being effaced in the whole that renders us silent.

To truly occupy Wall St. requires more than just people making their presence known in the streets. It requires a fundamental shift in our values, our conception of ourselves in the system.  We seek to re-valuate these concepts that have been hijacked by homogenizing forces that have plagued a system which no longer needs such forces. The present some difficulties without simple solutions:

1.  Our world requires a new theory of value. Value is not solely based on labor but rather on the existence of singular individuals with their own skills, experiences, and understanding.  Labor can no longer be the standard because this world no longer needs all the labor force that exists in it. There are not enough jobs and there will never be. The forces of mechanization, which have made our lives so much better, inevitably take jobs; but we cannot and do not want to undo those processes.  When the system does not need you to contribute, when it demands nothing from you except consumption, how can we base our value on labor?

2. We affirm the fundamental value of human beings. The belief that people are inherently lazy and greedy is largely a product of a system which is blind to the desires inherent in all of us.  We live in a system that seeks to maximize efficiency (less work, more pay) but then demonizes its citizens who internalize this principle (I will work as little as possible).  What is called “redistribution of goods” is nothing more than an acknowledgement that value extends beyond labor and that individuals will continue to make contributions to the system as long as they are given the opportunity to participate, to live, to be. In the end the question is not, what has this man done but what is he worth as a being. The myth of freeloading assumes that those who cannot find a job do not want to work, while those who have jobs somehow earned it. But we know this is not the case.  We cannot continue to deny those who seek to work but cannot the basic necessities of life. We cannot blame them for how they have fallen into the system. We can no longer deny them the support of essential healthcare, housing, food, and education.

3. The process of concentration brought about by corporations that seek to maximize profit and minimize costs will continue to push the processes of mechanization so that less people can do the work for many. Hence, without some correcting mechanisms, those fortunate enough to be left standing after the layoffs will find themselves with a concentration of wealth that far exceeds those who were dropped off in the name of efficiency. We cannot continue to delude ourselves that these people are somehow “better” than those who find themselves condemned by the system into joblessness. The illusion of equality of opportunity cannot be asserted; there are simply too many factors for such a meritocracy to have any reality.

4. We must support our neighbors as individuals. We cannot stand by this idea of patriotism that supports a nation with only abstract citizens. This country has stood too long in a patriotism without dissent. A patriotism that loves the country but hates its neighbors. Get a job, bum. Support your country. Don’t freeload. You’re a burden. The whole, the system, the country is far more important than you. You are a burden.

5. We affirm that there are possibilities between rhetorical extremes—these extremes which exist in “capitalism vs socialism,” which is nothing more than a shameful remnant of the McCarthy era that is no longer relevant. Capitalism in both a theoretically “pure” form and as it stands now inevitably focuses wealth in the few.  Likewise, the concept of a “socialism” equated with “communism,” in which totalitarian regimes excessively control the social structure is not only antiquated but irrelevant. The truth is, we do not need to worry about whether our governmental system is going to attempt to force its citizens into its desired mold; our system already does this quite well.

6. We cannot forget that there are multiple channels through which democratic forces may operate. We will not remain silent, nor will we content ourselves with only one outlet for our voice. Capitalism provides only one feedback mechanism through the purchasing of goods. But this is not sufficient—when dealing with a complex system no one solution is ever sufficient. We must not forget that this system we call “government” was also supposed to be connected to the people, to individuals who, while represented by the vote, are more than an anonymous vote of stilted and limited candidates. We are given representatives that do not represent. The many cannot be held in these few, picked out by forces which we can hardly control or comprehend but which we see everywhere. We need new outlets, new in-roads into the democratic process.

We understand that Wall St. is just one symbol of one part of the system. We understand that the individuals who work in there are not the most wealthy of individuals. Each one of them, as individuals, is not responsible for the problems we face. This is precisely why we must occupy Wall St, precisely why we must penetrate the system, precisely why we must reinsert our place as the many small pieces of a larger system. We must treat the system as a system and provide systemic solutions. We must redistribute because the system needs to flow to all channels of society. We must regulate because a system cannot function without limiting feedback controls. We must provide new channels for participation because this is a system of many in which the many cannot be and will not be effaced by the one.

Undoubtedly this will require difficult choices and complex solutions but we affirm that we should face this complexity as complexity, these systems as systems because they are complexities made up of us, of me, of you. We will push for new solutions, old solutions, innovative and daring solutions. We can only go forward if we recognize this fact and allow the whole and its part to again be put into proper relation.  So we will enter Wall St, literally, figuratively, persistently. Because we are already there, already here, already within the system. As part of it, we refuse to be silent, homogenized, simplified, demonized, condemned, neglected, rendered superfluous.

Joshua Call

A Warning

"And, my friends, in this story you have a history of this entire movement. First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you. And that, is what is going to happen to the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America."

-General Executive Board Report and Proceedings [of The] Biennial Convention, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 1914.  

While this quote has been shared widely around the internet in a slightly modified form and wrongly attributed to Ghandi, it designates a particular series of stages which sometimes accompany the emergence of new movements.   It seems that Fox News, ever the protector of the corporate plutocracy, has utilized their penchant for clever editing to spin the Occupy Wall Street protests as the product of some misinformed kooks.  As the video below shows, Fox went straight from ignoring the protests (stage one)  to ridiculing them (stage two).  If the next stage holds true, we shall soon see the manufactured rage of Fox News (and possibly other media outlets) unleashed on the protestors, as soon as they can find an catchphrase or event which will allow them to enact a divide-and-conquer strategy.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1193221436001/jesse-watters-crashes-wall-street-protest/

The Occupy Wall Street movement  (inspired by the protest techniques of the Arab Spring and spreading around the globe) is attempting to bring together majorities who have been wronged by the political and economic elite.  The purpose is to raise awareness about institutional injustices and lack of accountability in our politics.   This decentered, leaderless movement encompasses people of various political affiliations, who naturally have different and at times competing interests.  We should remain true to the anarchist roots of this organization while pushing for ever more specific and realistic demands.  At the same time we should remain aware that our multiplicity will be exploited to turn us against one another.

C. Wesley

Occupy Together!

I am literally on the verge of tears as I type this. A few hours ago a friend of mine posted a link to "Occupy Taipei" on my Facebook wall, which shows that there will be a simultaneous "Occupy Everywhere/Together" event happening globally on the 15th of October.

http://15october.net/where/

Hong Kong and Tokyo are in the plans, and Chinese "Grass Mud Horses" (http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Grass_Mud_Horse) are incubating some Chimeras in Beijing and Shanghai. Brothers and sisters in Malaysia have gone on the move; I believe the rest of East, Southeast and South Asia will mobilize soon.

There's the Arab Spring - then the North American Autumn - followed by a Thawing Global Winter? Perhaps, just perhaps, we are truly on the verge of a great shift in history.

Darwin

Occupy Wall Street: The Crest of a New Wave

Charlie showed me an article about the currently ongoing "Occupy Wall Street" movement in the New York Times today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/nyregion/protesters-are-gunning-for-wall-street-with-faulty-aim.html?_r=1

While writing a response, I happened to begin thinking about how I felt towards the movement, regarding its strengths and weaknesses, and what we could continue doing. Here is what I came up with.

---------------------------------------------------------

The article by New York Times correspondent by Ginia Bellafante takes a discouraging perspective that doesn't really acknowledge how hard it is to conduct theory in practice, especially when people are trying to think through the very issues the writer criticizes them of not being familiar of. Please, give a good, hearty laugh when the author mentions "Intellectual Vaccum". It is easily observable that on Occupywallstreet's official website, there are a list of demands. The organizers decided that instead of presenting them as their goals, a common slogan/objective would allow more contingencies for action, and gather a larger crowd.

On the first day, Saturday September 18th, it would take someone of extreme ideological tilt to declare that there was a shortage of conversation and intellectual vitality: people's assemblies and discussion groups were happening all the time. Now, I believe the assemblies could have been more effective if they had better audio equipment and a media relay unit going back and forth between all groups, but real democratic processes with a multitude of voices were occurring; they are time consuming and can be quite messy.

The article is also quite contemptuous and dishonest. Notice how the writer cites the individuals holding banners, the woman in underwear as if they came straight out of a freak show; and most distasteful, is the haughty quote from a snug trader that concludes the piece. Of course the kids know Apple is a fucking monopoly, but you just can't get away from buying shit in a capitalist system. It's not something one should use as an argument against one's opponents: not everyone is an engineer or tech wiz who can build their own computers, either. Implicit in that citation, I think, is a very classical "you're against capitalism (substitute this for Wall St, Big Business, Corporations etc.), but why do you buy xxx?" sort of attitude.

However, I think the article is correct in identifying - but also twisting and trivializing - the movement's mostly left-leaning college-student middle-class base, and a particular protest lingo that is unfamiliar to those who aren't in the know. For example, "creative rebellion", "carnivalesque protest", "use of internet memes" etc. We didn't have many members from the working class in our tow; the largest working class population present one Saturday ago were probably the NYPD officers. If we aim to eventually be able to mobilize the workers in the nearby Pizzeria and the McDonald's across the street, and if the message seems muddy and cluttered (or if it is being distorted or downplayed by mainstream media like this), then we need strategies that can hone our focus. Communicative tactics that do not sacrifice the multiplicity of issues that are being discussed.

Similarly, one doesn't have to grant the movement a "make or break moment" or "event" kind of status. Unrealistic expectations sap our mental energies when disappointment is met; it can also make us psychically over-invest in the activities while creating a psuedo-catharthic outlet effect that leaves us too satisfied and drained. Political dissent shouldn't be orgasmic, ending in climaxes. It should be intensive and prolonged, where anger, pleasure and reflection flows steadily and in accumulation. If the momentum doesn't carry, perhaps it's time to pause, take a brief respite, think, re-strategize and then regroup on those motherfuckers; maybe back in Wall Street, maybe just locally.

Darwin

The Crass Hegelianism of Discourse on the Political

You hear it all the time in the media these days.  We are told that both sides of the political debate contain "extremists"  that muddy the political waters for everyone.  If only a political compromise could be forged, then we could truly "get things done" in the US.  Not only does this logic undermine the basic premise of democracy itself - that ideally it should be slow, deliberatative, and agonistic if not agonizing - but it also attempts to dismantle politics as a process which is founded on debate and vigorous disagreement.  Some readers would not be wrong to pinpoint Obama's emphasis on "compromise" as a contributing factor to this jargon.  Whether Obama actually believes in this idea - which sadly seems to be the case, especially after the national debt debacle - or employs it as a strategic and powerful part of his political weaponry remains to be seen.  Increasingly, the idea of compromise is changing from an effective tool of political agonism to an ideal that is nostalgically hoped for, and often alluded to in a collective memory (which never existed) when political ideologies put aside their differences and made a pact for the common good.

The idea of "compromise" is strengthened by another oft-repeated idea which is directly tied to it.  This is the belief that political ideologies are equally valid and therefore deserving of the same praise and respect regardless of what ridiculous, pompous, insane, or vile ideas they spew forth.  Take a recent example of this rhetorical move from The Chronicle of Higher Education:

"Those who lean left politically might reflexively focus on a rising tide of libertarian individualism, market fundamentalism, and the celebration of the "virtue of selfishness" by Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and their think-tank popularizers. Those who lean right might blame other forms of individualism, including feminism, social liberalism, and rights-based social movements since the 1960s."

So here it is.  Innocuously tossed off in an article whose main purpose is to raise awareness of the increasing loss of empathy among youths, we get an equivocation that makes the head spin. This rhetorical move starts by pretending that there are only two political trajectories in the country.  Then, after setting up this false dichotomy, the clever rhetorician usually suggests - in the interest of "fairness," of course - that both leanings are equally flawed or equally viable, depending on the argument.  This is the height of relativism and irresponsible writing.  Basically, the authors utilize an oversimplified version of an idea wrongly attributed to Hegel: thesis, antithesis, synthesis.  We are supposed to take from this that because both sides could make a critique of the other, therefore both sides cancel one another out, resulting in the "truth" that if only both sides could be a little less different, a little more willing to "compromise," much could be accomplished in the world. In reality, the two sides are drastically unequal, and their consequences incredibly different.

Let's delve more into the above quote to clarify what is at stake in the two political positions as they apply, in this case, to empathy.  On one hand, when it comes to the waning problem of empathy, there is a clearly identifiable form of self-righteous selfishness that is endlessly and shamelessly promoted on the right, and it is not a coincidence that an especially rabid form of this ideology came into the mainstream around the time of the Reagan/Thatcher revolution in the late 70's and early 80's - the very same time that empathy among the young began to decline.  On the milquetoast left, the tentative suggestion that some people might be different than others - but nevertheless deserving of the same rights - necessitates that people try to put themselves into the shoes of others.  Here we end up with two different kinds of individualism - the individualism which sees the self as independent of society, and a form of individualism which attempts to incorporate subjects on the margins as deserving of the same rights and privileges of the majority.  In other words these perspectives are in no way equal, despite the authors' attempt to synthesize them.  This simplistic equivoation is not qualified or explained in any way.  In fact it is presented as normal, part of a standard journalistic practice.  It would be interesting to hear from the authors or their imaginary interlocutor on the right how "feminism, social liberalism and rights-based social movements" contributed to a lack of empathy among youths.  Of course one of the keys to this crass Hegelianism is that delving too deeply into any specifics begins to create shades of nuance, which threatens the ultimate assumption that at their core, both ideologies are equally probable candidates for causing or solving any number of problems.  More thoughtful writing should be expected of a purportedly academic news source, but this kind of uncritical equivocation is all too often repeated ad nauseum within American political discourse in the media today, creating a zeitgeist which only deepens our delusions about the political.

C. Wesley

In the Neighborhood of Zero: A World War II Memoir (William V. Spanos)

I wrote this book review for a professor who has challenged me intellectually and has had quite a strong influence on my work.  This is my way of attempting to thank him for his continual intellectual provocations.  Check it here.

C. Wesley