Blog PostsRemembering Tomorrow - A lesson in humanity for the left
By Paulo Rodriguez at Jun 22, 2010 |
|
One of the things that make it worthwhile being human, one would argue, is that we are capable of feeling. We are capable of experiencing joy at the enormous variety of good things in life, whether material or ephemerous. We feel indignation, anger, dare I say rage, at things that seem wrong, unjust, or abusive as well.
On top of that, we've been both blessed and cursed by sentience. We can not only perceive the world around us, marvel about it, but also feel the need to understand it, change it.
However, we sadly live within structures that do their every best to make us passive spectators, just undergoing the whims of people unconcerned with our well-being and that of others. We are taught that no matter how hard we try, we simply WILL fail to achieve a just and fair world. And we better believe it!
And thus we are overwhelmed by frustration, we feel like we are fighting a losing battle, and we act in consequence. We don't try to win. We pose as tragic warriors, fighting the good fight, cursing the evils of society and their sources. But we really don't seem to be interested in winning. The weakest of us human beings sometimes even choose a yet worse path, we join our tormentors and participate on our own moral and biological destruction...
So what can we do about such things? Are we really interested in winning? Could it be that, despite our own perception, despite the seemingly obvious injustices that surround us, overwhelm us, could it be that we actually ARE winning?
Till not so short ago, anyone asking me this very question would get a tired smile and a short "alas, no we are not". How wrong I was.
This change of perspective is , I believe, hard to achieve, given the odds against decent people, who desire just societies and a decent future. It is, however, not only necessary, but also ... it's the right perspective! We are winning. We are moving forward , steadily and faster than we think. How can this be? Enter "Remembering Tomorrow".
Imagine yourself, an activist, whether a critic of US foreign policy describing with vivid details the destruction of other countries for geopolitical interests. A hardcore anarchist, stirring the hornet's nest at the G8, being assaulted by the authorities, while the world's elites decide on catastrophic measures against the general population. A union representative fearing for his or her life, defending the basic right of workers and their families, to earn more than just enough to pay for a miserable loaf of dry bread. Or even the seemingly unconcerned citizen, feeling powerless to change anything as an individual,isolated and apathetic, going through the motions.
It's hard not to embrace despair, defeatism and blind rage when being exposed to such expressions of social injustice. In order to weapon ourselves against that, we need honest chronicles of people, men and women, with virtues and flaws, showing us that every day we do emerge victorious, even if only by a little. Tales of honest successes and failures, of meaningful change.
This book is exactly about that. A clear and vivid description of the most empowering moments in American activism history from the 60's to the present , Michael Albert has succeeded in writing a gripping tale of those key moments that defined the American New Left, with a remarkable sense of honesty and humanity. His attempt at providing the reader with a sense of hope and the left's achievements, and providing us with his own personal insights at the left's failures, can certainly be called a resounding success.
Being able to read a first-hand account describing the actions, words and even seemingly small gestures of well-known and not-so-known activists like Howard Zinn, Dave Dellinger, Carl Oglesby, Noam Chomsky, Brian Dominick... It gives this work a sense of humanity that a lot of leftist literature horribly lack. We are not talking about abstract values or marxist/anarchist theory here, but the concrete actions and feelings of people that understood the need for change and acted on it without compromise, relentlessly moving forward and fueled by a strong sense of social justice. An overwhelming yet pleasant feeling is the result, a perfect antidote for the negativism we somehow seem to be very good at taking a swim into, willingly.
The variety of topics the books focuses on is also incredibly vast: the feminist movement, the Black Panthers and the racial struggle of African-Americans, SDS and the antiwar movement, orthodox leftist movements in all its incarnations, and even the cultural revolution that pretty much defined the 60's, up to today's activist efforts in the US and the impact of current information technology on activism. All this spiced up with personal and humorous anecdotes and small impressions from the cultural and musical currents of the 60's, most prominently Bob Dylan, whose work Albert clearly appreciates,
For all of us who feel that our resolve is faltering, or that simply sympathise with radical activism but feel that it's a lost cause, look no further. This book will empower you, make you laugh, move you and finally shake you into action. It will make you understand that in the end, perseverance, patience, humanity, and an honest desire for a better tomorrow are the keys to win, coupled with a clear vision and a sense of direction. A must-read for everyone who calls themselves "on the left".
Great Book
By Stapes, John at Aug 05, 2010 17:07 PM
I agree Paulo. I just finished it yesterday and I liked the book a lot. It was interesting to see the behind the scenes account of some of the events in the 60s as well as South End Press and Z Net. It also gave me some good ideas of ways to organize, and ways not to organize. I think it is important to learn from successes and failures in the past so we don't have to make the same mistakes again, and can build on the successes. I think Michael's point about "stickiness" of organizing is a great point. We really should make left organizations a place where people enjoy being as much as possible. In my National Lawyer's Guild student groups, we always try to plan, organize, work, and then socialize and relax a bit to build personal bonds. That really makes it worth while.
Reply this comment
Progressing Backwards
By Smith, Mark E. at Jun 26, 2010 19:11 PM
Some so-called progressive writers in the U.S. have figured out a quick and easy way to write a book. They interview a few activists, being sure to include some well-known names, add some positive spin about how much progress we're making, and collect their advance from the publisher.
Among the areas where they believe that progressives have won victories and made progress are civil rights, human rights, worker's rights, the environment, and foreign policy. So let's take a look at those areas.
With regard to civil rights, the U.S. now has a larger percentage of it's black population imprisoned with fewer able to vote than prior to the Civil Rights Movement.
With regard to human rights, we now have the loss of habeus corpus with U.S. citizens subject to torture and even to assassination.
As far as worker's rights, unions in the U.S. are a faint shadow of their former strength, corporations have been deregulated, and even the few rights that remain are rarely enforced.
As to the environment, I give you BP and the Gulf oil catastrophe.
And as for foreign policy, that has come to mean wars of aggression--exactly what we fought against in WWII.
Progress? Only in the eyes of sleazy writers out to make a quick buck.
Reply this comment
Re: Progressing Backwards
By Rodriguez, Paulo at Jun 26, 2010 21:43 PM
Dear Mark,
Trust me, if you think I'm not frustrated about many of the issues you have raised, guess again, I'm often as completely consumed with frustration as you are. However...
I'm assuming that by "so-called progressives" you are talking about the author, if not my apologies for the point below.
The site you are now using to discuss this book didn't come out of the blue. I'm guessing that you have informed yourself about the difficultes and setbacks involved to get ZCommunications where it is today: the severe money issues, the lack of support from the mainstream and even progressives, the non-compliance on funding agreements from people originally interested in the project, etc... Now, at great personal expense, the founders of ZCom provide a website where hundreds of thousands from all over the globe meet, discuss, organize and act, basically funded by its readers and some clever buying and reselling of their OWN home, over a period of SEVERAL decades. The information concentrated on this site has inspired, infuriated, moved, and shaken people into getting out there and actually doing something, on an international scale.
On top of that, that same writer has devoted a lot of his energy in creating, then perfecting an alternative economic model, incorporating views from several other areas of activism, welcoming participation and input on it and very often, constructively accepting violent critique. This model has provided several people, of which I am one, with an inspiring alternative that makes me move my fat lazy ass off my chair and actually reduce, then eliminate the ills you mentioned. It has even created institutions, some of which haven't met the success they deserved (The New Standard), and others that not only still exist today, but provide with a real-life example on how to do things differently and sustainably (South-End Press).
If this wasn't enough, I strongly suspect that the both of us combined haven't hit the streets and have organized as many people as Michael Albert has. The 60's happened and he was one of many that fought for things we take for granted today. Many of the wins that came from that struggle are still present , even though they are indeed under attack, every day.
Finally, last time I checked, the book wasn't an interview. It is a recollection of events from the perspective of someone who was there, and also took active part in those struggles. And in these cases, he was confronted with both victory and failure.
I'd like to ask you to read it, as it can be freely read on the Zcom website, just look around. You'll see that the most inspiring anecdotes do not come from the well-known names, at least in my opinion. The best one in my eyes is still that of Brian Dominick, founder of the New Standard and a former student of the Z Media Institute:
"One day I was walking with a young [Z Media Institute] student who started to cry. He told me he had never experienced anything quite like ZMI. I asked what in particular was so special for him. And he told me that while he had already in his young life done a lot of political stuff and met a lot of political folks, he now realized that none of them was really trying to win a new world in the way people he had met at ZMI hoped to."
I wished my actions could have this impact on someone. It would mean that I'm on the right track, that I am able to inspire people and liberate them from this horrendous feeling of despair that nothing can't be done, nothing can be won.
For the record, in no way am I rewarded by Znet with a brand new Winnebago or a yacht trip to the Caribbean, for taking Albert's defense, let that be perfectly clear. However, I do get irritated when honest people who actually do make a difference are shot down this way. I'm not inspired by Kropotkin, or Marx, or all the old-skool heroes the Left consider Gods. I'm inspired by people who bring humanity into the equation, and he simply does.
Therefore, saying that Michael Albert is a "so-called progressive" is incorrect at best (and I'm frankly putting a lot of effort into staying civil when I write this), as his past efforts have been sincere and have had lasting effects on people.
On your second main point, battles have been lost, without a doubt. And frankly I believe they have been lost because we haven't all been as dedicated, as uncompromising, and guided by a common goal and strategy, as we should be. We are used to fighting for issues, and call it quits. We settle for temporary wins. We don't demand more, or fight for more. Even worse, we often give up. We are tragic warriors fighting the good fight, but not interested in winning, really.
Let's see. The Civil Rights movement... black people were denied basic human rights till the CRM came along. Things are still horrendous for african-americans, but for crying out loud, while Barack Obama isn't a progressive at all, what are the chances that a black man would have made it to President of the United States in the 60's? Exactly ZERO. Progress has been made. There is more to do. LETS.
Human rights are violated nowadays, but also, this is no longer accepted and people put pressure on their leaders to make it stop. Chances of this being silently accepted by most of the population? ZERO. There is a lot more to do. LETS.
I am not very well aware of the trade union situation in the US, but here in Belgium, while not perfect, they are still powerful at the negotiation table, to the point that they can even affect government structure and block capitalist demands. No reason why the US couldn't have the same strong unions, as it's my opinion that activism is a lot more alive in the US than here. Yes, a lot more work to do. LETS.
And so on, and so on...
We have made progress, but that doesn't mean that we have won. It means that we must be even more relentless on our quest for victory, less tolerating of compromise, and finally, more humane. We are busier discussing our differences and claiming we hold the ultimate truth, rather than working together, bound by that which unites us.
I am aware that the current situation in the US is dire, but if you really want to change things, organize, talk about what irks you, to your friends and relatives, try to make people realize their own power, understand their motivations, and organize them around that. Provide critique, but also don't be afraid to see that even if we have lost some of our gains from yesterday, it's not because we CAN'T win. It's because we allow those wins to be lost.
And finally, like I said before, I strongly doubt Michael Albert enjoys his weekends driving in a Bentley with a lush leather interior, paid by his advance from his newest best-seller. But hey what do I know?
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Progressing Backwards
By Smith, Mark E. at Jun 27, 2010 04:47 AM
Thank you, Paulo, for your response and for remaining civil despite the effort it took.
Let's say that I'm a poor person with three kids I can barely afford to feed. So I reduce the amount of food that I give to two of them and give their food to the third child. Now, instead of three kids who are malnourished, I have two kids who are severely malnourished and one who is well fed. Is that progress?
Electing Obama wasn't progress. The situation of blacks in the United States worsened instead of improving. More were pushed into poverty, more were imprisoned. Obama's situation improved. Civil rights did not.
As for people putting pressure on their leaders, that's what happens in tyrannies. In democratic forms of government people have power over their leaders and can hold them accountable. In tyrannies people can petition their leaders and protest their leaders, but they have no power over them and no way to hold them accountable. If is of no comfort to the innocent people, people our government has always known were innocent, who are being tortured right now by our government under Obama, to know that most Americans won't accept it silently and continue put pressure on Obama to stop the torture. The problem, Paulo, is that Obama is totally unaware of that "pressure." It is handled by his staff. He doesn't have time for things like that. The pressure that is being put on innocent people when they are being tortured, however, is a totally different kind of pressure. They feel it. They have no choice but to react to it. But they have no way to avoid it or make it stop.
The situation in the United States is not dire. Not when compared to the situation of people in countries where the United States is waging wars of aggression, or in countries where the United States, Belgium, Israel, and other countries are funding genocidal resource wars. I believe it is precisely because the situation in the United States, Israel, and Belgium is not as dire as the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the DRCongo, that many people tolerate tyranny and try to reform tyranny instead of opposing tyranny and fighting for democracy.
I never said that you and Michael Albert were wealthy oligarchs with mansions and yachts. But neither of you are living in rubble without access to adequate food, shelter, or health care. Neither of you are homeless, trying to survive in a conflict zone, or living on less than a dollar a day. Neither am I, but I identify with those who are.
Why is it that I can be aware of problems in Haiti, Honduras, and elsewhere, without having to fly to Detroit? Why is it that people who have much greater resources than I do, not only seem to be less aware of global on the ground realities, but spend less in direct assistance to self-help programs in exploited areas than I do? Why do they spend time and money trying to organize each other instead of helping los de abajo, those on the bottom, to organize themselves?
Michael Albert may be a good person who does good things, but the questions he prepared to ask Hugo Chavez were the questions of an important person to another important person. Albert is, unquestionably, an important person for what he had written and what he has done. But Hugo Chavez is not an important person. He's one of the spokespeople of a growing global democratic movement. This movement starts at the bottom, not at the top. In this movement, it is the people at the bottom who are important. It is the people at the bottom who make the decisions, not the people at the top.
Is a better world possible? Of course. In fact, it already exists, and if not for capitalist and imperialist oppression, it would be flourishing even more.
Is a better U.S. possible? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Our founders wrote a Constitution that established a plutocracy and did not allow for democracy. They included a sham electoral system so that they could foist their government off on the people as being a republic, but it never was a republic. A republic is a democratic form of government and our Constitution does not allow for a democratic form of government. We cannot exercise our will through our elected representatives, because we have no Constitutional way to hold them accountable dfuring their terms of office--which is the only time they're supposed to represent us.
For there to be a better United States, we need a better Constitution, one written by the people, not by leaders or representatives, and voted upon directly by the people, not by leaders or representatives. Supporting better leaders and better representatives won't change the system.
Did you ever read John Perkins' book, Confessions of an Economic Hitman? When a person comes to power in this world, they get a visit and they are asked the question. The question is, "Plomo o plata?" Lead or silver? A bullet or riches beyond your wildest dreams? If you choose wealth, you are then on the side of capitalism, oppression, exploitation, and imperialism. If you don't, you are on the side of democracy, and from then on the oligarchs of the world will try to kill you, overthrow your government, and install puppets of their own choosing. It is as simple as the old union song, "Which side are you on?"
I could be all wrong, but from Michael Albert's questions for Chavez, it appeared to me that Albert is unfamiliar with worker-owned cooperatives and unfamiliar with democratic, bottom-up systems. If he was on the same side that I'm on, he wouldn't have to ask Chavez about such things, as he'd already know as much about them as I do. I hope that I'm wrong, but if Michael Albert already knows the answers to his questions, then why would he want to waste Hugo Chavez's time asking questions to which he already knows the answers?
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Progressing Backwards
By Rodriguez, Paulo at Jun 27, 2010 10:50 AM
Dear Mark,
I have to admit that your reply caught me completely off-guard, in a pleasant way. But more on that later.
The three-kid analogy is a good one. It also reflects exactly what I felt before I took the time to inform myself by sites such as this... and before I took the time to understand that things seem that way because of the fragmented, isolated nature of all the endeavours and projects being run to counter the horrible circumstances of people such as the 3 kids on your analogy. People still suffer, yes. Differentials on income, circumstances and political power increase daily due to capitalism, yes. But people are are more and more reacting to this, and with every day that passes, people even in the mainstream are willing to question the current structures and institutions, and more importantly, people are willing to stir some shit up! This certainly is progress, as this means that the structures are losing legitimacy, not just the people in them. This gives us an opportunity we need to seize at once.
I'm happy to say, as perverse as it might sound, that I do believe that we are making progress, and that we are on the right path. There's a myriad of informed, sustainable initiatives, experiments and activities being run all over the globe, that improve people's lives on a daily basis. It's not because we can't address the ills of everyone at once that we are losing. It's a slow painful process that wear us out, but most importantly wear out the victims of these ills. I'm however happy to say I believe we are becoming more skillful than before in structuring what we do in a different way, that both addresses immediate needs, if even on a limited scale, while questioning structures and providing alternatives and organizing people.
Thus I'm happy to say that I disagree with you on the progress issue, and this is not me wilfully deceiving myself. :)
Obama's presidency is indeed garbage, no doubt. I still have a bad taste in my mouth about the so-called health reform... But while not so long ago, blacks didn't even have FORMAL options , at least these options are here now. Mind you that I said formal, which means that the facts prove that this is barely enough. But it's a start, once again a window of opportunity we need to build upon.
This does not mean I don't understand the matters you are mentioning, but it means that again, there is a window of opportunity to question the system, and to change it for the better for african-americans. To me, the incarceration of Mumia Abu-Jamal is a perfect example of this. People in here and "on the field" are able to be instructed, confronted and organized by the words of a black man from prison. His words carry moral weight world-wide and people act on them, they don't simply listen and stand motionless observing how him and many others are abused. He's even been noticed in Belgium, on the mainstream media no less. A strong voice which commands moral respect, that in my eyes certainly can be called progress, but we need to fight for a lot more, and make sure the opportunities presented by their courageous acts aren't simply wasted.
On the putting pressure matter...
People are being tortured in the US, and elsewhere, and we went from people being too scared to say anything because otherwise we'd be labelled "unpatriotic" or "sedicious", to voicing our disgust and not being heard, to voicing our disgust AND being heard. I believe that, more than anything, the people we talk about do feel a slight sense of comfort because at least people CARE. However, if we don't act on this, if we keep putting pressure without moving to more drastic measures, that sense of relief we try to provide will indeed dissapear, because then we aren't being honest about their suffering and our efforts to end it. That's why we should devote our energies to what we do now, and up the ante!
The US is a land of contrast to be honest. To be honest, when I lived in Panama, perception of the US was as negative as you would imagine: a rich country, a capitalist tyranny where most people lived pretty well, thanks to the US government taking what they wanted and killing millions in Latin America and elsewhere at the flick of a switch. That's a very simple way to see things, but at this point in time, I believe that assessment is horribly wrong. Thousands of homeless people, people on wages not even worthy of that name, native americans bathing in poverty, african-americans tasting the harshness of racism and poverty day after day... the fact that they live in the "country of our oppressors" doesn't mean that their suffering should considered as less important. Many americans suffer as much as people elsewhere, why should we consider them less worthy of action?
I can say that at some point I did indeed lack access to food and shelter. As for health care, we are talking about Panama here, it was a joke... but let me tell you something from a personal perspective. I'm willing to devote time and resources because I tasted poverty for 13 years until the US intervention, and social isolation because my father was a communist. However I was lucky that my family on my mother's side was part of the wealthy belgian bourgeoisie so we had a way out, eventually. Had I not have this luck, I'd probably turned out completely different. Luck made it such that my circumstances improved dramatically, but my former experiences defined my view of the world. In a perhaps cynic way, I'm glad that I experience poverty. What are the chances I would remotely care for the needs of others if I had been brought up in Belgium, bathing in privilege and being structurally isolated from people's pains? I'm honestly very worried about the answer to that question...
As for your point on people's actions on the field and activism priorities... I think that there are many answers. A lot of such people consider that the big picture has priority, and believe that if you don't take care of a sustainable activist "superstructure", any efforts on the field will be rolled-back and won't perdure. It's the constant question of whether spending limited resources on addressing immediate suffering versus organizing to gain more. Others are simply interested in posing and have zero interest in actually changing things, or even pretend to care for the people affected by the ills they claim are so pervasive. Sad but true. This is actually one of the reasons that made me actually say fuck it all and actually enjoy the privileges I was able to bargain for, for a while. Not the proudest moments of my life, but here it is.
The actual reality is, BOTH immediate relief and organizing/synergy building across movements are extremely important, if we do care about winning. Concentrating on relief alone will not deal with the structures that are destroying these people's lifes, it will merely provide with the room of opportunity for these people to take control of their own circumstances but won't provide with the tools to effectively deal with the challenges at hand.
Concentrating on organizing alone without improving people's lifes in a palpable way will formally provide with the tools I mentioned, but it's horrendously presumptuous of us to expect people to focus, understand and act, when they don't even have food on the table, a roof over their heads, or an income worthy of that name. It's not easy to think or to organize with an empty stomach, a battered sense of self-esteem, or a lack of an even remote sense of safety.
Mind you, I agree that the organizing should be targeted at the people suffering. We tend to organize people from our own social class and that indeed I believe is not only strategically wrong, but also an insult to those oppressed. We basically are saying that we have zero belief that their opinions matter, that their perspective matters... we basically say that we understand their issues than they do, that they should let us do the job, since they are incapable of understanding the subtleties of their own ills. How fucking arrogant and callous is that???
To me, Albert's questions weren't just questions to an important person with power, but more of a demand for commitment. That's how I read it myself. I don't think that Albert believes those questions are important because they are being asked to Chavez. I believe that they are important because he's requesting that Chavez formally aknowledges that he should "practice what he preaches", as well as addressing some of Chavez' perceived behaviors that could destroy the gains his Bolivarian revolution has created, like his personality cult.
As for the US...
The Constitution is not written in stone. It's a document which carries a lot of value for a lot of Americans, but it's a human creation that can also be destroyed, changed, or replaced. I can appreciate the enormous difficulty of this task, since it's such an important part of the American cultural identity both domestically and abroad, but it CAN be done. If the Constitution does not protect the people's needs and rights the way it should, once that fact is understood and anchored into American minds, it doesn't stand a chance. Laws and regulations only work if the people submitted to them accept them. Isn't that correct? But it certainly would be a very difficult thing to change...
As a matter of fact, yes I read John Perkins' book, which I really "enjoyed", for lack of a better word. We are all asked this question, and most of us answer "plata for favor". I was no exception. However, this time, that privilege I can get from seemingly accepting to be a minion for capitalism means that I have access to certain resources, inside information and access to resources that can be diverted for activism. It requires that you weapon yourself intellectually against selling your soul, every day. But it can be done. The trick is to say that you are on their side, but that you do what you can to disrupt operations and divert resources and information.
On Albert's experience with worker-owned cooperatives, what was South End Press and what is ZNet if not a worker-owned cooperative? At least to me, that's what a parecon is, with a lot more attention being paid to the impact of the division of labour on empowerment and the importance of decision-making according to impact on the affected by the decision. I therefore think that you'd be plesantly surprised to discover that this assessment is incorrent. Why don't you give ParEcon a read, if you haven't done so yet? You might be plesantly surprised! As mentioned , I believe that Chavez's questionnaire is not a matter of asking for answers. It's a matter of demanding commitment, showing his true colors.
On a final note, I owe you a sincere apology. My first reaction to your posting was one of irritation and intolerance to what I perceived was someone simply willing to wade in pessimism and revolutionary posturing, attacking someone who I admire for both his convictions and the actions informed by them. Your second reply made me realize however that you are sincere and that you do care, I was thus out of line, arrogant and most importantly I was completely wrong about your motivations. Lo siento mucho, compadre. :)
Message me in private if you feel like it. I'd like to know more about what you do, perhaps I can be of help?
Take care Mark,
Paulo
Reply this comment