The Bundy Bunch Thing Continues Its Dreary Way...

What these entitled rich white fools are up to is anybody's guess, but they're certainly getting away with it. Wow.

There are elements and echoes of the Occupy movement in their tactics, and I'm sure the Bundy Bunch learned plenty from the failure of Occupy to hold territory they had seized. The lesson the Bundy Bunch learned -- we all did -- was that unarmed protesters cannot ultimately claim territory or hold positions against the state, whereas armed insurgents (sometimes) can.

The Bundy Bunch are being allowed to get away with an insurrection that borders on domestic terrorism, and they've been allowed to get away with it before. They have a lot of sympathy in the media. Much more than Occupy ever did, but then these privileged white fools are much more like the men and women of the media than the anarchists and rebellious youth of the Occupy movement.

The New York Times had an article the other day about the rural poverty that afflicts the West, Harney County in particular, and stated this poverty is the backdrop and implied it is somehow the reason for the Bundy Bunch's seizure of the wildlife refuge.

Utter nonsense.

The insurgents are not poor. Most are very well off, and some like the Bundys are objectively wealthy. Their prosperity and/or wealth is partly the result of federal subsidies  for their ranching operations. They have little or no concern for the rural poor who are suffering economic hardship. It's simply not how things are done in the West. The Bundy Bunch is not in Harney County to ameliorate the economic condition of the struggling masses. To suggest that the standoff at Malheur has anything to do with that is deeply dishonest and bizarre.

But it seems to be where the media is headed as they try to "make sense of" the situation.

No.

There is most definitely rural poverty in the West. Ms Ché and I live in a rural county in New Mexico with a high poverty rate. But in addition there are also rich ranchers and farm operators in the county, running cattle and growing crops, making money, often with the assistance of federal and state subsidies. Los Ricos do not much fret over the poor. Most don't give a good gott-damn about "rural poverty." And the other side of that is that most of the rural poor in this area make do as best they can, helped out by relatives, neighbors, and one another and a tenaciousness that is quite remarkable given the harshness of so much of the reality here.

There is also a tendency to skirt -- or flout -- the law.

The idea that the poor of this or any other rural county of the West would be better off if the federal government did not control so much land is nonsense, something the people of Harney County seem to understand quite well. They want the Bundy Bunch gone.

The media has a hard time with that concept, however, thinking the Bundy Bunch are romantic heroes of some Western novelist's dream.

It's sad.

But here we are. The government continues to allow the rich white fools at Malheur to get away with it. The rest of us have to put up with it for the duration.

The Oregon Standoff... Thing.

Good god in heaven, must we descend to this again?

Apparently so.

Some armed white male yahoos have taken over a wildlife refuge in Oregon and declared it "liberated" from Federal control -- which they claim is their right and duty as "patriots" and so on, because they do. The Federales are approaching this situation with considerable restraint, treating with the white male yahoos as if they were merely mediating a dispute between factions of governance. t

Yes, well...

The yahoos are being led by the Bundy-Bunch who engaged in an armed standoff in Nevada last year over grazing fees and rights, fees that millionaire rancher Cliven Bundy refused to pay for year upon year because he could. And because, according to these millionaires, the Feds have no right to tell them anything or to collect fees and rents. The Feds have unconstitutionally usurped private property and local control. The Bundy-Bunch will get it back or know the reason why.

This is really quite silly, but here we are. Again. As in so many things, part of the problem is the Constitution itself which is so flawed and has become so anachronistic -- and has been interpreted in so many inconsistent ways -- that governance itself is devolving into chaos.

The Bundy-Bunch believe they have a right to interpret constitutional provisions to suit themselves and to enforce their will by force of arms if need be or they choose to, and the Federal government has no authority over them. Period. End of discussion.

Thus their take over and armed occupation of an Oregon wildlife refuge, which itself is on land seized from the Paiutes in the 1870s, which was apparently initially given to white settlers and then taken away -- by the Federal government which did the seizure from the Paiutes by force of arms to begin with.

The Paiutes rightly say, "This is OUR land, not yours, and not the Government's except to the extent we allow it (or cannot fight it)."

Meanwhile the Bundy-Bunch insists that all Federal land in the West must be privatized, and they no doubt believe that they should own most of it as spoils of war or something.

"Constitutional Crisis" indeed, or it would be if it weren't for the fact that a bunch of rich white yahoos are demanding that they be given more and more and ever more by the Federal government, or they'll commit revolution, just you watch.

So far, truth is, they've gotten away with it. When rich white men say they want a thing in this country, they usually get it. It's been that way since well before there was a United States of America (Inc) and there's no sign of change.

Observers look on in astonishment the government literally bends and yields to their demands in contrast to the suppression that's taken place over and over again when people of color or non-rich white people make demands or demonstrate against some aspect of government policy that is harming them.

The official violence unleashed against Occupy, Black Lives Matter and so many other people's movements is in stark contrast to the mediation and negotiation that appears to be the official policy in treating with the yahoos occupying a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The message is obvious:

These armed white and mostly rich insurrectionists have power. You on the other hand do not. 

There are many lessons to be learned, aren't there?

1500

At least 1500 people have been killed by U.S. police since May 1, 2013. https://www.facebook.com/KilledByPolice  #KilledByPolice

I know it's an undercount, however, because two of the police killings that happened near enough to our place to cause shudders never made the "corporate news." How many others might there be? Who knows? Many. That's for certain.

How many wounded? Thousands, many thousands. Not counted yet. But they will be.

These are the casualty counts of a civil war, not pursuit of criminals. These are the casualty counts that come from summary executions and the brutality of stark terror, not crime suppression. These are the casualty counts of occupation, not policing. They violate every principle of dignity, justice, community and peace. These are casualty counts that constitute acts of war on the people.

I don't doubt that others will suitably separate and categorize the raw statistics, and the justifiers will come along and claim that the victims deserved to die the way they always do. The Otherness of the victims will be highlighted and the rest of us will be told to go about our business because we're the fortunate ones. We are served. We are protected by the forces of good and prosperity working tirelessly on our behalf to keep us from the Evil of the Other.

Just A Reminder: The Fascists Won

[Students and a sign at the Occupy Rally at UC Davis, 11.21.11. The sign says: "You can blind our eyes but you can never blind our minds."]

Over at dKos, Meteor Blades has been assembling Occupy Poster Art -- along with other art from various revolutions and rebellions of the past (not, interestingly, including much from his own/my own era of rebellion) -- and finding it good.

It is; it's wonderful. I've been really impressed with many of the graphic images associated with the Occupy Movement. When I was at Davis yesterday, there were any number of large scale, freshly silk screened, and very dramatic posters being passed out by various groups to their members. They mostly dealt with Katehi's blunders, the police overreaction, and the increases in tuition and fees. But what struck me was their graphic power -- a few simple words, in stark black and red or black and yellow, on large sheets, some of them still wet. They show up in some of the pictures I took yesterday, but I wasn't really concentrating my camera on them. Maybe I should have!

The video below (that I scarfed from the comments on the second of MB's poster threads) shows some of the startling graphics of the Spanish Civil War.



I would remind the gentle reader that the Fascist/Falangists won that little contretemps, and it would be decades before the Spanish People were able to liberate themselves.

And now it looks like the Fascists have made stunning a comeback thanks to the inability of the Socialists who have been in power to address, let alone meet, the needs of the Spanish People -- rather than endlessly service the demands of their banker-owners.

Oh, of course, the "center right" PPP, "People's Party," isn't exactly Fascist, but it's close enough for modern day conditions. And this is the problem throughout Europe. The Socialist and Social Democratic parties have failed the People just as surely as the Democrats have in this country. They have no credibility with the People any more, so they are falling in election after election, generally to whatever the Rightist opposition is. It's not because the People have any greater faith in the Rightists. Not by a long shot. It is because the Left in Europe, such as it is, has sold the People out to the Banksters, everywhere.

The horrible irony electorates face is that the rightist parties -- while apparently as beholden to the Banksters as the Socialists are -- seem to have a little more flexibility in dealing with the increasingly strident demands of the People. Strangely -- and not yet compellingly -- they may be able to address them more appropriately than the Socialists could.

On the other hand, the Indignado Movement throughout Spain is reinvigorated. The tension between the Government and the People will only increase.

Meanwhile, the graphic and literary images coming out of the Occupy Movement both here and abroad continue to raise consciousness, the brutality of suppression continues to prick the conscience, and the Revolution continues its evolution.

It's not the same now as it was yesterday, and it won't be the same tomorrow as it is today.

More than one person has pointed out to me that the way the Center of (Revolutionary) Energy keeps shifting is remarkable -- and appropriate. "You can't keep it in one place," someone said to me. "It will get stale and old and the authorities and the people will become accustomed to it. For a Revolution to succeed, the Center must keep moving."

And so it is. Yesterday, the Center was Davis, a little University town in California's Central Valley. Where it will be today, I don't yet know. Where it will be tomorrow, no one knows.

The Incident at UC Davis has had a profound effect on the course of events; perhaps it represents a turning point. But so many events have represented turning points in the organic development of this Movement. Just the week before, it was the Incident at UC Berkeley. And before that it was the Incident in Oakland. Before that, it was Denver, and before that, it was Chicago. Remember Boston? And of course, there will always be New York.

But then, New York came from somewhere, didn't it? It wasn't directly from Spain, it was from Canada, specifically Vancouver.

Round and round and in and out, weaving a Global Revolution that can't be stopped. At least no one who has an interest in doing so has figured out how to do it yet.

More and more people don't want it stopped.

Don't let the Fascists win this time.

Creativity and movement are the keys. I saw an image yesterday when I was watching Tim Pool's wrap up of the events in New York; he was outside the occupied New School building, on Fifth Avenue near Union Square. The building was "liberated" last Thursday and has been held without much official interference ever since. (They say it is because the New School's board is in favor of Occupy Wall Street, but who knows?) Tim was walking around the building describing the banners and posters hung in the windows and on the walls, and then he came to something that was such a startling vision: there high up on one of the pilasters of the building was a bright yellow tent.

The image below is far from perfect -- it's a still from the video stream -- but the message on the tent says:

"You cannot evict an idea whose time has come."

There you have it. The most dangerous object in the world (a tent) carrying the most dangerous message.

"More Tents Please"

The Oakland Occupation camp is being demolished. The call has gone out:

"More tents, please!"

Meanwhile, the crowd is pointing out how each of the Alameda County deputies is being paid $1,000 to stand there; the whole operation is costing as much as keeping a school open; and the Occupation will be back.

They are also noting that the aktion better finish up quickly because the sun is coming up, and these things can't take place in the light of day.

It's a useless, expensive and wasteful action on the part of officials.

No violence so far.

David Graeber Explains It All For You

From the outset of this OWS Revolutionary Period I've become much more aware of -- and appreciative of -- its Anarchist roots. I am not an Anarchist for various reasons, mostly having to do with my belief that Anarchist ideals can't be realized in the real world, at least not beyond a very small scale. And the scale-problem is built in to the Anarchist vision. If there were a way for peoples to split into innumerable affinity groups and maintain autonomy while doing it, without the need for government and the protections (and limitations) inherent in government, then fine, but the scale problem cannot in my view be overcome, so pure Anarchism will never be more than a pipe dream.

Nevertheless, I appreciate Anarchist thought. David Graeber's "Revolutions in Reverse" is a good selection of essays on timely topics. Well worth the time to read.


Revolutions in Reverse: Essays on Politics, Violence, Art, and Imagination

I wouldn't have stumbled on it were it not for a comment left over at Ian's Place on the post regarding "how OWS actually works" -- where I also picked up the link to the Global Research essay on the adoption of the Spokes Council model of operations.

Down at the Council Last Night

Damn, we are a polite bunch.

----------------------------
A note on all this almost baroque politeness and rituals of courtesy in Sacramento.

There is a strategic element to it, though it may seem counter intuitive. Sacramento is the Capital of California, but the city has long been something of an afterthought and a stepchild as far as the Powers That Be are concerned. This goes back to the days of the Railroad Barons, or even before that. At any rate, there can be a strategic advantage to linking arms with the city in solidarity and unity and in cooperating with the city authorities rather than contending with them unnecessarily.

This collaboration can change the character of the Occupation, but one of the points that was made by Steve Cohn was that there's nobody on the council who isn't part of the 99% (at least in terms of economic status), and in fact, the way our city government is structured, the city council and the mayor have very little power. The city manager is in charge, not the elected officals.

So whereas it might be right to challenge officialdom in some cities and to keep on doing it -- to get what you want -- in Sacramento, doing it the way the Occupation has been doing it is pretty much the way to go in order to get what you want, and it has the further and longer term advantage that the council then looks to the movement for cues and guidance. That's a heavy responsibility.

Barnaby Speak -- You Listen: "STAND UP; FIGHT BACK."

The kids are all right.



This video, as well as another of the same speech from Counterfire and the Coalition of Resistance in Britain, has been a staple filler for the often balky and frequently offline OccupyWallStreet Livestream. The speaker is 15 year-old London student Barnaby Raine, who became one of the most articulate and engaging spokespeople for the student uprisings in London and throughout Britain last year in opposition to the austerity cuts in the education budget put forward by the coalition Tory/Lib-Dem government.

The cuts, of course, passed Parliament, and there have been more cuts this year; austerity is the fashion and the rule of governments throughout the "free" world - ha - on the essentially backwards principle that only by cutting government budgets can the western world's economies recover from a long period of recession, doldrum and decline.

The principle is wrong.

People all over the western world, and now -- finally -- in the United States, are standing up and fighting back, resisting intellectually, morally, and physically with their bodies the impositions and the extractions of the rulers, the 1%, whose powers to affect the rest of us have been unbridled during and before the economic crisis.

The People have risen up, have found their voice, and they have made the powerful tremble.

The People have not yet won.

There is much more work to be done.

Dude is quite the rabble rouser.

From the YouTube comments:

He tells his story, his perspective of that day. His message is clear. "Stand up and fight back." That's a lot for a 15 year old. Most kids are worried about there "rank" in black ops. Try not dismissing him, try supporting this budding activist and his fight against the "establishment." These young adults may be the ones who bail your ass out when you are too old to fight back.

Damn straight.

Down at the Occupation

Preparing for the Arrest, Sacramento, California, October 8, 2011, Cesar Chavez Plaza
From OccupySacramento Facebook photo page

Tonight was City Council night, and Occupiers were pretty jazzed by it. Some of them, of course, were experienced with the ways of the council and its staff, but most were not. Many had prepared very eloquent pleas to the council to cease the arrests and allow the Occupation to continue in Cesar Chavez Plaza indefinitely. For the most part, it was a beautiful thing, and the council appeared to be impressed with the diversity, the eloquence, the determination, and the objectives of the Occupation.

Of course there was no decision; there couldn't be. The vice mayor and the councilman for the Downtown district explained that due to open meeting laws, they could not take up the matter for a vote but they would direct staff -- here we go -- to study the issue and report back next week when the issue would be an agenda item and they will be able to consider it properly and take a vote.

There was also talk of having the chief of police and the city manager come up with some kind of accommodation for the Occupation in addition to that which they have already supplied: two parking places on the street for a truck to hold the Occupation's equipment overnight. There could be an exception under the anti-camping ordinance for public events -- including protest.

There has been some talk (not official talk by any means) of pushing the issue by claiming the Plaza in any case, regardless of what officials say or don't say, want or don't want, do or don't do. That's actually how #occupywallstreet originated, just taking over a public space (they were kicked out of the first one that was actually on Wall Street; Liberty Plaza is the second occupation site in New York.)

But here, that idea doesn't really seem to be gaining much traction. The general feeling is that they want to stay legal to the extent they can, they want the city's support, and they want to maintain good relations with the police. There is a very wide range of issues to deal with, and the belief is they can deal with them better if they are all on the same side.

There is some informal discussion now about how best to proceed, but more than likely whatever the decision is will be low-keyed for several more days.

The fear of infiltration and take over by a political party or machine is not really justified. I spoke with Karen Bernal's husband about it tonight, and he just laughed. To his mind, there was no likelihood at all that the Occupation would become a TeaBagger-ish branch of the Democratic Party or any branch of the Democratic Party. No. Won't happen! On the other hand, what might easily happen, perhaps too easily, is that the Occupation might become kind of a civic outreach, not necessarily a branch of the city government but something like private counselors identifying and dealing with the most intractable issues the city faces.

Don't laugh. It could happen.

This may be the real co-optation issue for many of the Occupations.

Further -- On the Course of the Revolution as It Expands Evermore

Pageant of the "Storming of the Winter Palace", staged on the occasion of the third anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, October 25-26, 1920 (Old Style).

There will be no Storming of the Winter Palace. No Fishwives March on Versailles. Instead, there will be an endless People's Congress at the Smolny; an interminable General Assembly; and Pageants. Let there be Pageants!

Nevertheless, I think it is important to realize that this IS The Revolution. It is happening in real time, as we watch or participate or ignore. The Occupations are not some casual time filler, though they can be used that way. They are not some closed off con or gambit for malcontents, though I don't doubt there are a plethora of con artists working every Occupation (or trying to). There are plenty of malcontents, too. They aren't festivals of freaks, though there are freaks, and there is a festive air at many of the Occupations.

We could go on and on, but the point is that the Occupations are The Revolution, and they are because they are making physically and psychically manifest an alternative to our current broken and severely exploitative government/corporate social, economic, and political models.

That is the Revolutionary act and it is the key to what is going on and why it is working - and why it will face severe tests and perils very soon. It has become a Revolutionary act to speak up publicly and to insist on the right to do so without interference by the authorities. It is a Revolutionary act to claim public space for the public and use it to create intentional communities that are serving as the alternative models to the broken, exploitative, and literally murderous system in place.

We have desperately needed a genuine Revolution in this country for some time, especially as the self-governing constitutional republic model collapsed into an authoritarian global-imperial model. Government has divorced itself from the People and corporate control of government has been consolidated to the point where the People as such are simply irrelevant to the operations of either the government or the economy.

Because People Don't Matter. (The link is to what turned out to be the final online edition of "Because People Matter", a long time publication in Sacramento focused on Peace and Social Justice -- and always highly critical of the Powers That Be. Jeanie Keltner was the guiding light behind it and she was often in front of the progressive movements for change and for peace in this area. I have seen her in attendance at OccupySacramento, and I have spoken to her briefly about the difference between this effort and what we've known previously and about the importance of what's happening now.)

I was trying to catch up yesterday on some of the other things I've been neglecting during this period of simmering Revolutionary fervor, so I didn't go down to the Occupation in Cesar Chavez Plaza. Instead, I followed the happenings on the Internet and what was on the news on teevee. There has been extensive, but I wouldn't call most of it "in depth," coverage of the local Occupation, as well as considerable (often inaccurate) coverage of the national phenomenon, on the local news. The only local reporting that I've seen that gets a little deeper into what's going on was Univision's Noticias, but of course it was in Spanish, for a Spanish speaking audience. It tried to give as honest a picture as possible of what was happening, but that's a characteristic of of Noticias that simply doesn't exist in mainstream English language "news." When it comes to covering and reporting actual news locally, nationally and abroad, Univision's Noticias is far and away the leader in the field. If you need to get your news from television, learn Spanish and watch Noticias. You will be far better informed than 90% of English-only Americans.

But enough editorializing about that.

Yesterday, as I understand it, the New York City General Assembly (NYCGA) split the Occupation in New York into two components, one at Liberty Plaza and one in Greenwich Village at Washington Square, mostly due to the fact that the crowds had grown too large at Liberty Square (Plaza/Park) for reasonable participation and (dis)comfort.

This is the physical and social problem of scale that afflicts any popular participatory model of democracy that I know of. If it is to survive and flourish (most efforts don't, by the way), the scale of the model must be manageable. If it becomes too big, it falls apart. That's what was happening in New York. In some other cities, the Occupations are also facing the problem of scale. Boston and Chicago are examples. Portland had a kickoff Occupation rally and march that attracted 10,000 or more participants. I saw this as a distinct disadvantage to a successful Occupation, but the rally and march were events, whereas the Occupation itself involves a fairly limited number of dedicated individuals. The Occupation in Seattle ebbs and flows in attendance, but again, the primary participants are a few hundred -- which is generally a manageable number.

When thousands of participants are involved, the model starts to resist; the operational difficulty inherent in the model becomes paralyzing. Nothing can be resolved so nothing can be done -- except voluntarily on a very small scale apart from, indeed independent of, the main democratic forum. Alternatively -- and this happened in Athens during its ancient democratic era -- the Assembly becomes vulnerable to demagoguery and extraordinarily poor decision-making.

The Occupation-Resistance model seems to have originated in the resistance to the dictatorships in Eastern Europe, Poland's Solidarity movement being a prime example, which spread to South America and Asia. This is the model of resistance that Naomi Wolf advises American Occupations to adopt when she's ordering DON'T MARCH!!! The problem is that she is assuming that the goal of these Occupations is the overthrow of the government and its replacement, when -- so far as I can tell -- the government is simply considered irrelevant to the Occupiers, except as an irritant. Overthrow may or may not happen, but there is no intent at overthrow, none at this point at any rate. There are too many more important matters to consider.

This was made clear in the NYCGA's response to the police riot the marchers faced on September 24. It was basically one of interest but not obsession. The issue of police brutality was taken seriously, but it was not allowed to become the central focus of the General Assembly. The primary focus was still on a)"Wall Street," and b)the successful operations of an intentional community. The Government's misbehavior in general, including police brutality, was simply one of many subsidiary issues to those primary issues.

The Government's role, in other words, was quite consciously reduced to that of an appendage or servant to other more important players. The point being that the People are not one of those players. They and their concerns have been dismissed, if you will.

Which is the proximate cause of the uprisings. Just getting the attention of the Government doesn't matter in a political sense any more. Getting the attention of Government in New York now means you get your face full of pepper spray and you get bludgeoned with a nighstick for your trouble. You get disparaged by a mayor who is apparently oblivious to anything outside his own personal interest -- which doesn't, obviously, include the interests of the People. You get dismissed as "mobs" and "rabble." This attitude, on full and open display in New York, is a living example of why the People are in revolt against the Palace. The dismissal and violence toward the People, and the complete ignorance and indifference toward their issues, is why the People are in revolt. And it is why the People have no interest in playing the Government's games of phony politics as usual. "Present us with Demands! Tell us what you want! Support this or that legislation or candidate! Go! A! Way!"

That's over. That's done.

You could say the current phase of the Revolution-a-borning is the "No More Bullshit" phase. The Back-Turning Phase. The Just Who Are You? Phase, and Why Should Anyone Care?

It's a development that carries significant risks. By ignoring Authority and its arbitrary imposition, rather than overtly resisting or opposing it, those who wield Authority become enraged. And when they rage, chaos ensues.

But if the Occupations continue on the course they've chosen, the Rage of the Machine will wear out the Machine rather than the Occupiers.

And then what?

What would you want to see?

13 14 Arrested Last Night in Cesar Chavez Plaza

Photo by Jeremiah Mayhew of arrests at Cesar Chavez Plaza, Sacramento, 10-09-11

Apparently last night's arrests of Occupiers in Cesar Chavez Plaza went viral and national due to the livestreaming by the #OccupySacramento media team (who, by the way, have been doing an outstanding job under extreme pressure and with limited facilities, experience, and equipment). According to one report I saw this morning -- and I'm still sorting the stories out -- this is the only West Coast city that is still arresting Occupiers for the crime of peaceably assembling to assert the right of free speech and to press for the redress of grievances. I don't know whether that's actually true or not, but it would be interesting if it was.

Once again, Occupiers volunteered for arrest, the police behaved with complete courtesy and respect toward the Occupiers, courtesy and respect that was once again reciprocated by the Occupiers, and once again we'll repeat the cycle of what amounts to a highly ritualized -- but necessary -- refusal to comply, arrest, detention, and release to repeat the process again and again and again until the police themselves are released from this task to do more important work.

One of the points I've made is that the police have discretion in these cases; they do not have to arrest anyone. However, it appears that they are under orders from city management to clear the Plaza every night that the Occupation tries to stay. It's clear they would rather not be performing these arrests. There are far more important matters for them to attend to. On the other hand, there is this: they seem to genuinely like and respect the Occupiers that they have gotten to know, and they greatly appreciate the fact that there is no hostility toward the police force at all in the Plaza or among the Occupiers. In fact, there is a rather elaborate appreciation for them.

Plenty of issues about police conduct apart from this demonstration are raised by the Occupiers, some of whom have very intimate personal experience. But that's a different topic to be dealt with in a broader context. As far as the Occupation goes, the Sacramento Police Department, after some initial leeriness, has become a part of the Occupation itself, though without yet "joining." It could come. And it could come in ways we might not expect.

The Occupation is planning to address the City Council on Tuesday to press the council to allow the Occupation to continue in the Plaza unmolested by the police and ask them to let the Occupation stay overnight. Of course given the elaborate protocols involved with the public addressing the council at all, they may not be allowed to speak. On the other hand, this is not an issue that actually has to go before the council to be resolved. There doesn't have to be a resolution of support, as there was in Los Angeles; there doesn't have to be a direction to staff to study the issue and report back; there doesn't have to be any hearing or action by the council at all. Gosh knows, they have more important things to deal with than the People's needs and rights. The very most important thing on their plate right now is figuring out how to get a new basketball arena built so that the NBA and the owners of the Sacramento Kings are happy and satisfied. After that, they need to find ways to keep a whole raft of real estate developers and speculators happy. And so on. Priorities!

I admit, I'm very cynical about this mayor and council, as are many others in Sacramento. The lot of them are in the pockets of Big Sports and Big Real Estate, and making any headway with them will be almost miraculous.

But it is something that must be tried.

As I say, the council doesn't have take any action, staff is perfectly capable of handling it. And really, all they would have to do is to order a stop to the arrests. Period. That's it. They don't have to do anything else. Staff already has that authority. And by "staff" in this case, I mean the City Manager, the Parks and Recreation Director, and the Police Chief. They can do it on their own without involving the council.

From reports, though, calls to the City Manager are greeted with extraordinary hostility by his administrative assistant -- who simply cannot be bothered with this riff-raff pestering his office with incomprehensible requests and demands that they have no time for or interest in. If these reports are true, as I assume they are (I will not call the City Manager's office because I'd just be furious), it represents complete institutional breakdown -- not to mention incompetence on an epic scale. And this, by the way, represents a perfect example of why the 99% are up in arms and in the squares and in the streets.

It is for this reason: the People's interests and concerns are simply ignored or dismissed out of hand by those in power. The People have no voice that the Powerful believe they must pay attention to. This is a nearly textbook example of how the political system has failed and is failing the People.

And so it goes.

The fact that these Occupiers are volunteering to be arrested, some of them over and over again, is a testament to the importance of what the People are trying to do. It is being done in part to shame the authorities (not so much the police as it is intended to shame those who direct the police). It is being done in solidarity. And it is being done to demonstrate the fact that you have to be prepared to take risks and persist in your demands if you expect to gain anything.

The one day, safe and sane marches and demonstrations don't do it anymore. The polite requests don't do it any more. The unwillingness to step out of one's comfort zone, even for a cause that is just, won't do it any more. Regular forms of procedure won't do it any more.

Then there was this last night.

While I was at the Occupation, I attended the "Open Forum" held at the base of the Cesar Chavez statue. Anyone who wanted to was free to say whatever they wanted or needed to. Many topics were raised, from the support that many suburbanites have for what is going on in the Plaza, even if they can't always be there in solidarity to the promotion of the Zeitgeist Movement which is seeking to remake "everything." Eek.

I thought this guy was the most interesting, though:




October 8 -- or October 9th, as the case may be -- is the anniversary of the summary execution of Che Guevara in 1967 in Bolivia by troops under the auspices of the United States and the CIA. This is still a controversial action on the part of Bolivia and the United States, especially given the way American drones and assassination squads are currently roaming the globe liquidating whomever they choose -- and often anyone who is around them -- with complete impunity.

As is obvious, my online avatar is a picture of Che in a jolly mood, and my online ID has for many years been "Ché Pasa," which some people "get" -- but many don't.

This isn't meant to be The Official Explanation, but I wish people would actually think before they assume anything about the person behind the "Ché Pasa" identity. As I've said in other fora, I'm an old man. I was radicalized -- if you want to call it that -- by the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley and Mario Savio back in 1964; there were sympathy walk-outs in schools and colleges here by 1965, in solidarity with the actions of the students at Berkeley, and I was part of more than one of those walk-outs. I've been involved in political action for Dignity, Justice, Community, and Peace most of my life.

The image of Che Guevara was an important one during the upheavals of the 1960's, but I doubt that many people had any idea what and who was behind the image. It became a marketing image, a brand if you will. It still is. The image of Che doesn't really represent anything anymore except a commercialized "identity" based on nothing more than what's been sold for generations.

I was not a Che Radical Revolutionary in those days, and I'm still not, but I am and have always been a radical for Dignity, Justice, Community, and Peace, for the People, all of the People, all of the time. My "Ché Pasa" online ID is meant as more of a pun or joke based on the fact that the whole Che Thing has been little more than an image on a poster or tee shirt for decades, meant to represent some sort of Radicalism, but which in reality has long since passed its prime. "Ché" is also a Belgian men's magazine; through an old college friend who is an ex-pat guerrilla artist in Belgium (what a complete contradiction in terms!), I saw the magazine and laughed my head off. Had to capture the moment with an online reference, obscure as it is. As for "Pasa", it has to do with the past, but also with the question "¿Qué Pasa?" -- "what's up, what's goin' on?" -- that's at the base of any action one chooses to take.

So, came last night at Cesar Chavez Plaza, and this young fellow in a Che Guevara tee shirt gets up to speak to the assembled multitude (it wasn't an "assembly" as the Occupation uses the term) to say essentially that he's not in favor of all this talk -- which had preceded him from the Zeitgeist fellow -- about overthrowing the system or the Constitution, which is the only thing, he said, that was protecting our rights at all. He was warning people not to go there (that is not to go the Revolutionary route). Protect the Constitution, because it is the only thing that is protecting us.

Well. My. How radicalism has changed. There was just a bit of cognitive dissonance, and yet it seemed completely in keeping with the nature of the Occupations and how people involved in them are finding their way forward. Yes, there are plenty of Constitutionalists who believe they are protected by it. That's part of what the Occupation in Cesar Chavez Plaza -- and in many other places -- is about: asserting the right to peaceably assemble for the purpose of exploring and pressing grievances.

The Constitution supposedly guarantees that right.

On the other hand, another young fellow got up and addressed the issue of the Constitution by pointing out that it isn't a document that really protects us, We the People, it was written by and basically it still protects the elite. That has been its function all through the history of this Republic, and that is its -- obvious -- function today.

Overthrow may or may not be wise, but facing the stark truth of the matter is advisable.

Views differ. Discussion and argument is important. And in America today, a guy in a Che tee shirt might be more likely to make the case for protecting the Constitution than calling for Teh Revolution.

And a guy with an online identity taken from the whole Che thing but punning it, may spend many hours in consideration of the truly revolutionary spirit underlying the Occupations, and yet see them as a necessary -- indeed overdue -- burst of evolutionary action. It's a very swift social evolution that's taking place in real time, right here, right now. There is no other psychic place I'd rather be. This is it.

Make of it what you will.

On Failed and Arresting Institutions

I recorded California Democratic Party Progressive Caucus Chair Karen Bernal speaking with a couple of SEIU members at the #OccupySacramento demonstration yesterday at Cesar Chavez Plaza. This is only part of what she had to say that day, but I think it gives a good idea of where she's been coming from all along. Her activism is deeply grounded in the cause of justice -- economic, social, political, and legal justice -- and in this short clip, you can hear her condemn the failed institutions -- including the failed orthodox political processes -- that are being protested all over this land. She's been interviewed numerous times about the stand the Progressive Caucus took to "explore" primarying Obama due to the failure of the institutions in Washington, including the White House, to address and deal appropriately with the issues that affect so many of the American people. She says every time she does one of these interviews, she gets "tons" of hostile emails and phone calls from the Party establishment, essentially warning her to keep her goddamn mouth shut (bitch). She didn't use those terms, but I did as my interpolation of what she meant to say, but didn't want to put it so harshly on the public street.

Karen had earlier spoken about the danger to the OWS movement from the big institutional donors and "supporters" they are going to attract and are attracting. "That support comes with strings. Don't let them co-opt you." This seems like an obvious truism to those of us who have been involved in activist causes for many years, but most of those who are doing the Occupations seem not to have been involved in much of this kind of activism in the past, and the heady, stupendous growth of the movement and the sudden interest all of kinds of institutions -- from the White House's political operation on down -- have taken in "supporting" the movement is a real red flag to many of us who have been long time activists.

I pointed out to her that the issue of "hijacking" is raised all the time in the OWS framework; it seems everyone's aware of the potential, and there is a strong unwillingness to become anybody's political cadres, loyal troops or what have you, let alone become a slightly scruffier version of Democracy for America.

Well, that's as may be, the issue needs to be kept at the forefront, because all that money and apparently beneficial "love" from the major institutions will kill a genuine grassroots effort like this faster than Roundup.

She also discussed some of what's going on inside the CDP regarding the upcoming vote to re-certify the Progressive Caucus ...or not. I said I thought that she might be made a sacrificial lamb in order to satisfy those who want her head while keeping the Caucus in the Party. It is a really delicate dance they are trying to perform, because if they don't re-certify, they will have cut their own throats with large swaths of the California Democratic rank and file, and if they do re-certify, they have the dilemma of what amounts to a bunch of subversives in their midst. As the leadership seems to want to split the baby -- at least from my perspective -- Karen's role is likely to be the prime target. She thought that would be just fine; it's important to try to work within the Party, but she thought she could do so much more outside it; and if they chose to take her out while re-certifying the Progressive Caucus, she would be able to be a real activist again and maybe get a lot more done.

She was very encouraging about the OWS movement, and thought it had a lot of potential to bring about real change -- as long as it wasn't co-opted.

The issue might be particularly acute here in Sacramento because it is home to so many lobbyists and political consultants -- like Sal Russo, for example, who was instrumental in the both the growth and the hijack (if you want to call it that) of the TeaBaggers -- and much other mischief as well. These slime exist on both sides of the aisle, and the Democratic consultants and lobbyists are as worthless to the People as the Republican ones. The Democratic ones are worse in some ways because they love to massage the message to appeal to the lefties and then have their candidates give the left the shaft after they are elected.

So in my view, it's not just the big institutions you've got to watch out for, it's the consultant cadres, too. Especially in political seats like Sacramento and Washington DC. It's one reason I've tended to hold my tongue in meetings and assemblies of the local Occupation, and even on their forums and Facebook page, I will rarely offer my advice. I'll offer information, if I know it, otherwise, I think it is far more important that they find and make their own way through the thicket than that anyone tell them they should do it this way or that. They are finding their way, and they are doing it very quickly, sincerely, and openly.
----------------------------------------

Photo by Jeremiah Mayhew posted to OccupySacramento (Facebook)

Which brings us to the arrests of Occupiers last night in Sacramento. About a dozen people had said they were planning to spend the night in the plaza, which of course is a violation of some regulation, ordinance or measure. Of course it is. But they were hoping to convince the City to let it be. You can't win if you don't try.

(This is my interpretation of events based on what I've been able to see of what went on last night and this morning; the "official story" may be somewhat different.)

The city said "No." The police came around and informed the organizers that anyone still in the Plaza after 11:00pm would be subject to arrest. The legal team went to work and came up with a strategic plan: get the Occupation material and equipment out of the plaza before 11:00 -- because it would be subject to seizure by the police if they arrested anyone -- and prepare volunteers for arrest if they chose to stay as an act of conscious civil disobedience.

About a dozen volunteers said they were willing to be arrested. There was a call for supporters to come down to the plaza to witness and to support the cause, and they came in some numbers. From what I could see (all-hail the media team for Occupy Sacramento for getting so much live internet casting up and running so quickly last night), there were perhaps a hundred supporters at the Plaza by the time 11:00 came around.

The legal team advised the supporters of those who had volunteered for arrest to keep moving on the sidewalks -- standing still was a violation, and marching in place was not sufficient movement to avoid arrest -- and not to chant, for excess noise after 11:00pm was a violation as well. (Earlier, the police had been citing drivers who passed by the plaza and honked their horns in support of the demonstrators. "Unlawful use of horn." This only happens if the demonstration is considered to be "lefty." Sigh.)

Needless to say, the Occupation supporters on the sidewalks heard and ignored the legal advice to keep moving and not to chant and they became quite lusty and insistent in chanting and standing in solidarity with their brothers and sisters who were about to be sacrificed to the maw of Officialdom.

In the negotiation phase with the police, sound of which was simulcast on the internet, it was all very polite and almost ritualized with all the designated observers and photographers, and police department protocols and all the elaborate preparations for what was about to go down. During the wait before the paddy wagons arrived, someone in the crowd tried to instigate some sort of anti-police energy and that was blocked almost instantly. The point was made quite firmly that the police were not the enemy, they were part of the 99%, and they were doing their job. Relations with the police had been very cordial all day, and there was no reason at all to try to denounce them at this point. (I can testify; I spoke to one of the horse police during the day, and he couldn't have been more civil and respectful. Of course, he was putting on a show, but that's fine.)

The paddy wagons arrived, the scene was brilliantly lit -- compared to the utter darkness it had been enveloped in -- the media was assembled, the protesters and volunteers were officially warned.

Those who did not agree to be arrested were warned to "disperse" -- meaning go across the street or something, just don't be in the area where the arrests were to occur. Those who did volunteer were seated in a rough circle on the walkway. I couldn't see clearly, but it appeared they were trying to link arms, and yes they did sing "Kumbaya". So there. Later they assembled in rows as in the picture you see above, and some lay prone during the arrest.

It appeared for all the world to be classic passive resistance.

This is how what happened next was put by the Occupy Sacramento Media Team -- who documented the entire operation:

OccupySacramento

Thank you to our occupiers and Sacramento PD. You both showed great respect for each other. We must call to attention the fact that our protesters were punished for having doing nothing immoral. We simply exercised our First Amendment right in a non-violent manner. Please join us tomorrow at 10am for our General Assembly.

-Media Team

In other words, "Yay us -- all of us, including the police -- and Onward in Solidarity."

There are some rough videos of how it went down, as well as some "interesting" news casts from the local teevee stations, but I'll wait a bit to see what else emerges.

People are, as you can understand, tired and elated. This this first day of Occupy Sacramento has been something few of us really thought would ever happen.

There is so much more to do and so much farther to go.


"...the political orthodoxy and the political process has failed us... "

Another Jacobin Weighs In

How Can the Left Win?
By Richard Seymour · In Summer 2011

Of course it deals with Britain, but the situation is similar here. Well, except for the absence of a political "left" -- which still exists in Britain, even if it is largely co-opted by the Gods Who Walk Among Us.

The premise that the right is unified and ready whatever happens is pretty spot on. They not only have a unified message, they have a unified vision. This is how that have been able to succeed so well over the last few decades. In addition, they are relentless. Persistent. And absolutely determined.

I have long thought they learned their lessons from the Old Left. As I pointed out in my Kochevik series of posts, the Koch brothers were strongly influenced by what their father saw in the Soviet Union under Stalin, and in fact their philosophy is nearly Marxist. Their vision is an inversion of Soviet social and Marxist economic ideals, to be sure. But it is dependent on both Marx and the Soviet model.

What passes for the Left, but is actually a very conservative protector of the status quo in this country, has largely abandoned Marx altogether and would sputter in raging denial of any affinity with the Soviet Union or Stalin. In that they would be correct. The so-called "left" in this country isn't even remotely Socialist, let alone Social Democratic. It is conservative and elitist. Much like Rockefeller Republicans of days gone by.

Richard Seymour is writing about a political Left that is still viable in Britain and much of Europe, which is -- yes -- becoming more and more aligned with the what the conservatives used to be, more and more hidebound, and more and more devoted to preserving the status quo against the barbaric radicals of the other side.

It is the solutions that he recommends that I find interesting.

Now we can state, in slightly more abstract terms, what the strategic aims of the Left ought to be. First, since it is normal for people to entertain conflicting ideas and ambitions, we should aim to shift the weight of emphasis along the continuum away from reactionary resentment and toward popular and class-based anger. Secondly, we should destabilize the austerity alliance by attacking their weak links, and shaking free some loose elements ripe for re-appropriation. ... Thirdly, the aim is to re-articulate many of the same elements operated on by the Right into a new majoritarian leftist political mobilization.

The majority has long been far more closely aligned with the principles and policies that we associate with the Left than it is with those of the ostensible Right, but what's happened, especially in this country, and especially since the Reagan years and collapse of the Soviet Union, is that the genuine Left has clammed up, essentially gone silent, and an ersatz political "left," within the Democratic Party and among the Libertarians that infest the internet masquerading as "progressives," has taken its place in public consciousness.

A consequence has been a captured political and electoral system that serves the immediate and pecuniary interests of its sponsors.

Shifting the emphasis away from resentment and toward what I would characterize as righteous anger is essential, and it is happening. The Occupation forces are countering resentments -- for example, that public employees like cops (still) have pensions -- by calls for everyone to have a decent retirement. Why should 20% of children live in poverty in this country? Why should anyone be homeless?

We know why. Those who have the most won't be satisfied until they have it all. They are trying to steal the Future from everyone else.

The whole "austerity" gambit is intended solely to entrench the highest levels of the Ruling Class in their positions forever and to do it at the expense of everyone else. Forever.

The People are rising up and resisting. "End the Wars, Tax the Rich." Very simple, but getting it done is proving to be nearly impossible. The People must persist.

The People will win. It is inevitable.

The current movement is "transpartisan," neither right nor left, but beyond them. The Leftist ideals are still motivational; their realization, however, seems to be possible only outside the political and electoral system. Understandably, this makes the political parties nervous, in ways they weren't at all nervous about the TeaBaggers -- knowing as they did that the 'Baggers were a branch of the established Republican Party and were funded by well known and respected billionaires. The Occupation Movement seems to have come out of nowhere -- which is not quite what happened, but set that aside -- and has no clear line of authority back to any political party or even ideology, nor does it seem to be funded by anything other than grassroots contributions of money and supplies.

It is legitimately outside the system.

It isn't controlled by anyone. It is fully open and participatory.

Scary, hunh?

Well, it is to the Ruling Class, or at least it should be if they've been paying any attention to Movements this year.

They should be.

Revolujah!

Reverend Billy fired up the Liberty Plaza crowd this afternoon.



I was watching the chatroom on Livestream at the time, and the room exploded with fury that this ChurchMan had been allowed to "invade" the park to proselytize, just screaming denunciations. People tried to say it was a satirical performance, it was "art," etc. The screamers would have none of it. "No! you can't turn this wonderful protest over to the Church!!!!" Yes, well. The people in the park loved it.

Matt Stoller refers to the "protests" as the Church of Dissent.

Matt Stoller: #OccupyWallStreet Is a Church of Dissent, Not a Protest

After the Reverend Billy, an Iraqi American took the floor to quote an excerpt from an Arabic poem about freedom ("I love to live in Freedom!"). He did the "mic check" version of it -- in Arabic -- which everyone in the park repeated dutifully and seemed to really appreciate. Nevertheless the chatroom went ballistic. "He's a jihadi!"

The mods had to shut down and clear the room repeatedly.

All this suggests that there are some rising tensions over the fact that the action has gone on two weeks without coming up with a long-form statement of issues/demands to satisfy the media with. (There were other things going on that showed the testiness on the ground as well today -- including rain.)

It's to be expected.

Nothing they're doing is easy in any way, no matter how festive it may seem most of the time.

Celebrate!

Two stories in my newswipe struck me this morning perhaps more than most employment related stories do.

In Politics, according to Democratic strategist Gary South California Governor Jerry Brown has to ask himself: "How much of Labor's agenda can [Brown] veto and still have the kind of Labor support he's going to need if he's going to put tax [increase-extension] measures on the ballot in 2012?"

The bills in question:

Senate Bill 202
The bill, by Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, would require ballot initiatives in 2012 to be put on the November ballot. The measure would favor Democrats and their labor allies in initiative campaigns because Democratic turnout for the November presidential election is expected to be far higher than in the June primary.

Senate Bill 126
The bill, a compromise measure proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown and negotiated by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and the United Farm Workers union, would give farmworkers greater protections in labor disputes with growers. Brown previously vetoed legislation that would have let farmworkers organize by submitting signed petition cards instead of by secret ballot.

Assembly Bill 101
The bill, amended at the legislative deadline to include language by Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, would let unions organize child-care providers who work out of the home. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, vetoed similar legislation three times.

Assembly Bill 740
The bill, by Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield, D-Woodland Hills, would strengthen existing restrictions on state agencies using private contractors, forcing them to immediately end business with a private vendor if the State Personnel Board rules that the contract violates state law. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, vetoed similar legislation.

Assembly Bill 183
The bill, by Assemblywoman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, would prohibit grocery stores from selling beer, wine or liquor using electronic self-checkout lanes.

Senate Bill 922
The bill, by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, would allow public agencies to require project labor agreements on construction projects, typically favoring unionized workers.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/12/3902398/raft-of-labor-backed-bills-are.html#ixzz1Xkje1LQp

The "problem" with these bills is that they are backed by Labor, and in today's climate of crisis/opportunity for the Predatory Class, "Labor backed bills" are a no-no. Even Big Democrats like Jerry Brown are expected to veto -- or fight -- any advances for Labor under any circumstances, and up to this point, despite overwhelming Labor support for his candidacy and election in 2010, Jerry Brown has done his part. No one in office is a friend of Labor these days, and that includes Jerry Brown and most of the other Democratic officials. The point, of course, is to hamstring organized labor and drive down wages and benefits no matter what. And Democrats in office, led by the White House, have been almost as eager to engage in the practice as Republicans. They're just not as rude and cruel about it. Generally.

The other story was from the New York Times and it is headlined:

Auto jobs coveted even at lower pay
2-TIER WAGES BOOST LABOR POOL

It's about some assembly line workers at a Jeep factory in Detroit being paid half ($14 vs $28) what long-time employees make, and with eliminated or significantly reduced benefits to boot, and workers are lining up by the tens of thousands for these lower-paid manufacturing jobs. It's being touted as an amazing success story of the much maligned auto bailout from the early Obama years.

"Everybody is appreciative of a job and glad to be working," said Derrick Chatman, who makes $14.65 an hour putting tires on Jeeps after being laid off at Home Depot, working odd construction jobs and collecting unemployment.

What was once seen as a desperate move to prop up the struggling auto industry is now considered an integral part of its future. The demand for $14-an-hour manufacturing jobs is providing Detroit's Big Three automakers with a ready pool of eager new employees. Last year, Chrysler was flooded with inquiries about the jobs, and it froze the list after receiving 10,000 applications.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/12/3902401/auto-jobs-coveted-even-at-lower.html#ixzz1Xkn6iU4G

Of course, as I've said many times, the whole point of the Obama administration's economic policies was to drive down wages and benefits typically by as much as 50%, for those who can get and keep jobs at all. And sure enough, here is a news story CELEBRATING the "success" of this policy.

People are desperate for employment; they'll take whatever they can get.

Employers like it. They love it. They want more of it. It's working so well. And the policies out of Washington DC and state capitols all over the country, including California's -- where every state office is held by a Democrat and the legislature is all but 2/3rds Democratic in both houses.

In other words, as perfectly evil as Scott Walker and his ilk and his sponsors are toward Labor, it's not that much better -- indeed only marginally so -- with Democrats in state houses and in the White House.

Labor is screwed no matter what.

I look at this situation as say, "Yes, the Dems are arguably marginally better on Labor and economic issues, sometimes. But most of the time, the best you can get out of elected Dems is lip service toward Labor issues and doing the right thing economically. They will enact -- and eventually extend -- the same policies as most Republicans will, and they will call it 'progressive'. And for their part, most labor unions will go along with it. 'To prevent further layoffs.'"

It's a vicious cycle, a race to the bottom, and no one in office is the least bit interested in reversing the trend.

Changing out whoever is in charge doesn't seem to impede the momentum of inertia that is moving all policy rightwards. Big Democrat, Friend of Labor, it doesn't matter. All policy is moving rightwards, constantly, with extraordinary speed.

At this point, it's obvious that electoral politics has little effect on the process of policy. This factor is part of my theory of the "divorce" of Government from the People -- or even acknowledgement by Government of the People's interest. It simply doesn't exist as a factor to consider any more.

The reasons are partly due to the fact that labor will yield, a fact which has been demonstrated over and over and over again. Union leadership is pathetic. When push comes to shove, they will not stand up for their membership, except (sometimes) on the most marginal of matters. Core matters of wages, benefits, working conditions and so on they yield on almost every time, even if there is a strike. Of course they do it out of a sense of doing "what's practical." If they don't yield, in other words, things will be worse for workers. If they yield quietly, sometimes they can gain a little around the margins on behalf of workers. What do you do?

When Labor yields, (almost) every time -- which is what they do -- why should policy-makers be in the least concerned about "labor issues?"

The same is true of every policy. If the People will do nothing in response to policies that the policy-makers need to concern themselves about, why should they be at all concerned with the People or the Public Interest?

Obviously, the Class War is won. We the People lost.

And these days, We the People aren't even fighting it any more.

October can't come soon enough.

Nationalism vs Tribalism vis-à-vis Iraq

I've taken some commentators apart over their ignorant and arrogant misuse of "tribalism" to describe what is really Nationalism. It's a fairly easy task given that one of the justifications they use for their mischaracterization of tribalism is George Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism." Orwell doesn't mention "tribalism" but he describes Nationalism in starkly specific detail, pointing out that many, many "isms" of the modern era are all versions of Nationalism. That is apparently a difficult concept for some folks to grasp. They seem to need to believe that nationalism and tribalism are the same thing. They're not.

The difference is that of scale, most obviously. But there is also the difference between "mindlessness" and "mindfulness." Tribalists are for the most part "mindful" of their loyalties and their sense of place and purpose. It's really quite remarkable. Nationalists, on the other hand, are deliberately made "mindless." De-tribalization is a necessary step in the process of creating a Nationalist enterprise because it is necessary to replace the mindfulness of the tribe with the mindlessness of the Nation.

I'm reminded of all this again because of the hooey over the "End of Combat Operations" in Iraq, once again, supposedly, solidifying the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iraq as an Independent Nation.

Well. Hold on. This "sovereignty" thing has been something of a bête noire with regards to Iraq throughout the last 20 years or so, since the end of Combat Operations in the first Gulf War. Shortly thereafter, Northern Iraqi Kurdistan was calved off as an Autonomous Region under an American protectorate. A "no fly zone" was established over the southern and largely Shia part of Iraq which was lethally enforced by American military might. At that point, Iraq as a "sovereign nation" ceased to exist in any sensible form.

But then, as a Nation, Iraq was created by Winston Churchill drawing some lines on a map of Mesopotamia in the British Colonial Office after WWI and the break up of the Ottoman Empire.

Mesopotamia was never a Nation. It is not in any viable sense a Nation now. There is no national government to speak of, and despite all the stresses and strains they have been under during the Saddamist years and under the Occupation, city-states, tribes and tribalism endure as the fundamental units of society and such governance as there is.

This is not necessarily a bad thing.

Much as Tito in Yugoslavia tried to form a Nation out of the disparate afterthoughts of Ottoman and Austrian Empires in Europe, Saddam tried to make Iraq into a Nation in Mesopotamia. Both temporarily succeeded, ultimately failed. Such failure was almost foregone.

In the Former Yugoslavia, after an intense period of domestic upheaval and civil war -- and international intervention -- a series of independent states were established based on essentially ethnic and to some extent tribal lines. Czechoslovakia was broken up, too. The smaller states that have taken the place of these former Nations are more comprehensible and appropriate to the will and interests of their citizens, whereas the more or less artificial amalgamations of ethnic, religious, and tribal affiliations that had been assembled into Nation-States by the Great Powers after World Wars I & II never really made any local sense.

So it is in Iraq.

It seems that Iraq has been trying to come apart into its constituent parts since the invasion, but the occupiers, not knowing what to do, fought shadows and demons, while the peoples of Iraq attempted to sort out a future for themselves -- and were thwarted at every turn.

Autonomous Kurdistan was the exception to the rule of constant interference with and destruction of everything the Iraqis tried to do to govern themselves. They were trying to do it almost from the moment Saddam was overthrown, and every step they took toward their own forms of self-government was thwarted, often quite brutally.

They were to submit, first, to the occupation forces, subsequently to the puppet regime installed by the occupiers, thence, they were to be subjected to a "managed democracy" that had some of the forms of democratic institutions but was in essence a sham.

What the Iraqis have been saying to the occupiers is that they are capable of governing themselves. They've been doing it for thousands of years, even under the many harsh (and/or benign) occupations of the past. They don't have to have a strong central government, they don't even need the trappings of Nationalism. Tribal structure is still very strong. And from their tribal base, Iraqis can assemble a functioning self-government. They know how to do it.

If only they were left alone.

The struggle comes when one group tries to oppress another or steal their means of living or survival.

Some months back, most of the ministries in Baghdad were blown up -- apparently by the Insurgency (that amorphous assembly of resisters.) More than likely the deed was done -- as so many similar instances in Baghdad and elsewhere have been done -- by Sunni resisters who hold a grudge and a grievance against the ruling Shia majority. The Sunnis largely stopped their resistance during the relatively brief period of the so-called Surge when they were being paid by the Americans not to fight. When those payments stopped, the resistance resumed with great violence and bloodshed.

What seems clear is that the Sunni Arabs are intent on making Iraq ungovernable -- unless their demands are met. They were the ruling minority under Saddam, and before that under the British and before that under the Ottomans. They seem willing to give up rule so long as they receive fair compensation on negotiated terms. Which the ruling Shia majority won't countenance. In fact, the ministries were blown up soon after the so-called Government in Baghdad decided not to resume payments to the Sunnis. It was obvious the one led to the other.

This whole No-Negotiation regime was part and parcel of the early stages of the occupation, and it was soon obvious where that path was leading. It was years into the occupation before it dawned on the real rulers of Iraq -- the military -- that it was a simple matter to stop the insurgency, something they might have realized the day they took over the Republican Palace.

But their neo-con ideology, utopianism, and deep contempt for "Sand Niggers" forbade it.

Tribalism is actually the solution to the Nationalist problem in Iraq.

But how many more years must go by before that is figured out?