Getting Caught Up

While I've been spending so much time a) packing; b) transcribing and posting excerpts from "The Peril of Fascism," the world continues to turn.

The Occupy National Gathering concluded in Philadelphia on July 4th and a Vision Statement of Sorts was produced. It's basically a list of ideas and ideals to work toward; some might call it a list of "demands" but I would say there is no one, really, to make demands of in that Our Rulers long ago declared their divorce from the rest of us commoners. Our Rulers are on another plane, it would seem, unapproachable, unaccountable, distant, and indifferent to the pleadings of the People -- whether in the streets or not.

This is the first 20 items on the Vision Statement as it is being circulated now:

203 clean water, air, and food
186 free education for all
158 no war
116 sustainable human society
110 a culture of direct democracy
108 free universal healthcare
106 local food production, community gardens, & permaculture agriculture
104 economic equality
95 localized economies
93 a world where basic needs are met
92 military-industrial complex destroyed; military spending slashed
85 economic system based not on profits, but mutual aid and meeting all
human needs
85 housing for all
82 workplace democracy and worker-owned co-ops
79 freedom to live anywhere: no borders, no nations
77 a collective, horizontal, non-hierarchical society
73 corporate power and influence rejected
72 all cultures respected equally

The numbers refer to the number of instances these items were listed by participants in the "Visioning Process" on July 4.

This being Occupy, there's some criticism because it's "not really a Vision Statement," and because it is not tied to any course of action. Nevertheless, it is a step toward defining and clarifying the mutual vision of the many tens and hundreds of thousands of Americans who have been part of the Occupy Movement.

One person, I noted, complained that the "vision" wasn't, erm, revolutionary enough for her. Yes, well, that's a fact. Occupy is the strangest sort of revolutionary movement, organic rather than impulsive, based -- as can clearly be seen above -- in a biological conception of society rather than... well, even finding the right word for what we have now is daunting. It's not exactly civilization...

Occupy is unlike any revolution that has gone before, and in many fundamental ways -- though not necessarily obvious ways -- it's already a stunning success. The authoritarian display the Po-Po (I'm growing fond of that term for the police) put on in New York to welcome the 99 Mile Marchers -- which resulted in a handful of bizarre and brutal arrests (including a livestreamer, who got it all on video) and the terrorizing of a couple of (literally) old ladies was taken in stride. As Nate said over and over again as he was recording the events at Zuccotti/Liberty Plaza, "It's what the NYPD does; it's what the police do all over the country." It's who they are, an identity thing. Sorry to say. There were confrontations, but they have become so highly ritualized they are almost meaningless. People are learning to regard the police as a screwed up nuisance. In fact, all civic authority is falling into that category. How many thousands of Occupiers have been arrested? How many injured? How many banksters? There you are, then, the perfect image of completely screwed civil priorities.

So long as that's the case, "authority" will continue to be delegitimized. And the Revolution will continue, essentially on a parallel track rather than a confrontational one. It's a matter of replacement rather than reform.

I've been dealing with the resurgence of fascism and the eerie comparison of what's going on now with what was going on during the 1930's. But there's nothing comparable to the Leftist/labor/Socialist/Communist opposition to fascism now that was so very strong then. There's something else, something deeper that a political ideology. It's not even the kind of anarchism that I find myself attracted to; it's deeper than that.

This is a highly moral effort, and that, I think, is its chief strength. It's moral rather than material. People are not so much concerned with having stuff or necessarily improving their standard of living or holding on to something of the past. They are looking forward to a better future that they create themselves, sustainable, beautiful, filled with life and love and sunshine and music to be sure, but most of all, morally righteous. Doing what's right for one another; doing what's right for the planet; peace, love and harmony.

Dignity, Justice, Community, Peace.

In some sense, the point of the Visioning process is to cause this better world that possible to spontaneously arise.

It may not work, but then again...

Values, Vision, Goals, Strategies and Tactics

On the flannel board... a hierarchical representation of Values, Vision, Goals, Strategies and Tactics

Over the years, I've been involved in many organizational start up and strategic planning efforts, and I've found that there are practically as many ways to do it as there are consultants to tell you how to do it. The basic format, though, stays pretty much the same.

Start with a set of Values. Expand Values into a Vision (in an organization, the Vision may be indistinguishable from a Mission or they may be quite separate). The Vision tells you where you are heading. The Mission tells you the purpose of heading there.

Set measurable Goals on the path toward fulfilling your Vision/Mission. (Objectives are interim steps toward organizational Goals and can help clarify what you need to do along the way, but setting Goals and Objectives for particular actions is a separate matter.)

Develop Strategies for reaching Goals: Strategies are the means employed to reach Goals, for example, my Strategy for getting to San Francisco tomorrow may be by riding the Capitol Corridor train.

Utilize Tactics to fulfill the Strategy: Tactics are the methods employed to fulfill Strategies, for example, if my Strategy for getting to San Francisco tomorrow is by riding the Capitol Corridor, then my Tactics might include purchasing a ticket online, checking the schedule, getting to the station at some ungodly hour, and so on.

As I've traveled around to various Occupys -- virtually by means of
the internet and through various discussion groups, and on the ground in
person -- and as I've tried to pay attention to what's going on in the
global context and witnessed and participated in numerous goal
setting, strategy and tactics discussions, four Values keep
percolating to the surface:

• Dignity
• Justice
• Community
• Peace

From these Values an overarching Goal emerges:

• To change the economic, political and social Systems -- to make them fairer, more equitable and just, and to ensure sustainability for life on Earth -- including our species
  

A range of Strategies are employed to accomplish this Goal, but
they typically resolve to two:

• by delegitimizing present authority and
• by demonstrating how a better world is not only possible but can,
does and will work

Tactics vary widely depending on the circumstances, locations,
objectives, and the people involved. Taken as a whole, however:

the Occupy Movement is by definition an organic, evolutionary,
international Nonviolent Resistance Campaign -- one that
occasional incidents of vandalism and/or throwing things does not and
cannot change.

As a corollary, I've found a wide-spread recognition that the
Movement creates its own Narrative and does not depend on major mass
media for definition or accuracy in reporting (See: "delegitimizing
present authority" above).

There is no sign anywhere that the Occupy Movement is becoming or
likely to become a Violent Resistance Campaign involving armed
insurrection or the threat or use of deadly force; it's just not part
of the organic and evolutionary nature of Occupy.

During a Occupy Strategy forum I attended last weekend, however, a
question was raised regarding what might happen if governments in the
United States choose to employ lethal force against the Occupy
Movement. Would that change its nature?

From my perspective, the answer is "No." Hundreds and hundreds have
already been injured, some nearly fatally. Thousands upon thousands
have been arrested, many of whom have been held under torturous
conditions. If anything, the essential nature of the Occupy Movement
has been strengthened by these events. Ratcheting up the level of
force used against the Movement has been occurring from the beginning,
and there is no sign that continuing to ratchet up the force levels
will change the nature of the Movement.

By recognizing and maintaining values of Dignity, Justice, Community,
and Peace, keeping our focus on the goal of changing the economic,
social and political systems to make them fairer, more equitable and
just, and to ensure sustainability for life on Earth and our species,
by a simultaneous strategy of delegitimizing present authority and
building up and demonstrating alternatives, utilizing creative and
nonviolent resistance tactics, the Occupy Movement is truly revolutionary and unstoppable.

Just some thoughts to throw into the ever-bubbling cauldron.

The Always "Starting to Think", Always "On the Edge of the Cliff" or "About to Hit the Iceberg" Metaphors -- Or, Man the Lifeboats!

http://youtu.be/YYmQG3YlAoA

Here we are, many long and weary years into a global economic catastrophe, a financial meltdown of titanic proportions, with millions upon millions of people being forced into poverty every year, with homelessness, hunger and disease growing alarmingly, but to read about conditions in the mainstream media or on the internet, you'd almost never know it.

Instead, absolutely all the discussion -- and panic -- is about a potential or coming economic catastrophe if "we" either do or do not increase the debt ceiling, if "we" do or do not "default" on the debt.

We are "on the edge of the cliff!"

We are "about to hit the iceberg!"

No. And no I say again. We have already gone over the cliff -- long ago, too. We already hit the iceberg, long ago, and the ship sank. We're in the lifeboats (some of us) debating who gets thrown into the freezing ocean next.

THAT'S what's going on, and those are the correct metaphors for our misery -- and what's left of our hope. But it is never discussed that way on the internet or in the mainstream because of certain locutions and conventions which propose that we are always just "starting to think," always "on the edge of the cliff," always just about "to hit the iceberg." The upshot being that we can always pull back or change direction -- when actually we're facing a completely new and more difficult reality.

It reminds me of a once universal and conventional rule in the geologic and astronomic sciences that proposed that the Earth and Solar System were always "about midway" in their lifespans, no matter what the evidence indicated. It's actually intended as a calming metaphor. Our world has come thus far and has at least as far left to go before it all sputters out. We are in The Middle, and isn't it grand?

"Isn't it grand?" So long as we can make believe it is so, then it is.

I'm not at all into Doom Blogging, but neither do I want to be entirely Panglossian about our mutual condition. We have most certainly gone over the cliff and hit bottom. We hit the iceberg, too. The ship sank. We watched from the leaky lifeboats as it did, while some still onboard kept rearranging those deck-chairs and thinking of England. Until it was too late.

Now what? is the appropriate question.

Now what?

I've been saying for some time that we need to re-envision a Future, because our "former Future" has been stolen from us. It's gone. We don't have that any more, and one of the signs of it is the end of the Space Shuttle program, in effect ending the American manned space program indefinitely. Americans in Space was very much a part of our collective consciousness and collective Future until very recently, and now the likelihood of it ever happening has almost vanished completely. I've posted links and clips showing what the Future used to look like (and there are a number of wonderful websites that get into it, too), and watching something like "2001: A Space Odyssey" today is really kind of shocking. To think that Stanley Kubrick's 1968 vision, based on Arthur C. Clarke's vision, of what the near Future would look like and what would be available for us to do was considered reasonable extrapolation at the time, and so little of it has come to pass, mostly relatively minor things, pretty much none of the Big Things at all (though we might want to discuss the issue of Personal Computers and the Internet, which really weren't even on the horizon in 1968 -- and why weren't they thought of seriously by Futurists in those days?)

My point is only that the Future that Used To Be is no longer operative -- or even conceivable any more. That phase of human progress is done, and American leadership of that endless quest for knowledge (which ultimately was what it was all about) has concluded -- with both a whimper and a bang. The United States and the American People are not in the lead of Progress any more; for all intents and purposes, that torch has been handed off to China with a hope and a prayer that this Chinese Century of Progress will turn out well for all concerned.

"I for one welcome our new Chinese Overlords!"

We may need to get used to thinking that way, but more importantly, as I see it, we need to think much more clearly and fully on how we want our Future, and the Future of our descendents, to be. Since the Future Vision we might once have had cannot be realized under the current circumstances, what should we have in our minds for the Future instead?

Doom and Gloom? Not in my book.

Not at all. Good heavens no.

But we do have to be realistic about the situation we're in right now, and we need to avoid falling into the metaphors and locution traps that propose that we haven't hit that Titanic Iceberg yet.

From the Lifeboat, in other words, what can we envision?

In the movie, of course, mere survival is the characters' primary concern, and survival is not possible for some of them. Their numbers will be reduced, and that's just reality, though we realize that their choices are not necessarily wise. Panic is frequent. Suffering is endured. On and on.

And yet there is a Future Vision among them, not just of Rescue (which will come, yes), but of what the survivors hold dear and want to make of their lives and leave to Posterity. That vision helps them survive.

And of course they watched the ship sink. They know they're in a lifeboat. The context, of course, of this film was WWII, and it was war fighting that got them in this predicament. They know they are all in this lifeboat together, even with an enemy, as it turns out. They must, one way or another, find a way forward -- while simultaneously finding a way to survive. From a practical standpoint, it is The Man With The Plan, ie: the Nazi U-Boat captain who sank their ship in the first place, who browbeats and muddles them through to the point where they can be rescued -- somewhat miraculously (well, it's a movie after all!)

The New York Times reviewed the movie in 1944 in somewhat of astonishment, for it does propose that the Nazi "Superman" is the only one really capable of putting the lifeboat's occupants on a course to eventual survival.

There remains the alarming implication, throughout all the action of this film, that the most efficient and resourceful man in this "Lifeboat" is the Nazi, the man with "a plan." Nor is he an altogether repulsive or invidious type. As Walter Slezak plays him, he is tricky and sometimes brutal, yes, but he is practical, ingenious and basically courageous in his lonely resolve. Some of his careful deceptions would be regarded as smart and heroic if they came from an American in the same spot.

Obviously Mr. Hitchcock and Mr. Steinbeck failed to grasp just what they had wrought. They certainly had no intention of elevating the "superman" ideal—nor did the responsible studio, Twentieth Century-Fox. But we have a sneaking suspicion that the Nazis, with some cutting here and there, could turn "Lifeboat" into a whiplash against the "decadent democracies." And it is questionable whether such a picture, with such a theme, is judicious at this time.

Yes. Certainly. "...judicious at this time." Truly. How droll.

But that's playing on the Practical response to catastrophe; I'm more interested at this point in the visions each of the characters have of where they are and where they are going, and in whatever moral sense they may have of their Future.

And it is from that perspective that we need to "start" thinking about our own Future.