Visions of Spring

This past semester was my first real dive into full-time student organizing. I had been a supporter and outsider for various campaigns on campus throughout my college career, but it wasn’t until Spring 2010 that I really went all out.

The PHEEIA (Public Higher Education Empowerment and Innovation Act), cuts to the SUNY system and tuition hikes were all on the table and the momentum behind activism in defense of public education motivated me and others to take up the cause on our campus. The semester was not as productive, campaign-wise, as we would have liked it to have been. It was an amazing breakthrough, however, when it came to growing as individuals, comrades and student activists. We learned a lot of lessons and gained a lot of experience which can only be obtained through trial and error.

I’d been contemplating writing a critique of our organizing for quite some time. Given that I am no longer a student, I can’t simply internalize the lessons and reapply myself next semester. That’s the job of those who are still on campus. What I can do, however, is convey the experience from my perspective and maybe provide some insight as to what I felt our strengths and weaknesses were and how activism at Stony Brook can improve in the future. I hope, too, that these lessons are not only applicable at one particular university.

---

In the Fall of 2009 I studied abroad in Mexico with the Mexico Solidarity Network. During this time I was in pretty constant contact with Brian Kelly who was instrumental in introducing me (electronically) to many of the key organizers I would work with the following semester. In particular he expressed Doug La Rocca as an individual with similar values to me as someone I should link up with once I returned to the States. I contacted Doug while abroad and we began to talk about mobilizing against tuition hikes and budget cuts, as these were topics that were particularly important to him. I was reading a lot of Gramsci at the time and was less concerned with what to campaign for rather than the act of campaigning. I saw the need for any political endeavor to bring together sympathetic souls, build an organizing network and also develop a social network of activists on campus who could mobilize together.

In January 2010 Doug and I met for the first time and began discussing the topic. Each time we met Doug had a stack of books on the subject from the library while I had a lot to say about different actions we could take and how we should structure the campaign. We hadn’t yet reached out to anyone. We spent the next few weeks meeting up daily, gathering information and discussing potential allies. Finally we decided to have an “official” meeting. We only reached out to a handful of people, but those people brought people and we were in the basement of the Stony Brook Union surrounded by fifteen sympathetic souls discussing the issue and strategy. We were more than ecstatic.

We decided to aim at March 4th as our first action, in solidarity with the international actions that would be taking place that day. Due to a number of scheduling conflicts and considerations, we decided that March 3rd would actually be optimal and so it was. We would spend the coming weeks writing op-eds for the university papers, constantly canvassing campus and using various social networks to get the word out. Optimistically we expected around 500 people. Realistically we assumed about 75 people would show up. In the end we were pleasantly surprised with a turn out of around 200 people. We had some speakers, collaborated with the Graduate Student Employees Union and bussed the mass of students to a press conference that the university president, Samuel Stanley, was holding just off campus to protest where the media was.

All in all the action was a success. The rest of the semester, however, we would be met with dwindling turn-outs, plummeting morale and an ongoing discussion both about vanguardism as well as action v. organizing…

I will introduce each point and then elaborate on all of them collectively afterward.

The University As A Means

From here on out I’m going to frame everything individually, as I can’t speak on behalf of anyone else. I saw the university as an end. I believed in the growth of a “student movement”, the development of a real campus community and successfully waged campaigns in coordination with other campuses internationally. I was looking at the university through sunglasses from ‘68, though. In my opinion, the days of the student movement (as we understand it) are over. Campuses are no longer cohesive communities where the students feel their stake and develop a sense of social responsibility. They are cliquey pit stops between adolescence and career wage-slavery, now. They are, in essence, a posse, a beer and a piece of paper. Given this shift, we must adjust our strategy. We should see the university, then, as a pit stop on the way to meaningful revolutionary organizing and action. The university is a means. It is a vehicle and not a destination.

The Vanguard

We dealt a lot with whether or not we were “too centralized” or acting as too much of a “vanguard”. We worried about it so much, in fact, that we tended to avoid delegating real responsibility. What I didn’t realize at the time (I was very worried about becoming a “vanguard”) was that having structure and organization is key to avoiding the formation of a vanguard. Power doesn’t simply disappear, it just gets redistributed. While there was no formal power to be had, social relations, schedules and very likely race and gender dynamics determined who commanded more authority, more respect and more influence in the organizing. Avoiding formal organization didn’t prevent a vanguard, it allowed a power “free market” to develop which was not only incredibly inefficient in allocating power (sound familiar?) but ultimately made for a lot of confusion and inefficiency in organizing.

Action v. Organizing

Prior to March 3rd a few New School “activists” showed up at Stony Brook to talk about student “organizing”. I was still pretty new, uninformed about the New School actions and since they seemed nice enough and spoke with authority I was pretty susceptible to their propaganda. These two have been characterized, since, as insurrectionists or “Peter PAnarchists” and those descriptions, in my opinion, are pretty dead-on. I, unfortunately, followed the trend of valuing action over organization as well as propaganda by the deed. I hadn’t completely gone off the deep end, but I definitely leaned towards action as a means of mobilization.

I got especially anxious and selfish towards the end of the semester. Seeing as I was graduating, I wanted there to be a “boom”. I wanted to go out with a bang. I convinced myself that some kind of militant action would spring the campus into consciousness and pushed pretty hard for a rooftop occupation of the Student Activities Center. Thank goodness it didn’t get off the ground. I don’t know how many others felt the way I did, or at least sympathized. I do know, however, that all of us not being on the same page didn’t help whatsoever and ended up stunting any real organizing we could have accomplished in the last month and a half of the semester.

Wrap Up

Given these (very) basic critiques, I’m going to propose what we should have done and what I believe should be done in the coming semesters for those folk who are still Stony Brook students. Acknowledging the fact that I was wrong about a lot of things only six months ago, I could very well be wrong about some of these things and not realize it until six months from now. The old rule applies here: take the best, leave the rest.

The first step is reevaluating our perception of campus organizing. Our focus should be the horizon, beyond the university, because that is the focus of most college students today. We shouldn’t be thinking about building a student “movement”. We should be thinking about building the movement. This entails smaller, easier reform based campaigns on campus with a focus on education, awareness raising, building social ties and radicalization. We should look at each new addition to the community not as solely an instrument for the current campaign but, rather, as a comrade and someone who will venture out into an institution post-grad and will influence that institution as well as their new social connections through the experiences they had and the radicalization they’ve gone through. This means that our biggest concerns should be developing a strong social network that isn’t merely a bunch of people with the same stake. This means making real friends (not just for the sake of making friends) and developing an environment through which new activists and sympathizers can feel less alienated, more accepted and have access to boundless resources (both social and material) which will assist them in becoming educated on core values such as complementary holism.

While the activism shouldn’t be tied to a formal student organization (for many reasons we discussed this past semester), there is a need for informal structure and organization. The drafting of a mission statement and a constitution can be helpful in clearly laying out boundaries and goals. The creation of committees and perhaps even some elected positions (with automatic democratic recall, of course) will certainly assist in delegating responsibilities and holding people accountable (which are two problems we had). Informal structure can also assist in the creation of a committee dedicated to suggesting and compiling various resources (videos, music and texts) and providing easy access to them for any and all student activists. Most of this is heavily influenced by my understanding of some of what OFS does. These aren’t original ideas, by any stretch of the imagination, but they are ideas that we could not implement given our vanguard-phobia.

The structure of this informal organization, too, should be fluid and complementary to existing student organizations. I don’t think that the informal organization should, itself, wage campaigns. Instead it should encourage participation in campaigns waged by student organizations such as the Social Justice Alliance, Stony Brook Freethinkers etc. It should aim to recruit from these student organizations, radicalize recruits and see those organizations become radicalized through the process. This will help create unity amongst disparate groups and strengthen the activist community at Stony Brook. Again, this is a concept that was introduced to me through OFS. I’m not providing unique ideas here. I’m only applying what I’ve been exposed to.

I’d like to answer any questions, hear any comments and internalize any criticisms so please feel free to leave feedback!

In March 2009, President Obama outlined his Af-Pak strategy, which sought as its primary goal to defeat al-Qaeda and its supporters in the Taliban (instead of engaging in full-scale nation-building). But, if the evidence is judge in these matters, what we’re engaged in is hardly a ‘counter-insurgency’ campaign aimed at defraying the political influence and operational capabilities of al-Qaeda.

Just last week, top U.S. intelligence officials claimed that there were somewhere in the range of 50-100 al-Qaeda members residing in Afghanistan and more than 300 in Pakistan.

Compare these numbers to the amount of U.S. and NATO troops (120,000 ISAF and 48,000 non-ISAF), Afghan National Army forces (120,000), Afghan National Police (105,000), U.S. and Afghan-allied private security contractors (114,000), and Pakistani Army (147,000) and Frontier Corps troops (60,000).

That’s a sum total of 714,000 U.S.-coalition forces (or a ratio of 1,785 coalition troops for every 1 al-Qaeda member in the South Asia region). I’m not sure what this kind of warfare would be called, but a counter-insurgency campaign aimed at stamping out al-Qaeda cannot be it.

What’s worse is that this enormous marshalling of resources is perpetually understated, often due to the dispersed nature of the multiple forces. While attention is paid to the size of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the size of the private-security contractors, the Afghan National Army and Police, the Pakistan Army and Frontier Corps, and even the non-US NATO force largely goes unreported.

This is criminal. Knowing all the actors involved in the conflict, their relationship to Washington, and their force levels makes the 100,000 U.S troops in Afghanistan a phantom number. The South Asian region is now the most heavily militarized area in the world, and people need to know it – for its own sake and for the sake of sorting out exactly what strategic goals Washington has up its sleeve. If it’s not about al-Qaeda, then what is it about?

(Source: http://tylercullis.wordpress.com/)

The time I spent in Mexico City with the Frente Popular Francisco Villa Independiente (FPFVI), though short (four weeks), was incredibly eye opening and inspiring. By the end of the first weekend- having spoken with members of the community and given a very brief understanding of how the community was established- I wanted this for the United States (and everywhere for that matter).

I’ll begin by talking a bit about the Pancho Villa community I lived in (there are multipled communities around Mexico City), how they came to be, how they organize and what their aspirations for the future are. Next I’ll discuss the merits of collective neighborhoods and why I feel they’re incredibly important for a successful movement in the state-capitalist abyss that is the United States. Finally I’ll talk generally about how I see such a community being formed and organized in the states given the different cultural context between Mexico and our country. We cannot simply adopt the model, wholesale, that the FPFVI has established and expect it to run smoothly.

FPFVI

The particular Pancho community I had the pleasure of staying in was established through a land grab. A local capitalist who owned the mines in an area known as La Polveria had a large plot of land that was unused. The FPFVI, then a Marxist-Leninist student organization, brought together hundreds of families to converge on the land, begin to build temporary housing and fend off police. The state eventually gave in and left the families alone to do with the land as they pleased. Through skill-sharing the families learned to write grant applications and when the money came they spent it collectively to begin building homes. Today the community is surrounded by a protective fence, has beautiful homes and apartment buildings that families stay in for no more than 50USD a month.

In exchange for the low-income housing each family must choose a delegate to participate in neighborhood decision making. Families are encouraged to get involved (and most do) with volunteer brigades and committees which handle everything from basic maintenance to safety and security. The homes cannot be sold by the owners and none of the property is on the speculative housing market.

In this particular Pancho community no drugs or alcohol are allowed. Each of the over twenty communities are different and make rules collectively based on what each community sees as prudent. One community that we visited charged absolutely nothing to the families that lived within its borders. In the community I resided in police officers were refused entrance. A vigilante brigade made up of members of the community took that role and every individual in the community is given a hefty baton that doubles as a FPFVI flag for rallies.

When I left the community this past winter they aspired to open a primary school and a health clinic. The money they collect monthly from the families goes toward basic repair and maintenance and also towards future building projects within the limits of the community which are decided upon democratically by family delegates.

Collectivism v. Capitalist Alienation

While artificial unemployment, rampant poverty, environmental degradation and the objectification/commodification of everything under the sun are obvious examples of the evils of capitalism, capitalist alienation is perhaps the most pervasive and devastating impact that this hegemonic economic system has.

Capitalist alienation denies us our very claim to fame as a species: socializing. It motivates us to “specialize” our roles in society by fitting into categories and placing others into them, to objectify and therefore commodify people and human interactions and to communicate with one another superficially. It asks us to express ourselves through consumer “choice” and to value the self above society. It then dictates to us what the self can and cannot be. Whether we realize it or not, capitalist alienation leaves us alone and scared at the very core regardless of our outward confidence and the illusion of strong social networks. This is not to say that we do not overcome them through our relations with one another, but that without being mindful of the lens through which we’ve been groomed to view inter-personal relationships and without reclaiming our own (and respecting others’) agency we cannot form truly fulfilling bonds with one another. Capitalist alienation crushes movements before they can even begin to form.

Needless to say, then, that the first step in movement building is to break this alienation and provide a safe space for new social norms to develop. Where the cookie cutter homes of suburbia encourage an isolated and anti-social environment, collective neighborhoods encourage community and solidarity. Being low-to-no rent, it’s obvious that collective neighborhoods are an easy sell for working class folk who haven’t yet broken through anti-social norms. It pulls them in based on an individualistic need but then provides them a space in which to work together, share with one another and realize that it is not through biology that humans are greedy but through capitalist culture. It enables them to see the full potential of their humanness.

Hope. Solidarity. Vision. These are core gifts that collective living can and will provide people. It will free them from inhibition and fear and open their eyes to the harsh society we live in and also the fact that such a society is not inevitable or natural. It is constructed.

Vision

I honestly know very little about grant writing in the United States. I do know, however, that land grabs will be met with violent state repression and even frowned upon by citizens. The culture here favors the interest of the owners. That being said: any attempts to create a collective neighborhood must be done “legitimately”. I put that word in quotations because I believe that land grabs are entirely legitimate. It’s not theft, it’s reclamation. There’s no need, though, to antagonize norms in such a way. Such a project needs to be seen as neutral to the masses if not favorably. Why alienate people unnecessarily?

My view is that a core group of individuals (the more the better, really) need to develop short, medium and long term goals. Short term goals would entail initial fundraising to purchase land. Leasing land limits the ability of the neighborhood to keep prices low and to remain autonomous. Medium term goals entail deciding how to go about building on the land and through what processes we can begin filling vacancies. Long term goals entail how the community will be organized, what we’d like to see in the community (medical center, school etc.) and all the technical details regarding community policing, basic services like garbage pick-up and how to keep the community sustainable.

I’m really interested to hear what all of you have to say (specifically regarding the vision).

This was edited from a paper for a class, so sorry about the somewhat formal citations and all that:

Opponents, and even allies, of the labor movement have announced its certain demise defiantly in recent history. There is no doubt that they are, to a degree, correct. The labor movement of the 1930s no longer exists, nor do the powerful labor unions of the Forties, Fifties, and Sixties. However, Samuel Gompers, founder and first president of the American Federation of Labor, once said

“That so long as man shall live and have his being, so long as there shall dwell in the human heart a desire for something better and nobler, so long as there is in the human mind the germ of the belief in human justice and human liberty, so long as there is in the whole makeup of man a desire to be a brother to his fellow-man, so long will there be a labor movement.”

By this rationale the movement is not dead, and, as is my hope, never truly will be. Gompers’ is somewhat empty rhetoric, and one that we, as activists interested in creating a powerful labor movement, cannot put too much faith in, but it is at least reassuring. Yes, there exists a labor movement today, but it is weak. We have gotten to this point because of two major changes in the last forty years. The first is the result of globalization and American deindustrialization and all that comes with it, including things like massive outsourcing and a move from manufacturing to service jobs. The second is institutionalization of what can only be called a “conservative” labor union structure. Wrought with corruption and hierarchy, the AFL-CIO, whether or not they had the capacity to, chose not to fight on behalf of workers’ rights, but, instead, tried to hold on to whatever gains it had made previously. In order to fight back, the labor movement must recreate itself; it must become decentralized and diverse. It needs to adopt a holistic analysis of society that looks beyond not only the trade union structure, but a purely economic viewpoint. Labor needs to start fighting for “non-reformist reforms” that are in the interest of all workers, and not just the small portion represented by unions. If we can do this, if we can create a strategy that can achieve these reforms and then actually achieve them, we can succeed.

There is no limit to the obstacles in our way of creating a powerful labor movement, but by far the biggest is the deindustrialization of our economy. This deindustrialization is multifaceted, and includes aspects of globalization, outsourcing, domestic job loss, and the transition of the labor market from manufacturing to service jobs. The creation of a global economy has hit the American labor movement hard because it has hit American laborers hard. Hoyt Wheeler identifies two changes in the economy as a result of globalization. The first is that “firms in the newly industrialized countries are able to compete in price-conscious markets, paying wages that are much lower than those paid in the United States” (2003: 26). I would modify this slightly by pointing out that American multinational corporations have responded by shipping almost all of their manufacturing capabilities abroad to the Global South, where they can also pay extremely low wages, and have an almost never-ending supply of labor. Wheeler’s second change is that “because of the diversity and customization made possible by computer-based technology, the cost advantages of American-style mass production have been lost” (2003: 26). The American factory worker is no longer needed because of the deskilling of his or her job and the increase of technology. Companies refuse to pay workers living wages for a job on the production line that can be filled by someone in the developing world for pennies on the dollar.

This leads to the deindustrialization of the economy and to the point where we are now: an economy dominated by the service sector. The service sector includes everyone from burger-flippers to bank tellers, and has presented labor with a difficult question, one it has failed to answer: which service employees do you unionize and how? The service economy has also created a disjointed workforce by practices such as hiring workers on a part-time basis. Rick Fantasia and Kim Voss claim that “[f]ast-food companies like McDonald’s maintain a workforce with up to 80 percent part-time employees”(2004: 12). At a glance, this shouldn’t create a problem, but in the past trade unions have had no desire to unionize these part-time service sector workers. The most obvious explanation is that they do not fit into the trade union model. For the most part union members have been full-time industrial workers, and some unions do not include part-time workers in their contracts. Although the tides have changed somewhat, with unions like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and UNITE HERE gaining increasing power, there is still a focus on full-time workers and somehow more respected industries.  SEIU represents healthcare workers, security officers, and a myriad of other job-holders, but no retail workers. On the same note, UNITE HERE represents hotel maids, restaurant cooks and waiters, but not the counter clerk at Burger King. Deindustrialization and the transformation towards a service economy have hit the labor movement hard, but they did not come out of nowhere. Some of the blame must be put on the shoulders of the existing union structure, conservative in nature. The unions’ inability, until very recently, to change with the changing economy allowed for the big hits they have taken.

The second biggest factor leading to the decline of the labor movement is the shift of labor unions from progressive organizations to conservative institutions. Although it is questionable how progressive labor unions ever actually were, at certain points in history, especially the ones activists like to remember, unions fought for social change. However, if we look at the real history of labor, we see conservative organizations that wish to hold on to whatever limited amount of power they have. George Meany, the first president of the combined AFL-CIO from 1955 until 1979 “believed that the function of unions was not to organize unorganized workers but rather to preserve the privilege of union membership for a stratum of already organized skilled workers” and “bragged about never having been on strike or walking a picket line” (Fletcher and Gapasin 2008: 30). So the AFL-CIO took on a policy of “business unionism,” negotiating contracts for wage increases and better hours, and sometimes give-backs, while almost completely ignoring new opportunities for organizing, a policy that is almost the exact opposite of what led to the success of the CIO in the Thirties. In fact, the policies and organizational structures of the AFL-CIO share many similarities to those of the labor organizations that led to the formation of the CIO. Piven and Cloward name as one of the factors leading to the creation of the CIO and the industrial workers’ movement “the status-conscious and oligarchical character” of existing workers’ organizations, whose “sources of strength…encouraged them to ignore and even to scorn the growing mass of unskilled workers” (1979: 101). What we see is a movement and progressive resurgence and then decline based on the structural organization of the movement, although I hesitate to claim that the CIO was effective just because of its structure. However, the structure of the labor organizations before the industrial workers’ struggles and their current structure, parallel to an extent, disallow any kind of real transformative movement to arise.

The ultimate goal for the labor movement, in my own opinion, should be the working class taking over the means of production and transforming the economy into a fair, democratic, and participatory system of workers’ councils; this is what success should mean for the labor movement. While saying this, we must fully realize that this task is nothing short of a revolution, nor is it possible now. What a successful labor movement must become, then, is a movement that fights for and wins “radical” or “non-reformist” reforms. Non-reformist reforms, originally theorized by Andre Gorz, are defined by Michael Albert as workers organizing “to win concrete demands but when they accomplish those immediate ends, rather than merely recreating stability, their victory instead creates more favorable conditions for the next round of conflict” (Albert 1974: Ch. 11). These reforms would include things like universal healthcare, living wages, and further down the line things like full employment, profit tax, and reverse income tax. The key is not in how radical the reforms are, although more gains made will lead to higher demands, but that the movement does not rest after it has made preliminary gains.

However, all this success is not possible without achieving a more diverse, holistic, participatory, and democratic movement.  As Bill Fletcher and Fernando Gapasin state, “the current framework of U.S. trade unionism is so fundamentally flawed that a new fundamental framework is needed” (2008: 165). Fletcher and Gapasin assert the need to incorporate aspects of gender and race based oppressions into the labor movement, and, while I think he is correct, we must take it a step further and recognize that the oppressions of people of color and women not only intersect, but are part of a full society with social spheres (namely economic, cultural, kinship, and political) that work in concert together in complimentary ways. The fact that busboys and dish-cleaners, by and large, are Latino immigrants is not a reflection of simply class based oppression, nor is it simply an intersection of race. Instead this is an economic accommodation and reproduction of white supremacy, where the person of color is relegated to roles that are defined by being neither seen nor heard. Under a union contract these positions may make just as much as a waiter or hostess, yet the contract does not recognize the implicit racism in the job roles. Recognizing the totality of oppression, and seeking to create a movement that addresses these oppressions neither as side-effects of, nor intersecting with, class struggle, is the first task of labor. The second step to creating a better labor movement is recognizing that “if class struggle is not limited to the workplace, then neither should unions be” (Fletcher and Gapasin 2008: 174). Fletcher and Gapasin are referencing the need to create what they term a “socio-political bloc” or “working people’s assemblies” that can fight for economic needs that occur outside of the workplace. (2008: 174, 177). The present political departments of labor unions, which usually fight for small reforms only in the interest of unionized workers (and usually only members of the specific union), should either be replaced or join these assemblies, which would be run democratically and in a participatory fashion. These assemblies would be the main framework with which the movement would fight for its non-reformist reforms, and would be a combination of present unions, workers’ centers, unions outside of or unrecognized by the official structure, community organizations, and other groups seeking economic and social justice. The last task is to decentralize the movement, which, if we can accomplish a holistic view and a militant workers’ political bloc outside of the present trade union structure, we will have already done.

The final question that lingers now is thus: is this possible? Do the conditions for success, as outlined by Piven and Cloward in their book Poor People’s Movements, exist and enable the labor movement to win? If we use the four main conditions presented by Piven and Cloward, the answer is yes. First, labor has the power to disrupt many institutions, from factories, hotels, restaurants, retail stores, ports, docks, and just about any workplace imaginable through strikes, sit-ins, slow-downs and a variety of other tactics. As citizens, members of the movement also have the power to disrupt aspects of the economy and government which are not directly related to their workplaces, including welfare offices, government buildings, banks and other financial institutions, and, perhaps most importantly, streets. Next, these institutions are not only important, but crucial to society, especially if disrupting actions are done simultaneously or in concert. Striking a series of workplaces, sitting-in at a chain of banks, and organizing marches in multiple cities all within the same day, or even the same week, would easily demonstrate the importance of these institutions to others. Third, the institution definitely has much to concede. Just advocating reforms to put us on the social democratic economic level of a country like Sweden would not create a situation where the elites have nothing to concede. As more and more reforms are won, it is possible that future victories will be harder, but it is also possible they will be easier because of the momentum of a well-organized political structure. The fact is that the present institutions and the capitalist class have just about everything to concede—their very control of the economy. And, finally, can the labor movement protect itself from reprisal? If labor can transform itself to be more decentralized and participatory, then I think it can. I also think that while the Obama administration has a moderate level of support, it is clear that the economic institutions do not. With recent polls indicating that less than a quarter of Americans support the financial institutions and more than a third have a positive view of socialism, it appears that a labor movement fighting for non-reformist reforms would have the support needed to protect itself from reprisal. Based on these conditions, the labor movement has great potential to be successful in enacting transformative reforms that could lead to revolutionary change.

When activists and labor leaders look back, their view is often limited to labor’s successes, those of the Great Depression era, and because of this they have a positive outlook on labor, not recognizing the huge task ahead. I, instead, look at the decline of the movement. This decline has been caused by deindustrialization and globalization, weakening and transforming the working class. However it is also caused by the AFL-CIO’s own response to these phenomena. I look at the decline of the movement, and also have a positive lookout, while still recognizing the huge task ahead. Labor needs more than just a well thought-out plan by union bosses and politicians. Labor needs a vast restructuring, one that will decentralize as well as democratize the movement, while adopting a holistic analysis. After this is accomplished labor needs to become militant and begin fighting for radical reforms that will provide the working and middle classes with necessary relief in their daily lives, while always organizing for more. The title of this piece comes from a Langston Hughes poem titled “Good Morning Revolution.” The verse goes like this:

Listen, Revolution,
We’re buddies, see –
Together,
We can take everything:
Factories, arsenals, houses, ships,
Railroads, forests, fields, orchards,
Bus lines, telegraphs, radios,
(Jesus! Raise hell with radios!)
Steel mills, coal mines, oil wells, gas,
All the tools of production.
(Great day in the morning!)
Everything –
And turn’em over to the people who work.
Rule and run’em for us people who work.

Together, we can take everything.

References

Albert, Michael. 1974. What Is to Be Undone: A Modern Revolutionary Discussion of Classical Left Ideologies. (http://www.zcommunications.org/WITBU/witbuTOC.html).

Albert, Michael, et al. 1986. Liberating Theory. Boston, MA. South End Press.

Albert, Michael. 2000. Moving Forward: Program for a Participatory Economy.  San Francisco, CA: AK Press.

Fantasia, Rick and Kim Voss. 2004. Hard Work: Remaking the American Labor Movement. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

Fletcher, Jr., Bill and Fernando Gapasin. 2008. Solidarity Divided: The Crisis in Organized Labor and a New Path Toward Social Justice. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

Piven, Francis Fox and Richard A. Cloward. 1979. Poor People’s Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail. New York: Random House.

Tait, Vanessa. 2005. Poor Workers’ Unions: Rebuilding Labor from Below. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Wheeler, Hoyt N. 2002. The Future of the American Labor Movement. New York: Cambridge University Press.

I’m uneasy.

For all the literature on capitalism’s effect upon society, the left seems to lack an understanding of how it affects our psyche. We can rant and rave about capitalist alienation, community destruction, socio-economic stratification all day long but these understandings are useless without a basic understanding of how the very way we think and act are molded by growing up in a capitalist society. I’m speaking mainly of the habits of the vast majority of activists.

A failure for the left in the United States to truly organize, I believe, stems from the fact that we are organizing through a capitalist lens. I will break down the effects of this lens into three parts: time, quantity and specialization. These part are not mutually exclusive but, rather, are nestled within one another like Russian dolls.

Time is the largest doll- encompassing and affecting quantity and specialization. We can say that time is the root of the problem from which all the other problems stem. What do I mean by time? I’m referring to the way in which people within a capitalist system view and value it. Time is only valuable when you can accomplish the most things in the least amount of it. Value is transferred from the accomplishment itself to the time it takes and, so, naturally- the “cheapest” product sells.

Capitalist time doesn’t only value the accomplishments that take the least amount of time but also the accomplishments that can happen sooner rather than later. Consider the difference between short-term, risky investment with high yields and the safer, long-term investments made.

How do activists demonstrate this mentality? There is a penchant among activists throughout history to want the revolution now. They do not acknowledge the necessity of a long-term social and sexual revolution which will then bring about the political ends we would like to accomplish. Many envision themselves (though perhaps without outwardly acknowledging it) as being a part of the “winning team” in their lifetime or even becoming the next idolized revolutionary. We can draw these fantasies back to capitalist individualism as well as time. This impatient desire to bring about revolutionary change now leads to a largely ignorant and quixotic denial of the reality of the situation which is enormously detrimental to efforts at organizing a real foundation for revolution. Unfortunately, those caught up in capitalist impatience are often those with a penchant for leadership. This is left-leadership wasted.

We must accept the reality that to oppress will always be easier and swifter than to liberate. We must accept that our function is to do as much as we can realistically do while ever-focusing on the long-term goal even if the horizon lies beyond our lifetime. Only with a combination of patience, critical self-reflection and dedication will we see the entire picture and act upon it accordingly.

Next comes quantity. By quantity I obviously mean quantity over quality. Tying into the idea of getting as much as you can done in the least amount of time, activists are always trying to rally as many troops to a single event without real consideration regarding political formation and class consciousness. No wonder these movements fall flat. The impatience begs for an enormous eruption of dissent now and calls for the disregard of the development of leadership and autonomy amongst the masses.

Finally comes specialization. It’s certainly much easier to organize a rally around a single issue. Much easier to craft a slogan and a logo around a single oppression. Definitely easier to inform numerous people about one simple problem. The problem, however, is not simple. It is tethered to every other form of oppression and if you think the problem is complex, you don’t want to see the solution. If success means educating numerous people, vaguely, about a single issue and getting them to make signs and show up at a rally, well, then we’ve been quite successful. If success means establishing a revolutionary foundation, well-versed in the intricacies of oppression and autonomous in its ability to act without being dictated to, then we’ve got a long way to go.

Many left-activists have rejected capitalism. Most, though, have not shaken its residue from their bodies.

WARNING: This is a first attempt at blogging. I would love comments and criticism.

I believe it is safe to say that the anti-war movement is decaying at an ever increasing rate. The question remains for those of us involved in activism and organizing of what do we do now? Is the movement worth reviving and if so, how do we do that?

The first step in reviving the anti-war movement is addressing what it is exactly that we are “anti.” For too long the movement focused specifically on the occupation of Iraq, while Afghanistan lurked somewhere back in the shadows. Now Afghanistan is the main topic of discussion, and it seems as if we all assume that the Iraq War has ended (it hasn’t). Meanwhile, the arms of US imperialism are reaching elsewhere, in South America, Yemen, Pakistan, and Palestine via Israel, and so on. We need to transform our anti-war movement into a true anti-imperalist movement, one that addressed all of the United States’ exploitative military escapades. Instead, what we have is a changing focal point. Right now the topic is Afghanistan, and murmers of our drone attacks on Pakistan, West Bank settlements, and our involvement in Yemen. In December of 2008 and into 2009 the focus seemed to be on the hot flash of an ongoing war against and occupation of Palestine by the Israeli state funded by the USA. What we need to do is either choose one focal point to organize around with other issues of secondary importance, or allow the focal point to change and remain flexible, while still always addressing the greater issue of imperialism, which in the end, is the cause of all these wars.

What do we mean by addressing the greater issue of imperialism? Well first of all we must define what we mean by imperialism. Lenin claims that imperialism “emerged as the development and direct continuation of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism in general,”[i] and for good reason. Capitalism and imperialism are undeniably interwoven. One major reason for imperialism is the acquisition of markets. Anti-imperialist author Michael Parenti claims that imperialism is “the process whereby the dominant politico-economic interests of one nation expropriate for their own enrichment the land, labor, raw materials, and markets of another people.”[ii] Again this is very true, but it is lacking. Marxist analysis of imperialism lack a holistic approach necessary to truly understand the causes and to truly create a program for a movement to end them.

Imperialism exists without markets, as can be seen in the Soviet Union’s equally brutal Stalinist imperialist strategy in Eastern Europe and places like Afghanistan. It can also be seen in American examples, such as the Vietnam War. There was no real economic reason to be there; we were not looking for markets, labor, or resources. Another aspect of imperialism is the political or ideological. Imperialism is always carried out by authoritarian states, be it Great Britian, Spain, Portugal, the USA or the USSR. And these countries always control the colonized with the same authoritarian rule (and usually a stricter form) as they do their citizens. Vietnam was about stopping the spread of Communism, and securing the dominance of liberal democracy (read Western authoritarian state) and capitalism. In South America, American imperialist strategy of the post-war period was hugely an ideological anti-Communist effort. While there was definite economic interests in these countries (sugar, fruit, and other resources, on top of cheap labor) there was also a constant threat of countries attempting to become Communist, and if that were to happen not only would the US lose those markets, resources, labor, ect, but it would help to delegitimize the dominance of the Western political system. If Communist countries began securing their independence they could begin to rely on each other, and on the Soviets, and possibly could prove not only that they had the capacity to be self-sufficient, but that their alternative political/economic system worked and that the mix of liberal democracy and capitalism was not the only possible way. So imperialism is just as much an effort to maintain the political dominance of liberal democracy and the West as it is about exploiting foreign markets.

Imperialism has a third facet, that being gender. Although this may seem strange, it is not when you accept that we live in a sexist and male supremacist society, and that the military (the actual hand on the arm of imperialism) is a sexist and male supremacist institution. Besides the sexist and homophobic practices of the military within itself (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and rape/sexual assault of female soldiers[iii]) and the all-too-common cases of soldiers raping innocent civilians, the very act of imperialism can be seen as analogous to the societal male domination of women. The imperialist has placed himself in a dominant position assuming that the colonized cannot protect herself from Communism, terrorism, natural disaster, etc etc etc. He forces her to succumb to him, changing her life to fit his needs, all the while providing and providing and providing while he get rich and fat. And when he is done with her, when she is barren and dry, he will leave on his search for the next colony. It’s no wonder why imperialism is often referred to as “rape” of the Third World.

Fourthly, imperialism contains an aspect of racism. Beginning with early forms of imperialism and colonialism, it has always been dominated the West, namely America and Western Europe. These white “Christian” countries have colonized the Third World, pillaged, and plundered with while using many racist and Eurocentric justifications including “Christianizing” heathens and the argument that the colonized are biologically inferior, often comparing them to animals. Franz Fanon claims in the conclusion of “The Wretched of the Earth” that “Europe undertook the leadership of the world with ardour, cynicism and violence,” that violence being imperialism.[iv] It is the West’s belief that they are destined to lead the world, and that ethnocentrism, the same one that promoted American western expansion and “manifest destiny” leading to the constant relocation and slaughter of Native Americans, is a driving force of imperialism.

Just as our social sphere can be broken into four smaller spheres of economy, polity, kinship, and community, so can our analysis of imperialism. The next step is bringing them back together. We see that imperialism is authoritarian, capitalist, sexist and racist, but how is it all at once? It simply is. The economic exploitation of the Third World is carried out not only for profit but for reasons of spreading the dominant authoritarian ideology and of securing male and white supremacy around the globe. The sexist exploitation of the Third World is carried out because they have a resource we want or are not following our political wishes or because they are biologically inferior and have no real concept of self-governance. The racist exploitation of the Third World is carried out because the “brown people” are trying to secure economic or political independence and we see that as a threat so we try to dominate them similarly to how a rapist would his victim, violently taking what he desires and leaving. The authoritarian exploitation of the Third World is carried out because of the relation between the State and capital, because United Fruit not only has friends in the government but is in the government and because our government is institutionally dominated by straight white men who refuse to allow competition from people they see as inferiors. These are only a few reasons how these are all interrelated and really part of one entity, that being imperialism.

This isn’t a program for the future of the anti-war movement. What this is, is a hope that the anti-war movement will begin to incorporate this holistic approach as a means of galvanizing support and breathing new life into a necessary struggle. For too long has the anti-war movement been clouded with talk of imperialism and capitalism but rarely racism or sexism or authoritarianism. If we are truly going to stop imperialism (and the insane society that fuels it) we need to stop all the causes of it, not just the one that may seem most blatantly obvious.

---

[i] http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm

[ii] Michael Parenti. Against Empire (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1995), 1.

[iii] http://www.feministing.com/archives/009855.html

[iv] http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/fanon/conclusion.htm

What do a pair of Manolo Blahnik sandals, one too many rounds of cosmopolitans, chic urban spaces, and sex (lots of it!) have to do with desire and power?’

Sex and the City: Legitimate Item of Popular Culture

Through the saturation of images and its mass circulation within the media, Sex and the City is and has been widely consumed within the United States. The national popularity of Sex and the City, the market and culture that it has produced, and the “new language” which it has created for women to talk about sex, demonstrate the absolute urgency to critically engage with Sex and the City as a legitimate item of popular culture and for participants within popular culture to recognize its strong ideological impact.  SATC is a reflection of social values and a new reconfiguration of power and social relationships. In other words, the ideology of Sex and the City was not constructed in social isolation, but is rather the cultural manifestation of a new social order.

National popularity:

Screening June 6^th of 1998 till 2004, Sex and the City has been the winner of eight Golden Globes, thirty-six awards and 125 nominations. Based on the book by Candace Bushnell, Sex and the City has been quoted as a “classic of our times”, “controversial”, an example of “post-feminist empowerment of women, up to a point” (emphasis is mine). While some critics have identified the four leading characters of the show as “sexy” and “independent” other critics have described them as “sluts”, “female impersonators in drag” (Debbie Schussel of The Village Voice)  and “hormonal hobbits…all obsessed with a ring” (Anthony Lane of The New Yorker). Despite the postive and negative reviews, the show is so popular and influential that Natasha Walter, author of The New Feminism stated, “I don’t think anyone in the future will be able to write about the status of women in the US at the turn of the century without running through some old Sex and the City videos, and appreciating how single women bestrode Manhattan.” Which single women, of what race, class and sexual orientation, and on what specific streets of manhattan is another question. So what makes this item of popular culture so appealing for its primarily mass female audience, so… desirable shall we say?

Kiss and Do Tell: Creating the Discourse of Intercourse

The show portrays the lives of four single (elite, white, wealthy, hetereosexual, thin) women living fabulously in New York City during the late 90’s to the early 2000’s.  The main character Carrie Bradshaw (played by Sarah Jessica Parker) writes a witty sex column for the fictional newspaper the New York Star. Carries uses her personal love life, the experiences and perspective of her friends Samantha Jones, Charlotte York and Miranda Hobbes, and the social dating scene of Manhattan as both her inspiration and writing material. The sex column serves as a space in which the narrator (Carrie) raises questions, concerns, and outright doubts about the search for “Mr. Right” , in addition to all the personal and societal expectations demanded from single women in their thirties (i.e. marriage, and children). It is through Carrie’s confession style discussion of sex and relationships, that the audience is invited to relate to the gendered experiences of the four characters.

One of the most appealing and controversial aspects of the show is it’s blatant discussion of sex. As promoted in the show, women have the right to great sex, and also the right to discuss it…everywhere. No social space in New York City is off limits. In Sex and the City, everything is discussed over expensive cocktails, from friendships, careers, relationships, marriage (or rather the fear of) and of course sex… all kinds of sex; good sex, bad sex, hit your-head-against-the-bedpost-sex, mindblowing (I actually orgasmed) sex, etc. The straight-forward and witty discussion of hetereosexual female sexuality, dramtically changed the ways in which nudity and sex was portrayed and discussed on television. You Almost Had Sex This was the very appeal of the show; its allegedly open dialogue about the many forms of intimacy and desire which women sought, or allegedly seek. According to Kim Akass of London Metropolitan University, the show has provided women with a “language with which to talk about their experiences and their friendships”, while Pepper Schwartz, a University of Washington sociology professor stated that Sex and the City “was a sea change in how women talked about sexuality.” Many women have felt empowered in being able to openly discuss a topic deemed rather taboo for the lips of women. Sex, which was viewed as “just gossip-something less than conversation”, has now the value of a legitimate experience worth a thorough examination with your friends.

The power of the show is demonstrated by the way it situates itself within the imagination of its female fans; “…everyone connects to the characters in Sex and the City – they represent extremes, and a lot of women relate to different elements in all four of them.” Which fan hasn’t heard the question ‘what character are you’…a sweetly conservative Charlotte, a femme Samantha? Samantha Jones (Kim Catrall) is the owner of a public relations firm and is characterized by her blunt discussion and her quest for pleasure for solely pleasures sake. Thus, while Samantha absolutely rejects monogamy, marriage and children, Charlotte York (Kirsten Davis), an Upper East Side Wasp and a cuarator at an art gallery, absolutely longs for it. On the other hand, Miranda Hobbes (played by Cynthia Nixon) is an independent, corporate lawyer known for her cruel cynicism towards romance and her sarcastic evaluation of gender roles. The individual women of Sex and the City and their particular qualities resonates with the ways in which “ordinary” women deal with their own relationship drama. Many women can identify with the various romantic fantasies which Carrie projects onto her relationships and onto men.  Thus, we find fans often comparing the men in their real lives with the fictional male love interests of the female characters; is your boyfriend an Aidan, the male archetype of the loyal rescuer, or a Mr. Big, a very handsome, wealthy man with a very “big” commitment phobia? And while the show entertains its audience with the glorious and not so glorious moments of heterosexual women dealing with the “opposite sex”, it is the relationship between the four female characters, which fans find particurally comforting. Despite life’s troubles, these four single women provide a system of support and a philosophy that although the men may come and go, (pun intended), their friendship will always be there. Such representations of female friendship highly contrast the competative and back-stabbing nature of female friendships as portrayed on television.

Thus while critics and fans alike, (myself included), can appreciate the show’s empowerment of female sexuality, the strong bonds between women, and the questioning of traditional gender roles, we must nonetheless be critical as to how the show is creating a new form of sexual politics and a political culture which gives it a very desirable and sensational appeal. This is particurally urgent, given the show’s national popularity, and the way in which the show is creating particular discourses of sexuality and desire. How is this “new langauge” for talking about sex, “mixing up old ideas and coming up with something new and differrent”, as Carrie once stated? What are the assumptions, the ideologies, the imbedded racial, class, gender and sexual hierarchies of this new sexual framework?

We’ve heard of Gucci, but what about Gramsci:

Desire is popularly understood as “private” and the result of personal preferences. According to such logic, desire operates isolated and separated from society. I however argue that desire itself is constructed and defined by society’s institutions, values and ideologies. By developing a framework of sexual hegemony, we can understand how oppressive sexual relations are systematically enforced and naturalized through the organization of social institutions that appear “normal” and “necessary.

Developed by Antonio Gramsci, the concept of hegemony (domination through consent) has historically been used within the Marxist tradition.  I on the other hand, use the concept of hegemony to explain the ways in which society is educated in consenting towards oppression through the means of their own “personal” and sexual desires. I define sexual hegemony as the process by which conformity towards sexual and gender relations is created and enforced. Sexual hegemony imposes a definition of sexuality; sets the terms in which sexual identities, experiences and ideas of sexuality are discussed and understood. Sexual hegemony is ideology that is made to appear normal, natural and necessary. Sexual hegemony serves the purpose of creating beliefs, behaviors, roles, and forms of consciousness that result in conformity towards oppressive social, political and economic institutions within society.  Hegemony must be understood as a continuous process of definition and negotiation, one in which oppressed groups both internalize and question the very values which oppress them, resulting in a mixed consciousness towards their social position. Sex and the City reflects theses processes, for the sensational series simultaneously challenges, reinforces and creates a new sexual hegemonic order.

Through fabulous humor Sex and the City challenges traditional gender roles and attitudes towards sexuality, and points to new social relationships based on the values of female friendships, financial independence, female sexual empowerment, individuality and “personal choice.” Since hegemony is a process of domination through consent, there is space for limited resistance and human agency to reject or question social expectations and roles. Social institutions shape resistance and its manifested forms; resistance is allowed to the extent that it does not disrupt the hegemonic order. This is especially the case in Sex and the City, in which the four female characters ridicule, question, and doubt the expectations projected onto single women in their thirties— “Mr. Right”, marriage, and children. Romantic fantasies and notions about love are in a constant process of evaluation. Samantha rejects monogamy, embraces “tri-sexuality” (try anything once), and passionately defends a woman’s right to an orgasm during sex…always! Samantha proudly states, “I’ll admit I have had to polish myself off once or twice, but yes, when I RSVP to a party, I make it my business to come.” Samantha values her relationships with men and women very differently; women are for friendships, men are for fucking. Such behavior challenges the mainstream notion that due to some innate quality, women “naturally” desire relationships, while men desire sex.  Another leading critic is Miranda, one who sarcastically questions the double standard for men and women within society, such as in the areas of power, financial independence, ageing, promiscuity, and beauty, to name a few. Miranda is especially critical of romantic fantasies, stating, “Soul mates only exist in the Hallmark aisle of Duane Reade Drugs.” Miranda even criticizes her friends for their often-obsessive discussion of men and relationships, a subject matter that is critical in the women’s conversations. Miranda states,

All we talk about anymore is Big (Carrie’s love interest), or balls, or small dicks. How does it happen that four such smart women have nothing to talk about but boyfriends? It’s like seventh grade with bank accounts. What about us? What we think, we feel, we know. Christ. Does it all have to be about them?

Miranda demonstrates her frustration of having to measure her happiness to the extent, which her personal relationships with men are successful, despite her accomplishments as a corporate lawyer that grants her a sense of worth and financial independence (signified by the bank account). The constant discussion of men is equated with the obsession that inexperienced young girls have with boys.  The four characters, to some extent or another, are quite aware of the narrowing demands expected of single women and through their strong friendship, they challenge the notion of women’s absolute dependence on men for their emotional needs, or the notion that you’re a “nobody till you’ve found somebody.” As Michael Patrick King, an executive producer stated, “We get to say what no one would ever say to single people in their thirties, which is ‘Maybe your life is better than the married people’s.’

While Sex and the City breaks taboos through its portrayal of women’s critique of gender roles and their active engagement in the discussion of sex, we must critique the ways in which sexuality is discussed and understood and the show’s forms of limited resistance, examining the ways in which the show upholds an oppressive sexual order.

The Politics of (Limited) Resistance : I chose my choice?

‘Personal choice’ is the vehicle in which the four characters challenge gender roles. Thus the celebration of ‘personal choice’ and its exemplification as a feminist value needs to be critically examined. Samantha resists monogamy, marriage and children by choosing to speak openly about sex, having a promiscuous sexual life-style and throwing hip “I-don’t-have-a-baby” parties in order to celebrate herself as “fabulous and single.” Charlotte in attempting to rationalize her decision to quit her job and become a housewife states, “The women’s movement is supposed to be about choice. And if I chose to quit my job, that is my choice…It’s my life and my choice!…I chose my choice! I chose my choice!” (‘Time and Punishment’). Choosing one’s lover, boyfriend, apartment, whether to marry or have children, to buy $495.00 shoes in order to celebrate oneself as a single women, are all presented as “private” choices within the show. These choices are celebrated as proof of the freedom of women in an allegedly “post-feminist area.” According to Sex and the City, individual choice itself is a form of resistance. However, these forms of resistance are extremely limited and have to be understood in the context of race, class gender and sex. How does the sexual orientation, racial, economic and privilege of these women construct the limited forms of resistance within the show? If ‘social independence’ and ‘liberation’ is framed around the celebration of white female beauty & femininity, fabulous lifestyles and wealth, how does it deny forms of resistance for working class women and women of color? How do the presented forms of ‘resistance’ by privileged wealthy white heterosexual women, actually reinforce the oppression of working class people, women of color and non-heterosexuals? For example, the sexual and gender categories provided within the show do not account for the wide range of gender and sexual identities and experiences, due to the gender and sexual binary under which the show operates. Denying the existence of sexual and gender identities/experiences outside the binary of male/female/gay/straight, denies the potentiality of erotic and intimate possibilities. These dichotomies are unquestioned, and are upheld as the sole appropriate avenue to express sexual and intimate closeness with other human beings. As Charlotte stated in regards to sexual identities that do not fit neatly into the category of straight and gay, “I’m all into labels, pick a side and stay there” (‘Boy, Girl, Boy, Girl’).  Sex and the City needs to be analyzed for the ways in which it rationalizes heteronormativity, the sexual and gender binary, and how it actually makes such ideologies the roles that they create desirable.

Whether it’s parading through a chic bar in downtown Manhattan with your sexy Manolo Blahnicks, projecting your romantic fantasies on Mr.Right (or Mr. Right-now), or declaring to the world your financial independence and sexcess in bed, all these forms of sociality require a consensus to certain social interactions. Through the realization of hegemonic desires we consent to ideologies and behaviors that accommodate themselves to society’s existing institutions. In doing so it naturalizes the systems and institutions, which create such relationships to begin with. The relationship of unquestioned desire to race and class oppression must also be articulated, for if sexual hegemony permeates in all social relations, then it also upholds class, heterosexual and white privilege.

Towards a Holistic Analysis:

Since hegemony acts on the totality of social relations, we must develop counter-hegemonic strategies that are systemic and holistic. In other words, structures of oppression and privilege within the economic sphere are produced and operate within the political sphere and the so-called “private” sphere of sexuality. Thus a political strategy that focuses only on one sphere, or prioritizes one analytical category over another fails in breadth. The forms of resistance offered by Sex and the City is an example of liberal feminist politics, politics that cannot successfully address the systemic nature of oppression and privilege. Such politics reduce political strategy and vision to individual and life-style choices. These politics deny the ways in which individual choice is confined by larger ideologies and institutions. Thus “life-style” politics, liberal and reductionist politics are inadequate in addressing the scale of hegemony.

The current systems and their institutions of constraints do not leave individuals with the capacity to change or modify the system, which impacts them. We must develop counter-hegemonic strategies in order to systematically combat the ways in which social relations and their possibilities are limited by sexual hegemony. Counter-hegemony is a systemic ideological and institutional battle, which requires the unlearning of oppressive roles, behaviors and forms of consciousness, and the learning of new forms of socialization and modes of culture. Counter-hegemony has the potential of creating new social meaning, new social relationships.Doing so allows us to question, and envision the sort of society we wish to build, and the role of sexuality within it. Counter-hegemony allows to “imagine and create a new relational right that permits all possible types of relations to exist and not be prevented, blocked, or annulated by impoverished relational institutions” (The Social Triumph of Will, 158). The institutions, values, and modes of culture we develop should allow us to construct and define our own desires. Sexuality must be a liberatory process of creation, not of entrapment or enslavement. Through the creation of new desires, new forms of pleasure (sexual and nonsexual) we can create new ways of relating to fellow human beings. There is such great potential, for “through our desires, go new forms of relationships, new forms of love, new forms of creation. Sex is not a fatality; it’s a possibility for creative life” (Foucault).

Author’s note: I originally wrote this June 21, 2008. Now that the Copenhagen Climate Talks have failed – with the “Copenhagen Accord” being a complete sham (no targets for emissions reductions, no enforcement, no monitoring, no legally binding procedures, etc… – all of which, if we didn’t take action ourselves from the grassroots to stop climate change, would be tantamount to genocide and mass murder – mostly working class people and people of the Global South) – I’m reposting this article. I think its more relevant now than ever before.Enjoy and comment!

- – -

Early one morning, pulling the daily paper out of the mailbox, a small headline in the center front page caught my eye: “Utility finds foes to renewable energy line plan.”

The problem the article talked about was straightforward. We desperately need a green energy revolution – this goes without saying. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. wants to build a $1.5 billion solar power plant in the California desert which would provide clean power to half of the utility’s population, almost 750,000 people. Fair enough. So here is the problem: power plants need power lines, and SDG&E wants those power lines to cut through 23 miles of pristine desert parklands. Quite understandably, many people aren’t too fond of the idea.

It should not be surprising. Corporate destruction of communities and the environment is inevitable and endemic under capitalism. And for good reason – people have no democratic say in what companies do with their land and to communities and the environment. You would be hard pressed to find someone who does not want economic democracy. When asked, people always say they want a democratic say over the decisions which affect their lives. People want a democratic approach to our economic life, and when pressed, most people support either venues for public input or outright government regulation. Put aside democracy for a second, and consider how both methods involve an intentional and planned response to market chaos and tyranny. Government regulation prevents markets and corporations from completely destroying our society, while avenues of public input – which are usually very limited or a sham – prevent people from completely revolting against their economic masters by providing concessions to them. Both methods give a semblance of democratic checks on the naked tyranny of the so-called “free” market.

I advocate what I think is the only solution to this problem: the abolition of market capitalism as an economic system, and the establishment of a democratic and participatory economy with participatory planning to take its place. In short, I want to replace the system we call capitalism with real economic justice, freedom, and democracy. This is the topic I think we all need to start talking about.

Whatever one thinks about cutting through pristine parklands – especially considering the myriad of alternative locations and methods for construction – there is an irrefutable contradiction in our current economic system. Under capitalism, people neither have or ever will have a democratic say in the decisions which affect their lives. Development, economic growth, and the shaping of our economic future are all left up to people in corporate boardrooms with no connection to the lives of ordinary people. Every time there is a new technological development, no matter how it might improve our lives in the long run, ordinary people somewhere end up getting the short end of the stick. This usually revolves around one of the central tenets of capitalism, namely that someone else – virtually always the superrich and their mega-corporations – gets to define your economic future. Or more precisely, your economic hardship is the byproduct of the prosperity of the owning and coordinating classes. Markets have no mechanism to allow for democratic input – we could not have a democratic say in the economy even if we wanted to. In a market economy, the interests of the owners of society are always fundamentally opposed to the needs and aspirations of society’s poor and working people, which, in America, are disproportionally people of color.

What makes all this more tragic is that there are alternatives to the chaos of markets and class inequality. Democratic workplaces where all people have an equitable share of tasks (empowering, managerial, and more difficult work) can replace undemocratic workplaces where ordinary workers have no say in decisions and do only grunt work. Such workplaces could be collectively owned and organized to benefit our entire society. These democratic workplaces – along with community councils or governments – can network into local, regional, and national networks of councils – that is, our society can form economic institutions to democratically decide our economic future. Workplaces and worker-run industries could submit annual workplace plans for production. Community councils could submit annual plans of what they need and want society to produce. A process of negotiation – a sort-of economic conversation about what is needed and wanted for the year – would occur and, after a few rounds of back-and-forths between the councils, would lead to a plan for that economic year. The plan could be changed as needed throughout the year, but we would accomplish something truly remarkable: we would have a directly democratic way to decide what products we want to use that year, what we thus should produce, how to effectively and sustainably use resources and protect the natural environment, how to go about promoting growth, what technologies to invest in, how to protect human, civil, and labor rights, and how to have a more empowering and secure society and economy. It is not difficult to sketch out some of the possible democratic alternatives to society’s current chaotic institutions.

If green development is left up to big corporations, not only will they be resistant to it – coal and oil companies certainly will not give up without a fight – but it will be the rich, and not the rest of us, who will benefit from efforts to green our economy. As is evident by the San Diego power plant example, many corporations that do “go green” will do it out of a drive for power and profit, instead of ecological necessity and sanity. Even if that were not true, plans made in ivory-tower board rooms will never take into account the needs and ideas of our communities and families. Ordinary people will suffer from these failings. Areas of the natural environment will be destroyed, communities will be devastated, and much, much worse. Such devastation will happen without a clean energy revolution in a thousand other, and more destructive, ways. A clean and just energy revolution is needed more than ever, yes. But we can also have economic justice and democracy. And more, it is more than likely that we simply cannot solve the climate crisis without moving to economic democracy.

If economic democracy is a desirable aim, then it is necessary for environmental groups fighting for clean and just energy to put economic justice and democracy – namely democratic workplaces, social ownership of those workplaces, liberatory labor compensation norms, and democratic economic planning – on their agendas. A participatory economic future needs to be one of our central demands. We need to build such an economy from the bottom up. We need to fight for reforms which leave us stronger than we were before, lift up those who most need lifting, and move towards democratizing the economy. This is one of the most important tasks for our generation. It is our generational calling.