Mobilization Without Method Is Meaningless

 

Everyone knows this expression:  There was method to his madness.

What does it mean?  It means that regardless of how crazy the person acted, no matter how much he appeared to be nuts, behind that facade there was a solid plan, and that plan presumably resulted in successfully achieving what he set out to achieve.

It is this sense of 'method' I'm referring to in the title of this essay.

If there is any doubt about my message, here it is:  To mobilize people behind any cause, regardless of how worthy that cause is, regardless of how intrinsically appealing it may be to get these folks marching, singing, chanting, shouting for that cause, if there is no clear strategy which targets an equally clear and obvious outcome, with a realistic expectation that the strategy will achieve that outcome, then the mobilization is a waste of time.

I didn't say it wasn't fun or satisfying.  I didn't say it didn't have notable and perhaps positive collateral effects.  But I am saying that anyone who thinks that mobilization is some guarantee of making substantial change and achieving desired reforms is surely kidding themselves.

This is why, despite being the biggest mass movement in recent history, OWS completely failed.  Spokespersons for OWS will say it didn't fail at all, because it had no preconceived agenda or goals.  But that is a frivolous cop out.  By the time OWS went international and 'occupy' was attached to everything from towns to shopping malls, labor unions, and even Facebook, there was certainly a goal.  It may not have appeared on any official documents, but that was because as an experiment in unstructured, horizontal command-and-control, married to spontaneous democratic expression, any attempt at formalizing anything at all was discouraged and successfully thwarted.

Nevertheless, it was evident to everyone who watched the marches, read the protest signs, listened to the speeches, or was constantly bombarded by the most successful, ubiquitous meme to erupt in colloquial English in the last five decades -- the 1% vs the 99% -- exactly what all of the brouhaha was about.

In the broader sense, it was about the ruling class -- the 1% -- forcing its elitist world view and self-serving agenda on everyone else -- the 99% -- using their privilege and raw power to callously and ruthlessly turn everyday people into serfs.

In a more specific sense, it was about overwhelming, abusive, and anti-democratic wealth inequality.  It was hardly random that the movement was started in the heart of America's financial district and the anger and vilification was directed at incomprehensibly wealthy investment bankers and Wall Street high-rollers.

Of course, any thoughtful exploration of these two parallel themes -- monopoly on power and obscene accumulation of wealth -- would naturally conclude that they are inextricably related and mutually reinforcing.  Not that there was much analysis going on.  The OWS protests were pretty much an 'it's-us-against-them' affair, with lots of noise and bluster, but with absolutely nothing remotely resembling a grab for power anywhere in sight.

Thus, in terms of specific demands, it was quite common for news commentators to ask:  What do the protestors want?

This was a legitimate if mostly rhetorical question.  As a matter of record, there were no actual demands aired by the movement, much less tacit undercurrents of a coup d'etat.

There weren't any coherent demands, no specific policy proposals, not even obvious ones.  It wouldn't have been out of place, as an example, to at least talk about GBI -- guaranteed basic income -- as a conspicuous path to begin addressing the grotesque level of wealth inequality.

There were no hard and fast calls for student debt forgiveness, free college education, mortgage default relief, capping credit card interest rates, free access to universal health care, and a host of other palliatives which would have somewhat reduced the wealth gap.

This is not a criticism of OWS or anyone who bobbled up, even if temporarily, from the rank-and-file to take credit -- or blame, depending on where you stand in judgment -- for what happened.  OWS was an intriguing and inspiring new experiment in activism, which attempted to skirt the usual pitfalls of hierarchical, top-down organization.  It was what it was, and I believe should be respected for that.
But that doesn't prevent us from learning from it, and taking every precaution to not make the same mistakes again.

If you're going to assemble a mob, give them something to do.

Give them something which will make a substantial and decisive difference.

Camaraderie is a good thing.  It's a social high.  Feeling like you're part of something offers relief from a sense of isolation and helplessness.

But it's only a feeling.  It's not politics.  Politics is about power.  Only power can confront power.
After the marches are done, after the protest signs are put away, when we're in our cars or on buses headed back home, we always need to ask ourselves:  Do we now have power to implement the changes we want?

If the answer is 'no', then we didn't have an effective plan.

The best time for an effective plan is BEFORE we hit the streets, before we march and sing our songs, before we waste valuable time and energy in a frustrating and fruitless attempt to get those NOW IN POWER to do anything for us.  Asking the the ruling elite and their lapdogs in our governing institutions to listen to our demands and serve our interests is like asking a carjacker to be sure and wash our automobile and return it in the morning with a full tank.

Here comes my plug:  I have an end-to-end plan, a carefully-crafted strategy for engaging a broad base of U.S. citizens, uniting them into an overwhelming voting bloc, directed at stopping America's out-of-control militarism and endless wars of aggression.

You can get a general idea here:  The Peace Dividend

Next time we march for peace, we'll know where we're headed and how to get there.

At least, that's the hope that gets me from day to day in these insane times.

---

 

The Peace Dividend: The Most Controversial Proposal in the History of the World is now available both as an ebook and deluxe paperback at many of the usual outlets . . .

Amazon (Kindle) / US . . . amzn.to/2cpIRfQ
Amazon (Print) / US . . . amzn.to/2cEhnCb
Amazon (Kindle) / Canada . . . amzn.to/2ciZKdl
Amazon (Kindle) / Japan . . . amzn.to/2cbf3TO
Barnes & Noble . . . bit.ly/2cWxvzd
Kobo (Indigo) . . . bit.ly/2cI8cB6
Apple iTunes . . . apple.co/2cqw7an
Smashwords . . . bit.ly/2cb6Cse
Direct from printer . . . bit.ly/2c3mJsl


[ This originated at the author's personal website . . . http://jdrachel.com ]



Mobilization Without Method Is Meaningless

The ‘P’ Word

 

P ... as in popular? This is the most popular video on YouTube as of this writing, with 1,676,424,490 views. That's billion, folks!

P ... as in poetry? Hmm. You mean like Eminem? No! You know. Like poetry slams. Cage fighting culture. I slam, therefore I am. Sounds familiar. Isn't that Dr. Seuss?

P ... as in pornography? Apparently, porn __ at least porn on the web __ is becoming less pervasive. Maybe that's because there's so damn much pornography everywhere you look nowadays. Isn't drone assassination porn? How about whole communities going bankrupt from fraud by the major banks. Rape porn. Read all about it here! Or watch it on everyone's favorite porn channel, Fox News.

P ... as in polygamy? We had our chance to put a polygamist in the White House. Well, not a polygamist per se. But one belonging to a religion which institutionally peddles polygamy. It could have been an interesting chapter in the whole DOMA thing, eh?

P ... as in pedophile? Probably we have more on our hands than we realize, some in very high places. But what can we expect? We have runway models who are thirteen, beauty contests for pre-schoolers, more hypocrisy about sex and sexuality than the Catholic Church __ speaking of pedophilia! __ a population pumped up on steamy ads, hot bods, prurient celebrity gossip, and a panoply of pharmaceuticals which despite their pervasive abuse can't keep all this libidinous heavy-breathing in check. Lovely. Simply lovely.

P ... as in patriarchy? A strong contender. We men have made a complete mess of the world, not satisfied with occasional penile penetration, we have to launch our phallic analogs in every shape and size of projectile, missile, bullet and bomb into every nookie and cranny of the world __ so much soft succulent flesh, so little time __  jumping up and down with ecstatic glee at the ultimate ejaculation, the nuclear bomb. What can I say? Everyone knows this. It's an old story with the latest trimmings.

P ... as in patriotism? A noble, if much abused concept. But don't get all patriotic as in standing up for the Constitution. Edward Snowden will tell you how that works out.

P ... as in power? Hmm. We're getting close. That's one musical chair that stays in the game, especially unchecked by any moral restraint or sense of public duty. As we say: Power corrupts? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Absolutely!

P ... as in politics? A dirty business to be sure. Not that it has to be that way. What is it? The kind of people it attracts? Or the people they become?

P ... as in politicians. Somewhere it's written that these guys are supposed to serve us, the people who elected them. But they've become a bunch of traitorous lapdogs to corporate elites who openly thumb their noses at you and I. It sucks, eh?

P ... as in plutocracy. Getting very warm. These are the scoundrels who don't even bother to give lip service anymore to the idea of egalitarianism. They view the rest of us as pigs. Nothing new. Hitler. Stalin. King Henry VIII. Blah blah blah. It's exhausting. Let's all sing Hail To The Chief. Of course, he won't have time to listen. He's poring over today's kill list.

P ... P ... P ...

I think I'm going to go with . . .

P ... as in plunder.

America is both plunderer and plundered. You would think it would be enough for the self-proclaimed entitlement class to use America's economic and military power to strip mine the rest of the world. But no. Now the ruling elite has its eyes on the ultimate prize. America itself! How much is enough? They don't even understand the question.

So we watch in wonder and awe as our resources, natural and human, are sucked dry to bolster a bottom line that is the top priority __ the only priority __ in a system that assigns no value to anything but what can be monitized, i. e. price-tagged.

Is this really the only way we can measure progress?

I think not. And probably many agree with this. But it's so hard. We don't ever see ads for sunsets or generational respect or love between parent and child. Sure, we see those thing in ads. But to sell more cars, cosmetics, wonder drugs, smart phones, digital sausage makers, stuff we don't need and soon won't be able to afford.

Ever look around the room when the TV's on? 



What do you see? People completely ignoring one another. People who will die as others regret those lost moments of sharing, companionship, communication, just basic human contact. At least they'll regret them until their favorite sitcom, reality show or the E! Channel comes on. Whew . . .

What a depressing thought.

Am I being too pessimistic? I don't think so.

Actually, I'm still optimistic.

Marginally optimistic anyway.

There are other 'P' words.

How about P ... as in people? There is the potential for greatness in everyone. There is the promise of better-than-yesterday. There are propositions we embrace: All men are created equal. Love thy neighbor. Do unto others. Principles we hold dear: Government by the people, of the people, for the people. All are equal before the law. Let no man be judged by the color of his skin.

When we are not driven by greed, frenzied by fear, blinded by hate, crippled by despair, possessed by prejudice, misled and misinformed, most people are good to one another. Humans are social animals, curious and able to adapt. When we are not artificially divided, we remain naturally united. This is almost impossible to see now, much less celebrate, in a world whose political engines are powered by disunity and discontent.

How about P ... as in praise? How about giving praise where it's due? Not Pavlovian praise. But praise based on the values we hold dearest and nearest to the center of our souls. Not iconic fan worship. Praise offered for ennobling acts of courage and generosity.

How about P ... as in pray?

I'm not a religious person. But praying in some form or another is universal. I've seen it on every continent, in countries rich and poor. What is praying but visualizing something positive for those around you and the community you live in? Or the whole planet? Or the entire family of man?

How about P ... as in participate? Even the most rugged individualists overcome pride, prejudice, and apathy to work in consort with others. Alone things can be difficult. But joined together in group action, individual but equal, the impossible becomes possible.

Finally, there's P ... as in perfection? We've sure got a ways to get there. But we reach for the stars, because even if we fall far short, we only risk ending up on the highest peaks here on Earth. Maybe we'll find room at the top for everyone this time.

I have to confess, though. There was a time when I truly believed in the perfectibility of humankind. That was when I was young and naive.
Now I believe in the improvability of humankind.

Maybe now I'm just old and naive . . . I sure hope not.

Okay . . . enough with the 'P' words.

My lips are tired from all the puckering.

And I've blown out my candle.

 

This originated at the author's personal web site . . . http://jdrachel.com

[ If you are really a masochist, be sure and stay tuned my upcoming "Dachau World" blog posting. It's certain to cause a stir. ]