When Do We Want It?

I referred in a previous post to the "stickiness problem", a term Michael Albert uses to describe the difficulty movements have with maintaining numbers. One of the main reasons we are in this mess is that people do not stick to movements or causes they temporarily embrace. Some of us may know what we want, but many fail to have their when be both now and always.

Not far from where I am sitting is a framed picture I have kept in my apartment for the last three years. From a distance it seems to be an abstract image, some kind of quasi-chaotic pattern or one of those images that reveal something else if you squint at it for long enough. In fact, it's a cut-out from the front page of The Independent from 16 February 2003, and it depicts a sea of people in London during the previous day's massive, peaceful, global, and very much mainstream demonstration against the invasion of Iraq.

I was there that day. It was inspiring, easily one of the most inspiring and optimistic days of my life. Millions of people around the globe, from all walks of life (except, perhaps, the corporate walk), from different cultures, and yes, for different reasons, got together to protest the coming war. Dig: got together to protest the war before it happened, before the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi children. Before the destruction of Iraq's cities, civil infrastructure, natural environment, and precious archaeological sites. Before American troops began following orders to torture innocent people, assasinate families, humiliate an entire people and return home emotionally---and in many cases physically---scarred (if at all). Before even mainstream press began exposing the Bush Administration's ever-changing reasons for going to war as the lies the rest of us knew they were from the get go.

The point I'm setting up is this: where did everybody go? There were fifteen million people in the streets of the world protesting the invasion of Iraq a month before it happened. Now, three years later, there may as well be tumbleweed in those same streets. Have those same fifteen million people changed their minds and decided the US and its British, Australian, and Polish lackeys (among others) was right to invade a sovereign nation, violate its people, destory its cultural heritage and thieve its lucrative natural resource? Have others, who failed to (or could not) stand with the rest of us on 15 February 2003, similarly decided that opposition to the occupation of Iraq would now be wrong for some insanely irrational reason? Where is everybody?

On 15 February we wanted peace and we wanted it now. Did we want it then but no longer want it now? Do those same fifteen million people still want George Bush and the corporate criminals propping him up to call off their horrid violence in the Middle East? Perhaps, but it is as though that entire movement must be built from scratch every day. Again: where did everybody go? The slithering lies of the Bush and Blair governments have been utterly exposed, so it follows that many more people today can oppose their despicable for-profit adventure with a clear conscience; as William Blum rightly puts it in his Anti-Empire report this month, Iraq was not a threat. Period. Armed with this information---as any semi-sentient being with an internet connection goddamn ought to be---all other lies fall down, and failure to lobby one's government to end this war of aggression immediately, prosecute the culprits, and pay massive reparations to the victims is nothing less than marching bleary-eyed in support of the crimes of Donny Pentagon, Shotgun Dick Cheney, Tony bLiar and the rest.

Which is to say: were you in the anti-war movement three years ago? If so, then get the hell back in it. If not, what are you waiting for? What would have happened if that fifteen million stayed out in the streets until the American and British attack dogs backed off? What would happen if we stayed out there long enough to begin a few conversations, make a few connections, realize that there are other ways to disrupt business as usual---when "business as usual" means institutionalized violence against people and the planet---than occassionally considering showing up at an anti-war demonstration or forwarding that great article to the lefty friend who cares about this kind of stuff.

One has to stand up for what one believes in, because it's just not enough to remain seated. As I wrote a few weeks ago, they do it all the time, and it seems to be serving their criminal purposes well. Can we believe so deeply in our opposition to violence as diplomacy (and violence as environmental policy, for that matter) that we stand up for it every day?

When do we want it? Now. And always. Twenty four seven. Around the clock. Nonstop. Without commercial interruptions. Without intermission. Without interruptions of any kind, without coffee breaks, time-outs, days off. Because it's never done. It's something we have to stick to, it's something we have to have a culture of, it's something we have to be.

Years ago, back before the boy king was even a governor, I studied music briefly at the University of North Texas. A professor gave me great advice that is relevant here. He stressed the importance of "the three C's" of conducting: Confidence, clarity, and consistency. As with making music, so with making peace. Yes, we can be confident that we know we are right. We can be clear about what improvements we want in place of what we have. But we must also be consistent. And in the context of our opposition to war, that means being anti-war---being pro-peace---every day.

What Do We Want?

It's a compelling question, and it begs another: is there a "we" to speak of?

I'm having trouble with these two, staring them down for the last few weeks and coming up blank.

I know there is something horribly wrong on my planet. I know that there are plant and animal species disappearing every day. I know that someone is inventing new wars and television programs. I know the air and the water is poisoned and the food is made of chemicals, looks like plastic, and tastes like shit. I know that today and yesterday many children died for profit. And nobody cares. Nobody cares.

Today I went to what was meant to be a public demonstration of supposedly widespread grievances against the Anglo-American war of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Dutch government's collusion in the project. This is what said demo looked like in Amsterdam, free city of 800,000: a handful of assholes waving the goddamn hammer and sickle in the freezing cold far corner of the otherwise deserted back lot of the Rijksmuseum. There were twice as many people lined up down the street at a wax museum to look at bad models of, well, bad models.

Some anti-war movement.

And who is this we that's supposed to want anything anyway? The question isn't even intelligble in the contemporary culture, in our great big sinking Titanic shithouse of a culture.

Question: What do we want?
Answer: Gimme gimme gimme.

You know, these days polar bears drown because they have too far to swim to get from one melting iceberg to the next. We did that!

Question: Seriously. What do we want?
Answer: Gimme gimme gimme.

So the ship is going down, the whole thing, and everybody's wondering what the evening entertainment is. Maybe not everybody. Some people (hi there!) are standing on deck, complaining about the design of the ship. A whole lot of people are in and under the water (we did that!). And I'm talking about what do we want...? Shit.

For no other reason than to prove my intellectual credibility, I will now supply you with a quote from some printed material.

We honor nothing by being the way we are. We make a desolation and we call it peace.

Jim Shepard wrote that in a short story entitled "Hadrian's Wall", published in McSweeney's Issue No. 14. But this isn't supposed to be about what we do, it's supposed to be about what we want, positive values, vision for a better world, all that. So I'm going to ask you one more time...

Question: What do we want?
Answer: Gimme gimme gimme.

Whose Tempo Are We Dancing To?

Shit, goddamn, get off your ass and jam!
---Funkadelic, 1975

The vast majority of energy I observe being expended by the opposition to current dominant political, social, economic, diplomatic, and environmental policy seems to be wasted energy.

That hurts. When I refer to opposition I am not thinking of the Democrats in the US or their analogues in other countries. I am thinking of talented, passionate, and informed people, with sincerely humanist and progressive viewpoints, who pawn their output for a few second's worth of being "topical".

There is an entire industry---on the internet and in print, underground, mainstream, and everywhere inbetween---devoted to mocking the sinister Dick Cheney, his feeble-minded sidekick George W Bush, and the rest of their cabal. That is not very interesting for me.

What does concern me is that progressive action, or reaction, or witty commentary occurs at the exact pace of the scandals, indiscretions, and outrages committed by the horrible thugs running the show (see huffingtonpost.com for a prime example). This state of affairs suits the thugs fine, because it means that the opposition is never closer than one step behind.

The Left sees the world through the lens provided by the Right, so progressive vision, or issues important to people even remotely humane, are pushed to the margins. But, as always, that's our choice.

In high school I was taught that Leftists were "radicals" and Rightists were "reactionaries". Not so. Look around. Listen to what is being said, and how. For the most part, it seems that "the Right" has exclusive domain over important matters such as vision, strategy, and what Michael Albert calls "the stickiness problem", i.e. attracting more new members to a given activist community.

Dominant policy right now is determined by people who steadily maintain a vision (however savage and warped and bloodthirsty and intolerant) and related strategies. These people hardly bother to react to the shortcomings of their opponents. They do not react in depth to criticism. They don't give a shit what you or I say, and they're pretty certain we're not going to do anything. That's them, unequivocating defenders of empire, capitalism, classism, racism, ecocide, corporate militarism and militant corporatism, "end of days" pseudo-theory as a determinant of foreign policy and airbrushed, materialist, blank-eyed fascism at home.

In contrast, the opposition largely waits for George Bush (or some similar asshole) to goof and then greedily pounces on him. "You see?" you---I---we say, "this latest indiscretion absolutely proves that so and so is unfit for office!" Blah blah blah. Some may disagree with me, but my guess is these assholes actually love the attention. At the very least they tolerate it the way a horse tolerates a fly buzzing around its shit. They weather any storm because they barely notice it's raining.

The rest of us---many of us, anyway---are so afraid to get wet we take the path of least resistance: ridiculing the overtly ridiculous, shaming the obviously shameful, complaining about disastrous policies without envisioning our own.

This has to stop. We need to determine our own tempo, find our own groove. We must ask and then answer and then act on those classic questions:

What do we want?
When do we want it?

I will be making more of an effort to address this issue in upcoming posts. Input on vision and strategy is welcome in the comments section.