Do we focus too much on elections, and not enough on movements?.....Thoughts from Howard Zinn

[marmar]

from the Progressive:


....(snip)....

When a social movement adopts the compromises of legislators, it has forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians, not to fall in meekly behind them.

We who protest the war are not politicians. We are citizens. Whatever politicians may do, let them first feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not for what is winnable, in a shamefully timorous Congress.

We who protest the war are not politicians. We are citizens. Whatever politicians may do, let them first feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not for what is winnable, in a shamefully timorous Congress.

....(snip)....

It is not easy, in the corrupting atmosphere of Washington, D.C., to hold on firmly to the truth, to resist the temptation of capitulation that presents itself as compromise. A few manage to do so. I think of Barbara Lee, the one person in the House of Representatives who, in the hysterical atmosphere of the days following 9/11, voted against the resolution authorizing Bush to invade Afghanistan. Today, she is one of the few who refuse to fund the Iraq War, insist on a prompt end to the war, reject the dishonesty of a false compromise.

Except for the rare few, like Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, and John Lewis, our representatives are politicians, and will surrender their integrity, claiming to be “realistic.”

We are not politicians, but citizens. We have no office to hold on to, only our consciences, which insist on telling the truth. That, history suggests, is the most realistic thing a citizen can do. ...........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.progressive.org/mag_zinn0507

.................................................

"The good things that have been done, the reforms that have been made, the wars that have been stopped, the women's rights that have been won, the racism that has been partly extirpated in society, all of that was not done by government edict, was not done by the three branches of government. It was not done by that structure which we learn about in junior high school, which they say is democracy. It was all done by citizens' movements. And keep in mind that all great movements in the past have risen from small movements, from tiny clusters of people who came together here and there. When a movement is strong enough it doesn't matter who is in the White House; what really matters is what people do, and what people say, and what people *demand*."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416825/quotes

[Peace Patriot]

1. It's a good point but we need some inspiring examples, some specifics...

...and, to say, "When a movement is strong enough it doesn't matter who is in the White House," is simplistic. For instance, if an oligarchy is powerful enough and corrupt enough, it can, it will and it does override the great majority, and will use tactics of horrible brutality to do so--as it is doing in Colombia and Honduras today, and as fascists have done in Latin America in the past (and as we may see happen here as well, if and when the people of the U.S. begin to see through the elaborate illusion of democracy that has been foisted upon us by those who hijacked our military for corporate resource wars and have robbed us blind).

Further, Zinn seems to say that elected leaders are mere puppets of social movements. But something much more dynamic is going on between the social movements in Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Brazil and other Latin American countries where strong leftist leaders have been elected, and the people who rise to leadership and are elected to office. Yes, the social movements are the most important story in Latin America--the story that has not been reported by our corpo-fascist press--but can it really be said that these movements can govern countries, or are governing countries? They are not. Strong, inspiring, elected leaders are essential to the economic/political progress that the social movements desire and struggle for.

The most visible example, because he has been so demonized by our corporate rulers, is Hugo Chavez, whom the social movements in Venezuela actually rescued from the jaws of a coup d'etat and restored to office. Chavez literally owes both his life and his political power to the tens of thousands of mostly poor people, who had so effectively organized to elect him, and who poured out of their hovels into the streets, in 2002, and surrounded Miraflores palace in peaceful protest, causing the coup d'etat to crumble. But Chavez's response to their support, and his strength and that of his government in enacting the will of the people, is equally important. Zinn says "it doesn't matter who is in the White House." But it surely does matter, in Venezuela, who is in Miraflores palace. A lesser soul than Chavez would have collapsed under the intense pressure--including several assassination attempts, several coup attempts, numerous de-stabilization attempts, non-stop U.S. hatred and plotting and relentless demonization throughout the corpo-fascist press, here and there, led by the New York Slimes (which purports to be the U.S. "paper of record"). Chavez has risen to the task. That is a very important function of real democracy--that leaders, such as our own FDR, for instance--rise to the task.

Zinn RIGHTFULLY stresses social movements--that is, organizations of ordinary people (such as labor unions or community education or health projects or land reform struggles) which are able to join together and mobilize large numbers to protest, or to strike, or to vote. That is the basis of democracy and it has been completely marginalized--"black-holed," ignored--by our corpo-fascist press, except for their own artificial creations of 'movements' like the 'Tea Party' bullshit. (We need a 'Boston Tea Party' all right, but a REAL one--beginning with our jettisoning of the corporate-run, 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines; our corporate rulers therefore create a MOCK 'movement,' to pre-empt a REAL one.) But social movements alone cannot run a country. For that, leaders are needed to inspire unity, to write laws, to enforce laws, to make appointments to government departments and agencies, to prioritize the problems to be addressed, to find solutions, to enact solutions.

Another example--possibly the best one of all--is Evo Morales in Bolivia. Bolivia is a country with an Indigenous majority which has been denied human and civil rights for centuries, by the rich white minority. The dramatic changes in Bolivia were initiated by strong, well-organized social movements of the poor Indigenous majority, of which Evo Morales was a participant, as head of the coca leaf farmers' union. These forces elected Morales as president of the country--the first Indigenous ever to hold that office. Morales then presided over a re-write of the Bolivian Constitution among other things to concretize the human and civil rights of the Indigenous majority and acted vigorously to improve Bolivia's control of its natural resources and to vastly increase Bolivia's profit from its main resource, gas, and to dedicate that profit to social programs (education, health care, etc.) To accomplish these and other things--including ending a U.S. supported white separatist insurrection--Morales utilized both his own personal strength and character and his strong alliances with other leftist leaders. It is indeed extremely important that Evo Morales--a poor coca leaf farmer--has risen to the task. Bolivia is a very difficult country to hold together--with pressures from the white separatists, on the one hand, and pressures from the Indigenous tribes, who want self-rule, on the other. It is VERY IMPORTANT that Bolivia has a strong, smart, unifying figure--Morales--since what the white separatists want to do is to split off the provinces with the gas resource into a separate country (to steal Bolivia's main wealth).

The people of these countries, whether they have succeeded in electing governments that serve the majority--such as Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala--or are still struggling with brutal or oppressive oligarchies, such as Honduras, Colombia, Mexico and Peru--do, indeed, put us to shame, with their organizational savvy and courage. We, of the once greatest and most resilient democracy in the world, have been fairly easily stripped of our wealth, our sovereignty, our vote, our power and our democracy itself, by a quite deliberate multinational corporate/war profiteer junta using quite clever tactics. Perhaps we have to be reduced to penury and "big boot" fascism before we wake up, pull together and throw off our oppressors. I don't know. But the MECHANISMS for peaceful change--for instance, transparent vote counting--remain without our grasp, if only we would grasp them. This would take the kind of peoples organization we are seeing in Latin America. For instance, it would take maybe 50 to 100 people peacefully shutting down every precinct in the country, on election day, and demanding TRANSPARENT vote counting--no more 'TRADE SECRET' code, owned and largely (80%) controlled by ONE, private, far rightwing-connected corporation (ES&S, which just bought out Diebold)--to restore our first condition of democracy, which would help us then restore others.

Zinn does not stress this enough--that democracy is the bottom-line condition for the success of social movements. You have to have both the hope and the POWER to change the government. Otherwise you just become another hacked up body, or activist thrown out of an airplane, or one of thousands rounded up and shot, as happened in the brutal dictatorships in Latin America in previous decades (on-going today in Colombia and Honduras). And to reach that bottom line condition for social change--democracy--took quite a few "liberals" in Latin American society who fought for and implemented fair and honest elections. Zinn doesn't credit this enough. It took a consensus of "liberals" and leftists--including well-educated people, professionals, teachers, even bureaucratic types at the OAS--to create free and fair elections. It takes a mobilized left to win them. But it takes a consensus on democratic procedure to make that possible.

We haven't seen the fascist boot here yet. Our activists don't get thrown out of airplanes or rounded up and shot, yet. This may come. But meanwhile the tactics of this multinational corporate/war profiteer oligarchy that rules over us have been DISENFRANCHISEMENT (through the 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines and vast campaign corruption), DEMORALIZATION, DEPRESSION and DISEMPOWERMENT. Bear this in mind when you wonder why our people are not out in the streets. Very special tactics have been used against us because we are the most potentially powerful force for positive change--for throwing off the corporate rulers--in the world.

Zinn also does not acknowledge that the U.S. has in fact been CHANGEABLE, in the past, given democratic conditions. None of the social struggles of the past could have been won WITHOUT democratic conditions. The labor movement, the women's suffrage movement, the civil rights movement--all such movements--have relied upon U.S. democracy's ability to eventually reflect the will of the majority. Those movements relied upon the Constitution--the rule of law--the Bill of Rights, the principles of the "Declaration of Independence" and the traditions of democracy--to gain acceptance of new and more universal rights. Despite the failures and connivings of our various oligarchies--including those of our Founders--that foundation was laid, that has inspired virtually every social movement that we have seen in this country, and those in many other countries. Democracy is how the social movements and the leaders come together--how the social movements FIND their leaders, and how the leaders IMPLEMENT change in the critical sphere of government and law.

We must repair our democracy FIRST, and, in doing that, we will create the social movements that we so badly need to bring about social justice and peace. Social movements--such as the actually pretty amazing movement against the Iraq War--ARE DESTROYED by lack of democracy. Nearly 60% of the American people opposed the Iraq War--despite the onslaught of war propaganda--and millions marched and protested. Then 2004 happened--the No. 2 stolen election of the Bush Junta. Then 2006 happened--voting for Democrats to end the war, who instead infused the war with billions more of our tax dollars, creating yet more casualties to add to the hundred thousand innocents that our war machine had already slaughtered in Iraq. Then 2008 happened, and the Forever War was shifted to Afghanistan. THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH OUR DEMOCRACY!

I've pinpointed a major first priority item--the corporate takeover of vote counting with 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines (which occurred with the $3.9 billion e-voting boondoggle, passed by the Anthrax Congress in the same month as the Iraq War Resolution (Oct. '02). We MUST undo that damage to our democracy. And there is much more that we must do to create conditions in which social movements have a voice, have power, and can elect leaders to do their will.

[deaniac21]

2. I focus on movements every day....right after my coffee.