pilsner said:
I agree we still have vestiges of "freedom and justice for all" in the current system.
Yeah, the police state here hasn't reached the Burmese level but I think the U.S. government's response would be very heavy-handed if OWS-inspired occupations became a thousand times stronger and there were truly tens of millions out in the streets.
We seem to be given latitude for freedom of speech and assembly. But the government cracks down if those freedoms become threatening to the power elite's control.
Do you really think the U.S. government would act any different if there was a Tiannamon Square level of revolt here?
And no matter who the voters elect it's always a government that will sustain the Empire and capitalist hegemony, be it Dem or Republican for the past 100 years. So a massive in the street uprising is the only way for big change to ever come.
Maybe some of the following is my usual sermonizing without responding to what you wrote, but I will post this, now that it's done.
But let me ask and I mean this sincerely, not rhetorically. What do you think we should do ?
My own intention is to get more and more involved with efforts to make the powerful (in gov and in the private sector) more accountable to the general public.
I agree, there is no major crackdown now, because---for the most part---those who abuse their power do not see Occupy as a credible threat. To them, it's just another passing--maybe entertaining or cute---event in our democracy theme park. And in some ways, they're right.
For a time, I believed we activists should behave ourselves, thinking that would be a way to avoid a crackdown. But a crackdown might happen anyway. So, I now think people should push the envelop w/ 'strategic nonviolent resistance', accepting the fact that the more effective we become, the greater the risk of reactionary violence.
Not to be morbid or sensational, but things are not likely to change without violence---most of it coming from those seeking to defend their positions of power, and some of it coming from resisters to the system thinking---mistakenly---they can fight fire with fire.
And as for violence, I no longer can have 'strategic nonviolence' as just a private sentiment. I have to express in a public way and on no uncertain terms that I will not work with anyone advocating or supporting violent forms of resistance.
I can't tell fellow activists what to do or think but being ambivalent on the question of violent versus non-violent resistance doesn't help the cause for justice. So I'm making it a point to let them know where I stand.
I'm not against violence as self-defense for families, small groups, or individuals. On top of that, I'm not even a pacifist in the sense of being against all wars. But violence as a tactic for resisting an oppressive state, makes no sense to me. It seems to involve imitating that which we claim to be fighting against: the violence of those who abuse their power.
I suspect violent uprisings that overthrow governments tend to end up allowing the most violent and ruthless among the revolutionaries to be the ones who take power when the old regime is replaced.
Well, these are some ideas. What do you think ? I'm open to changing my mind. But I need a good reason.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.