Tag Archives: 1%

Occupy Vancouver Reboots Tomorrow: A Primer

GlobalSolidarity Some thoughts as we countdown to the reboot of Occupy Vancouver at 615pm tomorrow night at Grandview Park. Come join us with your ideas:

  1. Mine are all about seeking equality and justice: economically, socially, politically and environmentally.
  2. Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is an inspiring classic. Some agree with it, some disagree. Some paint it as the template of Obama tactics [hardly, but still, you should also read this bit below written just after Obama’s first inauguration] and some paint it as wholly insufficient. You can read some key excerpts from it here. Then you’ll need to ponder what you think about ideals and pragmatism.
  3. Metro Vancouver Alliance is an organization that is inspired by Alinsky. You should explore them here. And pay attention to them in the Twitter.
  4. And you should also read about Fried Squirrels to see what you think works and doesn’t work about rebooting Occupy Vancouver from that little narrative.

Beyond that, see #1 above. That’s what I’ve got from distilling 2.5 years of thinking about Occupy. Can you express what you think about, and want for, Occupy Vancouver in one sentence? That’s a good exercise for tomorrow night!

 

Alinsky’s Rules: Must Reading In Obama Era
By PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY | Posted Monday, February 02, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Immediately after the Democratic National Convention in Colorado, the Boston Globe published a letter from David Alinsky. He boasted about how Barack Obama had made effective use of his training in the methods of David’s late father, the famous Chicago radical, Saul Alinsky.

David Alinsky gloated: “I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.”

What was Saul Alinsky’s model that Barack Obama used so successfully to defeat the Clinton machine plus the Republican Party in a dramatic one-two punch never before seen in politics?

What is known today as “the Alinsky ideology and Alinsky concepts of mass organization for power” are fully set forth in Alinsky’s 1971 book, “Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.”

Alinsky’s worldview was that mankind is divided into three parts: “the haves, the have-nots and the have-a-little, want mores.” His purpose was to teach the have-nots how to take power and money away from the haves by creating mass organizations to seize power, and he admitted “this means revolution.”

He wanted a radical change of America’s social and economic structure, and he planned to achieve that through creating public discontent and moral confusion. Alinsky developed strategies to achieve power through mass organization, and organizing was his word for revolution.

He wanted to move the U.S. from capitalism to socialism, where the means of production would be owned by all the people (i.e., the government). A believer in economic determinism, he viewed unemployment, disease, crime and bigotry as byproducts of capitalism. “Change” was Alinsky’s favorite word, used on page after page. “I will argue,” he wrote, “that man’s hopes lie in the acceptance of the great law of change.”

Alinsky used what he called “general concepts of change” to move us toward “a science of revolution.”

What he called change meant an alteration of our socioeconomic structure; what he called organizing meant pursuing confrontational political tactics.

Alinsky taught the have-nots to “hate the establishment of the haves” because they have “power, money, food, security and luxury.” He claimed that “justice, morality, law and order are mere words used by the haves to justify and secure their status quo.”

Alinsky didn’t ignore traditional moral standards or dismiss them as unnecessary. He was more devious; he taught his followers that “moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means.”

To achieve his goals, he sought local community organizers who projected confidence and vision as well as change. Barack Obama fit the profile.

Alinsky didn’t want just talkers. He wanted radicals who were prepared to take bold action to organize the discontented, precipitate crises, grab power and transform society. He taught his organizers how to infiltrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties, gain influence in them and introduce change.

The qualities Alinsky looked for in a good organizer were ego (“reaching for the highest level for which man can reach — to create, to be a ‘great creator,’ to play God”), curiosity (raising “questions that agitate, that break through the accepted pattern”), irreverence (“nothing is sacred”; “detests dogma, defies any finite definition of morality”), a sense of humor (“the most potent weapons known to mankind are satire and ridicule”) and a personality with confidence in presenting the right reason for his actions only “as a moral rationalization after the right end has been achieved.”

The organizer must “rub raw the resentments of the people of the community, fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. . . . stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.”

Alinsky trained his community organizers to adopt a “middle-class identity” and familiarity with their “values and problems.” After achieving “the priceless value of his middle-class experience,” he will “begin to dissect and examine that way of life as he never has before.”

Alinsky’s trainees are instructed to return to the suburban scene of the middle class with its variety of organizations, from PTAs to League of Women Voters, consumer groups, churches and clubs. Alinsky boasted: “With rare exceptions, our activists and radicals are products of and rebels against our middle-class society. . . . Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and way of life of the middle class.”

Put “Rules for Radicals” on your must-read list if you want to understand much of contemporary politics.

The Red Wings Fiddle While Detroit Burns

The new iconic photo of post-crash Detroit. Listen, can you hear the footsteps of Robocop?
The new iconic photo of post-crash Detroit. Listen, can you hear the footsteps of Robocop?

We can’t really blame just the Red Wings. We have to blame the Tigers and the Lions too, but really the 1% who own them.

Detroit is bankrupt. Services will be privatized to privateer leeches. Human beings will lose pension supports, jobs, wages and benefits. The 2008 crash could have been a catalyst for a manufacturing transition to a post-carbon energy infrastructure, but that was squandered.

But amidst all this, we have: stadia! Glorious stadia!

And who put up hundreds of millions for these glorious stadia? Governments, including one called Detroit, that is now bankrupt. And the citizens will be paying for these circuses instead of libraries, schools, water infrastructure and a host of other necessities in 21st century cities.

All I know is that if I’m in a fiscal crisis at home and I am having trouble paying for food, clothing and shelter, the last thing I should be doing is going out and buying a mid-life crisis Corvette convertible.

But that’s just me. What do I know about stadia.

What I do know is that the 1% who control governments around the world, big and small, will continue socializing the losses and privatizing the parasitic gains. And if this suddenly frustrates you, it’s called neoliberal capitalism. Find your nearest Occupy cell and begin building a post-capitalist/post-parasitical future…hopefully one that does not include Robocop.

NOOR: And, Frank, we just got some breaking news that the Michigan Strategic Fund has decided to issue $450 million in bonds for a new stadium for the Detroit Red Wings, 44 percent of which will be financed publicly. Do you think this decision is emblematic of the development model that led Detroit on this path for years, if you can give us a brief comment?

HAMMER: Well, you know, I mean, I think that Detroit built a new baseball stadium, it built a new football stadium, and lo and behold, here we are a few years later and Detroit is still going into bankruptcy. So apparently building stadiums doesn’t quite do the trick. And I think that a manufacturing model, a resurrection of manufacturing with green technology would be a much more permanent and sustainable solution.

Detroit Red Wings Get New $400 Million Taxpayer-Financed Stadium While the City Goes Bankrupt.

It’s 12 O’Clock, Have You Boycotted IKEA Yet Today?

DSCN3080
$3.85 billion in profit is just not enough. Union busting and global greed now!
DSCN3079
Gratitude, then and now. It used to include a t-shirt and more, for all employees around the world. Now, union busting.

The best part of the Teamster Local 213 rally in Richmond on Saturday was the humanity: the stage was largely filled with Teamsters telling their stories, showing everyone how this 10 week lockout is affecting them as people, and the “humanity” that IKEA markets itself with around the world.

IKEA made $3.85 billion in profits in 2011. Its founder is worth $52 billion. In the past, the company has prided itself on a family atmosphere, but now they want to break the union in Richmond, BC, then they’ll likely go after the union at their Montreal store, then continue with union-busting in the United States.

You can read about the lockout here and here, then enjoy the human side of the global anti-worker agenda of the 1% in the 3 videos below.

Then, make sure you email IKEA Canada [for your email subject, choose “How us Improve (complaints)”] and phone your local IKEA at 1-866-866-4532 to let them know you are boycotting IKEA until they stop trying to break their unions in Richmond and everywhere. My email to IKEA is at the bottom. Feel free to plagiarize it in any way you like!

People Before Profits

Concessionary bargaining is ridiculous, which is what IKEA is after. They want newly hired employees to make less than current employees for doing the same work. They want to restrict access to benefits and contract out work.

This is simply greed: the global 1% not happy with almost $4 billion in profit in 2011. IKEA says they care about their workers, but it’s now profit before people.

Surveillance, IKEA-Style

When the RCMP monitor protests with video cameras and photos from vantage points up high, it is not that surprising. Watching IKEA’s security forces monitor the perimeter, and videotape and photograph the rally on Saturday, however, was a special new kind of corporate surveillance.

The IKEA “Family”: We Are the Many

Mark, one of the many, shares IKEA’s human principles, and how they are being perverted by corporate greed.

Theresa, shares her wisdom on gratitude and community and relationships.

Kenji, a new IKEA worker, on what solidarity looks like.

Victor, speaks about how new part-time workers can see their weekly hours can drift below 5 to zero

My Boycott Email to IKEA

I can’t remember how many thousands of dollars I’ve spent at IKEA in my life. It’s lots.

But now, for 10 weeks you’ve been locking out your workers. You want to reduce wages and benefits and contract out work.

Ikea made $3.85 billion in 2011. I’m pretty sure your greed is showing.

I will not shop at IKEA until you take all the concessions off the table and settle with your Teamsters local.

And this means I won’t shop at IKEA Coquitlam and I’m working to convince my friends and neighbours to boycott IKEA until you stop trying to pad your multi-billion dollar profit on the backs of your workers.

Get over yourselves and stop trying to break your union.

Thanks!