Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.
John Lennon’s “Revolution” has been quoted frequently in the last several months. Millions around the world, in fact, are saying they “want a revolution.” Millions more are saying they don’t – they may think some reform would be good, but nothing so big that it could be called a “revolution.”
Bill Clinton was very unlikely to be thinking of “revolution” when he made his comments about Occupy, but his observations are significant.
Was the “Arab Spring,” and what preceded and followed, a “revolution”? Does the 99% / Occupy movement reach that level? Were the Wisconsin protests an act of “revolution”? Was yesterday’s “SOPA / PIPA Blackout”?
This or a similar tweet shows up regularly, at OWS: “The revolution is never easy, stay the course. Don’t be a part of the instant gratification generation.”
It would be more accurate to make “generation” plural, because wanting the quick and easy answer is clearly a consistent human trait. I’m thinking about this, in part, because of yesterday’s online “Blackout.” It clearly had some important success, with thirteen new Senators announcing their opposition.
The “Blackout” “knocked some U.S. Senate Web sites intermittently offline”. Perhaps a part of the reason this action was successful is because it was narrowly focused, and for most people, it was quick and easy (without forgetting that there are costs involved for blogs and other participating sites).
According to the LA Times, “Google says 4.5 million people signed anti-SOPA petition.” The same LA piece says that reports of similar petition signatures and related actions included 1.458 million at Avaaz.org; 350,000 at Fight for the Future; 37,500 at WordPress; 103,785 at the WH Blog.
So a part of what happened was that at least thirteen Senators now had a “reason,” in the form of numbers, to which they could point and say, “The people have spoken.”
Are Electeds as likely to listen to “the people” if petitions were about, say, Citizens United? Or about “banks got bailed out, we got sold out?” How about millions still un- and under-employed? Without access to health care? Foreclosures? Student loan hell? Cuts in “food stamps” funding? Various incarnations of “the war on terror”?
I’m very happy that the SOPA / PIPA Blackout had success, and very glad to see the organizers talking about continuing the efforts, because this battle isn’t won. I’m wondering, though, about what it is that will get people involved, even in a “reform” manner, much less a “revolutionary” manner.
Probably a part of the reason for the “Blackout” success is because it was – relatively speaking – focused, quick and easy. The “focused” part included the fact that people could see a visually dramatic presentation of how SOPA and PIPA could affect them directly. It’s more difficult for some to “see” how “the 1%” affects “the 99%.” For those millions most directly and dramatically affected, however, it’s not about a petition, it’s about daily living. And good numbers of those don’t have access to online protests.
So what if millions who do have such access would take (more) actions … regarding money in politics, the growing gap between the top of the money heap and to varying degrees, everyone else? What if millions used the “quick and easy” form of online petitions (of which there are many) to get the attention of Electeds? More, what if millions went beyond the quick and easy, both in terms of the actions they were willing to take and the time they were willing to spend? One example:
Mike Ludwig, at TruthOut:
The Movement to Overturn Citizens United Takes Form …
As the 2012 elections heat up, Occupiers and activists across the country are embracing the growing public outrage over attack ads, super PACs and limitless corporate campaign spending. Now, with the help of reform groups, a national movement to challenge the corporate influence on American democracy could be coming to a courthouse, city hall or ballot box near you.
The action begins this weekend. About 150 protests and occupations are planned across the country on Friday and Saturday to mark the two-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission … .
On Friday, a national day of action dubbed Occupy the Courts will see 111 actions and occupations at courthouses from coast to coast, including the Supreme Court in Washington, DC. Activists are also planning protests at corporate buildings on Saturday under the banner Occupy the Corporations.
The national days of protest are inspired by Occupy Wall Street (OWS), but spearheaded by a coalition of groups organizing a growing grassroots movement to amend the Constitution and overturn Citizens United.
Their local victories have already made headlines. City councils in Portland; New York City; Los Angeles; Boulder, Colorado; and more than a dozen other cities have already passed resolutions opposing ‘corporate personhood’ or calling on lawmakers to work toward overturning Citizens United.
I love it when an “action” – like “Blackout” – has an obvious, immediate effect on those it’s designed to pressure. That provides energy, and a basis for hope. But the fact is, the Two Corporate Partying System will take a lot of actions and a lot of time to change, whether thinking in terms of reform or revolution. The evolving Occupy / 99% movement is about that kind of change, and among other things, Occupy is “inspiring” actions like those planned the next couple of days.
As I keep writing, no one knows, long-term, how successful Occupy will be, whether it turns out to be more reform than revolution, or fades away. But agree or disagree, the fact is, those involved in Occupy and other groups aren’t just “say(ing) they want a revolution.” They’re acting. And people like Bill Clinton are acknowledging that reality. And I know, Clinton is Elvis, not Lennon, but you get my point.
(Clinton Statement poster via Occupy Posters.
Occupy OnLine poster via Occupy Posters.)
Don’t you think that the song ‘Revolution’ mocks the whole OWS movement?
I suppose that depends on how you understand the song. I don’t think it was meant to ”mock” the anti-war and other movements, but it raised questions. He was very open about his own struggles and uncertainties with some of the tactics of the political protests of the time, even while opposing the war.
The “Revolution” single includes: “But when you talk about destruction, Don’t you know that you can count me out?” But in the version of the song on the White Album, the “slow version” as people usually refer to it, he sings both “count me in” and “count me out.” He questioned the “solutions,” made clear he wasn’t interested in what “minds that hate” offered, from whatever direction.
Obviously I don’t know what he would say about Occupy, though non-violence is consistently stressed by Occupiers. But the questions he raises about “saying you want a revolution” — from concerns about “destruction” to wanting to know more about the “solutions” to the “plan” — remain relevant.
“We’d all like to see the plan” really cuts to the heart of the critiques of OWS. There is no ‘plan’, no goal, just protest.
What was recently accomplished in Wisconsin is amazing. Can’t wait to hear the final confirmation of the tally. Yes, that is definitely a revolution, especially when you look at what I wrote the other day about lunchpail Republicans in Indiana taking on the establishment trying to make that state right-to-work.
One candidate who understands the Occupy movement is Elizabeth Warren. She’s running an ad on this site, but I’ve been interested in her candidacy long before she ran an ad. She’s got a money bomb going until midnight. If you can jump in she’s worth it. Just click on the ad located in the closest right hand margin.
A lot of what’s happening seems ”revolutionary” to me, and as long as non-violence is stressed, I’m all for it.
Elizabeth Warren is one of the few people at the national level I respect.
The Wisconsin recall effort and the success of SOFA illustrates the power in numbers. If OWS is secure in its own identity (meaning it can involve itself in political things without becoming political) it should use its national reach to create space for a third party candidate without endorsing one.
People still believe that the two-party system cannot be challenged in 2012. I disagree. People must be convinced that a their vote for a third-party candidate will not be wasted. This can be done by selling the idea of a national political platform first, with an open space for a worthy candidate, chosen by voters, if neither party produces an acceptable alternative.
If this 50-state platform is built before the beginning of summer, then the American voter will have until the Republican and Democratic (late August and early September) to debate their preferences and evaluate their choices. With enough preparation and planning for proper registration in each state, a cyber convention through social media, with digital integrity provided by Anonymous, could be held in days and the contest for the next President of the United States would be an open process.
This could be Occupy Wall Street’s highest and best use in 2012 – giving Americans a true choice at the polls in November.
I think that’s the kind of thing Occupy has been doing, “creating space,” though maybe in part it’s revealing what’s always been there. I don’t know how this will play out, but I think it’s vital that 2012 see the best possible challenges to the Duopoly. Whatever progress is made can be a foundation for efforts at local, state and national levels.