living loving learning

So, how do we change the world? Persuasion is for liberals, so I’ll leave that to them. Political action is ultimately about force. There’s a continuum of tactics between nonviolence and violence, but they all start with the understanding that institutions only change when pressure is applied. In the immortal words of Frederick Douglas, “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has and it never will.” There’s an underlying truth here as well, that doesn’t get articulated as often as it should.

I learned this from Gene Sharp’s work, especially The Politics of Nonviolent Action, which every activist should immediately, run don’t walk, read. His books are profoundly important. His ideas have been used in liberation struggles all over the world, from South Africa to Eastern Europe. He points out that power depends on obedience, and we don’t have to obey. The moment the oppressed withdraw our consent, the powerful are left with nothing. Sharp identifies a range of tactical approaches, but they break down into two categories: acts of omission and acts of commission. Omission includes things like boycotts, strikes, non-participation in illegitimate governments. Acts of commission would include sit-ins, obstructions, and occupations like the forest defense elves in the trees. But either way, nonviolent action is an attempt to coerce an institution that holds power to change.

There’s a tremendous misconception, particularly in the USA, that nonviolent action is about somehow trying to educate or convert those in power. It’s not. That’s pacifism, not nonviolent action. I mean, does anybody really think that the owners of the bus company in Montgomery, Alabama had a sudden epiphany? We’ve been so terrible to Black people, oh my god, segregation must end! Of course not. The boycott brought them to their knees. There may or may not have been individuals whose consciences were awakened, but that wasn’t the point. People withheld their economic power until the institution—in this case, the bus company—caved in.

I think this is so important because the main divide isn’t between violence and nonviolence. It’s between action and inaction. Properly understood, both militancy and nonviolence are direct confrontations with power, confrontations backed by the threat of force. Both strategies require planning, discipline, and sacrifice. Both kinds of activism will bring the full weight of the wrath of the powerful down upon the actionists. The moment you’re successful, the moment power is threatened, you will pay, sometimes with your lives. The divergence is that proponents of nonviolence chose tactics that don’t physically harm people.

The left in this country has come completely unhitched from any notion of actually being effective. Activism has turned into one big group therapy session. It doesn’t matter what we accomplish—what matters is how we feel about it. The goal of the action isn’t to change the material balance of power, it’s to feel “empowered”. For fuck’s sake, who gives a shit how I feel. Our planet is dying. And radicals are just as guilty of what I call “emotional activism.” It may feel good to smash that Starbucks window, but does it actually do any good? I’m speaking here as someone who’s smashed my share of windows. This rerouting of the goal from political change to inner change is the reaction of both a spoiled, self-absorbed people, and the utterly desperate, desperate to do something, anything.

What any movement needs is an effective strategy. That means identifying two things: where is power weak and where are you strong? The overlap is where you strike. One problem with nonviolence is that it depends on huge numbers of people to be effective. Rosa Parks on her own ended up in jail. Rosa Parks plus the whole Black community of Montgomery ended segregation on the public transportation system. Without a mass movement, the technique doesn’t work.

Since 1972 when Nixon went off the gold standard, the world reserve currency has been the US dollar, but what ultimately backs the US dollar? People say nothing, it’s ‘fiat money’ but I don’t think this is true. It’s a credit system based on the circulation of debt. Of course the US has the enormous advantage of being able to write checks that are never actually cashed: US treasury bonds have become the basic reserve currency for the central banks and as Michael Hudson originally pointed out, most of these American treasury bonds are never really cashed in.

They’re rolled over year after year to buy new ones, and these holders are taking a loss on them as they pay interest lower than inflation. So why are they doing that? Well, if you look at the size of US deficit it corresponds almost exactly to the real saw military budget. If you look at graphs showing the growth of the US deficit, and the percentage of it held overseas, and the US military spending—basically, you see almost exactly the same curve.

So basically, foreign governments and institutional lenders are buying US treasury bonds and paying for this enormous military spending. So, who are the guys doing it? Well during the cold war it was especially West Germany, now, apart from China, the most important are places like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Gulf states. What do these states have in common? They’re all covered in US military bases, or under US military protection.

The US is borrowing the money to create these military bases from the very countries that the US military is sitting on top of. In the past, such arrangements were called ‘empires’ and the money sent over was referred to as ‘tribute.’ Now apparently you’re not allowed to use that language, so it’s called a ‘loan.’ Nonetheless, that link between the military and the core of the financial system remains, it’s the thing we’re not supposed to think about.