We are three of eighty five signers of the multi author document “Some Possible Ideas for Going Forward” which is posted on ZNet, CounterCurrents, Truthout, ROAR, teleSUR English, Portside, and CounterPunch.
Left writing and organizing often says what we don’t like and who we don’t like, but not what we want. We give massively more attention to dissecting Trump than to arriving at shared program that might appeal to working people who support Trump. We give more attention to describing global warming than to thinking through program to avert it, more to recounting the pains of inequality than to proposing ways to reduce it, more to decrying police violence than to proposing new structures to eliminate it. Worse, when we do address program, we almost never simultaneously attend to many areas at once. We focus on why to dissent and even on how to dissent, but rarely on what to seek, and almost never on more than a narrow range of aims.
The collective programmatic initiative titled “Some Possible Ideas for Going Forward” says nothing about the ills of the world or the mechanics of organizing but instead addresses what we might seek. Can we agree with its 85 authors that sustained activism beats sporadic activism? That coherent efforts beat chaotic efforts? That mutually supportive campaigns beat mutually contrary campaigns? And that bottom up dynamics beat top down dynamics?
But wait. What even constitutes bottom up? And why is it better?
Most leftists would agree, we believe, that we need bottom up dynamics to welcome more creativity and insight. Almost would also agree that we need bottom up dynamics to ensure that our efforts don’t advance hierarchical norms which subvert other desirable ends we sincerely seek.
But assuming that level of agreement still, what qualifies as bottom up? Bottom up can’t mean that something starts up simultaneously all over the place. It can’t mean anonymous conception or even conception by only new people with no past involvements. Yet supporters of bottom up often have these connotations in mind.
A different understanding says that to welcome diverse creativity while simultaneously diminishing hierarchical relations is about where choices lead. Bottom up means we attain results under the auspices of all who are involved. And it means that those who are involved include not just long time or professional activists, but mainly folks who live and work at the grass roots of society and who manifest the ideas and feelings there and speak the language heard there. Bottom up is about where efforts wind up, not how they start up.
Suppose someone says, “yay for bottom up, anything that isn’t bottom up, phooey on it.” Then the person writes in a manner that horribly obscures what ought to be self evident. His or her “yay for bottom up” is either a pose, or, if it is sincere, then the person is confused and working at cross purposes to their own stated aim.
Similarly, suppose someone crushes initiative in the name of bottom up, using the slogan as a rationale to rule out options not because the person demonstrates how the rejected choices would have blocked wide participation or reinforced hierarchy, but because they don’t like the aims. More, suppose this bottom up advocate blocks undertakings but does nothing to propel participation from the grass roots and nothing to ensure that such participation ultimately becomes dominant in determining the direction of events. Their adherence to bottom up is again a pose or confused.
Okay, so 85 writer activists sign a document of programmatic ideas. They do so to foster a wide discussion seeking sustained, coherent, mutually supportive, and bottom up outcomes.
What comes next?
1. Individuals could write their own replies, indicating what they like, what they would like to see changed and how, and what they would like deleted or added.
2. Similarly, individuals could talk with friends, workmates, and organization cohorts about attaining desirable shared program.
3. Likewise, individuals could use social media to attract attention to the task and explore aspects of it.
4. Beyond individuals, alternative media could make the document visible, and could even invite submissions by their readers and regular writers. Alternative media could say we too want to arrive at shared program. We will sponsor debate and presentations, both for ourselves internally, and also for our constituencies.
5. Activist organizations could also seek multi issue program. This could occur in everything from political parties and projects – like the Sanders campaign, Podemos in Spain, Syriza’s left factions, the PSUV in Venezuela, and the current French uprisings – to large and small movements focused on Palestinian struggle, fracking, war and peace, immigration, police violence, housing, and so on.
If we all widely discuss and debate what needs to be corrected, deleted, or added, why couldn’t we arrive at worthy shared program and then also at mutually supportive efforts to attain our newly shared program?
The three of us don’t know how many of the 85 signers of “Some Possible Ideas for Going Forward” will undertake the steps noted above or try to convince others to do so. But for the desired bottom up effect to transcend rhetoric, it is important that they do so, and, of course, still more important that many other people and groups take up the tasks. Looking into the future, the benefits of attaining inspiring program will make each new hour applied to seeking change far more effective.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate
4 Comments
There appears to be a parallel movement, The Next System (http://thenextsystem.org/) out of the Democracy Collaborative. Is there a possibility for synergy and a combined effort to define and develop a new society?
Hi Bill, Marian, Michael –
Your blog raises some important questions for me and perhaps for others who are interested. For example:
Do you have any thoughts on how best to coordinate or manage the 5 activities you list?
Can we find out how many of the 85 signers are willing to help out and if so in what way?
What do you think of the idea of a simple stand alone website where the document can be presented along with additional facilities to help move things forward?
I will leave it at that for now.
Hi Mark,
I think it is up to folks, what folks do. The 86 should do as they will, and likewise others. If someone creates a stand alone site, and it fares well, terrific. If someone creates some social media dynamic, and it fares well, great. People should take initiative…I have another essay I am just finishing up, but the big issue now is going to be is there energy and focus for the work of arriving at shared program, or only for. well, talking about what is wrong and who or who not to vote for and the like…
It is time for massive acts of civil disobedience in Washington. I can’t understand why people like Cornel West and Chris Hedges haven’t organized an occupation of Washington. This is precisely what Dr. King was planning in the last year of his life. It is described here: http://politic365.com/2011/10/17/mlk-was-planning-his-own-occupy-d-c-before-death/.
The ballot is not enough. The 2000 and 2004 presidential elections were stolen by the Republicans.