What we’ve learned is that no politician is ever going to hold themselves or their class members to account, even if it comes at a great cost to their constituents, unless it’s for cynical reasons. We have to organize at the grassroots level in order to make sure our representatives are representing our interests. They just aren’t going to do that for us, despite all the money that goes into making us think that elections alone could ever fix this.
That’s the same kind of lame duck attitude that got us into this mess. Organizing doesn’t accomplish anything. Grassroots movements get demonized and subverted. Rules get changed or not enforced to benefit those in power. They do these things not because we haven’t expressed our opposition, they do them because our avenues of expressing opposition are toothless and ineffectual by design. We need to make them fear what will happen to them if they ignore us. Not a potential loss of support or popularity but actual, primal fear of physical consequences.
We need to make them fear what will happen to them if they ignore us. Not a potential loss of support or popularity but actual, primal fear of physical consequences.
How do you do this without the organization to lead a coordinated effort? One guy with a gun here and there is an acceptable risk to them, and a useful tool in manufacturing consent.
They do these things not because we haven’t expressed our opposition, they do them because our avenues of expressing opposition are toothless and ineffectual by design.
It’s not about merely “expressing our opposition” it’s about wielding the full collective power of our class in order to enforce our interests. There’s nothing “lame duck” about that.
Their tactics of subversion are merely disillusionment tactics; they want us to think organizing doesn’t work, because without organization we have no way to pose a legitimate challenge to their power. There are ways around their tactics. People have organized and won significant gains under more oppressive conditions, even within our own country.
Slaves could not have won their freedom without organization, nor women the right to vote, nor workers the 40-hour work week and social security, nor could blacks have defeated jim crow… I could go on. Those in power teach us their own perspective version of history that gives them undue credit for these advancements, minimizing the role played by organized resistance, in order to convince us that we don’t need to organize to make change. We must study history from the people’s perspective in order to learn what truly works and what doesn’t.
Luigi allegedly made healthcare CEOs very afraid all on his own. Coordination with others in these things is a liability, not a strength. All the examples you listed required violence or the threat of violence to overwhelm the violence projected by the state. There’s always only a few dozen people directing the state’s violence. I’m sure you can see the shortcut to the same ending.
Luigi allegedly made healthcare CEOs very afraid all on his own.
How long did that last?
Coordination with others in these things is a liability, not a strength.
Based on what evidence?
There’s always only a few dozen people directing the state’s violence.
How do you expect to outsmart or overwhelm the state mechanisms of violence protecting those people, or the people that will take those people’s places, without coordination? How do you expect your resistance to go on indefinitely, and not fizzle out as soon as the state gives away the smallest concession, without an organized struggle to spread and sustain it?
What we’ve learned is that no politician is ever going to hold themselves or their class members to account, even if it comes at a great cost to their constituents, unless it’s for cynical reasons. We have to organize at the grassroots level in order to make sure our representatives are representing our interests. They just aren’t going to do that for us, despite all the money that goes into making us think that elections alone could ever fix this.
That’s the same kind of lame duck attitude that got us into this mess. Organizing doesn’t accomplish anything. Grassroots movements get demonized and subverted. Rules get changed or not enforced to benefit those in power. They do these things not because we haven’t expressed our opposition, they do them because our avenues of expressing opposition are toothless and ineffectual by design. We need to make them fear what will happen to them if they ignore us. Not a potential loss of support or popularity but actual, primal fear of physical consequences.
How do you do this without the organization to lead a coordinated effort? One guy with a gun here and there is an acceptable risk to them, and a useful tool in manufacturing consent.
It’s not about merely “expressing our opposition” it’s about wielding the full collective power of our class in order to enforce our interests. There’s nothing “lame duck” about that.
Their tactics of subversion are merely disillusionment tactics; they want us to think organizing doesn’t work, because without organization we have no way to pose a legitimate challenge to their power. There are ways around their tactics. People have organized and won significant gains under more oppressive conditions, even within our own country.
Slaves could not have won their freedom without organization, nor women the right to vote, nor workers the 40-hour work week and social security, nor could blacks have defeated jim crow… I could go on. Those in power teach us their own perspective version of history that gives them undue credit for these advancements, minimizing the role played by organized resistance, in order to convince us that we don’t need to organize to make change. We must study history from the people’s perspective in order to learn what truly works and what doesn’t.
Luigi allegedly made healthcare CEOs very afraid all on his own. Coordination with others in these things is a liability, not a strength. All the examples you listed required violence or the threat of violence to overwhelm the violence projected by the state. There’s always only a few dozen people directing the state’s violence. I’m sure you can see the shortcut to the same ending.
How long did that last?
Based on what evidence?
How do you expect to outsmart or overwhelm the state mechanisms of violence protecting those people, or the people that will take those people’s places, without coordination? How do you expect your resistance to go on indefinitely, and not fizzle out as soon as the state gives away the smallest concession, without an organized struggle to spread and sustain it?