AN INTERVIEW WITH DAVID SIROTA ON HIS BOOK 'THE UPRISING'

Can people power in the form of grassroots activism and often uncoordinated populist movements succeed in challenging the deeply entrenched power structures that have democracy in a stranglehold in the U.S.? David Sirota in his new book examines the rise of Western populism in the lead up to the elections in November and what effect they may have upon the status quo of U.S. politics. - Editor

Book World: 'The Uprising'

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/06/02/DI2008060202445.html

David Sirota
Political Columnist, Author of "The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington"
Wednesday, June 4, 2008; 12:00 PM

Author and political columnist David Sirota, who was a senior campaign strategist to Democrat Brian Schweitzer in his successful run for governor of Montana, was online Wednesday, June 4 at noon ET to discuss his new book, " The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington," and how the resurgence of Western populism could reshape the political map in November.

Book World review: Rooting for a Revolution (Post, June 4)

The transcript follows.

Sirota will be giving a reading and signing books at 6 p.m. tonight at Borders on L Street in Washington. Sirota is also the author of "Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government -- And How We Take It Back." He is a co-chair of the Progressive States Network and a senior fellow at the Campaign for America's Future. His other political work has included advising Ned Lamont, who defeated Sen. Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Democratic primary (before losing to Lieberman, then running as an independent, in the general); chief spokesman for Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee; and press secretary for independent Vermont Rep. Bernard Sanders.
____________________

Madison, Wis.: In what was does the populist uprising challenge the dominance of transnational capital? Can a fragmented populist movement successfully challenge the corporatist framework -- from agribusiness and energy to voting and media reform? Or does the success of such a movement to restore participatory democracy require a condensing of efforts behind a unique rallying point?

David Sirota: This is a great question - I think some condensing needs to take place, and as I say in the book, it's not clear that condensing is going to happen. I think there's a good chance it will around unifying issues like opposing NAFTA-style trade deals, raising wages, regulating oil companies, etc. But never underestimate the forces of the status quo to divide that unity through cultural, racial, and fear-based messages.
_______________________

Freising, Germany: Do you think that the rise of Internet blogging and the ability to pick and choose your own biased source of news has encouraged the re-emergence of populist politics on the right and left?

David Sirota: Yes, I do - but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I think people can now find anti-Establishment viewpoints much more easily than they could have in the past. And I think that is starting to make people realize that the reality being fed to us by those in power is not the reality of the world. Part of the backlash that this uprising is about is a backlash to a media that is increasingly seen as part of the problem - not part of the solution.
_______________________

Seattle: What's been your biggest surprise on the book tour so far?

David Sirota: The acceptance by many progressives that we have to start looking at where we can make common cause with rank-and-file conservatives. In such a polarized political environment I expected that thesis in my book to be met with hostility on the Left - but in fact I think people are starting to get the idea that we have to find commonalities with the other side.
_______________________

Harrisburg: How does the populist movement fight the huge costs of getting elected -- costs that I note have escalated in the past few decades -- and the fact the press won't take a congressional candidate seriously unless that candidate has a quarter of a million dollars up front?

David Sirota: I think the Internet's use as a fundraising instrument - and specifically as an instrument of small-dollar fundraising - has allowed candidates who use it properly to feel more free of Big Money interests than before - and therefore to more aggressively try to represent the uprising when in office. That said, Big Money interests still have huge influence in politics, and that's why if this uprising is going to become a successful movement, it will have to put public financing of campaigns as a central part of its agenda.
_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.: You have advised a governor. What can state governments do to best extend progressive policies? How much impact might taking such actions as making tax collections more progressive, increasing the minimum wage, and creating tax breaks for business collections have if we could get a large number of states together to take such actions?

David Sirota: I'm glad you asked this question - in the din of the presidential election, we often forget all the other arenas of change like state legislatures. In the 1980s, conservatives focused on state legislatures for their uprising through organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council - they knew that states could wield a huge amount of power on all sorts of issues because states deal with the most important area of government: money.

States can do all sorts of things - crack down on corporate crime (see Colorado's upcoming ballot initiative), make taxes more progressive (see the first chapter of my book), and even get involved in reforming our international trade policies through their procurement policies (see Public Citizen's website). So it's not what states can or can't do - it's what this uprising is willing to invest in states in terms of activism and pressure that will determine HOW MUCH states will do.
_______________________

Chicago: Hey David, Why hasn't the federal bailout of the financial sector elicited more outrage from populists?

David Sirota: I think it has in the sense that the headlines about it have only reinforced the idea that the government no longer even pretends to work for regular people. So while people may not be thinking explicitly "I don't like that the government gave Bear Stearns a lot of money" I think they are thinking more generally that "wow, this government is really out of control."
_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: So with this new movement, how hopeful can we be about enacting a 100 percent estate tax soon?

David Sirota: Pretty far away, I'd say, because tax reform is probably the toughest part of this uprising. Then again, if you read the first chapter of the book, you will see that the tax debate is finally starting to thaw from the right-wing freeze. Thirty years of conservative propaganda on taxes has set back the tax debate incredibly far. So getting a progressive tax debate about tax inequality going will certainly happen, it is going to be a gradual process.
_______________________

Crestwood, N.Y.: Haven't read your book yet (but I plan to) and don't know how you answered this question: If the president-elect isn't named Paul, Huckabee or Kucinich, exactly what does Wall Street have to fear? Aren't the hedge fund trillionaires all in bed with Obama and the Democrats? As for Mc Cain and his good pal Sen. Gramm ... well, don't make me laugh.

There has been zero impact from the golden-parachute scandals, Enron, etc., etc.; the confidence game under the guise of "deregulation" continues. Barring a 1929-style crash, I don't see how we get a populist reform and overhaul of our financial sector, nor do I see how a President Obama who tries to do the right thing succeeds in this gargantuan task. Do you?

David Sirota: I think you are right - there is less for Wall Street to fear from the presidential candidates. But one of the key points my book makes is that presidential politics is really only one avenue of making change in a democratic society. The book talks about how there are all sorts of other arenas to make change - both electoral and in terms of direct action. In the electoral arena, we can pressure state government to crackdown on financial abuse (anyone remember Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's record?). In the direct action arena, workers can unionize their workplace to bargain collectively (last year was the first uptick in union membership in many years).

So the myth that the media foists on us about presidential politics being the only avenue of change is just that - a myth. And its a pernicious myth, because it distracts our attention from the other arenas where we can really make a difference - and where the uprising IS really making a difference.
_______________________

Minneapolis: Now that we know the two major party candidates, can you compare their relative abilities to inspire support as populists? The conventional wisdom would seem to say Obama has it, McCain does not. Is this simple, obvious answer the correct one?

David Sirota: I don't think its as simple as that in terms of these two candidates. McCain has shown a populist streak in his past legislation and rhetoric against Big Money interests. That legislation and rhetoric may now be a thing of the past - but he may well resurrect it in the general election. Obama certainly could harness this uprising - and I think he has to some extent in the primary. But he will have to get comfortable with a more full-throated populist economic message on issues like trade and globalization. Neither candidate has shown any desire to be a real class-based populist - but the candidate who does realize the power of that kind of politics will harness this uprising and probably be elected President.
_______________________

Boston: Hey David -- if you had to point to an economist who conveys your views, who would it be? Michael Hudson, Robert Pollin, Karl Marx?

David Sirota: Ha-Joon Chang.
_______________________

Los Angeles: A flaw with U.S. capitalism is that Bear Sterns's chairman can receive $61 million after leading the company to its demise, billions in shareholder losses and a government-backed bailout. Formerly, Republicans championed limited government regulations (perhaps because regulated company officials make large political contributions) but Bush killed that Republican brand with regulatory expansion through the Patriot Act, leading to reduced civil liberties. Now Bushies want to expand regulation of financial markets. One wonders if these new regulations would've exposed Elliot Spitzer's hooker uses sooner than Patriot Act SARs.

I have some new regulations to propose: Bar federal employees regulating banks, brokerages and hedge funds from working for these companies until a reasonable period has expired, say three to five years (helps avoid conflicts of interest, such as what occurred in the in 2002-2003 Boeing-Pentagon scandal). Purchasers of a stock that experiences dramatic decline in stock price within 60-90 days of purchase (e.g. Bear Stern going from more than $100 to $2 since Dec 2007) should be able to reverse the transaction if the purchase decision was based on fraudulent or grossly inaccurate accounting information the company reported. If grossly inaccurate or fraudulent information is discovered, all bonuses paid to company and brokerage officials based on such information should be subject to recovery by regulators and paid to company shareholders.

David Sirota: These are the kinds of proposals I expect to bubble up as the financial meltdown gets worse, and the public gets more angry.
_______________________

Washington: Hi David. I enjoyed reading your book very much, and blogged about it. One of the questions I had in my blog post was about the phenomenon of many, many people self-identifying as political independents in the U.S. (about 40 percent of the electorate) in rejection of the two major parties. I was wondering: What do you think of that phenomenon in relation to the various uprisings happening all over the country? And what do you think of the efforts to try and harness that widespread dissatisfaction into a political movement -- specifically, the efforts of the Committee for a Unified Independent Party, or CUIP?

David Sirota: I think the increase in self-identified independents is an expression of anger. I'm not sure self-identified independents are actually voting much differently than they did before - that is to say, I think many people who call themselves independent also continue to vote with one party reliably. However, the change in party registration/affiliation is certainly people saying they've had it with what's going on. The question is whether that initial step will lead to more constructive activism...
_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: It is a fact that there is considerably more excitement and interest in the "battle" between fundamentally mainstream candidates than in the wars and famines that are raging all over the world today. What does this say to you about how much Americans really "care" about anything? While I agree with much of what you have said in many of your writings, I find that mainstream progressive thought is much more a case of people like you trying to sell the people a different-colored car than an alternative mode of transportation.

David Sirota: In advertising, they say the goal is to manufacture desires before you ever sell a product. Make people desire something and then the sales pitch for the specific product is easier. The excitement and interest in the battle between milquetoast candidates is merely the product of that manufacture of desire by the media. The media focuses only on presidential politics, and within that, only on a narrow set of issues and candidates in that arena. That leads us to believe that that's where the real "battle" is - when in fact, as my book shows, the battle is all around us in an infinite number of arenas.

I think it's hard to support your assertion that my writing is attempting to sell a different colored car, as you put it. I write about issues like globalization, trade and corporate power that very, very few authors/political journalists write about in any kind of power-challenging way.
_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Mr. Sirota, I've listened to each of the three major presidential candidates (one of whom, by nature of the system, is guaranteed to be the next president) cheer the alleged "political awakening" of America's young people. Their emphasis is that these new "activists" either are donating money to Democrats and Republican or are active raising money from donors.

Thus, the main activity of the select few who have heard the call to activism is to collect yet more cash for an increasingly unresponsive, unrepresentative political system choked with special interest and PAC money. Personally, I find this news depressing. I don't feel a new wave of change and activism; I sense only a new generation a buying into a broken electoral system at a younger age than their parents, and nothing more. I'm hardly a radical, but I find the whole mess discouraging to say the least.

David Sirota: I can see your point of view - and I sympathize with it to a certain extent. I worry that lots of people getting involved in the presidential campaign think the campaign itself is a political movement. But as history has shown, candidates, parties and elections are not movements - they are vehicles for movements. Those who think any of these candidates or any of these elections are movements are deluded.
_______________________

washingtonpost.com: You mention the power of state governments; how successful do you think a Republican strategy of playing defense in 2008 and conserving resources to fight tooth-and-nail -- especially on the state level -- in 2010 would be? Mid-term elections tend to favor the minority party as it is, and 2010's majorities would decide how to redraw district lines, post-census.

David Sirota: I think that's precisely what the GOP will do, but even beyond that electoral strategy, I think that will be their public policy strategy. If Republicans are shut out of Congress and the presidency, they will fire up their well-developed state-based infrastructure to take the conservative legislative fight to individual state legislatures in a more intense way than we've seen before.
_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Do you think it's possible for Sen. Obama to win Montana and other just-out-of-reach Western states without moving so far to the center that it alienates the progressives what brung him to the dance?

David Sirota: I definitely think it is possible - but it will require him to understand that the left-right stereotypes presented by the media is not the continuum of politics in the heartland. "Moving to the center" is defined by the Washington, D.C. media as, for instance, supporting the Patriot Act. But the Patriot Act is hated in places like Montana and Colorado (see their state legislatures' near-unanimous passage of bipartisan legislation condemning the act).

If Obama is to win these kinds of states, he will have to move in a more populist direction on issues of civil liberties and economic issues - if he follows the DLC-ish faux "centrist" line of bowing down to corporate America and the national security state, he will lose these places decisively.
_______________________

Evanston, Ill.: Hey David, what is your response to the argument that socialism is inefficient because of the absence of a dynamic price system -- i.e. the socialist calculation debate?

David Sirota: Forgive my ignorance, but I don't know the specific argument you are referring to. However, what I would say is this: the argument that government involvement in the marketplace is always inefficient is not supported by fact. Just one example: Medicare expends about 4 cents on the dollar for paperwork and administrative costs. The private health care market expends about 15 cents on the dollar for the same kind of thing. In short, in the health care market, we have evidence that the government can be far more efficient than the private system.
_______________________

washingtonpost.com: What do you think of the criticism in today's Post review that your book, while well-written, pulls together disparate groups that don't constitute anything like a movement yet?

David Sirota: I was confused by the criticism - because that's precisely the point I make at the beginning and end of the book. These are disparate groups. They are all motivated by a similar backlash sentiment against the Establishment - but its not yet clear whether they can forge a full-fledged movement around a common agenda. That's why I called the book "The Uprising" rather than "The Movement" - an uprising is that middle-stage between total disengaged chaos and a full-fledged movement. Whether this uprising becomes a movement is not yet clear - that's the very point of the book.
_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: You wrote: "I think it's hard to support your assertion that my writing is attempting to sell a different-colored car, as you put it. I write about issues like globalization, trade and corporate power that very, very few authors/political journalists write about in any kind of power-challenging way." You really ought to get out more -- I have found all of your writings entirely predictable. I'm not trying to be mean, that's just how it is.

David Sirota: One's "predictable" is another's "consistent." I make no apologies for advocating what I advocate, nor do I apologize for refusing to be inconsistent in order to satiate your desire for surprises.
_______________________

David Sirota: Thank you all for being here and participating. I hope you pick up the book, and feel free to email me your comments at ds@davidsirota. And most importantly, join the uprising!
_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.

RADICAL CLARITY TO THE CONCEPT OF REAL "CHANGE"

Social movements need to shape a new ideology that can truly embody change. Hierarchy and environmental destruction go hand in hand, as the solutions to these problems should. Participatory democracy fits well into the problem solving picture because it can guide people to make decisions regarding their own destiny and that of their community. -Editor

Radical Clarity to the Concept of Real "Change"

Source: http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1312/1/

Written by Karl Kardy
Monday, 02 June 2008

Book Review: Social Ecology and Communalism by Murray Bookchin. Edited by Eirik Eiglad. Oakland, AK Press: 118 pages. ISBN 978-1-904859-49-9 [Available to purchase from AK Press]

The American presidential election season has pundits and pollsters proclaiming "change" a primary factor in the minds of many voters. It's little wonder that this stark period - marked by the so-called "War on Terror," the extension of neoliberalism across the globe, and the urgency of global warming - has motivated such vague desires among the citizenry. Undefined, undifferentiated and ultimately relegated to mere platitudes, "change" here means little; it is cosmetic, commodified, and reinforces the status quo. Absent is a lens, a coherent perspective through which current and future movements might comprehend and ultimately transcend the prevailing order, inspiring the crucial transformative "change" so necessary to reverse today's regressive and reactionary tendencies.

While the US Green Party struggles on and plans yet again to rely on a presidential candidacy to foster a "trickle down" growth for state and local parties, there is little to suggest that Greens or any other marginalized American Left movements are positioned to fill this void of coherent analyses and strategies for reconstructive action. Yet the American Green movement's early history included the influence of social ecology, a body of thought primarily developed by Murray Bookchin, that articulates just such a vision based on ecological principles, notions of radical democracy, and a celebration of our uniquely human potentialities. Bookchin was a keynote speaker at the first national gathering of US Greens in 1987 and his work, including more than 20 books, numerous essays, articles, speaking engagements, and the co-founding of the Institute for Social Ecology, affected the formation of the Left Greens and played a prominent role in debates over direction for the nascent American Green movement.

Social Ecology and Communalism, a recently released collection of four essays written in Bookchin's later years, offers an accessible introduction to social ecology's fundamental rejection of social hierarchy and domination, critique of instrumental reasoning in favor of a dialectical philosophical orientation, and it's ecological "libertarian municipalist" political strategy. It should be noted that Bookchin's version of "communalism" bears no relation to the (largely religion-based) sectarianism it evokes in South Asia. Instead, here communalism refers to the theory and system of government in which local communities are associated in a confederation.

Norwegian communalist Eirik Eiglad edited this collection and presents the reader with a fascinating, if brief, biography of Bookchin, a man literally raised in the radical political culture of Depression-era New York City. Early adulthood saw Bookchin involved in various Communist Party organizations, though he soon broke with the Communists, aligning for a time with the Trotskyist movement before moving towards libertarian socialism after World War II. Eventually, after years of activism, writing, and serious study of radical theory, he engaged in the anarchist movement. With the appearance of his seminal 1964 essay "Ecology and Revolutionary Thought" began to clearly articulate an explicitly radical and ecological body of thought.

The collection's initial lengthy essay "What is Social Ecology?" represents an attempt at a concise elaboration of social ecology's basic premise that nearly all of our present ecological problems originate in deep seated social problems. Bookchin traces the roots of social hierarchy and domination in early aboriginal societies, at the same time observing examples of distinctively social and egalitarian human institutions that represent the latent human striving for freedom. In particular, he identifies the "irreducible minimum" - a social custom that held that all members of the community are entitled to the means of life regardless of the amount of work they perform - and "usufruct" - a notion of property that allowed for the use of the means of life, as needed, by one group or individual so long as they were not already being used by another - as examples of customs which persisted, evolved, and even today continue to exist in latent forms.

These twin legacies of hierarchy and freedom, he suggests, have evolved through history and provide crucial insights into today's social climate. It is the institutionalization of capitalist ideology, reinforced by notions of social Darwinism and instrumental rationality - one that reduces human reasoning faculties to a mere "means-ends" tool that neglects any concern for what "ought be" - that represents a logical, yet not inevitable, unfolding of the legacy of hierarchy and domination.

Bookchin calls for the replacement this existing "grow or die" mentality with an ethics of complementarity, rooted in ecological principles and informed by a dialectical philosophical orientation writing that humanity "can draw far-reaching conclusions for the development of an ecological ethics that in turn can provide serious guidelines for the solution of our ecological problems." Through a developmental, historical perspective we may "educe" the means to a synthesis of the nonhuman and human spheres into a "free nature" where humanity acts ethically and creatively within the wider natural world.

The two subsequent essays, "Radical Politics in an Era of Advanced Capitalism" and "The Role of Social Ecology in a Period of Reaction," focus on both social ecology's concept of politics and its relationship to the Enlightenment tradition, respectively. Here Bookchin underscores the importance of reason, ethics, and citizenship to the social ecology project.

"Politics these days has been identified completely with statecraft, the professionalization of power" - a vital recognition that leads to his call for a re-thinking of citizenship in the spirit of the Athenian polis, positing the importance of face-to-face direct democracy and an emphasis on the neighborhood, town, and municipality. Bookchin places this emphasis on citizenship, face-to-face municipal politics under the rubric of "libertarian municipalism" a strategy based on human-scale eco-communities linked through confederal bodies guided by reason and ethics rather than profit and the private accumulation of power. For Bookchin, it will be "the ability and willingness of radicals to (redefine politics)" that "may well determine future movements like the Greens and the very possibility of radicalism to exist as a coherent force for basic social change."

"The Communalist Project" closes the collection and was Bookchin's last major work before his passing in July 2006. Significant for it's far-reaching scope and positioning of social ecology and libertarian municipalism under the "communalist" banner, the piece begins with an impassioned plea:

Whether the twenty-first century will be the most radical of times or the most reactionary or will simply lapse in the gray era of dismal mediocrity - will depend overwhelmingly upon the kind of social movement and program that social radicals create out of the theoretical, organization, and political wealth that has accumulated during the past two centuries of the revolutionary era.

Seeking to place Communalism in historical perspective, Bookchin surveys the major Left traditions, endeavoring to illustrate how communalism incorporates the better elements from each while offering provocative critiques of Marxism, anarchism, and revolutionary syndicalism. Bookchin describes libertarian municipalism as the "praxis" of the communalist framework and emphasizes the importance of the civic dimension of the modern world's great revolutions, not the least of which, for Bookchin, was the Paris Commune of 1793.

Bookchin is clear in his belief that the primary concerns of today's radicals should include a solid grounding in the study of history, specifically that of modern revolutionary era. He is also unequivocal in his rejection of what he considers the oft-confused and contradictory aspects of contemporary trends in mysticism and spirituality, "lifestyle anarchism," and the reconstitution of various outdated Left ideologies.

It's telling that Bookchin's ideas were so inspirational to the initial development of the US Greens while the emphasis was on the building of a transformative grassroots movement. Yet as Green Party US emerged and the more radical and movement-oriented activists drifted away, the valuable insights and provocative critiques put forth by Bookchin and social ecology receded from view for many Green activists. Social Ecology and Communalism presents a potential source of rediscovery, an inspiration in a time where lucid alternatives to the grim prospects of enduring social and ecological crises are desperately needed.

Karl Hardy is a graduate student at Prescott College in social ecology and a community activist in South Bend, Indiana.

PARTIES, MOVEMENTS AND RADICAL CHANGE

This article from Red Pepper in the U.K. discusses several ways in which the radical left in the U.K could better direct and coordinate their efforts by promoting participatory democratic practices such as participatory budgeting, and by broadening their coalition to include people that have traditionally felt excluded or alienated by their movements. The arguments are equally relevant to the movement here in the U.S. and provide food for thought in the struggle to create an effective progressive coalition here that will achieve permanent and significant change. - Editor

Parties, movements and radical change

Davy Jones, a leading advocate of participatory budgeting, says the left needs to recognise and seize opportunities when and where they arise

Source: http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article1082.html

I am constantly struck by the failure of the radical left to explicitly seize the moral high ground. The right (especially the evangelical right) are not averse to doing so when it suits them, yet socialism, internationalism, ecological sustainability, feminism, anti-imperialism all have very strong ethical foundations. Appealing broadly on key issues to a very basic humanity and compassion potentially connects us to audiences that for some years have been removed from radical left politics- the many people in various religious and moral camps.

This may cause some on the left to question long-held beliefs, such as on the use of violence, but that’s no bad thing. The enormous success of the London Citizens movement in bringing together trade unions and religious groups should be a lesson to us all. We tend to focus too much on detail and not enough on the big ethical issues underlying our politics. For example, half the world’s GDP is routed through tax havens which means half the potential tax revenues are lost. This is so grotesquely unfair to people who pay their taxes that it allows us to explain to them that there is enough money in the world- it’s just who’s got it and the tax systems set up to protect them that’s the problem.

Identify the issues

We need to identify the issues where there is real possibility of a broad anti-capitalist, anti-establishment consensus emerging in the UK (and internationally) and focus on these.

It is possible to change mass consciousness on certain issues in a relatively short space of time. They key then is to turn this into a permanent (or near to permanent as possible) step forward, ideally framed in law as well as in the popular consciousness. It’s been noted in other contexts how social attitudes to drinking and driving changed dramatically in a generation to one of outright hostility to such selfish and dangerous behaviour. The same is now happening on global warming and living within environmentally sustainable limits. Radical left activists must build the broadest possible unity around such issues and be at the heart of arguing for such transformations, using them to explain the links to other social, economic and political issues.

Respond rapidly and create permanent resources

Insufficient time and effort goes into translating successes into permanent acquisitions, not just ideologically but also physically and virtually. To be able to respond rapidly and effectively, the radical left needs embedded resources and infrastructure. This will take many forms such as resource centres, websites, socio-political networks and funding sources. Rather than forming another party or newspaper a shrewder investment may be to create and sustain permanent resources for the range of needs the radical left needs for its activities.

Remove the barriers

There are some structural issues that are critical barriers to progress for radical left politics. The most obvious is the electoral system. Proportional representation is no panacea but crucial if radical left politics is to enter the mainstream electoral and political arena. Another barrier is the party system and elections. The party system, especially in local elections, is a major barrier to making radical breakthroughs at a local level. The radical left needs to develop proposals and campaign to make it much easier for independent candidates and small parties to stand in local, national and European elections.

Recognise opportunities

As Hilary Wainwright hints in her article it is also crucial to seize any opportunities to create and sustain forms of local democratic debate and accountability as ongoing spaces. For example, for its own reasons this government has decided to promote participatory budgeting but is it just a panacea? No, current developments in Porto Alegre show this.

To incorporate local processes of structured debate and discussion about what needs to be done and how money should be spent locally would represent a huge step forward for the UK. Potentially it could raise debate about the need for structured discussion of the national budget and priorities, weaken the power of the traditional local parties to have exclusive access to this discussion and help reawaken interest in politics.

The crucial thing is for the radical left to recognise such opportunities when they arise and to seize them rather than sneer from the sidelines at the government’s motives.

CHICAGO'S HUMBOLDT PARK: COMMUNITY USES PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY TO FIGHT GENTRIFICATION

When gentrification efforts by real estate developers and specualtors threatened the integrity of a long standing Puerto Rican community in Chicago's Humboldt Park, The community organized against the threat using models of participatory democracy to develop and execute their struggle for self-preservation and self-determination. The following article and related links describe their efforts and the participatory philosophy and practices behind them. - Editor

Exercises in Self-Determination:The Humboldt Park Participatory Democracy Project

Source: http://www.prcc-chgo.org/prcc_confronting_gentrification.htm

Michael Rodríguez Muñiz

Who should determine the future of a community? In our complex world, this seemingly simple question is rarely posed, and even more rarely answered. However rare, I believe that the overwhelming consensus, and the only ethical response, would be that a community should determine its future. But like all systems of oppression, the forces of colonialism and its urban overseer, gentrification– continue to contradict our ethical sensibilities.

In Chicago’s Humboldt Park/ West Town area, gentrification is threatening the future of the Puerto Rican community. Gentrification, a process of spatial de-concentration, destroys inner city communities (often of color) through various methods. Without so much as a vote or an opinion poll, developers and speculators are attempting to determine what is to become of Humboldt Park. Obsessed with the construction of luxurious condominiums, they have developed strategies to displace the long-time residents of area. As property taxes rise, so do rent costs, resulting in more and more families being economically forced out, against their will. Still more, gentrification does not end with displacement; it continues with the confiscation and subsequent obliteration of a community’s legacy.

The recent and repeated attempts to obstruct the oldest Puerto Rican mural in Chicago with a condominium, teaches us how this process destroys community symbols, public art, and popular culture. This lesson is driven home further with the example of Lincoln Park, which was once a vital Puerto Rican community but today has lost all vestiges of this history; ask anyone in Lincoln Park today about that fact and you will realize how gentrification erases history.

For over 40 years, Humboldt Park has been synonymous with Puerto Ricans. Here, like no other place in Chicago, this area has been the focal point of Puerto Rican activity– culturally, politically, and economically. In a sense, this area is akin to Boston’s Villa Victoria and New York City’s Spanish Harlem. Being one of the largest Puerto Rican communities outside of New York City, Humboldt Park boasts a long Puerto Rican history, including the yearly celebration of the Fiestas Patronales and Puerto Rican People’s Parade, which grew out of the 1966 and 1979 Division Street “riots” (rebellions). The most recent of these historic developments has been the establishment of Paseo Boricua and the movement to build a stable, viable, and autonomous Puerto Rican community.

“Paseo Boricua,” the term that affectionately refers to Division Street between California and Mozart, is marked by the two towering Puerto Rican flags erected in 1995.2 Vigilantly cognizant of the movement of gentrifying forces displacing Puerto Ricans from Wicker Park and most of West Town, community organizers established Paseo Boricua to be the anchor of the Puerto Rican community, el barrio boricua.

Along with the transformation of Division Street into a cultural-economic corridor, community efforts have resulted in the organization of a community-wide revitalization plan known as the Humboldt Park Empowerment Partnership (HPEP), as well as the formation of the Puerto Rican Agenda. In particular, the Puerto Rican Agenda, an ad-hoc committee made up of professionals, students, community activists, and local politicians, has worked tirelessly to help maintain and stabilize the Puerto Rican community.

Together, these organized bodies have developed numerous strategies; for example, several new programs seek to increase home ownership and affordable housing, while other programs address health and employment needs. This reclamation of space, both geographical and cultural, is all the more impressive when understood within the socio-economic context of this Puerto Rican community. As an internally colonized people, the Puerto Rican community suffers from astronomical dropout rates, high levels of drug and alcohol abuse, rampant gang violence, poverty and unemployment. Though the challenge is great, community efforts have made substantial inroads in addressing these needs and strengthening its economic infrastructure. Lamentably, however, gentrification is a persistent foe.

Armed to the teeth with outside financial and political force, gentrification has begun to displace many Humboldt Park residents. In actuality, Puerto Ricans, once the majority group, have suffered over the course of the last decade a significant population decline.3 Nevertheless, as history has proven, Puerto Ricans are determined to remain in Humboldt Park.

A new initiative of the Puerto Rican Cultural Center (PRCC), a long time beacon of resistance, is focused on further engaging residents by posing the following question: who is to determine our fate in el barrio? The PRCC, espousing the concept of participatory democracy, believes that this question can only be answered and fulfilled by the collective participation of the community. Without increased participation in community development– gentrification will not be stopped.... To read full article click HERE...

See also:

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=3603&SectionID=25&SubSectionID=55&S=1

http://www.myspace.com/humboldtparkpd

BOOK GIVES VOICE TO CHICAGO'S PARTICIPANTS IN LOCAL GOVERNANCE

Empowered Participation is the compelling chronicle of this unprecedented transformation. It is the first comprehensive empirical analysis of the ways in which participatory democracy can be used to effect social change. Using city-wide data and six neighborhood case studies, the book explores how determined Chicago residents, police officers, teachers, and community groups worked to banish crime and transform a failing city school system into a model for educational reform.

The author's conclusion: Properly designed and implemented institutions of participatory democratic governance can spark citizen involvement that in turn generates innovative problem-solving and public action. Their participation makes organizations more fair and effective.

Though the book focuses on Chicago's municipal agencies, its lessons are applicable to many American cities. Its findings will prove useful not only in the fields of education and law enforcement, but also to sectors as diverse as environmental regulation, social service provision, and workforce development.

Archon Fung is Associate Professor of Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He is the author, with Erik Olin Wright, of "Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance".

For more on this publication visit the following link:

Source: http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/04/empowered_participation_by_arc.html

THE COMMONS, THE STATE AND TRANSFORMATIVE POLITICS

The Commons, the State and Transformative Politics

Source: http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article768.html

Hilary Wainwright examines how new technology and new forms of organisation are coming together to transform the left and labour movements, political representation and democracy

The resistance to the G8 in Rostok in June this year had a particularly varied and energetic character. A massive international demonstration converging from all quarters of the town. Camps, communal kitchens and alternative forums. Clowns and samba bands. Confrontations with the police. A disciplined and imaginative non-violent disruption of the summit, which even the Financial Times judged to have been successful.

Among those taking part were a group of around thirty activist intellectuals from Europe, Latin America and North America who met Berlin in the spacious rooms of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation near some well-graffiti’d stumps of the Wall. It was the fourth seminar of the ‘Networked Politics’ series, an international inquiry into ‘rethinking political organisation in an era of movements and networks’.... To read full article click HERE

RETHINKING POLITICAL PARTIES

The following insightful article examines the relationship between those of us who are actively seeking social justice and participatory systems of government, the existing political parties, and the organized social movements we associate with. A lengthy piece, but well worth the read, as it may influence your perception of how all these elements should interact to have the most positive impact. - Editor





Rethinking Political Parties

Source: http://www.redpepper.org.uk/article1017.html
By Hilary Wainwright


The membership and influence of political parties is declining throughout the western world, and most quickly in Britain. Hilary Wainwright examines the role of the party in transformative politics and asks how the left might reimagine this crucial instrument of political change

The need for radical social change is pressing and the desire for it widespread. Traditionally, political parties have been the means of giving shape, leadership and coherence to such desires. But in present circumstances they are simply not up to the task. There’s never been a golden age for parties of the left but there have been periods – the 1920s up till the late 1960s – when the majority of people desiring change in a broadly socialist direction would be members or supporters of mass socialist or communist parties.

The situation now is that by far the majority of people actively pursuing goals of social justice, equality, deeper democracy, a social and environmentally sustainable economy and a demilitarised politics are politically active without being members of political parties. I am too.
Like many others, I’m not anti-party. If I lived in Italy, Norway or Germany, for instance, I’d probably join Rifondazione Comunista, the Socialist Left Party (SV) or Die Linke. But I would not see party activity – at any rate not in the forms that it conventionally takes – as my main focus.

Yet the sum of extra-party, movement-oriented activity does not somehow add up to political change, even if it were more adequately co-ordinated. We cannot point to ‘social movements’ to get us out of a tight spot. It should be clear by now that movements come and go and cannot be evoked as some self-evident answer to the problem of creating effective agencies of social change.... To read full article click HERE

VIRGINIA COMMUNITY PRACTICES GRASSROOTS PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY

The following article gives another example of how participatory democracy can function at the community level , in this case a small Virginia community. Such independant transitions to grassroots governance on a larger scale throughout the U.S. would greatly enhance the democratic process. Not only is it an option for small communities like this one, but for larger ones as well utilizing the internet and e-democracy methods to facilitate participation by larger populations. - Editor

Virginia Community Practices Grassroots Participatory Democracy

Twin Oaks uses long consultative process, rotating managers and planners

By Stephen KaufmanUSINFO Staff Writer, 17 September 2007

Source: http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/September/20070917171337esnamfuak0.6775171.html

Photo: Members of the community process carrots that will carry them through the winter. (Twin Oaks)

Washington -- Much of the world is governed by professional politicians entrusted to make decisions on behalf of their constituents. However, one community in Virginia is taking advantage of its small size to engage in “participatory democracy” -- making decisions based on direct input from members rather than delegating the actual governance to others.

The roughly 100-member Twin Oaks community near Louisa, Virginia, was founded on the principles of “nonviolence, equality and ecology.” The 40-year-old community is sustained by manufacturing hammocks and casual furniture, as well as indexing books and making tofu, a staple food of some Asian diets. Members also provide for many of the community’s collective needs such as growing food, educating children and providing non-emergency health care. Its membership constantly fluctuates as new members arrive and others resume their lives in contemporary society.

There is no “leader” to decide community policies or practices on behalf of others. The goal is to allow everyone equal access to decisionmaking. But, with a population comparable to a small village that might otherwise be governed by a mayor and town council, how is this accomplished?

COMMUNITY PLANNERS SEEK TO ENACT COLLECTIVE WILL

“We’re not hierarchical. We want everyone to have a voice,” Valerie Renwick told USINFO. Renwick, a native of Ottawa, has lived at Twin Oaks for 15 years. She explained the “planner-manager” system that guides community decisionmaking.

Both managers and planners serve rotating one-and-a-half year terms. Managers are in charge of specific work areas, such as the production of hammocks or community meals, while planners decide issues that affect the community as a whole through a lengthy consultation process. “[Planners] are synthesizing information, trying to determine the collective will of the community on a given issue at a given moment in time,” Renwick said.

Issues of concern range from membership decisions to business relations with outside retailers who sell Twin Oaks products.

Community members can propose new ideas or policy changes by posting a message on Twin Oaks’ “Opinions and Ideas Board” and soliciting expressions of support or opposition. Planners use that information to decide whether to pursue the proposal. Planners also may distribute surveys on the issue “where they ask very particularly pointed questions,” Renwick said.

Photo: Members and visitors gather for dinner on the deck in the main kitchen dining center. (Twin Oaks)

In such a small community, the planners also can talk directly with people to determine the collective will or hold meetings to discuss the issue and allow for further input.

Following this process, “the decisions are always left to the planners and they will take all these various forms of information,” Renwick said. Rather than having planners serve in a “hierarchical position where they are making decisions for the community … the voice of the people is being brought to the decisionmakers,” she said.

Even after a decision has been made, there is an appeals process, allowing the planners to reopen an issue if a community member feels all factors were not considered. But, she added, “That hardly ever gets used because we do generally do such a good job of going through [the process].”

LONG CONSULTATIVE PROCESS SUITS COMMUNITY

Renwick acknowledged the length of the participatory democracy process. “It can range from weeks to months to years, depending on the scale of the decision.” Quick decisions “cause more problems than they solve and it’s important for us to do a very thorough job so we try to make sure all the bases are covered.”

In emergencies or on time-sensitive issues, the three planners “will just talk among each other and do what they feel is best, but there are very few situations that actually require an immediate decision within a day or two or a matter of hours,” Renwick said.

Much of Twin Oaks culture is based on complete trust between members, making interpersonal conflicts rare. However, when they occur, conflict resolution starts small at the individual level and progresses to wider concentric levels such as groups of friends or co-workers. Some community members also specialize in mediation techniques. “If it gets really big, the last step is [the planners] will ask the person to leave the community,” she said, “but that’s happened maybe two or three times in the 15 years of me living here because we have all of these other systems in place to address the problem before it gets so big.”

So while there is no “community leader,” at Twin Oaks, “certainly the planners provide leadership for the community such as setting policy, and responding to problems.”

LEADERSHIP SELECTION OCCURS THROUGH GROUP INTERVIEW

The three planners’ terms of office are staggered to ensure varied levels of experience at all times. When a term nears its end, interested community members go through an interview process at a public meeting where they are asked about their administrative and interpersonal strengths, and how they would deal with conflicts, stress and sensitive issues. For the next 10 days, community members can express support or opposition to the candidacy through an “input box,” and the planners use those comments to decide whom to appoint. Even after an individual is designated, a “veto box” is available for the following 10 days as a last chance to voice objection.
Twin Oaks’ style of democracy might appear impractical for larger groups of people, but it is nevertheless a working example of grassroots democracy designed to embody the community’s egalitarian philosophy.

(USINFO is produced by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

THE MAINE PEOPLE'S ALLIANCE: EVERY STATE SHOULD HAVE ONE

The Maine People's Alliance, or MPA, has over 32,000 members from all age groups and backgrounds. It is an organization dedicated to fostering participatory democracy, protecting state initiative and referendum processes from attack, and grassroots organizing and campaigning on a host of issues. It has had a tremendous impact in the state on issues like health care, affordable housing, and the environment to name but a few. Take a look at their very informative website and you may find yourself asking why your state (if you are not a Mainer) doesn't have a similar organization that is similarly capable of bringing people from all walks of life together and providing the necessary framework for them to bring their people power to bear. There is no legitimate reason why such organizations could not be formed all across the country to provide a means of expanding participatory democracy in this way, increasing the balance of power and holding our elected representatives accountable to the will of the people. This could be the first step on the road to true democracy in the U.S.A. - Editor

(Source: MPA Website) http://www.mainepeoplesalliance.org/about_mpa.html

MPA’s mission is to involve un/underrepresented citizens in our democracy and to strengthen individual participation in decision-making processes that affect our lives. We are dedicated to advancing economic, environmental, political, and social justice. MPA members envision a society in which we have the courage together to move our world to justice, liberty, and respect for all walks of life by promoting the common interest and exercising shared power in the pursuit of collective goals.

MPA's purpose is to bring individuals and organizations together to realize shared goals. We focus on leadership development to increase the number of citizen leaders prepared to work for positive social change.

We are known for our ability to do grassroots organizing and education that reaches more than 100,000 Mainers each year with direct personal contact and quality leadership development work that has yielded dozens of leaders and staff for MPA and other organizations. MPA maintains offices in Bangor, Lewiston and Portland...

Visit their website now: http://www.mainepeoplesalliance.org/about_mpa.html