3F. GET TOGETHER

3F. GET TOGETHER: Compare expectations, coordinate strategies.

“Democracy as public discussion is viewed as the best way of dealing with the conflict of interests in a society: ‘The method of democracy – inasfar as it is that of organized intelligence – is to bring these conflicts out into the open where their special claims can be discussed and judged in the light of more inclusive interests than are represented by either of them separately’ (Liberalism and Social Action, LW11, 56). Democratic societies are thought of as both seeking to attain desirable goals, and arguing over how to do so, and also as arguing over what a desirable goal is. In other words, democratic politics is not simply a channel through which we can assert our interests (as it is for the first argument), but a forum or mode of activity in which we can arrive at a conception of what our interests are” (Dewey's Political Philosophy“, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

In a democracy, we have to agree on key goals and what we'll contribute toward winning them. That's why it's important to understand our self-interest.

Obama’s 2008 campaign posture that unity and pragmatism are the first priorities was an effective campaign tactic but did not reflect the very real differences of interest in this deeply divided society. At times his rhetoric seemed to dismiss the past century’s political movements as fantastic, old-fashioned, and childish; needlessly divisive. It remains to be seen whether the new president will promote a broad new consensus on the toughest issues, or ends up as a classic redistribution chief, doling out favors to the groups in queue, without affecting much the relationships and balance of power among them, so long as they stay beholden to him. It reassures me somewhat that this president does seem to be ready to make the case for particular policies, not just make deals.

I don’t believe we can reach agreement with everyone, just with the great majority who choose not to make their living by theft and murder. With all our differences, we have key interests in common. But it takes a lot of work to nail those down and act on them.


• Identify expectations we share, and draw some conclusions.
We have a lot of different ideas about what makes the world go round, but we live in the same one, so there must be some ideas we have in common. Let's see if we can agree on some basic observations; for example,

• We all want freedom and security.

• We make better choices for ourselves than our bosses can make for us.

• We are inescapably part of nature and society.

• There are not enough resources to do everything each of us wants, but there are enough to cover what we need.

• In this high tech society, the greatest threats come from other people.

That is some of what I see. Other folks will have noticed different features of our world. Maybe you don't agree with every one. But these are the kinds of observations we can share, and use them to build a broad consensus on what to do next-- a stronger foundation than the machined puree that passes for “values” in mainstream discourse-- the slogans and rituals handed down from one generation to another, that might once have been grounded in experience, but now, as uprooted, peeled and polished as baby carrots, serve mainly as flags and trumpets for the ceremonies of our Babylon. They seem like a shared faith because they fill the air like fumes from a trash incinerator, and they can as easily be held and shaped to serve our real needs.


Once we have a few general ideas we can agree on, we can start to draw conclusions, such as:

• We all want freedom and security; that means we can understand and deal with people from other backgrounds.

• We make better choices for ourselves than our bosses can make for us, so we can't let them make all the decisions.

• We are inescapably part of nature and society. Logically, then, what each of us does affects our neighbors and our nest. It works the other way, too; no matter how independent we like to think we are, the people and things around us influence our ideas and opportunities.

• There are not enough resources to do everything each of us wants, but there are enough to cover what we need, so we better figure out how to share fairly and use responsibly.

• In this high tech society, the greatest threats come from other people; in the long run fairness and broad participation are the strongest guarantors of security.

Then, when we consider specific strategies, we can check back and see if they fit what we know about the world.

Another set of observations has to do with how we as individuals make sense of the world and what that means for our capacity for organizing collective resistence and establishing alternatives. The dominant model says that people are sinful, dangerous, and not to be trusted; that only the boss’ fists laid on us through patriarchy and racism can hold back chaos (see "Tackle the trust issues", below). Do we accept that judgment about ourselves? We are dangerous, but that’s not all we are. Let’s be dangerous to the gangsters!


• Focus on the big goals, over the long term.
I try to forget my stupid remarks, but I remember some anyway. One time I was waving a sign at a peace event and I got to talking with the guy next to me. He belonged to the university employees’ union and had helped organize it. I told him I’d noticed there was a good turnout of community allies at union rallies, but not a lot of employees themselves. Of course they’re afraid their supervisors would punish them for union activity. So I asked my friend how do the organizers talk to employees, and how do the employees calculate the risks and benefits of supporting the union? What kind of support systems do they have to fall back on if they lost their jobs? I must have been thinking that if we could understand what specific work conditions kept people from openly supporting the union, we could develop some arguments that would tip the balance for them.

I think now these questions were mostly beside the point. Normally we don’t calculate so finely. I’m very careful not to jeopardize my own job, and the relationships I have with my supervisors. Like most people, I’ve developed some coping devices, so I can put up with a certain degradation in my working conditions. I don’t have a lot of employment alternatives. So I wouldn’t stick my neck out for a new union just to get a few cents an hour pay raise; especially if, as in the case of this university union, the main strategy was to rely on community allies to lean on the university. Sure, it’s important to expect that we can win a fight, and we can be hopeful, but it seems like the more important the issue, the harder the battle, and the fewer guarantees of victory. The only reason I’d risk my job would be to defend some core principle around which my life is organized, and if I felt I had some unavoidable personal responsibility.

I think what this means for developing a common political story is that we should pay the most attention to our sense of how the world could work better in general, and what’s possible in the long term. Most of us want justice, but it’s easier to see the obstacles than the steps upward. We have to know that justice is not a foolish, unattainable dream, and be able to explain why.

Fortunately, the organizing term is the long term, because building anything democratically takes a long time. We begin by understanding that our short-term tactics are failing us-- working harder, spending less, snitching on co-workers, self-medicating, buying lottery tickets, praying for miracles, sucking up to the rich uncle, the whole kit of tools and tactics that help us survive the daily demands and calamities, but don’t work when the drought goes on year after year. Then we have to talk, act, and talk, until a lot of people understand the problems and can see a way out.

In contrast, because it so efficiently dumps costs onto other people, corporate capitalism has institutionalized short-sightedness on a global scale. Even medieval peasants knew better. They had to husband limited resources amidst long-term cycles of weather, famine, and disease. Corporate pirates have become experts at smash-and-grab. What Iraqi gangs did to Baghdad’s museums in the wake of Mission Accomplished, corporate looters have done again and again to the world economy. And as they make off with the loot, our devastated communities have to fight for survival, with little scope for long-term thinking.

All the more need for us to put the current battles in context, to see how our own projects and neighborhoods relate to the long-term struggle for justice. Activists may live and breathe these connections, but they are not always self-evident to the rest of us. So we have to estimate how much we can accomplish by our own efforts, and when we need to work together. We can sketch out our individual roles in and contributions to the bigger effort, adding detail as we learn and learn. We have overlapping interests and competing interests; we need to analyze and negotiate. We will need a very strong sense of our common interests, especially as we get closer to power and the stakes get higher. One thing we know for certain: all of us would be better off without these slimy tapeworms in our guts.

For sure, we need wins right now to protect ourselves from immediate threats, to gain skills and confidence, and to help change our expectations. So we have to fight each battle fiercely. But we can barely touch the fundamental problems with one program or in one campaign. The best organizations broadcast their long term goals from the gitgo, and have models for how to get from here to there. If we do this and this and this, leaving this margin for mistakes and unforeseeable events, then we should see thus and such happen. Process models are never complete, but they let us state and debate our assumptions, and evaluate how well they work in the real world. What do we all need, and what would it take to get that, without robbing each other? I repeat, we don’t need to know every step ahead of time, but we have to know the next step and the right direction, so we can move forward together.

Finally, we can talk and act as if we owned the place. This is the only planet we’ve got; we can’t let the gangsters turn it into their toilet. If indeed the meek will inherit, we better fix it before it’s dead.