| Home Events About us Donate |
|
|
ResourcesVideo Library Austin Area Activist Groups Fact Sheets and FlyersLinksAlternative Media Internet Audio and Video BooksIssuesIraq Palestine/Israel Latin America Afghanistan Corporate Globalization Nuclear Weapons and Proliferation |
(13) Movement directionsRJ: Given what has happened since 9/11 and the state of the movement, in the context of the bigger structural problems of capitalism and liberal democracy, let me come back to the question of what shape the movement can, or should, take in the future. Do you think it should take the form of an electoral party? Should there be a move for a new third party? Should it take the form of more traditional grassroots groups? AO: I know what I want, and I can tell other people what I think they can do. If you're a trade unionist, we'll talk about what you can do. If you're a member of a church, we'll talk about what you can do. At this point, in whatever area of life we are located, the question is simple: What can we do to enrich, to strengthen the streams that are flowing in the right direction. I'm not worried about a new organization or party right now. I don't have any political goals, in that sense, and I'm never going to. I don't want to. I teach young people not to have them. I think we need to stay on the path of righteousness and address these problems the best we can. Ultimately, I know what I'd like to see. I'd like to see the end of this electoral system. I think no matter what parties we create, ultimately we'll come back to the same shit. The most productive things that ever happen in this country, in terms of moving humanity forward, are totally non-electoral -- a trade-union movement, a civil-rights movement. Yes, they had an impact on, and were affected by, the electoral process. But essentially, they worked because large numbers of people wanted something and were willing to put their asses on the line. Workers seized factories -- that's revolutionary activity. It wasn't planned by professional revolutionaries. It wasn't done by the Communist Party. Ordinary black people did what they did in the civil-rights movement. And, if you look at history, that's constantly the way it happens. Progress, when it took place in history, took place because people committed themselves passionately and in large numbers to a theme. Whether building a union, whether it was the right to vote, even though in the long run didn't mean all that much. The right to vote, period, is not such a great achievement. The main thing is: What can you do with a fucking vote? We never really came to terms with that. We did achieve big victories, including the right to vote, and women's right to vote. But I don't know what the hell the political structure should be. What I do know is that unless we get on the path of big mass movements, with limited objectives, clear-cut objectives, we're not going to go any place. I know that. I strongly believe that. RJ: Is the current antiwar movement -- that kind of resistance to the way the U.S. operates in the world -- the place where that kind of traction is most likely? AO: There is a growing disillusionment with the way this country is conducting its military operations. There's the beginning of a disaster for the middle class economically. If you look up the road it is a disaster, because the children of the middle class are going to inherit a big pile of shit, an incredible mortgage on their lives that they're going to have to pay off. The existing middle class is comfortable, but most of the kids coming out of middle class, in material terms, are going to live lesser lives than their parents. This'll be the first time in American history. Almost every time we move forward, the generation that followed achieved higher levels of material life. That's over -- there's no question in my mind. And the shrinking is going to be felt, painfully felt, by the children of the middle class. RJ: Do things have to get worse before they can get better? AO: Putting it in that form bothers me, because it makes it sounds as if we should work for things to get worse. I think the resistance to things as they're getting worse makes progress possible. Just getting worse can be a disaster. You need a lot of life to resist that spiral down. It doesn't automatically follow that when people begin to suffer they will become politically active. As a matter of fact, most human beings turn to anguish, despair, they turn to drinking, they turn to therapy -- to everything but social activism. It's our job to tell them there's another way to fly. Really, that's what it comes down to. RJ: You've said over and over that one of the ways to reach people is by touching their humanity, engaging their empathy, which is an attempt to get people to act on the basis of the interest of someone else. You say there's a reason to do that, which is to give yourself a sense of meaning in life, but that the motive force there is a connection with the other. On the other hand, you're saying people are going to get active once their own material circumstances get worse. Those are two different motivations. So, which one ... AO: It's not an either/or. You have to present both to people. They have to feel the importance of both. Part 14 - Dancing without guaranteesReturn to index |
|
| Website Feedback - Home - Events - About us | ||