Mobilization Without Method Is Meaningless
An Occupy Wall Street campaign demonstrator stands in Zuccotti Park, near Wall Street in New York October 17, 2011. REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton (UNITED STATES - Tags: CIVIL UNREST POLITICS BUSINESS)

Mobilization Without Method Is Meaningless

Mobilization Without Method Is Meaningless

By: John Rachel  |  Our Voice Contributor

Everyone knows this expression:  There was method to his madness.

What does it mean?  It means that regardless of how crazy the person acted, no matter how much he appeared to be nuts, behind that facade there was a solid plan, and that plan presumably resulted in successfully achieving what he set out to achieve.

It is this sense of ‘method’ I’m referring to in the title of this essay.

If there is any doubt about my message, here it is:  To mobilize people behind any cause, regardless of how worthy that cause is, regardless of how intrinsically appealing it may be to get these folks marching, singing, chanting, shouting for that cause, if there is no clear strategy which targets an equally clear and obvious outcome, with a realistic expectation that the strategy will achieve that outcome, then the mobilization is a waste of time.

I didn’t say it wasn’t fun or satisfying.  I didn’t say it didn’t have notable and perhaps positive collateral effects.  But I am saying that anyone who thinks that mobilization is some guarantee of making substantial change and achieving desired reforms is surely kidding themselves.

This is why, despite being the biggest mass movement in recent history, OWS completely failed.  Spokespersons for OWS will say it didn’t fail at all, because it had no preconceived agenda or goals.  But that is a frivolous cop out.  By the time OWS went international and ‘occupy’ was attached to everything from towns to shopping malls, labor unions, and even Facebook, there was certainly a goal.  It may not have appeared on any official documents, but that was because as an experiment in unstructured, horizontal command-and-control, married to spontaneous democratic expression, any attempt at formalizing anything at all was discouraged and successfully thwarted.

Nevertheless, it was evident to everyone who watched the marches, read the protest signs, listened to the speeches, or was constantly bombarded by the most successful, ubiquitous meme to erupt in colloquial English in the last five decades — the 1% vs the 99% — exactly what all of the brouhaha was about.

In the broader sense, it was about the ruling class — the 1% — forcing its elitist world view and self-serving agenda on everyone else — the 99% — using their privilege and raw power to callously and ruthlessly turn everyday people into serfs.

In a more specific sense, it was about overwhelming, abusive, and anti-democratic wealth inequality.  It was hardly random that the movement was started in the heart of America’s financial district and the anger and vilification was directed at incomprehensibly wealthy investment bankers and Wall Street high-rollers.

Of course, any thoughtful exploration of these two parallel themes — monopoly on power and obscene accumulation of wealth — would naturally conclude that they are inextricably related and mutually reinforcing.  Not that there was much analysis going on.  The OWS protests were pretty much an ‘it’s-us-against-them’ affair, with lots of noise and bluster, but with absolutely nothing remotely resembling a grab for power anywhere in sight.

Thus, in terms of specific demands, it was quite common for news commentators to ask:  What do the protestors want?

This was a legitimate if mostly rhetorical question.  As a matter of record, there were no actual demands aired by the movement, much less tacit undercurrents of a coup d’etat.

There weren’t any coherent demands, no specific policy proposals, not even obvious ones.  It wouldn’t have been out of place, as an example, to at least talk about UBI — Universal Basic Income — as a conspicuous path to begin addressing the grotesque level of wealth inequality.

There were no hard and fast calls for student debt forgiveness, free college education, mortgage default relief, capping credit card interest rates, free access to universal health care, and a host of other palliatives which would have somewhat reduced the wealth gap.

This is not a criticism of OWS or anyone who bobbled up, even if temporarily, from the rank-and-file to take credit — or blame, depending on where you stand in judgment — for what happened.  OWS was an intriguing and inspiring new experiment in activism, which attempted to skirt the usual pitfalls of hierarchical, top-down organization.  It was what it was, and I believe should be respected for that.

But that doesn’t prevent us from learning from it, and taking every precaution to not make the same mistakes again.

If you’re going to assemble a mob, give them something to do.

Give them something which will make a substantial and decisive difference.

Camaraderie is a good thing.  It’s a social high.  Feeling like you’re part of something offers relief from a sense of isolation and helplessness.

But it’s only a feeling.  It’s not politics.  Politics is about power.  Only power can confront power.

After the marches are done, after the protest signs are put away, when we’re in our cars or on buses headed back home, we always need to ask ourselves:  Do we now have power to implement the changes we want?

If the answer is ‘no’, then we didn’t have an effective plan.

The best time for an effective plan is BEFORE we hit the streets, before we march and sing our songs, before we waste valuable time and energy in a frustrating and fruitless attempt to get those NOW IN POWER to do anything for us.  Asking the the ruling elite and their lapdogs in our governing institutions to listen to our demands and serve our interests is like asking a carjacker to be sure and wash our automobile and return it in the morning with a full tank.

Here comes my plug:  I have an end-to-end plan, a carefully-crafted strategy for engaging a broad base of U.S. citizens, uniting them into an overwhelming voting bloc, directed at stopping America’s out-of-control militarism and endless wars of aggression.

You can get a general idea here:  The Peace Dividend . . .

Or if you want the plan in excruciating detail, it is described in “The Peace Dividend: The Most Controversial Proposal in the History of the World”

[ ]




Next time we march for peace, we’ll know where we’re headed and how to get there.

At least, that’s the hope that gets me from day to day in these insane times.

Leave a Reply