Before jumping into past, present and future -based activism, I’d like to clarify what I consider activism, especially when compared with “productive” work, or “productivity”.
The only purpose of “productivity” in the current monetary market system is contributing to the “Economy”, i.e. helping perpetuate and accelerate the cycle of consumption and growth. “Productivity” is blind to any negative social or environmental damages, as it considers that the monetary market and the various regulatory bodies (including government and NGO’s) will moderate its impact well enough. “Productivity” is exclusively present-based (when considering the near-future as part of the present). Its only drive is the pursuit of profit, i.e. causing a differential advantage for the producer in terms of purchasing power. In the “productivity” game, products and services are created, many of which have a net benefit to society, and many only a partial benefit, sometimes almost nonexistent. However, for most products and services produced, there is a social and/or environmental cost, sometimes moderate, sometimes extremely high. For example, someone who produces, say bleach, produces a net gain to society in terms of cleaner buildings and possibly safer/healthier people who would otherwise be exposed to pests; however as well at a likely very high environmental cost where rivers are polluted, animal and plant species endangered, and the social cost coming from extreme cleanliness, which causes a reduction in people’s own immune systems, and thus facilitating epidemics of, for example, flu and allergies. I say it is present-based because it doesn’t care about the animals, plants, or people’s health, let alone their socio-economic situation as the bleach factory owners increase their slice of the pie of wealth, causing everybody else’s become smaller. It is important to acknowledge, however, that in any start-up enterprise the capitalist runs at a personal risk (gamble), and the products they produce provide some degree of social benefit (like cleaner houses). However, in the “productivity” game, the purpose is making money satisfying people’s wants, whilst being mostly disinterested in people’s needs. Thus, corporate greed in this system will always prevail over human need.
The only purpose of “activism” is moderate the negative impacts of “productivity” in a monetary market system. Should we transition to a sustainable system, activism would no longer be necessary as it would be implicit in the system itself. Sometimes activism is done motivated by profit, but most times it is motivated by awareness of the negative impact of such “productivity”, and a willingness to take action so as to reduce such impacts. For example, people may chain themselves to trees in order to prevent a “productive” logging business from plundering a forest that would take hundreds of years to re-generate. The business doesn’t care about the forest or its animals, it only cares about making a profit by fulfilling on peoples want for wood: it is the governmental regulation that arises from the social discussion resulting from such activism that moderates the businesses’ way in which they log trees. Many people don’t understand the very important role of activists, and use derogatory name-calling like “tree-huggers” to refer to activists who care about the environment and the future of humankind. However I can see there are three types of activism: past-based, present-based and future-based. Unlike businesses in a monetary market economy, all of them are much more concerned with people’s needs than people’s wants. The monetary market system requires regulation and activism to avoid self-destruction. However, as a result of corruption and inequality, “productive” businesses are consistently overpowering regulatory bodies and activists’ ability to keep up with the damage done. All of this while the larger sections of the population are distracted with entertainment and in addressing their never-ending wants, which are now easier than ever to address (because they can never be fulfilled). This happens mostly because people’s general ignorance of their own needs, since when needs are met, wants tend to diminish as they’re mostly based on addictions and addictive behaviours. Consumerism is aware of this fact, and quite possibly the reason why needs of the people are consistently neglected with macabre intentionality, just like with planned obsolescence and marketing to cause perceived obsolescence.
Past-based activism requires a vast memory and being judgemental and ideological. It includes strategies like protesting, exposing, publishing news or opinion articles about events that happened, and seeking restoration and compensation for past misdeeds and offenses. It is usually motivated by anger, frustration, discontent, even hatred, and a drive for change. Past-based activism has a significant component of “us vs them” and thus tends to be divisive, and cannot accept the idea of forgiveness, or that the world is what it is and could have never been any different. Past-based activism wants to change the past by having the offenders make amends to the offended, and introduce adjustments so that there would not be any future similar offenses. It does not care much about the future impacts of what society or they themselves are working on, as it tend to only look backwards. Past-based activism assists in keeping the integrity of the system, helping bring justice and order.
Future-based activism requires a great idealism, optimism, future vision, and love. It includes strategies like writing or discussing about strategies that might address the needs of the people of the future, analyse and foresee the impact of current trends in the near and far futures of the environment and humanity, suggest and campaign for new regulations to address and prevent those impacts, including human and animal rights campaigning, and sometimes even forcibly take action that sabotages or blocks environmental or socially damaging activities, like cutting whalers’ harpoons or chaining themselves to trees. It is usually motivated by a sense of responsibility towards future generations and the health of the environment, love of animals and nature, and a passion for an idealised beautiful future in which we all share the Earth in harmony. Future-based activism does not focus or pay much attention to the root causes of the problems they foresee, as they’re usually not concerned with the past or the near future: they’re reactive to the present circumstances and launch themselves in crusades against likely future damage. Future-based activism is mostly about embracing the beauty of nature, the protection of the goodness in humans, and even though they plunge themselves into fierce battles with their enemies, they’re motivated by altruism and love. Future-based activism assists in giving hope, a direction to the system, and helping bring purpose and sustainability.
Present-based activism requires great spirituality, peace, acceptance, and critical thinking. It includes strategies such as constructive criticism of hypocritical social attitudes, raising awareness about the nature of things and the root causes of problems, offering solace to those afflicted by the pains of hatred and addictive behaviours, suggesting personal responsibility, and facilitating the peaceful resolution of conflict. It is usually motivated by a sense of peace, a belief or an understanding that the past and the future are fantasies constructed in our own minds, and a commitment to personal principles and values without attachment to standards, ideals, or property. Present-based activism does not focus or pay much attention to the past nor the future: it seeks an understanding of the nature of what is to be human, an understanding of our needs, wants and desires, and the root-causes for what we consider tragic or undesirable events. Present-based activism acts by not-doing, focuses on creativity and the birth of ideas and passions, it embraces the whole of what IS and opposes none, and willingly gives up wanting to be in control, letting events unfold the way they may. Present-based activism assists with introspection, analysis, peace, love, and wisdom.
I consider that all three are important, and that balance is key to their effectiveness and workability. I propose we acknowledge each-other’s relevance, work in harmony, and do what each does best, supporting each other in our quest for a better world.
Loading...
25 Responses to “Past, present, and future based activism”
Hi,
While you have a right to your opinion, instead I like this ‘by any means necessary’ Malcolm X
In Solidarity,
Kerry
Malcom X was a past-based activist, full of anger. He was learned, judgemental and ideological. He fought for repairs to the misdeeds to African American people, and he was only partly successful due to his assassination. He’d probably start the Occupy movement 50 years ago otherwise. He protested and exposed. He helped restoring partly the integrity of the system by causing it be more inclusive of the black people minorities, and helped bringing justice. Unlike Gandhi, Martin L. King, and the spirit of Occupy movement, Malcom X did not adhere to the nonviolent strategy. Past-based activism is very important, and it seems your preference, which I revere but don’t share. However nonviolence is one of the key characteristics of the Occupy movements, and respecting it is important. There are many other activism groups that do not adhere to nonviolence, and for anyone who’s mostly inspired by Malcom X, these may be more appropriate.
Occupy Sydney needs to explain why the 99% are oppressed by the 1%. There is no peace or love there. Unless we understand the past, we will time and time again make the same mistakes. We cannot trust the 1% or its media to support keeping the small reforms we do make to make life more bearable. Reforms can be taken back & they have been many times. The majority of the 99% have not seen the need to get rid of the 1% for a lots of reasons despite the reality of their exploitation & oppression. Even if you really want serious change in many areas, this means developing a serious attitude to explaining the root causes of oppression by the 1%. If we do not do this then we are pretending that the class system in Australia or anywhere can’t be changed and the best we can do is piecemeal reforms regardless of how hard we may fight for them. The lessons of history and political struggle are important. Sure I hope we can devise newer forms of struggle as well. But since Australia has not seen ongoing mass actions for over 2 decades, I can understand you not understanding or not knowing this or not seeing that reforms no matter how important they are in winning something have not helped the majority in the long run.
Have you considered the possibility that in the last two decades there have not been mass actions in Australia because they were not necessary, or because the pressure did not build up strong enough? These are very different times, the wealthiest 1% has very different strategies nowadays to keep the masses opiated, or to be more updated, “entertained”. I prefer using technology, information and communication as tools for raising awareness and opt-out from the system as much as possible. But first it is necessary being consistent and doing it ourselves, leading the way. “History will teach us nothing” sung Sting, and I believe there is great wisdom in that phrase. Identify the needs, identify strategies to fulfil those needs thinking outside the box, and you won’t need any assistance from History to transcend this system of consumerism and exploitation.
“the bleach factory owners increase their slice of the pie of wealth, causing everybody else’s become smaller.”
Wealth is not a fixed sum, the pie gets bigger, maybe not thanks to you or your fellow activists, but over time the pie grows. This means that even if people at the top of the earnings ladder get a bigger slice, those at the bottom can also get a bigger slice. Just thinking about relative wealth across the generations demonstrates that this is true.
You do amuse me, Ziggy. You try and say the right things, but deep down you are such a socialist snob and struggle to hide your distain for your fellow citizens:
“All of this while the larger sections of the population are distracted with entertainment and in addressing their never-ending wants,”
“the wealthiest 1% has very different strategies nowadays to keep the masses opiated, or to be more updated, “entertained”.”
Where would these misguided, ignorant, simple people be without Ziggy riding to their rescue on his white charger, or leastways occupying public space on their behalf?
Hi DocBud, let’s try not to be hypocritical here and just contribute to the discussion! I believe the statements ‘you do amuse me Ziggy. You try and say the right things…’ does not give you much credibility in criticising someone as a snob. Also, categorising the activists ‘the pie gets bigger, maybe not thanks to you or your fellow activists’ as potentially unemployed or not contributing to society is not really helping your cause. If you want to appear neutral and logical, engage with the content of the information, rather than attacking the person who wrote it.
The idea that the 1% creates and sustains a false consciousness or hegemony is quite plausible and I think it warrants further investigation as a claim. The problem is that it is very difficult to study what is not said or done i.e latent issues, and what is kept off the agenda intentionally.
Conspicuous consumption is also something that needs to be discussed by occupiers. We have the capacity to satisfy our basic needs and of all others, and the idea of never-ending wants is again, something that cannot be ignored. It is not in my self interest, nor is it rational to work in order to simply buy things that society tells me I should want. Yet if I deviate from or criticise this system, I’m labelled alternative or ‘weird’.
Well, Tash, why don’t you address Ziggy’s statements with regard to keeping “the masses opiated, or to be more updated, entertained”? Is he, or is he not, displaying an arrogant disdain (snobishness) towards those whom he seeks to represent?
“Conspicuous consumption is also something that needs to be discussed by occupiers.” Knock yourself out, Tash. Of course, the overwhelming majority of the population who are not occupiers don’t give a damn as to what you think “needs to be discussed”. You can wallow all you like in the delusion that you are achieving anything but the simple reality is that you are a meaningless sideshow with an inflated opinion of your self-worth. I am a firm believer in free speech and respect your right to present your views, however misguided I believe them to be. However, I do not believe you have a right to privatise a public space for your own ends, thereby denying its use to other members of the public who would choose to use siad space in different ways.
Important note: I speak for myself, and represent no one but myself. I’m an individual, a supporter of the Occupy movements.
I find it a strange position to maintain that “I do not believe you have a right to privatise a public space for your own ends, thereby denying its use to other members of the public who would choose to use siad space in different ways.”
By definition, members of Occupy are members of the public. What is the difference between the Sydney International Food Festival occupying a large chunk of Hyde Park for a month and denying my use of the space, or Sydneysiders “indulging in last-minute bets with queues forming outside marquee tents in Martin Place as the countdown to the Melbourne Cup approaches” complete with a (very) large TV screen and blaring commentary and a small group of Occupiers maintaining an occupation in Martin Place? Have you ever tried to get around Randwick on a big race day. Talk about inconvenience to the ‘public’. But one thing is for sure, I don’t expect the riot squad to appear with dogs to clear the ‘occupation’ of such public places any more than I would expect the police to ‘clear’ a very small area of Martin Place occupied by OccupySydney.
To me, it is just not a logically sustainable argument.
The difference would tend to be, Allan, that events like the Sydney International Food Festival have to apply for permission from the elected representatives of the people and abide by any restrictions imposed on their use of public space whereas the occupy movement presumes to monopolise public space based solely on its own belief that such an occupation is justified. A US justice appears to agree with my point of view, Justice Michael Stallman said in his ruling on Occupy Wall Street: “The movants have not demonstrated that they have a First Amendment right to remain in Zuccotti Park, along with their tents, structures, generators, and other installations to the exclusion of the owner’s reasonable rights and duties to maintain Zuccotti Park, or to the rights to public access of others who might wish to use the space safely,”.
So you speak for the ‘overwhelming majority’ of the population? that’s a pretty broad statement. I’m not sure which website you think your on, but this is the occupy sydney website….where we discuss the ideas of the occupy movement….
And I did address his statement. I said we should discuss ideas of false consciousness and hegemony. Stating something that is uncomfortable with some people isn’t snobbish, it’s realistic in this context. He didnt say ‘ha ha you low lives, if only you could see the truth but alas you are so terribly incompetent!’ …He mentioned the idea that we should be aware at all times of those who seek to influence us and their motivations for doing so. I’d say that’s perfectly reasonable, and people forget that, not out of stupidity but because it’s hard to slow down and have time to consider these things in daily life. I’m sorry if you think I have a high opinion of myself, I’m still in the second year of my bachelor degree and I’ve never been more aware of the scope of things I don’t know. I think maybe you should consider that statement in regard to yourself. Why are you so opposed to this movement if we are so misguided and won’t get anywhere? What are you so worried about? We seem to have really hit a nerve with you.
I did not claim to speak for the ‘overwhelming majority’ of the population, Tash. I’m simply looking at your numbers and making the not unreasonable deduction that you are supported by a tiny minority and that it is ridiculous to assert that anything “needs” to be discussed by you as if the world is desperate to hear the results of your deliberations.
I think your generous interprettion of “the wealthiest 1% has very different strategies nowadays to keep the masses opiated, or to be more updated, ‘entertained’.” is a little off the mark. Anyone talking of opiated masses is not talking of people being a tad too busy to think upon important matters.
“I’m still in the second year of my bachelor degree and I’ve never been more aware of the scope of things I don’t know.” And yet you are part of a movement which seeks to have a disproportionate influence within a democracy. Having one vote the same as everyone else is not enough, despite being a part of a small minority you are hopeful of changings things for what you consider to be the better. And that is what annoys me about the occupy movement. In my activist days I was fighting for justice and human rights in a police state (South Africa), and I do mean in. You are in a democracy, it is far from perfect but have you explored the options of changing the system through the available democratic means? The Greens are an anti-corporate party, can you not work for their election and accept that if they don’t make it to government it is because your fellow citizens don’t agree with you (rather than that they are opiated masses)? Or perhaps the Socialist Alliance should put up candidates for election and see how far they get.
“Of course, the overwhelming majority of the population who are not occupiers don’t give a damn as to what you think “needs to be discussed”"
You’re just trolling aren’t you?
Another great means of avoiding debate, accuse someone of trolling.
“Wealth is not a fixed sum, the pie gets bigger” The pie of wealth gets bigger with every product and service produced, and smaller again with every product and service consumed or wasted. Anyone who acquires non-depreciating assets gets its slice of the wealth pie bigger, and if the growth of it exceeds that of the economic growth rate, then its increase in wealth is at the expense of everybody else’s, simple maths. Money, on the other hand, is introduced to the system with every credit acquired (money is debt), and thus devaluating all the money in existence, and removed from the system when any the debt is reduced or cancelled. A lot more more money is added to the system than removed, thus causing inflation; it is estimated that the half-life of US dollars has been 4 years in the last 30 years. The system is pretty fucked, it promotes inequality and waste, requires large nations to plunder from smaller nations, it promotes war by requiring that the investment in warring technology does not stop, it promotes big pharma gambling on people’s health for a profit. People who know all of this and use it to their own egotistic advantage can’t be described any other way than sociopaths and psychopaths. And they make the bulk of the wealthiest 1%, the ones who own almost half of the world.
Ziggy, the glass really is half empty for you isn’t it? Improvements in medicine, health services and health education, around the world might be seen as a positive to me but to you it is proof the big “pharma’s” are just keeping us alive longer to get more money out of us. I agree that most countries are trashing their fiat currencies, that’s why I invest heavily in gold and silver. Yes a lot of people live on debt but that is their choice. No-one forces me to use my credit card to buy something I don’t like. And I don’t want someone telling me what I can and cannot buy. If I value being rich and save and invest to achieve that aim what business is it of yours? Jealousy is not a reasonable argument to the imbalance of peoples wealth. In a global context the 1% include almost 3/4 of the Australian adult population by the way, possibly even including you. Is yours a local argument or global?
Further, Ziggy, no-one is going to argue with you that there are not imbalances in wealth or that there aren’t nasty and unscrupulous bastards out there. You say, “The system is pretty fucked” where as I would say it is far from perfect. Using your view it has always been fucked from well before the Greeks and Romans ruled. Globally the number of people lifted out of poverty in China and India in the past 40 years is measured in the 100s of millions. Why? Because they enjoy stable Governments and strong international investment. This would have happened quicker in Africa had governments there been stable. Despite huge amounts of imperfection and waste, on the whole the 21st century is a much better prospect for the common man than was the 20th, 19th and 18th centuries.
“The system is far from perfect” obviously your wife and children didn’t die bombed by US need to sustain cheap access to energy to sustain its economy. The fact that we happen to live in this huge island-continent full of valuable metals and very low population doesn’t except us from that responsibility, as we’re actively participating of the same global game. That is why we demand “human need, not corporate greed”. It is all interwoven and interrelated, no kind of greed can escape the responsibility on the misery caused by the system upon millions and billions of people struggling, starving and dying. If today is any better in any way from previous centuries, it is only because of progress in science and technology, which happens irrespective of economic growth or politics. If anything, politics and monetary market economy are significantly slowing down the progress that we could all otherwise enjoy.
Can you point to a time, any time in the period man has walked upright, in history when there have not been wars? They are actually occuring less now as technology and communications have removed some of the causes of war. Equally, more and more conflict is avoided by countries leveraging economic pressure. This is the 1% who would rather trade with China than lose that market through war. Your wish for a world with out conflict, where everything is shared equally is a pipe dream which we all usually outgrow at childhood. Welcome to the real world where the top 5% are driving the economic engine that is bringing millions out of poverty. You can’t do that by magic, it takes economic development.
Ziggy quote: “human need, not corporate greed”. Great slogan but what does it mean. Where there is need there is demand. Demand is met with supply. It costs money to generate supply so those with demand pay for the supply. What is your definition of “greed”? 1% of profit, 5% of profit, 10%? At what point does reasonable and fair profit become corporate greed? And who makes that judgement? The silence is deafening.
Roger, thank you for your thoughtful and positive response. “Human need, not corporate greed”, as you say is a slogan, and I suppose there may be many interpretations for it. My interpretation is that (any and every) human’s need has priority over (any and every person’s) personal gain/advantage. You seem to focus on the monetary market’s view of supply and demand, and the need for money for that. Take the case of a public hospital in Australia: there is a budget for running costs and salaries, whereas there’s people being hurt or sick or not, it doesn’t make an impact in such budget. Make the mental exercise of considering those costs taken care of and remove money from the equation, just for a moment. You get hurt doing some silly thing, you go to the hospital, and you get treated, for free, by a doctor who would otherwise have been just sitting there waiting for someone to get hurt. There was a need (demand), it was treated (supplied) and there was no money involved. The treating doctor is not greedy because he/she doesn’t have an interest in people getting hurt, is happy and content with a salary. Personal greed, or personal gain at the expense of others, is ethically questionable. However, corporate greed is the essence of capitalism. A company/corporation is legally bound to maximise profits for its stockholders, or its directors can be liable. A corporation is not legally bound to provide for the community’s need, or for the environment, or the future we’re leaving to our children. Only to maximised profits. We want to change that, through regulation, through raising awareness, through changing the system, through whichever way it can achieve the objective of prioritising, always, (every and any) human need over (any and every) corporate greed.
Ziggy, your rather simplistic example of the zero sum hospital system is flawed. Hospital supplies and services are, in the main provided by private companies. Many doctors who work in hospitals work in private practice (I have two in my family). The service rates they charge the hospital is based upon their private rates. They are in this for the money as well as the humanity, you see they financially invested several years in qualifying and they want to profit from it. Could you quote me the part of the Corporations Act that says a company is “legally bound” to maximise profits for its stockholders? There is nothing compelling me under the law to maximise my profits. Indeed I can chose to run my business at a loss for a period if I’m going through a growth period. My shareholders happily accept a number of years of no dividend for more serious returns in the future. I could drop that plan and just maximise my profits today but stunt my growth in the long term. I’m sorry but sprouting theory is no substitute for knowledge and experience.
Sorry but have just read your final sentence again. You really do not understand commerce. I started a small company, I’m the majority shareholder, I invested my life savings and my house, I employ 40 people providing them with above rate wages, some on over $100k per annum, I paid myself $50k last year for the first time, I have had one heart attack and still put in a 60 hour week. We made a 10% profit last year. I’m one of 2 million small businesses in Australia who employs the majority of Australians. And you want to impose more regulation on us to provide for the “communities needs”. I can only afford to provide for 40 families in the community. Add 1% more to my costs and my business is not viable = 40 people out of work. At least I’m out there having a go, actually doing something to make a difference whilst you sit there doing sod all sprouting bullshit theory. Grow up. Stop being a victim and start being a contributor. This is my last post. You guys have nothing positive to contribute.
hahahaha DocBud! but you are still trolling! you must be! noones that stupid. you managed to ignore your own hypocrisy even when I had to quote you on it. you really are wasting my time now.
oh wait, I think I can predict your next move…ignoring everything else in this post and having a cry about how I called you stupid. you win!
I’m not sure what you are talking about regarding hypocrisy, Tash, but it is a bit rich for someone to declare: “noones that stupid” given the number of grammatical errors in your comment. You can call me stupid all you want if it makes you feel good, what it proves, if true, is that the most stupid people can become millionaires so what the hell are you protesting about?