Stephanie McMillan

People coming into political motion often take a look at the field of activity on the Left and shake their heads. “Why are there so many small, disunited groups?” they ask. “Why can’t they get along and work together?”

Line differences within groups have come from practice, or responses to the practice of others. At certain points in history the line differences are worth splitting up over, because they lead to qualitatively different further practice. Sections of groups part ways because each believes their way is correct and the other way is going to lead to failure.

But most of the sects that exist today emerged out of a previous era of struggle, and their differences are rooted in the past. Many of the questions that were once crucial and defining, are irrelevant to people coming into political life today. They don’t want to (and shouldn’t have to) go through a long list of historical verdicts and ideological points that they have to agree with to join a group. It’s too hard – what if they agree on 60% or 80% but can’t come to agreement on the rest? Then they’d either have to suppress their differences and join anyway, or would have to form another sect with that minor difference as the distinction between them.

Instead, now people are seeking to organize new groups from the ground up, with people who generally agree on current issues and basic goals, and are willing to figure out the rest as needed.

This is why, I think, there are so many small collectives starting everywhere. People coming into political life for the first time, or getting back into it after a long break, or coming out of some of these sects, are figuring out what they think about our current conditions. They are putting aside the impulse to form verdicts on historical questions, and starting over.

This doesn’t mean they don’t learn from previous struggles. People are studying — not to just appropriate a finished system of thought in the abstract, but creatively, in order to see how others approached similar problems in different times and places, and to find solutions and methods that can help today. It’s great that they’re starting fresh, because when people define their own theories, ideologies and political lines, then they’re rooted in their own experiences, observations, and emotions. The ideas become an integral part of the people, who then become an integral part of a movement, in a way that can’t happen if they come in and rely solely on the previous work of others. The creative process of articulating beliefs and forming principles, incorporating what makes sense from past lessons, and testing what parts of the new mix works and what doesn’t, is part of the liveliness of an emerging movement.

The people coming into motion today don’t see the need to divide themselves along the same lines, or down to the same level of detail as those who have been around a long time — though divisions are still there based on very broad historical verdicts and deep scars. For example, in recent decades I haven’t noticed anyone refuse to work with someone who has a different opinion on Enver Hoxha’s break with Mao. Most people don’t know or care about it. On the other hand, many anarchists still feel betrayed by communists because of the Spanish Civil War and other blunders and won’t even consider working with them, or will only with extreme wariness and some expression of regret on the part of the reds.

Splits form along new lines: anarchists are splitting over being vegan or omnivore. Deep green environmentalists demarcate themselves from technotopians. Anti-war activists congeal into mutually frosty camps around whether or not to express support for the rulers of countries being attacked by the U.S.

So the splits and divides are more (not always, but much more) based on issues and events that are occurring and relevant today.

It’s like ecological succession. The groups that emerged from the 1960s are mature, solid, complex organisms. They’ve been through a lot and grown into big trees. The new collectives emerging everywhere are pioneer species, like the small plants that spring up on damaged ground, fast-growing and highly adaptive, but fragile and less formed. Some will be short-lived and not very well-defined. They’ll prepare the ground for stronger plants to take root and become established.

A revolutionary situation will require a lot of different kinds of forces working in tandem. Like in an ecosystem, there is strength in diversity, and a particular role for all of these types of groups in relation to the others. We should cooperate as much as possible. The elders of the movement have experience and wisdom. The new people have fresh views and energy. We should appreciate both, and all be learning from one another.

Global capitalism is the economic system that dominates the planet. It runs on the exploitation of human labor to turn the living world into dead commodities, for the profit of a few. The small, powerful minority who own the means of production enforce their dominance through their control over political and cultural institutions, and their monopoly on force. They create a situation of dependency – forcing us to work for them to obtain basic needs like food and shelter. They annihilate those who resist or refuse to assimilate.

This system values profit over life itself. It has been built on land theft and destruction, genocide, slavery, deforestation and imperialist wars. It commits numberless atrocities as a matter of routine daily functioning. It kills 2.4 million children worldwide under age 5 each year by withholding adequate nutrition. It kills 100,000 people annually in the US by denying decent health care. More than 54% of the US discretionary budget is spent on perpetrating imperialist aggression, and recent casualties include more than a million civilians in Iraq, and more than 46,000 American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Aside from outright murder, the economic and psychological violence wrought upon the world’s inhabitants is so extensive and comprehensive that it’s effectively all-encompassing.

The system is killing the entire planet, the basis for all life. It’s converted 98% of old growth forests into lumber. 80% of rivers worldwide no longer support life. 94% of the large fish in the oceans are gone. Phytoplankton, the tiny plants that produce half of the oxygen we breathe, have declined by 40% since 1950. 120 species per day become extinct.

Industries produce 400 million tons of hazardous waste every year. Recently, the water in 89% of US cities tested has been found to contain the carcinogen hexavalent chromium. To feed capitalism’s insatiable need for economic expansion, increasingly dangerous methods of energy extraction are being perpetrated: deep sea drilling, oil extraction from tar sands, fracking. No matter the consequences, no matter what the majority of people may want, those in power insist on (and enforce) their non-negotiable right to poison the land, water and air in pursuit of maximum profit.

The threat to our common existence on Earth is accelerating and intensifying. This is a situation of extreme urgency.

Clearly, a global economic system based on perpetual growth is unsustainable. A system characterized by oppression and coercion is pure misery for the majority. The obvious conclusion is that we need to get rid of it, and change to a way of life that doesn’t involve exploitation and ecocide. But first we must face one hard fact: this system won’t stop unless it’s stopped. It can not be escaped, reformed, redeemed, cajoled, abandoned, or rejected. It must be fought, defeated and dismantled.

The global economy is currently falling deeper into a convergence of deep crises. This presents us with a rare opportunity to build resistance. More than an opportunity, this is also a necessity, and our responsibility. This situation is crying out for action.

Yet our movement is weak and fragmented, unable to adequately respond. Our habitual modes of opposition (like protests and demonstrations) no longer seem to work in the ways they once did, and we are unsure how to best proceed. Currently there is no organizational formation that is capable of engaging this situation on the scale that is required. Yet there are countless individuals and small groups who, though we may disagree on much, share the desire for a sustainable, classless alternative to this omnicidal system.

If we are to survive, we must develop ways to work together to combat global capitalism and its crimes, and ultimately bring it down. Individually we are weak and ineffective; together we can be strong. We must build a movement that embraces our political and ideological diversity, and our independent autonomy, while creating mechanisms for common and complementary action. The struggles to end all forms of domination, oppression and ecocide are intertwined. If we can unite our energies, we will increase our chances for success.

Let’s unite and organize to destroy global capitalism, before it destroys us.

Here is something I wrote for the blog of the Amsterdam-based VJ (Video-Journalism) Movement.
http://blog.vjmovement.com/?p=94

* * *

When I draw editorial cartoons, I want them to do one or both of two things: expose the system and encourage resistance. In this era, when life on this planet is being systematically killed and converted into profit, and human beings are crushed by exploitation and oppression, to make a principle of creating apolitical art is worse than useless. In fact, in a time of acute crisis, there is no such thing as apolitical art. Whatever the intention of the artist, art that does not promote resistance (overtly or tacitly), in effect supports the status quo.

Purely decorative art does have its appropriate place and time: a time of peace, harmony and sustainability. Unfortunately, we don’t live in such a time. Today, the world cries out for a culture of resistance, art that contributes to building a movement to fight back. We are in a state of emergency, and conditions demand that artists (and everyone else, for that matter) be engaged in the process of putting an end to this system and transforming society.

Editorial cartoons are by nature critical. When asked why his work is always negative, one cartoonist points out that “a positive cartoon is called a greeting card.” I would add that a neutral cartoon is actually an illustration. The function of editorial cartoons is to attack and subvert those in power and their official pronouncements (which are, inevitably in class society, lies).

Editorial cartoons may not often be radical, and are rarely revolutionary, but if they are good, they are always oppositional. This is true even in parts of the world where open opposition is a death sentence. Under such conditions, a cartoonist’s opposition may be subtle or concealed, but it is always there. Readers perceive this. It is the reason readers love them.

Editorial cartoons reveal truths about current events and politics while making the reader laugh, usually in bitter recognition. The form – an image in a box, with or without a bit of text – forces the message to be pared down to its minimal essence. When done well, a cartoon reaches the reader’s consciousness with instant clarification, turning a previously complex or obscured concept into something now obvious.

I have often used the phrase “resistance through ridicule.” When we use humor to expose absurdity and hypocrisy, and inspire our readers to laugh at those in power, then we help our readers to be less afraid. When our respect for the powerful switches to contempt, we can better imagine them toppling from their lofty positions. We can imagine toppling them ourselves.

On Monday, a small group went inside the BP command center in New Orleans to confront those responsible for the spill.

http://mobilebroadcastnews.com/MBN/blog/Gulf-Oil-Spill-Unified-Command-Center-Protest?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MobileBroadcastNews+(Mobile+Broadcast+News)

This protest was symbolic; a small number of people couldn’t really disrupt the activities of BP.

Imagine, though, if they had a few hundred angry and determined people. Then they could have shut that place down.

Small numbers + confrontation = symbolic (with potential for effectiveness)

* * *

Hundreds or thousands of people will hold hands on beaches worldwide this weekend, protesting the catastrophe in the Gulf and demanding an end to offshore drilling.

http://www.handsacrossthesand.com/

This might be personally cathartic for some, but how will this stop the atrocities? Will the oil companies and governments of the world care about what people want, and respond accordingly? They have demonstrated time and again that they do not, and will not.

Large numbers – confrontation = symbolic (without potential for effectiveness)

* * *

On Sunday in Oakland, CA, hundreds of people blockaded an Israeli ship to protest Israel’s blockade of Gaza. The union workers at the docks refused to cross the picket line, and commerce was disrupted.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/06/protestors-block-unloading-of-israeli-cargo-ship-in-oakland.html

Large numbers + confrontation = effective action!

This is why it’s important to confront the actual centers of power. Location, location, location.

* * *

How will the people overthrow those in power, and put a stop to exploitation and ecocide?

Large numbers + organization + a plan + confrontation = revolution

Here is an audio file of me reading my essay “Artists: Raise Your Weapons.” (The text is here). The great music is by The Filthy Politicians, used with permission.

Artists: Raise Your Weapons

Today’s NYT contains an outrageous op-ed piece by corporate cheerleader Jared Diamond, who states, “I’ve discovered that while some businesses are indeed as destructive as many suspect, others are among the world’s strongest positive forces for environmental sustainability.” The examples he provides? Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola and Chevron.

Here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06diamond.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1260126009-z24nIK/1mEeC9l4sXErZHA

His title asks, “Will Big Business Save the Earth?” That’s not a difficult question to answer: No. No, big business will not save the Earth. Instead of being honest, though, Diamond, answers the question in the affirmative and subjects us to a poorly-argued, mind-warping, illogical and denial-drenched apology for some of the most destructive corporations that curse our planet with their existence.

His overall argument doesn’t hold up to even the most casual scrutiny. He spends the whole column arguing that we shouldn’t hate big corporations because market forces are causing them to make changes to help the planet. “Lower consumption of environmental resources saves money in the short run. Maintaining sustainable resource levels and not polluting saves money in the long run.” He attempts to show that Wal-Mart, Coca Cola and Chevron are transforming their production practices to reflect their concern for the natural world (and that this also improves their bottom line, so it’s a big win-win).

His actual agenda is revealed in the last paragraph, which is partly a plea for the government to give corporations incentives like tax breaks and money for research to facilitate these changes. But if they’re already modifying production practices to help the environment because that is good for profits, then why do they require incentives? I don’t get it.

Mainstream liberal environmentalist groups lack credibility among real environmentalists for many reasons, one of which is the presence of corporate executives on their boards, and another of which is the huge amounts of money that they accept from corporations. The World Wildlife Fund, for example, landed a $3 million contract with Chevron in the early 1990s to implement an “Integrated Conservation and Development Project” in Papua New Guinea, where Chevron’s oil drilling was vehemently resisted by the affected indigenous people. (See “Shilling for Chevron: Jared Diamond Greenwasher” at: http://www.counterpunch.org/proyect05092005.html).

Diamond happens to serve on the WWF board. I’m sure it’s purely by coincidence that he praises Chevron’s efforts to improve the environment in his book “Collapse,” and again in this NYT op-ed piece. I can imaging him hanging out with his fellow board members, business execs who complain of being misunderstood while sending him meaningful glances brimming with unspoken promises of millions of dollars in donations. I can imagine him deciding, “Hey, these guys aren’t so bad! I’m going to convince the American people to give them some love, damn it!”

In his op-ed piece he states, “I … have had frank discussions with oil company employees at all levels. I’ve also worked with executives of mining, retail, logging and financial services companies.” In contrast, he seems to have carefully avoided speaking with even one of the countless victims of these companies. There’s not a single quote by an indigenous person in the Amazon whose forest home was leveled for oil exploration and contaminated by oil spills. Not a single statement by a farmer in India whose crops died because Coca-Cola depleted and contaminated the village ground water. Not a peep from a single exploited factory laborer in China suffering with illnesses caused by the pollution generated by producing cheap plastic crap for Wal-Mart to import and sell to us.

The motivations for these companies to reign in their destruction of the world are, without exception, self-serving and purely concerned with the bottom line. It costs too much to clean up oil spills, retrofit factories, and crush angry natives. Diamond’s sympathies are 100% in line with this, and his only desire is to assist these corporations in their accumulation of profit. “We should reward companies that work to keep the planet healthy,” he urges. He doesn’t express the slightest concern for the well-being of the natural world itself or for the living beings who comprise it.

He talks about the challenges that Coca-Cola faces in finding acceptable sources of water, and tries to convince us that “Hence Coca-Cola’s survival compels it to be deeply concerned with problems of water scarcity, energy, climate change and agriculture.” But the obvious point remains unsaid: Coke is not a necessity. It is in fact harmful to those who drink it. We don’t NEED to solve the problem of how Coca-Cola obtains water, or provide incentives for them to do it less destructively, because they could just fucking stop making it. Now there’s a simple solution.

Diamond tries to confuse us by conflating slightly restrained rates of massive destruction with a net positive effect. Even if companies make changes that cause them to destroy nature at a slower speed than they have been accustomed to, this is hardly the same thing as not destroying it at all (which is what sustainability means), and the exact opposite of helping the planet heal.

As a collaborator with and propagandist for ecocidal corporations, Diamond should not be granted space to spread his lies. Both he and the NYT deserve scathing contempt for this op-ed piece.

In a discussion group I participate in, someone asserted that capital, as a unified entity, could act to save itself by reducing its damage to the environment, even if it had to sacrifice significant profit to do so. I’m sure that for many people, this belief underlies their hopes for progress at the Copenhagen talks. But these talks are now falling apart before they even happen, which was inevitable given the fundamental nature of global capitalism.

I’m revising some of my comments to the group for re-posting here:

Because of the globalization of production and consumption, the intertwining of complex financial markets, and because capitalists employ mechanisms (like the UN or World Bank) for uniting for particular cooperative purposes, they can seem essentially multinational in character. But the ruling class is not in fact globally unified and can not act as such, even in this final stage of the imperialist era. They are still separate blocs rooted in nations, competing over resources and markets. China vs. India vs. U.S…. these are still real rivalries. Capitalists still require their national governments and armies to defend their interests as they persist in trying to expand their global reach.

One might argue that national governments act as international representatives to facilitate relationships between blocs of capital that are more cooperative than competitive. But let’s see what happens when the value of China’s investments in US treasuries dissolves when the dollar collapses. Let’s see what happens when China builds a dam that blocks a major river from reaching India. Or how the current struggle over Central Asia’s oil plays out. On an individual level, the national character of capital blocs becomes obvious during the simple act of attempting to buy or use foreign currency.

Any talk by governments, individually or collectively, of managing the environmental crisis is either 1) lies to pacify the people and divert the energy of more potentially radical environmental movements or 2) schemes for making more profit while actually making the crisis worse (carbon offsets, for example, actually increase carbon emissions).

Those in power can and do collectively make minor specific adjustments in policy, and trumpet these as evidence that they really won’t destroy the planet, or at least will try very very hard not to. But these are meaningless — it’s the trend overall that matters. Who cares about adjustments when they’re still killing everyone? They congratulate themselves for these plans and schemes and agreements, while their rate of destruction actually accelerates.

Those who run this system are not stupid. They know that their system is unsustainable and will result in omnicide, and in their own demise. Yet they will fight over the last bit of profit from the last bit of earth, until it’s too late to save anything. They have little control over this — the economic mechanism that brought them into existence and keeps them in existence *as capitalists* makes it impossible to stop, as impossible as it would be for me to tie a knot in a rainbow.

The ruling class can not decide to stop competing and give up capitalism deliberately in favor of a sustainable global new order. Francis Fukuyama argued in “The End of History” that that had happened in an economic/political sense after the fall of the Soviet Union — he turned out to be wrong. New blocs of capital coalesce, strengthen and face off once again.

Capitalism has an inherent law of expansion that can not be reformed, even by itself, even to save itself. It is only when capitalism is in crisis, like crisis of overproduction, that contractions must happen, but these are only times of regrouping to expand even further still. Capitalism, if not overthrown, will end up destroying itself along with us. It can not do otherwise. It’s not because capitalists are bad people, it’s because of mechanisms in the system (that are still described best by marxists) of competition and the constantly falling rate of profit. Though there is also a mechanism leading toward increased monopolies, competition remains primary — there can never be a situation where one corporation swallows all the rest into one overarching global über-bloc of capital.

Governments can, though, sacrifice some capitalists to save the system, as happened with the New Deal, and has happened in the recent financial crisis too. But this is to preserve a system with competition at the core, and they will always protect the interests of “their” blocs of capital first. The best that capitalists can hope for is to get as much as they can while they can get it. They can’t make the system stop even if individuals among them might wish to; the only way for it to stop is for those with opposing interests (that’s us) to stop them.

It might seem counter-inituitive that some members of the ruling class like Al Gore are helping to expose that the planet is in trouble. But the ruling class needs spokespeople to convincingly address the concerns of the people, or they risk social disorder. These spokespeople may even personally care very deeply about reforms. Unfortunately they are incapable of calling the system that causes all this into question, so their net effect is negative.

All these recent exposure movies like “Inconvenient Truth,” “Food Inc.,” “Capitalism: A Love Story” do not really challenge the system’s fundamental nature, or exploitation as a way of life. They serve (whether intentionally or not) as ways of making people think their issues are being addressed while bringing them back into the fold. They soothe and divert percolating discontent before it has a chance to break the surface as open rebellion. The election of Obama was used for this too — it drew millions of disillusioned people back into the system’s political orbit, changed them from outsiders into participants and defenders. NGOs do this, all reformers do this, even if their intentions are good.

There are always contending ideas within the ruling class about how best to preserve and expand their rule. They’re not one united monolith. They have differences about how it’s best to rule and protect their capital. Some of them think it’s best to try to minimize the damage, prevent social disorder, make reforms; while others are more in favor of raw exploitation and the iron fist. These opinions contend, and sometimes reforms are made when the ruling class as a whole finds them necessary for the continuation of their ability to exploit. But their fundamental activity is the exploitation, not the reforms. It always will be, as long as they hold power.

For those upset by the failure of the Copehagen talks, they were doomed from the start. Even if agreements had been reached, the nations involved would have been incapable of going against their own nature. Agreements would have been unavoidably broken, limits regretfully breached.

Our future should not be thrown away on impossible wishes and hopes. For us, there’s no dodging responsibility — we must stop omnicide ourselves, by overthrowing those in power and dismantling their system.

“Food, Inc.” had intense painful scenes of factory farms and poor families forced to eat cheap crappy food. It showed the suffering of animals and workers, the dispossession and control of small farmers, the injustice and depravity of our food system, the cavalier poisoning of the population for profit. It made me cry, and it made me hate capitalism even more than I already did. It made me indulge in fantasies of mobs of furious people busting into the offices of CEOs and the politicians who help them, and dragging them out for some righteous punishment.

Like “Inconvenient Truth,” the film presented the problems in a strong, compelling way.

It’s unforgivable that, also like “Inconvenient Truth,” the ending completely ruins it.

“Food, Inc.,” started going bad in the last half hour or so. When the upbeat, happy-signifying music started during a scene of an altie-foods fair, my heart sank. I knew the film was doomed and that once again we would be served up a plate of bullshit instead of the truth about what we need to do.

The key turning point of the film was when the President/CEO of Stonyfield yogurt made the outrageous (and self-serving) declaration “Capitalism will not go away,” and explained that the way to stop evil corporate food production was to build even bigger (yet non-evil) corporations to produce America’s food. From that moment, the film became an advertisement for Stonyfield, and a celebration of the fact that Wal-Mart carries it. People demand good food, and Wal-Mart is giving the people what it wants! Yay, Wal-Mart and Stonyfield!

So to re-cap, the totally evil industrial food industry, which controls the vast majority of what we eat in this country, and as the film just made a compelling case for, is irredeemably corrupt, disgusting, Earth-destroying, rapacious, merciless, and inherently self-expanding, can be fought by:

1) Supporting different big businesses that offer healthier choices (Stonyfield is owned by Group Danone of France, which also owns Evian water — thanks for the plastic bottles).
2) Doing TEN SIMPLE THINGS (I am NOT kidding — look at their web site!) — aka making easy individual lifestyle changes — aka “voting with your dollars” — aka make “wise consumer choices.”
3) Signing petitions (yes! look at the website!) begging the very government that was just exposed in the film itself as being tightly intertwined (indeed indistinguishable from, indeed the SAME PEOPLE) with corporate agribusiness, to pass laws for healthier and safer food.

Once again, our power is reduced to that of consumer. Change is up to each of us as an individual. Change is NOT, heaven forbid, to come from organizing into a mass protest movement or guerrilla army or revolutionary party or network of saboteurs or any other political formation that actually has a prayer to force the industries to stop poisoning us and destroying the planet.

Another part of the movie’s web site lists its “NGO associates.” I’ve talked with activists from Haiti, Bangladesh and other oppressed nations who used to spit in contempt when they talked about NGOs, and insisted that they were a not just a non-neutral, but in fact a counter-revolutionary force. They’re groups designed to “help” people while siphoning off, buying off and interfering with revolutionary aspirations.

That’s how this film and others like “Inconvenient Truth” function. Everyone (everyone who’s sane and awake) knows we are in trouble with climate change. Everyone knows the Standard American Diet is killing us. To deny these truths after they become obvious to everyone would make the system lose credibility. People are grumbling already. So these spokespeople for the system decide to “educate” us about the problem, make a great important (widely publicized) statement about how dire it is, for the sole purpose of diverting our energy into ineffective activities that leave the system in place.

The people who run and benefit from this system know that they will never solve these problems. The problems are embedded in the mechanics of industrial capitalism and even civilization itself. The system functions by converting the natural world (including humans) into resources, and resources into cash — it’s very defining purpose is to turn life into dead, storable wealth. It can not be reformed. It must be destroyed. They know this. They try very very hard to hide this reality from the rest of us. They use very convincing propaganda that often SEEMS oppositional, to make sure that we never come to this conclusion.