As some of you have read already in other posts and comment threads here at this blog a writing project concerning Protest Theory and the state of social movements organization is being undertaken by Jose and myself. I would encourage anyone who visits this page to contribute anything relevant to these threads. The end product will be submitted as a set of articles on the topic.
Here is the theme.
Protest Theory: Submissions Call Out
The AntiWar Movement and its Discontents
a reader on social movement theory and practice
Four years into the Iraq war public opinion is dead-set against it.
Yet does the antiwar movement really deserve the credit? Some of the movement’s discontents say that it is “toothless behemoth”, a farce of spectacle actions and ineffectiveness, racked with the baggage of
party politics and isolated-issue activism. Others suggest that the
movement’s preference for tightly scripted and permitted marches and top-down organizing has come at the expense of youth self-empowerment, diversity of tactics, decentralization, participatory democracy or
other successful models of mass actions and movements.
The purpose of this reader is to stimulate a discussion on movement
theory and practice because a better movement is possible. We
especially want to hear the voices of activists on the front lines as
we combine theory, politics, analysis, and stories of experience and
application of various movement principles to form a body of work that
can move us foreword.
We are calling for articles on any of the following:
? Centralization vs. de-centralization in social movement organizing.
? Transparency, openness and accountability in coalitions and networks.
? Bureaucracy and hierarchy in national coalitions.
? The antiwar movement’s relationship to socialist and communist
parties and vice-versa.
? The effect of the mainstream antiwar movement has had on the global
justice movement and vice-versa.
? The meaning of “mass” and its implications.
? Movement strategy and tactics, as well as antiwar stories and experiences.
Other related topics are welcome.
Deadline: June 1, 2007
Submissions should be between 1,000 and 4,000 words and include a
brief bio (around 75-100 words). Send your submissions to
antiwarmovement@ gmail.com
Here are the initial comments.
8 responses so far ↓
Jose // Apr 27th 2007 at 5:10 am (edit)
We could do something here, 1loneranger. Get to working on conclusions dealing with the points raised and send a joint communiqué so to speak. I propose to you one point at the time be discussed, a conclusion drawn and so on with the rest of the isues laid out above.
1loneranger // Apr 28th 2007 at 1:08 am (edit)
Yes Jose, lets do it. And anyone else reading that would like to get in on the action, speak up.
Jose // Apr 30th 2007 at 6:45 pm (edit)
If we agree on this, then I think it’s about time to start it.
? Centralization vs. de-centralization in social movement organizing.
If I understand correctly this question, I would say de-centralization should be always the best method in organizing a social movement, a collegiate set-up to centralise and defend the individual requirements.
1loneranger // Apr 30th 2007 at 10:49 pm (edit)
Jose, we agree. Lets get to it.
As you suggested, let’s begin with a bit of discussion on each of the topics in turn. I’d like as much collaboration as possible with these topics from the usual suspects i.e. Earthpal, Anticant, The Boldmeister and everyone else who is out there, creeping about…., see where we get and then paste together some semblance of an article for each. I like the idea of these topics flowing just as the topics often do over at your site Jose. What comes out in the wash could be what the ‘articles’ are comprised of. Shall we keep all the topics and discussion on this thread? As we get closer to some firm ideas for an article for each topic I could create a new post on my blog and then the article could get whittled down even further down into its final form. How does that sound?
1. Centralization vs Decentralization.
I suppose the text offered in the original post regarding the debilitated state of the greater anti-war movement in general is as decent and simplified a reason as any as to why Centralization doesn’t work in this respect.?
As for why Decentralization is the way to go and what it should look like……
As much as I cringe at the prospect of basing a strategy of this nature on electronics and e-communication the internet makes the decentralization theory a viable reality in ’social movement organizing’ and anti-war protest. Via the internet, issues quickly get passed along and debated. The potential for facilitating and scheduling action and events with harmonized coordination is practically effortless. That being said, a ‘plan B’ would be wise to have in the event of ‘unforeseen’ power outages or the termination of certain websites by the government. Of course another downside to the internet is that the “powers that be” would know of the protest movement’s intentions and planned events as soon as the protest movement itself would. Plan B…HAM Radio.
I’d like to offer some information here regarding the idea of ‘networking’ to the working theory on decentralization and its application for protest.
How about fighting fire with fire?
This is taken from the wiki page on
Network-Centric Warfare:
[Network-centric warfare (NCW), now commonly called network-centric operations (NCO), is a new military doctrine or theory of war pioneered by the United States Department of Defense. NCW/NCO is an emerging theory of war in the information age that seeks to translate an information advantage into a competitive warfighting advantage through the robust networking of well informed geographically dispersed forces allowing new forms of organizational behavior. This “networking” utilizes information technology via a robust network to allow increased information sharing, collaboration, and shared situational awareness, which, theoretically allows greater self-synchronization, speed of command, and mission effectiveness. The theory hypothesis has four basic tenets:
A robustly networked force improves information sharing;
Information sharing enhances the quality of information and shared situational awareness;
Shared situational awareness enables collaboration and self-synchronization, and enhances sustainability and speed of command; and
These, in turn, dramatically increase mission effectiveness.]
Replace ‘warfare’, ‘warfighting’ and ‘military’ with ‘anti-war protest’ and ’social movement organizing’ and you’ve got the wicked walking skeleton of a protest theory stinking of the military industrial complex’s /best/ theorists here. It seems to work pretty well for them, maybe it could work for us too…
Jose // May 1st 2007 at 1:03 pm (edit)
If everybody else thinks so my idea is coincident with yours of your opening a new post in this blog. Support would also be conducted in our personal blogs with links to the post you open here, so that it may be strengthened. Anyhow I think we should wait for consensus from everybody else.
I’ll be opening a post especially for this in my blog with just the link here, which I’ll update periodically.
Before proceeding in consequence I’d like to have your agreement or objections thereto.
1loneranger // May 1st 2007 at 4:44 pm (edit)
Jose-
We are simpatico. Great suggestions.
I will let the current topic, Centralization/DeCentralization, run its course in this thread and add an additional post to my blog when we move away from this one. Thanks for wanting to take part in this. It really is a great way to put our ramblings and rantings into focus and possibly do a bit of good outside of the blogosphere.
Cheers
Jose // May 2nd 2007 at 4:40 am (edit)
Latest on the position is
Quote:
At no time in history has there been a greater urgency or opportunity to form real global unions whose goal is to organize tens of millions of workers to win economic and social justice by counterbalancing global corporations on the world stage even as the power of the state declines.
Unquote
the link is:
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/050107LB.shtml
1loneranger // May 2nd 2007 at 6:29 pm (edit)
However redundant the content of this article may be, it is bang on nonetheless. It is a welcome and relevant extract to the thread Jose. Thanks.
As important as it is to reestablish the union power of old in the western countries, it is more important to form unions anew in developing countries. Not only for the sake of the workers in these developing countries, but for our sake as well. A strong alliance of workers sharing the same hopes and desires from Michigan to Cambodia will help us all in the end.
57 responses so far ↓
Jose // May 3, 2007 at 5:28 am |
I can see there hasn’t been a prompt reaction to these ideas.
As I tried to imply in another comment in this blog, for starters more importance should be given to the local elections than to the general elections. The best persons, the best representatives should be assigned to provinces or regions rather than the central government. That does not mean the central government should be neglected, but our ambition should be the combination of both, meaning that the central government should be voluntarily dependent on the local ones. In a sentence I advocate for a centralised de-centralisation, a way to unite the interests of the different localities in the central government, not all the way round.
Government : central or decentralised? « Political, Human, Environmental Respect // May 3, 2007 at 5:34 am |
[...] http://1loneranger.wordpress.com/2007/05/02/a-blog-project/#comment-1746 [...]
Jose // May 3, 2007 at 6:14 am |
Further to my previous comment I wish to add that the laws approved at the local parliaments should prevail above the laws approved at all-national scale. The central parliament to be a place where all local laws should receive the attention necessary in a way that they may, or may not, be replicated in other local parliaments.
anticant // May 3, 2007 at 7:08 am |
I have just posted the following on Jose’s site:
I am pleased that you and 1loneranger are putting so much thought and energy into this
important project.
A few years ago I drew up a synopsis for a book which alas I never got around to writing, called “Strategies for Peace”. I offer you this title for your project, and maybe I can feed in some of the ideas I had for the book when I get around to refreshing my memory about what I intended to say. Decentralisation, localism, federalism and “global village” linkages bypassing and ultimately superseding the independent State sovereignty that used to be the cause of so many wars [pre-terrorism] was part of my thinking.
Also the importance of applying modern psychological knowledge and insights to political affairs.
What you both are doing is really exciting and worthwhile, and I admire your energy. Congratulations!
anticant // May 3, 2007 at 7:14 am |
A very important book written in 1990 by Philip Allott called “Eunomia: New Order for a New World” [Oxford University Press] was one of the influences which sparked off my own thinking on this. If you can get hold of a copy, it’s well worth reading.
Jose // May 3, 2007 at 10:31 am |
As I said, Anticant, your contribution is paramount. Your experience is a guarantee of success.
Your suggestion of “Strategies for Peace” as a title for the project is welcome by me and I expect by the promoter of the idea and by the other contributors, 1loneranger. Titles and contents are fundamental for a safe arrival at the port of destination, and this ship would never arrive if all her parts, hull, keel, engines, rudder, etc., did not work properly and efficiently. The credit of the success of the voyage will be shared equally by all participating in it.
anticant // May 3, 2007 at 10:46 am |
Jose, We rely on you, as a highly experienced shipping man, to make sure that all is “shipshape and Bristol fashion” as we used to say in England.
[I'm not sure what "Bristol fashion" was: maybe it meant the slaves were safely stowed in the hold....]
anticant // May 3, 2007 at 10:50 am |
“Shipshape and Bristol fashion.” Google, as always, supplies the answer:
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/ship-shape%20and%20Bristol%20fashion.html
Jose // May 3, 2007 at 12:36 pm |
Thank you, Anticat, for the link.
I’d rather say we must rely on you and people like you. I’m a mere able seaman in this voyage.
We must now set ourselves to scrutiny and see if we are worth the try.
Let me cross my fingers.
earthpal // May 3, 2007 at 2:09 pm |
Hey you guys,
I’m not sure I can contribute anything worthwhile here but anyway:
Social movements come and go. Peace/Anti-war movements – they too come and go depending on what’s happening in the world. But, to state the obvious, I think an on-going, ever-turning and sustainable movement is needed to gain peace, keep peace and deter war.
Regarding Iraq: I can’t accept that the established antiwar movement has been ineffective but I’d acknowledge that it has hit a brick wall. And I’d accept that it is burdened with party politics and agree that it has gone some way, unintentionally of course, to suppress youth self-empowerment. That said, youth movements tend to be viewed authoritatively and then put down as teenage rebellion rather than taken as a serious protest. This in itself can have a demoralising effect on our would-be activist youngsters.
Also, the very fact that the established and centralised antiwar movement has been of an “official” capacity – an organised effort headed by respected and credible people, well has had its advantages in that it has appealed to and encouraged many ordinary, usually non-active, conventional members of the public who would never normally stray out of their safe realms of society/family/life to become activists, not even for just a day.
That said, the thing that strikes me about the Iraq war and the Peace/anti-war movement is that in spite of this unprecedented public opposition of such enormity (even before the war started!), the US/UK governments still went to war. And those same governments, with those same leaders, are-still-in-power. Astonishing. And this is why I say that the established antiwar movement has hit a brick wall. And I agree that a decentralised network is now called for.
1. Centralization vs. de-centralization in social movement organizing
I definitely go with de-centralisation and networking. I understand the dislike of using the Internet as the headquarters if that’s what you meant, but there’s no reason why this can’t work given the techno communication age that we are in now. But the network must be in full and constant communication. Breakdown in communication can lead to misunderstanding and mistrust.
2. Transparency, openness and accountability in coalitions and networks.
Again, full communication and co-operation.
3. Bureaucracy and hierarchy in national coalitions.
Too much bureaucracy is always a burden and is open to misuse, even when all concerned hold the same goals. Hierarchy: I guess, even in networks, there needs to be an organised system whereby individual “roles” are selected/given. But again this can and does cause divisions so sensitivity and intelligent planning is required.
………
I will try to finish this later. Sorry Loneranger, I realise you wanted this thread to focus on Centralisation/de-centralisation but I won’t always get the time to commit to such a big and worthy project so if it’s ok, I’ll just slap down my thoughts as and when I can. And I apologise in advance if I’m totally on another planet here.
Peace.
1loneranger // May 3, 2007 at 4:35 pm |
EP-
Absolutely no apologies needed. You’ve already contributed many very notable points. Thank you so much. This is exactly the way I think this should go. Slap down the thoughts, with a topic in tow, and we’ll put it all together later.
Anti- Thanks for adding your experience and expertise to this project. I am already getting nervous at the thought of keeping up with yourself and Jose.
‘Strategies for Peace’ Here, here!
Jose-
Centralized-Decentralizaiton: the great Rubik’s Cube. Strong local/regional participatory organizations with equal and mandatory attendance at the greater ’round table’ is ideal.
For example, a regional peace movement organization formed and designed under certain peace objectives which is networked by a common provincial website message board? i.e. the Nova Scotia Peace Alliance.org, the Canary Island Peace Alliance.org, the Bristol Peace Alliance.org, the Delhi Peace Alliance.org, the West Virginia Peace Alliance.org.
‘Terra Peace Alliance.org’ to unite the respective smaller units and collect synchronicity.
Jose // May 3, 2007 at 5:48 pm |
That’s correct, 1loneranger. That’s the idea, I’d like though to have Anticant’s views on it before going ahead with the draft of the communication to be sent to antiwar movement. And after that to pass on to the second point. When all the points have been covered, we may make a revision before the definite proposal be sent.
Jose // May 3, 2007 at 5:49 pm |
And, of course, the participation of as many colleagues as possible will be much appreciated.
1loneranger // May 3, 2007 at 5:53 pm |
Right on Jose. I 2nd the motion.
Shall we send in the topics separately or as a package? Either way, I’m easy.I realize after reading your 2nd to last comment that you had addressed this question.
1loneranger // May 3, 2007 at 7:39 pm |
Here is Jose’s site and contribution link.
http://canarislander.wordpress.com/2007/05/03/government-central-or-decentralised/
Richard // May 3, 2007 at 9:44 pm |
I don’t quite know where this will lead, but I’ll come for the ride…
I might be able to contribute something to “The antiwar movements relationship to socialist and communist parties, and vive-versa”…and also Conservative-capitalist/NuLabor-capitalist parties presumably.
Remember, Orwell joined the Independent Labour Party (ILP) in the late 30’s, but soon resigned after it adopted a pacifist/anti-war policy…he called himself a “British democratic Socialist” who was anti-fascist (Nazism) AND anti-communist (Stalinism) AND anti-imperialism (British/American Empires).
‘Fleshing out’ what we mean by Capitalism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism might also be a worthy endeavour – for example : Is Socialism a version of Communism, or a negation of it ?
Richard // May 3, 2007 at 9:58 pm |
And, of course, ‘fleshing out’ the difference between Nationalism and Patriotism…Orwell (again) was a great English patriot, but very anti-Nationalism… and he was not an anti-war pacifist…and neither am I.
If someone invaded and occupied England by force, I would not take an anti-war/pacifist stance – at least I hope not.
“Strategies for Peace” – and identification of the values and principles which underpin democratic policy and politics – must also involve the non-pacifists amongst us.
Jose // May 4, 2007 at 5:09 am |
Pacifism or non-aggression. Yes, Richard, there seems to be something that does not work properly here. If you are attacked you must defend yourself, I, for one, am not to show the other cheek for a new smack, either. Perhaps we should consider re-defining what we are against.
1loneranger // May 4, 2007 at 1:39 pm |
Jose and Richard-
I think we are all on the same page here, at least I think we are.
My beef is with unsanctioned, illegal military action carried out by states or state sponsored groups, be it middle eastern terrorists, western covert military teams, or the U.S. Marine Corps in cases like ‘pre-emptive’ attack. I for one only preach pacifism as long as I’m not hit in the face with something, so I guess I’m not a pacifist in the true sense of the word. If someone attacks myself or my family I would not hesitate, after exploring all diplomatic efforts, to fight back if a continuing threat was imminent. I should also add, I am completely against the idea of large scale military industry, i.e. the U.S. military industrial complex. Technology, in my opinion, has created weaponry that makes the traditional concept of human warfare unwinnable and abstract.
The unmeasured and disproportionate use of force against groups of peoples such as the Palestinians is criminal. I also believe the nuclear deterrent concept is criminal and illogical.
Richard-
I am glad you’ve joined our little project and your Orwellian theory is a welcome addition as always. Keep it coming my man.
Cheers
Richard // May 4, 2007 at 8:01 pm |
‘America’s Orwell’, Noam Chomsky, said this – which is not unrelated to this “little project” methinks :
“There is, in my opinion, much too little inquiry into these matters. My personal feeling is that citizens of the democratic societies should undertake a course of intellectual self-defense, to protect themselves from manipulation and control, and to lay the basis for more meaningful democracy”
(Source : Preface to “Necessary Illusions – Thought Control in Democratic Societies” – Pluto Press 1989)
1loneranger // May 4, 2007 at 8:37 pm |
Richard-
It’s funny Richard, my first keystrokes in my last comment directed towards you included the phrase ‘Chomskyesque and Orwellian’ in the line “your Orwellian theory is a welcome addition”. Before I posted that comment I reread your comment and nowhere in it did I find a Chomsky quote so I erased “Chomskyesque” from the sentence.
I suppose I wrote that inadvertantly either because I’m a goddamned genius (doubtful) and a psychic or I’m just so used to seeing you quoting the Chomskynator that I just expected it to be there.
And here it is, another wonderful and poingnant Chomskyism. (Jesus, my little red sguigly underliner spellchecker thingy is just going insane right now.)
My roommate during my Master’s had a girlfriend with two cats who lived with us for a while. The names of the cats…..’Chomsky’ and ‘Nader’. I loved those fuckin cats.
Here’s to unstoppable ‘intellectual self-defense’.
Judo chop!
Cheers
Richard // May 4, 2007 at 8:40 pm |
My opinion only…but I really think we must clearly define our terms first…so we all know what we mean when we say certain words…for example :
Capitalism, Socialism, Democracy – Capitalist Democracies, Socialist Democracies
Communism, Liberalism, Totalitarianism
And that’s just for starters !
Socialism,
1loneranger // May 4, 2007 at 8:54 pm |
Richard,
I agree, fleshing out these definitions is a good idea. Although I’m not sure how relevant it is to the work devoted to this article at hand. I’d really like to try and stay on topic. But I appreciate, immensely, your ‘go-get-er’ attitude!
We’re still working on centralization vs decentralization here as far as I know.
Remember, the project theme suggested discussion and theories pertaining to:
“? The antiwar movement’s relationship to socialist and communist
parties and vice-versa.”
I don’t know how much definitions of Capitalism, Totalitarianism, Liberalism, etc will help us here. But it could.
I’m afraid, we’ll all have slightly different definitions of these concepts.
Why don’t you define each of the ‘isms’ you see relevant to the article concerning Socialism and Communism and their impact on the anti-war movement and if we agree with your painting of the pictures, which I have a feeling we will, we’ll just leave it at that. What do you say?
Thanks,
ranger
1loneranger // May 4, 2007 at 9:05 pm |
(Some more additions from the older post on this topic.)
Winter Patriot // May 3rd 2007 at 1:52 pm (edit)
lots of good stuff here, guys.
I want to throw in my two cents on the centralized-decentralized aspect of the discussion, but I can’t think of how to put it.
so when I get that figured out I’ll be back.
Winter Patriot // May 4th 2007 at 8:38 pm (edit)
ok here we go…
the only kind of organizing that makes any sense AT THE MOMENT is local and if possible entirely underground
but that can change … and if things went well there would come a time when all the local movements needed to pull together … and then the emphasis would have to be different, no?
arggggh!
1loneranger // May 4th 2007 at 9:03 pm (edit)
WP,
Let me first direct you to the newer post of mine entitled ‘a blog peace protest’, you will find more current comments on this topic. I will cut and paste some of these over there.
2ndly, let me say, thanks for coming back. Glad you did. I was worried I may have scared you away the other day.
Underground organizing is a neccesity for sure in terms of democratic assurance. But I think it irrelevant to the topic at hand.
This is, in my mind, a project to help the ‘mainstream’ of society find a way to quickly and fluidly get behind an open and visible movement for peace, before we’re pushed ‘underground’ our selves.
To accept that the peace/anti-war movement must go underground puts us right back in Nazi Germany of the thirties.
Your thought regarding ‘localism’ is quite topical and bang on. Local first, national 2nd.
Cheers
Jose // May 4, 2007 at 9:23 pm |
Has Anticant forgotten us? I look forward to his always interesting comments before I beg 1loneranger to start drafting the first point of the “communiqué”. A first point that might have, as already mentioned by LR, an exclusive post, so that we may turn our attention to the following points in successive turns.
Jose // May 4, 2007 at 9:24 pm |
Time starts pressing.
1loneranger // May 4, 2007 at 9:41 pm |
Jose,
I’ve been wondering about Anti myself.
“Hello Anti, how goes it?” “Any thoughts, no pressure.”
Yes Jose, I was thinking of closing this post when we finalize the current topic: Centralization/DeCentralization. Then moving on to a new post devoted to the next topic, which is…..
ah yes,
‘Transparency, openness and accountability in coalitions and networks’.
I think three days for each topic should work. If we can’t get them all covered, c’est la vie, we gave it the old community college try.
Richard // May 4, 2007 at 11:12 pm |
When you get to “The Antiwar Movement and its relationship with the Socialist and Communist parties…”, just let me know.
I think this must also include Capitalist parties, if the topic is to move beyond a history thesis…
1loneranger // May 5, 2007 at 3:08 am |
Alright Richard. Let ‘er rip, I hope you will continue to add to this topic too.
Jose // May 5, 2007 at 5:26 am |
My proposed draft of the first point is:
? Centralization vs. de-centralization in social movement organizing.
“Locations
Regional groups dedicated to the control of peace and against any movement that will mean an infringement of the people’s rights as these have been defined by the chart of the UN. Altogether gathered in a supra-regional assembly where each and every component will have exactly the same rights and obligations in accordance with what will be agreed upon after the separate conclusions from the various proponents will have been read, discussed and eventually incorporated in a definitive wording in the final conclusions.”
This is just a proposal subject to consideration of all concerned in this blog. We must remember the text of the submission should be between 1,000 and 4,000 words.
Long texts tend to be boring and repetitive but shorter ones may not reflect the ideas of the proponents properly.
My mentioning the chart of the UN is purposefully intentional, as it includes the reasons and motivations for a war to be legal, thus avoiding any accusations of undue pacifism as rightly mentioned by Richard, 1loneranger and myself in previous comments.
Contributions are kindly requested.
1loneranger's blog - centralisation vs decentralisation « Political, Human, Environmental Respect // May 5, 2007 at 5:47 am |
[...] http://1loneranger.wordpress.com/2007/05/02/a-blog-project/#comment-1834 [...]
Richard // May 5, 2007 at 8:54 am |
Is there any chance of making this centralisation v decentralisation title thingy a little more ‘punchy’…for some reason it’s leaving me cold when I know it should not…Is it the long title which is putting me off ?
Richard // May 5, 2007 at 10:08 am |
And you are right, Jose, the 1948 UN Charter Declaration can provide a necessary framework and foundation to the 7 topics chosen – especially relating to peace and aggression.
There are 30 Articles in that Charter Declaration, some of which cover the 7 topics admirably.
Perhaps we ought to remind ourselves of those first before venturing further…
Just a thought to throw into the melting pot
Jose // May 5, 2007 at 10:15 am |
But, Richard, we as individuals are not qualified to deal with those matters on a world scale, as organised groups we can do it more easily.
Jose // May 5, 2007 at 10:20 am |
The title has been given by the AntiWar Movement within the total of topics to be treated. As you may have seen I headed it with the “Locations” word.
1loneranger // May 5, 2007 at 1:47 pm |
For what it’s worth here is a brief older post of mine regarding Humphrey’s UN Charter which includes a link to the preamble and articles.
http://1loneranger.wordpress.com/2007/02/27/universal-declaration-of-human-rights/
1loneranger // May 5, 2007 at 2:29 pm |
Jose-
Thank you! I think your draft is an excellent succinct summary of the information that’s been gathered and shared on the current topic.
I think we’ve all already added a lot of information to this topic that can actually be used in the coming topics.
Might I make a motion to create your draft as a new post of its own entitled perhaps ‘Strategies for Peace: Locations Theory’? There it can live and grow as we move on and go to organizing our info on the next topic: [Transparency, openness and accountability in coalitions and networks.] in its own unique post.
Richard // May 5, 2007 at 2:53 pm |
“We as individuals are not qualified to deal with those matters on a world scale” – Jose
“We as individuals – together – are the best qualfied to deal with those matters on a world scale” – Richard
To my mind, it starts with the individual. The UN Charter Declaration started with John Peters Humphrey (hat-tip : 1loneranger)
For me, the UN Charter Declaration speaks to the individual person, as well as the individual nation – that’s the beauty of it.
As to these 7 ‘Strategies for Peace’ topics, wouldn’t the ‘Respect’ format be better suited – and more clear ?
Just another thought…
1loneranger // May 5, 2007 at 3:24 pm |
Righto Richard.
Wouldn’t it be nice if all our young people recited and memorized Humphrey’s declaration in elementary school? Or would that lead to a diminishment of its significance?
It is a document that should be at the forefront of every individual citizen’s mindset as well as the collective’s mindset. I don’t think most citizens are very familiar with it at this point in time.
Richard // May 5, 2007 at 7:13 pm |
Now there’s an interesting idea 1LR – Humphrey’s Declaration in all US schools, instead of that awful Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag…
“We hold these truths to be self-evident…”
Wonderful stuff…which, as you say, should be ‘hard-wired’ into all of us.
Jose // May 5, 2007 at 7:53 pm |
1loneranger,
Of course you can go ahead as you like. In my opinion your discernment has been proved to be always correct.
Richard,
We as individuals are represented in the UN through the ambassadors of our countries, ambassadors who are the faithful servants of governments that in essence have not been elected by us. What I mean is that what our countries have not been able to achieve we do by uniting criteria.
Why can’t there be laws that punish ALL the crimes against the human rights? We have seen that the UN have not been operative in fundamental issues in this connection.
WE are the world as the song goes.
Richard // May 5, 2007 at 10:24 pm |
The UN is all WE have got, Jose – nothing could be any better.
We should be working together, as a force for humanity, to improve the UN – not dilute it by creating something else.
Jose // May 6, 2007 at 5:21 am |
I am not saying, Richard, that I am against the UN. I am not saying that we must create something else and dilute the UN.
What I mean to say is that we are not duly represented in the UN as it is, and this is evident.
Sorry if my words have led you to think otherwise.
Richard // May 6, 2007 at 9:36 am |
Jose,
If we, the people, can’t change the flawed UN ’system’ (by giving it 110% support) – which is the best system humanity has got for its survival – there’s going to be fat chance of changing the deeply-flawed economic ’system’.
Richard
a blog peace project: Centralization vs. de-centralization in social movement organizing « 1LONERANGER // May 6, 2007 at 2:17 pm |
[...] May 6th, 2007 · No Comments Jose’s draft of the first topic (Centralization vs Decentralization) of the project is here below. All readers and contributors to this blog should feel free to make suggestions to this draft of the first point. We’re moving on to the next topic in the project (Transparency, openness and accountability in coalitions and networks), but this topic and draft will remain open to revision until we send in the entire project to the ‘Anti War Movement’. For more information regarding the contributions that were made to the topic of Centralization/Decentralizaion see my first post on this project: a blog peace project. [...]
b.p.p.: Transparency, Openness and Accountability in Coalitions and Networks « 1LONERANGER // May 6, 2007 at 2:47 pm |
[...] May 6th, 2007 · No Comments Here’s the original subject matter. [...]
Richard // May 6, 2007 at 5:06 pm |
You are sending “the entire project to the “Anti War Movement”…
Question 1 – What is the “Anti War Movement” exactly ?
Question 2 – Who selects the topics…you or this “Anti War Movement ?
1loneranger // May 6, 2007 at 10:05 pm |
Hi Richard-
Yes, I think the idea was to discuss as many topics as we had time for and send them together at the end of the month.
I’m not sure who comprises the ‘antiwar movement’. I received this information regarding the ‘Submissions Call Out’ through the Halifax Peace Coalition.
http://www.hfxpeace.chebucto.org/
I did not have anything to do with the topics. It just looked like an interesting project to me.
You’ve actually got me wondering now myself. I’m going to fire off an email to ask more about the organization. I’ll let you know more or forward you any response if you’d like.
1loneranger // May 6, 2007 at 10:39 pm |
Richard-
Found what I believe to be the source. Page 10.
http://www.thomasmertoncenter.org/The_New_People/April%2007.pdf
Still waiting to hear back from my email directed towards antiwarmovement@gmail.com
Richard // May 6, 2007 at 11:50 pm |
Thanks, 1loneranger – appreciated.
anticant // May 7, 2007 at 1:49 pm |
No, I haven’t forgotten you. I am ‘ruminating’ – and I do have a chronic physical energy deficit which has been troublesome these last few days.
I shall soon write an article which I will e-mail to ranger for posting on his site.
Keep up the impetus, everyone!
Jose // May 8, 2007 at 4:42 am |
As I said somewhere else in this blog I think we are losing precious time. In principle I am inclined to accept any groups whose interest coincides with mine, the more groups there are the more possibilities exist to reach a good conclusion. Digressing leads us nowhere. The union of all groups may have chances, where there is no chance is in refusal to gather and discuss the common objective. We cannot demand that everybody be in agreement with us, the only demand we may be entitled to make is that the “enemy” be common. And I can see this is going to be long given what is happening among us.
My opinion at least.
earthpal // May 8, 2007 at 6:56 am |
Gosh! I’ve got a lot to absorb here.
Looks totally fascinating. I will catch up as soon as possible.
Warmest wishes.
1loneranger // May 9, 2007 at 1:09 pm |
Howdy All,
Here is the email I received in response to my question regarding the origination of this ‘peace reader’ called ‘Submissions Call Out:Protest Theory’.
‘Tom’ explains his intentions below. I am familiar with his organizational ties and respect and support his intentions.
If you’d like to know more about ‘Food, Not Bombs’ you can check out the link in my margin. Also, the magazine that Tom and his friend posted this ‘reader’ in is a popular online activist resource in the States with a wide reader base. http://www.thomasmertoncenter.org/The_New_People/April%2007.pdf
Here is the text of my email directed towards the email address associated with the ’submissions call out: protest theory’:
“Hello,
I’m currently working on some material for the ‘Submissions Call Out; Protest Theory’ articles.
I received the notice through the Halifax Peace Coalition. I’m just wondering if
you could tell me a little bit about the ‘Antiwar Movement’ that I’m sending this material to.
Thanks very much.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And here is the email from Tom:
Brian
Well it is pretty cool to see that we have generated interest across
borders. So far we have gotten inquiries from 3 different continents,
that’s pretty awesome.
Anyways… there are 2 people working on the reader. Myself, tom
nomad, and David Meiran. I am an activist who has been active in the
antiwar and global justice movements for 4 years now. Recently I have
been working on organizing actions around the World Bank and IMF. I
am also an activist with Cleveland Food Not Bombs, Students For a
Democratic Society, the UPRISE Counter Recruitment Tour, and in my
spare time I am a direct action trainer and soon to be graduate
student.
David is an activist with Pittsburgh Organizing Group. He has been
active in social struggles for around 20 years with a variety of
different groups.
The reader is our attempt to try to start the conversation about
organization, goals, and a variety of other topics that seem, at least
in the states, to be assumed rather than debated. We want the street
level activists to have a voice, a voice all to often silenced in the
media and meeting halls of the large antiwar coalitions.”
-tom
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There it is.
Jose // May 9, 2007 at 6:31 pm |
To me it’s sufficiently clear.
b.p.p. bureaucracy and hierarchy in national coalitions « 1LONERANGER // May 12, 2007 at 3:29 pm |
[...] May 12th, 2007 · No Comments On to topic number three, ‘Bureaucracy and hierarchy in national coalitions’. For any newcomers here’s the original reader. [...]
b.p.p. The antiwar movement’s relationship to socialist and communist parties and vice-versa « 1LONERANGER // May 19, 2007 at 5:47 pm |
[...] May 19th, 2007 · No Comments Here is the original reader [...]