(I wrote this the other day while thinking about the Wall Street protests. It meanders a lot, but I decided to keep the emotional stream of thought thing. This was all typed off of the type of my head, mostly on my phone at work, without access to any references. It is what it is. But I like it.)
How to defeat the Wall Street pigmen
America is at the lowest level of unionization since unions became legal. We might as well start there. We need a union drive in America. These don't need to be the conservative ossified unions that have managed to survive. Like all institutions, there are good unions and bad unions. But the important part of the union is that it is a representative organization. A more informal structure is all that's necessary. This union drive could be focused in one city, at first. Let's just say New York for argument sake. All people would be needed to join. The IWW could fill this role, or a new union. Dues could be small, or non existent. People could join “One Big Union”, or separate unions that agree to cooperate with one another.
The important part is to get people signed up and agree with the program so the super weapon can be used. This super weapon is the general strike. The strikers could do a few things. One option would be to have a sit in strike at the workplace. A sit in could evolve into an occupation or even worker management, depending on the situation. Employees, again, depending on the business, could keep working and fulfill existing orders but distribute the payments more equitably. Or whatever they wanted. But the key is that "they" refers to the employees.
Now when we talk about sit ins and worker appropriation, it should be clear we're not talking about small businesses. The intent isn't for the three employees at a baseball card store to boot the old grampa who owns it into the street. The target of the strike is the state-corporate economy. But I fear we've gotten ahead of ourselves. If we want our general strike to be a revolution, a bloodless revolution, some ground work has to be laid.
There needs to be a recognition that the interests of the ruling class and the overwhelming majority of the country are not the same. If 99% of the country is sharing 65% of the wealth, then there is always going to be people without enough. The structural inequality, and the finite amount of wealth, means that as long there is a super rich class, there will be a super poor class. The one cannot exist without the other.
What we need is a country where 99% of the country owns 99% of the wealth. Or something close. To do this, we need to create a parallel economy. The way our economy works now, passive participation in it strengthens it. We need a parallel or counter economy. One that can outgrow the official economy. This doesn't mean we have to give up computers or high top sneakers, just that we can do better as human beings. There is more than enough wealth in the world for everyone, but that's not the world we live in. We need only organize ourselves differently.
Let's get back to that ground work. We need friendly banks. We need banks that can do something in the vein of the Grameen Bank, lending loans to people to get themselves in a better place. The innovation with Grameen Bank is that it lended to people without collateral, and found that people paid back anyway. Because the amounts we are dealing with in America are larger, and there isn't the same market for cottage industry, lending groups could be used. A group of people could take a loan out together, each responsible for paying off their part of it. If someone is delinquent the loss is much smaller, because everyone else is still paying. It's a risk pool for lending. People could set it up a few different ways. Someone behind on their payments could be covered by someone else, or bought out if they won't be able to make payments anymore. The goal is to let people get loans for economic projects (like starting businesses or installing solar panels on their house) easier.
Some could criticize this, saying excess lending caused the financial collapse. The lending I'm talking about isn't about lowering standards, only setting up a structure so that people can get a loan without explosive interest rates. These loans would be for improving people's lives, not just to snare them in mortgage schemes. Credit unions could be used for this, or new institutions. Proudhon used the term "People's Banks", which sounds right to me, but probably would make too many Americans uncomfortable. Americans are taught to fear anything with the words "People's" or "Liberation" in it's name.
It would be important to transfer money into the new “friendly” banks. If everyone withdraws their money at once, a run on the bank will happen. A “run” could be timed with the strike, the boycotts and everything else for maximum effectiveness.
To coincide with our People's Banks, we need to revive Mutual Aid societies. Mutual Aid societies were largely driven out of existence by the government around the first half of the 1900's. There are still things that can be done though. People with cash can pay a premium, and receive benefits back later. These benefits could be determined by a board, or a management team. They could be chosen, hired, elected or rotated in and out. People without money could access the society for barter service. An unemployed person could do work on someone’s house, and in exchange receive dental work or food. Hours and goods exchanged can be tracked, perhaps with a sharing ratio like Peer2Peer networks. A group of people can volunteer to run a daycare (an enormous expenditure for single moms) in exchange for work on their cars, groceries or what have you. The society could serve as a clearinghouse for simple user run insurance plans and for LETS style transactions. An existing fraternal society like the elks or moose could serve as a base, or a church group or school. Or an entirely new institution could be made. Whichever works best.
To go with our mutual aid societies and our People's Banks we will want a helping of self sufficiency. The more we disconnect from the state corporate economy the weaker we make it, and the stronger the parallel economy can become in comparison. If someone has solar panels on their house, they then don’t have to pay into the power companies. If you have an electric car, running from your solar panels, you can disconnect from the oil and energy industry in two ways.
Gardens and goods production can be quite prosperous on a small scale if well handled. Food produced this way can be used personally, traded at a community store or for labor. This unplugs you from the food and factory farm industry. To take this to an extreme, if someone were to have the necessary capital, a person could probably make all of their goods instead of working a job. If mutual aid societies could provide things like health insurance, communities structured around small self producing family units could be almost entirely self sufficient. Some people won’t want to take it that far. And that’s fine too.
Ok, so when our general strike hits, our parallel economy is already going. We’ve got self sufficient families with their own food and power. We’ve got mutual aid societies providing services, food, or helping people still get things done with out cash. A strike fund can feed and house those on strike who need to be fed or housed. Occupy Wall Street functions largely off of donations as far as I know, which people from the around the world can use to help. That could be a source of supplies.
There are three approaches the strikers can take, each with pros and cons. People can stay in their homes. Their physical presence is not felt on the streets but it is harder for the cops to attack them. A sit in can be used to occupy and appropriate a workplace. This makes it easier for the cops to know where to strike. Expect a SWAT team and flashbangs. There is the classic protest march, which gets the message out. Good for morale. Again though, you are an easy target for the cops. Obviously, different people and different situations can use different approaches.
While we are striking, it’s important to start a boycott. A boycott of all functions of the corporate-state economy. A list could be maintained of services and companies to boycott in turn. Each time a workplace is reclaimed that workplace is added to the list of places to favor over others. As the strike and boycott drives business under, those business can be replaced by comparable services, run in a more equitable fashion and join the parallel economy.
As the parallel economy grows, the issue of currency is raised. It could be beneficial to issue a counter currency. This is illegal under US law. The liberty dollars, based on gold, would have been great for this purpose. The government smashed that operation however. A way around the law is to have local towns issue their own currencies. Town councils are susceptible to local democracy and could be used to issue local counter currencies.
If we add all this up, the pig men won’t stand a chance. Each major city can be tackled with strikes and boycotts, one at time, as the movement slowly grows in the margins across the country.
The enemy is the “corporate-state” economy, though. How do you strike against the state? This one is much harder. The most obvious way is to refuse to pay taxes. A refusal to pay taxes will eventually put someone up against the IRS. A single person against the IRS will always end with the IRS winning. If, however, a huge number of people going up against the IRS together the government will find itself swamped in it’s own legal system. A loss of perceived legitimacy is more of a blow than the lost revenue. Will the government have the resources to send huge numbers of people to jail for non-violent tax protests? Any debate, delay or controversy will weaken the government position. Not everyone would be able to do this. If you have kids at home, you probably shouldn’t risk getting sent to jail. A covert tax protesters insurance society could be started via an Internet listserv. A large group of people pay a modest premium. They then refuse to pay their taxes. Anyone who gets roped in by the IRS would receive a benefit, either to pay off the audit or support their family if they get sent away. The larger the group grows the more powerful the tax protest becomes. This would also allow people who can not refuse to pay their own taxes to support those who do.
Other ways to resist state power are refusal to pay the standard fines, like drivers license tabs, or to serve on jury duty. But again, a single person will always get crushed. In large groups, the system will start to choke. A more direct approach would be to protest in front of government buildings to block the entrance, or use tow trucks to drop of scrapped cars in front of the entrances. Or denial of service attacks against government websites. Denial of service attacks against “bad” corporations could also be used.
All of these ideas are completely non violent. They are also non governmental. There are no candidates or platforms to vote for. It’s not a call for more or less regulation, more or less taxes. This is libertarian socialism. Some of it is illegal. This is true. Some of it might go too far for some people. But it is not dogma or an orthodoxy. Someone who agrees with one part but not others is not a heretic. It’s a living idea. If it is ever tried, and fails, then I will be the first to bury it. The important part is to imagine a better, more equitable, more just world. Then close your eyes. When you open them, you are living in that world. It need only be built.
Books:
Flight from the city by Ralph Borsodi
Community Technology by Karl Hess
sin patron by the Lavaca collective and Horizontalism
The conquest of bread by Peter Kropotkin
Post Scarcity anarchism by Murray Bookchin
Studies in Mutualist political economy by Keven Carson
Articles:
All power to the soviets by Murray Rothbard
