Transform the System: A 10-Step Guide (Part One)

Transform the System: A 10-Step Guide (4/25/12 Draft)

By Wade Hudson

Preamble

The following guide offers ideas for how to grow a network of holistic communities that serve the whole person and help transform our social system. Anyone is welcome to use and/or modify this proposal for the development of a “Social Transformation Network,” which is the tentative name proposed for this project.

I do not plan to organize this project myself, but would like to participate if and when the opportunity presents itself. The latest draft of this document will always be on the Web at:
http://progressiveresourcecatalog.org/index.php/Transform/Home .

Introduction

Humanity faces a turning point. Modern society produces ever more inequality, insecurity, limited opportunity, corruption, self-centeredness, social isolation, materialism, cutthroat competition, environmental damage, and a host of other problems.

The economy could collapse like a house of cards and rising seas could occupy Wall Street permanently. Life as we know it is at stake.

To prevent disaster, massive numbers of concerned individuals must learn how to work together in small groups and large movements to correct the problems we confront. The proposal presented here is based on the conclusion that our best option is to transform the root cause of our crisis – our social system – by advancing fundamental, comprehensive, and systemic social transformation.

Would you like to participate in a joyous, holistic community whose members nurture the whole person, spread contagious happiness, cultivate caring friendships, foster personal growth, engage in effective political action, do life together, eat together, play together, commune with Mother Nature together, and thereby demonstrate the kind of society we seek – while recognizing that many members might have only a few hours a week to contribute directly to the community?

Would you like to do more to influence public policy but aren’t sure how? Might you for example want to participate several times a year in a public forum with one of your elected officials to listen, learn, and express your opinion?

If so, you may want to join the Social Transformation Network.

Our mission is to help transform our society into a compassionate community dedicated to the well being of all humanity.

Our primary methods include:

• Evolutionary revolution;
• The Gandhi-King three-fold path;
• Deep nonviolence;
• The Charter for Compassion;
• The Contract for the American Dream;
• The Be the Change Pledge, and;
• A monthly dinner meeting.

If you already belong to a politically active organization, you may want to invite fellow members (and/or the organization itself) to form a Social Transformation Network home-based team that uses this guide (and helps improve it).

If you already belong to a spiritual community or some other non-profit organization that is prohibited from political activity, you may want to invite fellow members to form a home-based team and engage in joint political activity informally.

If you don’t belong to any such organization, you may want to invite friends and relatives to form an informal, home-based team affiliated with the Social Transformation Network.

If you’re unable to recruit others to join a home-based team, you may want to participate in our online community (and perhaps eventually find others with whom you can interact in person).

In this way, we can work together to build the social transformation movement.

This guide is offered to assist your efforts. It is not a blueprint to be followed precisely. We don’t expect everyone to totally agree with every word. We encourage each home-based team to modify this guide as you see fit and report on your efforts.

Transform the System

To build a social transformation movement, we need to grasp the nature of our social system and learn how to talk about it meaningfully and effectively. One often hears references to “the system.” People intuitively understand the concept. But clear descriptions of the system are rare. So I offer the following description of the social system that prevails in the United States.

Like any system, the American social system consists of inter-dependent elements that work together to serve a particular function. These key elements include: major institutions such as governments, the economy, religion, media, and schools; informal institutions such as the family; our dominant culture; and we as individuals who reinforce the system.

Without a common purpose and shared values, societies disintegrate. Society holds itself together by integrating its sub-systems into a coherent social system.

Ever since the birth of centralized agriculture, wealthy elites have used their advantages to benefit themselves, their families, and their loyal friends by increasing their wealth and power. They’ve created and administered institutions that preserve the status quo and reinforce patterns of domination (and submission).

Previously monarchies prevailed. But with the advance of democracy, social inheritance has replaced biological inheritance and modern society’s major institutions have become self-perpetuating. The administrators of our institutions carefully select assistants and future replacements.

This dynamic has been the driving force in every major modern society. No other factor better explains the nature of modern society.

Since different individuals hold different degrees of power and influence within different situations, they have to be accountable for their actions. But no one element controls the system. Scapegoating is wrong. Each administrator is replaceable. The primary problem is the system, for which we are all responsible.

The picture is not black-and-white. Countless exceptions always exist. From its founding, the United States has also affirmed humanistic, democratic ideals. The preamble of our Constitution affirms that a central purpose of our government is to “promote the general welfare.” On occasion grassroots movements have managed to make the nation honor those principles more fully. And today a growing cultural revolution is laying the groundwork for another peaceful uprising that may move us forward with profound social changes.

But the old top-down ways persist. The dominant society adapts and remains fundamentally the same. To implement deep, lasting change, we need to understand what we’re up against and how we as individuals buttress the system.

Selfishness, cutthroat competition, materialism, and hyper-individualism overwhelm deeper instincts toward compassion, cooperation, generosity, and community. Human beings become cogs in the machine, thereby reducing one another to instruments.

We buy consumer products that are made under oppressive conditions, vote in elections, work in traditional businesses, decline to confront injustice, and reinforce cultural values.

To obtain favors from parents, teachers, and bosses, we learn to do what others want us to do. In certain situations, like at work, this submission makes sense. But these habits often carry over into other areas where honesty, transparency, spontaneity, and authenticity would be more effective.

We accept society’s self-centered focus and worry too much about what others think about us.

We rate people in terms of how attractive they are according to conventional standards and only mate with lovers who are more or less equally attractive.

We assume that some one person must always be in charge or King of the Hill and learn to dominate others when we can and submit when we cannot.

Political activists believe leadership is the ability to mobilize others to do what the leader wants them to do.

Families pass on society’s dominant values and train children to obey automatically.

Throughout society disabling professionals place themselves on a pedestal and teach clients to blindly accept their expertise, which fosters dependency and undermines self-esteem.

Schools rely on the one-way transmission of information, memorization, and competition.

Doctors assume that good health requires patients to do what the doctor tells them to do.

The entertainment and media industries make idols out of the rich and famous.

The sports industry glorifies individual achievements.

The business world rewards subordinates who keep quiet and do what is expected.

Mainstream religious institutions claim that God will make the faithful prosperous.

Most Americans are primarily motivated by the desire to enrich themselves and believe super-rich individuals are wealthy because they earned it.

To climb the ladder of success, we hold back from expressing our feelings or actually lie, because we’re afraid that being honest will backfire or hurt us in some way, like when we need a good grade or promotion.

Due to fear and lack of self-confidence, we often fail to be self-critical, for honesty can be disturbing and disruptive.

Honest dialog that enables us to get to know one another more fully is rare. Deep connections and authentic encounters are few in number. Ever more Americans have fewer close friends with whom they share hopes, needs, and fears.

Most conversations consist of a series of monologues. We tell stories about our past, engage in intellectual discourse, and gossip about others. Rarely do we really inquire about the feelings of those with whom we interact.

We become so ambitious and task-oriented, we fail to accept reality and enjoy life.

If we the people withheld our support, the system would collapse. If we engaged in ongoing profound self-improvement and united, we could transform our society.  Instead, we accept the status quo, conform, and go along to get along.

By denying our true selves, we fortify the prevailing system that has become deeply embedded within each of us.

++++

NOTE: This statement is Step One for a work-in-progress guide titled “Transform the System” that offers ideas for growing a Social Transformation Network of holistic communities that serve the whole person and advance fundamental/comprehensive/systemic social transformation. Anyone who chooses to use and/or modify any of these ideas is welcome to do so. I do not plan to initiate or organize any such project myself, but would be very interested in participating if and when the opportunity presents itself. The latest draft of “Transform the System” will always be a wiki document at http://progressiveresourcecatalog.org/index.php/Transform/Home. 
Comments and suggestions are most welcome. If you want to collaborate on co-authoring the this statement, please let me know.

The 99% Spring

Under the umbrella of the “99% Spring,” a broad coalition of progressive activist organizations plans to gather 100,000 individuals across the USA from April 9-15 to participate in trainings to “tell the story of our economy, learn the history of non-violent direct action, and get into action to win change.” Their call declares:

This spring we rise! We will reshape our country with our own hands and feet, bodies and hearts. We will take non-violent action in the spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi to forge a new destiny one block, one neighborhood, one city, one state at a time.

The following letter offers some suggestions to the organizers of this promising project. You are invited to suggest changes or additions to these recommendations and to invite others to do the same.

+++++

Dear 99% Spring:

Your call for action looks promising! The need for coordinated national action to address economic injustice and political corruption is immense. I’ve signed on and have encouraged others to do the same.

Particularly encouraging is your promise to be rooted in the spirit of King and Gandhi. Given this commitment, please consider honoring the following principles that were affirmed by King and Gandhi:

Focus on “winnable demands.” We need to build momentum by winning concrete victories that make a real difference. Achieving this goal eventually needs to include coordinated national action focused on governmental policy.

• Be willing to negotiate. Present proposals for action to key decision makers, try to discuss those proposals with them, and utilize public demonstrations when those negotiations fail
• Seek reconciliation, not victory. Our primary problem is our social system. We need not scapegoat particular administrators of that system, which we must transform. We can seek win-win solutions that benefit everyone in the long run.
• Adopt the three-fold path. Deep nonviolence integrates the personal, the social, and the political. By building alternative communities that nurture ongoing self-improvement as well as engaging in effective political action, we can strive to be the change we seek and better sustain our movement.
• Circulate a written pledge. Putting our commitment in writing can deepen and clarify that commitment. For a contemporary example, see the Occupy Be the Change Pledge.

In addition to those methods that were employed by King and Gandhi, please also consider the following recommendations.

• Home-based teams. Suggest that participants in this project who live in the same Congressional district meet regularly in a home or community center to share a meal, get to know and support one another in their self-improvement and political efforts, and decide together about activities to nurture a caring, activist community among themselves.
• Be open and transparent. Post on the Web financial statements as well as information about your decision-making structure, staff, policies, and plans for action.

Thanks for your consideration.

Carry it on,
Wade Hudson

Reflections on the Radical King Workshop

This weekend I participated in an inspiring and informative workshop on “The Radical King: Nonviolent Work for Social Transformation” led by David Hartsought, Be Scofield, and Chris Moore-Backman at the Quaker Center in Ben Lomond.

The highlight of the weekend was a presentation on Gandhi’s holistic “Three-Fold Approach” by Moore-Blackman, who described that strategy with three overlapping circles: personal transformation, constructive program, and political action.

This summation hit the nail on the head in terms of what I’ve been looking for in recent years and the direction that the Occupy Be the Change Caucus is taking. So I found that presentation to be very affirming and reassuring.

One of the participants in the workshop was Kazu Haga, a Kingian Nonviolence Trainer, with whom I had recently been discussing the possibility of collaborating to develop a political campaign rooted in King’s principcles. During the workshop, we continued that discussion.

Sunday morning the workshop considered “The Relevance of the Radical King to the Occupy Movement.” At that session, I presented the following notes which I wrote before breakfast.

+++++

We need political organizations that are rooted in love and the holistic three-fold path that both Gandhi and King used.

Like King, we need to reconcile the tensions between liberals and radicals.

Doing so requires mutual respect and the avoidance of being judgmental.

We can make judgments without being judgmental.

Like King, we can criticize capitalism without being anti-capitalist and instead affirm a mixed economy that serves the common good as well as relies on the profit motive.

We can minimize the use of abstract labels like liberal and radical.

The founding documents of the Occupy movement did not use the word capitalism.

Others have tried to co-opt the movement by framing it as anti-capitalist.

Labels reduce reality to pre-formed ideological constructs.

The milennial generation is non-ideological and grounded in pragmatic idealism. We need to ride that wave.

It is impossible to not operate within the system.

We need to be prepared in case the system totally collapses.

To desire or try to help make the system totally collapse would be immoral due to the suffering and risk of fascism that would result.

With the three-fold path, we can build alternative institutions and help improve public and corporate policies at the same time.

We need both a long-term radical vision that includes structural change and short-term liberal tactics that improve living conditions. Like King, we can be both radical and  liberal.

Steady incremental reforms can lead to fundamental transformation.

To transform the sytem we need to transform ourselves as well as all of our major institutions and our culture.

Charismatic leadership as was common during the lives of Gandhi and King is outdated.

Problem-solving, collaborative leadership is taking its place.

We need to support each other in our efforts to undo our conditioning, such as arrogance, elitism, hyper-competition, being judgmental, and intellectualism.

One way we can do that is to set aside time to listen to each other report on our mistakes and our efforts to avoid them in the future.

We need to develop and encourage Occupy political campaigns based on Kingian principles, including a focus on winnable demands, a willingness to negotiate, a refusal to scapegoat and demonize, the quest for reconciliation not victory, and love rather than anger.

Kazu plans to invite those who have participated in one of his two-day Kingian Nonviolence workshops  to participate in a meeting to plan a Kingian political campaign.

I want to support that effort as best I can.

I encourage you to participate in his Feb. 18-19 workshop and help convene more workshops.

Kazu will soon be leaving one of his paid positions. One way we can support him is to pledge monthly donations to his primary organization, Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CUYRJ).

After thinking about it for a while, I agree with his instinct that our Kingian campaign should focus on getting big money out of politics.

One way to do so would be to approach key decision-makers in both the corporate and governmental worlds and ask them:

Do you agree that we need to greatly reduce the role played in politics by large for-profit corporations and super-rich individuals? If so, how might we best do that? What about a Constitutional amendment? Will you participate in a series of conversations with a wide spectrum of stakeholders to develop answers to these questions?

Then one at a time we could target with public demonstrations and civil disobedience those who refuse to engage in dialogue and/or adopt and implement an acceptable plan for how they can help reduce the influence of ''Big Money'' in politics.

Reader's Comments

Re: Our Vision: Transforming the System (12/26/11 Draft) 

From Mike Larsen:

Wow! The vision for transforming the system is wonderful!

I have a problem with "society's primary purpose." There's more than 300 million of us running around doing all kinds of things, good and bad. Ascribing a primary purpose to such a diversity of people, activities, and institutions doesn't seem right to me. But I have no alternatives to suggest.

If I may, I'd like to use the vision as a blog post, because in addition to being an outstanding statement of where we are and want to go, it offers a wide range of ideas for writers who want to write about change.

We're planning to do a Writing for Change Conference, and perhaps you could speak at it, if you'd like....

Again, this is important work and deserves the widest possible circulation. The founding fathers would agree that we need a revolution. Those of us not disposed to prayer can only hope it's evolutionary.

Onward!

+++++

Re: A Glimmer of Occupy Unity May Not Be Enough

From David Hartsough:

Great article.
Thanks very much.

++

From Richard Moore:

Such a conversation needs good facilitation

++

From Bety reardon:


Thanks for this report.  I wonder if all in this conversation held a common definition of what constitutes violence and where a line might be drawn between violence and non-violence? Was the discussion entirely focused on efficacy or was there also some consideration of the ethics of the range of strategies considered?

Thanks, too, for you persistent and inspiring work.

My reply: I fear your questions were not addressed very fully. Thanks for the kind words.

++

From Rena Lindstrom:

I like it. Good work.

++++

Re: Be the Change Caucus Launches

From Alba Rodriguez:

Hey Wade, this is good, continúa con mucha paciencia, les deseo mucho éxito, la humanidad lo necesita, saludos y amor universal,  alba

++

From Rena Lindstrom:

Sounds like it's coming together. I hope it catches fire. Thank you, Wade, for staying with the mission.

++

From Leonard Frank:

Excellent report - very informative and well-written.

++

From John Cloud:

I share more than your sentiments on this communique. My belief parallels the essential quality/message of peace and understanding exemplified in the leaders of traditional spirituality as well as radical thought from those believers who choose to see beyond day to day power struggles and a path of self serving greed to a proper use of personal power - the most important paradigm today - and the intelligence to realize the complete connection of all humanity. I also am lost in the current culture of consumerism/capitalism and do not yet see a path how my actions can support my own understandings. I continue to simplify my life and see that my life is out of step with the goals of most everyone around me with the notable exception of online groups, the Charter for Compassion and the Occupy Movement that I have yet found constructive ways to support. I wholeheartedly support the principles, message and action proposed by this Caucus, applaud the sincere politic sought and hope for continued engagement.

Our Vision: Transforming the System (12/26/11 Draft)

NOTE: I’m circulating the following draft to the Occupy Be the Change Caucus for consideration by its members. I certainly do not believe that this piece is any kind of final word. Some of it might prove to be very contentious. But I do believe that it addresses some important issues that it would be good for the Caucus to discuss. As I argued in "A Glimmer of Occupy Unity May Not Be Enough," I believe, “With a vision of ‘evolutionary revolution,’ as Gandhi put it, and a viable strategy to get there, perhaps we can attract some of those advocates of a 'diversity of tactics' who see the need for systemic change and lash out in counter-productive violence due to desperation.” So perhaps we can forge a consensus on such a vision.

Occupy Be the Change Caucus
Our Vision: Transforming the System
12/26/11 Draft

Introduction
The initial Adbusters call to occupy Wall Street envisioned the fundamental transformation of our social system. “Instead of being caught helpless by the current power structure,” Adbusters recommended “a shift in revolutionary tactics” that would confront “the American political establishment” and result in “a whole new social dynamic in America” that would lead to a “radical democracy of the future.”

That Adbusters declaration focused on “ending the influence money has over our representatives in Washington” by “cleaning up corruption in Washington,” and declared, “It's time for DEMOCRACY NOT CORPORATOCRACY…. Our government would be forced to choose publicly between the will of the people and the lucre of the corporations.”

Since then, most Occupy actions have echoed this systemic perspective. Awareness of the necessity to deal with “the System” has been widespread.

With this vision statement, we, the Occupy Be the Change Caucus, elaborate on Adbusters’ starting point, describe the sort of systemic transformation we seek, and present a general strategy for moving in that direction. Then, in the next section, “Concrete Steps Forward,” we propose specific changes in public policy.

We invite everyone to help us co-create this vision and strategy by offering your feedback and input.

The System
Like any system, our global social system consists of various inter-dependent elements that work together in a self-perpetuating manner to serve a particular function, or purpose. The key elements of “the System” include:
· our major institutions such as the government, economy, media, and education;
· informal institutions such as the family;
· our culture, and;
· ourselves as individuals.

Our society’s primary purpose is to enable those with wealth and power to increase their wealth and power. More than any other factor, this dynamic explains how our society works.

The top-level administrators of the System carefully screen individuals who are accepted into key administrative positions. The most ambitious, greedy, and power hungry individuals invest the most time and energy into climbing the ladder of success. Consequently, those who rise the highest generally fail to operate in a compassionate manner.

Absent effective countervailing pressure from the general public, wealth and power tend to become increasingly concentrated. As Billie Holiday sang in “God Bless the Child,” “Them that’s got shall get/Them that’s not shall lose…. The strong gets more/While the weak ones fade.” And most individuals pass on their advantages to their children, resulting in a playing field that is far from level.

Ever more the System is global. National economies are interwoven with one another. International cooperation has become essential.

Society becomes top-heavy, unstable, and less democratic. Ordinary people end up without enough purchasing power to sustain economic growth, prompting periodic economic downturns that threaten a catastrophic global collapse. Various “speculative bubbles” add to this instability, as investors get seduced into seeking great, sudden gains, only to eventually see the bubble burst.

On the individual level, we reinforce the System in countless ways. By buying its products and services, paying taxes, voting, seeking promotions, being passive, perpetuating the dominant culture by being arrogant, judgmental, and self-centered, and/or believing that one must either dominate or submit, for example, we buttress the System.

No one element controls the System, which is self-perpetuating. To scapegoat any one element, including disposable top-level administrators, does not make sense. We are all responsible. The problem is the System, not any particular individual or group of individuals.

Ever since the birth of centralized agriculture, wealthy elites have used their advantages to benefit themselves, their friends, and their families. This dynamic has been the driving force in human society. Whether under “capitalism,” “socialism,” “social democracy,” or whatever political-economic system, every society has demonstrated the same tendency to concentrate wealth and power to the detriment of ordinary people.

Some individual elites manifest genuine compassion (and we should encourage more of them to tap their deep feelings of concern for others). And many elites demonstrate “enlightened self-interest” and realize that short-term greed can undermine long-term prospects. Henry Ford, for example, famously said that he wanted to pay his workers enough money so they could buy his cars. Especially after a severe economic downturn, many power elites accept the need to jump-start the economy by redistributing income downward.

And in general elites accept that if some wealth “trickles down,” it will help stabilize the system by gaining the allegiance of the middle class, many of whom expect to become wealthy themselves and believe that the poor always deserve to be poor and the wealthy always earn their wealth.

But the boom-and-bust cycle is unacceptable. We need to do more than expand the middle class. We need to transform our social system fundamentally. The question is how.

Evolutionary Revolution
Some day the System may cave in completely, resulting in devastation and suffering never before seen in the modern world. We need to be prepared for that possibility. Having model alternative institutions in place could help fill the void in the event of a total collapse.

But we cannot predict the future. The System may continue to muddle through. We need to be prepared for that possibility as well.

Considering the human misery and environmental damage that would result, it would be unethical to want to see the System crumble entirely. Likewise, it would be immoral to provoke chaos hoping that doing so will hasten a complete breakdown.

So, it seems to us, we are required to pursue “evolutionary revolution,” as Gandhi put it. As water turns into steam, a chrysalis becomes a butterfly, or a species evolves into a new species, we might be able to eventually transform our society through a series of reforms that steadily improve living conditions. At the least, we feel compelled to try.

It’s impossible to know in advance what a transformed global society would look like. Collaborative co-creation relying on collective wisdom is unpredictable as ideas build on ideas. All we can do is recommend a framework of values to guide us.

First of all, to grow a new society, we need to establish a new primary purpose for our global community. We propose that as a society we should establish that our primary mission is to serve the common good of all humanity – as well as individual self-interest and the needs of local communities.

This formulation does not imply self-sacrifice. Rather, it affirms that when we take care of ourselves, our families, our organizations, or our nation, we do so in order to better aid the human family. It’s not a matter of either/or, but both/and.

We foster strong communities that nurture personal development, caring relationships, and healthy families. By becoming better human beings, we better serve others.

We believe humanity needs to create and maintain a healthy planet because our complex, fragile ecosystem is endangered by current patterns of consumption and pollution.

Because life is mysterious, wonderful, and awe-inspiring, we cherish beauty, spread joy, and love others as we love ourselves.

We do what we can to prevent suffering and accept our responsibility to help shape our nation’s public policies.

We come together freely, support each other’s empowerment, and resolve conflicts nonviolently. We use force only as a last resort to protect life or prevent physical injury.

We respect others as equals and criticize individuals for specific actions without condemning them, for all of us are imperfect.

We listen carefully and appreciate what is true about all points of view, without demanding complete agreement. Sharing facts, feelings, and opinions enables us to better understand reality.

We experiment in order to discover what works best.

We support businesses that serve the public interest, empower workers, and care for the environment.

We believe all people are entitled to a voice in matters that affect them.

We hold the federal government responsible for wisely managing the economy, sustaining the environment, protecting national security, safeguarding human rights, and guaranteeing all our people the means to live decently.

We believe mutual respect and cooperation are required to build a loving, global society based on democratic local communities.

When we have achieved these goals, humanity will have fundamentally transformed our global social system.

Strategy
To move toward comprehensive social transformation, the Occupy Be the Change Cause has adopted the following mission statement:

Our primary mission is to help transform ourselves and our society into truly nonviolent and compassionate individuals within a community dedicated to the common good of all humanity. We actively support and participate in the Occupy Movement.

Our members have also signed the following Pledge, which is rooted in deep nonviolence:
Occupy Be the Change Pledge

As a participant in the Occupy movement, I hereby commit my whole self to nonviolence. Therefore to the best of my ability:
I am firmly committed to nonviolence as a way of life, not merely as a tactic.
I meet violence with compassion for others and myself.
I walk, talk and act in love and nonviolence.
I refrain from verbal and physical violence.
I do not accept “a diversity of tactics” when those tactics are violent or damage property.
I am open, respectful, and kind with everyone I encounter.
I invite the 1% to join us and will not insult them.
I seek justice and reconciliation so that we are all winners.
I avoid both selfishness and power trips.
I strive to be in good spiritual and bodily health as we work to build a just and democratic society.

This pledge was prompted by many statements about the need to “be the change” expressed at Occupy San Francisco General Assemblies during the Fall of 2011 and was inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s 1963 nonviolence pledge. Dr. King in turn was profoundly influenced by the work of the great theologian, Howard Thurman, who led the first group of African-Americans to meet with Mahatma Gandhi.

In his book, Jesus and the Disinherited, Thurman wrote, “The religion of Jesus says to the disinherited: ‘Love your enemy…. It may be hazardous, but you must do it.'”

He declared that both privileged and underprivileged persons must liberate themselves from their assigned role in society, because “love is possible only between two freed spirits.” They must undo their conditioning, remove barriers, and create “real, natural, free” social situations that enable them to be “status free” and experience their common humanity.

Thurman said, “Take the initiative in seeking ways by which you can have the experience of a common sharing of mutual worth and value…. We are here dealing with a discipline, a method, …an over-all technique.” He called for those in need to cry out, “The [human being] in me appeals to the [human being] in you.”

Whenever a need is “laid bare,” Thurman wrote, “those who stand in the presence of it can be confronted with the experience of universality that makes all class and race distinctions [irrelevant].” He insisted that this “personality confirmation” is essential for “lasting health” in a democracy.

With this approach, King and Thurman were truly radical because they wanted us to transform the roots of violence and oppression that are within each of us. This commitment is reflected in our Pledge.

We aim toward transformation throughout society. The central ingredient in all of these efforts is to foster compassion, personal development, supportive communities, creativity, joy, mutual respect, and harmony with Nature.

Self-empowerment is not incompatible with real community. With a proper balance, strong individuals help grow strong communities, and strong communities help grow strong individuals.

We reject the notion that domination and submission are essential. Rather, we affirm the power of teamwork, co-creation, peer support, partnership, participatory democracy, and collective wisdom.

In short, we want greater democracy throughout society.

In terms of political action, during the early civil rights movement, King and his companions would first present a proposed step toward justice to the powers-that-be, sincerely try to reach an agreement with them concerning that proposal, and resort to public demonstrations only when those efforts failed.

And when they did resort to “tactical nonviolence” in order to mobilize coercive political power, they still did so with a profound commitment to “philosophical nonviolence,” which includes the pursuit of reconciliation and a willingness to negotiate. We favor this approach.

We also want to ground ourselves in deep, clear agreement about our long-term goals. With a commitment to evolutionary revolution, we will be less likely to be satisfied with any one reform. Rather, we’ll be keenly aware that revolution is a never-ending process.

Toward that end, we seek to define winnable short-term goals that appeal to both those who already seek systemic change and the majority of the American people who will likely support fundamental transformation if that long-term goal is articulated concretely, rather than with empty ideological rhetoric.

This approach differs from efforts that aim to educate the public merely by disrupting business as usual without seeking negotiated agreements. Such efforts set an angry, blind tone that can foster escalation.

Unfocused anger is understandable. The revolt against injustice is initially motivated by a desire for justice. But if we allow ourselves to get caught up in the anger of our rebellion, we can soon reproduce injustice with means that are inconsistent with our original ends, while justifying the inconsistency with claims that it is necessary. When we do so, we alienate large sectors of the general public, whose active participation is essential.

But if we stay grounded in love, are clear about our values, assure that our means are consistent with our ends, and constantly work on our own personal development (with mutual support), we can move toward fundamental, comprehensive social transformation and create a greatly improved world that is qualitatively new.

A Glimmer of Occupy Unity May Not Be Enough

An overflow crowd at the First Unitarian Church of Oakland participated last Thursday night in a polite two-and-one-half hour conversation about violence vs. nonviolence in the Occupy movement. The eight-person panel representing the two sides of that debate largely talked past one another. The “diversity of tactics” panelists, for example, never really explained how they see their methods leading to constructive change rather than massive repression. And the advocates of nonviolence never really replied to the challenge to explain how their methods might lead to structural change in our political-economic system.

But a few comments suggested the possibility of more respectful coexistence. At the event, which was billed as “How Will the Walls Come Tumbling Down? Diversity of Tactics vs. Nonviolent Strategies for the Occupy Movement,” sponsored by the Occupy Events Committee, and initiated by David Hartsough and Peaceworkers, one panelist who accepts violence said that it would be “totally fine” if nonviolent advocates organized demonstrations and told her and her cohorts, “You are not allowed to come.” Another said, “If what comes out of this is an agreement that everyone will be ‘in the know,’ I think that would be awesome.”

Those comments were in response to complaints that peaceful demonstrators get caught up in police riots when other demonstrators escalate the situation.

Further discussion might tie those threads together into a covenant that would enable each side to stop spending so much time arguing with each other. Instead, they could concentrate on sharpening their own thinking and organizing those who aren’t currently active.

This agreement might, for example, lead the advocates of a “diversity of tactics” to call for a demonstration on one Saturday and nonviolent advocates to do so on another Saturday.

Whether the more violence-prone elements would ever abide by such an agreement is uncertain. It may be that they prefer to hide in large crowds composed of nonviolent demonstrators. But this kind of arrangement has happened before and perhaps it can be tried again.

If this approach is adopted, those who are willing to resort to violence might develop a clear consensus among themselves about what kind of violent action they believe will help their cause. Such clarity might result in less violence.

And with greater attention devoted to developing deep, clear agreement about our own long-term goals, perhaps we who practice nonviolence can help build a broad-based movement that can transform our global social system. With a vision of “evolutionary revolution,” as Gandhi put it, and a viable strategy to get there, perhaps we can attract some of those advocates of a “diversity of tactics” who see the need for systemic change and lash out in counter-productive violence due to desperation.

I therefore suggest that the Occupy Be the Change Caucus convene a series of public forums and workshops focused on “’The System.’ What is It and How Should We Transform It?” and invite the general public to help us compose our answers to those questions on our website by using wiki collaborative software, like the online wikipedia encyclopedia.

Not everyone would ever sign on to any such plan, of course. As some of the panelists pointed out, most nonviolent movements have been accompanied by parallel efforts that have embraced violence. That scenario will likely repeat itself in the future, aided by violence-prone police officers and other provocateurs.

But if we advocates of nonviolence do our homework and articulate a viable strategy for how to fundamentally restructure our society, perhaps many of those who are willing to resort to violence will see an alternative and help establish in the public mind that the Occupy movement is both nonviolent and dedicated to the profound transformation of our society.

Otherwise, the agreement hinted at during the December 15 forum could lead to the kind of scenario witnessed during Stop the Draft Week in Oakland in 1967. Prior to those actions, an agreement was reached that Joan Baez and her fellow advocates of nonviolence would have one day for their demonstration and the advocates of forceful disruption (including me) would do our thing the next day.

As it turned, the first demonstration was smaller and received little media attention. Our effort the next day to block the buses taking draftees to the induction center attracted more demonstrators and turned violent (I never even threw a rock myself but I was in the streets alongside those who did). The media, of course, gave the violence extensive coverage and our movement became defined as violent.

Two years later I was in the streets when demonstrators moved from a rally at Sproul Hall to take down the fence that had been erected around People’s Park in the middle of the night. I saw demonstrators running in the opposite direction with the back of their shirts ripped off and blood flowing from having been hit with shotgun pellets. I learned that James Rector, an innocent bystander watching from a rooftop, was killed by a shotgun blast. For weeks, I participated in nightly “general assemblies” where we demonstrators decided democratically what to do the next day. I joined daily violence-filled marches throughout Berkeley with “Street Fighting Man” blaring from windows. We had 90% of the residents of Berkeley in support of People’s Park.

On Memorial Day, supporters from other cities joined us for a massive march with National Guard sharpshooters perched perilously on rooftops. But no shots were fired and we tore up asphalt and planted grass in the streets. That night, we celebrated with primitive passion at People’s Park Annex to the rhythms of drums and people jumping through the flames of bonfires, sometimes bouncing off each other mid-air.

It was an ecstatic moment. As Andrew Kopkind later wrote in Rolling Stone, “For those who did not experience the intense communitarian closeness of struggles like Cuba or People’s Park or Paris in May, Woodstock gave them a glimpse of what life could be like after the Revolution.”

But it proved to be a fantasy. We had the people of Berkeley with us but Richard Nixon had the “silent majority.” So he was elected President in 1968 and suppressed activism with relentless repression. Yes, some of us were “radicalized.” But far people more were frightened into passivity.

Governor Ronald Reagan, who after People’s Park had declared, “let the blood flow,” was soon elevated to the White House.

And a jury decided that the sheriffs who had fired at the angry crowd that was approaching them were justified in their resort to violence.

So at the December 15 forum, I was struck by the insight offered by Josh Shepherd, who learned about the power of the military from having served and assured the audience that the military has available more than enough might to crush any violent rebellion. Having been in Baghdad protesting the Iraq war with the Iraq Peace Team during the “shock and awe” invasion, I experienced firsthand what he was talking about.

After People’s Park, Tom Hayden and Frank Bardacke, a hero and mentor of mine, wrote an essay for the Berkeley Barb envisioning how a massive uprising that included substantial violence could withstand repression by the military. I liked their essay.

I heard echoes of that thinking at the December 15 forum, with assertions that asymmetric warfare, or guerrilla war, in the United States could lead to victory as it did in Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Apart from that questionable historical analysis, as Shepherd also stated the American people regardless don’t have the will, the fortitude, the means, or the desire to violently oppose the Establishment.

The romance of violence is even less realistic now than it was in the Sixties, when the whole world was awash in armed struggle against colonialism. The vision of a successful movement in the United States that is characterized by a substantial degree of violence is a utopian fantasy.

That impulse is understandable. As Albert Camus brilliantly delineated in The Rebel, the revolt against injustice is initially motivated by a desire for justice. But if the rebel allows himself to get caught up in the anger of his rebellion, he soon reproduces injustice with means that are inconsistent with his original ends, while justifying the inconsistency with claims that it is necessary due to a desperate situation.

The Occupy movement has primarily been nonviolent. But the Bay Area remains a hotbed for violence-prone anarchists who could redefine the Occupy movement. Ironically, if they do, they will do so by collaborating with the corporate media, which will be more than willing to establish that narrative in the public mind.

I would prefer that those who want to use violence start their own movement. But minority factions, including self-appointed vanguards that want to “radicalize” others by provoking confrontations and help bring down the system by fomenting chaos, will always be with us.

So those of us who are committed to nonviolence need to reinforce and maintain the image of the Occupy movement as one that is overwhelmingly nonviolent. Toward that end, we need to do the hard work of articulating a strategy that would appeal to both those who seek systemic change and the majority of the American people, who, I believe, would support fundamental transformation if a realistic vision were articulated concretely, rather than with empty ideological rhetoric.

Any such plan should include a commitment to identifying short-term winnable demands, or proposed steps forward, as Kazu Haga alluded to with his references to the need for skillful negotiation. This approach differs from efforts to educate the public by disrupting business as usual without tying such disruption to concrete proposals that would improve our situation – efforts that set an angry, blind tone that can foster escalation.

In these ways, we can see to it that, unlike during Stop the Draft Week, our peaceful demonstrations are larger and more compelling. If we do, smaller actions by those who consider themselves more “radical” can help those of us whom they consider too “moderate,” for their actions can bring attention to issues and prompt legislators to enact reforms.

Then, perhaps we can steadily achieve beneficial reforms that eventually lead to systemic reform and a qualitatively new society, as a chrysalis suddenly turns into a butterfly or water into steam.

We can’t know what social transformation will look like in advance. But if we are clear about our values, work to assure that our means are consistent with our ends, and constantly work on our own personal development (with mutual support) as Phil Lawson discussed, we can move in that direction.

I hope the Occupy Be the Change Caucus can contribute to that effort with a series of forums and workshops and a wiki website.