posted by Cristina in TheWar

Every little effort does give us hope but somehow, I think that we have to focus that more needs to be done to institute meaningful change. Ending the occupation in Iraq is a noble short-term goal but really doesn’t address the destruction already committed and the plans laid in place through Iraq’s puppet government. Nor does it address the destruction and loss of life in Afghanistan. Small victories may be attained but long-term change that prevents such destruction from ever happening again in our names needs to be tackled. I believe these are points that both Casey and George are trying to make.

This is also where things fall apart. Some would like to work change from within the system, tackling one issue, or even multiple issues, at a time. Others believe that individual realization will result in a more informed and compassionate electorate. Some think that simply changing leadership will begin a process of change.

I think that the fact that the word “change” is in the discussion is a first critical step, no matter how diverse the opinions on how to achieve it. We have moved from decades of apathy where “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” to recognizing that something is definitely broken. This is all good.

But I guess the next critical step is asking “what is broken?” or “what needs to change?” I believe many of us, based on the discussions on this forum, are somewhere between these two critical steps imho.

I found this analysis quite thorough and inspiring and it possibly best reflects how I would like to see change progress:

“…getting tens of thousands of people to take joint action is not an end in itself, rather only the first step in catalyzing deeper shifts in the dominant culture. Our revolution(s) will really start rolling when the logic of our actions and the appeal of our disobedience are so clear that they can easily replicate and spread far beyond the limiting definition of “protester” or “activist.” To do so, our movements for justice, ecology, and democracy must deepen their message by more effectively articulating the values crisis underlying the corporate system. We must lay claim to life- affirming, common-sense values and expose one of the most blatant revolutionary truths of the modern era: The corporate-rule system is rooted in sacrificing human dignity and planetary health for elite profit,
and it is out of alignment with human values.

This is the domain of post-issue activism — the recognition that the roots of the emerging crisis lie in the fundamental flaws of the modern order and that our movements for change need to talk about redesigning the entire global system — now. Post-issue activism is a dramatic divergence from the slow progression of single-issue politics, narrow constituencies, and Band-Aid solutions. Traditional single-issue politics, despite noble and pragmatic goals, is not just a strategic and gradualist path to the same goal of global transformation. Too often the framework of issue-based struggle needs to affirm the existing system in order to win concessions, and thus fails to nurture the evolution of movements for more systemic change…”