..what pondering is saying re climate change is correct in that it affects us all. but this struggle is not only about climate change. much of the pipeline struggle is about control. specifically community control. and who gets to determine what happens there. nowhere on that short list were communities. until the recent court decision.
The courts made those decisions based on laws passed by governments we elected. Without government the people would have no power at all to halt pipelines and uncontrolled development of all kinds.
..i have a different view of history. before governments the rulers ruled. uprisings caused the rulers to give up some power. rulers created governments that gave the impression that now there was democracy when there wasn't. while uprisings from below continued to gain rights through struggle rulers continue to rule by controling governments.
..this struggle is also about colonization. a form of control. the colonization of indigenous folk. also the colonization of people by capital. the colonization by capital via governments. we have been seeing this everywhere for a long time. in the face of this how we see class struggle had to be redefined. for those who struggle texbook definitions don't apply. we began to see this change with the square occupations introducing the 99% vs 1%. the square occupations were about making decisions from the bottom up.
This is why, while making a huge impact on conversation, occupy led to no major change and has melted away, hopefully temporarily. Occupy stopped being about Wall/Bay Street and became a vehicle to promote bottom up decision-making. In so doing they lost the interest of the general population. Most people don't want to decide which company to hire for road work or determine consumer laws or get personally involved in negotiating NAFTA. While I haven't taken a poll I am very comfortable making that claim.
..not so. square occupations impacted the globe. it brought a new struggle forward where before progressives where at an impass on which way to go. even so called progress governments were bowing to neoliberalism. these occupations were led by young folks who had a different vision of how to move forward. those that occupied could not take on the police state so went into the communities where they contiue to this organizing. bacelona is a perfect example where that vision led to control of the city.
I also don't want activists or whomever is interested to be making those decisions on my behalf. I want that person to be my elected representative. I want that person to be more answerable to me than to a political party or ideology.
..you don't have control over governments. you may believe you do but you don't. so those that struggle do so to defend their communities..their rights..not make decisions for you. you don't like that then oppose them. but they are at the table like it or not.
The environmental movement has succeeded because it has focused on the environment alone, not on indigenous peoples and not on anti-capitalism and certainly not on anarchism nor feminism. It has single-mindedly been about the environment. Because of indigenous land rights they have been at the forefront of the pipeline battle but they are not being supported because people support indigenous rights. They are being supported because groups and individuals are against the pipeline and by our great good fortune indigenous peoples have rights that can be used to stop pipelines. Martin does have a point that there are indigenous communities that support pipelines.
..without indigenous movements leading the struggle against the km pipeline you would have that pipeline. there was no other way to stop it. that is reality. what it took was broad colaboration under indigenous leadership. this is what the struggle looks like on the ground.
The grand majority of people are strongly pro capitalism within the framework of social democracy. From a pragmatic perspective I don't see any other system that will provide us with cell phones. Capitalism is people being allowed to create their own businesses. Capitalism is Mary trading the furniture she made with the helpers she hired for the vegetables Joe grew with the helpers he hired. You might as well try to convince people to go live on communes. Realistically, on what timeframe do you foresee the end of capitalism? It hasn't ended in Greece. The Great Depression didn't end capitalism. There is no reason a worldwide financial collapse would end capitalism. Money doesn't even exist in any real sense anymore. It's worth what everyone agrees it is worth. Financial collapse would be enormously painful for almost everyone but the uber-wealthy would negotiate to maintain their wealth and continue building it on the backs of labour.
..people are very aware of what control corporations have over governments. that is capitalism. not the barbershop down the street. people are not pro capitalism.
There are all kinds of models of community organization but I have yet to hear of any working anarchistic system larger than a single small community. People may not be happy with the politicians and system that we have but most want to tweak it not abolish it. I don't want to make decisions on where highways should go and I don't want it to be made by fellow citizens. I want it to be made by someone I have elected that is answerable to me. In my view it is the answerable part we are having trouble with, not the entire structure. There are ways to address that without resorting to anarchism.
..i agree that there are many forms of community organization. and that's up to communities to decide which way to go. right now you control adds up to putting an x once every 4 or 5 years on a piece of paper. to the rest of what you say i offer barcelona as an example. pariticipitory budgets that are developed vis assemblies by different sections of the city. policy direction that begin via assemblies. also an online program where that is citizen intitiate. projects get voted on. of course you already know this because you've been to the thread where i've posted all this. you may disagree but you do know alternatives are there. just know pondering i will not continue to repeat conversations we have already had.
1% is the notion pondering draws on in a limited way. without the bottom up decision making.
You say "bottom up" but you don't want Ford Nation to be making the decisions. That would be even worse than having Ford in charge. Without government creating laws indigenous peoples would be even worse off. Minorities never do well in the hands of the majority. Without the laws written by our politicians Canadians could easily be convinced that the best thing for indigeous peoples is to dissolve reservations and integrate them, to end segregation.
..this is an argument used by those who don't want change. i've heard it many many times. i call bullshit.
Chavez tried to do bottom up and failed which isn't to say he didn't do a lot of good or wasn't sabotaged. He was unable to wipe out corruption and the country is in chaos. Greece and the UK, the EU in general, are also instructive. No matter how bad things get people still aren't in revolt. They still choose government.
..this is my point about governments. chavez passed many appropriate measures to decentralize the government. only some of those measure made it to the people. many ended up being sabotaged by the bueaucracy and other mps some of which were from his own party. but people are in revolt just not the way you expect them to be. state power has the guns people aren't stupid.
"The poor" have been successfully framed as a drain on the middle-class as though they are the ones causing the middle class to struggle. That leaves people thinking I care, but I can't afford more taxes. Speaking in terms of class is too general. People are strongly motivated by self-interest (or what they think is in their self-interest). Short term reward also takes precedence over long term. People can be altruistic too, but generally after their own needs are met. The pipeline battle is an ideal example. The farther away you get from ground zero the more support there is for the pipeline based on perceived financial benefit to the country. We tolerate pollution for economic reward. Young people are much more supportive of protecting the environment because they will suffer the consequences of global warming and they know it.
..i talk class because others raised it in this thread. most of my posts are an exploration of the movements that are producing change. i think you know this pondering.
..and this is the part of the pipeline struggle pondering doesn't talk about. the politics of control is at the center. those politics determine all on how we move forward including enviroment.
I agree, which is why activists must find a way to influence the majority of people. In my opinion FPTP versus PR versus direct democracy is just moving the chairs around on the Titanic. The problem is not so much the politicians as it is their bosses, the people, becoming complacent and abdicating their responsibility to watch over our employees, the politicians.
..you don't get to define what activists do. you participate or you don't. this is not a chess board where you move pieces around to suit your point of view.
When the people demand, when the people hold government to account, the people win (within a democracy). Even though it would have been illegal, without the protesters and the people bringing the cases to court the pipeline would be built by now. Government can be forced to bow to the will of the people if enough people care enough about a particular issue and there is a straightforward practical solution that they can demand.
The environmental movement is a perfect example. Environmentalists didn't convince government to act. They convinced people that we are being harmed leading us to favor governments that take action on the environment. Governments try to get away with paying lip service. By focusing on specific projects the environmental movement builds local opposition. The people most readily motivated are those who will suffer the most direct negative consequence.
Circling back to Greece; even with all the mass suffering and suicides they still haven't revolted against the EU. Isn't Greece the cradle of democracy? The country has been sold out to save the bankers who were robbing them in the first place. Still they choose the devil they know to the fear of anarchy.
Most Canadians are not at all interested in transformative change and don't want to participate directly in the decisions of or running of government. Electing a government is akin to hiring a management company. You hire them to do the managing.
People can be mobilized on specific issues, like the pipeline, that they perceive to have a direct impact on them. The larger the group of people impacted the more likely success is.
The notion of universality is predicated on the notion that if everyone is part of the program they are more likely to support it. The more people you can unify on a single issue the more success is likely. The Conservative's rallying cry is lower taxes smaller government. That is how they managed to attract both libertarians and social conservatives who should be natural enemies. They stay as far away as possible from issues that divide libertarians and social conservatives.
Right now the left is framed as wanting to pick the pockets of the middle class on behalf of the poor. The NDP works double time to broadcast that it will do no such thing. Oil brings in good middle class jobs. That is what the working class identifies as now. The middle class. Even if they are out of work.
Corbyn didn't rise because he was so inspiring he rose because he tapped into an existing resentment against the status quo in the UK, dropping benefits and rising poverty.
..corbyn rose because young folk and communities rose up to support him. there was no way for a party to tap into that and get those results. this is the work of movements.
I do believe the tide can be turned quite dramatically but it will take thinking outside the box and tapping into the power of social media to gather public support. Then political parties can be preasured to answer the call.
All just my opinion of course
..to the rest i think i've answered above.