having to do with revolution, this series has gotten a little out of hand.
This is the sixth. Tonight I’ve realized, A) that it could go on forever, and
B) that a 1500-word column is not the place to write a book in installments.
Over the weeks, I’ve made many notes that I refer to, with tongue firmly in
cheek, as “Michael’s Little Revolutionary Maxims.” Each is the germ of a column
in itself. I’ve decided to scoop them up, type them up, and let them stand as
is — that’s tonight’s column. Then, in two weeks, there will be “A
Revolutionary Letter to Artists.” And that’s that. I don’t mean that I’m
finished with the subject — for to give up on economic revolution is to give
up on ourselves. Just that it’s time to speak of other things for a while.
Anyone who wants the entire series can send a self- addressed,
self- stamped
manila envelope to: 3AM Productions, 8033 Sunset Blvd. — #97, Los Angeles, CA
90046. You’ll have to just guess on how much postage to use — revolutions are
risky that way.
* To speak of a “free country” when for most people there is little or no
liberty in the workplace — is a delusion. Do we tell ourselves this lie
because we are afraid of the struggle true liberty would require, or because we
fear freedom itself?
* Revolution is a matter of three factors: disruption; changing the terms of
discussion; and momentum. Behind its formidable facade, the existing economic
system is fragile; if this weren’t true, its proponents wouldn’t get hysterical
at the suggestion of even the slightest disruption. (Secure systems, like
secure people, don’t panic when threatened.) But long- term
gains are impossible unless we change or re-define the terms of discussion —
terms like “free market,” “free country,” “profit,” “unskilled labor,”
“democracy.” We’ve allowed big business and the media to choose and define
these crucial concepts. When we accept their vocabulary and definitions, we
accept their vision. We can’t assert our own vision unless we gut their
vocabulary, reveal its underside, forge our own terms, and make them speak our
language — make them speak ours as they’ve made us speak theirs, by presenting
our demands in terms that they must use back to us in order to answer. That, in
itself, would go far toward creating the needed momentum, a momentum that
depends upon our willingness to speak and to confront, and, above all, upon
never losing sight of what we want: a fair share not only of profits but of
power.
* Recently the AFL- CIO,
America’s largest labor organization, woke up from its long slumber and elected
a militant to lead: John Sweeney, who believes in civil disobedience and in
what he’s called “a massive campaign of resistance and retribution.” He has
said, “There are times when you have to block bridges.” The day after his
election, The New York Times ran a genteel editorial saying that
Sweeney’s “campaign speeches about blocking bridges and getting arrested seemed
oddly dated.” That editorial writer had a conveniently short sense of history.
In 1989, people “blocked bridges,” as it were, all over Europe, and the Soviet
Bloc fell. The map of the world changed. How’s that for “dated”? What happened
to a country can happen to a corporation.
* They slight us as workers but pamper us as consumers. What does this mean? It
means they need us. It means that without our buying power, the transnationals
cannot exist. This is the key to their vulnerability and our victory. If this
fact can be utilized by people struggling for freedom in the workplace,
anything is possible.
Most Americans have never heard of a concept called “the general strike.”
Workers of every kind, all across a country, striking at the same time. In
Europe, this tactic has been responsible for most of the advances that wage
earners have achieved for two centuries. (As I write, a general strike is
challenging the government of France.) General strike was, in effect, the
tactic used to end Soviet dominance in 1989: The population simply refused to
play ball anymore, and they went out into the streets together to let this fact
be known. Governments fell at the sight of them. In the United States, as in
most places, general strikes are against the law. (Of course, when the momentum
builds for a general strike, that law doesn’t matter anymore because it can’t
be enforced. As the Soviet Bloc found out, you can’t arrest a whole
population.) America is probably a few years away from the possibility of
general strikes. Until then, when fighting the transnationals we must think in
terms not of a general labor strike but of a general consumer strike.
There aren’t any laws about what you have to buy. With computer networking and
fax wars, labor’s efforts against the transnationals can be supported by
consumer strikes — boycotts on scales that we haven’t yet dared to imagine,
because we haven’t fully used the new communications possibilities.
Remember that even a small drop in profits scares the hell out of
corporations. Just this year, when Shell Oil wanted to “recycle” its oil wells
in the seas north of Europe by simply tipping them over and doing god- knows-
what
ecological damage, the consumer strike against Shell in Europe was so effective
that the corporation lost 10% of its European profits in Germany alone. Shell
backed down. This was barely reported in America because our corporate media
didn’t want you to know. If, in America, strikes against transnationals were
supported by consumer strikes on the scale just experienced in Europe,
fantastic things would be possible. They can move factories out of the country,
but they can’t move stores out of the country — and they won’t move their
factories if enough of us boycott their stores.
* It can be harder to strike against a small company than a big one — small
workforces haven’t the resources, the strike funds, etc. Computers can be
useful on this scale, too. Most companies keep secrets from their employees —
and from the IRS, among others. These days, many of those secrets are somewhere
in the computer system. It’s just a question of accessing them. What’s stopping
you? You don’t have the tools and don’t know how to use them? Get the tools.
They come with instruction books. Learn to use them. Use their weapons against
them.
* Don’t mistake making the evening news with making history. History is about
how much power you win, not how much attention you get. However, there are
times when media coverage can help. At precisely those times, you may find it
difficult to get coverage since the forces that control the media are usually
the same forces you’re fighting. But if TV news won’t cover you, who said they
can’t be demonstrated against? Who said you can’t stake out their headquarters,
follow their TV trucks to whatever sensational triviality they intend to cover,
and make yourselves the story? They can’t control the news if they can’t
control who’s getting in front of their cameras. Democracy is in the streets.
* If a wage earner’s economic revolution gains steam, it will attract the
attention of the rich liberal left. Always hungry for new sensations to
replenish their energies, they will gather round your fires and offer all sorts
of help and expertise. They have a glamorous air and glamorous connections and,
since most of us have a weakness (and a hunger) for glamor, you will be
tempted. But drive through their fancy neighborhoods and you’ll know just how
seriously to take their good intentions. Their riches are based on the same
system that has profited from your labor, your time, your life. They will help
just enough to feed their need for new sensations. Study the history of
workers’ movements yourself, and you’ll see these people won’t give up a crumb
of what they profit from. Things- as-
they-
are
benefit them, or they wouldn’t be so flush — and that’s all you really need to
know about them. Don’t accept their advice, don’t accept their expertise —
it’s the kiss of death for a movement. When they offer to help with your
revolution, ask about the companies they own pieces of — do those workers get
at least a third of the profits, do those workers have full access to company
records, do those workers have power in setting company policy? If not, then
these helpful, glamorous people have important revolutionary work to do on
their own turf before they try to co-opt yours.
* Again and again the question of violence will rise as a revolution proceeds.
Step back, look around, see the suffering that violent movements are causing
even as we speak — is that what you want? Because that’s what you’ll get. The
means never justify the ends; rather, the method creates the outcome in its own
image. Only a method that practices peace can create peace. Woody Guthrie, a
great troubadour and radical, said it forever: “Take it easy — but take it.”
n
This article appears in December 8 • 1995 and December 8 • 1995 (Cover).