After his double-digits win in Wisconsin last night, Bernie Sanders’s insurgent campaign has a fair amount of momentum behind it. Still, many are asking what comes next, and how to carry the political revolution forward — whether he wins the Democratic nomination or not.
Glad to see that someone is writing about the larger movement beyond the Presidential election.
Yes, local and state elections are very important. Regardless of what happens at the national level, get active in the local area and state and vote, even if you don't like the choice for Prez.
Yes, the movement has to continue beyond the election campaign. There is plenty one can do to effect local policies and process beyond voting in elections. This is not to mention all the actions people can take individually and in groups that does require government approval.
Terrific article - thanks CD.
Part of the shake-'n-wake going on is realization that "WE" know how to do this, but no one person can articulate it or make it unfold. It takes the vibrant LISTENING breadth of community with TIME inclusively dedicated to making a space to really hear.
We are currently enmeshed in authoritarian models of "economy" that have wangled all of the components and processes into abstract criteria from which to extract and claim "value". That is a patent fallacy that can only be maintained by equally authoritarian means. Hence the absurdly massive militarization of police departments, gutting of government agencies and sloshing them full of revolving door appointments from the kleptocratic constructs. These are needed so that as it collapses it has as great a portion of the population as possible inside its construct to feed those dependent on the parasitic methodologies.
The system sucks from and constricts all that needs to be relaxed and inclusive, energetic and focused, creative and flexible, regenerative and, quite frankly, loving.
If Sanders doesn't win the nomination he would be perfect to run as the Independent leader of the new Progressive party, and he'd be the first Independent to actually have a shot at winning.
There may be valid points here. The author lost me when they started using "you need to's", I do not look to england for advice nor as an example of superior governance. I look towards Sweden, Denmark and other democratic-socialistic countries that actually work. Have we forgotten that we were once part of england? How did that work out the first time? It is one thing to offer suggestions, it is another to do what is done here.
It's okay, I think it is spot on topic. Nail, meet hammer.
In spite of all the deceptions that are used by the 1 percent to maintain their grip on power, if one looks through history there are always those moments of "lucidity" where the masses of people no longer buy the swill being fed to them by those in power.
I read the comment sections of many articles written by various news sources and there a whole lot of people who will comment that what being fed to us by that media is a crock. As example many Germans simply do not buy into the mainstream media in its attempts to demonize Putin. Many In the UK are not buying the mainstream narrative as to what goes on in Libya and in Syria with the media in that country all but repeating the Government narrative as fact. In the USA while there still a great many who just believe everything the Governmnet dictates more and more of the people question that narrative , be it on 9/11 , on the nature of these trade deals, or on the various wars the US Government orchestrates abroad.
One consequence of this is that the media and those of the 1 percent trying to protect their status became ever more desperate and ever more transparent in their attempts to feed that propaganda of the rich to them. Here as example I use the media in the USA trying to marginalize Sanders at every opportunity even as they promote Clinton, or as another example the articles on Putin linking him to off shore tax havens even when his name not in any of the released documents. (The US Government by the way now suggests more sanctions against Russia due to the information linked in those same papers, this even as a number of western leaders linked as well).
Now while the current moment of lucidity is very hopeful, it is also very dangerous as those in power still HAVE the power and will use it to maintain their grip on the same. As such any policy initiatives these Governments orchestrate the world over have to be suspect.
Sanders and Corbyn would appear to be grave threats to that 1 percent but they are not as easily gotten rid of as were other Political leaders in the third world.
Actually I think you in error here. She is not speaking so as to champion the existing Government or system of Government in the United Kingdom. She is speaking from the perspective of the peoples inside the UK who want and desire a better model so as to effect that change.
When it comes to truly progressive movements peoples the world over that desire the same are in fact allies. They should want the same type of policies in another country as they desire in their own. You as an indvidual have more in common with the working people of the UK than its Government and your revolution against the same was to free you from its Government and not its people.
I would also point out that it important these revolutions do in fact happen in the more powerful countries (including the USA, the UK , China, france and Russia) given the fact that these countries existing Governments will use their Militaries and their contol over the Security council to orchestrate coups or to attack countries that implement policies that deemed a threat to the rule of the 1 percent.
See what happens in Latin America or in Africa anytime a Government shows the barest hints of being Socialist or progressive.
I don't see the Democratic party being very useful. Splitting with the "centrists" seems to be a critical first step. If we haven't got the balls to walk away from a political party, then we can't call ourselves revolutionary in any way.
As pragmatic as it would seem to be to try to occupy the party and use its established infrastructure as a vehicle for change, I strongly suspect that this is an ideal way to get rick rolled right back into the system.
Perhaps the green party would be willing to play ball and offer guidance for all of us progressives? I really have no idea what their agenda would be. However, the D's and the R's aren't likely to play ball with an insurgency. Too much money, and too much power are at stake to allow a political revolution to unfold.
We knew this fact of life from the start. The system is rigged. A stall is a win for the corporations and the oligarchs-- so long as the profits keep rolling in. Real reform won't come from within the system. The oligarchs can afford to fight legal battles for generations to come. No movement such as ours will last more than a few months or years, they never do. The rich understand this perfectly well.
Personally, I think the French variety of revolution, or the stark fear of it, is our best chance at reforming the system. The oligarchs won't give an inch, a dollar, or a hoot until they are besieged in their towers. We've got the numbers, and here in America, we've got the guns too. Show me a revolution that is completely bloodless.
So? These are our options. OWS fell apart and left us with a couple great slogans-- that's about it. Boy did we change the corporate dialogue, huh? As soon as the media can put Bernie behind them, they will. He hasn't changed the discussion. As soon as it's Hillary vs Ryan, or Hillary vs whomever... That'll be the end of it as far as the MSM is concerned.
The Democratic party won't shift to the left. We need to split the party if we want to control our message and the agenda. That's step one. We have to break with the old, and chart our own course.
Gosh everyone, thanks for the dialog. It opened things up so that I got outta my box. I still stand by the working models of successful states but the cutting off my nose in spite of my face is greatly reduced, Thanks Of course the push-back against what is is never pretty but more dialogs such as this opens doors to getting rid of ALEC and the like and it requires local involvement. My big problem is I'm a big picture person and you are more detail orientated. I'm very happy you are nuts & bolts, so I guess that leaves me pushing the peddle.
i super appreciated this interview, because it is discussing an organizing strategy for a mass popular movement to exercise political power, not based in subservience to PARTY politics. Very rare to see in the USA.
It worked well in that you inherited lots of decent things from the UK such as Habeous Corpus, trial by jury, which you've since thrown away with the likes of Gauntanamo. Congrats, a medieval peasant of circa 1300AD would have been appalled. I think parliamentary democracy, as has developed in the UK for 700 years, is superior to the US political system by far, so is something to look to for superior governance. Sweden and Denmark also have it. How it would have worked out eventually? I guess for the answer to that compare the USA to Canada.
Electoral strategy and the American left sounds like an oxymoron--If the Occupy movement had somehow had a longer shelf life, Bernie would be the face of it--The Tea Party so-called movement had real electoral consequences, thanks to being underwritten by the Kochs, et al.--Bernie's "revolution" is not particularly evident as of this writing, that is, I don't see a grassroots effort like Occupy, a larger, umbrella movement which would of course include Black Lives Matter, an actually existing movement as of this moment--Bernie's right, what has to happen is in the nature of a revolution, and a huge turnout of voters, inspired to come out by the revolutionary Bernie--I'm afraid I don't see much of this actually happening on the ground, and it's getting late!
I Love the Back-Bench. Here, whatya get? Dissent is frowned upon. Very dumb imho, without dissent what do you get? Just what we have today. This page is a fine example, someone called me out and look at the change in dialog; wonderfulness to the extreme. My Great Grand Father Hampton Lawrence Carson at one time owned the majority of the Blackstone Papers so I am somewhat versed in English Law History.
Jeremy Corbyn wants to take the British political and social atmosphere back to the 1950s and 1960s. For those old enough to remember, those were the days when the Tory Party was dominant and the Labour Party spent 13 years in opposition. It's most odd that he gets called extreme left-wing.
But, for the generation brought up on Maggot Thatcher's "greed is good" policies, I suppose sharing the social responsibility for health, education and public transport is indeed a bit extreme.
Australia and New Zealand were also "once part of England". I would prefer to live in either of these than the USA as they are more humane. The USA's rebellion was fought so that the very wealthy could dodge paying due taxes and nothing has changed since then. Taxation in the UK at that time was far higher than those imposed on the British colonists in northern America.
Yes. The USA muscles in.
Oh how I'd love to live in New Zealand. In many ways it is as close to sanity as anywhere on the planet.
NZ "Thatchered" itself in 1984. But it is a nice place though not what it used to be, thanks to Thatcherism gone mad.