Nevertheless, if the new media are to be more than just toys, we need to learn how to use them to get feet on the ground and people to cast ballots. In other words, we must translate virtual power into physical power, because at the end of the day, physical power trumphs virtual power.
I have seen a number of people arguing here and elsewhere that the rise of virtual communities heralds a revolution in the way we do democracy, but without making any but the most rudimentary attempts to translate the virtual community into coordinated action in the 'real world.' That is a trap that we must not fall into. That's all I wanted to point out.
- Jake Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam
But I see further than feet on the ground. What the www is doing in the mid-term is cutting out the traditional middlemen. Politicians are middlemen, born of a logistics problem over a millennium ago.
As I've said here before, the most powerful weapon we have now (when we get organized) is Withdrawal of Purchase. It may replace Withdrawal of Labour as a weapon for regulating equality.
If we can get enough people together to agree to stop purchasing the products of a certain company with whose policies we disagree, we can change quite a lot. Even the threat of a 10% loss in sales for a month will have boardroom impact.
I believe we should change by politics by changing business. Elections every 4 years is too long a time span for dealing with the relatively rapid changing nature of the problems we face. Business is quarterly. They listen to the tills. You can't be me, I'm taken
That aside the underlying organisational infrastructure is fundamentally the same for both kinds of operations. Ultimately I would envision an organisation capable of organising a strike on a factory in China, a blockade of the transshipment terminals in Singapore and a consumer boycott in Copenhagen. Simultaneously. Directed against the same company. I imagine that such a multi-pronged approach would be far more effective than just applying pressure to a single point. If for no other reason then because such an approach would create greater redundancy in the operation.
BTW Your vertical approach is very interesting. I am sure Sun Tzu has something to say about supply chains as a vulnerable weakness. You can't be me, I'm taken
But do you agree that changing business could be a faster method of changing politics, as well as bringing about more instant wage/conditions equality?
Of course. The Scandinavian labour markets prove that beyond any reasonably doubt. There organised labour managed to create progress that for much of the 20th century outpaced political regulation.
BTW Your vertical approach is very interesting. I am sure Sun Tzu has something to say about supply chains as a vulnerable weakness.
The vertical approach is a logical consequence of the increasing vertical consolidation of the trans-nats. In the Bad Old Days that shaped the labour unions we know today, a single company was usually focused on a single business area - the production, transportation and the sale of products were handled by different companies (with robber-baron railroads being a notable exception). So if you wanted to change company policy, hitting other business areas meant increasing the collateral damage to yourself and society at large while the additional pressure generated by your action was applied in an indirect fashion and thus - all other things being equal - less effective.
Today, the trans-nats do their dead level best to control every aspect of the production, distribution and sale of their products (and probably also the resource extraction part). This makes them more resilient to traditional single-sector action because their profits are more diversified, but more vulnerable to a cross-sector action, because it becomes easier to establish the connection (both psychological and financial) between each of the sectors you hit.
Although you're certainly right that blocking supply-line bottlenecks is a very effective tactic, I can't say I thought of Sun Tzu and supply lines when I wrote it. Actually I thought more of the general strike - in which you affect political change by paralysing an entire country at a time. With trans-nats increasingly taking on the characteristics of countries (they have their own infrastructure and their real estate and turnover is frequently comparable to that of state actors), they increasingly become vulnerable to the same kind of paralysis.
An alliance of labour and greens is a reality in Norway and the more the hard right works towards turning the West into police states the more social libertarians (I suppose that's what you mean by 'freedom conservatives') are likely to butcher a couple of ideological holy cows and shift their allegiance to the progressive bloc.
So, UK political hounds, how does it sound? "Working class" Labour + Lib Dems + Greens + "Civil Rights" tories = a strong majority. They'd have to get agreement, so there'd be scaling down/blocking "Surveillance" culture, there'd be a huge push for renewables (the tories would have to get over the NIMBY aspect--could they? I think that battle may be won now), the complicated part would be sorting out the financial mess. Hmmm. Is this a crazy suggestion? (From what Jake says, it seems (to me) to work in Norwary.) Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
I mean, I suddenly connected what he wrote to what Solveig has posted recently--maybe I leaped a step. Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
Then again, the "comprehensive campaign" waged at the Ravenswood Steel plant in West Virginia stands as an example of the thing Jake S was talking about. A brief wikipedia blurb about it can be found under their entry on George Becker.
