Summary: "From Marginalization to Massacres" by Mohammed M. Hafez

_____
How can we explain the massacres of helpless civilians by certain movement groups seeking to overthrow regimes or foreign forces?

"Perpetrators of mass violence are not simply driven by motivational imperatives... they go through a process of radicalization."

Under repressive regimes organizations tend to become exclusive - that is they only include like-minded indeviduals, limit external ties, and demand adherance to a strict code of conduct - in order to prevent infiltration and develop the group cohesion and commited activists nesisary to carry out clandistine high-risk activities. Leaving the organization means loosing your whole support system because you've burned bridges with everyone else. The perspectives of people outside the group are not valued and an honest, self-critical look at the groups activities could destabilize the group. "Objective assessments of the political environment necessary for strategic calculations disapear; groups become increasingly driven by emotive and abstract apeals to justice and retribution"

Under repressive regimes that don't allow for opposing voices to participate, anti-system collective action frames - that portray the institutional political system and the state elite as fundamentally corrupt - start to resonate with more people. Reform is futile and the only way to acheive the mevement goals is to oust the opponents not negociate with them.

Exclusive organizations with anti-system frames do not accept the idea of "neutrality" (if you aren't a part of the solution you are part of the problem). This makes almost anyone a legitimate target. "History is replete with examples of guerrilla movements and militant groups iniciating greater violence against non-combatants than against government soldiers and oficials." i.e. Vietnamese Viet Cong, the Venezuelan Armed Forces of National Liberation (FALN), Algeria's National Liberation Front (NLF), and Peru's Shining Path movement. All had the characteristics above.
_______

soo...anti-civilian violence isn't some inherant characteristic of Islamic movements. For explination look at the context of political repression, organizational structure, and the way that the situation is framed.

do these notes make sense to you? Does this seem useful in any way to your world?

Prince on his (un)released album

"Time upon a once
There was a boy named Camille
Now this boy named Camille didn't know how 2 feel.
Sometimes he was lonely
sometimes he was sad
but most times
he just took 4 granted
all the nice things that he had.

Some people said they loved him
but Camille said
"Contempt!
Winter, Spring,
Summer, or Fall,
love is no good
unless it's felt by all"

So, naive & terrifically in need
Camille started looking for answers
His paintbrush the questioner,
his canvas the arena,
Camille set out to silence his critics.
"No longer daring" - his enemies laughed.
"No longer glam, his funk is half-assed...
one leg is much shorter
than the other one is weak.
His strokes are tepid,
his colors are meek."

So Camille found a new color.
The color black:
strongest hue of them all.
He painted a picture called Le Grind --
hittin' so tall.
And then Cindy C --
THE vogue fantasy.
Horns & vocals 2 die 4.
Lollipops -- in yours!

Stroke after stroke callin' all others a joke.
Superfunkycalifragisexi.

Camille rocked hard in a funky place. Stuck his long funk in competition's face. Tuesday came. Blue Tuesday. His canvas full, and lying on the table, Camille mustered all the hate that he was able. Hate 4 the ones who ever doubted his game. Hate 4 the ones who ever doubted his name. "Tis nobody funkier -- let the Black Album fly." Spooky Electric was talking, Camille started 2 cry. Tricked. A fool he had been. In the lowest utmostest. He had allowed the dark side of him 2 create something evil. 2 Nigs United 4 West Compton. Camille and his ego. Bob George. Why? Spooky Electric must die. Die in the hearts of all who want love. Die in the hearts of men who want change. Die in the bodies of women who want babies that will grow up with a New Power Soul. Love Life, Lovesexy -- the feeling u get when u fall in love, not with a girl or boy but with the heavens above. Lovesexy -- endorphin. Camille figured out what 2 feel. Glam Slam Escape -- the Sexuality Real. Tonight we make love with only words. Girls first. This feeling's so good in every single way.
God is alive! Let Him touch u and He will quench
every thirst. Let him touch u and an aura of peace will adorn u.
God is alive!
Let Him touch u and your own Lovesexy will be born.
Let Him touch u, let Him touch u, and Heaven is yours.
Welcome 2 the New Power Generation."

comments?

Open Source Unionism?

What do you think?

"How Common is Union Busting?
Via Nathan Newman, an organization called American Rights at Work has just released a new report showing how widespread union-busting is among American employers. Some of the findings:

30% of employers fire pro-union workers.
49% of employers threaten to close a worksite when workers try to form a union.
51% of employers coerce workers into opposing unions with bribery or favoritism.
82% of employers hire unionbusting consultants to fight organizing drives.
91% of employers force employees to attend one-on-one anti-union meetings with supervisors.
As Nathan says, a majority of American workers would likely join a union if given the option. Most aren't given the option. ARW argues that major changes to labor law are needed to change this—including establishing "card checks" as a process for union organization, whereby a workplace would be unionized if a majority of workers simply signed a card, plus much tougher penalties for any employer that violated labor laws. But there's also something of a catch-22 here: Effective pro-labor legislation will be very difficult to pass in Congress without a strong labor movement agitating for it, but it's hard for the labor movement to become strong so long as the law is biased against unions.
So what to do, what to do? One of my favorite "out of the box" labor proposal comes from Joel Rogers and Richard Freeman, who have argued that "open-source unionism" is the way forward:

[Right now,] workers typically become union members only when unions gain majority support at a particular workplace. This makes the union the exclusive representative of those workers for purposes of collective bargaining. Getting to majority status… is a struggle. The law barely punishes employers who violate it, and the success of the union drive is typically determined by the level of employer resistance. Unions usually abandon workers who are unsuccessful in their fight to achieve majority status, and they are uninterested in workers who have no plausible near-term chance of such success.
Under open-source unionism, by contrast, unions would welcome members even before they achieved majority status, and stick with them as they fought for it--maybe for a very long time. These "pre-majority" workers would presumably pay reduced dues in the absence of the benefits of collective bargaining, but would otherwise be normal union members. They would gain some of the bread-and-butter benefits of traditional unionism--advice and support on their legal rights, bargaining over wages and working conditions if feasible, protection of pension holdings, political representation, career guidance, access to training and so on.

And even in minority positions, they might gain a collective contract for union members, or grow to the point of being able to force a wall-to-wall agreement for all workers in the unit. … Joining the labor movement would be something you did for a long time, not just an organizational relationship you entered into with a third party upon taking some particular job, to expire when that job expired or changed.

I don't really know what the upsides and downsides of this proposal are—it looks like all upside to me, but it's certainly worth debating, rather than waiting around hoping that pro-labor Democrats will ever regain power and fiddle with the law.
Posted by Bradford Plumer on 12/07/05 at 01:15 PM"

Alinsky, Myles Horton, Movement

they were friends, did you know that?
Both looking for movement.

I am trying to solidify, articulate, tune my thoughts on what a movement looks like before it reaches that point where it swells up and boils over so there's no doubt about it.

Myles says that those people using what they call the Alinsky Method got it all wrong. Saul was a good organizer because he had a sense of humar, brilliance, and disregard for what other people said about him. Could have used any method and would've worked.
Saul thought if he put the leaders he developed in power they would help make other leaders and go organize other communities. But once they got in power and stoped being poor they stayed put and didn't share their power. This upset Saul very much.

In times like these
where we are in some kind of valley
where not only are we NOt getting any closer to that line on the horrizon but we are backtracking (previouse victories rolled back)
the progressives huddle up for warmth and talk only to eachother and feminist thinking keeps evolving in a tiny circle that doesn't seem to grow. -a bubble more than a movement.

Organizing that is effective in repealing oppressive laws won't nessissarily educated anybody to do anything or follow it up - nessisary ingredient for the multiplication of leaders inherrant in MOVEment.

Myles said if he had to choose between acheiving an objective or using the struggle to develope and radicallize people he would let the goal go and develope the people. says only the little victories that are calculated toward a structural change lead to valuable learning. Little victories of limited reform, they only teach you to look for small goals to reach.

So which reforms will get the ball rolling?

Grassroots/Low-income/People of Color-led Katrina Relief

Where to donate to organizations who are:

Organizing at the grassroots level in New Orleans, Biloxi, Houston and other affected areas Providing immediate disaster relief to poor people and people of color
Directed by, or accountable to, poor people and people of color
Fostering the democratic inclusion of poor people and people of color in the rebuilding process.

http://katrina.mayfirst.org/