14
street roots
I
May 11, 2012
Radicals and Reformers: Part II: System Change
Robin Hahnel
Robin Hahnel is a
political activist and
visiting professor of
economics at
Portland State
University. He is a
co-creator o f the post
capitalist economic
model known as
participatory
economics, along with
Z Magazine editor
Michael Albert. He is
also Professor
Emeritus at
American University
in Washington, D .C .
Replacing the economics of competition
and greed with the economics of equitable
cooperation is the only way to achieve full
economic justice and democracy and
adequately protect the natural environment.
Therefore, to foreswear economic “system
change” is equivalent to saying one is willing
to accept some economic injustice, some
lack of economic self-management, and
some environmental degradation. Moreover,
if the current system is left in place it also
condemns those fighting for progressive
reforms to always swim upstream, against
the current, and any reforms that are won
are always at risk of roll back. Or at least,
that is how we radicals see things.
We radicals also understand that
reformers are sensitive to flaws in
capitalism — which sometimes leaves us
puzzled. Why should others who see the
same problems we do be averse to
thoughtful discussions about better
alternatives? Unfortunately, what radicals
often hear from reformers instead are
hysterical denunciations of those who call
for system change. Perhaps we can begin
the search for a way to avoid this familiar,
destructive dynamic by focusing on what we
agree on.
Radicals and reformers agree that the
system is not serving the public interest in
some important regard. Whether it be that
we need more jobs and deserve higher pay,
or we need to stop predatory lenders from
foreclosing on our homes, or we need to
dramatically reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, radicals and reformers both find
the status quo unacceptable, and believe
something can, and should be done about it.
So why can’t radicals and reformers sign
a pact that says: We pledge to work to solve
-problem X by whrrtevei nicang"prove must?
effective and necessary. Let the ensuing
campaign and struggle determine where
that takes us, and specifically, let results
determine whether or not system change
proves necessary.
If radicals and reformers agreed to such a
pact, and then rolled up our sleeves and
worked together, there are four possible
outcomes: (1) The campaign would be
successful and the problem would be solved
without need for major system change. In
which case reformers would feel vindicated,
and at least this old radical would accept
defeat joyously and move on to the next
campaign, convinced that it might turn out
differently next time. (2) The system would
prevent the problem from being solved to
anyone’s satisfaction. In which case radicals
would feel vindicated and urge all
determined to solve the problem to join the
struggle for system change. (3) The
campaign would have limited success
leaving many unsatisfied and discouraged.
In this case many would drift back into
apathy, a few would try to resurrect a more
effective reform campaign, and a few would
proceed to fight for system change. (4) The
b
H B llS
OS;
<• < • $ X| X. . . :
campaign would achieve truly gratifying
results, but in so doing would also whet the
appetites of some involved for more than
proved possible to achieve within the
system. In this case, some would rest
content on their laurels, while others would
move on to fight for system change.
Too often reform leaders insist from the
moment a struggle is engaged that everyone
must agree that only the first outcome is
possible — that problem X can, and must be
solved without resort to system change.
When reform leaders do this they put
valuable radical allies in an untenable
position. We must either: (a) bite our
tongues and not tell people we believe
outcomes 2, 3, or 4 are quite possible; (b)
abandon the campaign to avoid creating
dissention; or (c) make a scene standing up
for our right to express our beliefs like
everyone else, and thereby alienate ordinary
folk who did not become involved to hear
radicals and reformers squabbling over
system change.
When reform leaders insist that radicals
repudiate their beliefs they weaken the
reform movement unnecessarily. The
movement either loses dedicated and
experienced radicals who often contribute
far beyond their numbers, or suffers from
excessive squabbling over an issue that is
not central to the campaign. Because it is
not the primary concern of most
participants in reform campaigns,
discussions of system change should be
relegated to a secondary status where it
need not become disruptive — especially if
all acknowledge that the proof will emerge
in the pudding. But when reform leaders
appoint themselves guardians over what
people are permitted to hear and make talk
of “system change” taboo, they rfek turning"
what could have been an informative and
respectful discussion into a divisive
Donnybrook. *
Labor leaders who not only defended
capitalism themselves, but sought to silence
radicals who argued that socialism serves
workers’ interests better, weakened the U S
labor movement repeatedly over its long
history. Reformers today who gavel single
payer advocates out of order only
undermine efforts to achieve heath care
reform. Environmental NGO s who
denounce climate justice activists for calling
for system change lower the odds of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions before it
is too late. And when militant actions
respect human rights and do not hijack
other activities, tactical diversity can
increase the power of lobbying, emailing,
and peaceful marching under permits.
Consequently, there is no call for reform
leaders to echo mainstream media
denunciations of those who engage in more
militant tactics.
So why do reform leaders feel compelled
to denounce radical allies when this
weakens the cause? Admittedly, some
reform leaders care more about defending
the system than winning a reform. But often
reform leaders denounce radicals because
they fear their presence will repel ordinary
people who are unreceptive to calls for
radical change and militant tactics. If
radicals and reformers are to work more
effectively together this issue needs to be
addressed head on.
Radicals have a fancy concept we called
“ideological hegemony” which should help
us understand the dilemma. Part of what
glues any social system together is a
widespread belief that the system is good,
or at least necessary. If most workers did
not believe they needed smart, hard-
charging bosses to tell them what to do, and
force them to do it, if most consumers did
not believe the only alternative to markets is
command planning, capitalism would be on
shaky ground. But this means that raising
the issue of system change necessarily
challenges core beliefs that are pounded
into all of us every day. Radicals need to
remember that challenging people’s
fundamental beliefs is a complicated, often
delicate process. Radicals who approach this
task with a sledge hammer alienate
everyone and undermine their own cause as
well.
On the other hand, it is not only radicals
who need people’s belief systems to change.
Unless those joining a reform movement
come to believe ordinary people can be
right and ruling elites wrong, unless they
come to believe people like themselves can
fight city hall and win, the reform movement
will fail. Since ruling elites seldom respond
to moral suasion, what successful reform
movements require is a strategy that builds
people’s confidence in their own power.
This means changing belief systems is the
fundamental business of reformers and
radicals alike. Reform leaders may avoid
shocking people by parroting ruling class
ideology, but they reinforce myths designed
to immobilize people when they do so.
It would be unrealistic to think radicals
and reformers will see eye-to-eye about
exactly how people’s belief systems must
change. But we should be able to agree that
changing belief systems is at the core of
what popular reform movements must be
about. Questioning the system can be an
integral part of motivating people to
challenge the status quo. While radicals
need to remember that repelling those
whose beliefs we seek to change is hardly a
recipe for success, reformers need to get
over their knee jerk fear that raising the
issue of system change, or taking strong
actions, are counterproductive when done
well. At a minimum, reform leaders need to
stop denouncing those who challenge myths
that chain us all.
ttll!:lll|!
IB ;
111« -
Spring in the air
By Jay Thiemeyer
^
no Harley. Somebody musta just left out of a
on his scooter and hit the high notes.
noise as he can. Even if
?r, in the wee hours, I hear the Harley
and poison, wind of his (her)
bike out
-
*
'
rer the bridge. I'm reading and waiting for sleep. The sound comes
imiiffh h the window, out of nowhere. A mmhle
rumble like an annroaehincr
approaching
buffalo. Or such I would imagine. A leaden, coughing, rumble
r, rising to a keening sound. Then disappearing in my
as the bridge is left and the night envelops whoever is on their
luttcume, feeling wind and freedom beating against the temple doors. The
of late night peace when no one else is around, only the feel of true
>wn a bottomless well of dark inclusion. Like driving
>ia Gorge, blind at midnight.
>n on the scooter enjoys himself because it doesn’t sound
of the day, with the lights still on and the cops just
starting their day, like he’s gonna last too long. But can’t blame him at all.
On a Spring
like this,
and warm
mixing, feistiness
*
° day
j
-***''’ the cool ««vi
»voiin currents
cuu cius nuxmg,
leisuness
presides. And the sap rises. And the heartbeat quickens and the foot on the
nedal
nXe imhar
A the fist on the
— xi___
xxi____
x_ twisted,
, and . the
.. wind
. . . feels
pedal gets
itchy m
and
throttle
gets
so good against the skin and the eyes and the hair pulled back like
something was being ripped out and replaced.
And no sooner does the first one fade then another starts its engine
nearby and climbs the bridge, reaching for the sky and all the wind in the
world.