the slacker uprising and revolution?

Armed with underwear and ramen noodles the youth of America are set to overthrow the failed system! They will wait no longer, they will sit no more and they will apathetically listen to no one but Barack Obama anymore. Young people are fed up, that is for certain, but to what extent and will their record numbers in the polls really revolutionize American political life?

Michael Moore recently released his fifth major film, Slacker Uprising and is giving it out for free (download from site).

"Slacker Uprising" takes place in the wake of "Fahrenheit 9/11," during the run-up to the 2004 election, as I traveled for 42 days across America, visiting 62 cities in a failed attempt to remove George W. Bush from office. My goal was to help turn out a record number of young voters and others who had never voted before. (That part was a success. Young adults voted in greater numbers than in any election since 18-year-olds were given the right to vote. And the youth vote was the only age group that John Kerry won.)

While this may have been a failed experiment in mobilizing young people to actually effect change, we may be able to see some of the results in this year's election combined with a number of other factors. In the primaries, the youth vote was very strong - more young people than ever before voted in the primaries. This coming election there are so many young people registered and registering to vote that I would not be surprised to see the youth vote carry some regions. With the candidates picked and running through the mud, the real question becomes: is voting really the most effective way to make change? Is voting for one man or the other really going to show us a reversal in American political action?

At the end of the movie trailer, Michael Moore says, ". . . the young people of America, you're the ones who are gunna do it, you're leading the revolution."

Getting young people out to vote will not show us a different America. Granted this is a great chance to get more young people involved in civic and community action, but the chances are slim if the movement only works through ramen and registering. The opportunities for long-term engagement need to be offered if young people are going to really make change in this country. The young people of today are hardly prepared to lead a revolution in America. If we look back to the 60s and 70s (an era of high political stakes, massive movement building, and student protest) we can see a different type of young person.

Today young people are tucked away, sheltered, and left unaware of the wide world outside. In the 60s you had students who were raised by parents affected by crises, they were first generation at college, they were raised in the steel mill, they were right up close to the issues of the day. Not to mention they were raised during the build up of a very active time with the Civil Rights Movement coming to a peak and that morphing into a number of other issues. Students during that time were able to get involved because they felt marginalized even with their middle class college backgrounds. Today, students are also marginalized and excluded, but young people cling to a apathetic stance as opposed to an involved one. This may be a result of our upbringing. The best student movement examples come from Berkley California with the Free Speech Movement (FSM). What resulted as the FSM moved from Civil Rights to Free Speech to ending the Vietnam War to spurring a counter culture, was a split thinking. One track that led people to think that the students were dirty hippies who were bad for challenging the status quo. The other track led people to romanticize fighting the man and rioting against the system. This romanticizing has led many people to try to recreate movements of the past.

Probably one of the most detrimental results of the 60s and 70s student activist era was the institutionalizing of campus activism. In a documentary that I viewed about the FSM it was clear to see this new mode of control take place as students were allowed to 'table' on campus. Now in order to take any action on campus you have to register, open a student account if you plan to raise money, file your planned events, get proper security if it is a large event, and jump through any number of hoops to be approved to engage in activism. In December 2007, Matt Birkhold wrote on student power and activism,

". . .colleges want to make sure that students do not get too radical and recreate the late 60s. To accomplish this, they monitor everything student groups do. When student groups get too radical or begin to question university policies, they typically lose university support. Because students want to get their message out, they create flyers that will be approved by the university. Unfortunately, this is too big of a compromise because all the time students spend getting flyers approved could be spent organizing or studying. By continuing with university approved activism students are giving up a great deal of power and giving the university far too much. This must be seen as both a diversion and a way to absorb radicalism."

University administrations learned from the past so that events of that era could never be repeated. Student activism has been boxed in and so most students wouldn't even imagine some of the most effective actions to make change on their campuses. To quote FSM leader Mario Savio,

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!

The idea of ungovernability is how real change occurs, when something is ground to a halt it is forced to engage that which is preventing it from continuing. This was a tactic used throughout the 60s and 70s as well as during actions against the apartheid regime in South Africa. Making the townships ungovernable was how the black majority was able to force change.

In light of this, Universities have created a sterile vacuum for student action within the campus setting. For one example, during the 80s on Michigan State University's (MSU) campus students took over the administration building to demand a more diverse faculty. This was effective because it ground the university to a halt. All money was moved in and out of the administration building. Since they took over on pay day, and for a prolonged time after, the finances of the university were shutdown. Sadly, these movements were phenomenas, after negotiations were entered and actions were said to be taken - the follow up was gone because the movement has dissipated. Piecemeal outcomes were won for a long and often violent movement building. As Nelson Mandela noted, the oppressor defines the nature of the struggle. When Reagan had the national guard corral and gas students at a peaceful rally at Berkley, that marked the end of a long period of highly involved student activism.

Yesterday, Barack Obama came to speak at MSU's campus as the most recent presidential election draws ever closer. The student turnout was incredible, Obama's speech the usual, but still good. However the whole time I couldn't help but think about how sterile an environment this was for student activism and political involvement. Everyone is corralled into a small area, the police are everywhere, no signs are allowed, and the politician isn't there to talk to you. He is there to deliver sound bites to the press and media, your concerns are not that important. It almost felt like a day wasted on youth - get out of class, skip this, miss work - to hear a presidential candidate deliver My vote in Michigan as far as the Presidential election is concerned does not matter. Right, it is unimportant, since we have a winner take all system and McCain is pulling his campaign out of Michigan, Barack Obama will take the state and I won't even have to vote. This is where it is important to remind people that there is more than one man to vote for this election (and not even voting per say). I am a strong proponent of involvement in local politics because that is all that really matters.

And so back to the idea of a Slacker Uprising, we have a long way to come if we are going to have a mass movement of students. They may be going to the polls, but we need students running in the city councils, volunteering in their neighborhoods, taking action for their local environment, and caring for their communities. The opportunity and threat present in the 60s is not here today. The average college student is not going to jump into a rally because they see no need to. I agree with Michael Moore on one thing and that is the belief that it will be young people who make the greatest change in America. I firmly believe that young people are the key to social change. This can be evidenced by the 60s and 70s, and even today. I see its potential, but I am not sure that just engaging young people to vote is the best way. There needs to be a more comprehensive knowledge of how things are before involvement will lead to a revolution of sorts. We cannot seek to recreate the past, we need to learn and develop new tactics, we need to research how our power as students and young people can best make change. Birkhold reminds us that, "Students have power; they just have to learn how to use it."

Is participation to perpetuate an extremely flawed structure better than choosing rather to engage people and work for a justice deferred by that structure? The one decision here is the power in your right (or left) hand on election day - will you only check a box (fill a bubble, etc.), or will you help ideas become more than paper promises?

Previously posted on the Young People For Blog.

what could be more powerful than power? (live @ Take Back America)

Read the original post at Young People For.

When you begin to recognize your personal ability and resolve to make a difference incredible things happen. There is no doubt in my mind that whether you are a budding activist, a student beginning to learn more than you thought, a traveler meeting harsh new realities, or a weathered volunteer (worker - maybe you get paid to do this) in the progressive movement - your ability to truly impact the course of history is locked in this self-actualization of the power you hold, which is your ability to influence someone else's life. Influencing just one person is important, but that one person is part of a larger global community and they can then influence another person, and the chain will continue. Power is most often alluded to fall into the hands of the politically and economicly wealthy, those who exploit, manipulate, and profit from others, those who sit in the plush offices and government buildings. This I say is not fact. However, one may argue, these people do hold the power - they do make the decisions and they do shape our lives. While this remains a fair argument there still remains nothing more powerful than a person with a passion. No official, no government, no financial powerhouse, no one can stop that person from influencing others except by way of death. So I say give me passion, give me freedom, give me liberty or give me death (paraphrase: Patrick Henry).

Today begins one of the largest conferences of progressive peoples in the US, except maybe for the US Social Forum. 2000 people gather in Washington D.C. to discuss the prospect of reversing the painful and extremely detrimental policies that have shaped or seemingly broken and divided country. The opening speaker told us that we, who gathered today, were the heart of the movement. To that I say no, we are not the heart, we may be a base for launching, we may be the facilitators for a change, but we are not the heart - because the heart of the movement lies in the people, every person. We are the privileged of the movement gathered in a fancy hotel with classic music and opulent settings. While we are the privileged of the movement I like to think that we are also the actively conscious. We do not overlook our privileged place in the movement. The heart of the movement is not ours to possess, but we can be the blood to pump that heart.

Diane Archer was the opening speak on the issue of US healthcare. She noted how public healthcare systems were viewed in a bad light. Many people in America are extremely skeptical of public health insurance, but the private model also has its deep downfalls. The goal now based on the Hacker model is to create a hybrid system where people can choose their private insurance if they want it, but there will also be the public insurance choice. America has one of the worst public health systems in the world, even ranking behind developing countries. We need to make a change. Diana emphasized that it is, "we who move mountains, not the President or Congress." She noted that when we are organized and when we voice our beliefs then we can create the necessary change.

The always powerful speaker, Van Jones, founder of Green for All and dedicated fighter against social inequality inspired action for a green economy. He says, "We need a WWII level mobilization or there may not be a 22nd Century!" The fact that a clean and green economy has more jobs and has the potential to end poverty in America and combat global warming is more than a dream. The wall standing in front of that goal is the political challenge. Our current government is on the side of big business, war mongers, and the polluters because that is what our current government is comprised of: leaders of big business, etc. Jones told us that the solar and wind industries is where we should look to as examples and we need unconditional political will and public support for a green economy to create jobs. The anniversary of the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. is just next month. He died at 39 years old, Jones noted that he was also 39 years old. King was assassinated not because he was a voice, but because he was able to link the issues. King advocated for an inclusive economy for everyone and even spoke that democratic socialism was a better model. "We will reject 'sink or swim' politics," says Jones. People in America should not be sinking as they were during and after Katrina, no one in America should face that. What I think is more common sense than a repeated mantra is, "we are all in this together." Jones said this and I could not agree more, we are in this together and we need to recognize that we as people are now more than ever a globally linked community. Why can America not be the example for this instead of just presenting an American Dream?

"This movement is about Taking America FORWARD! (Jones)"

Candidate for Maryland Congerss, Donna Edwards, told us that a lose can be a win. I would even say that the we are seeing a new politics of momentum growing in America. Even though a progressive candidate may have lost the vote, they did not lose the attention of the people. This is a great example of where dreams can become realities. Progressive values are shared by many people - the views, values, and vision of the community are shared. Edwards said that if being progressive means health for all, a green economy, and getting out of Iraq where we never should have been, then she is proud to call herself progressive. The political will is lacking in within our political parties. I say this and I am no proponent for party politics at all. The Democrats gained the majority with a issue and goal in mind: get out of Iraq. They got lost along the way in rhetoric that said ending the war did not support the troops. Edwards said that if her family and friends who fought in Vietnamwere stil alive today they would say that nothing more supportive of the troops would be to get them out of harms way. On my way to the conference I met a lady in the Reagan airport that questioned me about my button against the war in Iraq. She talked about peace activists and other protestors at a war memorial. They stood on the ground dedicated to the lives of those who gave their lives in something that many did not agree with. She said that her family members who fought in Vietnam would be upset that there would be protest at a memorial. Because while they agreed with the protestors, they could not agree with the lack of respect. This is something that our movement needs to constantly keep in mind. We may disagree with many people, but that cannot be reason for disrespect. Edwards noted that people often call to honor our troops, but where is the honor in needless death? She emphasized the need to engage international institutions. When she enters congress Edwards said she will need the movement to have her back - because we are the ones with the real power.

People power is real and its actualization is growing within the public. As cliche as it may be, the power is in you! Believe in what you do and others will also begin to believe.

Power and the Problem with Youth Activism

Read the original post here on the Young People For Blog by: Matt Birkhold | Dec 24, 2007 |

Courtney Martin has recently noted that there is no shortage of activism of college campuses. However, according to Martin ("The Problem With Youth Activism," American Prospect, November 19), much student activism is ineffective because students have been pacified by what she calls the institutionalization of student activities and activism. In defense of student activists, Tim Fernholz ("The Kids Are Alright, Campus Progress, November, 27) argues that Martin is wrong and that her basic premise is indicative of a failure to understand politics. Fernholz goes on to argue that today's college activists are smarter then those of the 60s because they are willing to work within the system instead of engaging in protest, boycotts, and civil disobedience. Both Fernholz and Martin make some valid points. Yet neither mentions power in any regard. My aim is to make their conversation more complex by discussing how power impacts student activism.

Politics is primarily about implementing an agenda that will enable a particular vision of the world to become reality. This requires power. Consequently, politicians and their staff are constantly finding ways to retain power while aspiring politicians seek ways to gain it. In the realm of electoral politics, power is usually gained and retained through funding. In other realms however, power is found within people. This aspect of people power was understood particularly well in the 1930s and 40s by labor unions.

In 1936-37, workers at a General Motors plant in Flint, Michigan began a 44-day sit down strike where workers occupied the plant for 44 days and refused to work. The company responded by asking the state to send in the police and National Guard to put workers back on the assembly line. Workers continued to strike and, 44 days later, GM formally recognized the United Auto Workers. Importantly, these workers understood that without their labor, cars could not be produced. They saw themselves as the most important aspect of automobile manufacturing. They understood they had power at the point of production, and that when they exerted this power collectively, they had more power than the people who signed their checks.

Student anti Vietnam War activists began to understand their power at the point of production in 1967 when they shut down the Oakland, California Draft Induction Center. Antiwar activists realized that draftees were needed by the state if they were to continue producing war, and that if they could shut down the draft induction center, they could halt the production of war. Student power at the point of production was further realized during the great student strike of 1968 at Columbia University. Following the lead of Harlem community activists and black student activists, SDS leader Mark Rudd organized white students to occupy campus buildings understanding that if students occupied buildings, the research needed to produce weapons used in the war could not continue. These three situations are important because they provide examples of human beings exerting power at the point of production after the legal avenues of change had been exhausted.

It is this very point that Courtney Martin understands but Tim Fernholz fails to grasp. According to Fernholz, "the executive branch has the most control over foreign policy, and only when its occupant is against the war will we see real progress. Until then, young people must work on defining what type of foreign policy our generation should support." With such an approach, Fernholz has completely relinquished the power of human beings--student and non-student activists alike--to the executive branch of the federal government. By doing so, he becomes a prime example of the critique Martin makes of student activists. According to Martin, the problem is not that student activists do not care; the problem is that they do not see themselves as creators and controllers of their own lives and the world around them. Martin sites a study conducted on college students that found that the average college student today was 80 percent more likely to feel that his/her life was controlled by outside forces than students in the early 60s.

In the world that Martin would like to see, young people would not sit around and wait for power in the executive branch to change hands but would instead hold an event on the Washington lawn to put pressure on those who currently have power to change what they do with that power. As Fernholz points out, those in power are not always the enemy. However, when those who have power use it in a way that the people deem inappropriate, it is the duty of the people in a democratic state to hold those in power accountable. If those in power do not respond, the people have a duty to go outside the avenues of change provided by people in power and develop new ways to create social change. This basic concept that activists in the late 60s understood, today's young student largely fail to grasp.

One reason young activists fail to grasp this lesson stems from the cold war. Marx, the original theorist of people's power at the point of production, was made virtually off limits in US colleges during the cold war. Because of this, generations of activists and intellectuals have been denied a crucial lesson in creating social change. Another reason stems from the way in which college activism is designed to keep students from getting too radical. In conversations with student activists, I regularly ask the question, "Why does the university require you to get the posters you want hung approved?" Students almost always respond, "Because they want to make sure no one gets their feelings hurt." Students are right, that is part of the reason the University wants to approve all signs.

However, a second reason is that colleges want to make sure that students do not get too radical and recreate the late 60s. To accomplish this, they monitor everything student groups do. When student groups get too radical or begin to question university policies, they typically lose university support. Because students want to get their message out, they create flyers that will be approved by the university. Unfortunately, this is too big of a compromise because all the time students spend getting flyers approved could be spent organizing or studying. By continuing with university approved activism students are giving up a great deal of power and giving the university far too much. This must be seen as both a diversion and a way to absorb radicalism.

Because they need students' money, colleges cannot afford to throw all the activists out. Accordingly, students must begin to see that they are in a position to affect change. Before seeing this however, they must begin to understand that human beings create, sustain, and have the capacity to change institutions. When we are complicit with institutions, we are actively working to sustain them. When we agitate, we are actively involved in changing them. Students have power; they just have to learn how to use it.