I've moved!!!

Update your links and bookmarks - I’m off to Wordpress like everyone else. Check me out.

Class, Race and the Venezuelan Election

Class, Race and the Venezuelan Election
By Alexander Knight



Tomorrow, December 3, Venezuelans will go to polls to decide whether to extend Hugo Chavez’s presidency for 6 more years, or to put a stop to the “Bolivarian Revolution” and usher in a new period of rule by the anti-Chavez forces, led by Manuel Rosales. The world is watching with immense interest, in no small part because populist President Chavez has openly challenged U.S. President George W. Bush on many occasions, including a famous UN speech in September where he referred to Bush as “El Diablo.” As such, the eagerly awaited results are likely to have international implications, but Venezuelan perspectives on the two candidates have more to do with which side of the racial and class divide one finds oneself on.
In this writer’s 3-month stay in Caracas, he has been witness to a level of class warfare never experienced in the United States. There is a deep and immediately obvious gap between the upper and lower classes in Venezuela, such that in effect there exist not one but two Venezuelas, separated by skin color and income level. Life in one Venezuela feels like some kind of imitation of an idealized U.S. or Europe, where people shop in malls, wear the latest fashions out to trendy nightclubs, own cars or SUVs, and sleep in up-scale apartments and houses in very specific areas of the cities, away from the darker and poorer elements, except perhaps for a few servants, janitors and maids.
The upper classes also seem to be largely afflicted with an overly-developed sensitivity towards ancestry, preferring always to cite any example of European heritage rather than to admit the presence of African or indigenous blood in their veins. In truth, a substantial portion of the group is white in appearance, such that a blonde-haired, blue-eyed gringo such as myself has had no problems blending in with the crowd during Rosales’ many “Avalancha” marches in Caracas.
Inside the other Venezuela, people are less obsessed with the sophistication and culture of the First World, and are just trying to get from day to day. Estimates vary according to the standards accepted, but as many as 60-80% of Venezuelans live in poverty. Many do not have access to electricity or heat in their homes, a great portion of which stretch across the hills outside the cities in the so-called “barrios” and “ranchos,” where homes look more like temporary tin shacks than proper dwellings for families. The inhabitants of this side of life are not so concerned with having European heritage, as many do not anyway. They are overwhelmingly brown and black, mestizo, mulatto and indigenous.
In this Venezuela, Chavez is viewed as a hero. A recent AP Poll showed that these poorest Venezuelans favor Chavez to Rosales by a factor of 70 to 16%. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061124/
ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_presidential_poll) Chavez, or “El Comandante” is spoken of as one of their own, a normal Venezuelan, who came to power through the military, a regular outlet for Venezuelans of more modest backgrounds. To this Venezuela, Chavez’s boasts of having African blood are much more important than, for example, fears that he could be getting too friendly with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.
In a complete contrast to the opposition marches, when this writer attended Chavez’s most recent rally this past Sunday, his white skin and blonde hair made him stand out like a sore thumb. Of perhaps 500,000 in attendance, it appeared that this writer was 1 of perhaps no more than 500 visibly white marchers.
But for most people here, politics are simply a matter of class interest. For those on the bottom, the Bolivarian Revolution has provided numerous opportunities to improve their situations, whether through the numerous Misiones that have provided free Education, Health care, or other services which the previous government did not make available. New government aid programs are very diverse, from debt and interest rate relief that gives families the chance to own quality homes for the first time, to the new Communal Councils, which act as outlets for participatory democracy previously unknown in most of the poorer neighborhoods of Venezuela.
This writer recently had the opportunity to see firsthand a few of the new government Misiones, and was very impressed. One in particular, Mision Hipólita, is charged with the responsibility to eliminate homelessness within Caracas, by providing both immediate and long-term support to indigents, many of which suffer from histories of mental problems and drug abuse. Certainly no small task, the workers at the four-month-old center believed that care and support could be provided that for many will make the difference between a life on the streets and having a house of one’s own.
Chavez has certainly done enough to gain the support of the lower classes of Venezuela, and for that most believe that he will handily win the elections tomorrow. It’s not that there aren’t poor, non-white, even black Venezuelans among Rosales’ support base. There are, but they are certainly a minority. And in a country where poor non-whites are the majority, that is a troubling disparity for the opposition.
That previously mentioned AP Poll gives Chavez an advantage of 59 – 27% among likely voters, and while the privately owned television stations in Venezuela broadcast much tighter estimates, ultimately one’s perspective all comes down to the class- and race-based lenses through which life in Venezuela is viewed.

The Rebirth of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)

The Rebirth of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)
by Alexander Knight

published also by ZNet (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10908) and Monthly Review (http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/knight080906.html)

A small kitten scampers up the steps of ivy-laden Cobb Hall at the University of Chicago. Nearby, a mohawked student attempts to spear a stale, “dumpstered,” bagel mid-air with a PVC pipe. He’s surrounded by dozens of other young radicals mingling in the school’s immaculate green courtyard, chatting about music, activism and revolution. Just inside the hall a complicated and exasperating argument rages over national organization and the delicate challenges surrounding differences in race, sex, class, sexual orientation and gender identity. Welcome to the 1st National Convention of the reborn Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).

The New and the Old
Held August 4th-7th and attended by an estimated 200 students and activists from as far away as Washington State, Vermont, and Arizona, the convention was the first national event held by SDS since its re-inception just 7 months ago on Martin Luther King Day. The original SDS of the 1960s, before it collapsed into various competing factions (the final, disastrous convention in 1969 was also held in Chicago), is remembered as part of a powerful movement that funneled thousands of young students Southward to the front lines of the struggle for Civil Rights, and as one of the first and steadiest voices demanding the unconditional withdrawal of U.S. troops from a place called Vietnam. 40 years later, while the nation is embroiled in a conflict over the civil rights of immigrants, and the American military is trapped in yet another foreign quagmire, a sentiment of disinterested cynicism, even hopelessness, has thus far maintained a firm grip on much of America’s youth. Meanwhile, the national organizations leading the fight against the rising tide of imperialism have been a regrettable combination of internet-based lobby groups soliciting funding from wealthy donors, along with sectarian groups stuck in the mid-60s strategy of massing bodies to clog city streets for one afternoon.
Pat Korte, one of the founders of the new SDS, says it was his experience with these “inherently undemocratic” organizations that dominate the American Left that pushed him and other students to talk about restarting SDS last fall, while Pat was still in high school. “We wanted a multi-issue organization in which the membership would have power over defining the organization, in which youth and students especially would be encouraged to have input, and which would build bridges between students and non-students in a democratic framework.”
SDS, especially the ideals embodied in the 1962 Port Huron Statement, presented an option for a different kind of organizing, “based on participatory democracy.” So Pat went about finding and contacting former members of the original SDS and received their permission to give the organization another try.
One person contacted early on who proved to be instrumental to the group’s success was Tom Good, a gray-haired Wobbly who had been too young to join the original SDS. When Tom got on board with the new SDS, he set about creating a website (newsds.org), listserv and other networking tools to bring together SDSers from around the country. The internet proved itself as a “terrific organizing tool,” and the group’s membership exploded. Within six months over 1,000 members had joined SDS via the website, representing 150 chapters around the country. Many of those who initially joined were former members of the original group during the Sixties, while most others were inspired by the group’s history from the Sixties. As Tom put it, “the name recognition [of SDS] is huge.”
Yet, the history of SDS is a troubled story, and inheriting that legacy means resuscitating old challenges, along with some new ones. Would the new SDS be able to avoid making the mistakes of its predecessor, for example, white leadership and male dominance? Is the internet the best tool for organizing students located on campuses around the country, who had no previous face-to-face connection, and how could this be done in a “democratic,” “non-hierarchical” manner? Finally, could the new SDS manage to be a powerful voice for radical change without falling victim to factionalism, government infiltration, and a narrow, anti-war focus?
It was exactly this intriguing mix of hope and doubt which drew me halfway across the country to observe this convention and find out whether the new SDS is the “Real Deal.”
I journeyed to Chicago in a carpool with students I had contacted via the helpful Ride Board set up on the SDS website, and slept at a welcoming co-op house which I found on the equally helpful Housing Board. But when I arrived at the convention Friday afternoon, an hour before registration was scheduled to begin, there were no signs indicating where to go, and the only information I had was from the incomplete “Tentative Schedule” that was still posted on the website, the first indications that the weekend’s event had been organized in a hasty fashion. While hanging around and waiting for someone informed to arrive, I met Bruce Rubenstein, who kept me entertained with stories of his days in the Weathermen, who turned to property destruction when they believed nonviolent protest had failed to end the Vietnam War.

Across the Age Barrier
One of the first, most unique features that one notices about the new SDS is its intergenerational character. In every SDS gathering, amidst the students and youth you will find a healthy representation of “first generation SDSers,” friendly people who insist they are not trying to guide or lead the new organization, but are present to provide help and experience whenever necessary. In fact, SDS is organized into two distinct components, the student and youth component, Students for a Democratic Society, and MDS, or Movement for a Democratic Society, which is a vehicle for original SDS members and other non-students. The two groups appear to coexist harmoniously, as the older folks, while providing much-needed financial aid and some lengthy motivational speeches, seemed content to spend most of the convention manning tables and occasionally leading panel discussions, while largely allowing the younger members to be the loudest and most decisive voices. Save a few examples, most members, young and old alike, viewed the intergenerational nature of SDS as a strength.
Al Haber, founder of the original SDS and drafter of the Port Huron Statement, headlined the “Opening Plenary” Friday night and received the most thunderous applause of the evening (and a standing ovation). According to Al, at age 70, he’s now “officially done with the ‘60s.”

Strengths and Weaknesses
On Saturday the workshops began, with such diverse topics as “New Orleans: Organizing to Rebuild,” “Class Privilege: A Burden or a Tool?,” “Building the Palestine Solidarity Movement,” “The Modern Sex Workers’ Rights Movement” and “Creating and Sustaining an Anarchist Revolution.”
The best workshop I attended was entitled “Direct Action on Campus,” in which everyone participated in a mock confrontation between students and administrators (I was selected to play a bewildered police officer). Not only were theoretical and strategic considerations reviewed, but the participants were given a hands-on application of their newly-learned skills.
Not all of the convention ran so smoothly. The schedule as drafted allotted time for caucuses to meet, including a “Queer/Trans Caucus,” a “People of Color Caucus,” a “Feminist Caucus,” an “Environmental Caucus” and both “Anarchist” and “Marxian” Caucuses as well, but they were all scheduled for the same time. Therefore people who self-identify as, for example, a person of color and queer, would have to choose which caucus to attend and which identity to represent.
Upon noticing this oversight, several students hastily organized a re-scheduling of the caucuses, spreading them out over the weekend, but some caucuses met with low attendance because they were pushed back to Monday, and the Anarchist and Marxian Caucuses still gathered at conflicting schedules, on opposite sides of the hallway. Meanwhile, the People of Color Caucus was scheduled to meet Sunday during breakfast, but when they arrived at Cobb Hall they found the building’s doors locked and were forced to wait until lunchtime (concurrently with the Anarchist and Marxian caucuses – ensuring a white audience for the ideological gatherings).
But it was Sunday afternoon when some of the inherent contradictions facing the new group became painfully evident. Clearly the most important workshop of the convention, called “National Structure Discussion,” had been slotted just one and a half hours time and located in a room capable of handling no more than 35 people. Of course, over 70 showed up, and the three facilitators found themselves completely unable to manage and focus the conversation on topic. Instead, what began as a calm brainstorming session on the relative merits and dangers of creating a national structure quickly devolved into a frustratingly disorganized and strident argument, such that reinstating a functional meeting structure itself became the focus of debate, overtop subtle fears that if any individual was given excess authority over the running of the meeting it might lead to the creation of an authoritarian structure for SDS itself. Therefore a desperate chaos ruled, and the shouting soon silenced all non-male voices... something that was eventually pointed out by a woman.
Just when worry of repeating the original SDS’s sexism hit everyone in the face, the knockout blow walked right into the room. Through the doorway emerged the People of Color Caucus, wearing sullen faces and armed with a devastating statement. By this point, the Structure meeting had been going on for over an hour and a half, yet the 15 members of the POC Caucus had not been present the entire time, and in fact had been meeting next door for the last 3-4 hours, to apparently no one’s recognition. When ashamed and confused murmuring in the white audience subsided, the People of Color delivered their statement. “As People of Color, we have witnessed that being at this conference was an alienating experience...” They were discouraged by the convention’s white-dominated atmosphere and expressed the worry that SDS was making the same mistakes which have divided and crippled the progressive Left of the U.S. for the past 40 years. They demanded to know whether SDS would be yet-another white radical organization, or if it would actively strive to be multiracial and all-inclusive, not only sensitive of racial lines, but gender and sexual orientation lines as well.
There could be no adequate response. Beyond applause, each member of the white-dominated audience struggled and squirmed to find some way to reassure the People of Color of their good intentions while admitting their failures and mistakes. In truth, the kind of conscious, sensitive and reflective discussion that the white members of SDS need to do around this difficult issue simply could not occur immediately following the statement, especially after such a demoralizing set of events. No one knew what to do next.
At this point the panelists whose scheduled workshops were now more than one hour past their starting times demanded that the next session begin immediately, because they had to travel home before Monday. The roomed buzzed with confusion and people began to file out the door en masse, while some still shouted desperately that no decisions on national structure had been made.
The convention gasped and nearly choked; all feared the new SDS was stillborn.

Solidarity Building
Yet, walking around the campus, it was clear that life was slowly breathing back in, simply through relaxed and friendly discussions that united the scattered students. Whatever animosity had existed in that room dissipated as the young radicals casually hung out together in Chicago.
This points to what was undoubtedly the most positive thing to come out of the convention: all the personal connections made. For the students to meet one another and share their experiences of how they’ve struggled in their own communities and campuses, trying to tackle problems which face all of us, was not only self-affirming but points to the real possibility that a national organization can affect change simply by bringing people together.
On Monday, the final day of the convention, with only 60 of the original estimated 200 attendees still around, the convention ended positively. In the first plenary of the day, entitled “Resisting Empire from Within: SDS and the Antiwar Movement,” SDSers brainstormed plans for a week of action this coming Fall semester called “Iraq Week,” hoping to spur the campuses to once again become hotbeds of militant resistance to what currently appears to be an endless war in Iraq and the Middle East. According to the panelists, this would be accomplished through “direct actions on campus and beyond [that] boldly illustrate the connections between educational institutions, war profiteers, and political elites within the imperialist establishment.”
Finally, the “Closing Plenary” functioned as a concluding and unifying discussion, in which, with the help of clearly designated facilitator, note-taker, and stack-keeper, along with rules decided upon at the outset, some clear decisions could be made by consensus. Perhaps most important among the resolutions passed was an answer to the previous day’s drama, an affirmation that SDS will strive to “ensure that people of color, women, LGBTQ, and all other oppressed groups have a direct role in decision-making,” such that not only is the leadership of SDS representative, but that the atmosphere is welcoming to everyone.
It was also decided that SDS will be a national network tying together chapters, but that real power lies at the grassroots level in local campuses and communities. The next SDS conventions will be regional rather than national, so that people can meet one another without traveling across the country. It was suggested that each area should hold two regional conferences within the next year, with the second being focused on determining goals for a potential SDS constitution. Decisions regarding that constitution will then be confirmed at the 2nd National Convention, to be held next summer, location TBD.
When the discussion ended with unanimous agreement, there was a little applause and a very big sense of relief.

High Expectations
Looking forward, conventioneers that I talked to felt that the weekend, with all its ups and downs, had been a success.
A female student named Iwi pointed out that “It’s not likely for a first national convention to run very smoothly… Anyway we should be able to argue and have dissent, that’s what ultimately makes an organization stronger.”
Another young member calling himself Scribbler pointed out that “we are just beginning to stand up again,” and glibly noted that it will take more than one weekend to “build a unified radical student Left in this country.”
It should be expected that an organization assigning itself such an audacious goal as shutting down imperial ambitions, and inheriting such a difficult legacy as SDS, should suffer a few birth pangs upon its first meeting. After all, these are difficult and strained times, and as Al Haber pointed out, “we haven’t had a national interracial movement since the mid-60s.” But many members I talked to felt that SDS is re-emerging at just the right time, to help a new generation of American radicals find their voice, and strengthen what thus far has been a fragmented and ineffective movement for peace and justice in America.
On Monday afternoon, with the convention ended and people beginning the long trips back to all parts of the country, one got the feeling that what Pat Korte called “an experiment in participatory democracy” has an awful lot of potential, but to fulfill that potential will require a lot of patience, understanding, and determined effort in order to achieve the ambitious goal of creating a more democratic society.

4. Peak Oil Politics 101

Let's brainstorm for a bit on the political situation evolving in our post-peak oil world.

Fundamentally, as I wrote in my thesis, after peak oil, we are beginning to move to polar extremes of fascism vs. socialism.

In terms of governments, the United States, being the premier imperialist nation, has little or no choice but to do what it is doing; to use force and violence to threaten the rest of the world from interfering with its dwindling global hegemony and access to oil-rich regions.

The U.S. is in easily the worst shape of any nation with regards to the coming energy collapse. With 5% of the world's population, the country uses 25% of the energy and oil. The immense wealth of the nation is entirely dependent on supply lines that stretch around the world, and rampant poverty inflicted on most of the world's people by their own authoritarian governments (many installed and supported by the U.S., of course). It is hard to imagine how those political-economic relationships could possibly persist when oil shoots to $100 or $200 per barrel. They will become increasingly strained, as third world governments succomb to popular movements demanding economic independence and the end of the raping of their resources and labor for the benefit of the North.

South America is the best example currently. That continent has been dominated by U.S. interests going back to the Monroe Doctrine of the early 19th century. But in the past few years, Venezuela, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and now Bolivia have moved sharply to the left under socialistic regimes, all with tremendous popular movements urging them forwards. Bolivia is the most striking example, as the nation just elected its first indigenous president, Evo Morales, who moved quickly to nationalize that nation's oil and gas reserves, effectively announcing that the resources of the country must be used for the benefit of its citizens, not the American over-inflated consumer lifestyle. We will see more and more nations breaking free of Washington's grip.

This is the eclipse of the global empire.

The effect on the U.S. economy will certainly be devastating. Not only will cheap goods begin to cease flowing in from the sweatshops of the world, but steadily rising gas prices will prevent the distribution of those goods as is done now, through intercontinental trucking. Moreover, people will no longer be able to afford to drive their 50- or even 100-mile car trips every day, to work, to the mall, to school, and everywhere else.

$10/gallon gas is the death of the American way of life.

Of course, it will be a calamitous adjustment for Americans, who currently live in a hopelessly unsustainable economic and political system. Over 50% of the population now lives in suburbia, which even if people wanted to, could not function with far less energy. Those lawns, large as they are, could not grow enough crops for the families who live in cul-de-sacs.

Meanwhile, the current model of food production, dumping tons of petrochemicals onto increasingly lifeless soil to sprout endless rows of acres of monoculture (think corn), which are then fed to animals in mechanized factory farms, along with extensive petromedicines, to generate meat, will begin to break down more and more. The rural agribusinesses will eventually be forced to close up shop, causing a massive food crisis.

The older cities and boroughs have a chance to survive, but it will still be an incredible adjustment. Mass transit must be encouraged, local organic farming must be encouraged, and just about every system must be made to run on far less energy. Emergency plans must be put in place to deal with gasoline shortages and electricity shortages, and everything must be done to preserve what open farmland still exists, and prevent any new subdivision or strip mall at all costs.

Of course, that is just the beginning, as we move from the most energy-intensive lifestyle in the history of the world, to one which is significantly more modest. There are a plethora of desperate measures which will have to be taken, but in reality, every town will face its own unique crisis.

Often those from the peak oil-aware population commit a senseless error in prophesizing that the end of the oil-dependent American way of life must be the end of the world, or the end of civilization, etc. The only way that's true is if the U.S. decides to start World War III and launch a few thousand nukes at its enemies.

More likely, paths will diverge, and each section of the globe will face a far different future.

For example, take Cuba, with it's unique emphasis on organic farming and low-energy economics since the collapse of the Soviet Union and "The Special Period." Having gone through one petrocollapse already, Cuba is uniquely prepared for another. That doesn't mean the island will have it easy, as they have become increasingly dependent on global tourism, an industry that will be among the first to go in the global economic collapse. Still, with 50% of the produce eaten by Havana's citizens coming from within the city, and many other Cuban cities at 50-100%+, the kind of apocalyptic doomsaying being thrown around in the U.S. really does not apply in Cuba.

Of course, the only reason Cuba survived their first petrocollapse was because they have a socialist government, which ensures the health, employment, and general well-being of every citizen. The government controls the nation's economy, being able to shift resources to farming and mass transit, and sacrifice other less fundamental areas, which is something that capitalist governments cannot do. That is especially true because in Cuba, the media is controlled by the government as well (which is nonideal for other reasons), which gives an enormous advantage to Cuba over nations where corporations own and run the media. Corporate media cannot mobilize the public to take grassroots action to reclaim their lives and their economic circumstances, in fact it must always do the opposite: encourage individualism, cynicism and inaction. Capitalist governments, serving those corporate interests, will not be able to create sustainable, longterm solutions to the oil crisis, because it is not profitable to move the suburban population to rural areas and teach everyone to farm. Nor is it profitable to completely revamp the national transportation system, and revive rail transport over car transport. Nor is it profitable to provide universal health care and employment.

Moreover, all this must be done in a crisis situation, and as we know, capitalist governments do not act with rational or humane intentions during crises and disasters (think Katrina).

Only those nations with socialistic political structures, which control the means of production for the benefit of the public, or at least with revolutionary environments to create those structures, will be able to prevent rampant disease, starvation, and economic collapse.

In nations with capitalist governments, or other repressive authoritarian regimes, the only solution is revolution.

Of course, it must begin from the bottom. The grassroots must lead the way, and the more democratic the revolutionary organization, the more capable it will be of responding to the myriad of unforeseen dilemmas which will arise during the coming crisis.

Is this just political opportunism? No, quite the contrary. While "veterans" will surely be involved in the struggle, the revolution will be fought for, and by, average citizens, who today have no idea what they will soon be involved in.

Why will they fight? Food, land, and work.

It is that simple. Take any capitalist nation as an example. When gas costs $10/gallon, unemployment shoots up, inflation reaches record levels, and current systems begin to expunge the lower classes from receiving their services en masse. What recourse will exist for these desperate millions? Will private charity save them, when corporate competition is only accelerating? Will hospitals and food banks volunteer their services, at a time when bankruptcies are snowballing? Will government decide to provide massive reallocation of resources for a politically disenfranchised group? Certainly not enough.

The only way to prevent inhuman absurdities, such as hundreds of billions of dollars for military and weapons, or trillions of dollars in advertising and marketing urging deadend consumerism, the big-screen TVs, the oversized SUVs, the video and computer games mesmerizing youth, the cell phones, the McMansions, the endless seas of soft drinks and fast food hamburgers, and acres upon acres of totally unnecessary parking lots and highways, while millions cannot even get bread, or work, or any basic necessities, is revolutionary action to topple the capitalist system and create something humane.

Next time, I'll explain why it will succeed.

3. Post-Peak Transportation Solutions, or The Myth of the Oil-Starved Marauding Gangs of Mad Max

I just got back from the supermarket, with my bi-weekly supply of mass quantities of cheap foods.

After moving in with my friend Jason a couple days ago, I'm now about 2 miles away from the supermarket, which used to be literally across the street.

This made hauling my groceries a little more interesting than usual because I had to bike there. I ended up stuffing all the heaviest things into my backpack, balancing the rest between bags on my two wrists, and carefully riding my bike up the 2-mile-long hill back home.

To today's Americans my actions are silly and stupid. Why not use a car? I've lived here less than a week and already the neighborhood kids I ride by in the alleys everyday have taken to calling me "bike guy."

But more and more we are beginning to see the lifestyle sacrifices made because of the interminably rising oil prices after peak oil.

And while sweating and panting my way up the hill with a sack of potatoes, a carton of soymilk, and a giant can of beans dangling from my wrists, I pondered what kind of inventive and imaginative ways people will find to cope with $10-per-gallon gasoline, when they absolutely have to.

Beyond my kind of biking heroics there will certainly be a much greater push for carpooling, use of mass transit whenever possible, and most of all: eliminating unnecessary travel.

This does not in any way preclude the very real likelihood of impending social unrest and upheaval, and no doubt when gas reaches $10 people will take to the streets...

Good!

We've been conditioned to fear what was once our greatest source of power as a population - social unrest. As recently as the early 20th century, taking it to the streets was the only effective way to present our demands and display our grievances against the powers-that-be. Benjamin Ginsberg's book The Captive Public describes how the mass media, interest groups, public opinion polls, and other devices of the state have stolen that power from us, turned our attention spans to mush and sold our politics to the highest bidder.

Today even our protests are a mockery of their former selves... we march from point A to point B, surrounded at every moment by steel guardrails backed by police in riot gear, hoping to at best get a few pictures of the crowd and an estimate of the crowd size broadcast (in 30 seconds or less) on the news. Does anyone feel empowered by these spectacles?

We have been conditioned to demand order (whose order?) above all else and to fear unrest of all forms, whether looting, rioting, or outright rebellion. Remember Katrina? The media went on and on about the horrible looters to justify shoot-to-kill responses by law enforcement. But ask yourself what you would do if you were trapped in a disaster area, when order has broken down, there's no electricity, you're thirsty and hungry, and there's a Walgreens or some other corporate store just sitting there with everything you need waiting inside. Any sane person, regardless of race, would break in.

Last night I watched the film The Road Warrior, the second of the Mad Max trilogy.

The premise of the film is that in a future of oil shortages, civilization has collapsed into war, nuclear holocaust and barbarism. Mel Gibson plays the lone hero, who shows up in his turbo car and leather "heavy metal" outfit, to rescue a band of embattled strangers defending a remote oil refinery in the middle of the wasteland. The "good guys" all wear white, have blonde hair and beautiful faces, and are rich - with the only commodity that matters anymore, gasoline.

On the outside of the compound, all the "bad guys" - those with black clothing, mohawks, dirty skin and ugly tempers, are desperate for gas, and will rape, murder, and torture all who stand in the way of them getting it.

The film ends with a dramatic chase scene, as Mel drives a tractor trailer of the remaining gas, under attack by a steady stream of motorcycle villains who fight to the last man for a few drops of sweet sweet oil.

Welcome to the future?

Ran Prieur has already discussed the absurdity of this apocalyptic view of the future in a great article called "The Slow Crash." What he explains, and what I want to repeat, is that when people can no longer live the way we do now, the result will not necessarily be violent chaos, anarchy (the bad kind), and mass rape and murder. These are the fears put into us by decades of propaganda and brainwashing. (Even from our very own peak oil fearmongers).

People are not inherently vicious, selfish, and evil. They are that way now because our socio-economic system demands these personality traits of them.

No doubt there will be gangs of oil-starved villains in the future. But when we fear one another as citizens we fail to understand that our real enemies are not those in the streets but in the halls of power. If anyone is going to commit mass murder, it will be the same people who always commit genocides, the state, the armed forces, the police and the business interests.

As for your neighbors, the best way to make sure they don't come for your gasoline and your life late one night is to get out of your house and introduce yourself to them...

Once outside, why not start talking about solutions to the impending collapse? Because when we can't drive to our jobs, and we have no jobs to drive to, we're still going to need to get food from the supermarket (until that closes too) and until the government is overthrown, the only affordable way to get there will be to share cars, bikes, horses, mules, and whatever else we've got.

When we get back from the store, we'll probably want to share the food with one another also for dinner, because without electricity we won't have our attention stolen by the television anymore, and we'll want to talk to someone about our worsening situation and figure out some kind of solutions.

Whatever those end up being, they already sound a hell of a lot more democratic than what we've got now.