Here is info on an international organization which I think we should make ourselves known as being in solidarity with; (Background & Rationalization — The Black Alliance for Peace). As we make our movements known explicitly as being in solidarity with organizations such as this (and others), then we have greater capacity to materially, politically, and spiritually support our shared movements when opportunities emerge.
For example, as I previously stated in @karadhe’s thread, if our movement in the US was already known as being in solidarity with Haitian sovereignty (among other efforts), then we would now have more influence on current Haitian events (among other events). Haiti is a good example because it shows how the US empire is weaker at the ends of its reach than it is here at the center of empire in our US. Had we already been better organized around solidarity with Haitian liberation, then in this current (potentially inflectionary) moment when our empire is losing peripheral control, we could have been (and may yet be) more supportive, and we could potentially improve (ie reduce) our US imperial imposition on Haiti; (and as we reduce empire, we increase space for the changes our peaceful political revolution entail).
Ultimately, this tactic of broadening and deepening shared solidarity is aligned with the dream and direction of MLK. Further, we can strategically plan to develop this tactic. We should explore opportunities to develop such solidarity prior to inflection point events (such as Haiti could now be), in order for our movement to be ready to help peel back the reach of empire. We should reduce empire in order to make political space for necessary intersectional lasting changes. To the extent we pre-emptively grow our solidarity over wider crisis bounds, (from Haitian liberation, Palestinian liberation, US unions, ecological crisis, economic rights, natural rights, human rights, spiritual crisis, health crisis, etc etc), to that extent the influence our shared solidarity has to leverage inflection points grows, (if not compounds). As empire must react to maintain control at inflectionary points, we hijack that compulsion into a systemic backfire by our being already in shared solidarity of resistance when and where our empire is weakest. We would be ready to respond and share further solidarity, rather than only react (or ignore). We would intentionally and actively accelerate imperial decline by using it’s systemic nature against itself in feedback loops which then supports our solidarity and exposes imperial illegitimacy when we so hijack imperial compulsion to persist.
This is a (proposed winning) strategic response opposite to divide and conquer; unite and liberate.
This does not address urgent nor localized needs, because this is a longer term and wider bounded plan. It covers all imperial area, to compound the influence of solidarity, and to be in position for more and less predictable inflection points as they emerge. Shorter termed and narrower bounded issues would still be developed and included. This plan isn’t how we make fast nor specific change, rather it is for general lasting changes; (though, I would argue this plan produces potential for and empowerment of other plans of faster and narrower changes).
(And, I’m aware I’ve actually already too narrowly “defined” this plan. Think of this more as a description rather than definition, which is an extension of an approach applicable beyond even imperial context).
So, I would encourage us to find where we best fit, like near one’s passions, maybe on some specific issues, maybe around some skill sets. If we share this plan, we still need other such plans and works. We only need to keep a growing inclusivity in open mind, and open heart.
Lastly, I think we should also need some more dedicated work actually on developing this plan, especially on:
a) networking, organizing, and growing solidarity
b) contextually, how to turn solidarity into leverageable political influence (mindful of political liabilities)
c) plan where, when, and how to leverage specific and general inflections with influence
d) seek, share, and monitor potential inflection events and patterns
e) organize, strategize, iterate, critique, manage, (etc) this plan among contexts
I asked for a friend’s input, and here are some clarifications.
One can consider this “we” as a broad coalition initiating here (or there, like with MLK); and, also “we” as persistently emergent via selection pressures of social evolution in an environment shaped by the nature of imperial modes of operation. This “unite and liberate” is an emergent strategic response which intends to overcome “divide and conquer”. Further, for liberation our strategy recognizes the adaptive and systemic nature of our colonized contexts, and seeks to mindfully redirect the imperial nature into hijacked feedback mechanisms.
To reiterate the previous example of that, consider Haiti, and how better prepared we could have been for this predictable moment. If we organize and prepare, then as empire maintenances struggle, we can exploit imperial maintenance operations to draw attention and grow solidarity with said struggles, despite imperial maintenance. We could have prepared as a coalition to leverage influence over the administration on the Haitian issue, for when the inflectionary opportunity emerged. For instance, assuming Haiti colonization continues past this moment, we should maintain our Haitian solidarity knowing eventually the opportunity will reoccur, share our solidarity broadly (eg: with Palestine liberation) to wield compound influence, and then have shared history with which to exert influence, ideally on an array of already identified levers (eg:“uncommitted”), intended to further our shared liberation from empire on the Haitian (and all) front(s). This is a vastly different dynamic than we are now in, where we are mostly unprepared to support our shared struggle at the moment when the Haitian front is ripe for liberation. We should recognize all imperial aspects will eventually be the ripe front, and so we should deepen such a broad solidarity over time, to ultimately share liberation.
We should organize around how this method can accelerate the decline of imperial power, which ultimately would improve the potentials across intersectional domains. (For instance, our US military requires vast fossil carbons, and until the military is reduced it will see any potential reduction in fossil carbon availability as a threat, and neutralize it; thus our climate crisis can hardly be addressed unless the intersection with US empire is addressed).
TYT recently made a great segment on Haiti. Let me focus on the last question of what our US could do. The response was to support vast infrastructure projects, and sovereignty.
The first reason to focus there is because, exactly that type of international infrastructure project would be an excellent policy agenda for our movement. In another thread on the topics of economics and society, we’ve explored the ecologically informed need for our transformational vision of global infrastructure and economics. Consider how the US dollar is the world reserve currency; this type of global financial dominance which our US has (internalized submission to and often forcibly) imposed on other nations fundamentally prevents the possibility of basic financial sovereignty, let alone the following policy space, including especially proper infrastructure investments. This intersection of ecology and economics is critical.
As was previously discussed, (again in that previously linked thread), geopolitical dynamics are such that even a nation which still has sufficient financial sovereignty (to enable space for sustainable policy) is yet still prevented from ecologically necessary economic adaptation by the expected security threats such would entail exposure to. Our own US sustainable transition would require a foreign policy aspect which addresses such concerns, in order for our US transition to not be pre-emptively too risky to be feasible. Such US internal sustainability policy so tied to foreign policy could then lead, coordinate, and support international sustainability transition policy.
With all that in mind, while the dominance of US dollar as global reserve currency is problematic to say the least, it still could be utilized for such an international sustainable transition, (rather than prevent it). For instance, our Green New Deal type agenda could be an international policy (since it would necessarily require international risk mitigation to even be feasible anyway, assuming it includes phases of transition to an ultimately actually sustainable economy), and so it could incorporate further international aspects such as financial and material support for infrastructure projects, including in Haiti, and perhaps even framed (or at least implied in subtext) as reparations regarding the climate crisis our US is largely responsible for.
Obviously we won’t get all this put together at once, (and potentially the US dollar global financial dominance would fail before hand, which of course would then change financing options). However, aspects of all these issues are so intertwined that they require simultaneous development and broad coordination.
Which leads to the second reason for focusing on @cenkuygur’s final question in that segment; it was framed as what our US should do, rather than what our movement should do. Clearly so much necessity and detail are not near US political consciousness, yet. But since our movement is not contained to only the US we should better organize transnationally to develop such types of plans so that when opportunities arise we have on hand something to guide the directions we move our respective and collective politics towards, with intentional and explicit grass roots cohesion and solidarity.
If we had some draft of international GND type priorities/policies/alliance/treaty/etc, then we could pressure our governments with clearer directions in a better coordinated and more effective manner. And rather than rely on official (read: incapable) international institutions of such negotiation, we could support and develop international progressive (and inclusive) coordination, likely starting with many already existing organizations of similar spirit, (such as, I suspect, the Black Alliance for Peace).
Lastly for now, I mentioned earlier our thread on economics and society, and there I posted this comment, which features a podcast episode speaking to the types of plans I explored in this thread (and in that thread).
Especially, by the way, how our global organizing for development and sovereignty of the global south is great even for US internal political agenda, because it undermines the ability for global capital to benefit from exporting US jobs.
So to me it seems a bit simple really it is all about force of will. We give aid that goes to a government. This government and the country has historic corruption much from vestigial trauma of being colonized and recolonized. The status quo is the illegal arms trade from the US fuels the gang violence.
I am not familiar with Black Alliance for Peace. I read their wiki and they seem like they could make a good leaders here.
