Alternative Editorial: What Stops Us Rising?
Integrating Wellbeing. Illustration Helena Pallarés
Saturday Oct 1st saw multi-polar strike action hit London. What looked on the surface like a rail strike - bringing nationwide trains to a halt - coincided with a Royal Mail strike that brought several workers unions together.
However, through the co-ordination of the Enough is Enough campaign many others who shared the frustration of the workers with the current government joined the marches, including Extinction Rebellion, Stand Up to Racism, Campaign Against Climate Change, Don’t Pay UK, Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants and more.
Four thousand people showed up at the iconic Kings Cross St Pancras – the rail gateway to Europe - to hear from Mick Lynch, leader of the RMT union. Rousing the crowd, he declared, “we are workers and we refuse to be divided. We refuse to pitch rail workers against nurses. We are not going to have it anymore. We are the working class and we are back.”
It was hard to believe that less than a fortnight ago London had been the focus of global events to witness the passing of Queen Elizabeth 2nd. Almost as if that spectacle of unity across many (or maybe only a few) divides, was being deliberately challenged by a show of disunity across the land.
Although the divide was a simple left v right, until only recently many of those striking might have counted themselves as supporters of the government they were now calling out as unacceptable. But for now, at least, the ruling party - and very specifically the new Prime Minister and her Chancellor - were in the firing line.
As the weekend wore on, Truss and Kwarteng stood firm with their plan to cut the highest rate of tax, untouched by the plight of the working families. With a clear role model to emulate—that is, Margaret Thatcher—Truss enjoyed the idea of playing hard, making difficult choices, being "not for turning". Only when key figures in their own party turned against Truss and Kwarteng, could they feel the chill of a bad call. After all, when Thatcher lost the confidence of her cabinet, the Iron Lady was out the door.
Do protests work?
So will the strikers feel heard? That's unlikely, as Truss and Kwarteng share the same economic school of thinking; 'trickle down' is what they believe in. There is no sign their plans to tighten public spending and limit access to benefits are going to change, in the face of the cost of living crisis they have engendered.
What were the strikers hoping to achieve? Some will be satisfied they had the opportunity to join with others to make their voices heard. It marks an important shift—from the frustration of doing nothing to doing something. Striking offers meaning and a sense of achievement over passivity. Plus there was the possibility of landing an alternative narrative - fighting back! - to the one adopted by the mainstream media: there's nothing to be done.
Yet others would have been hoping for more. For example, some evidence that such militant actions might lead to a change of policy on the economy, environment or social justice. But there is very little history of protest leading directly to policy change. Its agency is more indirect: changing attitude or alerting the politicians to how popular they might be, come an election.
Having said that, the vast majority of people are not unionised and would never come out on strike, no matter how much they disagree with the government. Some because they have no time or energy to do so; others because they dislike disruption of any kind. Some media outlets use the spectacle of strikes as a means of driving support for the government. For them anything is preferable to 'rule by the mob'.
However, as long as there is no constituted power behind the voice of people coming together - beyond their identity as workers - then their protest is too easy for government to ignore. Even the million people coming out to march against military action against Iraq had no discernible effect whatsoever. Other than maybe to inform Blair's government on how to best frame their unmoveable intention to go ahead with invasion, so that the Commons could agree.
Rising Up
There are also some amongst the protesters who dream of overthrowing the government: to cause such a scene of popular unrest that it triggers a vote of no confidence inside Westminster. Or maybe more than that, an overthrow of the political system itself. There is a popular belief (based on evidence) that 3.5% of the population coming out onto the streets in this way can have that effect. And yet, if that were the case and, given that 3.5% of the population are surely wholly set against the government ethos, why is that so hard to achieve?
There are many reasons for this. Amongst them would be fear of the unknown: can we really afford social breakdown? If the people really showed their power, what would come next? Although the vast majority won't have this in mind, the Arab Spring (2011) was a good example of the limited efficacy of revolting against long-held power. Unless you have another socio-economic-political system in mind, ready to go, you are likely to fail in replacing the old one.
Like a rubber dinghy trying to get away from the mainland, the old currents are too strong and will keep pulling you back to shore. Ten years on, Egypt is in a more precarious position than before, with many of the protestors under constant surveillance.
When fear becomes the dominant tone of your daily life, your internal resources get burnt out: your ability to imagine a better future, or to be creative in your responses to challenge, disappears. However, today there are competing fears - fear of doing something and fear of doing nothing. Do we succumb to the idea that there is nothing to be done, or bravely take on the idea that 'something must be done'? This report published in the Lancet, suggests that young people are increasingly in this mind set, a major cause of poor mental health today.
But even knowing the persistent danger of fear itself, is not enough to cause us to respond strongly - in fact, it makes us much less likely to. On the one hand we lack momentum to make a move away from 'the devil we know'. On the other, we actively avoid any opportunity to change: our resources to do something new are too far out of reach. We tolerate our discomfort as infinitely preferable to trying and failing to change. Hope becomes a risk too far.
This is not an illogical state of mind. Letting go of a system you have become overly dependent on for your basic survival can seem foolish, when you have no clear alternative. No one feels drawn to a vacuum, or to a chaos of overwhelming and disorganised possibilities. Furthermore, like an athlete attempting to do a body flip without training, the fear as you go into it can be the very cause of you failing. Revolution cannot be half-hearted.
Choosing positively
To make a strong enough commitment to change, you must know what you are rejecting and know what you are choosing instead. It's not enough to call out 'bad people' or wrong policies, then seek better ones in an open-ended fashion. To really resist the lure of 'staying safe' the thing you are choosing must be well grounded and a proven practice: something to stick with when the pull of the old is strong.
For example, giving up the mainstream media as your constant source of reference is almost impossible—unless you have a new source of media that is both compelling and credible. Ideally, you would have some way to contribute to its output so that you also have a stake in its good development. This kind of shared ownership of the media challenges immediately the dominant ownership model such as Rupert Murdoch's media empire.
However, it would be fruitless if the structure of news reporting simply echoed the old divides of the past. Or simply took a new slant on - or relentless critique of - the growth economy that continues to destroy the planet. To continue to be in thrall to the current forms of power and praxis is to perpetuate them. Instead, this new media has to give everyone access to a regenerative socio-economic system that they can invest their energy and time in.
But where, you might say, is this regenerative system? In some ways it is already arising in the form of new economies, new forms of business, new sources of energy and food and new cosmolocal supply lines that we write about in the Daily Alternative. For some, this regenerative system takes a more integrated and accessible form - giving rise to new jobs, currencies, services in their towns or cities. But for most people, still, it is only something they can read about or ponder on. Maybe if they have some resources beyond the monetary - creativity, social capital, faith - they can begin to create a local infrastructure drawing down on intelligence from the global commons to the place they live. There is plenty of help to do that.
Personal integrity
But before even that, every one of us can begin the journey of locating the change we need to make in our own personal lives. In what way am I buying into the old system and propping it up? What changes can I make in real time - in my daily life - that add up to withdrawing from system collapse, and hooking up with system regeneration?
Don't underestimate the power of integrity - lining up your walk with your talk - as a source of strength and vision for your life. Even meeting regularly with small groups of people around you, to share your experience of your internal changes, can bring a very different perspective on what is possible for the future. When you make that a place-based activity and keep the door of the place open, you might be surprised at who you connect with. It is not only people with clearly stated and shared values that are looking for ways out of this mess.
Too often politicians say whatever they want to gain your vote, so they can continue the old socio-economic-political system that is taking us all over the cliff. So, can we ask ourselves: what part am I playing to keep all this in place? What divides am I legitimating, which keep me in thrall to their political leadership?
Who am I blaming, resenting or even hating during any day – a resistance or judgement that might prevent us coming together in the future, to survive the worst of environmental collapse? It might well be that the effort to overcome some of those unnatural divides is the first step to initiating a community agency network where you live.
We leave you here with a remarkable video from Bjork that invites you to ask yourself: what are the barriers you have put up that stop you connecting with others, and the solutions already available?
