As a person interested in organizing for social change and frustrated with many of the current models because of their apparent ineffectiveness, I am always open to discussions of approaches that modify the ones we are familiar with. I first became aware of my interview cohort Richard Oxman in the earlier part of this millennium when some of his essays appeared in Counterpunch and other webzines. Since then, he and I have maintained an email conversation. What follows is an exchange whose impetus is an endeavors Oxman calls Taking Over the State of California or TOSCA.
Ron Jacobs: Hi Richard. I’m glad we are finally getting this done. First, can you introduce yourself to the readers. Where do you live? What do you do, etc.?
Richard Oxman: Thanks for this opportunity, Ron. I’m a former worldwide educator on all levels, a few decades as college prof in Dramatic Art and Speech, Comparative Lit, Cinema History and ESL. But I’ve also done significant stints in other realms from NYC taxi driver and day laborer dude to investigative journalist and so on. In fact, I’ve never gone through a year without working in some blue collar capacity. Today, I live in Santa Cruz County, California… and — for the most part, concerning what’s usually called work — I’ve been trying to recruit people to join hands in solidarity on some basis that follows a new paradigm.
RJ: From where you sit today reading the interview questions, please give me your opinion of the current political and economic situation in California?
Richard Oxman: The economic situation in California — judged by the usual standards — is dire. And slated to get much worse, way beyond what’s been discussed… courtesy of almost every media outlet. Or on the street, for that matter. If you look at the weak (or guaranteed-to-fail) “demands” (and planned action) of the upcoming March 4th education-centered protest on UC campuses… you’ll get a hint of why that’s so. It’s going to be a great missed opportunity, silly talk about its connection with worldwide protest and wider community organizing notwithstanding. People who are greatly impacted by the political mendacity, gangsterism and incompetence in California are not gearing up to do anything different than what’s been done before… and so… one could make a lot of money, say, betting against the students, staff, faculty and workers agenda bearing enough fruit to make a difference. They don’t take such action in Vegas though. So… the gangster politicians can rest easy. The solidarity that does pop up from time to time is so predictable they can handle protesters quite easily. That makes for a future scenario that does not — at best — get any better.
RJ: Now, on to the question of your project you modestly call Taking Over the State of California (TOSCA). What exactly is it about? How would it work?
RO: I should point out — with regard to your use of modest — that the great Indian journalist/scholar Devinder Sharma (who’s provided his imprimatur for TOSCA at our very beginning) — objected vociferously to use of the phrase taking over. Fact is, as I pointed out to him, people upset with the status quo DO have to plan to take over the reins. Otherwise, change will be contingent upon career politicians. That said, I don’t care if people think in terms of Transforming Our State of California. TOSCA by any other name…. The main thrust of TOSCA is to have twelve unaffiliated, non-politician citizens serving as Governor of California (virtually on an equal basis) in lieu of having a single, self-serving careerist at the helm (once again!). You’d have to have a single working figurehead candidate (with a easy to spell name like Mike Davis or Angela Davis, say) who people could vote for (as a write-in candidate), but… it would be clear from the get-go that — once in office — all major decisions would be tackled in tandem with total transparency. No closed doors, ever. In fact, even negotiations leading up to decisions at a later date would be accessible to the public. Nothing would go on whereby the average citizen couldn’t look in and say, “Hey this guy’s working against my interests, and that woman has got my priorities close to her heart.” People will be able — for the first time in history — to see for themselves who the gangsters are. And stop their momentum… because an essential element to TOSCA is that our Guv would not only help people to self-educate in general, but would delineate suggestions about how to pressure the powers that be, how to go about forcing change from new angles. This all would be done daily. Vigorously, creatively and repeatedly. [We’d have our own Guv’s media outlet, so that “the news” wouldn’t be edited to death.] And one of the reasons that I know people would be inspired to rise above their current cynicism, resignation and apathy is that we’d be conducting our campaign on a zero budget. Without our efforts being contingent whatsoever on mainstream media outlets. Another is that the public would not be subjected to generic communications. 24×7 citizens would have access to some of our core people, not just people hired to fend off inquiries. Whether or not we were actually successful in gaining office is neither here or there, really. Fact is, the powers that be wouldn’t permit TOSCA to win legally. Electoral fraud would kick in. But our legal, non-violent attempt at securing the gubernatorial office is fundamentally about organizing people along lines which follow a new paradigm… so that whether or not we actually take over the legal reins of the state… well, the ultimate aim is to have people organized so that — if denied — we can do something about it, do something about our collective situation outside of the electoral arena. Right now all “third parties” are honoring the parameters of the electoral arena as if they’re going to be able to make a difference in that realm without constantly discussing other means. I should add that TOSCA is about having fun too. In the spirit of the Howard Zinn quote: “If you are going to break the law, do it with two thousand people… and Mozart.”
RJ: Let’s go back to March 4th. What is your criticism of the March 4th protest movement?
RO: The March 4th protests on UC campuses provide a good example of what I’m talking about, perhaps. On a mini-level. With those protesters, they’ve all decided to do their own thing on that day. Well, that day will come and go. They need to agree on doing at least one specific thing together. To add real punch to their pressure. Like, for instance, an uncompromising hunger strike on all campuses centered on, say, the need to stop all nuclear weapons research. Or focused on abusive animal lab experimentation. At the moment nothing like that is on the table, and not slated to materialize.
RJ: Does TOSCA have a general set of principles it operates with? If so, what are they?
RO: Principles? Flexibility. Bottom-up, not top-down. Legal and non-violent attitudinal set. A great sense of urgency is the spine of TOSCA. Everything else we see on the table is moving at an arthritic snail’s pace. We subscribe to the notion that some things do take time, but there are many things that should have, and could have been taken care of yesterday. Stuff that must be addressed from a new angle immediately. We’re into planting seeds, of course, but we acknowledge the need for all people on the so-called Left to move in solidarity on a least one single matter… that they acknowledge in action the need to move in a least one way on a macroscopic level together, not just continue working in little corners, acting as if it’s not necessary to do something in solidarity on a large scale. Something. It doesn’t have to be TOSCA, but there’s nothing else being proposed in that necessary vein that I’m aware of.
RJ: What do you say to people who just don’t think this idea is practical?
RO: I say that nothing worthwhile in the history of this earth has been practical. I say that such talk is an excuse for staying in one’s comfort zone. One can never say what’s “practical” unless one is coming from a place that does not permit consideration of new paradigms, vision. I say read Cervantes.
RJ: Let’s move on to the national scene. How does TOSCA fit in?
RO: People on the so-called Left need to abandon the notion that anything can be accomplished that’s lasting or meaningful, that won’t be rolled back if achieved… on the national level. Using the national level as a basis for an exclusive or primary approach. That’s so obvious at this point, it’s almost unworthy of discussion. TOSCA uses California as a point of departure because of it’s size and the potential powerful impact it can have. It’s a manageable realm, and the payoff could be enormous. Any Governor of California with head, heart and soul in a healthy place could create a watershed in history unilaterally. There are tons of things that a non-careerist Guv could do on her/his own. As the main power within the Regents of the UC… one has to be totally bereft of imagination to not see what transformation a Guv could bring about without so much as a word of discussion with gangster politicians. When it comes to appointees in general, when it comes to the death penalty, action with regard to political prisoners… well, there are so many areas in which a proper Governor — especially one who was aligned with eleven other citizens in the Sacred Seat of Sacramento — could transform life in the state, and then — by example, by inspiration — set the tone for not only the rest of the nation, but the rest of the world. To “take over” the reins… without money… by bonding one-on-one… reaffirming the need to move in solidarity in the interests of the vast majority of citizens without approval of the powers that be, without adhering to the self-serving parameters imposed on populations regularly… without compromising on certain issues… moving with an appropriate sense of urgency… and so on… well, being a shining example in California would have ripples nationwide, unquestionably. In fact, for the first time in history a Guv could be spelling out for people outside her/his state… what others need to do. It’s not for nothing that high profile figures worldwide, such as Henry Giroux (Canada), Gustavo Esteva (Mexico), Afshin Rattansi (Iran), Marie Trigona (Argentina), Jennifer Loewenstein (Gaza/U.S.), Michael Parenti, Bill Blum, the late Howard Zinn and many, many others have encouraged TOSCA with their imprimaturs. They fully see the need and potential for TOSCA to make a mark on the national and international scene. The BDS Movement, for example, that could take off like a rocket with a proper Guv in place.
RJ: As you and I have discussed, there are many elements on the so-called left in the US.
Some are clearly anti-imperialist, while others not so much. Most recently, this came up in relation to Phyllis Bennis’ book on ending the war in Afghanistan. You pointed out that “there’s a problem with Phyllis Bennis. She’s one of the people who — up until very recently, apparently — has been serving as an apologist for Obama, asking her audiences to give him more time, to hold on to that hope. Now she comes out with a book with David Wildman, urging one and all to take a different stance vis-a-vis Obama. ” Then you asked: “There’s nothing new about that, is there? There’s nothing built into her plea that’ll help people to organize, is there? Did I miss something?” My question is, how would your vision of TOSCA address the stance of people like Bennis. People who are potential allies, but are limited by their view of how change works and by their roles in the system?
RO: God bless Phyllis Bennis for her good intentions. That said, she’s a horror for our purposes. As are many of her colleagues. One of the things that TOSCA intends to underscore is that people on the so-called Left who want to make institutional changes need to not be so obsessed with numbers, with accommodating one and all. Some people cannot be accommodated. And when that issue arises, we invariably get that predictable blather about what’s practical. Look, you simply cannot accommodate people who are not ready to acknowledge that Obama is a murderer, that Michele Obama can’t serve as a model for little black girls or children of any color or gender as long as she’s supporting our abominations abroad… whereby others’ children are immiserated, maimed and murdered routinely. One cannot accommodate others who insist upon saying that the false hope presented on the national level provides any kind of positive promise. So one is faced with the decision of whether or not to go with the notion that one needs numbers to force change, accumulating numbers of citizens who are not really aligned with one another in a meaningful way — for what purpose?/to provide figures for the mainstream press for a given demo? — OR to throw such ill-advised caution to the wind and forge ahead in organizing so that one’s vision is honored, so that the facts in front of one’s face are not denied. So that pie-in-the-sky is not embraced as part of what I call Ostrich Syndrome. Phyllis Bennis and too many — many too many — souls like her have careers on the line. They cannot call a spade a spade, except in the form of the book you cited. Sure, they can romp around the country giving lecture after lecture, writing article after article, attending conference after summit… and NEVER do anything about what’s happening. Such souls are essentially involved in documenting us all to death. They are into talk talk, not walk talk… unless that “walk talk” takes the form of the old paradigms… like writing to representatives or marching in circles or announcing something like the upcoming March 4th demos. Nothing new. Nothing that has a shot in hell at really making a difference. Always falling back on the idea that “Hey, we’re planting seeds, aren’t we?” Always making sure that every move does not threaten one’s livelihood, one’s prestigious position within a given community. The likes of Bennis are not first-line potential allies. They are too comfy in what Samuel Beckett referred to when he said “Habit is the great deadener.” They are “dead” for our purposes for the time being. They need to be inspired by the rest of us approaching the legit first-line potential allies. I’d say that one would be much better off starting with unemployed youth, the families of the incarcerated, and the first cousins of such citizens, not the usual suspects, so to speak. Only 39% of the California eligible voters turned out for the last gubernatorial election. I say go for the 61% who have given up, rather than spend one’s first heartbeats on the Bennis crowd. Phyllis will come around once they do.
RJ: Thanks, Richard.
For more info: moc.oohaynull@0102.acsot.