An Ordinary Person’s Guide to Overthrowing the Corporate Elites

Robert E. Gamer’s book The Developing Nations contains a chapter entitled “Why Men Do Not Revolt.” In it, Gamer notes that although the oppressed often do revolt, the object of their hostility is misplaced. They vent their fury on a political puppet, someone who masks colonial power, a despised racial or ethnic group or an apostate within their own political class. The useless battles serve as an effective mask for what Gamer calls the “patron-client” networks that are responsible for the continuity of colonial oppression. The squabbles among the oppressed, the political campaigns between candidates who each are servants of colonial power, Gamer writes, absolve the actual centers of power from addressing the conditions that cause the frustrations of the people. Inequities, political disenfranchisement and injustices are never seriously addressed. “The government merely does the minimum necessary to prevent those few who are prone toward political action from organizing into politically effective groups,” he writes.

Gamer and many others who study the nature of colonial rule offer the best insights into the functioning of our corporate state. We have been, like nations on the periphery of empire, colonized. We are controlled by tiny corporate entities that have no loyalty to the nation. They strip us of our resources, keep us politically passive and enrich themselves at our expense. The mechanisms of control are familiar to those whom the Martinique-born French psychiatrist and writer Frantz Fanon called “the wretched of the earth,” including African-Americans. The colonized are denied job security. Incomes are reduced to subsistence level. The poor are plunged into desperation. Mass movements, such as labor unions, are dismantled. The school system is degraded so only the elites have access to a superior education. Laws are written to legalize corporate plunder and abuse, as well as criminalize dissent. And the ensuing fear and instability—keenly felt this past weekend by the more than 200,000 Americans who lost their unemployment benefits—ensure political passivity by diverting all personal energy toward survival. It is an old, old game.

A change of power does not require the election of a Mitt Romney or a Barack Obama or a Democratic majority in Congress, or an attempt to reform the system or electing progressive candidates, but rather a destruction of corporate domination of the political process—Gamer’s “patron-client” networks. It requires the establishment of new mechanisms of governance to distribute wealth and protect resources, to curtail corporate power, to cope with the destruction of the ecosystem and foster the common good.

But we must first recognize ourselves as colonial subjects. We must accept that we have no effective voice in the way we are governed. We must accept the hollowness of electoral politics, the futility of our political theater, and we must destroy the corporate structure itself.

The danger the corporate state faces does not come from the poor. The poor, those Karl Marx dismissed as the Lumpenproletariat, do not mount revolutions, although they join them and often become cannon fodder. The real danger to the elite comes from déclassé intellectuals, those educated middle-class men and women who are barred by a calcified system from advancement. Artists without studios or theaters, teachers without classrooms, lawyers without clients, doctors without patients and journalists without newspapers descend economically. They become, as they mingle with the underclass, a bridge between the worlds of the elite and the oppressed. And they are the dynamite that triggers revolt.

This is why the Occupy Movement frightens the corporate elite. What fosters revolution is not misery, but the gap between what people expect from their lives and what is offered. This is especially acute among the educated and the talented. They feel, with much justification, that they have been denied what they deserve. They set out to rectify this injustice. And the longer the injustice festers, the more radical they become.

The response of a dying regime—and our corporate regime is dying—is to employ increasing levels of force, and to foolishly refuse to ameliorate the chronic joblessness, foreclosures, mounting student debt, lack of medical insurance and exclusion from the centers of power. Revolutions are fueled by an inept and distant ruling class that perpetuates political paralysis. This ensures its eventual death.

In every revolutionary movement I covered in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East, the leadership emerged from déclassé intellectuals. The leaders were usually young or middle-aged, educated and always unable to meet their professional and personal aspirations. They were never part of the power elite, although often their parents had been. They were conversant in the language of power as well as the language of oppression. It is the presence of large numbers of déclassé intellectuals that makes the uprisings in Spain, Egypt, Greece and finally the United States threatening to the overlords at Goldman Sachs, ExxonMobil and JPMorgan Chase. They must face down opponents who understand, in a way the uneducated often do not, the lies disseminated on behalf of corporations by the public relations industry. These déclassé intellectuals, because they are conversant in economics and political theory, grasp that those who hold power, real power, are not the elected mandarins in Washington but the criminal class on Wall Street.

Malcolm X

This is what made Malcolm X so threatening to the white power structure. He refused to countenance Martin Luther King’s fiction that white power and white liberals would ever lift black people out of economic squalor. King belatedly came to share Malcolm’s view. Malcolm X named the enemy. He exposed the lies. And until we see the corporate state, and the games it is playing with us, with the same kind of clarity, we will be nothing more than useful idiots.

“This is an era of hypocrisy,” Malcolm X said. “When white folks pretend that they want Negroes to be free, and Negroes pretend to white folks that they really believe that white folks want ’em to be free, it’s an era of hypocrisy, brother. You fool me and I fool you. You pretend that you’re my brother and I pretend that I really believe you believe you’re my brother.”

Those within a demoralized ruling elite, like characters in a Chekhov play, increasingly understand that the system that enriches and empowers them is corrupt and decayed. They become cynical. They do not govern effectively. They retreat into hedonism. They no longer believe their own rhetoric. They devote their energies to stealing and exploiting as much, as fast, as possible. They pillage their own institutions, as we have seen with the newly disclosed loss of $2 billion within JPMorgan Chase, the meltdown of Chesapeake Energy Corp. or the collapse of Enron and Lehman Brothers. The elites become cannibals. They consume each other. This is what happens in the latter stages of all dying regimes. Louis XIV pillaged his own nobility by revoking patents of nobility and reselling them. It is what most corporations do to their shareholders. A dying ruling class, in short, no longer acts to preserve its own longevity. It becomes fashionable, even in the rarefied circles of the elite, to ridicule and laugh at the political puppets that are the public face of the corporate state.

“Ideas that have outlived their day may hobble about the world for years,” Alexander Herzen wrote, “but it is hard for them ever to lead and dominate life. Such ideas never gain complete possession of a man, or they gain possession only of incomplete people.”

This loss of faith means that when it comes time to use force, the elites employ it haphazardly and inefficiently, in large part because they are unsure of the loyalty of the foot soldiers on the streets charged with carrying out repression.

Revolutions take time. The American Revolution began with protests against the Stamp Act of 1765 but did not erupt until a decade later. The 1917 revolution in Russia started with a dress rehearsal in 1905. The most effective revolutions, including the Russian Revolution, have been largely nonviolent. There are always violent radicals who carry out bombings and assassinations, but they hinder, especially in the early stages, more than help revolutions. The anarchist Peter Kropotkin during the Russian Revolution condemned the radical terrorists, asserting that they only demoralized and frightened away the movement’s followers and discredited authentic anarchism.

Radical violent groups cling like parasites to popular protests. The Black Panthers, the American Indian Movement, the Weather Underground, the Red Brigades and the Symbionese Liberation Army arose in the ferment of the 1960s. Violent radicals are used by the state to justify harsh repression. They scare the mainstream from the movement. They thwart the goal of all revolutions, which is to turn the majority against an isolated and discredited ruling class. These violent fringe groups are seductive to those who yearn for personal empowerment through hyper-masculinity and violence, but they do little to advance the cause. The primary role of radical extremists, such as Maximilien Robespierre and Vladimir Lenin, is to hijack successful revolutions. They unleash a reign of terror, primarily against fellow revolutionaries, which often outdoes the repression of the old regime. They often do not play much of a role in building a revolution.

The power of the Occupy Movement is that it expresses the widespread disgust with the elites, and the deep desire for justice and fairness that is essential to all successful revolutionary movements. The Occupy Movement will change and mutate, but it will not go away. It may appear to make little headway, but this is less because of the movement’s ineffectiveness and more because decayed systems of power have an amazing ability to perpetuate themselves through habit, routine and inertia. The press and organs of communication, along with the anointed experts and academics, tied by money and ideology to the elites, are useless in dissecting what is happening within these movements. They view reality through the lens of their corporate sponsors. They have no idea what is happening.

Dying regimes are chipped away slowly and imperceptibly. The assumptions and daily formalities of the old system are difficult for citizens to abandon, even when the old system is increasingly hostile to their dignity, well-being and survival. Supplanting an old faith with a new one is the silent, unseen battle of all revolutionary movements. And during the slow transition it is almost impossible to measure progress.

“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong,” Fanon wrote in Black Skin, White Masks. “When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.”

The end of these regimes comes when old beliefs die and the organs of security, especially the police and military, abandon the elites and join the revolutionaries. This is true in every successful revolution. It does not matter how sophisticated the repressive apparatus. Once those who handle the tools of repression become demoralized, the security and surveillance state is impotent. Regimes, when they die, are like a great ocean liner sinking in minutes on the horizon. And no one, including the purported leaders of the opposition, can predict the moment of death. Revolutions have an innate, mysterious life force that defies comprehension. They are living entities.

The defection of the security apparatus is often done with little or no violence, as I witnessed in Eastern Europe in 1989 and as was also true in 1979 in Iran and in 1917 in Russia. At other times, when it has enough residual force to fight back, the dying regime triggers a violent clash as it did in the American Revolution when soldiers and officers in the British army, including George Washington, rebelled to raise the Continental Army. Violence also characterized the 1949 Chinese revolution led by Mao Zedong. But even revolutions that turn violent succeed, as Mao conceded, because they enjoy popular support and can mount widespread protests, strikes, agitation, revolutionary propaganda and acts of civil disobedience. The object is to try to get there without violence. Armed revolutions, despite what the history books often tell us, are tragic, ugly, frightening and sordid affairs. Those who storm Bastilles, as the Polish dissident Adam Michnik wrote, “unwittingly build new ones.” And once revolutions turn violent it becomes hard to speak of victors and losers.

Photo: Stacy Lanyon

A revolution has been unleashed across the globe. This revolution, a popular repudiation of the old order, is where we should direct all our energy and commitment. If we do not topple the corporate elites the ecosystem will be destroyed and massive numbers of human beings along with it. The struggle will be long. There will be times when it will seem we are going nowhere. Victory is not inevitable. But this is our best and only hope. The response of the corporate state will ultimately determine the parameters and composition of rebellion. I pray we replicate the 1989 nonviolent revolutions that overthrew the communist regimes in Eastern Europe. But this is not in my hands or yours.

Go ahead and vote this November. But don’t waste any more time or energy on the presidential election than it takes to get to your polling station and pull a lever for a third-party candidate—just enough to register your obstruction and defiance—and then get back out onto the street. That is where the question of real power is being decided.


A version of this article originally appeared on Truthdig.

About the author:

. Follow him on Twitter / Facebook.

  • Chacharoo

    Karl Marx was never dismissive of the poor and dispossessed. Just the opposite. He took up their cause, organized and led in the struggle against their exploiters. The thing is, Chris, Marx did not guide himself by cheap sentimentality. His analysis of the origins of class exploitation and the way to struggle against it has become a science and taken humanity this much closer to liberation. In the end the one who is dismissive of the poor is you when you say “The poor do not mount revolutions” it is the “déclassé intellectuals” who do. And who are, I say, pretty much people who resemble you.

  • Jamesc

    Another propaganda by the media: non-violence and voting will save the world. This is exactly what the ruling class wants. It seems like the propaganda machine is running very well. How come this article is in occupied media? This article should be in anti-occupied media.

  • Jerry

    Well written, well said!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/BGCHQNSCTU6Z3QI67OOKPIUX7A lefty

    In this article his most useful contribution, which he borrows from Robert Gamer, is to highlight the growing status of American citizens as colonial subjects in this globalized New World Order.

    Otherwise, the essay is filled with a very selective reading of revolutions in history carefully laced with his theme of non-violence to prove the alternative argument: non-violence must be the only method of confronting the Empire. His constant harping on this theme might suggest that activists were attacking police with knives and guns rather than vandalizing property.

    I also dislike the pretentious title of this article, but I doubt that Hedges is responsible for that. What is more worrying is the framing of the article this way, and the possible consequences. Whether consciously entitled this way or not, it serves the purpose of helping to drive a wedge through the US Occupy movement. Strategy and tactics can only be decided by the Occupiers themselves through their experience, not by intellectual elites.

    • http://twitter.com/oldsportish Babak Golshahi

      Yes — thank you for more or less summarizing what I’d have said.

  • http://www.facebook.com/sgeras Stephan Geras

    Chris, your declasse intellectuals only jump up when the action gets hot. Poor people were the original well organized and ferocious “revolutionaries” in the north east USA; they were the unemployed merchant and navy sailors and dockworkers. They were the ones along with black people who had escaped slavery in the Carribean who put the talk into action.. The intellectuals built walls of laws and used force, as always, to suppress the rabble. But the dirty uneducated rabble defied them and their armies, burned ships, fought in the streets. They brought the focus and energy where it needed to be. Washington’s armies came later. I’m afraid you have been just following the herd, Chris.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rusty-Wilson/1522904359 Rusty Wilson

    Declasse intellectuals can be useful as instigators, spokespeople and communicators for the revolution but they are usually a little too comfortable, nevertheless, to put their bodies on the line and if they do they get better treatment– such as not handcuffing Chris Hedges until he’s out of sight in the paddy wagon with comfortable, not painfully tight, cuffs.

    Change in an individual’s life or by revolution is only powered by pain. The poor(Lumpenproletariat) feel the most pain and there is no revolution until they join. The resulting anger and fury can be channeled self destructively or positively. In the early stages there is much dialog before action which at first will seek non-violent forms. I share Chris Hedges abhorrence of violence but I would point out that the 1989 nonviolent revolutions in Eastern Europe, that overthrew the communist regimes, only resulted in a new boss, same as the old boss, against which they’re now rebelling.

    As the revolution progresses everyone joins in the dialog. Violence is also a form of communication. “The response of the corporate state will ultimately determine the parameters and composition of rebellion.” It will be up to the skill of those who are in the front which will determine how much violence is used. There is violence even in non-violent revolutions. There is though a difference of degree as to when violence becomes terror; broken windows become broken dead bodies.

    Revolution is war and once released the dogs of war are not kind. The revolution will have an unpredictable life and timetable of its own and it will be fought and decided on the streets of the world. No one can know how violent it will become. We can only hope that collective empathy and leadership skill will prevent it from becoming self-destructive and resulting in new bosses, same as the old bosses. To do so it must bring about a libertarian socialist world.

  • Thegodfly

    Dear Occupy;
    I authored a book, The GODFLY, by George Frank Reif. The book is a affidavit a testament against the U.S.Government and of the world. I am a Citizen of the U.S. of A. and I have received “CIVIL DEATH” in this country. I think Occupy should ceate a system of laws and courts to bring the Governments to JUSTICE. In veneration George.
    You can get my book at INFINITY PUBLISHING (877) 289-2665. http://www.InfinityPublishing.com

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rusty-Wilson/1522904359 Rusty Wilson

      The 20th Century proved the futility of trying to reform capitalism as the reforms were temporary and have been taken back in the last 30 years. The U.S.A. has never been a democracy and the founding fathers believed that only anarchy was worse than democracy. They believed that minorities, particularly their propertied minority, should be protected against the will of the majority. Originally only propertied white males could vote. Women and children back then were considered a man’s property and could even be legally killed by that man as could his slaves. The founding fathers therefor set up a republic with a representational form of governance, the main model for which was Plato’s Republic.

      They tried out Plato’s Republic in ancient Athens as it’s main feature was democracy for the elite as a way to keep them from killing each other over power and property disputes. Athens was a slave society and even free citizens were only as free as they were rich. To make a long story short the experiment in limited democracy for the ruling class did stop them from killing each other but it came at the expense of such great corruption that it threatened the very existence of Athens itself and was soon abandoned.

      There were founders such as Jefferson who, as an ambassador to France, was exposed to the ideas of the French Revolution and, at home, the Iroquois Confederacy and thus produced the Bill Of Rights as an attempt to protect the majority from the will of the propertied minority.

      Thus there was a system of checks and balances set up to prevent a minority from gaining absolute power such as in absolute monarchies. Reform movements abolished slavery and gained voting and legal rights for women and non-propertied citizens.

      This all worked fairly well and even liberated the average person while there was an ever expanding economy. But capitalism is capitalism and its hallmark is boom and bust. The U.S.A. peaked around 1970-1980 and has been in decline since then.

      It is no surprise that a reason has been found and trumpeted, “The War On Terrorism”, to abolish The Bill Of Rights and Habeas Corpus. The propertied minority must increase its control over the dwindling resources of a falling empire. They openly campaign to prevent people from voting and wont really be satisfied until it’s once again only white propertied males allowed to vote.

      90% of the law of the U.S.A. is Roman Law in its original Latin which is why lawyers must know Latin. Those laws are all about the protection of property. Courts exist to maintain the status quo.

      If one wants democracy than one must look to the first champion of democracy for all, Karl Marx.

      OWS is not about laws and courts. It is about direct democracy and horizontal authority. It is also a worldwide revolution and its final victory will be expressed by the needs of different cultures. There will be law and courts but not with a main objective of protecting property. People before profits depends on limiting personal wealth and property, as wealth and property is power. Only socialism does that.

  • Dkshaman

    The corrupt “elite” elements in question are funded by those whom they control, which is essentially accomplished through economics. Stop feeding the beast. Mass refusal to pay income tax, selective purchasing of goods and services including banking institutions, refusal to serve in any way one might imagine, these are basic to rendering them irrelevant. Starve them out of power.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003722740434 Jane Lane

    Kind of funny that right after championing the need for declasse intellectuals, Hedges quote Malcolm X, who would be considered part of the Lumpenproletariat. That cool, Hedges, you often only get things half right. PS – Haven’t we beat the hypermasculinity dead horse enough yet? Yawn.

  • Tribalscribal

    My only concern is that we end up replicating the Weimar Republic in some form and open the door to full-blown fascism (worse than today’s friendly fascism). If you say that will also give an opening for real grassroots democracy or some sort of peoples’ revolution, recall that the far-right and their corporate handlers have all the toys. Granted the Dems are nearly as corporate as the Repugnicans, but the small difference might be the difference between you sitting there reading this in some cafe or just hearing it whispered from the next cell.

  • Gordyman

    Pretty much all revolutions are born from the despair of the poor. They are the real leaders. The so-called intellectuals merely provide an ideology.

    There is no such thing as a peaceful revolution. Every revolution in history has been violent and bloody. Even the so-called “non-violent” revolutions saw bloodshed and death.