Notes on an Orientation to Obama's Presidency (Linda Burnham) by Keith

by Linda Burnham

The election of Obama, while enthusiastically embraced by most of the left, has also occasioned some disorientation and confusion.

Some have become so used to confronting the dismal electoral choice between the lesser of two evils that they couldn’t figure out how to relate to a political figure who held out the possibility of substantive change in a positive direction.

Others are so used to all-out, full-throated opposition to every administration that they wonder whether and how to alter their stance.

Still others sat out the election, for a variety of political and organizational reasons, and were taken by surprise at how wide and deep ran the current for change.

Now there’s an active conversation on the left about what can be expected of an Obama administration and what the orientation of the left should be towards it. There are two conflicting views on this:

First, that Obama represents a substantial, principally positive political shift and that, while the left should criticize and resist policies that pull away from the interests of working people, its main orientation should be to actively engage with the political motion that’s underway.

Second, that Obama is, in essence, just another steward of capitalism, more attractive than most, but not an agent of fundamental change. He should be regarded with caution and is bound to disappoint. The basic orientation is to criticize every move the administration makes and to remain disengaged from mainstream politics.

It is possible to grant that Obama is a steward of capitalism while also maintaining that his election has opened up the potential for substantive reform in the interests of working people and that his election to office is a democratic win worthy of being fiercely defended.

Obama is clear – and we should be too – about what he was elected to do. The bottom line of his job description has become increasingly evident as the economic crisis deepens. Obama’s job is to salvage and stabilize the U.S. capitalist system and to perform whatever triage is necessary to restore the core institutions of finance and industry to profitability.

Obama’s second bottom line is also clear to him – and should also be to us: to salvage the reputation of the U.S. in the world; repair the international ties shredded by eight years of cowboy unilateralism; and adjust U.S. positioning on the world stage on the basis of a rational assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the changed and changing centers of global political, economic and military power – rather than on the basis of a simple-minded ideological commitment to unchallenged world dominance.

Obama has been on the job for only a month but has not wasted a moment in going after his double bottom line with gusto, panache and high intelligence. In point of fact, the capitalists of the world – or at least the U.S. branch – ought to be building altars to the man and lighting candles. They have chosen an uncommonly steady hand to pull their sizzling fat from the fire.

For some on the left this is the beginning and the end of the story. Having established conclusively that Obama’s fundamental task is to govern in the interests of capital, there’s no point in adjusting one’s stance, regardless of how skillful and popular he may be. For the anti-capitalist left that is grounded in Trotskyism, anarcho-horizontalism, or various forms of third-party-as-a-point-of-principleism, the only change worthy of the name is change that hits directly at the kneecaps of capitalism and cripples it decisively. All else is trifling with minor reforms or, even worse, capitulating to the power elite. From this point of view the stance towards Obama is self-evident: criticize relentlessly, disabuse others of their presidential infatuation, and denounce anything that remotely smacks of mainstream politics. Though this may seem an extreme and marginal point of view, it has a surprising degree of currency in many quarters.

The effective-steward-of-capitalism is only one part of the Obama story. Obama did what the center would not do and what a fragmented and debilitated left could not do. He broke the death grip of the reactionary right by inspiring and mobilizing millions as agents of change. If Obama doesn’t manage to do even one more progressive thing over the course of the next four years, he has already opened up

far more promising political terrain. His campaign

·         Revealed the contours, composition and potential of a broad democratic coalition, demographically grounded in the (overlapping) constituencies of African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, youth across the racial groups, LGBT voters, unionized workers, urban professionals, and women of color and single white women, and in the sectors of organized labor, peace, civil rights, civil liberties, feminism, and environmentalism. Obama did not create this broadly democratic electoral coalition single-handedly or out of whole cloth, but he did move it from latency to potency and from dispirited, amorphous and unorganized to goal oriented, enthusiastic and organized;

·         Busted up the Republican’s southern strategy, the foundation of their rule for most of the last forty years, and the Democrat’s ignominious concession to this legacy of slavery;

·         Wrenched the Democratic Party out of the clammy grip of Clintonian centrism. (Although he himself often leads from the center, Obama’s center is a couple of notches to theeft of the Clinton administration’s triangulation strategies); and

·         Rescued political dialogue from its monopolization by hate-filled, xenophobic, ultra-nationalistic ideologues.

This is not change of the anti-capitalist variety, but certainly it is change of major consequence.

If the criterion is that the only change to be supported is that which strikes a decisive blow at capital, then the gap between where we are now and the realignment it would take to strike such a blow is completely and perpetually unbridgeable.

A better set of criteria, in light of the weakness of the left and the decades of hyper-conservatism we are only now exiting, is change that: creates substantially better conditions for working people; broadens the scope of democratic rights for sectors of the population whose rights have been abrogated; limits the prerogatives of capital; constrains runaway militarism and perpetual war; takes seriously the prospect of environmental collapse; and creates better conditions for struggle. This is the potential for change that Obama’s presidency has generated. This is the democratic opening. It is potential that will only be realized and maximized if the left and progressives step up and stay engaged.

These are also the criteria to keep in mind as the Obama presidency unfolds, rather than flipping out over every appointment and policy move he makes. Far better to de-link from the 24-hour news cycle that feeds on micro-maneuvers, stop making definitive judgments based on parsing the language of every pronouncement, and keep our eyes on the broader contours of change.

Besides the sectors of the anti-capitalist left that are stranded on Dogma Beach, there are those who see the tide running high but are still watching from the safety of the shore, hesitant to get in the water. There are those who have been so long alienated from mainstream political processes and so disgusted with both political parties and all branches of government that their default response is instinctive distrust. They view Obama’s  presidency through the lens of anticipatory disillusionment. Their basic orientation is to analyze the administration’s every move with the goal of concluding, “See, we told you so. Obama’s gonna burn you. You’re gonna be disappointed.” This is a mindset for jilted lovers, not political activists. Let us grant without argument that, from the vantage point of the left, there are many disappointments in store. This is easy enough to predict based not only on Obama’s own politics but also on the alignment of forces and institutions in which he is embedded. And so what? We can survive disappointment over this or that policy or concession as long as we are making headway on the broader criteria above.

There are also those who stayed on the shoreline during the campaign because they are wedded to localism as a matter of preference, principle or habit. Others were lodged in organizational forms that, for structural, political or legal reasons, could not articulate with the motion and structures of the presidential campaign. These are complicated issues, bound up as they are with questions of resources and patterns of philanthropy. But for those who missed interacting with the motion of millions against the right, against the white racial monopoly on the executive branch, and for substantive change, their absence should, at the very least, prompt a serious examination of political orientation and organizational form.

Finally, there are those who are struggling to negotiate the existential shoals of a commitment to anti-capitalist politics in a period when the system is manifestly dying but not nearly at death’s door (and there have been all too many chronicles of that death foretold); major alternative systems have only recently collapsed or capitulated; and the vision, values and program that might bind together an anti-capitalist left and win broad support are still frustratingly obscure. There’s no remedy for this dilemma except to live in the times we’re in meeting the challenges we’ve been given and making the most of every opportunity, rather than anticipating capital’s demise or pining for a past beyond recovery.

In this period, then, the left has three tasks.

Our first job is to defend the democratic opening. This is a job we share with broader progressive forces and with centrists. Obama won big and retains the favorable regard of a sizeable majority. And meanwhile the Republican Party is in glorious disarray. But in no way should we take this situation for granted. The new administration faces daunting challenges and outright crises on every front. And while the right is disoriented and weakened, it has not and will not leave the playing field. The principal players and institutions of the right are, at this very moment, plotting how to undermine the administration, challenge every initiative that moves in the direction of democracy, progress and peace, and regroup to seize control, once again, of the state apparatus.

Defense of the democratic opening means many things and ought to be the subject for discussion and strategizing on the left. But in practical terms, first and foremost, it means consolidating and extending the electoral alliance that made the opening possible. Any work that strengthens and broadens the voter engagement of the constituencies and sectors that secured Obama’s election is work that defends the democratic opening. This kind of voter education, registration and mobilization work can be done in conjunction with an extremely broad range of local campaigns and initiatives. And anything that hastens the demise of the southern strategy, builds on the wins in Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia (along with the significant southwestern shifts in New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada), and challenges structural barriers to voter participation (e.g., felony disfranchisement, voter ID laws) is critical. All this is another way of saying that the electoral arena is an essential site of struggle for left and progressive forces in a way it has not been in at least 20 years. And this work, in which we have unity of purpose with the centrists, is vital to widening the Democratic majority in the 2010 congressional races, winning a filibuster-proof Senate majority, ensuring the successful re-election of Obama in 2012, and shaping both the parameters of viable Democratic candidates in 2016 and the outcome of that election.

Our second job is to contribute to building more united, effective, combative and influential progressive popular movements. This places the highest premium on strengthening and extending our ties with broader progressive forces, both inside and outside the Democratic Party, with an eye towards building long-term relationships and alliances among individuals, organizations and sectors. Anything that thickens and enriches the relationships among left and progressive actors in labor, religious institutions, policy think tanks, grassroots organizations, academia etc. is to be supported in the interests of strengthening the capacity of the left-progressive alliance to influence policy, to encourage and shore up whatever progressive inclinations might emerge from within the administration, and to resist administration tendencies to accommodation and capitulation to center-right forces. At this early stage of Obama’s tenure it is already evident what some of the most vital left-progressive alliance building ought to focus on. In foreign policy, on war and militarism in general and on Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel/Palestine, Iran and non-proliferation in particular. In domestic policy, on health care and on solutions to the economic crisis that hold the financial sector accountable for reckless and predatory practices while addressing the particular vulnerabilities of working people, the poor, women, immigrants and communities of color. And, at the intersection of global and domestic policy, on oil dependency and global warming. All that enhances our capacity to constructively engage in debating and influencing policy on these issues is to the good. All that obstructs or distracts is highly problematic.

We’ve exited a period of collective psychic depression only to enter one of global economic depression. Each day, as the institutions of finance capital collapse, the corruption, greed and mismanagement of the nation’s economic system are further revealed. Broad sectors of the population have been shocked into a more skeptical and critical stance towards capitalism, and the need for some measure of structural change wins near-universal acceptance. The clash of rising expectations (encouraged by the hope and change themes of the Obama campaign) and a sinking economy will likely spark new levels and forms of popular resistance. In this political environment, alliance building will be complicated, messy and filled with political tensions and tactical differences. It is imperative nonetheless.

Our third job, and perhaps the trickiest, is to build the left. First let it be said that unless we are able to demonstrate a genuine commitment and growing capacity to take on the first two jobs, the third is a non-starter, and a prescription for political isolation. In other words, defending the democratic opening in conjunction with the center and building long-term relationships between the anti-capitalist left and broad progressive sectors in the context of the struggle over administration policy must be understood as critical tasks in their own right, not simply as arenas in which to advance an independent left line or to recruit new adherents to an anti-capitalist perspective. Realizing the progressive potential of the Obama win requires the most committed involvement with the twists and turns of politics on the most pressing issues on the administration’s agenda. This same engagement is critical to rebuilding the left, a long-term process that can be advanced significantly in the context of Obama’s presidency if, and only if, the left can skillfully manage the relationship and distinction between its own interests, dynamics and challenges and those of broader political forces. Why is this the case? On the tell no lies front, the left is more isolated and fragmented than it has been in forty years. Truly fine work is being done by leftists in every region of the country and on every social issue. But the left qua left is barely breathing. This is not the place to go into the historical (world historical and U.S. historical), ideological, theoretical and organizational reasons why this is so. But let us, at the very least, frankly acknowledge that it is so. The current political alignment provides an opportunity to break out of isolation, marginalization and the habits of self-marginalization accumulated during the neo-conservative ascendancy. It provides the opportunity to initiate and/or strengthen substantive relationships with political actors in government, in the Democratic Party, and in independent sectors, as well as within the left itself – relationships to be built upon long after the Obama presidency has come to an end. It provides the opportunity to accumulate lessons about political actors, alignments and centers of power likewise relevant well beyond this administration. And it provides the opportunity for the immersion of the leaders, members and constituencies of left formations in a highly accelerated, real world poli-sci class.

In these circumstances, among our biggest challenges is how to attend to building the capacity of the left without succumbing to the siren songs of dogma, the old addictions of premature platform erection, or the self-limiting pleasures of building parties in miniature. For the anti-capitalist left, this is a period of experimentation. There is no roadmap; there are no recipes. Those organizational forms and initiatives that enable us to synthesize experience, share lessons and develop broad orientations and approaches to seriously undertaking our first two tasks should be encouraged. Those that would entrap us in the hermetic enclosures of doctrinal belief should be avoided at all cost.

The Obama presidency is a rare confluence of individuals and events. There is no way to predict how things will unfold over the next 4-8 years. But this much we can foresee: if the opportunity at hand is mangled or missed, the takeaway for the left will be deepened isolation and fragmentation. If, on the other hand, the left engages with this political opening skillfully and creatively, it will emerge as a broader, more vibrant force on the U.S. political spectrum, better able to confront whatever the post-Obama world will bring.

 

 

 

 

 

 

BankStrike (Keith) by Keith

Some comrades in Vermont have started a site called "BankStrike." Their idea seems close to what we are talking about. The site is well put togther. I sent them an e-mail hopefuly we can connect. Check it out.

"Busted" Approach? (Brian) by Winston

So I used to read a lot of Adbusters back in the day. It got kind of stale and repetetive. It still has some very informative and interesting pieces (and I learned the word "meme" from them before pundits now used it), but I mentally associate it more with an anarchist/black block kind of vibe or a subversive-art vibe (I don't have an artisitic bone in my body, so there's only so much accessibility there, ya know??). I still get email updates from their "culture jammer" communiques.

Issue #82 is out - Endgame Strategies. In the email highlighting the issue's features, I noticed this:

Revolutionary Potential: Editor-in-Chief, Kalle Lasn, probes the latent potential for a replay of 60s-style insurrection in the streets of North America. Will Generation O rise to the challenge of the times?

They just don't get it, do they? Why do we need to look backwards? (I don't want to start a thread of comments about the 60s - I think this blog and the movement have done a good job parsing out what to take from the 60s and what to leave behind or make anew) Why do we need some "insurrection"? I mean, my rage mojo is trigger-happy these days - some days I wanna take to the streets and throw Molotov cocktails all over...but does that create one more shred of democracy?? And I love a good march, but they need to be productive, not just polemical. Not to mention, street actions and many other 60s products were made for photojournalism and, to a greater degree, television. We now live in, for lack of a less-hackneyed phrase, the "digital age." No offense to Mr. Lasn, whom I respect, but I think "rising to the challenge" encompasses a lot more useful activities than getting turned back at the Pentagon or bustin' up some more Starbucks...

However, in the one piece released online thus far, David Graeber takes a less Adbusters-as-usual approach. It's a decent read. He plays with some terms more loosely than some pirates here might, and the stroke is broad -- but I'd like to hear what you guys think about his column. The intro paragraph, to whet your appetities:

We have reached an impasse. Capitalism as we know it is coming apart at the seams. But as financial institutions stagger and crumble, there is no obvious alternative. Organized resistance is scattered and incoherent. The global justice movement is a shadow of its former self. For the simple reason that it’s impossible to maintain perpetual growth on a finite planet, it’s possible that in a generation or so capitalism will no longer exist. Faced with this prospect, people’s knee-jerk reaction is often fear. They cling to capitalism because they can’t imagine a better alternative.

SOLIDARITY OR BUST (Dave) by Zanturaeon

I wrote this essay a couple of years ago and found it going through some of my old work that's rotting in the musty corners of the Internet. While I don't agree with every single sentence, I still agree with the vast majority of it. I think that the main point of my essay - that it's important to focus on building and maintaining unity within our growing revolutionary movement, and that part of unity means respecting diversity of tactics and strategy - is more relevant than ever to us today as organizers, and it is in this light that I post this essay here.

A look at what's been done, and what we can do differently

In the past century alone, there have been dozens of socialist revolutions, hundreds of socialist (both anarchist and communist) uprisings - many of them on-going - and tens of thousands, if not millions, of confrontations between groups and individuals struggling for a socialist society against the powers that be. We, the movement as a whole, have seen many successes and many more failures, set-backs, and even full reverses of our successes. We have fought the fascists, the police, the military, each other, in the streets. We have hid from them, from each other, from ourselves in secret compartments, under false names, in foreign nations. But the majority, the glorious majority of our work has not been seen in their court rooms, our Party's, or our collectives; but in the gains as well as the losses that we've incited in the greater humanity. The 8-hour work day, universal suffrage, racial integration, and many other concrete advances that were and are to the direct benefit of the huge mass of oppressed people struggling to survive.

And yet today, the vast burgeoning mass of humanity still lives oppressed, mired in social struggles with the state, with the bosses, with the bigots, with the hateful and willfully ignorant. Indeed, many of our own ranks have (perhaps unwittingly) found themselves among these enemies of the oppressed, even as they themselves struggle for justice. The racism, patriarchy, and heterosexism so readily identified in the greater society is also mirrored in our own movements. And so it is with the great mass of humanity in most of the world. Chicago, Caracas, Melbourne, London, Beijing, Pretoria, Rome, Moscow: all of these cities, and all the rest of them, and indeed most of the world still stumbles under the back-breaking weight of hatred, exploitation, ignorance and abuse.

All that is to say this: that, quite obviously, the struggle has not ended. For every victory, there have been ten defeats. For every freed heart and mind, there have been ten that have given up, that have been arrested, that have been murdered. Many of us in our respective movements were filled with unrelenting, reinvigorating joy when we heard the news of this revolution or that uprising - or took part in them ourselves, with our ideas held firm in the grip of our barricades, weapons, monkey wrenches. And yet, after over a century of struggle (in which it seemed at many points, as Fighting For Our Lives puts it, "we could almost taste the new world coming through the tear gas"), we have failed to create a single, lasting revolution that was not crushed or did not degenerate.

Why? With our endless debates, analyses, propaganda, marches, sit-ins, strikes, demands and armed confrontations and so on, why is it that the revolution has not occurred: that point-of-no-return, that first, invincible domino? Why, with our endless barrage of books, speeches, papers, posters, fliers does not everyone now know of socialism, of communism, of anarchism - of a better life without the state or class?

Of course, there are many reasons that have been presented. The capitalists' monopoly on mass media, the recuperation of unions into capitalism - indeed many of our legislative victories can be said to have drained the movements of their vitality. The so oft-discussed Spanish Civil War, the parallel anarchist revolution, these were crushed by Fascism, perhaps by Stalinism, but absolutely in-fighting, by lack of organization, by lack of preparation - not by a lack of understanding, but by a lack of implementation of understanding: a lacking of strategy that accounted for these real threats. For how serious can "scientific socialism" really be if its' own strategies do not account for its' own threats? And this is not to say that our movements haven't done this, that our movements haven't learned from the past - from our comrades' as well as our own mistakes - but that this has not been comprehensive and inclusive.

Take anarchist syndicalism as one example. This is interesting because there is a large emphasis on tactics and thus it implies a greater, over-all strategy. The workers will form unions (or, rather, a union) and this union will become powerful and develop its' efficiency through direct struggle with the capitalists and one day the union will call a general strike and that will be the revolution - that unstoppable, irreversible first step toward socialism, toward communism, toward anarchy. But what about the consumers? What about the petty bourgeoisie? The peasantry? Government workers? The police, even? Syndicalism speaks little or nothing on this issue (though not to its' discredit), and so for this we must turn to anarchist communism, for regional federations of locals of the union. For the exact way in which resources will be distributed, we must turn to parecon. For the exact form of the union locals, we must turn to council communism. For the defense of the revolution against the defenders of capital - hermetically sealed imperialist war machines - we must turn to Spain's militias or Trotsky's Red Army. For the struggle against the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie in the third world we must turn to Che, Makhno, Mao.

And of course many of my readers will disagree with many or all of my assertions here, and this is just as well, but I hope my point is demonstrated: that a coherent strategy, a coherent set of tactics, and a coherent analysis do not exist anywhere in any of our movements. Nor, I suspect, will one ever, as ideas compete and evolve. But the trend has always been to do this, although usually not consciously, but perhaps merely evolutionarily through defense or assault of this or that meme in this or that ideology. Strangely, although dogmatism and the emphasis on respect for different tactics (as with "anarchy without adjectives") appear to be on opposite ends of our movements, they each exist for different though compatible reasons: the former, with the purpose of unity; the latter, with the purpose of recognizing different tactics as effective to different degrees and in different ways. But these are different sides of the same coin: effectiveness. Our differences, after all, are primarily on how to struggle, rarely why: we all have the same or extremely similar goals, we only differ in how we feel we can implement them.

So, though there has been a wide variety of tactics, and much dogmatism and sectarianism, there has been lacking one thing: an over-riding spirit of cooperation. And this does not mean a passive acceptance of those you disagree with, nor cooperation with those you feel dilute or sabotage the movements, but the opposite: a virulent, passionate constructive criticism of those you disagree with, grounded in our common goals; a serious, dedicated criticism and refusal to compromise goals with those who detract from our goals as revolutionaries. This doesn't mean "agreeing to disagree", but making a continued and earnest attempt at empathy and empowerment.

So, for example, you are very heavy in union organizing, wading through lists of actions and planned meetings and jail cell numbers, and some comrades in a nearby area are struggling with something you just can't concern yourself with right now, say saving a piece of ancient forested land from a column of fellerbunchers. What good can come from saying, forget the land, the workers are hungry! What good can come from saying, forget the workers, they cannot eat without the land! Nothing but competition for activists, funds, signatures - whatever your group, your movement suffers from a lack of. But we all know that competition is the bane of society and what has brought us here in the first place. Instead, if you cannot offer a hand, offer a word! Declare solidarity, practice solidarity. This does not mean surrendering one person or group or movement to the will of another, but coordinating them together.

But what exactly do I mean by constructive criticism, and what exactly does cooperation and solidarity entail, if the former does not mean sectarianism and dogma and the latter does not mean co-optation and subjugation? Let me show you just exactly what I mean.

Constructive criticism: serious, informed analysis made with the intent to - as much as is possible - develop and empower others that share your goals but not you specific ideas about tactics.

Solidarity: the concrete attempt to defend, reinforce, and advance the movements of those with goals similar or identical to your own, while continuing on in the specific struggle you are involved in at the time.

These two things, when implemented seriously, are exactly what lead to things like the First International, and their opposites - destructive criticism and sectarianism - are what lead to the above examples' demise. I chose the First International specifically because I feel that this is perhaps the most fantastic and prevalent example in our movements: the disagreement over the usefulness of the state. What could have been a boon to the movement, an embrace of both direct and indirect tactics in a cooperative strategy, became a source of mutual disrespect and hatred. This is absurd. If there are apples near the top of a tree, and a group of people is divided into different ways about how to get the apples, do they ridicule, insult, and sabotage each other, draining energy from their own efforts as well as others and thus doubly reducing the effectiveness of the group as a whole? Or do they each try the way they feel is best, borrow ideas and techniques from each other, and help each other in their pursuits? Obviously the latter is the more rational and effective way to go about getting apples, but the question is obscured when the context is changed from obtaining apples to revolutionary socialism.

For example, I personally see an electoral approach as a very ineffective way to achieve revolutionary socialism. This does not mean that I sabotage the efforts of my comrades, but that I try both to more fully understand their position and better explain and understand my own. While this discussion is ongoing and indefinite, it does not make sense to try to stop the action of one group or another, since no group can possibly know for sure who is the most correct. It only follows then that the action of each group should be encouraged by each other group, but only on the condition that each group listen and seriously try to apply criticisms in a way that will make their approach more effective. So, obviously, a socialist party obviously cannot and will not apply an anarchist criticism that undermines their whole approach by labeling it as useless and counter-productive; but it obviously can and must apply an anarchist criticism that highlights, for example, patriarchy or sexism in the party.

Likewise, the anarchist must support the socialist politicians (if they are honest, of course) in their struggles for socialist legislation; and the socialist politicians must support the anarchists in their struggles for immediate material gain - even as the anarchists break laws, even as the socialists make them! For as movements, as a movement, with the same, shared ultimate goal, we do not do what we do because we believe in laws or their absence, but because we believe in human rights - because we believe in a society where all can be free to live as they wish and share in the bounty that is withheld from us.

So, comrades, will we continue to spite each other, to sabotage all our dreams in the petty struggle over who is more or less right about this or that tactic? Or will we unite (like we so often have, beneath the turbulent surface of history, in pool halls and chat rooms; behind barricades and prison bars) and offer mutual reinforcement of each of our movements, the coordination of our tactics, the defense of our collective integrity and the push to develop a flexible, comprehensive strategy to achieve socialism, communism, anarchy - a free and equal society?

It's solidarity or bust.

See you at the picket, the barricade, the poll, the sit-in, the march...

Newspaper Hawkers and Websites: A Plan to Build a Revolutionary Democratic Movement in the U.S. (Keith) by Keith

One of the great curiosities of the revolutionary left is the newspaper hawker. At every protest, at every progressive and radical conference they appear. Trotskyites outside (they are never invited inside, -- apparently they have no manners) with insufferable papers like The Workers Vanguard, or The Militant. Inside crusty old “new left” Maoists, and their unwitting youthful acolytes, push the latest edition of Revolution with insights from their maximum leader. To sell these papers you must be disciplined, you need guts, and a tolerance for abuse—most of the people who you try to sell the paper to refuse it. You must be prepared to hear “no.”

I was once one of those sad hawkers with my newspaper. I didn’t sell one the established papers like The Challenge, FightBack, or the People’s Weekly World. My secret communist cell published our own newspaper. That’s why I can explain this curiosity—the newspaper hawker and their newspaper—to you, dear reader, I was once a newspaper hawker myself.

The newspaper, that marvel of 19th century communication technology, which is today breathing its last gasps under the weight of new communications technology, somehow remains the preferred vehicle for the communication of revolutionary news and analysis by all manner of Marxian sects, why? Because in an important little essay entitled: “Where to Begin,” and in a follow up pamphlet called: What is to be done, V.I. Lenin said a newspaper was necessary to unite the revolutionaries and to organize the impending insurrection. Our modern revolutionaries read Lenin’s essay like a cookbook recipe—what is to be done? Just add water. Lenin’s plan was brilliant in 1901 and we have much to learn from it, but only if we update the plan for the twenty-first century.

First and foremost newspapers are no longer cutting edge communications technology. Secondly, the new technology, most notably the internet, can not be considered in isolation from new forms of social organization. The newspaper and the vanguard party built in the course of writing, editing, publishing, and distributing that newspaper are organizational, communicative, and cultural forms that correspond to one another, and the level of development of the productive forces. In other words, newspapers and top down vanguard parties go together, but they are completely out-dated forms. To use them today is like using a typewriter instead of word processing, or a television with rabbit ears instead of cable.

Although the newspaper is increasingly anachronistic many organizers, allies, and revolutionary groups still use newspapers and plenty of people still read them. We are in the middle of a transition from one era to another. How long that transition will take no one can predict. We must find ways to unite with progressives, revolutionaries, and workers still using newspapers. But newspapers can no longer play the role of collective organizer that Lenin envisioned.
Since Lenin’s essays there have been a number of revolutions in communications technology: telephone, radio, cinema, television, and the internet. Revolutionaries have missed nearly all of them.

But what is even worse, or sadder, is that all of these revolutionary groups with newspapers have retained the aspects of Lenin’s essays that are no longer relevant: the newspaper and top down organization, while they ignore entirely the most important elements of Lenin’s plan.

Lenin shows that political organization is built around communication technology. He insists that the newspaper is not just for news it is a “collective organizer” The newspaper, according to Lenin, is supposed to do much more than report the news—the paper is supposed to be a place for revolutionaries to communicate with one another, to explain their practice to one another, to share experiences, and resources, to debate and argue out ideas and analysis—and in this process revolutionary unity is built, revolutionary culture is developed, revolutionary practice begins to become coordinated, and revolutionary organization is expanded. Most of the sects use their newspaper as self-promotion, they rarely have open discussions and certainly never discuss their practice in a serious way so that it can be critiqued and improved upon. They are more interested in maintaining their little sects as small businesses that can fund the careers of a few so-called leaders.

How can we put Lenin’s plan into effect with modern communication technology and organizational forms? Lenin called for a single newspaper to unite all the small local groups. Today we have all sorts of small local groups and their websites and they are connected through links. But what we need is a radically open website where it is easy and simple to contribute and where the value of a contributions is weighed not be an editorial board or moderator but by our fellow revolutionary democrats. The technology is now available, some of it is used on websites like “DailyKos,” , so that readers of a web page can “vote” on which articles and essays are most useful. Those with the most votes appear at the top of the web page and become the most read. In this way the site moderates itself. Posts that are disruptive will slide to the bottom of the page in the same way.

We need a website, that can unite all the local forces based on principle of revolutionary democracy that allows everyone full access. But openness and democracy are not just principles they are necessities. Openness and democracy are expedients. If we are to build the movement and transform this society we need the unrestrained and self-directed energy and creativity of the majority of people. Currently, no site on the left is this open, most retain the trappings of the 20th century: top down organization (moderators, and editors who determine content).

To get the project off the ground will require a commitment from organizers who are building dual power locally in numerous cities. We propose that Piratecaucus.com act as a bridge between now and the future open website we are proposing. To that end we are opening its space initially to organizers we have had direct personal contact with until the site gets out of the cradle and is ready for the harsher, even if ultimately more productive, environment of radical openness.



Appendix 1: Excerpts from Lenin’s Where To Begin
In our opinion, the starting-point of our activities, the first step towards creating the desired organisation, or, let us say, the main thread which, if followed, would enable us steadily to develop, deepen, and extend that organisation, should be the founding of an All-Russian political newspaper. A newspaper is what we most of all need; without it we cannot conduct that systematic, all-round propaganda and agitation, consistent in principle, which is the chief and permanent task of Social-Democracy in general and, in particular, the pressing task of the moment, when interest in politics and in questions of socialism has been aroused among the broadest strata of the population. Never has the need been felt so acutely as today for reinforcing dispersed agitation in the form of individual action, local leaflets, pamphlets, etc., by means of generalised and systematic agitation that can only be conducted with the aid of the periodical press. It may be said without exaggeration that the frequency and regularity with which a newspaper is printed (and distributed) can serve as a precise criterion of how well this cardinal and most essential sector of our militant activities is built up. Furthermore, our newspaper must be All-Russian.

If we fail, and as long as we fail, to combine our efforts to influence the people and the government by means of the printed word, it will be utopian to think of combining other means, more complex, more difficult, but also more decisive, for exerting influence. Our movement suffers in the first place, ideologically, as well as in practical and organisational respects, from its state of fragmentation, from the almost complete immersion of the overwhelming majority of Social-Democrats in local work, which narrows their outlook, the scope of their activities, and their skill in the maintenance of secrecy and their preparedness. It is precisely in this state of fragmentation that one must look for the deepest roots of the instability and the waverings noted above. The first step towards eliminating this short-coming, towards transforming divers local movements into a single, All-Russian movement, must be the founding of an All-Russian newspaper.

Lastly, what we need is definitely a political newspaper. Without a political organ, a political movement deserving that name is inconceivable in the Europe of today. Without such a newspaper we cannot possibly fulfill our task—that of concentrating all the elements of political discontent and protest, of vitalising thereby the revolutionary movement of the proletariat. We have taken the first step, we have aroused in the working class a passion for “economic”, factory exposures; we must now take the next step, that of arousing in every section of the population that is at all politically conscious a passion for political exposure. We must not be discouraged by the fact that the voice of political exposure is today so feeble, timid, and infrequent. This is not because of a wholesale submission to police despotism, but because those who are able and ready to make exposures have no tribune from which to speak, no eager and encouraging audience, they do not see anywhere among the people that force to which it would be worth while directing their complaint against the “omnipotent” Russian Government. But today all this is rapidly changing.

There is such a force—it is the revolutionary proletariat, which has demonstrated its readiness, not only to listen to and support the summons to political struggle, but boldly to engage in battle. We are now in a position to provide a tribune for the nationwide exposure of the tsarist government, and it is our duty to do this. That tribune must be a Social-Democratic newspaper. The Russian working class, as distinct from the other classes and strata of Russian society, displays a constant interest in political knowledge and manifests a constant and extensive demand (not only in periods of intensive unrest) for illegal literature. When such a mass demand is evident, when the training of experienced revolutionary leaders has already begun, and when the concentration of the working class makes it virtual master in the working-class districts of the big cities and in the factory settlements and communities, it is quite feasible for the proletariat to found a political newspaper. Through the proletariat the newspaper will reach the urban petty bourgeoisie, the rural handicraftsmen, and the peasants, thereby becoming a real people’s political newspaper.

The role of a newspaper, however, is not limited solely to the dissemination of ideas, to political education, and to the enlistment of political allies. A newspaper is not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, it is also a collective organiser. In this last respect it may be likened to the scaffolding round a building under construction, which marks the contours of the structure and facilitates communication between the builders, enabling them to distribute the work and to view the common results achieved by their organised labour.
With the aid of the newspaper, and through it, a permanent organisation will naturally lake shape that will engage, not only in local activities, but in regular general work, and will train its members to follow political events carefully, appraise their significance and their effect on the various strata of the population, and develop effective means for the revolutionary party to influence these events. The mere technical task of regularly supplying the newspaper with copy and of promoting regular distribution will necessitate a network of local agents of the united party, who will maintain constant contact with one another, know the general state of affairs, get accustomed to performing regularly their detailed functions in the All-Russian work, and test their strength in the organisation of various revolutionary actions.

This network of agents[1] will form the skeleton of precisely the kind of organisation we need—one that is sufficiently large to embrace the whole country; sufficiently broad and many-sided to effect a strict and detailed division of labour; sufficiently well tempered to be able to conduct steadily its own work under any circumstances, at all “sudden turns”, and in face of all contingencies; sufficiently flexible to be able, on the one hand, to avoid an open battle against an overwhelming enemy, when the enemy has concentrated all his forces at one spot, and yet, on the other, to take advantage of his unwieldiness and to attack him when and where he least expects it. Today we are faced with the relatively easy task of supporting student demonstrations in the streets of big cities; tomorrow we may, perhaps, have the more difficult task of supporting, for example, the unemployed movement in some particular area, and the day after to be at our posts in order to play a revolutionary part in a peasant uprising. Today we must take advantage of the tense political situation arising out of the government’s campaign against the Zemstvo; tomorrow we may have to support popular indignation against some tsarist bashi-bazouk on the rampage and help, by means of boycott, indictment, demonstrations, etc., to make things so hot for him as to force him into open retreat. Such a degree of combat readiness can be developed only through the constant activity of regular troops. If we join forces to produce a common newspaper, this work will train and bring into the foreground, not only the most skillful propagandists, but the most capable organisers, the most talented political party leaders capable, at the right moment, of releasing the slogan for the decisive struggle and of taking the lead in that struggle.

In conclusion, a few words to avoid possible misunderstanding. We have spoken continuously of systematic, planned preparation, yet it is by no means our intention to imply that the autocracy can be overthrown only by a regular siege or by organised assault. Such a view would be absurd and doctrinaire. On the contrary, it is quite possible, and historically much more probable, that the autocracy will collapse under the impact of one of the spontaneous outbursts or unforeseen political complications which constantly threaten it from all sides. But no political party that wishes to avoid adventurous gambles can base its activities on the anticipation of such outbursts and complications. We must go our own way, and we must steadfastly carry on our regular work, and the less our reliance on the unexpected, the less the chance of our being caught unawares by any “historic turns”.

Summer in the City (Chloë ) by Keith

(Note from Keith: This is an essay by Chloë, a member of the George Mason chapter of SDS, about her experiences working with Rutger's SDS's summer in the city project.)


I went to New Jersey a bit cynical. It was about a month before I was scheduled to leave for Taiwan and at best seemed like a nice way to occupy myself before the real adventure started. I also went into it feeling pessimistic about my current situation, watching my Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) chapter fall apart and dreading the inevitably, large amount of effort that it will take to put it back together again. A task that at a large commuter/suitcase school seems more like a chore than something that I would take pleasure in. Going to Summer in the City, sponsored by “Empower our Neighborhoods” (EONS) Campaign and Tent State/SDS at Rutgers, New Brunswick, may not have brighten my outlook when it comes to George Mason but it definitely reminded me, again, why I organize.

The campaign that they are running is to change the city from an at-large electoral system for city council member to a ward based system, touting that it will increase democracy in the City of New Brunswick. Like most of New Jersey, New Brunswick is largely corrupt with little to no checks and balance. The people that are in power are old guard democrats who surprisingly (or not) supported Hillary Clinton in the primary. They like the way the city is run and call it a vibrant city, focusing on the gentrified parts of town and the grandiose hospitals. New Brunswick residents will paint a different picture though. The schools, which are failing, stand in stark contrast to the newer gentrified parts of town that hold the head quarters for Johnson and Johnson. Some wards streets haven't been paved in decades and gang violence, like unemployment, is forever on the rise.

As I went around the city gathering signatures, I couldn't help but notice the differences that exist in the city. A lot of the people that I talked to remembered better days and had small requests for improvement. One man told me how at one point they paved the curbs but never came back to pave the roads. This part of town is mostly populated by working class Blacks and Latinos. Others had different comments; at least two women that I talked to seemed troubled by the gang violence that happens almost daily on their door steps. At a town meeting, gang violence was one of the most popularly cited problems in the city to the extent that it has moved into the towns south of New Brunswick, stemming from the city. This comment was not surprisingly followed by complaints about the condition of the schools and the education that the students, K-12, receive in New Brunswick.

In adopting a ward based system with 6 council people from each of the wards and 3 elected at-large, there is a great hope within New Brunswick that these problems will be addressed. But it doesn't stop there. EONS wants to push for neighborhood councils that will make direct demands on their council people, allowing everyone in the community to have a say including undocumented immigrants, a population that is growing rapidly in New Brunswick.

The majority of things that I have done in my organizing career, which is very short, have been protests. I am quickly accumulating a laundry list of protests that I have attended and helped plan in D.C. and as that number grows I haven't become anymore confident in the lefts ability to change the United States or stop the War in Iraq. Each protest, minus those that have become a fad recently in D.C. (Funk the War) have grown smaller and smaller, signifying rightly the publics waning hope in the anti-war movement and the radical left as a whole, something that has been happening since the 1960's and something that is quite justified.

But the more I talked to people, the more my excitement grew for the ward campaign. Not only did the organizers have a clear plan with theoretical backing on how to change their city but I saw every day the direct result of how the ward system could change New Brunswick and maybe people's lives.

The campaign in New Brunswick signifies a new sort of movement, focused around the theory of revolutionary democracy; they hope to make change on a local level. The organizers are not unrealistic in thinking that this is going to be easy or clean, or that protests are the answer. They know that they are little more than a tactic that one can use among many a tactics. They understand that sometimes you have to work within the system to change it but that you have to be smart about it and know how to fight dirty. EONS knows the city government's weaknesses and they know their tactics and because of this they know how to work against them. They also understand the history of the city and where the current city machine came from. They have studied and been a part of other campaigns so they know what works and what doesn't and how to learn and adapt when challenges present themselves.

One of the most important parts of this is that they also understand what can happen if they don't win. The organizers see the importance of bringing the community together and getting to know people and the problems that they face. They are not trying to help people in a detached fashion by throwing money at their problems or protesting things that are happening half-way around the world but by talking to the public directly and seeing exactly what the people want to change about their city and how they want it done. Something that is invaluable.

After about a month of working with Tent State/SDS (or EONS), I began to realize how much I valued the work that they were doing. Not only do they have an awesome sense of community within themselves, but they are able to connect and understand the community that makes up New Brunswick. I now have a greater sense of the work that progressive organization can do and some of the best ways to do it. I have a new found confidence in the American Left and I have the greatest hope that we can all learn from Tent States/SDS projects and bring back their ideas to our communities. I also see the Summer in the City program as sort of training camp for those who want to learn about making change on a local level. I hope that as more local movements grow, we can learn from each other and give the left a new face that will help inspire and change America into a truly more democratic society.

Building Neighborhood Committees, Canvassing, and Winning (Keith) by Keith

These are some notes on organizing in New Brunswick but I think that they may be useful to others who are thinking about dual power and seizing power locally.

We must build neighborhood committees if we are going to win on election day and if we are to build a lasting revolutionary democratic movement in New Brunswick. In many ways the committees will be one of the most important outcomes of the whole campaign. Below I put down some notes on building the committees and the crucial role they will play on election day with Get Out the Vote.

The universal task of all neighborhood committees’ is to get out the vote. Beyond that each committee will develop organically, based on the concerns and issues faced by the citizens in that neighborhood. In some neighborhoods parking is the main issue, in others police violence and gang activity, and other neighborhoods have issues that will only emerge as citizens meet and talk. As people come together and feel their collective power, other issues and possibilities, that are presently beyond their imaginative capacity and ours, will emerge. In other words they will change the conditions and themselves and thereby make new possibilities.

Our biggest challenge at the present moment and the key to winning election day is getting these neighborhood committees off the ground. The committees are an organizational structure so to understand what kind of structure we need we must first understand the practice or activity the committees will engage in. Again much of the activity will be determined by the committees themselves, but one activity that we know will be asked of all committees will be getting out the vote on election-day. So we can build structure around that task, and then allow other practices and organizational forms to develop organically based on the needs of the citizens in the groups.

When we knock on a door we may be talking to a neighborhood leader, or a future neighborhood leader (or a national leader in embryo!). We should offer each person the highest level of participation and work down. This is especially important in Latino/a neighborhoods. We will need to find bi-lingual people who can organize Spanish speakers. Additionally, Revolutionary Democracy recognizes all residents as citizens and therefore they have full rights and freedom to participate regardless of their “status.” So while they cannot vote in November they will be able to vote in their neighborhood committee.

A key component of our campaign must be building neighborhood committees as the basis for our anti-machine local revolutionary democratic movement and the canvas is the place to get them started. Ideally each committee will be made up of five or more registered voters. The chair of the committee will be responsible for making sure that all committee members vote on election day. Mobilizing the group on election day will take preparation, that preparation is the basis of the committees initial existence.

Recruiting neighborhood leaders while canvassing
When canvassing we come across people who are natural leaders of the neighborhoods, people others turn to for help, or people who command respect. If these people, for example, tell other to sign a petition they are listened too. When canvassing we should try to get these people to become leaders of a neighborhood committee. We have to lay out the whole vision with them. We are trying to transform this city in a democratic way. We want schools that provide the best education for our children and makes it possible for the kids to do whatever it is they want to, their background and the school system should not be a limitation but an advantage. We want the schools to be community centers and recreation centers that provide job training and job placement. We want professional police who help the community end gang violence instead of encouraging it. And so on (we can talk vision stuff in another essay). The point is that we lay out the dream and then we lay out the path that leads from here to there. The path is the ward campaign. We can explain neighborhood committees, how they will function to discuss neighborhood issues and how they will function in relation to a real democratic city council.

Then we explain how to build the committee: Do you know 3 or more people you can register to vote or who are registered? Can you hold a meeting to explain the campaign? what we are doing? and how we will be counting on them to come out and vote on election day? Can you stay in regular contact with your committee? That is minimal. The committee’s can do much more, but that is a start. At this level of organizing it is all face to face, ultimately this networks include elements of friendship. You can invite a potential committee chair to Sunday dinner and hook them more deeply into the campaign. The idea is to get them close to the campaign and also feel ownership so that they willing to take initiatives to help develop it. We can help with the initial meetings and send organizers. Building trust and friendship will be crucial.

Recruiting neighborhood leaders at Public Meetings

When we hold a public meeting it is important to lay out the vision of a democratic city, and then link the ward campaign to that vision. The next step is to explain the role of neighborhood committees, what the job of the committee chair will be and ask people to volunteer to host a first meeting. Again, the first meeting can be your brother, your cousin, your momma and neighbor and your sister’s friend, start with whatever is doable and build-- something is better than nothing. Whoever it is we have to get together explain the campaign and how to vote for it and the role of the committee on election day. The more resources we can provide so that people take ownership over the process and their committees and develop them creatively according to the needs of their neighborhood the more we will build revolutionary democratic power.

Are You a Leader? (Andrea) by X.

How we perceive the role of a leader in organizing impacts not only the outside public’s view of the entire movement, but also the work of all participants in the movement. By definition, a leader carries influence and uses this power to guide others. However, this influence, power, and guidance can be used in different ways, leading to outcomes that affect the sustainability, successes, and strategy of entire organizations and movements. So, if you find yourself in such a role, a little reflection upon how you use it becomes vital to those you work with and what you all want to accomplish.

You can find yourself in a leadership position for various reasons. You were elected. You happened to help to establish an organization. You are really involved. You are getting older, and your group has a lot of new folks joining. Whatever the case may be, whether you feel comfortable as a leader or not, you have a choice in front of you: you can keep the role’s inherent power for yourself or you can share it. And by sharing, I mean taking a step back to listen to and learn from your fellow organizers, new and old. It also involves sharing knowledge and teaching others.

We can all think of people in leadership roles who do not listen, learn, teach, or share. Such leaders tend to take on much of the more meaningful and interesting work of the movement or organization, and the rest of the movement or organization is left to do tasks the leaders don’t want to perform. In I’ve Got the Light of Freedom, Charles Payne explains how Ella Baker felt that the NAACP’s bureaucratic leadership structure in the 1940’s was “leaving most of the huge mass base … little meaningful role in the development of policy and program except raising funds and cheering victories as they came” (1995:87). Such sentiments can be felt throughout contemporary movements and organizations as well, where leaders would never be found doing work like canvassing, making calls, putting up fliers, or doing data entry. Even though such work is essential to the functioning of campaigns and projects, these kinds of leaders would rather leave those tasks to the newcomers rather than working side-by-side with them, showing them what it takes to keep a movement alive and growing. Such leaders leave other participants out of the creation of their movement’s on-going vision when they hold onto it so tightly themselves.

Once again, Charles Payne’s account of the civil rights movement provides us with an example of how tactically unwise these types of leaders can be for a movement. Payne shares with us another poignant observation from Ella Baker:

“I have always felt it was a handicap for oppressed people to depend so largely on a leader, because unfortunately in our culture, the charismatic leader usually becomes a leader because he has found a spot in the public limelight. It usually means that the media made him and the media may undo him. There is also a danger in our culture that, because a person is called upon to give public statements and is acclaimed by the establishment, such a person gets to the point of believing that he is the movement. Such people get so involved with playing the game of being important that they exhaust themselves and their time and they don’t do the actual work of organizing people” (1995:93).

Payne chronicles the experiences of another organizer during that time, Septima Clark, who was also critical of people in these leadership roles, and how they vehemently held onto their positions: “‘I sent a letter to Dr. King asking him not to lead all the marches himself, but instead to develop leaders who could lead their own marches. Dr. King read the letter before the staff. It just tickled them; they just laughed’” (Payne 1995:76).

In order to avoid these trappings, leadership should be envisioned through shared learning and long-term educational outreach. Anyone finding themselves in a leadership role should see that “leadership should be a form of teaching, where the leader’s first responsibility is to develop the leadership potential of others” (Payne 1995:93). Such a “politics of empowerment is likely to be concerned at least as much with the process of individual growth as with short-term tactical goals” (Payne 1995:331). These attitudes towards leadership translate into how movements and movement organizations treat newcomers to their collective, and the tasks that they are given to do. Training and educating a new member in how to take on meaningful work is an important aspect of this vision of leadership.

So, if you find yourself in a leadership position, please take the time to reflect on how your choices and behavior affect the movement around you. What kind of leader are you going to be?

REFERENCE

Payne, Charles. 1995. I’ve Got the Light of Freedom: The Organizing Tradition and the Mississippi Freedom Struggle. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

The movement does not have to be elitist or cliquish (Tim) by X.

Often left-wing groups, especially student groups, gain notoriety (deserved or not) for being insular and cliquish. Organizers must constantly keep aware of group dynamics and the effect this has on allies and potential members. Besides obvious problems such as sexism or hetero-normativity, in-group out-group behavior can also be very detrimental on retention: insularity can be easily and often unconsciously reinforced by usage of inside jokes, leftist jargon, etc.

Special effort should be made to make new people feel welcome in the group, and to solicit their participation as early as possible, thus giving them a stake in the movement. This can be done by something as simple as directing the person toward a particular project or committee. Even more elementary: if a new person shows up to a meeting, take time out to talk to this person before or after, and make sure that everyone else does too. This can be difficult if, say, you are at a meeting with a close friend you haven’t seen for a few weeks, or perhaps you see someone else you’d prefer to talk to. But we should always keep in mind that we are trying to create a movement which anticipates a better society, a society for all, not just a few.

An anticipatory movement (Tim) by X.

“Freedom is merely privilege extended,
Unless enjoyed by one and all.”
- The Internationale

We wish to live in a society which is not sexist, racist, homophobic, class-riven and militaristic. We wish to live in a society which is more fundamentally democratic and participatory; one in which people have a say in the decisions which are governing their lives. Yet we cannot reach this goal if our movement is anti-democratic and authoritarian, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. As much as possible we should attempt to have a movement which serves in some sense as a model for the configuration of the society of the future.

However, many deep-seated forms of injustice cannot be adequately addressed by simply attacking them within the movement. If we spend all of our time addressing issues of, say, hierarchy or privilege within the movement, we will have little time left for eliminating the much more egregious forms of hierarchy and privilege which currently deform our society. The establishment of non-hierarchical relations within a small group is itself a form of privilege which is moot if not extended to one and all. Unfortunately there is no tried-and-true method for successfully combating oppression both within the movement and without simultaneously. One method we will suggest is the paradigm of consciousness-raising.

Simply put, consciousness-raising is based on the realization that not everyone comes to the movement with perfect politics. All of us are, to greater or lesser extents, recovering racists, homophobes, etc. What is needed, then is a space in which people can become more radicalized and learn, but in a context where they feel it is okay to make mistakes and that they are surrounded by comrades who will forgive but will also hold them up to higher standards.

Applying this paradigm to revolutionary democracy means that consciousness-raising cannot be permitted to be the prerogative of the few, but that the consciousness of the people must be raised on a mass scale. A simple example of mass consciousness raising comes from the “red ribbon” campaign undertaken by HIV/AIDS activists in the early 1990s. This was a participatory tactic which was a major part in increasing awareness of HIV/AIDS and changing public perception of the issue.

Democracy in the movement (Keith, X., Tommy D) by X.

Whereas many on the US Left mistakenly think that democracy is dangerous and that the rule of the majority is a threat, Revolutionary Democracy holds that the greatest threat is a lack of democracy—the lack of democracy makes the arbitrary rule of the wealthy minority possible. Democracy cannot be based on the comfort of a permanent, unchanging majority but -quite the opposite- it can only reach its full potential through the fullest emancipation of all, the fullest expression of all and the fullest exchange of ideas.

Revolutionary Democracy is practiced and developed within the movement just as it is in society at large. Revolutionary Democracy insists that the people that do the work to build the movement, its organizations, events and activities are also the ones that make the decisions. The movement itself must be radically democratic so it becomes the image of the society it aims to build. The project is non-exclusionary: Anyone that wants to contribute can and their contribution means they get to decide how things are run. The movement must not imitate the power structure of capitalism (big capitalist shareholders, for instance, contribute nothing, but under capitalism they make all the decisions). Instead, in a revolutionary democratic movement, everyone is entitled to make decisions based on their contribution.

As the movement grows along these lines, it will expand the model of revolutionary democratic participation into more aspects of productive and social life. While the movement may grow in fits and starts and at times make great strides forward, the revolution is in the process itself and in its expansion. Rather than saying “power to the people;” we say “people are the power.” Their power becomes realized as they organize themselves into a movement and supplant the non-democratic society with a democratic society of their own making. Revolutionary Democracy rejects the old saying that “political power flows from the barrel of a gun.” Political power grows out of the movement of people.

"This is what democracy looks like!" (X.) by X.

The slogan “This is what democracy looks like!” hit the big time in 1999 during the street protests opposing the World Trade Organization at their meeting in Seattle. It became the title of a seminal underground documentary that narrated and helped define the events for progressives all over the country. The slogan was obviously a direct response to the highly undemocratic character of the WTO and to the authoritarian and repressive counter-protest tactics of the Seattle police department. But the ease with which those few words spread throughout the broader movement (and especially the younger generation) hints at something deeper: In many ways, the Seattle protests represented a reaction to the waning power of the traditional US Left. They were a reaction to the complacent 80’s and 90’s during which the advocacy faction took over the leadership of the movement and led it into steep decline, displacing the protest faction that dominated the 60’s and 70’s. In this sense, the crowds of activists in the streets of Seattle also chanted: “This is what the movement looks like!”

A large and relatively diverse array of groups had gathered in Seattle for the largest protest in years, in direct opposition to the powers-that-be. The WTO protesters delivered a broad critique of the system on the system’s own turf. But not only did they challenge capitalism’s “new world order”, they challenged the prevailing “common wisdom” of the advocacy partisans in positions of leadership throughout the US Left that for years have channeled the movement into reformist, single-issue activism by proxy (from union contracts to affirmative action to abortion rights to saving endangered species). The demonstrators -made up largely of dissidents young and old within the US Left- organized a mass (if short-lived) challenge to big capital. And it blew their minds that by working together they successfully prevented business as usual for the rulers of the planet. For a little while, they “shut down” the WTO…

The success of the protesters in achieving their goal unfortunately overshadowed the most important aspect of the Seattle experience. While the mainstream media focused mainly on isolated incidents of vandalism, the movement narrative (as told in the “This Is What Democracy Looks Like!” documentary, for example) focused much attention on the confrontation pitting the mass of protesters against the police and WTO bureaucrats.

The most revolutionary democratic activities did not take place during those street battles, however. Quite to the contrary, democracy was mainly built before and after each protest. The key factor that set the WTO protests aside from most prior protests is that they lasted for several days during which a vast but fragmented network of progressive activists had to contend with tremendous logistical challenges in close proximity to one another. The planning of daily marching routes, resistance to police repression, first aid assistance, room and board, jail solidarity, teach-ins, liberation of resources, etc required a multitude of activists of every shade of the Left political spectrum to cooperate in some way. Numerous decentralized, grassroots initiatives brought together groups that previously had never worked together, building coalitional trust and fostering unity of action to overcome ideological differences. In other words, the movement had to try and practice democracy in order to exist.

The most striking examples of budding revolutionary democracy in action can be found in interviews of the diverse activists that participated in the three days of WTO protests in Seattle in 1999 (these interviews are available at the online WTO History Project hosted by the University of Washington). In the weeks that led up to the protests, a multitude of labor unions, issue groups, student groups, revolutionary groups, etc. cooperated in one form or another to plan for the demonstrations (amidst a host of disagreements over the purpose and the tactics of the protest). A careful reading of the activists’ interviews shows how rapidly the movement coalesced at the grassroots level in the last few days and especially during the “downtime” in between protests once the WTO ministerial conference had begun.

This so-called “downtime” was in fact the “organizing time” during which thousands of activists of every shade of the Left political spectrum resided in close proximity to one another in de facto “liberated zones” in and around Seattle. The geographic closeness and the magnitude of the logistical challenges led these activists to exchange ideas, share resources and make plans together. They became movement organizers as they began to work and decide together, as they began to practice democracy like they never had before. This process of budding revolutionary democracy is credited in many interviews for the decision by a number of “older” protesters to break away from the relatively non-confrontational, pre-approved march routes to join “younger” activists in direct actions in the “no protest” zone declared by the city police.

Richard Feldman, Director, Worker Center, King County Labor Council, AFL-CIO:

… And then there was other coalition activity, as it got closer, there was a regular meeting, kind of a coordinating meeting that I attended, that was hosted by the Citizen's Trade Campaign folks that brought together some of the prime organizers and organizations, including DAN [Direct Action Network] and a very diverse kind of group of organizations that met and just kind of more or less kept each other somewhat up to date on what people were planning.

(…)

Well, it was a coalition in terms of everyone coming together dealing with the events of the week, for example from the students' perspective, obviously having been hit the hardest, and the students that had been doing civil disobedience and not doing civil disobedience, just been sitting around and getting whacked by the cops, they brought anger and disbelief. Then us just seeing what had happened and the wrongness of how protests had been met. And it was because we were in coalition and had the energy and ability that enabled us to quickly put together a march with 5,000 people. We wanted to go into the no-protest zone on Friday to show we could have protests and that we could have our voices heard. So things happened pretty quickly.

(…)

Things came together incredibly quickly. A wide variety of things happened very quickly, just remarkable how quickly. I guess in terms of true coalition activities, people took ownership, came together and achieved, in a very short time, something that normally takes months to plan and figure out. And that was because everyone had been working together. And this was also something that was also more locally driven. It wasn't people from D.C.

Han Shan, Ruckus Society:

“That’s actually a bigger conversation and a really important thing. That’s something that’s new and something that we saw develop in Seattle to a large degree. There are a lot of groups working in very different ways with different constituencies, and maybe different ultimate goals who nonetheless are recognizing that as the right has come together with various goals, but recognizing they have similar adversaries, at least, we’ve recognized that we need to come together. In Seattle, there were a lot of folks who maybe didn’t work super closely with each other in their discrete strategies, in their tactics that they took to the streets, but tried to at least talk and keep the lines of communication open. I talked to a lot of Labor. I talked to folks who were visibly nervous about who Ruckus was and what we might have planned, who nonetheless showed goodwill and recognized that we were allies in this battle. I think that kind of coming together is a rare thing and it was certainly gratifying.”

Robin Denburg, Asia Pacific Environmental Exchange:

“The coalition, I think, while there were ups and downs, it was very effective in allowing a level of coordination so that the environmental community knew what the labor community was doing and then the labor community would then go back and work out the details, but at least there was some level of coordination and that was exhibited during the week of the WTO when you had one day which was focused on labor, one day which was focused on the environment, one day which was focused on agriculture. If you hadn’t had that, the dialogue and the trust established beforehand, you could have had a hodgepodge of seminars and teach-ins and rallies going on at the same time. So I think it was really effective in that respect. I think it was also effective in terms of creating good relationships between communities that hadn’t normally worked together. In particular for me, working with the faith-based and labor communities was, especially the faith-based community, was a new thing for me, so I think that was effective as well.”

Self-Determination vs. Racism & Sexism (Tommy D, Keith, X) by X.

Because Revolutionary Democracy strives for the full emancipation of all people, the revolutionary democratic movement cannot ignore historical and contemporary differences in oppression and exploitation suffered by different social groups. Communities that have been victimized by colonization directly or indirectly, that have had their land stolen, that were enslaved workers or that are descended from enslaved workers, suffer different degrees of social and political oppressions and particular types of super-exploitation. The legacy of slavery and colonialism continues in the ensemble of present day social relationships and is outwardly manifested as racism and discrimination in its various institutionalized and interpersonal forms. Revolutionary Democracy recognizes the different historical experiences of peoples and communities and their right to determine their future in relation to others, i.e. their right to practice democracy as a people and to control their resources, including the reparations they are owed for centuries of oppression and super-exploitation. In other words, Revolutionary Democracy must include the right to self-determination.

Self-determination is key to overcoming racism and racial segregation and it forms the foundation for genuine coalition-building between communities and organizations of different racial, ethnic, and/or national backgrounds. In the revolutionary democratic movement, coalition-building is based on a foundational respect for the political and cultural integrity of communities with different historically-constituted experiences of oppression and exploitation as well as resistance. The practice of revolutionary democracy is at the core of such an approach because: 1) a revolutionary democratic movement recognizes the right of each group to practice democracy and determine its own process of emancipation and, 2) the practice of self-determination allows for an increasing amount of democracy to be practiced in coalitions of groups that are traditionally segregated from one another, without ignoring the very real political and cultural inequalities that exist between such groups –inequalities that form the basis of anti-democratic power dynamics, and 3) the right to self-determination is the first step to eventually achieving the type of mass equality necessary for a truly democratic society. In this sense, working to practice Revolutionary Democracy in a multi-racial/multi-ethnic society requires self-determination, and the revolutionary democratic movement cannot succeed without it.

Women have also suffered unique forms of oppression and exploitation that are perpetuated in present day social relationships and outwardly manifested as sexism and sex/gender discrimination in its various institutionalized and interpersonal forms. Historically, women have suffered from restricted access to democracy: to the public/civil sphere of society as well as to equality of participation and equality of rights in all areas of society (in the home, workplace, universities, church, etc). In addition, women have been burdened with unequal amounts of unpaid labor (traditionally providing most if not all of the labor in the family including, most significantly, reproductive labor). Even further, women have been denied 1) the right to control their bodies (both directly, as with laws that restrict women’s reproductive freedoms, and indirectly, as with the State’s refusal to prosecute physical and sexual assaults on women), and 2) the right to control their minds (as with formal or informal injunctions on women’s education or participation in the workforce). This denial of democracy has rendered many women in the condition of second class citizens.

Unfortunately, the conditions associated with this denial of democracy have not been adequately addressed by much of the U.S. Left, leading sex/gender inequality to persist or even fester in many of its organizations. And too often women are accused of “divisiveness” when any or all of these issues are raised. Divisiveness is not caused by the struggle for equality and emancipation but by attempts to curtail the struggle. A revolutionary democratic movement must recognize the history and root causes of sex/gender inequality and understand that those conditions must themselves be addressed and overcome in the process of building actual democracy. Therefore the revolutionary democratic movement inherently recognizes the full equality of women but must also strives for full democratic participation by working to subvert the causes of sex/gender inequalities within the movement and in society at large. The strategy of dual power must involve building a revolutionary democratic movement and alternative society that recognizes women’s rights to full democratic participation in all spheres of social life and guarantees women’s rights to control their bodies and minds. Further, the revolutionary democratic movement must strive to address the foundational inequalities in reproductive and unpaid labor in society. Such efforts begin in the movement itself (for example, the movement should provide child care and elderly care that historically are left as women’s burden and responsibility.) Finally Revolutionary Democracy supports the consciousness-raising groups and women-only spaces that have been central to the feminist movement for the last four decades. Consciousness raising groups, in fact, are spaces of democracy, where previously ignored social issues are brought to the fore of attention, leading to new opportunities for the movement as a whole to address persistent inequalities.

Historically, revolutionary movements posited that racism and sexism would be overcome after the revolution, and many people rightfully rejected this formulation. Alternatively, many identity-based movements posit that revolution can not be waged until people in traditionally “privileged” social positions “overcome” their racism and sexism. Revolutionary Democracy, with a process-based approach to revolution, contends that overcoming racism and sexism are essential aspects of the revolutionary process of practicing democracy itself. The revolution is thus in large part the process of overcoming racism, sexism and all other forms of oppression and discrimination that divide people and obstruct the advance of democracy. This is not a process at the individual level; practicing “anti-racism” or “anti-sexism” isn’t centrally a process of becoming a better individual (non-racist). It is instead the process of fighting the material foundation of racism itself in society, a process that will lead to a society of increasingly non-racist and non-sexist individuals. No amount of sensitivity training workshops can end racism or sexism. Similarly, electing a token representative of an oppressed group to an organization’s governing body (or “slotting” a seat for a token representative) will not overcome racism or sexism. These unique oppressions and inequalities are not caused by “ignorant individuals,” they are rooted in material and structural inequality (police profiling, and brutality, the denial of access to quality healthcare and education, limitations placed on access to housing and credit, dual labor markets, limitations on intergenerational transfers of wealth because of legacy of slavery, etc.). The personal ignorance and interpersonal indignities of racism, sexism and homophobia are mostly symptoms of the systemic inequality that reinforce the system’s oppressive character. Racism cannot be cured at the level of the individual. The truism that “racism is taught” misses the more important point: Racism is not just a bad “idea.” Rather, our society is organized to reproduce racial inequality and it is the society itself that needs to be transformed.

Racism, sexism, homophobia and other forms of systemic discrimination will not end and democracy will not blossom until the people cooperate to build a new society and, in this process, redress the brutal inequalities borne of history, repairing the foundation of the country which was incorrectly built through the denial of democracy. “Anti-racism” and “anti-sexism” must be developed in the process of establishing revolutionary democracy and through the practice of self-determination and coalition-building. There are no ready-made programs; the revolutionary democratic movement must learn by doing. And it is in the very process of uniting to transform society through a democratic and collective drive towards equality of means for the free development of all that racism, sexism, and other forms of inequality will be confronted not as some abstract wrong but as an obstacle to progress that must be overcome by all.