Discussion on the meaning of Revolution in our movement (Erik, X., Steve) by Steve the Pirate

This is a conversation started by Erik one late night in which he discusses the framing of using the word REVOLUTION and what it means to our Revolutionary Democratic Movement. The latter messages are responses.

-So I had this long conversation with my mom about how I view the world. What we are trying to accomplish, what Rev Dem is.. etc. etc. It was fun but she kept being focused on how to her the word revolution had a negative connotation, and blah blah, I tried to talk it out with her, but it only went so far, but at the end she said hey, "why don't you call it...... instead.(if you want to know what she suggested, you must read along!)

Revolutionary Democracy- So it's a little late in the game to mess with a brand that's been working. But I been thinking about it, I say we really have something going with this whole "Not Left, Not Right, but Forward" and the whole EON "millennium" vibe. It's slick my mom will give to an org like that. Also they played around with a bunch of names for my generation including the "zips" "zeroes" "nothings" but in all the election coverage of the "youth vote" we were referred to as the "millennials".

SO I also think a theme we push with great success is the differentiating ourselves from the traditional left. I say we keep on with that motif. I think that the more we demarcate ourselves as something new, original, and based on a wide variety of influences, some from the left, some from corporate, some from our experience at New Brunswick, the more we have a chance of getting people really excited about what we're doing. The fact is the world Revolution is not a good one, I mean don't get me wrong to those of us who are in a place to understand this word in an unfettered context I will always consider myself a "Revolutionary", but to be honest I've always had a problem with the word "Revolution."

When I was at the first TSU retreat and we were in some abstract discussion about Revolution and Mark Pruce said something and he said, "remember what the word revolution means" it means to go in a circle. And he seemed to think this was a good thing, but I distinctly remember thinking, "Wow it does mean go in a circle, that's kind of lame". Now I know if you throw in the concept of a dialectic Revolution actually means progression of some kind, but the fact is that the average person is never going to want to deal with dialectics at 8am in the morning if you know what I mean.

SOOOO, My point is this. X we've talked more often about how with the law of accelerated returns that things are going to happen quickly society is going to shift quickly and what really matters isn't forcing that future to have the identity we choose, but to ensure that it is determined democratically.

Soooooo my mom said "why don't you call it" Evolutionary instead. And I thought about it, and I said, "Mom ya know if we do change the brand I promise you'll get quite flattered." I really think that these are a real viable way to go, and I think it is a really important decision. I know we say not to argue over words, but I'm making the case that I think as much as we ground what we do in a firm understanding of the past. We need to be bold, Keith, you always have that poem at the bottom of your emails, about how we can't take our poetry from the past but have to come up with our own images. I really think we need to complete the break with whole conception of 19th century storm the barricades. Especially in these economic times. It's the complete wrong sort of idea. Unless there are food riots in America, people are not going to seize the state by force, and I cannot imagine any scenario where we do seize the state by force in the foreseeable, ending positively for us, or the rest of the world. So let's break with the idea.

The truth is think about it, and i want to offer Two options.

Evolutionary Democracy
rEvolutionary Democracy

They suggest what we are doing which is allowing more efficient systems to take over in society, and to give people control over how their society changes evolves and where it's going.



We'll talk more about this some other time,

Red Erik

X's response

Time is just too short these days...Anyways...

I use the word revolution because it is accurate. From dictionary.com:

-An overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.

I would add, most importantly, economic. And social, cultural, etc.

Democracy, when allowed its full revolutionary swing, will mean a complete repudiation of capitalism as people build a completely different world. The capitalist system will be as alien to the future denizens of Revolutionary Democracy as the Middle-Ages are alien to us two hundred years after the bourgeois revolutions (we can barely imagine what it was like to live under the despotic rule of king and church). Whether it ever involves barricades to resist martial law or mass street mobilization to prevent the overthrow of the emerging revolutionary democratic rule (as with the attempted coup in Venezuela) is irrelevant. The scope of the transformation (and thus the essence and sharpness of the struggle for and against it) will be revolutionary. I would feel dishonest calling it anything else.

But we don't need to "convert" everyone to the idea that democracy requires revolution! We just need to organize people to practice democracy. Hence, EON should not require that its members adhere to "revolutionary democracy" (anymore than Tent State should, even as it is freely discussed). We don't need to come up with a single brand and a single formula to satisfy everyone's comfort level (that always fails, including in corporate advertising). We should work with all our allies to develop ideas, projects and organizations that accurately represent the many different sections of the 21st century progressive class alliance. In the case of your Mom, who has been a great supporter of the movement for years, I would recommend asking her what she would like to see in terms of ideas, projects and organizations rather than trying to ask her to join the Pirate Caucus...

One love,

-X.

A Pirate Response

I agree with both of you. We have to show "outsiders" or people not in the movement,what we are really about. Now it is not easy to get what we are about in one paper or one meeting, for most of us, it took months becoming organizers to conceptualize the work we are doing and the big picture. I know my own parents have had some misconceptions from " Now all of a sudden, you're a communist!?" to "Why do you spend so much time with this, they will not care about what happens to you after you graduate!"

It is so hard to slap together something catchy and slick, to a movement that has become an extended family and a new culture to counter the "American" culture and "counter-culture." There is nothing wrong with playing with ideas like pirates and the Matrix, if it works. YAR!!

Maybe the economic crisis is just the atmosphere to get ideas out there to people, offering them new and "revolutionary" ideas. I think we have already broken away with the idea of "waiting for the revolution," we are making sure that Revolution happens without capitalism knowing it, that its "legs being cut from underneath," to use a figurative metaphor. The "revolution is happening" is more our thinking, slowly, but surely.

We can't get caught up in words because they are easily turn against us. A lot of use the WORD "revolution" a lot because it means different things to different people, even jokingly. The MOVEMENT knows what we mean because it is almost like an inside joke. So is it so hard to open ourselves to "outsiders," or are "outsiders" open enough to accept new possibilities?

This idea of "THE MOVEMENT" could be emphasized, its' really up to us. Erik, your parents have been nothing but supportive and so have mine. It's up to us to keep them connected to the movement (plugged in). Look at that used "movement" in a sentence without realizing it. It was because of people like Mrs. Straub and others who challenge us to not get "comfortable" with being the "new left," but going beyond that, despite what simple minded reactionaries say, right or left.

Let's take some time in the retreat to seriously consider where we are going and how we are getting there. The movement's at the 7 inning stretch of a decade of organizing. It's time we show the rest of the world was going down in the Bruns.

TAKE EVERYTHING YOU CAN, GIVE NOTHING BACK,
Steve the Pirate

Please tell us what you think!

Be militant, NOT stubborn! (Erik) by X.

Militancy is a disciplined commitment TO A GOAL. It involves determination, taking risks, making sacrifices, but only when doing so is necessary to achieve the goal. What is necessary is defined by real circumstances, and therefore the more we understand the circumstances the more we can understand what is necessary. So the more knowledge we have about organizing, strategy, and power building, the more militant we as revolutionaries can be.

The world is incredibly diverse, and there are unlimited situations with different specifics, and each one needs tactics that are relevant to those specifics. A militant revolutionary is constantly analyzing to see what has been effective, and reanalyzing as new evidence arises and as new circumstances arise.

Militancy is a willingness to use necessary tactics, as opposed to stubbornness and tradition which is a tendency to use particular tactics. For example there is a mistaken belief that people who engage in street fighting, black block protests, who refuse to engage in certain tactics labeled “reformist”, and who get arrested are very militant. These people may be militant, but only if they can explain how applying tactics the way they do is building a movement that can achieve its goals.

Stubborn people may have good intentions, but people are dying every day from the cogs of capitalism and organizers with good intentions are little consolation. The fact is that what is militant is not always dramatic or glamorous, in fact its usually not.

The interesting thing about understanding militancy like this is that interesting things can be militant. Phone-banking, recruiting members, maintaining a spreadsheet, preparing an agenda are some of the most militant things people can do in the movement. Slowing down to avoid burnout, when all you want to do is throw yourself into the cause can be militant. Mentoring others rather than doing work yourself is EXTREMELY militant. These are the things that keep the movement growing.

Dramatic confrontations with state power are sometimes necessary, but only a minute fraction of the time that must be spent building democratic dual power. So as it turns out, militancy doesn’t belong to a super-committed elite. Anyone can be militant, the truth is, not everyone wants to.

Advocacy at Tent State (Erik) by X.

Tent State University is a mass revolutionary democratic event where students take over public (university) space to radically redefine education and demonstrate a student run alternative to the undemocratic university structure. Students camp out, run classes, workshops, play music, and engage in planning and coalition building. Tent State also includes an advocacy campaign where passers-by are encouraged to call their state legislator and call on him to support higher education. Advocacy serves a number of purposes. It allows us to work in coalition with, and receive funding from, more centrist minded organizations like the student governments. It allows us to reclaim university space with the tacit approval of our administration, because they share our goals of increased funding for the university, and see student advocacy as a great avenue to get it. It creates sympathy among moderate students for the hard work we do “defending” Higher education. It allows us to have access and credibility with politicians who can potentially spark movement building reforms. The legislative presence also aids us in attracting media who might react to a bigwig political name over a radical activity. TSU makes use of the traditional advocacy process to engage in highly revolutionary activity, and to engage and gain the sympathy of the more moderate students.

Advocacy & Lobbying (Erik) by X.

Advocacy consists of convincing people in positions of power to change laws and rules. Advocacy is usually associated with elected officials, but can apply just as easily to working at reforming any undemocratic system by essentially trying to convince the people who control power that they should use that power to do what you want. Conscious consuming is just another form of advocacy. Lobbying is the most advanced form of advocacy and involves actually paying people to advocate on a full-time basis.

The radical Left mostly rejects advocacy because they perceive it as ineffective. They see advocacy as dominated by professional lobbyists who represent giant corporate interests, and who can use the allure of highly undemocratic campaign contributions, and the permanence of (often times multiple) full time lobbyists to monopolize control over politicians who depend on their money to stay in office.

For the mainstream Left however advocacy is the only ways to enter the political system. Many advocates may object that grassroots mobilization is a big part of much advocacy work, they get petitions signed, hold educational events, invite politicians to campus, etc. But they only work directly with people to get money or to substitute public support for money when they advocate. They still see the people as only a means to influence power (leaders) not as having power themselves.

Advocacy offers an opportunity to make small improvements in people’s real lives that are beyond what the movement could accomplish without political support. In order to use advocacy correctly the movement must ALWAYS remember that power flows directly from the people, and that the politicians are just avenues through which to exercise that power for the growth of the alternative independent movement. By eschewing traditional lobbyists the movement can culture jam advocacy campaigns by making them about mobilization. Legislative victory becomes (a welcome) consequence of growing the movement, not the purpose of growing the movement. Legislative goals should serve to advance the ability of the movement to grow either directly or indirectly by improving the lives of the people you hope to organize. No legislative goals are as important as building independent institutions and mass revolutionary democratic activity.

Apathy is a myth (Erik) by X.

Apathy and alienation are two different ways to explain why not all people are involved in pushing for social change, but alienation is the only accurate and practical way for any non-elitist who cares about social change. Apathy is a state of not being emotionally invested in something. Alienation is a state whereby outside influences prevent you from responding either emotionally or with action to your natural inclinations. Take for example someone who refuses to make eye contact with you as you hand out post cards that ask congressmen to intervene in the Darfur genocide. It is possible this person is apathetic, which would mean they have no emotional investment in things like mass murder, human suffering, or ethnic cleansing, but I think we know that’s not true. Want proof? Torture someone in front of them and see if they don’t care about other’s suffering.

The fact is the reason people don’t sign those post cards, don’t get involved in organizations, or follow politics isn’t that they don’t care, it’s that for one reason or another they don’t actually believe those things alleviate human suffering, or else they believe that there is no way to work to alleviate suffering without giving up oneself. And if someone has 3 kids and a 40 hour work week that is a very reasonable belief.

Apathy implies that we as organizers are doing everything right, but the people are at fault. Alienation implies that the people are fine, and some of our tactics/strategies are at fault. If you believe in apathy you think average people are cold, callous, and selfish beings, and social change will only happen when you and a few other elite “moral super heroes” manage to overcome the flaws of the masses. If you believe in alienation you believe that circumstances in your life have allowed you to both A.) have the time and energy to invest in caring about problems outside your own immediate well being and B.) have allowed you to raise your consciousness to empathize with the suffering of others, and that if other people aren’t there yet, it’s because organizers haven’t yet created the circumstances that would allow them to break out of their alienation.

In addition to being less elitist the biggest advantage of alienation over apathy is you can fight it. You can work to remove the reasons that people feel they can’t create change. You can be a better organizer, but you can’t build better people.