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.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
The Black Arts Repertory Theater/School (Keith) by X.
The Black Arts Repertory Theatre/School (BART/S) was founded in Harlem by Amiri Baraka to take music, poetry, art and performance out of the academy and into the street. As Baraka put it in a poem “we want poems that wrestle cops into alleyways and take their guns away.” BARTS is a great example of an alternative revolutionary institution that builds dual power and provides a material foundation for revolutionary ideas and culture.
LeRoi Jones (Amiri Baraka) leads the Black Arts parade down 125th Street toward the Black Arts Theater Repertory/School on 130th Street, New York City. (Source: Liberator 5.6 [June 1965], 27)
LeRoi Jones (Amiri Baraka) leads the Black Arts parade down 125th Street toward the Black Arts Theater Repertory/School on 130th Street, New York City. (Source: Liberator 5.6 [June 1965], 27)In 1965 Baraka, with Charles and William Patterson, Askia Toure, Clarence Reed, Johnny Moore and others to open the school. The school received funds from the a Johnson-era anti-poverty program. The funding source did nothing to change the revolutionary character of the school. The mission of BARTS was to build "a repertory theatre in Harlem, as well as a school. As a school it will set up and continue to provide instruction, both practical and theoretical, in all new aspects of the dramatic arts." The school held classes on creative writing, acting and other arts, philosophy, reading, math, and so forth.
While the BARTS itself didn’t last because of financial problems and internal political problems, it launched the Black Arts Movement which became the cultural wing of the Black Power Movement, and it remains one of the most important literary movements in US cultural history.
Alternative institutions and revolutionary culture (Keith, X., Tommy D) by X.
The role of the movement is not merely to compete with the system in the area of “politics” but to build an alternative infrastructure for the production and reproduction of all aspects of cultural and social life. This infrastructure must provide means and opportunities for musicians’ unions, artists’ collectives, writers’ circles, theater troupes, film-making coops, dance groups, fire spinning crews, etc. as well as sports clubs, yoga classes, health and nutrition coops, online support networks, community-based counseling, etc. that provide people with the means of expression needed to live a fulfilling creative life and the social and cultural foundation required to participate actively and meaningfully in the movement for the long term.
For the system to function, people must not only be capable of working under undemocratic and exploitative conditions when they arrive at work or at school, they must also be willing. The powers-that-be cannot rule by force alone; they must rely on a whole system of cultural production (universities, publishing houses, movie studios, churches, TV networks, art foundations, etc.) to make their rule appear good, just or at least inevitable. For the movement to develop we must have alternative institutions which can promote an alternative vision, alternative ideas, and a place to critique and deprogram ourselves from the system.
Too often, the traditional US Left relegates art and culture to the role of temporary interlude in the all important business of politics. Revolutionary Democracy does not draw such a line between culture and politics. Both are essential to the transformation of society. Culture is key to revolution and democracy. When practiced effectively, it encourages the unleashing of individual and collective potential that are suppressed or under-developed in the anti-democratic atmosphere of most of society’s existing institutions and organizations. The revolutionary democratic movement must organize progressive artists, cultural workers and people everywhere to build democratically-run institutions and organizations dedicated to the creative production of art and culture rooted in the experience of the movement, of people’s lives and of the transformative experience that comes with changing the world. The movement must build its own cultural events, theaters, studios, underground clubs, websites, etc. to challenge the backward culture spoon-fed to everyone by the corporate media but more importantly, to spur on, inspire and enlighten all people as they struggle with the concrete challenge of waging revolution in a new way.
For the system to function, people must not only be capable of working under undemocratic and exploitative conditions when they arrive at work or at school, they must also be willing. The powers-that-be cannot rule by force alone; they must rely on a whole system of cultural production (universities, publishing houses, movie studios, churches, TV networks, art foundations, etc.) to make their rule appear good, just or at least inevitable. For the movement to develop we must have alternative institutions which can promote an alternative vision, alternative ideas, and a place to critique and deprogram ourselves from the system.
Too often, the traditional US Left relegates art and culture to the role of temporary interlude in the all important business of politics. Revolutionary Democracy does not draw such a line between culture and politics. Both are essential to the transformation of society. Culture is key to revolution and democracy. When practiced effectively, it encourages the unleashing of individual and collective potential that are suppressed or under-developed in the anti-democratic atmosphere of most of society’s existing institutions and organizations. The revolutionary democratic movement must organize progressive artists, cultural workers and people everywhere to build democratically-run institutions and organizations dedicated to the creative production of art and culture rooted in the experience of the movement, of people’s lives and of the transformative experience that comes with changing the world. The movement must build its own cultural events, theaters, studios, underground clubs, websites, etc. to challenge the backward culture spoon-fed to everyone by the corporate media but more importantly, to spur on, inspire and enlighten all people as they struggle with the concrete challenge of waging revolution in a new way.
A revolutionary party (X, Keith) by X.
In 1997, the city of New Brunswick passed a repressive ordinance that required all parties to be approved and registered by the police in advance (at $20 per permit) if any gifts or money was to be exchanged. This law was obviously targeting the very successful fundraising events of local grassroots groups that the city machine didn’t like (especially the New Brunswick Coalition Against Police Brutality).
Local progressives and revolutionaries decided on a creative revolutionary democratic approach to overturn the law: On one hand, sympathetic attorneys filed a lawsuit on the grounds that the law unconstitutionally violating freedom of speech and assembly. On the other, they immediately organized a "Party Without A Permit." The best local bands were recruited to play (they opposed the law because it threatened their ability to throw their own parties) for a 12 hour festival at Brower Commons - a traditional rallying space at Rutgers University. At the party, organizers symbolically collected pennies to break the law. This event put the music in the forefront and kept political speeches only in between acts and sets (which is unusual for the Left). The crowd was not bored by the speeches (also unusual!) because they took the form of TV commercials in between the main events. The city police did not fine anyone nor try to stop the huge party that drew over a thousand and shut down Main Street.
The movement lawyers were then able to argue that the police were selectively enforcing the law since they took no action at the "Party without a Permit." The city was forced to come up with the silly excuse that the ordinance did not apply on university grounds. Following the same approach, the organizers then planned a "Picnic Without A Permit" in a local park in the heart of the city, inviting families to bring their children to play games and BBQ. Pennies were collected again to break the law, while children played and parents engaged in discussions about police brutality. Once again the police found themselves unable to enforce the law.
The movement lawyers took this back to the court and the city was again forced to make the absurd argument that the law didn’t apply to the parks. As the organizers now prepared to challenge the law at a private party, the exasperated judge in the case overturned the law on constitutional grounds. And the city had to pay for the legal fees!
US Leftists often talk about organizing legal challenges on two fronts, in the courts and in the streets. However, this usually means asking people (in the street) to come to court or hold a protest in front of it. Instead, we organized a mass cultural event that made it possible to gather enough revolutionary democratic social power to challenge the illegitimate law openly. With hundreds of participants at the permit-less events, the police could not enforce the law. If we understand that most laws are designed to protect the system and that the strength of the movement lies in finding ways to organize masses of people to resist the system in creative ways, we can restrict the state’s ability to enforce these laws and even make these laws depend on our strength or weakness. Our lawyers couldn't have won the case before we had proved in the street that the law was unenforceable.
The Party Without A Permit victory also highlighted the lack of public space for free expression in New Brunswick and inspired further efforts to not only challenge oppressive laws but to create performance spaces. The struggle against the permit law provided organizers with experience that they later used to create "Art House" –a monthly cultural event that featured, poetry, hip-hop, bands, and art exhibits. This tradition lives at Tent State University with open, free nightly music events.
Local progressives and revolutionaries decided on a creative revolutionary democratic approach to overturn the law: On one hand, sympathetic attorneys filed a lawsuit on the grounds that the law unconstitutionally violating freedom of speech and assembly. On the other, they immediately organized a "Party Without A Permit." The best local bands were recruited to play (they opposed the law because it threatened their ability to throw their own parties) for a 12 hour festival at Brower Commons - a traditional rallying space at Rutgers University. At the party, organizers symbolically collected pennies to break the law. This event put the music in the forefront and kept political speeches only in between acts and sets (which is unusual for the Left). The crowd was not bored by the speeches (also unusual!) because they took the form of TV commercials in between the main events. The city police did not fine anyone nor try to stop the huge party that drew over a thousand and shut down Main Street.
The movement lawyers were then able to argue that the police were selectively enforcing the law since they took no action at the "Party without a Permit." The city was forced to come up with the silly excuse that the ordinance did not apply on university grounds. Following the same approach, the organizers then planned a "Picnic Without A Permit" in a local park in the heart of the city, inviting families to bring their children to play games and BBQ. Pennies were collected again to break the law, while children played and parents engaged in discussions about police brutality. Once again the police found themselves unable to enforce the law.
The movement lawyers took this back to the court and the city was again forced to make the absurd argument that the law didn’t apply to the parks. As the organizers now prepared to challenge the law at a private party, the exasperated judge in the case overturned the law on constitutional grounds. And the city had to pay for the legal fees!
US Leftists often talk about organizing legal challenges on two fronts, in the courts and in the streets. However, this usually means asking people (in the street) to come to court or hold a protest in front of it. Instead, we organized a mass cultural event that made it possible to gather enough revolutionary democratic social power to challenge the illegitimate law openly. With hundreds of participants at the permit-less events, the police could not enforce the law. If we understand that most laws are designed to protect the system and that the strength of the movement lies in finding ways to organize masses of people to resist the system in creative ways, we can restrict the state’s ability to enforce these laws and even make these laws depend on our strength or weakness. Our lawyers couldn't have won the case before we had proved in the street that the law was unenforceable.
The Party Without A Permit victory also highlighted the lack of public space for free expression in New Brunswick and inspired further efforts to not only challenge oppressive laws but to create performance spaces. The struggle against the permit law provided organizers with experience that they later used to create "Art House" –a monthly cultural event that featured, poetry, hip-hop, bands, and art exhibits. This tradition lives at Tent State University with open, free nightly music events.
Revolution is a process, not an event! (Keith, X., Tommy D) by X.
Instead of “waiting” for the revolution to solve social problems, Revolutionary Democracy holds that revolution involves the process of solving these real problems. The traditional US Left views "the revolution" as an event, to be waited for patiently or to be hastened through frenzied protest or "resistance" activity. Instead, revolutionary democracy puts forward that people will not transform the system after the revolution, they will make the revolution by transforming the system in every aspect: work, school, culture, politics, etc.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
The People's Campaign (Keith) by X.
The People’s Campaign organized an electoral challenge for three city council seats in 2000 in New Brunswick NJ, after years of organizing on the Rutgers campus and five solid years of organizing with the New Brunswick community around education, housing, and police brutality. Our work prior to the electoral campaign gave us a number of contacts within the community as well as some recognition and respect as dedicated organizers. We began by conducting surveys of the various communities as the basis for a platform. (1) The surveys also gave us the opportunity to discuss the campaign and its next step: an open convention where the candidates, platform, campaign manager, and steering committee would be voted on. The convention was one of the campaign’s great successes: Hundred of people attended and the students were represented in numbers closer to the portion of the population that they actually make up in the city (unlike in previous events). About nine people vied to be chosen by the convention as candidates. Some had the backing of an organization while other ran as individuals.
The three candidates chosen at the convention were an Afro-American bus driver, a Latino van driver (who only spoke Spanish) and a white revolutionary who had graduated from Rutgers. In addition to electing candidates, the People’s Campaign featured –a first in the United States– an elected campaign manager and a steering committee that most people at the convention felt should be broad and representative of different communities and social classes opposed to the existing political machine. So the revolutionaries had to not only deal with small business people and petty landlords among others but also to negotiate to keep them supportive of a radical program—these were real lessons in coalition building and “politics” which much of the Left, because they refuse to engage in grassroots electoral work, has never even experienced.
The program was extensive and radically redistributive. New Brunswick had been re-nicknamed by city officials the “Healthcare City” because of the number of hospitals and medical research facilities in town. The People’s Campaign platform called for free healthcare for all residents, admittance to Rutgers University for all New Brunswick high school graduates, rent control, an elected civilian police control board, affordable housing, a public swimming pool and so forth. The candidates and all positions of responsibility were subject to recall at any time up until two weeks from Election Day. (The group decided to place this limitation on recall so that everyone could focus on the election in the final weeks.)
Our opponents were long time incumbents of the Democratic Party, one of the most powerful political machines in the State of New Jersey. The previous mayor, John Lynch, is not only mobbed up (now under indictment), he is also the king maker of the statewide democratic party. The machine is backed by Johnson & Johnson (J&J), a global corporation whose world headquarters are located in the center of downtown New Brunswick. The local Democratic Party does J&J’s bidding and J&J rules the city with a mix of coercion and consent. They set up NGOs that attempt to determine the cultural and social life of the city, making sure it is corporate friendly while striving for pseudo- hipness.
The local Democrats dominate local small business through intimidation. For example, they have fire and health inspectors that can shut a business down. Small businesses are expected to make substantial financial contributions to the machine as part of the cost of business, and display Democratic Party propaganda. The machine also awards contracts and can make sweetheart deals for things like property purchases and liquor licenses. In order to work for the city as a firefighter, cop, in sanitation, or in the parks department you must regularly attend fundraising dinners and make campaign contributions. These workers are also the machine’s ground troops, they tear down opposition posters, hand out and post machine literature and work the polls on Election Day. We learned this during the course of the People’s Campaign became a crash course in politics—politics 101. Despite five years of organizing before the electoral campaign we had little sense of how the city was actually run until we faced off against the machine for political control of the city at the ballot box.
We organized to win, not to protest. We handed out over a quarter million pieces of literature (no shit!) and recruited hundreds of new people to the movement. Clausewitz famously commented that war is the continuation of politics by other means. Well elections are the closest thing to war without bloodshed. We battled their hired campaign goons on the streets: When they ripped down one of our posters, we ripped down ten of theirs. We ran from the police, got caught by the police, and finally negotiated with the police with the help of supportive attorneys that since the machine was tearing down our literature (and the police weren’t stopping them) they would no longer stop us either. While we negotiated this agreement, we had won it first on the street: The police couldn’t stop us since our numbers were too large. They agreed to stop bothering us so that they would no longer look like incompetents.
Election Day was the major battle. We recruited progressive lawyers to volunteer to monitor for fraud on Election Day (the machine is notorious for cheating through fake residences for supporters, vote suppression, etc.) We had some two hundred and fifty volunteers at the polling stations and getting out the vote (GOTV). This required high levels of organization and planning. Much of it is very basic: All campaign workers must be fed (that has to be organized and planned) and we need people at every polling station handing out literature and talking to people, winning votes and reminding supporters. Inside the polling place, we need challengers and lawyers who monitor the process and determine which supporters have voted and which voters still need to brought to the polls and so forth—it is a tremendous effort.
Nonetheless, electoral politics, at least for the foreseeable future, is one of the best ways to engage with the day-to-day struggles of the majority of people, they provide a vehicle for revolutionary democratic forms of organizing and they allow for the actual seizure of power by the people. Winning control of a city council or winning a mayoral election means the control of jobs, resources, and the ability to pass laws: The war on drugs could be over in your town, the domination of landlords could be ended, minimum wage laws can be passed, etc. Running and winning local election is a school of revolutionary democracy and a way to build the movement. Not the only way, but an important and necessary way.
In Alejandro Jodorowsky's surrealist western El Topo, the gunfighter protagonist (for whom the movie is named: El Topo or the Mole) confronts four master gunfighters. The philosophy of one of the gunfighters should be adopted when engaging in electoral politics. The gunfighter tells El Topo that he no longer tries to win gunfights, he only tries to attain perfection in each fight; and thus bullets have no effect on him and he never loses.
The major error we made in the People’s Campaign was long term planning. We failed to consider seriously what we would do if we won, if we lost, and most importantly how to maintain, consolidate, and grow the movement that we had built during the course of the campaign. Indeed, winning or losing is a secondary concern that we confront at the level of tactical consideration: The strategic question is beyond winning or losing, the strategic question is how to grow a revolutionary democratic movement where people work and decide together. If we do that, we can then do certain things if we win the city council seats and other things if we don’t, but the main thing is that the movement grows with people taking control over their lives, working and deciding. We develop the revolutionary process whether we win or lose.
On Election Day our candidates received over two thousand votes each (28% of the total) and our first meeting following the electoral loss was still attended by over 80 people. The possibilities were enormous. We had accomplished more than any other grouping that challenged the local political machine in decades. But our accomplishment was not the number of votes we got (although that reflects what was happening), our accomplishment was bringing people together to work and decide, to build an electoral movement based in democratic participation. Unfortunately, most of the people who attended the post election day meeting didn’t return for another. They never returned because our conception of revolutionary democracy only really emerged after the campaign was long over. We focused, unlike the master gunfighter, on winning and losing, rather than on building revolutionary democracy. The initial meeting deteriorated in petty bickering and half-baked proposals. We had failed to consider what to do if we lost (not to mention what to do if we won). We could have immediately planned, discussed and debated the next election, what had gone wrong during the last campaign, what went right, etc. etc. We could have consolidated a movement of very committed people.
By trying for perfection the gunfighter wins without trying to win. The same is true in electoral politics. It is not that winning is unimportant. We are not advocating running electoral campaigns as protest campaigns, or agitation campaigns, or to get a certain small percentage of the vote and then get matching funds. We run electoral campaigns to build the movement and do our utmost to win the election, to organize people to seize power little by little, bit by bit. Elections are a tactic. If we build the movement along revolutionary democratic lines, if we strive for perfection, if we keep our strategic goals in the forefront, if we grow a movement of fully engaged people, working and deciding together, we will win at the ballot box and everywhere else we take on the system.
________________________________________________
(1) Surveys are a great way to learn about issues people face day to day. The mistake with our survey was that we generated the questions for people to answer and rank amongst our core organizers and then went to people to discuss them. A better way would be to add an additional step and let people develop the survey itself.
The three candidates chosen at the convention were an Afro-American bus driver, a Latino van driver (who only spoke Spanish) and a white revolutionary who had graduated from Rutgers. In addition to electing candidates, the People’s Campaign featured –a first in the United States– an elected campaign manager and a steering committee that most people at the convention felt should be broad and representative of different communities and social classes opposed to the existing political machine. So the revolutionaries had to not only deal with small business people and petty landlords among others but also to negotiate to keep them supportive of a radical program—these were real lessons in coalition building and “politics” which much of the Left, because they refuse to engage in grassroots electoral work, has never even experienced.
The program was extensive and radically redistributive. New Brunswick had been re-nicknamed by city officials the “Healthcare City” because of the number of hospitals and medical research facilities in town. The People’s Campaign platform called for free healthcare for all residents, admittance to Rutgers University for all New Brunswick high school graduates, rent control, an elected civilian police control board, affordable housing, a public swimming pool and so forth. The candidates and all positions of responsibility were subject to recall at any time up until two weeks from Election Day. (The group decided to place this limitation on recall so that everyone could focus on the election in the final weeks.)
Our opponents were long time incumbents of the Democratic Party, one of the most powerful political machines in the State of New Jersey. The previous mayor, John Lynch, is not only mobbed up (now under indictment), he is also the king maker of the statewide democratic party. The machine is backed by Johnson & Johnson (J&J), a global corporation whose world headquarters are located in the center of downtown New Brunswick. The local Democratic Party does J&J’s bidding and J&J rules the city with a mix of coercion and consent. They set up NGOs that attempt to determine the cultural and social life of the city, making sure it is corporate friendly while striving for pseudo- hipness.
The local Democrats dominate local small business through intimidation. For example, they have fire and health inspectors that can shut a business down. Small businesses are expected to make substantial financial contributions to the machine as part of the cost of business, and display Democratic Party propaganda. The machine also awards contracts and can make sweetheart deals for things like property purchases and liquor licenses. In order to work for the city as a firefighter, cop, in sanitation, or in the parks department you must regularly attend fundraising dinners and make campaign contributions. These workers are also the machine’s ground troops, they tear down opposition posters, hand out and post machine literature and work the polls on Election Day. We learned this during the course of the People’s Campaign became a crash course in politics—politics 101. Despite five years of organizing before the electoral campaign we had little sense of how the city was actually run until we faced off against the machine for political control of the city at the ballot box.
We organized to win, not to protest. We handed out over a quarter million pieces of literature (no shit!) and recruited hundreds of new people to the movement. Clausewitz famously commented that war is the continuation of politics by other means. Well elections are the closest thing to war without bloodshed. We battled their hired campaign goons on the streets: When they ripped down one of our posters, we ripped down ten of theirs. We ran from the police, got caught by the police, and finally negotiated with the police with the help of supportive attorneys that since the machine was tearing down our literature (and the police weren’t stopping them) they would no longer stop us either. While we negotiated this agreement, we had won it first on the street: The police couldn’t stop us since our numbers were too large. They agreed to stop bothering us so that they would no longer look like incompetents.
Election Day was the major battle. We recruited progressive lawyers to volunteer to monitor for fraud on Election Day (the machine is notorious for cheating through fake residences for supporters, vote suppression, etc.) We had some two hundred and fifty volunteers at the polling stations and getting out the vote (GOTV). This required high levels of organization and planning. Much of it is very basic: All campaign workers must be fed (that has to be organized and planned) and we need people at every polling station handing out literature and talking to people, winning votes and reminding supporters. Inside the polling place, we need challengers and lawyers who monitor the process and determine which supporters have voted and which voters still need to brought to the polls and so forth—it is a tremendous effort.
Nonetheless, electoral politics, at least for the foreseeable future, is one of the best ways to engage with the day-to-day struggles of the majority of people, they provide a vehicle for revolutionary democratic forms of organizing and they allow for the actual seizure of power by the people. Winning control of a city council or winning a mayoral election means the control of jobs, resources, and the ability to pass laws: The war on drugs could be over in your town, the domination of landlords could be ended, minimum wage laws can be passed, etc. Running and winning local election is a school of revolutionary democracy and a way to build the movement. Not the only way, but an important and necessary way.
Zen and the Art of Electoral Politics:
The Conclusion of the People’s Campaign
The Conclusion of the People’s Campaign
In Alejandro Jodorowsky's surrealist western El Topo, the gunfighter protagonist (for whom the movie is named: El Topo or the Mole) confronts four master gunfighters. The philosophy of one of the gunfighters should be adopted when engaging in electoral politics. The gunfighter tells El Topo that he no longer tries to win gunfights, he only tries to attain perfection in each fight; and thus bullets have no effect on him and he never loses.
The major error we made in the People’s Campaign was long term planning. We failed to consider seriously what we would do if we won, if we lost, and most importantly how to maintain, consolidate, and grow the movement that we had built during the course of the campaign. Indeed, winning or losing is a secondary concern that we confront at the level of tactical consideration: The strategic question is beyond winning or losing, the strategic question is how to grow a revolutionary democratic movement where people work and decide together. If we do that, we can then do certain things if we win the city council seats and other things if we don’t, but the main thing is that the movement grows with people taking control over their lives, working and deciding. We develop the revolutionary process whether we win or lose.
On Election Day our candidates received over two thousand votes each (28% of the total) and our first meeting following the electoral loss was still attended by over 80 people. The possibilities were enormous. We had accomplished more than any other grouping that challenged the local political machine in decades. But our accomplishment was not the number of votes we got (although that reflects what was happening), our accomplishment was bringing people together to work and decide, to build an electoral movement based in democratic participation. Unfortunately, most of the people who attended the post election day meeting didn’t return for another. They never returned because our conception of revolutionary democracy only really emerged after the campaign was long over. We focused, unlike the master gunfighter, on winning and losing, rather than on building revolutionary democracy. The initial meeting deteriorated in petty bickering and half-baked proposals. We had failed to consider what to do if we lost (not to mention what to do if we won). We could have immediately planned, discussed and debated the next election, what had gone wrong during the last campaign, what went right, etc. etc. We could have consolidated a movement of very committed people.
By trying for perfection the gunfighter wins without trying to win. The same is true in electoral politics. It is not that winning is unimportant. We are not advocating running electoral campaigns as protest campaigns, or agitation campaigns, or to get a certain small percentage of the vote and then get matching funds. We run electoral campaigns to build the movement and do our utmost to win the election, to organize people to seize power little by little, bit by bit. Elections are a tactic. If we build the movement along revolutionary democratic lines, if we strive for perfection, if we keep our strategic goals in the forefront, if we grow a movement of fully engaged people, working and deciding together, we will win at the ballot box and everywhere else we take on the system.
________________________________________________
(1) Surveys are a great way to learn about issues people face day to day. The mistake with our survey was that we generated the questions for people to answer and rank amongst our core organizers and then went to people to discuss them. A better way would be to add an additional step and let people develop the survey itself.
Speak Truth to Power? No Thanks! Let’s Take Power! Electoral Politics: Build Dual Power, Dismantle the State (Keith) by X.
Participation in electoral politics is one of the more controversial issues among significant portions of the Left. Many revolutionaries don’t vote and don’t participate in local elections. Two misconceptions blind revolutionaries to the possibilities of electoral politics. First they see revolution as an insurrectionary event in the distant future to prepare for, and the primary means of preparing is protesting and perhaps publishing a newspaper. Revolutionaries opposed to electoral politics have many other objections but let’s not rehearse them all here; they are as familiar as they are tired. Electoral politics is one of the best tactics available to revolutionaries who want people to seize power immediately to dismantle the state piece by piece and replace it with the revolutionary democratic power of organized self-determining people. Elections and the system’s (false) claim to democracy are the Achilles’ heel of the system which is only protected by our own inactivity.
“Protest Mode” is the way that Amiri Baraka described a form of organizing that made demands on the “powers that be” but failed to actually take on the task of organizing to take power. As Baraka put it, “we need to organize to take power where we can literally put our hands on it.” What does he mean? In the 1994 speech, he joked that would-be revolutionaries announce “death to the bourgeoisie, we’re gonna do this and we’re gonna do that to the bourgeoisie” but these revolutionaries can’t get a school board member elected in a local election, “they can’t even elect a dog catcher.”
Participating in electoral politics is full of risks, but the risks are our opportunities as well. The system tries to constrain electoral campaigns to promote the individual candidate and limit mass democratic participation. This undemocratic structure is even more developed and dangerous once a candidate wins. Once the newly-elected official enters the halls of government, the people are kept out! This way the system can work over politicians like Nurse Ratchet in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. We cannot surrender to this imposed anti-democratic structure. But the best way to destroy it is to organize electoral struggles along revolutionary democratic lines and to build a revolutionary democratic movement that retains precedence over individual candidates. We not only need to beat the system in the elections, we must continue to beat the system after the elections. A real “people’s campaign” must maintain its independent momentum and organization (dual power) to support its candidates after they have won but also, if needed, to remove them by recall if they decide to sell out. This is one of the best ways to build dual power because it strengthens the movement while at the same time it weakens the power of the system by undermining it. One of the main tasks of an elected revolutionary democratic candidate is to start dismantling the antidemocratic structure of the system from within.
“Protest Mode” is the way that Amiri Baraka described a form of organizing that made demands on the “powers that be” but failed to actually take on the task of organizing to take power. As Baraka put it, “we need to organize to take power where we can literally put our hands on it.” What does he mean? In the 1994 speech, he joked that would-be revolutionaries announce “death to the bourgeoisie, we’re gonna do this and we’re gonna do that to the bourgeoisie” but these revolutionaries can’t get a school board member elected in a local election, “they can’t even elect a dog catcher.”
Participating in electoral politics is full of risks, but the risks are our opportunities as well. The system tries to constrain electoral campaigns to promote the individual candidate and limit mass democratic participation. This undemocratic structure is even more developed and dangerous once a candidate wins. Once the newly-elected official enters the halls of government, the people are kept out! This way the system can work over politicians like Nurse Ratchet in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. We cannot surrender to this imposed anti-democratic structure. But the best way to destroy it is to organize electoral struggles along revolutionary democratic lines and to build a revolutionary democratic movement that retains precedence over individual candidates. We not only need to beat the system in the elections, we must continue to beat the system after the elections. A real “people’s campaign” must maintain its independent momentum and organization (dual power) to support its candidates after they have won but also, if needed, to remove them by recall if they decide to sell out. This is one of the best ways to build dual power because it strengthens the movement while at the same time it weakens the power of the system by undermining it. One of the main tasks of an elected revolutionary democratic candidate is to start dismantling the antidemocratic structure of the system from within.
Strategy & Tactics (Keith) by X.
Revolutionary Democracy is a strategy as well as a broad set of tactics and organizational forms or structures. Revolutionary Democracy provides an organizational form because it poses that the people who do the work should make the decisions, and that this is the most effective, efficient and powerful form of organization. The strategy is about the long term and the goal of the movement. The strategy of revolutionary democracy is then to build a movement, an alternate society, a dual power, where the people who do the work make the decisions. From this strategic idea almost any tactic is possible. Tactics would be things like protesting, lobbying, electoral politics and so forth. The strategy informs the tactics because the point of any tactic is to advance democratic participation. Organizing, for instance, a protest against the war is a tactic. But what is the point? That is the strategic question. Usually there is no point, unless we are utterly naïve and believe that Bush or the Democratic Party will make decisions based on our protests. Millions protested the war against Iraq before the first bombs were dropped. In many countries the majority of people opposed the war and made their views known through protest yet their governments went ahead and supported the war. Protesting, however, is not futile if the point is to organize people—not into little sectarian grouplets—but in a revolutionary democratic fashion so that they begin to participate, do work and make decisions about that work collectively. Most existing left-wing groups are either secretive about their strategy or are only interested in getting people to join or follow their little thing. Instead revolutionary democracy empowers people to participate fully in the transformation of society, wherever they are. That is the strategy for which the tactics are means. Ani DiFranco says “every tool is a weapon if you hold it right” and we say that any tactic can be revolutionary democratic if it organizes people to work and decide together.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)