In his essay Voluntarism and Social Masses, Antonio Gramsci argues that "the actions and organizations of 'volunteers' must be distinguished from the actions and organisations of homogeneous social blocs, and judged by different criteria." He defines these "volunteers" as "those who have detached themselves from the mass by arbitrary individual initiative..."
His language of volunteers vs. organized social blocs aligns with a similar distinction often made between activism and organizing. Anyone can become an activist overnight, if he or she so desires. All you need to do is to start taking action as an individual on an issue you care about. I'm not about to be as dismissive as Gramsci seems to be in this essay about the value of such an act. However, he makes a good point: organizing is about finding other people to take action with you. But there's more - and here's where I find Gramsci's framework so helpful - organizing is not just about finding anyone to take action with you; it's about working to activate an already constituted social bloc and turn the bloc itself into the historical actor.
...we must not neglect to engage already existing cultural spaces. Sometimes we become disinterested in or even hostile toward such spaces because they house the values of the dominant culture. But these spaces also house the people. We cannot expect people to meet us where we want them to be. We have to meet them where they are, with the language they use, in the spaces they frequent.
Entering existing networks and institutions allows the people within them to consider taking action to end the war without feeling that they would have to lose their identity to do so. They can take action as teachers, or union members, or students, or members of a religious community. They do not have to become an "activist"-a distinct identity that many people are uncomfortable claiming-in order to take action. Instead they can begin to imagine working to end the war as an expression of who they already are, alongside people they already know.
This is one of the biggest lessons from US social movements in the 1960s and 1970s: movements usually grow (in size and capacity) quickly not by building their own separate infrastructure from scratch, but by organizing within existing social networks and institutions until they identify strongly enough with the movement that their already existing infrastructure and resources go to work for movement ends. The Civil Rights Movement spread like wildfire and dramatically increased its capacity when black churches and traditionally black schools came to identify themselves as part of a movement. People didn't have to leave their social networks to become part of the movement. Rather, membership in these institutions came to imply movement participation. These institutions and networks then used their resources-most significantly people power-to further movement goals.
Below is part four of a four-part antiwar organizing primer that was originally published four years ago today (January 27, 2007) - in time to distribute at the mass protest in Washington DC (organized by United for Peace & Justice).
Building a Successful Antiwar Movement is written for a particular audience at a particular political moment - at the height of the unpopularity of the Iraq occupation, and a week after the new Democratic-controlled Congress had been sworn in. However, the pamphlet provides some "tools and methods for people organizing to end the war" that are still relevant today. And the frameworks can be applied to other social justice issues as well. So I thought I'd share it over here at Open Left.
There is a tendency among people active in social movements (like the antiwar movement) to look at ourselves and think that this is it, that we are the whole of the movement, that we know all the players. When we think we know all the players, as well as how to talk to them/ourselves, then we can become lax on communicating with a broader public. This limits efforts to recruit, activate, or make alliances with, additional players. If we think about the antiwar movement only in terms of its kinetic energy (i.e. that which is already in motion) we will look around at the actors currently on the stage and think that it is up to us alone to end the war and prevent future wars of aggression. This would require magic. We can- not realize our vision of peace and justice with only our current numbers mobilized. We must build a far larger movement. We have to activate potential energy.
This is mostly a re-posting of an answer to a comment in the FDL diary Last Call for Nominees: Who Should Primary Obama? Just discussing Dump Obama will never turn it into a movement. There seems to be a lot of enthusiasm for Dump Obama at FDL. Great, but that fact and $1.00 will still only get you a cup of coffee at McDonald's. Hopefully, a sub-goal of a Dump obama movement will be to help dispel the notion that political activity which is limited to 'making statements', 'raising consciousness', etc. is some kind of slam dunk, which can never be a complete waste of time and energy. An even worse situation: a preponderance of informational activities can provide a diversion from effective organization.
Today I'll provide a bit of advice for those new to Twitter who want to become quickly and deeply involved in monitoring and influencing the legislative process. TweetDeck is the premier tool for adept Twitter users and the information provided here will get you off to a running start and in touch with the movers and shakers among the Progressive Twitterati.
This was a reply to a comment in a GOTV diary called Suppose Your Actions Swung the Election. I compare what I saw happening (and not happening), to what could have happened, that would have made a big difference.
I have a service work opportunity for those who are more interested in policy more than in politics. We've been building things in social media for the last year or so, mostly on Twitter, and we have a major project that is getting off the ground.
Fmr. Pres. Bill Clinton speaks at the 2009 Netroots Nation Convention in Pittsburgh, PA | Flickr Photo by kyleshank
Each year, for the past five years, members of what has become known as the "netroots" [a term that almost exclusively means progressives, liberals or Democrats that regularly blog and organize on the Internet] have come together for an annual convention known as Netroots Nation to participate in a forum for progressive activists and candidates to strengthen communities online and grow the progressive movement. It has attempted to inspire action and help those in attendance grow new ideas to affect change.
As the "netroots" prepare to meet in Las Vegas to once again discuss what they could be doing (and have been doing) to "amplify" their "progressive voice" by using "technology to influence the public debate," one wonders if this convention will have any potential long-term value at all to movements in this country desiring more change from the Obama Administration.
David Lightman of McClatchy Newspapersaptly presents the dilemma the "netroots" currently face, "Activists in the liberal blogosphere face a crossroads: They had tremendous success in 2008 helping to turn voter anger into votes for Democrats, but persuading Congress and the White House to adopt their agenda is much harder."
Lightman adds during the convention "members will quiz House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., among others, about why Washington doesn't move more quickly to end the Afghanistan war or give more help to the millions who are out of work" and the "netroots" will likely be told " (a) Washington works in complex, deliberate ways, and one should be happy to achieve 80 percent of one's goals, and (b) since Democrats took control of Washington 18 months ago, they've won the enactment of historic legislation on health care, economic stimulus and financial regulation -- no small achievements."
Lightman's preview of Netroots Nation indicates the convention will be another Democratic exercise in the lowering of progressives' expectations of what is possible in terms of change in this country. There's also indication that the focus will not be on Democrats at all. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), who reassures readers in the McClatchy article that the party is in "no danger of being a captive of the left" believes in unifying "this year's congressional candidates behind an anti-Republican message: that if the GOP were in charge, things would be much worse." The DCCC is a sponsor of Netroots Nation.
Rep. Van Hollen appeared on "Meet the Press" on Sunday. Here's a glimpse at the story the Democratic Party will likely be promoting as it seeks to ensure Americans will vote for them in November:
REP. VAN HOLLEN: Well, what you're, what you're hearing is--as, as Bob said, look, we know that we have a long way to go on the economy. People are still hurting, that's absolutely clear. But we also know what the American people know, which is the day George Bush lost--left office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. And during the full eight years of the Bush administration we lost private sector jobs. We are now beginning to climb out. And what we are saying is yes, let's focus on the policies, because why in the world would we want to go back to the same economic agenda that created that mess, that, that lost jobs for eight years? And I think the challenge that our colleagues have here, Pete and John, is to say to the American people, how do you expect to do the same thing and get a different result? I mean, that, that's Einstein's definition of insanity, right? [emphasis added]
Such a message hinges upon whether or not the financial reform legislation can be viewed as shifting the country away from the same economic agenda that created this mess. Robert Reich, who was the Secretary of Labor under President Clinton and is a fairly outspoken progressive voice, asserts, "Congress has labored mightily to produce a mountain of legislation that can be called financial reform, but it has produced a molehill relative to the wreckage Wall Street wreaked upon the nation."
Also, should we be so certain that the Republican's are following "Einstein's definition of insanity"? What they are doing may not be working out for certain sections of the American population, but it is most certainly, politically, paying off. As a tactic, crafting a debate on issues that ranges from what the Tea Party is not willing to accept to what the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Wall Street and other private interests fear will infringe on their precious free enterprise system today has effectively defanged every piece of legislation that has come up for debate in Congress.
Representatives like Rep. Van Hollen ignore the tactic that the Obama Administration has practiced, the courting of Republican votes for legislation the party will continue to oppose no matter what concessions the Administration grants them.
The Administration has decided Republican voices are more important than any liberal or progressive voices in the Senate or House that might be making demands.Instead of seeking to silence the conservative echo chamber that effectively skewers any progressive agenda items that could potentially be put on the table, the Administration has gone out of their way to assure and reassure Republicans that they can move the debate in their direction.
Progressives, on the other hand, have learned that they will incur the wrath of those in the Administration like the brawny and rugged Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and other Obama advisers if they dare to oppose the Administration's attempts to sterilize legislation on behalf of the corporations they are attempting to regulate.
Given the record of scorn displayed toward progressives who organize with their own agenda in mind (e.g. Emanuel calling liberals "fucking stupid" as they ran ads against Democrats opposing the public option), it's no surprise that progressive voices would be reluctant to tug the conversation in their direction. Instead of incurring the fire of the Obama Administration, many probably would rather focus on the reactionary Tea Party faction growing within the Republican Party and simply tackle that instead of the failures of the Democratic Party during Obama's first two years in office. Unfortunately, this ignores the reality that Democrats have failed to rebuff the growing rancor of anti-government sentiment in the GOP and offer an alternative message; in fact, that Tea Party message is effectively dragging the Democrats toward supporting a political agenda more conducive to a vastly unregulated free market system that Democrats admit has gotten us into the mess we are in today.
Democrats have gradually become more and more the party of "no" to progressives. Their admission of running on a message that is anti-Republican is an indication that their campaign strategy for these elections will also be a strategy of "no." How is this any different than what Republicans have been doing as they claim Democrats are the party of "no"?
What we have in this country is a political establishment discourse that has devolved into discussions from Democrats on why the population should reject Republicans and a discussion from Republicans on why the population should reject Democrats. It does not allow for real talk on the issues any more than a domestic dispute between a husband and wife allows for real discussion on who was responsible for escalating the situation and why there was yelling and screaming in the first place.
To some extent, both parties are right: neither offer an agenda for a future that will go to the root of the problems this country faces and take on the private and powerful interests that are further entrenching these problems in the fabric of American society.
This failure produces a "trickle-down" effect that has a detrimental impact on the "netroots." Articles and postings like Eric Alterman's recent essay are published and proclaim that America cannot have a progressive presidency right now. They debilitate, demoralize and produce comments demonstrating an acquiescence to this meme.
The "netroots" will meet and focus on primaries and electing better Democrats, using blogs, Twitter and other social networking technologies to turn "red states" "blue", how to improve online organizing, the current state of progressive media, etc. There is no doubt that many will take home some valuable knowledge and insight they did not have before they attended. And most likely they will network with other people who are part of the "netroots" community and gain the opportunity to be more effective at what they do. However, this is an event receiving sponsorship from the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which contribute to the maintenance and polishing of the Democratic Party's image.
There would be nothing wrong with these committees supporting this event if wedding this event to those committees did not automatically limit the scope of debate at a time when the dimensions of discussion in politics need to be expanded.
Only in America do political activists (especially ones who call themselves progressives) limit their visions for change to what can be passed legislatively this year or the next. Only in America do those committed to organizing consistently coach themselves to accept terms for organizing that will not alienate the very politicians who have contributed to the situations organizers seek to address.
An event that organizes those who are the most vocal section of society has great potential. But, the dominance of politically-safe sessions (in the aftermath of the Citizens United v. FEC decision, no abolish corporate personhood now workshop), the absence of any sessions on reforming the broken electoral system, and the lack of discussions around the very few differences between Republicans and Democrats and what to do about that reality warrants skepticism.
If the "netroots" leave ready to do more to defend Obama and Democrats from Republicans, this convention will have massively failed. But, if they leave ready to advance small-d democratic policies and items that often appear on proposed progressive agendas, if they leave committed to creating space in the public sphere for real progressive organizing to take place, there is a chance that this event will not have just been an opportunity for Democrats to revitalize support for their increasingly stale politics in this country.
This May not only marks my 50th birthday, but the 30th anniversary of my getting into political organizing full-time. I had thought that when I became a Vista volunteer working with small family farmers back home in Nebraska that I would do it for a year and then head back to school, but I never made it back. One great organizing opportunity after another just kept opening up, and helping people make real gains in their real lives just always seemed more important than anything else I could be doing.
My first vivid memories about national politics, when I was 8 years old, were the assassinations of the men who would become two of my greatest political heroes, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Bobby Kennedy. My first year in full-time political organizing, Ronald Reagan was swept into the Presidency. With those two beginning points you would think I would have never gone into politics, but it somehow always seemed to fit me, and I don't mind challenges. In spite of the conservative era in which I have lived my life, I have loved being part of the battle. I consider myself one of the luckiest people around to get to work every day on the causes I care about, with so many good people I respect.
I was planning to write a long, philosophical, and eloquent piece about my 30 years of organizing and 50 years alive, but I didn't get it done. I will leave it at this: thanks to all of you who have been a part of my life and my work. If I drop dead tonight, it's been a hell of a run- and if I have another 50 years to fight the good fight, there will always be more causes to take on. Keep the faith.
In the meantime, I am taking a few days off to go see family and old friends back home in Nebraska. Have fun while I am gone, and if you are in DC, check out these demonstrations that SEIU, NPA, and PICO are doing on the K St corporate lobbyist crowd. Missing the action on all this is my only regret in terms of leaving town for my birthday.
Do you think that existing Democratic and progressive organizations suck? Do find them pathetic, ineffective, beholden to status quo power structures, and generally lacking in vision? Do you want to start your own organization to fill the vacuum created by this suckitude?
If so, then against my better judgment as an (occasionally) professional consultant, allow me to provide you with a free, five-step guide to creating your own progressive organization. You know, that organization that will be free of all the mistakes and errors that the pathetic, ineffective, sell-out organizations currently in existence keep repeating.
For less than $1,000 a month, you can provide yourself with all of the necessary tools to get your organization going. In the extended entry, I explain how.
"If a majority of workers want a union, they should get a union. It's that simple. We need to stand up to the business lobby and pass the Employee Free Choice Act. That's why I've been fighting for it in the Senate and that's why I'll make it the law of the land when I'm president of the United States." --Barack Obama
Nobody is making it the law of the land. Nobody is fighting for it. The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) has drifted down to the bottom of the AFL-CIO's website, buried beneath good economic proposals which, however, do nothing to build a labor movement. EFCA is not to be found anywhere on the front page of Change to Win's website at all. The media's not smearing EFCA with U.S. Chamber of Commerce lies anymore. Congress and the White House are silent. Any escalation of pressure on senators from union members has never materialized, the polite letter-writing campaigns having drifted away rather than ramping up into pickets or sit-ins.
Two interesting dialogues resulted the other day in response to my post on the National Equality March, resource allocation, collective responsibility and moral hazard (both here and over at The Bilerico Project).
While I asked three questions in the post, nearly all of the conversation concerned just two. One concerned whether, given the other fights in Maine, Washington State and elsewhere, folks should direct their time and money towards the March, and encourage others to do so. The other concerned whether LGBT folks had a responsibility to drop what they were doing and help make sure the March was a success.
The third question didn't get as much play, it's been bothering me for several days, so I'd like to put it to you here.
Cleve announced this march idea on June 7th, proposed for October 11th. It received near-universal criticism and even many people privately and publicly asking for it to be called off, primarily for the resource allocation issues, and partly over questions re the cost-effectiveness. This proceeded for several months until conversations were had that amounted to "well, if this thing is going to happen, we might as well make sure we don't get embarrassed in front of a national audience if it's poorly organized/no one shows up." And so 140 "leaders" in LGBT world, along with HRC and NGLTF, after three months of refusing to, endorsed the March publicly. It represented a tipping point.
Now we come across the question of how those people, along with others who outright opposed the March, have to contribute. Some of the best minds in our movement, particularly in the media training world, PR world, fundraising and logistical organizing, have rightly complained they have to drop what they are doing and make sure an idea they opposed from the start is a success. Some have privately told me they're even even being asked to do so without any compensation at all by the March folks (and this is what they do for a living). It seriously angers me because it represents not just a lack of planning and a lack of fundraising to account for this, but because others are being forced to clean up after a poorly organized and pretty dumb idea. There are a lot of dumb ideas put forward in progressive politics, and we don't even realize how many we dismiss/ignore- some even put forward here at OpenLeft. Now imagine having to work to execute the ones you opposed as part of your day job.
So, my question is how to keep this from happening again. The en masse endorsements created a serious moral hazard question for the future. They insulated Cleve and his cohorts from the twin risks of (a) this effort failing and our movement being scoffed at on national TV by talking heads, lawmakers, and the general public (b) looking like fools for trying to throw it together in four months with poor planning and execution.
Let's imagine the next time any major name with a microphone and a following proposes a mass action that requires mass commitment of resources and, regardless of the success or failure, will receive intense media coverage. Let's imagine there is near-universal agreement that the idea is a stupid one. Let's imagine the proposed action affects everyone else in that issue space, be it environment, LGBT, or other, in terms of resource allocation and media perception. So there is a serious incentive for everyone opposed to it in that issue space to make sure it's either a success, or that it's called off.
If you're an organizer opposed to the mass action, how do you get it called off to prevent (a) a moral hazard issue that keeps any and every individual with a microphone and a following from proposing their random stupid ideas, and (b) forcing the best in that issue space to drop what they are doing and help with an idea they opposed in the first place?
... Young people, however, seem to have a special role to play. In many ways, to borrow a phrase from a fellow activist Ken Ward, we may be "the last generation."
Not the last generation on earth - - no doubt society will keep the babies coming until the very end. But maybe the last generation to see winter in Vermont (as I write, a slow drizzle has replaced the usual December snow), the last U.S. generation to grow up in a time of relative economic prosperity, or the last generation to live in a world not plagued by higher levels of disease. And in the face of all this, we're getting royally screwed by our governments. The Stern Report recently re-emphasized that the impact of global warming on the world economy will be like that of the Great Depression, World War I, and WWI . . . combined. Guess who's going to be paying for all of this out of pocket? ...
For all that Rep. Henry Waxman and Rep. Ed Markey tried, and of their sincerity I have no doubts, the current Waxman-Markey bill, The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, or ACES, fails this Last Generation.
In opening my case, I yield the floor to Greenpeace USA Deputy Campaigns Director Carroll Muffett, who today said the following:
STATE BLOGS
