Tips for Radicals
To help you searching the blog, I use the following tags to categorise posts:
- theory - ways of structuring the world
- strategy - plans to achieve the theories
- tools - specific ways to (help) achieve the strategy
- tips - advice that could help you in your life and action
- examples and analysis of existing campaigns
For more info, see the about this blog page.
Please send in your own blog posts, links, comments, or article ideas either as a submission or an ask - always welcome.
"if you don't have a strategy, you're part of someone else's strategy."
– a. toffler
"What can we do today, so that tomorrow we can do what we are unable to do today?"
– Paulo Freire
I also run a more scatter-shot blog full of incoherent rants and tumblr arguments. Sorry about that.
Decent article on strategy for the anti-authoritarian left, which points out some successes of decentralised action:
- adaptability
- people focusing their energy where they most want to
alongside some valid flaws with the anti-authoritarian left in the UK:
- cliques
- lack of entry points for people getting involved with our version of struggle
- a lack of movement building strategy, or lack of any real coordination, strategy, or vision
Sadly though, I think the analysis is pretty simplistic.
It misses out a pretty key advantage of non-hierarchical organising - the “our means are our ends in practice” school of thought. He doesn’t establish any cause and effect between the tactics and flaws of the left on one side, and how that’s linked to its anti-authoritarianism - I’d say that’s because he can’t do it, because they’re not linked. Problems with cliquiness, a lack of strategy, or a lack of international coordination apply (sadly) across the board.
Some of the accusations (e.g. a focus on single-issue campaigns without a wider analysis) I don’t even think is true - and he’s given no evidence for it. I don’t really agree with the conclusion (“we should work with unions more, and look at that lovely Green Party, ooh!”) and again, seems baseless and unconnected with the initial problems stated.
So what can we do?
Instead of staying arguing about the small points of the article though, let’s focus on the important bits.
The (anti-authoritarian) left in the UK is suffering from a definite lack of strategy, and a lack of communication between different left groups.
A few ideas:
- The regular Skype link-ups with anti-authoritarian/anti-capitalist groups across the globe to share tactics, successes and failures. They happen occasionally (often as part of a festival or long event) but could happen a lot more - one for the more established groups to take on.
- More talk about movement building, and how different groups can take on different facets appropriate to their size/issue/whatever. Would need to be a broadchurch discussion to start with.
How can we, as a movement, get this stuff off the ground - what do you think?
I really like the idea of “social identity”, far less patronising than the standard “mob mentality” stuff people normally spout.
A good ammunition article for when people say “oh but the rioters last year were just smashing stuff up”
When grassroots Black activists speak honestly about racism at colleges across this country, we are not met with open arms by administrators and faculty. And most certainly our calendars are not full for the rest of the year let alone for the next three to five. When we speak, we are often met by the deaf ear of white denial. When Tim Wise speaks, he gets applause, standing ovations, awards and proclamations. The fact that schools can’t “hear” us when I and other people of color speak but will search out and roll out the red carpet for Wise is a statement to a kind of racism that doesn’t get discussed much – if at all – in our work. Despite all of the white anti-racist presentations given over the years at colleges and universities across the country, institutional racism at these schools remains intact. All the while, activists of color continue to be muffled and marginalized. Even in the ghetto of race discourse we remain tenants and never owners of an analysis that is ours to begin with.
One way that whites can be accountable is to stop being enablers to white supremacy by supplanting the voice of people of color with their own. We do not need white people speaking for people of color. Such talk is crass paternalism. My words do not need to be placed through a white filter in order for them to be understandable. Besides, there are some things that get lost in “translation.” If there is work for whites to do on this issue, then let it be work that addresses this deaf ear of white denial. This is a question of power. Whites that do not listen to people of color do not have a “hearing problem.” They fail to hear and to listen because they can. Those that promote the claim that white people speaking for people of color is a positive only coddle such whites in the comfort of their conformity to a way of life that denies, not just the voices of people of color, but our lives as well.
Word to the Wise: Unpacking the White Privilege of Tim Wise (via brashblacknonbeliever)
main point to me: Tim Wise isn’t saying anything black people haven’t been saying for ages, so indeed “what accounts for his popularity and celebrity status and the fact that his calendar is filled with engagements for the next few years? His whiteness!”
(via rubyvroom)
The Informal Anarchist Federation (FAI/IAF) sabotaged two points on a railway near Bristol to stop workers getting to arms companies nearby.
They are proponents of “urban low-intensity warfare” with the aim their guerrilla attacks will, in their words, “spread the struggle into different territories and facets of life… finance, judicial, communications, military and transport infastructure”.
In the spirit of consensus, I’m not gonna repeat what has already been said aptly by those before me, so I’ll say: “You can’t blow up a social relationship”
With tactics like this, I guess the question is always (a) how does this hurt capitalism? (b) how does this benefit us?
I can’t see how this helps us or hurts them… can you?
Victory at NATO Summit demonstrations
Chicago protesters held impressive ground this past weekend at the NATO Summit demonstrations. Despite militaristic intimidation tactics used by the Chicago Police Department, demonstrators’ voices were heard loud and strong: fuck the NATO war machine.
Arrests totaled up to 60, including the “NATO 3” - Brian Church, Jared Chase and Brent Betterly – who are facing terrorist charges and being held on a $1.5 million bond. They are currently in solitary confinement in Chicago and could face up to 85 years in prison.
While arrest numbers stayed relatively low, especially compared to the 700 arrested over the past few days in Quebec student protests, brutality incidents were much larger. Ruthless CPD officers swung their bikes and batons at protesters and beat several journalists bloody. Reports of protesters being admitted to the hospital for stitches and possible concussions painted the picture of the war zone against free speech in the streets of Chicago.
But the protesters’ voices rang louder than the blood running down their foreheads. Veterans hurling their medals of honor in disgust and in apology for their participation in corrupt wars spoke volumes higher than the imperialistic ongoings inside of the Summit.
The weekend events in Chicago sent a vibrant message of unity to the world, proving to the ruling class that the people are awake and ready for a radical change. Activists must be aware of the experiences of the NATO Summit demonstrations, and use them to rally forward.
Building a necessary solidarity
From the nurses unions and the Free Bradley Manning Contingent to Occupy groups and veteran organizations, activists swarmed Chicago to condemn the NATO warmongers and their deathly exploitation of people across the world. These resistance groups linked together to become a force more potent than the police. Not only does this massive display of solidarity boast numbers in the tens of thousands, it also churns out ideas that will change the status quo.
This unrest is only making the capitalist ruling class more and more nervous. We can see the counterattacks taking on different forms: a militarized police force, laws condemning whistleblowers, online surveillance and a backlash against unions. But this is only the beginning. Resistance groups must bind together to build a strong solidarity and cooperation with one another to continue to shake the grip the corrupt American government.
Our enemy is one in the same and must be recognized as so. The United States is no longer run by the people, but by profit-gorging capitalists. But in a united fight, the system can be toppled by the might of these working class groups.
Ditching ineffective media
As mainstream media coverage has proven these past few days, it no longer belongs to the people and only acts in the interests of its capitalist ownership. Headlines splashed across front pages read that protesters “clashed” with police, instead of showing the true police violence. News articles focused on the police officer who was stabbed, while giving only brief mentions to protesters who were beaten until their blood splattered on the asphalt. Comparisons were made between police in riot gear standing off against protesters who wore black and ski masks, when there was no comparison to be made.
The mainstream corporate-owned media has continued to uphold the capitalist agenda by perpetually stripping validity away from demonstrators. Protest stories are tarnished with an underlining sense of violence – not by the police forces who spent millions on weapons and armed officers, but by protesters merely exercising their right to march.
However, a strong media system is not dead, but evolving. Democracy Now, Truth-out, Socialist Worker, AlterNet and livestream channels are just a few alternative media sources that gave true coverage of the NATO protests this weekend. These democratic outlets continue to expose the government threat to First Amendment liberties and to give spotlight to the working class uprisings transforming their world.
The NATO Summit demonstrations injected energy into the American and global spring. Even though government repression continues to strengthen, this vitality cannot fizzle. NATO represents a foundation of capitalist oppression, suffocating the life out of the international working class. But a much larger system has strangled the world for long enough, and it is the time to fight back.
- G. Razo
Few days old, and far too grandiose for my liking, but still a good read.
Always heartening to hear that disparate groups are linking up…
(via thepeoplesrecord)
from Occupy: does it really need a programme?
This is my favourite of the set that I’ve just posted. Whilst the other two articles were complimentary of the mainfesto, this is more critical.
The first main point is “if the manifesto is about getting rid of capitalism its proposals are entirely insufficient”, and the post points out the rhetoric devoid of substance that’s present in a lot of the demands.
The second is that “Occupy doesn’t need a manifesto/programme, it is a movement, and shouldn’t try to be a party”.
I especially appreciate the suggestion that Occupy should focus on an “agreement of action”, as opposed to an agreement of theory. When the movement’s appeal makes it very broadchurch and heterogeneous, attempts at theory are forced to end up vague.
from Occupy Manifesto is a radical turn, but why the silence on repression?
on a glaring omission from an otherwise alright manifesto
The style and tone is a model for any radical manifesto. Only a movement filled with an exhilarating confidence that it is moving forward can write in this way. The occupiers appeal directly to the ideal of progress – “the values of liberty, equality, and fraternity, the old dream of our ancestors when they rose against oppression” – and capture the democratic ethos, the desire to combine individual and collective rights, with which the movement was imbued. It puts forward a list of concrete democratic and social demands. Sure, in their totality these demands may not unseat capitalism, but each and every one of them could lay the basis for the mass movements through which socialist consciousness emerges.
from Occupy Manifesto: so much for “no leaders, no agenda, no place to hang its hat”
Has a good segue into the idea of “minimum programmes”.
from Shouting on the Internet: The Illusion of Participation
I think this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of “clicktivism”.
The more heard-about petitions are always part of a wider campaign strategy, and serve as a lower level on a ladder of engagement - a sensible way of approaching issues, though not one many radicals engage with… a lack of foresight, I’d say.
I guess this could be re-interpreted as a case against the smaller petitions, where a petition is all that’s done, though again the argument can be made that petitions are a good way of galvanising a base to a specific cause. Just ask the SWP ;)
Thoughts, team?
Today saw the publication of a “Global May Manifesto” by the Occupy movement; or rather it’s International Assembly. It is described as the output of collaboration through the internet, the combination of individual statements by cities and online discussion. After reading it, I decided to consider, and attempt analysis, of its demands. It is my opinion that this is an excellent initiative by the movement, to finally put their ideas in writing, as the ambiguity had to my mind seriously undermined their movement by depriving it of focus. Whether their demands are wise or useful, we shall see.
1. The economy must be put to the service of people’s welfare, and to support and serve the environment, not private profit. We want a system where labour is appreciated by its social utility, not its financial or commercial profit.
This is sort of vague anticapitalism that is difficult to argue with: I challenge you to produce any non-sociopath who advocates placing profit above people. Luckily, they follow this up with some more concrete statements.
“Therefore, we demand:
• Free and universal access to health, education from primary school through higher education and housing for all human beings. We reject outright the privatisation of public services management, and the use of these essential services for private profit.
• Full respect for children’s rights, including free childcare for everyone.
• Retirement/pension so we may have dignity at all ages. Mandatory universal sick leave and holiday pay.
• Every human being should have access to an adequate income for their livelihood, so we ask for work or, alternatively, universal basic income guarantee.
• Corporations should be held accountable to their actions. For example, corporate subsidies and tax cuts should be done away with if said company outsources jobs to decrease salaries, violates the environment or the rights of workers.”
These demands are good, social-democratic ideas. The obvious retort would be “Well, who is going to pay for them”, but they are affordable notions, and in some cases (the conditions upon industrial subsidies, and the provision of universal childcare) would probably pay for themselves.
Unfortunately, despite a strong start, the manifesto immediately begins to career off the rails of sanity:
“• Apart from bread, we want roses. Everyone has the right to enjoy culture, participate in a creative and enriching leisure at the service of the progress of humankind. Therefore, we demand the progressive reduction of working hours, without reducing income.”
How, exactly? As it stands, Western capitalism, social democracy and the trade union movement has consistently reduced working hours and increased conditions over the past century. Simply saying “We want more money for less work” is a little pointless when the economy is in the shitter, companies’ profits are decreasing, and states such as Greece and Spain are hamstrung by their uncompetitiveness in the globalized marketplace.
“• Food sovereignty through sustainable farming should be promoted as an instrument of food security for the benefit of all. This should include an indefinite moratorium on the production and marketing of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and immediate reduction of agrochemicals use.
• We demand policies that function under the understanding that our changing patterns of life should be organic/ecologic or should never be. These policies should be based on a simple rule: one should not spoil the balance of ecosystems for simple profit. Violations of this policy should be prosecuted around the world as an environmental crime, with severe sanctions for those convicted.
• Policies to promote the change from fossil fuels to renewable energy, through massive investment which should help to change the production model.
• We demand the creation of international environmental standards, mandatory for countries, companies, corporations, and individuals. Ecocide (wilful damage to the environment, ecosystems, biodiversity) should be internationally recognised as a crime of the greatest magnitude.”
It is at this point we get into seriously stupid territory. 14% of the world’s population are starving, and you want to ban genetically modified food and improved fertilizers? We’ve been modifying nature to fit our appetite literally since the dawn of agriculture: what you use to make your dinner is completely unrecognisable next to its natural state. There is no proven risk to GM food, and calling to ban it makes you sound horribly anti-science. Do you think the natural state of the countryside is being covered in crop fields? It ain’t, but you’d be going hungry tonight if we hadn’t decided to “spoil the balance of ecosystems”.
Another problem here is the tendency (which shall reoccur, I warn you) to make demands for international enforcement of laws, without any indication of how. If some African country decides to flood a valley, committing an “environmental crime”, who is going to convict them? Who is going to enforce the sanctions? The fact of the matter is, any attempts to do so would be immediately labelled as imperialism.
“2. To achieve these objectives, we believe that the economy should be run democratically at all levels, from local to global. People must get democratic control over financial institutions, transnational corporations and their lobbies. To this end, we demand:
• Control and regulation of financial speculation by abolishing tax havens, and establishing a Financial Transaction Tax (FTT). As long as they exist, the IMF, World Bank and the Basel Committee on Banking Regulation must be radically democratised. Their duty from now on should be fostering economic development based on democratic decision making. Rich governments cannot have more votes because they are rich. International institutions must be controlled by the principle that each human is equal to all other humans – African, Argentinian or American; Greek or German.
• As long as they exist, radical reform and democratisation of the global trading system and the World Trade Organization must take place. Commercialisation of life and resources, as well as wage and trade dumping between countries must stop.”
Here we see the complete separation of the Occupy movement from the realities of planet Earth. Rich countries control the IMF because they give these institutions the money that makes them function. The Western powers aren’t going to carry on pumping billions into these organisations when the likes of Mugabe are going to be deciding how the money is spent. Again, massive questions arise over the issue of enforcement: how can we ensure that the people get democratic control over financial institutions when so much of the planets population don’t even have democratic control of their own government? And how can tax havens be abolished? Are you going to invade Switzerland?
Note also the wonderful bit of racism: Four different white nations can be distinguished, but Africa is just full of Africans.
“• We want democratic control of the global commons, defined as the natural resources and economic institutions essential for a proper economic management. These commons are: water, energy, air, telecommunications and a fair and stable economic system. In all these cases, decisions must be accountable to citizens and ensure their interests, not the interests of a small minority of financial elite.”
This is all well and good, but how are you going to make it happen? Nationalisation? You’re talking about Nationalising vast chunks of the economy, aren’t you? As for “democratic control” of “telecommunications”, I am a bit perplexed. Are they calling for the state control of the phone companies and internet providers? That isn’t really a commons: it wasn’t there already, somebody had to build it. Also, calling for a “fair and stable economic system” makes me wonder exactly who is calling for an unfair and instable one.
• As long as social inequalities exist, taxation at all levels should maintain the principle of solidarity. Those who have more should contribute to maintain services for the collective welfare.”
Progressive taxation? What a novel idea, only practised by almost every country in the world already.
“Maximum income should be limited, and minimum income set to reduce the outrageous social divisions in our societies and its social political and economic effects.”
Oh lord, what? Maximum income? How, by confiscating the wages of anyone earning over £100,000? That definitely won’t crush all entrepreneurship when we see Bill Gates lose 95% of his fortune to the government.
As for minimum wage, how novel, etc, etc.
“• No more money to rescue banks.”
Great, so when Halifax next has a problem with liquidity, we can look forwards to all their customers losing their life’s savings.
“As long as debt exists, following the examples of Ecuador and Iceland, we demand a social audit of the debts owed by countries. Illegitimate debt owed to financial institutions should not be paid.”
What exactly is “illegitimate debt”? This sounds a lot like opting to default, which is fine if you don’t want to ever, ever sell a government bond again, which in turn means massively cutting government spending. If that’s your plan, that’s ok I guess…
“• An absolute end to fiscal austerity policies”
Oh wait.
“• As long as banks exist, separation of commercial and financial banks, avoiding banks that are “too big to fail”.”
Hey, that’s not a bad idea! Bring back Glass-Steagal! Mind you, the bit about “As long as banks exist” sounds horribly like they want to get rid of them altogether.
“• An end to the legal personhood of corporations. Companies cannot be elevated to the same level of rights as people. The public’s right to protect workers, citizens and the environment should prevail over the protections of private property or investment.”
What I think they want is actually good, but horribly termed here. Corporate personhood is actually quite important, although the concept has recently been horribly abused. What are corporations, after all, than organisations of people?
“3. We believe that political systems must be fully democratic.”
So do I, but how are we going to make it happen in countries where there is little or no democracy at all? That’s the important question here.
“We therefore demand full democratisation of international institutions, and the elimination of the veto power of a few governments. We want a political system which really represent the variety and diversity of our societies:
• All decisions affecting all mankind should be taken in democratic forums like a participatory and direct UN parliamentary assembly or a UN people’s assembly, not rich clubs such as G20 or G8”
Again we find a serious failure to recognise the realities of how the world works. Without the Security Council veto, the UN simply would fall apart, as what the international community wants cannot happen without the consent of its superpowers. The UN can demand all it wants that Israel withdraws from the West Bank, but until the United States decides to make it happen, it’s not going to happen. These changes would condemn the planet’s institution to the same fate as the League of Nations.
“• At all levels we ask for the development of a democracy that is as participatory as possible, including non representative direct democracy .
• As long as they are practised, electoral systems should be as fair and representative as possible, avoiding biases that distort the principle of proportionality.”
This is a wonderful principle, but the unavoidable question of how to make it happen in dictatorships reoccurs.
“• We call for the democratisation of access and management of media. These should serve to educate the public, as opposed to the creation of an artificial consensus about unjust policies.
• We ask for democracy in companies and corporations. Workers, despite wage level or gender, should have real decision-making power in the companies and corporations they work in. We want to promote co-operative companies and corporations, as real democratic economic institutions.”
Again, good ideas, but the implementation makes me uneasy. More mutualisation of industry would be a good thing, but other than nationalisation, there is no really obvious route.
“• Zero tolerance of corruption in economic policy. We must stop the excessive influence of big business in politics, which is today a major threat to true democracy.
• We demand complete freedom of expression, assembly and demonstration, as well as the cessation of attempts to censor the internet.
• We demand respect for privacy rights on and off the internet. Companies and the government should not engage in data mining.”
More fine ideas. Except for the comments on internet censorship, which must be qualifiedː Would this apply to websites publishing child pornographyʔ Calling for the murder of Jewsʔ Describing how to make bombsʔ
“• We believe that military spending is politically counterproductive to a society’s advance, so we demand its reduction to a minimum.”
Well, that’d be nice, wouldn’t itʔ Lets take a look at the biggest military spenders (as a percentage of GDP), and pass this message on! So, write to Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Oman, the UAE, Israel, Chad and Jordan, and let me know what they say!
The problem is that while most people would like a world without war, a lot of nasty people with guns disagree.
“• Ethnic, cultural and sexual minorities should have their civil, cultural, political and economic rights fully recognised.”
Woah there. What exactly is a cultural or ethnic rightʔ I’m pretty sure the Aztecs would have considered it their cultural right to sacrifice slaves in honour of Huitzilopochtli, and that the women of Somali would consider it their right to mutilate their daughter’s genitalia. Those are extreme examples, but you need to be incredibly specific here. Which rights get protectedʔ“• Some of us believe a new Universal Declaration of Human Rights, fit for the 21st century, written in a participatory, direct and democratic way, needs to be written. As long as the current Declaration of Human Rights defines our rights, it must be enforced in relation to all – in both rich and poor countries. Implementing institutions that force compliance and penalise violators need to be established, such as a global court to prosecute social, economic and environmental crimes perpetrated by governments, corporations and individuals. At all levels, local, national, regional and global, new constitutions for political institutions need to be considered, as in Iceland or in some Latin American countries. Justice and law must work for all, otherwise justice is not justice, and law is not law.”
In my humble opinion, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a wonderful document, and unlikely to be bettered. The problem is yet again one of enforcementː how can dictatorships be brought to accountʔ This is a massive geopolitical question, and one yet again this manifesto restates without answering.
I don’t agree with all of these criticisms, but I think it does raise the point of how difficult it is to call for radical change if you’re not explicitly revolutionary.
The OP is right in that sense - a lot of these suggestions and demands are unfeasible within our current system. That’s why we need a new one.
