* DRAFT FRAMEWORK FOR MOVEMENT SUCCESS *

============================================================================

DRAFT FRAMEWORK FOR OVERCOMING CAPITALIST DOMINATION - 
A SCENARIO FOR MOVEMENT SUCCESS

        rkm - 14 Dec 00

-----------------------------------------------------------
CONTEXT -> the SEEDS OF CHANGE:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(1) The latent components of a radical global mass movement
already exist. They exist as many different movements
pursuing various objectives, with differing constituencies,
analyses, and models of change.  Some of these movements
cooperate to some extent; some view one another as
adversaries.

(2) The political truth is that these movements will either
succeed together, or else fail separately.  Only in concert
can the movement be strong enough to overcome capitalism and
build a livable world.  From government-fearing 'militia'
types, to urban blacks and the rest of the human rainbow, to
the greens and the progressives - we are all in this
together and we all want a humane world for our children.

(3) If we want a democratic, inclusive, non-hierarchical
world, then the movement that builds that world must itself
be democratic, inclusive, and non-hierarchical.  If we want
a diverse, community-based world, then the movement must be
diverse and locally based.  The means always become the
ends; that much is clear from history.


-----------------------------------------------------------
HARMONIZATION -> THE EMERGENCE OF MOVEMENT IDENTITY
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(1) In order for the larger movement to come into existence,
a systematic process of organic, non-hierarchical
harmonization must be undertaken.  Aware activists must
begin to focus their attention in this direction.

(2) We don't need or want a centralized, single movement.
Instead we need a COLLABORATIVE PARADIGM ... a *WAY* in which
different groups can come together, learn from one another,
build a sense of common understanding and purpose, and learn
how to synergize their activities.  Organic communication
happens in a decentralized way, just as cells interact with
one another in the body.

(3) One of the most promising collaborative paradigms being
used today is something called 'dynamic facilitation'.  This
and other approaches are described on Tom Atlee's website: 
    The Co-Intelligence Institute  *  Eugene, OR 
    http://www.co-intelligence.org

(4) Such processes have proven to be extremely effective in
bringing groups into harmony, building mutual understanding,
and in enabling collaborative thinking - even when initially
viewpoints are strongly conflicting.  The outcome of such
sessions often turns "us & them" into a larger, more
creative, more inclusive - but still diverse - "us".  It is
on such a basis that productive communication can begin
regarding visions for the future, shared agendas, and
strategies.

(5) If we can get this harmonization process started, I
believe it will spread like wildfire.  The means are
available; the inherent commonality of purpose exists
(thanks to global capitalism)  - what is lacking is a
general perception in the movement that such broad
collaboration is possible, and that there is a means of
pursing it.

(6) As existing movements begin to come into harmony, this
will generate an electrifying spirit of hope and energy -
and that shared experience will mark the awakening of the
larger movement as an entity with an identity.  In
Post-Seattle demonstrations we have seen ad-hoc alliances
whose business has been the demonstrations themselves. 
Imagine how much more meaningful those demonstrations will
be when they are part of the ongoing expression of a
coherent growing movement... which can try, and learn, and
celebrate together.


-----------------------------------------------------------
ENGAGEMENT -> DIALOG via WORDS, EXAMPLE, and ACTION
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(1) Once the movement has an identity, and a process, then
it can ACT and COMMUNICATE, and GROW - in its understanding
and in its ability to be effective.

(2) From the perspective of the BIG PICTURE, there will then
be three actors on the stage: the capitalist REGIME, the
fragmented PUBLIC, and the MOVEMENT.

(3) Toward the PUBLIC, the movement can continue expanding
its harmonization process - WHO, after all, is _against a
livable world?   And WHO does not have a useful contribution
to make?  A major obstacle to overcome in this outreach
effort will be the effect of the mass media, which will
strive always to ridicule and divide the movement - in ways
both blatant and subtle.  Other means - FACE-TO-FACE means,
FOLKSY means - of large-scale communication need to be
developed.  Many media are available - from circuses to
be-ins to raves to Barbecues to celebrity appearances to
line dancing - whatever fits organically with whatever
constituency.

(4) Toward the REGIME, the movement has an opportunity to
enter not not into combat, but into dialog.  Demonstrations
can be a form of dialog - but only if there is a clear
understanding what the message is, who is issuing it, and to
whom it is directed.  In Seattle, we got the regime's
attention, and the public's attention, even if 'we' didn't
exist yet. We need to find our identity, and then we can
begin dialog in earnest.

(5) Many forms of dialog are possible.  General strikes,
universal boycotts, and other such 'peoples messages' have
successfully communicated to regimes in the past that they
would be better off recognizing unions, giving Women the
vote, declaring a 40-hour work week, and the like.  Gandhi
was a genius at devising messages-as-actions that left
Britain with limited response options - each of which
undermined in some way Britain's long-term position and its
credibility.  The American colonists persuaded King
George, mostly in the language of the guerilla fighter, that
he'd be better off taking the Redcoats home.  The IRA
dropped Britain an explosive note to let it know that
continued intransigence in the North would lead to economic
costs in London's financial district (and Docklands, etc.)
History is full of relevant examples and lessons - not all
suitable to our needs, and some that are.  [See for example
Acherman & Kruegler's "Strategic Nonviolent Conflict", or
Zinn's "Peoples History of The United States", or for an
allegorical treatment, Abbey's "The Monkeywrench Gang".]

(6) The difference between a 'communication' and a 'protest'
is that a 'communication' is from an entity, an entity
that has the adaptive ability to amplify the communication
or initiate new forms.  A 'protest' is pereived by the
regime as an isolated emergency, to which no response other
than suppression and reassuring rheotoric is called for. 
'Dialog' from a movement compels the regime to think more
deeply about its response options, lest it lose control of
the pattern of escalation.  As the movement grows in
maturity, it learns to express its creativity - and in the
realm of creativity a distributed mass movement is far more
competent and effective than any centralized, reactionary
regime.  At some point the regime will seek dialog.  They
will look for a leader to 'negotiate' with.  They will be
confronted instead by a latent civil society, with no
hierarchy to corrupt.

(7) We will eventually be confronted by the regime's most
potent rebuttal: co-option, and the offer of seeming
reforms.  What frightened me about Nader's campaign was that
the regime might be crafty or desperate enough to choose to
let him participate, and give him air time, and that he
might win. That would have put the cart before the horse,
and poor Ralph would have been in the lion's den not backed
up by a coherent movement with a notion of where it was
going.  The bankers and speculators would have pulled their
money out of dollars and he'd be left with the blame and
responsibility for a depression worse than the thirties.  Or
some other similar scenario.  It'd be like Carter & the
hostages only more so.


-----------------------------------------------------------
STRATEGY -> EYES ON THE PRIZE
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(1) THE PRIZE is the peaceful abdication of power by the
existing capitalist regime and phony financial system. 
NOTHING LESS. We can be developing our visions and
understanding of a livable world in the meantime, and even
practicing them in microcosm.  These things will help bring
us together.  But these visions cannot be realized under the
inherently exploitive capitalist economic system nor under
our inherently elitist system of party politics. Capitalism
can be reformed no more than can cancer.  Same for
competitive, win-lose politics.

(2) Our win-win PROPOSAL to the regime, permit me to
suggest, is that they COLLABORATE WITH US in the transition
to more functional and human societies.  They know how
their mega corporations and banks and agencies and weapons
and spy networks function, and they are in a good position
help us convert them, retool them, destroy them, split them
into manageable chunks, transfer them to responsible
operators, or whatever is needed - without unduly disrupting
food supplies, transportation networks, economies, etc,

(3) Our GAME PLAN, I suggest, as we awaken as a movement,
should be to enter into a creative dialog with the regime,
leading eventually to an understanding on the part of the
regime that its best option is to accept our win-win request
- to collaborate to our mutual benefit.  In the process of
that dialog we will mature as a movement and as a civil
society to the point where the eventual transfer of power -
or more correctly the dismantling of cetralized power
strucures - will be natural, a bit like it was in Eastern Europe
when the Soviet-era regimes fell. There need be no blame nor
animosity.  We have all been accomplices in exploitation to
one degree or another.

(4) Our STRATEGY, it seems to me, should be to evolve a
language-of-action, and of words, and to use that to
establish dialog with the regime.  We need to let them know
that we exist, and that we aren't going away.  We need to
show them that we can force them into costly no-win
scenarios for themselves, if that's all that will get their
attention - and that we can escalate locally and globally. 
We need to show them that we are not interested in their
inevitable offers of reform and participation - that we have
learned from history about co-option, and that we can accept
no degree of hierarchical cancer in our societies.

(5) Our TACTICS - our modes of dialog - will evolve
organically, and creatively.  We will learn from each other
and from the responses of the regime, and of the public.  If
our movement is about dialog, then we must strive always to
increase the power of our collective voices, and the scope
of our communication channels.  Not only demonstrations, but
home-grown newspapers, rallies, study groups, community
self-help organizations, local currencies - all of these
initiatives and more have infinitely more meaning when
expressed in mutual synergy as part of a larger coherent
movement.

============================================================================