Re: * DRAFT FRAMEWORK FOR MOVEMENT SUCCESS *

Dear Richard and List,

        I applaud Richard's FRAMEWORK as a start in what could become the
right direction, although I disagree with many of his specific points.  I
especially applaud his correct spelling of the venerable name of Gandhi,
hitherto spelled in all recent postings as "Ghandi."  It's only six
letters, folks.  Let's get it right!

        My principal problem with his strategy is its over-reliance on
spontaneous local initiatives.  One would wish for such initiatives, one
would wish that they would coordinate their efforts, one would wish they
could all see the Big Picture.  I don't think history gives us much
encouragement for thinking this can happen.  There need to be centripetal
forces at work here that can actively strive for harmonization,
coordination, and dissemination of the Big Picture.  My idea of a World
Party is my contribution to this debate, but I would be happy to see the
emergence of more than one World Party, under various names, originating
in various sites.  When Richard speaks of "the movement" and refers to it
as "it," I think his use of the singular number is an instinctive
acknowledgment of the need for central, as well as divergent local,
initiatives.  There can be more than one, but none is not enough.

        My other main problem with Richard's strategy is his statement, on
the one hand, that global capitalism cannot be reformed, and then his
statement, on the other hand, that the movement can dialogue with the
establishment and persuade it to relinquish its power in its own
enlightened self-interest.  I have no quarrel with any amount of dialogue,
but I think we need to be realistic.  The establishment is never going to
cooperate in managing its own dethronement.  The key to success, in the
short and long term, is the building of a movement--or movements--so
powerful that they will be able to topple that well-constructed house of
cards known as the establishment, and not with its consent, enlightened or
otherwise.

        This raises the all-important question of who are "we"?  In the
first instance, we are a few hundred thousand activists and scholars
scattered around the world whose chances of making even a small dent in
the world of established capitalist power are negligible--so negligible
that they let us rail on in perfect security.  If we posed the slightest
real threat to them, we would all be locked up in a flash.

        But "we," progressive activists and scholars, think that "we"
speak for about 90% of the world's people.  I think in this case we are
right.  Who are these people?  First, the overwhelmingly agrarian majority
of the global population living in poverty or relative poverty throughout
the planet, from small farmers and tenant farmers in the United States to
the agrarian masses of Latin America, Africa, Europe (especially Eastern
Europe), and Asia.  Second, wage-earning industrial workers everywhere,
more and more of them in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.  Third, the
great marginalized majority of the world's women.  Fourth, subject ethnic
minorities in dozens of nations throughout the world, most of them
peasants, industrial workers, and/or women and children.  This is almost
everybody on earth, folks!

        But wait!  What about the lower and middle bourgeoisie in the
"more developed" and "less developed" world?  What about the people in
"white-collar" occupations who have skills, education, modest incomes, and
hope for their own or their children's future?  Who are they?  Most of us
on this list probably qualify.  Are we the enemy?  Recent postings on this
list regarding the shrinking or persistence of the "proletariat" suggest
that we are.

        I disagree.  In Marx's time, class lines were more clearly drawn.
Before the advent of universal free public education, universal male and
female enfranchisement, and the arrival of a highly complex industrial and
commercial economy that required workers to be able to read the operator's
manual in order to tend the Humongous Gizmo, the proletariat was indeed
the proletariat:  unskilled, unlettered, able to contribute to the world's
work little more than its brawn and its fecundity.  Now, thanks to the
enlightened efforts of the chief defenders of global capitalism, the
(U.S.) Democrats and the (European) Social Democrats and their
counterparts elsewhere, this new bogus middle class has been co-opted,
brainwashed, and otherwise bribed, bought, and bamboozled into working its
tails off for the capitalist establishment.

        The trouble is that this emergent "bourgeoisie" enjoys enough free
time, education, and financial resources to supply any global democratic
movement with immense tangible support, if only it knew what it was about.
I think one of our principal tasks in the 21st Century must be to
cultivate the class consciousness of this emergent bourgeoisie--to define
it as what it really is:  not a bourgeoisie in Marx's sense, but as the
21st-Century equivalent of a large stratum of the 19th-Century
proletariat, the stratum of relatively skilled workers a few of whom
were able, or whose children were able, to colonize the true
bourgeoisie and become exploiters in their own turn if they so chose.
Meanwhile, the reality is that almost all "white-collar" workers in
today's world depend for their living on their salaries, wages,
royalties, fees, or commissions, not on their capital gains.  

        I would therefore redefine the "proletariat" as workers who work
for a living and the "bourgeoisie" as capitalists who live on the income
of their capital.  I would make an exception for retired workers living on
annuities and investments acquired as a result of their life-long labor.
So re-defined, the proletariat would still comprise most of the
white-collar people in the "developed" economies and their white-collar
counterparts elsewhere.  Somehow or other, we have to convince these
people that they too were the victims of capitalist exploitation, albeit
less blatantly in most cases, and that they should stand
shoulder-to-shoulder with other workers and peasants everywhere.  I have a
son with a doctor's degree and many patents to his credit who works for
relative peanuts for a giant multinational corporation.  He does not need
convincing who is in charge and who benefits primarily from the fruits of
his labor!  There must be millions like him.

        The point is that the world still basically consists of a vast
population of screw-ees and a tiny population of screw-ers.  In this
respect, nothing has changed.  In Marxian terms, the iron laws of
political economy have always reigned, since the founding of the earliest
civilizations.  They will not cease to reign until and unless the sheep
rise up as one to oppose the wolves.  Rise up as one.  This takes at least
a certain measure of central organization and enlistment.

        In hope,

        Warren                


On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Richard K. Moore wrote:

> 
> ============================================================================
> 
> 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.
> 
> ============================================================================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>