Who Owns the Movement?
By Michael Albert
Or: Since No One Owns the Movement,
How Do We Have A Multi-Issue, Multi-Tactic Movement,
Mutually Respectful and with Constituency Identities Preserved
Seattle raised lots of questions. Many are not controversial for serious
advocates of social change. What?s wrong with the WTO? It serves private
profit rather than protecting community, the poor, labor, and the
environment. What do we want instead of the WTO? Equitable international
cooperation that protects the environment while more effectively meeting
human needs.
Some are controversial and need further attention, in my view. How can
peaceful marchers, those who engage in illegal civil disobedience, and those
who engage in illegal acts of destroying corporate property coexist without
turning on each other and detracting from the power of each other?s efforts?
How do we develop a broad movement that has many components in which no one
component thinks it has a right to own the movement, but, instead, even with
significant differences, room is opened for diverse modes of dissent, none
supported by everyone, but all given room to function? How do different
constituencies with different views about tactics and strategy, all belong
to one large movement, none stifled in their aspirations and experiments,
yet none encroaching on the rest by their choices? Indeed, how do we place
this type mutual space and respect at the center of our movement efforts?
Imagine in Seattle there was a group, let?s call them the creative
revolutionaries, and that these folks felt that in the act of conveying
dissent it is important to communicate to elites the trajectory of
development of a movement. They felt that marching is good but that it gains
an edge from civil disobedience that foreshadows a threatened breakdown of
repressive laws. And they felt that civil disobedience is good but that it
gains an edge from the specter of active and even aggressive disobedience
and insurrection that foreshadows a threatened breakdown of reticence to
fight back. So this constituency is for a multi-tactic, multi-issue
strategy. They understand that social change is complex, that winning
immediate victories depends on raising unendurable social costs to elites
(costs embodied in the threat that the conditions of their privilege will
unravel if their policies don?t succumb to pressure), and that communities
of dissidents have different priorities, needs, and inclinations which can
collectively reinforce their overall impact. The creative revolutionaries
are also, however, aware that they are far from a majority of the left. And
they also know that others whose work they very much respect, do not agree
with them in all tactical and strategic matters, and want to be able to
carry out their preferred agendas without being usurped by choices about
militancy or by behaviors imposed on them from without. So the creative
revolutionaries communicate with others organizing for Seattle, convey that
they intend to use more militant tactics, and request negotiations regarding
how they can do this without usurping the agendas of others.
We can now imagine that this meeting occurs and comes up with a plan. Or we
can imagine (and this would be a serious mistake, in my view) that others
dismiss the creative revolutionaries and refuse to incorporate them in
planning and working out mutually beneficial options. In either event,
suppose the creative revolutionaries decide they are going to ?up the ante?
and ?raise the social cost for elites? and ?teach by their practice about
other modes of resistance? by focusing a campaign and subsequent direct
actions on some institution ? maybe a branch office of Boeing, say, or
perhaps the Chamber of Commerce. So they begin educating to convey the links
between this focused institution and the broad issues of the WTO, and during
the events in Seattle they have a demonstration at this focused institution,
pass out and otherwise provide clear political education material about it,
and do their preferred direct action. They choose their site so it isn?t
right next to the main large demonstration but well away from it, clearly
separate, and not encroaching. The creative revolutionaries also spend a lot
of time helping with the larger scale events, providing some of their most
creative and energetic moments. They are active as well in the civil
disobedience, and provide it with much of its best spirit and confidence,
helping also with defense of partners unprepared for police attack when that
situation develops in the main demonstration.
I think these hypothetical creative revolutionaries, following such a
course, would be fantastically exemplary. But I fear that some of the
critics of the people who trashed in Seattle, in contrast, would find even
these hypothetical creative revolutionaries unworthy, maybe even worse for
their additional organization and coherence, then the folks who did some
window breaking in Seattle. They wouldn't want this type activity to occur.
They would feel the movement should somehow curtail it from happening or
condemn it if it did. This would be a serious problem for the left, in my
view, both in judgment and process.
Social struggle is not and will never be perfectly choreographed, of course.
But if we work at it a bit, we can have broad values and norms that we
collectively accept about its process and content, that are congenial to
diversity yet respectful of each component. The foremost post-Seattle
question is what are such values and norms?
One norm that makes very good sense to me is one that I think also holds for
the society that we wish to build. To the extent we can manage it, people
should have impact on decisions in proportion as the events being decided
affect them. Thus first, if tens of thousands of people come to a
demonstration expecting certain tactics because that is the event?s prior
decision and promotion, it would be wrong for a relatively few folks to
unilaterally transform the events without all those many others having a say
in what is affecting them. But second, it would also be wrong even for a
large majority to come to the conclusion that it owns ?all demo space.? For
example, the WTO doesn?t come to town often. It doesn?t make any more sense
to say that a large mass of protestors can dictate all ways that anyone can
organize against the WTO when it does surface then to say that a large mass
of the population of Seattle or the U.S. can dictate whether there is a
demonstration at all. None who think a majority of the left has the right to
?outlaw? direct action think in turn that a majority of the residents of
Seattle or the U.S. have the right to outlaw all dissent, I suspect. This is
inconsistent. The solution is that really, neither majority has such rights,
morally or structurally. In Seattle, in fact, there was gigantic complexity
because the interests of people all over the world were at stake. The whole
point is that the WTO is deciding the lives and futures of millions upon
millions of people from behind closed doors (and in the interests of only a
few). It is process and content that are wrong, not only content. But then
fair and just norms ought to apply to our activities too. One-person
one-vote of all those present, or even of everyone remotely connected, is
sometimes but not always optimal decision-making. But trying to assess how
all people are impacted so they can have a say in proportion to the affects
on them is virtually always wise, though in many cases in a society as
horribly organized as ours, very difficult. We must do the best we can.
Other norms make sense too. Diversity makes sense, meaning welcoming and
trying to create room for many different approaches not just as peoples
right, but in recognition that what one doesn?t agree with at the moment
could in the long run prove superior, and that an exciting mix is better,
almost always, than a boring homogeneity (another obvious lesson of the vast
array of styles and constituencies marching and doing civil disobedience in
Seattle). Solidarity makes sense as well, meaning not just being civil to
one another, but literally caring about and thinking about the well being
and conditions that we all encounter and the views we all espouse and their
mutual interrelations and effects.
Constituencies from Seattle are arguing that to rule out direct action and
property damage by fiat as if these can never be valid, (a) weakens movement
options because what is being excluded is valuable, (b) conflicts with real
participatory democracy, and (c) undermines both diversity and solidarity.
And I think they are correct. I also agree with many of their other
feelings, such as the logic of resistance summarized for the hypothetical
creative revolutionaries above. And finally, I also think just in terms of
interpersonal relations and creating a congenial and welcoming movement,
that the dissidents raising these issues are correct that some individuals ?
understandably upset about the trashing -- are acting as if they think they
can somehow dictate to others and that others can only be fools or vandals
if they disagree about that, and that these folks are, in this respect,
being quite arrogant. Listen up ?my generation.? We can?t have it both ways.
If we could be in some instances more astute than many folks older and more
experienced than us when we were young, those who are young now can also be
more astute than we are now. But far more importantly, age may or may not
bring with it wisdom and youth may or may not bring with it innovation, but
to rebut a view whether it is offered by a seasoned veteran or a raw rookie
requires arguments, not name calling.
If someone who trashed in Seattle says that anyone who is critical of that
must be trying to restrain activism and is soft on corporations or an agent
of the CIA or must believe only in non-violence to the exclusion of any
possible other approach ? then they are wrong. Case in point, I am critical
of the trashing that occurred, but I want to expand activism, replace
corporations, am not paid by the CIA, and am not non-violent and advocate
many variations of direct action. On the other hand, if someone who opposed
the trashing says it was wrong because damaging property is always wrong and
because only a vandal or a fool would break a window, and that anyone
rejecting that claim isn?t serious about social change and doesn?t deserve
respect -- then they are wrong too. Case in point, I would break a window in
various contexts and much more, and I am no vandal and no fool, and I am
serious about social change, and I do deserve respect.
So let?s notice that underneath the proximate events and in some instances
unduly aroused feelings lie important and truly difficult issues about
conducting large-scale movements democratically, mutually respectfully, and
yet with diverse constituencies of different sizes and viewpoints.
So what does all this lead us to? The past aside, what's the important
upshot for the future?
Imagine that the broad WTO and progressive and left communities decide to
have major demonstrations at the presidential conventions ? which could, I
suspect, be a very good idea. We are talking about the anti-WTO movement,
the anti-corporate movement, greens, the Mumia and prison movements,
anti-sweat shop movements, anti-racist movements, the women?s movement, the
queer movements, and so on and so forth. How do we do it and come out the
other side stronger in every way?
One scenario says that the groups with the most money and therefore the most
outreach during the organizing phases (or worse yet, even the donors
themselves) get to decree what tactics are allowed and what tactics aren?t,
who is welcome and who isn?t, even which slogans are permitted and which are
not. This would be nearly as self-defeating for developing a serious
movement as if we let the still larger constituency of those who don?t want
dissidence at all make all the decisions, causing us all to have to go home.
I fear that some people in our bigger movement groups, however, and
especially leading them, might opt for this approach as at many times in the
past, if they had the option and as long as they wound up in the driver?s
seat. But this would be just about the opposite of democracy, diversity, and
solidarity in action.
A second scenario says that we create broad umbrella coalitions around some
laundry list of mutually agreed demands, slogans, actions, and so on. This
is better then the ?money talks the rest of us walk? option, certainly but
it is far from ideal. It yields us a least common denominator approach which
is better than merely obeying a totally unilateral line, but which doesn?t
tap the power of our potential for diversity and solidarity, much less
embody the norms of participatory self management.
Indeed, I think criticism of the above two approaches is exactly what many
of the radicals at Seattle are quite reasonably offering by pointing out
that while having many other virtues, these options don?t respect diversity,
aren?t really democratic, don?t create solidarity, and don?t, as well, mine
the full resources at our disposal for impacting social change. And the
critics are right.
So a third scenario is that we create a project/process that is the greatest
common sum of its components, rather than being the imposition of a few
people?s priorities or the least common denominator of everyone?s. We work
to allow ?different strokes for different folks? in a way that permits each
constituency to act on its ideals and logic, but without diminishing or
confusing the actions of others much less usurping the zones others occupy.
When constituencies need their own separate space, so be it, When efforts
can occur in the same space, in conjunction, that's good.
I greatly prefer the third approach because I think it can not only create a
movement that is most congenial, open, and democratic, but also because it
is most likely to yield the best mix of tactics and focuses we could
plausibly hope for. I know others will have doubts about the best mix
emerging, but I hope they will at least realize that without a process more
or less like this, discordant tensions will do far more damage than the
inclusion of some tactic or focus you may find wanting.
Yes ? I know ? the broad rubric still can?t be that anything goes, even with
this flexible structure. There is still the problem of ruling out insanity,
police provocation, and the like, should these rear their head. But I am
betting that on this score too, following approach three will so utterly
isolate out-of-touch elements as to make their overall lack of rights to
partake as respected partners obvious to all, even while incorporating the
widest array and most exciting assemblage and most powerful combination of
forces possible.
Real participatory democracy isn?t easy, particularly when we are operating
inside grotesquely authoritarian and regimented domains, each of us bent out
of shape by ?society?s pliers? and not yet collectively sharing as many
views and values as one might have hoped for by the year 2000. But real
participatory democracy is nonetheless, even with all its dangers and
difficulties, by far the best chance we have to effectively utilize our
talents, commitments, and energies on behalf of ending the WTO, freeing
Mumia Abu Jamal, ending violence against women, curtailing corporate power,
and winning other immediate gains, all on the road to movements that can
also get to the heart of matters.ÿ
From Znet.com
ÿ
ÿ |
