The "Principled" Boneheads

Today I ran into some members and organizers of the protests against Israeli violence in Gaza.  I had known about the war between Israel and Hamas, and had heard of the extremely disproportionate response of Israel, but I had not been personally involved in any protest action.  And on a certain level, today was no different for me in that my contact with the protesters was entirely a chance encounter that came about because we just happened to be in the same place at the same time.  During my encounter I saw that the protesters had printed a bunch of flyers urging voters in the Democratic primary to write "Uncommitted" in the ballot choice for the Presidency of the United States.

Now I can quite understand public outrage among many people in the United States over Israel's actions in this present war.  I can also understand why many people would characterize those actions as attempted genocide.  The brunt of Israel's violence has fallen on poor Palestinian civilians, especially women and children, and Israel has caused many tens of thousands of casualties among these.  Let me say right now that although I am a Christian and I believe Israel is God's earthly people, I most emphatically do not believe that God has created Israel to be a special pet who gets to trash the other peoples of the earth.  There is no nation on earth that has a right to make itself great by oppressing the powerless.  Therefore to the extent that I can, I am committed to such things as researching the country of origin of the things that are offered to me for sale, so that I can boycott those products which are made by nations that oppress.  That includes boycotting Israel.

However, when protesters in this country begin to urge withdrawing support from the Democratic party as a means of pressuring the Biden administration to withdraw military aid from Israel, I am reminded of how Russian operatives and propaganda organs managed to weaken and depress the Democratic vote in 2014 and 2016 by promoting "principled" spokespersons who pointed out to us all the weaknesses of Barack Obama and of Hillary Clinton.  I am also reminded of how the candidacy of Bernie Sanders weakened the candidacy of Hillary Clinton in 2016.  (Although Hillary won the 2016 popular vote by 2.7 million, evidently this was not enough of a margin to prevent Donald Trump from capturing the White House.  Go figure!)  I am also reminded of how operatives from the Right used mouthpieces such as Umair Haque in 2020 to try to do the same thing to Biden.

Such things as this make me wonder what it is that some of the present protesters really want.  If they really want to put the powerless into a better position to resist the predations of the powerful, they should consider what will happen to the powerless in the United States in the event of a wave of Republican victories in the November elections.  Among the things we are all likely to receive from such victories are the following:

• The continued erosion of the rights of women and dark-skinned ethnic minorities in the United States
• The continued concentration of wealth and corruption among the richest Americans
• The continued impoverishment of the poor and the continued expansion of economic precarity in the United States
• The continued expansion of fascism and the continued development of an American police state
• The continued erosion of American democracy
• The continued expansion of Russian power (including the possible loss of Ukraine to Russia)
• Oh, and by the way: the Republicans will also continue to support Israeli militancy, in case no one noticed.

Given these possible outcomes, why are the antiwar protesters trying to tamper with the 2024 American elections?  I can think of only two possible reasons.  First, they may be incredibly stupid in their idealism.  It is far too easy to make an emotional, yet senseless response to an evil situation.  Then, when one's emotional response turns out to have evil consequences, the person who made the response can try to comfort himself by claiming that he is paying the price of martyrdom.  To such people I say, please go to school and enroll in a crash course in strategic thinking.  Then think of some other way to put irresistible pressure (including economic pressure) on the powers that be in this country to force them to withdraw military support for Israel without engaging in actions that endanger the 2024 U.S. elections.  Just to be clear: I am all for pressuring the powers that be to withdraw military support for Israel as long as Israel continues to attempt genocide against the Palestinian people.

But maybe the attempt to tamper with the 2024 elections is itself an example of fine strategic thinking - although the strategy in question has an actual aim that is very different from the aim which its creators claim they want to see.  In that case, maybe some of the antiwar protesters are themselves being disingenuous.  

The Tactical and Strategic Failures of Summer 2020

This post is a continuation of my "study guide" and commentary on Gene Sharp's book From Dictatorship to Democracy (shortened in these posts to From D to D.)  Those who have read previous posts on this subject know that the most recent posts discussed Chapters 6 and 7 of the book.  Those chapters deal with the important subject of the strategy of a nonviolent liberation struggle.  Strategic nonviolent resistance does not rely on the weapons and resources of the holders of oppressive power, and one big reason why is that those who are oppressed do not have access to the weapons and resources of the powerful.  This is why strategy and strategic thinking is so important.  If the strategy of a struggle group is solid, the struggle group can achieve great shifts in the balance of power between the powerful and those without power.  If the strategy of a struggle group is weak, foolish or nonexistent, then that group will lose.

So we come to the events of the late spring and summer of 2020, those events connected with the police murder of George Floyd.  As an African-American, I stand with my brothers and sisters who are involved in the Black Lives Matter organizations, yet I feel the duty to point out some of the serious ways in which they dropped the ball last summer, as well as pointing out some of the political consequences of their failure.  (One consequence of that failure: their mistakes helped re-elect a certain two-faced gentrifying mayor of a supposedly progressive city on the West Coast.)  So here goes.  And I'm going to tell the story from the point of view of an observer who was only rarely near the center of any action.  If any readers have more expert knowledge or analysis, feel free to chime in with corrections as appropriate.

First, let's begin with the immediate consequences of the murder.  The first response seen by myself and most observers was the almost immediate arising of a wave of spontaneous mass protest, both in Minnesota (where George Floyd used to live) and elsewhere.  I would like to suggest that much of that protest originated outside of the Black community and outside any other communities of color in the United States.  I would also like to suggest, based on what I saw in the Pacific Northwest, that much of that protest originated outside of any Black Lives Matter (abbreviated in this post to BLM) organization.  However, the emergence of this protest thrust BLM movement organizations into the limelight, as many protestors who were not officially part of BLM chose to identify their actions as taken in support of BLM.  Thus BLM was offered a unique moment in which to take a leadership role, and BLM organizers initiated their own protests as a result.

But at almost the same time as the emergence of spontaneous mass protest came the almost immediate emergence of "spontaneous" violence.  I know of one white blogger who characterized it as "the emergence of the worst race riots this country has seen in decades."  However, he is exaggerating greatly what actually happened, and his reasons are dishonest.  For he does not want to face the fact that the incidents of violence were perpetrated almost entirely by white people.  (See this  and this also.)  An early case in point is the "Umbrella Man."  There is also Matthew Lee Rupert, as well as members of the Boogaloo Boys and other white groups who vandalized and looted minority businesses and attacked CNN journalism crews.  Moreover, this violence spread in ways that seemed designed to provoke outrage and strengthen the societal "pillars of support" of the police and of the regime of Donald Trump.  For the vandals and the violent targeted iconic statues and other monuments to the cultural heritage of the United States.  (See this, this, and this for instance.)  And in attacking minority businesses, the vandals sought to send a clear message that this is what happens whenever there is mass protest against established authority.

Other ways in which violent infiltrators sought to convey images of dis-order included the setting up of so-called "temporary autonomous zones" in city capitals by people who did not own property or have jobs in these so-called zones.  In essence, the people who set up these zones became squatters of the same sort that emerged in city parks throughout the United States during the "Occupy" protests.  And those who occupied these zones in 2020 were mostly white, just as those who "occupied" various public spaces in 2011.  The 2020 occupations ended just as badly as those in 2011 had, for the occupiers were rightfully seen as squatters.  But these squatters, along with the looters and the vandals of businesses and statues, served a useful purpose for the right-wing fascists running the Federal Government during Trump's last year - namely, that they gave him a convenient platform to portray himself as the sole upholder and defender of "law and order" against a crazed opposition movement who simply wanted to plunge American society into "chaos" and "anarchy."  In other words, they were the convenient foil in the continued re-telling of the myth of redemptive violence - the favorite myth of fascists and oppressors, by the way, and a myth that became part of Donald Trump's re-election campaign strategy.

I would like to suggest that in the violence, vandalism and squatting that took place, people who had no sympathy for the Black struggle in America managed to hijack the protests over the murder of George Floyd and to twist the message of these protests in a direction which has nothing at all to do with the Black struggle.  (As Marshall Ganz has repeatedly said, if you don't intentionally tell your own story, someone else will tell it for you - in ways that you won't like.)  That this could happen is due to the following failures of many in the Black community:

• A failure by the Black community to appropriately define our collective identity and the strategy of our struggle.  For at least four decades, we have been unconsciously following a rather limited "strategy" of the sort first articulated by Martin Luther King, namely, the strategy of trying to build a supposedly colorblind society in which our individual or historical identities are all dissolved in a "melting pot" to produce a so-called all-American alloy.  Thus we have tried to build "beloved communities" with people who ought not to be trusted because they have no good intentions, people who refuse to give up their dreams of total domination.  It is way past time for us to come together as Black people (NOT as part of some "rainbow coalition" alloy!) to decide who we are as a people and how we will struggle as a people.  In other words, it is way past time for us to self-consciously organize ourselves.  When white people who supposedly stand for "diversity" try to bring us as individuals into their "coalition", we need to say, "Not so fast.  We will decide as a group what we choose to support.  We will NOT allow ourselves to be turned into the foot soldiers of someone else's agenda!  Maybe we're not better together!"  Of course, to say such things might provoke the sort of reaction from certain white supposed "allies" that would show their true colors.

• A failure by the Black community to understand the methods by which unarmed people shift the balance of power between the powerful and the powerless.  In short, this is a failure to understand the methods of strategic nonviolent resistance, which has also become known as people power.  We have for too long allowed ourselves stupidly to believe that strategic nonviolent resistance consists of trying to love your enemy or to "rise above" the oppression dealt to you by your enemy (that is, to smile when your enemy serves you a sandwich made of excrement!), or to show how "spiritual" you are in the face of oppression.  Therefore, too many of us have understandably written off strategic nonviolent resistance.  It's time for some of us to start reading some books.

• This ignorance played out in 2020 in a failure to understand the impact of violence on a protest movement.  When violence began to erupt during the protests, I saw it as a clear indication of a lack of organization on our part, as well as a lack of training.  I saw it moreover as a clear sign of tactical and strategic misunderstanding and failure.  But in conversations I had with BLM organizers, both during the 2020 CANVAS Summer Academy and in 2021 with BLM organizers who were part of the Leading Change Network, whenever I pointed out these failures, the BLM organizers got really defensive.  Their response to my criticism was, "We were not the violent ones!  And you can't believe everything the media tells you!  Most of the protests were peaceful!"  In making such criticisms, they missed the point altogether.  That point being this: that if you engage in mass protests, and violent things happen during your protests, your protest movement will suffer, no matter who started the violence.  Erica Chenoweth explains this beautifully as follows: When a mass protest is peaceful, everyone who is an ally or potential ally is likely to show up.  This includes young families with small children and elderly grandmas with nothing better to do.  In such circumstances, it is very hard for the government to justify using violence to shut down your protest.  But as soon as the government is able to provoke or inject violence into the protests, the vulnerable - young families with small children and elderly grandmas - start to disappear until you are left only with athletic young men facing heavily armed cops.  In those circumstances it becomes very easy for the government to justify the use of violent oppression to shut down the protest!

• Having said that, I wonder why the BLM organizers did not shift from tactics of concentration to tactics of dispersion as soon as the violence began to appear!    (Pardon me - I shouldn't wonder.  It's because these fools did not read any books!)  For instance, why didn't one or more leaders immediately issue a statement saying, "We see that evil actors have shown up to inject violence and vandalism into our protests.  Therefore, we are switching to protest tactics that don't involve large groups of people coming together in the streets.  These new tactics will be legal, and will not be able to be hijacked by those who want to cause violence or to paint us as criminals." It shows a fatal lack of brains that not one of these leaders took such a step.  I remember reading the news reports of protest after protest in which a small group of agents provocateurs broke away from a protest march to go off and vandalize while the police "declared a riot", and I was shouting in my living room, "Please, wake up and shift tactics!"  (It felt to me very much like my experience as a kid watching Saturday Night wrestling and screaming at the TV whenever the "hero" made an obvious mistake.  Lot of good that did.)  I agree with BLM that there should have been protests.  Yet there are both smart and stupid tactics of protest, and BLM failed to understand the difference.  (Oh, look!  It's happening again.)

• A failure to see the limitations of mass protest.  Protest is not a viable single strategy of liberation.  At best, it's a single tactic.  A tactic is not a strategy.  And as we have considered strategy in the context of strategic nonviolent resistance, we have learned that the best strategy is a strategy which your opponent is not ready to meet, and for which he has no defenses.  Chapters 6 and 7 of From D to D have drawn heavily from the writings of a British man named Basil Henry Liddell-Hart, who in the aftermath of World War 1 advocated heavily that armies should adopt a strategy of indirect approach as the best means of meeting one's enemy in a place where he is not prepared to meet you.  I suggest that among the tactics of nonviolent action, mass street protest is now the tactic which most governments are most prepared to meet, and that these governments can short-circuit mass protest most effectively simply by injecting violence into the protests.  Once they do that, they can justify raising the cost which ordinary people must pay to participate in protest by using tactics of violent police repression of protest.  Mass protest is therefore not an example of the strategy of indirect approach.  And mass protest carries certain unavoidable costs even when the protestors do not have to face police repression.  I think of some of the BLM websites I saw last year in which organizers vowed to protest every day until their demands were met.  I guess they never heard of "protest fatigue"!  Moreover, as pointed out by Jamila Raqib, protest by itself does not alter the balance of power between the powerful and the powerless.

In their insistence on the same tactic of mass protest day after day, the BLM protest organizers reminded me very much of a Briton who never considered the strategy of indirect approach, namely Sir Douglas Haig.  I hope the man has no partisans, fans, or groupies who are still alive - otherwise, they might come to the USA to hunt me down and slash my tires - er, I mean, "tyres" - or threaten to give me "a bunch of fives."  But Haig is a man worthy of much criticism.  I think of his insistence on costly daily frontal assaults for three months during the Battle of Passchendaele in 1917, and how the Germans played rope-a-dope with him there.  I fear that here in the USA, should another outrage against African-Americans be perpetrated, and should that outrage spark mass protest, our enemies may play rope-a-dope again with us as they did in 2020.  

From D to D, Chapters 6 and 7: A Rut By Any Other Name

This post is a continuation of my "study guide" and commentary on the book From Dictatorship to Democracy by Dr. Gene Sharp. In this series of posts, I have shortened the title of the book to From D to D. As I have said in previous posts, the consideration of this book is highly relevant for these times, in which those who support the supremacy of the world's dominant peoples have created a world in which a select few get to Make Themselves Great by exploiting everyone else. The poor of the earth experience this exploitation as enslavement, discrimination, harassment, dispossession, and the threat of genocide. Many live as refugees. Theirs is an experience of apparent utter powerlessness in the face of an all-consuming, murderously abusive power. Yet the poor of the earth do have at their disposal a "weapons system" and a strategic method which holds the promise to liberate them from their oppression if they dare to use it. That means of liberation is strategic nonviolent resistance.

This topic is timely even today, even though Donald Trump is no longer the President of the United States.  For the structures of inequality which he amplified are not yet dismantled.  Thus the need of the hour for communities of the oppressed is to organize ourselves for our collective liberation.  For organizers, this involves learning to persuade significant numbers of people to do things that are hard, that involve cost, that involve risk.  My interest in studying the art of community organizing has therefore been to learn to do just that: to learn to persuade my brothers and sisters to engage in effective liberating collective action.  To me it seems that the study of community organizing is a natural outgrowth and next step in the study of strategic nonviolent resistance, since this resistance is most effective when it is practiced by organized collectives of people instead of isolated individuals.

But the act of liberating oneself and one's people from long-term oppression is unavoidably disruptive to those who benefit from the present oppressive status quo.  This is especially true when the oppressed follow a strategy which their oppressors are not ready to meet, and which these oppressors therefore cannot counter.  Therefore, the masters of the present oppressive systems will do all they can to prevent the rise of this kind of effective, disruptive resistance.  In this pursuit, these masters have developed their own strategy.  That strategy has been to condition society in such a way that any expressions of collective discontent emerge within certain channels for which the masters have already prepared effective countermeasures, and which these masters are therefore quite ready to meet.

One example of the strategy of the oppressors has been the ways in which collective labor action has been tamed over the decades to the extent that officially recognized unions in their dealings with organized business are forced to follow rules of engagement which effectively de-fang and de-claw these unions so that they are no longer a threat to big business.  Therefore these unions have become worthless, because their most powerful weapon - the strike - has been declared unlawful (or "unprotected") in the vast majority of cases.  Also, most officially recognized unions have by now become "business unions," whose leadership actively discourages their members from the kind of disruptive collective action that could actually threaten economic inequality.  Collective bargaining and organized labor have therefore become the kind of challenge that holders of concentrated wealth and power are quite ready to meet.

I'd like to suggest that another strategy of the oppressors has been to define nonviolent resistance solely as mass protest.  Leaders of oppressive regimes (and of oppressive systems in supposedly democratic countries) have known for a fairly long time that the most disruptive change-making movements are nonviolent.  Therefore they have known for a long time that the best way to neutralize such movements is to inject violence into them.  While there are well-documented cases of this injection of violence into Russian anti-tsar protests and American labor strikes in the 19th century and early 20th century, it is important to note the history of the injection of violence into protests from the 1990s to the present day.  This was especially apparent during the clashes between the "Antifa" and various right-wing white supremacist groups before the 2018 U.S. elections and the infiltration of Black Lives Matter protests by various white supremacist groups in 2020.  (For documented proof of white supremacist infiltration in the protests of 2020, see "Riots, White Supremacy, and Accelerationism" by the Brookings Institution, "Far-right extremists keep showing up at BLM protests. Are they behind the violence?" by the Kansas City Star, "Small But Vocal Array of Right Wing Extremists Appearing at Protests" by the Anti-Defamation League, and "Far-Right Infiltrators and Agitators in George Floyd Protests:Indicators of White Supremacists," by Mia Bloom of the Reiss Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law.)  As these events have shown, it is childishly easy for an oppressor to inject violence into a supposedly nonviolent protest.  After this injection occurs, it then becomes childishly easy for the oppressor to justify the use of lethal force to crush the protest.  To base a "movement" solely on the tactic of mass protest is therefore to mount a challenge that the holders of concentrated privilege are again quite ready to meet.

(One note about that last paragraph.  The advice given by the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict during the "Antifa" clashes of 2018 and the BLM protests of 2020 is yet another reason why I have largely stopped listening to the ICNC - as I think at least some of their members have gotten into the business of deliberately giving bad advice to victims of American oppression who are trying to free themselves from that oppression.  Otherwise, how can one explain Tom Hastings' criminally stupid suggestion that there are cases where destroying other people's property can help a nonviolent movement?  And to think that the ICNC let him say that under their masthead!  Or Steve Chase's suggestion that we who seek to prevail by means of strategic nonviolent resistance must sometimes be willing to work with the kind of "protestors" who embrace "diversity of tactics" and follow the "St. Paul's principles" as he suggested during a 2018 online civil resistance course hosted by the ICNC?  He failed to mention that nonviolent organizations which attempt to partner with or dialogue with groups who embrace violence can themselves also become legitimate targets of police action!  Or take Daniel Dixon's suggestion during that same online course that movements that combine both violent and nonviolent tactics can achieve greater synergies than movements that remain strictly nonviolent.  What an idiotic thing to say - especially since history shows that movements that combine violent and nonviolent tactics are more easily crushed by their opponents!)

But there is yet another strategy of the oppressors which should be pointed out.  And that is to define the goal of community organizing as the building of power by a constituency in order to prevail in a political contest and a political system whose rules of engagement have actually been set up by people who dominate and exploit that constituency.  In other words, we are told that the main reason why we organize should be in order to help us prevail in electoral politics according to the rules of the present political system.  To say such a thing, however, is to ignore the fact that the rules of that system were set up by rich, powerful oppressors in order to maintain and preserve the power and positions of those oppressors.  To play the game by these rules is therefore to lose unless you are one of the privileged people for whose benefit the game was originally created and rigged.  To me therefore, the goal of learning to organize is not to try to build power to win at a game that was actually rigged to make me a loser.  The goal of learning to organize is to teach myself and my people to start playing a different game altogether in order to make the first game irrelevant.  Here it must be remembered that nonviolent civil resistance is a means of seeking change by means that lie outside of existing institutions.  That is the goal of my organizing and of my study of the art of organizing.

Let me close by re-quoting Basil Henry Liddel-Hart:

The most effective indirect approach is one that lures or startles the opponent into a false move so that, as in jiu-jitsu, his own effort is turned into the lever of his overthrow.

And from Gene Sharp, 

Even in military conflicts, argued Liddell Hart, generally effective results have followed when the plan of action has had "such indirectness as to ensure the opponents' non-readiness to meet it."  It is important "to nullify opposition by paralyzing the power to oppose"...

In other words, don't get stuck in ruts that someone else has dug for you. 

 

φρόνιμος καί ἀκέραιος

This week I find myself very busy with the kind of work that pays the bills, so I decided yesterday to postpone the next post in my series of posts on Gene Sharp's book From Dictatorship to Democracy.  Writing those posts involves a fairly heavy amount of research, and while I do not mind the research (indeed, it is what makes for good posts!), I am crunched for time at least this week, and possibly next week as well.

However, I did find today an unexpected source of both inspiration and instruction to those who seek nonviolently to spread disruptive, yet righteous change in the midst of a dangerous environment.  As I was reading the Gospel of Matthew, I came across the following verse: "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; therefore become shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.  But beware of men..."  Two words caught my notice.  The first was the word translated "shrewd", which in the Greek is the word φρόνιμος (pronounced "phronimos").  It can be rendered as "shrewd," "having presence of mind," "sagacious," "sensible," "prudent," "practically wise," "showing discernment," or "in one's right mind."  The second word is ἀκέραιος (pronounced "akeraios"), which can be rendered "pure," "unmixed," "uncontaminated," or "guileless."  In my Bible it is translated as "innocent", but I like the other renderings better.

These two qualities are an interesting mix for those nonviolent change agents who operate in a threat environment.  On the one hand, they are to be pure, unmixed, guileless - that is, they are to be truthful.  They are not to operate by underground conspiracy or deceit.  In other words, WYSIWYG.  Thus we see that Gene Sharp's warning against building movements that depend on secrecy has an ancient and much higher antecedent.  Yet if the open building of an open and virtuous movement is to succeed, it requires careful strategy.  Hence the need for practical, hardheaded shrewdness.  If we feel our lack of this kind of wisdom (and after all, who can say that they know everything?), it's time to go to school.

From D to D, Chapter 6 (Continued): The Role of Cognitive Liberation In Strategic Thinking

This post is a continuation of my "study guide" and commentary on the book From Dictatorship to Democracy by Dr. Gene Sharp. In this series of posts, I have shortened the title of the book to From D to D. As I have said in previous posts, the consideration of this book is highly relevant for these times, in which those who support the supremacy of the world's dominant peoples have created a world in which a select few get to Make Themselves Great by exploiting everyone else. The poor of the earth experience this exploitation as enslavement, discrimination, harassment, dispossession, and the threat of genocide.  Many live as refugees.  (Indeed, when one considers the ways in which people in the United States end up homeless nowadays, one can see that we have created our own homegrown refugees.)  This is an experience of apparent utter powerlessness in the face of an all-consuming, murderously abusive power.  

In the last post in this series, I quoted a source which said that "Whenever people are badly treated, they always resist.  In our experience, people always resist violence and abuse in some way."  And yet for that resistance to be an effective means of liberation, it must be strategic.  Developing an effective strategy of liberating resistance can be challenging.  Often the first challenge lies within the resisters themselves, for as Gene Sharp says in Chapter 6 of From D to D, 

"It is also just possible that some democratic movements do not plan a comprehensive strategy to bring down the dictatorship, concentrating instead only on immediate issues, for another reason.  Inside themselves, they do not really believe that the dictatorship can be ended by their own efforts."

As I mentioned in that last post, if a victim of oppression is moved to resist that oppression, yet the victim does not really believe that his or her efforts will actually bring an end to that oppression, this pessimism will tend to make the resistance ineffective if not downright dysfunctional. The kind of resistance that actually liberates requires first that the oppressed be liberated in their minds, in their souls. This is the beginning and foundation of the term "cognitive liberation" as I define it. And according to my definition, the beginning of cognitive liberation is the "point in which an oppressed person decides that he or she will no longer tolerate the oppression and its accompanying humiliation, and that he or she will begin to live in truth from now on - even if it means suffering (up to and including death)."  This kind of cognitive liberation therefore must rest on a foundation of willingness to suffer and to die, a foundation of confidence even in the face of death.  For me, one foundation of my own cognitive liberation lies in this: "Since then the children [that is, human beings] share in blood and flesh, He Himself [that is, Jesus Christ] likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives." (Hebrews 2:14-15)

One effect of this kind of cognitive liberation is that the liberated begin to say, "Where there's a will, there's a way."  In other words, they begin to actively explore their situation in order to find out what elements they can shift, and how the shifting of those elements can begin to achieve long-term goals.  But it is precisely here that those seeking to liberate themselves encounter a great debate.  It's as if one was a character in a fairy tale who escapes from a dragon's lair and begins to tread the path to freedom - only to find the path blocked by two stone towers which face each other on either side of the path, and from which soldiers in each tower lob stones and arrows at the soldiers in the opposite tower.  Atop one of the stone towers is a single white banner flying in the wind, with the word "SKILLS" emblazoned on it in in royal blue.  Atop the other tower is a single blood-red banner flying in the wind, with a skull and crossbones and a single word emblazoned on it in fire-colored letters: "CONDITIONS."  The soldiers in the "SKILLS" tower are a mix of cognitively liberated practitioners of resistance and organizing, and they are helped by a collection of friendly academics.  The soldiers in the "CONDITIONS" tower tend to all be academics and mouthpieces of large media outlets.  The "CONDITIONS" soldiers also tend at times not only to shoot at the soldiers in the "SKILLS" tower, but also at the pilgrims on the path of life who are escaping from the dragon.

For a central debate among social movement scholars is precisely the importance of skills versus conditions in the creation of transformative social movements.  And here I will cite Chapter 3 of Doug McAdam's 1982 book Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency 1930-1970.  It is in this chapter that McAdam defines what he means by "cognitive liberation."  In that chapter, McAdam mentions two theoretical models of power in a society such as that of the United States.  Both models acknowledge that "wealth and power are concentrated in America in the hands of a few groups, thus depriving most people of any real influence over the major decisions that affect their lives.  Accordingly, social movements are seen...as rational attempt by excluded groups to mobilize sufficient political leverage to advance collective interests through noninstitutionalized means."  

According to one of the two models, the disparity in power between the elite and excluded groups is so great that the power of the elites is virtually unlimited.  Thus the "CONDITIONS" scholars cite this structural imbalance of power as a determining condition of any liberation struggle.  (Or to put it another way, the message of the "CONDITIONS" soldiers is often, "Dude, it's hopeless!  Just give up!")  However, the "SKILLS" soldiers understand that every system of domination and oppression depends in some way on the people who are oppressed, and that thus "any system contains within itself the possibility of a power strong enough to alter it."  In other words, they see that the oppressed have a certain collective power which is able to fundamentally alter their situation if it is exercised collectively.  The reason why this power is not exercised is due to "shared perceptions of powerlessness."  Note that the elites "seek to keep unrepresented groups from developing solidarity and politically organizing..."  However, "the subjective transformation of consciousness is...crucial to the generation of insurgency."  In other words, when the perceptions of powerlessness in the oppressed are changed, the oppressed begin to liberate themselves.

How then does that perception of powerlessness begin to change on a mass basis?  McAdam asserts that it first begins by a change in the large-scale circumstances of the oppressed, that is, when the structure of political opportunities changes.  Thus when large-scale external events beyond the control of the elites begin to disrupt elite power structures, there is a corresponding shift in the political opportunities available to the oppressed.  One thing that McAdam may not have emphasized enough is that the oppressed themselves can, by their collective action, create those large-scale events that disrupt elite power structures.

There are other elements to the shift in the consciousness of the oppressed.  One of these elements is the relative abundance or lack of a wide range of organizations created of, by and for the oppressed.  For the oppressed to begin to awaken, there must first be "an established associational network," an "indigenous infrastructure" of community organizations created by and for the members of marginalized groups.  It is these organizations (and their leaders) who facilitate the large-scale changes in consciousness among the members of marginalized groups.  McAdam quotes Piven and Cloward in describing this shift:

"The emergence of a protest movement entails a transformation both of consciousness and of behavior. The change in consciousness has at least three distinct aspects. First, "the system" - or those aspects of the system that people experience and perceive - loses legitimacy.  Large numbers of men and women who ordinarily accept the authority of their rulers and the legitimacy of institutional arrangements come to believe in some measure that these rulers and these arrangements are unjust and wrong. Second, people who are ordinarily fatalistic, who believe that existing arrangements are inevitable, begin to assert "rights" that imply demands for change. Third, there is a new sense of efficacy; people who ordinarily consider themselves helpless come to believe that they have some capacity to alter their lot."

But it is to be noted that these changes in consciousness are much more likely to happen among people who regularly associate with each other in groups than among isolated individuals. 

And here it is good to take a look at how this process of cognitive liberation has played out in some rather recent social movements.  First, on a negative level we can see how a counterfeit of this process has played out among the members of the white American right.  Indoctrinated by right-wing, agenda-driven media mouthpieces, many members of the American right came to believe themselves to be members of an oppressed class and to interpret what should have been acknowledged as their own personal problems as something else, namely, as an attempt by poor dark-skinned people to take things away from white America.  Second, these interpreted the electoral successes of the Republican Party as an expansion of political opportunities.  Third, unscrupulous pastors and other prominent figures in the American Evangelical Right used the association of their congregations in regular Sunday services to engineer a shift in the consciousness of their members such that they began to regard as illegitimate the hopes, dreams, and rights of everyone who was not part of their "tribe."  (These, for instance, are the people who for the sake of "liberty" refused to wear masks even as their fellow community members were dying of COVID-19!)

But there are more positive contexts in which this process played out and continues to play out.  Russia comes to mind.  I want to mention a masters' thesis titled, "Corruption and Cognitive Liberation in Russian Environmentalism: A Political Process Approach To Social Movement Decline" by Anna Katherine Pride.  This thesis was written in 2009, and it described the decline of the Russian environmental movement from the mid-1990's until 2009.  She traced this decline to a decline in "cognitive liberation" as defined by Doug McAdam, and hypothesized that this decline was due to a breakdown in social cohesion and trust caused by rampant elite corruption.  According to her view, the decline could be traced thus: "Corruption" leads to "Cognitive Liberation recedes/reinstituted fatalism" which leads to "Social Movement declines" which leads to "state reasserts power" which leads to "Political Opportunity Structure closes" which leads to "movement decline continues".  

And yet...it must be noted that a strong democracy movement has emerged in Russia over the last ten years, and that its emergence was due in no small part to people who kept working, kept organizing, kept persisting, kept resisting, and kept experimenting as reflective practitioners even during the reassertion of power by the State and the supposed "closing" of the political opportunity structure.  Brown's thesis correctly posits that a breakdown in social cohesion and mutual trust hinders cognitive liberation because it disrupts the very networks along which that liberation and change of consciousness spreads.  This is why dictators strive to atomize the members of their societies.  And yet successful liberation movements have been instigated in the most atomized, repressive and unlikely of societies, by people who had experienced cognitive liberation as I define it.  In the Maldives, for instance, the initial problem of social atomization was overcome by activists who started throwing evening rice pudding parties on the beach and inviting friends, neighbors and strangers.  (See Blueprint for Revolution, pages 62-64).  To quote a martial arts story I read as a kid, "Where there is no door, make one."  If we're ready to make that door, it's time to start talking about the elements of strategy.  Stay tuned.

Further Developments On Strategy

I am in the process of developing the next posts in my commentary and study guide on Chapter 6 of Gene Sharp's book From Dictatorship to Democracy (From D to D).  Chapters 6 and 7 cover the topic of the role of strategy in strategic nonviolent struggle.  As part of this development I find myself faced with the unavoidable task of reading a large amount of rather complicated material from a number of sources, and I am by no means finished with this reading.  Therefore, my next post on the topic of strategy will be delayed until next week at least.  Future posts on strategy will cover the anatomy of strategic development, the people responsible for developing various levels of strategy, various models of command and control of movement strategy, and the role of training in development of strong movements.

For those who want to follow along with me in my research, here is a partial list of sources which I am studying:

• The Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency (Chapter 2), Doug McAdam
• Guatemala Woke Up: A Study About The Social Protests In Guatemala City 2015, Isadora Bennett  (Note that these two works expand on the theme of cognitive liberation discussed in my most recent post in the From D to D series.)
• Corruption and Cognitive Liberation in Russian Environmentalism: A Political Process Approach to Social Movement Decline, Kate Pride Brown.  My, how things in Russia have changed between the time Ms. Brown wrote her thesis and today!
• The Strategy of Indirect Approach (Chapter 11), B.H. Liddell Hart
• The community organizing literature developed by Marshall Ganz
• And, of course, From D to D, How Nonviolent Struggle Works (HNVSW), and Part 3 of The Politics of Nonviolent Action.

As can be seen, that's a large amount of reading to do, which is why it can't all be done in a week.  (That is, unless I want my house to get filthy, my laundry to pile up, and the garden to be overrun with weeds instead of veggies.)  Because quality is more important than "fast-food" quantity, I feel the need to take the necessary time to turn out high-quality posts on this subject.  Those who are waiting for these new posts are welcome to check out my extensive back catalog, although I don't always agree with everything I say...

From D to D, Chapter 4: Power Analysis

This post is a continuation of our commentary and "study guide" for the book From Dictatorship to Democracy by Dr. Gene Sharp.  In this series of posts, I have shortened the title of the book to From D to D.  The consideration of this book is highly relevant for these times, in which Donald Trump, a would-be autocrat and oppressor who wanted to Make America Great Again by trashing all the nonwhite people and poor people on earth, has lost his attempt to have the United States Supreme Court overturn his election loss.  Trump's late-game strategic goal has been the goal of the Republican Party and the Global Far Right for a very long time: namely, to create a world in which a select few get to Make Themselves Great by exploiting everyone else.  Their strategic method has been to disenfranchise as many people as possible in order to cement the control of the "chosen few."  And although Trump's legal challenges have largely failed, the Republican Party is actively planning measures for further disenfranchisement of the poor and the nonwhite who live in the United States.  Therefore, it is up to us who are not counted among these "chosen few" to learn to organize ourselves in order to thwart the power of the few and to ensure the emergence of a world which is shared equally by all of its peoples.

We have been considering Chapter 4 of From D to D.  The title of Chapter 4 is "Dictatorships Have Weaknesses."  After a brief review of the weaknesses identified by Sharp, we discussed the fact that dictatorships have learned to adjust their tactics over the years, and that this highlights the need for democratic resisters to engage in a careful strategic analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the autocratic regimes they are resisting, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the democratic resistance group.  This strategic analysis is known by the terms "power analysis" and "power mapping" by students of community organizing.  

The basis of this analysis is the recognition that a ruling elite depends on the subjects whom it rules, and that the power which this elite exerts over its subjects is based on the extent to which the elite can make its subjects dependent on the elite.  This principle is stated in a number of Gene Sharp's writings, including his three-volume work titled, The Politics of Nonviolent Action.  A variant of this insight has also been stated by Marshall Ganz, who said that systems of oppression always depend on the people they exploit.  The relative degree of dependence of each side on the other side determines the relative power each side has over the other.  As Ganz says in his community organizing curriculum materials, if you need my resources more than I need your resources, I have potential power over you.  If I need your resources more than you need my resources, you have potential power over me.  Consider the case in which a few people hold control over a large body of resources needed by the many.  This is exactly the case when a rich but small elite holds power over a large mass of poor people.  Each member of the rich elite holds much more power per capita than each member of the poor masses.  However, if the members of the poor masses organize to withhold from the rich elite the aggregate fruits of their labor on which that rich elite depends, the poor masses can control, curtail, and even shatter the power of that rich elite.

Thus the first questions of a power analysis are these (taken from "Speaking of Power - the Gettysburg Project" by Marshall Ganz):

• What change do we want?
• Who has the resources to create that change?
• What do they want?
• What resources do we have that they want or need?
• What's our theory of change?  In other words, how can we organize our resources to give us enough leverage to get what we want?  Or, how will what we are doing lead to the change we want to see?  "Theory of change" is another term for strategy, which Gene Sharp discusses in Chapters 6 through 8 of From D to D.

Additional questions related to the existing exercises of power in a pre-existing oppressive society are these:

• Who usually wins?
• Who usually gets to set agendas?
• Who usually benefits or loses from the decisions of the powerful?

The answer to these three questions reveal to the democratic resisters the three faces of power as seen in the oppressed society prior to the beginning of a liberation struggle.  The third face of power frequently forms the psychological backdrop of an oppressive society, the understanding by the oppressed of "the way things just are."  All three faces must be challenged by those who resist an oppressive system.

The relations of power and dependence can be captured visually by means of a map of actors.  An example of such a map is shown below:

Map of actors.

Graphic created by me, adapted from the work of Marshall Ganz.

Click on it to make it larger.

Such a map is a great aid in tracing dependencies and beginning to identify the most promising points at which to begin a nonviolent attack against an oppressive regime.  This is key to the creation of a viable strategy which has the greatest chance of success.

Veteran organizer Jane McAlevey elaborates on the concept of power analysis (which she calls power structure analysis) in her book No Shortcuts: Organizing for Power In the New Gilded Age.  She makes the very important point that a key reason for power analysis is to map the power your side will need to generate in order to get the members of a rich elite to change goals that are very important to these elites.  To make this point, she quotes Joseph Luders' book The Civil Rights Movement and the Logic of Social Change, in which he asserted that "the most successful organizing drives in the civil rights movement...were those that carried high economic concession costs for the racist regime, that is, those by which movement actors could inflict a high degree of economic pain."  Therefore, a goal of mapping power is to determine first, how much it will cost the members of the elite to grant the demands of the resisters, and second, how much economic disruption and pain the resisters must inflict on the members of the elite in order to make the cost of that disruption greater than the cost to the elites of granting the resisters' demands.  Knowing how these two costs compare to each other before beginning a resistance campaign is key to beginning to formulate an effective strategy of disruption.

Lastly, the mapping of power and dependence serves as a starting point for the democratic resisters to strategize how to reduce their dependence on the ruling elite as much as possible.  This reduction of dependence further weakens the power the elite has over the oppressed society.

The next post in this series will begin to delve into Chapter 5 of From D to D.  Feel free to read ahead.  And feel free to read some of the books I mentioned in this post.  Also, here's a link to another community organizing study guide based on the teaching of Marshall Ganz.  And last, but not least, here's some homework: Study the Cochabamba Water War which took place in Bolivia in 1999 and 2000.  Here and here are sources which describe the conflict.  (Feel free to find other sources as well.)  See if you can identify a map of actors and their interests, resources, and dependencies.  How did the poor Bolivian peasants identify the Achilles' heel of their opponents?  How did they reduce their dependence on their opponents?