“Direct action gets the goods”

The person who wrote this definitely could have meant “social power gets the goods”. But they just as easily could have thought that the use of direct action, the tactic itself, is the essense of what makes an action effective. Those who think that direct action is what brings about victories are often confused, annoyed, or frustrated when it fails to do so. It is important to move beyond simplistic slogans like this, and especially dogma around everything from direct action and voting, to issues of state power and reform struggles. Without breaking through these simplistic concepts, we will be ill-equipped to maximize our chances of success and effectively analyze our failures and setbacks.

Most good organizers who use direct action as a tactic would agree that greater numbers and higher consciousness among participants will increase the likelihood of success. But unless a correct understanding of the nature of power is central to their “conceptual toolbox”, they are less likely to convey the correct lessons to those they lead, or are more likely to convey them in a language which is misinterpreted by newer members. If the central slogan they use is “direct action gets the goods”, and they have an implicit understanding that direct action works best with large numbers and with a high level of political unity, then they can be effective leaders. Unfortunately, their use of the term often gives newer members with an incoherent and/or poorly synthesized perspective on organizing, power, and action. Effective organizers would do well to say precisely what they mean: organizing that builds evermore social power is what “gets the goods”, and direct action is often an extremely useful tactic in the context of an well-planned strategy. We should not elevate tactics to the level of strategy nor should we misattribute causal attributes (i.e. incorrectly attributing to the success of a campaign to direct action, compared to correctly attributing the success of a campaign to the organized social power of progressives who used direct action as part of an effective and well-planned strategy).

As more youth organizers correctly grasp the nature of power and strategy, our movement will flurish in ways previously unseen.

Barack Obama is the first Democrat that’s figured out that a winning Democratic Party strategy needs to make use of the solid progressive majority that exists in almost every state in the Union. This includes the South.

Since the Reagan electoral victories of the 1980’s, Democratic candidates have used one of two strategies in their attempt to regain control of political power in the United States. Candidates like Bill Clinton successfully won the White House by moving to the right on issues such trade policies, dismantling social programs, and the economy. Candidates like Al Gore and John Kerry attempted to take the White House by winning in “blue states”, trying to flip “swing states”, and largely ignoring most of the rest of the country. Bill Clinton had to move to the right on economic and foreign policy issues. And in the most blunt and straightforward indictment of the Gore/Kerry electoral strategy, one analyst rightly said: “Democrats just don’t seem to be able to count.”

Even though the majority of the South identify as Democrats, their own party refuses to court their vote. In fact, has Bob Moser routinely points out, in order to win Southern Democrats, the Democratic Party would have to move left on economic issues, not right as many coastal Democrats often assume. In the Southland in particular, but also across the entire country, lies the opportunity for tremendous growth of the political Left.

The ideology of the Democratic Party has consistently prevented it from moving to the left on a wide range of issues. The Party is a center-right to moderate grouping with some slightly liberal leaders (though mostly on only a few issues each). It is thoroughly pro-capitalist and is organized is such a way so as to prevent any challengers from coming to power within the party.

The ideological commitments of the Party prevent it from building power in the central way a progressive political party can: by moving politically to the left and actually relating to people on the issues that matter to them.

The Left can gain tremendous ground by capitalizing on this fundamental weakness of the Democratic Party. In the coming decades, if Democratic strategists learn anything from the Obama campaign and the shifting demographics of the American Southland (especially the Southwest), they will begin to attempt to compete in so called “red states”. If a progressive political party actually started building power in the South, it could force the Democrats to move to the left on certain economic and military issues or risk being permanently irrelevant. Like all dilemma situations, this could lead to two positive outcomes for the Left: the Democrats could actually improve their positions (a win) OR a new progressive party or political bloc could gain ground and adherents in a new geographic location (which could happen either way, and also a win).

As revolutionaries serious about winning the struggle for political power in this country, we can learn a lot about what the Left would need to do in order to compete in the South by reading Bob Moser’s new book Blue Dixie: Awaking the South’s Democratic Majority. Much of the same advice Moser tells Democrats can be applied by progressive organizers interested in organizing a left alternative.

The stagnation of the American Left can be ended if we actually begin to map out our nation, region by region, state by state, community by community, figuring out where we can gain ground, on what issues, and how. When we start to think how we can strategically build a new world, we’ll actually start to get there. It seems simple enough, but its worth repeating often.

“You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed, and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you just how deep the rabbit hole goes.” - Morpheus offering Neo the choice in The Matrix

In the movie The Matrix, Redpills are those whose minds have been freed from the Matrix. When you take a red pill, those who are waging a war against those who run the system (the “machines”), unplug you from that virtual world and allow you to see the truth for the first time in your life. You might have known that “something” was wrong with the world around you, but you never made the deeper connections as to how the whole system actually operated. And you certainly didn’t see an alternative to the world around you or any way to change it.

As organizers for social change, we are constantly faced with the question “what will be the ‘redpill’ for large numbers of people?” What will be the final piece of evidence, story on TV, book, event, or personal experience that finally makes someone start to radicalize? Its different for every single person. Some people radicalize due to personal experiences. Some people radicalize from education. Some people radicalize because of empathy for others and perceived wrongs going on around them. We can’t possibly know when a person is willing to step down the rabbit hole, but we can provide them with lots of opportunities to do so. Those opportunities need to be predicated on efforts that will actually make them more likely to take us up on our offer.

In The Matrix, one of the main characters, Morpheus offers Neo the choice between the two pills. But before Morpheus offered Neo the choice to be freed (we’d call it a “radicalizing experience”), Neo was selected for this opportunity because he was a computer hacker. He was actively seeking out “answers” and wanted to know more about the Matrix (a.ka. “the system” in our terms). If Neo hadn’t previously been a hacker - someone who didn’t exactly follow all the rules or buy into the official story of how things worked in the world - he quite possibly could have taken the blue pill and called it a night. A hacker is an example of one such person who might take the red pill. It doesn’t ensure they will, but it does increase the likelihood.

Whatever keeps people in line (i.e. prevents them from taking red pills), is called “hegemony”. Its the collected set of laws, processes, rules, regulations, and norms which keep people from making the connections needed to see themselves as people capable of leading free lives. How do you determine what are some of the major barriers to people changing their minds? Well, you can usually start by thinking of things that annoy the Right.

Rightwing positions which seem irrational or absurd are usually quite intentional. They are rational in that conservatives hold those positions for a reason. They know that their power is based on people following certain rules, without which other areas of their power would be challenged. When conservatives say that drugs, divorce, separation of church and state, free speech, free press, reproductive freedom, socialized programs, and gays will lead to the downfall of “Western civilization[sic]” they aren’t just serious, they’re quite right. They mean that the form of society in which they are on top will cease to exist if these things happen in increasing numbers.That’s because freedom is, well, addictive. Once you get some, you’re gonna want a lot more!

They only care about our sex lives insofar as keeping us (especially young people) scared of sex & sexuality will keep us obedient and allow them to maintain their power. They understand that drugs, and sex, and good education, and cooperative workplaces, and grassroots citizen media will lead people to take the “red pill” and free their minds. Its why they are against it.

Its also why those of us on the left need to take cultural issues seriously. Sure sex education, same-sex marriage, and  reproductive freedom are all moral issues. But they are also cultural issues that maintain the dominant hegemony. Its our job to break that hegemony. Leading campaigns against backwards laws, opening youth centers and alternative schools, and educating young people about our vision of the future should all be at the top of our priorities list. The Right will push back on these things without a doubt. We should respond to this push-back with an article alternative worldview, rooted in progressive values. If we are strategic in our efforts, we will win battles and expose the hypocrisy of the Right while we do.

In particular, revolutionary education necessarily includes (among other things):

• Sex and health education;
• Accurate information about drugs and alcohol;
• Diversity education so people shed stereotypes about other races, cultures, genders, classes, and sexualities;
• Time and places for young people to form real community;
• Information and experiences that show how solidarity, equity, diversity, and self-management are the most morally-just and efficient ways to organize society;
• Information about how the world really works, alternatives to the current institutions of society, and ideas about how they can create change.

The Left needs to take battles around culture very seriously. If we do, people will start to beg us to show them just how deep the rabbit hole goes. I guarantee it.

When much of the Left trains its ideological sights on the campaign of Barack Obama, it is found wanting:

1. He is not a socialist (or an anarchist).

2. He is not an anti-imperialist.

3. He does not have a plan for immediate withdrawal of US troops and advisors from Iraq.

4. He has said nothing in his campaign in critique of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians.

5. He is too close to University of Chicago free-market economists.

6. His does not call for a single-payer health insurance plan.

7. His message implies that our biggest political problem is largely one of political communication; he claims that he can unite Democrats and Republicans and transcend political partisanship; he seems to be avoiding and denying the reality of strong differences in American politics

8. He tried for too long to avoid issues of racial justice so he will not be perceived as a “Black” candidate; and when forced to discuss race he marginalized Jeremiah Wright’s legitimate concerns.

9. He has had little criticism of the size of the military budget.

There is truth in these critiques and Obama, like any other leader, should not be exempt from criticism and pressure from the left. All leaders need to be called to account. (I will leave it to others to discern the limitations of American election campaigns and what progressive candidates are limited in saying to avoid political marginalization and retain some chance of electability.)

But if we leave matters here, I believe will be missing the moment. Why then should the Left be open to and supportive of the Obama Presidential candidacy?

First and foremost, Obama has tapped into and publicly articulated that something is deeply wrong with the current state of American politics and that something big has to change. And he is not doing this, as is typical in current American politics, from the mad-dog right. This is the root cause of Obama-mania. He poses an alternative to right wing demagoguery and Clintonian Democratic Leadership Council “Republicans with a human face” politics. He has not only confounded the pundits, but he has opened up room for real discussion of important political issues, such as, in his words, “the mind set” that produced the Iraq war. In his “Toward a More Perfect Union” speech on race relations, whatever its shortcomings, he elevated the discussion of race in American politics to a new level. He allows for and promotes real talk about significant issues, sorely lacking in mainstream political discourse.

Secondly he has energized young people. I have a friend who has been a leading antiwar activist for many years. He told me that he has had more meaningful talks about the war in Iraq in a few weeks of working on the Obama campaign than he had in the years since the Iraq war began. The awakening of the young to political activity is a momentous accomplishment that the Left has reason to envy. Obama doesn’t chastise the young for their apathy and cynicism; he inspires them to participate.

Thirdly, Obama has inspired, not just a campaign, but a significant mass movement that can outlast the campaign season. In his Feb. 19 speech in Houston he called for continuing grass roots activity: “And if we win that election in November, then we are going to need your help and your time, your energy, your enthusiasm, your mobilization, your organization, and your voices to help us change America over the next four years.” When was the last time a candidate called for extra-parliamentary activity that wasn’t anti-abortion or homophobic? The Left in America can profit from an unorthodox Democratic Administration. There will be more openings, less marginalization of the Left, a wider debate, and an atmosphere where ‘politics as usual’ will be suspect. None of this is likely under a continuation of the Clinton dynasty which favors “triangulation” by which it attempts to co-opt Republican issues and disdains social movements in favor of ‘focus groups’.

I must admit, that as a tired old leftist that I am moved by a politics “advocating the audacity of hope” to overcome the cynicism that passes for wisdom in American political commentary. Certainly there is a danger of empty, hollow words, but an energetic Left could take advantage of an opportunity to push for its understanding of necessary change on a wide range of issues: single-payer health insurance, equitable education, affordable housing, humane immigration policy, enforcement and expansion of labor rights, environmental justice, and anti-racist and anti-imperial policy.

If we, as a Left, are content to smugly and dismissively critique the Obama phenomenon, we trade self-fulfilling sectarianism for the chance at political impact. A victory for Obama will not only be a boon for the African-American community and for people of color, it will offer a unique opportunity for the development of an organized and aggressive Left movement that retains its independence at the same time that it is willing to risk everyday involvement in the strange world of American politics. If we just critique, we will miss a moment that may not come again for a while. If our politics are meaningful, effective, and get to the root of problems, we should put them to the test in political work that connects to large numbers of people struggling to find direction in an increasingly dangerous world. Something wonderful is happening. We must be alive to it. I hope we can figure out how to relate to it effectively before we consign ourselves to continued marginalization.