Without any doubt my favorite quotation from Karl Marx comes from The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon. He writes:

“The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living, and just when they seem to be revolutionizing themselves and things, in creating something entirely new, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service and borrow from the names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present the new scene of world history in this time honored disguise and borrowed language…. The social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot draw its poetry from the past but only from the future.”

Such eloquent wisdom is unfortunately seldom taken to heart by his disciples. The statement is equally true today: the social revolution of the twenty-first century cannot draw its poetry from the past but only from the future. The theories, strategies, ideas, and methods of the past need to be critically analyzed and, where flawed, revolutionized and not merely amended. A vision of a democratic society must be central to our message to add inspiration to our programmatic demands.

In order to win the war, those who seek victory must organize to build a new revolutionary left in the United States. The tasks of such a Left will be widespread and will require much debate, but some of these tasks can be easily summarized. There certainly might be other things, but a new revolutionary left will necessarily include among its focuses:

Humanism: learning from oppression that exist within past social movements, a new revolutionary left in the United States will seek to fundamentally transform the defining institutions and ideas in the realms of economics, kinship, culture, and politics. It will take each of these areas equally seriously, knowing that victory is impossible without a holistic and comprehensive revolutionary transformation of society.

Vision & Hope: understanding that our generation is overwhelmed with feelings of hopelessness, a new revolutionary left will formulate, discuss, debate, and refine, a vision of what a participatory society could look like, outlining the core defining institutions and social relations of what a participatory economy, feminist kinship relations, egalitarian inter-community relations, participatory democracy, international solidarity, and environmental justice will look like. It will bring this message of hope and positive alternatives to every community in America.

Organizing: actually making the change we want to see, a new revolutionary left is made of organizers, not merely activists, the latter being those who take action while the former being those who organize ever greater numbers of people to take action with increasing commitment and effectiveness. Such a Left understands that change can only occur if progressive forces are intellectually, institutionally, and politically ready to lead humanity to liberation.

Strategy: seeking maximum effectiveness, a new revolutionary left will study the art of strategy, learning from successful progressive social movements as well as from military, business, and rightwing strategy. It will train a generation of critical thinkers and thoughtful strategists.

Study: not wanting to replicate past mistakes and seeking to learn from past lessons, a new revolutionary left will be articulate, well-educated, and committed to on-going study, both of historical and current events. It will build programs of internal education for existing members and programs of external education to break down the dominant ideology.

Critical Thinking: loathing dogma, a new revolutionary left will train itself in the art of intellectual self-defense, emphasizing critical thinking, logic, reason, critical self-reflection and collective reflection, and summation of experiences. Instead of following old formulas and strategies, it will analyze the current situation and formulate appropriate strategies and methods relevant to the present day.

Numbers: in order to maximize participatory democracy and ensure eventual victory, a new revolutionary left will seek to build both a growing core of revolutionary organizers and a vibrant majoritarian progressive coalition aimed at breaking the rightwing domination of society. It understands that in order to win a new world, we will need tens of millions of people on our side committed to transforming society.

Raising Social Costs: understanding that hierarchical institutions are built upon the consent of the governed, a new revolutionary left will create dilemma situations whereby elites must choose: give into our demands or lose legitimacy and, as a result, aid in the growth of the Left. It will raise the social costs that elites must pay to carry out unjust policies, forcing them to give into our demands or pay infinitely more than they had expected.

Counter-Hegemony: since it has its fingers on the pulse of the nation, a new revolutionary left will seek to do everything in its power to break through the dominant culture and ideology. It shall seek to build a counter-hegemony, taking serious the task of education, cultural revolution, and revolutionary leadership.

Liberatory Practices: with its commitment to actively combat internal movement oppression, a new revolutionary left will develop thoroughly liberatory practices which develop and elevate the leadership of every individual in the movement, combating past oppressive norms of sexism, racism, heterosexism/homophobia/transphobia, class inequality, and authoritarianism. A new left will seek to embody the seeds of the future in present to the highest degree possible.

Effective Communication: embracing the power of language, a new revolutionary left will carefully craft its message so as to communicate effectively and precisely to the constituencies we want to win over. It will understand that our actions, words, slogans, and attitudes all convey a message to the public and that these messages are vital to our success.

Democracy and Participation: because it can’t win by using undemocratic means, a new revolutionary left will maximize democracy and participation within all of its organizations. It will understand that democracy and participation are dependent on access to knowledge, equal distribution of empowering work, and liberatory practices which level the playing field in a world which thrives on vast inequality. It will involve an ever growing number of people and, eventually, being to build new institutions based on democratic values, especially workers’, neighborhood, and kinship assemblies which will be the nuclei of the new society.

Leadership: following its commitment to democracy, a new revolutionary left will understand the responsibility of leaders to pass on their knowledge, skills, and lessons to an ever expanding core of revolutionary leaders. It will be a left that trains thousands of new leaders each year, preparing them for the challenges they will face as political organizers.

Relevancy: being in tune to the concerns, hopes and aspirations of large numbers of people, a new revolutionary left will orient its efforts towards being relevant to diverse communities who don’t yet identify as progressive, left, or revolutionary. It will build its program based on what the majority of the population cares about, what will most strengthen, expand, and prepare the movement for future gains, and what will make the most tangible difference in people’s lives.

Beloved Community: because it knows it can be better than the world outside, a new revolutionary left will be a warm, welcoming, and empowering Left. It will seek to embody all of our values to the highest degree possible. It will empower its members to grow. It will take seriously our internalized oppression and the need for each of us to heal the wounds inflicted upon us by the authoritarian society, by racism, by sexism, by homophobia, by gender binary, by alienation from work, by exploitation and oppression, and by detachment from our natural world. It will be a Left of love, of hope, and of compassion.

These are just a few tasks. When learning from the past, its useful to practice STORM’s principle of “take the best, leave all the rest.” We should take the best of theory, strategy, vision, and organizing methods, while leaving all the irrelevant stuff behind. In analyzing our own efforts, we should not merely seek to tweak what needs revolutionizing.

(Part Four coming soon…)

(Note: This is part 2 of a multi-post series… Part Three can be read by clicking here!)

An Offensive Left in America

I was going to word this slightly differently, something along the lines of “what would it take to win”, but after reading a terrific post by my friend Matt, I’ll ask instead “what would it take for the (future) Left to go on the offensive?” That is, what would it take for a growing American Left to actually be relevant when crises happen in the future? What would it take for the American Left to seize the moment when the climate crisis worsens, or recession deepens? Returning to the original phrasing: what would it take to go on the offensive?

Thinking About Winning Through a Different View of Power

Leftists need to start conceptualizing power differently.

Progressives in the United States often have a strangely authoritarian view of power. If I’d have to argue an origin of the analysis of power, I’d probably have to point to the obvious one: growing up in an authoritarian system. Most leftists see “winning” as an inherently top down endeavor. This view probably comes from not transcending what we’ve been taught by the dominant ideology. They see revolution as either “seizing” or “smashing” what they see as “the State”. Often in conceptualizing the state, they do not include the institutions of society on which it is based and dependent.

A common definition of the State (i.e. the government) used by progressives is “a force that is alienated from and above the people”. Coming from a different perspective, the Italian revolutionary Antonio Gramsci, and well as American progressive Gene Sharp, both explained how governments are dependent on the consent and cooperation of the “governed”. More accurately power is seen as not a division between “the State” and “the People”, but rather those who control the state bureaucracy and those who just passively participate in its foundational institutions. These institutions - schools, churches, workplaces, our communities and local governments - all form the spine of the state. Without the active cooperation of the majority of these institutions, the government would cease to exist. The greatest myth of State power is that it is “alienated and above the people”. Without the participation of soldiers and police for example - two segments of the people - a State can’t exist. Another one may rise in its place, but that particular form of government disappears.

Winning means weakening and taking away the State’s power, transforming its power, and revolutionizing the type of power the institution wields. You can’t chop off the top of the power pyramid and expect to win. Nor can you expect the pyramid to just “fall apart”. To win, you’ve got to gain control of the pyramid. Sometimes that means seizing the top of it. Sometimes that means getting the majority of the pyramid’s base to agree with you. Usually it means gaining control of the balance of power - that is, gaining control of enough of the pyramid, enough crucial locations within it as to be able to exercise control over the entire system. In a practical sense, this means putting a lot of work into breaking down the dominant ideology which keep people cooperating with the government instead of building institutions of self-rule.

Victory Means Winning the War
Following that, winning isn’t primarily about the day-to-day battles. Rosa Luxembourg, the courageous German revolutionary, once said: “you lose, you lose, you lose… you win.” By this she meant that on the path towards victory there will be many setbacks. There will be many places where the going gets tough, where it seems like victory is impossible, where it seems like the game is rigged (because, in fact, it is). But winning isn’t about winning all the battles. While innovating and honing our strategy will lead to more tactical victories, we will always face setbacks. Winning is about winning a series of reforms and about increasing the strength of the movement in such a way which ultimately leads to our eventual seizure of power throughout society - seizure of power, institutionally and ideologically, in religious institutions, communities, families, workplaces, and government. Winning is primarily about winning the war.

To win we will need very large numbers of people - millions of people - who actively are fighting for the new world, who share a common vision, who have a common analysis of  the task ahead, and who are organized into fighting political organizations capable of consolidating gains, and pushing further after every reform campaign that is one.

An Offensive Left

In the United States, there is no left-wing force that is capable of defending past gains much less going on the offensive to win increasingly more radical, bold, yet winnable demands on a path towards social revolution and seizure of power. There are leftists in the U.S., but no Left. But there is no commonality of action, vision, and strategy among them. And a population, however big, that does not have unity of vision and action, is no force at all.

Crises are a combination of both threats and opportunities, the point at which things can begin to change in various directions. In our situation, with our society being plagued by deep ecological, cultural, and economic crises, we are faced with great threats and great opportunities. The ecological crisis in particular is a race for the survival of all life on Earth. You can’t find a bigger threat than that.

Yet despite these threats and opportunities, there is no Left to take the offensive during this crisis. There is no organized Left that has the ability to organize for and maximize reform gains and recruit new people who are questioning the nature of the system itself. There is no movement which is making the connections between ecology and economy, at deep, fundamental levels, counterpoising 1. capitalist chaos with the justice, stability and peace of a democratically planned economic system; 2. white supremacy with racial justice and imperialism with internationalism; 3. patriarchy with feminist kinship relations; and 4. the state with participatory democracy.

This relates to the authoritarian view of power that many leftists hold: They see the primary obstacles to social change as the military-police forces, the ruling class’s control of wealth, and the monopoly of elites on the media. As such, they don’t orient themselves towards the primary obstacle of what it really takes to win and what that precisely entails, namely the organizing of millions of people and the training of tens of thousands of revolutionary leaders and organizers.

Going on the offensive would mean that revolutionary organizations would be built to fulfill that task: to build movement organizations in their own right and push them forward in the most effective direction, to host study groups and education efforts, and to provide support and community to progressive and revolutionary forces. Instead of bickering about precise “lines” about revolutions which occurred a century ago, such a left would concern itself with unity of vision, strategy, and program. It would be the principled voice of reason and long-term goals within coalitions and movement organizations. It would win thousands to its cause not through the constant need to argue, but by reasoned debate where appropriate rooted, based on real contradictions that progressives run into, and by being the most dynamic, strategic and visionary force in the movement.

Its high time revolutionary democratic forces took their task of building for revolutionary seriously and oriented their actions towards achieving victory. Only then can we even begin to think about going on the offensive in the U.S.

(Read Part Three!)

(Note: This is part 1 of a multi-post series… Part Two can be read by clicking here!)

For the last few days, I’ve been hearing virtually the same thing from everyone with half a brain or half a conscience: why is the U.S. Government bailing out Wall Street while doing nothing to help ordinary Americans.

I’ve heard this from news anchors, and while walking down the street in New York City, reading in a cafe, sitting on the train, and talking to my family. I’ve event heard, on several occasions, people and news anchors directly questioning the very nature of free market economics and capitalism. More importantly, this is a consistent message coming from ordinary people across the political spectrum. I want to draw two points from this.

Tell Us Something We Don’t Know!

Everyone has thought for ages, continues to thinks, and will keep thinking in the future that our world, our economy, our government, and our culture are all utterly corrupt, undemocratic, and unjust. Someone close to me told me last week, flat out: “Brian, it’s the end of the world.” They were referring to the simultaneous bank failures, multiple hurricanes, Midwest floods, and other symptoms of the ongoing climate and economic crises.

Mind you, almost none of these messages are coming from the “American Left”. And for a very good reason: there is no “American Left”. There is no organized force in the United States capable of responding to crises such as these. But I’ll come back to that point in minute.

As I wrote in my last post, both President Bush and Senator McCain have been talking about how market economics are the “best system ever devised” (Bush) and how the “fundamentals of our economy are strong” (McCain). Senator Obama quickly responded that it showed how McCain’s statement was detached from the reality of what’s going on in our country. An organized left, if one actually existed, would have responded slightly differently I think. McCain isn’t detached - at least not on this issue. Neither is President Bush. They both know exactly what they are doing. They know that when the entire population is questioning if capitalism is even a workable system, you have to parrot back: “there is no alternative, stupid”, and “grow up”, “deal with reality”, or more precisely “capitalism is the best system ever devised” (Bush). An organized left would have seen these statements for what they are: apologies and propaganda used to uphold an utterly flawed and profoundly undemocratic economic system which is currently in deeply in crisis.

Even better, the people in this country needed no convincing that capitalism is a garbage system - they already knew it. It wasn’t the left who convinced young people that this system is undemocratic and unjust. Their daily experiences taught them that. Gone are the days when leftists in American have any justification for their belief that we can win Americans to our cause by explaining to them, day after day, why the system is rotten. They know that already. Gone are the days when leftists - both “old” and “new” - have any justification for their argument that we don’t need an inspiring and hopeful vision of the future in order to compel people to action. Barack Obama has a vision for America’s future. John McCain has a vision for America’s future. A developing left needs a vision for America’s future. People are tired of hearing about the problems. They already know what’s wrong. They want to hear about solutions. They want to hear about alternatives. They want to hear about a life after capitalism.

(Read Part Two!)

Much, much more to come later. Here’s what I have so far…

Organizing

• Comments to New SDS Regional Meeting by Robert Ross
• Organizing vs. Activism in 1968 by Mark Rudd
• Remembering Tomorrow: From SDS to Life After Capitalism by Michael Albert

Communication

• Simple Framing by George Lakoff: An introduction to framing and its uses in politics
• Don’t Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate by George Lakoff
• Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think by George Lakoff

Envisioning the Future

• There Is An Alternative by Michael Albert
• Government in the Future by Noam Chomsky (audio talk)
• Parecon: Life After Capitalism by Michael Albert: A book exploring participatory economics - an equitable economic model. How could we organize economic life in a more just, equitable, and solidaristic manner?
• Real Utopia: Participatory Society for the 21st Century edited by Chris Spannos
• Realizing Hope: Life Beyond Capitalism by Michael Albert

Nonviolent Action

• Strategy for a Living Revolution by George Lakey
• From Dictatorship to Democracy by Gene Sharp
• The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Part One: Power and Struggle by Gene Sharp
• The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Part Two: The Methods of Nonviolent Action by Gene Sharp
• The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Part Three: The Dynamics of Nonviolent Action by Gene Sharp

Social Epidemics / Tipping Points

• The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference by Malcolm Gladwell

Strategy

• The Art of Warfare by Sun Tzu
• Start Making Sense: Turning the Lessons of Election 2004 into Winning Progressive Politics edited by Don Hazen and Lakshimi Chaudhryx

Power

• The Matrix

Race

• The Past Didn’t Go Anywhere: Making Resistance to Antisemitism Part of All of Our Movements by April Rosenblum
• White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son by Tim Wise

GI Resistance & Dismantling the Military

• Soldiers in Revolt: GI Resistance During the Vietnam War by David Cortright
• Democratizing Defense Resource Archive by Liberty Tree, Foundation for the Democratic Revolution

Environmental Justice

• “Communicating our Vision for National Climate Policy” by Green for All
  • Podcast
  • Talking Points
  • Media Tool Kit: “Using the Media to Frame the Debate”

Education

• Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire

U.S. Civil Rights Movement

• I’ve Got the Light of Freedom: The Organizing Tradition and the Mississippi Freedom Summer by Charles M. Payne

Revolutionary Theory

• Unorthodox Marxism: An Essay on Capitalism, Socialism, and Revolution by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel

History

• A People’s History of the United States: 1492 to Present by Howard Zinn

Publications and Websites

• ZNet
• Z Magazine
• Democracy Now!
• Left Turn
• Liberty Tree
• Monthly Review
• Real News Network
• Rockridge Nation
• Wiretap

Blogs and Sites

• Joshua Kahn Russell
• Michael Albert
• John Cronan
• Madeline Gardner
• Pat Korte
• Meaghan Linick-Loughley
• Aric Miller
• Aaron Petcoff
• Becca Rast
• Mark Rudd
• Matt Smucker

Organizations Promoting: Leadership Development, Political Education, Vision, Strategy, and Capacity Building

An ongoing compilation of Organizations Promoting: Leadership Development, Political Education, Vision, Strategy, and Capacity Building. I will soon add links to their websites and descriptions of what they do. In the mean time, you can find them by googling their name. Want to help build the movement? Donate these groups and support their work - they are the people who build the capacity of the movement’s best organizers and leaders! Enjoy!

Beyond the Choir - Beyond the Choir is an analysis, strategy and training project serving groups and campaigns struggling for social and economic justice, peace and the environment. We are a collective of organizers, trainers and designers who seek to spread tools, skills and strategies to build movements strong enough to realize the change we imagine.

The Brecht Forum - The BRECHT FORUM is a place for people who are working for social justice, equality and a new culture that puts human needs first. Through its programs and events, the Brecht Forum brings people together across social and cultural boundaries and artistic and academic disciplines to promote critical analysis, creative thinking, collaboartive projects and networking in an independent community-level environment.

Campus Camp Wellstone - (a project of Wellstone Action) Campus Camp Wellstone trains students nationwide on how to run energized, community building, winning campaigns. We focus on campus and community organizing and young voter engagement.

The Center for Political Education - The Center for Political Education is a resource for political organizations on the left, progressive movements, the working class and people of color. It is anchored by a collective of individuals active in day-to-day struggles in the Bay Area. Our political approach is non-sectarian, democratic, and committed to a critical analysis of local, regional, national and global politics.

The Change Agency - The Change Agency is a collective of activist educators and researchers. We work with community organisers to help people clarify their purpose and develop plans that will enable them to be heard, focus their energies and achieve social and environmental justice outcomes. We research social change, activism and advocacy. What is successful and what isn’t? How can people organise and work together more effectively? Based on our ongoing research we facilitate workshops for activists and community organisers and also share many of our resources on this site.

Albert Einstein Institution - The mission of the Albert Einstein Institution is to advance the worldwide study and strategic use of nonviolent action in conflict. The Institution is committed to:

• defending democratic freedoms and institutions
• opposing oppression, dictatorship, and genocide, and
• reducing reliance on violence as an instrument of policy.

This mission is pursued in three ways, by:

• encouraging research and policy studies on the methods of nonviolent action and their past use in diverse conflicts
• sharing the results of this research with the public through publications, conferences, and the media, and
• consulting with groups in conflict about the strategic potential of nonviolent action.

Electoral Action Training (EAT) - (a project of the United States Student Association and Campus Camp Wellstone) The United States Student Association and Campus Camp Wellstone have teamed up to offer a comprehensive training to give students the skills to register, educate and mobilize their campuses for the 2008 election and beyond. With a combination of workshops, exercises, and discussions students will be equipped with tried and true electoral organizing skills (plus creative new tactics) and a sophisticated understanding of student power.

Grassroots Organizing Weekend (GROW) - (a project of the United States Student Association and the Midwest Academy) USSAF’s GrassRoots Organizing Weekend (GROW) is a comprehensive three-day training for student organizers. The GROW teaches students how to be more strategic in their fight for justice on campus and in the community. The training is a series of presentations, exercises, and discussions that teach a set of skills and concepts, which will increase the effectiveness of your student organizing. The GROW trainers are seasoned student organizers from around the country who teach by using their own personal organizing experiences. Usually 20-40 participants attend each GROW. As a participant of the GROW you will learn how to:

Highlander Research and Education Center - Highlander serves as a catalyst for grassroots organizing and movement building in Appalachia and the South. We work with people fighting for justice, equality and sustainability, supporting their efforts to take collective action to shape their own destiny. Through popular education, participatory research, and cultural work, we help create spaces — at Highlander and in local communities — where people gain knowledge, hope and courage, expanding their ideas of what is possible. We develop leadership and help create and support strong, democratic organizations that work for justice, equality and sustainability in their own communities and that join with others to build broad movements for social, economic and restorative environmental change.

Hollyhock Leadership Institute: A School for Social Change - The Hollyhock Leadership Institute empowers current and emerging leaders to create high impact social change. We build alliances, catalyze new visions and re-kindle inspiration.

Paul Kivel - Paul Kivel’s work grows out of three decades in community education, engaged parenthood, political writing, and practical activism all focused on one overriding question: How can we live and work together to nurture each individual and create a multicultural society based on love, caring, justice, and interdependence with all living things? Paul believes we each have a responsibility to help create a world worthy of our children. As Rabbi Tarfon wrote many centuries ago: “It is not upon you to finish the work. Neither are you free to desist from it.” This web site offers you Paul’s articles and books, links and exercises, bibliographies and videographies, all to support personal growth, community education, progressive activism, and effective organizing.

Labor/Community Strategy Center - The Labor/Community Strategy Center is a multiracial “think tank/act tank” committed to building democratic, internationalist, Left social movements and challenging the ideological, economic, and political domination of transnational capital. The Strategy Center’s work encompasses all aspects of urban life in the United States: it emphasizes class-conscious labor organizing and fighting for environmental justice and ending climate change, immigrant rights, and first-class transportation, as well as actively confronting the growing criminalization, racialization, and feminization of poverty. The Strategy Center synthesizes grassroots organizing-The Bus Riders Union and Community Rights projects-with education, policy development, and artistic culture production-Strategy Center Publications, The National Center for Transportation Strategies, the National School for Strategic Organizing, Voices from the Frontlines radio show, and AhoraNow periodical-to generate a creative and aggressive response to the growing power of the corporate-led political Right in the United States. The Strategy Center is committed to multilingual organizing, including the development of multilingual publications, productions, and visuals arts.

The Midwest Academy - Midwest Academy is a leading national training institute for the progressive movement. The Academy advances the movements for social change by teaching a strategic, rigorous, results-oriented approach to social action and organization building. The Academy provides training (introductory and advanced level) and consulting, equipping organizers, leaders, and their organizations to think and act strategically to win justice for all.

Movement Strategy Center - The Movement Strategy Center brings a cohesive plan to strengthen these emerging efforts and build the progressive social justice movement. They do this by supporting individuals, organizations, alliances and sectors to be more strategic, collaborative and sustainable.

New Tactics in Human Rights - The New Tactics in Human Rights Project, led by a diverse group of partner international organizations, advisors and practitioners, promotes tactical innovation and strategic thinking within the international human rights community. Strategic and tactical thinking, long used by business and military strategists, is an effective means for the human rights movement to expand options and possibilities of what can be done. Innovative tactics are emerging that may more effectively advance human rights and end persistent human rights problems. Many innovations have been valuable, yet are not well known outside their regions.

The People’s Institute for Survival and Beyond - The People’s Institute for Survival and Beyond (PISAB), is a national and international collective of anti-racist, multicultural community organizers and educators dedicated to building an effective movement for social transformation. The People’s Institute for Survival and Beyond, affectionately known in the community as The People’s Institute, considers racism the primary barrier preventing communities from building effective coalitions and overcoming institutionalized oppression and inequities. Through Undoing Racism™/Community Organizing Workshops, technical assistance and consultations, PISAB helps individuals, communities, organizations and institutions move beyond addressing the symptoms of racism to undoing the causes of racism so as to create a more just and equitable society.

Project South - Project South is a leadership development organization based in the US South creating spaces for movement building. We work with communities pushed forward by the struggle to strengthen leadership and provide popular political & economic education for personal & social transformation. We build relationships with organizations and networks across the US and global South to inform our local work and to engage in bottom-up movement building for social & economic justice.

RANT Collective (Root Activist Network of Trainers) - RANT is a small collective that formed in February of 2001. Our primary purpose is to provide training, education, and information to local, national, and international organizations, groups, and individuals working for global peace and justice. We are consensus based, non-hierarchical and collectively oriented.

Rainforest Action Network - Rainforest Action Network (RAN) is made up of 43 staff members in San Francisco, CA and in Tokyo, Japan, plus thousands of volunteer scientists, teachers, parents, students and other concerned citizens around the world. We believe that a sustainable world can be created in our lifetime, and that aggressive action must be taken immediately to leave a safe and secure world for our children. Dubbed “some of the most savvy environmental agitators in the business” by the Wall Street Journal, RAN uses hard-hitting markets campaigns to align the policies of multinational corporations with widespread public support for environmental protection. We believe that logging ancient forests for copy paper or destroying an endangered ecosystem for a week’s worth of oil is not just destructive, but outdated and unnecessary.

RESIST Grants - RESIST funds activist organizing and education work within movements for social change. As a foundation, RESIST is unique because we are part of the movements we fund. We do the work individual donors don’t have time to do: reaching out to activist organizations and researching their campaigns and projects. We operate on a national scale and know the big picture, and we challenge grantees to connnect their own issues with the concerns of other activists. Our frequent funding cycle means we can respond to time-sensitive organizing campaigns. RESIST is more than a foundation. We’re also a resource center, providing grassroots organizations with technical assistance and information about other funding sources. Finding Funding: A Beginner’s Guide to Foundation Research gives progressive activists a quick entry-point for grant-writing. Resist also publishes a highly respected Newsletter.

The Rockridge Institute - The Rockridge Institute is committed to the democratization of knowledge about politics. Our mission is to deepen and broaden the public’s understanding of the political world. Rockridge studies the worldviews, values and ideas behind conservative and progressive policies, issues and political discourse. Using the tools of neuroscience and cognitive linguistics — combined with decades of practical political experience — Rockridge promotes the effective articulation of progressive values. We do this by monitoring public debate and suggesting both long-term and short-term options for framing that offer a progressive perspective. We work primarily at the level of values and ideas across specific policy areas. At the level of language, we point out ineffective word choices and suggest argument forms and phrasings that better express progressive values.

Rosenberg Fund for Children - The Rosenberg Fund for Children was established to provide for the educational and emotional needs of children whose parents have suffered because of their progressive activities and who, therefore, are no longer able to provide fully for their children. The RFC also provides grants for the educational and emotional needs of targeted activist youth. Professionals and institutions will be awarded grants to provide services at no or reduced cost.

The Ruckus Society - We are living in a time of extreme challenges: stopping the war in Iraq, thwarting climate change catastrophes, reclaiming the commons from corporations, conquering our addiction to oil, and protecting human rights. In order to effectively meet these challenges, now, more than ever, environmental and social justice organizers must develop winning strategies that are creative, nonviolent, and take their lead from impacted communities. By building on the traditions of leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., we, at The Ruckus Society, provide our partner organizations and activists with the tools, training, and support necessary to tackle these problems and achieve their goals.

School of Unity and Liberation - SOUL is working to lay the groundwork for a powerful liberation movement by supporting the development of a new generation of young organizers - especially young women, young people of color, queer youth and working-class young people. We believe that – in order for young organizers to build an effective movement for fundamental social change – they need support to develop the nuts-and-bolts organizing skills they need to mobilize their communities and to deepen their political analysis and their visions for fundamental social change. SOUL is a training center designed to support the growing youth sector of the social justice movement. We run political education and organizing skills training programs, designed specifically to meet the particular needs of our generation of emerging movement leaders.

smartMeme - The smartMeme collective is a group of skilled, creative and dedicated change agents who work to support grassroots movements with strategy and training resources, values based communications tools, and meme campaigning. We work to build a culture of strategy, vision, and change, connecting struggles for democracy, peace, justice, and ecological sanity.

Tools for Change - Tools for Change has been providing consulting, training, mediation and facilitation services nationwide for over 15 years. Founder Margo Adair formed Tools for Change to promote the integration of spiritual and political perspectives to promote personal, spiritual and political transformation to help bring about a just society. She and other associates around the country, have forged multi-cultural and multigenerational alliances in many different settings.

Training for Change - Since 1992 Training for Change has been committed to increasing capacity around the world for activist training. When we say activist training, we mean training that helps groups stand up more effectively for justice, peace and the environment. We deliver skills directly that people working for social change can use in their daily work.

War Resisters League - The War Resisters League has been resisting war at home and war abroad since 1923. Our work for nonviolent revolution has spanned decades and been shaped by the new visions and strategies of each generation’s peacemakers.

Z Education Online - ZEO stands for Z Education Online. It is an offshoot of the Z Media Institute that operates entirely online - and it is a component of Z Communications and ZSpace that includes (or will include in the future):

• do it at your own speed instructionals with associated forums for discussion…
• text and audio lectures
• special presentations and chat sessions
• and extensive faculty-taught courses in ZSchool with associated forums, etc.

Z Media Institute - Z Media Institute was started in 1994 by the cofounders of Z Magazine (1988) and South End Press (1977) to teach radical politics, media and organizing skills, the principles and practice of creating non-hierarchical institutions and projects, activism, and vision and strategy for social change. Classes are held around Eel Pond in Woods Hole, Massachusetts.

“It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.” - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

The Art of War, written in the 6th century BC by Sun Tzu (Master Sun), is a 13 chapter Chinese treatise on military warfare and strategy. When read metaphorically, its a brilliant addition to those studying political strategy, and especially for those seeking fundamental social transformation.

Steve Bucknum posted an article called “George Lakoff vs. Sun Tzu” two years ago on BlueOregon where he recommended the ancient text to those interested in building progressive political power. Referring to text in the context of Oregon he said:

“Study of the ‘Nine Terrains’ (a chapter in the ‘Art of War’) is a good metaphor for having political strength in one part of the State, but not others — and how to maximize our strength and minimize the power of the other side. (If we attack their homelands, and cause them to defend their base, then they will not have enough strength left to attack our base. — Makes you want to spend more time/effort/money in Eastern Oregon!) There is a lot of good advice for strategy in these works — ‘When you are committed to employing your forces, feign inactivity. When your objective is nearby, make it appear as if distant; when far away, create the illusion of being nearby.’ These works have stood the test of thousands of years, in fact that some of it has risen to the level of ‘common sense’ in that we have heard parts before.”

Its a short book too, depending on the version & translation you get, the actual text is about 60-75 pages - and well worth every page. The translation I have can be bought here.

By Stephen Zunes
Source: Portside

The United States has done for the cause of democracy what the Soviet Union did for the cause of socialism. Not only has the Bush administration given democracy a bad name in much of the world, but its high-profile and highly suspect “democracy promotion” agenda has provided repressive regimes and their apologists an excuse to label any popular pro-democracy movement that challenges them as foreign agents, even when led by independent grassroots nonviolent activists.

In recent months, the governments of Zimbabwe, Iran, Belarus, and Burma, among others, have disingenuously claimed that popular nonviolent civil insurrections of the kind that toppled the corrupt and autocratic regimes in Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine in recent years - and that could eventually threaten them as well - are somehow part of an effort by the Bush administration and its allies to instigate “soft coups” against governments deemed hostile to American interests and replace them by more compliant regimes.

This confuses two very different phenomena.

The U.S. government has undeniably provided small amounts of money to various opposition groups and political parties through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute (IRI) and other organs. Such funding has at times helped a number of opposition groups cover some of the costs of their operations, better enabling them to afford computers, Internet access, fax machines, printing costs, office space and other materials. Assistance from foreign governments has also helped provide for poll watchers and other logistical support to help insure free and fair elections. In addition, the United States, through the NED, the IRI and other U.S.-funded projects, has also provided seminars and other training for opposition leaders in campaign strategies.

What is controversial about these endeavors is that they have been directed primarily at helping conservative, pro-Western parties with a free-market orientation and generally not parties of the democratic left. Nor are they aimed solely at pro-democracy struggles challenging autocratic regimes. Indeed, U.S. agencies have also backed opposition parties in countries such as Venezuela, despite it already being a democracy.

Some opposition groups in some countries have welcomed U.S. assistance while others have rejected such aid on principle. There is no evidence, however, to suggest - even in cases where this kind of limited U.S. support for opposition organizations has taken place - that the U.S. government or any U.S.-funded entity has ever provided training, advice, or strategic assistance for the kind of mass popular nonviolent action campaigns that have toppled governments or threatened the survival of incumbent regimes.

How Democratic Change Occurs

The United States remains the world’s number one supplier of armaments and security assistance to the world’s dictatorships. There is little reason to take seriously the idea that U.S. foreign policy, under either Republican or Democratic administrations, has been based upon a sincere belief in advancing freedom and democracy as a matter of principle. History has shown repeatedly that the U.S. government, like most Western powers, supports democratic rule only if it is seen to promote perceived economic and strategic interests. Conversely, the U.S. government has frequently opposed democratic rule if it is seen to be contrary to perceived economic and strategic interests. Since the vast majority of Americans, according to public opinion polls, do support democracy as a matter of principle, however, support for “democracy” has long been used as a rationalization for various U.S. foreign policy initiatives, even when these policies end up supporting authoritarianism and repression. As a result, though support for democratic change in countries ruled by autocratic regimes is certainly a worthwhile goal, skepticism over the Bush administration’s pro-democracy rhetoric is indeed warranted.

In any case, true democratic change comes from within. Recent years have witnessed the emergence of a series of broadly based nonviolent social movements that have succeeded in toppling dictatorships and forcing democratic reforms in such diverse countries as the Philippines, Chile, Bolivia, Madagascar, Nepal, Czechoslovakia, Indonesia, Serbia, Mali, and Ukraine. Even the relatively conservative Washington-based Freedom House, after examining the 67 countries that have moved from authoritarianism to varying degrees of democratic governance over the past few decades (www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/special_report/29.pdf) published a study concluding that these transitions did not come as a result of foreign intervention and only rarely through armed revolt or voluntary elite-driven reforms. In the overwhelming majority of cases, according to this report, change came through democratic civil society organizations engaging in massive nonviolent demonstrations and other forms of civil resistance, such as strikes, boycotts, tax refusal, occupations of public space, and other forms of non- cooperation.

Whenever governments are challenged by their own people, they tend to claim that those struggling for freedom and justice are traitors to the nation and agents of foreign enemies. In previous decades, opposition activists challenging U.S.-backed dictatorships in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere were routinely labeled as “communist agents” and “Soviet sympathizers.” Today, pro-democracy movements within U.S. client states in the Middle East are depicted as “Islamic fundamentalists” and “Iranian agents.” Similarly, opposition activists in Iran, Belarus, Burma, and Zimbabwe have been labeled as “supporters of Western imperialism” and “American agents.”

In reality, the limited amount of financial support provided to opposition groups by the United States and other Western governments in recent years cannot cause a nonviolent liberal democratic revolution to take place any more than the limited Soviet financial and material support for leftist movements in previous decades could cause an armed socialist revolution to take place. As Marxists and others familiar with popular movements have long recognized, revolutions are the result of certain objective conditions. Indeed, no amount of money could force hundreds of thousands of people to leave their jobs, homes, schools, and families to face down heavily armed police and tanks and put their bodies on the line unless they had a sincere motivation to do so.

Conspiracy Theories

A number of regimes facing popular opposition have gone so far as to claim that certain small independent non- profit organizations and supporters of nonviolent action from Europe and the United States who have provided seminars and workshops for opposition activists on the history and dynamics of nonviolent resistance are somehow working as agents of the Bush administration. Some Western bloggers and other writers critical of the Bush administration and understandably concerned about U.S. intervention in the name of “democracy,” have actually bought into some of the claims by these governments. These conspiracy theories have in turn been picked up by some progressive websites and periodicals and even by some in the mainstream press, which then repeat them as fact.

Virtually all of these seminars and workshops, however, come at the direct request of opposition organizers themselves. And at least as many of them have been on behalf of pro-democracy activists struggling against right-wing dictatorships as there have been on behalf of pro-democracy activists struggling against left-wing dictatorships. Over just this past year, for example, my colleagues and I have worked with Egyptians, Maldivians, Palestinians, West Papuans, Sahrawis, Azerbaijanis, and Guatemalan Indians struggling against repressive U.S.- backed governments. In addition, virtually all of these groups have a strict policy of refusing support from the NED or any other government-funded entities. As a result of my own involvement in a number of these groups and personally knowing most of their principal workshop leaders, I recognize that charges that Gene Sharp, Jack DuVall, Bob Helvey, Ivan Marovic, the Albert Einstein Institution, the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC), and the Center on Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (CANVAS) are somehow in cahoots with the CIA or are serving as agents of U.S. imperialism are totally unfounded.

Unfortunately, even Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez - echoed by some of his North American supporters - has apparently fallen for these false charges and has accused some of these individuals and groups of plotting with his opponents to overthrow him. Chavez has every right to be a bit paranoid, given the very real U.S. government efforts to subvert his regime, including support for a short-lived coup in 2002. In reality, however, the only visit to Venezuela that has taken place on behalf of any of these non-profit groups engaged in educational efforts on strategic nonviolence was in early 2006 when I - along with David Hartsough, the radical pacifist director of Peaceworkers - led a series of workshops at the World Social Forum in Caracas. There we lectured and led discussions on the power of nonviolent resistance as well as offered a series of screenings of a film ICNC helped develop on the pro-democracy movement in Chile against the former U.S.-backed dictator Augusto Pinochet. The only reference to Venezuela during those workshops was how massive nonviolent action could be used to resist a possible coup against Chavez, not foment one. In fact, Hartsough and I met with some Venezuelan officials regarding proposals that the government train the population in various methods of nonviolent civil defense to resist any possible future attempts to overthrow Chavez.

Workshops on Strategic Nonviolence

The American and European groups that share generic information on the history and dynamics of strategic nonviolence with civil society organizations in foreign countries are not unlike the Western private voluntary organizations that share environmentally sustainable technologies and agricultural techniques to farmers in developing nations. Both offer useful tools that, if applied consistently and effectively, could improve the quality of life for millions of people. There is nothing “imperialistic” about it.

Just as sustainable agricultural technologies and methods are more effective in meeting human needs and preserving the planet than the conventional development strategies promoted by Western governments, nonviolent action has been shown to be more effective in advancing democratic change than threats of foreign military intervention, backing coup plotters, imposing punitive sanctions, supporting armed rebel groups, and other methods traditionally instigated by the United States and its allies. And just as the application of appropriate technologies can also be a means of countering the damage caused by unsustainable neo- liberal economic models pushed by Western governments and international financial institutions, the use of massive nonviolent action can counter some of the damage resulting from the arms trade, military intervention, and other harmful manifestations of Western militarism.

Development based on Western models usually means that multinational corporations and the governments of wealthy capitalist countries end up exerting a large degree of control over these societies, whereas appropriate technologies allow for genuine independence and self-sufficiency. Similarly, unlike fomenting a military coup or establishing a military occupation - which relies on asserting control over the population and potential political opponents - successful nonviolent civil insurrections are necessarily based on a broad coalition of popular movements and are therefore impossible for an outside power to control.

It is ironic, then, that some elements of the left are attacking those very individuals and groups who are trying to disseminate these tools of popular empowerment against the forces of oppression and imperialism.

People Power

Another difference between these people-to-people educational efforts and U.S. intervention is that, unlike the NED and other government-backed “pro- democracy” efforts, which often focus on developing conventional political initiatives led by pro-Western elites, these workshops on strategic nonviolence are primarily designed for grassroots activists unaffiliated with established political parties who seek to make change from below.

Historically, individuals and groups with experience in effective nonviolent action campaigns tend to come from leftist and pacifist traditions which carry a skeptical view of government power, particularly governments with a history of militarism and conquest. For example, my own background in strategic nonviolent action is rooted in my involvement in the late 1970s as a nonviolence trainer for the anti-nuclear Clamshell Alliance and the nonviolent revolutionary group Movement for a New Society, both of which were radically decentralist in structure and decidedly anti-capitalist and anti- imperialist in orientation. More recently, my fellow workshop leaders have included a South African veteran of the anti-apartheid United Democratic Front, a leading Palestinian activist from the first intifada, and former student leaders from the left-wing Serbian opposition to Milosevic.

Conversely, large bureaucratic governments accustomed to projecting political power through military force or elite diplomatic channels have little understanding or appreciation of nonviolent action or any other kind of mass popular struggle. Indeed, what would CIA operatives know about nonviolence, much less grassroots organizing?

In short, not only is it naive to assume than an external power could provoke a revolution of any kind, it should be apparent that the U.S. government does not know the first thing about fomenting a nonviolent civil insurrection. As a result, the dilemma for U.S. policy- makers - and the hope for all of us who support democracy as a matter of principle and not political expediency - is that the most realistic way to overthrow the world’s remaining autocratic regimes is through a process the U.S. government cannot control.

The U.S. government has historically promoted regime change through military invasions, coup d’etats, and other kinds of violent seizures of power that install an undemocratic minority. Nonviolent “people power” movements, by contrast, make regime change possible through empowering pro-democratic majorities. As a result, the best hope for advancing freedom and democracy in the world’s remaining autocratic states comes from civil society, not the U.S. government, which deserves neither the credit nor the blame for the growing phenomenon of nonviolent democratic revolutions.

Strengthening the Bush Agenda

The emergence of civil society organizations and the growing awareness of the power of nonviolent action in recent years have been among the most positive political developments in what has otherwise been largely depressing political times. It is most unfortunate, then, that supposedly “progressive” voices have chosen to attack this populist grass roots phenomenon as some kind of Bush administration conspiracy.

It is also ironic that so many on the American left - after years of romanticizing armed struggle as the only way to defeat dictatorships, disparaging the potential of nonviolent action to overthrow repressive governments, and dismissing the notion of a nonviolent revolution — are now expressing their alarm at how successful popular nonviolent insurrections can be, even to the point of naively thinking that it is so easy to pull off that it could somehow be organized from foreign capitals. In reality, every successful popular nonviolent insurrection has been a home grown movement rooted in the realization by the masses that their rulers were illegitimate and the current political system was incapable of redressing injustice. By contrast, no nonviolent insurrection has succeeded when the movement’s leadership and agenda did not have the backing of the majority of the population. This is why the 2002-2003 “strike” in Venezuela’s oil industry failed to bring down Chavez while comparable disruptions to economies elsewhere have often forced out less popular leaders.

“Leftist” critics of nonviolent pro-democracy movements parallel right-wing supporters of U.S. intervention in that both denigrate the power of individuals to take their destiny into their own hands and overthrow oppressive leaders and institutions. Instead, both appear to believe that people are passive victims and that social and political change can only come through the manipulation of foreign powers.

Reagan Redux

For example, despite President Ronald Reagan’s insistence during the 1980s that the popular armed insurgencies that challenged repressive U.S.-backed regimes in Central America were the result of a Soviet “hit list,” the reality was that the revolutions in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala were homegrown popular movements. The Soviets provided a limited amount of assistance and obviously wanted to take political advantage of the possible overthrow of pro-American oligarchs by having them replaced with leftist revolutionaries who would be friendlier to their interests. But the oppressed peasants and workers of those Central American countries were not following the dictates of Moscow. They were struggling for basic rights and an end to repression.

Similar claims heard today that the United States is somehow a major force behind contemporary popular movements against dictatorships in Burma, Iran, Zimbabwe, and Belarus or that the United States was somehow responsible for the successes of previous movements in Serbia, Georgia or Ukraine are equally ludicrous. This attitude parallels claims by those on the right who disingenuously credited Reagan’s dangerous and militaristic Cold War policies for the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe and tried to depict the union activists, peasants, students, priests, and others martyred in the course of popular struggles in Central America as Soviet agents.

In addition, it is important to remember that the vast majority of successful nonviolent civil insurrections have not been against dictatorships opposed by the U.S. government, but dictatorships supported by the U.S. government. Right-wing autocrats toppled by such “people power” movements have included Marcos in the Philippines, Suharto in Indonesia, the Shah of Iran, Duvalier in Haiti, Pinochet in Chile, Chun in South Korea, and Numeiry in Sudan, to name only a few.

Another problem with this kind of simplistic reductionism is that when nonviolent civil insurrections do succeed in bringing democrats to power in countries previously under anti-American dictatorships, the new often-inexperienced leaders are faced with plaudits from the American right and suspicion from the European and North American left. This could lead them to wonder who their friends really are and reinforce the myth that those of the right, rather than the left, are the real champions of freedom.

The conspiratorial thinking and denigration of genuine popular movements appearing increasingly in some leftist circles serves to strengthen the hand of repressive regimes, weaken democratic forces, and bolster the argument of American neo-conservatives that only U.S. militarism and intervention - and not nonviolent struggle by oppressed peoples themselves - is capable of freeing those suffering under repressive rule.

How Change Occurs

Successful nonviolent revolutions, like successful armed revolutions, often take years or decades to develop as part of an organic process within the body politic of a given country. There is no standardized formula for success that a foreign government or a foreign non- governmental organization could put together, since the history, culture and political alignments of each country are unique. No foreign government or NGO can recruit or mobilize the large numbers of ordinary civilians necessary to build a movement capable of effectively challenging the established political leadership, much less of toppling a government.

Trainers and workshop leaders like me and my colleagues emphasize certain strategies and tactics that have been successful elsewhere in applying pressure on governments to change their policies and undermining the support and loyalty required for governments to successfully suppress the opposition. In some cases, local activists may try to emulate some of them. However, a regime will lose power only if it tries to forcibly maintain a system that the people oppose, not because a foreign workshop leader described to a small group of opposition activists certain tactics that had been used successfully in another country at another time.

In maintaining our steadfast opposition to U.S. interventionism and exposing the hypocrisy and double- standards of the Bush administration’s rhetoric in support of democracy, we must also challenge those who denigrate popular indigenous movements as creations of Washington or slander reputable non-profit groups that share their generic knowledge of nonviolent strategies and tactics with like-minded organizations overseas.

Finally, both to maintain our credibility and because it is the right thing to do, progressives should recognize the moral imperative of opposing repressive regimes regardless of their ideology or their relationship with the United States. Progressives should also embrace strategic nonviolent action in the cause of freedom as an ethical and realistic alternative to U.S. interventionism.

Stephen Zunes is Middle East editor for Foreign Policy in Focus and a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco. He is the principal co-editor of Nonviolent Social Movements (Blackwell, 1999) and chairs the board of academic advisors for the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. Stephen Zunes is a Professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco

“Non-violence is not inaction… It is not for the timid or weak… Non-violence is hard work. It is the willingness to sacrifice. It is the patience to win.” -  César Chávez

Can a computer game teach how to fight real-world adversaries—dictators, military occupiers and corrupt rulers, using methods that

have succeeded in actual conflicts—not with laser rays or AK47s, but with non-military strategies and nonviolent weapons? Such a game, A Force More Powerful (AFMP), is now available. A unique collaboration of experts on nonviolent conflict working with veteran game designers has developed a simulation game that teaches the strategy of nonviolent conflict. A dozen scenarios, inspired by re

cent history, include conflicts against dictators, occupiers, colonizers and corrupt regimes, as well as struggles to secure the political and human rights of ethnic and racial minorities and women.”

The peace movement, which has largely convinced the entire population that the Iraq War is about oil, and the environmental movement, which has framed the debate that global warming is a clear and present danger, both don’t seem to be bridging the gaps between the two issues. I’d love to be proven wrong on this, but from what I’ve seen, most of the two sections of the progressive movement aren’t making the obvious connections.

Burning fossil fuels is driving global warming. The United States just spent almost $1 trillion (yes, trillion with a “T”) to ensure permanent access to Iraqi oil. In other words, money that could have gone to dozens of serious social programs - including funding a complete greening of the American economy - was instead funneled into an illegal, costly, and lethal global warming drilling expedition and nobody is talking about it.

The war, as the election season in the United States speeds up, is largely off the table. It’s gone off the media radar for election coverage, which isn’t surprising, though obviously quite frustrating. The environmental movement, which has been doing a phenomenal job linking solutions to global warming with solutions to poverty in America (i.e. “green pathways out of poverty”, “green collar jobs”, and “solar cells, not jail cells”), but doesn’t seem to be focusing in a large way on why our national spending priorities are what they are. How can we prompt a green economic revolution in our country if half of our budget is going to waging a bloody war for control of fossil fuel reserves!

The only folks I’ve seen actually trying to link the two issues are the “no war, no warming” folks. But the slogan just doesn’t cut it. All it says, all it invokes, is a group of people who happen to be against two things (key word: against). The direct linkage and correlation between the two issue’s aren’t highlighted when they are dichotomized in that way. We need to be more creative and thoughtful when linking the two - and we need to frame our message in positive language. People need to understand them as one concept. Much like messaging around “green collar jobs” invokes two issues with one conceptual frame.

The connections are clear. The public, soldiers, and veterans are all against the Iraq War in record numbers. Large portions of the population think we need to take action against climate destabilization too. Both global warming and the war are only getting worse. The U.S. Government and Corporate America just handed us these narratives. Let’s take them and roll with it!

When I look around me at the American Left, what I see is a movement that’s treading. Perhaps it is a matter of definition (who is really in the Left and so on) or perspective (seeing vs. not seeing the great things going on in the progressive community). But when I look around me, the overarching relationships I see are not those of solidarity, but of jealousy, competitiveness, and hostility. Instead of real diversity, I see a drive to homogenize our strategies and actions - even if only by default and submitting to the status quo and “fighting the good fight”. Instead of egalitarian social relations and equity, I see social relationships which largely resemble the relationships that exist in the systems of exploitation which we oppose and seek to replace. Instead of strategy I see inefficiency and a lack of concrete goals. Instead of visionary thinking, I see a lack of direction. Instead of real organizing aimed at taking power, I see activism, lobbying, and resistance-mode repetition. Instead of fighting to win, I see more of the same habits of defeat.

One of my biggest internal battles has been “as organisers, should we engage with the (organized) Left? Or is even associating ourselves with most who call themselves ‘leftists’ enough to prevent real progress and growth?” Should we try to try to convince leftists that their actions aren’t moving us forward on a trajectory of change, or should we just spend our time with ordinary folks who sincerely want to help change the world.

I don’t know the answers to these things. I have lots of ideas about them though. What I do know is that a lot of people who don’t consider themselves “radicals” are doing some damn innovative things that’s moving the movement forward more than most “leftists”. Those who are committed to building a mass movement aimed at building a new future need to start having these big-picture conversations with one another. Intentional organizing and dialogue is one of our greatest tools.

The following is a review I wrote for ZNet on April 21, 2007. It’s one of my favorite books and super relevant for building powerful movements for social change. Check it out:

Remembering Tomorrow: From SDS to Life After Capitalism, a memoir by Michael Albert, published by Seven Stories Press, is a must read for every young organizer serious about winning long-term, systematic change in the world. It critically analyzes the social movements of the past with the goal of building the stronger, more explosive and powerful movements of the future. Rather than ignoring persistent movement problems, it asks the hard questions that far too many experienced organizers avoid. Its look at the sixties and decades since, addressing culture, political events, and especially activist organizing, presents history not only honestly, but as we need it. Its focus on vision and strategy challenges our current over emphasis on only critique. Its exploration of what type of society we really want by way of historical examples and experiences is truly remarkable.

How can we bring more people into our movements; even make our movements gravitationally attractive and compelling? How can we make it easier for people in the movement to lead normal lives? How can we relate to new and broader audiences? How can we frame reforms in a radical context, and direct them towards future social gains? What role should militancy play in the movement? What might a revolution in the United States look like (and how can we get there)? All of these pressing questions, and many more, are addressed at length and in depth in the book. Albert walks readers through decades-worth of practical lessons that can be immediately applied to their own grassroots organizing; whether in schools, in workplaces or communities, or in youth and student organisations such as the Student Environmental Action Coalition (SEAC) or Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).

He explains how by thinking strategically and focusing on vision, we can provide the inspiration needed to overcome cynicism, counter critics, and draw masses of people into the movement- retaining instead of losing them, with an ever growing commitment.

Remembering Tomorrow is a true gift to young leftists- providing the knowledge they need to begin a life-long journey of political organizing and radical change. It is a timely addition to left organizing- at a point when the need for energetic young organizers to join in the development of vision, not only within the economic sphere, but also for kinship, culture, politics, and education, is greater than ever before. While each lesson from Remembering Tomorrow can be a powerful tool in and of itself, the central message of the book- that vision and strategy can give people the inspiration to fight and as such should be central to movement organizing- is a lesson that each of us should bring to broader audiences. Michael presents this theme perfectly, saying:

“If a person thinks a society promoting solidarity, diversity, equity and self-management is potentially attainable, then for him or her to say it should be morally off the agenda and therefore that people should not try to define it, explain it and forcefully advocate for it, would be to say that humanity should stop progressing…”

The memoir follows Michael Albert’s life, from his college experiences as a young organizer with Students for a Democratic Society, to his work as a founder of South End Press, and finally to the creation Zmag and Znet, and the development of Participatory Economics (Parecon)- the visionary post-capitalist economic model- with Robin Hahnel. It incorporates lessons not only from Albert’s life, but also from the lives of his friends, classmates, and fellow organizers. Drawing on his experiences at each stage of his life, Michael explores the positives and negatives of many trends in activist organizing- with an eye towards improving how we build movements. Analysing how we could forge a powerful Left formation- and what that would look like and require from us- is something that we do far too seldom.

While exploring the book, readers are engaged with diverse organizing experiences- from student organising at MIT, UMass Amherst, and the Harvard Education School, to teaching in schools, prisons, and eventually at Z Media Institute (ZMI)- a leftist summer institute. They will gain tremendous insights in the field of independent publishing and media, following Albert’s major role in South End Press, Z Magazine, ZNet, and Z Media Institute. Albert brings readers into his life, taking them around New England, the United States, and the globe; from his life as a student organiser, to his work as a lifelong author, activist, movement strategist, and visionary anticapitalist- at each step along the way, sharing with them his successes and failings, his insights and uncertainties.

Remembering Tomorrow provides countless examples of where strategic action could have yielded vastly different outcomes- from what was learned organising with SDS to that organisation’s tragic death; from the civil rights movement to the movement against the War in Vietnam; and from the Women’s Movement to advocacy for an entirely different form of visionary economic system. Albert is always up front where the movement could have acted more strategically, and his role in those actions, be they successes or failures.

Taking it further, Michael explores how Participatory Economics could be the economic basis for a future society; a society whereby humans could organize an advanced industrial society in a manner which promotes solidarity, diversity, equity, self-management and efficiency. Weaving together issues of sex, gender, race, and class, of what has been and of what could be, of people and their lives, places and their conflicts, and events and their implications, all culled from personal experiences, makes for a wonderfully human book that is also inspiring and edifying.

All-in-all Remembering Tomorrow: From SDS to Life After Capitalism sheds light on many of the movements of the past; renewing debate on many so-called “settled” issues, and starting new discussions on the issues that many leftists fail to address. It serves as both an extraordinary introduction for new leftists and a sobering wakeup call for experienced ones. I recommend it for all those who are serious about struggling to win a better world.

Note: Readers who enjoy Remembering Tomorrow and wish to further explore the need for our movements to develop vision and strategy, should also consider reading ParEcon: Life After Capitalism, and Realizing Hope: Life Beyond Capitalism and visiting Zmag.org

My good friend Joshua Kahn Russell turned me on to an AMAZING book by Malcolm Gladwell called “The Tipping Point“. Apparently I missed this one when it came out. Wish I hadn’t, but glad I read it now! It’s one of the best books I’ve read in years.

After I read it, I realized that a lot of my not-so-progressive friends and business student acquaintances love the book. If you are a progressive, read it with an eye towards seeing the basic concepts and how powerful they are - not with the expectation that you will agree with everything Gladwell says about this or that issue. The underlying concepts are groundbreaking and, dare I say, revolutionary.

You can read excepts from the book and what Gladwell has to say about the book here. I’ll definitely be reflecting on and referencing this book a lot in the future. Its definitely one to read a few times! The endnotes are even amazing!

Language is yet another field in which Progressives lag light-years behind the Right. It isn’t bad enough that our movements are hard to be apart of, are often alienating to outsiders, and ask too much, too quickly of their participants. We have to take it to the next step and talk to people like we are from a different planet. And when our language is accessible we are usually don’t understand how people are receiving what we are saying, nor do we grasp the full implications of the assumptions our language are creating or reinforcing.

Language matters. Progressives frequently enter a discussion, lose their temper or are annihilated by their opponents, and then can’t seem to fathom why they lost the debate. Even worse, some times they blame their loss on the audience – as if the public is the cause of our inability to effectively communicate our values and vision. What we almost never realize is that we regularly lose the debate before it has even starts.

The Language Around Global Warming

Take global warming. Open a copy of the New York Times and find an article about global warming. Take out a highlighter and highlight every form of the word “global warming” you see (“global warming”, “climate change”, “climate crisis”, etc…). Then tally up the number of times each term is used. There is a good chance that the most common term you will find, is “climate change”, often used 2 to 3 times as much as “global warming”. A few years ago, the term “climate change” didn’t exist in newspapers, and the term “global warming” was used every time the concept of environmental chaos was discussed. Today the opposite is true. Newspapers, television news outlets, and even progressive activists all regularly use the term “climate change”.

Well, as one might have guessed, this wasn’t an accident. A man by the name of Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster and strategist, advised Republican politicians to use the term “climate change” instead of “global warming”. This effort by conservatives popularized the term and it is now a popular term. Why did he do that? Because the term “global warming”, as he put it, was “too hysterical”. The word caught on and is now part of the narrative that is told to the public and repeated by the public about global warming and environmental destruction. In a 16-page document entitled “The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America”, Luntz Research Companies advised conservative politicians on what language they could use to argue that there is “no consensus” on the issue of global warming. Hell, even Democratic Party leaders now regularly use the term.

As soon as we use the word “climate change” in front of an audience, we are triggering a whole slew of conservative stories and arguments that the right has built up around that term. And they do this for every issue!

Moral of the story: When we use their language, we lose.

How Language Traverses the Brain

But it goes deeper than that! It is telling to look at how the brain processes language and what that means for our political work.

A recent study by Sam Harris (author of Letter to a Christian Nation), Sameer Sheth, and Mark S. Cohen unearthed new evidence that shows how seriously language triggers deeply held opinions and assumptions. Their study, entitled “Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty”, explores how the brain processes statements that of “belief”, “disbelief” and “uncertainty”.

What did they find? The study found that while a statement’s validity was processed in more advanced parts of the brain, it always passed through more primitive portions (the medial prefrontal cortex and the anterior insula – portions of processing reward, emotion, pain perception, taste, and disgust) where it received a “final stamp” of “belief” or “disbelief”. If a participant thought a statement to be true, parts of their brain linked to reward, emotion and taste showed activity; statements which they perceived to be untrue activated sections of the brain linked with pain, disbelief, and taste.

If these findings are indeed true, what would that mean for the left? What would it mean for how we frame things, how we relate to people, and how we choose our words if the consequence of a poor or alienating word choice is that our statements actually make the public “feel” discomfort, bad taste, and disgust?

The study seems like it could help to explain a lot. It would help to partially explain things like “stubbornness”, and people voting “against their self-interests”, and many trends that progressives often display contempt for.

Perhaps that’s our primitive brain applying disgust to things we should have much more sympathy towards.

What we are up against

The republicans are often quite honest about their intentions. Take Gary Bauer for example. Bauer was a 2004 republican presidential hopeful. In describing politics, he said: “We are engaged in a social, political, and cultural war. There’s a lot of talk in America about pluralism. But the bottom line is somebody’s values will prevail. And the winner gets the right to teach our children what to believe.” I don’t see any reason to doubt the sincerity of their stated intentions. We should respond accordingly.

Even though we are young, are we going to sound like raging, angry lunatic? Or will we be the voice of reason that helps to guide people through the darkness and into the light.

Solutions

When a republican or evangelical gives a speech, they tell you what they think, what they want, and how they plan to get it. They are usually quite honest about their intentions. They use highly inspiring and hopeful language, talking about everyday people and popular themes (many of which they helped create). We need to be talking using the same type of inspirational language from a progressive perspective.

Luckily for us, there are already those in progressive circles working hard on figuring out new ways to communicate our values with the public. The smartMeme project (www.smartmeme.org) is one of the groups pioneering a field they call “story-based strategy”; an exciting initiative which challenges progressives to reframe the debate using alternative narratives to counter dominant myths around social programs.

Another small collective, Beyond the Choir (www.beyondthechoir.org), is also doing innovative work on how progressives can communicate our values using strategic and well-planned organizing, education, campaigns and actions.

George Lakoff’s Rockridge Institute (www.rockridgeinstitute.org) is also paving the way in taking back language from the rightwing.

While much more is needed, we should all challenge ourselves to begin a much needed dialog about how our words, our actions, and our attitudes are received by the American people. Our victory depends on it.

Recommended Links

Progressive:
George Lakoff – www.georgelakoff.com
Rockridge Institute – www.rockridgeinstitute.org
Beyond the Choir – www.beyondthechoir.org
smartMeme – www.smartmeme.org

Conservative:
Frank Luntz – www.luntz.com

Recommended Articles

• What Prevents Radicals from Acting Strategically by Beyond the Choir (Matthew Smucker in collaboration with Madeline Gardner) www.beyondthechoir.org
• Building a Successful Antiwar Movement by Beyond the Choir www.beyondthechoir.org

Recommended Books

Progressives Books:

• Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate by George Lakoff
• Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think by George Lakoff

Conservative Books: (note: Luntz is the same way, but from a conservative perspective. It is very interesting to read his stuff both for concepts and to learn how the other side thinks and is framing almost every issue.)

• Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear by Frank Luntz

Bibliography

Harris, Sam, Sameer A. Sheth, Md, Phd, and Mark S. Cohen, Phd. “Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty.” Annals of Neurology (2007). Wiley InterScience. 28 Dec. 2007 <http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/117858891/HTMLSTART>.

By Adam Berrey
Threshold Magazine, Vol. 8, No. 4, February/March 1996

I never thought it would hit me. Then one morning I simply could not get out of bed. The thought of attending another meeting, talking to another activist, explaining SEAC yet again, making one more flyer, or dealing with another coalition sent chills down my spine. Hearing words like strategy, tactic, and crisis made my eyes glaze over.

Three days later I was back in the SEAC office. I made it another four months until my lung collapsed, and I spent three days in the hospital – I had burned out.

A lot of Activists burnout, often to a point which interferes with their lives and work. Considering the gravity of the problems we face, unsustainable activism is irresponsible. Preventing burnout personally and organizationally is a critical part of building a long-term movement for progressive social change.

Preventing Burnout: Personally

Manage your time well: Good time management doesn’t simply mean accomplishing everything you set out to do. Time management is about establishing clear objectives, setting priorities, and organizing your time to accomplish these without the constant feeling that you are too busy or overwhelmed.

Integrate school and struggle: If you are a student, look for opportunities to integrate your school work with your activism: independent studies, internships, and research projects on the issues you are organizing around.

Create a support network: Foster relationships with people who will give you love, guidance, support, friendship, and advice. This should include a mentor who can provide another perspective on your work and who will challenge you to take care of yourself. Your community may include activists, non-activists, friends, family, and colleagues. Organizing shouldn’t prevent you from participating in the relationships which sustain you.

Meet your personal needs: We all have personal needs – physical, spiritual, and psychological. Develop simple habits like eating well, sleeping, washing your laundry, exercising regularly, taking breaks, having fun, doing art, and participating in a spiritual life.

Participating in a culture of struggle: Challenging corporate power, capitalism, etc. is exhausting and frightening. The most powerful movements in history have sustained themselves in this work through a shared culture of struggle – in songs, poetry, dance, music, and solidarity which express a commitment to a fight and a deep love for each other.

Ground yourself in history: We are part of a centuries old struggle for justice. Thousands of organizers have come before us and thousands more will come. There is a history to the conditions we face today which can inform our work and provide a source of inspiration.

Preventing Burnout: Organizationally

Use a good organizing practice: A wide array of books, magazines, and trainings provide organizing information. All of the practices which lead to successful organizing also help prevent burnout.

Make your issues winnable: Many of the problems we face seem unwinnable. The effort to stem the environmental and social hemorrhaging on this planet is overwhelming. One way to deal with this challenge is to build a long-term struggle based on fights for partial solutions which are winnable in the short-term.

Celebrate your victories: Don’t take winning lightly. Every victory is an excuse for a party, a chance to congratulate each other, and an opportunity for a bottle of sparkling apple cider.

Create an affirming environment: Constantly fighting overwhelming social forces can sometimes lead to a culture of criticism within our organizations. We can blame ourselves and each other. In desperate attempts to make social change, we wield what little power we gain from organizing to attack the closest targets which are often our own peers and organizations.

Create a just community: Good organizing means working to create the conditions within our organizations which offer people the freedom to realize their full potential. This means actively working to overcome systems of oppression which are constituted along lines such as race, gender, class, and sexual orientation.

Surviving Burnout

Take a break: Breaks are good. Everyone needs rest, down time, and a change of pace. Travel, spend time with your family, take an extended sabbatical for study and reflection. Do not be afraid to stop before you burnout.

Change what caused the burnout: Before you go back to organizing after your break, think about what lead to the burnout and find ways to change your work habits or organization to make your activism more sustainable.

Get fired up!: The best way to recover from burnout is to go back to the source of your energy and get tired up about an issue. Returning to the reason you became active in the first place.

There is nothing impressive or glamorous about driving yourself to burnout. Burning out is a privilege. Because of my race and class privilege in society, my family had the resources to support me when I returned to school. I had the freedom to move away from immediate environmental problems and the luxury of other opportunities. Organizations with burnout as the natural course of activism limit themselves to people who have the privilege to burnout. We will never achieve a just world if the process of fighting for it excludes the people whose conditions are the most unjust.

Adam Berrey lives in Minnesota and is currently a SEAC Trainer (as of Feb/Mar. 1996)