💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › tom-knoche-organizing-communities.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:19:35. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Organizing Communities Author: Tom Knoche Date: 1993 Language: en Topics: community organizing, organization, Social Anarchism Journal Source: Social Anarchism Journal, 1993
Many anarchists probably cringe at the notion of any person or group
being "organized" and believe that the very idea is manipulative. They
point to countless community organization leaders who ended up on
government payrolls. They can't see how winning traffic lights and
playgrounds does any more than help the system appear pluralistic and
effective.
Such skepticism makes sense. Community organizing has always been
practiced in many different ways to accomplish many different things. In
reviewing the history of neighborhood organizing, Robert Fisher summed
it up this way:
While neighborhood organizing is a political act, it is neither
inherently reactionary, conservative, liberal or radical, nor is it
inherently democratic and inclusive or authoritarian and parochial. It
is above all a political method, an approach used by various segments of
the population to achieve specific goals, serve certain interests, and
advance clear or ill-defined political perspectives. (Fisher, 1984; p.
158)
If we just look at some of the progressive strains of community
organizing thought, we still face a lot of confusion about what it is
and how it is used. Saul Alinsky, a key figure in the development of
community organizing as we know it today, wrote:
We are concerned about how to create mass organizations to seize power
and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality,
justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education,
full and useful employment, health and the creation of those
circumstances in which man can have the chance to live by the values
that give meaning to life. We are talking about a mass power
organization that will change the world. (Alinsky, 1971, p. 3)
The Midwest Academy, a training institute for community organizers
founded by some ex-civil rights and SDS leaders, asserts that:
More and more people are finding that what is needed is a permanent,
professionally staffed community membership organization which can not
only win real improvements for its members, but which can actually alter
the relations of power at the city and state level. These groups
[citizen groups] are keeping government open to the people and are
keeping our democratic rights intact. (Max, 1977; p. 2)
A senior member of ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for
Reform Now), a national association of mostly urban community
organizations, describes the goal of organizing as strengthening
people's collective capacities to bring about social change (Staples,
1984; p. 1). ACORN organized local communities, then employed its
constituency at the national level, attempting to move the Democratic
Party to the left.
Finally, a participant in a workshop on community organizing I conducted
a number of years ago characterized community organizing as
"manipulating people to do trivial things."
In this article, I will focus on how community organizing can be useful
in advancing an anarchist vision of social change. Community
organizations that build on an anarchist vision of social change are
different from other community organizations because of the purposes
they have, the criteria they have for success, the issues they work on,
the way they operate and the tactics they use.
My experience with community organizing spans a 16-year period including
four years in Baltimore, Maryland and twelve in Camden, New Jersey. I
have primarily worked with very low income people on a wide range of
issues. I will draw heavily on my personal experience in this article. I
use the term "community organizing" to refer to social change efforts
which are based in local geographically defined areas where people live.
This is the key distinction between community organizing and other forms
of organizing for social change which may be based in workplaces or
universities, involving people where they work or study instead of where
they live. Some issue-oriented organizations are considered community
organizations if their constituency is local.
Anarchist community organizing must be dedicated to changing what we can
do today and undoing the socialization process that has depoliticized so
many of us. We can use it to build the infrastructure that can respond
and make greater advances when our political and economic systems are in
crisis and are vulnerable to change.
The following purposes illustrate this concept.
1. Helping people experiment with decentralized, collective and
cooperative forms of organization.
We have to build our American model of social change out of our own
experience; we can't borrow revolutionary theory in total from that
developed in another historical and/or cultural context. Community
organizations can help people log that experience and analyze it.
Because of our culture's grounding in defense of personal liberty and
democracy, social change engineered by a vanguard or administered by a
strong central state will not work here.
David Bouchier is on the right track when he says, "For citizen radicals
evolution is better than revolution because evolution works" (Bouchier,
1987; p. 139). We must learn new values and practice cooperation rather
than competition. Community organizations can provide a vehicle for this
"retailing." "This means that a cultural revolution, a revolution of
ideas and values and understanding, is the essential prelude to any
radical change in the power arrangement of modern society. The purpose
of radical citizenship is to take the initiative in this process"
(Bouchier, p. 148).
Any kind of alternative institution (see Ehrlich, et al., Reinventing
Anarchy, p. 346), including cooperatives, worker managed businesses,
etc., that offers a chance to learn and practice community control and
worker self-management, is important. We must experience together how
institutions can be different and better. These alternative institutions
should be nonprofit, controlled by the people who benefit from their
existence. Most charities and social service agencies do not qualify as
alternative institutions because they are staffed and controlled by
people who usually are not part of the community they serve; they
therefore foster dependence.
The recent proliferation of community land trusts in this country is an
exciting example of community-based, cooperative and decentralized
organizations. Through these organizations, people are taking land and
housing off the private market and putting them in their collective
control.
I have been a board member of North Camden Land Trust in Camden, New
Jersey since its inception in 1984. The land trust now controls about
thirty properties. A group of thirty low income homeowners who
previously were tenants without much hope of home ownership now
collectively make decisions concerning this property. The development of
the land trust embodies many of the elements that describe community
organizing grounded in a social anarchist vision for society.
2. Increasing the control that people have over actions that affect
them, and increasing local self-reliance.
This involves taking some measure of control away from large
institutions like government, corporations and social service
conglomerates and giving it to the people most affected by their
actions. David Bouchier describes this function as attaining "positive
freedoms." Positive freedoms are rights of self- government that are not
dependent on or limited by higher powers (Bouchier, p.9).
In the neighborhood where I live and work, residents are starting to
demand control over land use decisions. They stopped the state and local
governments' plan to build a second state prison on the waterfront in
their neighborhood. Instead of stopping there, the residents, through a
series of block meetings and a neighborhood coalition, have developed a
"Peoples' Plan" for that waterfront site. Control of land use has
traditionally rested with local government (and state and federal
government to a much more limited extent), guided by professional
planners and consultants. Neighborhood residents believe they should
control land use in their neighborhood, since they are the ones most
directly affected by it.
The concept of self-reliant communities described by David Morris (1987)
also helps us understand the shift in power we are talking about.
Self-reliant communities organize to assert authority over capital
investment, hiring, bank lending, etc.-- all areas where decision making
traditionally has been in the hands of government or private enterprise.
3. Building a counterculture that uses all forms of communication to
resist illegitimate authority, racism, sexism, and capitalism. In
low-income neighborhoods, it is also important that this counterculture
become an alternative to the dominant culture which has resulted from
welfare and drugs.
The Populist movement can teach us a lot about building a
counterculture. That movement used the press, person-to-person contact
via roving rallies and educational lectures, an extensive network of
farm cooperatives and an alternative vision of agricultural economics to
do this (Goodwyn, 1976; 1981).
Every movement organization has to use the media to advance its ideas
and values. Educational events, film, community-based newspapers, etc.,
are all important. The local community advocacy organization in North
Camden has done a good job of combining fundraising with the development
of counterculture. They have sponsored alternative theater which has
explored the issues of battered women, homelessness and sexism. After
each play, the theater group conducted an open discussion with the
audience about these issues. These were powerful experiences for those
who attended.
The question of confronting the dominant culture in very low income
neighborhoods is one of the greatest challenges facing community
organizations. Many families have now experienced welfare dependence for
four generations, a phenomenon which has radically altered many peoples'
value systems in a negative way. People must worry about survival
constantly, and believe that anything they can get to survive they are
entitled to, regardless of the effect on others. It has not fostered a
cooperative spirit. The response of low-income people to long-term
welfare dependency is not irrational, but it is a serious obstacle to
functioning in a system of decentralized, cooperative work and services.
One experience in this regard is relevant. A soup kitchen called
Leavenhouse has operated in Camden for 10 years, during nine of which it
was open to anyone who came. A year ago, the soup kitchen changed into a
feeding cooperative on weekdays. Guests now have to either work a few
hours in the kitchen or purchase a ticket for five dollars which is good
for the entire month. Daily average attendance has dropped from 200 to
about 20. The idea of cooperating to provide some of the resources
necessary to sustain the service is outside the value system of many
people who previously used the kitchen. Leavenhouse realizes now that it
must address the reasons why people have not responded to the co-op, and
is planning a community outreach program designed to build some
understanding, trust and acceptance of the idea of cooperative feeding.
The 20 people who have joined the co-op have responded favorably. They
appreciate the more tranquil eating environment and feel good about
their role in it. The co-op members now make decisions about the
operation of their co-op. Friendships and information sharing (primarily
about jobs) have been facilitated. Fewer people are being served, but
meaningful political objectives are now being realized.
4. Strengthening the "social fabric" of neighborhood units - - that
network of informal associations, support services, and contacts that
enable people to survive and hold on to their sanity in spite of, rather
than because of, the influence of government and social service
bureaucracies in their lives.
John McKnight (1987) has done a good job of exposing the failure of
traditional social service agencies and government in meeting people's
needs for a support structure. They operate to control people. Informal
associations ("community of associations"), on the other hand, operate
on the basis of consent. They allow for creative solutions, quick
response, interpersonal caring, and foster a broad base of
participation.
A good example of fulfilling this purpose is the bartering network that
some community organizations have developed. The organization simply
prints a listing of people and services they need along with a parallel
list of people and services they are willing to offer. This strengthens
intraneighborhood communication. In poor neighborhoods, this is
especially effective because it allows people to get things done without
money, and to get a return on their work which is not taxable. Concerned
Citizens of North Camden (CCNC) has supported the development of a
Camden "Center for Independent Living" -- an organization that brings
handicapped and disabled people in the city together to collectively
solve the problems they face. Twelve step groups are another example of
informal, nonprofessional associations that work for people.
Many community organizations measure success by "winning." The tangible
result is all that matters. In fact, many organizations evaluate the
issues they take on by whether or not they are "winnable." The real
significance of what is won and how it is won are of less concern.
For organizations that embrace an anarchist vision, the process and the
intangible results are at least as important as any tangible results.
Increasing any one organization' size and influence is not a concern.
The success of community organizing can be measured by the extent to
which the following mandates are realized.
exert control over their lives;
collectively--rotating tasks, sharing skills, confronting racism, sexism
and hierarchy;
problems they personally face through the organizing work;
so that the authority of government, corporations and large institutions
is replaced by extensions of decentralized, grassroots authority; and
of their participation in the collective effort.
Much of the literature about community organizing suggests that issues
should be selected which are: 1) winnable; 2) involve advocacy, not
service; and 3) build the organization's constituency, power and
resources. "Good issue campaigns should have the twin goals of winning a
victory and producing organizational mileage while doing so" (Staples,
1984; p.53).
These guidelines have always bothered me, and my experience suggests
that they are off the mark. Issues should be picked primarily because
the organization's members believe they are important and because they
are consistent with one of more of the purposes listed above. Let me
offer a few guidelines which are a bit different.
1. Service and advocacy work must go hand in hand, especially in very
needy communities.
People get involved with groups because they present an opportunity for
them to gain something they want. It may be tangible or intangible, but
the motivation to get involved comes with an expectation of relatively
short-term gratification. The job of community organizations is to
facilitate a process where groups of people with similar needs or
problems learn to work together for the benefit of all. Through this
process, people learn to work cooperatively and learn that their
informal association can usually solve problems more effectively and
quickly than established organizations.
I will offer an example to illustrate this point. When Concerned
Citizens of North Camden (CCNC) organized a squatter campaign in 1981,
the folks who squatted and took all of the risks did so because they
wanted a house, and because they believed squatting was the best way to
get one. Each one of the original 13 squatter families benefited because
they got title to their house. The advocacy purpose was served because a
program resulted that allowed 150 other families to get a house and some
funds to fix it up over the subsequent five years. Because CCNC has
stayed involved with each family and facilitated a support network with
them (up to the present), 142 of the houses are still occupied by
low-income families.
The government bureaucracy tried to undermine this program on numerous
occasions, but without success. Participants willingly rallied in each
crisis because they benefited in a way they valued deeply. The squatter
movement allowed them to win something that they knew they would never
realistically be able to win through any traditional home ownership
programs. The squatters were poor, most had no credit histories and most
were Hispanic. Official discredit, for whatever reasons, was meaningless
because people knew the effort had worked for them.
In my experience, I have never been a part of a more exciting and
politically meaningful effort than the CCNC squatting effort in 1981.
The initial squatting with 13 families was followed by five years of
taking over abandoned houses which the City reluctantly sanctioned
because of the strength and persistence of the movement.
2. Issues that pit one segment of the community against another--for
example, issues which favor homeowners over renters, blacks over Puerto
Ricans, etc.--should be avoided.
Most issues can be addressed in ways that unify neighborhood residents
rather than divide them.
3. An informal involvement in broad political issues should be
maintained on a consistent basis.
While I believe the kind of decentralized associations which form the
basis for any anarchist vision of social change are most easily formed
and nurtured at the local level (neighborhood or citywide), people must
also connect in some way with broader social change issues. Social
change cannot just happen in isolated places; we must build a large and
diverse movement.
We need to integrate actions against militarism, imperialism, nuclear
power, apartheid, etc., with action on local issues. They often can and
should be tied together. This requires getting people to regional and
national political events from time to time, and supporting local
activities which help people to connect with these broader issues.
4. Avoid the pitfalls of electoral politics.
This is a very controversial area of concern for community
organizations. The organizations I have worked with in Camden have
vacillated in their stance vis-a-vis electoral politics.
The danger of cooptation through involvement in this arena is severe.
Whenever a group of people start getting things done and build a
credible reputation in the community, politicians will try to use the
organization or its members to their advantage.
I have yet to witness any candidate for public office who maintained any
kind of issue integrity. Once in the limelight, people bend toward the
local interests that have the resources necessary to finance political
campaigns. They want to win more than they want to advance any
particular platform on the issues. We delude ourselves if we believe any
politicians will support the progressive agenda of a minority
constituency when their political future depends on them abandoning it.
I have participated in organizing campaigns where politicians were
exploited because of vulnerability and where one politician was
successfully played off against another. It is much easier for a
community organization to use politicians to advance a cause if neither
the organization nor its members are loyal to any officeholder. My
experience says that any organized and militant community-based
organization can successfully confront elected officials--regardless of
whether they are friends or enemies.
For organizations committed to the long term process of radical social
change, the way they operate is more important than any short-term
victories that might be realized. The discipline, habits and values that
are developed and nurtured through an organization's day-to-day life are
an important part of the revolutionary process. Some guidelines for
operation follow.
1. Have a political analysis and provide political education.
Lower-class and working class neighborhood organizations must develop
long-range goals which address imbalances in a class society, an
alternative vision of what people are fighting for, a context for all
activity, whether pressuring for a stop sign or an eviction blockage.
Otherwise, as has repeatedly happened, victories that win services or
rewards will undermine the organization by "proving" that the existing
system is responsive to poor and working people and therefore, in no
need of fundamental change. (Fisher, 1984; p.162)
Any organization which is serious about social change and committed to
democratic control of neighborhoods and workplaces devote considerable
energy to self-development--building individual skills and
self-confidence and providing basic political education. The role of the
state in maintaining inequality and destroying self-worth must be
exposed.
This is particularly necessary in low income and minority neighborhoods
where people have been most consistently socialized to believe that they
are inferior, that the problems they face are individual ones rather
than systemic ones, and where poor education has left people without the
basic skills necessary to understand what goes on around them.
Self-esteem is low, yet social change work requires people who are
self-confident and assertive.
This dilemma is another of the major challenges in community organizing.
The socialization process that strips people of their self-esteem is not
easily or quickly reversed. This problem mandates that all tasks be
performed in groups (for support and skill-sharing), and that training
and preparation for all activities be thorough.
2. Be collectively and flexibly organized; decentralize as much as
possible.
Radical organizations must always try to set an example of how
organizations can be better than the institutions we criticize. All
meetings and financial records should be open and leadership
responsibilities rotated. Active men and women must work in all aspects
of the organization--office work, fundraising, decision making,
financial management, outreach, housekeeeping, etc.
Teams of people should work on different projects, with coordination
provided by an elected council. Pyramidal hierarchy with committees
subordinate to and constrained by a strong central board should be
avoided. The organization must remain flexible so that it can respond
quickly to needs as they arise.
3. Maintain independence.
This is extremely important and extremely difficult. No organization
committed to radical social change can allow itself to become
financially dependent on the government or corporations. This does not
mean that we can't use funds from government or private institutions for
needed projects, but we can't get ourselves in a position where we owe
any allegiance to the funders.
In 1983, the Farm Labor Organizing Committee was involved in a march
from Toledo, Ohio to the Campbell's Soup headquarters in Camden, New
Jersey. They were demanding three-party collective bargaining between
Campbell's, the farmers it buys from, and the farm laborers who pick for
the farmers. A coalition of groups in Camden worked to coordinate the
final leg of the march through Camden. Many community-based
organizations in Camden, however, refused to participate because they
were dependent on donations of food or money from Campbell's Soup.
The bankruptcy of such behavior was driven home last year when
Campbell's closed their Camden plant and laid off 1,000 workers. They
made no special effort to soften the impact on the workers or the
community.
All resources come at a price--even donations. We simply cannot accept
funds from individuals or groups who condition their use in ways that
constrain our work, or we must ignore the conditions and remain prepared
to deal with the consequences later. vAlternative funding sources are
providing a badly needed service in this regard. In Philadelphia, the
Bread and Roses Community Fund raises money for distribution to social
change organizations. In 1983, it spun off the Delaware Valley Community
Reinvestment Fund, an alternative lending institution which provides
credit for community-based housing and community development projects.
Social change organizations in the Philadelphia/Camden area are
extremely indebted to these two support organizations. They play a vital
role in helping organizations to maintain their independence.
4. Reach out to avoid isolation, but keep the focus local.
Community-based organizations must maintain loose ties with other
grassroots groups. Progressive groups should be able to easily coalesce
when that makes sense. We can always benefit from ideas and constructive
criticism from supportive people who are not wrapped up in the day to
day activity of our own organization.
This is another way in which left-wing fundraising/grantmaking groups
like the Bread and Roses Community Fund in the Philadelphia area play an
important role. They identify and bring together those groups in the
region with a similar political agenda. Through Bread and Roses, the
community advocacy organization in North Camden (CCNC) has maintained a
very loose but productive relationship with the Kensington Joint Action
Council (KJAC) in Philadelphia. KJAC squatted first, and helped CCNC
plan its squatter campaign. CCNC spun off a land trust first and
assisted KJAC in the development of their own land trust, Manos Unidas.
Some ideas they developed for their land trust in terms of building
comraderie among members are now being considered by North Camden Land
Trust.
Statewide and national organizations try very hard to pull in active
local organizations and get leaders involved in issues at the state
level. Be wary of the drain this can place on the local work. Cloward
and Piven, in their Poor People's Movements, do a wonderful job of
illustrating this danger in their discussion of welfare rights
organizing. Successes are won via direct action, not via formal
organization.
5. Do not foster cross-class ties.
This applies especially to community organizing in low income areas
where the local resources are extremely scarce. Many well-to-do
"do-gooder" organizations like to have a ghetto project. It makes them
feel good. Community organizations do not exist to alleviate ruling
class guilt. Dependency on upper- class skills and money is a problem.
Poor and working people must wage their own struggle.
An illustration of this is provided by the soup kitchen in North Camden.
Suburban church folks, once they heard about Leavenhouse, were more than
willing to send in volunteers each day to prepare and serve the meal.
Leavenhouse told them not to bother, except perhaps occasionally with
two or three people at a time. This allows the soup kitchen to develop
local ownership, and for neighborhood residents to feel good about
taking care of each other. It avoids the traditional social service
model where one group comes into the city and delivers a service to
another group of people who live there and takes it.
Leavenhouse does accept money and food donations from outside the
neighborhood, but its basis operating costs are covered with the rent of
the community members who actually live at Leavenhouse. The outside
income is extra; without it Leavenhouse will not shut down.
6. Have a cultural and social dimension.
Cultural and social events not only help to build a counterculture, but
they help people feel good about who they are and where they came from.
This is an important dynamic in overcoming powerlessness. Political
music and film are especially effective in building class unity and
strength, and in providing basis political education.
7. Staff the organization, to the greatest extent possible, with local
workers and volunteers.
This seems obvious enough, but many community organizations draw on
outsiders to perform the bulk their work.
In Camden, nonprofit community organizations which provide affordable
housing do it in three different ways. One organization matches suburban
church groups with vacant houses. The church groups then purchase
materials and provide volunteer labor to do the rehabilitation work.
Another group relies on contractors to perform the work, few of which
are in Camden. A third group has hired and trained neighborhood
residents to do all rehabilitation work. The workers are paid a decent
wage for what they do. The latter approach develops skills in the
neighborhood, allows neighborhood residents to feel good about improving
their community, and fosters cooperative work habits which the
construction crew members will carry into other organizations in the
community.
Since the crew employed by the third organization is paid a decent wage,
the first organization mentioned above rehabilitates more houses for
less money. Again, when the commitment is to social change, the
short-term tangible results are not the most important measures of
success.
A considerable body of literature has been written about tactics in
organizing and political work. I do not want to rehash all of that here,
so I'll offer just a few guidelines about tactics that have consistently
proven themselves. The discussion here is relevant to advocacy campaigns
designed to take some measure of authority from government or private
interest and put it in community control, or to force a reallocation of
resources (public or private) in the interest of the community.
1. Be disruptive.
The tendency today is for community organizations to be less militant
and confrontational, working through established community and political
leaders to "engineer" the changes they want. No tendency could be more
dangerous to the future of community organizing. The historical record
and my experience say the opposite. We must be disruptive. No guideline
is more important in the consideration of tactics. We can't move the
system by testifying at hearings, negotiating at meetings and lobbying
elected officials.
We must defy the rules of the system that fails to meet our needs. We
must use guerilla tactics that harass, confront, embarrass and expose
that system and its functionaries.
2. Clear, precise and measurable demands are the cornerstone of any
organizing campaign.
A group must know exactly what they want before they begin to confront
the opposition.
3. Gradually escalate the militancy of your tactics.
The tactics in a campaign should gradually escalate in militancy, so
that people new to political struggle are not intimidated. Let the
militancy of the tactics increase at about the same pace as the
intensity of the anger.
4. Address different targets simultaneously.
The tactics should be simultaneously directed at different parts of the
system that are responsible for the injustice or grievance that needs to
be resolved.
In the campaign to stop construction of a second State prison in their
neighborhood, North Camden residents directed tactics at the
Commissioner of Corrections, the private landowner who was willing to
sell the waterfront land to the state for the prison, local politicians,
the governor and the two gubernatorial candidates.
5. Avoid legal tactics.
Legal challenges are difficult. They take a lot of energy and money,
people who aren't trained in the law have a very difficult time
understanding the process, and they are easy to lose. I have never
experienced success with a legal challenge.
When North Camden residents opposed construction of the first State
prison in their neighborhood, they sued the state on environmental and
land use grounds because the state planned to use valuable waterfront
land for the prison. After a year of preparations, the case was heard
before an Administrative Law judge. He threw the case out on a
technicality. Understand that he was appointed by a governor who had
made a public commitment to construct 4,000 more prison beds during his
term in office.
Our legal system is set up to protect the interests of private property.
Using it to dismantle the institutions that thrive on private property
is obviously problematic.
6. Use direct action.
Direct actions are those that take the shortest route toward realization
of the ends desired, without depending on intermediaries. A simple
example might help to clarify. If a group of tenants is having a problem
with a landlord refusing to make needed repairs, they can respond in
several ways. They could take the landlord to court. They could get the
housing and health inspectors to issue violations and pressure the
landlord to make repairs. Or they could withhold rent from the landlord
themselves, and use the money withheld to pay for the repairs. Along the
same vein, they might picket the landlord's nice suburban home and
leaflet all of his neighbors with information about how he treats
people. The first two options put responsibility for getting something
done in the hands of a government agency or law enforcement official.
The latter course of actions keeps the tenants in control of what
happens.
At a major state-funded construction project in Camden, residents wanted
to make sure that city residents and minorities got construction jobs.
Following the lead of some militant construction workers in New York
City, they organized people who were ready for work, and blocked the
gate to the job site at starting time. Their position was simple; they
would move when local people were hired. The group got talked into
negotiating and supporting an affirmative action program that would
force the contractor to hire local people whenever the union hall
couldn't provide a minority or city resident to fill an opening. The
enforcement of that program was so mired in red tape that only a handful
of local workers got hired. The group would have fared much better if
they had stuck with their original tactic--the most direct one.
7. Have fun.
The tactics used should be fun for the participants. This isn't always
possible, but often is. Street theater can often be used to challenge a
routine action into a fun one. Let me provide a few examples.
When Concerned Citizens of North Camden (CCNC) ran its homeowner program
(the program which resulted from the squatting in 1981), the City tried
various mechanisms to discredit it. On one occasion when they threatened
to cut some of the public fund involved in it, CCNC conducted a funeral
march with about 100 people and carried a coffin from North Camden to
City Hall where a hearing was being held on the Community Development
Block Grant funds. Right in the middle of the hearing, a squatter came
out from inside the coffin and told the crowd how the people's movement
could not be silenced and make a mockery of the whole hearing. The
effect was spectacular, as was the press coverage the next day.
When trying to stop the second prison, residents circulated a special
issue of the community newspaper that made fun of the land owner, the
mayor and the Commissioner of Corrections. The front page of the paper
included photos of the three, captioned with the names of the Three
Stooges (the resemblance was striking). The text on the front page made
fun of each person's role in the project. We circulated the paper at a
big public meeting which all three of these individuals attended. It
helped give people courage and set the atmosphere for people to freely
speak their minds. When people talk about the prison campaign, they
laugh and remember "the three stooges."
Finally, when the homeless problem started to escalate in Camden (1983),
we learned that people were being turned away from available shelters
because there was not enough space. Leavenhouse, a local soup kitchen,
then started to serve its meals on the steps of City Hall one day each
week. This created a party atmosphere; a couple hundred people would
gather to eat and hang out every Wednesday at noon. As the weather got
colder it because less fun, but the persistence was important. Three
months after we started, in December, the City agreed to make a public
building available as a shelter and agreed to adopt a policy that no
homeless person would be denied shelter in Camden. The good aspect of
this action was that homeless people were able to participate and help
make it happen. It was a concrete way that they could have fund and feel
good about helping to improve their own situation.
The kind of community described here is not easy or straightforward. It
can be extremely frustrating, with many pitfalls, temptations and
diversions pushing it off the track and allowing it to assume a more
liberal posture. This article described some of the main challenges:
overcoming the welfare/drugs culture; maintaining independence; and
working with people with few skills and low self-esteem. One other
deserves mention--mobility.
In our society, mobility is expected. People are supposed to move to
take a better job, to find a better house, etc. It is acceptable to
displace people to build new expressways and universities. The average
American moves once every five years. This mobility attests to the
stability of community organizations. Leaders and workers may get
trained, get involved and then leave before they have been able to give
much back to the organization. The drug traffic in many low-income
neighborhoods exacerbates the stability problem; families face crises on
a regular basis which take priority over community involvement.
The revolutionary work of community organizations, would be enhance with
more population stability. Why aren't jobs created for people where they
are? Why aren't a mix of housing types and sizes available within all
communities? Why isn't displacement avoided at all cost? We need to
address these questions if our communities are going to be more fertile
areas for community organizing.
Community organizing from an anarchist perspective acknowledges that no
revolution will be meaningful unless many Americans develop new values
and behavior. This will require a history of work in cooperative,
decentralized, revolutionary organizations in communities, workplaces
and schools. The task before us is to build and nurture these
organizations wherever we can. There are no shortcuts.
Alinsky, Saul D. Rules for Radicals. New York: Ransom House, 1971.
Baldelli, Giovanni. Social Anarchism. New York: Aldine- Atherton, 1971.
Bouchier, David. Radical Citizenship. New York: Schocken Books, 1987.
Boyte, Harry. Community is Possible. New York: Harper & Row, 1984.
Cawley, Kaye, Mayo and Thompson (eds.). Community or Class Struggle?
London: Stage 1, 1977.
Ehrlich, Ehrlich, DeLeon and Morris (eds.). Reinventing Anarchy. Boston:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979.
Fisher, Robert. Let the People Decide: Neighborhood Organizing in
America. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1984.
Fisher, Robert and Romanofsky, Peter (eds.). Community Organizing for
Urban Social Change. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1981.
Foner, Phillip S. (ed.). The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass.
New York: International Publishers, 1975.
Goodwyn, Lawrence. The Populist Movement. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1981.
Goodwyn, Lawrence. Democratic Promise: The Populist Movement in America.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.
Piven, Frances Fox and Cloward, Richard A. Poor People's Movements. New
York: Vintage Books, 1979.
Kahn, Si. Organizing. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982.
Lamb, Curt. Political Power in Poor Neighborhoods. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1975.
Max, Steve. "Why Organize?" Chicago: Steve Max and the Midwest Academy,
1977.
McKnight, John. "Regenerating Community," in Social Policy, Winter 1987,
pp. 54-58.
Morris, David. "A Globe of Villages: Self-Reliant Community
Development," in Building Economic Alternatives, Winter 1987, pp. 7-14.
Robinson, Chris. Plotting Directions: An Activist's Guide. Philadelphia:
Recon Publications, 1982.
Roussonpoulos, Dimitrios (ed.). The City and Radical Social Change.
Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1982.
Schecter, Stephen. The Politics of Urban Liberation. Montreal: Black
Rose Books, 1978.
Speeter, Greg. Power: A Repossession Manual. Amherst: University of
Massachusetts, Citizens Involvement Training Project, 1978.
Staples, Lee. Roots to Power. New York: Praeger, 1984.
Ward, Colin. Anarchy in Action. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.