💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › problemsofopportunismandorganization.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:28:24. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Same Battle, New Field Author: Eazy K Date: April 21st, 2017 Language: en Topics: opportunism, the left, labor organizing, labor struggle, unions, trade unions, NGO, leftism, post-left Notes: Criticism of NGO organizing tactics and reformism from the perspective of an Anarchist labor organizer in New England. The piece is meant highlight the need for new forms of organization to meet the needs of the current struggle. (Specific to the U.S. context)
The mark made on the labor movement by the AFL and CIO is an infected
wound out of which pours the lifeblood of labor militancy. Compromise
after compromise with capital by the institutions of the American Left
generally (labor unions, nonprofits, community organizations etc) have
created a Left which is the partner of the capitalist class rather than
a threat to its rule, and a labor movement that is weaker than ever
before. The failure of the AFL-CIO leadership to support the resistance
of indigenous workers at Standing Rock shows in no uncertain terms what
the result is when class struggle is relegated to cooperation with the
bosses--class betrayal when the stakes are highest. The AFL-CIO’s
building trades leadership insisted that the Dakota Access Pipeline
would provide “good jobs” for union workers, when in reality this was a
deal made specifically between highly skilled crafts guilds and bosses.
The material conditions we now face demand high levels and new forms of
organization not currently found within the framework of
Left-opportunist organizations nor within the collectives and cadres of
the revolutionary Left. First and foremost we must reject opportunism in
favor of revolutionism in how we understand class struggle.
Class struggle unionism and neighborhood organizations of a
revolutionary character must be noted to avoid oversimplifying what are
actually contrasting dynamics between the revolutionary Left and
opportunist Left. Many comrades influenced by the post-Left tendency
have failed to differentiate between the two. In fact many comrades of
this tendency are hostile toward unions altogether. The fact is that
labor unions are the only mass working-class organizations remaining in
the United States since the repression of the Communist Party and the
Black Panther Party respectively. Some comrades harbor a misleading
caricature that unions are nothing more than an overly bureaucratic
means of making peace with capital--that they are irreversibly co-opted
by the ruling class. This caricature arrogantly discards an enormous
avenue of class struggle available to us--one of the only avenues of
mass struggle left to us in the United States. We must refrain from
equating every union to the cowardice and opportunism of the AFL-CIO. A
union Local is only as militant or concessionist as its membership--the
rank-n-file workers. When the occasion arises and the class
contradictions become sharpened to a point, so-called ordinary workers
are capable of achieving any victory with all the discipline and
aggression of a well organized military unit. We can see this militant
self-activity demonstrated during every well-organized strike, on every
tightly packed picket line, every illegal work slowdown, every act of
“wildcat” sabotage.
When rank and file controlled, revolutionary labor unions and community
organizations attempt to break with the pattern of unprincipled
compromise of today’s Left, they are often targeted by apolitical
business unions and well funded Left-opportunist organizations who enjoy
a hegemony over “the movement”. When revolutionist organizing efforts
fail and fold, the opportunists, who neglected to actively participate
in or support them, will point to this as proof that revolutionaries are
just adventurists who don’t know how to steer a campaign or run an
organization. The truth is that most campaigns lose whether they are
lead by opportunists or revolutionists but Left-opportunists will take
every occasion to argue for their philosophy of gradualism and
defeatism. Instead of recognizing the necessity of combative rank-n-file
Leftist groups, NGO professionals will attempt to dissuade, disrupt and
discredit them. Rather than using their resources to contribute to
ongoing autonomous rank-n-file movements, NGO Leftists attempt to pacify
and control them.
Left-opportunists are of two main varieties: those who are directly on
the side of capital, active in Democratic Party politics, pro-business,
pro-cop; and those of the faux revolutionary variety. The faux
revolutionary will pay carefully scripted lip service to social
revolutionary slogans while in practice acting as lobbyists who
occasionally put together a well-behaved protest or two. These are
opportunists in the tradition of Saul Alinsky. Alinskyan organizations
are rigidly formulaic in their strategic approach and cynical in their
pragmatism.
The working-class is viewed by the faux revolutionary, the so-called
community organizer, as a single ignorant homogeneous mass. The
working-class is not seen as having any real power in itself. They view
the working and oppressed masses as something resembling a target TV
audience who must be convinced of a particular political narrative, made
to believe in a particular story. This is what Alinskyans refer to as
“the battle of the story” or “narrative power.” Any political action
taken by Alinskyan organizations is thus relegated to its potential
“narrative power” rather than the material success of the action itself.
The Left-opportunists’ own narrative of the working-class and its
capabilities here is false. The working-class is a heterogenous mass of
thoughtful individuals each capable of independent ideological
development and self-determination. Every day, workers organize, take
action and do it themselves without Moses guiding them. Workers realize
the “narrative” of their own lives in the class struggle. When the
proper tools are available, workers build and maintain their own
resistance to the abuses of the capitalists. The role of an organizer is
to provide these tools, offer guidance and stay humble, not unilaterally
direct workers toward one end or another.
It is unfortunate that the vigour and political clarity of rank-n-file
revolutionists is often harnessed and directed toward dead ends by
Left-opportunist tendencies. These groups have perfected the art of
throwing militant workers under the bus, chewing them up, spitting them
out, using them and abusing them for the limited interests of single
issue campaigns that only lead strategically to the edge of a cliff.
Many workers who receive this treatment become jaded or wholly reject
the Left as an arena of struggle. However some nonprofits are able to
manipulate workers whom they’ve used and abused, continuing to garner
sympathy and support for their organizations.
Revolutionary workers must form their own networks of resistance, obtain
their own spaces, determine their own strategies toward Liberation. In
the absence of real fighting organizations many revolutionary workers
will settle for Left wing nonprofits, having their courage, talent and
dedication exploited--lions wasted on lambs. Instead of workers
organized for themselves in a struggle of our own, the Alinskyans prefer
soft minded obedient volunteers for their 501(c)3 manufactured
campaigns. The more we rely on and defer to Alinskyan organizations, the
less autonomy we have for determining our own resistance; our own
collective struggle must thus be approved by the “proper channels” which
set themselves outside of that very struggle.
Revolutionists who find themselves engaged in reformist campaigns for
nonprofits are often deceived into believing that the campaign is just a
way of amassing a wide base of support, and that the truly revolutionary
campaign will be set into motion at some later point; but then along
comes another grant from yet another bourgeois donor to pay for yet
another reformist campaign. The cycle continues on like this--social
revolution and rank-n-file struggle are neglected in practice while
being fetishized in theory. The experience of revolutionists in working
with Alinskyan groups can not only be highly demoralizing and but can
also serve to conservatize potentially radical workers.
When spontaneous uprisings break out in the street in which workers are
self organized and self directed, Left-opportunist’s talk out of both
sides of their mouth (if they take a position at all). They will seek to
maintain good will both with workers fighting in the streets and the
fearful but patronizingly sympathetic liberal political class--the petty
bourgeoisie. The result is that so-called community organizers walk the
fence in a ploy to manipulate workers into passivity and discourse. A
sort of jargon is crafted for the purpose of this doublespeak which is
recognizable as the language of Alinskyan nonprofits--that of the
so-called community organizer.
Let’s take the example of a phrase commonly misused by the so-called
community organizer: “meet people where they are at”. When used by
revolutionists or militant trade unionists, this phrase is intended in
the physical sense--actually going to the street corners, workplaces,
bars, etc where workers “are at”. Alinskyans take this phrase to mean
that we must not engage in sharp ideological discussions with workers
whom we are trying to organize, to say that we must not push for greater
militancy and should refrain from the urgent task of raising class
consciousness. In the mouths of opportunists, it becomes another excuse
not to challenge the points at which bourgeois ideology permeates the
working-class and tells workers not to fight. And it is an excuse not to
take any position of a polarizing nature at the risk of losing the
funding patronage of generous bourgeois donors.
This sort of pandering has translated into a fairly standard organizing
style for Leftist groups both opportunist and non. The Alinskyans, with
their funding and resources are undeservedly seen as the experts when it
comes to organizing, even by many of those who differ from them
politically. The Alinskyan organizing style reflects the cowardice of
how they engage politically. The opportunist usage of “meet people where
they are at” falsely implies that there is any definite revolutionary
program or praxis beyond what is communicated to the organization’s
broad base of supporters. When it comes to praxis, most Alinskyans are
no more militant or radical than any of the unpoliticized workers they
are “meeting”. What you see with Left wing non-profits--directionless
broad based campaigns, mobilizing for brief moments instead of real
organizing, lots of fluff with no substance--is exactly what you get.
The Alinskyans are not interested in social revolution or building
working-class power. They are concerned only with the maintenance of
their own organizations.
Alinksyans talk of social revolution as a quaint hypothetical, an
amusing punchline. A deep self-loathing and despair can be located in
the sarcastic tone they take in discussing this topic. They have
admitted defeat and they wallow in it. Only the most vulgar of
opportunists would treat the topic of our Total Liberation with such
cynicism. On the other hand, to the revolutionist there is nothing else
but the social revolution, the social war. The revolutionist lives and
breathes by the class struggle.
In addition to Saul Alinsky, the writings of Antonio Gramsci
conveniently inform theory for Alinskyan non-profit organizations. Using
Gramsci’s theory on “cross class alliance”, Alinskyans justify their
reliance on grant funding from capitalists, supporting bourgeois
politicians, and establishing their base among petty bourgeois
“activists” instead of organizing workers. Highlighted here is a
significant gap between theory and practice. Grant funding received by
non-profits comes with stipulations which require organizers to tokenize
the struggles of working folks and stage their “political engagement.”
Reliance on the capitalist class for patronage requires that NGOs remain
cooperative with bourgeois interests which inevitably steers the
political direction of nonprofits Rightward. This is what comes of the
supposed “cross class alliance” in practice: Left Wing non-profits make
working-class movements subordinate to wealthy bourgeois liberals.
Alinskyans seek to make revolutionists friendly to “sympathetic”
bourgeois elements, not the other way around as Gramsci theorized.
Both the Left-opportunism of the Alinskyans and the political
pretentiousness of the post-Left are the ideological result of the
Left’s abandonment of class struggle in the past decades. Since the New
Left of the 1960s class struggle has gone out of vogue. Class
consciousness voided the revolutionary Left to be replaced by the
proletarian moralism of Mao. These New Leftists centered on college
campuses did not view the working-class as an active agent of the
revolutionary masses. Young student radicals still routinely see the
working-class as “bought off” or irreconcilably backward much to the
detriment of realizing their own radical aspirations. The caricature of
the middle-aged racist white man as the stock image of working-class
America is one of the many myths and misconceptions perpetuated by the
New Left and now opportunist and post-Left respectively. Even now, the
incorrect view of Trump’s support base as disenfranchised white workers
has perpetuated the myth of the so-called “white working-class”,
ignoring the historic multi-colored inter-ethnic, international
multitude that is the working-class.
This newly developing epoch of struggle which we are now in will require
revolutionaries to develop new methods of resistance and organization.
Contradictions within our current problems of organization can either
offer lessons to create the type of revolutionary formations needed in
the present conditions, or simply obliterate altogether the networks and
organizations in which these contradictions are contained. It is vital
that we be willing to organizationally change shape as the material
conditions change shape. The Alinskyans’ attachment to their
organizations not only makes them unable to adequately remodel
themselves to meet the challenges of constantly changing conditions of
struggle, it narrows their organizational focus to self-maintenance
rather than effectiveness. We see this pattern of organizational
stagnation not only with Left-wing NGOs, but also with Marxist cadre
organizations and Anarchist collective groups whose tendency to simply
continue being has long outlived what they are able to accomplish. In a
dialectical world the only thing set in stone is that nothing is set in
stone. Our methods of organization must be creative and malleable enough
to keep pace with each new contradiction.