💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › an-organizer-active-revolution.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 21:16:37. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Active Revolution
Author: An Organizer
Date: 2002
Language: en
Topics: NEFAC, organization, Dual Power, Black Rose Anarchist Federation
Source: Retrieved on 2010-06-20 from http://nefac.net/node/120][nefac.net]]. Introduction retrieved on 2020-03-24 from [[https://blackrosefed.org/base-building-dual-power/.
Notes: From The Northeastern Anarchist Issue #4, Spring/Summer 2002.

An Organizer

Active Revolution

Introduction by Adam Weaver

While the larger radical/anti-capitalist left has arguably few universal

tenets of strategic agreement, the statement that “a strong left is one

that’s rooted in working class and oppressed communities and struggles”

is easily one of them. The question that all tendencies and formations

grapple with is how do we understand this process and what are the

methods to transition from being isolated and powerless players to a

left with deep roots within powerful working class social movements.

A welcome discussion along these lines is from Philly Socialists and the

Marxist Center conference and a recently compiled reader around the

concepts of ‘base building’ and ‘dual power’ titled “It’s All About that

Base.” If you’re not familiar we recommend giving it a read.

With this post we wanted to highlight a number of writings with similar

themes coming out of the contemporary US anarchist milieu stretching

back over 20 years into the late 1990s. Likely the entry of the concept

of dual power into the vernacular of US anarchism first came with Love &

Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation in numerous writings and made

the point in their Draft Political Statement that “The creation of a

general state of dual power is a necessary requirement for a successful

revolution.”

The reprinted article below, “Active Revolution” by James Mumm,

published in The Northeastern Anarchist (Issue #4, Spring/Summer 2002)

and circulated in other forms in the late 1990s, provides an extensive

treatment on the difference between activism and organizing, dual power,

movement building and collective power. While we may not agree with all

the particulars today and these discussions have advanced and evolved

over time, this piece is an important reference point for those active

in US anarchism since the 2000’s. (We also would highlight the “Editor’s

Note” from The Northeastern Anarchist at the end which takes issue with

the piece’s position on political organization).

Other reference points since the publication of this piece are those of

the late Joel Olson with Bring the Ruckus in his 2009 piece “Between

infoshops and insurrection: U.S. anarchism, movement building, and the

racial order.” Influential pieces include “Back to the Roots: Anarchists

as Revolutionary Organizers” by Ian Martin circa 2005 which highlighted

the need to “build relationships,” “organize relationships into a

structured form,” and “build leadership and empower people” toward the

goal of dual power. This and other similar pieces are included in “An

Anarchist Reader for Effective Organising” published by Zabalaza Books

in South Africa.

An important landmark especially for those of us Black Rose/Rosa Negra

is the influence of the South American current of anarchism known as

“especifismo” which introduced a new vocabulary around relating to

movements, concepts such as “social insertion” and later the concept of

“popular power.”

From “Especifismo: The Anarchist Praxis of Building Popular Movements

and Revolutionary Organization” published in The Northeastern Anarchist

(Issue #11, 2007):

“Social insertion means anarchist involvement in the daily fights of the

oppressed and working classes. It does not mean acting within

single-issue advocacy campaigns based around the involvement of expected

traditional political activists, but rather within movements of people

struggling to better their own condition, which come together not always

out of exclusively materially-based needs, but also socially and

historically rooted needs of resisting the attacks of the state and

capitalism.”

Later documents such as Anarchism and Social Organization, a 2008

organizational and programmatic document of the Federação Anarquista do

Rio de Janeiro (FARJ), provide more detailed discussions. Translated

into English in 2012 (we recommend reading the English edition

introductory note) the document details their perspective on building

popular movements and how these relate to political organization. In

sum, we think pieces like “Active Revolution” and the other writings

mentioned here can be useful reference points in discussions today

around these concepts.

Part I: Anarchist, Grassroots Dual Power

Dual Power Defined

The term “Dual Power” has been used in several ways since it was first

coined. The following definition builds on the previous meanings of Dual

Power, most importantly by articulating the equal and necessary

relationship between counter-power and counter-institutions. In the

original definition, dual power referred to the creation of an

alternative, liberatory power to exist alongside and eventually overcome

state/capitalist power.

Dual power theorizes a distinct and oppositional relationship between

the forces of the state/capitalism and the revolutionary forces of

oppressed people. The two can never be peacefully reconciled.

With the theory of dual power is a dual strategy of public resistance to

oppression (counter-power) and building cooperative alternatives

(counter-institutions). Public resistance to oppression encompasses all

of the direct action and protest movements that fight authoritarianism,

capitalism, racism, sexism, homophobia, and the other institutionalized

oppressions. Building cooperative alternatives recreates the social and

economic relationships of society to replace competitive with

cooperative structures.

It is critical that these two general modes of action do not become

isolated within a given movement. Counter-power and

counter-institutional organizations must be in relationship to each

other. The value of reconnecting counter-institutional organizations

with explicitly oppositional counter-power organizations is a safeguard

against the former’s tendency to become less radical over time. As

counter-power organizations are reconnected to their base, they ground

their political analysis in the concrete experience of

counter-institutions — mitigating against the potential political

“distance” between their rhetoric and the consciousness of their

families, fellow workers and neighbors.

Dual power does not imply a dual set of principles, and therefore

processes — one for public resistance and other for building cooperative

alternatives. The process used for both strategic directions has the

same set of principles at its root. The anarchist principles of direct

democracy, cooperation and mutual aid have practical implications which

inform the dual power strategies for revolution.

Direct democracy means that people accept the right and responsibility

to participate in the decisions which affect their lives.

Cooperation means that our social and economic structure is egalitarian,

that we cooperate instead of compete to fulfill our needs and desires.

Mutual aid means that we share our resources between individuals and

groups toward universal need and desire fulfillment.

These principles lend us the foundation for creating inclusive,

anti-authoritarian relationships as we work in grassroots organizations.

Regardless of the strategic direction within dual power that is being

pursued, we will follow the same process — building relationships,

organizing these relationships into groups, and moving these groups

toward collective action.

We organize in order to build power with others — power that gives us

the opportunity to participate in the decisions which affect our lives.

It is in the conscious construction and use of this power that we find

true democracy.

Part II: Defining a Process for Revolutionary Social Change

Liberation is the struggle to be fully present, to have the ability to

act — to become powerful, relevant and therefore historical. Liberation

through action is one of the ways in which people experience such

self-actualizing transformation. Of course, liberation can also take

place through other means — chief among these are popular education,

cultural work and identity-based activity.

But, in our complex and oppressive society, a holistic strategy for

liberation must be multi-faceted and geared toward some measure of

action.

Once we get beyond this general agreement on the centrality of action to

liberation, the debate on the specifics of action begins. There is a

clear distinction between the three most common forms of action in the

United States — activism, advocacy and organizing. Their effectiveness

as strategies for change is at the heart of this essay. First, a summary

of each strategy.

To clarify, power is simply the ability to act — and it can be used over

or with others. As anarchists, power with others forms the core of our

belief system. In each of the above strategies, power is gained through

collective action — how each uses that power begins to illuminate

considerable differences. The democratic structures created to focus

that power also shed light on these differences.

Relationships form the foundation of all collective action. The

intentionality of those relationships determines if your primary

commitment is to your constituency or to the issue around which a

constituency is built.

People participate in collective action because they have a

self-interest in doing so. Self-interest is a middle ground between

selfishness and self-sacrifice, determined most practically by the

activities in which people spend their time, energy and money.

Self-interest is the activity of the individual in relation to others.

It is in the self-interest of people to participate in social change

because such activities resonate with a need or desire within

themselves. Thus, people choose issues or organizations because

something about them is in their self-interest.

In addition to a shared commitment to collective action — power,

relationships and self-interest are all critical elements that the three

strategies of action have in common. The differences emerge in the use

of power, the degree of intentionality placed on relationship-building,

and the emphasis on issue or organization as the point of connection

between people.

1. Use of Power

Activists and advocates use power primarily to win on issues. Given that

power is currently derived from two sources — people and money —

activists and advocates try to mobilize a quantity of each to affect

change. More often than not this means mobilizing a lot of people, and a

little bit of money. These two strategies differ in that advocacy is

explicitly about altering the relations of power in the established

institutions of society, while activism doesn’t necessarily place its

faith in the perfectibility of American democratic institutions.

Advocates make a serious error in not differentiating power over others

and power with others. They try to negotiate for a change in the

relations of power between oppressor and oppressed, failing to

understand that these two conceptions of power cannot be peacefully

reconciled. Advocates end up negotiating to share power over others, and

in doing so find themselves transformed.

No longer are they building power with others, but power for others —

which is just a lighter shade of power over others. The struggle between

these two types of power is a zero sum game — as one wins, the other

loses. Only power with others is limitless; power over others always

implies a finite amount of power.

Activism’s power is derived first from its ability to affect change on

issues and secondly on the potential force for change embodied in

organized people. Organizing uses power differently — by first building

an organization. For organizers, issues are a means to an end (the

development of peoples’ capacity to affect change). Organizers’ use of

power with others to alter the relations of power over others inherent

in government or capitalist corporations forces such authoritarian

groups into a debilitating contradiction. Opening such contradictions

creates room for change. Authoritarian institutions may well react with

violence to preserve power over others, or these contradictions may

result in real social change. Liberation and revolution take place as

relationships change from authoritarian to egalitarian.

Too often organizers and their organizations fall prey to the same

negative transformation as advocates — in negotiation to alter the

relations of power they begin to build power for others rather than

power with others. The authoritarian government and capitalist system

are frighteningly seductive. They promise to change incrementally, and

then slowly lull organizers, advocates and activists into a reformist

sleep. However, the strength of organizing lies in the deliberate

construction of a constituency that holds itself, its organization and

its organizers publicly accountable. A commitment to relationships

rather than issues is key to public accountability, and to insuring a

lasting dedication to building power with others.

2. Relationship-Building

All action has the potential to be liberatory. However, it is the degree

of intentionality placed on relationship-building that determines the

quality of the learning that takes place. Organizers differentiate

between public and private relationships. Public relationships are those

in which there is an agreement between people to act and reflect

together in the process of social change. Organizers cultivate

deliberate public relationships and bring people together in situations

that foster relationship-building among those taking action. Intentional

reflection upon action is key to maximizing learning. In organizing,

people recognize relationships — not issues — as the foundation of their

organizations.

Activism and advocacy use relationships as a means to an end — victory

on an issue. Relationships are an end in themselves for organizers. This

element of the debate centers on the question of constituency. The

constituency of activism is other activists and potential activists,

motivated through their individual moral commitments to a given issue.

Advocates have no primary constituency. The constituency of an organizer

is the universe of people who are potential members of a given

organization with a defined geographical area or non-geographical base

(through affinity or identity).

3. Issue vs. Organization

Relationships are built between people; only through abstraction can we

say that people have relationships with institutions or issues. There is

an inherent contradiction in activism’s attempts to mobilize people

around an issue, given that issues are conceptual while people actually

exist. People are not in relationship with issues — they can only be in

relationship with other people.

Organizations provide the context for public relationships. As

anarchists we build organizations based on the ‘power with others’,

non-hierarchical model. We believe in organization — how much and in

what form are the debatable points. But, as anarchists, we know that

organization is necessary as a vehicle for collective action.

Multiple dynamic relationships (organizations) are the product of an

organizer’s work. For activists, organizations are a utilitarian

consequence of their work on a given issue. And for advocates they are a

utilitarian tool used to negotiate for power. Organizers trust in the

ability of people to define their own issues, a faith that rests in the

knowledge that maximizing the quantity and quality of relationships

produces dynamic organizations and therefore dynamic change. Advocates

synthesize issues from a dialogue between people and dominant

institutions, and they struggle for practical changes to the “system.”

Activists engage in continuous analysis of issues, producing clear and

poignant agendas for social change — and then rally people around those

agendas.

The problem of “distance” is primarily one of both activism and

advocacy. People who spend a great deal of time developing an issue have

a tendency to create an analysis that is significantly different than

that of most other people. As the distance increases between the depth

of understanding between an activist or advocate and that of other

people, we find increasing polarization. Such distance can breed a

vicious cycle of isolation.

4. Revolutionary Social Change

Perhaps the greatest difference between these three strategies of action

is in their ability over to time to create revolutionary change. In the

final analysis — primary commitment to an issue is in contradiction to a

primary commitment to power with others. The faith of anarchists lies in

the ability of people to govern themselves — on holding power with

others. This faith implies a staggering level of trust in others, and a

monumental commitment on a personal level to participate publicly in

social change. Activism and advocacy have no such trust in others —

their faith is in their analysis of, and moral commitment to, an issue.

By putting their faith in an issue they are removing their faith from

people. Relationships do not form the basis for their action, and

therefore they cannot be said to have a primary commitment to power with

others. Of the three strategies of action, only organizing has a primary

commitment to people — to power with others — and to anarchism.

The modern anarchist conception of dual power encourages us to build

liberatory institutions while we fight the oppression of the dominant

system. Activism and organizing exist in both arenas, while advocacy

exists only in the latter.

There is room to construct and practice a fresh revolutionary organizing

process that is relevant to our current historical context. Aspects of

such a revolutionary program would certainly incorporate radical social

service, counter-institutional economic development, counter-power,

educational and cultural dimensions. To maximize our effectiveness, it

is important to define our strategy for action clearly across the range

of possible activities and organizations.

As a model approach, organizing offers a starting point for a strategic

social change process. Advocacy, as a contradictory and liberal

strategy, may be necessary in order to keep the system from degenerating

at a faster pace but it is insufficient for anarchists interested in

revolutionary change. Activism is flawed by its insistence on elevating

issues over relationships and its tendency to use organization and

people as means to an end.

Organizing begins when we make a commitment to develop the capacity of

ourselves and those people with whom we work to affect change. The

intensity of conscious action and reflection is the engine that drives

organizers to build relationships, construct dynamic organizations, and

move those relationships into collective action. As anarchists we must

learn the theory and practice of organizing if we are truly committed to

revolutionary change.

5. Organizing Theory/Organizing Skills

A holistic framework of effective organizing (through community, labor

or issue-based organizations) must include some conception of

relationships, self-interest, power, and organization. Again,

relationships are the means with which we communicate and regulate our

social existence. Relationships are always political, and as such are

the foundation of all conceptions of power. Self-interest is the self in

relationship to others, and signifies our political bonds and individual

priorities for how we spend our time, energy and money. Power is simply

the ability to act, and can be used as either power with others or power

over others. Organizations are social constructs with which power is

exercised.

The skills of effective organizing are all geared toward building

relationships, organizing those relationships into groups and moving

those groups into collective action. One-on-one meetings are structured

conversations that allow each person to share their experiences toward

identifying their individual and mutual self-interests. These meetings

may be scheduled, or they may take place going door-to-door,

house-to-house, or over the phone. A network of one-on-one relationships

can be increased exponentially by asking people to hold “house meetings”

where people invite their own networks (family, friends, neighbors or

co-workers). Through this process we can identify people who are

potential leaders — people with a sense of humor, a vision of a better

world, a willingness to work with others, and a desire to learn and grow

in the context of action. As relationships are built between leaders,

organizations are formed which can move into action on collectively

defined issues.

This is the critical point — it doesn’t matter what issue people choose

to work on. And we shouldn’t steer people in a direction that we think

is better or more radical. Organizing is not about identifying an issue

and rallying or mobilizing people around it. Organizing is about

building organizations that can wield collective power. Action may begin

as reform to the existing system, and that is OK. We cannot expect

people to take radical action if they have not yet given up on the

“system.” It is our job to encourage action in many forms, and to

reflect upon that action in order to learn from it. We must trust that

such action and reflection will radicalize people over time.

Finally, how do we organize non-anarchists, or more seriously, people

with different class, race, cultural backgrounds from ourselves, or do

we? We must begin by locating ourselves in the complex matrix of

oppression. What is your identity, in what ways do you experience

oppression? In this way we can identify the social networks in which we

either have relationships, or because of our identity could readily form

relationships.

Then we must ask ourselves — where do we want to have an impact? In what

communities can we identify a constituency for our organizing efforts?

Do we have a common identity with these identified communities? If not,

why do we consider them a possible constituency?

It is very important to identify the constituency in which we want to

have an impact before we identify issues that we will work on. To do

otherwise takes us backward, and initiates an authoritarian process in

which we are dictating issues to a constituency.

Getting back to the question — is it wrong for an organizer to define a

constituency that is not a part of their history or identity? Should we

concentrate on organizing within our own communities? I cannot answer

these questions for you — I simply don’t have the answers. But, I do

know that they are critical and must be resolved before an organizing or

popular education project may begin.

6. Active Participation by Anarchists in Community, Education, Labor

and Issue-based Organizations

It is not a concession to liberalism, nor a descent into reformism, for

revolutionaries to participate actively in organizations that are not

explicitly radical. Neither are we their vanguard. The only realistic

way to build a mass movement is to work directly with oppressed people —

in essence, we are transformed as we transform others.

We join existing organizations to build our skills in the realm of

political action. Through immersion in grassroots struggles we develop

an understanding of the process of radicalization — beginning where

people are at, using dialogue and research to build our collective

analysis, taking action, and reflecting upon that action in an ongoing

circular process.

There are some hard learned truths in these ideas. First, your vision of

a better world is incomplete and impotent without the participation of

grassroots people in its construction.

Second, you cannot impose your ideas, however radical you think they are

and however backward you think others’ beliefs are, without compromising

anarchist principles. So then, how do we move forward?

Participation in existing organizations allows us to gain experience in

political action. We can then use this experience to create new

organizations that are based more closely on anarchist principles, but

which are still dedicated to a grassroots base. But, you should not

presume that you are ready to start a grassroots organization without

having a clear idea on how to build and sustain such a group. That is

why I encourage you to learn from the many models of organizing and

education that are currently operating in the world before you strike

out on your own.

Part III: Concrete Directions for Dual Power

1. Current Anarchist Forms of Organization

Anarchists have used a wide array of organizational forms and strategies

of action in the past one hundred and fifty years.

Collectives: Cadre organizations (or closed collectives) and open

collectives closely resonate with an activist strategy. Infoshops, for

example, operate as open collectives. As activist groups, they tend to

coalesce around an issue — in this case anarchism itself. Most infoshops

of the 1990s who attempted to move beyond the limitations of activism

were hampered by theoretical and practical barriers. The Beehive

(Washington, DC), Emma Center (Minneapolis, MN)and the A-Zone’s

(Chicago, IL) attempts at anti-gentrification organizing have been

intermittent and rarely effective. Issues and analysis must be developed

in conjunction with the people affected by those given issues, or the

separation between people and analysis leads to vanguardist distance.

You cannot be an ally without first choosing the method of alliance —

what is your relationship to the people affected by an issue, and how

will your organizational form contribute to effective work on that

issue? These are central questions for anarchists operating on a local

level and who are interested in grassroots struggle.

Worker/Consumer Cooperatives: Worker cooperatives are a special category

of closed collectives — as consumer cooperatives are of open

collectives. As needs-based organizations, they combine elements of

activist and organizing strategies. It is critical for grassroots

cooperatives to commit themselves to organizing’s participatory model of

action, but it is also vital that they are allowed the space to try out

new ideas. With a careful eye to the issue of distance, cooperatives are

an effective means of organization.

Mass-based Organizations: Mass-based organizations, like the IWW, have

the potential to be influential elements of a popular revolutionary

movement. There is no effective way to build a mass-based organization

except through organizing. A cursory reading of history shows mass-based

organizations growing as movements spring up in response to injustice —

and then they fade away when justice is met. This conception of history

ignores the countless years of work that go into every “spontaneous”

movement. Spain had a revolutionary anarchist movement in 1936 because

of the incredible organizing that began there in the 1860s.

Intermediary Organizations: Organizations that directly encourage the

creation and development of the above forms of organization are

necessary adjuncts to a holistic conception of revolutionary organizing.

In an anarchist model, intermediary organizations are most effective in

the form of a confederation. Intermediaries can provide:

Dialogue and Action — as a political formation, counter-institutional

and counter-power organizations would come together to engage in

revolutionary praxis (action and reflection).

Training — on the basics of organizing, facilitation, issue analysis,

direct action techniques, organizational, issue and membership

development, etc.

Technical Assistance — participatory research on issues, access to

technology, technical knowledge on the “how-tos” of things like forming

economic or housing cooperatives (where to get money, how to get

started, etc.).

Financial Assistance — grassroots fundraising, grant writing, and the

investigation and implementation of resource pools.

The point is that anarchists must think strategically about their forms

of organization and strategies of action within a particular historical

context. We must make conscious and informed decisions about the

prospects for effective revolutionary social change that are either

enhanced or limited by our choices of organization and action.

2. Becoming More Radical and More Grassroots

More than fifteen years of modern anarchist gatherings, conferences and

events haven’t led to a coherent anarchist movement — on a continental,

regional or local level. This is significant because other groups of

people, similarly collected together on the basis of political or issue

affinity have developed a higher degree of movement organization. Why?

First, anarchists have tended to form organizations that are not

integrated with a grassroots base and, second, anarchists have not built

effective intermediary organizations.

The lack of a grassroots base is the result of an anti-mass conception

of organization among anarchists. Favoring collectives, anarchists have

constructed insular groups that are simply not relevant to the lives of

their families, neighbors and co-workers. While collective organization

is useful under certain conditions, it is not conducive to building a

movement, which implies a much higher level of mass participation.

Learning organizing and popular education theories and skills is the

answer for anarchists interested in building a broad-based and diverse

movement.

Additionally, North American anarchists have not developed intermediary

organizations to connect locally organized radical groups with each

other, and then to regional/national/continental networks. Anarchists

seem hellbent on remaining a collection of individual people and their

individual groups due to a reluctance to be accountable to a wider

constituency through engaging in the process of strategic organizing and

popular education. Simply arguing for a network (locally or

continentally), presumably for communication and mutual aid, also hasn’t

taken off despite numerous tries. And in the case of the Love and Rage

Revolutionary Anarchist Federation, it did work for almost a decade, but

at the expense of losing the local organizations. This does not have to

be the case.

We need to develop massive resources of our own — social and economic —

if we want to make similarly massive changes in society. Our forms of

organization must infect and transform society away from competition,

capitalism and oppression.

The challenge is to initiate broad-based organizing and popular

education to build both counter-power and counter-institutional

organizations and to construct intermediary confederations to connect

them. We must stop trying to build a movement of anarchists and instead

fight for an anarchistic movement.

Editor’s NoteThe editorial note is from NEFAC, or North Eastern

Federation of Anarchist Communists, which was a platformist influenced

anarchist organization based in the North East of the U.S and for a

period of it’s history in French speaking Canada. The group emerged in

the early 2000s period of anti-globalization protests seeking to move

beyond protest politics. Following changing their name to Common

Struggle/Lucha Común in 2011 the group merged into Black Rose/Rosa Negra

at it’s founding in 2013.

Although we welcome the author’s insights and analysis around dual power

and grassroots organizing, we reject his final conclusion which claims

that anarchists must “stop trying to build a movement of anarchists, and

instead fight for an anarchistic movement.” Those of us from NEFAC would

argue that both are equally necessary.

We do not believe that an activist strategy based solely on anarchist

methods of organizing (self-organization, mutual aid, solidarity and

direct action) will inevitably lead us any closer towards anarchism.

Such a strategy, on its own, only serves to provide a radical veneer and

egalitarian legitimacy for liberal-reformist or authoritarian activist

trends.

A successful revolution will require that anarchist ideas become the

leading ideas within the social movements and popular struggles of the

working class. This will not happen spontaneously. We believe that, if

only to wage the battle of ideas, anarchist organizations are necessary.

The purpose of such organizations, for us, is to connect local

grassroots activism to a larger strategy of social revolution; to create

an organizational pole for anarchists to develop theory and practice,

share skills and experiences, and agitate for explicitly anarchist

demands (in opposition to liberal-reformist or authoritarian trends)

within our activism.