On October 27, 2017, and for a few days after, there was an exchange about strategy and tactics. The post in that series that I most agreed with was by Larry Tallman, along with Michael Gasser's remarks. Both of those - (and please read them directly as I will paste them below) -- both of those argue in a way that we should start where people are at, and meet their concerns. Experienced organizers I have worked with over years always stressed learning where people are at, right at the beginning. Speaking of workers, Tallman writes:
"It is a realistic response to fear for one’s job, and the consequences for one’s family unless there’s some very real back-up. So, we must develop an on-the-ground means by which we can support each other: cross-union, cross-community, etc. We must be able to feed each other (and therefore know who can supply the food, where to get it, how to distribute it), protect each other, find out who and how we can provide medical care, etc. etc. These are practical questions. We must find the practical answers."
I read that as suggesting that we cannot get masses of people to join with eco socialism, to leap into the unknown of post-capitalism, without providing a vision of where they will land.
But the posts by Kamran Nayeri, David Klein, Edie Pistolesi and Steve Ongerth collectively argue a different view, not that they agree with each other, or necessarlily disagree with all of my views.
Sorting out all this I take to be Kamran's intention in starting this thread on strategy and tactics.
Now to paste the set of the posts that appeared on the list beginning October 27th:
I suggest that the moderators of the forum add three of today’s post to the forum that Kamran opened recently. The three are conveniently arranged below, though Edie Pistolesi’s post of today could also be included. These frame a discusssion.
Personally I am closest to Larry Tallman’s thoughts. How can we answer — for everyone, not just for System Changers, not just for climate activists, but for entire populations — the practical questions Larry Tallman mentions?
I hope we can move the discussion to the forum to begin to sort out some of this.
Gene
On Oct 28, 2017, at 1:06 AM, Larry Tallman <
ltallman@telus.net> wrote:
Hi folks:
I agree. But I don’t think hesitation around actively changing the system is just a local happenstance. When I talked to my co-workers over the decades about a democratic workplace, there was not one who didn’t want more say in how work got organized. But the question would then be: “And whose army?” That wasn’t entirely a facetious response. As workers, we’d seen too many people get fired or disciplined for much less than telling management to beat it. It is a realistic response to fear for one’s job, and the consequences for one’s family unless there’s some very real back-up. So, we must develop an on-the-ground means by which we can support each other: cross-union, cross-community, etc. We must be able to feed each other (and therefore know who can supply the food, where to get it, how to distribute it), protect each other, find out who and how we can provide medical care, etc. etc. These are practical questions. We must find the practical answers. Here in Canada, in 1919, there was a general strike in Winnipeg. The organizing unions made sure the population got fed and the most vulnerable were taken care of. We will have to do that and more if we expect people to put their livelihoods, and their lives, on the line.
This is my first response to the SCNCC dialogues. I envy those who have the time to daily continue these important conversations. Part of the problem for me has been time, but part of it also is that I see relatively little about the workplace. Unions may or may not be part of the solution, but workers are central.
Larry Tallman
From: Michael Gasser [
mailto
nlyskybl@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Michael Gasser
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 12:10 AM
To: System Change not Climate Change
Subject: Re: [SCNCC Organize]
350.org & Capitalism
This may sound odd – well, I live in an odd place – but here in Santa Cruz, most local activists I know, both on and off the local UC campus, have no problem at all hearing that capitalism is behind climate change and most of the other crises we face. In fact, it seems almost fashionable to be "anti-capitalist". The problem is how this translates into action. For most, organizing to actually change the system, rather than just reform it, is not the least bit interesting. The thought of actual revolution is just too scary to seriously consider.
So I would say that bringing up the "C word" is only the beginning.
Michael
On 10/27/17 20:34, Edie Pistolesi wrote:
Steve,
I think the problem is cognitive dissonance. Americans are so brainwashed into hardly being able to even say the "C word” that getting over that hurdle can be done best by breaking it down and talking about it. Opening up Capitalism with with scientific analysis and discussing it can work because we all know that we don’t get better by keeping things stagnating inside. And there really isn’t time for large numbers of even the most brilliant brainwashed humans to figure it out in time to save the planet.
Edie
On Oct 27, 2017, at 7:10 PM, <
intexile@iww.org> <
intexile@iww.org> wrote:
Everyone:
I don’t share David’s pessimism about this. I believe the majority of the people of the world are opposed to capitalism, but the words “capitalism”, “socialism”, and “anarchy” are such loaded , abstract terms full of loaded connotations, assumptions, propagandistic twistings of their original meanings, and so forth, that the notion that “people are unwilling to say anything bad about it” and it’s corresponding corollary, “that means they must be in favor of it” are false.
People say bad things about capitalism all the time. People say good things about socialism all the time. They’re just not conscious that they’re doing so.
The task for us, I believe, is to help folks organize and actually achieve those things that they do want (which, I believe for the majority is socialism, in the broadest sense) and overthrow that which they don’t want (which is, for the most part, capitalism). In that process, some will actively, consciously identify themselves as “socialists”; many won’t. But the point is to achieve the goals, yes?
-In Solidarity,
Steve Ongerth
* An Injury to One is an Injury to All! -
www.iww.org
* Author of Redwood Uprising: From One Big Union to Earth First! and the Bombing of Judi Bari -
www.judibari.info
* Abolish wage slavery AND live in harmony with the Earth: IWW's Environmental Unionist Caucus -
ecology.iww.org | Earth First! -
www.earthfirstjournal.org | Rising Tide North America -
www.risingtidenorthamerica.org | Sunflower Alliance -
www.sunflower-alliance.org | System Change not Climate Change -
www.systemchangenotclimatechange.org
* Transportation Workers Unite! - Railroad Workers United -
www.railroadworkersunited.org | Transport Workers Solidarity Committee -
www.transportworkers.org
* To contact me by phone or skype: 510-459-6586
From:
ecosocialist-organizing@googlegroups.com [
mailto:ecosocialist-organizing@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Klein
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 5:58 PM
To: Kamran Nayeri <
kamran.nayeri@gmail.com>
Cc: John Foran <
foran@soc.ucsb.edu>; Brian Tokar <
briant@pshift.com>; System Change not Climate Change <
ecosocialist-organizing@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SCNCC Organize]
350.org & Capitalism
Hi Kamran,
The idea that masses of people, overwhelmingly unwilling to say anything bad about capitalism, will nevertheless rise up and overthrow it, is, in my opinion, an example of magical thinking. To build opposition to capitalism it is necessary (though far from sufficient) for people first to talk about it and recognize that there is something wrong with it, and say so. That is where we are now, and this is where SCNCC can help. I'm not sure if you agree with that, but you make some otherwise very good general points.
David
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Kamran Nayeri <
kamran.nayeri@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear David, John and all,
Let's begin with what
350.org is and is not. As I noted in my earlier comment
350.org is a heterogeneous current with chapters being largely on their own as opposed to controlled from national
350.org center which tends to merge with the "leftwing" of the Democratic party. It is not far from the truth to say that
350.org itself is a coalition of various tendencies, including some anti-capitalist ones. If David is told by two Southern California
350.org leader that he is welcome in their fold and he would play an essential role, that is really an important opening for our chapter David leps lead in LA and we should, in my opinion, make the best of it through becoming the best builders of
350.org. What that would mean is NOT to wait until it adopts a Green Party-type program that John lays out and David seems to support. If we agree that to stop and reverse the climate crisis we must mobilize millions in the street, surely we cannot hope to convert them all to ecological socialists or even anti-capitalists before that happens. That would put the cart before the horse.
To get there, we must advance a strategy of building a movement of working people independent of the capitalist system and its institutions, a self-reliant movement with its own action program for ending the crisis relying on self-education, self-organization, and self-activity of ever more working people to implement that action program. Whether we carry a sign that points to capitalism as the culprit or not is really a tactical question. If it helps to get our message heard and considered let's have one and if it does not let's find out how to get a hearing for our point of view.
I have explained these ideas in some detail "Reformism or Radicalism: Which Strategy for the Climate Justice Movement" and "To Be or Not to Be: Ecocentric Ecological Socialism as the Solution to the World Social and Planetary Crisis." I realize these are long essays. But I cannot find any quick an easy way to offer what I consider to be key lessons from 150 years of revolutionary socialist theory and history (I give ample references and documentation for anyone who cares to dig in deeper) as well as what I personally think are the key planks of an action program for our movement.
Of course, SCnCC itself is a multi-current movement. There are other views about strategy and tactics and even different view of what an action program should look like. That is actually a good thing if we read and comment on each other's contributions and keep an open mind. Meanwhile, I urge David who knows a good deal about the climate crisis and lectures regularly on this theme to offer classes on the topic for
350.org. If the leadership does not seem enthusiastic next demo hand out a flier inviting people to such a publicly held series of classes.
We are still a tiny group (we use to call such groups, "propaganda groups). Our strength is not in our numbers but in our ideas. Let take them to "the masses" thos who are enraged by the climate crisis and want to do something about it and join
350.org thinking it has all the answers.
Best,
Kamran