[Debate] (Fwd) Strategic toolkit: Naming the moment; Rules for radicals

[Patrick Bond]

(Have any debaters utilised two old-fashioned strategic tools that still 
seem to me to have relevance today? 'Naming the Moment' and 'Rules for 
Radicals' are books summarised below. Let me know if you want .pdfs of 
these long 1960s and 1990s riffs. Dated but compelling.)


*Naming the Moment

The process of political analysis for action, or naming the moment moves 
through four phases: * *

PHASE 1 -Identifying Ourselves And Our Interests *

Who are 'we' and how do we see the world?

How has our view been shaped by our race, gender, class, age, sector, 
religion, etc.?

How do we define Our constituency? Are we of, with, or for the people 
most affected by the issue(s) we work on?

What do we believe about the current structure of power? about what it 
could be? about how we get there?
*
PHASE 2 -Naming The Issues/Struggles
*
What current issue/struggle is most critical to the interests of our group?

What are the opposing interests (contradictions) around the issue?

What are we fighting for in working on this issue -in the short-term and 
in the long-term?

What's the history of struggle on this issue? What have been the 
critical moments of the past?

*PHASE 3 -Assessing the Forces *

Who's with us and against us on this issue (in economic, political, and 
ideological terms)?

What are their short-term and long-term interests?

What are their expressed and their real interests?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of both sides?

What about the uncommitted?

What actors do we need more information about?

What's the overall balance of forces?

Who's winning and who's losing and why?
*
PHASE 4 -Planning For Action *

How have the forces shifted from the past to the present? What future 
shifts can we anticipate?

What 'free space' do we have to move in?

How do we build on our strengths and our weaknesses?

Whom should we be forming alliances with?

In the short-term and in the long-term?

What actions could we take?

What are the constraints and possibilities of each?

Who will do what and when?

***
*
Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
*

    RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks
    you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people.
    "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two
    things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and
    corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and
    usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

    RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results
    in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone
    of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't
    address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which
    they have no knowledge.)

    RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy."
    Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This
    happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are
    blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then
    forced to address.)

    RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the
    rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can
    kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their
    own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very
    credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch
    it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to
    chip away at the damage.)

    RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense.
    It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure
    point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and
    mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

    RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing
    it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their
    thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in
    this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all
    avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones
    that work and bring results.)

    RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't
    become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them
    excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new
    tactics.)

    RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things
    to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one
    approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack,
    attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization
    a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

    RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing
    itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences
    than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations
    always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest
    from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will
    expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind
    the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the
    mind and result in demoralization.)

    RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through
    and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the
    public to your side because the public sympathizes with the
    underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud]
    demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th
    Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence
    that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

    RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive
    alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught
    without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of
    the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations
    have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table,
    to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a
    compromise solution.)

    RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize
    it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from
    sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster
    than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct,
    personalized criticism and ridicule works.)


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fahamu.org/pipermail/debate-list/attachments/20120401/c949b578/attachment.htm