[Debate] Yes, please, send me the pdfs 'Naming the Moment' and 'Rules for Radicals' . (Fwd) Strategic toolkit: Naming the moment; Rules for radicals

[John Williams]

Good morning, Patrick!

Indeed, I've read these very important texts as a background to my work on
urban social movements [based on Manuel Castells' oeuvre]  as part of my
graduate training in the 'conservative' Midwest, Illinois! Yes, please, send
me the pdfs  'Naming the Moment' and 'Rules for Radicals' .

Best

John J W

 

From: debate-list-bounces at fahamu.org [mailto:debate-list-bounces at fahamu.org]
On Behalf Of Patrick Bond
Sent: 01 April 2012 06:56 AM
To: DEBATE
Subject: [Debate] (Fwd) Strategic toolkit: Naming the moment; Rules for
radicals

 

(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/20120401/3e24c69f/attachment.htm