Our New Anahuac

These are student notes on community organzing.  I have a lot to learn, but I have learned a few lessons already that I don’t want to forget.  Some of these I have learned through experience, and some through books.  I realize that I am a novice still, but even students take notes.

1.  Community organizing is different than spreading ideology, an act which might be called party-building.  In community organizing, the people need a space to speak and be listened to by their peers.  In party building, one presupposes an answer (or permanent solution) to the community’s overarching problems and tries to implement the answer.  I fully believe that both have value, and can work in conjunction.

2.  Many community organizers believe that continual campaigns which meet only the basic needs of the people IS the answer.  They believe that the system is fundamentally just and that the problem is only that the community needs a place at the table, a place which they will acquire through protest.  One scholar called these groups “power-based organizations.”  I don’t believe this.  I believe that the decision table is designed to keep the el pueblo at the children’s table eating scraps.  I don’t want to fight my way to their table.  I want to build our own table, by sovereignty or separation if necessary.  I believe that if people saw how the system worked, they would agree.  This same scholar called this type of group “transformational organizations,” as they try to transform the world view of (or “educate”) the recruit.  I didn’t recognize this to be a fundamental difference between groups, and I now understand certain disagreements much better.

3.  Many community organizations recruit people using self-interest of the recruits.  This could be betterment of the apartment complex they live in, better traffic conditions, or work-related conditions.  It is more likely that when the personal interests of this type of recruit are met, they will leave.  If a group recruits someone using moral concerns, which don’t effect them, they are more likely to stay.  However, if someone is recruited because of moral and personal interest they are most likely to stay.

4.  Power-based organizers, or liberals, always talk about tolerance, but rarely practice it with regard to transformational organizers, my case being that of a leftist-nationalist.  [For a study in the difference in the two, go to brothermalcolm.net and listen to "Message To The Grassroots."  Listen to the whole thing.]   I am not sure why this is, except to say that as nationalists, we are used to being harshly criticized since the inception of our conscience.  I remember in high school, people spread rumors about me that I would not give blood because I didn’t want gringos to get it.  This was not true.  So when trying to organize with others, policy disagreements, are a small thing and do not discourage me from working with others.  On the other hand, the heart and soul the liberal program IS policy reform, so maybe disagreement on policy is too much for them to handle and too much for them to tolerate.

5.  Saul Alinsky had many strategic things right.  His major flaw is to postulate that liberal, power-based organizing is revolutionary.  He had a dim view of ideology and suggested that organizers stick with the bread and butter issues.  I would agree if all you want for your community is bread and butter.

6.  Proper propaganda need not be designed to make the elite or even liberals feel comfortable with the message (see our newsletter at larazajusticemovement.org).  Proper propaganda should take the advise of Alinsy and “rub raw” the roots of discontent.  Otherwise, we have no way to compete with the massive programming effort of the oppressor.  La subasta classified newspaper runs 100,000 copies a week.  Last week, I distributed 200 flyers and brought in two interested people.  I don’t think that I could have done that had the flyer’s title been “Immigration Club.  Please call.”  At the same time if your program relies only on propaganda and the banking style of education you are damning the people.

7.  Many claim to have a collective process, but through training and practice, actually subtly manipulate the decision-making process.  Alinsy flatly says manipulation can be positive and talks about orchestrating a completely fraudulent victory to make his organziation feel confident.  Many organizers use Alinsky as an educational staple.  For a scholarly analysis of this point read Democracy In Action.

8.  As the masses begin to work toward a better future, they slowly begin to develop a progressive world view.  As Paolo Freiri puts it, you must completely trust the people.  Why have they been asleep for so long, then.  Alinsky is right in his metaphor.  Have you, yourself, ever made a plan on how to spend a trillion dollars?  Most people have no need for such a plan since they never expect to have a trillion dollars.  The masses have never expected to be an agent of change, since they have have largely been neglected and have been programmed to keep their heads in the sand.  Once they see opportunity to become an agent of change, they get with the program

More to come.