Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Toph Bei Fong
Feb 29, 2008



Hey all, here's my advice for those just starting out, and what, in my experience, has and hasn't worked. I hope you find it helpful, and I'm happy to answer any questions you've got!

I'm an American, so my apologies if this is too America centric. What I am talking about below is also specifically geared towards winning over either entrenched politicians, or middle (specifically rural) Americans who either don't really think too much about politics or are actively conservative.

Reading List (in order from most to least important. All are ~300 pages or less)

Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky -- my Pop gave me this book when I was in the 9th grade, and it changed my life. Alinsky lays out how do do effective agitating, how to maintain an organization, how to interact with the media, etc. By following his simple rules, you will be a better political entity. If you take nothing else away from this post, READ THIS BOOK

How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie -- A bizarrely effective manual to endearing yourself to people, even those disinclined to like you. You can probably understand why being more charismatic will help out a lot.

Coup D'Etat: a Practical Handbook by Edward Luttwak -- You might think an academic guide about how to take over a third world nation is an odd choice, but the way he systematically lays out how to dismantle a group, remove members that are unruly, keep people on message, plan for contingencies, prioritize which groups are necessary and which can be ignored, is pretty essential advice for anyone in politics.

Homage to Catalona by George Orwell -- a firsthand account of the Spanish Civil War, and how a coalition fell apart due to infighting, minor differences in doctrine, and resulted in a dictator ruling the nation. I'd almost rather this one and Down and Out in London and Paris replaced 1984 and Animal Farm as the Orwell of choice on folk's reading lists.

Steal This Book by Abbie Hoffman -- While much of its advice is now out of date, other parts are very useful when it comes to living homeless, surviving against a hostile police force, dealing with authority figures, and banding together like-minded individuals. Obviously, don't do some of the stuff he suggests, like stealing a plane and holding the passengers hostage, then flying to South America.

Things to do

Learn Public Speaking -- this is huge. Take a class, join Toastmasters, join an amateur theatre group... However you do it, get comfortable talking to strangers in groups. You need to be able to articulate your points clearly, calmly, evenly, and naturally. If you cannot express yourself, and teach others, you are incapable of doing any sort of politics.

You will need to learn "multiple languages", in order to address different groups. Understand their priorities, and how to use those to get your message across. For example, if you are talking to poorer, more rural folks, use biblical analogies, talk about how policies will affect the troops, how it hurts the working man. The talking points I have for speaking with a factory owner are different for those when speaking with a farmer, or the owner of the local bowling alley, or the president of the chamber of commerce. Keep the core the same, but massage how you deliver it. Put them into a position where they cannot disagree with you due to the strictures of their world view. Over time, this works!

Learn to control yourself -- Let's watch a painful video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTOoYxOf92s

Ow. So, who won that exchange? Did the student in the black t-shirt convince anyone? Did anyone watching the exchange think that the student was right to attack the guy with the sign? Would you have come to the student's aid?

Being angry is good. Being passionate is good. Being fired up and energetic is good. But having self-control is necessary. The first person in politics to show anger loses. Paradoxically, shows of anger allows people to block you out and dismiss you.

You are going to have to talk to people who disagree with you. You are going to have to talk to people you actively dislike and want to smash in the face with a crowbar. You are going to have to address the living embodiment of privilege and pride, and explain yourself in such a manner that it doesn't lash out and curl back into a hedgehog like spiny ball.

Look Normal -- Let's watch another painful video, one that I'm sure many of you have seen before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80

I agree with most of the points the feminists in this video are making, but they've insured that no one will listen to them except their own clique, or folks who already agree with them. Can you imagine any of them talking to a senator? to a congressperson?

Go get a normal suit, in a subdued color (grey or navy are the easiest, and match just about every situation), along with comfortable dress shoes, a white shirt or blouse, and a coordinating tie/scarf. Get a regular, fashionable haircut. This is what you will wear to any meeting or assembly.

Combined with the above, you've just granted yourself an immense amount of authority over any situation you're in, because not only do you look like someone the average person is used to listening to, but you're also not shouting at them. You'll have your talking points, you'll look professional, and you'll come off much better than any of your sign waving, screaming opponents.

If you need an analogy, consider this: which is the better vehicle for transporting drugs and avoiding the cops: a beat up Geo Metro covered with ICP stickers? or a clean Chevy Suburban with a Romney/Ryan 2012 sticker on the back?

Join Community Groups, Especially Those With a Traditionally Conservative Bent -- I'm sure you're scratching your heads at this one, but hear me out.

Find your local Rotary, Lions Club, Elks Lodge, Freemason Temple, etc. and get yourself invited in. Almost all of these clubs are desperate for newer, younger members, especially those with any sort of computer skills, so if you seek them out, odds are you can apply for membership pretty easily if you work in something above fast food/retail. This is where the rich people are. This is where a lot of assemblymen, state senators, folks who work at city hall, people who own factories, hospitals, law practices, etc. hangout. And, by being a member, you will have access to them regularly, multiple times a week over lunch/dinner/drinks, in a casual setting. You can chat and just discuss things, and they listen if you just discuss stuff rationally and happily, like you're just shooting the poo poo. You can discuss proposals without the awkwardness of a service desk, secretaries, and multiple layers of government between you. Your presence there will pull them leftward.

I understand that not everyone will be able to do this, but if you can, it's worth it.

People's Reasons Don't Matter Too Much -- One of the reasons I'm so opposed to smoking is that is was responsible for the deaths of most of my grandparents. If they hadn't smoked, they'd probably still be alive, would have gotten to know my family, seen me graduate from college, etc. I miss them dearly. I am strongly anti-tobacco for this reason.

If someone told me that this was a bad reason, and I needed to be anti-tobacco because it was an intrinsic moral wrong, that I shouldn't need some personal connection in order to see that it was wrong, that I shouldn't tell people that that's the reason why I'm against smoking, etc. I'd laugh in their face. gently caress them, right? Who are they to tell me that my being moved by my emotions for my dead grandparents can't be turned into a personal decision, and some light advocacy if people ask why I don't smoke?

So, why do this for something else? I know we laughed when Samantha Bee did her compilation of Republicans mentioning their wives, daughters, sisters, etc. after the Trump video came out, but, if it actually leads to any action, why isn't that a good enough reason to do something positive?

Basically, if they're doing what you want, don't punish them for doing it for the "wrong reason".

Maintain the Moral High Ground -- If you lose the moral high ground, you lose a lot of the audience you are trying to win over.

I know it's cliche to talk about, but take MLK Jr. He had his people show up in their church clothes, stand there not fighting back, while the cops beat the poo poo out of them, for what seemed like really really petty things -- sitting at a diner counter, drinking from a water fountain, sitting on a bus. The optics for this could not have been worse for the cops -- they looked like monsters, beating up on those poor defenseless black folks.

He could be annoying as hell (for example, having his people go to a fancy store owned by a racist, dressed real nice so they wouldn't be refused service, order a ton of expensive clothes CoD, and then refuse delivery of the purchase, so the store's balance sheet would look like poo poo that day, their delivery schedule would be hosed, and they'd have to restock and retailer a ton), but he also knew optics (choosing Rosa Parks over Claudette Colvin for the lawsuit, because they an adult was more likely to win than a teenager).

You need to be better than Them. Anything "low" will be leaked, will be done on the sly, will be done in such a manner than it cannot be traced back to you.

This is one of the reasons Hilary lost the election: people who weren't paying as much attention as we were heard "Lies Benghazi Bill Clinton Rape Emails" and assumed she was as bad as Trump, and therefore stayed home. She wasn't better than him. She wasn't "pure". She was one millionaire attacking another for "being too rich" or "being out of touch"

Have Clear Goals in Mind -- On Facebook over the weekend, I got to witness an argument between a Black woman and an Indian man over whether white people wearing a safety pin to show they were on the liberals side was okay, or was just another attempt by white america to assuage the guilt they all feel. During this exchange, I learned that Indians are white people, they are less oppressed than the black community, and that because they received land from the federal government, while black folks did not receive reparations for slavery, so therefore... what exactly? What point was she trying to make? She was certainly expressing her anger, and managed to drop multiple slurs against American Indians in the process, but to what end?

In fairness, she could have chosen her target better; the guy she was yelling at doesn't look very American Indian, but even if he had been white, he was already liberal, already supported Black Lives Matter, was already a feminist... Why was she yelling at him?

Always make sure you know what you are doing before you do it. Don't lose sight of what you are trying to do. Don't get petty or prideful or stupid.

Deeds, not words.

Along those same lines, Pick Your Battles -- you cannot win over everyone, you cannot win every fight, you should not bother with some of them. They aren't worth your time or energy, and, in fact, your attendance there will make you look worse.

Remember the folks in the videos up above? They played right into their opponent's hands. They did exactly what the people on the other side wanted them to do. They made fools of themselves, publicly, and now anyone who goes looking on youtube can find them looking like idiots. A lot of people need hecklers, need to be hated; they thrive on it, and if you give it to them, they'll find ways to turn your attempt at protest or action against you. For example, Milo Yindianapolis is a master at this. He's not worth protesting because he's a buffoon, a joke, a caricature, but still some folks assume that they'll be the one who, if they yell at the man with all the dildos being led in on a golden litter, talking about how Trump is his daddy and happily calling himself a "dangerous human being", maybe this time, you'll be the one get one over on him and the whole crowd will stand up and applaud like they did with that marine who punched out the atheist liberal arts professor...

I'm sure I'll have more to add eventually, and i'm happy to answer questions. Feel free to critique, add examples of your own, share your own experiences, etc.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Toph Bei Fong
Feb 29, 2008



HorseLord posted:

Dressing up real nice and knowing how to speak well is useful, but serving the people is primary.

That's what got the Black Panthers popular. There was an intersection that was badly designed and people kept getting ran over, and the city wouldn't do anything about it. So they made a stop sign themselves and put it up. People were getting illegally harassed by the police, so they offered classes on people's rights and how to defend them. Kids were going hungry and couldn't focus in school, so they opened breakfast kitchens and ended up feeding 11,000 of them a day. Black people were getting turned away from doctors offices so they opened a clinic for blood tests. There were countless other examples of this, and they became so good at providing these services that the cities had to launch rival ones, out of pure fear that the BPP was going to become a defacto second government.

They also policed the police, the importance of which can't be understated in modern day America. It'd be incredibly risky for a cop to shoot another unarmed guy if fifteen heavily armed ones in berets and leather jackets are marching ten feet away.

I would agree and disagree here.

Serving the populace is very important, and should absolutely be a priority if that's what you choose to do. One type of activism isn't more important than another. We need lobbyists and influencers as much as we need people running food pantries and drop-in shelters. As anyone whose attended a city council meeting will quickly learn, it's not for everyone. It's usually very boring, you need to repeat the same message over and over and over and over... you'll often feel like you've clawed and scraped to achieve a small bit of what you're aiming for.

That said, don't go up against the cops unless you're willing to get killed. I'm 100% serious. They can shoot you, and they will walk away scot free. They can beat you until you're paralyzed, missing an eye, permanently peeing into a bag, etc., and there will be no consequences for them. There are always more cops (they will summon them from other municipalities, the county, neighboring counties, etc.), and they are armed with military gear that they don't receive nearly the training they should in it's proper usage. My aunt got strip searched and raped by three when they caught her not having a ticket on the subway, and nothing happened. She was a guest on Oprah, and still, no charges, no nothing to her rapists. They should be treated with a healthy amount of fear. Not pants making GBS threads terror, but an awareness of what will be brought down if you engineer a situation where they will be brought to bear against you and yours.

I've worked myself into the position where I can talk to the police chief regularly (small rural town), and he agrees that much of our heroin problem needs treatment and care, rather than doorbusting raids and people getting shot. We brought the local churches in on this to help with the transition and recovery (we don't have any sort of clinics or homeless shelters (presently working on getting one of these set up too)).

I'll say again that my experiences are based on working in rural small town America, and might not apply to your situation. Don't take anything I say as gospel. Adapt it to your circumstances. Disregard me completely if it doesn't apply, or would be wrong for you and your community. I am not always right.

One idea I've been toying around with proposing, but haven't seen implemented anywhere, would be to have a ton of liberals join the police force, and take it over from the inside. This is obviously only possible for certain demographics, and sadly excludes a number of our people, but an entire cohort of liberal cops would have an effect on policing. We've ceded a very powerful paramilitary organization completely to the conservatives, when, due to it's somewhat open employment policies, it could be simply taken over.

Websites of Use

http://openstates.org/ -- look up your local US politicians, check out everything they've ever voted on, see upcoming legislation, track the progress of bills through the senate and house. Very useful tool if you live in the US.

http://www.city-data.com -- A poo poo ton of data about all the towns and cities across the US, aggregated for browsing. Useful for statistics, comparisons, etc. You might want an ad blocker turned on before browsing.

https://www.guidestar.org/Home.aspx -- One of the big non-profit sites, this allows you to check out the 990 status of almost any non-profit group, how much they spend on admin vs. their goals, etc. Very useful for investigating any group you are looking into donating to.

Toph Bei Fong
Feb 29, 2008



MiddleOne posted:

Look, I'm not going to get into the finer details about how much good versus bad organisations like Antifa bring into the political landscape. That debate has been had to death on D&D to no avail. However, what I will say is that you can't lambast the feminist in the video you yourself linked for not taking the proper steps in achieving political legitimacy for her agenda, and then turn around and endorse joining Antifa. That specific brand of political activism is mutually exclusive to what you describe in the op, they can't be combined.

Yeah, afraid you're mixing us up.

Based on the demographics of my area, me and mine need to look like average people who deserve to be taken seriously. If being more outwardly militant, if public displays of strength, etc. are working and achieving measurable difference for you and your group, KEEP DOING THEM.

Figure out what you are trying to do, and take steps towards achieving those goals. There aren't a ton of liberals where I live, let alone leftists. I probably own the only complete set of Das Kapital in the entire county. My work, by necessity, has to focus on turning conservatives more liberal, or getting them to support liberal and leftist policies, simply due to demographics. If I tried to do the screaming, the bright colored hair, etc. I'd be laughed off, not taken seriously, and ridiculed. The old people who run things here are the ones I need to convince to give me money to do things. This may not be the case in your circumstances.

If doing something different was what would work here, I would be doing that instead.

As I said above (now with added emphasis):

Toph Bei Fong posted:

I'll say again that my experiences are based on working in rural small town America, and might not apply to your situation. Don't take anything I say as gospel. Adapt it to your circumstances. Disregard me completely if it doesn't apply, or would be wrong for you and your community. I am not always right.

Toph Bei Fong fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Nov 15, 2016

Toph Bei Fong
Feb 29, 2008



One of the key groups that are usually sympathetic towards anything to do with poverty, drug abuse, oppression, etc. are Churches. Spend enough time in any community, and you'll quickly learn which churches are the most important, which ones people attend, which priests/ministers/pastors/deacons/whatever are the ones folks care about. These people tend to be pillars of the community, and command a vast, captive audience every week. Some of them are right out; if you're in an area with a Bapti$t Megachurch, for example, don't even bother. But most of the Anglican, Presbyterian, and Methodist churches are very sympathetic towards traditionally liberal causes if they're given the right coat of paint. This will involve some bible digging, some quote mining, and a bit of prep for the arguments that can be mustered against your points, but often if you come "looking for help" and let them work alongside, you'll quickly have a vast pool of people do draw on for food, shelter, money, labor, etc. If you're careful about terminology and allow them to take credit, well, who gives a poo poo if the goal is being achieved?

For example, I'm on the board setting up a homeless shelter in my area. It will be the only homeless shelter in the entire county. There is a nasty and persistent myth that homelessness is a city problem, and that everyone homeless just migrates to one of the big cities to get service. Needless to say, this isn't true. We've got folks living out of their cars, living in fields, campgrounds, in barns, tramping, etc. These folks have no resources to draw on, because they aren't in a city, and even cell phone signal can be hard to find depending on where you're at. It's a problem.

The shelter will be run by a coalition of churches, because they have the money, the space, the volunteers, etc. I'd prefer if it were secular, but that simply isn't an option out here. I'm not going to set up a separate, competing shelter to try and stick it to them. My work with them also means I've strengthened my ties to them, so if I need another favor, they're in my contact list, I know them by first name, they aren't scared of me...

Is this perfect? No, not by any means. As I said, I'd rather have a secular shelter, staffed by atheists. But that isn't going to happen. The demographics of my area will not allow that to happen. So, rather than wait 20 years for the next generation to die off, I'll work with who is here right now, and which allows me to get closer and help more people in the future.

When you're starving, only an fool refuses half a loaf of bread because they demand the whole thing.

Toph Bei Fong
Feb 29, 2008



Sorry, didn't mean to sound exclusionary there. Christian Churches are the only ones I have direct experience working with, but no doubt other religions are similar.

Religion is still a powerful force, and should be used for our advantage.

Toph Bei Fong
Feb 29, 2008



You might have seen this floating about, but it's good and true advice.

Toph Bei Fong
Feb 29, 2008



Sylink posted:

Does anyone have good resources on case studies for small community improvement? I want to do some things at the county level here but can't imagine where to begin.

Like how do you bring jobs in a class friendly way to an area? Mine is somewhat rural.

This will depend greatly on the circumstances of your area.

The first thing I would do is start attending any town meetings. Almost no one goes to these, and you'll get to talk to the town council/assemblymen/whatever. Become a known entity in the area. During this process, discover if there is a Rotary club/Chamber of Commerce/Lions International/whatever in your area. These are everywhere, and almost anyone who is anyone in a small town is a member. Once you know the local government and the local rich people, you've done the first steps.

Next, figure out what's keeping jobs away from your town. The most extreme example I can think of is this horribly lovely town in the mid-west where the only guy who had any money was the owner of the local Dairy Queen, and he worked closely with the town to block the building permits of any other businesses that wanted to move into the area, for fear that they would hurt his bottom line. Hopefully yours will not be this severe an uphill battle. Perhaps it's the location, and you need to create an attractive draw to bring people? Perhaps it's the tax rate compared to the competing towns, and it needs to be lowered slightly? Perhaps it's the lack of liquid capital, in which case you can often get loans and grants to start businesses (check out the USDA Rural Development Grants if you're in a rural area)?

After that, identify what is lacking in town. Do you need a hardware store? How many garden stores are in town? Is there underutilized commercial or industrial spaces? Are there older buildings that, with some work, would make nice spaces for businesses? This will vary from community to community; there is no one size fits all solution here.

Then, remember those local rich folks you made friends with earlier? Propose ideas to them. Often they are looking to expand and invest. If you can present a full case, complete with answers to their questions and concerns already prepared, you'll be much more persuasive.

Here's some stuff from the EPA, including successful case studies, that might help too:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/competitive_advantage_051215_508_final.pdf

Their main points are:

quote:

• Identify and build on existing assets. Identify the assets that offer the best opportunities for growth and develop strategies to support them. Assets might include natural beauty and outdoor recreation, historic downtowns, or arts and cultural institutions.

• Engage all members of the community to plan for the future. Engage residents, business owners, and other stakeholders to develop a vision for the community’s future. Stakeholder engagement helps ensure plans reflect the community’s desires, needs, and goals and generates public support that can maintain momentum for implementing changes through election cycles and city staff turnover.

• Take advantage of outside funding. Even a small amount of outside funding applied strategically to support a community’s vision and plans can help increase local interest and commitment in the area and spur private investment.

• Create incentives for redevelopment, and encourage investment in the community. Make it easier for interested businesses and developers to invest in the community in ways that support the community’s long-term priorities.

• Encourage cooperation within the community and across the region. Cooperation to achieve jointly established priorities helps leverage the assets that each party can bring to the table to make the most of the region’s resources.

• Support a clean and healthy environment. Invest in natural assets by protecting natural resources and cleaning up and redeveloping polluted properties, which makes productive use of existing transportation, water, and utility infrastructure; increases the tax base and employment opportunities; removes environmental contamination; and helps spur investment in surrounding properties.

Toph Bei Fong
Feb 29, 2008



Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals posted:


In the field of action, the first question that arises in the determination of means to be employed for particular ends is what means are available. This requires an assessment of whatever strengths or resources are present and can be used. It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances at any given time, and an adjustment to the popular views and the popular climate. Questions such as how much time is necessary or available must be considered. Who, and how many, will support the action? Does the opposition possess the power to the degree that it can suspend or change the laws? Does its control of police power extend to the point where legal and orderly change is impossible? If weapons are needed, then are appropriate weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly; whether you will move for extensive changes or limited adjustments; whether you will move by passive resistance or active resistance; or whether you will move at all. The absence of any means might drive one to martyrdom in the hope that this would be a catalyst, starting a chain reaction that would culminate in a mass movement. Here a simple ethical statement is used as a means to power.

A naked illustration of this point is to be found in Trotsky's summary of Lenin's famous April Theses, issued shortly after Lenin's return from exile. Lenin pointed out: "The task of the Bolsheviks is to overthrow the Imperialist Government. But this government rests upon the support of the Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, who in turn are supported by the trustfulness of the masses of people. We are in the minority. In these circumstances there can be no talk of violence on our side." The essence of Lenin's speeches during this period was "They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet." And it was.

Mahatma Gandhi and his use of passive resistance in India presents a
striking example of the selection of means. Here, too, we see the
inevitable alchemy of time working upon moral equivalents as a
consequence of the changing circumstances and positions of the Have-
Nots to the Haves, with the natural shift of goals from getting to keeping.

Gandhi is viewed by the world as the epitome of the highest moral
behavior with respect to means and ends. We can assume that there are
those who would believe that if Gandhi had lived, there would never have been an invasion of Goa or any other armed invasion. Similarly, the politically naive would have regarded it as unbelievable that that great apostle of nonviolence, Nehru, would ever have countenanced the
invasion of Goa, for it was Nehru who stated in 1955: "What are the basic elements of our policy in regard to Goa? First, there must be peaceful methods. This is essential unless we give up the roots of all our policies and all our behavior . . . We rule out nonpeaceful methods entirely." He was a man committed to nonviolence and ostensibly to the love of mankind, including his enemies. His end was the independence of India from foreign domination, and his means was that of passive resistance. History, and religious and moral opinion, have so enshrined Gandhi in this sacred matrix that in many quarters it is blasphemous to question whether this entire procedure of passive resistance was not simply the only intelligent, realistic, expedient program which Gandhi had at his disposal; and that the "morality" which surrounded this policy of passive resistance was to a large degree a rationale to cloak a pragmatic program with a desired and essential moral cover.

Let us examine this case. First, Gandhi, like any other leader in the field of social action, was compelled to examine the means at hand. If he had had guns he might well have used them in an armed revolution against the British which would have been in keeping with the traditions of revolutions for freedom through force. Gandhi did not have the guns, and if he had had the guns he would not have had the people to use the guns. Gandhi records in his Autobiography his astonishment at the passivity and submissiveness of his people in not retaliating or even wanting revenge against the British: "As I proceeded further and further with my inquiry into the atrocities that had been committed on the people, I came across tales of Government's tyranny and the arbitrary despotism of its officers such as I was hardly prepared for, and they filled me with deep pain. What surprised me then, and what still continues to fill me with surprise, was the fact that a province that had furnished the largest number of soldiers to the British Government during the war, should have taken all these brutal excesses lying down."

Gandhi and his associates repeatedly deplored the inability of their people to give organized, effective, violent resistance against injustice and tyranny. His own experience was corroborated by an unbroken series of reiterations from all the leaders of India — that India could not practice physical warfare against her enemies. Many reasons were given, including weakness, lack of arms, having been beaten into submission, and other arguments of a similar nature. Interviewed by Norman Cousins in 1961. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru described the Hindus of those days as "A demoralized, timid, and hopeless mass bullied and crushed by every dominant interest and incapable of resistance."

Faced with this situation we revert for the moment to Gandhi's assessment and review of the means available to him. It has been stated that if he had had the guns he might have used them; this statement is based on the Declaration of Independence of Mahatma Gandhi issued on January 26, 1930, where he discussed "the fourfold disaster to our country." His fourth indictment against the British reads: "Spiritually, compulsory disarmament has made us unmanly, and the presence of an alien army of occupation, employed with deadly effect to crush in us the spirit of resistance, has made us think we cannot look after ourselves or put up a defense against foreign aggression, or even defend our homes and families . . ." These words more than suggest that if Gandhi had had the weapons for violent resistance and the people to use them this means would not have been so unreservedly rejected as the world would like to think.

On the same point, we might note that once India had secured
independence, when Nehru was faced with a dispute with Pakistan over
Kashmir, he did not hesitate to use armed force. Now the power
arrangements had changed. India had the guns and the trained army to
use these weapons.* Any suggestion that Gandhi would not have approved the use of violence is negated by Nehru's own statement in that 1961 interview: "It was a terrible time. When the news reached me about Kashmir I knew I would have to act at once — with force. Yet I was greatly troubled in mind and spirit because I knew we might have to face a war — so soon after having achieved our independence through a philosophy of nonviolence. It was horrible to think of. Yet I acted. Gandhi said nothing to indicate his disapproval. It was a great relief, I must say. If Gandhi, the vigorous nonviolent, didn't demur, it made my job a lot

• Reinhold Niebuhr, "British Experience and American Power," Christianity and Crisis,
Vol. 16, May 14, 1956, page 57:

"The defiance of the United Nations by India on the Kashmir issue has gone comparatively unobserved. It will be remembered that Kashmir, a disputed territory, claimed by both Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India, has a predominately Muslim population but a Hindu ruler. To determine the future political orientation of the area, the United Nations ordered a plebiscite. Meanwhile, both India and Pakistan refused to move their troops from the zones which each had previously occupied. Finally, Nehru took the law into his own hands and annexed the larger part of Kashmir, which he had shrewdly integrated into the Indian economy. The Security Council, with only Russia abstaining, unanimously called upon him to obey the United Nations directive, but the Indian government refused. Clearly, Nehru does not want a plebiscite now for it would surely go against India, though he vaguely promises a plebiscite for the future.

"Morally, the incident puts Nehru in a rather bad light.... When India's vital interests were at stake, Nehru forgot lofty sentiments, sacrificed admirers in the New Statesman and Nation, and subjected himself to the charge of inconsistency.

"This policy is either Machiavellian or statesmanlike, according to your point of view. Our consciences may gag at it, but on the other hand those eminently moral men, Prime Minister Gladstone of another day and Secretary Dulles of our day could offer many parallels of policy for Mr. Nehru, though one may doubt whether either statesman could offer a coherent analysis of the mixture of modes which entered into the policy. That is an achievement beyond the competence of very moral men. This strengthened my view that Gandhi could be adaptable."

Confronted with the issue of what means he could employ against the
British, we come to the other criteria previously mentioned; that the kind of means selected and how they can be used is significantly dependent upon the face of the enemy, or the character of his opposition. Gandhi's opposition not only made the effective use of passive resistance possible but practically invited it. His enemy was a British administration characterized by an old, aristocratic, liberal tradition, one which granted a good deal of freedom to its colonials and which always had operated on a pattern of using, absorbing, seducing, or destroying, through flattery or corruption, the revolutionary leaders who arose from the colonial ranks. This was the kind of opposition that would have tolerated and ultimately capitulated before the tactic of passive resistance.

Gandhi's passive resistance would never have had a chance against a
totalitarian state such as that of the Nazis. It is dubious whether under those circumstances the idea of passive resistance would even have occurred to Gandhi. It has been pointed out that Gandhi, who was born in 1869, never saw or understood totalitarianism and defined his opposition completely in terms of the character of the British government and what it represented. George Orwell, in his essay Reflection on Gandhi, made some pertinent observations on this point: "... He believed in 'arousing the world,' which is only possible if the world gets a chance to hear what you are doing. It is difficult to see how Gandhi's methods could be applied in a country where opponents of the regime disappear in the middle of the night and are never heard of again. Without a free press and the right of assembly it is impossible, not merely to appeal to outside opinion, but to bring a mass movement into being, or even to make your intentions known to your adversary."

From a pragmatic point of view, passive resistance was not only possible, but was the most effective means that could have been selected for the end of ridding India of British control. In organizing, the major negative in the situation has to be converted into the leading positive. In short, knowing that one could not expect violent action from this large and torpid mass, Gandhi organized the inertia: he gave it a goal so that it became purposeful. Their wide familiarity with Dharma made passive resistance no stranger to the Hindustani. To oversimplify, what Gandhi did was to say, "Look, you are all sitting there anyway — so instead of sitting there, why don't you sit over here and while you're sitting, say 'Independence Now!'"

This raises another question about the morality of means and ends. We
have already noted that in essence, mankind divides itself into three
groups; the Have-Nots, the Have-a-Little, Want-Mores, and the Haves.
The purpose of the Haves is to keep what they have. Therefore, the Haves want to maintain the status quo and the Have-Nots to change it. The Haves develop their own morality to justify their means of repression and all other means employed to maintain the status quo. The Haves usually establish laws and judges devoted to maintaining the status quo; since any effective means of changing the status quo are usually illegal and/or unethical in the eyes of the establishment, Have-Nots, from the beginning of time, have been compelled to appeal to "a law higher than man-made law." Then when the Have-Nots achieve success and become the Haves, they are in the position of trying to keep what they have and their morality shifts with their change of location in the power pattern.

Eight months after securing independence, the Indian National Congress
outlawed passive resistance and made it a crime. It was one thing for
them to use the means of passive resistance against the previous Haves,
but now in power they were going to ensure that this means would not be
used against them! No longer as Have-Nots were they appealing to laws
higher than man-made law. Now that they were making the laws, they
were on the side of man-made laws! Hunger strikes — used so effectively
in the revolution — were viewed differently now too. Nehru, in the interview mentioned above, said: "The government will not be influenced by hunger strikes ... To tell the truth I didn't approve of fasting as a political weapon even when Gandhi practiced it."

Again Sam Adams, the firebrand radical of the American Revolution,
provides a clear example. Adams was foremost in proclaiming the right of revolution. However, following the success of the American Revolution it was the same Sam Adams who was foremost in demanding the execution of those Americans who participated in Shays' Rebellion, charging that no one had a right to engage in revolution against us!

Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means. Machiavelli's blindness to the necessity for moral clothing to all acts and motives — he said "politics has no relation to morals" — was his major weakness.

All great leaders, including Churchill, Gandhi, Lincoln, and Jefferson,
always invoked "moral principles" to cover naked self-interest in the
clothing of "freedom," "equality of mankind," "a law higher than man-made law," and so on. This even held under circumstances of national crises when it was universally assumed that the end justified any means. All effective actions require the passport of morality.

The examples are everywhere. In the United States the rise of the civil
rights movement in the late 1950s was marked by the use of passive
resistance in the South against segregation. Violence in the South would have been suicidal; political pressure was then impossible; the only recourse was economic pressure with a few fringe activities. Legally blocked by state laws, hostile police and courts, they were compelled like all Have-Nots from time immemorial to appeal to "a law higher than man-made law." In his Social Contract, Rousseau noted the obvious, that "Law is a very good thing for men with property and a very bad thing for men without property." Passive resistance remained one of the few means available to anti-segregationist forces until they had secured the voting franchise in fact. Furthermore, passive resistance was also a good defensive tactic since it curtailed the opportunities for use of the power resources of the status quo for forcible repression. Passive resistance was chosen for the same pragmatic reason that all tactics are selected. But it assumes the necessary moral and religious adornments.

However, when passive resistance becomes massive and threatening it
gives birth to violence. Southern Negroes have no tradition of Dharma,
and are close enough to their Northern compatriots so that contrasting
conditions between the North and the South are a visible as well as a
constant spur. Add to this the fact that the Southern poor whites do not operate by British tradition but reflect generations of violence; the future does not argue for making a special religion of nonviolence. It will be remembered for what it was, the best tactic for its time and place.

As more effective means become available, the Negro civil rights
movement will divest itself of these decorations and substitute a new
moral philosophy in keeping with its new means and opportunities. The
explanation will be, as it always has been, "Times have changed." This is happening today.

Toph Bei Fong
Feb 29, 2008




Curses, my plot has been exposed! I'll get you pesky kids next time! The proletariat is the undertaker of capitalism! We will bury you! Мы вас похороним! Мы вас похороним! :doom:

:perfect:

Toph Bei Fong
Feb 29, 2008



Condiv posted:

:hfive:

don't let the hateful liberals in states like new york, california, etc. get you down, our states can be revitalized

:hellyeah:

Y'all are doing real important work. Putting up candidates, having meetings, doing anything is better than rolling over.

Thank you so much!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Toph Bei Fong
Feb 29, 2008



Pollyanna posted:

Alright. I'll take a look around.

EDIT: A cursory glance reveals...slim pickings :( Goddammit Boston, I would have hoped you'd be better than this.

You could also just look for your local district office, give them a call, and ask what they need help with. Not even at a meeting necessarily; in a big city like Boston, odds are you'll find people just hanging about the office even after hours.

Just showing up and chatting with people regularly will give you an immense amount of clout. The number of people who show up once then disappear is, well... :smith:

  • Locked thread