Politics have no relation to morals. - Niccolo Machiavelli
Traditional historical narratives imply that change comes from the top down, as a result of the actions of about Kings and presidents. But focusing on the characters and personal circumstances of such leaders simplifies the larger forces always at work. We all know that Henry VIII needed a divorce when he founded the Church of England, but at the time time all northern Europe was stepping out from under the wing of the Pope, achieving a measure of independence and of course taking ownership of all the church's assets. And when that decision was taken at that high level, were all the protestant agitators and martyrs vindicated? Or if the decision was taken in the King's bed, perhaps their efforts were irrelevant?
As would be changemakers, we must decide for ourselves where the decisions we want to effect are really made. Do the people follow the law? Does the law follow Goldman Sachs? Are we more effective working under the radar? Or can breaking an unjust law be a powerful strategy for change? If a bank can be too big to jail, when is a people's movement too big to jail?
A return to first principles in a republic is sometimes caused by the simple virtues of one man. His good example has such an influence that the good men strive to imitate him, and the wicked are ashamed to lead a life so contrary to his example. - Niccolo Machiavelli
Outside of politics, there is a diverse pantheon of progressive individuals credited with changing the world, thinkers, scientists, artists, priests, engineers. I think many activists are tempted to measure their success in terms of that kind of recognition. But this is a poor motivation and poor reward for a lifetime's work. There isn't room in the hall of fame for every soul who achieved something Important. Recognition is limited and often falls to the wrong people.
Of all the challenges faced by humanity in general, how can we assess which challenges are 'key' and which challenges are just symptoms? And are we clear why our particular goal is strategically important? For example, if the USA cracked down on its dubious corporate lobbying practices, could we all go back to tending our gardens? (I haven't tended a garden for some years) Or would the battle for political influence continue relentlessly on several other fronts?
I try to focus on causes rather than symptoms, on prevention of tomorrow's symptoms rather than cures for the pain that touches me here and now. I think that the many problems we might battle have relatively few causes. In my analysis, the money system is the root cause of almost everything, but that doesn't mean we should work on that alone. In my opinion the (other) most important areas are:
- decentralising food and energy production
- supporting the alternative media
- building private communication networks
- developing methods of participative governance
- overcoming legislative barriers to alternative lifestyles
whereas the following are just addressing symptoms
- Cancer research
- Political lobbying
- Donkey sanctuaries
- 3rd world development
So, freed from delusions that politics is where change really happens, and that public recognition is not an indicator of impact, how can we work solidly towards a better society, maximising expected impact and reducing the chances that our life's work will be swept aside by a stroke of the presidential pen?
I would now like to put forward a few principles for effective activism, and in the follow up article attempt to get to the heart of the matter!
- Impact is not measured in thousands of people at your protest. Both protesting and voting create the dangerous illusion that your opinion counts. Impact is when the establishment changes its behaviour. But know that it will push back, so don't let up!
- You don't have to be politically acceptable, and you don't have to work towards something achievable, and you don't have to have measurable outcomes if you are working with your own energy and resources. Working on the extremes is valuable because it shifts people's perceptions and moves the centre ground. The acceptable middle ground is carefully staked out by think tanks, explored by politicians within that political spectrum, and patrolled by the media to prevent us thinking outside them. 'Extreme' policies such as upholding the constitution or returning to 'sound' money are increasingly falling under the fuzzy 'terrorism' label.
- Activities like advocacy, helping the poorest, network building, and research cannot and should not 'sustain' themselves. Sure, commerce and the market have a very important role to play in changing the world but be aware that getting money and professionalising changes everything. Most paid people are usually replaceable parts in a machine; their work is governed by money as surely as the movements of heavenly bodies are governed by Newton's laws. Paying activists is a great way to encourage them to start families and de-radicalise them. Stopping paying activists (usually after three years) and telling them they have to run a 'viable' operation really knocks them sideways.
- Work done for love directly frees up money for other purposes. The nonprofit industrial complex expends a huge amount of resources redesiging perfectly good operations, and competing for funds to pay staff. But the real difference is made by the people who channel the money wisely, and more importantly, by volunteers who create value where there was none. When we do it without permission from bursars, we own our work.
- Don't expect the enemy to play by the rules. If the makers of the rules were playing by those rules we wouldn't have a problem. To me it is very obvious and well documented that entrenched powers are actively working to divide, confuse, subvert, buy off, blackmail, isolate, slander, and not infrequently murder those who threaten their interests. They know the rules and our pointing them out isn't likely to help, unless it is done for the benefit of the public.
- So saying, do not focus too much on evil people. There is no shortage of psychopaths in key positions, they are hard to spot, are excellent actors, and are easily replaced by other psychopaths, apparatchiks, or harmless do-gooders. Judge not lest ye be judged. Focus instead on systemic problems. If Cheney was convicted in the Hague for orchestrating an attack on his own country, would that wake the people up or deter the next war?
- Stick to the facts. There are so many facts available these days, but some people need to go just a little beyond. Instead of building solar solution they are talking about zero point energy and alleging that government stole Tesla's secrets and that nobody has discovered them since.
- The easiest way to identify the doers is to see what they already did; better still if they did it with or for someone else. Therefore it is important to signal to others what you have actually done! Usually it is best not to wait for people who haven't haven't got around to it yet.
So please hold your breath until the denouement in part 2 when I'll tell you how four out of five of activists can double their impact!
Comments