Dear social-movements, We've been talking a lot recently about how movements arise, how their agendas are developed, and about the prospects for an effective movement for systemic change in today's circumstances. I'd like to put on the table some empirical data for us to look at. That 'data' is an actual embryonic global movement, one whose goal is to help create an effective counter-revolution to capitalist domination. "Peoples' Global Action" (PGA) brings together diverse grass-roots movements from around the world, facilitates the development of consensus, and coordinates collective actions. PGA has organized two global conferences, and each has generated (or is now generating) a rather comprehensive and sensible 'Manifesto'. As a seperate message, I am posting "PGA Bulletin #4 - part 1 of 3" - this is the 'empirical data' to which I referred above. I can send parts 2 and 3 of the bulletin to anyone who wants to see them. In the development of this embryonic, PGA-coordinated, counter-revolution, we can see the interplay of 'structural' and 'agency' forces - each of which signicicantly influences the character of the movement. PGA is acting in two different roles - as a faciltator of a 'structural' process, and as a conscious 'agent' guiding that process. In its first role, PGA acts as a neutral 'forum-provider'. Grass-roots groups come together under PGA auspices and 'spontaneously' develop common-understanding and a sense of mutual purpose. This represents a 'structural' process in that the 'conditions' of peoples lives are articulated within the forum, and these 'conditions' are then collectively synthesized into mutual-benefit agendas. This process might well proceed without any 'singular leaders' or 'pivotal theorists' being at the heart of it. Historians might later see it as a 'spontaneous, evolutionary, response' to capitalism. That's what I would call the unfolding of a 'structural force'. If there is a 'causitive agent' involved, it would be the people themselves, acting collectively through their local organizations. PGA, in this role, acts only a neutral vehicle of communication, empowering 'democratic agency'. In its second role, PGA acts as a 'leadership agent' - deciding how often to hold gatherings, whom to invite, how to structure the conference agendas, etc. For the most part, the PGA leadership cadre (whoever they are) seem to be acting in a very responsible, enlightened, neutral manner. They don't seem to be pushing a doctrinaire ideoloogy; they don't seem to be buiding a hierarchical organization; they encourage an open consensus process. Fair play to them. And yet, in its role of 'leadership agent', PGA is imposing certain subtle emphases onto the coalition agenda, and is exercising a certain modality of leadership. In both cases, I suggest that we - who want a democratic counter-revolution to succeed - have reason to be concerned. I'll explain first what I mean by 'emphases'. The 'emphases' I refer to give a certain disturbing spin to the Manifesto, which may limit efforts to expand the coalition to wider constituencies - there is already a whiff of 'exclusionism' being built into the Manifesto. Unless a critical-mass of constituencies can be brought into the movement, it cannot ultimately succeed in in its revolutionary objectives. For the coalition to reach the scale necessary to overcome the global capitalist system, it must be as inclusive as possible, while being true to its principles. Only a tiny elite really benefits from capitalist hegemony - why should not 'everyone else' be brought into the movement? Why should the elite be left with any allies at all? Any policy of 'exclusionism' only serves to limit the movement and to provide constituencies around which an elite-sponsored counter-reaction can be mobilized. In twenties' Germany, those who were left out of the socialist movement became available for recruitment as storm-troopers for the capitalist-financed fascist reaction. Any revolutionary strategy that permits this historical scenario to be repeated can only be described as suicidal. What we call the 'right wing' - if you look at the grass-roots membership - are ordinary, decent human beings, who want a better world just like we all do. Demagogic leaders and movements are emerging, who are appealing to the prejudices of these grass-roots folks, and who are guiding their energy in frightening directions. These leaders and movements may well be 'enemies of our revolution', but the grass-roots folks to whom they appeal are not our enemies. If our counter-revolution is to succeed, we cannot dismiss the 'right wing' as being 'outside the pale' of the movement. Our challenge instead is to compete with the demagogues, and help the folks to see that it is capitalism that is the problem - not the various conspiracies they are being told to arm themselves against - and we're talking about real weapons here. The storm troopers, it appears, are being assembled even before our movement gets into full swing. In this revolution, we must always be aware of reactionary 'capitalist agency', in all its subtle and evolved manifestations. --- My second concern, as regards 'PGA as leadership agent', is the modality of leadership being exercised. The absence of a hierarchical 'party structure' is to be commended, as is the absence of self-appointed 'heroic leaders' who want us to be 'followers'. But what _is the structure of the PGA cadre? And _who are they? And what trade-offs are they considering, when they decide what spin they want to put into their leadership? The results of PGA conferences are widely publicised, but the behind-the-scenes inner organizing process remains a mystery, as is the process by which final Manifesto language is formulated. There is an opaqueness, an anonymity, to the PGA leadership which is in conflict with the requirements of an open, democratic process. Until this leadership process can somehow be opened up, and be made democratically accountable - we must remain on guard against a potential 'Bolschevik Scenario'. So long as PGA leadership remains opaque and anonymous - and does not enter into dialog outside its chosen circle of friends - we cannot be assured that this cadre may not emerge as some kind of power-brokering agency within the movement. We all know that power corrupts, and many a well-meaning revolutionary cadre has evolved (or has been hijacked) into a tyrannical regime - when the movement's structure permitted such an outcome. This line of thinking may well represent an excessive paranoid concern with worst-case outcomes, but my philosophy is that any potentially dangerous condition should be nipped in the bud through exposure to open dialog. Thus far, <•••@••.•••> has functioned as a one-way channel of communication - a source of reasonably enlightened and effective movement leadership and propaganda. My attempts to enter into dialog with <•••@••.•••> - the only 'identity' PGA offers us - have not met with success. I hope that an appropriate dialog will develop - by one means or another - so that a democratic outcome can be assured for the movement - if it is so fortunate as to be successful it its endeavor. --- I hope that PGA, as a real-world, real-time 'empirical example' might provide some grist for our mill of studying and undertanding social movements. all the best, rkm
