Thread by @ElephantEating

A thread on some related political organization ideas that I've found useful (yes, I know I'm getting a bit out of my lane, but this isn't the usual commentary): On what types of action are most effective at realizing change (I'm thinking about climate, but applies broadly).

There has been a lot of discussion in climate twitter about personal action versus govt action, and the role of groups likes Extinction Rebellion. A lot of it is indirectly answering the question: What is the "right" way to enact real change?

I definitely have preferences, probably summarized as: work to focus the strength of existing systems on the problem. Groups like Extinction Rebellion seem at least misguided to me. (though I "get it").

Several months back, @p2son brought up the "Four Roles of Social Activism" idea from Bill Moyer (see link). The basic idea is that good activism requires 4 different roles that complement each other: Helper, Advocate, Rebel, Organizer.

newjimcroworganizing.org/img/pdf/4%20Ro…

Short descriptions:
Helper: takes direct personal actions often seen as "too small"
Advocate: works within current systems to enact high-level change
Rebel: attacks problematic systems from outside
Organizer: builds coalitions and new systems to address the issue

I can see how this may be true in achieving change on climate. I'm pretty safely an "Advocate" (tag yourself!), but the four roles concept has me seeing how my success is helped by roles that I don't want to do (and occasionally find to be counterproductive).

I especially want to note the Advocate/Rebel tension, which is also bubbling up a lot in other places these days (consider the Pelosi/"Squad" division or the question of how Dems ought to grapple with DJT). It may be the case that the Rebel and Advocate efforts are complementary.

If done correctly, the Rebel pushes away the problematic faction as a whole while the Advocate draws the more moderate/borderline people away from the faction. Rebel helps define "Us" and "Them", and Advocate makes it easy/attractive to join "Us".

It reminds me of a favorite quote from McNamara about the Cuban Missile Crisis. On whether it was the Blockade or the threat of escalation (Ultimatum) that got Soviets to back down: That is like "...trying to argue about which blade of the scissors really cuts the paper."

The whole Rebel/Advocate tension also reminds me a lot of the SciFi book "Voyage from Yesteryear" (James Hogan) which, like many SciFi books, is really an exercise in thinking about different ways a society could operate. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_fr…

In the book (a good one, overall), a relatively militant Earth contingent shows up on a relatively Utopian planet of "seeder ship" humans. But the primary narrative is about how they deal with the Militant Earth "invaders".

Different groups from the planet both invite the invaders to peacefully defect while forcefully rejecting their worldview - kind of a good cop/bad cop dynamic. This is fiction, so I'm not sure how realistic it all is, but it seems very plausible and realistic.

Bringing it together: I propose that the Rebel/Advocate divide may actually be a truly functional form. Rebels would just be assholes if there weren't workable solutions offered by reasonable people. But the Rebels give teeth to the threat of inaction, while Advocates never can.

And in the larger picture of the "four roles": It may be the case that real success is achieved as the resultant of quite different (and sometimes even contradictory) actions from different parties. Maybe the people that don't take action like you have a different role to play?