Thread by @jonathansmucker

"Activism" is a relatively new word. Its rise in usage corresponded with the rise of neoliberalism and its ethos of individualism. Activism tends to be an activity of individual self-selectors, usually from the top 10-20% of the economic spectrum.

Activism ≠ organizing.

The lesson is never “The forces we’re up against are just too powerful.”

Facing tough odds against formidably powerful opponents is the nature of insurgent struggle.

It is the duty of insurgent leaders to study the terrain and learn how to win.

The question is not whether or not to polarize, but how to polarize strategically. Political challengers strategically polarize along a "bottom vs top" axis that frames their forces as majoritarian, their agenda as common sense, and their opponents as greedy elites at the top.

Unstrategic polarization examples:
- left vs right
- Democrat vs Republican
- leftists vs liberals
- protesters vs police
- righteous activists vs backward majority

Strategic polarization examples:
- 99% vs 1%
- everyday working people vs out-of-touch elites

If you are just doing ethics, you can protest hegemony from the sidelines.

If you are doing politics, hegemony is something you will want for your side (for the political forces you're building).

There's a hegemonic contest BETWEEN broad alignments of forces, e.g., the Reagan Coalition vs. the New Deal Coalition.

AND there's a hegemonic contest WITHIN those alignments, e.g., the Sanders insurgency vs. the neoliberal Democratic Party old guard.

Engage in both contests.

Protesting is righteous, cathartic, necessary, and often strategic.

But remember that they want you to stay on the sidelines, while they control the field.

They want us to resign ourselves to the margins.

Where we are now is only a way station.

The plan is to take the field.

Politics is a terrain of struggle. If you're only developing your analysis and ideology, and you're not developing specific skills and capacities (e.g., organizing, campaigning, statecraft, etc.) that help navigate that terrain, you're bringing truth to a gunfight.

Hope that it is possible to change present conditions is vitally important in political struggle. But hope is not itself a strategy to change conditions.

Taking advantage of crisis to move policies and structural changes you couldn't move before the crisis is Politics 101. The thing about "shock doctrine" is that an effective Left would be doing an effective Left version of it—instead of just critiquing our opponents for doing so.

Insurgents will never win by playing by Establishment rules.

But that's no excuse to neglect to study the current rules of the game, along with the details of political terrain as it exists presently: the balance of forces, the composition of alignments, the fissures, etc.

Look if you really don't think we can win anything, you've effectively given up. It's understandable. It's hard out there. But find another way to cope—don't pretend you're doing politics if you're really just standing on the sidelines critiquing the game.

The terrain of politics doesn't give a damn about our political opinions or the precision of our analysis.

To be a contender on the terrain of politics we need power. We must develop a force that other contenders have to reckon with.

Everything else is the sidelines.