“Poor People’e Movements; Why They Succeedd and How They Fail” By Piven and Cloward was an instant classic for me once I started to read it. A professor from my community college recommended it to me. The conversation began with me lamenting about a figure on our campus left who generally defiled radical activism and upheld the social-democratic electoral reform models of Pual Wellstone, GROW by USAS, and the one he ran at our college. He now sits on an education board in the East Bay.
In our student organizing around the budget cuts and fee increases in the community college system, he always chided our efforts as unsystematic, unpragmatic and after a large march and protest of students in Sacramento he scolded us as leading the ‘booos’ against the politician who took the stage (we participated, but certainly did not lead- the feeling was widespread). Being unsystematic, unpragmatic had nothing to do with it. We had an eight month campaing timeline we were following, organized the student government to hire one of our former members as a paid organizer (unprecedented in to my knowledge) and with buses and carpool brought nearly 500 students to Sacramento the week before finals, among a number of accomplishments leading up to that.
Apparently we should should have focused more on getting students to write letters and lobby (which we did at least the former somewhat). I told my prof friend ‘I know we are doing the right thing and this is an effective way to go about this, but I just have no way prove it.’ And out came her copy of “Poor People’s Movements.” She said it was a book that proved direct action and disruptive protest was effective as a tactic and strategy. My mind was blown. The chapter on the 1930’s industrial movement remains to this day the example par excellence of the contrast between a powerful, radical mass movement and the reformist political mobilization strategy- after the CIO had managed to bring an insurgent workers movement under its wings, it began to curtail the popular radicalism through no-strike pledges and a grievence system (see Lynd on the CIO for more on this). While most of the gains in workers rights came during the early period of mass insurgency, the CIO moved towards focusing a tremendous amount of resources in successfuly mobilizing their membership towards voting (mostly towards the Democratcs and rejecting any more left oriented third parties even). Once the CIO had accomplished this not only were little further gains made, but the actually the most reactionary pieces of labor legislation were passed: Taft-Hately, which mainstream unions still bemoan to this day.
Anyways, the discussion and the book was a turning point in helping me a number of things: The usefulness of radical scholarship for organizers and begining to understand the huge gulf that exists between on the ground activists and organizers on the left in the US and theory based/academic left (see “Activism: Left Anti-Intellectualism and its Discontents” by Liza Feathersone, Doug Henwood and Christian Parenti for my favorite discussion on this-
http://www.lipmagazine.org/articles/featfeatherstone_activistism.shtml). I’m looking forward to picking up this new piece by Piven and I think you’ll enjoy this excellent review by James Tracey.
Book Review:Challenging Authority
“How Ordinary People Change America” by Frances Fox Piven
Too often, discussion about the viability of change sprouting from the electoral system is shrunk to fit bumperstickers. Even harder to find is nuanced analysis when the politics of protest—direct action, and mob action become the issue of the day. Challenging Authority: How Ordinary People Change America by Francis Fox Piven offers readers a history lesson of the ways in which progressive change has in the past, actually happened—a complex dance between disruptive populist forces and the formal electoral system.
Piven is one of the Left’s preeminent Political Scientists. Others in academia have done their best to delete the role of protest in social change; she has made a career of writing the common person back into the history. Best known for the groundbreaking Poor People’s Movements: How they Succeed and Why the Fail she asserted over twenty years ago that reform moves best when the action remains direct. Challenging Authority expands on this theme.
The book asserts that disruptive politics have always forced electoral/representative; as well as regional coalitions splinter and realign, making reform possible. This is in stark contrast to the dominant model of party building—unite a large enough mass around a platform common enough to hold—a culprit commonly referred to as the Lowest Common Denominator. For Piven, it is dissensus, not the consensus that is the engine of progressive reform.
The mass direct action of the Civil Rights movement plied pro-segregation Dixiecrats to split from the Democratic Party making it possible for a portion of movement demands to be satisfied. Spot-on is the understanding that one day’s movement victory might become tommorow’s liability. Piven explains:
Moreover, the movement wins what it wins because it threatens to create and widen divisions in electoral coalitions, because it makes enemies and activates allies. The threat of dissensus has inevitable limits, however. On the one side, the mere fact of concessions, even limited concessions, tends to rob the movement of its erstwhile allies. After all, grievances have been answered, so what more do these people want?…The party may succeed in regrouping as a dominant party no longer vulnerable to the threat of dissensus, as the Republican Party did after the Civil War, and as the Democratic Party did after the 1930s. Or it may survive, albeit in a weakened state, as the Democratic Party did after the civil rights movement cost it the support of the South.
While dissensus has its limits, the consensus carries its’ own costs. It is hard to imagine a New Deal without the disruptive actions of the Unemployed Workers Movements willing to physically confront evictors and relief bureaucrats. Roosevelt, wouldn’t have likely come up with the idea on his own. Eminently pragmatic, he responded to a strong mass movement in cold, calculating terms and ended up backing the creation of a social safety net.
Piven applies this logic to the Abolitionist movement as well, noting that even simple oral agitation polarized the pro-slavery coalitions that stretched beyond North-South borders. Piven also credits the insurrections and escapes of slaves as a major catalyst in the end of slavery; a simple truth deleted from many historical accounts. Both Lincoln and Roosevelt were far from natural allies of reform. Lincoln attempted to accommodate slavery and avoided emancipation. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, beginning the internment of Japanese Americans.
One of the most challenging concepts in the book is the concept of interdependent power as a key to movement gains. Piven believes that even within domination, the underdog’s power lies in the fact that the elite really needs her or him. The Boss needs workers to profit, the landlord needs the rent of the tenant, and disruption tends to be bad for business if sustained. True enough, however it doesn’t leave much to work with if one’s movement’s vision lies in transforming this dynamic altogether.
While the world is a much different place that the thirties, the sixties or the 1860s Challenging Authority’s basic premise is directly relevant to today’s activists. Presidential elections on the horizon, progressive forces would do well not to abandon independent disruptive dissent; just as ignoring electoral formations altogether is equally counter-productive. When it comes to the basics of economics and empire, Democrats and Republicans often stand on common ground, differing only on how to manage similar agendas.
Piven’s gift to the reader lies beyond her sharp analysis, eloquent prose, and nuanced understanding of history—she reminds us that the days inbetween the elections, and not just the one’s in preparation for them, count for something. That understanding may be the only thing that can ever elevate American politics from the gutter of soundbites, scapegoating and false promises.