Diversity of Tactics?
Out of context, the term ‘diversity of tactics’ seems reasonable. I support the use of a variety of different tactics, depending on both their effectiveness of accomplishing concrete goals and the scenarios in which they are used. But, when put in the context of the current movement against capitalism, particularly in the United States, ‘diversity of tactics’ represents nothing but the antithesis of long-term movement strategy.
Why is it that so many anti-capitalists insist on using tactics that, in the scenarios that they’re repeatedly used, are completely ineffective in moving our movements forward – both in terms of numbers and public opinion? Smashing windows and throwing rocks – in many cases, the use of these tactics seem like expressions of anger against capitalism and the State. Instead we should collectively be deciding the most effective ways to accomplish our goals in the long-term, bearing in mind the need for mass public support and participation in our movements in order to win.
I believe we should be concerned about building strong, lasting movements counter to the oppressive systems that we all are part of now, so that years down the road we’ll have the capacity to build something new.
Young Left and Mennonite 
February 11, 2008 at 3:06 pm
George Lakey from Training for Change has a great article on “diversity of tactics”, check it out! http://trainingforchange.org/content/view/76/33/
April 4, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Saying we should have a “diversity of tactics” as a matter of principle is silly, it’s like sitting in front of a peg board and yelling for all different kinds of pegs, even though there’s only circle and square holes for them to fit into. There’s no point in having triangular pegs.
What people are usually talking about when they say “diversity of tactics” is advocating a “diversity of strategies” which is absurd. We should have diverse tactics that fit into a broader transformative movement strategy. Tactics that don’t push that strategy forward, or actually work against it should be rejected.
August 21, 2008 at 2:48 am
I live in Virginia and work with Earth First!. EF!’s specific niche in environmental activism is generally to employ disruptive, preventative direct action and articulate or more radical “no compromise” philosophy than other more moderate groups do. That’s what our chapter has tried to do too. Blue Ridge Earth First! (the chapter here in Va.) has blockaded Dominion Power’s headquarters twice as part of campaigns opposing new coal and nuclear power generation and staged a number of other actions, sometimes symbolic, often at least a little disruptive.
One of our campaigns is opposing a proposed coal-fired power plant. While BREF! has been keeping executives and other main office employees from getting into work via the tactic of activists locking themselves to big immovable objects in the road leading into the office complex, the Southern Environmental Law Center has been sueing Dominion over particular nuances to their planned coal plant. Local governments around the state have passed resolutions opposing the plant. College students have bird-dogged the governor everywhere he’s gone urging him to oppose the plant. Local citizens (and masses from all over Va.) have turned out to every hearing before every regulatory body who has some jurisdiction over the project. Folks have circulated petitions, staged sign-waving protests and other media stunts. People have been writing Letters to the Editors, giving talks to churches, schools and anyone who
‘ll listen. A great many groups have been embodying “diversity of tactics” here over this coal plant.
I disagree to hear y’all dissing “diversity of tactics.” Here’s an argument for it. In Virginia fighting this coal plant no one angle would work to generate the populist involvement necessary to defeat the plant. But we’re all doing our thing and we’re all in touch as best as we can be. In the case of EF!, we know that some folks don’t agree with our tactics. So we respectfully disagree and we work together on what projects we can work together on. And when we just don’t see eye to eye we just keep a little distance. And if some other group does something we don’t like, we certainly don’t talk smack on it in a public setting. Perhaps we’ll vent and certainly we’ll try to address it in a constructive, movement-building type approach. but we’re not going to condemn anyone publicly. that would hurt the work they’re doing and create public fractures in the movement which makes us all together weaker.
i feel like a lot of folks have a bad habit of thinking that their way is the only way. i feel that we all only have a little piece of the answer and anyway it’s unrealistic to expect everyone to agree with eachother (and for what them all to agree on to be whatever you happen to believe.) So if someone is employing tactics you don’t agree with or you feel are counterproductive, trust that these people are sincere and really try to to understand where they’re coming from. ask them. they might be mean because maybe they think that only their way is any good but just try to be patient with that attitude.
that’s my two cents. i’m all for diversity of tactics.
i’m also excited to discover this blog. i’m not a mennonite but i’m a christian and definitely left of center. way left. the word left actually doesn’t even suffice. except maybe in as much as i “left” the left-right paradigm of politics behind some time ago.
wellness,
willie
August 21, 2008 at 3:22 am
Hey Willie,
Thanks for the comment. I agree that it’s exciting to find other folks that are willing to define themselves as radical Christians.
I actually found myself agreeing with a good portion of what you wrote. Although I am opposed to “diversity of tactics” as a theory, that doesn’t mean I’m opposed to using an array of tactics when they are used effectively. As you obviously know, when you’re part of a broad campaign, all sorts of different kinds of tactics are going to be used to achieve your goals. I’m simply in support of using whatever tactics are most effective in achieving those goals.
I feel like a lot of activists get really attached to one specific kind of tactic – whatever they perceive to be the “most radical,” and for that reason I think that we need to be really careful that we’re choosing tactics that are about winning and building a movement, instead of about self-expression or a radical identity.
Thanks again for sharing your opinions,
Nick