Deciphering the Nature of Activism
In the West, political expression ranges from indirect form, like voting for representatives, to form more direct and specific demonstrating and marching. Protests and rallies already push the boundaries of common tolerance; activism is considered the highest form of political activity, and anything more radical is shunned as being immature or improper. However, modern activism is an elitist interpretation of social change.
Today, nobody doubts the power of civil protest to affect change within the concessions from the ruling political-capitalist class. Furthermore, it is foolish to mistake activism for what will truly be required to break the oppression of the ruling class: direct action and revolution.
Activism is only effective with the blessing of the political-capitalist class. The 1960’s American black liberation movement only succeeded with relative non-violence because the ruling class did not care enough to openly combat it.
While there were isolated incidents of violence, the tempered moderacy of the American movement and accompanying peace came in sharp contrast to the open race wars of national liberation movements in Rhodesia and South Africa. The socialist characteristics of African black nationalists posed a direct and immediate threat to the ruling class, leading to a violent kickback against black revolutionaries.
The American suffrage movement also brought about change because the ruling class did not care enough to openly combat it. The same is true for every single nonviolent activist movement in American history: any successful change proposed had to first be acceptable to the political-capitalist class.
Many of these successful movements, such as the gay rights struggle and campaign for interracial marriage, were supported by the capitalist class in the name of profit or simply accepted for lack of harm, sometimes despite a mass rejection. There was simply no reason for the ruling class to oppose these movements because the benefits outweighed the negatives. Thus, the movements were permitted to succeed without resorting to violence.
In contrast, mass revolutionary action is effective, regardless of the opinion of the ruling class. These revolutionary actions range greatly in their resemblance activism, from the mostly non-violent overthrow of the Egyptian state in 2011 to the violent revolutions of 1848 throughout Europe and the French Revolution.
However, one detail clearly distinguishes activism and revolution: in activism, political consciousness arises only after the action has taken place, whereas in revolution, the development of consciousness precedes the spontaneous and organic action that eventually develops.
This distinction is critical in determining the success of the movement with the resistance of the ruling class. In activism, the formation of consciousness is influenced and corrupted by hegemony. While the activist-oriented political consciousness remains undeveloped, the revolutionary potential is easily snuffed out by reactionaries and other elements of the ruling class.
Consider the case of Tsarist Russia, where the primary organization of activists, the Socialist Revolutionary Party, ended up leading the reactionary movement against the Bolshevik revolution. Activists without a developed political consciousness should not be relied on during periods of great upheaval. For this reason, it is critical for any progressive or radical movement to develop and foment new ideologies before acting on their newly-developed consciousness.
However, this does not mean that revolution can be interpreted as a “struggle of ideas,” as political leader Amadeo Bordiga states in his article Activism. The revolutionary struggle is one that emerges without guidance from intellectuals or academics.
Notably, this excludes the possibility a vanguard party of professional revolutionaries that protect the revolutionary party’s ideology. Political consciousness, be it of class or of race or of sex, must emerge from the mass of individual revolutionaries who join together in the revolutionary party.
Just as bourgeois influence corrupts activism, elitist vanguardism corrupts revolution. Revolution is an expression of the natural and real oppression of individual revolutionaries against the existing and accepted order, and should not be confused with moralistic ideological struggle between the intelligentsia and the ruling class.
It will always be the responsibility of individual revolutionaries to develop their own consciousnesses before acting. When a mass movement progresses past trade-union and activist consciousness, true change may finally come to exist, even if it goes against the wishes of the ruling class.
It is far past the time to understand that activism is not the highest and most commendable form of political activism, and that it should not be the backbone of progress. When a movement becomes reliant on activism solely sanctioned by the ruling class, it is often the first to defect to the side of reaction when the time for revolution comes.
By keeping the nature of activism in mind, especially during these turbulent political times, we ensure that any movement will maintain its potential for the development of consciousness and substantive progress.