A major problem for the left, before, during and after, “the Wisconsin Uprising” is sectarianism, I am convinced. It undermines a basic strength. As I concluded in the past “heat and light” post: “After the fall of Communism, the strength of the left is its diversity, its turn away from dogmatism. Understanding what different actions, movements and institutions contribute is crucial.” It was with this view in mind that I read the discussions here and on my Facebook page on Chad Goldberg’s recent post. Here is a dialogue blending the two discussions.

I appreciated Vince Carducci’s Deliberately Considered comment, even though I wondered how he decided what is radical:

“This discussion is really getting to some good ideas, helping to move beyond the knee-jerk facile reactions to the recall. I think there’s value in both positions, though Henwood is more radical (which I have sympathy with) and perhaps as a result more reductive (which I don’t like so much). Chad Goldberg brings important firsthand experience into the discussion. I do think there’s another aspect to Fox Piven and Cloward’s book that he overlooks. It’s true that the legislative process was crucial to the success of poor people’s movement in the end, but the central thesis of the book is that the substantial gains are usually made *before* legislation not really in tandem. The legislative process, Fox Piven and Cloward assert, is the way in which the grassroots movements were mainstreamed and thus brought under control. So in this regard, I side with Henwood to a certain extent. However, even as a strategy of containment by the so-called powers that be, the fact that the legislative process embedded progressive ideals into the mainstream is important. Examples include: the creation of the Food and Drug Administration, fair labor laws, the Civil Rights Voting Act, and in fact the provisions of labor into what Daniel Bell termed “the Treaty of Detroit.” I’d like to suggest a framework within which both perspectives might be brought, specifically Jean Cohen and Andrew Arato’s work in Civil Society and Democratic Theory. I modify their points to get some alliteration in there as follows: The four “I’s” of social movements. The first “I” is identity, individuals “coming out” whether in terms of sexual orientation or in this case class identity. The second is inclusion, or as OWS has put it, “We are the 99%.” The third is influence, and in this case there’s no doubt that the broad trend of which Wisconsin has been a crucial part changed the discourse within the public sphere. The final one is institutionalization, which is essentially the codification of the progress, as documented by Fox Piven and Cloward, into formal norms that we call laws. It’s this crucial area, which is the realm of legislation but also regulation and judicial process, that is the most difficult to achieve. The labor movement has played a major role, though not always, in pretty much all of the progressive achievements of the last century. The failings are what Henwood is focusing on, perhaps too much. But I do think they are worth taking into account, especially his characterization of what amounts to the spoils system in American labor unions. Naomi’s graphic that illustrates this post is something we all should study. It suggests the work that needs to be done. And all of us need to participate.”

George Finch, on Facebook, also focused on the question of institutionalization of protest and its implications:

“… I haven’t read Poor People’s Movement for some time now, but their contention was that mass movements and disruptions made needed legislation possible as a way to “shut people up” to put it crudely. To say, ‘protest movements have historically been most successful when disruptive protests worked in tandem with—not as an alternative to—electoral volatility.’ is a tad misleading, specially the term “in tandem’. If anything they were saying such movements brought about change, not legislative campaigns or electoral politics. I believe Piven also notes that soon a reaction occurs and the legislation becomes watered down…This is what occurred with labor law through first the Taft-Hartley law. Unions then were more legislative orientated as many are now, and got whupped. I really can’t comment on Wisconsin as I wasn’t there, and you really have to be there to get a feel about what is the best strategy. But from my 30 years of organizing experience at different levels, a priority and one base is getting ‘people support’ and also going against the grain through creative disruptive tactics, which no doubt is tricky and to well thought out ( and not repetitive) . There are other matters and strategies as well, and the Right has been doing it very well for almost 40 years now. They are more savvy about organizing than the left or progressives and the like.”

Getting “people support” is crucial in a democracy. I, as the author of The Politics of Small Things, agree with Carducci and Finch that the creative force of direct social action and protest is crucial. But having an effect requires official action.  As Vince noted there is a tension between the dangers of cooptation and the need to institutionalize change.

Bob Perillo underscores the dangers of my position. He writes on Facebook:

“Jeffrey: I respect your position, but I don’t share it, and on several levels. First, the possibilities you see, I don’t see. In fact, just the opposite. The Obama administration has engaged in a crackdown on OWS that would have had liberals shrieking had Republicans done it (coordinated arrests across the country, HR-347, the strip-search rule, etc.). OWS and other social movments may move Obama to change his rhetoric at times (particularly from now to Novemeber), but his actions against these movements are simply repugnant and indefensible. More importantly, having a Democrat with “liberal” bona fides (real or imagined) in the White House has provided corporate power with a priceless asset that openly right-wing Republican administrations have never been able to deliver: the capacity to co-opt, confuse, and demobilize social movements. At a time when global corporate capitalism is imploding, and the response of the rich is to exploit the crisis in order to force everyone else to make the kinds of concessions they could never think of demanding otherwise — that is to say, at a time when popular uprisings are not only possible but practically inevitable — the ability to demobilize social movements is critical.

Wisconsin is a prime example. The anti-war movement is another. One can only shake one’s head in morbid admiration as people who vigorously protested Bush’s warrantless wiretapping remain silent about, or actually express support for, Obama’s administration that he’s running a death squad out of the Whiter House.

It’s not that I want Romney to win. But one shouldn’t dismiss the value of actually having a “progressive” opposition to the executive branch again.”

And I agree there is value in progressive criticism. But opposition doesn’t make sense to me. I write this the day after Obama moved forward on undocumented young adults. Not perfect, but a definite advance. This and much more suggests to me that while criticism of specifics makes sense, opposition doesn’t, but I do respect Perillo’s position, as I don’t agree with it.