10-28-05, 8:00 am

'Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice' —William Lloyd Garrison

In spite of what is too commonly repeated, preached, and believed in the mainstream, routine politics is not enough for a relatively powerless, oppressed group, such as African Americans, to realize their collective will, particularly in terms of achieving parity in the political and economic spheres and, additionally, to deal with the critical problems of the so-called underclass. Routine politics—that is, voting and elections, petitions, lobbying, and interest group activity—is designed for stability. Routine politics can only accomplish minor, incremental change, at best. Never will it transform the fundamental structures of society; it never has. Pluralistic methods such as those of routine politics might affect certain facets of day to day life, but not the social, political, and economic position of African Americans in general and the African American underclass in particular. This is even more true for African American women who are a 'minority' within a minority and an 'underclass' within an underclass.

Small change might be able to be attained through routine politics and incrementalism, but large-scale change will not be accomplished through ordinary means; it requires extraordinary measures. Large-scale change can only be accomplished by the mobilization of people from the masses and the subsequent organization, social unrest, disruption, and demands that would be—and have been—produced. Mobilization of people, disruption of normal activities, and social unrest can also induce incremental change—as well if not better than routine politics—by the fear that it causes and the threat that it poses.

The radical flank effect suggests that insurgents make non-insurgents appear moderate and reasonable. Incremental change, in this way, may be granted by the power élite—who may fear losing anything but panic at the thought of losing everything—in order to co-opt members of the social movement. The defense mechanisms of the system include, among many other things, co-optation. With the fear of losing 'too much' from powerful, radical demands emanating from social unrest, the power élite is likely to 'give in' on a diluted version of some of these demands. By tricking some people and somewhat satisfying others, it is hoped by those in power with the most to lose, that the mass movement would be divided and weakened, and that the systemic crisis would be abated or, at least, postponed. Political repression is always a potential state resource, as we well know, but ideally, trickery is a more desirable tactic for the power élite than is brute force. It is much more efficient and less costly for the élite to exercise 'power without force', as Antonio Gramsci’s concept and analysis of hegemony make clear.

Far reaching change by routine politics and incremental methods may be a pie-in-the-sky, unattainable goal. Indeed, inequality under capitalism is neither a failure nor a perversity of the system, but is, rather, the purpose and its raison d’etre. Like the game of Monopoly, the real life game of capitalism guarantees a small group of winners and a much larger group of losers. Layered over the ancient oppressive systems of white supremacy (racism) and patriarchy (sexism), capitalism’s losers are necessarily going to be disproportionately people of color and women. This is almost universally true across time and space.

What is to be done? Whereas liberals sometimes seek to reform these types of inequality and conservatives generally oppose those reforms, socialists and other radical progressives go to the roots of problems and specifically target the system itself for inherently producing social, political, and economic inequality. While routine political change can address certain particular problems, these problems are, in actuality, symptoms of a larger disease, namely the structure and dynamics of the interrelated and reinforcing systems of capitalism, white supremacy, and patriarchy.
Routine politics has not—and cannot—achieve the policies that would be necessary to transform the deplorable situation of the underclass. The ownership and control of productive property is simply not on the mainstream agenda. With about 13% of the population of the richest country in the world, African-Americans barely own or control any major means of production or communication in the United States. And the underclass especially, almost by definition based on its economic level, is not able to generate (capitalist) demand. Demand in a capitalist system is not based on need (e.g., being hungry or homeless), but rather on the ability and willingness to pay the monetary price for a particular good or service. Since it is not profitable to produce or provide for the underclass, it must therefore be made unprofitable for the power élite not to do so. In a capitalist society, if the so-called ‘invisible hand’ of the so-called free market will not provide, nothing else in this selfish economic system will. It is therefore up to the people to politically produce a visible fist to counter and compel the invisible hand.

'Working within the system' is not the best means—if a good one at all—to obtain progressive social change. It is not even likely possible, especially considering that the bureaucratic nature of institutions is fertile ground for suppression, marginalization, co-optation, and infinite delay. The time, energy, and resources necessary, along with the intrinsic behavior modification that comes from working with and within bureaucratic institutions, can easily channel one into accepting and adopting the mainstream methods of routine politics.

Although some are hesitant, others are more open to embracing the need for a mass movement in order to create the social space and political opportunities requisite for fundamental, progressive change in society. A strong social movement, perhaps coupled with a crisis of the state, is probably necessary in a society based on ideals of stability, equilibrium, checks and balances, institutionalized means for achieving ends, bureaucracy, and representative 'democracy'. This is what James Madison and the other 'founding fathers' intended when they were framing the U.S. Constitution.

Madison wanted there to be enough freedom so that America would be a (nominal) democracy, but not so much that the ‘have nots’ could take over political control from the ‘haves’. Yet even the American Declaration of Independence corroborates the belief that routine politics may not be enough. It explicitly states 'that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., natural rights, especially 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...' (emphasis added). In this regard, what was true and necessary in the late 18th century is no less true and necessary in the early 21st century.

There are high barriers to change inherent in the routine political processes of American society, as there are very narrow limits to what racial and ethnic minorities, women, poor people, and others who desire progressive change can accomplish through routine politics. The system is heavily biased towards tradition, wealth, status, and privilege. Ordinary people are relatively powerless, except when they disrupt the system or there exists some other structural crisis—whether it be financial, political, labor, environmental, military, or otherwise. These are the only times when the power élite pay any attention to the serious problems that chronically plague our society. The lesson is that progressive social change in America has never been achieved without massive and sustained social disruption—whether legal or illegal, violent or peaceful, organized or spontaneous, proactive or reactive—instigated or led by people on the Left.

Historically, the form of disruption is not nearly as important as the fact of disruption, just as the changing forms of racism in the U.S. have not been as critical as the unchanging fact of racism in our society.

Routine politics will not work for African Americans in the United States in resolving the problems of the underclass, just as it will not work for African (and other poor) countries within the capitalist world system in resolving the problems of their underclasses and the derivative grave ills of widespread poverty. Tragically, the growth of the underclass—both domestically and globally—belie the mistaken mainstream belief that 'things only get better'. More often in our ruthless system, 'thing fall apart'. Routine politics will lead to routine responses which, by and large, do not work towards the ends of social justice.

There is no natural evolution toward a bigger and better future, as the power élite, their corporate mass media mouthpieces, and too many others would have us believe. If anything, the capitalist system ensures a continuing polarization of income and especially wealth, as well as the destructive social and political consequences associated with economic polarization. This is historically true unless there is a countervailing force—not an evolutionary force, but a revolutionary one.

Unity, strength, and extraordinary measures are necessary for both African Americans—and African countries—to be able to realize their wills and ultimately deal with and overcome their oppressive burdens. If not in the fashion of Kwame Nkrumah’s pan-Africanism, African and other marginalized countries must at least unite in a way similar to oil producing countries (OPEC) or the European Community (EC) and then collectively resist and renegotiate vital issues, such as economic growth, social development, investment, debt, trade, militarization, pollution, and aid.

Ordinary measures produce ordinary results which leaves power and wealth in the hands of the power élite, those who contribute to and benefit most from this structure of hierarchical, polarized life. Only radical change through some form of mass movement—by people and countries, respectively—likely coupled with a systemic crisis, can give birth to the fundamental structural change necessary to deal with the problems of the social, political, and economic underclasses in the U.S. and, indeed, the world.

Yet, if routine politics is not enough, neither is insurgent politics enough; both forms of political struggle are desirable and necessary in the hope of being effective. 'Routine politics' within the system and 'insurgent politics' outside the system working simultaneously and dialectically—a 'scissors effect'—in an appropriate balance to fit the given social, political, economic, and cultural contexts is our best hope to transform and repair the ongoing tragedies of systemic racism, sexism, and poverty.



--Dan Brook, Ph.D., a freelance writer and instructor, can be contacted through CyberBrook’s ThinkLinks or directly via Brook@california.com.