Envisioning the collective struggle for justice

Coming from the position of a climate activist in Western Europe, I explore avenues for change, their synergies, and their contradictions

We are at a global turning point, where it is becoming increasingly clear that widespread collapse is now a constant state of being. Whilst we have just seen the hottest year on record, the only international mechanism we have to tackle the climate crisis is chaired by an oil exec touting climate denial and attended by more fossil fuel lobbyists than almost any other group. It is clear that nothing we are doing to substantially tackle the climate crisis is working. Yes, there has been progress, but not enough by orders of magnitude. New fossil fuel projects are continuing, habitats and biodiversity is plummeting, the earth is being burnt down, dug up, torn apart, parched, flooded and steamrollered. Traditional NGOs have failed for decades, often now too afraid to even call for radical solutions or even call themselves leftist. In environmental NGOs, where the phrase “system change not climate change” is prolific, most would be to afraid to name the system they talk about. In turn, grassroots, more confrontational campaigning in the form of Ende Gelaende, Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion is not garnering the societal support we need. They are seen as radicals, crusties, ‘others’, at best hopeless dreamers, at worst disruptive criminals. For the future we need to be achieved, we must have fundamental societal changes, especially in the Global North, in the coming years, not decades. That clearly isn’t going to happen if we continue down this path, no matter how many tubes of glue we use.

At the same time, we are seeing authoritarianism on the rise across the world, with the extreme right connecting to many disenfranchised voters in ways the left has failed to do in decades. Civil liberties are being restricted, counter-insurgency methods are practised on fleeing populations and then refined in the military schools of Europe and North America, and the world’s biggest polluter is a totalitarian state. Not only are we in a crisis of climate, but of capitalism. Democratic institutions, where there ever were any, are being eroded away, and large corporations are increasingly becoming part of the machine subjugating people into subservient consumers and nothing more.

This leaves us, those of us who believe in a free world of peace, justice and solidarity, with a few options. Below, I make very broad categorisations, ones which I’m sure wouldn’t be seen as doing justice to the groups mentioned. I don’t intend this as a slight, but as something to describe overall trends, not particular groups.

1) We continue escalating campaigning on a variety of topics, increasingly recognising their interconnectedness, whilst confronting big polluters and privileged populations with the state of the world. We take away the pillars of support for a current system, hoping to reinvent systems of power in our own image. This involves marching, blocking highways, striking from school, doing sit-ins at stations, occupying coalmines and forests, throwing soup at paintings, and shutting down factories and railway lines. This is a very broad sketch of a wide variety of tactics that can be collectively referred to as “activism”.

These tactics have been incredibly successful in the past, and these past successes are used by groups such as XR to demonstrate their effectiveness. XR and Fridays for Future have been incredibly successful at putting climate collapse on the agenda, but there has yet to be any major policy change as an outcome of their work, in the same way that the civil rights movement saw the Civil Rights Act, or the Indian independence movement achieved legal independence.

Other groups such as Ende Gelaende hold a different theory of change, seeing themselves as an investor risk, as well as demonstrating to the public what should be done, but what governments and companies do not dare to do. This has again seen successes, for example in the survival of the Hambacher forest, or the continued disruption of Cop City development in Atlanta. However, it again has not grown to the level where activism either acts as a global investor risk, or as a way of delegitimising the status quo to such an extent that a popular revolt occurs.

This is for a few reasons, and I’ll try to outline the ones I most easily recognise. Firstly, the method of campaigning advocated for by groups such as XR was developed by campaigners fighting against a state. There was a clear target that they wanted to change or remove, and they could rally against a common enemy which could single-handedly fix the problem. Climate breakdown doesn’t work like that, authoritarian capitalism doesn’t work like that, and the solutions we need cannot be brought about by a single, or even a few, key actor(s).

Secondly, the global nature of the problems we face — and they are all global, whether it’s the carbon in the atmosphere or the facial recognition in police cameras — means that we need action in parts of the world where this sort of social organising has never happened. “But what about China?” is one of the classic retorts climate activists get when they campaign in Western Europe, and we’re all incredibly fucking tired of it, but unfortunately it’s a good question. It’s the world’s biggest polluter, and although they’re smashing their renewable energy targets, this energy is adding to, not replacing, their fossil energy due to their massive growth in energy demand (and GDP). If you do a blockade, or even a march, in many non-democratic big polluters, every single one of the attendees risks a hefty prison sentence or worse. This method of campaigning won’t work.

Lastly, the reliance on “activism” is a dangerous weakness. Activists have been incredibly successfully vilified by the state and the right-wing press, with standing up for collective rights in turn becoming a strange sub-culture. Many activists play into this (including, shamefully often, myself), where a dividing line is drawn between those ‘taking action’ and those going about their day-to-day lives. We wear different clothes, talk using very specific language, wave our hands around during meetings, and could probably use a shower more than most. This can attract many people, as the recent upswell in the climate movement has shown, but it’s important to remember that, for most people, a march is the upper end of engagement in this sort of changemaking. Activism is not meeting people where they’re at, asking the problems that face them and trying to solve them, but instead calling for people to join organisations with a clear understanding of intersectional decolonial feminism and an ability to take many more risks than most people can. Most people want to ensure their own security and their family’s security before thinking of acts of altuism, which activism is so often portrayed as. Thatcher was wrong at the time when she said “there’s no such thing as society,” but the neo-liberal economic order has since worked for decades to help realise their Thatcherite dream.

This is not to say that these methods of change aren’t working; from companies cutting ties to weapons systems, to the end of fossil subsidies in the Netherlands, activism works. In particular, the analysis of power used by such organisations — targeting particular pillars of support for the status quo with determined campaigns — is crucial. To rally against “the system” is much less useful, and less likely to succeed, than clearly picking apart which parts of which systems are supported by which actors, and from there pulling that support out. Furthermore, the methods of organising used in many social movements is critical to learn from. Not only does it give people vital hands-on experience of important decision-making processes, something that will be critical when building the new world we envision, but it also builds power. Through connecting with others, finding common solutions, building alliances, and providing experience creating communities through trainings, workshops, discussions and campaigning, a counter-hegemony is built to challenge the powerful. The issue is, it’s not working quick enough, or happening broadly enough, to avoid catastrophe. For many it is already too late. This is why it becomes important to learn lessons from activism, but not be blinded by its methods.

Editorial note: after first publication, it was pointed out to me that there is a sizable difference between “political activism” that demands something of governments, and “ruptural activism” which does not. Think of it as Just Stop Oil and Ende Gelaende. Whilst I agree with this analysis, I don’t see it as diminishing from the overall point made in this section.

2) Another option is to organise for revolution, working to create a broad network of supporters of radical change across the world, with a global focus on wealth redistribution (including assets such as land), respect for human rights, and food, water and energy independence. Most people across the world will actually agree on these principles, as seen in the global contempt for the ultra-rich, an appreciation for freedom of speech and expression, and a desire to be in control of our own lives. Through really connecting with people in their local communities and listening to their problems and their needs, there is potential for massive societal change — it is when the Black Power movement starting doing this that the US state really got scared. By building strong communities whilst seriously targeting the powerful, you can build incredibly powerful and resilient organisations which can survive under extreme pressure; the African National Congress in South Africa was able to turn from an above-ground campaign organisation to an underground guerilla group overnight because of the strong support of the community. By mixing deep community building with revolutionary campaigning, it is possible for freedom fighters to bring about changes in harsher conditions than activists — we see this when comparing US-based activism against the Vietnam war to the Viet Cong. By focusing much of the early work of campaigning on community support with an undertone of revolutionary values, it is much more difficult for authoritarian regimes to stamp out early, and more likely to survive than activist groups when a crackdown comes due to increased revolutionary rhetoric.

It is important for this community work not to be based on fear, but on hope. Instead of saying “you need to campaign on this because the science says so,” or “you’re a racist if you don’t speak up about this,” stress what ordinary people would see in a world we’re trying to achieve. Help everyone develop their own dream of a better future, what that would mean for them, and how working collectively will help them realise such a dream.

Before going further, it is important to clarify what I mean with “revolutionary campaigning”. I use the term to refer to ruptural action directly challenging the status quo to a far greater extent that activism. Whilst activism (again, here I use incredibly broad strokes) focuses on analysing the current powers in society and campaigning to influence, change, or remove them, revolutionary campaigning is a much more ruptural process. With a much greater focus on building a counter-hegemony, it does not try to engage with current status quo actors except in opposition. The current structures of power are responsible for the crises we face, so cannot be trusted for a solution. Instead, it is the role of revolutionary campaigners to break their power and replace it with our own. Of course, there is a spectrum between this and activism, with more militant activist groups working closely with revolutionary struggles, and groups such as the Weather Underground formed when activists made the decision to change their campaigning to one with a more ruptural strategy.

It is important to stress that, despite its benefits, especially from being embedded in communities of struggle, revolutionary campaigning is a far riskier strategy. It relies on such organisations building strong enough communities to be able to survive the sort of assault activist groups do not usually see, and trust in the community to keep you safe. Such groups will fall foul of increased surveillance measures, and if they do not get sufficient community support risk being regarded as ‘terrorists’.

Furthermore, we do not know what would come after such groups. Looking at historical communist examples of revolutionary struggle, the struggle itself may foster authoritarian attitudes, leading to the same struggle all over again. Ensuring democratic decision making in these sorts of groups is much harder and more complicated, and it is even more difficult to also include the perspectives of above ground allies or imprisoned comrades without compromising them.

Lastly, we don’t know if this strategy would work against the omnicrisis we’re in. If this is the main strategy for peace and justice globally, and it fails, then we are left with an increasingly paranoid authoritarian regime which will be looking for allies amongst the powerful, leading to ever-uglier regurgitations of dictatorial capitalism repressing its citizens and drowning its migrants, clinging to its perceived wealth as the world burns. It would likely be the remaining groups campaigning for justice that would face the brunt of this repression, cutting off even more opportunities for change.

3) We prepare for the worst, with a focus on building resilient communities around us. It is incredibly unlikely that we will limit global warming to 2C by the end of the century, with clear danger of the world instead being in the 3–4C danger zone. If we recognise that the status quo is failing, see revolutionary organising as too unlikely to succeed, with the possibility of instead making matters worse, and accept the limitations of activism as we know it, then what else can we do? By working on community building now, and developing strong networks not only local but transnationally, then we can ensure all are better protected as the society we know collapses. This could mean growing community gardens, establishing renewable energy cooperatives with micro-generation, ensuring safe passage across treacherous borders for millions of displaced people, and rebuilding a society killed by neoliberalism.

This is already happening across the world, and is tangibly improving, or saving, the lives of millions of people. This is hard, long-term work, but is an end unto itself. By living the way we want the world to live, it is possible to not only take a principled stand against the current status quo, but to be in a state of constantly bringing about the world you want to see.

However, this too has its downsides. By focusing on our own communities, there is a risk that those already privileged by the current global order will continue to flourish, and impoverished communities deteriorate. Although these methods of working can be international, it often relies on a degree of privilege to be able to live a life like this in a capitalist system. Furthermore, by not attempting to bring down this system, you do not insulate against its creeping tendrils. As global systems deteriorate, the desire for perpetual growth will get more desperate, and such flourishing communities will become targets for policing, gentrification, and neoliberalisation.

4) Fighting from within is something that is looked upon with scorn by many of us campaigning for change, with the view that the establishment has such a vested interest in the status quo that no part of it will be able to bring about change. I don’t believe that radical change is going to come from businesses, political parties, NGOs or union bosses, but they do have a part to play. These actors have the most power in the current system, and the process of chipping away at that power is not going to happen immediately. In the meantime, they are too important to ignore. Radicals working within certain organisations that have the most capacity for change are needed, because if we’re not there, the gap they leave will be filled by more of those invested in keeping the wheels turning. This doesn’t mean that we should all start working at Shell, Barclays and Lockheed Martin. But left-wing political parties, NGOs with a history of radicalism, and unions with a militant membership can become true allies in the struggle for change. Like it or not, the power of traditional political actors makes them too important to left to the politicians (whether in parties or elsewhere).

What these sort of institutions are much better at doing than social movements is cementing the change brought about by social movements to prevent backsliding should more regressive forces grow in power. Victories won on the streets can be implemented in law by left-wing parties, and NGOs can monitor and keep up consistent lobbying pressure once the energy of grassroots movements has moved elsewhere. This is boring work, but essential in order to ensure that progress isn’t something you keep for five years and then lose again.

Additionally, the institutional left has too often stood still, defending past victories whilst being too afraid to fight for new ones. There is a necessity for radicals in such organisations not only so that transformative policies aren’t watered down once the grassroots have taken their eye off the ball, but also to ensure that such organisations are constantly hearing the voice for radical change, not just on the streets but in their own meeting rooms.

We cannot forget that the world we’re living in does not value everyone’s voices equally, as unfortunate as that may be. Anarchists on the street calling for class war is something I highly endorse, but institutionalised sections of the left must be doing this as well. Sometimes, they can even get away with being more radical because of their establishment position, if they dare to do so. Far too often, such radical calls are not made by these organisations not because the people working there don’t believe in them, but because they fear losing donations and connections. Not only must these larger organisations have faith that there is a greater appetite for radical change than they might think, but they must also recognise the position that we’re in. It doesn’t matter if NGOs lose money over the next ten years, especially climate-focused ones. We’re in an increasingly narrow window of opportunity to avert total climate collapse. There is a danger that such organisations prioritise their own long-term revenue to such an extent that they completely fail in their mission. In a world ravaged by environmental collapse, a fiscally-sound NGO can’t do shit.

At the same time, grassroots organisations must be willing to work with such organisations when they identify common goals. There is often fear on both sides of such collaborations, understandably so. NGOs most be willing to work with less formal structures, and embrace the radical rhetoric of the grassroots. They must show solidarity with tactics they would never use themselves, and build alliances based not on organisational structure, but on a vision for the future. At the same time, grassroots must celebrate when such organisations do embrace this radicalism, instead of accusing them of being too late, too timid, or coopting the revolution.

I don’t believe that the institutional left is going to be the vanguard of radical change around the world; they have not truly attempted to do this, and there is no sign of a sudden shift occurring any time soon. However, I do believe they must be on side to bring up the rear. For this to occur, they must be seen as a factor in a well-rounded vision for change.

Okay, so what do we do?

Above are outlines of possible responses to the state of the world, and what their advantages and disadvantages are. It is clear than no single one of these strategies will be a successful and safe way of ensuring systemic change on the level we need. That being said, they can all be learnt from and incorporated into new ways of campaigning in the midst of collapse.

The most obvious link that can be made is between the community building methods used in both revolutionary campaigning and in prepping for collapse. It is clear that activism as we know it has not done enough to integrate itself into communities beyond their own bubbles, and as a result many people are more attracted to the ‘anti-establishment’ rhetoric of the right, fed to them by corporate media. By meeting people where they’re at, finding common values, and building shared understanding, campaigning forces can be much more forceful in bringing about change. This doesn’t just mean going door to door, although Deep Canvassing is a great method of talking seriously to people about shared concerns. It means connecting with imams and priests, pub landlords and football couches, local leaders in communities, to understand what needs they understand their community as having. Lots can be learnt from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals on how this can be done. Such a process would also break down the barriers of what ‘activism’ is, and indeed perhaps make such a term obsolete, in favour of the simple ‘citizen’ that refuses to act simply as a subject or consumer in their own world. By providing a belief that real change can happen, a sense of self-pride and self-worth can be developed that transforms into revolutionary hope.

Secondly, activists need to embrace the fact that they’re fighting a fight that’s never been fought before, and that new tactics will be needed. Much of the climate movement in particular needs to end its fetishisation of non-violence, and instead act according to what their own organisation strategy entails. To choose a tactic such as non-violence before chosing a strategy and a goal puts the cart before the horse, and has stunted many a promising campaign. Once campaigners are integrated into communities and have a shared understanding of what they want, then change can be brought about in many ways. Activist understandings of power are incredibly useful, and targeting pillars of support using traditional protest methods can be incredibly effective. That being said, it should not be the be all and end all of such a movement. By diversifying tactics, and having solidarity with one another about this diversity, many more pillars of support can be focused upon. International solidarity can be built, such as the anti-apartheid boycotts against South Africa working in line with the strategy of the underground ANC. Furthermore, by developing parallel above- and underground organising, with enough aboveground organisers to hide and protect the few that could be coordinating with underground groups, much greater impact can be achieved. Of course, such a coordination would increase repression of aboveground groups, but with widespread citizen engagement, and the state’s pillars of power also under threat, then it is possible to combine tactics and strategies of campaigning to overwhelm an opponent who would much rather deal with such groups separately. Constant community work and independent media would be needed to ensure that the deep connections built are not lost sight of, and that propaganda and community policing does not obliterate support.

Furthermore, the organising work that goes behind most activism is something to be learnt from, and those active in campaigning for radical change should learn from what works and what doesn’t, and connect with other organisers. In particular, activist groups that focus on creating broad coalitions of power can grow incredibly powerful, especially when they connect a broad range of communities, strategies and hopes for the future. Building “movements of movements” can have incredible power, not only to challenge the pillars of support for the current, regime, but to build counter-powers through mass support from across civil society. Community organising also benefits from the fact that the image of a “social organiser,” or whatever you would call the people that do lots of activist dirty work but don’t spend as much time gluing themselves to the street, is a much more pallatable character for the broader public to empathise with. A greater focus on organising would not only make community building more possible from an organisational standpoint, but would also make it more likely to succeed by creating genuine bonds and connections with others.

Lastly, we just need to try. It feels like we’re fighing a phoney war right now, waiting for the “real struggle” to begin. As if one big social change, or an election, a disaster, something, will bring about the struggle so many people feel is waiting to happen. The time spent waiting is time lost to increased emissions, polluted water, dropped bombs, increased surveillance and death. The phoney war ends when we says it does. So to everyone that’s looking for that sign that the preamble is over, and it’s time for the main event, this is it.

We need to stare the future we are heading towards in the face, and be realistic about what we are willing to do to prevent the worst of it. We need to work together, communicate, coordinate, make mistakes, discuss, and take time to reflect. Instead of blinkering ourselves to our own organisations, and what is in each of our own strategic interests, we need to create a shared, broad-stroke idea of what a future we want to live in would look like, and the things we will need to achieve in order to do this. We need to be willing to build power, and make it clear to others what they have to lose, but much more importantly what they have to gain. By inspiring hope, solidarity, and radical visions for a better tomorrow, we can begin building the life we want to live. We have the world to win, and we have nothing to lose.