A Critique of Communique: Radical is Relative, or, Liberals are Allies, so Organize!

What's most awfully compelling about Tuesday's “Communique for a Radical Occupation” is the pure, unadulterated hypocrisy that runs rich throughout every pretentious, self-righteous lyric, a song steeped in empty revolutionary language and ignorant enough to alienate the very base that you could potentially build your revolution on and with. I don't know how many people I talked to Thursday whose only sentiment was indignation in regards to this communique. Yes, I speak of the liberal student base at UC Davis. Perhaps they are in fact liberals who wave the peace flag but have no analysis that without justice there can be no peace; maybe they are lovers of some Gandhi who support non-violence without an analysis around the structural violence that limits its ultimate power in meaningfully challenging global capitalism, neoliberalism and US empire.

But what our anonymous author neglects in their (?) condescending and arrogant diatribe is that all these folks are potential allies whose analyses need time to ripen before the revolutionary spirit takes hold with talons so sharp that it can never let go, try as it may. Indeed, many of us radicals were liberals once; nobody is born radical. To be radical means to address the root cause, not to be condescending in our approach, dogmatic in our ideology and arrogant in our analysis, as this communique is. We need time, love and support to grow into fierce spirits in our struggle for collective liberation.

Before I adopted radical politics, I too was a liberal. Before I was a liberal, I was a Democrat. That is, until a supportive but stubborn brother gave me some Malcolm, which transformed me forever after I gushed over his radically militant genius: “You don't stick a knife in a man's back nine inches and then pull it out six inches and say you're making progress.” But he was also a brother who lovingly challenged me along the way in my path to radical politics and didn't lambast me when, in my naivete, I would say that poor people should just get jobs instead of robbing liquor stores or panhandling, or some crap like that. He taught me what structural racism and inequality was but didn't issue me a first-class, condescending polemic if I couldn't get it right away, which, had he done so, could've alienated me from politics for life.

And this is how I learned, and it took time. You would like him. He's a revolutionary in his own way, doing food justice work in Oakland, even if some of the money that goes through his work is not so clean. But neither is anybody's, especially at the UC. He also did Whole Earth Festival, was a domey (?) and started Project Compost at UC Davis. And as a revolutionary Marxist, you should understand dialectics enough to know that living in domes and revolution aren't mutually exclusive, though your communique erroneously reasons otherwise.

But for the dominant faction at OUCD it seems that there is only one singular way of reasoning, one monolithic vision of revolution, and certainly no room for others' voices (which I too, like many others, personally felt at times). There is only one culture, and if you speak on behalf of inclusivity or diversity, then that's just more multi-cultural and liberal bullshit. There is only one way to frame issues and that's through a Marxist, anti-capitalist, revolutionary lens. It's this straight-up dogmatic thinking that alienates would-be supportive students who would have your back if you just had theirs.

If OUCD (or simply just the author) would focus more on community organizing and less on insidious communiques, it might have more power at its disposal to achieve its goals. One of the most pathetic instances of this is in fact the low-lite of the communique (among many others I cannot address), which seeks to justify the occupation of a building meant for at-risk student programming: “This program [Educational Opportunity Program], like the Cross Cultural Center, does nothing to challenge the risk of these students. We do not fight to maintain students with “at risk” status. We seek to eliminate the “at risk” of those students.”

The last line is crucial: “We seek to eliminate the 'at risk' of those students.”

Are you out of your mind? How are you in any way eliminating ubiquitous financial danger for these students who I'm assuming have fought so hard to get to UCD by simply being anti-capital? By saying you want to live in a world free of illegitimate authority or the white man? What material, on-the-ground efforts are you making toward this goal? Are you directly supporting these students in your own way besides from making signs about crushing capitalism? If so, I commend you. If not, you've got some nerve to say such a thing when all you have is symbol to back it up.

To take it back to the domes: according to the communique, they “expel sensitive middle managers eager to be involved with the murderous industries of micro-finance and charity work.” And how do you, anonymous author, plan to use your UC Davis, first-class and expensive-ass degree? Being a pauper, begging for money and going door-to-door with a bowl for food like a Buddhist monk? Or would you take a salaried job with benefits to fight for prison abolition at a non-profit?

Perhaps in response to this you would employ the popular anti-capitalism, Revolutionary Communist Party refrain. It goes something like, “Because you can't escape the capitalist system you are therefore absolved of all responsibility for the support you provide to any industries through your purchases, or institutions you are complicit in through your associations.” But that logic only applies to anti-capitalists, not liberals who want green jobs, of course. Look, my politics fundamentally include anti-capitalism, but liberals are potential allies to work with and to nudge into radical politics. The worst thing we can be is foolish, not liberal or conservative.

You should know that no matter how much non-violent rhetoric is used as a shield for liberals to hide behind instead of seeking structural change (or so the narrative goes), non-violence in and of itself maintains its own solitary existence, separate from liberalism, separate from Gandhi. And that's where the communique's logic falls flat on its face. It assumes poorly that non-violent rhetoric and other such strategies and philosophies employed by liberals are inextricably linked to liberalism and therefore have no value or utility by themselves as strategic tactics for social change.

Just as Gandhi has been misunderstood by peaceniks as a categorical pacifist, he's also misunderstood by anarchists and revolutionaries as categorically non-violent. He chose non-violence when possible, indeed. But as he explains clearly, if you don't have it in you to take a take a blow and remain faithful to non-violence, then fight back, but never run away like a coward while others humiliate you or your people. That was the real Gandhi. But such important distinctions are seldom recognized when Gandhi's non-violence is a great straw-man to attack when seeking to discredit reformist or liberal thinking.

Which leads us to, finally, the lack of organizing around some of our issues. Where is the strategy? Where is the outreach? Where is the base-building? A practical question is called for: how can we generate and build power over the long haul? This is not a liberal, reformist approach to change. These are fundamental, tried and true methods: again, linked to liberalism but useful on their own accord, detached from that model.

This is the same problem that plagued the Katehi resignation campaign. She was on the ropes, vulnerable and gasping for air after the amazing rallies we staged. Perhaps she wasn't going to go down, but we had a historic shot. What did we do? We quit on it. I did, you did, we all did. The holidays were too alluring, exams were approaching. It happens, but we have to learn from that. There's no way around it- we blew a good chance.

But it's not because we didn't care. It's because we didn't organize and plan. It's because much of the time we are long-term-strategy-lacking activists instead of organizers. Bank occupations are powerful and I admire your courage in challenging capital in this regard, but many people, including myself, did not know that these were even happening on a daily basis. How is that possible? How could such a big deal not be advertised more outside of facebook? How hard is it to mobilize a few students to talk to others on the quad about what OUCD is doing around banks and why? This is basic, and we must do a better job at the easiest of tasks. We really don't have much of a choice. More liberal allies and a stronger movement depend on it.

I challenge because I care.

In solidarity,
josh cadji