Who is Gene Sharp?

Dr. Gene Sharp is 83 years old and was born in North Baltimore, Ohio. Sharp never married or had children and according to an article in the 2007 November/ December issue of the Ohio State University Alumni Association Newsletter the healthy octogenarian lives and works out of his Boston, MA, home. This article is unique in that it provides details about Sharp’s private life not easily found.

In certain circles (mainly consisting of leaders who are not buying into the U.S. economic scheme) Sharp is a famous guy, renowned the world over as one of the leading guru’s of nonviolent resistance, he is a prolific writer on the subject of nonviolence starting with his 1951 masters thesis titled “Nonviolence: A Sociological Study” and 1968 doctoral dissertation titled “The Politics of Nonviolent Action: A Study in the Control of Political Power” He is currently the senior scholar at the Albert Einstein Institution which according to their website Sharp founded in 1983. The AEI website goes on saying, “The Albert Einstein Institution is dedicated to advancing the study and use of strategic nonviolent action in conflicts throughout the world. It is committed to the defense of freedom, democracy, and the reduction of political violence through the use of nonviolent action.”

The Wikipedia entry for AEI says Sharp spent time in prison as a conscientious objector during the Korean War but when examining both his curriculum vita and publication’s list (available for download at the AEI website) it seems unlikely since the Korean War ran from 1950 to 1953 which is exactly the time Sharp was finishing his Master’s thesis noted above. Surely a person of such renown around issues of nonviolence would include on his CV incarceration as a conscientious objection to a war as he is quite willing to share stories about his early experiences attempting to desegregate lunch counters in Ohio. His CV also does not mention his work with A.J. Muste, which the Wikipedia entry also mentioned.

Sharp has a long history at the Center for International Affairs according to his curriculum vita downloaded from the AEI website Sharp’s first research fellow position at the Center for International Affairs ran from 1965 to 1972. In 1965 Sharp began a portion of his career at the Center for International Affairs (CIA) Harvard University where he has worked for over three decades alongside other foreign policy’s notables such as Samuel P. Huntington and other past directors for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

The following excerpt was taken from the introduction of the anti insurgent classic “Counter Insurgency Warfare – Theory and Practice” written by David Galula under the auspices of the Center for International Affairs in 1966

“Created in 1958, the Center fosters advanced study of basic world problems by scholars from various disciplines and seniors officers from many countries. The research at the Center, focusing on the processes of change, includes studies of military-political issues, the modernizing processes in developing countries, and the evolving position of Europe. The research programs are supervised by Professors Robert R. Bowie (Director of the Center), Alex Inkeles, Henry A. Kissinger, Edward S. Mason, Thomas C. Schelling and Raymond Vernon.”

Each of these men with the exception of Raymond Vernon worked in or has an official affiliated the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Robert R. Bowie was the Deputy Director of the CIA from 1977 to 1979. Thomas C. Schelling also identified as working in the CIA served for a number of years on the board of the AEI. Finding information on Sharp is a task. It’s almost like he doesn’t exist. He is practically unknown in the English language press while certain leaders around the globe are very well versed with his work.

In the aforementioned Ohio State Alumni article Sharp is called the “most famous guy you’ve never heard of” This article makes two important points about Sharps work in that they give a sense of where Sharp has gone with his research. In spite of his impressive publications list this article which is obviously pro-Sharp points out, “Friendly critics lament that Sharp has not submitted his work—a massive collection of articles, arranged by topic—to rigorous academic testing… But Sharp believes in his ideas. He thinks he has developed a whole new theory of politics.” This point is probably the most startling of all. It is also a good clue as to why Sharp has stayed out of the cross hairs of other academics mostly because his ideas seemed to have been developed implemented and debated primarily within the arena of military tactics.

The very next paragraph sheds some interesting light on what is perhaps the most important point of all in dealing with Sharp’s theory of power. It is this theory or “new understanding” as Sharp puts it that supposedly helps us to understand how non violence can be used to effect political change. The author explains Sharp’s position on power:

The theory can be stated simply: Power, even in the most closed and brutal dictatorship, depends on consent. Ordinary people can band together to withdraw their consent. Movements succeed when they refuse to resort to violence, since the regime always possesses superior instruments of violence. Ergo, the future of democracy and freedom depends on nonviolence.

His description of how society and particularly tyrants rule in society is taken directly from Gramsci’s theory of Hegemony. According to Brian Martin who provides one of the few academic analysis of Sharps work, “Sharp defines political power, which is one type of social power, as the “totality of means, influences, and pressures – including authority, rewards, and sanctions – available for use to achieve the objectives of the power-holder, especially the institutions of government, the State, and groups opposing either of them.” So obedience and belief is key to how power works in society. It is obedience to the power structure, Martin’s analysis of Sharps theory of power goes on to say about why men obey their rulers “that there is no single answer, but that important are habit, fear of sanctions, moral obligation self-interest, psychological identification with the ruler, zones of indifference and absence of self confidence among subjects.”

Throughout his career Sharp has avoided serious academic scrutiny. He has no articles published with in academic journals and rarely cites within his own work. Even in the above mentioned article by Martin (1989), which is one of the few available that specifically offers an analysis of Sharp’s theories the author writes in the opening paragraphs that his “analysis is done in the spirit of sympathetic criticism.” This friendly analysis does not, however, keep Martin from pointing out the obvious Marxist progenitors of Sharps “original” theories. Martin though does point out “It is not by chance that Sharp regularly refers to Stalinism and Nazism. His examples of challenges to authority largely concern situations which are widely perceived as oppressive by contemporary Western political judgment.”

The heart of Sharp’s argument is that power is taken. It cannot and will not be given or handed over in fact cannot be, but that only through a decisive, planned, structured and boldly implemented strategy of action people can take control of their situation and break the tyranny of dictators. Sharp’s close associate Col. Robert Helvey describes his first encounter with Sharp this way in the forward to Helvey’s book titled “On Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: Thinking about the Fundamentals” published by the AEI in 2004,

“While I was attending Harvard University as an US Army Senior Fellow at the Center for International Affairs in 1987-88, toward the end of my thirty year career as a US Army Infantry Officer, I met Dr. Sharp during a meeting of the Program for Nonviolent Sanctions. He introduced his subject with the words: “Strategic nonviolent struggle is about seizing political power or denying it to others. It is not about pacifism, moral or religious beliefs.”

The premise of Sharp’s work the taking of political power and the promotion of nonviolence as the main strategy of struggle are for the AEI clearly not based on a morality of nonviolence. This is an interesting position since it is quite clear that the AEI uses the image of Gandhi and other leaders of nonviolent movements in the 20th century to front the organization’s ideological image.

Sharp is a reformist, a liberalist who seeks to up hold the rule of law by conducting change within a society as lawfully as possible. The mission statement of the AEI makes this clear when it states a part of the mission is to “defend democratic freedoms and institutions,” and ever increasingly curious position for those who claims to be against state repression. With the constant enmeshing of capitalism and democracy the economic oppression of much of the worlds population and the use of Law/Force/Violence to uphold those “democratic freedoms and institutions” as if they can only be granted this way, is another chink the armor of non violence theory propagated by Sharp and others.

For purposes of this discussion we will look at the most widely translated and distributed piece produced by the AEI, “From Dictatorship To Democracy – A Conceptual Framework of Liberation.” During this examination a consideration of the organizing methodology and discussion of power in terms of the ability of organized and motivated elements of civil society within a given country to face and overthrow a dictatorship without the use of violence or military force.

This booklet contains some very good general advice for organizing a revolution or coup. Sharp is clear that the advice is purposely general. He starts from a very simple premise. Dictatorships are bad. People should overthrow them and replace them with democracies, because democracy is good for business. However, while there may be a general agreement that dictatorships are bad, even though it must be pointed out that Sharp does not go into great detail about how to identify a dictatorship. Ideological agreements about the nature of may be a little harder to come by. Sharp also seems very careful to limit his criticism and identifications of dictators to communists and his criticisms of colonialism especially colonial powers are as non-existent as his class analysis. It is little wonder Gene Sharp is more famous in the 30 other languages than English.

His most widely discussed book was not written to be scrutinized academically. It is an organizing manual with cold hard advice about the mobilization of the masses in any given society. The author’s claim as to how he arrived at his conclusions is questionable but the advice on how to arrive at his stated goals appears sound. So the crux of any criticism levied at Sharp and his work cannot necessarily be about the organizing methodology. Questions for him should center on the misrepresentation of this theories as original to himself and this colleagues.

In analyzing Sharp’s booklet, first published in “Bangkok in 1993 by the Committee for the Restoration of Democracy in Burma in association with Khit Pyaing (The New Era Journal)” that is considered by most to be and eighty eight page distillation of his most important work the conclusion anyone must come to is that by his own words he has discovered new theories of power centering on obedience and consent. Sharp uses the rhetoric of revolution to contextualize reform and in doing this he doesn’t really break any new ground with practical organizational advice but he does raise some provocative and troubling questions by challenging without any supporting documentation the historically documented success of armed struggle in overthrowing dictatorships since World War II. His theories of obedience appear straight out of Marxist theory; particularly that of Antonio Gramsci and his theories of power echo Foucault profoundly. Finally, even the organization of his revolutionary structure, his magnum opus submitted to millions across the globe is based deeply on Maoist methods and theories of guerilla warfare and insurgency.

Careful consideration of these claims shows how difficult it is almost impossible to talk about social change or revolution without contextualizing it within a Marxist vocabulary. Why is this and what problems does it present for Sharp? Saul Alinsky in his seminal work “Rules for Radicals” lays out the ideological problem within the opening chapter, “The have-nots of the world, swept up in their present upheavals and desperately seeking revolutionary writings can find such literature only from the communists, both red and yellow. Here they can read about tactics, maneuvers, strategy and principles of action in the making of revolution.” Alinsky is pointed about the fact communism and communist theory was seen at the time as “synonymous with revolution”

The footnote below from Alinsky’s introduction is also important both to the work of Alinsky and Sharp as it help us to understand the anti communist milieu where these two made their careers. Certainly any contemporary of Alinsky whom time has shown shares some similar passions in the field of organizing mass movements would be at the very least familiar with this book. The footnote is a quote from U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas written for the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions Occasional Paper No. 116, and it sets for us and ideological stage of mental competition not so subtly present in the theoretical aspirations of Sharp. O’ Douglas writes:

On trips to Asia I often asked men in there thirties and forties what they were reading when they were eighteen. They usually answered ‘Karl Marx’; and when I asked them why, they replied, ‘we were under colonial rule, seeking a way out. We wanted our independence. To get it we had to make revolution. The only books on revolution were published by the communists.’ These men almost invariable had repudiated communism as a political cult, retaining, however, a tinge of socialism. As I talked with them, I came to realize the great opportunities we missed when we became preoccupied in fighting communism with bombs and with dollars, rather than with ideas of revolution, of freedom, of justice.

While it is impossible to say for sure that Sharp read Alinsky’s book it is safe to say the likelihood is high. Capitalism may have triumphed in the minds of some but it is apparent that for many decades Communism as a critique of capitalism was the refuge of the oppressed. A stronghold of theory for the emancipation of humankind from economic slavery, how should that understanding impact our view of Gene Sharp and the Albert Einstein Institution? Sharp is a theoretical ventriloquist. The dummy he uses to misdirect his audience with is his program of nonviolence that under certain desperate circumstances looks like revolution and with some help can talk, but will never walk on its own. It moves with the fingers and hand of Capitalist interest on the levers in its back. This is the curse of democracy, being to closely associate with capitalism until they have become in the minds of many synonymous.

The reality of Sharp’s booklet when put into the cold hard light of the day is that dictatorships and democracies will have not have moral dilemmas, problems about eliminating the opposition (Chile and Guatemala are both excellent examples of the widespread use of violent repression by U.S. backed “democracy” movements). It would perhaps be interesting to see how Sharp’s ideas about nonviolence could be applied to enact revolutionary change within the United States by and organized Xicano Movement.

How can the organizational and “political defiance” theories of Sharp and his military advisor Col. Robert Helvey broadcast by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) throughout the Second and Third World, and through its funding of the Albert Einstein Institution impact freedom struggles with the borders of this country or throughout the America’s. Their attempted misdirection of nonviolent direct action away from the moral underpinnings of Tolstoy, Gandhi, King and Chavez have, within their Cold War paradigm of anti communism/pro capitalism, attempted to remove the question of power, democracy and capitalism from the crucible of revolutionary struggle and in fact maybe attempting to redefine and question the very basis of force (Gewalt) in revolutionary theory and its legitimate application to oppression.

Political Defiance then, in Sharp’s estimation, can only be effective as counter balance to what he calls the “centralizing effects of violent sanctions” He goes on here and through out the booklet boldly equating nonviolence with democracy by saying, “the use of the technique of nonviolent struggle contributes to democratizing the political society in several ways.” The equation of nonviolence with democracy or democratic movements is a particularly troubling move on Sharp’s part, because if nonviolence equals democracy then violence must equal communism or dictatorship, which in Sharp’s lexicon are the same thing.

Understandable considering his age, association and intellectual collaboration with some of the worlds foremost anti communist thinkers at the Center for International Affairs. Troubling though since Sharp attempts to equate democracy with peace when in fact the violence of Marxism has been a reaction against both capitalist and democratic aggressions on economic and military fronts. It is important to keep in mind Marxism as a theory is first and foremost a critique of and reaction to capitalism as an economic system, it stands to reason then any real world actions taken on the part of Marxists are expansions of that critique.

Taking these points into account it would seem a legitimate question for all to consider is the future of revolution. There is more at stake in this discussion than simply whether or not nonviolence is more effective than violence as a political solution to despotism, as if despotism could be universally defined. The real stake in this affair is the Marxist heritage of revolution. How will future generations understand change, revolution and communism? Who will be the interpreters of that legacy and its present day manifestations? As a function of Capitalist democracy limited to reform agreements between oppressed workers and industrialists or as an authentic discourse creating the vocabulary and the practices surrounding it can lay legitimate claim to real change. Since Sharp has chosen to couch his theories in the theories of Marxist liberationists it is equally important to examine his organizing methodology for similar roots.

To help frame the discussion around Sharp’s methodological recommendations we must first look at his claims of originality   in regards to his theory of action. Since it is clear that contrary to his contentions these are not new theories of power but in fact draws deeply from Marxist theory in determining not just how revolution should take place but how we as “democrats” should think and talk about it. To do this it is important to understand the foundation of change inherent in Marxist thought. Mao Tse-Tung writes,

Marxist philosophy holds that the most important problem does not lie in understanding the laws of the objective world and this being able to explain it, but in applying the knowledge of these laws actively to change the world. From the Marxist viewpoint, theory is important, and its importance is fully expressed in Lenin’s statement, ‘without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement.’ But Marxism emphasizes the importance of theory precisely and only because it can guide action. If we have a correct theory but merely prate about it, pigeonhole it and do not put it into practice, then that theory, however good, is of no significance.

The reason generations of freedom fighters have turned to Marxist theory for guidance in their efforts to overthrow colonialism is that Marxists make revolution. Sharp gives his opening four points in the beginning pages of this booklet he writes a short but familiar four point list of steps to a liberation struggle. These four points are,

One must strengthen the oppressed population themselves in their determination, self-confidence and resistance skills,
One must strengthen the independent social groups and institutions of the oppressed people,
One must create a powerful internal resistance force: and
One must develop a wise and grand strategic plan for liberation and implement it skillfully.

Just like his definitions of power and consent Sharp continues to draw directly from Marxist theory (specifically Maoist) in fashioning an organizing structure for nonviolent overthrow. The development of dual power structures or creating shadow governments for the purpose of challenging the hegemony of the state is a well-documented and widespread practice. The basis of resistance in Sharp’s writings is the withdrawal of consent (to be ruled) by the populace, “as the above discussion indicates, liberation from dictatorships ultimately depends on the people ability to liberate themselves.” Taking a look at the writings of Mao Tse Tung brings home some of the evidence of this extensive plagiarism.
In Mao’s essay “Political Mobilization for the War of Resistance” he puts forward four specific points for the political mobilization of the common people. The similarities between Sharp’s main points written between 50 and 60 years after Mao continue to mount especially in light of the fact Sharp’s allegedly original theories begin and end with the political mobilization of the people. Mao writes,

“What does political mobilization mean? First, means telling the army and the people about the political aim of the war. It is necessary for every solider and civilian to see why the war must be fought and how it concerns him … Secondly, it is not merely enough to explaining the aim to them; the steps and policies for its attainment must also be given…there must be a political programme … Thirdly, how should we mobilize them? By word of mouth, by leaflets and bulletins, by newspapers, books and pamphlets, through plays and films, through schools, through mass organizations and through our cadres … Fourthly, to mobilize is not enough … we must link the political mobilization for the war with the developments in the war and with the life of the soldiers and the people, and make it a continuous movement.”

Sharp has taken the heart of this statement - the political mobilization of the population and reconfigured it (without proper recognition) to end before hostilities erupt. His contention that political mobilization coupled with massive civil disobedience will bring oppressive governments to their knees is based on the experience, blood and victories of others who have fought this struggle with guns. The rest of the booklet is a not so subtle rehashing of basic guerilla theory. The idea, “success is most often determined not by negotiating a settlement but through the wise use of the most appropriate and powerful means of resistance available” is a view point shaped by centuries of anti-colonial resistance and active physical opposition to the invasion of lands in Asia, Africa and the America’s by European powers and the formulation of a philosophy to combat that military oppression.

Equations of War: Building the Will of the People to Resist

Rudy Acuna writes in his decisive book on the state of Chicano Studies “Sometimes There is no Other Side: Chicanos and the Myth of Equality” that “The threat of Chicano history is its political dimension,”i a dimension that could provide, when allowed or encouraged, an oppositional paradigm to white hegemony.  He goes on reminding his readers it is human nature “to participate in history.”ii That Xicanos are and should be the creators of their history and that the “acquisition of historical consciousness means learning the ‘discipline of memory’ … identifying your personal and community interests.” Professor Acuna warns us, “A false collective memory facilitates subordination.”iii

It is this call to intellectual action that characterizes Acuna’s writing on Chicano Studies and creates the context within which he situates the “real” purpose of Chicano studies. Drawing from this example those of us involved in organizing in the Xicano community need to begin challenging our own paradigmatic assumptions about building power through mobilization and education. Acuna explains the necessity of understanding paradigms and their importance to the struggle for Xicano studies when he writes

Kuhn, at the height of his popularity in the 1960s and again in the 1970s, popularized “paradigms,” the theory that in every field of study the established order sets structural guidelines that influenced the thinking and actions of its scientists and social scientists. The concept holds in this context, existing paradigms restrict the growth and expansion of the new and competing models.iv

It is only through organized physical, social or intellectual struggle that existing paradigms can be overthrown. Since struggle of any kind is not unique to any one group of people or scholars, it is safe to say as a movement we must explore alternative methods of community mobilization that do not center on single issue campaigns.

We need to decide what we want. Is it really “Occupied America”? Is there really a pedagogy of the oppressed? Because if the answer is YES and it really is YES – then that is a threat to the state.

In 2004 Samuel P. Huntington (now deceased) the chairman of the Harvard committee for International Affairs wrote in an article titled “The Hispanic Challege” for the journal “Foreign Policy” which he co founded in 1970. In this article among many other things Hunting clearly states,

No other immigrant group in U.S. history has asserted or could assert a historical claim to U.S. territory. Mexicans and Mexican Americans can and do make that claim. Almost all of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah was part of Mexico until Mexico lost them as a result of the Texan War of Independence in 1835-1836 and the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848. Mexico is the only country that the United States has invaded, occupied its capital—placing the Marines in the “halls of Montezuma”—and then annexed half its territory. Mexicans do not forget these events. Quite understandably, they feel that they have special rights in these territories. “Unlike other immigrants,” Boston College political scientist Peter Skerry notes, “Mexicans arrive here from a neighboring nation that has suffered military defeat at the hands of the United States; and they settle predominantly in a region that was once part of their homeland…. Mexican Americans enjoy a sense of being on their own turf that is not shared by other immigrants.

I don’t think it is the Mexicans that are arriving that feel this way – I think it is the Xicanos that have been here that feel this way.

Like any model or practice the way we think of organizing our communities for political struggle, the way it has be taught to us and explained to us must be reexamined. The question that must be on all of our minds as we enter in to this next phase of struggle center on our true desires for ourselves as a nation. There may be some reading who are thinking to themselves that I sound stupid even saying something like that. Maybe. But there are some things I tend to agree with Lou Dobbs, Bill O’Reilly and Samuel Huntington about. Xicano Studies smacks of rebellion. Occupied America makes me want to fight. There is a tone of mutiny, treason, disavowal in the title alone that makes it a dangerous book for everyone.

As a people, as an indigenous nation we can no longer afford to sit on the fence of our own history. Amilicar Cabralv the Papua New Guinea liberationist as the keynote speaker for the Eduardo Mondlane Speech at Syracuse University on October 14, 1970 in a speech titled “National Liberation and Culture” said in part, “the national liberation of a people is the regaining of the historical personality of that people, it is a return to history through the destruction of the imperialist domination to which they have been subjected” (Cabral, p. 7).

Like all soldiers/scholars of third world national liberation struggles Cabral understood the actual return to history (cultural reawakening through a national liberation struggle) is subjective in that each national liberation struggle along with the strategies to victory is by necessity unique to the country where the struggle originates. This does not mean however, that lessons cannot be learned or shouldn’t be taken from other national liberation struggles.  

Heightening Contradictions is a strategy to prepare for confrontational tactics (Omatsu). Organizers educate the community with the aim of involving them in confrontations to win demands. This preparation is predicated on education and the development of critical thinking skills. Across the world revolutionaries have used this tactic to dramatize differences around them. It is the basis of Mao’s famous “war of the flea” so described by Robert Taber (1964) in his book of the same title “The flea bites, hops, and bites again, nimbly avoiding the foot that would crush him. He does not seek to kill his enemy at a blow, but to bleed him and feed on him, to plague and bedevil him, to keep him from resting and to destroy his nerve and his morale.” Metaphorically speaking the heightening of contradictions is the breeding of fleas.

Because of this idea I want to talk about a way of organizing we in Michigan have been exploring and developing over the past decade. We have studied, examined and attempted to copy, to the extent it is possible, the mobilization structures and practices of successful national liberation movements from around the world. 

First I want to say – I am not a Maoist. I am an ardent admirer of his military genius. His social policy left something to be desired.

According to Edward L. Katzenbach, Jr., who served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under President John F. Kennedy, in his influential essay on the military theories of Mao Tse Tung the three tangibles of warfare are: “the weapons systems … instruments of war that have given a sole possessor a moment of military supremacy. Second, there is the supply system, logistics in the broadest sense. … and, third, there is manpower.”

Mao choose to develop his revolutionary theory focusing on the three intangible aspects of warfare: space, time and will, “the basic premise of this theory is that political mobilization may be substituted for industrial mobilization.” Mao’s military problem was how to organize space so that it could be made to yield time. His political problem was how to organized time so that could be made to yield will, that quality which makes willingness to sacrifice the order of the day … Mao’s real military problem was not that of getting the war over with, the question to which Western military thinkers have directed the greater part of their attention, but that of keeping it going.

Today, within this slowly emerging indigenous Xicano movement we suffer from unrealistic expectations about the roles and activities we should be undertaking at this point in our own national liberation struggle. Space + Time = Will is an important equation from Katzenbach’s analysis of Mao’s guerrilla theory that can help place our own movement within realistic context of what constitutes appropriate action at this juncture.

Mobilization of the People: Happens through political organizing around a clearly articulated cause. This happens when the insurgent or in the case of Xicanos chooses a cause that they “must, of course be able to identify himself totally with … or more precisely, with the entire majority of the population theoretically attracted by it.” (David Galula, French counter insurgent specialist in his Classic/Foundational Military text “Counterinsurgency” )

Protracted War: the goal of the revolutionary is not to produce a quick military decision but rather “how to avoid a military decision …give way before the determined advance of the enemy, and, like the sea, close in again as the enemy passes,” according to Mao in the beginning of a revolution there are no pitched battles – there is merely a struggle for the minds and allegiance of the people through political education. (Taber, 49)

Only fight when victory is assured: It is a waste of time and resources to engage our opponents in a losing battle. We squander precious time and money defending ourselves in court with unnecessary arrests and involvement with the legal system. Wasting valuable resources, which should rightly be directed toward building the will of the whole people rather than making a personalized political statement.

Pick targets in advance: This demands that we know our targets. It means planning organization and determination. It means that we have thoroughly studied and understand those that oppose us and that we have committed ourselves to opposing them.

Use Psychological Warfare: This of course means that you know and understand the principles of Psychological Warfare. It means that you have developed an organization that has stop responding to white aggression and being directed by white political agendas and has begun to determining its own direction.

Equip your forces from defeated enemy forces: Within the context of our struggle this could mean so many things. How are students at universities using those resources to promote the struggle? How are we using our own education to equip our forces? Is it everyone for themselves or are we using every piece of equipment we have gained from our colonizer to bolster our position?

Employ Unconventional Forces and Tactics: Training is key. It is not enough to be young an energetic. If your sixteen-year or son or daughter came to you and said I want to get married and start a family – you would be alarmed to say the least. The same is true in our struggle for social justice. For instance – take arrests as an example. Being arrested as a means of protest cannot be our default fall back.

Use overwhelming force: Always remember the phrase – We came to win. This statement is relative. Sometimes one lone person standing up to be counted can by the force of their moral presence create an overwhelming force. That is a rare and exciting moment. For the rest of the times make it 10-1.  Overwhelming force is just that. What will it take to make this happen? Again planning, research and organization is key to winning. Know the details.

Avoid a military decision: Our job is keep fighting to stay alive. The longer we can keep a situation going the more chance we have of winning. This system (outside of the courts) demands quick resolution. This is one reason why as a Movement we must turn our backs on issue orientated organizing. 

Examining the history of guerrilla warfare is important in developing new avenues of resistance and in correctly discerning our present situation. Based on the acknowledgement of industrial inferiority the Vietnamese people and leaders approached the development of political will in their war with the French and the United States, as a necessary to national survival. While the French and U.S. “were fighting to control the national territory … the guerrillas were interested only in winning its population” (Taber, 66) this being the essential distinction between conventional and guerrilla warfare “the army fights to occupy territory, roads, strategic heights, vital areas; the guerrilla fights to control people, without whose cooperation the land is useless to its possessor.” (Taber, 66)

In other words, a people’s war produces military power as a consequence of the political mobilization of the people by the army. This is why Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen wrote the main responsibility of a peoples war is first to “educate, mobilize, organize, and arm the whole people in order that they might take part in the resistance was the crucial task” (Giap, Vo Nguyen – Inside the Vietminh) they form a peoples army which according to Mao “is not an instrument of the state, but the essence of it, its spirit, its life and its hope” (Katzenbach, 17).

Third World liberation theorist and revolutionary Frantz Fanon discussed this intra confrontation between colonized people when he wrote, “The last battle of the colonized against the colonizer will often be that of the colonized among themselves,” vi certainly the political crisis of a colonized people moving toward national liberation while building political structures to facilitate that change and support indigenous resistance to colonization is the inevitable outcome of drawing borders or creating spectrums of inclusion - deciding on basic levels who is in and who is out. Fanon’s description of the phases of intellectual development native or colonized people must pass through before they arrive at the moment of national liberation is unmistakable. He writes the three distinct phases of intellectual development conquered people must go through are, “first phase, the native intellectual gives proof that he has assimilated the culture of the occupying power … second phase we find the native is disturbed; he decides to remember what he is… Sometimes this literature of just-before-the-battle is dominated by humor and allegory; but often it is symptomatic of a period of distress and difficulty … the third phase, which is called the fighting phase, the native having tried to lose himself in the people and with the people, will on the contrary shake the people”. vii

Xicano/Indigenous scholars and organizers working toward a frame work of national resistance are clearly situated within the context of Fanon’s writing when he says “at the beginning the native intellectual use to produce his work to be read exclusively by the oppressor, whether with the intention of charming him or of denouncing him through ethnic or subjectivist means now the native writer progressively takes on the habit of addressing his own people.” viii  Xicano and Indigenous scholars and organizers are once again “addressing” their own people, moving toward a period of intellectual development in opposition to their colonization that Fanon calls the “literature of combat, in the sense that it calls on the whole people to fight for their existence as a nation.” ix

At the Xicano Development Center we believe in the indigenous sovereignty of the Xicano people in the United States and that true social and political change begins with the people. Our style of “low intensity organizing” endeavors to build intentional communities within greater communities. The motivating force behind low intensity organizing is to constantly challenge the status quo as to the treatment and economic status not only of Xicanos and other indigenous peoples but all oppressed peoples. After a through study we believe resistance begins with education, organization and preparation. We believe that RAZA must take ACTION on a regular basis not just in times of crisis.

  

This type of low intensity organizing should begin to build what Fanon termed a “new revolutionary culture” to replace our existing colonial culture and its twisted institutions. It is not that our community lacks organization. We have countless organizations that seek “change” solely through accommodation with the dominant power. Our community seems to lacks the resolve to psychologically resist having this position of submission during 500 years of occupation.

As a reaction to our own submissiveness we fixate on the idea of self-defense and in doing so fail to understand “self-defense does not aim at military supremacy for the exploited and consequently does not aspire to organize itself.”  What is our objective then?

Clearly it must be the “conquest of political power.” Protracted low intensity organizing based on the principles of revolutionary political mobilization can create a challenge to U.S. civil hegemony that effective movements of liberation within the U.S. colonial context could be created.

Chicano scholars like so many others today with the proof of a small but growing resistance in plain sight continue to turn away from the reality of our nation by using liberation rhetoric strictly in terms of identity, literature and literary criticism. The role of the intellectual and the nation in creating culture and resistance is important as Fanon writes,

Because the nation by its manner of coming into being and in the terms of its existence exerts a fundamental influence over culture. A nation which is born of the peoples concerted action and which embodies the real aspirations of the people while changing the state cannot exist save in the expression of exceptionally rich forms of culture. x

This is the core concept many scholars and organizers fail to comprehend – nation and culture go hand in hand. They are dynamic processes that move the people toward their goal of liberation.  The fate of our people, the struggle of our Meso-American Xicano nation is not and cannot be summed up by the lives of a few men and women held up by this system as examples of individualistic attainment but only by the collective actions and accomplishments of us all. I believe that is the true lessons for students of color and Xicano communities which can be summed up in the words of Sun Tzu the Chinese sage of war when he wrote, “The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.”

i Acuna “Sometimes there is no other side: Chicanos and the myth of equality”

ii Ibid.

iii Ibid.

iv Acuna (1994) “Truth and Objectivity in Chicano History” Voices of a new Chicano/a History Eds. Refugio I. Rochin and Dennis N. Valdes

v Cabral was the Secretary General of the Partido Africana do Independencia de Guiné e Cabo Verde. He was assassinated January 20, 1973.

vi Fanon, Frantz (1963) Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press, New York, NY.

vii Ibid

viii Ibid.

ix Ibid.

x Fanon, Frantz (1963) Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press, New York, NY.

Please join the Northstar Center and the Xicano Development Center for our fall open house. This will be a chance to scope out the new resources both organizations have been working on over the summer. Find out what we're up to, catch up with old friends and meet some new ones. Refreshments provided.

106 South Lathrop St. Lansing, MI. - 517.371.2001