[statecom-discuss] Three fundamental ideas for GRP strategy
Ron Francis
ronwf777 at yahoo.com
Sun Feb 18 10:03:52 EST 2007
Hey Elie
I have sent an email to statecom requesting more info about Strategic Planning Working Group so some of this stuff about the Working Group should be cleared up soon...
To get to some of your points:
This is all very funny actually: I had no intention of getting involved with Strategic Planning of any kind !!,... and am not in the Strategic Planning Working Group. All I did was put out a two year plan for a multi-district- State Rep. Ballot Question campaign, as a critical step for GRP to come to power in years to come and based on my Somerville experience challenging the mainstream parties with root-cause politics. That's it. A simple yet rationally worked out plan, with a timeline over two years, to do ballot questions in each State Rep District. Had nothing to do with Strategic Planning Working Group which I barely knew about by the way !
I have sent out an email explaining Local Ballots 2008 if you are interested in that.
But I want to get to your main thrust which is the arguments that you made below.
You said:
Yarden <yen.yarden at verizon.net> wrote: I am responding without any clear idea of how the state-wide strategy
discussion is being organized. My impression was that Eli Beckerman,
John Andrews, had taken the initiative for such a systematic
discussion. I also know that I received from adcom (january 29. 2007)
a notice about the formation of a Strategic Planning Working Group. I
responded, volunteering to participate. I did not know that the
planning group had been formed.
I do know that the first principle of strategic planning of the kind
envisioned is planning the discussion. If the 'key ideas' are already
in place, than I can assume that either Ron has already done all the
work needed by the planning group, or, alternatively, that Ron wishes
subscribers to this listserve to talk about his ideas about strategic
planning independently of the work of such a group. So, Ron, if you
are planning to participate actively in the group to be formed, what is
your idea of the work of such a group? If not, I am happy to talk
about your ideas any time you would like to get together.
I do not believe that we can get very far without an understanding of
how strategic planning is done. We are beginning such a discussion at
MRGRA, but only about the local. The best way I can explain is by
taking up one idea. the first one you put forth:
(I continue below)
On Saturday, February 17, 2007, at 12:04 PM,
statecom-discuss-request at green-rainbow.org wrote:
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 02:31:10 -0800 (PST)
> From: Ron Francis
> Subject: [statecom-discuss] Three fundamental ideas for GRP strategy
> To: Discussion List for StateCom members
>
> Message-ID: <220737.65805.qm at web32201.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Which way forward for the GRP in the next 5 years and what are the key
> ideas ? Let me suggest 3 ideas that must inform all strategic > thinking.
The above statement with the question limited to the "next 5 years"
suggests a time frame, and this is good but need a discussion of the
relevance of time frames to the borader temporal aspects if it is to
get beyond ideological traps attendant upon "five year plan,"and other
arbitrary temporal frames. There are many ways of doing this, and it
requires some discussion.
Thus the flaw in your decisive demand that we,
> 1) Recognize that we are in competition with the "Progressive
> Democrats" of Massachusetts.
I do not believe that we are for all the reasons that you give
> They have a fundamentally different strategy but politics that are
> identical to ours in some cases (they favor single payer for example)
> and in other cases their politics can be made to sound similar to us.
> These folks are fairly well organized, have excellent models of
> organizing on the ground, have been successful, and are poised to
> build.
It is in our politics that we differ from them fundamentally. I have
met with them, with Lesley, and the others in groups, attended their
forums, and can go over this matter detail by detail. It is their
political vision, or the absence of it, that allowed them to endorse
for the
Cambridge City Council, candidates who deny the importance of
"participatory democracy," and who violate open meeting laws. I can go
on and on. There are many people who favor single payer plan, endorse
equal marriage laws, oppose U.S. foreign policy, etc., etc., without
any comprehensive notion of how to change anything. Their
organizational models are so completely keyed to the Democratic or
Republican party structures, that Jesse Gordon was able to offer us to
have the "10 values" included in the Massachusetts Democratic Party
platform. They ". . . have excellent models of organizing on the
ground . . . ." as a party faction. What does this have to do with
us? That they were able to help make sure that Deval Patrick got
elected? And then to insure that he relied on that strength rather
than on the corporate establishment lobbyists? Tell me how successful
the PDA or PDM is when you see what their candidate for governor does.
> If we think we can ignore these efforts, especially with the misnamed
> "spoiler" effect then we are shooting ourselves in the foot. The
> "progressive Dems" will attract people and make it harder for GRP to
> build with our social justice vision.
There is every reason to notice the pointlessness of the progressive
Dems efforts. The main thing to notice is that they offer nothing new.
We cannot possibly consider emulating them. And we certainly cannot
compete with them. I do not know why anyone would see a
similarity other than the presence of large numbers of people in the
GRP who cannot think critically. Even Gates has a social justice
vision.
> In order to counter this effect we need to carryout actions and plans
> that distinguish us from the Progressive Dems in a way that is clear
> and simple to the public, or else we will lose the competition.
I believe that this is confusing separate matters. Anyone versed in
the origins of the Green party in the U. S. cannot believe that we need
to distinguish ourselves from the Progressive Dems. Not so long ago
some people who believed that it would be possible to create very
different kind of government in the U. S., by working within its
ideologically established rules, to critically unmask that ideology.
The Progressive Democrats do not question the ideological basis to the
Constitution, etc. They are typical liberals.
The first actions needed are accordingly, thinking differently,
listening to people who they cannot hear, exposing the flaws and damage
done to our lives and the environment at every opportunity, learning
how to convert every loss into a win (mess up the distinction if you
will). Planning has to be along the lines of developing alternative
instituions, of all kinds; but especially political ones, like
pre-schools where children will learn to work and learn together.
(remember Aimee's "overgrow the government").
Then there is no objection to working with any ally that we can find on
any particular matter.
We do not need to have a somebody who is capable of critical thinking,
or has the correct motives, or understanding of what happened in
Biafra, or what goes on in Wonderland, to testify on behalf of a that
person's proposal, that will benefit the earth. That is the proper use
of not excluding people who share our view on a particular 'issue.'
They might wonder about it and start talking to us.
> This will necessitate root-cause discussion.
I am not submitting this for rebuttal. I do not take anything that I
said above very seriously, and am committed to only one aspect: i.e.,
this is not the way to plan or even to begin planning "strategy." I
have no quarrel with schemes for organizing. The more the better. And
let's remember, such schemes require too little commit ment
Yes! but of what?
Peace,
Elie
Yarden <yen.yarden at verizon.net> wrote: I am responding without any clear idea of how the state-wide strategy
discussion is being organized. My impression was that Eli Beckerman,
John Andrews, had taken the initiative for such a systematic
discussion. I also know that I received from adcom (january 29. 2007)
a notice about the formation of a Strategic Planning Working Group. I
responded, volunteering to participate. I did not know that the
planning group had been formed.
I do know that the first principle of strategic planning of the kind
envisioned is planning the discussion. If the 'key ideas' are already
in place, than I can assume that either Ron has already done all the
work needed by the planning group, or, alternatively, that Ron wishes
subscribers to this listserve to talk about his ideas about strategic
planning independently of the work of such a group. So, Ron, if you
are planning to participate actively in the group to be formed, what is
your idea of the work of such a group? If not, I am happy to talk
about your ideas any time you would like to get together.
I do not believe that we can get very far without an understanding of
how strategic planning is done. We are beginning such a discussion at
MRGRA, but only about the local. The best way I can explain is by
taking up one idea. the first one you put forth:
(I continue below)
On Saturday, February 17, 2007, at 12:04 PM,
statecom-discuss-request at green-rainbow.org wrote:
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 02:31:10 -0800 (PST)
> From: Ron Francis
> Subject: [statecom-discuss] Three fundamental ideas for GRP strategy
> To: Discussion List for StateCom members
>
> Message-ID: <220737.65805.qm at web32201.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Which way forward for the GRP in the next 5 years and what are the key
> ideas ? Let me suggest 3 ideas that must inform all strategic > thinking.
The above statement with the question limited to the "next 5 years"
suggests a time frame, and this is good but need a discussion of the
relevance of time frames to the borader temporal aspects if it is to
get beyond ideological traps attendant upon "five year plan,"and other
arbitrary temporal frames. There are many ways of doing this, and it
requires some discussion.
Thus the flaw in your decisive demand that we,
> 1) Recognize that we are in competition with the "Progressive
> Democrats" of Massachusetts.
I do not believe that we are for all the reasons that you give
> They have a fundamentally different strategy but politics that are
> identical to ours in some cases (they favor single payer for example)
> and in other cases their politics can be made to sound similar to us.
> These folks are fairly well organized, have excellent models of
> organizing on the ground, have been successful, and are poised to
> build.
It is in our politics that we differ from them fundamentally. I have
met with them, with Lesley, and the others in groups, attended their
forums, and can go over this matter detail by detail. It is their
political vision, or the absence of it, that allowed them to endorse
for the
Cambridge City Council, candidates who deny the importance of
"participatory democracy," and who violate open meeting laws. I can go
on and on. There are many people who favor single payer plan, endorse
equal marriage laws, oppose U.S. foreign policy, etc., etc., without
any comprehensive notion of how to change anything. Their
organizational models are so completely keyed to the Democratic or
Republican party structures, that Jesse Gordon was able to offer us to
have the "10 values" included in the Massachusetts Democratic Party
platform. They ". . . have excellent models of organizing on the
ground . . . ." as a party faction. What does this have to do with
us? That they were able to help make sure that Deval Patrick got
elected? And then to insure that he relied on that strength rather
than on the corporate establishment lobbyists? Tell me how successful
the PDA or PDM is when you see what their candidate for governor does.
> If we think we can ignore these efforts, especially with the misnamed
> "spoiler" effect then we are shooting ourselves in the foot. The
> "progressive Dems" will attract people and make it harder for GRP to
> build with our social justice vision.
There is every reason to notice the pointlessness of the progressive
Dems efforts. The main thing to notice is that they offer nothing new.
We cannot possibly consider emulating them. And we certainly cannot
compete with them. I do not know why anyone would see a
similarity other than the presence of large numbers of people in the
GRP who cannot think critically. Even Gates has a social justice
vision.
> In order to counter this effect we need to carryout actions and plans
> that distinguish us from the Progressive Dems in a way that is clear
> and simple to the public, or else we will lose the competition.
I believe that this is confusing separate matters. Anyone versed in
the origins of the Green party in the U. S. cannot believe that we need
to distinguish ourselves from the Progressive Dems. Not so long ago
some people who believed that it would be possible to create very
different kind of government in the U. S., by working within its
ideologically established rules, to critically unmask that ideology.
The Progressive Democrats do not question the ideological basis to the
Constitution, etc. They are typical liberals.
The first actions needed are accordingly, thinking differently,
listening to people who they cannot hear, exposing the flaws and damage
done to our lives and the environment at every opportunity, learning
how to convert every loss into a win (mess up the distinction if you
will). Planning has to be along the lines of developing alternative
instituions, of all kinds; but especially political ones, like
pre-schools where children will learn to work and learn together.
(remember Aimee's "overgrow the government").
Then there is no objection to working with any ally that we can find on
any particular matter.
We do not need to have a somebody who is capable of critical thinking,
or has the correct motives, or understanding of what happened in
Biafra, or what goes on in Wonderland, to testify on behalf of a that
person's proposal, that will benefit the earth. That is the proper use
of not excluding people who share our view on a particular 'issue.'
They might wonder about it and start talking to us.
> This will necessitate root-cause discussion.
I am not submitting this for rebuttal. I do not take anything that I
said above very seriously, and am committed to only one aspect: i.e.,
this is not the way to plan or even to begin planning "strategy." I
have no quarrel with schemes for organizing. The more the better. And
let's remember, such schemes require too little commit ment
Yes! but of what?
Peace,
Elie
> 2) Focus on local organizing with well thought out models
>
> To have actual power in a community means having a base of support
> built up. This can typically only be done locally for groups, like
> ours, that do not have large resources because of our politics mainly.
> A healthy GRP will have chapters growing in each local district using
> well tested models. The bottom line is this: If we don't execute
> replicatable local models of local base-building then we aren't going
> anywhere. This is a cold but true reality. Our growth rate must
> exceed our loss rate. As a side note I would say that the best models
> are ones that involve DIRECT local organizing meaning activities that
> put us in contact with new and ordinary people on a regular basis (and
> this is whether one is trying a candidate approach, an issue approach,
> a ballot approach, or a project approach)
>
> 3) Use the "foco" theory
>
> Che Guevara understood that with limited resources one needs to focus
> efforts one community at a time and hope the focused effort creates a
> stronghold that is solid. Thus, regardless of what planning one has,
> realize that it will probably need a kick-start that involves people
> from a given regional area focusing together on a given local effort
> to solidify that effort to the point where the effort is
> selfsustaining. As an example: rather than run 3 state Rep
> candidates in Briston county, instead pull together many Bristol
> county GRP's and solidify one local area. (And we shouldn't cheat !
> Let's establish criteria for what it means for a local area to be
> established and if we don't have it yet then keep concentrating the
> forces until it truly is established). This means making some choices
> about with local area to choose; let' s not be afraid to do that.
>
> Let me know what you think...
>
> Ron
>
_______________________________________________
statecom-discuss mailing list
statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
More information about the statecom-discuss
mailing list