[This piece represents the views of the author and not those of Vine Maple as a whole.]
by ragbag
“We must practice revolutionary democracy in every aspect of our Party life. Every responsible member must have the courage of his responsibilities, exacting from others a proper respect for his work and properly respecting the work of others. Hide nothing from the masses of our people. Tell no lies. Expose lies whenever they are told. Mask no difficulties, mistakes, failures. Claim no easy victories.” – Amilcar Cabral
Since this summer, “phone zaps” have grown in popularity with many of the left organizing projects in Eugene. The action usually involves a social media graphic with a list of phone numbers of city or state officials, with a script for the caller to read off if they reach the target. The goal is usually either to achieve some demand from the official(s) or to overwhelm their phone lines to inconvenience them. Stop the Sweeps, the “People’s” Council, BIPOC Liberation Collective, environmental organizations, and other affinity groups have initiated calls to contact city councilors, state representatives, and the governor for various demands such as ending the evictions of unhoused communities and releasing immuno-compromised prisoners. Because this is a frequently used and unquestioned action, it is our responsibility to question it.
1) Phone zaps legitimize the ruling class state.
The old state, representing the bourgeois colonial rule, must die. Rhetorically at least, most leftists unite around this statement. Anarchists and Marxists alike demand that we “smash the state” to build a new society (though Marxists accept the material necessity of a new state under proletarian class rule). The Eugene City Council and mayor are no exception to this imperative. They represent the interests of the big bourgeoisie such Nike, Wells Fargo, Seneca Jones Timber, and landlords.
Many new organizers galvanized by the 2020 uprisings are looking for direction. Insisting that people call ruling class representatives and ask for bread crumbs falsely suggests that we can treat the state as a body of mediation between the ruling class and the oppressed. Thus, phone zaps disorient organizers old and new, potentially leading them to a false understanding of the state in relation to capitalism.
We need to be consistent and resolute in our positions. If we are revolutionaries committed to replacing the current social order than we must be unwaveringly focused on that. The faux revolutionaries yell “smash the state!” with one side of their mouth, while the other side cordially requests that Mayor Lucy Vinnis be a little bit nicer to homeless people. But the whimpers to city officials for reforms speak much louder than any abolitionist chants bellowed in the streets. These are irreconcilable positions. The concession to liberal politics unveils the guise of radicalism to be a toothless rhetorical stunt.
We can and should take action that addresses city officials. However, these actions must demonstrate to the masses the illegitimacy of the ruling class state, and prove that the state is not a site conciliation between class, but rather a weapon of capitalist-imperialist control. Expose the mayor and city council for what they are: class enemies beholden to the interests of the oppressors.
2) Phone zaps are unprincipled concessions to the ruling class, disconnected from the masses.
Organizers argue that a phone zap can be engaging because it is an easy thing that anyone can do from home. However, revolution is not easy, and cannot be done from home. Indeed, we should go out of our way to incorporate people who must work from home because of disabilities or other barriers to physically showing up to actions. There are several other tasks that we can find such as social media administration or designing propaganda. But we must follow Amilcar Cabral’s imperative and “claim no easy victory.” Just because a task is easy does not mean it is conducive to revolution.
Further, we must not collaborate with the ruling class. At times, it may be tactically necessary to engage in principled negotiations for demands to win material gains for oppressed people and earn the trust of the masses. (By the “masses,” I am referring to the majority of toiling people who are not reached with abolitionist social media pages alone: single mothers working multiple jobs, migrant workers, tenants facing eviction, etc.) This can only be done after the long, difficult work of going among the people and learning what their needs are. We can synthesize their grievances into a political program that may include demands. We can then encourage that the masses make these demands their own and take action to enforce them. This will unite oppressed, working people and elevate their faith in mass, collective action. And this cannot be done from home. Thus, we can make demands for economic changes and revindications aimed at the political arm of the bourgeoisie. But these demands are subordinate and beholden to the political aim of uniting working class people to wage revolution.
The phone zaps are not agitation and do not incorporate the masses. Organizers quickly throw together the demands, put them on an Instagram post, and the only people who participate are other organizers in the activism sub-culture. The phone zaps are not well thought-out political programs coming from the people, to the people. They are social media graphics from the clique-ish activists to the echo-chamber.
3) Phone zaps pander to liberals.
Yet another justification is that we can ‘mobilize liberals’ or slowly win them over by appealing to their values. Stooping to liberalism does not mean you are a patient radical willing to meet people where they are at. It means you are a liberal.
Sometimes organizers advance a faulty position that we must first jump through all the liberal hoops to justify our more radical direct actions later. They believe that we have to call our representatives, petition, and go to city council before we are allowed to escalate to disruption and agitation. They suggest that if we do not at first play by all their rules, then we will lose the support of liberals and isolate ourselves as illegitimate provocateurs. But the ruling class will never see rebellion as legitimate. Our task is not to make our struggles appear respectable. Our task is to win. The ruling class will use its dying breath to gasp that the revolution is illegitimate. We should not allow ourselves to be guided by the moral values of the oppressors.
A common slogan associated with this line of thinking is the call to embrace a “diversity of tactics.” On one hand, the slogan attempts to open up liberals to the necessity of revolutionary violence (or sometimes just to property destruction). It is a softer way to legitimize the use of force that may be unpalatable to middle-class sensibilities. But revolutionary violence is not just because it is “diverse” from other tactics. Revolutionary violence is just because of the centuries of ongoing violence against colonized and working people. The oppressed have the right and imperative to rebel because they are oppressed, not because rebellion is one tactic among many. Armed rebellion is a necessity that we cannot dampen to persuade liberals. The slogan revises revolutionary violence under the framework of liberal pluralism, abandoning revolutionary conviction for appeasement.
Moreover, so-called radicals justify petty liberal acts like testifying at city council in the name of “diversity of tactics.” Through the slogan “diversity of tactics,” liberal, right opportunism walks right in and gets a seat at the table without any hesitation from so-called revolutionaries. The slogan that was initially conjured to deflect criticism of protesters smashing windows is turned around to prevent us from exposing liberalism within our ranks. We should abandon this empty slogan and be unafraid to call out liberalism when it rears its ugly face in our organizations.
***
Organizers should critically examine the actions they take and question whose interests they serve. We need to stop asking politely. I will admit that there may be circumstances I have overlooked, and there may be moments where a phone zap could be a strategic tactic. Perhaps a group of prisoners calls for a phone zap to support their hunger strike. Circulating their call as an act of solidarity might be useful. But the task here would be to build ties with those organizers and earn their trust as a reliable support system. Certainly, this is not the majority of the cases that phone zaps are used. “Radical” liberals organize phone zaps uncritically and without a clear direction. Phone zaps are similar to calls for people to attend and testify at city council, canvas for local elections, or circulate meaningless petitions. All these petty liberal actions serve to undermine revolutionary discipline and inject liberalism into any budding organization that actually threatens capitalism. Reject these calls in your own organizations. Be bold. Go to the masses, learn from them, and fight alongside them. We have a world to win.