Assumptions and rules for transforming a society

In his treatise on strategy Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How? (2016), the mathematician Theodore Kaczynski, who has studied the history of revolutionary movements at length, draws up a list of postulates and draws five essential rules to respect for any movement in search of maximum effectiveness. We have reproduced them with comments and examples.

The postulates

” Postulate 1. You cannot change a society by pursuing vague or abstract goals. It is important to have a clear and concrete objective. In the words of experienced activist John Huenefeld: “Vague and overly broad goals are seldom achieved. The important thing is to develop a specific project that will inevitably propel your community in the desired direction.”

The Yellow Vests had multiple, vague and abstract goals, including a demand for “direct democracy.”^[1] ”. This strategic error gave free rein to the reformist clan, which was able to parasitize the movement with its resolvable demands in state institutions (citizen initiative referendum, tax reform, adoption of the proportional system during the parliamentary elections).

” Postulate 2. Preaching alone — the simple act of defending ideas — does not make it possible to bring about lasting changes in the behavior of human beings, except among a small minority.”

Most NGOs, associations and environmental influencers simply preach the good word to the public by organizing communication campaigns. The state of the natural world suffices to demonstrate the failure of this strategy based on preaching alone.

” Postulate 3. Any radical movement tends to attract many people who are no doubt sincere, but whose goals do not coincide well with those of the movement. As a result, the original goals of the movement may lose their clarity or even completely degenerate.”

We can cite the Yellow Vests movement again. Originally, the main demand was clearly revolutionary, with the desire to overthrow the government and establish direct democracy. Subsequently, the movement attracted numerous reformists who were quick to put forward much more consensual demands.

” Postulate 4. Any radical movement that gains great power ends up corrupt, at the latest when its first leaders (those who joined it when it was still relatively weak) are all dead or politically inactive. By “corrupt,” we mean when its members, and especially its leaders, are primarily looking for personal gain (such as money, security, social status, important functions, or careers) instead of genuinely devoting themselves to the ideals of the movement.”

On this point, we must look at the case of Sea Shepherd.^[2]. Paul Watson, the founder, was ousted from the global branch of the organization by executives who were more concerned with the quest for power than with the effectiveness of the fight.^[3].

The rules

” Rule (i). In order to change a society in a specific way, a movement must choose a single, clear, simple and concrete objective, the realization of which produces the desired change.”

We are not going to go back to this point, which is the most basic of common sense (see attached diagram).

” Rule (ii). A movement that seeks to transform a society must set a goal whose consequences will be irreversible, so that once the society is transformed by the achievement of this goal, its transformation is sustainable, without the movement, or anyone else, having to make any additional effort.”

In an article published in the magazine Aeon^[4], the historian David Potter, author of Disruption: Why Things Change (2021), attempts to describe the dynamics of radical change throughout history. Among other things, he writes about Lenin:

“Lenin's theory of change was a theory of social rupture that consisted in imposing a change so radical that a society could no longer return to its previous state. Such convulsions do not happen by chance. There are a set of conditions required to cause them, and there are particular circumstances under which the initiators of disruptive movements tend to achieve their goals.”

” Rule (iii). Once a goal is adopted, it is necessary to persuade a small minority to commit to achieving it by more effective means than simply preaching or promoting ideas. In other words, this minority will have to organize for practical action.”

The influential magazine Foreign Affairs Note about the David Potter book:

“Replacing one political order that shapes the world with another has always required strategy, leadership, and ideological struggles motivated by the search for legitimacy. It is less the oppressed and the dispossessed who are reshaping political life than the activists and charismatic leaders who hold on to powerful new ideas and build new coalitions.^[5].”

Reading between the lines, we understand that a radical political change is not the result of a decision taken collectively, democratically. A small, determined group is formed around new ideas that were once on the fringes of society and seeks to gain power by building on these ideas. This power is obtained through coalitions, by accumulating material resources, by building legitimacy, by recruiting activists to form them, etc. Secondly, practical action seeks to establish a relationship of power with the dominant group (s).

” Rule (iv). In order to remain true to its objective, a radical movement must find ways to exclude from its ranks any unwanted person seeking to join it.”

If we go back to the case of the Yellow Vests, we can see that the movement was joined by groups with contradictory objectives — extreme right groups, conspiracy theorists (often the same as the first ones), reformists, Black Bloc, etc. The GJs were not structured or organized in such a way as to be able to ensure a uniformity of point of view essential to victory. It is all the more difficult when you choose the demonstration in the streets of Paris as a modus operandi.

We regularly observe an unfortunate confusion between the necessary uniformity of viewpoints in the movement and the refusal of diversity. Powerful movements are those with diverse profiles — regardless of religion, identity, gender, or skin color — that come together to pursue a common goal. In the words of Theodore Kaczynski, “the true anti-tech movement rejects any form of racism or ethnocentrism”, it is an “imperative” strategic^[6] ”.

Rule (v). Once powerful enough to achieve its objective, the revolutionary movement must achieve it as quickly as possible, At the very least before the original revolutionaries (i.e. those who joined the movement while it was still in its infancy) were dead or politically inactive.”

Formed by Manuel Marulanda in 1964 in rural Colombia, the FARC movement (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia — People's Army) was a Marxist guerrilla from the peasant self-defense zones of the 1950-1960s. Since its inception, the movement has experienced periods of development and stagnation, but since 2000 it has been visibly in decline.^[7]. It is difficult to estimate whether the FARC had in the past acquired the power necessary to seize power. In any case, Marulanda died in 2008 and his organization is in decline, which tends to confirm this rule.

Warning: we've selected examples of violent movements in this article. This does not mean that we agree with their methods. We remind you that ATR is an uncovered, legal and non-violent movement.