1

A Living Document

… Work in Progress

Making Waves!

What Progressive Unions and Civil Society Groups

must do to Build Power for

Social and System Change

in Canada.

A primer outlining a roadmap and plan of action arising out of ongoing discussions initiated via the Port Elgin Assembly in November of 2012.

Prepared by Tony Clarke for,

and in consultation with,

the Port Elgin Group

August 2013

2

Contents

Introduction

Part I

1. A Movement Narrative: …..Revisiting the Rise and fall of Progressive Social Change

2. Subversive Lessons: ……..Taking a few Cues from the Political Right Playbook

3. Strategic Challenges: …… Identifying Steps for Rebuilding the Political Left

Part II

4. Strategic Vision …………..Developing a Framework & Platform for System Change

5. Organizing Tools …………Deploying New Organizing Methods and Strategies

6. Campaigning Tools ………Deploying New Campaigning Methods and Strategies

Part III

7. Progressive Infrastructure ..Rebuilding Our Social movement Infrastructure

8. Strategic Mobilizing Facility …Developing a Programmatic Focus and Direction

9. Funding Proposals ………..Building a Socially Progressive Financial Base

Conclusion

3

Introduction:

On a weekend early in November 2012, union activists along with a greater percentage of social

and environmental activists from across the country gathered together at the education centre of

the Canadian Auto Workers [CAW] in Port Elgin, Ontario. Initially proposed and convened by

Ken Lewenza Jr. with the support of the CAW, the event was designed to provide space for an

open and honest exchange about the problems and challenges that needed to be addressed in

building or rebuilding a civil society movement or movements for progressive social change in

this country. Although supported by the CAW, there were no strings attached. As the waves

slapped against the shoreline of Lake Huron, beckoning another winter season, the setting

seemed to be quite apt for the occasion. 1

To be sure, there was a scent of social ferment in the air. 2012 had been a year when

grassroots resistance bubbled up here and there across the country --- from the Red Hand

Coalition where students filled the streets of Montreal night after night with waves of direct

action protesting against student fee hikes and eventually forcing a general election in Quebec;

to the sudden surge of protests by Indigenous peoples against the relentless violation of

Aboriginal rights organized by the Idle No More movement which featured flash mobs in city

shopping malls and blockades of railways and bridges across the country; and the mobilization

of community-based resistance in British Columbia, Defend Our Coast, against the construction

of the Enbridge corporation’s pipeline to bring tar sands crude to Asian markets. Add to this the

‘Death of Evidence’ protest by scientists against the Harper government, the ‘Black-Out/Speak-

Out’ protest led by environmental groups on Parliament Hill, and the mobilization of over

300,000 people on Earth Day 2012 in Montreal which included protests against the environment

policies of governments in Quebec City and Ottawa.

At the same time, there was an aura of political realism permeating the Port Elgin Assembly.

Despite the enthusiasm sparked by the social ferment of the moment, it was clear to many of

the participants that the political right had established a strong beachhead in terms of revamping

the political, social and cultural direction of the country. Not only had the Harper regime won the

2011 general election with a majority government, but many of the achievements that had come

through progressive social change campaigns decades ago had either been decimated or were

now on the chopping block. Moreover, the progressive social movement was in disarray. Labour

unions who, historically have been champions of social justice, leading struggles for a whole

range of progressive social policy initiatives --- ranging from shorter work weeks, unemployment

insurance, and collective bargaining, to universal medicare, social assistance programs and

public pensions --- were now among the prime targets for assault by the state under the Harper

government along with other progressive environmental and social justice organizations.

So, in effect, the time had come for a political reckoning about the status of the progressive

social movement in Canada. It was time for an honest dialogue about the weaknesses as well

1 See the Report that initially came out of the exchanges at the Port Elgin Assembly entitled “Work[ing] in Progress:

A New Model of Cross Sector Collaboration,” January 2013.

4

as the strengths of our civil society organizations and what needs to be done to revitalize the

building of a progressive social movement in this country.

The Port Elgin Assembly

The call-out for the Port Elgin Assembly had cast the broad-based challenge for social change

in the following terms:

We are at a pivotal moment in history. As a species, we are confronting an ecological crisis of our

own making through global warming that requires social change both urgent and profound if we

are to prevent a near future in which human life – maybe all life – is burned up in famine and war.

In addition to increasing climate chaos, fresh water is growing scarcer, and agricultural capacity is

in danger of collapse. At the same time, we are living through the economic and political crisis

known as “neoliberalism”: a comprehensive strategy waged by corporations since the 1970s of

breaking the power of the organized left in order to dismantle the welfare state, depress wages,

and transfer ever greater wealth to capital.

It went on to pinpoint the current political obstacle to progressive social change in Canada as

follows:

Here in Canada, we have the most right-wing government of any liberal democracy in the world. Stephen Harper is a formidable strategist and his agenda is supported by a large, well-funded, and coordinated network of think tanks and conservative organizations, including national media outlets. Harper has targeted the democratic basis of opposition to this corporate/right wing agenda.

Then it zeroed in on the real challenge for rebuilding a progressive movement for social change in this country:

The weakness of those who are fighting for progressive social change, and fighting to address climate change, is a product of this deliberate disorganization. For us, the crisis is not only a crisis of the other side’s strength – it is a crisis of our weakness. There is plenty of evidence that most people are not happy with the way things are. They are deeply dissatisfied, but they do not see change as really possible. They don’t have a vision of possible alternatives. And they don’t see the political means of getting there. This is one of our major barriers to organizing an effective response. Organizing to win the changes we need involves building a new collective power. This requires showing people real alternatives, and making them see how their participation can get us there.

In effect, the Port Elgin Assembly provided the space to begin a dialogue about what would be

required to build new forms of collective power for progressive social change. From the outset,

this involved ‘developing a level of trust.’ As the report from the Assembly put it:

We have no shortage of talent, creativity, research or dedication. We know that if it came down to

those things, we would not be in the position we are; defending the already-inadequate status

quo against the relentless onslaught of neo-liberalism. What we lack is a unified vision of how to

work together, opportunities to learn from each other, and moments to organize together.

Changing the world involves changing how we fight for that world. We must commit to a new era

of active listening, of respect for each other, and sharing resources. We need to form an ever-

5

broadening network of agitators that helps identify our strengths and resources, and where we

need and must build capacity; a network that provides the means for organizations and

individuals to identify strategic (and often new, unpredictable and innovative) partners to work

together in ways that make sense to them, to their communities, to their immediate and long-term

needs.

The Assembly went on to form three working groups focused on more programmatic and

strategic tasks. These working groups included: [i] a workshop on the Quebec student

movement model of organizing direct action [developed by the Red Hand Coalition] which

worked with Indigenous peoples to develop a protocol for building alliances and mapped out a

proposal for a pan-Canadian process for organizing action on energy and environment issues; 2

[ii] a workshop on reversing the neo-liberal agenda which focused in on developing tools for a

progressive re-framing issues for social change in terms of values-framing, proposals for shared

data-base mapping of our constituencies, and the use of social media to better communicate

our messages; and [iii] a workshop on training schools for activists to further develop and hone

their capacities for both organizing and campaigning.

The main outcomes of the Assembly were briefly captured in a communiqué sent to the

President of the CAW, Ken Lewenza Sr.3

…There was a strong feeling amongst the participants that if we are going to mobilize the power to win, the old models of coalition building alone are not sufficient. In our workshops, the participants stressed the need for new ways of networking, along with new tools and strategies. The focus, they said, should be put on organizing community-based resistance and alternatives, with an emphasis on building momentum from the bottom-up more than the top-down approaches that characterize so many coalitions these days.

There is enormous benefit to supporting a network of grassroots and institutional groups who

share a common vision of progressive social change in this country --- a dynamic network that is

focused on sharing resources, improving communications, identifying and addressing current

weaknesses and providing cross-regional and cross-sectoral support. Not only does it facilitate

better and more sustained outreach to communities often left out of such initiatives, it also

ensures that the larger events with a significant media focus will have authentic grassroots

support – support that will be able to be sustained long after the event is over.

…The goals towards which we need to work are not merely electoral in nature. While they include electoral goals, they go beyond this to address the kind of a society we want, its basic values and foundations, how we care for each other and the environment, and how we ensure the decisions we make are both just and sustainable for succeeding generations. … What was made clear over the course of the weekend was not just the wealth of talent and resources we have in our ranks, but the willingness to share those resources…the intent of this network is not to produce mission statements and organizational banners but rather to facilitate support and collaboration between

2 In a written proposal submitted to the Port Elgin Assembly, the Quebec-based Red Hand Coalition proposed that

a pan-Canadian alliance be organized around energy and environmental issues that would include a protocol for

working in solidarity with Indigenous peoples.

3 Letter to Ken Lewenza Sr., President of the Canadian Auto Workers, November 17, 2012, from the co-facilitators

of the Port Elgin Assembly, Tony Clarke & Erika Shaker.

6

like-minded groups who have so much to learn from and share with each other, in the true spirit of solidarity, for the sake of the common good.

Moreover, the anticipated formation of the country’s largest private sector union, later named

UNIFOR, also provided a ray of hope for rekindling the energies of social unionism which is

imperative for the revival of a progressive social movement in our times.

A Primer for Moving Forward

This document, Making Waves, is designed provide a follow-up plan of action for moving

forward from the Port Elgin Assembly. It is cast here in the form of a primer in order to stimulate

discussion and debate in the political left on a roadmap for forward movement over the next 5,

10, 15, 20 and 25 years. It is intended to be a synthesis of ideas and proposals that went into,

came out of, and have continued since, the Port Elgin Assembly regarding the task of building

or rebuilding a progressive social movement in the political life of this country.

From the outset, it should be understood that this primer is not meant to be an academic

treatise. Its main objective is to outline a roadmap for moving forward. It therefore focuses on

some broad themes and strokes that will need to be further developed. While not being an

academic piece does not at all mean being thoughtless. On the contrary, this is a primer

designed to stimulate collective and practical thought about how the political left recovers and

moves forward. It contains three parts.

Part I provides opportunities to think reflectively. It begins with a narrative on the rise

and fall of progressive social change in Canada. From there, it goes on to identify some

of the lessons that can be learned from political right and its playbook. And, it concludes

with an outline of strategic challenges facing the political left that must be addressed in

order to move forward.

Part II provides opportunities to think strategically. It begins with a strategic vision that

proposes the broad outlines of a framework and platform for progressive social change

leading to system change. It goes on from there to identify the kinds of organizing and

campaigning tools and strategies that need to be implemented in order to revitalize and

rebuild a progressive social movement for system change.

Part III provides opportunities to think organizationally. It begins with an overview of the

kind of progressive infrastructure that needs to be built to counter the political right. From

there, it proposes a ‘strategic mobilizing facility’ to provide a program of action for

building capacities. And, this part concludes with some proposals for developing a

socially progressive funding base.

Each of these three parts contains three sections. These sections amount to short essays on

various subjects related to the main themes described above for the three parts. Each section

is based on contributions that various people either made going into or coming out of the Port

Elgin event.

7

To ensure this primer also serves as an organizing tool, however, it must also be made

participatory. Hence, each of the sections in all three parts ends with a Discussion Starter that

poses questions for follow-up discussion, debate and action. Moreover, the Conclusion contains

a set of proposals for moving forward in the coming year to lay the groundwork for the long haul

task of rebuilding a dynamic progressive movement for social and system change in this

country. .

It is understood that the analysis, strategies and proposals outlined in the 3 parts will be taken

up in diverse ways by groups and individuals in various communities, regions and movements

across the country. Given their distinct histories and struggles, for example, les Québecois and

Indigenous peoples will have their own take on the fundamental challenges and issues

addressed here. The same, to some extent, may be true of other movements and regions. What

is important is that we recognize the diversity of approaches and identify opportunities for

convergence of analysis and strategies where possible. In other words, Making Waves! is

meant to be a process of social movement building. Although this entails building or rebuilding

progressive infrastructure for the long haul, it should be clear that the objective is not creating

some kind of pan-Canadian super structure.

Finally, the title of this primer, Making Waves, was chosen for several reasons. To many of us,

the term “making waves” is often used negatively in reference to “causing difficulty.” But, it is

also used more positively to mean “changing an existing situation in a way that shakes people

up” or in “shocking people with something new or different.” Yet, there were also ecological

reasons for choosing this title.

Indeed, the initial idea for this primer came while walking along the shores of Lake Huron where

the CAW centre is located in Port Elgin. Observing the waves rolling in and slapping against the

shoreline, it was evident that waves occur as the wind blows and transfers some of its energy to

the water flows on the lake. When the winds grow stronger into storm surges, the waves

become larger and larger, with the potential to dramatically alter or transform the shoreline.

Hopefully, some of the ideas and proposals outlined here can inspire people to rise-up and

make waves that are strong enough not only to bring about progressive social change but also

system change as well.

8

PART 1

A Movement Narrative: …..Revisiting the Rise and fall of Progressive Social

Change

Subversive Lessons: ……..Taking a few Cues from the Political Right Playbook

Strategic Challenges: …… Identifying Steps for Rebuilding the Political Left

9

1. A Movement Narrative:

Revisiting the Rise and Fall of Progressive Social Change 4

Most of us are familiar with the wave of progressive social change that appeared to sweep

across the country during the post-war period between 1945 and 1975. This was the era when

governments brought forth a battery of social legislation covering topics ranging from workers

rights, social assistance and universal medicare to public pensions, consumer protection, and

progressive taxation [to name a few]. Indeed, the list of achievements in social reform was quite

extensive, not only in Canada but during the New Deal era in the US, and even more so in

many European countries. For some observers, this period is viewed as the social welfare stage

of capitalism. 5

It’s origins, of course, go back to the Great Depression of the 1930s. As economic growth

slowed to regression, corporate profits plummeted and industrial plants closed their doors, the

capitalist system became increasingly unstable throughout the western world. With millions of

unemployed workers remaining idle, walking the streets and lining up at soup kitchens,

countries like Canada became breeding grounds for social unrest. If the capitalist system was

going to survive and avoid being overthrown by revolutionary social movements of sorts, then

some kind of resolution would have to be worked out involving capital, labour and the state.

In effect, a social compromise between all three was reached. Post-war Keynesian economics

helped to establish conditions for this compromise. During the latter years of the Depression

and particularly WWII, governments in Canada and elsewhere in the western world became

more active in intervening and regulating their economies on behalf of the public interest, giving

rise to what became known as the social welfare state. Through legislation in favour of collective

bargaining rights, for example, governments would ensure that workers received a greater

share of the economic pie which, in turn, they would use to consume more products and

services thereby continuing economic growth and profits.

In managing the economy, therefore, the role of the state was to more or less maintain a

balance between the interests of capital and labour. This was the so-called social contract

between capital, labour and the state following WWII that gave rise to the progressive social

legislation which came into effect during the ‘50s, ‘60s and ‘70s. Begrudgingly, corporations and

the wealthy sectors of society accepted these conditions for the time being. At that moment, the

economic elites recognized the capitalist system was still too weak and fragile to risk being

overthrown. The compromise concerning the social contract would remain in effect for almost

4 This sub section incorporates , in large part, elements of Murray Dobbin’s presentation at the Port Elgin

Assembly on November 10, 2012. Murray’s notes for his presentation, which are untitled, are available on request.

5 It is recognized that there are and will be variations on this narrative viewed through the lens of distinct histories

of peoples in this country such as Indigenous peoples and les Québecois.

10

three decades before the rising forces of neo-liberalism would eventually begin coalescing in

efforts to dismantle it.

Throughout this roughly three-plus decade period, federal and provincial governments enacted

a string of more or less progressive social legislation and programs. These included: social

programs ranging from unemployment insurance, universal healthcare, a variety of social

assistance programs and public pensions; laws protecting the rights of aboriginal peoples,

women, refugees and human rights in general; collective bargaining and other labour legislation

as well as immigration and refugee laws and programs; environmental laws and regulations

protecting air, water [lakes, rivers] and wilderness areas against pollution and contamination;

national programs for public broadcasting, consumer protection, and social housing; plus

numerous measures to regulate the national economy such as rules governing foreign

ownership, corporate concentration and competition, along with more progressive income and

corporate tax regimes.

Moreover, unions and allied civil society groups were often on the forefront during this period,

playing an active role in helping to forge and shape the new social state. In some cases, this

involved initiating social policies and laws while in other cases supporting policies and laws

initiated by others. While the social reforms that were achieved were far from being perfect,

there was a general sense that progress was being made towards a more civilized society or a

more benevolent form of capitalism.

By the early to mid ‘70s, however, there were signs that the social contract was wearing thin.

Although more progressive ideas were still finding their way into public policies and

governments continued to respond to peoples’ needs, it was also becoming clear that corporate

profit margins were dropping significantly and corporate taxes remained relatively high. Indeed,

the CEO’s and boards of major corporations in Canada and other industrialized countries were

becoming increasingly uneasy and even alarmed at the role being played by the social state.

After all, these corporations once controlled their governments and now big business had less

and less influence over the economic and social policy priorities and directions.

So, 40 years ago, a grand strategy was put together to dismantle the social welfare state. In

1973, the President of Chase Manhattan Bank and the US President’s National Security Advisor

brought together 325 economic, political and cultural leaders to form what became known as the

Trilateral Commission. They included the CEOs of the world’s largest transnational

corporations, presidents and prime ministers, plus senior government officials, journalists and

media personalities. One of the central planks in the Trilateral plan of action coming out of this

gathering had to do with the dismantling of what they referred to as “the Keynesian social

welfare state.”

In a report called “The Crisis of Democracy,” the Trilateralists argued that there was “an excess

of democracy” in the social welfare state. Governments were consulting far too much with civil

society groups including unions, environmental, social justice and public interest groups.

Business, particularly major corporations, didn’t have the clout they should have in public policy

making. To counter these trends, the Trilateralists called for the formation of big business

coalitions in key countries and jurisdictions who would then develop their own short and medium

11

term plans of action on major economic and social policy issues. Through this process the

apparatus of the social welfare state would be gradually dismantled and the role of government

reinvented in the interests [if not the image] of corporations.

In Canada, three years later the Business Council on National Issues [BCNI] was established

with powerful connections on Parliament Hill. Composed of the CEOs of the country’s largest

150 corporations, the BCNI developed their own platform for deregulating, privatizing and

liberalizing the Canadian economy and society. In effect, the BCNI set up its own shadow

cabinet with a series of task forces on major economic, social and environmental policies, each

led by a CEO. During the 1980s, the BCNI actually wrote major pieces of legislation [e.g. the

Competition Act] and was the driving force behind “game changers” in public policy making like

the Canada-US Free Trade Deal and later its sequel, the North American Free Trade

Agreement. They were also known to have vetted federal budgets virtually every year, often

compelling governments to drop items that didn’t meet their approval.

Yet, a year before the BCNI was launched, the ground was already being tilled for the political

right by a new think tank based in Vancouver, known as the Fraser Institute. Founded in 1975,

the purpose of the Fraser Institute was to “change society” by “changing the ideological fabric of

society.” As a think tank, it’s strategy was to make publicly acceptable a whole new set of ideas

from the political right that could be adopted by governments. It started by producing a series of

studies and pamphlets designed to introduce and promote ideas and policies of the political

right in this country. They went on from there to focus on the media, providing a steady stream

of commentary, arguments and background data to journalists and talk show hosts [mainly on

radio]. Later, they began to train hundreds of youth activists, journalists and political assistants

as advocates and messengers of these ideas.

A third entity established by the political right was a citizen front group known as the National

Citizens’ Coalition [NCC]. Backed by corporations and related powerful interests, the NCC was

neither ‘national’ nor composed of ‘citizens’ nor was it a ‘coalition.’ What the NCC had was

access to a pot of money that could be used for advertizing campaigns. Developing their own

media strategies and tactics, the NCC would spend millions of dollars on radio, television, and

newspaper ads attacking and ridiculing the ideas and policies of the political left. Some of their

favourite targets included Medicare, Asian immigration, feminism and the NDP. Especially

during elections, the NCC became known for its third party advertizing and vigorously defended

the corporate financing of elections.

Taken together, these three entities and related networks served to gradually undermine the

social contract and the operations of the social welfare state in Canada. By the ‘90s, a new elite

consensus had taken shape and form internationally, the so-called “Washington Consensus”

mainly formulated by US corporate leaders. At the core of this Washington Consensus was a

platform of policy principles and ideas crafted by the neo-liberal economic and political elites of

the day that included --- the deregulation and privatization of economies, the liberalization of

trade and investment, lower taxes for the wealthy and corporations, and massive cuts to social

programs --- to name a few.

12

For Canada, the Washington Consensus came into full bloom through the Canada-US Trade

Agreement in 1989. Here, the neo-liberal agenda was codified in a bi-national treaty, taking on a

constitutional status of its own.1989 also the year that the Berlin Wall collapsed marking the end

of the global bi-polar economy characterized by 2 competing economic models, capitalism and

communism. Indeed, this became a major turning point as well in the rise and fall of progressive

social change. From this point onward, it became clear that the mechanisms of the social

welfare state were being dismantled. After 9/11 in 2001, it gradually became evident that it was

being replaced another model of the state and governance, namely, the ‘corporate security

state.’ 6

When all is said and done, it should be clear that the political right have been deadly serious

about their mission to sever the social contract and dismantle the social welfare state. In their

own way, they are ideological and class warriors. The time has come for those of us on the

political left to more clearly and strategically rediscover our mission now and outline a roadmap

to accomplish it over the next few decades.

Discussion Starter

1. Why should people on the political left today reflect on a 40

year old story like this?

2. Do you have a personal connection with parts of this story? If

so, tell us.

3. Do you see anything missing from the brief narrative outlined

here that should be included?

6 Reference here to the ‘corporate security state’ concerns the fact that the role and functions of governments

being primarily designed to serve the interests and priorities of corporations and capital rather than the people

and public interest. Largely remade in the image of the corporation itself, the role and policies of the state today

are often determined [if not dictated] by powerful corporations, thereby ensuring that governments function to

facilitate and secure profitable investments. For an earlier analysis, see Tony Clarke, Silent Coup: Confronting the

Big Business Takeover of Canada [Toronto: Lorimer & CCPA, 1997].

13

2. Subversive Lessons:

Taking a few Cues from the Political Right Playbook

As we have just seen, the counter-revolution initiated by the political right did not occur

overnight. It happened gradually in a piece-meal fashion and its proponents were patient in

carrying out their game plan. The BCNI, coupled with the Fraser Institute, the NCC and related

networks such as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation pursued their own agendas, witling away

the fabric of the social contract and the mechanisms of the social state. One of the main

reasons they were able to do so over a considerable period of time is that they shared a ‘long

view’ of social and political change.

Indeed, there was a common recognition amongst key players on the political right that not only

public policies needed to be changed but also the dominant political culture and the role of the

state itself. These changes would take time to accomplish but the political right could afford to

wait and be patient. After all, they were well heeled and money buys time, or least makes a

‘long view’ of change more feasible. Moreover, they had a collective long range plan of action,

something the political left lacks these days. The following are some of the methods, tools and

tactics used by the political right to accomplish these changes. 7

Overton Window: This is the political theory developed by Joseph P. Overton on how

to get new ideas accepted through changes in public policy. The “window” refers to a

range of public policies that are considered to be publicly acceptable at any time in the

current political moment. If you want to see a brand new idea accepted as government

policy, then you have to expand that window to include the new idea. For Overton, the

evolution of a new idea to broad public acceptance is a process that goes through

different stages or degrees. Ideas like cutting UI benefits, privatizing crown corporations

or slashing taxes on the wealthy or corporations were seen at first to be “unthinkable”

and “radical” but when consistently promoted they gradually become more “acceptable,”

and “sensible,” then “popular” and finally “policy.”

Shock Doctrine: Another political theory analyzed by Naomi Klein explains how the

political right and its governments have made use of ‘crises’ and ‘shocks’ to advance

their agenda and the acceptability of new ideas more rapidly. Take, for example, the

relentless campaign waged by the political right in the early 1990s against government

deficits. There were constant warnings issued about Canada about to hit the debt wall.

By 1995, when the federal Liberal government cut social program financing to the

provinces by a whopping 40 percent to deal with the mounting national deficit, there was

barely any public resistance. What was once considered to be “unthinkable” and

7 The following methods, tools and tactics used by the political right were initially identified in Murray Dobbin’s

presentation to the Port Elgin Assembly on November 10, 2012, and are further developed here.

14

“unacceptable” had suddenly become “acceptable” and “sensible.” The shock doctrine

about the debt wall had worked.

Reframing Issues: The political right has also been effective in controlling the terms

of policy engagement by defining the language of political discourse and debate. They

have done so by framing or reframing the issues. The repeated use of the term ‘debt

wall’, for example, effectively shut down the possibility of a policy debate. Simply

responding by saying “there is no debt wall” served to reinforce the position staked out

by the political right. The same thing has happened in public debates over taxes and

trade. The political right has managed to equate ‘taxes’ with ‘burden’ and ‘tax cuts’ as

‘tax relief.’ Similarly, by labeling from the outset trade negotiations with the US as ‘free

trade’ made it much more challenging to mount public opposition. By framing the issues

for public debate, the political right has not only been successful in compelling

progressives to fight on their ground but they have also been united in making use of the

same framing of the issues.

Parliamentary Wing: The parliamentary wing of the political right has developed in

three stages. First, the Reform Party especially from 1993 onwards expanded the

‘window’ to include new, more right-wing economic and social policy ideas, that were

initially viewed as “unacceptable” and “radical” then gradually nudging the two other

major parties further to the right, thereby making them still look more normal than the

Reform. Second, the ‘unite the right’ merger between some elements of the Progressive

Conservative Party and Reform Party to form the Canadian Alliance Party between 2000

and 2003 signaled an end to the division of the political right vote in elections. This, in

turn, set-up the third stage, namely, the merger between the Canadian Alliance and the

Progressive Conservative parties to form the new Conservative Party of Canada. Under

Stephen Harper, this Conservative Party went on to win two general elections as a

minority government in 2006 and 2008 before achieving majority status in 2011.

Extra-Parliamentary Wing: Even after forming government, the extra-parliamentary

wing of the political right did not rest on its laurels. Since the Harper regime was first

elected in 2006, there has been a dramatic build up of politically-right focused

organizations aimed at influencing the media and opinion-leaders. In addition to the

Fraser Institute, other right-wing think tanks have emerged such as the Canadian Centre

for Policy Studies, the Montreal Economic Institute and the MacDonald Laurier Institute,

along with the Institute for Canadian Values, Merit Canada, and the Justice Centre for

Constitutional Freedoms. Besides the National Citizens Coalition, there are now various

political right citizen and training institutes such as the Civitas Society, the Frontier

Centre for Public Policy, and the Society for Quality Education. Providing funding

support for these and other related initiatives are the Donner Foundation, the W. Garfield

Weston Foundation, plus the Lotte and John Hecht Memorial Foundation.

Political Formation: One of the hallmarks of the new right movement is the priority

they put on the political formation of activists. Here, the prime mover is the Manning

Centre for Building Democracy. Based on the vision and dedication of former Reform

Party founder and leader, Preston Manning, the Manning Centre brings together many of

15

the groups on the political right to share ideas, strategies and intelligence. Each year,

the Manning Centre hosts a national conference that now attracts some 700 participants.

It sponsors training and formation sessions for conservative activists in various parts of

the country. More recently, the Manning Centre announced plans for the creation of a

school of practical politics that will have start-up funds amounting to some $15 million.

Permanent Infrastructure: To further facilitate this counter-revolutionary process,

the Manning Centre envisions and proposes a more permanent infrastructure be put in

place. The model proposed involves a pyramid structure with ‘money’ as the foundation

and ‘political activists’ as the outcome [see figure below from the Manning Centre]. In

between the bottom and the top layers of the pyramid are the following: the ‘intellectual

capital’ which refers to the right wing think tanks; the ‘trained human resources which

has to do with the frontline political operatives; and the ‘communications capacity’ which

is responsible for the careful framing of the issues.

These are some of the major methods, tools and tactics used by the political right in recent

decades. Taken together, they have been effectively deployed in diverse ways to gradually

undermine the basic elements of the social contract, dismantle mechanisms of the social state

and eventually replacing it with what we are calling here the ‘corporate security state.’ At the

same time, the political right has managed to deploy these methods and tools with a long term

view of social change, challenging our political culture and devaluing some of our most

cherished social values. In doing so, they have also laid the foundations for the cultivating and

nurturing of a conservative, market-driven social movement that is well on its way to

transforming our society beyond recognition.

16

Discussion Starter

1. Which of these lessons from the political right are the most important for

us to learn? All of them? Some of them? If so, which ones and why?

2. Are there some strategies/tactics or methods/tools that are unique to our

political culture on the left?

3. Are there some things we should be careful to avoid in taking cues from

the playbook of the political right?

17

3. Strategic Challenges:

Identifying Steps for Rebuilding the Political Left

So, let’s take a look now at the flip side of the coin. Whatever strategic successes have been

scored by the political right raises, in turn, strategic challenges for the political left. While a

broad range of challenges could be listed here, we need to first focus our energies on identifying

those that have to do with social movement organizing. It should be clear from the two previous

sections that the political right has been successful in building a counter social movement that

can effectively mount public pressure for their social, economic and environmental agenda.

What strategic challenges do the political left face in revitalizing and rebuilding a movement for

progressive social change in this country? What obstacles have to be overcome in order to

move in this direction? Here are at least 5 strategic challenges …

Silo Syndrome: Whichever way you look at it, the movement for progressive social

change in this country appears to be deeply fragmented. For the most part, the

organizations that compose the movement are divided into a myriad of clusters focused

on specific public policy issues. The issues range from --- decent jobs, anti poverty, and

child care to universal medicare, climate change, and human rights to hunger/food,

refugees/immigration and anti-war/peace to specific constituencies of Indigenous

peoples, women, gays and lesbians plus a host of more specific environmental policy

issues and struggles --- to name a few.

Each of these social struggles has a collection of peoples’ organizations across the

country engaged exclusively on their own particular issue[s] for public policy change. As

such, these progressive groups tend to remain largely in their own silos. There is little or

no cross-fertilization, which will be imperative to bring about the kind of system change

required in the long run. At the same time, there is little by way of collective

consciousness in being part of a common movement for progressive social change.

Defensive Posture: To a large extent, the campaigns waged around each of these

specific policy battles are mainly defensive. The emphasis is on defending what we have

or had. The strategic obstacle here is two-fold. On the one hand, defensive battles

around various issues are waged on the assumption that the social state still exists.

While some vestiges remain, the fact of the matter is that the social state has been

largely dismantled. So, it is futile to continue waging battles as if it still exists.

On the other hand, working from a defensive posture runs the risk of betraying the

people at the heart of the movement. It risks betrayal precisely because it fails to provide

a strategic vision of the future that coincides with people’s progressive social values.

Instead of harbouring a defensive posture, the political left needs to develop a strategy

for going on the offensive. To do so, requires a strategic vision of the future that needs to

be promoted along with a narrative that moves people forward. Such a strategy needs to

be fortified with a critique of the corporate security state that’s replaced the social

18

welfare state and must be dismantled if a progressive vision for the future is to be

realized.

Power Structure: This brings us to the next strategic challenge, namely, recognizing

the realities of creeping corporate power in the political life of this country. For-profit

corporations have always had a major role to play in determining Canada’s economy

and society --- from the building of the CPR to the development of the tar sands. As we

saw in the first section, however, corporations played a leading role in the resurgence of

the political right and the dismantling of the social state, beginning in the 1970s. Over the

past 35 years, corporations have wielded more and more influence in determining much

of the economic and social policies and laws that govern this country.

Today, the BCNI’s successor, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives [CCCE],

continues to function like a shadow cabinet through a series of CEO-led task forces,

effectively maintaining control over the federal lobbying and policy making apparatus on

economic, social and environmental portfolios. Add to this mix a battery of powerful

industry associations coupled with the political lobby machinery of the leading domestic-

based and foreign-owned corporations in each major sector of the Canadian economy,

we see how the social welfare state has been virtually replaced by a corporate security

state. Any progressive movement will have to confront and eventually dismantle this

corporate power structure if is to be effective in bringing about social change.

Organizing Strategies: All of this calls for different approaches and methods to

organizing a movement for progressive social change in our times. We need an

organizing strategy that enables people and their organizations:

[a] to move from defensive to offensive battles inspired by strategic vision for the future; [b] to break out of their silos by working cross-sectorally as part of a larger movement as well as on their policy struggles; [c] to cast their campaigns in the context of confronting the power structure of the corporate security state. [d] to better communicate and coordinate [where possible] campaign activities for maximum impact and effectiveness.

At the same time, our organizing strategies need to go deeper. It is not enough to build

more coalitions or alliances amongst civil society groups --- e.g. unions building alliances

with social and environmental groups. Now, more than ever before, the political left

needs to put resources and energies into grassroots, community-based organizing. Only

a well organized bottom-up approach to organizing campaigns will suffice for rebuilding

a viable movement for progressive social change. While alliance building between

organizations and sectors needs to continue along horizontal lines, this must also go

hand-in-hand simultaneously with deep organizing along vertical lines via grassroots,

community-based groups. [See section 5].

19

Building Capacities: To move in this direction, however, priority must also be put on

building the capacities of grassroots, community-based groups for action around

common issues of progressive social change. By community-based activists, we are

talking here about members of our unions and our various civil society organizations in

many instances. This capacity building includes: the ability to understand, develop and

communicate a strategic vision for progressive social change leading to system change

in Canada for our times; the ability to organize power from the bottom-up with members

of our unions and allied organizations as well as community-based groups; and the

ability to put together a campaign platform and strategy [note: not a political party

platform] as a common agenda and tool for organizing and building unity among

participating activists and groups.

In addition, this kind of capacity building would also involve: the ability to make use of

and apply the Overton window method in developing campaign strategies and tactics

[http://rabble.ca/news/2011/12/progressive-dialogue-beating-right-their-own-game]; the

ability to reframe issues so as to attract and mobilize a broader spectrum of public

support for the campaigns being waged; the ability to make creative use of wedge issues

to split and undermine support for the political right agenda; and the ability to take

advantage of opportunities to use or apply shock treatment in moments of crises that

may arise during a campaign. These, of course, are not the only kind of capacity building

that need to take place, but they are among the main priorities. In subsequent sections,

more attention will be given to several of these capacity building components as key

elements of the formation and training that will be required. [See section 6]

In short, these are five sets of strategic challenges that need to be met if the political left is going

to revive and rebuild a dynamic social movement for system change in this country. All five are

interrelated and interdependent with each other. While responding to these and related strategic

challenges, it is important to keep in mind that the answer does not lie in creating another

centralized mechanism which calls the shots on which campaigns and actions should be

undertaken. Quite the contrary, the answer lies in developing bottom-up not top-down

mechanisms. The prime objective must be to increase the capacities of people in their own

organizations and communities to mount effective campaigns and build public support for them.

In other words, we are not the movement --- the people in their organizations and communities

are the movement.

Once again, these are by no means the only strategic challenges that need to be undertaken.

Indeed, there are at least two challenges missing from this menu. One has to do with the

changing social demographics which must be given major consideration when it comes to

organizing constituencies. The increasing, multi-racial composition of this country’s population

must be become a priority in our organizing strategies. This will be briefly touched on again in

sections 5 and 8. The other challenge is the whole question of fund raising that will be essential

for the kind of social movement building we are talking about here. Various proposals on

building a funding base for a progressive social movement to meet these strategic challenges

will be taken up later in section 9. For the moment, however, digesting and internalizing these

five sets of challenges will be plenty.

20

Discussion Starter

1. What comments do you have to make about the 5 strategic challenges

outlined here for revitalizing and rebuilding a progressive social

movement in this country? Do you agree or disagree?

2. Are there some important strategic challenges that are not included

here? If so, which ones?

3. Which of these strategic challenges do you and/or your organization

consider to be a priority? What actions do you see taking to address

these priorities?

21

PART II

Strategic Vision …………..Developing a Framework & Platform for System

Change

Organizing Tools …………Deploying New Organizing Methods and

Strategies

Campaigning Tools ………Deploying New Campaigning Methods and

Strategies

22

4.Strategic Vision:

Developing a Framework and Platform for System Change 8

Responding to the strategic challenges posed by the rise of the political right requires a strategic

vision and agenda for social change. As we saw in Part 1, the political right has its own long

range plan of action for social and structural change in this country. It’s high time that we in the

political left developed our own long range strategic vision and plan of action, not only for

changes in public policy but also for transforming our economic and political system as well.

Once again, while diverse perspectives on how to develop a strategic vision are expected, the

aim is work towards convergence.

Common Struggles

In developing a strategic vision, it’s important to start with issues and struggles that progressive

movement groups are engaged in today. The membership of many civil society organizations,

including unions, find themselves besieged by a multitude of issues and crises on a daily basis.

Mapping the multiplicity and diversity of these issues and crises is an essential task for

developing a strategic agenda for progressive social change. Most of the social struggles and

issues in which progressive organizations --- whether community, regionally or nationally based

--- are engaged in today, fall into one or more of the following clusters.

Economic Crisis: --- the ongoing economic recession since the financial meltdown of 2008 and

the bailing out of the banks which has now spiraled out of control to the point where priority is put

on resource export sector at the expense of other sectors of the economy; where over 520,000

jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector during the past decade alone; and where millions

more workers and their families [including may discouraged young workers] are trapped in a

vicious cycle of declining wages, layoffs and unemployment, precarious work and rising

household debt, plus the flagrant exploitation by some companies of the temporary foreign

workers program --- all of which are indicators that the economic model itself is broken.

Social Crisis: --- the increasingly inequitable distribution of wealth in our society vividly

symbolized by the Occupy Movement ‘s slogan, the 1% vs the 99%, and the ever widening gap

between rich and poor largely provoked by the withering of the social welfare state in favour of

the market for the distribution of income; the continuing struggles to preserve what is left of social

programs such as Medicare, child care, employment insurance, social housing and fair taxation

(to name a few); coupled with government attacks on the legal fund raising mechanisms of unions

and socially active NGOs --- all of which are indicators of how a broken economic model

produces and reproduces social inequality.

8 Up to now, we have been using the term ‘progressive social change’ which is often used in reference to changing

policies, laws and programs to build a more just, sustainable, and participatory society. However, in a capitalist

economy and society, there are built-in structural obstacles that require deeper transformation. This is what we

mean by referring to ‘system change.’ The overall focus of this primer is on building a social movement for

progressive social change leading to system change.

23

Ecological Crises: the plundering of natural systems to extract raw materials by a resource-

based economy which has now reached the point where the carrying capacity of the planet is in

serious jeopardy, as dramatically indicated by the threat of climate change: whereby greenhouse

gas emissions into the atmosphere are melting glaciers [e.g. the Arctic] and raising sea levels

which, in turn will flood coastal cities and turn food producing lands into desserts; wherein the

extraction of bitumen from the tar sands has become Canada’s fastest growing generator of

greenhouse gas emissions now vigorously opposed by anti pipeline campaigns mounted by

Indigenous peoples, community and environment groups; and where workers and communities

are exposed to toxic chemicals in industrial plants on a daily basis --- all of which again cannot be

resolved without fundamental changes in the economic model, including its forms of production

and consumption.

Political Crisis: --- the underlying crisis of governance and democracy in our society caused by

creeping corporate power and influence which has become so entrenched over the past 35 years

that for-profit corporations and their industrial associations have seized control over the lobbying

process of governments, effectively excluding most citizen groups, to the point where they are

primarily calling all the shots when it comes to major economic, social and environmental policy

making and now have stranglehold over civil society in this country. This was graphically

illustrated recently by the petroleum industry’s successful bid to change or eliminate many of

Canada’s major environmental and aboriginal laws and policies to advance pipeline construction

for tar sands crude through the Harper government’s two omnibus bills [C-38 and 45]. All of which

points to a crisis of democracy that cannot be resolved without fundamental changes in our

political economy.

Ethical Crisis: --- interwoven throughout all four of these crises --- economic. social,

environmental, political --- is a crisis of values whereby the ‘communitarian values’ once

advocated by progressive social movements as the foundation stones of Canada’s development

as a nation have been largely submerged and replaced by the political right’s relentless drum

beat on ‘market values.’ Underlying the battle with the political right is a ‘culture war’ which they

have so far been winning. The political left needs to become more pro-actively engaged in the

ideological debate about the moral order of values that underlie our political culture: by

reasserting communitarian values such as equality, sustainability, democracy and solidarity; by

making use of appropriate moral language in judging a certain set of public policies or the system

itself as being inequitable, unsustainable, and undemocratic; and by graphically condemning the

outcome as a ‘dog-eat-dog society’ based on ‘the survival-of-the-fittest.’

Global Crisis: --- all of the social struggles and structural crises noted above are, in turn, related

to the restructuring of the global economy and roles played by Canadian governments and

corporations in that process. For these reasons,various unions and other progressive

organizations have put priority on mounting campaigns of solidarity with allied groups and social

movements in other countries around issues ranging from workers rights, human rights, and

refugees; to free trade negotiations, trade and investment regimes, and international financial

institutions [e.g. World Bank, IMF]; to international climate negotiations, arms trade treaties and

peacekeeping missions; to overseas tax havens and the operations of Canadian-based

corporations [notably our mining companies which are the most abusive in the world].

In short, almost every significant social struggle or campaign today, whether by a community-

based group or a progressive union or other national organization or by an alliance of

progressive groups can be situated within one or more of these clusters. For this reason, these

24

clusters provide a common framework and tool for mapping the variety of social struggles and

campaigns for progressive social change going on in the country. At the same time, all six of

these clusters are interrelated and interdependent with one another to the point where one

cannot be adequately resolved without resolving the other five.

As a result, this framework provides a more holistic approach to social change, whereby a

common platform could be developed that embodies and reflects the common themes and

priorities that reside at the heart of these struggles. Indeed, such a framework is useful for

developing a more strategic vision, agenda and pathway for moving forward. For example:

System Change: Each of the clusters of crises --- economic, social, ecological,

political, ethical and global --- reveals a structural crisis within the system of capitalism

as manifested in the political economy of this country. Taken together, these structural

crises call for fundamental changes in the system itself, a rethink of --- our economic

system based on the maximization of profits and limitless growth; our societal models of

production and consumption; our mechanisms for distributing wealth and power; plus our

ways of extracting natural resources, manufacturing products and transporting goods.

It follows, therefore, that a strategy that calls for political change such as, for example,

defeating and replacing the Harper government with the NDP or a progressive

government, is alone not sufficient. Certainly, such a change of the guard would be

better than the status quo but it would not, in and of itself, result in the deeper

transformation required, given the structural nature of the crisis within the system.

Instead, as we discussed in Part 1, the political left needs to take some cues from the

political right by developing a strategy for dismantling [in this case] both the market-

based contract and the corporate security state that are in place now and replacing them

with a new social contract between capital and labour and an alternative model of

democratic governance or the state. To be effective, social movements can no longer

proceed on the assumption that the social state is still in existence or simply electing a

party with a more socially progressive platform is a winning strategy. What is needed is a

revitalized social movement generating a political party that’s committed to policy

changes leading to system change.

Bottom-up Campaigns: As noted above, there are significant and increasing numbers

of people engaged in social struggles related to each of these six crises at local, regional

and national levels. To be effective, however, the traditional top-down model of

campaign planning, organizing and mobilizing will have to change substantially. Whether

we are talking about community-based campaigns, organization-based campaigns, or

alliance-based campaigns --- grassroots participation by actively engaged members

must become a strategic priority. This calls for a new emphasis of bottom-up rather than

top-down models of campaign organizing [see next section].

Moreover, bottom-up campaign organizing becomes even more imperative when we

consider that a long term strategic objective is to build a broad-based consensus for

system change in this country. Making our campaigns highly participatory, therefore, is

25

strategically important if we are to demonstrate citizen commitment and confidence. In

addition, we need to develop wherever possible the discipline of building both

‘resistance’ to the old order [e.g. market contract mechanisms and vestiges of the

corporate security state] and ‘alternatives’ for the new order [e.g. a new social contract

and new models of democratic governance and policy making etc.].

Silo Meltdowns: To build a progressive social movement for policy changes leading to

system change, however, unions and civil society organizations will also need to break

out of their silos. As discussed in section 3, we have the problem where there are a

myriad of progressive organizations operating within a multitude of issue clusters with

little or no cross-fertilization. Breaking out of this silo syndrome and developing a shared

identity of being part of a larger social movement is a major strategic challenge and no

small undertaking.

Deliberate steps, therefore, need to be taken to enable individuals and their

organizations to liberate themselves from this silo syndrome and cultivate more self-

identification with broader social movement building. This does not necessarily mean

abandoning single issue campaigns entirely but making sure these campaigns are

directly connected to a broader and deeper agenda for progressive social and system

change.

In particular, two tools briefly alluded to earlier, could be useful for moving in this

direction. One is the crafting of a progressive narrative that would provide an overall

vision for social movement building and the other a common manifesto which brings

together the myriad of policy struggles and demands into a platform for system change.

Both could serve as a basis for unity and mobilization.

Countervailing Power: In order to build capacities for system change, a progressive

social movement will need to have in place a strong institutional counterweight to

corporate power. Since the Great Depression, organized labour provided from time to

time an effective counterweight to organized capital. After all, unions using the collective

bargaining process do have leverage over capital and are best positioned from a socially

progressive stand point to create and sustain the balance of power needed in the

economy. Since losing the battle over free trade, however, the labour movement has lost

some of the social vision and institutional clout needed to play this role. As a result,

organized labour is no longer the counterweight to organized capital it once was.

The only real chance of developing this countervailing power lies with the revival of

social unionism in this country. Perhaps the formation of UNIFOR will help rekindle

commitments to social unionism in other parts of the labour movent in this country. To

become an authentic progressive counterweight to corporate power, however,

progressive unions will not only have to enthusiastically embody the vision and principles

of social unionism. They will also have to develop new organizing skills to build power

from the base-up. Because, only a union that takes seriously the call to build new power

through its members from the bottom-up stands a chance of shaking the foundations of

corporate power today.

26

Discussion Starter

1. What general comments do you have about the overall strategic

vision proposed here? Does it provide a useful framework and

platform for progressive social change leading to system change?

2. Do you see the relationship between the 6 clusters of common

struggles, the underlying structural crises they reveal, and the need

for system change?

3. Do you agree or disagree … [a] that unions need to retool themselves

to become an effective counterweight to corporate power? and

[b]that priority should be put on bottom-up rather than top-down

campaign organizing?

27

5. Organizing Tools:

Deploying New Organizing Methods and Strategies

The development, let alone implementation, of this kind of strategic vision and agenda will not

be possible without fundamental changes in the organizing methods and strategies used by

progressive unions and other civil society organizations. Simply put, the political right is now

beating us at our own game. The political left used to pride itself in being able to mobilize large

numbers of people for progressive social change. Not so today. The following are some

examples of new organizing tools that could be used to deepen and broaden the base of a

progressive social movement for system change.

Deep Organizing

Some 25 years or so ago, the political right looked with envy at the capacities of the progressive

social movement, especially unions, for organizing and mobilizing their own members for action.

Today, much of that capacity has been lost. One of the reasons is the shift to what some

observers call “shallow” and/or “top-down” forms of organizing. This approach generally makes

use of outside consultants to formulate messaging and testing through focus groups. Once an

organizing drive or a campaign is developed, the activists in the organization are told what to do

to implement that plan or program with little or no training. For the most part, this organizing

approach has done little to build power that can win.

A more original and somewhat more novel approach, called “deep organizing,”9 represents

mainly bottom-up methods of organizing. Applied in terms of union organizing, this method

begins by identifying leaders in the workplace, recruiting them for work in the union, and

developing their capacities and skills for organizing. One of the key methods for training workers

as organizers is to develop a “power structure analysis” of their workplace and community by

conducting interviews with fellow works and community members.

In other words, “deep organizing” is “whole worker organizing” which takes seriously a worker’s

life, both on and off the job, in the workplace and the community. Through this process, union

organizers come to learn that their members care about community issues and concerns like

decent housing, local schools, hospital care, clean air, global warming, affordable child care,

and safe drinking water --- indeed, many of the issues that fall into the clusters identified in the

previous section [i.e. economic, social, environmental, political and ethical issue clusters].

Through this process, issues are identified which can then be championed by the union, thereby

strengthening the bonds with community allies. In doing so, unions are better able to understand

the power dynamics between the workplace and the community, as well as the strategic

9 The concept of ‘deep organizing’ is analyzed in a recent book by Jane McAlevy and Bob Ostertag, Raising

Expectations (Raising Hell): My Decade Fighting for the Labor Movement, [New York/London: Verso Books, 2012].

For an excellent review, see Joel Harden, “Effective Union Organizing: How It’s Done” which forms the basis for this

sub section.

28

opportunities and obstacles to be faced in organizing their campaigns. Above all, it empowers

union members as workers and citizens, thereby building the power of the union in a bottom-up

way to mobilize and win victories in both the workplace and the community. Moreover, in

workplaces and communities composed of people of colour, it’s important that this kind of

organizing be carried out where possible by people embodying these diversities.

Indeed, this “deep” and “bottom-up” method of organizing has proven to be effective in some

recent campaigns. 10 In the U.S., for example, these organizing tools were used by the Chicago

Teachers’ Union to compel an arrogant mayor to back down on regressive policies about to be

adopted, and in a series of union organizing successes including right-to-work states like

Nevada and Missouri. Here, in Canada, similar organizing tools and strategies were used in the

CLC’s pension campaign to promote local story telling by workers and their message of

retirement security plus Toronto’s library workers publicly challenging officials and others who

fail to respect public services.

Yet, if the political left is going to build the power to win, unions [and other progressive

membership-based organizations as well] must put top priority on developing their capacities for

‘deep’ and bottom-up’ organizing with their members.

Outreach Mapping11

Building organizational power has a lot to do with the ability of identify, communicate with and

mobilize members and supporters. Fortunately, in this age of computers, there are new

technologies and tools for developing data bases that can be used for contacting and

communicating with union members and community supporters in geographically targeted

regions. These tools can be useful for unions and their social allies in organizing campaigns,

both issue-based and electoral.

Indeed, being able to contact union members where they live as well as where they work is an

integral part of organizing. The same goes for social allies in their communities. Yet, many large

unions [and other membership-based NGOs] do not have up-to-date data bases providing

contact information on their members, let alone other like minded people in their communities.

So, if unions and their social allies are going to mount campaigns on a province-wide or a

national basis, then it is critically important to know where their collective strengths and

weaknesses may be in various regions across the province or country.

Recently, mapping technologies have been developed which can provide unions and their social

allies with the tools needed to develop a progressive social base on a provincial, regional or

national level. Initially, it requires participating organizations to collectively pool the data bases

10

See also a blog by Joel Harden, “Beyond the Air War: Why organized labour must embrace bottom-up unionism,”

May 27, 2013. Also, his forthcoming book, Quiet No More: New Political Activism in Canada and Around the Globe

[Toronto. James Lorimer & Co., 2013].

11 A group called Popular change has developed a Progressive National Mapping Project using these technologies.

Will Horter presented this tool to the Port Elgin Assembly on November 9, 2012. See www.popularchange.org

29

they have on their membership which are held in secure storage. Through this process, a

progressive data base will be formed which will provide the participating organizations with the

ability to identify where current members are located, determine how many supporters they

have in each geographical area or electoral riding, as well as how each organizations numbers

compare to other organizations [including supporters of more than one organization].

In short, these mapping tools can be very useful in developing a progressive power base for

influencing both policy and political outcomes. They can tell participating unions and their social

allies where they have the best opportunities for organizing issue campaigns and mobilizing for

elections, as well as identifying those areas where they need to invest in building more support

on the ground. These progressive data bases will also provide information on where the

participating organizations are strongest and weakest, as well as which organizations are most

important for building momentum on issues of concern in key geographical areas.

Face-to-Face Organizing

In an interview, Caesar Chavez, the legendary organizer of farm workers in the US, was asked

one day: “So tell me, how do you go about organizing? Chavez replied: “First you talk to one

person and then you talk to another.” “Really,” said the reporter, “how do you organize.” Again

Chavez replied: “First you talk to one person and then you talk to another.”

Yes, indeed, face-to-face communication is an indispensable element of organizing. 12 There is

no substitute for face-to-face communication where one looks at the other in the eye and

thereby cultivates trust and common cause together. Nor should we ever underestimate

peoples’ desire to participate democratically. Yet, in this era of electronic communication, the art

of face-to-face organizing has diminished.

To recover this somewhat lost art, it’s important to keep in mind that the core aim of face-to-face

communication is to cultivate “strong tie relationships.” In doing so, the content of such

communication should not simply be about issues but even more so about ‘the cause’ and

‘values.’ Building relationships based on “values more generally” rather than “issues more

specifically” serves to cultivate “stronger ties” which are essential in building support for a

strategic vision and the long haul struggle of the culture wars as well and moving-on to other

issues. 13

Moreover, it is equally important to take special care in collecting and data-basing information

about your supporters --- whether they be union members, members of allied social

organizations, or the community at large. Armed with this kind of data, activists from unions and

other progressive organizations can dialogue with authenticity and credibility with other people

12

This sub section is based on Matt Price’ paper, “The Revenge of the Beaver: Building Power in an Age of the

Canadian Culture War,” January 2012. The above quote is found on page 7.

13 For a more recent version of Matt Price’s approach to ‘face-to-face’ organizing in relation to the themes

discussed here, see ‘Beavers’ Last Stand: Building Progressive Infrastructure in Canada’, July 2013, at

http://projectbeaver.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/beavers-last-stand.pdf

30

in their workplaces, neighbourhoods, and communities. Another key element is having authentic

follow-up proposals for action to deepen the engagement of your supporters in the ongoing

struggle.

In the 2012 Quebec student strike, for example, face-to-face organizing was used in building

broader public support in local neighbourhoods of Montreal. Called Casseroles,14 this led to a

series of nightly protests by local residents whereby people came out in the early evening

banging pots and pans and other kitchenware on the streets and in their windows,

demonstrating their solidarity. Another regionally-based example is the Dogwood Initiative in

BC, a community-based environmental network, which puts a priority on interpersonal contact,

not only with its members but by consciously creating opportunities for like-minded people to

meet up and deepen their engagement for progressive social change. Every Dogwood staffer

must spend time talking with fellow citizens at community events and through local door

knocking.

Together, these initiatives serve create instant feedback loops, not only for the organization, but

for more strategic action as well. While there can be many variations on the use of face-to-face

organizing, many unions and civil society groups in general would do well to recover this lost art

and apply it along with other organizing tools discussed in this section. Also, as the Port Elgin

Assembly emphasized, there are lessons to be learned about which approaches and styles of

organizing are more effective than others for authentic movement building. 15

Discussion Starter

1. What comments do you have about each of the 3 organizing tools

outlined here: Deep organizing? Outreach mapping? Face-to face

organizing?

2. To build bottom-up power in your organization, do you think all three

of these tools could be deployed? If not, which one[s] would be more

appropriate?

3. How would you see this organizing tool[s]being deployed with your

constituency in a particular campaign

14

Inspired by the ‘cacerolazos’ organized in Chile in 1971.

15 See Work[ing] in Progress, Four Points on “Moving Towards a New Model of Organizing,” pp. 6-7.

31

6. Campaign Tools:

Designing and Deploying more effective Campaign Tools

At the same time, we need to work in our unions and our social organizations on sharpening our

campaign tools and strategies if we are going to build a progressive movement for system

change. In so doing, we need to keep in mind that campaign organizing and actions can also be

important ‘teaching moments’ about social struggles, structural crises, and system change.

Moreover, to build countervailing power through bottom-up organizing, will also require the

deployment of new campaign strategies and tools. The following are a few examples of what is

needed to move forward.

Going on Offense

As we discussed in section 3, one of the shortcomings and strategic challenges facing the

political left today is the need to get out of its mainly defensive mode and start developing a

more offensive posture with regards to campaigns. No matter what issue and policy struggles

we are campaigning-on, whether we are engaged through community-based groups, our own

organization alone, or in alliance with other groups or social movements --- it’s time for

progressive movements to go on the offense. It’s time to throw the political right off guard and

put them on the defensive.

Before doing so, however, we need to develop and/or sharpen a few of our campaign tools. To

go on offense, for example, requires leading with a strategic vision that succinctly and

graphically portrays where we are at in the present conjuncture and what we need to do to build

a better future --- economically, socially, environmentally, politically and ethically. In other

words, we need a progressive narrative that speaks to Canadians at large, captures our

strategic vision for the country, and puts the political right on the defensive. Such a narrative

would not be based on facts and figures so much as basic values and themes.

With this in place, we would be in a position to develop our campaigns in ways that reflect our

own narrative. Here, it’s important that our campaigns include elements of both ‘resistance’ and

‘alternatives.’ Whatever issue[s] lie at the centre of our social struggles, we not only vigorously

expose and resist what we are against and why, but we must also demonstrate and promote

what we are for. Indeed, to go on the offense means that we need to put more emphasis at

times on the social change alternatives we are advocating. By strategically doing so, we can

better position ourselves to put the political right on the defensive.

In developing a more offensive posture in our campaigns, we also need to learn how to make

creative and appropriate use of ‘fear’ and ’hope.’ While the political right overuses ‘fear’ tactics

and the progressive left tends to put greater emphasis on ‘hope’ as a campaign motivator, it’s

important for campaign organizers to know when it is appropriate and inappropriate to make use

of these tactics. The same goes for shock treatment. We know the political right often uses

shock treatment to dramatize crisis moments to advance their cause and narrative. The political

left could make more strategic use of shock tactics in its campaigns, but again organizers need

to be trained to know what tactics are best to use when.

32

Moreover, developing strategies for going on the offensive in campaigning also requires

concrete actions for direct engagement by members of unions and allied social organizations,

plus the community or public at large. This, of course, is an indispensable component of any

campaign and there can be no offense without it. As well, this obviously depends on what

advances have been made with the organizing priorities discussed in the previous section,

namely, switching to deep organizing methods, doing outreach mapping with allied groups, and

utilizing face-to-face communication.

Progressive Framing

Another key tool for going on the offensive is how we frame the campaigns and issues we take

on. Here, framing is understood to be a normal part of everyday human and political discourse.

It is the process whereby ideas and words are defined in terms of frame circuits to the brain. It is

through framing that people ultimately determine how they view the world around them and, by

extension, how they act. 16

So, what does it mean to frame our campaigns and issues from a progressive standpoint? Well,

when it comes to framing issues for political discourse, we are dealing with competing moral

systems. The political right’s system of values and vision for organizing society fundamentally

differs from that of the political left. An initial effort to articulate a progressive set of value

perspectives and visions are contained in sections 1 and 4. In effect, this provides a basis for

progressive framing of our campaigns and issues.

At the outset, it’s always useful to keep in mind how the political right is framing its campaigns

and issues. Their framing is based, first and foremost, on a vision of society which is rooted in a

hierarchy of moral values and priorities ranging from self interest, individual responsibility and

private property to the primacy of the market, the maximization of profit, and the survival of the

fittest. Good government is minimal or small government with little or no intervention in the

market. Accordingly, their campaign issues are framed in terms like tax burdens, welfare cheats,

climate fraud, right-to-work, free trade, economic austerity --- to name a few.

Progressive framing of campaigns and issues, however, is rooted in a substantially different

narrative, vision of society, and set of values. By contrast, a progressive vision for the political

left puts priority on values like the common good, social equality, ecological sustainability, and

collective responsibility. To ensure these outcomes, calls for a socially activist state that

provides universal public services, intervenes in and regulates the market in the public interest,

and exercises public ownership and control over key sectors of the economy as needed.

Instead of viewing taxes as a burden, for example, the emphasis is on ‘fair taxes’ as “the price

people pay for a civilized society.”

Progressive social movements need to go on the offensive when it comes to framing their

campaigns and issues. Take, for example, the political right campaigns to adopt “right-to-work”

laws in US states. To an unassuming public, the term “right-to-work” sounds quite reasonable.

16

One of the leading proponents of the need and tools for progressive framing and reframing of issues and

campaigns is George Lakoff. The following makes use of some of the ideas and methods he has proposed.

33

Instead of allowing the political right in Canada to get the upper hand, unions and their social

allies need to get ahead of the game by reframing these laws as “corporate servitude” laws. 17

A similar strategy was used fifteen years ago in mounting an international campaign against the

MAI, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, being negotiated in secret at the OECD in Paris.

When Canadian progressive movements got a hold of the draft and made it public, they

reframed the MAI as the “Corporate Rule Treaty” and quickly mounted campaigns not only in

Canada but other OECD countries, which caught the MAI’s proponents off guard promptly

causing its defeat.

Confronting Corporate Power

If progressive civil society groups are serious about system change, then campaigns aimed at

building popular resistance and alternatives must make corporate power the prime target. The

driving force behind almost every policy issue and struggle being waged by progressive social

movements today involves the power and influence exerted by corporations. Lurking behind

virtually all the campaigns of the political right to privatize public services, deregulate the

economy, lower taxes and shrink governments are the interests of big business. These realities

of corporate power need to be publicly targeted and exposed in ways that keep the political right

off balance.

Corporate power and influence over the making of laws and policies has become a central

target in a number of current campaigns such as: the privatization of parts of Canada’s universal

healthcare programs including nursing homes, pharmaceuticals, clinics and hospitals, and

health insurance; the exploitation of the temporary foreign workers program of the federal

government by companies including brand name banks, retail fast food businesses, and global

engineering firms; plus the rapid extraction and export of bitumen or heavy crude from the tar

sands by big oil, pipeline, and other petroleum companies. More policy-focused campaigns

need to be encouraged to move in the direction of taking on corporate targets.

Where these campaigns have the potential to be most effective is when they are grounded in

local, grassroots and community-based resistance. Take, for example, the network of

community-based resistance against the Enbridge corporation’s Gateway Pipeline project

through the northern BC wilderness by First Nations and local environmentalists which has

become a major obstacle for the petroleum industry in the tar sands. In order for these kinds of

campaigns to be sustained, however, community-based resistance also needs to be fortified,

along with other capacity-building initiatives, by constant monitoring of the main corporate

players and their maneuvers plus their links to the Harper regime and other right wing

governments [to be strategically used as teaching moments].

Herein lies the deeper structural challenge. Ultimately, the decision as to whether or not the

Gateway will be built lies with the Harper regime in Ottawa where Enbridge along with the rest

of the tar sands industry hold all the trump cards. As noted earlier, Big Oil and the petroleum

17

See George Lakoff, “Michigan’s New ‘Corporate Servitude Law’ Takes Away Worker Rights” in Common Dreams,

December 13, 2012.

34

industry as a whole have seized control over federal policy making on key issues of the

economy and the environment by wielding enormous power and influence over the lobbying

process in Ottawa. As a result, the Harper regime currently exhibits all the characteristics of a

petro-state.

All of which points to the basic structural crisis of democracy in Canada today. Indeed, it is the

corporate power structure underlying this democracy crisis that needs to be targeted, exposed

and dismantled by progressive campaigns. To be sure, there are a variety of campaign

strategies, tools and tactics [including industry watch groups, legal challenges, legislative action,

community resistance, collective bargaining, and civil disobedience] that could be deployed to

achieve this strategic objective. For this to happen, however, the corporate campaign capacities

of unions plus allied social and environmental organizations as well as community-based

groups, would have to be further developed and strengthened.

One way this could be achieved would be to create a rapid response mechanism composed of

people with expertise in corporate research and campaigning to deliver them to grassroots

activists as needed. Another is to put together flying squads of activists in strategic geographical

locations to organize rapid fire actions in relation to key corporate targets when needed.

Finally, it goes without saying that making creative use of social media tools today [E-Blasts,

Facebook, and Twitter] is tactically important for communicating our campaigns with the

members of our constituencies and the public at large. Developing the skills to do so is also part

of what is needed to do effective campaigning.

Discussion Starter

1. What comments do you have about the three campaign strategies and

tools outlined here … Going on the offence? Progressive framing?

Confronting corporate power?

2. To build a strong counter movement to the political right, do you think

you and/or your organization could make effective use of these kinds of

campaign strategies and tools?

3. How would you see these three strategies and tools being deployed in

the campaigns in which you are presently engaged?

35

PART III

Progressive Infrastructure … Organizing Our Social movement Infrastructure

Strategic Mobilizing Facility …Developing a Programmatic Focus and Direction

Funding Proposals ………..Building a Socially Progressive Financial Base

36

7. Progressive Infrastructure:

Organizing our Social Movement Infrastructure 18

The task of taking on the strategic agenda outlined in Part II cannot be pulled off overnight. To

measure up to these challenges will require a high degree of resources and organization,

planning and coordination. In Part I section 2 we saw how the political right took up the

challenge of dismantling the social contract and the social state and putting in place their own

market driven agenda for economic, social and environmental change. They did so by creating

their own civil society infrastructure that includes funding foundations, thank tanks, education

and training institutes, and television, radio and newspaper outlets --- designed to not only serve

the federal Conservative Party in power but also ensure the conservative counter revolution

succeeds.

Originally, the political right set out to build their own infrastructure to counter the progressive

infrastructure that had been created through the social state and its funding. During the 1970s,

the Liberal government under Pierre Trudeau responded to critiques about Canada’s

democratic deficit by funding groups of marginalized people and related programs of some other

civil society organizations, including unions. More recently, of course, we have seen the Harper

government pursue an aggressive strategy of shutting down and/or weakening many of these

more progressive sectors of civil society by withdrawing direct state funding or their charitable

tax status in some cases.

As a result, the task of rebuilding a progressive infrastructure will almost have to start from

scratch. To be sure, we have in place some of the basic components, including: think tanks on

economic and social policy issues [e.g. the CCPA]; coalitions between unions and allied civil

society groups work together [e.g. CHC]; and some high profile campaigns such as those

opposing the tars sands and pipelines. But, there is all too often a big disconnect between these

components. Also, what we have nowhere near matches what the political right has built in

terms of infrastructure for the long haul. They are building a dynasty that will carry them into the

future. Those of us in the progressive social movement must now take seriously the challenge

to rebuild our own infrastructure. 19

In doing so, we must not make the mistake of simply replicating what the political right has

done. Using the pyramid as their metaphor, for instance, they are developing an infrastructure

18

Note: The proposals in this section are based on an untitled paper prepared by Matt Price for discussion at the

Port Elgin Assembly. Credit goes to Matt Price for the proposals here but his original piece has been reworked and

edited for this section. For an updated version of Price’s proposals along the lines discussed in this document, see

‘Beavers’ Last Stand: Building Progressive Infrastructure in Canada’, July 2013, at

http://projectbeaver.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/beavers-last-stand.pdf

19 Once again, this does not mean creating a new progressive super-structure or a pan-Canadian structure. It does

mean, however, identifying the fundamental weaknesses we have in our current progressive infrastructures and

taking deliberate and necessary steps to overcome these gaps and deficiencies.

37

that is essentially hierarchical, one that puts a premium on discipline at the expense of diversity.

Whereas money is the foundation stone of their infrastructure, people must be our foundation

stone. While money will certainly be needed to do our work, we see our greatest strength lies in

people. Indeed, a progressive movement needs to believe that “organized people beats

organized money.”

Instead of a ‘pyramid,’ our metaphor for building a progressive movement infrastructure is a

‘network.’ The centerpiece of this network is an active and engaged citizenry. All the

components or hubs of this infrastructure network would be designed to be of service to

inspiring, cultivating and enhancing an active and engaged citizenry for progressive social

change in this country. The following figure portrays this image.

Engagement Vehicles: Unions and allied civil society organizations are in a good

position to become engagement vehicles provided that they are dedicated to active

citizen engagement for progressive social change. One of the key starting points for

citizen engagement is to begin where people are at, both geographically --- where they

live, work and play, and intellectually --- what they think, read and observe. Given their

strengths in terms of progressive diversity, unions and other civil society groups are in a

position to be engagement vehicles that can outreach to diverse parts of the Canadian

public. For unions, this could also be an incentive to better communicate to their own

members as well as invest in organizing non-members in ways that some US unions

have lately [e.g. Chicago teachers, Justice for Janitors etc.]

Organizer Training: One of the key ingredients of engagement vehicles is good

organizers. While we have our fair share of good policy analysts in our social movement

38

networks, we have only a handful of good organizers. In fact, we need a small army of

activists who are trained in terms of various community and campaign organizing skills,

who love doing this kind of work and who know how to do it. No doubt, there are plenty

of activists in our unions and allied civil society organizations who would be good

candidates to be trained as organizers. The challenge is not only to recruit activists, but

ensure they have adequate training as organizers, and thereafter be plugged into

engagement vehicles where they can use their movement building skills effectively. [See

section 5]

Policy/Communications: Another key ingredient is the mobilization of people

around issues and struggles for social change. This involves a unique combination of

formulating policy demands and communicating them through messaging to a broader

public. As noted above, the progressive community at large has good think tanks already

that can flesh out policy demands and a broad-based agenda for system change.

However, ways need to be found to coordinate these think tanks into working more

closely together on campaign strategies and to be better plugged into the campaigns

and struggles taking place on the ground. The links to communication skills required for

reframing issues and demands in campaign strategies also needs to be strengthened

along with creative use of social media [see section 6]. And, while our diversity may

trump discipline in our policy/ communications work, greater consistency and

coordination could be achieved, perhaps through ‘hubs’ of activity between like-minded

regional organizations.

Research, Testing & Data: In addition to the ongoing research on issues and

policies that needs to be continued --- making use of new methods, technologies and

data bases --- there are new challenges to be more responsive to what people think.

Today, new database and communications technology allows for more sophisticated

testing of what people think and how they respond to various messages. Creatively

developed and applied, these new technologies can be used to advance the work in all

of the other four hubs --- in developing more meaningful and effective messaging, in

improving organizing and outreach, in making the engagement vehicles more effective,

and in doing more successful fund raising. Developing appropriate use of these new

technologies for researching, testing and database collection so as to be more

responsive to what people think, could be an important breakthrough in social movement

building.

Progressive Donor Network: The 5th hub in this proposed progressive

infrastructure is the development of a viable fund raising component and strategy. In the

long run, it must be emphasized that an engaged citizenry should be the core backbone

of a viable fundraising component through ongoing donations on a regular basis. After

all, if committed people are not willing to donate to make it happen, then something must

be wrong. Indeed, organizing a more grassroots kind funding mechanism should be put

together early and it should be done in a way that provides an ongoing feedback loops

for learning how to do things better. That said, the building of this progressive

infrastructure will require sufficient start-up funding. One way to proceed would be to

39

invite a handful of leaders from progressive foundations and donor bases to come

together and develop a fund raising plan for the start-up phase. Other related proposals

for fund raising will be discussed in section 10.

If we are serious about revitalizing the progressive social movement for system change in this

country, then building our own infrastructure is imperative. The foregoing provides one model for

doing so. It requires more deliberation, discussion and debate. In the following sections, we will

propose more in the way of programmatic focus and direction.

Discussion Starter

1. In general, do you think this is the kind of infrastructure that’s needed

as a foundation for building or rebuilding a progressive social

movement?

2. Do you have any comments and/or suggestions to make about the 5

main components proposed for this progressive infrastructure?

3. What are the main characteristics that distinguish this progressive

infrastructure from that of the political right?

40

8. Strategic Mobilizing Facility

Developing a Programmatic Focus and Direction

The previous section provided a glimpse of the foundation stones that need to be put in place

for building or rebuilding a progressive social movement to effectively challenge the political

right in this country. However, this progressive infrastructure needs to be further developed to

give it a more programmatic focus and strategic direction. The following is a proposal for the

creation of a ‘strategic mobilizing facility’ primarily designed to help build the capacities of

unions and other civil society organizations to develop, organize and mobilize campaigns for

system change.

Movement Building

As we have seen, the task of building or rebuilding a progressive social movement in this

country must be done, as much as possible, from the bottom-up. This does not mean, however,

that this task be left to chance. Movement building from the ground up requires a catalytic agent

to help stimulate and facilitate the process, while ensuring progress is being made in terms of

strategic effectiveness. For the lack of a better term, this catalytic agent will be referred to here

as the ‘strategic mobilizing facility.’

Generally speaking, the composition and functionality of this ‘strategic mobilizing facility’ would

be as follows:

Core Team: The facility itself would consist of a core team of people with the experience

and skills to do targeted research plus organizer and campaign training [i.e. capacity

building] for generating a progressive social movement and system change. In addition

to these specialized skills, this core team would have the ability to engage in ongoing

communication and networking, with and between both institutional and community-

based groups. To the extent possible, it would also need to be multi-racial and multi-

lingual in its composition, reflecting the diversity that exists in our constituencies and the

population at large. Overseeing this core team would be a board of advisors delegated

by participating unions and civil society organizations. The size of the core team and

advisory board of the strategic facility are yet to be determined. While the core team

would hopefully be able to make use of the CAW Family Education Centre, the team

itself could be located either centrally or de-centrally [making use of video conferencing].

Strategic Vision: The overall mandate of the strategic facility and the core team would

be to develop and implement a program of action to achieve the strategic vision and

challenges outlined in Part II. This involves: working with union members and social

allies in their communities on their various issues and priority struggles [re. the six

clusters]; challenging and confronting the economic and political power structures; and

developing grassroots capacities for organizing and campaigning in order to generate

countervailing power for policy changes leading to system change. To carry out this

41

strategic vision will require long term planning combined with short and medium term

organizing and campaigning. For the most part, the initiative to build on-the-ground

capacities for organizing and campaigning will come through group-based requests from

activists in organizations and communities.

Prime Partners: It is, of course, not yet possible to predetermine the participating

organizations which will form the core of this strategic facility. Hopefully, it will involve

most if not all of the progressive unions [both private and public sector] along with

progressive civil society organizations in the country, and their activist networks.

Intentional efforts will be made to involve Indigenous movements, environmental activist

groups, activist youth movements, citizen and public interest networks, faith-based

communities, plus organizations of the unemployed and working poor. In other words,

the intent is to mirror the face of the movement itself as much as possible. To be a

partner in this progressive social movement building process, however, will require

adherence to the strategic vision, organizing and campaign priorities outlined above.

Capacity Building: First and foremost, the main tasks of the strategic facility and its

core team are to build peoples’ capacities for organizing and campaigning for system

change [as outlined elsewhere in this document]. This capacity building [see below]

would involve a two-fold approach --- [a] ongoing capacity building and training

opportunities provided at a common education centre plus [b] on-site capacity-building

and training in local communities where possible. The procedure for on-site capacity

building would involve making a request for specific skill building[s] to deal with a

particular community-based campaign. In this case, the strategic facility would function

as a rapid response team where possible in reply to such requests.

Resource Sharing: In order to maximize the use of other relevant resources that exist

in progressive networks, the strategic facility would also make contracts and form

partnerships with those organizations as needed to carry out its mandate. As noted

earlier, research done by the CCPA has resulted in tools and resources on many public

policy issues that could be could be useful in organizing campaign strategies on various

fronts, while other institutes have developed a niche for reframing issues and policy

demands or in researching and organizing corporate campaigns. Rather than reinventing

the wheel, existing resources like these and others would be assessed for the

contribution they could make to this common enterprise. Since many of these other

institutes or agencies are already supported by, or work with, key organizations in the

progressive social movement, efforts would be made to make use of these existing

resources and tools where appropriate. 20

In regards to this last point, it’s important to emphasize that this initiative is not designed to

replicate what is effectively going on elsewhere in civil society or the progressive social

movement. Instead, this facility is designed to fill a special three-fold niche, namely: [i]

20

For an example of what needs to be done in order to utilize existing resources, see the ‘Canvass Campus

Assembly Project’

42

grassroots needs/demands for capacity-building in terms of both organizing and campaigning;

[ii] mobilizing public resistance and developing a counterweight to the corporate power

juggernaut; and [iii] strategic planning for the long haul through policy changes leading to

system change . As we have seen, both are crucial ingredients which are missing in the

progressive movement today. Indeed, these two functions will operate seamlessly as two sides

of the same coin in the ‘strategic mobilizing facility.’

Building Capacities

The strategic facility’s program for building grassroots capacities would include at least five

components.

Formation Capacities: The strategic facility and its core team will, where appropriate

and possible, work with activists from participating groups in developing a common

understanding of the principles of progressive movement building. A key piece of this

process will be breaking out of the silo syndrome (see section 4, p. 25) by developing

capacities for transitioning out of primarily single issue approaches and making links to

more fundamental social change. In this context, formation capacity building includes the

basic elements of the progressive narrative, strategic vision, common principles, system

change and related ideological underpinnings. Developing and cultivating these

capacities is important not only for sustaining commitment but inspiring others to be part

of this movement.

Organizing Capacities: Building power through developing capacities for ‘deep

organizing’ will be a major priority for the core team of the strategic facility. For union

activists, this entails learning skills and abilities for:“whole worker organizing” that links

issues in the workplace with the community; developing a “power structure analysis”

through interviews with fellow workers; and “bottom-up organizing” that encourages

more grassroots participation in campaign planning and decisions. Similar kinds of

training for skills in deep organizing would be provided to activists working with

constituencies in other social organizations as well.

Campaigning Capacities: The core team will also put priority on developing the skills

and capacities of activists from unions and social allies for planning and organizing more

effective campaigns. This will include strategic planning and organizing for going on the

offensive and for doing a progressive framing or reframing of the issues at stake in

particular social struggles. It will also involve learning how to do a power analysis to

select corporate targets and then developing strategies, tools and tactics for confronting

the corporate power that lie behind the issues and policy struggles. In addition,

capacities for making linkages to other campaigns confronting the prevailing corporate

power structure will be developed as well for purposes of system change in the long run.

Coordinating Capacities: From time to time, a campaign that has been organized

initially in a local community has the potential to spread provincially or nationally. Take,

for example, a campaign organized locally against the Royal Bank over abuse of the

temporary foreign workers’ issue or Enbridge over an oil spill, the prospects of

43

coordinated local community actions occurring across the country against these two

corporate targets are considerable. The strategic mobilizing facility would be in a position

to generate increasing momentum by facilitating and coordinating solidarity actions in

other communities. By enabling a local campaign to spread on a pan-Canadian scale,

steps can be taken to strengthen and fortify it through effective coordination.

Engagement Capacities: In order to consolidate and expand this progressive

movement building by unions and social allies, attention will be given to developing

engagement capacities. This will include developing and honing skills of activists for

face-to-face organizing, not only with fellow members of unions and allied social

organizations, but also with people in their communities and the public at large. It will

also include steps on how to make use of the outreach mapping tools that have been

developed for both expanding and targeting engagement with other constituencies that

may share a common social vision and values. Additionally, skills in organizing special

convergence events [e.g. the recent high school climate challenge event in Southwest

Ontario with David Suzuki] as well as making appropriate uses of social media would be

necessary ingredients for developing engagement capacities.

Networking Capacities: In order to cultivate a shared sense of being part of a common

progressive social movement that is building across the country, the strategic facility will

help to develop networking capacities between campaigns. In addition to enabling

campaigning groups to make organic links with other groups engaged in similar or

related campaigns, there are other networking initiatives that could be undertaken. For

example, organizing bi-annual assemblies or video conferencing events where activists

involved in progressive movement struggles could share their experiences in using

various organizing and campaigning tools, and exploring new ideas and methods for

bringing about system change would serve to further deepen peoples’ understanding of

being part of a dynamic and growing social movement.

In short, these are programmatic components of the strategic facility and how it could function

and operate. While these and other elements will need to be further fleshed out, this should

provide a rough sketch of the kind of progressive infrastructure that’s needed. It should be

clearly understood, however, that this strategic mobilizing facility will be set-up to provide certain

kinds of capacity-building resources and services as needed and requested. In other words, it

will be up to grassroots groups in various regions and sectors to determine whether they need

or require such capacity-building services for their organizing and campaigning.

44

Discussion Starter

1. Do you see the need for a ‘strategic mobilizing facility’ to be a

catalytic agent in the building of a progressive social movement along

lines proposed here?

2. What comments do you have on how this would operate in terms of its

composition and functions … core team? strategic vision? prime

partners? capacity building? resource sharing?

3. When it comes to capacity building functions, are the 6 outlined here

the ones that need to be covered? Others?

45

9. Funding Proposals:

Building a Socially Progressive Financial Base

While the political right views money as the key foundation stone of its pyramid and the political

left considers people to be its main cornerstone, the fact remains that funding is a vital and

necessary means for rebuilding a progressive infrastructure. When it comes to operating capital,

there’s no question the coffers of big business far outweigh that of unions and other progressive

civil society organizations together --- by an estimated 500 to 1 ratio.

Moreover, the overall funding base for progressive social movements has been increasingly

shrinking lately. As noted earlier, government funding for socially progressive causes like the

Court Challenge Program, Status of Women Canada, Rights and Democracy, KAIROS, the

National Round table on the Environment and the Economy and others have been terminated

under the Harper regime.

This challenge becomes even more critically important now that the funding base of unions is

coming under increasing attack from the political right. For decades, a number of unions have

been a significant source of funding for a variety of progressive NGOs and community-based

groups. But now the threat of possible legislative action by the Harper regime to change the

Rand formula could severely undercut the funding base of unions themselves.

For these reasons, it is imperative that serious efforts be made to rebuild the funding base for

progressive social movements in this country. In the long run, a sustainable funding base is one

that is self-financed by its own committed supporters. If the individuals and groups who support

a social movement and/or constitute its membership base are not prepared to contribute

financially on a regular basis, then there is something wrong.

In developing fund raising strategies, we must think and plan simultaneously in short, medium

and long term scenarios. As well, a fund raising plan needs to be designed and geared to carry

out the strategic vision and objectives of the movement and program outlined in previous

sections. The following are some initial proposals for rebuilding a socially progressive funding

base in this country.

Start-Up Funding: If the strategic facility outlined in section 8 is to get off the ground,

then start-up funding will be essential. Potentially, this initial funding will have to come

from several sources, namely, participating national unions, other large participating civil

society organizations, and several progressive Canadian foundations. In the short term,

we propose that the secretary-treasurer of one of the major participating unions take the

lead in bringing together representatives from each of these parties to form a

‘progressive donors network’ for these purposes.

Any funding partner in this donor network would have to be prepared to commit to the

strategic vision and program outlined here for progressive social and system change. A

three-to-five year budget would be drawn up for the strategic facility and its operations

46

along with a formula for donations from each of the funding partners. In turn, each of the

funding partners in the progressive donor network would then be asked make a three

year funding commitment.

This start-up funding would last between three-and-five years. After the first three years,

the funding for the strategic facility would begin to shift from the progressive donor base

to the progressive movement base outlined under the third bullet point below. In other

words, after the fifth year, the strategic facility and its operations would be fully funded

through people donations to the proposed public foundation funding mechanism outlined

under the ‘strategic facility fund’ below.

Community Action Fund: From its program of activities, it is clear that a major priority

of the strategic facility is to build capacities for bottom-up community action around local

struggles and policy changes. Indeed, the focus is on building power through organizing

community-based campaigns of resistance and alternatives. To engage in these

campaigns, making use of both the new organizing and campaigning tools available,

requires access to funding resources. All the more so when the targets of these

campaigns are local and regional structures of corporate power.

To provide some basic funding assistance required for these campaigns, it is proposed

that a ‘community action fund’ be established.21 The objective here would be to replicate

the current United Way model, whereby union members sign-up and donate in their

workplace. The big difference, of course, would be that the ‘community action fund’

would be dedicated for progressive social change. Through this fund, community-based

groups organizing social change campaigns in urban and rural areas across the country

would be eligible to apply for grants. The fund would have clear application guidelines

and decision-making processes and be scrupulously transparent and accountable in its

operations. 22

Moreover, the ‘community action fund’ could be set up in such a way that it operates

side-by-side the United Way or becomes a substitute for it. In either case, it would offer

workers and community activists an additional avenue for their donations. Instead of

making a donation to a fund that now primarily operates for charitable purposes and

provides social services, the ‘community action fund’ would provide an opportunity to

donate to a local initiative for progressive social change. Personal appeals could be

made to donate $1 or more [e.g. $3 to $5] a week to support campaign organizing

around one or more of the multiple issues outlined, for example, in the six clusters of

section 4. In other words, a menu of choices could be drawn up from the issues that fall

under the six clusters, allowing people to choose where they put their money.

21

Some of the ideas here are found in Erika Shaker’s draft proposal for a ‘Progressive Finding and Resource

Agency,’ [unpublished].

22 Ibid

47

At the same time, the ‘community action fund’ offers other benefits to unions themselves

and their social allies. It creates a more direct link between the workplace and the

community within the union, allowing for more direct connections with personal, day-to-

day, quality-of-life concerns of their members. By providing a common mechanism for

the progressive community to make grants to local community groups, it replaces the

existing haphazard, shotgun approach with a more coordinated approach that can have

strategic outcomes. It also provides open lines of communication and another feedback

loop for unions and other civil society organizations to hear from what’s happening in the

grassroots, which are essential for cultivating trust.

Strategic Facility Fund: In order to generate a longer term funding base for the

Strategy Mobilizing Facility, various options are being considered. One has to do with

establishing a public foundation under the Canada Revenue Agency and the Income Tax

Act. Professional opinion on this option has been sought and the response has been

favourable.23 Setting up a foundation for progressive social initiatives would allow funds

to be raised on a charitable tax exempt basis for two main functions: [a] developing our

own staff and program; [b] disbursing funds to other groups with charitable tax status.

The foundation would issue tax receipts to individual donors who would receive a

charitable tax credit of between 15% and 29% of their donation, depending what

province they are in and the annual total of their donation. The articles and bylaws for

such a foundation would, of course, have to be to be drafted and tested. It is also

possible for a public foundation to give grants to non-profit organizations without

charitable tax status under certain circumstances.

In effect, this option provides an opportunity for individuals to donate on a weekly,

monthly or annual basis, thereby demonstrating their ongoing commitment to this whole

enterprise of building a progressive social movement. In so doing, they receive a

charitable tax credit which serves as an incentive. Fund raising drives for these purposes

would ideally be tied more directly to organizing and campaigning activities. For

example, fund raising mechanisms like “crowd sourcing” can be used to raise money for

specific campaigns from a donor base and more widespread appeals. In this way,

mechanisms like this can be used to test whether particular organizing and campaigning

activities have the commitment and support of people in their various constituencies. In

addition, a public foundation would be in a position to seek and secure grants from other

charitable foundations, thereby providing another independent revenue stream along

with individual donations for the work of the Strategic Mobilizing Facility to operate after

the initial start-up phase.

To be sure, both individual and organizational commitments through donations mean

that sacrifices will have to be made. All the more so in an economic climate where many

people --- be they members of unions, other civil society organizations, or their

communities --- are hurting, while the fixed costs of their organizations amount to 80 or

90 percent or more of their revenues. Yet, as many of the participants at the Port Elgin

23

See memo to Ken Lewenza Jr. from Steve Staples and Anil Naidoo of Public Response, March 27, 2013

48

Assembly pointed out, if people are serious about building an effective and progressive

movement for social change leading to system change, then the necessary sacrifices will

have to be made. At the same time, it has become increasingly evident that costly

projects often do not produce results. Although funds will certainly be needed for the

Strategic Mobilizing Facility to perform its capacity building tasks, operating costs could

be kept at a minimum through contributions of volunteer expertise and time along with

commitments of resource sharing on several fronts.

There are, of course, pros and cons associated with all of these options that will have to

be carefully considered. In doing so, we must keep in mind that the objective is to build a

long term funding base for the Strategic Mobilizing Facility. Following the strategy

outlined here, a stable funding base must be in place within the next three years. After

that time, the start-up funding strategy outlined above will be phased out. In other words,

we would have a maximum of three years to put the whole operation on a sure footing.

Otherwise, we will not have a stable funding base to carry out this plan of action for the

long haul.

Finally, as indicated above, fund raising will need to be a part of the program of action

itself. Getting individuals and organizations to donate to this movement, whether this be

for the ‘community action fund’ or the ‘strategic facility fund’, should be an integral part of

the organizing and campaigning activities. To facilitate this kind of fund raising through

action, creative work in developing popular education tools to be used for these

purposes in both organizing and campaigning, will be needed.

Discussion Starter

1. What do you think of this overall strategy for building a socially

progressive funding base for the long haul?

2. Given the strategic vision outlined before, do you see the critical

importance of having a’ community action fund’? Do you have further

suggestions on how this could be developed?

3. What is your response to the proposals here for funding the ‘strategic

mobilizing facility’ in the long run? What further suggestions do you

have?

49

Conclusion:

In summary, this is as strategic vision and plan of action for building a progressive social

movement for system change in this country.

It is a plan of action designed to engage people in a three-fold process of:

[a] reflecting on our own narrative about the rise and fall of progressive social change in

Canada, identifying some of key lessons to be learned and appropriated from the

playbook of the political right, and naming some of the strategic challenges that must be

undertaken by the political left is going to be successful in building a progressive social

movement in the long run;

[b] developing a strategic vision arising out of these reflections that includes a framework

and a platform for system change, coupled with ways in which progressive unions and

civil society groups can make use of new organizing tools and strategies, plus how new

campaigning tools and strategies can be deployed to build a progressive social

movement that can implement this strategic vision;

[c] putting in place the kind of organizational infrastructure for a progressive social

movement to counter that of the political right, which has a strategic mobilizing facility to

assist unions plus their social allies and community-based groups in building their own

capacities for organizing and campaigning, along with fund raising options and a plan for

carrying this out over the next five years.

As emphasized previously, this is not a comprehensive plan of action that can be implemented

overnight. Nor is it, in any way, meant to be an air tight plan without holes that need to be filled

and components that are missing. But, hopefully, it offers a bit of a roadmap with some nuggets

that provide a sense of vision and direction for moving forward.

There will, no doubt, be some detractors among progressive activists on the political left who will

raise questions, obstacles and perhaps outright opposition to this roadmap and plan of action.

Vigorous discussion and debate is not only to be expected but is encouraged and welcomed.

However, if this is to lead to a way forward, it must be constructive. All too often, the political left

runs the risk of shooting itself in the foot by sticking to certain rigidly held ideological positions or

shutting down constructive discussion and debate altogether. What is urgently needed is a

willingness on the part of diverse players on the political left to seek a new political consensus

on a road map for building power for social change leading to system change. The Making

Waves process offers a way for moving forward in developing points of convergence leading to

a new consensus.

Indeed, achieving this objective will require a considerable degree of collaboration and

cooperation on the part of most, if not all the major players on the political left in this country. To

be sure, the political left already has elements of a progressive infrastructure in place that

includes a political party [ies], labour centrals and affiliated unions, along with research

institutes, plus environmental, Indigenous peoples, students/youth, women, social justice, public

interest, consumer, faith-based, and a host of campaign coalitions and/or networks involved in

50

social policy issues and struggles. All of these organizational entities have or could have varying

roles to play in building a progressive social movement with the power-to-win.

What this Making Waves process calls for is a more strategic approach to building power-to-win.

Instead of top-down approaches to building power, this initiative urges bottom-up approaches

with strategies for developing grassroots organizing and base-building. Instead of scattered gun

approaches to public policy changes, the emphasis here is on developing campaigning

capacities designed to confront and expose corporate power as the common juggernaut that

underlies public policy making by the political right [i.e. the corporate security state]. Instead of

pursuing a socially reformist agenda, this process is focused on strategically organizing actions

for policy change in the short/medium run leading to system change in the long run.

Moreover, the proposal to set up a Strategic Mobilizing Facility is not meant, as indicated

before, to establish some kind of progressive super structure or a pan-Canadian coalition. Quite

the contrary. It is simply meant to provide what is currently missing in terms of the political

infrastructure of the political left in this country. If progressives are going to build or rebuild

power from the bottom-up, then we need to put in place the infrastructure required to enable

unions and civil society organizations to develop their capacities for community-based

organizing and campaigning. As proposed, this facility would be designed to work with unions

and civil society organizations in responding to community-based requests for assistance in

developing their capacities for organizing and campaigning.

Also, it is recognized that there will be diverse methods, priorities and strategies emphasized by

various social movements and regions to bring about progressive social and system change.

For example, progressive social movements in Quebec have their own distinct priorities and

strategies as do many Indigenous peoples movements. As well, there are likely to be regional

variations in other parts of Canada. One opportunity for developing some kind or consensus on

converging issues and priorities could be the Tri-Nation Social Forum that is being organized in

2014. It is hoped that the Making Waves process can contribute to developing this convergence

and consensus building through the 2014 Social Forum along with other national initiatives.

For the moment, however, we welcome further input on the overall vision, directions and

signposts of the roadmap outlined in this primer with a view to enriching the plan of action and

cultivating a general consensus for moving forward. The following is an initial 5-step process to

begin moving forward in the coming year:

1. Encourage individuals and groups to make use of the discussion starters at the end

of each subsection. As noted in the introduction, this is meant to be a tool for stimulating

discussion, debate and action on the main components and proposals outlined in each

of the three main parts of the primer. While this tool can obviously be used by individuals

it will hopefully be utilized by groups for more collective discussion and feedback. In

addition, two or three shorter versions of the document [10-12 pages] will be designed

and developed for more popular outreach to particular constituencies --- e.g. one

addressed to union members, another to environmental groups, another aboriginal

networks, etc.

51

2. Organize Making Waves forums or assemblies in several key centres across the

country. The centres mentioned so far include Vancouver, Saskatoon, Winnipeg,

Toronto, Windsor, Ottawa, Montreal and Halifax. The objective of these forums or mini

assemblies would be to bring together key activists from groups engaged in progressive

social change, stimulate discussion, debate and feedback on the various ideas and

proposals outlined in the Making Waves roadmap, and encourage further input in terms

of ideas, strategies and actions. Each community assembly would be hosted by local

organizations which would also collaborate in the planning of the event. In some cases,

there may even be interest in developing pilot projects [see step 5 below].

3. Initiate consultations with key civil society organizations involved in progressive social

change. Obviously, this will include a variety of progressive unions, environmental

organizations, Indigenous peoples or First Nations, youth movements, faith-based

groups, human rights associations and a host of other public interest organizations.

Consultations will also be made with networks like Common Causes, Idle No More and

the Tri-Nation Social Forum process [to name a few]. Again, the objective here will be to

solicit feedback, seek convergence and consolidate basic support regarding this road

map and plan of action where possible.

4.Invite progressive movement thinkers and activists to contribute more detailed thought

pieces on the various components of the Making Waves roadmap as well as other

components that could be developed and added. In order to facilitate these inputs a

Making Waves website will be set up in both languages inviting progressive activists and

academics to submit concisely written pieces [with specified word limits]. Through this

website, written pieces will be shared more widely with follow-up discussion and debate

encouraged, thereby enriching the process on an ongoing basis. 24

5. Develop pilot projects in a few communities where there is a collective desire to work

together on a cross-sectoral basis on building capacities for organizing and campaigning

on vital issues of common concern. The determination to set up a pilot project will

necessarily come from communities themselves and the proposed forums or mini-

assemblies outlined in step 2 may help stimulate ideas and consensus for such pilot

projects. Whatever pilot projects are developed, it is hoped they will provide

opportunities to demonstrate and test capacity building tools for both organizing and

campaigning.

We see this 5 step process as an initial plan for rolling out this Making Waves roadmap. All 5

steps probably can and likely will be pursued simultaneously. The timeline envisaged for this

initial stage is the next 12 months, between the Fall of 2013 and the Fall of 2014. In so doing,

however, let us all keep in mind that this is about building and/or rebuilding a progressive

infrastructure for the long haul over the next 5 to 15 to 25 years at least.

24

For a US version of this kind of website, see American Prospect at www.prospect.org and the article “A Strategic

Plan for Liberals”.

52

Although unions, especially those who espouse the principles of social unionism, have a key

role to play, the progressive social movement to be built or rebuilt requires a much larger tent. .

At best, organized labour constitutes only 30 percent of working people in this country. This

movement building must reach out to the other 70 percent and beyond, including those who

presently consider themselves to be politically neutral or those who are ‘turned-off’ politics

altogether. In doing so, let us also clearly keep in mind we are organizing a broad-based

movement around a strategic vision that aims for progressive social change leading to system

change.

Mobilizing such a movement is akin to making waves, both in the short run and the long run.

Just as the wind power needs to build the energy required to generate larger and larger waves

that will have a transformative effect on the shoreline, so we must commit ourselves to develop

the capacities of people to utilize new methods and strategies for organizing and campaigning in

order to generate the momentum required to bring about not only progressive social change but

system change as well.

By making stronger and stronger waves, we build the power to win in the long run. Ultimately,

this is our challenge and our mandate.