The conventional tactics of change in the U.S.A. and in most countries with representative governments are the vote, the letter, the discussion and the membership. The profile of the American population on such conventional activities, inadequate as they may be, shows a low rate of participation.(See Chart 00.) Only 3% of the American adult population performs at the level of 10 points or higher, which is the minimum for public influence. This would constitute about 3,000,000 in the nation. Note too that much of what is scored as influence consists in memberships and activity in groups. The direct confrontation between citizen and state is a minor activity in the U.S.A. The public depends heavily upon self-elected corporate organs to represent it, such as the newspaper, the labor union, and the corporation. There is little likelihood that radical changes can be pushed by such groups.
We should not believe that most countries are in a much less activist condition. This book, we think, can be applied in Thailand where between 1% and 2% of the adult population is now activated,1 in the soviet Union,2 where 3% are politists, or in South America,3 where the same potentiated Tutorial groups are as aware of the larger world as in America.
Stressed democracy is to be highly developed and heavily employed. Stressed democracy includes those techniques of influencing policies and change that are not formally and ordinarily provided for. They also go beyond the private manipulations characterizing institutional governance. They include picketing on all kinds of issues, group demonstrations, non-obedience, passive resistance, boycott, independent conduct of Kalotics social operations, and deviant behavior which, though non-kalotic in itself, is kalotic in effect.
One thousand persons on the street are worth a million votes. Take an example: Sentiment arises for policy "G" (such as the converting of city parking lots for children's playgrounds). A few isolated politicians ask for action on "G". An interest group bristles with lawyers like a porcupine and turns its back upon the politicians. The sentiment is frustrated. People are told that they must "vote for better politicians," they must be patient, they must reeducate everybody (including the interest group!) to his one issue.
|No Of Cases||%||Score|
* Table prepared by Alfred de Grazia and John Appel from the University of Michigan Survey Research Center data bank. Cf. also Robert. E. Agger. The Rulers and the Ruled: Political Power and Importance in American Communities (1964).
** The total number of cases in the sample was 1571 but 121 cases could not be calculated according to the scoring system.
|Possible Points||Area of Activity||Description of Scoring Method|
|1.||3||Voting A person scored 1 point if he voted in 1964. He scores 2 additional points if he says he has always or almost always voted. A person scores 1 point if he states that he has sometimes voted in the past. Persons who were under 21 in 1960 were given 1 additional point if they voted in 1964, thus scoring 2 points.|
|2.||2||Media use A person scores 1 point if he said he read a lot about the campaign in newspapers or magazines or both. He is given 1/2 point for reading both not very much. Another point is given for radio or television listening or viewing under the same rules.|
|3.||1||Persuading A person scores 1 point if he answered "yes" to the question: Did you talk to any people and try to show them why they should vote for one of the parties or candidates?|
|4.||1||Financial Contributions Same for question: Did you give any money or buy tickets or anything to help the campaign for one of the parties or candidates?|
|5.||1||Attending meetings Same for question: Did you go to any political gatherings, meeting, dinners, or affairs of that nature?|
|6.||2||Active attendance Four or more meeting score 2 point, one to three score 1 point.|
|7.||1||Party work Same for question: Did you do any other work for one of the parties or candidates?|
|8.||1||Political Club member Same for question: Do you belong to any political club or organization?|
|9.||1||Wore campaign bitton Did you wear a campaign button put a campaign sticker on your car?|
|10.||2||Writing letters Have you written to public officials in the last four years? Four or more scores 2 points, one to three score 1 point.|
|11.||1||Letters the to editor Have you ever written a letter to a newspaper or magazine giving any political opinion?|
|16||Total Possible score (In totalling individual scores, wherever a person scored a fractional sum, the half-points were rounded off alternated whenever they occurred to the next higher and next lower number.)|
But suppose this sentiment turns to a small crowd. And let a few of this group sit down on the parking lot. And let a few kalotists picket the "interest," and several more picket the "legislative leader." Then, something will be done about "G" or as good as "G".
How can "the public interest," that is, "the kalotic interest," get to the negligent and powerful through the vote and the courts? It cannot, in most cases. Not directly. It must imperatively force the consideration of its want. Not will limited and timid lobbying suffice.
Suffrage in taxocracies and stratocracies is a placid sea; in the plutocracies it is a long sighing swell. It is subsiding from a lack of belief in its meaning in an exhaustion of its power. If more proof were necessary, it is now clearly given, that politicians, for example, congressmen, usually believe that they are hearing the voice of public opinion and follow it, even though it does not exist.4 What they are "hearing" is all-important; who reaches their ears with the voce pubblica is indeed the public.
Therefore, the new wave of activism being felt around the world, which is stressed democracy, is good. It is prompt. It is decentralized. It is unconquerable. It is pragmatic, lawful, and rational. It is effective.
Ask of those in office what they ask of ordinary people; "Do not question why, yours to do or die!" They say that rebels ask the impossible, but what is really asked is that they do their duty. They say, "How do you do it? A crowed cannot tell us." We say, "An election does not tell you how, but you pretend to rely upon the vote. Do it as best you know how, but do it. No one else will tell you how." And, especially if the Kalotic program is publicized, but in any event, they will puzzle out what to do.
A leader perceives what he must in order to endure. His "maximum level" of endurance of pressures may range from a small slight to his ego that causes him to see aright, all the way to willing death rather than seeing what he does not want to see.
His maximum endurance is determined by what is ingrained by training and what he learns in the given situation. The corollaries are:
1) A leader will only see what he has been trained to see and compelled to see.
2) If the gap between kalotic vision and his trained vision is large, then he will only see under great present pressure, which is a highly effective learning experience.
3) Where is a society has to be changed rapidly and radically, its leaders must either change rapidly and radically or be replaced by new adapted leaders.
4) In both cases, learning experiences of unconventional types must be devised and applied.
A technique of representative government is a device aimed at producing representative. It is not whatever happens to be handed to a society from the past, such as a vote, a single member district, a plurality measure, or a territorial parliament. These are all techniques that were once regarded as adequate to influence a government at a given time.
The techniques of representative government today must be whatever devices are necessary to change, in the name of the people and without resort to systematic force, the behavior of leaders to conform to the ideals of kalocracy. In the future kalotic constitutionalism will provide kalokinetic structures to bring about changes as radically and rapidly as needed.
The "legal" and "illegal" need to be distinguished. Opponents of reform naturally wish all procedures to be exactly performed and processed. They wish for a parade of toy soldiers with everything done in short, measured steps. They say, "All is possible, if it is legal." They wish the life of a revolution by pronouncing its death.
Their "legality" is the vote, the written word, the talk. Thus U.S. Supreme Court Justice Black, staunch liberal, excludes political picketing and demonstrations that trespass on private or public property, that go everywhere to bring home the message. Presmuably he would not forbid lobbying, labor picketing, or strikes, though these were once banned. Of course, free speech and free press were once severely restrained not only in America but everywhere. Indeed so much was once banned that only political murder was conceivable, and some of the greatest philosophers in history said, "If tyrannicide is the only means to free yourself from the most evil suppression, murder you may."
The Kalotic Revolution does not ask murder, nor armed revolt, nor the escalation of violence. It demands the escalation of some means of influencing policies and the invention of other means, until the means achieve kalotic policies in all their fullness, on time. "Legal" then is what the means to kalocracy must be, and the laws of the legality of means must read whatever the means have to be. What was and is to this moment will be called the old legality, and what remains as excessive or over-reactive is illegal. Illegal will be the attempts of the opponents of Kalotic Revolution to use the power of the state and private violence, or the intervention of foreign powers to defeat and destroy the kalotic movement. To hold otherwise is a snare and delusion, because in effect it says, "The only means you may use to change society are those that have been proven to fail."
A philosopher writes in a magazine that the proponents of disorderly civil protest, who cite the Boston Tea Party that began the American Revolution as their precedent, are politically illiterate because "such actions occurred in societies in which those affected by unjust laws had no power peacefully to change them."5
He is wrong. Numerous British constitutionalists of the time "demonstrated" that the colonists were represented in the legislature of England.6 Besides, the present disorderly Indians are heaving the tea overboard because they feel helpless to change peacefully their societies.
Are they mistaken? No. They would be more mistaken to believe that the changes they want could be obtained when they wanted them, by the formal social and political procedures of the age. Nothing they can do by the ballot box or by letters to politicians will erase the racial inequalities that they hate, stop the war that they hate, consolidate a crazyquilt city and its suburbs, debureaucratize a board of education, unseat a university administration, get the poor their day in court, or crack the union barriers to free labor.7 Two thousand empirical studies of the effects of modern elections will not reveal an exception, unless the advocate takes the tempting plunge into the deep well of the far future: "Wait! These drops will wear away the rocks. In a hundred years, or someday, the orderly method will bring change." "In the long run, we shall all be dead," quoted John Maynard Keynes. Now who is calling whom utopian and impractical?
Certain contradictions must be accepted:
Things cannot get better until they seem a least to be much worse.
How much will have to be torn down before what is to be can be created? Much.
What part of what is destroyed must later be reconstructed? Some.
Every change is destructive in some sense. We have no choice, whether it is somebody else's change or our own. Furthermore, the new, the recreated, and the old behaviors overlap. In some ways they are inseparable facets of the same thing. So some of the good that must leave us is part of the good that is coming, and some good must leave us because it is inextricably and uniquely part of the bad.
Now, everywhere, staying in place, the Tutors must begin to talk with one another about the same kalotic subjects, focussing, giving themselves over to these, not other, problems and solutions. Letters, memoranda, notes, newsletters should begin to circulate, concentrating on doctrine (presentist, radical kalotics), and performance (pressures, enactments, plans). Prepare a dystropic inventory for all the ways in which man can cancel the effects of Kalotic Revolution by the way he uses them.
The Kaltists should operate in the open, except where persecuted, and they should be active behind the scenes. They should everywhere organize into "shadow regions," shadow associations" (such as shadow corporations, colleges, and schools), "shadow communities," "personal movements" and "statal groups." Like the British "shadow cabinet," they should be asserting in essence, "If you cannot do what is required of you, we shall." The difference is great, however; whereas the British major parties are engaged in an ungraceful pas de deux, the kalists do not form a party and wish power only to use radical policies for radical problems.
Everywhere, the Kalotic Constitution and Toparchy can be invoked in this form, and appropriate laws passed. In some cases, a union of the existing regime and the kalotic shadow regime may be possible. But kalists should be careful of being swallowed up; they do better to present a complete example of government and law as they should and might become.
Kalotic organizations should be otherwise informal but aimed at enlisting the support of all persons and groups. For those who lack indoctrination and skills needed by the new world, courses should be provided and they should be taught to qualify --even though there be needed hundreds of skills and few Tutors are available. No person, no matter how ignorant. should be cast aside; no kalotic skill, no matter how scorned elsewhere, should be cast aside; no kalotic skill, no matter how scorned elsewhere, should be rejected. Carry over the group dynamics and sociometry forms from psychology and sociology and sociology and use them as the generators of consensus, modelling reality, and thrust forward into the political world.8
A philosophy and its movement have no party. They use and transform the existing political parties. They are an all sides lobby and join all parties as well. Already, the conventional parties of the older plutocracies are losing their appeal. Less of the young are interested in the possibilities of achieving a good society via their road. Communist parties are suffering the same fate. Excitement over party careers is now present mostly in countries that have not had experience with them: these would be dystrocratic countries like South Vietnam and taxocratic countries like Czechoslovakia. Parties need not be abandoned. They are still useful in less vital ways. The ultimate aim of the Revolution is to build expertness, criticism, opposition, consultation, and representation into the whole structure of toparchy and cosmarchy--360ø of kalokinetic, stressed equilibrated functioning--"from top to bottom," the administrative words would be.
The experience of revolutionary parties in the world is a lesson in failure through success. The Italian Fascist Party and German Nazi Party were thoroughly purged as soon as they succeeded. The Russian Bolshevisk faction of the Communist Party was a brilliant revolutionary success and led armies to victory against foreign invaders and domestic enemies. Yet it has frightened and regimented the Russian statal, industrial, and agricultural systems into partial immobility. The Indian Congress Party helped win freedom for India from Great Britain, but has foundered on the problems of internal reconstruction. The Falangist Party of Spain practically expired some time ago. And so on. Revolutionary parties have been a seemingly inevitable but destructive force to their own revolution. If there is some great good in parties, it is that the party will let itself be used as a vehicle for a political force.
What is to be feared from the communist parties of the world anymore? The power of their ideology has gone, save in dystrocracies. Tactics of countering communism are not so difficult as they once seemed to be. Men and women parade in front of the Kremlin without being shot, as once they would have been. (Still they are imprisoned for a time.9) The Chinese Communist Party of Mao--Tse--Tung has purged, purged, purged again and apparently cannot rid itself of a critical agent within it.
Some members are ready for conversion to other principles of politics.10 Taxocratic reaction and stratocratic reaction are common; these forces are taking over the successful communist parties. The unsuccessful ones are growing weaker in plutocratic countries. They are more socialist, less violent, more kalotic in philosophy. Partial incorporation of their member ship is not impossible, for they are ready for public politics. Open organization, undominated personal lives.
Revolutions are usually caused by the frustrated, won by the indignant, and consumed by the power-hungry. The Kalotic Revolution is caused by power-hungry, won by the indignant, and cansumed by the frustrated. What makes a bad ideology,a bad political movement, and a bad revolution?11. It is bad when its motives are vengeful and destructive. It is bad when its methods are invariably defective. It is bad when it stands for defunct ideas and practices, because to be defunct means being characterized by one or more of these failings.
The enemies of kalotic cosmarchy, in the rank -order of their intensity and numbers are as follows:
1. Chauvinistic paranoids whose displacement patterns have taken the form of hostility towards all those who live beyond their state boundaries. They are found in every level of most societies, especially those with nationalistic movements and pretences to world influence.12
2. Ideologue communists who are rigid and activist, of every country. These must be distinguished from developmental communists, who are capable of new impulses and ideas.
3. Any interest group or official group that is abruptly threatened by a large step towards cosmarchy, whether the step is necessarily large and abrupt or unnecessary and rude.
4. Gate- Keepers at every node of the world network of policy and influence, when they insist upon waiting for all other doors to be opened and, if that is impossible, upon their own position remaining unchanged. The types of persons involved are many: An official of a foreign ministry or the United Nations might constitute as much of an obstacle as a distributor of meretricious and violent motion pictures.
At the same time, the following groups should not be regarded as unshakeable opponents of cosmarchy:
1. Any class of any society per se -- rich, middle or poor.
2. The people of any country, whatever the oppression they demonstrate and whatever the typical superficial public opinion polls may say about them.
3. Communists and socialists in name alone.
4. The military who have been over-educated for military purposes and are ready for modernism.
But in the kalotic movement itself, there are dangerous elements, whether treacherous factionalists or undisciplined and ignorant bunglers. Beware especially of:
1. Sado-masochists: persons who would rather inflict or suffer injury than achieve and carry out policies.
2. Pettifoggers: rigid-compulsive types, Verdun types, who will stick to the death on a trivial policy or tactic, instead of achieving a tour de force.
3. Conventionals: people who are excessively concerned that the movement towards cosmarchy "look good" and have "good public relations."
As part of the operational intelligence of the movement, there should be sufficient professional politico-psychiatrists to point out such individuals so that they may be treated or replaced. This is only one of the many roles that the psychological professions must play, for, as the last revolutions were economistic. the kalotic is eminently psychological.
|1.||David A. Wilson, "Thailand," in Kahin, ed., Governments and Politics of Southeast Asia, op. cit., p. 36.|
|2.||Alfred de Grazia, Political Behaviour (1952; New York: Free Press, 1962), Chapter on "Leadership."|
|3.||Paul J. Deutschmann. J. T. McNelly, and H. Ellingsworth, "Mass Media Use by Sub-Elites in II Latin American Countries," 38 Journalism Quarterly (1961), No. 4.|
|4.||Warren E. Miller and Donald E. Stokes, "Constituency Influence in Congress," in Angus Campbell, et al., Elections and the Political Order (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc, 1966), pp. 351-372.|
|5.||Sidney Hook, "Social Protest and Civil Obedience," Humanist, September, 1967, p. 157. Cf. Jack Newfield's review of Daniel Boorstin's Decline of Radicalism in The Village Voice, October 2, 1969, pp. 7-8.|
|6.||Cf. e.g. Alfred de Grazia, Public and Republic, op. cit., pp. 69-79.|
|7.||What is true of America is, pari passu, true of other plutocratic regimes. Cf., e.g. Nicholas Harmon, reporting in the London Sunday Times, June 22, 1969, p. 13. on Italy: "Violence gets results, unlike any other kind of politics." Citing community, bureaucratic, poverty, and educational crises, he goes on to say, "Nobody seriously believes that these results could have been achieved within the normal pattern of democratic action and lawful protest." Nor are the communists leading these uprisings.|
|8.||Consult the writings of Saul Alinsky, Mary Parker Follett, Ronald Lippitt, Dorwin Cartwright, Fritz Roethlisberger, Margaret Mead, to name a few, and others cited throughout our work here; the current output is large; the New Left ideas pour out; the Journal of Social Issues has a long file of applicable ideas, so also Sociometry; so too the Educational research field. (Remember the basic parallel between the educational and the political process: the only differences come from the age of the participants.)|
|9.||See New York Times, February 18, 1969, for one example; also the protest of several imprisoned Soviet intellectuals at the harshness of their jailors. (New York Times, June 2, 1969). A transcript of the trial of two of them (Sinyavsky and Daniel) had been sneaked outside the Soviet Union (New Lork Times magazine, April 17, 1966, p. 20 ff.) There is no indication that the Supreme Soviet, to whom the complaint was addressed, paid any attention. When a petition of grievances was presented in Moscow to the UN Commission on Human Rights, it was rejected and the UN headquarters in the U.S.A. "sent orders today to its overseas information centers to accept no more petitions from citizens of the countries where they operate." (New York Times, October 4, 1969, pp. 1, 9.) This "broke a tradition of more than 20 years."|
|10.||Cf. Andrei D. Sakharov, Progress, Coexistence, and Intellectual Freedom (New York : Norton, 1969), with attention to the introduction and comments of Harrison Salisbury.|
|11.||Cd. Massimo Teodori, ed., The New Left: A Documentary History (Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1969).|
|12.||E.g. for the Soviet Union, see George Kennan, Russia, the Atom and the West, Chapter 2. But recall also the role of these elements in prolonging the conflict between Israel and the Arab countries.|