If you're looking for a path from protest to power then please read Micah's new book, The End of Protest. Get your copy directly from us, at Amazon, an indie bookstore or your local library. Or read it instantly on your kindle! If you are outside of North America, then Book Depository has free shipping. If you are an international publisher, please get in touch—we have translation rights available.
Is protest broken? Micah White, co-creator of Occupy Wall Street, thinks so. Disruptive tactics have failed to halt the rise of Donald Trump. Movements ranging from Black Lives Matter to environmentalism are leaving activists frustrated. Meanwhile, recent years have witnessed the largest protests in human history. Yet these mass mobilizations no longer change society. Now activism is at a crossroads: innovation or irrelevance.
In The End of Protest Micah White heralds the future of activism. Drawing on his unique experience with Occupy Wall Street, a contagious protest that spread to eighty-two countries, White articulates a unified theory of revolution and eight principles of tactical innovation that are destined to catalyze the next generation of social movements.
• We Ship Worldwide •
Without a path from protest to power, the Women's March will end up like Occupy
Social activists have succumbed to one of the most enduring myths of contemporary American protest. It’s time to consider what happens the day after, writes Micah White in this urgent strategic briefing.
Shortly after Donald Trump’s shock election victory, I received an urgent call from one of the co-creators of the Women’s March on Washington. She was concerned at a moment you might expect her to be ecstatic. Hundreds of thousands of women in 17 countries had already signed on in solidarity, and the numbers kept growing. Yet despite the tremendous momentum, she confessed a nagging skepticism about the effectiveness of the protest.
“I’m not that interested in the march itself but in what comes afterwards,” Fontaine Pearson confided to me. I admire her candor because I know it takes courage to voice such a concern. It is her difficult question – what comes the day after? – that every supporter of the Women’s March should be earnestly figuring out today.
Without a clear path from march to power, the protest is destined to be an ineffective feelgood spectacle adorned with pink pussy hats.
It is exciting when a protest meme leaps from social networks to the streets, capturing the imagination of millions, prompting this very website to proclaim that the forthcoming protest could be among the biggest in American history and Vogue to commission glitzy photos of the core organizers dressed up like Eileen Fisher models. But it is all too easy to succumb to the false hope that a big splash is a transformative tsunami.
Don’t be fooled. It is not. I’ve been there, as the co-creator of a raucous pro-democracy meme that inspired months of Occupy protests in 82 countries. And I can tell you that raising awareness and getting media attention is never enough. Frankly, neither brings the people closer to sovereign power.
For all those who want the Women’s March to be the start of an enduring revolutionary movement, here is my advice on how to increase the odds.
Know your history: let’s go back to 1789
On 5 October 1789, during the earliest days of what would become the French Revolution, a mob of women materialized on the streets of Paris. Some historians say it was spontaneous, others that it was planned. Regardless, we know that the furious women, desperately hungry from bread shortages in the city, descended on the Hôtel de Ville, the seat of municipal government, and demanded to speak to the mayor. The national guard refused them entry but also refused to fire on them and so the women burst through the police line, ransacked city hall and raided the armory.
Now armed with swords and cannons, the crowd of protesters grew to more than 7,000 female insurrectionaries. Suddenly a far more revolutionary goal was adopted: a Women’s March on Versailles, where King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette where hosting a series of lavish banquets for royalist soldiers.
It the first protest march of women in modern history, and it was also the most effective. When the revolutionary women arrived at Versailles, they broke into the palace, murdered two guardsmen and attempted to enter the queen’s bedchamber before ultimately forcing King Louis XVI and his entourage to march with the crowd – now 60,000 strong – back to Paris.
The Women’s March on Versailles was a literal and forceful assertion of the people’s sovereignty over the king. It was a defining moment in the revolutionary history of democracy. As the historian William Doyle explains: “Louis XVI never returned to Versailles … All open attempts on the king’s part to resist the reform of France now came to an end.” The National Assembly was led to Paris shortly after and legislative decision-making power was eventually fully captured by the people. Democratic revolutionaries executed King Louis XVI by guillotine less than four years later.
The day after the women marched on Versailles was the definitive point of no return for the French Revolution. And let’s not forget that the Russian Revolution of 1917 was also initially sparked, as Leon Trotsky recalls in his definitive history, by a defiant women’s protest.
The lesson here is that protesting grandmothers, daughters and mothers have the unique power to do what male protesters cannot – such as break through a line of national guard bayonets without being fired upon. And for this reason, women will always play a foundational role in the great revolutions to come, but only when they take matters into their own hands, act unexpectedly and viscerally, and focus their collective energy on the only target that matters: concretely establishing the power of the people over their governments.
Ignore repeated failures and change tactics
The original Women’s March on Versailles involved women using direct action to force the king to listen to the people’s demands. Today’s Women’s March is entirely symbolic.
No one would ever dare to call for an insurrectionary march on Trump Tower with the goal of physically dragging the president-elect and his family out of their penthouse. No one says the Women’s March on Washington should ransack the White House or occupy Congress and appoint themselves legislators. Instead, we organize a well-publicized spectacle and hope he will listen from within his palatial accommodations.
If you’re showing up at the Women’s March on 21 January in the hopes that the world will be different on 22 January, then you need to think seriously about the goal of marching.
As a general rule, before you protest, ask yourself why this is one of your chosen forms of action. Question your tactics, not your motives. In this case, the obvious first question for any activist ought to be: why deploy a communal march in the streets as a form of protest?
Sometimes, the people march. Other times we hold general assemblies, tar and feather opponents, occupy pipelines, go on strike, dance in a circle, riot in the streets or pray together. In each case, behind every act of protest is an often unarticulated theory of social change: a story we tell ourselves about why the disobedient behavior we’ve chosen will usher in the change we desire.
So why are women marching the day after Donald Trump becomes president? It all comes down to a false theory of how the people can assert sovereign power over their elected president in 2017.
Today’s social activists have succumbed to one of the most enduring myths of contemporary American protest: the comforting belief that if you can get enough people into the streets from diverse demographics, largely unified behind a clear message, then our representatives will be forced to heed the crowd’s wishes.
If this story has ever been true, and I’m not so sure it has, then it hasn’t been the case since 1963, when 250,000 people marched on Washington for “jobs and freedom” and heard Martin Luther King Jr deliver his I Have a Dream speech. Less than a year later, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex or national origin” in employment and housing.
But let’s be real: there are countless counter-examples of marches on Washington that failed: the 1913 march of women to demand the right to vote, the 1978 march for the Equal Rights Amendment, the 1986 Great Peace March for Global Nuclear Disarmament, the Million Man March of 1995, the 2004 March for Women’s Lives, the inauguration protests against George W Bush’s second term in 2005 … the list is practically endless. Activists have a tendency to ignore repeated failure in favor of overemphasizing one or two anomalous minor victories.
The absolute failure of the 15 February 2003 anti-war protest, the largest synchronized global march in human history, was the last gasp of this tactic. Today’s nominally democratic governments would be more concerned by the absence of our marches, as that might suggest something darker is in the works.
The only way to attain sovereignty – the supreme authority over the functioning of our government – is to use social protest to win elections or win wars. Either we can march to the ballot box or the battleground; there is no third option.
To the ballot box, then: prepare to govern
That Trump was elected demonstrates that an anti-establishment outsider can sweep into power through elections – a fact activists should learn from and begrudgingly celebrate.
Before Trump’s victory, it was widely assumed that a candidate without the backing of the establishment could not possibly win a presidential election. Good news: now we know that it is possible. It is finally conceivable that a revolutionary movement beholden to the people could take power in America by winning elections and without violence.
I suspect the Women’s March on Washington has a role to play in this unfolding drama, but only if we cultivate a few moments of detachment from the thoughtless excitement to truly take time to consider this question: what happens on the day after the women march?
Right now, in America, there is no pro-democracy anti-establishment party that is capable of stepping forward, seizing power and governing. America needs a protest movement like Spain’s Podemos, Iceland’s Pirate Party or Italy’s 5 Star Movement. These populist democratic movements are the prototype for the future of protest. Each has achieved surprising electoral victories in a short time, but what is more important is how they are changing the way power functions.
Consider, for example, what happened when Virginia Raggi, a member of the anti-corruption 5 Star Movement, was elected mayor of Rome in 2016 only to be embroiled in her own corruption scandal. The movement didn’t make excuses. Instead, the Five Star Movement very swiftly asserted its sovereignty over its candidate and stripped Raggi of the power to make appointments and other “important decisions” without the movement’s approval. This represents a leap forward in people power: a concrete example of a social movement winning elections while still retaining a firm grip on decision-making power. Bravo!
The number one challenge standing in the way of an effective protest in America today is the inability of our social movements to actually govern. There might be a slight chance our protests could oust Trump, but there is no chance that our present-day movements could govern at all, let alone effectively.
That is because leaderless protesters don’t know how to make complex decisions together as movement. Occupy couldn’t even come up with its one demand.
Now we are seeing this capacity slowly develop among protest movements in Europe. However, until we can replicate their successes in America, the people will never be able to take back sovereignty and our protests remain an exercise in infantile futility.
And that is the great gift that the Women’s March on Washington could give us. May the angry women return home the day after the march to lead us toward a women-led hybrid movement-party in every state that is disciplined enough to govern, militantly local and single-mindedly devoted to actualizing a force capable of seizing control of city councils and mayorships during midterm elections across America in preparation for an electoral coup against the presidency in 2020.
Now that would be a goal worth marching toward.
— Micah White, originally published by The Guardian on January 19, 2017
Want to be part of the next wave of activism? Move to rural America
Traumatized by Occupy’s dissipation, the founder of the movement realized that street protests have become outdated. Now he’s focusing on hyper-local activism
By Mary Wang for The Guardian published on January 6, 2017
It took a few years before Micah White, the co-founder of Occupy Wall Street, could speak of the movement as a failure.
When White released the call for Occupy on 13 July 2011, the year was filled with optimism from the Arab Spring and an untested faith in the power of social media. At the time, White worked as an editor at activist magazine Adbusters. Together with its founder, Kalle Lasn, he sent out the call to 90,000 email addresses that led to the viral movement that spread to more than 750 locations worldwide.
Five years later, White found himself in a radically different spot: he announced his run for mayor in Nehalem, an otherwise quiet Oregon town of 278 residents. These days, White argues that rural areas are where the efforts of activists should be focused. Occupy Wall Street, as a movement, was unable to effect political and legislative change. But moving to small-town America still might.
Traumatized by Occupy’s dissipation, White and his wife decided to move from Berkeley to Nehalem in 2012 on the basis that it was “the most beautiful place they’d ever been” – a town whose city limits contains a total of 0.24 square miles of land.
After his move, White started to think deeply about the failures of Occupy.
Trump doesn’t sit around whining whether he’s able to govern. He just does
“It took me a year to even think that Occupy could be the end of protest. And then it took another year after that to be able to talk about this publicly,” White explained. “Many activists don’t want to hear about it, because protest is an industry.”
The brutal removal of the Zuccotti Park tent camp by police forces made White realize that street protests have become outdated. “It demonstrated that a mass movement in the streets doesn’t attain higher sovereignty over its government,” White told me. “It’s not protected from police violence or eviction.”
Instead, White focused on hyper-local activism.
As word spread about the arrival of an Occupy founder in town, White’s neighbors – some who were hippies who moved in the 1970s, others who were priced out of nearby Portland – started approaching him with questions. How do we protect the local watershed? How do we vote on the construction of the parking lot?
White realized that activists can’t just take to the streets to gain power. “The only thing that works is to merge protest with political parties,” White explained. “You have to win wars, or win elections.”
Prior to White’s candidacy, Nehalem’s city council meetings were reasonably routine affairs. Its five members came together once a month in Nehalem’s city hall, a single-story wooden structure that reminds of the history of western pioneers that preceded the town.
One month the vote is on the renovation of a parking lot, and another month the discussion is about the timber harvest, an industry that once made Nehalem thrive but has since wound down. Most of the time, meetings take no longer than 30 minutes. Even in a year of unprecedented political strife on the national stage, White was the only candidate to challenge a mayoral race in Nehalem’s Tillamook County.
White staged his first protest at 13 years old and is as close as one can get to be considered a career activist. Yet, moving to a rural community made him reconsider the techniques he had been employing.
“People in urban areas forget that there’s a whole other reality,” he said. “In rural America, you can’t use standard activist techniques such as blocking the streets, because those people are your neighbors.”
When White made his announcement on 15 July, the national media had not yet started to show the interest it now holds in America’s heartland. It was almost four months before that election night, when America, glued to the television, watched former Democratic strongholds flip red piece by piece, leading Donald Trump to victory. (Tillamook County, which had voted Obama for both terms, ended up electing Trump. It hadn’t voted red since Reagan’s win in 1984.)
White’s rural mission had started much earlier. His book, The End of Protest: A New Playbook for Revolution, was released in March 2016. In it, he describes Occupy as a “constructive failure”, urging activists to apply lessons learned: “Change won’t happen through old models of activism. Protests have become an accepted, and therefore ignored, by-product of politics-as-usual.”
Small-town America, on the other hand, was where White saw the potential to apply the participatory democracy that Occupy’s leaderless organization failed to achieve.
“Nehalem represents one revolutionary scenario for building power in rural communities,” White writes. “The rural uprising begins when revolutionary activists distribute ourselves into pre-existing micro-cities in Cascadia [the Pacific north-west region that includes Oregon], ensuring that in each place there are enough of us to sway every local election.”
White released his announcement to run in an open letter he sent to every registered voter in town. He wrote, “I’m concerned because the majority of our city council – four out of five – were not elected by voters: they were appointed to their current positions by decree.” He continued by pleading for more power to the residents: “Sadly, the undemocratic process of appointments has fostered a city council culture that is unresponsive, unimaginative and unprepared for navigating our city into the future.”
In the same letter, White also called for the first meeting of the Nehalem People’s Association, a neighborhood organization whose meetings would provide an open platform for residents to discuss local issues. More than 60 people showed up at the first meeting at the local community centre, which amounts to 20% of Nehalem’s total population.
“Imagine that in New York,” White said. “That would be the equivalent of 1 million people.” For White, Nehalem can be seen as a microcosm of America: no matter how small the town is, it has its own portion of income inequality and political strife. This means that if a new form of democracy can be created in Nehalem, it could be possible in every other city in America.
“The left is not revolutionary and doesn’t want to govern. The real revolutionaries now, unfortunately, is the right,” White explained. “Trump doesn’t sit around whining whether he’s able to govern. He just does.”
‘What makes you an expert?’
If Nehalem is a microcosm of America, then the arrival of the newcomer has caused a similar division among the town’s population.
At the first Nehalem People’s Association meeting, a group of residents showed up wearing “Keep Nehalem, Nehalem” sweatshirts. One of those residents, who spoke to me on the condition of anonymity, said that half of the 60 people at the meeting showed up just to express their dismay at White’s efforts. The loosely bound organization has been vocal against White’s efforts in Nehalem. Recently, a resident started offering bumper stickers featuring the campaign’s motto on the group’s Facebook page.
The support of the resident-led movement goes out to Bill Dillard, White’s opponent in the mayoral race. Dillard, who grew up in Nehalem, is a familiar face to many. He has been on the city council since 2003, his father served on the city council for many years before, and he’s worked as a local firefighter for 14 years. If Micah’s agenda was change, then Dillard ran on the sentiment of those who wanted to maintain the status quo.
In a letter addressed to White, Dillard writes, “Your newsletter has quite a laundry list of things that you envision for Nehalem’s future. After your three and a half years here, what makes you the expert on what the City of Nehalem needs?” His letter ends with a word of advice: “Mr White, Nehalem is not a political experiment. It’s our home.”
Nehalem’s local press fell between the gaps of the increasing divide. In an article titled “Nehalem and the n-word: campaign tactics go low and grow”, the North Coast Citizen, a local newspaper, reported on racial slurs targeting White since he announced his bid for mayor.
White is African American while Nehalem, according to the latest census, is 93% white. One resident, Steve Meadows, is reported to have sent White a text containing a photo of ‘Nehalem’ tattooed over a bare stomach. The paper quoted him saying, “Because he’s a nigger, that’s why.”
This could be the end of protest. Many activists don’t want to hear about it, because protest is an industry
After the article’s publication, the paper received backlash from some readers, angry that their town had been painted racist over the actions of a few – some even called upon their neighbors to cancel their subscriptions. The reporter left the paper soon after the article’s publishing, and the article has since been removed (a transcript can still be found here). Joe Warren, the paper’s publisher, told me her leave was not related. “It’s a little community, they don’t get a lot of hard news written about them,” he said. “And suddenly there’s a new twist in a small town that they had never seen before, by someone well-known nationwide trying to make his way in.”
Jeremy Robert Mulcahy-Hill, a 30-year-old resident who has lived in Nehalem for over half of his life, explained: “Very little of us knew that Micah even lived here. We just didn’t know how he fits into the community, how he’s been giving back, and how he’s been interacting with the rest of the population. And all of a sudden, he was running for mayor.”
Mulcahy-Hill ran for city council this cycle but unwillingly got dragged into the controversy. A millennial, he is from a different generation than the incumbent council. He explained: “It turned into an us v them, the incumbents v the challengers. And if you were a challenger, you automatically got lumped in with Micah’s theology.”
According to Mulcahy-Hill, the tension grew so strong that one perspective council member retracted from the election. “It started as adults being adults, and wanting the betterment of the community, and it turned into a high school popularity contest.”
The exact measure of the national and local divisions became clear on 8 November. White lost the election with 139 votes to 36, while Mulcahy-Hill lost to incumbent Stacy Jacobson, a longtime Nehalem resident with many ties to the community.
After his loss, White continued to attend city council meetings and is set on continuing his political mission. “There’s never been a positive social change that hasn’t been met with a tremendous amount of negative resistance, and that resistance always starts with the majority,” White told me. “Look at women’s rights, or even American democracy. If you go back to the American revolution, there were tons of royalist Americans who were opposed to it.”
But what if Nehalem simply isn’t ready for change? If this year’s political upheaval has made anything clear, it’s that in politics, timing is as decisive as reason. Trump’s rise to the presidency is only possible after a time in which the nation’s rural-urban divide and income gap have been brewing for decades. White had attempted viral movements before, but Occupy only spread when it fed on the right mixture of internet culture and economic meltdown.
Now that many democracies seem to be making an unthinkable return to authoritarianism, it has never been a better time to stop thinking of our post-war stability as the end point and start to reconsider what the future will look like. White, as a abstract and explosive thinker, is more often too early than too late. The success of his efforts will depend on whether he can sustain his movement until the window is right, and when rural America will be ready for the change foreseen by the pundits on the coasts.
For now, the seeds have been planted in Nehalem’s soil. “Before Micah was here, you’d hear about council meetings and there were two or three people who attended,” Mulcahy-Hill told me. “Now it’s a full house – you might as well buy tickets.”
After co-founding the Occupy movement, Micah White moved to rural Oregon to set the stage in the next step of the revolution. Oregon Public Broadcasting's Think Out Loud checked in with him to see how that is working out. Listen here:
Concretely speaking, activists must reorient all efforts around capturing sovereignty.
TWO PATHS FORWARD
Lots of people have been emailing me to ask: what do we do now? My advice is that activists should immediately start moving into rural cities—low population areas of America—and prepare to sweep local elections in 2 years. This is the solution on many levels.
My campaign for Mayor of Nehalem demonstrated that this rural path to power is not easy but it is viable. I achieved 20% of the vote in Nehalem, Oregon on an unabashedly revolutionary democracy platform. The Green party got less than 1% nationally. Black Lives Matter activist DeRay Mckesson, who raised $222,000 for his campaign, won just 2% of the vote in the primary in Baltimore, an urban city.
I was the only person to challenge a Mayoral election in Tillamook County, Oregon. In every city except for Nehalem, the people were given no choice. In nearby Bay City there weren’t enough candidates to fill all of the open city council seats. If an activist had run, she’d have won outright. This signals a tremendous opportunity.
During my campaign, I discovered quite painfully why elections here are traditionally uncontested. My political opponents spread terrible, malicious lies accusing me of Satanism and worse. Rallying under the reactionary slogan "Keep Nehalem, Nehalem" they resorted to bullying and social ostracization against anyone who supported my candidacy. And in the final days before the vote, some turned to overt racism and outright harassment. Now that we know their tactics, we are better prepared to win the next election.
There are two paths forward.
We must double down on showing the good people who already live in rural communities that it is in their family's best interest to demand greater democracy. As we can see in Nehalem, one out of five people is convinced by this message. And it is already changing the way power flows here: now, at least, the people are watching. In January, only one person attended the Nehalem City Council meeting. This week, so many citizens crammed into council chambers that they had to bring out more chairs.
Second, we need urban activists—you!— to relocate into rural America. This is an entryist strategy that requires a leap of faith. It takes courage to uproot your life in pursuit of an ideal. The reward in this case is sovereignty and the power to transform the movement's positive dreams into concrete reality.
If we were to control the city council of Nehalem, for example, we could eradicate hunger in our city; establish a citizen advisory council; and end the disenfranchisement of the vast majority of people who live within Nehalem but outside of Nehalem's city limits and are therefore unable to vote or run for office. This would be just the beginning of a reimagination of democracy that could spread across the world.
When the people have sovereignty, all things are possible.
At the heart of the essential conflict within America is two competing visions of populism. On one side is Populist Authoritarianism, a dangerous regression to charismatic leaders and the perils of the 20th century. On the other side is Populist Horizontalism, a forward-looking people-centric vision of planetary democracy.
This is an invitation to join us in Nehalem, to become our neighbor and to help us as we continue on the uncharted path toward people's democracy.
Only by grace,
— Micah White