The insights provided by revolutionary theorist Frantz Fanon allow us to see the different ways that movements in the Inland Empire carry a unique advantage: the lack of domination by mass organizations or movement representatives allows for truly ripe conditions of self-sustaining autonomous organizing. This situation contrasts the realities of large, metropolitan cities where liberal politicians, non-profits, and social democratic organizations tend to dominate and battle for control over social movements. Without seeking to become a new representative or hierarchical force, movements in the IE have a strong and unique potential to develop power in never-before-seen ways.
What follows are a few quotations from the book “The Wretched of the Earth” by the Black, decolonial, revolutionary theorist Frantz Fanon. They are quotations that center his insightful criticisms concerning acts of representation. In his analysis, we see that elites (political, economic, racial, and social classes with power) use representation (via political parties and organizations) to exert control over the oppressed and colonized underclasses (‘the people’). The quotes that follow reveal the problems that occur when parties, organizations, and other vanguard groups sought to “represent” the colonized masses.
In a nutshell, Fanon observed that colonizers impose representation on otherwise autonomous peoples so that the colonizer can negotiate with said elites and representatives in order to co-opt and control the colonized masses. What Fanon spoke about are the limitations of political parties, organizations, and other groups that sought to “represent” the colonized masses, which is an inherently impossible project. His analysis points toward the dynamics of mass organizations during revolutionary movements and how they hinder true liberation at times.
In these historical lessons and analysis, Fanon reveals a variety of mechanisms that led to the reproduction of the vicious cycles of power: domination by elites and leaders that replicated colonial structures in the name of nationalism and ‘decolonization.’ As opposed to a true decolonial and anti-capitalist liberation, there was a rotation of leaders who hi-jacked the truly revolutionary activity and energies of the peasants and the oppressed. We must heed these warnings and protect our autonomous power from those who seek to represent us. We must always act in our own name and push away anyone who insists on compromise or liberal recuperation.
Representation is an impossible project that centers the intentions and desires of leaders and “representatives.” Among the representative measures that Fanon discusses in these quotes, there are: self-appointing leadership, compromise, calls for unity, recuperation, and other vertical power dynamics. Representative elites, through their parties and organizations, attempt to make it seem as if their desires are the same as those they attempt to represent. They will ask for us to unite with them; we must insist otherwise. Revolutions and insurrections from-below must reject the top-down agendas pushed by authoritarian groupings and refuse to compromise with any authorities.
‘The people’ are always invisibilized by their ‘representatives’:
“The elite will attach a fundamental importance to organization, so much so that the fetish of organization will often take precedence over a reasoned study of colonial society. The notion of the party is a notion imported from the country. This instrument of modern political warfare is thrown down just as it is, without the slightest modification, upon real life with all its infinite variations and lack of balance, where slavery, serfdom, barter, a skilled working class, and high finance exist side by side.”
Non-violence is a method of recuperation that keeps the elites in control:
“The peasantry is systematically disregarded for the most part by the propaganda put out by the nationalist parties. And it is clear that in the colonial countries the peasants alone are revolutionary, for they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The starving peasant, outside the class system, is the first among the exploited to discover that only violence pays. For them there is no compromise, no possible coming to terms; colonization and decolonization are simply a question of relative strength. The exploited person sees that their liberation implies the use of all means, and that of force first and foremost.”
Reject compromise with all elites, ward off hierarchical representation:
“At the decisive moment, the colonialist bourgeoisie, which up till then has remained inactive, comes into the field. It introduces that new idea which is in proper parlance a creation of the colonial situation: non-violence. In its simplest form, this non-violence signifies to the intellectual and economic elite of the colonized country that the bourgeoisie has the same interests as they and that it is therefore urgent and indispensable to come to terms for the public good.”
Organization is just a means to other ends, elites use it as an end in itself:
“This idea of compromise is very important in the phenomenon of colonization, for it is very far from being a simple one. Compromise involves the colonial system and the young nationalist bourgeoisie at one and the same time. The partisans of the colonial system discover that the masses may destroy everything. Blow-up bridges, ravaged farms, repressions, and fighting harshly [to] disrupt the economy. Compromise is equally attractive to the nationalist bourgeoisie, who since they are not clearly aware of the possible consequences of the rising storm, are genuinely afraid of being swept away by this huge hurricane…”
The will of ‘the people’ will always exceed the will of the ‘representatives’:
“In certain circumstances, the political party political machine may remain intact. But as a result of the colonialist repression and of the spontaneous reaction of the people, the parties find themselves out-distanced by their militants. The violence of the masses is vigorously pitted against the military forces of the occupying power, and the situation deteriorates and comes to a head…”
Representation is an undesirable game that the elites will always win:
“… Those leaders who are free remain, therefore, on the touchline. They have suddenly become useless, with their bureaucracy and their reasonable demands; yet we see them, far removed from events, attempting the crowing imposture—that of ‘speaking in the name of the silenced nation.’ As a general rule, colonialism welcomes this godsend with open arms, transforms these ‘blind mouths’ into spokesmen, and in two minutes endows them with independence, on condition that they restore order.”
We want to add to and contextualize these critiques of representation within contemporary movements. Everything in a social movement or revolutionary situation is decided on the ground, in real life. Sometimes, rigid principles (particularly those that never bend or that are decided upon a priori) get in the way of the dynamism required on the ground. In fact, the hyper-emphasis on principles within organizations is influenced by the western Judeo-Christian culture of adhering to “eternal” laws. Sometimes, a lot of organizations or vanguard parties impose principles upon individuals that prevent their own political growth or insurgent experimentation. We are not arguing that people should not engage with organizations; the point is that everyone should decide for themselves their own rules of engagement with other groups. The point of our argument against representation is to encourage non-organizational formations for liberation. Organization should never become an end in itself; it is always only ever a means because when it becomes an end, it will only exist to reproduce itself and encroach on the autonomy of others with/ for its power. We must cultivate other kinds of collective gathering points and containers (such as community assemblies, neighborhood councils, etc.) so that many people can plug in and actively participate in resistance.
In the end, Fanon’s historical analysis allows us to see beyond the ploys and schemes of representation. His lessons point towards the need for movements that must become non-organization-centric and non-representative. This can be done by working together, instead through autonomy and affinity. We must always center the most oppressed groups in society and the methods that they prefer to use for securing their liberation. The people’s unruliness and disorderly methods will always exceed the measures put forth by organizations and parties. Altogether, we must learn from the pitfalls of past revolutions that centered representation over the people.