Claim: The protests are controlled opposition.
This is a claim that is frequently made by leftist critics of mass popular demonstrations, protests, and uprisings. The basic implication is that the more liberal (or occasionally conservative) wing of the ruling class (usually one of the two major political parties, both of whom are said—with some justification—to represent the two wings of that aforementioned class) is behind the protests to ensure that the angry masses don’t pursue a more revolutionary path—potentially resulting in the overthrow of the existing system—and are therefore safely channeled into a more reformist direction which ultimately preserves the status quo.
While such things have happened historically, to some extent, usually the overall picture is far more complex, dynamic, and ambiguous than the claims suggest. There is also an embedded mythology implicit in those claims: the idea that the masses, or at least the working class, is innately revolutionary; ready and willing to storm the proverbial barricades if given the right spark (or led by the right cadre). This claim (which has both early generation Marxist and anarchist roots and variations) is, however, mostly wishful thinking and fantasy. Indeed, it’s no more historically and factually inaccurate than the belief that most people are conservative, individualistic, and selfish (as many liberals believe).
The Marxist variant of this claim is based on the belief that (a small fraction of) the Working Class (specifically the industrial proletariat) is a privileged revolutionary agent with an “historic mission”[1] to organize as a class and overthrow capitalism. What supposedly keeps them from doing so is “misleadership” from reformist elements, reactionary propaganda, and/or the absence of a revolutionary working class (often vanguardist) party. While I agree that such a revolution could, in many circumstances, be desirable (given a positive outcome), there’s little evidence to support the conclusion that it’s historically inevitable (given the right circumstances and conditions, at least), or requires a vanguardist party. Such arguments have an air of economic determinism about them which ultimately denies that the supposed “revolutionary agents” have their own agency (meaning they could attempt revolutionary change even if conditions aren’t “right”—and historically they often do, whether successful or not—just as much as they could decline to engage in revolutionary activity even if the conditions are ideal for them).
The anarchist variation on this belief is that most humans, particularly working-class humans, are innately revolutionary (or, “primitive”, or “wild”) until they are “tamed” by the State, capitalism, civilization, and/or technology (though not all variations of anarchism identify all of these as causes of “domestication”). This, too, is highly debatable, particularly when it comes to “civilization” and/or “technology”,[2] but really it’s debatable for all of them. There’s no evidence that humans have an innate “wild” or “insurrectionary” tendency (though what there is ample evidence of is that humans have a very stubborn innate libertarian (ie libertarian-socialist) tendency, at least in the sense that they prefer to not be bossed around, even though they may be socialized to be bossed around or boss others around if they’re privileged enough to be able to do so).
Whether or not there’s actually a tendency for the industrial proletariat to favor revolutionary activity (in the absence of, or even because of, strong capitalist repression) if “the right cadre” leads them, or humans are innately wild and ungovernable unless domesticated by the state and capitalism (or other forces), which is less debatable, yet nevertheless not 100% certain, it doesn’t change the fact that capitalism and statism are so pervasive in our modern world, most people are socialized, from a very young age, to believe that both are as inevitable as night and day. Yet, even so, most people resist the state and capitalism (to some extent) intuitively and unconsciously, even if they have swallowed the doctrines that underpin them, because so much of “civilization” (there’s that word again), even in hyper capitalist economies or deeply authoritarian states, is actually neither capitalistic nor statist (the capitalist class and the state(s) go to great lengths to try and convince us otherwise, however.)
That’s why most people, at the very basic level, oppose the injustices and forms of oppression that lead them to join mass protests (like “No Kings”). It’s not because they’re being led to them by misleaders; it’s because they want to resist, but often don’t know how to resist effectively. Yet, many of these movements develop organically. Sometimes, these movements emerge without much leadership or direction at all, at least initially. A perfect example of this are the “Women’s Marches” that more or less self-organized (by a handful of newbies who put out a call for them on social media) in response to Trump’s inauguration at the beginning of his first term. In January 2017, “marches” (which mostly manifested as large gatherings, because very little planning went into them, and some crowds were so huge that it was impossible to quickly and spontaneously mobilize a march route) that cumulatively totaled in the low millions.
Where the “leadership” arises is often dependent upon whether or not someone steps forward and volunteers to take on the work. It’s not automatically the case that the would-be leaders step forward first and corral the masses into their particular mobilizations, movements, or organizations, (though sometimes this happens), and it needs to be stated, that “liberals” and “reformists” don’t have a monopoly on such behavior. Various Marxist tendencies are famous for ambulance chasing or entryism, and even some anarchists act thusly. In fact, what usually happens is that large movements arise in response to an issue or a combination of issues, and if the movement grows substantially large, various political tendencies will chase after it (in varying degrees of good and bad faith).
Certainly, the Democratic Party, and their adjacent supporting organizations, will opportunistically try to turn the tide of these large mobilizations to their advantage, but they’re not alone in this. There are no shortage of Marxist organizations that typically try to recruit these masses into their organizations, and this is also true of anarchists, or heterogeneous left cause and issue-based organizations. There’s nothing particularly controversial about this; it’s called “organizing”. While there may be more effective methodologies for organizing, recruiting from large demonstrations, protests, and marches certainly offers a huge, potential audience.
Claims that the demonstrators constitute “controlled opposition”, therefore are specious. What the actual argument being made, as a subtext, is that the left critics (most of whom firmly believe—as their chosen doctrine pontificates—that their cadre should be leading these mass mobilizations, but the fact that they’re not means that the mobilizations aren’t genuinely revolutionary, because only their cadre has the “one true revolutionary program”® are either bitter that these mass mobilizations aren’t being led by them, or they’ve attempted to lead them (or, more likely, capture the leadership of them) in the past, but their efforts have floundered.
This isn’t necessarily limited to various vanguardist Marxist sects. Insurrectionary anarchists often lament that the masses of demonstrators aren’t sharing in their desire to use more confrontational tactics (and then said insurrectionary anarchists bitterly condemn the “peace cops”, i.e. demonstration organizers for “disempowering” or “demobilizing” the masses). While the latter has happened on many occasions, there are sometimes good reasons for it, not the least of which is that—in the moment, at least—these “more confrontational” tactics are likely to be unstrategic and self-defeating (more about this later).
The upshot is that the reason why the masses aren’t following the left critics of mass mobilizations (such as “No Kings”) instead, is because either the left critics haven’t done the work of organizing the masses, or the masses simply aren’t buying what the left critics are selling. This is precisely what happens when individuals, organizations, and movements that become attached to their dogma stubbornly insist that they have all of the answers to everything. Often, they don’t, and unbiased examinations of history backs this up. Logically, if these doctrines had all the answers as their adherents claim, we’d already be living in the ideal utopias these doctrines envision, but we’re not.
Therefore, it’s very likely that the real motivation behind the bitterness and dismissiveness from the sectarians stems from the latter basically expressing “sour grapes” over the fact that the proverbial “thunder” they believe should be theirs has been “stolen”. They honestly believe that only their dogmatic program can create the revolution they seek, and only their cadre is capable of leading it. History overwhelmingly says otherwise. Indeed most revolutionary uprisings happen outside of (and sometimes in spite of) these sectarians’ programs and cadre leadership, but the sectarians bitterly refuse to accept this, often going to the lengths of engaging in blatantly dishonest revisionist history to “prove” the “correctness” of their point. Their denunciations of mass uprisings (such as “No Kings”) is merely the latest iteration of that dynamic (I’ve been at this for more than three decades; believe me, I know).
There’s no reason these mass uprisings cannot evolve into revolutionary movements and bring about deeply transformative changes. Of course there’s no guarantee they will. Many don’t. Whether they do or not depends on various circumstances and conditions, not the least of who participates (and, yes, who leads—though “leads” should never be confused with “directs” as the sectarians actually do). Most of the left sectarians don’t actually believe that revolutionary self-organizing is possible, however. They aren’t really complaining about the opposition being “controlled”; they’re complaining about who is doing the controlling, and they’re bitter that it’s not them. And, because it’s not them, this leads to the next big myth: the claim that these mass protests, demonstrations, marches, and uprisings are really “sheepdogging” astroturf efforts by reformist elements, specifically the Democratic Party.
Footnotes:
[1] I recognize, as a dues paying Wobbly, i.e. a member of the IWW, in continuous good standing for more than three decades, that I am apparently claiming that I reject the part of the famous Preamble to its Constitution that reads, “…It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism,” and in truth, I do disagree with the words “historic mission”, because there’s nothing inevitable about it, unfortunately (it’d be nice if it were guaranteed). Whether the working class (or some other oppressed class) ultimately does somehow abolish capitalism is a matter of the decisions we choose to make. I certainly hope that we do abolish capitalism, because I’m thoroughly convinced that humanity (and perhaps life on Earth itself) cannot survive if we don’t. I’m a diehard believer in the IWW and its principles, but I’m absolutely not a dogmatic fundamentalist about it.
[2] Even among anarchists, “civilization” and “technology” are debated concepts. Anarchists (of different tendencies) who seek to abolish them have various precise definitions (some of them even well-argued and nuanced, however I might disagree with them) of what they mean, but in my mind, “civilization” really distills down to “social connections” and “technology” distills down to collective knowledge, tools, and practical applications of the same. Strictly speaking, many nonhuman species have “civilizations” and “technologies” in the broadest sense. Anti-technology and anti-civilization oriented anarchists will likely vehemently challenge my beliefs—claiming that I’m talking about different concepts—but I’d defend my beliefs on the following basis: life is essentially an evolutionary stage of complex chemistry; intelligence is essentially an evolutionary stage of complex life; social interaction exists within almost all lifeforms, and the use of tools and technologies probably represents an evolutionary stage among most, if not all, intelligent life. These tendencies are a natural outgrowth of the survival instinct. Examples of nonhuman species using “technology” in the broadest sense include beavers (who build dams), or birds and insects who fashion hives and nests, just to name a few examples.