I learned a lot this weekend. One thing that I learned is that there are more and more community organizers who are thinking about and moving toward more strategic, more long-term, more comprehensive, more multi-dimensional, more community-focused and more effective organizing efforts. I also learned that there are some emerging differences between approaches to radical organizing.

One Approach: Unite Around Shared Values and Develop Leaders from the Ranks of the Poor

One approach is focused on strategies of long-term base building centred on building a multitude of institutions led by leaders from the ranks of the poor that together will address the overall system confronting the poor, the root cause of poverty and oppression. This approach builds capacity through leadership development of leaders from the ranks of the poor, which includes developing specific skills in things like strategic planning, coordinating events, building power, communications, coalition building and other community organizing essentials.

The base for this approach is intentionally multi-racial, multi-lingual and centred on the poor themselves. The day in and day out work of this approach starts now, but recognizes that there is a long road to identifying and then developing the number of leaders from the ranks of the poor required to end poverty. While understanding the realities stemming from the intersection of poverty, oppression, racism and history is key to this approach, there is a greater emphasis on analysis based on effective ways to create the power to change things.

Rather than spend our limited time, resources and attention on developing complex systems of ideas based on divisions between people, or in reaction to the current systems of oppression, this approach is focused on developing ideas that help build power, help build institutions and help create spaces that are equitable and based on the inherent worth of every person. Time is instead focused on understanding reality, knowing the what and the how of those in power, and then applying this understanding in order to change reality in accordance with our values and vision of a world free of oppression, including the oppression of poverty.

We learn how the powerful divide by race, divide by fear and divide by lies. We do this so that we can unite for common purpose and not be divided by those who seek to take away our power. We learn how cultures are destroyed by those in power to hold onto power in order to express our power through culture, to unite through the strengths found in our many cultures, to express ourselves and to be ourselves in the spaces we create, based on our cultural values and cultural experiences.

Another Approach: Take Advantage of the Moment and Focus on System of Ideas for How to Organize Society

Another approach focuses on taking advantage of the moment, building on the crisis of the day and using that to galvanize activists as a means to spread the word about the root causes of the crisis. This approach focuses on spreading key ideas about how to understand the ways in which politics and the economy intersect. This approach focuses on calls for action based on this analysis.

While the analysis and need to act in this approach are clear and useful, what's missing from this approach is an infrastructure on which to act. What's also missing is a craft to carry the message in ways not distorted by the communications capacity of our opposition. Missing too is a multitude of leaders, capable of building a multitude of institutions that will exercise power on behalf of the ideas and values embodied within the analysis of the root causes of the problem.

Embedded within each of these two approaches are different ideas for how to organize people within our movement. One approach seeks to organize by our differences and to motivate participation on the basis of material needs. The other approach seeks to organize according to principles of unity, and to motivate participation according to transformative moral values. We should very clear in our thinking about how different these two approaches really are, to not confuse the different approaches as doing the same thing.

Just as we should be clear in our thinking about how our approaches differ, we should also be clear in that having different strategies and ideas for how to best carry out our shared visions and values should not be a basis for division. We should not want to, nor do we need to, all do the same things in order to realize the same values and visions. While our approaches may be very different, there's no need to convert each other to each other's strategic analysis for how to build the power required to realize our vision of an economically just society for all. We should listen to other, learn from each other, work with each other when possible and when it makes sense, and always remember that differences do not require disunity in purpose.

I left the conference more inspired by the amazing level of commitment by so many to the values of respect, dignity and sanctity of life for all. While we may not all use the same words to define our work, or to describe our values, it's clear that at the root of our reasons for fighting together the values we share are stronger than any differences in the ways we plan to carry out our shared vision for just society for everyone.