By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The article highlights a turning point in the face of authoritarianism, as evident in the resistance against ICE in Minnesota. It emphasizes that grassroots solidarity and creative resistance demonstrate the power of mass non-cooperation, offering a vital alternative to relying on compromised institutions. The piece draws on the field of civil resistance, underscoring that proactive agitation from citizens, rather than passive waiting for elites, is crucial for nurturing democracy and confronting systemic crises. This approach, leveraging a wide array of nonviolent tactics, offers a path forward when traditional safeguards fail.
Read the original article here
The most potent strategy for effectively countering Donald Trump, and indeed any similar political force, lies not in direct confrontation or conventional political maneuvers, but in the widespread and resolute adoption of mass non-cooperation. This isn’t about a singular, grand gesture, but rather a multifaceted refusal to participate in or legitimize the systems and actions associated with him. It’s about a collective, almost organic, resistance that stems from a fundamental “screw you, make me” attitude towards demands and expectations that go against deeply held principles.
Imagine a situation where institutions and individuals, rather than preemptively caving to pressure or anticipated directives, simply refuse to comply. This is distinct from outright rebellion; it’s a passive but powerful stance of non-participation. Instead of anticipating what “Trump world” might want and rushing to fulfill it, the strategy is to create a vacuum of cooperation. This approach recognizes that many of the perceived victories of those in power are built on the willingness of others to go along with them, often out of fear, a desire for profit, or a misguided sense of obligation.
Consider the power of a general strike, or even a more localized but impactful refusal to work or engage in commerce for a sustained period. While such a large-scale, organized effort might seem logistically challenging, the underlying principle is potent: a significant portion of the population withholding their labor and economic activity can bring systems to a standstill. The idea is that “they have the guns, but we have the numbers.” This adage highlights the inherent power imbalance that can be shifted when a populace refuses to be a passive cog in a machine they do not support.
This non-cooperation can manifest in various forms, tailored to individual comfort levels and talents. It’s not solely about large public demonstrations. It can involve targeted boycotts, deliberate delays in processes, or even a form of strategic cyber-resistance. The key is to become a “monkey wrench” in the works, to disrupt the smooth functioning of systems that enable a particular agenda. This could mean flooding streets with noise during business hours in administrative centers, making it impossible for business as usual to proceed, or it could be as simple as refusing to engage with or amplify divisive rhetoric online.
Furthermore, this concept extends to the electoral arena. The argument suggests that a true mass non-cooperation would have meant simply not voting in an election where the outcome was contested or perceived as illegitimate. The act of voting, in this view, lends an air of legitimacy to the entire process. If a significant majority had abstained, the winner would have been forced to claim an impossibly high percentage of the vote, a scenario that would have been difficult to defend and potentially more exposed to scrutiny.
The effectiveness of this approach is amplified when individuals and institutions resist the urge to “comply in advance.” Many organizations and universities, for instance, have been criticized for voluntarily adopting policies or making concessions that benefited or appeased certain political factions, even before being explicitly pressured to do so. This preemptive compliance, rather than being a pragmatic move, is seen as a willing embrace of a harmful ideology. It’s akin to providing the very tools that are then used against you.
Moreover, this strategy emphasizes the importance of sustained action and a refusal to be intimidated into silence. Simply not vocally supporting an administration is insufficient; a palpable and audible response is required. This means actively and demonstrably withholding participation, making it clear that the status quo is not being accepted. The aim is to “keep pissing them off,” as a historical anecdote suggests, recognizing that the target may eventually crack under the pressure of persistent, widespread non-compliance.
Ultimately, the core of mass non-cooperation is a rejection of consent. Compliance, in many instances, is interpreted as consent. Therefore, the act of refusing to comply, in all its diverse and adaptable forms, becomes a powerful statement of dissent. It’s a way of saying, “We do not agree, and we will not participate in making this happen.” This decentralized, yet unified, refusal to engage is presented not as a single solution, but as the foundational strategy upon which other forms of resistance can be built, with the ultimate goal of rendering a particular political agenda unworkable and unsustainable.