What is the proper role for mutual aid?

Moving beyond the failure of Food Not Bombs

"Mutual aid" is a phrase that gets tossed around a lot, mostly as a political signifier rather than a clearly defined tactic. The phrase tends to be favored by anarchists (or the anarchist-ish), usually proffered as an alternative to electoral politics or other means of contesting state power. Socialists and various flavors of Marxists tend to be dismissive of it, believing it to be an idealistic and flaccid challenge to the power of capitalism.

Both, in my view, miss the point. Mutual aid is a tactic. Like any tactic, its efficacy is context dependent: it cannot usefully be applied anywhere, anytime, but that doesn't mean it's never useful. Also, like any tactic, it can be used and misused, but neither proves its universal utility, nor its uselessness. Just because a knife can't carve a rock doesn't mean it should be discarded.

Another problem with mutual aid is that it lacks a clear definition in most discussions. Here's what it is: people joining together to meet each others' needs. Most projects that call themselves "mutual aid" do not, in fact, meet this definition. Usually, they are charity, which is the voluntary giving of help to those in need. That, too, has its place, but it is not interchangeable with mutual aid.

In order for a project to "meet each others' needs," it cannot be a one-way street. Mutual aid must include organizing others, and this, in my experience, is what most self-described mutual aid projects lack. There is usually a clear delineation between the givers and the receivers, whatever the original intent may have been. Food Not Bombs is an example of a project that intended to function as mutual aid but which has instead devolved into charity. As a result, it has been unable to effect systemic change.

So, how can mutual aid be successfully deployed today? I propose three categories:

Internal mutual aid

This represents the greatest opportunity because it addresses one of the most serious challenges to the Left: burn-out. Burn-out has done the work of a thousand COINTELPROs, chewing up and spitting out dedicated organizers at an industrial rate. One of the primary reasons for this is that radical organizing is almost always performed by volunteers, which necessarily pits organizing against subsistence. One of my core operating principles is that one's commitment to anything is largely a function of whether or not it improves quality of life. Performing work that brings meaning to one's life is certainly a need, but if it becomes exhausting, frustrating, or stressful enough that it tips the balance toward reducing quality of life, people will abandon it.

The solution to this is for people within organizations to help each other meet their basic needs. This is most efficacious when it is formalized within the organizational structure, via hardship funds, volunteer assignments, and direct benefits. It is worth noting that many churches do this, and it is a significant part of why they earn enduring loyalty even from those who aren't deeply religious. If an organization can help provide its members with food, transportation, health care, housing, etc, then it both improves their quality of life and reduces their need to do waged work outside of their volunteer activities.

Some examples of internal mutual aid: basic social work that helps members take advantage of government benefits for which they are eligible (i.e. applying for SNAP and Medicare with the help of other members who are familiar with the process); a hardship fund to which members can apply for short-term cash relief (holding a raffle for small items at organizational meetings can be an effective way to accumulate funds for such a project); creating a cooking committee to make meals for meetings, events, and busy organizers during tough stretches of campaigns; bulk discounts and discounts at specific businesses negotiated by the organization for its members; "care circles" that aid and comfort members dealing with illness or injury via direct care and cards, etc.

I will note that this approach is complimentary to--not a replacement for--a robust, grassroots fundraising strategy that allows for paid staff. Paid staff also suffer from burn-out for a whole host of reasons, and internal mutual aid can help address the significant psychological and material challenges of being a staffer in a political organization.

There are many benefits to internal mutual aid, including strengthened social bonds between members, reduced stress for participants, an increased sense of appreciation, the opportunity to meaningfully practice altruism and compassion, and much more. This egalitarian form of self-organization is also prefigurative of the social dynamic many of us hope to make the norm, and practicing it within organizations at the forefront of radical change helps create the foundation for that future.

All of these benefits can be measured in a key metric: retention. If internal mutual aid is functioning properly, membership in an organization will offer improved quality of life and retention will increase. If not, it will be a burn-out engine.

As a pressure tactic

In the course of a pressure campaign, it is sometimes possible to actually do the thing you are trying to get a government or other institution to provide: for example, air filters in classrooms. While it is neither feasible nor desirable for an outside organization to actually provide such a thing at scale--that is the proper role of the institution--providing some air filters to classrooms can be an effective part of a pressure campaign. It raises awareness of the issue; demonstrates how easy it would be for the institution in question to do it instead; embarrasses the institution for being unable to match the effort of a handful of volunteers; materially improves conditions, thus generating sympathy and support for the cause; and--most crucially--creates an organizing opportunity.

This last piece is what makes it "mutual aid." To return to the classroom air filter example, the goal should be to organize students, teachers, and parents via the construction and provision of some air filters. The tangible action demonstrates good faith and breaks through institutional gridlock, which often generates support. Once students, teachers, and parents are coming to the air filter construction sessions, it is a very short step to them becoming organizers within the movement.

In emergencies

In dire situations, mutual aid AND direct provision are useful tactics that are both morally necessary and strategically beneficial. In the aftermath of natural or manmade emergencies, when subsistence becomes difficult for most people, organizing mutual aid efforts to meet the basic needs of organizers is the first step in what some call "disaster socialism." The name is derived from "disaster capitalism," the title of an excellent book by Naomi Klein, which explains how capitalists advance their own interests in the ruptures created by disasters.

The strategy is not inherent to capitalist interests, and for that reason, the Left should adopt it. The fissures created by emergencies open up opportunities that are otherwise unavailable, capitalists are simple better positioned to take advantage of them due to their advantage in power and resources. Leftists, however, are not helpless in such situations: what meagre resources we have can also be marshaled to provide for our own needs and those of others, while simultaneously advancing our strategic goals.

Emergencies that do not receive an adequate response from the capitalist state--a miserably common occurrence--create a crisis of legitimacy, which allows other actors to step in and claim the mantel. This is most often done by businesses and religious groups, further shoring up their claims to power. The Left has not been entirely absent in such situations--Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy being notable examples--but more often than not, mutual aid responses do not connect to a larger strategy of organization building. That is a missed opportunity.

A pre-existing organization is best positioned to become a disaster relief effort, but even when this does happen, such efforts are often only externally-facing. That is a mistake. An organization should first-and-foremost function as an internal mutual aid network in a disaster, and once its members are provided for, then it should face outwards. This creates a more durable response ("put your own oxygen mask on first") and also strengths the organization in the long-term by providing a tangible benefit to its members.

---

Mutual aid is an underutilized, and often misused tactic, in today's Left. My hope is that this short essay will help breakthrough the ideology morass surrounding mutual aid, and return it to its proper place as a key tactic for organizers contesting power. I would love to hear any thoughts and feedback on this subject, so please fire away.