Organizing Matters More Than Ever

Since the days of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the workers’ movement has constituted the primary focus of socialist political activity. As organizations open to all working people, trade unions unite the broadest possible majority of the population, and offer the potential, through strikes and work stoppages, to impose political changes against the interests of powerful elites in a way that voting or protesting cannot. This makes them a particularly important component of any strategy to challenge and ultimately move beyond capitalism.

Yet the balance of forces has shifted decisively against the workers’ movement in recent decades. Since the 1980s, trade union density has declined across the industrialized countries from nearly 40 to 15 percent, with unions in traditional heavy industry, long the backbone of the workers’ movement, particularly affected. Neoliberal economic policy has eaten away at many of the movement’s core achievements and the wage share, meaning the proportion of national income that goes to workers’ wages, has undergone a steep decline. The Left, despite some small victories in recent years, has proven unable to reverse this trend.

It is for all those reasons and more that, in 2019, the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation teamed up with esteemed labour organizer and scholar Jane McAlevey to establish Organizing for Power (O4P), a web-based training programme for organizers and activists around the world. Jane and her team, coordinated by Ethan Earle, went on to train over 40,000 people in the five years leading up to McAlevey’s untimely passing in July of this year. But the programme shows no signs of stopping: recently, Ethan Earle sat down with the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation’s Federica Drobnitzky to talk about the philosophy behind O4P, what it has accomplished so far, and what goals the team is setting for itself in the years to come.

This year marks O4P’s fifth anniversary. Could you take us back to the beginning and talk about the vision and goals that inspired its founding?

Organizing for Power was co-founded by Jane McAlevey and myself, but truly, O4P is Jane’s legacy through and through. It was born out of her tireless efforts to support campaigns across Germany, the UK, and Ireland, all the way to the US West Coast and beyond. She was stretching herself very thin, and at a certain point we realized we needed a single, global platform where people could learn from Jane’s approach to organizing.

Jane’s method, which forms the foundation of O4P, emphasizes disciplined participation and a super-majoritarian strategy. It centres the most impacted people — workers or those facing injustice — and builds structured, methodical campaigns using tools we teach in our programme. These include leader identification (distinguishing leaders from activists), structured one-to-one organizing conversations, list work, power mapping, and structure tests to assess and project collective strength. Jane always stressed the principle that “the union is you” — organizing is about people driving their own liberation.

Her theory of change addressed a critical issue: organizing had shifted too much toward shallow mobilizing and third-party advocacy, losing sight of deeper, worker-centred organizing. Jane believed in uniting people, even those who don’t see eye-to-eye on every issue, to build a new majority capable of creating and sustaining real change. That vision remains at the heart of O4P today.

Jane was a brilliant organizer, a prolific author, and so much more. Who was she to O4P, and how has her passing impacted the programme?

Jane McAlevey was not only the co-founder of O4P but also its heart, soul, and leader. Her vision and brilliance shaped everything we did. She revitalized union organizing globally, particularly through her ground-breaking work, including the book No Shortcuts and her transformative training sessions. Jane was our lead trainer, curriculum writer, and the driving force behind connecting new unions and organizing groups worldwide. Her impact on O4P is immeasurable — she was, quite simply, everything.

It’s not enough for one group to fight alone — only by coming together can diverse movements win more powerful victories.

Jane passed away from cancer earlier this year after a long battle. We knew the loss was coming, but it was nonetheless devastating. However, her terminal prognosis gave her and all of us more time than expected to prepare for the future. Together with my co-coordinator Sarah Reeder and others, Jane helped lay the groundwork for O4P’s next chapter. Rather than seeking to replace her, we’ve embraced a collective approach, drawing on the strength of our global network to carry forward her legacy and continue building this movement.

There are a lot of organizer training programmes out there — what makes O4P unique?

O4P stands out for its unparalleled global reach and inclusivity. We’ve worked with organizing groups in at least 115 countries — 150 if you count individual participants from earlier iterations — and offered training in over 20 languages. We run sessions across multiple time zones to accommodate participants worldwide, making it truly accessible. Importantly, the programme is completely free, ensuring that groups without financial resources can benefit.

Another unique feature is our emphasis on group participation. While we initially allowed individuals to join, Jane pushed us to raise expectations — first to groups of four, then ten, and potentially 20 in the future. Organizing is inherently collective, it’s a team effort that requires collaboration and practice, ideally within the context of an actual campaign.

Finally, O4P occupies a distinct space between two common types of programmes: those focused on intensive leadership development for a select few, and those offering superficial introductions to organizing. We welcome any group engaged in organizing and focus on equipping participants with the tools and discipline to build majorities and lead impactful campaigns. This balance and intentionality are rare in the international training landscape.

Since its founding, O4P has trained over 40,000 people from more than 1,800 organizations in 115 countries. Who typically participates in these trainings, and can you share some of the notable battles that O4P has helped them win?

Around 70 percent of the more than 40,000 participants in O4P’s training programmes come from the trade union and labour movement, with the remaining 30 percent representing diverse groups such as climate justice, housing, migrants’ rights, women’s rights, racial justice, peace advocacy, and student movements. Even within the 30 percent, we’re talking about tens of thousands of people, underscoring the programme’s reach and diversity. Participants range from experienced organizers who return regularly to train others and refine their skills, to first-timers motivated by a personal experience of injustice and eager to learn how to take collective action.

Ultimately, the working class can’t rely on any politician to save them. Real change will come from the collective struggle of workers themselves.

O4P’s success stories are wide-ranging, although we’re cautious about claiming credit. Our six-week programme provides tools, training, and a shared space, but the victories belong to the participants and their campaigns. For some groups, the programme boosts momentum in ongoing efforts; for others, it reignites flagging campaigns. For example, O4P helped to reinvigorate large-scale outreach drives by a major commercial union in Tanzania, tenant organizations winning protections in cities like San Francisco, Vancouver, and Berlin, classic union fights for transit workers in Toronto and healthcare workers in Argentina, as well as a global framework agreement safeguarding rights for content moderators and call centre workers, involving unions in Jamaica, Colombia, and El Salvador.

While O4P plays a role in these achievements, the credit ultimately goes to the organizers themselves. They use our tools to lead, organize, and win campaigns that defend their rights, dignity, and material conditions. Our programme is here to support them in that journey, but the victories are theirs.

Jane placed a strong emphasis on the distinction between “mobilizing” and “organizing”. Mobilizing involves rallying an already engaged base, while organizing entails convincing workers to join a project they don’t necessarily already support. If this approach to organizing is so effective, why do you think it has faded not only in the US but around the world?

It’s a great question, and I’d challenge the framing a bit. Over the past generations, the Left and the progressive movement, including the trade union movement, have increasingly focused on mobilizing — activating large numbers of people for one-off protests — and third-party advocacy, where experts lobby on behalf of workers or other groups. This shift has sidelined workers and the most impacted people in the process of their own liberation.

One factor is the professionalization of certain spheres of the progressive movement. Highly educated people in big cities, well-compensated for their work, often make decisions for those affected by injustices. This creates a physical and ideological gap between the people being helped and the professionals making decisions on their behalf.

This dynamic has been convenient for our opponents — big corporations and right-wing authoritarian politicians — because it weakens the power of grassroots organizing. By demobilizing workers and the most affected, we’ve stripped the movement of its greatest strength: the power of the people. This leaves them vulnerable to being co-opted by our opponents, who exploit their distance from the elites making decisions for them.

In response to your question, I believe we’ve lost so much because we haven’t been practicing deep organizing. However, when it is practiced — when we centre people in their own liberation — there are victories. Despite the setbacks, we’re still seeing signs of success when we focus on disciplined, majority-based organizing.

How would you describe the current landscape of strike activity in the US and Germany, and what key differences stand out?

The labour landscapes in Germany and the US differ significantly, starting with collective bargaining: in Germany, far more workers are covered by agreements, and unions like IG Metall and Verdi wield substantial influence over both labour policy and policymaking. US unions, on the other hand, are less institutionally embedded, often operating more oppositionally vis-à-vis policymakers, with national unions granting greater autonomy to local chapters for progressive or experimental action.

This institutional strength in Germany brings challenges, as large unions can struggle to mobilize against crises like the economic downturn and the alarming rise of the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). Meanwhile, in the US, unions face greater systemic barriers but may find it easier to break from entrenched norms, particularly at the local level. Despite these differences, the global capitalist pressures on workers and ordinary people are strikingly similar, requiring shared strategies to defend workers’ rights and democracy across both countries — and beyond.

Before co-founding Organizing for Power, you worked for years in the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation’s New York Office. In just a few weeks, fellow New Yorker Donald J. Trump will return to the White House. Given his devastating anti-labour and anti-union track record, what does his re-election mean for the future of the American labour movement?

Trump's re-election is detrimental for both the world and the US, especially for workers. His anti-labour track record makes it clear that his policies will be harmful to the workers’ movement. Joe Biden’s presidency has been disappointing in many ways, particularly in his handling of issues like Israel’s war in Gaza, but his labour policies were more favourable compared to Trump’s.

Some movements, like climate justice, present a unique challenge. In these cases, the target isn’t always clear, and the problem feels overwhelmingly global. Activists often struggle to identify a specific target big enough to tackle the global issue but small enough to create tangible results.

That said, recent decades have seen a decline in union membership, living standards, and income equality under both Democratic and Republican administrations. In the face of this, Trump’s anti-worker policies might actually galvanize workers. There’s growing support for trade unions in the US, and Trump has tried to appeal to some unions by nominating a more moderate figure for the Department of Labor.

Ultimately, the working class can’t rely on any politician to save them. Real change will come from the collective struggle of workers themselves. The challenges Trump will present could energize and strengthen the labour movement, as his policies could lead to a stronger, more unified opposition from workers than would have emerged under a more centrist Democrat.

What are the implications for workers globally?

Trump’s re-election will have global implications for democracy, as his authoritarian tendencies embolden similar movements worldwide. Leaders like Marine Le Pen in France, Alice Weidel of the AfD in Germany, and Narendra Modi in India, to name a few, have grown bolder following his election. Democracy is under real threat, and those attacking it recognize that the power of ordinary people coming together is their biggest obstacle.

Globally, as in the US, the hope lies in ordinary people organizing, coming together, and demanding true democracy. Workers and communities must unite to challenge the concentrated power of the elite, making their voices heard against the so-called 1 percent and the authoritarian forces seeking to undermine democracy.

Fascism often emerges as a response to severe economic crises within capitalism. Could effective organizing methods help revitalize working-class politics and counter the rise of fascism?

Yes, I believe that organizing is the only way to effectively counter the rise of fascism and right-wing authoritarianism. Fascism will not be defeated by a small, elite group or by spontaneous movements — it will require the power of organized masses. History has shown us that change does not come by chance or from a few isolated actions. For example, the civil rights movement in the US was not just about Rosa Parks sitting on a bus — it was the result of years of deep, collective organizing.

In today's world, we must build consent and unity among diverse groups, even when they don’t agree on every issue. Whether it's fighting a bad boss, an oppressive regime, or environmental destruction, the key is deep, democratic organizing. This process builds power in communities — whether workplaces, schools, or neighbourhoods — and can ultimately help us reshape the political landscape, not just at the level of governments but in how people see and engage with politics. By strengthening solidarity and collective action, we can re-democratize the world.

What can socialists learn from the O4P model? To what extent can O4P’s strategies and techniques be applied to campaigns outside the workplace?

The O4P model offers several valuable lessons for socialists, particularly in how it applies the principles of deep organizing to struggles outside the workplace. A key takeaway is that O4P’s focus on structure-based organizing — organizing within institutions like workplaces, schools, or housing communities — can be effectively adapted to a wide range of movements, from housing to climate justice.

O4P has seen success in housing struggles, where the principles translate easily because there is a clear target: the landlord or property owner. Some movements, like climate justice, present a unique challenge. In these cases, the target isn’t always clear, and the problem feels overwhelmingly global. Activists often struggle to identify a specific target big enough to tackle the global issue but small enough to create tangible results.

The solution lies in focusing on structure-based organizing, such as within schools or local communities, where activists can unite people who care about climate change and move them to take concrete actions that can have an impact. The key is to avoid the individualistic approaches that focus solely on personal consumption or volunteerism, which are ultimately isolating and ineffective.

Organizing for Power’s long-term vision is to strengthen movements for justice and labour rights through expanded programming, a global community, and sustained support for organizers worldwide.

Another important lesson from O4P is the value of de-siloing various justice movements. Over the years, professionalized advocacy efforts have often isolated movements like climate justice from other struggles. O4P’s model encourages bringing together activists from different sectors — climate, housing, labour, and more — into a unified, community-based struggle.

This solidarity is crucial because, as O4P emphasizes, real progress can only be made when movements work together, recognizing the interconnectedness of all struggles. For example, the labour movement must connect with issues like environmental justice and housing, recognizing that workers' lives outside the workplace — such as the air they breathe, the water they drink, and the communities they live in — are inseparable from their struggles at work.

O4P’s model teaches that collective, structure-based organizing and inter-movement solidarity are essential for creating lasting change. It’s not enough for one group to fight alone — only by coming together can diverse movements win more powerful victories.

Going forward, where does O4P see itself heading in the next few years, and what is its long-term vision for the future?

Looking ahead, O4P envisions expanding and adapting to meet the growing needs of labour movements and organizing efforts globally. After the loss of our founder, Jane, we acknowledged that her leadership cannot be replaced, and moving forward the collective strength of its diverse base of participants will be crucial.

Building and strengthening this community will be a central focus, providing a space for people to share experiences, offer coaching, and collaborate on overcoming challenges in their campaigns. The organization plans to expand its programming, developing more advanced and context-specific training to meet the evolving demands of labour and social justice movements.

O4P has already begun working with regional groups to adapt its model. For example, it has been collaborating with a group in India that focuses on organizing informal workers, and a similar effort is underway in the Philippines. These regional adaptations are critical as O4P works to respond to unique local challenges.

Recently, conversations have started with activists in Spain who are keen on creating a Spain-specific program, with an eye towards connecting it to Latin America. O4P hopes to expand further into Latin American countries like Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico, seeking partners who can help with the translation of methods and strategies both linguistically and politically. These partnerships reflect our commitment to local context and ensuring that the core methods are appropriately adapted to each region’s needs.

Additionally, O4P aims to provide ongoing support for participants beyond the short-term focus of the current programme. The goal is to accompany groups over a longer period, offering continued guidance and helping them build lasting, structural organizing efforts. This expansion and deeper engagement will allow O4P to foster a more connected global network of organizers, making it possible to apply structure-based organizing methods across diverse contexts, whether within the workplace, in housing justice, or beyond.

Ultimately, Organizing for Power’s long-term vision is to strengthen movements for justice and labour rights through expanded programming, a global community, and sustained support for organizers worldwide.