The resources of a collective have to be mobilized

Mobilization aims at making the combined resources of the collective available for the peoples’ movement in its conflict with its adversary. Everything usable can be counted as resources – competences, knowledges, information, money and other wealth, time, formal positions of power, social relations, prestige, social organisation, and not least collective habitus and identity, articulated programs and organisations and leadership.

The resource base of a peoples’ movement is by definition often smaller than the resource base of its opponent. This may be compensated for in two ways.
- Different resources are not comparable. The adversary may have greater resources but may be unable to use them all. A state can for example not use its military and its ”democratic reputation” at the same time.
- Peoples’ movements may compensate for its smaller resource base with better mobilization. They may be able to acquire a greater part of their potential resources, they may be able to use a smaller part internally as costs for the mobilization, and they may use a better strategy. They may particularly use swiftness and surprise, and get the conflict settled before the adversary can bring his force to bear. This was the secret behind the swift successes of the environmental movement in the early seventies.

Peoples’ movements may also use external resources, for example in the form of alliances with and contributions from other actors that have the same interests as they or at least the same enemy. But the more important the external resources are, the less is the freedom of action for the movement. In extreme cases, the movement may find itself exploited for very strange purposes.

But the resource disadvantage of peoples’ movements is an important factor to consider. Among other things, it decides greatly their strategies. Peoples’ movements tend to choose demands for concessions rather than popular control, because it is easier to achieve and doesn’t call for unwieldy institutions. They tend to choose punishing strategies rather than encouraging ones because they don’t have much to encourage with. They tend to choose direct, short run actions ”against” rather than indirect, long run ”for” since the latter calls for extensive planning resources – peoples’ movements are ”reactive” rather than ”proactive”.

Yet: the great successes in the history of peoples’ movements is caused by a break with these limitations, and a creative understanding for how the limitations should be surmounted.