London Left Libertarian study group
When activists and organizers discuss "diversity of tactics", the conversation often centers on one question: violence or non-violence? This binary framework has dominated discourse about social movements for decades, obscuring a far richer landscape of tactical possibilities that movements employ to create change.
A truly diverse tactical repertoire encompasses electoral politics, mutual aid networks, guerrilla gardening, direct action, street protests, cultural interventions, and countless other approaches. Each operates according to its own logic, targets different pressure points in systems of power, and appeals to different participants. Understanding this broader horizon of tactics and how they complement, conflict with, and amplify one another is essential for building movements capable of addressing complex social challenges.
Let’s look into some of the most common tactics for social change and their strengths and weaknesses.
It’s a conventional and accessible form of political action in democratic societies. You operate within established institutional frameworks to influence policy and governance, by taking clear and well defined actions such as voting, campaign volunteering, and running for office. These tactics could offer legitimacy, legal protection, and access to formal levers of power that other approaches cannot provide.
Winning elections translates directly into policy changes that affect millions from healthcare access to environmental regulations to criminal justice reform, provided there is sufficient political will to enact these changes. There are examples that had success to some extent. At the local level, the independent council of Frome is one of many such examples. At the national level, the success stories might be more modest - currently, it often comes down to preventing countries from turning to outright fascism.
It is evident that the authoritarian regimes often rely on neutering the electoral process as one of the first steps in solidifying and centralizing power. Pushing for electoral reforms that strengthen the process and decentralize power might be a worthwhile activity.
Additionally, electoral campaigns and victories can create visible focal points that can energize supporters, attract media attention, and shift public discourse.
Electoral politics comes with significant limitations and compromises. The slow pace of legislative change can frustrate activists seeking urgent action. The need to appeal to broad coalitions often dilutes radical demands into incremental reforms. Party structures can exclude working-class candidates and marginalized voices. The very act of participating in electoral systems can be seen as conferring legitimacy on institutions that movements may view as fundamentally unjust or irreformable.
Despite these tensions, electoral tactics can be an important tool in many movements' arsenals, particularly when combined with external pressure from other forms of organizing.
Interventions like planting vegetables in vacant lots or seed-bombing barren highway medians reclaim urban spaces from abandonment or purely commercial use and reimagine them as sources of beauty, food, and ecological health.
This tactic operates on multiple levels simultaneously. Practically, it addresses food insecurity and creates green spaces in neighborhoods that lack them. Symbolically, it challenges assumptions about property rights, land use, and authority over shaping shared environments. Politically, it demonstrates alternative possibilities for urban planning and resource distribution. And on a personal level, it connects participants to the land, to their neighbors, and to cycles of growth and care that are often absent from modern urban life.
Guerrilla gardening sits within a broader category of place-based tactics that include community gardens, land occupations, neighborhood cleanups, and public art installations. These interventions are typically non-confrontational and difficult to oppose (who can argue against flowers or food?), yet they subtly challenge privatization, gentrification, and environmental degradation. They create facts on the ground that shift what seems possible and normal in a community.
The limitations of such tactics are also clear. They rarely challenge power directly or force concrete policy changes. They can be easily co-opted by municipal governments or developers seeking to improve neighborhood aesthetics without addressing underlying inequalities. And they require sustained labor and care to maintain, which can be difficult for volunteers to provide over time.