How Layered Resistance Networks Can Defeat Authoritarianism

A Message to Pro-Democracy Organizers in the United States

by Malcom Gregory Scott

May 25, 2025

By now, the danger is clear. Donald Trump and his enablers, backed by dark money networks, right-wing media, Christian nationalists, and an increasingly lawless Supreme Court, are laying the groundwork for a second term marked by authoritarian consolidation. The threats are not speculative. They are being openly declared. Plans to purge civil servants, militarize immigration enforcement, politicize the Justice Department, and dismantle checks on executive power are well underway. In this moment, we are called not merely to protest but to organize. Not just to resist, but to endure. And not only to mobilize, but to strategize.

One of the most useful tools we have is an unlikely one, a dry 1965 economics treatise by Mancur Olson titled The Logic of Collective Action. Though published decades ago, its insights into how groups succeed, or fail, in advancing shared interests are urgently relevant today.

Olson’s message, in essence, is this: large groups do not act in their own interest unless they are deliberately and strategically organized. People will not spontaneously rise en masse to protect democracy, even if they value it dearly, because democracy is a public good. Everyone benefits from it whether they participate or not. That means many will choose not to participate, unless they are incentivized, mobilized, or coerced.

That’s not cynicism. That’s human behavior. And it means that the key to defeating authoritarianism is not just moral clarity or popular support. It’s organization, especially the kind Olson describes, networks of small, highly-motivated groups, embedded within and coordinated by larger, resourceful organizations that can sustain the work over time.

We already have the beginnings of this infrastructure. Organizations like Indivisible, 50501, the ACLU, MoveOn, Swing Left, Sister District, the Poor People’s Campaign, Black Voters Matter, the Democratic Party, and the unions have built platforms and pipelines for action. But these alone are not enough. What we need is a layered movement structure dense with small groups, connected horizontally and vertically, and powered by entrepreneurial leadership from large-scale institutions. Here’s why that matters, and how to build it.

I. Olson’s Warning: Mass Movements Need More Than Masses

Mancur Olson’s theory dismantles the romantic idea that large groups will naturally fight for their collective interests. In fact, he shows the opposite. As groups get larger, their effectiveness declines unless they develop mechanisms to overcome “free rider” problems.

Free riders are those who support a cause in theory but don’t contribute to it in practice, because they can enjoy the benefits of democracy whether or not they act to protect it. The result? Silence, drift, and inaction. Meanwhile, small, well-organized factions, like those backing authoritarian movements, can punch far above their weight, because their members are highly motivated and coordinated.

Olson offers two solutions:

1. selective incentives, benefits offered only to those who participate (social, material, or emotional rewards), and
2. entrepreneurial leadership, figures or institutions willing to invest in organizing others, even when the short-term payoff is uncertain.

To bring Olson’s theory to life in today’s crisis, we must imagine our movement infrastructure, not as a top-down operation, but as a federated system of small cells, each with ownership and autonomy, yet connected through shared strategy and centralized support.

II. Lessons from Hungary: Centralized Resistance Can Be Crushed

The democratic opposition in Hungary offers a sobering lesson in what happens when a resistance movement becomes overly centralized. Under Viktor Orbán’s illiberal regime, opposition parties and civil society groups were repeatedly pressured to consolidate into a unified bloc. At first, this seemed sensible. A single opposition party could present a clear alternative to Orbán’s Fidesz party.

But centralization made them fragile. When Orbán captured key institutions and tilted the electoral system in his favor, the opposition, lacking grassroots resilience, collapsed again and again. Coordination became dependency, and when the central campaign failed, the whole resistance crumbled with it.

In contrast, Orbán’s own ascent was built not through central command but through a broad ecosystem of schools, churches, media outlets, civic groups, and youth organizations, a layered movement, all feeding into a coherent but flexible authoritarian project.

Hungarian activists now warn others: build strong, local power centers that can persist even when national coordination fails. Do not put all your eggs in one electoral-campaign-basket. Do not assume legal institutions will protect you. Do not rely on centralized messaging when community-based trust and mutual aid are what will last.

III. Global Patterns: What Other Authoritarian Movements Teach Us

From Turkey to Russia, from India to Brazil, we see similar patterns. Opposition movements often struggle not because they lack popular support, but because they lack resilient organizing structures.

• In Russia, protests against Putin’s regime flared brilliantly, but briefly, because they lacked sustained local bases and were easily infiltrated or shut down.
• In Turkey, Erdoğan neutralized his critics by coöpting centralized institutions and turning them against their own bases.
• In India, Prime Minister Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party has outmaneuvered secular and progressive parties not simply by popularity, but by embedding itself in a network of schools, temples, business associations, and youth movements that serve as its long-term infrastructure.

The authoritarian playbook is global. So must be the strategy of democratic resilience. That strategy must prioritize distributed power, localized trust, and movement continuity beyond election cycles.

IV. Building a Layered Resistance Network in the U.S.

So what does this mean for us? First, it means we must invest in small groups like community pods, activist circles, neighborhood canvassing hubs, mutual aid collectives, congregation-based action teams, and affinity networks. These groups:

• foster accountability and peer motivation,
• lower the psychological and logistical costs of participation, and
• make it easier to provide selective incentives, including social belonging, identity, recognition, or access to resources.

Second, it means these small groups must be interconnected by larger institutions that provide:

• training, strategy, and messaging (e.g., Indivisible’s distributed organizing model),
• technological platforms (e.g., Mobilize, Action Network),
• legal protection and media amplification (e.g., ACLU, Media Matters), and
• policy alignment and electoral leverage (e.g., Democratic Party, Working Families Party, labor unions).

The key is not to replace grassroots organizing with national coordination, but to bind them in partnership, each reinforcing the other. Small groups give large organizations local credibility. Large organizations give small groups tools, support, and staying power.

V. Practical Recommendations for Organizers

To turn theory into action, history and experience suggest five practical recommendations for pro-democracy organizers.

1. Seed more small groups.

• Host house meetings, teach-ins, or community dinners to form new pods.
• Encourage each group to begin by adopting a single shared, achievable goal (e.g., mounting a postcard writing campaign, registering 500 voters, monitoring local election boards, disrupting disinformation campaigns, staging a local protest).

2. Offer selective incentives.

• Create mutual aid exchanges, support circles, or recognition systems to reward participation.
• Use storytelling, social proof, and identity-based appeals to deepen emotional investment.

3. Train local leaders.

• Identify and support “movement entrepreneurs”, people who can motivate and guide others.
• Offer toolkits, leadership development, and mentorship through national networks.

4. Build horizontal bridges.

• Connect different small groups to each other for shared learning and solidarity.
• Use signal boosting, storytelling, and coordinated actions to reinforce shared identity.

5. Don’t centralize… coordinate.

• Avoid the trap of message discipline for its own sake. Let groups adapt language and tactics to local context.
• Provide “north stars,” not rigid scripts. Trust organizers to know their terrains.

Conclusion: Resilience Is the New Resistance

We are facing the most serious threat to American democracy in generations. But if we take Olson seriously, if we internalize the hard truth that passion alone does not produce power, we will know what to do.

Build small groups. Connect them with big institutions. Organize not for the next week or month, but for the long haul. The authoritarians have a multi-year playbook. So must we.

And our playbook starts here: Many small groups, moving as one.

QQQQQ