>>Somewhere Malcolm X wrote something about how dues should be high
>>enough that people notice paying them, because it makes membership
>>more meaningful. I don't suppose you know where he wrote that? I
>>wouldn't know where to begin looking.
Can't help you on the specifics, but this is a basic of political organisation, surely. If you want to build an organisation for whose members, membership is central, you ask more of them, not less. Lenin's whole 'professional revolutionary' 'illegal work' technique is about getting people to commit. Churches do the same: ask for a big tithe and a lot of voluntary work, and you will get more loyalty out of people. The psychology is 'we take your contribution very seriously, you are valuable to us'.
The other route is to ask for a sum so small that no-one will notice it bleeding out of their bank accounts. Organisations like Amnesty and Greenpeace do this with standing orders. Their subscribers are not expected to play any role in the decision making process of the organisation, so they go for a broad base of small sums paying in.
A friend of mine used to be a Greenpeace fundraiser. The basic technique was to move from city to city, organise a stunt, like abseiling down some monument with a banner to 'raise awareness' of the issue. And having secured a slot on the early evening news, you canvass door to door with a direct debit form.
Regularly I get mailings from Amnesty and the NCCL, which are just some brief information about what they are doing, a torture story and a direct debit form. That is right for that kind of organisation, but if it is loyalty you are after you have to implicate people in what you are doing. -- Jim heartfield