> >One of the luxuries of pure speculation is that you can avoid hard choices
> >and either/or decisions. But in most organizing, there are choices, in
> >time, in energy, in resources devoted to one strategy or another.
> To quote a great inclusionist, there he goes again. The sweatshop
> kids and the unions, just to take one example, are each energizing
> the other - it's a wonderful synergy. I don't see why you have to go
> looking for contradictions where none exist. Unproductive, divisive,
> destructive contradictions, I mean. It's like that whole tedious
> identity/class division.
> >And success goes to those groups that choose to put their resources into
> >the best strategies while minimizing resources wasted on ineffectual ones.
> Which presumes you know which will be which in advance. You sound
> like some financial theorist imparting perfect foreknowledge to The
There's a good book: Rules for Radicals, by Saul D. Alinsky.
He was an old-time radical.
One of his principles is that coalitions are needed for more than just the obvious pooling of resources. They also allow a movement to keep active. He felt that inactivity was the death of a movement, because people lose interest and are hard to get re-started.
Another was that immediate action was never to be sneered at, even cheap victories (however, the leadership should be aware that a cheap victory was just that). He recounts leading a group of protestors into an office to demand something that the people in that office were totally willing to provide, and then using that as a victory.