>One can devise all manner of rules but they are
>not meaningful because the situation you describe
>is one of demobilization.
To a certain extent, yes -- it's a natural effect of the end of the strike (for unionists & supporters) & the beginning of the summer vacation (for the college crowd). On the other hand, we haven't quite demobilized yet, in that we are working on legal defence of the protesters arrested during the strike and at the commencement protest against J.C. Watts; organizing more hospital workers on and off campus; surveying clerical workers' interest in unionization; offering solidarity to a HERE organizing campaign in the city; etc. For success of any of the above, the continued cooperation of labor, student, & community activists would be necessary.
>A well-structured set
>of rules for an organization under such conditions
>makes no difference in terms of fostering mobilization.
>Organizations don't foster mobilization; they may be
>around to take advantage of it when it occurs, but in
>that case there would be no shortage of minorities to
>take leadership roles. I'd say the real issue is what
>rules should apply in a genuine upsurge, rather than
>at ebb tide.
>
>I've started reading "Poor Peoples Movements" by
>Cloward and Piven, and they raise the -- for me --
>intriguing question of whether "organization" in
>the usual sense is the real key to social change.
>C&P say that organization only happens as an upsurge
>recedes, and orgs tend to reconcile with the status
>quo in the aftermath. It's the disruption and
>potential threat that force the change. Where
>this takes us I couldn't say yet, since I haven't
>finished the book. But the reconciliation part of
>their story is persuasive.
I've read Cloward & Piven, and as far as protest politics in America is concerned, the book seems persuasive. On the other hand, organizing around issues of union democracy & student, labor, & community solidarity doesn't quite fit the picture of political cycles that C & P describe, in so far as protests that C & P describe are the kind that comes and goes in response to large-scale economic ups & downs, whereas union democracy and solidarity in the community are more about issues that never go away. In fact, I think that whether or not rank-and-file unionists stay involved in union and other political goings-on pretty much determines the quality of democracy -- everyone's favorite word -- under capitalism.
Actually, even under socialism, we can say the same. What liberals call "Stalinism" & socialists may call "bureaucratic centralism" is an effect of demobilization of the masses who became activated during the revolution, I think.
I'm not saying that ordinary people -- as opposed to individuals who love politics for the sake of politics -- can always stay involved even after an emergency -- e.g. a strike -- is over. Nevertheless, if they completely demobilized, they would be losing a chance to make their union and local politics more democratic.
Yoshie