...Revolutionary change is a multi-round strategic endeavor, yet there is little serious discussion on LBO of articulating the steps to make each round successful-- or even what the rounds of change are needed.
That would be of use to activists if it was compelling...
Nathan Newman
--------------
Intellectual conceptualization of what to do works in tantedum with organizing and activism on the ground, but once that organizing and activism is up, running and successful, then suddenly the whole rational for that movement has to again fall back on reflection, what to do next, how to go about it, and so forth. It's this latter stage that I've seen go bad, precisely because the conceptualization prior to action wasn't sufficiently worked out. Who wanted to keep talking at that early point, when action was working?
Just like the need for action is always present, so is the need for intellectual process. They have to literally be indistinguishable. For example you can't have a hierarchical order pursuing democratic ideals, which I suspect is precisely the trouble with most action oriented organizations. That is they are dominated by a ruling core.
It isn't just a question of organization style, but of continuing the momentum. Practically speaking, people burn out and have to be replaced, but by whom? Obviously others with similar goals and abilities. But the only way to insure those goals and abilities live on is through the continual process of shared and diffused leadership---that is broadly shared power. So there has to be already that attitude to start with, so that it never becomes a question. Altruism all the way down, so to speak.
This probably sounds elementary and stupid, no doubt, but the concept of collective has to be seriously understood and enacted in order for it to work its magic---which is really the core of power, especially when pitted against hierarchical orders of oppression---which seems to be the universal system of the enemy (capital, government, et al)
So then: ``...People organize people, and while people may be motivated to act based on something they read, they only move forward into sustained activism if there is a structure to continually nurture them and move them forward in a way that fulfills those original desires...''(NN)
But that organization of people has to also include them, not merely use them. And that's where I have found the deeper problem exists. Call out the troops! Sure on a occasion.
But the whole concept of troops is a profound mistake. There can be no troops, or maybe there can only be troops so to speak. The underlying motivation, the only really tangible motivation I've ever sensed, is literally self-realization as collective action. That is you awaken as you act out the collective will. So then, within that context, any appearance of leadership has to be temporary, provisional, ad hoc, diffused, indefinable. If some command system appears, then it must appear out of no where and then disappear. If it lingers around and starts to gell into some core---then it has to be dissolved. If it is allowed to completely solidify, then from the collective view, it is a form of theft. It steals what is rightly everyones, and once that happens, as it usually does, then the moment is gone. Might as well pack up and find a new home, because the leaders (the bosses) have moved in.
So the question isn't in the opposition between action and thought, but in balancing both so that at any time, one or the other can come to the fore or drop into the background or be melded together in a natural way, without a division of labor between them. The minute there is a division of labor between those who get to think and those who must act, the same alienating hierarchy is on its way to stolid reproduction.
All I can say is I have seen this melding of thought and action work. No for very long, but long enough to completely alter the concept of disability in society---well temporarily anyway. But what killed that scene was exactly what I just tried to explain. In short form: leaders. Gotta stay away from leaders and heirarchies, and the fixed concepts of structure, identity and who constitutes the collective. These have to be blended together in some indefinable way directly out of the context of the moment, without fixed rules---or with very flexible and provisional rules.
I am sure this all sounds way too hippy, sixties, etc. Well, never mind then. Either this makes sense or it doesn't.
But even within already existing hierarchical organizations (are there any other kind?), collective principles can be used to re-order such a system. One simple method is job rotation. Ah, but then we hear crap about salary differentials, etc, etc. So change pay scales and bring them closer together so that pay distinctions are less hierarchical---under the ideal that all work is after all work. Oh, dear, you mean the director gets the same as the secretary? Well, yeah, something like that. But then the secretary gets to be director for some part of the year and the director gets to be secretary. But, but, that's like communism... Yeah, well, duh.
Chuck Grimes