> Speaking of retention, first of all, there is a problem of
> historical flows and ebbs (though I doubt that this is what Michael
> Albert was addressing). The Red Purges destroyed the Old Left; and
> the end of the Vietnam War (or at least the withdrawal of US troops
> from Vietnam), the defeat of ERA, attacks and assassinations of
> radical black leaders, partial victories won through feminist, civil
> rights, and other social movements, stagflation and neo-liberal
> counter-offensives, and a host of other factors decomposed the
> left-wing upsurges of the 60s and 70s.
Of course, but it's myopic to focus on the above *to the exclusion* of how activists hinder themselves.
> We could say, in hindsight,
> that activists who had emerged in the era of working-class upsurges
> might have fared better when the political tide turned against them
> if they had known how to retreat with the least damages to their
> ranks. The common error, we might say, was that they were
> unprepared -- perhaps overestimating the strength of the left -- for
> capital's counter-attacks (an alternative interpretation is that they
> were unprepared to take the struggle to the next level at the height
> of the upsurge, underestimating the strength of the left, relinquishing
> their political independence and having their strength merely taken
> advantage of by liberals and social democrats).
All of which is a matter of strategy, relevant when there is mass mobolization of groups with shared goals. What I'm addressing, as Brian, Jenny, Doug, and others have touched on, is how existing groups function internally. It's a question of activist culture, not attack plans for combat units.
> I'd be interested in reading sociological research on the issue of
> retention in political activism on the left.
You're raising the ante to criticize activist groups so high that effectively no one can match it.
> (1) newly minted activists check out some groups and (finding them
> inadequate for a number of reasons, having learned what they could
> but seeing there is no more to learn from them, realizing that the
> primary issue[s] they want to work on can't be addressed through
> them, etc.) quit them and join some other groups;
>
> or
>
> (2) activists -- due to the need to rest and breathe or reasons
> related to their work, education, family responsibilities, etc. --
> drop out of activism altogether for a period of time, and come back
> later when they can.
How about the meddling problem in much of the anti-globo and green movement, the fact many of its adherent choose to make ones personal life their political concern. People come into 2+ hour consensus meetings and are regalled with dietary prescriptions and sermons about their consumption habits.
One of the most telling parts of Michael Albert's talk was when he ranted about how he didn't care whether or not Chomsky wore Nike shoes. It was funny at first, until it hit me that he was answering a real question, apparently a recurring one.
> There is another problem, (3) the problem of retention due to the
> lack of enduring institutions on the left to which activists, new
> and old, can turn.
Absolutely, which is in no small part why disfunction fills the void.
> If you have a solution to (3), you tell us.
Can't, don't have the sociological research...
-- Shane
________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.