> > 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.
Yes, but I tend to assign more weight to long-term and large-scale historical changes than anecdotes on personal interactions in explanations about anything, not just fortunes of left-wing politics.
> > 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 venture to say that activist culture is tied up with goals, strategies, tactics, organizations, etc. of activists, shaped by particular historical conditions. With different historical conditions, as well as different goals, strategies, tactics, organizations, etc., you'll have different activist cultures.
> > 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.
Why not, if you are serious about critical inquiry and (moreover) the question really matters to you? There are sociologists who specialize in the study of social movements, like my friend Eric Swank. Why not check out what they have discovered so far? Not that they can necessarily answer your question, but systematic research beats a series of anecdotes as a point of departure for meaningful discussion.
> > (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.
That's definitely a turn-off for me, but I must say, in fairness, that's a turn-on for others (including some on this list). Different activist cultures attract different activists, and vice versa.
>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.
Consumption habits are indeed a weighty concern for a number of activists who mainly see people as consumers (whether they realize it or not). In the social context where Marxism (with its focus on solidarity among exploited direct producers engaged in mass struggles) is a very marginalized world view and political project, it is no wonder that even left-wing activists may end up thinking of maldistribution (who gets paid more, who uses more resources, etc.) as the main cause of social ills and focusing on changes in individual consumption habits as avenues for larger social changes. I'm afraid that ranting against their focus on distribution and consumption probably won't change what they think. -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>