> One does not work directly for revolution. (Actually, this is one of the
> things one learns from Lenin if one reads enough of him and reads it in
> the context of the conditions in which he was writing a given text.) One
> works to build a mass movement, which may or may not at a given time
> encounter conditions which both increase the magnitude of the movement
> _and_ radically weaken the ruling class and its state. Those conditions
> are not predictable, since they usually arise from contingent
> circumstances. But one can predict, in general, that if there is not a
> mass movement ("reformist" in some sense) under way such conditions will
> produce some form of right authoritarianism rather than revolution.
>
> Build the Mass Movement.
>
> At present, that means build the anti-war movement around the slogan,
> Bring the troops home. The purpose of a slogan, of course, is to bring
> people together to talk to each other, and it is in that context that
> the complexities get hammered out and the hopes for expansion of the
> movement.
I think many people here understand the anarchist critique of party building and the building of mass movements. But I'd like to point out as a seasoned organizer that people who focus on "building the movement" have everything backwards. If you want to build a movement, you have to engage in activities that get you attention, win new people to your politics, and win small victories. This usually means that somebody is going to have to organize direct action or a campaign that stirs up trouble. The anti-globalization movement developed from a series of provocations. Direct action in the forests. Anti-sweatshop activism. The crackdown on Crtical Mass in San Francisco in the late 90s. The Reclaim the Streets campiangs in the UK. The movement was built be groups and projects taking risks to stir up civil disobedience and trouble.
In the same vein, the IWW enjoyed a tripling of members in the late 90s after they stumbled into a good campaign against Borders Books. The campaign eventually petered out, but the aftereffects of that publicity and troublemaking led more people to join the IWW (including myself).
Building a movement is not easy, but it isn't as impossible as many left activists think. I think that we experienced activists need to share our secrets more with other folks. For example, there are two critical ingredients that I've found are important to good organizing. One involves developing resistance culture, i.e. cultural activities that aren't always political but allow radicals to mix with working people. Another crucial secret ingredient is to have a a few risk-taking types involved. These are the people who get arrested repeatedly, organize outlandish stunts, pie the famous asshole, and otherwise ratchet up your
tactics without putting everybody else at risk. A successful movement requires a few people like Spike Lee's character "Mookie" from "Do the Right Thing," who can be counted on to throw the trash can at just the right time.
If you don't have stuff like this and think that you can "build the movement" through meetings, newspaper sales, recruiting, ANSWER-type rallies, and outreach--don't be surprised if it often feels like you are spinning your wheels.
Insert any number of cliches here about risk taking and not gaining if nothing is ventured.
Chuck0