> No, what Carrol is saying is that, instead of trying to broadcast your
> idea indiscriminately, you (1) start with what you got (i.e.,
> organizers and activists who already agree with you and are eager to
> work with you) and then (2) go to likely folks (i.e., regular and
> sometime activists who are likely to agree with you, though you have
> to ask them to get their commitment to take action) in critical
> constituencies (i.e., the most important constituencies for the growth
> of a social movement in question); only after you pull off (1) and (2)
> successfully and (3) sizable sectors of folks in critical
> constituencies beyond usual suspects get involved can you hope to (4)
> expect others (with the exception of a quarter to a third of the
> population who are and will be dead set against you) to come into
> contact with you directly or (in the majority of cases) indirectly.
It strikes me that this approach may be part of the reason for the dismal results of radical organizing in the U.S. for the last decade or two. Starting by cocooning oneself with people who agree with one's ideas may lead to a state in mind in which one feels one has the God-given Truth, which has not been subjected to vigorous debate and counter-argument to winnow the real truth in it from the untruth (cf. John Stuart Mill, _On Liberty_). Equally dangerous, one has not sufficiently studied the way the general public's mind works, so that when one eventually wants to proceed to steps (3) and (4), one cannot speak persuasively to the public, or even connect with ways in which the public already agrees with one.
The general picture of this style of organizing is of a small group that feels very defensive and apprehensive about exposing themselves to the "great unwashed." The latter, in fact, tends to be characterized as a vast mass of brain-washed, if not brainless, robots who will immediately eat you up if you are not encased in your APC of "the correct line."
That's probably an unfair caricature of this organizing approach, but it rather looks that way. I don't think such organizers sufficiently appreciate the fact that, even though the average American has not read her or his Chomsky, Derrida, and Zizek the way a good radical should, she or he does in fact have a mind, is capable of observing the world and drawing conclusions about it, and ought to be listened to respectfully before being preached at. The enterprising radical might even learn a thing or two.
I think a more promising approach is the opposite of this one -- start by approaching ordinary folks themselves, get comfortable with communicating with them, and then consider, in a modest, self-reflective way, what you can provide to help them in their various distresses. After all, if they are, as you believe, being severely exploited by the system, they shouldn't be entirely oblivious of that fact before you show up to save them.
> If your idea is to elect a Democrat to "defeat Bush," however, you
> can't be making demands for radical change and hope to appeal to swing
> voters to vote for your guy (even in Democratic caucuses and
> primaries, much less in the general election), for swing voters in the
> USA are not at all clamoring for radical change of the sort that
> leftists want (they don't even vote for Kucinich and Sharpton).
They certainly are not voting for those candidate!. And why not, if politicians like them are the ones the working class *should* be voting for? Don't you have any curiosity about the answer to this question? Or do you assume that the usual cliches -- "media brainwashing," "false consciousness," etc. -- are a sufficient answer?
And, as I said yesterday, why not walk and chew gum at the same time? Kerry and Edwards, as well as Dean, are constantly talking about "standing up for the little guy" (and gal? -- they seem to be using some rather sexist language here). Of course, we sophisticates assume they are just shucking and jiving, but why not hold their feet to the fire? Beginning perhaps with suggesting that they support a Canadian-style government health insurance system -- plenty of observers have provided arguments over and over again that it works much better than the U.S. non-system. Also, what about reforming labor laws to give unions more of a break? Even the union leaders who support one candidate or another seem to be rather reluctant to speak up on this issue. At least, I don't hear it very loud and clear.
Instead of turning their backs on the "electoral process," radicals might be able to inject a few new ideas into it. After all, that's what the old Socialist Party of Debs, Thomas, and Harrington managed to do, at least once in a while.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ A sympathetic Scot summed it all up very neatly in the remark, 'You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest and folk-dancing.' -- Sir Arnold Bax