> However, I reject "mass" organizing because I reject the leftist use
> of the word "mass," which essentially leads to small cells of people
> thinking that they can "lead" this reification of working people
> called "the masses."
This reification is certainly a danger that must be avoided. On the other hand, sooner or later a large section of the population will need to get actively involved in the revolution if it is to be a proper revolution. If a majority is not that involved, the majority at least has to be approving of the revolutionary process and its result, but even if the revolutionary Left could agree on a common project at this point, we would be a long way away from getting the majority of Americans to approve it.
The problem, I think, is that, ideally, you would want the population to learn to think for itself, critically analyze the capitalist/imperialist/patriarchal/racist/etc. ideology, and come to realize the necessity for overthrowing the system. But at the same time, to create an effective political movement, you need a large number of people all marching the same direction, to the same drummer, and thus you can't let the critical thinking tendency go too far, because then people will criticize *your* ideology and fall out of step with you.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ After the Buddha died, people still kept pointing to his shadow in a cave for centuries—an enormous, dreadful shadow. God is dead: but the way people are, there may be, for millennia, caves in which his shadow is still pointed to. — And we — we must still overcome his shadow! —Friedrich Nietzsche