> http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/engel140306.html
I think just about every word of this article is correct. I would add that the phenomenon applies not only to the "progressive ghettoes" like Pioneer Valley, Ann Arbor, Madison, Berkeley, etc., but to most cities in the country. Anywhere were "activists" are a subculture rather than a movement (or at least a group of organizers trying to build a mass movement) is well-described in this article. People who talk about "the activist scene" are unknowingly giving themselves a way -- it's a sign that they view it as a subculture, something to do with their friends, and not a movement.
The one thing I pull back from slightly in the article is Engel's lament that these groups rarely form "coalitions" with eachother. I think that's beside the point: these groups could always form "coalitions" with eachother and it still wouldn't make a difference. I don't know how many times I've heard people talk about coalition-building and realize that they mean that all the leaders and members of the little left-wing groups should go to eachother's meetings and talk to eachother. But all of these groups are weak. They should focus on building their base -- organizing the unorganized, some might call it -- before they talk about "coalitions."
I have an ongoing contest with some friends of mine to come up with a list of the most ridiculous names for pseudo-organizations that could be added to just such a letterhead "coalition." My organization is called the Unitarian Universalists for the Propagation of Guatemalan Hadicrafts (UUPGH).
The way out of this trap is to develop and maintain a mass focus. This is easier said than done, but one necessary step for it must be to shed the individualism that Engel talks about. No more bullshit about how democratic accountability to a collective is "authoritarian."
- - - - - - - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
Tell no lies, claim no easy victories