Michael Yates wrote:
> There is a very fine article on local organizing by Michael Engel on
> mrzine, at <http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/engel140306.html> It is on
> local organizing and it is sharply critical of the mindset of most
> "progressive" organizations. It describes the kind of behavior I observed
> so many times at the Socialist Scholars Conference and elsewhere. I'd
> love to get others' take on it.
====================================================
I also thought it was a fine article, applicable to virtually all
neighbourhoods adjoining universities and populated by students and faculty,
professionals and (mostly public) administrators. Engel draws a good
contrast between the often free-floating and irresponsible organizational
norms found in this milieu with the more consistent, orderly and disciplined
political behaviour of the old working class movement. John Lacny's post
described this frustrating "activist scene" in more detail.
The complaints, of course, aren't new. This superficial organizational behaviour originated with the rise of the new left in the 60's and drove many of us nearly mad at one time or another. Engel would like to see the work habits of the new left brought more in line with that of the old left and he suggests more contact with working class institutions and communities would assist in this process. That's also not new, although Engel gives it a more contemporary spin. At the same time, he also suggests there are inherent limitations on the ability of more affluent college-educated types to be more deeply involved, both because of their class position which breeds both an individualist outlook and a material self-interest.
These are important insights which I don't think are in contradiction to each other. But I don't think that a higher level of political activity within university-centred neighbourhoods is something which can really be willed into existence, although I don't think Engel is suggesting that it can; it is mainly dependent on, as Doug put it, "what is happening in Springfield" and other black and white working class communities and institutions outside. The intellectuals and the more comfortable strata of the working class become more seriously engaged only with the eruption of mass movements with a national political focus such as the 60s Civil Rights struggle and the 30s protest against the Depression. So long as political struggles remain localized and episodic, as at present, there is no unifying national focus on domestic politics to bring the different constituencies together. Engel's point about the more privileged position of intellectuals and professional workers is also valid; it does inhibit political activity at this level, but there will always be "organic" working class intellectuals and others who break with their upper middle class background who play important, often leading, roles in mass political movements.