That's a good point. But I'm not talking about organizing around some issue du jour. I think that if you have a goal of some kind of radical social change, that you should be strategizing about what you should be doing in terms of action AND then organizing based on that strategy. My point here is that the anti-globalization movement, for example, could have expanded its campaigns to domestic economic issues. This would have brought more people into the movement, which gives you resources to do more, and then you increase the possibility that you'll win a few campaigns, which shows more people the efficacy of your activism.
> People have been organizing around this forever, as you must know. The
> struggle to protect people dealing with the onslaught of "urban renewal"
> and gentrification are big issues.
Right. I'm well aware of these movements, but I suspect that many of our comrades simply aren't involved in these movements.
I'd also point out that the left spends way too much time and resources on stuff like electoral campaigns. If we diverted this energy away from fruitless attempts to get Ralph Nader elected, or sway some public policy, this could be channeled towards these grassroots movements.
> Do you consider reasons for choosing the strategies you choose -- in this
> case affordable housing (which I'd argue isn't so easy to define anyway,
> so
> kinda hard to keep it not about middle class homebuyers)? Is there a
> strategy here for why this issue and not another one? Is it just about
> dealing with whatever issue presents itself as likely one to get more
> people on our side?
You ask good questions. Affordable housing is hard to define, but it is a fundamental issue to many Americans. I'm sure that this issue affects many people on this list, but how many of us do any activism on this issue? How many of us have been involved in tenant groups, or homeless organizing, cooperatives, or squatting? Housing is something that affects us more directly than any other issue.
Chuck