> The crucial step [leading to the desegregation in the South] was
> political activism that led to institutional change; the change
> in public consciousness came later.
Again, it's chicken and egg.
How did political activism in the South come about without people changing their minds, without people talking to themselves and others, affirming themselves, persuading fence-sitters, intimidating opponents, etc. that desegregation was possible and necessary -- thus creating a cascade, a chain reaction that at some point translated into a critical mass of political mobilization capable of changing the political and legal superstructure of the country and unleashing further consequences?
Or where did that metaphysical prime mover, deux ex machina, called "political activism" come from? Thin air? Was it the sheer result of spontaneous social phenomena, completely unintended? Or, if human intentions, deliberation and will, played any role, doesn't that suggest to us then how important it is for people to change their minds and help others do same? What else can we do but concentrate on changing the things we can change (our own mind, first and foremost, and then, by electric induction, the minds of others) and then, by repetition, alter our behaviors (and those of people around us), etc.?
What do we mean when we say that we "produce" and "reproduce" our social relations? Who is the agent of that process of production and reproduction if not us? What do we mean when we say that we want that reproduction of our social relations to be *conscious*?
B is right in pointing that, if we don't work on changing our own minds and the minds of those around us, spontaneous changes in the social conditions (changes resulting from the combination of natural forces and social forces beyond our control) may lead to social regression rather than progress.