I guess I have a different vision of political struggle. Individual persuasion is not how social change typically happens. Rather, committed and ingenious activists find ways to change social conditions without the consent of the majority; then the majority are forced to change their opinions to adapt to the new social conditions. I recognize that this is fundamentally anti-democratic, but this is an accurate description of how social change has occured in the U. S. from the American Revolution to gay civil rights today. None of the important social changes in U. S. history would have happened if they were contingent upon persuading the majority.
^^^^^^^ CB: Here you seem to reverse your general thesis somewhat ? Small groups of activists are collections of individuals thinking originally and consciously of change when the small group is contrasted with the "majority", as here.
However, I agree with you somewhat. In this period of social change and revolution, unlike those of the past, it will take conscious revolutionists to lead; spontaneous mass upsurge is insufficient.
Sounds like a party of a new type of professional revolutionaries, by the way (smile). The working class can only reach trade union consciousness spontaneously. It takes conscious revolutionists to "inject" working class and socialist consciousness in the "majority". What is to be done !