> I think the role he advocates is much like mine: under every day
> circumstances, when so much is against us, our job is to keep the soil
> fertilized, tilled, and as weed free as possible. When ruptures occur
> and drop the seeds of revolutionary movements, it will have mattered
> whether, all along, we were tilling, fertilizing, and weeding.
So when Godot arrives - perhaps there is some kind of global financial crisis, or the US government starts a war on a dubious pretext - and a bulk of the population has a conversion experience en masse and joins the radical left, they reach the streets to find that the meeting procedures have already been thoroughly worked out?
Seriously, I think the difference is really over what we take to be the soil that needs tilling (and maybe over who the weeds are). I'm not so confident that the things that sustain street activism and activist culture are the things that change social structures more broadly. Of course, I don't think they hurt either; perhaps they're a necessary but not sufficient condition. Activistism is good at occasional spectacular, inspiring flare-ups, but it's not the be-all and end-all of a successful movement.
> I mean, if I'm gonna be a narcissist, why not consider the purty
> little flowers an' all.
Gosh, you really thought that song was about you, didn't you? :)
Mike