đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș ian-martin-back-to-the-roots.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:55:06. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Back to the Roots Author: Ian Martin Date: June 28, 2010 Language: en Topics: revolutionary anarchism, anarchist organization, activism, organization, anarchist movement Source: Retrieved on 14th October 2021 from https://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/back-to-the-roots-anarchists-as-revolutionary-organizers/ Notes: Ian Martin is a broke student/wage slave, a member of Students For Justice, a Wobbly and a cool Panamenian dude. Much debt is owed to James Mummâs article, Active Revolution , and to my comrades in Students For justice.
Whatâs the difference between an activist and an organizer? The
distinction is quite important. An activist is committed and responsible
to an issue; they are what I call âissue-centeredâ. The issue can be
anything from war to globalization to anarchism itself. Activists then
attempt to rally people around this issue based on individualsâ moral
commitments and beliefs. For activists, an organization is simply a
means to effect change and win some victories regarding the given issue.
What needs to be done to create a successful, truly liberatory,
revolutionary movement? What should an anarchist be doing to help in the
creation and construction of such a movement? These are, or at least
should be, central questions that anarchists need to be addressing.
While they are by no means the only relevant issues, the fact that some
anarchists spend so much time on intellectual masturbation instead of
tackling these concrete problems of liberation is symptomatic of their
distance from real grassroots struggle. For some, anarchism may be an
intellectual game, a lifestyle, or simply something to do to pass the
time. But for anyone who is truly interested in liberation, in building
a free, equal and just society made up of vibrant communities, its time
to get our hands dirty. There s no substitute or quick easy fix for
organizing and movement building. Behind every spontaneous uprising or
revolution, there was years of organizing work that paved the way and
laid the foundations. Such work has been ignored for far too long by
those calling themselves anarchists. This distance from grassroots
struggle must be eliminated, and anarchists must assume their proper
role as revolutionary organizers if they wish to be at all successful in
seeing their dreams realized. The reason why anarchists are so cut off
and isolated from the people and find themselves sharing in so many of
the other flaws of the Left, is because like the Left, anarchists have
mostly (in modern times) been activists.
What s the difference between an activist and an organizer? The
distinction is quite important. An activist Is committed and responsible
to an issue, they are what I call issue-centered. The issue can be
anything from war to globalization to anarchism itself. Activists then
attempt to rally people around this issue based on individualsâ moral
commitments and beliefs. For activists, an organization is simply a
means to effect change and win some victories regarding the given issue.
An organizer, by contrast, is committed and responsible to a defined
constituency. Or in other words, is responsible to a group of people
(students, workers at a workplace, etc.) or a community. Organizers are
what I call people-centered. Rather than rally people around some issue,
an organizer believes that the important thing is to build relationships
between people and transform power dynamics, letting issues be defined
by the people themselves. For an organizer, building people s collective
power to create change is ultimately more important than victory on an
issue. Issues are important insofar as they are a means of building this
collective power, radicalizing people, and constructing a movement and
organizations.
It can quickly be seen why activism leads to alienation and isolation
from ordinary people, and ineffectiveness in bringing about real,
revolutionary change. Activists spend their time producing analysis
concerning different issues, and then expect people to come flocking to
that analysis that was produced by activists in isolation. This process
does not let people craft their own analysis or select their own issues.
Activism is based around a deep lack of trust in people, and an
unwillingness to give control to the masses, who are valuable as bodies
in a march but not as participants in theory or guiding a movement.
Given this fact, it then becomes a bit absurd when activists start
asking, âWhere are the people of color?â or âHow come only white lefties
ever participate?â. Should they be surprised when their lack of trust is
returned by those they disdain? No genuine revolution can be built from
a strategic model that values an issue above people, and utilizes people
as simply a means to an end (shouldnât anarchism be about putting people
as the end)). Anarchists have become activists by default over the
years, due to a lack of clear organization and concrete goals, and this
needs to change.
Organizers have a fundamental faith and trust in people and their
potential, and thus allow them to take part in and guide analysis and
issue-selection. Many so-called radicals (and anarchists) seem to fear
that ordinary people will make mistakes if given this control. But what
is anarchism if not the belief that people are fully able to govern
themselves and make the decisions that affect their lives? Certainly our
ability to do so is stunted by living in a hierarchal, authoritarian
society, but how else will this capacity develop and how else will
people learn but through mistakes? Vanguardism is not just a strategy
but also a state of mind that thinks that there is a group of
enlightened radicals, and everyone else isnât quite at their level yet,
so the ordinary folk canât be given control. This mindset must be wiped
out, especially from the brains of those who claim to be anarchists.
Letting people define their own issues is key to an organizer. People
will obviously be far more committed to fighting for an issue and goal
that they have selected through a collective, organic process than one
that was chosen for them and they are expected to run to, shouting
âHallelujah, Iâve seen the light!â. An organizer should work to build
people s skills and experience in analysis, not control the analysis
itself. Organizers should facilitate analysis by making sure that a
process of dialogue, where people talk out their feelings and insights
about an issue, and research takes place, with ultimately a solid
position and strategy being formulated. As sure as the sun will shine,
people will at times choose to work for the reforms, which sets off the
vanguardist tendency in many radicals. But an organizer knows that its
not the end of the world, and in fact is quite natural. The best way for
someone to learn the futility of reformism is often not by being
lectured, but by experiencing it for him or herself in the course of
struggle. Radicalization is rarely a divine revelation; rather reform
struggles can often be key elements in the process. Organizers
facilitate and encourage the action people have chosen, knowing that any
action is useful as long as there is reflection. Truly useful and
radical theory develops from such action and reflection, not clever
thoughts in an ivory tower. An organizer is ultimately concerned with
transforming power dynamics, and this can often be accomplished just as
well in working towards a reform as a more radical goal.
It is also important to remember that historically the people have been
the most radical element in revolutionary moments. It is the activists,
intellectuals, and party leaders, who are always claiming to have the
monopoly on militancy and advanced ideas, who end up exerting a
conservative influence when it most matters. A true anarchist and
revolutionary organizer wants to develop and unleash the revolutionary
potency in people, and when its day has come will let it wash away the
old order without straining to put a leash on it in the name of party,
ideology, or personal power.
Organizers are primarily concerned with transforming power dynamics but
in what way? Currently, much of society is based on an unequal power
dynamic of hierarchy and top-down rule. Anarchists and revolutionary
organizers should be focused on changing this power dynamic wherever it
occurs. Power is not necessarily a bad thing it is simply the ability to
effect change and have a say in decision-making. What is bad is when
power is distributed unequally, when it is given to some and not to
others. But fortunately power, unlike money, does row on trees, or more
precisely is present within each of us as human beings. How power is
distributed in society is a social relationship, and like any social
relationship, can be transformed once the people involved commit
themselves to changing it.
While power is currently concentrated in the hands of a few, organizers
work to change the situation into one in which power is distributed
evenly. What this means in concrete terms is that right now only a
minority in society get to make the decisions about how society will
operate, and also monopolize the means to enforce those decisions.
Instead, anarchists wish to see everyone have an equal say in the
decisions that affect their communities. Decisions will be made reality
by the people themselves, not imposed on them by coercive methods.
Organizers are not only concerned with developing people s power, but
also their creativity and initiative. In other words, while all
revolutions and movements depend on some degree of popular empowerment,
oftentimes this is only so that it can be directed into the channels
which leaders and would-be leaders have devised. Anarchist organizers
rightly view this as manipulation and inimical to freedom. With equal
and collective power for all should come the equal opportunity of all to
decide how their power will be exercised.
It should be understood that there are generally two types of power
positive power and negative power. Positive power is the ability to
create and construct in terms of freedom, it can be described as the
freedom to. Negative power is the ability to restrict someone else s
actions or prevent an undesired event from taking place. In terms of
freedom, this is known as freedom from. The terms positive and negative
do not necessarily connote that one type is desirable and the other is
not. True power is the sum of both positive and negative power. The
desirability of a form of power can be found in whether it is
collectively wielded or monopolized by only a few.
Negative power is the destructive and limiting force. When wielded by
the few, it manifests itself as war, prisons, police, bombs, oppression,
etc. But as a collective force, which is what revolutionary organizers
are concerned with, negative power is the important ability of people to
stand up to injustice in the streets, destroy oppressive institutions,
and defend their freedom, rights, communities and organizations against
encroachment by rulers. Obviously negative power is vital in pursuing a
social revolution and radically transforming society, since those in
authority and blessed with privilege will not give up their ill-gotten
gains without struggle. The most important elements in cultivating
negative power are courage, confidence, and willpower. Once the people
have resolved upon a course of action and believe in it in their hearts,
the power they can wield is without equal. Governments and institutions
that seem invincible and eternal have crumbled with breathtaking speed
once the masses have made up their mind to destroy them. Given this
fact, those in power by necessity must convince people through various
means (education, the media, etc.) that they are helpless to change
anything and powerless in the face of the might of the system. Thus, the
most common reason that people give for not participating in political
or revolutionary activity is that it is useless and they can t make a
difference. In order to cultivate negative power then, this
socialization must be counteracted. By participating in campaigns and
actions, people can begin to get a sense of what they can achieve
collectively and become habituated to using that power. People must
develop the courage to use their power, confidence in its efficacy, and
the willingness to use it. While negative power is often heavily or
exclusively focused upon, because we are in the midst of a system which
we must dismantle and destroy, it is vitally important not to ignore the
other type of power.
Positive power is the constructive and creative force. It can be used by
the few to create complex systems of exploitation and oppression, such
as the global system of neo-liberal capitalism or the million and one
laws that only serve to damn us. In the hands of the people, however,
positive power can be used to create new institutions to meet the needs
and desires of a society based upon a new vision. Such creative work is
as vital to revolution as the destructive work of negative power.
Obviously the goal is not just to tear down the current society but also
to build a better one in its place. Just as people need to participate
in smaller expressions of negative power to build their confidence
before they jump into the big leagues, so too are small steps often
helpful with positive power. Limited programs of mutual aid to meet
community needs, such as breakfast programs, tenant or worker
cooperatives, etc., are important ways to build people s confidence in
their ability to construct without direction from above, to provide
practice in exercising that creativity which has atrophied in the
suffocating atmosphere of capitalism and hierarchal society, and to give
people a taste of a different world, a taste which will hopefully bloom
into a burning thirst. Just as people have been convinced that they can
t stand up to the system and make a change, they have also been
convinced that this way of life is as good as humanity gets and there is
no alternative. We have been bred to believe the worst about each other
and humankind in general, and experiments in positive power can show
people that cooperation, justice, equality, and solidarity can come as
naturally and easily to us as competition, selfishness and brutality to
us under the current system. Once confidence, experience, and
belief/desire in a better world have been developed, people can wield
positive power to move beyond limited programs to the complete
collective management of social, political, and economic life.
The aim of organizers is to help develop both the positive and negative
power of the people. A revolutionary anarchist organizer does not
control people power; rather he or she merely tries to work for
situations and structures that develop it. How that power is used is up
to the people themselves.
Dual power is an important concept for organizers and anarchists to
understand. It refers to a state of affairs in which popular power, in
both its positive and negative forms, poses a direct challenge to the
State and threatens to replace it as the accepted power in society. When
free, cooperative institutions are created by the people to take over
the political, economic, and/or social organization of life, the new
society is being created within the shell of the old. However, while
this positive construction is absolutely integral to revolution, it
cannot be successful without tactics based on negative power. The State
will not just peacefully relinquish power to the free institutions of
the people. Rather, those in power will try their best to destroy them
using whatever coercion and force is necessary. This is because
institutions of dual power are direct challenges to the legitimacy of
the State. A situation where two social forms compete for legitimacy is
inherently unstable, one or the other must prevail eventually. Negative
power is thus essential to defend the people s institutions against
State attacks, as well as to take the offensive and dismantle the State.
Some see social revolution as an outdated concept that is rendered
impossible and unrealistic in this modern world of high-tech weaponry
and a U.S. military that is the most powerful war-making machine the
world has ever known. This, however, demonstrates a lack of
understanding as to what social revolution really is. It is not a
political revolution where leaders and factions compete for authority or
a guerilla struggle with a small band fighting against Goliath. Rather,
it is the people as a whole rising up to create new societal forms and
to destroy the old ones. It can be seen as a zero-sum game where an
increase in people power leads to a decrease in State and elite power.
Once a certain point has been reached, people power is at such a high
level that State and elite power is reduced to a weak semblance of its
old self. This is because it must always be remembered, and it seems
that some have forgot, that the economic, political, and social power of
the ruling class is based on controlling and commanding people s power.
When people begin to seize control of their own power and use it for
their own purposes, not only does this become fuel for the fire of
revolution, but it also means that this power is lost to the ruling
class and means a reduction in their power. The case for social
revolution in modern society is thus not as hopeless as it first seems,
for the withdrawal of people s power from the system does more damage to
State and capitalist power than any street fighting could ever do. There
will of course be some fighting and violence, but the more organized the
people are and the more people seize control of their own power, the
weaker the ruling class will be without firing a single bullet.
Organizations at heart are a network of relationships between people. It
is important never to forget this, and that organizations are created to
serve the needs of people, not vice versa. That being said,
organizations are necessary and important. They are the means by which
people can wield collective power. Power must be wielded collectively,
not only because it is otherwise impossible to achieve social change,
but also because collective power will be the basis of the new society.
One key thing must be said and I cannot stress this enough the ultimate
goal of an organizer is to make everyone into an organizer. One s
skills, insights, and knowledge should not be jealously guarded but
rather shared as widely as possible.
That being said, what are the main tasks facing an organizer when
helping in the construction of an organization?
Relationships between the people inside them are what make or break
effective revolutionary organizations. Ultimately, a network of
relationships or collection of people forms the initial foundation of an
organization. Sometimes this group comes together organically on its
own, and at other times it is the work of active outreach by organizers.
Such outreach can be in the form of one-on-one conversations, group
forums, or other means. Oftentimes organizations also come about as the
result of a single-issue campaign when a core group of people working on
such a campaign come together to create something more broad and
lasting.
Whatever the case may be, it is the responsibility of organizers and
everyone in an organization to make sure that all relationships are
healthy and based on principles of equality and solidarity. Feelings of
camaraderie and cooperation often develop naturally as a result of
shared work, but it also is important to create a culture of friendship.
This culture can come about if people have fun together and share in
social activities that are not necessarily even related to what the
organization does. When new people enter the organization, the utmost
effort must be made to integrate them into the network of relationships,
so that cliques of old experienced members, separate from new members do
not develop. If people are not engaged and feel disconnected from
everyone else, they will likely not stay around for long.
Structure is vitally important for all organizations. While a good
organization may be made up of people who feel a kinship to each other
and even people who are all committed to lofty revolutionary principles,
informal hierarchies still can and will develop without structure. It is
easy to be turned off to the concept of structure when we live in a
society based on authoritarian, hierarchal structures that strangle
freedom and participation, and when endless, frustrating bureaucracy is
everywhere. But just because structure takes on such vile forms in our
current society does not mean we should throw out the baby with the bath
water. If used in the right way, structure can actually be a means of
insuring democracy and equal power and participation.
The absence of structure and order does not necessarily lead to freedom
or equality. Certain members of our society possess privileges based on
race, class, gender, or personality. Without any structure, these
privileges manifest themselves and an informal, ranked hierarchy based
upon them emerges. Those with privilege dominate discussion and
decision-making, while those without it feel disenfranchised and
intimidated. Democracy is not just about everyone having a vote, but
about everyone having an equal part in the discussion leading up to a
vote, the information needed to make it, and the opportunity and ability
to voice their opinion on the issue. Those who argue against structure
ignore the fact that the process upon which structureless groups operate
is the organizational equivalent of the theory of laissez-faire
capitalism everyone in capitalism has the opportunity to get rich, so if
they don t then its their own fault. Of course we all know that this is
complete nonsense and that success in capitalism is almost always
determined by privilege (whether based on class, race, gender, etc.).
Similarly, some argue that groups without structure are also level
playing fields and that if people do not speak up or participate it is
their own fault (personal responsibility).
Anarchists and revolutionaries should know better. The group is
collectively responsible for insuring the equal participation of all its
members, while personal responsibility is a concept that we should
discard, as it has always been the justification for iniquity.
Organizers should help in building a non-hierarchal, democratic
structure that defends against the emergence of any type of hierarchy or
elite, whether formal or informal. Such a structure should accomplish
the following things:
It is vitally important that tasks are formally assigned and divided up.
If they are not, tasks will end up falling to the same people over and
over again, which is unhealthy because not only will those people end up
monopolizing experience and skills, but the work of the organization
ends up being performed by only a few, which is a recipe for elitism.
Additionally, assigning tasks has the benefit of creating
accountability. If no in task, one is really responsible for a certain
task, then there is no way of insuring that it gets done. But if there
is someone responsible, then there is a definite sense of accountability
which will insure that most things do get done, and at the least that
there is someone to question if he or she does not follow through on the
assigned task. Accountability is not a trespass against individual
freedom. Tasks should be assigned on a volunteer basis, so that one
freely chooses to be accountable when taking something on. While
individual freedom is a high priority for anarchists, so is the
collective responsibility that goes with it. In other words, there is a
responsibility to the people that you work with when participating in an
organization. You are fully free to shirk a task, but your comrades are
equally free to not trust you with tasks anymore, at least until you can
prove otherwise. The person who is accountable does not necessarily have
to perform the task alone, but can simply be the point person who makes
sure that what they are assigned to do gets done in general.
It is important that organizations empower and develop the leadership
abilities of each of their members. While anarchists are against
permanent leaders with vested authority over others, it is important for
us in our organizing to acknowledge the fact that leaders and leadership
of a different type do exist in organizations and revolutionary
movements, and that this is a natural and not necessarily negative
phenomena Leadership is not harmful as long as the right structure is in
place to insure that the leadership skills of everyone are developed,
and that everyone is a leader at some point and in some capacity. When
everyone is a leader, has power, and is an agent of change, then
anarchism is realized. Part of an organizer s work in changing power
dynamics is to change them within the organization, by making sure a
structure place that insures power is equally distributed, and that
those with privilege, be it based on gender, race, class, education, or
experience do not hold an unfair advantage. Shaping theory, leadership,
decision-making, and/or importance. If an organizer achieves nothing
else besides empowering people, then he or she has done a lot. Power is
is something that everyone has, it just needs to be tapped and drawn
out.
Ultimately an organization must act. It is no use having empowered
people or a great structure if people s power is not used to make things
happen and create change. There s a reason that the word movement is
used after all, because it is based on action. it is also important to
remember that the process of empowerment and radicalization is primarily
driven by personal and collective experience in action (and reflection
upon it afterwards).
The three steps I have outlined are not really steps at all, but rather
three components of a complementary and simultaneous process. Action is
made up of strategy and tactics. Strategy is in essence the overall plan
of action to accomplish a larger goal. A campaign, itself with its own
strategy, might be part of a larger strategy (towards revolution for
example). Tactics are the individual actions which make up a strategy.
The role of an organizer is to facilitate whatever course of action or
campaign people have decided upon. He or she does this by sharing
whatever experiences or skills might be helpful, by asking the right
questions that will get people to think in constructive and positive
ways (i.e. getting people to think strategically, encouraging creativity
and thoughtful choice of tactics, etc.), and making sure that tasks are
coordinated and followed through with. The test of a group s structure
comes through action, and its weaknesses will often only be revealed at
this time. An organizer should always be assessing what is going wrong
or right and bringing these observations up to the group for discussion
and possible solutions. An organization s structure should always be
seen as a work in progress and never beyond question. It is important to
be fluid enough to adapt to changing conditions and situations as well
as to compensate for unforeseen flaws.
While organizers should be a motivating force in an organization, true
motivation for action can only come from within each person. Passion can
definitely be a collective process, however, in that people undoubtedly
inspire each other. Enthusiasm is often contagious. That being said, one
of the key roles for organizers comes after action when they should be
encouraging analysis and assessment, for action without reflection is
fruitless. Just as people grow from lessons learned from experience,
organizations and movements become more effective and powerful only by
assessing past actions and shaping future tactics and strategy based
upon such reflection. It is also important that such lessons are
institutionalized or made permanent in some way so that people don t
have to keep reinventing the wheel. This is why solid organizations are
necessary that just don t evaporate after time, because we need to be
launching from a higher and higher point of experience and awareness
each time we act. If lessons are lost when a movement dissipates, then
the next generation has to start from the bottom of the ladder once
again. This is one of the reasons why a social revolution has yet to be
achieved.
Anarchists maintain that the current system we live under is irrational,
unnatural, and deeply antihuman. Contrary to what many think, the
tendency of humanity is actually towards cooperation, freedom, and
creativity (in other words, anarchism), so that the social environment
we must survive in goes against our natural instincts and inclinations.
Given such a context, it is common for people to manifest unconscious
feelings of rebellion towards everyday situations that go against their
dignity and humanity. To put it in another way, no one feels comfortable
being a slave because it is an inhuman condition. Acts of absenteeism,
sabotage, or slowing down on the job are unconscious acts of rebellion
against the conditions of work under capitalism. Often, people may be
nationalistic or conservative on a conscious level, yet possess
unconscious subversive instincts just by virtue of being human. People
can only be persuaded to go against their own best interests (which is
the purpose of the propaganda of those in power) to a certain point and
a certain depth of consciousness.
This concept is an important one for organizers to be aware of and fully
understand because it should be central to organizing strategy. It is
all too common for those wanting change, especially isolated activists,
to develop a view of ordinary people as ignorant, reactionary masses who
are the problem. This view is problematic for two reasons. One, because
it establishes a false division in our minds between activists or
revolutionaries and the people. The people are not some abstract mass
over there, we are the people. The fact that this way of thinking has
become so prevalent demonstrates the isolation that the activist
approach has created and its inherent elitism. Secondly, this view
ignores the fact that everyone is a potential revolutionary because, as
I mentioned, we all unconsciously chafe against this system, from
messing up at work to vague hatred of the police to complaints about
corporate omnipresence. The process of organizing is thus the process of
tapping this unconscious rebellion in people, bringing it out into the
open, and helping them to fashion it into a conscious awareness. This
can effectively be done using the processes I have mentioned action and
reflection, asking the right questions to transform the unconscious into
the conscious, etc.
Though it may seem distasteful and pointless to anarchists, it is often
necessary and important for revolutionary organizers to work within
reform movements. This serves four purposes to build skills, work
directly with the oppressed, to understand radicalization, and to be
transformed as one transforms others. The fact is that most people,
especially anarchists unfortunately, don t have much experience in
organizing. Participating in reform movements is a good way to build up
solid organizing skills. Experience is the best teacher, and simply
reading about organizing is often a poor substitute (which is not to say
that one should not read or that skills cannot be shared, they certainly
must and should be, but direct experience should not be ignored). The
other reality is that most movements consisting of oppressed people will
be generally reformist, especially organizations that people join w I
hen first becoming conscious or deciding to take action. This is largely
because anarchists and other revolutionaries have declined to
participate in movements of oppressed people, as organizers or even as
participants. Abdicating this role has left t the stage clear for
reformists to run the show and monopolize the attention of oppressed
people. Anarchists must work directly with the oppressed if we are
serious about having any part in a social revolution and contributing to
it. And to work directly with the oppressed, we must often work in
reform movements. This is not wasted effort on our part despite what we
may think of the goals of a movement, because it is vital for an
organizer to understand the process of radicalization, and the best
school maybe in such a movement. It is important for organizers to
understand the different ways in which people are radicalized, and how
this knowledge can be used to help radicalize others.
Finally, while activists, organizers, and revolutionaries often have a
sense of unjustified superiority and ego due to being part of the few
who have advanced ideas, working in reform movements may help bring one
down to size. Organizers must always be open and receptive to learning
from others. We must never assume that just because we are revolutionary
and others are reformist or ordinary that they have no thing to teach
us. Hopefully, an organizer will be transformed as he or she helps to
transform others. In other words, revolutionary organizing is not a
one-way process but rather an interchange and back and forth of
knowledge, experience, ideas, and skills. Despite being useful and
important, this process is also necessary to break down any barriers
between an organizer and those he or she is working with, though it
should be said that the best organizer is one who is already rooted in
the struggle he or she is engaged in. Forming revolutionary movements is
of course necessary at some point, but such a movement would highly
benefit from organizers with skills and experience built up in other,
more reformist movements.
Anarchism developed out of the struggles of people for Justice,
equality, freedom, and community, not as an armchair ideology. It is
thus sad to see how much of what passes for anarchist theory and action
today is divorced from ordinary people, their movements, and their
everyday lives. For those who embrace anarchism as an intellectual game
or hobby, they are quite free to pass their lives scribbling away into
eternity. But for those who want to see a new society brought about, it
is time to get back to the roots, back to the struggle. We cannot impose
our ideas on others without violating the spirit of anarchism. But that
is not the goal of organizing, nor is it to manipulate or subvert
people. It is not possible or necessary to convert every person into a
conscious anarchist, and then launch a movement and revolution from that
point. Rather, we should be working together with others to build a
movement that is anarchistic in orientation, strategy, and goals. If
such a movement can be built, it matters little whether people call
themselves anarchists or not.