Jared Israel wants to attack Noam Chomsky as being a liar about events
in The Balkans.       And at the core of his attack, is a disagreement
about the nature of Milosevic.      Jared states that no defense of
Yugoslav self-determination is possible if Milosevic is labeled a
monster.     Therefore, Jared wants to deny that Milosevic has ever done
anything other than defend the socialist patria.

On his side, there are a group of comrades that are convinced that
Yugoslavia remains a socialized economy.   These marxists come from a
tendency of thought that will admit no errors nor reactionary attributes
of any kind, once they have decided that a leadership is playing this
progressive role.

The history of air brush in this wing of communist thought has a long,
sad, and totally discredited history.....from Stalin to Lenin, Marx to
Borge, Trotsky to Fidel, and countless other 'leaders' and 'leaderships'
posted on banners with their faces shining as they look into the
distance; this is the flip side of the comment that a 'monster' cannot
be defended.

Chomsky is without a doubt the most prominent of the intellectuals in
the Western imperialist countries.      Therefore, it is important to
examine his role in The Movement as a whole.     This much is to Jared's
credit, his not fearing to take the big man- head on.   Has Chomsky
hindered or hurt Movement building at the current stage?

Chomsky definitely played a highly positive role for the Movement in the
harsh days of the Carter, Reagan, Bush, Thatcher years.      He
mobilized the demobilized and beaten back dominions of the Left, who
turned out to hear his lectures in the thousands.        In some ways,
his talks were demonstrations of a sort, often when no other Left
demonstrations were to be found.

That is the reason for so much hardened support for Chomsky from younger
activists.     It is not necessarily his brilliance as an analyst today.
In fact, his sermon-like analyses grow tiresome even for the faithful,
when repeated time after time.

It is not Chomsky's specifics on any one political question that make
him more a tool for inaction, rather than action.     It is the fact
that his group of Libertarian Socialists and intellectuals of varied
stripes have no plan to mobilize anyone, beyond a kind of pasting
themselves to a Socialist Democratic program moved by the broad herd.

Their rhetoric is far to the left of what they are actually doing, which
borders on a form of mass inactivity.       Luckily, a form of inchoate
radicalism is emerging from alternate forms of radical Anarchist, Green,
and Marxist leadership, that is principally bypassing in the streets
what the Znet intellectuals are not doing from their individual offices.

It is this abdication of leadership duties to mobilize one's followers,
that most characterizeas the Chomsky and Albert brand of Anarchism.
Both of these leaders refuse to lead people into actual street
mobilization against the US war machine, wherever it is being used, and
not just in the case of the US sponsored terror in The Balkans.

As long as it is... analyses in abstractions, and criticisms up and down
the line of US government policies, these two are supreme.         But
they are not going to lead in building demonstrations of any kind,
whether it be building unions, rallies against police brutality, or
antiwar actions against NATO, or Plan Colombia.

But, Jared, why focus on the anarchists?     Is it not the wings of the
marxist Radical Left that are the principle demobilizers and
immobilized?        Nobody forces these comrades to tag along after
Nader and Chomsky, and do it in the name of advancing the labor movement
and/or supposed future 'alternative' electoral possiblities for the
marxist Left.

You are a marxist, and even the marxist currents that support you do
little to struggle against the US military in general.       It's not
the followers of Chomsky and crowd that are holding things back, it is
the lack of engagement of the marxist currents in opposing Hispanic and
Black support for the military, that is.

Do you think that taking on Chomsky in a battle over determining the
character of Milosevic is central to the tasks that the US Left needs to
do?        How are we going to build a movement against the US war
machine in the working class communities, if we marxists refuse to even
try to struggle to build a movement there?

Most of the Black community believes that US military presence is a good
thing in Africa.        Most of the Hispanic community supports US
military solutions to problems in Mexico and South America.    We have
to convince them otherwise.

Chomsky and his supporters, both Anarchist and Marxist, should be called
to task for not building a movement in support of African and Latin
American self-determination, all the time wringing their hands about the
self-determination of grouplets of US supported nationalist movements
elsewhere.     But the Marxist Left is just as guilty.

Yes, a 'monster' can be defended, but only if the public is generally
mobilized against the true Frankenstein loose in the World today.
And that monster is the US  capitalist military.         Counterpose
this simple concept of what is to be done, to the obscurantist pibble of
Michael Albert talking about "Team Change' below.      Is he Zig Zigler,
or what?

________________________________     The Stickiness Problem
By Michael Albert

Toward the end of last Summer I spoke at a National Green gathering
about "movement building." My initial idea was to discuss the
progressive and left community's outreach problem. We try to reach
potential allies in society and to "reel them in" to full participation.
Not enough  people hear us. Our outreach problem involves our
organizing methods, campaigns, and demands and how they appeal to
people, but also our need for "a megaphone" loud enough to reach beyond
audiences already seeking us out—our own progressive mass media.

But as I thought about movement building, I realized there was another
problem that was even worse than outreach because it was more
debilitating and we had less excuse for it. Think of the
progressive/left community as a team, if you will, fighting against both
apathy and outright support for the status quo. Call it Team Change.

Size isn't the only variable affecting Team Change's strength, for sure,
but without numbers we aren't going far so we must reach out more
widely. But as we do reach out and get people's attention or
involvement, do we then keep them committed? Call this the "Stickiness
Problem."

To win fundamental change, and that is our purpose, not solely to play
well, Team Change needs a force field that draws potential team members
steadily leftward ever more strongly the closer it attracts them. First
a person hears about some facet of Team Change. There is an attraction,
however slight. As the person is drawn closer the attraction must
increase to offset counter pressures from society to avoid Team Change
lest the person get away. Once a person joins Team Change, the
attraction should sustain permanent membership.

Do we have this kind of community seeking change? To decide, we can look
at (1) the historical experience that Team Change has had with potential
recruits in the past, and (2) the characteristics of Team Change to see
whether its attractive force escalates as people get closer to steady
involvement.

Consider the past 30 years. How many people have heard about, come into
contact with, worked with, or become part of Team Change who no longer
have anything much to do with it? The number, I think, is in the
millions, perhaps ten million. Remember this includes folks from the
Civil Rights movement, the anti-Vietnam War movement, and the women's
movement. It includes those who have been No Nukers, in green movements,
and in student movements. It includes everyone who has worked in truly
progressive local projects and struggles of all kinds and in various
left electoral campaigns. Anyone who has taken a course from a radical
faculty person, read a left book, or been part of the anti Gulf War
movement, the anti-apartheid movement, or the various Latin American
solidarity movements counts. So do those who have been in gay and
lesbian movements, in pro choice campaigns, in community and consumer
movements, and in union organizing campaigns, labor struggles,
anti-racist campaigns, strikes and boycotts, and also people who have
gone to talks or demonstrations, listened to progressive radio or read
progressive periodicals. Ten million is conservative. And of all these
millions of people how many are still an active part of Team Change?

When I faced up to this gap between those reached and those actively
involved, while preparing my talk for a very small Green National
Convention, I was shocked. If you think in terms of a year or two, the
left's outreach problem seems paramount. How do we get beyond the choir?
But if you think about a decade orr two, the left's stickiness problem
demands attention. I'm being a little cute with the analogy and labels,
yes, but this gap between possibility and actuality is at the heart of
our prospects for social change.

Let's come at it from another angle. Why should someone, once attracted
to the logic, dynamics, behaviors, and programs of the progressive/left
community, stick to it? Conversely, why do people feel steadily less
attachment as time passes, only to finally return to the mainstream?

Well, think of a person getting more and more involved with progressive
ideas and activity. Does this person merge into a growing community of
people who make him feel more secure and appreciated?

Does she get a growing sense of personal worth and of contribution to
something valuable? Does he enjoy a sense of accomplishment? Does she
have her needs better met than before? Does his life get better? Does it
seem that she is making a contribution to improving others lives, as
well?

Or, conversely, does this person meet a lot of other people who
continually question his motives and behaviors, making him feel insecure
and constantly criticized? Does she feel diminishing personal worth and
doubt that what she is doing is making a difference for anyone?

Does he suspect there is little accomplished, and no daily, weekly, or
monthly evidence of progress? Does she have needs that were previously
met, now unmet, and few new ones addressed? Is his life getting more
frustrating, less enjoyable? Does it seem she is only bothering other
people, rarely doing anything meaningful on their behalf? Does he find
himself ever less aware of what "the left" is or stands for, repulsed by
its vague, or bitter attributes rather than attracted to its clariety,
insights, and success?

You might ask different questions than I have, but I think the point is
clear enough. The stickiness problem is graphically defined.

Let's stretch the Team Change analogy. Imagine a football, baseball,
basketball, or soccer team. Whether it is high school, college, or
professional doesn't matter.
Suppose it doesn't improve its results as time passes. At some point the
coach looks at the choices made, the strategies used, the norms employed
and says, hold on, we have to make some corrections.

Okay, our Team Change has no coach and it needs to be participatory and
democratic, so being self-critical is everyone's responsibility. But
Team Change must also play to win if it is concerned with more than mere
posturing.
And that means we need to reassess how we organize ourselves, the
culture of our movements, what we learn as we become more committed, how
we interrelate, and what benefits and responsibilities we have due to
our political involvement. The alternative to doing much better
regarding "movement stickiness" is another long losing season…two or
three decades worth, I think, which, unlike for inflexible high school,
college, and professional ball clubs, means hundreds of millions of
lives unnecessarily ended for want of our greater success and final
victory.

Let me put it this way. Being right about what's wrong with society and
why it is wrong, and even being able to convey all this to wide
audiences, just isn't enough.

Movements must be clear about goals and strategy to retain a sense of
purpose, confidence, identity, and integrity in the face of critique.
They have to be structured and function in ways that not only enlarge
but retain membership, and that not only contribute to change but do so
clearly in all members' eyes. They have to not only attack problems, but
to meet needs for members and populations more broadly, and they have to
win victories that meet needs but also create the conditions for still
more victories to follow. The absence of all this is our stickiness
problem.

I have my own notions about the causes of the problem having to do with
our lack of compelling guiding vision and strategy, our unclear class
allegiances, and our continuing inability to combine respect for
desirable autonomies and for essential solidarities both in a single
encompassing movement. Others will have different notions. Can we at
least agree that a priority is to enumerate the possibilities, assess
them, and then develop clear plans for how to do better in the coming
years? If we don't manage this much, I fear we will be running in ever
narrowing circles with a movement of diehards rather than astute social
critics.   

Michael Albert, co-editor of Z, is the author of numerous books on
economics, vision, and strategy.