Many years ago, I got to see an Exxon "Legislative Affairs Coordinator" speak to a group of small landowners about how they could make their own lobbying efforts more effective.
In less than 10min this lady had the crowd ready to burn her at the stake.
She told them things like "your voice doesn't matter," urged them to donate all the money they could to Exxon's lobbying efforts (with unspecified goals), on the basis that at least it would get something done, even if it wasn't what they wanted. "Donate to our people, and our people will take care of you."
Then, she told them that actual grass-roots organizations like theirs were socially dangerous, because they wouldn't stick to their original mission but inevitably became cults, essentially. Something like "the best thing this organization can do, today, is vote to dissolve immediately"
All this was in exchange for a several thousand dollar speaking fee, which was the largest expense behind the venue for the event.
Hahaha, that reads like she was about 50% corporate shill, 50% a poli-sci academic specializing in lobbying with no filter on delivering the raw academic view of things.
>Then, she told them that actual grass-roots organizations like theirs were socially dangerous, because they wouldn't stick to their original mission but inevitably became cults, essentially.
After OWS I find it hard to disagree with this statement.
Build enough organization to effectively work towards a goal, say passing a particular bill; and once the goal is met, the bill is passed, it seems such a shameful waste to let the organization dissolve, when it could be re-purposed to another similar use.
Recycling is good in other contexts, right?
Also, sometimes, the organization was built and the cause fought as a route to empowerment for the people doing the organizing, in which case the goals are irrelevant. Sometimes the goals were the true reason, in the beginning, but the empowerment becomes too seductive and they fall aside.
The problem with organizational metastization is that it optimizes towards the organizational and regulatory structure, vs the organization's original intent.
E.g. Directors become whoever is most capable of winning and holding a directorship. Donations funnel to whatever solicits more donations.
Texas style regular tear-downs, or at least periodic reauthorizations, aren't the worst solution.
The problem with these "movements" and "organizations" is that they usually have very clearly defined goals and they come together to solve a specific problem.
I don't think any of the people coming together realize that, once they solve their problem, they're put themselves out of a job.
In a rational world, they would go find other causes to champion, but instead you see "mission creep", because no one wants to go through the hassle of building up an organization into a multi-million, or multi-billion dollar organization, only to have to dissolve it once you "win" your war, and then go build yet another organization to tackle yet another problem, although this is exactly what should be happening.
We're seeing this with civil rights right now. Any person who thinks the LGBTQ+-whatever community is actively discriminated against at a federal, and even at a state, level, is frankly being dramatic at best and mentally unbalanced at worst. But there are no "easy" major wars left to fight. This is an easy one that - in the minds of the "soldiers" at least - can be won with little money and nothing but a Twitter account. Beating climate change, conquering income inequality, etc.; those are long hard wars that will require lots of money, lots of time, lots of defeats, and lots of pain.
Most people aren't going to sign up for that when they can complain that there isn't a non-binary bathroom in Mom & Pop burger joint down the street, so they must be transphobes.
Yeah I suppose the laws currently being passed in dozens of states across the country are actually fully in support of LGBTQ+ communities and aren't in fact discrimination.
In less than 10min this lady had the crowd ready to burn her at the stake.
She told them things like "your voice doesn't matter," urged them to donate all the money they could to Exxon's lobbying efforts (with unspecified goals), on the basis that at least it would get something done, even if it wasn't what they wanted. "Donate to our people, and our people will take care of you."
Then, she told them that actual grass-roots organizations like theirs were socially dangerous, because they wouldn't stick to their original mission but inevitably became cults, essentially. Something like "the best thing this organization can do, today, is vote to dissolve immediately"
All this was in exchange for a several thousand dollar speaking fee, which was the largest expense behind the venue for the event.