ANTI-MASS METHODS OF ORGANIZATION FOR COLLECTIVES.
 
The Difference Between Mass and Class
 
        Why is it important to know the difference between mass and class?
 The chances are that there can be no conscious revolutionary practice
without making this distinction.  We are not playing around with words. 
Look.  We are living in a mass society.  We didn't get that way by
accident.  The mass is a specific form of organization.  The reason is
clear.  Consumption is organized by the corporations.  Their products
define the mass.  The mass is not a cliche - 'the masses' - but a routine
which dominates your daily life.  Understanding the structure of the mass
market is the first step toward understanding what happened to the class
struggle.
        What is the mass?  Most people think of the mass in terms of
numbers - like a crowded street or stadium.  But it is actually structure
which determines its character.  The mass is an aggregate of couples who
are separate, detached and anonymous.  They live in cities physically
close yet socially apart.  Their lives are privatized and depraved. 
Coca-Cola and loneliness.  The social existence of the mass - its rules
and regulations, the structuring of its status, roles and leadership - are
organized through consumption (the mass market).  They are all products of
a specific social organization.  Ours.
        Of course, no one sees themselves as part of the mass.  It's
always others who are the masses.  The trouble is that it is not only the
corporations which organize us into the mass.  The 'movement' itself
behaves as a mass and its organizers reproduce the hierarchy of the mass.
        Really, how do you fight fire?  With water, of course.  The same
goes for revolution.  We don't fight the mass (market) with a mass
(movement).  We fight mass with class.  Our aim should be not to create a
mass movement but a class force.
        What is a class?  A class is a consciously organized social force.
 For example, the ruling class is conscious and acts collectively to
organize not only itself, but also the people (mass) that it rules.  The
corporation is the self-conscious collective power of the ruling class. 
We are not saying that class relations do not exist in the rest of
society.  But they remain passive so long as they are shaped solely by
objective conditions (i.e. work situations).  What is necessary is the
active (subjective) participation of the class itself.  Class prejudice is
not class consciousness.  The class is conscious of its social existence
because it seeks to organize itself.  Th
        The moral of the story is:  the mass is a mass because it is
organized as a mass.  Don't be fooled by the brand name.  Mass is thinking
with your ass.
 
 
Primacy of the Collective
 
        The small group is the coming together of people who feel the need
for collectivity.  Its function is often to break out of the mass -
specifically from the isolation of daily life and the mass structure of
the movement.  The problem is that frequently the group cannot create an
independent existence and an identity of its own because it continues to
define itself negatively, i.e. in opposition.  So long as its point of
reference lies outside of it, the group's politics tend to be superimposed
on it by events and crises.
        The small group can be a stage in the development of the
collective, if it develops a critique of the frustrations stemming from
its external orientation.  The formation of a collective begins when
people not only have the same politics, but agree on the method of struggle.
        Why should the collective be the primary focus of organization? 
The collective is an alternative to the existing structure of society. 
Changing social relations is a process rather than a product of
revolution.  In other words, you make the revolution by actually changing
social relations.  You must consciously create the contradictions in history.
        Concretely, this means:  organize yourselves, not somebody else. 
The collective is the organizational nucleus of a classless society.  As a
formal organization, it negates all forms of hierarchy.  The answer to
alienation is to make yourself the subject, not the object, of history.
        One of the crucial obstacles to the formation of collectives is
the transitional period - when the collective must survive side by side
with a disintegrating movement and a mass society.  The disintegration of
the movement is not an isolated phenomenon but reflects the weakening of
the major institutions in American society responsible for our alienation.
 Many people are demoralized by this process and find it bewildering
because they actually depend subconsciously on the continued existence of
these institutions.  We are witnessing the break-up and transformation of
an institution integral to society - the mass market.  The mass market is
corporate structure which few 
        These contradictions make it imperative that any people who decide
to create a collective know exactly who they are and what they are doing. 
That is why you must consider your collective as primary.  Because, if you
don't believe in the legitimacy of this form of organization, you can't
have a practical analysis of what is happening.  Don't kid yourself.  The
struggle for the creation and survival of collectives at this moment in
history is going to be very difficult. 
        The dominant issue will be how collectives can become part of
history - how they can become a social force.  There is no guarantee and
we should promise no easy victories.  The uniqueness of developing
collectives is their definitive break with all hierarchic forms of
organization and the reconstructing of a classless society.
        The thinking of radical organizers is frozen in the concept of the
mass movement.  This form of struggle, no matter how radical its demands,
never threatens the basic structure - the mass itself.
        Under these circumstances it takes great effort to imagine new
forms of existence.  Space must be created before we can think of these
things and be able to establish the legitimacy of acting upon them.
        The form of the collective is its practice.  The collective is
opposed to the mass.  It contradicts the structure of the mass.  The
collective is anti-mass.
 
Size of the Collective
 
        The aim of any organization is to make it as simple as possible,
or as Marshall McLuhan puts it, "high in participation, low in
definition."  The tendency is just the opposite.  Our reflex is to create
administrative structures to deal with political problems.
        Most people cannot discuss intelligently the subject of size. 
There is an unspoken feeling either that the problem should not exist or
that it is beneath us to talk about it.  Let's get it out in the open. 
Size is a question of politics and social relations, not administration. 
Do you wonder why the subject is shunted aside at large meetings?  Because
it fundamentally challenges the repressive nature of large organizations. 
Small groups that function as appendages to larger bodies will never feel
like small groups.
        The collective should not be larger than a band - no orchestras or
chamber music please.  The basic idea is to reproduce the collective, not
expand it.  The strength of a collective lies in its social organization,
not its numbers.  Once you think in terms of recruiting, you might as well
join the Army.  The difference between expansion and reproduction is the
difference between adding and multiplying.  The first bases its strength
on numbers and the second on relationships between people.
        Why should there be a limit to size?  Because we are neither
supermen nor slaves.  Beyond a certain point, the group becomes a meeting
and before you know it you have to raise your hand to speak.  The
collective is a recognition of the practical limits of conversation.  This
simple fact is the basis for a new social experience.
        Relations of inequality can be seen more clearly within a
collective and dealt with more effectively.  "Whatever the nature of
authority in the large organization, it is inherent in the simple
organization unit."  (Chester Barnard, The Function of Executives, 1938). 
A small group with a 'leader' is the nucleus of a class society.  Small
size restricts the area which any single individual can dominate.  This is
true both internally and in relation to other groups.
        Today, the mode of struggle requires a durable and resilient form
of organization which will enable us to cope both with the attrition of
daily life and the likelihood of repression.  Unless we can begin to solve
problems at this level collectively, we are certainly not fit to create a
new society.  Contrary to what people are led to think, i.e. united we
stand, united we fall, it will be harder to destroy a multitude of
collectives than the largest organizations with centralized control.
        Size is a key to security.  But its real importance lies in the
fact that the collective reproduces new social relations - the advantage
being that the process can begin now.
        The limitation on size raises a difficult problem.  What do you
say to someone who asks, "Can I join your collective?"  This question is
ultimately at the root of much hostility (often unconscious) toward the
collective form of organization.  You can't separate size from the
collective because it must be small in order to exist.  The collective has
a right to exclude individuals because it offers them the alternative of
starting a new collective, i.e. sharing the responsibility for
organization.  This is the basic answer to the question above.
        Of course, people will put down the collective as being exclusive.
 That is not the point.  The size of a collective is essentially a
limitation on its authority.  By contrast, large organizations, while
having open membership, are exclusive in terms of who shapes the politics
and actively participates in the structuring of activities.  The choice is
between joining the mass of creating the class.  The revolutionary project
is to do it yourself.  Remember, Alexandra Kollontal warned in 1920, "The
essence of bureaucracy is when some third person decides your fate."
 
 
The Difference Between Mass and Class
 
        Why is it important to know the difference between mass and class?
 The chances are that there can be no conscious revolutionary practice
without making this distinction.  We are not playing around with words. 
Look.  We are living in a mass society.  We didn't get that way by
accident.  The mass is a specific form of organization.  The reason is
clear.  Consumption is organized by the corporations.  Their products
define the mass.  The mass is not a cliche - 'the masses' - but a routine
which dominates your daily life.  Understanding the structure of the mass
market is the first step toward understanding what happened to the class
struggle.
        What is the mass?  Most people think of the mass in terms of
numbers - like a crowded street or stadium.  But it is actually structure
which determines its character.  The mass is an aggregate of couples who
are separate, detached and anonymous.  They live in cities physically
close yet socially apart.  Their lives are privatized and depraved. 
Coca-Cola and loneliness.  The social existence of the mass - its rules
and regulations, the structuring of its status, roles and leadership - are
organized through consumption (the mass market).  They are all products of
a specific social organization.  Ours.
        Of course, no one sees themselves as part of the mass.  It's
always others who are the masses.  The trouble is that it is not only the
corporations which organize us into the mass.  The 'movement' itself
behaves as a mass and its organizers reproduce the hierarchy of the mass.
        Really, how do you fight fire?  With water, of course.  The same
goes for revolution.  We don't fight the mass (market) with a mass
(movement).  We fight mass with class.  Our aim should be not to create a
mass movement but a class force.
        What is a class?  A class is a consciously organized social force.
 For example, the ruling class is conscious and acts collectively to
organize not only itself, but also the people (mass) that it rules.  The
corporation is the self-conscious collective power of the ruling class. 
We are not saying that class relations do not exist in the rest of
society.  But they remain passive so long as they are shaped solely by
objective conditions (i.e. work situations).  What is necessary is the
active (subjective) participation of the class itself.  Class prejudice is
not class consciousness.  The class is conscious of its social existence
because it seeks to organize itself.  Th
        The moral of the story is:  the mass is a mass because it is
organized as a mass.  Don't be fooled by the brand name.  Mass is thinking
with your ass.
 
 
Primacy of the Collective
 
        The small group is the coming together of people who feel the need
for collectivity.  Its function is often to break out of the mass -
specifically from the isolation of daily life and the mass structure of
the movement.  The problem is that frequently the group cannot create an
independent existence and an identity of its own because it continues to
define itself negatively, i.e. in opposition.  So long as its point of
reference lies outside of it, the group's politics tend to be superimposed
on it by events and crises.
        The small group can be a stage in the development of the
collective, if it develops a critique of the frustrations stemming from
its external orientation.  The formation of a collective begins when
people not only have the same politics, but agree on the method of struggle.
        Why should the collective be the primary focus of organization? 
The collective is an alternative to the existing structure of society. 
Changing social relations is a process rather than a product of
revolution.  In other words, you make the revolution by actually changing
social relations.  You must consciously create the contradictions in history.
        Concretely, this means:  organize yourselves, not somebody else. 
The collective is the organizational nucleus of a classless society.  As a
formal organization, it negates all forms of hierarchy.  The answer to
alienation is to make yourself the subject, not the object, of history.
        One of the crucial obstacles to the formation of collectives is
the transitional period - when the collective must survive side by side
with a disintegrating movement and a mass society.  The disintegration of
the movement is not an isolated phenomenon but reflects the weakening of
the major institutions in American society responsible for our alienation.
 Many people are demoralized by this process and find it bewildering
because they actually depend subconsciously on the continued existence of
these institutions.  We are witnessing the break-up and transformation of
an institution integral to society - the mass market.  The mass market is
corporate structure which few 
        These contradictions make it imperative that any people who decide
to create a collective know exactly who they are and what they are doing. 
That is why you must consider your collective as primary.  Because, if you
don't believe in the legitimacy of this form of organization, you can't
have a practical analysis of what is happening.  Don't kid yourself.  The
struggle for the creation and survival of collectives at this moment in
history is going to be very difficult. 
        The dominant issue will be how collectives can become part of
history - how they can become a social force.  There is no guarantee and
we should promise no easy victories.  The uniqueness of developing
collectives is their definitive break with all hierarchic forms of
organization and the reconstructing of a classless society.
        The thinking of radical organizers is frozen in the concept of the
mass movement.  This form of struggle, no matter how radical its demands,
never threatens the basic structure - the mass itself.
        Under these circumstances it takes great effort to imagine new
forms of existence.  Space must be created before we can think of these
things and be able to establish the legitimacy of acting upon them.
        The form of the collective is its practice.  The collective is
opposed to the mass.  It contradicts the structure of the mass.  The
collective is anti-mass.
 
Size of the Collective
 
        The aim of any organization is to make it as simple as possible,
or as Marshall McLuhan puts it, "high in participation, low in
definition."  The tendency is just the opposite.  Our reflex is to create
administrative structures to deal with political problems.
        Most people cannot discuss intelligently the subject of size. 
There is an unspoken feeling either that the problem should not exist or
that it is beneath us to talk about it.  Let's get it out in the open. 
Size is a question of politics and social relations, not administration. 
Do you wonder why the subject is shunted aside at large meetings?  Because
it fundamentally challenges the repressive nature of large organizations. 
Small groups that function as appendages to larger bodies will never feel
like small groups.
        The collective should not be larger than a band - no orchestras or
chamber music please.  The basic idea is to reproduce the collective, not
expand it.  The strength of a collective lies in its social organization,
not its numbers.  Once you think in terms of recruiting, you might as well
join the Army.  The difference between expansion and reproduction is the
difference between adding and multiplying.  The first bases its strength
on numbers and the second on relationships between people.
        Why should there be a limit to size?  Because we are neither
supermen nor slaves.  Beyond a certain point, the group becomes a meeting
and before you know it you have to raise your hand to speak.  The
collective is a recognition of the practical limits of conversation.  This
simple fact is the basis for a new social experience.
        Relations of inequality can be seen more clearly within a
collective and dealt with more effectively.  "Whatever the nature of
authority in the large organization, it is inherent in the simple
organization unit."  (Chester Barnard, The Function of Executives, 1938). 
A small group with a 'leader' is the nucleus of a class society.  Small
size restricts the area which any single individual can dominate.  This is
true both internally and in relation to other groups.
        Today, the mode of struggle requires a durable and resilient form
of organization which will enable us to cope both with the attrition of
daily life and the likelihood of repression.  Unless we can begin to solve
problems at this level collectively, we are certainly not fit to create a
new society.  Contrary to what people are led to think, i.e. united we
stand, united we fall, it will be harder to destroy a multitude of
collectives than the largest organizations with centralized control.
        Size is a key to security.  But its real importance lies in the
fact that the collective reproduces new social relations - the advantage
being that the process can begin now.
        The limitation on size raises a difficult problem.  What do you
say to someone who asks, "Can I join your collective?"  This question is
ultimately at the root of much hostility (often unconscious) toward the
collective form of organization.  You can't separate size from the
collective because it must be small in order to exist.  The collective has
a right to exclude individuals because it offers them the alternative of
starting a new collective, i.e. sharing the responsibility for
organization.  This is the basic answer to the question above.
        Of course, people will put down the collective as being exclusive.
 That is not the point.  The size of a collective is essentially a
limitation on its authority.  By contrast, large organizations, while
having open membership, are exclusive in terms of who shapes the politics
and actively participates in the structuring of activities.  The choice is
between joining the mass of creating the class.  The revolutionary project
is to do it yourself.  Remember, Alexandra Kollontal warned in 1920, "The
essence of bureaucracy is when some third person decides your fate."
 
Contact Between Collectives
 
        The collective does not communicate with the mass.  It makes
contact with other collectives.  What if other collectives do not exist? 
Well, it should take to itself until the day they do.  Yes.  By all means,
the collective also communicates with other people, but it never views
them as a mass - as a constituency or audience.  The collective
communicates with individuals in order to encourage self-organization.  It
assumes that people are capable of self-organization, and given that
alternative, they will choose it over mass participation.  The collective
knows that it takes time to create new forms of organization.  It simply
seeks to hasten the crumbling of the mass.
        Much of the problem of 'communication' these days is that people
think they have got to communicate all the time.  You find people setting
up administrative functions to deal with information flows before they
have any idea what they want to say.  The collective is not obsessed with
'communicating' or 'relating' to the movement.  What concerns it is the
amount of noise - incessant phone calls, form letters, announcements of
meetings, etc. - that passes for communication.  It is time we gave more
thought to what we say and how we say it.
        What exactly do we mean by contact?  We want to begin by taking
the bureaucracy out of communication.  The idea is to begin modestly. 
Contact is a touching on all sides.  The essential thing is about its
directness and reliability.  Eyeball to eyeball.
        Other forms of communication - telephone, letters, documents, etc.
- should never be used as substitutes for direct contact.  In fact, they
should serve primarily to prepare contacts.
        Why is it so important to have direct contact?  Because it is the
simplest form of communication.  Moreover, it is physical and involves all
the senses - most of all the sense of smell.  For this reason, it is
reliable.  It also takes account of the real need for security.  Those who
talk about repression continue to pass around sheets of paper asking for
names, addresses, and telephone numbers.
        There are already a number of gatherings which appear to involve
contact but in reality are grotesque facsimiles.  The worst of these and
the one most people flock to is the conference.  This is a hotel of the
mind which turns is all into tourists and spectators.  A lower form of
existence is the endless meeting - the one held every night.  Not to
mention the committees formed expressly to arrange meetings.
        The basic principle of contact between collectives is:  you only
meet when you have something to say to each other.  This means two things.
 First, that you have a concrete idea what it is you want to say. 
Secondly, that you must prepare it in advance.  These principles help to
ensure that communication does not become an administrative problem.
        The new forms of contact have yet to be created.  We can think of
single examples.  A member of one collective can attend the meeting of
another collective or there may be a joint meeting of the groups as a
whole.  The first of these appears to be the more practical, however, the
drawback is that not everyone is involved.  There are undoubtedly other
forms of contact which are likely to develop.  The main thing is to invent
them.
 
 
Priority of Local Action
 
        The collective gives priority to local action.  It rejects the
mass politics of the white nationalists with their national committees,
organizers, and the superstars.  Definitely, the collective is out of the
mainstream and what is more it feels no regrets.  The aim of the
collective is to feel new thoughts and act new ideas - in a word to create
its own space.  And that, more than any program, is what is intolerable to
all the xerox radicals trying to reproduce their own images.
        The collective is the hindquarters of the revolution.  It makes no
pretence whatsoever in regard to the role of the vanguard.  Expect nothing
from them.  They are not your leaders.  Leave them alone.  The collective
knows it will be the last to enter the new world.
        The doubts people have about local action reveal how dependent
they are on the glamour of mass politics.  Everyone wants to project
themselves on the screen of revolution - as Yippies or White Panthers. 
Having internalized the mass, they ask themselves questions whose answers
seem logical in its context.  How can we accomplish anything without mass
action?  If we don't go to meetings and demonstrations, will we be
forgotten?  Who will take us seriously if we don't join the rank and file?
        Slowly you realize that you have become a spectator, an object. 
Your politics take place on a stage and your social relations consist of
sitting in an audience or marching in a crowd.  The fragmentation of your
everyday experience contrasts with the spectacular unity of the mass.
        By contrast, the priority of local action is an attempt to unify
everyday life and fragment the mass.  This level of consciousness is a
result of rejecting the laws of mass behavior based on Leninism and TV
ideology.  It makes possible an enema of the brain which everyone so
desperately needs.  You will be relieved to discover that you can create a
situation by localizing your struggle.
        How can we prevent local action from becoming provincial?  Whether
or not it does so depends on our overall strategy.  Provincialism is
simply the consequences or not knowing what is happening.  A commune, for
example, is provincial because its strategy is based on petty farming and
glorification of the extended family.  What they have is astrology, not a
strategy.
        Local action should be based on the global structure of modern
society.  There can be no collective action without collectives.  But the
creation of a collective should not be mistaken for victory nor should it
become an end in itself.  The great danger the collective faces
historically is that of being cut off (or cutting itself off) from the
outside world.  The issue ultimately will be what action to take and when.
 Whether collectives become a social force depends on their analysis of
history and their course of action.
        In fact, the 'provinces' today are moving ahead of the centers in
political consciousness and motivation.  From Minnesota to the Mekong
Delta, the revolt is gaining coherence.  The centers are trying to
decipher what is happening, to catch up and contain it.  For this purpose
they must create centralized forms of organization - or 'co-ordination' -
as the modernists call it.
        The first principle of local action is to denationalize your
thinking.  Take the country out of Salem.  Get out of Marlboro country. 
Become conscious of how your life is managed from the national centers. 
Lifestyles are roles designed to give you the illusion of movement while
keeping you in your place.  "Style is mass chasing class, and class
escaping mass."  (W. Rauschenbush, "The Idiot God Fashion," Woman's Coming
of Age, eds Schmalhausen and Calvert, 1931).
        Local action gives you the initiative by enabling you to define
the situation.  That is the practice of knowing you are the subject. 
Marat says:  "The most important thing is to pull yourself up by your own
hair, to turn yourself inside out and see the whole world with fresh
eyes."  The collective turns itself inside out and sees reality.
 
 
The Dream of Unity
 
        The principle of unity is based on the proposition that everyone
is a unit (a fragment).  Unity means one multiplied by itself.  We are not
going to say it straight - in so far as unity has suppressed real
political differences - class, racial, sexual - it is a form of tyranny. 
The dream of unity is in reality a nightmare of compromise and suppressed
desires.  We are not equal and unity perpetuates inequality.
        The collective will be subject constantly to pressure from outside
groups demanding support in one form or another.  Everyone is always in a
crisis.  Given these circumstances, a group can have the illusion of being
permanently mobilized and active without having politics of its own. 
Calls for unity channel the political energies of collectives into support
politics.  So, as a precaution, the collective must take time to work out
its own politics and plan of action.  Above all, it should try to foresee
crisis situations and their 'rent-a-crowd' militancy.
        You will be accused of factionalism.  Don't waste time thinking
about this age old problem.  A collective is not a faction.  Responding to
Pavlov's bell puts you in the position of a salivating dog.  There will be
no end to your hunger when who you are is determined by someone else.
        You will also be accused of elitism.  This is a risky business and
should not be dismissed lightly.  A collective must first know what is
meant by elitism.  Instead of wondering whether it refers to leadership or
personalities, you should first anchor the issue in a class context.  Know
where your ideas come from and what their relation is to the dominant
ideology.  You should ask the same questions about those who make the
accusations.  What is their class background and class interest?  So far
many people have reacted defensively to the charge of elitism and, thus,
have avoided dealing with the issue head on.  That in itself is a class
reaction.
        The internal is the mirror of the external.  The best way to avoid
behaving like an elite is to prevent the formation of elitism within the
collective itself.  Often when charges of elitism are true, they reflect
the same class relations internally.
        The ways of undermining the autonomy of a collective are many and
insidious.  The call for unity can no longer be responded to
automatically.  The time has come to question the motives and
effectiveness of such actions - and to feel good (i.e. correct) in doing
so.  Jargon is pigeon talk and is meant to make us feel stupid and
powerless.  Because collective action is not organized as a mass, it does
not have to rely on the call of unity in order to act.
        "Does 'one divide into two' or 'two fuse into one'?  This question
is a subject of debate in China and now here.  This debate is a struggle
between two conceptions of the world.  One believes in struggle, the other
in unity.  The two sides have drawn a clear line between them and their
arguments are diametrically opposed.  Thus, you can wee why one divides
into two."  (Free translation from the Red Flag, Peking, September 21, 1964).
 
The Function of Analysis
 
        Not only can there be no revolution without revolutionary theory,
there can be no strategy without analysis.  Strategy is knowing ahead of
time what you are going to do.  This is what analysis makes possible. 
When you begin, you may not know anything.  The purpose of analysis is not
to know everything, but to know what you do know and know it good - that
is collectively.  The heart of thinking analytically is to learn over and
over again that the process is as important as the product.  Developing an
analysis requires new ways of thinking.  Without new ways of thinking we
are doomed to old ways of acting.
        The question of what we are going to do is the hardest to answer
and the one that ultimately will determine whether a collective will
continue to exist.  The difficulty of the question makes analysis all the
more necessary.  We can no longer afford to be propelled by the crudest
forms of advertisement - slogans and rhetoric.  The function of analysis
is to reveal a plan of action.
        Why is there relatively little practical analysis of what is
happening today?  Some people refuse to analyze anything which they cannot
immediately comprehend.  Basically they have a feeling of inadequacy. 
This is partly because they have never had the opportunity to do it before
and, therefore, don't know they are capable of it.  On the other hand,
many activists put down analysis as being 'intellectual' - which is more a
commentary on their own kind of thinking than anything else.  Finally,
there are those who feel no need to think and become very uncomfortable
when somebody does want to.  This often reflects their class disposition. 
The general constipation of the movement is a product of all these forces.
        One reason for this sad state of affairs is that analysis gives so
little satisfaction.  This is another way of saying that it is not
practical.  What has happened to all thinking can best be seen in the
degeneration of class analysis into stereotyped, obese definitions.  There
is little difference between the theory-mongers of high abstraction and
the sloganeers of crude abstraction.  Theory is becoming the dialect of
robots, and slogans the mass production of the mind.  But just because
ideas have become so mechanical does not mean we should abandon thought.
        Most people are willing to face the fact that they are living in a
society that has yet to be explained.  Any attempt to probe those areas
which are unfamiliar is met with a general hostility of fear.  People seem
afraid to look at themselves analytically.  Part of the problem of not
knowing what to do reveals itself in our not knowing who we are.  The
motivation to look at yourself critically and to explain society comes
from the desire to change both.  The heart of the problem is that we do
not concretely imagine winning, except perhaps, by accident.
        Analysis is the arming of the brain.  We're being stifled by those
who tell us analysis is intellectual when in reality it is the tool of the
imagination.  Just as you can't tolerate intellectualism, so you cannot
act from raw anger - not if you want to win.  You must teach your stomach
how to think and your brain how to feel.  Analysis should help us to
express anger intelligently.  Learning how to think, i.e. analysis, is the
first step toward conscious activity.
        No doubt you feel yourself tightening up because you think it
sounds heavy.  Really, the problem is that you think much bigger than you
act.  Be modest.  Start with what you already know and want to know more
about.  Analysis begins with what interests you.  Political thinking
should be part of everyday life, not a class privilege.  To be practical,
analysis must give you an understanding of what to do and how to do it.  
        Thinking should help to distinguish between what is important and
what is not.  It should break down complex forces so that we can
understand them.  Break everything down.  In the process of analyzing
something you will discover that there are different ways of acting which
were not apparent when you began.  This is the pleasure of analysis.  To
investigate a problem is to begin to solve it.
 
 
The Need for New Formats
 
        The need for new formats grows out of the oppressiveness of print.
 We must learn the techniques of advertisement.  They consist of short,
clear, non-rhetorical statements.  The ad words.  The ad represents a
break with the college education and the diarrhea of words.  The ad is a
concentrated formula for communication.  Its information power has already
outmoded the school system.  The secret is to gain as much pleasure in
creating the form as in expressing the idea.
        How do we defend adopting the style of advertising when its
function is so oppressive?  As a medium we think it represents a
revolutionary mode of production.  Rejecting it has resulted in the
stagnation of our minds and a crude romanticism in political culture. 
Those who turn up their noses at ads think in a language that is decrepit.
 Using the ad technique transforms the person who does it.  It makes
writing a pleasure for anyone because it strives in orality in print.
        What we mean by the use of ad technique is to physically use it. 
Most of the time we are unconscious of ads and, if we do become conscious,
we don't act upon them - don't subvert them.  Ads are based on repetition.
 If you affect one of them, you affect all of them.  Know the environment
of the ad.  The most effective way to subvert an ad is to make the
contradiction in it visible.  Advertise it.  The vulnerability of ads lies
in the possibility of turning them against the exploiters.
        Jerry Rubin says you should use the media all the time.  At least
he goes all the way.  This is better than the toe-dipping approach that
seems so common these days.  Of course, there are groups who say don't use
it at all and they don't.  They will probably outlast Jerry since the
basic technique of mass media is over-exposure.  That is why Jerry has
already written his memoirs.  The Situationists say:  "The revolt is
contained by over-exposure.  We are given it to contemplate so that we
shall forget to participate."
        We are not talking about the packaging of politics.  Ramparts is
the Playboy of the Left.  On the other hand, the underground press is
pornographic and redundant.  Newsreel's projector is running backwards. 
And why in the era of Cosmopolitan magazine must we suffer the stodginess
of Leviathan?  We much prefer reading Fortune - the magazine for 'the men
in charge of change' - for our analysis of capitalism.
        There is no getting around it - we need new formats, entirely new
formats.  Otherwise we will never sharpen our wits.  To break out of the
spell of print requires a conscious effort to think a new language.  We
should no longer be immobilized by other people's words.  Don't wait for
the news to tell you what is happening.  Make you headlines with
presstype.  Cut up your favorite magazine and put it together again.  Cut
big words in half and make little words out of them - like ENVIRON MENTAL
CRISIS.  All you need is a good pair of scissors and rubber cement.  Abuse
the enemy's images.  Turn the Man from Glad into a Frankenstein.  Making
comic strips out of great art.  Don't let anything interfere with your
pleasure.
        Don't read any more books - at least not straight through.  As
G.B. Kay from Blackpool once said (quoting somebody else), "Reading rots
the mind."  Pamphlets are so much more fun.  Read randomly, write on the
margins and go back to comics.  You might try the Silver Surfer for a start.
        
 
Self-Activity
 
        Bad work habits and sloppy behavior undermine any attempt to
construct collectively.  Casual, sloppy behavior means that we don't care
deeply about what we are doing or who we are doing it with.  This may come
as a surprise to a lot of people.  The fact remains:  we talk revolution
but act reactionary at elementary levels.
        There are two basic things underlying these unfortunate
circumstances:  1) people's idea of how something (like revolution) will
happen shapes our work habits; 2) their class background gives them a
casual view of politics.
        There is no doubt that the Pepsi generation is more politically
alive.  But this new energy is being channelled by organizers into boring
meetings which reproduce the hierarchy of class society.  After a while,
critical thinking is eroded and people lose their curiosity.  Meetings
become a routine like everything else in life.
        A lot of problems which collectives will have can be traced to the
work habits acquired in the (mass) movement.  People perpetuate the
passive roles they have become accustomed to in large meetings.  The
emphasis on mass participation means that all you have to do is show up. 
Rarely, do people prepare themselves for a meeting, nor do they feel the
need to.  Often this situation does not become evident precisely because
the few people who do work (those who run the meeting) create the illusion
of group achievement.
        Because people see themselves essentially as objects and not as
subjects, political activity is defined as an event outside them and in
the future.  No one sees themselves making the revolution and, therefore,
they don't understand how it will be accomplished.
        The short span of attention is one tell tale symptom of instant
politics.  The emphasis on responding to crisis seems to contract the span
of attention - in fact there is often no time dimension at all.  This
timelessness is experienced as the syncopation of over-commitment.  Many
people say they will do things without really thinking out carefully
whether they have the time to do them.  Having time ultimately means
defining what you really want to do.  Over-commitment is when you want to
do everything but end up doing nothing.
        The numerous other symptoms of casual politics - lack of
preparation, being late, getting bored at difficult moments, etc. are all
signs of a political attitude which is destructive to the collective.  The
important thing is recognizing the existence of these problems and knowing
what causes them.  They are not personal problems but historically
determined attitudes.
        Many people confuse the revolt against alienated labor in its
specific historical form with work activity itself.  This revolt is
expressed in an anti-work attitude.
        Attitudes toward work are shaped by out relations to production,
i.e. class.  Class is a product of hierarchic divisions of labor
(including forms other than wage labor).  There are three basic relations
which can produce anti-work attitudes.  The working class expressed its
anti-work attitude as a rebellion against routinized labor.  For the
middle class, the anti-work attitude comes out of the ideology of consumer
society and revolves around leisure.  The stereotype of the 'lazy native'
or 'physically weak woman' is a third anti-work attitude which is applied
to those excluded from wage labor.
        The dream of automation (i.e. no work) reinforces class prejudice.
 The middle class is the one that has the dream since it seeks to expand
its leisure-oriented activities.  To the working class, automation means a
loss of their job, preoccupation with unemployment, which is the opposite
of leisure.  For the excluded, automation doesn't mean anything because it
will not be applied to their forms of work.
        The automation of the working class has become the ideology of
post-scarcity radicals - from the anarchists at Anarchos to SDS's new
working class.  Technological change has rescued them from the dilemma of
a class analysis they were never able to make.  With the elimination of
working class struggle by automation (the automation of the working class)
the radicals have become advocates of leisure society and touristic
lifestyles.  This anti-work attitude leads to a utopian outlook and
removes us from the realm of history.  It prevents the construction of
collectivity and self-activity.  The issue of how to transform work into
self-activity is central to the elimination of class and the
reorganization of society.
        Self-activity is the reconstruction of the consciousness
(wholeness) of one's individual life activity.  The collective is what
makes the reconstruction possible because it defines individuality not as
a private experience but as a social relation.  What is important to see
is that work is the creating of conscious activity within the structure of
the collective.
        One of the best ways to discover and correct anti-work attitudes
is through self-criticism.  This provides an objective framework which
allows people the space to be criticized and to be critical. 
Self-criticism is the opposite of self-consciousness because its aim is
not to isolate you but to free repressed abilities.  Self-criticism is a
method for dealing with piggish behavior and developing consciousness.
        To root out the society within us and to redefine our work
relations a collective must develop a sense of its own history.  One of
the hardest things to do is to see the closest relations - those within
the collective - in political terms.  The tendency is to be sloppy, or
what Mao calls 'liberal,' about relations between friends.  Rules can no
longer be the framework of discipline.  It must be based on political
understanding.  One of the functions of analysis is that it be applied
internally.
        Preparation is another part of the process which creates
continuity between meetings and insures that our own thinking does not
become a part-time activity.  It also combats the tendency to talk off the
top of one's head and pick ideas out of the air.  Whenever meetings tend
to be abstract and random it means the ideas put forward are not connected
by thought (i.e. analysis).  There is seldom serious investigation behind
what is said.
        What does it mean to prepare for a meeting?  It means not coming
empty-handed or empty-headed.  Mao says, "No investigation, no right to
speak."  Assuming a group has decided what it wants to do, the first step
is for everyone to investigate.  This means taking the time to actually
look into the matter, sort out the relevant materials and be able to make
them accessible to everyone in the collective.  The motive underlying all
the preparation should be the construction of a coherent analysis.  "We
must substitute the sweat of self-criticism for the tears of crocodiles,"
according to a new Chinese proverb.
 
 
Struggle on Many Levels
 
        Struggle has many faces.  But no two faces look alike.  Like the
cubists, we must look at things from many sides.  The problem is to find
ways of creating space for ourselves.  The tendency now is toward
two-sidedness which is embedded in every aspect of our lives.  Our
language poses questions by making us choose between opposites.  The
imperialist creates the anti-imperialist.  Before 'cool' there was hot and
cold.  'Cool' was the first attempt to break out of two-sidedness.
Two-sidedness always minimizes the dimensions of struggle by narrowly
defining the situation.  We end up with a one dimensional view of the
enemy and of ourselves.
        Learn to be shrewd.  Our first impulse is always to define our
position.  Why do we feel the need to tell them?  We create space by not
appearing to be what we really are.
        Shrewdness is not simply a defensive tactic.  The essence of
shrewdness is learning to take advantage of the enemy's weaknesses. 
Otherwise you can never win.  The rule is:  be honest among yourselves,
but deceive the enemy.
        There are at least three ways of dealing with a situation.  You
can neutralize, activate, or destroy.  Neutralize is to create space. 
Activate is to gain support.  Destroy is to win.  What's more, it is
essential to learn how to use all three simultaneously.
        Struggle on many levels begins with the activation of all the
senses.  We must be able to conceive of more than one mode of acting for a
given situation.  The response, i.e. method of struggle, should contain
three elements:  1) a means of survival; 2) a method of exploiting splits
in the enemy camp; 3) an underground strategy.
        The fundamental tendency of corporate liberalism is to identify
with social change while trying to contain it.  Wouldn't it be ironic (and
even a relief) if we could turn the threat of co-option into a means of
survival?
        The fear of co-option often leads people to shun the challenge of
corporate liberals.  Some of the purest revolutionaries prefer not to
think about using the co-opter for their own purposes.  Too often the
mentality of the 'job' obscures the potential for subversion.
        The existence of corporate liberalism demands that we not be
sloppy in our own thinking and response.  The strength of the position is
that it forces us to acknowledge our own weaknesses - even before we
engage in struggle against it.  The worst mistake is to pretend that this
enemy does not exist.
        Urban struggle requires a subversive strategy.  Concretely,
working 'within the system' should become for us a source of money,
information, and anonymity.  This is what Mao means when he says, "Move at
night."  The routine of daily life is night-time for the enemy - when he
cannot see us.  The process of co-option should become an increasingly
disquieting exercise for them.
        Exploiting splits within the enemy camp does not mean helping one
segment defeat another.  The basic aim is to maintain the splits.  There
are significant differences among the oppressors.  These have the effect
of weakening them.  Under certain circumstances these splits may provide a
margin of maneuverability which may be strategic for us.  The main thing
is not to view the enemy monolithically.  Monolithic thinking condemns you
to one way of acting.
        There is a tendency to see the most degenerate forms of reaction
as the primary enemy.  The corporations are consciously pandering to such
ideas through films like Easy Rider which also attempts to identify with
young males.  The function of analysis is to break down and specify the
different forces within the enemy camp.
        The spaces created by these splits are of crucial importance to
the preparation of a long range strategy.  It will be increasingly
difficult to survive with the visibility that we are accustomed to.  The
lifestyles which declare our opposition are also the ones which make us
easy targets.  We must not mistake the level of appearances for new
cultures.  The whole point is not to make a fetish of our lifestyles.  In
the psychedelic atmosphere of repression, square is cool.
        Always keep part of your strategy underground.  Just as analysis
helps to differentiate the enemy so it should provide you with different
levels of attack.  Mao says:  "Flexibility is a concrete expression of
initiative."
        Going underground should not mean dropping heroically out of
sight.  There will be few places to hide in the electronic environment of
the future.  The most dangerous kind of underground will be one that is
like an iceberg.  The roles created to replace our identities in everyday
life must become the disguise of the underground.
        An underground strategy puts the impulse of confrontation into
perspective.  We must fight against the planned obsolescence of
confrontations which lock us into the time-span of instant revolution. 
Going underground means having a long range strategy - something which
plans for 2004.  The iceberg strategy keeps us cool.  It trains us to
control our reflexes and calculate our responses.
        The underground strategy is also necessary to maintain autonomy. 
Autonomy preserves the organizational form of the collective, which is
critical to the sharpening of its politics.  Nothing will be achieved by
submerging ourselves in a chaos of revolutionary fronts.  The principle
strategy of the counterfeit Left will be to smear over differences with
appeals to a class unity that no longer exists.  An underground strategy
without a revolutionary from of organization can only emerge as a new
class society.  To destroy the system of oppression is not enough.  We
must create the organization of a free society.  When the underground
emerges, the collective will be that society.

