Recruitment

[Abasi]

Uhuru!

The struggle for All-African independence through self-liberation requires that we organize ourselves, this is a point on which generally all revolutionary forces agree. Tied to this objective is the question of recruitment. Some of us find ourselves in locations where there is little to no revolutionary activity on the ground and sparse history of the African revolution in these locations. This means, in my view, that the work to recruit Africans into cadre level organizations is relatively more difficult than in place where the conditions and history are more advanced.

What I would like to discuss is strategy/tactics as it relates to winning members to cadre level organization. What are some methods that can be employed in locations where the is little to no revolutionary organization on the ground or little to no history of revolutionary work. How do we meet the people where they are (ideologically and practically) and move them forward in their understanding and unity with revolutionary work.

I'm familiar with a few strategies such as the AAPRP's campus-based student recruitment strategy or mass-cadre strategies wich win people into non-cadre organization so that they can be developed and then raised up into cadre formations.

I look forward to all response.

Uhuru!

[rebelAfrika]

Originally Posted by Abasi

What I would like to discuss is strategy/tactics as it relates to winning members to cadre level organization. What are some methods that can be employed in locations where the is little to no revolutionary organization on the ground or little to no history of revolutionary work. How do we meet the people where they are (ideologically and practically) and move them forward in their understanding and unity with revolutionary work.

I'm familiar with a few strategies such as the AAPRP's campus-based student recruitment strategy or mass-cadre strategies wich win people into non-cadre organization so that they can be developed and then raised up into cadre formations.

I look forward to all response.

Uhuru!

As a member of the A-APRP, I can tell you that at NO POINT in our organizational effort are we trying to win people into "non-cadre" organization. But you are correct on our student based campus strategy.

[Abasi]

Uhuru Comrade,
Let me clarify what I was saying. When I commented on non-cadre organization I was speaking about a category of strategy that I have seen used by organizations other than the A-APRP. I should've been more clear initially, but this post should clear it up more.

Abasi

[MsLioness]

We have to opt for a revolutionary ideology.

I think organizing work-study circles with ideological discussions is key.

Also having discussions on current events and geopolitics builds a strong relation between the ideological and material worlds. And keeps the recruit involved.

We must motivate our People. We are a very capable People. Everything we need for a revolution is right here in the masses, and we should never forget that. Call somethings of the past to the present as a reminder of how far we have come in such a small amount of time.... and People are normally very receptive.

We must not scare our People or intimidate them. We must embrace whatever gifts they may have as well as their very human capabilities. We must praise our People for all that they do and give advice, freely.

In concert, slowly shifting the responsibility of the absolute liberation of the People upon their shoulders. People need to be responsible. People won't move unless they are responsible for something, and its it our responsibility to liberate our People. Once this is realized, how can a person not become one who will struggle for liberation?

If someone loves the People, there is no limit to the work or service they would do for the People....there is no greater sacrifice.

[Abasi]

Uhuru!

I appreciate the input Ms. Lioness, I unite with it. What I'd like to do is deepen the discussion. And I'll start by laying out some principles of organizing that I work from.

I take the position that the main task of the revolutionary is to make revolution, and in the current period, in particular, the main task is to win the masses of African people into political life with the aim of winning them to a position of active struggle for independence, through self-liberation. A dialectical materialist analysis of the conditions of our people identifies that the broad masses of our people have not come to unity with the question of revolution, and so it is incumbent upon the revolutionaries to win the hearts and minds of our people to this particular stance. In order to do this, the revolutionary must operate in a way that is effective (this gets at the point you made on not intimidating our people), and there are two main positions I take on the general method of making this happen.

First I believe that there are two primary principles for being a good organizer/recruiter: 1) organizer's must like people, and 2) organizers must be able to develop working relationships. Organizing is all about dealing with people, and the organizer who does not like people is doomed to failure form the start. We have to proceed from a concrete love for our people, notwithstanding all of our contradictions. I don't mean some idealist/romantic notion of love, I mean love form the stand point of allegiance and undying commitment conditioned by a realistic view of who we are. This love has to be based on faith in the inevitability of our struggle's success and the absolute necessity of the struggle being carried on the shoulders of the people. In terms of developing relationships, I've come to the conclusion that building organization and mobilizing people turns on the pivot of relationships. People organize themselves in general society in groups, based on common interest. These social groupings are a series of relationships and inter-relationships. In side of each social grouping there are centers of influence which generally have serious impact on the social grouping. If we accept this premise, then it becomes clear that in order for us to win the critical mass of people to the revolution that is necessary, we must able to win entire social groups. This objective then means that we have to develop relationships with people who are centers of influence in their social groupings and win their unity with the revolutionary process. This would result in the center of influence winning other members of their social group into the revolution. On the other hand, if we win people from the social groupings who may not be centers of influence, then they become points of entry into their social group and with their assistance, the revolutionary organizer can begin to win the unity of other non-centers of influence and impact the dynamic of the group in a way that brings it closer to the revolution. Also, if the revolutionary organizer, in tandem with the non-center of influence member(s) of the social group that have been won to unity, can get the ear of the centers of influence in the social group, then the same kind of thing should result.

We must keep in mind that people only do the things that they perceive to be in their self-interest. This being the case we must be working to win the people to the stance that revolution in in their self-interest. Which brings me to the second main position on organizing that I take. The position is that all of our work should meet three general objectives: 1) win real, concrete improvements in people's lives, 2) give people a sense of their own power (collectively and individually), and 3) alter the power relations that affect our people. If we are meeting these three objectives on some scale, then we give the people practical examples of why it is in their own self-interest to join up and/or support the work of the revolution.

Now, operating from the above premises, what I'd like to do is 1) struggle over the validity of the positions, if necessary, and 2) develop specific strategies and tactics for winning people on an individual organizer-to-person basis, and on a collective organization-to-person or organization-to-community basis.

I look forward to principled struggle.

[Im The Truth]

What are you calling "cadre level" and what are you calling "non-cadre level"?

[Abasi]

Uhuru comrade,

I classify cadre level forces as those whose level of unity with the work allows to make a full time commitment to the work. The qualifications would obviously vary from one organization to the next, but generally cadre is one who has united with an advanced discipline (cadre/revolutionary organization versus a mass organization), a deep ideological soundness, and enough practical experience to lead the work. Cadre can be summed up as those of us who have made the revolution their profession.

A non-cadre would any one who generally unites with the work but may be anywhere from a financial supporter only to a regular participant in organizational work or campaigns. The non-cadre force has not united with the discipline of the cadre forces.

[Im The Truth]

1) I think positions are valid, necessary, and important because what is organization without positions? Now just because there are positions it doesn't mean one position, one person. In my opinion positions or committee should have multiple members with a spokesperson.

2) organization-to-community - engage in community service programs ;
collective organization-to-person - engage in forums/open discussions ;
individual organizer-to-person basis - recruit from both forums, community service programs, schools, and all African/Black events.


Now to throw in a monkey wrench. Looking at the material reality of the early to mid 60s would you consider SNCC a Cadre org? What about SCLC? What about CORE?

[MsLioness]

Originally Posted by Abasi

Uhuru!

I appreciate the input Ms. Lioness, I unite with it. What I'd like to do is deepen the discussion. And I'll start by laying out some principles of organizing that I work from.

I take the position that the main task of the revolutionary is to make revolution, and in the current period, in particular, the main task is to win the masses of African people into political life with the aim of winning them to a position of active struggle for independence, through self-liberation. A dialectical materialist analysis of the conditions of our people identifies that the broad masses of our people have not come to unity with the question of revolution, and so it is incumbent upon the revolutionaries to win the hearts and minds of our people to this particular stance. In order to do this, the revolutionary must operate in a way that is effective (this gets at the point you made on not intimidating our people), and there are two main positions I take on the general method of making this happen.

First I believe that there are two primary principles for being a good organizer/recruiter: 1) organizer's must like people, and 2) organizers must be able to develop working relationships. Organizing is all about dealing with people, and the organizer who does not like people is doomed to failure form the start. We have to proceed from a concrete love for our people, notwithstanding all of our contradictions. I don't mean some idealist/romantic notion of love, I mean love form the stand point of allegiance and undying commitment conditioned by a realistic view of who we are. This love has to be based on faith in the inevitability of our struggle's success and the absolute necessity of the struggle being carried on the shoulders of the people. In terms of developing relationships, I've come to the conclusion that building organization and mobilizing people turns on the pivot of relationships. People organize themselves in general society in groups, based on common interest. These social groupings are a series of relationships and inter-relationships. In side of each social grouping there are centers of influence which generally have serious impact on the social grouping. If we accept this premise, then it becomes clear that in order for us to win the critical mass of people to the revolution that is necessary, we must able to win entire social groups. This objective then means that we have to develop relationships with people who are centers of influence in their social groupings and win their unity with the revolutionary process. This would result in the center of influence winning other members of their social group into the revolution. On the other hand, if we win people from the social groupings who may not be centers of influence, then they become points of entry into their social group and with their assistance, the revolutionary organizer can begin to win the unity of other non-centers of influence and impact the dynamic of the group in a way that brings it closer to the revolution. Also, if the revolutionary organizer, in tandem with the non-center of influence member(s) of the social group that have been won to unity, can get the ear of the centers of influence in the social group, then the same kind of thing should result.

We must keep in mind that people only do the things that they perceive to be in their self-interest. This being the case we must be working to win the people to the stance that revolution in in their self-interest. Which brings me to the second main position on organizing that I take. The position is that all of our work should meet three general objectives: 1) win real, concrete improvements in people's lives, 2) give people a sense of their own power (collectively and individually), and 3) alter the power relations that affect our people. If we are meeting these three objectives on some scale, then we give the people practical examples of why it is in their own self-interest to join up and/or support the work of the revolution.

Now, operating from the above premises, what I'd like to do is 1) struggle over the validity of the positions, if necessary, and 2) develop specific strategies and tactics for winning people on an individual organizer-to-person basis, and on a collective organization-to-person or organization-to-community basis.

I look forward to principled struggle.

On self-interest: one thing about revolutions is that it requires much sacrifice. It is difficult to say that it is in the self-interest of the actual recruit that he lay his life down for the People. This work is not safe work. It is likely that that recruit could be jailed for no valid reason. It is likely that that recruit find a dead body in his car and he has killed no one. It is likely that police terrorize him, or if he goes out of the country....he might not get permission to come back.

People I know, personally, have experienced these issues.

I think we have to educate the masses about the uncompromisingly selflessness of being a revolutionary. Life does not get easier. Through education things become clear, but what you see is so ugly....if you are not careful you could become reactionary or stagnant or a sell out or one who does not act at all.

If the recruit is educated about the hundreds of millions of People that have sacrifice their lives by dying and through living for the revolution, they could see how simple and common their sacrifice really is.

Education on Socialism is very important. Socialism is a Truth as much as it is inevitable. Some People think, like my family, that we are opting for Socialism. I cannot stress it enough that Socialism is inevitable. How long will a slave be a slave? As conditions are ripening, we know that it is not long at all. Capitalism is the big contradiction....it cannot sustain itself.

So facts are a great help. We don't want to misguide our People.

That love that you were speaking about, it will come naturally for the masses. Its that feeling that when something is an injustice it is wrong and it hurts you everyday to see that wrong perpetuated through innocent and ignorant lives. People outright getting taken advantage of, and not for their benefit, but for the benefit of a few. So what do you want to do? You want to tell them what is going on, raise their consciousness so that they will fight these injustices tooth and nail (organize). We want revolutionaries to produce revolutionaries.

[rebelAfrika]

Originally Posted by Abasi

Uhuru comrade,

I classify cadre level forces as those whose level of unity with the work allows to make a full time commitment to the work. The qualifications would obviously vary from one organization to the next, but generally cadre is one who has united with an advanced discipline (cadre/revolutionary organization versus a mass organization), a deep ideological soundness, and enough practical experience to lead the work. Cadre can be summed up as those of us who have made the revolution their profession.

A non-cadre would any one who generally unites with the work but may be anywhere from a financial supporter only to a regular participant in organizational work or campaigns. The non-cadre force has not united with the discipline of the cadre forces.

For the first time, I get a definition of "cadre" that I fully understand. Thank you.

[NuAfrikanQueen]

Originally Posted by MsLioness

Socialism is a Truth as much as it is inevitable.....

i agree with you on everything but this. i think pushing socialism would weaken the movement for revolution making it too soft.

[Abasi]

Originally Posted by rebelAfrika

For the first time, I get a definition of "cadre" that I fully understand. Thank you.

Uhuru amafrika,

Without a doubt my man, you are welcome. I'm glad my attempt to define the concept was helpful.

[Abasi]

Uhuru Good Sistah,
I appreciate your intervention in this discussion and I want to struggle with you on some of the points you made. First let me say that the very point you made is the most important:

“So what do you want to do? You want to tell them what is going on, raise their consciousness so that they will fight these injustices tooth and nail (organize). We want revolutionaries to produce revolutionaries.”

I unite 100%! This is precisely why I put forward the question of strategy and tactics concerning the recruitment of forces in the revolution. Exactly right, we want to produce and reproduce revolutionaries, this requires a consciousness among the people, and that consciousness comes from the revolutionary doing the work on the ground. So I’m down for that, what I’m trying to do is engage other revolutionaries in a discussion on specific methods that we can use to win people to membership in revolutionary organizations and the mass organizations attached to them.

You state that revolutions require sacrifice, of this there is no doubt. You go on to say “It is difficult to say that it is in the self-interest of the actual recruit that he lay his life down for the People. This work is not safe work. It is likely that that recruit could be jailed for no valid reason…” I disagree with you on one point. The work of the revolutionary may definitely ask for the revolutionary to lay down his or her life at some point; however what is more difficult is living for the revolution. I think the focus on death gives revolution a very one-sided aspect and it is incorrect to make this the highest expression of revolution. Revolution is about death, we want a particular state of affairs to die away. But, more importantly, we want new state of affairs to come into life. So in the end, this is about the death of the old and the life of the new. To emphasize either of the two without the other is incorrect.

In terms of winning people to the work of the revolution, we have to be truthful about what it takes to be a good cadre force, and that means being clear about the selflessness required of the revolutionary. However, we have to present the revolution based on an analysis of the real conditions of our people. No one joins organizations to make their lives worse, and if that is what we take to the people (that being a revolutionary will make life worse) then we are done before we start. I maintain that we have to be clear that being a revolutionary is the hardest but most honorable thing an African can do. When we put our propaganda out to the people, we must emphasize the positives of being a revolutionary, because most of us already understand the negatives. Yes, our martyrs have given all for the revolution and they should always be held up as examples for us to emulate. However, we are not going to the people to ask them to be martyrs, we are not asking them to die for the struggle, we are asking them to live for it, until they die. Yes, we absolutely should understand the necessity of submerging our own subjective interests to the interests of the collective, but that requires a process of maturity and development for most people who have been bred to be individualist their entire lives. So in working to win people we have to go to where they are and win them to more advanced stances and higher levels of maturity. What I’d like to get at is how do we do that? How do we get to the people where they are, interact with them, and come out on the other side of the process with new members in the revolution?

Again, I appreciate the struggle Ms.Lioness, and I look forward to your response.

[MsLioness]

Originally Posted by NuAfrikanQueen

i agree with you on everything but this. i think pushing socialism would weaken the movement for revolution making it too soft.

So if we were to have a revolution, what would be the next system?

[Langalibalele]

Originally Posted by Im The Truth

What are you calling "cadre level" and what are you calling "non-cadre level"?

In revolutionary organization, cadres comprise the "self-
led proletariat" (the vanguard) and all groups led by the
vanguard are considered mass organizations, i.e. unions,
community militias and broad-based solidarity groups,
political campaign workers, reparations brigades,
production committees, plus democratic formations
including armies and other disciplined institutions.
=========================
Cadre are those who have united in full with your party's
program, platform, principles, rules of conduct, style and
work ethic, its ideological content, goals and objectives,
and its strategy. The political education process steels your
cadres, prepares them for leadership over mass organizations
and helps them understand the trends and developments in
the capitalist class system. Cadres must be able to carry out
party work at every level, from going on the street and
organizing to instigating and leading rebellions and uprisings.