CRACK CAPITALISM

ecomes divided into the world of those who fight for change
on the one hand, and the great mass of people who must be
convinced, on the other. The argument here is not an argument
against the importance of what activists do. It is certainly not
an argument against activists, but it is, crucially, an argument
for 'breaking down the division between "activist" and "nonactivist'"
(Trott 2007: 231).6
The relation between the visible and the invisible (or barely
visible) revolts can be thought of in two ways. In the first, it is only
the visible, public revolts that are to be taken seriously. Beyond
that there is a barrier or gap, outside which remain the vast
majority of people. These people are to be reached by teaching,
by explaining, by talking. The central issue is consciousness and
the lack of it. The other way is to think that there is not a gap or
barrier but lines of continuity that run from the great insubordinations
to the tiny, apparently insignificant insubordinations.
The central issue is not consciousness but sensitivity: the ability to
recognise insubordinations that are not obvious and the capacity
to touch those insubordinations. Consciousness or understanding
certainly plays a role, but it cannot be a question of bringing
consciousness from outside but of drawing out that which is
already present in undeveloped form, of bringing different
experiences into resonance with one another. This takes us to a
politics not of talking but of listening, or of listening-and-talking,
a politics of dialogue rather than monologue.
A politics of listening sits uneasily with any form of institutionalisation,
whether as a party or not. Institutions tend to
have rules or practices which define expectations and tune in
to certain voices, but not others. Institutions are not very good
at listening even when they try to do it. Lines of antagonism
(class struggle, if you will) move faster than any institution and
any attempt to institutionalise them or tie them down is likely
to constitute an impediment and a deafness to such movement.
There is an important distinction to be made between institutionalisation,
which projects the present on to the future and
imposes definitions and limits, and organisation, which has as its
core the open and effective coordination of doing.7 Certainly we
need forms of organisation, but it is important that the organisational
forms should be as open and receptive as possible. The
77