QUESTION 1:

The formalization of a social movement is often approved by constituents

who seek recognition from the opposition as a means of obtaining legitimacy. Arguably, the
professionalized structure of the social movement organization (SMO), that representing and
working towards the goals of a broader social movement, gains legitimacy by mirroring
preexisting power structures in attempts to join the insiders, those with resources and influence
into policy (Staggenborg, 2011). However, the implementation of a bureaucratic structure is both
advantageous and disastrous to the survival of a movements ideological purity, and often
simultaneously as a result of the centralization of power and influence (Lenin, 1902 & Michels,
1911).
Those who defend the SMO acknowledge its ability to frame pre-existing condolences and lend
social struggles a political character to be the voice a collective (Lenin, 1902 & Staggenborg,
2012). By being a representative body, the SMO becomes a forum conversation in conversation
in early stages and resource mobilization once precipitating factors or the take-off stage is
breached (Moyer, n.d. & Smelser, 1962). Through social networks, the most common resource
for and of constituents, various SMOs in a single social movement or in the broader social
movement industry, are able to recruit members as well as form alliances to advance power and
influence through cooperation (Staggenborg, 2011). In this sense SMOs within a movement
capture various members by both overlapping and distinguishing their ideologies or material
goals, thus appealing to several personalities. Membership is therefore not lost, but transferred to
another SMO supporting the generalized movement, such as the case of Earth Firsts renouncing
of violence in 1990, despite their previous anarchist alliances with the increasingly violent Earth
Liberation front which was most active in 1990s in the destruction of equipment to prevent
logging (Gerlach, 2001 & Loadenthal, 2013). The diversification of a movement can draw upon
latent groups who are only able to give either time or money due to the opportunity costs of
participation (Staggenborg, 2011). The diversification of a movement also develops a sense of
responsibility my reinventing frames and encouraging enthusiasm associated with new ideas,
thus inspiring people to contribute to the movements goals (Oliver & Johnston,
2000).Interestingly enough, the capture various levels of participation is alike revenue sharing in
the economic theory of the price point, in which the formation of an oligopoly increases sales or
resources, but decreases quality or goals and morale in the case of the social movement.
However, it can be argued that this constant reinforcement of a movements imperativeness
through developing sufficient social energy (Lenin, 1902), solves the free-rider problem,
which today, unlike in the protest cycle of the 1960s which was spearheaded in a time of
economic certainty for the masses, is often a result of personal and financial security issues
(Staggenborg, 2011 & Wolfe, 1968).
Defendants also see the structure of the SMO as a mechanism of maintaining the purity of
ideologies related to the broader social movement. Within the structure is a predetermined
division of labour including few, centralized leaders who direct the movements advancements.
Political leader of a division of the communist revolution of the USSR described the ideal
functioning movement to include a revolutionary vanguard that would be trained in political
consciousness and revolutionary activity, and would ensure the stability of the movement
(Lenin, 1902). Lenin believed that a movement could only be sustained through continuous
leadership of professionals to avoid the impurities of combatting ideologies.
However, it is this very centralization of power that others have determined the major pitfall of

the SMO. The bureaucratization of a movement encourages the development of class structures
within the movement, arguably with internal reservoirs of recruitment in which the power is
transmitted via personal ties and not by merits of the individual related to the movement
(Michels, 1911 & Trotsky, 1904). An organization assumed by inheritance and therefore
separated from initial ideologies has a tendency to be corrupt and include scandals which serve
leaders and not supporters and therefore becomes undemocratic (Michels, 1911). Leaders of the
potential SMO are likely to succumb to the central contagion in order to gain membership
through the assumption of increasingly broad policies which are attractive to masses who
achieve easy access to membership such as through nameless monetary donations (McGuigan,
Spring 2015 & Staggenborg, 2011). A modern illustration of ideology dampening is the fair trade
movements acceptance of multinational corporations into labelling initiatives, whom arguably
recreate preexisting social issues, but are now legitimized by a mark that once stood in
opposition to their profit maximizing structure (Dragusanu et al., 2014). Therefore the
organization surrenders to parliamentarianism and popular vote the ends rather than the
means, with a mentality of miseonism rather than mobilization or revolution (Michels, 1911).
As membership grows, there is a need for more complex systems of management and accounting
which are costly and focus on the technical conditions of political work (and) tend to cover the
whole field of the Partys political tasks (Trotsky, 1904.)
QUESTION 4:
The fundamental differences in ideology that separated Lenin and Trotsky
in the Communist Revolution of the USSR have been persistent in modern social movements
worldwide. Although extremist in his demands of absolute centrality of power, the eventuality of
Lenins message has been demonstrated in several historical social movements, and most
recently in the Occupy Movement (Lenin, 1902 & Stinson, 2011). Likewise, Trotskys distrust
for the dogma associated with unquestioned leadership has been legitimized by the corruption of
other movements which have succumbed to the will of their leaders (Trotsky, 1904 & Michels,
1911).
One key flaw in Leninism is introduced in his ideals of resource mobilization and repertoire.
Lenin believed that exposure was the key to revolutionary training of the masses; whilst Trotsky
believed that this skill was to be forged in a place apart (Lenin, 1902 & Trotsky, 1904). Lenins
ideal of innate revolutionary skill has been demonstrated as flawed in several presentations by
the media of protestors, who perhaps acting under influences of crowd dynamics and prone to
suggestibility, have acted irrational without previous exposure (Le Bon, 1896 & Mahoney, Hiu &
Morrow, 2010). Trotskys suggestion of training the masses in protest repertoire has proven to be
more effective, particularly in the protests of the 1960s, which in part were staged by social
movements to show protestors in a favorable light to the media, while showing the opposition as
violent (McGuigan, Spring 2015). Although not the primary motivation, this was another reason
why Trotsky favored economism, or planned protests by unions in which they could
constructively make pleas that would be supported by democratic vote, and would stage
repertoire based on convergent norm theory, which sees economism as a planned behavior by
those sharing common ideals (Trotsky, 1904 & McGuigan, Spring 2015).
The primary goal of economism however, was to support a bottom up approach to resource
mobilization and therefore decision making. Trotsky, against the legalistic ritual of committee
referenda, saw opportunism as a tactical expression of consensus and believed that central
leadership would eventually corrupt a movement due to the tendency of leaders to develop a

class system and legitimize their self-service (Trotsky, 1904 & Michels, 1911). If alive today,
Trotsky may have referred to organizations such as Greenpeace or FairTrade USA as examples
of how centralism and the creation of SMOs leads to parliamentarianism and therefore a loss of
ideology in exchange for power, which ultimately creates a political party at the expense of the
movement (McGuigan, Spring 2015 & Trotsky, 1904 & Michels, 1911, Dragusanu et al., 2014).
In contrast, Lenin would have viewed the compromise of ideology as central to a movements
failure and the result of subordination to bourgeois ideology by the working class (Lenin,
1902). The failure of the Occupy Movement demonstrates Lenins critique of the broad scope
nature of bottom up movements which lacking a voice vanguard of trained leaders would fail to
develop a clear mandate or clear demands and event succumbed to a dispersal of several groups
representing various ideologies (Lenin, 1902 & Stitson, 2011). Lenin may also have cited the
womens movement in the 1960s, which although successful in some respects, did not achieve
absolute equality as it eventually split into various groups, some radicalist and others all too
willing to compromise, perhaps reasons for a continuance of gender inequalities such as unequal
pay (McGuigan, Spring 2015 & Staggenborg, 2011).
A final key argument between Lenin and Trotsky was based on the structured division of labor
within a movement. Lenin saw a division of labor necessary to the stability of the movement as
those upholding the pure ideology, the professional revolutionaries or vanguard would make
unearthing of the organization difficult for authorities (Lenin, 1902). An example of the reality of
such an ideal may be seen in the covert leadership of Abby Hoffmann, who in hiding, prevented
the collapse of the counterculture movement, arguably achieved not only by his maintenance of
core values, but also by his clandestine nature (McGuigan, Spring 2015). However, Trotsky
might in part agree with Hoffmanns contender, Jerry Rueben, who like Trotsky, believed that
that continuity in leadership should not be a substitute for development and had the innate flaw
of relying on the conceptions or temperaments of individuals, and for that reason, getting stuck in
the 1960s (Trotsky, 1904, Youtube Search Engine, 2015). Trotsky might also cite the Merry
Pranksters drug movement as sustained after the exit of leader Ken Kesey as a result of feelings
of connectedness, equality and social responsibility within the movement (Wolfe, 1968).
The theories of both Trotsky and Lenin were noble assumptions of the ideals of human behavior
when challenged by the stressors leading to social unrest, and contain within them, major
realizations of both human greed and stupidity, either of which are perennial issues in social
movements.

WORKS CITED:
Dragusanu, R., Giovannucci, D., & Nunn, N. (2014). The Economics of Fair Trade (3rd ed., Vol.
28, pp. 217-236). The Journal of Economic Perspectives.
Gerlach, L. (2001). Chapter 9: THE STRUCTURE OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS:
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISM AND ITS OPPONENTS. In Networks and Netwars: The
Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy. RAND Corporation.
Hoffman, A., & Haber, I. (1996). Steal this book. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.
Le Bon, G. (2001). The Crowd: A study of the popular mind (1896). Kitchener: Batoche Books.
Lenin, V. (1969). What is to be done? Burning questions of our movement. New York:
International. Accessed February 15, 2015, from https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/
download/what-itd.pdf
Loadenthal, M. (2013). The Earth Liberation Front: A Social Movement Analysis. Accessed
February 12, 2015, from, http://www.academia.edu/1440142/
_2013_The_Earth_Liberation_Front_A_Social_Movement_Analysis
McGuigan, B. (2015, Spring Semester). Sociology 430: Social Movements and Change. Lecture
conducted from Vancouver Island University, Nanaimo, BC.
Michels, R. (2001). Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of
Modern Democracy (pp. 218-231). Kitchener: Batoche Books.
Morrow, A., Hui, A., & Mahoney, J. (2010, June 26). Protests turn violent: Storefronts smashed,
police cars set ablaze. Globe and Mail. Accessed February 12, 2015, from, http://
www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/protests-turn-violent-storefronts-smashed-police-carsset-ablaze/article4392357/
Moyer, B. (n.d.). Eight stages of successful social movements. Turning the Tide: programme of
Quaker Peace and Social Witness. Accessed February 12, 2015, from, http://www.turning-thetide.org/files/Bill%20Moyer%208-stages%20Social%20Movements%20Hand-out.pdf
Oliver, P., & Johnston, H. (2000). WHAT A GOOD IDEA! IDEOLOGIES AND FRAMES (1st
ed., Vol. 4, pp. 37-54). Mobilization: An International Jounal. Accessed February 12, 2015, from,
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/PROTESTS/ArticleCopies/
OliverJohnstonFramesIdeologyMoby2000.pdf
Smelsner, N. (1962). Theory of Collective Behaviour. New York: The Free Press.
Staggenborg, S. (2011). Social movements ([Rev. ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Stitson, S. (2011, November 19). Five Reasons Why Occupy Failed and One Reason it Didn't.
National Post. Accessed February 12, 2015, from, http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/19/
scott-stinson-five-reasons-why-occupy-failed-and-one-reason-it-didnt/
Trotsky, L. (1904). Our political tasks. Translated by, London: New Park Publications. Accessed
February 15, 2015, from, http://ebooks.z0ro.com/ebooks/Russia/Trotsky/Our%20Political
%20Tasks%20Trotsky.pdf
Wolfe, T. (1968). The electric kool-aid acid test (Bantam trade pbk. ed.). New York: Bantam
Books.

Youtube Search Engine. (2015). hoffman rubin.. Posted November 9, 2013. Accessed from,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyXlj5nZKpg