process in which larger numbers are drawn into the revolutionary struggle. In the same way, it suggests that the question of leadership or misleadership of a vanguard is answered by studying the leadership's awareness of this correlation with larger forces outside it, by the leadership's effectiveness or omissions in gearing its demands to the aspirations of the larger masses immediately contiguous to it--by the way in which a vanguard makes its own local struggle a struggle in behalf of common interests it shares with contiguous, larger social forces. This is, of course, the absolute key to the success and mass strike character of the Columbia struggle.
That is, the revolutionary movement is absolutely irreconcilable with all forms of parochialism, has nothing in common with those struggles for "local control" which exclude alliances with broader, contiguous forces. If the Columbia strike had been confined to campus issues, to excluding "outside agitators" and outside supporting demonstrations, it would have been defeated. It is not an accident that the split between the left and the right wing around campus, at every point, was over the question of broadening the struggle perspective, broadening the strike leadership to include representatives of the communities and high school as well as campus employees. The immediate strength of the strike on campus lay in the special new social dynamics governing the relationship between sit-in demonstrators and the broader campus majority. The real strength of the strike lay off campus, in the token but potentially titanic force of common-interest existing between the student revolutionaries and over twenty million of the oppressed throughout the United States.
At those limits, the lapsed-time portrait of the mass strike process exhausts its usefulness. The lapsed-time portrait suffices to do no more than indicate the broad policies and strategies pursued by its leaders. What is urgently required, in addition, is an understanding of the molecular processes, the laws governing the circumstances and tasks which the individual revolutionary confronts in his day-to-day work in the movement.
Luxemburg turns her attention to the short-term processes in more or less these terms. The initiating actions of the mass strike process are political strikes by a relatively small vanguard. What shows these strikes to be part of a mass strike process is a coming-over of broader, contiguous social forces. This rising strike action, or succession of actions, then seems to reach an inherent peak, at which point the strike action seems to ebb away. That appearance is usually deceptive. During the emergence of a pre-revolutionary period, the apparent ebbing of the mass action gives way to an organizing phase. This phase is characterized both by local militant struggles and organization-building among the new layers involved in the strike, as