1) Too much "unity"; too little confrontation...
2) Too old; where are the NAFTA kids?
3) Too organized; the "Mobe" should mobilize (i.e. logistics) - not set goals
4) Too much "bearing witness"; too little "we're going to shut this fucker down"
5) Too little pre-planning; D.C. is the place to swell numbers, after that Baltimore, Philly, NYC... Concentric Circles; go for the kids - they drag everyone else.
6) Too set piece; pro forma - it should be, "Bring your guitar and your motorcycle helmet"
7) Too little culture, or perhaps, just one kind of culture; let a hundred flowers bloom - make it a chance to meet America; turn it into a "festival".
8) Wrong allies - Natural ally is Minister Farrakhan and the nation of Islam (which has turned out the largest street demonstrations in American history); it is a natural alliance; "What would it take, Mr. Minister?"
9) The role of socialists in American street demos is to drag out the numbers and to set an example by getting their heads busted FIRST... not to TALK (this is a socialist talking). Shut the fuck up. Let passion speak.
10) Too much talking in general... The crowd should MARCH... A LOT... They form the mass around which the various tribes can organize sallies and retreat back to... Time to march our ass off.
11) The cops and soldiers are not friendly... they may be an hour before and an hour after but not during... They are the face of the enemy.
12) Not nearly enough, "do your own thing"... need snake dancers, and people who want to sit down while chanting, and those who want to write slogans on the Justice Department and those who want to carry big signs saying "SHAME", and lots of pink people (a reference to a previous thread)....

-anaxarchos

http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images2/oct21_dc_march_67_po.jpg

http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/viet/mobe5.jpg

http://www.lightweb.com/images/SFMarch-2.jpg

http://www.lightweb.com/images/SFMarch3.jpg

http://www.jofreeman.com/buttons/images/PeaceButtons.jpg

Now, how do we get from where we are to where that is?

Now, how do we get from where we are to where that is?

The thread that chlamor took this from (on why we couldn't put on mass demonstrations anymore), what I was saying was that "the problem" was purely tactical... that we had forgotten (momentarily) how this was done. I dunno, but it still seems that way to me. Simple focus seems like it would cure a lot:

Six months of prep, not six weeks.
One issue (Out Now!), not one hundred.
Washington, D.C., not wherever it was convenient.
Everyone is invited, not those who "blah, blah, blah".
Mobilization committee, not a "leadership committee".

...and so on.

I could be wrong. Sometimes I feel like Rip Van Winkle.

Now, how do we get from where we are to where that is?

The thread that chlamor took this from (on why we couldn't put on mass demonstrations anymore), what I was saying was that "the problem" was purely tactical... that we had forgotten (momentarily) how this was done. I dunno, but it still seems that way to me. Simple focus seems like it would cure a lot:

Six months of prep, not six weeks.
One issue (Out Now!), not one hundred.
Washington, D.C., not wherever it was convenient.
Everyone is invited, not those who "blah, blah, blah".
Mobilization committee, not a "leadership committee".

...and so on.

I could be wrong. Sometimes I feel like Rip Van Winkle.

How do we get around the significant differences, though? I.e., no overt draft (victimising the Reserve and NG lets the 'college boys' off the hook completely), enormous transportation costs, and ---this is very figural for me--- a more uncaring, fascist, militarised face to government. The only city cops in the '60s who had armored cars and other military hardware were the ones in W.-Berlin, and they were of course really Bundeswehr units with pro-forma badges and cop suits (we used to laugh quietly at the way the real cops reacted to their appearance in the street). In the US today, the us vs them mentality is quite pronounced, don't you think? And of course there are now concentration camps and legalised torture, something that was either not happening or was completely well hidden and either way was right out of the known universe back then as you no doubt remember.

I could be wrong. Sometimes I feel like Rip Van Winkle.

If you're a Deadhead thats pretty natural..oh and I have some bad news for you..;)

Now, how do we get from where we are to where that is?

The thread that chlamor took this from (on why we couldn't put on mass demonstrations anymore), what I was saying was that "the problem" was purely tactical... that we had forgotten (momentarily) how this was done. I dunno, but it still seems that way to me. Simple focus seems like it would cure a lot:

Six months of prep, not six weeks.
One issue (Out Now!), not one hundred.
Washington, D.C., not wherever it was convenient.
Everyone is invited, not those who "blah, blah, blah".
Mobilization committee, not a "leadership committee".

...and so on.

I could be wrong. Sometimes I feel like Rip Van Winkle.

How do we get around the significant differences, though? I.e., no overt draft (victimising the Reserve and NG lets the 'college boys' off the hook completely), enormous transportation costs, and ---this is very figural for me--- a more uncaring, fascist, militarised face to government. The only city cops in the '60s who had armored cars and other military hardware were the ones in W.-Berlin, and they were of course really Bundeswehr units with pro-forma badges and cop suits (we used to laugh quietly at the way the real cops reacted to their appearance in the street). In the US today, the us vs them mentality is quite pronounced, don't you think? And of course there are now concentration camps and legalised torture, something that was either not happening or was completely well hidden and either way was right out of the known universe back then as you no doubt remember.

Funny, that's what they said on the other site too... Militerized cops, blah, blah, blah... It seems like the exact opposite to me. The "us vs. them" among the cops, etc. is MUCH less then in say 1968 in Chicago (Police Riot). Then, "Rodney King" was a daily event. The confluence of Civil Rights with hippies and "communist sympathizers" was too much for the police organs, etc. to take. Yet, in D.C., they were fairly restrained (less so in Virginia, at the Pentagon). I would think they would be even more restrained now, their paramilitary toys notwithstanding. We have to test it in any case. Sitting and musing on what "they might do" will just not cut it.

The changes in mass or popular organizations is more bothersome... The Unions are half their previous size (although urban locals may actually be more left wing). Not sure how fragmented the black churches are (then, they had been mobilized by the Civil Rights struggle, as had some white liberal churches). I wouldn't dismiss the current conservatised evangies out of hand but not sure if you can get anything out of them. This time, we should be able to hit the mosques and the temples of the Nation of Islam (if the national supports). Not sure what else...

The local campuses are key (in the area from D.C. to Philadelphia). I'm not sure what that looks like these days either. Maybe I'm dreamin' but I haven't really seen anybody try it. The current "Mobes": 1) Aren't "Mobes"; 2) Are on a different plan.

Now, how do we get from where we are to where that is?

The thread that chlamor took this from (on why we couldn't put on mass demonstrations anymore), what I was saying was that "the problem" was purely tactical... that we had forgotten (momentarily) how this was done. I dunno, but it still seems that way to me. Simple focus seems like it would cure a lot:

Six months of prep, not six weeks.
One issue (Out Now!), not one hundred.
Washington, D.C., not wherever it was convenient.
Everyone is invited, not those who "blah, blah, blah".
Mobilization committee, not a "leadership committee".

...and so on.

I could be wrong. Sometimes I feel like Rip Van Winkle.

How do we get around the significant differences, though? I.e., no overt draft (victimising the Reserve and NG lets the 'college boys' off the hook completely), enormous transportation costs, and ---this is very figural for me--- a more uncaring, fascist, militarised face to government. The only city cops in the '60s who had armored cars and other military hardware were the ones in W.-Berlin, and they were of course really Bundeswehr units with pro-forma badges and cop suits (we used to laugh quietly at the way the real cops reacted to their appearance in the street). In the US today, the us vs them mentality is quite pronounced, don't you think? And of course there are now concentration camps and legalised torture, something that was either not happening or was completely well hidden and either way was right out of the known universe back then as you no doubt remember.

Funny, that's what they said on the other site too... Militerized cops, blah, blah, blah... It seems like the exact opposite to me. The "us vs. them" among the cops, etc. is MUCH less then in say 1968 in Chicago (Police Riot). Then, "Rodney King" was a daily event. The confluence of Civil Rights with hippies and "communist sympathizers" was too much for the police organs, etc. to take. Yet, in D.C., they were fairly restrained (less so in Virginia, at the Pentagon). I would think they would be even more restrained now, their paramilitary toys notwithstanding. We have to test it in any case. Sitting and musing on what "they might do" will just not cut it.

The changes in mass or popular organizations is more bothersome... The Unions are half their previous size (although urban locals may actually be more left wing). Not sure how fragmented the black churches are (then, they had been mobilized by the Civil Rights struggle, as had some white liberal churches). I wouldn't dismiss the current conservatised evangies out of hand but not sure if you can get anything out of them. This time, we should be able to hit the mosques and the temples of the Nation of Islam (if the national supports). Not sure what else...

The local campuses are key (in the area from D.C. to Philadelphia). I'm not sure what that looks like these days either. Maybe I'm dreamin' but I haven't really seen anybody try it. The current "Mobes": 1) Aren't "Mobes"; 2) Are on a different plan.

Y'know I was gonna let that go, and I wasn't sure how you were gonna react but this shit is fucking retarded. All of these trendy assholes whining about how "habeas corpus has been suspended" and "they're taking away my civil rights!" and "torture is legal now!" can kiss my ass.

What the fuck do they think has been going on forever in this country? Oh thats right a whole lot of people never had habeas corpus, never had civil rights, were subject to disappearing anywhere anytime. And these crybabys didn't raise a peep. Or if they did it was so tepid and noncommital they deserved to have their balls beat in for it.

The police and military are worse than motherfucking Kent State now?

This is such blatant affluent revisionism (OMG look at how Bush is eroding our precious Constitution) it is unconscionable.

I wasn't there and I know that.

That DC is configured like a wheel and certain spokes/arteries are integral to the proper functioning of the place.

Strength in humility is a myth. Passive denial of the enormity of the problems that confront us and the radical solutions needed to address these, while understandable in light of all the devastation being visited upon the Earth by developers, corporate greed heads and a largely acquiescent populace, is still an indefensible and repugnant position.

As long as women and African-Americans were nice humble and passive what did they get? Nothing. Unless you count subjugation and servitude as something. Would those in power one day have awakened one day in a particularly genial and loving mood and said, "You are so nice and humble I'm going to allow you to vote, own property and while we're at it let's throw in equal pay?"

Dream on.

It took suffragettes and civil rights activists being insistent, unpleasantly arrogant, unrelenting and a willingness to risk what little they did have to attain the few freedoms that are "allowed" today. This meant laying their bodies on the line.

Those who are destroying our earth and our communities at breakneck speed are as humble and caring as barracudas, all apologies to the piscine creatures, and will not easily or at all relinquish their stranglehold on the gasping terra firma or your neck.

What it will take is nothing short of large scale purposeful sustained direct actions that bring the system to a halt. this means tremendous sacrifice. This means discomfort. In this there is the inevitably of tremendous risk.

The only remedy will be when people begin to get interested in taking back active control of the processes that rule their lives and work with each other rather than crossing their fingers and heading off to the ballot box.

There is no political solution.

The only remedy will be when people begin to get interested in taking back active control of the processes that rule their lives and work with each other rather than crossing their fingers and heading off to the ballot box.

There is no political solution.

Next is Le Monde’s thought-provoking report on Venezuela and Hugo Chávez’s new approach to socialism -- an approach that seeks to solve the structural deficiencies that became so evident in the Soviet model:

Before Chávez was elected in 1998, two parties shared power for 40 years: the Venezuelan Christian Democratic party (Copei), and the social democratic party, Democratic Action (AD). They were adept at using petrodollars to deal with problems. They handed out government posts to calm social unrest but had to comply with the neoliberal ideology of the North and the need to limit public policies. The only way to offset the bloated state apparatus was to organise its inefficiency. With Venezuela’s social divisions, skilled civil servants often come from backgrounds resistant to social change, sometimes because of ignorance of the conditions in which most Venezuelans live…

The Fifth Republic Movement that brought Chávez to power is not a political party. After 1994 (3) it grew out of a coalition of leftwing parties and former guerrilla movements disgruntled with their leaders, who some thought settled too comfortably into the society they had struggled against. Young activists trained by AD and Copei quickly realised that the Chávez candidature would open up new ways to reach power and many joined his ranks…

Now the community is the basic structural unit of government of the new state, legally defined as 200-400 families in urban areas, around 20 in the countryside and from 10 up for the indigenous population. The Spanish political analyst Juan Carlos Monedero observed that the main reason 20th-century socialism failed was a lack of participation by the people. Communal councils may be instrumental in the construction of Venezuela’s 21st-century socialism.
http://wolfgangvonskeptik.mu.nu/archives/210748.html

hat tip to Newswolf
http://wolfgangvonskeptik.mu.nu/archives/210748.html

Six months of prep, not six weeks.
One issue (Out Now!), not one hundred.
Washington, D.C., not wherever it was convenient.
Everyone is invited, not those who "blah, blah, blah".
Mobilization committee, not a "leadership committee".

...and so on.


http://www.immigrantsolidarity.org/images/head/isn_head_01_01.jpg

May Day 2007
National Mobilization to Support Immigrant Workers Rights!

http://www.MayDay2007.org

We are calling

A national day of multi-ethnic unity with youth, labor, peace and justice communities in solidarity with immigrant workers and building new civil rights movement!

WE ARE ALL HUMANS! NO ONE IS ILLEGAL!

_________________________________________

Thousands march for immigrant rights
Schools, businesses feel impact as students, workers walk out

Monday, May 1, 2006; Posted: 10:21 p.m. EDT (02:21 GMT)

CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) -- Kids skipped school. Men and women walked off their jobs. Others didn't bother going to work. Businesses shut down for lack of patrons or employees.

Throngs of immigrants and advocates took to the streets of many U.S. cities Monday to protest proposed immigration laws, and the sites represented a veritable where's where of American metropolises.

Among them: New York; Washington; Las Vegas, Nevada; Miami, Florida; Chicago, Illinois; Los Angeles, California; San Francisco, California; Atlanta, Georgia; Denver, Colorado; Phoenix, Arizona; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Organizers of the nationwide event, dubbed "A Day Without Immigrants," asked those opposing tighter restrictions on immigration -- namely immigrants themselves -- to flex their economic muscle by boycotting all aspects of commerce, including going to work and school.

Chicago was the site of one of the largest protests, with about 300,000 demonstrators marching downtown, according to the city's emergency management center. Predominantly Latino schools in the city saw a 10 to 33 percent drop in attendance.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/01/immigr ... index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/01/immigrant.day/index.html)

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/US/05/01/immigrant.day/story.homestead.rally.jpg
_________________________________________

Comments?

That DC is configured like a wheel and certain spokes/arteries are integral to the proper functioning of the place.


Since we are in a state of conjecture... let's keep going for a minute. If it were me that was doing it, I would start very quietly.

I would raise a few bucks (webwise, of course), subsidize perhaps a couple of youngsters for 3 months, and put them into D.C., now. See if you could co-opt a local professor or clergyperson to add some volunteers early on. Look for donation of a small office, etc. I would go in two directions: “grassroots” locally (union locals, schools, fraternal organizations, churches, temples, mosques, local “Democratic clubs”, etc.) not so much for ideas but for help; and national organizations headquartered in the D.C. area, to put one person on a committee. Go for a very broad Mobe committee. Keep the politics simple – “Stop the War; Out Now”. Let that be the only subject for a handful of speeches on the Mass day. If people have something more to say, let them say it on their own dime (on the periphery).

If the probes yield results, we reinforce, put up a website, etc. If not, at least a few connections are established. If the initial organizing yields results, then you announce. In any case, it would be the “grassroots” stuff within easy driving distance of D.C. that you would look to create a semi-permanent organization based on which, you would launch your next effort.

The objective would be perhaps a week of activity in DC in May or June (anything else would be too soon)... maybe in September, if May is too soon …maybe called Iraq: Out Now Week or something simple like that. The lead up (the first 4 days) would be small demonstrations and speeches, "lobbying", and basic logistic set-up. The culmination would be, perhaps, 3 days - a Friday that was essentially a cultural "festival" (rock bands, poets, religious events, food, concerts, speeches, many things...), a Saturday Mass March (a long march… maybe 6 or 7 miles), and civil disobedience on Sunday… or, shift by one day and try to get a turnout for shutting it down on Monday. The objective would be to draw the youngsters and press visibility early, swell the numbers on Saturday or Sunday, and hope that some of it would carry over on Sunday or Monday.

Just thinkin’…

http://www.jofreeman.com/buttons/images/Pentagon1.jpg

Just thinkin’…

http://www.jofreeman.com/buttons/images/Pentagon1.jpg

http://www.jwj.org/images/home/jwj_logo_large.gif

Jobs with Justice engages workers and allies in campaigns to win justice in workplaces and in communities where working families live. JwJ was founded in 1987 with the vision of lifting up workers’ rights struggles as part of a larger campaign for economic and social justice. We believe in long-term multi-issue coalition building , grassroots base-building and organizing and strategic militant action as the foundation for building a grassroots movement, and we believe that by engaging a broad community of allies, we can win bigger victories. We reach working people through the organizations that represent them—unions, congregations, community organizations—and directly as JwJ activists. Nearly 100,000 people have signed the Jobs with Justice pledge to Be There at least five times a year for someone else’s struggle as well as their own.

http://www.jwj.org/images/about/quebecftaa.gif
http://www.jwj.org

I am getting involved with this in my area. The appeal to me is the mutli-racial, distintcly working class tinge to the group I met with and the overall mission to be the thread between many different groups that are all pulling for social and economic justice.

They could probably use a tendril reaching out to a latter day genuine leftist movement, dontcha think?

BUT they alienated conventional types with their niche issues always presented with screaming ivy league hippie throwbacks--and their sort of juvenile antics were never threaded together into a greater movement--everything was disconnected--


AND AND AND

ANSWER was subjected to a campaign to shut them up and shut them out due to their support of Palestinian rights and focus on the criminal influence of Neo-Con influence on our ME policy. This was carried out by the LEFT, the Nation and Michael Lerner (close relationship to Kucinich) especially, who wrote red-baiting editorials in the WSJ at the height of ANSWER's mobilizations. ANSWER was attacked as "anti-semitic" for bringing up Israeli apartheid and connecting it to our policy. And so it continues with Iran--with the drumbeat of intent building and even Kucinich apparently making noises about the threat of Iran.
So, here is the problem that is always is the problem--the issues have to be tied together as the interests of the ruling elite vs the interests of the community. No issue can be viewed with blinders as in the case of PI advocating peace, accompanied with an unwillingness to see how their narrow view is compromised before it gets out the starting gate. What good is all their posturing about the plight of the Palestinians when they see the solution as an unquestioning endorsement of a compromised politician that they excuse with rationale for political expediency. Can you see the futility in it all?

Last week I walked over to the Statehouse to a paltry protest - I didn't even know about until maybe an hour before it was scheduled. Some college kid from, I don't know, the College of NJ, I think, spoke. He was exceptional because he presented a well-thought out point that if all the Al Queda tewwowists are in Kurdish territory, why are we sending the surge into Baghdad? The framework has to be challenged--and no politician will operate outside it.

...they alienated conventional types with their niche issues always presented with screaming ivy league hippie throwbacks--and their sort of juvenile antics were never threaded together into a greater movement--everything was disconnected--
Yes. This can't be resolved because "conventional types" are seen as the problem by many activists. The enemy. They don't accidentally or inadvertently alienate the conventional types. Alienating - and confronting and provoking and upsetting and ridiculing - conventional types is the whole purpose of the movement for them.

So, here is the problem that is always is the problem--the issues have to be tied together as the interests of the ruling elite vs the interests of the community. No issue can be viewed with blinders as in the case of PI advocating peace, accompanied with an unwillingness to see how their narrow view is compromised before it gets out the starting gate. What good is all their posturing about the plight of the Palestinians when they see the solution as an unquestioning endorsement of a compromised politician that they excuse with rationale for political expediency. Can you see the futility in it all?
Exactly right.

So, here is the problem that is always is the problem--the issues have to be tied together as the interests of the ruling elite vs the interests of the community. No issue can be viewed with blinders as in the case of PI advocating peace, accompanied with an unwillingness to see how their narrow view is compromised before it gets out the starting gate. What good is all their posturing about the plight of the Palestinians when they see the solution as an unquestioning endorsement of a compromised politician that they excuse with rationale for political expediency. Can you see the futility in it all?
Exactly right.

Not sure how far this goes... If you are talking about a political outlet like PI, certainly this is true. If you are talking about a demonstration, there are too many "issues". Coalitions are about one issue... such as Iraq. Conflating the two seems to be one of the symptoms of "primitiveness" in the current "movement".

true.

But just the issue of Iraq itself is complicated and people come at it from different angles. The down side of the Answer demos is they brought in an array of topics that could be related--but they were sabotaged on the Israel issue. I really can't see how that aspect can be ignored concerning our ME policy--in fact NeoCons have been advocating for the US to move against Iran, and looky-see. How can we look at this and not be willing to see it? How much does the Zionist agenda pull the strings with a most willing partnership in the oil sector- shouldering US economic muscle for the investment class?

The polls don't seem to make any difference on this issue. Would demonstrations be little more than "special interests groups"? As far as PI's agenda, it just doesn't pass the smell test and they have already demonstrated their unwillingness to approach it in solidarity regardless of how much they pronounce their commitment to unity. :x

Not sure how far this goes... If you are talking about a political outlet like PI, certainly this is true. If you are talking about a demonstration, there are too many "issues". Coalitions are about one issue... such as Iraq. Conflating the two seems to be one of the symptoms of "primitiveness" in the current "movement".
Two things I see. First, the upper class bias in the activist community, secondly the faction that seeks to convert people to a new awareness or enlighten people. There is only a tiny percentage of the population that is interested in becoming enlightened. For most of the people, it is meaningless at best. Gatherings of like-minded people, and efforts at converting people to be like us is the main theme that I hear from the activist community. That can only serve the ruling class.

Activists want the stupid TV watching WalMart shopping rednecks to wise up and become like them – beautiful and gentle and peaceful and enlightened – altogether superior beings, don't you know – and fill the ranks of mass demonstrations so that the activists can “get what they want.” Never mind what the stupid rednecks want. These sentiments are expressed everyday in activist meetings and on the liberal boards - “how can we get what we want?” and “what will it take to wake the people up?”

In other words, the activists want the people to serve the, and the activists want to be an elite aristocracy that decides what happens – for people's own good, which they presumably are too stupid to recognize.

The proper relationship for the intellectuals and activists from the working class is to place themselves into the service of the blue collar people, not try to get the blue collar people to serve them. That is what we need to get enlightened about, and enlightenment about political and social problems is only of real value to the extent that it is useful in raising the conditions – not the spirituality – of the broad mass of people. If, on the other hand, enlightenment continues to be a matter of self-actualization and self-fulfillment - “what we want”and “my personal values” and “my choices” - enlightenment remains at best irrelevant politically.

true.

But just the issue of Iraq itself is complicated and people come at it from different angles. The down side of the Answer demos is they brought in an array of topics that could be related--but they were sabotaged on the Israel issue. I really can't see how that aspect can be ignored concerning our ME policy--in fact NeoCons have been advocating for the US to move against Iran, and looky-see. How can we look at this and not be willing to see it? How much does the Zionist agenda pull the strings with a most willing partnership in the oil sector- shouldering US economic muscle for the investment class?

If ANSWER is a mobilization committee, it has no right to "bring in" anything at all. The job is to mobilize the widest possible group on one issue but not to speak to it. That is the job of the individual members of the "coalition". "Bringing in issues" means shrinking the demonstration. When you get down to ANSWER's issues, you are not a coalition at all. Trying to do both, together, is dishonest and doomed to failure. Let the members of your coalition speak for themselves... The "Mobe" is responsible for the one issue and, to a lesser extent, to create a forum for its component voices.

Personally, I thought what ANSWER "brought in" was some seriously silly shit, but, if I thought the opposite, I would still argue the above.

The requirement that chlamor was addressing was "mass demonstrations", leading to "action". To get to that, you need "mass" tactics.
If you have popular organizations that can turn out a "mass", you don't need coalitions.

Not sure how far this goes... If you are talking about a political outlet like PI, certainly this is true. If you are talking about a demonstration, there are too many "issues". Coalitions are about one issue... such as Iraq. Conflating the two seems to be one of the symptoms of "primitiveness" in the current "movement".
Two things I see. First, the upper class bias in the activist community, secondly the faction that seeks to convert people to a new awareness or enlighten people. There is only a tiny percentage of the population that is interested in becoming enlightened. For most of the people, it is meaningless at best. Gatherings of like-minded people, and efforts at converting people to be like us is the main theme that I hear from the activist community. That can only serve the ruling class.

Activists want the stupid TV watching WalMart shopping rednecks to wise up and become like them – beautiful and gentle and peaceful and enlightened – altogether superior beings, don't you know – and fill the ranks of mass demonstrations so that the activists can “get what they want.” Never mind what the stupid rednecks want. These sentiments are expressed everyday in activist meetings and on the liberal boards - “how can we get what we want?” and “what will it take to wake the people up?”

In other words, the activists want the people to serve the, and the activists want to be an elite aristocracy that decides what happens – for people's own good, which they presumably are too stupid to recognize.

The proper relationship for the intellectuals and activists from the working class is to place themselves into the service of the blue collar people, not try to get the blue collar people to serve them. That is what we need to get enlightened about, and enlightenment about political and social problems is only of real value to the extent that it is useful in raising the conditions – not the spirituality – of the broad mass of people. If, on the other hand, enlightenment continues to be a matter of self-actualization and self-fulfillment - “what we want”and “my personal values” and “my choices” - enlightenment remains at best irrelevant politically.

Personally, I don't think that anybody "converts" or "enlightens" anybody on anything. I think we give outlets to opinions that are already formed or forming as you yourself have said. The rub here, is that sometimes those opinions form on one or more "issues" and sometimes they form on a more comprehensive "world view". Both matter... so it makes sense that we understand what the different outlets are for each. We try not to build a mass demonstration on a party platform and we try not to build a party on one issue, no matter how important (I make an exception for slavery).

"A Day Without Immigrants" Comments?
It has always been a mystery to me why white activists have so little interest in the immigrant marches. "Not our issue" I am assuming is the problem. That is the danger of issue-oriented causes. I think that if those were white marchers, making the same statements, white activists would be able to connect.

It seems to me that there is a way in which it is all the same issue, all the same cause, just in different guises. Issues have a place - as flash points, as points of entry for people. But is not the root cause for all of these issues the same? Do we not want to build a mass movement of all of people in the working class? If white anti-war activists are unable to see their interests represented in the immigrant marches, then why are they so surprised that most of the population cannot identify with their anti-war cause?

The general public is no more apathetic about the anti-war marches than the anti-war people are about the immigrant marches. The immigrants are speaking much more to the root causes, and are speaking of much broader and more powerful principles than the anti-war movement is, so the anti-war protesters have even less excuse for sitting on the sidelines when the immigrants march than the general public does for sitting on the sidelines during the anti-war marches.

The war is a particularly bad thing to build a movement around, because it won't last, and once it ends the movement collapses. The general oppression of the working class will still be there long after the war is over.

The general public is no more apathetic about the anti-war marches than the anti-war people are about the immigrant marches...
The war is a particularly bad thing to build a movement around, because it won't last, and once it ends the movement collapses. The general oppression of the working class will still be there long after the war is over.

Mmm Hmm

"A Day Without Immigrants" Comments?
It has always been a mystery to me why white activists have so little interest in the immigrant marches. "Not our issue" I am assuming is the problem. That is the danger of issue-oriented causes. I think that if those were white marchers, making the same statements, white activists would be able to connect.

It seems to me that there is a way in which it is all the same issue, all the same cause, just in different guises. Issues have a place - as flash points, as points of entry for people. But is not the root cause for all of these issues the same? Do we not want to build a mass movement of all of people in the working class? If white anti-war activists are unable to see their interests represented in the immigrant marches, then why are they so surprised that most of the population cannot identify with their anti-war cause?

The general public is no more apathetic about the anti-war marches than the anti-war people are about the immigrant marches. The immigrants are speaking much more to the root causes, and are speaking of much broader and more powerful principles than the anti-war movement is, so the anti-war protesters have even less excuse for sitting on the sidelines when the immigrants march than the general public does for sitting on the sidelines during the anti-war marches.

The war is a particularly bad thing to build a movement around, because it won't last, and once it ends the movement collapses. The general oppression of the working class will still be there long after the war is over.

Not all of the pristine folks are staying uninvolved. If I remember Zach de la Rocha from Rage Against The Machine was leading a protest for immigrant Hotel workers in California recently for instance.

What he said at their last ever show:


So who went out and joined us for the Democratic National Convention? I've never seen so many fucking cops in my whole life. It's like everybody knows that everybody went out there, the only thing we were out there to do is express how much we hate both the Democrats and Republicans because they sold this fucking country out. And by expressing our rights to resist, what do they do, they open fire on the crowd. I don't care what fucking television station said the violence was caused by the people at the concert, those motherfuckers unloaded on this crowd. And I think it's ridiculous considering, you know, none of us had rubber bullets, none of us had M16s, none of us had billy clubs, none of us had face shields. All we had was our fists, our voices, our microphones, our guitars, our drums, and anytime we get beaten in the streets for protesting, we take it to the court system, and the court system don't wanna hear it. Look what happened to Amadou Diallo in New York, they shot that brother 41 times and let all four officers go. It's time for a new type of action in this country.

Not sure how far this goes... If you are talking about a political outlet like PI, certainly this is true. If you are talking about a demonstration, there are too many "issues". Coalitions are about one issue... such as Iraq. Conflating the two seems to be one of the symptoms of "primitiveness" in the current "movement".
Two things I see. First, the upper class bias in the activist community, secondly the faction that seeks to convert people to a new awareness or enlighten people. There is only a tiny percentage of the population that is interested in becoming enlightened. For most of the people, it is meaningless at best. Gatherings of like-minded people, and efforts at converting people to be like us is the main theme that I hear from the activist community. That can only serve the ruling class.

Activists want the stupid TV watching WalMart shopping rednecks to wise up and become like them – beautiful and gentle and peaceful and enlightened – altogether superior beings, don't you know – and fill the ranks of mass demonstrations so that the activists can “get what they want.” Never mind what the stupid rednecks want. These sentiments are expressed everyday in activist meetings and on the liberal boards - “how can we get what we want?” and “what will it take to wake the people up?”

In other words, the activists want the people to serve the, and the activists want to be an elite aristocracy that decides what happens – for people's own good, which they presumably are too stupid to recognize.

The proper relationship for the intellectuals and activists from the working class is to place themselves into the service of the blue collar people, not try to get the blue collar people to serve them. That is what we need to get enlightened about, and enlightenment about political and social problems is only of real value to the extent that it is useful in raising the conditions – not the spirituality – of the broad mass of people. If, on the other hand, enlightenment continues to be a matter of self-actualization and self-fulfillment - “what we want”and “my personal values” and “my choices” - enlightenment remains at best irrelevant politically.

That's pretty much on the mark. It manifests itself it so many ways.

At all the anti-war demos and vigils around here one of the often asked questions is "How do we get more black people involved?" Well of course the presumption behind that is a bit of a "Why won't they come join us?" type o' thing. Rarely, and only from the radical fringe, is the question put back, "Hey where were you at the protests for lead abatement last Wednesday?" with the answer always being, "We didn't know about that!?" With the follow up being "Yea, I know don't ya' see!?"

Well anyway that's all I have to say on that.

Just to let ya' know my computer is on the fritz and I'm rather ambivalent about getting repaired or getting another. So it's hard for me to post very often. Damn beast is freezing up big time.

It's all got to happen in the streets.

Not sure how far this goes... If you are talking about a political outlet like PI, certainly this is true. If you are talking about a demonstration, there are too many "issues". Coalitions are about one issue... such as Iraq. Conflating the two seems to be one of the symptoms of "primitiveness" in the current "movement".
Two things I see. First, the upper class bias in the activist community, secondly the faction that seeks to convert people to a new awareness or enlighten people. There is only a tiny percentage of the population that is interested in becoming enlightened. For most of the people, it is meaningless at best. Gatherings of like-minded people, and efforts at converting people to be like us is the main theme that I hear from the activist community. That can only serve the ruling class.

Activists want the stupid TV watching WalMart shopping rednecks to wise up and become like them – beautiful and gentle and peaceful and enlightened – altogether superior beings, don't you know – and fill the ranks of mass demonstrations so that the activists can “get what they want.” Never mind what the stupid rednecks want. These sentiments are expressed everyday in activist meetings and on the liberal boards - “how can we get what we want?” and “what will it take to wake the people up?”

In other words, the activists want the people to serve the, and the activists want to be an elite aristocracy that decides what happens – for people's own good, which they presumably are too stupid to recognize.

The proper relationship for the intellectuals and activists from the working class is to place themselves into the service of the blue collar people, not try to get the blue collar people to serve them. That is what we need to get enlightened about, and enlightenment about political and social problems is only of real value to the extent that it is useful in raising the conditions – not the spirituality – of the broad mass of people. If, on the other hand, enlightenment continues to be a matter of self-actualization and self-fulfillment - “what we want”and “my personal values” and “my choices” - enlightenment remains at best irrelevant politically.

That's pretty much on the mark. It manifests itself it so many ways.

At all the anti-war demos and vigils around here one of the often asked questions is "How do we get more black people involved?" Well of course the presumption behind that is a bit of a "Why won't they come join us?" type o' thing. Rarely, and only from the radical fringe, is the question put back, "Hey where were you at the protests for lead abatement last Wednesday?" with the answer always being, "We didn't know about that!?" With the follow up being "Yea, I know don't ya' see!?"

Well anyway that's all I have to say on that.

Just to let ya' know my computer is on the fritz and I'm rather ambivalent about getting repaired or getting another. So it's hard for me to post very often. Damn beast is freezing up big time.

It's all got to happen in the streets.

Sorry to give you trouble on yet another board and when your computer is on the fritz to boot, but... what you just said is a complete crock (with all due respect). Perhaps I am misunderstanding so let me lay it out.

1. Since the time that British textile workers went on strike to prevent the British government from siding with the Confederacy during the American Civil War, despite the fact that this meant that they would be in opposition to their own narrow interests as well, resistence to the external imperial adventures of ones "own" country has been the most important and legitimate "litmus test" of the "maturity" of the left in all imperialist countries. This is the special responsibility that comes from living in the "belly of the beast". Having an understanding of the nature of imperialism only deepens that responsibility. The convenience of organizing around that issue is entirely secondary.

This does not mean that one has to meet this responsibility soley on the basis of emotion or morality or reckless abandon of long term goals or anything else. It also does not mean that this is all that one does or, even, that it is the most important thing that one does. It does mean that this responsibility fundamentally cuts across "issues" as they are understood in American politics today.

2. The Iraq War is the decision point for this phase of American imperialism. It will have significant impact on the nature of direct U.S. military "intervention", and domestic support for it, for the next 20 or 30 years. Whatever may happen inside the United States, the outcome will heavily influence what happens in the rest of the world. That is why the partisans of this war are willing to take such extreme risks to prolong or deepen it. That is what makes the ever increasing opposition of the American populace, despite the absence of a "mass" anti-war movement, so important. That is why the open treason of the Democrats is so obvious and in itself creates the opportunity for a very different politics. In these ways, the Iraq War has similarities to the First World War and Vietnam and Algeria and other epic contests that define the answer to the question, "Which side are you on?"

3. The Anti-War Movement, as it presently defines itself, does not "own" the Iraq War. How they act, "subjectively", changes nothing. They can ignore all demonstrations on lead abatement and drive SUVs and welcome global warming and you may still decide to work with them. Alternatively, they may all embrace a simpler life with a very small personal footprint, and you may still decide to have nothing to do with them. The decision is based on two criteria: the relative importance of the issue based on your world view and your assessment of whether that movement as it is presently constituted helps or hurts the advancement of that issue. In truth, all of this only answers the practical question of who you decide to work with.

In fact, the absence of black people in anti-war activities (if true), may well be a reason to try something a little bit differently. Anti-imperialism, in one form or another, has been a foundation of the modern Civil Rights movement since well before King's famous speech and the importance of it is very explicitly underlined in virtually the entire spectrum of the movement from Julian Bond to King to Malcom to Huey to even CORE in their social chauvinist phase (when they were backing UNITA), and this continues to the present. I would also be very surprised if the significance of the Iraq War was lost on a large part of the Immigrant Rights movement.

On the other hand, opposition to the Iraq War may well, and does in fact, include suburbanites, liberals, "activists", and even a section of the actual capitalist class. That in itself is both a reason for "coalition" and a very good argument for not getting completely subsumed in such a coalition... i.e. to act with two seperate objectives in mind.

Like I say, I may have misunderstood. I've been doin' that a lot lately. If so, please ignore this attempt at "intervention" to keep you from twisting your logic into a pretzel (I can't fucking believe how "sensitive" I have become since I started posting on PI).

Either way though, fix your computer. I have a feeling this chat is only starting.

Not sure how far this goes... If you are talking about a political outlet like PI, certainly this is true. If you are talking about a demonstration, there are too many "issues". Coalitions are about one issue... such as Iraq. Conflating the two seems to be one of the symptoms of "primitiveness" in the current "movement".
Two things I see. First, the upper class bias in the activist community, secondly the faction that seeks to convert people to a new awareness or enlighten people. There is only a tiny percentage of the population that is interested in becoming enlightened. For most of the people, it is meaningless at best. Gatherings of like-minded people, and efforts at converting people to be like us is the main theme that I hear from the activist community. That can only serve the ruling class.

Activists want the stupid TV watching WalMart shopping rednecks to wise up and become like them – beautiful and gentle and peaceful and enlightened – altogether superior beings, don't you know – and fill the ranks of mass demonstrations so that the activists can “get what they want.” Never mind what the stupid rednecks want. These sentiments are expressed everyday in activist meetings and on the liberal boards - “how can we get what we want?” and “what will it take to wake the people up?”

In other words, the activists want the people to serve the, and the activists want to be an elite aristocracy that decides what happens – for people's own good, which they presumably are too stupid to recognize.

The proper relationship for the intellectuals and activists from the working class is to place themselves into the service of the blue collar people, not try to get the blue collar people to serve them. That is what we need to get enlightened about, and enlightenment about political and social problems is only of real value to the extent that it is useful in raising the conditions – not the spirituality – of the broad mass of people. If, on the other hand, enlightenment continues to be a matter of self-actualization and self-fulfillment - “what we want”and “my personal values” and “my choices” - enlightenment remains at best irrelevant politically.

That's pretty much on the mark. It manifests itself it so many ways.

At all the anti-war demos and vigils around here one of the often asked questions is "How do we get more black people involved?" Well of course the presumption behind that is a bit of a "Why won't they come join us?" type o' thing. Rarely, and only from the radical fringe, is the question put back, "Hey where were you at the protests for lead abatement last Wednesday?" with the answer always being, "We didn't know about that!?" With the follow up being "Yea, I know don't ya' see!?"

Well anyway that's all I have to say on that.

Just to let ya' know my computer is on the fritz and I'm rather ambivalent about getting repaired or getting another. So it's hard for me to post very often. Damn beast is freezing up big time.

It's all got to happen in the streets.

Sorry to give you trouble on yet another board and when your computer is on the fritz to boot, but... what you just said is a complete crock (with all due respect). Perhaps I am misunderstanding so let me lay it out.

1. Since the time that British textile workers went on strike to prevent the British government from siding with the Confederacy during the American Civil War, despite the fact that this meant that they would be in opposition to their own narrow interests as well, resistence to the external imperial adventures of ones "own" country has been the most important and legitimate "litmus test" of the "maturity" of the left in all imperialist countries. This is the special responsibility that comes from living in the "belly of the beast". Having an understanding of the nature of imperialism only deepens that responsibility. The convenience of organizing around that issue is entirely secondary.

This does not mean that one has to meet this responsibility soley on the basis of emotion or morality or reckless abandon of long term goals or anything else. It also does not mean that this is all that one does or, even, that it is the most important thing that one does. It does mean that this responsibility fundamentally cuts across "issues" as they are understood in American politics today.

2. The Iraq War is the decision point for this phase of American imperialism. It will have significant impact on the nature of direct U.S. military "intervention", and domestic support for it, for the next 20 or 30 years. Whatever may happen inside the United States, the outcome will heavily influence what happens in the rest of the world. That is why the partisans of this war are willing to take such extreme risks to prolong or deepen it. That is what makes the ever increasing opposition of the American populace, despite the absence of a "mass" anti-war movement, so important. That is why the open treason of the Democrats is so obvious and in itself creates the opportunity for a very different politics. In these ways, the Iraq War has similarities to the First World War and Vietnam and Algeria and other epic contests that define the answer to the question, "Which side are you on?"

3. The Anti-War Movement, as it presently defines itself, does not "own" the Iraq War. How they act, "subjectively", changes nothing. They can ignore all demonstrations on lead abatement and drive SUVs and welcome global warming and you may still decide to work with them. Alternatively, they may all embrace a simpler life with a very small personal footprint, and you may still decide to have nothing to do with them. The decision is based on two criteria: the relative importance of the issue based on your world view and your assessment of whether that movement as it is presently constituted helps or hurts the advancement of that issue. In truth, all of this only answers the practical question of who you decide to work with.

In fact, the absence of black people in anti-war activities (if true), may well be a reason to try something a little bit differently. Anti-imperialism, in one form or another, has been a foundation of the modern Civil Rights movement since well before King's famous speech and the importance of it is very explicitly underlined in virtually the entire spectrum of the movement from Julian Bond to King to Malcom to Huey to even CORE in their social chauvinist phase (when they were backing UNITA), and this continues to the present. I would also be very surprised if the significance of the Iraq War was lost on a large part of the Immigrant Rights movement.

On the other hand, opposition to the Iraq War may well, and does in fact, include suburbanites, liberals, "activists", and even a section of the actual capitalist class. That in itself is both a reason for "coalition" and a very good argument for not getting completely subsumed in such a coalition... i.e. to act with two seperate objectives in mind.

Like I say, I may have misunderstood. I've been doin' that a lot lately. If so, please ignore this attempt at "intervention" to keep you from twisting your logic into a pretzel (I can't fucking believe how "sensitive" I have become since I started posting on PI).

Either way though, fix your computer. I have a feeling this chat is only starting.

I'd say you misunderstood what I wrote with a caveat that what I wrote was so fuzzy as to allow for such a thing.

In short what I'm talking about is really simple. It gets to the core of white liberalism and paternalism. It goes to always talking at "The folk" rather than participating and listening as well as being involved with the struggles of others.

I'd say you misunderstood what I wrote with a caveat that what I wrote was so fuzzy as to allow for such a thing.

In short what I'm talking about is really simple. It gets to the core of white liberalism and paternalism. It goes to always talking at "The folk" rather than participating and listening as well as being involved with the struggles of others.

OK, I stand corrected.

Meanwhile, liberals would listen better if the "folk" had really big guns...

http://www.obscure-reference.com/guns/events/20011111/20011111-4.jpg

"A Day Without Immigrants" Comments?
It has always been a mystery to me why white activists have so little interest in the immigrant marches. "Not our issue" I am assuming is the problem.
My guess is that it's deeper. As long as capital is free of national boundaries but people aren't, immigration is a threat to working people. The people who once only did stoop-labor and lawn care are now putting construction tradespeople out of work. And they proudly boast of a birthrate in the US 2.5X that of non-latin-culture people. But it's not pc to be opposed to 'those poor, noble brown people yearning to breathe free'. Ruling-class propaganda wins again.



The war is a particularly bad thing to build a movement around, because it won't last, and once it ends the movement collapses. The general oppression of the working class will still be there long after the war is over.
I think the idea is to have a new issue ready for when the war starts going away.

My guess is that it's deeper. As long as capital is free of national boundaries but people aren't, immigration is a threat to working people.
I mean the activists.

I think the idea is to have a new issue ready for when the war starts going away.
I don't think that is possible.

I mean the activists.
My assumption is that, since most of them aren't only stupid in specific ways, they perceive the threat too. But their pc imperative is in conflict with their good sense. So they can neither support nor oppose.

It's a theory at least :)



I think the idea is to have a new issue ready for when the war starts going away.
I don't think that is possible.
Why not?

why not?

My assumption is that, since most of them aren't only stupid in specific ways, they perceive the threat too. But their pc imperative is in conflict with their good sense. So they can neither support nor oppose.

It's a theory at least :)

Yes, I think you are right. Good analysis.

Why not?
Look at what happened in the 60's. The movement became more and more about the war. It was not possible to suddenly switch horses and make up new issues after the war was over, or at least once it was no longer affecting upscale suburban kids.

You can't play with people that way. If you make opposition all about the war, once the war is over I can promise you this - you will get blank looks after the war is over if you try to say - "OK we stopped the war. Now let's overthrow capitalism."

Look at what happened in the 60's. The movement became more and more about the war. It was not possible to suddenly switch horses and make up new issues after the war was over, or at least once it was no longer affecting upscale suburban kids.

You can't play with people that way. If you make opposition all about the war, once the war is over I can promise you this - you will get blank looks after the war is over if you try to say - "OK we stopped the war. Now let's overthrow capitalism."
Okay, Fairy Nuff. So what happens to the 'one action=one issue' principle? Or are you suggesting that we have to insert it but defer it. Or what exactly are you suggesting--I'm lost! :lol:

Look at what happened in the 60's. The movement became more and more about the war. It was not possible to suddenly switch horses and make up new issues after the war was over, or at least once it was no longer affecting upscale suburban kids.

You can't play with people that way. If you make opposition all about the war, once the war is over I can promise you this - you will get blank looks after the war is over if you try to say - "OK we stopped the war. Now let's overthrow capitalism."
Okay, Fairy Nuff. So what happens to the 'one action=one issue' principle? Or are you suggesting that we have to insert it but defer it. Or what exactly are you suggesting--I'm lost! :lol:

I'll let Mike talk for himself but for me this is very easy. What you stand for is very different from who you stand with in regard to the issues of the day. It is impossible to not "get involved" if you believe those issues to be real and substantial, even if you think that those issues are not "politically optimal". It is equally impossible to not encompass your participation within your worldview. So too with regard to the priority which you may give to specific issues and who you decide to work with (which, in the end, is a political assessment).

The funkieness comes in when you start to confuse the two. One issue, one action is typical of coalition actions but not necissarily of coalition "politics" (see the "Democratic Party"). Throwing in everything but the kitchen sink potentially undermines the focus, breadth, and impact of Anti-war demonstrations because it is not the lack of acknowledgement of the issues of various mass organizations which keeps them away from demonstrations. This makes the scenario exactly opposite to the leftish coalitions of the liberals in electoral politics in which the right to bring along ones kitchen sink is the most important basis (and, sometimes, the only basis) for participating at all.

The "why" and "wherefore" of this "stuff" is more important than the "black and white" of it.

"All theory, dear friend, is grey, but the golden tree of life springs ever green", Goethe.

"All theory is grey, but life is perpetually multi-colored", Fichte's version.

.

Look at what happened in the 60's. The movement became more and more about the war. It was not possible to suddenly switch horses and make up new issues after the war was over, or at least once it was no longer affecting upscale suburban kids.

You can't play with people that way. If you make opposition all about the war, once the war is over I can promise you this - you will get blank looks after the war is over if you try to say - "OK we stopped the war. Now let's overthrow capitalism."
Okay, Fairy Nuff. So what happens to the 'one action=one issue' principle? Or are you suggesting that we have to insert it but defer it. Or what exactly are you suggesting--I'm lost! :lol:

I'll let Mike talk for himself but for me this is very easy. What you stand for is very different from who you stand with in regard to the issues of the day. It is impossible to not "get involved" if you believe those issues to be real and substantial, even if you think that those issues are not "politically optimal". It is equally impossible to not encompass your participation within your worldview. So too with regard to the priority which you may give to specific issues and who you decide to work with (which, in the end, is a political assessment).

The funkieness comes in when you start to confuse the two. One issue, one action is typical of coalition actions but not necissarily of coalition "politics" (see the "Democratic Party"). Throwing in everything but the kitchen sink potentially undermines the focus, breadth, and impact of Anti-war demonstrations because it is not the lack of acknowledgement of the issues of various mass organizations which keeps them away from demonstrations. This makes the scenario exactly opposite to the leftish coalitions of the liberals in electoral politics in which the right to bring along ones kitchen sink is the most important basis (and, sometimes, the only basis) for participating at all.

The "why" and "wherefore" of this "stuff" is more important than the "black and white" of it.

"All theory, dear friend, is grey, but the golden tree of life springs ever green", Goethe.

"All theory is grey, but life is perpetually multi-colored", Fichte's version.

.

Okay, I can go for that. Now the question is what does Mike have in mind. :)

(Thanks for reminding me of the Goethe quote--it's one of my faves. 'Grau, teurer Freund, ist alle Theorie/und grün des Lebens goldner Baum'. Kluger Kerl, der Goethe.)