Re: [Marxism] Disjunction between antiwar sentiment and size of protest

["Eli Stephens" <elishastephens@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Louis predictably runs down ("ANSWER's time has come and gone") and slanders 
("My guess is that even if they wanted to merge with broader forces, they 
would lack the skills to get anything done. Working in a true united front 
requires the ability to be conciliatory. When you see yourself as the second 
coming of Lenin's Bolshevik Party, that is more difficult.") ANSWER, 
ignoring the fact that they pulled together not just a one-day demonstration 
but a full week of actions 
(http://www.pephost.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8555), each led by a 
different "lead group" in true coalition fashion.

But underlying the size of today's demonstration, whether it gets 
characterized as a success or failure or neither or both, is the fundamental 
truth of where the masses (as opposed to the "left") are. I wrote this a 
long time ago, and I'll write it again, because I still think it's true. 
BEFORE the invasion of Iraq, people thought (and, in my opinion, 
legitimately) that their actions had a chance of stopping the invasion. When 
that failed, and as years of protests have brought no measurable progress 
towards stopping the war, there is, in my view, a perfectly understandable 
reaction. PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO WASTE THEIR TIME. A centralized 
demonstration (i.e., in Washington DC) requires a MAJOR commitment on 
someone's behalf, and if you think it will be a completely wasted effort, 
why on earth would you do it? Here in San Jose, less than an hour south of 
San Francisco, we struggle to get a few hundred people, if that, to go to 
San Francisco even for a "regional" demonstration; how many people went from 
Boston, or even New York, to DC?

In short, what I'm saying is that the size of this demonstration represents 
REALITY, not the "weakness of ANSWER" or their inability to work with other 
people or any other similar excuses. The media and the ruling class 
politicians have spent years convincing people that their actions have no 
effect whatsoever except by working for the "right" candidate, so is it any 
wonder that people actually adopt that belief, short of a major PERSONAL 
need (like not being drafted or, in the case of last year's large immigrant 
rights demonstrations, not being deported)?

I don't know how we overcome this problem. But I do know it isn't by joining 
Louis at hurling stones at those who are trying to do so.

One of the attractions of the things being advocated by, e.g., Stan Goff or 
Code Pink (disrupting hearings, occupying Congressional offices) is that 
they can be carried out by small numbers of committed activists, rather than 
by masses of people. Unfortunately, that's also what makes them easily 
dismissable.

Eli Stephens
 Left I on the News
 http://lefti.blogspot.com

_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE small business Web site and more from Microsoft® Office Live! 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/aub0930003811mrt/direct/01/


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism