Re: ripening contradictions?

[markland@xxxxxxxxx (dave markland)]

>The NY Press, which
>Cockburn writes for, has been attacking Moore as a do-nothing hypocrite for
>a while now and Cockburn has entered the fray.

If that is a good summary of Alex's position on MM, that's pretty weak.  If
'the masses' are ripe for organization, I'd posit that Moore has aided in
that development.  After all, his show was apparently the time-slot leader
for 18-35 yr old males.  I don't see AC denouncing his friend Noam Chomsky
for not being more active amongst workers, yet NC has said things very
similar to what MM wrote.

>"More news for you, Michael. The 'left' did come [to Flint]. They supported
>Jesse Jackson. That particular year, under the influence of Andrew Kopkind,
>the Nation actually endorsed Jackson. We wrote pages about the Michigan
>vote, many of them by me. The people who didn't want to pay attention to
>the Michigan vote were the liberals backing Dukakis. If you had a memory
>instead of a set of one-liners you'd remember that, and you'd attack the
>liberal Democratic mainstream. But it's somehow more fun to flail away at
>that poor old tarnished nag, 'the left,' in which activity you're at one
>with the entire political mainstream."

There seems to me to be a big difference between writing about it and having
a strong organizational presence amongst the workers.  i don't see what AC's
problem is.  If he is saying that he (and the real left, not the mainstream)
wrote about it and somehow that disproves MM's thesis, he isn't speaking to
Moore's point- i.e. writing about it isn't good enough; how about showing up
and speaking with the folks who later joined militias?  Show them that the
left isn't a bunch of isolated intellectuals, but real people with an
inspiring program for positive change.

If, on the other hand, Alex is saying that the real left did do all they
could (beyond just writing), then evidently their message had little effect.
Many people eventually opted for the extreme right (Nichols, et al).
However, i think this argument would be rather feeble.  Chomsky related
recently how he was quite disappointed with a "solidarity" event in Boston
regarding the situation in Decatur.  While nearly every leftist event packs
this particular hall, it was nearly empty for that event.  Granted, it's a
different state, but...

At any rate, it seems to me quite clear that the left has loads of readily
available actions to undertake.  Take the contrast of student vs. worker
organizations: on any campus, for students who are sick of 'the system',
there are generally several groups to join- the problem is apathy, as well
as (due to small numbers) a lack of visibility; but few debutante lefties
could claim they don't know about the groups.  For non-students (i.e.
regular people) the situation is exctly the reverse.  Though frustration
runs high, there are few institutions available, and besides, very few
people know about them.

It seems to me that the most most effective tact for the left would be to
form highly visible, highly accessible organizations so that, should a
person feel frustrated and want to "do something", there are obvious groups
to join.  Sort of like Greenpeace: everyone knows that if you want to save
the whales, join them (or give money).

Any thoughts?

Regards,
Dave