Re: Alex Cockburn vs. Michael Moore

[Dollars and Sense <dollars@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

First off, as someone who DID read Moore's original piece, he very
clearly stated that BOTH opposition to corporate power and the
Contras were important. (In the sentence immediately follwing the
two htat have been quoted above.) I thought his article was
provocative in a good way, perhaps over the top in a few places,
but all the more readable and thought provoking for it.
     Aside from the immediacy of the threat (war vs lay-offs) argument,
it seems to me the reasons that one form of struggle feels more do-able
than the other gets to the heart of life in a capitalist democracy:
we really do have more power over the foreign policy of our government
than we do over the profit strategies of big corporations. In addition
the ruling powers have much more at stake in the later than the
former, so the resources brought to bear are greater.
     If radical, organized labor is indeed on the upswing, then perhaps
the balance of power is shifting somewhat.
     Another interesting point: I'd argue that the Nicaragua solidarity
movement was as effective as it was precisely because it employed the
kind of tactics that Moore advocates. They sent ordinary folks down
to the front lines and into the communities under seige, than had
these folks come back and give talks at their house of worship,
the local school or library, in their living rooms. This was what
worked much more than abstract speaches about imperialism or
isolated demonstrations of the already convinced.
       Randy Divinski, Dollars & Sense magazine