Doug Henwood wrote:
Michael Perelman wrote:
I agree that blueprints are not particularly useful. In general, they
tend to make the future seem less attractive.
I understand, even sympathize with, the blueprint problem, but you're
asking people to sacrifice the familiar and stable and embrace
revolutionary politics for what? A completely unknown quantity?
Sigh!
Saul Alinksky had a slogan that is appropriate in this context (and
which I in fact followed in all my attempts, _ever_, to move someone to
socialism): You organize with your ears not your mouth.
>From mid-1968 through 1973 I probably moved around 8 to 12 people to a
socialist perspective, by which I mean involving them actively in
movement politics and in a process of studying marxism. Without
exception I did so without _ever_, once, using the word "socialism" or
"marxism" or "revilution" or any synonym until _after_ they had
indicated to me that they believed we needed socialism. (At least three
of these people are still involved in left activity, one disappeared
into Weatherman, and several others burnt out in the general meltdown of
the early '80s. A couple of them would be back in the movement if real
movement began again.)
Your "asking people to sacrifice the familiar and stable and embrace
revolutionary politics" simply doesn't make any sense. One simplyl does
not ask them to do that. One asks them to attend an anti-war
demonstration or a rally to get a framed black student out of jail. Et
cetera. It is simply bizarre to expect people to jump to socialism on
the basis of any sort of discussion of socialism. One involves people in
resistance activities. Then one sees what happens, and if someone
indicates a need for more, then the discussion begins. But people have
to persuade themselves to socialism. One can't do it for them.
You are still thinking like a writer rather than someone involved in
active political work.
And what in the hell do you think, under present circumstances,
"revolutionary politics" consists in?
Carrol
Doug