What did the Anti-War Movement Lead To? Gramsci and Civil Society

Wojtek Sokolowski sokol at jhu.edu
Wed May 13 13:11:48 PDT 1998


At 02:53 PM 5/13/98 -0400, Louis Proyect wrote in response to Nathan Newman's criticism of the anti-war movement:


>The 1960s and 70s could have resulted in the creation of a nonsectarian
>socialist party. Unfortunately, the "Marxist-Leninist" model still had some
>credibility at the time. In the event of a new radicalization, I personally
>will devote all my efforts to the creation of such an organization. There
>are thousands of others who will join in. Right now it is virtually an
>impossible task, because there seems to be no compelling need for one. I am
>going out on a limb and state that in the next ten years, there will be a
>need. You can bet the ranch on that.

While your dedication to the cause is commendable, I also think you overstate the Left's mobilizing capability while understanding the structural condistions that make such mobilisation possible.

Mass mobilisation in the 1930s was possible because the follwoing structural conditions were in place: - geographical density of the working class (urban settlement concentrated around industrial centers) - community cohesion (people living togetehr and feeling a sense of solidarity);

- people having little to loose but their rags;

By the end of 1960 those conditions disappeared thanks to the deliberate polcies of our so-called elected representatives and their corporate sposnors. Thus:

- urban centers became urban wasteland, rusts belts, as industry moved overseas and workers to the suburbs; - community cohesion disappeared as communities themselves disappeared, replaced by suburban bedroom warehouses - people had something to loose from loosing their jobs - the suburabn homes they owned.

So how the hell would you expect a mass mobilisation under such conditions?

Regards,

Wojtek



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list