Limits of 'Compare and Contrast' (was What did the Anti-War Movement Lead To?)

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Nathan Newman wrote:
>As to the idea that the 1930s was a "working class mobilization", which came
>first, the organization or the mobilization?   The early 30s had sporadic,
>even
>impressive individual political fights, but it's hard to chalk it up as so
>impressive.  Between 1929 and 1934 - five long years of misery and poverty -
>there was surprisingly little mobilization and I would happily  compare
>strikes
>and working class fights from 1968-1973 against that early Depression period.
>What began to change after 1934 was the mode of organizing by the Left; partly
>this was due to the Communist Party moving away from sectarianism towards a
>broader Popular Front, partly to other forces teaming up in the effort to take
>on the government in venues ranging from the workplace to culture in a
>comprehensive way.
>
>This contrasts sharply with the "do your own thing" attitude of the New Left
>that made a virtue of division between different political movements.
>Single-issue organizations with narrow political focus was the main fruit
>of the
>New Left, and the results have been shabby.  And the antiwar movement was the
>prototype for that failed strategy we still are largely burdened with today.

Well, I think that you can't 'compare and contrast' the 30s and the 60s in
this manner.

The terrains, both material and ideological, on which the movements during
the 60s and beyond emerged had been shaped by both successes and failures
of the 30s, especially the Popular Front.

Yoshie