I agree that the "stop signs and dog shit" approach has its limits, if there is no braoder vision. But it may have prevented an 80's invasion of Central America. It may have saved countless lives in terms of drinking water contamination. It may have kept some semblance of education in some school districts. Probably the most unsung lefty efforts come from those few in rural and suburban areas that are inspired by their church beliefs. From my involvment in the Sanctuary Movement in the 80's, I came to respect the Christian left, who introduce humility into their politics, as well as reason. Although the specifics of their faith doesn't speak to me, I think the "secular" left can learn something from their tenacity and humanity. Thousands of small groups held vigils during the Gulf War, risking more than those of us who marched in huge numbers in the urban areas, while their efforts went unreported.
Anyway, I have never actually read Salinsky's book, though it's sitting on my shelf. But the grassroots will is probably the only thing that allows this country a semblance of democracy.
Yours,
Eric
Chuck Grimes wrote:
> I think several decades of experience in the U.S. with Alinsky-style
> organizing have shown its rather serious limits. Community organization
> after community organzation and what do we have to show for it? Some
> co-opted into being junior real estate developers and bankers, many of
> them very cleverly by the Ford Foundation, and others ineffectual. They
> have done nothing to reverse the impoverishment of vast urban areas, nor
> have they had an influence on politics at the regional or national
> level. They were completely disarmed in fighting welfare reform, too.
>
> Doug
>
> --------------------
>
> I won't argue that in some larger view all that isn't true. It is.
> But, first of all that process has marginally radicalized thousands
> around here at any rate. And, second, because of that community base
> and its work, many many people have lived better lives than they would
> have without such work. And finally, when larger scaled conditions
> change, that is the oppression lights up just a little, things get
> better, faster than they would without those organizations.
>
> I know this sounds bleak, but we are never going to arrive. That isn't
> going to happen. So, the question has to change into how to make it
> livable, healthy, and yeild as good a life as possible. That is all
> that can be demanded. In my limited street level view, those kinds of
> goals have been met most of the time, with many people, and for a long
> time--almost thirty years.
>
> And there are very long term results that follow, but you have to go
> back. The reason a place like Oakland or SF has these kinds of
> organizations and alternatives is because they have always been here
> right back to the gold rush. Each generation, each era, each change of
> conditions produces a variation on the same general themes and
> forms. In the Thirties and Forties it was unions, then civil rights,
> then anti-war, then anti-poverty and on and on. A lot of this is
> cumulative and so all these kinds of organization are still here,
> still working along their ways.
>
> This isn't defeatism, but the opposite. These are not battles and wars
> you win. They are wars you live.
>
> Chuck Grimes
>
> PS. I went out and bought Butler and started reading last
> night. Ugh. You know, I was tired and I had one of those
> reactions. What BS. Have any of these writers had children? What's all
> this garbage about the formation of the subject through power. Isn't
> that just fancy language for socialization? I am certain that Mike and
> Judy (Foucault & Butler) were terrible toddlers who resisted potty
> training, felt smug in their soiled diapers, wet their beds, and then
> harbored disturbing resentiments because of they were made to feel
> ashamed about it.
>
> BTW, where's Kelley. She started all this didn't she?