>1) They have more guns than we do. Especially in the US, which is the
>history I'm most familiar with, the government has this neat little trick
>of killing off the opposition. It's amazing what few strategic murders and
>intimidation will do.
to which Doug added:
>Or more than a few. In New Left Review #232, Dan Lazare
>(citing Michael Mann's Sources of Social Power, p. 635) writes:
>"Between 1872 and 1914, according to one count, seven workers were
>killed in labour disputes in Britain, 16 were killed in Germany, and 35 were
>killed in France. Yet at least 500 to 800 were killed in the United States.
>The only country to exceed this record of violence was Czarist Russia,
>which saw some 2,000 to 5,000 labour deaths during the same period."
Okay, murderous repression could certainly be a problem(!), though i'd reckon moreso when/if (a) we get to the point of being a serious threat or (b) we do something that can be plausibly used as justification.
Are we just screwed, then, and should admit it and go home?
Or is there a way around that? For example (i'm swagging, here) if the whole thing is set up as a congress, with the office of convener being just another job, then could they crush us before we could expose them? Could we short-circuit any intimidation, etc., by predicting it? Could we build such a broad base of support 'below their radar', so to speak, that they wouldn't be able to do anything without outright civil war? You know, sort of the Alinskian strategy of going outside their experience and then holding their feet to their own fire.
>2) The have more channels of communication than we do. How can you
>disseminate democratic ideas without a democratic media?
We have the Internet, lamp-posts, laser printers, and our feet. 'Each one teach one', sort of thing?
>3) Capitalists have nurtured a strong sense of internationalism. We
>should do the same.
Agreed. In fact, i'd guess it to be almost a sine qua non, since that's the only way to prevent international capital from finding a rathole into which to run.
>While I do think a little soul-searching on the left is always a good
>thing, I also think it's foolish to blame ourselves when we're clearly the
>underdog here.
I would probably agree with you more if i felt that we actually had a program and were being suppressed in putting it forward. My problem is that i don't see any sign of a credible program, anywhere. Do you know of one?
>The sectarian namecalling and blamethrowing is largely, I
>think, anger turned inward that should rightfully be turned back out.
I would certainly like to think that's the case.
>I
>think if you ask basic questions about right and wrong, most
>self-identified leftists would agree on the answers. The challenge is how
>we get to right from wrong.
Agreed. So how do we?
But then Chris and Rob chimed in with the sort of dispairing cynicism I'm trying hard not to feel:
Chris:
>Because the "left" prefers to be oppositional. It prefers to be sectarian.
>It uses ideas to separate itself morally from the rest of the population.
>It uses the Communist Manifesto in its coffee table edition. It is
>moralistic rather than scientific. It shits, as you were shat upon, on
>people for considering reforms, because that is not revolutionary enough.
>It prefers revolutionary cycnicism. It ignores the hundreds of thousands of
>good people trying to change the world.
Rob:
>I'm with you to the extent your bitter experience reflects
>the way of things.
>Too great an extent, alas.
So is it all inevitable, then, do you think? _Are_ we all just implicitly congratulating one another on how Evolved we all are compared to the Lumpenproletariat? Are most folk in the Left and this list just ...um, 'parlor pinks' i think was the term? Ready to criticise but not plan, tear down but not build?
le meas, Margaret