Media Cops!

[Stephen E Philion]

> > On Sun, 16 Apr 2000, Carrol Cox wrote:
> >
> > [snip]A huge photo of Anti-China signs labelled UAW! Readers
> > > of the Tribune will see the whole week as dividing into some
> > > anti-China workers and some kids who made trouble and were
> > > perhaps treated badly on the weekend. No issues.
> > >
> > > Carrol
> > >
Steve wrote:
> >
> > And this problem will continue as long as this movements' leaders don't
> 
Carrol responded:
> This is premature. It is not at present a matter of what the "movement's
> leaders" think or don't think but a matter of deciding (torturously) *who*
> the movement's leaders *are*. (Or, more fundamentally, determining
> *whether* there is a movement.) The debate over the last weeks on
> this list (though a sideline debate rather than internal to the activity)
> over the "China Question" is not a debate over deciding policy -- it
> is a debate over who is to decide policy. That is (for the most part)
> the neither "side" will persuade the other; rather, one position will
> win out in the activities of all those who make up the embryonic
> movement. Max and I are rude to one another because both of us
> know this. If the AFL-CIO unions maintain control, that will abortl
> the embryo. (And I'm assuming, as in my earrlier post, "Anarchists,
> Front and Center," that the current effective opposition to Democratic
> Party Cadre is made up of those who can be seen roughly as
> anarchists.)
> 

I think that my argument that the leadership needs to change the way it
thinks assumes that some of the leaders will be replaced eventually by
other leaders, who reflect rethinking of strategies that will take place
in this movement. I wouldn't rule out that the present leaders couldn't
undergo some amount of change due to their capacity to perceive failed
strategies, though whether or not that occurs remains to be
seen. Certainly I wouldn't expect a Hoffa to figure it out. Others have
the potential, even if it's weak...

Steve