>YF: . . . protests that C & P describe
>are the kind that comes and goes in response to large-scale economic
>ups & downs, whereas union democracy and solidarity in the community
>are more about issues that never go away. In fact, I think that
>whether or not rank-and-file unionists stay involved in union and
>other political goings-on pretty much determines the quality of
>democracy -- everyone's favorite word -- under capitalism. . . .
>
>
>If you've got 30 to 50 people coming to meetings every
>week, I would say that's very good for a campus.
Yes -- actually, based upon my past experience here, it's superb for the Ohio State University! Yea!
>But to
>me mobilization means a situation where half the campus
>is ready to come to a meeting, hence my definition leads
>to my judgement that you are demobilized (albeit active).
Oh, then we agree. Maybe I need to re-frame my conundrum. How do we keep this network of activist groups and individuals going, make it fun, make it grow, so that when a next emergency comes around (a strike, lockout, anti-war protest, whatnot) we have the groundwork laid out for a better mobilization than this time? Our mobilization for the recent strike support was pretty good, but it could have been better, you see.
Also, I hate to see rank-and-file unionists in Local 4501 drift away from political engagement (be it about their own union, other unions, or other local political goings-on). There are people who want to stay involved, but the set-up of our network hasn't been welcoming of their presence, I think.
Further, during the strike, questions of union democracy got raised. Local 4501 had been a quiet local for a couple of decades, especially before the current president Gary Josephson assumed presidency (Gary has what he calls a "Pinko" background -- a very interesting guy). This time around, though, many of the unionists who used not to come to _any_ union meeting became activated by the strike, and now that they became active, they began to see problems in how this union had been run, how the strike got organized, etc. If they are serious about union democracy, however, they can't afford to become totally deactivated, and they'll need ties with activists outside the local.
>I agree that day-to-day work is important. On most days,
>it's the only option available. But I would suggest
>that this premise is inconsistent with your philosophical
>perspective, which dwells on much more radical goals. From
>my standpoint, your practice has eclipsed your theory.
Max, you are missing my grand cyber-manifestos (I'll come back to them later)! Seriously, my practice has been mostly local micro-politics (be it campus or community), most of which I don't even mention on the lists, though as an intellectual I address theoretical questions that go much beyond what I can do here and now. I think that the situation of most Marxists in America (with the exceptions of full-time organizers backed by this or that party or org as well as of totally arm-chair intellectuals like Fred Jameson) must be similar to mine. One of the (many) reasons I love Michael Hoover, for instance, is that we can complain offlist to each other about local political grinds (Orlando resembles Columbus in the general conservative climate that confronts & depresses lefties). I'm curious about what other people do day to day.
Scattered Marxists in Conservative Towns, Unite! You Are Not Alone!
Yoshie