> You cannot approach mass struggles for proletarian emancipation as though
>ordering from a menu at a restaurant, selecting this tasty one, avoiding the
>other. When they erupt, you join them, in actual presence or in solidarity,
>regardless of specific criticisms you may harbor.
Which ones? Surely you're not about to join the Michigan Militia or the Christian Coalition, which are mass movements in at least some sense.So you are choosing the tasty one over the tasteless one. The Million Man March would be a bit more problematic, but you'd have to think twice about it at least, no? Compared to, say, Justice for Janitors, which is pretty hard to say no to. Queer Nation? Would you have joined that mass movement, when it was one? You're acting as if the definition of "mass struggles for proletarian emancipation" were self-evident. I'll bet there were lots of non-proletarians in the anti-Haider marches; I'll bet too that lots of proletarians voted for him, and got a thrill when pointy-heads denounced Haider. I'm just guessing, extrapolating from the way folks like George Wallace and David Duke work here, but I'm also guessing I'm right about this. So where does the true proletarian come down?
Doug