> I don't think you need psa to make SZ's point here: that polls
> measure things within (and by doing so, reinforce) existing
> parameters of discourse, while real political leaders and movements
> can change those parameters. Ever get called by a pollster and try to
> fit yourself into their categories? It feels like intellectual
> violence.
"change the parameters" would make a good fighting slogan. indeed, as someone in the strange position of being both an anarchist and a green party supporter, i sometimes think that what "radical" activity (action taken outside of the state and "official"/statist politics) is good for -- even when it doesn't "pay off" in terms of the desired results (ultimately revolution) -- is contributing to the process of reform by a.) putting fire under the feet of those busily maintaining the status quo (pay attention to brother martin, or you'll get brother malcolm) and b.) by changing the parameters of the "official" political discourse, shifting the field of *doxa*, putting issues "on the map" or "on the menu" that had previously been removed. for instance, universal health care was "on the menu" in 1992; it was removed in 1993. surely poor folks' health needs immediate attention, and cannot wait until the revolution; the reformers can deliver health care to the poor folks; but they need some more radicals making serious noise outside the gates before they can get this issue back on the state's agenda at all. as long as (almost) no one is publically demanding the impossible, the category of the "possible" will retain its current narrow definition.
i think that in general there is an interesting relationship between "reformist" and "revolutionary" political activity -- maybe even, as my old friend thano suggested, a "dialectical" relationship. the last time anarchists were really *heard from* as a political movement in america was around the same time that powerful reform movements like the Populists were entering the arena of statist politics...
--jesse.