``The U.S. working class is solidly behind Bush's war. If you're a Marxist, and I assume you still are, what do you do about that?'' Doug
CB: ``Wasn't the working class solidly behind the Viet Nam war at first ? Korean war ? Aren't Marxist supposed to give a lead to the working class, rather than tail it , raise consciousness ? Communists are to be concerned for the interests of the class as a class and a whole.''
-------------
This actually came up today at work. One my work buddies (Joe McI) was working on a persuasion speech for his rhetoric class (at a local city college). He showed me the outline, titled `Do Terrorists deserve Protection?' I went through the outline and couldn't tell what side of this question he was trying to support. So we went over it, and I explained that he had to define terrorism and protection in stark and clear terms, that were preloaded to fall in the direction of his argument. But I couldn't get him to say exactly were he stood on this question. I changed tracks and made him define who a terrorist was, and what they do. Then I had him explain exactly what he meant by protection. You mean a fair trial?, a hearing in front of judge, you mean if convicted, they get executed. Slowly he began to come out with his real feelings which were in complete support for summary executions.
I ignored my own thoughts on this and didn't argue with him, because the purpose of our discussion was to get him to make a good speech. But once he explained exactly what he meant (which was very clouded in the outline), then he became embarrassed---partly because he knows how I feel about all this. I told him, never mind that for the moment. Let's get on with making the case. First you set up a logical argument and work that out. Terrorists are insane mass murders and insane mass murders, have to be executed, first because of their deeds, second because they will not stop, and third to make other think twice, before following their example. So that's the basic logic. Now you have to work up the emotions and drama to re-enforce the logic, drive it home, make it heartfelt. Use personal what ifs---what if your daughter, mother, son, friend, etc to amp up the sense of personal identification with the argument.
While we were going over this, one of the other employees came out to the shop for a smoke, over heard some of this, and started arguing with Joe over summary executions. So, I said, okay, Joe, make the argument, this is a chance to work it out. Debbie looked at me weird---she didn't realize she had walked into a home work assignment. As Joe and Debbie got into it, Joe was losing. So I tried to shore him up a little---make it personal. What if you're family was wiped out?
Then something odd happened. As Joe was struggling along, he was changing his mind. Hauling people into back rooms and putting a bullet in their head didn't seem like such a great idea, after Debbie reminded him, what if it's the wrong guy? Then what? He tried to stumble out of it, by saying, hey we know who they are, and they're guilty. But Debbie insisted. How do you know? The only way to know is a trial with evidence.
So Joe was arguing his way out of his own previous position. I am sure he still thinks it's okay, but I am also pretty sure he is chewing on it tonight.
These kinds of arguments make a tremendous impact on people as they discover their feelings for justice may not match up to what they are willing to argue and support out in the open in front of a live and sceptical audience. This is an all together different experience than just watching arguments on tv, or on e-lists. It was live, moment to moment where wits and a certain reserve count. Joe had to put the argument into his own words and try to make it compelling---and he couldn't. Not because he was bad at it, but because, until right then and there, he hadn't worked out the consequences of his own thinking and feelings. Once he started in, he managed to trip himself up because his thoughts and feelings were un-resolved, un-examined, un-rehearsed.
So, the point is that the working class may support the war on an anonymous questionnaire, but that support is as thin and as unexamined as Joe's. Since it didn't take too much to erode it down to unanswerable questions, I would say that support depends very heavily on a continuous stream of mass media support and its supplements to manufacture and maintain the appearance of universal consent. Real, live, examined and contented support might be a whole different animal.
Chuck Grimes