In the _Radical History Review_ (Issue 82) that arrived yesterday there is an extraordinarily fascinating article, "What Legacy from the Radical Internationalism of 1968?" by Max Elbaum. And in tracing the gradual defeat of the movement of the '60s over three decades, he almost parenthetically gives an excellent account (reference the "McGovern Years") of the serious damage that Nathan and others like him can do. Not that the Movement would not have been defeated in any case, but nevertheless the McGovern campaign contributed in a major way to the victory of "Reaganism" a decade later.
There will never be a mass progressive movement in the U.S. unless we succeed in smashing the "left" wing of the DP.
And it occurs to me this constitutes another reason for resisting those who love to yelp "fascism" at every reactionary move of the U.S. If _fascism_ (as opposed to numerous other varieties of capitalist authoritarianism) were a real threat, then it would make sense for the left to surrender once more to the left liberals.
Carrol
Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Nathan Newman wrote:
>
> >How about we take all the time of those who prepare for the rally, attend the
> >demo, and the time many spend in jail and doing work getting them out--
> >instead, skip the demo and spend the same amount of time door-knocking to
> >talk to folks about why war is a bad idea and global justice is a far better
> >approach to assuring global security.
>
> ...and in the interim, vote for Democrats who'll support the war.
> Demos, as opposed to mere Dems, can scare the ruling class if they're
> big enough. Demos brought down a few regimes in Argentina (not that
> the US government is as weak as Argentina's, of course). Large demos
> made the Vietnam war much more of a political problem than it would
> have been otherwise. Why the either/or approach, anyway?
>
> Doug