> We know from Nixon's memoirs that the Moratorium march, when a quarter
> million peopole showed up on his doorstep, stopped the implementation of
> "Operation Duck Hook," Nixon's plan--at that time at an operational
> stage--to drop tactical nuclear weapons on the N.Vietnamese railheads to
> China. For more details, see Michio Kaku and Daniel Axelrod, To Win a
> Nuclear War (South End Press 1988) (disclaimer: I was the researcha
> ssistant on thsi book). Johnson explained after the Tet offensive that
> he could not use a nuclear bomb in Vietnam because "a million people
> will drag me over the fence out there ifd I do." There wasn't a specific
> plan that was stopped at that stage though. The mass antinuclear mraches
> of the early 80s helped bring both Reagan and, more importantly,
> Gorbachev around to the negotiating table. See Matt Evangelista's book,
> I forget the title, on the reasons for the end of the Cold War. Bill
> Gampson has done a lot of research on how large unruly mass movemen ts
> have been politically effective.
>
> The basic point is that this is an empirical question. There's research
> on it. Spouting off your opinion about how effective (or not) various
> mass movements were is totally useless unless you defione the terms
> fairly carefully, effective for whatm what counts as mass, what are the
> parameters, etc. The reserach I have done an am familiar with suggests
> that Gampson's right. Big marches and mass movements rarely attain their
> announced goals, but they scare the shit out of die Herrschenden, the
> masters, and curb their misbehavior.
>
> Speaking from mere personal anecdotal experience against my own advice,
> the pep rally effect is very important in keeping people mobilized, and
> offering moral sustenance to the activists. Knocking on doors is all
> well and good, and nothing is wrong with it, so are teach-ins and letter
> writing, But it doesn't hurt to kick out the jams every now and then.
>
> I am very sorry to hear about Greil Marcus signing up for the war on terror.
I don't think any activist who has spent any time reading history of popular movements is going to buy into the idea that mass mobilizations in and of themselves are going to stop a war or radically change public opinion. The powers that be can safely ignore the recent Washington protests because they were small potatoes compared to the mass mobilizations that happen in Washington on a regular basis. If anything, these mass spectacles sap movement resources, disempower people who are insulted that they travelled halfway across the country to hear 4 hours of speakers, and are easily dismissed by the ruling class media.
While I can see Nixon becoming worried about the anti-war protests, I doubt that George W. is the paranoid type.
Chuck0
------------------------------------------------------------ Personal homepage -> http://chuck.mahost.org/ Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ MutualAid.org -> http://www.mutualaid.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Anarchy: AJODA -> http://www.anarchymag.org/
AIM: AgentHelloKitty
Web publishing and services for your nonprofit: Bread and Roses Web Publishing http://www.breadandrosesweb.org/
"...ironically, perhaps, the best organised dissenters in the world today are anarchists, who are busily undermining capitalism while the rest of the left is still trying to form committees."
-- Jeremy Hardy, The Guardian (UK)