David writes:
> Here we go with these sweeping assumptions of "people's" subjectivity
again.
> Completely meaningless, and totally unscientific. There is way too much of
> this crap going on on this list.
Liza responds: Unscientific????? What Chuck writes here is common sense, based on experience as an activist and as a person.
David: Personal, individual experiences are quite different from objective, ontological realities. If Chuck had conducted a poll about people's perceptions of demonstrations or activists, that would have been at least a shade more objective.
Liza: I happen not to agree with him about the futility of mass protests, but very much agree the local protests are much better way to reach some publics. Do you have any "scientific" evidence against what he says?
David: No, but I certainly have a lot of "common sense" that says otherwise.
Liza writes in a later email: I think these large peaceful protests alarm the powerful, especially when they start occurring all the time, are very large, and attended by a wide range of publics. They embolden foreign governments who disagree with U.S. policy (here I mean Mexico or France, not Saddam). They embolden liberals and moderates w/in the government who disagree with the Bush administration, by showing that the public is willing to do more than just express muddled ambivalence in polls.
David: How do you know? Can you prove it by objective means, or is this more "common sense" that we must take on faith as if from the Mouth of the Lord? But seriously, if history is any indicator it would seem to me that rallies and gatherings in general-- large or small-- which have not involved workers actually bringing the capitalist machine to a halt, have been largely ineffective. The comparisons to Vietnam in these threads have been numerous-- if only we could have a "movement" like the good old days, etc. (Sounds more like a mid-life crisis among semi-privileged baby boomers, to me!) But the protests did not stop 3 million Vietnamese men, women and children-- many of whom were innocent civilians-- from getting killed. Why? Because the machinery and apparati of war and capitalism (respectively) remained available and operational on a full-time basis.
Andie writes: A local demo organized by (among others) Yoshie and me in Columbus in 1998 againsy Albright apparently derailed Climnton's plans for a strike against Iraq.
David: Yeah, I remember seeing that on national news, if I'm thinking of the right thing. They were exposed really fast, almost booed out of the auditorium, which was great. But, as far as I remember, Iraq was still bombed in 1998, and continued to be bombed semi-regularly ever since....
David wrote:
> David:
> The war will simply continue as long as the capitalist system does. Until
workers
> collectively challenge the bourgeoisie as a class, we are FUCKED.
Dennis: Well, hang on to that headboard, chum.
David: Oh, so it's "chum" now. I guess Dennis has stopped referring to those he has serious disagreements with as "comrade." I consider this a personal victory!
Dennis:
So long as workers desire a piece of the bourgeois pie, and it seems the majority do (the workers I toil with are like this), there ain't gonna be any "revolutionary" challenge to capitalism. Reforms, nips and tucks, assorted demands, but no sweeping rush up the palace steps. Not in the US anyway.
David: You sound like Tsar Nicholas up to a few days before the February Revolution. Where did you get your magic crystal ball, by the way? Can I have one? Is that my auntie Em?
"As long as workers desire a piece of the bourgeois pie"-- That is exactly my point, you fool! That workers, like anyone else, have that right to advance themselves economically, in the case of wage workers beyond the point of toiling for mere survival! So do you really think that, under the current economic system, all wage workers in the U.S.-- not to mention Europe, Latin America, China, India, Africa, etc.-- can live out the "American dream" by attaining their "piece of the bourgeois pie"? Please do tell us the secret of your success, Dennis. AND YOUR LITTLE DOG TOO!!!
David wrote:
> Here we go with these sweeping assumptions of "people's" subjectivity
again.
> Completely meaningless, and totally unscientific. There is way too much of
> this crap going on on this list.
Dennis: Right -- people's personal experience shouldn't be counted. What good are their crummy lives? Trust only those in red lab coats, studying beakers held in left hands.
David: Uhh.... is that really what you think I meant? What are you saying here, by the way? That science, rationality and objectivity aren't for workers? "Right."
--d