Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> At 7:15 PM -0500 11/8/02, Nathan Newman wrote:
> >
> >Yes? How? My point on DC protests is that most of the time when activists
> >talk about "imposing costs on society", they mostly impose them on poor
> >urban districts.
It's not activists but the ruling class that imposes those costs. (I note with interest that you prefer to focus on what activists allegedly "talk about" rather than on what they do.) Your conception of costs seems curiously similar to the conception of the local weathermen here in 1969. I had introduced them to the slogan, "Raise the political cost of the war." They interpreted that as making State Farm buy new windows for its downtown offices. You interpret it as costing shareholders.
As Jenny Brown points out, it's not really the threat of losing money but the threat of losing control that can influence the ruling class on such a major issue as war or the elimination of formal racial segregation.
Mass movements never seem to make sense in their early stages. "They should have served that cup of coffee" seems obvious only in retrospect.
It is true that if the war in Iraq is over quickly, the current mobilization will lose steam equally quickly. But Yoshie's mailing list will remain. The relationships I formed in the 1988 Jackson campaign have pretty much evaporated, but some formed in CISPES work are still active, as are some of Jan's relationships from her years as steward and/or president of the APWU local here. The relationships formed during the present embryonic movement are good for another five years or so. The old song didn't have it quite right, "It waved above our infant might / When all ahead seemed black as night." The tense keeps changing. "It waveS..." and "it seemS" -- but change is constant. We shall see.
Actually, the social costs to the power elite have already been raised a bit. There are a few more people now than even a year ago who won't buy your pitch for the DP.
Carrol