> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck0" <chuck at mutualaid.org>
>
>>There was is no casuality associated between the Seattle protests and
>>the economy of the 1990s. Seattle was part of an international day of
>>protest called N30, which was the result of much hard activist work and
>>the culmination of several long-running struggles which reached synergy
>>during N30.
>
>
> Chuck-- you know I side with you on a certain amount of "voluntarism" in
> organizing as an independent source of left power and success, but to claim
> that all activism is completely independent of their economic times seems
> ridiculous and ahistorical, just as its ridiculous to argue they are
> completely independent of their political context.
>
> To amend Carroll's original formulation, the key to left success has been
> the convergence of either extended good or bad economic times corresponding
> to overwhelming Democratic dominance of the national government.
>
> FDR, Great Depression and overwhelming majorities in Congress= New Deal,
> strong social movements
> LBJ, Extended good times and overwhelming majorities in Congress= Great
> Society, strong social movements
>
> contrary wise looking at some other periods:
>
> Coolidge, good economic times and GOP control of Congress= rightwing
> policies, little social movement
> Eisenhower, good times and Dem control of Congress= moderately conservative
> policies, moderate social movements
> Clinton, good times and GOP control of Congress= moderately conservative
> policies, moderate social movements
I'm not totally discounting economic and other big factors on periods of activism, but I still think that most of the explanations for why activism ebbs and flows are incredibly superficial. Like I explained in an earlier post that there was a lot of activism in the 1970s, which flies in the face of common belief that activism died out in 1971. This isn't even controversial--read Zinn or Chomsky on how active the 1970s were.
A better case can be made that bigger factors such as government repression, government co-optation of social movements, and other large negative are more responsible for activism and dissent "dying out" than vague economy factors are responsible for upsurges in protest and activism. I don't need to recite the history of the 20th century when it comes to negativeanti-activist stuff (Palmer Raids, Red Scare, co-optation of the labor movement, COINTELPRO, etc.).
There may be some connection between the economic times and activism, but I just haven't read any convincing arguments. Activism seems to happen irregardless of when times are good or bad. And it is really silly to suggest that some social change movements came about because of economic factors. The women's movement of the 1970s? The environmental movement of the 1960s and 70s? The anti-apartheid movement of the 1970s and 80s?
Chuck0