> The CPUSA didn't do much in the 1920s -- but the 1930s would have been
> rather
> different had it not plugged away at building itself during that
> period.
> The NAACP and other black organizers (including those in the CPUSA)
> didn't achieve a lot in the '40s and early '50s -- but without their
> work the explosions of the late '50s and '60s would not have amounted
> to
> much. (It was only in the '80s that I began realizing how much, without
> my knowing it, my own activity in the late '60s had been dependent on
> the work of the CP in the preceding 40 years.) And the present anti-war
> effort owes a great deal to linkages that go back to Central-America
> solidarity work or the anti-apartheid campaigns of the '80s.
I remember clearly that when I was getting active in the '60s the "old leftists" were quite helpful in supporting us antiwar folks at the local level, even though the speechifiers of the SDS, etc., leadership were condemning them in the bluest possible language. They didn't look to me like the ogres the "New Left" theoreticians were painting them as.
> I think the Bloomingto\Normal Citizens for Peace & Justice needs at
> least one member during 2004 who rejects participation in the DP
> campaign and continually acts as a reminder that there is life after
> January 20, 2005.
You mean all the other members of the group think there isn't?
> Neoliberal capitalism may or may not be approaching some sort of
> crisis.
> But I don't think such a crisis is going to come 2005-2008. But the
> Bush
> Administration could represent the sort of catastrophe that justifies
> ABB only if we _were_ facing such a crisis. Or in other words, I think
> we will still be in a period of equilibrium in a second Bush term.
"Equilibrium" sounds pretty tame. But the reality could be anything but. (OTOH, one could also argue that a second-term Shrub would have a hell of a mess on his hands dealing with all the doo-doo he's been creating in this term.)
> Would a Dean or Kerry or Clark administration _withdraw_,
> unconditionally, from Iraq? There is no middle path between such
> withdrawal and endless warfare there.
I have a hard time imagining that they would keep slogging on and on, given that the Bushies themselves are trying as hard as they can to get out in a face-saving way already.
> Would a DP administration repeal the Patriot Act? (More importantly,
> would it repeal the equally vicious Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death
> Penalty Act?)
Hard to say -- most of the candidates seem to be ominously silent on this issue so far. The press should leave off their deep investigative-journalist digging into the after-effects of the I Have a Scream speech and Ms. Dr. Dean's new, more wifely look and behavior and start pressing the candidates on this one.
> And incidentally, if 2005 under Bush _does_ constitute a real crisis --
> those best prepared to respond would be those who worked on organizing
> outside the electoral arena this year. We (the non-ABBs) are, I
> suspect,
> the ABBs Plan B. :-) We're also the kernel of Plan B if a DP
> administration turns out to be as vile as I suspect it will.
Why not assume that ABBs can walk and chew gum at the same time? I.e., try to defeat Shrub this year as well as getting ready to fight back against him if he wins? Indeed, that seems like a very reasonable course of action.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ "In an ideal world, people would be preoccupied with reading and writing poetry and having love affairs, as people were in the Japanese court in the 11th century, as described in 'The Tale of Genji.' If people were involved in that type of life, maybe there would be no war." -- Wallace Shawn