>On Saturday, January 24, 2004, at 10:02 AM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
>>No, what Carrol is saying is that, instead of trying to broadcast
>>your idea indiscriminately, you (1) start with what you got (i.e.,
>>organizers and activists who already agree with you and are eager
>>to work with you) and then (2) go to likely folks (i.e., regular
>>and sometime activists who are likely to agree with you, though you
>>have to ask them to get their commitment to take action) in
>>critical constituencies (i.e., the most important constituencies
>>for the growth of a social movement in question); only after you
>>pull off (1) and (2) successfully and (3) sizable sectors of folks
>>in critical constituencies beyond usual suspects get involved can
>>you hope to (4) expect others (with the exception of a quarter to a
>>third of the population who are and will be dead set against you)
>>to come into contact with you directly or (in the majority of
>>cases) indirectly.
>
>It strikes me that this approach may be part of the reason for the
>dismal results of radical organizing in the U.S. for the last decade
>or two.
It's not just for the last decade or two. All social movements -- from republicanism, abolitionism, the first wave of feminism, national liberation movements, socialism, civil rights movements, GLBT liberation movements, environmentalism, etc. -- began with (1) and then went to (2), because there is no other way of beginning -- you can't even get a small protest going by starting with folks who hate your guts. Once you arrive at (4), then and only then, _some_ of the folks who used to think that you were a nut may begin to change their minds and at least think that you might _possibly_ have something to say, for, after all, a lot of other folks are standing up with you.
>Starting by cocooning oneself with people who agree with one's ideas
>may lead to a state in mind in which one feels one has the God-given
>Truth, which has not been subjected to vigorous debate and
>counter-argument to winnow the real truth in it from the untruth
>(cf. John Stuart Mill, _On Liberty_).
John Stuart Mill was talking about how truth may be arrived at in _the whole of society_, in which different social movements contend with one another. I'm talking about how social movements get going and develop, without which the kind of vigorous and earnest contest of opinions in society that Mill argued for cannot exist. Two different topics.
>I think a more promising approach is the opposite of this one --
>start by approaching ordinary folks themselves, get comfortable with
>communicating with them, and then consider, in a modest,
>self-reflective way, what you can provide to help them in their
>various distresses. After all, if they are, as you believe, being
>severely exploited by the system, they shouldn't be entirely
>oblivious of that fact before you show up to save them.
With a few exceptions, successful social movements (such as feminism and civil rights movement) have been movements of self-emancipation of ordinary folks themselves, rather than ones that tried to "save" others. Organizers and activists can't usually provide any immediate "help" to even themselves, much less others, for unless and until social movements grow, they don't have much material resources to offer anyone, unlike charities and philanthropies.
>>If your idea is to elect a Democrat to "defeat Bush," however, you
>>can't be making demands for radical change and hope to appeal to
>>swing voters to vote for your guy (even in Democratic caucuses and
>>primaries, much less in the general election), for swing voters in
>>the USA are not at all clamoring for radical change of the sort
>>that leftists want (they don't even vote for Kucinich and Sharpton).
>
>They certainly are not voting for those candidate!. And why not, if
>politicians like them are the ones the working class *should* be
>voting for? Don't you have any curiosity about the answer to this
>question? Or do you assume that the usual cliches -- "media
>brainwashing," "false consciousness," etc. -- are a sufficient
>answer?
Why do you think there is any mystery here? Democratic voters don't vote for Kucinich and Sharpton because they don't think that they will win in Democratic caucuses and primaries, much less in the general election. Why bother to vote for a loser?
>And, as I said yesterday, why not walk and chew gum at the same time?
You can walk and chew gum at the same time; you can't turn right and left at the same time.
>Kerry and Edwards, as well as Dean, are constantly talking about
>"standing up for the little guy" (and gal? -- they seem to be using
>some rather sexist language here). Of course, we sophisticates
>assume they are just shucking and jiving, but why not hold their
>feet to the fire?
You can't hold anyone's feet to the fire unless you get a fire going. You get a fire going by getting a social movement going, not by lining up voters for Kerry or Edwards or Dean. -- Yoshie
* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>