"Indeed -- this resistance is presently most unorganized by leftist groups, and activists in such groups generally only recognize resistance when it is of the type they approve. (Everything else they dismiss as irrelevant or "only supporting the system"). That's why so many of us on the left are so pessimistic; we can't see any of *our* kind of resistance."
Yes, many of us have experienced this. But what is *our* kind of resistance? I assume the contexts for resistance are the U.S. and other "advanced" nations where hard left modes (socialism, workers' state, etc) get quickly extinguished by authority and knee-jerked publics. With this, left pessimism is understandable in the absence of another plan or perspective that responds to the times.
I found this widespread in the U.S. in the '90s when my wife and I did over 400 oral history interviews of leading left or peoples' activists in five large urban areas. Two of the projects (Detroit and Oahu, HI) were published. Our goal was to extract ideas that might be useful to the next generation of movement builders. We weren't finding many new ideas, so we gave up on the projects. Our respondents were basically leftists (some were hard left), but their activism was in the so-called single issue movements (peace, women, civil rights, labor, gay/lesbian, survival, health, environment, housing, etc.). They worked hard, many got burned out, some believed their goals had been achieved. I suppose they ultimately were "only supporting the system," as you noted. And it also might be called a package of affirmative action or liberation struggles in a wide array of institutional areas.
But I believe also their activism bumped headlong into the constraints and never-never land imposed by imperial capitalism: Don't mess with the basic economic system. Such messing would be the next step after civil rights and environmental laws, for example, were passed with only limited results being achieved. Such a step was so gigantic and frightening that few were able or willing to take it. Yet, many tens of thousands were gently or harshly exposed to this reality, and that's part of the present population that must be (and actually are) involved in organizing resistance.
Grace Boggs of Detroit put out this challenge, "Actually, ideas and strategies of the past have a tendency to turn into their opposite because history changes. What you struggle for at a particular period, insofar as you achieve something, actually changes the objective reality and you have to change along with it." (Mast interview with Boggs, Detroit Lives, Temple U. Press, 1994, p 18)
Organizing resistance today has different tactical and strategic dimensions depending on the subject. On-the-street actions are necessary to stop or slow imperial conquest, support a labor action, or demand that cut-off electricity be restored to families who can't pay their bills. We all know successful actions only come from mass organizing, and we know the whys and wherefores of the organizing process, theoretically and practically. The major task - changing the generic system - includes the same organizing process, in the same institutional areas, but with different emphases and nuances. Patience, dedication, and humility become essential. Much more can be said on this.
Jon also wrote:
"There is this reservoir of experience, but we can't forget, at the same time, that new types of resistance are always arising. It takes really talented organizers to organize something new without straight-jacketing or stifling it. How, for example, did the civil rights movement in the South in the early sixties manage to organize itself? It seems to me a more amazing story the more I think about it."
I'm not sure what you mean be "new types of resistance." Definitely, the gravity of problems and intransigence of power holders intensifies. And refined organizing techniques and better understanding of constituencies are required. I may be missing something, but I don't think basic organizing knowledge has changed much from that applied variously in past (and present) union, civil rights, peace, and anti-poverty struggles. Surely it's the same even if we move to the level of generic system, thereby incorporating all the single issues.
We DO need to critique certain organizing practices of the past (and present). Seems like too many organizers just couldn't remove a top-down, elitist, impatient persona in favor of facilitating leadership and recruitment from the grass roots and rank 'n file. I believe this happened in all the high-impact movements, including civil rights. Why the success of the civil rights movement in the South? Part was the intensity of the problem, part was common color identity, part was the liberation times, part was white support, part was a rising economy, part was super organizing, and much was tremendous sacrifice.
But now the struggle has to start all over again on all fronts since the gains made earlier were merely transitional. We have to go where angels fear to tread. So many more of us know that generic system change is required, but we choose our words with care in these days of induced paranoia and confusion. There's nothing wrong with focusing on a living wage, health care, global warming, or unionization if, at the same time, we connect such problems to the generic system? We must consider the newer economy and workforce, newer demographics, newer world order, etc. as we organize resistance. Also, we should support struggles to create new people-centered institutions like the Labor Party (USA).
Bob Mast
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20040313/4fc0c5f8/attachment.htm>