Nathan said:
>My first point was that the Soviet Union isn't as benign an object as
>pretty
>dresses, so backlash was more justified, even if the form of backlash was
>bad.
-And my return to that was you, and others, seem to blame the "victim".
The Bolsheviks and Stalin are victims? Ridiculous.
>Results matter. Bad results, bad activism. So if
>the probable result of a particular political demand is backlash and
>political loss, then don't make that political demand. Make a different
>one
>that is more strategic and will move you towards the desired goal.
-Ok. Or that same logic could lead one to getting bullied into submission -because your opponent knows you're going to back down from a threat of -"backlash". It's self-censoring!
No, it's not self-censorship. It's strategy. Refusing to run head first into a cross-fire is smart.
If the enemy knows that backlash will only strengthen their position, they will actually encourage militancy. Which is what Cointelpro and other agent provocateurs often did and still do. The rightwing has always recognized that encouraging maximalist, unstrategic militancy among their opponents strengthens their position. That's why government agents are more notorious for encouraging violent militancy than for advocating caution.
Nathan Newman