Chuck Grimes wrote:
>
> ``...his question really crystallized the problem for me, and I've
> been thinking about it ever since. No, people won't come around if
> things are just explained better to them. That something more -
> understanding and dealing with all the layers of fantasy, of
> manufactured ignorance and indifference - is really important
> too. Unfortunately, I haven't figured that one out yet...'' Doug
>
> ----------
>
> I sure don't have an answer either. My current hope is that by
> unravelling the underlying philosophy, its flaws, and its social and
> psychological processes, that somewhere at least a better insight on
> how to change will fall out.
There is no solution because the question is wrong. The problem is not what to say or show to the people in the theatre. The problem is getting them there to begin with. After they are there, there are dozens of good ways (to be decided or worked out collectively in given situations) to speak/write to them, but no psychology, not rhetoric, no showmanship that anyone ever has or ever will develop will contribute one little bit to getting people to the theatre.
And what will get them to the theatre is mostly but not entirely outside of our control. There was nothing whatever "the left" could have done from 1975 to 2001 to grow, though it was necessary to keep trying -- and the present growth is a result mostly of changed conditions but _also_ the result of the work of those people who kept trying fruitlessly for a quarter century to reach out. As Mao once said, at the end of an essay criticizing certain errors, (paraphrased from memory), sometimes it doesn't do any good to use the right tactics because the enemy is simply stronger. That was the case for 25 to 30 years after the "'60s," as it was the case for about 30 years after the '30s. Whether the present conjunction can allow us to grow depends partly on what we do, mostly still on external conditions.
There is one and only one essential in those periods of left drouth -- one must NOT, ever, whine about efforts that fail miserably. Because all efforts fail miserably within such periods, but those efforts are the only source of activists to respond to changed/improved conditions. When I became 'activated' one of the most important things in deepening my activity and my thought were anecdotes about the fruitless work that others had been doing for a couple decades. I remember particularly reading a letter Paul Baran had sent moaning about the sad sacks at a meeting he drove 60 miles or so to attend every week. BUT HE KEPT ON GOING. He didn't whine, ah, all that stupid jargon, what's the use. He just kept on going, and by doing that he made (after his death) a difference in the lives of quite a few people. Even in better times, as the last few years, it is the heighth of leftist ignorance to sneer at failed efforts, such as the sneers at those people who attempted the MWM. If Camp Casey does lead to an upsurge, part of that upsurge will be marshalled by people whose presence in the movement goes back to the MWM.
I saw a fascinating documentary (on Showtime I think) last night that illuminates what I'm talking about. It was on "midnight movies" of the '70s. Much of it is slipping my mind already (my short term memory may have suffered from the pit pat of TIAs over the last year and a half), but I think I can get down some of the essential facts. These were movies that were either too unpromising to even get considered for regular release or, if they were released, flopped miserably, but then developed (over time) huge audiences coming to midnight showings of them. The first was a Mexican move, El Topo I think it was called, that regular distributors scoffed at, that then ran for six months in a new york theatre at midnight with lines stretching around the block. NO ADVERTISING. Word of mouth only. Not the kind of films which, even now, might get into successful wide release but became tremendously successful in the midnight showings. The climax was the Rocky Horror Picture Show (which had flopped miserably on its first regular release). That is the way (and almost the only way) that the left can attract an audience which will read its analyses or facts or what have you. And even then, the vast bulk of a large left will get their reading material at second hand. Some will read it because people like me or Jan give it to them with an oral introduction and explain to them how it will help them join in reaching others. Even more won't _ever_ read it: but they will get a lot of it passed on either in oral conversation or in short leaflets and pamphlets created for distribution only within those who come to the demos or join the various groups.
The Web obviously is making a difference here, but I think that difference will more or less fit into the general framework I've offered here.
Stop dreaming of inventing the perfect rhetoric. No one will read it until it's brought to their attention by someone who read it because they were looking for ideological ammunition to use in their organizing work.
You don't write for the masses. You write for the little people who are doing organizing at the local level and will read your stuff (even if it's badly or stupidly written, providing it has the info they need) to use in reaching others.
Carrol