John Lacny wrote:
> Doug Henwood:
>
>> I bet it'd be easier to have American workers load war cargo for
>> free than it would to have them refuse on anti-imperial principle.
>> Maybe I'm wrong.
>
> You're wrong, actually. Given the right circumstances, the ILWU would do
> it -- though the ILA would not. But the real issue in this discussion is
> that workers would NOT follow the call if it were put out by people like
> Chuck. I mean, let's cut to the chase.
--------------------------
Everything boils down to the "right circumstances", doesn't it? Given the
right set of circumstances, you could have a social revolution. But what
does that tell us? Only that these are or aren't present, which is always
where the left divides between those who think circumstances are right for a
particular strategy and those who think they're not.
Fortunately, there is always a way to find out who is closer to the truth - through practice. Chuck0, who prefers action to talk, should appreciate this. That's why he and his comrades could easily test out his proposition that one of the "small victories" (!) the antiwar movement could win would be to "organize, for example, union members to strike at ports on both coasts." It would probably not involve much expenditure of time and effort on their part - likely only a very brief round of leafletting the docks to gauge whether the workers' mood is such that they're ready to shut down maritime commerce and confront the state in an illegal political strike.
I think it's only reasonable that the rest of the US antiwar movement would want an answer to that question before it decides to campaign around the demand. That doesn't denote a lack of courage or imagination, as Chuck0 and others seem to believe, only the understanding that any action has to be based on the expectation of a successful outcome.
The point seems obvious. No need to belabour it further.
MG