Bitch | Lab wrote:
>
>>
> because this kind of activity is feel-good bullshit that's opposed to Big,
> Bad Meany corporations. If they gave a shit about labor, then why NOT all
> coca cola workers? But, that's not what motivates their concern is it? Why
> wasn't this movement one that worked ON ALL coca cola workers? Is it that
> hard? Or is it just that difficult to get anyone to give a shit -- unless
> it's about some exotic other we feel we need to patronize with our liberal
> guilt?
>
> Because there's some good research out there to indicate that political
> activity moves from close to home outward better than the other way around.
I don't doubt this; however, to use the metaphor of punctuated equilibrium, the process from home outward probably works better during the punctuations, and for over 30 years now we have been in an equilibrium. During the equilibrium we take people where we find them, without imposing any particular filter on the proper or improper motivation.
The fact that Wojtek likes your formulation should be a warning sign that perhaps you've gone a bit overboard here. One large and immensely fertilizing element in the movement of the '60s was made up of people who on the basis of something like "feelgood bullshit" went south for Mississippi Summer and other occasions. Some of them are still politically active and important.
I just react negatively to any judgment grounded in speculation (even well-founded speculation) as to motive. Motives change in practice.
Carrol