Social movements (was Re: [lbo-talk] DIY abortions)

Marvin Gandall marvgandall at videotron.ca
Thu Mar 2 14:20:51 PST 2006


Wojtek and Chuck - the most unlikely of bedfellows - are united in building an iron wall between political action and social action. Most everyone else would say you have to engage in both, that these are complementary rather than contradictory forms of protest. Demonstrations and other mass actions are necessary to give people confidence in their collective strength; political action is necessary to give effect to their demands, typically through legislation. We may, and often do, disagree on what are appropriate tactics in both arenas, but I don't think anyone on this list would elevate one as a "principle" to the exclusion of the other - except Chuck, who has an anarchist's hostilty to participation in the bourgeois political system, and Wojtek, who has a genteel conservative's repugnance for the "thuggish multitudes" and what they can accomplish in the streets.

Given their present views, I'd want neither leading my army or my trade union, although they both strike me as bright and engaging people. I'd be worried that Wojtek would always be counselling retreat and Chuck would always be urging an assault, and that neither would ever take into account the balance of forces, including the mood - militant or dispirited, as the case may be - of those whom they're leading. Those of us who have been around the labour movement have met them before. Woj is the kind of guy who tells workers not to go on strike because the boss has all the power and will dictate the final settlement anyway, and that it's always more effective to speak "reasonably" to power. Chuck is the kind of guy who tells workers to down tools at every opportunity and to stay out for however long it takes and never to accept any trade offs or compromises, because to do so is cowardly and opportunistic.

I have three questions, equally for Chuck and Woj: 1) Are the gains won over generations by the social movements - the universal franchise, trade union rights, old age pensions, access to abortion, civil rights, etc. - worth defending? 2) Were these gains won through struggle in the streets or legislation or both? 3) Were the leaders and activists in these movements, unlike yourselves, the victims of "false consciousness" because history and their experience convinced them it was necessary to operate simultaneously in both arenas, and that circumstances rather than ideology should dictate their choice of tactics?



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list