> 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?
It's a question of which is the base of social change. It is obvious, from historical analysis and sociological research, as well as accumulated experiences of activists and organizers, that struggles for legislation are the superstructure and struggles in the streets, workplaces, communities, etc. are the base. The superstructure can't stand on its own without the base for politics on the left (the right doesn't need any base because they got money).
Also, for a majority of people, there is no way they can directly participate in the actual writing of laws. They can vote, but that's indirect participation. Leaders of unions and the like can occasionally propose new bills to sympathetic legislators or help them write them, but rank-and-file activists can only help birth or move such bills through actions in the streets, workplaces, and communities.
Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org>