> Marvin wrote:
>
>> 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.
==================================
if you're saying you can have politics without change, but you can't have
change without mass struggle, then I fully agree.