> Ah yes, nothing like the cartoon version of my actual politics.
>
> Ridiculous nonsense.
I replied:
>> Sorry you feel that way. Which statements in particular do you consider
>> to be ""ridiculous nonsense" which present a "cartoon version" of your
>> politics? I'd like to be persuaded I've got you (and Woj) all wrong on
>> this issue.
Chuck wrote:
> I'm constantly misrepresented as being an "action freak."
[...] ==================================================== Not by me. I respect your energy and commitment. My criticism is that you don't seem to appreciate that mass action outside of the political arena still has to have a political result or it burns itself out. By political result, I mean a legislative result which is either forced on the pro-capitalist parties by mass pressure, or is the product of a party which takes state power in the name of the people and changes the entire system of power and property relations in its interest. We're nowhere near that point, but anarchists still see mass action only as a vehicle for the revolutionary overthrow of the system and regard any outcome short of that as a defeat.
That's especially clear from your comments on the New Deal, which you see as simply a ruling class manuever to prevent a workers revolution. Whether a revolution was actually a realistic prospect in the US during that period is something we could debate and which has been widely debated on the left, but very few of those who hoped for a better outcome, Marxist or social democrat, have denied the progressive legislation which issued from the New Deal as the result of the widespread popular agitation for reform. They accept that reform struggles are necessary, however contradictory and relatively limited their effects. Jim Devine reminded us of this earlier this evening in connection with Norman Thomas' rueful remark that FDR "carried out the socialist program, on a stretcher".
Your original remarks are what prompted me to ask if you would defend reforms such as social security and the legalization of the trade unions which date back to that period, and are currently under attack. If these reforms were insignificant - or, worse, were a trap to head off a social revolution - why would you attach any value to defending them? But then you write in your latest reply, in connection with a coalition you were in, that "I was probably a bit too friendly to the NGOs for the taste of my black bloc comrades, but I understand that many of the reforms they are fighting for will make an immediate impact in the lives of billions of people."
I think you were 100% correct to be "friendly" to others in the coalition based on the understanding that "many of the reforms they are fighting for will make an immediate impact in the lives of billions of people." But wasn't this the case also in the depression with respect to millions? Wouldn't that have warranted your coalescing with the liberals, social democrats, and Marxists back then who were also fighting for such reforms? Why wasn't this approach "to the taste of your black bloc comrades", and what lessons have you drawn, if any, from your disagreement with them on this central issue which has historically divided anarchists from the rest of the left?
I hope my comments above will allay any concern you might have that I don't regard you as a serious person, despite our differences. By the same token, I'd appreciate if you could be more nuanced in future about the "ridiculous nonsense" I post to this list :)
> I also understand how militants serve to make the reformists more
> palatable. There was alot of this coalition work going on between
> reformists and militant anti-globalization activists. I was one of the few
> people at one time who was organizing with both the Mobilization for
> Global Justice, the Anti-Capitalist Convergence and the black bloc.>
> Another example of my politics was the meeting I was supposed to be part
> of on 9/11. Several of us involved with the black bloc had been going to
> unity meetings between us, the AFL-CIO, and the religious activists. Our
> third and final meeting was supposed to have happened on the afternoon of
> 9/11.
>
> Most of my activism--probably 99.9% of it--involves education and doing
> support work for other activists. The main tool for my work is
> Infoshop.org, but I work with many other groups and projects. I just got
> off the phone with an organizer from the Victoria's Secret campaign.
>
> I get paid very little for this work, but if you want to support me and my
> activism, Infoshop is kicking off its Spring fundraising campaign tonight.
>
> Chuck
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>