Michael Hoover wrote:
>
> piven and cloward
> may well be correct in asserting that repeated use of direct action tactics
> produces policy benefits for working class and low income folks even if
> specific protest action does not lead to specific policy change... mh
I hadn't been familiar with their argument on this, but it is similar to my argument that anti-war movement is temporarily at least going to be in "neutral" as it were because we lack the "climate" of the '60s, a climate which consisted of innumerable different (some quite silly) struggles all of which did involve one form or another of direct action. That sort of climate drives administration, congress, & ruling-class thinktanks to cast desperately around for ways of 'cooling things off.' Various good things are apt to result. Since the emergence of such climates is quite unpredictable, all we can do in meantime is push on as many doors involving as many different people as possible.
It is, incidentally, quite false during such periods to argue that because of their limited appeal standard forms of action (rallies, marches, forums, petitions, gatherings at city-council meetins, pickets, collecting of audiences for important court trials, etc etc etc have lost their appeal. They have lost their appeal numerous times in the past and will in the future, but when political movement occurs, they will again be central.
Carrol