Marvin Gandall wrote:
>
>
> The problem is how do you define what is "left". Most Americans actually now
> hold many of the same views as those of us who would be broadly described as
> being on the "left", but they would not likely describe themselves that way,
> and not a few in fact would recoil from being indentified as such.
There is no one-size-fits-all definition of "leftist." In my post I used "leftist" in the sense of (a) self-described as such and (b) assume some responsibility for building left activity and recruiting additional leftists. This is why Doug's 15% is important but not relevant to my argument.
An additional point. Michael Smith wrote:
> These would be serious considerations if I were applying for a position
> as an organizer, but I'm not. I admire people who can do that job, but
> never for a second thought I would be any good at it.
Let's not glamorize what it takes to be an "organizer," at least of the variety most needed. You are an organizer if you merely attend meetings; beyond that, (a) technical ability of a low order: maintain a mail list, keep meeting minutes; maintain a web site for the group; write announcements (b) can talk to new people at a meeting (c) are capable of encouraging those who are tempted to attend actually to attend (d) effective at raising morale when things are dragging; (e) talk some at meetings: it raises the morale of any group if there are more voices at a meeting than just the usual talkers. Those sort of things. Anyone can do them by (a) being aware of their usefulness and (b) trying to do them.
It is of immense importance to keep _something_ going between the very rare 'puncuations' such as the '30s or the '60s -- those periods are not predictable and cannot be willed. But unless organizing (no matter how ineffective) has been kept up through thin periods the explosions are less explosive or don't happen at all.
And this brings up one of my criticism's of Joaquin's post -- his use of the word "stalinist." "Stalinist," "Trotskyist," and "Maoist" ought to disappear from the active vocabulary of leftists, including most specifically revolutionaries. In the present instance "stalinist" I presume merely refers to the CP. Now I don't like the CP very much myself, and I particularly don't like their seemingly unbreakable attachment to the DP. But in the years after 1945 the CP kept something alive -- and neither the Black Liberation Movement 1955-1975 nor the Anti-War movement would have been what they were had it not been for that great contribution of the CPUSA. (Also ex=CP members == all of those who quit the Party did not quit the "left," and contributed greatly to the early stages of the Anti-War Movement. We owe to our past not simply to dismiss them with the sneer of "stalinists." Rosa Parks did not drop from the sky -- nor did the wonderful women of Women Strike For Peace nor Peggy Terry of Uptown (Chicago).
Carrol