--- Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
"the left is in far healthier state now than it was in 1999, if you measure its health not against impossible goals but in terms of a wider and deeper "infrastructure".
Just for the sake of clarity, in what ways do you think the left infrastructure is stronger than it was in 1999? The proliferation of left websites like this one is ofen mentioned as evidence, as is the internet activism of sites like Moveon and the Dean campaign. You could also say the web is merely a giant sandbox the rulers have allowed us to play in.
How come the biggest anti-war demonstration was the first, and all subsequent ones smaller? I dont mean to sound sneering: I'm sincerely curious what you're talking about.
BobW
>
> "Mr. WD" wrote:
> >
> > First, it will be far harder to take advantage of
> > crises that threaten the system's ability to meet
> popular expectations
> > without an intellectual, cultural, and
> organizational "infrastructure"
> > (the Christofascists already have one).
>
> This comes close to be a summary of everything I
> have written on this
> list for nearly 10 years. Long periods of left
> weakness are standard in
> capitalism, and the task of leftists during such
> periods is precisely to
> build and reproduce that "infrastructure." That's
> what radical caucuses
> in unions do. That's essentially what we achieved in
> CISPES during the
> '80s. One cannot _will_ a movement into existence,
> and the attempt to do
> so only leads to bitterness and burnout. But one can
> "keep something
> alive" until the next political punctuation. It
> would be foolish to
> expect the anti-war movement at this time to change
> u.s. policy visibly,
> but the left is in far healthier state now than it
> was in 1999, if you
> measure its health not against impossible goals but
> in terms of a wider
> and deeper "infrastructure."
>
> > Second, such an
> > infrastructure may be able to shift people's
> expectations over time so
> > that eventually even comparatively minor crises
> for the system (by
> > today's standards) could become major crises in
> the future.
>
> I have always argued that as invisible as the
> anti-war efforts of the
> 1950s were, without them both the upsurge after 1955
> might have been
> much weaker.
>
> Carrol
> >
> > -WD
> >
> > __________________________
> > thevanitywebsite.blogspot.com
> > ___________________________________
> >
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>