> Now, political mobilization is > important; but that's not necessarily
> about "changing minds".
So, what is political mobilization about? For example, what is the point of protesting against the invasion of Iraq?
I'd think that the point is, indeed, to change minds. Many minds. The minds of other regular people, to have them join us in the protests, so that our protests become even stronger and capable of instilling more fear (if not sympathy) in those who make policies and laws and enforce them, so that they change their mind, get the troops out of Iraq, reform foreign policy, etc.
With the protests, we may also aim to change the mind of people about what it takes to end this and other wars, reform foreign policy, change the very premises of our foreign policy, etc., namely to get people change their minds and understand that there are more fundamental social conditions underpinning those policies (e.g. a corrupt political system, imperialism, international and domestic inequality, the profit motive, markets, etc.) and that dismantling those requires more and better struggle, at some point even to conquer political power, and to use it as a lever to speed up changes in those, more fundamental social conditions.
If I remember correctly, just two weeks ago, you were arguing forcefully that, instead of struggling for political power at the national level (say, to change laws and policies, or at least to influence them in some manner), we were to devote ourselves to working on open source software and child care coops. Now you argue that people only change their minds after changes in legislation are in place. If you're right on both counts, then we're stuck. Our social consciousness has no way to advance. Because working on open source software and child coops, unlike -- say -- electoral politics, is not likely to lead to changes in the law and government policies of the country.
I would be curious to know how you reconcile your views.