[WS:] It depends what you mean by "nothing." If "nothing" means "neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition" then yes, street agitation had nothing to do with ending slavery (and many other progressive reforms.) If, otoh, "nothing" means "no contributory effect whatsoever" then of course the proposition is obviously false - so obviously that I would suspect that you put it simply as a straw man to attack.
I am really nonplussed by the lengths to which many US lefties are willing to travel to defend their populist delusions. It is like a battered wife syndrome - after each beating she convinces herself that she brought it upon herself and he really loves her. What a tripe!. Wake up and smell the coffee. The so-called "people" that you delude yourself that you can "organize" are - for a large part - a bunch reactionary thugs demanding rights for themselves that they are quite unwilling to give others, and more than happy to kick the ass of any unpopular minority, including pinko-commies and liberal elites.
Wojtek
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Eric Beck <ersatzdog at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > It's quite obviously false, as among many other things the abolitions of
> serfdom and
> > slavery show.
>
> Please, at least one time, pause and think before you release these
> little brown nuggets. Do you really think the ending of slavery had
> nothing to do with agitation in the streets? Really?
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>