> This stuff is really loopy, Shag. If there's an antiwar movement and its
> demand is "Stop the War," how is that not trying to "get the Democrats
> to do certain things"?
Isn't an antiwar movement *demanding* that the *state* *not* do something? The emphases aren't to yell at you but to point out the elements of your formula that are wrong.
Of these, *not* might be the most important. The other day, Craig pointed to the 2006 response to the Sensenbrenner bill, an uprising no one seems to remember, as an important moment in recent history. I think he's right, and one of the notable things, to me, about that movement was that the vast number of its actors made no positive demand of the government. They were saying no to the legislation and telling the state not to interfere in migrants' lives (by felonizing border crossing, denying services, etc.). Only the civil society and corporate elements of the movement, which were a very small part of it, made positive demands (reform, the path to citizenship, etc.), and they were specifically against the more radical actions, like the school walkouts and the May Day boycott, because those actions might harm their positive (legislative) agenda. Most of the protesters were interested in just saying no.
(By the way, I recently wrote a paper on the 2006 protests. It was written too quickly, that is, badly, and needs to be revised, but it at least touches on some of the things I found interesting/useful/novel about the actions of the time. If you are interested, you can read it here <http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0Bxx7B3RbzilNMTY1NTRiYjYtNTU2Yi00M2RkLTkzZjQtY2IxMDA1MjVlZWJh&hl=en>. Comments welcome!)