Eric Beck wrote:
>
> On 12/4/09, SA <s11131978 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
I agree with the whole of Eric's post, but want to underline this point. Over 30 years ago in an orgznization now long gone, I pushed this point, insisting on thenecessarilynegative nature of mass movement demands. The response I got then (and several times since in varius contexts, mostly cited the alleged 'success' of the CPUSA demanding a Second Front during WW at . I doubt that that demand had much to do with u.s. military decisions. One difficulty of the various efforts to get a single-payer health plan is tht they have neveer been able to forumlate their demands in negative trms, and therefore have never had the structure even, let alone the substance, of a _mas_ movement. Also, attempts to formulate positive demands leave too much room for wankery to flourishk with its (almost inevitable) focus on the details of the future plan, as though they were Congressional Staff writing up the legislation. And such demands always make the deadly mistake of incorporating in advance the sort of "compromises" that are only appropirate in closed-door legislative committee meetings.
Carrol