I generally agree with your points. In the US, there is no "Left" in the sense that a mass basis is absent from what is typically called the "Left." As you wrote, the fact that she did attend such a rally indicates to me that she is open to being politicized. My view is that when we come into contact with such persons, they ought to be brought into our organizations, their concerns be internalized in our various organizations, and after a period of political training, they should be given leadership roles in our organizations. Under these circumstances, the US "Left" can become a Left.
epoliticus
Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:37:40 -0500
> From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
>
> (I generally agree with this.) Some Observatons.
>
> She _did_ come to a rally clearly advertised as opposing u.s. military
> action;, and this at a time when much of the oomph has gone out of the
> anti-war movement. But a call really directed only at anti-war
> enthusiasts brought someone with real grievances but also terrible
> confusions into conversation with "the left" for a few minutes, even if
> the particualr embodiment of "The Left" at that
> point couldn't do much but punt. And it did (for me)
> concretize both some of those confusions and their interaction with
> attitudes (anti-war) which ... It's got my brain bubbling anyhow, and in
> fact the incident represents for me what makes it fun to be on the left.
>
> [Following is thinking out loud.] I'm wondering. If she comes back, or
> if we encounter others like here, if the route to a better conversation
> wouldn't be concent by focusing on first finding out what _her_ reasons
> for opposing the war are, then working from them into a "deeper"
> analysis of the war itself, with the purpose in mind of intorducing, in
> practice, looking behnd appearances. If it worked, if you could get her
> into really exploring the war and its various connections, that would
> open up two avenues of further exploration: a) the need to look beyond
> appearances (not necessarily so labelled) and (b) the concept of
> solidarity -- i.e. of overcoming _apparent_ clashes of interests (who
> has the jobs). Eh? Have to think some more.
>
> Carrol
>
>