Dennis Claxton wrote:
>
> A
> I'm talking about things like, as Doug mentioned, thou shalt not kill.
>
> I think when asked questions like "what will you do with the
> murderers" by someone who might really think the left stands for
> lunatics running the asylum, then we should have some kind of answer.
>
Why? The probability is that anyone asking such a question is not going to be influenced by your answer, and those who might be influenced by your answer don't need it.
Leftists have to get out of the habit of confusing politics with a classroom. A classroom is a captive aucience. It also inlcudes a wild variety of points of view, and, moreover, all questions are legitimage, especially as neither queston nor answer need relate to actual practice.
And does anyone seriously believe that the proposition "Thou shalt not kill" has ever changed anyone's behavior. It isn't an argument, it's a thumbnail summary of a well establihsed social pracice.
Consider the (lousy) slogan: Support the Troops: Bring them Home." That has _never_ changed the mind of a single supporter of the war. It merely helps those already against the war make their positon more comfortable. As such, it's not worth fighting over, but be clear: it is not persuasive. It doen't answer any argument for the war but is a form of self-hypnosis.
And consider my suggested slogan that raised so much opposition on this list: Close the Prison System.
In the context of high political activity, with a reasonable number of people carrying that sign at large demos, it would achieve instant 'respectability," -- and the questions it would raise in the mind of most potential reruits to the left would be over details of implementation,etc. Those who raised question such as were raised on this list would be those who wouldn't be attracted to the left in any case.
You have to make a distinction between "those who can be attracted NOW" and those who can be attracted _later_, under different conditons. And the further distinction between those who, now or later, can be attracted to a particular struggle and those who will never be attracted, regardless of arguments, until the goal of the struggle (e.g., abolish Jim Crow) ahs already been achieved and is part of a given social reality.
I really don't understand why so many leftists are concerned with reaching people who will never be reached by any argument and so indifferent to recruiting and mobilizign and enertgizing the several millon people who, passively, are on our side but don't believe popular stuggle can succeed.
Carrol