[lbo-talk] The disillusionment argument

shag carpet bomb shag at cleandraws.com
Fri Jan 15 04:12:27 PST 2010


At 06:54 AM 1/15/2010, Michael Pollak wrote:
>So on closer look, it seems that at least in the 1960s (which is the
>archetypal case) it wasn't the disappointments in themselves that caused
>the movements. It seems rather the other way around: it was movements
>that made the disappointments so huge.
>
>And FWIW, the civil rights/civil disobedience movement started under
>Eisenhower. And it was the incubator for all the others.
>
>Michael

at least as articulated on this list, I always thought that's what Doug was saying. You already had an organized movement - 90s is a good example here, too. Already in place, it 'benefited' from the disappointment. The movement was made up of people who didn't buy into the Democrats' claims - its core was made up of them. People who had bought into dem's claims were then attracted to that movement as an outlet to express their disappointment and frustration with the Dems.

This is what Carrol is often saying about how we have to keep on keeping on, even in the face of lots of disappointment and apathy. When the shit hits the fan, an organized movement needs to be there prepared to deal with the situation.

-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list