Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> On Jul 22, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> > Really, at this point it does not _matter_ whether a given action
> > "contributes" to the achievement of some goal; it _only_ counts that it
> > gives the activists themselves seomething to do and to talk about doing.
>
> Do you really think that getting people involved in essentially pointless actions just for the sake of doing something doesn't have some risks?
Probably. But right now and pretty much for the last 20 to 30 years, not just the main task but the only real task of movement groups (around almost any issue) has simply been to keep themselves in existence and if possible gain experience in doing things.
You really have to know just how pointless, how futile, and in many cases how risky were all the activities that eventually blossomed into the '60s. Discussion, including viewpoints such as you advance, needs to be maintained within those groups. They can't be mindless (as the SWP tried to keep the anti-war movement mindless in the '60s) by merely being automoatons carrying out motions, but that is just part of the 'problem' they face of staying alive and active. That's why some internal sceptics are useful.
That the local target is Jewish-owned does complicate the matter. A non-Jewish firm as the immediate target, no matter how trivial, would be better. But even that risk is better at this stage than not doing anything.
Carrol