The last paragraph sort of fucks things up, with his fatally wrong conception of what constitutes (from a left perspective) a "politically powerful group. And that false conception brings abut the silliness of the last paragraph. There he writes:
**** So the only time when an information leak will result in a political change is when there is already a politically powerful group poised to implement that change and using the leaked information as an excuse to act (cf. Watergate.)***
No one's political perception was usefully affected by Watergare. (It did persuade weak leftists to retreat to the arms of the DP, thus completing the dissolution of the the struggle for democracy that 'the '60s' had launched. Mere preferences for this or that set of capitalist politicians change all the time, often for no reason in particular. Hence a focus on electoral politics (on W's conception of a "politically powerful group") can tell us nothing abut how _real_ opinion, the opinion that makes a political difference. Julio sees all politics (including the politics of OWS) as essentially versions of partisan opinion, and that is how he falls into the delusion that "argument" or "persuasion" can change minds: he has a superficial perception of what it means to "change mindsd."
An essential principle to grasp here is the tremendous power a direct action campaign has to "change social conditions" simply by existing. As I pointed out in an earlier post, social conditions changed profoundly between 1956 and 1964, not because any laws were changed but because of the simple _existence_ as a focus of what is called "public opinion." That change was reflected in Senator Dirksen's statement that Civil Righs "was an idea whose time had come." He saw the impossibility of maintaining social and political stability unless that Black Liberation Movement could be absorbed in (muffled by) standard political activity. Hence the law had to be changed, Jim Crow had to go. And with the changing of the laws, the change brought abut by the 'mere' loud existence of the BLM was confirmed. The White Republic (celebrated in Birth of a Nation) was dissolved by extending _formal_ citizenship to the Black population. (This of course made not a dent in the racist foundations of u.s. life, but it was an absolutely vital precondition for that struggle to be reborn in some later period.)
Watergate's only importance was that it 'persuaded' so many (who wanted to believe anyhow) that The System Worked. It therefore was an essential pre-requisite for the Neoliberal Offensive which was coming.
Carroll
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Wojtek S Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 9:53 AM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] This will have a large political impact
""What is significant is the picture it helps to paint of the way corporations operate," Bichlbaum told Reuters. "They operate with complete disregard for rule of law and human decency."
[WS:] This is not exactly news, especially for those already opposing neoliberalism. The others either do not give a flying fuck or will dismiss it as left wing propaganda.
Wikileaks is basically a Gandhian strategy adopted to the internet age. This strategy rests on appeals to "public opinion" and a belief that such opinion will bring a political change. Both are based on false assumptions. First, there is no such thing as "public opinion" as Graeber aptly observed in "Direct Action," criticizing the Gandhian approach. Second, bourgeois democracies developed immunity for any type of "public scandal" as I argued here http://wsokol.blogspot.com/2012/01/from-amritsar-to-derry-bloody-sundays.htm l
So the only time when an information leak will result in a political change is when there is already a politically powerful group poised to implement that change and using the leaked information as an excuse to act (cf. Watergate.)
Wojtek ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk