Absolutely. In understanding this one perhaps minor, perhaps crucial, historical point: Lenin NEVER objected to spontaneity; he objected to the WORSHIP of spontaneity.
The present demonstrations also are an opportunity to forge links between white and black activists.
Incidentally, in the last year or so the national NAACP has been increasingly "reaching out" to anyone who got on their mailing list. That outreach isn't particularly significant now, but as Obama's pacification of the Black Community weakens with the end of his second term, NAACP sponsored activity may take a more radical turn. (Mark Clark, murdered along with Fred Hampton, began his political life as an NAACP leader in Peoria, Illinois.)
Carrol
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Marv Gandall
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 2:03 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] zimmerman not guilty
>
>
> On 2013-07-15, at 1:02 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> > Marv Gandall:
> >
> >> *I take it from your comments that the US left should be abstaining
from
> >> the spontaneous protests which have erupted against the Zimmerman
> acquittal
> >> because they cannot possibly have any effect on public consciousness.
> >
> > You take it incorrectly. I understand the reasons for protest
completely. But
> then what? How are protests in New York and Los Angeles going to change
> Florida law or police practice? How do we get beyond the politics of self-
> expression and testimony to something that's actually effective? I don't
know
> the answer to this, but I don't see much sign that people are even asking
the
> question.
>
> It's an old and much-discussed question. Marxists, anarchists, and even
> social democrats and left liberals have for generations been interrogating
> themselves of how we get from here to there - from organizing local
> demonstrations, strikes, and other forms of mass action to building
powerful
> national movements for change. They haven't seen protest as a fuzzy means
> of self-expression and bearing witness, something which I associate with
> counter-cultural and religious radicals past and present. The
revolutionary
> left encouraged mass protest with the aim of overthrowing capitalism; the
> reformist left encouraged it with the aim of wresting concessions from the
> system. The answers to the question of how to precisely go about
> accomplishing their respective aims have been many and varied and the
> source of bitter and sometimes violent disagreement within and between
> these left tendencies.
>
> In terms of the efficacy of protest, I would say the record has been
mixed.
> Capitalism has not been overthrown, and in times like the present, when
> workers are insecure and in retreat and political consciousness is low and
> limited, there are grounds for yours and Wojtek's skepticism. But it is
> indisputable that the historic legislative gains won by trade unionists,
blacks,
> women, and gays in better times couldn't have been secured without the
> prior mobilization of these constituencies and their supporters in the
streets.
> All mass movements necessarily begin as localized actions which draw
> attention to their grievances and recruits to their cause, and it's only
in
> retrospect that the outcome is known, never in advance.
>
> So my answer to your question is that we don't know if the protests in New
> York or Los Angeles will spread and result in changes to state and federal
> laws governing the criminal justice system, anymore than we could have
> foreseen that the Zuccotti Park sit-in would expand into a now-moribund
> national movement which had some effect on public consciousness if not on
> legislation. In my view, this is justification enough to support any
outbreak of
> popular discontent against injustice and repression, and the Zimmerman
> protests fall within that category.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk