Building a broad mass movement

David Schanoes dmsch at attglobal.net
Mon Jan 6 06:01:56 MST 2003


Short version:

We refers to those who provide the logistical effort and gruntpower behind
this demo.  That would be ANSWER.

The reference to popular front was in response to the original assertion
that the coalition was the building of  a united front.  Now if talk about a
pop front is ridiculous, or premature, or both, and I agree it is,
describing the coalition as a united front is hallucinatory.

As for defeatism: Do I think that at Jan 18 the podium should be draped with
banners proclaiming defeatism?  Would I argue the defeatism position from
the platform?  No to the former, yes and no to the latter.  Tactics
and...fear.  I have already referred to my great respect for fear.  And I
would be afraid, given my recent reading of the Patriot Act, that advancing
defeatism would trigger police seizure of the entire movement logistical
centers, i.e. offices, computers, phone lists, etc. without the movement
being strong enough to reverse the act.  Or as Bishop said in Aliens, "I may
be synthetic, but I'm not stupid."

However, the original discussion centered on representatives from the Church
and churches, other clerics, official reps of established parties, whether
elected or defeated and the like, and that apparent domination of the
speaker list by that type.  And if those speakers urge the marchers to pray,
or to vote for left Dems, to write their representatives, as they most
certainly will, how can we, the we being we, counter that with an equally
reasonable suggestion that the real solution has to be developed outside the
churches, the bourgeois parties, and letters to Congress?

Who is going to say that?  I hope we all agree, we being all of us, that
that counter suggestion should be proposed at exactly this type of action.

And if we don't agree, and that isn't said, I have never suggested splitting
at this time on that issue.  Quite the opposite.

That's the short version?    Yeah, the longer version takes issue with your
analysis of VN, self-determination, and the "one slogan." And both versions
vehemently disagree with the ideological dictum that anything that doesn't
conform to certain prescribed formats will hinder development of a movement
and therefore must be swill.  That notion, comrade, is the real swill that
has been used to turn class movements into some "party's"
property.

Comradely,

DMS
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Walters" <dwalters at igc.org>
To: <marxism at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: Building a broad mass movement


>
>
> David who is the "we" in second to the last sentence? > ~~~~~~~


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list