Hello All, I wanted to comment on two theories about large demonstrations. Representative of the first theory is Max Sawicky who to paraphrase in regard to Lerner's accusations of being banned at the San Francisco march, that Lerner ought to be allowed to speak as a way of advancing main stream unity with the Anti-war movement. I think this theory is in error in analyzing the structure of mass events.
Representative of the second theory is JKS on speakers at big demo's are boring, and the left lacks good speakers compared to the right. I think JKS is wrong about the reasons for why mass events are boring. It is my view that one could look at the production technique for large demonstrations and draw other conclusions. We are at a transition point for mass communications. We still use loud speakers from a central rallying point to make enough noise to be heard at large out door venues. I am slightly deaf and usually I can't hear what is being said or the noise is so deafening I wish I couldn't hear the speeches. Technically centralized stages for addressing crowds leaves a lot to be desired. Specifically to Max's point about allowing Lerner to speak, many people have said it is up to the people organizing demonstrations to decide who speaks and why. Not enough time in the day for a lot of people to address the crowd. A practical limit to the time limits of presenting words to a lot of people at once. That summarizes the problem with large demonstrations that my reference to a transition point indicates. We are about to see a time when the average person can carry a cell phone to an event and get the event through their cell phone. Why do we need to have a single stage presenting information as mass demonstrations currently do? I see no reason why Lerner has to be an issue in that circumstance. The way we organize and produce information in real time is the key issue, not whether or not some individual thinks that their relationship to other groups is being abridged. The media eliminates spatial considerations to communications. That gives us very new ways to understand how to communicate with large crowds at once. Most speakers are recruited because a plethora of interests are being solicited for their reactions to events in a given rally. Why not increase that tendency in such events. Manufacture even more from various groups during a large event for that event. Marshall hundreds of reactions in complex interplays of group dynamics that tens of thousands of on-lookers can observe? To JKS objection that current left wing speaking is boring, it seems to me that JKS is not creatively engaged with how the media works. I'm not condemning the subjective reaction to how entertaining or interesting current left public voices are, but it seems to me that as the above proposal indicates it is the techniques of production that matter in the current period. For example it is well known in mathematics that most mathematicians cannot keep up with the whole field of mathematics. Technical expertise usually is not sufficient to know anything but rather narrow niches in human endeavors. Further from a left perspective the amount of potential skilled participants is far less than the pool of talented individuals in the general population. All in all what is presented at large demonstrations is not so much a problem with talented persons capable of scintillating word mongering, but the difficulty of using such venues in ways that compete with the power of internet tools of expression. That such large scale events beg for hybrid uses of communications that allow us to apply truly global sources of information. So that talent can be gathered from a much larger pool to express what needs to be said in a given event. To summarize, both Max Sawicky and JKS assert problems which given internet methods of production are not problems in mass communications. Big events need no longer present a single focal point with a limited list of speakers, and that releases into the mass gathered a much more varied diverse source of information all can find attuned to their needs more specifically. The question of talent and originality of thought being expressed is a consequence of the manner in which thought is being produced in such events, not the failure of the U.S. left. thanks, Doyle Saylor
