Hi David, Steven, Charles, Duane, John and everyone else, Today is my day to finish getting caught up.
First--thanks to everyone for their comments and suggestions for improvements to my leaflet. Unfortunately, I had a serious computer/internet problems that prevented me from making these improvements. I decided, however, that what I had was good enough to distribute at the No Kings event on March 28. I xeroxed 850, and handed out 770. Estimates for the size of protest ranged from 75 to 100 thousand people. The leaflet was the best and most popular of the day. But it is worthwhile to consider the improvements that would have made it better. The Iran war is not over, and a movement against it may develop. Further leaflets (by me--or by others here) may be forthcoming. (1) The leaflet needed an additional sentence or two to acknowledge the size and depth of the revolutionary mass movement in Iran--as well as to explain that attacks on civilian infrastructure by the U.S. and Israel work against the interests of the progressive movement in Iran by creating support for the fascist theocrats. John Reimann (in part 3 of his series, which deals with Kurdistan and Iran) summed the situation up: > "Today the US-Israeli war on Iran has focused world > attention on that country. Their war seeks complete > military domination not only of Iran but of the entire > region. . . . this domination is threatened by the political > consciousness of the Iranian people. That consciousness > has been demonstrated time and again by their inspiring > uprisings against the Iranian regime. The US-Israeli war > also seeks to undermine and in fact crush that > revolutionary process. (2) David noted that the leaflet should have mentioned the mid-term elections in November, since this is obviously a factor in what is happening. (3) Charles argued that it would be better to just distribute a few basic points on paper and use a QR code to direct people to a longer article. It is possible that Charles is correct, but it is also possible that he is not. The leaflet was written for a range of people. Some of these people are more focused on how to build a powerful movement than others. If I was working with a team of experienced people--I would be getting reliable feedback concerning what works in today's media environment. But I am on my own. And I do know that at least some people will read what I hand to them--because they find the thoughtfulness and concision in my writing to represent a worthwhile investment of their time. These are the people for whom I write. (4) Steven noted that the four words, near the end of the leaflet, "My conclusion is that" could have been cut. Steven is correct. George Orwell says the same thing. So do William Faulkner and Alan Ginsberg. If we intend to be serious writers--we eliminate unnecessary words. These four words do mark a dividing point in the leaflet. Everything before that--is more or less a summary of news articles. Everything after that point--is where the water becomes deep. (5) Duane made comments that were difficult for me to understand. On the one hand, his comments appeared to be little more than cynicism. On the other hand, there are darn good reasons for people to be cynical. Overall, Duane's comments remind me a bit of a popular TV character from my youth: Maynard G. Krebs (played by Bob Denver, before he took a 3 hour cruise). For many of my generation, who had not read "On the Road", Maynard was our first exposure to a character who refused to follow the beaten path. [cid:[email protected]] (6) David makes an additional comment: > more broadly Ben, you don't offer anything > to anyone who might read the text. What > should they do? There is nothing on building > a broad based, non-electoralist/mass action > anti-war movement. David raises an interesting point. Is the purpose of a leaflet to: (a) explain what is happening or (b) telling people what to do? This is a deep question. The focus of my leaflet was the first, not the second. Why should it be different? I know that many people (for some reason) believe that leaflets should focus on telling people what to do. But this does not seem to fit the current situation, and I see no *valid* reason to go along with a fetish for giving instructions to people as if we were generals and readers were our soldiers. As far as the goal of building a broad based, non-electoralist, mass action anti-war movement -- an important questions appears: How would such a movement maintain independence from the influence of the treacherous Democratic Party? The term "broad-based" is often used as a code phrase for "being acceptable to the Democratic Party", which (in turn) often means being controlled by the Democratic Party. So this is confusing to me. Any clarification (from David or anyone) would be quite helpful. I do spell out, however, what I believe we need: > We need to keep our eyes open. > "No Kings" is on a leash controlled by > the imperialist Democratic Party. That > is why its speakers will not mention > the ongoing genocide in Palestine. > We need a movement, and mass organization, > which has no leash, and is independent > of all forms of imperialist politics This is something simple, and worth aspiring to. All the best, Ben -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#41345): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/41345 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/118451454/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
