I'm not going to try to argue the following point just now; I have other things on my mind. But I think it's an important perspective which outght at least to be considered.
Change in activity has to proceed change in thinking. Not just _accompany_ change in activity but follow it. (There was a long thread on this on lbo last summer, in which the chief writers (thought there were a number of others) were Julio Huato and Miles Jackson. It was at first conducted under the heading of "Dustup," then later if I recall correctly under the heading of "Iran letter" or something like that. It was not a decrease in racial prejudice that brought about the Civil Rights Act; it was the Civil Rights Act that brought about a change in racial attitudes. And the Civil Rights Act was acheived not by changing peoples minds (or the minds of politicians) but by a minority making so much trouble that the powers that be saw they had to be pacified. From the activity of the few and the surrender by the powerful began a process which has changed minds, though far from enough. It will take several more similar shocks to begin to make a sizeable dent in structural racism and the attitudes it generates. No one knows, really, what will trigger such explosions as Russia 1905 or the U.S. in the '60s. Nor can they be predicted or willed into being. But those who see the necessity of them have an obligation to do all they can to 'keep the door' open for them by constant (usually pretty futile) stuggle, but it is that futile struggle which (under unpredictable conditions) can explode into huge changes. And as a final note. The weakness of leftists (the non-existence of anything that can be called The Left) is primarily a function of the strength of capital, not of anything leftist have or haven't done. But that is another topic. Carrol _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
