Jim Devine wrote: > > Is there any way to exploit the gap between the "social conservatives" > (anti-abortos, etc.) and the money libertarians within the > broadly-defined GOP movement?
Yes. But it is not a 'way' that can be implemented: a strong and militant and large mass movement by its very existence exploits such splits. There is no abstract way however that can be consciously selected and implemented by individuals or small scattered grouplets. I really think that at the present time (and in fact for the last 30 years or so) there has been one and only one significant question for leftists: What can leftists do, in a period when they can do noting that has immediate impact, to contribute to a future movement, the nature of which is wholly unpredictable? In the 1960s a strong Movement of Movements emerged, the power and sources of which were not recognized at the time and are still not recognized clearly. The barrier to even attempting to understand that movement of movement is the continuing assumption that there exists a "correct political theory." It follows from that that since, superficially, there were so many different political currents operating in the '60s that there was no siginificant unity. But there was. That Movement of MOvements was fundamentally a far more coherent movement than any movement organized around a hegmonic 'center' could have been. And it was a working-class movement. But no one at the time recogfized that they werre part of a workig-class movement. And that is a second barrier to understanding that Movement of Movements: No one recongized then and no one recognizes now that it was a working-class movement because of stereotyped notions, desecended from the 2d & 3d internatioanls, of what a working class movemnt must look like. No one in the 1950s, here or in Europe or elsewherre, saw that huge explosion coming, and in many cases prior left tendencies set themselve s_against_ the ferment that arose. And today one still encounters "left" and especially "marxist" "criticisms of that Movement for not looking like a working-class movement and not looking like a unified movement. Thus it cannot be understood, for we need to analyze it in terms of the premsies that it was both unified and working-class. Only then will we get rid of false sterotypes of what unity and what working-class MEAN! History does NOT rpeeat itself, ever, as either tragedy or farce. Hence it is utterly useless to endlessly examine past 'miostakes' -- they won't occur again in the same way they occurred before. The '60s won't occur again: so they don't form a model of any sort, anymore than the 2d or 3d internationals form a model. But by understanding the 60s for what they are, we might be able to free our minds from PRESENT and ongoing mistakes that stem from sterotypes of what a "real working'class movement" should look like. When one does arise it will look compeltely different. Carrol _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
