Part One The U.S. government has for 50 years been steadily strengthening the repressive power of the state. (And that repressive power was already considerable even before WW2 & the Red Hunt. The intensification began with (a) the cultural backlash against the "too much democracy" threatened in the '60s, (b) The "Wars" against Crime & Drugs, and (c) the War on Terror. And Obama has carried this strengthening of repressive power beyond anything Reagan or Clinton or Bush ever dreamed of. (It's NOT fascism: that's a special form of tyranny unique to the intra-war period of eastern & southern Europe. It's probably worse than fascism because it is encased in the beauty of bourgeois democracy.)
That growing (and increasingly bare-faced) repressive power has to be opposed. It's fine to have articles and books written on it. It is also important to have studies of the linkage of Austerity, Empire of Capital, & Repression. But those books and articles and blogs do not add up to resistance, any more than a munitions factory adds up to a division of infantry. Part Two Last Sunday at the December meeting of the Bloomington/Normal Coalition for Peace & Justice we had an extra large attendance: 8 people where we usually have 4 or 5. We began working out a project for 2013 around the theme of Repression in all its various forms. (That is, we are hoping it's a project that will work as outreach.) It wasn't a bad meeting, but there is one difficulty: when it comes to working out a program of outreach, 8 brains are not enough. There should be 15 to 30. And of those (say 20) most don't have to have any particular brilliance or even much experience except for the experience they gain on the go. And there are rather more than 30 people among the 150,000 local population who both essentially agree with us _and_ who would work well with us, hose brains would add significantly to the collective brain! Define "cadre" as anyone who will come to a meeting once a month and in that context asks not what the group can do for her but what she/he can do for the group. (The well-hidden discovery of the 1960s was that democracy worked.) (Incidentally, there is a lot of confusion about practice, theory, etc. Practice should be seen as 6 or 15 people sitting around a table arguing about what they should do to increase the number to 9 or 18. The whole of politics boils down to that. Lenin knew it, but most "Leninists" don't.) Discussion on Pen-L would take on a different flavor, without necessarily being much different in content, if, say, 6 out of 10 participants belonged to some kind of local group that was facing and struggling with the question, How do we add a few people to our monthly meeting, add a few more people to our monthly demo? The point about practice is that it makes one think. Carrol > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:pen-l- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Eugene Coyle > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 12:50 PM > To: Progressive Economics > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Wilentz as "leftist"? > > Julio's "Rushed thoughts" are an insightful enouragement to us all to get on with > it. > > Gene > > On Dec 3, 2012, at 7:13 AM, Julio Huato wrote: > > > Marv wrote: > > > >> Carrol would not describe casual participation on the Pen-L list > >> as a form of left-wing political activism. > > > > Rushed thoughts. > > > > An immense amount of the "activist" work of Lenin and his comrades > > before 1917, many of them in exile, had to do with the logistics of > > publishing, smuggling, and distributing newspapers, journals, books, > > etc. in Russia.(*) The continuity of the party framework relied on > > the work of the exiles abroad, due to repressive conditions in Russia. > > So they also were busy finding housing, etc. for newcomers, and -- of > > course -- doing lots of fundraising to support all that. The media > > publishing work was at the heart of their "activism." It was this work > > which they thought integrated all sorts of struggles into a coherent > > national and international movement, and it was this integration (and > > the resulting political scale-economies) that underpinned their > > intervention on those struggles. > > > > The media publishing work entailed -- of course -- much prep work > > researching, maintaining ongoing communication with contacts in > > various places to gather news, write articles, edit them, etc. I > > don't know about others, but -- to me -- these lists (as well as > > Facebook, Twitter, youtube, news aggregators, readers, search engines, > > blogs, web sites, online journals and databases, etc.) function as a > > de-facto newspaper of the sort Lenin and his comrades strived to put > > together. The stuff does not necessarily fit together, but we > > shouldn't idealize the level of coherence of the Bolshevik publishing > > experience either. What is entirely different now is that the > > expenses (in time and other resources) required to sustain that > > enterprise are minimal by comparison. Ability to broadcast ideas at a > > reasonably low cost has increased tremendously. And, in spite of > > all, this may be putting *us* at an advantageous position vis-a-vis > > the class adversary. Things could be better, but these lists in > > particular are already helpful as information filters. If making a > > serious effort to participate on these lists does not qualify as > > "activism," then I don't know what would. > > > > I'm not saying that this is all there's to do. The premise is that > > people at their workplace, community, town, school, etc. are > > coordinating actions, staging protests, doing propaganda or agitating, > > and the stressful work of dealing with bosses and authorities to > > negotiate and enforce better working and living conditions, etc. But > > the ability to conduct that work requires that you live or work at a > > place where you can do that effectively. > > > > Back in Mexico, I spent several years of my life at an organization > > with a ferocious cadre discipline > > (http://www.youtube.com/user/MAntorchista). In spite of our > > deficiencies (and serious vices go with the territory in almost any > > conceivable cadre organization), it was impressive the speed with > > which we would see entire communities transform themselves from the > > ground up through this kind of disciplined, relentless, systematic > > effort. We often redeployed ourselves as we thought needs warranted > > it. Perhaps too often. There were (not infrequently) arbitrary > > decisions, as willingness to relocate was a badge of honor among us. > > Cadres would get exposed to a diverse array of experiences, which > > helped our development. But the downside was that it was hard for us > > to lay deeper roots in a given community. > > > > In my experience, in the U.S., unless something changes drastically, > > we are not going to function this way. Maybe younger people can > > afford this measure of self denial for the sake of the struggle, but > > regular working people here will be much more assertive of their > > individual needs. Efforts in the cadre direction are not to be > > discouraged. This is the good side of Jodie Dean's critique of OWS. > > But I doubt the cadre way will be dominant. This is deep in the > > culture. And it's not necessarily a bad thing. It makes up for a > > broader and more robust approach. Look at OWS, which is a roughly > > representative sample of the U.S. left, perhaps with some > > overrepresentation of the young and old tails. At this point, > > "coordination" simply means that individuals and small groups, each > > with a particular pet project, are letting one another know what they > > are doing. Joint actions are circumscribed to those who are in their > > groups or in the political vicinity. As a result, each individual or > > group may be partially undoing what the others are doing. > > > > Of course, this is already proving to be insufficient. Much more > > coherence is required to advance. But how we gain coherence is going > > to be a more organic result, I believe. So, all this is my roundabout > > way to say that, in the U.S. today, "leaders" cannot just think out > > and assign people the tasks they view as yielding the highest > > political returns. People have to choose the tasks they are most > > inclined to carry out well. And that gives a much greater weight to > > our discussions (e.g. on these lists), propaganda, and academic work. > > (I was going to say theoretical, but that sounds more pretentious in > > English.) More weight to our discussions, because that's the only way > > we can help one another to *freely* choose the complementary tasks > > that are necessary to advance. > > > > (*) I don't want to give the impression that I view the Russian > > revolution as a sort of blueprint. It is not. Chance played a large > > role in the apparent and very temporary success of the Bolsheviks. We > > really know very little about how things may turn out in our case. > > But there's nothing wrong with drawing parallels and analogies, as > > long as we see how clearly deficient they are. > > _______________________________________________ > > pen-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
