Not to beat a horse that someone else killed, but we were struck by the belief that marching against the Vietnam atrocity somehow hastened its end. We thought not (Pres. Johnson wanted out, but was afraid of being called "soft on communism" by limp-dicked compensating Republicans, for example.) & others agree:
But then in terms of effect, it’s also not clear that the anti-Vietnam movement had a huge policy impact. By 1968, there was a growing elite-level consensus that continuing the war was a bad idea. Nixon and Kissinger wanted to get out on their own terms, but they definitely wanted to get out, and mostly for international rather than domestic reasons.Not as if zillions in the street worldwide on the same day protesting the potential Iraq atrocities had any effect either, we're happy to point out. ("Happy" in a point-scoring way; we weren't happy the invasion & occupation went right ahead, hippies in the streets or not.)
Much the same question has been asked at Balloon Juice.
4 comments:
The thing I think you were missing in that one is that the bad guys are working precisely on manufacturing more people that hate them all the time.
I am not on the ground floor in the US; I'm in Canada where we still have unions and such, and the activism of people like me can actually get things done, in concert with people like me. I have, with that institutional support, kept people from getting fired by manager fucks (and gotten at least one of those managers fired HA HA HA). Those smaller organizations build into larger coalitions, and money flows to the candidates and causes you like, yadda yadda yadda.*
Mind you it really helps during meetings if the guys who are organizing your union look like white-supremacist bikers and swear a lot.
*All this subject to Tory revision.
Direct Action Editor:
Can't speak for Canada's hive-mind, but in the Puritan Ethic U.S. of A., many immediately sympathize w/ the bad guys: "Lazy featherbedding union bums," "Bosses have to be able to fire lay-abouts," & so on. Right up to the "looters & moochers" talk. Look at the "I'm working two or three jobs, don't have insurance & I'm proud of it" clowns of that "We Are The 53%" site. Their brains have been washed smooth.
Eliminating all private, individual & corporate money from campaigns is the first step toward democracy, & that's not bloody likely when campaign law is made by those who profit most from the current system.
In Wisconsin, it should be obvious how bad for actual workers & creators Gov. Walker is, but the recall polling indicates a more or less 50/50 divide.
The apathy & ignorance of the American electorate is something of which the electorate is proud. And when they get together, it just reinforces itself.
(The people!
United!
Just make themselves
Stupider!)
We could go on. And on. And on. But our cynicism is well known, & leads us to believe that it's too fucking late for incremental stuff.
The arc of history is entropic.
Can't speak for Canada's hive-mind, but in the Puritan Ethic U.S. of A., many immediately sympathize w/ the bad guys: "Lazy featherbedding union bums," "Bosses have to be able to fire lay-abouts," & so on.
The same mindset operates here, but there's much less of a culture of pretended independence for maniacs to fall back on.
IMO a lot of the best things about society came about as a result of workers (and non-workers) organizing to try to make their immediate environs better, and the benefits have fanned out from that. Eroding the labour base was such a goddamned dumb thing to do.
Superfluous Humanoid Editor:
Eroding the labour base was such a goddamned dumb thing to do.
Not for the eroders, who got even more profit & fewer uppity workers in the deal. Of course, less consumers to buy shit in the long run, but we'll all be dead in the long run, won't we, & quarterly profits will be up up up!!
Post a Comment