Just because many mis-gauged the era and its immediate possibilities does not mean
that the belief in the necessity of revolution was incorrect. Only revolution can
bring an end to capitalism, neo-colonialism, and imperialism. Reform, or
"incremental vision," will never achieve those goals, not in many lifetimes.
Rather than abandon the large goals, as some on the list are advocating or are
apologizing for, it is essential to see them in a larger time frame, as well as in
a global context, and proceed in the long-term building of
communities/cultures/politics of resistance and revolution. Giving those goals up
for a dime or for a glorified moment of fame as an academic- or journalistic- or
reminiscent writer-"expert on rebellion" or advocate of minimalist reform in some
demagogic pseudo-populist's political machine is betrayal.
William M Mandel wrote:
> It also helps to remember that, when you dropped out whenever the Sixties ended
> for you, it was because, unknowingly, you aimed too high. You thought that a
> revolution was possible. It wasn't, however you defined it. So now you know you
> have to work incrementally, or, as some put it, for "proximate ends."
> William Mandel
> Michael Garrison wrote:
> > One psychological technique that I have found useful in considering the
> > "sell out" and/or "compromise" problem for 60's people is the "Bounce-Back"
> > theory.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 03 2000 - 22:12:54 CUT