Can you enlighten us on what you mean by "revolution?" What does it look like?? I
agree on the necessity of transforming and transcending capitalism, eradicating
imperialism, etc.... but the term revolution typically connotes a violent overthrow of
a repressive government. Is that your reference?
doug norberg wrote:
> 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.
> Doug Norberg
> 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 : Mon Sep 04 2000 - 20:53:28 CUT