fascinated by aimless, meandering self-criticism on the purpose and effect of domonstrations. It seems to me that we are jumping to the tune of the liberals, and like everything we do for the benefit of liberals, it is all pretty irrelevant. A few hundred people made a mess or South Africa House. Kesult. an ablec!
pology b the Government to the South fricans (i bet they didn't like that!) No exactly a startling success in concrete BUT, SO BLOODY WHAT! Who the hell ever said that demonstrations in London' ever changed anything in Cape Town, even in London for that matter. To demonstrate means to show one's opinions, anger, trustration, etc in public. This is particularly true demonstrations.
demonstrations appear to change domestic policies. This was true of the 19th Century. But it was only true because of the presence or two owner factors: a dividend ruling-class and the danger of mass révolt (or fear of the same). These two factors translate demonstrations from acts of symbolic defiance into agents of reform. Look at Northern Ireland now, look at Paris last year.
We do not have mass support, and the ruling-class is fundamentally united at the moment. So abuse is heaped on our heads and nothing happens.
But, comrades, let us not wail and gnash our teeth. The masses must be mobilized and the ruling-class divided. This is the real problem, on whatever issue we are demonstrating.
Question: how? Answer: grass roots propaganda. Duplicators and printing and hum. We must nresses MSE WIllE leaflet the streets, the town centres and the houses. We must hold public meetings, in the open air if necessary. We must argue on the issues.
It InIs 1S done successfully, then the questions of the effect and purpose of demonstrations, of the rights and wrongs of violent and non-violent demonstrations, will automatically be put in the process of solution.
It takes a long time. There is no romance attached to it. No coppers get their heads bashed in. Nobody gets imprisoned. No windows get broken. But, correct me if I'm