Agit- prop

Can symbolic representation substitute for "real" action? No. But is it a good adjunct (and lots of fun) ? Me thinks so.

Our local IWW branch organized a little street theatre last night that engages this question and caused an interesting debate among our membership. Celebrating the 100 year anniversary of the first (important) free speech fight in the country, which just happened to take place in little Missoula Mt. between Wobblies and City officials, we did a little re-enactment skit for the public on the historic corner. It was well recieved, even by the City Establishment ( we included the actual mayor and some city councillors) and we had some little kids shouting and raising their little fists as the Agitating Wobblies were being led off to "jail". We went through the whole official bureaucratic permitting process of closing off a street with official signs and getting official insurance et.al...resulting in city collaboration in getting an official placque and monument and "Free Speech Corner" designation but also some understandable grumbling from members over the implications of such "collaboration" in principle.

The wierd thing about theatre of course is the partial suspension of reality, the "magical" or even poetic quality of the discourse, in that you are at once both in and out of personal agency, both committing a practical and symbolic act. Were we agitating, with possible real results, or just "performing" and leaving nothing tangible behind? How much of our critique of capitalism "in 1909" was actually having a transformative effect in 2009? Costumes, masks, carnivalesque energy has a magically enervating quality which I think revolutionary activity could greatly benefit from. Not to mention basic fun, which is all too often lacking.

It is also interesting to watch the dynamics of just having an open soap box and bullhorn available ( we did this for an hour before the performance) . Most speakers were our own members, who have become more and more adept at propogandizing (some were real good) and the others came from what could generally be designated as "the left", speaking to a mostly "progressive" crowd gathered in a fairly liberal city. The egalitarian pluralist in me hopes that in time conservatives, even "tea baggers", will feel comfortable grabbing the mike and that those from any and all political perspectives who have never spoke in public will take up the (both public and inter-personal) challenge.

Preaching to the choir is one thing, articulating in front of a mixed public another. Some will try to hog the mike. Some will rant about spaceships or Jewish conspiricies. Some will channel Glen Beck and some Noam Chomsky but this is the tension we have to accept ,even celebrate.It is my belief that eventually some heartfelt,original thinking, discussion and speaking will take place and this, not the internet or voting booths or political science classes, is the foundation upon which the democratic project has to be built.