I didn't name more lowlifes because my brain isn't functioning after staying up late. Mad Albright is a good example.
> >If you measure the progressive movement by the number that votes. I
> >suspect that twice that number didn't vote.
>
> Ok that may bring us to the whopping 6% of the population. Bush received
> almost 50%. You do not seriously believe that they were disillusioned
> radicals among those 50%, do you?
Bush received support of 25% of the voting age population.
> That btw reminds me of an underlaid acquaintance of mine who believed that
> all men she encountered were secretly in love in her, just afraid to show
> their affection. Dream on, my friend.
They may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. ;-)
> >
> >Nader may not have reached 5%, but he had a respectable showing for
> >somebody who didn't get the media exposure that Perot did.
>
> Hmmm. Counting on the bourgeois media exposure after all? A peculiar
> anarchist strategy, indeed...
Anarchist strategy? There is no anarchist strategy in any of this. Most anarchists don't vote. We don't really give a damn who wins, for the most part. Some anarchists have been saying that a Gore victory would be nice, because the anarchist movement has grown quite well under the Clinton/Gore administration. Others fondly recall how Bush's father created a new generation of anarchists with his "Gulf War." Others would like to see Gore lose, if only to piss off all the liberals who have been blind to Clinton's wars, terrorism, war on civil liberties, and the fact that he is more of a friend to the ruling class, than to labor.
> >Well, that the problem with progressivism that is stuck in the past. If
>
> I could not agree more!
>
> >you think that your base is still in the upper Midwest and Northeast,
> >you are missing out on demographic shifts. I started focusing on
> >organizing anarchists in the southern U.S. after I came into contact
> >with more and more radicals from that region. I suspect that many
> >families with radical backgrounds have moved south in the past few
> >decades, as part of the general societal shift to the south.
>
> I do not think progressivism is in family background more than it is in
> genes. I do agree, though, that socio-demographic shifts profoundly
> affected the potnetial for progressive organizing - but that effect is
> largely negative.
>
> >
> >One of the more visible anarchist actions yesterday was a banner drop on
> >I-95 north of Miami.
>
> That amounts to mooning authority figures. Not very effective.
It's more effective than you understand. My anti-voting picket yesterday may have seemed rather tame, but it flies in the face of the American belief system which assumes that voting and "our democracy" are somehow the pinnacle of evolution, ordained by God, or whatever.
> Chuck, you seem to believe in the immaculate conception of popular
> movements. In real life, a successful social movement requires getting
> laid by the guy who has what you need - organizational resources.
I'm a pragmatist and a veteran activist. I think I understand what popular movements need to be successful.
Chuck0