So, denying the Democrats their political substance - political office - will lead to their strangulation and eventual death. All the political careerists will have to go elsewhere (perhaps to lucrative marketing jobs in the computer industry ?:-) This could open up the way to a more thoroughgoing political revolution (note: political, not social), for although the Republicans would exercise an exclusive monopoly of office during the interregnum, they too will crumble once their Democrat prop has collapsed. See how it works? The "progressive left" Democrats prop up the Democratic Party, the Democrats prop up the Republicans, and the whole oppressive status quo remains standing. Guess which part of the whole rotten structure needs a good swift kick (in the ass)? Nope, not the Bush (yawn) part...
That this perspective has some correspondence to reality is verified on one aspect by the hysterically vicious assault on the Nader/Greens launched by these fake left Democratic Party props (Exhibit A). It's the reaction you'd expect from people contemplating either 1) political death or 2) joining the rest of us out here in our end of the political wilderness (shudder, huh?).
So, no , on this most important question of our own political organizational independence - the only question in the more narrowly defined electoral arena (right now the extent of 'political life' for many Americans) - there is no room for "healing" with the fakers so long as they adhere in way, shape or form to the Democratic Party. Not now, not for the foreseeable future. On the contrary, we need to deepen the wounds on this particular score.
On other issues (such as against US intervention in Colombia, etc., or say, the electoral ripoff in Florida, which per se is not an electoral issue, but an issue of elementary civil and democratic rights) we may find ourselves on the same side, even working together, if the fakers can overcome their bloodcurdling hatred of us (but that's their problem). It all depends on issue and context, and that requires us to be clear on just those are.
-Brad Mayer
>lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>
At 10:10 PM 1/3/01 -0800, you wrote:
>On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Nathan Newman wrote:
>
> > But all the posturing for the revolutionary potential of voting Green
> > just seems silly. There is no historical basis for its success and
> > all you need do is look at the Greens in power in Germany to see that
> > there is no international basis for vaunting its revolutionary
> > potential.
>
>The Greens are not "in power". They got 7% of the vote and a minority
>position with the much larger SPD, which means they can push a few issues
>against the neolibs. They've done some fine things in terms of local
>planning, transport, and eco-development, and are the only folks to take
>multiculturalism and the potential of a Euroleft seriously. The Greens
>have also taken root all across Europe, which is a commendable feat in its
>own right.
>
>Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against one-party states per se. It's
>just that ours is braindead, bankrupt and about to see its currency
>slammed in the chops by despicably wealthy Eurolizards.
>
>-- Dennis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20010104/068eb2ee/attachment.htm>