Well, ending occupation is just a means, the real point is to replace capitalist production relations with common onwershipa nd democratic control of the maens of production . . .
>
> At 7:06 AM -0700 7/17/03, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> >Let's take what we can get, eh?
>
> We can't -- and don't want to! -- get the sort of
> things that paid
> organizers of peace & justice NGOs would have us
> lobby Democrats for:
>
Depends on what they ask for, but that wasn't my point. My point was (I believe) that we can be really really happy that the media/public tide is turning against the Bushies, even if it is not expressing intself in anti-imperialist, internationalist, or socialist terms. It's shift away from jingo triumphalism, that's what we can get right now, dayenu (Jewish joke, I'll explain if I need to).
Actually, heretical as it is around here and from me, and much as a shock this may come to some of you, I think that the Bushies are bad enough that moderately unacceptable Democrat (not Lieberman) who can actually win (Kerry? Gephart?) would be worth supporting. I still don't buy into lesser evilism a general strategy, and I don't say with Nathan that the Dems are generally OK, but there are genuinely lesser evils that are lesser enough to matter. I voted for Mondale (age confession there) because I thought that Reagan might start a nuclear war, and Monadle wouldn't. Bush II is not nuclear-war bad, what else is, but he's in the general neighborhood, within hollering distance, I think. So given thatattacking the Bushies s liars and warmongers may serve the purpose, shorter run, if helping us take what we can get by way of getting rid of them.
jks
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com