> According this (long, but apparently much informed) article by M.C. Ruppert,
> a democrat president after Dubya is already envisaged by power elites (Soros
> is an example), at least because it will be more suitable to keep their
> businesses going (Iraq occupation included) with a (slightly) increased
> popular acceptance.
> So, it is dubious who is the lesser evil.
> http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102003_beyond_bush_2.html
Hey! You are sounding like one of us anarchists! If you step back and look at the big picture, President Bush is not much different than President Clinton, if you look at it from the perspective of the capitalist class. Those of us who want radical social change shouldn't be wasting our time with which Democrat is the best candidate and whether or not the Greens should run. If the capitalists have the attitude that it doesn't matter who gets elected, then perhaps we should
look at the process in a similar way, albeit from the perspective of radical anti-capitalists. This is one thing that has always bothered me about big labor--why sink your all of your support into one party of capitalism when your opponents fund both "parties?"
<< Chuck0 >>
Homepage -> http://chuck.mahost.org/ Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ Monumental Mistake (blog)-> http://chuck.mahost.org/weblog/index.php Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Infoshop Portal -> http://portal.infoshop.org/ Infoshop Science -> http://science.infoshop.org/ AIM: AgentHelloKitty
"...ironically, perhaps, the best organised dissenters in the world today are anarchists, who are busily undermining capitalism while the rest of the left is still trying to form committees."
-- Jeremy Hardy, The Guardian (UK)