[lbo-talk] Re: What's at stake?

[John Thornton]

>Gradual change or catastrophe?
>To which a gradualist like myself might respond...
>
>Flawed and somewhat illusory though they might be, we
>do have at our disposal institutions which give us the
>ability to limit the damage our government can do at
>home and abroad.  Real people are dying real deaths
>because of the wild hunt the Bushevik's have
>unleashed.  Uncounted others are being wrecked and
>ruined. We have a responsibility to ourselves and the
>world to use our power as citizens to remove these men
>from command.  Working and voting for the Dem who's
>most likely to win a general election (which, at this
>point, appears to be Dean) is the most direct and
>practical way of bringing this immediate goal about.
>
>This is the debate I think we really should be having,
>not sci-fi such as who's in favor of *basement bombs*
>or who's apologizing for Hitlerian Germany or working
>for the government.
>
>
>DRM

It seems to me that being in the catastrophist camp does not necessarily 
mean one favors greater human suffering or loss when compared to gradual 
change advocates. One could imagine that in a gradual change scenario "X" 
number of people died because of state policies and it took 50 years 
working through the electorate to achieve an end to that. Now imagine the 
catastrophists belief that "X" number of people will die because of "going 
all the way down" policies with the Bushies and in the ensuing chaos of 
replacing that system with the same the same end result as the gradual 
change scenario above. One can easily imagine the catastrophists scenario 
taking 15 years. While both examples are grossly simplified it shows the 
fallacy of believing that taking a catastrophists stand necessitates a 
willingness to put up with greater numbers of "real people ... dying real 
deaths". While you have not expressly stated you believe as much you and a 
few others have implied that this is your belief. I am curious as to why?

John Thornton