> No need for a Plan B if one's Plan A is to ignore the election and
> conentrate on the long-term project of building a mass resistance
> movement.
>
> It's the ones who claim that four more years of Bush are fatal who need
> a Plan B.
>
I must confess that I don't understand the whole point of this argument. No one in these precincts, I suppose, would deny that long-term organizing toward whatever your desired goal is (socialism, anarchism, mass resistance, ...) is important. Does that mean you have to ignore the election, especially when this election provides the opportunity of getting rid of a particularly malevolent administration which is squarely opposed to all of the aforementioned goals?
Where is the contradiction, unless you happen to believe that 4 more years of Bush would further your long-term goals by making the masses madder and madder at the system? (The old "the worse things get, the better for the revolution" position.)
Of course, anarchists ignore elections on principle, but for anyone else, I would think that defeating Bush is square in the middle of one's plan.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ "In an ideal world, people would be preoccupied with reading and writing poetry and having love affairs, as people were in the Japanese court in the 11th century, as described in 'The Tale of Genji.' If people were involved in that type of life, maybe there would be no war." -- Wallace Shawn