> I'm not talking about DNA, of course; I'm referring to the present
> socio-political conditions of the two countries and their historical
> backgrounds. Biology has nothing to do with it, and you know that
> perfectly well.
I'm standing behind my argument. Americans may be a bit richer than your average Ukrainian, or even your rich Ukrainians, but there are enough pissed off people here in the United State. They are too privileged to protest, which is what I think you are saying. This is why the moral outrage against Bush is so hollow. Americans who are opposed to Bush are no different than Republicans as long as they sit on their collective asses and don't do everything to remove him and the rich fuckers from office.
> I love this false dichotomy thing you always have going -- either get
> out in the streets and do the anarchist thing or you're sitting on your
> ass. My way or the highway. But clearly there is a multiplicity of
> methods of social change. Changing society is a very complex task, which
> has to be approached from many angles.
No kidding! I spend lots of my time sitting on my ass, but most of that time is spent on organizing. Yes, there is multiplicity of methods of social change, which I fully embrace, but my problem is with those progressive who don't see this.
>(And pace Yoshie, Carrol, et al., there *was* a
> significant difference on the whole between donkeys and elephants. But
> we know all the arguments about that, so I won't get started on it again.)
There wasn't and isn't any significant difference. Perhaps to Americans who have a skewed view of politics, there is a difference, but tot he rest of the world, there is no difference between the parties. If Kerry had been elected, people would still be dying in Iraq.
> In a sense, it's true that the U.S. has a "one party system," in that
> the differences between the DP and the GOP are not sufficiently great.
LOL! You think? The capitalists see no difference. They give money to both parties.
> To say that the U.S. runs the rest of the world is, fortunately, a great
> exaggeration. Not even this country has that much power. (World
> capitalism, of course, does govern much of the world.)
That's a good point. The Iraq quagmire demonstrates that the U.S. isn't much of a superpower. And now it has submarines running into unknown mountains. After 9/11 and this Iraq mess, I have little respect for the so-called American "power."
> There's your false dichotomy, Chuck. By "revolution," of course, you
> mean the establishment of anarchism. I would love it if that eventually
> happened; anarchism is a wonderful theory. Perhaps in a couple of
> centuries, the world may become anarchist. But what are we supposed to
> do in the meantime? In the meantime, we're stuck with the political
> system we have, and that system is capable of doing a great deal of harm
> if it is not continually resisted and pushed back within even moderately
> humane limits.
I'm not much into theory. I'm a pragmatic guy. I like anarchism because it works. I'm also into instant gratification--I don't have centuries to wait for anarchism to happen. I want it now and I expect to get it soon. Call me arrogant if you want to, but I see anarchism happening on a wide scale around the world pretty soon.
It also helps that I'm an atheist when it becomes to belief in Calvinist historical determinism. I know that this list is filled with leftists who can spend all day explaining why the historical conditions aren't right for this or that thing to happen. The historical conditions weren't right for Seattle to happen, yet it did happen!
> Going into the streets is one part of that resistance; civil
> disobedience, tax refusal, perhaps even burning oneself to death Norman
> Morrison style are ways of demonstrating commitment to a humane world.
> But so are working for left candidates, mounting campaigns against bad
> laws, lawyers defending clients in court, writers writing books and
> articles, artists creating works of art, etc., etc., etc.
Burning yourself to death would be a royal bummer. However, there is no excuse for the progressive left not to be out on the streets right now calling for the resignation of George Bush.
> It's not the policeman/woman in my head that's the problem. I'm only one
> of more than 200,000,000 people; it's the police in all of our heads
> that's the problem.
Right on.
> Hey! What is more of a "proven failure" than anarchism? Why hasn't
> anarchist agitation turned the U.S. into an anarchist paradise yet? All
> methods are failures until they succeed, and how long will it take for
> them to succeed? At least try to make your arguments fair, Chuck. Apply
> them to criticize your own ideas as well as those of others.
Bogus argument.
> And anarchism won't happen in 2008, either. "Building Jerusalem in
> [America's] green and pleasant land" will take more than 4 years, any
> way you try it.
How do you know? What we do know is that the progressive left has wasted decades of time and energy supporting a party that hasn't lived up to that support. Organized labor has squandered decades of struggle by workers on the likes of Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, and Al Gore.
Do you really think the world would be a better place with a President Mondale? That's your vision of a better society?
Chuck