> In 1873, a wise Karl Marx wrote a parody -- a reductio ad absurdum --
> of the anarchist arguments and added (my emphasis):
>
> "It cannot be denied that if the apostles of political indifferentism
> were to express themselves with such clarity, the working class would
> make short shrift of them and would resent being insulted by these
> doctrinaire bourgeois and displaced gentlemen, who are so stupid or so
> naive as to attempt to deny to the working class *any real means* of
> struggle. ***For all arms with which to fight must be drawn from
> society as it is*** and the fatal conditions of this struggle have the
> misfortune of not being easily adapted to the idealistic fantasies
> which these doctors in social science have exalted as divinities,
> under the names of Freedom, Autonomy, Anarchy."
But the question Doug raises is this: is political support for Obama a "real means of struggle" for the working class? I remember similar arguments about Clinton back in 92, and what did we get? --Welfare "reform" and trade policies that systematically eliminated working class jobs. I hear max saying "give Obama a chance", but c'mon: how many times do we have to get fucked over before we wise up?
As I read the Marx quote again, it occurs to me that Julio's interpretation should be inverted. Given the historical context, the assumption that an Obama presidency would systematically support the interests of the working class is at best an "idealistic fantasy". Thus it is the uncritical Obama enthusiasts--not the Obama "skeptics"--who are analogous to the anarchists Marx ridicules.
Miles