On Aug 11, 2011, at 3:22 PM, Bryan Atinsky wrote:
> On the level of local and state legislators, I just don't get this
> reasoning....in a case when there wasn't a radical candidate that
> would go as far as you would like to choose from and the Dem was
> within the range of someone who while you might want them to go
> further, aren't antithetical to your positions on matters that will
> most definitely and practically impact education, healthcare,
> workers' rights, etc.
>
But Wojtek is right at least in this: that the American political
duopoly is structured to preclude any progressive populist
alternative. It makes American so-called "democracy" a farce, a
fraud. But the duopoly cannot be broken unless that part of it whose
function is to contain, disorient, and neuter any movement toward a
possible peoples' alternative is put out of commission. The starting
point,as I have consistently maintained, is to organize an independent
peoples' campaign against Obama, against the Dumbocrats.
Lesserevilism, on any level, subverts that necessity. There is not,
never will be, an election in which one of the duopolists (almost
always the Dumbo) will not appear to be, at least on some "issue," the
lesser evil. As Wisconsin proves, it's a blind alley leading only to
CPUSA-style Obamism for the left and disaster for the people.
>>
>>> Carrol: "Three cheers for Greens who stick to their principles! "
>>> [WS:] Is that your recipe for progressive organizing? Do nothing
>>> and
>>> hide behind principles?
>> *not* voting for the Obamist can be a positive political act, and
>> in any case is the precondition for any possible populist politics.
>>
>> Shane Mage
>>
>> "scientific discovery is basically recognition of obvious realities
>> that self-interest or ideology have kept everybody from paying
>> attention to"