: : Having taken a refreshing few days off to paint my dining room (petit bourgeoisie that I am...: Bourgeois---and petit bourgeois---refer to modes of production, NOT modes of consumption.
Hey, I'm not the one who first called me a petit bourgeois, you godless commie -- you are. Anyway, I was being facetious. However, I am lower middle class, so the definition fits (by the way, class terms are relative; in Podunk, Iowa I'd easily be upper middle class; here in the suburbs of D.C., I was surprised to learn that the house my wife and I just managed to buy is considered "modest" by the hot-shot lawyers of the local planning board).
: : To which I respond, there won't be any damned revolution, and from the rhetoric that flies around here concerning it, that's a good thing. Firing squads lining up the cancerous old guard...
: Firing squads? The most 'authoritarian' thing I've EVER suggested was that those who refuse to work in the socialist future will go hungry (just like those who refuse to work do today in bourgeois culture). A rather significant distinction, don't you agree?
I confess, this potshot was aimed at you, and also exxagerated for effect. However, you have thrown around terms like "cancer" to describe the bougies & cappies, and you have engaged in inflammatory rhetoric about the death penalty and "fighting," but...I concede, you're no Pol Pot. :)
: : I'm voting in November: first, because there are millions around the world who are dying for the opportunity to vote...
: They only think that voting makes a difference (and, compared to semi-feudal conditions, it does---a bit).
That is true at the highest levels, though the bit of difference it makes is crucial, I believe. However, the lower down the political ladder you go, the more voting matters, so that finally at the state and county, you can vote in real progressives (even commies, depending where you live) who will fight hard for the poor, workers, the environment, etc.
: :... second, because not voting is a cop-out...
: I disagree. Refusing to play the rigged lottery is a statement of REJECTING it. All social change BEGINS with a rejection of present social relations.
That's certainly an honorable position to take, but in my case, since I think the Dems are still marginally better than the Republicans on the Presidential level, less so on the Senatorial level, but certainly on the Representative and State & County level, and since I can cast a vote which might make the difference - in that regard, I don't find it rigged.
: : Having a Green like Nader in the White House will be far better for the future of this planet than an environmental enemy like Bush, or even a wishy-washing green like Gore or Bradley...
: But Nader will NOT win because big business controls the 'democratic' election. Were you not paying attention to the less-than-extensive media coverage Nader received in 1996? Why be a dupe again?
I know Big Biz controls a lot, and I know that the televised campaigns, for instance, are controlled by a committee comprised of the two parties (hence, third party candidates can be shut out), but there is still room to fight them, and casting a vote for Nader is at least more effective, if not moreso, as a showing of public dismay with the system, than not voting.
: : 3. All or nothing, now!
: : That's the bullshit strategy of frigid ideologues. Small steps forward can mean big things for those at the bottom...
: Tell that to African-Americans who earn one-third less than whites do (after having the 'vote' for over 100 years).
I don't consider African-Americans to have had equality under the law before 1968. Yes, they still earn less, but if you were making minimum wage (or maybe you are, I don't know what you do for a living), a modest increase will still help you, even though what you and others like me want is a MAJOR improvement in all areas; I'll keep fighting for major improvements, but I won't reject small ones because they aren't all that I want.
: After almost every last reform of the 20th century (trust-busting, New Deal, Great Society, etc., etc.) has been tried and then rolled back, you STILL believe reforms can have a lasting impact?
Yes. The 40 hour workweek and overtime is definitely better than what came before, for example, and every slight improvement helps those at the bottom. BUT I AGREE WITH YOU that lasting change requires a major overhaul of the system; in the meantime, dammit, fight for any improvement and hang on to it.
: : No one who tortures and murders others is worthy of your support.
: Care to state exactly what that's supposed to mean?
Believe it or not, my message was not aimed solely at you, Barry. This last one was primarily for Frenchy (he cites CANF as a source, fer godsakes) and his support for America's friendly dictators.
