so the solution is white supremacy...again. it always comes back to that doesnt it...
so the solution is to revive the dodge revolutionary union movement
Pure economic illiteracy. Please become better informed on wealth and the creation thereof before posting stupid shit like this. It's immature and uninformed thinking and is worthy of adolescent pipedreams about how easy X would be if only everyone did Y.
Here is a good place to start on becoming competent in wealth and where it comes from. Google for summaries and related texts if you dont want to undertake reading the whole thing.
i dunno what the solution is really to be honest. it's all about what trade-offs you are willing to make and what your assumptions are about how people would act in different situations.
like the communist party USA actually agrees with that basic story about labour merging with the democrats, but what they take that to mean is that the democrats should be critically supported as the labour party, which has their leader going around praising obama all the time. but even something silly like that has its logic, really, because if the democrats really are the only game in town then lesser-evilism has its possible minimal benefits.
there is a group called worker's international league or something in the US that holds the same story too but puts their emphasis on trying to convince union leaders to start a labour party. they are like well first we need a labour party and then we can complain about it being too reformist. but that sort of logic gets you working for tony blair really so who knows.
other trot groups put more emphasis on just any third party. like members of Solidarity will often join the green party and push their agenda as socialists in there, despite the greens being a liberal non-class-based party.
i don't think much of the other neo-stalinist parties because they seem pretty wacky and i don't see how they can win on their own and are largely irrelevant.
like the communist party USA actually agrees with that basic story about labour merging with the democrats, but what they take that to mean is that the democrats should be critically supported as the labour party, which has their leader going around praising obama all the time. but even something silly like that has its logic, really, because if the democrats really are the only game in town then lesser-evilism has its possible minimal benefits.
there is a group called worker's international league or something in the US that holds the same story too but puts their emphasis on trying to convince union leaders to start a labour party. they are like well first we need a labour party and then we can complain about it being too reformist. but that sort of logic gets you working for tony blair really so who knows.
other trot groups put more emphasis on just any third party. like members of Solidarity will often join the green party and push their agenda as socialists in there, despite the greens being a liberal non-class-based party.
i don't think much of the other neo-stalinist parties because they seem pretty wacky and i don't see how they can win on their own and are largely irrelevant.
clearly the solution does not lie within the political-party system then i guess? abandon le politique, embrace la politique. or is it the other way round i forget
[account deactivated]
wqhy would you ask yourself a question if only you can know the answer. looks like we got a wild one here folks. ifap this lunatic before he goes all frothy at the mouth
tpaine posted:
no. that was not an ironic empyquote
All my self-righteousness wasted.
[account deactivated]
remind them what a thriving success the 'too big to fail' approach has been in kick-starting reform and self-regulation in the financial sector, then point out that the democrats have been routinely receiving what amount to electoral bailouts for the last ten years (leave it there unless you really want to raise some heckles)
i will simply explain that newt is the superior candidate