Perdebatan utama ayeuna ngamuk dina cara anu tiasa ngarugikeun prospek progresif. Unggal sisi atribut kana posisi sisi séjén maranéhna teu tahan. Masing-masing sisi nyerang anu dianggap pandangan sareng nganggap motif. Urang tiasa langkung saé.
Posisi anu bersaing nyaéta:
Posisi 1: Milih Clinton salaku Greater Good
Posisi 2: Milih Clinton salaku Lesser Jahat
Posisi 3: Milih Héjo atawa Ulah Milih
Posisi 4: Milih Hasil Gemblengna Anu Bisa Dihontal Pangsaéna
Nalika anu ngabantah silih serang sacara kasar, anéh, sareng dismissively, nyageurkeun perpecahan anu salajengna janten sesah sareng urang kaleungitan solidaritas anu langkung ageung bakal ngagampangkeun. Naha urang tiasa langkung saé?
- Progressives anu nyebutkeun milih Clinton salaku leuwih alus pikir Clinton salaku Présidén mangrupa kasuksésan pangalusna attainable. Pikeun henteu agrésif ngadukung Clinton, aranjeunna rumasa, bakal ngaleungitkeun alesan anu sober pikeun penampilan progresif.
- Progressives anu nyebutkeun milih Clinton salaku jahat Lesser nyangka Clinton salaku Presiden mangrupa hasil attainable sahenteuna goréng. Pikeun henteu milih Clinton, aranjeunna ogé ngarasa, bakal ngaleungitkeun alesan anu réalistis pikeun penampilan radikal.
- Progressives anu nyebutkeun milih Héjo atawa teu milih pisan nganggap Greens meunang sora saloba mungkin, atawa pihak utama meunang sora saeutik-gancang, nyaéta kasuksésan pangalusna kahontal. Pikeun balk, aranjeunna ngarasa, bakal kurban kasuksésan pikeun conformity.
- Progressives anu nyebutkeun sora kontekstual teu acuh. Kami henteu narékahan pikeun ngadukung Clinton tanpa muncul liberal, atanapi milarian ngadukung Greens tanpa katingalina henteu relevan, atanapi henteu milarian henteu milih tapi sigana tanggung jawab. Urang ngan pikir urang bisa boga jajan urang jeung dahar eta oge. Urang béda ti posisi hiji, dua, jeung tilu utamana ngeunaan naon kasuksésan conceivable pangalusna urang bisa boga.
Sorangan, kuring milih posisi opat, milih sacara kontekstual. Tapi upami kuring nyebatkeun jalma anu milih posisi hiji atanapi dua hoyong nanaon saluareun Clinton, upami kuring nyarios Clinton parah pisan teu aya anu langkung parah sareng jalma anu teu tiasa ningali anu aya dina bohongna, upami kuring nyarios saha waé anu milih Clinton nyaéta shill pikeun Partéy Démokratik sareng nolak yén éta mangrupikeun kendaraan perusahaan anu teu adil, upami kuring nyarios saha waé anu ngabahayakeun Trump ku henteu milih Clinton di nagara-nagara anu dilombakeun henteu paduli ka jalma anu bakal ngalaman karusakan Trump, maka kuring salah.
Naon anu kuring kedah nyarios, antosan sakedap. Clinton meunang leuwih hadé ti Trump unggul. Tapi Clinton di kantor teu auger masa depan hadé, ngan leuwih sarua. gains positif merlukeun oposisi kuat, informed, masif, sarta militan. Upami urang ngéléhkeun Trump ku cara anu ngirangan oposisi aktivis ka kirang ti anu urang tiasa dicapai, urang moal tiasa ngahontal kasuksésan anu paling hébat anu tiasa urang gaduh. Tambih Deui, euweuh ngeunaan wanting Clinton ngéléhkeun Trump, komo nanaon ngeunaan liking sababaraha aspék atawa lianna ngeunaan Clinton, precludes pamahaman bebeneran basajan nu saha who wants gains nyata pikeun goréng jeung tertindas kudu sadar urang kudu leuwih ti hiji tally sora unggul.
Nya kitu, lamun kuring nyebutkeun jalma dina posisi tilu anu posturing, holier ti thou, delusional ngeunaan prospek maranéhanana, denying tanggung jawab maranéhanana, atawa welcoming musibah, teras kuring salah. Anu kuring kedah nyarioskeun nyaéta, enya, turnout ageung pikeun Greens (sareng panginten sora abstention, ogé) tiasa ngabantosan inspirasi sareng malah ngembangkeun oposisi anu teratur sareng tetep. Tapi, pikeun ngumpulkeun undian Héjo atawa abstentions sarta meunang Trump bakal ngabatalkeun sagala kauntungan tina tally dissident handapeun gunung debits alatan Trump wielding kakuatan kaayaan. Upami kami ngagaduhan seueur undian Héjo sareng seueur pantang, tapi kami nampi Trump di Kantor Oval, kami henteu acan ngahontal hasil anu pangsaéna. Leuwih ti éta, euweuh ngeunaan wanting pikeun ngamekarkeun kuat, diatur, sustained, oposisi kénca téh inconsistent jeung wanting Clinton meunang pemilu sorangan. Kanyataanna, wanting Trump leungit téh salah sahiji aspék wanting paling kuat ditinggalkeun sanggeus pemilu.
Abdi teu tahan Clinton. Abdi henteu tahan Partéy Démokratik. Tapi kuring nampik aranjeunna pikeun unggal waktos salami satengah abad teu aya anu ngahalangan kuring terang yén ngéléhkeun Trump penting pisan pikeun ngahindarkeun bencana ogé pikeun gaduh anu paling positip sareng maju ka kénca muncul.
Abdi hoyong Clinton ngéléhkeun Trump tapi kuring nolak ngadukung Clinton ku nyarios yén anjeunna atanapi Partéy Démokratik mangrupikeun jalan nuju masa depan anu langkung saé. Kuring nolak nyebutkeun urang kudu milih jahat Lesser, Clinton, madhab. Clinton jeung Partéy Démokratik téh jahat, sanajan dina hal ieu evils kirang. Urang kedah ngabantosan Trump kaleungitan bari ngabantosan oposisi tumbuh.
Abdi hoyong Greens ngalakukeun anu saé pisan sareng ngabantosan ngawangun oposisi anu langgeng, tumuwuh kalayan tujuan anu jelas, pantes, sareng mereun. Abdi hoyong Sanders sareng sadaya progresif pikeun ilubiung dina nyiptakeun oposisi anu masif, militan, tabah, sareng berorientasi positip kana administrasi Clinton. Tapi kuring ogé hoyong Trump leungit.
Ka dulur kalibet dina debat ayeuna Abdi pangjurung yén urang sadayana ngeureunkeun posing pilihan salaku boh / atawa. Henteu unggal nagara sami. Éta palsu yén unggal progresif kedah milih Clinton atanapi Green atanapi abstain pikeun ngahasilkeun hasil anu pangsaéna. Ieu mungkin, desirable, komo penting pikeun progressives salaku sakabeh grup pikeun sakaligus dianggo pikeun mastikeun yén Trump leungiteun sarta kénca tumuwuh. Tapi pikeun éta, jalma anu béda-béda kedah ngalaksanakeun tugas anu béda-béda pikeun sapuluh menit anu urang milih, gumantung kana dimana urang aya.
Urang tiasa ngéléhkeun Trump sareng ngawangun gerakan upami progresif di nagara-nagara dimana Trump tiasa menang bakal milih Clinton, ngajantenkeun jelas pisan yén aranjeunna bakal ngalawan anjeunna tanpa lirén nalika Trump kaluar tina panggung. Tur upami progressives di nagara bagian mana boh Trump atawa Clinton sagemblengna assured meunang, urang milih salaku urang milih, naha keur Greens atawa henteu pisan, jeung sora urang bakal mantuan ngawangun oposisi langgeng.
Anggap éta Oktober hareup. Hayu urang nyebutkeun kampanye Trump urang téh shambles. Urang terang anjeunna bakal meunang ampir euweuh nagara, atawa jadi saeutik yén anjeunna bakal meunang tuntas keok dina sakabéh pamilihan. Dina kaayaan éta, teu aya progresif anu gaduh alesan anu penting pikeun milih Clinton di mana waé, sareng sengketa bakal ngaleungit. Sanaos kitu, upami urang parantos nyerang motif masing-masing salami mangbulan-bulan, parasaan goréng éta moal gancang leungit.
Atawa anggap éta Oktober hareup. Hayu urang nyebutkeun aya sapuluh nagara bagian dilombakeun tur pivotal. Saha anu meunang lolobana sapuluh éta bakal meunang pemilu. Nagara-nagara sanés henteu ragu. Janten di unggal nagara anu henteu ditandingkeun, progresif milih Héjo atanapi henteu milih. Dina sapuluh nagara bagian anu dilombakeun, progresif milih ngalawan Trump. Aranjeunna malah tiasa ngayakeun unjuk rasa masal dina wengi pamilihan kalayan téma anu urang benci Hillary sareng Partai Démokratik, tapi urang benci Donald langkung seueur - chock pinuh ku tanda pikeun Greens, sareng kalayan panyatur Partai Héjo dina panangan, sareng, hiji harepan, sareng Sanders aya. teuing, nyokot jurus sarua. Malah langkung saé upami tanda sareng panyatur eksplisit ngeunaan program anu progresif bakal ngudag ngalawan Clinton di kantor.
Janten urang sumping ka Sanders. Sajauh ieu, dina konteks kacau anjeunna geus navigated, anjeunna geus rada deukeut posisi opat. Anjeunna tos sababaraha kali nyarios yén urang kedah ngéléhkeun Trump. Anjeunna henteu nyarios nanaon positip ngeunaan Clinton. Anjeunna parantos nyarios yén sistem dua partai sareng Demokrat peryogi révolusi pulitik. Anjeunna parantos ngadamel program anu positif sareng, anu paling penting, anjeunna parantos nyarios yén anu paling penting nyaéta ngatur sareng berjuang pikeun program positip di akar rumput.
Sanders panginten henteu tetep dina jalanna ayeuna, tapi dugi ka ayeuna anjeunna napigasi tanpa ngahinakeun atanapi nyalahkeun pandangan atanapi motif batur. Sesa urang bakal ngalakukeun ogé mun emulate éta.
Perdebatan anu berpotensi ngabantosan ngeunaan sagala hal ieu bakal ngabahayakeun upami pamilon rutin nyauran pamilon sanés pikeun Clinton, teu peka kana kateuadilan, nolak kanyataan, sareng anu langkung parah. Omongan sampah sapertos kitu henteu aya gunana sareng beracun. Hayu urang nyingkahan. Hayu urang teu ngahijikeun Demokrat. Hayu urang ngahijikeun kénca nyata.
ZNetwork dibiayaan ngan ukur ku kabébasan pamiarsana.
nulungan
19 koméntar
Hiji hal anu leungit dina sakabéh diskusi ieu téh stances sahiji calon dina perang jeung perdamaian, sarta belligerence ka Rusia jeung Cina. Jeung imperialisme leuwih umum. Hillery mangrupikeun hawk, pembela Israél dugi ka hilt, pikeun militerisme. Naha Trump langkung saé. éta téh kanyahoan badag, tapi mangrupa kanyahoan, tur aya sababaraha bukti yen anjeunna kirang belligerent. Kacilakaan tiasa ngakibatkeun bencana nuklir. Isu-isu kawijakan luar nagri ieu pangpangna dina pikiran kuring. Jutaan geus tiwas atawa lunta kalawan Obama, panerusna Bush di jawab. Éta héran keur kuring yén masalah ieu geus fined dina sawala ieu. Sedengkeun pikeun kuring, kuring bakal milih nurani kuring, anu henteu tiasa ngijinkeun milih Clinton. Kuring bakal milih Héjo / Stein.
Kuring panasaran naon hartina voting nurani anjeun pikeun anjeun. Ogé, anu anjeun pikir moal milih nurani maranéhanana?
Pikeun Trump langkung parah tibatan Clinton, atanapi henteu - aya bahan sadayana, ayeuna, saur kuring. Mémang, éta mangrupikeun salah sahiji masalah. Nyaéta, fokus kénca pindah ti nyobian ngamekarkeun program positif jeung ngudag eta, versus méakkeun sakabéh énergi na nyobian Ward kaluar horor - Trump atanapi Clinton.
Pikeun sapuluh inutes dina bilik voting, dina kaayaan ayun, abdi nyarankeun voting Clinton - lajeng nentang administrasi nya, tangtosna. Bayangkeun péngkolan dina fokus sareng arah anu populér upami Trump meunang… anu tiasa janten pilihan pikeun anjeun.
I’ve only caught up with this dialogue after Bernie’s (in)famous endorsement of Clinton. While that action is disheartening and has obviously been the catalyst for a new round of denunciations of various kinds, I’d like to say here that I am in agreement with Michael’s proposal here –namely that it would be helpful if the left could unite around a strategy of voting Green (or not voting) in all states that are not critical and up-for-grabs, while putting one’s energy and resources into organizing the mass movement that keeps bubbling to the surface in different ways but is still extremely fragmented. Quite clearly, anyone on the left voting for Clinton would do so only on the lesser-of-two-evils grounds or on the grounds that a Clinton administration would produce some goods (along with the bad) that a Trump administration would not produce.
I share the view that Trump would be a disaster –mainly because (a) I don’t for a second think there’s any real chance he would act to undermine the TPP, NAFTA, or the TTIP being negotiated now with the EU (that is, I don’t take anything “progressive” he says as likely to prove better than anything “progressive” Clinton says), and b) because he will reinforce the ideological divisions that have made it extremely difficult for the left to make headway reaching across to (many) angry white workers, small-town or small-business folks, retirees, etc. who have bought into the “Big Government”/fear-the-Other diatribes of the Right. Getting worse, in this sense, does not, in my view, make it easier for the left to make its case (or unite).
But I would also add that I think there is a real possibility that this election could inflict significant damage on both parties –that Trump’s base may well prove narrowed to those who continue to buy into his bombast (mainly the Right), and Clinton’s base (minus some misguided liberal feminists and people of color) would be narrowed to the corporate center. This would leave a lot of voters potentially migrating to the other two options: Libertarians and Greens –which, in turn, might create room for the left to make its case with greater effect, even producing a possible ideological realignment of the electorate.
Kuring bakal nyandak halaman tina buku playbook Michael sareng kutipan Dylan: "Aya anu aya di dieu tapi anjeun henteu terang naon éta ..." Dina dua sisi Atlantik, boh Kénca sareng Katuhu, penilaian ulang frantic nyaéta pesenan. poé. Naha éta "defisit démokrasi" Chomskian atanapi kasus "idin anu diproduksi"? Naha pubic xenophobic atanapi ngan ukur hutang 99%? Milih Héjo atawa mabok?
John Vincent points to Michael’s ” nuance ” above but the quick resort to Hitler seems anything but. How about Our Dear Chairman Mao? “Everything under heaven is chaos- the situation is excellent”. Perhaps had we “heightened the contradiction” when Humphrey, Clinton, Gore, Obama ran, we wouldn’t be in this place today (ht to Dave Mason). All we really know is it has been a long period of defeat. Michael believes this conditional Hillary vote is a way “to fight Trump and build the left” but every four years we hear this exact same rational, pragmatic formula- support the candidate then work against them- yet it never really works out that way. Hillary’s betrayals will demoralize and turn cynical yet another generation.
Sababaraha di dieu terang yén fokus kuring nyaéta iklim, sigana anu paling mendesak, patarosan eksistensial anu disanghareupan ku Kénca, ku kituna hayu urang tingali masalah Voting ieu ngalangkungan lensa karbon atmosfir, atanapi langkung komprehensif, "metabolic rift" (sakumaha babaturan ékososialis urang ngajelaskeun éta. ). Calon mana anu bakal nempatkeun langkung seueur gas rumah kaca di langit? Clinton bakal ngamajukeun GDP Amérika dina sagala biaya sareng nenangkeun progresif kalayan janji Kapitalisme Héjo sareng Pasar Karbon. Anjeunna bakal ngalakukeun ieu sareng kasapukan para elit kalayan ngorbankeun nyawa, hak asasi manusa sareng kaadilan sosial.
Trump, di sisi anu sanésna, BISA ngirangan polusi sareng GDP ngaliwatan oposisina kana deal dagang, pendekatan buffoonish na kana globalisasi sareng kaleungitan perang mata uang sareng China. Dina basa sejen, persis de-pertumbuhan nu Bernie pernah bisa wani nyebut.
“Could” …if he could continue to defy elite consensus with actual policy by maintaining his nativist, nationalist movement, that is ( a la Brexit) . Would this humiliation of the Democrats and self-immolation of the Republicans be an opening for the Left-left? Could we drive the stake through the heart of libertarianism, conservatism AND American liberalism? Not tomorrow or even next week- but we have to start sometime.
"Bisa" ... lamun manehna bisa neruskeun defy konsensus elit jeung kawijakan sabenerna ku ngajaga nativist, gerakan nasionalis na, nyaeta ( a la Brexit) "
Hehehehe, éta patarosan ... "bisa" anjeunna? Kuring nganggap Big Daddy White Geezer Hegemonic Power Grid langkung pinter tibatan éta. Jalan jalan ka neoliberalisme mimiti pas WW2 bari sadayana bohong deui basking dina jaman emas program ékonomi pasca perang. Trump teu narik euweuh string.
I hear ya Dave. An opening for the Left-left? the problem is by the time the Left-left gets through bickering and pulling each other’s hair, someone would have felt a draft and closed that friggin’ door.
David, it is disingenuous to attribute a reference to Hitler to someone that made no such reference. A search reveals that the only reference to Hitler was yours alone. Presumably this is done for dramatic effect to avoid the true meaning of what others are saying and leads nowhere.
Michael:
Urang sadayana ngadamel kasus di dieu sareng hese henteu ngulang deui posisi urang. Kuring bakal nyobian netelakeun tanpa ngulang deui, tapi kuring henteu ageung dina "debat". Sabalikna, urang nempatkeun posisi urang di dinya sareng jalma bakal mutuskeun naon anu bakal aranjeunna. Ngarobah pikiran sareng paripolah, IMO, mangrupikeun fungsi pikeun ngarobih kaayaan. Hiji fungsi ngawangun sarta exercising kakuatan.
1) Sora pikeun Clinton (atanapi Trump) mangrupikeun sora pikeun neraskeun Duopoly sareng status quo nalika aya kasempetan sajarah pikeun nyababkeun karusakan parah.
2) Nalika unggal pamilihan présidén anu sanés dina émutan urang (urang kira-kira umurna sami) pasti janten extravaganza, hiji IMO ieu sacara kualitatif béda kusabab Momen Sanders, anu pinuh ku kontradiksi sapertos kitu.
3) The Sanders Moment, nuturkeun Occupy, Black Lives Matter, kameunangan SA di Seattle, Battle of Seattle, jsb. lain, upami henteu naon anu janten Kénca AS ti taun 60an.
4) Bari sagala sora, atawa ampir sagala aksi hirup mangrupakeun "Lesser jahat" pangalaman, sababaraha Lesser evils positif sarta sababaraha henteu. Sababaraha ngan indit. Dina kasus sora Clinton dina konteks Sanders Momen, masalah saha anu bakal jadi presiden teu sakumaha pentingna naon potentials wangunan gerakan bakal mangtaun, ruksak atawa leungit.
5) Kuring ngabantah yén seueur jalma anyar anu dipolitikkeun ku sadayana ieu sareng upami aranjeunna dipisahkeun tina pamimpin sareng aktivis kénca jangka panjang sabab henteu tiasa ningali evilisme anu langkung handap salaku positip, éta négatip ageung. Pikeun kuring, éta horor.
6) Bari bukti on Clinton jelas tur konsisten, bukti on Trump henteu. Pangalusna nebak, urang mungkas nepi ka geng biasa Birokrat Duopoly ngajalankeun acara pikeun billionaires boh cara.
Janten réspon ahir kuring, dina hal pamilihan ieu, nyaéta ku milih Héjo - atanapi ngantunkeun dimana aya kasempetan - nyaéta anu kedah urang laksanakeun sabab éta masihan platform jalma-jalma anu langkung énggal pikeun nyambung sareng ngatur sacara pamilihan dina seueur tingkatan sapertos anu urang henteu acan. katingal dina sababaraha waktos. Ngatur jeung milih hiji hal sarta menyakiti Duopoly. A twofer.
Ogé, upami Greens nampi 10%, éta nyayogikeun platform anti Duopoli anu sanés pikeun jalma anu ningali dirina salaku "sosialis demokratis" sareng "progresif" ka hareup.
Nalika kuring sadar pinuh yén arena pamilihan henteu janten ajang utama pikeun ngatur, dina pamilihan ieu mangrupikeun kasus khusus, sareng upami Kénca tradisional teu malire éta, seueur pangorbanan anu aranjeunna dilakukeun dina gelap pikeun ngajaga Kénca. hirup di AS bakal leungit. Éta saleresna mangrupikeun hal anu goréng.
Atoh, kuring ngulang; supados henteu miceunan waktos anjeun, sanés kuring anu anjeun pikahariwangeun (kuring sok jalan sorangan waé); , tapi seueur pisan jalma ngora anu aya di jalan-jalan salami sababaraha dekade katukang sareng leres-leres kalibet dina Sanders Moment. Abdi ngarepkeun Z neraskeun padamelan anu luar biasa salami sababaraha dekade sareng mendakan jalan pikeun aranjeunna. Kusabab urang duanana leres-leres satuju yén Urang Peryogikeun Kénca Serikat upami urang kantos gaduh kakuatan anu cukup pikeun ngalakukeun naon waé anu pantes.
Abdi badé cicing sakedap.
Tom
Michael:
What I have read on ‘Z’ does not include an analysis supporting the position that a Clinton presidency would be better than a Trump presidency. If that analysis is available, please point me to it. I think much of the resistance that you and Noam receive regarding your ‘vote for Clinton’ admonishments is due to uncertainty over the question of whether or not Hillary would really be better than Trump.
For example: Trump has been a xenophobic noise box regarding immigration, BUT no administration has actually deported more people than the Obama administration.
The Clinton and Obama administrations have supported trade deals that have eliminated jobs (NAFTA, TPP et al) in favor of the needs of the ‘billionaires.’ I know… Hillary has disavowed TPP… and I have a bridge to Brooklyn on which I can make you such a great deal.
Administrasi Clinton scapegoated nu miskin, ngaleungitkeun AFDC dina kahadean TANF.
Nalika Bush ninggalkeun kantor, urang ngalaman dua perang, urang ayeuna gaduh lima ... na ISIL.
The gap between rich and poor has increased. Banks are more powerful than they have ever been. Hillary is reportedly the best friend Goldman Sachs has ever had.
The Demokrat téh sakumaha devious sakumaha Republicans anu disorganized.
Jeung saterusna.
Please know that your thoughts regarding matters surrounding and beyond this election are clear and well received. But, in my view, your ideas are not really linked to the brand of pirate inhabiting the White House.
I don’t live in Massachusetts; I live in Colorado, a swing state. And my ‘vote for Hillary,’ which is compulsory by your reasoning, would be much easier if I actually thought that she was a better alternative to the Donald.
Trump is noisy and full of himself. He lacks political polish and he wears his heart on his sleeve. His “policies” are emotional outbursts, yet I believe that he says what he thinks, or, more often, feels. Hillary is a practiced politician with a record that runs from mediocre to destructive. She is duplicitous. And she has been bought.
Again, please point me to an analysis. Thank you.
Punten entong lepat ieu, tapi kuring henteu kantos nyangka yén jalma anu kawilang terang, langkung seueur terang pisan, moal sadar, kalayan sakedik tawaran yén henteu ngan Clinton kirang goréng, tapi Trump bakal janten musibah anu ageung, sanés. sahenteuna pikeun pangatur kénca - ngalakukeun nanaon tapi coba tahan katuhu, sakumaha dibandingkeun meunang hal positif. Tapi, kuring nguping naon anu anjeun carioskeun sareng bakal ningali upami kuring tiasa naroskeun potongan sapertos kitu ti batur…
Masarakat AS kedah ngahiji ngalawan Pusat - sapertos anu dilakukeun ku masarakat Inggris. Hillary mangrupikeun Pusat ekstrim. Hiji-hijina jalan pikeun ngarobih sistem nyaéta nyandak kejutan. Hal anu terakhir anu diarepkeun atanapi hoyong 1% nyaéta kapersidenan Trump. Reuwas aranjeunna. Beuki 'teu bisa dipilih' Trump sabenerna, beuki bakal destabilize sistem lamun anjeunna sabenerna meunang.
Naon anu dilakukeun ku masarakat Inggris, sakapeung kusabab kasieun, sakapeung nyobian ngirim pesen tanpa anggapan yén éta leres-leres bakal meunang, sakapeung kaluar tina amarah anu dipikabutuh pikeun para elit sanés ngan ukur amarah anu salah ka para imigran - nyaéta pikeun ngaluarkeun prosés anu sacara harfiah henteu ngan ukur. empower preman sayap katuhu dina momen, tapi sacara harfiah entrench aranjeunna dina kantor di loba tempat, kaasup Perancis… Nyauran ieu kameunangan, atawa model pikeun emulate, sumur, hapunten ngomong, kasalahan grievous.
Logika anjeun, kumaha ogé, sanés hal anu énggal dina sajarah - éta cukup nyebar di kalangan kénca di Jerman…saméméh kameunangan Nazi. Lajeng, puluhan juta nyawa leungit, sarta dina tungtungna, teu sababaraha hambalan raksasa maju, tapi gantina mulang deui ka tempat dimimitian, sarta arguably loba goréng. Henteu ngan ukur ideu yén hiji kedah ngajak bencana pikeun ngagaleuhkeun résistansi sacara objektif pikeun jalma anu paling sangsara, éta ogé ngorbankeun résistansi anu positif kana kaayaan pertahanan, upami henteu pembantaian. Upami Trump meunang, résistansi anu ageung anu kami ngarepkeun bakal timbul nyaéta ngeunaan uih deui kana status quo Ante, sanés ngeunaan meunang masarakat anyar…
Kuring satuju pisan yén anu tinggaleun di Kénca AS (anu sesah dihartikeun) nyanghareupan perpecahan anu langkung jero dina pamilihan ieu.
Pikeun kuring, ieu mangrupikeun inti masalah:
"... teu aya anu hoyong ngembangkeun oposisi anu kuat, terorganisir, sustained, kenca teu konsisten sareng hoyong Clinton meunang pamilihan sorangan. Nyatana, hoyong Trump éléh mangrupikeun salah sahiji aspék hoyong anu paling kuat ditinggalkeun saatos pamilihan.
The Duopoly, utamana Dems, geus konsistén ngabuktikeun yén maranéhna mibanda kamampuhan pikeun co-milih populis, leftists, pihak kénca jeung gerakan kénca. Ieu, kanyataanna, peran utama maranéhanana domestik.
Why are we so afraid to break this sickening nightmare with yet another “lesser-evil” strategy when millions of people in the U.S., especially young people, have declared quite loudly and publicly that they are ready to consider the relevancy of a Real Left in the U.S.?
Upami urang nampik moméntum tina moment Sanders ku sakali deui recertifying Duopoly salaku hijina kaulinan relevan di kota lajeng urang bakal geus lasut kasempetan sabenerna sajarah pikeun greatly ngaleuleuskeun duanana jangjang tina Duopoly.
Parah, urang bakal ngarayap deui dina kaayaan batu anu teu aya hubunganana dina tingkat nasional.
Tom,
Can you define this word “Duopoly”? The abandonment of most of the interests of the working class by the Democrats notwithstanding, are you actually positing that there are no differences in the policy proposals between the Democratic and Republican Parties?
And how exactly is the election of Trump (the unavoidable result of a refusal to consider strategic voting should the race in November be close) going to “greatly weaken both wings of the Duopoly”? It seems to me that the election of Trump will only move the Democrats and the Duopoly further right (as has happened every time the Democrats have lost seats or the presidency to Republicans), while any kind of the leftist organizing falls into disarray of recriminations – as is happening right now in the UK post-Brexit – which in many ways is a very close simulation of a Trump victory.
And furthermore, I really don’t see any contradiction between continuing and expanding the “Sanders Moment” (do you mean movement?) and having Clinton in the White House. This movement will face far greater challenges if Trump is elected for reason that Michael has argued earlier.
Gantina tesis rambling hiji bisa ngomong: milih saha wae nu Anjeun hoyongkeun, ngan ulah badmouth sobat anjeun.
Sedengkeun pikeun "unjuk rasa masal dina wengi pamilihan", kuring henteu ningali seueur poténsi pangatur pikeun dibungkus dina Tontonan.
Naha henteu ngan ukur nyarios "politik / démokrasi" kapitalis mangrupikeun bohong sareng waktos langkung saé dianggo dina aksi langsung?
Why not step back and look at Party Politics on the global stage? Labour in UK, Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, MAS in Latin America, PS in France, PRD or PRD in Mexico, etc ; all took the energy of movements and converted it into shit. All wasting precious years seeking votes while being corrupted. All thinking they could express the Will of the People while capitalism pulls the strings. The Democrats are posers compared to these masters of the Game.
"pilih saha waé anu anjeun pikahoyong, ngan ulah ngaganggu babaturan anjeun"
This is essentially the same advice Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, gave his fellow Republicans. Alternatively, I think Michael has articulated something much more nuanced; an appropriate strategy for reaching a common ground so we can survive intact and move forward after November.
I don’t think anything Michael has said here dismisses or detracts from any direct action people engage in between now and November. Did I miss something?
What is the takeaway of this last bit: establishment and progress political parties coop the energy of progressive and left movements and convert it into shit? Movement building is therefore a waste of time as long as we continue to live within a capitalist system? What alternatives are you proposing?
John, I did not say movement building is the waste of time, but Party politics. And it is true that Michael’s case doesn’t “dismiss” direct action, but it comes down to a question of capacity and priorities given limited resources, or, how best to spend your time. Voting takes an hour, but canvassing, raising money, campaigning sucks up lots of energy that could be better spent movement organizing. That is why I listed all the co-opted “progressive/social democratic” parties.
Tom, kuring sadar posisi anjeun posisi, argumen, kasus. Anu matak ngabingungkeun kuring nyaéta naha anjeun nawiskeun éta, tapi henteu bersaing sareng pendekatan anu disarankeun. Naha anjeun pikir risking Trump kumaha bae ngarah ka gede usaha , usaha leuwih suksés, dina ngawangun kénca. Kuring ngajukeun cara pikeun ngalawan Trump sarta ngawangun kénca dina waktos anu sareng, memang kalawan leuwih rther ti kirang likelihood sukses, sarta tanpa risking consigning angka badag ka deprivations goréng. Kuring kudu ngomong, anjeun bener teu ngabales. Anjeun nawiskeun alesan anjeun pikeun posisi anjeun sorangan, tapi anjeun henteu nyandak masalah anu jelas sareng naon waé dina potongan éta.
Anjeun tangtosna henteu pisan jahat ngeunaan éta, tapi éta henteu debat… éta henteu ngadéngé naon anu aya dina potongan ieu sareng ngabales naon anu dicarioskeun.
Kuring ogé bisa ngomong, Kuring manggihan ieu lumangsung leuwih sarta leuwih. Jalma boga pandangan. Aya anu nyerat hal anu béda ti éta, atanapi bahkan nyarios éta salah, atanapi ieu mangrupikeun pandangan anu sanés, anu tiasa langkung seueur. Lajeng jalma lolobana malire sagemblengna naon ditawarkeun. Sok sanajan kitu, maranéhna ngajawab. Tapi nalika aranjeunna ngalakukeun, aranjeunna ngan ukur ngulang naon anu aranjeunna karasa salami, aranjeunna henteu aya rujukan, henteu aya rujukan anu serius, kana naon anu aranjeunna ngawaler.
Ngabejaan ka kuring naha anjeun pikir lamun jalma ngalakukeun sakumaha Abdi nyarankeun, atawa nanaon jiga éta, maranéhna bakal merta, atawa malah paling dipikaresep, dianggo kirang éféktif dina ngawangun kénca sustained tur langgeng? Tunjukkeun ka kuring naha naon waé anu kuring nyerat atanapi nyarankeun bakal ngaganggu? Atawa, ngajelaskeun naha meunang sababaraha undian deui pikeun Greens, atawa sababaraha les pikeun Clinton, di nagara dilombakeun, bakal kumaha bae sorangan nyieun sababaraha béda serius, lian ti, meureun, meunang Trump kapilih.
"Hiji-hijina solusi nyaéta révolusi non-kekerasan ..."
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2016/06/us-v-them.html