Kenneth Campbell wrote:
>The lesson here is to remain militant in the streets,not to back a bourgeois politician.
Ironically, this is, itself, a flawed analogy. "Militant in the streets" is lingo from an era of ascendant working class interests -- in particular, radical lingo from the 60s-70s. (Militancy, itself, is older than that, of course.)
Why is this an either/or thing? Why can't "we," whoever we are, do more than one thing? Why isn't it better to have a bourgeois politician in office who owes a few favors to people like "us" rather than someone who hates "us" with a passion?
Doug
