On 9/23/15 10:56 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > So, if I understand you right, you believe that there is no plausible > change in government policy in the United States that would make working > people significantly better off. Therefore, there is no reason to > meaningfully contest elections in the United States.
I support radical parties running for office with no other expectation than that they can win a seat on a city council, etc., like Kshama Sawant. My idea of a successful run for president was Nader's in 2000, the one that filled up Madison Square Garden. In fact it was so successful that Demogreens sabotaged any such effort in the subsequent election. If Sanders ran as an independent, I would be giving him the kind of support I gave Nader. For me the fundamental obstacle to change in the USA is the two-party system. It has been around since Reconstruction and is a deeply rooted institution that protects capital. Until we build a party that is as committed to the abolition of private property as the Republicans were committed to the abolition of slavery in the 1860s, we will remain mired in war, racism, economic misery, environmental despoliation and all the rest. Think about it. Sanders donated big dollars for the reelection of Mary Landrieu, a Democrat who fought to lift the EPA ban on BP. What kind of "socialism" is that? Sanders's deeds speak a lot louder than his words. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
