"I think it's certainly more revolutionary than democratic central planning or market socialism, and might have appealed to Marx if Marx was aware of the events of the 20th century." Who ever said anything about central planning or market socialism. Pure nonsense. Marx would call paracon a utopian scheme of which he says lead to "reactionary sects" that "hold fast to their original views of their masters, in opposition to the progressive historical development." Remeber Marx laid no plan of how to construct the perfect society, only laid perfectly bare the problems of a capitalist one and how to bring about its demise.

"Punctuated equilibria is far more accurate of a metaphor, which means drastic changes within a short period followed by total inaction" But you do know that PE is a fringe opinion(not that it is necessarily wrong)as far as biology is concerned. Also, if I understand Gould correctly PE is driven by external catasrophes such as ice ages and other geological uphevals. In that sense it is not a very useful mataphor for social change unless we want to argue enviromental disasters will finally force the collapse of capitalism. But that would be a "revolution" in a very strange sense because it is completely out of our hands. Depending on the severity of the enviromental melt down we may be transformed into some Pareconish societies or we may also ends up in a Mad Max scenario, or we may be wiped out as a species. (To be continued after work)

Actually, it was Hegels notion of the dialectics of history. And yes, the contridictions build up until they finally bring about a changed system. The actual system changed is the mark of the complete change, as it ushers in a new cycle of contridictions. I did not include Marx in the description because his ideas have not yet brought about a change, IMO. I don't know what puctuated equilibrium is, but societal changes without major structual changes are not changes in the dialectical sense, they only force further contradictions. That is, the reforms that are sought to alleviate the contradictions becomes the basis of further contradictions (marx) Marx also talked about the elimination of the state, once the classes are removed there would be no need for it. This is one reason why I don't know why anarchists dislike Marx so much. Maybe it requires a certain level of sophistication and a thorough reading of what Marx actually wrote and disregarding the bastardizations of his work. Yes, parecon is more complex, but does seem to allow for a more reformist or evolutionist process. Although there are problems with this too.

I would say that the evolution analagy is not so accurate. According to Hegelinan dialectics societies change once the contridiction contained within it become too great. Then a rapid structual change insues which then starts the whole process over. Societies don't evolve, they change rapidly. Although Marx did discuss the long process of change over from feudalism to capitalism, but time is relative. What I think is interesting is to look at the texts that have inspired social change, Locke, Hobbes, Paine etc. None of them were utopian designs on the future soceity, but were critique of the current system. It is odd that you Bwong do not like parecon. As it appears to me to be a system congruent with reform and an evolution of society. Simply advance worker owned coops and public market research institution, make them dominant and you basically have it. Not one drop of blood.

And to further clarify, "small" change can be radical. Mutation is a "small" but drastic change in evolution. "Fundamental changes" are the results of "gradualism", not the opposite of it. Again the biological analogy is helpful. In view of Marx's dialectics perhaps the gap between "reform" and "revolution" may not be that big afterall provided we understand these terms sufficiently broadly.

It seems we do need to clarify the sematics. Perhaps I interprete the word "revolution" more literally than both of you. It conjures up images of storming of the Bastil and the like. Marx defined it as the violent overthrow of one class by another. By "reform" I mean any change with specific, limited goals as oppose to something grand like "destroying capitalism". I don't imply such changes must be confined within existing institutions at all,--hence I don't share Burk's position. The civil right movement is "reform" by my definition. In evolution new structures arise. But they do so through long, gradual accumulation of small changes. New structures don't suddenly appear out of nowhere.They are the product of endless trial and error and ad hoc improvisation using existing material. Nor do new structures appear as the result of striving towards some well defined, long term purpose. This is an important point.It is too tempting to interprete evolution teleologically. But birds didn't acquire wings so they can fly. Evolution wouldn't have anticipated that when a small lump of flesh grew from the primitive bird eons ago. Evolution is "local" in that it is driven by the need to cope with immediate challenges. But a structure developed for one reason often find novel use in other context. I think society evolves in a similar way. Is it "reform" or "revolution"?

Bwong, I think your idea of a revolution is much different than mine. I have never articulated what I think a revolution is (in fact I tend to not use and dislike that term), other than to say it is a rapid social change. Many speak of the industrial revolution, computer revolution, capitalist revolutions(reagan revolution?), this is more akin to what I am meaning. It may take a couple of hundred years, but, ultimately it has completely changed the society. I in no way harbor false notions of the ability of the prolitariat to violently take back the MOP through armed inserection. As for the shape a revolution or what ever you want to call social change will take, none of us knows what will happen in two minutes, of course no one knows what will happen after social structural change. Does this mean we should not risk it, we should not act? To quote an insperational calender, "The greatest accomplishments require the greatest risk."

My comment re. revolutions was directed at BRAD. Most long lasting social changes for the better are the results of reforms rather than catastrophic revolutions, at least in countries where civil societies exist. Social changes are long and tracherous processes requiring a lot of trial and error. It's exceedingly unlikely you get everything right in one big blast. "Reforms" can be radical even with somehwat less ambitious scope.But we have a lot better control and can predict their outcomes with much more confidence. Sure reforms can be coopted but revolutions can be hijacked too.It is absurd to argue for revolutions because reforms run the risk of being subverted. Revolution are catastrophic events. They usually don't happen by choice. They happen when people run out of choices.It's scorch earth policy. I have no idea what shape a revolution may take.I don't know what kind of society would arise from the ashes.It may be better but realistically it can also be much worse. Advocates of "revolution" can offer only their wishful thinking. Sometime I think if indeed the second coming materializes, the bible thumpers who eagerly await the rapture may be in for a big surprise. They may turn out to be the first batch to be dispatched to hell.

"Ironically, your position is identical to the classic conservative, Burke." It does sound that way. But no. Burk is as deluded to think that he could stick to an old script as those who imagine they can write a new script to start everying afresh. We cannot control or predict changes of the magnitude you speak off. This is not to say that we cannot act at all. Goals should be specific. Visions and acting on the here and now are not mutually exclusive. I distinguish between a "vision" and a "blue print". A vision is a general guideline. It is vague, with a lot of room for explorations and interpretations.It inspires you but not too rigid to imprison you. A blue print is specific and detail oriented. Any blue print(grand scheme) about future societies is unrealistic. Being too hang up on details and fine points also easily leads to dogmatism and sectarian bickerings. Speculations about future societies should be left to the sci-fi writers. Parecon sounds like a blue print and Albert apparantly does take himself a bit too seriously. The sci fi writer at least wouldn't mistaken his fantasy as the oricle of Delphi.

It struck me that Albert,--and other aspiring architects of new societies,--grossly underestimates the importance of complexity. It is impossible to "design" an ideal society from a blue print. A society is a living, organic thing which co-evolves with its surrounding in very complex ways. Human societies make many decisions on a daily basis to cope with internal and external challenges. A small decision, a tiny inovation(like fire or the wheel) often transform societies in revolutionary ways. It's foolish to believe that we can build a society based on a script and stick to it. We cannot even make decent long term weather forcast(say two weeks) even though the weather system is imcomparably simpler than any human society of moderate size. We in fact know so much about the weather that we can write down all the equations that govern the dynamics of weather systems(there are may be only 5 or 6 of them!)Our knowledge of even the most primitive human societies does not remotely approach that degree. IMO activism should focus on the here and now and the concrete issues. If an action can help some people, do some good. Do it. If that somehow prolongs the system. So be it. But the system itself may also be transformed as a result of an accumulation of "reformists" actions. It's irresponsible and intellectually lazy to wait for the grand rapture of revolution. We don't know what will happen after a revolution if it does come. It can be something worse.

"But anyways, to say that multiple workplaces can determine balanced job complexes, remuneration for effort and sacrifice, etc. means all those things can work" It may work well as long as it is a voluntary undertaking involving a small number of like minded people. But it's not clear how it can be done in large scale. You guys(you and Brad) are talking about "revolution" here. In that case the unpleasant topic of coercion would have to come up. What if people want to opt out and do things the old way? What if people get fed up with endless meetings and would rather have some professional managers to take care of business? MTBRAD does research in the morning and digs ditches in the afternoon.Good for him. But what if the ditch digger prefers to make good money digging ditches and sleep in then having to spend his morning doing research? IMO it is pointless to talk about grand revolutionary visions. Experiments with alternative economical structures are often guided by pramagtic considerations and necessities rather than pie in the sky ideas. Most of these will fail, some may survive in small scale, some may actually grow. These alternative structures, if survive, likely will undergo many unpredictible transformations as a result of adaptation. It is pointless to lay down rigid rules.

"..I rather think we should propose experiments and then try them...we can use evidence, not just co-ops ..and ..other experiments Albert has listed" I didn't say we shouldn't experiment with alternative structures. The point I made was simply that it is a misrepresentation to claim that small scale, local experimentaions such as co-ops are instances of parecon at work. To use your scientific analogy it is like studying the physiology of a lab rat and generalize it to humans. It may work in some instances but there is no a piori reason it should. You need quite a bit of theoretical justifications for making the extrapolation. Some Pareconish principles work well in small scale. But this is nothing new. Nor are they the unique insights of Albert. Afterall some of the general visions and principles are as old as leftism itself. But the unique feature of Parecon is exactly that Albert has gone beyond articulating a vision and actually laid down a detail plane for its lARGE SCALE implementation. Indeed it is an "Utopian grand scheme". To pretend otherwise is dishonest. This brings us back to my original point. The existence of qualitatively different structures such as Albert proposed proves nothing about the feasibility of Parecon unless you hack it down to mean any participatory structure,--but then it wouldn't be anything new and unique. Lacking any concrete example Parecon exists only in Albert's head. Naturally, unlike Marxism it has a clean slate.

Ideas look great on paper but unforseen problems arise when you actually try to implement them. Not the least because of attacks by established power. It is easy to judge by hindsight. But it is unfair to blame Marx for not anticipating all that can go wrong in a revolution. Marx has some great insights and also a lot of flaws.But what do you expect? The man was not God! I think he still has a lot to offer if we don't expect prohency and keep a critical mind. On the other hand, parecon has a clean slate simply because it has not been implemented anywhere except in Albert's head.(No, a co-op embedded in a capitalist economy is not parecon) It is healthy to debate ideas but sectarian squabbles along the line of my guy is greater than yours are not particularly helpful.

"the bourgeois revolutions all had really nice things to say about liberty and equality and fraternity. What Marx would say is that this is meaningless propaganda" No he wouldn't. Marx believed these to be really great strives toward human emancipation. What he said was that they missed another important oppression, the capitalist system. Which is what I think we all would say. Let me ask you this, if some group took Parecon and advanced it in form not complete, say by dictating the BJC by law or something and it turned into a terrible society. Not because Parecon was flawed but because of the way it was implemented was flawed. Would you then reject Parecon because of the outcomes of a few flawed experiments at it? I also have a big problem with utopian grand schemes of how society will unfold or should be arranged. I simple believe if you let peoples creative capacity unfold free from oppressive systems that the result will be great, because people are inhearently great or have the potentiality for greatness.

"In practice Marxists policies never actually did that.. BJCs then are markedly different. There is still division of labor, ..But there is no CLASSIST division of labor." Let me start by saying that I believe that in practice Marxist policies have never been tried. That is, Maxisim based on what Marx actually said, such as, flowing from a fully developed capitalist country (he though the US would be one of the first because of our advanced industry and democracy). This classless division of labor in your opinion does not contain the potetiality to develop further fissures in the society? Or simply long drawn out arguments on how much weight to put on what job in order to create equity between them? I perfer the Marxist or Anarchist vision of a complete distruction of the division of labor. The reasons are many but my personal area of interest lies in the resulting alianation caused by the division of labor as it has allowed for the split between mental and material labor. This is why I talked about my affinity for manual labor as better than the gym. I could do research in the morning and dig ditches in the afternoon. Albert accepts the notion that there will be a free rider problem and address it by setting up his BJC scheme. I reject this notion and all others based on a so called natural human self interest.

"Balanced job complexes is NOT congruent with "division of labor", but rather a specific enumeration of a type of division of labor that a good society would use." Yes, and as I have shown with the above quote Marx has advocated eliminating the division of labor all together. I have heard Chomsky speak of the same, of a society where people are free to pursue whatever or a combination of what ever job/s they like. To apply Alberts BJC is to except the reification of the capitalism induced notion that some jobs are bad while others are good. This is simply the result of the alination of people from their jobs which leads to a quantitative analysis of the job market. In reality people will choose to do every type of job. I happen to really enjoy manual labor, in limited quantities (beat the gym). "Marxist societies and movements as actually advocated typically have hierarchical, top-down organization " This sounds like your average reactionary right wing response. What is/was a Marxist society? By definition anything truly Marxist will not be hierarchical, as being class less is to be Marxist.

You keep talking about balanced job complexes, or division of labor, as if Albert invented the idea. "For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now." Marx, The German Ideology 1845

On learned helplessness and hopelessness....yes, absolutely. I am doing more and more public speaking and lecturing than ever before and have decided that I am tired of reinforcing peoples' widespread sense of marginality and despair by wowing them with my latest synthesis of the litany of evil at home and abroad. This interesting liberal progressive George Lakoff (who I've written a commentary partly about --- see http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2005-06/30street.cfm) has a point when he says that facts aren't enough and you also need frames to intepret and explain them. But I know plenty of people who get all the facts and have all the framing they need and their problem is that they've given up and have no faith in their own and others peoples' capacity to make a better world. Changing that needs to be a primary focus: the right understanding/analysis is necessary but insufficient and can even be dangerous when not accompanied by a straegy for victory and a related vision of an attainable and better society. And on that note, I'm out of time at the Iowa City Public Library.

Some time ago, the satirical weekly The Onion did a story on Noam Chomsky being appointed as US Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense (can't remember which). It was quite humorous and well done as I recall. The whole idea of NC in high imperial office is of course totally absurd, which was why the Onion piece worked. During the 2004 presidential race, the Onion did a bit on Kerry campaigning across middle America from the back of a rolling yacht. He would dress up like an elite New England yachtsman and speak to industrial workers from his ship in factory parking lots - something like that. There was a basically good point behind that bit of absurdity too.

Freemasons....prostitution...unlawful carnal knowledge....hidden birth (and death) records....bastardry....racism, and marriage with a juvenile right in front of a restaurant! Oh my!! I hope boxcarro got his licks in on young Bill and Roger.

Bill Blythe [Clinton} was a Confirmed Racist Hater of Blacks, Mexicans and Poor Folks. I grew up with him, Went to H.S.C.H.S. with him, WAS IN FIST FIGHT with BILL & ROGER over my MARRIED a MEXICAN GIRL right on Central Ave. in front of MOLLIES RESTRANT, in 1969, I am JEWISH, was called a NIGGER LOVER and a JEW RACE TRAITOR. Bill & Roger were LOCAL Anti Semite Fixtures UNTIL Bill "Got Religion" (NOT Christianity- FREEMASON H.P. Blavatski Secret Doctrine type BRITISH SUPREMACY religion.) TRY to locate REAL RECORDS on his BIRTH, his so-called FATHER was Wm. Blythe, died in a CAR WRECK in MISSOURI, but MY AUNT was a JP in GARLAND COUNTY and HAD COPIES of DOCUMENTS stating BILL BLYTHE was born as a result of "UNLAWFUL CARNAL KNOWLEDGE" (a misdomenor crime in AR) betwixt WINTHROP ROCKEFELLOW and VIRGINIA CASSIDY, (His Mother) who was ALSO charged with PROSTITUTION and ORDERED TO REFRAIN from SOLICITING G.I.s at the ARMY/NAVY HOSPITAL in HOT SPRINGS during & after W.W.2.

MTBrad quotes me saying: "When and if the elections system and left power together develop to the point where progressive-radicals can really win." Then MTBrad says: "Will this ever happen if the left keeps being coopted into the democratic party? If we keep putting people in power on the basis of a bad system that then have no reason to change a system that is working in their favor. Therefore, it is a self defeating proposition to help purpetuate the antithesis of the thing you desire." Tactical voting in order to increase the likelihood of survival (by getting a militantly "messianic militarist" [Nader's phrase to describe Bush!] and arch-plutocrat/racist/sexist out of high state office)is not being coopted into the Democratic Party. If there was a left candidate who had a snowball's chance in Hell of actually winning under their rules in 2000 and 2004, then yes you are stealing a vote from that candidate and giving it away to the masters. But no such candidate existed, pretty much by the elite's design, of course, unless you really think Cobb or Nader or whoever was going to break through the electoral blockade and win a majority fo the EC votes (which you can't possibly believe). So you try to work within breathing space afforded by having the less horrible ruler to create (a) a more democratic elections system (b) a critical mass of people's political and institutional power and presence so that yes that day can come. Again: walk and chew gum at one and the same time! Too many absolute all-or-nothing black and white dichotomies being set up here...like with some of the class-race discussion! MT Brad quotes me saying that "leftists need to quit ripping each other apart on the issue of exactly which lane to be in on the masters' purposely jammed election roads." Then MT Brad says: "You mean by saying things like; 'Naderites with their lefter than thou' and 'political grandstanding.'" Did I say "grandstanding?" I'll check on that. I don't think that's ripping all that hard, MTBrad. I mean if you read this blog you've seen me rip to the point where even Frederic says I'm over the top. Drop the "grandstanding." But the "lefter than thou" comment stays. That's exactly what I got: people telling me I wasn't left because of a piece of tactical advice I gave (along with principled anticapitalists like Albert and Chomsky and many others of greater influence than me) to progressives in contested states. And you have to understand, I'm saying that the Nader thing (which don't get me wrong I pretty much liked...I voted for Ralph in Illinois in 2000 but would not have done so in Florida) is as much liberal as left. So I'm not sure I'm ripping fellow leftists when I criticize Naderites. Progressive liberals who become anti-corporate are ok by me all things considered but my tradition is more anticapitalist and not especially electoral in the first place. MT Brad says: "To use your road analogy, to continue to drive on either of the two lanes is to help create the traffic jam that you so loathe." Marx pointed out that we make history but not under circumstances of our own choosing. No, we didn't create the electoral traffic jam simply by seeing that one jammed lane might be better than the other in terms of alleviating short-term pain and in terms of our long-term ability to build a different highway (or abolish highways altogether). We're on the not-so 'freeway' whether we like it or not. It's an elitist act of indifferent abstraction to pretend that you can magically lift yourself above the special and extreme terror and misery that a Bush II represented and promised for all people and poor people especially! Chomsky was very clear and correct on this I think. Let's say you become a parecon convert. Does that mean you instantly boycott all goods and services made and sold in capitalist enterprises? A noble endeavor. Well, good luck leaping above material and historical circumstances and staying adequately clothed and fed and housed and otherwise equipped until the day when the socioeconomic world is completely turned upside down. I'm guessing that parecon pioneer Mike Albert himself occasionally steps into a corporate retail outlet to buy something he needs in the short term. When he does that I don't accuse him of hypocrisy or betraying the revolution. Maybe talking about all this elections stuff just causes too much division and confusion. Its like some progressives just don't want to handle the complexity of it all. I pled throughout the latest quadrennial bloodletting that leftists of different perspectives have the decency to acknowleddge that one can be on either side of this in fact difficult issue and still be a leftist. This may be asking too much. By the way, the best left writer on all this was Stephen Shalom. If someone can link his writings in late summer and fall of 2004 it would be useful.

The main problem I see you missing Frederick is the way the system has no reason to change if as far left as one can go is dem. They will continue to attempt to have the middle and the left, ultimately leaving the left policies as only campaign slogans because the money is in the middle. The only way to move the dems, IMO, is to threaten them with a loss of votes to a third party (this is also Naders notion), not from within. Once you are in the system they have got you and you no longer have any power. Someone mentioned Kucinich, who I think is O.K., but the only reason the dems let Kucinich campaign was to coupt the Nader voters. It was a direct response to the 2000 loss of votes to the greens. My previous example of the socialist parties of the 1930's also make the same point. "An inverse relation?" What I meant was that the poor have less of an ability to deal with mere reform. That middle class whites can live with reform and others clearly, think NO, cannot. I don't put more faith in the system than you, I know it is one aspect of many, albeit a pitiful one. I am just in a pragmatic mood, next week I will be back to my utopian self. On another issue, there is a real tendency here and on the left in general to speak of diversity, but when push comes to shove retreat to some sort of ganging up on opposing views. This then quickly turns into name calling and the left implodes. We need to be cognizant and weary of this phenomena.

"When and if the elections system and left power together develop to the point where progressive-radicals can really win." Will this ever happen if the left keeps being coopted into the democratic party? If we keep putting people in power on the baisis of a bad system that then have no reason to change a system that is working in their favor. Therefore, it is a self defeating proposition to help purpetuate the antithesis of the thing you desire. " leftists need to quite ripping each other apart on the issue of exactly which lane to be in on the masters' purposely jammed election roads." You mean by saying things like; "Naderites with thier lefter than thou" and "political grandstanding" To use your road analogy, to continue to drive on either of the two lanes is to help create the traffic jam that you so loathe.

MTBrad quotes me: "Many of the Naderites I interacted with struck me as bourgeois- liberally lacking basic understanding of how structurally screwed up the winner-take-all elections system is" MTBrad says: "Paul you contradict yourself here. If the system is so beyond repair, why vote for Kerry? Personally, I don't think they really count those things anyway so vote for capt. kagaroo if you like." I don't see the contradiction. Yes the basic elections system is totally screwed up and captive to corporate power and imperial values and institutions etc. And yes this makes it naive to think you can pursue revolutionary change through that system. But no, that does not mean you don't want to evaluate which of the (typically) two capitalist candidates is more likely to do things like: * blow up the world * invade Iran * appoint SCt justices who will destroy women's right to choose and/or destory affirmative action * privatize Social Security * expand and make permanent huge tax cuts for the wealthy * protect or rip up what's left of basic social protections for the poor ....etc. I did this whole debate during the appointed quadrennial time (as determined by the capitalist masters)and don't want to rehearse the whole argument again. Politics is about so much more than this voting process every 4 years but that doesn't mean you don't pay some attention to the differences that do exist between elite candidates at the elite-appointed time points. Without naively thinking a Democrat is a leftist, you can also choose a Democrat on the theory that his/her victory is more conducive to a favorable climate for left activism. Actual leftists have tended to do their best in the spaces created by nominally liberal rule (when by the way liberal Democrats can no longer pose as "the opposistion" and see their in-power policies more clearly revealed as captive to corporate-imperial rule), especially in the 1930s and 1960s. The 1990s may not really count like those decades but it may be worth nothing that the global justice movement took off in the Clinton era. My point was that being less enamored of the possiblities of electoral politics than the Naderites meant that one could understand voting "for" Kerry in a swing state was not "the revolution betrayed." It was just a tactical move under the masters' regime and nothing more. Think of it like workers in a factory. You have no illusions about who owns the factory. Do you want the old boss (e.g. Bush II) fired because he's a stupid stubborn super-exploitative asshole? Yes, of course. Do you wish to contribtue to his humiliation and departure? Sure, you bet. Do you want a somewhat less vicious boss and more space to collect your energies and resist? Yes, you do. Do you therefore have illusions that the new boss will be some kind of great benevolent savior, even a revolutionary? Well, you shouldn't. That would be really dumb. And being against the old boss hardly proves that you think something silly like that. Does wanting the old boss out and the new boss in mean you no longer want socialism or anarcho-syndicalism or workers control or parecon or some combination of all or some of the above? Not at all. Can you simultaneously want a change of bosses and be against bosses in general? Yes, you can. Can you simultaneously think of the Democrats as damn near a joke and still prefer to have them in than the protofascist Bushcons (many of whom are anything but a joke)? Yes, you can. And since FC and ebogan brought up race (as was quite appropriate, contrary to cryofan), a number of black Americans could have told white leftists that some differences mattered quite a bit. Here's the link again (I see I deleted it from my message above...I put it in there now too): http://inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1407. We can --- and indeed have no choice but to --- chew gum and walk at the same time. When and if the elections system and left power together develop to the point where progressive-radicals can really win, then the difficulty of all this will fade and leftists' elections choice will become clear as day in most cases. In the meantime, to continue my earlier analogy, leftists need to quite ripping each other apart on the issue of exactly which lane to be in on the masters' purposely jammed election roads. We didn't design this polyarchic elections system; they did. Maybe the main electoral politics effort ought to be to change the elections system so it has enough to do with democracy in the first place. There's no mystery about the changes required, including proportional representation, public financing, free media time, instant run off, changed ballot access rules, and so on.

"It also has a hidden class/race bias, as the ability to in essence "wait for the revolution" is directly proportional to one's privilege." Yes an inverse relation. The problem with this political system is that it seems to have the ability to stave off any form of change. The elites that set up this system and the ones that tweek it to parpetuate it were sure smart. Are some of them hear? Personally, I have voted too many times for people whose political stance makes me ill and I had difficulty sleeping. I am now completly commited to changing the system that has brought about the terrible things we all bitch about. It is not political grandstanding or lefter than thou-ism, that is just a cheap shot. I agree we should all get along and I honestly believe that most of us would stand behind each other. But, I also believe that intense discussion such as this only strengthens our resolve.

"Many of the Naderites I interacted with struck me as bourgeois liberally lacking basic understanding of how structurally screwed up the winner-take-all elections system is" Paul you contradict yourself here. If the system is so beyond repair, why vote for Kerry? Personally, I don't think they really count those things anyway so vote for capt. kagaroo if you like. Frederick, while I generally agree with you and you know this, we have discussed this before. I still think draging out the injustice of the current system by helping the elite ligitimate capitalism will hurt those you are trying to help more in the aggrigate. Look around, do you not see more people politically active now then you ever have in the past. They will sow the seeds of their own demise if we simply get out of the way. Bwong, I must say that living in the social welfare state has softend you. This is the social reproduction of ligitimation caused by the slight inclusion of some workers in the spoils of their own labor. You want me to define revolution for you, it means a drastic change in the political and economic system. Before you all start claiming that I am advocating a sort of make it worse to make it better stance, I am simply saying we should stand by the priciples we like to promulgate here.

I agree in the most part with Frederic's comments here on disguised vs. immediate destruction and also related things that bwong said further above. Part of the Hell I and others caught from Naderites and others for advocating "lesser evil" voting (in contested states) was a matter of people hating the messenger. I think some people on the left just weren't comfortable grasping the full horror of how captive the really existing U.S. political-electoral regime is to corporate power and to the related rule of the privileged few. Well, sorry, but our beloved American "democracy" is really that screwed up. Read Steven Hill, Fixing Elections (2004) to start to get a sense of how right FC is on the need to reform --- or maybe revolutionize --- the elections/voting system so it can be taken seriously as a vehicle for something remotely approximating democracy. If you are a leftist or populist liberal (Nader is a liberal...a consistently and therefore anti-corporate one) who (a) gets really invested in the masters' electoral system and (b) identifies left poltiical existence with where people are on one limited-spectrum day of bourgeois political extravaganza and (c) thinks that revolutionary change is possible through the the corrupt corporate "winner-take-all" process of plutocratic show elections, then I guess you will freak out and cry "revolution betrayed" when someone like FC or I says, "well, all things considered the situation for people (poor folks especially) and [key point] for left organizing will be better off with the corporate neoliberal Democrat than with the Messianic Militarist neocon Republican in the White House." And remember at the time (fall 2004) it still seemed plausible that Bush II would up the ante with expanded suposedly neo-Trotskyist (Hitchens wants to think) imperialism in Middle East. This 1500 character limit is incredibly irritating. I always come in at like 1554 characters and so have to go into the inner blog just to respond to people's comments in any kind of decent fashion.

I think Brad should clarify what he means by "revolution". I think the word means something along the line of bomb throwing or storming the Bastile. Voting a third party that would never win(given the current electoral system) doesn't seem that "revolutionary" to me. It's just political grandstanding.

I've been away from computers and see that I failed to respond to Frederic's initial question to me (which ebogan picked up on). Here's the answer (I did an article on the topic of race and "tweedledum v. tweedledee" for In These Times on the eve of the 2004 election): "Brother, Can You Spare A Dime? Despite the Claims of Some Leftists, There's a Dire Difference Between Bush and Kerry for African Americans" (October 28, 2004): http://inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1407. The title played off the Counterpunch group's "dime's bit of a difference" line. Though I should say that "dire" was ITT's word, not mine. As I recall, I was pretty concerned with court appointments and women's rights as well. One thing that struck me in the whole quadrennial intra-leftist election debate ---- the standard intra-progressive blood-letting over which lane to be in on the corporate masters' hopelessly stopped-up electoral freeway ---- last time was that being more anarchist/syndicalist in orientation (predisposed to see the bourgeois ballot box as a longstanding "coffin of class consciousness") allowed one to approach the lesser-evil thing in a more relaxed way: you could hold you nose in a swing state (and I voted "for" Kerry [really just against Bush] in Iowa, a swing state) since you had no illusions about the bourgeois elections process in the first place. Many of the Naderites I interacted with (usually with them giving a lefter than thou speech) struck me as bourgeois-liberally lacking basic understanding of how structurally screwed up the winner-take-all elections system is in America the Best Democracy Money Can and Did Buy. One thing that I found interesting was that I heard Ralph speak in Chicago and he referred to Bush as a "Messianic Militarist" and portrayed Dubya as a very dangerous man. I thought he was telling to vote for explicitly left candidates in safe states but vote Kerry in swing states. I owe ZNet handlers an apology as I see they did want my Clinton article (this blog post in essence) after all cuz it went up on the top page on 10/01.

"The ecological state of affairs is.....a case where the difference between Dems and Repubs is fairly serious." Again I don't think there is much difference, other than rhetoric. Over the past 20 years the overall record on the environment has been deplorable. Basically accomplishing little temporary slow downs in the distruction of the biosphere. Before you go mentioning Kyoto let me just explain my feelings on this, what is going to happen is in 2008 we will get a dem and he/she will immediatly sign kyoto. Then everyone in the US will say thank god we got that global warming thing fixed, and without even changing our consumption habbits. In the 1930's the dems moved to the left and it was because of the threat of third parties. It was not through leftists joining the dems, but through a huge socialist movement. A vote for the dems is the antithesis of survival, it is a disguised vote for distruction.

actually, if you look at a history of this HHH character, he rarely posts on topic, and always rather thoughtless standard media fare. I think he just likes flames, and rechannelling the flow of discourse, for whatever reason...

"You and I have the luxury to wait for the possibility of revolution. The poor and black of the world don't have that luxury." I would say none of us has the luxury of putting up with either party. John Bellamy Foster's new article in the Monthly Review express what many will call alamist, but I think is in exact tune with our ecological state of affairs. The effects of biosphere breakdown overwhelmingly impact the poor disproportionately. People are dropping like flys in Africa. There are kids blowing up themselves and others and now bodies are floating in NO. All the results of the system that the tweedlededee/tweedledeedom game perpetuates. The results are the same.

Keir, good points. I would add that we should at this moment begin to build third, fourth.. parties. Also, we need to dispell the notion that voting for a third party is in someway responsible for putting the republicans in office (of which i have smelt a slight wiff of even here). Sure the system is stacked aginst us, when is it not, but we will force the dems to do one of two things: either move to the left or reform the system to allow for third party participation without negating them. Of course this may also bring the republicans again to office, but this is not our fault nor should be our main concern. When choosing between one puch or two, I choose revolution.

All good points, but, you have to judge it on the totallity of the outcome, not on idividual stances. That is, while it might be better to vote for a democrat that says they will keep the right to choose for women, the actual outcome over time is a shift to the right. Another example is fast track. Well, it passed with some democrats voting for it. So, although individually the dems can claim to be against market liberalization, in actuality their actions and the eventual actions of the totality of congress is the opposite. The idea that my or your vote makes a difference in the nature of our govenment is buying into the fallacy of the "democratic" process. I as an individual have a very minute say in the direction of the country. Believing that somehow by me voting for a candidate that proclaims the political values I hold will somehow cause huge harm to the whole of the county is sheer lunacy. Individualism is not very strong other then its ability to decieve the individual into believing he/she has more power or say then he/she does. The fact that leftists would actually think that there is real and meaningful difference in the two main parties shows the power of deceit they hold. Instead of holding up individual policy differences as the metrix, look at the lack of diversity of race/class/lifestyle of the elected representatives. This reveals the underlying pro-corporate, elitist and racially limited differance or lack of within the two main parties.

It's true that Clinton was presiding over an Empire and didn't do much for the poor. But Bush is hyper reactionary. Bush walked away from Kyoto. The Dems would not have brought in the massive, regressive tax cuts for the super rich. Now I heard Bush is going to even get rid of inheritance tax. On social policies Clinton was definitely way progressive than Bush. A few examples: Bush may be planning to reopen Roe v.s Wade through appointing conservative judges to the supreme court. Under Bush the U.S is turning into a theocracy. The Christian fundamentalists are having their wet dream comes true. Several states are on the verge teaching creationism(repackaged as "intelligent design", see David Peterson's blog) Researchers in fields such as reproductive health, geology, enviromental science and the social sciences report U.S.S.R style political interferences from White house appointees in commitees with conservative Christian links. In order to get research fundings researchers have to use coded words in their publications to avoid offending the moral majority. I wish I have the link for the article. Clinton was definitely a lot more sensitive to minority, women and gay rights. The liberals may exaggerate the differences between the Dems and the GOPs, but there are real and tangible differences that should not be ignored.

"Kerry/Gore/Clinton were BETTER and that that BETTER is the difference between life and death for the poor here and abroad." I am not so sure. The problems in NO were there before, during and after Clinton was president. Kerry was going to send more troops to Iraq. I still do not see any one place where Clinton helped the poor or minorities. Internationally, nobody could have done a worse job of alienating us from the rest of the world than Bush. Clinton pushed "free" trade hard and used his connections to position us into the imperialist position that the Neocons are continuing today. As far as progressive globalization goes, I just wish we could have some alternative economics at least enter into the public discussion. Even the world bank statistics show that as global integration increased in the last 15 years world productivity and Gross World product slowed. Which means that it is less efficient to be globally integrated, yet even in leftest circles we continue to talk of useing global integration to releive poverty.

If you give someone nice padded chains it does not free them. It only makes you feel better.

"American leftists like these have to offer something else to this community other than just telling people how shitty the Dems are, and to vote for a faux leftist like Nader" Wow, when did the corporate cronies get here? Like Clinton did anything for poor minorities, name one thing? As far as poor people of the world, Mexico's poverty rate has increased by 30% since the implementation of NAFTA under Clinton. Nice try but, by voting for these Dems you are putting a nuace(sp?) around the people you claim to be out to help. All of the people that get mad at me for voting for Nader or others make more money then me and are more ingrained in the system. Dems voted to send a disproportionate number of poor minorities off to die in a needless war and will continue to sell this country to the highest bidder. Your argument reeks of selfish mediocracy.

What strategies for a progressive globalization ?

On the topic of the Clinton policies causing econmic hardship now I would like to add that global economic integration is also a huge cause of the current troubles and was pushed very hard by Clinton. The weak position of the WTO (or GATT) in the early Clinton years lead to the rigging of the rules in the favor of the core (1st world). Post Clinton and partially in the latter years, spicifically 1999, people begain to demand equality in global trade. This exposed the contradictions and the inefficiencies in a globally integrated economy. Once the periphery (3rd world) begain to demand a somewhat better deal the effects were immediatly fealt in the US, in the form of decreasing wages due to a labor surplus brought on by; outsourcing, increased immigration due to a major increase in poverty in Mexico and latin america and its effects on the already weakoned labor market and unions, and the increase in capital flight to foriegn currencies and markets (casino capitalism). Anyway as you can see the programs and policies of the Clinton admin helped to undermine the workers of not only this country but the world and we are still paying the price for this.

The other thing about how the Republicans get lower middle and working class whites to vote for them (and working-class vote is still more Democratic than Republican BTW) is that class (like other) resenstment abhors a vaccum and of course corporate neoliberalism of DP leaves ordinary folks little avenue for expression of populist anger. Modern post-populist/post-New Deal/ post-reform liberalism is very much to blame for working-class conservatism. On this Clinton article, a nice liberal guy writes to say: "I feel that your article was very well written and researched, but it missed the key point. Yes maybe Clinton could have done some things different in retrospect but the key is this, when you compare the policies of Clinton against W, Bush I and Reagan, Clinton compares favorably. That is the main point. We were on the right track when Clinton was president and now we are so far off the track with W." My response: Hi xxx: "Things were better" does not equal "we were on the right track." Look at the critique I gave (relying on Zinn and Pollin) and repeat to yourself the statement that "we were on the right track." If you insist on believing that than we just disagree. I'm very specific about what was wrong ---- from a left perspective ---- with Clinton administration fiscal and social policies. As Pollin shows, the Bush recession was very much a Clinton affair. The Clinton administration fed the bubble that inevitably busted. That's just one example. I'd say re-read and reconsider. BTW its' funny to see cryofan citing Howard Zinn as one of his favorite authors. Zinn was a major civil rights activist with SNCC and of course has more than a little to say about race and racism in his various publications, including of course his wonderful Peoples' History of the United States.

But HHH could easily argue that Reagan won the cold war and as such was among the finest specimens of politician or a neccesary type hardliner like Churchill. Creating peace and freeing the eastern-european states. As opposed to cowardly european socialists That did not want to take the cost of the war and left it all up to old USA. In addition we have their fifth-collumn friend, the american commies, or "leftists" as they like to call themselves now. What we need is a hardworking population with a positive attitude and outlook. Not all this sophistery and whining.

One who finds it useful to tend to paper over these problems with Clinton era is leading liberal economist and NYT columnist Paul Krugman. His latest book includes a number of positive references to the macroeconomic performance of the Clinton administation, which he can of course contrast with the monstrously terrible performance of the biggest dumbass to ever sit in the White House...George W. Bush. Robert Pollin (also an economist) is much better than Krugman on Cintonomics (and on neoliberal globalization for that matter). cyofan continues to alternately bore and irritate (he actually said "strip all references to race"....he's that openly absurd). The Reagan revolution pioneered the pseudopoulist advancement of the corporate imperial agenda in the name "of the little guy." They knew what they were doing and how to push the right buttons, including the foreign policy panic button. It was great political advertising. It was very white BTW and built off of racial among many other resentments. It was deeply enabled by the elitist corporate takeover of the Democratic Party and the continuing sorry drift of the Democratic Party further away from its populist New Deal base. Good book on that era: Willam Grieder, Who Will Tell the People. Reagan era pioneered some of what you can read about in Frank, What's the Matter With Kansas, which cryofan will be glad to know has a weak spot on race (and also on the foreign policy panic button).

movies and TV are old hat compared with new computer and ipod based media forms. I disagree in part. First, NOTHING approaches the power of images tied together with sound. Radio can never be as powerful as video. Second, computer and ipod penetration is not as good as TV. Nowhere near! Third, the people who tend to vote (older people more likely to) do not have computers as much as younger people; and they do not use them in the same ways. Computer video/radio is the FUTURE, but not the present. Give it five years, maybe. It all depends on how the markets/distribution are grown in the future. If broadband penetration increases to 80%, then computers will start to add standardized functionality to accomodate easy video download and viewing via broadband. THEN we are into a whole 'nother game. But not until then. As for the rightwinger who pumped up Reagan, get an edjucation, I sez. You are like me, 10 years ago. Read some of the social history, propaganda-culture manipulation stuff out there: Gramsci, Howard Zinn, Stuart Ewen's Captains of Consciousness, William Blum, Roloef's Mask of Pluralism, Kenneth Dolbeare, Jim Goad's Redneck Manifesto, Chomsky, etc. Watch my documentary (whenever I finish it...) Read, learn. Grow yer brain....Get back to us in a couple of years.....

Reagan was the master of cultural politics. Blinding people to his reckless economics by invoking god, country, morality and communists. You must remember the cold war and how it created binary thinking. Reagan was able to do what bush cannot, paint the dems as week on the enemy (plus it was an actual enemy). Cryofan are you arguing the merits of different forms of media activism? If so, movies and TV are old hat compared with new computer and ipod based media forms.

Good economic analysis, Paul. But it will remain locked away away in the ghetto of academic/activist/intellectual readership. Oh, you might possibly get this sort of analysis into one or two newspaper editorials. Now, it you could put this analysis into a script, and edit in appropriate images and music, voiceover, etc, and then strip away all references to race (now, now, watch that blood pressure!), work in some comparisons to Europe, and then run it on PBS a few times, THEN you could do some real damage. But they maintain strict ideological controls on PBS, et al.

Answers to HHH Because he was an actor ? Because GOP had the better marketing ? Because USA has a big interest in taking from the poor ? Because Reagan was a smart man with a clear and concise knowledge of latinamerican political geography and other skills neccesary for a president ?

This is off subject but I had to ask this question because I saw Reagan was mentioned in this story about poverty. For those of you, that describe yourself as liberals/marxists/socialists, I was wondering why do you suppose the American people were so dumb that they elected Reagan in 1980 and again in the largest landslide in modern political times in 1984. If Reagan was such a horrible evil man why in the world did the stupid american people elect him and re-elect him if he was taking from the poor and giving to the rich. Why didn't the middle class and the poor vote him out of office. If people could let me know what they think I would appreciate it. I know it is off subject but i thought this was an interesting question for people to think about. Thanks.

Great story Paul, many lately have been seeming to romanticize the Clinton era. The affects of Globalization on the poor of the world is well documented, especially in Mexico because of NAFTA. Interesting how the immigration issue is now coming up. Clinton represented the new wealth elites and Bush represents the old aristocracy. The new wealth seeks to extract wealth from the developing world and the old takes it from the poor of this country. The Dems are still way over on the right today. They refuse to offer an alternative to the war, healthcare and other issues of prominence. We don't have a parliament, we have an archaic system based on propertied elite representation. What is "tweedledee/tweedledeedum" ?

No doubt Clintons administration choose to balance the accounts instead of helping people and infrastructure. I still like to think the best of people and will assume he intended equalisation and betterment. I have two questions 1 could they get support for a more radical policy in your parliament? 2 Would a DP threat of resigning the presidency and create hubub have been a better strategy of solidarity And a third: Whats "the hidden race dynamics of the "Tweedledee/Tweedledeedum"-type arguments?