Doug wrote:
Louis:
>>>The lesson here is to remain militant in the streets,
>>>not to back a bourgeois politician.
Me:
>>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.)
Doug:
>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?
Welllll... I do not think it is an either/or thing... I think I said the
same thing as you, quoted above, in the last paragraph of that post of
mine that you quote...
Me:
>>At any rate -- We are all grown ups and can ally with
>>whatever we wish at any strategic moment and not fear having
>>to lose sight of the reason we gave a shit in the first
>>place.
That cuts both ways, btw.
Ken.
--
If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children
would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of
crosses.
-- Lenny Bruce
