Jim Devine wrote: > (3) this is the sort of analysis that is trying to imply that "the > fascist threat indicates that we should support the DP and Obama > wholeheartedly and even without question, despite their limitations."
Who are you quoting? I couldn't find that in the article. But aside from the F word, something I've been wondering about is what exactly (what combination of factors) reversed the rebellious youth trend of the 1960s. Building a new and better society with what you have at hand is incredibly difficult. Unraveling social relations by instilling fear and break a rebellious and transformative trend is orders of magnitude easier. The movements in the 1960s had the impetus of transforming society. What happened then? What economic, political, and ideological factors contributed to exhausting the tremendous energy of the 1960s and induced hopelessness and political regress? What role did -- for example -- the assessinations of Malcom X, John F. Kennedy, Dr. Luther King, Robert F. Kennedy play on this demoralization? The role that the U.S. and Latin American right wing has played on propping up the Honduras coup regime is very telling. The militias are on the rise. And now these other symptoms.... Some leftists say that Zelaya wasn't a real -- forget revolutionary -- reformer. There's nothing in his record to avail for leftism or socialism or what have you. What has he done, aside from passing a law (virtually unenforceable) on the minimum wage? The conclusion is, don't cry for him. But that misses the point altogether. The issue is that there are masses of working, poor people in Honduras struggling to have Zelaya back, facing off repression and death squads. That shows that this not about Zelaya. It's about the wave of popular insurrections in Central and Latin America -- I think. Draw the proper analogy to the U.S. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
