On 9/15/15 4:15 PM, Robert Naiman wrote: > I certainly don't equate mobilization with seceding from mainstream > political engagement; quite the contrary, seceding from mainstream > political engagement is a form of demobilization. >
Maybe you don't see the need for radical solutions to America's problems. Bernie Sanders makes good points in his speeches but none very different than what you can hear on MSNBC on a nightly basis. The central issue of our age is capitalism just as slavery was in the 1800s. Running as a Democrat indicates that you are okay with the economic system. Of course, Sanders calls himself a "socialist", which is probably the worst thing about his campaign. It only confuses young people and makes the task of building a genuine socialist movement more difficult. This wasn't always the case with Sanders. In the 1970s he was a genuine socialist and identified with Eugene V. Debs. But as is generally the case, being an elected politician in the USA tends to accommodate you to the status quo, generally more pronounced the higher you get on the totem pole. When he ends up urging a vote for Hillary Clinton, that will speak a lot more about his commitment to "socialism" than any speech. Clinton stands for exactly those values that are destroying this country. As a member of the Clinton administration ex officio, she backed: --The elimination of Aid to Dependent Children --NAFTA --Stepped up mineral and oil extraction in regions where old growth trees and endangered species were present. --Elimination of Glass-Steagall, thus opening the door to the financial calamity we have been enduring. --Threats against Social Security, only forestalled because her husband got caught with his pants down. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
