|
dk: one of the classical questions for those who engage in revolutionary-oriented politics is what to do in the shorter run. so how do you work this problem for yourself?
typically, you have three options:
1. the short run is not my problem.
2. i would vote in the short run for the least of evils.
3. i would vote in the short run for candidates that would make certain situations better, but i assume that the existing order is incapable of really addressing these problems.
the first would mean that you dont participate in elections.
the argument for not participating probably lean on the principles that prompt you to think in more radical terms---the obvious problem is whether refusing to participate means that you neutralize yourself in the short term.
the old trot idea is to vote for the worst candidate under the assumption that by enabling a fuck up to get into power, revolution is brought closer.
but you see how well that idea has played out under george w bush...
the second option is basically the hold-you-nose-and-vote one, and works off the simple reality of the situation--while you wait for something more radical to become possible, you have to live in this situation, and so would participate in it based on calculations as to interest. these interests can be mutually exclusive (e.g. you might really want some kind of libertarian revolution, but in the interim, there are problems with gun control, say)
the third means that you would actively campaign for a candidate (or at least talk that candidate up) in a positive sense (not as the worst of evils)...because the idea of revolution would not be either included or excluded by participating in near-term politics for their own sake.
so how do you work this?
just wondering.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|