GaryP

If you are interested, here's a speech he gave a year ago in Los Angeles;


http://www.truthout.com/docs_02/03.2...ich.Prayer.htm

peacenik

I will probably either vote for Kucinich or Dean. I refuse to vote for any of the Senators currently running who authorized the use of force by that madman that has been selected as our President!

theyeti

Which is precisely why the Green party will never be taken seriously, and why what little support it gets will considered the result of protest votes. The socialists are one thing, but anarchists?! Does it even make sense for an anarchist to be a member of a political party? I hate to offend anyone, but anarchists are just plain irrational. And I'm sure that this "other" category you list is filled with deep thinkers with their feet planted firmly on the ground, uh huh. You just make my point Krieger: if voting for the Dems is a waste of effort, then voting for the Greens does little more than provide material for Leno and Letterman.

theyeti

Krieger

Your rant is meaningless, because you obviously know very little about the Green Party or even the group of leftist Greens that I was talking about. The reason a wide variety of groups have come together to support the Green Party is because we all want to break up the Democrat-Republican duopoly of the political system.

Furthermore, guess how much those of us involved with either the Green Party or other minor parties care what the corporate press says about us? Come on take a guess. We don't give a fuck! In fact, if the corporate media is bashing us, then we know that we're doing something right!

Regards,
Krieger!

theyeti

Well obviously I do know something about it, since I said that votes for the Greens are protest votes. Thanks for confirming that.

Shine on you crazy diamond.

theyeti

Krieger

Fine, defend your shackles...

theyeti

Well you wore out your welcome
With random precision,
Rode on the steel breeze.
Come on you raver, you seer of visions,
Come on you painter, you piper, you prisoner, and shine!



theyeti

emphryio

Social Anarchists: Revolutionary workers who believe that the only way to destroy capitalist government is through an organized working-class. They also believe in the necessity of the expropriation of the bourgeoisie to prevent exploitation; necessary in order to fully realize Communist society. They believe in workers self-management and distribution based on need (See also the Workers Opposition, a Marxist group in Soviet Russia with a similar position).

Social anarchists believe that being a part of the community is essential to maintaining freedom. They are in full support of real communism, as opposed to the authoritarian communism of the Soviet Union, believing in communal ownership over the means of production, while retaining ownership of individual property.

There are four basic trends within social anarchist theory: mutualism, collectivism, communism and syndicalism. They differ in their view of how to reach full communism: mutualists support market socialism, collectivists stress distribution based on contribution (the view of Marx and Lenin when regulated by a government), anarchist-communists believe in an immediate transition to full communism, and syndicalists believe that unions are the organisations that can help ushur in communist society.

Communists and social anarchists are often found working together in unions, protests, strikes, etc. � in their united struggles to overthrow capitalism. Historically, after the overthrow of capitalism, communists with the notion of a vanguard party being the only representative of the working class in government, suppressed anarchism. The notable exception to this was in the time of Marx and Engels, where revolutionary Parisan workers lead partly by anarchists, formed a coalition society � the Paris Commune.

This definition is taken from here.

Is this "sureness" based on something other than dogma or the usual red baiting crap?

Theyeti, I'm curious did you read my previous reasoning for voting Green? Did you think I just got my information out of thin air?
Or did you just bypass it because it looked too much like work?

BTW, I'm not a social anarchist or a communist. Just a plain old actual liberal, (at this time), who apparently reads a hell of a lot compared to everyone else.

admice

I haven't read the whhole thread carfully yet, but 2 quick replies. Kucinich is Right-to- Lifer, so he's out in my book. Also, looking at his site he doesn't have much background on foreign affairs, whcih I think is going to be an important aspect in the years to come. He just seems too naive for a Presidential candidate.

Regarding socialists, Anarchists, Green: I would beg you in 2004 - first get Bush out of office by uniting and voting Democrat. Then do whatever you want politically. Bush is the worst thing to happen to this country this century politically. If you vote divided, he wins again.

theyeti

Let's get this straight. We have a group of people who are revolutionaries and they're joining a political party and voting. Doesn't this strike you as a bit odd? Aren't they just perpetuating the Evil System that they want to violently overthrow? Their presence in the Green party hardly adds to its legitimacy, which was precisely my point by the way.

There are also other kinds of anarchists, like anarcho-capitalists, and those who are just plain nihilists, who wouldn't fit the above defintion at all. They're all irrational as far as I'm concerned.

Both of course.

Or maybe my comment was meant to be taken sarcastically and not seriously? I have no idea who these "others" are, but if they're not anarchists, socialists, conservatives, or liberals, and I think it's safe to say they're not libertarians, that leaves precious little but some really fringe far-out stuff (as if anarchism isn't fringe or far-out). An odd admixture of disparate and often incompatible viewpoints doesn't make for much of a political party, other than one that exists for mere protest. (For what it's worth I realize that the Greens usually have a specific platform, which is cool, but Kreiger insists that they also cater to the anarchists et al, and I'm just saying that this doesn't make them any more appealing.)

And where you get "red baiting" from? Where have I ever done that? Let's stick to the crimes I may actually have comitted, like being a jackass.

Yes I read it, and I don't agree with it. I didn't reply because I didn't disagree enough to care. It is, at this point, just a matter of opinion. You like them, I don't.

However, every attempt to paint the Democrats as "Republican lite" just doesn't fly with me. Making Gore and Bush out to be Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum misses several pertinent facts, among them:

• If Gore had won, we would not be trying to occupy Iraq right now, with subsequent plans for Iran and anyone else we feel like attacking.
• We would not be building a ridiculous missile shield that hasn't even been tested.
• We would not have given massive tax cuts to the rich only to see our budget fall through the floor.
• We would not be bragging to the world that we're willing to use nukes at the first opportunity.
• We would not have derailed dozens of perfectly good international treaties, hence pissing everyone off.
• We would not have ultra-conservative judges and Ashcroft-type fundies in charge of our judicial system.

And it goes on and on and on, but you get the point.

Insofar as the Democrats are almost as bad because Bush is "only" killing an extra 100,000, I'll take them any day over the schismatic Greens, who seem to delight in letting the Republicans win. Like I say, it means little more than a protest vote, and it's not even accomplishing its stated goal (i.e., moving the political spectrum leftward). It just means that the Democrats have lost their left-wing, forcing them to make up for it by appealing to the center. If fucking shit up worse in the meantime is okay with you, then fine, but it's not okay with me.

Whatever.

You can have the last word.

theyeti