When I said a reformist is someone who operates in the system to change or attempt to change the economic and political structures, but when I talk about revolution I speak in terms of society.
I'm sorry but you can't have both. BTW, there is no way to operate and change the economic and political structures as long as the people are slaves to capitalism. Unless one of those things I mentioned posts ago happens, it will be the same cycle over and over.
The bottom line is if things are going to change, capitalism must be destroyed, abolished, stamped out, wiped out and
not reformed. Until this happens, things will remain as they are and the illusion of "the power of the vote" will prosper.
A reformist and revolutionary are two entirely different things, I didn't think I needed to say that because I thought you would know what I was talking about.
They are two different ideaologies that cannot co-exist. Why then are you trying to lump the two together?
I guess not though because you seem to think that I'm saying actively participating is going to bring about a revolution. The only thing I've said in this thread remotely close to that was that engaging in politics could lead people to become more interested in how the political system works. The only thing that can bring about changes we need in this country is a revolution. Please do not ask me why engage in politics if I know this.
Listen, I do not think you are saying actively participating is going to bring about a revolution. As previously stated, your answer, if you chose to provide one, would have been a 'gauge' as to how much you really think the vote matters. What I'm saying is the vote does not pave a way for any type of empowerment whatsoever. What I'm saying is the vote won't galvanize a movement that brings about a revolution. This is why I said it won't pave the way, meaning it won't lay any groundwork.
The only thing that can bring about changes we need in this country is a revolution. Please do not ask me why engage in politics if I know this.
Why engage in politics if you know this?
We were talking about national and presidential elections, right? We've been talking about this the whole time so why you throwing PNAC in the mix. You know what I was referring to so why you taking what I said out of context.
Why not throw them in the mix? Last I checked our VP was a member of pnac. So was the Secretary of Defense, deputy secretary of defense, a former vice president/senator, other senators, governers, lobbyists, etc. Again, you said what you said about politics and bloodhsed, and I'm showing you politics is not without bloodshed. I don't know what you were referring to and took nothing out of context, and I'm sure the million plus dead civilians that were killed in Iraq would agree that politics and bloodshed have a strong correlation.
This is the hand we were dealt, but does it mean we have to play it?
I'm going to say it once more and then I'll leave it alone. Actively participating in politics is not going to lead to anything radical....Read it again, and once more. Please provide me with a quote from any of my previous posts where I've said this, as a matter of fact provide any post where I've said how a revolution could come about.
As previously stated, what you're espousing is the comical ideaology that one should choose the lesser of two evils and that doing so will somehow allow the common man to gain a foothold in all of this. Not that he will change things overnight, or that things will be better in a twinkle of an eye but a foothold--meaning he will have a better position than before. What your saying is this is the hand we are dealt. What you're implying is to participate until a revolution happens because this is the system, there is nothing else and that reform may be possible. What I'm saying is
all of that is a waste of time. Actively participating in politics is not going to lead to ANYTHING. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Nathan.
Does that rule apply across the board?
Why would it apply across the board when the rules are different for local elections and the possibility of actually seeing your vote count isn't far-fetched?
I don't think you read my replies throughly before you respond.
I read every post before I reply.
If you go back and read where I called you dogmatic you would have to admit it was. You simply said voting was a waste of time and gave no explanation what so ever.
I don't have to admit things that aren't true. There was no
need to give an explanation. If someone ask if it's raining outside are you going to tell them yes/no or are you going to answer them and provide a lot of info pertaining to humidity, percipitation, velocity etc? When you said, "Fuck raising the awareness at this point, that can wait," did you tell us why we should say fuck it and why it should wait? When you said, "now is the time to motivate young people (especially minorities) to participate in american politics, they can be educated in the process. "did you explain why the time was now, how they would be motivated, and how they would actually be educated in the process? Who's the one sounding dogmatic here?
And I didn't agree with you until after you explained why you felt the way you did.
When the statement was originally made there was no need to go into any type of detail. After you inquired is when I went into detail. No inquiry, no detail. Closed mouths don't get fed.
I just find it strange that everytime you reply you say you don't care if I vote or not, I read it the first time you typed it.
If you read it the first time I typed it, why did you not read when I said, "you should stop
endorsing a system that has failed the public for hundreds of years now. " for what it was? Why did you take the statement out of context? Everything I type is in response to what you're typing as you were the one who initiated this conversation. Read what is being typed, if you don't understand ask for clarification or further elaboration. However, jumping to conclusions like you've done in this thread will earn you nothing.