markwayne (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} markwayne) wrote,@ 2007-03-28 00:50:00 |
|
Third parties, third parties, third parties.
Response to:
http://blog.zmag.org/comment/reply/2
I won't attempt to answer your sundry and provocative questions -- I'm late in the game here, replying way after the fact.
But I just wanted to comment on the general nature of the responses that your post initiated. Many of them attempt to speak to the psychological aspects of the political economy of the American empire given, I think, the way you presented your disgust with the state of American policy, foreign and, apparently, domestic. While I think this is an compelling dimension to explore for sociological interests, I don't think one gets very far in terms of how to change the situation going along these lines. (It's fair, now, if you're thinking, "This guy's a Marxist," though hopefully that doesn't preclude my thoughts from your consideration.)
In fact, I think Prof. Chomsky tends to avoid this line of inquiry into the particularities of sociological and psychological underpinnings of political economy. Mainly because it misses the primary point:
These United States are, in fact, divided -- divided along the lines of public policy and public opinion. (Of course, complete theft here of Prof. Chomsky's analysis.)
If the will of the majority-American were exercised by government we would have universal (single payer) health care, unencroachable reproductive rights, living wage, etc. -- and we certainly would not be in Iraq nor have fought all of the wars-of-profit of the 20th century.
Consider that the way out of this dilemma -- I think there is really only one -- is the long-term, slow, plodding development of third party alternatives to what our dear friend, Ralph Nader describes as "two wings of the corporate party."
In solidarity,
markwayne
Response to:
http://blog.zmag.org/comment/reply/2
I won't attempt to answer your sundry and provocative questions -- I'm late in the game here, replying way after the fact.
But I just wanted to comment on the general nature of the responses that your post initiated. Many of them attempt to speak to the psychological aspects of the political economy of the American empire given, I think, the way you presented your disgust with the state of American policy, foreign and, apparently, domestic. While I think this is an compelling dimension to explore for sociological interests, I don't think one gets very far in terms of how to change the situation going along these lines. (It's fair, now, if you're thinking, "This guy's a Marxist," though hopefully that doesn't preclude my thoughts from your consideration.)
In fact, I think Prof. Chomsky tends to avoid this line of inquiry into the particularities of sociological and psychological underpinnings of political economy. Mainly because it misses the primary point:
These United States are, in fact, divided -- divided along the lines of public policy and public opinion. (Of course, complete theft here of Prof. Chomsky's analysis.)
If the will of the majority-American were exercised by government we would have universal (single payer) health care, unencroachable reproductive rights, living wage, etc. -- and we certainly would not be in Iraq nor have fought all of the wars-of-profit of the 20th century.
Consider that the way out of this dilemma -- I think there is really only one -- is the long-term, slow, plodding development of third party alternatives to what our dear friend, Ralph Nader describes as "two wings of the corporate party."
In solidarity,
markwayne
