Julian Cope presents Head Heritage | U-Know! Forum | Voting for the lesser of two evils

necropolist

1689 posts

Re: Voting for the lesser of two evils

Sep 03, 2002, 14:20

"Centralised and parliamentary politics are the only true single-issue politics, the single issue being the acquisitiion of power."

that's a bloody brilliant line, and spot on.
i will use it again and again!

the difference (i think) between anyone coming to 'power' by election and by revolution, is that in a revolution the great mass of the population take part and are ACTIVELY changing things, unlike an election which is almost the most passive way of doing anything there is. And once people have become active, realised that there actions CAN have a real effect, then the ability of any party, vanguardist or otherwise, to hold them back is greatly greatly limited. But vanguardist parties MAY (and I say may, cos I'm really not sure any more) have an important role in getting us to that revolution.

Oh, and i put 'power' in inverted comma's, becasue i think the main problem is actually a LACK of power. Once they're in office any party, but especially a minority one like the greens, finds they don't really run things, and there powers are incredibly limited. So they settle for jack shit, and then - as you say - will do anything to desperately cling on to that shit.

In reply to:
Re: Voting for the lesser of two evils (Merrick)

Replies:
Re: Voting for the lesser of two evils (Merrick)

U-Know! Forum » Voting for the lesser of two evils	Log In to post a reply

114 messages	Topic View: Flat \| Threaded