A revolutionary option has to stand beyond all the options offered by the ‘system’, and that includes third party phantoms. However, we can and have proposed one such as a variant of our market neo-communism. But we can see that in the end that is a revolutionary option.
Let’s consider the facts requiring a conclusion: Sanders duped us into the sucker bait of ‘revolution’ and ‘socialism’. But he shows an open path to the latter twin options without quotation marks. A third party might well be viable, but the reality is that we have been forced by Sanders to abandon the system as is. And not only by Sanders.
Let us face the stark reality: we cannot proceed to democracy via pseudo-democracy. We can only proceed outside the system as is to create a democracy. The American Rebs may have had a few fantasies about Parliament, but in the end they had to rebel.
Those who use the term ‘revolution’ have to face the reality of what they are talking about. We should certainly respect an honest change of terms and a pledge to work within the system. Our conclusion above is not absolute: what must then happen electorally is a change of the format of american politics, a prospect that is a long shot at best. The third range of possibilities is a revolutionary option forcing a change in the system via last ditch reform efforts, another long shot.
We have arrived at a situation where the enemy, neo-liberalism, has globalized, while the left has contracted to national projects. Working via national subsets is inevitable but the problem being tackled is global.
I have no place in these discussion monopolized by jerk off media like Alternet and dilly brains like Hedges and Reich. It would be nice if they could discuss the actual issues, like the 9/11 conspiracy…
And no, Hedges, revolution isn’t about Thomas Paine and Gandhi.