Hoping Al Giordano is right

Al Giordano calls his political identification anarcho-syndicalist. He's considers media the establishment's establishment and the place where we have to breach the palace walls and create democracy first. The perspective he supports at http://narconews.com/ is change from below, not from changing government.

And he's been backing near corporate-apologist Obama since this campaign started.

This blog is about predicting, not shaping the contest (though don't doubt for a second that he's doing this because he knows many people, especially in the media, read his work and that it *does* make a difference)-- but this looks like one of Al's reasons for supporting Barack:

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=111

Disclosure: I donated to his campaign in the Democratic primary to get him elected to the Senate (don't ask me how I even knew about him, it wasn't Giordano, Dad was impressed though) before I finally swore off giving any money to any politician anywhere ever. But it was about getting progressive democrats elected, and his background in

This is what I was trying to say last night: Obama clearly does what he needs to do to win, which inevitably involves a lot that is accomodationist in the worst sense -- "ok, we'll preserve some more of your profits even though it means a few more people will die than otherwise" -- BUT if there is a wave of demand for radical change he may very well ride it.

Related: One of the most important things FDR did for community organizers was to say it was OK. The community organizers, the union organizers created a social and political environment such that much more far-reaching reforms were put in place than anyone would predict looking at Roosevelt's privileged background.

If we the people show up (some perhaps responding to his call), Obama – unlike most others in the approved politician pile – might not stand in our way. We then have, as crisis in the U.S. and the world worsen, an opportunity to address greater problems more deeply, closer to their roots, than the New Deal did.

On people understanding the stakes and the obstacles, it's pretty significant that a privileged man like Edwards can say what he says here:
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=114

Essentially: If you fight for change, the establishment will attack you.

Because as soon as Obama or anyone goes beyond vague talk and *does* do something that harms the gross income of wealthy elites, he or she will be attacked and the society will be "polarized" -- even though the change may be widely desired, as for universal health care or protecting the environment.

The problem with running this great campaign is that it is not, yet, truly building an organization that cannot be controlled by a few, that extends the power of organization and communication to everyone. But it can make a lot more people realize the need for, and want to be part of, such a network.

Syndicate

Syndicate content