Reply #20: Thanks

[Spirit of 34]

As much of a calamity I think a Ron Paul administration would be for the working-class in this country, it would be a decisive blow to the Empire and to authoritarian Federal government at home. Hillary will do better by American labor (despite a poor record on trade), but she's intent on strengthing the Empire through less reckless but an equally heavy-handed foreign policy than the unbalanced neocons, and she also supports expansion of the Federal government's tentacles.

So if the election were between Paul and Hillary, dunno, might have to go with Paul (or else not vote for either). Ron Paul wuld be a detriment to the American working-class, but the international proletariat would greatly benefit from reigning in the American Empire. And although the American working-class would suffer in the short-run from deep cuts in social programs, in the long-run we may benefit from the restoration in civil liberties and scaling-back of authoritarian government. However, it would be very difficult to support someone who would cause such short-term pain to my American fellow workers, even if would lead to short-term benefits for the international working-class and potential long-term benefits for both the American and international working-class. It's difficult enough for anarchists and revolutionary socialists like myself to choose between the lesser of two capitalist evils, it's even harder dealing with the constant tension of local vs. global allegiances and short-term reform vs. long-term revolutionary aims.

But that scenario's about as hypothetical as it gets. Paul's not gonna win the nomination and he's already ruled out the possibility of an independent run. So this is all intellectual masturbation, really.